7 2025 planning commission meeting. I'm Banny Miller, chair of the commission. Today we have a hard stop at 11 o'clock to allow for a city council committee meeting in this room. So I ask everyone to please be efficient in your comments and avoid redundancies so that we can hear from as many viewpoints on as many cases as possible. We start every meeting with an opportunity for the public to comment on an item not contained on the agenda. Are there any members of the public who'd like to speak on an item not on the agenda today? Seeing none, we will move on to committee reports. We have two items from our text change committee and we will turn to committee chairwell for the report. Uh thank you chair Miller. We were unable to make quorum on May 14th last week. So this meeting was did not take place and the items are still on the agenda. Our next planning commission meeting is June 10th and the next text change committee is on June 18th. So, if we pull this to the next text change committee, we're in danger of not getting these items out to to council before the summer break. So, with that in mind, I was hoping we could just bring it back to the full commission on June 10th, hear the items directly then for the first time and vote it out of the commission. Having reviewed the packet, doesn't appear to me that there's much that's too controversial. So, I think that it would be appropriate to handle at the planning commission table. Thank you. We've also heard from staff that um there should be room on the agenda that day. So that should work from a timing standpoint. So unless there's any objections, I'm going to move that we take the pedestrian Do I need to name the items by them or can I just say there are items on the agenda? Let me see. I can name them. You could say the items on the agenda. Here we go. Um, uh, TC I I move to, uh, bring TC25 and TC 1124 to the June 10th planning commission meeting to be heard in full. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Uh, all those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. We will see that at our next meeting. And I don't think that there's any other agenda items for the planning of the text change committee. So right now we don't have anything scheduled for the 18th of next month. Thank you. So moving on to old business. Before you proceed, I understand from staff that we're having a technical issue and we need help from the control room. Okay. To get the presentations working. So great. Uh I've messaged those folks and I'm hoping they are hearing me now say that we need help. Okay, thank you. Sorry. No, it's logged in. Small font of my one superpower. [Music] So, while we're working to to fix the technical issue, I can I think start uh the staff update. Thank you very much. So, um yes, we have the one item on old business um reszone case Z7022 at Glenwood Avenue. Uh for this item, the commission has already received a full staff presentation and applicant presentation and heard from the public. So our focus today will be on any updates or changes since our last meeting. And we will turn to Hannah Reco for a presentation from city planning staff. Sure. Good morning. Hannah Reco, planning and development. So this is case Z722, uh an assemblage of parcels at Lake Anne Drive and Glenwood Avenue. Um, you last discussed this case, I believe, at your March 25th meeting. Um, deferred it for revised conditions. The applicant has submitted unsigned conditions that, um, broadly speaking, make adjustments to the previously provided conditions. So, um, updates to the language that address some concerns about enforcability and clarity. um signed conditions were submitted. Unfortunately, not in time for consideration at this meeting. So, um there's a few options you have. One is that you can act on the last version of signed conditions that you received and the copy that was just passed around is that version. Um, alternatively, you could request council for another extension to review in order to receive um in time for a meeting and consider the latest version. Happy to go through more details to accept that I can. Um, that's that's the summary of the update. Okay. Thank you. Do we have um are we ready to provide additional comment and pull up presentations or is are they still work control? I think the technical issue is still not unresolved. Unresolved at this moment. Okay. Um, so we've already heard from the applicant and the public, but just so I can get a sense, it appears there are some folks that are interested in providing additional public comment. Could by show of hands, could I see how many people would like to speak today on this case? I see at least two. Um, in that case, given the time, I can grant another six minutes to each side for additional comment. Good morning, members of the planning commission. I'm Isabelle Maddox, uh, Nichols and Crarampton, 3700 Glennwood Avenue. Um, and submitting the conditions. We submitted them on Friday, which is the normal deadline for the Tuesday planning commission because of the holiday. We got caught by the two-day rule. I had sent them out to my client on Wednesday, but I had a little bit of trouble with communication, so we didn't get them in, and that's my fault. However, the changes are fairly minimal. There are some cleanup changes or just really clarification changes that staff wanted us to make which we did make. And what I would propose is because I don't think you all want to request another extension. We don't really want to request. We have we have talked with the HOA group and we've Josh Hansen, attorney for the HOA group, has worked through the weekend to try to get them on to agree that settlement agreement. This is our separate agreement and we've we've just signed that in the lobby of the chamber this morning. So, we're all in agreement and I'll let him speak for that. But but so what I what I would like to ask for the the planning commission is that you vote this out today and I will pledge to you that we will before a public hearing is set in this matter. Um we will submit the revi we've already submitted them. We will officially resubmit the revised condition. so that those clarifying changes will be on what council sees. And I don't think because of the summer break that we would ever be going to public hearing until August anyway, whether those conditions were submitted on Wednesday or Friday. So, I don't think it'll change anything time-wise. And I think it's just a it's just a technical thing that we need to do and and and we'll do that. So, with that, I'll I'll yield to to Josh to add the commentary. If you want more commentary on the case and all the challenges for this property, I'll be happy to give those, but I've already done that once and I don't want to waste your time. So, Josh, thanks very much. Yes. Other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this case. Good morning. Josh Hansen, 4407 West Chase Avenue. Uh I'm an attorney at Hansen Howland Wilkey and I represent the Lake Ant Homeowners Association. Um the history behind this property and the application which has been before you for a very long time and continued several times. Um this was there's a uh covenants and restrictions that prevent the very development that's being applied for in the resoning. uh there was litigation around this issue back in 2007 8 and 9 uh which also uh contained a settlement agreement for that litigation that also prevents the development of the very kind that's in the application. So it took us quite a while to work through the conditions so that the neighborhood was satisfied that the development that's being proposed, the reasoning that's being proposed would meet the very minimum conditions that are in the conditions list that that you have before you. I understand there will be tweaks. I understand what they are. We've worked with city staff along with council for the applicant. Uh and we're content with that. The only thing we would ask is if there are any additional conditions or comments from the commission that they be uh that what's currently for you be considered the floor, particularly with the environmental issues. uh those were meticulously crafted because of the slope of this site and the neighborhood's concern about the health of the lake and the turkey creek which is a nutrient sensitive water which feeds into the lake. So we have uh what we believe is the minimum protection for the lake in those conditions. Um if there's any additional conditions regarding storm water erosion control uh we're happy to discuss that but but please understand those are minimum conditions and I'm happy to answer any questions there. Thank you very much. We'll let you know if we we have those once we bring it back to the table. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? And seeing none, we can move on to public comment for the opposition. Those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak or I'm sorry, six minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself and then seeing none, we can bring it back to the table for any questions from our planning commissioners. Yes, Commissioner Fox. Um a question for staff. I'm recalling the last time we saw this in March. There was some question about whether um certain conditions were appropriate as a um within the zoning conditions or they would be more appropriate in a standalone agreement. Is that still the assessment of staff? Yeah, the revisions did address um some of the issues, but I think there still remain some of the the same comments from last time. Yes. Are you Commissioner Outwell? Okay. Wasn't sure if she had follow. Thank you, Chair Miller. I I'd like to follow up on that question. Um if you could refresh my memory. I I remember some of the conditions being hard to enforce. Does this put the city in a in danger of litigation or in responsibilities that they will be forced to keep that will be hard or is this more of a we don't want to disappoint the citizens by not being able to enforce what's in the conditions? I think um I can't speak to danger of litigation that don't practice law. Um, for most of these, the remedy would be complaint by someone who who feels like they're not getting what they expected out of the conditions. That would be brought to staff. Most of these are not going to be actively um followed up on by enforcement staff unless there is a complaint. There are a handful of things that seem like they would be brought forward. we would be looking for them based on the conditions during the site plan and uh review and subdivision review. Uh but the as I understand it, a lot of these are also covered by a private agreement and that's really going to be the in the enforcement mechanism for for neighbors if they are dissatisfied. And quick followup. Is there anything in the conditions that might trigger an inordinate amount of work from staff to try to fulfill and respond to only if there's a complaint? The there there is some language in I can't remember if it's in one or two conditions. I think it's in two different conditions about building height. Um that is um we already have a way to measure height in the unified development ordinance. This is trying to this this language uh seems to be trying to supplement or expand that. That aspect of the conditions is um probably more difficult to interpret than anything else that they've offered. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Bennett. Vice Chair Bennett, just continuing on that same line, then um why don't we remove them? If they are hard to enforce and you already have a way of measuring building height and this is doing something different then why are the these conditions not removed or revised to satisfy staff? I guess that's for Isabelle. Yes, I think we have modified that condition in the the signed conditions that were submitted too late. Um, we talk about the conditions as they are now talk about two occupied stories above a certain street and then what the staff wanted was to say two stories containing dwell this is on the townhouse section two stories containing dwelling units above the street. So, we put that in. That'll be in. To me, I don't think it's all that confusing. We're not trying to redefine the measurement of height in the code. We're trying to add uh a little bit of detail to it about what can go in those stories. And so, we have made those changes and uh I don't one of the reasons that there are some conditions included is that the HOA very much wants those in as conditions. So we have tried to walk a fine line between trying to satisfy staff and trying to satisfy the HOA. Um and and as I said before, most of these conditions will be the decision point or whether we default on these conditions will be apparent early on during the construction process because you'll know how tall the building's going to be. Uh so there there you know there's one about overseeing storm water control that'll happen on the front end when the city's got tons of enforcement opportunities there with with issuing permits and you know keeping the construction going along. So I do think it's all very front-loaded in terms of the conditions that staff felt like oh maybe these should be in a private agreement. And I think that the the those will be determined whether we're complying or not on the very front end when the city's got plenty of enforcement tools. So may I follow please? Just so I'm clear. So the conditions that were passed around that we can't consider today are those do those also have the staff concerns? So what's in your p in the published agenda is the unsigned version. What's on the table is the signed version. Okay? Because we had not included that because we were expecting the signatures. What's on the table in front of you is signed. What's in the agenda materials is unsigned. So the Can I make a correction? Oh, yes, sure. But what's in front of you is the last signed version. So if you wanted to act on a signed version, which you would have to, it's that version in front of you. So that's the the the previous version from the March meeting that is the paper copy in front of you. And wasn't there in what I read in my packet there was because I can't read this. I'm sorry. Um there was a concern about something with storm water. Could we hear from staff or stormwater about that concern and if it's being addressed? If we were to vote this out, is that being addressed? And what would go to council? Um, so there was several things related to storm water. our concerns about some of them was just that it was duplicative with the existing UDO and so um it said that it was providing greater environmental control but it wasn't really because it's just what's already in the UDO. Um there is one that's about a third party being involved in erosion control and there is some concern that that would be uh additional staff time to coordinate with that third party but we at this point we don't know it might maybe it won't be additional time we just don't know. Thank you. What we were trying to do was just have somewhat of an ombbudzman for the neighborhood for the storm water so that if there was a question they had or concern they could call a third party and that they would coordinate with the city engineer, the ombbudsman and the neighborhood so they could make sure that the stormwater conditions are being met. And you know the city had a problem because we said enhanced stormwater measures. They said well a lot of these are just code and so we took out the word enhanced. That's a kind of that's sort of one of the changes we make. So there are a couple things that are not code but but there were several that are are somewhat repeating code which I think is okay to do within the conditions. You know the HOA uh leadership doesn't necessarily know the code and so it's helpful for them to see those those provisions in the conditions. I don't think it's a a problem to repeat something that's already in the code in a condition. I think that's okay. Thank you. So, it sounds like there were two issues. There was some uh ambiguity in the building height condition, but that has been resolved and clarified in the new um conditions that are pending acceptance of the signatures. And then the second issue is about an enforcability um issue with several of the conditions that again have been largely if not fully resolved with the new draft signs. Um so to the first point if that's if we've clarified the ambiguity great. Um on the enforceability question I mentioned last time we have seen a pattern of this with other resoning cases over the years where the um applicant and the neighbors want to see certain conditions. Um, but those conditions create an enforcability concern from staff and it's always a challenge for for the applicant and for us the table to say well um the applicant the neighbors want this in order to even and they have been advised as to the enforceability issues and but they still want to see it in there. Um but it creates an issue for the city and the applicants are not or the neighbors will vote to you know be in opposition to the case if they are not included puts everyone in sort of a difficult situation and I wonder if there's not a policy solution to this some kind of maybe text change to the UDO that clarifies what kind of conditions may be offered. I know the list um is somewhat endless that you know of of conditions that could be but if we're seeing any patterns of certain types of conditions that continue to come up again um that as from a policy standpoint we don't want to include as a city that might be a way to get at this issue as well. It sounds to me like this has been um we've seen cases that had more robust concerns in the conditions. These have mostly been resolved with the new sign um conditions that where the signatures have not yet been accepted. Um I agree with uh we have already had three 90-day I'm sorry three 90-day extensions and one 60-day extension on this case. We have to act on it today in order to um unless we want to ask for another extension. Um, I am inclined to act on this today and include a recommendation to council that they wait on ex on on scheduling a public hearing until after the final signatures have been received. Any other comments, updates? Commissioner O'Hver, you reaching for something? Reaching for your mic? No, ma'am. Okay. Uh, yes. Commissioner Mia, um what's been the residential and community feedback on the project with the applicant or the HOA? I I believe that um the attorney who was here Hansen represents the neighborhood. So represents the neighbors and they spoke in support. It's been largely supportive. Pardon me. I was saying I was asking about the residential and community feedback has been largely supportive for this project. Uh initially no. Uh that's why we it took two years uh and prior litigation. So we have reached this point with what's before you that the neighborhood now is in support. Okay. And if I may just speak to one issue that that I heard um about any additional staff resources because of the storm water conditions. The umpidsman idea that concept of that is that it would not create more work for the city. It would create less because there'd be a third party for the neighbors to complain to and say, "Is this according to what we agreed to?" The ombbudsman would come out and say, "Yeah, it's good." Only if the ombbudsman, the third party who's an environmental professional says, "Yeah, this is a violation." Then the city would be called. That's the concept of the third party. So, it's actually trying to remove uh city's involvement on everybody that drives by and say, "I don't think that looks right." If that makes sense. Okay. Thank you. Other questions, Bennett. Thank you. I'm always very supportive of conditions that address neighbor concern. So, I appreciate that we're trying to address neighbor concern. My only request would be because we've seen conditions before that simply restate what's in the UDO and we've asked the applicant to remove them. We've had conditions before that staff has said raised enforcability enforcability concerns. We've asked them that they be removed or revised to staff's satisfaction. If we're going to recommend approval of this with these conditions with staff stated concerns, then we just need to make sure we do it for the next homeowners association that comes that might not have the same resources as this one. So, as long as we're going to be consistent and equitable and allow conditions like this for all neighborhoods, then then I'll be okay with it. But if we're going to be selective, then then then I have a concern about the precedent that we're setting. Thank you. I agree with that comment. I think if the and to even add to that too that the neighbors did not have such good support, they might not be unnoticed that the conditions that they're adding are may not be enforcable to the way that they want. So, we would definitely want to not only be consistent, but um do what we can to robustly put the neighbors on notice of any enforcability issues of conditions that they want. Um other comments? Yes. you know, something arises that is an issue that needs to be enforced. Like say if the neighbors aren't knowledgeable about what to look for to see that there's an issue, how do we make sure that we're covering them? We can discuss those issues in public hearings such as these. um staff I believe includes them in the staff reports that are also published in the agenda for um and then also addresses them at at the council level I believe when it's at public hearing and in those staff reports as well. Are there any concerns about specific conditions in this case with enforcability issues that remain in the draft conditions with signatures offered that have not yet been accepted here? I know that there were before. Maybe that's a question for staff. I think the biggest issues have been addressed. Okay. With the revisions, there's always room for improvement on on clarity though. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Her guess a question for Bayam or the attorney. Um I know in the past as previously mentioned we typically ask for the duplicative conditions to be removed but if it's the same as what's in the code, what is what is the issue? What is the concern? If it's enforced by the code, if the neighbors want to see it, Miss Maddox has been working with them for two and a half years. [Music] Um, what is the what is the concern? I mean, I hear that the enforcability is minim been minimized, but some of the previous comments, I'm just curious. That's may I ask like a little bit more on that before you answer. If the code were to become more restrictive in the future related to storm water, what happens then? I think that would be a question for interpretation. uh you know we we don't accept conditions that are more uh permissive than regulations and so at the very least it would create some uncertainty and some question for interpretation I think that's the biggest uh you know when we look down the road and say what was the new code uh what's the import of what's being offered I think that's the the biggest concern. I was going to say if there's my understanding is that there's if there's a conflict between the condition and the UDO um the more restrictive would apply. Correct. Is that correct? Okay. Question. Yes. Could be for staff. Um, has there been, I guess, a a more popular enforcability issue that's has been like surrounding this case? Um, that's been, I guess, presented more of a pattern. Does the question make sense? Not sure I understand the question. So, so I've been hearing the enforcability coming up a lot. So, I'm asking is is is there one that is that just keeps bubbling up or that's one that's like been more of like a pattern like within this case? So, the conditions wouldn't be enforced until they are adopted by the city council, and I'm not aware of uh I just wonder if there was one that was like specific to this case that presented a problem. Okay. I believe that it's the in this case it's more of an ambiguity question. Is that correct? From ambiguous language. Yes. In other cases, we have seen where um they wanted to more strictly uh in put in zoning conditions um in um conditions about the use um of a building and in ways that you know we don't have city zoning enforcement going around looking at when people are um we're using that type of or we're conducting that type of activity in those buildings. Got it. Other questions? Apologize for my confusion on this matter, but um so the condition related to having a third party that's still that is in the proposed conditions that are unsigned. Is that Yes, that is in the latest version. Okay. So if someone were to complain that they did not feel that the third party was adequate in performing that duty, is there a remedy associated with that that the city has to stand in and solve that issue? I'm I'm confused on how that works because there's the technical aspect of there's there's flooding, there's erosion, there's whatever that you alert the third party to it, but what if I alert the third party to it and I don't find their response adequate? Do I go to the city then? Yes. Deputy city attorney. I try not to get too much into these legal issues at the table, but that is one of my concerns that it says the third party shall be retained. Who shall retain the third party? I think they could still use some clarification on that because the city should not have to retain a third party. Okay. And then um if I was understanding correctly, there was an assumption, Miss Maddox, that this likely wouldn't go to hearing until August regardless of if we voted today or voted on June 10th. Yes. Okay. I think that's I think the real question in front of you is whether or not you want to ask for an extension so that but at this point the applicant has re has questions. This is their this is their revision and they have not signed. So they could still revise the the request. So I think the question is do you want to hold them here and work through that exercise with them in this forum or are you ready to send this to city council with a recommendation with caveats? Thank you. Sorry I was speaking with legal counsel um on that one case. So I just on the condition that that we were referencing before it is condition six roman at 4 a third party consultant shall be retained and compensated by the developer. So I think that um that might have the clarifying language as to who who is to retain and compensate but to your point from an enforcability standpoint if they don't right then all of a sudden it's a zoning administrative condition and they start getting a fine for not having um an onbudsman and that is awkward for sure. Um I'm cur this is something that it sounds like it's it's well flagged and it will be in the public hearing for council. Um, at this point we it would be um given the amount of time that we've already spent on this case um and the new draft conditions um I am inclined to again vote this out today as opposed to asking for another extension um with the recommendation that council wait to schedule the public hearing until they have received the appropriate signatures and updated conditions. Any other comment or thoughts on asking for an extension? Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? Commissioner Alwell. Uh with regards to Z7022, uh I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated May 27th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment with the recommendation that council schedule the hearing after submission of currently unsigned conditions. I think this would Yeah, thank you. There we go. Do we have a second? Second. We have motion and second. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Five. Any opposed? That motion passes five to three. Is that correct? Yeah. Um and for those that voted against, anything to add in in specific as a specific reason for your vote against Mr. Bennett? I'm not comfortable with conditions that staff and the attorney have said they have concerns about and I want us to treat all applicants the same and I think we're making exceptions here that that that we don't make for other applicants. I'd like to to piggyback on that sentiment regarding um the um city attorney's uh concerns, but then also with item number six um with the um the applicant securing a a third party. I just feel like it puts us in an awkward situation. Thank you. Yes. Nope. Any other comments? Okay, that covers it. Thank you very much. Okay, moving on to new business. We have one item on the agenda, reszoning case Z-5224 at Triion Road. For these for this item, we will hear a full staff presentation and comments from the public. And we will now turn to Aaron for a presentation from the city. Good morning everyone. Um, I'm Aaron Clinger here to present case Z5224. The applicant is requesting to reszone approximately 43.83 acres at 16006004 and 1610 Trion Road from R4 and R10 with the special residential parking overlay to RX for conditional use with the overlay. The um planning commission deadline for action is July 26th. So, the zoning in the area is predominantly residential. Um, the closest RX zoning is you can see over to the northeast of the site. Um, here is an aerial view of the site and the surrounding area. The areas immediately adjacent to the site are a mixture of lowcale and moderate scale residential and there is a mediumscale residential neighborhood to the northeast. the there is a golf course across the street and the property is also adjacent to a fraternity house to the south. Um here is a closer view of the properties. Um here are three street view images of the site. The first was taken from Triion Road, the second from Fairway Drive south of Parrive and then the third from Fairway Drive north of Parrive. The conditions would prohibit prohibit a handful of uses. Um limit the number of overall overall dwelling units to 600 and the number of townhouse type units to 350. Under the existing zoning, the maximum number of units would be 290 whereas the proposed conditions as you just heard would limit the number of units to 600. um the minimum setbacks would decrease as well. The existing zoning does not allow for any office or retail square footage. Um whereas under the proposed zoning would permit 4,000 square feet each type. The site does have both lower walk and bike scores than average. However, the transit score is equivalent with the city average and the site benefits from both a lower transportation cost index and a higher proximity to jobs. There is some transit nearby the site. The um Carolina Pines connector, Route 7L, runs just north of the site and Route 7 for South Saunders runs approximately a mile and a half to the site's east. While the request does not include any subsidized units, it would add to the housing supply, permit a variety of housing types, allow for smaller units than average, and is within walking distance of transit. The site area does have a higher percentage of people of color and lowincome population than city-wide average as well as a higher percentage of linguistically isolated persons. Um the percent change in medium gross rent however has been lower than the citywide average. The requested resoning is inconsistent with the future land use map designations of low-scale residential and private open space. The low-scale residential guidance envisions a range of housing types um but at a scale that reflects that of existing neighborhoods in the area. While the request would allow for a variety of housing types, it does so at a scale that is more in line with the mediumscale residential designation. Um, while the request is inconsistent with the future land use map, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall as it aligns with several of the plans vision themes and policies that advocate for a variety of housing types and increased housing supply. Uh, consistent policies include those listed on this slide and inconsistent policies include those listed here. Um issues include inconsistency with the future land use map and impacts to infrastructure. Again, the deadline for action is July 26th. Um upcoming meetings will be held on June 10th and June 24th. The request would require an amendment to the future land use map. Um, as I mentioned, the current designation envisions a range of housing types at a scale that reflects what is currently there. Um, the medium scale residential land use designation better reflects the request. So, if the resoning was approved, the future land use map would be amended to mediumcale residential for the subject parcels only. The future land use map would be made more reflective of the proposed zoning entitlements of the sub subject properties. We will now move on to public comment for those in support. The applicant and those in favor have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Good morning, Chair Miller, members of the planning commission. My name is Toby Coleman. Uh I'm an attorney with Smith Anderson here in Raleigh. Uh I'm here on behalf of uh Dominium, who is the contract purchaser of 1604 and 1610 Tryion Road. Um pursuant to their contract, they're also um seeking the reszoning of 1600 Tryion Road. Uh the with the and their contracts with the owner of the property, Raleigh Golf Association. Um, I know you guys have seen the map, but I thought it would be helpful just to sort of lay out some of the specifics here. Um, so Trion has uh has that portion highlighted in dark blue under contract. It's about 22 acres. Um, and uh, Dei or sorry, Dominium has that under contract and uh, they plan to uh, do affordable housing there. Um the uh portion of the property in light blue there uh which I will call probably refer to mostly as the hook um is uh also about 22 acres. Raleigh Golf Association does not have any plans for it, but they do want to sell it. And so they have required Dominium as part of their purchase contract to seek reszoning of that property as well. Um and so that's why that that sort of gives you all the background here. Um, for those of you who don't know, so Raleigh Golf Association owns uh their most of their golf course, I always hate it when it does this. Um, most of the golf course is just south of Trion Road and they have uh and then currently it's I think the 14th through 18th hole, but it may be 13th through 18th hole is in this area that is is uh up for resoning. Um the background here is that the Raleigh Golf Association, their shareholders have decided to sell this property um for reasons that you can probably guess. Um but uh you basically land value uh but they are they're going to continue to operate south of Trion. They have uh enough holes to uh because they have a they have I think currently about uh 27 holes and so this would they lose some holes but they would still have a full 18hole golf course. Um, so that's the background of the sale and sort of how this all came about. Um, again, so this is a the reasoning is mainly to facilitate Dominium's plans to uh build about 370 affordable uh units. Um, they've not requested they've not added a a zoning condition regarding affordability at this time. Again, because um, as you know, the contract because it's under contract oftentimes uh, the seller is is pretty shy about that. But Dominium is Ryan. Uh, so I've got with with me from Dominium Ryan Summerwell who will talk to you a little bit more about what Dominium does, Sean Reinhardt, uh, Robert Eisman, and John Rodriguez. Dominium is one of the largest affordable housing developers in the country. They'll provide some details about that. Um, and we've also got folks uh from the from sort of the uh engineering team uh Chris Bostik, Michael Barnes, Nate, and Nathan Romberg who can talk as to uh both site plan and engineering questions as they come up. Um, so this is, you know, uh, as I said, Ryan can talk a little bit more about it, but the plan is for that front area, 370 units at 60% AMI. Here's a site plan that we showed the neighbors. Um what you'll see here is is that there is a access there on Tryion Road. Um again the the traffic engineers can talk a little bit more about it but there have been ongoing conversations with NC DOT and we believe that there NCDOT is getting more comfortable with the right in right out. There will be significant access and I don't know why it does that but along along uh Fairway Drive which is this right here. Anyway, um um and so you'll have uh this uh apartment coming out both on onto Fairway Drive, both from Bruce Circle there and from an entrance up there. So, as I said, we've held three neighborhood meetings uh and and presented to the Southwest CAC on this. Um some of the con you we heard a lot of different concerns. Um, one of the big concerns we heard was from the the uh folks living on Fairway Drive, Crestline Drive or Crestline Avenue. Um, was about how it would impact how denser development would impact Fairway Drive. Fairway um has is I think they made the city fills in potholes but hasn't resurfaced it in years and years. It's an ongoing problem down there and the reason is is because it doesn't have full curb and gutter. Um we've actually been uh trying to work we've been talk in extensive talks with Ken Bowers and his team to see if there is a public private partnership that might help get a fix done on fairway. It's um interestingly it was the city is going to install road traffic calming measures on it. Um but is at this point their pol there there's a city policy that says if you don't have full curbon gutter we will not resurface the street. So we heard a lot of concerns about that. Um, so we're looking to try to help out there if we can figure out a a sort of some sort of arrangement. It's an unusual one, so it's been taking a while. Um, there's we also heard a desire for a traffic light at Fairway and Trion. Um happy you we're still going through the process but happy to report that our traffic engineers have in doing their sort of uh their counts and studies have set have found that currently the uh the intersection does meet a couple two of the three criteria for warranting a traffic signal. And so we're fairly confident that you know unless the NC DOT puts up red flags that there will be a traffic light there um if once the apartments uh are built because that would warrant it. Um and then we heard a lot of concerns in particular about apartments and affordable housing and concerns, you know, neighbor neighbors had some concerns about, you know, there's a lot of affordable housing in the area that apartments would, you know, concerns about specific operations of apartments. There's apartments already within sort of in the middle of the golf course. So there there's a 264 unit development and so there's been some experience with things like trash and other things that we've heard about. Um and obviously concerns about things like um impacts on valuation and other things like that. Um and with that I'm going to hand it over to Ryan. Thank you Toby. Appreciate the time everyone. Uh like Toby said my name is Ryan Summer. I represent the owner and developer Dominium on this one. Just want to give you a really quick overview of kind of who we are. Um, as Toby mentioned, we specialize in the development, management, and operation of affordable housing. Uh, we've been in this space for over 50 years. And so we we like to think we have a significant amount of experience from trial and error working across the country specifically on understanding resident concerns and needs and building a a product type that meets those values. Um, you know, one thing we we do like to mention is we manage all of our own communities. Uh, we do not third party any of our communities. We feel that's a really strong uh motivator towards having the community have all of its goals aligned. Um, you know, we don't view our property management portion of our company as a call it profit wing. The goal is that we own, we operate, and we want to maintain these communities for the long term. And because we're going to be a part of this community, we want to give uh the apartment and the residents and their homes the necessary capital improvements that they'll need in order to maintain. I think another important uh factor of our company is we are fully vert vertically integrated. So we do have a a construction and architectural quality control portion of our company. And what that means is we spend a lot a lot a lot of time on understanding how these communities can be more and more efficient. You know, analyzing the the living room space and understanding what really fits the resident concerns. Um, and also making sure that we're designing and building a product that lasts for the longevity. You know, we're we're here. We're going to be a part of the community. Uh, we view ourselves as call it the antithesis of a your regular market rate merchant builder. We're we're not coming in and building and then selling a few years later and building a product that we feel is not, you know, valuable to the community. Our goal is that we are going to be here for for the long run. Um, our track record proves that we have multiple communities across the country that we've owned for over decades um and have done significant rehabs in advance. So, um, just wanted to to highlight some of those factors. And you know, here's some additional photos of some of our product across the country. Again, um I know, as you all are aware, and many are, there are stipulations against what people view as affordable housing and and what we're talking about here is 100% of the community. So, all 370 units will be at 60% of AMI. in the community itself. You know, we like to highlight, you know, nine foot nine foot ceilings, you know, walk-in closets, patios and balconies on every unit. Um, granite countertops, islands, you know, we're going to have multiple playgrounds. We have a community center with a, you know, computer stations. We have playgrounds across the community. And, and we really want to emphasize, you know, this is equivalent, if not better, than some of the the new market rate housing that you're seeing across the country. in and in the city of Raleigh. Um, so again, that's just a little bit about Dominium. Happy to answer your questions, but uh, appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this project? If so, please come to the podium. And then seeing none, we will move on to public comment for those in opposition. Those opposed to this case have a total of 10 minutes to speak. Please come to the podium and introduce yourself. Uh, my name is Jean Cobb. I'm a retired civil engineer. I've lived in Meredith subdivision for since 1985. uh uh currently I've been a part of uh many uh development projects in this regional area. Um I currently serve well let me say about 60 years ago I was a member of the Delta Sigma fraternity which on try road which appears on the zoning map is that blue rectangle. So, uh, I'm not speaking particularly in opposition to the Arizona, but maybe as clarification on a couple of points. I serve our board as a an advisor uh, on development issues. I'd like to clarify a couple of things. Um the application stated that there were no historical impacts to the project and in fact u our our property was uh declared a historic property by the city council back in 1999. It's the old Carolina Pines Hotel that was part of the complex that RGA's uh was part of back in the 30s. It was going to be a another iteration of Pinehurst, but uh which the timing was, I guess, pretty bad. So, uh it it was maintained for quite a number of years as a hotel and our fraternity bought it in 1957 and has maintained as a fraternity house since then. U so uh and let me say we're in the process of trying to improve our uh house has over the years gotten into um needing some work and we're going through the process with your historic uh commission to obtain a certificate of appropriateness. and we're in the process of perfecting that at the present time with the intent of uh improving our property. So if two things if if you're well let me say first the report says uh I think the current occupant there is a Alpha Sigma 5 fraternity which is correct. They they leased the property from our from our fraternity which is Delta Sigmafy and I guess due to the similarity of the letters if you didn't know the difference you you wouldn't know but um in fact delta signifies the owner. Um if the board if your commission would um act favorably on this uh reszoning request, we would ask for a couple of things. One would be um that you add as a condition a buffer on our western borderline that would be appropriate and sufficient to protect the historical nature of our property. And the second item we'd request which the current site plan shows and but we would like to have cross access agreements somewhere in the back of the property which would help us alleviate some of our issues with the access off of TR road which which have been caused by the the pave the creation of the median there on trying which prevents left-hand turns. So the our two entrances are are shut off from left-hand turns which is predominant direction that our our our brotherhood would be approaching the house. So that's that's our uh that's our request for you on on this issue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Hello. Uh my name is Sean Gillespie. I'm a resident on Fairway Drive. I um gonna speak more on behalf of just the community around Fairway Drive today and uh just want to point a little bit of attention to the fact that Dominium and their representation have been very good in the community meetings with us talking about the prospects of this proposed resoning. um do have concerns from a general community standpoint and even with the Southwest CAC, I have some own internal concerns where our representative for the CAC is a shareholding member of RGA. So, a little bit of a vested interest in the sale of this property going through. So, the representation of our community hasn't been great in terms of what we've been able to voice on this resoning uh proposal. So, I decided to take some time off of work today to come and speak to you all about it, what my concerns are. Um, did a little bit of research looking through the city of Raleigh Planning Commission's affordable housing policy map. I understand that strictly speaking, affordable housing or providing affordable housing is not part of this resoning. It's not included in the actual application. understand that based on the sale process, but uh just wanted to call attention to some previously stated planning commission um standards for where affordable housing should be allowed based on census. There's uh three main contributing factors to where multif family housing should not be allowed. Where census trackcts exceed 50% minority population where households in poverty exceed 30% and where existing subsidized units exceed 8% of the total unit count. This census track southwest Raleigh where this reszoning is uh set is one of the few zoning tracks in Raleigh that has met all three of those criteria for multiple census years. Um, I just think in general I support proliferation of more housing options for citizens of Raleigh, but cornering it into one area in southwest Raleigh is going to continue to limit the chances of this area uh developing into a type of place where those residents would want want to live. Currently, as a resident, I can say we're extremely limited on transportation ops and walkability just having lived there. uh I heard mention that options for mass transit are within a mile and a half. Just looking on a map and using measurements of that mile and a half, 0.2 of those miles are served by sidewalks. So, it's not walkable. It's not safe to walk to a bus stop on those roads. Um needless that, like repaving is one thing, but having sidewalks and walkability to public transit is uh kind of imperative. Fairway Drive is also served by uh school buses. So all the students there get on buses on roads without sidewalks. And this development, 370 units with the split of units. We could be talking to up to a thousand residents and discussing the amount of car traffic that would be running across areas where we have students without sidewalks waiting for the bus. It's a kind of a recipe for disaster in terms of where people can access or how they can get to schools. And in the long-term vision, um spoken to a couple different board members from Wake County schools, the schools that this district are already zone to are on the higher end of economically disadvantaged student populations. So for Penny Road Elementary School, already at 36% economically disadvantaged students, that's about 10 and a half miles from where this development would take place. Apex Middle School, 12 miles away from this area. These are long busing distances. Can I ask for additional time, please? Um, by show of hands, how many other members of the public would like to speak in opposition to this project? Are there any else? Um then I'll go ahead and let you provide one additional minute to let you finish your thought. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So all of the schools here are further away from this development. We're talking about adding a lot of new students. Um Apex High School, the school that this area is districted to is already about four times the student body population of the average North Carolina school for high schools. Almost double the average for Wake County schools. Uh the plan for what we would do from a student housing standpoint or from a number of students and what schools they go to is a concern for me as a resident there and I think should be a concern to planning commission when we talk about how do we plan for a community that has the right schools close by. How are they served? I guess the last point I'll make is uh spoke with Captain Manson of the Southwest Raleigh Police Department. this is at the periphery of their uh coverage of their district and they have some concerns about how they'll be staffed and be able to serve this area especially with the uh coming opening of the Darthy of Dicks Park. So, a lot of elements that I don't think have been thought of and I'm concerned about how we'll be able to serve this community. Thank you very much. There's no other public comment. We will now bring this back to the table for questions and comments from commissioners. Um, I might kick us off with questions for the applicant. You mentioned um the concerns about traffic. I used to live right in this area. I'm very familiar with the traffic concerns. Um, so the first one about pursuing the public private partnership option for um street improvements on Fairway Drive is are you pursuing um adding the curb and gutter or just resurfacing? Um, we're trying to figure out, frankly, what it would part of that is trying to figure out what it would look like, whether it's curb and gut, whether it's a public private partnership to get the curb and gutter done because that's what would prompt the city to resurface or or what. Um, that's sort of the puzzle that we're trying to put together. Um, in you know, Kay Crowder, former council member Kay Crowder has attended a couple of our meetings. She said that this has been something that various council members have been trying to do for decades. Um and so it's been so we're trying to fix something that probably you know that has needed to get fixed for a while. The complicating factor obviously is is that um you know we don't have a t the property doesn't have full frontage along Fairway Drive. So there has to be some private owner involvement. It may be that the right of way is wide enough that they can do it. It's all in the Raleigh right ofway. But that's those are the things we're trying to figure out um with recognition and you know I mean Domain wants to do it both because they think it's good for the uh you know that the ne they've heard the neighbors say that they would like it. They also recognize that it would be good for their residents to have a better better maintained street you know and things like that. So um we're trying to figure that out but I don't have a direct answer and in fact we're meeting with Ken again this afternoon to talk about it. Gotcha. I ask because I believe it's also city policy, not just that the city will not resurface without curbon gutter, but I believe also the city won't consider sidewalks without curbon gutter and the sidewalks being um sort of my key interest in this area and it sounds like the pedestrian concerns in this area as well. So pursuing that um obvious obviously the curbon gutter is typically much more expensive and cost prohibitive and then lowers a project um on um on our formula. So I think that that I'm glad to hear you're considering that. I think that would be a huge benefit in this area. We are trying. It's it's I think we're breaking a lot of brains trying to figure it out because it's not there's not an a wellworn path to doing this. So, we're trying to figure it out. Thank you. And then the second one, you also mentioned the signal um that I agree is very much needed in this area. You said currently the intersection meets two of the three um requirements to warrant a signal under DOT and that after the apartments go up that might trigger the third. Yeah, I'm gonna have Nathan Robert come up if that's okay because he's our traffic engineer and who can I'm gonna let somebody who knows what they're talking about. Thank you so much. My question is at what stage in what would the t at what stage in the apartments going up uh would that trigger and what would the timing look like for putting in that signal? Sure. So just for a little extra background. So for anyone who's not familiar, there's kind of three different vehicle volume warrants that you can check for warranting a signal. So that's 8 hour, 4 hour, and a peak hour. So based on the count data we have for Trion at Fairway, we're seeing that both the peak hour and the 4 hour are already met based on just existing volumes. And so then once you add on the this development traffic, then we expect the 8 hour to be met as well. So the expectation is nothing's been submitted to DOT for approval yet, but the expectation is that if all three are met, DOT likely approves a traffic signal at Fairway and Trion. Um, as far as timing, with the understanding that a peak hour and a 4 hour are already met, I I would believe DOT and the city both would be accepting of it being installed probably before any of units are even, you know, it's probably one of the first things that's done. Usually, a lot of times your roadway improvements are completed prior to kind of your first CO or, you know, first units are occupied. So I my expectation is the signal would be installed and going in with the first units, you know, with the understanding of no one knows for sure the exact construction timeline. That's great. So it's just anticipated additional counts, not actual. You don't have to wait till the actual counts are there. Right. In this case, I would think, you know, in this case, no. My expectation is we wouldn't need to check it again or need to wait for a certain number of units because that peak hour and 4 hour already met. So my understanding is DOT would be okay with it going in pretty much right away. Thank you. So, quick summarize. I I'm concerned about the traffic in this area. Um, but it sounds like putting in this project might actually help resolve a number of those issues that have been long-standing in the area. Other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Fox? Yeah. Question. Um, do you mind pulling up the proposed plan for a moment? Absolutely. Can I anticipate is TCA required on a project of this size? Tree conservation? Yes. And um the area in which you anticipate doing that? I'll I'll call Chris Bostik up with Kimley Horn. He can give you the details. Thank you. Good morning. Chris Bostik with Kimley Horn. So there is a um stream feature that you see that runs through the middle of the site. So we do anticipate that uh that stream feature and the trees that you see highlight on the plan will at least satisfy a portion of that requirement. Um this plan is still conceptual in nature. There may be some additional areas based on primary secondary that we would also have to address to meet that that requirement. Okay. So, if I'm reading it correctly, not to put words in your mouth, but um to be able to preserve that amenity and existing stream, you've um preserved that piece and kind of pushed the buildings out to the edge a little bit. That's exactly right. We also have some required uh uh city and state regulated buffers on those streams. So, we'll be utilizing those as the tree safe areas. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes. Okay. Uh on the document it says that there may be some issue accessing Triion Road. Yeah. And I'll um there's been ongoing conversations as I've mentioned um and Nathan could probably give more details, but basic you the the Toby Coleman short version is um that the initial uh conversations with NC DOT are what's reported what's in your report which said that they were skeptical as with ongoing conversations NC DOT has started to recognize that there's a need for it in part because I'm trying to draw here doesn't work. All right. uh in part because this par drive right here which is a city-owned street when it was platted it was platted entirely inside the uh the property of that adjoining apartment to the north apartments to the north. Um we've gone to the apartment owners and said can we have access can we get you can we get an easement? Can we buy an easement? And they've said no you're you're you're competition so we're not going to let you have it. And so as as NC DOT has come to recognize that uh it appears they've become more they've they're coming to Tryon Road. So we we're coming we believe that we will end up being able to get a right in right out on Tryon Road. Is that right? Thank you. Um while you're up there following up from two questions we heard from um the first public comment Mr. Cobb. Um it sounds like they are requesting two conditions. One is a buffer along the border. Um and we'll take a look at that and the second is a cross access agreement. The cross access agreement I um and I'm sorry I didn't mean to cut you off. I was just going to say do you have any response to those the So on the buffer we'll take a look at that. I don't have a specific answer for you today. um for the cross access, you know, sort of to rehash a little bit of what you discussed at the at the earlier case. It is my understanding and Binham or or other staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but because this fronts on Tryion Road and the frat house fronts on Trion Road, uh the UDO requires cross access to be provided from this site. Is that cor? And if that isn't correct, let us know. That's that's what we're operating on. Like staff is staff sort of looking around that right now. Staff like to respond or take a moment to look at that. I think we could. It sounds like Are you expecting to come back? I'm not I mean we will I don't know. Ask the ask the board. And that Yeah. And and on that question with respect to the PVP for the public private partnership for the potential curb and gutter, is that something what's the timing on that? Do you think that's a that's a great question? We're we're on it's it's an ongoing conversation. So I I don't know. I wish I had a better answer for you there before I mean so we have a deadline at the planning commission. Is this something that would be prior to our deadline at the planning commission or is this something that is a much larger conversation dealing with with government entities that I yeah I can't I can't I can't give you a time estimate. So I don't know is the short answer. I hope so but that that doesn't really carry a lot of weight. Okay. Um while staff looks at some of these other questions I just wanted to address the the um Mr. Gillespiey's comment about our affordable housing location policy. He is correct um about the context uh um and and the content of our um policies about where to place affordable housing um and that there already is a concentration in this area and that the area does have um a higher percentage of people of color and low income. Um, however, I just wanted to note that that the there's not actually a condition in the resoning to require affordable housing in this area. Um, and in addition, so from a resoning standpoint as we are looking at this um that that's not actually again a reasonzoning condition to include it. They intend to include it. Um, so then the question might be whether to include a resoning condition that prohibits affordable housing in a certain area and I don't think that that's something that we've ever seen as a city um or would be or I would be interested in pursuing as a condition. So, I just wanted to kind of acknowledge the framework around um acknowledging that policy, but at this table, that's not something that we we see as a reasonzoning condition here. Um and Chair Miller, yes. Could I could I speak to that uh that comp plan guidance? um that compound guidance really goes to is mainly goes to where the city will will provide gap funding and it's based on um as I think was noted it's based on census numbers as to um it's looking to uh put affordable housing in uh census tracks where there's um not high not over 50% minority population or higher uh lower income. This is this is a fairly mixed census track, but it does because of those it meets those criteria. It is not it is listed as an area where the city will not fund affordable housing. Dominium is aware of that and is still looking to move forward on this site. So that that I just wanted to provide some some sort of context and they've had conversations with the um uh with the neighborhoods and community office. I think I'm getting that right. The affordable housing office is what I always roughly call it, my shortand. uh but um they've had conversations with them and so they they understand sort of what what the city will and won't do. You are correct on that point. I just wanted to address that public comment on that point. Um other comments, questions from commissioners on this case. Any followup from staff on the question about the cross access requirements under the EDO? I'm waiting on a response staff is assessing. I see. If if I'll put it this way. If there is a whether whether the plan commission holds us or whether the plan commission sends us to to council, if there is a question if staff determines that there is not a requirement for cross access within the UDO, we will we will we are happy to add a provision that requires cross access. As you can see in our concept plan, we're already planning to do so. We're happy to work with the with the fraternity about it. Thank you. So, it sounds like there are some open questions that might result in conditions related to cross access um and also related to a buffer and also an open question about the uh public private partnership for the road improvements and the timing on some of that. So, I'm inclined to hold this at the table until our next meeting to see if we can get some resolution of those issues. Our next meeting is June 10th. In order to provide new conditions, those would need to be submitted by this Friday, I believe. Would that be enough time for staff and for the applicant to resolve those questions and provide new conditions? Uh, for the applicant, yes, we are we are prepared to provide additional a lot of those uh to address a lot of those. Thank you. Any comments from staff on that timing? I believe I was getting a nod, but [Music] I'm able to work within that time frame. Okay. Thanks so much. Any further comments, Commissioner Haver? Um, excuse me. We're we're talking about this potential public private partnership on Fairway Drive. What's going on with Bruce Circle? We haven't mentioned Bruce Circle, which abutis, which is not paved at all. It's like a Yeah. So, it is this portion. All right. The bottom portion of Bruce circle. I'm not going to try to highlight it. Um, which you can see there. It's it's sort of drawn into the trees there. That is the portion that's not paved along. And then there's a portion on that map that goes roughly north to south that says Bruce Bruce Circle Improvements. That area it is currently not paved. That will be paved. And as you can see, it extends sort of into the project. Currently, a portion of that is just road that's platted but doesn't exist. The um northern portion of Bruce Circle is currently paved up, you know, that northern portion. Um that would be to the extent necessary would be f you widen or improved if there's any city requirements to do so. Um so the northern so sort of the east west portion on the north side and the north south portion of brew circle would all be improved and used as as one of the access points for the development. The we are at this point we are we believe that and intend not to improve the southern portion of it. Our guess is is that's probably going to be okay with the residents along that along that portion of it. And then that area right there where you have the town homes backed up to to Bruce Circle. What's the what are the proposed setbacks or separation in that location? Um I'd have to Chris, do you know off the top of your head? You don't I can get you that answer if we're coming back. Um I'll get you that answer if coming back. Yeah, I just again just to to be consistent when when we're coming in with this type of development adjacent to single family zoning. I just want to make sure that the applicant is acknowledging the existing neighbors and and thoughtful about how those properties adjoin. So, I think it's it's fair for someone to buy that property when it's zoned R4 to have some concerns on a reszoning when we come back with higher density. So, I'm I'm in favor of the project. I just want to make sure we're looking at those setbacks and being cognizant of folks that currently live in the neighborhood and bought those properties with certain understandings. Okay. And what what I'll come what we'll come back with is we'll take a look at it. What I can't recall and why I'm a little bit hesitant to speak on it is typically there's a neighborhood transition requirement between a RX and and I think R4. Um what I can't recall is when you have town homes and they're under a certain height. I think it's I think you still have some landscape buffer requirement, but I don't want to speak off the top of my head and get it wrong. decision. Our pre preliminary research suggests that for cross access to be required, they would need to make a offer a condition. It's not the because the um fraternity house is designated as Raleigh Historic Landmark. We believe it would be exempt from being requiring that connection. Thank you. We will we're happy to make that a condition. Thank you. Before the applicant um goes back to make additional conditions, since they're only allowed to make one round of conditions, any other additional comments for the applicant to consider? Yes. So, my question is the area that um kind of hooks around where it currently is a golf course and then it goes around through a wooded area, uh why is the request to reszone that if there's no plan for development of it? Uh that's at the request of the Raleigh Golf Association. Um because they uh even though Dominium doesn't want to purchase it. Uh the thought process was we might that we might as well get everything reszoned in one fell swoop for development. It's currently zoned R4. They would like it to be zoned higher. Um we have been uh to be fully transparent. um we will be coming back with some um additional uh conditions on that hook to try to sort of address it because we have heard neighbors from Renaissance Park say we're concerned about um reszoning this area without a specific plan. Um I don't have the details yet frankly that's a lot on on sort of Raleigh Golf Association to make decisions. That's something we have to work on this week. If there is guidance we certainly crave that from the from the commission. Um I think uh to give you some general parameters I think you know we would be we are open to for instance uh stepping that down in zoning to an R10 um and um and if there's any other specific thoughts um or or specific concerns that y'all have certainly we want to hear them so that we can have that conversation with Raleigh Golf Association and I think they would rather than hearing me say what I think what I think people want um hearing from you all would be helpful. And if I'm understanding correctly, that is the part that's inconsistent with the future land used map, right? Because that's the part that's currently private open space. I think the bulk of it is private open space. So, I think it's more than just the hook. Okay. Uh because I think it's the entire golf course is is private open space. Um, but I'll be frank with you. I haven't uh because I knew we were just inconsistent, I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking at that. Okay. Well, I'm I'm saying, you know, the the golf course right now is consistent with the future land use map. And so is that. But if that's the part that creates an inconsistency if we reszone it to something else. Uh yeah, I'm just flipping through here to to see. Um yeah, the the um oh I was mistaken. All of that is all of it is okay. All of it is currently a golf course. So the way the comp plan did it was it said, "Oh, this is a golf course. It's open space. We're going to designate it as private open space." And the golf course shareholders have decided that that both for the operations of of the golf course going forward um and otherwise that they want to sell this portion of the golf course because they have more than enough room south of Trion to operate. Yes Commissioner Mai. Um, have you all engaged with the Renaissance Park community at all? We have. We have. Um, and um, we certainly there's and that was part of when I said that we had heard concerns. I know I don't know how I I've heard from multiple people and and multiple people from Renaissance Park have attended um, our meetings. We've met with uh some of the leadership there. Um and you know there the the big concern we heard you know in addition to just generally you know concerns there's a railroad track that runs through between the hook and Renaissance Park. So you know there's there's some buffers and uh we heard about buffers and concerns about that along the hook. Um but more generally what we heard was a lot of concerns about the nature and type of development in the area and and you know concerns about um you felt like there's a lot of apartments in the area, a lot of affordable housing in the area and you know and that sort of thing. And so obviously Dominium can't is not going to Dominium builds affordable housing. So they weren't going to change what their proposal was. But we that's part of why we spent a lot of time talking about this is who Dominium is. This is what we do. that sort of thing. Um, you know, part of, you know, part of why I'm asking for guidance here is is that we do plan to come back with some changes to to the zoning for the hook. Uh, and part of that is to try to help try to better address Renaissance Park neighbors concerns about what might be developed there since there isn't a plan. Yes, Commissioner Fox. And just to clarify, you said you're considering R10 for the hook. Okay. I would I would be interested in seeing what that looks like. Yeah, Commissioner O'Hver. Yeah, I was just going to say um procedurally if there's some concerns with the hook and we haven't really seen conditions that address those. If you're the applicant is trying to get revised conditions in by Friday and we haven't seen those and we're not comfortable with those, that's your that's your one shot at revising the conditions because they're both together. So that I would kind of rethink that um procedurally cuz if you come back and we have some concerns about it, you're you're not going to be able to change it before it goes to council. So if you're reszoning both of these properties together. Okay. Yeah. I mean the the complication that Dominium is facing is is that we have a that that one of the provisions of their purchase contract is you must resone the hook. So I'm okay with that. I'm just thinking through procedurally there might be an issue if we're not comfortable with what you come back with. Okay. Well, that's part of why I'm asking if there's any if there's any additional restrictions or anything else that we can we can understand now. I mean, I think we probably most of the folks here would would be interested in understanding a little bit more about the hook, especially with it proximity to the other neighborhood. So, the comment from from your team that we haven't really focused on that, I think we'd probably be interested in hearing what those conditions are. Okay. And um not having seen them could cause some complications for for the applicant. Understood. And I might add specifically that that the proposed resoning has a maximum height of 68 feet next to single family homes along um the immediately adjacent neighbors and having more without having insight as to what that looks like or the protective yards or the buffers. That's probably our our key concern there. Okay, that's helpful. Um the R10 in part is to address the height issue in the hook. Um because that would cap it out at I think 40 and 45 feet which is what's currently allowed. Yeah. Um and and then um and so yeah, and we can what I'm hearing from both you and and I think where you were going, Commissioner Haver, but correct me if I'm wrong, is things like buffers, protective yards, things like that. Um so we'll we'll certainly put some thought into that or maximum height limitations if that's what Yeah. Yeah. And that's again that's where the R10 we think would address that. Thank you. Other comments? Anything else for the applicant to consider? And so on that latter point, would um this Friday give you enough time to provide those comments as well and changes to the art to the hook? Yep. Great. Um then with that, seeing no other comments. Correct. I will make a motion to defer this case until our June 10th planning commission regular meeting. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further comments, discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Yes, Commissioner Haver. I was just to follow up on that. I was surprised that there wasn't more conversation because I know we do discuss concentration of affordable housing and I want to acknowledge Mr. Gillespie's comments and in thinking through that me me personally I know we have some concerns when we have opposition to affordable housing in areas in town where there's not any affordable housing. I want to again acknowledge the the policy guidance and appreciate Mr. Gillespiey's comments, but again, I'm I'm more inclined to acknowledge that when there's opposition in areas that don't have affordable housing. I'm I'm not comfortable voting against affordable housing at this point. So, I just want to acknowledge that tension there and comment on that. So, thank you very much. Moving on to our next agenda item. Oh, we're on to reports. Report of the chair. Um, not many reports today, but I did just want to acknowledge we have I know this is in the report of the assistant director, but we do have two new commissioners coming on in June. And I I believe they were both here a moment, but I see at least one. Um, Mark Shelurn and Nick Neptune. We're very excited to have you. I think Mark may have just stepped out for a moment. Um, Mark will be joining us at our next meeting, and um, Nick will be joining us at the meeting uh, immediately following that one, our second meeting in June. So very excited to have you guys on board. Um I believe we don't have any more committee meetings scheduled for this year, this fiscal year, excuse me, ending June 30th. So um I don't know whether we need to make new committee assignments, but those would change with the next fiscal year starting July 1st anyway. Um so we can if you guys have interest in that, I'm sure um we can we can talk about that more over the summer, but maybe down the line. We currently have no meeting uh no agenda items for the text change committee. So unless we hear differently, that meeting will not be held uh next month on the the 18th. So we're clear for now. No personal report. Thank you. No committee of the whole for May. Our next meeting is scheduled for June 26th at 4. Nothing to add. Um, as you mentioned, no strategic planning committee meeting in June and no other report. No report from me. Thank you. No reports for me. No report. Thank you. And um since Commissioner Mcrimman is chair of uh transportation infrastructure, just confirming also that there will be no transportation infrastructure committee meeting in uh June either. And moving on to our report of the assistant director. Thank you, Chair Miller. I wanted to note that Mark Shelburn will start at the next meeting and tune at the meeting after that. Excited about that. At the second meeting in June, you'll also have election of officers for the following fiscal year. And I wanted to thank Commissioner Bennett for agreeing to help with the Sir Walter Relli jury. Thank you. Thanks very much. Anything else for the good of the order? All right, then we are journed. Thank you. [Music]