the city about an alternate zoning or conditions. That was that was my concern at the last meeting. I have no issue with the airport overlay district. >> Yeah, we did meet with um Kina and Dianca and discussed options for revising the case. Uh we discussed well option one keeping it the same, option two revising to a different zoning district and the third option would be a conditional use and they did not revise the request. for for what reasons? >> I would defer to the applicant for to answer that. >> I would just add that the stated reason at the podium from the applicants a moment ago was that the closest corresponding district to the industrial mixeduse district for residential entitlement was RX. Um and that would be the most consistent district um in the compre in the zoning classification based on the comprehensive plan. Other questions? Um, Commissioner Atwell. >> Yes, thank you. My my concern was also the uh increase in entitlement and uh I would like to hear from the applicant why they didn't uh pursue a condition to restrict the number of units to something similar to what's allowed now if they'd be willing to respond. So, I didn't restrict the number of units. I guess you said the 49 units. I was under the I didn't really know about the 49 units. I know they mentioned it, but when I looked at RX, it said um no more than 10. So, when you're saying the 49 units, I didn't see it when I looked at what RX3 meant. I knew it said like the stories and I know you all mentioned 49 units, but I thought it stopped at like 10 um you know, when I read what the description was. So, that's why I I mean, >> thank you. >> Mhm. >> Don't go too far in case we have another question for you. >> I don't want you to have to keep walking back and forth. Uh, are there any other questions for staff or the applicant? >> Can we get a clarification from staff on the units if that's really a feasible number? The increase in entitlement in the report goes from a handful to 49. I'm looking for the reference right now. >> And I forgot to say at the beginning of this, I said at the last time we heard this one that I live um very close to this parcel, but I have no financial interest in this case whatsoever. So, there is no conflict. I just want to let everyone know that I do live close to the parcel. I see the airplanes, too. >> Right. So, I'll pull up the table here. [clears throat] So, the under the proposed zoning um that 49 units is an estimate. Um it assumes I believe a thousand square feet uh apartment unit since the RX district permits you know town houses, apartments, single family homes, etc. So that's an estimate that's calculated by staff and uh may not reflect what's going to actually be built on the site and also does not account for things like grade and slopes and uh you know real world topology and topography. >> Thank you. Yeah. Sorry, Matthew. Where? I'm looking at IMAPs. Where? What? Repeat your comment about RX3. I don't see any I don't see any RX3 anywhere in any vicinity. So maybe I was halfway listening. Can you repeat that? Sorry. >> Yes. I was just um stating that the the purpose the applicant chose the RX3 district was based on the existing zoning being and this is based on Miss Scott's comments at the table just now. Um the industrial mixeduse three-story is a intense and permissive district that includes residential and commercial entitlements including heavy industrial uses. And so stepping down to a residential mix use district would include some residential entitlement and a small portion of retail entitlement because the property sits at the intersection of two public streets. Um the future land use map designation does recommend some commercial uses on the site. So it's a it's a closely corresponding district for their intended purposes and also following some guidance of the comprehensive plan. >> Thank you. That makes sense. How many residential units would be allowed under EX under the current zoning? >> Zero. >> Zero because of the airport overlay district. >> Okay. Sorry. Without an airport, >> it would be less because groundstory retail, ground story residential units are not permitted in the EX district. So in a three-story building, you can have two stories of residential and ground floor commercial uses in the industrial mixeduse district. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions or comments? >> Yes, sir. My my only concern was the objection from the airport and I would say just officially that I can get not having a having a policy of not meeting with homeowners, but if you're going to do that, you need to also not object individually to homeowners. You can't have it both ways. >> I I agree with that. >> So, since they're not here and they wouldn't even meet with them, then I've got no reservations about voting for this. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Shelurn, I agree with that. We we just heard a case at committee of the whole that involved the airport overlay district and the airport um met with the applicant helped them um develop the conditions and so I'm a little offended um that [clears throat] they were here at our last meeting to express their objection and then declined to meet with the applicant when she reached out to them to try to address their concerns. So, um, yeah, that we need to think about that. >> Um, I'm ready to entertain a motion. >> Commissioner Fox. >> Um, in regards to case 2625, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated November 12th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Um, Commissioner Fox made a motion to recommend approval. Commissioner Bernett seconded the motion. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? That was unanimous. Thank you. Our second old business item is TC125 omnibus 2023 2024 readoption. We heard this at our October 28th meeting. It was deferred to allow staff to consider some text revisions. Um I'll ask staff for an update. >> Good morning, Planning Commission. [clears throat and cough] Justin Booker in zoning administration. Um I'll go through a brief uh review of what we discussed last time. So again, this is the omnibus text change program implemented in 2021. Essentially a housekeeping effort for the city's zoning code. So over time, we like to clean up inconsistencies, typos, um provide clarifications where needed. We bundle up all these items together in one specific text change. Typically handle this annually, and bring it forward as an omnibus text change. Um, last year in December, the general assembly passed session law 202457. This included some changes that redefined the term downzoning. Um, these revisions impacted some text changes that had gone through the public hearing process were adopted by council. um there was a 180day kind of retroactive um effective date and as such two of our previous omnibus text changes the TC224 and TC523 were considered invalidated because they contained um a handful of items that uh constituted a downzoning under that new session law. Um, this text change that before you today is seeking to readt all those portions of those two omnibuses that remain compliant with this recent legislation. Um, at the 1028 planning commission meeting, um, two an item came up regarding the change from the term floodways to special flood hazard areas. Um, staff met, kind of discussed these sections um, and discussed with storm water staff these two sections. section 4 and section 12 um are pretty discreet changes. Um that first section 4 really only impacts um build two section. So um what this provision really does is provide an allowance if there's some kind of impediment that prevents somebody from uh potentially meeting the bill 2 range. So floodways was one of those impediments. um special flood hazard areas was changed that in my understanding and storm water staff is here to kind of discuss those particularities but special flood hazard areas is a more inclusive and broad term. So that's um you know allowing more areas that could potentially be met to uh provide some flexibility for meeting build 2. Um that section second section section 12 254G speaks to open space. Um and again shown there you can see water bodies, lakes, ponds um and floodways were the original language. We're including special flood hazard areas which again is a more broad and inclusive term um than floodways. Special flood hazard areas it's my understanding actually includes floodways. So, this is allowing um more potential areas that would be able to uh be open space. Um with that, just a quick summary of some of the items from 23 omnibus. There were 28 total items. Two items were sought or were deemed to be invalidated from the 24 omnibus. There were 51 total items in front of you. One item from the original omnibus last year was deemed to be invalidated. happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Um, does anyone wish to speak on this item? [snorts] >> Great. Bringing it back to the table. Um, Commissioner Atwell. >> Yeah, thank you. Since I was the one that threw the shoe in the wrench for this process. I apologize for making staff go back and clarify. And uh having read the update and consider the implications u I'm ready prepared to support this. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Haver. >> Did you say shoe in this wrench? >> Did I might have [snorts] >> wrench in the works? What would be better? Yeah. Is that better? For the record, I strike my shoe in the wrench comment. [laughter] >> Um Commissioner Omay. Um I'm just wondering how is the new term more inclusive than the old term. >> So the special flood hazard area um is a more inclusive term because it includes both floodways and adjacent floodprone areas. So um floodways is just a smaller portion of of a potential area. >> Can you speak into your microphone please? So will it be measured in like grades? Like if the flood ways were the more prone to flood areas and now we're including areas that are in danger of flooding, is there some degree measure to make them not all the same? Because a area that could flood is not the same that is an area that does flood. >> Um I'm not too certain how it's specifically measured. Um I can rely on storm water staff potentially to explain that. Good morning. Ben Brown, stormwater management. So the um special flood hazard hazard area is is usually delineated with a mathematical model showing that these these are your floodprone areas. The floodway is like uh the no-fly zone where if you put anything in there, it'll have an adverse impact up and downstream on on on the flood plane. the areas outside the flood flood or floodway are allowed a certain amount of development like some grading and things like that that won't have the biggest impact but there still are like restrictions in those areas. So that's why the special flood hazard area is kind of the more broader term that covers everything and floodways is probably a holdover from years ago when FEMA just really published a floodway area and they didn't really worry about the rest of it but now we regulate floodway floodway fringe and then some future flood plane areas. So it covers everything. >> So all of those three categories aren't listed under special hazard. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> Any other >> listed differently? I'm sorry. Correct. Trying to clarify. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, >> they're all listed differently. They're all special hazard flood areas, but then under those there are three categories that are defined. >> Correct. Correct. >> Any other questions? Commissioner Outwell, you want to make your motion? Sure >> thing. Uh, with regard to TC125, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated November 12th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Commissioner Atwell made a motion. Commissioner O'Hver has seconded the motion. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. That's unanimous. Moving on to new business. We have two items under new business today. The first one is Z3325 Gresham Lake Road. I'll turn it over to staff for presentation. >> Um good morning. Uh my name is Jacob Hunt. Um planning and development. Uh before you today is resoning Z3325 Gresham Lake Road. [clears throat] Um this is a request to resone approximately 7.8 8 acres from heavy industrial with a special highway overlay district to mixeduse industrial with the same overlay district. Um planning commission's deadline for action is January 11th. Um the zoning in this area is predominantly industrial mix of heavy industrial and the requested mixeduse industrial. There are some residential uses to the north um of the property and some on the other side of 540. um this general location. Um this property borders both 540 and Gresham Lake Road where there's a overpass Gresham Lake Road going over the interstate. Um as you can see there are some um resource management landfill uses uh to the side and then industrial uses generally surrounding the property um on both sides of 540. Zoom in a little closer. Take a look at the property. Um this is a view of the site um from Gresham Lake Road. Uh there are two conditions included with this requested reszoning today. Um one is to limit um resident or sorry retail and restaurant uses to 10,000 square ft or less. Um and that's in combination. And then um if there are uh any sort of play courts that are developed as part of this development um those would be limited to 42 in total. Um as I said uh the request is to go from heavy industrial to mixed use um industrial. Um, as we discussed with the earlier project today, that does allow for some um above ground floor residential uses. Um, and then the setbacks do change um and are generally reduced. Um, total allowed industrial square feet does increase um as does office and retail spaces, but again that retail is limited to 10,000. So um this is not an extremely walkable um neighborhood in location next to the interstate. Um so it does have a lower walk score, low transit score and bike score than average. Um transportation costs are lower and there are higher proximity to jobs in this area. Um this site is not served um by any bus service. Um while housing might not specifically be part of the um proposal today, um theoretically it does add to the housing supply. Um does not include any subsidized units. Um the only housing type would be apartment um in the EX district um but would allow for smaller units, smaller lots. Um is not within any transit. um areas in the resident are more likely to be racial minorities um than the city average and are less likely uh to be low income than the city average. Um we did not um have rent information for this parcel. Um the future land use map uh says that this area should be um business and commercial services. I is um the most common implementing zoning district for that future land use uh designation and the request is consistent with the future land use map. um and the urban form map. Um while an urban form is not specifically um proposed for this, the Shod overlay reflects many of the attributes that would be requested along 540 as a parkway corridor. Um this project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, both the future land use map and the urban form map. Um some consistent policies include the future land use map, um conditional use consistency, large site development, um the development and reszoning of industrial areas, um and linking growth and infrastructure and that this is outside of the corporate limits but is well served by city services. Um inconsistent policies, there are some um fire response time concerns and these are the policies that align with that. Um, your deadline for action is January 11th and there are no outstanding issues. Your upcoming meeting dates are November 25th and December 9th. Thank you. >> We'll now turn to public comment. The applicant and those in support have 10 minutes. >> Thank you. >> Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the planning commission. I'm Isabelle Maddox, um, Nichols and Crarampton, 3700 Glenwood, Sweet 500 27612. Here with me today are my two engineers, Scott Dawson and Bill Pyiver. Available for uh engineering type questions. Um, this is a sort of a unique project. Um, it's a pickle ball complex and I don't know if you or your friends play pickle ball, but they're always complaining about not having enough courts in Raleigh. So, uh, my the point man and my client is very much a pickle ball enthusiast and he thought I'm going to build some pickleball courts. Um, we are requesting resoning from IH heavy industrial with Shod 2 to EX-5CU with the shot retaining the Shod overlay. There's the site. You can see it. It it is an industrial area, but there's a lot of residential sort of across Gresham Lake Road and to the to the north and to the to the northwest. Uh you can see a fair amount, you know, residential here. My touchcreen doesn't seem to be working. Um but there's a you can look around, you can see the residential. So we think and we think people will come to this use because I think the it'll be a destination uh that people will want to come to. Um if you look at the zoning map, yes, we are sort of in a sea of of the purple, but there's really a lot of residential and mixed use in in fairly close proximity. the the current use of my client's current use of this property is a restoration service um in which he continue he intends to continue there but then we'll add the pickle ball complex just to the south uh so you can see the clo enclosed building for some reason I'm not [snorts] getting the thing but the existing building you can see is is close to Gresham Lake Road the pickle ball complex will be to the south So it'll be a pretty good distance from you know 540 the adjoining use and Gresham Lake Road. Um two conditions as Jacob mentioned just we will be doing you know up to 42 pickle ball courts plus restaurant you know locker room complex uh things like saunas and those kind of things that go along with athletic uses. um maximum 42 play courts um and feel like this is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the future land use map and the urban form map. Um we've had a couple of neighborhood meetings, no opposition. We think this adds a popular active use to address the play court need in the Raleigh area and it is in an economic development target area. Uh and it contributes to mixed use by adding recreational uses with restaurant and sort of combining that with the other uses in the general vicinity. So, believe this is a pretty straightforward case. Happy to answer any questions and also I'll offer up my engineers if you have any specific technical questions. >> Thanks, Isabelle. Um, is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this item? >> Okay. Um, do we have anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this item? You have 10 minutes if so. All right. We'll bring it back to the table then. Any questions or comments for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Fox, you seem to be reaching for your microphone. >> Well, I was and then I put it back. But, uh, no, I was just going to say I'm not I'm not really finding any um true inconsistencies. The inconsistency related to response time standards doesn't really concern me in this context because it would be a commercial building that's sprinklered versus a single family home for instance. Okay, >> thank you. Commissioner Bernett, did you have a question? >> Hi, Isabelle. >> Hi. >> Um, with 42 courts, are there any like noise attenuation measures that the applicant is anticipating or? >> Um, I don't know about that. Uh, and I can ask Mr. Dawson or Mr. Pyiver to speak to that if they if they do know that. But I I will tell you that if you look at the location um within the site, you see we have a shod yard along 540 on the far left side of this site plan. That's a 50 uh no it's a shot two. So it's 25, but it's still a significant distance. And then we're [clears throat] we're well off the street um because we're behind an existing building. And then to our right is a recycling center. So I don't I don't feel like there's a lot of noise. If there is a lot of noise, um I think there's not going to be many many people that are going to be bothered by it. Um do you have any noise attenuation measures? Not no not anything specific. >> Commissioner Hotwell, I had initial thoughts about noise as well. Um I watched North Hills Club expand their pickle ball courts significantly. There were owners up and down Manchester and Kurug that have moved out and said that their reason was because the pickle ball kicking up at 5:00 am in the morning. It can be really loud. Uh but given the context of the site and the future land use map and the current zoning, I don't think this is going to be an issue for a lot of residential folks. And I I believe it's an indoor building. >> It's indoor. So I think that that is what the noise attenuation is the indoor nature of the courts. >> So I I think that this is appropriate use in this case. >> Other questions? Okay, then I will entertain a motion. Anyone? Commissioner Fox. Um, let me make sure I had the right one. Uh, in regards to case um Z3325, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated November 12th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Commissioner Fox has made a motion to approve. Commissioner Neptune has seconded the motion. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Great. That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, just let me write that down. Moving on to our second new business item, which I would imagine a lot of you are here for. Reszoning Z3425, Lacard Mill assemblage, North Hills. We'll turn to staff for a presentation. >> Good morning, commission members. Matthew Burns with Planning and Development. So, this is a request to reszone um several properties or portions thereof. There are non-ontiguous areas totaling uh just over 11 acres um at North Hills. Uh and I'll go into the zoning districts on the next slide. Uh but North Hills is uh you know a major mixeduse area and city growth center. The original mall dates to 1967. That was demolished in 2003 and the area has seen significant redevelopment since. Um, and your deadline for action is January 11th of 2026. So, the applicant is proposing as part of uh their zoning conditions four separate zoning districts uh across four areas. So, the Lacier site, which is to the north, uh it's currently zoned commercial mixeduse, five stories with parking limited frontage, and they're requesting to reszone that to uh CX12 with conditions. Moving clockwise to the Six Forks and Lacer site that is currently zoned CX12 with urban limited frontage and a special highway overlay district and they're requesting to go up to CX40. uh maintaining that Shod. Continuing clockwise, there is the Six Forks site. So that's also zoned uh CX12 with that orbit limited frontage and the Shod. And they're also requesting to go to CX40 and maintaining the Shod. And then finally, uh, continuing clockwise, there's the main district expansion site, which is zoned, uh, CX12, uh, UL with that shod, and they were requesting CX20 and keeping the Shod. I know that was a mouthful. Uh, so zoning in the area includes residential and mixed use. So north and west of the Lacader site is the North Hills neighborhood and that has a neighborhood conservation overlay on it. Uh north and east there is the uh St. Timothy School and the North Raleigh International Baptist Church. And also uh kind of in the corner of that laced site is uh Raleigh Fire Station number nine. East of the overall development, there are some office uses uh north and south of Lasser Mill Road and south of Dartmouth is the North Hills PD. So that dates to uh 2016 and has an associated master plan and the main district expansion site in the southwest uh also abuts that North Hills neighborhood and also I440 to the south. So that's near Kuratuk and Lacier. Here is an aerial view of the site and you can see the more concentrated commercial and office uh in that North Hills area and kind of zooming in on the different sites. So you can sort of see which areas of North Hills are already built out and the areas subject to this resoning are less developed, feature significant surface parking. So there are a variety of businesses uh many of which you might be familiar with uh but they include you know Regal uh cinemas movie theater, Target, Restoration Hardware, REI uh and many more. Here are some views of uh three of the sites. the uh Lastard District uh at Laster and Six Forks uh then along Rowan Street and then at Laster Mill and Kurat Duck Drive and you can see the Renaissance Hotel and Exxon gas station uh in these images. So the applicants proposing many zoning conditions. The first of them describes the four requested zoning districts across the subject properties. The uh second would limit the maximum building height on the sites to be reszoned to CX40 to 37 stories. They would prohibit various uses that are otherwise permitted in the commercial mixeduse district. And they establish uh caps for maximum gross building square footage and also use mixes uh of maximum dwelling units uh square feet of medical and office uses and square footage of commercial uses. They would uh they would also requirement require development in the last site to include at least one green storm water infrastructure design feature. require any apartment, mixeduse, or general building types to meet green building certification standards. Provide for a 10,000 square foot open space area in the Lacier site, which would uh include at least four public amenities. Would provide for at least uh a 30,000t open space amenity area at the Six Forks and Lasser site. Also to include at least four public amenities. would prohibit parking between the site and either Rowan Street and or Six Forks Road and require a minimum setback along Rowan Street. Prohibit on-site parking on Six Forks Road and or Lacer Mill Road and establish a billude range for those streets. provide for a contribution of $400,000 to the city of Raleigh Fire Department and require buildings along Rowan Street uh that are at least seven stories tall to have a 12-oot minimum step back. So, the proposed conditions would limit the overall development intensities to that which be which could be developed under current zoning. Uh so the request would allow a similar level of development intensity but allow for an increase in height. So going over the height maximums just to make it very clear the last site would be going up to 12 stories. The six forks and lacader and six fork site would go up to 37 and the main district expansion site would go up to 20. The request would keep the special highway overlay district which restricts height and requires protective yard and plantings near highways. So you can see in the orange where the shod is the site is within the boundary of the Midtown area plan um which has specific guidance for North Hills. So the map on the screen that's uh the Midtown land use and urban form map. So it provides land use height and frontage guidance and the plan itself also includes policies related to walkability, transportation, storm water, public spaces, uh reducing emissions and pollution and infrastructure improvements. So you can see the site there in the west of that map. And then there that area plan also has a transportation specific uh map with uh guidance for transportation improvements. The site has an above average walk score, an average transit score, uh above average bike score, low transportation costs, and very high access to jobs. And the site is served by Go Rally Route 8 uh sixforks as well as 24L the north cross town connector. Uh and both of those have 30 minute frequency during peak hours uh and otherwise hourly service. The request would neither add nor subtract from the housing supply. Uh it does not include subsidized units, would permit a variety of housing types, uh allow smaller units, and is within walking distance of transit. area residents are less likely to be minorities and less likely to be low-income than the city averages. And the cost of rent has increased uh between 21 and 25% since 2019 and 2016, which is comparable to the city average. So the requested commercial mixeduse districts are consistent overall with uh the site's future future land use category of regional mixed use. Uh however, the overall height that's requested does exceed comprehensive plan and uh the Midtown plan guidance. However, proposed conditions would limit overall entitlement to that which could could be developed on the site currently. And although the applicant has not uh proposed a frontage for any of the sites the two of their conditions uh speak to build to and setbacks from specific streets which are which resemble the UDO's urban limited frontage standards. So the request is consistent overall with the comprehensive plan, the future lane use map and the urban form map and consistent policies are related to future lane use, zoning and conditional use district consistency, placemaking, compact and mixeduse developments, transit access, development at interchanges, urban pattern, mixeduse centers, managing the impacts of commercial development, uh multimotal transportation and mixed use areas and housing variety. mixeduse retail and nodes uh green and sustainable development as well as building and parking lot orientation, public gathering spaces and uh public open spaces. The request is inconsistent with uh three policies which are related to density transitions uh building height transitions and overall height guidance for the Midtown plan which would recommend up to 20 stories uh as a maximum. There are no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is January 11th, 2026. Uh please let me know if you have any questions and the applicants also applicant team is also here to answer questions. Thank you, Matthew. Commissioner Shelvin, we typically hold our questions. Okay. Thank um drew me off. I'm sorry. Uh the applicant and those in support now have a total of 10 minutes. >> Good morning, Chair Bennett, members of the commission. And I'm Jamie Schwedler with Parker Poe 301 Fagetville Street along with Michael Burch with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of Kain Realy also represented by Cali Walker who's here with our team to answer any questions. We are not asking to build a single square foot more than we have the right to do today. And that makes this case unique from any other that's before you uh this year and probably in the last decade. And it's also unique from the case that was before you in 2021 when we asked to build two times the amount of density that otherwise would be permitted on the site. The reason we're bringing this case back and the way that we're doing it is to listen to the public. What we heard then, what we heard now, to try to minimize traffic, but to also capitalize on what's made North Hills successful. And in the picture before you on the screen, that's using our permitted density that we have today to create more ground for our public spaces, which is also consistent with what the Midtown area plan expects. As a result, our resoning case has no increase in the allowed density. And that density today is almost 3 million square feet that we could build out in those yellow areas shown on the screen that are subject to this request. under our 12 uh story designation and our five-story designation in the last mill district, we could build almost 2.9 million square feet of density. And why does a city allow that today? Well, this is one area of four in the entire city of over of almost half a million people where the city has designated and anticipated growth from the 20 uh 2030 comprehensive plan and the designation of regional mixeduse. Four areas in the city were selected to absorb that growth and this was one of them. And as a result, we expect to see highdensity residential mixeduse hotel office and regional attraction of a retail use here. As comes [clears throat] to no surprise that the urban form also designates this as a city growth center, one of seven areas in the entire city. They're all clustered around major thorough affairs because we want to put people in density where the infrastructure already exists, where they can get out to the belt line. and other cases throughout the city. And as a result, there's additional policies expecting higher levels of service and transit and the transit emphasis corridor. Then in 2020, the Midtown area plan adopted additional recommendations looking both to land use and height and transitions. And what it said about this area is it expects the mixeduse area to continue to grow with the mix of uses that we've provided today. And that height will gradually increase as you move away from single family towards the center. So towards Six Forks Road, we expect that height to increase. And as a result, that dark purple area that you see throughout most of North Hills is designated as 20 stories. That height was expected. And there's also two policies that said we recommend this 20s story designation, but we expect applicants to maybe seek additional height to provide these public spaces. And so we're going to tell them exactly what to do if they they seek a height that's higher than what that uh Midtown plan expects. And in the policies on your screen, they recommend that if that inconsistency, that higher height is requested, we want you to offset that with significant public benefits. The examples given in both policies are storm water mitigation, carbon reduction, and enhanced public space. And so that lines up exactly with what we've done here. We followed what the Midtown plan expects us to do when we're asking for my for more height to take that density in the same configuration, but to provide more ground floor spaces. So the designations that we've selected here, the height designations, the uses prohibited are those that you don't want to see in a mixeduse center where you're attracting most of the growth in the city over the next couple of of decades. And then the development maximum that's coming straight from the envision analysis of what the city's own program says we have the right to build today. That 2.9 million square feet could be 2500 dwelling units. It could be 1.6 six million square feet of office or it could be about 250,000 square feet of commercial or any mixture of the two uh mixture of those three combinations. These density caps are shown on the left side of your screen is what we could build today. That's at 12 stories and five stories and all of those numbers I just listed at the bottom of the screen. And you'll see on the right side of your screen, it's the exact same density, but we're just stretching the building form up higher. and all of a sudden we open up this ground floor space, this nice public space that's contemplated in that Midtown area plan and it's what's made Midtown area successful. In addition to that density cap, which also helps us reduce our carbon footprint because we're not putting more square footage on the ground means we're not putting more people and we're not putting more trips than we already could do today. We're in we're also um making a commitment to the enhanced public space. So that Midtown area plan said we expect you to offer this enhanced public space, but it didn't define it. So our condition does. We're offering 30,000 square feet in the Six Fork district. That's almost 3/4 of an acre, similar to what you see on the right hand side of your screen that's in front of RH today. We're offering 10,000 square feet in the Lacer district. And then in each district, at least four of those amenities uh listed on the right hand side of your screen to further define what that enhanced public space would be. It's significant to note that that enhanced public space exceeds what the UDO requires because it's all happening on the ground floor and it's multiple times of what you would otherwise be required to do under the UTO provision. So again, exceeding the UDO provision and a significant public benefit. With respect to the storm water mitigation and carbon reduction suggestions, we're offering to treat 15% of our storm water in the Lasser district because that's where staff has identified some uh flooding issues down downstream. We're doing that with a a combination of the examples shown on your screen for green storm water infrastructure. And then with respect to carbon reduction, we're offering to design the buildings to a green building certification level such as lead and the other examples you see on your screen. Now remember that carbon reduction condition is in addition to our density cap which further limits the amount of new trips we could otherwise put on the site. That um that density cap just limits us to what we could do today without the resoning. So, no additional square feet, no additional cars, and what we would be allowed to do by Righte. With respect to frontage, Matthew did a great job describing how we've mimicked that in our conditions. And what you might see as a difference from the earlier 2021 case is we had conditions talking about uh bike and pedestrian facilities. That is now part of the requirement of the code. So, those streetscapes you see on your screen are directly from the UDO. They weren't in place in 2021. So, we had to add a condition. They're in place in the code now. So, we don't have to add a condition to that. An additional change since 2021 is that um on the uh on Lasser Mill Road on the Midtown air on the um main expansion district where we've asked for 20 stories, there was not a provision requiring a step back along Lasser Mill. There is today a step back must be included between the second and 12th floors. So we don't have a condition because now the code has caught up with what the Midtown plan area um had had requested. But there's no protection for buildings that are 12 stories and under which is what we have in the Lacier district. So on Rowan, we've included a um a step back on the above the second floor as well as a 15 foot setback. So we're separating the building from Rowan to allow more folks to walk along Pamlic Co to walk along um the area up to the school and and not be interfered with u by parking. We've worked with the city fire department and following the Raleigh Fire Master Plan, which recommends the relocation of station 9 to give the city ultimate flexibility. We're offering $400,000 towards that relocation in either land or equipment, however the city sees fit. Um, we've known for years that mixeduse destinations reduce traffic and the DOT's numbers uh bo bear that out. Our traffic engineers are here to explain it further, but the trips on your screen show that there's not been a significant increase in traffic in the 20 years since the mall was demolished and the mixeduse center came online for a variety of reasons, but it's a park once concept that leaves people in place and reduces sprawl. As a result, we're proud to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the future land use map, the midtown area plan, and even though we've exceeded heights, we've followed exactly what that plan asked us to do, which is offset that height increase with significant public benefits. As a result, we are asking uh to find become consistent, and I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for both uh business owners and neighbors who are here in support of this case, who want to see future growth. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jamie. Anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this item? >> You have 1 minute and 49 seconds. >> Wow. I'll do my best to summarize it. Um, I don't have a ton of slides or a ton of data to share with you, but what I can >> state your name, please. >> Oh, I'd be happy to. Uh, my name is AJ Heis. I live at 601 Compton Road. Um, so just north of where this development is. Um, I don't have a ton of things to share with you as to or I don't care to share a ton of things as to why this is really important to me or really important to my wife. Um, so much of my life now is defined by I have two little boys. I have a 2-year-old and a four-year-old and they are a total handful. Um, but they are the reason that I wake up in the morning. Um, and so I think about what all of this development has done for my wife and I and how we can actually use it to facilitate wonderful engagements with our kids. I mean, we walk up to the farmers market every single Saturday. We take our boys out to eat over there. Um, we shop for our boys over there. My parents are actually looking at getting an apartment uh in North Hills because they want to be closer to my boys. They're in South Carolina. Um, our babysitters live over there. I I mean literally our entire lives effectively are across the street. Um and it means a lot for us to have that and I know we have a lot of similar neighbors that are in the same boat. Um that's how we've met a lot of our friends to be honest with you is grabbing a cup of coffee over at Jubala and letting our kids run around in that uh wonderful little green area that's over to that side. Um but we very much are in support of this um and we think it would be really wonderful for all of the young families that uh that live over in North Hills right now. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support? You have 16 seconds. >> 16 seconds. Um Kevin Jennings, 405 Ramblewood Drive. Uh the uh the lacier piece. Um I'll look out my front door and see that building. So, um super simple concept in my opinion. Um build a little taller, get more green space. I mean, period. He already has the ability to build everything. So, thanks. >> Thank you. We'll now turn to um the opposition. You have 10 minutes as well. >> Please state your name. You don't need to give your address unless you want to. >> Okay. My name is Nora McCann and I am a resident of Frier Hills and I've been a Raleigh resident since 1969. I was around when the mall opened. I was a kid. I was 5 years old. So, I've seen it all. And so, what I'm here to talk about is the proposed new development. and I'm a civil engineer and I've spent many many years doing travel demand modeling and traffic forecasting. And basically I request that the um that y'all use the travel demand model that belongs to the capital area metropolitan planning organization and do a real traffic forecast and look at the volumes that are going to be loaded on our infrastructure. You know, if this project is approved without looking at the infrastructure and the impacts, all the future problems are going to fall upon the backs of the taxpayers to clean up this mess. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Pam Vanmden and I'm here today not just as a resident, but as a local who's called North Hills home for over six decades. My concern is what precisely is the crisis management plan for hundreds of people when a major event occurs on the ground floor or more specifically a higher level floor. I asked this because just this year we've had the coat shooting and we've also and this was not anything that was even on my radar. Uh 9:30 I was at Quail Corner's bookstore. That was at night. Um a fire alarm went off. All of the retail has to get out. What if that's a 20story floor? Five was bad enough and I don't know where people are going to go. The safety concern is cons compounded sorry compounded by a profound failure in imp infrastructure. The intersections around most of this development are already failing at loss ratings of E or F. Cancelelling the six forks in project sorry the six forks road improvement project while allowing the four sto 40 40story buildings to be planned sends a dangerous message. There's no justification for the scale of development without a schedule funded infrastructure plan. My ask is simply this. Before re uh this resoning request is even considered delay further development until there is a funded 5-year plan for infrastructure expenditure as promised by the Midtown St. Aubins plan. I thank you for your time. >> Thank you. By the way, I think there's something wrong with your system for amplification. It's very hard to hear in the audience. Uh, I appreciate the fact you're using your microphones, but they probably ought to be turned up because it it's just very difficult to hear, especially when you're talking between you. Um, I've been here before, Larry Helon, 1013 Road Drive. I live in the neighborhood and I've been there for over 45 years. I've been here before advocating for the Midtown Area Plan. I've been here before asking you to deny this when it came up before a couple years ago for the same reasons. And I'm going to just express the same comments I made before about two or three years ago. And I want to make one fast correction which was made by the applicants. The Midtown Area Plan doesn't ask for enhancements from for community benefits if you go higher than the heights that are asked for in the zoning for the Midtown Air Plan. It says if you request heights in the upper half of what's requested for zoning, then you should have enhanced community benefits, not above the zoning that is recommended. Um, I sent you all an email over the weekend. I hope you read it. Uh, if not, and if I have the time, I'll go through a couple of those elements that are there for I tried to limit that from having to do a lot of talking today. This case should not be in front of you today. When this resoning was presented for approval a few years ago, the applicants stated they would delay construction until 2026 to allow the city time to build infrastructure um build infrastructure to support this development. To date, there hasn't been any improvement to infrastructure to support this development as well as the others in the area. The city did us a big favor. The largest, most beneficial road project, the Six Forks Road Improvement Project has been cancelled and the funding to support additional infrastructure has been taken away from this area and moved to other parts of the city. The expansion of North Hills Main was just completed with more density after three years of lane closures on Lasser Mill Road and construction cranes everywhere. And that added density from the expansion in North Hills, Maine does not show in any of the figures that you see today. You'll be reviewing a plan that will be constructed if approved in stages over the next 10 years with those same neighborhood disturbances. Where there is construction overlap, many established businesses will be forced to close. The loss of income over those years may force those businesses to close permanently or relocate. Even the fire station, which serves a local community, will be forced to be relocated due to insufficient land for service expansion. the bus transfer station, which was part of the previous submission, has been omitted. And by the way, while they're offering money to enable the move or or additional equipment for the firehouse, that amount of money is probably the same as if they had provided the land for the firehouse to expand. It's kind of a swap. It's not really a benefit. You're being asked today as to whether the application is consistent with area specific guidance as outlined in Midtown Area Plan. As noted previously, this proposal is still inconsistent with area specific guidance. The application in front of you is requesting building heights that are inconsistent with the zoning recommendations in Midtown Area Plan, which recommends a mix of heights up to four and between four and 20 stories. inconsistent with the future land use map which recommends heights between two and 20 stories and inconsistent with table LU2 which recommends height for regional mixed use and a maximum of 20 stories. There is no allocation for 40 stories anywhere in this area. So I ask you how can the staff review determine this application is consistent with the future land use map when it's clearly not. How can this be How can this application be consistent with the zoning map of the Midtown area plan when it's clearly not? If they are not consistent, they should not be deemed consistent with the comprehensive plan. Note that the application also is not consistent with density transitions, building height transitions, land use transitions, and affordability. No discussion on affordability. It was in the last presentation. It's been dropped. It should be noted there have been two previous resoning cases that have been approved since the Midtown area plan has been approved. Both of which contain buildings up to 20 stories. Both of which include affordability. It can be done. There has not been a single building more than 20 stories built since the adoption of Midtown Area Plan. Some of you may think you look across the road and you see the the eastern a 37story building that was part of a plan development approved back in 2016 when all the recommendations from the community were rejected by the planning commission and it went on to council and got approved. So don't look across the road. Everything that could have gone wrong with that did go wrong with that. You've cited the fact that there's no frontage recommendations for this with a zero foot um building right up to the right away. All the trees that beautify North Hills right now will be gone. There is no request for perhaps green frontage. That would be a community benefit. The objective of the city is to create an area of walkability. In reality, North Hills is bounded by a six-lane corridor, four-lane road, and an interstate highway. Unless you're on the North Hills site, the area is not walkable. I heard the gentleman earlier. He talked about walking. Trying to cross Six Forks. Walking, he won't tell you. You take your life in your hands and there is no nothing enabling safety crossing that highway. Bridge would be nice. Has been proposed before. Kane offered to pay for half of it. It was rejected. While the applicant touts added open space, they're actually adding more impervious surface areas for storm water runoff. Is this open space really a community benefit when it has the same environmental impact as the parking lots they are replacing? If you approve this application, you will be invalidating the Midtown St. Albins's area plan, which was created and approved by council. Its purpose was to create solutions for Midtown infrastructure with all the plan development along Industrial Drive, St. Alvin's Road, Wake Forest Road, and Six Forks. It was apparent that the existing roadways would approach capacity when these developments were fully occupied. Many of these approved resonings are yet to be built or occupied. Yet, there hasn't been any infrastructure improvement to date after several TIS, each carrying their own recommendation for improvement. Most of the intersections around North Hills, as mentioned earlier, carry a level of service recommendation of F or E. It can't get much worse, but it will with development that's coming along along Six Forks, both above and below the interchange. Um, if again, I'm going save you the effort since I've got a little more time, not much. But one of the models that was shown to you shows going wider than going taller. What you don't see is a model that's built going up to 20 stories rather than 40 stories, which would open up the same amount of open space as you're considering today. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Larry. [snorts] Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? You have 17 seconds. >> I'm kind of going to be in the middle because I conditionally support it. Um, and I want to ask city council, have you have you guys considered reallocating the funds that you took from the Six Forks Road improvement project to just do it in phases and do maybe the first half of Six Forks Foot Road that's mostly impacted by this development? say the belt line to Rowan or however far to go. Maybe you can get to Northbrook, but at least Rowan. >> Thank you. Let me just clarify. We're not city council. We're the planning commission. >> Planning department, whatever. >> We we don't make those decisions. City council would make those decision. >> Is there any way y'all can put notes in y'all's >> We can make a note of that. We can put it in the minutes and we can make >> And I'm Jared Kart. I'm a resident at 500 Ramblewood Drive. So, it does impact me directly. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. Uh note that there's more uh participants w wishing to speak. I'd like to move to allow two more minutes for both sides. >> Okay. Um do we have a second for that? >> Second. >> Okay. Um those in opposition have uh an additional two minutes. >> I'm Robin Hammond, 416 Latimer Road. um served on the small area plan, retired attorney who used to work in zoning and land use among other things. I wrote you a two-page letter over the weekend. I emailed it to you. I asked you to consider it. The main points are the need for a pedestrian bridge over Six Forks Road. and to bring to your attention the degradation to the quality of life of for the residents, the longtime residents of the single family neighborhoods living in our neighborhood now. It's like a war zone. construction and deconstruction constantly followed by mega mansions that cut down all the trees, take up all of the green space and the the alleged green space across the street isn't going to help us because we don't live over there in North Hill in six the North Hills development and we can't get across the street safely without driving and adding to the traffic. Thanks. >> Thank you. Is there someone else who wanted to speak in opposition? [laughter] Okay. Um, we still have a minute left. So, we'll go back to those in support and the applicant. You have an additional two minutes. >> I was I was just going to call Kevin up to finish his comments. Um, if you're free to do it and then we'll answer any other questions after. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I don't um Kevin Jennings, 405 Ramblewood Drive. Um again, uh and just so that you know, I I will benefit and or uh be affected by by these these issues, but I think that something that's lost in translation, at least it seems to me, is they're already approved to build the density. So the question about like infrastructure and all these other things, I mean, I think that that's um it's it's nice to talk about, but ultimately they can just build what they what they already are approved to build there. So uh and if I'm incorrect about that, then I'm incorrect, but that's what I understand. So the uh I would much rather, you know, North Hills to us, we we walk up to North Hills. I I walk from Ramblewood all the time up there. Um uh we also own businesses there. appreciate bringing the um the coat shooting up. That was super nice. Even though it's not in a tall building. So, um the um uh you know, these the addition of the the density and whatnot coming to the area is going to uh is is going to benefit me directly from the restaurant sales. There's no doubt about that. But benefiting Raleigh is what I think that we should be more concerned with. And uh would you do you really want a parcel of land being covered entirely by roof up at 20 stories or would you rather have that be uh a narrower, taller building with significantly more amenities for the public, which I'm certain we can all agree are are uh you know just greatly used currently by Raleighites uh throughout the city. So thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in support? 26 seconds left. Okay, we'll bring it back to the table. Commissioner Shelurn had a question. >> Well, it was just in response the staff said if you have any questions, so I just reflexively popped up my hand and so I I shouldn't have done that. My apologies. Oh, no, that's fine. That's fine. >> But um it was to just to get clarified what everyone has since clarified, which is literally all we're voting on here is height. >> Yes, >> that is the only question before us. And to paraphrase Tina Fay, I could see this from my house. Um, I live in the Ramblewood area. Clearly, y'all don't can't remember the SNL reference there. We got >> Okay, good. I just didn't deliver very laughing inside. >> Okay, very [snorts] good. Yeah. Okay. I um this so um and so I would be as affected by this as anyone, but the ship has sailed on tall buildings in this area. And even if we were talking about congestion, the solution to that is not killing viable projects. There are other solutions that the city needs to bring to bear that you don't impose by voting no on things that are legit and can go forward. But again, that's not our question. We're just talking about 20 stories of height. That's it. And the ship has sailed on that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. I think I saw Commissioner Fox's hand and then Commissioner Neptune. Commissioner Atwell. Oh, hang on. Commissioner Fox. Wow, I won. Okay. Um, now I have two questions. Um, one is about traffic and one is about uh impervious surface. Um, um, Jamie, you pulled up a slide that showed um um traffic. There you go. You just went by it. >> Sorry. >> That one. There we go. Um I was wondering if we could have the opportunity to just have one of the engineers walk us through really quickly um about how level of service is impacted and then also what the standards are generally for um intersections, what level of service is appropriate or sought. >> Good morning. Travis Fluitt with Kimley Horn and Associates uh here on behalf of the development team. So the numbers you have up there, we've so because this development is not generating new traffic, they're allowed to do the same amount of density. We have not done a traffic study. However, we are very well aware of everyone's concerns about traffic in this area. So we've not been blind to that. We've been looking at traffic data. And what these numbers show, and these are not just two data points, there are a whole bunch in the middle that bear this out, is that despite all the development and redevelopment that has happened in this area, traffic volumes on Six Forks, on Lasser Mill have not changed significantly in the last 20 years. They've gone up and down a little bit, but have basically remained flat. Um overall peak hour counts, daily volumes are the same or less than they generally less than they were precoid. Um I think everyone has forgotten how bad things were in 2019 and things have been creeping up a little bit since then since the dip we had COVID but it's still we're nowhere near where we were precoid. um but generally have stayed flat despite all of our traffic models show that volume should have gone way up and up and then you look at the actual data and it's stayed flat. So that's kind of what this is showing. Um in terms of the intersections, we've again we've not done any capacity analysis. I don't know where the claims of a level service ENF are coming from if people have done their own analysis, but generally you're looking for a level of service A through D is what is generally considered acceptable. um ENF there may be cases where you just have to deal with level service ENF but we have not done any analysis so I can't refute or uh validate their claims that these intersections are operating at ENF we will ha almost certainly have to do traffic studies when development moves forward on these parcels unless they're going to put in a solar farm instead of the gas station we're going to do a traffic study so we will have to evaluate that in the future with any future development plans Thank you. >> Did you have >> Did that address your traffic? >> That that address the traffic. >> Just quickly follow while he's right because it goes with what you were saying. Travis, could you also um talk about one of the comments said something about using the Campo model? Did you use that to come up with this? Would you use that to do the traffic analysis that would be required for in site design? And could you also talk about LOS and VMT? >> Sure. Yeah. Glad to. Uh these model these numbers are straight from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. They collect daily traffic volumes on a bianual basis. Um and so those numbers are straight from NC DOT their data what they collected that is not from the regional model. Um when we're doing a traffic impact analysis, we typically would not use the regional model. We would use we would generate trips, take count traffic counts, grow them to a future year, generate projected site traffic, add it to the network. As I've said before, our those models are not working well. They are overp projecting traffic historically. Um, but in that regard, they are conservative and they have led to improvements. Um, contrary to what you heard earlier, there have been improvements made by North Hills East, the North Hills East PD, and the North Hills mixeduse project. All those improvements have been done or are currently under construction, notably the third lane on the westbound off-ramp from 440 onto Six Forks. Um, so improvements have been made and that will continue to be evaluated. We have done an update to the VMT analysis. That's the vehicle miles traveled analysis. So, we're looking at the average trip lengths for this area and that is based on the triangle regional model that comes straight from the model um campo's model and um what that analysis shows is that this area this what we call a TAZ basically the North Hills area and north of it Lasser Mill the trip lengths are shorter than the citywide average which you'd expect because there are lots of places people can walk and hike to within North Hills, they don't have to go far a field to get to services and amenities. Um, and then when if this redeveloped to the intensity allowed, that would further reduce trip lengths because you're adding more residents and employment to areas where services are available and they can walk and bike to those things or take transit without having to get in their vehicles. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I just wanted to tag on and trying to be efficient. >> That was good. Thank you. Okay. The No, that that was very helpful. Thank you. Um the the other question I had was there was a comment made that that although there's additional amenity space um proposed in this project, it would actually be increasing in pvious surface. I don't I don't know if you all had any comment about that. >> Yeah. Um I think that's it might be in response to some of these amenities that we've defined in the condition which would be a combination of hardscape and softscape. Um what the Raleigh city code requires us to do is to treat the new impervious. So that the the difference between what the site has today and any new impervious that we're adding to it. Most of the the sites that you see are today surface parking lots. So there's just paved asphalt. The water is kind of sheet running into into grates. And so it would be virtually impossible to increase that impervious area. Um the uh main expansion is kind of a a a kind of a a treated pit at this point. So it does have um impervious elements, but we would be required to treat whatever we're adding to that. So um that's the case with with development throughout. I think the difference here is is we're doing two things that would tend to decrease impervious more than other cases, which is adding these amenities in um having this kind of water relief areas and things that wouldn't necessarily be hardscape. And then we're also committing to the green storm water um infrastructure where we don't have to do that. that's typically done in um you know above ground pond or whatever but we're adding things like the possibility for sistns green roofs and planter boxes which all tend to treat storm water in a uh a pvious way. >> Thank you. >> And I wanted to clarify for for Travis's sake um it's not that we haven't done the study and and we should have done the study. It's to to Commissioner Shelurn's point because we've capped the density. It's not triggered under the UDO to require a TIA like normal cases. in many cases do because you're asking for more height. You're typically having more entitlement. We're not. So that TIA is not required at this stage, but would likely be required at the site plan stage. >> Thank you. Commissioner Neptune was next. >> Thank you. Uh Madam Chair, I think my questions uh fall into two primary buckets. One with regard to the Six Forks Road project and another with regard to bike and pedestrian connectivity with uh you know along the along the site. Um, if we start with Six Forks, I guess I'm really looking for clarity from staff. If we have colleagues from Raleigh Transportation who could speak to the Six Forks Road project, which I understand was, let's say, cancelled on the whole, but then I my understanding or my impression was that uh colleagues from Raleigh Transportation offered to council um sort of new approaches moving forward. It's kind of taking that uh corridor in chunks and sort of tackling it in terms of making improvements over the I don't know next so many years. So if colleagues could could just sort of clarify that specifically that would be helpful and just sort of better understanding the future you know transportation and traffic needs in this area. >> Good morning Carter Robertson with transportation. So originally the scope for six forks widening was going to be from Rowan just north of the site all the way up to Lynn I believe in 2024 we came back to city council costs had escalated and that scope was reduced to a shorter section of six forks. This summer we came back again costs continued to escalate and the projected cost of the project was well above the budgeted amount. So what we proposed to council was instead of the full widening along six forks with a median in the center and the pedestrian and bicycle improvements on the sides, we would focus on specific intersections and spot improvements along Six Forks Road. So those include um right along Carol Middle School, there's a sidewalk gap. We'd be closing that. Um, a new pedestrian crossing that's signalized between Northbrook and Northwood would be installed. A new traffic signal at North Glenn would be installed. And then we'd also make improvements to the Milbrook intersection. So, a portion of that original project um budget is going to go towards these spot improvements along the corridor and the rest will be reallocated to some of our ongoing projects. um Barwell Road, Lake Wheeler, um Old Wake Forest. There is a project uh nearby um the Midtown Multimodal Bridge. Um part of this funding is going to be redirected to the design for that that's a little bit southeast of the site, but this will essentially provide a connection across 440 in the future. >> Carter, thank you. I appreciate that. Again, a follow-up question with regard to bike and ped connectivity. And this is, you know, sort of relevant specifically to the Midtown area small area plan. Uh, if I'm reading this correctly, and this is a I think a question for the applicant, potentially for staff as well. Um, MAP AP M2 MT2 provides transportation recommendations for the area, including a transit hub north, a pedestrian and bike bridge, etc., etc. It also proposes a pedestrian bike facility at the intersection of Lacier Mill, Six Forks. proposed conditions do not directly address transportation infrastructure, which I found that striking in part because I think we know there's going to be a huge impact, you know, to activity, you know, in terms of how people are getting around. Uh, and I should acknowledge this for the good of the the team here. When I first moved to Raleigh 15 plus years ago, uh I lived around the corner from this and would bike over to the area. And so certainly our bike and pedestrian infrastructure has come a long way in 15 years. Uh we still have a ways to go as we know. Uh but I I I guess I I call this out within the small area plan because I know these small area plans, much like the comp plan, they're based in public engagement. You know, residents and neighbors have had a chance to share their hopes and their concerns and aspirations for their communities through these small area plans, which I just want to acknowledge and I appreciate. And so I if I I guess this is a question for Jamie. I believe you know it it says here again proposed conditions do not directly address transportation infrastructure. Is that because you're relying on code to follow through in addressing the bike and pedestrian um I guess improvements that we would like to see. I think I think I saw that in. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Michael. >> Good morning. Uh Michael Burch with Longleaf Law Partners. [clears throat] Um so want to touch on this and then just circle back to the Six Forks uh improvement project. So the Midtown area plan, right, ultimately adopted I believe in 2020. Um, since that time, the UDO has been updated uh to require essentially bike infrastructure above the curb along with the sidewalks that were have been historically required uh above the curb. And so that bike ped infrastructure that's just required by the code now is more inclusive and more stringent than it was at the time that the area plan was being produced and adopted there. And so as uh this site redevelops pursuant to this uh resoning or or otherwise the code is going to require that additional infrastructure. I think that was contemplated in the area plan. And then just on the six forks project, I think you heard from um staff that right along this section essentially south of Rowan, no lane widening was included within that project. No additional travel lanes were included proposed along Six Forks south of Rowan. And so the cancellation of that project right in this area is not we're not losing, you know, it's not like we've lost something that we were going to gain. So thank you. >> Thank you, Michael. I see the floor. >> Thank you. Um, it it might be helpful just a a note to staff because it did say that conditions don't address the bike and ped recommendations, but if the conditions aren't addressing it because code is addressing it, that little note might be helpful to us. So, it's not like they're not doing something. Okay, great. I think Commissioner Atwell was next and then Commissioner Bernett. [clears throat] Uh thank you, Chair Bennett. I have a couple questions and then a couple comments if yall will allow. Uh this first question is for staff. Uh notice that some of the conditions many of the conditions were listed as uh will provide four of the following list and provide a whole menu of options. Um public art and open space. And I was just curious what is the threshold for something counting as public art? That's a good question. I would need to uh look into that a little bit. Okay. Give you a proper answer. >> And similarly uh with open space, what who can who can regulate access on an open space in a situation like this? >> So in this case, and this may not be a direct answer to your question, but uh these would be privately owned spaces that are available to the public. Um, access could be granted through something like an easement. Um, but they may the the applicant may not be offering an easement. It may just be a privatelyowned publicly available piece of open space on the property. >> It does publicly available imply free use at all times by anybody? Can it be restricted to hours or >> most likely subject to whatever standards they would want for the development? >> Okay. Thank you. Um I do have some comments to add on top of that. Uh to follow up on the pedestrian and bicycle access when we change the zoning from CX uh PL and CXUL that's urban limited and parking limited both of which uh require a direct pedestrian access to a primary building from the from the facing street. So it would require along Rowan and Lacader in particular direct pedestrian access and with the conditions set the way they are that requirement is no longer included and I would like to see that added to the conditions to make this uh more compliant with the uh with the frontage. >> Can you say that one more time so I can jot it down please? >> Certainly. Um >> direct access >> direct pedestrian access to a primary building from the facing a street. Okay. >> And I think that's important especially along Rowan. It can be difficult to walk to this site already. And so uh having direct pedestrian access I think is important. Uh, another concern I have is the uh the presence of parking garages and the urban limited frontage that currently exists along LER requires an active use on the ground floor between any parking structure and a sidewalk on a public street of the primary facing street. So, effectively prohibits parking garage directly against Lacader Mill. and with the removal of the urban limited frontage and the conditions that are offered, that option is back on the table. I would like to see that addressed as well. I also have concerns about loading trash service directly against the Rowan and Lacader neighborhoods. Uh I live in this neighborhood, not very close, but close enough to drive through and I've experienced the construction and the traffic. Uh it's been going on a long time. It will continue to go on a long time. And it's not just North Hills, it's the whole neighborhood all around it. Uh but just the other morning with notice a semi-truck parked in the middle of Lacader Mill because whatever loading services are available for the section that just opened, the the driver I guess felt was inadequate and so he was parked in the middle of Laster Mill Road unloading his stuff. So I would I would like to see some consideration to having those sort of uses mitigated or facing away from the existing neighborhoods. Um this development in particular as it's been going over the past 15 20 years and a lot of these mixeduse developments and these regional centers are great places when you're there. Uh they're wonderful to walk around in. Sometimes they're easy to walk to and sometimes not. But you often get the more um negative aspects of the development. You know, late night dumpster loading, uh parking garage faces facing out to the existing neighborhoods. And it creates kind of a barrier and you get this island of urbanity that it can make it hard to walk to. It's inhospitable for pedestrians in particular to cross that barrier. And so that's just a that's just a general comment about the state of these kind of um these kind of developments and I think that addressing pedestrian access and parking garage presence uh along the frontage would go a long way towards mitigating that. Uh I also have an issue with the height along Lasser Mill. I think the height request along Rowan is appropriate. the requested area. It doesn't front up against many houses. It's directly across the street from St. Timothy's school and 12 stories with the setback both front the build to and the setback at the additional stories. I think I think that's pretty appropriate. But when we look at Ladder Mill, the request for 20 stories is directly across the street from several single family residences. And I think that's a very abrupt transition. And uh I have a problem with going all the way up to 20 stories right there on Lacader Mill. All right. Um on the other hand, I think this trade of height for density, uh trade of the density, excuse me, for the height, I think it's a really great idea and I think going up to gain open space is a is a very positive thing. And so I support that in general. I'd also like to talk a little bit about the pedestrian bridge. As a member of the uh bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission several years ago, we looked closely at the option for a pedestrian bridge. In these kind of situations with the kind of access that would be required for ADA uh require very long ramps and long detours for crossing over six forks and in these sort of situations um the studies have shown and experience has shown that most people don't use it. they'll take the risk to cross Six Forks instead of an extra three or 4 hundred yards of walking back into the development and around in circles up the ramp to get across to where they can see where they want to go instead. And so I don't think a pedestrian bridge is a very viable option here. I think it's on the city and the state to make that intersection safe on the street and it's going to be hard to do, but I I don't think that that is on the developer. So, just one issue that came up a bunch in the comments that we got in the email that I wanted to address and that's all I have. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Um Jamie, would you like to address any you or your team about um what Commissioner Atwell said about pedestrian access and trash service, loading zones, parking garages against Lasser Mill and the height along Lasser Mill? >> Yes. again. Um, thank you, uh, Commissioner Outwell. Uh, we'll just touch on a few of these. So, first with regard to, um, street facing building entrances and that direct pedestrian connection between the sidewalk and the building. Um, yes, that is something that by removing the frontages, the, you know, true UDO requirement of that is no longer present. But I think functionally, practically, right, I think you see it. um throughout the development uh on that side of the street there that that is kind of how the functionally and practically um right the development wants to invite people in off the street and that we'll have that from a uh parking garage standpoint. So this is really related to just the urban limited frontage. Um so kind of that frontage along Lacier uh in Six Forks is where that's changing. Um since uh again I think since this case was last here uh and I can also say that no building uh in the North Hills area has uh started under these new regulations. the parking deck screening and lighting regulations. Um development under under this will be the first time that it's been subject to those new standards. Uh which limits the amount of openings uh requires a much higher higher level of screening as well as lighting protection not just on the ground floor but on on all floors. Um and so I think that is you know I think while you may see some things out there today what must happen in the future is required to be very very different there. Um terms of loading trash and service again that is u pretty tightly regulated by the UDO in terms of the locations of those and how those must be screened uh with opaque roll top doors. um for those that are integrated in the building and they certainly would be here. Uh and then with regard to height uh along Lacier again in that main district expansion there um again any building over 12 stories in that location uh will have to provide a step back uh somewhere between the second and the 12th story uh of at least 12 feet. Um, and so again, I think the UDO kind of addresses uh kind of that building transition through the step back along Lacier. Um, I'll just Jamie if you have anything else but >> yeah, I think Michael covered that well. I think it's also um notable that in addition to what the UDO now provides versus what it provided in in 2021 before you in 2021, the Midtown area plan was adopted at a time where those code provisions didn't exist. And I think that's the reconciliation of why the Midtown area plan had to build in those extra height recommendations because the code didn't provide for it. now that the code does um we've heard kind of guidance from council to try to adopt what the code has provided and worked with transportation in fact and transit on if the code provision has something let's try to make it more uniform and so that was our approach for this I think it's also notable that you know we had two large uh format openhouse meetings um one with over a hundred attendees the next with about 60 and then presented to the Midtown CAC with about 30 people um and we heard a lot from the folks in I think in the area that you live in near Pamelico near Rowan talking about that transition, talking about what that experience would feel like on Rowan. Um, and not as much on Lacader. Of course, there's there's people on Lasser Mill, there's people on Kuratuck who of course care about that experience, but um there was more of a I think general recognition of what the code provides and didn't provide on Rowan. And so, um, that's the the difference in the the transition there and and what the the discrepancy for it. And then I think you mentioned um you know the open space and can that be restricted. An important thing about the amenity areas in the code is that they can be on something other than the ground floor. So it could be restricted on a private balcony or or something of the like. Everything we're offering here that's part of those open spaces are required to be on the ground floor itself. And so there would be accessible to the public probably reasonably, you know, under the same hours as the other public space in front of, you know, Ben & Jerry's and things is open. um where you you don't want have folks there late into the night to keep noise out of the neighborhoods um but otherwise remaining open to the public and and kind of monitored in that way. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Bernett. >> Some additional time they considerably over the amount of time they were allocated. >> Um they did not go over their time, did they? No, we're just asking them questions, which is the normal planning commission function. Um, Commissioner Bernett and then Commissioner Omay. >> I'll be real quick. Um, thanks Dwight for stealing my topic. [clears throat] So, this is I guess this will be more of like remarks um slash question for staff. Um, one regarding the tree requirement. It looks like, and I know this is super super super early, but like is there a tree requirement that the applicant is required to maintain or I guess um make additions to? I mean, I see them in the re the renderings, but um I just wonder if that's a thing just because like I'm in North Hills probably way too much and I and it's what it's done for the cities is phenomenal, but wanted to obviously I think it's important to it maintains its character and so on and so forth. So, I was wondering if that is something um that the applicant has to adhere to or make recommendations for or add conditions to. And then secondarily, um just a comment, the pedestrian bridge, I agree I agree with my colleague here. think that's something that the I think that's something that the the city needs to um you know make happen if it if it's something that uh is viable because it is it is a um it is a a cardio exercise getting across the street um but it's obviously doable um but I just wanted to I do think that's I agree with you on that but regarding the trees and so on and so forth if you could speak to that. So, I'll look to my colleagues to keep me honest here, but there are tree conservation requirements um for developments. Uh so, a site plan submitted to the city would be required to have a to meet a certain standard. I believe it's 10% um tree uh tree conservation area for the the zoning district that they're asking for. >> Commissioner May, did you have a question? Um, [clears throat] one, uh, it's my personal um, I'm not the hugest fan of when developers or owners come and say we can do it anyway. But if y'all this is this, that, and the other, then we'll do this. Like, it's just reminiscent of a stench that I don't like. It's almost like if my first meeting here were a developer offered to give us affordable housing in a development and then came back and said they weren't going to do that. They were going to put in an affordable housing fund and if we didn't approve it, they just weren't going to build. So, I'm not a fan of developers coming in and kind of acting like we can do it anyway, then just go do it and don't come here and ask us questions and waste our time where other people could ask us questions. Secondly, um, as far as safety, I think that safety is a really good topic that was brought up that hasn't been addressed. Um, they're talking about building more density, density, density, but density to me without housing is just congestion. It's not adding to it is adding to the traffic and things of that nature. Then what does happen if we build a 40story building and there's a safety issue like the shooting that happened at the restaurant in North Hills or like a fire drill or anything that could possibly happen that's nobody plans that except the people trying to do harm. So us not taking into account the safety measures that take they come into play in this not just people exiting buildings but be people being able to get out onto the street into you know safety after something like that. uh traffic is an issue and I think it's going to continue to be a problem in that area, especially if we're talking about density without talking about addressing those things. And then we're taking away parking. So, if we're not going to have a bus hub, which I think North Hills would be perfect for, um a public transportation hub, and now that might be something the developers or owners don't want because of the type of people that some people feel ride public transportation, but if we're talking about creating a connective walkable city, then that means public transit also. That doesn't mean just creating a segregated community of people who can live at North Hills that don't take into consideration long-term resident concerns when it's talking about developing it. And I think that sometimes those are things that we don't take into consideration the increased height and density uh the the hard transitions with the height that do not add to housing. And I don't necessarily think having hard transitions that don't provide more housing is necessary for the city. uh especially in a time where people are losing jobs and don't have pl have money to spend and whatever retail spaces are going to be in be built. Um I think that also finding out that there actually won't really be any expansion that was spoken of in the development on North Hills is important to take a point of because when the presentations were made and made it seem like there was going to be this ex addition and expansion of North Hills and now we're told it's just going to be spot cleaning and the rest is going to be added to other parts of the city. So, a sidewalk will be connected here. Uh, pedestrian street put there in there. But that doesn't I don't think answers the situation that's going to be caused by more people and congestion and transit in North Hills with this increased density. Also, I'm wondering if we don't add extra height, does that mean that we won't have storm water protections or carbon emission protections? that they're saying with the added extra height, we can put plant pots on the on the roof and that'll collect rain water, storm water. Like, so if we don't do the added height, will that mean that they won't provide those spaces that will help with those amenities like storm water? If we don't do the added extra height, does that mean that the enhanced public spaces that they were saying originally that they were going to give, but then explain later that they're actually mostly private places, not enhanced public places. They're just enhanced places that public people can use at the behest of the private owner. Am I wrong or right about that? >> They're privately owned public spaces. That's >> They're private spaces that they allow the public to use. >> Well, I think it would be like any development that has open space on it. It's a privatelyowned development with a public space. >> Okay. To me, that's different when we're saying public spaces, greenways, and all of that that we're saying that we want to add to the city, especially when we're talking about tearing down trees, and then we say we'll add a private space at the private at the owner's behest. That's not public. Am I a definition of public? Yes, it's a space where the public can gather, but it's not a public space. Because if the owner says, "We don't want anybody here at all. We're choosing to not utilize this space as public space," then it's not public space anymore, right? It's private space. So, I think words mean things and using words like enhanced public space when we don't really mean that is a problem. I think using words like density when we're not talking about housing is a problem, especially if we're also talking about congestion transportation. So, maybe I don't have very many questions and my questions are more rhetorical than anything. But I think that if we're not in uh including the long-term residents concerns about this and the increased the the harsh transition of single family home right here and then this unit here which is not the same as what we approved at peace and west. This is directly walking out of your house into a brick wall. So, I think that some of those things need to be put into consideration or if there's space that the own and then there's no housing, would the developer be willing to uh donate to the affordable housing fund if there's not going to if we're going to have density with no housing at all added to it, but height added to it? Like, so those are my thoughts. They might not be questions. Okay. Um Jamie and Michael, would you like to address anything that Commissioner Omay just I I do want to make one clarification. Um Commissioner May, you said with adding density, this is not adding density. Is that right? >> Well, I'm saying to the point of No, I'm sorry to cut you off, Madam Chair, but we've been using the term density and the fact that it's good in this whole conversation that we've been having about this exact one. So that's why I'm saying and even they say density but we're not talking about housing. I just want to make that clarification. >> You are adding some housing units, right? >> We have the ability to add more units than that are on the site today up to 2500. >> Is that the plan? >> That's that's the allowance. And then over time we'll have to decide how those buildings are constructed. Are they a mix of housing and office? Are they a mix all housing and no office or no offices? And so that's also my it's the uncertainty. So yes, you can build it, but also being told that I mean we have the capacity doesn't mean that you're going to do it. Having the ability and actually having it in your plan are two different things. >> Yeah. So that's my >> I can understand the concern that that's how Raleigh's formbbased code is designed is to allow the ability to have those mixtures and that's why you see the different mixtures that the city's program creates because we have these kind of form boxes and then over time decide with each site plan what the actual mix of uses should be and that allows us to plan those spaces carefully and make sure that the buildings can be interesting and add that enhanced public space. Um, I understand the concern with with the way we might have phrased um the the proposal, but the reason we're saying that is that during the 2021 case, what we heard the most from the public was a concern of more than we were allowed to do. Twice we were asking for twice as many units as we were allowed to do today. And that caused an issue with concern about how many more people would be located in this place and how many more um trips would be be generated. Even though the city's already decided that this is one of four places in the city where they want more people to be located, we listen to that feedback and came back and and capped our density, including the ability to to include housing or offices or combination of both at what we could do today as not a a saying we're going to do it anyway. We we want to be able to do this request so we can keep that traffic mitigated, but also provide new housing for the 60 people that are moving to Wake County every day. We recognize there's a housing need and this is where the city has decided that those people should be housed and given jobs and given places to eat and shop. And so that's what we're trying to do with the density. The density is a good thing. The city's decided it's a good thing in this location, but we're trying to add a cap to do our part to make sure it it goes forward in a in a reasonable pattern and doesn't overwhelm things. And that's by that's why we're offering to do more no more than what we could do without those added things, all those conditions that we're offering. I hope that helps. Yeah, thank you. Um, it is 11:53. Um, is does anyone have to leave at noon? Do we have to be out of here by noon? I just want to make sure we can we're going to keep quum and Okay. So, um, Commissioner Neptune, you had a question. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just uh for the good of the conversation here at the commission table. I I think I heard a a comment about uh public private space and how uh we as a community sort of engage or interact with public private space. And I wanted to speak to that very briefly because I've had the privilege of opening and managing Transfer Company food hall where there are very deliberate decisions made about opening as a part of that particular project a 7,000t patio that had a direct connection to the nearby Greenway Trail. And though it is a private property, that was a, you know, uh, an effort made to sort of help facilitate this sort of connection back to the greater community around it. Uh, just as an example of, you know, an investment in that kind of public private space, you know, hosting, uh, pop-up markets and opportunities for the public to gather, you know, without being charged a nickel just to hang out and enjoy themselves and their dogs and their families out on the plaza. Now, of course, we hoped people would come in and shop, you know, at the various eeries. Um, but that's just like one example from from direct experience of like managing the public private space. It certainly starts with the intention I think of the developer or the applicant. Um, one other other really good example in the North Hills area that's more recent is I think Makers uh alley. Uh, this is a part of the North Hills Innovation District where again they're investing in uh bridges to connect to our greenway system. uh they're investing in a sort of open space where the public can gather without necessarily having to shop at any of the nearby uh areas. But I just I just want to acknowledge I think that's something I I do appreciate about the investment in sort of what I would consider to be civic infrastructure. You know, the sort of third places where we can gather, much like our parks, which I I love as I think people know. Um, but I think we need an entire ecosystem of places in which to gather, including truly public spaces like our parks and the public private spaces like the places that we uh gather and enjoy, you know, food, beverage, music, and art. And I think there was a comment earlier from Commissioner Otwell about public art and what that could look like. I will say it has been impressive watching this particular applicant uh facilitate public art on a variety of projects from Smoky Hollow through North Hills. I mean, I'm talking largecale, you know, murals and works of art by local artists. Local artists. And so, I just I know I've I've come to appreciate and respect that effort made to support local artists, to incorporate public art in a fashion that can be enjoyed by all. And then last but not least, I'll wrap it up by saying as far as housing is concerned, which I am deeply concerned about. I mean, I myself, you know, am trying to thrive and survive here in the city as we continue to grow. Something I appreciate about density is that we are absorbing demand. In other words, you know, we talk about creating an opportunity for potentially thousands of new units. I understand that I may not necessarily be able to afford one. I certainly hope so. But what I appreciate is that we're absorbing demand in these major destinations and city centers like North Hills and downtown so that there's less pressure elsewhere across the city. We exist in an ecosystem right across the entirety of the city. And something that I appreciate about these um large, intense, dense projects is that we are supporting our overall investment in housing supply to address the incredible demand and pressure on the city as a whole. And so I just want to acknowledge um that appreciation. Of course, I also would appreciate whenever possible seeing from the applicant um you know efforts to incorporate and include you know affordable units units and etc. But I also still respect and appreciate that at the end of the day the investment the potential investment in thousands of you know new housing units does go toward addressing uh the incredible demand and pressure on this city to provide housing for everybody. So thank you. >> Give me just a minute. Um, Commissioner Makay um we do have one minute left on the opposition. Larry, if you would like to come and address something that you had heard, you had requested to speak. >> Couple things, couple things. I'll make them really quick. You can go higher. You don't have to go over 20 stories. You can still get more open space if you just go to 20 stories and you will still have green area. That's one thing that's a given. The other thing is there is no affordability and if people think that these units are going to be affordable, they don't know Kane reality. Kane really has never provided affordable housing to date. Smoky Hollow was the prime example where the money it wound up going money to the city rather than building what they were supposed to build. Uh, and one final thing, if you allow buildings here to go higher than 20 stories, you will see a proliferation of buildings higher than 20 stories because there's nothing to stop it. You've just invalidated the Midtown area plan, which is supposed to be guidance for growth for the future and that's a basic part of the comprehensive plan and you're ignoring it. So, I I appreciate the extra minute and I'm finished. Thank you. >> Thank you, Larry, Commissioner May and then Commissioner Shelurn. I just want to piggyback on a little bit of what Commissioner Neptune stated and just adding to what the gentleman just stated here about we can go to a distance without going too high and still providing that if we're calling that public space that if the applicant is intentional about creating green space and public space the height will not matter they'll make sure that they do it. It's not going to be a andor situation and also the connection to greenways I don't think we spoke about that here about this project. So some of the examples that Commissioner Neptune was giving does doesn't necessarily apply to this. And also just restating that there is no guarantee for housing though there's a guarantee for density. So this job does not necessarily add or take away from the housing supply. It just adds density and ability an ability to build higher buildings in certain spaces. Commissioner Shelber, >> I really didn't want to speak again, but affordability came up and that's my thing that I've done for the last 20some years. Um, any added housing helps with affordability. I get that's not intuitive, but luxury housing helps with homelessness, displacement, and rent burdens. That's just the fact. And if anyone wants to debate that, they can also debate that the earth is round. That's literally how clear it is. Um, be happy to catch up with someone about that later if they want. Um, and but I had a former boss that said I was the quickest to the bottom line person he'd ever met, which apparently isn't necessarily a compliment. Um, but I I live in this area, like literally in the shadow of this. I walk, I bike, I drive. I took the bus here today. I got my quarter to take my bus back home. So I share the disappointment and frustration of most of what folks are talking about here today on a daily basis. That's not relevant though to the question of can this be a 20 or 40 story building. Very little of what we discuss today is relevant to that question. That's our bottom line issue. Some of it is but some of the things that come up but a lot of it are not. And so we really just need to focus on what is the question before us. Can this be a 40story building? I personally don't have any problems with that at all. >> Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. Commissioner Fox, >> I guess maybe it's a question for the applicant. It was just a comment. I've I've heard people concerned about safety and tall buildings. You know, it's been it's been my experience. Um, projects have to go through a building plan permit review process, which is pretty rigorous. The building code associated with tall buildings is very specific in how it lays out requirements for how people exit a building. Has that been your experience as well? >> That's right. And we've been speaking with months with staff both in uh fire transportation uh about their plans for how to to um have safety plans, fire plans for buildings like this. As you know, downtown has as many buildings that are over uh 20 stories. Um and for places like this with which have been designated this regional mixuse since you know 2009 they've got those plans in place. They've already been planning for um for those types of structures to be be coming in the Midtown plan itself expected at least 20 stories in some areas. Um and so moving if there is zoning were to be approved and a site plan were to be submitted it would not only go through the horizontal layout but all of the structural and fire safety. Um the building code is all about life safety and so all of those things would be addressed um by your very capable staff. >> Thank you. >> Jamie, while you're standing up there, would you care to address the comments we've heard about this proposal not including the bus transfer hub and affordability like the previous one did? >> So the the bus transfer hub on the Midtown area plan is actually at a point north of of the site. it's not designated for an area on the site. And when we began these discussions um with staff talking about what the plans were for transit and transportation this area, those plans are still rather fluid. Um the the bus rapid transit plans are still going through and the city is still evaluating what those routes are. Um and so there was a discussion about how to be able to accommodate that through the code and more ideal places of where that transportation hub could be depending on how those route um those routes are scheduled. Today, there's existing transportation and and transit service and bus service in um Midtown in North Hills, and we would continue to work with staff to accommodate that wherever that location ends up being. Um but it but it's a little premature at this point because they don't know where exactly those those locations would be. Um and the difference between 2021 and now is that there are requirements in the code of of accommodating those transit stops. We've already talked with staff about where those could go. Um but they need the flexibility to be able to determine at the end of the day when those things go in where that should be load located. Um I think you asked me about uh affordability as well. Yes. Yeah. So um in the prior case and this is a significant difference and and not only the cases that you see come before you regularly, but specifically this case compared to 2021. In that case we were asking for almost uh 4,000 I think 600 units. So twice as much uh density as we'd be able to do in terms of housing. Um and being able to ask for that those increased units offset the cost of the affordable units. That's how every affordable unit gets built in the city and financed is that you have to have enough product to pay for those reduced rents elsewhere. When we heard the outcry about the amount of density and the amount of traffic and putting more people and not going beyond what we could do, we made the conscious decision to say we're not going to ask for more entitlement because we know traffic is a concern. And then when we looked back at some of those Midtown area plans, all of those Midtown area plans come into play when you're asking for resoning and asking for additional height and entitlement. And although we're asking for additional height here, we're not asking for additional entitlement. So, the policy that was in place before the Midtown plan that kicked in was asking for additional height. 10% of your additional entitlement that you're getting from those units is expected to be affordable because you're getting the other 90% of the units to pay for those 10%. Well, we don't have any of those additional units now. And so, it's not kicked in by the policy. And I think the policy recognizes that when you don't have those additional units to offset, then at times it's not appropriate. And that's um the decision we made in this case was to listen to those voices about traffic and additional density um and keep u just with what we could build today. >> Thank you. Last thing, we had heard a comment about the $400,000 um donation. Yes. >> To the fire department. Could you explain how you came up with that? >> Yes. Um Larry is correct on that that actually and I appreciate Larry's passion and and we worked together um on on many cases and I um welcome the discussion. Um, we met with Larry on site and explained exactly how that worked, which is over the past couple of months meeting with fire and understanding what their needs were. We had offered in the previous case a tenth of an acre to expand on the backside of what the city already has there, which is about half an acre. Um, just for example, the fire station downtown is only 37 acres. So, we did a layout to show how you could fit a new station there, how it could maneuver around with new equipment. Um but in the interim, the fire master plan was adopted in July of this year. Um which made a determination that the station was at the end of its life. It's too small for rebuild. And so instead of the land that we were willing to to donate, we converted that into a price per acre. And it's actually exceeds what that that price per acre would be from a fair market value standpoint, but we thought that that was an appropriate way to show the same amount of impact or what the needs were, but in a in a financial contribution. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> Commissioner O'Hver. And then I think we need to wrap this up. Um, >> so there's been a lot of discussion. I haven't said anything yet. >> No, not you. I'm going to let you have >> I haven't even said a word. We've been >> I'm just saying >> we've been up and down this D like twice. I was going to say after you speak, we need to make a motion and decide if >> that's what I was going to say. We need to decide if we're going to vote on this or if there are additional conditions we need to have because Commissioner Shelurn really is right. I mean, we're only voting on whether or not we think the height is appropriate because they're not changing the entitlement. So, go and you don't have to rush. You're right. Everybody else has spoken. So, >> it it it's brief and I'm glad you um brought up Commissioner Selurn's comment because I agree with that. But it's not only about height. It's about the fact that they're going above and beyond on public benefit. That's what we're talking about. And so, I do appreciate that comment 100%, but I think there's a nuance to that. I do like to go last as you know because I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made both from the opposition, the applicant and the commissioners. But um I'd like to commend the applicant. I think you look at these conditions typically height equals density. Density or entitlement is a word that the applicant is using that maybe is a little bit of a a better understanding than that. So typically height equals density. This is the entitlement. the density is not increasing the height is. And by doing that, there is an opportunity, and y'all have heard me talk about this a lot about what code requires for open space, that 10% most of the time is unusable. You can meet the city requirement, and there's no public benefit to it. in [clears throat] this development with the ability to and the commitment that the applicant is making through the conditions for the public space. The the public, however you want to define it, the public can access the space um goes well above and beyond what the code requires. Totally understand. Hey, the comment about when developers come in and say, "Oh, I can do it anyways." Unfortunately, the fact is that is the case here. I don't think they're turning the screws on us. It is what it is to Mr. Shelurn's point. So, um, it's a designated growth area, you know. I mean, I I just everything that's been said, I appreciate. I think it's a good application. I think the reasoning makes sense. And if there's no further discussion, I'm ready to make a motion to recommend approval. >> Thank you. Um, do you have any other questions, Commissioner May? >> I have a question. I understand >> I understand that increased density and adding more houses regardless of luxury housing adds to the supply. Therefore, often because it's meeting demand, then will cause affordability, but I also understand that they offered affordability in this location and took it away. And I also understand that they don't have to build as high as we're saying that they can build. So, that's the point that I was making. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I think I'm the only one that hasn't talked so I'll be brief because a lot of what I was going to say has been addressed and I had some questions and either through the public comment period or through the applicant presentation, they were answered. Um, I appreciate all of the comments that we've received from the public. Um, I've read every single email. Um, I appreciate the thoroughess of the applicant's presentation and um, attempting to address concerns we heard with the last case, which is substantially different from this case because they aren't adding any additional entitlement. So, um, as many of you may remember, I I was I had serious concerns about the prior case. Um, with this case, to um, Commissioner O'Hver's point, it seems like we are looking at height and public benefit because I was reading through the the Midtown plan. And it does, unless I misunderstood, it does seem to say if you go above the recommended height, you have to provide substantial public benefit. So in my mind then what I need to decide is is what they're offering substantial public benefit. It may not be the public benefit that I would love to see. I mean I'd have loved to see affordable housing, but they don't have to provide it here because they're not increasing the entitlement. Um, and I think the benefits that they are offering do match what is recommended in the Midtown plan. So it, you know, for me, the question is they're going up, they want 37 stories, their neighborhoods there. Do their benefits outweigh the impact of them going to 40 stories? I spend a lot of time at North Hills and >> [clears throat] >> I mean, it's happening already. I mean, it just it's it's out there. The the the density is there, the people are there, the spaces are there. I do make use of the privately owned public spaces. I mean, I see kids running around all the time. I see pets running around all the time. I I tried not to like this. I I really did. I really did. I really did because I mean I I didn't love the previous case and I read the public's comments and I am sensitive to community concerns. I'm very sensitive to community concerns. It's consistent with the comp plan and it seems to make the appropriate mitigations for the additional height that it's asking for. Traffic is a concern on Six Forks Road. When I go to North Hills, I Uber because I don't want to drive, because I don't want to try to park. But that's a city issue. I don't think it it's not something that can be addressed through this resoning. Um, so I I I'm ready to vote as well. Now, Commissioner Atwell, you had several concerns that you voiced. I know Jamie responded. Are there changes to conditions or additional conditions that you would like to see or are you ready to vote? >> Uh, I think I'd be ready to make a motion to approve with a recommendation that council consider a couple extra conditions. Okay, if that's okay. >> Anybody else? Are there Excuse [clears throat] me. >> Revisions to conditions or additional conditions that you would like the applicant to consider or are we ready to vote? Then I will entertain a motion. All right. With regard to uh Z3425, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated November 12th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment with the additional comments that council consider requiring conditions that would bring the request further into compliance with existing and recommended frontage applications by requiring direct pedestrian access along Rowan Street and Lacader Mill and to required ground floor active uses along Lacader Mill Road. >> I'm writing this down like I'm Shenita, but Shenita, did you get [laughter] you got Oh, okay. We have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Bernett has seconded the motion. Is there any additional discussion before we vote? >> I'm going to um recommend approval. I just want to get on record. I It's very challenging, I think, at this point to require the applicant to put in a condition that there will be public access when the plan hasn't been designed. I totally understand the frontages. I agree with you 100%. I'm going to recommend approval, but I just want on record I'm not really in favor of that condition, but with everything else, I'm I'm comfortable and ready to move forward. >> Any additional discussion? All in favor? All opposed? That's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven to one. Thank you everyone. Thank you to the public. Thank you to the applicant. Um, I was about ready to wrap it up. Sorry. Uh, >> add my comments as to why I'm opposing. >> Yes, you do. >> Well, I don't have any comments. I just don't want to scream into a void. So, I just want to make sure that we're paying on protocol. Thank you. >> Say that again. I'm sorry. >> I said I have no comments because I don't want to just be screaming into a hole, but uh I just want us to keep up with protocol. >> Thank you for reminding me. Um, moving on to report of the chair. I have no report. Um, report of the members. >> No report this time. >> Uh, no report. And I note that there are no issues on the list for the text change committee coming up in a week. And so, as of now, we're going to consider that that meeting will probably not occur. Is that correct? looking concerned. >> Okay. [laughter] Yeah. So, I I think that we're going to consider that meeting canceled for now. So, we'll try to get back at it in January. No personal report. >> Thank you. >> No report. >> No report. Thank you. I was going to have to say I wasn't going to be able to make text change, so thank you for that. Um, do we still have the special cow on Thursday though? >> Do we have the special cow? >> I don't I have that on my calendar. >> No committee the whole in November. >> Okay, great. >> Or December. >> Great. Okay. Well, not great. That's what's not happening. I mean, it's great. Thank you for sharing that information with me. >> No other report. >> I have a suggestion. Um, if we're only going to be speaking on one thing, like if this whole case that we just heard was solely about height, then maybe in the future we don't get presented anything outside of the height. If this case was just speaking about height, if that's all we had to vote on, but we were addressing green space and storm water and that was all in the presentation, then maybe we just have a presentation on what we got to vote on and not have all the flowery stuff. If there's no point in having conversation around it, we had a discussion about the case. There was a whole staff report that we had to review. We looked at whether it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are a number of policies in the plan. We discussed all of that. But at the end of the day, it came down to the height. I think that was clear from the staff report. But I I I'm not sure. We're not going to limit our comments. >> Oh, no. I mean, like presentation, if all we're talking about is height, then maybe we don't present about and have conversations about anything other than the height. >> Well, other things were relevant. So, >> but I thought they weren't cuz then we were said that all we had to do was talk about the hype. >> Um, at the beginning of our meetings, one of the things I asked is that we be courteous to each other. And I think we're sort of tiptoeing on that line right now. So, if you have some concerns about the way the staff report is being presented, we can discuss that offline or you can discuss it with staff. But I think we handled this case just like we handle all of our cases. You may recall at our last meeting, Commissioner Shelurn was talking about how much time we were spending on another case. I think sometimes we just spend time on cases, but we're talking about things that are relevant to the case. >> I guess I just don't want in the future for me to have comments or questions that are not considered because all we're talking about is the hype. >> Did we not address your questions, Commissioner Omay? >> I I asked the applicant, I asked staff when when each of us spoke if they wanted to address what we had said. Did Did I not do that for you? >> No. And I got a chance to address my questions, but they were irrelevant because we were just talking about the height >> and Okay. Thank you for your comments. >> You're welcome. >> Commissioner Neptune. >> Oh, no report. [laughter] >> Commissioner Shelurn. >> No report. >> Thank you. Um report of the assistant director who's uh Hannah is sitting >> filling in today. Yes. So, nothing to add to uh what is in the agenda. I did want to um say something about an ask or an opportunity related to reflecting Raleigh. So the new comprehensive plan um we're gearing up into phase two which is u policy development. Part of that is establishing technical teams um to cover a variety of topics and so um looking for a nomination from the planning commission to be on the land use technical team. >> I would [clears throat] like to nominate Commissioner Shelurn. and you offer >> well I you know I I obsessively check emails because I've got ADD. So I saw the email about this and thought what the hell. So I just volunteered myself. Um and I said I was on the planning commission but that I wasn't recommended by the planning commission. So I just figured figured I've been bugging Bum about when are we going to talk about this thing we're supposed to implement here. Um so I figured if I'm going to do that I would at least put my money where my mouth is and be willing to put in the time. now. So, but I don't know that I my views are are not necessarily in line with everyone's here. So, I'm not going to say that I'm the right one to be the planning commission. I wasn't volunteering myself in that capacity. I did say I was on the planning commission, but I said I'm just volunteering as a citizen, you know, as a planning professor, you know, that kind of thing. >> You've been nominated. Do we need to vote on that or Okay, so she nominated uh she Commissioner Fox nominated Commissioner Shelurn. Are there additional nominations? Okay. So then is there a second for the nomination? >> Commissioner Shelurn and I have our differences, but I trust him to properly represent the planning commission. Second. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. You represent the planning commission on the land use team. >> And that was that. >> Um I just wanted to add one thing. I don't know if everybody remembers that the council had requested that we um reconsider our procedures and bylaws to um come into compliance with their um standard template. So staff is going to be bringing um maybe the next meeting or two a proposed revision to the um bylaws to reflect the template. Um I don't think that they're proposing many significant changes but um sort of opening the door to discussion about changes in committees given how how frequently committees are canled. So, just wanted to highlight that. >> Thank you. Is there anything else? [snorts] >> What about the regular scheduled meeting on the 25th? Is that still on with Thanksgiving right there? >> That meeting is happening. Yes. >> On the 25th. >> Sorry. Repeat that question again. Maybe Tuesday. >> Tuesday the 25th. >> Tuesday the 25th is uh Yep. That meeting is on. >> Um Okay. We might want to make sure we have quorum. [laughter] >> I'll be there. >> Who will be Tuesday the 25th? Everybody. >> One, two, three. >> You won't be there. Commissioner Hab. >> I'll send an email. >> Okay. Yes, please send an email, but it looks like we have Corum and we can check with Commissioner Miller and Cochran. >> Awesome. >> Is that it? Thank you all. We are adjourned. >> [music]