Heat. Heat. I'm [ __ ] nail. Fire Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Oh my good. Woo! Heat! Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. Hey. Wild heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Wild heat. Woo! Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Oh my good. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. regular meeting of the planning commission. Thank you everyone for being here today. Uh at the beginning of each of these meetings, we provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak on an item that is not on the agenda for today. uh by a show of hands is do we have anybody that would wish to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? All right, thank you very much. We will move on to the next order of business. Um but real quick before we get started, could we get a show of hands? I'd like to see who's here for the uh Z4325 Lichford Road case. All right, thank you very much. And who's here for Z526 Newburn assemblage? Okay, thank you very much. Given that we will keep our current order of business, first item on the agenda is the consent agenda. And the only thing we have on the consent agenda is the approval of the minutes. Have commissioners had an opportunity to review the minutes and ask are there any changes that need to be requested? Any updates? If there are no comments, would someone please be willing to give us a motion to approve the minutes? >> I make a motion to approve as written. >> We have a motion in a second. All those in favor? >> Thank you. That looks like it's unanimous. 70. All right. Coming up next, uh we'll begin our old business. First case on the agenda is reszoning 43256309 Lichford Road. Uh we are going to open the public hearing for each item. The staff will make a short presentation and the applicant >> chairman. >> I'm sorry. I have a question about the >> Yes, ma'am. Sure. >> Um I made a comment at the end of the meeting and it's not in the minutes. >> Commissioner, could you please use your mic? >> Huh? >> Could you please use your mic? Sorry about that. I made a comment at the end of the meeting that's not in the minutes and I did want to make that point. >> Absolutely. I believe we'll have to vote to reopen that item. Do we need to revote on the agenda to vote? >> If we could just have a motion to add that comment and a second to amend the minutes, that would be fine. >> So moved. >> I make a motion to add the comment. >> Second. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to add Commissioner May's uh comment. Would you like to >> repeat it? >> Yes, please. >> Yes. uh made a comment that I felt like this uh board and commission could do well with some implicit bias training and that I didn't like how the text change committee chair was picked because I wasn't considered nor was I was there a discussion about us even needing a new text change committee chair. So I just want to make sure those are in the minutes. >> Thank you for your comments. And and just a point of clarification, um our clerk will go back and review the minutes, whatever or I'm sorry, review the video and whatever was stated it publicly will be included. >> Thank you very much. >> All right, moving on to old business resoning Z4325 Lichford Road. Uh we're going to start open the public hearing now. For each item, the staff will make a short presentation and the applicant and those in favors will have 10 minutes to speak and the opposition will have 10 minutes to speak. Um, I'm reading as if we're opening this as a new item from my script and I realize halfway through that this has already been uh presented and public hearing is still open and the public comment has already occurred. So, I'm a amending this script on the fly here. Y'all stick with me. Uh we're going to allow staff a moment to update us on the updates to the case since the last presentation and then we will bring it back to the commission table for discussion. Turn it over to staff now. Thanks. >> Thank you. Uh Hyram Marziano planning and zoning. Um again this is resoning case Z4325. Just quick uh brief refresher on this. It's 6309 Lichford Road. It is a through parcel uh over to Johnsdale Road as well. The request is to reszone 3.79 acres from R4 to R10 CU. Uh your deadline for discussion on this and decision on this is uh May 9th. No changes were submitted since the last um time you heard this. Uh again, just a quick where we are in the city. Um there's Milbrook High School to the west. Uh proposed conditions prohibit boarding houses of use, prohibit the apartment building type. Uh they have to do some historic preservation documentation on the existing structure prior to demolition or salvage. Uh limit the dwelling units to the uh to 54 units and uh requires double silt fencing during development. Sorry that should be say super sealed now. That was amended prior to the last one. My apologies. Um just a quick uh dimensional standards here. nearest bus route isn't that far away, but there's no direct access via sidewalk or any other pedestrian access. It is inconsistent with the low-scale residential designation on the future land use map, which at max would typically indicate an R six zoning type, not an R10. Um, is consistent largely with the comprehensive plan itself, inconsistent with the future land use map. There is no urban form guidance for this area. Uh just quick brief list of typical policies that this is consistent with. Compact development, housing variety, neighborhood scale housing. Um inconsistent policies, future lane use map and zoning consistency. Uh upcoming meeting would be April 28th would be the last chance before the May 9th deadline to make a recommendation to city council. Um, we are recommending that should this be recommended for approval that the area be amended from lowcale residential to moderate scale residential. And that's what I got. Thank you. I'll bring it back to the commission table at this time. The public hearing is still open. So depending on the will of the commission, we could uh elect to ask questions if anybody has any outstanding issues they would like to investigate. >> If I may, I do believe there was some time left um on both uh applicant and uh opposition. >> Oh, my apologies. Um is that in the minutes? >> Do you know how much? >> It wasn't much. There was like two minutes left on the um in favor side. I don't believe the opposition had much more than that either. I thought it was in the minutes, but I might have misread. >> Without opposition, how about we allocate three minutes to each side to hear updates. Three minutes to each side, please. >> My apologies. I meant to go back yesterday and look, but time got away. >> And so, we'd happy to hear from the applicant they would wish to address. Uh good morning uh Chair Otwell and the members of the planning commission. Toby Coleman with Smith Anderson here on behalf of the uh property owner and applicant uh for this reasonzoning. Um the main reason, if you may recall from about a month ago, the main reason we continued this was uh because we had been asked to consider a uh zoning condition that prohibited um vehicular access to Johnsdale Road, which is the local road on the west side of the property. Um, we talked with both the NC DOT and city transportation about a potential zoning condition to uh prohibit uh uh vehicular access to Johnsdale Road and they both discouraged us from uh offering up that restriction. Um the reasoning being that DOT has indicated that on Lichford that the only movement out that they will allow will be a right right out. So, in other words, everybody's going to have to turn right out of out of uh that site uh onto Lichford. There will be no left out. Um and what was pointed out to us in the conversations we had with city transportation in particular um and I'm showing it a little bit on this map is is that Johnsdale uh effectively is a loop that go here. And so basically even if you cut off vehicular direct vehicular access to Johnsdale um what the city expected and I think it makes sense is that people taking a right out on Lichford that want to go left would just immediately turn right onto Johnsdale and go up. And so given that um we were uh we we're told you know that there was a real preference um not to do that and and that it wouldn't necessarily uh mitigate the impact that the neighbors were concerned about. Again this is a you know and and that is not in any way to uh downplay the neighbors uh traffic concerns. You heard about those uh at the last meeting and I'm sure you may hear about them again. Um but a lot of those are are existing that's existing traffic and not traffic necessarily being created by this project. Um the other thing that there's been a big question is why why why R10 and not R six? And the short answer is is that um R10 gives us a little bit more flexibility. So with R six, you know, what we did to to get to the 54 unit cap is we asked staff to run what's known as an envision report that tells you what is the maximum number of units can be built under a particular zoning. Staff told us that under R six, you could get a maximum of 54 units. That's why we have the 54 unit cap. So although we're technically because we we labeled it as R10, we are actually functioning at a R six density. And so in many ways we do actually comply with the comprehensive plan. It the issue is just really a labeling issue. And so it's not necessarily that we're asking you guys to disregard the plan. So that's all available for questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Coleman. And now we have three minutes for those opposed. Uh I would urge you all to choose a representative since time is short. >> You can state your name for the record. Uh Philip Brown, resident of Johnsdale Road. Um we met with Mark Silver a week and a half ago. Uh he also agreed that the DOT has failed in this regards uh to the traffic on our street given that our roads are only 17 ft wide. No curb, no gutter, no sewer, no egress and ingress for residents of anything uh being easily done. We don't believe this represents the comprehensive plan at all. Uh Mr. Silver wrote the plan back in the early 2000s and said this was to remain a low density area and should remain as such. This is not compatible with the surrounding area as part two of our um beliefs. Uh the proposed development is too big. It's too large. We believe if you kept a single family homes on large lots matching the neighborhood, matching the other uh uh residents on our street, you will then lessen the impact of the transport and transportation on our street. Milberg High School is putting 1900 plus cars up and down our street three times a day, morning, noon, and night. Uh not including um sports events that occur all evening, all hours of the night all the way up to 10 10 or 11:30. Uh the infrastructure just can't handle it. No curb, no sewer, no gutters. The environmental impact, not having the ability to get rid of waste water. We're all on septics, wells. U we've had several residents from adjoining um uh apartments to the south of Johnsdale uh leeching their flood waters onto our land, causing sewers and septics to overflow into the streets, into people's yards, into their backyard pools, um causing environmental impacts and negative uh impacts. Uh safety. We lost a young girl on our street. I mentioned that last time. She was hit and killed by a pedestrian on our street. Uh the month of February. We had I believe a student was hit by a car. Uh where are you going to walk? You put city um services on Wednesdays, trash pickup. You then create uh landmines that you have to navigate. We have several family members that have small children walking their families uh at all times of the day having to dodge cars. Um we have videos of uh near impacts. Um it's just one thing after another. We don't believe that 54 dwelling units in a R4 neighborhood should stand. It there the infrastructure is not there. The comprehensive plan is not there. Um it should remain low residential. Put 12 homes on there. As I stated before, you give everybody half an acre, everybody's happy. Then we would be happy to welcome them into our neighborhood. You would not need access to Lichford Road. You would only need access to Johnale. We can handle 12 family uh units with a couple cars per dwelling unit. And it would match the aesthetic of the neighborhood. It would blend into the transition from um large family homes on large lots and uh the comprehensive plan would then still be in perpetuity forever. our covenant state one family home per dwelling unit per uh uh per lot and it would match the aesthetic of our neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone for your comments. At this time we'll bring it back to the commission table for questions. Uh Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you Mr. Hotwell. Uh, first I'd like to begin by thanking all of the residents uh who are I I believe here with us this morning for taking time out of your day to be with us for the hearing. I also want to express my appreciation for all of the emails. I believe every commissioner here has received them. I know I've read them and I think they were very well uh and concisely articulated here. I mean I think at the end of the day as a commissioner what it sounds like we're hearing. I mean, there are significant quality of life concerns on behalf of this community, uh, especially with regard to how we're handling transportation and traffic. I mean, in the context of being immediately adjacent to this high school. And I will say this is something I'm very sensitive to. I mean, for many years, I've lived next door to an elementary school, to a middle school, or at least a few blocks away. And even just being a few blocks away, I have seen how traffic can build up in that context. I've I've managed a food hall near an elementary school and a middle school, and I've seen how traffic can build up, creating very unsafe conditions for everyone involved. So, with that said, I would like to start with a question for our colleagues from Raleigh Transportation, who I see in the audience. I won't call you out by name because I tell you what, I have nothing but respect and appreciation for what you do. As some folks may recall, I've served for many years on the city of Raleigh Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission. So, I appreciate all of our efforts as a city to invest in the improvement of the safety and the quality of our streets. I think the first question that comes to mind for me is could Raleigh Transportation speak to the impact of these potential 54 units >> within the context of this resoning? >> Yes. So, good morning. Carter Robertson with City Transportation. So, with every uh resoning request, what we do is um Hyram earlier showed the table showing the units you could build before and after the resoning request. What we do is we take those numbers uh we run those through what we call a trip generation model and that estimates uh how many trips we could expect under the proposed zoning and the increase in zoning. So in this scenario, the current zoning would would we estimate would generate about 238 trips a day going up to the new request would generate about 396 a day. And so when you break that down, it's a difference of about 158 um daily trips and around 20 and either of the PM peak hours. And just to clarify, that's the difference between current zoning and proposed zoning, the max you could build. So that's not necessarily what's there on the ground today versus uh what might be built. Does that >> I I think that answered the question. I just want to make sure I heard that >> clearly. Could you just articulate one more time? How many more trips will we see? >> 150 more per day um with an increase in the zoning entitlements. >> Okay. Well, uh, with that, I I do want to acknowledge I appreciate, um, first of all, thank you to our colleagues from Raleigh Transportation. Appreciate you speaking to that increase in trips. Um, I do want to also acknowledge I appreciate the work of the applicant in I think making a good faith effort to meet the suggested future land use for this area. In other words, if I'm not mistaken, I think the future land use calls for a lowcale sort of uh density, right? Uh and I believe, if I'm not mistaken, um that maxes out with an R six reszoning. Uh but I think as the applicant stated, you know, they pursued R10 to have a bit more flexibility, I think, in how they can configure their actual development. Uh but then putting conditions on it to effectively mimic an R six uh resoning. So, uh, with that, I just I just want to again express my appreciation for, um, that good faith effort. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Are there any more questions for the applicant or uh, Commissioner Walter? >> I actually have some more questions for transportation. Sorry, you're getting your steps in here. >> Okay. Yeah. I just want to echo Commissioner Neptune's uh concern about traffic safety. I feel like that's um a real sticking point for me here. This been a kind of hard hard case for me because I can uh you know see benefits on both sides. Um, in your traffic study, did you increase understanding of what that those additional trips how they were affecting uh traffic on Johnale Road and specifically uh cut through to Johnale Place >> or, you know, or is or some of these on Lichford? You know, I think I' I'd love a little bit more understanding of how you see it impacting traffic for these these neighbors specifically um especially with their concerns about safety that I think are really valid. >> Right. So, at at this stage of the process that uh analysis I was referring to earlier, that's just a simple calculation of trips to and from the site. Mhm. >> So, we haven't done a thorough analysis about where we think these trips are going to go cuz at this stage, even though we're increasing the zoning entitlement, it could be the 54 town homes, it could still be a single family home. Um, we're just looking at the entitlements right now. So, usually that would come more at the site plan stage. Um we have talked about circulation a little bit u with this discussion around access. So um the to just kind of provide a little more context the reason there were some um concerns about full access from NC do was the alignment of this Malay drive for the apartment complex right AC across the road. So that offset creates some safety and operational issues. So um so given that looking at the rideins, ride outs, um we think that most of this traffic um if there was access on the Johnale um we're evaluating both of these intersections, Johnale intersections for signals right now. Um, so if the southern one were to be signalized, we think that any access on the John would be coming out to get to that signal to go north or turn out right easier. Um, and then if we had one on the north and not the south, vice versa. >> So you could imagine a right in right out on on Lichford and then most people going to Johnale Road to get out if they wanted to turn left. >> Yes. C can I ask a follow-up question? >> Yeah. >> Is it the opinion of our colleagues with city transportation that the streetscape in and around this resoning that we're discussing right now would be adequate in meeting the city's standards for what we would, you know, want to see in this context. if assuming the site was resoned and we move forward with it. >> Well, I guess definitionally it isn't to our UDO standards. Um there's no curb and gutter. The pavement width is um narrower than what we would require for a new street. So, >> can I tell you I really appreciate that honest response on behalf of our colleagues with city staff because I'll tell you I've I've been I've been losing sleep over this to be very honest with you and I I had to I had to pull out the whole comprehensive plan which is like a 600 plus page document and there was a specific section here on you know evaluating these resonings in the context of the future land use map and it specifically calls out will the community facilities and streets be available at city standards? to serve the use of this proposed property. And right now, I don't think I'm prepared to to move forward on this item. I think I I see that we have a I guess a deadline for action for May 9th, 2026. And so, I just know I I think for myself, I would feel comfortable deferring on this. I I would like to go visit the site, but right now, based on what I'm hearing, if the city doesn't feel as if it meets adequate standards. >> Yeah. I mean, I I mean, I I think if there was a motion to deny, I could see myself supporting that because right now I I really it's very difficult for me given the diminishment of the quality of life for these residents. You know, again, I I respect the good faith effort that the applicant made in in pursuing this resoning, but I just unfortunately I don't think that the city infrastructure supports it. >> Yeah. Yeah. I fully agree. >> Uh thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Commissioner Bernard. >> Uh yes. To to piggy back off of what Commissioner Neptune said when you're talking about uh disrupting the quality of life. That's one thing. But there are a couple of points u regarding to the applicant. So I drove Johnsdale Road last week on the way home. Beautiful street, very serene, but obviously you're going to have the noise and the you know the um just the the general, you know, just noise like from the traffic from Lichford Road. And I think it is I don't want to say disingenuous, but I mean when you have a proposed development of that scale dropped on top because it would literally be dropped on top of that neighborhood, I think that makes it a open and shut case for me also that a child lost their life. I mean we're talking about precedent. We are in an economy where, you know, um, we're in a market-based economy. When I saw the apartments going in across the street, I was like, "Wow, that's a that's a lot of apartments across the street, like I think two or 300 units." So, I thought that was a lot. Then I see this home that sits on this huge lot that sits way sits far back. And I think to uh the gentleman from the community, 12 homes, I think it's just much more respectful of the community. I think it's just much more it's a better grade down. I mean, you have, let's just call it 200 units across the street. And now on the other side, 50 units on top of a residential relatively quiet moderate street. I think I think that's I think that's good. I think it's more respectful for their quality of life and for safety. And if you have young children, there may be more young children in the future. Also, um I don't think that a lot of people will I've seen people drive on Lichford Road. I don't think a lot of the people that are trying to go left will go right and drive down John's. Um, not to tell on myself, but I think that what most people will do, uh, is turn right, hit the median, and go left and create more risky situations. You got school buses, you got kids, you've got cars that are parked over there on the so on and so forth. There's just like there's a myriad of reasons why I just don't think that uh the zoning makes sense for that area. I think R six is more appropriate. I think it's more I think it's better for quality of life and I think it's a better transition from across the street to to to that side of the street where the residents are. And so for me um I definitely would not be able to support it. >> Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to make a motion. >> Yes. So uh at this time I'm going to go ahead and Commissioner Mai, did you have any questions for staff or comments? >> I had a question. >> Okay. Well, please go ahead. So, I know that one of the things that we were talking about was traffic and that is a major concern. Um, but one of the other things that I also agree with my commissioners on is uh the neighbor came up and spoke so eloquently. He made great points that I can't that it can't be, you know, disputed. It not being to UDO standards is a problem. My main issue was the septic tank situation and other people's waste flowing into their neighbors yards that could then eventually cause some sort of biohazard. So I wanted to call that out too because with storm water that would maybe increase that issue. >> Thank you. At this time I'd like to go ahead and close the public hearing. >> I'm sorry. >> Someone that has a comment. Do you have a response? >> I think she has >> Was there Was there a question? uh Commissioner Makaya that you had for storm water. >> Has storm water done any testing in this area to see with what the neighbors are talking about with the runoff from the septic tanks or other people's waste? >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, uh storm water has not been involved in this area. Um septic tanks are actually a county issue, but I can speak to that. Um there is sewer available and would be provided for this site >> and a drainage map was >> um as far as the environmental health stuff, we did reach out to the county um they gave us back that they've not done extensive testing in this area either. Um but the way they approached it was they would come out when there is an issue um if notified. But they have not been as according to who I talked to at the county there there's not been reason for them to come out and they don't have a lot of data on these older septics and wells in this area because the subdivision was so much older than some of their investigations and and regulatory authority. So there don't have they don't have a lot of data um regarding that. Um but as Sally did point out there are connections available public utilities we reached out to them as well to make sure that should anyone actually have a failing system there are options for them. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I think I'm going to again try to close the public hearing. Uh commissioners, I appreciate your comments and uh I think that these are really well thought out and they're having an effect on me, too. Um we've been asked by staff and council to try to separate our questions from our comments and discussions. So, going forward, we're going to try to keep the public hearing open when the public speaks and we hear from the applicant. and then reserve time for the commission to ask questions. And sometimes that editorial line is fuzzy, I understand, but like to use that time to gain information from the public or from the applicant or from staff and then we'll close the public hearing and then we'll have our discussions and make our make our cases for or against. And so I'd appreciate if y'all would help me work on that. But with the public hearing closed, is there any further discussion? Uh any comments? Commissioner O'Hver? >> Yeah. Um, I plan to vote against this. I just want to make a couple of comments. I think it's unfortunate. I think the transportation issues outweigh the the public interest of additional housing. I completely disagree that single family homes on large lots are the right solution here. So, I'm not voting against it because of that. Um, you can do 32 units by right. 32 units are going to be built on this site. The 150 additional trips a day. That's a that's a program. That's 7 to 10 trips per unit, which is a lot. So, there's going to be traffic here. There's going to be density. I'm voting against it. I hope when the site eventually gets developed, we can deal with some of the transportation issues. But single family homes on large lots is not the answer. >> Uh, Commissioner Walters. >> Uh, yeah. I just want to state my agreement with Commissioner Neptune and Commissioner O'Hver and and the other commissioners that have spoken so far about the traffic issues and um I plan to um vote uh not in favor of this. Uh but I want to address the city and ask them to really consider the traffic issues here because it this is not an issue of density. Um, I I think that this is an issue, a traffic safety issue, and um I hope they can hear us. Um, we think this is important. >> Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. >> I'm prepared to make a motion. >> Please go ahead. I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated April 14th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend denial of the zoning amendment zoning case number Z4325, address 630 6309 Lford Road. After considering the policies, maps, and other materials included as a part of the comprehensive plan, the planning commission determines the proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the comp plan and other adopted plans, but inconsistent with the future land use map, and the request should be denied. Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Commissioner Omay second. >> All in favor by a show of hands. Against. Thank you. That's 8 to one. And I'll say this is a very rare occasion for me. Y'all changed my mind at the table here. Um I was coming in prepared to vote for this. So appreciate your comments. Commissioner Shelurn, would you like to state your reason for opposition? >> I don't think it makes sense to talk about traffic safety only in the context of increasing density. That is our pattern which I don't and I don't think the solution to traffic safety is saying no to density. >> Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. All right. Well, thank you everybody for attending and thank you for your time. >> Before you all go, can I can I make a comment really quickly? Not about this case necessarily, but just to the audience. >> Um, >> please go ahead. >> Please, if that okay with the chair, >> please briefly, please. A lot of the issues that we're seeing going on in the city don't just impact where you all live. And sitting in on some of these other cases and putting your voice and strength behind similar cases where people are trying to preserve their livelihood, preserve the environment around they where they stay, preserve the sovereignty of the home that they've worked hard to get. Your support and solidarity in those cases is necessary also. So please, as much as you know, some of those cases come behind your cases so they can't help but hear some of your cases, your voice also helps to add to the context of the we're we're planning the city and as planning the city, we're planning community. So I would just ask that you all consider to come to more planning commission meetings or get with other people who have cases that maybe they're for or against it. Not saying develop a coalition of opposition, but I am saying getting with people who have similar concerns to you in their parts of the city. Like consider that also because we're all in this together. >> That's good. Thank you, Commissioner Omai. >> Okay, moving on to our next order of business. We will move into new business. And first up on the docket is Z526, the Newburn Avenue assemblage. And we will hear a presentation from Hyram Marzano. Marzano. I I mispronounced it last time. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> It is. >> I need to spell my phonetics out. Practice. >> You can call me Marzy if it makes it easier. >> Oh, yeah. >> Marzy. >> That'll make it easier. >> All right. >> Okay. Feel like maybe he's had this conversation before. >> All right. Good. Good morning, uh, chair and planning commission. Uh, Matthew Clim, Raleigh, Planning and Development. Just want to give some project history for the case before handing it over to Hyram, the case planner. So, this is, um, a reasonzoning request along Newburn Avenue. Uh, and it's regarding our, uh, investments in, uh, bus rapid transit and the equitable development around transit plan and station area planning for Newburn Avenue. So, um, as we know, in 2016, Wake County voters passed a halfsent sales tax to fund the Wake County transit plan, uh, and the regional transit model, uh, for the area shifted towards, uh, bus rapid transit. Um, that was in 2016. In 2021, the city council adopted the equitable development around transit plan, which laid out uh, the vision for transit oriented development in Raleigh. Uh some of the key principles of transit oriented development is to increase housing capacity uh within walking distance of high frequency high-capacity bus transit uh which will be delivered by the bus rapid transit line. Uh increasing a broader mix of uses and transit station areas so that folks uh living in the area can walk and have convenient access to a broad range of neighborhood serving uses. Uh following the adoption of the equitable development around transit plan, uh uh Newburn station area planning began uh in May 2024, the city council adopted uh ordinance to reszone 81 properties uh along Newurn Avenue uh as one of five actions they took in in the reszoning um of Newburn Avenue. In May 2024, uh the state legislature uh reverted that zoning decision. Um and they did that because some of the reasoning and the application of the transit overlay district would rem remove uses. Um so removing um uh autooriented uses and drive-throughs uh made them no longer permitted under the transit overlay district. In the state size, uh this is considered a downzoning. And so they changed um uh reverted the resoning uh and stated that if the city wanted to apply zoning that took away uses uh and conducted a downzoning that uh the city would have to seek property owner signatures uh to to apply that type of zoning. So, uh, the city council directed staff to reach out to all of the property owners, the 81 properties that were zoned by the city council and then unzoned by the act of the state and say of those who would like to uh continue and and ask for that type of zoning again and 18 property owners uh signed the petition with the city and we're bringing forward that um to you now. Um, and so just a bit of background on how we got here and I will pass it over uh to Hyum. >> Thank you. >> And Matthew took most of my comments. So, um, just to briefly discuss, there's multiple addresses here. There were 81 properties that were um, reverted. Um, 18 of those did, uh, sign the applications that were sent out. And uh we also opened up the engagement portal to accept people to ask be requested to join the resoning through the engagement portal. And I believe you also received maybe one or two emails about someone's property wanting to also join in. Uh just want to point out those from the engagement portal and any emails were not in the analysis of our report. We based it solely on our application, but we are prepared to talk about those other properties so that if you wish wish to include them in any motions, we can. Uh that being said, um uh there are some historic overlay properties uh in this list. RHDC will be reviewing this case uh next month at their May 13th meeting. Uh your deadline for action will be June 13th. Uh the map's kind of convoluted, so I've got some more zoomed in maps to go over when we get to the slides. I don't want you to think this is the only way we're looking at zoning. Um this is not that map. So zoning in this area is predominantly mixed use along the corridor. um with a lot of residential areas surrounding the corridor itself. Um a full list of all the 18 parcels is right here. I will point out uh this last one on the bottom, 1225 East Edon Street. Uh the property owner let us know last week they decided to remove their application. We have not removed it from your packets because it was Friday uh when we found out. Uh but they have requested to withdraw their application as part of that. was really only 17 parcels that would be included. So 1225 East Edon that property owner has requested be removed. I will point out that it would only be the UL frontage that was changing. So there's no benefit, no gain or in either way. It was just a cleanup matter of making sure all the there's no redundancies and that everything was on on the surface uh manageable. Um, so looking at the individual areas, I've starred the properties that are highlighted for you. Um, 100 North Person Street, uh, currently is neighborhood mixeduse 3 with urban limited frontage in a historic overlaid uh, general district. Um, proposed would be going to, uh, downtown mixeduse, three stories, urban limited frontage with Hodg. So it's just changing neighborhood mixed use to downtown mixed use. Um similarly neighboring properties 307 and 311 East Edenton Street are office mixeduse uh uh three with you uh Urban Limited Haj uh DX as well. Um one uh 1302 battery drive. How's that one here? Oh, it's down there. No, sorry. I might have the wrong type in there. Let me make sure. I apologize. There's a lot lot of moving parts. Um, yeah, it's in the wrong spot. My apologies. This should be uh 311 East Edington Street. Um, right there, that last corner that's R10 with hot G to DX is this one right here. Um, uh, R10 with hot G request to go to DX3 with hot G. So, um, basically taking that block to downtown mixed use, keeping it consistent with the, uh, zoning in the general area, um, and development patterns for that, uh, Newburn corridor. Uh, similarly, 15 South Bloodworth Street, um, office mixeduse with neighborhood, uh, commercial over u, conservation overlay district and hygiene to DX3 um, keeping the overlays um, in the request and that's in the southern part of that map. Um here we have 827 Cotton Place uh on that northeastern part here. Uh they're in an office uh mixed juice district right now. Office uh OX3 requesting to down zone to R10. Uh this is one of the few that's actually reducing height requirements and um voluntarily downzoning to a non-mixeduse district. uh 203 South Tarborough Street um is currently R4 and they would like to apply the transportation overlay district. Uh here we have that 1225 East Edon. It's this one right here. Uh that's the one the person requested to remove. It is split zoned parcel. Um but the neighbor 1241 Newburn Avenue uh commercial mixeduse 3 with urban limited with uh to uh removing that urban limited frontage uh stain CX3. Um this is where the battery drive one would be. I apologize again for my typo. Uh R10 to R10 with transportation overlay district. This is the battery drive one. The one beside is the one that's addressed off BART but as you can clearly see they have access on battery drive there as well. um R10 to R10 with TOD as well. So just applying the transportation overlay district. um two properties on Ber Street uh 1118 and 1122 both for RX3 uh residential mixed use three stories uh with TOD to add a story to RX4 with TOD and the 1210 Newurn Avenue neighborhood mixed use three with urban limit frontage removing that urban limit frontage and adding a fourth story retaining the tod um just a few more uh 1313 Newburn Avenue neighborhood mixeduse with urban limited frontage um in 1401 as well. Neighborhood misuse three stories urban limited frontage. Both of these would be removing the urban limited frontage and requesting the fourth story. 1601 Newburn Avenue uh neighborhood mixeduse with urban limited frontage uh to neighborhood mixeduse for without the frontage. Um 1702 Pool Road R10 with TOD requesting to go to residential mixuse three stories with TOD. um slight increase in height with that one. Um I'm getting into the additional requests from property owners, but I wanted to this is a lot, so I didn't know if you want me to stop and take any kind of questions on any of those maps or not. >> Yes, >> I'd wait till the end. >> Um yeah, let's go ahead and finish the presentation. Please >> push through. So the additional requests we received in the portal were these five. Uh 1246 Newburn Avenue, 1250 Newurn Avenue, 1501 Newburn Avenue, 2345 Newurn Avenue, and 101 North Bloodworth Street. Um with the exception of Bworth Street, all these were actually in the original proposal that got uh reverted. They just didn't send in applications in time to meet the deadline to be part of the applied application. Um so here is 1246 and 1250 Newurn Avenue. Same property owner requesting the um reszoning from residential 3 with uh transportation overlay district to add a story to uh residential mixed use 4. Uh it is in a neighborhood mixeduse area. 1501 Newburn Avenue here is uh commercial mixeduse three with urban living frontage. um they would like to go to uh commercial mixed use without the urban living frontage and four stories. Um the email y'all may have received with 1405 and 1507 Newburn Avenue or these two properties neighboring to it. Um we didn't uh we didn't add a slide for them but just make you aware uh these two parcels are NX3 um with UL the suggestion in the application we sent out would have maintained the NX3 and dropped the UL. So that would just be removing urban limit frontage and they were included in the original request as well. And then uh 2345 Newurn Avenue. This is residential mixeduse uh three stories with green plus frontage inside of NCOD. Uh the request is to remove the NCOD and keep all the base zoning characteristics. And finally 101 North Bloodworth Street um R10 with HUD and NCOD. They would like to go to office mixuse three detached frontage uh with [ __ ] and NCOD. I believe this was a separate reasonzoning case that came before y'all last year. Um, again, this one was not included in the original request. Uh, as the area is the Newburn corridor here, we have a higher walk score than average, higher bike score, higher transit score, transportation costs are low, and good access to jobs. Uh, a lot of transportation routes available in the corridor. Uh this request adds housing supply, permits a variety of housing. Uh does not include subsidized units. Uh this is a general request also not a conditional request. Uh hits a lot of our B boxes. Some significant statistics. Area residents are more likely to be racial minority as compared to the city average. Area residents are more likely to be lower income as compared to the city average. And rent in this area has increased approximately 30% since 2019. uh consistent with the various flume categories uh for these properties and uh the reason we're here is this is very consistent with the urban form map. This is where we're looking for growth and to densify things around those um bus rapid transit corridors. The circles you see are the station area plans. So there's a station plan for the bus rapid transit in one two three four portions of this section. uh consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with future land use map and consistent with the urban form map. various uh conditions I mean u policies that it's uh consistent with uh inconsistent policies we've cited uh zoning infrastructure impacts due largely to fire response time standards uh some density transitions and reinforcing that urban p uh urban pattern upcoming meetings here and your deadline for action is June Thank you, Hyram. >> At this time, we would normally provide 10 minutes for uh those in favor. Um I'm sorry, opposition goes first, right? >> In favor goes first. >> In favor goes first. I'm lost in my script. I just need to wing it. Um It's a Tuesday. >> Yeah. But I I imagine that since uh applicant is the city and the city just presented, staff just presented, we will provide 10 minutes if there are additional >> there may be property owners. >> Right. So we will continue to provide 10 minutes for those in favor. If there's anybody in favor that would wish to speak, please approach the podium. Oh, you don't need it. >> Hi, good morning. Molly Stewart. I am with Morning Star Law Group and I am partly here in that capacity. Uh I am also here as a resident of historic Oakwood. Um my home in the center, the heart of Oakwood. uh according to the historic Sanborn maps um was at at one time all at one time uh occupied by a number of uses including an awning maker, a grosser and a barber. Um those uses are gone today. Um but they but they were there in place at one time. I'm not just a resident of historic Oakwood. I'm also a city planner. I have a degree a master's degree in city and regional planning. And as part of that process, I learned quite a bit about the history of city planning. And one of the key takeaways from that is that before zoning came in in the 20s and 30s and in Raleigh, specifically in 1923, uh the idea of a residential monoculture did not exist. Uh people referred to uh you know, houses as you see in Oakwood today as as dwellings and that's how you see them on a map. But uh until zoning came along, no one thought of those as some some sort of exclusive haven um for only residential use. Folks ran all kinds of buildings out of their or all kinds of businesses out of their homes rather. Um very commonly uh dress makers, music teachers, contractors, artisans, even dry goods sellers and grocerers. Um these were these were all quite common. Um and and again they would just have simply been referred to as dwellings. they wouldn't have, you know, referred to, uh, a mixeduse district, uh, for example. Uh, no one thought of it that way. There was nothing to contrast it with before that time. The historic period for, uh, for Oakwood in particular is 1880 to, I believe it's 1940. Um, so only there at the end did zoning first come in and then there was a transition, um, over time uh, from, you know, what was an existing sort of casual mixeduse to, uh, more of a residential monoculture. Although um as you can see actually on your screen uh there is quite a bit of mixeduse zoning in the area as well. Um one thing I would like to highlight with the handful of parcels that are in historic Oakwood that are on this list today. Um none of them have a request to change the number of stories that are permitted. Um none of them have a request to remove the historic overlay. That means anything done on those on those sites would require a certificate of appropriateness and therefore would be appropriate. Um so what we're what I have heard or seen in the comments is that there is some opposition to any change whatsoever in the zoning um that might loosen the uses um as somehow uh an misguided incentive uh to to tear down buildings. I would say that incentive is extremely limited given the extremely limited change um in the zoning proposed um today. So I just simply uh put that in front of you today and thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Stewart. Is there anyone else that would wish to speak in favor of the resoning application? Okay, we'll reserve the remaining time in case we need to come back. And now we'll turn it over for those that are opposed to the resoning. Uh if you would please approach the podium. Uh please keep in mind that you have some other folks that would wish to speak. So try to keep your comments in the two to three minute range. >> Good morning. Um, Matthew Brown, uh, thank you for your service and thank you for letting me speak. Um, I also live in historic Oakwood and I have studied the history extensively. Molly is correct. There were a lot of businesses in Oakwood in the historic period, but the people always lived in the houses and ran the businesses out of their homes, including the house that was on the property where she lives. Um, you should have received a letter from the Society of the Preservation of Historic Oakwood uh opposing the upzoning of the five properties in Oakwood. My objection is strongest uh as to the home at 325 East Eden Street um which is R10 right now and has been affordable apartments for at least 40 years. We always hear that that Raleigh is short of affordable housing. And yet all over downtown, we have an excess of empty storefronts and empty offices. And when the city moves into this tower next door, they'll vacate another 100 or so offices around downtown. So why would we want to uh reszone homes into more uh vacant storefronts and offices? That is why the city council turned down the upzoning of the adjacent house at 101 North Bworth Street despite the recommendation of this council except for Commissioner Omakay. Uh and now I see that they're adding that property back into this. I thought you had to wait two years if you're rezoning was denied. They're trying again and the city council denied it by 6 to1. The excuse is the bus rapid transit, but people who live in affordable housing ride the bus more often than people who are expected to go to whatever business will come to these houses. There is a um house around the corner at 7 Northeast Street that was affordable housing for decades and it was upzoned a few years ago to OX and is now a hair salon. But nobody rides the bus to get to that. They turned the entire backyard into a parking lot and we lost our neighbors. Um, Oakwood is very valuable to the city as a neighborhood with people living in the houses. We host over 6,000 people every Halloween from all over the city. Uh last December we had 4,000 visitors to our candlelight tour of homes and just this past weekend we had a thousand visitors for the Oakwood Garden Tour. These are all dependent on people living in these houses. The people who have offices don't participate in in this sort of thing. So we are an asset to the city. So, I hope you will please uh support us and uh deny these uh resonings in Oakwood and other folks will speak to other parts of this uh upzoning. Thank you very much. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Brown. >> Good morning. I'm Octavia Rainey and I'm here to speak on four things about the Newan Avenue corridor. Number one, 1313 Newan Avenue is Richard B. Parson Library. I have asked the county why are they in this upzoning. The county has told me specifically they don't have no plans, no plans to upzone Richard B. Harrison Library. No plans. They don't have no money to even make it a threestory library. So my question is why is that in the city's request? And they agreed to it. But when I asked them, they said absolutely not. Take it out of the request or have a meeting and tell Wake County to come because there is some confusion here with what what the city is saying and what what Wake County is telling me. The second thing I'm asking that you take the properties on Boyer Street out of this resoning. It changes the character of the neighborhood 100%. Why would you want to change the character of the neighborhood? It's ridiculous. That's not even fair to the people who bought their homes that live there. They came to Grace AM Zion Church to object to that reszoning. The third thing I want to talk about Newurn Avenue. I think it's racist of y'all. I really do to have it that way. For example, on the corner of Newurn Avenue and Raleigh Boulevard, they got a sign up there hanging Boyer Street and Wall Drop Street redevelopment. What's up with that? That's not That's not on New Avenue. That's in College Park. And College Park name is not even on it. What are y'all trying to tell us? What is up with that? That is wrong. When I was vice chair of the New Avenue corridor, I fought for College Park 100%. I even objected when it was brought up on the New Avenue corridor alliance. Now, that alliance doesn't exist, but I objected to it because I said when you start going into College Park, bringing it over into New Avenue, it's just racist. as racist as it can be. And I want to say this to y'all. Y'all got to stop being racist. Y'all got to look at the facts and not prejudge the facts. And you can't be biased in your decision making at all at this table. But I object to that and I am sorry that my neighbors can come out but they came to Grace Amazon church and they voiced their concern of disapproval and I disapprove. >> Thank you Miss Rainey. Any other individuals wish to speak in opposition? Please please state your name. >> Yes. Esther Hall. I'm president of um Preservation Raleigh and I' just like to point out that we preservation Raleigh does agree with the Society for the Prevention of his uh preservation of historic Oakwood in um asking that in stating that we object to resoning of the five properties in historic Oakwood. Um we think that retaining their zoning would still allow renovation for the properties to support the city's focus on missing middle housing. Um, our second concern is an objection to resoning of 203 South Tarborough Road. Um, and I'm sorry, this is fairly detailed, so forgive me for reading this because I want to get it just right and I'll try to be quick. Um, in 2020, in part of a as part of a study list survey, the state found that the property um 203 South Tarbor was within an area determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Lincoln Terrace Historic District. And we feel that had that been this property been included in the study um it would have been identified as a historic asset it it wasn't considered that way but had it been it could have been reasonably assumed to be impacted be by BRT funding. So for that reason we think it would be an unwise decision um to reszone this property. Just want to give you a little heads up that it could have been included in the study um review if it had been historic asset, but it wasn't included in that study. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else that would wish to speak in opposition to the application? If we could stop the timer, please. We'll reserve some of that time in case uh we need to come back for questions. Uh, at this time I'll bring it back to the table for questions. If we could try to keep this as a question and factf finding session, we'll open it up for discussion as soon as we're done. Uh, does anybody have any questions for staff? Commissioner Omai and then Commissioner Sanchez. >> Commissioner Sanchez, please go ahead. >> Okay. Um, this is my first one with multiple um, lots in one application. Is this a all or nothing thing? Um, >> yeah, I I was going to save this for later, but I'll go ahead with it now. This is this is a lot and each case is individual and we can handle this in a many different ways depending on the will of the commission. We can uh vote it all up or down as a single package or we could split it out however we wish and move parts of it on, spend more time discussing groups or individual cases as we so desire. >> Okay. Thank you. Because I think that put me in the right mindset going forward. Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Mai. >> Um that was one of my questions. My other question is um a couple things were brought up. A couple properties uh 2345 Newburn Avenue uh 325 Edon Street, 1313 Newburn Avenue. That gives me I have questions about that because it is a library and I have also spoken to people before I even knew this was on the docket and they did say that they're not going to do much with it as far as so I am wondering why that's there. uh the 203 South Tarbor and my main question is the the North Bloodworth Street. So I know that that was one that like they said city council voted down. Um and is it supposed to be two years before it could be brought back? >> That used to be in the UDO. That is no longer allowed under state law. So waiting periods are prohibited now. So we we cannot uh wait the two years anymore. >> Okay. I would just like while I wait for my comments. Those were my questions. Can those pro can those be taken out of this proposal? Why is the library in it? Um I know that some people signed agreements that they want to do this and they're the property owners. Um I have some comments at the end that I'm trying to fight to not bring up now and just ask my questions, but I'm wondering if those specific projects, I mean, uh properties could be removed. And I also want to know in an area where we're very familiar that it is low income, things of that nature, why is there no affordability in all of these projects that they're bringing before us? >> Okay. Thank you very much. Any specific question for staff that you would like? >> I guess this would go to the would this go to the staff or would this go to >> I think it depends on who you want to ask. >> Everybody can ask. Let let me try to address um first of all like like the library 203 Tarborough the property owners did sign um or their representative did sign um the applications and return them to us. Whether they have plans for the property or not um I can't speak to uh but they did agree to the reasonzoning request. So that's why the library is on there. That's why 203 Tarborough is on there. the the North Bloodworth one, they applied through the portal, not through us, like through an application we sent out. Um, so they had made that request outside of what we had uh did through engagement. Um, but as far as like the library, those all those applications were signed. Um, so they had the intention to be part of the city initiated request. Um, as far as an affordability component, these are resonings only. No determinable projects. Um, the TOD allows for an affordability component that's already, you know, the overlay, the transportation overlay district. So, it's an encouragement for affordability. And by increasing the density entitlement along that corridor, we're trying to entice that kind of sort of development. So, we're not proposing developments of these properties. We're proposing to reszone them to add the entitlement and incentivize that type of development in this area that would be highly walkable access to transit and make sense to have a more densified uh core unit. So it we're not proposing a project. We're proposing to u amend the zoning to entice projects if that if if that answered your question. >> That answers my question. >> Commissioner Sanchez, please go ahead. Um, how were these uh properties chosen for the city to did they reach out to them and be like, "Hey, we want to reszone like how was that?" >> Um, they were part of the original request that the city u made several years ago on this corridor. These 81 properties that we reached out to last year again were the ones that um Matthew talked about had been reverted back to their original zoning through that state law. had a um it went backwards in time about 6 months and this this segment of the resoning fell into that 6 months. So we had to do an outreach to get uh property owner consent. U but they were all these were chosen because they are on that Newurn corridor originally. >> Um so within the station area plan and densifying that corridor they were part of that and these were the property owners who decided to continue that trend after we did the reachout. Gotcha. >> Thank you. Mr. Walters, a point of kind of perspective and clarification that I think is important and I want to get your confirmation on. Um, what what you're trying to do here with this kind of batch resoning is different than a lot of the resonings that come to us that are from applicants that have a plan to build something specific or within a specific category. This is really uh a kind of um effort to employ a more kind of regional city planning uh thrust. Is that correct? Yes. That just allows people kind of like you would in a flum or uh through a comp plan process. Is that right? >> This is an attempt to target an area for plant for development potential in the future that that makes sense around that corridor. I don't want to use the term speculative because we don't have anything in speculation, >> but that that would be like akin to like, you know, a customuilt home versus a home someone builds to sell. We're trying to make uh this area in a in a planned, for lack of better terminologies. It's a planned area for densification and development u for these people to go out like the property owners or um future property owners to develop into this form that we're looking at with the increased height the TOD overlay that can increase height based on affordability units that are applied in the area. So there's there's potential for greater development options in these areas that hit some of those target city goals um without having a planned project. I don't want to say that all resonings that come before you do have plans. Sometimes people are just trying to reszone their property without any actual concrete plans, but this would be similar to what you're describing. Yes. Uh we don't have projects stated. We are trying to incentivize those projects. Thank you. Long way of saying yes. Yeah. >> Any further questions at this time? Uh, Commissioner Mai, then Commissioner Bernett. I >> have one more. Do we happen to know the demographic of the applicants? >> I do not. Um, the the few that I've spoken with, I believe, range from Middle Eastern through um uh county government. So, Okay. Is there any way to find that out? >> Um, I'm not sure if I could pinpoint demographics of individual property owners. >> I I don't know if that's something I have the capability or relevancy to do. >> No, we don't want to. We don't want I don't think we have that data, but also I would be hesitant to call people out based on race. >> Yeah, I I don't >> And like I said, I don't even know of a database I would even pinpoint that from. >> Okay. So there's like no place on the application because a lot of times Yeah. There's no place. >> We don't collect demographic data on applications. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Bernett, >> my question was uh the properties and um and I assume you've gone through all of them uh since it's so it is a lot of data. Are any of the properties city owned or are they all private owners? >> Uh all of these properties are not city-owned. Um there are some like the uh the county owns a property but the rest of them are individual property owners. uh some of them are businesses, LLC's, things like that. And >> thank you. And for my clarification, you stated that the collection of these of these parcels was in a previous list and that these the applicants these were sent in by the property owners. Is that what I'm >> Yeah. They were signed by the the the signing authority for the property. Like I said, some of them are LLC's. So they would have been assigned by their representative. But yes, the property owners, they they received uh prefilled out applications with a letter explaining the details of what was going on and requested to resend applications if they wish to participate. >> Do the do the applicants when these when they were sent in this zoning that is being proposed, was that proposed by them or by the staff? >> Uh the city proposed what was originally approved. >> Right. So the request that's in front of you today >> is exactly what was in front of the planning commission and city council in 2022. >> Okay. >> And all of those proposed districts are an implementation of the future land use map and urban form map as uh amended by the newborn station area planning plan that was completed also in 2020. >> So they were they were signed under the information act of 2022. >> Got it. Thank you. All of these properties have been zoned this these districts before >> and were unzoned by a state regulation. >> So this is >> all >> please uh keep comments uh from the audience to >> so >> the podium. >> Yeah. So what's in the what's in the city petition was was previously all those districts were previously applied by city council in 2022. And so the question in front of you today is do you want would would you support reapplying what city council did in 2022 with the exception of this new request from the case that was recently denied. That's not currently part of the city initiated request. It's just part of the public comment associated with that request. >> Commissioner Oakai. >> Yeah. Uh just so I have a point of clarity because from the audience it seems like they have a dispute to the the the question of the statement of all of these properties were in the original ones. So I would like to know which ones were not. >> Um on your screen the the difference here is we're speaking to the application about the ones that were previously in. Um these there were additional requests from the property owners through the engagement portal after the application was submitted for the city review. The 101 North Bloodworth Street is, as you can see on this part of the previous request column is the only one that was not part of the original request. >> Can I ask another question just really quick? I'm sorry. I just >> No, this these these we got to get our questions answered. Please go ahead. >> I saw you all say that it was passed and then by state law it was rescended. Why did they rescend it in the state law? what city council had passed originally. >> Take it. So, I just want to make one thing clear. The state law was not targeting the city of Raleigh. There was a downzoning statute that was passed that addressed zoning regulations throughout the state of North Carolina. Um, when staff went back to review what recent ordinances may be may have been impacted by that new state law, this was identified as one of those that was impacted. Um, so I just want to make it clear like the general assembly was not saying city of Raleigh, you did something wrong with adopting this resoning ordinance. Um, just be only city of Raleigh. This was a a statewide thing. Um, so what you're allowed to do to not be in violation of that state law is if the individual property owners come in and they consent to the resoning request. Um, so that's what you're seeing in front of you today. these owners have come forward and said we would like that reszoning applied to our property and we're consenting to it so that we're not we're not um running a foul of that state statute >> and that's just affecting like 20some properties if we add the additional not all 81. >> That's correct. Yeah. Uh under the state law now the owners would have to consent uh to be part of the resoning process. So the ones that you see in front of you today are the ones that have consented. not the full 81 with the exception of that 101 North >> 1225 East Eden Street. That's the one who withdrew last week. >> Commissioner Cochran. >> Um, regarding the option to break these apart or to vote as one, how many votes can we have today? Are we only allowed one vote per session regarding a case or could we have a series? >> We can do it however we wish. >> Okay. To that point, yes. Um, you can chop this up however you would like today. Um, just note that the UDO does say it's one bite at the apple with respect to this is a general use case, but that one bite of the apple applies to changing zoning boundaries. So, if you want to separate out some to discuss again next meeting and maybe vote some forward, you can do that, but you're only going to be able to do that once according to the UDO. >> So, we can only divide it up once. If it took us a few sessions to make through all those groups of voting on it, that would be okay, >> right? Like there's three groups and we vote on one today and one next time. Yes. >> Yes. Just to Yeah, you would just be able to divide them up one time. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner O'H. >> Um, thank you. Generally, I mean, I'm in favor of this. They're homeowners who are Yeah, I have a question. >> I have a question. >> Oh, I'm getting to the question. >> Yeah, you're good. >> Sorry. I know, right? >> Still open. >> Questions coming. I'll try to be brief. >> Uh, but as far as the process goes, it is I I mean, so I can't read your reflecting Raleigh um sticker. Uh, Binham, when is the next? >> 2050. >> 2050. When When are we looking at that comp plan? I mean, is that We're in the process of that now. >> That's right. We're about halfway through. >> Okay. So I remember when we did this and it was a lot. I feel like we took this to Cal and we had many meetings in Cal about this like weeks. And so here we are four years later. And again, generally I feel like we voted for it then. I'm comfortable with it because the homeowners have agreed on their on their own will to to apply back for it. But I just don't remember in the 5 years I've sat on the commission other than when we zoned this entire corridor and how much time it took that we're looking at all these different properties. And it just seems like a lot to me to be able to absorb right now reading through the staff report, hearing comments, and being able to vote for all of these at one time. So I guess my question is, is there an opportunity to take this to Cal? I'm getting ready to roll off. So, sorry for anybody who's going to have to go through this in cow, but it just seems to me like this is a lot. So, I'd like to understand how it came forward with 18 properties and how we're really supposed to absorb all these identifying these are it was already zoned. The property owners are coming back, but we're that was four or five years ago. We're relooking at the comp plan and it's not as uniform as what we did in Cal. Now, it's 18 separate pieces. So, there's a question in there somewhere. If you would like to refer, if the commission would like to refer us to Cal for discussion, that certainly is an option that is open to you. That's a decision for the commission to make >> if we can avoid it. I would prefer to avoid going to the cow just because it only meets monthly and it would significantly slow us down. But if that's what we need, that is definitely a tool available for us. Commissioner Walters, you have your hand up. Oh, Commissioner Bernett, sorry. look alike. >> I think I think for clarity we need to u address what cow is because you got a lot of people that are like what is that and I'm one of them. Thank you. >> All right. So >> yeah the committee of the whole is we are all members of the committee of the whole and it meets on special cases or for things that need extra discussion once a month. We haven't had one in a while. >> Commissioner Mai, >> is there an opportunity for us to have special meetings? >> Uh yes indeed there is. They're exceedingly difficult to schedule. >> Fair enough. >> Yeah, >> I I agree with uh Commissioner O'Hver that uh this is a lot to digest in one meeting and there are some properties I do have concerns about that I wouldn't want to lump all into the the the the vote today. Plus, I would want to kind of understand the for myself to make a informed decision the a little more of the history around this. So, I'm wondering how that could shake out if we can break this into whatever and the ones that we really have questions about do take it to Cal for one meeting for the harder ones and chop up the other ones for the next couple meetings. >> Okay. Um, how comfortable would the commissioners be with identifying, treating this like a consent agenda? Look at the list and we can each call out properties we would like to pull out individually. Whatever's left we can vote on today and move it on and the others can be handled as individual cases depending like unless we have like 12 individual ones that get pulled out. Is there could we perhaps just go down the line and say what properties you might like to consider individually if and if we're not prepared to that time this time to make that uh declaration or decision I would suggest that we defer to the next meeting and keep this open. Uh Commissioner Sanchez and then Commissioner >> I just had a quick comment. Um speaking of the cow um I know that we have one the 24th of this month which is before our next meeting on the 28th. So technically we would have time to to look at these right before our next meeting here right or no >> that I think that would work with our schedule. It would we would have to confirm that we would be able to meet quorum. Did we make an announcement about this month's cow at the last meeting? >> We would very much like to have an April committee of the whole meeting. >> I think we already had one scheduled. >> We had worked with members to confirm a quorum. As I understand it, there were only six folks available. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So we have a very tight quorum for the April committee of the whole meeting. >> So the committee of the whole meetings are not as long either. So if if possible, I would like to keep this out of the cow, but I I had think it would probably come on our May agenda if we moved it to the committee of the whole. >> Um unless there's further questions for staff at this time or the public, I'd like to go ahead and uh close the public hearing for now. We'll just keep it at the table for discussion and comments for now. >> Any further comments? Let's if we if we could, Chairwell, um keep the public hearing open just because you're bringing it back in May. Okay. >> And there may be additional information presented that you you want the ability to ask questions. >> I appreciate the advice. So, keep the public hearing open at this time, but we'll keep the discussion at the table if we could. Commissioner O'Hver. >> Yeah. Sorry if I threw a wrench in there with mentioning cow. I I just want to clarify. I'm not as concerned about the specific property owners. These are property owners that are coming forward saying we want to be part of the reasonzoning. My only concern and maybe it's a minor one is we're I feel like initially when we spent a lot of time at at this we were looking at comprehensively the entire corridor with dozens of properties. Now just looking at this map I feel like what we're trying to do is just kind of come back and plop those in. And so my only concern is just kind of understanding what the impacts of this is comprehensively to what we're trying to achieve within the corridor. I I'm not as interested in going down the line saying I want to pull this property out. I want to pull that property out. So I just wanted to clarify that. >> Commissioner Makai. >> Okay. So this is uh close and personal to me. Um for those that don't know, I'm the former chair of the transit authority. I served for eight years. I was the chair for the last six. Um, I was on the transit authority when the bus rapid transit system started coming past our desk. The 2020, so I just want to make a couple points. The 2016 vote that was on the ballot actually had a law passed the following year saying that you cannot have ambiguously languaged measures on the ballot because the 2016 ballot just said, "Who wants enhanced public transportation?" and nobody's going to vote against that. But what we found with the BRT, a we can't find anybody to build it. So, we're developing around it. My main concern with the BRT has always been the policies that come with it and how that's going to impact the Newburn Avenue corridor and how our number one ridership currently still resides there because people who are lowincome, people who are looking for housing affordability live close to public transportation and not necessarily transients that move into Raleigh. Um, we saw a lot of negative policy change like where developers could sue whole communities to break the covenant of their homes because they wanted to build something that wasn't in the covenant of the home. And that's something we saw a couple years ago. We have seen a lot of push out of Newurn Avenue. One of the concerns that I had originally was the fact that yes, there's a lot of car- centric businesses, but they're owned by people who live in the area. the car wash, the gas stations, the oil change places, and the in the face of that changing to coffee shops and yoga bars and nail salons will change the demographic, the historic demographic of the Newburn Avenue corridor. Also, I am on the uh the DMV committee uh project working group to reimagine what the DMV site is going to be and we want transit there. We want housing and mixed use there. But we were just told in a market study that mixeduse in residential is in unfeasible on Newburn Avenue. So I'm curious about how how we were told that in the in the DMV project working group, but then here we're looking to reszone things that are fall right into the space of where the consultant said is unfeasible on Newurn Avenue. So those two things don't seem to sit well with me. Either one is true or the other is true. Um, I know that we can't force anybody to put affordability on a corridor. My concern is things radiate out. And I know words like gentrification are dirty words that people don't want to hear, but it's a fact. And we know that it doesn't stay in on one street, it will rad out radiate out to the other streets, which is why you see a large shift in who lives up Newburn Avenue. So, I think that while we make these decisions, some of them, if if the property owner said that they want to do it, some of them I'm concerned about the North Bloodworth one because city council said no and now it feels like they're trying to sneak it back in. It's this this particular thing will require a lot of thought, but I hope that we're thinking past. I know we got to focus on the comprehensive plan and the future land use map, but they may not be positively impacting the people that live in this area if that's all we're looking at. So, I do think that this requires more conversation past just zoning and what the true implications or the true outcomes in the next 10, 20 years in this corridor might be because of this. >> Thank you, Commissioner Walters. As I'm considering this, I'm trying to keep the a good perspective on on what's in front of us. Um, and as far as I understand it, um, you know, the the city has a planning department full of really smart, well-meaning professionals that have, uh, you know, committed their profession and a lot of their time and effort to understanding how to create great cities, livable cities. And um as I understand the original intent of the the zoning change here, uh it is a kind of effort to create a good livable corridor that is equitable and and you know meets the things that were in our comp plan and are probably going to be in our future comp plan. Um, I I feel like we're kind of in this weed in the weeds moment here where um the city planning department and and you know the public represented by the city uh made an effort to create a great space uh and an equitable space in this area and got gummed up you know in the process. And now we have in front of us um you know uh almost better than uh just what they did originally which was applying to folks whether they liked it or not. We have people saying yes we want we wanted to be a part of that. And so, um, I just think, uh, it's important to have the perspective there that this is the city trying to implement, u something, a a planning and policy change that is important to make a good city equitable for everyone. Um, and that we're this is not a normal resoning uh, series of resonings that it's different than what is uh, brought to us in many ways. And I want I want to have that perspective. And and I would generally say that um having property owners that are saying they want to be a part of something that we already approved feels good to me. Um and I'm nervous about diving way down in the weeds uh with the power that we have. >> Thank you, Commissioner Walters. Commissioner Sanchez. Um, as you guys know, but you guys in the public may not know, I also serve on the Raleigh Historic District Commission. And, um, speaking for myself, I um, if we had to vote today on like an all or nothing, I would vote no, especially for the seven properties that are in the historic overlay district um, of Oakwood. Um, I also just want to say, um, I wasn't here when they voted to approve that in the past. Like, I'm new, so these are all new situations, um, to me. And I personally don't feel comfortable like blind blindly approving the resoning with no like intention or plan on how these individual properties plan to move forward. And I feel like if they would like to um you know come to get reszoned, I would feel comfortable if they came on an individual basis to get approved with a plan or you know something to show for what they want to do. Um and uh yep that's that's it. Seems like the conversation is slowing down a little bit. Uh, one more comment. Commissioner Cochran. >> Thank you. Um, so I do want to um make note that I'm not asking to be recused, but I do live close by these properties. Um, close enough that I got the notice for the first public hearing or one of the public hearings back in November, which I attended. It was a big benefit to hear a bigger conversation around this and really have time to listen to all the questions being asked to fully understand the scope here. And I do support this and I would vote yes today if we only had one vote. But um I also recognize that there are specific areas that even if we say yes to all of them, we just want to know we're saying yes to the right thing. And so I would support breaking out a few of these as well. So, could we get a feeling from the commission if you were able to remove your problem properties from the list, would be willing to move this on today or do you need more time to consider what you have issues with? >> I would personally like more time to consider. >> All right. Um, >> it looks like you're trying to We're sort of at an impass here trying to figure out what we're going to do, so I'll give you my opinion. >> Um, I'm comfortable doing what the will of the commission is. I I do have some concerns. Um, I appreciate Commissioner Cochran's comments and my fellow commissioner here, I think, put it well. So, I'm comfortable going either way. I I don't want to gum it up to use his terms, Commissioner Walters. Um, so I'm comfortable going either way. If if majority of the folks here are ready to move this forward, I I can get behind it. Understanding there's some concerns. If if the will of the commission is to pull them out, I'll I'll I'll vote that way as well. >> And as I mentioned before, you you do have the ability to divide these up as as your chair has indicated. So, I mean, one option could be I know there's more discussion maybe around the historic district properties and that Bworth property. um if you wanted to possibly have those discussed more fully at cow. Um and if the others it that would be a possible just hearing comments today that could be a possibility. So just for clarity, we could potentially I guess make a motion to isolate the I guess historic district properties for further discussion at Cal and then I suppose we would you know approve or deny that motion and then we could have a separate motion to approve or deny the sort of larger reasoning uh for the remaining properties. Okay. Well, I would just acknowledge that I'm I would feel comfortable moving forward in that fashion. >> Commissioner Cochran, it looked like you had a comment ready. >> So, even if we remove the historic properties, can we still remove a few more today? >> As long as we do it today. >> Okay. >> We can split it up however we want. >> That's the clarity. >> Or one time we get one shot. Maybe not today. >> Right. you also have time if you would like to >> reflect on the material further and come back at the next meeting. If uh my my general feeling from listening to your comments is that you need a little bit more time with the staff report to digest. Um and so if you if you wanted to come back at the next meeting >> you know just defer to continue your discussion to the next meeting that is an option that's available to you. >> Mr. really pressured and panicked and I'm just like deep breath. It's okay. >> Yeah. >> So, >> is is it possible we can defer this to the next meeting but just dig a little deeper since we have a cow scheduled already? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. >> Second. >> I'm sorry. Are you asking that this appear on the cow agenda? Is that on the committee? The whole agenda? Yeah. Is that your >> I'm sorry I misunderstood. I misunderstood it. >> Or no, just wait until the next meeting. >> I thought you meant come to the next regular meeting. >> More time to digest. Okay, fair. >> Yeah. So I don't do we need a motion for that or can I just defer? Yeah, without just defer without objection we will defer this case and keep it open until the next meeting. >> And thank you. And if I can make one request of Hyum. Um can we make sure I didn't have the list of the additional properties that were being requested to join the resoning. I just want to make sure the commissioners had that in their packet. >> It's just in the presentation. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. I just want to make sure everyone was clear on the ones coming in. It was a that was a good healthy spirited conversation. I enjoyed that. >> Yes. Thank you everybody for your uh your input and your passion and but at this time I'm going to call a fivem minute break real quick. Give us all a second to breathe if y'all would. So >> okay. >> Let's be back here at 10:45. Please. >> When are you rolling up? >> Thank you. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. WOO! BAM! Feel free. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Wild heat. Woo! Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. I know. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. OH MY GOD. FIRE. All right, >> bringing to order the April 14th meeting of the planning commission. Uh, continuing with new business down the agenda. Next up is TCZ226, a text change to zoning conditions at Creedor Road and Glennwood Avenue. and we will hear a presentation from staff and we'll turn that over now. Thank you. >> Uh good morning commissioners. Mitro Shesh Broadderon presenting on TCZ 226. This is a text change to zoning conditions at 4601 Creedmore Road located at the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Creedmore Road. Um amending conditions um just for just under five acres. The site is currently zoned commercial mixed used up to three stories with the parking limited frontage and conditions. Your deadline for action is June 13th. Zoning in the area is commercial and residential. Here's a look at the site and the surrounding uh uses currently. Um immediately abuing the western boundary of the site is the Brook Haven subdivision and NCOD. Um consisting of single family detached homes in an R4 district. Um moving moving further north um Creedmore and the northeast of the site are um a variety of low and moderate density uh residential developments featuring single family detached homes, town homes, and some apartment smaller apartment buildings. Immediately east of the site across Creedmore um are mixed or mixeduse districts featuring the Crabtree Marriott as well as a variety of medical offices and other uh commercial uses. And then immediately south of the site across Glenwood is the Crabtree Mall. And then also mapped here is the Crabtree Creek creek trail as well. Here's another look at the site a little bit more zoomed in. As you can see on the site today are two existing structures um both having between the two for commercial tenants. Um I think most notably the Container Store, two men's clothing stores and then also a shoe store on the out parcel further towards Creedmore or Glennwood A. And then I'll note the uh Brook Haven subdivision again immediately abudding the site um because there are some conditions that relate to buffering uh the property from those uh adjacent parcels. Here are a few looks at the site and its frontages. Um the first shows kind the intersection of Glenwood AB and Creedomor as if you're leaving the mall. Again, you can see the four um existing commercial tenants on the site today and the between the two structures. And then both of the images uh with the like the label two on them show the site itself and the existing structures. Um and then back to the first image um you can get a look at the existing pedestrian facilities along these portions of Glenwood A and Creedmore Road as well as the pedestrian crossings that provide access between uh the mall and then other surrounding uses. Um there are a number of lengthy conditions that exist on the site today and that are also being proposed. Um this is like a highle summary. The application or the staff report has the detailed like blackline version with additional context. Um but to walk through what's being changed here. Um the first condition on the site uh at in existing uh as existing outlines specific retail uses that can be permitted on the site and they're in reference to what exists in the like former UDIO or the old code. Um so the first condition in the proposed request is referencing the current commercial mixeduse zoning district and uh only prohibiting certain commercial uses and as well as all residential and that's maintained from the existing zoning as well. Um the second condition is maintaining the cap of 45,000 square feet for any development on the site. Again, that's an the existing and that's being maintained to the proposed. Um and then conditions D through F that are subset of condition one in the existing um speak to driveway access and um from Glenwood and Creedmore and how they where they should be located on the site. Those have been removed um in response to staff comments um and because they're NC DOT uh maintained roads. Um condition three um no major changes here. Building height will still be capped at 35 ft um with a exception of up to 42 feet measured uh with the grade. Um what's removed here is calculations for how that could be measured. Um but measurements are reflected in the UDO today. Uh condition four, no changes, still the same requirements for tree plantings and parking areas. Um condition five, no major changes here. Still the um provisions for limiting uh lighting impacts to nearby residential uses. Again, referencing specifically the three parcels above the site um in the Brook Haven subdivision. Um what's been updated here are the deed book references in Wake County pins. And that's pretty consistent throughout some of these revisions. So no no real changes to the buffering, just updates to the pins that the conditions are referencing. And then condition six um changes here just to the loading and service location and hours of operation. No major changes um just removing um the require or hours of operation for when uh pickup and delivery services can happen on the site. Um but other major parts of the condition have remained the same. All right. Um condition seven is providing a transitional landscape protective yard along the western boundary of the site. Again, in reference to the three residential parcels that immediately above the site, um this is being maintained. Um at its slimmest, it's a 40 foot buffer and then at its max it can go up to a 98 foot buffer. Um that exists on the site today and that's being maintained. Only difference here is just updating the Wake County pins and deed book references um to reflect what exists today for those parcels. Um, no changes to eight and nine in relation to buffering mechanical equipment on the site and then also limiting retail facilities to one occupied level in a mezzanine space. Um, condition 10, some updates to hours of operation for when the public can access the buildings. The former conditions made a distinction between retail and non- retail hours of operation. Um, specifically, retail was not or sorry, non-retail was not permitted to be open on Sundays. Um, now the blanket hours of operation are 5:00 a.m. to midnight Monday through Sunday. And then no changes to requirements for sign placement and visibility from residential uses. Um, and then no major changes to also the limitations on outdoor sound amplification. And then final two conditions. Um, condition 13 was updated to remove references to the um, exterior of the building matching uh, the nearby Crabtree Valley Mall. However, there are still pretty extensive requirements for what the exterior of the building can be u comprised of. And then condition 14 was updated for clarity um and future enforcability, but would still remain that the nearby western boundary parcels could still request um the inclusion of a chain link chain link fence in that uh protective yard prior to certificate of occupancy. This would be related to any new development on the site um which would be maintained by the petitioners. Right. Looking at entitlement here. Um the headline is no major changes to the zoning district. Also no major changes to entitlement. Residential was not permitted in the existing zoning conditions and it that's being maintained. So no changes there. The bill two requirements are staying the same because they are maintaining the parking limited frontage. And that's the same for commercial entitlement. um existing conditions have a 45,000 square foot cap on development and that's being maintained as well. Um in terms of transportation energy analysis, there's no reported walk score for the site, but as I noted prior, there are existing pedestrian facilities in this area along Glenwood and Creedomor. And then there are also some planned road widening and pedestrian projects that would probably or most likely improve connection uh to the site. Um overall the site has a higher transit score and is more bikable. Uh res residents in this area are less transportation burdened and they also have a better access better uh access to jobs. The site is immediately served by two goaly routes, route 6 and route 36L um within immediate walking distance of the site. I'll also note that um across the street or AC across Glenwood um at Crabtree Mall there are variety of Go Raleigh uh routes that serve this location. Um in terms of uh housing analysis, there's no change to the housing supply. Um residential is still will not be permitted under in the proposed conditions. Uh in terms of demographics for the residents that live in this area, there are uh less likely to be people of color and lower income. Um and there is a higher percentage uh of individuals um 65 years and older. and then rent in this area has risen slightly higher than the citywide average. Overall, the request is consistent with the future land use map designation of community mixed use for the site in the area. Um, a variety of urban form guidance here. The site is in a frequent transit area, a city growth center and it fronts a urban thoroughfare as well. Um these recommend uh frontage guidance ranging from uh urban to hybrid. Uh maintaining the parking limited frontage is consistent with this urban form guidance. Uh the request is also consistent with the comprehensive plan. Overall, a variety of consistent policies here that speak to future land use map consistency, reducing uh vehicle miles traveled by encouraging mixeduse development as well as um policies that support providing density and buffering between residential and commercial uh development um and concentrating regional retail in certain parts of the city rather than sprawling throughout the city. Um inconsistent policies identified here are LU2.6 and CS4.4 4 that relates specifically to fire service response time standards. And then LU 10.5 um speaks specifically to um not supporting uh commercial uses or higher intensity commercial uses next to areas of low-scale residential on the future land use map. However, I'll note entitlement is not changing with this request. Also, there are um pretty intense buffering requirements between uh the commercial activity on the site and any nearby residential that are being maintained. Um, no outstanding issues. Your deadline for action is June 13th. I'm happy to answer any questions. The applicant is also here. >> Thank you, Miss Shesh Paradoon. Um, for the record, the public hearing opened when the staff presentation began. Um, so now I'd like to provide time for those in favor of the application. Please come forward. You'll have 10 minutes to speak. Please state your name for the record. >> Sure. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Colin McGrath. I'm an attorney with Pointer Spruel here in Raleigh, and I'm here on behalf of SDC Glenwood Place, which is the the owner of 4601 um Creedmore Road. Um as Metra has done throughout this process, she has made this part really easy with her thorough coverage of of the request, uh staff's view of consistency. Um I want to respect everyone's time, not duplicate any of that. I I do want to give you a little bit of color on what's driving uh the request and the timing of the request. Walk through a couple of the categories of changes to the conditions that we've made. Um and as we did at the neighborhood meeting, be very clear about what we are not proposing. Um so a lot of you will probably remember this is the Circuit City site um right there across from the mall. Um the conditions we're looking at today that exist on the ground were um adopted in 2011. The substance of those really goes back to a 1996 set of conditions um that allowed the buildout of this parcel. Um we know that a lot has changed in the area uh since 1996. A lot has changed about uh the way people shop since 1996 and and we have an entirely new zoning ordinance. Um but but really the first two of those um are are what is driving the request. Uh a as originally conditioned uh this parcel essentially functions as an out parcel of Crabtree Valley Mall. Uh the retail uses you see in the existing conditions are are limited to the kind of retail that you would find in a shopping mall. Uh the hours generally track a shopping mall. um with the buildout of the area, you know, we have more hotels than we did in 96. We have more office than we had in 96. And particularly up the hill from the mall, we have a lot more residential. Um SDC Glenwood is really looking towards the future and trying to make sure that this site um continues to attract top tenants in a way that serves the broader community and not just as an out parcel of the mall. Uh so if you look at the existing conditions and what's allowed, there are in our mind a couple of pretty glaring omissions. Uh things like health clubs, gyms, um grocery stores are not permitted on the site. Things that would kind of amenitize the whole area rather than accessorize the mall are are prohibited. Um so so that use change is the primary driver here. Now, with some of those other uses, um you know, a grocery store that's open, you know, 8 to 8, for example, isn't a very useful grocery store. So, the hours of operation, um we've proposed to to open those up a little bit to accommodate some of those uses that we believe the site is is um attractive to the broader community uh to to put there. Now, despite all that, I I do want to be clear. There are no plans to redevelop the physical site. Uh the tenants that are there are still there. Um I think we're still years away from the next available non-renewal option. Um so this is really looking to be proactive with the zoning conditions for when the time comes uh be in a position to attract that that top tenant. Um those were the initial conditions that we proposed that we talked to the neighbors about. um and and are kind of the first category of those conditions. Again, as Mitra noted, you know, these are all uses that that CX would allow um consistency with a comp plan, future land use map. This is where um all of that future land use guidance suggests those type of uses could and should be. Um but as often happens when you get into conditions that are 30 years old, um there was a lot of other stuff that just needed to be cleaned up while we were in there. So working with staff um we we well I say we mostly staff helped identify things where the adoption of the UDO has caught up to practice in the preudo world and conditions that required for example cross access are now just duplicative of what the code requires. Um and so we've removed those conditions. We're not removing the requirement. It's just now that those requirements live somewhere else. Um there is a similar approach. Um there are conditions if you look at the black line and the agenda materials. There are conditions regarding access to the site. Um now that the site is built and and we've seen you know adjacent properties developed. Uh one of the things we heard from transportation staff is you know we're not going to create a conflict potential conflict with DOT. Um you know access to the site is DOT controlled. That is a busy intersection. you know, you in that type of place, you kind of get your driveway where DOT tells you you can get your driveway. Um, so so there's some conditions were removed or modified for that reason. There are some other relatively minor clarifying uh changes. I I think at one point in time there was a recombination of the parcels to the west. So um that explains a little bit of difference in in the reference to joining parcel numbers. Um, Metitra mentioned the the buffer um the comprehensive buffer. The existing conditions actually use a pretty cool phrase. They call it a super buffer. Um, you know, when when we have approached this, we have tried to be surgical with these co um condition changes. We want to cover the bare minimum of what we need and leave everything else intact. um ad a joining Brook Haven uh frankly is a tremendous opportunity from this for this site. Um but but we know you know things like conditions and uh sound uh noise level requirements all of those things were sort of carefully negotiated and and basically defined the relationship between this site and that low density neighborhood. We are keeping all of that intact. the super buffer will remain. Um prohibitions on intense uses on the site will remain. Um you know, one of those is is residential uses. We that is a condition that has existed on the site for for 30 years. Um you know, again, it's one that we view as kind of defining the relationship with the neighbors. And so we we've proposed to to keep uh that condition as well as some others. Um, where I think that leaves us is is with something that um ensures that the property will be marketable when the time comes. We'll continue to attract um tenants and occupants that that bring an advantage to the community. Um, and it has the added benefit of cleaning up some older language that uh looks a little bit different than the code. So, both for the property owner and I don't want to speak for them, but I imagine it makes it easier for staff and enforcability uh to have conditions in your ordinance speaking the same language. Um, we did hold a neighborhood meeting. Um, we had three folks attend, a married couple from Brook Haven, uh, and then a gentleman from a business just to the north. North of this site is also zone CX3 parking limited conditional use. uh we didn't hear any substantive concerns once we kind of explained what the goal here was and and what um what was actually being requested. Um so happy to answer any questions. Again, appreciate staff's help. This uh has been a pretty dense um undertaking. Um but we'd ask that uh the commission recommend approval. >> Thank you, Mr. McGrath. Um, go ahead and pause the timer and we'll reserve your time if it's needed. Thank you very much. We now have 10 minutes for those that are opposed to the application. All right. Uh, seeing none, we will bring it back to the table for questions. Does any of the commissioners have questions for staff or applicant? Commissioner Balders, >> I actually just want to see if we could pull up those. I don't have my laptop. Can we go back to the conditions real quick? >> Yeah, I'll also note um apologies for not mentioning it before. Um these reflect the final signed conditions. What is in the agenda materials was were the unsigned conditions. So some minor changes again in response to staff comments. >> Okay. Well, while you're up there, could I ask a question about this is mostly for my interest. Uh uh condition number seven. Sure. >> Oh, six or five. There's so many of them uh for uh >> is that different than what the UDO would ask for now anyway? >> Um the tree planting condition. Um I'd have to check on that. I'm not exure sure the exact requirements. Uh this speaks specifically to like the circumference of trees that are planted in the parking area. I'm not sure if the UDO would have anything to say about that specifically. >> Thank you. Commissioner Makay, >> I have two questions. Um, are there any specific businesses that you all are looking to prohibit on the site? >> Uh, Commissioner, there are uses that would remain prohibited. Um they're now in in what is uh condition one include residential uses, cemetery, telecommunications tower, adults establishment, outdoor recreation, short-term rental, passenger terminal, bar, nightclub, tavern, lounge, as well as some vehicle related uses and obviously no detention center or jail. But but basically what we've done is we've taken the uses that would be allowed in CX and I realize I probably should have noted this. The prior conditions tell you what you could do. Um we have inverted that condition to something the city uses a little more often now and says we're going to take the C uses allowed in CX and tell you what you can't do. So it floats a little bit better as as the ordinance changes. Um but but this would still allow retail. would allow uh the type of personal service like health clubs, but but the more intense uh uses that CX a general CX reszoning would allow would be prohibited like the ones I just listed. >> Okay. And is there a reason why you all don't want residential on the site? >> So, so there are a couple. Um and I think it's less that we don't want residential. Um and from our standpoint, it's more that that's not part of the plan. Um the the first thing I'll note is, you know, residential has been prohibited since 96. I I it's tough to find all of the minutes and that kind of thing from back then, but but it sounds like the the prospect of residential use was part of that. How does this site work with the adjoining neighborhood? Um so we've proposed to to carry that forward. Um there is no plan to redevelop the site um period. Um and certainly no plan to redevelopment with residential as a practical matter using this site. I mean Glenwood and Creedmore is a very busy intersection. This in the grand scheme is not a very large parcel. Um residential development there. I'm sure someone could build a good product there. Uh but there are a lot of practical um limitations and and frankly any residential development would be inconsistent with this super buffer. And so frankly for us it was it was kind of a you know do we retain the buffering and the uses that you know has made this site work well with the neighborhood for 30 years or do we take a flyer on something we've got no plan to do. So, um, if someone down the road puts residential, it would require a a C change as far as the conditions go. So, it would have to come back regardless at that point. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any more questions from the commission? Commissioner O'H. >> Similar to Commissioner Walters, the only thing that jumped out at me and speaking of DOT and it's a question for staff, I'm asking a question. >> Nice. um condition A3 on the um location of Glenwood Avenue is very specific and again I just I don't know that it would be an issue but I just don't want to put a condition in there that you can't meet due to DOT requirement. So I was just curious about that one specific. Um is it in reference to does it begin the eastern edge of >> right 160 ft west of the intersection 60 ft from the 40t from the corner >> that has been removed um in the signed conditions again this reflects unsigned uh it has been removed in response to staff comments. >> Oh that little strike on the F means that it's struck from the >> um it was not in the unsigned conditions which is what's in the packet. >> I'm sorry you said maybe no worries. Okay. Okay, one more >> one more question from commissioner. >> I promise. So like uh why are we removing the calculations of measurement? I think they were saying that they were changing the removing how they calculate the measurement of the building. Yeah. Why are we doing that? >> So building height measurement in relation to like grading and and slope on the site is defined in the UDO. So it does not need to exist in the conditions because we already have requirements that like spell it out. >> Thank you. Yeah, >> no more questions. >> If there are no more questions, we'll bring it back to the table for discussion if there's any comments or discussion. And if there are no comments or discussion to be had, I would invite a motion. Commissioner O'Hver. >> I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated April 14th, 2026 containing the agenda materials and to recommend approval of zoning amendment TCO226. >> Second. >> I think that we're going to Who was that from down at that end of the table? That was fast. Was that >> Was that Commissioner Omay or Commissioner Sanchez down there? That didn't catch both of them. It was you, Omay. We have a motion from Commissioner O'Hver and seconded by Commissioner Omay. All those in favor, please raise your hand. >> All those opposed and recommend approval unanimously. All right, moving down the agenda, we have our next application. This will be our last application for the day. Z4425 Jones Ridge Trail. And we will start off with a presentation from staff. >> Uh this opens the public hearing. >> Uh uh good morning uh chair and commission. My name is Jacob Hunt, uh, planning and development. Uh, I said before you today is Z4425. This is an assemblage of properties, um, running along Jones Trail. The request is to reszone approximately all 27 acres from R30, which is a Wake County zoning designation, um, to R10, uh, with conditional uses. Uh, your deadline for action is June 30th. Um the zoning in the area is predominantly Still Wake County. Um this site is located in northeast Raleigh um along the Rollsville uh town border and our annexation border. Um so zoning out there is still predominantly Wake County 30. Um the closest R10 zoning is part of the Forestville Station development which is immediately adjacent to this. um that was also reszoned to R10CU in 2004. Um this is an overview of the site. Um as you can see it is adjacent to that ongoing development to the west. Um the view first view is from Lily Ly's road which is the access point for the site and then the second one is from the new forceville station development. Uh this application does include a number of conditions. Uh the first being a total limit of no more than 190 units. Um and then there are some following conditions that regulate the number of units when those change um at site plan depending on whether they would be apartments, town homes, or detached homes. And there's just a few different levels where whatever that mix is uh determines how many maximum units they can build. I can let you know that was based off of um traffic impacts and and essentially equalizing traffic impacts to that 190 total. Um so there's higher impacts with uh detached units, lower impacts with attached units. Um the second point is that the apartment building type um is prohibited when that includes uh horizontal party walls. So essentially saying you won't have what what is typically considered an apartment building in this development. Um there could still be a world in which there is sep more like what you would see as a town home development but might technically be an apartment. Um no residential building may contain more than six units. Um and at least 30% of the net site area must be designated as open space. Um there are a number of conditions that relate to the northern and southern boundaries with those existing properties. Um the north uh must be set back at least 20 ft from a number of properties on that northern edge. And same for the southern. Um there's a number six that's uh talking about discharge into a northeast uh pond where some of the storm water flow may go um and requiring increased uh storm water protections for that pond. Um again, the final two conditions relate to fencing that will be installed along those northern and southern property lines where there are adjacent neighbors. Um the increase in units uh currently under the zoning with Wake County, 25 units can be built. Again, as I said, 190 would be the maximum for this site. Um setbacks are generally reduced except for those areas where they've proposed a 20ft setback. Um, this site does have a lower walk score than average, a lower bike score. Transportation costs are about average, um, and a lower job proximity than average, uh, due to its location. Um, there's no transit within walking distance of this site. Um, this application would add to the housing supply, does not include um, any subsidized unit conditions, would permit a variety of housing types with smaller units and smaller lots. Um, and again, not within walking distance of a transit station or stop. Um, area residents are less likely to be racial minorities than the city average and less likely to be own low income than the city average. Um, the request today of R10CU is inconsistent with the future land use map, which designates this area low-scale residential. Um the total unit count condition and the um prohibition against stacked apartments does bring that into closer um compliance with that uh future land use designation but is it is still inconsistent. Um there's no urban form designation for the site. Um the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan again inconsistent with the future land use map. Uh those consistent policies speak to increased housing um quality buffers um and buildings at a scale that match the surrounding developments. Uh inconsistent policies include um those zoning consistencies for new land coming into the city aligning with the future land use map um and some infrastructure impacts around fire response time standards. Um approval of this would amend the future landings map from low-scale residential to moderate scale residential. Um and you can see what that approval would look like. Um again um deadline for action is June 16th 13th sorry and um there are no outstanding issues with this request. Um the applicant is here to speak if you have any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Hunt. Um we will now have 10 minutes for the applicant and those in favor. Great. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of planning commission, uh, Michael Burch with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of the applicant. Um, want to thank Jacob for working with us and getting to this point. Um, working with us through conditions. Um, and thank you for your presentation. Uh, as he mentioned, we are seeking to reszone to R10 with conditions uh to permit single family, detached, attached, town home uh units, add a density comparable and compatible with uh all of our surrounding uses, particularly those to the west uh and to the south. Uh we have four-story apartments being constructed here to the south. And again, significant town home uh development here. And I do want to note in this area, uh excuse me, not that area, um further to the south in this corner here, uh there is a sheets already at the hard corner and there are a number of additional parcels that are will be developed for retail and office uses. So um again our conditions that uh Jacob went through they reflect our work with staff to address some of the comprehensive plan policies. They also reflect our work with our neighbors to the north uh and the south. So want to address kind of the kind of two buckets or the two uh items of inconsistency. One mentioned uh fire response. two on the future land use map consistency. First on fire response. So this site uh will be would if annexed would be served by uh station 28 that is the same station that uh serves all that area to the west uh of us that was um just note this area to the westful station that was resoned in April of 2021. Um, again, we have four-story apartments down here in the southern region and again, town homes and commercial. Um, the city, right, recently had their fire uh master plan, fire response master plan. Uh, this site is not included within that that northeast special study area that they kind of identified as a an area of focus for the future. This site is not within that area. Uh but the fire master plan does say even for that special study area that essentially fire station 28 uh would serve as well as the wake new hope uh station 2 through a mutual aid agreement. So the city has right plans uh to serve this area. Uh I will also note again we have uh that fire master plan then kind of led to and informed uh the council's adoption of kind of really a a growth boundary through their planned annexation areas. So this property is within and identified as that assemblage to be annexed. So it's not outside that growth boundary uh established by council recently. It was again expressly included as something that should be annexed and served by city uh facilities and utilities. Right. We worked early on with public utilities to ensure that there is adequate water capacity uh and there there is also adequate sewer to serve this site. So from a city service standpoint, this site can be adequately served by all of those. So, let me touch on I don't know if I can pull up the menu to erase that, but touch on the other inconsistency with the future land use map. So, this property is designated as low-scale residential. Uh, I'll note that that category, you know, as a result of the missing middle amendments a number of years ago, no longer provides a density cap or density range. uh rather it says that you know it envisions a range of housing types including town homes um and it says that you ought to kind of follow the precedent set up uh by existing development in the area right this case the R10 district allows detached attached and town homes prohibits this the stacked apartments consistent with that guidance the uses uh and density that we have limited ourselves to is consistent with the town home project development to the west as well as the apartments to the south to strengthen our kind of compatibility with those properties still uh in the county. We've added increased setback. We have added a requirement for fencing along those areas that are not uh otherwise impacted by uh environmental areas. And we also limited the massing of any town home building to no more than six attached units. So I want to note we have three scenarios. Um again apologize for not being able to get the marks out of the way but right 120 single family 170 mix uh believe 190 uh if town homes. So just to put that in context single family could only be bu built out Yeah, thank you. Uh, if single family, that would be built out at max 4.3 units per acre with a mix, just 6.1 units per acre. If it was all town homes at 196.8 units per acre. Uh I want to note that if we just had zoned to the R six district right without conditions that this site uh would be permitted for up to 270 town homes right so our condition while it may be or our request while it may be R10 right our conditions have actually limited it limited our density and allowable uh scope of development to something less than the R sex district would allow. Um so again based on this we think we are uh consistent with the low-scale residential category again even more so than the R six district would be. Um so in closing I want to touch on consistency reasonable and in the public interest. Again, staff and its staff report has given you all the opinion that the request is inconsistent with the future land use map. Uh, state law invests actually in you, the planning commission, to ultimately make that recommendation of of consistency based on the items just covered, our conditions. Uh, we would ask the planning commission make a finding of consistency with the future land use map. uh staff has determined that we are consistent with the overall comprehensive plan. Terms of public interest, I want to note that you see Hearth Park uh Avenue that runs through uh will run through the site, excuse me, a little bit to the south, but this project will construct and complete Hearth Park all the way out to Lily Liles. Hearth Park runs all the way from Lianigan Mill to the south out to Lily Liles and is a, you know, significant way to get local traffic off of this segment of 401. This road when constructed will include both sidewalks and bike lanes above the curb uh and will provide in in addition to the development to the west a you know direct sidewalk and bike lane uh link to the commercial that is existing and being built. Uh and so you know while today maybe while some of these things are under construction in the area may not be walkable bikable uh upon completion of this project we will have that bike and ped link uh down to that uh commercial that's being developed. So with that, I'll uh kind of close and again uh ask planning commission to find that this request is consistent with the future land use map and comprehensive plan uh and is reasonable and in the public interest. And myself and members of our team are here to answer any questions you all may have. >> Thank you, Mr. Burch. We will reserve a minute and six seconds uh for response if it's required. We'll now provide 10 minutes for those in opposition. Is there anyone here we wish to speak against? It looks like that's a no. So, we will open it up to the commission for questions from staff and the applicant. If there are no questions, we will go ahead and Sorry, Commissioner O'Hver. >> Question for the applicant. Um, the neighborhood meeting, you might have touched on this, I'm sorry. Was there any participation from those neighbors just just on the northern boundary line? There's my >> uh Yes, we did. Um we did have participation both from uh property owners on the north uh as well as the south. Um as well as the gentleman that has the pond here to the west. Uh and both at the first neighborhood meeting, second neighborhood meeting, and numerous conversations uh outside of those meetings. Uh that was why we brought forward the they asked for fencing. Uh and then the gentleman that has the pond asked for you know some smaller or increased storm water detention. So that's why we have the 25-year storm for the drainage area going to that pond. Uh and this site only makes up about 20% of the drainage area going to that pond. So yes, all those transition conditions you see are um in response to those requests from the neighbors. Thank you. I'm I'm comfortable with that. The the reason for my question is just sort of the year rear yard requirements to be to be consistent. Again, we've got neighbors to the north. They feel like a fence is okay. A lot of times when I bring this comment up, it's going from 20 to zero or something. So, I'm comfortable with what with what y'all have here and and having the neighbors participate in that. So, thank you. I'll also say just on the setback uh because depending on how this you know lots may be oriented because there might have been the potential for a sideyard to be adjacent which would only require 5T that's why we went to a 20 foot really around you know that perimeter of the site >> can you just help me really quickly so the wall would be that straight line at the top >> um so the fence the fence would be uh here as well has uh in this area here and the reason that it doesn't extend further west in both areas is because there are news river stream buffers uh there. So um there is a requirement that within 40 ft of the property line even if there are those uh natural features that we put a fence on the outside of that as well. >> Okay. Okay. So, those fences help protect the stream. >> Um, well, they both serve as a buffer to uh the neighbors, but they will be outside of the buffer. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> If there are no further questions, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for discussion, debate, any comments? And if not, I'll open it up for a motion. vice chair. >> So, um, you know, this being on a major thoroughfare and so close to, um, Rollsville, you know, putting putting some density and access there does make sense to me. Um, I'm trying to I know you addressed it um during the presentation but condition number two talking about an apartment type building with units that are not separated by a horizontal party wall um which would imply that it's a town home style um development. Are these meant to be privately owned or are these rental units that have one landlord owner? Yes. So for the attached units, they are intended to be individual units for sale. Um those that can happen in two ways. One is either the you know the units are sold along with the dirt beneath, right? Or potentially they could be condominiumized and be sold that way. Some of this has to do with um you know alley and public street requirements. And so just again preserving some flexibility to address those uh issues. >> Okay. Y >> thank you. No more comments. >> Right. If there's no further comments or debate, open the floor for a motion. >> Commissioner O'H. I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated April 14th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Second. >> Second. >> Commission. >> This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in to to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement for zoning case Z4425. Second. >> All right, I think we have to take Commissioner Omay since she waited until the first motion was complete. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please show by raise of hands. All those opposed. It looks like that is a unanimous recommendation for approval. And thank you. Thank you to the applicant. All right, that concludes our reasonzoning cases for the day. So, we'll move on down the agenda to other business. Uh, first up, we have the report from the chair. And I don't have anything special that I need to announce today. I thank you all for your comments and I think today's discussion was very uh respectful and substantial and I think this was a really good meeting. So, thank you to everybody and thank you for your patience as we continue to try to work to put some structure around the comments and the questions and figured that all out. So, u that'll do it for me. So, thank you. We'll move on to the report for the members and we'll start with Vice Chair Cochr. >> So, uh just for the record, the committee of the whole meeting on the 23rd is going to be led by Commissioner Fox, not me because I'll be out of town. Sorry, before we go down the line, could we again confirm uh who will be able to make it to the April 24th committee of the whole meeting? >> 23rd. >> 23rd, excuse me. I'm sorry. >> 4 p.m. >> 4 p.m. So, that was I saw your hand, Commissioner Sanchez. Is that correct? All right. Thank you very much. And move on down the line now. Thank you. A brief note, there will be no text change committee meeting this month on the 15th. There will be no text change committee meeting. Thank you. >> No new business. No report. >> Uh no report. I just want to say thank you for uh the effort to bring structure to our meeting. U you're doing a great job. So, I I appreciate the clear question and comment period. Um, it's similar to what we did on design review commission. Uh, and I think it really just helps keep things tight. So, thank you. >> No report, but I'm not surprised Commissioner Walters made that comment. He was making sure I was in line with my questions there. So, I appreciate that. Uh, no report. Again, I'll just say I think I already sent y'all an email. Uh, but I unfortunately I'm not available due to work conflict on the committee. the hole in the 23rd. >> What room is the committee of the hole going to be in? >> It's held in room 305 of the municipal building. And uh I have a question. Well, a request from staff. Is there a way that we can get a map that pinpoints and shows what zoning cases are coming up, what we've already approved, and what's in process? That information is available on the city website. If you visit uh raleighc.gov/development, you can see lists there of the pending requests. And there are also links there to a map that will show you recently approved and pending requests. >> You said was their website again? I'm sorry. >> Raleighc.gov/development. If you just go to the city website and search current development, >> it'll take you to the page. B that's the portal. >> No, that's actually uh pages that we maintain with map with map and list in addition to the portal. >> That's all. Thank you and thank you for your leadership. This was a great meeting. >> Uh nothing to report. >> All right. Thank you everyone for your comments. We will now move on to the report of the assistant director. I don't think I have anything to add beyond what's published in the agenda and what we've discussed already. Thanks everybody for your service to the city. >> All right. Well, thank you everybody for being here and I think that does it for today. This meeting is hereby adjourned.