Good morning and welcome to the May 13, 2025 planning commission meeting. I'm Blanny Miller, chair of the commission. We start every meeting with an opportunity for the public to comment on an item not contained on the agenda. Are there any uh members of the public who'd like to speak on an item that is not on the agenda today? And seeing none, we will move on to new business. The that we have one item on the agenda today, um TCC 5124. This case is to change approximately or change the zoning conditions on approximately 2.67 acres. It's my understanding that there's some uncertainty about the boundary lines for this parcel. Um if that is the case, then today we will hear a full staff presentation and comments from the public, but we will defer action on this case until the boundary questions are resolved. So we will now turn it over to um the city planning staff for a presentation. Good morning, Hannah Reau, planning and development. So this as uh the chair mentioned this is case TCZ 5124 at uh 9308 Fairbanks Drive. It is a request to amend the zoning conditions on the site which were applied in uh the year 2000. So surrounding uh zoning context here is a mix of residential and mixed use. um several scales of of residential here and then most of the mixes off to the east and south. So this um situating ourselves this is in northwest Raleigh. This sort of triangle of roads here is Westgate Road, Fairbanks Road and Leville Road. Um some multif family directly north of the site, lowercale residential off to the north and west and commercial uses off of Leville Road. Um, zooming into the site, it is um partially developed. There's some detached structures that contain commercial uses uh on on the site. Here's some views of uh what that looks like from Fairbanks Drive. So, the request uh would remove all of the the conditions that currently apply to the site and add three new conditions. So you can kind of see here um you know there's a mix of uh conditions that are now less restrictive or as restrictive as code or would be otherwise uh non-p permissible. Uh and then there's also removal of a twotory height limit and some um protective yard. The three zoning conditions that would be added u would prohibit land uses normally allowed in NX. You can see that list here. It includes vehicle fuel sales, uh, vehicle sales and and repair. It would also apply a cap to the number of dwelling units. So, no more than 60 would be allowed on the site. And then it would apply a cap for office and retail use of 65,000 square feet each. So, this is what the existing versus proposed looks like. you know, as a TCZ, there's no change to the designation, but those new zoning conditions would limit uh residential, office, and retail uh quite a bit from what is currently permitted. So, the site has a higher than average walk score and bike score, a lower than average transit score, um a lower cost to transportation, um but also a lower job proximity than a average throughout the city. Uh the request, as you saw, would res uh reduce the number of dwelling units that could locate on the site. Uh there's no uh commitment to subsidized units and we're not within walking distance of transit, but the um the requested district would still permit a variety of housing types, smaller units, and smaller lots on the citywide average. The demographic and land use history is a a smaller proportion of surrounding residents who are low income compared to the city average and a slightly higher uh percent change in median uh rent than the city average. Future land use uh designation here is neighborhood mixed use. The request is still for an NX district. So consistent with that guidance and consistent overall with the comprehensive plan, uh some policies you can see here about the scale, variety of housing, zoning for housing and um restricting some of the more impactful land uses. uh inconsistent policies. Um uh you can see here we can discuss those if you'd like. Uh and then um the deadline for action is in July. A reminder that your last meeting before the break before then would be the second June meeting. Um and I do is my understanding that since the agenda was published, the applicant has identified a um ownership issue that would affect the boundaries of the site. So would recommend um deferring action until that is settled. Thank you very much. We will now turn to public comment and we will start with um the applicant and those in favor. You'll have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Good morning. My name is Amy Kraut. I'm an attorney at Smith Anderson. I'm here on behalf of the applicant um concept 8. I have representatives of the applicant with me today to help answer any questions that you have. Staff um did a pretty good job highlighting kind of the overview of the site location and area. This resoning is really to modernize zoning conditions and facilitate the development of some town homes on the property. We have identified a boundary issue and a potential GI is GIS issue. So, we're asking that we defer this the vote to June 10th, but I'll go over the request um right here. So, as Taff mentioned, this is a 2.67 acre site. It's south of 540. It's kind of in that triangle of Westgate Fair Banks and Leville. We've got commercial property to the east, including a church and offices and child care center, and to the north and west um Fairbanks apartments. And those are lower density apartments. They're more structured like town homes. In terms of the property history and this request, this was originally reszoned in 2000. That's where those original zoning conditions came from. It transitioned to NX3CU during the 2016 citywide remapping. Um would just note that even before 2000 and after 2000, the property really hasn't been developed. It just looks like they converted some existing buildings on the property from more residential to the more commercial use. Um but no significant changes have been made. So this really updates um the zoning conditions that are precurrent UDO standards and facilitates the development of town homes. As I said, we're looking at less than 30 town homes on this site to keep it consistent with the area. Just wanted to quickly kind of go over the original conditions versus the proposed conditions. Many of the original conditions, the reason why we're suggesting deleting all of them is because they're superseded by the UDO. The storm, water, lighting, screening requirements, the current UDO already has restrictions related to all of those things in section 9.2, 7.4, 7.2. So this kind of we're going to have to comply with UDO and just kind of elimmit those kind of historic conditions that are in there. In terms of height, this is the big one. This currently limits to 28 ft. The NX3 zoning designation allows 50 feet in height. We're looking for town homes. So that's kind of why we're suggesting deleting that condition. In terms of the proposed conditions, one of the biggest things that we heard from neighbors is they didn't want a gas station on the property. So, we've limited down those uses and and removed that. And we did restrict the dwelling units and office and retail just to keep it consistent with that area. This isn't a high density area. So, and we're only looking to do about 30 town homes. So, that's kind of why those conditions are in there. As Taff noted, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map. And we really added those, like I said, the conditions to make sure it's consistent with the surrounding area. We do still think it expands housing choice by allowing development of town homes on the property by removing that height limit. Um, otherwise, we're happy to answer any questions about the original conditions or proposed conditions. Um, but again, would ask we defer the vote to June 10th. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in support of this project? Seeing none, we will open up public comment for those opposed. Um those opposed to the this case will have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself and then seeing none, we can bring it back to the table for additional discussion questions from our planning commissioners. Again, um since there is a boundary dispute, we will not vote on this today, but if there are any additional questions, especially requests for information that the applicant can bring back to future meetings, now would be a great time to identify those. Commissioner Fox, um noting it's a I guess it's a question for staff. um noting in the staff report um if it's a tier three plan that comes through um during the development process that bicycle facilities and a sidewalk would be required. Am I understanding that correctly? I believe so. But um yeah, Carter's nodding. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I think so. Um but I am a little bit concerned about the acknowledgement in here. um that there's no crosswalk. Um the staff report specifically identifies the Fairbanks and Pinerest intersection. I don't know if the applicant had given any thought to providing off-site improvements. I think at this time we hadn't. And that's really because if you look at the larger map, and I wonder if you can see it here. So, there's no connectivity to any sidewalk here. Uh the church lot is this one. And you do have a sidewalk here, but there's no um sidewalk over that church lot. Um so any improvements that are there, and there's no sidewalk along this side of Fairbanks either. So, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Yes, Commissioner Peer. So, I could keep going if you because I'm interested in that as well. So, you got No, no, I just I was making a com I'd love to come out of that. What my first question? Uh, I'm just curious for the reason for reducing dwelling units down to 60. [Music] Really, it was just to address neighborhood concern about density on this area and to kind of keep it consistent. This is a smallerish lot at 2.67 acres. This applicant is really only looking to do town homes on the property. And so to address kind of concerns from some neighbors, we just limited it down that way. Okay. And then uh second question, maybe you can help me while you're still up there. Sure. [Music] Um previous conditions five, six, and seven, the protective yard, the um the heating, ventilating, and mechanical equipment we screened from public view. And the tree protection, the the single tree that's supposed to be protected in number seven. Just curious for the reasoning for uh striking those. Yeah. So number five is really kind of bringing it up to what current the current UDO requires in terms of buffers and natural yards. So we just wanted to kind of modernize that condition. Six, same thing. There's already um screening requirements in the code for commercial development. And then seven, that existing tree, honestly we think we know which one is talking about in the site. It's surrounded by asphalt and is probably not in the best healthiest um condition anyway. And we do have to do a 10% TCA when we develop the site. So, we will be preserving trees on the property. Got it. Um and the the just curious the border you said GIS issue the border that's I guess or maybe borders that are under Okay. that are under uh duress or whatever the right word might be. Uh what what part is that or is it all of it? Sure. So, um there are two issues, potential issues. One is um right here there's about I think 75 ft that GIS doesn't include. That's a pure GIS issue, not a deed issue. Just the GIS lines aren't correct. Um the bigger issue is there appears from our title search, and we're still looking into it to be a gap of ownership on this um eastern property line. So, we just want time to resolve that because GIS and the tax maps have always shown this as one parcel without that gap being there. Um, and if we want to include this, acquire it, make sure we have ownership of it or include it in the zoning condition to make sure it's covered. It's always been treated as kind of this one parcel. Um, but we just want to make sure we have some time to to track down that came up in the due diligence for the property. Okay. Um, that makes sense. And so, and to the to Commissioner Fox's question about sidewalks, were you saying there's no sidewalk on that north side of Fairbanks? The only sidewalk, my understanding is right here. Um, there's no sidewalk for the rest of Fairbanks. And I do think um just want to note under section 8 of the UDO there's likely going to be either sidewalk requirements or a fee in lie um for development in the future. So So it does look like on Google Street View that there is sidewalk directly across the street all along Fairbanks from there all through there and it looks like way all the way down. Um, go ahead. Yeah, I think Jason Meadows RDU Consulting. I'm the civil engineer for the uh developer here. Um, yeah, there there I believe there is sidewalk that was installed as part of this uh single family subdivision on the on the south side. Don't know how to operate this. Uh, but yeah, sidewalk along the the south side of Fairbanks. Uh when I did a little bit of research, I mean a eight the language in 8.4 uh states that a fee and loop shall be required if the sidewalk is not contiguous or connected. It makes less than half a block of improvements. Um when I when I evaluated this is a daycare uh to our east. Uh they they clearly to me paid a fee in L because there is a there is a 20ft slope easement which is generally what we do when we pay a fee in L. we provide a slow easement so such that the city can come back and install those facilities uh in the future. So I think this is a a pure UDO issue. It state the UDO states that we must pay a fee in L for that sidewalk unless there's some other uh I guess provision um otherwise and that would if that happened that would put you know a fee for potentially a sidewalk up to the entrance right there where Raleigh Family Orthodontics and North Raleigh Christian Church is. cuz I'm assuming y'all's lot potentially pending the the border thing goes up to that entrance to the church. Yeah, it's uh it's generally right here on the on the uh corner uh the southeast corner of the boundary. That red line, that corner is actually uh proper from what we think that the gap in question is a uh a pie shape of about 45 ft. So if you look at the current map on the screen, um you'll see kind of an adjoining looking gap uh to our north at off that northeast corner. Uh so that's kind of the the opposite uh portion of that is a pie shape. Um so our project would be responsible for the improvements strictly along the frontage uh of of the property. Got it. And there is like a 45T gap on fair. Yeah, there's a Yeah, this it starts at zero down here right at the Fairbanks uh corner and then it's 45 ft wide um just up here uh if you can see where the mouse is. So, it really joins this other kind of uh suspicious looking uh property up here, but it it kind of joins that. So, uh we're we're in conversations with how to obtain it, what would it be, and if if it's able to be used, it probably would be replaced with more open space, tree conservation, etc. So, no. Yeah, thank you. And I was getting in the weeds there just cuz I was curious of that the gap between the end of your pie and the entrance to the church. There is I'm assuming that's the church's property, right? Well, this is a I believe this is a daycare facility. I thought um so there so the sidewalk uh there's a gap between that entrance and our project. It's probably 200ish feet uh in total. Is that right? Okay. Oh, all right. Gotcha. Thanks, Brian. And I was just asking because it, you know, that's an that's a it's a short gap in the sidewalk there that's we have a lot of in Raleigh to lose that connectivity. So, but I know if it's church's property, it's the church's property. That's all questions I have. Thank you. Any additional questions, comments, neighbor? Um, certainly understand following the ordinance. I guess just my comment to the applicant would be if you're putting multif family there, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want a sidewalk there. Typically, I'm not in favor of sidewalks to nowhere, but there is sidewalk across the street and I'm just putting myself in those shoes of living there. I'm not just again, it's up it's up to y'all. I understand the ordinance doesn't require it, but that's just my only comment. I'd agree. Yeah, Brian, I I don't think we're opposed to the sidewalk. I think we just need to clarify that as we go through the process. the the language of that of that that section says shall. So, you know, it seems to be clear what the intent is, but if uh if it's a conversation, there is negotiation with transportation staff. We have no issues putting a sidewalk there. Yep. Other comments, thoughts? Then seeing none, it sounds like we're going to the applicant has asked to defer this case to our June 10th planning commission meeting at 9:00 a.m. in order to provide time to resolve the boundary questions. Um, just something to keep in mind from a timing and procedure standpoint. Um if acquiring new property may also um either change the this from a text change or change the zoning conditions to a reszoning of the other properties or if this boundary line changes the amount of notice that neighbors might need to be renoticed. U so just something to think about on timing but otherwise I am fine with moving this to our June 10th meeting. So, I will make that motion to defer action on this case to our June 10th um planning commission regular meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you guys very much. We'll see you in June. Um moving on to approval of the minutes. We have one set of minutes from our April 22nd planning commission meeting. I believe we had um one bit of clarifying comments from Commissioner Fox. Is that correct? Did you want to provide put that on the on the record? Um sure. Let me open up with the cases. Um this is in regards to case um Z1424. Um this is a case where the motion was made in the negative of a a motion to deny and so I just asked that the um opposing votes be clarified. Thank you. Any other comments from the minutes? Then I will make a motion to approve the minutes with that one change. Do I have a second? Any further discussion? Um, can we get a refresher on what Z1424 was? I was absent. I'll defer to Commissioner Fox. Sure. Uh, if you open up the minutes, it's on page two. Um, it was coming out as part of the committee report. Gotcha. Clubhouse, Star Till Road. Yeah. Yep. Clubhouse, Tar Hill Road. Uh motion was made by um Commissioner Atwell. Um and you Commissioner Peeler seconded the motion. Just for the record, I also believe it's it's Tar Hill Clubhouse, not clubhouse tarill. Yeah. Cool. No, that was just that was my only question. I'm good with it. Thank you. Um any other comments? Okay, then um we've had a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thanks very much. Moving on to other business. Report of the chair. Um we have four addition or three additional meetings in this fiscal year. Um you'll see in the uh report that we will have officer elections coming up at our second meeting in June and that will apply for our um next fiscal year. I'm sorry, our next Yeah, the next fiscal year starting July 1st. Um, in terms of committees, I believe we have a text change committee meeting this month and next month. And, uh, for just a reminder, the membership, um, Commissioner Otwell is our chair and then Commissioner O'Hver, Cochran, and Reeves are the other members. Um, I would also like to appoint Commissioner Omay to the text change committee meeting so that we can have five for um for uh our quorum purposes and we will do we need to talk about the other committees as well at this time. Okay. All right. Then in that case we will go down the line but I will also provide the meeting the uh report of vice chair Bennett since she's absent the I believe we will not have a committee of the whole meeting this month. Is that correct? No May cow. No May committee of the whole. Yes. May June cow. Yes. Yes. June cow. Thank you. And moving down the line. Thank you chair Miller. the text change committee. We will be meeting on May 21st, 400 p.m. in the Raleigh Municipal Building, which is fun because we normally meet at one exchange plaza. So, we'll be right back in the familiar building. We're going to discuss pedestrian connectivity and storm water changes. So, look forward to seeing all those members there and no personal report. Thank you. Uh strategic planning committee does not have any items for May meeting, so there will not be a meeting in May. Thank you. No reports for me. Thanks. I currently have a conflict for text change, Dwight, but just keep me posted. If push comes to shove, I can probably get there, but no report. Yeah. So, this is actually going to be my last meeting. Um, and I had a couple things I wanted to say for one second. I So I will be out of town on trip for May 27th, so this will be my last one. Um, yeah, I was not reappointed for my second term. So just wanted to say a couple words since this will be my last one. Uh, to all of you, learned so much serving here. Had some great mentors on mentors on this commission. Uh, help me better understand the comprehensive plan, better envision what equitable planning really means. Um, you know, I always strive to not only stick to being consistent with our comp plan and our decisions here, but encourage city and developers to make better decisions for working-class important neighbors, preserve existing affordable housing, encourage new affordable housing, protect sensitive natural environments, build more inclusively, build in a a climate friendly way, which we talk about quite a bit, uh, stop our sprawling patterns of annexation in Raleigh. I think we got an incredibly hardworking planning staff here. I had no idea how hard you all worked before I got to this commission. Um, you know, y'all do so much work to highlight the consistencies and inconsistencies of each case. So, I want to say thank you to all y'all for putting in all that work. Um, you know, probably the again the most eye opening part of this this service last two years was seeing how difficult that is for y'all for staff. Um, I was born and raised here in Raleigh. I believe this is a great place that can have a really bright future. Um, and I believe in a vision here that I tried to applied through all my votes that we don't repeat mistakes that so many other cities around the country and and nation make. Um, you know, my ask to the rest of this commission is that you not only apply the comp plan, but you also challenge our council to really break the the status quo cycles of development that kind of continue to divide people. They have in the past, but they continue to now by class and race. Um, and that we build Raleigh into a city that has ample public transit. it's walkable, walkable, cyclable, uh doesn't prioritize cars above all else. Um and finally, that we build economically inclusive neighborhoods that have all the necessary community resources available to every resident, no matter who they are. Uh again, I'd hope to be reappointed. It wasn't my wish to not move on and continue on this uh on this commission, but that's how political appointments go sometimes. Uh I'm not going anywhere. I live here in Raleigh. and I'm going to keep fighting for that vision that I push here. Um, yeah, thanks for all y'all. I'm sure I'll see you around and work with you maybe in my day job or in volunteer things. So, thank you all. Thank you, Commissioner Peeler. Thank you so much. I'm sorry I didn't know it was your last meeting or I would have acknowledged this. Thank you so much for your service on this commission. No one can question your passion and your commitment to your work um on the planning commission or for this city. It's been um really something inspiring to watch. You know, I talk a lot about public service and how critical it is for people who can do it and you absolutely exemplify that. So, thank you for your service. We really appreciate it and look forward to a long future living in this city together. U moving on to report of our assistant director perhaps into the mic. Yes, Commissioner Mcman was also not reappointed. We do have two new commissioners that'll be joining us in June. Uh Nick Neptune and Mark Shelburn. Um so that that's forthcoming. I'll be meeting with them next week to help them get ready. Um Commissioner Chair Miller mentioned elections will be on the second June agenda. So, some homework for the commission to get ready for that. Uh, and then there is a uh commission member survey in my report. There's a link to that that's going out to all boards and commissions. Would appreciate you taking the time to click through the attachments and take the survey. And then finally the design review commission is looking for a delegate from the planning commission to represent planning commission on the jury for the soulterale awards. So that time commitment is review time of materials. You'll receive those before the lunch meeting where the jury will convene and decide. And then I believe also the expectation is that you would attend Sir Walter Raleigh awards. So, I I need to know by the 22nd, and that's before your next meeting, who the person will be. So, after reading your report, I realize those dates don't work for me, so we should solicit someone else. Thank you. We'll take another peek at Yeah. Um, if you're interested, please reach out to me or staff and we can figure out who the right person is. Y Is there some Is there someone here now that might commit to that? I need to double check the dates. I might be able to do it. Okay. But I don't know. Great. Yet that the And then I just wanted to review uh no May cow. There will be a June cow. Text exchange committee is meeting on the 21st. Infrastructure and mobility will not meet in May. Nor will strategic planning. You mentioned the location of the text change committee. I cannot confirm that this information about R&B is correct. I will uh ask the staff liaison to confirm with you so that you can share that so and we can share that information with the public and the committee. I will keep everybody up to date. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other um business for the good of the order? Then with that we are adjourned. Thank you. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]