[Music] oh [Music] and uh we welcome you all to tonight's public hearing and um be before I start um I will say we had a long um conversation today about public comment we are not going to be discussing anything further tonight but I just wanted to say that we may recheck in on that in two weeks so um and that would be the proposal that we voted on today that took it from on the second Tuesday from three hours to two hours so just putting that public notice out there so that folks can come weigh in um on that again no guarantee where that goes but we will likely revisit that um in two weeks so that notice all right so then um starting with the public hearings we have the street closing uh STC 06 2024 and we have Amanda Jones from transportation to speak to it uh good evening Madame mayor and council members my name is Amanda Jones with Transportation I'll be giving you the first two presentations this evening uh the first one we have today is Rocky Branch Creek Drive so the area indicated red is the closure area it is between Saunders Street and Dawson Street so this closure area is approximately 7,000 square ft that was dedicated with phase one of Park City South um Park City South is 10.1 acres of land within the triangular-shaped area bounded by South sa Street to the West South Dawson Street to the East and Western Boulevard to the north so the master plan for Park City South has now been amended to relocate that street within phase two of Park City south and that street will connect Saunders to Dawson uh there would need to be a water easement retained upon this closure if approved and the closure does align with policy T 2.7 of the 2030 comprehensive plan and lastly this is a page from that amended um master plan it ISS a different orientation than what you saw saw earlier so you have Saunders Street to the north and Dawson Street to the south of the page um the new Street location is to the left of the screen and like I said before it will be connecting Dawson to Saunders and um it indicated in red is where Rocky Branch Creek Drive currently is today and that was my presentation all right questions for Miss Jones counselor Patton um just confirming if I've understood correctly this meets the city's connectivity goals this cons considered to be this street closure does not impact our connectivity goals correct yes and I believe we do have some people that signed up from the development team too if you any other questions okay so then I can open the public hearing all right and we we have a few people that are signed up in support and Michael bur is the first person good evening Madame mayor members of council worth Mills here on behalf of the applicant uh filling in for Michael Burch this uh this evening uh the this street closure uh was kind of always part of the plan for Park City South um as mentioned uh with the removal of this small section of right of way uh phase two of Park City South is providing that connection between uh South Dawson uh and South Saunders uh to make sure that folks can get uh from one to the other uh once once both phases are built uh but happy to answer any other questions that you might have this evening right questions all right thank you so much next speaker is Jennifer Ashton I'll just note that I'm covering for all three today okay all right uh and there is no Opposition signed up so I can close the hearing yes um I move to adopt the resolution ordering the closing and the related actions second okay any further discussion if not all in favor of the motion I I all oppose nay right and it passes thank you [Music] next item we have another Street closing which is a portion of common Oaks Drive rideway STC 07224 so here we have the area indicated in red is to the north of common Oaks Drive you can see Capitol Boulevard is to the east of here um it is a very small unimproved bull bout so this closure area is approximately 1 1545 square feet ASR 28 2021 has been approved for a 61 unit Senior Living fac facility at this location and development would be making improvements along common Oaks Drive common Oak Drive is an Avenue two-lane divided Street type and this closure area is in excess right away and this closure does align with our policy T 2.7 of the 2030 comprehensive plan and here is the site plan of that senor your living facility the area indicated um in yellow would be where the clerc is located okay questions for Miss Jones all righty so we will open the hearing and we have four speakers signed up in support of this um I will call up Pamela Porter good evening Madame mayor members of council Pam Porter with tmta Associates I'm here with the owner and developer of the site um as well as the civil engineer and those are the other three people that sign up to speak and we're all available for questions all right thank you thank you next we had Marcos Vidal I'm covering from them unless you have questions just so they don't have to walk thanks any any questions no all right there is no one signed up in opposition so we'll close the public hearing on this move to adopt the resolution of street closure okay any further discussion if not I'll in favor of the motion I I I'll oppose nay motion the eyes have it thank you and then next we have Miss recal to talk about uh the rezoning Z 0424 on 9 Lewisburg road yeah good evening Hannah recal Planning and Development so this request and the following item are for the same property um so we can provide a joint presentation with all the information up front before you proceed with the two separate hearings I'll start with the rezoning uh z42 24 so the site is 59 Lewisburg Road it's a little over 20 acres in size currently re currently zoned r10 the request is to rezone to residential mixed use 7 stories conditional use so the context of the site here you can see it's largely undeveloped uh mainly residential of a variety of uh housing types and and scales in the surrounding area this green line is a planned uh but not built Greenway Corridor some views of the site from Lewisburg Road and uh here's a summary of the proposed condition there are seven uh they cover some prohibited land uses restrictions on the total number of residential units which are capped at 700 uh Building height limitations So within the seven requested seven story districts they're limiting themselves to six stories and 90 ft requirement for a 25t protective yard along Lewisburg Road uh a condition requiring a portion of the units to be established as affordable uh condition six is um a a commitment to the development agreement work and then the final condition is to construct a fence along the northern and Eastern property boundaries so I won't go into too much detail about the development agreement you'll get that info in a moment um but at a very very high level it is for construction of a multi-use path on the site and it uh specifies the timing of that and kind of the cost share between the city and the applicant and again very high level this is the proposed alignment of that is a southern part of the uh property so existing versus proposed zoning it's currently zoned uh with a residential district uh requesting a mixed use District um the small amount of office and non-residential land use permitted in RX is really only permitted at the corner of two public streets so that's um subject to their being a new public Street um and then the the maximum number number of residential units is increasing quite a bit and is capped by that proposed uh condition on the future land use map the site is designated medium scale residential uh the requested district is taller than that designation envisions uh the requested district is more in line with the higher scale residential uh category uh so it is inconsistent with the future land use map and then on the urban form map uh Lewisburg road is designated Parkway Corridor so that would like to see a Parkway Frontage or otherwise a landscaping along um along the street Frontage it does not include a front edge it does include a condition uh requiring a landscaped area of 25 ft in depth uh for comparison the parkway Frontage would require one of 50 feet in depth along with other um requirements so the request is inconsistent uh with the urban form designation uh but it is consistent overall with the comprehensive plan um policies that are uh it is consistent with you can see here touch on a number of topics um including um policies regarding the greenway system inconsistent policies uh these first two are really touching on the height taller than the future land use map recommends also taller than the surrounding development currently and then the last policy is is noting that not all fire response time standards are currently met for the site uh so as I mentioned the um request is more in line with the higher scale residential designation so if approved uh the amendment to the Future luse map would be to that designation and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval uh you can see their finding here and with that I will pass it along to Ken Bowers to talk through the development agreement good evening K Bowers with Planning and Development um before I go through this quick slideshow just three quick points I think this is the first time that uh staff and the city have negotiated development agreement to run concurrently with the resoning case so this is a we're plowing new ground even though this is a tool that's been available in the statutes for the second thing is although we've combined the presentations um this is the development agreement has to be a separate public hearing that um can be open has to be separately opened and closed before you can vote and then thirdly um because the development agreement is a condition of the resoning the vote on the resoning should occur prior to the vote on the development agreement um so that uh if the vote on the uh resoning is deferred then the vote on this on the development agreement should be deferred as well so anyway the aerial here shows a trail that goes from goes across the site and Crosses Lewisburg Road and goes through another site that's under the same ownership by the same Development Group and this kind of shows this so you have Wallingford Drive on the North End the trail will Connect into Wallingford Drive providing access uh to the neighborhood residents who already live in this area to this Trail it will um start on the city property cross the stream and then go um down the uh western edge of the of the resoning site to Lewisburg Road there will be a signalized pedestrian Crossing installed by the developer there and the an earlier resoning case that had amended conditions from 2022 calls for extension of that Greenway Trail down to Kyle Drive which will then provide access into the river cane Wetland Park which is a pending Park project so um this is not only a Greenway uh uh cor that's on the greenway master plan but also um provides uh will provide enhanced connectivity into a new park facility that that this funded so this again shows the trail alignment uh the city owns this property uh uh on that was originally bought for the greenway but because of where the creek is it's advantageous to have the trail on the private property line side so only a minor portion of this is on the city property so uh we're walling for we're connecting to Walling for Drive um it's on the city property then it bridges over the stream and then the trail runs um along the developer property and then easement will be dedicated to to ensure Public Access for that going forward um this is a diagram of the signalized intersection and the development team has coordinated with ncdot uh to gain their uh approval for this concept um this leverages some of the infrastructure that's going to be installed for the um left turn lane but it's going to create a pedestrian Refuge with curve that's protected by curb and a push button actuated signal to stop traffic so that folks can cross um this busy Road us 401 safely where the trail lands um if it's not entirely uh apparent here where's a little drawing not um right here is a little section of private lot that the city will probably need some coordination to bring that sidewalk up to the developers property on the South Side um from that point onward it'll be the developers responsibility to construct the rest of the trail so the basic terms of the agreement um are um that the developer will Design permit and construct The Greenway Trail which will include The Pedestrian Crossing on Lewisburg Road they will contribute 50% of the cost towards that effort and the trail must be complete um and to the city's satisfaction before the 50th certificate of occupancy is issued out of this uh proposed 700 unit development the city responsibilities are to make the city property available for the trail connection to Wallingford um which includes any agreements for right of access during the construction period acquire any property interest needed to complete the trail along that southern side of Lewisburg Road and then reimburse the developer uh for 50% of the cost of the trail the action again when you're ready for a vote is that if you find the terms of the agreement appropriate you would approve the agreement authorizing um the appropriate City official to execute the agreement um uh within the approval of the agreement subject to the council's approval of the resoning case and I'm available for any questions councelor silver again just a question it didn't mention who's going to maintain the trail uh is that the I know there's going to be an easement but just clarify who's going to maintain the trail the city it'll the city will take ownership and maintenance of the trail upon completion any other questions for Mr Bowers along with that if the city is going to maintain are there any costs that have been um discussed as to what that maintenance is going to look like moving forward for us it's not a term of the development agreement it would be the cost of any addition to the greenway system I don't know if anyone from Parks wants to elaborate on that there there will be obviously as we expand the system the maintenance cost of the systems do go up somewhat but that's part and parcel of expanding the park system uh along with the expansion of the City's population and that comes straight from our general fund right that's where those costs come from yes okay thank you okay well I'll go ahead and open the hearing for the rezoning and that is for Z 0424 and we had two people signed up in support Matthew Carpenter good evening mayor and members of council Matthew Carpenter with Parker Poe 301 fville street here this evening on behalf of the developer and property owner the Halle companies uh also with me this evening is Eric riffkin with the hle companies Eric's the COO of North Carolina um and and appreciate the summary that staff shared I'll get into the the details in a moment but this you know the general overview of this case is that it's a resoning and development agreement for market rate and affordable apartment units um and the construction of Greenway infrastructure under the development agreement um so the the location of this site is really what led to the partnership with with the city here um you can see our site is just on the north side of Lewisburg Road it's 21 Acres uh outlined in red on your screen the The city-owned Greenway property is just to the left of our site um it's around 13 acres as staff mentioned it's mostly flood plane um and so it's a very wet area and then if you move South of there um is is another project that hi's undertaking that's the the 5,000 luberg Road resoning that's another apartment site that resoning was approved in 2023 and and that property is in site plan review now um and similar to this project that that property included 3 and a half% of units as affordable um and Greenway construction so we're really seeking to to mimic that here um and to extend the greenway corridor across both sites um and then to the south of of the 5000 site there's also the the Kyle Drive property um which the city's owned for for some time and I know there are are longer term Park plans there um and so the idea is is to to connect the greenway through this area um that benefits the the residents here and and the city overall through expanding connectivity the the current zoning here is r10 which does permit multif family um but it only allows buildings up to three stories and so what we're requesting is RX7 um we're not asking for seven Stories the conditions limited to six the reason for the district is that I think the the next lowest district is five um and so we we had to request that RX7 designation um and we are asking for additional density and our hope through crafting the conditions and working through the the development agreement with staff um is that this resoning offers a better alternative to developing the site by right even if it includes more density it includes those public benefits the affordable housing component um and the The Greenway construction and so the the there are seven conditions as staff mentioned the first three address density height and the streetscape um the the 25-ft planted streetcape buffer that is to speak to the parkway Corridor designation um as staff mentioned that recommends a 50-ft buffer um but what we've seen in reviewing this Lewisburg Road Corridor is that buffer the 50 Foot buffer along Lewisburg Road has has largely not been um been maintained and so what we're proposing in lie of that is a 25ft street skate buffer that still mimics the the intent of the the parkway Corridor designation as you drive down Lewisburg Road you see trees on on both sides of the road um but gives us a little more design flexibility with the site layout uh at site plan um and so that that's the reason behind the 25ft street skate buffer that's the same condition that was also included in the 5,000 Lewisburg Road case and so the buffer on this site will ma also match the buffer on the the south side of of Lewisburg Road um the affordable housing condition commits to 3 and a half% of units at 80% Ami um for a period of 30 years and so th those will be uh essentially Workforce housing units they'll be owned and and developed by and and managed by the developer um so this isn't a situation where you know they're turning over maintenance to the city or responsibility to vet uh potential tenants it'll all be done by the developer um the period the the affordability period when we initially filed was 10 years um and then when we went to Planning Commission we had a discussion at Planning Commission uh about extending that to 30 years because of the Udo rules we couldn't do that live in the Planning Commission meeting um and unfortunately we can't do that tonight either but we have practically speaking committed to 30 years and so um what I'll ask of you you know I'll get through the the rest of my presentation But ultimately we'd like to uh defer this case keep the public hearing open to February 18th so that we can submit the revised conditions with the 30-year affordability period um and then the the next condition is for offense adjacent to the neighborhood transition yard this condition came directly from our neighborhood meetings so when we we heard from folks that live to the north uh and the East here right up along the property line um they were really concerned about residents cutting through and walking through their neighborhood you can see that it's sort of faint but there's there's no platted buffer on those lots um and so the the neighborhood transition yard in the Udo has some optionality where you can widen the buffer and not do a fence or you can narrow the buffer and do a fence um and so with this condition we'll have a fence you know regardless of the buffer width um to to hopefully provide some some separation for those existing homeowners um Ken did a great job explaining the the development agreement uh but we we really are appreciative of staff and and their willingness to work through the process with us uh and specifically the the urban projects Group which played a big role in helping us get the development agreement done um but it's for over 1,300 linear feet of Greenway Trail so it's a really long trail um as Ken mentioned it's shown across the city- owned property but because that site has so much flood plane um the the developer View and the cities for that matter is that it'll be easier to build if we can push it out of the flood plane onto our site um and and there are also you know efficiencies to be gained by the the developer doing it when they're they're grading the overall site um and so you know you saw the the cost breakdown it it's roughly 5050 that the estimated cost of the trail are around um a million dollars a lot of that is mitigation and and the bridge for the stream Crossing just on the the left of your screen um and so that will be a big lift and then you know like I said it's just it's a long trail um a big part of the sort of our feasibility analysis on this was the Lewisburg road crossing um we specifically did a a TIA concurrently with our resoning to ensure that ncdot would allow a stop controlled Crossing at Lewisburg um and our thinking was there was really no point in in building a Greenway if pedestrians couldn't get across Lewisburg Road from the south um to to this portion of the greenway fortunately that the Tia did say that a um a signal is is appropriate there and so that'll be you know a continuous trail with a stop controlled Crossing to safely get across Lewisburg Road um to the north and and this just you've already seen a similar slide from staff but this gives you an overview of the the ultimate Trail and the connectivity it will provide um from the the Kyle Drive property on the bottom of your screen North across Kyle drive to the 5000 Lewisburg Road hi site then hi will build that portion all the way up um to Walling for drive at at the top of the screen so um I think it'll be a good outcome here and and I think it's important we're also placing um residents adjacent to the greenway and so for for those reasons we respectfully request your approval um again we we do request that you defer action to February 18th to allow us to change the affordability term um in the interim so thank you thank you right and I assume Mr riffen you're just seing my time yes seeding your time to him uh and we had no one signed up for the opposition so I will close the public hearing on the resoning case um we will take no action this evening correct you have to make a motion to hold it open okay yeah so excuse me Madame mayor I just want to clarify a point of process for you by closing the public hearing you are starting a 30-day clock okay that limits how long they can modify the case okay I'm not advising you in one direction or another I just want you to be aware of the process so that you know you know all right inally start again to keep it back open I got to say the ging hearing open and close is a new all right we're now back open in the public hearing on zo 424 to me all right yeah questions um I have a question if uh Parks could come down and then do we have solid way Services here in the building okay so I'll just I know it can't be answered today but I definitely want to just uplift my thoughts um as I was listening I just kept hearing our Council Retreat and the discussion we had about and that's annexation and growth but I I definitely want to keep that involved as we're talking about adding 700 units um and a Greenway do you have do you know what the costs are for ongoing maintenance of such a large addition to a Greenway just ballpark what that would add to I do not because that would come in many forms if it's Boardwalk it's one cost if it's concrete another cost so we could bring that back to you having 120 mil of that we certainly have the data to produce it but I couldn't produce it right now yeah sure I'd love to know that and then if since this is a resoning request I'm not sure when that do you have an anticipation of when that would be requested through the budgeting process to be included in our general fund moving forward it will all be based on the triggers of what's in the zoning case for when they have to finish and build the greenway then we would then put that into the city's budget so it won't necessarily be hitting now it could be years from now that's correct okay yes and what we can do for future projects like this we can put those um impacts into the the staff report oh I would love that and and it's as we were talking about um having a well-rounded conversation about costs you know starting new parks new Greenways they're fun it's beautiful but if I don't have the ongoing maintenance and we don't have that conversation here at the table to make sure we're having that then I feel like we're doing ourselves a disservice you know in the future our futur themselves a disservice so I would appreciate that and thank you um I will just highlight and and maybe we can get a response from Solid Waste Services again adding 700 units uh that's if they do trash Recycling and yard waste that might I mean guess yard waste it's a it's apartment so I just like to see hear their thoughts on what their Staffing could accommodate because that's still 700 units but I don't know what that looks like you know you want to use the mic we don't service the apartments they would go through their own vendor to the department on here cool so they wouldn't probably have a number for you so they won't come through us that's their own the private Services correct cool all right thank you then never mind I have a question all right question from councelor Silver I have one Qui question for staff and then Matthew I'd have a question for you uh I noticed that there is it is inconsistent with a comp plan but there is more density the Height's limited um is there a density bonus for affordable housing currently in our code I'm just asking it's been some time since I have dealt imly with the code sure yeah there's um to one in the transit overlay district and the other in the frequent Transit development option neither um are development uh and Matthew a question for you so I'm just looking at there an affordability buil into this you want to continue to hearing to extend it from 10 to 20 years so was this part of from 10 to 30 years uh was this part of the approach of a mix of just market rate and affordable was that the concept coming in um it was we we really wanted to mimic what what we did at 5,000 Lewisburg Road okay um and it was important to us not to put a a trigger on the condition I know a lot of conditions in Raleigh have been you know at after the if 300 units are built then remaining units will be affordable you it was important to make that condition just three and a half% of the total unit so regardless of how many we build a portion will be affordable okay yeah U just as okay thank you so much I know this will this hearing will be continued and I just either the City attorney or the city manager manager um again A lot has changed since I left but I certainly would want to get more insight on zoning conditions related to affordability I'm proud that this city has passed an affordable housing Bond uh to make sure we provide as many affordable housing as possible but also what a planner us want to make sure as we have these deliberations we stay within the state statutes uh when it comes to affordable housing do not want to be in a position of putting the city in any sort of liability but just want to know uh just in the future uh whether there's j a special meeting for us to discuss it being new just want to understand as we have these zoning cases and expectations both from the public and from applicants that I just want to find a little bit more about how some of these conditions evolved but again I am extremely proud of this city and this community finding ways of providing affordable housing just want to get a little bit more understanding about how we approach it as it comes to uh development cases and res zonings the City attorney is nodding she likes that Council silver we are uh working with your uh staff now to try to schedule an orientation with you where we can also cover that issue thank you I appreciate the retreat because I know we discuss this topic uh but now my question will be specific as it relates to zoning requests just want to make sure that we ensure that the city is moving in the right direction okay thank you all right so now again guidance on technical we need to make a motion yeah so you're holding the hearing open yeah I make a motion to um move the oh my gosh now my muscles are cold on the right words move to continue the public hearing to February 18th second for both uhing another one so just just the resoning Z4 24 resoning yes second um all in favor of that motion I I all opposed okay so we will continue that to February 18th and now I will open the development agreement public hearing and once again we have Mr Carpenter from Parker Poe I have no further comments on the development agreement unless there are just questions specific to the agreement great uh any questions on the development agreement okay we also do have opposition uh signed up and that was Mr wahed hobi okay not seeing Mr hoby so uh this one can I so to keep these two together since one's relying on the other we'll leave the public hearing open I move to continue this public hearing until February 18th okay all in favor of the motion I all opposed okay appreciate that all right our next item is resoning z 2024 correct uh 721 Chapel Drive and we have Miss Rec again yes so this is request Z 2024 uh request to rezone one uh property at 721 Chapel Drive it's a little less than 1 acre in size currently zoned r10 requesting rx3 Urban limited conditional use there's also a special residential parking overlay District uh that is being requested to remain so context this is in Southwest Raleigh Chapel Drive is off of a fery road this site backs up to NC State sentenial campus see there's a mix of um residential and institutional use in this area some views of the site from Chapel Drive this is a view head-on of of the of the parcel uh the proposed conditions include a limitation on the number of residential units so no more than 60 dwelling units a affordable housing condition and uh a third condition that would provide uh tenants with an additional EX rather extended uh notice um at the end of their lease uh for demolition of the um existing building so existing versus proposed um really having a mainly an increase in residential entitlement um no uh Real Change uh given the size of the site not really an opportunity to build a new Street here so uh non-res nonresidential land uses would likely not not be permitted uh the site is designated office and residential mixed use on the future land use map requested district is consistent with that designation and the site is also within a frequent Transit area which would recommend uh Urban Frontage the urban limited that's requested is in line with that and the request is consistent overall with the comprehensive plan um some consistent policies here um focusing on the um proximity to existing Transit and um student oriented housing and general housing variety and then the only inconsistent policy is a response time standards so the fire response times are not currently met at the site and then the Planning Commission um recommended unanimously to uh for approval of the request you can see they're finding here um happy to answer any of the questions you have okay questions from Mr recal yep um I apologize if you said this this is located in the FDO this is in the frequent Transit area yeah okay so they could use the FDO to get a density bonus that would provide 20% affordability after the 12th unit that's right yeah that's the one okay but they have theyve opted not to utilize that tool correct okay thank you all right no other questions I can open the public hearing uh for uh 721 Chapel Drive and we have Isabelle Maddox to speak in support good evening Madame mayor and members of council Isabelle Maddox here representing the property owner Beaver Creek land Holdings LLC oh sorry um Isabelle Maddox my I'm with the law firm of Nicholson krampton 3700 Glennwood sweet 500 here tonight representing Beaver Creek land Holdings LLC uh on this Zoning for a small partiel 86 Acres uh we are requesting an up zoning from r10 with special residential overlay to rx3 Urban limited with special residential overlay District um we have had our required neighbors meetings um not a lot lot of neighbor interest here um and staff went through the the um the conditions we've offered the 60 unit Max my client is hoping to do a modern building this is a pretty obsolete building that's on this site um it's uh was built in 1960 so that's getting getting a little old um we did uh discuss with commission having some sort of commitment regarding affordable housing we agreed to a condition we've had other cases where we would do 1% of approved units times $40,000 uh and in discussions with council member Patton she was asking whether that was rounded up or down and I said well actually staff served up some language which we Ed which said round to the nearest 100th um but we have agreed we we did agree we will change that to round it up to the nearest whole number so in this case it'll be one unit um also agreed to provide notice to the existing tenants uh so so they have time to relocate um to give you some context in red you see Centennial Campus and in the tiny little yellow dot right here you see this site so it's very small but right in the kind of corner uh we the street dead ends at the Tammy ly Center um and so there's not going to be a lot of interplay between the apartments and this but there Apartments there now there just going to be more more after this uh development process occurs um again this this shows a little bit better the site Vis Centennial and the Tammy land and the whole street of Chappelle or Chapel I not sure the proper way to pronounce it honestly I've heard many different ways um is mostly multif family housing in that area and this is just a opportunity to upgrade the level housing because it it's it's it's pretty obsolete um again let's just showing the existing zoning uh and we think there are some benefits to um to to approving this case you know it's close to Centennial Campus the target market for the tenants would be uh graduate students professionals who work on Centennial Campus and um faculty it is in a frequent Transit area but we did not elect to use that option um it's it's a choice that the property owner made I feel like we we we can choose that or not and we chose not to use that chose instead to rezone um it is consistent with the comprehensive plan it's consistent with the future land use map um it's also consistent with the urban form map and it was unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission so we like the prior case we are willing to um go make that one change which is a very small change um and come back in two weeks um if that's the will of the council um and you know just as a side note I I've had a conversation with council member Harrison about can't we do something about that little Dead period between Planning Commission and Council because often it's you know month sometimes even two months and you know just to make a little tweak it would seem like it would make sense to allow that and so I I had a brief conversation with bam out in the hall about you know let's let's try to work on that so it's just a thought um anyway but we're willing to come back in two weeks my clients agreed to make that change to the condition and um we actually served up a draft of that to staff today so thank you for um hearing our case and if you have any questions I'm happy to answer those all right uh questions for Miss Madam question of your current 11 units how many are currently occupied I I believe they're all occupied I think they eight actually eight units there's eight units okay what's the time frame in which you're looking to the applicants looking to you know I don't know that precisely I don't think anybody ever knows that but I I'm I'm guessing that they would start working on plans this calendar year but I don't think the construction would start till probably at least a year out so it's probably ballpark three years before there this is you know complete project and you mentioned my last question you mentioned um the new product would focus on graduate students what is this current product those current residents what's their demographics I can't tell you I think it's probably undergraduates but I really don't know okay right councelor Harrison yeah um Isabelle could you tell me more about the conversation at Planning Commission about the use of the ftg versus not I know in the past we've seen some um you know uh commentary about that and I'm just curious how you all settled on the 1% uh we didn't really trying to trying to remember because it's been been a couple months um it came up as you know why aren't you doing this under the frequent Transit option and I said honestly for a small developer it's really hard to do affordable housing you know affordable housing I and I work I represent a lot of affordable developers and they usually have at least three subsidies one from the from the federal government which comes through the state Housing Finance Agency that's the tax credits and then there's usually some money they get from the city and also from the county uh and so and to but to qualify for the federal tax credits administered by the state you have to go through a beauty pageant and they've just submitted their uh request in January 15th because I worked with several developers and they were really in a frenzy to get those things submitted but one of the criteria to get approved is you've got to have experience as an affordable developer and so for somebody who's uh not an affordable developer uh and and and on a project as small as this one you know to try to do an affordable piece to it is really very difficult and so um we have had the same condition in several other cases where we do 1% of approved units and you know I had a case where there were you know several hundred approved units so the the dollar amount was significant in this case the 1% will be if they round it up will be one unit so it won't be a huge amount but still it's a relatively small development a 086 parcel and this developer is a small developer he's a you know bootstrap guy who's done done a lot of good things in Raleigh and he really works hard to make neighbors happy I'm working on another case with him he's you know changed his whole case in response to a neighbor issue um so he he he just doesn't have the kind of resources to do an affordable development uh councelor silver well I know the case isn't going to be uh voted on tonight it'll be deferred but I think you just uh highlighted the point why I think it's critically important uh that we have this conversation uh we did have a retreat to talk about the critical importance of housing affordable housing what we need to do uh but I think this is just highlighting uh that point I mean clearly uh you offered it I noticed uh in your previous slide you said it was requested by the Planning Commission and so again I don't know a city manager and City attorney if we have this conversation it may be beneficial to have the plan commission involved in that as well since they do take a look at it but you know I don't really have any questions but I do look forward to this coming back and I'm pleased by looking at the target audience that is going to be market rate uh for people who really cannot afford more expensive units so I'm assuming with a small developer looking at grad students and faculty or even undergrad students I'm sure is going to be reasonably priced so that uh that place can be occupied yeah and I do think even though we're not doing affordable housing per se the addition of units in Raleigh has an indirect effect of creating affordable housing because it's um the more housing units you have it it changes the level of other housing so um okay any yes yeah another question Isabelle about the current eight units um that are occupied and perhaps this is for staff um there is a question in the backup materials about whether this is naturally occurring affordable housing so just the rental rates that are currently there and I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to ask you about this before um but do you have a sense of what those rates are I think that question came up and I believe my client said it's about 800 $ per bedroom um and so I think these are probably two bedroom units I'm not positive about that but so it's I think it's $800 per bedroom is is what I recall okay I wonder if staff could you speak to how we define whether we have Noah on site because we have asked or looked at some support for tenants you know for certain properties and I know that has come up yeah so like the staff report notes um one thing we're looking at is the age of the structure um that sort of generally aligns with with price um there has been um the uh triangle J Council of governments now um blanking on their name now Central pin Central Pines thank you um has done in the past done a a a sort of census of of affordable units but that um I don't believe they've updated that in a few years um so we're sort of trying to provide as much uh information in that staff report as we can to that point okay thank you all right councelor P I have a question for staff not directly related to the case um but we we sort of heard heard this theme before which is that you know an applicant could have otherwise used the FDO and they opt for resoning instead um with this sort of so I'm just curious about um what data and record keeping we are we are keeping on feedback on the FDO and um like analysis we're doing if the tool is calibrated the right way yeah good evening Pat young planning and development director that's a great question and we are um looking at each of the cases where the ftda was eligible but where zoning was sought and um we have scheduled we have not done yet followup report follow up with these developers to really de do a deep dive on what was the decision- making Point what was the threshold because our goal as I think is you all's goal is to calibrate that uh bonus so that it's used more frequently so that's what you should expect us to bring you something back in the coming months on that y Isabelle would you remind us one more time what is the change that you're already going to be needing to make or planning to make to come back oh the change is just a in the affordable condition to say that it's it's 1% and and the language says to the 100th of decimal point we're say round it up to the nearest home number and you have to make any changes by Friday that's if we set it for two weeks from now that's right okay and I think we can do that okay so just to put that on anyone's radar if you have any concerns or want to see anything else for this case if we set it for two two weeks from now Isabelle has till Friday to finalize anything all right so I'm going to close the hearing uh leave it open okay yeah leave it open and is there anyone else to speak no no yes I'm prepared to make a motion to uh see this case again in two weeks second all in favor of the motion I all oppos nay all right thank you thank you all right next we've got rezoning Z 2724 Town drive and Triangle Town Boulevard and we have uh this Rec again sure yeah so this is request Z 2724 it's two properties about 6 and a half acres that are together split zoned U with two commercial mix use uh districts uh and both have or together have two different two separate special Highway overlay districts the request is to rezone uh to one uh District CX4 uh CU and to remove the shod overlays so aerial view of the site um you can see this is just south of I 540 a mix of commercial and residential area that's kind of uh building out uh the site uh is one of a few sites in this area is undeveloped currently View some views of the site from Triangle Town Boulevard and town Drive there's uh just two proposed conditions one prohibiting Detention Center Jail and prison and one uh committing to some additional tree Conservation Area so the underlying requirement is for 10% of the site to be uh made TC TCA and this condition would uh require 133% of site so existing versus proposed here um maintaining the same base District going from uh split Zone site to just one uh district and then not a lot of change in non-residential entitlement and um an increase in residential units and I think that's really about the removal of the existing conditions on the site future land use map designates this site as Community mixed use requested CX4 uh CU is is consistent with that designation and then this site is in a city growth Center and on to Urban thorough fars uh those uh last designations would recommend a frontage uh there's no Frontage included so it is inconsistent with the urban form map but is consistent overall with the comprehensive plan um consistent policies you can see here uh this is really touching on the mix of uses that are permitted um mainly and then inconsistent policies these first two are really about the the lack of a frontage and sort of urban form considerations and then and then again um this one also has a a response time standards is inconsistent Planning Commission recommends approval unanimously you can see their findings here and I'm happy to answer any questions you have questions for Mr recal Right see none uh I can open the public hearing for z272 24 and we have Molly Stewart speaking in support good evening mayor and counselors Molly Stewart Morning Star Law Group 434 fville Street here on behalf of the applicant AGS Triangle Town LLC what we've learned throughout this resoning process is that there's not a lot of interest in this request um you may have noticed the underlying zoning District isn't changing the height is either not changing or coming down depending on what part of the site you're on um so it doesn't get a lot of attention for that reason I will limit my comments tonight um and only briefly describe why we're here at all um and you heard from Hannah about the split zoning that is part of it cleaning that up making it more consistent um but the key piece is on that Eastern parcel there are conditions associated with that parcel uh the zoning is from 2006 and it contains a requirement to conform with a concept plan this is that concept plan the property is shown here to zoom in on that Southwestern Corner here's what that concept plan shows you see office and Retail and Civic uses on that corner this is that corner today these are the pedmont Apartments um that took the place of all of that U so this this concept plan although applicable to this site um has has fallen apart it is no longer a coherent uh plan that is being applied to this property so to zoom in on the site itself that Eastern property shows a retail building and the proposal already in for Sight plan when this issue was caught um is for a a hotel um we didn't feel that next to the Walmart and close to the mall there was much need for retail on this site uh and therefore are looking for the hotel use and that is what's driving this resoning I do have slides with me if there is interest in diving into that Frontage issue um I know that the Planning Commission was satisfied on that one but happy to discuss if there is if there are questions thank you all right do we have any questions from Miss Stewart no interest here either thank you all right uh with that I will close the hearing yeah well you can always count on me to be interested in a case in my district and I think I might have been the only one at the neighborhood meeting um but one the the thing that was um a matter of comfort to me is that there was this special Highway overlay District which I have I have learned through this case is not intended for tree preservation but sort of rideway preservation for future expansions of 540 but has a knock on effect of preserving a lot of trees in the meantime and so I um appreciation to our staff for kind of running this through the zoning machine and figuring out how many how much tree save there would be in the current state and that 133% that you see in the conditions is the same amount so we'll be saving the same amount of trees as if no change was made um so with all of that I I am at comfort with this case and so I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated February 4th 2025 containing the agenda materials and to approve the zoning Amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action second second all in favor of the motion I I all opposed nay great okay we also have uh rezoning um text change actually sorry text change to zoning conditions tcz 3024 which is the CRA Crab Tree Village PD and we have Miss Rec Al again yes this is tcz 3024 um this is a request to amend an existing PD The Crab Tree Village PD um specifically as pertains to a portion of the site so to situate us this is just south of the crab tree Valley Mall um the full PD district is this area here you can see uh phase one has already been built and the request is to amend U the PD as pertains to the undeveloped site um so aside from the mall a mix of uses different scales of residential in this area some views from the site I think the most notable thing here is the topography on that undeveloped parcel this angled view shows it well to some really steep slopes at that corner it's really kind of this um pad here that's um uh develop or lens itself to development easily uh so the crepy village PD was originally adopted in uh 2012 the phase one was developed a few years after that since then there's been two separate amendments to the PD through this process so this would to change various um components of the remaining entitlement this would be the third iteration in that some highlights of the phase 2 uh which is the um the site a mix of entitlement across uses up to 232 dwelling units 60,000 ft of retail 250,000 ft of office and or uh 230 hotel rooms and then Building height is regulated not in stories in the PD but um just a maximum of 200 feet overall overall so the changes touch on a number of sections which I'll summarize here uh first is residential buildings uh so there's currently a age uh restriction requirement that would be removed uh it would also add the townhouse building type to the allow allowable building types there's some amendments to uh portions pertaining to retaining walls that would allow some additional flexibility in construction and location and then there's removal of uh vehicle and bicycle parking Min minimums that were included originally and then there's a general recommendation statement about when parking structures what scenarios parking structures are recommended it would remove a portion that refers specifically to higher density residential so it recommends parking structures for residential sort of regardless of scale um and then um there is uh an amendment to require a second access point specifically off of homor Homewood Banks drive so it still require a second access point but it could be located elsewhere uh and then finally there's some updates to the FEMA flood plane references uh to include the latest information so this site is uh designated Regional mixed use and public parks in open space uh the amended PD would still be consistent with that designation and then this site is in a city growth Center and then located um there's Urban thoroughfare and Transit emphasis Corridor designations on um the adjacent streets um those are wanting a frontage or otherwise to be building to bring buildings closer to the street obviously with the topography that poses a challenge but the sort of absence of that requirement is still inconsistent with the the urban form map the request is consistent overall with the comprehensive plan uh here are some consistent policies um these are touching on uh the mix of uses that would continue to be permitted um housing variety and the sort of uh similarity between the entitlement and the surrounding area inconsistent policies um uh would be the frontage issue again um and then area specific policy that wants to see hillsides maintained and development um uh done in line with the existing topography and the PD would continue to allow retaining walls that could be countered to that policy and here is the Planning Commission recommendation it was for approval and I'm happy to answer any questions you have great questions yeah councelor Jones um I was wanted to ask about the conser is there tree conservation on this site that is in there check my notes unless the applicant would like to address I can ask that to the applicant afterwards yep thank you all right so I will uh open the public hearing on this and we have Miss Isabelle Maddox thank you and hello again um Isabelle Maddox representing wel P crab tree tree owner LLC the property owner and papis properties the developer here tonight with me are Tom Barker and will Reed of Papa properties and Amber Mason are are from Withers and ranel who will can speak to engineering issues um in response to your question council member um Jones yes there is tree conservation the interestingly I've been working on this property since since 2012 um and you know it's it's a great property but I think what was envisioned initially just hasn't kind of come to fruition um but at that time the there was a there four there four Lots involved in this PD and one of those lots is what we call our let me just go to that area this lot this Big Lot all here is what we call the open space lot and so at at the get-go we said that'll be where the tree conservation is that's where the storm water is that's where the open space is um so yes there and that none of that's changing in terms of you know the quantity of trees Etc um so uh just to go through my little presentation you know with the master plan PD to you have a site plan attached to that and this the code does not give you much latitude if you want to change your plan there's very small changes you can make with staff approval but other than that you have to come back for a reasoning which is why this we've come back a couple of times when the site plan has changed and you know site plans changed because of market conditions Etc and that's what's happened here um so we're also going we we have the new site plan which we're proposing tonight to to go along with the zoning we also have a an ASR in in process with the city staff so the hope is that these get approved at approximately the same time the zoning has to to go first for official approval but we do think the ASR is is very close to being approved so we hope we can get approval of this tonight if possible um and and there there were several changes pointed out by staff in the staff report that are being made here and they really you there was no age um age requirement in the prior case there was a just possibility that that might be done in the prior case that might be age targeted Apartments that's not the goal here anymore but there's no there was no requirement of age targeting um and similarly on parking and bike parking we took out some minimums because you know there's no City minimum on parking now but we replace it on bike parking with the code minimum so that really wasn't a we didn't get rid of bike parking um so I've told you the site there there there four Lots in the PD the the the first one is the existing Mark Apartments and those um were developed in 2012 to 14 opened in I think 13 or 14 um and those were developed by papis um they're not owned by papis any longer uh and then there's the open space lot out here and then there's lots two and three these two lots right here is what we're really talking about tonight the the development of these two two properties um [Music] just to give you an idea of what we're proposing this is a concept plan so we the current site plan that's approved with the current uh zoning has uh I think 160 or so units approved we're coming tonight to ask for 65 so this is really a down zoning um this is be a townhouse development um and we think this will fit in there'll be you less impervious um and this will be a little bit easier project to do the the one of the critical differences in the prior plan approved in 2022 there was a curb cut coming out here to Homewood Banks somehow that's not going where my finger's pointing um right in well it's not really anyway it was for some reason it's not letting me point but there was a curve cut at home with banks and it was a difficult uh curb cut to sight because of sight distances that if you come away from the mall you've probably all gone up Homewood Banks before and you see it you going up up a hill and so it was hard to do we we did get there but as we've Revisited the site plan we've dropped that and so now there there are two entrances there's a way to get to you can go through we have cross access across the whole site and so we can get out of this site the main access is this private Drive vanana Ridge coming off Blue Ridge and then there's also the ability to come through the parking lot and come out Homewood Banks that way so we still have the two access points it's just we don't have the the more you know dangerous one on Homewood Banks I shouldn't say dangerous but it's just a little more challenging um so you know interestingly the current plan that's approved it does have all that entitlement that um you know was pointed out 230 room Hotel 60,000 ft of retail 250,000 of office an additional 232 units over what was already been constructed um and so we go from 162 on the current approved plan to 65 is what we're proposing on the in the case before you tonight so it is it is a significantly reduced intensity uh as far as storm water goes um the the storm waterer facility that was constructed in 2012 or 13 would accommodate all that impervious all that development and and we're doing much less than that so the the storm waterer facilities will be ample for uh this use um just to give you an idea there's some T elevation another view and to summarize I mean this represents a significant reduction in units traffic and intensity um when we did the original plan we had a TIA which showed a lot of traffic and and it was all accommodated um but the traffic count will be way down with with this development are consistent with the comp plan and the future land use we are not consistent with the urban format because the Topo challenges make it really difficult to get close to the street um we are providing additional units and you know even though we're not doing a full-blown mixed use development on the site we feel like the with the huge amount of retail with Crabtree Valley plus a lot of other retail in the area and the any hotels that are close by there's sort of a horizontal mix use in the area already uh we did receive unanimous recommendation by Planning Commission and happy to answer any questions that y'all might have all right questions councelor Jones thank you um we we spoke back in January so I forgot what we had talked about now I now I'm seeing it I remember I did want to also highlight that when in our discussions I did bring up uh storm water because this area floods uh on the regular uh but I have spoken with stormw water staff and they are comfortable and confident that all those regulations will follow the current codes cuz my fear was that it was done so long ago I was like are they following older codes but it's not so I just wanted you to know that I did my due diligence and um and they they're comfortable with the case as well so I yeah I mean it it has a significant amount of capacity there so I I've talked with our engineer today and and she said you know this is what's there is so far more than what would be required if we build it today in terms of the size and there's no concern about flooding right thank you so much coun silver Isabelle thank you for the presentation um just had a question uh because I know previous cases had a limit on the ret retaining wall height it looks like with the development you're basically going to cut uh the top of the hill what's that retaining wall do you know what the height is going to be once you kind of level off the top of the side we're going to have terce walls and I'm going to call Amber Mason up here to tell you I think the heights are 10 you answer the question yes good me um so the introduce yourself yeah my name's Amber Mason like Isabelle said um I'm with withs renel the civil engineer on the project um so the retaining walls vary across the site um the and like Isabelle mentioned we are terracing them I know that sketched and show up that is what has been included in our ASR so um specifically for those closest to the rideway that are visible we have a 10t height um max that we've kind of um that we're required to have in certain areas and that we have elected to do in others um so we have um tiered walls there if you're looking at all three walls um it's anywhere from 30 to 45ish um depending on where you're looking total counting the Terrace walls yes exactly not continuous yes right not continuous yes we are terracing it anywhere that's visible from the the ride of way um there are there there's some area that's adjacent to the TCA that's not visible where we're not terracing but um anywhere that's visible we are terracing so just to recap it'll be terrorist versus having a Shear yes I'm very pleased to hear that Isabelle probably knows why uh because I remember this case back from 2012 so I'm gratified and relieved to hear that it will be terrorist all right any other questions if not we will close the hearing um and do we have a motion yes I'm sorry I'm just pulling it up if I okay I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated February 4th 2025 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 [Music] statement all right any other discussion if not all in favor of the motion I I I'll oppose nay thank you thank you very much okay final case of or hearing case of the evening Z 3424 which is Clarendon Crescent yes so z34 24 is is a request to reone three uh Parcels together uh uh around 1.7 acres in size uh they're currently zoned R4 with the neighborhood conservation overlay District the request is to maintain the R4 add zoning conditions remove the ncod and then add the transit overlay District so some contextual information first um really broadly ncds are an option in the Udo that allow a neighborhood to request a district uh that applies restrictions on development uh aimed at maintaining specific built environment characteristics the King Charles South ncod specifically was approved in 2005 and you can see the the um di missional standards specific to it there's a larger minimum lot size and width uh larger front yard setback than um uh other residential districts and then U min maximum Building height of two stories the to in the area uh was applied as part of the station area planning process for the Newburn brt Corridor it was a c City initiated rezoning I'll note that that process allowed Property Owners to come forward and request to be included in that request and one of uh the parcels in this request the middle one uh where it says m06 was requested to be added the council did not choose to add it to the request and here's kind of a zoom out context of uh the zoning in the area specific along New Burn can might be a little hard to see but the subject site is located right there so aerial context this site is just south of enow high school largely residential area and um if I move that you can see some non-residential uses is sort of on the southern side of new the Newburn Avenue cor Corridor some views from the site and then a a photo of each of the properties uh you can see the detached house currently located on each so the proposed conditions would prohibit boarding house and Telecommunications Tower they would restrict residential entitlement to no more than 38 units and would limit Building height to three stories so otherwise uh when a to is applied to a residential district that allows uh building up to four stories so um uh but with this condition it would be limited to three stories so existing versus proposed see the same base District removing one overlay District adding another um really not changing uh the types of uses it's um only residential would still be allowed but an increase in entitlement overall all want to give a little bit more context this site is uh located in a frequent Transit area so they could use the uh FDO um and that would open up um some addition an additional building type um in instances where an FDO standards of FDO do conflict with an ncod it is the ncod that rules and so um just noting those asteris by the townhouse building type the minimum lot sizes and and width make that really impossible to establish a conventional townhouse lot um and then um under the proposed zoning and the 2D that opens up kind of the Full Slate of residential uh building types and then uh just one more way to slice it the estimated number of dwelling units across these options there was also a question earlier I believe about the r10 district so um just showing under conventional development option under the ncod limited to around eight units uh if uh one were to develop under the FDO uh additional units up to 38 approximately um anything past 12 units under the FDO um is really only possible through a provision of affordable housing so approximately five of those units would um have to be affordable to unlock that entitlement um and then the prop OS zoning at the end um that number is as I just covered capped by the proposed uh condition so this uh site is near future brt uh not only a corridor but a proposed station at claron Crescent the future land use map designates this area as low-scale residential requested R4 is uh in line with that uh designation and the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall some consistent policies these are mainly touching on appropriate land use around Transit and general housing uh variety and Supply goals in the comprehensive plan uh inconsistent policies um the first uh uh first and third one here are are really pointing to the removal of an in Cod policy 8.12 uh specifically calls out ncds as a way to um manage and fill compatibility and then um again response time standards that a lot of these cases have this is the finding from Planning Commission they did vote unanimously to recommend approval and that concludes my overview happy to answer any questions all right councelor silver yeah I just want to make sure the slide you went through quickly there was a star are you saying that was physic basically where the bus the bus rapid transit station stop would be yes that's right okay and that's both East and West yes okay so question yeah excuse me how many units could if the applicant had not C it at 38 and did the R4 with conditional use and to how many units could they possibly have I don't have that number are eligible uh off the top of my head they would be able to build under the basically rx4 uh dimensional standards okay around 43 43 okay thank you other questions all right well we will open the public hearing uh for z34 24 we have Matt thomasu here good evening Madame mayor and uh counselors uh my name is Matt tomasulo and I'm representing myself and uh two of the other uh land owners uh comprising these three lots on clar and Crescent I did want to just add a modification is that the the actual uh staff report at Planning Commission around if we didn't cont condition it down at rx4 under Apartments it would actually allow over a 100 units so I just wanted to clarify that um it it was in the staff report um so uh a a lot of what I have to talk about um was do I click oh okay sorry um a lot of what I have to talk about was already discussed but here is the site surrounded by enl um across the street from some other single family homes and about 250 to 300 ft from uh one of the planned uh bus Rapid Transit stops also ac across is our beloved Alamo Draft House uh the Women's Center is also across the Wake County women Center as well as some apartments and then on the corner here and here are actually two uh daycare facilities um another overview it's 1.76 Acres uh we would be removing the ncod uh and adding the to with conditions limiting it to three stories down from four and uh those 38 units uh which I I'll say we don't expect to build 38 but it was what was permited under the FTD which um I will say I I did clear with staff a diagram as well about that and it would it would actually we couldn't actually build one project if the ncod stayed in place because all three lots are non-conforming both on size and width and so they would have to be developed as is and so what we showed to staff was a 12 unit a 12 unit and a 14 unit and the 14 unit would require to uh affordable units or it would be three 12 unit buildings and I did um so it' be 30 six units without affordability uh and then there'd have to be two affordable units just to clarify that makeup um the the the 38 units with five affordable units we couldn't do because that would mean it would all have to be on the same parcel which we can't do with the ncod so it would have to be three separate site plan submittals three separate projects all with parking in the front because the ncod requires a setback to be 76 ft from the street um which I'll go through some of that um it is consistent with the future land use map and the comp plan Planning Commission voted unanimously for it and uh I believe it's delivering some much needed housing in an area that is very close to a lot of amenities um it would be pursuing a fee simple town homes in a great location um this is a recap of of the last eight months so our first uh or last six months our first neighborhood meeting we came in with the same rx3 Tod which Council uh voted for along the Newburn Corridor uh we realized that that allowed for five stories uh we were talking to an initial affordable housing developer they said it was a great site it rated 10 for those tax credits that were talked about earlier um but the the two people who were there at the meeting said that that was too much and I I totally understood I um so in the second neighborhood meeting we dropped it to r10 with some condition and the to and um we heard from the neighborhood that it was still too much at the first Planning Commission uh meeting um Planning Commission wanted to hear more they wanted to hear more about that ft Doo uh density they from staff they wanted to hear um about more communication and engagement with the neighbors um so actually one of the neighbors was kind enough to let me know about the ecac meeting which was happening a few days later it was the first meeting and so I uh self- selected to go I spent I'd say anywhere from maybe 40 to 60 Minutes there uh gave a pretty long presentation had some really good conversations um there were people who were opposed there were uh people there who were in support and um and a lot of good questions were asked um then went back to Planning Commission and limited it to the three stories and the 38 units which could be built and they were uh unanimously voted for it um you saw the current zoning and that it's right at a bus Rapid Transit stop this kind of shows clarent Crescent is actually a pretty wide street because enlow's right there and 2500 kids go to school and leave school every day on this street um so if we were to do an initial development right now under FDO or not we would only have to probably pay a fee and L for one foot of sidewalk here but by us adding the Tod we're having to add a full 10t multimodal path with a 6ot tree planting buffer so we're actually going to have to dedicate about seven extra feet than we otherwise would to the right of way because currently it meets um the standards the other complicating Factor here is that the site actually drops towards enow and so the houses are 6 to 9 ft below the street which really complicates kind of the existing conditions um the NC because the the lot widths and sizes are non-conforming also the setback is non-conforming so all these houses are non-conforming and so the middle house the whole reason I got into this was that the gentleman who was trying to renovate the middle house was imp permitting and got denied because in addition that he was going to do was um going against the uh the 76 foot minimum setbacks and the reason that these houses can't be further back is because uh the grave drops Too Much from the street so they wouldn't have positive drainage um also noting that uh uh folks who live in Long View Gardens really love Long View Gardens um it's a beautiful neighborhood um just kind of noting that this is the original plan for for Long View Gardens and that these sites were not a part of it most likely why they're not con actually uh meeting the standards that were derived from the neighborhood they were developed uh a couple decades later this is the National Historic register map uh showing that uh original neighborhood that was submitted uh a couple decades ago um and then showing that the site in question is not a part of that and also showing all the red diamonds are what the city voted to remove uh from the ncod just last fall um again fee simple Town Homes uh because of the grade they'd be able to present as two to two and a half stories with parking tucked underneath two car garages for all of them um that was a more traditional this is a a bit more modern um this highlights that right of way that we'd be investing in um the other element uh that traff that Transit was sorry traffic was really interested in is that we'd be dropping it from four driveways to one um to reduce conflicts and then this kind of just goes to show that the back of these sites are 10 16 and 18 ft and also shows that Raleigh storm water is on Wake County site and so we'd have have to receive an easement uh to go there so we're treating all the storm water on site um and uh basically it's it's a desirable location it's located very close to a lot of amenities and I think that all of us know that we need more housing and and believe this is in the public interest thank you y all right uh we do have opposition speakers as well um should we proceed with them or would you okay so first we have Christian anastasiadis thank you just in case I cannot finish yeah so it's eight minutes for everybody and we have three speakers sign up thank you how many more speakers uh we have Charles putterman and Kathy hedg are you here sounds good okay um I think it's still appropriate to wish you all happy New Year and may your decisions be guided by wisdom the um glad to see Mr Silver back in town Mr Silver may remember the um NCD put in place in ' 05 and 06 that our community Long View Garden fully supported so the King Charles ncod in Raleigh is a historical significant and character rich neighborhood that deserves protection from aggressive developable land gra grabs and the misguided push for so-called missing middle I'm sorry that I have to bring this up here are some compelling reasons why the neighborhood should not be chipped Away by these type of forces first of all the ncod was created in 2005 um unanimously to maintain the historical Fabric and the architectural consistency of this neighborhood it features wellestablished homes mature tree canopies and a cohesive Street Cape that gives it a un unique sense of place developer driven up zoning threatens to disrupt his character replacing thoughtfully planned homes let's remember this development Long View Gardens King Charles was the first ever planned development by the City of Raleigh in 1948 first ever plant development east of downtown okay so now have we come to the missing middle hype and I call it over promised underd delivered the missing middle concept as implemented in rale has not result in truly affordable housing I think we're all clear about that but rather inexpensive town homes and duplexes that cater to wealthier buyers instead of instead of creating Equitable housing options it encouraged developer profit ering displacing existing residents and exacerbating gentrification the push for greater density in establish in established NE neighborhoods has not included adequate infrastructure planning now there's not much there around uh uh Long View across the street is the AL movie theater and that's about it in a pharmacy there's no shopping uh if you want to take the transportation system it's inadequate it is based on what's called an airport Hub system you have to go downtown to catch anything else it would take and I did it myself um Six Forks Lin Road my secretary lives there I took the bus from there my office is uh on Donal Ross Drive uh intersection Newburn Avenue 1 hour and 30 minutes I don't think that is very frequent nor very convenient to take the bus so the push for greater tens density in established neighborhoods has not included adequate infrastructure planning it's not existent so the Ft Doo map in my opinion is arbitrary put put you know you've used three minutes so I just again want to acknowledge there are two other people signed up so daa if there's thank you okay a meaningful transport system I think is needed and I do hope that I will see and I was in support of the newborn brt uh as I do live on newborn Avenue increased density without out proportional investment infrastructure strains the existing roads water system Public Services older neighborhoods like King Charles have mature three canopies and uh you know large-scale development threaten uh what's going to happen in our neighborhood I'm going to be very brief here King Charles Long View Community is a tightened community and we all voted we all voted in 05 to protect this neighborhood because we saw what was coming the city council developer stands does not Equitable distribute density across the city certain neighborhoods in the city often weal residents if you go you know let's let's go Scotland Road uh Lake View Drive around Carolina Country Club remain untouched while historical stable middle class areas like King Charles are targeted by developers true affordability should be addressed through affordable housing mandates and true incentives not Penal penal um penal penalties in lay off so we always hear about the incentives that everybody will be putting on place about uh affordable housing well you know the developers actually choosing the penalty side because it's cheaper for them rather than the incentive side okay Raleigh needs thoughtful planning not a freefor all the removal of neighborhood Protections in the name of density a shortsighted approach that prioritizes developer profit over a long-term urban planning you know a couple of the cities have tried that Min Minneapolis for example made national headlines for eliminating single family zoning in 2018 it ended up in a disaster increased investor speculation and corporate ownership of rental properties Vancouver skyrocketing housing costs New York gen ification in areas like Williamsburg and Harlem where new luxury developments placed lower income residents Raleigh can balance growth and preservation by enforcing responsible zoning policies maintaining ncds that are in place so while I really cannot U go into deep in into more depth but I have it printed out for you let's look back at the applicant all right land grab parcel 122 purchased in 2022 by new Cresent properties for 200 86,000 the owner wanted to reone it from R4 NC ncod to R6 to well that was denied parcel 118 was purchased December 23 shortly thereafter for 297,000 and the friend parcel the applicant actually parcel 126 was purchased by applicant October 2024 for 469,000 so then the applicant actually filed uh for resoning and that just didn't work so I think that's a land grape in grab in my opinion but you know it's very plain upselling alone does not guarantee affordability investor speculation drives up prices infrastructure must keep pace and it is not happening in East Raleigh at all this placement is a real risk I think the applicant under the ncod has a lot of options available to him and I think we should keep it that way and I hope that the council will keep the ncod in place thank you thank you there is one minute on the clock if you want to uh my name is Charles putterman I'm uh uh speaking in opposition to this I I was one of the uh homeowners who was involved in getting the ncod in place we worked very very hard to get that we had tremendous Community Support um yes the south side of of Newburn Avenue has some commercial activities going on there the north side does not the two um childcare fa facilities are private homes they don't you can't even tell that they're um Child Care Facilities um once you start invading the north side of Newburn Avenue with this type of of uh project there's no end the next time somebody comes in they look at it and they say oh well you already have these tow houses here we can just put more of them in 2500 students we have a brt station there it serves those students it serves their parents we don't need another um 38 units I I beg you to look at this site the pictures are inadequate look at the site it it just doesn't fit that area this thank you thank you all right uh any questions during it or I'll go ahead and close the hearing it doesn't matter okay either way um I have a couple questions for Staff first um you saw the conversation about the ncod and I guess there was a previous um applicant who wanted to redevelop on their lot and they were denied because of setbacks um from what we were told based upon these unit these Lots can they be redeveloped and still be compliant with the udio with I saw at least two units based upon the the way it currently is owned under the ncod under the ncod um I would have to take a a closer look at the site that's fair yeah if you could um definitely look at that um and then also my other question just for verification these three Parcels are not in the Long View Garden um designation no they I believe they are they are okay um where was I going oh so just looking to answer address your first question um looking just at imaps which is maybe not an exact survey level but um each of those uh Lots uh is about 100 feet in width so that is less than the minimum lot width okay so the current lot sizes do not meet the current NC ncod requirements that's right yeah is that clear that's correct okay they I'll leave it for others I have others but I want leave it fathers to ask questions okay councelor Patton yeah um maybe for you but maybe for the applicant the um wanted to to understand better the sideway sidewalk and rideway improvements that will be required here because of the to it'll be wider sidewalk and more trees and that has to be put in on site or Fe and Lou ask Transportation staff to help answer that question uh Pat young Planning and Development I'll let my Transportation colleagues speak to that if they'd like to but um the applicant's correct that by the Tod zoning would require significantly wider sidewalks for example and other streetscape amenities associated with the Tod what is uh difficult to answer now is because there's exist existing development on these sites whether the subsequent site plan um that comes in to do this development would trigger those requirements I I I can't answer that without a a deeper analysis and knowing exactly what's being proposed on this on the site certain Redevelopment is Exempted from triggering those requirements certain Redevelopment would trigger it and so it would it would depend so we can we could assess that further and bring that back if that's um an important consideration in Broad terms what kinds of developments get Exempted yes so those that have a um roughly comparable footprint that don't significantly expand the um the the the um impervious surface there would be some increase in prvious surface under the densities of the applicants proposed but um there uh again with what's it's called a tier one site plan it was put in Place six or seven years ago with the interest of uh encouraging Redevelopment right and rather and having people invest in properties that that um really can't bear the cost of the significant new improvements um so again I would I would have to um do a deeper assessment and work with the applicant to make sure we understand exactly what's being proposed here to know whether they're triggering those thresholds but the to does include those requirements if the if they're subsequently triggered at the site plan councilor silver uh for Hannah um council member Branch talked about I guess that whether these lots are non-conforming to the ncod uh are they non-conforming also definitely it seems like it's non-conforming with the width uh what about the minimum lot size are are these lots I'm just looking at it seems to be way under the 33,000 roughly Square fet are they also non-conforming in terms of the lot size yeah so it looks like um was looking at 122 that is 0.58 Acres so that's 20,000 roughly wait Point said 0.5 so roughly about okay 20,000 so I think you're right there too okay I did want to return to the Long View Gardens question um correction that the these three are not part of that historic registered District but not yeah so they're in the ncod but not in the the registered District St res not true not true any other questions not really a a question um I know someone mentioned you know seeing the site in these Lots well I I know this area well being a graduate in low and the years I've spent over there um you know prior to ever being on Council um and everything and also I know the this community and I know the diversity of the community I know how it has grown how it has changed um and how's it evolved over the years um change I know is hard and it is difficult um but also believe we have to make sure that we're not stuck in time and for that and at the appropriate time I will make a motion to approve okay um all right let me go ahead and close the hearing um okay motion yes yeah I just wanted to mention um I do appreciate that neighbors are here from I think other areas of town as well I know there are other ncds and neighborhoods that are affected by development and this is for at least for me it's neighborhood by neighborhood and it is parcel by parcel and I think why I'm willing to support this particular request is because it's on the edge it's not in the middle of this neighborhood and it's right next to the to where we've already made these kinds of changes so I do appreciate what you all are trying to do in terms of preservation of the neighborhood character but also I do think some of these Edge areas are worth considering making changes all right councelor silver I'm going to support the motion as well but just again I know that these are always difficult um hearings and deliberations for the community here the neighbor conservation overlay we have three loss that are not conforming uh to what were the standard set forth in terms of size in terms of width and so uh in close proximity to the bus rapid transit station not just line and so for those reasons recognizing that we have three lots at the edge close to Newburn near a train station that are lawn conforming in terms of size and in terms of width uh I'll be support adding the fact that the plan commission uh voted unanimously as well as the uh consistency statement listen to staff report all right so was that is that a formal second to well make the motion I got to read now you have yeah um so I mve to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated February 4th 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning and to approve the zoning Amendment with the adoption effective dates described and the agenda items under recommended action second okay is there further did y'all have further comments I I was just going to say when we um applied the Tod in this area we we wanted to be really prescriptive and really precise and that was because we were we were talking about 746 parcels and this was happening to a lot of people people's property but what we're facing here is three individual Property Owners asking for the to that they thought was coming to be applied to their property in the way they they thought it would and so I do think in some ways this is different and I understand why this is for me this is different than when we were applying when we were considering this for the entire uh Newburn brt Corridor thank you any other comments if not all in favor of the motion I I all opposed so that's unanimous all right that is the last item and the hearing is adjourned great [Music]