[Music] he [Music] o o [Music] n [Music] la n [Music] [Music] la [Music] m [Music] o o [Music] oh oh oh oh oh oh [Music] oh [Music] a [Music] n n [Music] oh oh [Music] [Laughter] [Music] a [Music] oh [Music] o o oh [Music] oh oh [Music] oh oh oh [Music] [Music] welcome to the February 25th 2025 Planning Commission meeting I'm blanny Miller chair of the commission as always I ask ask everyone today to please be efficient in your comments and avoid redundancy so that we can hear from as many viewpoints on as many cases as possible um we start every meeting with an opportunity for the public to comment on an item not contained on the agenda are there any members of the public who'd like to speak on an item not on the agenda today then seeing none we will move on to the consent agenda there is one item on consent today resoning case z72 at Glennwood Avenue Lake and drive and Winchester Drive this item originally appeared on our agenda around 9 months ago since then at the request of the applicant neighbors the commission has requested and city council has granted three 90-day extensions um at our December 10th meeting we deferred this case to today's meeting and today the recommended action is that we again defer this item to our March 25th meeting uh our current deadline for Action is April 9th so the deferral will not require another request for an extension and it's my understanding that the applicant has been working diligently uh to accommodate nebor requests and questions and the delay has been caused um by awaiting feedback the necessary feedback and approvals from the local HOA which is still forthcoming is there any discussion on this topic seeing none um I would like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda do I have a second we have a second any further discussion all those in favor any opposed that passes unanimously thank you moving on to new business we have four items on the agenda for these items we will hear a full staff presentation and comments from the public the first item is resoning case z 3524 at 4409 creedmore Road this case is to change approximately 4.14 Acres from ox4 to CX7 with conditions and we will turn to Matthew Clen for a presentation from City Planning staff good morning chair and Planning Commission Matthew Clen Planning and Development so as the chair stated we're looking at a 4.14 Acre Site going from Office mixed juice to commercial mixed juice increasing story height by three stories and your deadline is uh April 26th you can see there's a mix of zoning in the area um commercial mix juice uh across the street which is around the Crabtree Valley Mall area and then along creemore Road uh more commercial mixed juice and office mixed juice to the uh Northwest uh we we have conservation management around the greenway Corridor and some uh four-story residential uh a look at the site you can see the mix of uses in the area um we are Southwest of the Glenwood Avenue creedmore uh intersection you can see the mall um on the right side of the screen krabu Valley Mall from the site you can see a small uh single story development um but the site uh extends back um into the lot the site is adjacent to Crabtree Creek and you can see there are um jurisdictional uh flood areas uh on and adjacent to the site uh an image from crab excuse me from crore Road and the proposed zoning conditions um so condition one essentially what condition one does is although the zoning district is going to CX what this condition does is caps all uses at ox and adds the overnight lodging use to the mix increases the height by three stories and then also limit limits the existing uh limits future office development to the existing um entitlement so the office does not change the district is basically ox plus the overnight lodging use and additional height uh and the second condition uh prohibits parking between the building and the street in an effort to uh comply with Urban Frontage guidance for the uh development so looking at entitlements here maximum units increase because of the additional height office and Retail stays the same uh because of the zoning condition uh we have a higher walk score Transit score bike score and station and job proximity indexes on the site because of its location uh near the regional uh commercial center that is Crabtree uh Valley Mall a lot of jobs at the mall and other office uh establishments nearby um a look at the bus service in the area served by the crab tree and the Brier Creek Express uh the request does add to supply um there are no subsidized units provided in the case uh and of course course because it's a mixed use district is adding um or permitting smaller Lots uh and and less expensive housing types comparatively and of course is in walking distance with Transit so there's a lower demographic index in the city uh fewer people of color and low-income populations live in the area uh and fewer uh folks with less than High School um education we are consistent with the future land use map um because while the request is going to Ox only adding the overnight lodging use isn't a a really big departure from what is envisioned a nox also because the hotel or overnight lodging use is permitted in ox but as a special use so establishing an a hotel use in Ox would require a special use permit um but in this case what they're asking to do is increase height and permit uh overnight lodging outright um consistent with the urban four map albeit only prohibiting the uh parking between the building and the site given the context of the site and the topography and the separation from this site and sites to the Northeast by the creek uh it seems appropriate to um consider this uh consistent and um just overall consistency with the plan these are your policies um and your uh deadline is April 26 and there are no outstanding issues thank you moving on to the public comment portion for those in support the applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak good morning Commissioners Molly stew Morning Star Law Group 434 fville Street and Raleigh here on behalf of the applicant AGS hotels um you may have noticed from um Mr clone's summary that uh and from the applicant name that the request here is about um constructing a hotel on the site um that's the the need to to just add that single use so not a lot of issues have come up as we've U been through our our public Outreach in this process uh as you see this area is designated for economic devel velopment um a hotel is actually a a fairly large job provider um so very consistent with that as well as with the transportation Network surrounding you also saw that a a big chunk of the frontage on this site is actually occupied by the creek and that's where it becomes difficult to fully comply with the urban Frontage um because uh you can't meet the percentages of occupation with the creek and then the uh driveway access as well as the building so there's there's where that challenge comes up and why it was presented the way that it was um so because not very many issues have come up we'll simply I'll be available for questions thank you thank you are there any other members of the public who like to speak in support of this project then moving on to public comment for those in opposition those opposed to this case will have a total of 10 minutes to speak please come to the podium and seeing none we can bring it back to the table for any questions and comments from our commissioners or seeing n all entertain a motion yes commissioner otwell all right regarding Z 3524 I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 25th 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 moving on to our next item zoning case z 3924 at 8 um eight I'm sorry at Honeycut Road this case is to change approximately 14.15 Acres from R1 with false Watershed protection overlay District to R six cuu with the FSE overlay District uh we will now turn to Robert tapate for a presentation from City Planning staff good morning commission Robert Tate with Planning and Development so this is resoning request Z 3924 at 8415 Honeycut Road this is a request to rezone approximately 14.15 Acres from R1 with the Falls Watershed protection overlay District to a conditional use R six District retaining that overlay District your deadline for Action is April 26th zoning in the area is predominantly residential um however there are various mixed use districts that are situated along Falls of noose road to the south of the site here's an aerial image of the site and surrounding land uses directly north is a church to the east is the bentree neighborhood um to the West I'm sorry to the West is the bentree neighborhood to the east is Lafayette Village and then uh a mix of uses along the fal new Corridor here's another aerial image looking at the site um you can notice that this is largely wooded with a pretty healthy tree canopy on the site here's a couple of street views the first is looking from Honeycut Road into the site and then the second at the bottom is a view from chatterson Drive which is west of the site that's the Dead End Street that um abuts the property so there are several conditions that have been proposed um the first would limit residential uses so that it does not exceed 56 units um the second would prohibit the apartment building type um just a reminder that R six the conventional development option does not allow the permit the apartment building type but the conservation development option would um but the applicant has opted to prohibit that building type altogether the third would um prohibit various uses that will otherwise be allowed in an R six District um and then the last two the fourth would be an exemption from udio block perimeter and dead in Street requirements so this would exempt the applicant from extending chatterson drive through the site and the fifth condition would require construction of a five W five foot width um path from chatterson drive to the internal network of the site so just a quick look at what's changing um so the biggest change here um would be allowing additional units up to 56 um approximately 56 units would be allowed on the site and also um unlocking that townhouse building type on the site and I would also like to note that um they're keeping the Falls waterers shed protection overlay so this site has a higher walk score than average um Transit data is unavailable but there is a Transit stop a little over a half a mile away from the site um a bike score higher than average uh lower Transportation cost index than average which means um transportation costs are higher than the city average and then a higher job proximity than average which means it's closer um and more accessible to jobs than average so looking at affordability um this would add to the housing Supply um although this um request does not include subsidized as a form of zoning conditions um it would permit variety of housing types smaller units smaller lots and like I mentioned it's over a half mile from a Transit stop so not within walking distance so this area um is less likely to have M racial minorities um compared to the Citywide average also less likely to have um households with low income than the Citywide average I'd like to note that this site is also outside of corporate limits but within our etj um so any extension of Public Utilities would require annexation um and the applicant is aware of that so this request is inconsistent with the future land use map the designation Ral residential um envisions a smaller scale and less um impactful development pattern um which is largely um Associated and corresponds with the R1 zoning district and this request they are um seeking the r six District so consistent with the comp plan overall like I mentioned inconsistent with the future land use map and here are a handful of policies that support housing housing variety compact development um and and largely this request Falls in line with the um guidance for the Falls Lake Secondary Watershed density policy here are a few inconsistent policies like I cited before inconsistency with the future land use map um so a zoning condition that would prohibit or exempt them from the Udo block perimeter um standards um triggered this inconsistency with um policy T 2.4 Road connectivity and this site is also located in an area of known fire service consideration so it also triggered the response Standard Time response time standards policy so there are no outstanding issues at this time again your deadline for Action is April 26th and just quickly just for a reminder um because this is inconsistent with the future Lane use map this would trigger an automatic um comp plan amendment to amend the map from rural residential to a low-scale residential district I believe um the applicant is here and can answer any questions you have and staff is also available thank you moving on to public comment for those in support the applicant and those in favor will have a total of 10 minutes to speak good morning Madam chair members of the commission Michael Burch with long LEF law Partners here on behalf of the applicant also with me this morning is Andrew Sandman uh the applicant for this rezoning appreciate Robert's uh presentation want to highlight a few key points um first property currently zoned R1 with the Falls Watershed protection overlay District that's 14 large estate Lots under current zoning Falls Watershed protection overlay District requires 40% of the property be forested so and a maximum impervious surface limit of 30% that includes any interior roads any road improvements adjacent to the site our request is for R six with conditions uh to a 4 unit per acre density which is consistent with the Falls watershed area plan density guidelines that we are maintaining the Watershed protection overlay District so it's a matter of what are we doing within that 30% impervious 14 large estate Lots or a maximum of 56 single family homes or town homes given where this property is located inside 540 across the street from Lafayette Village Lifetime Fitness uh other Retail Services office services BL bentree Plaza to the South uh given the transportation infrastructure in the area our access to the greenway system uh through bentry we think that providing additional housing here uh is an important piece and one that can be accomplished again within the Falls Watershed protection overlay District as I mentioned we're adjacent to the bentree neighborhood uh in addition to the two required neighborhood meetings uh we have also held two additional meetings with the bentree neighborhood as well as many uh phone calls email exchanges and meetings on site with those who live immediately adjacent to the site uh we appreciate very much them uh working with us agreeing to meet with us uh many times and just keeping that line of communication open our largest point of discussion as you might have seen from the engagement report is around chatterson Drive which is the uh street that stubs into the site um at our first neighborhood meeting where there was nearly 100 attendees there was unanimous I would say unanimous uh sentiment of not extending chatterson through the site because of uh the standard of their streets no sidewalks and I I'm sure they will touch on uh kind of why that connection uh or why that connection would be adverse uh to their neighborhood so from from the beginning we have prohibited that chatterson Drive Extension through our site in addition to meeting with the bentry folks we've also had meetings with Transportation staff about not having that connection and in lie of that vehicular connection we initially proposed a condition for a 5- foot bike ped connection from chatterson to kind of our public Street within the site which would then connect with our sidewalks and go out to Honeycut Transportation had a request for actually a 10-ft multi-use path from chatterson out to Honeycut and we have submitted draft conditions providing that uh so while that condition is not before you that is a condition that we have submitted to staff providing a 10-ft multi-use path from the termination of chatterson through our site out to Honeycut Road I want to mention that we've also discussed uh pedestrian Crossing across honey cut as well as trying to provide uh fill in some of the gaps uh for sidewalks along Honeycut those conversations are ongoing Raleigh do has been talking with uh NC do who has expressed not wanting that pedestrian Crossing you know unsignalized Crossing at Honeycut uh and there we are also working through issues with uh staff about that s that Gap in the sidewalk because of existing right of way implications on our impervious surface limits uh but right now we are providing for that multi-use path through the site Robert went through our conditions again which were intended to address consistency with the Falls watershed area plan and compatibility with the bentree neighborhood again we've prohibited certain non-residential uses prohibited the apartment building type and limited our density to four units per acre uh in addition to the multi-use path condition that we've submitted in draft form we have also submitted a draft condition that increases our tree conservation requirement from 10% to 15% so under R1 zoning 15% TCA is the requirement and so even though we're going from R1 to R4 which would reduce Our obligation to 10% we want to honor what that current zoning requirement is of 15% we've also proposed a draft condition to require 30% uh open area so area outside of Street RightWay outside of buildable lots that would be owned by Association so similar to open space again that's intended to address future land use map consistency but also just compatibility and uh consistency with the surrounding area as Robert mentioned we are consistent with the comprehensive plan overall uh we believe we're reasonable and in the public interest as well uh by providing housing Supply within walking distance to retail restaurant office uh and Recreation uses uh again we understand we've provided some draft conditions which are still under staff review uh but we still wanted to come here and receive any feedback from the Planning Commission uh as well in terms of um comments questions uh so I think in order to act on those conditions we would need to come back in two weeks uh but again we appreciate you uh hearing from us this morning and we welcome any feedback or questions that you all may have so thank you thanks very much we will now move on to public comment um for anyone else in support of this project please come to the podium and speak morning ince yourself I'm Chris mango I'm a member of the board of the bentry HOA right next door of the project uh so first um attorney Burch sort of highlighted the most critical aspect of the project for us and that is that no vehicles that do not be a cut through to uh from chatterson to Honeycut and that Vehicles can't go through there in any way so the uh chatterson is is a narrow street it's about 20 feet wide uh there's pedestrians there all the time children walking to the uh Middlebrook um elementary school or middle school there's bik bers uh there's the greenway path connects to chatterson excuse me uh so there's there's a lot of pedestrian and bikers on that path and it's literally impossible for two cars to path to pass at the same time with pedestrians on the street you have to wait and pull over there's also uh landscaping and service trucks that are occasionally there and if two cars are coming at the same time you have to wait so this is a very narrow Street uh it gets a lot of pedestrians and that's the most crucial piece for us that that not cut through and I think uh Mr samman and his team have done a good job of listening to our concerns um highlighting our concerns communicating with us in the process so we support the proposal so long as the conditions are met and especially the condition that chatterson not cut through to Honeycut that's crucial to us the other thing I would say is the multi-use path as it connects to Honeycut I think it does make sense to have a walkway like a stripe pathway for pedestrians to be able to access Lafayette Village and that's because it's it's a couple hundred yards to go down to the corner at Falls noose and cross and I think as a practical matter people are just going to cut across whether there's uh safety Provisions there or not so I think a strip path maybe with flashing yellow lights maybe not but just an an opportunity Further Along on Honeycut there is a stripe path that connects the greenway Crossing Honeycut also in a 45 Zone and in fact at a higher speed zone than at this close Edge to the intersection so I think that makes sense uh so we have had over 30 Neighbors in the public comment portal uh voice these concerns and our priorities and as attorney Burch mentioned there were over 100 people at the first neighborhood meeting everyone was opposed to uh chatterson cutting through to Honey cut another thing is important and um Mr samon has assured us that the water Runa will be handled properly because we get a lot of water run off in our neighborhood and he's assured us that he's going to comply with all the regulations and have a runoff Pond and properly distribute the water so our neighbors nearby the project don't have additional water problems there's already water problem so that's a very important piece of the process for us as well thank you thank you are there any other members of the public who like to speak in support of this project then moving on 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 and introduce yourself seeing none we can bring it to table discussion anyone want to kick us off commissioner Fox um my primary concern about the block perimeter exemption it sounds like that's being addressed with the um C condition that's being drafted regarding the addition of a 10- foot multi-use path um my other concerns about tree conservation and open area it sounds like are also addressed with these draft conditions that we're not looking at today um the last thing I'll add is I'm concerned a little bit about the um pedestrians Crossing Honeycut um I was wondering if I could have staff answer a question just is that um something that would be addressed um during site plan review good morning commission uh Carter Robertson with uh Transportation um we do have our development review team aware of this uh case so they'll be ready when site plan comes uh as the applicant mentioned we are ongoing conversation with ncdot uh our vision zero team in particular is meeting with them on Thursday to talk about uh what would be appropriate for crossing Honeycut uh ultimately it's a ncdot road um they have their their own standards for when a uh Crossing would be applicable but without some sort of Crossing or filling in the sidewalk gaps um there's really no way for people to get from the site to Lafayette Village right now thank you and you said that conversation is next week uh this Thursday we're meeting with d thank you thank you other questions from Commissioners yes Vice chair Bennett thank you um I generally don't like conditions that prohibit Apartments um I like that this is opening up the townhouse type but um unless there's a very compelling reason I usually have concerns when we're prohibiting Apartments so with the applicant like to speak about why apartments are prohibited yes uh commissioner Bennett we primarily prohibited the apartment building type one because of our adjacency to single family detached I more primarily because of the future land use map and Falls watershed area plan guidance for kind of the com lower scale building types so those two things drove uh our decision to add that condition okay thank you other comments from commissioner for questions yes commissioner thank you chair Miller I have taken seriously the concerns from staff in the report uh regarding this kind of development in the Falls Lake Watershed and I was wondering if we could get them to talk a little bit more about uh the kind of precedent that might be set and what kind of previous development of this type has gone on in the Watershed and also what kind of protections the Watershed overlay provides that would not be required without it good morning counselors or commission Ed buckin Raley water I'll speak at least to the the precedent point that you brought up and this is one that we have raised in other similar cases that we've brought before the commission previously and and it's a little bit of an esoteric uh description but just bear with me we are in the process of EV Val ating uh future water supply options and and one of those which has been an option on the table for us since the early 90s is the Little River Reservoir and when that Reservoir was identified Wake County acted uh as Raley's proxy and acquired uh the property for that Reservoir and uh We've also opted as a utility not to extend uh Services into the Little River Reservoir um and that has been generally our Poli policy um in any water supply um Watershed so that's Falls that's Swift Creek and that's also Little River so we try to treat all those water supply water sheds uh the same and there are exceptions um and there's some in the Falls Lake uh Watershed where there's been a failure of a septic system or a well system um that's usually when we would extend those services so we felt like in those rare cases um that was going to be acceptable but um the the issue is that if if we set a standard a policy or a precedent of extending these Services into the water supply Watershed of Falls or any any of our um water supply watersheds then that could threaten the our ability to get a permit to build the Little River reservoir uh Little River Reservoir is a little bit different than the rest of the reservoirs first of all doesn't exist yet secondly it's a WS2 which is a very high classification for a water supply Watershed in this area by contrast Falls Lake is a ws4 um and then there's also endangered species in the Little River Reservoir so the idea being that we're trying to protect the Little River Reservoir as much as we can so that once we enter into a discussion with the permitting agencies we can point to that and say we have non extended services in Little River Reservoir to help preserve these species isues you've identified and our concern would be that if if we set a precedent we start to extend the services into those areas then we'll no longer have that ability to make that argument could you expand a little bit on what a WS2 means compared to a ws1 it's it's a state designation for uh water supply watersheds and it restricts the lower the number the more restrictive it is in terms of development um impervia surface and density all of these things um impact what a water supply classification is so ws4 is the least restrictive and a WS2 is is getting close to one so one is generally the only one you would see in the mountains trout Waters and things like that mam Sher if I could just like to respond address that question as well I think it's important to note uh kind of north of Strickland west of Falls South of 540 is What's called the secondary Watershed the secondary uh part of the falls Watershed north of 540 is the primary where the restrictions on impervious are much greater uh also want to note that utilities are at the site we have a sewer connection and I it's not following my finger for some reason we have a sewer connection uh with an easement where we can directly connect in the northwest corner and there is water in Honeycut so this isn't a situation where we are kind of truly extending utilities out into a Greenfield area into the wat an area of the Watershed where they don't already exist all of Bent Tree is annexed within the city limits served by water sewer the church to our North uh in the city limits served by water sewer uh the commercial on the north side of Falls which is in the Watershed served by water sewer within the corporate limits this is really a donut hole uh one of the few pieces within the secondary well I'll just say in this area south of 540 that has not been annexed and is not yet connected to utilities but this is not a situation where we need to actually extend Mains to like serve a property that's a distance away from where utilities exist today I also want to just provide the commission with a little uh history of two or three rezoning cases that yall have seen within the last 3 to four years uh as you're aware and I think these are situations similar to this property one off leeville road next next to the Harris Teeter shopping center you've seen that one twice uh both for CA both for requests uh for density in excess of one unit per acre certainly the one most recently for I believe about 10 units per acre on that site and again utilities were stubbed to that site but that's also secondary watershed area north of Strickland uh the other was uh off of Six Forks Road Lead Mine Road it was a portion of the church property kind of right there off you see off of Six Forks on your left hand side where uh we rezoned seven uh just over seven acres for uh 40 units town homes and that came out to about 5.4 units per acre again similar situation here secondary utilities to the site and so listen we want to certainly uh not interfere with Riley's uh permitting process for the Little River but as you heard that WS2 classification uh is much different than the ws4 in Falls that's a major distinction uh right where there are less restrictive uh things being imposed I also want to note we are not changing the Falls Watershed protection overlay District that's being maintained the 30% impervious surface is remaining it's a matter of what we're doing within that 30% thanks thank you other questions from our commission commers or comments uh seeing none it sounds like the applicant has already submitted draft conditions to staff and there have not been uh a discussion of any additional draft conditions today at the table so um I would like to so if we were to defer this item to our next case that would be on March 11th and that means that the uh I guess the draft conditions are already in so we would just need to see receive signatures by the deadline to receive it at that case is that amendable to the applicant to defer that to March 11th uh yes it is and that also gives us time to hear the results of the meeting on Thursday I just want to acknowledge we've been very clear with transportation that we understand the pl practical realities of people crossing Honeycut to get to Lafayette or Lifetime and we don't want to put our future residents in danger of Crossing or bentry or anybody else and so uh you have an applicant who is willing to do what we can uh subject NCD do approval for that Crossing thank you so that's a good note if the outcome of that meeting on Thursday um presents an opportunity for the applicant to provide additional conditions I believe those would need to be submitted by this Friday would that provide you enough time yes okay thank you yes commissioner hav I know dot its own is its own animal um but would it help if the applicant since they're willing to provide a Crossing would it help if the Planning Commission made a stand that we we would support that for the applicant to be able to take that do I it probably won't help to be honest with you I don't know that it would impact do you might be able to speak to that but just curious because it it does seem like it could very well be an issue right there and I I know what do requirements are I think they're generally going to come out of the gate say we're not going to do it Crossing there so okay commissioner Fox did you have feedback um I don't know if a condition can compel another agency to take action um so I'm less inclined to do that but I will be interested in the feedback to see if there are some elements that we could include or some further recommendation to city council regarding some other capital project thank you I agree I think the fact that we have this conversation gives the applicant something to take the do would it be helpful to have do attend the next meeting of Representative on this item or could we just get the information back from Transportation staff on this I would maybe that's a question for staff probably just a question yeah we we'd be happy to provide an update to you all and the applicant um we'll also talk with them and gauge interest if they'd like to come thank you very much yes commissioner ell thank you chair Miller with the with the chair's approval I'd like to request the staff uh have the storm water uh attend the next meeting I'd like to hear more about the overlay district and the requirements for impervious surface okay so it sounds like we're going to defer this case to March 11th um and awaiting with the inclusion of at least three new conditions potentially a fourth related to transportation and an update for from Transportation staff um and from uh the in the attendance of storm water staff additionally so we can as ask some additional questions um are there any questions in particular that storm water or the applicant might consider related to storm water that you want to forecast for the next meeting I am not qualified okay to especially at this time with my ignorance of the regulations around the overlay District to ask for anything specific I'm I'm just interested in learning more about the overlay district and how it interacts with the request at this point thank you okay um then in that case I'll make a motion to defer this case until our March 11th meeting do I have a second motion a second any further discussion all those in favor and he opposed that passes unanimously thanks very much we'll see you in two weeks okay moving on to our next item uh agenda item D3 resoning case z 5324 the top Green community center this case is to change approximately 1.3 2 Acres from r10 with ncod to r10 and we will now turn to Robert tap with for a presentation from City Planning staff good morning again commission Robert Tate Planning and Development rezoning request Z 5324 this is for the John P top Green community center um it's a request to reone 1.32 acres from r10 with the ncod and um requesting to remove that ncod keeping that r10 designation um and I want want to kind of briefly discuss the project that kind of facilitated and initiated this request um the purpose for the resoning is to facilitate the expansion and renovation of the existing Park site um the request appeared at rhdc February 12th meeting um this was triggered because the site and the parcels within the park site are within the South Park in East Raleigh National register historic district um and the results from that meeting um they recommended approval with the vote of 8 to zero with one abstaining um so just a reminder your request or your deadline for Action is April 26th so here's a look at the site um so largely moderate scale residential surrounds the site this is just east of downtown and just west of Chavis Park also you'll see sha University just to the West as well and across Southeast Street is a Duke Energy substation so just a highle look and a zoomed out look of the South Park ncod um so this um site Falls relatively to the north of the um boundary area um so a couple of the dimensional standards have um kind of prohibited and provided a hindrance to the park project so that's why you're seeing this request before you today um and I'll note that it's the a through D requirements of the N that have been providing that hindrance so because this request is General use there are no conditions provided on the city owned property so not a substantial change in entitlement um the residential entitlement should stay relatively the same unless utilizing the frequent Transit development option so this site has a higher walk score Transit score and byy score just because of its proxim to downtown and many different Services um has a higher Transportation cost and higher job proximity here's a look at Transit within the area um this site is served by Route 20 and Route 19 and is roughly a half mile south of the Gale station this would add to the housing Supply if the frequent Transit development option is ever utilized which is not the intent for the site um but would unlock that um entitlement this does not include subsidized units um would continue to permit variety of housing type smaller units and smaller Lots than the Citywide average and again within walking distance of Transit this request is consistent with the future land use map designation of moderate scale residential and is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall here are a list of policies and just one inconsistent policy related to response time standards so your deadline fraction again is April 26th I wish I had a little bit more to talk about for you all but it's relatively a a simple request um we also have Park staff here today um to provide maybe a little additional visibility of the project for your awareness and um they're available thank you very much since the city is the applicant in this case we'll U move on to public comment for those in support if Park staff or any other um members of the public would like to speak in support you have a total of 10 minutes to speak good morning uh my name is Lauren Reed I'm a capital pro project supervisor with Parks and Recreation and I'll just give you a quick overview of the project just for fun um this is the John top green uh we are changing the name to the africanamerican cultural center from Community Center and this is not associated with the bond project that I'm describing it is just uh a change related an Associated change related to uh a change in goals and use of the center um the project uh scope is the renovation of the existing Community Center we're going to have an expansion uh that comes in the form of a new multi-purpose building uh there going to be site uh storm water improvements uh we're going to expand the exhibits the historic exhibits within the uh facility and add a recording studio um with the intention of recording histories from the neighborhood from the area and um other items um and this is going to serve as a trail head to the South Park Heritage Trail which is another Bond project and that they are working in conjunction the project budget is a little bit over $9 million and we have a uh public artist that was chosen for the project uh just a quick uh development of the design uh they started with the designers started with the current conditions they took influence from the NC State and spna proposal done in 2014 uh we had multiple uh pretty extensive community outreach with public engagements and a CAG it was a joint CAG with the uh other projects being for the Chavis Community or Chavis Aquatic Center and the South Park Heritage Trail um after multiple uh iterations and presentations we uh landed in an additional building uh shown on the right um some of the features uh in rendering we're going to have a little Amphitheater out back that will Overlook the storm water Improvement area um and and the community building itself uh the design was taken from influence from the uh new construction in the area but also from the historic front porches um and we have a layout uh with the studio exhibits um a little bit of tweaking and um renovation in the existing building and then we'll be adding a large community room screen and porch covered uh we'll have exterior facing and interior facing restrooms uh the exterior facing will serve the house South Park Heritage Trail Head uh that is located in between the two buildings on the right hand side you can see uh for reference there are currently six Parcels making up this park property and we need to recombine them uh just for reference this is a separate project but I would like to point out that this is the uh current layout for the South Park Heritage Trail and the yellow stars where the top green center is um the estimated schedule uh design is going through uh early 2026 uh construction will start towards the end of 2026 and complete about the end of 2027 and if you had any questions I can answer them thank you very much are there any other members of the public who like to speak in support of this project and moving on to public comment for those in opposition those opposed have a total of 10 minutes to speak and seeing none we can bring it back to the table any thoughts from our commissioners yes commissioner H um not specifically to this project but you mentioned the Heritage Trail I'm just curious if there are conversations uh going on with other part part of the city about the amphitheater location that was a big concern with the amphitheater relocating it how was it going to affect the Heritage Trail there was lots of conversations excuse me around that so I assume we're we're sort of crossing the Divide there talking about that so uh the South Park Heritage Trail uh itself does not actually go to the where the Red Hat Amphitheater is uh that part of is the strollway it's actually so that's two different uh Associated but different projects um that have a little bit of overlap um so this is the Historic Trail on our side um I do know that there there have been uh conversations and uh some adjustments due to with the strollway path due to the uh the amphi amphitheater location though thank you other questions commissioner Fox I have a just a question for staff I don't know if anyone can answer this at this point but um are there a lot of instances where an ncod is on top of a city facility I'm not sure about that it's a weird thing yeah I know there are some Civic uses in schools that are in ncds but I'm not sure about the number or which ncds that they apply to okay I just I'm just acknowledging it's challenging for civic use to meet the requirements of an ncod um and I know the ncod topic is one that we had had in strategic planning so at the end of the meeting I might come back to this point um but thank you I I see no reason to um hold this one up um I don't find it inconsistent I understand exactly what they're doing so I'm ready to support it at the appropriate time thank you any further comments I'll entertain a motion yes commissioner all right regarding Z 5324 I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated February 25th 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning Amendment thank you do we have a second second any further discussion all those in favor any opposed that passes unanimously 6 Z thank you excuse me moving on to our next agenda item D4 uh text change TC 824 with the building townhouse building type clarifications this text change is to amend the Udo to clarify the existing townhouse building type description and I'll turn to Justin Retta for a presentation from City Planning staff thank you good morning Commissioners Justin Reta with planning and development uh this is uh tc84 it is what I hope is a relatively straightforward text Amendment to the Udo for you all this morning [Music] um like to start by saying that there is no proposed policy change with this Tex change its sole purpose is really to clarify um what has been existing practice and policy since the Udo was adopted and so has been in place for the past uh 11-ish years um so no policy change really just clarifying language um to recognize mainly the different um ownership structures that are potentially used in town home developments um which I'll go into a bit more detail on uh before doing that I did just want to mention though briefly that the text change does amend how the Udo defines the term town home but does not affect in any way how they are reviewed or treated um under the building code so those two primary ownership structures uh that we're talking about the first is the the V simple uh model where um an individual property owner might own the land um as well as the unit that sits on top of that land um and each unit sits on its own subdivided lot it can be sold or transferred um independent from any other unit or lot within the development contrast that with a condo uh setup or potentially a department at lease setup where um all or multiple units are placed on a single lot uh typically in HOA or some other property owner owns the land underneath um but different individuals may own within the walls of their dwelling unit or those units might be owned as a whole and least to individuals as well so um the existing definition of the Town Home Building type is on the screen here um it is if I can draw this s I'm sorry this nope not drawing where I want it to draw that sentence starting with units uh may be placed on an individual lot or the entire building may be placed on a single lot that is what is proposed to be changed um the uh given the singular nature of the word building there has been some question or um uh clarification needed as to whether more than one unit may be placed on a lot and again that is the only goal of this text change is to make very clear that um whether or not the individual units sit on their own lot or whether multiple units sit on one lot um either is acceptable from a form perspective um they look the same uh on the street these differences really only exist on paper and therefore um we want to um treat treat them the same from uh from the zoning code standpoint and so here's the proposed definition you can see the uh strike through language the entire building being removed and that clarifying language that one or more units uh or excuse me building types may be placed on a single lot so hope that makes sense um I'm certainly happy to answer any questions you might have thanks very much we'll now open it up to public comment for anyone in support you have a total of 10 minutes to speak and seeing n we will open up to public comment for anyone in opposition you have a total of 10 minutes to speak and San we'll bring it back to the table any thoughts question in regards to a comment commissioner Bennett made earlier um on the agenda with a case limiting apartment type buildings I just want to be clear so technically you could have a building where you're renting units and if they have vertical demising walls they could still be called a townhouse that's correct okay you're welcome than but other than that this is very clear and it's actually very helpful thank you other thoughts I'll entertain a [Music] motion yes commissioner here we go on a roll today all right I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated February 25th 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning text Amendment thank you do we have a second Vice chair benett is second it any further discussion all those in favor any opposed that motion passed unanimously six to Zer thanks very much thank you uh moving on to approval of the minutes we have one batch of minutes from our last meeting at Fe on February 11th any comments to the minutes then seeing none I will make a motion to approve the minutes do I have a second commissioner lman has seconded um any further discussion all those in favor any opposed that passes unanimously thanks very much moving on to other business report of the chair um just one item today commissioner Dean Reigns is not here today but it's my understanding that today uh was his Le is his last meeting um on our member roster and we will have a new appointee filling his vacancy in March I am very excited to welcome her to the team but um I also just wanted to say a few words about commissioner Reigns um he's been an incredibly valuable member of this commission and and I'm sorry that he's not here for to say goodbye in person I think it was just a last minute scheduling um change but it's been an honor to rely on him um as a fellow commissioner as my vice chair um to rely on him for his technical expertise his experienced wisdom and also Al just his professional friendship he's been a joy to work with and I know public service is a calling and I sincerely thank him for his tireless and dedicated service to the city for nearly half a decade um and wish him all the best and look forward to seeing him um who knows potentially as an applicant in the future um so with that I'll move it down the line thank you um it looks like there are no items on the agenda for committee of the whole for March so I am assuming there will be no Committee of the whole meeting for March great we don't have a we don't we don't have a February Committee of the whole meeting and looks like we don't have one for March also so and no further report thank you no no report thank you uh Tex change committee got snowed out last week so uh next uh March 19th Wednesday at 4M in one Exchange Plaza we will pick up the conversation of uh considering how garage space interacts with the maximum requirement for square footage for the uh Cottage home development type and I've also had a member of the public reach out to me about wanting to come speak to the Tex change committee uh they were concerned about what's going on is it uh where the developer is suing the neighborhood to remove conditions to facilitate some Town Home Development um I can't remember the name of the neighborhood over near imacon um and I think it's a pretty Salient issue but I'm not sure text change is the best place for that kind of discussion I thought it might be better to come to the committee of the whole or strategic planning and uh I wanted to get the commission's feedback and the chair's feedback about maybe recommending to this person that they change their target good point um I don't know enough about the case and the issue at this time other do other Commissioners have thoughts or more familiar with this issue there also always welcome to speak at the Planning Commission at the beginning for comments from member of the public and perhaps at that time when we know more details we might be able to direct them to the right place I'll bring that up with them thank you okay Mr Fox um hello uh talking about strategic planning committee I know we've had an item in committee for a number of months the last time we discussed it was in October it's related to um uh neighborhood conservation overlay districts um uh part of the delay has been um trying to fully understand some recent changes to state law uh regarding the ability to down Zone a property that was one of the discussion items we discussed at committee um my question perhaps to our parliamentarians um would I be able to report out um a portion of the committee findings even though we've not met or uh made a formal motion at the Comm committee since October you'd need a excuse me yeah you'd need a formal motion to to make a report like that but [Music] um you know people can decide whether they're going to take it up on the next agenda anyway so am I hearing uh if I made a motion to hear the report of the committee here and the committee members are present and vote um we would be able to at least hear part of that report is that correct I think yeah it can be heard without you know recommendation okay uh motion to hear the report of the strategic planning committee second all in favor yeah okay let's go okay um there were a number of topics uh we discussed and it was in regards to um a couple of cases removing NC ODS or changing ncds that are existing um after um a significant amount of research um and presentation by staff I think uh part of these issues can be resolved fairly easily um which is um the committee is recommending um Council consider some changes um to alter how NC ODS are changed so that means an existing ncod um as a time at which um some member within that ncod chooses to change some parameter of it um that they would have to go through a process that's uh similar in nature to how the ncod was formed um I believe there are some other outstanding issues and perhaps we might want to consider how Civic um buildings are considered in ncds because that just it seems to be a recurring issue um but I'll just report out that one issue um if people are in support in sending some message or report to council regarding changing existing ncds and requiring them to go through a process that is similar to the formation of an ncod where members uh of that ncod so people with property within that confines need to need to vote on it that's that's dealing with the case that came force a few months ago it's not when an applicant comes in from outside the NC got it I'm in support of that we've actually seen when we discussed this in committee we've seen uh two cases in the past year where neighborhoods wanted to am some neighbors wanted to amend the ncod as a whole um and they did not have a process for doing that so they tried to undertake a private process for doing that and that was um very problematic and overall harmful to the neighborhood and to the neighbors and so um we identified that there was a need to provide the neighbors that kind of process and that was one of the items that we discussed so um again similar to how an ncod is created and the city provides a process for that creating a new process to let the neighbors amend that in a way that is of course consistent with state law and um our yud if I remember I think we were we were all a little incredulous when we first learned yes the process to amend versus the process to create so makes sense yes any further discussion on that item any other thoughts from other Commissioners in favor of sending that recommendation from the Planning Commission not the strategic planning committee but from the full Planning Commission to uh city council thoughts chrisher otwell any thoughts in favor it's on board I think it sounds great okay great um then do we make a motion to make a recommendation to council yeah I believe so please so moved we'd like to make a recommendation to council to consider changes to the Udo to alter the process by which existing ncds are um changed wholesale so I guess one thing I would say is this wasn't on this action wasn't on today's agenda this is true um so you might put that on the next agenda okay um so could I can we include it under committee reports or yeah I think it it be like an information item and then put an action on the next item and then if the whole group of votes to approve the agenda then it's like approving hearing the action item next time so resend the mo can instead of making it a committee report could we perhaps put it on consent and then so it's more of a recommendation of the commission to put it on consent as opposed to recommendation of the committee and then the public will have notice of it and we can obviously I'll make sure we have time to discuss that and any member of the public could want to discuss that item on consent as well recommendation to put on consent yes thank you without objection I would um like to include on our next meeting meeting agenda and item under consent the consent agenda to um discuss a recommendation to council um regarding creating a new process to amend an ncod that is similar to the same process as creating an ncod thank you yes if it's on consent and people want to comment they can still comment on it yes I will make sure that there's an opportunity for that I was just trying to figure where to fit it in I'm just thinking people see NC yes and I very much welcome public comment so okay um on this item okay thank you other comments from yes from from commissioner Fox with that motion and the potential reporting out at our next full Planning Commission meeting I do not believe we need to hold the March 12th strategic planning committee meeting okay great moving down the line no comments from me I enjoyed serving with you all oh today is your last meeting as well Oh I thought it was SM and I'm excited to see on the assistant director uh comments that we may have someone in commissioner lman thank you please forgive many times before not this is a it has been an honor to work with you I'm so glad that you you are here at your last meeting Quorum we're dropping like flies yes left and right it has been such a joy and your experience in affordable housing has been so critical and helpful in this whole process and your collegiality has been it's it's you've been a treasure and we will miss you and we wish you the very best of luck thank you so much and we wish you just the very best look forward to seeing you soon than to you all yeah thank you okay moving on to reported the assistant director sure I just want to highlight in what is included in the agenda backup some information about the new Planning Commission member uh Jessica Cochran who will start on the March 11 your next meeting and then I didn't want to make a correction in um the information about our outgoing Planning Commission members uh Dean Reign service did start in March of 2021 not 2023 yeah yes thank you um any other items for the good of the Planning Commission then with that with a heavy heart saying goodbye to two of our members we are adjourned [Music]