[music] Hey, >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. N. [music] Heat. Heat. N. [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] [music] >> Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] >> Down. Down. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. Heat. N. [music] Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Oh, [music] hey. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] >> Hey, [music] hey hey. >> [music] [music] >> Hey, [music] hey hey. [music] >> [music] >> Hey. [music] [music] [music] [music] Hey. Hey. Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Ah, [music] [music] [music] oh. [music] Heat. [music] [music] [music] [music] Hey, heat. Hey, heat. >> [music] [music] [music] >> Hey. Hey. Hey. [music] [music] [music] [music] Heat. [music] Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Hey, [music] [music] hey hey. [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] >> meeting of the Rally Planning Commission. I'm Nicole Bennett, chair of the commission. Welcome to everyone joining us here in person and to those joining us online. Um, a few reminders before we get started. Um, commissioners, please wait to be recognized by the chair before speaking. Um, please let's be courteous to each other, applicant, staff, and the public. And let's keep our comments constructive and focused on the cases we are discussing. I'd also like to note that we have a hard stop at 11 this morning to accommodate another meeting that will take place in this room. With that, we'll begin our meeting. Um, we start each meeting with an opportunity for the public to address us about items not on the agenda. Is anyone here who wishes to comment on an item not on today's agenda? Seeing none, we will move into our agenda. Um, beginning with our consent agenda. We have one item on consent agenda consent agenda and that's approval of our October 14th meeting minutes. Does anyone have any edits for the meeting minutes? Um I have a couple of things to note um where we note um commissioners who are present. Can we also note who's absent please on the minutes? And on the bottom of page two where it says without objection Z 2625 will be held um to Wednesday November 12th 2025 to allow applicant to revise the applicant. I think it meant application and that's all I had. Any other notes for the minutes? If not I will um entertain a motion to approve. >> So moved. >> Do I have a second? Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? All opposed? Thank you. That's unanimous. Next, we have um two committee reports. The first is coming from committee of the whole. I'll turn it over to Commissioner Fox who chairs that committee. >> Excellent. Thank you, Chair Bennett. Um the committee of the whole met on October 23rd in heard case Z20 2022 um which is a minor revision to an existing PD. Um the PD consists of um a number of parcels between Brier Creek Common Shopping Center and the established office park on Arco uh Corporation Drive. Um originally approved in 2008, um the PD zoning has undergone several amendments. This current amendment results in increased entitlement for residential and hotel use. Um the committee voted unanimously to support it. Um and uh if there are no questions from the committee at this time, um I'm ready to uh recommend a motion. >> Are there any questions from commissioners um about this item? >> Okay. I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated October 28th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Do I have a second? Commissioner Cochran has seconded. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor? All opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you. Um the second um committee report is coming from our text change committee. I will turn it over to Commissioner Otwell who chairs that committee. >> Well, thank you, Chair Bennett. On October 15th, the text change committee met to discuss TC324 historic preservation and the RHDC. It was a a highly technical presentation mostly around clarification and simplification of the existing rules. Uh allow for flexibility in the design standards. uh expanded the minor work the required u excuse me the COA minor work list to classify more types as appropriate approvable administratively and uh several other items. There was uh some discussion and questions but there was not much substantial um uh skepticism or disagreement. Were we looking for a motion at this time or was this a placeholder to put us over till the next meeting? I thought this might have been a placeholder and we would actually hold the vote next meeting, but we could go ahead and move now. Okay, I didn't take that in my notes. So, the uh the text change committee recommended approval unanimously and happy to get into details, but you'll have to rely on somebody besides me for clarification because it was uh it was as I said highly technical. >> Does anyone have any questions or um discussion for this item? Well, if not, make your motion. >> Uh, in that case, uh, I move to recommend adoption of TC324, the historic preservation and RHDC text change. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Um, any further discussion? All in favor? >> That's unanimous. Thank you. We have no old business, so we'll move right into um new business. We have three new business items. Um because we have a hard stop at 11, I want to be respectful of those who have come to speak on some of the items on our agenda. So, could I see a show of hands, please, for those who wish to speak on resoning Z312516 Blunt Street? >> Thank you. And um what about TCZ 3225 Jeffres Grove Road Assemblage? Okay. Um if it's okay with staff and with the commissioners, I'd like to switch the order of the agenda and start with um Z3125 Blunt Street, then do TCZ 3225 Jeff Grove Assemblage. Is that okay with everyone? Okay, thank you. Then we will begin um with reszoning Z3125 516 Blunt Street and we'll start with a presentation from staff. Good rainy morning everybody. Um, hi Remarziano for uh reszoning Z3125. This is 516 North Blunt Street. Uh, the request is to reszone.37 acres from um ox3 uh de with uh historic overlay G uh to CX3 um conditional use but maintaining the historic overlay G. Um, so that's office mixed use, the commercial mixeduse, both three stories, removing the detached frontage being conditional use, but maintaining the historic overlay for Blunt Street. Um, the RHDC at their meeting in September did recommend approval 8 to 3. And your deadline for action on this is December 27th. Uh, as you can see from the map, zoning in the area is predominantly a planned development and and spotted areas of mixed use. uh with some residential behind. Uh the area is a mixture of residential and commercial office uses in the vicinity. Uh just a quick aerial here for you and you can see that the uh medium scale high scale residential surrounding this area and but some still office institutional in the middle. Um shot of the property. uh the conditions um for discussion. I will go ahead and point out that staff still has a few concerns about these. I'll go into those a little bit after this. Uh but the first one is to limit the uses to the existing office mixeduse area with the inclusion of indoor and outdoor recreation. That's under CX. Uh so the gist is that they would have the current uses that are allowed at the site with the addition of indoor and outdoor recreation which number two condition prohibits certain lists of uses that are under indooroutdoor recreation even further. Um they're limiting event attendance to 75 attendees, requesting amplified sound should not be permitted outdoors after 10 p.m. No food and beverage served after 10 p.m. Um they propose a dedicated um property manager that would be responsible for the short-term rentals, event coordination, and managing any complaints from the neighboring properties. Um they are proposing regulations on the pro uh parking uh landscaping requirements on the eastern border of the property and requirements or regulations on people staying overnight per room. Um part of the issue with some of these conditions that staff has is in the first condition they've listed as it's fully written out they've listed a few uses that are currently allowed. Uh we use that like conditions to state things that are above and beyond the ordinance. um they're listing uses that aren't in the table like special events that falls under indoor outdoor recreation. So we would just like to see some of that language cleaned up. Um and then and overall a lot of these conditions there as they're written will be enforced through complaints. Um so there's not a lot of um there's some there's some rewrites and cleanup that we think could happen with some of these conditions. Um, here's your entitlement. Uh, well, your bill twos about nothing's really changing as far as physical dimensions between OX and CX for the property. Uh, just some minor increase in, uh, retail entitlement, but everything else pretty much stays the same. Um, especially keeping those uses for OX as opposed to all the uses allowed under CX. Um, just transportation energy analysis here that ticks all the boxes. Uh, it is, uh, very well routed on the bus service route. There's a stop to about 700 feet south of this property uh for the route one Capitol Boulevard. Uh does not include any subsidized units u otherwise um ticks our boxes on affordability analysis. Um just a few demographics to point out here. The area is less likely to be racial minorities at 26% as compared to the city average of 46%. And the rate of uh cost of rent increases is about 44 uh% from 20 uh 20 to 2023 about the citywide average being 26%. Um the Flume designation is central business district. Uh CX would be consistent with that uh being that it is their downtown core um area. Uh [clears throat] there is no frontage designation with the request for change. There is a current designation um which is detached. Uh the downtown and frequent transit areas would actually look for an urban frontage. Uh no frontage being applied would be inconsistent with our comp plan on this. Uh overall however we do feel that the uh request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the future land use map and as pointed out inconsistent with the urban form map. uh a few of the policies we feel that are consistent and as pointed out the inconsistent policy being the frontage requirements. Uh outstanding issues again would be our um understanding of the language for number condition number one needing to be a little bit more consistent, more clear and then our concern about the conditions uh five, six, seven, and nine how they'd be initiated by complaint only. Again, these are a few meetings coming up that you can discuss further if you so choose. I'm happy to answer any questions and I I know we're pressed for time so I went through that pretty fast. So if you need me to go back over anything, just let me know. >> That was great. Thank you. If we have questions, we'll we'll get it when we bring it back to the table. Um we'll move now to public comment. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. There you go. >> Good morning, members of the planning commission. I'm Isbel Maddox. My address is 3700 Glenwood, Sweet 500 Raleigh 27612. Here today representing 1893 LLC, the owner of this house. Um, this house was is a beautiful older house. Um, they have spent a lot of time and money restoring it to its original grandeur. Um, I won't go over the the history in great detail, but it formerly in a prior iteration was a gathering space, a social hub, and they want to bring it back to that that place where that it evokes hospitality. Um, and that's the reason we can't meet the frontage because it's it is where what it is and we can't build closer to the street, etc. So, um there's the aerial and basically we're restricting uh we're we're requesting CX3, but what we're the uses are everything currently allowed plus event use. Now, event use is curiously classified as indoor recreation or outdoor recreation. And so, the uses that are are listed for those two are are really pretty intensive. We're not allowing any of those intensive uses like bowling alleys or um movie theaters or bingo parlors, etc. We're just basically allowing some event space. So, that's that's really the the only indoor or outdoor recreation use we even want. Uh it's interesting that on this block almost every property is allowed to do event space in because they're mostly in a PD. The reason this wasn't in the PD was back in, I think, 2008. All the properties owned by the state of North Carolina were put under one big PD. This property was not owned by the state, so it was not included. There were a couple of others that weren't included, and so that's why you see the spots of nonPD on this block, but all the PD uh zone uses can do this use. So, we're asking for a use that's permitted in most of the properties on this block, and it is actually used for that purpose for the property right beside us. Um, interestingly, the other uses on this block that that do um event space or can do event space have no guard rails in terms of zoning conditions. We're proposing some pretty restrictive guard rails. So, I think it's important that we're asking we're not asking for that much. We're asking to let us do what everybody else can do and we're adding some very restrictive conditions to that. See, there are the three properties that aren't zone PD. The purple is PD. The blue and the orange are other zonings, including our use right here. Um, this is a just a mix of all the uses in the area. It's a it's a mixeduse area. We've got the museum complex a block over. We got Peace College just to our north. We've got a large church, Holy Trinity Church on the corner of this block. We've got some historic properties that are adaptively reused, some for historic purposes, some for event space. And we've got one single family residence as far as I can tell on the whole block, which is the property right beside of us. And I know there's some concerns by that property owner. And we we hope to mitigate those concerns with our conditions. We also have condominiums back to our rear, the Blunt Street condos, but you can see the mix of uses in this area. And this area is interestingly a frequent transit area. Uh so it is served by transit. Um and it's a mixeduse area. and we're asking to contribute to that. We we have this beautiful house and I should say I have I didn't have any part in my clients restored it to a beautiful structure. They're not seeking to have a raging fraternity party every weekend. They're they're seeking small events which will be uh you know not intense. Um, so going through the zoning conditions, we've we've talked about the uses we're requesting, basically ox plus indoor and outdoor recreation. And we we thought it was better to describe the uses in this way rather than list every use in CX that's not permitted. That list will be like this long. I mean, we can do it that way. But it's funny when I put when I describe uses by what's excluded, I get complaints. Why don't you show us what's permitted? So, which you do um that we do show a list of all the indoor recreation uses that we're not permitting. Adult establishment, amusement center, game arcade, blah blah blah. Some pretty intense uses. We're not asking to do any of that uh or outdoor. Um we are right now have a a cap of 75 attendees on the events and we're cutting off outdoor sound music at 10. Uh there is a new noise ordinance in place as of last week and and they will go back to regulating by decibel level and they will have a new group of enforcers employees of the city that will will test and measure and enforce that noise ordinance. Um but but we're willing to restrict even further and I'm going to go through uh the designated property manager is it's very similar to the noise ordinance and we're pointing somebody to say hey here's the person you need to call. We've been told at Marramman Win, which is the property right beside our property, which is a current event space, they they've done a good job of working with the neighborhood and being in contact with the neighborhood, being available if there are any issues. So, we're trying to mimic that. Also mimic the noise ordinance where we appoint somebody, hey, this is who the city can call. This is who the neighbors can call if there's an issue, and we'll have somebody who can deal with it right away. Um, the other things relate to, you know, STR usage. Um, and I I will point out the Raleigh Historic Development Commission did recommend approval of this case. Um, so we are in the Blunt Street Historic District. We plan to maintain that. We feel like we've restored this structure. We want to share it with the city of Raleigh. Um, this use is allowed in all buildings on the block except for three. This is, you know, includes a large church which has big events, an art gallery which has small events. Mirman win which has, you know, fairly large events. Um, our guard rails will we believe restrict this and protect the neighbors from any um major negative impacts. Uh, some additional conditions. We do want to restrict the conditions even further. Um and we will work with the city staff on on writing that condition number one about uses. Um we are receptive to a slight reduction in our maximum number of attendees maybe to 65 instead of 75. Um we will we're willing to restrict the outdoor music. So no electronic amplification of outdoor music period. We think that's a big one. Um, no. And we're we're willing to restrict food or be beverage service after 9:00. We our current condition says 10. We'll go to nine. And um then one of the sticking points has been there's a shared driveway shared by the the single family residential owner to our immediate north. Um, we're we're willing to designate a parking spot to to allow no vehicular use for event space of that thing except for set up and take down and we will allow a vendor truck to come in. There'll be a conflict for a matter of a few seconds. We will designate a parking area 100% on our property that they can park in, unload their truck or reload the truck and then leave. So, there shouldn't be any conflict. the the single family owner will tell you that we've caused all these, you know, conflicts and blockages. They've caused conflicts and blockages, too. With any sheared driveway, there will be conflicts. We'll try to work to avoid those. And we think this condition and we'll I'll provide you a sketch of that. I know we're not getting out of planning commission today. So, we'll come back in two weeks or maybe actually we we prefer to come back maybe in a month and we'll show you what we're talking about as far as our proposed solution to the the um the shared driveway so that we can minimize any conflicts. But I just there are conflicts when you have a shared driveway occasionally and and there've been some on both sides. So, I will reserve any time I have left for rebuttal and I thank you for your attention. Thank you, Isabelle. Um, anyone else who wishes to speak in support of this item? Seeing none, um, we will turn to the opposition. You have a total of 10 minutes. >> Which one is the presentation? Yeah, >> please state your name. You don't have to give us your address. >> Um Scott Idol and I'm the president of the HOA for Blunt Street Commons. There you go. Okay. And most of the buttons. >> Okay. Um thank you. We're here obviously in opposition to this zoning case. I want to give you a little different picture of our neighborhood. We um our our block as we see it is bounded by peace person pulk and and blunt. We have 74 residences so we're a very dense community. The three uses that are not um residential right now as you said with the art gallery very low impact and small office space and then the Marman Winhouse. Um, and of note, as they point out, there is a single family residence just north of the subject property. I wanted to zoom in because they continue to um show this the similarities to the Marman win house and I want to look at at the differences. Um, so the lower left you'll see Marman win. It is on the corner of our block. It is focused completely away from our residences. They have a building. It directs noise and any bands will be inside. The doors only face out away from the residences. They have a dedicated vendor loading and parking area just off Pulk Street. Also, the you'll see the the houses with the star on them. Those were built with additional noise um insulation in them to hopefully impact, you know, minimize impact from Marman win. We don't have that opportunity at 1893. So 1893 house, the lot extends back into the block all the way back to the private drive and it's surrounded by three-story residential properties. [clears throat] And again, we talked about the shared driveway. That is the only vehicular access back to the event space. Couple some shots so you can see how far it extends back into the block. The lawn is the backyard of 1893 for you can see the three-story um carriage houses on both sides and to the far right the town houses directly behind it. Just also for scale that wooden fence is 6 feet high and their proposed plantings along John Haywood way are supposed to be four and a half. Um as they pointed out this the view from Blunt. This is the shared driveway that they speak of. um is only 14 feet. So you can imagine the um the noise from trucks, vans, etc. delivering chairs, tables tents bands etc. etc. Um some aerial shots just to kind of show you that this event space is essentially in the exterior event space is essentially a bowl surrounded by residential. So you can only imagine um potential disruption to the existing neighborhood and you can also see the shared driveway goes back to that certain point and then it becomes private [snorts] on both sides of the line. Um from the opposite side looking down from town houses again just trying to show how it is so enclosed and the one the shot to the right is actually directly out of um our bedroom third story bedroom window. It also you can see the vantage point of the condo just to the left. Again, six foot fence looking straight down into the yard. There's almost no way to screen anything. So, 1893 house, they're surrounded by existing multi-story residential. There's nothing to buffer sound. Event lighting will bleed into the surrounding residences and vendor access is limited to that single shared driveway. Again, we talk about Marrammen win. They talk about Marman win. Marman W's on a corner. It's a corner of of Blunt and Pulk. Everything is oriented away from our residential community. They've got the event building which they built because of noise issues and it it houses that. And then they've got the dedicated vendor and parking just off Pulk which is a very busy spot. And then earlier this year, our um step lights were approved for the back of the house. These are the photographs that we've taken for those step lights. You can see right now the the glare off the side of the uh adjoining condos. They talk about intimate events, etc. This doesn't say intimate events to me. Um, it kind of screams party. Um, and you can only imagine that um, event lighting will only compound the existing light pollution into our neighborhood. So, for the reasons we just pointed out, we don't think this is the right use for that property. Um, we think allowing events at 516 North Blunt will be detrimental to our property values and to our quality of life. We've already got one large event space on our block and we most certainly do not need another one. We urge you to deny um this request. >> Thank you. Uh, good morning. My name is Scott McAlexer and I speak on behalf of a bunch of people in this room. Please stand up if you live in Blunt Street Commons and oppose this resoning. And raise your hand if you would file a complaint if it was too noisy with the city of Raleigh. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Scott McAlexer and I reside at 5101 John Haywood Way in Raleigh. I've called this home since January 2016. My three-story town home overlooks the backyard of 516 North Blunt Street. I'm here to t today to express my opposition to the resoning of this application. 516 uh reasonzoning of the application of 516 North Blunt Street, KZ 3125. There are 75 homes on our block, all built before the current owner acquired 516 North Blunt Street. And when he acquired that property, it was also a residential home and had been since it was constructed in the early 1900s. Presently that property is used as a short-term rental which is aligns with the current zoning. However, the owners are requesting a zoning change to peri permit not only shortterm res uh rentals but also to operate the house and its backyard as an event space which means there will be people there 24 hours a day that could be doing whatever they wanted in that backyard. Um, they will be asking to host up to 75 people in that backyard with amplified music allowed outside in the backyard until 1000 p.m. every night of the week. This house is centrally located, as we've shown on our block with its backyard, the proposed event space directly adjoining John Haywood Way, a private street. The backyard of 516 North Blunt Street is surrounded on three sides by residential homes, including mine, and several others that face the outdoor area in question. The existing three-story brick building across John Hun John Haywood Way from the Fi backyard at 516 North Blunt Street amplifies any noise produced on the street, creating an echo effect that intensifies the sound. We live with this issue already in short bursts as cars and trucks drive up and down John Haywood Way or when small groups of people walk and talk on the street at night. Having events in the backyard of 516 North Blunt Street with amplified music or just a large group of people talking for hours would be unbearable for the residents. The property at 516 North Brun Street lacks the necessary features and infrastructure to adequately address and reduce noise as well as all the other impacts to our neighborhood which have been mentioned. Allowing vents of this scale both indoors and outdoors would significantly disrupt the well-being of our residents and is not in keeping with the established character of the Blunt Street Commons neighborhood as we've noted a planned community. The current OX zoning gen designation for 516 North Blunt Street is suitable given its location within the Blunt Street Commons neighborhood and its proximity to the 75 74 neighboring homes. For all the reasons all these reasons, I respectfully urge you recommend that city council deny this resoning application. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? I'd like to say something. >> Yes, you can come to the microphone and just give us your name. You have um a minute 11 seconds. >> All right. My name is Tom Edwards. I'll make it quick. I've lived there for 10 years with Scott and a lot of these people. The one thing Scott didn't say is right across the street from us is the Burning Coal Theater and the Marman Wind is right next to them. Almost every single weekend they both have big events. So if you put another place in there, it's just going to be kind of over the top. So that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. Anyone else? have 42 seconds. >> I can [snorts] do it in less than that. >> Paul Ballager. Uh, so the point I wanted to make was that there was a point made about unloading in the shared driveway taking a few seconds. I'm not sure if they're planning big labs slow to 15 miles an hour, but you don't unload tables and chairs and cooking equipment for an event. Have a band unload in a few seconds. It's going to be a serious disruption to the neighbors. >> Thank you. 25 seconds left. Does anyone want them? >> Why not? Um, my name's Maggie McDonald. I live at 520 North Front Street. So, I'm the single family home that's 14 ft away from this property. I have two children that are 7 and 9. Their bedrooms are 14t away from this property. Both of them are located on that end of the house. They're little kids. they go to bed at 8 to 8:30 p.m. Having amplified music, even if they change it to just indoors, it's going to be extremely detrimental to us. >> Thank you. >> Um I'm sorry. Uh that's time. Um thank you all for your comments. We'll bring it back to the table now. Um commissioners, questions for staff. I'm sorry, Isabelle. Did you want to use your minute and 20 seconds? I think you had left. >> I had Yeah. Minute 14 maybe. I think >> um I just wanted to point out a couple things. Uh we're not surrounded by residential. The mayor man is on our immediate uh side. Um we have agreed and and I know they haven't seen this to move all our sound inside. We have some very strong insulation and we'll test that. It it it's very soundproof and hopefully we can have our expert come and testify to that at the next meeting. On lighting, that's one thing I missed. We we do recognize the lighting might be too bright. We It was approved by RHDC and the city, but when we saw it, it did look too bright. We're going to scale that back. We did don't have the I can't tell you the measurements of lighting. I can't do that. and we're going to get somebody and consult with them and reduce the the brightness of that lighting. And then for unloading, we're not talking about unloading in the shared driveway. We're talking about driving in. That'll be the few seconds we're driving in like any use of a common driveway. And then we'll come on and park on our site completely do any unloading reloading on our site. So this unloading and reloading should not be within the the shared driveway. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. And now we'll bring it back to the table. Questions um for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Fox, I see you grabbing your mic. >> Yeah. And apologies. I'm not going to be super coherent on this one. U my question is in regards to one of the conditions about the buffering uh condition number eight. Um, I found I found that atypical in its manifestation. I'm just um wondering if there are uh transitional buffers that could be selected that already have criteria established in terms of um distances and plantings that one could select from. Would you mind just putting the conditions up so everybody can see them? >> I don't have the the exact writing of them on here. Sorry about that. >> It's okay. >> And I don't mind reading out the summary in the staff report if that's >> um but to answer the question about transition zones that already exist, there are some in the ordinance they could look at. Um, I'd have to double check a few things on whether the, you know, they could apply that through the condition, uh, whether it's requirement through the PD next to the mixed use. That's where, you know, it doesn't come into place. Exactly. But they're using some of that language to to enhance that. I think they could mimic that and be therefore the condition would go above and beyond the UDO. Yes. If that's what you're asking. >> That's that's what I'm asking. I I found the the selection of 4 and 1/2 ft planting uh 10 ft on center to be strangely specific but not consistent with some of the transitional buffers that we see elsewhere. Um so I thought perhaps that might be one of the conditions that um could be reviewed. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Fox. Yes. And we can look at that that buffer and maybe make the plants a little more dense there. Um yeah, when you do we're talking about fast growing trees, you need to leave some space, but we will look at that and try to uh be deep up that buffer. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um I have a question for staff. Um and you pointed out when you were doing your presentation, uh some of these conditions that would only be enforced by complaint. So it seems odd to me that some of these would be zoning conditions. I think of zoning conditions as things that the city would be enforcing. And so like number of attendees, number of vehicles, >> number of people in a bedroom. Those things seem atypical, as Commissioner Fox said, to be in a zoning condition. It seems like that would be a private agreement. >> Agreed. Um staff had made those comments previously during initial review that some of these might need to be removed be and become more of a business plan as opposed to zoning conditions that the the government can reasonably enforce. Um however if they choose to proceed with them then we would we're trying to craft them so that they do they are something that could become enforceable. But yes, it is agreed that some of these is I mean are believed that not really a zoning condition per se. >> Thank you. >> And again, I'm sorry that's also why we pointed out the outstanding issues that they would have to be solely complaint based. There's we couldn't monitor that 247. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. Other questions um for the applicant or Commissioner >> May? Can you pull your microphone down, please? >> I have a couple questions. What happens when all the event properties have an event on the same day? >> Anybody can answer that one. I don't know who's the >> right person to answer that. >> Um, no, I'm sorry. We we we brought it back to the table now. So, only applicant and staff can I'm not I'm not sure. I understand the the point you're making and um >> we have addressed thoughts about parking in this downtown area um access through bus routes things like that but it will get crowded as most times any event downtown tends to generate um >> which just may be a little more because I've gone to events at the Marian wind which is a beautiful property but it's hard for >> Mr. Can you talk into your microphone? >> Sorry about that. I said, ' Which may be hard to be because I've gone to events at the Marry and Win multiple times, which is a beautiful property, but parking is hard for that. So, with this being a residential area, my concern being increasing more event spaces that then take away from the resident's ability to park. Uh, so that's my question on that. I don't know if you can answer that question. You basically said you can, but this that's fine. Um, are we keeping the integrity of the look of the outside of the location? uh any anything that they would have to do with the building would have to go through historic board for COA for approval for any modifications and changes. So um it should be maintained. Yes. >> Okay. So this is also going to kind of double as a short-term rental where four cars have access to park. But how do we >> Well, currently it can't it is a short-term rental. >> Okay. Right. So but it it only has four car access. >> Uh that's what they're proposing as one of these conditions. >> Okay. Okay. Um, for outdoor parking, like if they had a parking garage structure or something, that wouldn't count the way the conditions written. Um, so it' be anything that's not undercover would be limited to four spaces is how that conditions written, I believe. >> Is there going to be fencing built around the back property that's going to block the lighting or block any help block any noise or interference from because they're right on their neighbors, >> especially with the lighting that that we were showed in the slide presentation. Not as far as this resoning is concerned. I can't really answer that. That's not part of that uh landscaping condition that I've saw, but if you can make a comment. >> Yeah, in earlier iteration, I think we did have a we can't put a fence along the common property line with the single family because we have the shared driveway, but we can put it sort of towards the very back of that and then wrap around to along the back of the lot if that's desired. I think we we we were willing to do that. uh you know query whether the neighbors would rather see plants or a fence because if they if we do the fence that's what they're going to see is the fence primarily but I think that'd be something that we would consider. >> Right. Is there any material in in in in the barriers that you're planning on putting around the property that might help with noise and light? Well, you know, it's it's debatable how much um plings and and a fence, you know, mitigate noise. Um probably to some degree. I'm not an expert in noise, so I can't really >> And you said people being able to be outside would be prohibited after like 9:00. >> No outdoor food service and drink service after 9. No music at all. Amplified electronically amplified music um after uh after well at all. I mean amp electronically amplified music would be strictly inside. I should say that. So that's not on the conditions now. That's what I'm proposing to bring back to you in in I I would propose maybe a month. Um so we would tighten these conditions up even further to say outdoor music. No. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um Commissioner Fox. >> Um Isabelle, while you're there, I had a question. And it's kind of a followup uh to Commissioner um Omay. Um do you uh is there a business plan in place which lets us know like anticipated number of events per year? Normally that's a question I would not ask during a reasonzoning case. But I'm trying to gauge the the impact and the duration of impact to see what mitigations might be appropriate. Uh I think our our my client who is here um probably has a business plan but again we haven't you know offered that up. Um but I um because it's typically not something that would be you know um I'm just asking you question. Do you have a business plan? >> Yes. >> And um and we can discuss the number. He and I have not talked about this, so I don't want to really get into the details of that today, but but I think we could provide something, you know, showing what you project. >> Yeah. May I may I say something real quick on this? So, one of the natural looks, I mean, uses for the house that we have the Marmon wind next door and they do three events, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Friday, Saturday, Sunday. So, we wanted to preserve the bedrooms in order to uh accommodate, you know, uh their bridal party or maybe mom and her sisters and be able to flex into rehearsal dinners is the primary use of the house. And uh now there's several other wedding venues around us and being downtown and yes, it is a quiet neighborhood and that is a feature not a bug. And uh so that that's how many events it's they do 100 I think 130 to 150 a year. So, um I I think maybe the most intense would be a rehearsal dinner Thursday and uh a farewell brunch. Maybe we could flex into that, but that depends on, you know, to to your point, sir, of the intensity of the use. Uh micro weddings is a big thing. You know, we don't want to go. So, being able to, you know, a second marriage, uh someone that just they just want their loved ones to be there and, you know, maybe they're saying their vows on the stairs with the tiled wall behind them or in front of of the mantle on the fireplace. So that yeah, hopefully that helps a little bit. >> Thank you. Other um Commissioner May, >> I'm inquisitive. Um and I maybe this might be a question to be asked later. I mean, it'll be answered later, but I'm wondering if there's going to be intentional coordination with the other event spaces so that there's not so that we maybe don't have all of the spaces having an event on the same day at the same night. >> We would hope that would be the case. Um, not a single referral has come from the Marwin and so we're very concerned about the viability of the house and the stewardship of the house. it needs to stand on its own and uh but yes, the neighborhood needs to be in harmony and that is our hope. Um yeah, >> thank you. >> I have a question. Um when I was reading the memo about RHDC's deliberation, um it noted that currently there have been a number of COA requests by this property. Apparently, that's how you've been allowed to hold events by getting these certificates of appropriateness. And I'm wondering when you've gotten them, I mean, I'm assuming RHDC has approved them. Has there been the disruption and the impacts that we're hearing about now? What what has that experience been? >> Well, it it is a it's been a major undertaking. I mean, 100 plus year old property that we took down to the bones on the inside. And this this property wasn't just built by anybody. I mean, my the first RHDC meeting I went to, me and like my father and I were blown away because we had heard how um how difficult it may be to do anything uh with the property. And that was not the case that we were actually heard like it's a big brick house on the block that's been there. A lot of these homes have been moved there and actually the person we bought the house from was one of the main players for making it a historic district and advocating for that. So um to to your point the certificates of appropriateness has been extens extensive. I don't know what the number is. We quoted it before 70 80 a lot of trucks coming and going a I mean I and the neighbors were great when the the word event wasn't used. They were I never heard anything not a this is great what you're doing or this is bad what I never heard I don't none of these people have introduced themselves. So, uh, I just want to be clear about like, yeah, so I think as far as events on the property, uh, the short-term rental, the city has put us in violation of that and so currently we cannot do any events at the property. So, >> let me let me speak. The COAs are just for improvements to the property, which they had to get a lot of to to do their improvements. There have been some events, they previously did some events thinking they were permitted as accessory uses to the short-term rental. We've had a hearing about that and that was ruled not to be the case. So, we're not doing any more events. Okay. That's why there have been some previous events. >> Thank you. That that answers my question. >> Commissioner May, >> I have one more question. Go ahead. >> So, I know that it passed the uh historic designation, but can we What was the vote? >> 8 to three. >> Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Fox. Um, I'm not finding any inconsistencies with adopted policy and plan, just perhaps some issues with how some of the zoning conditions are worded so they're enforcable. And then [clears throat] there I think it would be helpful to have some other way to buffer or screen from adjacent properties. Um, I would I would be in support of deferring this to allow the applicant to work on those conditions. >> Thank you. Are there other questions or comments? Commissioner Miller. >> Um, yes. If this is being deferred, when it comes back, I heard the neighbors their key concerns are access, noise, and light. It sounds like there um are some clarification around those three items. If we could just have some focus on what those new conditions are and clarifying, it sounds like you're going to bring that back anyway with some more specific um details. And if you could compare that to the current zoning conditions and what's permitted um on there today, that would be helpful. >> Commissioner Haver. Um thank you, Chair Bennett. Um, I've got some concerns with the uh application as it is, Isabelle. Um, y'all hear me talk a lot about folks who buy single family residences. Yes, it's urban. Everybody that moves downtown understands they're moving into an urban environment, but there need, in my opinion, there needs to be some protection when a use is not allowed adjacent and you want to come in and reszone it. I just I I live three blocks from here. I walk by your house every morning with my dog. Beautiful job. It is dense. I have a shared driveway. Um it's an issue consistently. So, I think there needs to be some thought put around that. If I remember, um, so I've been in the neighborhood for 25 years in Oakwood. Um, if I remember correctly, when the Marman Winhouse first started, there were tons of complaints. I mean, it was all over the news. And I believe there was a noise ordinance that was put into place at the time that they had to meet. And Isabelle, you've mentioned that these other properties don't have to don't have noise conditions, but I believe if I'm correct, that's because there was a noise ordinance in place and it's either no longer there or enforced. But I did hear you somebody say, I don't know if it came from staff or maybe it was Isabelle that said there's a new noise ordinance. So, I would be very curious about what those requirements were for the Marman Winhouse versus what the requirements are in the new noise ordinance. And I think that should be thought about and addressed. I'll be curious to hear about the insulation and some of the other things you want to bring back, Isabelle. I think in good faith, thank y'all for thinking through that. It it's a real concern. The neighborhood is super dense. Um, you know, the idea about cars and people walking down the street. Again, I I live downtown. that that's that's what you get when you move downtown. But three days out of a weekend having people gathering, even if you're playing a guitar, my my next door neighbors barbecue and party every Thursday night is what you get. but consistently and sort of um advertising as that. I feel like you really need to think through the neighbors and what the impacts are on the neighbors. There is a concern about trash. Um like I said, the shared driveway plantings help with visual, but they're not it doesn't really do sound attenuation. So, I understand that your parcel goes all the way back to the drive. Curious what you're going to do with the with that structure back there. It looks pretty cool like it is, but maybe that's your indoor maybe that's an opportunity to mimic what Marman Wind House is doing and minimize the impact to the neighbors. Um, fencing again, that's not going to do much about the noise with the density there. You're going to be bouncing off all those hard structures. So again, but appreciate the the um intent of bringing it inside, but I'd be really curious about that. I am concerned about conditions that are only enforceable by complaint. Nobody wants to complain. We want to be good neighbors. They need to be enforcable. So, you know, Isabelle, I think you need to get together and try to work on that. Um what else do I have? the the lighting I I I have once I saw that lighting I had little faith in RHDC approving this 8 to3 like I don't know how that got approved by RHDC so I hopefully my hopefully my colleagues on that commission don't get upset with me but that we need to there needs to be something that's done with that again that's not really keeping an 1893 house historic so Um, I'll end by saying I I I have concerns telling private property owners what they can and they can't do with their property. So, I would love for you to be able to do this. I think there's a use there for it, but it's got to be reasonable and in the public interest for your neighbors, and I'm I'm stuck there right now, and I don't I need to see um some more bones put around that for me to be able to approve this resoning. Commissioner Shelurn. >> So, as I understand it, we have three items on our agenda and a hard stop an hour from now. >> Yes. >> So, so we, so we got used half of our time and for one of our three items. So, >> yes, >> at the appropriate time, I would and we're clearly not talking about what it is we're eventually going to vote on because of all the changes we discussed about lighting and parking and access and all that stuff. So, at the appropriate time, I'd like to move that we move on. However that's done, >> they only have one opportunity to change their conditions. So, we need to have the discussion to advise them on what we'd like to see when it comes back. Um, if we don't get to all three of the items, we'll just defer them to our next meeting. Um, some some items take longer than others, but I hear what you're saying. Thank you. >> Yeah. Um, thank you, Chair Bennett. Uh, I do have some concerns. I did want to voice them because I want the applicant to hear them. I don't want them to come back and not meet some of my expectations. Obviously, Isabelle, you can call me. We can get together and talk through it. But let's move to deferred. If there's no other comments, I if there are other commissioners that have comments, I think the applicant should hear them. >> No, I do want to hear everybody's comments. Um, ideally, we'd like to get through the agenda. The reason I pushed this one up was because of the volume of public comment we had received. So I knew we were going to have maybe disproportionate discussion on this one. If we need to move other items, then we'll move other items, but um I think each case deserves the appropriate amount of discussion and we have a lot of concern from neighbors. So I want to make sure that we address those concerns. Um, and Commissioner O'Hver, I appreciate your comments. That's very similar to what I was thinking. Like Commissioner Fox said, I'm not seeing inconsistencies, but when we look at the reasonableness and the the impact to the public, um, I do have some concerns there. So, I think we have um talked about access, lighting, noise, buffering, looking at what the Marman Win House is doing, addressing the conditions that maybe aren't appropriate for zoning and fixing the wording in number one. Are there other things we'd like to see the applicant address before this comes back because they won't be able to change the conditions again before us? Um, Commissioner U. Bernett. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. Um, this one, I guess, would be for staff and the applicant. Um, has the applicant just had a conversation with the neighbors because it just seems like there's a huge disconnect in communication. Like he said, no one has introduced um themselves to him, but typically something of this magnitude. I would assume there has been a communication. I've seen a lot of the neighborhood concerns, but has there been a communicate um a conversation? Yes, we've had two neighborhood meetings. Um, we couldn't really come to consensus because they were sort of like no way um for the most part. So, we we'd be happy to have another meeting with the neighbors to try to, you know, sit down and work hard on some conditions if if there's a willingness there. >> Thank you, Isabelle. Anything else? If not, Commissioner Makaya, [laughter] >> I'm sorry. I just want to I'm sorry to make you laugh. I just want to piggy back on what Kevin said. Uh since it is only one more time, one more bite at the apple. If you all residents and you all could try to come together to to discuss this, it's a major issue. Even if it passes or otherwise, it's going to be an impact for you. If it doesn't, it's going to be an impact for them if it does. And there has to be a way to find some if there possibly is a way to find mutual ground. There may may not be, but taking the time to attempt to do that before you all come back and that being something that could be spoken to because we are a board of residents and our opinions here are because of our lived experience as residents. So, that has to be taken into consideration too in my opinion. And now I'm done. I promise. Okay. Then it looks like we're looking to hear this at our second November meeting. Is there a second November? Would that be the the 25th? >> So, um, applicant Isabelle is November 25th when you would like for this to come back to us. Okay. >> Without a Yes, ma'am. >> I just want to make sure that they understand though the timing for the conditions would have to be in two weeks before that. So, just given the volume of what I'm hearing today, we that the board may want to take that into consideration when we're resetting. >> Would you be able to have your revised conditions in two weeks prior to the 25th? Yeah, that's a good point. Um, we would, but it may take longer if we're coordinating with the neighborhood. So, um, perhaps we go to december, I mean the I guess the only December meeting, which is like probably December 13th or something. >> Can staff advise us when our December meeting is? >> December what? >> 9th. >> Okay, >> that might be a little bit more comfortable. >> So then without objection, we will hold this until our December 9th meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you again to everyone who came and commented today. We will move to our second new business item. Um we do have an hour left. So TCZ 3225 Jeffres Grove Road Assemblage and we'll hear from staff. We'll wait just a couple minutes to let everybody get out. >> Okay, we're ready. Thank you. >> All right. [clears throat] >> Good morning, commissioners. My name is Artic Casual IVth. I'm here to present reszoning case TC TCZ 3225 for the 1.62 acre site located along Jeffrey's Grove School Road which is just west of Creedmore Road. The site is comprised of 19 parcels. The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning conditions. The zoning will remain R-10-CU. Zoning in the area is predominantly R-4. Surrounding zoning districts include R-4 to the west, RX3 to the south, and a combination of R4 and OX-3CU um to the east and north. Within 1,000 ft, the zoning districts include R-4, RX, OX, um conservation, management, and commercial mixed use. This map presents a zoomed out aerial view of the proposed resoning site outlined in yellow at the intersection of Jeffrey's Grove School Road and Creor Road. The site is less than a quarter mile from Jeffrey's Grove Elementary School and Creor Road Baptist Church. The area is directly adjacent to the Brook Haven Place subdivision and the surrounding land use includes a mix of low and mediumcale residentials as well as institutional and office. This image illustrates a more zoomed a more zoomed in view of the 19 parcel site. These images offer multiple street level perspectives of the proposed site. The top left image shows an aerial view of the site and adjacent properties. The top right image depicts an aerial view of the site from Creedmore Road. The bottom left image highlights the property's frontage along Jeffre Grove School Road. The bottom right image displays the frontage side, the frontage in the side of the property from Jeffres Grove School Road. Together, these views provide a comprehensive understanding of the site's visibility and orientation at the intersection. The current pre-exist pre-existing conditions include um one pro prohibition of the apartment building type, two a maximum building height of two stories and 35 ft, three a minimum 30foot setback from the western property line. um book of maps 2014 page 1769 and the fourth um is a minimum 20 foot setback from the northern property line so long as the adjoining parcel remains zoned R4. The applicant is requesting to remove condition number two which limit which is li which limits heights to two stories and 35 ft while retaining the other three conditions. This modification will allow development up to three stories consistent with the future land use maps um intended scale in the surrounding residential context. There will be no changes to the setbacks, lot size or zoning district from what currently exists. The site score is 33, which is slightly above the city average 31, indicating greater greater access to pedestrian infrastructure, offering somewhat better walkability and access to nearby destinations from the city. Overall, with a score of 32 compared to the city average of 30, the site has slightly stronger access to public transit options, suggesting modest but improved transit service availability. The site's 35 is below the city average of 41, reflecting more limited bicycle infrastructure or connectivity relative to other parts of the city. The site score of 76 um scoring in a 76 percentile indicates residents are likely to experience relatively lower transportation costs compared to most areas suggesting good proximity to employment or essential services. And a site score um within the 59 percentile shows moderate access to employment opportunities. Many residents have an average level of job accessibility relative to other areas in the region. The site is served by Go Raleigh uh route 36L Creedmore with a southbound bus stop within 250 ft of the site. Go Raleigh Route 36L Creedmore runs every 30 minutes from 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. connecting Crabtree Valley Mall to the Town North Shopping Center. The reasoning maintains the same R10 um based district. It does not alter permitted residential density. The modification primarily removes a height restriction allowing more flexibility in building design without directly changing overall housing capacity. The resoning request does not include any commitments to subsidize or income restricted housing. The R10 district allows a mix of residential building types including town houses in addition to detached houses. This variety promotes more diverse housing options within the neighborhood. The R10 district allows lot sizes smaller than the citywide detached housing average supporting compact development patterns and potential and potentially lower lowering pre-unit um per unit land cost. The site is within walking distance of transit. So the site has scores within the 19th percentile um compared to Raleigh's 37 which shows how vulnerable a community can be um might be based off things like income, race, and language. A lower number means fewer challenges. So the site area is less vulnerable than um Raleigh overall. The site area of 20% compared to Raleigh's 46%. This tells us how many people in the area identify as non-white. The site area is less racially diverse than Raleigh with less than half the percentage of people of color. As it relates to low-income population, the site is 12% compared to Raleigh's 29%. This shows the percentage of people who earn less than a certain income level. The site area has fewer people struggling financially compared to compared to Raleigh. Um, as far as LEP or linguistic um limited English proficiency, the site score 0% compared to Raleigh's 3%. This measures households where no one speaks English very well. In a site area, everyone speaks English well enough, while a small portion of Raleigh's population may face language barriers. The site area has 0% in terms of less than high school education compared to Raleigh's 8%. Um, this site area has uh shows that everyone has at least a high school education, while in Raleigh about 1 in 12 people um didn't finish. As it relates to population under age five, the site area has 1% compared to Raleigh 6%. This shows that the site area has very few small children while um few very few small children while Raleigh has a larger share of um young families. And as as it relates to population over 64, um the site has 17% compared to Raleigh's 11%. This shows how many peop how many seniors live in the area. the site area has a larger elderly population which may mean um more need for senior services. And then the last um demographic will be the percent change in median gross rent. We have no data on this site um but Raleigh has shown an increase of 25.5% um just generally overall since 2016. The requested R10CU is consistent with the future land use map. The site has no has no urban form map designations. The resoning request is consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan. The request advances the plan's goals for context sensitive infield and expanded housing choice by replacing the two-story 35 foot building height with the base R10 height framework up to three stories while retaining setbacks and apartment pro prohibition to manage edge compatibility with adjacent R4 and nearby um residential mixeduse and office mixeduse districts. This is a list of the consistent policies um within a comprehensive plan. There are no inconsistent policies. There are no outstanding issues associated with this resoning request. And if additional discussion is needed beyond today, the next available opportunity will be at the November 11th meeting. Um the deadline for the planning commission to act in this case is December 27th. >> Thank you. Moving now to public comment. The applicant and those in support have a total of 10 minutes. >> Good morning everybody. My name is Nicholas Sykes uh Steve Simpson's architect here on this project. We would like to revise the zoning conditions to remove the twotory 35 ft to allow us the base R10 uh with 45 ft. This is uh coming from 2023 SPR review where we had written comments for approval of our building design and then coming to the building permit phase, we were denied having us to go through this reszoning. Uh we are hoping that the limited text change is favorable and um keeping the site setback allowances or uh restrictions allows the neighboring sites to not be impacted. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in support of this item? Seeing none, is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition to this item? You have 10 minutes. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the table. Commissioner Fox, I see you grabbing your microphone. >> Just for fun. No, I'm just kidding. Um, no, I was going to say um this is a modest request for an increase in height. It does not increase density. I don't see any um uh impacts that we need to mitigate for and at the appropriate time, I'm ready to support it. >> Thank you. Other questions from commissioners comments? Seeing none, Commissioner Fox, how about it? Okay. Um, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated October 28th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Any further discussion on this item? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. That's unanimous. See, Commissioner Shelpurn, we're making up time. Look at that. [laughter] We will move to our final new business item. Um, and that is TC125 omnibus 2023 2024 readoption. We will hear from staff. >> Good morning, Planning Commission. >> My name is Justin Booker. I'm with zoning administration here to discuss um TC12025. This is the omnibus text change 2023 2024 redoption. Just to provide some background, some overview about the omnibus text change program. This was implemented in 2021. This is really to provide for a continual improvement of the unified development ordinance. Think of it as the housekeeping effort for the city's zoning code. So over time there are irregularities inconsistencies typos that might pop up. Um and staff on a revolving basis kind of log those um items needed for clarification. And annually we typically have um an omnibus text change that um lumps everything together. to provide you with some greater context as to why this item specifically is in front of you today. Um, last year in December, the general assembly passed session law 202457. This included some revisions to 160D that impact local government authority. Uh, more specifically, the changes kind of redefine downzoning and also prohibits local governments from downzoning property without the consent of the property owner. Um, additionally, there was a 180day retroactive kind of window applied to this uh session law. So within that period of time um there were two text changes shown on the screen here. The 2024 omnibus text change and the 2023 omnibus text change. They were both approved by council within that 180day retroactive window. Um, additionally, there were a handful of items contained within um, both of those text changes that um, were invalidated by that recent legislation, that state law. Um, [snorts] and as such, both text changes in their entirety were made invalidated. So currently, um, even though these text changes, both of them went before council, were adopted by council, um, went through the standard public hearing process typical for text changes, um, these are not in our code today and are invalidated in their entirety. What this text change in front of you intends to do is to readt the portions of the omnibus text change that remain compliant with state law with the recent legislation. the affected provisions that were invalidated have been selectively pulled out. Um, and because of the nature of the omnibus text change program, those items were very discreet and didn't really affect or touch any other items. So, it was a pretty simple procedure. Um, just some overview about the selection criteria in general of the omnibus text change. These items that are included are typically loweffort, low impact, high priority items. Um they can include things like clarification, so better defining terms, how the code applies. Um refining imprecise language. Um they can include regulatory changes. These are typically low impact to existing policy. Um also legal changes, so changes made to comport with state or federal law. Um using parallel language to avoid confusion as well as process related changes, so refinements or corrections in our process. Um just a summary from the 2023 omnibus. Again, this was approved last year. Um in front of you today, there are 28 total items from this omnibus that um remain intact, and we're proposing just bringing them back to you in their original state. Two items from the original text change um were were deemed to be invalidated by the state legislation. So, those have been removed. And then from the 2024 omnibus, 51 items in total are in front of you today. Only one item from the original text change was um invalidated. So again, I'm happy to take any questions. >> Thank you. So Matt, I'm assuming this works like a case where we open. Okay. So um let's see the applicant here. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in support of this item? Anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition to this item? Okay, we'll bring it back to the table. Um, commissioners, do you have any questions for Justin? >> Commissioner Atwell. >> Thank you, Chair Bennett. And this is probably something I should have caught the first time around. Um, I was looking at uh TC TCS five like 23 the original 23 omnibus and I noticed that the change for the FEMA terminology uh quit referring to floodways and flood planes and flood zones and reverted just to using the term SFHA or the special flood hazard areas. Uh the term floodway is is a FEMA regulatory term and so changing the text to read I think it had to do with build two permissions within the floodway. When you change the terminology from floodway to SFHA can um greatly impact the uh the effect of that policy. And I was wondering if that was intentional or if there was consideration for restricting that effect as now it's uh it's much broader than it was when it were referred to a floodway. >> Um I'm unsure. So we're bringing back the language um just in its original state as it was brought last year. >> I should have caught it before. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. So um I know we have storm water staff who might be able to speak to that particular like detail. Um but um currently there has been no discussion about revising it. So >> Okay. Thank you. >> She's coming. >> Thanks. >> Can we get in storm water? >> Are there other questions while we wait for storm water staff to address Commissioner Hotwell's? Uh Commissioner O'H did you have a question? >> Okay. It was item 13 under TC TC23. >> Oh, here comes Sally. Now, >> you'll probably have to restate that though. >> Sure. >> I bet y'all didn't know we have a bullpin [laughter] >> where folks like sit >> with a table where they can actually do work >> until called upon. It was TC523 item 13 I think. >> Sally Hoy rally storm water. Uh we will need to look at that um because I agree that it could be a problem to change the special flood hazard area language. Um but we need to find the language. >> All right. Thank [snorts] you. Other questions? So then it sounds like we'll hold this until our next meeting when um staff can address your concern. Um will our next meeting um be appropriate November 12th. All right. Without objection, we will hold this item until our November 12th um planning commission meeting. And that concludes all of our new business items. We now move to um excuse me, get getting my script here. Other business reported the chair. Just a few items and some I'll be just repeating for emphasis, but thank you for using the distribution email to let us know when you'll be absent. I really appreciate that. Um and I said this last time, I'll just say it again. In addition to the engagement portal summary provided in our staff reports, our backup materials also include summaries of neighborhood meetings and attendance list. Our backup materials also include the actual reasonzoning application with detailed information um that is often summarized in the staff report. So, if you're not doing so already, I encourage you to look at all the backup material. Um if you have questions about the staff report, feel free to reach out to staff. Uh, Deputy City Attorney Bakl provided a memo to us about conflicts of interest. Um, I trust everyone read it. If you have any questions, please reach out to her. Um, that's all I'm going to say about that. With that, we'll go down the line for report of the members. Commissioner Fox. >> Excellent. Thank you, Chair Bennett. Uh I just want to get a pat on the head and uh from staff regarding cow meeting in November. Is that accurate? And that would be on the 20th. That would be not a good day. If we meet, >> hold on a sec. If we meet, it would be on the 20th. At this time, it's not clear if we will have an item. It's a little early to be cancelling. >> Okay. Excellent. So stay tuned. Um, as always, it's really important that we have quorum for those meetings. >> Please hold that time. >> Yes, please, please hold accordingly. Um, all right, that's it for me. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Atwell. >> Uh, thank you, Chair Bennett. The text change committee has a meeting scheduled November 19th at 4 p.m. And currently there are no items pending and but there might be something coming. So again, please hold that open on your calendar if you're on that committee and we'll keep you updated. No personal report. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett. >> Thank you, Chair. No reports. >> Thank you, Commissioner Miller. >> Thank you. Uh, I sent an email several weeks ago, but just as a reminder, I will not be able to attend the next planning commission meeting due to a work conflict on Wednesday the 12th. >> Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. No report. >> Thank you, Commissioner O'H. >> No report. >> Commissioner Makay, >> no report. Commissioner Cochran, >> no report. Mr. Shelbert, >> just apologies for being wrong earlier. [laughter] >> No problem. >> No problem at all. We understand. Um, anything else? Oh, yeah. Sorry, Binham. We will have the report of the assistant director. I don't think I have anything to add in my report except I would like to emphasize that our next meeting is on Wednesday, November the 12th at 10:00 a.m. and not on Veterans Day. >> Yes. >> So, does anyone know right now that they can't be at that meeting other than Commissioner Miller who's already let us know? Okay. Just if something comes up, please email the distribution list. November 12th at 10 am. Anything else for the good of the order? We're adjourned. [music] [music] >> [music]