[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] finger. D [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Nat. [Music] [Laughter] [Music] Hey. Hey. Number 10. Double down. [Music] Data. [Music] Hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey [Music] hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Oh. Oh. [Music] Happy birthday. [Music] Ooh. Ooh. Ah. Oh. Oh. Hey. Hey. [Music] Hey, [Music] heat. Hey. [Music] down. Down. Heat. Heat. N. [Music] Number out. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hello. Hello. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Data. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Hey. Hey. [Music] Good morning everyone. I'd like to call to order the October 14th meeting of the Rally Planning Commission. Um, I'm Nicole Bennett, chair of the commission. Welcome to everyone joining us here in person and to those joining us online. We look forward to a productive meeting today. A few reminders before we get started. Um, please wait to be recognized by the chair before speaking. Please let's be courteous to each other, applicant, staff, and the public. And um, let's keep our comments constructive and focused on the cases we are discussing. Commissioner Omay is absent and excused. Um, Commissioner Bernett appears to be absent. With that, we'll begin our meeting. Um, we start each meeting with an opportunity for the public to address items not on the agenda. Is anyone here who wishes to comment on an item not on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move right into our agenda. Beginning with our consent agenda. We have one item on the consent agenda, approval of our minutes from September 23rd. Does anyone have any edits for the minutes? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion to approve. Second. Motion has been approved and seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor? That's unanimous. We have no old business today, so we'll move straight into new business. Our first new business item is Z2625 Leville Road. Um we'll turn to Matthew Burns for our staff presentation. And before we start, let me just say that um this parcel is adjacent to my neighborhood, very close to my house. I do not have any financial interest in this case, but I just wanted to acknowledge that for full transparency. Good morning, Chair Bennett, members of the planning commission. Matthew Burns with planning and development. This is a request to reszone a 1acre property from industrial mixeduse with two overlays, the special highway overlay district 2 and the airport overlay to residential mixeduse, three stories, and to remove both of those overlays. There is an existing non-conforming residential use on the property that predates the zoning. Uh and your deadline for action is December 13th. Zoning in the surrounding area is a combination of residential and industrial mixeduse. So north of Leville Road, there are predominantly residential uses um and some civic and institutional and industrial uses to the west and uh southwest. Here is a zoom in of the site where you can see uh it's pretty close to some other existing neighborhoods and is across the street from Raleigh Fire Station 29. Here are various views uh of the site either along Leville Road or Anglehart Drive. This request is for a general use district and no zoning conditions are proposed. So uh the request would allow for an increase in residential entitlement. the airport over overlay district which exists on the site prohibits residential uses and as it's currently zoned industrial mixed use uh there the site could be developed for office retail or industrial whereas under the proposed RX3 uh res industrial uses could not be developed and office and or retail would be limited to 4,000 square ft maximum in an apartment building. So, I've included this table just to kind of give a summary of uh the zoning history of the site. So, the property was constructed, the single family home was constructed in 1980. The AODD and the shot overlay were applied in ' 85 and 1993. The 2030 comprehensive plan was adopted in 2009 which applied the office research and development future land use category which specifically recommends uh no residential uses and then in 2014 the uh industrial mix use zoning was applied which does not permit the detached house building type. So there just a series of uh different zoning actions that have sort of affected this property over time. Uh, and last year the applicant approached the board of adjustment in order to request a um special use permit in order to increase the residential square footage that could be constructed on the property by just under 25%. And that was granted. However, per the applicant, they determined that the amount of space, which was about 250 ft that they could have built, was not sufficient to accommodate what they wanted to do with the property. Hence the reszoning application. So the request would remove both overlays, the special highway over overlay district 2 and the airport overlay. The shod restricts height and requires a protective yard and plantings near highways, whereas the airport overlay prohibits residential uses uh but does permit uses that are less impacted by airport noise. So the request has a below average walk, transit and bike score. Um it also has average transportation costs and average access to jobs, but the site is not served by transit. So you can see that the site is quite far from the Brier Creek Gorali route. The request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, would permit a variety variety of housing types and is not served by transit. uh area residents are less likely to be minorities compared to the city average. They are also less likely to be low-income and the cost of rent has remained fairly stable between uh 2016 and uh today as well as 2019 and today. So the requested RX3 is inconsistent with uh the office research and development future land use category which specifically recommends uh the OP zoning district which restricts residential uses or uh OX or EX uses with conditions that limit residential development. The request is also inconsistent with urban form guidance. Uh the sites in a city growth center, so an urban or hybrid frontage would be recommended. But overall the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Consistent policies are related to compact development um housing variety managing the impacts of commercial development as well as zoning for housing um and the reasoning of industrial areas. inconsistent policies are related to the future lane use uh and zoning consistency as well as removal of that airport overlay and uh also zoning and infrastructure related to fire service concerns. However, as I mentioned, the site is across the street from an existing fire station. So since this request is inconsistent with the feature lane use map, approval would amend the map from uh office research and development to mediumcale residential and there are no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is December 13th. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Next we'll um receive public comment. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. So, the applicant is here. Uh, I don't know if they've prepared a presentation, but uh, they're available to answer questions. Okay. Hi, good morning. My name is Katina Scott and um I'm just requesting to change my property home property to residential mixeduse. Um we're just trying to upgrade our family home just do some add-ins. The house is we've lived in that house for over 40 years and we just want to make some up upgrades. um is my elderly mother lives there. So I'm just trying I'm her only child. So just trying to make it accommodating for me and my family and her. So that's basically what we're trying to do. Just I mean you know just upgrade our home and make it accommodating for us. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak in support? Okay. Um no that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Um, is anyone here to speak in opposition to this case? If so, you have 10 minutes. Okay, seeing none, we will bring it back. Oh, did I see someone? Oh, I'm so sorry. Hello. Um, my name is Dia Chi. I'm the VP of planning and sustainability with Raleigh Durham Airport Authority. We'd submitted a letter to Matt yesterday regarding our opposition of the resoning. Um, we had some concerns about uh noise as well as with future development. The location is located two miles right off the runway and it does have some noise concerns and we're concerned about how it's developed. Doesn't mean there's a way there's not a way around it. Just we had presented some of our concerns. I believe Matt had had provided the letter to everybody. So, just wanted to say that. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this case? Okay. Now, we'll bring it back to the table for um questions, comments from commissioners. Um and if I could ask, let's do questions first um to the applicant and staff and then if we have comments or statements we'd like to make, let's do that after the questions. Yes, sir. So my my question is actually for the airport okay person um if you don't mind is so is the objection about this thing that's being proposed now or but what could happen if this overlay is removed because it sounds like the person who's there is well aware of the noise circumstance because they've been there for 40 years. It's um primarily for what's being developed, but it's the overlays were put in after the house was built. So it, you know, it is what it is. So with the proposed expansion to the house, we do have some concerns. We've always had concerns, right? Just it sounds like there's not going to be anyone new that living here. Doesn't sound like they're in this current proposal. So, I'm trying to understand the root of your concern because it's having an official like yourself. This is a this is new for me and so maybe it's not for the other commissioners, but I want to try to really understand what you're getting at cuz you know, you you drove down I40 this morning, not just for the hell of it. And so there's got to be some compelling thing and and I'm I'm just not seeing it with what's currently being proposed based on the description from the applicant that it's the same people just living in a different structure this in their same circumstance just a bigger house basically. So any I just I'm trying to understand what you're getting at that for the airport. Any home that is residential development that is located very close to the airport, regardless of when it was built is considered an incompatible land use for airport purposes. We want to make sure that the planes, the planes that are flying to and from RDU are able to do it safely. Uh we want to make sure that anybody who's living in the area are aware of any potential noise concerns. It does get very noisy. can go from 65 to 100 dB in that area. I'm sure people living in the area probably are aware of the aircraft noise because it does fly right over their their heads. Um, so we do want to make sure that that is uh there is an awareness. We had in the letter stated our request for a navigation easement so that there's awareness um and it's tied to the deed. So, if the property ever does um get sold, then any future homeowner would also be aware of that, right? And I'm I'm sympathetic to the idea that you don't want to add to the number of people that could in the future complain about airport noise. That's that's correct. That that that's legit, but that's not what's at least immediately happening here because in 40 years, they've become accustomed to the airport noise and know where they're living. So that's what I'm trying to So it sounds like what your concern is what could happen to a future owner of this because these folks won't live there forever. Someone else could own it. There's residents who live in the area and they're always complaining about noise. It may not be particularly this homeowner, but people do are they do complain about noise, but I think we're only talking about this one owner's parcel, right? Yeah. I I don't know that I don't know if the homeowner has ever what their stance is on noise. That's not not a question I can answer. Yeah. So, maybe we should shift over to staff now to say is is this about the one just the one owner's parcel or is it about a broader zoning change? So, this request would affect just a single property. Um and the applicant in this case is the property owner, homeowner. and the condition it sounded like the airport was talking about. Is that something that could apply to this circumstance where cuz you know we do have to think about 40 years from now that could be someone else owns this that then all that somehow didn't realize that an airport nearby which granted that'd be pretty boneheaded of them but that could happen. And so having them that future 40 years from now owner that's not the current owner. Is there some condition that can go on here that makes it so they get that they're stuck living next to an airport? I know I'm not saying that in a planning term correctly, but you as a planner, you may know what I'm getting at. Yeah. So, currently they're not uh requesting a conditional use district and they're not proposing any zoning conditions. Um I have not seen airport specific reasoning conditions, but they may exist and I would maybe ask if a colleague know uh knows of any of them. I'd be I'd be happy to help with that, Matthew. Thank you. So, uh, the request here is to remove the airport overlay, which is how the city regulates development to be consistent with location in the airport flyover area, right? Um, the applicant's asking to remove that, which would and also to increase their residential entitlement. the airport recognizing that the city's regulation is going away is they've addressed their letter to you, but they're really asking the applicant to consider offering a navigation easement, which could be, I believe, actually a private agreement between the airport and the property owner. It would not necessarily need to be a zoning condition. And also noise attenuation measures, which again could be a private agreement or could be offered as a zoning condition. And we have seen both of those. Uh definitely the noise attenuation. I think the navigation easement has previously been pursued privately between the airport and the property owner. Yeah, the navigation easement is what I was getting at. Thank you. The noise attenuation that's up to the owner if they want to do that. That that's their call, but the navigation easement, that's a mutual thing. So that's kind of what I was getting at. Thank you. I have a question. Um, would the applicant be able to do what they want to do without removing the airport overlay district? No, I don't believe so. Uh, so they did go to the board of adjustment in order to request an increase for residential square footage that was granted. Um, however, after they determined that that amount of space uh would not be sufficient to accommodate a family member, they were referred to, uh, Long Range for reasonzoning in order to accommodate construction of a larger house or a larger addition onto the property. Commissioner Fox, um, apologize. I'm probably not going to articulate this well, and you may or may not have this information at hand. Um, so if it's been in residential use for 40ome odd years, do do we know the history at which it was determined that EX3 was the appropriate zoning during the remapping? Yeah. So, um, I do know that it the remapping is what added the ex zoning onto it. Um, but I wasn't able to find specific details about why this property was reszoned to EX or what it was previously to that because there's been a again a single family home on the property for for longer than than that zoning district has has existed in our UDO. Okay. But it's the the primary mechanism of control here is is really the airport overlay district. Is that accurate? So, I would say it's kind of a couple different things. The airport overlay restricts residential uses. Um, the EX zoning does not permit uh groundf flooror residential uses, nor does it allow the uh detached house building type. So in this situation, the existing single family home is non-conforming with that AODD overlay and non-conforming with the industrial mixeduse zoning district. in a scenario where it had not been remapped to EX and an alternate zoning category was chosen such as RX, but that airport overlay district still remained, would the applicant be able to do what they intend to do in that scenario? No, because the airport overlay prohibits residential uses. Okay. and the I apologize this is taking a long time. Um when the airport overlay district was applied in 1985, what what did that look like for people who had been living in a certain location for 40 plus years? Was that I don't sorry I don't have that information available. Okay. Do we do we know what that looked like? What do you mean by look like? So the process by which they were told that an overlay was going to be applied to their property because it preceded there was already an airport overlay district prior to the current code. Right. It was applied in 1985. That's right. So it was probably a a notice that goes to you saying we're going to do this thing to your property. There would have been mailed notice. Yes. Okay. There are there are layers to what I would like to say, but I will hold it. Other questions? Okay. If no questions, then go ahead with your first layer. My first layer. I'm trying to I'm I'm trying to find a a way to say this where I where I'm not giving a TED talk. Um I I I always find it curious. um when zoning or overlays are applied to make something nonconforming um for legacy homeowners. I I find that challenging and I I think there's a lot of things we could talk about about why that happens. So in that sense I acknowledge the nonconformity and the nonconformity that has been there for a long time. But I I would say the nonconformity is is not has not been created by the property owner. The non-conformity was created by the authorities having jurisdiction. So, I would be inclined to them to then allow the property owner to maintain that use and and be able to do what they would like to do to it sounds like have multigenerational living. Right. I'm gonna I'm gonna leave it there, but you can read into what I'm saying. Commissioner Shelurn. Yeah. This this is a tough one cuz both of y'all are right. The people who are living there right now ought to get to live there like they want to. But the airport's right that you ought not to create a future circumstance where you could have people more people move in there who then get mad at being at the end of a runway which again that's be pretty ridiculous for someone to do that but it happens. So, but I guess considering both sides are right and it'd be great if y'all worked out that navigation thing, but to me, you got to pick the current right over the future, right? So, that's where I'm leaning towards at least. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Miller, did you have a question or comment? Yeah. Um, I think everyone's articulated the issues really well. if this were a case to try to allow the homeowner to continue its existing use. Um I think there's really strong argument for that. Um in this case though moving to RX3 this would create a maximum residential unit of 49 residential units um on this parcel which is of course not the current use. So, um, with the strong competing factors here, um, I'm inclined to think that increasing the intensity of residential to 49 units on this is probably not appropriate. Um, but I do have a question for the applicant. I'm wondering if they've um interacted with the airport about some of these conditions and and sort of discussed any or considered any potential alternatives. that would be um up until now I didn't really know that there was a airport overlay because um the the area has developed if the airport overlay came in ' 85 um cuz we moved I think in 1980 there has been so many homes built around us like um you know right across the street um even in 2015 there were hundreds of homes built behind us. So, I honestly did not think it still applied. I just thought maybe it had been removed because of um the development cuz when me and my mother moved there, it was probably only like four homes in that area cuz that's our grandparent my grandparent great-grandparents land. And at the time it was no one there. um not many homes and so I just assumed that it had been removed after all of these years because of all of the development that had come around that had grown around us. So as part of this reasonzoning case have you had any discussions with the um airport authority on any of the proposed conditions that that they have presented or any alternatives? No, I have not received anything or had any communication. No. as the person up here who lives almost next door to you, um I I I agree with everybody. I feel like you should be able to continue the use you have and expand the use. But the entitlement that's granted through this, I feel like as someone who hears the noise every day, who was completely aware when I moved there that I was in the flight zone, um, who can read the letters and numbers on the airplanes as they go by, 49 units, an apartment building right there. if you were to later sell it under RX3 without that overlay district is concerning to me. I I'm interested in how you could do what you want to do without removing that overlay district or with some sort of condition mitigating the impact. So I could we hold this and allow you and staff and RDU authority to work together to try to come up with some sort of condition or mitigation or something that that allows you to do what you need to do but addresses some of the authorities and ours our concerns about the noise. And you are right. There's been a lot of building. My neighborhood was built since um since that time, but I was looking and the overlay district is not over where I am. So, it's interesting that your parcel is the overlay district, but all around it that residential is not the overlay district. So, so I'm really interested in how we can facilitate you doing what you want to do and address RDU's concerns. Commissioner O'Hver. Yes, ma'am. Um, I agree with everything you said. Is there another I think I'd look to staff to to try to find a way to allow them to stay there and expand. Y'all have heard me say this before. It's a little bizarre where the overlay district is. Right behind their homes were built in 2018 and there's no overlay. So, I I hear where the airport's coming from. They've got to protect that. The airport's a huge economic driver. There's lots of things that are going on, but surely there's a way for a a a single family home adjacent to a park and a fire station to be able to expand their home without putting 49 units on. So, I I agree with you 100%. So, just for a little additional context, um there are areas Got to find my map here. So there are areas south and west of the resoning site where the overlay has been removed. Um and then Leville Road seems to be like a demarcating boundary. So there really is no overlay north of Leville. Um really it's south and in certain areas it's been it's been removed. uh and from conversations with uh staff who went to the board of adjustment, the applicant cannot approach them again to request an additional expansion on their residential square footage. Um and we have not discussed zoning zoning conditions uh at between staff and the applicant at this time. R4 and R six all around there. Um so Okay. And I'm Yeah, I just I'm not the brightest person up here, but it seems like there should be a way that we can allow this homeowner to expand their home looking at all the existing conditions that are there, but I could be wrong in that. [Music] Commissioner Bernett, uh this is for staff. Also had a question regarding there's uh there's a parcel down the street at 12 one uh at 12191 Leville Road. It's the uh the Triangle Golf Foundation. And I was wondering if there had the overlay had been removed for that because I mean that looks like that's a that's a huge piece of land and there's a lot of um if if the applicants development or excuse me if the applicants request um if they if if this if this uh this property here was able to kind of like get the zoning that they need I feel like there may be a compelling case to allow the applicant to um do what she needs to do as well. So I believe that the Are you talking about the property to the west, the Triolf? Yes. So I believe that's considered an outdoor recreation use um not a residential use, which is what the applicant is, uh pursuing as part of this resoning. Okay. Okay. Fox, may I ask a just a technical question of staff? Um received an application for an EX3 base zoning. Um, if the planning commission uh is more interested in allowing something closer to an R4, so not a mixeduse zoning, um, uh, is that a possibility to change base zoning at this time? Does a applicant have to resubmit and pay another fee? Yeah, the applicant would need to revise the request. um and so they would get their bite at the apple to do that. Similarly um they could revise the request to a conditional use district, but um yeah, the yeah, that could also be adjusted as well if they were interested in doing so. Commissioner Miller, if they are interested in doing that, we've noted that there's a parcel to the um southwest that's R4 with conditions that's outside of the airport overlay district. I just pulled up the conditions on that case. It looks like um those are similar or the same as the conditions that the um RDU authority has requested in this case. So it there may um be some precedent to look to for the applicant uh as well on what those conditions might look like. So, I guess the question is to the applicant, um, would you be willing to consider revising your application to R4 or something else that the city would advise that would allow you to expand the way you want to and remove the airport overlay district, but it doesn't have that RX3 maximum of 49 unit entitlement. Um yes. Okay. So, staff, uh, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. It's I just have a quick question for the airport lady. Um, um, hold on just a moment because we have it at the table here. It's not public comment period. Okay. Um, can I get some advisement? How how do we if she wants to should I advise her to do this after or do we want to hear this discussion? Yeah. No, I would advise discussions between them to take place after the meeting. Okay. Um so, okay. So, um give your information to the RDU officials. So, so you two can speak after the meeting. It sounds like what we're we're going to I don't know if we're asking them to submit a revised application. Are we going to vote to deny this or because it's not holding it if they have to resubmit the application that would be more than two weeks. Correct. I think I need to understand, are you talking about if you're if you're talking about needing to go back to a rehearing because you're revising the application with the the down the the base zoning. If it's less restrictive, um I don't think that it needs to go back. If it was I mean if it was more restrictive I'm sorry because go back where for out to public hearing. She's talking about denying and and starting the process over. Well, they have to submit a new application. Isn't it starting over? I don't think so. Okay. So, what do we need to revise the application? They just need to revise the revise petition if all if all they do is change the base district. There's no additional fee. that transaction would qualify as the single revision that can be made during planning commission review. Okay? Or they could revise their request, convert to conditional use that would carry an additional fee, but again that and they could choose to change the base district at that time or not. Okay? Either way, there's still the fee because they're converting to conditional use. Again, that would be the single revision during your review. So, we're just holding this while they revise the application. While they consider revising the application. That's right. Yes. Excellent. Thank you. Are we all in agreement with that? If so, I'll say without objection, we will hold this case Z26 2025 while the applicant revises the application. Could you specify a date certain when you would like to hear this again, please? Um, will this Well, applicant and city staff, do you think this would be ready for our next meeting, which is Somebody help me out here. October 28th. October 28th. Since there are a couple different avenues that they could take, I would maybe suggest a November meeting. Okay. To allow a little bit more time. It's Wednesday, November 12th at 10:00 because of the Veterans Day holiday. Does that sound doable? I think that sounds more reasonable to allow them time to consider their options. Okay. So, without objection, we'll defer this case until Wednesday, November 12th. Thank you. Um, next we will move to Let me make sure I'm right. Okay. Z 2725 721725 Grove Avenue. Question. We'll look to Jacob Hunt for our staff presentation. Um, good morning council and chair. Uh, my name is Jacob Hunt with uh long range planning comp planning. Uh before you today is uh reszoning request Z2725. That's 721 and 725 Grove A. This is a request to reszone um about 2.6 acres from R six with a parking overlay to R10 conditional use with the same parking overlay. Um your deadline for action is December 13th. Uh the zoning uh for this uh section of the city is predominantly um a mixture of R six, some R4 and to the north there is a parcel that's been reszoned to R10 already. A little layout of the site. Um this is just south of Western Boulevard and to the west of 440. Um there's a mix of low-cale residential, moderate scale, medium scale, and commercial sites close to Western. Um, and this site is just north of Pal Drive Park. Uh, zooming in a little closer to the site, you can see a mix of town homes, um, low-rise apartment buildings, kind of quadplexes, things like that. Um, looking at the site itself, existing on the site today is a multi-unit, um, one-story building as well as a, um, single family home on the southern parcel. The proposed conditions for the site prohibit uses that include uh rest home, cemeteries, schools, daycare centers, sports, entertainment, and parking facilities. Um the requested zoning uh would increase maximum units from approximately 30 to around 45. Um I will say existing on this site um there is an option because of its location in a frequent transit area which is the frequent transit development option um which would give them both today and with the possible reasonzoning access to more intense development options and higher intense uses. Um that would also come with a requirement for the construction of affordable housing for any units above 12. U what you see in front of you would be development under a conventional development option. Um looking at the transportation and energy um this site has a lower walk score than average but higher transit and bike scores and higher transportation cost index than average and a higher proximity um to jobs. Um this site is served by both Go Raleigh and Go Triangle routes. Um route um 11L and route 9. Um bring bring riders downtown and to the commercial uses in the area. This request would add to the housing supply. Um does not currently um include any subsidized units but does not prevent them. Um it permits a variety of housing types. Um allows smaller units and is with walking distance of transit. um area residents are um about as likely to be minorities as compared to the city average, about as likely to be low income, and the cost cost of rent has increased about 10% higher since 2016 than the citywide average. Um this request is consistent with the future land use map um due to that proximity to transit discussed. Um it's in an urban form, but because this is a residential development, no um specific requirement exists for purely residential developments. Um we found that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, the future land use map and the urban form map. Um some of the consistent policies include that urban form uh and future land use designation. Um the compact development type uh and especially capitalizing on transit access as well as adding to a housing variety and this being an infill lot within city limits. Um it does have a concern with fire response time as an inconsistent policy. Uh, your deadline for action is December 13th and staff is not aware of any outstanding issues. Thank you. We'll now move to public comment. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. [Music] Hey, how you doing? Good morning. Uh worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of Urban Oak Properties LLC. John Anton and Walter Heath, both with Urban Oak Properties are present this morning. If you have any questions for them, uh as Mr. Hunt uh laid out and did a very good job of of giving an overview. Uh we are requesting to reszone these two properties from R six to R10 conditional use keeping the parking overlay district intact. The request is consistent with the future land use map. It's consistent with the urban form map. Uh the only two policies that were inconsistent with are the fire response time standards. The intent of this resoning is to facilitate a forale town home subdivision. And again, um this is an area that has seen uh pretty significant uh development, redevelopment uh over the last decade plus. two uh two developments on this screen that I I did want to draw your attention to as well. In addition to the the newer ones that you see on the screen shaded in red, to our north is Red Grove Place, which is 1.16 acres. They're planned 11 town home units. And then to our southeast is the Chapman Cottages, which is a 15 unit cottage court. So, a lot of development, a lot of missing middle development in this area. And again, um, a lot of the area, uh, around us is zoned R six. Uh, we do have the BRT line, uh, to our north, as well as the commercial shopping center at the intersection of Jones Franklin and Western Boulevard. We we have incredible access to the Western Boulevard BRT. We're about a third of a mile from uh Western Boulevard and there are um you know stops for multiple routes uh within walking distance of this site. And as Jacob mentioned, we have uh both sort of go Raleigh as well as um go triangle routes that folks can use to either get downtown uh get to Kerry or wherever uh they need to go. Um so happy to answer any questions. Um and uh like I said, Mr. Ant and Mr. Heath are here as well if you have any questions for them. Uh but appreciate your time this morning. Thank you. Thank you, Worth. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in support of this case? Turning to um those opposed, you have a total of 10 minutes. Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the table. Questions from commissioners. Commissioner Fox. So, a question for staff. I I just wanted to confirm uh my assumptions here. Um the prohibition on daycare centers is different than daycare, home as defined in the code. Is that correct? Meaning a homebased daycare would not be prohibited based on the language in this condition. I'd have to double check the UDO, but that would be my understanding as well. That wasn't called out as a specific um excluded use. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Atwell, a question for the applicant. Um, if my reading of the case is correct, that the similar kind of development could be achieved using the frequent transit development option. Uh, like to know why the applicant has chosen not to pursue that option. I think from a development perspective, the FTDO is much easier to um sort of effectuate with a for rent product, whereas the applicant here is planning to uh subdivide and then sell off individual town home units. Um, I'm not aware of any sort of private private development for sale FTDO options to date. Um, that I'm not saying that there aren't, but but I just haven't seen um personally anybody be able to to make that work yet. So um in the in in lie of that density bonus with the affordability uh component you know we we wanted to increase uh density while also you know kind of making it easy for these to be sold uh as homes for individual home buyers. If I could follow up the question for staff. Could staff have any idea how how often has the FTDO been utilized in the city or in this area in particular? I'm not aware of too many instances. Yeah, I might turn to my colleagues to see if they have thoughts on that. I know where to look on the city website so I can answer your question and 90 seconds. I can't espulate. Espotulate while you look it up. Um, I think this kind of development is completely appropriate for the area and I'd like to support it. I'm torn because of my study of what makes the affordability incentives work is a stipulation that the city not grant resonings that give the same entitlement that the FTDO is trying to provide because if we continue to do that then nobody will take the FTDO option. Um, but I do realize the constraints for the the way that the Applean is trying to finance the project and the difficulties in using the FTDO and I have a feeling that the city might need to tweak that option because I don't think it's being utilized very much. Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Perhaps something we could include in our motion to council. Commissioner Miller. Yes. This is a question for the applicant. I'm just curious, how did you come up with your list of prohibited uses for an R10 district? That is a list of uses that I think from from a compatibility perspective are items that we feel comfortable excluding um that could create sort of an undue burden on neighbors given you know if there was a daycare center. I think that's more impactful than maybe someone operating a daycare in their individual home. Um same for uh schools as well as um you know outdoor assembly things of of that nature where um we know that that's not the intended outcome and it's also an outcome that neighbors would probably not be happy with. So and I I understand that the nature of prohibited uses. It's just more there are other this caused me to dig into the other uses in R10 that um might still be allowed like telecommunications towers and um a few other items and more just just curious if or golf courses or thing you know things that you obviously won't might not do here but yeah the the telecommunication tower I've I I try to stay I I try not to include that in the prohibited list just cuz I don't know in future what could be necessary in this area. I don't foresee a telecommunication tower being built here, but um but but I I I guess from my perspective, it's what are either uses that neighbors would find uh burdensome or um you know impactful plus uses that from a private perspective They have no intention of of going forward with those. Gota was just curious about how that list came up. Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. Uh yeah, just a quick response to the extent that there's a desire to have affordability outcomes from what we do here. I would encourage the commissioners to think about that programwide, not ad hoc oneoff for each particular project that comes up. I know we don't really have programwide discussions it seems like in these meetings, but maybe we could about how that might work. Um, and my my take on affordability for this is I just wish they could build 10 times as many units on this site. That's what would really help. Thank you, Commissioner Shelurn. Perhaps it's something that could we could ask to discuss in strategic planning. Other questions? Commissioner. Um, I agree with Commissioner Otwell. I'm in I'm in support of additional housing. I'm just curious. There is that one R10 to the north that seems a little bit arbitrary. There's town homes right across the street. What is it that the R10 is affording to be able to do for sale town homes here that we're not just dropping an R10 in the middle of R sixes? Again, thinking about existing homeowners who bought their homes at a certain time, understanding the zoning around them. Why do we need to drop an R10 in here versus an R six when their town homes right across the street worth? [Music] Yeah, that's a that's a great question, Commissioner Haver, and it is it is an ability to increase density within the site. I I do want to talk about the the neighborhood a little bit. We had a neighborhood meeting. I think our first our first neighborhood meeting was this summer. Uh there was no second neighborhood meeting required, but we kept in touch with a handful of neighbors. um some that live in the Ashworth Town community, some that live in those recently built single family homes just to our southwest. I can say that the interactions that we've had with those neighbors have been positive. They they see this as a a a good sign for their neighborhood. Um the the one thing that we have heard from neighbors in this area is is really just about maintaining some sort of tree buffer. Um particularly for those homes that are uh or those town homes at at Ashworth to our east because this is over two acres. We're going to have to set aside 10% of our site as tree conservation area. We don't have primary tree conservation area on this site. We don't have any environmentally sensitive areas. So when we look at the areas where that TCA would be located, we're really looking at the northern and eastern boundaries um for for our secondary um which I think is going to do an effective job of of both keeping the um you know the most prominent um you know oak trees um and and other you know sort of heritage trees that you might find in that that back corner um as well as to just create some visual break for folks. Um but you're right there there are existing town homes here under R six. this is an opportunity to be able to get uh more town homes into this site. Um, and I think that, you know, even with an R10 zoning and and with, you know, denser town homes than what R six uh currently allows, it's compatible with the development that we've seen over the last decade along both like Carolina Grove Avenues, Powell Drive, and the neighbors that we've interacted with seem to view this as a positive for the community. So, um, I hope that wasn't too long of an answer, but I just want to give you some some background on that. Other questions? Do you have some? Okay. If not, I will entertain a motion. Anyone? Anyone? Commissioner Fox. I. In regards to case Z2725, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated October 14th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. Have a second. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed. That is how many are there of us? Eight to one. Yes. Commissioner Otwell, would you like to state your opposition? I've been pretty consistent in voting against these cases where the frequent transit development option is available and offers uh similar types of intensity. Would you like to include something? Uh, I guess we voted already, but would you like to send a consideration to council that they can look at the FTDO or allow us to discuss it in strategic planning? We have to ask, right? Um, Binham. So, would you like to I think my vote will stand as my statement and I do believe that staff is aware of the issue and tracks this and so I think that they're on top of it. Okay, great. Thank you. As chair of strategic planning, quick question. Um, do we have to get council's permission to discuss items in strategic planning? Uh, I think Binham just said we do. I think for this issue that you should ask for council support. Okay. Thank you. Moving on then to our next um new business item Z2825 2126 Sanderford Road. We'll turn to Matt McGregor for a staff presentation. I think that's a good call. Good morning, um, commission and chair. Yes. As previously stated, my name is Matt McGregor. I'll be presenting on Z2825. The address is 2126 Sanderford Road. The request is to reszone approximately 3 acres from residential 4 to residential 10 with conditions and planning commission deadline for action is December 13th. Excuse me. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential. Um surrounding zoning is R4, R six, R10 and further north up Rock Quarry Road you have some neighborhood mixeduse and office mixeduse. Here is a wider look at the site. Um directly across the street you have some moderate scale residential. Further north up Rock quarry um you have some neighborhood mixuse and then most of the surrounding area is low-scale residential. There's also a couple churches surrounding the area and the Crosslink Community Garden is not too far away from the site. And then um souththeast east down uh Rock Corey Road you have um southeast Raleigh High School and um there is a community center and fire station immediately directly to the south of the um 7th Day Adventist Church that you see at the bottom. Another look at the site. Um, if you can see up here in that shopping center, there's a food line, a couple retail, and um, smaller restaurants and such. Here are two street views of the site. Um, there is not necessarily a very good overall comprehensive view of the site. Um, so I try to get both angles coming in. Uh you have a northnortheast facing view and a south south uh west facing and there is one existing residential structure on the site. Only one condition was proposed. Um it basically prohibits uses otherwise generally allowed in R10 such as schools, telecoms, towers and outdoor sports and entertainment facilities. The existing zoning uh is R4 and this is a look at the maximum uh the maximum entitlement estimated under R4. Um I would like to note that like the previous Z27 case, this is located in a frequent transit development area. Um but these numbers that you see do not reflect um them using that option. The site has a higher walk score than average, higher transit score, and a higher bike score than average. They also have a higher transportation cost index and a higher job proximity than average. So, it's pretty accessible. There are three bus service routes that are within I'd say about a three-minute walk of the site, very close. Um, you can reach uh you can get to Route 17. Um, if you cross Rock Quarry, the Sorry, excuse me. The yellow uh star is obviously the property. You can also get to route um 7L uh Caroline Pines connector and you can get to route five the Builtmore Hills connect connector and route five is basically almost like directly outside of the property so it's right there. The request will add to housing supply but um again as FA stated they are not including subsidized units. Um, the request does permit a variety of housing types, smaller units, smaller lot sizes, and it's within walking distance of transit. The area is more racially diverse than the citywide average at about 95% compared to citywide average at 46. Uh, it also has a higher percentage of low-income residents, um, about 59%. And the median gross rent in this area has risen, um, about 52% since 2016, which is higher than the average increase of about 25. The requested R10 uh sorry the requested R10 district is consistent with low-scale residential on the future land use map. Um it is located in a frequent transit area but front issues are not applied to residential zoning. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan and again the future land use map. Here are list of consistent policies. They basically just talk about future land use map consistency, um, zoning and infrastructure impacts, missing middle housing, housing variety and zoning for housing. And the only two inconsistent policies I could find were your um, standard uh, fire response time standards. Um but again I wanted to say that um fire station 10 I believe is like less than half a mile away. So uh there are no outstanding issues and deadline for action is December 13th. Um upcoming PC meetings are listed and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Turning to public comment. The applicant and those in support have 10 minutes. lost it. Sorry. All right. Good morning. Uh, Chair Bennett, members of the planning commission, Toby Coleman, uh, with Smith Anderson here on behalf of the applicant, uh, and property owner, Ivan Holloway. Um Ivan is here today. Uh and uh this is a this is sort of this is not a uh situation where we're seeking a reasonzoning um so that because he has a property under contract rather this is a property that Ivan has had in his family for uh since the 60s and so he's he's seeking to reszone it um to actually so it can actually be uh developed in a useful manner. um you know in looking at this property um we sort of looked at the surrounding areas um and one of the things I noted in sort of looking at it is you know this property is right at the intersection of Rock Corey and Sanderford and I sort of that's a line of my own creation but if you take a look at that you know in the abs except for sort of the subdivisions here and here what you see is is that um the both the zoning and the future land use me map designations uh for this rock corey corridor are pretty dense. Uh there a lot of mixed use zoning uh designations and a lot of um denser uh future land use map designations. Um and so that's sort of how we came to R10. It's it's a it's a bit of a it's a denser designation than the current R4 zoning, but is consistent. Um also note that, you know, although there's R4 to the north here, if you look at the future land use map, it's actually a neighborhood mixed use, I believe. Um, one of the things we also looked at was is, you know, is this a walkable sort of uh property that that's ideal for uh denser development and it is. Um, so you've got, as the staff report noted, there's a a shopping center uh and within walking distance, half mile existing sidewalks, uh, with a food line, uh, a library and and shops. Um, there's three different city parks within walking distance, um, as you can see there in the green. Um, in addition, it is on a uh on the Builtmore Hills bus route, which is a frequent transit route, comes every 15 minutes. Um, and that's really why um I think staff determined that uh this is consistent uh because it is in a frequent transit area. And so one of the policies that you have in the comp plan says that additional density is appropriate around current and future uh frequent transit routes. Um, you know, one of the questions that was asked before that obviously I I agree is relevant is, okay, well, you're in a frequent transit area, so why not use the frequent transit development option? And the answer is pretty simple. Uh, the frequent transit development option has a major problem that everybody that staff knows about, uh, but has not been fixed. uh it's been raised for a few years now which is that uh it does not recognize that town home lots or other sort of higher density lots need to be narrower. So when you look at the the standard regulations for uh town homes um the standard regulation for town homes says that uh town you know typically in R4 you can't do town homes or you have very limited ability to do town homes. Part of that's why you reszone to R10. Uh I think it's 16 feet widths is the standard width uh in a conventional development. That's how the UDO describes it. Uh when you when you flip to the frequent transit development option, it doesn't recognize that you can build 16 foot lots for town homes. Doesn't say that. There's an error probably. I mean, I don't know. I don't know what staff's position is, but um it just says that the lot width for any lot being developed under frequent transit development must be 45 feet wide in R10 and 65 ft wide in R4. So even if you wanted to even if you wanted to stay in R4, comply with the frequent transit development option which says if you go above 12 uh residential units, you have to provide 20% uh affordable housing. you could not reasonably develop town homes with uh you know in a standard format because you would have to put them on either 65 foot wide w lots or 45 foot wide lots. Um this is something frankly the development uh community has been screaming about for a while. Um but there are some as I understand it some complications pending court cases etc that have sort of put things on pause in terms of correcting that. So that is our answer as to why we don't use the frequent transit development option. Um this is you know other thing I'll note is is that you know this is really something when you look at the um comp plan it says you know that what what the goal is is to get density that diversifies home types which is what the R10 zoning will do but also respects neighborhood scale. And again by staying within residential not going to mixed use that's we're we're staying within the neighborhood scale. I'll just note that, you know, this is pulled, this little excerpt is pulled from the staff report. So, it allows a slight increase from 40 to 45 feet in maximum height and the residential units over 3 acres goes from 12 to 25. So, not a huge huge bump. Um, so anyway, with that, we're available for questions. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this item? Okay. Um, the opposition has a total of 10 minutes. Is there anyone opposed to this case? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the table for questions from commissioners. Wow. Comments, statements. Okay. Oh, wait. I see Commissioner Fox and Commissioner Miller. I I was just going to say um I was not finding any inconsistency with it and I appreciate um the very well articulated issues with the townhouse development and the FTDO option. I've found that challenging as well. Um so at the appropriate time, I'm ready to support this case. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. I'm ready to make a motion. You guys fight it out. Um sure. Um I move to approve rezoning case uh double check Z2825 and to adopt the proposed consistency statement contained in today's agenda materials have a second second. Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? Commissioner Well, same as before, but let's state it for the record. Same as before. I tend to vote against these cases where similar uh densities can be achieved through the frequent transit development option. I fully understand the limitations that the development community faces and I agree that a fix needs to be enacted. The decision to develop town homes and not apartments is the developers and not the cities and not the zoning commission's uh prerogative. And I will uh I think my vote stands as a as a sign that the city should take a look at this as soon as possible. Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. Fair enough. Moving on to our final new business item Z3025 Hodgej Road. Um, Matthew Burns will give us a staff presentation. Thank you. Good morning again, Chair Bennett, members of the planning commission, Matthew Burns with planning and development. This is a request to reszone just about 2 acres from Wake County residential 30 to residential 10 with conditions. And this request is associated with annexation case AX2525. And your deadline for action is December 13th. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential uh with Wake County residential zoning districts to the east and northeast and uh city of Raleigh PD the banks 20 PD to the west. Here is an aerial of the site showing um the banks 20 plan development to the west and south which proposes a mix of single family um a variety of uses really but uh a mix of single family detached houses as well as town houses uh with some commercial uh in the northwest. And then uses to the east and north are predominantly uh rural residential type uh and or agricultural. Here is uh a zoomed in uh view of the site. So the banks 20 plan development proposes uh 550 lots um and the site is across the street from the Valleywoods mobile estates um modular home site. So this zoom out here is just to show you that the property is uh encompassed by the bank's 20pd and in fact this resoning the intent of it is to facilitate um a connection to this plan development. Here are some views of the site. There is an existing single family home on the property. The applicant is proposing a single zoning condition which would prohibit all building types except the open lot building type. So this would effectively prohibit residential uses on the property. The site is uh has a below average walk score, below average bike score, uh average transportation costs, and below average access to jobs. Uh however the site is not served by transit. The request would subtract from the housing supply does not address affordability, does not permit a variety of housing types, and does not permit smaller units. Area residents are more likely to be minorities compared to the city average, are less likely to be low income than the city average, and the cost of rent has increased um comparably to the city ride average of 20 26%. The request is consistent uh with the rural residential feature land use designation. There is no urban form guidance on the site and so the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and uh with the future land use map. Consistent policies are related to future land use and zoning consistency um open space preservation and the zoning of annex lands and inconsistent policies are related to zoning for housing uh as well as response time standards for fire. Uh so when this was published there were no outstanding issues. However, uh the property appears to have changed ownership recently. Um so the resoning application and the annexation petition will need to be updated to reflect the new ownership and that can be accomplished either as a technical correction in between planning commission and council or it could be included as a recommendation um should you choose to make a recommendation on this request today. Uh please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Um, moving to public comment. The applicant and those in support have 10 minutes. [Music] Good morning, Chair Bennett and commissioners. Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group, here on behalf of the applicant, Homes, and now owner. Um, we are working to address that situation. Um, but in the meantime, uh, you heard a fairly unusual, uh, case presented just now. So, I wanted to, uh, help you understand what's what's going on here. So, this map is of the city of Raleigh corporate limit. So, the gray areas are within the city. Uh, everything else is not. Uh, and so you see that parcel that is outlined in red. It is sort of a chip out out of the side of this this area. And as you heard, that area is uh APD. So this planned development was reszoned a few years ago. It is over 520 acres in size. Uh and you have heard that uh a number of homes have been proposed for it. This is a phased development. Uh and in fact, that total number will be closer to 1,800 homes. It is a mixeduse site overall. Uh and so as part of the process of of working out the design of this area, um it was determined that uh that including this parcel as part of the site plan, not the PD, but as part of the site plan, um would would simply make a more uh rational and better designed plan. And that that's true in a couple of different ways. Um here is what would be proposed uh if if reszoned. And and as you saw, most buildings are prohibited except for accessory structures to an open lot use. Uh and this is why uh with a 520 plus acre development certainly uh there will be uh many many acres of open space of roadways of of other uses that happen and this would be part of that. Uh so the idea would be to uh simply put that roadway connection uh in a better location rather than routing it up around to the north there around this parcel. uh being able to make a more direct connection to Hajj Road. Um and probably more importantly allowing the uh the roadway frontage, the streetscape to be completed. Uh because as you saw this um the planned development surrounding it uh would would would go all the way around that parcel and complete the streetscape to the north and to the south of this parcel, but would leave a gap um if if this parcel were not brought in as part of that site plan. Um, so it is a relatively simple request before you today. I do have with me today Kippy Posnik from Homes the applicant. Uh, and we are both available for your questions. Thank you. Thank you, Molly. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in support of this item? Um, those opposed have a total of 10 minutes. Okay, bringing it back to the table. Questions from commissioners? [Music] Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Miller. Motion to approve resoning case Z3025 and to adopt the proposed consistency statement contained in today's agenda materials. Have a second. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. That incl concludes our new business items. Moving on to other business report of the chair. Just a couple items today. Um I want to remind us all to respond to the email, the distribution email when you're going to be absent from PC. Thank you um for doing that. It helps um staff record our absences and keep track of them. Um also make sure you're letting the committee chairs know if you can't make a committee meeting. Um I know we're all balancing a lot of things and um this volunteer commitment. So please do your best to make those committee meetings if you can um so we don't have to cancel because of the lack of kora. Um second reminder um for us as well as the public in addition to the engagement portal summary provided in our staff reports our backup materials also include summaries of neighborhood meetings along with attendance list. The backup materials also include the actual resoning application which details information that is often summarized in the staff report like conditions for example. So if you're not reading these already, I encourage you to look at the material provided in the agenda and not just the staff report. Sometimes we get questions about um if we're checking engagement beyond what's reported in the engagement portal, which often is zero. Um and yes, we are. Please feel free to reach out to staff if you have questions about staff reports. Lastly, there have been some inquiries about conflicts of interest. If you have a specific question about whether or not you have a conflict on a particular case, please reach out to our assistant city attorney. Um, and also, while it's not required, based on some feedback we've received, I'd like to request that we disclose if we live in proximity to a resoning as I did today with the Leville Road one. Um, again, that's not required, but just for transparency purposes and because there have been some inquiries, um, just state for the record that, um, you know, you live in the neighborhood in the notification area, whatever. Um, and that you don't have a financial interest. If you do, then you would recuse yourself. Any further questions? Please check with the the city attorney. I I guess just proximity is pretty use your judgment. Random. Use your judgment. Um lots of times we have people at the table say, "I live in this neighborhood. Um I live adjacent to this resoning." If it's in your neighborhood, if you're on the notification list, then I just request that you state that. If you're not sure, then state it and be really really careful. I mean, um, that's not a requirement again, but just to quell some of the inquiries that we get and to remove any questions about the integrity of our process, let's be as transparent as we can. Is that to be done in the public forum or Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure. Okay. Thank you. Um, we'll move along with now with report of the members. Awesome. Thank you. Uh I went down before the meeting, but I'm just going to remind everybody committee of the whole meeting is on October 23rd um at 4 pm. Just by a quick show of hands, those who are able to attend that meeting, our goal is to get to a count of six. One, two, three. Look at that. Okay. There is uh one item on that agenda. Is that correct? I'm sorry. Commissioner Shelurn, did you say I just say if it were remote I could tune in. Um BM just wanted to verify there's only one item on that agenda. Item that's right. Okay. That's the Brier Creek Town PD. Yeah. McCall, please. Awesome. Thank you. Uh no other no other comment. Thank you, Chair Bennett. Uh we have a text change committee meeting tomorrow, tomorrow afternoon at 400 p.m. in room 305 and we will have another chance to talk about historic preservation and the RHDC. Um so I would see if we can get a quorum check for that if we're going to be there. Two three three, that's four. That's there we are. So great. We'll see y'all tomorrow afternoon and hold that meeting. I have a quick personal comment um kind of related to one of the uh cases we saw today. The city council is very likely to vote to put a moratorum on annexation requests. No, no, it is not a moratorum. I apologize. The city council is concerned with annexations and is getting ready to take action about considering them. I don't think that the case that we saw today was uh implicated in the kind of issues that they're concerned about, but I think it's something that bears us paying attention to. And perhaps with a retreat coming up, it would be good to learn more about it because some of us obviously need to be better informed about what it actually is. Um, and it's related also, I think, tangentally to the uh to the fire service issue, which I also understand there has been a master plan for the fire uh service that has been released. And I would love to hear more about that potentially at a retreat or in some other venue as well. And so that'll do it for me. Thank you. Thanks so much. Um, I wanted to thank Chair Bennett for um the the policy push towards um transparency and um maintaining the integrity of this body. I think that it's been a a really great um body to be a part of and just glad to see in addition that we continue to really care about that. So that's fantastic. um uh no report from strategic planning, but I did just want to add on the topic of what the strategic planning committee is allowed to study. I think that is laid out in state statute and we um I don't believe there's any limitation on um having to get council's approval to study something. It might not be advisable at a certain time and I'm totally uh appreciate that. Um, not saying that we should take up that FTDO option, but just for procedural purposes, maybe we should, if there is an open question or if the state law has changed, worth maybe taking a look at that. I think it it it really is a a council policy. So about 25 years ago, council um issued a resolution exempting the QJ the quasi judicial boards like yourself from submitting a work plan. And when you work quasi judicial when when you are doing exercising your quasi judicial duties. So we think and council has expressed and I it's desire that commissions work on things that are in their strategic plan and mission. So we would advise that you get council approval before you send something to committee. I hear you. This has been a not attention recently in recent years but it was definitely attention eight to 10 years ago. Um that was also hotly debated and um I am not proposing sending anything to strategic planning at that time but wanted to recognize for others the tension that exists there. Thank you. [Applause] Make a comment. As a newer commissioner, I appreciate um Dwight bringing up the FTDO in a very spirited way on multiple cases. Um because that led me to start googling and like you know chat gpting like why you know developers or slash applicants aren't doing that or checking that box um to speak. And then when uh Toby actually spelled it out, that was extremely helpful. So um bringing up in those committees is great. And or perhaps um when that comes before us a case, if we could explain that for the public because I think maybe there are other people in the public that don't understand uh what the FTDO uh rep represents. So it's just my feedback. No report. Thank you. No report for me. Uh, no report. Uh, no report, but I would note that the 2030 comprehensive plan apparently is now in phase two. And this is something that we as a commission are at least partially responsible for administering upon it becoming final. So it just as a observation that potentially maybe we should have some role in that document being drafted again since we're to have a part in its implementation. Thank you. And now for the report of the assistant director. Thank you Chair Bennett. I wanted to remind you again of our November special meeting time. We will be meeting on Wednesday, November 12th at 10:00 a.m. in this room. Because of the Veterans Day holiday, we have business for that meeting. Can I get a visual quorum check for that meeting? The 12th is a Wednesday at at 10:00 a.m. One, two, three. That's That's enough. Okay. Thank you. Uh, I spoke with Chair Bennett about scheduling your retreat. At this time, we were looking for times in January after the new year. And then I also wanted to respond to Commissioner Shelurn, your comment about the development of the new comprehensive plan. We have concluded phase one. We'll be talking with city council about that this afternoon actually at a work session. Uh one of the components of the phase two work coming up is something that we are calling technical teams which will be made up of staff members uh board and commission members uh and also uh experts from the community. So definitely a role for planning commission in those technical teams. Uh we can we can talk more about that. We're just getting going on organizing and recruiting that, but you will definitely be hearing more from us about that. And I'm certainly happy to bring anformational presentation to you about the conclusions of phase one and the preview of phase two. We can look at the calendar and find a time when you have time to hear that and uh bring that to you I hope before the retreat. Thank you. Thank you. Bam. Anything else? If not, we're ajourned. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. [Music]