26 planning commission meeting. My name is Nicole Bennett. I'm chair of the commission. Welcome to everyone joining us in person and online. A few reminders before we get started. Um please wait to be recognized by the chair before speaking. Um, please be courteous to each other, applicant, staff, and the public. And let's keep our comments constructive and focused on the cases we are discussing. Um, we begin each meeting with an opportunity for the public to address us about an item that's not on the agenda. Is there anyone here this morning who wishes to discuss an item not on today's agenda? >> Yes. You just go to the mic. Um, state your name. >> Good morning. and Chris Crew, 306 Elm Street. Just as a general public comment today, I' I'd like to point out that there is already a tremendous glut of office space in downtown Raleigh. Uh I tried to look it up. I I found about a 35% vacancy rate. So, between now and the uh up the update and adoption of the comprehensive plan, I'd like to request that you stop uh considering upzoning requests for more intensive uses, turning housing into office space, particularly downtown. Um, you know, early next year, the new town hall is supposed to open up, and that's going to increase the amount of vacant office space downtown. So, I'd just like to suggest to you as we move forward, you consider that when you consider uh zoning requests that would change housing into office space, particularly downtown. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Crew. Anyone else um who would like to uh address an item not on today's agenda? >> Okay. Um >> Oh, I'm Yes. >> Sorry. Just let you know I have a 10:30 hard stop today, unfortunately. So, >> okay. >> I can probably slip to 10:45, but somewhere in there I'm going to need to >> Thank you, M. >> We have one item on the consent agenda, approval of the January 13th meeting minutes. Um, does anyone have any comments on the minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion. >> I've reviewed and I'll make a motion to approve as written. >> Thank you. I have a second. Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Great. That's unanimous. Um, we'll move into our agenda. One item I'd like to mention before we get started. Um under new business item I'm sorry, wait a minute. Let me get it right. F1, the comprehensive plan amendment for Mon Pond Road. The applicant has requested that that um item be deferred to our next planning commission meeting on the 24th, but I wanted to check to see if there were people here who wanted to speak on that item. If you are here, we will take public comment. So, is there anyone here for that item that's making pond road? Okay, great. Well, if not, then without objection, we will defer item F1 to our February 24th planning commission meeting. Getting back to our old business agenda, our first item, E1, is resoning Z1425 South New Hope Road. This item was deferred to allow the applicant to consider revised conditions. Um, we'll ask staff for an update. Yep. Good morning, uh, chair and planning commission, Matthew Clim, uh, planning and development. Uh, so this item was before you in, uh, January, and since then, zoning conditions have been amended, and I'll run through those changes for you now. So, item, excuse me, zoning condition number nine was amended. It uh, the condition originally would allow for up to 600 650 residential units, but was reduced to 625. So that was a reduction. Um and conditions number 10 and 11 were added as well. Uh condition 10 would um provide for 12 and a half% of the site to be set aside as open space or open area. Uh and then the condition goes on to define further uh what that space can and cannot be used for. Uh condition 11 um states that a type one protective yard uh shall not be used to satisfy any of the neighborhood transition standards. Um, and I've got a slide here to show what that means. So, when there's a neighborhood transi transition standard required by the code, um, the developers have three options. Um, a type one, two, or three. They have in this condition limited themselves from, um, not using the type one. So, 20 foot or 30 foot protective yard uh, could be used to satisfy those transition requirements. Um again looking at the existing and proposed zoning. So the existing entitlement for residential is 450 units. The full entitlement under the proposal is 625. And then you see the reduction in um retail and commercial square footage as well. Uh your deadline for action is March 14th. I'm happy to take any questions. I know the applicant is here as well and they have a presentation if you have questions for them. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> We've received public comment on this item already. Did you say the applicant wanted to give a presentation? >> They're here for questions. I'm not sure if they have comments or not. >> So, um, is there anyone here who wants to speak either in support or against this item? >> Okay. Um, since we've already heard this item, I'll just give two minutes to each side. Sure. What's your presentation? Good morning, chair, members of the commission. My name is Amy Kraut. I'm an attorney at Smith Anderson. I'm here on behalf of one of the property owners, OT Retail East Company. Um, just wanted to briefly go over the conditions and provide some context. Um, as you know, the site was reszoned in 2019 and we're not starting with the blank SA slate in terms of what the um property allows. It already allows 450 residential units and 360 foot of commercial. Um, so the purpose of this request um was really to tweak those original conditions to allow development of a currently vacant site. We've tried in these resoning conditions, the revised ones, to balance the history of the site, the need for flexibility to encourage that future development and the desire to meet those neighbor concerns. So, as Taff noted, we did reduce um the total additional units from 200 new units to 175 new residential units. This um also results in like a continued decrease in daily traffic count. So, under the current zoning, the approved uses um you're right at 21,600 daily trips and it drops to 20,790 trips. Um again just further reducing it from the 650 that we originally proposed. The open area condition there was a comment at planning commission asking for additional um open area on the site because we're asking for increased residential. So we've drafted this to define open area as land outside area in the public right ofway outside the building footprint and located outside of a parking area. So this is just an attempt to kind of preserve a little bit more of open space on the site. It includes things like the amenity areas, multi-use paths, neighborhood transition yards, storm water devices. The biggest thing I just wanted to quickly mention was this neighborhood transition condition. Um we've proposed it for the areas highlighted in yellow. Very quickly, neighbors asked for 50oot buffer. Um, there's already some HOA controlled area between the residential properties and our property line. To the south, it's about 20 feet. To the east, it's 50 to 75. >> You can finish. Um, we'll we'll keep track of the time and give the same amount to the other side. >> Yep. To the east, it's about, you know, 50 to 150 ft between that property line and the residential kind of property lots. Um, so we thought this was a good balance of, you know, in reducing the type one, eliminating that from the transition yard. So it can't just be 10 feet. It's either 20 feet with a fence or 50 feet total. So on the south side, at the minimum, that would be 40 feet with a fence. At a maximum, it would be 70 feet. And it's even more for the eastern portion of the property line. The only other thing I briefly wanted to mention was um the comments at the previous planning commission meeting about the flood plane. This is the FEMA map. There's no active flood plane on this property. Um so just kind of wanted to highlight that, but we do have our engine here engineers here to answer any additional questions about that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in support of this item? Okay. So that was >> be three minutes. >> Three minutes. Then to the opposition, >> just state your name for the record, please. >> Um my name is Zay Alina and I'm here once again here speaking on behalf of the residents of Oldtown. Um I do want to start by thanking you all for the changes that you recommended last time and we do appreciate the 20ft landscape buffer with the fencing and we do support that condition. We also support the condition with the 12.5% open area space. We do want to emphasize that um we still think that the building units is too much. Under the original zoning conditions, it was 450 units. It was a maximum of two bedrooms per unit. That's 900 bedrooms. We're now going into 625 units with no um bedroom limit. So, we're looking about three bedrooms, which is 1,875 bedrooms. We're more than doubling the number of bedrooms there. It's two people up a bedroom. We're looking at thousands more people. We're asking to cap it at 550 um units and we would be in support of this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? If not, then we'll bring it back to the table. Um commissioners, do you have any questions or comments about the revised conditions? Let's please keep our discussion limited to the what has changed since the last time. >> Okay. >> I have a question. >> Is this the And I'm sorry, I'm getting here. >> This is the New Hope resing across the street from the other resoning. Yes. Okay. >> I have a question. >> Okay. How are we uh able to say that the last zoning that we turned down that's across the street from this that's in the flood zone? Am I correct? >> I I don't know which reason >> what's your question about this resoning commissioner? My question about this reszoning is if in the last resoning that was right across the street on Rock Quarry and New Hope across from the Jones Sausage side and this look like it's right across the street from that and they're saying that it's not a flood zone but the conditions are pretty much similar. How are we saying that they're different? >> I'm not sure I follow your question. This case isn't in a flood zone. Is that correct? According to the staff report, >> it's across the street. >> Okay. >> From where we turned down the vote last time, >> we make a recommendation. Council makes a decision. So, we didn't deny anything. We suggested that they that >> we suggested that council not move forward with the reszoning, >> okay, >> of a property that's right across the street from where this is. And part of the reason we said that was that it had environmental issues, that it was in a flood zone, that we didn't want to put our vulnerable residents in that space. So, I'm wondering what the difference is. I think the main difference is this one isn't a flood zone. I mean, if staff or anyone else would like to to help me here but >> it's directly across the street, >> but it's not a flood zone. I don't know what else to say. >> Stormwater staff is going to come up. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Good morning, Sally Hoy, Rally Storm Water. Uh yes, the flood the flood zone is across the street. Uh there's sufficient elevation difference between the flood elevations and the property on this that's uh in this case that we don't feel like it poses a a flood risk. Thank you. Um Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to uh express my thanks to staff for their followup on this item. >> Thank you. Other questions or comments? >> I have a comment. Uh, if it's right across the street from the flood zone and across the street from the swamp, it's still the same situation. That's my comment. >> We look at things isolated, but we're >> approving a lot of things together. So, we can't say across the street is dangerous and then across the street is not. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Fox. >> Um, I I just wanted to thank the applicant for the um increase in the consideration for how the buffers uh would be um implemented and then also for the additional open space. Um, I understand um community concern about the number of units, but I I just want to acknowledge the entitlement currently as it is today has an increase in traffic that exceeds what would be allowed with the residential units. So, commercial and office use create more trips than do apartments. Um, so I just I just want to acknowledge that I'm I'm not um ignoring that that that that was a concern, but um I'm reading into that concern that it that it is possibly one of traffic. Um at the appropriate time, I'm ready to um make a motion. Um Chair Bennett, >> thank you. Um are there any other questions or comments before we move to a motion? >> I have one more comment. >> Commissioner, >> this is up the street from my house. It is on the corner at Rock Quarry and New Hope uh at the intersection where uh New Hope turns into Jones Sausage. It is a extreme traffic concern because there is two lanes. Once uh you cross over New Hope or I mean once you cross over New Hope and Jones Sausage on Rock Corey, we have approved a lot of development in this area that hasn't started yet. It is a traffic concern because there's two lanes on New Hope up the street from areas we've already approved uh development. It is right across the street from the sewage pipe and from all of that that we made a suggestion not to accept uh the last plan the last motion to plan from the space that was right across the street from this. So, I I am interested in understanding if we do move forward and this does pass the planning commission, how do we justify a disproving something right across the street from something that we may approve? >> That's all. >> Thank you, Commissioner May. I just have uh just one comment and clarification that I think the the transportation analysis showed that there was less traffic impact than the entitled uh proposed or opportunity for development here. So uh in my understanding I think this would be a good thing for traffic impact in the area. >> Thank you. Other questions or comments? So, um, to your question, um, Commissioner Omay, if we voted to deny this one, do how would that help the traffic situation, if what they can do right now would produce more traffic than what we're voting on? >> You're saying what they can do right now will produce more traffic than building an apartment that adds more people? >> Yes. Because commercial generates more trips than res. >> There's nothing there right now. >> But what they are entitled to build right now is more commercial. They're reducing the amount of commercial and increasing the amount of residential. Reducing commercial reduces trips. If we said last time that we didn't want to put residents, vulnerable people in a position that is a flood zone that is across the street from a swamp and we didn't want to put residents in that space. The same ideology should apply to this. >> I think it would if this were a flood zone, but since it's not, >> it's across the street. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner May. We appreciate your comments. Um uh if there are no further questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Fox. >> In regards to case Z1425 or TCZ1425, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 10th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Commissioner Atwell has seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? That's how many are there of us? Nine to one. Nine to one with Commissioner Omay opposing. Commissioner May, would you like to offer any other comment? >> Yes. It doesn't make sense if we've already said that something is in the flood zone and this is right across the street and it's already a two-lane highway and we've already approved a lot of development that hasn't started yet and we can't control when it starts. But us considering continuously deciding to look at things like their isolated situations instead of comprehensively is a problem. >> Thank you, Commissioner May. I'm going to remind us that we agreed to be courteous to each other and constructive in our comments. Um, I'm hoping that's not going to be a problem. Thank you. We're going to move to our next item now, and we're going to stay decent and in order. Item E2, reszoning Z2925, Trailwood Drive. Um, this is an item that we heard on November 25th, 2025. The case was deferred to allow revised conditions. I'll ask staff for a brief update highlighting what has changed. Thank you. >> Uh, good morning, um, chair and commissioners. My name is Jacob Hunt with planning and development. Um like uh we just said this is reszoning Z2925 um 1116 and 1126 Trailwood Drive. The request is to reszone about 2.8 acres um from R4 with the special residential parking overlay district to R10 with conditions and retaining that overlay. Um the action for the deadline for action I should say is March 10th. Um the zoning map is to the right on your screen. Um this is the R4 property and I'll just note um it is within the special residential parking overlay but outside of the neighborhood conservation overlay. Um zoning in the area is predominantly residential. Uh the closest R10 zoning is about 500 ft north of this site at the Ardan. Um looking out a little bit from this site, predominantly lowcale residential future land use um in the area. There is some moderate scale residential to the south. Um the Walnut Creek Greenway runs to the west and north of this site and Centennial Campus is across Trailwood um to the east. Uh looking at the site from the street, um there's currently a single family residence on site. It is two lots but with that unit I think believe splitting those lots. Um the summary of proposed conditions I will say conditions one and two were included with the last time this was before you. Conditions 3 through 8 are new conditions that have been provided by the applicant. Um they the new conditions include a requirement that they shall not exceed 32 residential units um and a 20- foot building setback from the adjacent southern properties for 200 ft from Trailwood Drive. Um the applicant has provided a detailed planting schedule along that southern property line for 300 ft from Trailwood Drive. Um and a 50-ft setback of pole lights and 15t height limit on those lights. and then a 0 foot candle offsite lighting maximum for the southern property line. Um, under existing zoning, there is a potential for 24 units under the proposed zoning with the new condition. Um, that's limited to 32. Um, setbacks do change and those are modified further by the conditions that are mentioned earlier. Um, this site does have a lower walk score than average, a lower bike score, um, but transportation costs are less expensive, um, due to the, um, bus access on Route 11, Route 11 L, and the three Wolfline bus service routes that run by the site on Avent Ferry. Um, this application would add to the housing supply, although it does not provide for subsidized units. Um, it does permit a variety of housing types and smaller units that are smaller than the citywide average. And as I said, it's about a third of a mile away from the nearest transit stop. Um, residents in this area are less likely to be racial minorities compared to the city average and more likely to be low income than city average. Um, this application has been found to be consistent with low-scale residential in part due to its inclusion within a frequent transit area. Um there's no frontage requirement by being in this frequent transit area due to this being a purely residential application. Um staff has found this consistent with the comprehensive plan consistent with the future land use map and the urban form map. Uh some of those consistent policies include um compact development connectivity capitalizing on transit access as I said routes 11 and 11 L um providing a variety of housing types in this area. Um this would be an infill development. We know that the town homes are more uh environmentally friendly um than single family development often. Um and then finally this would link some of the growth of the city to the existing infrastructure on Haven Ferry. Um inconsistent policies include uh fire response times um and that is covered both by the zoning infrastructure impacts and the response time standards. Sorry. Uh, your deadline for action after the extension is March 10th. Um, there are no known outstanding issues and an upcoming meeting is February 24th. >> Uh, the applicant is here with a presentation today and I know this was heard before. Um, I think there was some time remaining. >> Thank you. >> Do we know how much time was remaining? Um I believe three minutes for the applicant and there was or or in support and there was no time remaining in opposition. >> Okay. Thank you. How many do we have people here to speak in support or in opposition to this case? How many in opposition? Okay. So um if it's okay with the planning commission I'll allow three minutes for the opposition. three on each side. >> Good morning, commissioners. Worth Worth Mills here on behalf of Arya Escari, the applicant. Ross Massie, uh, engineer with Swift Partners is here as well. I did just want to shed some more light on the updated zoning conditions. So we did reduce the number of homes uh down to 32 as a maximum. So this is an increase of eight compared to current uh zoning capacity or entitlement. We have uh required a minimum 20 foot setback for the first 200 ft of the property's lot depth uh from Trailwood Drive. This is uh an effort to mitigate impacts uh to that residence to the south which is located close to our shared property line. We have offered a planning schedule for the first 300 ft of the property's lot depth which includes 30 evergreen shrubs per 100 linear feet, two understory trees per 100 linear feet, and two shade trees per 100 linear feet. trying to establish a visual buffer and a screen uh from that home as well. Um some of the planning types that we envision for the shrubs would be something like a Nelly Stevens Holly. We do have um a um planting height requirement and a mature planting height requirement. I don't know what happened. >> Can I hit pause on the time? Okay, there we go. Um so again trying to create an effective green screen between our development and uh the property to the south. And then we also included three zoning conditions related to uh lighting and and really uh polemounted lighting fixtures requiring them to be at least 50 ft away from that property to the south. requiring that those light fixtures not exceed 15 feet and then um really prohibiting any amount of light um at the uh shared property line. All of these conditions are in an effort to mitigate impacts to the property to our south um which is also the northern boundary of the Trailwood NCOD on the western side of Trailwood Drive. Um, we do think that this case presents a unique infill opportunity uh within the frequent transit area here uh given the existence of the NCOD as well as some of the environmental features that affect other properties in this area. Uh the case is consistent with the future land use map. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's consistent with all but two comprehensive plan policies and those relate to fire access. Uh Mr. Mr. Massie and I are available if you have any questions and we appreciate the opportunity to update this application. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mills. Anyone else for um in support of this case? Okay. Now, we'll hear from the opposition. You have three minutes. >> Uh thanks commissioners for hearing me out tonight or today. Um I do want to acknowledge the effort on behalf of the applicant to make um adjustments in their conditions. Um this is uh I'm John Tottton. I'm live at 1132 Trawood Drive. I'm the property directly south. I'm the first property in the NCOD on that side of the street. Um I'm here on behalf of myself, my family, and neighbors uh to ask you to deny this zoning. Uh here's why. The applicant is seeking R10 zoning for 32 units on a 2.1 acre uh property that currently serves as an intentional transitional zone between an R2 conservation overlay and an R six property. Coincidentally, that R six property is also uh under development and before the commission um for a sizable um increase in homes uh or units. Um, this property is appropriately zoned as R4. The current zoning already permits approximately, my understanding was 12 units, although I'm I see that they're saying it should be 24. Uh, which is missing middle housing. Uh, that provides housing diversity while maintaining the carefully planned transition established when the R six property was zoned as, uh, in 2016. Prior to that, it was a uh, planned development uh, designation. Uh what the applicant is requesting 32 units is not missing middle housing. That's largescale apartment density more appropriate for transit corridors, not a transitional property with a conservation overlay uh district. The R2 to R4 to R six zoning progression was deliberately created to provide an equitable transition from the conservation overlay to higher density development. Jumping from R4 to R10, even with conditions, would eliminate this transition and nearly triple the density, which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan's policies on density transitions and infill compatibility. R4 already allows the housing diversity rally needs. R10 would destabilize a decade old conservation agreement blessed and encouraged by the planning commission. We respectfully ask that you deny this reasonzoning. Thank you. I do have a full written statement that I'd like to submit if I can. >> Yes, you can. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, is there anyone else here who'd like to speak in opposition to this case? >> If not, then we'll bring it back to the table um for commissioner questions and comments. >> I think just a point of clarification. Um John mentioned that this is apartment density but I think uh apartment buildings are prohibited. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So it's apartment density but not apartment buildings. >> Um would staff care to Okay. >> Uh the apartment building type would be prohibited. >> Haver. >> Thank you. Just to follow up on that, can you can you give me a little bit more detail on what defines an apartment building type? >> Uh yeah. So, um detached homes, um town homes and apartments are different housing types in the unified development ordinance um that have different dimensional standards associated with them as far as setbacks, height, um massing, things like that. Um, and so eliminating the apartment building type gets rid of I don't know how to say this without just saying apartment over and over again, but it gets rid of the type of buildings that would look like apartments. It's not necessarily a definition of density. You could have a apartment type building with a few very large units and you could have town homes with smaller units, but >> presumably we're talking about town homes then fitting on this site. >> Um, I'd let the applicant answer that fully, but that would be likely the highest density housing type that could be built on this property with the conditions that have been proposed. >> And that is a missing middle housing type. Yes. >> In your um list of dotted comp plan items, I noticed you didn't dot the missing middle housing. I wonder why. >> Um so the dotted um items, and I can pull that up, are um forgive me for not having the exact language, but those are called out as especially vital to consider when discussing um >> amendments um and zoning cases. So it's not that um >> so the orange dots indicate policies that are considered in every reason resoning request. Many other policies may be considered if they are relevant. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Other questions or comments? >> Could I make a statement? >> Not in opposition or >> I'm sorry ma'am. The public comment period is over. Um thank you. I I' I'd be comfortable hearing her comment if the rest of the commission would. I know we got a lot on the agenda today but >> Okay. If it's the will of the commission, then we'll give you two minutes. Ma'am, >> are you in support of or in opposition to >> I just I just have a statement and I My name is Patricia Beach. Um and I do live on Trailwood Drive, but this is on behalf of the community. Um, there are three reasonzoning cases being considered on Trailwood Drive. I would ask the commission to wait and consider the impact of all three of those cases to Trailwood Drive. The other two cases I think are on your agenda or to propose for your agenda for the 24th. Um but this this is um a s these are significant changes on a community um that well we're not really in favor of them but I I just want I I just want you to consider the impact overall impact of what all three of these cases are going to do to traffic to the environment Um it's just everything. Um so I wasn't prepared to do this, but I I just think that that needs to be mentioned and that all three of these the impacts need to be considered as a whole. Thank you. >> Thank you. There's 36 um seconds left. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay, I'll bring it back to the table. Commissioner Neptune, >> this is a question about the other reasoning cases. Have they geez? >> No, we haven't. >> They haven't appeared before. Okay, thank you. >> Commissioner Fox. >> Yeah, it's a a question of clarification. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Um, this particular case we've heard before and they've made their one round of revisions. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, holding it, we we wouldn't change it further. They couldn't change it further >> at this table. >> At this table. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I just want to say I appreciate the public comment and uh totally understand the concern for uh consideration in this in this neighborhood. Um and just want to say that I think that one of the important roles of this commission is to consider those things and and we'll do so to our best ability. I just I just want to echo that sentiment. Uh absolutely appreciate the resident um along Trailwood encouraging the commission to think and be mindful about all of the impacts, you know, across the the neighborhood. So just again, thank you for being being here today. Commissioner Makay, >> I appreciate the comment about thinking comprehensively about the plans that we make, but if we're not considering comprehensive planning for District C or other parts of the city, then we can't consider it anywhere. >> Thank you, Commissioner Makaya. Commissioner um Oh Habaver. >> Yes, ma'am. Um couple of concerns. appreciate the willingness to increase the planting requirements. A number of years ago, um I made a recommendation to approve a fairly controversial plan and can you hear me? >> Oh, sorry. Was driving in the neighborhood. You know, they increased the planting area. All those plants are dead. I mean, quite frankly. And so the challenge there really is the ability of the city to enforce that. And it was unfortunate. This was a number of years ago and there were single family homes behind there. So I just want to put that comment on record. I do have some concerns again about the R10 transition to the R six. We talk a lot though about the fact that what they can do by right is 24 units with no planting and no additional consideration. And so while I'm sort of on the line about this, um I think the neighbors are getting more with the reszoning than what they would if we don't approve it. So, just want to make that comment and hopefully the the issue with the planting gets a little bit further down the road and we can enforce that a little bit better. >> Thank you, Commissioner Haver. Other questions or comments? >> I just wanted to add um >> um hold on just a minute. >> Oh, sorry. I miss >> Commissioner Shelurn. Sorry. >> Yeah, that's all right. Um, yeah, I just want to say that I appreciate that perspective on the plants dying and that that's the kind of reflection that we should do with all of our conditions that come up because otherwise we're kind of like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy saying this this is this is it, you know, this is happening when we don't know for sure that's really going to be how it works out. So, in other words, compliance and followup is key. And as for the I also agree that ideally the city would look at things comprehensively. But as for these particular proposals, my personal philosophy is we ought to let people live where people where we've decided people can live and how many are on a a site doesn't matter. So I don't share the concerns about transitions. If it's a residential area, we should let people live there. >> Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. Commissioner Walters. Um I just wanted to I think this is over two acres. So there's tree conservation as a part of this development plan. Is that correct? >> Is there >> staff? Yes. >> Okay. >> Just thinking about uh conservation in that buffer area instead of plantings. Uh it's less strategic because you can't plant uh the evergreen shrubs that you might want to screen. But you do guarantee uh in a much bigger way that the plants will be successful um if you had tree conservation between the development and the the other side. But um yeah anyway it was more of a thought uh unformed thought. Uh also native plants would probably be more successful in that area. I don't know that that's something worth stipulating but um uh Commissioner O'Hver makes a good point about the success of these planting buffers. Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. I just would like to point out that uh this is on one of the uh most successful transit routes in the city. The Wolf Line along Avent Ferry, I think, is our most utilized transit route uh perhaps in the whole city. I think it's really important to add what kind of density we can along this corridor. >> Anyone else? All right. If not, then I will entertain a motion. And if you'd like to add a comment or two about the plantings, have at it, Commissioner Fox. >> Uh, in regards to case Z 2925, I've moved to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 10th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Do I have a second? Commissioner Cochran has seconded the motion. Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you. Our next item, E3, resoning Z3125 516 North Blunt Street. Um, this item was first heard on October 28th. It was deferred to allow the applicant to consider revised conditions. Um, I understand there have been quite a few changes to this one. So, I'll ask staff for an update and then we'll see who we have here to speak on this one. >> Sorry, give me one second. Here we are. Uh, apologize. Good morning. Hi Marziano, Planning Development. Again, this is Z3125516 North Blunt Street. This is a request to reszone the.37 acres from OX3 with a detached frontage within the HOD uh historic overlay district general, which is the Blunt Street District to CX3CU in the same historic overlay. Um the RHDC did recommend approval 8 to 3 on this case. Uh your deadline for uh action is February 10th. Just as a brief uh overview, you haven't seen this case since October. Um it was slated to come back to y'all in December. Weather prevented that. The deadline passed when uh the city council decided to extend 45 days. Supposed to be at their last meeting. Weather again pushed it back. So that's why today is the day for that deadline. Um just a reminder, this is our site. Uh we're north of Pulk Street. Um it straddles between North Blunt Street and John Haywood Way. Uh quick uh overview of the front, but the conditions do have an extensive uh amend uh amendments to them. Uh so I'll cover those in brief. Uh they are in your packet. Um condition one was restructured. Instead of saying what would be allowed, it went to what was not allowed, which is more consistent with the way we do conditions. Uh, which folded the former condition number two into condition one. That's why two was removed. So, one and two became one of just what is not allowed to be on that property under the uh proposed CX zoning. Um, the limit on attendance for indooroutdoor events was 75 originally. They've now proposed down to 65. Uh amplified sound has now been rewritten to say prohibited outdoors altogether. Prior it was nothing after 10 p.m. Uh food and beverages will not be served outdoors after 9 in these conditions. Previous conditions said 10:00. Uh they did re uh do some re word smithing on the property manager condition. Uh basically it's still a property manager on site to run things and the contact information will be made available uh should problems arise. Uh no changes to number six um which limits parking for short-term rentals. Uh number seven um was some minor alterations to the uh landscaping um to be more um uh conducive with what would be required for a COA process. uh let's go through our HDC. Uh no changes to number eight. Uh number nine and 10 were added to address the shared driveway concerns. Uh so number nine would be no vendor vehicles uh for indoor outdoor recreation uses um using the shared driveway between the uh the subject property other than like access. They wouldn't park there. And number 10 discloses that nothing will happen there between 7 PM and 7 a.m. So use of that shared driveway became a little bit more clarified under these conditions. Uh that would be all the changes to those conditions. Uh just as a reminder, we're looking at not much change in the entitlement uh for this area. There is a slight increase in retail entitlement. Um it is consistent with the future lane use map being in the central business district and it's inconsistent with urban form map with the removal of the frontage. Um consistent policies here uh haven't changed uh inconsistent frontage again um as written. We do believe that enforcement of the conditions as y'all have noted with other cases before um it's going to be complaint based. A lot of this would be it's difficult for the city to monitor 247 of course. So uh that's just some of the concerns that staff would point out on that. Unfortunately, no more PC meetings to discuss this, but they've already revised their conditions. Uh they wouldn't have a chance to revise any further at this point. I do believe I'm sorry real quick that we ate up all the time at the last at the October meeting. Um, I'm not sure if anyone's still interested and I did not receive a presentation for this time. >> Okay, thank you. Um, can I see who is here that wishes to speak on this case? I see the applicant. Could you raise your hand so I can commissioners? Um, five minutes per side. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, five minutes for in support and five minutes for the opposition >> for the last meeting. >> We've got it. >> I'll go back. >> Yeah, we sent it to >> Okay. Good morning, members of the planning commission. I'm Isabelle Maddox. Um, here today representing 1893 LLC, the applicant in this case. Um, we have worked hard. We we did have a we the last meeting we deferred and now it looks like a mistake. We referred deferred to December to give time to meet with the um neighbors. We did have that meeting but given the two weather cancellations like wow we've had a long gap here. Uh so appreciate you hearing this case this morning. Um we have done a lot of work on the conditions to try to address and we did submit a presentation which I'm upset that's not in here. Um, I don't know what happened there but I think, you know, the conditions I want to call out that we've we've changed fairly drastically. Um, include, you know, staff wanted us to rewrite the list to uses which are prohibited. We had had it which we wanted to say ox plus event space and they they like to do it the other way. So, we did that. We changed the attendee list to uh amount to 65. We prohibited all outdoor amplified outdoor sound outside. So no amp amplifiers outside. No amplified music. Um there could be like some ceremonial music without amplifiers for a wedding or something like that. Um, we changed the time restriction for outdoor food service to from 1000 p.m. to 9. Uh, we we on the buffer, I remember Commissioner Fox asked for us to call out a specific buffer type. We initially proposed that and staff came back and said, "Oh, we want something a little more flexible that RHDC we had subjected subjected it to RHDC approval, but anyway, so that's why the buffer is not specific, but we do propose screen plantings and a fence or a wall." So, I think that'll be along the rear line. Um, we did talk about the the use of the shared driveway. There'll be no parking in that shared driveway. To the extent we have vehicles bringing in any kind of equipment for an event, that will have to be before 7 p.m. and they can't come break it down until after 7:00 a.m. the next morning. And we really don't think there'll be that much of that because this facility has its own a most of its own equipment of dishes and that kind of thing, tables and chairs they have on site. Um, so we think we've, you know, what are the neighbors opposed to? They're opposed to noise. We have really tamped down the noise in terms of knocking out the amplified sound. Even conversational sound will stop at 9:00 p.m. Um, they've opposed that they don't know how this property is going to be managed. We've put on-site managers with giving them contact information similar to what they have the communication they have with Miriam W, which is right beside. Um they've had concerns about the driveway. We've tried to tighten that up so we're not going to park in that driveway. We're going to the hours we can set up and break down are very limited. So they're not during sleeping hours. Um we feel like we've addressed their concerns. Are they supportive? No. And I don't think there's really much we can do to get their support. But I think if you look at this as a land use decision, you have on this block event space already. So, it's a use that's allowed mostly on the block. We're asking for it as well. Um, you look at comprehensive plan compliance, yes, we comply. Future land use, yes, we don't comply with urban form because we don't have a a frontage here, but that's really, as you look in your staff report, that's not really an issue. This is a historic we we're keeping the historic overlay. And the historic overlay means where that building's not going anywhere. We're not doing anything that front yard that's going to change. So, I I think that issue is really a non-issue. So, this complies with the city plans. It's a use that's already employed on the block. Um, we feel like we should be entitled to that use as well. And it's heavily restricted. The other event spaces have no restrictions. There's a large church that has events. There's a art gallery that has events. There's Marman Wind that has events. They have no zoning conditions. We're imposing a pretty strict set of guard rails. And to the staff's point about complaint driven um conditions, well, all city zoning is driven by complaint. They'll they'll tell you that. The staff will tell you that that's that's the way they go out and investigate zoning um infractions is they get complaints. So, I don't think this one's any different than any other zoning case. Um, so with that, I mean, I'm glad to answer any questions, but I think we've we've heard the neighbors. We've addressed their concerns. We feel like as a land use decision, this fits with the city's plans, and we don't think we should be denied the same opportunity that other properties on this block have. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Miss Maddox. Um, next, the opposition has five minutes. Please state your name for the >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Chris Crew. Uh, I would like to uh first of all uh thank the applicant for working with the neighbors on this. I' I've been to every public meeting regarding this. Uh, I would like to refer you back to your earlier conversation about cumulative impacts. The fact that there is a an event center on this block is not justification for another one. The neighbors have been solidly opposed to this. I' I'd like to speak uh though from the uh perspective of the the um historic preservation community on this one. despite the appribation of the RHDC uh that it is the general consensus of the preservation community that a change to more intensive use for this property uh could increase the risk that this historic structure would be removed in favor of a larger more intense use on the property. And and that's you know this is a neighborhood. this if you walk up and down Blunt Street, you know, there are commercial things on there, but it is a neighborhood street. And historically, this was, you know, one of Raleigh's grand boulevards, and this is a fine old home that we can't stand any uh any increase of the risk demolition of this fine old building. So, I I would urge you to deny this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi, Maggie McDonald. Um, I live at 520 North Blunt Street, which is adjacent to the property. I'm >> Scott Idol. Um, I live at uh 510 John Haywood Way, which is directly behind it, and I'm president of the uh adjoining HOA. And we had a brief presentation, but that's so if you would like, I've got the old one which kind of addresses many of the same. if you want to pass that around. But in brief, we wanted to address the conditions. Uh we did have a neighborhood meeting. Um and we're our our concerns are still the noise, the lights, the parking, and the potential issues with enforcement. >> Um on the first page of what's being passed around right now, we just did put it in the new presentation. We just wanted to highlight once again how many residential units surround this property. Um they have limited the out the amplified music outdoor but there still you can have out you can have music outdoors based still on the noise ordinance. We're in very tight proximity to them. Um so it's still going to be an impact the >> I'll make a comment on that. Um I in terms of that too. So you percussive instruments are still allowed outside. Um even with the indoor amplified music, my kids bedrooms are located 14 ft away from the structure of their house. So even indoor amplification with bass noises is going to be extremely disruptive. and and the back and the back of the house opens directly to the backyard right beside the bar that's built just inside. Um again and leading to that they talk about no food or beverage after 9:00. Again, appreciate the effort, but I don't think it's going to have any impact because there is a bar built just inside the back door that leads directly to the patio and the backyard. So the party is going to continue and beverages will still flow outside. Um they have restricted the access the hours of access to the driveway but they have not restricted the hours for setup and breakdown. They can be putting up tents and taken down tents at any point and it's loud. We've experienced that at Marman win. Um, so the driveway limitation is one thing, but the activities that occur with it have not been limited. Um, one of the things that's um, really unusual about this particular property that it's already approved as a short-term rental. So, people are already staying there all night. So, think forward. We're going to now let it be an event space. There are no hours of operation set set up. So essentially, we'll have people hanging out at the house having a party. The music might have stopped. The beverages might have stopped. They're still in the backyard talking and having a big time into the wee hours of the night. And our adjacent properties are literally one of them is 5t away. They have um a buffer around the property. It is a 6 and 1/2t fence. That 6 and 1/2 ft fence basically does almost nothing because all of our living spaces are on floors two and three. So, we can't see it from the car, but that's about it. And the landscaping will be years and years before it has any effect. We're literally looking straight down into the backyard. And this fence has been promised for quite some time and still not there. >> Thank you. >> Can I make one comment about the shared driveway >> really quickly since your time is up? >> I'm I have the shared driveway with them. Um on the presentation, I don't know if I can just hold up the picture. They stay on there four cars for the short-term rental, not including enclosed garage, not including vendor vehicles. With their garage, they have room for five cars total with one squeezing in diagonal. So, what they're asking for in capacity of parking, it they don't have it without parking in the shared driveway. And since they have been forced to stop events, the driveway has not been blocked a single time. >> Thank you. Um would the applicant like to respond? You have a extra minute since we gave them. >> Yes, I would. Um one, I do think we have adequate parking. Um we're just talking about bringing one truck in, unloading, and the four cars for the short-term rental can remain as is. One thing I failed to mention on my initial comments is right now we could do a restaurant there, a 4,000 foot restaurant with indoor and outdoor spaces with music with no um uh governance other than the noise ordinance, which we would certainly honor. Um, we could do that right now. We could have indoor and outdoor spaces and music for a restaurant under OX. You can do that on the ground floor of a building. We could do that now. And so that could be that could be seven days a week. Um there are c certain limitations. I think you have to close by 11 p.m. and you can't open before 6:00 a.m. I think those are the hours for a restaurant in OEX. And my client has had conversations with a a leading restaurant developer in Raleigh who's anxious to do that. So I think that's important. Also to the historic consensus, you know, he says it's a consensus. We had a vote from the Raleigh Historic Districts Commission supporting this case. >> Thank you. Um bringing it to the table, Commissioner Neptune and Commissioner Fox. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh let me just thank all the residents who've come out to speak to this issue. Again, I think we all appreciate your engagement on this uh item over the last few months. Uh to Isabelle Maddox, Miss Maddox, I want to thank you for all of your work and your time and your engagement with the commission. Um, you know, I really struggled with this. I think it's worth acknowledging, you know, I uh have operated, owned event venues, restaurants, bars, etc. I'm still very active and engaged in that scene and happily so across downtown. And when this first came up, you know, we're talking the comp plan, check, you know, future land use map, check. But then as a commission there's a third item for consideration and that's a matter of public interest. And I would just acknowledge at this table that as a resident and as someone who is active and engaged, okay, in the event venue and food and beverage scene, you know, as I've been in conversation with residents and uh business owners in this area, including right next door, Miriam Wyn, you know, there is some concern that after all these years, when uh other event venues have gone to great lengths to build trust in this community uh over the last uh let's say I guess couple of years or however long this has sort of been in the pipeline there's been a shifting kind of back and forth as to what this is going to be where it's going to land there's there's just an open question about the good faith in which people have operated with regard to this potential you know, development. And so I I'm really struggling with this because of that because, you know, as as I'm I mean, I'm I think we've all been flooded with these opposition emails. And you know, ultimately as I try to test, measure, and balance what we can do given our current conditions versus what we're seeking to do and whether or not folks are truly conducting themselves in a way in the public interest with this resoning. I feel very challenged on this. I'm just I'm just acknowledging that. But again, I want to thank all the residents and I want to thank Miss Maddox for being here. Okay, you you've had you've had a heavy lift on this item. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Welcome to the planning commission. >> Commissioner Fox, thank you. Um, I just wanted to clarify with staff, I guess, the the nature of this request. It is actually in response to it being used for that use currently. and someone getting in trouble for that. Is that an accurate statement? >> I believe there was a code enforcement case regarding the use of this property. Um and I believe there was a board of adjustment case as well and I do believe this is a result of those initial measures. >> Okay. I just and I actually had um Miss Maddox if you wanted to respond to that. I was >> Yeah. Initially the property owners felt like they could do the event space use there and then the city came back and said no this is considered indoor recreation which was a news to them. So they we did have a BOA case and that was decided that what we were doing was not appropriate. >> So it's really more of a classification of the use. >> Okay. And but the nature of the complaint which was which came before that acknowledgement that perhaps the use was not what you thought it was was that related to noise or it was related to the use in general. mainly was a based on the internet ads internet it was a online that was the evidence of the case that the online presence was putting this out there as an event space >> and it there was there was there were some nory's comments but that was not the bulk of the case in in in my opinion >> okay so the the complaints that came in while it was operating as an event space without all the proper without all the proper like regulations was not noise. Is that what I'm hearing? >> I don't think that was the main factor there. I think they felt like it was not a permitted use there. >> Got it. Okay, that helps me. I I have been struggling with this one as well, Commissioner Bennett. Um, so I just wanted to acknowledge if it was operating that way before and the nature of the complaint was regarding the >> the events that were held there were pretty small. I don't think they were it was significantly noise based. Okay. I I will acknowledge um I appreciate um the number of the conditions that are intended to address noise. I I feel like they they likely do a very good job of that. I'm also going to acknowledge um this is really unique in that it has a shared driveway situation. I to be honest I I feel like the shared driveway concerns are are really that's a matter between two property owners and those aren't necessarily zoning conditions. However, if you all decide to conduct it in this manner that's that's fine. We'll review them as conditions but but they they felt like private party agreement. >> Thank you Commissioner Fox. Commissioner Omay, >> was he about to say something? >> I'm I'm I'm sorry. The the public comment period has ended. Do we want to add more time for the public? Hold on. >> I can I I just would like to respond to Miss Mat comment period. >> Just be careful. We're not here to relitigate the BOA appeal. So, we just if we're going to give additional time, let's just keep those comments in context that this is a reasonzoning case and not a relitigation of the appeal. >> Thank you for that. So, we're not talking about the the BOA case. Um, thank you though, >> Commissioner Omay. Um, I had some concerns about this case from the last time that we had it for a lot of the reasons that the community is speaking about how disruptive this would be to their to their everyday life. Um, the shared driveway to me would be a problem. There's no way that we can regulate once we approve the planning and it goes through what actually happens here. it just becomes up to the the owner or whatever that that of what they want to do and then it becomes something that's litigated somewhere else. I do think that the lights are a problem. I think that we should listen closely to neighbors that live right on the property that are impacted by it. They're saying their kids' bedroom is close to this that are saying I appreciate all the conditions. Um, but the concern does remain what happens if there's all of these places are having events on the same day. Then where will people park? There's not a lot of parking for Miriam Win House. I've been there. Um, like I'm sure everybody else has. There's not a lot of parking for that space. This space would also cause more traffic and and you know places where people can't park. If there's weddings going on at both places at the same day, we can't control when people have events. We can't control any of that to be honest. And it sound like the lady said that once a a pause was put on events in this space, she wasn't having any more problems with her driveway being blocked. So, it sounds like it was more than just slight noise or just the reasonzoning. And sometimes it, you know, when the the owners or lawyers come to speak about certain cases, they could be biased about it. It makes sense. They're here to to do a job. But we also have to listen to the context of what community is saying, how they're impacted by the decisions that we're making. Um, her children's bedroom next to the space. We all know that once a party is going on, it's going on until the cops are called. So, you can't say that, you know, it's not going to spill outside. You can't say that people aren't going to be outside drinking. You can't say that there's not going to be any interference or noise interference or light interference or anything like that. Like we're all taking a gamble. And I just think that as a planning commission, the decisions that we make, we should put oursel in the position. Do I want this next to me? And if the answer is no, then the answer should be no. >> Thank you, Commissioner May. Can I get Commissioner Shelurn since he hasn't spoken? And then Commissioner Fox. Yeah, I see our role fundamentally as trying to prevent through recommendations of course negative externalities when a land use is going to cause a legitimate problem for its neighbors. And because I don't think um tall buildings or denser housing or some of the things we've talked about are legitimate negative nationalities, I haven't really struggled that much with our votes. But I have, like some of my fellow commissioners here, I am struggling with this one because it does seem like in this case there actually are some potential negative externalities on the neighbors. So at this point in time, I frankly don't even know how I'm going to vote. I'm still up in the air. >> Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. Commissioner Fox, >> I I appreciate that, Commissioner Shelurn. I'm struggling with this one as well. Um, and to be quite frank, it would be a very different conversation for me if the current zoning was like R4 or R six, but the the fact that you like you could have a restaurant in there now as an allowed use, that's what I'm struggling with. But that does not that that that does not change the fact that there are unintended consequences as as you acknowledge. So, I I too am struggling. >> Commissioner, >> just a note of acknowledgement to express my appreciation for Commissioner Shelurn and the way you phrased all of that as far as, you know, what we're what we're struggling with here. I just I really I appreciate that, you know. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, as we struggle, does anyone want to make a motion? >> Anyone? >> Uh, I don't want to make a motion yet. Uh, I just want to reiterate that I am right in line with Commissioner Fox and that if you can if you can have a restaurant by right that has more probably negative externalities than what's what we're talking about doing with all of these conditions that um limit that. I'm I'm struggling to understand why we wouldn't be in favor of that. uh but at the same time understand that they're there that that means accepting some of these negative externalities. Go ahead. >> I have a question for staff. I think it's would be staff. If you can have a restaurant there now, then what was the complaint about? What were the complaints about that went before the board of adjustment? I'm trying to if you can do a restaurant now then why are there complaints about what's going on now? >> So originally this in the city's records this was a residential use. It was a primary principal residential use and when you add event space use that takes it from purely residential into something else. And so the com the zoning case, the appeal ended up being what is that extra thing that is not residential anymore and did that become something more than a principal or the residential is principal use and did the extra stuff become a principal use? Um if that makes sense. So we're talking more about principal accessory. when does something morph into principle? Um although certain uses may be allowed in ox. Um that's restaurant's not in front of you. So >> um they're they're asking for outdoor indoor recreation type use. So um which would >> could include a restaurant component >> but it is not a standalone restaurant use. outdoor indoor recreation is not >> that helps. Thank you. >> But just to clarify, uh in the current zone, >> Commissioner Walters, I'm sorry. Could you raise your hand to be recognized before you speak because others would Okay, go ahead. And then Commission. >> Um just to clarify, the current zoning without the any reasonzoning does allow a restaurant. >> I would have to look up OX. OEX does have an expanded pallet of commercial uses associated with it. Obviously, to change something from a residential use to a full-blown restaurant would require probably a change of use application with the city that's outside of the zoning process. And then there's obviously building and fire code that would kick in for commercial uses. >> Okay. >> Matt, did you want to add something? >> Yeah, I just going to say eating establishment use is allowed in the OX district and subject to special use standards. one being must be within or attached to a multi-tenant building, cannot be located in a standalone building. There's floor uh area requirements, hours of operation requirements, uh prohibitions on drive-thru and drive-in facilities. Um must be located at least 150 ft from an abuing residential district, measured uh in a straight line from any nearest point of the building um in a eating establishment and a to um there are some standards there that don't apply. So, I could do it, but lots of restrictions and >> caveats. May I commissioner Fox? Yeah. >> And then we had to move on, guys, because we are still on old business and we have new business items. So, go ahead, Commissioner Fox. >> I'll be I'll be f actually I was going to um inquire of one thing. Um, Miss Maddox, and this really isn't the purview here. It's really just because I'm like struggling with this thing. like why wasn't it just a assuming that all of the other requirements are met in regards to what Matt just read off. Why wasn't this just a change of use request? >> Well, because my clients want to do an event space. Okay? >> They don't want to do a restaurant. That's not their first choice. But they can do a restaurant and the 150 from a residential district. That's that's based on the zoning and the there's no residential districts abuing this property. So that's not a prohibition on a restaurant here. It's a 4,000 ft limit. That's plenty of room for a restaurant. Plenty of room for the ground floor of this building. I'm confident they could do it there with the the ST STR on the upper floor. >> Okay. Um yeah, it wouldn't have it wouldn't have been achieved by just change of use because they wouldn't have the zone because the way the zoning commissioner has um zoning administrator has classified this use as indoor recreation that's not available in OEX restaurant is under those parameters in out indoor vent not not >> but silly question restaurants can hold events can they not? >> Yep. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's >> okay. Are there any other questions, comments, >> Commissioner Cochran? >> So, I'm ready to make a motion, but I do want to smidg in a few things um as part of that motion. >> Okay. >> Um the zoning condition of adding a fence to me um and like everyone else, I'm struggling with this. I love going to events at events spaces downtown. I think it adds a lot of excitement to the area. However, I feel like adding that condition about the fence rather than just building the fence is where I find this to be a little disingenuous. Um, I mean, adding the condition is great, but I don't quite understand why that buffer isn't already there if that's how they were using the the space to start with, if that makes sense. >> We we've offered to do a fence and a screen plannings. We just haven't defined exact height of them because we've been been requested by staff to leave that with more flexibility. So the Raleigh historic districts which would have to approve it plannings on the breer line. >> You're waiting until it's accepted before you build it so that you're building it correctly. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um I'm not ready to make a motion now. >> How about at it? >> Oh, I'm not ready to make >> Oh, you're not ready. Would someone else like to make a motion? Commissioner Atwell, >> I I'm sensitive to the comments of the neighbors in the neighborhood. I've had redevelopment happened next to my house that reduced the privacy and the the quietness we had in my house. Um, and it's not it's not great. Um, it can be hard to deal with. I think this is in line with the comp plan. It's mostly in line with the future land use map. And if that's the case, we have to have an extraordinary reason to deny or recommend denial. And I think that this while it might be significant is not extraordinary. This is the kind of exactly the kind of stuff that we expect to happen in downtown when these comprehensive plans were put together and these zones were laid down. And uh I think that the conditions are pretty uh robust and I would like to move to recommend approval at this time. So, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 10th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Do I have a second? >> Uh, I was going to comment if I could. >> Wait till we get to the discussion piece. >> Do I have a second on the motion to approve from Commissioner Atwell? >> Okay, motion fails. Uh before we do another motion, Commissioner O'Hver, would you like to make a comment? >> No, ma'am. >> Oh, okay. Commissioner Omay, >> I make a motion that we deny uh the reasonzoning request uh for Z3125. Do we I think we need to read it like it's >> Could your motion please include >> I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 10th, 2026 containing the agenda materials and the recommendation and to recommend denial of the resoning of the zoning amendment. >> Thank you, Commissioner May. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Any discussion? All right. All in favor of recommending denial. One, two, three, four, five. All opposed. One, two, three, four. Motion passes. Five to four. Um, hold on. Let me Would those who voted in opposition to denial like to offer comments? Why? So when council asks me, I can tell them. Let's start with Commissioner Shelurn. >> Uh just the your comment at the end there about how it's got to be extraordinary and the possibility that it could be a restaurant. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um Commissioner Walters, >> same. >> Who else? Oh, Commissioner Haven, where did you vote? >> Are you Were you denial or >> I was in favor of >> Okay, thank you. Commissioner Cochran, I think you voted in opposition to denial, >> and I did so because I felt like it created too much friction um to just constantly have to have a tattletelling enforcement policy around this facility. >> Okay, Commissioner Atwell, >> I think that my uh motion to approve covers it all. I think that this is a a pretty standard kind of use type for downtown and the kind of disruptions that we expect, okay, >> in our urban area. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fox. >> Uh, nothing to add other than what my other commissioners have said already. >> Thank you. And I'll just say I struggled with this one, too. This is one of those where it's consistent with the comp plan. It's consistent with the future land use map, but I didn't feel like it was reasonable and in the public interest. So, I hung my hat on that one. >> I would I would like to second that. That's That's my opinion in this case. >> Thank you, Commissioner Haver. >> All right. I would like Thank you. I would like to thank everyone who came out to speak on this. Um I'd like to thank the applicant for working with the neighbors. Um we appreciate this type of coordination. And you can go if you'd like. >> Chair Bennett. >> Yeah. You have to leave. Yes. >> Yes, ma'am. I figure this is probably >> Thank you. Commissioner O'Hather is exclused. >> And while we are transitioning, we'll go we'll get ready to hear item E4, reszoning Z3725, Avent Ferry Road Assemblage. >> Chair Bennett, if you'll excuse me, I'll be right back. >> Of course. What a great job. Thank you. >> Okay, we're ready. >> Thanks. Good morning, commission members. Sheshpadderan presenting uh an update on Z3725. >> Um could I ask members of the public please to take their conversations outside of the chambers? >> Uh a request to reszone several properties. Is it okay if I continue? >> You can continue. >> A request to resone several properties. Uh 17 parcels along Avent Ferry Road, Broadwell Drive, Shernadfast Court, and Chapel Drive. um and just under nine acres uh from R10, RX3, and CM with the special residential parking overlay district to RX4 with conditions maintaining the SRPOD. And then since it last appeared, conditions have been added in response to staff comments and commissioner comments. Just look at the site again, but I'll get to conditions that were updated. Um 2C was added. Um it requires on the ground floor of any of any parking structure active uses to be included for parking structures facing um or fronting a fairy and chapel drive. And then the applicant provided some examples of what active uses could look like um residential, commercial, office or civic space. And then condition three um was just broadened to um include what existing buildings would require tenant notice and in what time. So 120 days and then it was also broadened to um require an affidavit be provided to planning staff confirming um tenants were notifi notified of future demolition. Um but that's what's changed. Um again the request is still consistent with the flume urban form map um because of the provision of condition two and then uh consistent with several policies uh inconsistent with two because of fire service response time standards and then your deadline for action is March 14th um and those are your upcoming PC dates. Happy to answer any questions and the applicants also here. >> Thank you. We've received public comment on this item. Are there people here who wish to speak on this case? I see the applicant. Okay, we'll allow an additional two minutes on each side. >> Yeah. And I I'll be brief. Um we did add the uh I'm Ashley Honeyut Trazzos with Parker Poe here on behalf of the applicant Kennedy Wilson and their student housing division. Um and and just as a reminder, I know it's been a while since we've looked at this case. Uh the request is for a modest increase um and heightened density and a uniform zoning district for the entire um site. The site is currently splitz zoned again in order to support a student housing project on a ferry right next to Centennial Campus. Um so again, Metra already went over the changes to conditions. We did work on these with commissioners O'Haver and Otwell, although I see that they are are not here and look and brought um brought this language directly from the code on on the active uses between the parking structure and the street so that it'll be easier for staff to um enforce um at at the time of site plan. Just, you know, kind of carrying that urban frontage requirement over into the zoning condition where we can apply it um on the site given the environmental constraints. and then worked with the city attorney's office to update that tenant notice condition really to just um make it clear how the city will enforce that at the time of um demolition permit. Um as Major said this is consistent with the comprehensive plan um future land use map and urban form map and um many consistent policies in the um in the comprehensive plan and we respectfully ask um that you recommend approval. >> Thank you. Just to double check any um any others want to speak in support of this case. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the table. Um Commissioner Atwell, I know you had some comments on this one and wanted to see some revisions. Do these revisions address your concerns? >> Put you on the spot when you >> having reviewed them on Saturday. I think that that's the case, but please give me just one second. >> Okay. Does anyone else have a question or comment while Commissioner Atwell is getting up to speed? >> My time is up. >> That's Commissioner Fox. >> Uh, no. I I appreciated some of the conditions that came forward specifically um ones about uh ground story parking structures fronting a ferry. I think that was one of the concerns um that a couple of us had. Thank you. >> I'm good. This is good. >> Commissioner Outwell's good. Anybody else questions or comments? >> Okay, then I'll entertain a motion. >> A question. You have a question. Um, Commissioner Makay. >> So, with this resoning, um, I don't see in here and maybe I'm missing it. Like, is this going to add to the housing supply? Are there going to be units built here? >> I believe so. I don't have the staff report up. Um, anybody got the staff report up that can specifically answer that? Yeah, I didn't include those slides um because this was just an update, but it does add to the overall housing supply and it provides additional housing to be built on the site in proximity to NC State and other um commercial employment areas. >> Is any of it subsidized or affordable? >> That's not included with the request. Any other questions? Did I see a hand? >> Okay, I'll entertain a motion. All right, >> Commissioner Atwell. >> Yeah. Uh, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 10th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to approve to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Second. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Great. That's unanimous. Thank you. Our last old business item is E5, reszoning Z4025 um 831 Wake Forest Road and Moriki Drive. We heard this one on January 13th and deferred to allow the applicant to rec to revise conditions and to allow RHDC to review the case. We'll look to staff for an update. And good morning again. Hi Marziano. This is Z40 uh 25. It's 831 Wake Forest Road, 904 Morton Key Drive. Uh just a reminder, this is uh request to go from OX3 with neighborhood commercial overly district to OX4 conditional use. Uh deadline for action is March 14th. The RHDC did hear this the day after y'all did last month and had recommended denial uh vote three to 9 to3. Um just again the context for site we are across from Mori historical uh historic park um overview just some images from the street uh changes since the uh last meeting and conditions uh they removed a use out of the uh prohibited uses. They um made alterations to the second condition at the request of historic preservation staff. Um a lot of this deals with how the documentation of that structure, the existing structure would take place uh in greater detail. Give you a second to peruse if you want. There's a lot there. Um the third condition was updated to add in a few additional societies to offer uh notice towards for the salvage of the structure and um a few conditions were added. Uh number five here adds um uh mimics a frontage uh for Wake Forest Road. uh being part of the comments from last time, no frontage was applied to this being on a corridor. Uh this is an attempt to mimic that frontage without committing the entire parcel. Um the buildings uh within uh 50 ft of Mori Drive. Another condition number six added here uh will be limited to threetory height. Uh and another condition for the primary street setbacks for Mori and Mimosa. um would be 10 ft minimum required as opposed to the six foot that would be required or minimum otherwise. However, it does have a caveat if right ofway is given that would uh set back uh minimums would be reduced by how much given down to what the minimum for the district would be. Uh again, just your quick look at your entitlement here. Um is consistent with the uh future lane use map, inconsistent with the transit area. Again, that condition though, however, does mimic that frontage um and would mitigate that inconsistency. uh policies uh that is consistent with uh determined and inconsistent policies that conser uh conserving enhancing revitalizing neighborhoods largely because they're requesting to remove the remove remove the NCOD. Um deadline for action is the 14th of March and your upcoming meetings will be February 24th and March 10th. >> Thank you very much. We've heard um public comment, but is anyone here to speak on this case? Did I see a hand? One, two, three. Okay, we will allow three minutes per side since I see three people. >> Um, are you all in support or in opposition of? >> Opposition. >> All three are >> I'm in opposition. >> Okay. Okay. I see four people >> and the applicant's attorney is here if you wanted to hear from the applicant first. >> Okay. So then let's do um I see four people. Four minutes for each side if that's okay with the commission and we'll start with the applicant and then we'll hear from the opposition. Four minutes per side, please. >> Chair Bennett, we're happy to have the opposition go first um and then respond if that works for the commission. >> That works for us. >> Thank you. Members of the opposition, um, state your name for the record. You don't have to give your address unless you want to. >> Hi, I'm Shay Denning. Um, I will give my address. I live at 909 Moriki Drive directly across the street from 904 Moriki Drive. Um, I too submitted a presentation, but I don't think it's up here, so I'll just summarize what I wanted to say to you. Um, city staff said it best in their memo to you. The removal of the NCOD on this property and the increase in permitted height reduce the neighborhood specific design controls that are intended to preserve our neighborhood. Uh you have many policies you can turn to. Policy LU8.3 recognizes the need to protect neighborhood character. The upshot is that this reszoning will allow the petitioner to build threestory town homes on 904 Micke up up to 50 feet. That exceeds the height of any structure in Mori. Now the developers have said they plan to uh build only three stories in their current condition but they would not agree to a 35 foot height restriction. Um they have said we can look over to Oakwood Towns as an example of what they might plan to build. That's the development they're constructing over across on Wake Forest Road. Um there it becomes clear why the developers will not agree to a 35- ft height restriction. Every single one of those town homes has a roof bump up of several stories to account for an HVAC unit on top of the town home. Um, when you look at the drawings, those are in dotted lines, but when you look at them in real life, they're not going to be dotted lines. They're going to be bumped up structures above 35 ft. That's what you'll see from our block of Mortic Drive, and that's what you'll see when you look out from the front steps of the Mory House. You'll look up um and over to this. Um, so I uh respectfully request that the commission consider what I would identify as negative externalities, the lack of sunlight, the lack of um acknowledging the historical character of our community um and deny this petition. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Matthew Brown. The magnificent Dorch Andrews house, now the funeral home, was built in 1918 for Gavin Dorch, developer of the Moriki neighborhood. It is a masterpiece of Georgian revival architect architecture designed by one of Raleigh's greatest architects, James Salter, who designed many important buildings around the city and around the state. It is a treasure that should not be demolished. Uh the developer said that denial of the resoning may induce him to not go through with the demolition. So if you care about historic preservation, please deny. Uh Raleigh has thousands of acres of useless surface parking and crappy low-rise buildings that nobody cares about, perfect for redevelopment in into housing. Why should we instead destroy our architectural heritage? Thank you. >> Thank you. Chris Crew. Uh we cannot adequately address the negative impacts of this on the historic district, the neighborhood or the park without specific plans from the director, from the developer. Current zoning already allows ample opportunities based on consensus reached in a robust planning process that that brought us our comprehensive plan. The proposed development will not add an appreciable amount of housing. None of it will be affordable. It'll be no different from any of the numerous luxury offerings currently available under construction and in development. So, this is not adding any any different housing as as they have represented. Approval of this request will send a message that our comp plan and our history and our culture are less important than profit. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Was that everyone for the opposition? Okay. Let's >> thank thank >> one more is it okay to give her a minute please? Okay one more minute and then >> Mr. Paul, I'm the chair of preservation Raleigh and um most of us are alumni of RHDC. So uh we our team RHDC decision uh specifically from our organization the concerns are the removal of the Ncod boundary contributes to the degra deg degradation of the Miki place in national historic park and the second thing we're very concerned about is the impact on the Moricki house the oldest house in Raleigh and which is a viable um cultural tourism resource for our city. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is that everyone? Okay. Um, now the opposition will have five minutes. I'm sorry, the applicant will have five minutes. Thank you. >> Good morning, Chair Bennett, members of the commission. Walker Abbott with Parker Poe at 31 Fagetville Street here on behalf of the applicant carpenter development. Um, as staff mentioned, since our last hearing, we have been to RHDC. We have met with staff multiple times. We have met with neighbors and we have added or revised our conditions um that staff did a great job going through. But these revisions were based on direct feedback and comments from planning commission. I'll start with condition two and three which were um are historic conditions related to documentation and salvage. Those were based on feedback from historic staff. The RHDC discussion did not really focus at all on our conditions um or have any uh feedback on that. Next, the frontage condition number five. That is in response to comments from Commissioner Uwell and Commissioner Fox as well as O'Hver regarding adding a frontage on Wake Forest. Um, we mimicked the urban limited frontage on Wake Forest. And then we took it a step further and um required active ground floor um uses between any facade. So, Mimosa, Moriki, and Wake For Wake Forest for any um parking structure structure to be consistent more consistent with the character of the neighborhood. And lastly, um the conditions six and seven are our new conditions. Um we at the prior hearing at planning commission and at our second neighborhood meeting, neighbors specifically asked for a reduction to three stories. And planning commission asked for a transition. We did just that. We added a restriction on height to limit the height to three stories within 50 ft of Mori Drive. That 50 foot range is shown in yellow. that is approximately half the site of 904 Mortic. And then our second condition relates to the setback um where we tried to strike a compromise between the 15oot setback required by the NCOD and then what would otherwise be required under the Ox3 or OX4 zoning. Um that's five feet for a multif family building or 10 feet for um a town home. We just made it 10 feet for all apartment types. Um we intentionally added that setback on Mimosa and on Mori. Um a to increase that building distance from the single family from those neighbors on Mori Drive, but then also to set back our building from the Moriki Place historic park and recognize that important transition um and the park's desire to have some of the street trees still pulled up there. Um, again, this case specifically responded to concerns that we heard from the commission and from neighbors at our last hearing. Um, and we changed our conditions. We changed them during the one allowed time we can change conditions while here in front of you. So, we are ready for action. Um, and feel that these conditions strike the compromise that the neighbors asked for. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other um people who wish to speak in support of this case? All right, we'll reserve the two minutes and 10 seconds for questions and comments and I'll bring it to the table. Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. U just again, I deeply appreciate all of the residents uh who've come out um to engage on this item uh this morning, especially our colleagues Matt Brown, Chris Crew, recognize our friends from our preservation community. also appreciate the applicant and the response to the uh I think the the concerns expressed by uh folks who live in the area. I certainly should acknowledge I actually work right down the street. I pass by this all the time. I'm certainly familiar with uh the the context of this and you know I'm I'm really grateful that this item is coming up the same morning as Blunt Street because in this scenario where you know here again we have you know we're checking off the comp plan checking off that future land use map and then again we're left with that last consideration with regard to you know whether or not this is in the public good or public interest. You know, the context here is one of I mean, I think frankly a local developer homegrown who has had a history of quality, thoughtful neighborhood-based residential commercial, you know, mixeduse developments. And this one I do not struggle with nearly as much. Again, I deeply appreciate all the residential concerns. I think there there's some validity in acknowledging this change coming to the neighborhood. At the same time, when you look at this potential increase in, you know, residential units, which I would love to live in one off a Wake Forest Road, you know, uh, combined with the fact that you have, uh, again, a local developer who has a a track record, a history of thoughtful integration into our neighborhoods. Again, I I would just acknowledge on this item, no struggle for me. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Um, if not we'll >> uh I'd like to directly uh address Matthew Brown. Like, I feel I feel you. I've been uh I love this place. I've said goodbye to many family members and friends in this funeral home. And if there's an action that I could take that I think would preserve this structure for the long term, I I believe I would take it. Um, I don't think that the current context and the regulations allowed to us will preserve this regardless of the zoning that we apply to it here today. And given given that situation, uh, I think that everything lines up in favor of approving this resoning. I really appreciate the frontage concessions. Um, I talked to Commissioner O'Hver on the way out and he was pleased with the uh three-foot uh, excuse me, three-story restriction along board drive which he had specifically asked for in the last meeting and uh, I'm ready to support this at the appropriate time. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Commissioner Fox, I saw you grab your mic. Do you have comments? >> I'm just ready to roll when you are. >> Okay. Um, any other questions or comments? Commissioner May. Um, I know that I'm often the probably the problem child up here on the planning commission. Uh, it's because of my sentimental heart, but I also do believe that some areas should stay as they are. Um, especially historic districts. I think it becomes a slippery slope when we start removing elements from the city that give us our character. To date, we've already as a planning commission and as a and the city council has already approved enough reszoning and housing to meet the housing need for the city. We don't get to control when people actually develop it or if they ever do or if they sit on it to sell it for some for more money. I think that its potential impact to the Mory house should be considered. Um, I own a home, so I'm not itching to move into a development that snatches the teeth out of the front of uh for the city personally. Um, I don't take any pleasure in gentrification of any sort. That's just the truth. So, I won't be supporting this. Uh, I think that we had other we had another case some time ago that we didn't approve of and we said because some places suggest stay rural. Well, some places suggest stay historic and if the historic preservation committee is not for this and the residents aren't for it, I don't think we should be for it either. >> Thank you, Commissioner May. Question for staff. I believe so. I was reading through RHDC's um memo to understand their um vote to deny and it seems like if if I'm understanding it correctly, they were concerned about the incentivization to demolish the historic structure. So my question is if we deny the re vote to deny the resoning can it still be demolished today? Uh yes good morning Aaron Morton Pew. I am historic preservation staff to the city and liaison to the RHDC. Um I've spoken to this commission at least once before now. Um in North Carolina demolition cannot be denied. So, um, regardless of the historic status of any property in the city, it could be a national historic landmark, the country's highest honor. Um, if the property owner wants to demolish a building, they can do so. Um, they will still need to obtain COA approval to do that in the city. Uh, but the commission is required to approve it. Um, of course, that doesn't apply to this property because this is not locally designated. It's in a national register historic district which is more incentive based than regulatory. Um, does that answer your question? >> Yes, it does. >> Thank you. >> That helps me because I mean I share Commissioner Omay's and and Commissioner Atwell's desire to preserve historic structures. Um, I I hate to see them getting torn down, but it doesn't seem like there's anything we can do at this table to preserve this structure if the owner wants to tear it down. So it it but it seems like the applicant has added in conditions for documentation that RHDC typically asked for or that we might ask for to preserve I hate to say its memory. Um but I don't if there were something that I that we could do to preserve the structure I would love to be able to do it but there isn't. So given that, I think the applicant has a thoughtful application and I I like the the conditions. I appreciate the coordination with the neighbors. I understand absolutely the neighbor concerns, but I don't think we can give the neighbors the assurance that they want that this building would be preserved. So that's that's my stance. Um, Commissioner Walters, >> I really appreciate that added perspective that you called out here because I think that what's in front of us is possibly one of the best opportunities for this property and the highest and best uh use for this site. And um the the the next things that were to come through uh I think would likely not be as good for the community. uh both the ones that are there now and folks that would be there in the future. >> Thank you, Commissioner Walters. Any additional questions or comments? Then I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Fox. In regards to case Z425, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 10th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Do I have a second? Second. >> Commissioner Neptune has seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? >> 721. Is that right? >> Commissioner Omay, and you've already given a statement, but would you like to say anything else for the record about your opposition? Okay. Thank I've noted your previous comments, so thank you. That concludes old business. We got through. Um, Commissioner Cochran needs to leave. Um, are there any other commissioners? I just want to do a quorum check. It's 10:54. We have three new business items. Oh, two. That's right. We deferred one. We have two new business items. Um, anyone else need to leave say within the next hour? >> I just need to go to the restroom real quick. >> How about Okay. Yeah. All right. You >> might need to get up and stretch. Go ahead. Moving on to new business. Our first new business item. Nope, that's the one we deferred. Our second new business item, F2, reszoning Z4225 2936 Hodgej Road. We'll hear from staff. >> Yes. Give me one second. All right. >> Good morning. Uh, I am Matt McGregor. I will be talking on Z4225. The address of the site is 2936 Hodgej Road and the request is to reszone 47 acres from a Wake County designation R30 district to uh an R10 CU district. The site is also being annexed. Um so it's a reszoning and annexation and planning commission deadline for action is April 11th. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential. Uh the surrounding zoning is PD and again the Wake County R30 district. Um the PD is that Banks 20 development. Um I'm sure y'all are familiar with especially having heard a uh previous resoning case uh Z30 a couple months ago. Um this request that is being presented to you today is not dissimilar from that Z30 request. Um it's basically looking to just annex and resone the site into uh banks 20 and kind of fill in some gaps that they didn't last time. Here's a look at the surrounding area. Uh we have some moderate scale residential. Um that big moderate scale residential on the left is the banks 20. Um there's low-scale residential and then rural residential sprinkled in between. Here's a look at the site. Uh there's one detached unit on the site currently. And here are two street facing views. Uh north facing on Hodge Road and south facing on Hodge Road. The applicants have proposed one condition and they are looking to limit um or prohibit town houses and apartment building types. Again, the existing zoning is R30 acreage is point47 acres. Uh we estimate about one unit on the site under the existing zoning and two under the proposed zoning and the uh setbacks are standard for both. The site has a lower walk score than average. No transit score was provided. It has a higher bike score than average and uh average trans transportation cost index and a lower job proximity than average. The site is not serviced by transit. Uh the nearest bus stop is about almost 2 miles away. The request would add to the housing supply. It does not include subsidized units. It permits a variety of housing types. Smaller units are allowed. Smaller lots in the citywide average are allowed. And it is not within walking distance of transit. The area's residents are more likely to be racial minorities, 53% compared to the citywide average of 46%. Area's residents are less likely to be low income, 3% compared to the citywide average of 29. And then cost of rent has increased 23% since 2016 and 30% since 2019 compared to the citywide average of 26. Um I go into it more in the staff report, but um I believe that or we believe that the requested R10CU uh designation would be considered consistent with the rural residential uh f future land use map designation. No urban form guidance was provided. Again, um it be consistent with the future land use map. It's also consistent with the comprehensive plan. Here are list of cons um some consistent policies. They focus mainly on future land use map consistency, conditional use, uh, district consistency, and zoning for housing. I have found two inconsistent policies, but they're your standard uh, LU2.6 zoning infrastructure impacts and response time standards. So, uh, nothing out of the ordinary. Uh, planning commission deadline for action is April 11th, and I have no outstanding issues. And here are list of some upcoming PC meetings. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We'll now hear from the applicant. You have 10 minutes. The applicant and those in support have 10 minutes. >> Good morning. Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group. Uh here on behalf of the applicant Homes, I also have with me Kippy Posnak from Homes. I will not take anything like 10 minutes this morning. Um and have only a couple of slides for you mostly to clarify that uh you are not seeing double here. Um this was the previous resoning case uh that I brought to you. Uh very similar uh becoming part of that banks 20 project. Uh all of that pink you see is that PD zoning. Um but within the PD there are base districts and the area fully surrounding uh the site that we're looking at today uh which is still marked rural residential here uh has a base district of RX. Um so to to make it more consistent to bring it in as part of the development that is what the site would look like. It is essentially the backyards of of three homes as well as completing the streetscape along Hodgej Road. And with that, I will conclude and be available for questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this case? Um, are there people here to speak in opposition to the case? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the table for commissioner questions and comments. Excellent. I'll entertain a motion. >> Uh I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 10th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Great. That's unanimous. Thank you. All right, our last new business item, F3, reszoning Z4925 319 South King Charles Road. We'll hear from staff. Good morning, commission members. Again, Mr. Paradon presenting on Z4925. Um it's site at 319 South King Charles Road. It's a request to reszone 69 acres from R4 with an NCOD, specifically the King Charles South NCOD to R six with conditions removing the NCOD. And your deadline for action is April 11th. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential surrounding the site. Currently, um the site is situated in the middle of this portion of uh the NCOD. Um and so surrounding zoning is R4, R six with some R10 primarily single family detached homes. There are some instances of commercial m or of um mixeduse districts north of the site along Newburn and south of the site along Pool Road with some uh west of the site um which you can see here. A look at the site and um current land uses surrounding it. Um directly east of the site is uh Raleigh Country Club which is that large open space. It's a golf course. Um but around the site um in other areas again lowcale residential um with being surrounded uh with the NCOD and then other single family detached homes. Um there's some moderate scale residential north of the site at the intersection of Newburn and South King Charles with an a relatively new apartment complex having been built. And then some mixeduse districts along Newburn A and Pool Road being major roads um in the city. And then the industrial west of the site is a um vehicle repair and parking yard. And then some notable com commercial areas along Newburn. Um it's the Long View Shopping Center which is home to Alamo Draft House, a convenience store, bakery, um some dental, medical offices, daycarees, things like that. Um with some similar uses along Pull Road as well. Here's another look at the site. Uh currently, again, this shows predominantly uh other parcels that are also in the NCOD and then just like the tip of the um Raleigh Country Club, but existing on the site today is one single family detached home. Um and then here's just a look at the site in relation to the NCOD is within it's in the southern portion of the King Charles South NCOD, but solidly within this portion um of the NCOD. And then for reference, the green cross-hatching is the TOD, which maps the Newburn A future BRT corridor. Here's a few looks at the site uh and its frontage. Um the first one is going towards Pool Road leaving Newburn. You can see this existing single family detached home. My lines are kind of covering it, but there are pedestrian facilities on this side of South King Charles that run from Newburn to Pool Road. And then the second image again just kind of going towards Newburn um showing the exist existing single family home and the existing pedestrian facilities the sidewalks. Um the applicant has proposed two conditions. The first is restricting subdivision of the of the property into four parcels. So limiting what uh future development could look like on the site as well as restricting or only permitting the detached house building type. So restricting other housing types that could be built on the site. Here's a look at entitlement um for existing versus proposed zoning. Um with the R4 uh and the NCOD uh I'll kind of describe what exists or what the NCOD requires. It requires a minimum lot size of 33,000 or just over 33,000 square feet which is greater than what would exist in R4 or R six. Um so it comes up to um a maximum unit number of two which is like the duplex uh building type. And then some other requirements for the NCOD are a cap for height to two stories um a larger minimum lot width and then larger front yard setbacks which is that 76 um ft. uh then moving to proposed zoning uh with the R six and then removing the NCOD you get a maximum of four units but that's driven by the proposed condition restricting development on the site and then the related setbacks as well that just exists with the R six base district. Um overall the site is uh has better access to walk or is more walkable and bikable than other areas in the city on average. residents in this area have better access to transit and subsequently have lower transportation costs um and they have better uh proximity to jobs. This is because it's near um some commercial opportunities on Newburn served by transit and um like a mile or so west of um I guess east of downtown. Yeah. Um the site is served by two Go Raleigh um transit stops. one on Pool Road, which is the closest uh and then one on uh New Burn A, both within walking distance. Um in terms of affordability, the request does not include any subsidized units. Um but it does add to the overall housing supply by permitting additional units to be developed on the site. However, proposed conditions limit um housing variety um by only allowing the detached building type, house building type to be developed on the site. Um but overall smaller units are permitted on smaller lots within walking distance of transit, employment opportunities, etc. Um in terms of demographics and land use history, um there's a higher percentage of people of color that live in this area than the city on average, nearly double. Um and residents in this area are also more likely to be lower income. Um and then median gross rents in this area have risen similarly to um the citywide average, just trailing just behind, but relatively both rising at 25%. Overall, the request is consistent with the future land use map designation of low-skll residential for this area. Um, it's not eligible to apply a frontage because it's a residential base district. Um, but it does have some urban form guidance. It's within a frequent transit area and it also is pretty adjacent to a uh the BRT station area. Um, again being the Newburn BRT. Um, so there's some policy recommendations for increased density and housing variety because of this um, urban form guidance. And then I'll note that being within the frequent transit area does make it eligible to um, be developed under the frequent transit development option or FTDO. However, with being within the NCOD, that's not allowed because the NCOD controls. And then removing the NCD would introduce that, but proposed conditions limit it again. So just wanted to clarify that. Overall, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan um a number of policies. It's consistent with the future land use map. It allows for compact development on the site um in a similar pattern to what exists currently. Um it allows for also um additional density near future transit and then it is just in the edge of the station area plan as well. Some inconsistent policies were also identified. these are related to coming out of the NCOD because it it does sit in the middle of that portion of the NCOD. Um and then also missing middle housing and housing variety um being inconsistent because proposed conditions are limiting um what housing types can be developed on the site. Your deadline for action is April 11th. There are no outstanding issues and those are your upcoming dates. I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant also has a presentation. >> Thank you. Yeah, we'll now hear from the applicant. The applicant and those in support have 10 minutes. Uh good morning commissioners, madam chair, thank you staff uh for the presentation and also for all the patience with all my emails as this is my first time going through this process. Um do I just press the arrow key? Yeah. >> Okay, great. Um um staff um Shesh Baron did a very good job uh um displaying the basics of the project. So, I wanted to just give you some more background on the project personally and also feedback uh since our first neighborhood meeting and the conversations we've had with neighbors, a few of whom are here in the room today, um just to help you more thoroughly understand the project. So, uh my wife Sarah and I uh purchased this in 2017 as first-time home buyers, and we've lived in it, renovated the home since then, except for about 18 months during COVID when we moved out, needed more space with our two small kids. Um we have moved back in. We love living downtown. We love walkability, bikeability. We go to the Long View Shopping Center for uh multiple businesses there multiple times a week. Um we want to stay here long term. Uh unfortunately, the structure and the utilities uh the sewer line specifically are at the end of their life. And as we've worked with various people to talk about the possibilities, um it it seems like a great opportunity for us to stay in the neighborhood and build a new home for ourselves and also add to h Raleigh's housing supply shortage, which um I first learned about in uh 2009 as an architecture student at NC State. Uh I got to do a semester long study with Professor Tom Barry who's a expert in affordable housing and um since then have always wanted to contribute and so this is a a cool opportunity and again I mentioned this is our first time going through this process. So, please uh pardon my nerves. It's a little more intimidating than I expected and uh any any ignorance on my part. Um so, the goal is to build four new detached homes uh including our primary residence. Um Sarah and I are not builders, so we would work with a local builder on that project. Um someone who understands Raleigh and who can build within the character of what makes sense. Target home size would be around 3,000 square ft plus or minus depending on on how this resoning goes and how the lot lines go. And then the target parcel size would be about a fifth of an acre or slightly less. Um so that's the basics of it. And now to get into um the feedback that I've had with neighbors from our neighborhood meeting and also I've had multiple one-on-one conversations since then. Uh the first three questions that we've gotten uh go together and I'll address those first is how can you fit four homes? Where is everyone going to park and what will you build? Um, and then what would happen if we had the property reszoned? But then even though Sarah and I do want to see the project to completion, what if something happened and we did need to sell the property? Uh, what would protect the neighbors from the promises that I've made of what we want to build? And then, um, naturally, one of the biggest questions is the fear of setting a precedent of removing the NCOD on our property. So, I'll try to go through those briefly. I know it's been a long morning for you all. Um, so I'm not a planner engineer architect anything like that. And yet, um, I did, it's it's a relatively straightforward, uh, reasoning and subdivision that we want to do. So, I did take my hand at just tracing up against my window on my survey that I had the lot lines and then figuring out what would it look like to subdivide it because I understand that when neighbors who walk their dogs past our yard every morning, they're like, "Well, how you have one home there? How could you fit four?" And so, our home currently sits at that middle green tea intersection. And if we were to subdivide into four lots as we've conditioned, um it would allow for four lots all about 65 or 70 ft wide. You can see two of them would face um King Charles Road to the south and then two of them would face Peele Place to the left. And then I also overlaid the um a sketch approximation of where the building setbacks are in the R six zoning that we are requesting. Um so to do an exercise, again, this is not a submitted site plan or anything. This is just a a draft to show neighbors and the public and commissioners what we could build here. Um if we used a 40x40 building footprint, you know, that'd be 1,600 square f feet. And for a two-story home, that'd be approximately 3200 square f feet. And so you can see in option one, if there were no garage and it were a two-story home, it would look approximately like this from above. You can see where a home might fit. Now, we most likely won't build a 40 by 40 perfect square, so they could be wider or more skinnier, but just in the in the essence of showing the building blocks of how homes can fit on the site, this is what it would look like. Uh certainly smaller yards than currently exist. Uh or if we were to include a twocar garage in that on the first floor, kind of carve that out. Um say 4 or 500 ft for a two-car garage, that would be about a 2,800 foot home. Uh and as you see in this drawing, the way the homes are situated within the setbacks, there is room for two off- streetet parkings on each one. So to address those first three questions of how can you fit four homes and where will everyone park? Uh we've got at least two off- streetet parking spots if not four if there's a garage included. And then lastly, what are we going to build? Um so this is I have a few examples of homes that exist in Raleigh. Not to show the architecture that my wife and I plan although it is somewhat similar here. We don't have a plan in mind. And part of the reason for this, as um one of my neighbors noted, is I'm learning through the resoning process, you don't spend money yet with an architect or an engineer until you know what's approved. And so um I can show you some examples of what exists in Raleigh of homes of this size on this size lot. And so um you see at the top there, this is just for scale purposes only to show example of this looks great on paper maybe or maybe it doesn't, maybe it's confusing. Here's what these kind of things actually look like in Raleigh. Now, so every one of these homes is between 2500 and 3,300 ft² on this exact size acreage, 0.15 to2. And uh they have the addresses in the neighborhoods there at the bottom. So here's a recent build in the East Whitaker Mill area on high in the Highount neighborhood uh with no garage. I've got two examples that are more historic. I believe these are from the 1920s or 30s. This one is in Forest Park. You can see the front of the home and this is actually the rear of the home. Uh it has a detached garage parking area and this is its backyard. Uh that's in the Forest Park area over near the village district. Um there's a good example in Boiland Heights. This one's actually on a corner lot which has a rear alley. Um also within these size and space of lot uh dimensions. Uh here's an example in Oakwood North. This is a more modern example. Uh as you'll notice, a lot of these have garages. This one has a two-car garage and a screen porch and still a very enjoyable yard. These are not hyper modern um tight tiny homes by any means. Uh here's an example in Wilmont, which is over by Meredith College area near Wade Avenue. Um very nice flat yard where folks, you know, can play or a dog or whatever. Uh and a more modern example in the Moriki neighborhood with two-car garage and a fenced yard as well. So, uh to address the last two questions, um this one I didn't anticipate and it was I was thankful the neighbors brought it up. Um, you know what? If Sarah and I got this property reszoneed and we only plan to build four single family homes, but god forbid something happens to one of us, we need to sell the property and then some developer from New York City builds 15 town homes. There is actually a development uh I can see from my front yard and it borders the NCOD, which is why they're able to do this. It's a halfacre, so a lot smaller, and there's 12 town homes under construction right now. Um, that's totally cool. I have no problem with that. In my opinion, it doesn't really fit with the character of the neighborhood, which is partially why we're self-conditioning to single family homes and also we did add that uh that condition of four homes and also only detached homes. So, um it's kind of a mix. I know that the city comprehensive plan does want more missing middle more duplexes and town homes. I also support that. However, I also want to be respectful of the NCOD and the neighbors that exist. And the feedback we've gotten is that they don't want us to sell the property and then someone else come and build uh town homes. Um, so lastly, uh, fear of setting a precedent of NCOD removal. Um, I totally respect this. It's a little bit outside of my control, so I want to acknowledge it for everyone. Um, you know, Sarah and I are not asking for a blanket text change to the entire NCOD. That's what this process is for. You know, planning commission and then city council ultimately has the final say, and I know that not all these requests get approved. Um, I do think that this is not going to be the first of many dominoes because not all partials in this NCOD specifically have the same opportunities that Sarah and I have. Uh, we're on a corner lot with 370 ft of street frontage. So, to be able to get four lots on our property is much more possible than many other properties in the NCOD. Uh, our I like to say our lot is pancake flat. So, we have no topography issues. We're feet from the BRT that's going in. And we are one of the few properties, I have no idea why, uh, but when I looked at the Long View Gardens Historic District, which you can see here shaded in red, um, our property was not included. And when you go and look at that application document, I forget how long it is, maybe 80 or 90 page PDF document listing a few hundred properties in this area, um, our property is not mentioned. They mentioned contributing properties and non-contributing properties. For for whatever reason, our home was not included. And so I know that almost every home you see here, it would be much more difficult to argue to remove this NCOD because they are mentioned as contributing historic um uh homes. And lastly too, I think if our home were to uh be removed, I want to show um um city staff mentioned the four requirements for the NCOD. The first two requirements for this NCOD address the lot. That's 77 acres approximately and the lot width needs to be 144 ft. And when I was looking into this, I was surprised because my lot is huge. We love it. And yet it's non-complying here for what exists. And as I looked through a few of the lots, I wait a minute, none of these really even fit. And then the the structure is the last two. The minimum setback of 76 ft, building height of two stories. Um I've got about 45 seconds left, so I'll be brief. I went through Wake County GIS and actually looked at all 273 parcels in this NCOD. And I was really surprised that when you look at the first two lot requirements here and then the last two structure, 59% of the parals don't meet either of those lot requirements. They're not big enough or wide enough. About 14% of them have one or the other lot requirement. So they might be big enough but not wide enough or vice versa. And then 7.33% of the parals in the NCOD do meet all four requirements. So, if our zoning resoning was approved to go from one lot to four, it would change this non-compliance from 59.34% to 59.78. So, by adding three lots, it would change the character of the neighborhood by about a half of a percentage point, a little bit less. So, thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Madakin. You did a great job, too. There's no reason to be nervous at all. I think it it's always comical to me that the the big bad developers are always from New York City. You notice that it's always they're always from New York City. >> Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in support? >> 10 minutes. It's okay. >> That was You didn't have Okay. I was just making sure no one else came to to support you. >> Do we have anyone here to speak in opposition? >> I'm in support. He hit on pretty much everything that >> Jordan's my direct neighbor >> and I'm his direct neighbor. He looks behind me. >> Great. Thank you. >> So, you're here to speak in opposition, sir. You have 10 minutes. Just give us your name. >> Good seeing you. Question on the I did send an email last night. Just felt like writing. Um, I actually live on 2342 Newurn Avenue and I'm also the chief operating officer for McConnell Golf Country Club. Um, good presentation. I did make a note that u the King Charles neighborhood is the first plan subdivision in the city of Raleigh. Let's not forget that. Um, and at its core stands Donald Ross's last design, 1948. Um, let me hit a couple things here. The neighborhood overlay was put in place, supported by all of us in 2005, approved by the city of Raleigh. Uh, it was adopted because the neighborhood is historic, cohesive, and architectural consistent. Now, if the lot sizes don't match everything that is currently in place, it they're all grandfathered in. It applies to new buildings as we all know that uh the addition uh conditions when they you know what happens when you move when you leave conditions are temporary they can change and so conditions are very very difficult to base a decision uh today let's keep in mind that the BRT I think the closest stop for the BRT will be wake that's three miles away from where this house is um so increased density without meaningful corresponding transit system or services it's not there pedestrian improvements um let's note the parking street parking especially if you want to put in bike lanes there will be not there will be no street parking available or binding affordability requirements does not advance equitable housing policy and it does not align with the original planning intent of the King Charles Longview Garden subdivision. So um I think our community King Charles Long Garden, the residents have relied on the cities, adopted planning tools, accepted development limitations, and preserved neighborhood character in good faith. Those commitments should not be undermined to accommodate speculative and it will be speculative redevelopment on a single lot 69 acres. As we know, we do not know where you're going to go next year, but thank you so much. >> Thank you. Just double checking. Anyone else to speak in opposition? All right. Thank you very much. Bringing it back to the table. Just >> she didn't raise her hand, but she grabbed her mic. So >> Oh, I saw it. >> Wow. >> Commissioner Fox, Commissioner Neptune. Commissioner Otwell, did I see your hand, too? Okay. Fox Neptune Hotwell. >> Wow. I don't have anything that dramatic to say. Um, no, I I was actually going to say I appreciated your breakdown of the NCOD in that way. That was very helpful for me. I I tried to do that myself when we were talking about NCOD's cuz on first blush when I looked at it and thought about the character of the road, it felt very much like a spot zoning like it would be a little island and but the primary concern there was about the front yard setback. But then when I went on IMAPs, you know, and that's not a perfect tool, but I'm I'm just eyeballing it. It it it didn't meet that 76 ft setback anyway. So the delta >> Yeah. So the delta of change is less significant to me. So again, at at first pass, um I was likely a hard no. Um but acknowledging the inconsistencies with the NCOD requirements that exist currently. Um, and then the conditions that you've put on the property regarding the ability to subdivide in the future. Um, I have less concerns, but thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioner Fox. I would just echo the same. I mean, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the applicant in I mean doing the research, sharing this presentation with the commission, with the public, the engagement with the neighborhood. So, I mean, I think I'm certainly prepared to support whenever time comes. Thank you, >> and then Commissioner Shelurn. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. >> I don't like NCOD's. If this was a vote to update a text change and remove NCOD's or if this was an application to remove the entire NCOD, I would I would probably be pretty enthusiastic about this. Um, I do appreciate the applicant um, breaking down the setbacks and while admitting that most of the properties in this neighborhood are not in compliance, I don't think any of them are 10 ft from the street like the requested zoning is requesting. You're the delta is pretty big. Going from 65 ft to a 10-ft setback for four houses on a very prominent corner right in the middle of this NCOD, I think is pretty significant. um character of this neighborhood is defined by large setbacks, big lots and short houses. And I think that some of that can be preserved by maintaining single family houses, but it is going to stick out with four houses right up on the curb in the middle of this neighborhood. Um, I'll note that Mori had a bunch of folks here lobbying for their neighborhood and this uh we haven't seen anybody from the King Charles neighborhood in opposition. And I suspect that largely has to do with the uh the time and wealth that the neighbors have to spend on these issues and the awareness they have of the kind of issues that go down in these neighborhoods. I have a feeling if they had the time and the uh awareness that we would be hearing more about this case in our emails and at this meeting. I feel like though I don't like NCOD's, if we grant this request or recommend granting the request to remove this NCOD then what are the NCODs for in the first place? I I don't like them. But if we're just going to ignore them every time they come up because I don't like them. Uh I don't think that's our role on the planning commission. This doesn't chip away at the edges. This is not an existing use that is contrary. It's not like this is a restaurant or a gas station or a retail location that got swept up in the NCOD by accident. This is a solid part of the NCOD and it's on a very prominent corner in this neighborhood. So, I'd be more open to removing the NCOD if there were conditions that mimicked the setback that currently exists uh or some other conditions that would actually bring this into compliance with what the NCOD is trying to do as far as character of the neighborhood. But as it stands, I don't think that I will support this. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Commissioner Shelurn, >> frankly, I wish you were doing a dozen town homes or condos, but I'm not going to second guessess your judgment, so I'm ready to vote in favor of this when the time comes. >> Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. Commissioner May, Commissioner Walters, go ahead. >> I just want to recognize that uh this is very close to a frequent transit overlay district and it has transit on both sides, south and north. And I think that if you think about transit area transitions, which is in the comp plan, um the the what is being proposed fits in my mind with a reasonable transition of density in a place that's growing while still respecting the neighborhood character. I think it's a tricky thing, Commissioner Awell, and I think you have some really good points uh about about um the adjacencies and the setback. Um what I see in this presentation is a thoughtful approach to create a transition in a place that's growing in a place that that is very close to uh future transit uh destinations. And so um I'm certainly open to considering conditions, but I am generally in u a good place with this as it's been presented. >> Thank you, Commissioner May. Um, I think that this is another tricky one. Um, because we I I think that they did a lot of really hard work and analysis on the space. They're uh being responsible about how they're trying to go about it and they're trying to add to the affordability of housing that we need in the city. But at the same time, like Commissioner Atwell said, like it is a slippery slope with removing NCODS just cuz they're inconvenient to us. this would change the character of the neighborhood that we put it in. Putting four houses on the small parcel. Um it is far from as much as we're saying it's close to Newburn and all of that and the BRT. It's far from it's a far walk to the first bus stop. It's a far walk to the grocery store. You know, all of that that we of the people that we would be putting there and affordability that they would that they may need. It's a far distance for them for those things. So, I'm kind of stuck. I wish there was maybe some time that we could have to reconsider this or if there was extra conditions they could add if we had time to do that to make sure that it eases some of our concerns for the space. I would love to see that versus us having to vote on this today. >> If we um ask the applicant if they're willing to consider conditions, what um what would you like them to address? the the setback or sounded like Commissioner Atwell wanted to see more of a setback. Is that your concern as well? >> Same. And transition. So, are we putting any privacy trees around? Is there going to be fencing? Like things of that nature that's going to one house being there is one thing. Four houses being there does become a little intrusive. So, is there going to be something that's going to help keep you know their neighbors privacy intact? >> Okay. Um before I ask the applicant that I want just my brief comments. Um I'm struggling with this one. >> Um I love the applicant's presentation. I love that I mean they live there. They they want to contribute to the neighborhood. I love the analysis. I'm with Commissioner Atwell. I don't have a lot of love for NCOD's just from an equity standpoint. Um, but this feels a little I don't like the word character. Character bothers me a little bit because sometimes it's used in a way, you know, in a those people kind of way. >> Does it feel like spot zoning? It feel Yeah. It just It feels like like it's just gonna stand out so much from the rest of the neighborhood. I'm I'm struggling with that. Um initially I thought, well, it's a frequent transit area, but like Commissioner Omay said, it's not walkable. So, um I went back and forth like, well, do I want them to limit housing variety? I don't really like that either, but I respect that they're trying I respect that you're trying to be consistent with what's there. And I I would love to ask if you're willing to think about some conditions maybe to address setback and transition and maybe talk to the neighbors some more. um just to see if you could address some of our concerns. Certainly, we can only Oh, come up. Yeah, we can only ask we we can't require that you add conditions, but we would ask if you would be willing to consider some conditions. >> Yeah, certainly. Um and is it okay if I ask a few clarifying questions? Absolutely. Maybe of city staff. Um there's been a few mentions of uh the walkability to a station. Um, I know that there's going to be the downtown and the Wake Med ends of the node, but if I'm not mistaken, there are multiple stops along the way, right, for the bus rapid transit because I I believe there's going to be a stop right at King Charles and Newburn. Yeah. >> Which is less than a quarter mile, I believe, from there. >> So, we asked staff to verify that, please. >> I tried to pull up a quick map, so I apologize. >> It's about 8 minute walk. >> 8 minute walk. Yeah, it's about 8minute walk from 319 South King Charles Road to the planned stop at Newburn and King Charles. And there's also another stop at the intersection of Newburn and um North Raleigh Boulevard. >> The site is also about a 8m minute walk to the Joseph Pharmacy located at >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah, our sidewalks. >> I can speak to that. We um Sarah and I walk our dogs regularly and when we get to Newburn, we have to wait and play Frogger to cross traffic and that's the beginning of our walk. That's usually when my my feet have gotten warm and they're not cold anymore and then we walk across into the the northern section of the Long View neighborhood. So, that's a very walkable. I mean, I'm I'm waiting on Joseph's pharmacy to text me back for my daughter's prescription. Then I'll hopefully walk there this afternoon. So, uh I know that I'm a very able-bodied, so I respect that. Uh for other people, it may be a more difficult walk. So I don't mean to trivialize the distance but that there will be quite quite uh accessible proximity there. Um uh and it was I believe Commissioner Otwell is that correct? Um you mentioned the setbacks and also something else to mention too. Uh the King Charles neighborhood does the NCOD does currently restrict to two stories. I believe if we reszoned it would allow us to go higher. I'm also I know Sarah and I only plan to build twotory homes. We're happy to add that as a condition. And I can say now uh in terms of setbacks, I I would uh I would just need to look at the lots and see how much of a how much that would cramp the construction. In terms of backyard space, um we are honestly big fans. We don't actually like this. Just personal preference. We kind of wish our homes were closer because we're front porch people. We've known our neighbors for 8 n 10 years. A lot of the old historic neighbors too before it has started to turn over. And a lot of them like to sit on their front porch, too. And when we walk by, we like to chat. And it's sometimes the newer neighbors who come home and shut their doors and only play in their backyards. And so I I'm happy to discuss a setback as much as it uh reflects the character of the neighborhood 100%. And as long as it makes sense from a front yard backyard perspective, uh perhaps we could design homes that are that are more squashed uh front to back and wider. Uh so that way it allows a size home that makes sense with front and backyard. So uh that would uh twotory max I'm happy to uh to to commit to now. And I know we're not adding conditions at this stage, but would happy to be come back and revisit with that condition added and some sort of setback. If it's 30 feet or 40 feet, something along those lines, I'd love to look into and see what we could do. Um, and Commissioner Neptune, you had a question. >> Oh, I'm sorry. That's your job. Excuse me. >> He kept looking at me. I didn't. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Madigan. Just for the good of the table, I wanted to acknowledge um I previously lived less than a block away from this property um on I mean it's Golf Course Drive. Uh, so I was right next to the golf course and uh I mean I think as many folks know I mean I'm an active pedestrian and cyclist and would often walk up to Newburn and you know to the Almo Theater or I would bike >> and of course do the Frogger across Newburn to go visit like friends in Long View or and then of course you can cut through Long View and then get downtown pretty easily from there. Just I'm just acknowledging just kind of for the good of the table as far as like a lived experience. I mean I was there for years and loved it frankly, you know. Um and so I I just would again share that for the good of the the table and again echo I do appreciate I think the the range of you know sort of comments and concerns I think with regard to like the setback and like how exactly this would fit within that just the general sort of keeping of the neighborhood. um if there is a capacity to address that, >> you know, while finding ourselves, you know, yet with, you know, two, three additional homes kind of on this lot. Gosh, I tell you, if I had the resources, I'd buy one of those properties right now. So, anyways, I just appreciate the the conversation again for the good of the table. I I certainly >> we're buying a lot of properties based on today >> with no money. But anyway, so thank you, Mr. Madigan. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Walters, did you have a question or comment? >> Uh, well, I just have a point of clarification, and maybe maybe it's after this uh discussion. >> Oh, okay. >> With Patrick. Uh, okay. For city staff. >> Oh, and I had one last question for staff as well. Um, if we if we did add a condition of two stories or a certain amount of feet. Is that allow for like a two two floors and then like a walk up attic or maybe what's the definition of a story? I guess in that regard, is there a ordinance you could point me to of how staff recognizes that? we can advise you and talk through the trade-offs. Okay. Wonderful. When we get there. >> Yeah. Perfect. Yeah. >> So, it sounds like we're going to defer this. Um >> would our next meeting be okay? >> Um so, I just uh to clarify process. So, for uh consideration at your next meeting on February 24, the applicant would need to submit uh unsigned conditions by Friday of this week. >> Um if that feels well, I think that's really the applicant's question, not not ours, right? I like I I don't know what what he feels. >> Do you feel comfortable coming? So then the question would be the 224 or then 310 and for 310 uh materials would be due what like on the uh last day of February 27th >> of February. >> Okay. >> I'm I'm happy to submit documents by Friday. And you mentioned unsigned. I know in the past I needed to make sure my my revised condition page was signed. So that's this time it would be an unsigned page >> unsigned for Friday. And then we'll need signatures. >> Okay. In adv but in advance of the >> I think >> the first deadline is unsigned the second deadline. >> Yeah. So two weeks from today and then the documents will be due before this Friday. Yeah. That that works for us. Be happy to come back. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Um Commissioner Walters, you do you have a question for now? Do you want to do it during your report of the members? >> Uh well, this was just a point of clarification about the frequent transit overlay district and the NCOD in this area. Um, but if we're going to defer this, then we can just talk about it next time. >> Okay. Do if if let me say this. If it's information you want staff to bring back when we discuss it, you might want to let them know. Now, >> the NCOD is that does that. So, the idea of the frequent transit overlay district in this area is to add density around the transit stops, right? Uh, that comes all the way down to Peele Road right next to this property. How does how does that affect the future ability for density to happen in this neighborhood and along King Charles? Uh if we're thinking about setbacks, >> so there's two things I feel like you may be conflating. There's the um the TOD, which is a transit overlay district. That's a that's a zoning overlay. And then there's the frequent transit area. >> Yeah. >> Um >> Oh, yeah. I did say that. >> Yeah. So two they they have different implications on how development can occur as it relates to base zoning and neighborhood conservation overlay districts. I think the easiest way that I like to remember it is um the NCOD dimensional standards um supersede the standards of the frequent transit development option but they do not supersede the standards of the transit overlay district. >> And this is not an overlay district. Correct. This is just within the frequent transit development >> option area or the frequent transit area. So there are is a range of >> um development options that are entitled by that proximity, but it's not the actual overlay district there. >> So all things the same in this scenario down King Charles all the way to Newburn, the setback would be uh abiding by the NCOD. >> Correct. >> Cool. That was the point of clarification that Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. That concludes our new business. We'll move to other business. Report of the chair. Um we discussed rules and procedures at the last meeting. Um I know you guys had a good discussion. I watched it. Um council has not taken those up yet. They'll be hearing those by them February next week. After council um hears and hopefully approves our recommended changes, then we'll discuss committees and alternates and and that type of thing. Um and final talk more about that. Um just a reminder, um my term ends March 3rd. Um, I know, end of an era. Um, I I will serve until someone else has been appointed, but council seems to have been doing a pretty good job of getting people in um by the end of the term. So, March 3rd is when I am uh officially ending. That's my last meeting. Bum said I have also been appointed to the board of the Raleigh Housing Authority. So, my service to the city will continue. I'm excited to get to see things from an affordable housing side. So, um it's fine to be on two committees, two boards. I've checked with the attorney, I talked to Binham, so there'll just be that brief overlap. My first meeting with RHA is February 26th, and my last meeting here is March 3rd. So unless they come on March 3rd with the resoning, there is no um conflict of interest. So I just wanted to let you guys know that I will miss you, but we'll save all the goodbyes for when I'm actually leaving. Um, and then the last thing I wanted to say and and this is just a personal note, um, I just want to say this to to all of you because we do really hard work at this table and I feel like, you know, the world's a little crazy right now. It's it's a little it's a little crazy. It's a little stressful. It's very heavy for those of us who care about our communities. And um I know for me a lot of times when I'm in meetings and people are like, "Hey, how are you doing?" They're asking about how's work, how's work going, "Are you busy?" And I just want you guys to know that I genuinely care how you're doing. Um cuz there's a lot going on and what we do at this table really matters. It's really important. It may feel like it doesn't. We may debate, but it really matters. We really are influencing how the city develops. Excuse me. People's well-being, public health, safety, all of that comes under the the the recommendations we make. We certainly aren't the decision makers, but I just want to say I appreciate you. I enjoy working with you all. I appreciate the thought and the passion that we all bring to this table. And I know sometimes we we feel unappreciated. We get ugly emails. People don't agree with the the decisions we make, but we can't make everyone happy here. But what we do is important and it matters just in all of the chaos that's going on. I don't want us to lose hope. I want us to continue to do the good work we're doing for the city because the local context really, really matters. We feel like you can't control what's happening nationally. We certainly have an impact on what's going on locally. So, thank you for all you do. That's it. That's my report. >> Thank you. Um that was a lot. I know. I know. Um thank you. I appreciate and thank you for your service. Uh and we will miss you when you depart us. Um uh the only thing I have is a report of member is there's a committee of the whole u meeting scheduled for February 26. There are no items currently on that agenda, but I ask that we hold that time um until our next meeting to just verify with whether or not we will have that meeting. And if you are not able to be at that meeting, um do you want to just email the group check? >> Yeah, we do quum check for that February 26 time, 4 p.m. Who can be there? It's looking less good. One, two. >> Okay. >> Right. >> And we'll check. Okay. I'll check offline. Um, but I I ask those of you who are able to attend, just hold that time until we have more information, but as of right now, there are no items on that agenda. Thank you. >> Just a reminder, we're all members of committee of the whole. >> Commissioner Hotwell. >> All right. Uh we do not have a text change committee meeting scheduled for this month. Uh there are no items to review. So we are going to be free on that afternoon. For my personal report, I'd like to say that I attended the uh the wheels of love community event this past weekend at the Rialto and it was a community event centered around bicycles and love. and our fellow commissioner McN Neptune read a wonderful poem written by our chair Nicole Bennett that I found extraordinarily moving and it was about existing in the transportation space. Um, and I'd just encourage everybody to go find it if they can and read it because I I wouldn't do it justice. And I will say that uh whomever fills your shoes uh chair Bennett uh I doubt that we're going to get the level of passion and eloquence that we have from you and so it be sorely missed. That's it from me. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioner Uwell for your kind words about the event at the Rialto uh on on Friday evening. You know, I was going to acknowledge that um the event was made uh so much the better because we were able to share the words of Chair Bennett uh who is also a poet for those who may not know. And uh I mean I' I've received so many emails and notes from just members of this community. A teacher a teacher wants to use this poem in his classroom with his English students. And you know, you had the mayor there, you had the governor in attendance that night. Um, uh, our council member Jane Harrison, you know, fully pregnant and about to give birth the next day. You know, she was in attendance. So, I just, you know, there were a lot of just good folks out who um, you know, were together acknowledging, you know, our community and like what we can do to improve our backyard. And it was a it was an uplifting occasion. and again made all the stronger, all the better because of the words of our chair. So I just wanted to say thank you. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Walters. >> So this part of the process is a little bit new to me. So I'm not sure uh what the bounds of what I'm supposed to say are uh um in this report and I wasn't really prepared. So um uh thank you for the opportunity to be heard uh as a member of this group. Um, I'm I will just say I'm sad that I didn't get to know you a bit better, uh, Chair Bennett. Um, and I look forward to seeing your work on, um, the next committee that you are are on. Um, if I if I can have a moment to say something uh that just comes to mind since you're talking about events related to uh, planning and design in the city. Um, as a employee of the university, uh, just down the the road, um, and I am often looking for opportunities to, uh, foster, uh, engagement and transition at the uh, uh, engagement at the transition between ideas at the university and action in the city. Um, and I was so pleased to uh not just be a part of hosting but be attending our envisioning urban futures event that we hosted last week at the university where we had council member Silver in attendance and as a speaker speaking with uh many of our esteemed ac academics in the university and looking out at the audience we saw uh many members of our community starting to have conversations that blurred the lines between uh academic thought and practice out in the city of Raleigh specifically. And so uh to be able to be a part of this uh commission and seeing some of those ideas move forward into the the real form and function of our city means a lot to me. So um thank you all for your great comments today and I'm glad to be a part of what what what's being done here. >> Thank you. Commission Matt. Um, one, I'm sad to see you go. You have been a fantastic leader. Uh, you're gracious even when we disagree and bump heads. Uh, I always trust and respect your leadership. So, the fact that you won't be here. Um, and though you're still going to go on and do great work and make sure that you're maintaining equity for us and community, um, the housing, uh, board is is getting a real one with you. So, I'm I'm proud to know that you'll be moving on to still be impactful. You're not disappearing. We'll just lose you, which is sad, but um you'll of course always be there for council uh for the rest of us on this board and commission. Um also want to say I'm a very passionate person. I'm passionate about community. I'm passionate about what we do here. So, sometimes that passion may seem some like something other than that, but just know that it comes from a place of love regardless. And sometimes love is fiery. It's not always quiet and um still. So there's that. Then I also want to say happy Black History Month. And on this 10th day of February for Black History Month, I want to acknowledge all historically black colleges and universities starting with the North Carolina Central University, my alma mater down the road in Durham. We have a lot of notable uh Eagles that have metriculated from North Carolina Central University. uh not the other one in Greensboro, but the one right here in Durham. Um like Andre Leon Thally who's a former editor of Vogue, Ernie Burns, who is a painter and former former NFL player. Uh Ninth Wonder, he's a producer if you all don't know. Um we've had uh Mike Easley, Julius Chambers, of course, James E. Shepherd. North Carolina Central University is deeply rooted in black history. As our uh founder of the university, also helped found Black Wall Street in Durham and the Hayai community in Durham. And I am honored to be a part of that legacy of uh excellence and eagle excellence at that. So, black happy black history month. I am 365 black this month. I'm super duper black. Thank you, >> Commissioner Shelbert. And I'll just add to the list of the distinguished alumni is my mom. >> Really? >> Indeed. >> Eagle Pride. >> Yes. Um got her masters in psychology. Um so I I I don't have my report is not nowhere near as compelling as y'all's. I just but I feel obliged to say I had our first technical team meeting for the land use comprehensive plan and but there's nothing to really say from that other than the staff did a great job of introducing the issues and topics. But I will say for you for the housing authority uh Kenya pleasant on staff she is a superstar. So whatever she says is right and agree with it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. Now we'll go to um report of the assistant director Bum. >> Thank you. I did want to say uh reiterate your rules of procedure will be in front of council next week at their afternoon meeting. Um, you have been invited by Raleigh Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources to nominate a focus group participant for the Nash Square planning process. Uh, if you could let me know at the next meeting on the 24th who of you who among you that will be. This is a new uh style of invitation from the parks department. Um, and if you would like to participate, that would be great. So that's coming up. >> Should people like email you or me? >> Should email you. >> Okay. So email me if you're interested in being on that. >> Y'all work that out among yourselves. >> Can I ask a question? Bam. >> What what's involved in the role? >> Uh it's I I can send some uh notes to you all about that. It's a number of focus group meetings. I think it's limited to like three or four. Do you want to speak Mr. Neptune? Is it okay if I speak to that given that I am involved in leading that public engagement with our colleagues alongside our colleagues from the city? >> Uh so in fact on Thursday the 26th we will have a series of focus group meetings um all of which you know as you can imagine have a very specific topic like natural resources uh mobility u you know etc. And so I think planning commission, should there be a member interested in participating, you would likely be invited to one of those focus group meetings on the 26th. And then that evening from 5:30 until 8:00, there will be a a larger sort of public open house and opportunity to meet all the various planners and landscape architects. Um the you know the Bartlett tree experts um at Whiskey Kitchen as it happens right around the corner right across from Nass Square. Uh again from 5:30 to 8 we'll have food and beverage and you know a good time at Whiskey Kitchen while being introduced to NAS Square. And I I would imagine following this there would be probably one or two additional invitations for the focus groups to get back together as the the plan for Nash Square and the Nasquare realm, the park realm um as it's being developed and we have a a concept to share closer to May. You would likely be invited back again for that. Oh, can I also mention just briefly, the mayor was also at the Rialto Theater sharing opening remarks very kindly and we were also supported by our colleagues from Raleigh transportation staff who dropped off materials on the active mobility plan. So, I just wanted to shout them out. I was so swept away by our acknowledgement of Chair Bennett and her words that I feel like I needed to go back and acknowledge the others involved. Thank you. Uh also we will put election for your chair and vice chair on the next agenda so that you all can seat those roles before chair Bennett's final meeting. Uh and I will save my collegial admiration for you for a future meeting because we still have time. Okay, everybody relax. Everything's great. Uh, and then we are I I do anticipate we'll see some um once the council has approved your rules of procedure, your committee structure will change and also um with the uh change in membership that's ahead. Anticipating we will see some adjustment of committee membership in general over the coming months. Thank you. Anything else for the good of the order? Then we are adjourned. Thank you.