[Music] Welcome to the March 11th, 2025 planning commission meeting. I am Blanny Miller, chair of the commission. As always, I would like to ask everyone today to please be efficient in your comments and avoid redundancy. so that we can hear from as many viewpoints on as many cases as possible today. We like to start each meeting with an opportunity for the public to comment on an item not contained on the agenda. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on an item not on the agenda today? Then seeing none, we can move on to new business. I'm sorry to old business. We have one item under old business uh reszoning case Z3924 at Honeyut Road. For this item, the commission has already received a full staff presentation, applicant presentation, and heard from the public. Our focus today will be on any updates or changes to the case since our last meeting. And we will now turn to Matthew Burns for a presentation on an updates to the case since our last meeting. Good morning, Chair Miller, members of the planning commission, Matthew Burns with Planning and Development. This case last appeared as new business on the February 25th planning commission agenda and uh has since been revised and your deadline for action is April 26th. Here's just an overview of the site. Uh it is close to the intersection of Falls of Noose and Honeyut Road near Lafayette Village. So the applicant has submitted some uh sign zoning conditions which differ slightly from what's included in your backup materials, but the changes were made in response to staff comments. So the first three conditions remain unchanged. They uh limit residential density, prohibit the apartment building type, and prohibit some uses that are otherwise allowed in the base district. The revised conditions um now establish a minimum tree conservation area of 15% and um establish that a minimum of 30% of the site shall be designated as open space. They also uh provide for the construction of a 10-ft wide path from Chatter Drive to the internal sidewalk network of the development. In addition, there uh is a new condition that would provide a 10- foot wide multi-use path connecting the path described in condition number seven to Honeyut Road, providing that it meets certain requirements. One of those is that the multi multi-use path would be on only one side of the street um within the 55 foot wide right of way and that the internal public street terminates in a culde-sac. And so this would be requested as part of a design alternate submitted during uh the preliminary subdivision plan process. Finally, the last new condition um would be as part of uh the a subdivision on the property and subject to approval by NC DOT, the developer would install a high visibility crosswalk on across Honeyut Road near its intersection with Ruminet Drive. As you've seen before, the request would uh result in an increase in entitlement and the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan but inconsistent with the future land use map designation of rural residential. Consistent policies are related to compact development, density transitions and housing variety as well as the development of vacant sites uh and two policies that are specific to the Falls Lake area plan. Um, inconsistent policies are related to the future land use map, road connectivity, um, and response time standards due to fire service. As you already know, the since the request is inconsistent with future land use map, approval would result in an automatic amendment to the future land use map from rural residential to lowcale residential, which you can see here. and there are no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is April 26th. I will now turn it over to transportation staff who uh would like to provide an update from their conversations with NC DOT. Thank you, Matthew. Uh good morning, Plane Commission. I'm Carter Robertson with transportation and I'll be giving an update on our conversation with NC DOT's traffic safety unit on February 27th following the last uh planning commission meeting. So just to remind everyone at the last meeting there was a lot of discussion about pedestrian connectivity on Honeyut road. Um as a result of that just uh where I have circled the applicant has proposed a new condition um subject to NC DOT approval they would um construct un uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on Honeyut right at that circle where Room on Drive is. So in our meeting with NC DOT, we brought this proposal to them and discussed pedestrian connectivity in the area. Um after discussing it with their engineers for some time, we received a clear answer that under current conditions they would not approve a uncontrolled crossing at this at this proposed site. And the reason for that um one of those being is the speeds on Honeyut Road. Uh currently the speed limit is 45 miles per hour. Um when when we look at our speed data that we have available the 85th percentile speeds are 50 miles hour or above um at the site and just north. So with those higher speeds in this area that's often correlated with a higher risk of injury or death if a pedestrian were to be hit. Also, um development of the site and the new site driveway would essentially create a fourth leg to this intersection with Rona Drive and add new turning movements from the site and on Honeyut Road that would conflict with pedestrian crossing Honeyut Road. Um so, as we've discussed this, I made the applicant aware and they're they're keeping that condition. uh in case conditions change, they're still going to go to NC DOT and seek approval. Um but we continue to talk about other alternatives for improving pedestrian connectivity on Honeyut Road. Um one of those being highlighted in red, the sidewalk gap on the west side of Honeyut Road. Um, filling in this gap would improve the pedestrian network and then give residents and neighbors the option to walk down to the Falls of Noose intersection um where there is existing pedestrian infrastructure. Um, at this location there are marked crosswalks. There are pedestrian signal heads that are coordinated with the traffic signal. though that um gives pedestrians a safe opportunity to cross without conflicting with vehicular traffic. Um so that was our conversation regarding pedestrian connectivity. Um, we've also have other standing meetings for with NC DOT where we've discussed the potential Chatter Drive connection and as we've discussed this um NC DOT and city staff both believe that the full vehicular uh connection from Honeyut to Chatter should be made. Um we do recognize residents concern or neighbors concerns about additional traffic coming into their neighborhood. However, um we don't believe that any non-local trips are going to be using this route as a cut through um just because Honeyut and Falls of Noose are a better connection for that direction with much more capacity to handle them. This connection from Honeyut to Chatter is intended to be a neighborhood type street that would match the cross-section um of Chatter Drive. Um we also did some trip generation analysis with this resoning request and we saw that only about 20 additional trips would be generated in the peak hours. And due to the site's proximity to Honeyut, um we foresee uh most of these trips going to Honeyut and Balls of Noose rather than cutting through um Chatter. And so um that's that's a summary of uh our discussions here at the city, also with NC DOT. Um and with that, I'll uh yield my time to you all. Of course, um myself and other transportation staff are in the room to answer answer any additional questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. So, we have already heard from the applicant and the public, but we have received an email request that we provide additional time for public comment. Just so I can get a sense by show of hands, um would the applicant or any members of the public like to provide additional comments on updates to this case today? I see one, two. Okay. In that case, I'd like to without objection, I'd like Oh, there's four. Did I miss I'm sorry. Could you raise your hands again? I missed one. You see four? All the other people that just raised wants to speak. I see. Okay. Um then without objection, I would like to grant an additional six minutes to both sides um for public comment. Thank you. We will start with the applicant and those in favor of the case. Please introduce yourself when you come to the podium. Good morning. Michael Burch, Longleaf Law Partners. Uh here with me also this morning is uh Andy Sandman, the applicant, as well as Peter Kasan, our engineer. Appreciate uh Matthew giving you a summary of the new conditions that we've added. Um we did keep the condition related to the crossing of honeyut in our set of conditions because and we have a requirement in those conditions that we asked DOT both at the preliminary subdivision stage as well as the SPR stage. We felt like it was worth keeping it in there given you know what the time frame might be for those processes. Things may change. Uh they have brought up an alternate or a possible alternate about filling in the gaps of the sidewalk to the south. Um there are a number of issues with that. One uh the width of the right of way. Uh two, there are existing power poles in that area. We would not be able to build out the full section of that uh area to our south uh along that property that's not within the scope of this resoning. Uh we are certainly willing to continue the conversation with transportation and storm water uh if they're willing to allow us to provide a temporary solution essentially along the frontage of that property that we don't own. You know, a 6-foot asphalt path, something like that, but could not provide curb and gutter, storm water infrastructure, any of that. And one of the concerns of course is that uh if that impervious counts against the impervious obviously we have because we're in the wershed we have a 30% uh imperous limit and so uh each amount of imperous is important. Uh so but we're willing and we'll certainly work with storm water staff and transportation staff to see if there's a way that we can craft a condition, you know, as once we get to to city council. As you know, uh, folks from Bentry Neighborhood are here, uh, to speak on that connection. We are maintaining our condition that prohibits the vehicular connection to Chatter Drive. Uh, we want to support our Bentry neighbors. Those roads have no sidewalks, are 20 foot wide, ribbon pavement, incredibly narrow. they're already experiencing non-local traffic because of the crosswalk from the uh school on the south side of Strickland Road. So, just to kind of bring it back to the reasonzoning request and I do want to kind of acknowledge that um we are consistent with the comprehensive plan. We are consistent with the Falls Lake area plan. Uh we think it's reasonable in the public interest. We are maintaining the watershed protection overlay district. Uh we are again providing that multi-use path uh that connects Chatter out to Honeyut Road. Uh willing to provide those pes pedestrian improvements if uh NC DOT will allow them. Uh and we're certainly compatible with our uh surrounding neighbors. So we appreciate planning commission support and again I just want to reiterate our willingness to continue to work with staff as we move to city council to address either the crossing issue or the sidewalk gap issue. Thank you. Thanks very much. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in support of this project? Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Hi, I'm Abby Heidis. I live along Chatter Drive in Bentree neighborhood. I want to reiterate that this um pedestrian walkway and avoiding a vehicular connection is our biggest sticking point as Bentry residents. We have continued to reiterate that we support the resoning if and only if that condition remains. Our roads are only built at 20 ft wide. They're not built to connector street standards. We have no sidewalks, no curb and gutter, and we have a lot of walkers. I have two boys. We live on the corner. We're walking. When there are two cars, if there's a car parked, you can barely fit another car around. It's not a safe situation to have extra cars. And there will absolutely be cars flying through. We already have traffic speed issues and there will be people if you're coming down Honeyut, you will cut through that neighborhood to come through because you're going to be stuck there in traffic and you can't turn right on to onto Falls from Honeyut. It's no right on red. So people will absolutely cut through that neighborhood and add additional non-local traffic to Chatter Drive. It's a really it's a windy road. We're in the Falls Watershed, so it can't be widened and it's really inconsistent with being able to be a connector street. And as a mom and a resident and somebody who walks in the neighborhood, it's a very concerning safety problem if the street connects. Thank you. Thank you. And so just to confirm, you are in support of this project um a reasonzoning case as written with the conditions. Yes. And we as a neighborhood have been really involved in this process. We've had a lot of meetings with the developer. From the very first meeting when we had a hundred people in the room, this was the biggest sticking point. They were agreeable to put this condition in to really ease our concerns. And we've been able to really work together to make a plan that works for both. But I'm reiterating that we only support this if and only if Chatter Drive does not connect to this neighborhood. And we support the use of the multi-use path. Thank you very much. Um, moving on to our next public speaker. Are you here to speak in support of the project? Uh, could we go back up to two minutes? I believe the last speaker was responding to my questions. Okay, that's great. Thank you. That's not right. Or two minutes. Two minutes. Go ahead. Okay. My name is David Locker. I've lived Wait, I'm sorry. Please wait. Please wait. Okay. My name is David Locker. I've lived in uh Bentry for 28 years. Uh I want to talk to you about the water the storm water runoff in particular along Chatter. Uh I've seen in my 28 years it has it has gone from a situation that was under control, welldesigned, properly operating to a situation that's that's really causing a lot of problems. Now I think there's a lot more uh imperous space in the general area that's dumping storm water. uh into the creek that runs uh in back of Belgrove Way and you know just general development in the area and for those who believe in climate change I think that probably uh is part of it. Uh, I went out the other day in my raincoat and my uh, rubber boots and tramped up and down the uh, the creek while it was running high because of the rain. And there's some fairly extraordinary stuff going on. Um, a lot of people in the Bentry area are experiencing storm water problems. A lot of people have talked to the city and it's pretty clear that the city is not going to do anything to help us and so we're on our own and a lot of people have spent a lot of money to fix these problems. Um, of course they fix their problem and it goes downstream and becomes their neighbors problem. So, our big concern really is that that this project that we're talking about this morning is going to have to dump their water somewhere. And we understand it's going to be into the uh waterway that goes behind the homes on on Bentree and and probably into other places. So it has to be well thought out and it has to be done well or people who have a problem are going to have a bigger problem and people who don't have a problem are going to have a problem. So thank you very much uh now moving on to public comment for those in opposition. Anyone opposed to this case uh we'll have a total of six minutes to speak. If you could please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Good morning. I'm Jennifer Feinstein and I'm opposed to the um the reasonzoning from R1 to R six. Um I've lived in Bentry for um almost 29 years and as Mr. Locker just said there's a tremendous amount of water problem and I sit on a lower end of the neighborhood and I have a lot of water coming from all directions. Excuse me. Um and so I feel like if we have um R six there's going to be more properties uh more water flow and I just don't um I think that's going to be a problem for all of us. And as David said it's not being addressed by the city so we're kind of on our own. Also, um, regarding the traffic, it is going to go through our neighborhood because people go to the shopping center where there's food lion and the school. So, without the curbs and gutters, people are going to be coming through constantly to avoid having to turn right on um, Falls of News from Honeyut. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in opposition to this project? I believe we're seeing none. Um, in that case, we can bring it back to the table. U, I'd like to start off by thanking um the applicant and the neighbors uh for and staff for the additional updates to this case since our last meeting that that addressed many of the issues that we discussed previously. Yes. Uh I'm sorry to interrupt. I wanted to call to your attention that the condition as offered that says that the applicant would seek a design alternate is not acceptable. that's prohibited specifically by the code. Okay? So any uh action that you've had, they've made their revisions while in front of you. Um but anything that uh any action that you take today should really acknowledge that that condition cannot be offered or honored by the city. Uh so specifically uh the code calls out that no condition may be made part of the reasonzoning petition which specifies authorization or consideration of a design alternate. So that's very problemat. I'm sorry that came in Friday afternoon. That was a change from the version that we saw before publication. So that's number nine condition number nine. Okay. Um well maybe I'll start off with that question. Would the applicant like to address that issue? Sure. We can we can remove reference to the design alternate. We'll city has approved numerous conditions where an applicant is offered a multi-use path in lie of a sidewalk. The only way to accomplish that is through the design alternate process. We won't specifically reference the design alternate in our condition in our condition. But we have been very clear from our first conversations with transportation that we are willing to provide that multi-use path. But again, because of the impervious surface limits, if we're going to do that multi-use path, it has to be in lie of a sidewalk on both sides. So, that's what we're trying to accomplished. I'm sure we can work with planning staff and the city attorney's office to find language that meets the code on that front. Um, if I could just speak to the storm water comments. Uh you heard that was my next question was um I was going to ask the um uh staff and and applicant if they had any responses to the storm water concerns. So um heard from uh two neighbors within Bentree uh one kind of west on Chatter, Mr. Locker and then Miss Feinstein who is interior to the neighborhood off of Mun Mum. Uh neither one of those areas would be impacted by the development of this property. Our property drains north this way. Um or excuse me, yeah, I think through through here. So it does not I think the property today as currently constructed um some water may head this way but as part of the development on the site we have to redirect that water into our storm water facility and then that will be outleted north so it won't flow to the west uh anymore. We are the current limitations on the site 30% impervious that is being maintained. I think as we talked about last time our request for R six conditioned down to four units per acre is a matter of what can we do within that 30% impervious. Is it going to be 14 large lot estate homes or can it be uh again up to 56 units uh which is four units per acre consistent with the comprehensive plan consistent with the Falls Lake uh area plan guidance for density but the impervious surface limits are the same. I also want to note because we are in the wershed protection overlay district, we have uh what are called natural resource buffer requirements uh which essentially uh double the amount of buffer that we have to provide around certain water features. One of those on our site is in this area here and so we will have to provide again 100 feet of buffer on either side of that and so limitation on impervious. We also have a 40% forestation requirement that certainly uh helps with infiltration of the water as well as the uh the wider buffer along that stream. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Um and then the question, do we have storm water staff available today? Thank you. um to address the storm water questions and also address um what requirements will be in place or put in place at site plan with respect to storm water. Yes. So this project would be subject to our our normal full storm water requirements which requires detention of the two and 10year uh storms. So, um, they would have to also have to capture all of their new impervious area in a storm water control measure of some kind. Um, this I do want to clarify that um when he the developer representative says this drains to the north, it does go to a stream that goes through some of the backyards along Belgrove Way. Uh, So there is a potential impact to some homeowners who may not be the folks who spoke today. Um did you have any further questions? Um could you help explain what the standards would be at site plan with respect to the amount of storm water or quality of the storm water that um might be increased in this area as a result of this project? Yeah. So in addition to our our full storm water requirements of the 2 and 10 detention and water quality provisions uh as was said there will be a 100 foot buffer which is unique because this is in the falls wershed um and uh also the the limit to 30% impervious area which again is unique to the falls lake wershed overlay. Thank you very much. Yes. and moving down the line. Mr. V, Miss White, would the what what is proposed the R six um development be more impactful I guess to storm water than what could be developed by right? Uh I will have to defer to planning on that but um the the percent impervious restriction is independent of the zoning. So um regardless of what the zoning is, they would still have that 30% limit. I I don't know if the lower zoning would result in less impervious. Okay. Thank you. I also have a a quick question for you. Um going back to when we saw Strickland the Strickland Road affordable housing case if you remember um last year which was in this corridor in the falls wershed protection overlay um I believe that developer provided an extra storm water device than what was required by the code. It you know would something like that help alleviate that in this situation? I mean certainly if the developer offers additional storm water controls that provides additional storm water protections. Um I will note one difference with the strickling case was that they were exceeding the density requirement that was um not in the storm water rules but in the comprehensive plan. Okay. And this one does not to be clear. That's my understanding. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional questions from commissioners? Does uh planning staff have any followup with respect to vice chair Bennett's question? Yeah. Uh just to c can you rephrase the question just to make sure I think what I was trying to ask is would the increased density cause a bigger impact to storm water than what could be developed currently? So, I'll note that the residential one zoning district is the most restrictive of the residential districts and I believe it recommends a density of no more than one unit per acre. There are policies in the Falls Lake WHED that call for conservation type developments that would allow a density bonus in exchange for dedicated open space. Um, but typically the development patterns that you you would see in R1 are um larger lot single family homes um compared to pretty much any other residential district. Thank you. Quick followup, but would the entitlement under the existing entitlement um would that have any more strict storm water protection requirements than the proposal? They would both maintain the falls like watershed. Um I would need to double check my notes to see how they compare. I think we have storm water staff coming back as well. The storm water requirements are the same under either zoning case. I think the thing that we can't really answer is would uh 14 estate style properties meet get up to that 30%. I don't know. They they might all have big patios and pools and ADUs and large driveways. Thank you. Um was there additional insight from the applicant that you could offer? Yes. So, uh, just on the I think what you've heard, maybe this is in response to Commissioner Bennett's question, regardless of what the base zoning is, R1 or what we're proposing, R six with a density cap of four units per acre, the impervious surface maximum is the same at 30%. That 30% includes the impervious surface associated with the road that has to be constructed here. That takes up a large chunk of the property. Right. I mean, what we're proposing is street that comes in and then culde-sacs before it gets to to Chatter. That is again a significant part of the site. So that doesn't leave much impervious for the actual home lots, whether that's 14 home lots or whether that's more, you know, allowed within the current zoning. I can tell you when we've looked at other watershed neighborhoods, if 30% is the maximum impervious, that is what the storm water devices will be designed to because the homeowners, right, if someone's selling lots out there, they want to be able to give either the home builder or a future owner the ability to add additional impervious surface if that's allowed by the code. And so um again I think the maximum is the same under current and existing or current and proposed zoning. Uh I think that's the bigger picture is you know the benefits of providing additional units housing types within walking distance to Lafayette Village Lifetime Fitness other things in this area the greenway to our west. So, thank you. Thank you very much. Other comments, questions from commissioners? Yes, Spicer Bennett. Thank you. Um, I have a transportation related question. Um, with regard to the high visibility crosswalk, um, and NC DOT's concern about it being uncontrolled, would they be more, I guess, immunable to it? If it were controlled, is that something the applicant could offer that would um, make the NC DOT more comfortable with the safety of that crossing? Right. And that is something that we also discussed. Um, so you're right. Uh, the uncontrolled refers to the fact that's just a crosswalk and we're we're relying on vehicles to see the pedestrians in the crosswalks and yield to them. So with those speeds, we would like a controlled facility instead. as we discussed that um usually our devices are either at a signalized location like falls of noose um so that could be one avenue of course there would have to be a signal study um to see if that's warranted and two other types of devices that um are would be considered a control facility are our rectangular rapid flashing beacons you push the button and the sign lights up or a hawk signal. You push the button and there's a a red sign for the for the cars. The reason those two weren't considered at those location is NC DOT places those at midblock locations, not at intersections. So those are built to control traffic when there's just two directions coming towards it. Um does that explanation answer you? It does. Thank you. Thanks very much. Other questions from commissioners? Uh, apologies if I missed this when because I missed the meeting where this was first presented, but uh the inconsistency with regard to the sidewalks being on both sides of the connector street. I'm just curious if if you could share why y'all chose to to go that way with it. Right. So again, I think the the only request is so right under normal circumstances, let's say this was being developed under current zoning, the developer would provide the typical street cross-section. So you'd have five or six foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. There was a request for a multi-use path 10- foot uh wide through the middle of the site out here. And so our response was yes, we'll absolutely be willing to provide that that 10-ft wide multi-use path, right, comes with more impervious surface. We said given that this neighborhood street, right, will be a culde-sac, no through traffic. Um what we heard from transportation in our meetings with them is that you they wouldn't be opposed to having that multi-use path on one side and not a sidewalk on the other just given the low density etc. And so we think it's important to be able to provide that 10 foot wide multi-use path uh from Chatterton out to Honeyut and so that's why we've included that condition. Got it. Thank you. Y thanks. Any further comments? I I think I do I do have one more. not related to that. Um, the last time we heard a case in the falls wershed, we heard a lot from water staff about uh water quality downstream in the lake. So, I'm just curious why that wouldn't be a because this seems to me like it's in a same a similar part of the overlay and have similar uh runoff and water quality issues. So, just curious if we have anyone from water staff and why it would be different in this case. Don't see we did at the last meeting and they spoke to this. Yes. Okay. Um, and apologies. Yeah, no problem. I'll defer to Sally Hoy from Stormwater. So, no, there's no one here, but Ed Bucken from Rally Water did attend last time and has added comments to the staff report. Um so yes, there continues to be concern about Falls Lake water quality, although again there is a slight difference from the Strickland case because of um what it the difference in relation to what's in the comprehensive plan. Right. And can you can you refresh me with the with what was added in the Strickland case? Was that just to mitigate storm water or was it to also intended to filter the water quality downstream that was run off into the lake? Yeah. So, it's it's basically the same okay thing. So, um what was added in the Strickland case was a if I'm remembering correctly was a provision for additional green stormwater infrastructure which would provide additional water quality benefits before water storm water left the site and reached Falls Lake. Got it. And and to be clear, this this case does not have that at this point. That's correct. Uh they have not proposed conditions that are related to storm water. Got it. I think just from from my perspective, I would like to see something like that before supporting a case like this just because of the water quality, because of the green print and consistency and um and other things. But that's just my personal Thank you. personal opinion. Um would the applicant like to respond to that question? Yes. Um just to I guess reiterate what said uh that Strickland Road case and this is something that uh information provided at the last meeting after Ed Bucken spoke right his primary comment was about uh the precedent right of reasonzoning in the watershed and highlighted the recent cases that both this planning commission and city council have approved. D right where and to put this case to frame this case as consistent with the Falls Lake area plan. The Falls Lake policies the one specific to this area uh suggests that up to four units per acre is appropriate when providing you know additional open space. We've done that through our conditions. We have increased the amount of tree conservation area required. Of course, we have the 40% forestation requirement. We also then have our 30% open area requirement. This case is in line and similar to the other cases that this commission has recommended approval on the one at Six Forks uh in Leadmine Road uh where actually that was for 5.4 units per acre actually in excess of what the area plan called for as well as the one on Strickland Road before the one that went to 10 units per acre. As you heard Miss Hu said that uh one most recently at Strickland and uh near Leville Road was for upwards of 10 units per acre, well in excess of what's called for uh by the Falls area, the Falls Lake area plan here. We are consistent with that. Um so thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Haver. Yeah, I think I'm ready to make a motion. Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion and keeping in mind that any motion should acknowledge that the applicant has agreed to amend condition number nine to bring it into compliance with the EDO. Yeah, I'd like to thank the applicant and city staff for working with DOT. I think that was a a major concern of ours and I think we knew the outcome of that, but appreciate them taking the the time to do that. I'm comfortable with the storm water measurements. I mean, they're meeting the requirements. So I think when we talk about precedent, uh the Strickland case was a little bit different to add a condition to an applicant because we can doesn't make sense to me. I think they're following the requirements and the rules and to me that's acceptable. I excuse me. As y'all know, I'm typically in favor of connecting the grid. This is going to be one of those few times where I'm going to agree it does not make sense. And it was a little telling to me that DOT um was in favor of that road, which isn't a DOT road, which to me says they anticipate traffic cutting through there. So DOT kind of sort of tip their hat to me a little bit on that. So for those reasons, um when do I say I guess at the end the revision of condition number nine? And I said at the beginning or at the end of my motion. Okay. So, I'm going to recommend approval um to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated March 11th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and recommend approval of the zoning case Z3924. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement as well as an amendment to zoning condition number nine. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion. Commissioner Alwell has seconded. Any further discussion? Uh seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? That motion passes 4 to two. Thank you very much. Um, we have some comments from Commissioner uh Peeler. Vice Chair Bennett, would you like to add additional comments uh explaining your vote against? I just wasn't comfortable with the pedestrian safety aspect of this. It it I agree with the applicant that it's within walking distance of all of those amenities. I just don't know that it's safe for people to actually walk there. And I feel like this high visibility crosswalk is going to encourage people to try to run across the street and play frogger a little bit with traffic going 50 miles per hour and that just concerns me. Okay. Thank you. Um, and with that, that motion passes again, uh, 4 to2. Thanks very much, everyone. I have some comments from yours, but would you like to state something else more explicitly? I mean, not not really anything different from what I what I already put on there. You know, I think we talked a lot about the Strickland case. So I think to put that in short, I mean we not only did they add additional storm water with that and I do understand the densities are different. Um, but they also, you know, bought some land to offset storm water outside in another part of the wershed and I thought they went above and be well above and beyond what was required in the UDO and I I think that sets a good precedent and yeah, so other cases went above and beyond. And I'll say also share Commissioner Bennett's comments about not sure the walkable connectivity is really there. Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on to new business. Our first item, we have three items on the agenda today. For these items, we will hear a full staff presentation and comments from the public. The first item is reasonzoning case Z1924 at Edinburg Road. Um, this case is to change approximately 0. Um, make sure this is coming up properly. Yes, 0.78 acres from R six to ox3 with conditions. Um we will now turn to Matthew Burns for a presentation from city planning staff and um acknowledge there might be some issues with the um signatures today as well. So we can go ahead and hear from the applicant and from the public on these issues, but I believe we'll have to wait until next time to actually vote on this case. Thank you. Good morning again. So, this is a request to reszone just under an acre um at 105, 107, and 109 Edinburghough Road. And your deadline for action is May 10th. So, zoning in this area is a combination of residential and mixed use uh mixed use closer to the southeast about a quarter mile near the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and um Overland Road. The site is across from the Carolina Country Club to site you a little bit. So, here are some views of the site. Um, and you can see the some commercial uses south and east at Glenwood Village where there's a Harris ter. Uh, you can see private open space associated with the Carolina Country Club. Uh there are some apartment uses uh along Glenwood to the southeast as well as well as offices and uses to the west of the site are predominantly residential uh with a a lot of lowcale residential to the west and southwest. Here's a zoomed in view of the site um and showing some uh nearby businesses as well as neighborhoods and some views of the site itself from uh Edinburghough and from Glenwood Avenue. So before I go into the uh list of every single condition, I'll just give a small summary of what it's proposing. So, the applicants proposing 17 zoning conditions which would apply either to the entire site or portions thereof and they would provide for the construction of a model home at 10 105 Edinburghough that would also accommodate an office use to support the model home. The applicants described it as a design center uh which would serve as a central location for potential buyers to make changes to architectural design details and um present their work. So, the office use would have limited hours of operation. Uh, it would have a limited footprint. It would be in place for a maximum of 10 years and be served by a dedicated parking lot on 107 Edinburghough of no more than eight spaces. After that 10-ear period is over, it would be removed and replaced with a single family home and 109 Edinburghough would be limited to a single family home. So, as I um mentioned, so the uses are limited to single unit living, office, and parking facility on the site. The design center, the office use would be included exclusively as part of a met model home on 105 Edinburghough. That's the lot that is at the intersection of Glenwood and Edinburghough. The parking area would use pvious pavers, would be limited to eight spaces, um and would contain no overhead lights, but allow landscape pathway lighting. While being used as a parking area, there would be a 36 a minimum 36 foot protected buffer along Lenwood Avenue uh on the right ofway. And while being used as a parking area, there would be a minimum 15 foot wide evergreen buffer installed along the front edge of 107 Edinburgh. And office hours would be limited during the week uh and be by appointment only. And they would also have limited hours of operation on the weekends. Continuing, there would be no outdoor advertising of the model home, which includes ground sides and the office use that they're proposing would be no more than 35% of the gross floor area of the of the of the home at 105 Edinburghough or 2600 square ft, whichever is greater. The model home and office use would be in place for no more than 10 years. There's also a height condition which would limit the maximum height for the model home with the office use to two stories along Edinburgh and three stories on Glowwood Avenue. After the office use is closed and no longer being used after that 10-year period. Um the parking area supporting that office use would be removed within 90 days and a single unit living structure would be built in its place. The maximum heated square footage of the home to be built up on 105 Edinburghough would be 7,100 square f feet. Within 90 days of approval of the reasonzoning request, the applicant would petition the city of Raleigh to install a new speed limit sign on 105 Edinburghough um frontage near Glenwood Avenue. a condition uh establishing that a single unit living structure would be built on 109 Edinburghough. After the construction of the single family living unit and office space, no subcontractor meetings could be held at 105 Edinburghough. The applicant is also proposing to replace up to 2,000 square feet of failing asphalt on Edinburgh um as approved by city of Raleigh. And finally, the design center uses would be limited to the garage space in the ground level along Glenwood Avenue. So, the request would result in a modest increase in entitlement, but I'll note that proposed conditions limit uses to single unit living, office, and parking facility only. So, that would permit detached homes or detached uh town houses. And I'll also point out that um well it would allow up to 2600 square feet of office square footage that could be in place for a period of no more than 10 years. The site has an average walk score and above average transit score, an average bike score, low transportation SC uh costs and very high access to jobs. The site is served by Gor Raleigh Route 6, Glenwood. The request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, um does not permit a variety of housing types, allows smaller units, and is within walking distance of transit. Area residents are less likely to be racial minorities compared to the city average. uh less likely to be low income compared to the city average and the cost of rent has increased 20% between 2016 and 2022 which is lower than the average. So the request is consistent with the future land use map. The request does not include a frontage. Um, so I've had conversations with the applicant about this and many of the frontage types uh prohibit detached houses, which is uh the primary unit type they're envisioning for this site. So the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the future lane use map, and inconsistent with the urban form map. Um consistent policies are related to future lane map and zoning consistency, managing the impacts of commercial commercial development, um conserving, enhancing, revitalizing neighborhoods and providing neighborhood scale housing. And some inconsistent policies are related to development along uh uh transit corridors um as well as housing variety and zoning for housing. So, your deadline for action is May 10th. And I'll note that uh we do have an outstanding issue related to some owner signatures um that uh I I've been in discussions with the applicant about. So, please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. We will now turn to public comment for those in support. The applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Good morning, members of the commission. My name is Charles Walker with Entitlement Preservation Group, 275 North P Ridge Road in Pittsburgh. Uh, thank you for uh taking the time to uh review this case. Um, I gave uh Matthew the uh two signature pages uh that he was asking for. I emailed the last one to him yesterday. uh that was concerning the correct uh ownership signatures. So I think we have I think we have solved that problem. We had two neighborhood meetings. Um both had an average of about 20 25 people there. Uh the original conditions started at 7 and we went up to 17 um to uh address some of the concerns. I don't think that we have completely uh made the neighbors happy uh but we are sure trying and will continue to try. A couple of things that we wanted to that I wanted to talk about that are very specific in the staff report that we saw on Friday. The envision results for the traffic impact where it says that the uh the AM and PM peaks will peak will be increased by both 27 andor 25. That number is based on 26,000 square feet of office space, not 2600. So, I just wanted to make sure this that that the commission understands that and I mentioned that to the transportation representative this morning. So, it's uh there will be maybe a two or three car increase, not the 25 to 27 that that that it currently says. Copper Builders, who are the applicant of this process of of this project, is a regional builder that is that is based out of Charlotte. uh it tends to build houses on individual lots, does not create its own subdivisions. So what that does not allow that does not allow the ability for copper builders to have a what is designated as a model home in the city of Raleigh or design center. So, what they're trying to do here is to build a home in a in a neighborhood and then part of that home be a design center that people that want to purchase through copper builders or have contract with copper builders to choose their finishes uh for their houses. Wanted to be very clear. The house on 10 the building on 105 will be a single family house. It will have a design center inside it. So when the design center is gone, the house is not going to be turned not going to be torn down. The most the biggest change in that building will probably be the ramping and the the ADA standards uh that are required for office buildings to go to single family. The middle lot which is 10 which is 107 in Edinburghough is we proposed to uh allow a maximum of eight used parking spaces that would support that office use. We thought it was important knowing the narrow streets in the area that we would provide some kind of parking so it would not be uh mandated to be on the street. uh which is the reason why we're using that uh uh that on 10 107 109 which is is currently there is a single family lot and we'll have a single family house built on it. So ultimately it will be three single family houses with lots with three single family lots ultimately but again I think most of the focus is on 105 and 107. 105 will have a maximum of 7,100 square f feet within the thousand foot uh notification that we have to do for the zoning case. Um there's about uh there's about seven or eight houses in the neighborhood and surrounding areas that exceed 7,000 square ft. There's about 15 that exceed 6,000 square ft and then it goes down from there as it goes through other neighborhoods in the area. So the the size of the unit or the size of the house is not uh contrary to what's out there. As you all know, uh one of the worst things you can try and do is specify the architecture of a building with zoning cases because if a porch changes or if if a window is out of construction, then you're back to a zoning case. So what we tried to do was provide uh the square footage and the massing of the building in the descriptions of the of the conditions. The vertical difference between Edinburgh and Glenwood is about 20 ft. So that's why we had considered to basically provide a split level house. Two stories on Edinburgh, three on Glenwood. As we also know, Glenwood is very busy. There's going to be no driveway onto Glenwood. So, we're going to have a three-story presence on Glenwood and a two-story presence on on Edinburgh. If the uh we didn't want uh the neighbors to think that any kind of parking area was going to be a commercial parking lot, so we limited the use of uh no overhead lights any basically a pathway from the parking lot available to 105. Um also uh we are providing we are proposing to provide buffers both on Glenwood and on uh Edinburgh through this process. The we have also limited the hours of both the design center and the open and and an open house capability that are different from each other. The one for the design center is is more demanding. Again there is no h there's no outdoor signage on the building on ground level. No, no banners, nothing like that. If someone drove past that building, they would not know there was there was any kind of uh office use within that building. The office use is purported to be up to 10 years. Um if the building if this is successful and and Copper Builders uh builds this case uh builds this and the code in Raleigh changes that doesn't require to do this, then they would close the design center and move on to the next building. Um it also specifies in our conditions that once the design center is gone, the parking lot is gone and then there's a house going to be uh built on 107. We have we are limiting to the single family housing, the parking lot and the office use which is which when which is how we have been uh guided by staff to do. We understand by the neighborhood there's sections of Edinburgh Road that are failing. The asphalt is failing. We have offered to try and patch up to 2,000 square feet of that where where the city of Raleigh seems it to be possible. Uh they've also asked for uh an extra speed limit sign on Edinburgh because they say they have a good bit of traffic issues on there on the on Edinburgh in that area. We have we have agreed to do that. What I brought what I sent to you today was to show you uh the uh the watershed in that area. This project is less than 5% of the total watershed in this area. And so if you look at the conditions where it talks about the percentage of impervious cover what is there now is allowed is 51%. If this case is brought forward, it goes to 65% on 3/4 of an acre total. That's a c that is an impervious differential of only 5,000 square ft. However, if it is deemed necessary to try and alleviate some of the problems of of drainage on Glenwood Avenue, we would be happy to discuss more details uh with the staff once the specifics of the project have been adop have been adopted. We can know exactly what we want to do. The idea of OX zoning on on this section of Glenwood is nothing new to this area. uh as as uh Matthew had explained, we enjoy both uh uh future land use consistency and comp plan consistency because most or most uh from Oberlin Road to Glenwood Avenue and the belt line, I think over 80% of the frontage of Glenwood Avenue is in fact OI6 or OX conditional. So we are uh we are uh honoring uh that there. Uh if there that's pretty much all I have to say. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. And if I would like to have the opportunity to uh respond to any questions that may be uh gone further. Thank you very much. Continuing with public comment, is there anyone else who'd like to speak in support of this project? If so, please come to the podium. Yes, please come to the podium and introduce yourself. I'm sorry. Against. Any other comments in support? Then moving on to public comment for um those in opposition. Those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. U good morning uh Commissioner Miller and other members of the commission. I'm Jim Stanley. Since 2013, I have rented and resided at the corner of Chesterfield Road and Edinburgh Road. I am also a licensed attorney in North Carolina and have been so since for the past 47 years. I do not represent the neighbors or a group of neighbors, but I'm speaking for myself, but certainly I can't take off my attorney hat either. And one of the big issues here concerns UDO uh compliance. And before I start on that, since since we are time limited, I submitted a a written statement to each of the uh members of the commission by email the other day. I'd like to know if anybody on the uh commission has any questions about the uh written submission I made so I don't get redundant in what I'm about to say. Uh thank you. We'll just receive public comment right now and we can move to questions later if we have those. But we are just receiving public comment at this point. I beg your pardon? We are only receiving public comment at this phase. Yeah. Um if we have questions those will be in during the table discussion. Thank you. All right. The big the big problem with this plan and uh copper interestingly starts out its application with the statement that currently the city doesn't allow for models/design centers outside of a specific approved subdivision. And that current COR code does not allow model SLdesign SLsell centers outside a specific subdivision. So they concede at the outset that their plan is not permitted by Raleigh's UDO and the specific it's interesting the when you're talking about consistency with the comprehensive plan you you've got to also look at the UDO because the comprehensive plan is an aspirational development plan for the committee, but the UDO discusses the implementation of this uh aspirational comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan does not mention model home. The UDO only addresses model home in one provision and that is section 6.8.2. two, which our position is that controls whether or not copper is entitled to build a model home. And the key provisions of section 6.8.2 Two are that the use of the office the use of the office the model home office shall be for the initial sale or lease of properties or buildings within the residential development. So section 6.8.2 two allows model homes within a new residential development for the purpose of marketing and selling those properties within that development. There's section 6.8.2 two does not envision allowing a model home in a developed neighborhood such as this. And Copper is asking for a a a reszoning that is totally unprecedented and unheard of in the city. I sent Matthew Burns an email several months ago asking him, had there ever been such a proposal before? And I can't remember his exact response, but it was along the lines, well, I've gone back to 2020 and reviewing uh other resoning proposals, and I couldn't find one there, but it goes back a lot further than that. And I asked him in followup if he could tell me the location of any model home anywhere in the city that does not comply with all of the provisions of section 6.8.2 and Mr. Burns did not provide me with a single example of such a model home. So, our position is that the city, excuse me, the commissioner should recommend to the city council that this proposal be denied. Uh there are other neighbors who wish to speak about some of the more specific problems that are being that are potentially being caused by Copper's proposal. These are the neighbors that live in closest proximity to the uh uh copper property. And I would uh end my remarks at this time and ask that my other neighbors uh present their uh concerns to uh the commission. Thank you. Thank you very much. Moving on with public comment. It looks we like we have an additional four minutes. Um for those in opposition to this case, please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Hello, my name is Shephard Fountain and I reside at 111 Edinburg, the property immediately adjacent to the property we're discussing. Um, I've been a resident of this neighborhood for 38 years and it is a lovely old uh neighborhood that has existed. I mean it, you know, as long as Raleigh has been here and the proposed um proposal what that would do for my space and I have transportation traffic problems. I also have uh drainage issues that come from that property. The drainage is poor now and there is nothing on the property and it it you know there are issues today and from the most recent rains that we've had. My back porch sits on the uh back of my home. And the idea if you told me that I was going to have a parking lot beside me that was going to have 4 foot high lighting and an area that I sit on my back porch and look at. I would have never dreamed of that. Um the the traffic issues that exist. I live, as you know, you can see that property right adjacent to it. I had to wait earlier this week to pull into my driveway because I could not get in because of the traffic that is backed up there already, and that's just on a given day. Um the the primary concerns that I have regarding the model home are that we are a residential neighborhood and the that the fact that they are um discussing having Saturday retail business hours and Sunday retail business hours in a residential neighborhood to me is unacceptable and that is not within the plan as I see it. I don't know all of the technical stuff, but I don't want to be sitting on my back porch and seeing retail traffic come in on the weekend beside my house. And um if y'all don't have any questions, I'll defer to my next neighbor. Any questions? Thank you so much. Um we'll just be receiving public comment right now. Moving on to our next speaker. It looks like we have about one and a half minutes um remaining. Please introduce yourself. Thank you. Hey there. I'm Richard Hudson. I've uh been in the neighborhood for 33 years. I've seen a lot of changes uh but water runoff is my biggest uh concern. Uh Mr. Walker mentioned that there may be impervious surface of 65%. There is not another structure in the neighborhood, including commercial, that hits 65%. All right? There are a lot of structures that hit 50%. A lot of structures, but those structures on 4/10 of an acre. This is quarter acre lots, 3/4 acre lots. And that is uh that is going to make a huge difference in the runoff. This is my crawl space. For years, my crawl space was on the storm water website for Raleigh. Uh 8 and a half inches of water up on my crawl space. I spent upwards to $15,000 to encapsulate my crawl space to put in an outdoor sunk pump, two indoor sump pumps, a dehumidifier. My next door neighbor has outdoor sunk pumps. This is a typical situation uh when we have any type of rain that it comes down from Edinburgh and it goes flows into our our backyards. Thank you, Mr. Hudson. Um with that concludes our public comment. Um was there an additional speaker? Please. Um, without objection given um, the agenda today, I'd like to add an additional two minutes for the next speaker. And at that point, we'll have to end public comment. So, you can have an additional two minutes to speak. Thank you for taking the time to hear me. I'm a probably the newest resident of this neighborhood. Um, I've been there. Sir, could you say your name for the record, please? Thank you. It's Lynn Hamilton McGee. Thank you. Um, we bought this property because of the neighborhood feel. I think what um, the proposal is missing, it keeps on giving us comparisons to what's happening on Glenwood. Edinburg is not Glenwood. It is a residential com community. I understand what's going on on Glenwood, but this property is coming in and out of Edinburg. We've got children walking to Harris ter and walking to school. We have children and adults walking dogs on a street that's narrow that has no sidewalks. And on our side of the street we have culverts which are very deep. It's about three and a half four feet deep. So there is no shoulder. There's no forgivings. In addition, um the property value deterioration that this um project represents is to me significant. 10 years is a long time. And I think you guys could all agree with me that in 10 years the likelihood of copper builder being able to convert this to a single residence may or may not happen. Same with the parking lot. as people start leaving the neighborhood because they can't they they don't get the neighborhood feel which is the current feeling now. So it's incompatible with the surrounding area. We're talking Edinburg community and Lake Boon. We are not talking Glenwood. In addition, um I've talked to neighbors and I have a copy of 40 signatures that have signed a petition to reject any reszoning proposal and I will give a copy of that to you. I will keep the original until such time is needed. And then the storm water is also an issue. Thanks so much and thank you to everyone who showed up today and and provided comment. Uh turning it back to the table for questions and comments from commissioners. Um two quick items just to questions for staff just to clarify. Um one, could staff confirm the status of the signatures? Uh there are still some signatures required for the resilient application itself. Okay. Thank you. And then the other item, um, the applicant, uh, had a concern that there might be a potential typo in the traffic study, um, adding a zero. Do you have a response to that? So, I'll defer to transportation staff, um, for that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um, looks like there was some discrepancy in our envision results. Uh, corrected that. um looking at down from 200 to 15 additional trips per day. Uh I will say still um even before catching that discrepancy, we didn't have any concerns about uh traffic from this development. Um apologies for the confusion. No problem. Thank you. Okay, moving uh down the line. Commissioner Otwell. Thank you, Chair Miller. I had a question for planning staff and uh trying to look at the difference between the dimensional standards that would be allowed under R six versus the OX3 and for single family living uh which it seems like these conditions limit all the lots to that kind of form. What are the differences in the dimensions of the kind of buildings that would be allowed between what's entitled now and what would be allowed under the proposed conditions? Sure. So, um, since they're limiting conditions to single unit living only, they could do single family detached homes or freestanding town homes. Um, and I can pull up the lot sizes for those. Just a second. for the uh R six, the minimum lot size is 6,000 ft. For the mixed use district, it's 4,000 ft. Yeah. And as far as setbacks, I'll pull those up as well. So slightly less restrictive setbacks in uh the office mix use base district. So from uh the front of the lot a reduction to from 20 to 10 ft for the side reduction from 10 to 5 and in the rear um 30 to 10. The uh the height allowance is similar I think. The height would be limited to 40 feet, three stories in R six um and three stories and 50 ft in office mixuse. Thank you. Other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Peeler. I just a question for the applicant. Um I'm assuming that the plan here is to just build three single family homes. Correct. Correct. If we need to make a better uh add a condition that talks about eliminating anything other than that, we can sure do that. Uh the other thing I want to make sure that that the uh commission understands that there are three existing single family lots, 105, 107, and 109. We are not changing those in any way, shape, or form. Uh if I could uh speak uh to the neighbors concerns, uh the the gentleman is absolutely right. the what he said was the restriction with the UDO is the reason why we're here. The way to to try and fix this is is to get a text amendment uh change if in fact cases like this do not pass. I'm sure that will be that would be the next component. Uh Miss Fountain who lives in 101 will be staring at a house on 109. The parking lot will be limit will be in as in the condition is it is uh limited to 107 which is between the two lots that we have. Um, I'm sorry. I thought we had solved the issue with the signatures. So, it looks like we're we're going to be uh deferred for at least a month. Uh, if the 5,000 square foot uh impervious cover that I had stated was over the three lots. So, that's less than 1,500 per square feet per lot difference between the two zoning cases. If we need to go ahead and design the three h look forward to the three houses and design some kind of uh storm water system to help mitigate any existing problems, we'd be happy to do that. So, thank you very much. So, just to clarify because that was one of my questions. You said 105 would be um the the design and model home center. Um that is the one faced closest to Glenwood, correct? Correct. Well, they all front on Glenwood, but the one closest to the intersection of Edinburghough and Glenwood is 105. And again, that will look like a single family house and have the com and have a design component design center component within it. The parking lot is there to again support the office use. So, there's no parking street parking required, but when the design center goes away, whenever it goes away, then that parking lot will get pulled out and a single family house will be put into its place. So, we'll ultimately have three single family houses on three single family lots. Thank you. And then 107 would be the parking lot. 109 would be a single family home. Correct. And um Miss Fountain would be is 111 the following house. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Chair Miller. Just to clarify, yes, it's a a detail, but those three lots front Edinburgh, correct? They're adjacent to Glennwood. The applicant just stated that they front Glennwood. So, isn't that going to have an impact on the front yard setbacks versus rear yard setbacks? I'm just curious the lots front on Edinburgh. Correct. Two two of the three lots have sign have comparable frontage on both streets. So, they'd be considered through lots. The southernmost lot has very limited frontage on Glenwood. I don't think the question about what would be the primary street would be debatable. Got it. Um and just second part of that question and a quick statement. Um thank you for your specifics on the conditions. We often don't see that. Seems like you did a lot of due diligence in the neighborhood which we often don't see. So I do appreciate that especially limits on the square footage. I think if developers, especially the single family infill, um, made that effort to limit square footage, it will probably save us a lot of time up here and make for a lot more clear development. So, thank you. Even though 7,100 ft is huge, but thank you. Um, I just had a question though why um you all didn't include the recommended frontage along Glennwood. Uh, that's a big concern for me here. Glennwood connects Crab Creekwood Village five points downtown in a pretty close area there. It's a nightmare to bike or walk on currently. Um having an urban or hybrid frontage is pretty central to whether I'd support this. We originally had a park and limited uh attachment to the zoning case and then after speaking with staff, they had said because of the the ultimate uh uses would be single family lots that became problematic. So they asked us to pull it which we did. just I guess I'm curious from staff why why would why would we pull that exactly? Why why would we recommend them pull it? So many of the urban and hybrid frontages um do not permit uh detached houses. Uh and so if they're limiting their conditions to single unit living only, then that would limit them to freestanding town homes only. they wouldn't be able to build a detached house on the site. So, there are there is at least one frontage that I can think of that um allows detached houses. I think it's parkway. Let me double check that. But most of the others from parking limited, green, urban limited, those uh don't allow the detached house building type. So um during site plan that may have caused some problems. So I I uh spoke to the applicant and said that removing the frontage that that particular frontage requirement would uh allow them to build detached houses. But there is but there is another type in that we could recommend that would have pedestrian at least some and I know this is one tiny section of Glenwood Avenue which is huge and none of it has sidewalks but um is there anything the applicant could add that would promote some kind of walkability or bikeability along Glenwood? So there wouldn't be a frontage that the urban form map recommends for this area that would um so based on urban form guidance we would be looking due to the Glenwood being a transit emphasis corridor at some kind of urban frontage and all of those prohibit detached houses. Um suburban more suburban type frontages do allow detached houses. So, parking limited um or sorry, not parking limited, parkway and detached are examples of more suburban style frontages that uh do allow the detached house building type. Okay. But those are not normally associated with transit emphasis corridors or freaking transit areas. Commissioner Alba, development of this site require sidewalks as is. I think that residential ox development with a certain site plan would require sidewalks. Yeah, I believe that a tier three site plan um would trigger sidewalk improvements along Edinburg. Along our frontage along both frontages, I believe. How would that I'm just curious, how would that impact Edinburg since there is not um curb and gutter or the ability to provide sidewalks right along that area? So, as far as what would be required of a tier three site plan would be any road improvements um along the frontage. So, that could that usually includes sidewalks, curbing gutter um and bringing the street up to typical standards recommended full street that section or just in front of that one house. I would need to double check. Okay. because I know that is one of the concerns of the neighbors as well is the lack of curb and gutter and the um um the the drainage ditches on both sides of the road right in that area up and down Ed. I I I agree that is an anomaly and if if that is one of the restrictions for the tier three uh approval then there'll be a section a couple hundred feet long with curbon gutter and sidewalk in front of the on Edinburgh. there will be no improvements on the Glenwood because there's uh Glenwood is built to its ultimate dimension and doesn't have sidewalk anywhere near it in this area. So that's that is the that's why we have the conditions we do. I see. Thank you. Um yes, I'll just say I'm familiar with I live in and work in this area and I am very familiar with this road and intersection. I take it at least once a day if not many more times at peak and non- peak hours. So um have a good familiarity with this area in this case. Other comments from Commissioner Haver? Yeah, I'll try to channel my inner Commissioner Fox. She'd probably give me the side eye on this question if she were here. Maybe she's watching. Uh, but to I'm sort of conflicted for a number of reasons, but to go back to Mr. Stanley's comment about the actual UDO section requirements. Can a zoning case uh can a condition supersede the UDO or is that a text change? It will um supersede the UDO. That those conditions only apply to residential districts and if you reszone it, it will be an office mixeduse district. Welcome to our nexus. Thank you. Other comments, questions from commissioners? I'm sorry. Yeah, just confirming that the public improvements that would be required as part of a tier three site plan, which include rightaway dedication, road widening curb gutter sidewalk street trees, would uh be applicable to both frontages. So, Glenwood and Edinburgh, huh? Would a parking lot trigger a tier three site plan? I'm not sure. I just would just like to note again living and working in this area to the neighbors. I know that along um Lake Boone as it cuts directly to the east and west um over to the Harris ter I believe that there are sidewalk improvements already planned um trying to improve the connectivity in that area. And it sounds like this might also add curb and gutter and sidewalk along half of Edinburg um to the to Glenwood Avenue. That that would be required as part of tier three site, not as part of the resoning, but as a tier three site plan. Correct. Okay. Um other comments from commissioners? Yes, Commissioner. I I generally support the idea of this resoning. I think that it does not uh represent a significant impact. I think it might be appropriate to include conditions to ensure the sidewalk is continuous along the frontages on both and uh would be nice to see conditions limiting the construction to the dimensions that would be allowed under the current zoning and fit in further with the neighborhood. And if that were the case, I'd have a hard time seeing that there would be a negative impact from this resoning. Thank you. Would the applicant like to respond to the um I know that the you have already provided a limitation on height that would be consistent with R six. Um would you have you already addressed or would you address the other um is it the setback requirements? Yeah. To make those consistent with R six in in our mind the ultimate is is for single family detached houses and if we have to apply the single family attached houses that's what we'll apply. Again, we want to be very clear. Three single family lots exist today. They are not going to be modified and they will ultimately have three single family houses on three single family lots. That's that's the ultimate. Um if um I would I would like to take all the comments that the commission has or concerns and I think we need to address a signature issue which I'm not sure what it is. So, if I would like to ask for a deferral for the f for any kind of final decision and give us a chance to to tinker a little bit more and see if we can get a little more in-depth with the stormwater concerns. Thank you. Yes, it looks like we're we're going to be deferring this case. Um, we have one idea for additional conditions. It sounds like the applicant is amendable to um other comments from commissioners about additional conditions um or thoughts for the applicant before uh we defer this case? Okay. Then seeing none, um the next meeting is March 25th. In order to be eligible to um hear that case, the new conditions would have to be provided by this Friday. Is that enough time for you to prov for to get this? We can sure try. We can sure try. Okay. Um well, our option right now is to defer this case to the 25th. If we are not ready to hear it at that time, then we can defer it again if we can. Thank you very much. Um then in that case, I uh would like to make a motion to defer this resoning case to our next planning commission regular meeting on March 25th. Do I have a second? Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. and back on my agenda. Moving on to our next item, resoning case Z4324 at Athens Drive. This case is to change approximately 2.62 acres from residential 4 with special residential parking overlay district to residential mixuse, three stories with the special residential parking overlay district. And we will now turn to Matthew Burns for another presentation from city planning staff. Good morning everyone. So as you mentioned this is a request to reszone um just under three acres from R4 with the parking overlay to uh residential mixed use three stories with the parking overlay. Your deadline for action is May 10th. Zoning in this area is predominantly residential. Um, this site is located at the intersection of Athens Drive and Athena Woods Lane in West Southwest Raleigh. Here you can view um a series of uh development patterns in which are largely low-scale residential. to the north and east of the site. Uh there is Athens Drive High School across the street to the south. Um and a little bit farther to the west and southwest is uh Lake Johnson and the Crowder Woodland Center. Here are some views of the site um from Athens Drive as well as Athena Woods Lane. The resoning site is the current location of a community garden which you can see on the image on the top right. So this request is for a general use district um and there are no zoning conditions. [Music] So the request would uh result in an increase in entitlement and would unlock some uh building types that are not currently permitted in the residential for zoning, namely uh apartments. And uh because the site is at the location of two public streets, it would also allow for um some limited commercial uses some subject to limited use standards. So that would be up to a maximum of 4,000 square feet of office space or 4,000 square feet of retail. Um, so that would be total. It they could do a combination of that, but it could not exceed 4,000 square ft total. The site has a below average walk score, a below average transit score, um above average bike score, low transportation costs, and above average access to jobs. The site is served by uh Geralei route 11L Buck Jones. I'll note that there are bus stops fairly close to the site. The resoning site is uh within the boundary of the Avent West area plan, but there is not specific guidance for this site for that plan. So, the request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, would permit a variety of housing types, allow smaller units, and is within walking distance of transit. Area residents are less likely to be uh minorities, more likely to be low-income um both compared to the city average, and the cost of rent has increased 32% between 2016 and 2022, which is higher than the citywide average. So the requested residential mixeduse district is inconsistent with the low-scale res residential designation from the future land use map and there is no urban form guidance for the site. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and inconsistent with the future land use map. So consistent policies include those related to compact development, housing variety, um zoning for housing and managing the impacts of commercial development. And inconsistent policies are related to the future lane use map and response time standards due to fire service. And approval of the request would result in an amendment to the future lane use map from low scale to medium scale residential and there are no outstanding issues. Um and your deadline for action is May 10th. So please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks very much. And moving on to public comment for those in support. The applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Good morning. My name is Arthur Gordon and uh my uh parents and grandparents were born here in Raleigh or and are buried in the cemetery. So, as I always like to say, you're not from the south until you have family buried here. So, I qualify. And for the last 50 years, I ran the Ireardless Cafe here in Raleigh. And uh 50 years ago, when someone said, "Let's try a plant-based restaurant." Um given the fact that barbecue is such a popular item, I wasn't given much of a chance. I've lasted 50 years. And uh we were the first restaurant in the state of North Carolina to go non-smoking. So, I've been a little bit of an outlier trying things that very few people do, but but with the idea of trying to make it better for the city of Raleigh. In this particular case, this particular property we bought 12 years ago and we used it as a garden to grow food that we were serving at the irregardless. Um over the years it has manifested into where last year the farmer that we had on the site on a third of the acre grew $9,000 worth of produce that she sold at the Kerry Farmers Market. This to us gives us an economic basis to make us believe that this piece of property has the potential to solve a lot of problems that the city of Raleigh is looking at. The first is affordable housing. The second is multigenerational. So the idea that we have is is that on the ground floor we could have elders living. On the first floor would be um families and on the top floor would be dormatory style where people could u have beds if they needed to. Directly across the street is Athens High School. Um, I'm teaching culinary at Athens High School at the moment and have become made aware of the fact that there are kids at the school who don't have places to live. They're they're in the the buses sleeping overnight. The idea of putting the commercial space in would be so that we could have a bodega, I guess you might say, that could sell the produce that the farm is growing. um and as well as assuming that eggs come back down in price and milk um can be a a neighborhood you know spot for people. Some of the other commercial ideas would be maybe um space for child care which again tends to be unaffordable for people who are trying to make a living. And the third might be a space where um medical care could be provided on site so that people don't have to go to the doctor that the doctors could come to this particular site. So the idea of having um density and commercial in the same space in our mind gives us the idea oh and the other key piece is that all of this is built around the garden. So the idea would be that everybody who lives on this site has to work in the garden whether it's watering flowers or if it's turning compost. But the idea is to create a community that people that live there buy into. They take ownership of it. They prevent um bad bad actors from uh invading or whatever might be the fear. And in return the from our perspective the the community at large is suffering from mental health issues. It's suffering from support. It's such it's suffering from the fact that not everybody can afford to buy a single family home especially here in Raleigh. So we think that this is a very radical idea. It's it's a radical idea from the point of view that nothing else like it exists. But there was no non-smoking vegetarian restaurants 50 years ago as well. And today it's considered part of the establishment. So we feel like that the that the evolution that we have found from starting it out as a garden, growing the food there, and then now having the possibility of um of infilling into the city in an area that the street is wide enough, there's enough transportation, the bus stop is literally in front of the space. Um, so we have what we think are um lots of intangible qualities and what we're looking for is the opportunity to try to see if something like this could work here and it might work in other places of the city. We at the moment do not intend to be the developer of the property. Um, I'm 75 years old. I've I've done my share of the work, but I'd like to use my good name and my reputation to help this get um further down the the the path, I guess you might say. We have talking, we have talked to a number of nonprofits um the Fletcher Foundation and others who um said to us, "Go through the process, see if you can get this reszoned, and if you can, then come back and talk to us and then we'll go through the specifics of what we would need to do for the building of it. So, that's the basic overall. That's our intention. Thank you so much and hope you'll thank you very our way. Continuing with public comment for those in support. Um uh other members of the public who'd like to speak in support have a total of it looks like additional four minutes and 23 seconds to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Good morning. My name is Will Choy. I'm an architect and I run a a design practice focused on architecture and urbanism here in downtown Raleigh and I'm here today to speak in support of this resoning request. For the past year, I've been consulting with the owners Ana and Arthur Gordon uh to explore the possibilities for this site through a set of feasibility studies. And throughout this process, we have worked closely with them to envision a future that's not only feasible, but also could also bring some benefit to the surrounding community. And while our collective intent lies in some form of mixeduse housing project with supportive components, resonings are not tied to uses specifically. So I'll limit my case to the uh district itself rather than the use in the comprehensive plan. This area is is designated a lowcale residential and I believe the requested zoning to an RX3 district will be both compatible with and complementaryary to the existing neighborhood character. To paraphrase the UDOD district intent of RX3 is to provide a variety of residential building types and housing options and serve as a transition between residential neighborhoods and other uses. While these parcels are part of a larger grouping of R4 districts, the parcels are located on the very edge of this grouping on Athens Drive, just a fork away from Aan Ferry Road, one of the largest avenues in the city. And within just 1500 feet of the site, uh you can find OX3 mixeduse districts, R10 districts, one of the most prominent high schools in the city, and also the I440 highway. So with this proximity to an established variety of uses and urban patterns, one would be hardpressed to create an anomalous and incompatible use of the land under what's permitted under this uh modest resoning to an RX3 district. And I'll also add in the face of rapid growth and rising housing costs Riley has been facing in the recent years, I believe that inside the beltline areas like this are great opportunities for the city to selectively introduce more diverse development options. And I believe resonings like this would pave a path towards a less suburban pattern and encourage more diverse housing options in the most critical areas of the city. I support this resoning with the hope that cases like this will be a step towards introducing youth diversity and gentle density in our neighborhoods, the stuff that missing middle housing is made of. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? Then seeing none, we can move it on to public comment for those in opposition. Those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Good morning. My name is Julie Haggler Cabeta. My husband and I live at 1401 Creek Drive uh in the a uh Athena Wood subdivision which adjoins the 1321 and 1405 Athens Drive. We attended the first uh hearing public meeting and I attended the second public meeting. Uh we are extremely concerned uh about the Gordon's proposal for the development of the properties on Athens Drive. Our property adjoins Mr. James Jones's property. We are very close to this property uh being proposed for development. The vision for the development of this property is concerning. In the two public hearings held since December, there was a discussion of building storefronts with apartments above the storefronts and with the first floor apartments uh being dedicated to senior apartments. The Gordon's envisioned a daycare that would be staffed by the elderly folks that live in that apartment complex um and a shop where the current uh grower for the well-fed farm would be able to sell produce and and um based on these discussions during the second public meeting um the the uh Gordens do not wish to put any kind of conditions on the resoning of this um of this land. Uh so this land could be zoned for commercial development and sold to a developer and we could wind up with a vape shop or convenience store among any other um types of commercial ventures next door. So first of all, daycare workers have to be uh licensed or certified. I doubt seriously elderly residents are going to want to go through the expense and the time of of going through that. Um and um then they have to wrangle someone else's grandchildren all day. Uh second, farming is a business as much as anything else. Um other growers sell at the farmers markets around the city. We are blessed to have a number of these farmers markets. Um and we understand the current grower at at the Wilfred Farm serves at the um Kerry farmers market has permits to sell from a road roadside stand on Athens Drive. And um so I would suggest that they need to stay within the farmers market circuit because you need foot traffic in order to sell produce. And so $90,000 of produce is is pretty good return. And um so he got that by being or he or she got that by being u in an area where there was a lot of foot traffic and other growers to draw in a large number of people. This neighborhood is a residential neighborhood. The creation of a commercial space on this property is not in character with the neighborhood. Infrastructures uh issues are always are also a concern. The um HOA of Athen Woods uh subdivision owns our storm water system. Uh in fact, we were just assessed several hundred for um cleaning and upgrades to that system. Our HOA president, Larry Shelton, stated at the second um meeting, public meeting, that the storm water system is at capacity. Where is the storm water going to go if that property is developed? As as mentioned, traffic and parking from apartments with commercial traffic included would be another in infrastructure concern. We already have problems getting out onto Athens Drive uh from the subdiv from our subdivision. Uh left turn during certain times of the day is almost impossible. Um there's a lot of um foot traffic from the school uh from the wider neighborhood and a serious accident occurred at at the intersection of Athens Drive and Jaguar Park Drive and Athena Woods a few months ago involving a car and a motor scooter. And one one person who witnessed the accident stated they don't know how the pre people on the motor scoop scooters survived that. I mean it was it was bad. Um so we're concerned about that. Um we have Athens Drive High School across from Athens Drive. Do you really believe that school administration would be interested in having a convenience store, which would be possible if there's no conditions placed on this on this resoning request across from the school that would sell beer, cigarettes, vaping products to the students? I mean, we had one near my high school and I know what was purchased at that store. So, uh that that would be another concern. Uh my neighbors have expressed concerns about privacy with the multi-story buildings being uh proposed. We're worried about runoff from the property because we are downhill from this this property. And uh we understand that the original development develop developer of our neighborhood um was actually sued when uh runoff invaded the um properties around the land that was cleared to construct our neighborhood. and those surrounding land owners won that lawsuit. Uh we're worried about noise. Uh drum circles have been proposed at an unsp unspecified green area on this property. Um try being a mama trying to get a baby to sleep um with a drum circle going on. So that's that would be another issue. This is a residential neighborhood. One possible use of this property I would suggest would be the new site of the Athens Drive Community Public Library. That would that would be something I think we could we could certainly live with. Um the library serves um the Athens Drive community. Don't believe additional traffic would be a big issue. Um, and this property that includes our neighborhood as well as the land that the Athens Drive High School sits on, it was first owned by the Jones family. And uh, the Jones family developed this and farmed this land after the Civil War as formerly enslaved people who were trying to make their way in the world. Uh, so this library could be a memorial to that family. I also understand that Miss Andy B. Jones was a school teacher and and she certainly uh would probably enjoy having a library on that property. Um, another use could be the construction of truly affordable homes for public servants like teachers, police, firemen. Um, say three-bedroom, two- bath homes that um people could actually afford with the salaries that are paid to public servants. I'm aware because I've spent 20 years in rural and rural community and economic development. Um there they could um do this because the little town of Troy in Montgomery County actually did uh develop a a village for their their public school teachers so that they could keep their their teachers in this in the town. So if Troy can do it, Raleigh certainly could. Um, in summary, the proposed uses of the property uh at 1321 and 1405 Athens Drive are not in line with the residential character of the neighborhood. We do not want commercial space on this land. Um, and anything proposed should be in keeping with the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other members of the public who'd like to speak in opposition to this project? If so, please come to the podium and introduce yourself. It looks like we have about 200 two minutes and 25 seconds left. Gonna address the clock. Pause for just one moment. We're fixing the clock. Just a moment. I'm just gonna wait. Great. Okay, we'll do it that way. Thank you. You ready? Yes. My name is Brandon Moore. I live at 5305 Athena Woods in the neighborhood to the north. Want to keep this really short. Um, all the properties on the north side of Athens Drive are R4 now. That's been the policy for for a very long time. Um, so this would be a significant change to that. Um, don't want to go over the commercial aspects that's been explored, but this is really a reszoning for a 67 unit apartment complex. It with no conditions, that's what the land will be entitled for. And it doesn't really matter about the intentions. it's whoever gets the land next and what they see the value as. So, uh that is very concerning. And then when you hear things like um radical idea, uh less suburban in a suburban area and the um the current owner is not going to be the developer, we are very against uh this reasoning. Thank you. Thanks very much. Are there other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project or I'm sorry, in opposition to this project? Let's see if I can talk as fast as my wife says I do. Thank you. Please introduce. My name my name is Larry Shelton and I u live at 531 Athena Woods Lane and I'm speaking against this case primarily uh uh to the fact that that that Brandon mentioned that that the the own current owners have expressed an interest to sort of be they're 75. They want to retire and have a nice life. They don't want to spend two or three years developing a property and I understand that. But I also understand that once property is sold and depending on what that zoning is, um it it you you can lose that that wonderful vision that they that they have uh depending on who uh on who buys that land. I don't know if it's odd, but it seems like the people that have been here before of before us own land and are trying to reszone it and develop it themselves. and this is just a little bit different situation. I might be wrong, but that was my take on that. So, um that and our and my storm water our storm water concerns for for our uh our down we're down totally downhill from this uh um this development and um we've expressed that to Mr. burn burns there uh in some of the meetings and uh even even an impact of 5% would make a difference. Thank you. Thanks very much. U bringing it back to the table uh for comments and questions from from our commissioners who would like to get us started. Yes, Commissioner Hotwell. Uh thank you, Chair Miller. Um Mr. Gordon, I got to say I really uh appreciate this vision and I think that this is a great way to go for I I would love to see more of this throughout the city and in general I'm more supportive of introducing mixed use into neighborhoods. I think it improves walkability. It would be great for the school uh and I think it would be great for the neighborhood to have these kind of amenities nearby. However, this is directly in conflict with the future land use map and the area plan that's in place reinforces the idea of matching the existing development pattern. And so I think that in this case I would not be able to support this without some conditions that that restrict what could be done here on the property were you to be unable to develop it according to your vision. And so I encourage you to work with staff um to bring some of those conditions to the table. I'm not sure what could be uh offered as I'm not a planner uh that would still allow viable development. So um but I I'd really like to see this work and so I encourage you to continue to work with the planning staff and bring something forward that I can support. Thank you. Other thoughts from commissioners? Yes, Vice Chair Bennett. Thank you, Chair Miller. Um, Commissioner, well, you said it very well. Um, I I love this vision as well, but I I do have a concern about the lack of conditions. Um, because as speakers have said, once the property is sold with the zoning, um, it might not be developed consistent with that vision. So, I too would encourage you to um, work with planning staff. I am a planner, but I don't I'm not sure what what conditions um could be offered because we we don't um determine use during a reasonzoning case. But if there were some way to um you discourage a convenience store or or that type of um use being developed here, I I would that would make me more comfortable. Um I do understand it's not consistent with the development pattern there. Um now generally if something is going to be inconsistent then I look for the community benefit the public benefit that would come out of that and it seems that there is potential for great benefit to come out of this but not without some sort of condition. So, I encourage the ongoing conversation with the neighborhood and with planning staff before I could support it as well. Thank you. Other thoughts, Commissioner Peer? Yeah, I would basically exactly replicate what Commissioner Ben and Notwell said. Um, I think your vision's great and I think the density there could be okay if the plan is right and and it's put into conditions and people see the vision of it. Uh, kind of on paper and in pictures possibly. Um, and also just an idea for conditions. If you want there to be affordable housing there, you can put conditions there that specify it would be affordable housing. Um, if that's your choice. But yeah, thanks for thanks for presenting it. Um, but I would I would reiterate what Commissioner Benon and Owell said. Commissioner Haver, not to be repetitive, but that was my concern with this case with the conditions. I think Miss Bennett says it well. um it really needs to uh which it does. I also love the vision. I would also guess knowing how long it took to get City Farm and downtown Raleigh started. I'm sure you were way ahead of your time for a community farm there. So again, appreciate you looking forward and and trying to do the best things for Raleigh. Do feel that there need to be conditions on this plan and and that's fairly consistent down the board with this planning commission. And I think when that comes forward, we're constantly looking at if the property sold, then what happens from there? So, nothing against the plan or the vision. Um, I think just the conditions would be an important part for this specific board. Again, consistently we come down on that on that point. So, agree with everything that was said. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll just add um echoing the concerns and and all the sentiments of the rest of the commissioners, it's inspiring to think of this type of innovative development in a walkable residential area. Um however, we as uh a planning commission, we have to look at a reasoning on its face. And um whenever we think about commercial and residential districts, we typically tend to see um while we do not require a specific use, there can be prohibitions on certain uses. Um, we also when we're looking at commercial and residential areas, we look at we often see conditions on height, um, on prohibited uses, on hours, on lighting and noise. Um, often buffers, zapbacks, parking. Um, and those are the types of and then the additional community benefit that's going to be provided in this area. Um and I thank you for the um transparent acknowledgement from the applicant that uh he would not be the developer in this case. So we would just um I I would be more comfortable if we uh understood the some of the more traditional safeguards and conditions we put before we add a commercial um uh reszoning case in a residential area. Other thoughts from commissioners? Maybe um I could ask the question of the applicant. Would the applicant like to respond to any of the comments that we have made today? I I appreciate the support and uh and the uh the co-vision, you know, because we need this, you know, we can't just keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. There are too many people who can't afford it. The ideas that I threw out that that became specific, it doesn't have to be a convenience store. I just thought that it could be a place to sell the produce. It doesn't have to be a daycare center that is going to be run by the elders that are there. It's just a convenience that might have a room that you know if you can't get your kids, you're still at work. You need a place to sort of have them for a while. The the whole idea is not to be commercial with the commercial space, but to be supportive of a community. There's already on the property now uh a large green area that has a pizza oven on it. So we were si foreseeing that you could have people just getting out guitars sitting around and playing not a drum circle. I mean literally across the street from Athens High School there's a drum core you know on Friday afternoon you can set your clock to it. I mean there's already more noise than needs to be in the area. So, I don't want to try and create some pristine environment that only certain people can qualify for. The goal is to try and create as large of an environment as possible without creating um inconvenience. And I don't I don't oppose the conditions. I mean, we don't have to say it's a convenience store. We don't have to say it's going to be open till 11:00 at night. We don't have to say it sells. I mean, I'm thinking from my background that we take things like, you know, sprouts and sandwiches that the kids if they came across the street could actually get something healthy. You know, it's uh too much of our culture is based on um fat, salt, and sugar, I guess, is the easiest way to put it. So, I don't have any problem with the conditions. Um I don't understand what we need it. It sounds like the conditions want to restrict things that can be there. the your fear goes to the to the highest use possible and uh and I'm trying to uh envision a possibility of a community growing and living and and and the idea of the library has you know has come up as well. So, I'm thinking, "Wow, what if we had a library with a garden on it?" You know, that I mean, the the things that I'm reading and understanding now about mental health are that if you put your hands in the soil, it heals you. And this is the basic bottom line that we're really trying to produce. And when we started 12 years ago, we had no idea what we're doing. And this is just the evolution of what's trying to happen. So I'm more than happy to work with the planning to restrict the things that the fear quality is going to overwhelm so that the possibility of someone taking this and uh running with it and becoming an example to the whole area of what we really could do. I hear your support. I'm just trying to figure out how I now um interface that and I guess I do that with Mr. Matthews with the planning department and then we come back and talk to you guys again, I guess. Huh. Great. It sounds like the applicant is open to um working with the neighbors and with planning staff to um develop some additional conditions. Sure. And would like to come back in front of the planning commission after that exercise? Yes. Um our next planning commission meeting is March 25th, but in order to be on that agenda, the new conditions would need to be in by this Friday. If that does not grant you enough time, we could push it out to the following planning commission meeting, which is April 8th. Um, and in that case, the new comments would need to be in by March 28th. Um, if we were to today defer that case to our April 8th meeting and you were um not ready at that time, that's let me double check. What is the deadline for action on this case? May 10th. May 10th. Um, then at that time, we could continue to defer this case to future meetings and we would not have to hear it on that date. today. We just need to set a tenative future date. Sure. Where we would need to address that item. Does um so we could set April 8th or we could set a future date before the um deadline for action. Not the next one, but the one after is what you're saying for April 8th. Yes. April 8th. Yeah. We'll we'll shoot for that. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner. I'd also like to add that you're welcome to reach out to any member of the planning commission to discuss ideas you have. We're free to discuss these items as they go forward through the process. And I would encourage you to uh listen specifically to what the neighbors are saying and try to figure out the things that they're most worried about and develop conditions that would mitigate those things. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Hab. Yeah. Just I want to reiterate the idea about the the community farm. Again, I still have neighbors in my neighborhood and in um around City Farm that still oppose that city farm and it does amazing things for our neighborhood. I pick up produce there all the time. They have um programs for kids that are there and it I understand uh the concern around it. I'm just surprised that there are neighbors with the success of the city farm that I still hear to this day talking about all the negative things about it. So love the idea of what it can do for a community. So um hopefully we can get to a point to move this forward. Sure. I mean all the things that we have been reading and studying uh alongside of this are talking about how important this is for mental health that just getting out and creating community and being part of something and uh and I think after co so much of our community has has has gone into the phone or something. it doesn't it doesn't exist in in reality at this point and we would just like to try and encourage this to become a a product but I hear all of y'all and I thank you and we'll be in touch. Thanks very much. So in that case um I'd like to make a motion to defer this resoning case to our April 8th planning commission regular meeting. Do I have a second? Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Moving on to our next item, resoning case Z4724 at Barwell Road. This case is to change approximately 43.67 acres from R4 to R10 with conditions. And uh we will now turn to Matthew Burns for another presentation from city planning staff. Good morning everyone. Just give me a second here. Can you hear today? All right. So, this resoning site is at 2500 Barwell Road, um, not far south of Rock Corey Road, and it's a request to resone just under 44 acres from residential 4 and manufactured housing to residential 10 with conditions. And your deadline for action is May 10th. So zoning in this area is uh predominantly residential for and manufactured housing. Um the site itself is uh has a portion of the Walnut Creek Trail that kind of cuts through the northern area of the property. Uh just south of that through the center of the site is a significant sign significantly wide portion of Walnut Creek itself. Um and so there is some residential development to the south and west but kind of closer to where Walnut Creek runs. Um it's largely wooded and forested. The site itself is uh un undeveloped. To the north, the site abuts the feature site of uh Pool Road Elementary. So, that property is owned by Wake County. And uh to the east of the site is a city of Raleigh owned property, which is a lift station. So, that's operated by Raleigh Public Utilities. Here are a couple views of the site. The uh both of these to the right are along Barlwell Road and uh at the lower left is a view from a stub street on Brandy Crest Drive as part of the Brandy Wood neighborhood that abuts the site. Here are a couple views of the site along the Walnut Creek Trail as well. So, the applicant is proposing several conditions. Uh the first would prohibit some uses that are otherwise permitted in R10. The second would prohibit the apartment building type. The third would limit residential development to no more than 125 units. And uh the last condition would prohibit development north of Walnut Creek, but there is a note in that condition that this would not act as a prohibition on construction of greenways or uh utility infrastructure north of Walnut Creek. So the request would result in a small increase in entitlement. Uh I would say that the major change between what's permitted in by current zoning R4 and MH versus R10 is uh the the setbacks and lot sizes that could be permitted. So this would be an increase to the maximum number of units, but the development would be concentrated in the southern portion of the lot of the of the property. The site has a below average walk score, um below average bike score, below average transportation costs, and relatively low access to jobs. I'll note that the site, despite not having a transit score, is served by Go Rally Route 18, and there are some stops relatively close to the site um near Chatmos Drive. The request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, permits a variety of housing types, allows smaller units, and is within walking distance of transit. Area residents are less likely are more likely to be racial minorities and more likely to be low income than the city averages. And the cost of rent increased 28% between 2020 and 2023, which is higher than the citywide average. So the request is consistent with the future lane use maps designations of low-scale residential and public parks and open space and there is no urban form guidance for the site. So the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent with the future land use map. Consistent policies are related to compact development, reinforcing the urban pattern and zoning for housing and inconsistent policies are related to uh response time standards for fire. Your deadline for action is May 10th and there are no outstanding issues. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Moving on to public comment. For those in support, the applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners. Here on behalf of Marlo and Moy LLC, who is the resoning applicant. Joining me this morning are Howard Moy and Peter Kassen. And uh as Mr. Burns mentioned uh this is the proposed reszoning for 2500 Barwell Avenue. The property is just over 43 and a half acres. It's vacant. Uh it is forested. Walnut Creek bisects the property creating sort of a north and south section. That north section being zoned manufactured housing and the southern section being zoned residential 4. We're proposing to reszone the entirety of the parcel to residential 10 conditional use. Um, this would facilitate either a townhouse or single family subdivision. That remains to be determined as to what building type is most appropriate here. But, but as mentioned, all of that development would occur south of Walnut Creek. Here's another look at the site. As mentioned, Walnut Creek creating that north and south section of the of the property. Tealbrook and Brandywood subdivisions are to our south and southwest. Uh the city of Raleigh's uh Walnut Creek lift station is immediately to our east. This map shows the flood plane and floodway for Walnut Creek. the floodway in blue, the 100redyear flood plane in pink, and then there is some future flood plane conditions as well. We cannot build in either the flood plane or the floodway. And so this leaves us with just under 13 acres approximately uh within which to develop this subdivision. existing zoning. The northern half of the site zoned manufactured housing. The southern half zoned R4. There are a mix of R4, R six, R10 manufactured housing and mixeduse zoning districts in the area. Future land use map dedicates the area within which a new community would be located as low-scale residential which um recommends a variety of housing types including uh town homes. And again, everything north of that flood plane is going to be undeveloped um pretty much left in its uh existing state. And so that uh in our minds align with the public parks and open space designation for the the balance of the site. Our zoning conditions prohibit certain uses otherwise permitted in the R10 zoning district. It prohibits the apartment building type. We're limiting development to no more than 125 dwelling units. If this site is developed for single family homes, that number would obviously be much lower. And fourth, and finally, we are prohibiting development north of Walnut Creek, keeping that uh as undisturbed area uh but for greenways and utilities. The request is consistent with the future land use map. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh we believe it's reasonable and in the public interest. Um and happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thanks very much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? And seeing none, we can move on to public comment. For those in opposition, those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Thank you. Uh good afternoon, uh planning commission members. Um I'm Dr. Ulyses Lane. I am um chair uh president of the Brandywood subdivision and also chair of the Southeast Citizen Advisory Council. So, I'm here uh to talk about this proposal and it's not quite at the point where we could say we're for against for or against but we still don't have enough information about this proposal and some of the issues that have been stated from some of the neighborhood meetings to determine to make good decision. So some of those things um of course we know in the development areas u deal with citizens and reszoning but a lot of things we understand where infrastructure lags behind and with this growth in development in Raleigh this has impacted our area and of course is impacting barwell road and some of the other activities that are going on in pool road and rock quarry. Um, we also some of the concerns that were outlined in that exhibit C, if you looked at that report, concerns for the district and our concern always is a direct impact and indirect impact. So, and to get um, uh, residents to understand this because as you know, residents may only look at what happens to them, but and even the way you send your letters out to announce these meetings. So the direct impact and and indirect impact for people that travel all through that area and the neighbors. So we look at to try to get residents educated about these things so that they can make good decisions. And that's one of my goals for this year is to work with the planning staff CAC's to educate our residents to be able to make good decisions to work with the developers and the community and staff on these things. So again, some of the existing concerns along the Barwell road, the impact of the development, the intent to extend the uh a road from Barwell Road into Brandy Crest. All right. Uh that's not emphasized that there's a concern for safety because there's a curve there that goes around there where they want to put this road and we foresee a lot of safety issues there that was not brought up. We'd like to know how is this going to be addressed because of the speeding and whatnot that goes on Barwell Road and the blind spots that we feel that are already there that'll be developed by this road. It would put a third road into the Brandywood subdivision. We have two roads now with Continental Drive and and Chat Mosque. But again, uh putting this road and connecting to Brandy Crest, of course, is going to bring additional traffic and and noise and other uh issues that neighbors in Brandy Crest don't have. Now, there's also street problems that we're concerned with. There's not enough visual stuff to look at that the present streets in Brandywood are narrow. Most houses have two to three cars. The streets are narrow enough that people are parking on both sides of the street. And for safety reasons, you can hardly get down the street. So, we don't know how does this going to be addressed. There is no sidewalks in these old subdivisions, and there probably will be sidewalks in the new ones that we deal with. So, again, some of the extents of the road, that entryway. Also, there's bottlenecks down at uh Brandywood subdivision. I mean, on Barwell Road to Barington and coming from Pool Road down to Barington, there's bottlenecks down there. There was always bottlenecks that could go from pool road all the way back to Barington. Uh then there's bottlenecks for people that want to turn on to Barington. There's also the U lift station that he mentioned. We had a historical problem of odors coming from this lift station. The city worked with us Southeast CAC and whatever to come up with several projects to improve this. So, I've had decreased complaints about the odor, but the odor is faint and it's still there. And we wonder how, put in a new residential facility there, these new owners would deal with this odor that had we know had been there, although it has improved. Um, we also talk about the speeding. We talk about some of the environmental issues, the flooding. Um, in the report it talks about a hurricane. I've been living on in this uh Brandywood subdivision since 2002. I've seen heavy rains that have come up where there's a bridge there that goes over the creek. The water came all the way up to the bridge and onto the bridge and that was not just a hurricane. So, I've saw in the report we mentioned in in uh before 2002. I've been there since 2002 and I've seen this water rise twice. So those are issues that can impact the future with climate change. You don't say what is or isn't going to be anymore because of a hurricane. Um we also talked about the neighbors with the odor the greenway connection. I didn't hear any discussion about that. Uh the development with the noise. We talked about that. Uh a lot of these people uh in the uh Brandywood subdivision on the Damon Street side. Some of them are brought to areas because it was quiet and you know things like that that that would change with the development and it would change with the neighbors. Uh some of the other things that we uh talk about besides the noise is um would probably be what would happen with the with the wildlife. You know we want to know uh as we do all this uh growth and development and shifting of wildlife from one it's a big wooded area down there now that leads into a lot of the other areas. What happens with that as we develop these areas? Where do these deer go and some of the others go? They've been displaced. We've seen a lot of things with the developments with displacement of snakes and things like that coming to other areas once they moved out. Okay, these are all the things that we've noticed that have been going on. Um some of the other areas that that we're concerned with of course is is being able to deal with this growth and development and being able to address these things in such a way that the community can work with developers and work with staff to support these things. But we don't want the quality of life decreased. We want the quality of life increased. And so a lot of these factors decrease the follow-up quality of life for our residents. And so therefore, we need to work together to do something different. So when they ask us if we're for against, we have to be educated enough and educate ourselves enough with staff so that we can make the best decisions together, then we can determine whether we're for or against and we can move along together. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in opposition to this project? One other comment. Yes, we have additional time if you'd come back to the uh microphone. One other thing I didn't mention, he didn't mention that and we've worked together um with Mr. Worth for a long time on uh Oldtown and some others. So, the Southeast CAC, but we're having a Southeast CAC meeting this Thursday at 7 o'clock and they've been invited to come and again present because I know that at these neighborhood meetings that I've been attending where there's only been three or four people that show up, once the community organization and CAC gets involved, we can double, triple that. And then once we can bring them to our CAC meetings, we can get input. So, there's been a lot of trust and transparency that has been lost in government. And I'm trying to bring that back to say that uh citizen community engagement is important. If you give your input, it's going to be considered. A lot of people now have since covert are not getting involved because they do not believe that their input counts. And so we can only show by our results how important their input is and that it does count and it has been considered. So I want to give every opportunity for everybody to participate in that. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Lane. Any other public comment in opposition to this project? Then seeing none, we can bring it back to the table for further discussion. Uh, who would like to get us started? Vice Chair Bennett, I was taking notes. [Music] Um, thank you Dr. Lane um for your comments. I'm trying to make sure I ask um good questions based on the concerns that you raised. So there are things that we could address in this resoning. Um I do want to make an observation though before I start with my questions as you all know I do. Um, we've heard a couple other cases today. Um and we saw the show of um, I guess public comment that we got and the [Music] um, similar concerns about the impact of development about a road through connecting to a neighborhood. Um, and now we get to this development which is in a different part of the city and um, it's different. And so I understand that not everyone can come out to a 9:00 a.m. meeting to express their concerns. So, I want to make sure that we give this case the same care and concern that we gave the other cases where we had a number of other public speakers and that we don't rush this one through because we only have one public speaker though you spoke very well. Um, so I want to make sure that we are able to address what we can address at the planning commission. Um, I do want to ask Mr. Mills, are you um open to I guess us deferring this so you could meet with the CAC and talk more about the case and their concerns and and whether or not you need to do anything with conditions just to talk to the neighborhood. Yes, ma'am. We are open to deferring that whether and I'm just trying to think of timing here which date makes most sense whether it's in two weeks or a month but what whatever the commission chooses we would be amendable to deferring a decision on this case. Okay. Um while you're up there I'm you know what I'm just going to I'm going to stop talking right now and let others ask. I'm trying to to form like questions about specific conditions based on the concerns I heard. But I I I'm struggling to ask you if there's a specific condition you would be willing to consider. Um so while I think about it, I'll just let my fellow commissioners talk. Thank you very much. It sounds like we may be deferring this case to a future meeting. So it'd be helpful um to to provide the applicant with any guidance on any specific uh concerns or thoughts any of us have. So other comments from commissioners, I have a question. Well, two questions. To be clear, Brandy Crest that stub would be is intended to be connected would be required to be connected to any development. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Um I guess my other question and I I know I ask about tree conservation and open space a lot here. this one having so much of it being a FEMA floodway. The required tree conservation and open space that would apply to this as per the UDO as I understand it would apply to the entire lot entire 43 acres including the FEMA floodway is is that right or would it have to come out of the developable developable acres? And that might be a question for staff but being that it's 43 acres only 12.88 or developable. Does that tree conservation and open space have to be in the developable part? Appears we have storm water staff. Sally rally storm water. Well, I am uh it is urban forestry who uh specifically addresses that. I can tell you that the tree conservation areas are allowed to be in uh in the FEMA flood plane and in zone two of the riparian buffer. Zone one of the riparian buffer which is the closest to the creek is already the trees are already protected and so it is not allowed to be in that area. But there's nothing about the flood plane regulations that require trees to be preserved. So it can be essentially double counted in zone one but not zone two of the buffer. No, they um they are not allowed to dedicate zone one as part of the tree conservation area, but zone two of the buffer and the flood plane could be part of the tree conservation area because under the storm water regulations, those are not required to save trees. Okay, that that makes sense. I think um you know we have seen we see this with most cases I think in the ETJ and anything that gets annexed often you know those rules apply and there's often flood area or buffer areas for whatever reason that kind of get counted into that. I think from a a tree conservation standpoint and environmental standpoint, I'd love to see that a condition that would count that as per the developable 12.8 acres. I think that makes the quality of life in that development a lot better. Um I think it adds shade and adds all kinds of things we outlined in our comp plan and our UDO. Um, and having it in that in that area to the north that's not developable doesn't really do what the rule intends for me, but I don't know if other commissioners share that thought. The applicant like to respond. So, is the request to dedicate our TCA within the 12.88 acres that is developable? Yeah, I think that's what I would request. I mean it, you know, on on any other kind of development, if you were developing 12.88 acres and the lot did not include all that floodway, you would have to do it in the developable part. And that I think gets to the, you know, the essence of the rule is to have tree conservation built into a developed area, to have trees around the houses, around the development. Um, so that's personally what I'd like to see. Commissioner Haver. Y'all know I normally like to go last, but I'll just piggyback on Commissioner Reeves. Um, I think by doing that, the the applicant could take the northern boundary in the 12.88 acres and still meet that requirement. So, I don't know if sort of that blanket condition is going to meet uh sort of your intent there, but again, to be consistent, especially if we're pushing all of the development south, um we're going from a 20 we're going from a 30ft rear yard to a 20ft rear yard on existing single family homes. And so, you know, my request would be, would you consider maintaining what's there by right now? And I know I should know this by now, but I always ask questions about the transition yard. So, I've got a few other comments. I'll just piggyback on this if that's okay. So, switching gears just a little bit on the transition yard from a town home to a single family home along that southern and southwest boundary. Are there are there difference between the two depend on what's developed single family or town home or if there's a transition yard? There might not even be a transition yard from town home to single family. Is that a question for staff? Question for staff or whoever can answer it. So, a neighborhood transition yard would not apply here because it would be uh the boundary would be residential and residential. It wouldn't be a transition mixed use. That's what I thought. Is grading allowed within that rear yard setback? I don't know off the top of my head, but I can find out for you. Okay. That would be a concern because I've gone back and looked at some of even the projects that I've recommended approval for where we've required pretty extensive buffer yards. A lot of that plant material is dead. It's not really serving its function. Um, and so I just I'm super concerned about the comments about blasting and grading and knowing the topography in the area. I'm just asking the applicant to consider some additional conditions when you're adjacent to existing single family homes. So, um, and help me understand the the connection. So, you're going to pull a driveway off of Barwell Road and connect to Brandy. Is that the intent? It it would be the the intent is for Brandy Crest to continue as a public street until it intersects with Barwell Road. Does transportation staff have any comments or concerns? Again, that's it's quite the curve in the road there. I I don't know what the Raleigh transportation requirements are for a driveway in that condition. Yeah, it looks like that small sliver on Barwell is about 150 ft. So, that's really the only option for them to connect back um from Brandy Crest. This isn't something that uh we've really looked at in detail um other than just noting the UDO requirements for connecting that substrate. Um Barwell Road is a uh statemaintained road. Um so that access will also um need to be approved by NC DOT. So this this will be discussed a lot more um at site plan looking at that intersection with Barwell um and seeing what could be done to make sure it's a safe intersection. Great. and to just continue along that line of thinking a little bit and to acknowledge Commissioner Bennett's comments, which I appreciate about just the level of care and um looking at this case compared to some of the the earlier ones. Um and you heard me comment earlier, typically I'm for connecting roads and in that particular case I wasn't. Um, I think just looking at the street network on here, certainly understanding those concerns from the neighbors. Um, and Dr. Lane, I will get to a couple comments he made. Um, the access to this site isn't going to be, I don't believe, up Centennial Way or Chat Moss Drive to drive all the way around to get back. I think it's I think it's completing the grid. There's surely some vehicles will take that route especially if Barwell Road entrance feels unsafe. So not denying that it will increase some tr I think just in this particular case I think it's a little bit different street network than it was in the previous case. Um so Dr. Lane mentioned the um lift station. Does staff can anyone from staff talk about the capacity of that lift station and if there's ability to address development here or or what's the status of that? That's a good question. I can't speak for public utilities, but I can ask them for an update for the next meeting. That would be great. You didn't flag any concern in their comments and review, right? I don't believe so. So it would be if there were concerns we can assume that okay but that's an assumption if you I think if we could check I think probably be good. And then just lastly a comment and to again echo some of the comments Miss Bennett made. Um Dr. Lane I really appreciated your comments. We talk about that a lot up here and the importance of community engagement. Um, I did like the comment that you said a couple things that is the community educated enough and so I think I appreciate the applicant being willing to maybe even push this case out. I don't want that to go unnoticed that we're they're willing to add an considerable amount of time to try to address and make sure we have adequate community comment. So, appreciate both sides on that. Um, and um, Dr. mentioned a a specific word I picked up on on community input being considered. And I think that's an important point to make. It doesn't mean that the community input is needs to be set by law, but that it's considered and does it make sense for both parties. So really appreciate again your thoughtfulness in your comments. So that's all I have. Thank you. Other comments from commissioners before we uh defer this case? Commissioner Otwell, one brief comment about the tree conservation area. I agree that it's desirable to have some sort of conservation in the developable area, but I'd also like to point out that offering up the flood plane zones in the area above the creek for a tree conservation area is not an insignificant offer. Um just because the area is not developable does not mean that the trees are not loggable and uh those represent significant uh economic assets to a lot of people and offering this conservation does protect the uh the greenway trail up there gives it a significant open space or natural space. So I I do think that it has value. Thank you. Yeah, if I could just reply. I mean I my comment's not to insinuate it doesn't have value. I think it's just um and I didn't actually know it could be logged within the boundaries of Raleigh. Is that true? Really? Um yeah, I think my comment is just more to have that rule. I think it is intended to protect residential de and commercial development more and if it's an area that can't be developed, uh you know, it's a fairly small amount of area anyway, 10 to 15%. So having it within the development, I think we get the essence of the rule. And definitely grateful that it shades the trail. Walnut Creek Trail and Wal Creek itself needs a lot of tree cover. I I just think I'd like to have have that built into any 13 acre um development as per the UDO. So other thoughts from commissioners? Yes, Vice Chair Bennett. Just want to add um Dr. Lane, wherever this case gets deferred to whatever date, um if neighbors aren't able to attend the meeting, please encourage them to email us because we do read our emails and um we will ask questions based on those emails that we receive. So, please encourage them to email us if they'd like to talk to us prior to the meeting. Someone mentioned before, um many of us make ourselves available to do that as well. Same with Mr. Mills. I mean, we make ourselves available to have conversations and ask questions and get clarification so we can be more informed during the meetings as well. So, that also extends to residents and to you, Dr. Lang. Thank you. Were there additional comments? Okay. Well, in that case, it looks like uh would the applicant like to respond to anything? No, I I I appreciate all of the comments from Dr. Dr. Lane Am from the commissioners and we'll use the time between now and our next planning commission meeting to um find answers to some of those questions and also find solutions via zoning conditions. Um, I think just um, personally in terms of the next planning commission date, I would probably prefer the first meeting in April since our CAC meeting is Thursday night and then conditions would be due Friday afternoon. So that will give us an additional two weeks to evaluate what comes out of uh, both of this meeting and the CAC meeting. Okay. You want to try for It sounds like maybe we'll we want to try for March 25th. If that's if but if we're unable to do that, then on March 25th, we could at that point defer until April 8th. That that works. That's fine. Okay. When was the CAC meeting? Thursday. It's it's this Thursday. And then comments I mean uh revised conditions are due when Friday day the 14th the next day whatever the 21st. So at this point we have to set um a deferral date and again if the applicant is not able or doesn't wish to be heard on the 25th and we could def on the 25th we could defer it again until the 8th. Right. But one of the I'm just trying to figure out the time between the CAC meeting and when the revised conditions are due to staff. Can you tell me those meeting is on the 12th. Okay. The deadline is the 14th for the planning commission meeting on the 25th. Okay. Again, just to be to be consistent, not saying it can't be done, but my opinion is that's a very short amount of time to be able to take into consideration if there are additional comments. So again, completely understand. Wanted to keep keep the train moving forward. just I've made that comment before and I think you're hearing from the commission that it's important to us that we understand that the community is heard and just want to make sure that a day and a half is enough time for you all to take that information consider it and and put in conditions. So I think that the meeting is the 13th, not the 12th. Did you say it was Thursday? Yeah. So it's the 13th. So it's not a day and a half. next day. It's due the next day. Okay. Yeah. Um other comments from commissioners? Then seeing none, I'd like to make a motion to defer this item to our March 25th meeting um of the regular of our regular meeting for the planning commission. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. Moving on to approval of the minutes. We have one set of minutes from our February 25th planning commission regular meeting. Are there any comments to the minutes? Um, seeing none, uh, I will make a motion to approve the minutes. Do I have a second? We have a second from Commissioner Otwell. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Moving on to other business. Report of the chair. I'd like to acknowledge our new planning commission member, Jessica Cochran. She is replacing Commissioner Dean Reigns and we just wanted to welcome you to the commission and thank you for your um willingness to this public service for your city and we look forward to working with you. So when we get down the line, please feel free to introduce yourself as well. Uh we have two additional commissioners coming on board shortly. I will reach out to everyone offline regarding um additional committee appointments for the remainder of this fiscal year through June 30th. So with that, I will move down the line. Thank you. We have no items for committee of the whole or do we we may have an item we we didn't have anything confirmed when this was published but there may be an item that comes forward this month for the 27th in that case we may meet we may well meet committee of the whole may meet on March 27th at 4 p.m. Thank you. I will send out notification once that's confirmed. Thank you. I hope y'all back me up with your calendars. My computer just died. But uh All right. Yeah, we have a text change committee coming up next Wednesday the 19th at 400 pm. I think we're going to be in one exchange plaza and we will be talking about cottage court garages. So I look forward to seeing the committee at that time and I'll also send out reminders. Thank you. Yes. Moving down the line. So, I'm on the text change committee, but I haven't been to a meeting yet. So, I don't know there's anything I can add. Great. Um, if we do have committee the whole for quorum sake, I will be out of town on the 27th. Just FYI. Um, also, thanks for joining us. Glad you're here, Jessica. Um, I believe I saw another commissioner was appointed, Tulipe, and then is there a third appointed? Um, soon I think it's on the agenda. like next Tuesday I guess. Cool. Other than that, no report. Also, no report, but committee of the whole again. I thought we'd canceled it last week, so I now have a conflict, so I will not be able to attend as well. So, sorry about that. Okay, thanks so much. And moving to report of the assistant director. I wanted to note that at your last meeting you discussed an item coming out of strategic planning committee that will appear on your next agenda for your discussion. Then I also wanted to welcome Commissioner Cochran. Uh, Tulipe Omai will join us at the next meeting and as mentioned there should be another appointment made by council at their next regular meeting and that person would replace uh, Mr. Man. I think that's it. Thanks for your service and for being here this morning. The six of you are great. Thank you. Anything else for the good of the order? Well, then with that we are adjourned. Thank you very much. [Music]