Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Welcome to the Tuesday, September 22nd, 2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. We have a pretty full agenda today, and I think we'll have plenty of public comments, so we will jump right into our business. First order of business, we will provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any issues that are not on the agenda. So are there any people here that wish to speak about something that's not on the current agenda coming up today? If so, please approach the podium and we will allot two minutes for a comment per person.

My name's James Isako. I live at 2512 Stafford Ave, University Park. This is in reference to some of the buildings that are being put in around the neighborhood. I live right next to Raleigh Little Theater. I would just ask if you're gonna put these apartments in that the builder has a responsibility to have a equal number of rooms and parking spaces and if that can't be accommodated that they get their own designation instead of on uh... our neighborhood already so that they don't park or the overflow of cars bleeds into our neighborhood where parking is already tight last year we did have a death we put in uh... some stop signs so traffic parking visibility is an issue in our neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. And I would encourage you to get in touch with transportation staff and your local city councilor, and there are options that you can pursue besides the development plans, too, that could help your neighborhood. Great. Thank you. Proceeding forward, I think that we have a full commission. I would like to note that Commissioner Burnett is absent and excused today. Next up is the consent agenda, item C on our agenda, and the approval of the minutes. And I think that we have a adjustment to make. Commissioner Walters, if you would.

Sure, I noticed that I am listed on the minutes as excused and present, but I just think that the note is Commissioner Baird was excused and I was present, so I would request that edit.

Okay, so I'll ask for a motion to approve the amendment, excuse me, approve the minutes with the amendments that have been noted. We have a motion, is there a second?

Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Just under the time limit.

You want to go through the .

Happy to proceed, Mr. Chairman. Next up, we have report of the committees, and I will be happy to turn it over to chair of the text change committee, Commissioner Neptune.

Thank you, Mr. Otwell. Just for the sake of brevity, I think staff will offer a full presentation here in just a moment. But the text change committee did meet last Wednesday to review text change TC 526 on daycare amendments. This came before council, I think back in August. Council authorized staff to prepare a draft ordinance to reduce regulatory barriers to childcare facilities. The text change considers just potential amendments to increase enrollment limits and allow non-resident employees for home daycares, as well as streamline the approval process for daycare centers in residential districts by replacing the special use permit requirement with clear and objective use standards. The real finding of the Tech Exchange Committee is that this is all being done to better align city policy with state regulations. So with that, I think I'll turn it over to our colleagues and staff if they want to make a fuller presentation. But ultimately, the Tech Exchange Committee recommended this unanimously with its approval. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, Commissioner Omokaye and Commissioner Sanchez, for joining us last Wednesday afternoon.

Good morning. My name's Justin Booker, I'm in Zoning Administration. Gonna give you a brief presentation of this text change. This was the presentation we provided at Text Change Committee. So this is TC 526 essentially as was overviewed by Mr. Neptune. This is really proposing two changes. This is to increase the maximum enrollment for home daycare uses. The UDO also has daycare center as a use. So the other proposed change here was to essentially make daycare centers within residential zoning districts a limited use, so providing pretty clear use standards associated with that use and making it, again, limited instead of having to go through the special use permit process. So just some background, the daycare, home daycare, home daycare center, or daycare center uses have been incorporated in our code since 2013. Council requested back in May that we provide some information and potentially a text change to kind of facilitate more childcare facilities, understanding there's a need for this in the city of Raleigh. So it was authorized in August and then we brought it back forward to the text change committee for their review. So you can see the existing regulations here for daycare uses are up on the screen. You can see there is a maximum eight persons within the residence of the provider as well as some additional use standards. And then daycare center is really a daycare where there are more than eight people. And again, there are use standards associated with that use as well shown on the screen there. As it currently exists in our code today, home daycares are a limited use, meaning they have to abide by those use standards. Daycare centers, however, require a special use, as indicated in those zoning districts. So in all the residential zoning districts, R1, 2, 4, 6, 10, as well as the RX and MH zoning district, There we go. Special use permit, in case you all aren't aware, this is a quasi-judicial hearing. It takes about three months from beginning to end, and it can be costly as it can require an attorney to represent the case as well as expert witnesses. So again, this proposed regulation is changing that special use permit in those zoning districts to a limited use permit. Essentially changing to a more clear objective standards, reducing time, cost, and complexity for both staff but also an applicant. Shown here is just an overview of that proposed language. There are some underlined and some strikethroughs. Again, here we're striking through subsection D. This is a use standard that essentially requires members of the family residing on the property to be the ones primarily engaged or employed. So we're striking that, allowing home daycares to bring in an external person to help kind of employ or be employed at a daycare home. It's important to remember there are a couple layers of kind of regulations, zoning layer being the one we're discussing today, but there are State law and also the administrative code comes into play. So essentially once you surpass, I believe it's like nine enrollees per state law, you're kind of required to have an additional kind of person being employed and a caretaker within a home daycare. So this restriction is more restrictive than what the state law allows. So we are striking that. And then again, upping it to allowing 15 persons within the residence of the provider. Again, bringing this into alignment with what state law allows. And then here are the changes for the daycare center. So... Again, this applies in instances where there's more than 15 persons. We are proposing an hours of operation kind of limit from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. There are some additional use standards we wrote in about outdoor activity area being located to the side and rear of the principal structure as well as being enclosed within a fence. And then a use standard also to guarantee enrollee drop off and pick up be located onsite and do not obstruct traffic flow onto adjacent streets or sidewalks. And then lastly, here is just a map of currently licensed daycare centers and family childcare homes. It's called a family childcare home in this instance. That is the state kind of wording of this, but essentially this is a home daycare per RUDO. So I'm happy to take any questions or go back to any slide as needed.

If there are any questions from the commission, Commissioner Baird.

Yes, thank you for the presentation. I was curious about the proposed revisions to the definition of daycare center, in particular the addition of items E and F, the enclosed activity areas being enclosed by a fence or wall six and a half feet in height, and then also this on-site pick-up and drop-off. If the If the rationale for this text change is to lessen or lower regulatory burdens for new and expanding daycares, these seem to be quite restrictive.

So these two standards were written in with the understanding that these are essentially going to replace the special use permit findings. Special use permit requires you meet eight specific findings. Some of them speak to pedestrian and automotive safety is provided. Some of them speak to compatibility with the surrounding community. So these standards were written in to essentially supplement those standards. In addition, subsection E that speaks to that fencing or wall requirement, believe it is already a state law that some outdoor activity areas are fenced in. So it is kind of just bringing that into our code, appearing with the state already or administrative code. Can't remember which of the two it is. So that's already a provision that would be required of licensed home daycare or daycare centers. And then the enrollee drop off and pick up is again trying to get at that. Special use permit finding, which requires safety and automotive and vehicle and pedestrian safety associated with any use. Additionally, there's a recognition that if these are to be located in residential neighborhoods, this is kind of a guarantee that you're not having automotive or traffic overflow onto adjacent residential streets.

So what does that look like in practice, right? The on-site pick up and drop off. Would that require the center to have an additional curb cut or

parking lot or how do you how do you do pick up and drop off on site if it's in a residential area so typically it's my understanding these operations work off of kind of a staggered pick up and drop off time so that all you know clients aren't kind of coming at one specific point if it were to happen that you know you had an offending business that were clogging up streets and we were to get complaints it would become a zoning enforcement kind of issue and we could point back to the standard and say you're not abiding by this use standard essentially and ensure that they have some kind of means to avoid that from happening so again probably a staggered pick up and drop off times to ensure that people aren't kind of coming all at once. Thank you.

Commissioner Walters.

Just following up on Commissioner Baird's comment on parking, ostensibly you could street park your vehicle and walk up and pick up your child and walk back to the, it's not that the vehicle has to be onsite, right?

Correct, correct, yeah, a lot of the, Another point we brought up in Tech Exchange Committee was that by allowing these within residential neighborhoods and districts, perhaps you'd have more foot traffic being able to kind of come to these sites and not have a reliance on automotive vehicles kind of picking up and dropping off.

Is there a concern that a number or a large number of existing centers would become non-conforming if this goes forward?

I don't believe so, no. There's, like I said, the fencing requirement is already a requirement per state law, and the enrollee drop off and pick up is something that should be already abided by. We're just kind of formalizing it within this use standard.

If there are no further questions from the commission, I would like to open the table for a motion and invite the text chair to, if he would wish to make the motion.

Well, happy to proceed with a motion to approve TC, excuse me, TC 526.

We have a motion and is there a second?

Second.

We have a second from Commissioner Omokai. The question on the table is TC 526, updates to the daycare regulations. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Neptune and a second from Commissioner Omokai. All those in favor? Any opposed? And that carries unanimously, nine to zero. That brings us on to new business. And the first case on the agenda under new business is rezoning Z2826. I will open the public hearing for each item. Staff will make a short presentation. And then we'll give time for the applicant to speak and those in opposition. We'll each have 10 minutes. And then we will bring it back to the table for discussion in a vote. And I will turn it over to Dimitrios Moutos to give us a presentation from the planning department.

All right, thank you. Good morning, Demetrius Mutos, Long Range Planning. So this case, Z2826, is a request on 1900 Wimbish Lane to rezone 0.87 acres from R4 to R10CU. Your deadline for action is November 21st of this year. The zoning in the area is predominantly residential, R4, which generally allows low density residential development with additional building types and smaller lots permitted through specialized development options. Here's an aerial of the area, site is outlined in that gold yellowish square. All around it, again, you can see there's low-scale residential, some park greenway space where the green lines are on either side of the property. Wake County Shrine Club is to the southwest a little bit there, and then the Lake Park Swim Club to the east. The biggest roads, which you can't really see on this aerial, is Creedmoor Road to the west, and then to the south of the site off the screen would be Glenwood. Another area of the property, a little bit closer, you can see a lead mine in Valley Estates Drive, just to give you a little bit of an idea of the immediate surrounding area, what the properties look like. Pictures from the site itself from the street. The street with the electrical boxes and stuff there, that should be Valley Estates Drive. But heavily wooded, vacant lot at the moment. The applicant has proposed two conditions, one which prohibits apartment buildings, the apartment building type, and then also limits the development to 14 principal dwelling units on the site. Here's the existing and proposed zoning sort of match up about what's allowed. So existing, they could do about seven units, and then of course with that cap and the conditions, they get 14 units. And then you've got the setbacks there, which don't change too much between the two districts. The transportation and energy analysis showed that the site does have a lower walk score than average, lower transit and lower bike score than average. You can see the point differences there in the parentheses. It does have a relatively low transportation cost compared to other census tracts, even with those lower scores, and does have above-median access to employment opportunities within the area as a whole. Route 23L runs along Millbrook Road, which is approximately 1 1⁄2 miles south of the site. As you can see on the map, And then Creedmoor Road holds Route 36 and 36L for transit service. This request would add up to seven homes for the site for a maximum of 14 again for that condition. It does allow more housing types in smaller lots, being R10 versus R4. The request does not require any subsidized or affordable units. There is limited transit access, even though those nearest stops are approximately one half mile away. Other considerations such as sidewalk and traffic and etc. go into that account. There are no direct displacement of any residents on the site with this request. The site is vacant as it is. The surrounding area primarily consists of established low density residential development as you saw on the aerials and with the zoning maps. And so the rezoning could introduce additional housing options into the neighborhood, increasing that density and allowing some more homes. The request at R10-CU is inconsistent with that low-scale residential. R10 would be something that suggests a more moderate-scale residential future land use designation. There is no urban form designation, but the site or the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall, even though it's inconsistent with the future land use map. Most of the policies consistent with it have to do with neighborhood-scale housing, infill development, zoning for housing opportunity and choice, et cetera. And then the inconsistent policies surround mainly the fire response times. That's really LU 1.2, or LU 2.6 and CS 4.4. LU 1.2 comes from the fact that it doesn't match with the future land use designation. No outstanding issues for this case have been identified. Your upcoming meetings are October 13th and the 27th of October. If this was to be approved, it would require an amendment to the future land use map, which would go from low scale residential to moderate scale residential, and this is what that would look like. And that's the end of my presentation, so if you have any questions for me, I am happy to answer them. The applicant is here with some comments of their own.

Thank you for that presentation. At this time, we'll now allow those in favor to present. The applicant will have 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. Good morning. My name is Daniel James Doster or Jimmy Doster with Wild Time Development LLC, the point of contact on this rezoning application. I also am personally under contract to purchase this property. Thank you to staff for the work that went into their analysis and thank you to the neighbors who have participated throughout this process. Those who called me before the neighborhood meeting, the 45 neighbors who attended the meeting, and those who took me up on my offer when I gave my personal cell to call me after the meeting. And of course those, if there are any, and I believe there are, here today. As staff explained, this is an approximately 0.87 acre vacant parcel that would remain residential under this request. The request would provide additional residential flexibility and options while the proposed conditions prohibit the apartment building type. There really are two reasons why that additional flexibility matters on this particular parcel. First, R10 provides dimensional flexibility to overcome some of this site's unusual constraints while still allowing for properly oriented conventional detached homes, which are the predominant housing type in the surrounding area. Second reason, that same R10 flexibility creates more opportunity to consider missing middle housing types as an alternative to conventional detached home subdivision. No site plan or housing types have been selected at this stage. Conventional and missing middle housing types are examples of the residential options we are considering. And I think understanding why the flexibility we're requesting matters starts with understanding the location and physical constraints of this particular parcel. Although the surrounding area is predominantly lower density residential subdivisions, this property is one of the four remaining Wimbush Lane parcels and is not part of any of the surrounding subdivisions. It is not part of our Friends and Fieldstream Farm to the north, Valley Estates subdivision to the east, nor is it part of Brander Mill on the other side of Lead Mine Road. Instead, the property is located directly along the Lead Mine Road Travel Corridor at Valley Estates Drive. Lead Mine Road is designated by the city street plan as a future four lane divided. So I recognize and affirm the surrounding residential context, and I think it is also important to recognize that this vacant, undeveloped parcel adjacent to the travel corridor has a different locational context in comparison to a lot deep within any of the surrounding subdivisions. The property also has a different physical context because it comes with some unusual constraints. And our friends put this up on the board to see. The anticipated Lead Mine Road right-of-way dedication would take, we've been told, 24 and a half feet along the entire eastern part of this property. 24 and a half feet. There is also, as you can see, a 30-foot power line easement going through the property, which limits building. There is also in the northwest corner of the subject property above ground utility and telecommunications infrastructure where presumably access could be taken from. And there's also a separate five foot city owned strip along the entire northern boundary of this property that serves as a barrier to official frontage to the north. And I'll speak about that in a minute. And that's not all. There's also the unresolved question to the south of Wimbish Lane. It is a gravel road. Is it public? Is it private? Or somewhere in between? It depends on who we ask. No recorded plat has been presented to me, nor have we found one where it was ever dedicated to the city. So, these constraints affect the geometry of the property and the development options available. It also raises a fair question. If we've conditioned out apartments in R10, why not simply ask for R6, as other developments have done in the surrounding area? That is a great question. Let me give one concrete example of why the distinction between R6 standards and R10 standards materially matters on this particular parcel. Now without an approved site plan, my example includes assumptions. After that anticipated Lead Mine Road dedication on the east, there would be approximately 178 feet along the northern property line remaining. Assuming that five foot city-owned strip on the north is ultimately converted to official right of way, a process city staff is currently working through, they've told me, And after accounting for any alley access that could come on the northwest corner of working around those utility constraints, I estimate there would be about 100, and this is important, 143 feet of remaining frontage on the north side, 143. Now, R6 standards, for conventional detached homes requires 50 feet of frontage per lot. Therefore, with 140 feet of frontage, only two conventional detached homes could be properly oriented towards the less busy street, Valley Estates Drive, in comparison to Lead Mine Road. under our six standards. We'd miss it just by seven feet in total for three lots. Whereas our 10 standards, 45 foot lots, could allow for three properly oriented detached home lots to front Valley Estates Drive. And that's only one example. When you combine the right-of-way dedication, the power line easement, the existing utility infrastructure, that city-owned strip, the unresolved question of Wimbush Lane, you're not left with a lot of hope. But I do have hope that we can solve this, and R10 provides flexibility to work through those constraints as an actual development plan is designed. I also want to briefly address the future land use map that staff discussed. I think an important distinction in staff's analysis is that any inconsistency results from the intensity normally associated with R10 zoning, rather than an incompatible land use. And this request does restrict R10. Most importantly, we have prohibited the apartment building type that would otherwise be allowed in R10. We have also reduced the maximum number of principal dwelling units from what staff has said is theoretically possible under R10 zoning entitlement. We have reduced it. And as staff explained after they consider the future land use map alongside applicable housing and infill policies, staff concluded that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall, And I want to be clear that that 14-unit condition, that number is a maximum zoning entitlement. It does not come from a proposed site plan. It does not come from an approved site plan. We just don't know what that number is yet or even what housing type will make sense on this property given these physical constraints. The ultimate unit count and configuration will depend on the eventual design, these physical constraints, and compliance with the UDO and the city's development requirements. In summary, the property will remain residential under this request. Apartments, prohibited. And the ultimate development will still have to work within the physical constraints of the property and the city's development standards. The flexibility we're requesting gives a greater ability to work through those constraints with properly oriented conventional detached homes, which I believe is a reasonable request, while also creating an opportunity to consider missing middle housing types, which I believe advances the city's housing goals. For those reasons, I respectfully ask this commission to recommend approval of Z2826, Thank you for your consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your presentation. And you have 26 seconds remaining. At this time, we will allow those in opposition to speak. If there are anyone in the audience, please approach the podium. You will have a collective 10 minutes to speak. Please be courteous to your neighbors and regard the time that they will be allowed after you finish. And if you would state your name for the record as you get started, please.

Hi, good morning. My name is Lisa Rozier. I'm a resident and I live on Stable Court, which is directly behind and right off of Winbrook Way. We have spoken in great detail with Jimmy and he's a lovely person and he did a lot of explaining. While I appreciate all the thought that has gone into this, I am in strong opposition to R10 rezoning. for the purpose of how it's gonna set a standard for future homes to follow. What's not addressed here is on the other side of Winbrook Way, there's going to be close to 50 homes going in. If you follow down Winbrook Way off of Benbur, 50 homes are going to be built in down there. There's going to be 23 cottage style homes which would be addressing the missing middle. There's 14 tiny homes going in as well as 14 row homes. And all those homes range from $500,000 to $1.5 million. So adding an additional R10 easement onto the other side of this field stream neighborhood, in my opinion, does not fit the character of the neighborhood. We're tearing down old trees. We are cramming houses into this neighborhood of what was an established old trees, bigger plots of land with modest style housing. We are actually now taking away MODEST STYLE HOUSING AND THEN INFILLING WITH TINIER HOMES. MY CONCERN AS A PARENT IS SAFETY FIRST AND FOREMOST. LEAD MINE ROAD IS A DANGEROUS ROAD. IT IS NOT EASY TO TURN IN LEFT AND RIGHT FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE ARE ACCIDENTS ON THAT STRETCH OF VALLEY ESTATES AND I don't allow my children to ride their bikes to that stretch. There is no sidewalk, and there's no way for us to safely cross over to Shelly Lake at this point and get to the swim club. There is a drainage ditch. That's right on the front of this property, which Jimmy did address. And if there is further wide roading and a sidewalk, that would be great. But at this point, there is none of that. And that current stretch of road is very dangerous. My concern as a resident is for the safety of my children as well as for the safety of my neighbors. ADDING MORE HOMES TO AN ALREADY POPULATED AREA, ESPECIALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE, IS THIS GOING TO INCREASE MORE TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH WINBROOK WAY DIRECTLY? AND I HAVE PERSONALLY ADDRESSED THIS WITH DOT AS WELL AS TRAFFIC FOR THE CITY OF and it is right now nothing they can do. Windbrook Way is, they've done a study and they can't do anything about slowing down traffic for us and then we're surrounded by two DOT roads which are zone 45 miles per hour and school zone 35 mile per hour and they said they can't do anything for us. So I have friends on each side of the school zone that it's becoming cumbersome to cross and get to school safely. I'm gonna now finish my time.

My name is Nicole Wilkinson McIntosh. I'm a resident of Fieldstream Farm at 5805 Heatherbrook Circle. And I, like Lisa, appreciate the explanations from the developer, and I was prepared to conditionally support this project, but I have a lot of reservations. Mr. Doster claimed that this is part of the Wimbish properties. It doesn't actually... It's not part of Field Stream Farm and it's not part of Valley Estates. However, if you consider the traffic limitations and the traffic restrictions, trying to turn from Lead Mine Road into Valley Estates or off of Valley Estates onto Lead Mine Road is extremely dangerous. And when we talked to Jimmy on the phone, it made the most sense thinking about a future site plan where the traffic would actually direct onto Valley Estates Road because if you actually drive that side, if you go look at it in person, the proximity with Wimbush Lane, you can see it on the map right across from Lake Haven Drive, It's very narrow. There is a blind curve to the north of Valley Estates. It's a very narrow road. I understand the proposed road widening, but that is not coming anytime soon. So those improvements are outside of the city's control. There are a lot of things within the city's control that can help make sure these things are safer, this area is safer. So all of the traffic coming from this site really should, in theory, go to Valley Estates Drive. I also don't see how the city could approve a rezoning request without this issue of whether Wimbish Lane is private or publicly owned without that being resolved prior to the approval of this. I understand the missing middle. I'm a very big proponent of having multiple housing options. Note that the developer says this is just one thing being considered. That is not a commitment because, of course, you have to follow what makes sense for the market. I also understand the city considers rezoning cases on a case-by-case basis. Precedent matters right we look at what's happening in surrounding areas to give a sign as to does this make sense for this area so Prior to say five years ago field stream farm had approximately 75 homes in the neighborhood since then benbur road on the north side which connects to lynn road is a major ingress egress point for field stream farm valley estates is the other major ingress egress that is a 0.2 mile stretch of road with approximately 50 new homes going in by the time the cottage court houses that are slated for development are finished. That is a 65% increase in homes in the Fieldstream Farm neighborhood. I understand the developer is saying like, okay, we could put three new houses on this proposed new site, but on paper, stamping it for an approved up to 14 new homes, that paves the way for other developers to look at similar sites around that lead mine corridor between Millbrook and Valley Estates Road on a road that is not designed and not currently uh... secure enough to really provider account for that traffic we're not just talking about the traffic of the single-family homes of the residents were talking door dash drivers everybody getting amazon delivery five times a day construction traffic there have been significant safety hazards This in our neighborhood due to the construction on Ben Burr Road and then having all of that happening on this site Really it the site can't support it Without some really major safety considerations. I personally am not opposed to having some houses built there but I feel that you could address this through variances and other limitations on lot width and To get around all of these easements and all of these site constraints without having to change it to our ten Development there are other options that the city has available to it Thank you all I

I represent about a dozen neighbors that immediately joined this parcel. My name is Vince Giandurco. I live on Mount Castle Court, which is on the other side. I have a long list of notes here. I'm going to abridge them greatly. I want to thank Mr. Doster for his presentation and explanation. I think our feeling as a group is that we want to point out some things about the property. The zoning areas surrounding this parcel are all R4, okay? The nearest multi-dwelling zoning areas are northeast off Lynn Road one mile away, east on Millbrook Road three quarters of a mile away, west on Lynn Road one plus mile away, and south on Lead Mine Road one plus mile away. There are no... There are no developments within that close to this spot that are not R4 single family low level. So this is just basically out of keeping with the entire neighborhood. I do have some notes. When purchasing a parcel for development, the expectation should not be that the owner can up zone for the sake of change or the sake of profit. The expectation universally should be that development should take place within the existing zoning. Now, in neighborhoods that have been for decades settled in certain zoning, the expectation should be that development would remain within that characteristic. Our second opinion as a group is that changing zoning within a carefully developed single family zone sets a bad precedent, not for this area only, but for the city. Deprives property owners in the area the peace of mind of knowing that the home they purchase will stay within its already settled zoning character. This is a dangerous precedent indeed. One investor could theoretically buy four homes in a single family R4 neighborhood and suddenly build 16 apartment homes with parking lots and increased traffic directly in the middle of a street. Imagine the impact on traffic, neighborhood children at play on foot or bicycle, and noise levels. Is this what our authorities want? Is this what they are contemplating? Because this is essentially what this request would be granting. If it is granted, we stipulate that this type of difficulty will increase in frequency. We get more and more of this type of thing. Now, the other thing I want to refer to, and I only have 25 seconds, I'd like to ask for a little more, is that we, as a group, agree with the vision and the goal of the City of Raleigh's comprehensive plan.

We feel that this doesn't- Without objection, I'll add two minutes to the opposed time, please.

Thank you.

I'm trying to abridge as I write. Yeah.

Yeah. Why? Oh, yes, I see. Since the neighborhood is R4, our answer to the question is that there must be some overriding reason to change to R10. It should not just be whimsical. One of these, at least one, would be in keeping with the stated city goals for walkability, increased density, traffic reduction, and increased use of public transportation. Those would be very good reasons, perhaps. For example... a parcel on Blue Ridge Road was recently up zoned because of what is known as a frequent transit development option and that's a good reason it's like you could up zone and have more people taking public transportation The parcel on Wimbish is definitively not on an existing or active public transportation corridor, thus any residents in this area would just use their own cars for transportation. There's no bus route, obviously on Valley Estates, and there's no bus routes on Leadbine. And in terms of walkability, is to increase pedestrian activity. That's also part of the comprehensive plan. As local residents, we assure the commission there are no public amenities, restaurants, libraries, parks, pubs, et cetera, within walking distance. As you go north toward Lynn, there's a park near the Lynn Road Elementary School. However, that's not walkable at all. I don't know if you're familiar, but Lead Mine has not even a shoulder. The shoulder's less than two feet wide. Absolutely not walkable. So therefore, there's really no amenities to walk to, and therefore, the walkability concept is not there. There are other concerns I'd like to bring. Our developer, Mr. Doster, and I appreciate your, he and I have communicated via email. One reason to grant upzoning might be that there is a strong track record of successful and environmentally friendly multifamily development from the developer who is requesting it. However, by his own admission, Mr. Doster is a neophyte in this business. It runs a risk that due to lack of engineering experience, the developer may encounter issues in construction, water management, other elements that could negatively impact the neighborhood. And I think I guess we're done. I wanted to speak also of ingress and egress, but I thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. And Mr. Doster, you would also receive an additional two minutes if you would like to respond. I believe the clock should be two minutes and 26 seconds.

Thank you, Vincent, and thank you, Lisa, and thank you, Nicole, and thank you, Jill, in the back. I really appreciate their comments and perspective. I think those are valid things for this commission to consider. When it comes to precedent, this weighed on me in the decision when we decided, hey, we're only limited to a few numerical zoning options, you know, 2, 4, 6, 10. I've explained the reasons why R10 makes dimensional sense, and it's my opinion we have lowered the intensity of R10 so that its lack of consistency with the future land use map is mitigated with removing apartments and capping the number of theoretical units. One thing that was brought up by Mr. Vince, and it was a great point, and I agree, about a mile here, a mile there, a mile there, for different types of non-homogenous single-family homes. His point's valid. At the same time, that same data can be used in an alternative point. It's my understanding part of the City of Raleigh's housing goals is for neighborhoods to not be as homogenous, to open the door for alternative housing types. This commission may not agree with that, but I think maybe they do, and maybe some of you do. I welcome that discussion, those questions around that. And then also, let's see, what else was said? Precedent. Yes, I think that a much larger non-neophyte, I had to laugh at that term, but a larger developer with much more money, much more political power than little old Jimmy here, may come in and buy up all four of those properties, give the neighbors an offer they can't refuse. I'm not that person. This property is vacant. It's not been developed. I'm trying to set a precedent. No apartments are going in here. It's not going to fit. Another developer may have a different opinion on that. But that is a precedent that I'm willing to set by having this condition. And I've explained the nuance. And if this commission is willing to talk about the nuance of the conditions that change the essence of R10 in some respects to bring it back towards R10. lower density into a moderate density scenario. And I welcome that discussion and questions around that. Nonetheless, everything that was said...

I hate to cut you off, but there was an extra 30 seconds on the clock, erroneously.

Thank you. I was following that. Yep, thank you.

Thank you, everybody, for your comments. At this time... We're gonna bring this back to the commission and allow for discussion, questions to the applicant. And I believe we have Commissioner Neptune ready to start us off.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, many thanks to all of the residents who are here with us this morning, spending your time and your energy on this item in your neighborhood. My first question is for the applicant, if he could approach. I guess I was trying to understand, I think you had mentioned this at the beginning, you're under contract to acquire this property, or have you already acquired the property? I was a little confused by that.

Yes, great question. Personally, I am under contract to purchase this property.

Okay. And then as a follow-up on this, is there... a reason or I guess a rationale as to why you chose not to pursue R6 zoning? That would be, I guess, I believe aligned with this, the future land use in the area?

Yes, sir. The primary reason is dimensional flexibility. And the example I gave spoke to that a little bit. With that anticipated right-of-way dedication of the loss of 24 and a half feet, as we've been told on our side of the road, and then also the developer, me in this case, or an LLC, would have to pay for that road widening, either do it ourselves or pay the city or the state a fee in lieu. That power line easement, going through the middle of that property, not the middle, but we saw the sketch of the plan, restricts where building can happen. And that telecommunications infrastructure, If an alley is chosen for access due to safety on Valley Estates, it's my understanding that alley would have to be a certain distance from the corner of Valley Estates and Lead Mine Road. And that falls right there where that neighborhood above ground telecommunications equipment is. So I have to work with AT&T and I paid them to begin the process of developing a plan of how to move that around if it can be. In any way, the loss of 35 feet from that alley in the telecommunications infrastructure leaves 143 feet, back to that example I gave in the presentation, which if the desire is to, let's put the same homogenous single-family detached homes as exist directly around here, there, I think for safety reasons and also just somebody mentioned marketability, homes that face Valley Estates are probably better than for safety and other reasons than homes that face lead mine. So having up to three facing Valley Estates would be good. Behind those lots, perhaps there could be a lot that faces lead mine or another missing middle housing type. That site plan just hasn't been decided yet. Does that speak to your question? I'll make sure I'm getting to the essence of it.

Well, I think you've spoken to the question for sure. Is this your first development? I know there was a comment made about being, I guess, new to development. I'm just curious if this is your first time

Yes, sir. This is my first development, but for that going a direction that's not fair to me, it's my first time going under property for a property that I am, at least have a financial stake in. I have, and I'd be happy to show a contract to you, hired professional developers that are already working in this area. So I wouldn't want any developer, let's take me out of it, to be viewed as though I understand that every neighbor can have their own perspective, negatively for trying to solve what I'm trying to solve, which is missing middle housing options in comparison to single family detached homes. I think it's a good thing. And so that's my spin on it.

Just for clarity, I'm not holding it against anybody.

I hope you use it as a way to support me. Hey, let's try to solve this. Thank you so much. You got it. Thank you. Any other questions?

Commissioner Baird.

So how many lots reasonably, buildable lots reasonably could be platted here under the current subdivision ordinance? I'm sure you've looked at that.

Could I ask a clarifying question? Under current R4, the current zoning?

No, the proposed zoning.

The proposed warning. According to staff, and they let me know this two weeks ago, that based on however they analysis, which I believe they use a tool called Envision Analysis, among some other, perhaps, metrics that they need to speak to, they came up with 16 total units. Now, that was surprising to me, but I asked for some clarity, and they said, well, we used, you know, the most dense, theoretically possible, and I think they said townhomes. And so I said, well, look, That's not what I'm currently thinking about. So what would help this rezoning application to move forward? And that's where we collectively came up with that 14 number. And I said, well, hold on a second. Does that mean that we're saying that I'm going to put 14? And of course, no. There's no guarantee I'm gonna put 14. I don't know how we're gonna solve for that. We just haven't solved for it because of these physical and locational constraints. I've given examples of how this could be detached single-family homes, which would be a number much smaller than that. But also, because I'm asking for this flexibility, I'm trying to lean into City of Raleigh's housing goals for missing middle, and we would need more missing middle units to have that option compete with single-family detached homes as the most preferable option here. That's not an answer to your question with a numerical number. I'm just saying that 14 is a zoning entitlement. It's not a feasibility analysis or a site plan that's been approved.

But you've agreed to cap it at 14 as part of the conditions?

Yes, sir.

And have there been conditions proposed or requested by the neighborhood representatives that you have rejected or deferred?

Not yet, they have not told me specifically. Oh yes, I'm sorry, I'm gonna take a spin on your question that still is what you're asking. I had a phone call this weekend with two of these neighbors, wonderful people, and we were talking about specific housing types that were in the neighborhood and were preferable to those individuals. And towards the end of that call, I was asked, hey, could you commit to X? to which I paused politely and gracefully and I said, well, politely, there hasn't been even an agreement on this call of what exactly X is from the neighbors. Now, they may come to an agreement now or later, but on that call, the point is some like tiny homes, some don't like tiny homes. Some like cottages, some don't. Some only want single-family homes, some don't. So to ask me to place a restriction on this property when these issues have not been solved yet from a site plan perspective because necessarily they come afterwards, I don't think it makes a lot of sense yet to place that restriction. I think the actual physical and locational constraints should determine what can fit here. And I propose 14 as being that limit. I'm happy to hear your feedback. But also, R10 is about that dimensional flexibility for single-family detached homes, so we can have properly oriented towards Valley of State, at least some of those units, hopefully three. So it's kind of both. Single-family, lower density, lower number, rather, I should say, solving for that. and then also opening the door for missing middle to actually be an option that competes with detached homes. Is there any follow-up to that that speaks to anything else?

One question is how do you intend to pursue clarity on Wimbush Lane and who owns, controls it, et cetera?

Yes, sir, absolutely. So I had a sketch plan review before this rezoning plan started, trying to sketch out how can I develop this under R4 zoning. Those questions led me to pursue rezoning. Those were not answered in the sketch plan review, the legality of it. So the staff members, some of whom may be able to speak to it, Could not definitively answer that question. They directed me to Raleigh Real Estate. I reached out to Raleigh Real Estate. I believe her name is Susan Mullins. We had a phone call. We had multiple email exchanges. I also got passed off to Allison Ponce. They also talked about it, got back to me and said, ultimately, staff is going to have to decide what that... is designation means, what that designation is, private versus public. I will say, I even went deeper. I went back in the history, and I tried to figure out, why is this a vacant parcel? Well, it turns out there was a subdivision, what's it called, an SPR process in 2020, circa 2020, that tried to chop this up into, I think, three lots. THREE OR FOUR, I THINK THREE LOTS. AND IT DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THEY WENT THROUGH PRELIMINARY, GOT COMMENTS BACK FROM STAFF, AND I CALLED THE ENGINEER BECAUSE THOSE COMMENTS AREN'T PUBLIC. I CALLED THE ENGINEER THAT WAS ON THIS, AND I SAID, WHAT WERE THESE COMMENTS? AND THEY TOLD ME, WELL, THE COMMENTS WAS THAT WEMBUSH LANE WAS A PRIVATE ROAD. So I'm not gonna hold city to that, because it's hearsay, right? I was told this by the engineer that was involved in that 2020 SPR. But that makes me think if this went through some sort of SPR process, and they were told at least on first round pass from a city staff member that this was private, that directly contradicts what other people in the city have told me that they think it's public. There's public infrastructure running down it, sewer and water. So what does this mean? I don't know, you know, public, private, somewhere in between.

I think some clarification from staff would be helpful on this issue. It seems pretty interesting to me that we can't say who owns a piece of land.

Yeah.

Good morning, Barbara Godwin with Transportation. So we've been able to figure out that Wimbush-Layton is actually a private street.

Thank you very much. If there's, ah, Commissioner Omokaye.

My question is, well, I have a couple questions, and one for staff. Is it true that with this being 0.7 acres of land, not counting the, was it 24 feet? of property that would have to be cut off, plus 140 foot of all the stuff that's going to have to be taken off the property, that 16 units could fit here without it being some sort of cluster of houses, traffic issues, safety problems, 16 units can fit on this 1.8 0.87 acres minus all the stuff that he would have to give up for the highway extension and everything.

Yeah, thank you for the question. So the tool we use in envision analysis, what it does is take the standard, the dimensional standards in the UDO and then makes assumptions about tree save area percentages and potential right away takings and stuff like that to sort of decide what the theoretical maximum for development type would be in that area. So according to the Envision analysis, yes, the townhouse single family attached unit type comes out to a unit density of 18.39, which is a total number of units of 16. That is the theoretical maximum. For the detached, it came out to eight, and for townhouses, it came out to 12. I think it's really important to hit that that again is a theoretical maximum. It doesn't take into account all of the dimensional standards that are gonna be required, any landscaping, I mean it does take into account parking, which this site didn't because it's residential, but yes, theoretically 16 units maximum would be able to fit on the site.

Okay. My other question is, has there been any, is there any safety information we can get on lab mine from the staff as far and where it is on, if it's on the list of infrastructure priorities that we've been discussing, and if so, where?

Barbara Godwin again with transportation. So Lead Mine Road is identified on our active mobility plan as a median level priority for sidewalk infrastructure. We don't currently have a project programmed within the next five years to deliver that, but it is identified in the plan.

Okay, but no plan in the next five years.

Please go ahead.

As a follow-up to that, if it's considered a medium priority, is it because of the density or because of the number of incidents that happen there?

So we use a variety of factors when weighing all of our sidewalk gaps. Both of those would be included in that analysis, as well as connections to existing infrastructure, transit, destinations in the area, things like that. Thank you.

Scott, while you're up there, perhaps you could answer for me. If you know the current road capacity and the traffic counts along Lead Mine?

Yes, so currently we're seeing around 12,000 vehicles per day, which still showing as under capacity for the four-lane divided section. Thank you.

Commissioner Cochran.

So I have a couple questions, but I think Commissioner Omokai has one more before she cedes.

Yeah, I have one more question to the applicant. With the theoretical calculations of which type of housing could go there from 16 townhomes on that space of land, eight detached, I know that you keep mentioning missing middle, which would be maybe tiny homes or cottages. Do you have a plan for what you want to put there, especially since it's a small piece of land that seems to slowly be shrinking from some of the commitments that are on the land? And if so, have you communicated that to the residents as far as if you do tiny homes, I will cap it at this amount. If I do this, I'll cap it at that amount. So they can have an understanding of what type of density is going to be in their neighborhood if it passes.

That's a great question, and I hope to fully answer it. So have I come up with what is the max number of tiny homes that I would want to put on that property? No, but I think that it's somewhere. greater than the current maximum units under R4 zoning. I also look at what is happening right now in the north of Fieldstream Farm neighborhood where they put 12 tiny homes, three of those sticks are up, the rest foundations are laid. I have to see, they put 12 on about 1.15. Give me grace if I got that acreage wrong, but it's somewhere around there. Maybe some of you guys are familiar with that. So if that's an indication of what actually feasibly can fit using a tiny home, which is 800 square foot footprint, in their square footage, I think it's around 1.15, they were able to fit 12. They were under R6 general use zoning. R6 general use zoning. So that may come to your question, why are you asking for R10? Well I explained those constraints are limiting the frontage and also the net site area Tiny homes sometimes, well, any development is limited by net site area. So I just don't know what that unit is, Commissioner. I wish I did. I wish I could have paid an engineer to come out with all the different examples to go through the site plan review process before this meeting, but unfortunately that's just not the sequence that this happens. What other part of your question was there? Hi. Okay, oh, I think, have I committed to any of the neighbors a cap? No, ma'am, I have not. I'm not committed to the neighbors. I've explained as best as I can the constraints that I'm in and what feasibly could fit. I gave the example of if it's a detached single-family home, and if we wanted to face Valley Estates and not lead mine, R10 could allow for three to face Valley Estates. Again, something behind those R10 conventional detached lots could be something else, like a missing middle option, or... more detached facing bed mine. I just don't know. I'm sorry that answer is not sufficient for probably most neighbors because they really want to know so they can analyze it, but I'm trying to be honest with where we're at.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Micaiah. Commissioner Cochran?

I have a question for staff. And I want to preface this question by saying that the with the street plan and the comprehensive plan designating land mine as a four lane divided implies that the expectation is I would say a higher intensity of development along this corridor and there is another large corridor of Millbrook nearby so my question is if this goes out for permit what level of site plan review would be required and how much of that future street plan would be implemented through that review.

Good morning, Daniel King with Transportation. So without a site plan, it's hard to say exactly what would be required. Lead Mine Road is slated as a four-lane avenue. There is not existing infrastructure along this area to tie to, so a development of this size would not likely build that infrastructure at the time of site plan, but it would have to be determined at that time.

One more question, and this is just for the benefit of the group. The easement that was mentioned by the applicant, that is for that future road expansion, right? That's why we're pushing all the development back so that when the time is right and we're going to widen the road, the land is already available.

That's right. The site plan would require the dedication of the right-of-way for that future roadway.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner McAllister?

Yeah, I have a question for staff. Could you please explain the build-out differences between R6 and R10 in this particular instance?

Build-out differences meaning all of the different dimensional standards?

The potential build-out differences.

Potential build-out differences. Yes. Let me pull up. What building type would you like to look at? Would you like to look at detached buildings or?

If I may, are you asking what the maximum entitlement would be under the R6 designation, like how many units it would produce? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, so when we receive a rezoning request, we run the Envision analysis, which gives us the numbers that you see on the screen for how many we could build. And we do that for the existing zoning and the zoning that is requested. So we wouldn't have conducted that type of analysis for the R6 zoning district. But as discussed earlier, the maximum that we estimated under R10 was 16 units. So it would be some number less than that between seven and 16.

Commissioner Omakeye.

Just one more question. Minus the land allotment that he has to give up for the right-of-way and what part is frontage that he was mentioning, what is actually left after that from that one, I mean 0.87?

Let's see. So the total site area in square footage is 37,897. there's a total of, at least what was estimated, a total of 3,056 feet in easements and exactions, so then the net would be 34,841. Thank you.

And can I ask one more question?

Please, go ahead, yeah.

Do you have, to the applicant, do you have an idea of what the, minimum and potential maximum of square footage of units you would put on the property.

Heated square footage of the actual homes?

Yes.

Great question.

Then how much land would have to be also dedicated? So the home, the driveway, how much square footage would be needed in your mind for a suitable home to put on the property?

For the first question, the heated square footage, if we choose tiny homes, that is per UDO limited to 800 square feet of buildable area on the ground floor, and then I believe 400 feet on that half story or second story. I can't remember the exact terminology. So 1,200 square feet total is the maximum inside the principal dwelling unit structure of a tiny home. When it comes to what exists today, the conventional detached homes, I'm not sure there is a UDO limit on how big a detached home is. There is a feasible limit, let's say we do four, five, or six, maybe four or five detached homes, I'm not quite sure. There would be a feasible geometric limit. I can speak to what other builders in the area, I am not a builder, that needs to be clarified. I am just the land developer. Presumably one path for me is to sell to a builder to build the homes or partner with one, I suppose. Or become one, but I don't imagine that happening anytime soon. Other homes in the area, if you look north of Fieldstream Farm, they're doing single-family detached homes. I believe they're between 3,000 and 3,600 square feet. Again, please have grace. That's not my project. I can only estimate what they're doing. But that is typically what home builders are doing on lots that are around 6,000 to 6,500, 7,000 square feet per lot, the actual grass or dirt. They're putting around 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. And they're expensive. And that doesn't exactly help affordability. Hence why R10 flexibility would allow other housing choices that are still expensive. You know, tiny homes probably are gonna be expensive anyway. We'll see what the builder does that's just north of this neighborhood. But they're less expensive, therefore more people can have access to that than would otherwise have access to a 3 or 4,000 square foot home. Again, it's not an exact answer to your question, but I wanted to capture the essence of it based on what I know.

Is that fair?

Thank you.

Commissioner McAllister.

I'm sorry, this is another question for the applicant. So if you indicated that 14 units may not actually be feasible for the site, if that's the case, then why not commit to a lower unit cap than 14?

That's a great question, and if I use words that sound repetitive, I apologize, so I try to add a little more color. If I actually knew what the feasible maximum was after site plan approval, that is what the number would be. I just don't know that. This 16 or 16.8, whatever number staff said, that's their analysis. I don't have privy to the details of that tool. 14 was just a way to lower it from the maximum without potentially losing out our one, two, three, or four tiny homes, for example, that could have otherwise been put on this site if I came up with a random number that was closer to seven from the existing zoning, or 11 or 12 maybe is an R6 number. I don't have that in vision analysis for R6, but if that number is 12, You know, so be it. But hopefully that adds a little more color to what I've said already. Does it?

Yeah, just to follow up, do you have a concern with lowering that unit maximum?

Sure. I would want to, if this commission felt that it was both reasonable in my request and in the public interest to recommend it, and if the majority thought, hey, we can move it forward if, and there was some other number, then I would absolutely take the two weeks to consider that and discuss with my team or the neighbors. If the majority thought, hey, we're going to recommend this anyway, and the minority said, hey, we would have recommended it if the number was less than 14, 13 or 12 or whatever number, I can still potentially change it so I can try to get MS approval at council. That's my understanding of the options I have either way.

JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE SITUATION THAT CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE VOLUNTARILY OFFERED AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO DEMAND CONDITIONS. BUT IT IS CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE TO ASK AND MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON THEM. SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO BRING IT BACK TO THE TABLE AT THIS TIME. I THINK WE'VE HAD A PRETTY THOROUGH DISCUSSION. Yeah, thank you. I'd like to, at this time, open up the table for motions, if there are any.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, many thanks to all of the residents who came out and participated this morning and to the applicant for their time and their energy. You know, first at the top, I just want to acknowledge, I think, that this commission, and just certainly speaking for myself, are strong advocates for missing middle housing types in our growing city. And, you know, It strikes me as worth observing that within the context of low-scale residential, for which this is noted for future land use, R6 could accommodate missing middle housing types. And I think as it relates to the work of the commission, I think it's always helpful to sort of reaffirm that we're here to review these cases along with our colleagues on staff in light of the comprehensive plan, in light of the future land use map, and in light of the public interest. Now this is consistent with the comprehensive plan, right? We want to see more missing middle housing types. But when you have an inconsistency with the future land use map and you're asking us to amend it, I think there should be a compelling case for it. And I'll just acknowledge for myself as a member of this commission, I'm not hearing a compelling case to amend the future land use map, creating this inconsistency in the middle of a vast sea of R4 low-scale residential zoning. So at this point in time, I think I have too many outstanding questions for this particular application. on this pursuit that leave me in a place where I would be prepared to recommend denial for this particular case. I think that the current existing zoning is sufficient and I'm prepared to move forward in that direction.

Commissioner Shelburne.

I very much respect the views of my fellow commissioner, but I don't agree. Reality of being in this position that I know we all share is that Well, it's easy to say in general you support missing metal. There's pretty much always a reason why this one specific thing isn't right And that's what we're seeing here yet again And to me this is residential Development in a residential neighborhood, so I have no problem. I would have no problem voting in favor of this I

At this time, we're going to close the public hearing, and we're going to keep this at the table until we have a motion. Further discussion is certainly welcome. If anybody would like to have a point or make a motion at this point, it would be appropriate. Commissioner Omekai?

I agree with Commissioner Neptune. I just think that... I understand that there's development, there's housing that we can build here. I do think that the current zoning is sufficient. This feels more like an increase in zoning, more for profit, and to put as many houses there as possible than what the neighborhood needs, what quality of life, even for the people who potentially move in there, may look like. Even adding a couple homes adds to the housing supply. Even looking at some of the research and articles that have come out recently talking about how we have a lot of homes, it's just not a lot of home buyers because there's a difference between adding to the housing supply and adding economically accessible housing to the housing supply. And as he mentioned, even tiny homes may end up being expensive. So I do think that this neighborhood and the residents' voice should be heard. I think that the current zoning is sufficient for the size of the lot, the consideration that easements and parts of the land is going to have to be given up for the increase of the highway, which gives it even smaller footprint. And I just don't think that squeezing a lot of housing on there for the sake of doing it is the best decision we can make as a commission.

Thank you, Commissioner Makai. I think Commissioner Neptune has a follow-up, and then Commissioner Baird.

Just a very brief follow-up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I have a lot of respect and appreciation for my colleague, Commissioner Shelburne, and I just wanted to acknowledge, I think with this scenario, again, what's challenging for me is that we can pursue missing middle housing within a future land use that's aligned with the context. And I think that it's relevant and worth, again, noting that thousands, tens of thousands of members of our community participated in sharing their voices, their thoughts, their concerns, their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations for the future growth of this city through our comprehensive plan and all the public engagement that was done many years ago that informed it. And so that's why I think when we come across these potential inconsistencies and the potential to amend it, I mean, there should be a compelling case. And even after asking directly, I just don't feel a compelling case as to why we're pursuing R10 and not R6. That would be aligned. That could accommodate missing middle housing, which we do wanna see. So it just, something feels, again, with the inconsistency and with the fact that the existing zoning is sufficient, I just don't see how this is in the public interest to pursue this inconsistent effort in the context of the neighborhood. But again, I just say that briefly as a follow-up.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Commissioner Walters, did you have a comment? Commissioner Baird? Commissioner Baird, please go ahead.

I would suggest if we sort of view this holistically, take a step back. We have existing zoning that would allow seven units to be built here. You have proposed zoning with conditions where the applicant has agreed to cap development at 14 units. In good faith apparently has done a lot of review, research, worked with, had open communications with the neighbors based on all accounts we've heard today. I think that should be taken into consideration. We do have Lead Mine Road, which is obviously going to be, it's a high traffic road. It's only going to get more so as it goes north and has widened over time. I'd be hesitant to put too much weight on the inconsistency. It seems to be more, with all due respect, more of a technical one and not a great variance. Going from low scale residential to moderate scale residential is not a huge leap. We're talking about existing zoning for seven units and agreed cap of 14. The marginal increase, you know, the number of additional homes you're talking about, up to seven, it's probably more like four. It does not seem to be a big stretch. I don't think we're, you know, this would not be a... of precedent setting rezoning, I don't believe. I'm inclined to, at the appropriate time, propose a motion to approve.

I believe Commissioner Walters has a statement.

So this is a tough one because I can see both sides of this. The city is in favor of missing middle housing. We have a lot of people moving here and increasing density in the right places is important for our city, health and safety measures for our city, which means we are going to see a lot of sites that are hard to develop because that's all that's left. And this is one of those, that is a really tough site. And really, I think the applicant, my understanding is the applicant is, is looking at R10 not for the density of R10, but for the dimensional standards of R10 and wanting R6. In my mind, it could have been a more compelling case. So I appreciate my comments from, or the comments from my colleague, Commissioner Naptoon. And I also appreciate Commissioner Barrett and Shelburne's perspective on You know, this really isn't going to, it's very unlikely to be more than 10 or 12 units on this site, but we don't really know because we're ahead of that process. So I think that I'm personally open to either option at this point based on my fellow commissioners' comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Walters. At this time, I'd like to open the floor for a motion.

Mr. Chairman?

Please go ahead, Commissioner Neptune.

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22nd, 2026, contain the agenda materials and recommend denial of the zoning amendment after consideration of the policies, maps, and other materials included as a part of the comprehensive plan the Planning Commission determines The proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans, but inconsistent with the future land use map, and the request should be denied. Action is taken as reasonable and in the public interest because existing zoning is sufficient. This is with regard to zoning case number Z2826.

We have a motion for denial. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a second from Commissioner Omakiya. With regard to Z2826, we have a motion for denial and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion fails to carry. What was the count there? Six, was that six to three? Motion fails to carry, six to three. Six, three, six, sorry. And the issue is still at the table. Open for another motion.

Chairman Howell, if I may, I would move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22, 2026, containing the agenda materials to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment of the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. That's my motion.

Do we have a second? Second from Commissioner Cochran. So again, for Z2826, we have a motion to approve and a second. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries six to three and for recommendation for approval. Thank you everybody for your time and thank you to the commission for a thorough discussion and a thoughtful disagreement on this one. This has taken, we spent a good bit of time on this one. Can I get a show of hands for those who are here to speak for Z3026, the Clark Avenue? Is there anybody here that wishes to speak for any issue besides Z3026, either the Dorothea Drive or the Lewisburg Road? Do we have any speakers for that?

Okay.

At this time, I think we would like to, I would like to call it five minute recess. So we'll take a breather, but please be as quick as possible. Do your best to be back at this table by 1040. Meeting back into session, and we have the full commission here back at the table. Thank you. All right, continuing on with the agenda, next up is E2 on new business, and this is rezoning Z3026 at Clark Avenue and Horn Street, and we will have a presentation from Mitra Sheshbaradaran from the Planning Department, and the public hearing is now open.

Good morning, Commissioners. Meet your Chesh Baradaran covering Z3026. This is a request to rezone just over an acre of a four parcel assemblage located on Clark Avenue and Horn Street. The site is currently zoned RX3 with the Oberlin Village NCOD and SRPOD. And the request is to rezone to RX3 with conditions, removing the SRPOD, or sorry, maintaining the SRPOD and removing the Oberlin Village NCOD. Your packet contains unsigned conditions that the applicant submitted on September 11th. They have now submitted their signed version. There are no changes between the two, so you have the latest version of the conditions. This site is located within the West Raleigh Historic District, and the structures are contributing structures to the district. So this case will also appear at RHDC on October 14th. That is a separate review and recommendation, separate from what you all do here today, but it will also appear there before going to city council. And then your deadline for action is November 21st. In terms of zoning in the area, it's a mix of residential and mixed use, primarily west of the site, lower-scale residential, single-family detached homes, and then this area serves as a transition in density and intensity into the village district east of the site, with the NCOD kind of being north of where the site sits. The next few slides are just maps orienting yourself within the NCOD and the Historic District. Touching on first the NCOD, the site is located on the southwestern boundary of the Oberlin Village NCOD, and then the development regulations for that are listed here. Minimum and maximum lot size between 5,000 and 12,500 square feet. minimum lot width of 50 feet, a front yard setback within 10% of the median of front yards on that same block, requiring at least one building entrance to be facing a public street, and then also maxing the height out at 28.7 feet or two stories. And then like I mentioned before, the site is within the West Raleigh Historic District, and the structures on the site today are considered contributing structures to that district. And then specifically 2402 Clark Avenue, which is the corner parcel at the intersection of Clark and Chamberlain Street, is eligible for Raleigh Historic Landmark status. And I have a picture of the structures a bit later. In terms of existing uses and zoning surrounding the site today, primarily residential west and north of the site, and as you kind of transition east of the site along Clark, increase in intensity and density as you move into the Village District, a variety of retail, restaurants, commercial activity in the Village District, as well as south of the site along Hillsborough Street as you get into NC State. But generally, housing in this area kind of is varied. Predominantly detached homes, but also a variety of older cottage style, garden style apartments, as well as some converted duplexes, quadplexes, things like that. In terms of the site today, there are four existing structures. They are all multifamily in nature, kind of built between 1930 and 40, estimated 24 units on the site today. And here are a few looks at the site itself in the frontage. The first image is the parcel at the corner of Clark and Chamberlain Street. This is 2402 Clark and the one with the eligibility for landmark status. The second image shows the two structures in the center. I believe these are... generally a multi-family and then like a converted two-family. And then the third image is the one fronting Horn Street, which is also converted multi-family building today. And then in terms of the site's frontage, there are pedestrian facilities and also bicycle facilities, sidewalks, bike lanes, and it's a well-connected area for these forms of transportation. In terms of proposed conditions, the applicant has proposed five. The first is prohibiting the cemetery use. Conditions two and three relate to the documentation and salvage opportunity for the existing structures. The first is prior to the submittal of any demolition permits. requiring the documentation through photographs of the existing structures which would be submitted to and approved by the city. And then condition three also requires prior to any demolition, the noticing of that demolition and the opportunity to salvage any materials of the existing structures. And then conditions four and five relate to tenant notice, so requiring any notice of any termination of a lease, as well as relocation assistance for any existing tenants. The next two slides are focused on entitlement. This is showing residential or the difference in unit entitlement and then setbacks as well as height. Like I mentioned before, the NCD caps height at two stories or 28.7 feet. This would increase to three stories or 50 feet which is They're general for RX3. And then an increase in unit count here from 33 units to 42. And then setback requirements stay mostly the same with the difference being the front yard setback, which is also regulated by the NCOD to be within 10% of that block median. And then in terms of commercial entitlement, this stays the same between the existing and proposed zoning. Commercial uses in RX are a limited use, but this site is eligible for that, whether it's rezoned or not today, and it's capped at 4,000 square feet. In terms of the area, it's more walkable and bikeable than other areas in the city on average, and is better served by transit. Folks in the area have large transportation costs, there's a variety of multimodal options, and they also have better access to jobs, the sites within walking distance of Hillsborough Street, NC State, the Village District, as well as pretty close to downtown Raleigh. In terms of transit service, the site is most immediately served by routes 12 and 16, and then again, walking distance of the Village District and Hillsborough Street, which have additional transit routes, as well as NC State's free transit service, the Wolf Line. In terms of affordability, the request does not include any subsidized units, but it would add to the housing supply overall. It would permit a variety of housing types, smaller units on smaller lots, and the site, again, is within walking distance of transit. In terms of residents in the area, there are a lower percentage of people of color and a higher percentage of low income residents. And then rent in the area has increased at about 26% since 2019, which is like less or slower than the citywide average. The site is designated as moderate scale residential on the future land use map. The request for RX3 is consistent with this. It encourages expanding housing variety and options in established neighborhoods and then support up to RX3 and 4 when it's near frequent transit, which this site is. The site is within a frequent transit area on the urban format. Policy would support an urban approach to frontage for these sites. There is no frontage offered with the request or conditions that mimic that, so that's why it's flagged as inconsistent here. In terms of the comprehensive plan, it's consistent overall. A variety of consistent policies here that speak to flume consistency, conditional use district consistency, as well as supporting a more compact development pattern and promoting mixed-use development styles and encouraging housing diversity and variety, especially those that can serve students, as well as promoting neighborhood commerce and established neighborhoods. And then the last two policies speak to the conditions that provide preservation in a way for the existing structures on the site. And then two inconsistent policies were identified. The first references the existing structures and the removal of the NCOD and then the second one speaks to the frontage. No outstanding issues. Just a reminder, again, the case will appear at RHTC on October 14th. Again, their review is separate from what you all do here today, but it will appear before them. But your deadline for action is November 21st. The applicant is here as well as members of the public.

Thank you Mitra. Could I once again get a hand count please for those who are here to speak opposed to this and hold them up for a second just so I can get a quick estimate. Okay, thank you very much. We'll follow our normal order of business and we will allow 10 minutes for the applicant to speak and then it'll follow up with those in opposition.

All right, good morning, Chair Otwell and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Ashley Honeycutt-Tirazos with Parker Poe, representing the three property owners of this assemblage, two of which are with us today, on this rezoning request. So the request would remove, as Mitra went over, the Oberlin Village NCOD to make feasible the redevelopment of aging, difficult to maintain housing with modern housing types at an appropriate density for this walkable and transit-rich location, supporting the next phase of life for these properties. The assemblage is just over an acre and fronts Clark Avenue between Horn Street and Chamberlain Street, about one block from both NC State's main campus and the Village District. It's one of the city's most walkable areas, and with strong pedestrian infrastructure and access to Go Raleigh and Wolf Line transit service, along Oberlin, Clark, and Hillsborough streets. The property is currently zoned RX3 and sits at the edge of the Oberlin Village NCOD. Most of the surrounding properties, including those to the south, to the west, and to the north, are outside of the NCOD and may redevelop without NCOD restrictions.

Erase that.

And I want to focus on those restrictions in the history of the Oberlin Village NCOD, including where it has been removed over the past 15 years or so. So as the staff report notes, the NCOD was adopted in 1995. It applies to parts of the neighborhood near the commercial and office development along Oberlin Road and extends, actually there's a little pod of it that extends north above Wade Avenue. Then as now, inclusion did not require every property owner's consent and only a majority approval was needed. The Oberlin Village NCOD imposes several standards that make redevelopment for anything other than single family detached housing extremely difficult. It requires lot sizes between 5,000 and 12,500 square feet with a minimum width of 50 feet. As a result, townhome lots, for example, cannot be platted. For comparison, the new townhomes across Clark Avenue are on lots of about 1,700 to 1,800 square feet and are roughly 20 feet wide. Lots also cannot be recombined for a modern and efficient multifamily building because the maximum lot size is 12,500 square feet, and for comparison, 2402 Clark Avenue, which already has a very old multifamily building today, already exceeds that limit by more than 5,000 square feet. The NCOD also requires larger front setbacks and limits height to two stories and 28.7 feet, which is very low for townhomes or multifamily development and is probably shorter than the buildings on the site today. And by comparison, the UDO allows properties on the northern half of the block to redevelop with those same uses at up to three stories and 45 feet. So while townhomes and multifamily housing are technically permitted here and appropriate along Clark Avenue, NCOD standards make those options largely infeasible. The owners have heard interest from potential development partners and newer high quality urban housing here, but the NCOD was designed to steer redevelopment towards single-family homes. That pattern is visible in this NCOD today, larger, modern, expensive single-family homes that may not reflect the older neighborhood's architectural character, but it fits the NCOD's restrictive lot height and front setback standards. And over time, owners along the edges of the Oberlin Village NCOD have sought removal as the area has grown. Like this site, those removals involved edge locations, not in the district's interior, which remains larger, older, small lot, low density housing. Each rezoning is site specific. Removing the NCOD here on a busy, walkable street where denser housing fits the existing development pattern and future land use map does not mean it should be removed everywhere. But for this site, the NCOD does not fit the current development on the property, the surrounding development pattern, or the city's comprehensive plan goals. This area has become increasingly urban and walkable as new development has occurred. This map shows newer apartment and townhome projects built over the last 12 years or so, along with the parcels outlined in blue that are currently under development with either apartments or townhomes. Older housing stock, including one house that I lived in during college, is being replaced with modern housing that can accommodate more residents and support the vibrancy of the university and nearby businesses. And so with this case, in conjunction with the removal of the NCOD, the owners are proposing several zoning conditions that will be a part of the redevelopment of this site, which have not been a part of the other redevelopment that's happened in this area. So the first condition, yeah, yeah, thanks, Major. The first condition prohibits the cemetery use, which is fairly standard. We also worked with RHDC staff on conditions recently used for sites that have older structures like these. Before demolition, the owners would document the existing buildings and offer materials for salvage so that anyone interested could reuse pieces of the structures. The buildings are not local landmarks or within a regulatory historic district, but they do reflect the area's 1930s and 40s development pattern, and many similar structures have already been without documentation or salvage opportunities. So the owners agreed to include this condition and we'll discuss this case with the RHDC next month. And finally, the owners agreed to conditions similar to those used in other recent rezoning cases involving replacement of existing rental housing that have been important to the city. So when the property is redeveloped, existing tenants would receive four months advance notice and a relocation assistance payment. And so those are the proposed zoning conditions, but there are also several UDO requirements and site constraints that will also control the development of this site, which I think are important to consider as well. So the site has approximately 330 feet of frontage on Clark Avenue. The street plan designates Clark Avenue as a three-lane median divided roadway with parallel parking and multimodal facilities. A denser development project will have to install a streetscape section very similar to what the Clark Avenue townhomes development across the street installed. This will require dedication of quite a bit of right-of-way. There's about 70 feet of right-of-way in Clark Avenue today, and this is a 95-foot section. So the UDO also requires a neighborhood transition zone along the rear of the site. So at a minimum, this includes a 10-foot Zone A protective yard with a wall and dense plantings. If any building exceeds 50 feet in height, which is the maximum height allowed in a three-story mixed-use district and only five feet taller than what is allowed on the adjacent residential district, Zones B and C would also apply. That would require that the building be set back at least 50 feet from the property line and limit its height to 40 feet at that setback. of the Zone C line. Because this site is only about 150 feet deep, those standards would make any building taller than 50 feet very difficult to build, to fit, and to the extent that a frequent transit development option is possible here, which has been part of the interest that owners have received, it could allow up to two bonus stories in exchange for affordable housing, but it would still remain subject to the neighborhood transition zone requirements. The frequent transit development option does not override or eliminate those standards. Additionally, while the UDO and state law now don't have parking minimums, financing a feasible project will still have to have some parking on site in this area. Every one of those development projects that I just had on the screen has on-site parking. So in order to get financing in this area, there will still have to be some on-site parking. And so these UDO standards and market realities automatically require development that provides an urban streetscape, a building that's pushed up to Clark Avenue, and a protective yard in transition to the properties to the north. And we did discuss these UDO requirements and proposed zoning conditions with the 12 or so neighbors who attended our voluntary second neighborhood meeting last week. We did have a good discussion, answered a lot of the questions. Most of those folks are not here today. I think there's one who attended today, but we had a very productive discussion with them about the conditions and the UDO requirements for the development of the site. So as Mitra mentioned before, this request is directly consistent with the future land use map. Because the site is in a frequent transit area on the urban format, as she mentioned, urban frontage is recommended. But as I just explained, the UDO requirements already moved the site towards a more urban form by placing the building closer to Clark Avenue. and requiring a walkable pedestrian-friendly street section. And the owners really were seeking to keep the request straightforward by just removing the NCOD and just keeping the base zoning like the other properties that are already zoned R3 around it. And I will close by highlighting the comprehensive plan policies that this case supports. Although the staff report identifies an entitlement increase of only nine units, the NCOD creates a significant practical barrier to the type of development the comprehensive plan calls for in this area, and for that reason, we are asking that you recommend approval of removing the NCOD from this EDGE location along Clark Avenue for this particular site. And thank you so much for your consideration, and I'm happy to take questions.

Thank you. We will reserve 40 seconds on the clock for any rebuttal you'd like to make. At this time, we'll provide an opportunity for those opposed to speak. If you plan to speak, I'd like to ask everybody to come down to the front and take a seat near the front. And I will note that... Given the number of folks that wanna speak, that puts you at about one minute per speaker. So I'd ask everybody to be as brief and to the point as possible out of respect for the people that are coming after you. And pay attention to what they're saying in front of you and try not to repeat so that we can give a chance for everybody to get their thoughts out there. I appreciate it and please state your name for the record.

Yes, thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. My name is Russ Stevenson. I live at 213 Oberlin Road. The site of this rezoning request in the 2400 block of Clark Avenue stands at the juncture of two of Raleigh's most successful and effective zoning and planning efforts. Back in 1999, Hillsborough Street was a four-lane road with dangerous traffic, recording the second highest accident rate for any road of its size in the state, leading to widespread decline in the corridor. After the community-wide Hillsborough Street visioning process, the road was narrowed, bike lanes and pedestrian crossings were installed, traffic was calmed, and infrastructure was undergrounded, all with the expectation that the city improvements would attract new private investments. The community vision has promoted dense student housing south of Hillsborough Street, up to 12 stories, and revitalization of neighborhoods north of Hillsborough Street, reversing decades of decline as a high percentage of homes were converted to student rentals. The new vision for Hillsborough Street has been a tremendous success. According to Jeff Morrison, the head of the self-taxing municipal services district, the Hillsborough Street Community Service Corporation, in response to the city's planning and infrastructure investments, there have been over $500 million of private investments in the corridor, all fulfilling the stakeholders' goals for safety, prosperity, and sustainable growth. Likewise, the Oberlin Village NCOD has been tremendously effective in promoting remodelings, additions, ADUs, and the kind of gentle density increases that people want to see in a neighborhood rather than the scrape-offs replaced by mansions that would be permitted without the NCOD. Instead, the neighborhoods in and around... The Oberlin Village NCOD are full of vibrant redevelopment. Up and down the north side of Hillsborough Street, the neighborhoods that were once sprinkled with rundown student rentals are now revitalized with young families and kids. There's an exciting energy in the neighborhoods now served by many new shops like the Target, along with pharmacies, restaurants, the Aloft Hotel, and more serving both the nearby neighborhoods and the university community. So where does that leave Z3026? Right now, there are 24 existing very affordable dwelling units on the property and historic. The proposed rezoning would demolish all of them and send them all to the landfill without any guarantee of any affordable units to replace them. And even if a few affordable units were produced with an FTDO bonus, most new rents, according to local prices that I've checked up and down the street, would be more than twice as high as the NCOD units that are there now, which start at $900 a month. The hugely successful Cameron Village-Hillsborough Street Area Plan engaged stakeholders from the University, local businesses, property owners, and neighbors, and gives specific guidance for the Z3026 parcel, and you'll see that on page four. It says, do not rezone these parcels, but instead continue to focus future rezonings closer to Hillsborough Street, the Village District, and non-neighborhood areas. I know that some people here today are, like me, supporters of the National Strong Town Movement and its commitment to promoting neighborhood change through incremental growth. That is exactly the kind of change that is happening now throughout the Oberlin Village NCOD. Voting for a large apartment building stretching across an entire block face is contrary to all the incremental growth principles of the strong town movement. It's also contrary to the ongoing highly successful growth and development that all of the Hillsborough Street stakeholders planned for West Raleigh. Approving Z3026 would have a chilling effect on the ongoing success of student housing south of Hillsborough Street and a chilling effect on the ongoing neighborhood revitalization and general densification of the neighborhoods north of Hillsborough Street. It would cause unnecessary and expensive destruction of four irreplaceable historic Raleigh properties and perhaps worst of all, It would mean the loss of 24 desperately needed naturally occurring affordable houses in the neighborhood with no guarantee that any affordable units would replace them. The land use attorneys here today will tell you that Raleigh needs more density, but that's a simplistic and I would say a self-serving statement in conflict with the community's successful plans for revitalization and prosperity in the area. Instead, look to the Strong Towns approach for sustainable growth, which borrows much from the famous urbanist Jane Jacobs, who called for creating a grassroots community vision and growing incrementally by finding new uses and new life for older buildings rather than discarding them. For those reasons, I urge you to vote for Raleigh's successful community vision and against Z3026. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Stevenson, whoever is next, please approach the podium. I will note that there is now five minutes left on the clock.

Matthew Brown, good morning. These four buildings are beautiful historic treasures. They're 24 units of affordable housing. And they're missing metal. These are all the things the city says it's for. Historic preservation, affordable housing, missing metal. So why would we incentivize sending these fine buildings to the landfill to build a bunch of generic, unaffordable luxury stuff? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Chris Crew. Edges matter. While we seek to change zoning, we challenge community decisions and we have to make a rational assessment to avoid spot zoning and its pitfalls. You need to ask, will this benefit the owner? Will denial harm the owner? Will this benefit the community? Will this harm the community? Is that harm or that benefit substantial? How you balance these potentially minimal benefits against a potentially substantial detriment to neighborhood character is important. You need to honor the community-led Hillsborough Street visioning process. You need to honor the NCOD. None of these things inhibit maintenance of these properties that are historic buildings, so please keep them and deny this. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Suzanne Davison. I live at 2410 Stafford Avenue. I won't repeat the points my colleagues have presented. I would say to you that the infrastructure in our area is already under pressure. We all need access to the village district, Harris Teeter, and the Target on Hillsborough Street, and both of them are constrained with their parking. Students do, and all of us, buy big, bulky things, and walking to and from the grocery store for every run isn't necessarily practical. Also, we had someone previously talk about the parking. We are the overflow for Cameron Village, for the Raleigh Little Theater, the Rose Garden, the Hillsborough Street events like Pakapalooza, Krispy Kreme Race, the The commuter students who can't afford the luxury apartments that we're talking about today our streets are packed with parking and you guys When you plan to such small limits it it puts us into pressure And then just as I would say as a resident, you know talking about the transitions It's one thing to put a multi-story building next to another multi-story building, but to put it behind a two-story family home we finally got two young families with young children and and we've got college noise, light. How do you protect them from all of that? There'll be no privacy. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Olivia Barefoot. I lived at 2402 Clark Avenue for four years. And I grew up in the neighborhood. I lived on Parker Street next to the historic Lotta House. I don't want to repeat everything that everyone said, but I think that our goal is to protect naturally occurring affordable housing. There is no guarantee that this will be affordable. The application states there will not be affordable housing on this lot, and I don't believe that tearing down this historic affordable housing is worth the nine luxury apartments that will be added to this space. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I thought I saw more hands than that. Okay, there we go.

I'm Lauren Williams. I live at 2511 Stafford Avenue. I have a daughter who attends State. She has stayed in student housing over at Stafford. Stafford has over 800 students. For those 800 students, they are only short 82 parking spots. My daughter was not guaranteed a parking spot while living in that building. The rent was $1,300 a month with the parking. Just FYI. I feel this is very similar. I'm also very concerned because they're going to be about 300 parking spaces short. If you live in our area, you know that parking's at a premium. Oftentimes, we do not have spots we can park on. You're driving around for 10 minutes just to find a spot. So that is a huge concern, as well as it's not affordable. Please, please, please keep the historic district overlay and the current zoning in effect for that area. Thank you.

Hello. My name's Diane Mayer. I live at 710 Rosemont Avenue. I didn't think I was actually going to make it up here today. I just want to talk to the... I don't understand why we would destroy naturally affordable housing that we need so desperately to raise it, to have that environmental impact of the destruction of that area, the environmental impact of the new buildings going in. It's so unnecessary. We're not building more affordable housing, even though there might be affordable units. It's not what it would be. We should just restore and maintain the existing housing that we have. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition?

Okay.

If not, let me say, y'all, I'm impressed getting you in under 10 minutes. So thank you. We'll get back to questions from the commission in just a second. Catch up with my notes, please. All right. Thank you, everyone, for your comments. I appreciate everybody making the time to come down here. I know it's not easy to do it in the middle of the day. At this time, we're going to bring the discussion back to the table and kick it off from Commissioner Shelburne. We can ask questions to the applicant or those in favor or opposed.

I've got a question and a comment. I guess I should separate the two. You can deal with it as you wish. So start with a question for the applicant if it's kind of a technical one. Was there any consideration analysis of mixing an approach of having maybe keeping the bigger of the buildings and then putting new construction next to it? Was that, is there any logistical feasibility to that?

Yeah, so the owners have looked at what would it take to, I guess, renovate or even expand some of these. One of them even tried it. You would have to bring these buildings up to the current commercial building code. Those of you who are architects understand what that means. You would have to relocate all the utilities in Clark Avenue, and it just wasn't ultimately... feasible, which is why we worked with RHDC staff on, again, similar conditions on other cases to try to document and to offer for salvage some of these structures. Those have been on, again, similar cases that involved structures in a historic district, but ultimately these are very old and are very costly to maintain. I think one of the owners had to put in like an $85,000 boiler, you know, to keep them habitable. And it's been, it's just not feasible to keep them up long-term.

That's, yeah, I appreciate that explanation. And as for the aforementioned comment, I don't believe that NCEA The NCOD should exist, and I don't agree with the strong towns incremental, but I am troubled by knocking down this housing. So I'm very conflicted now more than I have been in a long time. Thank you for your comment.

Commissioner Cochran.

Thank you. I'm not sure if anyone will be able to answer this question, but in terms of affordability, how much do the rental units on the street currently get leased for monthly? I know someone threw out a number that there are some newer apartments in the area that are leased out at $1,300 a month. What's the rate for these affordable units now?

of the four parcels in the subject case, and they range from $900 to about $1,200 a month. The apartments right up Clark Avenue, forget what that new apartment building is called there, at the corner of Oberlin and Clark, their rents start at $2,100 and go up to $4,500. Thank you.

I'm just going to say, like, there is no development partner in this yet, and we don't know what the rents will be, if it'll be frequent transit development that will have to include affordable units, and I think this is not in a historic overlay district or a local landmark, they could be torn down by right today, and it's not sustainable to keep them up long term, and so in terms of redevelopment opportunities with the NCOD, really all there is is single family detached housing, which is not appropriate at this location. COULDN'T DO TOWNHOMES AND YOU COULDN'T DO APARTMENTS.

COMMISSIONER COCHRAN, YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP?

FOR THE APPLICANT, I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT FOR THESE RENTAL FACILITIES INDICATED THAT THEY'RE NOT UP TO STANDARD IN TERMS OF HEATING AND COOLING, I ASSUME. I SAW SOME WINDOW UNITS. WHAT, I GUESS, IS THE STANDARD THEY'RE USING TO EVALUATE THEM?

Yeah, so they are habitable units. Okay, so they are habitable. But if you were to do a renovation and or expansion, you would have to bring them up to the current commercial building code, which would involve sprinkling them and things like that. I mean, very expensive upgrades that are not feasible. And I would say, again, one of the owners did look at that, and it's not something that is feasible.

Okay, thank you. I have no other questions.

Thank you. I have a question for staff. Is the current structure here compliant with the NCOD?

So across the four lots, I can say that the one on the corner, so the largest one is non-conforming with the NCOD. It's greater height and also it's greater than the maximum lot size set by the NCOD. In terms of my analysis, the other three appear to be within conformity with the NCOD in terms of my ability to measure on IMAPS.

Thank you. Commissioner Baird.

So if the, I guess it's a question for staff and for the applicant, if the frequent transit development option were exercised here and a building of five stories were to be constructed, what would the net increase in residential units be? because what's in the report is for three stories, 42 units. If we go to five stories, what's that look like?

Yeah, the max residential entitlement for using the FTDO option would be 55 units, and four of those would be affordable.

Commissioner Omakiya.

Just to clarify, you said 55 units, but only four would be affordable?

Yes, when using the FTDO option, it allows building heights up to five stories, and of the additional stories, 20% of those units are required to be affordable. That's UDO standards. And so for this, the two extra stories of those two, it works out to four being affordable.

So also, can you tell me what the current max height is and then... I think with the proposal, is five the max also as far as stories? If approved, how tall could it be and how tall can it be right now?

Yes, under the NCOD, height is capped at 28.7 feet, or two stories, and then under RX3, it's three stories, or 50 feet, and that's just for the conventional development option. If they were to pursue the frequent transit development option, which is just an option that would get worked out during the site plan phase, then they can have that increase of stories with the affordability dedication.

but that right now they can build it with no affordability, but if they built it at five, they could add four units of affordability.

Um, currently, uh, the FTDO option is not, uh, eligible under the NCOD. So like the NCOD regulations trump the FTDO. So if it were rezoned.

That's what I'm saying. So right now they can redevelop it and have no affordability or they could possibly use the option if redeveloped and get five stories and they could add four units, even though.

Four units of affordable. Yes. If they pursue that option. Correct. Yeah.

And that still will be, of course, like losing the 24 units that we have now. Can I ask the client if they have any consideration, since that you all are destroying naturally occurring affordability in this area, that it could also impact housing around it. Are you all interested in adding any conditions that would add affordability to the project? Outside of if you went five stories and you could add four.

I think the concern would be that it would need to be a financeable project. Project and we don't have a development partner on board I think we can look at you know some options if there's like a donation option or something like that Where they would just give you know money? to the city's affordable housing fund and things of that nature, but we have a You know, I don't think this is a location that would support like a LIHTC project or something like that that has public funding streams, so it would have to be funded by private development. And like the frequent transit development option, there's been a few of those that are going through in this area. Those are providing affordable units with the additional density. And I did want to note, too, that it's still subject to the neighborhood transition requirements, even if it goes up to five.

Commissioner Mckay, did you have a follow-up?

Well, I have a comment, not a question. I can wait until we get to the comment section.

As you wish. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing, but I want to make sure nobody has a question again first, because it will require a vote to reopen the public hearing. All right, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for comments. And Commissioner Omokai, would you like to lead us off?

I do. This is a tough project for me to support, not for the typical reasons, but partly for some of those, but also because I feel like we are getting rid of a lot of affordable units. and in the city, and I know that they can still be demolished, but I think that with the layering of things in this particular case, with the NCOD, with the loss of affordability, with a lot that's going on in this area, it really does concern me to continue to approve housing or development or density for the sake of approving it. As I mentioned earlier, There have been studies and articles now that show that we have approved enough housing. The city council has. Whether it's being more than enough, whether it's being built as something that we can't control, and of the housing that is put out there, a lot of people aren't going for it because it's not economically accessible to them. So with us not building affordable units while demolishing affordable units, and I'm not sure what... type of quality of life we're looking for for people to move here if we're building houses is going to stand empty in the hopes that future residents will want to rent them versus seeing the cost of living being so high and that's not being able to do that and I think that even if this property is able to be redeveloped because of the current zoning rules they still have restrictions and I think that there has to be some trade-off and that's my thought process on this.

Thank you Commissioner Omekai. Commissioner Walters.

I JUST WANT TO REFLECT MY SUPPORT FOR COMMISSIONER OMAKAI'S SENTIMENTS AND AFTER CONSIDERING BOTH SIDES OF THIS, I REALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S A HARD ONE, BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT JUICE IS WORTH THE SQUEEZE ON A REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS. I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMING OUT AND SPEAKING SO THOUGHTFULLY AND MAKING COMPELLING CASES FOR KEEPING keeping the buildings that are there and I'm ready to make a motion when commission has considered fully.

Any further comments from the commission? I have a couple comments myself. This one is a tough one for me too. Usually I'm in favor of allowing for this kind of residential development, especially on perhaps one of the highest capacity transit corridors and one of the most walkable areas of our city there's very few places in our city where you can truly live without a car and you can do that here because i know because i've done it the current structure and indeed i think the current zoning is not compliant with the future land use map And the NCOD is what keeps the RX3 zoning fully compliant with moderate density future land use planning. RX3 is only appropriate in areas, according to the comp plan, with high frequency. transit and while that's a true in this area I think that the lack of frontage on this property is being offered is troubling so the no guarantee that the interface with the pedestrian realm is going to be maintained and indeed the current NCOD has elements of frontage requirements in it in the requirement that there is a public entrance to the primary street from each building that's being built there. And again, I'll repeat the juice and the squeeze comment because we do have high density housing here on the site and it already is non-compliant. I understand the trouble with keeping it maintained. I agree that these buildings are beautiful. I would love to see them maintained. I try not to let that come into my consideration. I don't think that that's what we're being asked to decide on, but I'll just leave that as a personal comment. And I think that I am going to have trouble supporting this as a vote. That's it for me. We could discuss that after the meeting and we can talk about that. Please, everyone, this is at the table. Commissioner Neptune, did you have a comment?

No, just that I echo the comments made by my colleagues on the commission, that's all, thank you.

At this time, I'd like to invite a motion. Commissioner Walters.

I'd like to move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22nd, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and recommend denial of the zoning amendment.

We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I'm going to give that one to Commissioner Sanchez. So with regards to Zoning Z3026, we have a motion to recommend denial from Commissioner Walters and a second from Commissioner Sanchez. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you everybody for your comments and I appreciate your time.

I'm going to play the lottery today.

Hold on.

We'll give them just a second to clear the room and then we'll get started.

All right.

All right, we're gonna go ahead and get on to our next agenda item, item E3, Zoning Z1326, and we will open the public hearing and hear a presentation from Planning and Development from Jacob Hunt.

Good morning, Chair and Commission. My name is Jacob Hunt. This is Z1326, 606 Dorothea Drive. It was also known at one point as 767 South Saunders Street. That address just changed, I think, by the Post Office of Wake County in the process of this application. So it's running forward as both, but there's no actual change in the site. This is a request to rezone approximately half an acre from Residential 10, a neighborhood mixed-use three stories with an urban limited frontage, and transit overlay development district to residential mixed-use four stories with, again, the urban limited frontage conditions and to keep the overlay district. Your deadline for action is November 21st. Zoning in this area is predominantly downtown mixed-use, residential mixed-use, some residential 10, and neighborhood mixed-use. I will note that the RX3 immediately to the east of this site was recently approved as downtown mixed-use by both Planning Commission and Council fairly recently. That would be the Heritage Park site that was approved for redevelopment and rezoning. To the south of this site you have Dix Park, Borland Heights to the west, and Heritage Park to the east. Red Hat Amphitheater and the rest of downtown is to the northeast of this site. Here are just some images of the site today. Currently the site is vacant. There were homes on this site up until I believe 2019, but it is currently a vacant site. The proposed conditions provided with this application would prohibit dormitories, boarding houses, schools, telecommunication towers, outdoor sports and entertainment facilities. The proposed zoning would increase residential entitlement by about five units. It would have some moderate changes to office and retail permissions on site. This area being downtown has a very high walk score, very high transit score, bike scores Transportation costs are low and a high access to jobs The site is served by routes 11 and 21 as well as go triangle routes 300 and 305 This would add to the housing supply does not include any subsidized units would prevent a variety of housing with smaller units that are smaller than the citywide average and is walking distance to multiple transit options and Area residents for this census tract are less likely to be racial minorities compared to the city average and more likely to be low income than the citywide average. The request RX4 is consistent with the neighborhood mixed use and public open space on the site. The request would require some construction of a greenway or dedication land in that public parks and open space future land use map, but the request itself is not inconsistent because of those UDO requirements. The UL frontage is consistent with a numerous number of urban form designations on the site, including downtown, frequent transit, transit station area, and BRT transit areas. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan, both the future land use map and the urban form map. Consistent policies go to increasing densities in areas of town well served by transit, compact development patterns in our downtown zones, It's also supported by the station area land uses and the BRT planning. The frontage is appropriate and consistent, as well as the small area plan for this site promotes mixed-use development, growth around transit and housing, all of which this supports. There are no outstanding issues with this request, and your deadline for action is November 21st. Thank you. Thank you, Jacob.

All right.

We'll now hear from those in favor. We'll have 10 minutes, and then we'll follow up with 10 minutes for those in opposition.

Good morning, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Sydney Wiswell, and I'm an attorney with Smith Anderson located at 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2800. And I'm here today on behalf of the applicant to present this rezoning request for the property located at 606 Dorothea Drive. And we're also joined by Jason Meadows, the project engineer, if we have more technical questions after the presentation. I think this is a relatively straightforward rezoning and so we respectfully request that after the presentation and questions you approve our request. So I'll begin by describing the current conditions of the site. The property is currently split zoned. So part of the parcel is designated R10 and the remainder is designated NX3UL with TOD. The properties were recently, I believe last year, recombined, and so the driving force of this request is rezoning to a single zoning district to help enable appropriate development. The property is also currently vacant, so we think this is a valuable opportunity to add housing in a quickly developing part of the city that is readily accessible via public transportation. and also walkable, increasingly walkable. And this is also an area with a lot of recent development activity. To the north, you have RX7 zoning, which is the site of current construction on what I believe are going to be apartments. And then, as staff mentioned, directly across the street, you have a recent rezoning to DX12CU for a city project for affordable housing. So we are requesting that the property be rezoned to RX4 UL with TOD in the UL, RX4 UL with TOD. And this request is consistent with the existing neighborhood character and recent rezonings in the area. And importantly, as I mentioned, it resolves the current split zoning limitations that complicate development of the site in its current form. And to address potential concerns, we've proposed this condition to prohibit the following uses. Dormitories, fraternities, sororities, boarding houses, public and private K-12 schools, telecommunications towers, and outdoor sports or entertainment facilities. I also wanted to note that this property is impacted by a riparian buffer on the western half of the property. And any future development will steer clear of this buffer maintaining open space on the property. And the rezoning will not affect the developability of that 50 foot riparian buffer. I also wanted to note there's a property directly to the west which you can see here on the map. It says new lot two and I believe this is from the recombination. And that is entirely within the 50 foot riparian buffer and that property, which is not the subject of this rezoning request, that property will also remain completely undeveloped due to that buffer. We have engaged with the surrounding neighborhood. We've had neighborhood meetings and feedback has been generally supportive. There hasn't been a ton of feedback, but what we have heard is that neighbors are comfortable with our proposed plan to do town homes on the property. recognizing that this type of development is compatible with the existing neighborhood fabric and the rezoning only marginally increases the entitlements for residential units and our plan is to develop far fewer. It's really just to address the split zoning and to allow for more flexibility. And then finally I just wanted to touch on planned consistency. This rezoning request is consistent with the city's adopted plans. It's designated as a frequent transit area on the urban form map and it's an area that's ripe for development, increased varieties of housing and would benefit from this type of development. And the future land use map designates this area as neighborhood mixed use and public parks and open space. And again, that's due to the, what I believe is currently the split nature of the parcel. You know, there's two contemplated future land uses. And this proposed rezoning addresses both. It addresses the neighborhood mixed use element because it will complement the nearby NX developments and it will provide medium density housing and then it also addresses the public parks and open space use because, as I've mentioned, there's the riparian buffer that will remain undeveloped. And then I'll also just note that this is consistent and supportive of multiple comprehensive plan policies of which I've noted 4.7, LU 4.7, capitalizing on transit access, LU 8.1, housing variety, and LU 8.10, infill development. So that concludes my presentation. On behalf of the applicant, we respectfully request that the commission recommend approval of this rezoning request, but we're happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Ms. Biswell. We will retain four minutes on your clock. At this time, we provide 10 minutes for those who wish to speak in opposition. Please approach the podium. Seeing no one. He's got four minutes.

Thank you, Chris Crew. As a member of the preservation committee, sorry, as a member of the preservation community, I frequently find myself standing here arguing against zoning changes because I believe in the zoning process. This is one that makes sense. We can identify concrete benefits. We're not displacing families We're not destroying naturally occurring affordable housing or historic resources This is consistent with our housing and transportation needs and it makes good sense. So it deserves your support. Thank you very much Thank you for your comments

and seeing no one to speak in opposition we'll see if there's any questions or comments from the commission commissioner walters is there any staff from parks recreation planning or anyone who can talk about the greenway aspects of this site

But I can speak to what was included in the staff report from them. If you have a question we might be able to help with.

I think there's a planned Greenway alignment that goes through the western portion of either this site or the parcel next to it, but is in conflict with the SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF GRADE AND A CREEK. CAN YOU JUST FILL US IN ON THAT?

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MATTERS MUCH HERE. I CAN'T FULLY FILL YOU IN ON THE STATUS OF THAT GREENWAY UNLESS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE AN UPDATE, BUT THIS SITE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ANY UDO STANDARDS THAT WOULD REQUIRE DEDICATION OF SPACE FOR THAT FUTURE GREENWAY IF IT WERE TO BE BUILT. SO THIS SITE WOULDN'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT I ALSO CAN'T SAY THAT IT WOULD create an opportunity where one doesn't exist today?

I think so.

Okay.

You normally don't answer questions here in this capacity, but I was just coming onto the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission, and if I remember correctly, the Greenway Trail was going to go through the block to the north and then follow the streets and the sidewalks to go under Western Boulevard. So I can't promise that, but I think that was what the plan was. Okay. Commissioner Sanchez.

Yes. I had an observation yesterday when I was going over the agenda. I don't want to say there isn't a discrepancy in information, but what I found when I was going through this is a part of the demographic. Let me scroll back up. The demographics and land use history. In the presentation, it says that residents are less likely to be racial minorities at 25%, and that's what's also in the application. But just three months ago, in June 9th, when the site across the street did theirs, it was up to 76%, along with the low-income population that you guys have stated at 34%. They have stated at 61%. The demographic index, you guys have it at 30%. They have it at 68.5%. So I'm just wondering, when did those numbers...

So not change numbers, but we base these calculations on the census tract and the boundary for that tract actually is South Saunders. So on the west side of South Saunders is one census tract and on the east side is a different census tract.

Even though they're across the street from one another?

Yeah, that just happens to be where the census drew that boundary.

Okay, I'm not, I don't, I'm in support of it. I just, that feels a little shady to me, and I just want it on the record that, yeah, I noticed it, so I'm pretty sure others will notice it and ask the same thing.

Good catch, Commissioner Sanchez. I appreciate the attention to detail. And I would agree that basing these numbers on census tract has more or less appropriateness and accuracy, depending on the area where they come from. So it's a rough measure at best. Any Commissioner Omekai?

Just piggybacking on that. Is there any way that for our own edification, because like she said, it is like a drastic difference in the, and I'm not against this, property at all but I do have a separate question for the owner is there any way that we can see what that looks like on a map because it it is confusing that there's like literally this house is falls within the large racial minority and low income and then this house is grossly like it's like the whole completely other side of the spectrum so is there any way that we can see it I mean maybe not today maybe at the retreat or something like that, when we have cases like this, where we're seeing where neighbors that literally live right next door to each other have two completely demographic and land use histories, is there a way that we can see a map that covers those things just to give us a better understanding of what we're looking at?

Yeah, I thought Matt would speak to the retreat.

Yeah, we can share some maps showing where the census tract lines and boundaries are for you, for sure.

And just more so, also, can you specifically call out these two cases as an example? And to the... to the owner of the property, will there be any units of affordability? I understand that you're not using the subsidized subsidy, but will there be any economically accessible units, especially since it's in an area where across the street?

Yeah, I appreciate the question. I think at this time that's not part of the plan.

Can it be? Can it be a part of a plan?

I would need to discuss with my client and get back to you. So if that's something you'd like to discuss further, we could.

I'm not going to hold it up. I'm just curious if it's possible. And can you possibly discuss with your client, even if the other place where we're looking at losing 24 units, and possibly gaining while only having four, so losing 20 units. Even if it's incremental, that number of units in the space, all economically accessible housing could be helpful.

Yeah, I'd be happy to have a conversation with the client ahead of the subsequent meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. And seeing no further questions from the commission, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for discussion and a motion.

I would invite a motion on the matter. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion. Please go ahead. I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22nd, 2026, contained in the agenda materials, and I recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This is with regard to zoning case number Z1326.

We have a motion for approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Second from Commissioner Omikai. With respect to Z1326, we have a motion for approval and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? And motion passes eight to zero. I think we lost Commissioner Shelburne for a second. And a quick check, does anybody mind staying a minute or too late to finish our last order of business? Anybody gotta leave? Well, we will keep rolling right on down the agenda and close this out today with item E4. That's going to be Z426 on Lewisburg Road. And again, we will hear a presentation from Jacob Hunt from Planning and Development. And the public hearing is now open.

As was just said, this is Z426. THIS IS 5750 LEWISBURG ROAD, JUST AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LEWISBURG ROAD AND SPRING FOREST ROAD. THIS IS REQUEST TO REZONE 6.1 ACRES FROM NX3 WITH A PARKWAY FRONTAGE TO A RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE THREE WITH CONDITIONS TO COMMERCIAL MIXED USE THREE STORIES with park grade frontage and conditions. Deadline for action, again, is November 21st. Zoning in the area is a mix of residential mixed use and CX with some R1 to this property's northeast. The closest CX zoning is essentially all other properties at the intersection of Spring Forest Road and Lewisburg Road. You can see low-scale residential to the north. These are the future land use map designations. Medium-scale residential to the southeast. And then this site and the adjacent R1 are designated as office research development in the future land use map. The existing use of that land is not office research and development, but exists today as a farm, stable, and I believe a rodeo at times. This is the view of the site from the intersection along with Kyle Drive. The proposed conditions prohibit cemeteries, parking facilities, check cashing and payday loans, vehicle sales, nightclubs, bars, things like that, as well as vape and tobacco shops. So the existing zoning on site would provide for approximately... A LITTLE OVER 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD INCREASE THAT. THE RETAIL IN OUR ANALYSIS IS SLIGHTLY REDUCED AND THE MAXIMUM UNITS IS SLIGHTLY INCREASED. I WILL SAY THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THIS REQUESTED REZONING IS MORE FOR THE ALLOWED USES THAT COME WITH CX AND HAVE CONSISTENT ZONING ACROSS THE SITE VERSUS THE SPLIT ZONING. This site is a small aspect of a larger parcel. The larger parcel will remain RX3, and this is to align with a street network that will go in at subdivision. This site, kind of being in some ways the opposite of the last one before you, has a lower walk score, lower transit score, lower bike score. It still does have lower transportation costs due to its proximity to the interstate, but lower proximity to jobs than average. This request would technically add to the housing supply under possible development options, doesn't include any subsidized units, would still permit a variety of housing types with smaller units and smaller lots. There is no transit access available to the site, nothing within a half mile or a mile of the site. Area residents are more likely to be racial minorities compared to the citywide average and less likely to be low income. The requested zoning designations inconsistent with the current future land use map which places this parcel predominantly in office research and development as well as some medium scale residential. The requested frontage is consistent with the parkway corridor placed on Lewisburg Road. The application is consistent with the comprehensive plan while inconsistent with the future land use map. Consistent policies include that urban form designation and its consistency there, the scale and design of new commercial uses, kind of that nodal focus instead of a strip development all the way down Lewisburg. And like I said, the corridors and the frontage consistency here. Some inconsistencies include the future land use map. Under its current future land use map designation, it would be inconsistent as it's more retail than office research development would typically require. And then your deadline for action is November 21st. If approved and if recommended for approval, this would require a future land use map amendment. The approval would amend the map from office research and development, medium scale residential to community mixed use. As you can see here, I will note there was a small error in your staff report that mentioned this would be neighborhood mixed use on the map section, but that was just on the map included in the staff report. Our recommended future land use map designation would be community mixed use to be consistent with the CX requested zoning. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Hunt. We will now provide 10 minutes for the applicant and those in favor to speak. Please come to the podium.

Hello again, Ashley Honeycutt-Torazos with Parker Poe at 301 Fable Street. I'm here on behalf of the property owner and the developer, one and the same, requesting a rezoning of the Deerwood commercial parcel into a single district consistent with the approved subdivision plan and the commercial zoning at the other corners of this intersection. So the entire parcel, 5750 Lewisburg Road, is approximately 127 acres. It was rezoned in 1992 for primarily higher density residential use with commercial uses planned at that intersection of Lewisburg Road and the future Spring Forest Road extension. So it zoned, and then when the new UDO was adopted, it became RX3CU. and that NX3PK there on the northern part of this site with that split zoning. So the owner is seeking a single flexible commercial zoning district for the entire future commercial parcel, avoiding split zoning and aligning with the zoning across the street. The approved Deerwood subdivision includes single-family homes, townhomes, multifamily housing. This is a multifamily parcel right here with walkable and bikeable streets that will connect future Deerwood residents and the residents of the adjacent Buffalo Reserve development, which is sort of surrounding this whole parcel, to a planned small-scale commercial use at the intersection. So we're proposing a CX3PKCU zoning for the commercial parcel to allow a flexible range of commercial uses and make it consistent with the parcels at the other legs of the intersection. In response to feedback from two neighborhood meetings, we added conditions, prohibited uses, attendees viewed as undesirable and perhaps already overrepresented in the area. So we came up with that list with neighbors. Because the owner does not intend to pursue those tenants, those uses have been prohibited. With respect to the future land use map and urban format, the request is consistent with the urban format because it retains the property's existing parkway frontage and that street buffer required by that frontage is already incorporated into the subdivision plan since it already has the PK frontage today. The request would change the future land use map which designates the NX portion as office research and development and smaller southern portion as medium scale residential. Because the future Spring Forest Road extension alignment makes the residential development just on that southern portion very unlikely redesignating it as appropriate to follow the contours of the road for the future parcel on that approved subdivision plan. And then that ORD designation on the northern portion is also I would submit an outdated land use map designation and anticipates the development of office parks. or hotels and excludes any housing mixed in. But regardless of whether the ORD changes in the comprehensive plan update, redesignating four acres at Lewisburg and Spring Forest Road as community mixed use or neighborhood mixed use consistent with the similarly zoned parcels across the street would not impede a future office park development on the adjacent parcels, although I've spoken to those owners and I don't think they have any desire to sell their land anytime soon. But anyway, if they did, an office park could still go there and this would not inhibit that. Commercial uses at this intersection would also support any future development and the rest of that ORD section. As Jacob mentioned, staff found that this request is overall consistent with the comprehensive plan and several key consistent policies. We respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Happy to answer questions.

Thank you for your presentation. Is there anybody else to speak in favor or in opposition?

I don't see. We do have a project engineer if there are questions about that.

Excellent. I have a very important question. Yes. Was that the bluey theme?

Yes. Yes, my husband was calling to ask if I needed anything at Costco. I'm at a hearing.

Sorry about that. Yeah.

Everybody knows the bluey thing. It's quite all right. Are there any questions, real questions from the commission? Commissioner Omakae.

Would you all also consider adding the condition of no gambling houses or things like that in this location?

That did not come up in the, is that a separate use in the use table?

We've been identifying them as sweepstakes parlors just to match state law.

Okay, and so that's a use in the use table. Yeah, I mean, we can consider that. I don't think that's the owner's intention to have a sweepstakes parlor here. But that wasn't brought up as a specific concern at the neighborhood meeting, but we can consider that.

Thank you.

If there are no more questions, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for final discussion and a motion. Are there any comments? And if not, I would like to invite a motion at this time. Commissioner Cochran.

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated September 22nd, 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 for approval. Is there a second? Second. Seconded from Commissioner Knep. All right. With respect to Z426, we have a motion for approval and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes 9-0. All right, thank you very much for your time. All right, moving on to other business. We'd like to go back to Z2826, and I neglected to ask those that voted against the approval if they would like to have their reasons for voting against included in the public comment, and I believe that was Commissioners Omokai, Neptune, and McAllister.

Oh, I think my comments earlier conveyed how I felt about it. Thank you.

Commissioner McAllister. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Sorry, I was just refreshing myself on the case. Yeah, I think I'm just gonna, yeah. I will echo the comments of Commissioner. It was a pretty thorough discussion, so thank you. I believe it all got on the record.

I would also like to bring up another matter. I don't know if y'all saw me respond this week to the email from one of the applicants coming in.

I responded as a reply all, and so I'm getting some strange looks, but I thought I sent it out to the entire commission.

I did, yeah. so i would like to remind everybody and call myself out and remind everybody that uh communication among the commission needs to happen in public at a public meeting and a email to the entire commission can be seen as communicating and discussing a case outside of the public meeting and really want to avoid that so please be careful not to hit the reply all button all right and I we do have the we do have the retreat coming up but I think that we'll get to that in the managers report so I'll leave that to Bynum and with that that's it for the report from the chair and we will go to report from the members and start with Vice Chair Cochran no report for me this week thank you no report for me either

Just briefly, I don't believe I received that email, so no harm on my end. But with regard to the text change committee, I would like to kindly ask our colleagues on the committee, I believe that's Commissioners Baird, Commissioners Sanchez, Commissioner Wakai, of course myself, and Commissioner Ott-Wells, always welcome. Well, everyone's always welcome, but my point is that We have a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 21st. There are two items that we anticipate being scheduled for review. And so with this particular upcoming text change committee, we would love for our members to show up at 3 o'clock instead of our usual 4 o'clock start time. So if you could be here on October 21st at 3 o'clock. You may have already received a calendar invite from me. It should have hopefully landed in your Planning Commission e-mail inbox. And if you could accept it and hold that time, that would be much appreciated. With that, no further report. Thank you.

Can you just confirm a quorum for that, if that's not plausible? I know that staff could be available four to six, but thought that you all might prefer three to five.

I love the three to five. I guess, yeah, can I get a show of hands on who would be available for the three to five time frame for Tech Exchange Committee on Wednesday, October 21st? I'm seeing Commissioner Omokai. Commissioner Cochran could join if needed as an alternate.

I thought I was on that committee.

Oh, are you really? Well, it's great to have you. That is good to know. I'm loving it. This Tech Exchange Committee is the best. We just need three, so I think we're covered with three, although again, all are welcome, all are welcome. You never know, something might come up. So Commissioner Cochran is also on the committee, love that. Big fan. Okay, well with that, I think we'll proceed.

All right, no report, extra report from me? No report.

No report.

No report, thank you. No report.

And with that, we'll move on to Item F3, Report of the Assistant Director. And the only thing under that is Item F3.A, Report of the Assistant Director.

Thank you, Chair. Well, I did want to mention there's no Committee of the Whole meeting this month in September. Please hold the October date in the event that we have an item for discussion. And then we are scheduled to have planning commission retreat next Tuesday, the 29th, at 9 o'clock. We have reserved the Halifax Community Center multipurpose room for that event. There's parking there. I'm looking forward to seeing you. We will have breakfast refreshments for you. Staff will have content for you abroad. information about planning in general, some deeper looks at rezoning, text changes, a review of content we shared with the city council at their retreat this past weekend about reflecting Raleigh, the next comprehensive plan. So should be good content. Looking forward to seeing all of you there. Can I get a hand raised about who can be there? Next Tuesday, nine to noon. All right, cool.

Has an invitation been sent out for that? I apologize if I.

That would not come from me. I do not send invitations.

Okay.

I'll get one out so get on your calendar.

Just to block it off on the calendar.

Yeah, yeah. It's at the Halifax Community Center, which is just north of Peace Street near Seaboard Station. On, I believe, Halifax Street. Is it Blount? Just North Seaboard Station. I can send the ad, we're gonna post notice on the website and can send you specifics, thanks.

All right, and if there, thank you, Ms. Walter, and if there is no other business for the good of the order, this meeting is adjourned. Thanks everybody for making it all the way through the agenda.