Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Meeting is now called to order. At the beginning of each meeting, we provide an opportunity for the public to speak on items that are not included on the agenda. At this time, is there anybody present that would wish to speak on an item that is not going to be discussed on the agenda today? All right, thank you. Seeing no comment, we'll move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda only has one item this month, and it's the approval of the minutes. I'll look to the commission for either some comments or a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes.

There is a motion. Second.

Commissioner O'Haver moved to approve, and Commissioner Neptune seconded. So all in favor of approval of the minutes? Opposed? Passes seven to zero. Motion passes seven to zero. Moving on to the next item on the agenda, we have the report of committees. And we will hear from Commissioner Nick Nectune, the text change committee chair on text change TC 126, school lot area amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Following item, text change TC 126, the school lot area amendment was discussed during the March 18th, 2026 and May 20th, 2026 text change committee meetings. A member of the public has requested an amendment to the UDO section 631D2B, which currently requires all schools to provide 500 square feet of lot area per enrolled pupil. The proposed change would retain this requirement citywide except when a school site meets the following conditions. It is located in a mixed use zoning district and the lot does not immediately abut any area zoned R1, R2, R4, or R6. The text change committee has voted unanimously, three to zero, to recommend approval of the text change. We're now presenting it to the full commission for approval.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Bringing it back to the table now, the committee has recommended approval unanimously, and at this time we can either open the table for discussion or make a motion to dispense with the case. Are there any questions or comments from anybody who was not there or from any of the text change committee members that they wanted to follow up on? Not seeing any discussion, I would welcome a motion on this item.

So moved.

Could we get a more formal motion, please?

I move to approve the text change TC 126 school lot area amendment. I move for approval.

Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

A motion by Commissioner Neptune and a second by Commissioner Fox. This is to approve TC 126 to recommend approval. All in favor, please raise your hand. Opposed? And that also passes unanimously. I think we're up to eight now, eight to zero. that concludes report of the committee and we will now move on to old business as a uh as a quick note i've heard from vice chair cochran that she is excused and absent today and commissioner burnett said that he'd be a few minutes late and expect him any minute Old business, we are looking at rezoning Z5125 at 4804 and 4808 Spring Forest Road, and I will turn the presentation over to Matthew Burns from Planning and Development.

Good morning, Chair Otwell, members of the Planning Commission, Matthew Burns with Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone approximately four acres from R1 to commercial mixed use three stories with conditions, and the request has been revised since it last appeared on May 26th, and your deadline for action is July 25th. Just a reminder that this site is in northeast Raleigh, about three-quarter miles southwest of the U.S. 401 and 540 split. There are nearby commercial and industrial uses to the east and southeast and residential and all other directions. So the applicant has submitted revised zoning conditions since the last time it appeared. The first two which prohibit certain uses and limit development intensities remain unchanged. but they've added two new conditions. Condition number three would prohibit vape and or tobacco shops. And condition number four would require a 20 foot type B protective yard as defined in the UDO along the western and southern property lines for any site proposing a non-residential use. And I'll show you what that looks like in a second. So these areas in green along the western and southern property lines, would have a 20 foot type B protective yard if developed, if the site's developed for a non-residential use. And what that looks like is it's minimum 20 feet wide, requires a wall or a fence between six and a half and nine feet tall and various plantings. So the request represents an increase in entitlement for residential, office, and retail. Would also allow the apartment building type. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map, and there is no urban form guidance for the site. Consistent policies are related to mixed-use development and managing the impacts of commercial development, as well as housing variety and the housing supply. inconsistent policies are related to fire service concerns and future land use map consistency. So if this were approved, the future land use map would be amended from low scale residential to community mixed use and here's what that would look like. And your deadline for action is July 25th and there are no outstanding issues. Please let me know if you have any questions.

All right, thank you, Mr. Burns. This is an item on old business, so it has had a full presentation and public comment and discussion at the table. There were... Requests for conditions from the Commission and there have been some conditions added to the case so at this time I asked the commissioners who were Looking for this to be deferred and asking for the conditions if these satisfy the issues that you noted with the case and Will welcome a motion one way or the other we don't take comment directly from the public thank you that's out of order thank you at this time if there are questions the commission may certainly pose them

I have a question. There recently came to light some information about a protected species that's been identified on the property. I was wondering if staff can give us any information on that.

I'm not aware of this information, so I cannot provide a comment. Okay.

Is there any way we can get any information? I would like to make a request to open the public hearing and hear from the public regards to this.

without uh barring objection i will reopen the public hearing is there a time left on the public comment clock i didn't there's four minutes and 59 seconds left for those in favor and no time remaining for those in opposition all right well again without objection i'll add two minutes to both sides so we can hear from the concerned neighbors commissioner fox

May I ask a question of staff?

Please, go ahead.

Does City of Raleigh staff generally regulate protected species?

No, we do not.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question for staff.

Is there any information that we can refer to parties if it's brought to light here about protected species that may impact rezoning of a lot that's brought before us?

So that would probably be a state or federal issue. So most likely the residents would need to contact the state wildlife officials or potentially similar at, yeah DEQ probably handles that or the EPA on the federal level. But all of that, so when you're developing land, if protected species are discovered during the development of the land, the developer is required to notify certain state and federal officials of that. That does happen though during the development phase, not at the rezoning phase.

We did add two minutes, so if those opposed would wish to use their two minutes, then we do have around seven minutes now for those in favor. Please state your name for the record.

The name is David Bender you have the previous presentation and you know I won't rehash that the extra conditions don't address the fact that adding it isn't going to exacerbate the safety issues and he hasn't guaranteed that he's going to put housing there but last night it came to. It came to the attention of the community where you have a hundred over 150 signatures now that there is a Barred owl in the area that you're planning on putting like the offset That is listed under US federal code title 50 1013 is a list of birds protected by the migratory bird Treaty Act I have the statute that it's a felony and intentionally destroying it during a commercial development project, both governed by US federal law and North Carolina wildlife law. So there's also a law that states that abetting the destruction of the habitat and the direct area around it is also considered a felony. subject to not just prison time, but a $100,000 fine for individuals and up to a $500,000 fine for both municipalities and companies. So the last thing I want to point out is the developer acknowledged he did not do due diligence in talking to the failing businesses there before. As of Thursday, he did not because I spoke to the failing businesses there. And these are all things that would have come to light had the developer done his due diligence, which he refused to. And I have some more information from them. The pizza shop is going bankrupt again after six months. One of your commissioners referred to it, to me, as a ghost town in the areas around there. That's it.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Bender. If that uses up the time for those in opposition, would the applicant like to respond? I believe there would be six minutes and 50 seconds.

Good morning, Commissioner Otwell, Chair Otwell, members of the commission, Hunter Winstead, Morning Star Law Group, 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2200, representing the applicant in this case. Just to address the protected species, to Ms. Ashton's point, and I appreciate Mr. Bender for bringing that information to my attention, it's the first I've heard of it, What I'll say is that is really not the purpose of the rezoning process. As Mr. Bender mentioned, there's robust federal and state protections for protected species on this property that'll happen through the site plan stage following the rezoning process. What I can offer up at the commission, again, I don't think it's relevant to the rezoning, but we will follow all applicable laws as we're going through the development of this site. Again, really irrelevant to the question of rezoning. but I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. I just wanted to highlight a few things too regarding the conditions. I know Commissioner Fox, I've broken this mic I think twice in the past few weeks. Let's see if I can quit touching it if it'll stay there. Just to run through a few of the the conditions that we added. I know Commissioner Omekye asked about prohibiting vape shops and smoke shops. We added that condition in. The language is in the packet, too. Happy to answer any questions there. Essentially, it's not a defined use, and so we put our own definition, Commissioner Omekye, in the condition itself, which essentially says that the primary purpose of the business is to sell tobacco products or vape products. It's prohibited. The second change, I know Commissioner Haver asked a question about buffering. We went ahead and committed to that 20 foot protective yard buffer. Just to show an illustration here of what that'll look like. I've got the orange dots showing those deed book and page references where those residential properties that border the site on the south and the west side. There's gonna be that 20 foot protective yard there that's shown in green. I know it's a little bit small. In addition, there's gonna be a total of a 50-foot setback from that property line, 30-foot setback from that protective yard, so no buildings can go in that setback. And then that kind of orange-yellow portion regulates the height there, which is in the UDO. And then I know Commissioner Fox asked a question about pedestrian connectivity. We went ahead and looked at the site plan and the recorded plat for the parcel that is to our east where these apartments are. You can see the Food Lion building kind of on the south. There is a pedestrian stub, a five foot pedestrian path. I know it's a little bit hard to see, but it comes into our site. Our site's here on the left. The UDO requires us to connect that pedestrian stub. And so when we're going through site plan, we're gonna have that pedestrian connection so folks can walk through our site don't need to go up to the sidewalk that we're gonna put up on Spring Forest. They could just walk through our site there. Didn't add a condition there because it's required by the UDO, but just wanted to make sure we answered that question. Again, that's all we have. Happy to answer further questions. These are just those UDO provisions requiring that connection. Happy to answer further questions, but that's the updates from the applicant team. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Winstead. bringing it back to the table again. Is there any further questions or discussion on this topic? With no further questions or discussion, I would look to the Commission for a motion. Commissioner Fox?

We arm wrestled beforehand. In regards to case Z5125, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 9th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion from Commissioner Fox and a second from Commissioner Haver to recommend approval for rezoning Z5125. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now moving on to our next case. Next up is rezoning Z926 at 5925 Glenwood Avenue. And the applicant has two minutes and 41 seconds left to discuss, and the opposition has three minutes and 50 seconds. I am aware that we got an email from the opposition requesting to present to present a graphic that they would like to make sure is in the public record, and we will provide an opportunity to do so. At this time, the public hearing is now open, and I will turn it over to Hiram Marziano.

Good morning, Hiram Marziano, Planning and Development. Um, this is Z nine 26, uh, for 59 25 Glenwood avenue. Uh, this is a request to rezone 2.02 acres from office mixed use three with, uh, parking limited frontage and our, uh, residential four to, uh, completely our, uh, office makes use three with parking limited frontage. There has been no changes made since the last meeting. uh we all discussed this in may i'm sorry there's a dot on here it's driving me crazy there we go um your deadline for action is july 11. as you can see the overview of the site it's surrounded by low-scale residential to the south and west, commercial to the north and northwest, and further commercial south and east, and then more residential northeast. Some entitlement changes. Like I said, nothing has changed since the last presentation. This is consistent with the flume. It is consistent with the urban form map for this area. and overall consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's just some policies that it's still consistent with, and no inconsistent policies determined, and again, deadline for action is July 11th, another meeting's on June 23rd. I know there was several questions and comments made by the Commission at the last meeting. I apologize for not being able to attend, but due to some conversations, no changes were submitted, and I believe no changes are intended. Oh, did I have a typo? It's commercial mixed use.

All right, thank you, Mr. Marziano.

Oh, yeah, sorry about the typo. Again. Okay, excellent.

At this time, I would like to reopen the public hearing and I know that we had the opposition would wish to present a graphic that they have sent to staff and I think we'll have that up and then the applicant will have a chance to respond. The applicant has, the opposition has three minutes and 50 seconds.

Arrows. The two pitchers, so just use the arrows. Thank you.

Sorry, I can move to the bottom. How about I move to the bottom of that to share the bottom?

Thank you.

Appreciate it. My name is Danny Howell of Real Engineering. However, I'm also a 10-year plus member owner of Crabtree Swim and Tennis Club at 3305 Fairhill Drive located in Glen Forest neighborhood. The neighbors of this proposed general rezoning case brought this proposal to my attention. I attended the second neighborhood meeting hosted by our owner's rep. They provide a conceptual site plan. They were thinking of hoping to achieve on the property with the blood connection loading storage area expansion in the rear. You guys saw that exhibit at last month's PC. And at first glance, looks simple enough, just adding 10 to 12 foot of asphalt to the rear parking lot. However, the existing conditions are over a 25 foot vertical drop off of that existing pavement down to the existing on-site draw. or channel per our exhibit, which that's the layout we're talking about there, but I'm gonna just go to this in a second. The cross section through the building and rear parking area down to the draw. The expansion will require a 20 foot plus height retaining wall with associated excavation and grid for the support of the high side of the wall. This only leaves the wall less than 18 feet from the existing draw. From here, there's another eight to 10 foot of vertical drop once you're in the draw to the property line that then enters the Glen Forest neighborhood conservation overlay district. This is just one cross section through the site. It's actually worse on the upper end of the site near the proposed dumpster area where the draw will have to be removed or piped to convey the runoff from the adjacent upstream shopping center directly to Glen Forest. Not sure where or how the owner will treat their increased impervious with a required SEM. There are already existing documented stormwater concerns downstream in Glen Forest which our neighbors presented at our last PC meeting. There's known flooding and erosion control issues in the downstream in the downstream draw through Glen Forest, and the site needs to control above the UDA required one, two, and 10 year design storms, which should be the 100 year design storm. This is why this rezoning request should be pulled and changed to a conditional rezoning to allow PC and council to consider additional conditions presented by the applicant, which would protect from downstream flooding and provide additional transitional protective yards and screening efforts to block light and noise pollution from the proposed expansion. Our team also recently was informed by the owner's rep that Blood Connection has secured a new carry location, which a portion of their bus fleet is expected to relocate from their current on-site Raleigh location, reducing the three to five buses on site, which is where they are now. So therefore, there's no need for the expansion or the rezoning as proposed. This brings us to our biggest concern, or one of my biggest concerns, is that if this site were to be fully rezoned to CX3, then the owner, can sell or redevelop the property as a three-story multi-use office and retail site associated infrastructure. The only way that's possible is if you remove the existing intentional R4 zoning buffer between the CX3 zoning and the Glen Forest R4 neighborhood conservation overlay district, which currently would not provide enough site space to develop three-story mixed-use building. So again, we please consider all concerns mentioned by our neighbors and we recommend the denial of the rezoning request as presented and ask that the applicant consider a conditional rezoning so that our concerns can be heard, addressed, while they're allowing thoughtful development on the subject site. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Howell. Would the applicant like to respond? And the applicant has two minutes and 41 seconds.

Which one do you want?

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Will Quick with the Brooks Pierce Law Firm, Suite 1700, 150 Fayetteville Street. As Mr. Martin mentioned, the process has worked here. My client and our tenant, the Blood Connection, heard the concerns, and this has been an ongoing process for several months now. but the Blood Connection has secured a location in Cary. I can't say where yet, because they haven't done their grand opening, but they do intend to reduce the number of buses on the site, which was one of the big concerns. We did discuss the conditions, and as you saw, Mr. Martin is an engineer. We do not have an engineer involved, and it became just prohibitive to go into planning for stormwater, underground stormwater. I will say that we have no intention at this point to do the parking lot expansion. The Blood Connection is going to reduce their number of buses, My client's gone through this process, spent several thousand dollars so far to get here. And it's true, the property is more valuable with consistent zoning throughout. I did discuss with Mr. Martin that our position, and I respectfully disagree, that as cited now with R4 on that back, there's actually a little bit less protection for the property owners once the commercial mixed use is applied, the neighborhood transition boundaries will come into place with type A yards. And so you couldn't go through and clear cut that lot like potentially we could do now. Not any reason to do it, but again, our position is there's actually a little bit more protection for those properties that border there in the Glen Forest neighborhood with consistent zoning. And as Mr. Marziano mentioned, it is consistent with future land use plan and various other policies for the city. So we would ask for you to approve this today and let us go forward to city council. Any questions from?

Thank you for your comments. I do have one quick question just to make sure that we're clear. The graphic was shown to us just a minute ago. That was provided by the applicant at one of the meetings? Is that what I heard?

That was not our graphic. That was, I believe, a graphic Mr. Martin or someone put together.

Okay, thank you. All right, we'll now close. Well, actually, I'm gonna keep the public hearing open. I imagine there might be a question or two and bring it back to the table for discussion. Is there any questions or comments from the commission, Commissioner Pox?

I have a question for staff, apologies I don't have this answer off the top of my head. What are the regulations related to retaining wall design, height of retaining wall? I know there are ones when it's on the public right of way, but I'm not as informed as if there are specific rules interior on a site.

I don't know if I'm qualified to answer. building standards. I know over certain size of retaining wall does have to be engineered. I believe it's five foot. As far as the other regulations surrounding that, I don't, I'm sorry, I don't know.

If it's at all helpful, I will note that

It is cost prohibitive for us to think about planting a retaining wall there. I will make that point. It just doesn't make sense for this site.

I have a question for Mr. Howell. I just wanted to be clear about the graphic. You introduced yourself as an engineer. Are these engineering findings and drawings?

Correct. What we wanted to establish with that was I think, again, the client, they'd done some preliminary concept site plans, and they had shared that with us at our neighborhood meeting. And it's like, hey, we're adding 8, 10 foot of asphalt on the end of that. It's no big deal. But the topo that's on this exhibit here was not on the other exhibit, so you really couldn't see what's happening. There's a 30-foot drop. There's a 25-foot just beyond that edge of pavement, and then there's another 8 to 10 foot as you get into the draw on the back before you leave the site. So it's 30 feet below there. So if you add anything to there, and it's super steep slope, more than the city allows now. Two to one, three to one's about the most slope you'll go without a retaining wall, and it's over that now. Those are two foot contours that you see on the exhibit in front of you here, and that's what we tried to Establish here because it's not just Extending that asphalt you have to for the wall you have grid there's retain wall grid you have to excavate for that grid Try to illustrate in this where you can see it's a 20 25 foot or 20 foot plus high Retaining wall and then all the grid that has to go behind that wall for support on the high side She actually had to excavate more of the parking lot to be able to get that additional asphalt so it's the grading associated with that clearing of trees is what we're kind of trying to illustrate with the site plan that was presented. And I understand it was just a conceptual site plan.

So I just wanted to make sure that this is conceptual. It's very clear and makes it easy to understand, but it's not an engineering drawing or a site plan document?

It is. It's based off engineering design. Again, I prepared the exhibit, and I'm an engineer, so yes.

Yeah. Thank you. Please, Mr. Shelton.

So I'm just trying to understand your position. So right now the problem that y'all described last time was a bunch of buses backing up and creating exhaust at all hours, to which I was sympathetic that it would be unpleasant to live next to. But you were saying today, as I understood it now, again, this is what I'm asking, you don't want the prospect of this site being a different office setup, but it would seem like if it were to be some other kind of office building, then it would be a place where you and I would work with our Toyotas and thus just regular office, not a bus depot. So it seems like this change would be, If we were to approve this and allow it to be another kind of office that would not be this use, seems like y'all would be better off if I'm understanding correctly.

We are trying to be a good neighbor as well. However, again, we have those existing conditions now. If they don't do anything today, we still have all the same issues that we had before, which my neighbors and stuff mentioned at our last PC. I only had three minutes, so I didn't go back into all of the stuff that we've said before. But again, there's an existing issue now with light pollution, noise pollution, all hours, night, the bus. And now they're talking about with the carry expansion or new carry office, they are gonna keep the buses the same. But again, the problem's already there and they're not even doing the, more than likely, again, you see the cost prohibitive because the earthwork and retaining walls and costs associated with the site plan is extensive. So our concern also is, again, if this site is completely bulldozed over and three-story office, that's three-story right beside a single-family house. No, you know, was it like a, I think it was a 20-foot TPY between a three-story building, which does no good when the site is also 40 feet above their houses. So now you have a three-story building, 40 feet above, 70 feet above. Everything you see is going to be building from the residential side, too. So there's that aspect of it as well.

Right, but it'd be three stories of accountants driving their Priuses, so why would that be worse than a bunch of buses is what I'm, again, I'm just not understanding.

Again, it's, sitting in your house, that's all you see is a building. Right now, where it is in the building is the offset. You can't see the building. Now, it's going to be three stories high. Everything you see from your back living room or your deck is everything. It's all building, all lights, office, windows, and again, it could be retail in the bottom, too. Retail and Office, there's all kinds of, who knows what user you might get in there as well. But it's not just all office, it would be, a mixed use is also acceptable, because there's retail there now, obviously. So that's a concern. Again, I didn't bring the other ones up because we spoke to them at last month's PC.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Howell. Commissioner Fox.

May I ask a question of staff? With the zoning on the, I'll call it the front part of the lot, currently being OX3.

CX, I'm sorry.

CX3, parking limited. Could it not be a three-story building tomorrow anyway? That's mixed use?

Yes. It could be. apartments, it could be retail, it could be office, it could be a three-story mixed-use building.

To be clear, without the rezoning?

Correct. Okay.

Commissioner Walters.

I just had a follow-up question for, I forget your name, the gentleman that was here. Could you pull up that diagram again? Thank you, Howard.

Thank you.

oh the other diagram sure we heard from the applicant that they wanted to add eight to ten feet of uh asphalt or or gravel parking area and i'm looking at the diagram and you're estimating a 32 foot dimension um and i'm wondering if that's just inconsistent between the applicant and and your diagram or if there's something that i'm not Reading right here.

And thank you for asking. Again, they provided a conceptual layout at our neighborhood meeting. what I did is I overlaid that layout on GIS, and the existing asphalt was further back on the site at the location where I took the cross access. So it's actually going further into the site. It's eight to 10 foot is what they were saying there, but in some places it was 25 feet total. So I chose one in the middle that could give me a good cross-section of the building, as well as showing the, they're adding this for maneuverability of the buses in the back, I imagine this was four, is to back up in there easier. But again, this is, so it was more than that. When I got it overlaid over GIS, it just, there was some places where the asphalt wasn't as far back as it was. So it was more than eight to 10 foot. And then you have to excavate for the wall and going back in there and getting your grades back to existing grades. So that's what the exhibit is trying to illustrate.

I just want to follow up with a question for the applicant. Sure. So I heard you say that you're not interested in building a wall, so this diagram doesn't really, isn't all that relevant in my understanding of what you're saying. If you were to add 8 to 10 feet of maneuverable area, how would you do that without creating a wall, understanding the topography that's there?

So to be absolutely clear, we have moved away from any parking addition in the back of the space. The blood connection parks roughly 6 to 8, maybe up to 10 buses on the site at any given time. They're planning to cut that by half. They heard the concerns of the neighbors. They were not aware of those concerns prior to this process opening up. They're opening a new location in Cary. It should open in the fall. I mean, I don't have an exact date yet, but they are removing buses. They want to keep the location because it's a great spot for blood drives and for people driving by on Glenwood to get blood, and they expect they will park a few buses there, just logistics from within the triangle, but we have no intent any longer to do any parking expansion because we would have to do a wall, and ultimately, I'll recap if I have the time briefly that this process started when my client who was the property owner submitted a building permit to do just a small parking expansion, did not realize that they could not do it because this part of the property is zoned R4. That kicked it back out. They hired us to go through this process. That's been over a year now. And in that time, the blood connection has heard the concerns between the two neighborhood meetings and secured additional location. So this is really for my client, who is the property owner, the thing that makes the property the most valuable, has no intent to sell the property today or tomorrow or five years from now. They've got, I think, a five-year lease with the blood connection right now. And he owns the Raleigh Diamond Store. He's the owner and founder of the Raleigh Diamond Store, which is on the other side of this property. And he intends to be there for as long as he sells diamonds, is what he's told me. So this is really, we are in the process, and it made sense to continue through the process.

Thank you for that clarification. Yes, sir.

If there are no further questions, I will close the public hearing and bring it to the table. Is there any discussion or comments from the commission? Commissioner O'Haver.

Yeah. Excuse me. Initially, I think at the last meeting I was saying I was generally in favor of this. Hearing that they're going away with parking, I think we all had concerns about the benefit of the neighbors, their complaints as it is existing. I'm very disappointed that they came back with zero conditions. I think the ask from the neighbors, especially as we're, the applicant is asking to go above their entitlements and he just says it's gonna make their property more valuable. I'm very disappointed that there wasn't discussion or thoughtfulness for the neighbors. So unless I hear something otherwise, right now I'm changing my position from the last meeting and will probably decline this or recommend denial of this application.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Haber. Commissioner Walters?

Yeah, I tend to agree that the intent of this application has changed kind of last minute, and I'm not sure I understand the value of it much anymore. I'm not ostensibly opposed to bringing the zoning together, but I feel like the intent and the force of thrust of the application was about the maneuverability of these vehicles, and that's not really what we're doing anymore. So I think I'm moving in line with Commissioner O'Haver. Thank you.

Commissioner Fox.

If I think about this solely as land use and not a development project, it makes a lot of sense to fix a split zoning. And then if I think about what can be built there today and then this essentially matches it and it's just making the entirety of the parcel meet the same zoning requirements. there would be required transitions between this at the time that it would redevelop and the existing neighborhood just based on code. The only hesitation I have is that I'm only finding restrictions for the height of retaining walls when they face the right of way. And so that's my sticking point is that that retaining wall would be outside of transition, but still quite visible, and would have an impact on the neighbors, so that, to be clear, but generally speaking, this is in line with the future land use map, makes sense that a parcel is not split zoned, but that's the one piece of my sticking, is the height of a retaining wall facing the neighbors.

And I'll just add as my own comment, I don't believe it is our purpose to evaluate the intent of the request for a rezoning. It is a rezoning and we need to evaluate it on its own merits based on the comprehensive plan and the future land use map and not tied to any specific site plan. Commissioner Burnett.

And I think for me, the fact that it can be three stories by right, it kind of does it for me or checks that box and that it is in line with the flume. I guess I don't have any more issues with it. I think that we've kind of had an exhaustive conversation on it and about it, but those are my comments and I would probably be in favor of it.

Commissioner Burnette, Commissioner Omokai.

I also agree with Commissioner O'Haver. I understand that we're not considering intent, but I think that quality of life of neighbors and their concerns being heard and having the time to address that should be considered in an application. So I kind of agree with that.

Commissioner Neptune.

I would just briefly echo Commissioner Omokaye and Commissioner O'Haver's earlier comment. Although we're primarily here to weigh in on land use decisions and the comprehensive plan and future land use maps, there is still a third consideration for the Commission with regard to the public interest. And I just think it's a fair expectation to be a good neighbor and to operate in good faith with nearby residents. So at the moment, I'm struggling to see this through with an approval.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Commissioner Shelburne.

I agree that a last-minute change is not ideal, but I think we should acknowledge the reason, at least, that we're given for that change is an attempt to be a good neighbor, that they heard people not liking the buses here, and so they found a site and carry. And, you know, we have no reason to doubt that that is the sequence, and so that is a good... set of choices by this owner regardless that that's what's going to happen now and to follow up with the notion that it could already be three stories i'm not even sure what we're talking about i'd like to thank commissioner shelburne for that reminder i mean that's true that's that's i mean that's just the truth thank you thank you to both commissioners if there are no further comments or discussion i invite the commission to put forward a motion

I think we're going to have a split vote, so. Commissioner Omekai?

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 9th, 2026, containing the agenda materials and to recommend denial of the zoning amendment for KZ 926.

We have a motion from Commissioner Omikai. Do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner O'Haver. There is a motion and a second on the floor to recommend a denial for zoning Z926. Are there any further discussion or comments? All those in favor of denial? Oh, pardon me. Commissioner Walters.

I'm coming in late here with some clarification. I think in order to adequately make my decision, I wanted to get some clarity from staff about what the difference is between what they can do with the part of the property that has substantial slope on it right now between what it is right now, R4 and CX3. Because I think that would help us make a decision Can I ask that of the staff?

So we have a motion and a second. It probably needs to be.

Okay.

I mean, the public hearing is closed at this point, so. Yes, okay.

Apologies, Commissioner Walters.

We have a motion for denial and a second on the floor. Barring any further discussion? All those in favor of denial? All those opposed? Motion fails to carry by six to three, six to three. We have a application before us. I will welcome another motion on the case. All right, well, I can go ahead and do it. All right, for case Z926, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 9th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment.

Second.

I've made the motion, a second from Commissioner Burnett. Any further discussion? All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries six to three.

Do you want any additional figures?

Oh, my apologies, Commissioner Haver. As is normal, we will solicit feedback from those who recommended denial and start at the end with Commissioner Foxx.

I think we might need some consideration of basically the question that Commissioner Walters asked towards the end there of what that change actually means on a steep slope, which is tied into my comments about retaining walls.

Thank you, Commissioner Fox. Commissioner O'Haver.

Yeah, I'll let my comment stand in the record. The only thing I wanted to add is, again, there is that third bullet, which Mr. Neptune mentioned. That's why I didn't make an additional comment. And I do have concerns making a decision at this point, not having all the information here, that there's a good chance that it is not reasonable and in the public interest, and that's why I couldn't vote for it.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Haver. Commissioner Omokai?

I also let my reason stand. I also do think that that third point is equally as important as being consistent with the comprehensive plan or future land use map. And I think that sometimes it's not. So I think quality of life of residents and things of that nature should be considered when we're making these decisions.

Thank you, Commissioner Omekye. All right, thank you. That was certainly robust discussion and I appreciate the commission's attention. Let's go ahead and take a break for five minutes. Let's be back here at five till 10. We have concluded with old business, and now at this time, we will move on to our new business. First up, we have rezoning Z1925 at Dorothea Dix Drive. The public hearing is now open, and I will turn it over to Matthew Burns for a staff presentation.

Good morning, Chair Altwell, members of the Planning Commission, Matthew Burns of Planning and Development. This is rezoning Z1925 which requests to rezone just under 12 acres from residential mixed use three stories with transit overlay district to downtown mixed use 12 stories with conditions with the transit overlay district. And your deadline for action is August 8th. So this site is in downtown Raleigh bounded by West South Street, South Dawson Street, Western Boulevard and South Saunders Street. It's the site of the Heritage Park development and is owned by the Raleigh Housing Authority. Nearby zoning is predominantly mixed use. So to the north and northeast, our property is zoned downtown mixed use, ranging between five and 10 stories. And to the north, there are some commercial uses, zoned neighborhood mixed use up to three stories, as well as some townhouses. To the northwest, zoning is industrial mixed use up to three stories and features some industrial uses like Hearn Auto and commercial uses like the Vault Beer Garden. And to the west, sites are zoned RX and NX with heights ranging from three to seven stories. And this site is within a half mile of Dix Park to the southwest. Here's a zoomed in view of the site showing some of those nearby uses. and some views of the site along West South Street and South Saunders, Southwest Street and Dorothea Drive. The applicant is proposing three zoning conditions. The first would prohibit certain uses that are otherwise permitted in downtown mixed use. The second would require dedication of at least 122 affordable units for households earning 30% area median income for a period of 30 years. And that's tied to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 700th unit constructed. And the third condition would limit morning and evening peak hour trips in order to obtain building permits. So the request would increase the maximum allowable height from three to 12 stories, and increase entitlement for residential, office, and retail uses. And although the applicant has not elected a frontage, the existing transit overlay district, which would be retained on the property, applies urban limited frontage standards on the site. The site has an above average walk score, transit score, and bike score, low transportation costs, and high access to jobs. And the site is served by Go Raleigh Route 21, Carolee, as well as Route 11, Avon Ferry. So it has convenient access to transit. The request adds to the housing supply. It does include subsidized units. I'm sorry, that's a typo. It permits a variety of housing types and is within walking distance of transit. and area residents are more likely to be minorities compared to the city average, more likely to be low income and the cost of rent has increased 52% since 2016 and 27% since 2019 compared to the city wide average of 26%. So this request, the request of DX12 is consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Central Business District which applies to downtown. and it is also consistent with urban forum guidance for downtown and frequent transit areas. So in summary, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the future land use map, and the urban forum map. And consistent policies are related to future land use map and zoning, compact development, reducing vehicle miles traveled, capitalizing on transit, station areas, development at interchanges, zoning for affordable housing, recommended heights for transit areas, missing middle, housing variety and opportunity, retail, zoning for housing, access to transit, frontage and urban design, various downtown specific policies related to the future land use map and zoning and vertical mixed use. as well as housing in downtown and some area specific policies related to station areas. Staff did not identify any inconsistent policies with this request. There are no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is August 8th and please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for that presentation, Mr. Burns.

Mr. Chair, if I can just make one clarification before you open the public hearing. The applicant did submit signed conditions, which changes what Mr. Burns presented just slightly. I just wanted to clarify for the record, instead of at 30% AMI, the units will be at 50% AMI. Mr. Burns had to go ahead and publish the agenda before we had the signed conditions, so I just wanted to clarify for the record.

Thank you for that clarification. And now I will open the public hearing, and we will allow at this time an opportunity for both those opposed and in favor to speak on the issue. But first, we will allow 10 minutes for the applicant and those in favor to present. Please come to the podium.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Jason Barron with Morningstar Law Group here on behalf of the Raleigh Housing Authority, who's the owner of the site. Joining me this morning, not evening, is Kenya Pleasant with the Raleigh Housing Authority. We appreciate the opportunity to be here. Very excited for this wonderful mixed use, mixed income development. I think the staff's, the combination of the staff's presentation as well as the staff report has done an excellent job of answering kind of the first two questions. And I always love attending planning commission meetings. I've done this for a long time, especially with folks who are intimately familiar with the role planning commissions and so listening to the previous discussions that you all had relative to the cases that were before you it's not just is it consistent with the comprehensive plan which this case clearly is you know what is that reasonable and in the public interest and we would submit that this case is absolutely reasonable in the public interest not only is it consistent with the comprehensive plan but it's ideally located I mean this is where you want to put density this is where you want to put people As was mentioned in the staff report, as well as the staff's presentation, there's transit already serving the site with multiple bus routes on every 15 minutes. You've got a BRT destination within roughly 1,000 feet of the site planned for Western Boulevard at South Saunders Street. Additionally, as you all are aware, what this is going to propose, and as you heard, there is a commitment to keep the 122 affordable units on the site, also to add in market rate apartments as part of this development. And so in the long run, you will have mixed income community on this site, as well as the possibility of non-residential services on the site. The statistics, the research associated with mixed income communities clearly demonstrates that the outcomes for those impoverished are better when they are in mixed income environments. And so we are particularly excited about the ability to have the folks who have enjoyed Heritage Park for so many years to be able to be incorporated into an environment that will really allow them to prosper. Third, oftentimes we are choosing between affordability and growth, and those are tough decisions to make. We don't have to make that choice in this particular case. We can actually get both. This case represents an opportunity to keep affordable housing on the site while at the same time introducing additional market rate housing in a way that will also serve to help the affordability problem we have, it will provide additional housing opportunities for folks who wanna live in downtown, and it will do so in a place, as I mentioned, that has ideal opportunities for transit, walkability to jobs, and so long story short, from a reasonable and in the public interest standpoint, in addition to those comprehensive plan considerations that you all make, we absolutely believe this is the right case at the right time, and we would respectfully request you all's recommendation of approval of the case. With that, we're here to answer any questions that you all may have.

Thank you for that quick presentation. We'll retain seven minutes and five seconds of your time for rebuttal if necessary, and we will come back to questions in a minute, but now we will provide 10 minutes for those opposed to speak. All right, not seeing any opposition, I will bring it back to the table. We'll keep the public hearing open so that we can ask questions if we need to, but bring it back to the table for discussion and questions. Any discussions, questions from commissioners? Commissioner Omokai.

I have a quick question. Why did you go back from the 30% AMI to 50%?

As part of the redevelopment opportunity and the business partner that Raleigh Housing Authority has chosen for this site, that was something that provided additional flexibility in terms of how the financing of the site is going to work.

And this is like it's mixed use commercial and residential. Are you all also considering creating, well, I mean, it may not be up to you all, but providing opportunity for retail for some of those communities also?

Absolutely. I mean, that's part of the genesis of having that DX rezoning as opposed to the RX right now. As you're aware, that RX zoning severely limits the non-residential opportunities you can put on the site. They have to be tied to residential. This opens up greater possibilities for those non-residential services.

Thank you.

All right.

I have another question. Has anybody posed any concerns? I know it's going from three stories to 12 stories. Have there been any concerns with any neighbors around heightage or... buffers or privacy or anything of that nature?

Not at this point, Commissioner Omokai. We've had two neighborhood meetings as required by the ordinance. The second neighborhood meeting, which was well attended, all things considered. There was only a smattering of folks there, but they were very engaged in the process. Most of them lived in the townhomes across the street. Didn't hear any concerns about the 12-story heights.

Okay, one more question. So then the people who currently live there, is there an opportunity for them to have access to move in once the development is completed?

Yes, ma'am.

That's all my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Omagai. Commissioner Walters?

I think I know the answer to this question, but have you all considered the types of retail that would not be allowed on this site?

Yeah, as was mentioned, we've got very limited prohibited uses associated with it. At this point, kind of leaving open the possibilities to let The market dictate what types of retail uses would be there and what would be appropriate given the fact that this is going to be a primarily residential development. Raleigh Housing Authority will continue to own the site, and so they will be fairly selective about the types of uses that are going to go in. So right now we don't really have a ballpark of the types of uses. We would imagine they're going to be fairly service-oriented to benefit the community as a whole, not just for the folks who are living there right now or will be living there on the site. Excuse me.

That's helpful. Does Raleigh Housing Authority have any policies around types of retail related to, I mean we've often talked about vapes, vaping or alcohol or things like that?

I'll let Kenya answer that question.

I'm not aware of any specific policies that we have, but just inherent in who we are as the Housing Authority, we're not interested in having vape shops and also the financing of this is going to be, will also regulate to what we can have there, and typically that financing prohibits the kinds of bad actors that would come before. Thank you.

Commissioner Burnett.

Hey there. Is there, as we're talking about a community that's in a, I'll say transitioning slash vulnerable area, is there any way that we could see or we could get a ballpark of the type of businesses that could be prohibitive, specifically like beyond vape shops, liquor stores, gaming parlors, and so on and so forth, because that side of town doesn't need anything stuff like that and so for me coming from that side of town i just want to know is there any language documentation or conditions that we could see prohibiting those types of uh non-non-useful businesses in that area and i think what um what kenya

Explained and I'll do my best to summarize as no stated policy per se but again Recognizing that Raleigh Housing Authority has owned and operated the site for an extended period of time their intent is certainly to maintain The you know type of community that they want to be able to foster not only for the affordable units But also the market rate units as well So I that's a roundabout way of saying right now. We don't have anything that's kind of in writing to prohibit those types of uses and

As you guys kind of go further down the funding funnel, underwritings, et cetera, et cetera, do you foresee any of that materializing or just can't say a little bit too early in the underwriting process?

As part of the zoning case, I think it would be out of line for me to suggest that at some point during this process that will materialize as part of the funding. We just don't know the answer to that question right now. Okay, fair enough. I apologize. No problem.

Commissioner Makai.

I do hate to beat a dead horse, but that was one of the questions. I was like opening up to let people ask the questions instead of just me. I know that you all are prohibiting dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses, adult establishments, pawn shops, detention centers, prisons and jails. In that, could there be added vape shops, gambling houses, things of that nature, like since it's already kind of... We've opened the door to prohibiting uses.

Yeah, I think that's something that could be handled and I mean, we can talk about it after the meeting, but I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility. I mean, I recognize my colleague, Hunter Winstead, worked on providing a definition associated with respect to vapes, vape stores as a part of another zoning case. I don't think that's something that would be out of the realm of possibility for us to do in this instance. My strong preference would be to do that after this meeting as we head to council. Just because we do have a tight timing, the way that these projects are funded, we've already received the credits for this particular development, and so we are hopeful to be able to stay on a path that allows us to have a closing with our development partner by the end of the year. Typically, I would say, let's hold it here at the table, come back with those conditions. If that's the will of the commission, obviously that's something we will do, but we would prefer to stay on the current path and I'll commit to you that we will look at those and add conditions after this meeting prior to council to address some of those bad actor types of uses that you all have expressed a strong interest in seeing.

I appreciate that. I think that's really important. And it's not just necessarily, I just wanted to say, not just necessarily from my experience with the area and connection to the area, I think it's also surrounding neighbors, neighborhoods, Boylan Heights, you know, amphitheater is going to be, you know, actually augmented in the next coming like year or so and so on and so forth. So that's, that was the concern, a holistic type of concern.

And to be clear, as you heard from Kenya, they share those same concerns. We don't have a zoning condition along those lines, but absolutely that is part and parcel to what they see for the type of community they're going to have. So I don't see any issue there.

Is there any? Commissioner Fox.

No, I was just gonna add, I'm comfortable moving forward with it the way it is. I appreciate the offering and conditions, and I will acknowledge the, I believe the majority of this project, and you just did mention LIHTC, there are limitations for commercial uses associated with using LIHTC, so I'm comfortable moving it forward at this time.

Commissioner Walters.

just also want to reflect that um not only our our previous chair and commissioner nicole bennett uh is on the raleigh housing authority and and if this was a private applicant i would have more concerns about moving this forward but i have no concerns uh understanding who the applicant is yeah it seems as if we've moved into comments now which

Yeah, which I'm glad about. I was gonna echo, I was gonna make that same point about Nicole Bennett. She's not gonna let them put a bunch of yucky uses on this site. And I was actually with the city, sorry, I was with state government in 2003 when the City of Raleigh made the Gateway Park development happen right across from Western Boulevard. And back then, Heritage Park was the nicest thing in the area. And the promise was Gateway Park was going to lead to a revitalization. So I'm glad to see that is happening and reaching Heritage Park. And also, as for as a specifically rights to our commission, I don't remember a single time that I've been doing this. Granted, my memory is bad and I'm sometimes multitasking, but I can't remember a single time when The presentation from the staff was everything is consistent. It's all good. It's all right. There's no hesitations, no limiting factors, no nothing. So to me, this is a slam dunk. We need to vote this unanimously right now.

Thank you, Commissioner Shelburne. Commissioner Omekai.

I'm sorry, I promised. That's called your question. I'm trying to make this the last question. It's 513 units currently. Are those considered... Where do they fall in the AMI, the 513 units, for the 122 units that'll be gained? Excuse me. At current, it's 122 units, not 513.

That's the number of units that was on Heritage Park, and that's at 80% or below AMI. Okay, thank you.

I'm not seeing any further questions or comments and I believe the mood of the commission is to move this case along. So at this time we'll close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion. Commissioner Walters.

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 9th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment as presented.

There's a motion, seconded by Commissioner Shelburne.

All right.

So we have a motion and a second to recommend approval for rezoning case Z1925. Is there any further discussion or deliberation? All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you everybody for your attention. All right, next up on the agenda, we have rezoning Z826 at 5525 and 5605 Rock Quarry Road near Barwell Road. And we will hear a presentation from Matthew McGregor and the public hearing is now open.

Good morning, Planning Commissioner, Chair, Matt McGregor. I'm here to present on case Z826. The site address is 5525 and 5605 Rock Quarry Road. Request is to rezone approximately 1.52 acres from a base residential four district to a neighborhood mixed use with three stories and a parking limited frontage. Planning Commission deadline for action is July 25th. The zoning in the area is predominantly residential and a little bit of mixed use. The surrounding zoning is R4, R10, and X3, RX3. Here is a look at the surrounding area. The site is located less than half a mile away from Raleigh Fire Station 26 and Barwell Road Community Center and School. And there is some neighborhood mixed use, moderate scale residential, low scale, and some public park and open space surrounding the area. Here's just another look at the site a little bit closer up. And here are two street views off of Rock Quarry. You got the first one is northwest facing along Rock Quarry Road, and the second view is southeast facing. There are two existing structures on this site, just both detached single unit homes, one on each property. Excuse me. There were no conditions proposed for this, so this is just a general use rezoning case. The existing zoning, R4, under the R4 existing zoning, you can estimate about the maximum units of about eight units, and the setbacks are standard for R4. And then under the neighborhood mixed use three, parking limited zoning, you could estimate about 55 maximum units, and then again, these setbacks are standard for neighborhood mixed use. The site has an average walk score, no transit score was provided, has a lower bike score than average, has a slightly higher transportation cost index than average, and it has a lower job proximity than average. The site is serviced by two bus routes, Route 17 Rock Quarry and Route 18L Barwell New Hope. The request will add to the housing supply. It does not include subsidized units, permits a variety of housing types, smaller units are allowed, smaller lots than the citywide average are allowed, and it is within walking distance of transit. The area's residents are much more likely to be people of color at 88% compared to the citywide average of 46%, and area's residents are much more likely to be low income, 70 compared to the citywide average of 29, and median rent has increased greater than the citywide average at 49 compared to the citywide average of 41 since 2019. I go into this more in the staff report, but the requested NX3 parking limited frontage would be considered inconsistent with moderate scale residential. Moderate scale residential just doesn't necessarily imagine neighborhood mixed use there. However, the parking limited frontage would be considered consistent because the site is located along a transit emphasis corridor, so it's consistent with the urban form map. The request is also consistent with the comprehensive plan, and again, inconsistent with the future land use map, consistent with the urban form map. Here are a list of consistent policies I found. They mainly talk about capitalizing on transit access, housing variety, infill development, corridor development. And I found three inconsistent policies. First one, LU 1.2, future land use map zone inconsistency. Again, it's inconsistent with the FLUM, so I included that. And then your ones that you see quite a bit, the LU 2.6 and CS 4.4 response time standards are inconsistent as well. If the request is approved the future land use map would need to be amended from moderate scale residential to neighborhood mixed-use and There are no outstanding issues and Planning Commission deadline for action is August 8th, and there is only one more meeting before The Planning Commission break so June 23rd. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you

Thank you for that presentation, Mr. McGregor. At this time, we will provide 10 minutes for the applicant and those in favor to speak. So the applicant, approach the podium and state your name for the record, please.

Thank you, Mr. McGregor. Good morning again, Chair Otwell, Commissioners Hunter-Winstead, Morning Star Law Group, 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2200. I'm representing the applicant in this case. Just a few things I'd like to highlight again. I appreciate Mr. McGregor's excellent rundown of the background here. Just showing the map of the current zoning in the area. You'll see there's a trend of this neighborhood mixed use three with a parking limited frontage here in the pink. We are essentially just proposing to continue that trend in a southeast direction. And the main reason we think this makes sense is the planned intersection of Barwell Road here and Rock Quarry Road is gonna be really a major intersection. I've got a few slides to walk through there. But again, just showing the current zoning, proposed zoning, really just extending that trend. The first main reason this proposal makes sense to us is under the current R4 zoning, it's really unlikely that there's gonna be single family development under R4 that fronts on Rock Quarry Road. And what I've highlighted here is the ages of the homes. These are all single family homes that are on Rock Quarry Road. just showing how long it's been since there was single-family development. There's a lot of townhomes in the area. You'll see kind of the single-family high-density neighborhood that is just to the southwest here, but again, it's not on Rock Quarry Road, designated as that transit emphasis corridor, again, really contemplating that higher density, just to show for the benefit of the commission that it's very likely for the site to develop under its current zoning, which is why we think neighborhood mixed use makes sense. Reason number two, again, this application really pulls the retail toward that major intersection. I know it's a little bit difficult to see here with the colors, but you see that Rock Quarry Road is planned for a four lane divided avenue. I've got just an image showing the cross section up on the top left. You can see the median divided. There's bike lanes, pretty wide sidewalks, tree lawn areas, and then two lanes on each side. Barwell Road is planned for slightly narrower. It's a two lane divided by a median as well. I've got a slide showing there's a 10-foot multi-use path planned for Barrel Road on the western side, so the side that's closer to us. So a lot of work going in from a transportation perspective here and transportation planning on this site. Again, why it makes sense to us to kind of pull that neighborhood mixed use, allowing for that neighborhood serving retail in this transit emphasis corridor pretty close to a major intersection. And then lastly, kind of showing the plan. We don't have a site plan or concept plan yet. Just the general plans for the site here is that neighborhood serving retail. Just showing some kind of illustrative examples down on the bottom left of the screen here, which also illustrates that parking limited frontage, kind of that hybrid frontage where it's still desirable to have cars able to park there. You've got those two bays in front of the building, but also have that kind of pedestrian-oriented focus really capitalizing on transit. which brings me to our final point. We believe this makes sense. Again, that neighborhood serving retail capitalizes on transit. Mr. McGregor, brought to the board's attention, the commission's attention, the bus access here, again, this is an image from the urban form map showing that transit emphasis corridor, what that means there on the bottom left. We believe that higher density, again, allowing that retail to be there to serve the general area, have that access to transit so folks can use it in the general vicinity, really makes sense to us from a planning perspective. Those are really the three primary reasons. Again, happy to answer the commission's questions. I think one thing you will notice here that is different from a lot of the cases the commission sees is this is not a conditional use proposal. This is a general use with no conditions. And the reason we're doing that is we've heard from some of the counselors that there really have been no conditional use proposals in a long time, and that there's an appetite to have to hear the concerns from this planning commission, hear the concerns from council members before going into those conditions. Of course, the city put a lot of work into crafting the neighborhood mixed use general use district. A lot of those, I can't remember which one of the commissioners mentioned, I think it was a, non-desirable use. A lot of those kind of non-desirable uses for specific areas that you may have in a commercial use district are not available in a neighborhood mixed use district. And so I really think this is a good candidate to proceed under a general use application without those conditions. So we offer that up to the commission here. Also the main concerns we heard from our neighbors at the two, we had two neighborhood meetings were really traffic related and storm water related. The reason this makes sense again to me as a general reason is both of those are heavily regulated and the code is very specific on traffic and stormwater regulations, again, we can't exceed the post-development runoff, can't exceed the pre-development runoff. There's some really robust stormwater regulations, that's all covered by the UDO. Also with respect to traffic, the city's put a lot of work into the TIA thresholds, and I've got a slide here if we wanna look at the specific numbers, but we're essentially half of the proposed traffic from this site is right around half of the TIA threshold, just to look at if any improvements are gonna be necessary for the rezoning case, and again, I think we're around That threshold is somewhere around five, I want to say 500 peak hour trips. Transportation is African-American, if I'm wrong on the numbers. Again, by now we're right around half of what that threshold is. So again, both of those really major concerns we heard from the community here are already governed by the laws that are in place, which is why we think it makes sense to proceed with this general use, having no conditions at this stage. Again, happy to hear the concerns of the commission. Happy to answer any questions as well. With that, I'll reserve the remainder of my time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Winstead. We will reserve four minutes and 25 seconds of your time. At this point, we would provide 10 minutes for those opposed to the application to speak.

Good morning.

Please state your name for the record. I'm sorry. Yes.

I'm a little nervous. I'm not used to doing anything like this. My name is Mary Goodson, and I live at 3924 Barwell Road. The proposed applicant, the applicant that's proposing this will more than likely butt up to my name. to my property. So the concerns I have, number one, as he stated when we went to the meetings, is traffic. It's horrible. Barwell Road is now going through the And right now, I've been in my home now 26 years. And we were outside of the city limits and then we were moved into the city limits. So a lot of the area behind me is wooded. It's very nice. I have events at my home where I can, you know, my family. So in speaking with my neighbor, I wasn't at the meeting when he went with the applicant, but he was talking about putting a wall or some sort back there for this proposed shopping center. So we already have a shopping center that's a little ways up. There's no conditions to this. That shopping center that when we first moved over there, it had other things in there. Now we have two gambling establishments there. We have a vape shop. All of that is now there. So to have no conditions as to what can come there, it just does not ring with me. And I don't like the fact that, of course, the runoff, my property slopes down. So when you're talking about putting this shopping center, what is it going to do for me? Like I said, when I bought my home, I didn't buy it as just an investment to sell down the road, and I've been approached by so many to sell my property. That is my generational wealth for my family and for myself. I just don't feel comfortable about this. Traffic-wise, and we do need retail, but we have Battle Bridge up the road. and a lot of that we have eating places and those places and people really go up to Barwell Road, I mean up to Battle Bridge. But to come in with something like this and if it was based on the picture I just saw with that large retail establishment, I'm just not comfortable with that. Like I said, I just, it's just, you know, I'm opposed to it. I really am from my personal standpoint. And then plus with the traffic, you bill first and then you worry about the traffic later. And the traffic out there, we have a lot of influx of traffic now. So that's how I feel. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Goodson. We'll reserve six minutes and 45 seconds for the opposition, if necessary. I'm gonna keep the public hearing open and at this time we'll bring it back to the table for comments and questions from commissioners. Commissioner Pox.

It's a question for staff or the applicant. I just wanted to clarify, I believe a transition is required between NX and the neighboring residential just based on the weird shape of the site. I was wondering if we could clarify which edges that would involve.

Yes, absolutely, and Ms. Goodson, thank you so much. I know that we didn't meet. Molly from our firm actually handled the neighborhood meeting, but thank you for coming out. I really appreciate it, and I hope we can walk through these neighborhood transitions to hopefully alleviate some of those concerns. I believe I have a slide showing which borders that we are going to have to have these neighborhood transitions. Yes. This will be just showing the, so again, I know the commission's familiar, but just for Ms. Goodson's benefit, there's three different sections of the neighborhood transitions. There's a protective yard, which is essentially a planted buffer that is zone A, and what this is showing is the minimum that zone A could be, and it's not the best illustration, but it's essentially the minimum it could be is 10 feet from your property line, which I understand you were this property up here? Is that right? Okay, so this one, this one, and this one. would all have the neighborhood transitions applied to it as it stands, because they're zoned residential, and if we have the mixed use zoning district. This is just showing that 10 foot, again, the minimum of that planted buffer that would have to have a wall that's at least six feet, could be six feet to eight feet. That's zone one. Zone two is in a 50 foot building setback. which is measured from the property line. You can adjust the distance. Zone A could be a little deeper. It could go all the way up to 50 feet, and I know this is all really complicated, but essentially there's not gonna be a building within 50 feet of your property line. And then zone three, I think I have one for zone three. This is just showing what 10 feet looks like from that zoomed-in picture. This is showing 50 feet, again, from that site that's fronting on Rock Quarry Road just to the east of our site. So again, where that current building is, that home, could not be as close it is to that property line, just to give you a little example if you're on the ground. I think that's the simplest way I could try to explain the neighborhood transition provisions. I know they're really complicated, but essentially, of course, the city's put in a lot of work into designing these to make sure when we've got mixed use next to residential that there is really that appropriate buffer, and those don't exist when it would be just residential development. So if it were developed under R4 now, there would not be those neighborhood transition provisions. It's only for those mixed use districts. So again, thank you, Ms. Goodson, for coming out. I hope that addresses some of those concerns. I certainly understand. certainly understand them. And Commissioner Fox, I hope that answers your question on what I think is a complicated area certainly of the code.

Commissioner Walters.

Hunter. Yes. Could you just review what the conditions are on the other three annex properties nearby?

Absolutely. I'm familiar with them if you want me to. Sure. So the one that I'm most familiar with is This one here. And I'm happy to look at these as well, of course. But I know this one, I think there's only two conditions. One has to do with cross-access. I think it has some minor adjustments of cross-access actually onto the present site here. And then the other one, of course, is prohibiting a few uses. It doesn't prohibit vape shops, to Ms. Goodson's point. I think it prohibits outdoor sporting was one of them. I think it may prohibit drive-throughs. I think it was just those two uses. I know it doesn't prohibit vape shops, but I believe it's just two conditions. One's related to that cross actus, and then one is prohibiting a few uses. Gas station, that's right. Gas station was the third use that it prohibits.

Thank you.

Commissioner Omokaye.

I had an opportunity to speak with Dr. Lang, who is the head of the CAC for Southeast Raleigh. Have you had an opportunity to speak with him or go to the CAC meetings to speak with the community? I have not. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I didn't see an engagement report for your report.

That's right. I haven't had the opportunity to. I may have mentioned I just took this one over from Molly at our firm. I haven't had the ability to engage in that process, but happy to look into it, of course, Commissioner Mkaye.

Also, I have a question about the traffic impacts. We have approved some projects already on Rock Quarry that's not far from where this project is. There is a shop up the street from it. I do see that you're saying that Rock Quarry is being extended, but from where it's currently being extended, it's past where this project is and up Rock Quarry towards Battle Bridge. It's not in the area that is deeply impacted by the traffic, which is to your project towards New Hope, and like I said, right now, even when there's concerts and things like that, traffic is really, really crazy, and it also puts, to me, a pedestrian concern, especially in extending traffic lanes, so that is a concern for me. The traffic is bad now, extending lanes will make it worse. What is the height of the property that you're considering putting there?

It would be three stories, just like it currently is under R4. So no height increase from store. Now, I will say the mixed-use districts from a measurement perspective are a few feet higher. I can't remember what the number is off the top of my head, but it was 50 compared to 45 feet. Is that right? So it's a five-foot. The mixed-use districts allow for five feet additional from measurement, but the stories are still limited to three stories, just like it would be under R4.

And that's understandable, but also we have to make sure that I believe that what we're developing in the city should meet the character. And that's something that we bring up often when we're talking about development projects and residential areas, even mixed use areas, that the project fixed the character of the neighborhood. And I believe that the picture that you showed does not, to be very honest, is actually jarring when you think of the character of the neighborhood. So I do hope that my fellow commissioners would consider visiting this spot also like we consider doing other spots. When it talks about transitions from her home, and you're saying 50 feet, does that also include tree conservation?

Do you want to address that one?

So under the NX zoning, there's going to be a 10% TCA, tree conservation area.

You said 10%? Yeah, 10%. So can you give me an idea about how much footage that would be?

Not off the top of my head. I'd have to do the math on that, but it's 1.52 acres, so. I can do that real quick. I mean, I can just calculate that real quick. Okay.

Thank you very much. Some of her other concern, which is a concern in that area, as I know people that live there, I don't live far from this area, is stormwater, flood concerns, things of that nature. Her explaining that her home is on the slope. So her, I believe, once again, that third bullet that is not on our presentations but probably should be is quality of life of residents. So how would this impact her property and her property value if she's dealing with runoff stormwater from this development?

Yeah, what I can say is, what my engineering friends say often with respect to stormwater is that they cannot make it worse and they will try to make it better. And what that means is the pre-development runoff, which is the current runoff that could occur now, that any post-development runoff cannot exceed that amount. And it's just a scientific way of saying that the stormwater is not going to be worse onto your property. And that's, again, with the city's regulations that regulate stormwater in the development phase. If this was reasonably approved, we're in that site plan stage that we talk about so often. All of those regulations are very robust. And so there's not going to be any negative impact from a stormwater perspective on the Ms. Goodson's property based on the regulations itself.

Okay. Well, I have a question then for staff because that sounds great, but we can't say that there won't be. Of course, yeah. 100%. What are her... resolutions if her property is negatively impacted by a development.

For me? Well there are gonna be transition zones. If for some reason the development was negatively impacting her with respect to light, noise, what do you think?

Stormwater.

Well stormwater, she can report a complaint to our stormwater department and they would investigate that. If there was some issue with design or incorrect construction, our stormwater department would look into that. And if there's code enforcement complaints, code enforcement department could assist with that as well.

When you say look into it, once they look into it, then what?

Investigate it.

Right, once they investigate it, then what?

The stormwater staff would then determine if there was something that needed to be corrected on site. Okay, thank you. But whatever happens on this site, it will be going through a stormwater review with engineered plans. So the hope is that any impacts would be mitigated through that development review process.

Okay. My other question is about conditions. I don't feel comfortable personally. I do want to acknowledge that there are shopping spaces around this property. Like I said, Battle Bridge is not far up the street from it. There's a shopping center a couple feet from it. There's Southgate. There's Pool Road. My concern is the conditions on this property. This area does... It is experiencing a lot of growth and therefore it is experiencing a lot of traffic and some crime. I would like to personally see conditions like we see on other projects that prohibit dormitories, fraternity houses, vape shops, adult establishments, pawn shops, gambling spots. I would like to see a condition that prohibits personally gas stations in this specific corridor, especially with traffic already being heightened and there's gas stations around it. Are you all willing to consider conditions added to this before we move forward with a decision on this property.

Yeah, thank you for that, Commissioner McKay. It's certainly not off the table. Um, as I mentioned, I'd like to see this proceed as just a general use district. But again, if it's the will of the commission happy to hear those concerns and certainly hear those uses. I don't know off the top of my head, but I know that several of those that you mentioned are already prohibited in neighborhood mixed use. I'm almost positive adult establishment is prohibited. It sounds like gas stations are not prohibited considering, yeah, considering the one next to us has that condition. So certainly look into those specific uses as well as the commission. But again, I know the neighborhood mixed use general district is designed, you know, when the city's putting together the UDO to have, you know, retail and those mixed use kind of commercial uses that make sense next to residential. That's why the district exists. But again, certainly look into it. It's not off the table. It's just the, you know, the idea of the proposal is to go forward with that general use. But like I say, certainly have it.

I understand that, but this isn't a residential community. It's near a community center. It's where parents and their children live. This is largely residential. It's not, I would say it's probably not even 30% commercial in this area, so it's a largely residential community. I know that it's also on a transit space, and with our transit overlay district, some of those prohibited that's been added is drive-throughs and gas stations and things of that nature, so if it's going to be add it to the New Bern Avenue corridor that is a heavy transit corridor. I think it should be added to this one as well to be consistent with how the city is growing. Got it.

And I just want to make sure the uses you mentioned were vape shop, again, I know we discussed vape shop, gas station.

Detention centers, jails and prisons, dormitories, fraternity houses, pawn shops, liquor stores if possible, vape shops, gambling locations, adult entertainment. Got it.

Yep, like I said, happy to look into those. I know that many of those are already prohibited, but of course, happy to look into it, thank you. And just to touch on, too, the character, certainly something we're looking at, and Commissioner Omukai mentioned, the character in this area has changed significantly. I just have a image from 1999, so in a pretty rural area here for the Commission's benefit, turning to 2025, and I just put that here for the Commission's benefit to show that, of course, there's been a lot of change here. Again, I had that slide at the beginning of the presentation showing that really the character of Barwell is these houses that were built from the 40s really to the 70s of just that single family kind of rural. Of course, we've got the commercial just up the road on Rock Quarry, less than a quarter mile away really that has that same look that we're proposing here that we showed just that illustrative kind of retail, really neighborhood serving retail idea. The character certainly has changed a lot over the past 30 or so years. We're looking at that. We've been watching that just to put those two aerials up also for the commission's benefit.

Just to add context to that, while the character of the neighborhood has changed to add more residential space, it has not changed largely when it comes to commercial usage or areas that are fronting the property that have commercial usage. Even when you go to Battle Bridge, It's the back of the shopping center. It's not the front where all the parking is that gives a stark difference. It's the backside of the parking center. It's a larger space with the Walgreens and all of that where people can turn and go into it. This spot would end up being street-facing, which is different as far as what we're looking for, especially in regards to setbacks from what's in the area, regardless of what it's zoned for. So just to add context, not to be competitive, that as the neighborhood has grown, The character hasn't changed as much if it's in the residential zone that doesn't have a lot of, stark commercial use in front of it.

Certainly, and I appreciate that. And just to, I think I slightly mentioned it before, too, and thank you for adding that. Really, the most recent rezonings we've seen here in this area are the ones the neighborhood makes use of, the three-story parking limited. The one here is the most recent, and that was 2023, I believe. And again, that's when we're looking at what makes sense here. We're just trying to pull that trend. That's the latest trend we've seen toward the intersection again, but certainly recognize those concerns, Commissioner McKay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr.

Chair, if I may point a clarification regarding the comment earlier about tree conservation area. So primary tree conservation is required on subdivisions for sites that are greater than two acres in size, and the site is an acre and a half. So there would not be a code required primary tree conservation area for development of the site if it was developed on its own.

Okay, Commissioner McKay.

Then I have another question. Can you also add in working with the residents in the neighborhood to add a greater buffer, especially since there is no code enforcement for what we just learned from staff buffering on the property and thinking that originally stating that code would cover that, but since it doesn't, can we also add some conditions for transition and buffering for neighborhood properties?

Yeah, and the only problem.

Tree conservation.

Right, yeah, and maybe, I don't know, and this might be a discussion with staff if there's some way to incorporate tree conservation with the planted buffer in type one. I haven't done that before. We can certainly talk offline about that, but it's, you know, it's, there's, at the very least, there would be a fence and 10 feet of that buffering area and we can walk through exactly what that is, but it's a very dense planting there. Again, happy to have that discussion with staff on how we can maybe incorporate that, but it's gonna be a large area on that border that we were showing that's just trees, really trees and shrubs with a wall there really for that buffering. The problem with extending that is this site is very strangely shaped. It would be very constrained to add that. I mean, a 50-foot setback for a building is quite substantial, especially on a site that's pretty small like this that's shaped like it is, and it would be really difficult to put any building there if we went

beyond that and so I think we'll just rely on what's in the code now with those transitions again they're designed for this exact situation to make sure there's adequate buffering with residential around we were just more so speaking about tree conservation yep not just the wall but like no neighbor wants to turn in their backyard and see a brick wall and then a shopping center on the side of it especially if they're used to enjoying again speaking about quality of life their backyard and bought it for the character of their neighborhood, so just being considerate in that space, and if there's gonna be a wall, maybe the trees are on her side of the property, that gives her a little bit of space if it has to be built there. provides her enjoyment of her property. She worked hard on it.

Yeah, that certainly makes sense. I know we can't really change what we're required to do, and so I know that there's the requirement of where the wall goes, but I'm happy to take a closer look at the neighborhood transition. I know there's some options in there. All I can say is we'll certainly follow those to ensure there's an adequate buffer. Thank you for those concerns.

Commissioner Walters, and then we have Commissioner Burnett.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS TREE CONSERVATION WOULD BE TWO ACRES OR MORE. IS THERE A TREE CONSERVATION REQUIREMENT HERE?

NO. SO THERE'S NO REQUIRED TREE CONSERVATION?

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

COOL.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER BURNETT. HOW ARE YOU DOING?

MY QUESTION WAS COMMISSIONER OMAKAYE'S, SHE ASKED A QUESTION AND YOU BRIEFLY MENTIONED that there was some community engagement that had not, it's a two part question, there was some community engagement that did not happen, is that planned?

No, so yeah, Commissioner McKay mentioned the CAC meetings, which as I understand, many, many years ago were a required part of the process and are no longer required. In some cases, I've certainly attended those. I haven't been approached by anybody from the CAC, so we don't have anything planned. Not that we're opposed to doing it, it's just it's not a required part of the process. Like I said, I'm pretty new on this case, but happy to look into it. Yeah, please, please, please.

And then something else I want to note is it was on public input for like our, you know, where residents can leave comments and stuff like that for about 12 weeks. And there was not a single comment or response or anything. So there was like something like 80 views or 79 views. But again, just no comments or anything. So.

The reason why I ask that is because being that it's a transitioning slash, I guess, rural-ish area is that maybe a lot of the residents may be a bit older and may have not had an opportunity to see that listing online. And I think when you're in areas like this that are seeing rapid growth, And there is a quality of life expectation, but there's also an amenity expectation that a lot of people move into areas for. And the reason why I bring that up is because with the zoning, I just want to, I guess, think about what could be in that place, because I think it's important for those residents to understand the applicant's past investment history. The reason why I say that is because I was just doing a little digging, and it looks like perhaps the registered agent of that entity is also associated with another entity that owns a property at 5416 Rock Harder Road, which is a Dollar General. And so my question is that no one wants to live near a Dollar General. And so I think it's important that the residents know that the applicant has experience of constructing those types of commercial entities because that type of build, obviously we can't legislate that, but I think it's important for the city and I think it's important for the surrounding residents to know like that the applicant does that, has built those, has office at 5416 Rockwater Road. So I just want that context to be shared and if it's possible for that to be shared with residents.

I certainly appreciate that and I'll say that we had two neighborhood meetings. I wanna say we had around 15 people show up to the first one, the 500 foot list. I think we had five people show up to the second one, the 1,000 foot list and so we've engaged with the community significantly. The last time we went to a CAC meeting was a case that I think we had like 150 people show up to the first neighborhood meeting. I don't know what is specifically about this case that maybe would merit that and happy to have that discussion again

neighborhood meetings and we only had five people show up for the second one just to make sure that the commission's clear with the amount of engagement that we've had right but no and i think that's very important i mean you hit it right on the head that's the importance of being engaged in your community like you've done what was reasonably expected from you and i think that's where it comes uh in for residents to do their research so they know that if i have a track record building Dollar Generals that there's a propensity that I could build one right beside your mom's house, right? And so I think that that's important. But yeah, you've done what you're supposed to do. So I just wanted to make that known and also just ask that question. Thank you.

I certainly appreciate it. And I don't know, like I said, I didn't do the two neighborhood meetings, Molly did, but I read through the comments. I think that question was asked about our client's experience around the area, and it was a Raleigh local. I don't know how robust that conversation was, but I think that at least was discussed at neighborhood meetings. Happy to follow up with you about that. But again, thank you for the concern. I really appreciate it, yep.

Commissioner Omokai.

A couple more questions, just for context to the commission. The shopping center that's up the street that has the Dollar General that he's referring to, some of the things that we, which also has a gambling spot and a vape shop, what we often experience in that space is a lot of people who feel uncomfortable going to shop there because of people loitering in the parking lots. There are some reputable businesses like a Pizza Hut, the Jack's Seafood and other places that are over there that business is impact by the type of businesses that we put in around the community. So putting in conditions to that effect is important. Also, meeting with CACs is important because yes, we can put out signs and check a box to say we did our two neighborhood engagements that we had to do as by law for this process. However, if the applicant cares about the community that they're trying to go into and not just pull resources from it for the largest population that is of consumers that's in this area, wanting to make sure that the word is out so that the community supports the location is important. And showing up to CACs where you don't have to do the legwork of putting out the signs and You still have to do that, but you also get the collaborative support of people that are already going to put out the information for you. I encourage all developers and people who are looking to develop their properties to partner with those people in those areas. Even if some of the information that comes out of it isn't what you want to hear, at least it'll add to your decision making on the process. possibly add to the approval of the process because it shows that you've been a good neighbor, you've listened to what they had to say, you've taken those things into consideration and not just looking to check a box. My other question is with the population in this area being 88% people of color compared to 46% in the city and 70% lower income compared to 29%, is there any interest in making sure that people who live in this area that is currently naturally occurring affordability able to have access to the residential spaces that may be built there?

Yeah, so the plan is not to build residential. I mean, of course, this is rezoning, and it could happen. The plan is to do that. Neighborhood serving retail, and of course, we want, my client who wants to build this retail wants it to be as good as possible for the folks that are gonna be using it. He's not looking at who is gonna be the customer. He wants it to be as good and as profitable as possible and as good for the neighborhood. And so, no, we haven't looked into that specifically just because the plan's not retail. Sorry, the plan is not residential, it's retail. So we haven't addressed that specific question again because the idea is to have that neighborhood serving retail to benefit the community.

Just so I'm clear, it is mixed use.

That's right, yeah. It could be retail. It could be, yes. It could be residential and retail. That's right, yep. That's just not the plan.

Not the plan at this time? Yep. Is that something that in the future could be considered for this space if the developer is considering building retail there at some point since they're asking for retail zoning? I mean, residential in this place, since they're asking for residential zoning.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not familiar with the way we could only request a zoning that just allows commercial. There's either the residential-only districts or the mixed-use districts. That's just where we fall in the general use, but like I say, happy to have that conversation with my client, but the plan is to do retail.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner O'Haber?

Thank you, just a question for staff. How are the limits applied for NX3 from a square footage standpoint on 1.25 or 1.52 acres? And then secondly, just to the applicant, I think if you look in the area, you've mentioned a few times it's transitioning and all the other NX zonings do have conditions. So I would encourage you to listen to the commission and consider those. But I'm just curious about what the retail limits are from an NX standpoint on 1.5 to 1.25 acres.

Yeah. I don't believe the acreage would fall into that, but like into the allowed uses, if I'm understanding your question correctly.

Amount of square footage. How much retail can they build? I know it's explicitly allowed, but it's not required.

It's like The overall entitlement under the request? Yeah, there are no restrictions in square footage beyond what I think the estimates we shared in the staff report. If you're thinking of residential mixed use, there's a limitation. About 16,000 square feet. Yeah, but it's about 16,000 square feet. Okay, thank you. Sizable.

I think that I am hearing from the Commission a desire to have the applicant come back with considered conditions for use, including gas stations, vape shops, adult entertainment, detention jail, dormitories, fraternities, pawn and gambling, and also to initiate contact with the The Southeast Raleigh CAC.

Have I covered it? Can I, just in my personal desire for efficiency, any of those conditions that are already not allowed, I would say don't need to be overly redundant as a condition.

Certainly.

I don't know which ones they are.

We can throw this list out there, and then when this case comes back, we can make sure that it all matches up.

Can I just add? So to that regard, can we see which are not instead of us? I don't. I want us to make sure that as we're approving this, and we know that some already fall into that space, like the commissioner just said, that we can see what already falls under the conditioning, and then what additional conditions you're willing to add to what already exists.

Yeah, I'm happy to put together a slide or something that shows what the uses are that are allowed and the ones that we're adding. Happy to do that.

Commissioner Fox?

I was gonna say, there's a handy-dandy cheat sheet in the allowed principal use table, which is found in the UDL. Section 6.1.4.

I think, appreciate that comment, but I just think for the public's acknowledgement to Ms. Omokaye's request is reasonable. We can all see that, but again, it gets complicated for residents, so I think that'd be helpful.

Happy to do that.

And Commissioner Walters.

I just want to say that I notice, as I look at the topography on the site, one benefit to Mary Wiggins is that really the stormwater is not going to be flowing towards her property. Just a kind of clear look, it's very much flowing towards the road.

And you're speaking to that, Commissioner Walters, as a landscape architect?

Yes, sir. Thank you.

It's good to have your professional opinion on the matter. I appreciate that.

So we have, we are going to request the applicant to come back with conditions around use, and I believe you got the list, and to initiate discussion with the Southeast Raleigh CAC. I think upcoming we have a September, or excuse me, that's not that far yet, a June 23rd meeting, and then we have a month off, and we'll have an August 8th meeting. As either one of those, do you think you can fit it in, fit in conditions by Friday and come back and see us on the 23rd?

I think so.

All right, so.

Commissioner Burnett, please Yes, the resident mrs. Walters is that there we get right? mrs. Wiggins That's good. Goodson. I apologize. Mrs. Goodson If you could if you could or if it's like if it's out of order I would like for I didn't get her address because I want to go take a visit to the site But if we can even need to do that offline we can do that, but I just wanted to get your address. Okay, so

I think that's appropriate comment, but let's take care of it offline.

Can I also add, just to Commissioner O'Haver's point, will they, if we're in a rush to get this in, because it has to be in by Friday, if they're going to present on the 23rd, is that enough time for them to get in touch with the CAC to speak to Dr. Lange and have that larger conversation in that quick turnaround?

So PC action for deadline is August 8th. So there's only one meeting they have before.

That sounds like ample time to meet with the CAC and talk to Dr. Lane before we have to make a decision on the August 8th meeting.

I don't think August 8th is the deadline. That's not the last meeting. The last meeting is June 23rd. The next meeting after that is August 11th, I believe. So there's only one planning commission meeting before the deadline comes up. Okay.

Perhaps, to Mrs. Umekai's point, perhaps it's not a full CAC, but if the applicant reaches out to Mr. Lang, he gets it.

I can give you his information. Oh, I also, I was gonna say, I also have his information as well, too, so it's, I can share it with him, and, you know, we have a decent rapport with Dr. Lane, so if, you know, he sees that, I'll just reach out to him and let him know that I'm gonna give him Hunter's email, and then they can go from there. Is that okay? Sounds good to me.

All right. It's quite a request, Mr. Winstead. I appreciate it. So without objection, I will defer this case to June 23rd.

Thank you for the discussion.

See you. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you all. I believe this is our last case under new business for the day. We are going to hear rezoning case Z1226 on Rock Quarry Road and we will hear from Hiram Marziano. The public hearing is open and turn it over for a staff presentation, thank you.

Good morning still. Hiram Marzano, Planning and Development. This is rezoning Z1226. The properties associated with the rezoning are portions of 6518, 6702, and 6710 Rock Quarry Road. This is on the fringe of the city limits, so further down, traveled from what we were just discussing. The request is to rezone 42.4 acres from currently zoned commercial mixed use three, conditional use, to commercial mixed use for conditional use. Deadline for action would be August 8th. Zoning in this area is predominantly residential zoning with some commercial mixed use zoning right there along the road. As you can see, the majority of the area is still rather undeveloped with a lot of low scale residential and the little fringe areas around it with more recent moderate scale subdivision to the north. This is just a close up so you can see the parcel lines, how this is crossing those three different boundaries. So it's a little bit confusing. I will say that this is part of a larger development that's been previously rezoned in the past. This smaller portion, if I'm back up real quick, that you can see here, it's exactly the same boundaries as was previously zoned to the CX3CU. It's just an increase in height entitlement requested. As you can see, street views from Rock Quarry here. Proposed conditions mirror those that are currently with the property as the larger assemblage. Limit residential density to 20 units per acre. Prohibit specific uses that would otherwise be allowed in the CX district. Limit the non-residential principal uses to no more than 300,000 square feet. Requirements for post-construction stormwater runoff controls for Stream A. There's a diagram I'll show you. and regulates pedestrian access for the apartment building type, specifically stating how it would front any streets. Here's that diagram associated with condition number four, and you see this large area right here for stream A. It's part of that property. As I said, this is just a change in height entitlement, so none of the other entitlements changing. Current maximum number of dwelling units remains. Building setbacks remain. Office square footage and retail square footage remain the same. Transportation energy analysis, this should say it has a lower walk source, does not have a higher walk source, does not have a higher transit, It's not walkable, it's not transit access, there's not bikeable in this area. It does have a decent cost index for transportation, and surprisingly has good proximity job average for the metrics. The bus service to this area does not extend down Rock Quarry Road. It stops up there at the Battle Bridge Shopping Center, which is about, I believe, just under a mile away, but with no pedestrian facilities to access. this would add to the housing supply does not include subsidized units does provide permit a variety of housing types smaller types smaller lots but not walking distance of transit area residents are more likely to be people of color area residents are less likely to be low income and rent increased here has about comparable to what has the rest of the city has experienced over the last five to six years the current flume category for this specific property is also community mixed use so it is consistent and there is it is partially within the city growth center here it's all along an urban thoroughfare there is no frontage requested so it's technically inconsistent with the urban form map however I'll point out that it's not inconsistent for the area itself as the other mixed-use properties as well do not contain any type of frontage designation so the form would still be in line with the surrounding properties. So overall consistent with comprehensive plan, consistent with future land use map, technically inconsistent with the urban form map. Several consistent policies talking about compact development, density transitions, commercial impacts, but from requirements, mixed use centers, nodal development, housing variety, and environmental protections. Inconsistent policies include, again, the frontage and then fire service has noted some inconsistencies to response time standards and zoning infrastructure impacts. Upcoming meetings will be June 23rd before the deadline for action. That's what I've got for you unless you have any questions.

Thank you. We will now provide 10 minutes for the applicant to present. And those in favor of the applicant, please approach the podium.

Good morning, Commissioners Worth-Mills with Longleaf Law Partners. I'm here on behalf of the two property owners and applicants that make up this assemblage where we are asking for an additional story of height. Michael Vampren with McAdams is also here to answer any questions.

Again, pretty straightforward request.

This property was rezoned back in 2022 as part of a 275-acre rezoning. It was rezoned to CX3CU. We're asking for CX4CU, an additional story of height. We think that helps. with future compact development in this portion of the site, and it also makes elevator-served apartments more economically feasible. Typically with three-story apartments, you see that suburban-style walk-up type of product where we think a four-story product with elevators here would make a lot more sense and just lead to a better outcome for the community as well as for the community at large. So the three properties that comprise this assemblage are outlined in yellow and then the blue shaded area are the 42 acres that we are proposing to rezone. You can see the Battle Bridge Shopping Center up at the intersection of Rock Quarry and Battle Bridge. Here's a closer look at the site. Again, Whitfield Drive is going to be extended through this site as part of this development as well as the development that is west of the 42 acres, that was part of the original rezoning. This slide shows the approved subdivision for the balance of the 275 acres, a mix of single family and townhomes, but this area has been left for future development, no plans yet as to how the layout will feel in this 42 acres. So again, the property was rezoned in 2022. There were three conditions that applied specifically to the CX3 conditional use zoning. Those are listed on the right-hand side of the screen. They included caps on both residential development and non-residential development, and included a list of prohibited uses that are otherwise permitted in the CX zoning district. So with our proposed zoning conditions, conditions one through three are those identical conditions to the 2022 rezoning. We've just carried those forward. Condition four is an enhanced stormwater condition, which is also contained in that prior rezoning, but was not specifically referenced as applying to the CX3 portion. So we wanted to bring that over to ensure that we are not you know, sort of bringing total suspended solids into the stream network that's on site. And then condition five applies to any apartment buildings, and it requires pedestrian access to face both Rock Quarry Road and the future Whitfield Road extension to try to create some consistency with the urban form map recommendations. As Hiram mentioned, Future land use map designates this area as community mixed use, which recommends heights between three and five stories, so we are within the recommended height range. I'll note as well that across Rock Quarry Road, there is one property currently zoned CX four stories, and on the south side of Whitfield Road, that property is zoned CX five conditional use, so there is comparable height immediately across Rock Quarry Road. the urban form map. I did want to touch on the Raleigh Street Plan. So the street plan calls for the extension of Whitfield Drive through this site, which will be dedicated once final subdivision plat is recorded with Wake County. pursuant to that approved subdivision plan. Ultimately, Whitfield Road will intersect with Auburn Church Road. We do not control the two properties between sort of our street stub of Whitfield and Auburn Church, but we are making a new connection to Wall Store Road, which will also lead travelers to Auburn Church Road. So just to summarize, this is a request for one additional story of building height from CX3 to CX4. We're consistent with the future land use map. We're consistent with the comprehensive plan. Michael and I are available to answer any questions that you might have. Appreciate your time this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Mills. We'll now, we'll reserve five minutes and nine seconds of the applicant's time. And provide 10 minutes for those opposed to speak. Seeing no one approaching the podium to place objections, I'll keep the hearing open and bring it back to the commissioner's table. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Omokaye.

With the walkability study, and it says that it reduces vehicle miles traveled, but it also doesn't have access to transit, are you all coordinating with the transit department?

As far as that policy in there, it's because it's a mixed use center in an urban growth, in a city growth area. So the goal of it would be to align with those ideas of reducing vehicle miles by providing services at the location where people live. So as far as any coordination with transportation, I can let transportation speak to any future plans, but the reason staff put that policy in there is due to the mixed use nature of the general area.

Right, but it also sounds like you said that then it coordinates with transit at some point in there if you're reducing vehicle traffic. Is that correct?

It's just the title of the policy is reducing vehicle miles through mixed use.

Okay. My other question is sidewalks. Are there going to be, I know that in that area there's reduced actual pedestrian ability to travel because there's no sidewalks. Is that something considered added to the project?

So as part of the subdivision plan, we do have road improvements along Rock Quarry Road, which will include sidewalks. And then with the extension of Whitfield Road through the site that Street will also have sidewalks on both sides. In the 2022 rezoning, we committed to a greenway corridor that sort of tracks this green shaded area, this stream buffer that is intended to stub out to the northern property boundary, which is a future, what we hope to be a future city of Raleigh Park, Pearl Road Park. I don't believe anything has been programmed there, but it's an opportunity for us to sort of reduce the need for people to drive to any future park through that Greenway connection. So if that park's developed, then there's a Greenway stub that the city could connect to on our project. But that's all contained within that sort of 230 acres outside of this rezoning. But we do have, but to answer your original question, Rock Quarry Road will have sidewalks, Whitfield Road will have sidewalks. The internal streets off of those will have sidewalks, and then we have a greenway connection to a future park.

Okay, awesome. And is that blue area the area that you're looking to develop the mixed use, or are you developing on the whole parcel?

So we are developing on the most... And I'll go back to, so on this slide here, the red outline are the 42 acres that we're asking for the additional story of height, and then everything west of that was part of that 2022 rezoning, and the plans here are part of a 2022 subdivision, SUB-80-2022, which has been approved, And so the entirety, and I don't want to say entirety because there's open space, there's tree conservation areas, but there are plans to develop outside of the 42 acres that we're looking to rezone this morning.

Okay, thank you. Thanks. Oh, one more question. Community engagement. Have you all engaged with the CACs or any community people?

So we had two neighborhood meetings. I think we had maybe 12 people at the first, 15 people at the second. We did not go to the Southeast CAC. I think just given sort of the minor requests that we have here from three to four stories, we did work with the Southeast CAC during the initial sort of 275 acre rezoning. Thank you.

Commissioner Walters.

I just had a question for Michael Van Prynne.

Michael Van Prynne, landscape architect.

In your professional opinion with this rezoning, would this be a lower impact development than currently entitled?

It would be a higher entitlement with the four stories, but allows you to get increased density with that.

because you have increased density but no more allowed units when you have lower impact in that scenario because you're concentrating the units?

Yeah, yeah.

So a lower footprint, a smaller footprint on the same property.

It does allow you to compact the building footprints, yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I'm not seeing any further questions. I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for discussion, debate. Commissioner Fox, I saw you grab your mic.

It's a rather modest increase, in my opinion, in all of the conditions carried over in a way that makes sense. So at the appropriate time, I'm ready to support it.

Commissioner Omukai.

I did see the conditions that they added. Can we also ask to add conditions? Just consistent with what we said of rock quarry, vape shops, things of that nature.

And I'll toggle back to the...

Without objection, I'm going to open the public hearing now.

So there are the prohibited uses there. I don't think we have any issues adding a vape shop prohibition. We're happy to do that in the interim between Planning Commission and City Council, just to sort of stay on this track. I can assure you that the applicants who are developing those homes, they don't want to jeopardize you know, feel or impact that some negative commercial uses might have on that community. And I know I don't, I was listening back there to all those list of prohibited uses. So again, we're happy to make that change sort of between Planning Commission and City Council. So it would be, I guess, vape shops, gambling, establishments, and then from there, I think we've got... Yeah, everything else looks like it's there. Yeah, okay. Yeah, we can make that change between Planning Commission and City Council setting the public hearing if that suits the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

All right.

Do you have... are any more comments or discussions uh commissioner omakai i would recommend that uh you make the motion so you can include your request for comments or conditions excuse me

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement due June 9th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials. I recommend approval of the zoning amendments with the inclusion of conditions discussed here today and opportunity to speak with community leaders around and get their feedback before going to council.

There is a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Sanchez. So we have a motion and a second to recommend approval for Z1226 with the request to add conditions before commission. Any further discussion or debate? All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you for that vigorous second, Commissioner Sanchez.

He wasn't getting his mic down fast enough. Normally Nick does it.

When I make motions, people slow to second. It's okay. As long as we get there.

And that concludes our regular business for the day. So we will now be moving on to other business. First item on the agenda under other business is the election of the officers. And so current leadership was elected when the previous chair rolled off the commission and now our bylaws require us to elect a chair and a vice chair every June. So that's where we are and it's a really informal process and we will open the floor for motions. Commissioner Fox.

I would like to make a motion, Chair Atwal, that you remain in the chair position and that Vice Chairperson Cochran remains in the Vice Chairperson position so you can have a full year of actually serving in that role.

second that motion so there's a motion to retain the current chair and vice chair from commissioner fox has been seconded by commissioner walters all those in favor any opposed and that passes unanimously and thank you for your vote of confidence and i will i'll try to do the best i can do i will do the best i can do we'll see how good that is Okay, next up is report of the chair. I don't have too much to report. I would like to announce that the commission is exploring implicit bias training. So we're looking in to see if the city has any existing programs that could be adapted for the commission. But the process will be moving forward and we'll keep you posted on it. and I don't think I have any other news as the chair. So next up will be report of the members and we'll start with Commissioner Fox.

Just wanted to extend a thank you for your service to Commissioner O'Haver and nothing else to report.

Do you want me to do my prepared statement now or at the end?

Do you have a preference? You want to take it at the end so you can just wrap it up and do it at the end?

Okay.

I just want to say how great it's been working with you as a commissioner. Your wealth of knowledge is going to be missed. I'm going to be probably relying on you more now that you're gone, so I'll be bugging you a little more now that you don't have to see me as often. But thank you. just as much as I think any other commissioner on this board that served with seniority and has given us an opportunity to learn from some of the things that you all, the decisions you've made. So I appreciate that. And I also want to shout out my birthday on Thursday. It is International Tallulah Pay Day. Feel free to bring all of your gifts to Bynum's office so they can be assessed for propriety of me being able to accept them. All things are welcome. We like things that jingle, but we prefer the things that fold. Thank you.

Tallulah Pay Day just kind of rolls off the tongue. too would like to thank commissioner o'haver you've been a great example to me on the commission uh when i first started and i've learned a lot from you i appreciate your thoughtfulness and your consideration and the empathy you bring to the public and to the applicants you've done a great job and you set a very high sartorial standard so we'll all try to follow it yeah the the average has been raising it got raised a lot but No report, thank you.

No report, but also to Commissioner or outgoing Commissioner O'Haver, learning from your wealth of knowledge and how you dig into cases from the human and the analytical perspective, I appreciate that because I try to make sure that I follow the example of looking at the policy but also looking at the people, so I really appreciate that. And I look forward to bumping into you at Jabala more and accosting you and getting some information from you and weighing in on things with you with your blessing. Thank you. Appreciate you, brother.

I would echo the sentiment. It's been a privilege and a pleasure to serve alongside Commissioner O'Haver, and I also look forward to seeing you out and about in our community in the months and years ahead. With that, I would also like to acknowledge that our Carolina Hurricanes are playing tonight in their fourth game. and we should all do well to support them. Go Canes. I would also like to acknowledge that our colleagues with the Raleigh Police Department are hosting alongside our resident teens a Teens Against Violence Town Hall this evening from six to eight, wrapping up just in time to support the Canes. But from 6 to 8, if you would like to join this town hall for teenagers and other members of the community to discuss violence and solutions to address it, it will take place from 6 to 8 at the Greg Poole Jr. All Faiths Chapel at Dix Park. And last but not least, I know that registration has opened up for the City of Raleigh's Affordable Housing Forum on Saturday, August 22nd from 1 to 5. Registration has opened for the City of Raleigh Affordable Housing Forum on Saturday, August 22nd from 1 to 5. I encourage folks to register and to participate. Thank you.

think it's around seven years ago i uh rolled onto the design review what is now the design review commission and both roberta and brian hohever were were on it at that time and now i'm in a place where i'm rolling onto the planning commission uh and trying to fill some really big shoes so i appreciate the time that i have uh with you all on the commission to learn as much as i can and hope that uh in the coming years I can do the best I can to fill what are big shoes. Thank you for your service.

Thank you. Public don't kill me because I don't have a story to say about our relationship because I'm new to the commission but I do want to say thank you for your service and I'm pretty sure now we will do nothing but run into each other so you'll get to know me otherwise I have no report.

That concludes the members' reports. And next up is section G4, report of the assistant director. And the first item under that is section G.4.A, report of the assistant director.

Describe as repetitive, but effective. I was just reflecting that Chanitha and I and Roberta are the only people who have been here the whole time. We have seen it all and still we say well done. Really good service to the city, thank you. No committee of the whole until August, no text change committee until August. One meeting in June on the 23rd, we do have business including at least one item you deferred today. And I'm looking forward to that. I'm also looking forward to all of you getting a break. I do have a little bit of a memento for Mr. O'Haver. Future land use map is currently adopted. I love it. Yeah.

Will that change soon?

Yeah, all the time. All the time. That's awesome.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Without objection, I'm going to alter the agenda and add a item at the bottom for a Commissioner O'Haver to have his final say.

All right. Thank y'all. Like I said, I'm not much of a prepared statement kind of guy, but I thought it was appropriate for this particular moment. Certainly will forget to thank some folks, but if I write it down, hopefully it won't be many. So if you'll oblige me a minute, Bynum, you can go ahead and put a minute on the clock if you want. We can start the timer. Okay. So I would like to start out by saying thank you, just in general, mostly to the city of Raleigh for trusting me in this role. Serving on the commission has been extremely meaningful and I hope I've done well for the community. I know no one on this commission takes this position lightly. I want to thank the incredible staff, most of who I was trying to write everybody's names down, but they're gone. So I'm not going to take my minute to mention them. I'll reserve my right for any rebuttal anybody wants to provide. But Shanitha, definitely an unsung hero. Just want to start out with her. But nonetheless, like Bonham said, she's been in this role for a long time. So thank you, and more recently, Matthew and Jennifer. So even for the new folks here, I think you realize that they're the backbone of this process. They do a lot of work behind the scenes. A lot of times they get stick from the citizens, which really, I don't mind us up here in a volunteer role, but they're working very hard and professionals at their job. And so hopefully in the future when that happens again, you all sort of come to the aid and stand up for staff regardless of if they're in the right or the wrong. like i'd say there's just a in my six years on planning commissions it's only been a few times where i get upset about something and and there have been a few times where i feel like there have been some unfair comments directed towards staff so i just want to make that that point um So I do want to thank you all as well, including my former colleagues on this commission. Like I just mentioned, what we do here is volunteer work, but it's far from optional. It's kind of what we need to give back to our community. It's critical, and I've been honored to serve along each of you and previous commissioners. I will say, like any meaningful endeavor, I kind of mentioned it, My time here comes with moments of great reward and times of real frustration. I think that's part of what y'all have signed up for, so be prepared for that. But I do believe that I believe in the system when the right people are on the bus and I'm grateful that so often they have been And just like I mentioned today there have been many occasions where I've changed my perspective After the meeting started due to comments from my colleagues Again it's really technically been 12 years and I've mentioned before I'm a little unhappy about y'all are all going to get this brand new chamber to meet in right when I roll off. So just expect like the first meeting I'm going to be here to see how well y'all have it. Shanitha, hopefully you're not here anymore. Not because I don't love you, but I hope you're retired by then. But so over the 12 years, I mean, I have grown enormously. It's funny you think back. I always say that in life there's times where you think about a moment in time and it seems like it goes by fast, but then when you really go back and look and think about all the particular moments, 12 years is a long time. And I leave with a depth of knowledge about the city and a connection to the community that I have great respect for. I mentioned it today. I would only encourage our council and staff, more council, to continue improving public access and engagement. The process is complex by nature and ensuring all citizens can participate meaningfully is an ongoing and worthwhile challenge. So pass that on to council. And then finally, I leave with full confidence for our community that's in excellent hands. Commissioner Otwell and Commissioner Cochran, I believe in you both, and you've got a great commission behind you. So with that, it's been an honor, and I want to say thank you, Raleigh. That's it. I think that was more than a minute.