[3:30] I'd like to call to order the August 12th meeting of the Rally Planning Commission. My name is

[3:35] Nicole Bennett, and I have the honor of serving as chair of the commission. I want to thank

[3:39] my fellow commissioners for your trust. I'd like to welcome members of the public, city

[3:44] staff, and those joining us virtually. Our work here is about building a rally that reflects

[3:49] the needs, values, and hopes of all of our residents and that work deserves our best

[3:54] focus and respect. A few quick reminders as we get started. Commissioners, please wait

[4:00] to be recognized by the Chair before speaking. We will treat applicants, staff, the public

[4:05] and each other with courtesy at all times. Healthy debate is welcome and differences

[4:10] of opinion are part of the process, but let's keep our discussions on topic, constructive

[4:18] and as my former pastor used to say, decent and in order. We each bring passion and

[4:24] perspective to this table. My commitment as Chair is to make sure that energy moves

[4:29] us forward to an informed recommendation for City Council. With that, let's get started.

[4:35] We begin each meeting with an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items

[4:40] not on the agenda. Is there anyone here this morning who would like to comment on an item

[4:44] not on the agenda?

[4:47] Seeing none, we'll move into the agenda. First, we have the consent

[4:51] agenda, which includes approval of the June 24th meeting minutes. Does anyone have

[4:57] any comments on the minutes?

[5:02] I would just know there's a paper copy on the table for you. The attachment and the agenda

[5:07] was in a draft form and so it may be helpful for you to look at the paper copy on the table.

[5:13] Do

[5:27] you want to have any, I know it's a quick review, but any comments on the minutes?

[5:33] If not, I will entertain a motion. So moved. Motion to approve the minutes.

[5:39] Do I have a second? Second.

[5:40] have a motion on the second all in favor it's

[5:49] unanimous thank you the minutes

[5:51] are approved next we'll move to committee reports we have one item coming

[5:59] out of our June 26 committee of the whole meeting rezoning Z1324 South New

[6:05] Hope Road the committee voted this item out with no recommendation pending

[6:10] additional conditions from the applicant I'll ask staff for an update

[6:14] on this case.

[6:17] Good morning commissioners. Erin Klinger planning and development here

[6:21] to give an update on Z1324. As a refresher, the applicant is requesting to

[6:28] rezone approximately seven and three-quarters acres from R6 and R10

[6:33] to NX4CU. The deadline for action is August 26th. So the proposed

[6:41] conditions for the site would again limit uses that would otherwise be

[6:45] permitted in annex zoning on the portion of the property east of South New Hope

[6:50] Road, prohibit buildings within 200 feet of residential properties in the

[6:54] neighborhood to the northeast of the site, limit density to 150 dwelling units,

[6:59] and limit square footage for non-residential space to 35,000. Revised

[7:05] conditions that were submitted since the Committee of the Whole Meeting would

[7:08] prohibit hookah bars or vape and tobacco shops. Promise construction of a

[7:14] 10-foot wide multi-use path from the new development to the Walnut Creek Greenway and state that

[7:20] the portion of the property south of the existing City of Raleigh sewer easement will not contain

[7:25] residential units.

[7:28] Again, the requested zoning is inconsistent with the future land use map

[7:33] designation of low-scale residential, which designates R2, R4, and R6 is the most

[7:38] appropriate zoning districts for this land use category, but it does envision a range

[7:43] of housing types. While the proposed zoning would permit the housing types described in

[7:48] this land use designation, it does so at a scale that better aligns with the neighborhood

[7:53] mixed use category. The request is consistent with the comprehensive

[7:58] plan. It supports policies and vision themes encouraging compact development of variety

[8:03] of housing types, infill development, and open space preservation. It also aligns with

[8:09] goals for increasing housing supply and supporting neighborhood serving retail.

[8:14] On the other hand, as mentioned on the last side, the request is inconsistent with the

[8:18] Futureland use map.

[8:22] The request aligns with the policy shown here related to infill development, diversifying

[8:28] housing options and preserving open space.

[8:31] It also supports broader goals related to housing availability and access to neighborhood

[8:35] scale commercial uses.

[8:38] As you can see here, the revised conditions have added policy PR 3.13 greenway-oriented

[8:45] development to the list of policies with which the request is consistent.

[8:51] Inconsistent policies include those shown here.

[8:54] These have not changed from the last meeting.

[8:58] There are no outstanding issues with the request.

[9:01] Again, the deadline for action is August 26th, which is also when the next meeting

[9:05] is.

[9:07] The request would require an amendment to the future land use map.

[9:11] Approval would amend the map from low-scale residential to neighborhood mixed use.

[9:17] And again, if the rezoning is approved, it would amend the future land use map.

[9:25] Thank you.

[9:26] We've received a full presentation from the applicant and heard from members of the public at the committee meeting.

[9:33] Are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

[9:37] Okay

[9:42] I see the applicant. I'll grant without objection five minutes to each

[9:48] slide.

[9:55] Good morning Chair Bennett and members of the Planning Commission

[9:58] worth mills with Longleaf partners here on behalf of Go Long Holdings LLC who

[10:05] is the property owner and the rezoning applicant. When this case was at

[10:10] Committee of the Whole there were a handful of questions specifically with

[10:16] with regard to our zoning conditions and what we were going to be offering in the interim

[10:23] between the Committee of the Whole meeting and this Planning Commission meeting.

[10:28] For one, we have reworked condition two, which is the prohibition on hookah bars and vape

[10:35] or tobacco shops to make sure that it is clearly defined and that the condition

[10:40] does not prohibit other retail uses like a gas station or a convenience store from selling

[10:47] those products, but making sure that we're keeping a specific hookah bar or vape tobacco

[10:53] shop out of this site.

[10:55] We have also included the condition to connect this development to the Walnut Creek Greenway

[11:02] Trail with a 10-foot wide multi-use path.

[11:04] and we have offered a condition that requires all of the land south of the

[11:11] existing city of Raleigh sewer easement to be set aside for commercial space

[11:16] which is a big point of contention for a lot of cases in Southeast Raleigh that

[11:23] offer commercial uses but don't actually put those uses into practice so we

[11:29] want to make sure that we are setting aside land for commercial uses that

[11:34] will benefit this community as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. While this rezoning

[11:43] is inconsistent with the future land use map, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan

[11:47] overall and given the constraints that are on the property today with the Duke Energy

[11:56] Transmission Line easement as well as that City of Raleigh Sewer easement, we think

[12:00] that the highest and best use of this property is for multifamily with

[12:04] commercial uses on that southern side. Having the ability to connect to the

[12:09] greenway offers folks additional ways to access the site. We have access off of

[12:15] South New Hope Road through a right in right out and we'll also be extending

[12:21] Maybrook Drive to open up that piece of the street as public right of way

[12:25] which again not only benefits this site but also benefits the

[12:30] neighborhoods to our east. Myself and Peter Knossin are here to answer any

[12:35] questions. Thank you for the time this morning and we appreciate your

[12:39] consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Is there anyone else here who

[12:43] wishes to speak in support of this case?

[12:49] Seeing none, we'll turn to the

[12:51] opposition. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition?

[12:57] Okay,

[12:58] I'll bring it back to the table then. Commissioners, do you have any

[13:00] any questions or comments?

[13:06] Commissioner McCoy.

[13:08] The last time that you all came to the Committee of the Whole, we discussed making sure that

[13:14] a good amount of residents knew about this project. Have you all done any extra outreach

[13:18] in July to make sure that residents knew about it who didn't know?

[13:22] We did not. We held two neighborhood meetings and have kept those attendees who are those

[13:28] Those who attended and who sent us email addresses, we've been in communication with those folks

[13:35] throughout the rezoning process to give them updates on new conditions and to answer general

[13:43] questions that they've had throughout the process.

[13:45] But we did not hold any new neighborhood meetings just given the fact that the first two neighborhood

[13:51] meetings were fairly positive and people were on board with bringing new commercial

[13:57] uses to the site. Do you have an idea of what commercial I heard also in the

[14:03] committee of the whole and what you said now that it's a prohibition on vape

[14:07] shops and things like that but do you have an idea of what type of commercial

[14:10] use you want this space to be? Yeah there were so in talking with the

[14:14] applicant and the property owner they envisioned either some sort of office

[14:19] use or some sort of restaurant maybe a combination of the two like fast

[14:25] casual restaurants, but no specific tenants or mix of uses have been sort of selected at

[14:34] this point.

[14:37] Any other questions or comments?

[14:41] If not, then I will entertain a motion,

[14:45] Commissioner Fox.

[14:48] In regards to case Z1324, I moved to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement

[14:55] dated August 12, 2025, contained in the Agenda Materials and recommended

[15:00] So includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

[15:06] We have a motion. Do I have a second?

[15:09] Commissioner Miller has seconded the motion. Any other discussion?

[15:14] If not, all in favor?

[15:19] All opposed?

[15:22] Thank you. That is how many of us are there?

[15:27] Eight to one.

[15:29] Thank you very much.

[15:32] Commissioner Omakaiye, would you like to state for the record your opposition to the case?

[15:39] I live in this community, like literally this project is up the street for me and around the corner.

[15:46] It's a two-lane road, same thing I said in Committee of the Whole, that this is going to increase traffic in that area.

[15:52] Rock Wari already has substantial traffic, especially going past New Hope.

[15:57] That's going to increase that traffic.

[15:59] my mom lives literally right there on the map and she didn't get any

[16:04] notification or information about this rezoning. I know that there is a little

[16:08] tiny yard sign on New Hope Road when you pass it but there's no even sidewalk or

[16:14] place for somebody to pull over to even scan that sign. So I don't think that

[16:17] the community was well and held and aware of this project. We had

[16:22] community members come to the community hold against this project.

[16:28] Yeah, so those are my reasons.

[16:31] Okay, thank you.

[16:34] Next we'll move on to old business and our first item is Z51-24 Fairbanks Road.

[16:44] This case was deferred from our June 24th meeting to allow the applicant to address

[16:49] a boundary issue. I'll ask staff to provide an update.

[16:52] Good

[17:03] morning, Erin Klinger again here to give an update on Z51-24.

[17:11] The request has been updated because as the boundary, previous boundary line issue has

[17:17] been resolved, the request is now to rezone from NX3CU and R10CU to NX3CU.

[17:26] The deadline for action is August 28th.

[17:31] Again, as a reminder, the proposed conditions would prohibit several uses that would otherwise

[17:36] be allowed in NX3CU zoning, limit density to no more than 60 dwelling units, and limit

[17:43] off square footage for office and retail to use 65,000 square feet each.

[17:48] Other than the current zoning having been updated to reflect the corrected parcel

[17:52] boundaries, the case has not changed since it was last heard before the commission.

[17:58] The requested zoning is consistent with the neighborhood mixed-use land designation and it is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall.

[18:09] Here is a list of policies with which the request is consistent and no policies were found with which it is inconsistent.

[18:20] Again the previous boundary line issue has been resolved.

[18:24] There are no additional outstanding issues with the request.

[18:27] Again, the deadline for action is August 28th and the next meeting is on August 26th.

[18:37] Thank you for the update.

[18:39] Are there any members of the public who wish to speak either in support or opposition of

[18:44] this case?

[18:51] Without objection, I will give five minutes to each side.

[18:54] I was just going to say, Chair Bennett, Toby Coleman here on behalf of the applicants

[18:58] were available for questions if there are any questions.

[19:04] Otherwise, we're happy to sit on down.

[19:06] Thank you. Bringing it back to the table. Are there any questions or comments from the commissioners?

[19:14] If not, I will entertain a motion.

[19:18] Motion to approve this case and adopt the proposed Consistency C statement contained in the agenda materials.

[19:24] Thank you, Commissioner Miller. Do I have a second?

[19:27] Thank you, Commissioner Burnett. Any further discussion?

[19:33] Okay, we have a motion to approve. All those in favor?

[19:37] All opposed?

[19:40] That is 9-0.

[19:42] Thank you very much. Our next old business item is Z10-25-8125 Leesville Road. We received

[19:53] a full presentation from staff and the applicant and received public comment at our June 24th

[19:58] meeting. The case was deferred to allow the applicant to consider additional conditions.

[20:03] I'll ask staff for a brief update.

[20:10] Good morning. Meet your chef for Adirond here

[20:12] We're writing an update on Z1025.

[20:17] As a reminder, the request is to rezone just under three acres of land from R4 to R10,

[20:22] CU, located at 8125 Leeswell Road.

[20:25] Since your last meeting, the applicant has submitted five new conditions, which I'll

[20:31] touch on today, and then your deadline for action is August 23rd.

[20:34] Just another general overview of where the site is located.

[20:39] Conditions 1 through 4 have remained the same since your last PC meeting.

[20:45] The first condition is prohibiting a number of uses, otherwise allowed in R10, prohibiting

[20:50] the apartment building type, and then conditions 3 and 4 increase the side yard and rear yard

[20:55] setbacks to 10 and 30 feet along the southern and western boundaries of the site, and then

[21:00] also creating a six foot or requiring the installation of a six foot wall and tree

[21:06] buffer along that same boundary, along the Ghostpony Trail sub.

[21:12] And then conditions five through nine will be new to you all.

[21:16] I will say that these, there's a slight change between this and what's included in the agenda

[21:20] materials because of these are the official signed conditions.

[21:24] But condition number five exempts the site from block perimeter and dead-end treat requirements

[21:29] and the substitute requirements.

[21:33] Also requiring a minimum roof pitch of four and 12

[21:36] and then also capping residential height at 40 feet.

[21:41] And then as well as condition eight,

[21:43] requiring the installation of a speed hump

[21:45] either within the Ghostpony Trail right away

[21:47] or an internal private drive aisle on the development site

[21:51] should the development take access

[21:53] from the Ghostpony Trail sub.

[21:55] And then the final condition is requiring

[21:58] hearing at least two of the following materials be included in future residential development

[22:03] front facades. Again, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent

[22:09] with the future land use map designation of moderate-scale residential, a list of consistent

[22:14] policies that have remained the same since your last meeting, and only two inconsistent

[22:19] policies were identified this week to fire service response time standards. And then

[22:24] there are no outstanding issues for the case and your deadline for action is

[22:27] August 23rd, which is before your next PC meeting.

[22:32] Thank you for the update.

[22:34] We received a full presentation from the applicant and public comment at our last meeting.

[22:40] But could I see if there's anyone here who wishes to speak on this case?

[22:45] I see Mr. Mills.

[22:47] Can I see another?

[22:49] Without objection, I'll grant five additional minutes to each side.

[22:56] We'll start with the applicant and those in support.

[22:58] Good

[23:05] morning again commissioners, Worth Mills here on behalf of Vibes Fund LLC, the applicant.

[23:10] I did want to go over the updated conditions that we've offered since our last meeting.

[23:18] We did hold another virtual neighborhood meeting with neighbors on July 29th and shared these

[23:24] conditions.

[23:25] So first we've extended the rear yard setback from the two adjacent single family homes

[23:30] on Ghost Pony from 30 feet to 40 feet so that rear yard setback is now larger than the current

[23:37] R4 zoning requires. We've exempted ourselves from the block perimeter requirements which

[23:42] is consistent with the exception that we meet in section 8.3.2. We've effectively eliminated

[23:50] flat roofs and rooftop living space and we have lowered maximum building height to

[23:57] 40 feet, both of those are intended to sort of create a more compatible development with

[24:04] the Ghostpony Trail neighbors. We've required an installation of a speed hump along the

[24:09] extension of Ghostpony Trail in conversations with City of Raleigh Transportation. It's

[24:15] become pretty clear that our access to Leesville Road will be from Ghostpony to Country

[24:21] trail to Leesville instead of going north through that potential future development at

[24:27] 8215 Leesville Road.

[24:30] So knowing that, we wanted to offer a condition for traffic calming.

[24:34] And we've required each home to include at least two building materials into the front

[24:39] facade, which is similar to the architectural designs of those homes along Ghostpony

[24:43] Trail.

[24:44] There are two conditions that, by my error, did not make it into the updated zoning

[24:50] conditions. One is a maximum development of 22 units and the second is a condition to

[24:59] require no more than six individual town home units within a town home building to help

[25:06] with the building massing. I did just want to let the Planning Commission know that

[25:11] we would intend to hold this case at City Council when it gets there to offer those

[25:15] conditions before the public hearing, and that is 100 percent my mistake.

[25:21] I also wanted to show a concept plan that Gary Walston at B&K put together.

[25:29] This concept plan shows 17 townhome units with the extension of Ghostpony Trail as

[25:37] a private drive looping around the site and then exiting back south.

[25:42] each town home would have a garage and a driveway and there are 10 additional

[25:47] guest parking spaces in the center. We are showing two stormwater control

[25:53] devices on the western boundary of the site. Those would drain into the stream

[25:59] that's located on that larger 8215 Leesville Road site. Again the cases

[26:05] consistent with the future land use map, the comprehensive plan, we've

[26:10] We've offered conditions to increase compatibility with our neighbors along Ghostpony Trail,

[26:17] but happy to answer any questions that you have this morning, and we appreciate your

[26:20] time.

[26:21] Thank you, Mr. Mills.

[26:23] Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in support of the case?

[26:27] If not, then we will turn to the opposition.

[26:29] You have five minutes as well.

[26:33] Please state your name for the record.

[26:55] Hi, good morning.

[26:56] My name is Eric Cungate.

[26:57] I'm the Vice President of the HOA for Westlake Country Trail.

[26:59] I want to thank you all for allowing us to speak this morning.

[27:03] I'm here to summarize our safety concerns for this rezoning and why we hope you will vote against it today.

[27:09] I want to start by saying we're not against development.

[27:12] We understand that Raleigh has a housing issue and we're not against development of this property.

[27:16] We bought into this neighborhood.

[27:18] We understood that we were buying into an early phase of the neighborhood that would be growing into a larger neighborhood

[27:23] that would be built cohesively with similar looking homes with systems that work together.

[27:27] that was approved by the city in 2017 and you can see here this is the next

[27:34] phase of the property this is my home right here so this next property was

[27:37] supposed to be six homes which we were actually kind of excited about so now

[27:41] there's going to be townhomes there just a few of our to summarize of our

[27:46] concerns is adding a town home community in between two sections of

[27:50] the neighborhood will create disjointed developments with limited

[27:52] ability to solve future issues cohesively there's actually a third

[27:56] property that's going to be part of this land area as well, so you'll have three separate

[28:00] neighborhoods that aren't really speaking and working together to make sure there's

[28:05] no issues down the road.

[28:06] Stormwater is another concern.

[28:08] The current infrastructure on Ghostpony Trail simply cannot absorb any more runoff from

[28:12] this development, especially not in R10.

[28:15] The property is uphill, and all the water will be pushed down into a creek which

[28:19] currently runs through the back of our properties and the lower part of our community.

[28:23] It already crests the banks of the creek when we get heavy rain.

[28:28] There's also no clear plan as to how the property stormwater systems will work together

[28:32] with the new Winters Hollow, which is the other property, as well as our property.

[28:36] So you're looking at three different storm systems that are not working together.

[28:40] The couple other of our final concerns is the investor doesn't really have any details

[28:46] for price points, number of bedrooms, floor plans, et cetera, because we believe that

[28:50] he is not a developer.

[28:50] developer. We suspect he is planning to sell the property once re-zoned to another developer,

[28:56] which again leaves so many different questions that are still out there. Also, the possibility

[29:01] of renters. You know, sometimes renters don't care about the neighborhood quite as much

[29:05] as someone who might own the home. And some of their back decks will be backing up

[29:08] right up to my house. And our property, which we are worried about renters having

[29:13] more parties there because when I was in a town home, I attended the party on

[29:17] back decks too. So that's one of our concerns.

[29:21] Adrienne Turner, as Commissioner Bennett noted during the last meeting traffic in the Leesville

[29:28] area is a huge concern. This is a three school campus that serves more than 4,000 students

[29:35] all on two lane roads. We have a street with a lot of blind turns. It is uphill.

[29:42] hill. It is not flat. It's hard to tell from these pictures. This is an uphill neighborhood.

[29:48] This is also a neighborhood yield street. So parking is a huge concern. We have asked for

[29:54] a condition of two car garages.

[30:00] Or covenants. This street cannot handle the parking that will happen from all of these town

[30:06] homes.

[30:09] Hi, Marianne Hungate. And final minute, I'm going to just show you some photos so that

[30:16] you can see some of the impact of the stormwater issues that we're having today. And nothing

[30:22] has been cleared yet. There will be not one, but two properties bordering our street.

[30:27] And the solution is to use a small stream.

[30:35] The wrong way.

[30:37] I'm just going to show you what that stream looks like today after a rain event.

[30:42] And as everyone knows, these rain events are becoming more and more frequent as time goes by.

[30:48] And this is the solution that was just presented for the stormwater.

[30:52] Is this little tiny creek for, again, not one, but two proposed developments?

[30:56] and we do not consider this to be a solution, we are concerned that it will run down the

[31:02] street and flood our properties.

[31:09] Kyle Smith, I live on Ghostpony Trail.

[31:12] We have a couple additional slides showing traffic concerns, which largely speak for

[31:17] themselves.

[31:18] It's heavily trafficked, low visibility, high frequency of accidents, and so increasing

[31:23] density of traffic with no plan to mitigate the safety concerns is dangerous and unreasonable.

[31:30] And I think I'll just wrap up by saying much has been made of the fact that the future

[31:34] land use map contemplates that this would eventually be R10 zoning.

[31:38] But what's lost in that discussion is the fact that the current zoning map and the

[31:42] future land use map contemplate that our neighborhood and the two adjoining parcels

[31:46] will share a zoning.

[31:48] And so eventually, yes, these three parcels together may be re-zoned, but it's not

[31:53] reasonable to kind of do a piecemeal and abandon the original plan for a cohesive community

[32:00] of 30 to 35 neighborhoods just for density for density's sake. So thank you for your

[32:05] consideration and absent any questions. We'll turn it back to the commission.

[32:09] Thank you.

[32:12] Okay, commissioners, we'll bring it back to the table for your questions

[32:16] and comments.

[32:20] Commissioner Burnett.

[32:22] For the applicant, my question is, I mean, they've made a really compelling case

[32:26] regarding just like the stormwater runoff.

[32:28] It seems like it's going to be a really big problem.

[32:30] I was just looking at it on Google Maps,

[32:32] and I actually used to go to Leesville.

[32:34] So I remember how far that slopes downward.

[32:37] You have any information from the site survey

[32:39] about how far that slopes down, et cetera, et cetera?

[32:59] Yeah, I'm going to have David Blevins, one of our engineers

[33:02] with BNK, walk through the stormwater.

[33:09] Good morning.

[33:10] My name is David Blevins.

[33:12] I'm an engineer with Bass, Nixon, Kennedy, 6310 Chapel Hill Road, Raleigh, 27607.

[33:22] I just did a, of course I did a brief analysis of the stormwater, but the topographic condition

[33:31] of this property is such that the runoff naturally goes to the back of the property

[33:38] from Leesville Road to the back.

[33:40] back. We can't change that. That's just the way the property was made. And of course the

[33:46] stream is at the back. And so I looked at the, I did just an analysis of the impervious

[33:54] area of the layout that Gary did. And then I did an analysis, just looked at the impervious

[34:04] area of a six-lot residential development, just similar to what was shown and put 38%

[34:18] impervious for, which is the allowable for single family R4.

[34:24] And there was about 1,700 square feet more impervious area for the townhomes.

[34:32] So in the world of stormwater for us, that's really a very, very manageable number.

[34:40] It really doesn't, it doesn't, it's something that we can easily manage, so, but yeah, that's,

[34:51] our, we will not be running any stormwater into there, into ghost pony trails,

[35:01] existing stormwater system at all that will be impacting there. All of our

[35:07] stormwater has to stand alone in whatever stormwater devices we create to

[35:12] manage both water quality and quantity.

[35:19] Thank you.

[35:22] Commissioner Cochran. I

[35:24] actually have another question about the stormwater. In your analysis you said

[35:28] Did you base it on the 17 units shown, but you're asking for a condition for 22 units?

[35:36] So that 17% increases based on 17 units, not 22, correct?

[35:42] Yes, correct.

[35:47] Commissioner Atwell.

[35:49] I was wondering if we could get Raleigh Stormwater to comment on the difference in regulations

[35:53] that would be required for stormwater control between the two requested zonings and the

[35:58] potential impact to the system.

[36:00] Good

[36:10] morning, Sally Hoey, Raleigh Stormwater. Given the size of this parcel, the zoning

[36:18] does not matter.

[36:21] Because this parcel is greater than an acre, the full stormwater requirements

[36:28] apply, so there is no prescribed amount of impervious area. They just have to provide

[36:35] the treatment associated with the impervious area. Does that address your

[36:40] question? I think it does and if you could refresh my memory the current rules

[36:44] require that the development show no exceed, no excess, no increase in the

[36:52] amount of runoff from the site from current conditions. That's correct.

[36:56] There's two main components of the stormwater regulation. One is aimed at

[37:00] the quantity of water and that looks at the two and ten year design storms which is like

[37:08] the tenure is about I think 5.7 inches of rainfall and so it looks at the rate of flow coming

[37:18] off the site, the rate cannot increase. So if there was a pipe that was able to convey

[37:23] that flow under existing conditions or a stream that was able to contain it then it would

[37:27] continue to be able to contain it. Then the second component is about water

[37:31] quality and specifically because of the impairments in the new watershed for

[37:36] nutrients it looks at the amount of nitrogen so they would have to do some

[37:42] sort of treatment for nitrogen it would depend on the density of the site

[37:46] whether they had to provide on-site controls for that or could do by

[37:53] mitigation credits.

[37:56] And one follow-up, I realize this is out of your purview. I

[38:01] understand the city is taking over flood mapping responsibilities from FEMA and

[38:06] will be doing their own mapping on a more detailed scale. The site currently

[38:10] is not part of a regulatory floodplain nor is any part of Ghostpony Trail but

[38:14] there are flood prone soils located along the creek. Do we know if the

[38:19] city plans to expand the flood mapping modeling to this site or is there

[38:24] somewhere we can look for that? We are planning to expand flood plan mapping

[38:29] but actually that I can't give you a timeline on but in the changes we made

[38:35] to the UDO last fall there's a requirement that if there's flood

[38:43] soils or even if there's not flood soils, if there's a certain acreage of drainage area to a stream,

[38:51] the flood boundaries have to be mapped. So five acres, if there's flood soils, 25 acres, if there's

[38:59] not flood soils, requires some type of flood mapping. So it appears that would be required.

[39:04] I haven't calculated the drainage area, but there would likely be something done in this

[39:09] project. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller. Thank you and Sally just to double

[39:16] check that I heard you correctly. Did you say that whether regardless whether

[39:20] the development occurred under the current zoning or the proposed zoning

[39:24] that the stormwater controls with respect to impervious service would be

[39:29] the same either way? That's correct. It's only for parcels less than an

[39:34] acre where the the limits in the UDO apply so because this park is full is

[39:40] over an acre it it those limits do not apply thank you

[39:46] Commissioner McCoy I have a question to the gentleman that came up to talk

[39:51] about stormwater I know that I mean we've heard definitely that that's

[39:57] like one of the major issues of this site and I do hear you saying we'll

[40:01] do what we have to do but I'm wondering what specifically you have in mind to do

[40:06] to maintain the stormwater and then to also make sure that when future

[40:10] development comes it is able to be adaptable. Well we as Sally mentioned

[40:17] we'll have to meet all the requirements that Raleigh has for the two and two

[40:22] and ten year storms. Whenever you do stormwater detention for the ten year

[40:27] storm, you're actually doing the tension for a good portion of the 25-year

[40:35] storm, maybe 30 percent or so. So we won't know exactly what type of device

[40:46] we're going to use, but we will have to use a combination of something that

[40:50] would be water quality, like a bioretention basin. And then on top of that, we might

[40:58] store use storage for flooding to store some water on top of that. And so, you know, on

[41:11] a small site like this, I've done a lot of commercial sites. They're fairly simple

[41:17] to do and I think in the amount of area that we had left shown on Gary's sketch there,

[41:25] we had ample area to provide storage, you know, room for both devices, types of devices.

[41:37] And are you all intending to use the creek that they're mentioning as a measure of easing

[41:43] stormwater distribution?

[41:44] Well, that's where the storm water is going now.

[41:48] We don't have any other place to take it.

[41:59] The topographic configuration of the property takes all of the drainage to the back of the property.

[42:08] If we took it somewhere else, we would, if there was another opportunity to take it somewhere

[42:15] else, we would actually be violating the rules by diverting it from where it's naturally

[42:21] going to where it's not naturally going.

[42:26] So we have to take it to the area where it's naturally going.

[42:30] Do you plan on enhancing the creek to be able to, because I mean, I see it's called

[42:37] the creek but you know it's kind of tiny do you plan on enhancing that in any way

[42:41] to be able to maintain extra storm water drain off? Well the creek is not

[42:46] actually on our property so we don't have any plans to do anything to the

[42:51] creek because we don't have access to the property there is a development the

[42:55] winners hollow is a subdivision that is in the process now it is one that is

[43:03] a subdivision that will not be before the planning commission, it's just a staff-approved

[43:10] subdivision and they have some plans for stormwater on their property as well, but we can't get

[43:23] back there and do anything with the creek because it's not our property.

[43:27] Thank you.

[43:27] You're welcome.

[43:28] Commissioner Fox.

[43:28] May I follow up on that just really quickly?

[43:31] So if I was understanding the sorts of back-to-the-property, you have either retention or detention proposed.

[43:39] You have a stormwater device proposed on the property, which would slow flow to the stream.

[43:47] That's correct?

[43:48] Okay.

[43:48] Thank you.

[43:49] So, the intent of that is likely to create a condition where the stream can adequately

[44:00] convey that water?

[44:02] Is that correct?

[44:02] Well, correct.

[44:04] Okay.

[44:04] For the design storms that Sally mentioned, for the two and ten-year storms, and then

[44:11] for a good portion of the 25-year-old.

[44:13] Thank you.

[44:14] That helps.

[44:17] The gray shaded areas on the screen are those for stormwater retention.

[44:23] Thank you.

[44:28] The green is the amenity area.

[44:32] That's required for a town home.

[44:33] Are the two gray areas?

[44:45] We're laughing up that we can't see.

[44:48] We're all getting older.

[44:50] It's not shaded very well.

[44:53] Sally, could I ask you a question again, please?

[45:00] Specifically addressing the concerns that we heard from the public. And one of them was that

[45:09] there are going to be three different stormwater systems that aren't working together. Do you

[45:17] share that concern or is there some sort of cumulative impact assessment that would need

[45:22] to be done to ensure that they are in fact working together or is that not a concern?

[45:28] I mean, I don't have a large concern because each development will be held to the standards.

[45:40] I would see more of a concern from a, if I were a homeowner from an operation and maintenance

[45:46] standpoint that if there's more stormwater control measures, there'd be more things

[45:52] to maintain that sort of thing. But from the city standpoint in terms of the functionality,

[46:01] I think it's possible for them to operate independently.

[46:06] Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments about stormwater?

[46:14] Okay. Commissioner

[46:16] Atwell.

[46:16] Thank you, Chair Bennet. I note that the property that contains the creek is owned

[46:20] by the Church of Latter-day Saints as the city received any feedback or engagement from

[46:25] the church?

[46:30] That site is currently undergoing like subdivision insight plan review and then has like indicated

[46:38] that they're applying for annexation currently.

[46:44] So you're reaching for your mic?

[46:48] Yes.

[46:48] Thank you.

[46:52] I acknowledge there are likely some stormwater concerns there.

[46:56] I'm comfortable and confident that the code can actually handle that if it's

[47:03] built to standard. The only inconsistency I'm actually finding when going through

[47:08] the staff report is related to response times and I know we've had

[47:14] that come up a number of times. I was wondering,

[47:19] Bynum, could you remind me the study that, I believe, Fire Department was undergoing?

[47:27] Sure.

[47:27] So City Council saw the Fire Department Master Plan before the break, and that document prioritizes

[47:36] some new stations.

[47:37] I don't remember that there was one in this vicinity.

[47:40] Okay.

[47:40] Thank you.

[47:42] But I would also note that, thank

[47:51] you.

[47:53] regarding traffic. So I did mention at the last meeting that all three of my

[47:59] all three of my kids, both of my kids, I just got a ghost kid from somewhere, both

[48:04] of my kids went to all three of the Leesville schools there so I've been

[48:10] driving that area for many many years and I was actually on the community

[48:17] task force that worked with the city to get grant funding to do the bike and

[48:24] ped improvements that are on Country Trail and Pride Way after a student was

[48:30] hit. So I'm aware of there's a lot of traffic. There was also a plan at some

[48:37] point to widen Leesville and that stretch of Leesville was has not been

[48:44] widen. I'm wondering if transportation staff can tell us is that in the queue to widen that

[48:53] stretch of Leesville?

[49:02] Good morning Planning Commission. Carter Robertson with transportation.

[49:06] So Leesville was evaluated as part of the last bond in 2017 to be widened. It ultimately wasn't

[49:14] selected at that time. It didn't rank as high as some of the others that were chosen.

[49:18] right now there's no current plans to widen it that might be evaluated as

[49:24] part of a future bond opportunity we do know there now that it is reaching

[49:29] capacity as a two-lane road and the future destination would accommodate

[49:35] for the current volume set of four lane okay but this project did not warrant

[49:42] TIA is that correct? No ma'am. Okay. Commissioner Atwell. Could you comment on

[49:49] the public engagement process for the Leesville Road widening project? Do you

[49:53] remember what the outcome of that was? I'm not familiar. I wasn't at the city at

[49:58] this time. Thank you.

[50:06] I do recall many years ago when the entire stretch of

[50:10] Leesville was being considered to be widened there was some

[50:15] opposition from the Springdale neighborhood about widening in that particular area.

[50:21] So I don't know this for a fact, but my guess is that part probably moved down in ranking

[50:28] because there was an opposition for the other part of Leesville, which is near widened,

[50:32] which is the part I live off of.

[50:37] Any other questions or comments from commissioners?

[50:43] If not, I will entertain a motion.

[50:47] Commissioner Miller.

[50:49] I wanted to address the applicant mentioned that there are two conditions that did not

[50:53] make it into this case.

[50:56] And I wanted to also address the conditions that were added and thank the applicant for

[51:00] those conditions related to the speed humps and traffic calming.

[51:07] And additionally, it seems that they went above and beyond what we typically see when

[51:13] And you add townhouses to a residential development in terms of managing their appearance.

[51:20] The two conditions that did not make it in, but the applicant intends to hold, again,

[51:25] those two conditions were a maximum development of 22 units.

[51:29] And then the other is to require no more than six individual townhomes per unit to

[51:34] avoid to address massing.

[51:36] Those two, while the developer is willing to offer them, likely to address concerns

[51:43] from the neighbors. I don't see those as so critical to this case. I think it's still consistent

[51:47] with the comprehensive plan without those two requirements that I'm comfortable making a motion

[51:52] to recommend approval of this case and also recognize that two additional conditions will

[52:01] be added before council. Thank you, Commissioner Miller. We have a motion to approve to have

[52:14] second.

[52:18] Commissioner O'Haver has seconded it. Do we have any additional discussion?

[52:23] I would just like to follow up on Commissioner Miller's comments. I do appreciate the applicant

[52:29] increasing the setback. I think that was one of my comments and anybody that attends these

[52:33] meetings regularly know that as part of my focus is existing single family homes.

[52:38] So I want to thank the applicant for that.

[52:40] I appreciate the height max, number of units,

[52:43] no more than six years again looking at the scale of the development.

[52:48] I hear the stormwater concerns.

[52:50] I'm looking at Google Maps.

[52:52] There's a lot of asphalt out there, a lot of concrete out there in those

[52:56] existing homes a lot.

[52:58] Looking at the concept plan, I just don't see the applicant

[53:03] must meet the city standards. I just don't see the storm water getting worse. I

[53:08] just want to say I hear the neighbors concerns but knowing what I know about

[53:12] storm water and looking at existing conditions I'm comfortable seconding and

[53:17] approving this application. Thank you Commissioner Haver. Any other

[53:22] discussion? All those in favor? All opposed. That's nine zero.

[53:33] Thank you very

[53:34] very much.

[53:36] Moving on to new business,

[53:41] we'll give the members of the public an opportunity

[53:44] to get situated.

[53:57] We have rezoning Z-1225 Peace and West Street. We'll turn to Mr. Clem for

[54:05] a full presentation.

[54:09] Good morning Planning Commission. Matthew

[54:11] Clem, Raleigh Planning and Development. Here to present Z-1225 for your review today.

[54:17] The request is to rezone 2.6 acres from industrial mix use for the 12-story height limit to downtown

[54:25] mix use with a 30-story height limit, an urban general frontage, and zoning conditions.

[54:31] Your deadline for action is October 11th.

[54:35] Just a quick look at the zoning map here.

[54:39] Doning in the area is predominantly industrial mix use, as the site is

[54:43] zoned, and downtown mix use to the south, which is the burgundy color on the

[54:49] screen. The northwest of the map is residential tin, including the Glenwood

[54:56] Brooklyn Streetside Historic Overlay District. Along P Street there's

[55:01] also some neighborhood mix use and commercial mix use as well.

[55:07] An aerial

[55:08] view of the site. You can see that the property fronts West Street MP streets highlighted in yellow.

[55:15] It's adjacent to a 14 acre site that will be the home of Smoky Hollow Park.

[55:24] So a new large future park in the area. Again, Glenwood Brooklyn to the west.

[55:30] You can see Smoky Hollow to the south. Capitol Boulevard cuts the map in half as well. Also

[55:35] to the east seaboard station. This is just a 3D view of the site, trying to highlight

[55:45] the difference in topography along the property between the future city park and the site,

[55:56] and also just a sense of what other buildings in the area are in terms of scale. So looking

[56:01] Looking at the site, this is from P Street, some existing structures there, and this is

[56:07] from West Street, two shots there.

[56:12] The number of zoning conditions, the first prohibits high-intensity uses, they're listed

[56:17] there.

[56:17] The second is related to building height, and there is an associated exhibit that

[56:26] is on our future slide.

[56:27] but the site is broken into two zones. Zone one is limited to 240 feet or 25

[56:38] stories. There's more detail on the exhibit slide. Zone two is limited to

[56:45] 360 feet. Each of those zones have an additional 20 feet of building height

[56:51] depending on what the primary street is determined to be during site plan.

[56:56] And we can talk a little bit about that if there are questions.

[57:01] Condition number three addresses parking deck screening, condition four, five, and six are

[57:10] related to development of the property's edge to the east where the location of Smoky

[57:17] Hollow Park is planned.

[57:19] So there's a condition that prohibits surface parking between the park and the property,

[57:24] property, the future parking the property. There's a zoning condition that requires pedestrian

[57:29] connectivity from the rezoning site to that property and requires a urban plaza to be

[57:38] built as an amenity area adjacent to the park there as well. Office uses are limited

[57:44] to 500,000 square feet in any development. And then the final condition is a contribution

[57:52] to the city's affordable housing fund prior to the issuance of the fifth

[57:58] hundred unit for certificate of occupancy. So what that means is if the

[58:03] property is developed with 499 residential units no contribution to

[58:09] the affordable housing fund is made, if 500 or more are developed on the site

[58:14] then a $1.2 million contribution is made. So there's not a guarantee that

[58:20] the money would be given to the city for affordable housing unless more than 499 units are built.

[58:28] So this is the zoning condition exhibit regarding building height.

[58:35] So this is the property of P Street is here, West Street is here.

[58:41] And this is where the split is.

[58:43] So for zone one on the northern portion of the rezoning site, building height is limited

[58:49] it to 25 stories or limited to 240 feet in height. If at-site plan, P Street is determined

[59:00] to be the primary street, the 240 feet building height limit is actually 260 feet. Similarly

[59:08] for zone 2 towards the south, if the exhibit limits building height to 360 feet, but

[59:17] And if P Street is determined to be the primary street, it's actually 380 feet.

[59:23] So there's some variation in development outcomes based on the zoning exhibit.

[59:29] Just to try to map where that line is on the aerial view of the site, it's roughly located

[59:36] in this.

[59:37] This is not a surveyed map, but generally in that location.

[59:43] Looking at the proposed development intensity based on existing zoning and proposed zoning,

[59:49] You can see that the estimated residential yield increases...

[1:00:00] The office square footage goes down based on the zoning condition. So less office could be

[1:00:05] built under the proposed zoning than the existing zoning. And that has implications to traffic

[1:00:12] counts during AM and PM peak hours. So the office use is one of the higher trip-generating uses.

[1:00:22] So by reducing office below this threshold, the intent is that it would produce fewer

[1:00:27] trips compared to the existing zoning. Retail slightly goes up. And then of course, 92,000

[1:00:34] square feet are estimated to be able to be delivered under the existing zoning. The future

[1:00:39] zoning takes all industrial uses out of a development option. So by going from the

[1:00:49] industrial mixed use to the downtown mixed use, light industrial uses are not permitted

[1:00:54] on the site. So in terms of transportation and energy analysis, the site has a higher

[1:01:00] walk score, transit score, and bike score in the city average. The site is about a 20-minute

[1:01:07] walk from this room. So if you're living there, you can walk here in 20 minutes or an 8-minute

[1:01:13] bike ride. The site is served by the R line currently that is a frequent transit

[1:01:19] service that has a 15-minute frequency. It can also bring you downtown or to your work

[1:01:27] or wherever you're going. Higher transportation cost index than average. So what that means

[1:01:33] is folks who live in areas with higher transportation cost indexes spend less money on transportation

[1:01:41] costs because they have these other options, walking, biking, or taking transit. Or simply

[1:01:46] If they choose to drive, they're driving shorter distances, putting less miles in their

[1:01:50] car, requiring less maintenance over time.

[1:01:53] Transportation costs in the area are low.

[1:01:58] And the high job proximity index is related to the adjacency and inclusion in the downtown

[1:02:06] area, which is a high employment area for the city.

[1:02:11] So the site is served by several existing bus services, 1, 2, 6, 12 and the R line.

[1:02:16] you can see the site here.

[1:02:21] The request would add to the housing supply. It does not include subsidized

[1:02:28] units. Discussed earlier the contribution to the affordable housing fund if more than 499

[1:02:34] units are built. It does permit a variety of housing types, smaller units in the apartment type

[1:02:40] building. Again, we include walking distance of transit and the affordability analysis because

[1:02:48] because the cost of living is not just the cost for your housing, it is also the amount

[1:02:53] of money that you spend on transportation.

[1:02:56] So if you live in an area where you can spend less money on transportation, it means you

[1:02:59] have more money for other things.

[1:03:04] So affordability relies on transportation as well as the point.

[1:03:09] In terms of land use history, the property was platted into the city in 1885 and

[1:03:16] annexed in the early 20th century.

[1:03:20] The original deeds granted by the greater Raleigh Land

[1:03:27] Company in Glendalewood Subdivision prohibited occupation by persons of color. So there are

[1:03:32] historic incidents in the area of racial segregation. And also the 1960 Smoky Hollow

[1:03:39] redevelopment plan, an urban renewal project displaced a community and neighborhood of,

[1:03:47] according to a News and Observer article from 1960, 165 families from the Smoky Hollow neighborhood

[1:03:54] for the purposes of widening the street, the seaboard, underpass, and providing off-street

[1:04:01] car parking.

[1:04:05] The request is consistent with the Futureland

[1:04:07] use map. This is the future land use map on the right side of the screen. The future

[1:04:14] land use map designation is central business district, which is the maroon color. You can

[1:04:20] also see adjacent to our public park planning.

[1:04:28] The request is also consistent with the urban

[1:04:30] form map. The urban form map functions to recommend certain frontage types. So the urban

[1:04:40] general frontage is consistent with that. This slide and map say a lot more about the case

[1:04:46] other than just the frontage as well. We know that building height is the primary

[1:04:52] issue under consideration here. We know that from hearing and working and speaking

[1:04:57] with the community. That building height is the issue to be considered. Recommended building

[1:05:06] heights in the comprehensive plan come from a table called LU2 recommended building heights.

[1:05:15] And that table functions with the future land use map in different contexts in the city

[1:05:21] to provide recommended building heights. There are essentially two qualifying criteria

[1:05:25] criteria for what is called the core transit designation on that table. One criteria is

[1:05:33] being cited on a corridor that is planned or programmed for frequent transit. The site

[1:05:39] is currently served by frequent transit with the R line service. So it qualifies for the

[1:05:45] transit aspect of the core transit designation. The other aspect of the core transit designation

[1:05:52] is being in the core of a mixed-use center of 30 acres or greater. You can see

[1:05:58] that the site is contained in downtown. The site is contained in the bus rapid

[1:06:04] transit area which is shown on the map and beyond the bus rapid transit area

[1:06:08] is the frequent transit area. So taken together this is in the core of those

[1:06:14] districts. The downtown designation on the urban form map follows the

[1:06:21] boundaries of downtown. The bus rapid transit area is within a quarter mile of

[1:06:29] corridors planned for bus rapid transit. So in this case would be capital

[1:06:34] Boulevard for the capital Boulevard North Study. This distance is roughly

[1:06:42] half a mile. And then beyond that the frequent transit area is a half mile

[1:06:48] from Capital Boulevard. So the site is core transit by the qualifying

[1:06:54] conditions of being currently served by transit, the R lines, the frequent transit

[1:06:58] service, and within a mixed-use center 30 acres or greater. The request is

[1:07:03] consistent with the future land use map and the urban form map. There are a

[1:07:08] number of policies that the request is consistent with in the comprehensive

[1:07:11] plan, capitalizing on transit access, station area land uses related to the

[1:07:17] bus rapid transit planning in the area, compact development, healthy communities.

[1:07:23] Being in the location that it is, folks are more likely to walk, bike, or take

[1:07:27] transit, active mobility to satisfy transportation needs. And so walking and

[1:07:36] biking, living next to a park, those are healthy things for folks to do.

[1:07:45] station area recommended heights. So there is a planned bus rapid transit

[1:07:50] station in the area. We have transit staff to talk particularly about where

[1:07:57] that transit station will be located. At the time that the current urban form

[1:08:02] map was adopted the transit station location was at the corner of West and

[1:08:06] Johnson Street. That's also reflected on the urban form map with the quarter

[1:08:12] mile buffer for the BRT transit station. The current planning and location for the

[1:08:19] that transit station has moved a few blocks to the east and is now planned

[1:08:24] to be located on Capitol Boulevard and between Peace and Johnson. And so the

[1:08:32] site is within a quarter mile of that area as well. Downtown edges and

[1:08:38] downtown transitions.

[1:08:42] The zoning conditions provided by the applicant

[1:08:46] to limit building height in feet transitions the mass

[1:08:54] of the sites down to the other lower slung development

[1:08:59] in the area.

[1:09:02] And

[1:09:06] again, downtown for high density

[1:09:09] for all the reasons of walkability and job access

[1:09:11] transit access are consistent. There are no inconsistent policies identified for

[1:09:19] the rezoning request. There are no outstanding issues and your deadline

[1:09:23] for action is October 11th. The applicants are here. They'll give their

[1:09:28] presentation and we can answer your questions following that. Thank you,

[1:09:33] Matt. Next we'll turn to public comment. The applicant and those in

[1:09:38] support. We'll have 10 minutes.

[1:09:50] Good morning, Chair, members of the Planning

[1:09:52] Commission, Jason Barenworth, Morningstar Law Group. Excited to be here today on

[1:09:55] behalf of Rally Development Company, who's the proposed developer of this site.

[1:09:59] I really want to hit on a handful of high points associated with the case. I

[1:10:03] think the staff report and the staff's presentation has really done an

[1:10:05] excellent job of analyzing the applicability of the comprehensive

[1:10:09] plan. And I'm going to talk on a couple of things associated with that,

[1:10:11] but really there are three overarching themes related to this case. First,

[1:10:16] it's the right use in the right location. That's what we're always trying to do with respect to

[1:10:20] when we're rezoning and when we want development to go into a place, is it the right use in

[1:10:24] the right location? And we submit that this is second, as was mentioned in the staff presentation

[1:10:29] and the staff support plan, there is no doubt that this case is consistent with the comprehensive

[1:10:36] plan. Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation that's out in the public

[1:10:41] related to comprehensive plan policies that speak to this case, but there can be no

[1:10:45] mistake that this case is consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan.

[1:10:50] And third, we have appropriate transitions.

[1:10:52] This case is actually providing the types of transitions that will ensure that there

[1:10:56] is context-sensitive transitions to existing neighborhoods while also maintaining the integrity

[1:11:02] of the comprehensive plan that is so important to making sure that Raleigh can continue

[1:11:06] to grow and continue to grow in a way that discourages sprawl and encourages

[1:11:10] the type of infill development that we're looking at in this case.

[1:11:13] And so, a little bit about the right use and the right location.

[1:11:18] I do want to highlight a handful of things.

[1:11:19] This is a layout that we have in our presentation.

[1:11:22] This is the current planning associated with the development.

[1:11:26] This is the site kind of in this location here if you can follow my cursor.

[1:11:32] And as was mentioned, what we have proposed, what the applicant has proposed,

[1:11:37] is a step down from 30 stories to 25 stories.

[1:11:40] In addition to that, there are height restrictions associated with that to ensure that nothing

[1:11:44] greater than 360 feet will be developed adjacent to P Street and nothing greater than 240 feet

[1:11:50] will be developed along the northern portion of the site. Again, trying to provide those

[1:11:54] appropriate transitions. As we all know, the city is investing a lot of money in Smokey

[1:12:00] Hollow Park. It's going to be a tremendous amenity to this development. A lot of planning

[1:12:04] has gone into this site by Raleigh Development Company to make sure that when this site

[1:12:09] develops, it appropriately addresses and embraces the park. As a critical

[1:12:13] amenity, a critical feature in ensuring that folks who live here, folks who are

[1:12:17] going to be dining here have great access to that park. Additionally, as

[1:12:21] you're aware, across the street is Publix. I live in downtown Raleigh. Having

[1:12:25] walking availability to groceries is an incredible amenity to a site like

[1:12:30] this. Again, it's where you want to put people. It discourages auto

[1:12:33] dependency. It gets people out. They're allowed to walk and that a lot of

[1:12:37] that's already happening.

[1:12:38] And this is why we think density is appropriate

[1:12:40] in this location.

[1:12:41] It's also walkable to a lot of the other amenities

[1:12:44] that are developing in this area.

[1:12:46] And finally, as was mentioned, related to future transit,

[1:12:49] there's existing transit stops.

[1:12:51] It's in a frequent transit area as of today

[1:12:53] with the bus routes, the multitude of bus routes

[1:12:56] within proximity to the site.

[1:12:57] And there's future plan transit in this area

[1:13:00] that we believe all of those things

[1:13:01] kind of coming together.

[1:13:03] It's really incumbent upon achieving the goals

[1:13:06] of the comprehensive plan. With respect to the comprehensive plan, and so this is just

[1:13:11] a little bit more of the urban place making that's being provided. This is that break

[1:13:15] in the building, so this is kind of facing south. This is the larger 30 story portion,

[1:13:21] and then the 25 story portion here, and then this does a little bit job of kind of giving

[1:13:26] you a little bit of the scale. And so this is the current thinking, the current planning

[1:13:29] associated with this site, and this is the building up along peace. They're currently

[1:13:34] planning for a break in the building with this pedestrian promenade and a featured stair

[1:13:39] and you can again you can see the way that the park is really being embraced by this development.

[1:13:44] They're being very very intentional about making sure that what gets developed here

[1:13:49] is highly complementary to what the city is doing with the park. I'm going to move through

[1:13:54] the comprehensive plan as quickly as possible recognizing we don't have a lot of time and

[1:13:58] I've got a couple other speakers but there is no doubt it's in the central business

[1:14:01] district, it's in the downtown center area, it's in a transit station area. All of these

[1:14:07] things speak directly to the fact that this is where the Comprehensive Plan is already

[1:14:11] calling for density. In fact, if you look at those Comprehensive Plan maps, those Comprehensive

[1:14:15] Plan maps call for up to potentially 40 stories. And again, why we believe this is appropriately

[1:14:21] transitioned because instead of asking for 40 stories, which is across the street,

[1:14:25] you may be familiar, caddy corner to this site, next to the public, there's

[1:14:29] a site that is zoned for 40 stories as of today. Why we believe it is appropriately

[1:14:34] transitioned because what is being achieved here is taking that otherwise 40 story recommendation,

[1:14:39] making it context sensitive, stepping the building down to 30 into 25 stories as you

[1:14:44] make your way north on the site. Again, a little bit more about the transit station

[1:14:49] areas and I know this is a lot of information to cover in a short span of time so I apologize.

[1:14:53] But as was mentioned in the staff report this isn't

[1:15:00] We are developing as directly on top of one of those future transit station maps, future

[1:15:04] transit station areas. This map and all of these things are directly from the comprehensive

[1:15:09] plan. It talks about the station area types. This is a downtown station area type adjacent

[1:15:14] to the site. And those downtown recommendations call for up to 40 stories or more. I would

[1:15:20] note for you that I think it's important as it relates to your review of this case.

[1:15:23] One of the things that's clear in the recommendations associated with transit areas is that where

[1:15:28] where there's a discrepancy, and this is in the land use plan, this is in the comprehensive

[1:15:31] plan, where there's a discrepancy in building height relative to transit areas in any other

[1:15:36] map that the city has, those transit areas control that is expressly provided for in the

[1:15:41] comprehensive plan.

[1:15:42] And again, I recognize that building height is the centerpiece of this development,

[1:15:46] and I would tell you unequivocally that this development is satisfying the comprehensive

[1:15:51] plan's goals with respect to building height and is doing so in a way that will breathe

[1:15:54] life into those future transit plans.

[1:15:56] And so with that, I'm going to turn it over to a couple of our speakers and we'll be here to answer questions.

[1:16:10] Good morning Planning Commission. My name is Larry Miller. I'm President of Glenwood South's Neighborhood Collaborative.

[1:16:17] We're an association, Neighborhood Association has over a thousand members.

[1:16:22] We have 14 member board that made up of members of residents and business owners in the community.

[1:16:32] And we're actually a community that is adjacent to this site, unlike the Glenwood Brooklyn

[1:16:41] neighborhood which is physically separated from the proposed site by a railroad track.

[1:16:48] But we thought it was important to show our support for this development.

[1:16:54] First of all, I'm trying to be brief.

[1:16:56] I want to say the planning and development staff has done an outstanding job in presenting

[1:17:03] this and I think you should pay attention to what they have to say.

[1:17:07] They're your experts.

[1:17:08] I'm not going to go into the minutiae, but just note that they do indicate that it's

[1:17:14] consistent with the comprehensive plan, future land use, infrastructure, urban form.

[1:17:20] I mean, they don't find anything wrong with it.

[1:17:23] I'm going to just talk about a few of the factors that we think are important

[1:17:29] and that you should be looking at in the overall public interest for this project

[1:17:36] and not the private interest of a few vocal opposition.

[1:17:42] The transportation, it's a walkable neighborhood.

[1:17:46] We live in the neighborhood. It's great. You want to have a dense development like this

[1:17:53] in a neighborhood that's walkable. You've got pedestrian transportation. You have the bus rapid transit,

[1:18:00] the frequent transit. Those have all been talked about. It's also on a bike trail.

[1:18:06] It's going to be added on West Street scooters. You've got all that.

[1:18:11] You have all that transportation, which will eliminate the use of the need for cars.

[1:18:18] So that's a strong factor in its favor.

[1:18:22] Again, it's adjacent to the Smoky Hollow Park.

[1:18:25] It will allow access to the park from West Street.

[1:18:28] Right now, the park is surrounded by property.

[1:18:31] The only access the city is going to have is from P Street, which is problematic.

[1:18:35] This will create an additional access to this great park amenity that's going to be built.

[1:18:45] The affordable housing part of this, the city is all, that's one of the main issues in Raleigh

[1:18:52] is affordable housing.

[1:18:54] This is going to provide over a million dollars to put for affordable housing.

[1:19:02] Again, it is a factor that should be taken into consideration.

[1:19:07] I'm going to leave some time for another person.

[1:19:10] I just want to say please look forward to the overall public interest and not the private interests of a few individuals.

[1:19:18] Thank you.

[1:19:28] If I may, may I ask for an additional time?

[1:19:31] I've got about 25 seconds in a time where I would love three minutes if that's allowable.

[1:19:35] If

[1:19:38] it's the will of the commission, I will add two minutes.

[1:19:42] And then I will add two minutes to the other side as well.

[1:19:45] Great.

[1:19:46] Thank you.

[1:19:46] Without objection, we'll add two minutes.

[1:19:48] Thank you.

[1:19:49] My name is Will Choi.

[1:19:50] I'm an architect in Raleigh.

[1:19:51] I've been practicing for about 20 years.

[1:19:54] I hold a master's degree in architecture

[1:19:55] from Harvard University.

[1:19:56] And I've practiced in several cities across the country

[1:20:00] designing buildings like this and executing them.

[1:20:02] Though now my work these days in Raleigh

[1:20:04] focus on much smaller neighborhood projects and I come here in support of

[1:20:09] the project today. Now there are a great many local issues in need of grassroots

[1:20:15] involvement these days in Raleigh. Issues that I believe everybody in this

[1:20:19] room would agree our city needs solutions for. Real issues like housing

[1:20:25] affordability, mass transit, downtown safety, our city's environment,

[1:20:34] so it

[1:20:34] pretty odd when one takes time off work to speak here instead in support of a

[1:20:41] rezoning that will supposedly only benefit some private company. But I'm

[1:20:45] here because I believe density is a necessary component in improving these

[1:20:49] larger issues I mentioned earlier. If that sounds absurd let me ask, how can

[1:20:57] we address housing shortage without increasing the supply of housing? How

[1:21:03] How can we establish mass transit without the mass of people who will write it?

[1:21:08] How can we increase safety in downtown without any eyes or foot traffic on the streets?

[1:21:15] Density is a crucial ingredient in making Raleigh liveable for people like me and the

[1:21:20] thousands of nearby apartment dwellers who did not feel compelled to come out and oppose

[1:21:25] the rezoning today.

[1:21:27] Most folks downtown will readily agree.

[1:21:29] we need things like sidewalks, bike lanes, beautiful parks to make our city livable.

[1:21:36] But without density, our sidewalks and bike lanes will continue to remain empty,

[1:21:42] our parking lots larger than the parks we build them for, and we will continue to

[1:21:46] cosplay a city rather than actually becoming one. We cannot say we care about

[1:21:52] our environment, public transit, walkability, or housing, and then turn

[1:21:56] around to reject density. That's about as ridiculous as saying that you love to swim

[1:22:01] just not when the water is wet. And I hear the voices saying, hey, that's all fine, just

[1:22:07] not right here next to all these houses. Yet, last I checked, this neighborhood is a single

[1:22:11] densest neighborhood in all of Raleigh and outside of Charlotte, it is a densest spot

[1:22:17] in the entire state of North Carolina.

[1:22:18] Thank you for your comments.

[1:22:19] So I asked if density isn't appropriate here. Where in Raleigh is this magically

[1:22:25] better spot that's not near any single family homes. Thank you.

[1:22:31] Next we will hear

[1:22:33] from the opposition. You have a total of 12 minutes.

[1:22:38] Please state your name for

[1:22:40] the record. My name is Tim Niles and thank you for allowing me to speak.

[1:22:46] Respectfully, I am disappointed this hearing is being held today when the

[1:22:50] public has only had access to the staff report since Friday and that was

[1:22:55] made aware, and the staff was made aware over a month ago that the advocate for the neighbors

[1:22:59] could not be here today. The presentation he submitted to this body was prepared prior

[1:23:04] to the staff report being made available. Because of this, it does not address the

[1:23:09] latest assertions. I'm concerned that both neighborhood meetings were held without access

[1:23:14] to the staff report. Lastly, I note that two years ago, Transportation reported that

[1:23:20] this location had been removed from consideration as a transit location. The issue was brought

[1:23:26] up at the first neighborhood meeting because the applicant claimed the location is a transit

[1:23:30] location based on an out-of-date map, and every part of their application relies on

[1:23:36] that designation. Without it, this proposal violates over 40 policies and plans. I

[1:23:42] was told by planning staff at the end of that April meeting that they would get

[1:23:46] clarification on the issue, they never got back to me. Transportation staff did reconfirm

[1:23:51] by email in April that the location has not been identified as a transit station. Now magically

[1:23:58] when the staff report comes out, West Street is once again identified as a transit location.

[1:24:04] This seems like a conveniently timed revelation when no one from the city was willing to

[1:24:09] disclose this information to the public previously. Even when asked directly about it at both

[1:24:15] the first and second neighborhood meetings in April and July. It gives the impression the fix is in.

[1:24:21] Lastly, stepping down from 25 stories to two cannot realistically be called a transition.

[1:24:29] It's laughable. Nearly 1,500 people have signed a change.org petition against this proposal

[1:24:35] and more are signing it every day. Thank you.

[1:24:41] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,

[1:24:42] Chris Crew 306 Elm Street. This is not the right use in the right location because it's not

[1:24:49] consistent with the zoning. That's just pure and simple there. A lot of the people in this room

[1:24:55] participated in the development and adoption of Raleigh's comprehensive plan, the UDO,

[1:25:00] and a lot of them are passionate about the preservation and care of our unique historic

[1:25:04] architecture and cultural history. Local zoning is a tool that allows us to do this

[1:25:10] preservation because we've invested so much in developing and implementing these tools

[1:25:15] of being proper to grant a spot zoning privilege like the concessions now being requested on

[1:25:22] a property that has already been re-zoned.

[1:25:25] Look at the map.

[1:25:26] The approval of this request would create a perverse and incompatibly irregularity

[1:25:31] in the boundaries laid out in the zoning map.

[1:25:34] It's just not right.

[1:25:35] As far as people being opposed to this, I have a message here from the Society for the

[1:25:42] Preservation of Historic Oakwood, which I believe was delivered to you by e-mail last week.

[1:25:49] If you did not receive it, I'll be sure that you did.

[1:25:52] That's an organization with over 1,600 members.

[1:25:56] Their Board of Directors voted to oppose this on a number of grounds, first of all,

[1:26:03] allowing a 30-story mixed-use building within 240 feet of a residential neighborhood with

[1:26:08] an HOD designation represents an adverse impact that has not been addressed by anything we've

[1:26:15] heard here. In the absence of detailed and specific design information, it's impossible

[1:26:20] to judge that this development will be compatible with Section 3.5.5C of the UDO dealing with

[1:26:28] setbacks. Beyond the questionable compatibility, the approval of this would set the President

[1:26:34] that 30-story buildings just 240 feet from historic homes is not only allowed, but is

[1:26:40] fully consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and its policies, which this request

[1:26:46] is not consistent with. And in addition to these easily recognized impacts, there

[1:26:52] were unexamined impacts on traffic, public safety, and public utilities. Did any of you

[1:26:57] note the flooding down there at the end of West Street yesterday. As a retired

[1:27:01] emergency manager, that gives me pause. We urge you to reject this proposal on

[1:27:07] the grounds that it is arbitrary, capricious, and represents an example of

[1:27:11] spot zoning that conflicts with the UDO and the comprehensive plan. Thank you.

[1:27:19] Good morning. Matthew Brown, 401 North Person Street. Thank you for your

[1:27:23] service. Thank you for letting me speak. We're talking about what Raleigh

[1:27:28] needs. Unlike most cities our size, Raleigh has no historic riverfront or lakefront or

[1:27:37] mountains or Beale Street or other cultural attractions or Biltmore House or other architectural

[1:27:43] monuments. We need interest. We need beauty. We need character. That is what these historic

[1:27:51] districts provide to all the citizens of Raleigh and all the tourists. And that

[1:27:57] That is why our UDA, UDO protects them, and a comprehensive plan envisions a transition

[1:28:05] zone.

[1:28:06] It's zone for 12 stories.

[1:28:07] That's dense.

[1:28:08] That's just like the public's building across the street.

[1:28:12] But 30 stories next to two-story historic neighborhood violates the rule of common

[1:28:18] sense.

[1:28:20] And another thing, he's talking about, oh, transit's not a problem because it's right

[1:28:26] by a capital boulevard. The problem is not north-south, it's east-west. Peace Street is

[1:28:32] a bottleneck because of the two sets of railroad tracks and the state government mall. And part

[1:28:37] of it is only two lanes. The traffic is already horrendous. All these people will have cars.

[1:28:43] The next street, east-west street north of this that crosses both sets of railroad tracks

[1:28:48] is the Belt Line. That's why it's a bottleneck. And the city has already approved all this

[1:28:56] high density development along there, a caddy corner to this, a skyscraper, two skyscrapers

[1:29:03] at seaboard. When all these things are full, there will be constant gridlock on P Street

[1:29:08] and everybody will say, where were our planners? How could they let this happen? This is crazy.

[1:29:15] There's tons of wonderful places to put a 30 story building. On this overloaded street

[1:29:22] Next to this historic treasure is not the place. Thank you.

[1:29:31] Good morning. My name is Gaston Williams and clearly I'm not Esther Hall. She's away on family business.

[1:29:36] But I am a member of the Preservation Raleigh Inc., a newly created preservation advocacy group in Raleigh.

[1:29:43] And we're opposed to the zoning request as submitted.

[1:29:47] We haven't had a chance to look at all the details because they were recently released.

[1:29:51] but we believe that allowing the construction of what could be a 30-story

[1:30:00] A residential neighborhood designated as a historic overlay district significantly impacts that

[1:30:07] historic district. We're concerned with the lack that given the fact that this site is partially

[1:30:14] elevated and the height is so important that maybe in this case too much is too much.

[1:30:22] This represents an urban wall that's going to be erected and without a lot of detail

[1:30:27] and fully comprehend it. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Could I please ask that we silence our phones?

[1:30:35] Madam Chairman, it wasn't me this time.

[1:30:39] Without your getting and demanding actually, a real

[1:30:43] detailed topography understanding what this represents from the perspective of not just

[1:30:49] the buildings around it, but also the neighborhood above it, and also what it means to the

[1:30:54] park and everything else. We don't think that this should be approved without a great

[1:31:00] deal of study about the topography and the relative scale, and that cannot be accomplished

[1:31:05] by one-dimensional drawings that you often get in these situations. More broadly, we

[1:31:13] question whether this is really consistent with the comprehensive plan, suggesting that

[1:31:18] that this sets a great precedent for many historic neighborhoods in the area that could

[1:31:25] result in a destruction or diminution of the historic districts. The consequences for long-term

[1:31:32] residents of these areas are great. We're going to have profound overwhelming building

[1:31:38] scale increases traffic, noise, sunlight, glare, and as frequently pointed out, the traffic

[1:31:46] traffic problem is going to be, as mentioned, the number of units in here, it's going to

[1:31:51] be a real artful day to get through P Street with all the traffic that's going to be dumped

[1:31:55] into P Street.

[1:31:57] So we believe this proposal for a high density project on the core of the historic area

[1:32:07] largely residential represents the possibility of being argued in the future to diminish

[1:32:13] other neighborhoods.

[1:32:13] We urge the Planning Commission to request more detail before approving it or otherwise

[1:32:19] reject this proposal as it's submitted.

[1:32:22] Thank you.

[1:32:23] Just real quick, not on my time.

[1:32:25] Thank you all.

[1:32:26] I've been in a situation along with Esther where you all are sitting and devoting your

[1:32:30] time to this effort.

[1:32:30] We appreciate it and I understand it more than others.

[1:32:36] Madam Chair, fellow Planning Commission members, my name is Ben Kuhn at 1223 Pierce Street,

[1:32:43] Raleigh.

[1:32:43] I've practiced, I'm a land use lawyer.

[1:32:46] I work with developers and land use issues, variances and so forth.

[1:32:50] I've been before this body several times before.

[1:32:52] I was before you when this came before you in committee and also last time when they

[1:32:57] sought to have it rezoned, that rezoning was ultimately denied.

[1:33:00] This needs to go back to committee.

[1:33:02] There's been policy changes since this last came before you in the adoption of

[1:33:06] the transition zone which does have significant impact in the policy framework that this

[1:33:12] has and it's not, hadn't been mentioned once. But that was adopted by city council last

[1:33:17] time and it is a policy issue and layer that you need to consider. You also have to understand

[1:33:22] it's, to me, as a land use lawyer, it's not about the use or the location. It's

[1:33:29] about the height of it, which is completely out of odds with the context of the area.

[1:33:35] It's not in a transit station area. The West Street and Johnson Street station area

[1:33:41] It is off the books in terms of communication I had with Hett Patel two years ago, which

[1:33:45] I presented to the City Planning Commission, I believe, at that time.

[1:33:52] We have that documentation.

[1:33:53] It's supposed to be at Capital Boulevard right where it verges off right behind the Long

[1:34:00] Leaf Hotel.

[1:34:01] If you string a line from that point to this site, it's .26 of a mile, more than

[1:34:10] a quarter mile. Even if you argue that it's within the transit station area for that location,

[1:34:14] it's at the very edge of the transit station area. And what I would point you to is the

[1:34:20] Equitable Transit Oriented Development Guidebook, the policy that guides development within

[1:34:26] transit areas. And it suggests to you that in a transit area at the transit station,

[1:34:32] that's where the most heightened density would be. And guess what? As you venture

[1:34:37] further and farther outside from the transit station area. The document says specifically

[1:34:44] the policy guidance is that the height and the density would taper and transition down

[1:34:49] towards any nearby neighborhoods that are residential density. So for that reason, more

[1:34:56] policy guidance is needed and needs to be put in committee and we appreciate that consideration.

[1:35:03] Thank you.

[1:35:03] Thank you. Thank you all for your comments. Okay, we will bring it back to the table.

[1:35:11] Commissioner Neptune.

[1:35:13] Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, I'd like to acknowledge and express my thanks

[1:35:19] and gratitude to all of the residents for being here this morning on your time.

[1:35:25] Just deeply appreciate you taking time out of your day to be with us to share your concerns.

[1:35:36] And I guess there's a quick follow on that just to make sure I'm hearing it clearly.

[1:35:41] It feels as if there are sort of two buckets of concern.

[1:35:46] There's like the height and our homes, you know, like the height of the potential buildings and our homes.

[1:35:53] and then separate but of course related is transit and traffic and if we just kind

[1:36:01] of I just want to ask a follow-up question to make sure I'm clear and I

[1:36:04] think it's a question for we'll start with transit and traffic maybe start

[1:36:07] with transportation staff you know I'm under the impression and just you know

[1:36:13] based on the review of the materials also based on prior service with the

[1:36:21] 2019 and being familiar with this corridor, my impression and understanding is that since

[1:36:28] at least 2016, at minimum, when we adopted this Wake County Transit Plan, there have

[1:36:34] effectively been plans and studies and designs for a future transit sort of corridor.

[1:36:44] So I know we're working on this like bus rapid transit corridor on the one side.

[1:36:48] And then if transportation staff could speak to this, I think there's like an S-line high-speed rail connection.

[1:36:53] We're also working on, I think we've got federal funding to support this.

[1:36:57] I mean, all these systems are kind of moving forward.

[1:37:00] But again, I would welcome transportation staff if you could maybe speak to that briefly as far as the transit-related operations.

[1:37:08] That, again, just from my understanding of the review of the materials and just from prior commission service,

[1:37:14] If you could speak to the transit-related operations that are in development for the corridor.

[1:37:21] I think that it would be helpful to hear in relation to the concerns around traffic and gridlock congestion that we're hearing from the residents.

[1:37:32] If I could just add to that, there seems to be some concern about the location of the proposed transit station.

[1:37:42] So, if you could just speak to the decision-making around where the transit station is proposed

[1:37:51] to be, that might clear up some of this confusion as well.

[1:37:55] Yeah.

[1:37:56] Thank you, Commissioner Neptune and Chair Bennett.

[1:37:58] We have Carter Robertson with the Transportation Department, who can speak to the trip generation

[1:38:03] traffic analysis and existing conditions for car flow, and we also have Gabriel Wilkins

[1:38:09] from transit planning to enter questions related to BRT and other transit services.

[1:38:16] Thank you.

[1:38:17] And maybe just I would note to staff as you approach, if you could just share briefly, very briefly,

[1:38:22] just the background on these transit plans that are in development in progress,

[1:38:29] I think that would be appreciated by the Commission.

[1:38:31] Of course, good morning, Commission.

[1:38:34] Gabriel Wilkins with Transportation and Transit on the BRT team.

[1:38:37] So I'll start with Bus Rapid Transit.

[1:38:39] Carder can handle SLINE and my colleague, Melanie,

[1:38:42] will be able to answer questions about

[1:38:44] ordinary fixed route service here.

[1:38:47] So the Bus Rapid Transit system in Wake County

[1:38:52] was initially planned by a major investment study

[1:38:55] ahead of the 2016 Wake Transit Plan.

[1:38:58] So that included four corridors,

[1:39:00] Newburn Avenue, Southern, Western, and Northern.

[1:39:03] At the time, the Northern BRT corridor in that study,

[1:39:06] 2016, only included from the downtown portion out up Capital Boulevard to where it diverges

[1:39:13] off to Wake Forest Road.

[1:39:16] So it was initially just that kind of stub with the idea that it would be revisited later

[1:39:21] after the other corridors advance in their planning.

[1:39:26] The 2019 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan took those major investment studies, the corridors

[1:39:32] for BRT from those studies and that's what kind of fed into the map that the

[1:39:37] applicant showed about the transit station areas downtown. Those are bus rapid

[1:39:41] transit stations. Bus stops kind of a different level of transit we can get

[1:39:46] to later. So currently that northern corridor is being revisited in a new

[1:39:52] major investment study to consider the downtown to its actual endpoints. That

[1:39:57] is slated to wrap up the end of this year, which will kind of come out with two identified

[1:40:04] kind of preferred corridors for that route. Now, those studies are taking as a starting

[1:40:11] point the existing 2016 study. So from that Wake Forest, a capital, and going one route

[1:40:16] up to Midtown and one route towards the Triangle Town Center area. The zoning case

[1:40:24] This here is located within that kind of stubbed portion that was already within kind

[1:40:29] of planning.

[1:40:31] There were two kind of different routes for how it might move around.

[1:40:37] West Street was included at the time.

[1:40:40] In going through planning, Capital Boulevard is currently the preferred location.

[1:40:46] Specific stations will not be identified until preliminary design is entered.

[1:40:52] And that follows the kind of conclusion of a major investment study.

[1:40:56] The Newburn, Southern, and Western BRTs are all currently, well, Newburn's getting ready

[1:41:01] to be built, Southern and Western have completed that preliminary design into final design.

[1:41:06] That's where those specific station locations get nailed down.

[1:41:09] Part of the major investment study looks at identifying key intersections at which

[1:41:13] a station, near which a station would be located so that we can model ridership potential,

[1:41:19] see what the kind of development may look like around the stations and how

[1:41:24] connections to other fixed route, other active transportation, bicycle and

[1:41:29] pedestrian, and kind of other amenities such as parks might happen. The

[1:41:34] intersection around peace street and capital boulevard has been identified

[1:41:38] since that 2016 plan through to today as an area of interest to locate a bus

[1:41:44] rapid transit station and that remains true. Where it will actually be

[1:41:47] located depends a lot on engineering concerns given the kind of lots of topography and grade

[1:41:55] separated areas there. But that area is kind of of key interest from 2016 to now for a

[1:42:01] bus rapid transit station.

[1:42:03] Thank you.

[1:42:04] Thank you. A quick follow-up. So just briefly, the actual locations have not been identified.

[1:42:11] That won't happen until we get farther into engineering, planning, et cetera. Just

[1:42:16] Just make sure I'm clear on that.

[1:42:17] Correct.

[1:42:18] And that is why that quarter to a half mile buffer, quarter mile buffer is where this kind

[1:42:23] of …

[1:42:24] And then it's a quick follow-up for the applicant or the developer on the project.

[1:42:29] Have they been involved at all or have they expressed interest in working with the city

[1:42:34] in this, I guess, potential connectivity to the transit station?

[1:42:39] I mean, perhaps you could speak to it, perhaps the, I guess, the attorney here on behalf

[1:42:43] of the applicants could speak to that the interest of the developer in coordinating the development

[1:42:50] with the transition. I mean, it seems like, I feel like that was included in the presentation,

[1:42:54] but maybe you could speak to that in more detail on behalf of the applicant.

[1:42:57] Sure. Commissioner Naptan, we absolutely have been following it. Chris Carter and

[1:43:01] Raleigh Development Company have been following the discussions associated with BRT recognizing

[1:43:05] that as this site develops, as well as the sites that are in proximity to the site,

[1:43:09] having access to transit is of critical import. So absolutely interested in continuing

[1:43:13] in that work with the city and certainly we'll be following it as we go.

[1:43:16] Thank you.

[1:43:17] Thank you all.

[1:43:18] Now, if we could hear about the S line and I guess any work on that?

[1:43:23] I just want to keep us on track.

[1:43:26] This is a frequent transit designation because of the R line, correct?

[1:43:32] So that's not even, I don't want to say it's not relevant, but it's really not relevant

[1:43:37] to the frequent transit designation of this area.

[1:43:40] So I just want to make sure we're able to talk about the TIA and the height and all of our other questions that we might have.

[1:43:51] Is that okay?

[1:43:53] I suppose it seemed relevant in that it's also within the context of the neighborhood.

[1:44:01] And right now, if I'm hearing it correctly, we have residents who are concerned about the proximity of the development.

[1:44:08] and just I guess I'm trying to seek clarity on the neighborhood, their

[1:44:15] backyards, the rail line which is being upgraded to this high-speed rail line

[1:44:20] and then we have this currently zoned industrial I guess mix use okay and then

[1:44:25] we have a street and then we have this development that's what I'm trying to

[1:44:28] get clarity on. So very briefly could you just tell us about the S line and

[1:44:33] it's proximity to. I can yes and also Commissioner Maynard you raise the valid

[1:44:40] point for consideration is regardless of the BRT transit location the site is

[1:44:47] qualified as core transit on Table LU2 by its service of existing transit today

[1:44:55] the R line.

[1:45:00] And its location within a mixed use center of 30 acres or greater, qualify it.

[1:45:07] One or the other qualifies. This qualifies both. So the language in the comprehensive plan says

[1:45:11] core transit can be qualified with either planned frequent transit. It has frequent transit

[1:45:18] today. So that qualifies. The other is its location within the bus rapid transit area

[1:45:24] downtown and the other mixed use centers on that map. Thank you. Yeah.

[1:45:33] Good morning

[1:45:34] everyone. Carter Robertson with transportation. I'm going to find a

[1:45:38] picture here so I could orient us towards the site and the S line and how

[1:45:44] those two will interact.

[1:45:48] A little more zoomed in. Here we go. So brief

[1:45:52] overview of what the S line project is. It's a partnership between NCDOT

[1:45:59] and the Virginia passenger rail authority to connect Richmond to Raleigh with

[1:46:04] high-speed rail. And so a federal grant was granted for construction from Raleigh

[1:46:12] to Wake Forest in 2022, I believe.

[1:46:17] Specific to the site where it will run

[1:46:20] is just on the other side of West Street here. We have the existing railroad

[1:46:28] road track, the SLINE will align a little bit to the east of it there, overlapping a

[1:46:34] bit with those buildings. So, some right-of-way and property acquisition is going to be required.

[1:46:41] That was included as part of the grant design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction.

[1:46:48] Currently, U.S. DOT is working through a backlog of grants that haven't been designated

[1:46:56] yet, and S-Line is one of those that they are working on, and so once that gets encumbered

[1:47:03] to this project, we'll have the green light for construction. That's a big overlap of

[1:47:10] S-Line. They would be separating this development from the neighborhood to the west, approximately

[1:47:17] as you see that line that I drew.

[1:47:21] Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair, for bearing with live.

[1:47:24] Of course. No problem.

[1:47:26] Danielle, we were going to talk about, I believe you wanted to hear about the traffic and what the traffic study showed.

[1:47:33] Right.

[1:47:34] So a traffic study was not required for this site.

[1:47:38] Matthew did a good job of explaining earlier.

[1:47:42] At rezoning what we're looking at is the difference between trips generated under the current zoning and the proposed zoning.

[1:47:49] And in this case, the office entitlement was reduced significantly.

[1:47:55] Industrial entitlement was cut out entirely.

[1:47:58] And so those two land uses typically are high driver of trips in our model.

[1:48:03] And so while there is an increase in density for residential, the overall trip impact

[1:48:09] is less than what is currently, what the site is currently zoned for.

[1:48:15] So that's why a traffic study was not required at rezoning.

[1:48:18] one may be required at site plan if it meets the triggers that we look at at

[1:48:24] that stage. I hear the residents concern about P Street. We do realize that that

[1:48:32] is an issue of east-west vehicle connectivity for downtown. Right now the

[1:48:39] volumes that we're seeing on P Street is around 17,000 vehicles per day.

[1:48:44] that's in line with our projections for a four-lane divided avenue. Another thing

[1:48:51] I wanted to highlight, we've talked a lot about walkability in the site and

[1:48:56] current and future transit. This intersection of peace in West Street is

[1:49:01] also going to be very valuable as a part of our future bike network. As I've

[1:49:07] mentioned before, at Planning Commission, we're working on our active

[1:49:11] Mobility Plan, and right now our draft is designating both Peace Street and West and

[1:49:17] Harrington as priority bike corridors, Peace Street. We would like to see upgraded to a

[1:49:23] separated facility to provide that east-west connection for the city in terms of cycling.

[1:49:29] Just briefly, I think the two former chairs of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission

[1:49:32] deeply appreciate hearing about this future connectivity for our cyclists in the community.

[1:49:37] so thank you and the walkers too and the walkers too.

[1:49:43] Does that answer your

[1:49:44] question? It absolutely does thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. May I have a

[1:49:50] quick follow-up for traffic? Could you also just address the projections about

[1:49:54] P Street and the forthcoming development and any plans that may be in the

[1:50:00] area to address traffic concerns? Not directly related to road capacity I

[1:50:09] I mean, the overall vision for downtown

[1:50:12] and adding these different forms of travel

[1:50:16] is to increase the mode share between vehicles,

[1:50:20] pedestrian, cyclists, and transit.

[1:50:23] So that's our overall approach for this area right now.

[1:50:26] We don't have any specific projects

[1:50:29] that would address specifically vehicle capacity.

[1:50:33] It's gonna say, is that part of the city's policy

[1:50:34] see where we sometimes put stress on an area on traffic while increasing, on car traffic

[1:50:40] while increasing alternative options in order to try to pursue those alternative policies

[1:50:46] in the area?

[1:50:49] I would have to review our policy a bit on that.

[1:50:53] Okay.

[1:50:58] Commissioner Outville.

[1:51:00] Thank you, Chairman.

[1:51:02] When this property was up for rezoning the first time around a couple years ago,

[1:51:07] I voted in favor of the rezoning. When the text change came before us to add the

[1:51:14] area to a downtown transition zone I voted against it and but nevertheless

[1:51:19] it's now part of the city policy. Coming into this meeting I thought that I

[1:51:24] would be voting against this proposal due to that condition until I got into

[1:51:31] my studies and read the actual definitions and the text is very

[1:51:35] clear that, let me see, it's DT 1.14, I believe, which states that these transition areas should

[1:51:45] be used for lower height developments, but if there is existing overlay zoning in the

[1:51:54] area, that should take precedence unless there is a small area plan that's implemented.

[1:51:58] I think this area is very clearly defined as a core transit area by the definition that

[1:52:07] goes along with Table LU2 and the comprehensive plan, and as such, like regardless of where

[1:52:14] the BRT gets placed, it's served by frequent transit at this time.

[1:52:19] And I think it is defined as such, it's very clearly part of the core downtown area

[1:52:25] and the future land use map.

[1:52:27] And if you reference table LU2, which

[1:52:30] is supposed to be our primary reference for determining

[1:52:35] building heights and rezoning, this clearly

[1:52:38] qualifies for the kind of height that is being requested.

[1:52:43] I believe our job is to give our interpretation

[1:52:46] of the planning documents and give

[1:52:48] an assessment of whether we think

[1:52:50] it's in line with the policies and documents as they exist.

[1:52:53] It's not our opinion on whether we think that this is a good or bad development.

[1:52:58] I wish this had a shot front urban form designation.

[1:53:02] I think that would be better.

[1:53:03] I am concerned about traffic.

[1:53:06] I wish that the project contains stronger conditions about supporting the park.

[1:53:10] But these are not part of our decision on whether the zoning meets the planning

[1:53:16] documents or not.

[1:53:17] That table LU2 is very definitive in this projection.

[1:53:24] And to address the concern that this sets a precedent across the city, these conditions

[1:53:29] don't exist across the city.

[1:53:31] That you have a 30-acre mixed use area, the front on frequent transit zones, and that

[1:53:44] cross-reference on table LU2, see if I can get there. Sorry for my scrolling

[1:53:49] around.

[1:53:58] These kind of heights are only recommended at the

[1:54:02] intersection of a core transit area and a central business district or downtown

[1:54:08] core zone and this does not exist across the city and I don't think that

[1:54:12] this puts neighborhoods across the city at risk or sets a precedent. I'm going

[1:54:18] to be voting to support this proposal when the time comes.

[1:54:21] Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:54:23] I will appreciate you going through Table LU2 and the policy.

[1:54:29] Could I ask staff, maybe Mr. Clem or Bynam,

[1:54:34] we heard a few times about the staff report not being

[1:54:39] available at the neighborhood meetings.

[1:54:43] Are they typically available at neighborhood meetings?

[1:54:45] Could you talk about the timing of when

[1:54:47] the staff report comes out versus when the applicant neighborhood meetings are held?

[1:54:52] So like this case and others, when there is a second neighborhood meeting required by

[1:54:57] the code, the case will not move forward to planning commission review until the second

[1:55:03] neighborhood meeting is conducted. So the staff report won't be published until your

[1:55:10] first review of the case, which is today. So it is not typical that the full staff report

[1:55:17] is done by the time of the second neighborhood meeting because the case is not complete and

[1:55:23] ready for review until that is done. So in the rezoning process laid out in the Unified

[1:55:29] Development Ordinance,

[1:55:33] the second neighborhood meeting has to occur before you have your

[1:55:37] deliberations, and the staff report is not published until your first deliberations.

[1:55:45] So that is a condition that is perennial to the process.

[1:55:49] Thank you.

[1:55:56] Has there been any studies on the environmental impact of the neighborhoods around the project?

[1:56:01] And anybody, these are questions that anybody can answer.

[1:56:05] So we have stormwater staff that can speak to the stormwater runoff and what the

[1:56:11] code requires in terms of addressing those conditions.

[1:56:15] We have some analysis in the comprehensive plan, recommends encouraging walkability,

[1:56:21] encouraging transit use, and active mobility as an encouragement to burn less fossil fuels.

[1:56:30] The staff report also contains metrics comparing detached houses to apartments and townhouses

[1:56:39] and other building types that have shared walls.

[1:56:42] We know that when folks live in a building type

[1:56:47] that shares wall with a neighbor,

[1:56:49] that both of them use less natural resources

[1:56:53] for heating and cooling because they insulate each other.

[1:56:56] So within the staff report and within the comprehensive plan

[1:56:59] there is guidance that encourages dense walkable,

[1:57:03] mixed use, apartment use and townhouse development

[1:57:06] and an effort to reduce the per capita carbon emissions from folks living in the city.

[1:57:13] What's been the consistent or the average feedback from community engagement about the project?

[1:57:19] So there is a engagement portal that we put up for every rezoning case.

[1:57:27] The particular responses from the engagement portal for this case,

[1:57:33] I believe had four comments in support and four comments in opposition.

[1:57:39] So that's the city's official engagement opportunity for every case.

[1:57:48] We have received a number of emails though over the last several weeks.

[1:57:54] Even though the engagement portal wasn't really used, we've received a number of emails.

[1:57:59] That's why I'm trying to figure out what the average response to this project has been

[1:58:05] from your community engagement.

[1:58:07] Has the overarching response been in opposition or has it been in support?

[1:58:14] Yeah, I would say based on the engagement portal and then also outlined in the report

[1:58:20] is some summation of the neighborhood group who came to speak today and their online

[1:58:26] online postings and social media has been an opposition to the case.

[1:58:32] I also see that where did the $1.2 million number come from for affordable housing?

[1:58:38] That was provided by the applicants.

[1:58:41] We can ask them up to speak to how they came to that number if you'd like.

[1:58:46] Yes, please.

[1:58:50] Could the applicant address the question of where the $1.2 million figure came from?

[1:58:57] The

[1:59:09] affordable housing, the number it specifically came to be as a result of 30 units at $40,000

[1:59:16] per unit.

[1:59:17] Okay.

[1:59:18] And I know that they said that there were conditions on the affordable housing contribution.

[1:59:25] Why?

[1:59:27] Are there conditions?

[1:59:28] Like whether or not you get so many stories determines whether or not the contribution

[1:59:33] is made.

[1:59:34] Excuse me.

[1:59:35] Yeah.

[1:59:35] So, from a timing standpoint, and I think what you're getting at is we're not making

[1:59:42] the payment.

[1:59:42] The developer is not making the payment until the 500 unit.

[1:59:46] And primarily, that's related to being able to finance the deal, because so you can start

[1:59:51] the building and then you can make a contribution as you're being able to occupy units

[1:59:56] It's either.

[2:00:01] I would tell you that their intention, the developer's intention, is absolutely to make

[2:00:06] that contribution. We could do, they could do 500 units as of today. They could do 499 units

[2:00:11] as of today, but they wouldn't be going through this process if their intent wasn't to significantly

[2:00:16] exceed that 499 unit count and make that contribution.

[2:00:20] I

[2:00:23] had another one, but I'm still looking if anybody else has other questions or comments

[2:00:27] from commissioners.

[2:00:31] One more question. Is there any economic

[2:00:33] benefit to the community benefit to this project like economic development. I know

[2:00:38] there'll be shops open, minority participation on the project or I mean

[2:00:45] minority participation goals on the project things like that. So there are

[2:00:50] no conditions that speak to minority participation in

[2:00:55] future businesses that may occupy the site. In terms of economic benefit

[2:00:59] there are two factors that we look at with every case. One is the

[2:01:06] is the jobs proximity index. So in terms of the residents of a new structure here would see some

[2:01:14] economic benefit of having reduced costs for their transportation because of all the other options

[2:01:22] that are available to them walking, biking, taking a scooter, taking the bus.

[2:01:27] That's one. The other economic benefit is the very high job proximity index. Folks who live

[2:01:34] in this site we'll be able to walk, bike, or take a bus to a job in downtown

[2:01:42] whether that's a job in an office or a job in a restaurant. Any job downtown is

[2:01:48] a very large job center for the city. It is the city's central business

[2:01:56] district. So if you live in this location then you will have economic

[2:02:01] benefit of proximity with the owner of the project be willing to put minority

[2:02:06] participation goals on this project as a condition.

[2:02:16] Commissioner I think that's

[2:02:17] something that my client is definitely interested in exploring at the time of

[2:02:21] permit approval. We talked about this specifically and the possibility of how

[2:02:26] could you craft an enforceable condition relative to minority business

[2:02:31] participation at part of the zoning stage and it's really tough to do I

[2:02:35] I think from an enforceability standpoint,

[2:02:37] I'll lean on the staff to answer that question.

[2:02:39] But Raleigh Development Company is just that.

[2:02:41] They're Raleigh Development Company.

[2:02:42] They've been in this area for a long time.

[2:02:44] They care deeply about the area that they're invested in

[2:02:47] and they're absolutely gonna be looking for opportunities

[2:02:49] to engage minority contractors in the process.

[2:02:52] I don't think that would be a zoning condition

[2:02:56] could staff or the attorney comment

[2:02:59] on whether that would even be

[2:03:00] an appropriate zoning condition.

[2:03:06] This is the first time I've heard about that condition. I'd probably have to look

[2:03:10] into it and get back to you. I

[2:03:15] have a question for the community. I want to ask

[2:03:17] one more question. We don't typically question the public, but you can go ahead

[2:03:22] and ask a question and if staff or the applicant can answer it.

[2:03:28] Typically that's Commissioner

[2:03:33] Fox. Commissioner Fox, Commissioner Burnett, I'm sorry.

[2:03:36] Yeah, I just wanted to know, although there are always ways to make a project better, I'm

[2:03:43] not finding any inconsistencies with adopted plans and policies.

[2:03:48] So for that reason, I'm ready to support this at the appropriate time.

[2:03:53] Thank you, Commissioner Flux.

[2:03:54] Commissioner Burnett.

[2:03:55] This is a question for the applicant.

[2:03:58] Just regarding what would you say to the neighboring, I guess, you know, residents,

[2:04:01] business owners, restaurant owners, and so on and so forth, how this would be a benefit

[2:04:06] to the community, their businesses, and just the community at whole.

[2:04:12] Yeah. Again, as has been touched on a number of times, Commissioner Burnett, locating density

[2:04:16] in an area like this that is planned for increased multimodal access, but certainly

[2:04:23] already what exists today is walkable access to the businesses along Glenwood South.

[2:04:29] There's certainly walkable and bikeable access down to Union Station to get

[2:04:32] people out and around. And so without a doubt having density of this type in this location

[2:04:37] in an area that is already starting to really grow into something unique and interesting,

[2:04:42] I think can only help continue to grow the businesses that you're seeing not only pop

[2:04:47] up that have been at Glenwood South, but also at Smokey Hollow and other places in proximity.

[2:04:55] Any questions or comments? Commissioner O'Haver?

[2:05:01] I'm not sure if this is for the applicant or for staff, but can somebody help me understand

[2:05:06] the intent of adding 20 additional feet to both zones if the primary street is

[2:05:15] P Street versus West Street. I know that's 20 feet. We're talking about 240,

[2:05:21] but I'm just trying to understand what the intent of that is. We're going from

[2:05:25] 12 to 25. That's pretty significant. So I'm trying to understand what two

[2:05:29] additional stories if P Street's primary. So I don't know if that came

[2:05:33] from the applicant or staff, but I'm a little confused by that.

[2:05:36] That's fair.

[2:05:37] That absolutely came from us as the applicant team, and it really depends upon, as was discussed

[2:05:42] during the staff's presentation, whether West Street or P Street ends up being the

[2:05:47] primary street.

[2:05:48] Our goal is to make sure that from on the northern portion of the site that 240 feet

[2:05:53] is going to be measured from West Street.

[2:05:56] And so if West Street is designated as the primary street for the development of that

[2:06:00] portion of the development then it will be 240 feet. There's 20 feet of grade

[2:06:05] change roughly from west to east as you make your way left or right. So west to

[2:06:09] east there's 20 feet of grade change as you head down. So that 20 feet is just

[2:06:13] really recognizing the fact that if we end up having P Street designated as

[2:06:18] the primary street, de facto it's going to increase the building height by 20

[2:06:22] feet because it's now being measured from the low point of the site

[2:06:25] rather than the high point of the site.

[2:06:31] That makes sense. Struggling with

[2:06:34] it a little bit, 20 feet, if it's primary amount. I think again, I think you're asking

[2:06:39] for a significant increase here.

[2:06:43] Let me just process that for a minute. I totally understand

[2:06:46] technically what you're talking about, but I'm hung up on that a little bit.

[2:06:51] That's fair. And to further explain it, really the intent behind that was to provide

[2:06:55] predictability associated with building heights. As you're aware, a 30-story building,

[2:06:59] residential, commercial, you know, office can vary wildly. And so one of the things coming

[2:07:04] into this process in order to provide the transitions that we've talked about, one of

[2:07:08] the things that was important for Raleigh Development Company, was providing predictability

[2:07:11] associated with what are those building heights going to be. And so when we started

[2:07:15] the process, we committed to doing 360 feet along kind of the corner, the zone two,

[2:07:22] if you will, and then 240 feet in this location here. As we were working our way

[2:07:28] through the process, we realized that could be measured from two different places, which

[2:07:32] is why we ended up having that 20-foot variation because we wanted it to be clear to everyone

[2:07:37] without any doubt that 240 feet is measured from West Street and that 360 feet is measured

[2:07:42] from the corner of West and Peace. Really, just to provide those transitions to the

[2:07:47] neighbors who have expressed concerns associated with building height.

[2:07:51] So regardless of the primary street, why can't that be a condition that the building

[2:07:55] height is measured from West Street?

[2:08:00] Yeah, so thank you for the question.

[2:08:04] Where building height is measured from is dictated in the unified development ordinance.

[2:08:12] And zoning conditions can't alter how things are measured, basically, is the short answer.

[2:08:19] How or where, for example.

[2:08:21] So they set up some scenario to account for that in the zoning conditions.

[2:08:25] Does

[2:08:28] that address your question? Commissioner Haber?

[2:08:31] Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

[2:08:35] Questions, comments? Other? Commissioner Miller?

[2:08:38] One final comment. Just wanted to, not a question.

[2:08:42] There's been a lot of discussion about the benefit to the businesses and to transit and the walkability.

[2:08:47] I just wanted to also note similarly to when this case came up to us previously,

[2:08:53] the benefit to the park as well, being immediately adjacent.

[2:08:57] we've heard time and again a park is as successful as its edges. I too would have been interested

[2:09:03] in more retail or a shopfront urban form designation, those kind of things along the line. Maybe

[2:09:10] that's something that the applicant can still think about when it terms in terms of putting

[2:09:14] in retail. But I am encouraged and look forward to seeing how this positive impacts the park

[2:09:20] as well.

[2:09:24] Commissioner O'Haver, are you reaching? Sorry, procedural question. Is this the first

[2:09:29] First bite of the cherry or is there an opportunity to change these ordinance?

[2:09:33] I know we've seen this case before, but.

[2:09:35] No, we haven't.

[2:09:36] This is the first time we're seeing this particular.

[2:09:39] So there is an opportunity to request that the applicant reconsider some of the conditions

[2:09:45] procedurally.

[2:09:47] Okay.

[2:09:47] Thank you.

[2:09:48] Are there conditions that you would like them to consider or reconsider?

[2:09:53] Well, I've heard a couple comments from commissioners about shopfront, which I think I agree

[2:09:58] with.

[2:10:01] I can probably be convinced, but I'm still hung up a little bit on 20 feet. I don't

[2:10:06] know where Jason went, but a little bit in the weeds. I agree with Commissioner Miller.

[2:10:12] I appreciate the 15,000 square feet. A lot of times, technically, these projects downtown

[2:10:18] are required to provide open space, but due to the technicality of it, it's really

[2:10:24] not usable. So that commitment to do a 15,000 square foot open space, I appreciate very much

[2:10:31] again addressing the park. But it sounds like there might be a couple of items that could

[2:10:37] be critical to some of the commissioners. I'm not sure what their thoughts are.

[2:10:41] I'm happy to clarify that. I look forward to seeing how this intersects with the park.

[2:10:46] But I believe it was both Commissioner Otwell and Fox that I think to me really stated

[2:10:51] that while there a case can always perhaps be a little better on some of the details the core issues for me with respect to consistency with the comp plan are there and I'm comfortable supporting this project as is.

[2:11:07] Other commissioners are there conditions that you wanted the applicant to consider or reconsider or are you ready to vote?

[2:11:21] I think that this being the first time we're hearing about it it is an

[2:11:24] opportunity for there to be other conditions added to this project just to

[2:11:29] make sure that community and the council I mean the Commission is

[2:11:33] comfortable with it. Do you have specific conditions that you would like?

[2:11:37] No I actually was listening to what Commissioner Atwater was saying and I

[2:11:40] agree with him about the height and making sure that getting out the

[2:11:45] weeds of the height of the project but also the Commission is willing to

[2:11:49] I'm sorry, but also if the Commission is willing to vote on this today, I'm willing to do that too.

[2:11:56] Okay. So to be clear, would you like to have the applicant do something with that condition and bring it back to us?

[2:12:10] I think if that's the only issue that's left on the table coming from me, I think that can be addressed in further conversations with Council.

[2:12:18] I think that the benefit to the public, I think it's reasonable in the public interest.

[2:12:23] There are no inconsistencies with this particular application.

[2:12:29] Matthew did a great job spelling all that out.

[2:12:31] It's hard to kind of argue with anything that he presented there.

[2:12:34] I think we asked really good questions that staff were able to answer.

[2:12:39] All that being said, I think I'm comfortable moving forward with the application as

[2:12:45] it is and recommending approval.

[2:12:46] In that case, I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Otwell.

[2:12:55] With regards to Z-1225, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement

[2:13:00] dated August 12, 2025, contained in the agenda materials, and to recommend approval of

[2:13:05] the zoning amendment.

[2:13:07] Second.

[2:13:08] Commissioner Otwell has made a motion for approval. Commissioner Fox has seconded the motion.

[2:13:13] is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor? All opposed? Motion carries

[2:13:22] 9-0. Thank you all very much. Thank you to the public for coming out and

[2:13:27] providing your comments.

[2:13:32] That concludes new business. It's 11-15. Does anyone have

[2:13:37] to leave like the next 15 minutes?

[2:13:42] All right.

[2:13:50] Next up, we'll wait for everyone

[2:13:54] to leave.

[2:14:04] Next up is the report of the chair. So welcome back everyone. It's

[2:14:11] good to see you all. Just one reminder to use the Planning Commission email

[2:14:18] address if you're going to be absent from a meeting because that copies

[2:14:24] Bynam and Shanita so then everyone is in the know. I failed to announce at

[2:14:28] the beginning of this meeting that Commissioner Shelburne had let us know he wouldn't be here.

[2:14:34] So he is excused today. The other order of business is our committees. I believe I touched

[2:14:42] base with all of you, either in person, we talked on the phone or I sent a text message.

[2:14:49] Find them. Do you have this cheat for everybody? Okay. I am going to let you know.

[2:15:00] Strategic planning, text change, infrastructure and mobility, which is fairly inactive unless

[2:15:05] something specific comes up on that one. You'll be assigned to it, but that one rarely meets.

[2:15:11] And then committee of the whole, as you know, is all of us. We'll get in touch with you about

[2:15:16] when the committees will meet right now. Just note your assignment. Strategic planning.

[2:15:20] Commissioner Miller is the Chair. The members are myself, Commissioner Burnett, Commissioner

[2:15:29] Cochran, and Commissioner Shelburne. Text Change Committee, Chair is Commissioner Otwell.

[2:15:38] Members are Commissioner Fox, Commissioners Neptune, O'Haver, and Omacaya.

[2:15:46] Infrastructure

[2:15:47] and Mobility. Chair is Commissioner Cochran. Members are commissioners Bennett, Neptune,

[2:15:56] Omakaya, and Ottwell. And then again, Committee of the Whole is everyone. Find them. Do we

[2:16:05] want to stick with the times that are set for right now? So I was going to say we'll

[2:16:11] publish this information on the Planning Commission webpage. It'll also appear in

[2:16:16] minutes next time as part of the direct the chairs report and then we do have set

[2:16:24] standing times for all of the committee meetings and if you wanted to I can

[2:16:28] stay with those that would be great okay so and then you make changes yeah

[2:16:35] advise so strategic planning currently meets second Wednesday at four text

[2:16:43] Change currently meets third Wednesday at four.

[2:16:49] Infrastructure and mobility, which

[2:16:51] again is inactive, meets fourth Thursday at three. Committee of the whole meets

[2:16:59] fourth Thursday at four. So I'll leave it up to the chairs and the members if

[2:17:06] you need to change those. If not, we'll stick with those standing times. I

[2:17:09] believe the only committee that is set to meet this month is Committee of

[2:17:13] the whole? Is it a text change committee? Oh, it's text change. I'm sorry. Text change.

[2:17:20] And again, that's Commissioner Ottwell. So he'll be in touch with you all. Please let

[2:17:25] your chair know if you will not be available for a committee meeting, because as you see,

[2:17:31] those are much smaller. So it's important to have quorum.

[2:17:38] And that is it for my report. We'll just go down the line for the report of the

[2:17:43] members. Hi.

[2:17:47] As noted committee of the whole generally meets the 4th Thursday of

[2:17:52] the month which would have been September 25th however there are no

[2:17:56] items. There's no items for August so we're projecting the September 25th as a

[2:18:01] maybe. There may be an item but there are no items listed at this time. So no

[2:18:05] August meeting. Thank you. I apologize I did no no August committee. No August

[2:18:10] meeting. I did not announce that Commissioner Fox is chair of committee

[2:18:15] of the whole as vice chair of the planning commission. I'm sorry, I apologize for the

[2:18:20] slight. There's no slight, we're good. Commissioner Otwell. Thank you Chair Bennett

[2:18:27] and to all the wonderful folks now on the text change committee we do have a

[2:18:31] meeting coming up this month August 20th. It'll be in the Raleigh Municipal

[2:18:35] Building Room 305. We're going to talk about RHDC updates and Greenway

[2:18:41] amendments. Those are already on the portal so we can start reading about them.

[2:18:44] I do want to offer a clarification. The RHDC text change will be in front of the

[2:18:52] I'm sorry the preservation text change TC324 will be in front of RHDC on the

[2:18:57] 10th of September and won't come to text change committee until the 17th

[2:19:01] but you will discuss Greenway TC325.

[2:19:06] It's confusing because they're both TC3 from two different years.

[2:19:10] Excellent. We look forward to having a Greenway discussion.

[2:19:14] Do you want to try to get, see if you have quorum right now?

[2:19:17] Does anybody know if they will be unavailable to meet at 4pm on

[2:19:22] August 20th? I can confirm. Availability

[2:19:27] on August 20th. 4 o'clock.

[2:19:31] One more.

[2:19:32] We only need three of the five.

[2:19:35] I think you have three.

[2:19:36] Oh, all right.

[2:19:39] OK, Commissioner Neptune.

[2:19:41] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[2:19:43] Just a brief note of gratitude to our colleagues and staff.

[2:19:46] Over the last month, I had the privilege

[2:19:48] of working and coordinating with Bynum and Sarah,

[2:19:53] I would say Shaughnessy, and others in our planning

[2:19:55] and development department.

[2:19:57] They came through with a city block building activity

[2:19:59] for a larger public event involving our mayor and a conversation around growth and development

[2:20:04] in the city. And I just really appreciated our colleagues and staff being there with

[2:20:08] this block building activity. We also had colleagues from City Transportation who

[2:20:14] were present, so I just, you know, won't recall everyone's names at this immediate

[2:20:20] moment in time, but I'm deeply grateful for everybody who was present for the event

[2:20:23] engaging with our larger public. So thank you to our colleagues on planning and development

[2:20:29] and transportation staff. Deeply appreciate all of you.

[2:20:33] Mr. Cochran?

[2:20:35] I just wanted to say thank you for trusting me with the Infrastructure and Mobility Committee.

[2:20:39] I look forward to maybe having a meeting this year and learning what it does.

[2:20:47] No reports.

[2:20:51] No reports, but I hope everybody had a great break. We had an awesome time at lunch,

[2:20:56] which was wonderful. So I am glad I have had the opportunity to get a chance to

[2:21:00] get to know the commissioners more and I look forward to more of those opportunities in the

[2:21:03] future.

[2:21:04] Commissioner Miller.

[2:21:07] The Strategic Planning Committee has no items on the agenda to my knowledge and will not

[2:21:12] meet in August.

[2:21:14] And well done on the first, do you have a first meeting?

[2:21:17] Thank you.

[2:21:18] Thank you very much.

[2:21:20] Commissioner O'Haver.

[2:21:23] I always say I like to go last, but Blaney took my thunder on that one.

[2:21:28] Nice job.

[2:21:29] I'm unfortunately not available on the Planning Commission meeting on the 26th.

[2:21:36] Email us for the record.

[2:21:42] Now we will turn to the report of the Assistant Director.

[2:21:50] You've all noticed we have a new agenda system.

[2:21:53] Nice job jumping in the pool.

[2:21:55] First meeting back. Appreciate you all rolling with it.

[2:22:01] Busy meeting coming up on the 26th.

[2:22:03] A lot of new business there.

[2:22:05] expected and I don't think I have anything else. Thank you for your support.

[2:22:11] I've done it on a first meeting. Thank you. Any other business?

[2:22:23] Did you get an

[2:22:25] email with the agenda? If you click on that link it'll take you to the agenda

[2:22:30] and each case has a link. I can say a little bit more about the agenda if you

[2:22:36] visit the council boards and agendas page which you all get a link to as I

[2:22:44] understand it the planning commission distribution list is now working properly

[2:22:46] for everyone who is appointed to the commission. Thank you IT. When you launch

[2:22:51] that agenda there are blue titles and when you click on that on the right

[2:22:57] hand side of the page you will see all the attachments pop up and you can see

[2:23:01] like the staff presentation, the staff report, the engagement report. There are,

[2:23:09] what else is there, so many pieces of business. Consistency statement for

[2:23:14] approval or denial. So all those pieces would be there for you. You

[2:23:26] can also get

[2:23:27] there from the Planning Commission webpage if you visit RaleighNC.gov

[2:23:30] slash planning dash commission Cassidy one of our helpful city clerks is here

[2:23:37] and I think gonna show you a little demo while she's doing that I have a quick

[2:23:42] question for staff is it Margaret Tartala in the audience I think it was I

[2:23:48] just want to I just I recognize her I just I couldn't immediately remember

[2:23:51] her name but our colleague I think from city transportation Margaret

[2:23:54] Tartala was the one with us at this event with you know planning and

[2:23:58] developments. I just want to recognize, I see her. And now I just remember your name.

[2:24:03] So it's, again, thank you, Margaret Tartala, for being there with us.

[2:24:06] Yeah.

[2:24:10] I'm sorry, this is unplanned. But just for this, since this is new for the sake

[2:24:14] of everybody, you'll see from the Planning Commission page there's a link to upcoming

[2:24:21] Board and Commission meetings, which has agenda in minutes. As Planning Commission

[2:24:26] is the first and only at this point board to be moved over to the new system.

[2:24:32] It's the only one listed here and you will see PDF, HTML, the video which this is a good

[2:24:40] example of the HTML which I would probably recommend if you're following along in the

[2:24:44] meeting because it has the video over to the side after the fact you know that'll

[2:24:49] be time stamps so people can click the item that they're interested in it will pull

[2:24:53] up over to the side. If you click the item, as Bina mentioned, it'll list all the attachments

[2:25:00] here that you can click. So this is the HTML view in my opinion is kind of the nice cohesive

[2:25:06] view of everything. So not an e-scribe expert, but that's probably the best way to

[2:25:13] call along. Thank you. Anything else? If not, we're adjourned.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Transcript