[Music] 2025 planning commission meeting. I am Blanny Miller, chair of the commission. We have a very full agenda today. So, I would ask the commissioners to hold all questions until the conclusion of all presentations and any public comments so that we can move through the agenda efficiently. There is one change on today's agenda. That's item E7 under new business in reszoning case Z1025 at 8125 Leville Road. Um due to a timely request for a reasonable accommodation, we will move this case to be heard immediately after new business item E3 without objection. So um after we complete this case uh that will be effectively a new business item number four, we will then proceed with the remainder of the agenda in its stated order. So we start every meeting uh with an opportunity for the public to comment on an item not contained on the agenda. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda today? Then seeing none, we can move on to our consent agenda. There's one item on consent, TCZ 5124 at 9308 Fairbanks Drive. We heard this case at our May 13th meeting and deferred it to allow the applicant more time to resolve some boundary disputes. Um the recommended action is to request a 45day extension to of time to allow for the commission to defer further discussion until our April 12th meeting. Are there any discussion on that item? And with that, um could I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve. Is there a second? There's a motion to second. Any further discussion? By show of hands. All those in favor? Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you very much. On to old business. There's one item on the agenda today. Um that's Z uh 5424 at Triion Road. On May 27th, the commission received a full staff presentation, applicant presentation, and heard from the public. We deferred action on this case until today's meeting in order to allow time for the applicant to submit revised conditions. And our focus today will be on any updates or changes since the last meeting. And we will turn to Aaron Klinger for a presentation from the city planning staff on updates to the case. Good morning everyone. Um Aaron Clinger, planning and development. So the request has changed slightly from the original. Um originally it was to reszone from R4 and sorry R4 and R10 with the special parking overlay um just to RX4. It is now R10. The request is now R10 for the hook piece um and RX4 for the remainder of the property. So the zoning in the area is residential. The closest zoning RX zoning is to the northeast, but there is R10 zoning adjacent to the site. See, there's an aerial view of the area. There's another aerial view closer up. Um, here are some street views of the property from various angles. So here are the revised conditions. Um they have split the conditions for the property that the portion that's being zoned RX and then the portion that's being zoned R10. So for the portion that's being reszoned to RX. Um the first condition remains that was original from the um previous conditions. They've added conditions um limiting reducing the limitation on the number of dwelling units to 400. Um they've added a height limitation for properties within 100 ft of Bruce Circle. Um if more than 100 units are developed, they will install a traffic signal at Fairway Drive and Trion Road if NCDOT permits. They will provide a crossex access stub for the property at 1526 Trion. And then they've also added an affordable housing condition. Um 2% of the dwelling units will be affordable for households earning 60% AMI. And then for the portion of the property that are being reszoned R10, um the boarding house use will be prohibited. they've put a cap on the number of dwelling units and they have prohibited um the apartment building type. So under the existing zoning um the maximum number of units would be 290. Um under the proposed zoning it would be a total of 575 um with 175 on the R10 piece and 400 on the RX piece. Um, this has not changed. The limits on the square footage are the same. Um, so it is still inconsistent with the future land use map, but it is consistent with the um comprehensive plan overall. Here are the consistent policies and then here are the inconsistent policies. Um, as a reminder, the deadline for action would be July 26th and it would require a future land use map amendment. That is all. Thank you very much. So, we've already heard from the applicant and the public, but so I can get a sense by show of hands, uh, would the applicant or any members of the public like to provide additional comments today? See one additional hand. Is that correct? That's it. Um, in that case, I'd like to provide an additional two minutes to each side. We will start with the applicant and those in favor. Good morning, uh, Chair Miller, members of the planning commission, Toby Coleman with Smith Anderson, 150 Fateville Street here in Raleigh. Uh, here on behalf of, uh, the property owner, Raleigh Golf Association in Dominium, uh, which is the applicant for, uh, 1604 and 1610 Trion. Um, I think, uh, I won't go over the the changes to the zoning conditions. uh were available for questions. I did want to give a brief update because one of the um one of the things we discussed was um uh improvements potentially to Fairway Drive. So, just as an update, um we have had some good conversations with planning and transportation over the last monthish. Um we've gotten some uh we've gotten some scope, gotten some costs. We are still having to work through to figure out what the scope of a development agreement would be, but we are fairly hopeful that we can come to some sort of arrangement whereby we can make some some imp uh some improvements uh to Fairway Drive uh outside of uh off offsite, excuse me. Um so we're fairly excited about that. Um still going through the works. Um as you know, Raleigh has not done a ton of development agreements yet. Um, so it's still sort of a process that we're trying to work through, but we're fairly hopeful on that one. Otherwise, we're available for questions. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support? Then, seeing none, we will open up um public comment for anyone um in opposition. Those opposed have a total of two minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. My name is Jean Cobb. I'm a retired civil engineer. I live in Meredith Witch subdivision for about 40 past 40 years. Um I'm serve as an adviser to the Delta Sigma Fly Chapter House at uh at the at 1526 Tron Road and we were uh asking for two conditions to be added. one of which has been addressed. The one condition we had asked for previously that has has not been resolved is ask for a a buffer to be uh placed between on our western border between the RX4 proposed property and our our property. We had asked originally for a wooded the the existing land there now is wooded fairly heavily. We'd ask that a tree preservation uh area be preserved there for a width of 65 ft. And that was uh rejected by Mr. Coleman group uh our alumni control board took the issue up at our June meeting and their request now is for a uh for a wall to be constructed. A brick masonry wall from the front property line to the existing sewer easement. It's a distance of approximately 500 ft. uh uh with minimum height of 6 and 1/2 ft. And the other ask we'd ask is u the your condition number five be amended to make clarify that there's would be no gaps in the right away from the stove out to our property line. Thank you very much. Um, we will now bring the discussion back to the table for questions and comments from commissioners. Um, I will start us off. We listed a number of items for the applicant to address at our last meeting. Um, those items have uh been addressed in this new round of condition. So, I want to thank the applicant for that. Would the applicant like to respond to the one uh open question from the fraternity representative regarding the buffer? Um yeah. Um thank you Mr. Cobb for coming. Um we took a look at that. Um as Mr. Cobb said, we the initial ask was for 65 ft of tree conservation area which we just wasn't feasible with site plan. Um and the request for a wall um frankly we haven't taken a look at because it came after our deadline for resubmitting uh zoning conditions. Um but I'll note that we don't really see a need for it. Um, this is currently used as a fraternity house and it's zoned ox4. So, we don't really see a need for a buffer between RX4 apartments and a fraternity house zoned ox. Thank you very much. Um, that's all my questions. Any other comments, questions from commissioners? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Fox. In regards to case Z5224, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 24th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. Uh, this recommend this recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. Thank you. We we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Commissioner Well has seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Uh, moving on to new business. We have three items that originally appeared on our last uh, planning commission meeting, but we were unable to hear those due to um we had to cancel the meeting due to a lack of quorum. Um, so the first item is TC1 1124, pedestrian passages and crosswalks. And we will uh turn to Justin Butcher for a presentation from city planning staff. You want to go ahead and Good morning, Planning Commission. I'm Megan Nation with the Office of Sustainability. I will be introducing TC1 1124 pedestrian passages and crosswalks today and then handing it over to our wonderful planning staff to continue on. So this is all about pedestrian safety and comfort and also implementation of our climate action plan. So a little bit of background on our climate action plan if you're not familiar. We have done several greenhouse gas emissions inventories over many years here for the city and consistently over half of our emissions are related to transportation. So this is something to keep in mind as we move forward with this text change. For this one, we will see several goals and actions supporting climate action here in Raleigh, namely reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and improving safety, comfort for people walking and biking across the city. Also, a little bit of background related to our community climate action plan. You'll see here abbreviated as CCAP. So implementation here in Raleigh takes multiple forms. could be policies, investments, plans, or projects. In some cases, ordinances can advance our community climate action plan and related goals such as health, walkability, and affordability. Topics have included transportation related to clean transportation, as you've seen previously, as well as this pedestrian passages and crosswalks item today. We are also working on some items related to heat and resilience as well as sustainable buildings. Before I hand it over to planning, we do want to highlight pedestrian safety and comfort has been a major theme in recent planning work. Walkability here in Raleigh is an issue. 57% of respondents in the community survey called their walking experience neutral or below average, while 80% said neutral or below average for alternative transportation options. I'll know I will now hand it over to our planning staff to continue on. Thank you. Thank you. Justin Booker with Planning and Development. Good morning. Uh this text change TC1 1124 is meeting consistent with the following policies and actions as shown on the screen. Namely, pedestrian infrastructure, enhancing pedestrian circulation among others. Um this ordinance is really boils down to three main components. I'll go into each of these in more detail. The first being safer crosswalks. This is essentially reducing the amount of distance it takes to travel across an intersection at a crosswalk. Secondly, improving safety with uh regard to pedestrian passages. This is kind of a design specific element. It's actually changes to our Raleigh street design manual. And then lastly, incentivizing pedestrian passages. So encouraging the construction of new pedestrian passages. The first uh component of this text change, crosswalk safety, is obviously intended to improve pedestrian safety and comfort by shortening that distance required to uh cross the street at intersections. As shown on the screen, you can see it really provides enhanced visibility for both the pedestrian and the vehicle operator. Um, it's done by essentially specifying a narrower width at that intersection and creating a essentially a bumpout or bulb out. Um, and would be triggered whenever the city, for example, redesigns a street or development occurs at the site of an in intersection, excuse me. Shown on the screen are two examples of what this would look like in practice. Um, these images are not from the city of Raleigh, but just examples of what they would look like. Shown on the screen is a snippet from our code. You can see in the table in subsection C is the underlined text proposed to be incorporated. Um stipulating that shortened amount of distance and the accompanying graphic on the top right hand uh side of the screen kind of shows that 20 foot distance creating a bulb. The second component to this text change is really about pedestrian passage design. And these are changes that would um uh be incorporated into our Raleigh street design manual. Essentially also intended to improve pedestrian safety. Um this comes into play when there's a pedestrian passage that would intersect an internal access drive. Um the Raleigh Street design manual would mandate that um the passage take precedence in one of two ways. either the material continues through the course of that intersection or the height of the access drive actually has to come up to meet the height of the pedestrian passage. So shown on the screen is actually accomplishing both both the height is risen and there is a continuation of material. And then uh second component to this um section is really addressing situations where an internal driveway or accessway runs parallel to a pedestrian passage. In this instance, it would require the pedestrian passage to again either be raised or if it is at the same grade, there would have to be some form of physical separation in terms of either ballards or um landscaping as shown in the image above. And lastly, the third component of this text change is really about incentivizing the creation of more pedestrian passages. Um, a pedestrian passage, as shown in our UDO, is really a 10-ft paved area within a 20-oot public access easement. Um, the UDO currently has an incentive, whereas um it would permit a 50% larger block than would otherwise be allowed if it includes a pedestrian passage that uh bisects that block. Um, the UDO regulates block perimeter um, primarily to create a more efficient, well-connected street network, but also with the understanding that a larger block increases drive time, has a negative impact on emergency services. Um, this text change would actually expand the allowance to allow um, 100% larger block um, given a pedestrian passage were to be implemented. um with the understanding that over time um we would have more options in terms of mobility and pedestrian um passages. So um it's important also to note that this wouldn't take the place of any mapped street as shown on the street plan. Um nor would a pedestrian passage be able to kind of stub to a street or vice versa. Um lastly, this uh text change has gone through a lot of advisory committee and board review as shown on the screen. Um, I believe there was uh feedback incorporated and if there's any questions, I'm happy to take them. We also have representatives from transportation here if we need to. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now open this up to public comment. We'll start with those in support. Um, are if there are any members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this text change, please come to the podium. You have a total of 10 minutes to speak. And then seeing none, we can move to public comment for those in opposition. Those opposed to this text change have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. And seeing none, we can bring it back to the table. Any comments from commissioners questions, feedback? Commissioner Alwell. Uh, thank you, Chair Miller. This is probably directed at transportation staff. Um, I was curious how much uptake the city has had on the current 50% rule. What kind of pedestrian passages have been implemented based on current incentives? [Music] Good morning, Bradley Kimberell, Transportation Department. Want to make sure I understood the question. You're talking about the 50% reduction in the block perimeter, correct? That was a new policy a few years back, I believe, uh, to incentivize pedestrian passages, and I was wondering what kind of uptake it had had. We have seen an increase in being able to use that. I do think we're relatively still new in the latest version of the clean transportation text change. Um, so I'm not sure how many overall projects. That said, it does create flexibility within the code which is advantageous both for the staff implementation but also applicants. Why you why you're uh we started discussing uh policy like this back when I was on the bicycle pedestrian commission over five years ago and at time there was some concern among the transportation staff that the block perimeter rule was critical for creating traffic grids in and out of downtown. And the concern was that allowing this rule could increase congestion and automobile traffic issues. is uh what kind of trade-off are you expecting? Make sure I'm following. So, this is related to the current exemptions that are available in chapter 8. Correct. With the proposed with the proposed text change, the block perimeter would get larger in some situations. And the intention of the block perimeter rule is to create small blocks so there's multiple routes for traffic for any one given situation. The concern would be with larger blocks. Traffic would be concentrated on fewer corridors and the the small block perimeter is critical for uh keeping traffic congestion low going forward and I was wondering if there's been an analysis or what the consideration is. Absolutely. So that was considered and talked through internally. Uh today there are a number of exemptions available in the code that speak to uh current conditions whether they adjacent properties whether environmental features um overall size of the block versus size and impact to a development parcel. So a number of exemptions exist today in the code. Uh this text change along with others anticipated in the near uh near near term uh allow for that flexibility and that's really what we're trying to accomplish. Uh we hear that feedback from applicants today. Um you know site conditions make it make it difficult but overall the intent within chapter 8 is very clear. Um increasing the number of connections both for uh vehicles but also other modes of transportation uh ultimately serve uh everyone uh in the city. Uh it also provides better connectivity for emergency services and other city services. So, uh, connectivity is very important and that's the the basis of a lot of chapter 8. Um, and any ability for us to work with an applicant to help their development make those opportunities occur. Uh, that's really what we're trying to do. Thank you. Other questions, thoughts, proposed changes to the text change? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. I can go ahead and make a motion. Uh, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated June 24th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment with regards to TC1 1124. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Moving on to our next item, TC225, storm water items to reflect state law. And we will now turn uh to Justin Booker perhaps or perhaps Sally Hoy for a presentation from city planning staff. Yeah. Good morning, commissioners. Uh, my name is Sally Hoy. I'm with Rally Stormwater. Today, I'm going to be talking about TC225, which contains two discrete items. Uh, the first item is one we have gotten requests from homeowners and homebuilders about. The second uh is a state a change in state law that we uh don't really have much choice about. So in terms of this first item, this applies uh to one or two unit dwellings built on over an acre. So the total project is one building, a single family or duplex on a property over an acre. And to explain this change, I need to give a brief here's what our storm water requirements are that apply to different size properties. So we consider we have two tracks that projects fall into. They either have to meet the exempt property requirements or the full storm water requirements. And this lays out the full storm water requirements. You need to hire a designer. You typically have to build a storm water control measure like a pond or a bio retention or something like that. For the exempt property requirements, many property owners can meet them by just staying under an impervious area threshold. And so they don't, unless they want to exceed those limits, they don't have to hire a designer. They don't have to build a storm water control measure. So you might imagine people want to be in the exempt property category. And this is the table. Uh it's based on zoning. So depending on the zoning of the property that dictates how much imper what the impervious limit is. This is a chart that shows a variety of different um this was focused on housing types, but uh so basically our our rules break into parcel based on parcel size. And really, I show this to say there's lots of different ways that either the um exempt property or or traditional or full storm water requirements apply. We are only talking about this one, the one one detached building, a one or two unit building on over one acre. So, that's the only thing we're looking to change. And uh so prior to May 1st, 2023, those properties, regardless of the size of the parcel, got to meet those use those zoning limits. So it didn't matter if your parcel was 1.01 acres or 3 acres, you could, you know, do the zoning based impervious limit. on May 1st, 2023, that changed and uh basically it said you could do up to 5% limit and then you had to do the traditional or full storm water requirements. So for many people that meant they went from say in an R4 having a 38% impervious limit to having a de facto 5% impervious limit before they had to hire an engineer. So, uh, you can imagine that property owners who are say planning to build a house on a 1.1 acre lot now are are in this situation where they would have to hire an engineer. So, we we heard heard from a lot of folks and we do have some this was tied to the news nutrient rules that we um the new news nutrient rules that we adopted May 1st, 2023, but there was some um there was some wiggle room in how those could be adopted. And so, what we're looking what we're proposing to do is uh shift slightly in how those are implemented. And so while the they were previously based on solely on the parcel size, so if your parcel was 1.1 acres, you fell into the full storm water requirements. Uh the state rules actually allow us to say instead if the limits of disturbance of the project are over an acre, then you would meet the full storm water requirements. And if your limits of a disturbance were less than an acre, you could meet the exempt property requirements. So this will for some property owners if they're going and this again only applies to when the total project is one building um or one primary structure. Um so now that person with 1.1 acres could meet those if they kept their limit of disturbance small enough could do their project meeting those zoning limits. It's not unless till they went to wanting to have a bigger project limits that they would be put in to the full stormwater requirements. So essentially for many people would be taking them back to the rules prior to 2023. In terms of the number of affected parcels, it's about a thousand. It's 937 parcels. Um only about a hundred of those are actually vacant. Most of them are already have a one-unit dwelling on them. And so this would affect those property owners if they went to do an accessory dwelling or a pool or a driveway expansion or something like that. So that that is the first change. The second change is to the builtupon area definition. As I mentioned earlier, this is required by a a 2024 session law. Um so what will be changing? So first of all, builtupon area is essentially the same as imperous area, but I would say it's maybe where impervious area is more of a scientific definition. Built-upon area is a is a uh regulatory definition. Um and so it changed particularly three things. Decks, artificial turf, and gravel. So, uh, our existing rules say that decks would be 30 to 50% impervious if they're slatted decks. Uh, per this law, they would be 0% impervious. Now, we that does say if it's over a pvious surface, so you can't put it over a patio and count it as pvious. Um, the next change is to artificial turf. We currently allow the the current rules say that it could be anywhere from zero to 100% impervious depending on the infiltration below the surface. Per the law um if water drains through the backing of the turf and it's installed on a pous surface, it counts as 0% impervious or 0% built upon area. And then uh the gravel definition also changes. So um currently we call any gravel stone aggregate material 100% impervious. We make exceptions when it's being used as like landscape mulch in a flower bed. Um but per the law if it's a number 57 stone which is defined by u the professional organizations ASM and ASHTTO um and if it's not used in a vehicle area. So if it's in a um it it even goes so far as to say the area not compacted by the wheels of the vehicle. So for example the middle of a driveway could be considered pvious. Uh the the state law also says that applicants get the choice of whether they treat the area as pvious or impervious. Like if so if it's gravel and they want to count the gravel as impervious because that's to their benefit they could do that. Um and we we anticipate people would do that if it was an existing area that they would say oh the existing gravel is impervious therefore I could build that much area. Uh the other thing we're doing in these changes is there was two definitions in the UDO, one in chapter 9 and one in chapter 12. And so we're cleaning that up um to just have chapter 12 reference chapter 9. Uh there's a number of things that may remain unchanged. So uh currently the pool water, soil, mulch, sand, and vegetation are considered pvious area and roofs, asphalt and concrete are considered impervious. and those things are not changing. Um, this because this is in state law from 2024, we are actually currently using these proposed definitions in our reviews uh to be compliant with that state law. Any questions about that material? We may have some when we bring them back to the table. Um, I think first we'll just open it up to public comment in case anyone from the public has questions uh or comments on this proposed text change. We'll start with those in support. Um, those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come up to the podium. And seeing none, we will move on to public comment. For those in opposition, those opposed also have a total of 10 minutes to speak. You can also please come to the podium. And seeing none, we can bring it back to the table for those questions. Thank you. Any questions from our commissioners on this one? Thoughts, reflections, proposed changes? Yes, Commissioner C. So, going to that um text change that's required by state law that includes the definition of a of a pool being considered impervious. In that section, it also includes hot tubs and natural water bodies. Is the hot tubs also required by that state legislation? Um so the pool is already considered pvious area. Um and natural water bodies are all already considered pvious. We added hot tub that was not required by the state law. Um so what we are what we have currently been or in the past we have been doing is if the hot tub was like part of a pool and was out like an ingground item, we would count it as the same as pool water. But if it was a standalone item with a cover, we counted it as impervious area. Um, yeah. So, why is it considered imper um pvious now if if it has a cover on it? That is an item we could change. I would encourage you to change it. Yes, Commissioner Awell. Thank you, Chair Miller. uh what what magnitude of impact does the city expect uh if this change were to be enacted and will the storm water department have to adjust management in any other way to accommodate for that change? Are which change are you referring to both both parts or yes both parts? Yeah. So for the imperous area change we have not counted calculated the the magnitude of that impact. It will um it is actually requiring us to work on some changes to our billing system um and to how we track what has been permitted on the lot in perpetuity because we can no longer just say look at an aerial photograph and know whether the gravel is impervious or pvious. We have to go back to the how it was permitted. So it's that is introducing some additional documentation requirements as well as um changes to our billing system which will be implemented over the course those the billing system changes will take a couple years to go into effect because of the the time delay in when we calculate things versus when the billing happens. Um, in terms of the uh the the change to the the one one or two unit dwellings, um, we we've looked at the number of parcels it would affect. Um, in theory, if every single one of these parcels redeveloped, um, it could be up to 600 acres of imperous area that got installed. However, given that so many of them are existing dwellings, we don't anticipate the impact to be that large. Over time, you wouldn't expect to see much change in the flooding neighborhoods along storm water. I I know that's really hard to predict, so um I apologize for throwing that at you. Yeah. So, um we we do know that there is an issue with um like infill redevelopment in terms of the impact on our drainage systems. And that is um so part of that is addressed by changes we made in 2024 um that requires essentially a lot drainage plan and that would now be required for these parcels over an acre. Um and then part of it is something that is essentially an impact that the city will be dealing with over time of you know upgrading storm drain pipes and streets and that sort of thing that will happen slowly as part of our watershed planning process. Thank you. Any other comments or thoughts from our commissioners? Commissioner I'm sorry. Um, I would just assume that um, the development services advisory committee also had input on this. I know we'd mentioned that on the previous case, but I'm going to I'm going to assume that they were involved with these discussions as well. Yes, the the formal request for we we had heard from some homeowners um but then this was brought up by uh people who attend those meetings uh and they ask for an updated on it every month. So, thank you. Thank you. Other comments from commissioners? Commissioner Fox? Um there's no time limit deadline associated with making these changes. Is there? No. No, there is not. Um the our because the buildupon area is already in effect. The the reason we would like to move this other part forward quickly is because there's at least one case in the variance process that would be affected by this. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from commissioners? Okay, seeing none, it sounds like we have one proposed change that's for standalone hot tubs. Um to the extent the impervious surface calculations were not changed by state law, we'd like to um change that back to um the language that it was before this proposed checks change. Is there any objection to that change? And seeing none, uh we can incorporate that into our motion. Uh would anybody like a motion to make a motion on this with that including that tech that change? I'll make the motion. Okay. I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated June 24th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning text change amendment with the one change noted in our meeting today for TC 225 storm order items to reflect state law. Thank you. Do second. Second motion second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much everyone. Um I would also like to ask staff um the two presentations for the last two text changes were great and very helpful in understanding. Is there any way we could upload those to uh board doc so that we can have and the public could have access to those as well. Thank you very much. Um, moving on to our next item, uh, E3, reszoning case Z8 2025 at 1011 Cross Link Road. This case is to change approximately 0.67 acres from R4 to R10. And we will now turn to Arthur Caswell for a presentation from city planning staff. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Arthur Casual the 4th. I'm here to present rezoning case Z825 um for the 0.67 acre site located at 10-11 Cross Link Road. The applicant is requesting a reszoning from R- from R4 to R10. According to the future land use map, the area is design is designated low-scale residential which aligns with the intent of the R10 zoning district. The surrounding zoning pattern is predominantly R4 with adjacent parcel sharing the same low density residential designation. However, within 500 feet of the site, there are existing R six and R10 conditional use districts as well as office mixeduse and neighborhood mixeduse zoning within a within a,000 ft. This reflects a transition to higher intensity and mixeduse development nearby. This map represents a zoomed out aerial view of the proposed resoning site outlined in yellow at the intersection of uh cross of Crown Crossing Lane and Cross Link Road. The site is directly adjacent to Builtmore Hills Park. Um, surrounding zoning includes a mix of low and moderate scale residential districts as well as nearby mixeduse districts highlighting the area's evolving land use pattern. These images offer multiple street level perspectives of the proposed site. The top left image shows the view of the site when facing it from Cross Link Road. The top right image depicts the view when approaching the site from Crown Crossing Lane. The bottom left image highlights the property's front and Jalong cross link road. The bottom right image displays the front and Jalong crown crossing lane. Together, these views provide a comprehensive understanding of the site's visibility and orientation at the intersection. So, this table summarizes the key differences between the existing R4 zoning and the proposed R10 zoning for the proposed 0.67 acre site. the minimum lot size. Um R4 requires larger lots um which is 10 which are 10,000 square feet while R10 allows for more compact lots um for 4,000 square feet um enabling more homes on the same land area. The maximum height um for both zoning districts allow buildings up to 40 feet or three stories tall um setbacks. As it relates to setbacks, R10 has reduced setback requirements 10t for the front, 10 foot 10t for the side, 20 ft for the rear compared to R4 which is 20 ft for the front, 20 ft from the side. um and 30 from the rear, allowing for more for a more flexible site layout. The maximum residential units under R4, the site could accommodate up to four units. Under R10, it could accommodate up to 12 units. This shows how the proposed reszoning would allow for a more compact and higher density residential pattern. The site demonstrates a mixed performance in terms of transportation access and energy related um indicators. It has a walk score of 20 which falls below the city average of 31. Um this indicates limited pedestrian access to nearby amenities. However, the transit score is 41 which is notably higher than the city average of 30 um reflecting strong access to public transit. The bike score is 34 which is slightly under the city average of 41 suggesting moderate bike infrastructure. And according to HUD data, the low transportation cost index is in the 70 is in the 70th percentile, meaning that the area is better than 70% of other areas in the um country in terms of having low transportation cost. A higher percentile indicates more affordability um suggesting that households in this area typically spend less on transportation. Jobs proximity index is the 75th is in the 75th percentile and indicating slightly lower transportation cost and better than average access to employment compared to um the broader region. So, this site is directly served by the Go Rally Route 5. Um, Builtmore Hills and Route 7-Eleven Carolina Pines Connector. Route 5 Builmore Hills runs every 15 minutes connecting Idle Wow Village and Sanderford Road to the Gold Rally station downtown. Route 7L Carolina Pound um Pines Connector runs every 30 minutes connecting Trion Road to Southgate Plaza on Rock Quarry Road. Because the gold rally bus stop lies on the site's frontage, development of the site through a tier two or three site plan would require improvements such as a shelter bench and other amenities um outlined in the UDO. As it relates to the affordability analysis, the resoning proposal would add to the city's housing supply by allowing smaller minimum lot sizes and supporting a higher residential yield. While the site currently contains a single home built in 1940, um is likely considered naturally occurring affordable housing, no subsidized units have been produced as part of the request. The proposed R10 zoning permits a variety of housing types beyond detached houses, including town homes and apartments. It also allows for smaller lot sizes um well below the citywide average of 0.28 acres. Additionally, the site is within walking distance of transit with a go rally stop located approximately 200 feet away. Demographics and land use history. The site is located in a census block group with a high demographic index of 71% which is nearly um double the citywide average of 37% reflecting a community with a significant concentration of low-income residents and people of color. People of color represent 88% of the population in this area compared to 46% citywide. 54% of residents are low income, nearly twice the city average of 29%. While linguistic isolation is slightly lower than average, educational attainment is lower with 16% of the population lacking a high school depo diploma compared to 8% citywide. The area has also experienced significant rental cost increases with the median gross rent rising by 43.8% since 2016 um well above the city average of 25.5%. These indicators highlight the importance of equitable growth strategies and housing options that meet the needs of vulnerable populations. The proposed resoning from R4 to R10 is consistent with the site's future land use map designation of low-scale residential. This land use category typically supports a variety of housing types beyond traditional detached houses including duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, town houses, and other missing middle housing options, generally on lots of approximately 1/6 of an acre or larger. Although R10 is classified as a medium density zoning district and is not explicitly listed within the typical range of low-scale residential, um, which typically includes like R2 through R six. Um it can be considered consistent with the future land use map when applied with sensitivity to site design and contextual compatibility compatibility especially in areas planned for frequent transit. So the site is located within both the frequent transit area and a transit emphasis corridor on the urban forum map. While the while the requested zoning district is residential and does not include a designated frontage, the proposal is consistent with the urban forum guidance. The comprehensive plan supports increased residential density and housing variety along key transit corridors corridors and is resoning align with that intent by enabling more compact transit supportive development. The reasonzoning request is consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan particularly the vision theme of growing successful neighborhoods and communities. The site's proximity to Builtmore Hills Hills Park, a planned greenway connection and an existing bus stop just 200 feet away supports the comprehensive the comprehensive plan's goal of encouraging residential growth along frequent transit corridors. The site is located within a frequent transit area and along a transit emphasis corridor, both of which are targeted for increased housing capacity and variety, aligning with the plan's intent to expand housing options near public amenities and transit infrastructure. These are the policies that are consistent with um this resoning. The reasoning align with city goals to increase housing supply and make better use of existing transit access. Um and then again the site's location within a frequent transit area and transit infus corridor makes a suitable place to accommodate more housing types while supporting a development pattern that is compatible with public transportation. These are the these are the inconsistent policies. Um this site does not meet the NFPA um 1710 standards for the timely arrival of a full alarm assignment um which is the required 8 minute travel time is not achieved there. There are no outstanding issues. Um dates to remember the next um planning commission meeting will be I guess that's not June 24th. It's going to be um in August and the deadline for action will be August 23rd. Thank you very much. We will now open up public comment. We'll start with those in support. The applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium. Good morning, Chair Miller and commissioners. I'm Cindy Hosini um of Waycon Holdings. This is Ashkan Hosini. Um we are Raleigh natives and Enllo High School graduates that have been doing development in downtown since around the 2010s. We mainly build single family homes. Um we do renovations and ADUs. We were one of the first developers to do an ADU when that became permissible and have also been the first developer to do a double ADU. So, we really specialize in detached housing. Um, on the screen you can see some of our developments. Um, the largest picture of the two houses is an example of um around 1500 square feet small houses near Robert's Park. Um, the house with the yellow door is a thousand square foot tiny home off of Tarbor. Um the yellow and gray house or is a double ADU in downtown Raleigh near Chavis Park. And then the white building with the blue door is another ADU that we built. These are examples of our development work. Um we've also done a couple remodels in this Builtmore Hills area off of Hadley Drive and Newcome in the past. Um, however, the lot on Crosslink and Crown Crossing has a dilapidated house from the 1940s that doesn't really warrant remodeling. Um, so being in the designated frequent transit area, um, it has a frequent transit development option that would allow for more dense housing. Um, but currently you can see it's a very long and slim property. So, it's 2/3 of an acre, but it's 403 feet by 73 feet. And um the frequent transit development option for items in the frequent transit area requires a minimum lot depth of 100 feet for R4. So we could not do the um crown crossing frontage because it only has 73 feet of lot depth that way in R4. Um similarly R six requires 80 feet of lot depth and um R10 requires 60 ft of lot depth. So with that move to R10 allowing a minimum of 60 feet of lot depth because we have 73 um allows us to do uh tiny homes and 13 um a row of 13 tiny homes. So this would be example of that or um nine single family homes and nine uh tiny homes as defined by the city is 1,200 square feet or less which is consistent with other homes in the Builmore Hills neighborhood. For example, the two remodels we did were around 1,000 square feet. Um, this is just a current street view of the home. Um, we did have a neighborhood meeting that was well attended with 22 neighbors and I believe they'll speak next. Um, the main concerns, which I think they'll touch on, and I'll try to talk about how we've tried to address them. Um, mainly fell under transportation. So, increased traffic, um, parking and sidewalk. So, we did reach out to the city liaison. Um there are no current plans for a light at that intersection of Cross Link and Crown Crossing. Um and for a development of this small size, it would be kind of cross prohibitive for us to fund. Um parking, we would plan for off- streetet parking. So with the lot depth of 73 feet would allow for driveways and parking. Um but there was concern about street parking still being allowed and the transportation of city representative confirmed that um parking would still be allowed on the street and sidewalks um for the frontage um facing crown crossing would be part of the subdivision requirement in the UDO. So that would connect the crown crossing frontage to the bus stop. Um but there are no sidewalks that continue to Builtmore Hills on the park side. And um lastly, there were some storm water concerns. Our plan is just to follow the UDO guidance. And then there was concerns of the design of homes matching existing homes on that crown crossing and the price point of tiny homes being um affecting the um larger homes across the streets um uh value. Um, and that's all we have from the development. Thank you very much. Turn off questions. We can bring back questions. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? Then seeing none, we can open up public comment for those in opposition. Those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Good morning, commission. My name is Elizabeth Holland and I reside 800 Crown Crossing Lane um at the bottom of the hill from Cross Link across from um Builtmore Park. Um I am here today with several members of our community both members on cross link but on crown crossing lane. So we are a neighborhood concern. Some of the things that Mr. um we has um has has said today we certainly have already addressed because we have had a meeting and we have had an ongoing dialogue um with them with our concerns. Um the things that we'd like to um reiterate today um is just to to say that the quality of the homes on cross link is going to be is much different than what is proposed um that's coming in. So our concern um is value for our homes that have been some of us have been there up to 20 years and so we are concerned that um that the um that the appearance will be maintained. We're long-term um owners in the area. Um and the bigger part of that concern um is safety. There is a um a unit from KB that's backing up already to Crown Link that is going to affect our traffic on our current street. Um we are not sure how um the number of that um of that project, but we certainly have already been told that it's going to affect the income of traffic coming down our street on Cross Link. Um we're currently already having major problems with um traffic especially during the spring and summer times when the park Builtmore Park is very active um and on street parking is a big part of our concern um and the number of traffic that comes back and forth. We have in the past already ex um requested um for speed bumps that was denied. Um they told us that they did um a study that did not um support um speed bumps. Our concern is with this coming up, we just cannot even vision what the traffic is going to be like. We do have um disabled children on the on the street, grandchildren all who attempt to play in the street or around the area and that's a big part of our concern. So what we did was we met and we list bullets and I want to um give you that quickly. um our safety concerns, um larger um vehicles that will be coming in and out of our street. Um as well as um the number of homes of I'm sorry, of vehicles that will be allowed to park on the street rather than um in these new homes that are coming in. So um we've we've talked with Mr. we about that and I believe he assured us that there would he would be trying to do off streetet parking and I'm not sure where that is right now. Um also uh we are traffic control is a big part of our concern but also the appearance of what our what our community will look like when these tiny homes come in. whether it's um the 5 to 10 or 13, it certainly will change um what our what our community will look like. Most of our homes are at least 22 2400 square ft² homes, very large homes. And so this is the biggest part of our concerns. Um we we just want it to be on record that um we we want the quality of our community, not just our street to maintain be maintained. We recognize and respect the need for um development. Um and we support that. Our concern is to make sure that the value of our homes don't go down but actually will go up which is I'm sure your concerns all over Raleigh. I think that's it that we have today. Very much. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Good morning. I am Tracy Hip and I live on Crown Crossing Lane. I've lived there for 22 years. Um, and I am in agreement with everything that's been said. I believe we did attempt to submit our information to you. I do not know if you have received that information or not. Uh, if not, we're more than happy to get that to you for review. Um, I did note that the in the city presentation, they gave a visual of the street of Crown Crossing Lane, but it did not show from the point of cross link. Um, as the city has put a divider on cross link and part of the safety concern is that because the divider sticks out so far that all of the city large trucks and equipment, the large vehicles that go down the street have to pull out so far to get onto the street. And with parking on that side of the street, we feel like that it will be a safety issue for those cars and for anybody turning on to the street. Um, I also think that it's important to understand that our community is not just the eight or nine houses on Crown Crossing Lane. It is also the park which is directly across from our homes. Uh, and I say that because we've continuously asked for speed bumps on Crown Crossing because of the amount of traffic that goes up and down the road. And it's not just traffic. We're talking about speeding traffic where cars are actually racing each other down the street. Okay, that is a safety issue. We've seen people almost hit um backing out of my driveway is a safety issue because people are speeding up the street. I also want to note that speed bumps are already in place in from the park itself. So if you consider Crown Crossing an entrance to the park, which it has now become, whereas Fitzgerald, I believe, used to be the entrance. So Crown Crossing goes all the way down Crown Crossing through the park and out the other side. Well, there are speed bumps over in front of the park. So if we're consider considered a part of the park, there needs to be speed bumps on Crown Crossing Lane to slow that traffic down. I don't want to see somebody get hurt um right there. Um, we're also asking that the sidewalk carries all the way down to the park because the amount of foot traffic over the last 20 years has significantly increased and people tend to walk either in the road or on the side of the park where there is no sidewalk and so the danger of that and again we've seen people almost hit um walking on that side of the road. So we'd like that for that to be a consideration as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in opposition of this project? If so, please come forward. Hi, I'm Al Perry. um here representing my mother and my recently deceased father who have lived there about 30 years and helped to develop the street um the larger homes that were uh discussed previously. Um I think that someone sent um some photographs over if not they will send them to you. Uh, and that was an attempt to show um the look and feel of the homes that have been described these um where families have been for 20 or I think my parents have been about 30 years. Uh what those look like uh and how uh someone was able to use A1 excuse AI, excuse me, use AI to um to incorporate some of those elements of those homes onto what might be built across the street. And I think that when people are talking about trying to to preserve the look and feel um it would seem um not a a difficult task to incorporate design elements from the homes across the street onto what is built uh proposed to be built. So would ask that you take a look at that um and and incorporate the elements of brick and others elements, design elements so that even if those homes are smaller, they still have a look and feel that is consistent with the homes across the street. Uh as my uh parents neighbor have said, you know, they support development and growth. They would just like it to be um you know, consistent as much as possible with what is already present. Um, and that's what we ask you to consider. I think that I think the ask um with regard to the speed bumps and the sidewalks, I think that the neighborhood has been reasonable in their ask. And I think that um, you know, they they there aren't people who are generally, you know, sort of obstinate and and resistant to change. They they're trying to work with the developers who've been seemingly to me have been responsive as well. So, I think that you have a situation where the developer and the neighbors are trying to to work together um to to foster the development the city wants and needs, but just ask for they may I I believe reasonable ask of this commission. Thank you. Thank you very much. There any other members of the public who'd like to speak in opposition to this project? Please come to the podium or or raise your hand if you need an extra minute. Um then seeing none, we can bring it back to the table for questions from our commissioners. Commissioner Neptune. Thank you. Uh first I just wanted to start by uh thanking all of the residents of the neighborhood for uh joining us this morning. I mean, just taking time out of your day to be with us uh to discuss this potential development and investment in your community uh I suspect means a great deal to everybody on the commission. Um I wanted to uh just be clear in acknowledging at least what I believe I heard as far as the uh issues kind of that are top of mind for the community that's been raised. Uh number one, it seemed like it was consistently mentioned uh just traffic speeding and and frankly it sounds like that has been an ongoing issue uh prior to this. Uh you know it sounds like you know residents have observed um this again sort of reckless driving, we'll put it that way. And I'll just acknowledge you I've been living in Southeast Raleigh for many years and I mean I have seen it too. Uh, and so I just wonder that to me is a though it's related to this conversation, I wonder is there a and I guess this is a question maybe back to staff. Um, is there some way in which we can uh encourage or help facilitate some connection to be made between these residents and let's say Raleigh Transportation to discuss some potential uh solutions to address I mean I mean it sounds in other words I mean it sounds like they've gone to Raleigh Transportation before about speed bumps and and it sounds like for some reason you know and I I'll acknowledge you know I formerly served on the you know Raleigh bicycle pedestrian advisory uh commission. So, I'm all about some sidewalks and, you know, slowing down traffic in our community. But, I guess what I'm what I'm trying to get at is is there some way we can encourage or help facilitate between these residents here and our colleagues in Raleigh Transportation some connection to address these very real concerns around speeding and and traffic in the neighborhood. That's number one. Number two, the other issue I feel like I heard consistently mentioned was uh with regard to design, the appearance, right? I mean, you've got people who've been living here for generations, frankly, is what I'm hearing and I think what I'm bearing witness to. Uh, and you know, no one here is opposed to investment in the neighborhood, but it's simply a matter of can we just affirm that we're all on the same page between the residents and our development community uh that the investment here in tiny homes uh will maintain, right? The look, the feel, the character of what people have been maintaining for generations. That I think that's what I'm hearing. And so I just want to acknowledge that. I think that top of mind sort of issue. Uh, and maybe the developer could speak to that like their intention with that and and I and maybe this is a question back for the developer if I heard it and saw it correctly in the presentation. There were nine tiny homes um being presented in the presentation. Is that correct? And or or there there are 13 13. Thank you for that to my colleagues on the commission for clarifying 13. And then um I wanted to quickly clarify the size of those tiny homes. I mean I think it was mentioned the square footage. Maybe somebody could share that with me here in real time. Um I think that wraps up the comment. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, sure. So, it sounds like we've got um a couple questions. The first one, would the applicant like to respond to um the comments about um the design elements and fitting in with the surrounding neighborhood? And to answer real quickly about the tiny homes, um 1,200 square feet is the maximum square footage defined by the city of Raleigh as a tiny home. And then nine could fit as single family homes that would exceed the the 1,200 square foot um maximum. That's right. We have two options under the R10. Okay. So it could be nine or 13 depending regular size homes or 13 tiny homes which would be a maximum of 1,200 ft and then maximum of,200 ft for those tiny homes. Exactly. Wow. Well, I'll just acknowledge as somebody who has lived in an ADU since it was made legal in uh the city of Raleigh, uh that ADU is no longer larger than like 800 square feet, and I have loved it. Um so, I could imagine moving into a tiny home myself one day. You know, hope well, you know, if I have a family, I have to move out. But anyways, that's not the point. Um thank you for that clarification. And then as far as the design and the look and the appearance and the feel of the of the homes, could the the developer maybe speak to that? Sure, absolutely. Uh, Ashkan Husini, uh, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our case with you guys. Um, as far as the the look and feel, um, of the homes, I mean, we we kind of gave these examples. Um, we build more of a contemporary style. So, something um, you know, upper right would be um, I think Cindy mentioned 1500, but they're actually 1800, the the two that are upper right hand side of the screen. um so that it would probably be a more contemporary look than um the houses across the street. So, you know, we we showed examples of of what we build. We wanted to be upfront. You know, we don't want to promise that, you know, the houses were going to look like the ones across the street and then come in and do something different. So, um you know, the houses across the street are beautiful. They're really large. I think they're some of them are 3,000 square feet maybe with twocar garages. We just what we're proposing a bill just isn't anywhere close to that size. Um so thank you. No, we're going to hold this at the table for um to to try to finish getting to the bottom of addressing these design first the design elements and then uh the transportation issues. Do do you have a comment about the design elements of I do. May I just apologize if you mentioned it. Um are they for sale units or rental? For sale. For sale. Okay. So, I'm assuming people who would buy a home would maintain their home because they own it. Okay, that helps me a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments about conditions um or or thoughts related to design elements? Yes, Commissioner Bennett or Vice Chair Bennett, excuse me. Thank you. Um would you consider um some conditions to um make the the homes that you are building more consistent with the homes that are there not necessarily in size but in terms of the materials so they would look similar to the homes that are already there. So there's more of a blending in with what's there. And perhaps Commissioner O'Hver, could you share some of the uh design elements with respect to facades that we've requested in the past? Calling me out. Um I do I I do understand the um the concern about the design elements and the proximity. I've mentioned before even in my own neighborhood in Oakwood, um what makes some of those neighborhoods so unique and so interesting is the difference the many different styles of housing within the neighborhood. I do think there's a way to blend some type of condition with the materials, but I certainly understand the applicant's position that they don't want to necessarily mimic what's across the street. And I'm not sure that's a negative thing for neighborhoods and interesting neighborhoods. So that's that's my take as far as materials. I will say on a lot of these just to be consistent with past resoning cases, we've often had um conditions and I thought you'd been the one to typically ask for those. That's why I te up. But with respect to ephus or vinyl or condition, we did talk about hardy materials. It's hard to legislate design and consistency and how does staff determine what's consistent and not consistent. It's super hard to define that. But I think there's an ability to talk about hardy materials, hardy plank. Again, on a lot of these contemporary homes, a lot of those materials weather very badly. Quite honestly, I'm not exactly sure what that material is. I'm not an architect, but that that certainly is not very attractive and I wouldn't want to live next to that either. So, I think there is an opportunity for the applicant to go back and try to find a blend of party materials that are going to be similar but not the same as what's across the street. I could support that. I'm not sure if my fellow commissioners could, but that's my opinion on that. Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair Bennett, do you have a followup to your comment? I hear what you're saying, Commissioner O'Hver, and sure there's certainly I don't have an opposition to diversity and appearance in a neighborhood, but this is a long established community and they're asking that what comes in is fairly consistent with what is there, which is not unlike what we hear from other communities in other parts. parts of Raleigh. So, it would seem to me if these developers, which seem to be doing very good work, um are coming into a community, you'd want to be a good neighbor and be a part of the community and not look like this is one community and this is another community. We want to be a holistic community, it seems to me, since this is a wellestablished community. So, if there are conditions that could be included to make the homes being proposed more consistent and look and feel with what is there, then I would support that just like I support it when we see it coming in from other communities throughout Raleigh. Commissioner Fox, I'm always I I acknowledge um the need for people to be able to anticipate what's coming near them or next to them. I'm always hesitant to regulate materials. Um reason being if you regulate materials and these are for sale units. I buy a unit and four years from now I want to change the materials on the facade. I want to renovate my house. I could potentially have a zoning violation if zoning is tied to materials. So there may be other ways to do that to articulate and signal to folks what you're doing that might have more to do with um massing height setback etc. or much like Commissioner Wabver mentioned um not allowing certain types of materials that are often found to be offensive for whatever reason and that includes things like vinyl siding. However, I've also seen vinyl siding combs which are just perfectly lovely. So, that's it's not a personal um request to remove certain materials, but again, I'm I'm very hesitant to tie materials to zoning in a in a zoning case, and that's why. Thank you, Commissioner May. Oh, I thought I was invisible for a second. Um I'm going to be candid. Uh I do not like personally I live in Southeast Raleigh. I don't live far from Cross Link. I do not like driving around Southeast Raleigh and seeing houses that starkly look different. I think these square homes are ugly, and that's just being real. I see a lot of communities where they look like wellattended small family home communities that have been there for a while, and then we have these monstrosities, and I'm not really sure where they come from or what area of the country we're gleaning this sort of design from. I think that it breaks up the character of the community. Um, how much are these homes going to go for? Um, it it depends on if we go tiny home or single family, but I mean we're probably two years out before um anything gets built on it. But if it was today, let's say like a 1,200 foot tiny home would probably go for 350 to 375. So $350,000 for a tiny home in a affordable naturally occurring affordable community. And how much would it go if they were regular size homes? It would just depend on the square footage. Um probably low 400s, $450. 450. So $100,000 more for a regulariz home at least. So that is also going to impact the affordability of that community, right? like we understand that that is the the the also the case and this is a naturally occurring community and how many homes are in this community in in the surrounding neighborhood? Yeah. Um I mean there there's a lot it's a lot of established homes the established homes all of them are 1,000 to,200 square feet and the renovated ones go for uh around 300 plus or minus. So give me a ballpark of how many homes are in the community. Uh I'm not sure probably 200 300 homes. So 200 homes in a naturally occurring affordable community and we're thinking about bringing between uh 13 to nine regular nine regular size or 13 tiny homes that cost more than my regular size house into this community that also will not be supplying sidewalks to further enhance or uh imbune with the community especially going toward Builtmore Hills but connecting the transit which is cool, but not giving extra sidewalks anywhere else and seeming very very set on these being the designs of the homes. Did you all research the community when you came in and looked at how the homes looked and decided that you didn't care what those homes look like that this is what you're going to do because this is what you're good at? No, that that's not the case. The um the homes across the street are only about uh 25 or 30 years old. So that's not those are not representative of the size or the look of Builtmore Hills. Um we've renovated a few houses in Builtmore Hills and kept the aesthetics of the homes. Um it's Builtmore Hills has brick homes, they have siding homes. Um no vinyl siding. And I want to add that all the houses we build are with Hardy Plank siding. We don't use vinyl siding. Um, and yes, it's very comparable to the houses that are in the neighborhood in terms of the homes that you renovated and built more hills. Did you turn them into this where you kept them with their character? Kept them with their character. So, you have the ability to build homes that look nice and are newer in the community that keeps the character of the community of the homes around it, but you're choosing not to. Th those were renovations and not new builds. Okay. But you have the ability to build homes in a community. It looks like and keeps the character of the homes in the community, but you're choosing not to. We're saying that to add if if we're building tiny homes and the neighbors want us to build have brick on on the houses, you're just increasing cost. So, it's there's a there's a trade-off. We're not we're not opposed to building nice stuff. We've never done anything that's, you know, a renovation or a new build that we use vinyl siding on. We use good materials on our builds, but to require us to do brick and twocar garages, then it's no longer a $350,000 house. Well, nobody's saying the garage, right? Because we're also saying there's going to be parking on site, but that doesn't mean that when you have visitors, there's not going to add extra parking to the street. These homes will add more traffic to the community, which is a concern for the community. So, there are tradeoffs to everyone. There are trade-offs to the current residents potentially losing their naturally occurring affordability of over 200 homes, which to me is more important than building new homes of 13 or nine new homes that would then simp possibly disrupt 200 homes and their affordability is one. And then two, my issue also is if this council or commission in the past has been a little more, you know, strict or staunch about making sure that the houses fit the community, that needs to happen in this project also. And I agree with the other council person, uh, Council Nept Neptune and Bennett who said, you know, if you're driving down a community, you want it to seem cohesive and inclusive. if you want it to seem like that's not one community and this is another. So to me, tradeoffs go both ways. I don't necessarily sit and feel bad for developers who have to give some trade-offs, especially if it means that the residents are trading off also and needing speed bumps. So I'm sure once these homes go in, that process of you all getting speed bumps might get real easier because of who's might who's going to probably be moving into your neighborhood. And this happens across Raleigh where we need a light. we don't get a light until the neighborhood starts gentrifying and now we have street lights or now we have stop lights or now we have speed bumps when we've been asking for it for years. So my thought is yes you've been talking to the community and you can talk nicely to residents and still not give them what they want. So in my mind I'm not for this project because yes it's adding a couple due points of affordability but it also potentially risks naturally occurring affordability in the future. they do not meet the character of the neighborhood that they're going to be built in and even if the residents are asking for it and there's a capability of doing it, it seems like there's no need no desire to do it. And I think that it also should be a part where as we're talking to city transportation and maybe working with developers to also figure out how if we're bringing in new development that'll increase traffic, we can make the streets e um safer by having more speed bumps and listening to what the residents are saying. Thank you. Those are my two points. Thank you, Commissioner Mai. I'd like to um bring it back to conditions related to this resoning case um and try to narrow in on some of those. It sounds like again the two items are design appearance and transportation issues. We'll bring up staff in just a moment to address transportation. On design, if we're being consistent um with what we have done in other cases historically in the past, um the conditions have typically been related to building materials specifically related to vinyl and ephus. It sounds like that's not a material that you use anyway. Um would you be open to including a condition related to um those building materials? Absolutely. Thank you very much. Um Commissioner Fox, another comment on that. Um I was going to offer some other thoughts about neighborhood character. Um it's likely less materials and its built form. So the shape of the building, right? But there are other parts of a development which make it feel like part of a community and that has to do with things like street trees, landscape, etc. So I did hear correctly, just correct me if I'm wrong, that there there would be a sidewalk required. Okay. So that you would build a sidewalk on your side along Yes. along a crown crossing in front of our development. It just wouldn't extend all the way to the park because we don't own the property to the park. So on your frontage you would build and then along with that I'm assuming are there requirements for street trees? Yes. The the subdivision process it requires um street trees and sidewalks as part of that process. Okay. So, so um sometimes um we've seen conditions um offered um looking at the the nature and type of plantings um included in uh in the streetscape. Um, and sometimes I I find that helps um make new developments feel a little bit more seamless, a little bit more integrated in a community in a way that's not regulating material that's going to increase the cost, which is counter to the point of creating a home that's tiny in the first place. So, I'm acknowledging that issue. Um, so it's just it's just another set of conditions to contemplate. What any conditions in particular related to the plantings? A little more guidance on what might be helpful there. Well, having not done a tree survey of the street there, um um just recommending the selection of um the selection of species that are um congruous with other ones um and the streetscapes of adjacent streets andor um crossing crossing. Add a condition on design. Excuse me. Is that something the applicant would be open to? Yes. Um and I believe the um when when going through the subdivision process when the when the um when they require the street trees, I think they give you a few options as to what those trees are. I don't think you can put in whatever you want. I believe that's the the process. Can I make a recommendation possibly around design? Can I just remind the commission that conditions must be offered voluntarily by the applicant? Very gladly. um the Hardy materials just were already me actually mentioned first by the applicant that that's what they typically use. So that was why um that seemed appropriate. Um can I ask about design? Is there any possible way? You may but Commissioner Neptune raised his hand first. Yes. And it's it's just a brief uh comment and observation with regard to sidewalk infrastructure and the potential for uh let's say speed mitigation in the neighborhood. As it happens, the city of Raleigh right now and our friends with Raleigh transportation, city staff transportation, we are in the middle of adopting uh drafting and adopting a new sidewalk and bike plan for the city, a new active mobility plan for the city. And so I wonder if this could be a good opportunity for the residents to connect with colleagues on city staff to discuss uh sidewalk connectivity in the neighborhood because that to me is like a whole another certainly uh very relevant and very important issue with regard to this resoning. Um and I I' I've been turning on just how we can maybe encourage again connection between our residents and our colleagues on city staff with regard to that transportation issue. And it just so happens, I mean, we're literally in the middle of drafting a new sidewalk and bike plan for the city. So, it could be this. It's an opportune time to make that connection. That's a great point. And before we move to transportation though, and one last item on uh the design, is there a way that you all would consider a condition of making these homes look and fit more with the character of the homes that are already there. Not necessarily speaking about brick, but I'm talking about or materials, but I'm speaking on the design of the homes. Yeah, we could take a look at it. I mean, we do we've done A-frame roofs, we've done shed roofs, we've we've done it all. You can see kind of the example. So, we're not opposed to that. Thank you very much. Yes, Commissioner Cochran is on. So, as an architect, I'd like to say that I live around the corner from the two homes that everyone seems to find really offensive, and I considered buying one of them because I think it's actually beautiful. And I'd also like to say that um a lot of times these neighborhoods have this beautiful character to them, and we fall in love with it and we live there for a long time. And when it's built, we're using the trendy materials of the day. There's a specific color brick here. Um it's actually a mixture of vinyl, siding, and brick in this neighborhood. So before we outlaw vinyl sighting, we might want to consider that materials affect the affordability of the house. So there's a way to incorporate brick thoughtfully without breaking your budget. There's also a way to reference existing geometry without it being cartoonish. Um so I do think that you've demonstrated that you're thoughtful. You've got a variety in your design. I would say all of the pictures you're showing us from right now are a different approach. So instead of regulating and strongholding and trying to make these decisions right now, let's think about who um who might need to buy a house in Raleigh and what's affordable to them and what would maybe make this a multigenerational neighborhood and some things like that. So, I just want to encourage us to come at it with a how much um housing can this neighborhood support because as the planning commission that really is our purview and then um be good faith partners to work together to to find something. It sounds like everyone's already talking very openly about this and all ideas are on the table and I do appreciate everyone coming in and bringing, you know, their history and their ideas. But I just want to take a step back and say if we left this undeveloped, would that benefit the community? Probably not. But we do want smart development there. Do we think going to this other zoning would provide that smart development? I think that's kind of the focus of today. But I do want to say I think that's actually a beautiful house. Yeah. Thank you very much. Uh we're going to move to transportation. Is is this related to design as well? Yes, very briefly. One last item on design. We have several and it's just it's a note with regard to the developer in this particular context being willing to at least from what I've what I can tell the developer has demonstrated a willingness and openness and a good faith effort to be engaged in conversation with the community with the residents and and appears from what I from what I'm hearing. um has expressed interest in moving forward in a way where they continue to be right in in good faith in conversation with the community about um investing right in the neighborhood in a way that not only maintains but hopefully uh expands on the value of what generations of our residents before have been maintaining. So just want to acknowledge that and and express my appreciation. Thank you very much. Moving on to transportation. Could we have staff come up and address some of the transportation issues that have uh been discussed? Thank you. Good morning, Commission. Carter Robertson with Transportation. Uh first of all, thank you, Commissioner Neptune, for uplifting our active mobility plan. I'm working on that. Uh we're actually in our final stretch of public engagement. So, we'd like to connect with the community on that as we can. Um, in regards to making those connections with our residents, I'll make myself available after this meeting to talk about our plan and this case in particular. So, I'll be available to kind of touch on some of the specific concerns that were mentioned. I'm not familiar when the request for uh speed bumps was submitted. that's something I could follow up with our neighborhood traffic management program about, maybe see why that was denied and if that's something we could revisit now that circumstances are changing. Um, also willing to work with the applicant in the past. Um, we've seen conditions related to traffic calming measures um that are offered voluntarily of course. Um, we do have some speed data, not for Crown Crossing, but for Cross Link, uh, in particular, that's suggesting that we do see speeds that are pretty consistently higher than the speed limit there. So, I can follow up with our neighborhood traffic program, our Vision Zero team, maybe partners at uh, Raleigh PD to see if there's a solution we could uh, get to there. There was a lot of concerns. Um, is there anything else specifically you'd like me to touch on? Sure. Could you um review with us uh whether this project required a traffic impact analysis? No, it did not. So, with every case, um, we get the entitlements from what's existing and what's proposed. We put them into our model model and it generates a maximum trip generating scenario. For this case, uh it anticipates this development uh would generate about 70 daily trips. Um four in the AM hours and five in the PM peak hours. So those do not generate our TIA thresholds. Sorry, I didn't miss that part. In the peak hours, how many was it? 5 in the PM and 4 in the A.M. Okay. And so that's 7 to 9 in the morning and I think 4 to 6 at in the evening. Thank you very much. Um and could you confirm that um on the site plan that the neighbor or that the applicant would be required to put in a sidewalk in on these parcels? Yeah, that's correct. Uh if this is a subdivision or a tier three site plan, um this um what's the street name? Crown Crossing most closely resembles a neighborhood local. And so that includes curb and gutter, the planting area with the street trees, and then a six-foot sidewalk. So that would be required at site plan. Okay. Thank you very much. Yes, Vice Chair Bennett. Thank you. Um, what would um what would it take to get the city to extend the sidewalk from the piece that um the applicant would need to build to the park since that's not their property and they wouldn't be responsible for that piece? What would the neighborhood have to do? Is there a process to request that missing piece? Right. So, we used to have a petition program where people could submit their requests. We've moved away from that. Now, we're really trying to capture that with our active mobility plan. And so, we're putting in segments that have been requested in the past and other connections that we think would be important and we're going to score those. And once that plan is adopted, we'll move forward kind of with that prioritized list. So, it would depend. We we could see about getting that on the list, but it would also depend on how it ranks against the others. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, Commissioner Shard. So, I understand you are not able to talk about the specifics for the speed bumps for this particular street, but I'd be curious to hear what the criteria are because it sounds like they may be may need some rethinking. And um and I just while I've got the mic, I'll just add as a side note that the solution here really is for the city to take vision zero more seriously and have things like automated enforcement all over the place like other cities have done very successfully. But that's not my question. No. Yeah. Yeah. I could look into the specifics when I follow up with our neighborhood traffic program. Um, I believe it's mainly about traffic volume and the speeds that we're seeing on that street and also the design if that's that's oriented more towards the neighborhood local areas which this one is. So, I can follow up and provide some more information to the specifics. Thank you very much. It sounds like the applicant um is um willing to consider some additional time to make uh potential to review making conditions, additional conditions to this case, excuse me. Um are there is there anything else for the applicant to consider when they're evaluating that before we move on to the next item? Thank you, Chair Miller. Uh, I'd like to state just uh just bluntly I don't think the city has a business regulating what people build their houses to look like within certain parameters of how you address the street and what size. Uh the color and the shape. I think that uh we're not Carrie and I like our diversity of houses. Uh the tiny houses that are being proposed here are potentially less expensive than the houses they're going in across the street from. If we deny this zoning and it stays in R4, what you're going to get is not an affordable piece of construction. This is uh these are some of the least expensive developments that we've seen proposed here at this table. And we talk a lot about affordability and this is the best option for affordability along this road. Uh and finally, I'd like to say these are exactly the kind of developers that we want to encourage in the city. Small, local, involved. They're listening. This is not Lamar. This is not Kain. Uh these are the people that build our city. And uh I'm ready to vote for this. give it a positive recommendation at any time. Thank you very much. I personally am inclined to agree with you. I'm also open to hearing about what the uh applicant's willing to consider for additional conditions. Um but the looked a few times. Thank you. Yeah, I'm also going to turn to you next. I'll keep my hand. Um and um I'm concerned when we start adding too many conditions on things like um the either building materials or providing traffic calming measures to the street, other items that are absolutely going to increase the cost of these units. And again, these are um affordable units, specifically those missing middle middle housing types that we desperately need in the city and the free frequent transit development in the FTDO area um right next to transit. And this is exactly what our overall comprehensive plan has been geared at trying to create for the city. So, um, while I do elevate the conversations here and the, um, applicant seems open to considering conditions, I do separately personally agree with Commissioner Outwell. So, yes, Commissioner. Well, I have two parts. Um, one to the person who just spoke from the city. He mentioned that he understands that the residents have been asking for traffic speed bumps and things like that, but now the conditions have changed. And I'm wondering what conditions have changed if he can expound on the change conditions that now may necessitate speed bumps when they were asking for it for a while. And the other thing is I get that I may not agree with some of the things that the counselors are saying or may say now but said different in the past but that does not mean that my voice shouldn't be heard on this council. I should be ignored when my hand is raised and people should be picked over me when I'm clearly showing that my hand is up before theirs. But before we get to that, if you can um explain to me what the new conditions are that are currently happening that were not in place when they were asking for speed bumps, but now may necessitate more traffic regulation. Well, and and if I could, prior to our colleague from city staff, was it Carter? Yes, sir. What's your last name? Robertson. Robertson. Mr. Robertson, thank you. Um, just briefly, I wanted to acknowledge uh with Commissioner Omay, you know, I'm coming on to planning after six years with the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission. And I only mention that because over the six years, the BPAC uh in conversation with city staff reviewed this uh we'll say legacy approach uh the sort of neighborhood petitions for sidewalks um traffic management programs with speed bumps. I just I mention all this to say that um just to put it briefly, uh effectively these programs and and sort of specifically the neighborhood petition program was found to be ownorous for residents to participate in in ineffective effectively, you know, effectively. Uh, and so I think over the years staff has been trying to identify new measures to um make these investments in sidewalks and improve connectivity in our neighborhoods um that are uh more sort of quickly uh reflective of our neighborhood growth. That's number one. And then number two, with regard to like speed bumps and I guess those like changing conditions, um I think just and again I mean I'll certainly defer to staff to speak. I just want to speak to this, but I want to acknowledge that I think the the BPAC as a commission has been in conversation with staff about this over the years and I know we've adopted vision zero policies and you know we as a city have been making investments in staff to improve uh you know traffic mitigation in our neighborhoods and in our city uh over the years and that's kind of based on evolving best practices you know as you as transportation professionals but I just wanted to mention that conversation that's been ongoing um from from a BPAC standpoint are calling. I think that that's fair, but I also think that we've seen in communities uh which communities are prioritized for those traffic impacts, for those speed bumps that's asked for it and which communities are not, which communities get stop lights and street signs that have asked for it and which communities don't until conditions change aka gentrification. And now conditions are different. So, we can look into that now. And I Raleigh is not a perfect city. you know, city is, but pretending like we don't have these issues or they're just boiler point uh, you know, nuts and bolt issues when there's a deeper and bigger systemic issues to that is unfair to the residents that are here saying what they're saying and been ignored for a long time and now new conditions are coming in that may allow those things that they've been asking for for years. And I don't think that it's just because Raleigh is going through its processes and I'm just I'm here to keep it real. Thank you. Those are all fantastic comments. I will note we have four more resoning cases and several items that if they're not here heard today, they will get pushed until the fall. Uh we have many members of the public that have are in attendance for those cases as well. Um so I'm trying to be respectful of everybody in the room and the agenda and the other cases here. Um also there's a lot of interest in this case. There's been a lot of hands flying up. I'm doing my very best to figure out in what order those hands are going up. if I have ever missed that my mistake. That's why we moved my position down here so I wouldn't have to look left and right. Um but from this vantage point, I can often see things um in the order uh that it's harder at other viewpoints on the table. So um with that there, I believe there's a quick question for transportation and then we're going to um uh applicants ready to um consider additional conditions and we're going to move on. Thank you. Yeah, just to clarify really quick, I I'm not familiar with what went into that previous analysis or when it occurred and mainly what I was referring to with changing conditions is this new development and potentially 70 more vehicles accessing that road. So, yeah, basically. Okay, thank you very much. I'm sorry. We have got to move on to the other items at the table. This item is not being voted on today, so there is additional time to have conversations. Um the um if you'd like to send additional emails to the planning commission to our list serve, those all become part of the public record and considerations. In this case, the applicant has um said that they would like additional time to uh consider amending or adding conditions. We have um our next planning commission case is August 12th. Um, so I believe would the applicant like to nod or confirm that that would be enough time to add additional conditions? August 12th. Um, August 26th would be our next meeting thereafter. So, uh, with that, I would like to without objection, I'd like to move this case to our August 26th meeting. Wh Let me see. Is that going to run up against our deadline for action? Yeah, I think it was August 23rd. It will. You're also going to want to ask the deadline for action is the 23rd of August. Thank you very much. So, in that case, we're going to need to request an additional um I'll call it 45 days um to provide the applicant time to continue discussions with neighbors and the commissioners and staff and make additional conditions. Um so, I'll make that motion for an additional 45 minutes. I'm sorry, 45 days extension of time. Commissioner Altwell has seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much and we will um hopefully see you in August. So, we are now at that point in the agenda where we um have one change. At the beginning of this meeting, we announced that there would be a change due to a timely request for a reasonable accommodation. That change is that we moved agenda item E7, resoning case Z1025 at 8125 Leville Road to be heard immediately following resolution of the previous item E3. So we will hear that case now. Um once we complete this uh item E7, we will then proceed with the remainder of the agenda in the stated order. So moving next to E7 Z10 uh 25 at 8125 Leville Road. This case is to change approximately 2.66 acres from R4 to R10 with conditions. Um, and we will now turn to Mitra Shesh Sharabarn to for a presentation from city planning staff. Good morning, commission members. My name is Mitra Shesh Baron and I'll be talking about Z1025 um, which is a request to reszone just under 3 acres of land at 8125 Leisel Road from R4 to R10. And your action, your deadline for action is August 23rd. Um, this area surrounding the site is predominantly residential, specifically residential 4, which is what the site currently is. Um, there is a bit of MH house, MH zoning or manufactured housing zoning north of the site, and there's a church currently on that site. Here's a look at the aerial of the site and its surrounding area currently. Um, I'll move clockwise around the site. Above the site or north of the site under the institutional and office label is the church. It's a Baptist church. Um and then south east and southeast of the site um are several single family home subdivisions primarily made of detached and um one division subdivision of attached single family homes which is southeast of the site under that moderate scale residential and that is zoned R six. Um but predominantly all the surrounding areas are R4. Um southwest of the site under the environmental parks and open space label there is Leville Road Park and public library. And then west of the site under the institutional and office label are Leville Road schools um elementary, middle, and high school. Um here's another look at the site. Um I think this shows pretty well the existing public amenities that surround the site to the west and southeast and then also shows the or southwest, sorry. Um and then also shows the existing subdivision on Ghost Pony Trail which is there. um and the that has a stub street that abuts the southern boundary of the site and then there are some conditions that talk about providing additional buffers um to that. So just wanted to point that out for you now. Oops. Okay. And then one last look at the site. This is just larger um to provide additional context. There is a existing commercial center north of the site. Oops. Yeah. In that general area is the Pinerest Shopping um center. It has a food lion um and some other some restaurants and then some other um service retail. Okay. Um here's a look at the site uh in its frontage along Leville Road. Um as you can see its north and north and south views. Um that's Leel Road currently is a two-lane undivided street. Um it is designated on the street plan as an avenue four-lane divided but there are no current plans to um build that out. Um and then shows existing pedestrian facilities that are in front of the site. Um sidewalks that run the length of Leisel Road um presently um although they are not the width of city standards currently. And then one last view, the number three. This is what the sub st sub st sub st sub st sub st sub st sub st sub st sub st sub st sub stub street um on Ghost Pony Trail looks like. This is if you're on Ghost Pony Trail looking um at the site to the north. Um, I'll also note that transportation staff um noted in their comments that extension of this substrate through the site is no longer required. It meets a UDO exemption because it would take up greater than 15% of the site. But if you have questions on that, I'll let transportation touch on them. It's just mentioned in the conditions. So, I just wanted to note that. And then here's one last look at the site. Um, this is or of the area. This is on Leisel Road, north and south of the site. Um, the first image is going southbound down Leisel Road. So the site would be on your right. There's a bend in the road. I think this might come up in discussion. So these pictures are just to provide additional context of what the current state of Leil Road looks like. And then the second image is the intersection of Leisville Road, Country Trail, and Tyler Drive south of the site. Here's a list of the proposed conditions from the applicant. The first condition um prohibits a number of uses otherwise allowed in R10. The second condition prohibits the apartment building type, which would otherwise be allowed in R10. And then conditions three and four speak to additional buffers along the southern boundary of the site. Um for reference that number three, there are two properties that like are on Ghost Pony Trail on the southern boundary. Um but condition number three um increases the minimum side and rear yard setbacks to 10 and 30 feet each or respectively um which mimic what exists in R4 currently. And then condition number four um has a provision of a wall of at least six feet in height and then planting of understory trees along that same boundary. Here's a look at the differences in entitlement going from R4 to R10. Under R4 um estimated 16 units and then under R10 40 um and then again the setbacks and then the increase um for the side and rear yard from the condition number three. Um under R10 it would normally be 6 and 20 ft. So this again mimics what exists under R4 for that southern boundary of the site. Um look at the transportation energy analysis. The site in the area does have a lower walk and bike score than the city on average and there is no transit score. It doesn't have any it's not the site is not served by transit. Um however it does have a lower transportation cost index than the city on average and then has an average job proximity score. Like I said the site is not currently served by any transit. The nearest um transit line stops are over a mile and a half west of the site along Glenwood Avenue. And then looking at affordability, the request does not include subsidized units. However, it does allow for um housing supply to be increased in the city overall. And it permits a variety of housing types otherwise not allowed under um existing R4 zoning. And it permits smaller units and lots to be built on the site. However, it's not within walking distance of transit. And then the makeup of the residents in this area. Um there's a lower percentage of people of color living in this area and a lower percentage of low-income individuals. Both of those are roughly half the number of what we see in the city on average. Um and median gross rent in this area has um risen slightly slower than the city on average, but it trails only by a few percentage points at 22.3%. Um overall the request for R10 is consistent with the future land use map designation of moderate scale residential for the site or for the area and there's no urban form guidance. Um generally the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. A number of policies um help make it consistent. They mostly relate to consistency with the future land use map as well as um policies that support providing additional residential units in housing um and variety in existing neighborhoods and throughout the city. And then the inclusion of PR 2.2 which speaks to providing um park accessibility for residents throughout the city. Um and then a reminder that the site is near a few existing um public amenities like the school and Leville Road Park. And then two inconsistent policies were found. These are related to the site not meeting one of the fire service response time standards. Um and then finally, your deadline for action is August 23rd. There are no outstanding issues. And then those are your two upcoming PC meeting dates. I'll pause for any questions. If not, happy to ceue up the applicant. Thanks very much. We will now open up public comment. We'll start with those in support. The applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Thank you. Can I uh get this in like a view mode? Perfect. Good morning, Chair Miller, members of the planning commission, Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of Vibes Fund LLC who is the property owner and the reasonzoning applicant. Also joining me uh this morning is David Blevens, an engineer with BNK. So uh Meteor did a great job of uh covering the the nuts and bolts of the resoning and I appreciate the planning commission moving this uh case up on the agenda. I will say at the outset that we would like to defer this request and or your your recommendation to the August 12th meeting. Um, understanding that there are still a lot of comments that uh neighbors have that we're looking to address, but wanted to uh introduce you to the project. Uh, have neighbors an opportunity to voice their concerns, gather any additional concerns that we hear from planning commission, and then come back after your summer recess. So, I I will go over uh briefly some of the existing conditions and what we're seeing to the property immediately north. So, uh, the site is 2.66 acres. We do have a street stub to our south, that Ghost Pony Trail, uh, street stub there that leads to Country Trail. The 13 12 acre parcel to our north is owned by the, uh, Church of Latter-day Saints. Um, this, uh, slide here shows the most recent. I know it's very hard to see on the screen. Um, but I'll I'll walk you through it. Um, the red lines indicate our site boundary line in relation to the church's property. Um, but I I say that to say the church has submitted and is in review for a subdivision of their property. Uh the church would retain about 7 and a half acres uh and convey the remaining acreage uh to a home builder for what I think is planned to be seven uh single family detached lots sort of around the uh end of that culde-sac shown there. The really important piece here is that they are also showing a street stub to our northern property line. So if that project is executed in a timely fashion and stays ahead of of this development, there could be a possibility that there could be vehicular connections to either the north or the south. Um, as mere mentioned, we are not required by the UDO to extend that street all the way through from Ghost Pony up to our northern boundary line uh because of the size of that street in relation to uh the size of our property. But one thing that we're looking at and we need to have additional conversations with Carter as well as NC DOT is does the city and NC DOT have a preferred route for us to access Leville Road. Whether that is north through the church property and then out to Leville Road to the north or whether in their mind it is uh a better option to go south down Ghost Pony Country Trail and then out to Leville Road. So, that's one thing that we're still looking to evaluate. I think if we can get a uh a a decision or some kind of guidance from NC DOT, then we can uh craft a zoning condition that addresses kind of how we access Leville Road and and probably uh some sort of pedestrian connection, you know, for the north or south, whichever way that we don't uh extend that street. Um, as mere mentioned, the request is consistent with the moderate scale future land use map designation which includes uh R10 as a applicable zoning district. Um, we have uh offered four conditions to date. The first being a use prohibition, the second prohibiting the apartment building type, third uh installing or or setting side and rear yard setbacks that exist for a single family detached home in the current R4 zoning. and then incorporating a buffering condition that includes a six-foot wall and understory trees along the two homes on Ghost Pony Ghost Pony Trail that that front our southern boundary line. Additional conditions that we're going to be looking at. Um we just talked a lot about building form and building materials. We want to try to create a uh list of zoning conditions that can um increase some compatibility with the existing single family homes on Ghost Pony Trail. Um and we'll be looking at uh most likely uh unit reductions. Uh I don't think that practically speaking there's any way that we could get close to 40 units on this site. So, those are a couple of the big picture items uh that we've continued to talk with the neighborhood about and would uh like additional time to uh continue to refine those before your August 12th meeting. Um if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them as well as Mr. Blevens. Uh but I'll reserve the rest of my time uh and let the neighbors have their day. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? If so, please come forward. And that if seeing none, we'll move to public comment for those in opposition. Those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium um and introduce yourself when you're ready to speak. Uh for efficiency, if um you would like to speak, please go ahead and come over and and start to to line up as well. Thank you. Okay. Um, thank you commission um for allowing us to present for your time and for your service to our city. I'm Adrien Turner. I'm a resident on Ghost Pony Trail. Um, we myself and Chris are here representing um our neighborhood again, Westlake Country Trail. Um, we are not real estate investors. We are not developers. We are not attorneys. um this resoning request doesn't give us the opportunity to come in, make some changes, and walk away with a profit. Um we will be here and we will be living with this decision. Um as the buyers and now owners in the West Lakeet West Lake at Country Tale community can attest to, it was clear to us that 8125 Leville Road was part of a larger master plan for our community that consisted of four phases. There was a large marketing sign posted at the edge of this particular property um facing Leville Road for many years that advertised single family wooded home sites. Many of the master plan documents for our community are publicly available on the city of Raleigh website. Um with all of those documents being authorized for construction and signed off by six city departments. Mr. Goodwin, the previous owner of this property, wanted and agreed to the development of his property into six home sites, which was phase four of the Westlake Country Trail community. However, Mr. Goodwin desired to stay in his home as long as he possibly could. We understood and respect that. And yet, after his passing, this property was commercially sold to a real estate investor in Washington state. It was not made made available for public purchase. While the sale of this property to Crowd Seed, one of Mr. Narcula's investment companies, and then subsequently transferred to another one of his investment companies, Vibes Fund, um was out of the control of any of us. Um the desire to reszone it is not. Um many of the residents of Westlake Country Trail, like Mr. Goodwin envision ourselves staying in our home as long as we possibly can in a harmonized community that was originally as it was originally planned and intended. It is important to note that we, the homeowners of West Lake Country Trail, are not against progress or development in our area. However, what is being proposed here is in stark contrast to the master plans and as you've seen in the community engagement portal comments is highly concerning to the Leville community. Thanks Adrian. Commissioner, thank you very much. My name is Chris Satderfield and like Adrian, I live on Ghost Pony Trail, which I think has been noted already, 8009 Ghost Pony Trail is my address. I'm also, uh, the president of our HOA for our small 14 home community. So, um, thank you for taking the time and and hearing us today. So, really, I, you know, wanted to kind of touch through some of our big concerns. You know, I think, you know, we've had a couple of community meetings with Mr. Mills and appreciate uh you know him taking the time for that on behalf of um you know whoever this group is that's purchased the land. You know some of our initial challenges is there's very little vision of what this community even is to um make a lot of conditional statements or trying to fully understand um what's trying to be done outside of you know from our perspective. We just kind of want to put town homes spot zone right in the middle of a couple of uh you know an R4 community that already exists and one that's already sort of clearly being uh proposed and um under development uh you know to the north as as he stated. So you know not having a lot of context uh leads to some challenges from our perspective of um of understanding what it is which kind of goes into some of the comments here. So, I mean certainly significant traffic and safety concerns for our community. Again, like just for Ghost Pony itself, and we'll try to speak on behalf of like our greater Leville community as well, you know, we're all sort of sandwiched near near the schools there, which is a high school um elementary, middle, and high. Um, even on our street, you know, we for a small sort of community that's been built, we have, you know, 25 kids all under the age of 18. Um, out playing, out doing a lot of things. Our streets already kind of stubbed as you saw at the top. Um, so while we don't encourage our kids to ever play in the street or things like that, they've become accustomed to, you know, having a a place that's not a thorough affair and and and just in general not a lot of um traffic outside of our community or visitors and other things that that come in and out in its current state. Um, so and we'll touch on that as we go through the through the presentation of of some of our concerns around the the safety piece. You know, a big thing was, you know, we all kind of moved into our community thinking this was intended to be a harmonized, you know, zoned R4 community with the cohesive architectural consistencies. Um, that was what we kind of thought we were buying into. There were clearly plans as Adrian noted that uh that that was kind of the, you know, medium long-term plan for this area. Um, and that and that's what we in intended to happen um until now. Um, so there's also, as uh, Mr. Mills noted, there's currently the submission for Winter's Hollow, which I think will also have synergy for West Lake Country Trail at some point. Um, that's going to go into the north and roughly be the same type of neighborhood. Ours currently is zoned R4 with, you know, seven to nine homes. I can't speak to exactly um how that one would end today, but um you know, not something that is of concern for our community um since it has very, you know, a lot of synergy for what we currently have. Um adding a town home in between two sections of neighborhoods are going to create, you know, disjointed developments, um and a lot of limited ability to solve future issues. I mean like just thinking about you know not having a cohesive HOA or things where if they have an issue related which we'll talk about storm water storm water other things you know now we have to try to deal with separate entities and we're all sort of utilizing the same um I won't say infrastructure because they'll all have our different infrastructures but um it's all going to flow into the same creek. we're all going to deal with the same type of downhill um challenges um from a storm water standpoint and our community is on the downhill of that. So um so a lot of concerns over the inability to you know put something that's so different right between two communities um just for the sake of doing it. Um it's already very costly for our 14 homes. uh you know just simply our HOA dues only really go to support our the infrastructure um that we uh deal with to for for our storm water. So just maintenance inspections um we've had a lot of challenges with our storm water. So just things where we have to have regular maintenance other things. So adding more um impervious type structures uphill from us is very concerning. Um yeah and so on the storm water so we've had historical challenges uh community uh was turned over from the developer less than two years ago. Um any previous communication of those issues is unknown with the city. Um you know a lot of issues with just concern over the how the storm water will be set up, how it'll work with um the other community that's going to be developed um etc. And then uh you know again the proximity to town home types just right next to kind of R4 single family homes um just from architectural and cohesive and harmonized community is just not something that's you know um something that we're looking forward to in in any way just go down. Oh sorry okay my bad. Uh also there are tree conservation sites uh currently mandated on or tree conservation areas currently mandated on this site. We're asking that these uh are to be maintained at minimum as well for anyone who would develop this but these are already recorded as part of um the previous uh master plans of the city. Uh so getting into transportation issues. So you can see here, these are just some pictures off of Country Trail, which is the main thoroughare that leads to Leville's, you can get all Leville schools this way. Um, so you can on on Leville Highway as well. Um, but you can see we've just recently gotten speed humps here because there were such traffic issues. Um, and you know, even today there are still accidents, people that will avoid them. You know, speed humps in and of itself doesn't stop it. We're happy and thankful that these were put on Country Trail um because of the massive amounts of school traffic that flows through here. But these are just a couple of uh pictures to kind of show through. Uh I know I'm going to all these details, but this was just sort of a separate analysis we did of what we think are more likely daily trips related to um some information that was put in. But the main key takeaways here are, you know, as Mr. As Mr. Mills stated, he probably wouldn't do 40. Like let's just say they did 20, right? But if you had six R4 homes versus 20 uh town homes or whatever, and let's just assume there's two cars per household. There's no transit as we've discussed here available. Um you know, potentially an additional, you know, 55 or sorry, 56 trips per day if you take morning and night. Just kind of assuming the math there, that would be 14,000 nearly 15,000 additional trips per year. just assuming work days, 260 days a year. Um, and so over over five years that could equate to roughly 73 73,000 additional trips that this would promote in this already very congested area. Um, so some of the main things are like on Ghost Pony, the safety and and sight lines. There's already kind of blind entrances coming in and coming from the top with some pictures shown. uh one of the one of our main storm water pipes is crosses our main road and so you know that type of trip usage over time is very concerning to um to cause you know life cycle shortening and and potential issues that we would have to deal with. Um already the school traffic is major in this area um supporting all the schools and multiple times per day even on country trail it backs up to to our um our area. So, here's our neighborhood. Um, and sorry, I guess I'm just realizing very limited visibility. Sorry, I'm running out of time. It's a very blind curve to get in our neighborhood. Keep going. Sorry. Um, just looking. We're at the top of a hill. And again, people, it's hard to see going down the street. Yeah. Thank you all very much. We will now bring this uh back to the table for questions from our commissioners and comments. Um I'd like to start off by just noting that uh the reiterating that the applicant did say that they intend to come back in August after making additional conditions. Um so and we do have three additional cases that now we have but 30 minutes to get through. Um so I the as commissioners we really need to stick our com keep our comments to those um that can the applicant can really focus focus on with respect to any additional changes to conditions they can make before August. Thank you. Yes Neptune. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the residents again for your time and energy this morning being with us. You know which it's worth acknowledging we're all volunteers here so you know we're in this together. We're trying to get through this as quickly as we can together. Could we get a copy of that presentation that was just made? Could the commission get a copy of that presentation? Um, you know, we can chew on that over the next month until we see you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Yes, Vice Bennett. Thank you. I'll be very quick. Um, I live off of Leville Road. Um, I can attest to everything you say. Um, I am going to look forward to Mr. Mills. Um, I want to hear about your conversations with NC DOT about access to Leville. Um, my kids both went to all three of the Leville schools there. Um, I'm can attest to several really really bad accidents in that curve. Um, so I I want to hear more about what you work out in terms of access. And as I mentioned with the the last case, I'll also look forward to your conditions about how um you are planning to make what your development mesh with um the community that's already there. So thank you. Yes, Commissioner Artwell. Thank you, Chair Miller. If I remember correctly, Leville Road was being considered for widening and safety improvements as part of the most recent transportation bond. Uh could we hear from transportation staff? Was this particular part of the street under consideration? And is it uh what what is the state of those plans? top of mind, I'm lacking some details, but we can bring that back to you in a future meeting. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner. any other comments or um thoughts for the applicant to consider um before August with respect to any of the neighbors concerns or any other conditions concerns. Okay. Yes. Just one clarification. I thought I heard that it has not been decided on whether or not Ghost Pony Trail is going to punch through. I thought worth you said that hasn't been decided yet due to the type of the street and the size of the parcel. Did I hear that correctly? There's there's an exception in the UDO with regard to street stubs and connectivity that says if the resulting street stub is more than 15% of your net sight area, then the city can't require you to run that street all the way through. So what we're trying to evaluate one, you know, will we have another option to connect the street either, you know, from Ghost Pony to the south or from the north given that future subdivision? And I think given those, if we do have choices, well then, you know, is it in the neighborhood's best interest for us to maybe make, you know, one of those other connections pedestrian only where you could bike or walk there, but you couldn't necessarily get a car through there. That's going to depend on our conversations with NC DOT to figure out if um they have significant preferences over one or the other. Um I guess the the one the the good thing is that there doesn't seem to be an issue with the culde-sac that the church is installing. I haven't seen any comments related to that on the city's development portal. So, it's just a matter of us uh continuing those conversations with NC DOT to get their preliminary opinion and then, you know, we can uh kind of move accordingly with any zoning conditions. Thanks very much. Yes, Commissioner Neptune. Madam Chair, do you need a motion to move this conversation to August? Sure. So, move. Okay. So, um that is a motion to move this to our August 12th regular planning commission meeting. Uh do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you so much. Okay, moving on to our next item, E4. That's reszoning case Z4824 at 1220 and 1246 Wicker Drive. This case is to change approximately 3.51 acres from EX-3 to CX20 urban limited with conditions. and we will turn to Aaron Clinger for a presentation from the city. Good morning again, commissioners. Um this is KC 4824 for 1220 and 1246 Wicker Drive. Um the applicant is requesting to reszone approximately 3 and a half acres from industrial mixeduse to um CX20 with the urban limited frontage. Um the deadline for action is I apparently counted wrong the 23rd. Um the zoning in the area is currently predominantly industrial mixed use. Um the closest commercial mixeduse zoning is adjacent to the site to the south and the west. Uh here is an aerial view of the site and the surrounding area. The areas immediately adjacent are industrial to the south and commercial to the north. There's a low-scale residential neighborhood um in the area, but it's behind buildings on the other side of Atlantic Avenue. Um and then the Iron Works development is across the street on Iron Works Drive. Um here is a closer aerial view of the properties where you can better see the um newer Iron Works development. Here are two images of the site. The first was taken in front of 1246 Wicker Drive, um, which as you can see is largely undeveloped currently. And then the second was taken from the driveway of 1220 Wicker Drive. The proposed conditions would prohibit detention centers, jails, and prisons. Um, square footage for retail would be limited to 20,000 square feet and for office to 50,000. Uh, number of residential units would be limited to 675. Um so under the the one of the biggest differences with the existing and the proposed zoning is the number of units would increase um by about six times. The setbacks would also increase slightly and then um the differences in the office and retail square footage is um a substantial decrease with the proposed zoning. The site has higher walk, transit, and bike scores than average. It also benefits from a lower transportation cost index and higher proximity to jobs. There's also transit service nearby that runs along Capitol Boulevard. Um while the request does not include any subsidized units, it does add to the housing supply um permit a larger variety of housing types and is also within walking distance of transit. The area benefits from a lower or has a lower percentage of people of color and a low income population and the change in median gross rent has been lower as well. Um the requested zoning is consistent with the future land use map designation of community mixed use edit. The proposed frontage is also consistent um with the urban form designations of frequent transit area, transit station area and BRT area. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall as it would add to the housing supply and allow for development of greater variety of housing types. Um there are several consistent policies um that it's consistent with related to infrastructure connectivity and housing variety. Um as you'll see on the next three slides and those are the remainder of the consistent policies. Um no policies were found with which the request is inconsistent. Again the deadline for action is the 23rd of August. The next meeting is going to be on August 12th. Thank you very much. We're now opening up to uh public comment. The applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Uh good morning, chair, members of the commission. Jason Baron with Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of the applicant uh Wake County ABC Commission. Joining me this morning is Brian Hicks on behalf of the commission who will speak briefly about ABC Commission's thoughts with respect to this site and its overall long-term planning as well as um its mission. I will be brief being sensitive to everybody's time recognizing the meeting is running over. As you all are aware, as you heard in the staff's presentation, this is an area uh that is has seen a lot of revitalization, a lot of exciting growth going on, changing from traditional warehouses that have been there for a long time to a place for people to live and work. Uh and so Wake County ABC Commission sees this as an opportunity to be able to position this site to be a part of kind of the next phase. Uh the Iron Works, which is on the front of this site, adjacent to uh Wake Forest, uh this one backs up to it. There's a a similar CMX 20 parcel to the south of this site that is undeveloped at this point that we think is will position this site well to be complimentary to uh what is going on over there. From a comprehensive plan consistency standpoint, we be we agree completely with the staff's conclusions associated with consistency. It is community mixeduse. It's in a frequent transit area. And so with that, like I said, I'll keep my comments brief and I will turn it over to Mr. Hicks. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, staff. Uh thank you for your time. My name is Brian Hicks. I serve as a general manager of Wake County Alcoholic Beverage Control. Um, I thank you for your time today. Uh, I'm not sure if any of y'all have ever been to our stores, but we operate 26 stores in Wake County, all 12 municipalities. Um, we have 12 in the city of Raleigh, municipal corporate limits. Um, hoping to open up a 13th one over here on Salsbury Street, a couple blocks away. Um, let me explain our operations, but sort of explains our vision. Um we are a receipt supported uh agency organization. Um there are no tax dollars that go into operations. Um uh all our revenue supports all of our operations. Uh one good thing about our system is all of our money goes back to us, the citizens. Um we gave $15 million uh last year back to all the municipalities in Wake County. $3 million of that went back to the city rally. uh that is used for various service uh various purposes uh even funding planning staff uh that is involved in it there. Um we also try to be good partners in the community. Um $6 million uh of grant money every year uh goes back to nonprofit organizations who uh support and treat those with alcohol and substance abuse. So we are proud to be a good partner uh in improving Wake County as a whole. Um, I tell you all that to to basically say we are not in the development business. Wake County ABC is not here to develop piece of property. Um, as the city of Raleigh has grown, you all have done a wonderful job. Your predecessor staff has done a wonderful job with the infield redevelopment uh the renaissance you could say of uh the city of Raleigh and developing what we see here today. Um, we moved to this piece of property and purchased it in 1965. So, we have been there a right good while before anything has been there. Um, we've expanded a couple times, but we have simply outgrown our piece of property. As more people have moved here to the city, uh, into Wake County, uh, our operations have also grown and we have outgrown this piece of property. Um uh our neighbors um u uh who are here today um Grub Ventures have done a wonderful job uh developing the piece of property uh around us and uh as we move on uh to another location. Uh we want to make sure that we maximize uh the use of our piece of property as best as possible uh for the citizens um and have it comparable uh to what our neighbors are developing, what the city of Riley has with their adopted plans uh and vision. Um when we sell this property, again, we just want something that is zoning comparable uh to it. No intentions of developing um but we just want to maximize the potential. So, thank you for your time. Thank you for your consideration today. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? If so, please come forward. And seeing none, we will open up public comment for those in opposition. Those opposed also have a total attendance to speak. Please come to the table uh or to the podium, excuse me. And seeing none, we can bring it to the table for any comments from our commissioners. Commissioner Alwell. Thank you, Chair Miller. I can get it started. Uh, I voted against the reszonings directly to the south of this associated with grub ventures. Uh, mainly out of concern for urban frontage and pedestrian safety. I thought it created a attractive nuisance, but I think there are some very important differences. In this case, the applicant has committed to an urban limited frontage so we're not going to get dead space and parking decks facing the major streets. and the city has committed to a project to improve the intersection of Whitaker Mill and Atlantic Avenue. And so with those two considerations in mind, I'm ready to support this project whenever the time is appropriate. Thanks very much. Any other comment? Commissioner Cochran. Yeah. So in the report it mentioned sorry in the report it mentioned that there are two small um quantity hazardous waste generators approximately 1.5 I'm sorry.5 kilometers from this property. Can we get an understanding of what those are and is there any plan to move those if we're densifying um population in this area? I guess that should be directed to staff answer that question. We'll start there. If not, I'm going to look real quick. I don't recall off the top of my head what those were, but I'm going in the process of looking up. Okay. In the meantime, is the applicant familiar with that issue? We are not. We we are not aware of where those are located and who is the creator of those hazardous generators. Yeah. Thank you. While we're looking that up, are there any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Fox. Um other than that outstanding question, u much like Commissioner Outwell, I'm ready to support this. Thank you. believe staff may still be conferring. Time. Do you want to move on to the next item and come back to this? Yes. Love that. Thank you. Um, we'll give staff another minute to confer and in the meantime, move on with the next item on the agenda and circle back uh here shortly. So, moving on. Oh, yes, staff is ready. Sorry. Um, it's a small printing company, so it would have just um like ink and things like that. And what's the second one? The second two, there's two small quantity hazardous waste generators. So, there's two um local properties generating hazardous waste. One of them is a printer. It's a cleaners. Okay. I have no other questions. I'm ready to support this. Thank you. Entertain a motion. With regards to Z4824, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 24th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you everybody. Moving on to the next item, Z225 at 2011 Brag Street. This is to change approximately 0.07 acres from R10 with the NCOD to NX3 with the NCOD. We'll turn to Matthew Clem. Thank you. Uh, yep. So, uh, pretty small parcel, uh, 0.07 acres from R10 with the neighborhood conservation overlay district, maintaining that to neighborhood mixed use with a three-story building height limit. Um the Raleigh Historic Development Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the request. Uh and your deadline for action is August 23rd. So on the zoning map you can see um to the north and northeast uh the yellow and hatch color is the location of the South Park neighborhood conservation overlay district. Those areas are also zoned residential 10. Uh directly south across the street is a plan development district that was approved in 2019 that is um based in the neighborhood mixeduse district. So it had an NX district base. There is a four-story building height limit. The entitlement for that PD which is currently under development uh is for 100 um unit residential and a 10,000 square foot uh commercial use on the the southeast corner, excuse me. Yeah, southeast corner located there. um farther south and west there's uh industrial mixeduse zoning um associated with the uh the uses there and the the rail line. Um just a view of the neighborhood here. You can see the property at the intersection of Blunt and uh Brag Street. Uh the construction site to the south is now this new adjacent development. Um, again, 100 units um in these uh townhouse style apartment buildings up to four stories with uh rooftop terraces. This is the existing um building and shop on the resoning property. It was built in 1930. Um and from what I can tell, uh it was originally built as the Trailways Grill. Um the property here that is under development for the current PD was a location of the Carolina Coach and Carolina Trailways uh facility. Um in going through historic neighborhood, excuse me, newspaper articles, all I could find on the Trailways Grill was reference to uh classifides to hire staff to work the lunch shift. So, I believe that the shop is used um the restaurant was used to serve the uh the workers at the Trailways um and Carolina Coach facility to the south. Um the advertisement said no Sundays or evening shifts, so a lunch spot. Um here we are on Blunt looking north at the property. You can see um on the right hand side into the foreground the new development. Uh so currently with the neighborhood conservation overlay district and the R10 zoning, we think three units can be built there. Going to the neighborhood mixeduse, six units could be built there. The neighborhood conservation overlay district limits building height amongst other dimensional standards to 28.7 ft, which is a two-story structure most likely. Um the property is currently zoned R10. Um the business there is operating under a non-conforming use allowance and so currently they can have up to 1160 square feet of retail use. That's the size of the existing historic building from 1930. The neighborhood mixed use uh we estimate would permit um a slight increase in those numbers um if the property or building was expanded or uh redeveloped. So the setbacks um the front setback is regulated by the NCOD which is staying in place. The side and rear setbacks uh you see change slightly um from existing to proposed zoning. Um higher walk score, transit score, bike score, transportation cost index and job proximity than the city average. This is a site um just outside of downtown southeast Raleigh. It's walkable, bikable, transit accessible to the city center where there are um lots of jobs and other opportunities for employment. Um site is currently um served by three different transit routes including a regional route to Wake Tech uh express the RX40 and you can see the site pointed to with the little flag there. Um the request does not include any subsidized units but does uh if redeveloped add to the housing supply um and allow smaller units. Of course it is in walking distance of transit and just downtown in general. There's a higher demographic index uh on the site than the city. So 65 compared to the um 37% city average. So um a higher percentage of minority residents and lower income residents in the area. Um the site, excuse me, the building is a contributing structure to the uh East Rally South Park National Registry District. Again, it was built in 1930. There are more details about um its contributions in the staff report. And again, the um the business and the building has served as a neighborhood commercial use since the 1930s originally as the Trailways Grill. Um it is inconsistent with the moderate scale residential designation. You can see that it's just on the line um north of Brag Street. Um so inconsistent with the future land use map because going to the neighborhood mixed juice district would allow a broader range of commercial uses. Um it is consistent with the urban form map. There's not an urban frontage uh on the zoning designation, but the lot itself in the existing structure is very small. It's like 47 by 67 ft wide. Um it's on the corner. Um the South Park NCOD front yard setback has a build to range effectively of 8 ft to 30 feet. Um so considering the size of the lot and any reasonable use of the piece of property given its like shape and geometry, um the any redevelopment with the NCOD would satis satisfy the requirements. most of them of the urban form map. Um so consistent there uh again inconsistent with the future land use map consistent uh urban form and overall again um these policies and the policies in the comprehensive plan do encourage smallcale neighborhood serving uh commercial uses which this property has done since it was built 95 years ago. Um, so really going to the neighborhood mixeduse district just broadens the um range of neighborhood serving uses that the property owners or future owners of the site can can use to serve the community. Under the existing um non-conforming use that they're operating under, they they're are really bound to um what is there now, which is um a small retail use. Um again maintaining the uh NCOD is in line with um conservation enhancing and realizing neighborhood policies uh and neighborhood commerce. Again the request is inconsistent with the future land use map. It's also inconsistent with this map in the South Park um small area plan uh which is the South Park focal point policy which is this red uh block here. So the site is just across the street from that block. This block is the one that contains the um 100 unit 10,000 square foot plan development district that's currently under construction. So um inconsistent there. Here's the RHDC approval unanimous 8 to zero citing that development maintaining the NCOD which is requested will be in Congress with the existing built um pattern of the neighborhood. Uh and just a kind of a summary here as well of what we discussed, the approval of the inconsistent um future land use designation would require a deacto modification to the neighborhood mixeduse district um and just extend it to this area. Uh no outstanding issues. Um your deadline is August 12th and uh Katherine and Arnold Brown are here. They're the property owners um to speak as well. Thank you so much. We will now open up to public comment. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes to speak. I don't you want to do there are okay. Um just want to say hello and um just want to say we have owned um 2011 Braggs since um 1989. Um and it was commercial property then and um we ran a little business there. We had a little convenience store. Um, we stayed there for quite a while and um, I just want to say that um, thanks for meeting with us today and we are here to discuss a proposal resoning for our property at 201 Brag Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. We currently operate a retail store under a restrictive non-conforming use permit. Um, as the property is zoned RT 10 residential, um, we want to reszone it to neighborhood mixed use. Um, this change would allow us to lease the property to businesses such as pet groomers, you know, um, a deli, art studio, bakery, you know, other similar community focused retail and service establishments. We think this shift of um neighborhood mixuse um would un unlock the true potential of 2011 Brag Street and be a huge benefit to the community around Brag Street. It would bring much neededed services and amenities directly to residents um fostering a more walkable and self-sufficient uh neighborhood. um allowing other businesses um where it can become a natural gathering place, you know, for the residents. Um because it is pedestrian friendly. Um 2011 Bragg has always served the community, you know. Um we kindly ask for your support in approving this um request and that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you so much. There any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? If so, please come forward. And seeing none, we'll open it up to the opposition. Those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium. And seeing none, we can bring it back to the table. Yes, Commissioner Neptune. Uh, just briefly, I wanted to thank the the owners um the developers of the property 2011 Brag Street for being with us this morning. Again, thank you for your time and for your energy uh this morning. Uh and as a quick follow on that, you know, I' I've lived uh several blocks away uh for some years now and have actually found myself in a little South Park bike club uh with, you know, residents in the area. And I can certainly attest to the uh desire for more neighborhood mixeduse, retail options, gathering spaces in the community. And just so just briefly, um I would just I would just acknowledge that I'm certainly prepared to support this as someone who has lived nearby. Um and and frankly, I feel like we're seeing these sort of neighborhood mixed uses uh in other communities like Five Points as an example. You know, you look at a like a little restaurant like Aza opening up in the middle of a neighborhood. You know, really it's it's becoming a whole bustling community over there. Not to say that, you know, it hasn't been previously, but I'm just saying I think just to see you here today trying to advance this u in the South Park neighborhood uh certainly means a lot to me um personally, professionally, as a volunteer, you know, on the commission. And again, I'm just I'm prepared to support it. So, thank you again for your time. Thank you. Other comments, Commissioner May? Um did I hear you all say that you're looking to lease it, but you're going to maintain ownership just out of curiosity, or are you all looking to sell it? Would you like to speak into the microphone so um those at home can hear as well? Well, we just if for the future, you know, like people are complaining about it being smoke shop now, but we want it to be other stuff. We wanted other to get other tenants in. We wanted to have but we were limited on what we could do. So it would just be better for us to be able, you know, to to have a wider variety of tenants that we could have in there, you know, for the community. We want to support the community. We want to help, you know, we want to make it a place for people to come and gather and to enjoy, you know. But are you all going to keep it for a while or I'm just curious. We don't we don't know yet. Yes, ma'am. Uh, I purchased the property. I was about 22 years old. I'm 60 now. And it's a big asset to us as individual. And we have five sons and one daughter. And it would be an inheritage for our grandchildren. There's eight and one on the way. Nine. So inheritage and inheritance is a key part of the beginning purchase of this property which we would love to run a business there also but we're aging and we enjoy peace. I understand the public but we enjoy peace. Thank you so much. Sure we maintain. Thank you commissioner. Thank you. Thank you chair Miller. Um, I remember a case brought by Jessica Peacock. Mhm. For a similar kind of property, and I was really excited about that project. I don't think it came off the ground, but which I could speak to, but but I think these kind of businesses, these family-owned businesses, small in the community, are vital vital for neighborhoods and for building community and trust. And I'm super excited to do anything to facilitate the continuing success of your business. and good luck with your coming grandchild. Yes. Thank you. Any other comments from commissioners, questions? Seeing none, yes, commissioner. I probably answer a question for staff, but speaking about consistency when these other cases have come by. This is a a not a conditional case. Are there any businesses that could go in there that there would be concern about that you may want to condition against? We do that regularly on other businesses in all neighborhoods, southeast Raleigh, North Raleigh, etc. So, just not sure if that's something we want to consider. To his point, what he's meaning is like in some of the other cases, we prohibited liquor stores or clubs or so. He's asking if there's any conditions in the resoning that you all want to consider so that as you redevelop this property, there's certain things you don't want there. Are there certain businesses you don't want in the retail space? Like we don't want So I would So the applicant um if you could speak into the podium for that. The uh question is if you've considered any prohibited uses um to add as conditions on this rezoning, nightclubs, liquor stores, We don't want like a nightclub or a liquor store. We want to support the community, you know. We want it to be community friendly, you know. We want a pet room in places or little coffee shop, something like that. We're going towards something like that. We don't want liquor stores and stuff like that. Something that Yeah. that the neighbor could discuss with staff um about prohibited uses if the applicant is open to making um conditions related to that. Yeah, I would just advise on the spot that making those changes now at the table would require an amendment to the request and like additional fee to pay for the um conditional use reszoning. Um so there would just be more steps involved later to to make those changes. It again if if there's something that the planning commission sees that should be disallowed by zoning condition, they could give you that feedback. Um perhaps since you have a de I'm sorry. Yeah, Commissioner Mai, since you have a deadline to August 23rd and our next meeting is August 12th, you have time. So we don't have to necessarily I'm I'm down to support the project, but just to protect what you all are talking about in your legacy. Maybe you don't want a strip club there and you don't want a liquor store or a nightclub or something that you know what I'm saying may bring down the value of what you all are trying to build. and you're saying pet shops and things like that, but maybe take some time. I would suggest taking some time to consider what you don't want there so that you can put that in the resoning so that as this is developed, what you intended to be is closer to what you intended to be. Mr. Bennett, oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Shelurn was first. Well, yeah, this is my first meeting, so I don't know how to do this, but I don't I'm I'm not worried about any of those other uses. I think I'm just going to trust their judgment. So, I'm ready to motion whatever the motion is to approve this so we can have at least a second decision today before we leave. So, like it's consistent. I'm not sure what the phrasing is I'm supposed to use, but I'm ready to vote to say yes to this so we can move on and not make them wait till August. Um, you're open to making a motion, but then we might have additional discussion at the table. I'm not sure that we would have those votes, but let me get a little more discussion. Vice Chair Bennett, I was going to say something similar, but I wanted to ask Mr. Clim, did you say there would be additional fees and things involved? I I'm not interested in having them do that. I I again trust that what you're doing is beneficial to the community and it's maintaining the NCOD. Um so I'm prepared to support it today. Commissioner Fox, um I'm uh ready to make a motion. Um I'll just if that's okay. Sure. Um, I'll say I would have more concerns if this was a resoning to CX, but because it is NX, it already restricts um some of the types of uses that we mentioned. So that's already um that's already included um with the with the zoning that's that's being requested. Um, so with that, in regards to case Z225, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 24th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the f future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Do we have any further discussion on this topic? Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? That motion passes 80 to one. Yes. Would you like to stay for the And if I could, I'm I'm 100% in support of the project. The only reason I'm voting against it is for consistency and I'm not familiar enough with NX. I totally trust y'all and and what you're trying to do, but just me personally, I don't have the knowledge of what NX is um allows you to do and not do. So, good luck. I'm glad you're here. I support the project, but just sort of through a technicality, I had to vote against it. So, I just want to put that on the record so council knows I'm in support of the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. So, and I want to second that that not being clear what's excluded through that designation. I would encourage council to consider the conditions if they are able to add any before council um votes on it. Prohibit. Can I add that to them as they're leaving? I know this is a cumbersome project, but you do have an opportunity to add some though. We've passed it here to sit and think about what you don't want to see there so that when this goes to city council, now that we've moved it along because we all agree and support it. So now that this goes to city council, as it moves along, you all do have some time to consider what you because you may not have never thought that about what you don't want there. You know, you have an ideas of what you do want. So I just want to give them a suggestion if you want to to consider adding conditions maybe if you want before it goes to council. So yeah. So but to that end this is not a conditional use case. So it would be more complicated than just adding conditions. So just make sure you speak with staff on that. Um if we had had more time we could have reviewed the list of uses that are already prohibited under NX. Um we did not do that here. I think that will probably resolve the concerns that we do have at this table. Um, so I would just just notice it may be more complicated than just adding conditions since it's not currently a conditional use case. Um, the time is now 11:59. Wanted to check for quorum purposes if um, folks are able to stay an additional 15 minutes. If you're not, if you need to leave, please raise your hand. Have a plane to catch. We have at least two. Okay. I believe we can still maintain a quorum um, for that purpose. But um, we do need to Sorry. Yes, in her absence, we could do that as well. Um, I know that you may need to leave, but I think we need to, it looks like we may need to defer our last case Z725 to our next meeting. We think we can go through it really quickly. Okay, never mind. We're going to try to get through this one very quickly. Reszoning case Z725 at 3328 Forestville Road. Um, this case has changed approximately 14.10 acres from R4 to CX4 with conditions. Uh, right before we turn to Matthew McGregor for a presentation, I just wanted to note for those commissioners leaving, um, you may be elected to things in your absence and you will not have the opportunity to object. So, moving on to our staff presentation. Awesome. Thank you. Uh, I'll be quick as possible about this. So, this is Z725. uh as previously stated is 14.10 acres. The request is to reszone from R4 to CX4CU. The address is 3328 Forestful Road. Plan commission deadline for action is August 23rd. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential with some commercial. Surrounding zoning is R4, CX3, and R six. There's also additionally some residential mixed use and office mixeduse along Mitchell Mill. This is a look at the surrounding site. Bethl Muldovian Baptist Church is across the street. The site itself includes a church. The there is Raleigh Fire Station 28 directly to the south. Some private open space. Low scale residential and commercial along Mitchell Mill. Another look at the site. Here's three different angles. Uh site's very large, so it's kind of hard to get like a good comprehensive view, but um eastsoutheast facing on Metro Road, south facing on Forceful, and north facing on Forceful. Same images. And then in addition, there's a kind of little back road uh behind the church. So, I figured it'd just be worth noting that there is kind of a wraparound. There is only one proposed condition. I think now would be a good time to bring up the fact that there is no immediate as of now, no immediate um development plans for the site. The reason they are reszoning this site is to allow for a larger sign under R4. Only like neighborhood freestanding signs are allowed. So by reszoning uh to CX they have more access to larger signs. They one proposed condition that they have is um to help them um you know mitigate any requirements for a TIA. So they proposed uh maximum entitlements on residential dwelling units, 115,000 square feet on office and medical and 57,500 square feet on retail and then deaf are kind of combination of the previous three scenarios again to uh you know mitigate any need for a TIA. Condition one does however not stop the development or expansion of other allowed uses on the property such um which is like basically including and meaning that the church if they were to want to expand for church purposes they can um the condition is basically just kind of a safety net as stated the zoning is R4 it's 14.10 10 acres. Maximum units under the R4 condition is 81. And then the CX4 reszone um proposed zoning I should say will allow a maximum units of 325 115,57500 like previously said due to the condition has a lower walk score than average. No transit score is provided. It's got a lower bike score than average. It's got an average transportation cost index and it's got a lower job proximity than average. There's no bus service route to the site. Uh the go Raleigh map doesn't even include the site on it. So you kind of just have to get a general feel. Um it's directly kind of off the nearest is Perry Road. So it's over two miles. Um not very accessible in my opinion. Technically speaking, the resoning would add to the housing supply technically. Um it does not include subsidized units. It permits a variety of housing types. Smaller units are allowed. Smaller lots in the citywide average are allowed. And it is not within walking distance of transit. The area has a racial diversity similar to the citywide average with around 44% of the population identifying as people of color compared to 40 uh 46 citywide. A lower percentage of low-income residents live in the area uh compared to Raleigh's overall average with 12% in the area versus 29 citywide. And then the median gross rent in the area has increased by 25% since 2016, which is roughly in line with Raleigh's overall increase of 25.5 during the same period. The requested CX4CU uh designation is consistent with with the future land use map. Uh the site is designated as community mixeduse. There's no urban form guidance for the site. However, I would like to note that it does abut the weight crossroads mixuse center. So I just figured that would be worth noting. As previously stated consistent future land use map, it is also consistent with the comprehensive plan. Here is some uh list of cons some consistent policies I found. They focus mainly on future land use map consistency, housing variety, zoning for housing, and then I have found two inconsistent policies, but they are your standard kind of fire response time standards. So, um, you know, nothing I would say out of the ordinary. I have no outstanding issues and deadline for action is August 23rd. And, uh, let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. And I'll let Chad come up. Opening up for public comment, the applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. There we go. Yep. Uh good. Well, good afternoon, Chair Miller. Uh members of the planning commission. Uh thank you for sticking around to hear this case. We're grateful uh to to be heard today. My name is Chad Ess with Pinter Spruel uh 301 Fable Street, 1900. Um here this morning on behalf of the applicant and owner of this property, Wake Crossroads Baptist Church. on behalf of the church. Joining me here this morning is Jeff Gordon, who is the executive pastor of the church, and Greg Pikman, who serves as a corporate officer and trustee of the church. Matt's done a nice job summarizing, so I'll try not to be too redundant and kind of uh be mindful of your time. Um the subject property um is just over 14 acres located north of Mitchell Mill Road at its intersection with Forestville Road. I want to take just a few seconds and just give you a little background about the church and this site in particular. Uh if there's any history bust on the commission, the roots of Wake uh Crossroads Baptist Church dates back to 1789 when it was formerly constituted as the Baptist Church of Christ at Crossroads. Um with 53 charter members, it's considered to be one of the oldest Baptist churches in Wake County. Uh throughout much of the 8 and 1900s, uh the church's primary place of worship was on the east side of Forestville Road. Uh right here, you'll see this is the cemetery, and that's the former church site there. Uh a fire burned the church down in the early 1900s. Um and a new church was constructed there which which stayed there until uh the 1990s. The church acquired this property in the 1980s. Uh and in 1996, a 24,000t education and worship space was built on this 14acre parcel. In 2009, the church constructed a 32,000t addition with a gymnasium, student wing, preschool wing, elementary age classrooms, and a commercial kitchen. However, in 2015, the city of Raleigh acquired significant rightaway slope easements, drainage easements, and utility easements um along um Mitchell Mill Road for the Mitchell Mill Road widening project. You'll see that that's what the it looked like before the uh road widening project. Um after that, you'll see those crosses that they had there down close to the road, which is kind of a a a marker point for a lot of people in the area. They always said turn turn at the crosses. Um after the ride-of-way acquisition um you'll see that there's significant slope along the front of the property and significant easements that run across the front of the property. So since uh the road widening project has occurred, the church has been looking to replace those crosses as well as appropriate signage that would be visible for the church. Uh given the slope uh easements that run along the front as well as all the utility easements that are there, that sign is going to need to be pushed further back into the site. And with the existing R4 zoning, uh, all that's allowed are very small copy, uh, track identification signs, which would not be visible for, uh, folks to to see the church. And they want to do something nice with the crosses and and a nice signage for the church. So, in evaluating our options, where options were either a go to the board of adjustment and get a sign variance, which I have done before, but they're not particularly favored at the board of adjustment, or to reszone the property. Uh and in looking at this site with the site being designated as community mixeduse uh and being designated for this zoning uh already we decided to proceed with the resoning uh consistent with what future land use map calls for consistent with what this area calls for uh and that's the reason for the resoning the CX4 uh designation uh and that's what's uh uh before you uh staff has already noted its consistency with the future land use map as well as other comprehensive plan policies. Uh I will note that we did have two neighborhood meetings in connection with this. Uh first neighborhood meeting with folks, you know, within 500 ft. We had one person attend who was just wanted to know what was going on. Uh we had a second neighborhood meeting, three po three people attended. Same thing. Just was curious of what was going on. We we informed them. We've have no concerns or opposition to this resoning to my knowledge. Uh and so with that, uh again, want to be respectful of time. I'm happy to answer any questions, but we'd ask that the uh commission, uh vote for a favorable recommendation. Thank you so much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? Seeing none, we'll open up public comment for those in support. I'm sorry, those in opposition, those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak. And seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the table for any comments from commissioners questions commissioner. for staff. I thought for years we've been having issues with the sign ordinance and sign complexities and that type of thing. I thought I thought that staff I thought we were the city was looking at doing a special sign submitt or something. I thought that was in the works a couple years ago. It just seems like this is a this is a blunt tool to put a sign up. So, it just seems a little odd to me. As far as I know, um, we are still talking about that. I've met with some text change, um, people on our text change team and as far as I know, there's not like any actual proposed motion going through, but like we have talked about it and we have also had another church reach out to us on false news with a very similar basically the same request resoning just to allow for a larger sign. So, um, yeah. So would reszoning it increase the tax value? I I would assume so. So the county levies the tax. They uh assess property based on current use. Generally that's where they start. And if your current use is wellmaintained, that's generally how they evaluate you. Now if if your property is in disrepair and redevelopment seems imminent, they may consider the zoning in that regard. But uh also I would note that the church is tax ex should be tax exempt. I hope they are exercising their um opportunity there. So it should not be uh a concern I would say in this instance. Thank you. Any other questions? Entertain a motion commission. Professor Bennett. Thank you. In regard to case Z725, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 24th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh, moving on to approval of the minutes. We have two sets of minutes for May 13th and May 27th. Um, I believe Commissioner Altwell has emailed some changes. Is that correct to the minutes? That's correct. There was a u mismatch between the roll call and the number count for the vote on one of the cases. I'd have to Thank you very much. Are there any other comments to the minutes? None. Then with that, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Uh move to approve with the given amendments. Thank you. Do I have a second? Motion and second. Further discussion. All those in favor? Any opposed? That passed unanimously. Thank you very much. On to report other business report of the chair. I'd like to officially welcome Mark Shelurn to the table. We were so glad he was here today. Um and also I just wanted to announce this is our final meeting of the fiscal year. So, we will hold our chair election, our leadership election shortly. Uh, my term on the commission ends this fall. So, I am not seeking reelection to any leadership position in order to ensure a smooth transition into the future. Um, but since this is my last meeting as chair, I just wanted to take a moment to thank my fellow commissioners that are here, all the ones current uh past and also uh in the past as well. Um, I wanted to thank Binum Walter and um, our dedicated team of staff also uh, past and present that have served and the members of the public who continue to engage thoughtfully in all of our work at home. Um, it's been a true privilege to serve our city as chair for the last two years and to serve on this commission for the last nearly six years under four different city councils. Um we have faced complex dynamics and decisions uh are for our city and we have worked together uh with integrity, thoughtfulness and shared commitment for our community's long-term well-being particularly at this table and in today's polarized environment. I'm just especially proud of how this commission um has had such a collaborative spirit um all around the table in the ways that we've really listened to each other even and especially when we disagreed. Um it's just I feel like it's been a bright spot in a in a tough couple of years looking at government and I feel like this place has really been different and I'm very proud of that. So, um I leave this role confident and that the commission is in strong hands moving forward and will continue to shape the city to be a livable and inclusive and uh forwardlooking uh place to live. So, thank you all for the opportunity to serve. And with that, we can move down for report of the members. It's a pleasure to be here. Uh no report. Um welcome Commissioner Neptune. Yeah. And um it's your first Oh, I didn't realize this is your first meeting, too. Sorry. Yes. Yeah, it's my first meeting. So, it's a privilege to be here at the table again. Thank you, Chair Miller, for your service. Um we appreciate it. And committee of the whole will be meeting on Thursday at 4 p.m. Um can we just confirm quorum from who's with who's here? One, two, three, four, five, six. We have corum. Thank you. That's it for me, Nicole. Yes. I again, I just I have a work event, so if you need me, just text me and I'll Okay, we'll do. Thank you. It I'd rather not, but if you need me, let me know. Thank you. Appreciate that. Unless uh unless I'm mistaken, there will be no text change committee meeting for the rest of June and we have July off. So, we will get back to it in August. No personal report. Say that with some gusto. Try not to chase it. Uh, Commissioner May, any report? Commissioner Mai, any report? Oh, I thought you said Patty. I was like, who's Patty? Oh, no. Um, no, no report for me. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Cochran. No report. No report. Excellent. Then moving on to our next item, election of the officers. Under our rules of procedure, each June, the planning commission shall elect a chair and vice chair to serve the following year, June um from July 1 to June 30th of the next fiscal year. So today, we will um elect both of those positions. Um before we move on to any motions, is there any discussion on this item? Then seeing none, I um with with a great honor after five years of serving together um would like to uh make a motion to elect um Nicole Bennett as the next chair of the planning commission uh to serve our next year. Second. Third. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, um all those in favor, any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. look forward to working together. Um, and next is on to the motion uh or the election of the vice chair. Would anyone like to make a motion? I'd like to move um to recommend that we elect Commissioner Fox in absence as the vice chair of the planning commission. Thank you so much. Do I have a second? She does. Second. She does. Any further discussion? Not here to object. That's what happens. All right. All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Moving on to report of the assistant director. Okay. Uh congratulations on completing another fiscal year of service to the planning commission. We've done a ton of work this year. Enjoy your time off in July. I would just ask that all of you uh as we come back to work in August. If you will not be able to attend a planning commission meeting, please email planning.commissionnc.gov. gov so that all of your fellow commission members know what is happening. This is a little bit different than how we have done this in the past but we are having some challenges with quorum and visibility and that way the chair cha I know your me your fellow commission members know and it's much easier for us to determine collectively whether we have it or not whether we have the six we need. So and that's also my report. Thank you. There was that just email everybody or was there a certain email? There's an email in my report in the agenda. You can see just the full planning commission list serve that also includes staff. And then I I do want to say thank you to Chair Miller. She has been a joy to work with and I will miss you. Thank you. It's been real and it's party's over. All right, with that we are journed. Thanks everyone. Yeah, we did it. [Music]