[music] I watched the courage the other night. [music] >> [music] >> Good evening everybody. Uh we will start the public hearings and our first one is the state capital holiday in uh historic landmark designation and we have Colette Canain from planning and development. >> Yes. Good evening, mayor and counselors. As he just said, I am Colette Canain with planning and development. The city has received two applications for landmark designation on which we will make a brief presentation. But before I do, I want to recognize the members of the Raleigh Historic Development Commission that are present, especially our chair, Rob Allen. And we do have a quorum this evening. So I'll begin by describing the landmark process generally and then present the state capital holiday in application for you to hold the public hearing and then following that hearing we'll then move to the next landmark application. The process for Raleigh historic landmark designation begins when a property owner submits an application. The application includes a report on the history and significance of the property and a description of the architectural and site details that are present. The reports are available for your review as part of the agenda materials and the dates that you see here are specific to the state capital holiday ends application and you'll see a similar slide for the MLY care house later. The Raleigh Historic Development Commission commits an completes an initial review of the report and makes a determination if the property meets the criteria for designation as outlined in the general statutes and UDO. The RHCC has reviewed the reports and found that the properties meet the criteria for designation. These reports were referred by you to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources as required by statute. And for both applications this evening, the state's comments were supportive and were included in the agenda materials. After closing the public hearings this evening, the request is for you to refer the matter back to the RHDC to consider the comments of the state of North Carolina and any additional information received during the public hearings. Designation is made final when you approve the ordinance, which typically appears as a consent item at a meeting following the joint public hearing. We are tenatively planning for this to return to you on December 2nd. Are there any questions about the process? Perfect. So, the State Capital Holiday Inn, and as I describe this property, I will be scrolling through photographs, is located at 320 Hillsboro Street. It is a 19-story modernist hotel building that was completed in 1969 and designed by Lungren and Mau of Austin, Texas. Lungren and Mau were known for their round holiday in designs. The Holiday Inn consists of a circular five-story base with lobby and parking garage, circular 13-story guest room tower, and a cantalvered topfloor restaurant and meeting space. The state capital Holiday Inn retains its historic integrity as a significant mid 20th century hotel building in downtown. The building retains the character-defining elements of its design that convey its historic association as a hotel. The overall form of the hotel as well as design details like the decorative concrete breeze block screens and port kosher remain intact and make the building architecturally distinct and identifiable as modernist design. At the exterior changes are limited to the enclosure of balconies and the removal of the rear pool which have not diminished the building's appearance as a circular circular modernist hotel and do not detract from the building's overall integrity. So, as you hold the public hearing, I'm available here to answer any questions. Additionally, the property owner and the consultant who authored the report are present and also available to answer any questions. And as a reminder, the desired action tonight after closing the hearing is for you to refer this request back to the RHDC. >> I like that the buffet is only a$1.95. >> If only. [laughter] >> Yeah, >> those were the days. All right. Um, any questions before we start the public hearing? Okay. So, we have two folks signed up in support. Caitlyn Herrent. Is Caitlyn here? >> I was the consultant and I just signed up in case there are any questions. >> Okay. And then we have Chris Crew who I see here. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Um, thanks very much on behalf of the preservation community for considering this matter tonight. I I I concur with this. Um, you know, we we have all sorts of um buildings of s significance in Raleigh and it's important to recognize them. A lot of people look at this one and and look at the next one coming up and say, "Yeah, what's the big deal about that?" Well, what what the big deal about it is it it's representative of the age in which it was built. U and it illustrates the the role that that the city of Raleigh through its association with North Carolina State University played in the modernist architecture movement. uh this serves as a load stone for Raleigh's development history and it's provides for us a a cultural context for future generations to look and and you know maybe learn something about who we were and who we are now. And so I I urge you to adopt as many of these as you can because you know the the protection is is not much but it's something and I think the more we do to uh try to recognize this cultural history the the better chance we have of preserving it. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. [snorts] All right. And there is no one signed up in opposition. So I will close the hearing. Is there a >> move for approval to refer back to the historic committee? >> Second. >> All right. Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion I. >> All oppose? Nay. And that is unanimous. All right. Uh, next item is the application for the Mley and Carol carehouse 2204 Barfield Court. The Dr. Moley and Carol Care House located at 2204 Barfield Court uh is a 1962 modernist residence that was designed by Raymond Sawyer specifically for the care family. Raymond Sawyer was a graduate of the North Carolina State University School of Design and designed many private residences and educational or medical campuses across the state reflecting his modernist flare in these commissions. The house has an unusually high level of integrity. The exterior is original, as are all of the windows, doors, fireplaces, and many fixtures and hardware within the house. Some of the defining characteristics of the house are the post and beam framework, allowing an open floor plan, the use of natural materials, and large expanses of glass walls that provide a connection to the natural site. It is one of a handful of residences by Sawyer that survive and one of a dwindling number of these houses designed by school of design affiliated architects that remain extent in Raleigh. The house is not just architecturally significant but also important for its association with the cares. Dr. Mley Kair was a professor in the department of zoology at NC State where he studied the biochemistry of taste and olfaction. After leaving NC State, he went on to found the Manell Chemical Science Census Center in Philadelphia. The CARES entertained many notable people at their house, including, as mentioned in the report, Dr. Francis Crick, who was present to have a guest lecture at NC State. The Smarts have the Sawyer's original blueprints from 1962. And Sawyer's original drawing and preliminary sketches are also archived in the NC State University Library. And again, as you hold the public hearing, I'm available for any questions. Additionally, the property owners are present and also available. And as a reminder for this one as well, the desired action after closing the hearing is to refer it back to RHDC. Thanks. >> Great. Any questions? Okay, we will open the public hearing and we have Rob Smart and Chris Crew signed up. go out of order. >> Uh, whichever order y'all want. >> Okay, great. Thanks. Again, just a repeat of the previous comments and another observation about this this particular nominee here. Um, you the first picture they showed you of this. You look at that and you kind of go, "Yeah, yeah, so what?" Like with all of our historic resources, they all deserve a second look. You know, look at the other photographs that they showed you. There is something for you to like here, you know, somewhere in this structure. And the same, you know, uh thing serves that I said earlier. This protecting this helps us protect others and it represents who we were, what we thought about and what was important to us. So, let's let's see what we can do to keep as many of these around for as long as possible. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm Rob Smart and my wife and I own this home, the Mory and Carol care house and we submitted the application uh for landmark designation. Um, and I I really don't want to take a lot of time, but we moved to Raleigh in 1986 and we landed in a n in a 30,000 I mean a 1300 foot house and the design was very interesting. It was on Mayfair Road off of Churchill. We lived there for 15 years and we knew nothing about really I'm a faculty member at NC State, but we knew nothing about the school design and the modernist movement and the house just was a wonderful place to live. And then we moved to Barfield Court which is the morally and Carol care house in 2001. [clears throat] And the house is a wonderful uh place to live. Uh and so I just want to say a little bit uh before you have any questions. I I'm I'm happy to answer those if necessary. But I'd like to thank Colette Canain of the City of Raleigh and the Historic Preservation Group and she was very instrumental in answering all my questions before, during, and after the preparation of the application. I'd also want to thank the Raleigh Historic Development Commission for reviewing and evaluating our application, especially the research committee. Um, and I'd like to thank the city of Raleigh for considering our application. Finally, I want to thank Raymond Sawyer, the the architect of this house. [clears throat] He he um he had a very thoughtful iconic mid-century design and Sharon and I truly appreciate his historic design and it it enriches our lives every day. So, good architecture challenges the way you live each day and this house does that and it's great to wake up and just experience the house every day. So our motivation uh is to preserve the house as Raymond designed it and also to contribute to Raleigh's modernist house legacy and that's the motivation. So if anybody has questions I'm happy to answer them while I'm at the podium. >> Yep. Do we have questions? I will say it's nice that another NC State professor lives there and carries on that part of the legacy and it I mean it's a beautiful home and the way you have it furnished really >> thank you >> highlights the it looks like a great place to live. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh we have no one signed up in opposition so we will close the hearing. Do we have a motion? Move to refer the item back to RHDC. >> Second. [clears throat] >> Uh no other discussion. All in favor of the motion I. >> All opposed and we will send that back. Thank you all for coming and nominating the house. Uh okay. Next we have text change to zoning condition TCZ1325. Good evening. Um Hannah Reco with planning and development. So, this is a text change to zoning conditions request TCZ 1325 uh for one uh parcel 3219 Pool Road um that is around 1.6 acres in size and currently zoned NX3 conditional use. The site is located at the corner of Pool Road and Sunny Brook Road. Um you can see the general context here is some commercial along Sunnybrook but generally um residential in nature in this area. The uh proposal would amend the existing zoning conditions uh in numerous places. So what I have here is a a summary of what the conditions would be should this request be approved. Um, I'll note that the only full-scale wholesale uh removal of an existing condition was uh to one um that pertain to historic structure on the site. Uh that condition has been fulfilled since it was first adopted. So the remaining conditions would include prohibition on some land uses normally allowed in NX um prohibition on detached dwelling units. Uh reduce uh the maximum building height uh to 45 ft. Normally in a three-story district, it's 50 ft. There's a limit limitation on hours of operation for eating establishment and retail uses. Um would require the apartment or mixeduse building types to utilize an urban frontage. Uh, and it would set some dimensional and planting requirements for protective yards as well as um requirements around unscreened blank walls, uh, polemounted light uh, fixtures, um, screening for unenclosed loading areas, refuge areas, u, and then there would be a, uh, increase in the maximum number of residential units. the current condition limits that to 22 units. It would allow 32 up to 32 under the revisions. Um and then there's a a last condition um pertaining to neighborhood transition protective yards along an adjacent property. So you overall this uh is as a TCZ is remain uh keeping the same zoning district. the maximum number of residential units is increasing slightly and then um some of those changes to the buffering is sort of slightly changing. The other other entitlement request is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall uh consistent with the future land use map designation which is neighborhood mixed use. um that uh keeping the condition um that is requiring uh urban limited for certain building types um pulls it in line with the urban form designation. And then um so a number of consistent policies you can see here um covering uh a number of topics and then uh the one inconsistent policy of response time standards planning commission found voted unanimously to recommend approval. And with that I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Questions for Mr. Recel? >> Just one question. Um, is Sunnybrook a pull is which street is the primary street? Because that would be that would determine where you all grade the height from. And there's a significant topo grade change on this property depending on which street is used. >> Uh, that that's typically determined at development uh stage. I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. Um, but I could see if I could Yeah. >> Yeah. because that would be really my only major concern. But otherwise, um, we'll just let the hearing proceed. >> Okay. Any other? >> All right. We will open the hearing and we just have, uh, Toby Coleman signed up. >> Uh, good evening, uh, mayor, members of council. Toby Coleman with Smith Anderson, 150 Fateville Street, uh here on behalf of the property owner, Southern Purchasing. Um Hannah did a great job of summarizing this. Um largely, sorry, I'm getting some echo here. Largely this has been done uh to increase uh the um the d per minute density from 22 to 32 units and um and also to clarify a bunch of the conditions that related to neighborhood transitions. When this was originally done, it was fairly new into the UDO and some of the language was a little bit wonky uh as we went and looked back at it. So, we made some changes. I can go through in detail that if you all would like uh but I'm gonna spare it unless you spare you of it unless you ask. Um you know the other change as Hannah noted was uh it doesn't require an urban frontage for town homes otherwise where you retained most of the language uh Councilman Branch in terms of the height limit that was in the prior uh zoning and so we just retained it. Uh it's an excellent question that you asked. I don't know the answer either. Um but um we we felt like uh in talking with the neighbors, particularly the church to the north, um you know, we wanted to keep sort of keep the the sort of status quo and hike because I think that that was sort of the major impact issue. >> So with that, that's all I have. Happy again, I have more detail if you want to get into it, but >> you have wonky detail. >> Yes, I have very wonky detail. >> Wonky detail. Anybody want it? Okay. [laughter] Okay. We will close that hearing. >> Yeah. Um I appreciate that and that question I asked was the same question I asked the last time this case came before us. But I think there's a lot of work that will take place at site plan. Um especially with the new development that is there in place now that was not there um when this um originally came before us on council. So, I mean, unless there's any other questions from council, I will make a motion. Um, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated November 4th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda items under recommended action. >> Second. >> Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion? I >> I. >> All oppose? Nay. And the eyes are unanimous. So, thank you very much. All right. Next, we have uh it's a reszoning Z17 uh Lewisburg Road. >> Yep, that's right. So, this case Z1725 and your next uh public hearing item Z 1825 are uh related. The same applicant is bring forward them both. So um I have I can give both staff presentations together so you have all the information um before you proceed with each hearing separately. So the first one Z1725 is uh four parcels on uh the north western side of Lisber Road uh just under 4 acres in size currently zoned R1. They're requesting R10 conditional use. Uh just a view of the site. You can see it's uh near some other uh residential development. They're proposing one uh zoning condition which would prohibit the cemetery and parking facility land uses. Uh the headline here is a increase in residential entitlement. So R1 really permits uh primarily detached house. Uh this would uh permit um the full range of of building types up to apartment. Uh the request is inconsistent with the future land use map designation for this area which is low-scale residential. It is consistent overall with the comprehensive plan though you can see some of those policies uh uh touching on housing infill uh neighborhood character and identity and then inconsistent policies um future land use map and then response time standards. Planning commission uh voted unanimously to recommend approval. This one >> you go back to that slide that showed the aerial or at least >> Sure. >> So the homes I see there that that's R1 >> the homes >> trying to find. >> Yeah. So the homes you see in that that are um in >> Okay. All right. or the R10. I don't don't have the drawing capability >> angle. >> Yeah. So, the darker yellow is are the the homes you see here on like Black Maple Drive. >> So, I'm trying to see where the R1 >> So, north I should have said north is uh to the right on this image. >> R1 is R1. Correct. >> But I want to see the balance of the R1. >> Yeah. Which is on this side, but it's off the frame. >> It's on this side. >> It's on both sides. >> I just want to see >> what the R1 is because we all know R1 is rare. >> With a long drive is R1. R1 is rare in the city. So it's [clears throat] >> Yeah, that's right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can proceed to the next presentation, right? >> Okay. So, the second one, Z1825, is one parcel. This is we're now at on the southeastern side of Lewisburg Road. It's 5209 Kyle Drive, about 4.6 acres currently zoned R six conditional use. They're requesting R10 conditional use. Um some sort of context here. Uh the St. Matthews Baptist Church, which is the applicant bringing this forward, is to the northwest of the site there. um some other commercial use uh in a few places along the segment of Lewisburg Road, but generally residential of varying scales. There's uh one proposed zoning condition which would uh to be to not permit uh connections to the private RB drive which you can see here. Uh this is a gravel road. Um, I'll note for context, um, places of worship are generally not required by the UDO to make those connections. What this condition does is prohibit any voluntary offers of that connection. So, big picture here, a little bit smaller of a jump, R six to R10, uh, still an increase in possible uh, residential dwelling units on the site. Uh this uh request is consistent with the future land use map uh designation which on this side of the street is moderate scale residential uh consistent overall with the comprehensive plan and consistent with a number of policies. A lot of these are the the same ones we see in the last request. And then um in policies are looking at um fire response time standards. Planning Commission also recommended unanimously approval of this request. Uh, and that's the staff presentations. Happy to answer questions you have. >> Hi. Sorry, I should have um asked this question before you switched presentations. Can you go to the other one? >> Sorry, Luke. Um, just wondering about connectivity on this site. Will Black Maple in the event of redevelopment, Black Maple Drive connect down to Lewisburg Road? >> Sorry, could you repeat that? >> Um, just I am wondering about connectivity on this site. If it's redeveloped, will back Black Maple Drive have to get picked up? >> Question. I think transportation staff can can answer that question. Good afternoon. Carter Robertson with transportation. Yes, that would be um generally required by the UDO stub street requirements to connect through to Lewisburg at site plan. We'd have to do a little bit of coordination with NC DOT um just to see that they'd allow that connection on Lewisburg, but otherwise we'd require that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Of course. [snorts] >> Any other questions? Okay, I will uh open the hearing for the reasonzoning Z17 and I have Ashley Terzus and James Holloway as the two. >> Mayor, I think the annexation was first. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I just had the Yeah, the two reasonzonings. >> I'm sorry. >> Yep. Um Oh. get my presentation back up there. [snorts] About that. Um, good evening, Mayor Cow and members of council. My name is Ashley Honeyut Terzas with Parker Poe, 301 Fateville Street. Um, here tonight representing the applicant and the property owners u for both of these um for all of these properties that we're here discussing tonight. Uh, the St. Matthew Baptist Church. Um I have with me Deacon James Holloway um as well. Um and also we have some some church members here to show their um support. If everybody wave their hands um [laughter] for these cases uh which which represent an important step um in a project that the church has been planning uh for a very long time. So before I get into the details of the resoning requests um Deacon Holloway wanted to share a little bit about St. Matthew Baptist Church and their uh vision for these properties and why the church is going through this resoning process. >> Thank you. Good evening, Roder City Council. I'm Deacon James Holloway. I first like to take the opportunity to introduce our pastor um that's been with our St. Matthew Missionary Baptist Church for more than 44 years, Reverend Dr. Ronald E. Avery and First Lady Addie Avery. if you would. [applause] Thank you. And this is part of the reason we're here tonight. Our pastor's vision. Uh over the years, St. Matthew Missionary Baptist Church members started out in 1871 in the balcony of New Hope Miss New Hope Baptist Church off of Lewisburg Road. They started out in the balcony. um a Rogers family, a member of New Hope Baptist Church, donated property at 5410 Lewisburg Road to those members. Those members were able to come out and build a stick built church um and they maintained that stick built church and then they built the Rosen Wall School in 1949 which is still standing and it's a historical site. Also in 195657 they started building on St. Matthew Missionary Baptist Church. We've been going strong. Many members have come and gone, but we're still growing as a church and as a population. We certainly appreciate you all giving us the opportunity to be here tonight to speak about two properties Z725. And we talked about Maple Drive earlier. We're certainly hoping that if we'll get rated R10 instead of R1, it'll give us an opportunity to give them another outlet to come out of Black Maple Drive. So, it's a win-win situation. Um, with the property on Kyle Drive, um, which is Z1825. We're also hoping that the property once we sell the property on Lewisburg Road, it will help finance our uh life center that we're planning on building for the community, adding value to the community and adding a major asset to that community as St. Matthew has been for many many years to be. We're not going to take the money and run. We're going to take the money and invest it in our community and our pe our people. Also, with the sale of the property, we're asking and we can't guarantee it to happen, but we're looking for affordable housing to take the place on that property, and we certainly hope that the buyers would do that for us. Thank you for your time. >> Um, all right. So, I'm going to um go through both of these requests and and why we're requesting the zoning um in order to support this project um for each one of these sites. So, um again, both requests involve property owned by the St. Matthew Baptist Church. Um the Z1715 assemblage is zoned R1, which is again very low density residential district that allows one unit per acre. Um the Z1825 um property is zone R6 CU with zoning conditions that were put in place by the previous property owner uh before the property was transferred to the to St. Matthew and require the use of the property be restricted to single family detached housing which is why they cannot build a community center there. Um and that's right now prohibiting the church from building their planned um family life center on on this property right here. Um, so we are requesting R10CU for both sites. Um, for the Lewisburg Road assemblage, again, it'll allow more housing, more housing types to be built on the property. Uh, requesting the same zoning district as the adjacent Brandemir neighborhood, which is where Black Maple Drive is, uh, located. Um, and also consistent with some other uh, residential resonings in this area, including Z5424, which is right here, which was also an R10CU request and approved just a few months ago. um right here just to the north of St. Matthew. Um and the Kyle for the Kyle Drive property uh down here the uh the new district will allow us to remove this current zoning condition that limits the use to just single family detached housing. Community center would be a permitted use. The R10 uh development standards are a bit more flexible. Um and we have one zoning condition on this case that we worked on in response to neighbor feedback. Um and we also worked with the the transportation staff on that condition as well. uh basically that the development of this property would not voluntarily connect um to RB drive. Uh can this connection is not required by the UDO's block perimeter requirements which uh Carter just explained or the sub street requirements uh and um so the site has two additional points of access. The church is hoping that they can connect it through their their parking lot which would be allowed by the UDO. Um but they also have another point of access on um Kyle Drive if a second point of access is needed at site plan. Um and and then um so to respond again to respond to the concerns of those neighbors who were there on RB Drive, which is not maintained um by DOT nor the city of Raleigh, it's a as as Hannah mentioned, a dirt road. Um we we um committed to not connecting to that. Um and with respect to the uh future land use map uh for Kyle drive, the Kyle drive site, R10 is directly um recommended by moderate scale residential. Um so we were requested that R10 district to be directly consistent with respect to the Lewisburg road site. Uh staff found that the R10 request would represent a change to moderate scale um residential from lowcale residential. But um we do believe that this district is appropriate um in light of the other development and the the same R10 zoning over here um in this area and it's um as Hannah mentioned consistent with many policies in the comprehensive plan and oh and we would respectfully request that the council um approve both of these cases this evening. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, I'll close the Z17 and then um separately open Z18. Same speakers, we've already talked about it. And I will close Z18. Okay. Do we have a motion? >> Absolutely. Well, thank you all for being here. Um, I'm glad and happy that you have reason for expansion and that you're, you know, the path of your congregation is taking that way and that you have found this way to utilize both of your properties in service to that goal. Um, so I do hope your affordable housing plan works out. That's a mission of ours as well. Um, and so with all that said, I'm happy to have one motion. >> Okay. >> Okay. It's okay. [laughter] I didn't know if you're going to make the motion and I would make >> Please make a comment. I just wanted to say that often when you see inconsistent you always want to take pause but you know I was here when we came up with the future land use map want to respect the R1 back then times change and I'm very pleased that as we see the neighborhood evolves that there are some cases where over time I'm very pleased that we can uh vote on a case now that's reasonable in the public interest but just want to say that because there was some inconsistency with the future land use map but seeing how the area has evolved this case makes perfect sense. And so I apologize to my colleague for cutting her off. I wanted to get that in cuz I had a feeling a motion was about to hit the table. >> It is. [laughter] >> Yeah. So this one is for the Lewisburg road site. I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated November 4th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates [clears throat] described in the agenda item under recommended action. This approval is also deemed an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. Second >> other discussion. All in favor of the motion I >> I. >> All oppose? Nay. And that is unanimous. >> And I have to do it one more time. Do one more. [applause] >> I got to I got to do it again for the Kyle drive. So y'all hold on [laughter] um once more. I No, I'll second at this time. >> I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated November 4th, 2025 contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adopted and effect adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action. >> Second. Oh, >> third. >> We're so eager [applause] so eager to approve this. We're fighting over seconds. Uh, okay. All in favor of the motion. >> All opposed. Unanimous again. [applause] >> All right. Well, on that note, that concludes our business for this evening and we are adjourned. Oh. [music] >> Oh, it's coming.