D. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Oh okay. [Music] order the August 26th meeting of the Rally Planning Commission. Welcome to those present here today and to those joining us online. My name is Nicole Bennett. I'm chair of the commission. Commissioners O'haver and Bernett are absent and excused. A few quick reminders as we get started. Um, commissioners, please wait to be recognized by the chair before speaking. Um, and uh, we'll treat applicants, staff, the public, and each other with courtesy at all time. With that, let's get started. Um, we begin each meeting with an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda. Is anyone here this morning who would like to comment on an item that is not on today's agenda? Okay, seeing none, um we will get started with our consent agenda, which includes approval of the August 12th meeting minutes. Does anyone have any comments on the meeting minutes? Okay. If um seeing none, could I get a motion to approve the minutes? Commissioner Fox has moved to approve the minutes. So I have a second. >> Second. >> Commissioner Miller has seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor of approving the meeting minutes. Thank you. That's unanimous. We don't have any committee reports, so we'll move to old business. We have one item coming out of old business, Z825 Cross Link Road. This case was initially heard on June 24th where we received a full staff report, full applicant presentation, and received public comment. The case was deferred to allow the applicant to consider additional conditions. We'll ask staff for a brief update. >> Good morning, commissioners. My name is Arthur Castel the 4th. Um I'm here to present reszoning KZ Z825 for the 0.67 acre site located at 1011 Cross Link Road. Um the applicant is requesting reszoning from R4 to R10 and according to the future land use map, the area is designated as a low scale residential which aligns with the intent of the R10 zoning district. As stated, this case was presented um at a previous planning commission meeting. It was then um sent to the city um council to have it extended for 60 days. Um, the surrounding zoning pattern is predominantly R-4 with adjacent parcels. Excuse me one second. So, this um the surrounding zoning pattern is predominantly R4 with adjacent parcel sharing the same lowdensity residential designation. Um, however, within 500 ft of the site, there are existing R six and R10 conditional use districts as well as office mixed use and neighborhood mixeduse zoning district within 1,000 ft. Um this reflects a transition to higher intensity and mixeduse development nearby. Um this map represents a zoomed out um aerial view of the proposed resoning site. Um the site is directly adjacent to built to Builtmore Hills Park and surrounding zoning includes a mix of low and moderate scale residential districts as well as nearby mixeduse districts. This slide shows the images um from multiple street level perspectives of the proposed site. The top left image shows the view of the site when facing it from Crosslink Road. The top right image depicts the view when approaching a site from Crown Crossing Lane. The bottom left highlights the property's frontage along Cross Link Road. And the bottom right displays the frontage along Crown Crossing um lane. This table summarizes the key difference between existing R4 zoning and the proposed R10 zoning. Um the minimum lot size for R4 requires larger lots um 10,000 square ft while R10 allows for more compact lots um enabling more homes on the same land area. maximum height. Both zoning districts allow buildings up to 40 feet or three stories tall. As it relates to setbacks, R10 has reduced setback requirements. Um 10 feet for the front, 10 feet for the side, and 20 feet for the rear compared to R4, which is 20 ft for the front, 20 ft for the side, and 30 ft for the rear. Um allowing for a more flexible site layout. Maximum residential units under R4, the site would accommodate up to four units. And under R10, it would it would accommodate up to 12 units. This this slide this site demonstrates a mixed performance in terms of transportation access and energy related indicators. It has a walk score of 20 which falls below the city average of 31 indicating limited pedestrian access to nearby amenities. The transit score is 41 which is notably higher than a city average of 30 um that reflects strong access to public transit. The bike score is 34 um slightly under the city average of 41 which suggests moderate bike infrastructure. And according to HUD data, the low transportation cost index is in the 70 is in the 70th percentile, meaning that the area is better than 70% of other areas in the country in terms of having low transportation costs. A higher percentile indicates more affordability, suggesting that households in this area, they typically spend less on transportation. And the jobs proximity index um is the 75th percentile, indicating slightly lower transportation cost and better than average access to employment compared to the broader region. The site is directly served by Go Raleigh um route five built more hills and route 7L Carolina Pines connector. Route five bit more hills runs every 15 minutes connecting to Idle Wild Village and Sanderfort Road um to the Go Rally station downtown. Route 7L Carolina Pines Connector runs every 30 minutes connecting to Triion Road to Southgate Plaza on Rock Quarry Road. Because the Go Rally bus stop lies on the site's frontage of development of the site through a tier 2 or three site plan, it will require improvements such as shelter bench and other amenities. um described in the UDO. The reasonzoning proposal would add to the city's housing supply by allowing smaller minimum lot sizes and supporting a higher residential yield. While the site currently contains a single home built in 1940, um likely considered naturally occurring affordable housing. No subsidized units have been proposed as part of the request. The proposed R10 zoning permits a variety of housing types beyond detached houses that includes town homes and apartments. It also allows for smaller lot sizes, minimum of 4,000 square ft, um, well below the citywide average of 0.28 acres. Additionally, the site is within walking distance of transit with the Go Rally stop located approximately 200 ft away. The site is located in the census block group with a high demographic index of 71% which is nearly double the citywide average of 37% that reflects a community with a significant concentration of low-income residents and people of color. People of color represent 88% of the population in this area compared to 46% citywide. 54% of residents are low-income, nearly twice the city average of 29%. While linguistic isolation is slightly lower than average, educational attainment is lower with 16% of the population lacking a high school diploma compared to 8% citywide. The area has also experienced significant rental cost increases with median gross rent rising by 43.8% since 2016, well above the city average of 25.5%. These indicators highlight the importance the importance of equitable growth strategies and housing options that meet the needs of vulnerable populations. The proposed resoning from R from R4 to R10 is consistent with the site's um future land use map and designation of low-scale residential. This land use category typically supports a variety of housing types beyond traditional detached houses that includes duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, town homes, and other missing middle housing options generally generally on lots of approximately 1/6 of an acre or larger. Although R10 is classified as a medium density zoning district and is not explicitly listed within the typical range of low scale residential that typically um falls in the category of R2 through R six. It can be considered consistent with the future land use map when applied with sensitivity to site design and um contextual compatibility especially in areas planned for fre for frequent transit. The site is located within both the frequent transit area and a transit emphasis corridor on the urban forum map. While the requested zoning district is residential and does not include a designated frontage, the proposal is consistent with the urban form guidance. The comprehensive plan supports increased residential density and housing variety along key transit corridors. And this resoning allies with that aligns with that intent by enabling more compact transit supportive um development. The reasoning request is also consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan particularly the vision theme of growing successful neighborhoods and communities. The site's proximity to Built More Hills Park, a planned greenway connection and an existing bus stop just 200 feet away supports the comprehensive plan's goal of encouraging residential growth along frequent transit corridors. The site is located within a frequent transit area and along a transit emphasis corridor, both of which are targeted for increased housing capacity and a variety aligning with the plan's intent to expand housing options near public amenities and transit infrastructure. The reasonzoning aligns with city goals to increase housing supply and make better use of existing transit access. The site's location within a frequent transit area and transit emphasis corridor makes it a suitable place to accommodate more housing types while supporting a development pattern that is compatible with public transportation. The site does not meet um NFPA 1710 standards for the timely arrival of a full alarm assignment and the required 8minute travel time is not achieved. There are no outstanding issues associated with this case. If additional discussion is needed beyond today, the next um available opportunity will be at the September 9th, 2025 planning commission meeting. The deadline for the planning commission meeting is October 7th. >> Thank you, Mr. Cashweld. Um, so we heard this um at our June 24th meeting. Has there been any update to the case since then? >> There have been no updates to the case. >> Okay. Um, thank you. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak on this case? We have received public comment. >> Are you with the Oh, you're with the applicant team. or the applicant. >> So, I'll I'll give each side uh another five minutes. So, we'll hear from the applicant and those in support. >> Good morning. Hi, I'll go over this quickly because I know we already met in June. I'm Cindy Hoseni. I also have Ashkan Hoseni and Mike Weay were the owners and developers. Um the update since the last meeting, we have worked with the neighbors on a few of the concerns that came up mostly regarding transportation. Um there is concerns about the adjacent road crown crossing being a very fast speed zone. It's an entrance to the park. Um and so with further development there, there's a lot of concern that right now they're already having traffic issues. Can we get it reevaluated? So, we worked with Carter and the neighbors requested a re-evaluation for speed bumps. Um, and we do agree, here's a map, a Google map that's not showing up great of the um street, but Crown Crossing Lane at the bottom there, the red block is our lot. Um, is an entrance to the park and that Fitzgerald Drive has speed bumps and curves, so it has natural traffic calming, but Crown Crossing is basically a throughway to the park and is straight and downhill and has no traffic calming. So, it's a big concern of the neighbors with increased development there. Um, so we did work with Carter and the neighbors to request um another traffic study and I believe it might have been completed. So, Carter can speak to that. The other major transportation concern was regarding sidewalks. So, again, I'll go back to that Google map view. There are sidewalks on the side away from the park um all the way to Builtmore Hills. And you can see right above our little red square, there's a bus stop on the side of the park, but no sidewalks that take you all the way there. Our development of the two-thirds of an acre will have sidewalks as part of the UDO, but it will end kind of where that red line ends. Um, so we did reach out to Carter and have sidewalks requested as part of the city's um sidewalk priority list that will be addressed later this year. Um, so that is listed with um the transportation department and we also reached out to the parks department of Builtmore Hills because there's a current project renovating tennis courts and improving accessibility um and we haven't heard back on that but to see if that could be considered as part of the parks um renovation right now. The other thing that was discussed at the meeting um was zoning restrict material restrictions um as a zoning condition. Um we've surveyed the neighborhood. There's a variety of materials and styles used in the Builtmore Hills area from homes being built from the 1950s to the 2000s and on um with vinyl siding being used and a variety of materials. We don't plan to use vinyl siding, but we did not want to offer a material restriction because future homeowners would then have to deal with that if making any renovations or adding a shed or whatnot and might then have a zoning infraction um if that condition was added. So, that's our update. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions and open it up. >> Thank you. Um, is there anyone else here to speak in support of this case? >> Is there anyone here who wants to speak in opposition to the case? You have five minutes and um please state your name. >> Uh yes, Al Perry and I'm uh residing in my parents house on Cross Link. Uh I think the question of the materiality wasn't so much about the whole neighborhood or Builmore Hills. I think that the request was to consider materials that would be consistent with the homes that are actually on the street that these would be built on. So it's much more localized than um the whole Builtmore Hills. And if you look at the houses and I think photographs have been presented if you look at the houses that are on cross link and crossing um the lane that they are all in uh crown crossing um include brick elements. So the idea was to to have um these new homes uh reference those by incorporating if possible uh some of the same elements like bricks and I believe that um someone generated and might have submitted an AI uh presentation where you could do a small home with some of those elements and get the height. Um, I don't know the impact on on the cost, but but it is possible to do that. That way they even though they're much smaller than the homes on the same street that they do reference those by including the materials. And there was some question about whether you all consider materialities and restrictions. And I was here before and it wasn't clear to me whether that had been done. It seemed like there was precedent, but maybe it wasn't precedent. uh or but um but if if I guess regardless of precedent because you could set precedent. I think the request was that uh if at all possible uh would be to have these homes incorporate design elements or materials from across the street those homes and that would be brick primarily. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak in opposition? Okay. Thank you. Just state your name, please. >> Good morning. Tracy Hip and I am a resident on Crown Crossing Lane. Uh I just want to say that the community, the members, we've actually been meeting with the developers. Uh we've emailed, we've actually had in-person meetings. Um so we've pretty much come to some good understanding of what we're both looking for. Um they're going to do their best to kind of keep the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Uh I think one of our major concerns was that there was going to be an ultraodern housing whereas we are kind of more traditional. Um but that's something that we've discussed and talked about and as the process continues we'll continue our conversation uh via email and meetings and coming to uh consensus on u what's best for the neighborhood and what works for the developers and the community. So thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? Doesn't quite sound like opposition, but >> Okay, thank you. Um, with that, then we'll bring it back to the table. Um, commissioners, questions or comments? Yes Commissioner. >> Just briefly, I want to acknowledge uh my appreciation for the engagement between the residents and the applicant, the developer. I think, you know, in terms of the continued growth and development of the city, this is the sort of engagement you would prefer to see. We have legacy long-standing residents in conversation with an applicant, with a developer who wants to invest in more housing stock and supply in our city as we continue to grow, but wants to do it in a respectful way, in a considered way. And I just I just want to express my appreciation for for that good faith effort. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fox. Um, I wanted to echo Commissioner Neptune's thoughts there, um, and applaud the applicant, um, and the community for talking to each other about some of these really important issues and then taking that extra step, uh, to make contacts with staff and different departments to um to try and fix some of the problems that are outside of this particular development. Um, I was wondering if there was any update on the traffic study for speed bumps, like when that might occur. >> Yes. Good morning, Commission. Carter Robertson with Transportation. I did get an update yesterday from our um traffic calming staff. they've um completed the evaluation. Um unfortunately, this site did not meet our two defining criteria for eligibility in our program. So, I've figured out our process a bit more. I could share that with all. Uh the two things we look at when determining whether traffic calming is applicable at a site is uh a speed metric. We look at the 85th percentile speed. Um, and if that is over 7 miles per hour above the speed limit, that's defined as a consistent speed problem. That's something that's a best practice. Um, we found from numerous other traffic calming programs across the country. We use that. We also have another um criteria that's kind of specific to Raleigh. We also look at um crash data. We pull all crashes from the prior three years to see if any of those were speed related and could be mitigated by some form of infrastructure. In this case, uh we didn't find any crashes that would be mitigated by something such as a speed hump. >> Commissioner Miller, >> quick followup on that. So um you did do the study on of the speed metric and you said that for that criteria there was not um a consistent speed problem over 7 miles per hour. >> Yes, we found that it's consistently within >> less than seven miles >> five miles per hour. >> What is the speed limit there? >> 25 miles per hour. >> Okay. >> This time our 85th percentile was coming up as 25. So right there at the speed limit. Um, we did do two previous evaluations in November 2022 and April 2024 saw the same things. >> Is that the lowest speed limit that the city has in residential neighborhoods? >> I believe so. >> Okay. >> Don't believe we post slower than that. >> Did that answer your question, Commissioner Miller? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Commissioner Makay, >> two questions. one um on the slide it said that there was infrastructure impact what type of infrastructure impact and what's being done to mitigate it >> I might have to defer to the case planner on that one to see what they meant with that I could speak more to you if >> infrastructure impact was the fire access >> okay and my other question just for clarity is this the case where there are these are 1200 square foot tiny homes for $350,000. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And you all are the residents. You all have spoken to the developers and you all are okay with this development in your neighborhood. responsible citiz. >> Thank you. when we bring it back to the table, the public comment period is over. So, >> we can speak to staff um the applicant, but the public comment period is over. So, >> did that answer your questions? >> It did. But can I say something else or does it have to be Do I have to wait? No, if you um just to the planning commission as a whole, uh I kind of said this before. I hope that we start that we look at the decisions that we're making comprehensively and not in silos as isolated resonings because they have comprehensive impact. I know that the city needs housing um period. there's a housing shortage affordably or unaffordably and of course the more supply we create to meet demand means that naturally economically prices should go down but we are also living in unprecedented times where people are struggling and if this is an area that 71% demographic impact I mean index reflects that it is low income and minority population and rent is already up 443.8% 8% since 2016. And 88% of the people in this area are people of color. 54% are lowincome. Both well above the city average. 16% like lack high school diplomas, doubling the city's average, indicating heightened needs for equitable housing strategies. And as the city made their comment about this presentation, they use the term vulnerable populations. And we have a lot of communities in our neighbor in our city that are naturally occurring affordable. And if we're not considering all the decisions we're making, because there's some coming down the pipeline on this agenda that also, I'm going to bring this back up. If we're not looking comprehensively at the decisions that we're making and we're just throwing up housing at different places inequitably because the density is not spread throughout the city. All the reasoning, most of them that we see are in district C. they're in this area because the land has, you know, not been invested in for whatever reason, being held to this place where this can start happening. And oftentimes we see residents from those areas come here being very, very willing to work alongside of developers and just say, "Hey, can we get a speed bump or can we get this in this area?" In other areas, we see people just saying no. And oftentimes, we listen to the people that just say no. And the people that are saying we're willing to make concessions, we don't even listen to them. and we just do whatever we want. So, I'm just being mindful that this is a city that we're saying we're building for all people, uh lowinccome highinccome upwardly mobile people who have been here, legacy residents. So, I just want to caution the planning commission to make sure when we're making these decisions, we're not just thinking about putting housing wherever we're putting housing, adding to the supply if it means that we're removing the ability to afford that supply from some of the same people that live around the areas that we're developing. >> Thank you. Commissioner Makay, is there a particular condition that you wanted to see with this case that you're not seeing or how how is there a way that this resoning could address some of your concerns? I don't think that 1,200 foot tiny homes for $350,000 will address what I'm saying. But I do think that at bare minimum if this if the residents are ask are saying they're willing to go along with and all they're asking for is a speed bump or for the houses to fit the criteria of the houses in the neighborhood that actually adds to and fits the character of the neighborhood, which is something that we often consider when we're talking about uh approving or not approving resonings. I just think that that needs to be considered by the developer and it shouldn't be a case where people feel like they have to go along with it and just deal with it. So, I would hope they already said they're not making conditions on materials for whatever future reasons, but hopefully these houses don't look like eyes. Even if people like the way they look, they could still be eyesing in a neighborhood that doesn't look like what they're building there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there other comments, questions from commissioners? Okay, seeing none, then I will entertain a motion. >> I'll move to approve reasonzoning case Z825 and to adopt the proposed consistency statement contained in today's agenda materials. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Any further discussion before we vote? Okay. All in favor? Thank you. All opposed. Commissioner Omaya is opposed. Is there anything else you'd like to say about your opposition or >> No. >> Okay. Shenita, you got all that? >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will move on to new business. And before we get started, let me pull my agenda up. Um because we got a late start today, it's not likely that we are going to get through all the items on new business. So I want to check and see if there are people here to speak on particular items. We might um change the order of the agenda to make sure um people who came out are able to speak. So let me start with um item F1 Z1625 Creedmore Road. Is there anyone here to speak on that one? Okay. H beyond the applicant. Sorry. Any members of the the general public here to speak on? Okay. >> Okay. Z2225 Watkins Town Road. >> Okay. Z525 3027 Rock Corey Road. >> Just the applicant. >> All righty. Z1252230 South New Hope Road >> and Z13253219 Pool Road. >> I believe I saw just the applicant here. >> Okay, great. Well, then we'll just keep the order that we have. So, first up on new business is Z16256100 Creedmore Road. This is our first time hearing this, so we'll receive a full presentation from staff. Again, good morning, commissioners. My name is Arth Castro the fourth. I'm here to present reszoning case Z1625 for the 0.67 acre site located at 61000 Creedmore Road. The applicant is requesting a resoning from R4 to office and residential mixeduse, five stories, ox. According to the future land use map, the area is designated as office and as office and residential mixeduse. The surrounding zoning zoning pattern is predominantly R4 with one adjacent parcel sharing um ox zoning and one other adjacent parcel sharing a commercial mixeduse designation. The site is square shaped, measuring 145 ft in length by 103 feet in width, and is currently developed with a single unit dwelling constructed in 1965. It is not part of any named subdivision. The property is located directly across from Jeffrey's Grove Elementary School with frontage on Creedmore Road, a major north south um thoroughare. The nearest major intersection is is Creedmore Road and Lynn Road. Adjacent zoning includes office mixed use to the south, R4 to the east and west, and commercial mixeduse to the north. Surrounding land uses include low-scale residential to the east, and institutional/public facilities to the west with additional mediumscale residential, office residential mixed use, and neighborhood mixeduse districts within 1,000 ft. These images offer multiple street level perspectives of of the proposed site. The top left image shows the view of the site when facing it from Creedmore Road. The top right depicts a closer view of the site along with this accompanying open space. The bottom left image highlights a full front view of the site and the bottom right image displays another side angle of the site from Creepmore row. Zoning change from lowdensity residential R4 to office mixed use. The site size is 0.34 acres. Height increased from 40 feet three stories to 80t 5 stories. Residential capacity increased from two units to 17 units. Office potential up to 15,083 square feet allowed, none under the current zoning. Retail potential up to 4,818 ft allowed and none under the current zoning. In terms of walkability, the site is 53, which is more which is much more walkable than the Raleigh average of 31. As far as transit access, the site scores 32, has slightly better transit access than average than the average score of 30. The bike friendliness, the site is 20, which is less bike friendly compared to the city average of 41. Transportation cost, the site scores um se within a 70 percentile, suggesting residents likely face somewhat lower transportation cost. And job access, the site score 62 um percentile, meaning it has better than average access to jobs within a reasonable commute. There is a bus stop um for northbound Go Raleigh. Route 36 El Creedmore. Route 36 runs every 30 minutes from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. connecting Crabtree Valley Mall to Town North Shopping Center. However, the nearest southbound stop is located half a mile north on the opposite side of Creedmore Road. There are closer southbound stops, but they will require crossing at um at an unsafe midblock location to access. In terms of affordability, the housing supply, it adds housing by allowing higher density and more housing types under ox. Existing housing, the site likely contains naturally occurring affordable housing, which is the 1965 um single unit dwelling. Subsidized units, there were none proposed. Housing variety, yes. Um OX5 permits all housing types beyond detached housings, houses and transit access. There is a bus stop which mentioned 36 El Cremore route which is about 800 feet away. In terms of demographics and land use history, the demographic index um the site is 5% which is much lower than Raleigh overall 37%. People of color lower share at the site 10% compared to Raleigh's 46%. The low income population the site um 6% is much lower than the citywide average of 29%. Language barriers, there are no f none at the site. 0% compared to 3% citywide. Less than high school education, none at the site, 0% compared to 8% citywide. Young children under five, similar um 5.4% for the site, 6% for um the city of Raleigh. Um adults 65 plus, higher at this site, 18% than the citywide average of 11%. And the rent change since since 2016, larger increase at the site, 40.3% compared to Raleigh's 25.5%. The site is shown as office and residential mixed use intended for frontage lots where lowdensity residential is no longer appropriate. It encourages a mix of residential and office uses. It limits um a large-scale retail to preserve focus on employment and housing. Reszoning um proposed change from R4 to OX5 supports the future land use map by permitting both office and residential uses in one district. The OX5 district allows offices, multif family housing, and limited neighborhood retail services such um it serves as a transition between higher intensity mixeduse areas and surrounding residential neighborhoods. OX5 permits up to five stories, 80 feet higher than nearby residential, but consistent with future land use map goals. Reszoning enables more efficient use of a major um street frontage with added employment opportunities and housing variety near jobs and services. The UDO transition standards um height step down setbacks and landscaping. They ensure compatibility with adjacent low-cale residential areas. And for the overall benefit, it supports integrated transit supportive and economically vibrant um corridor development consistent with long-term goals. This site has no urban form designations. The proposed resoning from R4 to OX5 is generally consistent with several vision themes of the city of Raleigh um with the city of Raleigh comprehensive plan. Overall, the proposed resoning is consistent with the city's broader planning framework, support of multiple vision themes that empa that emphasize economic vitality, transportation integration, housing diversity, sustainability, and managed contextsensitive growth. The reasonzoning aligns with city goals to increase housing supply and make better use of existing transit access. There were no inconsistent policies identified. There were no outstanding issues. The next PC meeting date is September 9th, 2025 and the deadline for action is October 25th of 2025. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> We'll now hear from the applicant. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. >> Good morning everyone. My name is James Gryom uh and I am the grandson and consultant to the estate of Mattie Hayes Gryom who is the current resident at the property. Um she's actually funeralized on August 12th of uh 2025. So, I'm here as well with my aunt uh Cynthia Bale, who is trustee of her estate. Um, we are seeking to have this property reszoned to a mixeduse uh residential and commercial space to provide housing solutions for the senior community. Um, I myself am a Raleigh native. My grandmother passed away at 97 and has lived in Raleigh her entire life. And so this piece, this parcel as well as the community surrounding it have been in our family for generations. Um, and the land that Jeffres Grove Elementary School across the street is built on is also family land that was uh given to the state for the development of that school. So we have a long history of being in this community. Excuse me, my contacts are dry. Um but yes, so we have a long history of being in this community and would like to maintain our presence um through one her transition of life, but also as my aging aunts and uncles uh as well as members of the community from my church and all, we we find it more and more pressing to provide uh senior housing options um that allow for dignity and independence but allow also familiarity and um a sense of community uh where folks have already lived. Uh and so that is our objective here. Our objective is to convert this once our family home uh into a community staple that will eventually serve others like my grandmother who gave tirelessly and continuously to this community to make sure that they had the things that they needed. Um, she was a custodian at Jeffrey's Grove Elementary School as well as a home home care uh provider as well as a maid uh in Raleigh. And so she's had a great impact with very little means. And this is our effort as a family to use our intellect, our skill, our prowess, our knowledge, and our love for her and our passion to make an indelible mark on this community. Uh, and that is our goal. So that coupled with making sure that we uh also provide assets to the community that serve those who are most needed. And so while there may not be uh evidence of black and brown people in this part of town, as I noted from the commentary, know that my family has been up and down Creore Road for the last hundred years and we intend to keep it that way. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. >> Thank you. and my condolences to you and to your family. Thank you. >> Um, is there anyone else with you that would like to speak? You still have seven minutes. >> Okay. Uh, no. Uh, my aunt is here. She would not like to speak. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Um, in that case, is there anyone here who wants to speak in opposition to this case? Okay. Seeing none, um we'll bring it back to the table for questions and comments um from the commissioners. Do you have any questions or comments for staff or for the applicant? >> Commissioner, I will. >> It seems pretty straightforward to me. It looks like it's fits the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. And I love that you keeping in the neighborhood. I drive down this road almost every day and have often noted that house and looks very wellkept and somebody loves it. So, um I'm ready to move to support this. >> Thank you. Well, um and I agree. Um I live in this general area, too. And as I've lived in Raleigh and learned the history of Raleigh, even though this the the numbers are low, I do know the Jeffre Grove area has um is a very diverse area. So, I'm really excited to hear what you're trying to do and to continue your family's legacy on Creedmore Road. Um it's consistent. And I don't have any concerns either. Questions, comments from anyone else. Seeing none, I will >> May I add one? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Commissioner >> Commissioner O'H is not here. Um, but in that same vein, it's a question for staff. Could you talk about the neighborhood transitions that might occur between uh the height transitions between this lot and the surrounding R six? Just speak to that for a minute. >> I'm sitting in his seat as well, so I'm really Hi, good morning. Hannah Reco um planning and development. Yeah, so neighborhood transitions apply to mixeduse districts where they abut residential districts in most cases. Um the height transition specifically um is what is called zone C of the transition. So, it's essentially a 50 foot uh buffer from that shared property boundary um before a building could be built and then the full height of the of the structure um could not occur at that point. It would have to to slope up I believe at a one by one basis. >> Okay. >> Um from there >> and there's not currently a single family home immediately next door, right? Zone >> to the to the east. Correct. Yes. >> Sorry. To the east um is residential. >> Is there a single family? Is this going to be right in someone's backyard? Five stories. >> I'd have to check about that. >> There's a single family home to the east and then there's a um public storage to the west. >> Public storage. a public storage to the west like a office mixed use. Um, see if I can pull it up a minute. So, right here outlined in the gray is where the site is. And then in this blue area here is where there's um like a public storage facility and um threetory brick building. Not sure exactly what that business is though. What about R4? Immediately to the west >> across the street from Cre. >> No, I'm sorry. To the east. >> Oh, sorry. Which area are you asking about? >> Where she just? >> Oh, right here where you just drew. Um, yeah, that is the R4 uh single family home neighborhood. Correct. >> Gotcha. Um, and they have not and I'm sure that everyone has received notice and and >> Yes, ma'am. within 500 ft. >> Okay. >> All right. I've done my over duty. >> Thank you. >> Other questions or comments? Then I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Fox. Uh, in regards to case Z1625, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 26, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Thank you, Commissioner Fox. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Um, any other discussion? All in favor? All opposed? Great. That's unanimous. Next case, Z22353101 Watkins Town Road. Again, we're hearing this for the first time, so we'll receive a full presentation from staff. Mr. Cashwell is busy today. I see. Apologies, commissioners. when it was submitted um in escribe, the wrong application was put um with the staff report, but I placed a copy of it on um in front of you all. That's the printed out version. Uh the first part of it is the staff report. The second part is the actual is the correct application for this. So again, my name is Arthur Castro the fourth. I'm here to present rezoning case Z2225 for the 0.99 acre site located at 3101 Watkinstown Road. This is a resoning and an annexation. Um the annexation will be on the next meeting for city council if approved here. The applicant is requesting a reszoning from R30 Wake County to R six. According to the future land use map, the area is designated as low scale residential. This is paired with the annexation case AX21-25. The applicant requests to reszone a 0.99 acre site located at 3101 Watkinstown Road in northeast Raleigh from Wake County residential R30 to residential to R six. The purpose of the reszoning is to establish zoning for the property um following its annexation to the city. The current R30 district permits only low density residential uses on large lots. The proposed R six district allows a greater variety of housing types at a higher densities consistent with the site's future land use map designation. There are no zoning conditions associated with this request. The site is outside the extr territorial jurisdiction and there is an associated annexation request um previously mentioned AX 2125 that would if approved provide city services to the one single family home currently located on the site. The subject property measures approximately 236 feet by 175 ft and is developed with a single unit dwelling constructed in 1940. It is not located within the named subdivision, but it is situated across from the Willow Lake subdivision to the west. The nearest intersection is Watkinstown Road and Watkins Road with Mitchell Mill Road as the closest major road and US 401/ um Lewisburg Road as the nearest highway. The site is surrounded by a mix of residential zoning districts R six, R30, and R4, reflecting a gradual transition in density across the area. Land uses in the vicinity are primarily single-unit residential neighborhoods with Willow Lake providing the most prominent nearby development contacts and townhouse lots located to the south further contribute to the area's mix of housing types. The site is located directly across the Watkins Road property, a 38.22 acre undeveloped parcel designated for park and open space. There are no supportive housing facilities or other special land uses in the immediate vicinity. These images offer multiple street level perspectives of the proposed site. The top left image shows a single family dwelling on the site from Watkinstown Road. The top right image depicts the left side of the site um property frontage from Watkins Town Road and the bottom image highlights the right side of the site's property frontage from Watkinstown Road. The zoning change from R30 to R six. The site size is 0.9 is 0.99 acres. The height increase will be from 35 ft to 40 ft. Three stories. The setbacks um front reduced from 30 ft to 10 ft. Side remains 10 ft and a rear reduced from 30 ft to 20 ft. Residential units increase from one unit to 10 units. In terms of walkability, the site walk score seven. That's much lower than the city average of 31, indicating poor pedestrian accessibility. In terms of transit access, there is no transit score available. Um, which suggests little to no transit service, um, compared to the city average of 30. Bike friendliness, the site score 16, which is well below the city average of 41, showing limited bike infrastructure. In terms of transportation cost, the HUD index score of 50, which is about average nationally. Um job access HUD um HUD jobs proximity index of 17 indicating low access to nearby employment opportunities. There's no bus service. In terms of affordability, housing supply adds more units than existing zoning permits. The existing housing, the current dwelling likely qualifies as naturally occur occurring affordable housing. No. Um no proposed subsidized units. Housing variety. Yes, it allows duplexes, town houses, and small multif family buildings. Lot size flexibility, yes, R six permits smaller lots, 6,000 square feet, than the citywide average. Transit access, no, the site is not within walking distance of transit. In terms of demographics and land use history, uh the site is at the 7th percentile, which is much lower than Rally overall in terms of the demographic index. people of color. The site has a smaller share, which is 12% compared to the city's average of 46%. The lowincome population um is lower at the site, which is 8%. So that's lower than the citywide average of 29%. Um limited English speakers, um none at the site, 0% compared to the 3% citywide. Less than high school education, slightly lower, 4% for the site, um compared to Raleigh's 8%. Young children under five, a lower share at the site, 4% than the citywide average of 6%. Older adults 65 and older, much higher at this site, which is 53% um compared to Raleigh's 11%. And the rent chain since 2016, we have no data available for this site. Um however, citywide rents um rose 25.5% since 2016. For the future land use map designation, the site is shown as low-cale residential representing neighborhoods um with detached houses in a range of missing middle housing types. Um support this the reszoning will support housing diversity while maintaining a neighborhood scale character. The requested zoning R six is consistent with the future land use map. It permits detached houses, duplexes, town houses, apartments um and cottage uh compact court options. The benefits of resoning, it expands housing variety and modestly increased density compared to current to the current R30 zoning um which focuses on single family only. Um context fit. It supports incremental infill appropriate to nearby neighborhoods. Um for example, Willow Lake and its consistency R six is a corresponding district under the future land use map advancing it goals for housing choice and its neighborhood compatibility. This site has no urban form designations. The proposed reszoning from R30 Wake County to R six is consistent with the city of Raleigh's comprehensive plan. It supports housing diversity, compact growth, and alignment of zoning with the future land use map while posing no identified environmental or infrastructure concerns. These are the existing policies consistent with the reasonzoning of the next property. As far as outstanding issues, there are no outstanding issues. The next PC meeting will be actually September 9th and then the deadline for action is October 25th. >> Thank you very much. >> We will now hear from the applicant. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. >> Good morning. My name is Tyler Wilson with LAR and we're here to help Miss Stealth get her property reszoned uh and annex into the city limits so that she can connect to the city's utilities. And no other developments being proposed at this time. Her home will continue to remain just there to connect for the utilities. I'm more than happy to help answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Anyone else here to speak in support? Okay. Um, those in opposition have a total of 10 minutes. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the table. Commissioners, questions, comments. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Atwell. >> With regard to Z225 Watkins Town Road, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 26th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Thank you very much, Commissioner Cochran. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor? All opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Moving along. Z525 3027 Rock Corey Road. We will receive a full presentation from staff. >> Good morning, Hannareo Planning and Development. This is reszoning Z525. A request to reszone one property 3027 Rock Corey Road from R six to R10 conditional use sites about 17 and a half acres. Uh there's also a Shaw one overlay that would remain under the request. So in this area uh predominantly residential zoning there is a cluster of uh commercial mixeduse zoning kind of to the southwest of the site. Um this is a site that backs up to an interchange of 40 uh and 87. You can see um a lot of forested area along 40 um that points to toward the Shod one overlay. um mix of residential uses in this area and then some commercial um to the southwest. Zoom in on the site currently uh occupied by a house and some views um from Rockway Road. There's one proposed zoning condition uh which would maintain all of the dwelling units on the site as affordable uh specifically to households earning no more than 80% of the area median income for at least 30 years and that's tied to certificate of occupancy. The big picture, this is currently has residential zoning is proposed to have uh a different residential district that would allow um additional housing types, smaller lots, um slightly smaller setbacks, and therefore could fit more uh dwelling units on the site. This area does have a higher walk score than the city average, and that's likely because of the commercial, like the destinations that exist within walking distance. It does have lower transit and bike scores um than the city average. The site is served by route 17. Uh you can see the dots. Uh the site itself is again right here. Um so it is um served by transit. Um but there is a little bit of walk in this area. Um that is fairly um car oriented. The request would increase the number of units that could be built on the site. It does include a commitment to subsidized units and uh the requested district would allow smaller um smaller lots and and permit a variety of housing types. um this area uh is um home to a a much greater proportion of the population being um people of color and um a high a much higher uh proportion of the population having less than a high school education. So those are two pieces from the demographics and land use history to call out. Um future land use map on the site is low lowcale residential. Um R10 is more in line with the moderate scale residential category. So if approved um this request would amend the map to moderate scale residential as it is inconsistent with the low scale designation but it is consistent overall with the comprehensive plan. You can see a list of policies. Um these are uh really pointing to um the increase in housing entitlement, the existence of transit along this area. Um and then the one inconsistent policy noted is the future land use map inconsistency. That sums up the the overview. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> Thank you. We'll now hear from the applicant um and those in support. You have a total of 10 minutes. There it is. >> Good morning, chair and members of the planning commission. Um, my name is Beth Tjos. I'm an attorney with Fox Rothschild and I'm here today on behalf of Roars Company um to request resoning of this property to R10 to allow for affordable housing. Um I have with me Peter Schroeder and Kevin Surgeon with Roers Companies and Link Wilson who's the project architect with Case Wilson. Um, as you can can see and as you heard from staff, um, this property is, um, tucked away on Rock Corey Road, um, with I40 extending on two sides. Um, Rock Quarry Road is a transit emphasis corridor. I have, let me just see if I can push forward here so you can see a little bit more closely. Um the site is in uh is Caddy Corner across the street from Southeast Raleigh High School and it is um just down the road from Walnut Creek Elementary School. There are there's a lot going on in this area. Town homes are uh under development across the street um in a community called Somerfield Crossing. Uh and there is a street Somerville Crossing has uh created a um or fulfilled the city's requirement for a comprehensive plan street, a neighborhood street that will ultimately move through this property and our site will continue our property will continue uh that street extension. We think uh this location is appropriate for the R10 zoning district given uh the surrounding land uses and the close proximity to the highway. Um and I'll I'll point out that the staff recommended and the this board agreed that R10 was an appropriate uh or could be an appropriate zoning district in a low-scale uh comprehensive plan uh designation. In a prior case today that uh cross link road case was also a low-scale uh residential comprehensive planning district. We have um let me take you many of these you have seen with your staff who always does a wonderful job uh with their presentations and Hannah I'll point out was pinch hitting for Aaron today who woke up to a sick child. So um we're grateful for her her efforts. Um this is our our concept plan of what uh development of the site might look like. Um it shows that neighborhood street extension that would continue uh from uh Somerfield crossing on the other side of Rock Quarry Road. gives you just a a closer look of the site so you can see how it might be laid out and um some elevations of of what uh these apartment homes might look like. So our our we believe um well first our proposed zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and we believe it's reasonable and in the public interest because it increases the amount and type of housing that could be built in this area. It requires affordability and it's located near a along a transit emphasis corridor and near major transportation improvements. And thus we we ask for your support of this proposal and our team uh is available to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else here to speak in support of this case? Okay, we will switch to the opposition. Is there anyone here um to speak in opposition? Okay. I will note that um we received a letter from the Providence Homeowners Association. Um no one could be present today, but they wanted their um comments as their questions, I guess, as part of the record. So, when we start asking questions, I'll just ask the questions to make sure they're on the record. so when they watch this back they can um get answers to their questions. Um I will bring it back to the table now. Commissioners, uh do you have any questions or comments? I'll start then with the um homeowners association. The the first one they had is regarding road connectivity. This is the Providence um neighborhood and they want to know if there will be any road connections from the proposed development to their neighborhood. >> I'm not sure where Providence is on this map but >> apologize. Could you could you read the question? Um, they want to know if there will be any road connections from the proposed development into their neighborhood. >> Is that street plan? >> Yeah. >> So, the um you can kind of see it here and I'll try to draw it. There is a street plan connection roughly here um located on the street plan. The applicants can speak to their intent to design. >> Beth mentioned Somerfield. Springfield is um across the street like here. It's it's a that's a great drawing, isn't it? It um there's like a a flag and then the um the actual community will be further in. Okay, there he is. Not really better. Well, yeah. So, so Summerfield Crossing there there's a flag that comes out to Rock Quarry in this area and the actual community will be a bit a bit further back. Um, but that comp plan, there is a comprehensive plan uh recommendation for a street connection which is uh currently being built in Somerfield Crossing and it'll it's planned to kind of come come through our site. This is what the city has asked of us. And then in the future ultimately we'll make some connection um to what I think is purple garnet way if I recall the name correctly um in this community here but that will not be done as a part of our case where we will just extend the street um through our site as the city requires. >> Okay. Thank you. And if anyone has like questions as I'm going through these please just just let me know. Um, the second question was about traffic impact and a traffic impact analysis. And as I read the report, one was not required for this. That's right. But could be required during site plan? >> That's right. >> Just getting the answers on the record. Um, pedestrian safety. Uh, will the developer be required to provide sidewalks, crosswalks, and safe pedestrian access to bus stops? So, um, as a part of the extension of the neighborhood street through the site, there will be additional, um, sidewalk infrastructure installed. Um, I don't know that that gets you to a bus stop, but it is a part of the city's process for improving the area infrastructure. >> Okay. U, was, uh, Wake County Schools involved or coordinated with as part of this case? My belief, and I'll let Hannah, my belief is that the city regularly coordinates with uh with Wake County Schools. We have not directly reached out, and it would be unusual for us to do as a part of the process. >> I'll just add that's it's not typically done on a case-by case basis, but there there is coordination. >> So, I think what they're ask I'm trying to read the question again. The school didn't express any concern about this case. Did did you get any specific concern from Wake County Public Schools regarding this particular development? >> Not to my knowledge. >> Okay. Storm water and drainage. What storm water controls will be required to ensure surrounding neighborhoods are not negatively impacted? >> We have storm water staff is address that one. >> Better Sally Huait Raleigh storm water. Uh, so this site would be subject to the the regular UDO requirements. So that's water quality provisions as well as controlling the two-year and 10-year design rainstorms for peak discharge. I'll also note that this um I've looked up where Providence is and it's south of Rock Corey and it does not look to me that this property drains to that neighborhood. It would drain into the rock quarry. The southern part of the property drains to the rock quarry right away and is picked up by the drainage system there. Thank you. Um, what buffering, landscaping and building design standards will be required to ensure a respectful transition. If this question is with regards to transition to the south across Rock Corey Road, um there's aside from setbacks, front setbacks, there are no buffering requirements. Um I think the main piece of buffering here is uh with the Shod one overlay, which will require a buffer along this um the property boundary that abuts the highway. >> Okay, thank you. I'm almost done. I think this is the last one actually and this isn't really a resoning one, but I'm going to ask it so it will be on the record. How will the city ensure the um well actually this is resoning. How will the city ensure the affordability requirement is enforced consistently over the full term? We'll have to take a look at the specific language. Um, but it will likely uh require coordination uh with housing and neighborhoods department. >> Yes, there's a condition >> they're conferring over here. Give me just a second. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, Commissioner Shelurn. >> Well, I certainly don't have an answer for this specific project. My observation would be that whatever is the answer, it would be the same, I would imagine, for dozens, maybe even hundreds of properties that this um commission has voted on over the years. >> Thank you. >> So, the condition offered is for a deed restriction that would be recorded and would run with the land. >> Okay. >> Thank you. That concludes um the questions from the homeowners association. Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, I wanted to acknowledge this question or concern about uh Wake County Public Schools and any I guess planning or coordination that's happening uh with regard to this development. I do want to I think thank our colleagues on staff. Uh it sounds like, you know, it's it would be unusual for Wake County Public Schools to review sort of a, you know, case-byase basis um you know, a potential growth in their student population. But I just wanted to acknowledge um you know, just from prior professional work within uh two school systems and you know, currently serving on the board of Wake Tech Community College, typically school systems do plan for population growth. So even though they may not review again case by case, they are in fact uh you know forecasting you know and and sort of monitoring actively believe me uh the future growth of uh their student populations and you know they're seeking school bonds and and you know planning accordingly. So I just wanted to just on kind of on the public record acknowledge that and typically there is a bit of a forecasting happening within our weight you know public schools. So thank you. >> Thank you Commissioner Neptune. Commissioner Mai. Oh, I'm sorry. >> Well, I was just going to say that planning staff coordinates directly with Wake County Public Schools on an annual basis to help them with population projections about where we anticipate growth. And then the other thing that I would say is that Southeast Raleigh High School is on the south side of Rock Corey Road here and having 200 housing units within walking distance of the high school is great from a accessibility perspective. >> Thank you for that added note and observation, Miss Walter. Commissioner Omay. >> Uh, I just want to say that I think this is a great project. I'm glad that we're hearing somebody voluntarily give us affordability. We need it in the city. I do live not far from this up the street. I live on Rock Quarry. I like that it's across the street from a shopping center. Uh, it's right up the street from the police depot. It's up the street from Southeast Raleigh High School. It's up the street from the middle school and elementary school. It's up the street from a daycare. It will add to traffic, but we can't stop that. Um, but we do need density. We need it affordably in this area. So, um, I want to say kudos to the developer. I mean, to the company and the owner for putting something together that the community, especially where you're looking to develop it, actually needs it. >> Thank you, Commissioner May. Other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner M., this will be my first time. Do I have to read all of this? Just >> just the top part. I think >> uh this where it says location >> it should say Commissioner Miller will direct. >> Okay. >> We commemorating this. So give us a second. >> Okay. I move to recommend >> I think we need a short hand for this. What's up? >> I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement added August 26, 2025 containing in the contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map and to extend and to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. >> Thank you, Commissioner May. That was perfect. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Commissioner Neptune has seconded. Any further discussion? >> Okay. We'll vote. All in favor? >> All opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Our next case is Z125 2230 South New Hope Road. We will hear from staff. Good morning. I'm Hyram Marziano. Uh we have Z1125 for you today. Uh this is a request to reszone 22.98 acres from existing CX5CU to CX5CU. Just to briefly um cover some of the history here, this is a a funky shaped property that uh goes up along New Hope uh South New Hope Road there from Rock Corey. It encapsulates another property if you can tell that internal property. They were reszoned together a few years ago. Um, and they share conditions for both properties as one district. Only one of the parcels this time is in this resoning request. That's why this is a resoning instead of a text change for you guys. So, this will be creating a whole new CX5CU district next um, and replacing the conditions that affect this parcel. Um, if that's clear as mud for you. Uh deadline for this is October 25. Um the area is predominantly residential and character surrounding with a few other pockets of mixed use. Uh here's a a broad oversight. I wanted to give you a section to see where we are in relation to everything. Uh we're just past the the 40 interchange of Rock Quarry as we head down the road. Uh there is a green well a greenway uh trail to the north. Um and that will play into one of the conditions in a second. And we're near Walnut Creek Amphitheater and the Oldtown um plan development is across the street. Zoomed in a little bit so you can see that the uh city has a pump station on this parcel. Uh big branch pump station. Just some sites to of the property. Let you see that it's just vacant undeveloped land at this point. And there's a shot of the pump station. I brought in a flood map for you guys to look at. If you can look at the corner of the uh property down the rock corey road, uh the blue is floodway. The purple uh the purpley pink is AE flood zone uh commonly referred to as a 100red-year flood plane. Uh making this part of the area uh restricted development uh so that they can't really access that corner as part of the buildable property. Uh summary of the conditions. Uh they're limiting um some of the more intensive uses under the CX zoning. Uh no more than three lots with non-residential primary uses shall front along South New Hope Road. Uh further limits on the condition of the square footage a lotment towards office and other commercial uses. They're uh limiting the number of dwelling units to 175 and establishing the procedures for the dedication of greenway easements along the uh western side of that property. Uh you can see we're losing a little bit of commercial entitlement while we gain some residential entitlement in the 175 units. This uh pretty much shows you that this is a car dependent area. Um we are along a bus route route 17 rocky but as you can see from the bus stops we're about a half mile either direction to a bus stop from this location. um which technically would be uh walking distance for some people with our uh measurements, but it's still not really a transit oriented area and there's no subsidized units uh in the proposal. Uh some of the significant uh demographics for this area, the percentile for racial minorities is 94% well above the city average. um point out that the housing cost in this area has also increased uh significantly since 2016 or since 2020 when we actually have data. So since 2020 it's gone up 34% and to 2023. Um the future land use map, it is consistent with the future land use map, but I'd like to point out this exists within four designations of the future land use map. Uh pointing back out to that flood map, you can see down in the bottom corner there at Rock Corey Road that that's still listed as uh private open space um in the future land use map. Not really intended for development of that section. The areas that could be developed on this property primarily are within the office and residential mixeduse and the community mixeduse uh districts. We are along a transit emphasis corridor. So that no frontage designation would make this inconsistent. However, again with about 200 ft of flood zone in that area, it wouldn't be developed along the corridor either. So, this is consistent with our comprehensive plan. We find it consistent with the future land use map for the areas of development. Um, inconsistent with urban form map. Again, though, not really able to take advantage of uh an urban form there to begin with. Uh a few of the policies that we're consistent with, many of them are key policies and we are slightly inconsistent with the frontage again. Uh zoning infrastructure impacts largely because this is not an annexed property. It's not within our corporate limits and the fire has noted response time issues not being met. Deadline for action would be October 25th. Here's a few of your upcoming meetings, September 9th and 23rd and October 14th. And if there's any questions, I'm happy to take them. >> Thank you. We'll now hear from the applicant. The applicant and those in support have 10 minutes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Michael Burch with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of uh Greenway Residential. Uh Mark Richardson with Greenway Residential is here if there are any are any specific questions. Um appreciate Hon giving uh staff presentation and identifying kind of the the issues here. I want to just speak to the odd property configuration. I imagine there might be some questions around that. So, uh, two brothers owned these properties back in 2012. Uh, they decided to split them this way. Uh then someone back in 2019 had both properties under contract and at the time both brothers agreed to enter into a contract with that group, go through the resoning process and that's why the conditions uh apply to the current conditions apply to both properties. this property. Uh I'll use another uh slide here to kind of identify the developable areas here, but right now residential is prohibited on the site. And really the sole purpose of this resoning is to allow residential and we have capped the residential development at 175 dwelling units. We have preserved the uh ability to do commercial retail office that was allowed by the uh 2019 resoning case. The uh since the resoning the the site constraints have only gotten uh kind of more restrictive because of the city's uh adoption of prohibiting all fill or lot coverage in the flood plane. It used to be allowed 50%. Then in the resoning they limited it to 40% but now the city pro prohibits 100% of the development within the flood plane. So those site constraints kind of crept even more uh into the site. And again I I'll pull up that flood plane uh slide here in just a moment. Uh there has been a desire for retail uh in this area. This property has been marketed prior to the 19 uh 2019 resoning and at all times since that point. Uh it has been looked at by a few but uh given the site constraints uh no one has moved forward. Um obviously I do want to note uh this area over here to the east on the east side that has u significant uh entitlement for retail. Uh I think they're actually kind of going through the text change process now uh and again keeping that retail over there. They envision uh I think a grocery anchored uh center over there uh which makes sense that has much larger larger acreage. It is accessed much easier. Uh and of course it has significant number of customers immediately adjacent to it in the oldtown uh residential. But uh all of that to say uh and kind of justify why uh we are now asking for uh residential allowance on this property. So as Ron noted, we are consistent with the future land use map. Um we're also consistent with a number of key policies encouraging housing uh housing variety. Again, Oldtown has a significant number of single family detach, age restricted town home uh development. There are some apartments there further south along Rock Quarry. Um but allowing this type of residential density would uh complement and provide uh a new or housing type that is uh really not prevalent in this area. Also want to note just from a traffic standpoint that was something that we heard uh during our neighborhood meetings along South New Hope, Rock Quarry and certainly at the intersection uh by I want to note just in the staff report you may have seen those large numbers of trip generation increase. That analysis was done uh prior to our cap on residential. That analysis is based on uh what the envision tomorrow assumption of 824 units. Obviously the 175 represents a significant reduction of that. And just want to note that uh 175 dwelling units would really result in only 70 you know peak hour trips in the morning only about 89 peak hour trips uh in the afternoon which is well below uh what you see in that current entitlement row which you know is like 200 trips in the morning 300 in the afternoon. So, I just wanted to kind of make that point. Um, since there has been a change since that staff report, want to address uh the inconsistencies uh I'll touch on uh and again staff did a great job of kind of highlighting uh the frontage uh the issue with frontage uh or complying with that. Again, frontage designation, you know, is a long rock quarry. this whole, you know, corner is impacted not just by floodway, flood plane, uh, but there are also sewer easements that are outside, uh, of that which again just does not allow anything to be pulled up closer to rock quarry consistent with that frontage designation. Also touch on fire response. Um, you know, it speaks to kind of a full alarm uh fire and I know y'all have seen these uh comments a lot. I will just note that we're within about a mile and a half of fire station 26, uh just over two miles from fire station 12. Uh so that provides three engines and one ladder truck within 6 minutes. Uh and we'll note that the fire master plan identified a need for a fire station uh much further east and south to serve that southeast study area east of the Noose River. uh and they also recommended that out in 2035 2038. So again, I think we're uh and we're obviously surrounded by the city limits here. So last uh want to touch on storm water again. uh back when this uh the 2019 resoning went through at that time uh the property owner could essentially develop within put you know uh improvements in or fill bringing up the elevation 50% of what you see is the pink area. The 2019 condition changed that from 50% and made it more restrictive to about 40%. And again, then in uh essentially effective in 2022, city council said 0% uh fill or improvements within that pink area. And of course, we can't do anything within the blue area. So, um we are of course abiding by that. We think that that restriction, that 100% prohibition is more restrictive than the 40% uh essentially allowance in the 2019 condition. So that is why we removed that old condition six and so we are just abiding by the more restrictive uh code requirement now than existed uh in the prior the time of the prior resoning. So again, I think maybe the storm water impacts identified in that uh in the staff report may have been assuming that that 40% applied to the entire lot, not just the flood plane area, but that's um and I can certainly let stormwater staff address that, but uh we we think that the current state now is more restrictive and so that's why we remove that condition. So, uh, again, just to kind of close, I think I hit, um, each of the inconsistency topics, uh, and also kind of identified and addressed, uh, kind of the primary issues that we heard, uh, during the neighborhood meetings. So we are consistent with the future land use map key uh comprehensive plan policies uh and reasonable and then in the public interest by providing new additional housing opportunities here uh and obviously reducing you know at the 175 unit reducing the trip generation uh from this site which again addresses those existing and future traffic concerns. Um, I will note just from a there was another condition uh in the 2019 case that uh related to uh like multi-use path along South New Hope. Uh we'll note again since that time the city has adopted uh more restrictive street cross-section standards. And so when this property develops, it will have to provide uh both a sidewalk uh and a separate bike lane above the curb. And so, uh, transportation asked us to remove that 2019 condition because the UDO is now more restrictive. So, here to answer any questions uh, commission may have. >> Thank you. We'll bring it back to the table. Oh, no, wait, no, we won't. Um, anyone else here to speak in support of uh, this case? Excellent. Anyone here to speak in opposition? Now we'll bring it back to the table. Questions and comments from the commission. Commissioner Omay and Commissioner Oddwell. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> Okay. I'll start. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. I had a few questions and a couple comments. Um, did the prohibition on daycare come from negotiation with the neighborhood? It seems like that would be a great thing to have in the neighborhood. >> Um, it it certainly was. I'll just say we carried over the that prohibition of uses from the 2019 case with the only change being, you know, removing residential from a pro the prohibited list. And so that certainly was not part of the conversation uh during this process as to whether to allow or prohibit daycare. >> Thank you. I wouldn't want to hold the case up, but I would be happy if it disappeared between now and when it gets to council. I think it would be great have daycare in the neighborhood. Um I I appreciate the greenway condition. We just saw a text in the text change committee proposal to uh require something very similar and so conforming with that it looks like as far as I can tell it conforms with what the proposed text change is and that's great. I like to harp on urban form but I agree here that it doesn't seem practical to require it. So I'm quite all right with that being left out but I was hoping we could get storm water to talk. I think the staff report says that keeping the condition would be more restrictive than what is currently allowed under the UDO. So I would appreciate some clarification on that. >> That was my question too. So thank you for asking that. >> Sally Hoy rally storm water. Yes. So the uh Mr. Burch is correct that the storm water uh flood plane requirements in the UDO became more stringent since this was last reszoned. However, it's not uh black and white. What would be more restrictive? So, what is the the current UDO while it makes it very very difficult to develop in the flood plane does not actually prohibit it. It just makes it uh you you have to get more approvals and you have to either show that you're not increasing the water surface elevation in the event of a flood or you have to change the FEMA map and show where you would be increasing the the elevation of flood water. So in in our minds the 40% restriction on fill basically says should they decide to go through that process there's a limit on how much fill they could put in the flood plane still um which would limit how much increase there could be. So I think there's there's a couple of ways that they could address that. They could either just keep that condition and and that's something staff would be fine with. It's it's enforceable. Um or they could offer a different condition, you know, related to to restricted development in the flood plane that got it the same um that you know the spirit of the the previous condition. Thank you. >> Sure. >> So, um, if I'm understanding this correctly, and Miss Hoy, if you would just stick around close in case I get this wrong, um, to develop in the 100red-year flood plane, they would have to prove that whatever they were proposing would not raise the level of the flood elevation given the models that are run. Is that one that's one of the ways? >> That's one of the options. The other option is to actually they can show that there would be an increase and get that approved >> by FEMA >> by FEMA. Now, so we we >> don't see many projects doing that because it's a long and expensive process, but it's an option. So given that the uh the regulatory process would require the applicant to not prove no harm but to very strictly mitigate whatever they're doing in the flood plane. And I feel a little bit uncomfortable um requiring one applicant to reach a greater standard than what I often ask for because we think the UDO is pretty strong as far as storm water goes. So, I I think that I'd be okay with the removal of that condition as well. Thank you, >> Commissioner. >> Um, I would not feel okay with that condition only because, and I keep saying I live on Rock Corey, but I literally live right there. I have gotten no information as far as community engagement. I'm less than 500 ft from this project. I can see my house. It's in the pink zone where it starts. Uh I know for a fact that none of my neighbors have gotten any information about this project as far as community engagement is concerned. This is the second project. This is also what I mean when I say we have to look at the projects comprehensively because we've also just approved a project up New Hope that's less than a mile from this one. So, these are compounding issues that we can't say, okay, well, we if we approve this because it won't cause very much issues or we're okay with what little issues it caused because we don't live there and we're going to approve this that's less than a mile away that may cause issues like that. We have compounding issues. We just approved up the street on Rock Corey that town home uh you know development for about four miles up Rock Corey the other way going towards Barwell. we approved another development. So like within a less than 10 milei radius of this project right here within the last couple months we've approved developments that will impact storm water regardless of one person saying well we're going to mitigate it is pro it's prohibited in our plan but then you have another one that's doing it right like less than a mile from this one. Then you have another development up the road from that one. Then you have another development up. That's part of what I mean when I say we're not looking at some of the things that we're deciding comprehensively. We're looking at them in silos. We're looking at building housing, which is important, but how are we going about building it? And in that area right there on Rock Corey, once you pass New Hope going further up Rock Corey, it is a two-lane road. So just being comprehensive again, we just approved 300 230 units up Rock Corey. This will be more residential units at how much do you say 175 units. We approved about that 200 plus units less than a mile away from this. New Hope Road is a two-lane road with no sidewalk, no easement. So if there's conversation or community engagement and all they have is a tiny yard sign, there's no place for somebody to pull over and take a picture of it. And most people aren't even aware of what that sign even means to them to even take the time to do that. But there is supposed to be good faith efforts done where they're meeting with community and sending out information. I've received nothing and I live right there. So that goes to to tell me that the effort to make sure community engagement is happening is not really happening and this is not the first project because the other project of New Hope was the same thing and there was a house my mom's house right within the informed area and she wasn't informed. So that is leading to us having inequity in who is coming out saying this is how I feel about this project. I'm happy that I at least sit on the planning commission because I'm able to say as a person human being who my house is in a flood zone. I have to get extra insurance on my house for that purpose. This is going to impact water retention combi combined that this project will go hand inand with another one less than a mile up on New Hope that that could probably be seen within this picture. So then when are these projects starting? Are they all starting at the same time? Well, that's going to cause serious traffic, especially on a two-lane highway and on another road that doesn't have any that has like it's four lanes right there until you get to New Hope and then it's two lanes the other way plus another project that's coming in with 230 units. Like that's kind of what I mean when I say if there's no not somebody speaking to the lived experience or actual impact of the decisions that we're making, then we're making decisions not determining in the long run all of that could become a flood zone because we're just approving stuff in close radius to other projects that are within a flood zone. So, I would love to see some conditions that will add more uh protections around making sure my home doesn't wash away. And then once that happens, do I sue the city? Because I'm sitting here and we're talking about it now of the impact that this could have on residents who were not informed that this is coming. So, when it does come and it negatively impacts our housing or my house floods, do I sue the developer? Because I'm suing somebody. Is it the city? Do I come to the planning commission, sue myself? like who gets who gets talked to about the fact that these decisions that we're making, whether they are informed with the comprehensive plan or not, if we're not being mindful about comprehensively looking at how we're approving things and where they're going and the timing they're going in, we could be causing more harm than good. So, I would love to. And then he said that they're considering bike lanes. That is a two-lane road, as I mentioned. When you get to that light, it comes a straight lane, a turning lane that you can squeeze through, and then another turning lane you can go up Rock Corey going towards, I guess, the food line that's up there. I love the idea of them putting on the other side of it a grocery store, something grocery um anchored, but then that also causes more issue because you're taking away road space. So, is the bike lane going to eat into the property or is it going to eat into the already available road space that's already two lanes that's already going to be dealing with at this point maybe five, six, 700 units within the next couple of years on the road that has no expansion, mostly has no sidewalks, is heavily congested, has a high school and an elementary school and a daycare on it, which adds more congestion that I had to fight leaving my house today. Plus, Walnut Creek is right there and I have to fight people to get into my driveway. So, I don't know. >> Let's see if I can get some of your some of your issues addressed. Give me just a minute. Uh, Commissioner Cochran. So, one, I was trying to take notes as you were talking. You'd like to see more conditions around storm water and protection >> and any flooding that could happen. Um, with regard to the transportation impacts, we've discussed this for some other cases where it's in an area where there's a lot of development going on and we have concerns about the traffic, but we can't do anything at this table. But what we have done when we have sent the recommendation to council whether it was to approve or deny, we would make a note to ask council to consider doing some sort of comprehensive traffic study. I know we did that for Buffalo Road, for example, because there was so so much going on. While we can't like ask for a zoning condition to address that impact, we can note our concern and send it to city council because they have the authority to authorize staff to look at these studies. So we we can do that with this if you would like to include that in our mo in our motion that you're concerned about the amount of development that's going in and you'd like to see some sort of comprehensive, you know, traffic study, we can request that council consider that. Um the uh notification, I I'm going to ask staff because we we certainly want to make sure people within the radius are being notified. I know the applicant has to submit the list. Can you explain it what kind of checks and balances go in there? >> Yes. So, uh, first neighborhood meeting requires 500 foot notice. I looked, your house is not within 500 ft. You'll notice that there's a very large parcel on the west side of this site. It's more than 500 ft deep. Um, and then, um, second neighborhood meeting requires 1,000 feet. Your house is not also not within a,000 ft. I am on the other side of Friendley which is right up this >> I know I looked up where your house is. I looked at the map. You're not in the thousand foot buffer for for the parcel in question. >> Okay. So maybe that's that might be something a I think is a pol policy that maybe city council needs to reconsider because it looks like within the buffer they don't have to tell anybody >> about what's happening. >> There are uh parcels on friendly that are included within the >> 10 houses going to be negatively impacted. I'm not arguing with you. I apologize that but I am just making a point. It's not your fault. >> I'm just talking about how the process works. So 500 foot for the first meeting,000 foot notice for the second meeting. That's well within standard across many jurisdictions honestly more uh more notice than many jurisdictions offer. Historically it's typically 100 ft. So Raleigh is is um sending a lot more letters than many other jurisdictions. Uh and then your the other question was about how those lists are verified. They're reviewed by the applicant and the and the staff work together to verify that the all the right folks are being included in both the 500 and thousand foot list. >> I think it's interesting then that there's a planning commission member and this is coming before the planning commission and you see that I may be two feet out of the 500 ft and I don't get a notice that this is that's kind of crazy to me. >> Well, you're not within a,000 feet. Well, a thousand and two feet from the site because most of the stuff around the site is not people don't really live there. I live in this I'm saying because I live in this area. I'm not looking at X and X's and O's from a map. I get that there are measurements as far as footage that you people don't have to go to. And a lot of that footage on this project is eating up because there's no houses around it until you basically get to friendly and then there's a couple houses down Friendly. So, I mean, that might not be something in our purview, but nobody knows about this project. There's not even yard signs up to at least say that this project is happening. So, I mean, it could be within the grounds that nobody knows about it, but I'm just saying nobody know about it. >> Posted notice is made on site in the within the right of way of the >> I'll go drive pictures so I can show y'all because what should be happening, what is happening may be two different things. >> Okay. Um, thank you, Commissioner May. Thank you. Um, Binham, can I just say it's 11:56. Does anyone need to leave at noon or can we at least finish this case? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Are there any other questions, comments regarding this case? Um, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Shelurn, did you have one to Commissioner Cochran? >> Wait, no. Was you had your hand up, didn't you have your hand up before? >> Cochran Miller Shelurn. Yes. Uh this case is very similar to the one we we reviewed at Barnwell Road and there was a lot of discussion there with um with a lot of similarities here and my my question for today is is there a way to continue this or do we have to make a decision today? Can we vote to extend this discussion? >> We don't have to make a decision today. Um, we had some meetings before our deadline for action and it sounds like we're going to be asking the applicant to consider some additional conditions anyway. So, it will likely be deferred. >> Okay. Um, my most of my questions are to the city around the pump station. Um, similarly to Barmal Road, there were some issues around the the smells at that lift station and the maintenance of it, which I don't know have been that I still don't have some clarity on, and I would like to have more discussion around that before proceeding with support for this. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so we're we're not going to wrap this case up today. So, Commissioners Miller and Shelurn, if you'd just like to get your concerns on the record so the applicant can consider them if you have a concern. Maybe you don't. >> Thank you. Now, I just wanted to mention briefly um a few replies. First of all, this case I think was maybe one of my very first resoning cases I ever heard back in 2019. So, that and all of the subsequent text changes have been a walk down memory lane to say the least. Um the question about that commissioner asked about the daycare um I went back in my notes. I think that was actually requested by the souththeast CAC at that time. So that was why they um did include it and they did vote the CAC did vote in favor of that case at that time. I did not see the same kind of turnout in this case probably because the main request is just to remove the prohibition on housing. Um, we just wanted to address that. In terms of, um, the traffic impacts in storm water. Um, I absolutely hear what Commissioner May is saying, similar to the cross link case where I nudged afterwards and said, "I would love to talk to you more about this offline." Um maybe there's a number of topics we could bring up at to discuss at our retreat um or maybe in strategic planning to talk about some of the bigger picture issues including what tools we have at the resoning table um and and ones that we don't that we could be frustrated by that we don't um but one key way to think about this is um well that that we have to think about this is the current entitlement versus the proposed entitlement. Right? So even under the current entitlement, what are the storm water conditions versus the proposed? Um and also with traffic, what is the current uh trip generation versus the proposed? And under this one, the trip generation actually goes down um with the proposed new conditions on resonings just because residential units create less traffic than commercial and um retail. So that was so this actually reduces traffic compared to the um entitlement. So, it's it's challenging to think about it that way, especially if it's not currently developed. Uh, but may again, maybe these are all topics we can talk about at the at the retreat and figure out what we can what we can impact long term. Thank you. >> So, I hate to take more time, especially because I'm really ready for lunch um and had my breakfast a long time ago. Um, but I wanted to share some thoughts because I'm going to miss the next meeting. they'll be back in Hawaii. And so, um, and I wanted as an observation that I I know the developer, Mark Richardson, um, not a client or anything, um, but I mentioned that because I know the kind of program he works in, it's the same program that I work in, is low-inccome housing tax credit, and that almost certainly explains why they've picked this ridiculous piece of dirt to develop on. I mean, no one would in their right mind would want to build. I mean, granted, I only know what I've heard here today, but this is going to be really tough. And but I it's got to be the reason they're doing it is because of e a state and or federal policy that makes this real estate fit for the low-inccome housing tax program. I don't know if it's point scoring or basis boost. There's something about it. So, in other words, there's not many parcels in any jurisdiction, including Raleigh, that are a great fit for the program. And apparently, this must be one of them. Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. Other questions comments? Mr. Burch, you look like you want to say something. So, just based on the on the comments received, uh sounds like there's probably a desire to uh defer this. I would ask if we could come back uh at your next meeting. Just I think on the traffic issue, Commissioner Miller hit um that with 175 units, I mean, we would be reducing the current entitlement trip, Jen, by more than half. Um and then uh on the storm water front, um certainly talk with uh with Miss Hoy. I mean, my sense is to kind of equal the condition uh that exists uh in the 2019 case, we would essentially say, you know, if we were to pursue one of those options to allow for something in the flood plane, then we would limit that potential impact as approved by those authorities to 40%. I think that gets us to to where we are today. Um right now we're we're not anticipating certainly no no buildings within there. Um but again given the constraints I think that condition uh again we would keep it status quo on that front. Um, just on the the daycare use, uh, Commissioner Iwel, I don't know if if hearing from, uh, Commissioner Miller if you have, uh, if you wanted us to to continue to pursue allowing daycare or >> it's not a make or break issue for me, but so I wouldn't want to contradict what the CAC had worked towards. >> Okay, great. I I think those were the um the bigger items, but again, if there's anything else that uh we can address through conditions, we are we are happy to do so and we would be getting those in by this Friday in order to come back uh what I believe is on the on the 9th of September. >> Great. Thank you. So, um you'd like to you'll get it in by this Friday and you'll be ready to reappear at our September 9th meeting. >> Yes. >> Okay. Do we need to vote on that or do I just say we're def deferring this to our September 9th meeting? Bum, >> just say we're deferring without objection. >> Without objection, we're deferring um this case to our September 9th meeting. Thank you all for your questions and your comments. We have just a couple other agenda items. We're going to need to move our next case, which is I'm sorry, let me pull it up. Uh Z 535. No, it's not. Um Z13253219 Pool Road. We will need to move this to our September 9th um planning commission meeting. I'm sorry we weren't able to get to it. Um and then other business, report of the chair. I don't have a report. Report of the members. Any committee meetings? >> No report. We had a committee meeting last week, but I believe it would be too early to report out at this time. So, quick preview. We're looking at greenway trail policy. So, that'll come up. We have a next text change committee September 17th. Doesn't look like we have an agenda item yet, but uh keep it open on your calendar, please, and stay tuned. We have a infrastructure mobility meeting for September 25th and as far as I know there are no agenda items so it's canceled. >> Okay. >> No report. >> No report. >> There will be no strategic planning meeting this month. >> No report. >> My apologies. I should have put my glasses on. Uh we do have an agenda item. It's uh we're going to look at RHDC updates and text change committee. So, we're going to be rolling. >> Thank you. And report of the assistant director. >> I only have one beyond what's in my report. I have two things I want to say. Uh, one, I want to make sure that you know my colleague Matthew Clem, who has been promoted to serve as planning manager in long-range planning. You'll be seeing him at the table going forward. >> Congratulations. >> Very exciting. Uh, Matt has been with the department for a number of years. left and went away and came back. So, great institutional memory, good knowledge of local government, just a great resource for the department. Really happy to have him with us. And then the other thing that I will say, and I'll send some more information uh separately, the city council special committee on boards and commissions is meeting on the 15th. And if you're interested in participating in that, would encourage you to participate in person. I believe it's at 7 o'clock at night. you can share more information. >> I don't know off the top of my head. I will sh I can share information with you all directly and then in my report I encourage you to click through and look at it. We have included staff bios for everybody in long range planning. A lot of you are new. We've had a lot of turnover on our side. Wanted to make sure we all know your faces. You're very important to us. Wanted to make sure you had the same information about us. >> Thank you. Bum. Anything else for the good of the order? We are adjourned. Thank you. [Music]