Good, good evening everybody. >> Welcome to the public hearing. Um, as you know, we moved the items. >> Yeah. Yeah, we did. Uh, as you know, we moved the items around so that we could hear uh, North Hills uh, first uh, since we know a lot of you are here for that KC 3425. Um, so we will start with that and welcome our planning staff. >> Good evening, Madame Mayor, members of council. B and Walter Raleigh Planning and Development. I want to uh talk to you about reszoning Z3425 at North Hills. So, this is a request to reszone just over 11 acres. It would be my pleasure. This is a request to reszone just over 11 acres from commercial mixed use with a fivetory height limit and parking limited frontage. There's also zoning here of 12 stories with an urban limited frontage. There's a special highway overlay district too across the entirety of the area in question. Uh other parts are commercial mixed use 12tory hit limit with some conditions. Uh and there's also a piece that is um that going to 12 20 and 40s story all conditions all with the special highway overlay district. So the request is consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan and the future land use map and the planning commission does recommend approval. So there are four distinct pieces. They're non-ontiguous in question here and I'll talk a little bit about each of those as we go through the presentation. But you can see at the top of the screen a piece of property that fronts on Six Forks and also has frontage on Rowan Street. two areas with frontage along uh Six Forks on either either side of uh Maine at North Hill Street and then a piece of property on Lasser Mill Road that also has southern frontage on I440. So the breaking out across these districts the zoning conditions define these uh four areas. The first is there they are calling the lacier uh height limit there of 12 stories. Uh main district uh phase two is down there on lacader at 440. That's a 12 story height limit as well. I'm sorry a 20 story height limit. And then the um two pieces with six works frontage. They are requesting the 40 story height there. Just zoom out a little bit for a little bit of context. You can see the the I440 belt line along the south side of the site here. Six works running up the middle of the screen. North south everything in question on the west side of that. The applicant has offered some conditions here. The first condition defines those four areas within the resoning request. Uh the second one limits maximum building height for the six forks and the six forks and lacader site. Those are the two with frontage on six forks to 37 stories. They have prohibited a handle full of uses that otherwise would be allowed here. They have limited their maximum building square footage to just under 3 million square ft and uh specified sort of the combination of what that could be made up of. So if it were only dwelling units, no more than 25 to 2521, uh each of these numbers is the max and so they can pick and ch mix and match to make up a combination of the just about 3 million square feet. uh they have required that development in the Lacader site include include at least one green storm water infrastructure feature and that that be designed to treat a minimum of 15% of water quality volume on that site. Uh they are requiring any apartment mixeduse or general uh building type to meet green building certification standards like a lead uh or type standard. uh they have provided for a minimum of 10,000 square ft of open space in that lacier site and that that uh will be required to include at least four public amenities that are there's a menu in the conditions for them to pick through. They have also provided for a minimum of 30,000 square feet of open space in the six forks and lacer site again uh for amenities required from the menu that they that they have outlined in the conditions. They are prohibiting parking between uh the building and the street on both Rowan and Six Forks in um that uh area up on Rowan Street uh with a minimum 15t building or structure set back from Rowan Street. And then they are uh prohibiting surface parking uh on six forks and or lesser mill frontages. uh between the building and the street and providing for a a build to for any structure that they build on that site. They are also offering a contribution of $400,000 to the fire department and then um requiring uh buildings along Rowan Street that are seven stories or more at least seven stories or more to have a 12t minimum step back. So, as I mentioned, they have limited their max gross building square footage to just right at 3 million gross square feet. That's the gross uh building square footage that we project they could realize under their current zoning. And so, they have very intentionally picked that uh so as not to increase their entitlement. Just quick review on uh height. So that Lacier site at the top of the screen, the northernmost parcel, they're limiting that to 12story height limit. The parcels with frontage, other parcels with frontage along Six Forks limited to 37 stories. And then the southwest corner there limited to 20 stories. The request maintains the existing special highway overlay district uh across all of the properties in question. You can see that I'm sorry it does not include the Lacer site but everything uh south of Lacer Mill or east of Lasser Mill. So the Shod remains and then this is uh consistent with the plan consistent with the future ladies map and the urban form map. Uh number of consistent policies here across the next couple of slides. Um and then a very limited number of inconsistent policies. So one related to density transition, another around building height transition and then a mid uh policy from the Midtown area plan around Midtown height. Planning Commission does recommend approval uh with the advice that you might consider um talking with the applicant about additional frontage standards including direct access from the sidewalk to the street and parking garage standards. Uh management of trash pickup and loading and height transitions between the site and neighborhoods near the intersection of Lasser Mill and Curry Tuck Drive. uh some language about their findings. And then just would note that Commissioner Omaya, who voted against this, did not offer a comment spec specifically after the vote about her uh rationale for her vote, but express concern about a number of things that are captured for you here. Uh what questions could I answer for you before you open the public hearing? >> Questions? Yep. >> Thank you so much. Can you go back to the slide where we talked about trash pickup? Can you help me understand what the concerns were from the planning commission about trash pickup because I'm not following. >> I imagine they're closely related to what happens on Rowan Street. That's a pretty the smallest right of way in the area. And I I think probably questions about how buildings on that site would be served. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. Okay, if there's no questions, we can okay open the public hearing and we have expanded the time to 12 minutes per side and we will start with those in support and um I've left it to each side to organize. So I'll just call up yeah Jamie Schwedler. Um good evening mayor, council, mayor and members of council. I'm Jamie Schweather with Parker Poe 301 Fateville Street here on behalf of Kain Realy along with Michael Burch with Long Leaf. Our entire team is here to answer questions, but there are a tremendous amount of people who have written in support and also are here tonight. And at the time I conclude my remarks, I'd like to yield my time to them. We are asking for the same height that was approved years ago for the Eastern without increasing a single square foot or adding an additional unit beyond what we can today. That is what makes this case significantly different from what was filed in 2021 which asked for twice as much density. Much like other cases that you've received in recent years, this case listened to the concerns then. That twice as much density would have resulted in more traffic. We heard that concern and we've capped ourselves by not asking for any more than we can build uh by right today. But in the meantime, we added the exact public benefits that are called for in the Midtown plan. Doing exactly what that plan instructed, more height in return for more public spaces, enhanced environmental conditions without adding any increase in traffic. Today, we can build 2.9 million square feet within our footprints at 12 and five stories according to the envisioned analysis tomorrow that your competent staff has prepared. And that is because this area is one in four areas in the city designated a regional mixeduse. One of seven areas in your city of half a million people designated a city growth center. It is simply where in 2009 and today we expect to absorb the growth that we're attracting by all of these number one uh accolades that we've been earning over the years. And that's exactly what's happened. In 2020, the Midtown plan was adopted by council. And in that plan, there are specific recommendations in the map on the right side of your screen uh that have recommendations on the use and the height. The main district is the recommended for 20 stories. But in that exact same plan that we're relying on and those opposed have pointed to, there is a direct expectation that those heights would be exceeded. And there's also a policy on the center of your screen that tells you exactly what to do when that happens. If a requested resoning is inconsistent with this map, then council should look for consistency with the comprehensive plan by looking for significant public benefits that quote exceed uh code requirements such as storm water mitigation, carbon reduction, and expanded or enhanced public space recommendations, accommodations. And that's exactly what we've done in the conditions that are on your screen. We've taken each of those conditions, we've looked at those policies, and we've added conditions that match a comprehensive plan or a midtown plan or many of them. And you can see in the chart on the screen how consistent this case is. One of the most important conditions that you've heard the most about is our density cap. What do we mean by that? On the left side of your screen, you see a massing of what we could do today by 12 and five story by right. On the uh right side of the screen, you have that same exact massing, the same square footage, the same units just stretched up. And on the right side of your screen, you see that creates the enhanced public spaces, the open space that is now available by the additional height. The existing zoning caps that we have are from the envision tomorrow. They're exactly mimicked in our uh condition 4. And so there's no change between the density on the left side of the screen and the right. There's no change in traffic. What there is a change in is enhanced open space like the space before you on the screen that's both um enhanced in terms of quality and quantity from your UDO. storm water uh conditions in terms of green storm water in terms of a green building certification that speaks to carbon reduction, the first of its kind in the city, frontage and streetscape commitments, transitions along Rowan, and the $400,000 commitment to the Raleigh Fire Department based on extensive discussions with staff. We understand there's concerns on Six Forks Road. map shows that the extent of that project in red does not go to the scope uh to that's adjacent to our project and so that would not be improved with six works uh anyway under the the prior uh scope but would be improved should this project go forward under your UDO as this develops at site plan. So what we're offering is the same impact just offset by more benefits. It's the same amount of units, which means it's the same amount of people, which means it's the same amount of drivers, which means it's the same amount of traffic. The heights do not create more traffic in this case. What they do create is the opportunity for more tax revenue for the city to invest in itself. And that's exactly what Kane Reality has done since 2001 in this area. Since the investment in North Hills, Kane Reality has invested over $10 million in transportation improvements. Jobs have almost doubled in the Midtown area, and the Midtown area has absorbed 27,000 of the city's growing population during that time. Approving this case will allow us to continue to grow up and offer the spaces and financial benefits needed to offset that growth that's already permitted by Wright without increasing traffic. I appreciate the people that are here in Green to support the case and yield the rest of my time to our supporters. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, we had um I'm just going to read the other names. John Duncan, Jennifer Truman, Jamie Ferguson, Brian Brennan, Kevin Jennings, and Eric Brown. So, I'll let you all figure out how to divide your 7 minutes and 11 seconds. >> Certainly, I'll be brief. Um, Kevin Jennings, I have businesses at North Hills. My children work there. I um uh I I work I live at 405 Ramblewood Drive. When I walk out my front door, uh I'm looking at the buildings. So, uh, we walk to North Hills. Uh, we we spend, uh, a lot of our time there. So, I'm greatly affected by the, uh, you know, by the growth of North Hills. And I bought to be near North Hills. So, um, I'm fully in support of this proposal. um the the restaurant in specific that I have, it it will look right at the created uh green space that will be allowed by these buildings being able to go taller. Uh and mind you, not taller than the other buildings that are already there or very close to them. Uh you know, we're not talking about uh you know, some some oddly shaped building. This is this is similar to the other items that are already in place there. So, um, yeah, I I just so much rather have a taller, thinner building with more open space, you know, and I think that some of the folks who are maybe here are confused by thinking that, uh, by, you know, if this proposal was turned down that there won't be buildings built there. That's that's just simply not the case. So uh many of the issues with infrastructure with trash with uh traffic study that will be required within the site plan portion of the uh planning process. A lot of those things will be dealt with and as I understand it uh many of the issues that were uh hoping to be accomplished with the six forks road plan u with increased pedestrian walkways things like that those are going to be part of that site plan too and Mr. Kane and Kane Reality were responsible for actually implementing those things. So, um yeah, we we'd love to see the open space. So, um thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hey y'all. If you're here in support of the case, please raise your hand or raise your signs. Um my name is Jen Truman. I'm here in support of this case and I want to ground this in something really simple. North Hills used to be a sea of parking lots. We talked about this already today. It's already been transformed into one of Raleigh's most successful mixeduse districts. The question before you tonight is not whether change is coming. It already has. The real question is whether this is where tall mixeduse buildings should go. And if the answer isn't North Hills, a major corridor at the belt line surrounded by jobs, services, and existing infrastructure, then where exactly are they supposed to go? We've all heard concerns about height and traffic, but the resoning documents themselves show the proposal could actually reduce the number of vehicle trips to the site compared to what's already allowed today with frequent transit routes and connections criss-crossing these sides. It's also worth remembering that the best practice in urban planning is no longer to widen roads because widening roads simply induces more traffic. Most of the congestion on six floors is not from North Hills, it's from people living far north in Raleigh and driving through. And many of the same voices that you'll hear opposed to this project tonight always argue that growth should only happen on major corridors. That's exactly what this project is. Council doesn't get to vote on perfect projects, right? You get a yes or a no on what's in front of you. And this project in front of you is a good project in the right place that's already proven it can absorb the growth that our city needs it to absorb. So, I'm not nostalgic for parking lots, and I hope you aren't either. Good evening. My name is Brian Brennan and I live at James Croft Way. Seven months ago, I graduated from college here in North Carolina. But most of my friends did not stay in this area like me. They went to Washington DC or New York City, not because of the famously cheap rent, but because these two cities have walkability and they have open spaces. This resoning gives us the opportunity to bring walkability and open spaces, real open spaces here to North Hills. We have parks. Raleigh has parks and those are open spaces. But real open spaces are not destinations that you have to drive 15 minutes to access. They are integrated within the fabric of a city. That in turn creates walkability, which is why our own city planning staff has calculated that this will result in 2,000 fewer vehicle trips per day. That is good for our climate. It's good for our city, and it's good to keep young people like me in Raleigh. Thank you. >> Thank you. I think it's Is it working now? Okay. >> Good evening, council. My name is Eric Bronn, 3316 Rock Creek Drive. I live in the Drury Hills neighborhood, which is just off of Six Forks Road, about a half mile from North Hills. I moved to my home in 2016, and before that, I worked at or near North Hills since 1995. I still remember grabbing hot dogs at Scotty's in the bottom floor of the old mall when it was virtually deserted. I say that to emphasize why developments like North Hills need flexibility for continuous innovation and evolution. The added height allows for smaller building footprints, which opens up valuable land for public amenities and open space around development like the amenities available across the street at North Hills East. By approving the resoning, council will ensure that Kain realy can continue meeting the demand for more outdoor public spaces throughout Raleigh. As a speaker noted during the recent resoning at the property for at peace and west, if not here, then where? Thank you. >> Good evening, council, madame mayor. Happy New Year to you all. My name is Jamie Ferguson. I support this project. In 1993, I brought my prom dress at the J C Penney at North Hills. 30 years later, we now all know this as Midtown. Growth cannot stop when an area becomes successful. Depending on what publication you choose to read, you will find statistics stating that Raleigh will be 37,000 to 104,000 rooftops short for housing in the next 8 to 10 years. Thoughtful, intentional density and mixeduse walkable corridors like this adds housing where infrastructure, retail, and transit are available, which will reduce sprawl, car dependent commutes. Planning now for smart, responsible density that does not disturb our surrounding properties is how we remain accessible, successful, resilient, and inclusive as a city. Thank you. >> Hi, I'm John Duncan. I live at 4201 Rockdale Drive. Um I'm I've been back for 22 years. We live about a block behind the Eastern Tower in North Hills East. I I've attended most of the recent information sessions about proposed tower constructions. And to be clear, uh it's nothing short of amazing what's happened in in North Hills. John Kaine and his employees have been wonderful about contacting neighborhood residents and keeping us apprised of what they're proposing and what they're doing. Uh we're lucky to live in one of the most walkable neighborhoods in this city and part of that is because uh the various developments there uh can security is very visible in the area. Uh it's just a nice safe feeling place to be and it's nice to see the people walking their their dogs and their babies down the street in front of our house. Uh we are very lucky to live in this neighborhood and we totally support the proposed zoning increase there. Uh we like the open spaces. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, that completes uh the support. So, we'll reset the clock to 12 minutes. And I can just read the names I have down here. We have 10 folks signed up. Um Larry Hellant, Dana Ingga, Nora McCann, Tim Canning, Robert Longo, Charles Winston, Lisa Hwitt, Barbara Jones, Kevin Quang, and Randall Jones. And uh up to y'all how you want to divvy it up. Can I take a second to set them all? >> Yeah. >> If you plan to speak, just come on up. I don't see anybody here. Don't know. Which is amazing. >> Here's here's the order. I'd like you to come in. I'll start off as nor finish. Randy, get in there quick. >> Lisa, after Randy. >> Bob, do we go? Right after Lisa. Charles, right after Bob and then Tim. And I don't think Barbara. Barbara. Kevin. >> Yeah. >> All right, y'all ready? Before I start, before you start the clock, I just want to note that you changed the schedule this afternoon where a lot of people are working. Fortunately, they all got notified and fortunately they all read their emails. I'm hoping that you offer some courtesy. If they don't get to speak, I'm hoping you allow them to speak. They took the time to get here. You should take the time to listen to them. Planning staff has stated that the application is mostly consistent with the comprehensive plan. The application is requesting height height height everywhere. That is inconsistent with the zoning recommendations in the Midtown area plan which recommends heights between four and 20 stories. Inconsistent with the future land use map which recommends heights between two and 20 stories and inconsistent with table LU2 which recommends height for regional mixed use at a maximum of 20 stories. The staff analysis of consistency with the comp plan continues to suggest that compliance would be improved with less building height. So, how can the staff review determine this application is consistent with the future land use map, the urban form map, and the zoning map of Midtown area when it clearly is not? Bottom line, if you follow the comp plan guidance, you don't place your tallest buildings directly across the perimeter so they face and impact lowdensity neighborhoods. Most of the proposed buildings of 40, 20, and 12 stories do just that. That is why the applicant was cited as being deficient in density and height transitions. It should be noted that there are conditions for stepbacks along Rowan, but none for Lacier Mill where buildings should be stepped or terraced from 20 to 12 and finally four stories. That was what was in the original proposal and the Midtown area plan. You've seen the environmental impacts illustrated in the shade studies when you don't follow this guidance. Before closing, let's address one myth that the applicant uses for justation for heights greater than 20 stories. If a reasonzoning includes a request for height in the upper half of the range, it should include significant public benefits beyond code requirements. The range is from 4 to 20 stories, not greater than 20 stories. There hasn't been a reasonzoning approved for more than 20 stories since Midtown Air Plan was approved by council in 2020. Both of those developments are fully compliant with a variety of housing, including affordable units. Miss Schwed knows this and she was the attorney for one of them. In terms of public benefits, it should be noted that building to lead standards is a green building certification program that evaluates sustainability and energy efficiency of building. This should be a city requirement. This is not a public benefit. It is a marketing benefit to make resale much easier in the future. You are being asked to approve a development plan for the next 10 years with selective compliance with the Midtown area plan. Is the closing of core business services such as a pharmacy, a dry cleaner, a gas station, and banks to build on a brownfield site worth it for flawed development with so many inconsistencies? Having canceled the sixworks road project, will any infrastructure support the provided for an already stressed road system? Will the closure of the fire station without a timeline, budget, or location jeopardize the response and rescue of the residents in this densely populated area? The comp plan is for policy guidance and is intended to shape how the city grows and develops through the year 30 2030. As councelor Silver keeps repeating, follow the plan, man. The application in front of you today does not. And by the way, density is capped to avoid the issue of affordability. Don't don't kid yourself. Thank you. Um, my name is Nora McCann and I live at 413 Vernon Terrace and it's in the Frier Hills neighborhood. So, it's adjacent to this development. And one of the things um that I'm against is the 40story buildings. I'm not against development. I mean, it it has to happen. We have a lot of people that need housing. So, when you live in in the sha I I will actually end up in a shade canyon. One of the things I I enjoy the most is gardening. And when I look at those shade studies, I'm going to be in the shade, you know, from three o'clock in the afternoon. And that's just too much of an impact for me. Um, so basically that's what I'm asking is for everyone just to follow the rules and stay with the the 20s story maximum. Um, uh, I'm a civil engineer for 28 years. So, my um my expertise is in metropolitan transportation planning, traffic forecasting, travel demand modeling, and I hear everyone talking about the 2030 comprehensive plan. Well, on your Campo website, you've got a 2055 um model up and running, and the volumes um are out of this world. Uh for uh 2023 the annual average daily traffic along Six Forks Road was between 35,000 and 54,000 vehicles. Um the um your um deficiency and needs scenario viewer which is produced by Campo the mapping um you're showing over capacity from the interstate up towards Dartmouth for the year 2055. And the thing that kind of blew me away was in 2055 they're showing that Six Forks Road has been widened to three lanes in each direction. That has been pulled from the plan. That is an unfunded project so it should not be shown in a future map. Um, another thing I wanted to talk about was um, you know, density. Uh we divide all of these land uses into traffic analysis zones. And when you look at a traffic analysis zone, you're looking at the mixed use, the living space, the office space, the commercial space, all of this generates trips. And uh talking about 2030 is not going to do it. You have to talk about 2055. Um, we already have rules in place and all I ask is you follow the rules and um, we are a community and we don't want 40story towers at our doorstep. Um, as city council members, you represent us, your neighbors and uh, we your neighbors are asking you to please deny this request. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. My name is Randy Jones. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this resoning request. My wife Barbara and I are longtime residents of the North Hills Midtown community. We love our community. Our family has grown with it over the past 20 plus years. We enjoy all that the main and lasser districts have to offer today and generally support completing the development of these two districts. responsibly. Toward that end, over the past three months, I participated in the public review process for this request. After complaining one too many times to a friend I respect very much, they told me that I just do not understand the review process. It's hard for someone like me to admit this, but they are right. I do not understand why the city solicited my comments and questions about this request but did not acknowledge, evaluate, or respond to them. In my view, the city has ignored me and my questions and concerns plain and simple. I sure don't understand that. And if with so many issues outstanding, the council brings this review process to a close tonight with a favorable vote on the request, I most certainly will not understand that. I implore the council to defer this resoning request for further consideration of all the outstanding issues. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm going to go off script. I agree with everything that he just said. I sent you two emails earlier asking you to postpone this public hearing. I think there could be some more dialogue between the applicant and the community about some of the conditions that we're asking for. And I want to be clear to those who are for this. We those who are opposed, we're not opposed to the development. We know something's going to be built there. Our concerns are that it doesn't follow the Midtown area plan which thousands of people had their input and a lot of money was spent. So, it's the height, it's the transitions. In another case, it's the transportation since the Six Forks project has been cancelled. Uh Kane said before when this was up before the city council that they wouldn't even start construction until that project was done. Now, what's the plan? I'll leave it at that. Thanks. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening. My name is Bob Longo. My wife and I live on Temple Street. I just want to say that plans are great. I'm an engineer. I know you build plans, but plans have to face realities. And the realities in this area are not what might have been expected when plans were put in place. We chose to live on Temple Street for the quality of life that location offered us. A a comfortable residential community, convenient access to the services and the dining available here in North Hills and easy access to downtown. The failure to implement the Six Forks Road improvements have already frayed our quality of life. At times during the day, even now, Six Forks Road is difficult and slow to access and and transverse. We go down North Hills Drive and deal with the uh Crabtree Mall traffic to avoid going down Six Forks. The request asks to add 3 million square feet of mixeduse buildings, including these two 37 floor behemoths right on Six Forks Road. Given the condition of Six Forks Road and the sub optimum beltline interchange, I doubt transportation engineers can put forth a realistic plan to support this level of development. But that plan and committed funding should be a prerequisite to approval of additional development. The plan to close the fire station has no followup with firm plan or funding for a replacement facility. A committed funding, a committed and funded plan that will support timely public safety services into the area should is a another critical infrastructure element that should be in place prior to additional development. Even setting aside these infrastructure plan gaps, we view the resoning request as inappropriate. It is grossly out of character with the existing development in the affected area. We talked about the building height contrast. It's not a transition in this plan. It's a cliff. We expect that there are many current residents in the area and businesses who are very concerned about this plan and we urge you to deny it. Thank you. >> Want to start? Can I There's 48 seconds up here. I had >> I had two minutes. >> He has two minutes. Which How do we deal with this? >> Um, if you have written remarks, you can submit them there, but we've given 12 minutes to the other side. So then I would have to go give more, you know, time to them and they've kind of allocated their time. So if you would just submit your written comments, we can do that. >> Give them the additional time as well. They've already used their time and they've all spoken. So I don't think that's We've told 12 minutes ahead of time. >> Not to be heard. Mayor, >> I did not do that. >> We told each side 12 minutes and I can't be unfair and we told everybody. >> You are being unfair. >> Give us a chance. This is the only comments that you have not listened to. >> Republic. >> You have 12 minutes total. You have 48 seconds. I'm sure you'll review what they submit. That's what we have been told. That's part of the complaints that they had already. So, thank you for your time. I'm going Thank you, sir. Good luck with that 400,000. >> All right. I'll don't start the clock on me. I'm I'm go for 48 seconds, I guess. >> Um, good evening. on Charles Winston Williamsburg Court in North Hills area. I grew up in this neighborhood and have lived here for most of my life. I've seen it change over time and while I understand growth is necessary, the zoning proposal Z3425 goes too far. Let me be clear. I have nothing against John Kaine. He runs a good company. But this level of density, 40 stories, is out of scale for our community. It violates our own area plan and piles thousands more cars onto roads you just voted not to improve. I have many friends and neighbors who live in the neighborhood. Not one person I know is for this reasonzoning and what is going on at North Hills and St. Alb's corridor. This is not smart grow growth. It's pressure without support. Our infrastructure can't handle it. Our neighborhood can't absorb it and the residents who lived here for decades deserve better. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are you gonna let me speak, mayor? No sir, it's not fair or equitable. >> Okay. >> Why should I set aside? Are you going to Please submit your remarks. >> All right, that closes the Well, I guess the question is uh do we want to close the public hearing? Do you have questions or commentary? Okay, >> so I have some questions. Um, couple things that was mentioned, but we also did receive some many emails on this case. Um, and one of the emails mentioned infrastructure. So, I was wondering if Wayne um is here or what. Can you speak to um the infrastructure improvements that are planned or the goals outside of this project? >> Good evening. Ben Brown, stormwater management. poor substitute for Wayne, but I'll try. Uh, now, as far as the infrastructure needs in this area, uh, they were last uh, inventoried uh, in the mid2010s, and there's nothing on our schedule currently to do anything in the affected areas where where where this resoning is taking place. Uh we do have project around here, but I'm happy to revisit like with our maintenance staff a deeper dive for this exact area, but per our record, we don't have anything that's a glaring maintenance issue or anything that we need to be replacing like in the next 5 years. >> Okay. And that's around storm water. What about Raleigh water and sewer? >> Good evening, mayor, city council. Um for our records, most of the infrastructure within this property is less than 20 years old. We actually just completed a capital project to uh replace the North Hills outfall about four or five years ago. So from our standpoint, it's in good shape. Okay. All right. That's helpful because like I said, we all received an email around infrastructure and issues with flooding and sewer backups, but from what I'm hearing is within the last four to five years, we've replace any trouble areas. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Councelor Jones. I have Thank you. I have a question for staff uh for transportation. Um I had submitted this and we we received it in the packet earlier, but I just wanted to make sure that it was uplifted. Um in my conversations with residents, there was a discussion about previous I think it was the 2016 case for North Hills that came up and that there were going to be some required turning lanes there and I would just like staff to speak on the status of those turning lanes to uh daylight that for the public. Good afternoon, Carter Robertson with transportation. I believe we have a slide at the end here. Okay. Um, which intersection were you referring to? We have a number of um previous development plans and TAS that have completed um improvements, two of which are outstanding. So, I could speak to both. >> Sure. I'm going to pull up just so that we can we can say it. Um, it was my questions on the Hang on one second. I'm pulling it up. >> This is mine. This is mine. >> That's not it. >> Oh, go ahead. And >> yeah, go ahead. While I'm looking for the I don't have the the paper right in front of me from earlier today, but it was about the two turning lanes on Oh, there it is. So, what's shown on the screen right now are all the improvements that were recommended from three previous TAs in the area. All of these have been completed except for number two right here at Laster Mill and Six Forks Road and number five on the offramps coming off of I 440. For number five, that's currently under construction. They're installing a third um right turn lane for that off-ramp. And for number two, um there was supposed to be another exclusive right lane coming off of Ler Mill Road. That was never developed because that particular improvement was specifically tied to the development of the gas station on the corner. So since that was never redeveloped, that was never triggered as a improvement. That's something that would likely be flagged again at the next um TIA insight plan. We continue to coordinate with the developer and NC DOT. Um fantastic. No, I think you answered it. I want to and you're going over I was specifically talking about the 2016, but you've gone over all of them. So, I appreciate that. Um I think the the summary of what we're trying to get across is that what has been required for the most part has all been completed except for what you just noted um at the gas station. So, the turning lanes and I I think I was referencing the North Hills PD in November of 2016. Um, and that was the construct a third westbound right turn lane that was currently that is currently under construction. And then the construct to construct turn lanes and install new traffic signal at St. Albins's and Harden Hardmont that has recently been completed as well. So, the requirements from past cases except for the I think one or two that you mentioned at the end have all been done. >> Yes, ma'am. That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mayor Proton. >> Yeah, if I can just follow up with you on transportation since we've got this slide up. Um, back to number two. My understanding is the grade of this intersection, Laster Mill and Six Forks Road, it gets an E or an F. Could you explain that? Is that still the case? How will this improvement at number two change that? >> I I would defer to one of my colleagues. Um, I think Mr. Kimbro is coming up here to help. >> Thanks. >> Good evening, Bradley Kimberell Transportation. Just so I'm clear. So, is it a question related to the 2018 corridor study? >> Yes. >> Yes. So th those counts from the study itself were from a I think 2012 count uh volume count and then they grew the traffic and then projected those. Um any development plan going forward would be required to do a TIA with updated counts. We would have a sense of what the volumes are today as well as what would be projected as growth. Um from that we would run through the model and understand what the demand versus capacity would be. That's what level of service is. It's a A through F rating. And it would be difficult to guess what today's conditions are, whether that's a E, D, F, but um the city staff would work with NC dot to determine what improvements would properly mitigate the impact. >> So just understand without a TAA, you cannot provide that score. rather that score was based on assumptions made back when it was produced in the 2018 plan. >> That's correct. Because it was using data from 2012. >> Okay. But that score at that time was an E or an F which are is the worst scores. >> That's correct. And level of service is typically reviewed at the peak hour performance which is the worst case scenario. >> Yeah. I mean I think as we've heard one of the major concerns in the area is transportation. And I know we have it sounds like potential for number two to change with the development of the site, which would be good. Um, but we also have some unfunded projects further north. >> Okay. Questions? Yeah. While we're um while we've got transportation staff nearby, um do you have any slides in that deck that review where the Six Forks Road improvements would have been had we not canceled the project? >> I don't believe we have a slide, but I could just quickly review the changes. So, um we do have a slide. >> No, I can just pull you farther out so you can see. >> Good. Good enough. So, as you all will probably recall, staff uh brought the Six Forks project to you all for consideration in July of last year. Since the beginning uh of that project, costs continued to escalate. It was reduced in scope from Rowan all the way up to Lynn to Rowan to Milbrook. And then when we came to you in July, costs had escalated um so far that we were recommending moving away from the widening and directing those funds more towards spot and safety improvements. Uh those improvements that you all voted to go forward with were closing a sidewalk gap uh along the Carol Middle School frontage, uh installing a signalized pedestrian crossing between Northbrook and Northwood. Um installing a new traffic signal at North Glenn, and finally um intersection improvements at Milbrook Road. >> Okay. So even if the Six Forks Road project had continued as planned, it would have terminated at Rowan >> at Rowan. Yes. North of the site >> seated north. So So not where these sites are located. >> That's incorrect. >> Um Okay. So then I probably have other transportation questions. I'm going to move on to fire for a minute. >> Thank you. Um, another question I had was related to fire. Um, there's there's been commentary that this is going to to close that this is going to cause the closure of the fire station to confirm we own the land where the fire station is located and we will not close it until such time as we have a replacement in play. Is that correct, madame manager? And yes, and you will recall that in the fire master plan, there are some projections and recommendations for um a new fire station and we will be bringing that forward to you as part of the budget process for FY27. >> Okay, great. And is it is it the um so we just to be clear, we will never not have fire service for the area. God. Um, and is it the in a in an ideal scenario where we where land ownership were no object, would it be ideal for this station to stay where it is or is a different site a better outcome for the system as a whole? Um, we can have the fire chief come down here, but based on everything that we've seen and every part of all of our internal discussions as well as working with the consultant, this footprint doesn't meet the needs of the existing demands of that fire station, let alone any potential growth of for the future. >> Yes. Good evening, council mayor. Uh, Herbert Griffin, fire chief and director of emergency management. As the city manager alluded to, this footprint is not big enough to um house a ladder truck. Uh requires a 80ft bay. Uh the current station was built in 1964. It only has two bays and they're 60 foot a piece. This particular station would have a ladder truck cuz the closest ladder truck right now is 7 minutes away to the North Hills area. Uh one of the main things about the building structure is if the building is built with stand pipes and sprinkler system that gives us time and leeway to come to the building pressurize the building and do rescues and things that magnitude. >> Okay. So in short it's it you would need a a bigger site >> bigger footpint. Yes. >> Yes. >> Irrespective of this case. And is there already a ladder truck needed in this area for the existing case? >> Yes ma'am. It's needed there. Yeah. >> Okay. So, this development is not causing an isn't creating a new need. >> Okay. Helpful. Um I probably have more, but I'll I'll pause and pass the mic for a moment. Thank you. >> Um Councelor Jones, did you have a >> I have a followup. >> Um Chief Griffin, if you don't mind. >> I'm so sorry. I had a followup for you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um in terms of height, since that uh you know has been brought up as a concern for the community in height, what about the fire department in something that could be something as high as 37 stories? Is that something that um you guys are prepared for or is it something that you need to get prepared for in order to do >> department prepared for high-rise? We fight highrise every day. If you seen two weeks ago at the um Raleigh Convention Center, that's considered a high-rise. Anything over five floors are considered a highrise of 75 ft. Once again, the building must be sprinkler to meet the needs of what we do. Once the trucks get there, we have to pressurize a building from the fire hydrants. That's any building. And we fight a fire from the stand pipes one full blow. We connect one foot below the fire and transport to the fire floor. The sprinklers contain the fire. We actually do the firefighting operations. That's any building in the city by code. >> Awesome. Thank you so much. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um I did want to make one other just uh request not for I finished up my fire questions. Thank you. Um I did want to make note of the fact that we have heard not only in emails but um tonight about Six Forks Road and um that it's been a big point in every email that we've gotten that's in opposition for it. I do believe that the concern I don't think that this case can solve that by any means, but uh we just canceled it for justifiable reasons. I voted to cancel it for the cost escalation of course. Um, but do I think that we also owe the community some more conversation to explain, you know, we we canceled this road project, which we've noted was in some projections in the future. Um, and can we have that conversation to help the community understand why density is okay and and why the maybe if the council feels that this is an approved should be approved where we can have that conversation and explain that. And I do think that this is a really good case to have in committee in transit and transportation to have that discussion. I know that we've talked about it. You know, I mentioned it before, but it's something that I think would I would love to hear some thoughts on is this something that you guys feel warrants some more conversation within that committee. Um I I think it does. I know that the community was wondering that and I just wanted to put that on the table. >> Um as the local representative, I have no problem keeping the hearing open to have that conversation. Uh and so uh I don't know if the questions are completed. Uh but certainly I'm open to continuing a conversation on January 20th. Uh I do not believe uh going into a committee we have a staff report. They went to great lengths to disclose some of the concerns and addressing some of the impacts as staff must do and it shows that traffic counts actually went down with this new development proposal. And so I would not support it going to committee, but certainly if it's desire of my colleagues to keep the hearing open and uh have this conversation and hold it over to January 20th, that's something I'm prepared to make a motion, but I'd rather wait uh to see if all my other colleagues have their questions answered. >> Um councelor Branch. >> Yeah, I do just have one question. Um I know it was brought up in the report um from planning commission and I know it was brought up by those in opposition about affordable housing and just wonder if the applicant will be willing to review that process that was brought up tonight or and look at affordable housing. >> Yeah, thanks for the question. Um we talked a little bit about affordable housing um both at the planning commission and um somewhat with with neighbors. didn't come up quite as much. We had some great conversations about the applicability of the Midtown plan, what that policy says. And I think it's important to talk about that as why affordable housing has not been a part of this case before. Um, it was on the table in 2021. We were asking for twice the amount of density because additional units beyond your entitlement is how you subsidize those affordable units. And when we looked at the most important issue that we've heard again and again, it was traffic. And that's what we focused on. Now that affordable housing has become a little bit more a part of the conversation, we looked at the Midtown plan policies and what that policy says is that um residential projects that have units um over seven stories should have affordable housing, but in the amount that you are over your entitlement, 10% of the overage should be affordable. Well, again, we don't have anything over the entitlement. We're not asking for over. So technically that affordable housing policy doesn't apply and we've talked about that with staff and that's been the position kind of through the case. Um if it's something that the council would like us to to continue to talk about I think we would want to be treated um no differently than any other case and some of the cases that are asking for those heights have done um just what you've asked for in those other cases at 1% of the entitlement the maximum entitlement here um at $40,000 per unit. that's what you've applied in other cases. Mind you, those other cases have had additional entitlement to offset. They the most recent case you approved that was in that 40s story uh category had twice the amount of density just like we did last time. So, it's actually a more ownorous thing uh for us to consider. But if that's something that you know, we've heard it from the public. We had a little sidebar u while while the um opposition was talking and I know that's something that they care deeply about. So, if that's something that um the council feels is important, we would be willing to do something like that and like your most recent case, tie it to the building permit, for example. Um but we want to be treated fairly and equally just as everyone else. So, that that's something we could entertain. Um but I don't want to um you know, suggest something that kind of gets something nailing on the wall. It has to be something very specific. um and coming back on the 20th if that's the will of the majority of the council, we'd be willing to entertain something on that limited basis. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um councelor Patton. >> Yeah, I'll say as a chair of transportation and transit, if it's the will of the council to receive this in committee, I'm happy to do so. Um but on this topic um you know I think I've been trying to think through the previous case with much requested increase entitlement and the public benefits that were offered as compared to this case which is not asking for more units or more space just in a taller form. Um, so what is the proportional amount of public benefit to match and I have have these biblically long plans in front opened up in front of us and a comprehensive plan is 697 pages if anyone wants to know. But if we're quite textualist about it, it does say that if you're in the upper half of the range, significant public benefit should be offered. And this 40 stories is by height alone higher than the upper half of the range. So, it should be a significant turn uh on these public benefits. So, I would be interested in what you can bring back on the affordability topic. >> Councelor Lambert Melton. >> Um yeah, I'll just weigh in uh a couple things. Um I think an important piece of this case and something I was hoping that would be daylighted from the hearing today was that chart that shows the existing entitlement today as far as amount of retail and residential and what you're asking for. And it is exactly the same. It is not an increase in anything. And so that doesn't that means it's going to be the same people amount of people living there, the same amount of stores there, the same amount of traffic there if this case gets approved or not. Um and so denying this case is not going to prevent something from being built. Something will be built. So we're really not talking about what is being built. We're talking about how it's being built. I would like to see a development that is more people oriented and more open. And so the benefit of approving the case is we're going to have a project that is not taking up the entire right of way. It's going to be the same stuff. It's just going to be taller so that the ground floor is more open and more people oriented. Um there is already a 35 plus I think it's 37story building right across the street from where this proposal is asking to put 37story buildings. Um, and so I don't know why we would want to facilitate an outcome that will result in a worse project. Now, the benefit of a resoning case coming before us is we get to ask for some of these extras. And I think that the Midtown small area plan calls for these types of public benefits. And so, if you're going to bring back an affordable housing contribution, I would support that and I would support holding the case for that to be added. Um, as far as the conversation in transportation and transit, I would support just having a general conversation in committee about Six Forks Road, daylighting a bit more about what the challenges we had in implementing the plan, what the future looks like. My goal in voting to table the plan when we did was to preserve it so that we can have it shovel ready for the next round of funding. And I don't know that that conversation was really um daylighted. Like I don't think any of us intend to cancel Six Forks Road. We're trying to maximize the funds we had now for these spot improvements. So, I would be happy to have a conversation transportation and transit about Six Forks Road and future development, including this development, but keeping this project separate, coming back on the 20th uh to tighten up some of these benefits. But I really hope the community understands that we're really not talking about what is being built. That is not changing. It's just how it's being built. and we should be trying to cultivate and facilitate a better type of development because it's what a green and sustainable city needs. >> Councelor Silver, >> um I just I'd like to make a motion to continue this conversation hearing on January 20th. >> Second. >> Right. Any other discussion? And I mean, I know we've talked about transportation maybe separate and apart having something. I don't know whether we need to figure that all out >> next. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll um so all in favor of the motion to uh continue this to January 20th. Um all in favor? I. >> I. >> All oppose? Nay. >> Mayor, I move that we send a transportation and transit the um 64th road um corridor traffic and pedestrian issue. I don't know this. That's the best way I could frame it. I think everyone knows what we're talking about. Okay. Any other discussion on that? >> Um, yes, ma'am. >> No discussion on that one. Let's vote for that. >> Okay. Uh, so all in favor of that motion? I >> I. >> All oppose? Nay. All right. So, that's unanimous. And >> a conversation if you don't allow the public to speak. >> Mayor program. >> Yeah. I just want to add a couple comments. Um, maybe emphasizing or reiterating a points that I did hear. Um, I want to thank all the residents that have been part of the Midtown area plan. you know, I think that is where I'm looking at for heights and I do see that 20 stories max and so that has been, you know, a bit of a challenge for me in thinking about this case. At the same time, I understand there's this opportunity for open space to allow for the higher heights, which I like. I want to note this is privately operated open space, so it is up to the owner of the space to allow it to be accessible to the public. It's not like a park. Um and then on the affordable housing piece, you know, just to again reiterate, that was one of the main inconsistencies that I saw from the staff report. And so this case doesn't add entitlement, but it also doesn't provide for affordability. So just again to emphasize that that is something in the Midtown plan that was pretty clear that any requests over seven stories have an affordable housing component. >> Okay. have additional um council pen. >> Sorry, not to ping pong. Um if I could just ask our staff when we send that item when we've sent this um transportation discussion to committee, I think much of the discussion here at the table so far has been about car transportation, but if we if you could all be prepared to comment on u transit as well. >> I was just going to add um I heard a comment from the audience. Uh one of the benefits of committee is we do take public comment at committee. So, I I anticipate the chair is going to um accept and receive public comments at the committee meeting when we discuss the Six Forks Road plan. >> All right. Well, >> which is January 29th from 3:00 to 5 in council chambers. >> Yeah, they're going to be ready. >> All right. So, that then concludes tonight's discussion of Z3425 and we appreciate all of you coming. I'm >> sorry. I'm going to need the receipt because I don't take any of the >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Yeah, it's a little rough. gotten this roaring response and I didn't get it. >> If y'all can clear uh out, we'll move on to street closing STC 0425 Mane Drive. Okay, sorry I don't have a loud voice. Um, hi. Right, we have Miss Jones from transportation. Thank you. >> Um, I think yes. The next time raise it when you go back. >> All right. All right. Good evening, Madame Mayor and council members. >> Ladies and gentlemen, could y'all please exit quietly? We've got other matters to attend to. Thank you. Good evening, Madame Mayor and council members. My name is Amanda Jones with transportation. I'm here to talk about the McClean Drive uh rightway closure. So, our applicant is Spencer Merritt of Middberg Communities. Um, as you can see from the map, the area in red is the closure area and that is 1.05 acre. Um, currently it is used as access to those parcels. All of those parcels highlighted have been purchased um by a new owner and is in redevelopment. And part if this was to be approved, NC DOT is seeking a public drainage easement. So like I just said, there is a development in review. Um the sub has been approved and one of its conditions is that the man drive would closure would need to be approved by the recorded map. We get the ASR has been approved and now they are in SPR. So in red is where the rightaway currently is. Um they the site is looking to the development sorry is looking to they would be having to dedicate right away for the Pacific Drive extension. So, uh, by closing that rightaway, they would just be moving it north and they would also be, um, dedicating right away for the Craftsman Drive extension. Uh, this is a picture of our street plan. The proposed closure would facilitate alignment with our future Pacific Drive extension from the street plan. it eventually lead to a connection from Old Wake Forest Road to Atlantic Avenue. Uh so again in red is where the closure area would be. Um this is the street plan. So Pacific Drive is looking to go from Old Wake Forest Road out to Atlantic Avenue. And they would also be dedicating um that rideway for Craftsman Drive on their property. >> And that is my presentation. >> Questions for Miss Jones? Okay. Um, I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing as we have no one uh signed up to speak. >> Anybody want to make a motion or have discussion? >> It's just normal language on this. >> Okay. >> Motion to close the street. >> I move that we close the street as presented. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion? I >> All oppose? Nay. >> No. >> Okay, that is unanimous. Thank you. All right. Next, we go to reszoning Z125 2230 South New Hope Road. >> Uh, mayor, before we start the hearing, um, this is a continuation from the December meeting. Um, the comments were received. There's no time remaining u for the opposition and there is a full 8 minutes remaining for the support. >> Okay. >> We do have people signed up to speak in opposition. >> Okay. >> Sir, can you just remind me we didn't have any speaker? Michael, you didn't speak on this one. >> No, he did not. He had not signed up. You asked him some questions. >> That's what happened. >> You asked him a lot of You all asked him a lot of questions. Um, how many speakers are signed up in opposition? >> We have five. >> Five. Um, I guess my motion would just be to add five minutes on both sides so that folks can speak. Um, if that's a >> All right. Do you all want to add? >> All right. >> I just say, and I'm not opposed to this, that other gentleman left here without being able to talk because we didn't have any time. I just I feel I I I think it's an odd precedent to change. I I I feel like it needs to be consistent, honestly. >> Yeah. I mean, I would be a little uncomfortable if we haven't proposed it beforehand, which we did to the other uh case to add time. So, I mean, for me, I'm sorry that y'all came and that you don't have any time, but we didn't we didn't talk about changing the time or negotiate that ahead of time. So, there's been no notice. Um, so I'm uncomfortable changing it at the table. I think to your point, councelor Lambert, I'm trying to be fair to everybody in the chambers. And the other gentleman was clearly upset that he didn't get that chance. Um, it's hard to now change the rules here. So, >> the motion and the second are on the table though. >> Okay. So, the motion and the second to uh increase the >> call out. >> Well, um, you can have the motion. Um, I'll go ahead and call the question. And how many people want to change the rules now and add more time? I Okay, so we have three and all of those opposed. >> Okay, so we have 53. So, uh, turn it back to you. Good evening once again, Madame Mayor, City Council, Bon Walter, Raleigh Planning and Development. Going into this, I do want to note that the applicant has advised staff that they would like to continue the public hearing to the next meeting to uh consider some additional an additional at least one additional condition. Uh but they have added conditions since the last time you saw this and I I will just update you on that before you open up the public hearing to hear from anyone in favor that still has time remaining. So just a reminder, this is just under 23 acres. This is uh like sort of an earshaped sea on the west side of South New Hope Road. So the this piece isn't in uh it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. Uh planning commission recommended denial. Uh the folks who voted against the denial felt like this was an appropriate place for residential growth in the area. Smack recommended, I'm sorry, the stormwater management advisory commission recommended approval uh with some improved stormwater conditions. Those were offered by the applicant before you set the public hearing. And since the public hearing opened in December, they have offered additional uh conditions. So the first five conditions that they had offered uh prior are remain. These are all we've talked about. These are four. they have added substituted uh some language about not changing not causing change in flood elevation. They're not going to seek uh determination that a proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels. Uh and they're not going to seek a letter of map revision. So the sort of the long and short of that is if you have uh floodwave flood plane on your site, you can pursue through other authorities besides the city um assessment of what is what is the flood wave, what is the flood plane. And so they're saying we're not going to ask for a change of that, right? Just to put it in like human language. uh and then uh these other conditions also uh remain that they had offered and then they have uh beefed up their uh peak storm water runoff control their uh you know the you of course I'm sure remember that the code requires control for two and tenure and they are asking they are offering uh 50-year control. Well, any questions I could answer for answer for you before you turn to the public hearing? >> I just I'm not sure and the applicant may speak to this with these conditions that they have added. How much of this is actually buildable >> without that middle piece that they do not have access to? >> I think that's a better question for the applicant and or storm water. >> Okay. And my other question would be, I know last time I asked staff about transportation in DOT having has there been any new information added as far as access to these partials because the main current access is on the part of the property that is not part of the case. >> Yeah, I can. >> Yeah, let me see if transportation want to come up and talk to you about that. >> Okay, thank you. Do you want to hear about that before you hear from the applicant? >> Okay. >> Good evening. Michael Burch with Longleaf Law Partners. Um, so to touch on the question about the amount of developable property, so it is just under 10 acres. Uh, and that in that includes kind of both sides of the property. Um, that is subject to this reasonzoning. So just under 10 acres is developable. Um and I'll just note from the storm water conditions right the first set of storm water conditions were added uh as part of our conversation with the storm water management advisory commission. Again that conversation occurred after the planning commission vote. We were not able to stay at planning commission until we did that because we had already made changes once and so you know unfortunately we weren't able to stay there add conditions and then have a vote there. A lot of the conversation was around uh environmental impacts. Um but we did go to storm water management advisory commission unanimous approval there based on those conditions. We also worked after that with Partners for Environmental Justice uh on some additional condition requests that they have. And so that is what uh the new items before you uh this evening. And again, we are uh asking for a deferral to the 20th so that we can add uh another condition related to affordable housing based on feedback that we uh had received kind of throughout the process at CAC meetings, neighborhood meetings, and in subsequent conversations with uh stakeholders. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And I know transportation's coming. I will say just from a code standpoint, we have to offer cross access to that property. You know, that's not subject to the reasonzoning there. So, there is a uh and the city has guidelines for distances of access points and all of that. So, there is going to have to be conversation right with that adjoining land owner about both access as well as cross access internally. Good afternoon. Carter Robertson with transportation. Um, as of now from last meeting, no new information about access. I did just want to clarify um this uh right across from Anamosa Street was mainly where we were focusing last time. uh with full access being obtained there. There would have to be some sort of coordination with the other land owner, but access still could still be achieved a little bit further south um on New Hope Road. That would just be restricted to ride in ride out only because there's that median existing there and there's enough frontage where they would meet our spacing requirements. It would still just ultimately be up to NC DOT for approval there. Okay. >> All right. Any other questions or >> Yeah, I think I have questions for staff, storm water staff probably. Um, so I'll ask them while anybody mobilizes. Um, so already by the code, by the rule book that applies to everyone, you cannot build most things in the flood plane. You cannot build housing or new buildings. But there under the code there are some certain things that could be built in the flood plane like a greenway trail or a shed or things like that. But these conditions are saying that on their case they're not going to build anything at all. >> Yes. And you first of all you are you are you are right about the um flood ordinance but there are certain variances and things you can study to kind of get more buildable area and their conditions are essentially making it so they don't have those options going forward. >> Okay. Do we have any slide in the deck that shows where that is >> where the flood plane is or or the conditions? >> The flood plane on this side. Oh, yeah. There you go. >> Great. >> So, there they can only build in the not purple and blue areas already by the code. And then they're making these extra commitments saying they're not going to seek any other like >> reevaluation or way of getting around it. And they're not >> they basically can't reevaluate the flood plane to encroach into those areas essentially. And they're not going to put a parking lot or shed or literally anything in >> uh that's my understanding. Yes. >> Okay, great. Helpful. Thank you. >> Okay, other questions. >> Just one for the applicant. From my understanding is you want more time to add a condition for affordable housing. >> Yes, sir. That's correct. >> Okay. Um thank you. Um I I'll say this. I mean, you can hold it if you if the council sees fit. Um, I know the promises of of the vision of this area that were made going from 2007 to 2015 and when all of this was reszoned and housing on this part was ne was never considered um as part of this. Um, one thing I will say is there's been a lot of affordable housing projects that we have approved within a mile of this corridor. So, um, at this time, you know, my thoughts and and where I stand haven't changed much. I don't know if that will change it, but if the applicant wants to spend the money to hold this, then I'm fine with it. >> Mayor, >> yes. >> And I have a question for the clerk. um if it's being I'm just confused if we know that the time is take already used for like we shouldn't be letting people sign up with the expition they're going to talk >> why was this even on the system provides an email to everyone when a hearing is continued there's no guarantee that there will be additional time added so everyone who signed up received that notification >> so if it's going to continue it's fine I just I just think we should be fair to folks that if the time because we have to provide legally the same amount of time to both sides if it's used up it's used up but we shouldn't let people sign up with the expectation that they may be able to talk when they come down. Anyone can come watch, but I just don't I just feel bad if people think they >> Yeah, I had that question too. But yeah, >> so I I think going forward we could not open signups when there is no time remaining. >> I think that's probably the better way to do. >> We've not been consistent in the past in doing that. So I >> I think that's probably a more fair way to do it if the city attorney says that's fine. We can certainly look at that. But I think one of the challenges that we've seen in this case as well as the other case, which is the public hearing is open and then you have one side that speaks and the other side that doesn't speak. And so how do we manage that? we would have to try to figure out so that we basically don't let the >> I guess in this case it was the opposition Yeah. sign up >> or you know add time. I mean I you just would hope there's a very clear instruction that and I don't know how y'all read that but there's no guarantee you're going to get any you know so signing up is not necessarily you know going to guarantee you speaking and I I I haven't read through what that says and how people are interpreting that. So, um it's you know >> I think I think also mayor uh perhaps going forward when we have situations like this where one side has already used up all of their time we could also make it clear when we hold the public hearing open whether we are inclined to allow additional time. >> I know and nobody I did not realize that. So we added time for North Hills. Um, we did not add time to this because I was not aware that we had used up everything and that there were folks, you know, that were going to have no time to speak. So, clearly, let's just talk offline about this process because I I it is not ideal. Yeah, >> agreed. >> Add a couple things. >> Yes. On the time thing, I think you just put a notification up there that there's no time for opposition. You can just make that a part of the the notification when you post it. But that's neither here nor there. Um, Council Member Branch, I'm probably inclined to agree with you. I don't I mean, I hear that the applicant wants to hold this open. We held it open before. Um, and with the understanding that when he came back or when they came back tonight, they would address all the issues that were raised by the community. So, I'm not inclined to want to offer another opportunity. And uh the other part of it is is that I don't know how I feel about building affordable housing in an area that you can't build commercial because of all the challenges with the property. And so I don't know that I think it's fair to open this up for affordable housing when it's a problematic site. So I don't think it's um for me personally, it's not going to change anything for me to to hold it open for another week. So >> I just I just wanted to add on the timing thing. My my understanding I think I just need guidance probably is that it is the will of the council at any time for a public hearing that we can add time. Um so like we did add yeah additional time for North Hills but it was done prior. >> Um and so I've at least my last term there were occasions where different people would motion for additional time depending on who was here. Um, but also to the point I think earlier, consistency is good. So, um, making sure folks know we've used up the time, but there is always potentially >> Yeah, if we had negotiated that last Friday, I would have felt more comfortable, but to do it now. >> Um, >> yeah, I mean, I am open. Again, I don't know, you know, uh, who has inferred that, you know, maybe the affordable housing would sway. I I mean I felt like there has been so much effort and I feel comfortable that we're avoiding the flood plane and being really responsible and also I guess and I've shared this with um some of the opposition. I mean this idea that you would have commercial here that's never going to happen. So the only thing that's going to happen here is residential. >> Granted and as councelor Ford stated I mean we're constantly trying to put the residential and the bad parts of >> Yeah. But if you completely avoid the flood plane, this is right meeting every single standard and going way above. So I think the fact that PEJ and all these groups that we've added so many conditions, I feel like this is an extremely responsible You're right. I mean, there's not much land and they're only building on those pieces and they've done a lot. So they're going over and above our very strong standards. >> And I think if if say there's three parts, I think if right now it's parts one and three. I think if part two was also a part of this resoning case, I would have a different view of looking at this. But as of right now, my motion would be to deny it. Yeah. >> But it takes five votes to get anything done on this council. So I leave it to the body of the council. >> Yeah. Well, and again, somebody can make a motion either way or we can try to stay it. I kind of agree that I' I've heard you say there was a lot of affordable housing in this area already. To me, that doesn't necessarily strengthen the case. So, um, but >> if I can address that just on the two fronts. So, on the affordable housing front, you'll see in your staff report that this, uh, area of town has experienced a 34 35% uh, increase in gross rents, uh, over the past few years. And that's only with data through 2023. And that's about 9 to 10 percentage points above uh, the city average. Since that time, so with units not taken into account uh with that data, there's been over a thousand market rate apartments delivered uh within this very immediate vicinity, including about 450 uh right in Oldtown. Uh there is also some just to the west. Um so this area has experienced a much higher uh growth rate increase in rents and since that time there's been an additional uh you know thousand plus market rate units. Uh to be clear uh we are offering 100% of the units as affordable at this uh 60% AMI level. This is also not a low-income housing tax credit deal, which is subject to the very competitive bidding process. This is a bond deal that does not have to go through that. And so, um, you may recall a number of, uh, cases that you all have approved for, uh, affordable housing that are tax credit deals that have not moved forward because of how highly competitive that bidding process is and how low the funds are coming from the state uh, to the city. And just in terms of kind of the middle parcel not being included there, the result of that parcel not being included is that residential remains prohibited on that site. And I will note that that portion of the property has one is much more level to New Hope Road and has significantly less topography which makes it much more suitable for commercial. Residential is better for sites with topography because of the building sizes because you can uh tier the buildings themselves. Uh residential allows for having parking on uh not the same elevation where commercial wants one big flat site which on these two pieces because of the elevation change would require significant retaining walls and a significant amount of import of dirt. Uh and so residential given the conditions that we have provided that go well above and beyond flood plane and storm water measures uh and given the lack of the higher need of retaining walls and import dirt is the more environmentally uh call it sustainable uh low impact development as compared to commercial. Yes, councelor. So, >> uh, Michael, how long has the site been marketed as commercial? Because I do I just share with me how long it's been marketed as commercial and it's been unsuccessful to develop it as commercial site. >> Yes. So, uh, going back to the original Oldtown, which I believe was an ' 03 case, um, and so really starting in that 06 07 time period, uh, is when it has been zoned for commercial and also, uh, marketed for commercial. They have aggressively marketed well. So in 201 19 2020 uh when you know this latest condition prohibiting residential came through the property was under contract with a commercial developer that talked the landowner into prohibiting residential on this site. That commercial developer did not move forward with that project for many of the reasons that we've discussed here of how unsuitable it is. Walked away. uh but even before that time I mean so really let's just call it 17 years uh and there are a v variety of reasons for that lack of visibility from the intersection these two portions of the property as I mentioned uh sit below South New Hope and so right from a visibility and an access standpoint that doesn't work for commercial uses um but it does for for residential and there are a number of other things but to your question >> like a Kmart site that we did earlier, right? It's just >> I I was I'm sorry. I had >> Well, he he was in the middle and then I'll go to you. >> I do concur uh with the mayor. I think I am comfortable hearing that the stormwater management advisory commission uh gave it unanimous uh support or at least approval. uh you met with the partners for environmental justice and those additional conditions uh add additional protection uh just anyone who wants to do development. It'd be hardpressed for someone who wants to do a development go into a lender and have that level of risk for a major investment going into this particular site. uh that if they see any substantial risk uh it'll be very difficult uh to get money to actually put this project forward. Uh but it has now been commercial for quite some time. You mentioned all the site constraints, topography, it's elevation relative to New Hope. Uh this is not my district, but I'm it's up to you whether you want to continue this conversation. Uh but this is a case hearing what I've heard that I would be uh supporting it. >> Council Branch. So, thank you for for that. And and Michael, this is not at you. You do a good job representing your clients. I want to make sure this isn't between between you. In 2019, um the re this property was reszoned. It was R10 condition use PD and it was reszoned to CX5 um conditional use. This was in 2019. So, it wasn't 17 years as a commercial development because this was supposed to been a golf community with Mitt Homes and everything else. We're still staff is still trying to get the developers to close the tunnels that were made on this property when this was originally done. So there's a significant history of what was promised here many moons ago um before I was um and then in 2019 is was the first time it was reszoned. Then there was another reasonzoning um after that that dealt with the apartments that were added by how company which is 366 apartments. It's 700 town homes and it's 1500 single family homes that are to be built currently on the other side of the street. >> Okay. of the property. So, this side of the street was part of that overall reasonzoning and trying to get rid of the golf community, the golf course that was part of the project. Again, I'm open to you going through the motion. I know where I personally stand on this case. Um, I've been consistent with you on where I stand on this case. So, again, >> it's up to the council. The council sees I will not make the motion to continue it. the council sees fit to make the motion to continue it, then it will be continued. >> Yeah. And and we would like to continue. And I'll just note on the commercial piece, um, back when it was zoned, uh, with that master plan, there is that R10 underlying district. The PD is now like a base district. At that time, the PDD was an overlay district. And so, it really didn't matter what your base district was. So even though it was zoned R10, the PDD overlay assigned commercial uses to this piece. Um so I prior to 2019 as part of the original uh Oldtown Oldtown plan. So >> uh Councelor Patton and then I don't know whether anybody down here. >> No, I just um appreciate all the discussion. Um the request has been made to hold the case open for two weeks. So I would move to continue the case to January 20th. I'll second. All right, we can vote in favor of that. Uh, all in favor of continuing, uh, I >> I >> All opposed. >> Okay, so that's a 62 vote. Thank you. All right. Uh, moving on to Leville Road Z2625. Mayor, I apologize. Can we clarify if there's We've continued the case for two more weeks. We have continued the case. >> Is there any time left on any side? >> There uh there is >> 23 seconds. >> Yeah. And I guess before we go back, let's just add four minutes so that if we do continue it next week, we have in on the 20th that there is time for the opposition and just negotiate that now. So, well, how much time was there exactly? All right. So, mayor, you're saying do So, then I'll just make a motion then add four minutes to both sides. So, that the applicant's going to have now six plus the four and then the opposing will have four. >> Exactly. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Uh, all in favor of that motion, I >> All opposed. All right. So, we'll get the extra time then. >> And I just want to add because we didn't get to hear from y'all today. If you have anything that you want to bring to us like by email or if you want to set up a time for a meeting, I'm very open to that and appreciate hearing from you all. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you for the clarification, uh, madame attorney. And so now we will turn to Z2625. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matthew Clim, uh, Planning and Development. So, this is a request to reszone uh one acre from industrial mixed use with a three-story height limit with the special highway overlay district 2 in the airport overlay district to residential mixed use with a three-story height limit uh removing both overlay districts. Um the site is currently uh developed with a uh one detached house of about 1,000 square ft. Uh the request is consistent with the plan overall. It is inconsistent with the future land use map. Your planning commission recommends approval 8 to zero. Uh just a look at the site and the surrounding area here. You can see the uh various residential um and industrial uses commercial up at Leville uh New Leville Boulevard and Leville Road. Uh this is a general use request, so there are no zoning conditions. Uh the existing zoning is industrial mixeduse with a three-story height limit um with the Shod 2 and the airport overlay district. Uh the airport overlay district prohibits residential uses and the industrial mixeduse district prohibits residential uses on the ground floor. So the existing house on the property is an existing nonconformity um it was uh built in 1980 um which preceded the industrial zoning and the um airport overlay zoning. So while there is a house on the property currently it it is entitled for for no homes other than the fact that it is an existing non-conforming use. The requested zoning is residential mixeduse 3, which would permit up to 49 units in a um apartment style building. And there is also an aotment for 4,000 ft² of officer retail because the property is located at the corner of two public streets. So the request would remove the Shaw 2 uh special highway overlay district 2 and the airport overlay district. Um, regarding the special highway overlay district, there are three stipulations that activate requirements of the special highway overlay district in terms of a protective yard and planting. One is abudding or touching a a major access corridor, which this property does not. And let me go back and show you. So, the special highway overlay district is mapped around 540, which is several inches south of the map that you see here. Um, the site is not abudding that. So, the protective yards wouldn't be required for this site. There's another stipulation that a site um has protective yards if it gains access from a major street that uh intersects or has an interchange with the highway. Um and there's another stipulation for a mixeduse or commercial street. Uh so while the shod is mapped here because of its access to the specific site the protective yards are um don't trigger any additional plantings or anything. >> And could you tell us how did it get mapped if it didn't match any of those things? >> Yeah, it's so it's mapped spatially um no less than a thousand feet from the highway itself. So it has a geographic location on the zoning map and so many properties that are mapped within the shod do not have any requirements of them which is why I went through that explanation because it's a bit confusing so sorry. Um so that's all to say removal of shad here doesn't um based on the conversation we had this afternoon freshen your mind there are no planting or protective ground requirements from the shot on this site. Sorry that was longwinded. Um the jawu uh has height restriction requirements that divert to the base district. So the three-story height limit RX3 has a 50story three um 50 foot three-story height limit. So that will stay the same. The airport overlay district prohibits residential uses. So the combination of the industrial mixed use and the airport overlay districts um are making the home non-conforming. And uh that's important because the applicants are requesting the resoning because they would like to expand the home. Um and in 2024 they went to the board of adjustments and got a special use permit. There is an aotment in the code that allows you to expand a non-conforming use by 25%. So uh they were approved for that uh special use permit and are allowed to build an extra 250 square ft on the 1,000 ft home. um but they've they've come to reszone because that does not meet uh their family and they'll describe that to you later. Um so just as a bit of uh history there, the request is inconsistent with the future land use map uh which identifies the property as office and research and development which again expressly um recommends against having housing in this location um because of its location to the airport and the airport overlay district. There's other research and development uses in the area as well. Um it's inconsistent with the the urban form map. Um staff found it consistent with the comprehensive plan overall by increasing the amount of residential property or the amount of residential entitlement for the property. Um allowing for an aotment of um neighborhood serving retail or office uses being in a mixeduse zoning district uh in the property. uh reducing vehicle miles travel through mixed use and increasing housing variety. Um again, ancillary retail uses and zoning for housing. Um inconsistent with the future land use map, we have a policy about the airport overlay zone um and the zoning infrastructure and response standard times are due to the uh NFPA standards not being met for the site. Um if the request is approved um your action will also be an amendment to the future land use map amending it to mediumcale residential. Um you can see the composition of the future land use map here. There's low scale across the street adjacent to public parks and overspace uh to the right and then office research development um to the east and south. Happy to answer any questions. >> Questions for Mr. Clum. >> Go ahead. Councelor Patton. >> Um, hi. Always questions for me. Um, so there's a single family home existing on the site even though it's zoned. It's an existing nonconformity. The ex zoning was applied after the home was built. >> Mhm. >> Okay. And they just want to make your understanding of the applicant's desire is that they just want to make an expansion of the existing footprint of the home. >> Yes, ma'am. and and they're permitted to do so with their special use permit, but only to the amount of 250 square feet, which they've stated does not meet their family needs. >> Got it. >> Okay. And RX is the best is RX3 is the best matching zoning for them to change to. >> Yes. So, um because the office research and development district or future land use category would suggest some level of commercial uses or office uses in the area, having the residential mixeduse district keeps honest on some of that policy guidance by allowing a 4,000 foot allotment of that if and when the property is developed in the future for an apartment building at the corner of the two public streets. >> Got it. Okay. So they could they could accomplish their stated goals with some other zoning also, but this is to be in keeping with the policy guidance. >> Okay, got it. And we received some communication from the airport uh related to thing, you know, uh concerns they have. Can you speak to um what types of things are required for development in the airport overlay district and what the our partners at the airport might be looking for? >> Yeah. So, um I have the statement printed here uh from RDU and they say, "Should the city of Raleigh determine that other considerations outweigh the serious reservations of RDU uh in this matter and elect to approve the resoning, their authority requests that the city take all possible actions to require the property owner to one grant and record before building permits are approved for the site an navigation easement um which grants the authority unlimited right to fly over uh the property. um and alleviates any uh legal risk from the airport uh negative impacts of living next to the airport. So that's one thing. The second is that they've asked uh to require the homeowner to incorporate noise attenuation measures uh into building plans to asssure sustain uh substantially lowered interior noise levels as compared to you know not using those materials. >> Got it. >> Councelor Silver understanding is this is a general use case. Those two points you just raised from the Raleigh Durm uh authority would have to be a condition. Is that correct? >> Um one of them would not have to be. Uh signing the navigation easement can be can be done without a zoning condition if the property owners chose to do so. They could sign the navigation easement and send it to RDU. That doesn't require a zoning condition. That could be done at any time. and you know they could produce to you the signed easement to the airport. The requirement for noise attenuating would likely be better enforced with the zoning condition. All right. Should I go ahead and open the hearing? Okay. >> Yeah. No, I think I think we're good. Okay. So, uh we have two people signed up in support. Dianca Goodman and Katina Scott. Hello, my name is Katina Scott and I'm the um the applicant that is requesting for the resoning. Um I'm just requesting it just for just to um advance just build my home bigger for me to accommodate my family size. Um we've been there for the house has been there for about 45 years and I know he you know expressed the concerns of the airport overlay. They've been flying over my house for 45 years. So I don't really understand what the easement you know will accomplish or whatever and about the noise and all of that. I I'm well aware of the noise. I've been there since I was five. So, um that's basically all I have to say, but >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, I'm just a friend of the family, but we've tried to reach out to the airport and try to get a better understanding of what that their concerns were and try to reach an agreement, but all they sent us was an easement that didn't really address the concerns clearly, if that makes sense. So, um, we did try to meet with them. They did not show up to the meeting. um all she wants to do is expand her home, >> literally. And um she's choosing RX instead of something else because she owns a business so she might work out of her home and we didn't want to, you know, have to go back and do something else when we could have did it all in one spot. >> Gotcha. Everything's more complicated than you think. >> I know. >> Okay. Um I think we have a lot of questions for you. I'll start uh with Councelor Jones. >> Uh good evening, guys. Hi, I am your district counselor. My name is Christina Jones. I wish that I had been pulled in to be able to help you with these. I'm very close with the airport. So, um I want to be able I I didn't know, I didn't understand, you know, reading this case, it was a bit confusing. So, um for my purposes, I'd like to hold it so that I can help you have that conversation with the airport. Uh I'd like rather than making the vote now. Um, but because I wasn't brought in, I couldn't do that before. So, uh, I just wanted to introduce myself. I'd love to communicate with you so that we can do exactly that because the airport's a big, uh, partner with us and this overlay district when it deals with sound. I know that you understand and I'm so glad, you know, I know that you've been there for 45 years and you understand the sound, but the concern is if it's sold and somebody else gets uh, goes into this house, not that you will, but in theory, we have to account for all possibilities. um if somebody else buys it and then they get upset, the airport's just trying to protect itself because it is very loud. It has a 95 del um sound limit and if somebody else bought your house and then we're calling them going, "Oh my god, how could you do this?" That's what their concern is. Um but I, you know, I'd love to be able to facilitate that conversation. >> So that was we understood that concern. The thing about it is her house is here. Every single house around her does not have an airport overlay district. No house at all. So, not even just houses. There is something around this zone for something else. It doesn't have it either. So, it was kind of like, well, why does she have it? It's like three or four houses around there that do have it, but there was a whole development, a whole neighborhood that was built. None of them have it. and that's like closer to the airport and you know >> sure and I I don't doubt those things but because I wasn't part of the conversation I can't my my job is to advocate for your needs and I can't at this moment because we did we didn't talk so I want to be able to answer those questions the questions that you're raising which are why us and not them I don't have the answer for you right now but I would love to be able to sit down and have that conversation so that we can get those answers and come to to to a place where we're not putting future potential uh issues with airport and stuff. So that's what I'm just saying. I'm not I'm not saying to to deny it. I want to be able to hold it open so we can have a better case to be able to present to council in the future. >> Yeah. >> Right. But >> I understand but that's the benefit of having a counselor to step in. I'll I'll finish my sentence. I'll finish I do have plenty of experience in that. Um I'm very close with the airport and I'd love to be able to facilitate that and if that doesn't happen, that's something we can discuss here. But as your counselor, I'd like to be able to be in the room and help you do that. >> Councelor Silver, >> uh, I support, uh, keeping this open. I have a question. Um, when you filed the case, you had a choice of it being a general use and a conditional use. Uh, you chose general use. Was there a reason? Let me kind of explain if you don't know what that means. General use means the change you're asking for. You cannot add conditions such as what the authority is looking for. Uh if you have a conditional use case, you can add conditions to address any issues that may surface. Um if you know the reason why, is there a reason why you applied for a general use case? If you know what that if you don't know the answer, you don't have to answer. I just was trying to find out cuz this one's general use which means you're prohibited from adding some of the conditions staff had just mentioned at least one of them. >> So she just wants to expand her home. So it's the airport overlay. You cannot you can't do residential at all. So I don't really >> Let me change. So when you ask to change the zoning, you're asking to change the designation on a zoning map. >> Right now it has one designation. You're asking for a new designation. You have two options to do a general use. I think it's R RX3 or a RX3 conditional use. The latter gives you flexibility to add conditions. you filed an RX3 general use, which means you cannot entertain any conditions. So, it sounds as if you weren't sure when you filed it. That's what we're asking. Um, do you know the difference between the two and why you chose the general use? >> Um, I do understand. No, we weren't told that. >> Okay. >> During the Oh, >> um, let me go to councelor Ford and then councelor Lambert Melton. Um, how long have you been involved in this process? Like, how long has this been going on in terms of you wanting to um expand your property? >> Um, let's see. We started last September, so a little over a year and a half. And, you know, my mother's been displaced all this time. And, you know, this is costly. This is costing me to live two different places. I think I I did send a letter in to you and um stating that, you know, just giving you my the background of my story a couple of months ago and I didn't get a response from anyone. >> Can you reforward that to me because I'm I'm usually typically but if I missed it, that's completely my fault. But if you can forward that to me, then we can definitely have this conversation. >> Okay. Allison Davis, I think, reached out to me about you. So, we we had a conversation. Okay. Um, I thought it had been going on for some some time. So, >> question for our planning staff. >> Um, in the airport authorities letter, they they list two things. The second one, require the homeowner to incorporate noise measures. They've been living there for like 50 years. I if the noise isn't bothering them, I I I'm not that concerned about that. The first one where it says grant and record before any building permits are approved an aviation easement in favor of the authority. It sounds like the airport's worried that if they ever sell the property, the new owners are going to sue the airport for flying over their Is that a thing? Like what what I don't understand that. Can someone explain to me what the concern is? Okay. Okay. >> Yes, it is. >> Yes. Because even though as I think uh council member Jones pointed out, although they have a specific use, the airport uh certainly with a uh general use reszoning, there are any number of other things that could go there, including uh more density in housing. And so they the airport is trying to ensure that if there is a sale as council member Jones referenced that the prospective buyers or everyone else is on notice. Um there is a challenge though obviously because that is a condition. Um and this is not a conditional case. This is a general uh reasoning. >> Okay. Council member if I might elaborate Pat Young with planning and development. We did discuss the option and opportunity to submit a conditional use zoning case with the applicant. We indicated we didn't see any reason that would be necessary as long as they worked with the airport authority to provide the requested mitigation. staff agrees with you that the most important mitigation by far is the navigation easement and it's for the reason you identified right that future owners um there there is a long history unfortunately of that kind of of action right of people buying stuff and then claiming that they're unawares of a of of a of a um so really it's not about this applicant it's about the future of the of the case I did speak personally to the uh planning director of the airport authority I can provide that information to council member Jones and ask them to work with the applicant so That's this was right after the holidays. >> And >> so I just want to clarify, you advised them to file the position. I mean the application that they filed. Is that what you just said? >> We did not advise them. We said that we didn't see a necessity to do a conditional use zoning. What we've said is that you can do that. It's it's an additional $880. >> Okay. But >> so >> almost sounds like you advised them to believe I'll let Mr. Clem, I wasn't in the meeting, but we we said there are two options and normally when we are aware of issues or concerns that we we say a conditional use would be valuable or necessary. I don't think we did that in this situation. >> Yeah. So, when we have pre-application conferences with any reasonzoning application or applicant, we walk through all the options, whether it's conditional use or general use. We explain to them what that means. Ultimately, it's up to them to decide. like we don't advise one way or the other of what type of application they should make. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But I mean the other part of it is that you're you know you're speaking on behalf of the authority saying that you know they can file general rule and y'all would work out conversations and it sounds like they've not had those conversations with the airport authority. So I mean that has created some challenges. >> Right. So, so the um we staff believes and continues to believe that the mitigations identified by the authority could be handled with without a conditional use zoning. It would need to be done prior to you all's final action in order for you all to feel. >> Well, that's I understand and I I re I received assurances from the airport authority that would work with the applicant. I don't know what else to say. I think you heard the applicant indicate they sent them some information. And I I have we have not been directly involved in the negotiations or discussions between the applicant and the airport authority. >> Council Lambert Melton, >> I just want to add one more thing. >> I looked at IMAPS. Maybe planning staff can confirm this. The resident properties directly across the street from their house do not have the airport overlay. And so like I I'm struggling to understand how on one side of the street it's okay, but on their side of the street, these folks who live there for almost 50 years. I I I am inclined to to just approve this case tonight. If it is going to get held, I would not send them back through this process again to do conditional use. If we want to hold it to get this deed and some assurance from them that they'll record it, maybe. But I'm looking at IMAPs behind them. There's no overlay. Across the street, there's no overlay. We're talking about one house that these folks have lived in for a very long time. They've been displaced for a while. They're spending money on rent. They they've spent over a year on this process. I mean, if there was a motion to approve tonight, I I will support it. >> I would agree. >> Mhm. >> If I might, just one point of information before you act. Um, the noise con the overlay district is based on noise contours that are established by sound studies done by the airport authority and we just receive that information and map it to to the area. So, we can't and we can't speak on behalf of the airport authority, but there was a a credible basis when it was established. Oh, that was >> I mean, can I just say we understand you're frustrated and I would totally get it. I feel like this is all going to get resolved. Well, I would prefer to get if given the amount of complexity here if there's a simple easement that they can sign that at least satisfies some of the airport. I mean, I would prefer if we could just take the two weeks to try and straighten a little bit of this out to the extent that we can, you know, work with all partners. I I understand they have not worked with you and I don't understand why they didn't respond. Um but I I feel like we can get there with this. I know uh councelor Jones is great with her representatives. So I I feel like we had two weeks. Maybe we could make everybody happy as opposed to just getting this done today and you know the airport >> being uh >> just I understand that I think they have communicated with us and now we we are now all going to get this resolved. >> Right. I just want to say I I think this is a great case. This is not at all something that I'm like I want but we have two things that we we've got the airport. we have you and I want to make sure that it's clear that we want you to have it looks like we're wanting you to have what you want, but I need to have these extra two weeks to be able to facilitate the conversation. That's all that that we're saying. I completely support you guys. Um want to expand your home and I I I hear you. Um but because we have multiple things, I need to have that conversation too with them to make sure. This has been really confusing. I'm so sorry that this has gone through. I I don't understand how we got here. The general use is really what makes this confusing for me. Um, and so I need to have more conversation to understand how we even got there in the first place. Um, but I see what you want. I I support what you want and I'm just asking you to help me uh give the two weeks to make sure that we can tie up those loose ends for you. >> Okay. So, when I I did talk to her one time from the airport when I spoke with her, um, she couldn't even tell me what the easevent was about. How does >> Cuz I asked her in detail what what did it mean? >> Sure. >> And she couldn't say what it was about. So I don't feel comfortable with her even signing a easement. And she had lawyers look at it too. I don't feel comfortable with her signing something that has no benefit to her >> or and it it barely it was so vague like it was a one sheet. Mhm. >> It was so vague that it wouldn't really help either party, >> right? So, I need the clarity because again, these a lot of these details that I'm hearing for the first time, I need to be able to ask them as well to to the airport. So, I'm not denying what you're saying at all. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I just need to sit there and have the clarity from the airport as well since they were a partner with us. But, I understand what you want and um and we want to make sure that we can help you get exactly what you want. And I'm not asking you to sign anything in the moment. I haven't even read the ement thing. So, I would be asking that same question to get that clarity. >> So, just a quick question. I don't know. Um, is that going to be a requirement in order for is signing an easement with them going to be a requirement for her to move forward? I I have no idea to answer that. I don't even know what this easement is. So, I need further understanding of exactly what all that is. I can't answer that for you at the moment. I'm so sorry. >> No, you're fine. You're fine. If I might just provide one more point of clarification, Pat again with planning department. Um the easement referenced is a blanket um indemnity that prevents any f current or future owner of property from bringing u legal action against the airport authority for noise or related airport activities. So just for clarification, that's what the ement is intended. And again, this is all through RDU airport authority. Staff's not been involved in that portion because it's not our easement. the airport authority holds easement and they have hundreds of these in that area. >> Um, councelor Patton >> Pat, this one's for you or someone. Um, just not to muddy the waters, do we ever wave the administrative fees to switch to a conditional use case? >> So, I I don't believe staff has the authority to wave fees. I need to consult with the attorneys about whether council can direct that. That would be a council decision. >> Would be a council action, >> but I I don't believe we have authority to wave the fee. >> Concerned about the fee. I'm more concerned about the time that sending them back to the process would take. So, um I think if anything, if it's going to get held just for this easement, then that's if that's what the will of the council wants to do. But >> I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I I would vote for it tonight. >> I would as well. >> Yeah. Um, just somebody make a motion and we'll figure it out because it's >> I mean I I completely understand the frustration that you're experiencing and you've been through a year and a half of confusion. Um, I mean I'm I've just been involved with it for 20 minutes and I'm completely confused. Um, so I understand what you're saying. So the decision, it's my district, so it's on me. Do I want to approve it and deal with the ramifications and have those conversations with the airport afterwards? It's one property. I'm sorry. You're you're dealing with my mental gymnastics as I'm going through this. Um, >> yes. You know what I I do? I I'm going to move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated January 6, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action. This approval is also deemed an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. >> Second. >> All right. Uh I'm not going to ask if there's any further discussion because all in favor of the motion I >> All opposed. Okay. So that is unanimous. Congratulations. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. And I I don't know whether I ever even closed the hearing, but >> do it again. >> Yeah. Let's just repeat all that. All right, we now have reszoning Z3325 Gresham Lake Road. >> Yes. Um, thank you, mayor. Uh, so this is a request to reszone 7.1 acres from heavy industrial with your friend in mine, the special highway overlay district 2 to industrial mixeduse. Um maintaining maintaining the district this time. Uh your planning commission recommends approval. Um the applicant has requested to revise the request. I I'll get to the zoning conditions and then tee up um a decision for you. Um one of the zoning conditions is to limit the property to no more than 42 plays. So the intended use of the applicant and their clients is to develop the site for a pickle ball facility. Um they have indicated to staff the want to increase the number of play courts from 42 to 50 or greater. Um because this public hearing was scheduled uh with the conditions as they are. If you would like to consider the reasonzoning request with more pickle ball courts, then um you would need to schedule a new public hearing with the new conditions because it's less restrictive than what is currently being proposed. Um, so if that is the council's wish, um, you could open the public hearing today, take comment from the applicant, close the public hearing, send the item back as a special item in two weeks, give the applicant the opportunity to revise the zoning conditions. When the item comes back as a special item, you can schedule a new public hearing. With the new conditions, the applicants will provide the mailing and notice required for the new hearing. Um, if that's your desire, um, we can go that route. Otherwise, I'm happy to give the rest of the presentation. >> I move that we, uh, schedule a public hearing for February 3rd. >> So, what we need to do procedurally is open and close the hearing today because it was scheduled >> and then we need to send Yeah, >> look at that. Hovering. >> Go right ahead. >> Open. >> It's a long day. >> I'm going to close. All right, >> Matthew. Now, am I ready? >> Um, yes. Yes. So, what we'll need to do is bring the case back in two weeks >> as a special item. >> As a special item. >> Got it. So, let us bring the item back in two weeks as a special item. >> Correct. And >> at that time, we will schedule a public hearing for February 3rd. >> Yes, sir. >> All in favor of that motion? I. >> All opposed? Nay. All right. So, that is unanimous. Thank you. >> All right. Final item of the evening is text change TC125. >> All right, Justin, go through each one line by line, please. >> Be here by yourself, Justin. >> Item one of 57 starting now. >> I would not do that to you. Um, good evening um madame mayor and council. Just meta with planning and development. Uh this is TC125 which is actually um a readoption of two previous uh omnibus text changes. So just as a brief overview and background that uh Omnibus program was created back in 2021 as a kind of continuous improvement mechanism for the UDO uh typically done on an annual or semiannual basis uh aiming to address a variety of issues that may arise including unintended consequences from recent text changes um unique situations that um the code doesn't handle very well or just clarifications of unclear or imprecise language. Uh why do these two ordinances need to be readopted? Um in December of 20 uh 2024, uh Senate Bill 382 became session law 202457. Uh that was the hurricane Helen relief bill, but it also included some pretty significant land use uh regulation changes. Um it included a uh very broad definition of um downzoning. Prohibits the city or other local governments from doing so without the consent of property owners. Also prevents us from um creating any nonconformities in non-residential zoning districts through a uh map or text amendment. Uh the law was also retroactive meaning that anything adopted back to June 14 of 2024 um any ordinance that was adopted and contrary to that law was invalidated in its entirety um even if only a single provision was contrary to the law uh which is what happened here. So, the ordinance in front of you tonight is um a combination ordinance seeking to readopt uh TC224 and TC523, the 23 and 24 omnibus text changes. So, just a few u examples of what's in these ordinances. Uh some clarification items including regulations for multiple ADUs. Uh most lots in the city are entitled to one ADU. those in frequent transit areas can have two. Uh but the code doesn't do a very good job of um uh speaking to how that works as far as setbacks, building separation um when there are multiple ADUs permitted on a single lot. So just some clarification there. Uh a definition of half story was created. uh we defined uh the term story but half story is a term that's used throughout the ordinance um particularly in some of the neighborhood conservation overlay districts. So um a definition has been created for half story. As practice the omnibus text changes don't include much regulatory change but uh some low impact changes are um included from time to time. An example here would be for uh parking structure signs. So our changeable copy sign regulations are pretty stringent. Um, and so, uh, a change has been inserted to allow the type of, uh, signs you'd see on a parking deck, the counter signs that tell you if parking is available, how many spaces, etc., um, which currently technically not permitted. a few um legal changes to comply with state law. The expiration for board of adjustment variances was um has been aligned to that of state law and um which speaks to the expiration for um all types of development permit applications. The board and commission membership rules have been updated. Uh so board of adjustment now has three-year terms instead of two. um also allows Wake County to appoint uh other citizens of the county when they cannot find one uh qualified and a qualified volunteer in the ETJ. They can look um elsewhere in the county to appoint a member. There were some uh changes to uh resoning conditions. So, um that dealt with the timeline for when conditions can be submitted. Um we have since learned uh since the language was drafted and since planning commission has reviewed the ordinance, we've learned that there may be some unintended consequences there. So, um if council is amanable, we would like to recommend um removing a few sections of the ordinance. Um >> and we can bring those back at a future at a future date when they've been clarified. >> Yeah. Sorry, I have it on my phone. >> Yeah, it's um sections 42, 43, and 44 from TC224. Um those are three sections that dealt with the timeline for um conditional use zoning cases. >> Councelor Lambert Melton had his hand up. >> Um forecasting the motion I will make as soon as the hearing is open and closed. Do I have to say anything special to to do this? >> Yes, we would ask that you approve with the exception of those three sections. It's 40 42 43 and 44. >> Oh, hang on a second. All right. Say one more time. 42 >> 43 44 >> escalate to zoning conditions >> of24 the hearing yet >> you have more to present >> I do not just um just to say there were 28 items from the 23 omnibus and uh 51 from the 24 that's all >> I have a quick >> Okay um go ahead >> so on the the county appointment portion you're saying like if they can't find someone ETJ J. It could be somebody from another municipality. >> Um, it can be someone from elsewhere in Wake County. Yes. >> Which is another municipality. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Councelor Paddton. >> Um, so Okay. It's a um two things. One, I want to lift up for our ride or die, Amy Joe Edwards, that this will reinstate the pro prohibition on invasive species planting. Right. >> Yes. Yes, it will. >> So, she's she's been waiting. I'll be glad to deliver that. um two um on this timing thing. So the intent when we passed this the first time was that it there were there's like blackout between plan commission and the consideration and then there's still blackout between when the public hearing is open. And so our intention was that once we said the public hearing those changes could be made and you're saying there's language that needs tweaking to accomplish that intent. >> That is correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Got it. Okay. Well, happy to support it at the appropriate time. >> Can Can we pull that portion out about the person from another municipality serving on the board of adjustment? >> Thank you. >> I'm fine with everything else. I just don't know how comfortable I am about that. >> Open and close while we chew on that. >> What number is that? And I'll add this to my >> the board of adjustment members uh commission. and that compliance with >> that was a state law change. So that's that's that's aligning the UVO with what state law says can happen. >> Okay. >> All right. >> We're going over tomorrow. >> Responsive >> TC125 open the hearing close hearing. All right. >> All right. I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated January 6, 2026 containing the agenda materials and to approve the zoning text amendment with the exception of TC224 sections 42 43 44. >> Second. >> Yes. >> All right. There's a motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I. >> All oppose? Nay. That is unanimous. >> Okay. 7 to one and this meeting is adjourned. Heat. Heat. N.