[Music] All right, everybody. Thanks for coming. Uh, we have the public hearings tonight. The first is street closing STCO2 2025, [Music] Mr. Ralph. Um, first step. Good evening, madame mayor and council members. My name is Amanda Jones with transportation. Uh I have for you today a proposed closure for a portion of Swinburn Street. Um so uh the area indicated in red is the closure area and our applicant is Thomas Cavaner of Wake. He is the vice president of facilities and construction. This area is.36 acres and we would be looking at three conditions which would be a storm water easement, a utility easement and a new water line must be installed and accepted before we would uh allow the closure. Um so as you can see right now this is what it looks like today. It is um in a T intersection. Uh but they have been approved a master plan um which is looking to realign Swinbird into a roundabout. Uh so this was adopted back in October of 2024 and it is called the Wake 3 campus master plan. Uh, also as you can see, um, through the master plan, you are looking at, um, it going into a roundabout and have another access off of Sunnybook Road. Um, here is the approved SPR. Um, it gives you a more clear um, clear map of what the roundabout would look like. And here's what it looks like today. And that is my presentation. >> Okay. Thank you. Do we have questions for Miss Amanda? No. Um, okay. So, we have the public hearing. I have one person signed up. Uh, Mr. Justin Beard. >> Ma'am, could we hear the mics? Could they be a little louder? >> Mr. Justin Beard. >> Thank you. Hi, I'm uh Justin Beard. I'm with McAdams uh the designers for uh this uh first project that we've got with associated with the uh wake uh master plan. Um Amanda pretty much summed up what I was going to speak on. Uh currently it's a T intersection. We had to do horizontal and vertical realignment of Swinburn to tee into the new roundabout that's proposed as part of the campus master plan. And uh so that's the reason for the um it's not necessarily the road closures, more as a more of a realignment where we're I guess abandoning some rightway but be dedicating right away on the other side of the road. So um that is the uh that is the proposed >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thanks. >> Do y'all have questions? I think yes some people are having pro we can for the future speakers we'll make sure people speak into the mic. Um any questions for Mr. Beard before he walks away. Okay. There is no one in opposition so I will close the hearing. >> Move for approval. >> Right. Any other discussion? If not all in favor of the motion I. >> I'll oppose. Nay. And that passes. Thank you. All right. Next we've got Z1225 Peace and West Street and we have Miss Binham Walter. Good evening madame mayor, members of council, madame manager Binham Walter, Raleigh Planning and Development. This is a resoning request Z1225 at the uh northeast corner of Westpiece and Northwest Streets. The request would reszone 2.6 6 acres from EX-12, that's an industrial mixeduse district with a 12story height limit to downtown mixed use with a 30story height limit, urban general frontage and some conditions. The planning commission recommends approval. You will remember that the request was revised after planning commission made their recommendation and before you set the public hearing. You can see the site outlined in a heavy black line in the drawing on the right. I want to run through the summary of those proposed condition conditions. These are organized around topic rather than matching the numbers in the packet. I just want to clarify that so everybody's on the same page about what's going on. So there are some use restrictions here. They have prohibited a handful of uses, an adult establishment, pawn shop, other things. They have also limited office square footage to 500,000 gross square feet. They have offered some conditions around building height and stepbacks. So, uh, building heights are limited based on a submitted exhibit. I'm going to talk through that in a little bit more detail on a subsequent slide. They have offered some conditions related to Smoky Hollow Park which is adjacent to the east. So they have prohibit they are prohibiting on-site surface parking between any building and the eastern boundary of the site which is the location of the park. They have said that any site plan will include pedestrian connectivity along the eastern boundary of the site to the park. And they have also specified a minimum 2500 square foot outdoor amenity area meeting the urban plaza standards in city regulations that would be located either along Peace Street andor adjacent to the park. They have also made a condition around affordable housing making a contribution to the city's affordable housing fund. This is staggered across four payments. The first is tied to the first uh building permit for the first 200 units. The second payment is tied to the final building inspection for the second for the first 200 units and then another uh pair of payments on that same timing at the 500th unit. They have also uh specified a limit on the amount of glass surface on the western face of the building limiting that to 75%. And also limited the reflective value reflectance value of that glass. They are offering tower separation between floors 13 and 20 uh for a minimum of 50 feet and then floors uh 21 through 27 separated by a minimum of 75 ft. That's 50% increase above what's currently required by code. Zoning in the area is mixed. There's industrial mixed use on the site and immediately adjacent downtown mixed use adjacent and then uh R10 as well as office mixed use, residential mixeduse, neighborhood mixed use all in the vicinity. This is an aerial view of the site. You can see the future Smokeoky Hollow Park site. On the east side of the site, you can see Seabward Station on the other side of Capitol Boulevard and the railroad tracks. And then on the uh to the west across West Street and Railroad tracks, Glenwood Brooklyn neighborhood. Another more of a 3D view of the site. You can get a feel for the low-scale industrial development that's currently there. A view from Peace Street, a view from West Street. This is looking south. And then a view from West Street at the north end of the site. So I want to go back to that condition around building height. what they have done is set the ceiling for building height uh rather than the floor because there's significant grade on the site right so the >> north end of the site is limited to 24 stories not to exceed 240 ft uh and then could uh be taller if the primary street is P Street and then in the southern portion of the site limited to 27 stories again that 20ft differential and a maximum of 360 ft. So the bottom half in blue here is the 27 story, northern half in yellow, 24 stories. And here's roughly, this is not a surveyor's drawing, this is a PowerPoint drawing, but roughly where that falls on the site applied to an aerial photograph. So uh the big change here is a significant increase in residential units. the office square footage is actually going down being held steady by the zoning condition. Industrial uses are also going away because of the um zoning condition as well as the base district proposed. So this is consistent with the future land use map. The future land use map designates this site as central business district. The DX base district is consistent with that. On the urban form map, this site is located in the downtown area, which is one of several types of mixeduse centers defined in the comprehensive plan. The downtown and the frequent transit area shown on this map in purple, combined make that 30 acre or more mixeduse center that qualifies this as core transit on the um table LU2, which guides us around building height. A number of consistent policies identified here. So consistent with the future land use map, consistent with the urban form map, consistent with the plan overall. A number of land use policies here that are relevant. So the future land use map ideas around density and compact development uh leveraging proximity to downtown to transit to station areas. And then uh a number of policies around transportation, parks, urban design hit by uh conditions that they have offered, frontage that they have offered. More uh consistency with downtown policies around density of development, density adjacent to public amenities, public realm parks as well as downtown gateways. No in inconsistent policies were identified. The planning commission recommended approval unanimously. They agree agreed with the policy analysis and thought that this was an appropriate location for height. Could I answer any questions for you before you open the public hearing? >> Any questions for Miss Walters? No. Okay. So, it looks like we have none. Um, we knew we'd have some crowds, so we did extend the time to 12 minutes per side. And I know y'all have been coordinating. So, as is usual protocol, we'll have the supporting side first. And we've moved the clock to 12 minutes instead of eight. And uh I will let the supportive side if you all are going to speak you probably just want to line up and make sure you speak into the mic. Okay. Are you going to give some instruction? Thank you madame mayor councel. Uh Ran Northam with the communications department. Uh Binham did a great job of expressing uh exactly how we can hear you best in the chamber and watching on video. Uh just a couple quick tips for everybody so we can hear you. uh make sure you do not turn away from the microphone and you do not need to lean into the microphone, but uh stand in front of it uh just a couple inches away from your mouth and uh look towards the council and speak uh speak up, speak clearly and speak clo uh slowly so we can hear you here in the chamber. Thank you very much. >> Uh good evening, Madame Mayor, members of council. Jason Baron with Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of the applicant and owner Raleigh Development Company. Appreciate the opportunity to be here to present this case tonight. I'm going to keep my comments brief. We have a number of folks who are here to speak in favor of the case. I do want to focus on three primary points that we think are relevant associated with the council's continued analysis with this case. Uh the first is that this there can be no denying that this case is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um the second is that this is a unique site. there is no real presidential value associated with approving this site in this location and I'll talk a little bit about that. And third, this is where from a big picture standpoint as we plan for future growth in the city, this is where we want to put people. And so from a future land use map standpoint and and Binham's done a great job of presenting uh the staff's analysis of it and we agree completely. There are a number of policies that speak with respect to urban form height densities in this location and they would suggest up to 40 stories in this location. Now, of course, there's a site across the street from this that's caddyy cornered, the site that's smoky hollow phase 3 that is zoned for 40 stories. And I've got a note on the screen just for your benefit that the 27 and 24 stories that we are at, that's an average of 25 and a half stories over the entirety of our site, which is roughly the midpoint between the 12 stories of zoning that's there today and the 40 stories that the land use plan would recommend. And we think that that's not only appropriate, I mean it may be uh rough justice on how to get to the kind of the midpoint between opposing views, but we also think it's representative of a developer who is sensitive to the fact that this is in a different area than a number of other sites. And we think that this is an appropriate transition in this location, recognizing that we have 40 stories just across the street. Um I won't bore you with that site site uniqueness there. We don't believe there's any presidential value associated with this case. Uh we think it stands on its own, but there are very few sites that have its qualities. Um from a downtown mixed use center, this is the downtown area. It's 942 acres. As you continue to apply the land use policies in the comprehensive plan, once you add in the mixeduse land category and not in the edge, we're down to 94% of downtown. Once you add in restrictive overlays, remove those sites from there, we're down to 81% of downtown. Future land use, we are in the central business district. So now we're down to 64% of downtown. And again, this is just applying the various layers of comprehensive plan policies that speak to this site. You once you factor in the transit designation associated with this case, we're down to 50% of downtown just using the comprehensive plan. When you take it one step further and you look at developable property, it's actually only 11% of downtown that would be consistent with all of those things plus is remaining to be developed. And then from a sustainability through walkability standpoint, 4% of downtown meets the within a quarter mile of a park, quarter mile of a grocery store, and has all of those various factors. And I just want to make that point because I think there's a lot of concern in the community relative to what is going to be the impact on my community where I live if this case is approved. We think this this information clearly demonstrates this site is unique that the the factors that are at play at it are very unique to this site. And again, the last thing I'll say is it's an area where you want density. It's an area that's planned for transit. It's across the street from a grocery store. It's next to a park. This is where we want to put people long term. And so, at that, I'm going to seed the rest of my time to our speakers. [Applause] Good evening, Madame Mayor and counselors. Um, I'm Sig Hutchinson, former Wake County Commissioner, and I'm here to speak in favor of the Peace and West Street Project. But in reality, I'm here to talk about much more. In addition to this project, this conversation is about abundant housing, housing affordability, >> clean environment, and improved quality of life. The increased access to parks, green space, greenways, with more accessibility to transit options and transit. All of which will be putting more money in people's pocket, allowing them to spend less times in their car with a higher quality of life and greater access of things and of things that make their lives better and happier. How is this possible? Well, if you'll take go with me just for a minute from this project along north along Capitol Boulevard along the new BRT corridor uh out of the city up Atlantic Avenue past the Iron Works project to Six Forks over to Wake Forest up to St. Albins's to North Hills. All right. If you think about that corridor and think about along that corridor, there are warehouses and unused and un unused and unutilized properties along this corridor that could be turned into tens of thousands of affordable and market rate housing. All with the ability to access the BRT, connecting downtown to Midtown, which is exactly where we want to build this level of vibrancy and density. Now, think about the Smoky Hollow Park with the stream restoration project along Pigeon House Branch Creek and the new greenway which will travel up Capitol Boulevard ultimately to uh Crabtree Creek Greenway. All with all that green space in between and the integration of the park with a new project with additional private funding to make it even more beautiful and accessible as the park expands along the corridor. All this vision is set and right to happen with this project right across the street from where you already have density and height and vibrancy of a growing city. This project needs your approval to complete the next piece in the p puz complete the next piece in the puzzle and to continue the expansion of our amazing and growing and beautiful city where everyone has an opportunity. No matter where they came from, how much they're worth, or the dreams of their future, we can make it happen. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Cowell and council members. My name is Larry Miller. I'm president of the Glenwood South Neighborhood Collaborative. Uh we're a community organization that brings residents and business owners together to strengthen our Glenwood South neighborhood and address issues affecting our community. Uh you may have seen a petition circulated by opponents of this project with a bunch of signatures from people with no assa association with this case or this area. I'm here on behalf of the 1,000 plus member collaborative made up of members of our neighborhood to express our support for this project and urge you urge you to vote yes for this resoning. The project will bring more residents, retail customers, and investors to our area, helping sustain local businesses, strengthen strengthen the tax base, and keep downtown a vibrant destination. The project fits well into the context of the area, and the transitions and buffers between the project and the Glenwood, Brooklyn neighborhood are more than adequate to protect that neighborhood. This is exactly the kind of development that a majority of the residents want to see. As you can see from the crowd here tonight, uh they want to bring life to our streets, supporting public investments like Smoky Hollow Park and helping to ensure that local businesses can continue to thrive in this part of uh Raleigh. Uh I want to commend the uh Raleigh Development Company for adopting additional conditions and particularly the one that will expedite uh payment of funds into the affordable housing account. We urge you to follow the advice of the professional planning and development staff and the Glenwood South Neighborhood Collaborative and its 1,000 plus community members strongly urge you to vote yes on this resoning to support a sustainable and flourishing Raleigh. Thank you. >> When was that vote taken? When was that vote taken? >> I think they're being very disrespectful here. >> Yeah, please. Yeah, we've frozen the clock. Okay. Thank you. Hey, Jen Truman here to speak in support of this resoning because really every few years we hear the same things from neighbors who protest new housing. Someone always says that green spaces can only protected be protected if we keep density away. But in effect, what they're really saying is that people in apartments don't deserve to live right next to the parks in general. This site between West Street and the Plan Smokeoky Hollow Park is exactly where apartments belong in downtown Raleigh beside a new park across the street from a grocery store along a future bus rapid transit line. When the city invests millions of dollars in infrastructure like parks and transit, we are collectively saying that this is where tall, mixed use, dense development should go. The supporters here tonight are from the neighborhood Englandwood South. They're from downtown Raleigh. They're from your local Yimi and Strongtown chapters. We're wearing green because we share the same belief. We support this resoning. We're here together because this is what it looks like when residents show up to actually say yes. If you care about both housing and green space, say so tonight. Approving this resoning shows Raleigh believes in a city that welcomes more neighbors and builds toward our shared housing, climate, and transit goals. [Applause] My name is Will Choy. My family and I live directly across the street. And on this beautiful fall evening, we've all gathered here in this brown windowless pit because we collectively share a burning passion for zoning ordinances and legislative proceedings. No, just just kidding. Um, >> we agree. >> I think all of us are here tonight because we truly want the best for the future of our neighborhoods. For that, I'd like to applaud everybody in this room, regardless of shirt color, and I say this with sincerity. And I know it can feel like developers are out to squeeze profit at our expense. And I know the flashy renderings can feel like smoking mirrors. And I know these mega projects feel like they're erasing the charm of our neighborhoods in Raleigh. I know this because I've been working for developers of all shapes and sizes since I was an in architect 20 years ago. I can't promise none of these fears will materialize. Some buildings really are bad for neighborhoods and they come in all flavors. Tall, short, historic, modern, multif family, single family. Downtown is full of them. But even in the worst case scenario, this resoning will absolutely enable something that I think is unequivocally positive. It will create new homes and destinations for other people. they will be a part of our neighborhood. I think all of us chose to live in a densest neighborhood in the whole city because we like people and want to be around them. I do. With more of us here, we will see crime reduced from more eyes in the street. We will see our streets come alive with activity and less parking lots. Our empty parks will be teameming with life even without Dreamville and IBMA. This is a power of a humble apartment building. The convenience of strolling to get groceries. The joy of running into friends at lunch. The romance of the midnight walk after a movie at Marbles. The school drop off where I hug my son, not my steering wheel. These are the things that I cherish about the about living in the densest part of our city. And I want more people to experience this with me because I love being around people. And I hope we can all agree with that sentiment. In these challenging times in America, I hope that we are becoming a neighborhood that embraces our growing community rather than putting up fences and pushing them out to suburban enclaves that surround our wonderful downtown. Thank you. Hello, mayor and council members. My name is Jim Baldwin. I live at 614 Capitol Boulevard in Raleigh, which is the historic cotton mill. And I'm here to speak in favor of the Peace West resoning. >> I know >> we got Thank you. >> All right. If we have the uh Yeah. Thank you. if we have the uh opposition. Uh I know Roy had organized folks. So >> it stand [Music] >> Yeah. I mean, if you want to pass them along Mayor, they're not supposed to stand. >> Okay. Yeah, we saw everybody standing, but if you can sit down for the >> comments. Thank you. You're speaking Roy Atride, historic Lumber Book of Neighborhood and one of the leaders for Raleigh Neighbors United. We can all agree that Raleigh must grow and it should grow, but how it grows matters. We definitely need more housing, increased affordable housing, thoughtful trans transportation solutions, and expanded parks. Our adopted plans were created to make this happen and ensure everybody had opportunities around the city. A 240 and 360 ft towers almost 800 ft along a neighborhood in a transition area only 240 ft from historic homes violates many policies and plans, violates urban planning guidelines, and violates logic. This type of height does not make sense here. This developer has already been upzoned once. they don't deserve or need additional entitlement, especially at other people's expense. We'll talk about how this violates height guidance policy, context and transitions, neighborhood protections, comprehensive plan, the Capital Boulevard corridor study, and does in fact set a precedent that would put maximum height with no transitions in and around may neighborhoods in Raleigh. This is what they're proposing. You have a small model in front of you. This is overwhelming inappropriate and unjustified height. If you look at it, it's in the future land use map. It's at the edge of the central business district. In the current zoning map, it's at the edge of the downtown mixeduse center. It is in the middle of a transition area that's supposed to provide appropriate transition and engagement with the neighborhood, which this does not. Terms matter. The intent of the comprehensive plan and equitable transit oriented development guidebook is very clear on transitions and engaging lower density. Some people would like to disqualify this guidance based on terminology. This analysis clearly shows that the neighborhood is adjacent to the site and that all transition and protection policies should apply. Height should be policydriven contextual with transitions. Table LU2 is a policy framework that links land use categories to height ranges and transitions. Clearly, the holistic guidance is for moderation in this area. If you wanted to justify additional height, you might talk about this being a core area. In the staff report, they talk about the fact that this is in a BRT area, a frequent transit area, and a station area. Those are urban form transit designations. They are not land use mixeduse land use categories of mixed use. The difference is urban form transit designations are for frontage and design features while land use is for height, scale and transitions. You cannot take urban form transit designations and make them land use designations. Furthermore, you can't add transit designations together to to falsely create a large mixeduse center just to make it a core. It's clearly factually not core. Another way you may try to increase the height aotment is to say it's in a transit area. Staff report says there are four different bus lines that go along Peace Street. Two of them are frequent. One of them is moving to Bendy buses for high for higher capacity. These routes alone or together do not meet the definition of high capacity. High capacity is a textbook guide policy definition that demands dedicated infrastructure and design features for car competitive speeds and passenger volume. Bus lanes, Q jump lights, level boarding, prepayment, and of course, frequent and high capacity. However, if you take frequent and high capacity and jam it into a mixed traffic setting, the highest you can get is medium capacity. The fact that it's not a high-capacity corridor is bolstered by the fact that Peace Street is not designated as a transit emphasis corridor. These are areas where height should be on these transit emphasis corridors like Capitol Boulevard. Not here. It's not court. It's not transit transit. And so moderate height of 12 stories is appropriate. If you were looking to add additional height, you might also say it's in a station area. But station areas happen during detailed design. They do not have and it's detailed design has not started for this for the northern route. Therefore, factually it is not a station area. It's not transit and it's not core. So a moderate height guidance of 12 stories would apply. No matter what category it is, height must be contextual and requires transitions. LU2 provides height ranges for this reason. Look at the top right. This is not a contextual development. It's completely overwhelming to our neighborhood. >> Yes, >> transitions are fundamental urban planning tools guide sustainable growth, human scale development, and pro and protect livability. There are many different policies and the intent is very clear about transitioning from height into lower density and into neighborhoods. LU2 itself dictates transitions from core to general to edge. If you look at the top right, that's a compatible transition. This offers no transition. The intent is clear. highest buildings at the core and ab budding transit and height tapering down to engage neighborhoods not overwhelm them. Specifically, there are two pro two policies that the staff report says are consistent which we say are inconsistent because there is no way that going from a 56 degree angle down to a neighborhood can be seen as an appropriate transition or tapering to be compatible. If it were a station area, once again, there's significant guidance on transitions to neighborhoods. You can see it in the images. You can see it in the text. In the comprehensive plan, it has a specific policy. Developments of greater height should be located immediately surrounding transit stations and as you go away in distance, they should taper down. This doesn't do that. Urban planning guidelines for many cities around the US use 30 to 45 degrees. At 30° you would get 12 stories. Clearly this is this violates the transition area. It violates transition policies. It violates urban planning and it violates logic. This does not make sense to have this much height in this area. The city made a commitment to preserve historic neighborhoods. The plans and policies are clear. Development impacts must be carefully weighed and mitigated. Reducing excessive height, limiting shadow and glare, and ensuring transitions. This project does none of these things for our neighborhood. Vi this is clearly inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Some of this is factual and some of it is interpretation. Policies that listed are consistent. we directly refute are irrelevant to the height, but none of them none of them advocate for additional height over 12 stories. They would all still be consistent. It violates the small area plan and its guidance of 3 to 12 stories. If you ignore all policies and plans in this area, you will create a precedent that will allow maximum height without transitions in and around many neighborhoods. If you look at the image on the right, that small red triangle is what we're talking about. The other areas in red, those are the areas that are directly applicable and those neighborhoods would be at risk for maximum height. [Music] Many people oppose this. We're up to over 830 signatures on our petition. They oppose it because there are real and tangible long-term negative impacts of this project for the city, neighborhoods, citizens, and our planning FL framework. Please bring this height down to something that's appropriate to engage our neighborhood. Doesn't cut across all plans and policy and urban planning guidelines. Protect our historic neighborhoods as you committed to, please. [Applause] >> Good evening. My name is Connie Upurch. I live at 501 Dero Street. My husband and I have a small home there. That is the first home, the first single family home directly impacted by this building. And if you can imagine a space about three times as wide as this room is how far my front door will be from a 27story building. About three widths of this room, 200 feet. Okay. So, I my husband I'm getting off script, but I'm just I'm very emotional. We have lived in Devro for over 10 years. Brian and I grew up in the Raleigh area. We love the city. His granddad played baseball for Connie Mack at DER Meadows. Okay, we have roots here. We love the city. We love growth. My neighbors and I are not against growth. We want more apartments, affordable apartments near us. That would be great. Affordable. Not $4,000 a month for a one-bedroom condo. That's not affordable. I am sorry. I'm off track. Growth is important, but it needs a purpose and a plan, and it's got to benefit everybody. In 2015, as has been said, they tripled from four to 12 stories. 12 stories. That's a lot of housing. I can't help it if somebody's invested too much and they can't get their money out. >> A 20 that's a 27story tower would drastically and permanently permanently change the historic district. Okay. My house is 110 years old. It's not going to be the same. We've already got single family families moving out and short-term rentals appearing in our neighborhood. We've got to protect the historic districts cuz when we lose them, they're gone. And that's a huge selling point in Raleigh. So is affordable housing. But the historic districts make us special from other urban areas like Charlotte and some other areas that don't have what we have. I I just want to finish by saying um your adopted plan promised thoughtful transitions protections for historic districts. That was part of the plan. Please honor your plan. Reduce the height of Z12. We're not saying don't build. We're just saying respect and appreciate and protect what we've got. Don't lose in order to add. Thank you. >> No detriments. That's what the applicant says. Public input from individuals and members of groups representing more than a thousand people have suggested to you that the analysis is incomplete. These groups include the Society for the Preservation of Historic Oakwood, Preservation Raleigh, and Neighbors United. Don't make a mistake. Complete the process. Respect the comprehensive plan. This cake is not done in the middle. Deny it now or send it back for further analysis before you decide. Thank you. Let's make this win-win. Right now, we got a big win and a big lose for the people living over there. Let's Y'all want a bit y'all want to win win. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. So that closes the hearing. Um can have discussion at the table. We have discussed moving it to committee of the whole in two weeks. But I will Thank everyone for being here. I I feel I have to say this is my 13th wedding anniversary and this dress is my husband's favorite. It does not signal one way or the other how I feel about the case. But this is my husband's favorite dress. So, so happy anniversary, husband. Um, now to my con comments. During the last term, I voted against this case because I didn't see enough public benefit and felt that many of the neighbors questions remained unanswered. When it returned this March for a waiver to restart the resoning process, I again voted no. Over the summer, I spent time listening to residents and to the development team. I made clear um that that I represent community voices and that that voice is going to remain a no tonight. However, I want to acknowledge the development team for responding to feedback and strengthening the affordable housing condition. They amended it to include a $400,000 contribution before their certificate of occupancy, something that I deeply appreciate. That's a meaningful change and a sign of good faith. I also want to recognize the level of community engagement on this case. It has been extraordinary. We received more input than before from supporters and opponents alike. People built models, uh, attended meetings, sent emails, and shared thoughtful perspectives. I am so grateful for that effort. Conversation doesn't always lead to agreement, but it should lead to understanding. I see my role as a bridge between residents and development, not to guarantee consensus, but to provide clarity and to keep us moving forward. While I believe progress has been made, I also hear and respect those who still have concerns about the comprehensive plan, infrastructure, and transportation. I do believe their voices should be represented in this vote. Our city is changing and we are all here because we care about building a better future. Each of us with a different idea of what that means. And while my vote will not change from a no, I am deeply, deeply grateful for this process and everyone in it. So, thank you so much. Before I do comments, I have actual questions. >> I have a question to have. >> Okay. All right. So, um, go ahead, councelor Patton. >> Okay. Um, questions for staff, um, transportation staff, fire, and maybe budget. I'm not sure. I'll throw them out and y'all can come up in turn. >> Sorry. I get I get that feedback a lot. You're not the first to say it. My apologies. Um, first of all, I was hoping for um traffic count data for regarding Peace Street. How how much is it built to carry and how much is it currently carrying or trending to? It's in there. >> So, the uh Peace Street is built to the four-lane Avenue capacity shown in the green line at the top of this graph. >> Right. The blue line is counts over the past 20 years. The yellow line is the threelane avenue capacity which uh peace streets build at four. >> Okay, great help. That's very helpful. Thank you so much. And then um I know fire response times are not always included in the resonings but instead in annexations, but is there any chance we have that information for this site even still? Yes. So fire completed their analysis and this site meets the standards. >> Okay. It's meeting current all the standards. Okay. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. And then last one is just around like we also get some revenue analysis on annexations again not provided with resonings but do we have any sort of revenue analysis for this site? >> I know that finance is working on that information. I don't know if they have that information available right now. But you're telling me that there's sever. >> Hi there. >> Ryan Bergman, city manager's office filling in for finance and budget. There's actually a budget uh community hearing right now. Um finance did because they were requested put it through the tool that they typically use for annexations. um based on uh kind of comparables, they they had the assumption that it would produce about $22 million in revenue over 10 years with a cumulative net positive of about 5.5 million. Now, a reminder that this is uh a very basic tool that's used for a lot of different cases and it's typically for annexations. Uh but that is the analysis that they did. >> Okay. And um I got to whisper in my ear. Can you remember if this site is in the downtown MSD boundaries? >> I I do not know that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got. >> Can I just piggy back on that question while Ryan is here? I'm sorry. 22 million for the proposed um reasonzoning. Do you have a current number what it would be >> with the mean if if you did it at the lower unit number? >> I do not have it. if you did it at the 433 level. >> We can get that information later, I think. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Council, >> uh, I have a comment and then I have a question for staff. Uh just wanted to say that um we're all talking about the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2009 with thousands and thousands of citizens and stakeholders weighing in to determine that plan that council ultimately adopted. It was updated again in 2019. And in both cases, in 2009 and 2019, the future land use map called for the location in question to be part of the central business district to be extended north along Capitol Boulevard and south along South Saunders. The city council adopted the policy guidance and a direction with the expectation that the applicant or anyone pursuing a resoning application would submit proposals consistent with that guidance. We put out the plan. Our expectation is they would follow it. And in this case, the applicant has uh it was unanimous approval from the planning commission. No inconsistencies were found. I want to thank the applicant for being our partner and looking at that guidance and putting forward a proposal consistent with a comprehensive plan. I want to thank staff for having courage. It's often difficult when you're doing your staff analysis, not just plane department, but all staff to know that there is a case that is potentially controversial, but that they uphold their code of ethics and give both the applicant, the public, and council the guidance we need to make a good decision. So, I just want to thank staff for that. I want to thank the public on both sides for sharing their concerns and support. is important to democracy and making a good decision. Uh for those reasons, I will be supporting this resoning case and the opportunity presents itself, I will be willing to vote this evening. Uh I do have a question about transitions. I don't know, Miss Walters, if you want to answer or Mr. Young, but I had a couple of questions about transitions. I guess I'll address it to you since you're still standing there. Uh can you just explain uh well first uh the transitions were adopted in the comprehensive plan as policy but as a follow-on action it was codified in our unified development ordinance. Can you talk about the what is in that unified development ordinance and if this was either a 12story or 30story how would the code the code deal with transitions? >> Right. Thank you, Council Member Pat Young, Planning and Development Director. Um to your point, the um it is common for policies from the comprehensive plan to be implemented through u adoption incorporation into the unified development ordinance. That was done as you know with the with the adoption of the UDO in 2013. Um the transition provisions uh terminate at 150 ft. So this site under any scenario current zoning even a lower zoning would not be subject to transition policies under in the UDO. >> Okay. Thank you. And just to be clear, uh, typically didn't happen in this case, but there's policy guidance, but once it's codified, that policy guidance goes away because now you have policy subjective and code objective competing with one another, which leaves both the public, council, and even staff in a very awkward position. In effect, the policy is preempting the law. Um, I'm hopeful and maybe this is a question you can answer as we look at the new compass of plan. Would it be advisable that we actually have a policy if there's a conflict between the policy and the code that the code would prevail? >> Sure. Thank you, Councilman, for that question. I I think our um intention again with council support is to make sure that each policy will have a means and method of being implemented whether that's the UDO, whether that's through your consideration during a zoning case, whether that's through program or other policy. So I think being real clear and specific and then there certainly should be some kind of typology about which prevails because u again the clarity in in transitions is important for the public and for you all as decision decision makers, >> right? And just the last question so the public would understand there are triggers for transitions. It's not just height but it's a different number of uses. Uh do you know offhand what those triggers would be? I know you mentioned 150 ft but it's two different uses next to one another would actually kick the transition in where come into play. >> You're right council member and I I don't have that right in front of me but it is essentially looking at incompatible uses. Right. So um industrial to residential um uh institutional uses next to um uh residential things of that nature and and again that wouldn't apply based on the mix of uses that is being proposed here. >> All right. Thank you Mr. [Music] >> J. Um so I just want to thank everyone for being here. Um everyone in green and red. I'm wearing teal. Um, but it's just, you know, um, I do want to reflect on the resoning case. Um, in particular, how it's changed from 2 years ago and how it may still be the same. I want to reflect on city policies and plans regarding this case. And, um, you know, this case is slightly different from what we saw two years ago, but similar in that it started with a 30story request. The current height allowance is 12 stories which was reszoned to that height in 2016. The current case requests up to 360 ft of height. I've got a couple questions I think for Pat. So just uh to have you on deck. The staff report shifted some from the resoning case two years ago. The case went from eight con key consistent policies two years ago to now 13 key consistent policies. The new ones are compact development, healthy community, zoning and infrastructure impacts, downtown edges and downtown transitions. So these are new in this case and I want to start with downtown transitions as council member Silver was just asking about those. Um, you know, in my understanding of it, the idea is that, you know, downtown section boundaries located in proximity to established residential neighborhoods, we should see tapering compatible with adjacent development. And so, can you just explain again how does this case now meet this, but it wasn't included in the previous case? >> Yes, I I'll come up and and expand on the answer, but I think as you alluded to at the outset, there are different cases, right? Right. And so that resulted in a in a different analysis. I think in terms of adjacency, because this will come up repeatedly. That's a key provision in several policies and reference. Since the adoption of the um conference plan 16 years ago, the adjacency has never been interpreted as anything other than directly abuing or or touching. And again, of course, there's both sides of West Street and the West Street right away well over 200 feet distance between um the neighborhood to the to the west and the site. So the pro provisions pertaining to adjacency were not considered to be applicable because this area was not. Now some of those reference other terms which I'll let Binham expand on. >> Sure. >> So uh Z52 5422 is the prior request and Z1225 is the request in front of you tonight. both have the 30 story base height dis base uh height district. Uh Z1225 includes zoning conditions related to building height restrictions. Z5422 did not have any of those restrictions. So the step down the um the from the north to the south is a is a different different uh aspect of the request you're talking about tonight. Uh the earlier request was inconsistent with policy DT 1.12 downtown edges. That's one you were just uh speaking to. So the new request uh that those addition additional uh height restrictions bring that policy into consistency. Uh the difference uh between the two cases regarding affordable housing. This case incl the request in front of you tonight includes an offer of a contribution to the city's fund. Um the site now is mapped in the downtown transition area. That was your question I think about u map DT2 and policy DT1.14 that goes with that. the downtown transitions not relevant to Z-5422 because the map had not been amended at that time. Uh and then in this case uh the request includes conditions that limit highintensity uses and also provide for building height restrictions um less than what would otherwise be allowed by the 30story base district. Uh in both instances DT 1.12 the downtown edges and the 1.14 downtown transitions relate to adjacent residential development. The res is not adjacent to residential development. I know you heard a lot of um have heard and and a lot of correspondence and also you heard from Mr. Tried tonight the uh disparity in definition of adjacent. Historically the planning department has used adjacent to mean adjoining and we have applied the policy the same way for this request as we have for every other request that we have considered. So binum when you were talking about the height so now that there is a restriction on the number of feet I think is what you were mentioning. Um is there a objective height measure where we say there the transition is there? Is it about the height or is it simply about the adjacency? So the future land use map and the urban form map and policies generally support the 30story request that's as requested here. So the offer of the transition the fact that a transition is offered yes is what satisfies the policy. So, so any just shift in height between the two buildings is considered acceptable, >> I believe. So, yes. >> Okay. I'm just trying to understand the interpretation. I've got another question on the downtown edges. So, um again, downtown edges is defined as appropriate transitions in height, scale, and design. That that should be provided between central business, land uses, and adjacent residential districts. In the previous case, the staff report said that lower heights um included in the request um could be actually more appropriate here. So the general category in table LU2 prescribes 12 stories for example. That last sentence is a quote from that staff report. The general category in table LU2 prescribes 12 stories for example. And that is where we ended with that case. And I just wonder if you can speak again um to that change in the interpretation of the downtown edge policy going from it was inconsistent last time but now is considered consistent. Is that just because of that step down in height? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Have >> other conversation or questions? All right. Well, I mean, I'll I'll I didn't know whether we were going to vote tonight or not. Maybe we are, but um so I'll share my thoughts. I you know, there's been first off, thank you for um everybody being here. And I think there's been so much homework and so much research and I myself read the comprehensive plan. I got a copy of the UDO. We've got these technical questions and I all that is extremely important and valuable, but I'm going to take it up a level and just say, okay, so as I look at this, to me, this is a really intensive site. It's a railroad. It's Capitol Boulevard. It's a really degraded stream that we're going to restore and make this incredible park. So, it is a very intense place. And to me, it is part of downtown. I mean, and when I think about what is going to make the city great, we we need a really resilient downtown. We need more residences. And I value historic properties. I live in a historic home. I've saved Dicks Park. I've renovated things. I I value that and I get that there will be some shadows, but I think to me, I I guess Will Choy and Jen Truman really captured to me the excitement and the forwardlooking and the inclusiveness. I mean, this project reminds me when I went to Atlanta and we saw the belt line and we saw these buildings that were facing the greenways and leveraging off the creeks. I I mean, I think this is, you know, where Raleigh needs to go. So, I'm going to be voting for it. I just I just wanted to add a couple couple things. Um, we did receive an email from a future resident who would love to live here. It was one of my favorite emails. Uh, they told us about their neighbors, how they could walk to work, school, and play from this location. Now, I just want to say, could they do this in a 12story, 27story, or 30story building? Yes. This is a sight of density no matter what. >> Amen. That's right. If a 12-story building was constructed 10 years ago, these future residents could already live there, but with greater heights, there could be more of them. What I ask for in this case is further consideration by my colleagues of the downtown edge and transition policies. I find them confusing. I've had great discussions with council member Silver about how to interpret them. I am curious from planning staff how are they going to be incorporated into the update of our comprehensive plan. I do think that the concerns raised by my residents in district D about whether this will be precedent setting for neighborhoods across downtown and or near downtown is worth discussion. My motion for this reasonzoning case is it be held with uh an opportunity for the growth and natural resources committee to take the case at the end of October. >> Yeah, I'm not hearing a second. So, is there a uh alternative motion? I would move approval for the case. >> Second. Yeah. Okay. Do we have the >> Hold on. >> Uh, yes, I did close the hearing. >> I wonder that um as a compromise, would the council be open to holding it at the table for two weeks and not sending it to committee? Does that split the difference? >> Well, I know I had originally thought we would hold this, listen, and reflect, but I mean, we didn't really do that. I think we've we've had a pretty wholesome discussion. So, I guess I'll defer to my colleagues. Do you want to hold it or >> Okay. All right. >> Mayor, you got a motion on the floor in a second. >> Yeah. >> You have to read. Move to approve adopt the proposed consistency statement dated October 7th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommend. >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion I >> I. >> All oppose? Nay. >> Nay. >> So >> please vote. So the nays were there were two nos and six yeses. [Applause] [Music] >> Thank you all. We'll give you time to clear out. Good job, Jason. >> I wish we spoke Russian or something. [Music] >> I get another piece of candy. It's pretty hot. [Music] All right, >> the next. >> Yeah, I I'll wait just a minute more. [Music] Ladies and gentlemen, if y'all would exit so we can continue the meeting. >> It's been a long day. [Music] That's a thing. All right. Z1324 New Hope Road, Hannah. >> Good evening. Hannah, planning and development. So, this is resoning request Z1324 uh 1811 South. >> Speak up, Hannah. Can you speak up or wait till the door closes? We can't hear you. It's one one parcel uh about seven and 3/4 acres in size that is currently split zoned uh between R six R10 uh and there is a CM portionbody knows anything you're saying Hannah hold for one second >> the chief is the door closed >> oh yeah >> you want to give it due respect now Sure. >> So, this is a request to reszone one uh parcel that is a little under eight acres in size. It is currently splitz zoned uh between R six, R10 uh and conservation management. The conservation management uh portion is not a part of this request. The request is to reszone the R six and R10 pieces to NX4 conditional use. So, an aerial uh view of the site. You can see there's some neighborh residential neighborhoods um on either side on Maybrook Drive. Uh the site is currently undeveloped forested. Um this is very approximate but roughly there is Walnut Creek. Um the proposed conditions uh include the following. So, a prohibition on some land uses, the ones you see here. Uh, a prohibition on hookah bars and uh to vape and tobacco shops. Um, a 200 foot setback um from two adjoining properties which are on the eastern side of the the site. a limit uh on the number of dwelling units 250 and then caps on residential um non-residential uh office and retail uses. Um there is a commitment of a 10-ft wide multi-use path from the development to the Walnut Creek Greenway Trail to the south and then a condition that would that states that um the portion of the property south of the sewer easement would not contain residential units. This request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is inconsistent though with the future land use map designation which is low-scale residential. See a list of uh consistent policies here that touch on um housing compact development developing on infill sites um and uh the uh commitment to connect to the greenway. Uh inconsistent policies uh these are touching on the future land use map. inconsistency um as well as um the response time standards which are not met for the site. Uh the planning commission recommended to uh approve for approval um 8 to one. Um you can see their finding here uh the reason for the opposition uh is is listed here. um concerns about traffic uh and how that development might affect that. So with that, happy to answer questions before you proceed with the hearing. Questions? No. Okay. Um we will open the hearing for Z13. And I'm even seeing Yes. Worth Mills. Good evening, mayor, council members. Worth Mills here on behalf of Golong Holdings LLC, who is the reasoning applicant and the property owner. As Hannah laid out, we're asking to reszone about 7 and 3/4 acres of a 22 acre parcel uh from R six and R10 to NX4 parking limited conditional use in order to develop that portion for multif family and for uh commercial uses. And as I lay this out, um I think you'll find that this is the best and highest use for this site. At the outset though, I I did want to mention and I I sent an email earlier today that we are requesting that uh the public hearing be kept open and council defer decision to the 21st. We are continuing to work with partners for environmental justice on uh additional conditions to uh mitigate any impacts to Walnut Creek. So, here's a aerial of the site. Again, you can see the Greenway Trail uh there to the south. Um here's a street view of South New Hope and Maybrook Drive. Currently, Maybrook Drive is not open as a public rightway. Um, with this development as well as the planned town home subdivision just to our north, uh, those two uh, developments in concert, we'll provide a complete street of Maybrook Drive and then open that up uh, not only for uh, residents, guests of both of those neighborhoods, but also for the communities uh, that live east of these sites. So again, we are only looking to reszone the portions that are R six and R10. we are keeping the conservation management uh zone property uh as it is. And I I did want to go through some of the constraints on the site. So this is the Walnut Creek flood plane. Um the 100-year flood plane outlined in pink that very closely lines up with the existing conservation management line on the property today. There are also some man-made obstacles on this site. So the blue lines are the 200 foot wide Duke power line easement uh that runs through this site as well as a sewer easement uh that sort of runs diagonally through the site. And so what we're left with are these two areas. The area in blue are is an area where we can uh locate parking. We cannot locate any structures within that Duke power line easement, but we can park within there. Uh we've spoken with Duke Energy representatives uh and gotten positive feedback from from them. The areas in the orange are um approximate locations of building placement uh taking into account the sewer easement. As mentioned, the future land use map does designate these uh properties for low-scale residential. But again, we think because of those constraints on the site that the um NX4, the multif family, the commercial use makes the most sense given our frontage as well as those site constraints uh that I just mentioned. The street plan calls for South New Hope to be a four-lane avenue divided uh street and Maybrook Drive as a uh neighborhood street. There's currently sufficient ride ofway for the ultimate buildout of South New Hope Road. Uh we've spoken with the transportation department and um we fully expect uh this development to make those roadway improvements along South New Hope Road. Um while a TIA was not required at the resoning stage, we also think that development um as it's listed in the zoning conditions would rise to the level of a TIA at site plan submitt. And you can see the two ultimate uh street widths uh here on your screen. Um to date u we've offered six zoning conditions. Again, we plan to offer more uh as we continue working with partners for environ environmental justice. We've prohibited some uses that uh don't make sense given the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Uh we've prohibited the uh hookah bar vape tobacco shop, which we've sort of written our own condition or our own definition for since it's undefined in the UDO. We've got the 200 foot setback to the town home community to our east. We're limiting development to 150 dwelling units, 35 30 35,000 ft of non-residential space, uh up to 15,000 ft of office and up to 20,000 ft of retail. We're offering a 10 foot uh wide pedestrian connection from the development to the existing Walnut Greenway Trail. and we are prohibiting residential development south of that sewer easement as a way to uh sort of memorialize and and dedicate that area for uh non-residential development. And this is a concept plan that was prepared by Peter Kasan of Kasan Engineering. Um on the left hand side is the intersection of Maybrook and South New Hope. That's where we envision multif family. Sort of an L-shaped building there to uh match the intersection. uh as you can see kind of parking throughout uh and within the uh Duke Energy easement with two standalone retail buildings um south of that sewer easement line. So again, when you when you factor in all of these different constraints um you know a low-scale residential development here uh just didn't make a ton of sense to us and we think that this provides more benefits to the community. Um it opens up helps to open up May Brick Drive and to uh build out those improvements along South New Hope Road. So again, we we think that you know this request is reasonable and it's in the public interest. We are consistent with the comp plan. We would ask for a two-e deferral. We're having additional meetings with PEJ this week and we feel confident that we can get updated conditions to council uh by the end of this week. but happy to answer any questions that you have and appreciate your time this evening. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss uh questions for Mr. Mills Hill. >> Yeah, really not a question, more of a comment. Um it's really for our transportation department as they're looking um when whenever this if this gets approved and they have the road widening project part done. Can we also look at a turn lane going um a left-hand turn lane onto Maybrook opposite of their site because I'm concerned about that intersection right there. Now if you have some information about the intersection I'll let you speak to it. >> Yes sir. I I do and I've I've spoken with some of the individuals at NC DOT for for our district. There are there are currently two NC DOT projects along South New Hope today. Um the first one is related to the Eva May drive intersection which is probably a quarter to a half mile north of this site there. They are proposing uh both a northbound and a southbound left turn lane uh to that intersection and that is planned to be a signalized intersection. As you get closer to our intersection, uh there's another project that anticipates a northbound left turn lane to Maybrook crossing which is Caddyy well not Caddy Corner but uh across South New Hope from us. in that initial plan because Maybrook Drive was not open there was not plans to install a southbound left turn lane to Maybrook Drive. Um but again with the um development of this site as well as the town home community to the north um they expect um one or both of us to contribute uh to including a inter to a left turn lane that matches what goes to Maybrook crossing. >> Thank you. See you in two weeks. motion. >> Yeah. Do we need a motion to uh hold it open or >> I move that we hold this open and bring it back in at our next city council meeting. >> All right. Second. All in favor of the motion. I. >> All opposed? Nay. Okay. And next we've got Z1025. >> Hello again. Bam Walter Raleigh Planning and Development. This is reszoning 1025 on the west side of Leisel Road. I'm blind. I'm sorry. Uh important feature of this site is that Ghost Pony Trail dead ends into the site. You'll hear a lot about that as we go along. You can see uh zoning here predominantly residential. This R4 with some manufactured housing on the very northern portion of the map here. So this is 8125 Leville Road. It's a 2.66 acre site going from R R4 residential 4 to residential 10 with some conditions. It is consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan as well as the future land use map and planning commission recommended approval unanimously. So this you can see this just east of Leville Road School K through 12 on the west side of Leville Road. And again, you can see the uh residential development along Ghost Pony Trail on the south side of the site here. This is a view of the site from a couple views from Leville Road. There are a lot of conditions. I'm going to walk you through these. Uh the first is that they've prohibited a handful of uses that otherwise would be allowed in residential 10. They have limited themselves to no more than 18 dwelling units. they have uh limited the number of units possible in a townhouse building type. So they're saying they would not have more than six units in a townhouse unit townhouse building uh which effectively elimmits the the bulk of the building. Uh they have also prohibited the apartment building type. They have specified some minimum sideyard and rear yard setbacks uh adjacent to the two Ghost Pony Trail addressed parcels on the south side of their of their site where they have that shared boundary. And then they've also offered a wall that's at least at least 6 feet tall, some uh understory plantings. Uh and just for clarification, they are saying this does not prohibit the extension of coast pony trail. They've also exempted they are exempting themselves from the block perimeter and deadend street requirements as well as the stub street requirements. They have specified a minimum roof pitch for residential buildings on the site. And they have also limited maximum building height below what would otherwise be allowed. And then they have offered uh in the event that they take access from Ghost Pony Trail that they would provide a traffic calming speed hump either within the Ghost Pony Trail rightway or an internal private drive on their property. Uh and that that location of that calming device would be determined during plan review and subject to city approval, city staff approval. And then they have specified uh that at least two of the following list of materials will be included in front facades of the buildings whatever they build. So the entitlement here is going up by uh two units the um front and side uh and rear set back here. I will just note this should say 40 ft down here for the parcel uh immediately adjacent the parcels immediately adjacent to the um G pony trail parcels. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan uh with the future land use map. Number of consistent policies here around uh residential zoning. A couple of uh inconsistencies here generally around the response time for fire. Uh planning commission recommends approval and I'm happy to answer questions you might have before you open the hearing. You do have folks signed up on either side of this tonight. >> Any questions for Miss Walters? Yes. >> Hi. >> Hello. Um there can you the conditions around the stubbed streets and dead end does it mean if you went to like the site map um get one of these aerials like so are we we're getting to Leville Road or not? Is that how the conditions all stack up? >> I'm gonna defer I'm gonna phone a transportation friend. >> Okay. They have said that the um they're not foreclosing the extension of Ghost Pony, but I think I do believe the all that exempting themselves from other stuff is about not making the Leville connection. But I I want >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> Good evening. Carter Robertson with uh transportation. I think Binham explains it pretty well. Basically what that condition does is our our requirements would we would want to see a connection through the site or from here to Leville with that um condition. They would not be required to do that. So they could access from Ghost Pony or from Leville or from the north, but they wouldn't be required to pull it through and make a through street. >> Got it. Okay. Helpful. And then um maybe for storm water um we've got a lot of community concern about storm water and I just wonder if storm water staff could speak to or like where the water on this site is going or if there's any documented downstream flooding or all the all the things >> good evening. Uh yes. So this site there's a um draw that's just off site on the uh northwest corner and then also Ghost Point Trail is probably in a low spot as well. Um we don't have any documented structural flooding downstream. There were some issues with Ghost Point Trail a few years ago as far as flooding, but I but I believe that has been taken care of, but I could be proved wrong through the comments tonight. So, we'll just see how that goes. I don't know if it's for you or the just had a question. Um, did I understand from the condition that if there is a speed bump that location is going to be determined at site plan? All right. Um, typically in a case like this, and maybe this is a transportation question, uh, and I I'll make sure I do ask the the the applicant. Um, is a speed bump required for a neighborhood street? >> No, they're making that offer. >> Okay. >> Right. Uh, and I just want to say thank you to Ben Brown from Raleigh Storm Water Staff. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? >> One quick one. What district is this in? Easy. >> Okay. Well, why don't we go ahead and open the public hearing? We've got, as you said, folks uh in support and opposition. So, the support we have Worth Mills, David Blevens, and Gary Walston. Do I need to pull the presentation up? >> Okay. Okay. Should somebody be doing something staring at the screen? >> Sorry. >> Oh, yeah. Y'all can't see what I'm seeing. I'm >> I'm seeing somebody try try real hard this up. That's That's my fault. I will say before uh the presentation does come up that I will try to answer some of those questions that council had um while we give our presentation. >> Okay, Mayor, we're not finding that a presentation was submitted. So, okay, let me display on the >> If you can just pull up staffs, that'll Great. Thank you. Um, so again, uh, Worth Mills here on behalf of Vibes Fund LLC, who is the property owner and the reasoning applicant. Um, I'm joined by David Blevens and Gary Wston, who are an engineer and landscape architect, respectively, uh, with BNK Engineering Consultants. Um, again, I think Binham did a great job of laying this out. Um we are consistent with the future land use map. We are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh planning commission did vote unanimously in favor of this reszoning. So to speak on the uh access the speed hump issue and the conditions related to uh deadend street and block perimeter. So firstly um we do plan to gain access via Ghost Pony Trail. Um the transportation staff early in our uh review determined that we meet one of the exceptions in section 8.3 um that does not require a project to extend streets or meet block perimeter or the um connectivity requirements. And so we memorialize those in our zoning condition. But even without that condition, we would not be required to extend Ghost Pony north or uh out to Leville Road. So, what we're planning to do is to create this extension sort of as a private drive aisle or a private street um and and build town homes along that area. Uh the property to our sort of northwest is owned by the Church of Latter-day Saints. They currently have a uh open lot subdivision under review. The plan is to sell about four and a half acres uh to the same individual who built the homes along Ghost Pony Trail uh for another six to seven homes on that site. Uh and they would have connections to Leville Road. Um, one thing that we heard a lot during our meetings with um, neighbors was about traffic concerns. And in in our view, the layout that that we are offering or proposing provides a uh, safer uh, sort of outcome than what uh, could otherwise sort of be done if this was all sort of one homogeneous development. Um the open lot subdivision to our north has proposed a sub street to our property. We're not asking for that sub street. That's a requirement of the city of Raleigh. We're not planning to uh access uh you know Leville Road from their site. Um, what that does is it prevents the eventual extension of Ghost Pony up to Leville Road where Kingsland Drive is, which would essentially create another cut through for vehicles that wanted to save, you know, however many seconds it would it would save from driving down Leville and then making a right onto Country Trail. So, we think by limiting this street to, you know, sort of a a private loop, um that's going to be a better outcome for uh for everyone that lives here. It's going to reduce um really any any through traffic here. Um as it relates to the speed hump, that was something that we heard at uh our neighborhood meetings as a way to try to reduce vehicular speed for uh future residents coming down Ghost Pony Trail. We think um we have every intention of of locating that uh speed hump within the private street section of of this Ghost Pony Trail extension. Um so hopefully you know that that results in uh maintenance shifting to a homeowners association rather than the city of Raleigh having to install andor maintain that area. Um just to highlight some of the uh conditions that we have offered to date. Again, we're asking for a maximum of 18 dwelling units. Um that's two more than the uh current R4 zoning allows. Today, we have extended our side yard and rear yard setbacks to 10 ft and 40T. Um 10 ft is equal to the R4 sideyard setback. 40T is 10 ft greater than the R4 rear yard setback. And uh we are also um offering to construct a wall and plant those four understory trees per 100 ft to try to maintain as much privacy as possible for those two single family homeowners that live uh immediately south of this property. We have um also prohibited flat roofs. We've limited maximum building height to 40 ft uh which is the maximum building height in an R4 district. Um, and we have offered this zoning condition related to building materials in order to try to create as much consistency with the existing single family homes along Ghost Pony Trail today. Um, you know, for I I'll I'll wrap my portion up just by saying again, we've we've met with neighbors three times, you know, had three neighborhood meetings over the course of this resoning process. Uh, we've tried to incorporate as many of their comments as we possibly can into these zoning conditions. Um, and for those reasons and the the policy reasons that Binham stated, we think that this is reasonable and in the public interest. I do want to have uh Mr. Blevens uh come up and potentially Mr. Wson just to speak about the um storm water and how we intend to detain and release storm water from this site uh into that existing channel. Good evening. Uh my name is David Blevens. I'm an engineer with Bass Nixon Kenny Engineers. Uh the site drains naturally from Leville Road uh to the west back just a general slope. And so that's the way uh that's the way the storm water will be discharged. It'll be uh it'll be discharged back on the back side of the site. Um when I looked at the layout that we' prepared for town homes, it was approximately 40,000 about 40,000 or so uh square feet of imperous area. And and then I did a layout uh with Gary on a six lot uh sub single family subdivision or four and just extended a culde-sac in there and developed those lots at 38% which is the maximum allowable and the and that uh in R4 and the it came out to about 38,000. So there really was only a couple of thousand square feet of difference in impervious area between the two uh between the two layouts. This is something that typically as we track through the process uh and we haven't heard anything otherwise from storm water staff that if there's if there is an issue with storm water anything downstream we would as we track through the process uh we would address it then and I'll be happy to answer any questions about storm water that anyone anyone has has and Gary's here about the >> questions for Mr. Blevens. Okay. All right. So, um that kind of closes out the support side. Um we can go ahead and hear from the opposition. I have VJ Rendan and Alex Milosuk uh signed up. >> Hello. Good evening. Uh I'm Alex Malashik. I'm speaking on behalf of uh the home homeowners association there at Ghost Pony Trail. So tonight, uh, I just wanted to talk through three outstanding concerns that our community has about this. Again, we're we're a relatively small community. Um, and so some of these impacts can be magnified for us definitely. Uh, first the park the parking, then the storm water, uh, and then a potential development delay of the whole region. So parking as we've talked about the renderings that they've provided show 18 units with a I want to believe say a total of 12 parking spaces on the streets or in um driveways. I think we all know that garages get used for things other than cars and um realistically we expect these homes to have two cars. Uh it's just realistic for the the area. That's going to cause parking to back up onto the existing street. And this is a relatively narrow street. Um I know they mentioned not having a cut through there going to Leville, but that's actually a almost dead spot in Leville because there is uh a connection to the north that goes into the high school and a connection to the south coming to the high school. Very, very few people will be coming south to Leville and making a right-hand turn to go to the school that way. They would be going farther than if they had come otherwise. Um, at the very least, we would appreciate a condition that that puts in place at least two external parking spots uh per home. On the storm water side, as was mentioned, we we've had issues in the community with storm water causing flooding. Um, we had a very modern uh nice retention system put in and if it's not maintained religiously, what we find is that it blocks up and some homes have actually been flooded because of it. There's also a stream protection area uh behind the community and and tree protection areas back there too where we've seen what is a dry creek bed on any average day like today. Um rips right through and there are exposed roots. There are dying trees. Um some have fallen and hitten hit homes out of a tree protection area on there. One of our concerns here, as we've me as has been mentioned, is there's going to be another development process going in across that creek bed uphill. Realistically, these concurrent developments are not going to be necessarily speaking to each other. They aren't going to be planning their storm water together. And the reality is that whatever erosion and damage that's happening to that existing protected area is going to continue to happen. um it will probably be exacerbated and uh frankly in in my personal view we've it seems to be an inconsistency not necessarily with code but with the spirit of why we have these protected areas in our community where we try to preserve these green spaces where we're actually damaging them in some of these instances. Um I guess as as like a reasonable mitigation I if we could have some kind of a condition that there are you know 150year storm considerations put into place when any storm water is designed. It it would mean a lot to us because we have seen these frequencies and these big storms um being um damaging to the area. Uh the last thing that I well and sorry the one other thing with that is we know that there's already existing backlog with in Raleigh with storm water mitigation. I I believe that people try to build to the code. I think they try to do a reasonable job to it. And what we find is that as areas are developed. They just more consequences occur. What we don't want to have happen out of this is for it to turn into, you know, we've heard the number $900 million backlog. We won't want this to be $92 million. We don't want this creek to be the next, you know, trees falling on homes for insurance costs to go up. Um, so that's kind of our concern back there. Uh and then finally, one thing that we found in this process, and uh you'll have to forgive us, we are not professional land developers, so maybe our tools are a little fuzzy here, is there are at least three other R six plus lots in the area that are um available. I believe one uh 16 acre R10 lot is being developed less than 2 and a half miles away. Um there are two R six lots less than a mile from this site that have been sitting that total out to three and a half acres. Um if there were high demand for housing in the region, my question is why are those not being actively developed? Uh at the same time, what we do see is that there's active interest even in the site right behind this site um in pursuing R4 development. So, we we were told tonight that the difference here is between 16 units and 18 units. And I I might be ignorant of of the rules around R4, but I'm a little curious how we get to 16 units out of uh 2.6 acres with uh R4, but that's that's perhaps something I just don't understand not being in my area. But what we see is an upzone for definitely less than 10 additional dwelling units. um what we're shown tonight is two extra dwelling units for an upzone and we just don't necessarily understand where that's coming from and if it increase the costs of the land it may actually stall development where there might be immediate interest right now and in R4 development for 16 units this could stall out development for another decade to get 18. Um, so we we want to be neighbors to more people. We don't want to shut things down. We just don't necessarily This feels like forcing a square peg into a square into a round hole. And we kind of that's how our small community sees it. So again, the parking um just creating a single outlet street where we're going to have probably overflow. no matter how many speed humps we put in the parking speed humps don't stop parking. Um the storm water where we already see damage and erosion to creek beds. And then delayed development. We we do want the region to be vibrant. We do want more homes to come in and if this stalls it out so we have another property that sits for 10 years. It frankly just doesn't help that. So I I appreciate your time um and your kindness. >> Thank you. Any questions for I'll butcher your last name again. Alex. I'll just call him Alex. >> I I joke most people just say M. >> Okay. Alex M. Thank you. >> Y >> I'm sure I have a question for Al Mr. M. >> Um I'll keep walking back and forth. >> Has um you mentioned parking in Strong Water. Has staff had a chance to come out and look at your concerns and what it feedback to receive? Um, so we have uh storm water was they they kind of they were very all staff were very kind and um even Christina came out and heard some of our concerns. We appreciate the city's involvement. Um, stormwater looked around and um when when they heard about the issues that we had had with our own storm water mitigation, they they kind of gave the nod and said, "Yeah, that's not an altogether uncommon thing. There are new rules in place but um you know rules were in place when those got built as well as our understand >> you know when was your subdivision built? >> Uh I I can't speak firmly it was somewhere in the 2018 17 to uh 2019 range. >> Okay. >> So it's it's fairly new. Um, the other thing that's worth mentioning, uh, city came out for traffic and we were told counterintuitively as a community, we wanted to try and highlight to people how congested the street could get. So, we we kind of parked on the street and tried to show, hey, this is what happened. And counterintuitively, we were told, well, we view that as a as a traffic u mitigating device, the fact that people have to park on the streets. You've made it narrower. I can tell you personally, I I have a two-year-old son uh who loves to ride his little pedal bike. We jokingly call him the bear cub because he listens about as well as a bear cub. And uh you you can you can put as many traffic mitigating devices as you want there, but um Joe Fish is probably going to be out trying to pedal bike. And we have a community, I think all houses, but two have kids, some babies, some in high school. The two houses that don't have kids, they they have dogs and they're great. And it's it is a very like literally I I can't make this up. It's like Mayberry in some ways. All of our kids just run out and there's just a little gang going up and down the street. But really, it does mean that that one-way street, I get worried about Amazon drivers who are who are genuinely trying to make their quotas, trying to make time, and they they come flying in there. And when we start stacking up more cars, when we start stacking up more people who are busy and are stressed coming home from work, we just it it's going to create a scenario where we have we as parents have to be more concerned about our kids on pedal bikes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Yes, >> I'm good. I don't have a question. I'm just gonna I have a question for storm water. Can I have um storm water come down? My question is what is can you help clarify what is required by code in terms of um what the 10-year storm the to what what we currently require. >> You're getting your steps in today. >> I know. Apologies. Ben Brown, storm water. Um uh yeah so the the UDO condition for the site would be to control the two and 10ear storm to pre-development levels which is looking at the site now is there any way we can get the aerial to come back up because I'm looking at it here that's why I was but it's a fairly wooded site now so we would take that to be the pre-development condition for for those calculations and then the two and 10ear storm would would uh need need to be detained by code and they would also have to treat for um pollutant being nitrogen in this case leaving their site to a certain level. So, >> thank you so much. >> This one's for you too, Ben. >> Councelor Patton has a question. Yeah, sorry. >> Same thing. Um, so we heard from one of the speakers that the existing storm water detention was perhaps not built super well and the commentary was that's not uncommon. What are what's our role and our responsibility if storm an existing storm water detention is not serving its purpose as well as it should? So, um, it is at the bottom edge here, which I think, yeah, I just marked with my finger there. Um, so it's actually more on this side. Apologize. Um, so it's an, uh, pipe detention uh, down there, I believe. And it's actually the issue with the maintenance that I believe they were talking about going back through my records real quick back there was that the slopes are right at a minimum going into the pipe detention. So, they're right. If it's not maintained, then any sort of backup will kind of back up into the street there. Now, it's not designed to function that way. But the reality is it's a little bit tougher to maintain because of the slopes going into the detention device. So, I believe that's what they're referencing, but feel free to correct me. Yeah. Okay. Feel free to uh but so that's the issue there. Um technically, it's they are um compliant. They've uh for the past three years had passing inspections and everything like that. So that's all been fine, but the slopes going into it are at the minimum level. So that's kind of why the backup water function can become an issue on Ghost Pony Trail. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. All right. So I'll bring this back. This is another case where I'm >> Yeah, let me >> So sorry. Sorry. Um, this is another case where I'm proud of the level of engagement and outreach from both the community and the development team. There's a lot of change happening along Leville Road. My kids also go to Leville Middle, so um I'm well aware of the of the area, and I understand how that can feel overwhelming. We have a state road uh with paused improvement plans and three different properties that all drain into Small Creek behind this neighborhood. I understand why neighbors are concerned because we can't require all three properties to coordinate their plans for the area. This makes it even more important that each project has a strong responsible plan for our storm water retention. We updated our storm model design storm water design manual in 2024 and continue to work with residents in areas where older developments were built under less rigorous standards. I believe we're making progress in mitigating these impacts for future projects, but I also understand that residents are focused on worst case scenarios based on what they've already experienced. I'm grateful to the applicant and I appreciate the neighbors input and continued engagement through this process. These are complex issues without simple answers. So, as the representative for this district, I will be voting in opposition to this case while recognizing that my colleagues on council may see it differently. Um, but I would like to open the floor for any other questions or concerns. >> Go ahead. >> One of you recognized. Uh, for me, this is a tough case. Uh, I believe very strongly in consistency with the comprehensive plan. Uh, and struggled with this uh, over the weekend. Um I am struggling because this case was consistent and some of the conditions offered in my opinion made it less consistent. Um condition number four uh I understand the need for privacy uh but uh it's not often that I see a wall uh between two different developments. A landscape buffer uh with vegetation would have served the purpose for privacy if that was the desired. Uh but to me I struggle because I looked at the map and did not see many walls uh in this neighborhood. And to me I just want to make sure as we evolve this city uh that we want to make sure there's compatible transitions between neighbors. I struggle with a 6-ft wall. Um in terms of the speed bump uh the nature of the street itself, the narrowness, the curved nature, it automatically is trafficcommed by the nature of its design. Uh so while I'm not as concerned about it, but I always look to see whether these conditions are mitting at an impact or they're anticipating a future impact that is yet to be disclosed. And then finally, uh I also struggle with being very prescriptive at it comes to materials. Materials relate to cost of construction. We all seek to ensure that projects are affordable and really left up to the individual applicant to design these buildings. And for that reason, um, I will not be supporting this case. [Music] >> Councelor Patton. >> Sure. Um, well, I'll just say thank you neighbors for your engagement on this. Thank you for coming out. I definitely understand the the heartburn it can bring to see ne our neighborhoods change. And like do you as a parent who's also teaching her child to ride a bike, I understand the fear associated with like increased traffic on your roads and and the tension that that brings. I also am al often tasked with determining whether we think what can be built under the proposed proposal is better produces a better outcome than what could be built today. Um I as you noted there's not a big difference in that in the number of units. I do think that because of this change they can be for sale units where they would be more likely to be rental units in the under the what's allowed today. And I do think that by their conditions that don't connect to Leville, you'll have less traffic than might otherwise happen on just being built what's being built by right. Um, so I empathize and acknowledge the concerns, but I do think this is a good project that will produce good outcomes for the new neighbors, but also better circumstance for you all than might be allowed under the um current condition. So um with all that said, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated October 7th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action. >> Second. Any other conversation or questions? All in favor of the motion? I. >> All oppose? Nay. >> Nay. >> Okay. So, we had 64 and two against. All right. Thank you. Next, we have resoning Z-5124 Fairbanks Drive. Hannah Reco. Hello. This is resoning Z-5124. It's a request to reszone one property at 9308 Fairbanks Drive um from NX3 conditional use to R10 conditional and R10 conditional use currently split zoned to a new neighborhood mixed use three stories conditional use district. So this is in uh northwest Raleigh has property has frontage along Fairbanks Road. You can see this is near uh the convergence of Leville Road, Westgate and and Fairbanks Road. Um mainly residential to the north and to the west. Some commercial along this portion of Leville Road. Though there are three proposed zoning conditions. Uh one that prohibits some uses normally allowed in NX, one that would cap the number of uh dwelling units and one that would cap office and retail use um to 65,000 ft each. This request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's consistent with the future land use map um designation of neighborhood mixed use. And here are some of the consistent policies. Um these have to do with uh maintaining the base district removal of some of the limitations on um included in the current conditions and then there are no inconsistent policies found for this request. Planning Commission recommended unanimously for approval. And with that, happy to answer any questions. >> Questions for M. Recal? Okay. If not, we will open the public hearing. And we have Toby Coleman signed up to speak in support. And then Andrew Tatterol in opposition. >> All right. Good evening, uh, mayor, members of council. Uh, Toby Coleman here on behalf of, uh, the applicant. Uh with me tonight is uh Jason Meadows uh with RU Engineering and Concept 8. Um this is a resoning of a property that's primarily already zoned in X3. So we're not really changing the zoning district. This is much more of more or less a change in um zoning conditions. There's a there's a little bit there's two things going on here. Number one, as we went through the process, we realized that the the property lines did not match up. They looked like they matched up initially with the zoning, but it turns out they didn't. So that's why you see that sort of map that's a little offkilter there. Um, so we're correcting the the zoning uh there to make sure that the entire property is NX3 uh consistent with what the city did a few years back. Um and then we are we've added a couple of conditions which I'll talk about in a minute and Hannah talked about mainly um capping uh some some the density of uses uh and adding some u use limitations um ma and then we're getting rid of a bunch of old conditions. There was a 25-year-old set of conditions on there. A lot of them reference the old um the old uh UDO uh chapter 10 and um and in other cases uh required things that are already required in the UDO so we're duplicative um and the key issues here so the the main change here was to increase the building height from two stories to three stories uh and uh eliminate a requirement for a landscape buffer for the adjoining apartment complex. Um, just to give y'all a sense of things, there's an apartment complex to the north and the west, as Hannah said, some offices and and retail along Leville Road, and then immediately sort of there to the south where that red CX3 is, that's a Food Lion uh anchored uh shopping center with Taco Bell and all that stuff. So, this is an area where where there's a fair amount of u existing commercial use. We're not asking for a change of the use. We're just tweaking the conditions here. And we are available for questions. questions for Mr. Toby? No. Okay. Uh Andrew Tatterol for opposition. Do not see him. Okay. All right. Well, we'll close the hearing. Thank you guys so much. This is actually really close to the last case. It's just down down uh the road and but it does have precedent for adding multiple stories just down the street from this. We as a I would say as a council body are interested in making this area more walkable and this case will bring more foot traffic to the area and I think adding more retail and commercial uses will help bring necessary traffic improvements to Leville Road down the road. Um so for those reasons I am going to motion to approve if I can pull it up. Hang on one second. There it is. So, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated October 7th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action. >> Second. >> Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion I >> I. >> All oppose? Nay. Eyes have it. And that was our last case. And with no further ado, we're adjourned. Heat. Heat. [Music]