Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

meeting will now come to order. Uh, welcome to the February 5th, 2026 meeting of the City of Raleigh Design Review Commission. My name is Kyle Springer and I'm the chair of this commission. Uh the design review commission is a public body appointed by city council uh that exercises both advisory and quasi judicial functions. The commission's responsibilities relate to zoning and other land use matters as well as the visual quality and aesthetic characteristics of the city. Today's agenda includes requests for design alternates from the city's unified development ordinance. When hearing requests for design alternatives, the commission sits as a quasi judicial body and conducts an evidentiary hearing on the request. That means it is like a court hearing. State law set specific procedures and rules concerning how this commission must make its decisions. The commission's decisions are constrained by the standards in the city's ordinance and the facts presented at the hearing. The commission hears and considers evidence presented at the hearing and applies the standards set forth in state law and the city's ordinance. The commission must base its decision upon competent material and substantial evidence presented at the hearing. If you are speaking as a witness, please focus on facts and standards, not personal preference or opinion. This meeting is open to everyone in the public and everyone is welcome to watch. However, participation in the evidentiary hearing is limited. Parties have the rights to participate fully. Parties may present evidence, call witnesses, and make legal arguments. Witnesses may testify as to the facts to which they are competent to testify so long as these facts relate to legal standards. In addition, lay or non-expert witness testimony is limited to facts, not opinions. For certain topics, the commission needs to hear opinion testimony from expert witnesses. Uh these topics include uh projections about impacts on property values and

projections about impacts on traffic traffic safety. All right. Uh with that um we're going to start with the first case on the agenda. Um we're going to open with evidence you hear uh for item DA14 2025 on today's agenda. Uh Casey Evans will introduce this hearing. Um and before you start, Casey, please let me swear you in. Uh, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed.

Good evening. The subject property is located at 4812 Harrove Road on the east side of the street, south of the intersection of Harrove Road and Spring Forest Road. The property is zoned industrial mixeduse, three stories with the parking limited frontage. The applicant proposes to construct two additions to the existing building and reconfigure and add-on to the existing surface parking lot. The applicant has applied for one design alternate and that is for relief from the required build two requirements along Harrove Road. Build two is the area where a certain percentage of the front principal building facade must be located. Build two is intended to provide for a range of building placement that strengthens the street edge in the parking limited frontage. The primary street build two range is within 100 ft of the right ofway um within which building facade must comprise at least 50% of the frontage width. To grant a design alternate for build 2, these three findings need to be met. I'm going to have them here for reference while you all deliberate. Um that is all that I I can turn it over to the applicant unless you have questions. [snorts]

I don't have anybody. Does anybody else have questions for Casey? Thank you.

The applicant will now present evidence and legal arguments in support of the request. As a reminder, any evidence and argument must focus on the applicable standards. Um before you begin, can you please state your uh name, address in relation to the case for the record? Hi, good afternoon. I'm Ann Anderson. I'm with Morning Star Law Group uh here representing the applicant and so I'm the lawyer. I won't be testifying, but I'll be um helping to get the evidence before you this afternoon. And I my office is in Durham. Um and my colleague Molly Stewart is also here from the Morning Star Law Firm and her office is in Raleigh right down the road. Um, so we are um going to be here presenting both cases to you tonight, but this is uh just one alternate that we're seeking this afternoon for a site on Hard Grove Road. And as Miss Evans stated, do I use the the Okay, the arrows. Thank you. Um, as you can see, uh, the site is just a couple of parcels down from Spring Forest Road on Harrove. This is a site that is nestled amongst a lot of other properties in industrial in an industrial combined industrial district in this area. So the current zoning is consistent with uh everything around it. And most of this site is already built out or has been for 30 plus 40 plus years. So it's um a site with a lot of existing uh industrial type uses. And [clears throat] excuse me this is a representation. I know that this is blurry, but it's really the shape that we're interested in more here. Uh this is a survey of the existing site, the structure as it uh exists on the property. It was constructed or finished uh in 1994, which is some 20 years prior to the implementation of the build to

requirements that you that the property is subject to now. [snorts] So it certainly wasn't at the time of construction, nor was any of the surrounding area. And this represents, we're gonna [clears throat] have testimony about this. Excuse me. This represents a little bit of a blowup of the uh of the site layout that is proposed. And as you can see in the back there, there's there's an a proposed um extension to the rear of the building. [cough] Goodness, [clears throat] excuse me. And also to the side of the building uh that you see there in the the lighter gray. So that is the the change that the property owner is looking to make to the building to expand its footprint. This represents the portion of the building that's currently in the build 2, which is negligible. And as you can see in the back there, the addition will not uh alter that uh percentage that is in the build to currently. As Miss Evans stated, there are three standards that are applicable to an alternate approval for for the build two. The first is that the alternate is consistent with the intent of the build two regulations. I'll get into that. uh that the alternate does not substantially negatively alter the character definfining street wall or establish a build to pattern that is not harmonious with the existing built context. And third that the change in the percentage of building that occupies the build two area and again here we don't actually have a change but that the change uh that is in the building that occupies the build to area does not negatively impact pedestrian access comfort or safety. And although we don't actually have a change here in the percentage, we do want to address uh

with you the ways in which we think the proposed plan preserves uh pedestrian access, comfort, and safety instead of the contrary. So, we'll talk about that. So, we're going to make two I'm going to forecast for you that we believe what we're going to show you tonight will this evening um will do three things. Um, we're going to show how the proposed addition is in harmony with the existing street edge and will preserve that uh the existing harmony with the with the surrounding areas and the street edge. Also that the reason for the owner to expand their building is um is to expand exist uses that already exist in the rear of the building and therefore it would be u problematic, illogical u non-economical to put those uses in the front of the building um which would substantially alter the the looks of the facade. And that is the current building. And then third, that the existing pedestrian comfort that on the site uh which is has a substantial tree presence would be dramatically altered by um having to comply with the build 2 requirement uh that is in place in 2026. So I'm going to start with the first standard. The approved alternate is consistent with the intent of the build to regulations. The Raleigh UDO actually um helps us understand what that means a little bit by by letting us know that the purpose of this is to actually establish the street edge through the harmonious placement of buildings. Um and as you you know we since there is an existing building here the street edge is already established. Um I'm gonna uh now provide evidence through a couple of witnesses and they haven't been sworn

yet. So, would it be all right, Miss Evans, if we swore my our witnesses at the same time? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Um, I'm going to try not to go back and forth between folks too much, but if we could swear them at the same time to say for efficiency, that would be great. I've got Mr. Dan Paps and Mr. Brian Bailey here. I'll do one at a time, but thank you. Back and forth. Um, Mr. Paps, um, do you Oh, sorry, I've lost my place here. Apologies. Um, before you begin, could you please state uh for the record, your name, address, in relation to the case?

Uh, yes. Good afternoon. My name is Dan Paps with Paps Design Group. Our office just moved. It's 1126 North Blunt Street here in Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604. Um, I am the engineer of record site civil for the project. And do you swear or form that the testimony you'll provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Right. Thank you. And for you, same question. Uh before you state the record or before you begin, uh can you for the record, can you state your name, address in relation to the case? Brian Bailey with Redline Design Group, uh architects on the project. Our offices are here in Raleigh, 66016 Forks.

And do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. [clears throat] Dan and I are going to share some space here for a [laughter] minute. Uh Dan, I have a few questions for you. Um but before that, could you please introduce yourself to the commission and um give your professional qualifications to be able to speak on this matter today? Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Uh again, my name is Dan Paps with Paps Design Group. I'm registered professional engineer at the state of North Carolina, owner of Paps Design Group and engineer of record uh for this project. Graduated from North Carolina State University with an engineering degree way too long ago. Um been in the this business for approximately 25 years. Uh site planning, engineering, permitting, entitlement u aspects. Mr. Paps, uh, do you hold the qualific professional [clears throat] qualifications appropriate to testify regarding Raleigh's build two requirements?

I do. Um, at this time, I'd like to tender Mr. Paps as an expert, um, and the the site plan um, and related matters related to the build two requirements. Thank you very much. All right, I'm going to look at a couple of exhibits here with you and ask you a few questions. Uh, actually, let's go back to this one. Do you recognize this as the site layout sheet in the administrative um site plan approval packet that is actually before the city of Raleigh already on this matter? I do.

Uh while we have it up here, I'm actually going to switch to the next slide really quickly. Do you recognize this as the uh tree conservation area plan that um that overlays the site plan uh that's proposed for this site? Yes, it is. And did your office prepare the site plan packet for this matter the administrative matter before the city? Yes, we did.

Thank you. So going back to this one, can you um tell us your opinions about how the current site plan layout meets the the first standard for a build to alternate in Raleigh that it um is cons consistent with the intent of the the build to requirements by preserving uh establishing the street edge and preserving the harmonious placement of buildings.

Uh yes, I can. So answer to your question here is that along this segment of Hard Grove Road, the street edge is defined by consistent setbacks, landscape frontage rather than buildings being placed uh close to or in proximity to the sidewalk and rideway. Um and our design aligns with and reinforces that existing and harmonious pattern. Sorry, I've got find my arrows here. Here we go. Mr. Paps, did you pre prepare the exhibit that's on the screen right now? Yes, ma'am. I did.

Can you tell the commission what uh what this represents and how it contributes to the testimony that you just gave? Uh yes, I can. So, the exhibit that you see on your screen essentially shows a 100 foot uh built to line on both the east and west side of Hard Grove Road. It also shows other structures that were built and constructed around the same time as this structure. Also shows that most of the structures are not in compliance with the current build 2 requirements. Um in fact uh you know the ones on the north are completely out of it and the ones to the south that are within it are under the 50% uh bill 2 requirement. [clears throat]

Do you recognize this as an aerial of the of what we just looked at? Yes ma'am we do. Did you prepare this exhibit as well? Yes ma'am we did. And for those uh properties on the opposite side of Hard Grove Road from the current site, what is the defining characteristic of the space that exists in in the current build two area? Um that is not present on the on your client's site that is not present on our client side. So how how does that how does the build two area how is the build two area filled on the east side of Harrove?

So on the east side primarily our site we have a heavily vegetated mature tree stand or canopy that uh is intended to be preserved in meeting the tree conservation area requirements as uh secondary tree conservation. And on the other side, what is the defining characteristic there that is not as desirable in your opinion? No, it's not. And what is it? Well, it's hardcape, parking lots, and some street trees along the frontage. As a site planner, is that something that uh in 2026 is a desirable um thing to see on the on the frontage of a building? Um I if you can avoid it.

Yes, if you could avoid it. Yes, you would would not want to do that. Does this represent what you would see if you were looking at the current site from across the street? It does. Okay. Uh if do you recognize this as an exhibit that um was prepared by the architects for this project? Yes, ma'am. And is it included in the administrative site plan packet before the city of Raleigh? Yes, ma'am. It is. Can you I I'll direct you to the the um image at the top of the screen. Does that represent the um the area of the building that will be added per the plan that this represented on the site plan? It does.

And what is the what is your opinion about the way in which it preserves the harmony um with the surrounding area? So, um, the northern or the western elevation, true north, top of the page. It's what I kind of call the front of the house, uh, so to speak, portion of, uh, the structure of the building. It's inviting. It's the entrance. It's where the lobby is, your offices, your main workspace, training area. So, it would be appropriate for that entrance to face the pedestrian sidewalk within Harrove. At this point, I would like to uh call Brian Bailey forward and have him testify a little bit about the use of the building if it's all right, Mr. Chair.

Yes. Thank you. Um Mr. Bailey, oh, you were sworn in. You were sworn in. Yes. I'm sorry. Um Mr. Bailey, could you please introduce yourself to the commission and state your qualifications to be here today to speak about this project? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Uh Brian Bailey, Redline Design Group, architect, principal at Redline. Um registered in the state of North Carolina among other states and carb certificate holder, been practicing for 25 plus years. Thank you. Do you hold the professional qualifications appropriate to testify regarding the build to requirement and the characteristics of this building and its site plan? Yes, ma'am.

At this time, I'd like to um offer Mr. Bailey as an expert on this matter. Thank you. Thank you. Can you tell uh the commission a little bit about what your role is in the design that we're seeing um before the commission today? Absolutely. Thank you.

So, as the architect, we work with the client to develop uh the space plan, the program for their intended addition. So in this case, two main functions at this facility are testing of critical infrastructure and training the technicians that work on that infrastructure. That's the primary um agenda for the client on the project. Those functions currently reside on the back side of the building. So it only makes logical sense to expand adjacent to those existing uses. It wouldn't make functional sense to split those apart on the addition

in the absence of u a 20-year-old build uh of excuse me in the absence of a build two requirement that came along 20 years after the original construction of this building. Would would you as the architect ever design this building for this intended use where the addition sits in the front of the building covering the existing facade? No. AB. Absolutely not. it it again it would split apart the you the very uses that are trying to be expanded and solidified. So it it would not make sense to swing those around to the opposite side of the building.

Directing you to what's on the screen right now when if you look at the top image um the portion of the building that's that represents the addition. Can you speak to the materials there and how they uh address the standard for the bill two um requirement? Excuse me, the build two alternate that we're discussing today.

Absolutely. Thank you. Yeah. So, the top image is the the front street facing elevation. Uh so, we have essentially the intent there is to extend the existing masonry in line in plane. Uh kind of maintaining the existing texture, look and feel of that elevation. the addition is is a small percentage of the overall elevation. So the intent is to carry on the existing appearance there. And as to the the three uh images below where you see the the the other type of cladding uh and material on those uh elevations, is that a continuation of materials that are existing on that portion of the building?

It is on the on the back non street facing elevations. There's a different type of cladding, a more utilitarian metal panel, uh, which we are continuing in that approach also on those back non- street faces. And from, uh, someone who's walking past the building on the street front, from the sidewalk, will they see those uh, bottom three images um, when looking at the this the plan after it's implemented? Uh, the two, number two and number three would not. Uh there may be a slight angular view of number four if you were coming from the the south right street. Thank you.

Okay. So, in in your professional opinion, would placement of these additions to to satisfy an expansion of the existing uses in the back of the building um contribute to a harmonious placement of of of a structure on this site? No, it would not. It would it would disrupt the character. Um the the uses that we're expanding again are not the the main entrances, the business office uses, it's the utilitarian uh testing and training areas. So to put those on the front would really disrupt the existing character.

Thank you. Is this a similar representation of the structures that are being added to the building? Right. Yes, ma'am. And the top one represents the the facade or the front of the building as seen from the street once the addition is completed. Yes, these are actually our demolition uh elevations. So in red are the portions that will be removed. Ah sorry to facilitate the expansion. Apologies. Yeah.

Thank you Mr. Oh, actually while I have you up here or both of you um Mr. Perhaps is this a drawing that uh was created by your firm to represent both the or what what the building would look like if the addition were added to the front in a way that melt met the build to percentages. Uh yes it is.

Um what is your opinion about the manner in which that is uh would affect the harmony of this building with the surrounding area? So, as I mentioned before, there's a significant tree stand canopy basil area of mature trees along the front. Part of the UDO, of course, with this site is to preserve about 10% as tree conservation area. So, if we were to expand, if it did function, and we did expand, you'd have u severe degradation to the percent requirement of the existing stand that's there. you wouldn't you would not meet the 10% and also it would be uh not harmonious with the area. Um and we'll talk a little bit later about pedestrian comfort and so forth, but you would lose a lot of that tree safe area that's there. Now,

Mr. Mr. Bailey, from an architect's perspective, would you um in the a, you know, in a vacuum, would you place that addition on the front of this building um in your architectural judgment uh in under any other circumstance? No. No. There's no no functional reason or aesthetic reason to place it in the front.

Thank you. So again, this is uh this is the building uh as it was constructed in 1994. Um this requirement is it is 20 years later. It was uniformally applied citywide um in the wake of that uniform application of the new UDO to um to Raleigh property. And uh so in their wisdom, the Raleigh City Council also created a way in which this could be modified um to meet the needs of individual properties. and that's why you all are here. So that's we are asking for you to consider um not requiring this build to. And so that brings us to the second um the alternate does not substantially negatively alter the character defining street wall or establish a build to pattern that is not harmonious with the existing build context. I'll just bring up that slide that Mr. Paps created showing the surrounding area. Mr. Mr. Ps, in your um professional opinion, uh does the alternate substantially negatively alter the character defining street wall?

This being the the street wall, I suppose. Okay, repeat the question one more time. Yeah, this just going back to the standard. Does in your professional opinion, does the proposed addition, the placement of the proposed addition substantially negatively alter the character defining street wall? Um, yes, it does. It It does alter the uh street wall. Um, I'm sorry, repeat it again. If the the proposed con the proposed addition um would it the way that the the owner would like to construct the addition to the building, would it negatively alter the character defining street wall? No, it would not.

Can you um explain your opinion on that? Um it it would not negatively alter it because again there's the uh essentially the setbacks of the adjoining parcels and property are pushed further from the street. So it's going to be harmonious with that. Um you're also preserving the tree stand tree cover area um existing vegetation that is there. So, it's really congruent with the adjacent properties uh to the east and west of Harrove Road.

Would you say that the addition because it's going to continue the the existing facade of the building straight across, does it affect does it alter the character defining street wall in any way? No, does not. Does it um create any inhar inharmonious effect on the existing context in the area? No, it does not.

Let's move just really um quickly to the third standard. So, the third standard for receiving an approval for an alternate is that the change in the percentage of the building that occupies the build to area does not negatively impact pedestrian access, comfort or safety. First question for you. Um, as the site planner, does is there a a change in percentage of building that occupies the build two in the proposal? No, it's zero now, zero before. Can you still help? Can um given that, can you help us address how the proposed addition um impacts pedestrian access, comfort, or safety if I ask you some questions about that?

Yes. Okay, great. So this first exhibit is um a drawing I believe that your firm sent to me. Is that correct? Yes ma'am it is. So this created by the paps firm. Um and what does it represent?

Um so here you can see again this is the required tree conservation area requirements per UDO. Um the green areas meet the basil area requirements. Um, therefore they are preserved trying to hit a target of 10%. And then you do see other significant stands that might not meet for various reasons but are still going to be preserved that would be impacted if you expanded to the west. Is this um a representation of the landscape plan that was submitted to the city of Raleigh for administrative site plan approval? Yes, ma'am it is. And did you generate this as well? Yes, ma'am. We did.

Okay. Thank you. And does that also represent the um tree conservation areas and related tree areas on the site? Yes, it does. What else does it represent in addition to what's already there being a landscape plan? Well, it it it provides the meets code requirements uh for landscape in vehicular use area requirements, street yard requirements, um screening, etc. Does it show what you can also add in terms of additional landscaping if you're able to expand the building toward the back to meet the functional needs of the owner? Repeat that again.

Does it um reflect new new plantings and new additions to landscape in the back? Yes, it does. And to the sides?

Yes, it does. looking at this exhibit that you that we showed earlier uh where it shows a hypothetical of what it would look like if this addition was required to be in the front to meet the build to what are the impacts on the existing tree areas if if that was a requirement. So again, if you expand to the west, you'll see there's an encroachment into the tree conservation area to the southwest corner of the building as well as the center portion of the building where the primary entrance is today as well as you would have to align the access driveway to the north um which would also uh remove tree conservation area. Is it safe to say that most of the trees in the front would come down?

It it is. And even though uh some of the areas that are not highlighted in red, just the impacts of the construction and the root zone, most likely they wouldn't survive as well. The trees would not survive. Okay. Thank you. Do you recognize this as an aerial view of the site? Um a satellite aerial? Yes, ma'am. I do. I'm going to zoom in on this just a little bit closer to the to the existing site. Do you recognize that tree stand uh in the front as um what exists on the site today? Yes.

And in your opinion, does it provide a substantial amount of shade, tree cover and shade uh for the sidewalk that runs along the frontage of the building? It does. Looking is this the same view from an angle also showing substantial shade from that tree stand? Yes, ma'am it is.

And in your opinion, what would be the effect of on on that particular um amenity uh the shade from the trees? What would be the effect on that of having to include this addition on the front of the building covering the existing facade? So again, you would you would end up removing or losing a lot of that existing mature vegetation and with it the pedestrian comfort that might come from it um and the enjoyment of it and both the amenity space and uh the pedestrian corridors.

And I think from your testimony earlier, you established that the trees that exist on both sides of that existing driveway would be affected by a redesign to place the addition on the front of the building. Yes, ma'am. If you extend out toward the front, you're going to encroach into the existing uh circulation. You would have to realign that uh engineering transportation. When you do that, would prefer that we line up directly to the west and by do doing so then you're going to lose the tree stand to the northwest corner. And is this a this a zoom from the same angle? Yes, ma'am. It is.

Thank you. Again, uh going back to the site plan layout sheet, uh is that does that is that represented here? What is in before the city of Raleigh for the administrative site plan approval? Yes, ma'am, it is. I'm going to zoom in really quickly on a portion of that and ask you to um to see if I am correctly representing something here. um is if I um point these arrows toward these parts of the property and and the existing uh proposed site plan, does this represent the tree conservation areas that will be able to be preserved with with the proposed plan?

Yes, it does. And in terms of the red arrow, the rust colored arrow there, does that represent the uh outdoor amenity area that will be preserved with the ex the proposed plan? Yes, ma'am. It does. And can you speak to what those blue arrows represent?

So, the blue arrows that is your pedestrian connect connection to both the street, the front of the building, um the front of the house as I I said earlier. Um which again is providing safe circulation from the parking toward the front entrance as well as to the public rideway. In your opinion, are these uh features of the proposed plan that are beneficial to pedestrian comfort, access, and safety? Yes, ma'am.

And if the facade were affected by having to include the uh addition on the front of the building to meet the build to requirement, what would be the impact of that on everything we see on this slide?

Right. I think it from a programming and just a safety perspective, um, it would not obviously be preferred because you're putting a light industrial use on the front of the building. You're going to have to relocate and move the active use, pedestrian entrances. So, there could be uh safety conflicts with vehicular traffic, unloading. It makes sense to have that at the front of the building again to kind of show that front of the house perspective. uh sidewalk to the preferred parking and it keeps the pedestrians away from the the industrial side uh of the project. Thank you.

Um Mr. Bailey, do you have any further comments on um related to pedestrian comfort, access, and safety? Uh no, I think Dan covered that well. There's one other technical infeasibility to the front as well is there's several transformers that reside on the front portion of the building as well. So there's a lot of infrastructure there in place we would not want to disrupt. So u if I'm understanding you correctly, you may have to cover an existing feature um with uh an addition in a way that's uh architecturally infeasible. Correct. Uhhuh. And that is not something you would the way you would ever design a building in the absence of a build two requirement.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. I um want to of course leave room for you to ask any questions of at all of these gentlemen, but just to summarize I think what we've covered here and we can address any other questions that you have is that we believe that the alternate is consistent with the intent of the build two reg uh regulations because um it in fact um preserves the existing uh character uh with the surrounding area harmony with the existing area and the street edge. um it does not substantially negatively alter the street wall or um become inharmonious with the existing built context because it doesn't in fact change it at all. Um and the change uh and and also it is infeasible to place this uh use uh in the front of the building when it is necessary for it to be functionally in the back. And third, the change in the percentage of the building that occupies the build to area. It's not a change, but uh the proposed addition um in fact enhances pedestrian access, comfort, or safety um rather than negatively affecting it. And so for those reasons, we're asking for this board to u exempt the current um owner of this property with its 1994 building from the build to requirements that are in place today and would appreciate the granting of that alternate. And I would like for you to ask my witnesses any questions that you have.

Thank you very much. Um are there any members of the public present who wish to speak? All right. If none, um, move on. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicants? Right. Hearing none, uh, staff, anything [snorts] else to add before we deliberate? Okay. Would you guys care to add anything else? Thank you for concise presentation. Thank you. Thank you for listening. We'll take this matter to the table. Um, anybody want to kick off discussion of these items and how it relates to and I have paper copies of anything that we showed on the screen if anybody needs to see it?

Anybody like paper copy? No. All right. Thank you very much. I'll just say I feel like this seems like a perfectly reasonable proposal and a very comprehensive presentation. agree. Appreciate the snippets presented showing what compliance with the UDO's guidelines would mean um how that would upset the existing character of the site and also kind of bring it out of character with the rest of the buildings in the area. Um, I I think the proposal makes a lot of sense.

Would anybody like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Any seconds? I second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Hearing none. Um, get back to the script. Um, apologies. All right. The commission's written decision will be adopted when the minutes of this meeting are adopted and the written written decision will be provided to applicant and other parties with a right to such notice following the adoption of the decision. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Does anybody need to leave before we start this next case? No, I've got to leave around 10 minutes to six, but I'm good for now.

Okay. Um, with that, we'll start with the second case on the agenda, DA15205. Uh, Casey will present. And can you confirm you're still under oath, please? Yes, I am. [clears throat] [clears throat] The subject property here is located at 910 Birch Ridge Drive on the west side of the street, south of the intersection of Birch Ridge Drive and Pool Road. The property is zoned commercial mixeduse, three stories in the Shod one overly district. The applicant is proposing to construct a one-story multi-tenant building with surface parking and a drive-thru. The applicant is requesting one design alternate and that is to locate the proposed service area in front of the building um between the proposed building and Birch Drive. The service area regulations um require that service areas be located to the side or rear of buildings and be screened from adjacent properties and rightway. They must be screened by a solid wall and gate um at least 6 ft tall. These are the four findings that must be satisfied to grant the design alternate for the service area location and these will be here for reference for your deliberation. Did you have any questions for me? Okay, thank you.

The applicant will now present evidence and legal arguments in support of the request. As a reminder, any evidence and argument must focus on the applicable standards. Erase. Sorry. Got to get back to the part where I can erase this. That's what I was doing, too. I know. We're trying to figure out how to delete the marks on the screen, but drawing all over. Um, it won't let us. So, [laughter] the little menu doesn't come up. Oh, yeah. We're just adding to it.

It might work if you exit out, maybe. Nope. [laughter] Well, all right. We're just going to run with it.

[laughter] That was fun to use it to draw. I'll just Yeah. [clears throat] All right. All right. Uh before you begin, can you please state your name, address, and relation to the case for the record? Of course. Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group, uh 434 Fateville Street in Raleigh. I'm the attorney on the matter representing the applicant. Um, I would like to begin by requesting that our application and presentation materials today be admitted to the record. Accepted. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, we do have one witness today, Ross Massie from Swift Partners. I'd like to invite him up.

I am Ross Massie at Swift Partners, director of civil engineering, uh, located at It's okay. Go ahead. You're providing the information I was going to ask for. Um, so if you'll just finish stating your address and relation to the case. Yeah. 424 um, uh, South Dawson Street in Raleigh. Um, I'm the engineer of record for this case. Right. And do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll provide will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.

I would also like to tender Mr. Massie as an expert in civil engineering. And for that purpose, I'd like to have him uh describe to you his qualifications and experience. Thanks, Molly. So, I'm a registered civil engineer in the state of North Carolina, 30 plus years of experience um in civil engineering and uh direct oversight of um development plans in and around the city of Raleigh. And with that, I tender Mr. Massie as an expert in site design and civil engineering.

Thank you. All right. [clears throat] I'd like to begin with a a brief overview of the site, sort of the the big picture of what's going on here. Um so this uh site overall uh the the entire shopping center area is at the corner of uh seven lane Pull Road and five lane Birch Drive. Uh, and there are, you know, there's the main shopping center and two out parcels. I would like to show you where we're talking about. I'm afraid to draw on the screen. So, that's that that open field uh in front of the shopping center uh is is the area that we're looking at today. This is an overview of the planned site layout. We'll go into some detail. Um, instead of circling them for you, I will point out uh the location of Birch Ridge Drive at the far right of the screen. that is the only public ride ofway um adjacent to this site. We also have uh in along uh Birch Ridge we see uh with this the thick dotted line there that is the tree conservation area behind it a storm water control measure. Um you've seen the location of the trash enclosure and I'll just point out that the front of this building is proposed to be on the west side so away from the street and facing uh internally to the shopping center. The provision at issue here is that, you know, trash collection uh areas uh shall be located to the side or rear of the buildings. Since we only have the one public rideway, you see that's a driveway to the south. Um we just have the one single public rightway. So that makes that the front by default. And just to overlay that site plan so you can see how it fits into the site. um this is the goal uh to uh to leave that that tree conservation area in place uh and and to really face where the pedestrians are in this area. So that is the the big picture request and of course today we will be going through each of those uh design alternate

standards uh and providing substantial material and competent evidence on each of those standards uh to to help describe why why this request is needed. So the four standards are on your screen. You have heard them so I won't uh go through them one by one. But to start with the first standard um the design alternate must be consistent with the intent of the landscaping and screening regulations. And that intent is stated in the UDO uh to provide meaningful and well-designed screening and buffering. So let's talk about the screening and buffering that is in place. And for that, I will invite Ross Massie up to tell us about uh everything that is uh screening and buffering this uh this trash enclosure from uh the front of the site.

Thanks, Molly. Um so this is an excerpt from our plan image. Uh specifically here uh you see the um the portion of the site um that's along Birch Drive. Uh just to highlight the area specifically that we're talking about. So there's basically kind of like three different things going on between our our proposed improvements and Birch Drive. So dark green is the kind of the um recorded location for tree conservation for the previous development. Um, also the low part of the site is kind of at the front part and so this is the natural location for like where storm water control measures would be located. Uh, for this site we're proposing a bio retention cell. Uh, this bio retention cell would have plant material in it as well. Uh, and then an amenity area to kind of um, you know, not only meet the code but kind of service the needs of the occupants for the project. Okay. Ross, can you tell us how far that trash enclosure is from the right ofway?

So trash enclosure. So obviously the rightway is at an angle, but if you look at the midpoint to the rightway, trash enclosure is about 130 ft. [clears throat] All right. Right. And still on that topic of the buffering and screening, can you walk us through the landscaping that will be in place um in order to achieve that?

Right. So, this is a excerpt from our landscape plan for the project. And so, um in addition to like the uh the existing tree conservation area, which is fairly, you know, thickly wooded in there, even though it's kind of a smaller uh tree conservation area, is kind of the um the biggest separation. But in addition, we wanted to make sure that we had a a a robust planting plan since this building pretty much is kind of like visible from all sides. So, um but most of the plants that you see here on either side of the driveway um are comprised of um um evergreen plant materials uh that are going to average probably in height anywhere from like 3 to 8 feet at maturity. So uh this planting plan was intended to provide like some visual interest. So it's not like one just plant. And so these plants were selected u not only to be like more like native type species um easy to maintain uh but also to provide attractiveness. And so uh we've got wax myrtles uh and berford holl on the east side and we have laurel immediately around uh the enclosure itself. And with that, we'll turn to design alternate standard number two, which is that the request does not substantially negatively impact the comfort and safety of pedestrians. And to answer that question, I'll ask Ross to come back to the podium and tell us about uh where are the pedestrians and how are they best served by this location.

Right. So, the Walnut Creek Shopping Center um has a large parking field kind of centered um internal to the facility and so much of the parking in this area kind of disperses among uh the shopping center itself and will probably also service our proposed improvements. So, we in addition to like the sidewalk that's along Birch Drive, um our plan is going to accommodate uh pedestrian sidewalks on the perimeter of this out parcel. Um but to um but to do that we want to make sure that um um you know we're we're making sure that it's accessible routes and that we're not doing things to block that. Um this particular site has been designed so um uh the building itself was kind of like um modified to kind of recess the enclosure back into the site uh so that it wouldn't impede like that uh location of the sidewalks and operation of the sidewalks. and Ross, what would happen if the trash enclosure were placed in a location that complies with that provision of the ordinance? Thanks, Molly. So, uh, specifically since this building is designed to kind of operate internally facing with the center itself, um, if we place the enclosure, um, and maybe there's an is there a slide after this one? So the um so the center itself so essentially be putting the dumpster in front of the building and so um and you'll see on our site plan that you know we really don't want to kind of impede the parking area for the building and so it would um since this is kind of a suburban shopping center uh nature. Yeah, that's good. Thanks. Thanks Molly.

Sorry you're looking for that. Yep. So you can see the the the parking area and for what we'd call our front. um you know, trying to locate a dumpster um within that parking field uh would one kind of remove some of the parking to kind of support the project itself, but also would kind of be like a visual negative because the in this case the back of the building operates as the front.

Oops. You want Yeah. And just for context uh to the surrounding area. So the adjacent um out parcel is a McDonald's restaurant. Kind of has some of similar situations, but what you'll notice uh in these images here is the view from Pool Road shows the back of their dumpster enclosure. So this one's not necessarily in compliance, but you can also see like being the same materials as they're building and the you know the plantings around it kind of help obscure it. Um and so it's just an example where it's difficult for these um out parcels in a shopping center to comply with this dumpster enclosure location requirement. Thank you.

All right. Our our third design alternate standard is that the request utilizes other archite architectural, artistic or landscaping treatments to create visual interest. And we have a few demonstrations on that. Ross, can you talk to us about the materials being used on this enclosure?

Right. So, the enclosure um is designed uh to kind of bench into the hillside a little bit. Uh but in addition, it utilizes the same building materials as the building itself. So, it's kind of uh the intent is to kind of help it blend visually uh and perspective. So, uh the same brick on the enclosure is going to be used on the building and so it'll be like architecturally compatible. Um, and then we're also kind of building it to uh exceed the minimum height requirement. So, it's like seven plus feet. So, this south elevation uh shows you the view that you'd see from that southern drive. And so, um, and what you'll see is that uh we've caned it at an angle that allows, you know, for the trash to pick up, but we we've also kind of recessed the building in that location to kind of allow us to pull it back. And so it kind of the intent is to kind of like lessen the imposing nature of the dumpster enclosure being like on the street. So we have already discussed the extensive proposed plantings. I don't know if you anything to add on that or just

Okay. I I don't think we need to go through that again. Um so between the the high quality masonry materials that match the building as well as the extensive landscaping we've seen that the standard number three um has also been met. So to move on to our fourth design alternate standard uh the request must be considered equal to or better than the standard. We have already heard that putting the enclosure to the rear or side of the building would put it uh internal to the site uh sort of getting in the way of the of where the pedestrians actually are in this area. Um so you heard that from Ross earlier. I'll also ask Ross to come back and tell us um about uh the the design of the building and how that also works with this location. Uh so things that I'd point out is that you know we've tried to design this west facing elevation to kind of work within the center itself so that the buildings uh from a market perspective face each other and so it uh uh really kind of creates that market synergy that you need to kind of work with the existing parking field. Uh the building itself is kind of built with high quality materials. So, we're basically treating each side of the building with quality, you know, brick materials, uh, copings, um, awnings, and then articulations in materials. Um, and then, you know, we also, you'll notice if you look at the site plan intently, there's about a 10-ft fall across the site. And so, you'll notice that we have some elevation change, which kind of takes place on the, you know, closer to the southern end of the site. and we'll just provide some additional images to see the area where the trash enclosure would be required to be. Um the area to the right in this photo would be the the re the uh the rear of the building according to the UDO. It would be immediately in front of the building that is planned.

And just looking at the uh shopping center itself, you can see that the enclosure would uh in this location be visible um from the vast majority of the pedestrian traffic in that area. So as we previewed, we have heard competent material and substantial evidence on each of the four design alternate standards um which flow from a couple of factors. One uh you see that con tree conservation area that is already recorded um based on the topography of the site. the the storm water control measure also needs to be over there. Um so in order to best serve pedestrians uh it it's simply not possible to to turn that building toward the street and make it more pedestrian friendly in that in that respect. So turning it in toward uh the center itself and bringing the center of activity in that direction uh sort of moves where it makes sense to put this enclosure. So um we thank you for your time and listening and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you for the presentation. Um, are there any members of the public present who wish to speak? Hearing not, [snorts] um, commissioners, do you guys have any questions for the applicant? I've got one. Um, I'm just wondering if you could tell us if you considered instead of facing the building to the west towards the the shopping center itself, but face it to the north towards the McDonald's.

Right. So, we um, so that might be like an obvious consideration for the site. Uh and it's a little bit difficult to kind of understand specifically on how best to make this retail building be you know best operate. Um, we definitely evaluated that with our client and based on their like market experience in this kind of suburban location, they felt like they would have trouble like maintaining the viability of the building without kind of having that that internal synergy, you know, between the shopping patrons since most of the people are kind of coming to the center because it's a grocery anchored uh retail center. And so you really need to have that strong visibility which is kind of uh what's necessary for like retail to operate. So um so whereas I think like it could be built that way from a market perspective we think that this probably is going to um be a a better operating retail center.

Thanks staff. Do you have any further points? How how is the drivethru working? You have it noticed as a as a drive-thru. So you you go there and so I'll just go to the site plan. So um All right. So this um so this is a one-way drive-thru. Mhm.

And so the the idea is that so the idea is that you would access from the the south side and then the the actual drive-thru would be on located on the northern um uh space for the uh for this building. And so um this particular building doesn't necessarily have known tenants yet. So what we're trying to do is kind of we realize that there's high demand for drive-through opportunities in this area. So, we're trying to plan for that eventual need. Um, but the so the actual um window pickups for that drive-thru would be on the north side of the building.

And what is is the curb for parking the you know how you're opening up the curb on the drive-thru, right? What is that for? So, um, so I don't know if I understand that. So, you you you have a drive-thru. You you're going northwest, but you also have a curb. It looks like parking. Is that playing? Oh, so that's a loading space. Loading. And so each each one of these uh individual retail spaces uh would have um a need to kind of have regular loading. And so we're trying to avoid um having uh front access of loading materials through the building. So this would allow the patrons for the building to kind of have rear access for loading.

I see. And and when that loading comes in, they they'll still follow the one way and get out. So that's correct. So it'll be a one-way access only. And how is the I guess the trash working when they pick up the trash? How how does that sort of right operation work?

Yeah. As as we noticed like the the trash trucks have a pretty long wheelbase to them and so they don't turn as tight as a typical passenger vehicle. And so you'll notice that the trash enclosure is at an angle to the roadway and that's to lessen the turning movement that you need. And so we've used our vehicle turning analysis software to make sure that this angle works with the trash truck pickup. And then we've also vetted that with the private hauler to make sure that this would meet their pickup standards. Did you include that diagram? Um, do we include that diagram?

Yeah, I I don't think we have that turning movement. Um, but it is in our our overall plan set submitted to the city. Okay. I guess how does it get out of there? I mean, it goes forward, I see. And it's like a straightforward pickup and then it it backs up,

right? So, this is so they have different types of trash pickups. For this case, it's like a 8 cubic yard dumpster enclosure. And so those have a front-loaded attachment um and it lifts up and the truck kind of lifts it up and dumps it over the top of the truck. And so it'll pull forward um and then you know lift that dumpster enclosure over it, empty it and then place it back down in place. And then they back back up um into that drive aisle. And so in this case, this is a a private um drive aisle, not a public street. So, um, it's a code compliant approach. Okay. So, that's not that that back street is is private.

It is. It's a private drive for the shopping center. Okay. I think that helps a lot because if it was a main, you're sort of greeting um everybody going to the shopping center with a with, you know, this dumpster that probably will have the swings open and not be as neat as the elevation. So, if it's a private, I think it helps a lot. So, um, and in addition, like I would point out too, like because it's a private pickup, we can schedule our pickups. So, it's a non- peak hours for traffic. Okay. And how how often are the pickups? So, it's really dependent upon uh the actual tenant needs. And I think the tenant mix for this building is still being determined.

So, often times we'll see for a facility like this is that it's picked up once a week. Um, but if they have like a high, you know, if they have say multiple restaurants, I would envision that they would have multiple pickups weekly. So, it'll probably be between one to two most likely.

Anything further? I I guess as I look at it, you know, it helps that it's not the main entrance and that it's private. Um, I think that you're using a lot of landscape but it's behind the the dumpster, right? So, it's not kind of concealing the front of it. If it was in the front and this was sort of rotated, then you would have a much nicer, you know, back to it. Um, but again, it since it's not the private, I mean, the main entrance and it's private. Um, I'd just like to note that the the only front the UDO recognizes here is towards Bertridge. Yeah.

And there's there's quite a bit of landscaping toward the front. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. And did you share the heights of the the different plantings both existing and new that are facing Birch? So 7 7'4 in

Oh, for the landscaping. Apologies. Um where's our landscape plan? Right. So um so the um so the wax myrtles that you see which are uh these shrubs right in here uh these will a mature height is going to be like 8 to 10. Um these berford holl probably have a mature height of about like four to six on the laurel has a mature height of about 8 feet. And again like you'll see the um you know we've [clears throat] got plantings um in the bio retention cell itself um those are smaller shrubs

and the existing is much more mature along the street. So the right so the tree conservation area which is this cross-hatched area that's basically mature tree cover and so um it's pretty heavily wooded but it's a mix of like hardwoods um and you know pine trees. Any further questions applicant? Do you have anything additional you want to add before we take the matter to the table?

No, we've appreciated the thorough discussion. Uh just note that uh we have presented evidence on on each of the four points and uh any further questions about those uh we'd love to talk about them. Thank you. Sorry, chair. I do have one more question. Um the topography around the dumpster enclosure um this so it looks like the sidewalk to the west of its um pretty high up compared to the elevation of the bottom of that. What about to the north?

Just trying to figure out like as you're driving in from that that main drive aisle, how high is that railing above grade that I'm looking at? So the um and I'm sorry I don't have a grading plan to to represent here. Uh well you can see I guess the existing contours there but the um so there's about a 10ft elevation difference from the north elevation to the south elevation. And so think about the the finished floor for the building is probably about eight feet above the grade of the um

yeah keep going before earlier.

Yeah, right here. So um so you can see where that pedestrian access is along the rear of the building there. um those steps go to like the finished floor of the building. And so essentially like this dumpster enclosure is kind of banked into like the hill. Um and so the grade will change like about like 2 to 5 ft um on the sides of the enclosure. Um but when you get past the dumpster, you know, that grade becomes more gradual because the site comes up to grade at about like a 5% slope along the rear. And so the idea is like most of the grade change for the site itself is kind of pushed to this southern elevation. And I think there's a benefit really to the dumpster in this location because it becomes somewhat hidden in that slope.

Thanks. Yeah, we've actually got a grading plan in our packet that I just found. Kyle, thank you, Kyle. Thank you all again. Um, Casey, could you pull up the slide that has the four findings for our discussion? Thank you. [snorts]

Anyone like to kick this off? Now you got opinions, Kate. [laughter] All right. I think the proposed approach here is consistent with the intent of the UDO. I know the right of way is going to be looking at this, but feel like between the grade mitigation tactics they've employed and the mature existing growth kind of consistent in the screen, like the first point is pretty well addressed. um not really seeing anything that increases or decreases pedestrian safety or comfort from what is existing on the site. I don't know if that's exactly the measure with which we should be looking at this, but um given that that is a private drive um somewhat limited access um I I think it's a fair proposal um for handling the requirements of getting waste away from the site. Um, I also think the materials they're proposing for the enclosure, um, do a nice job of trying to dress this up in addition to the landscaping elements that are there, trying their best to dress this up and lessen the visual impact of of the structure. Um and then I as far as being con equal or better to the standard I think going above the minimum height requirements and again the higher finishes that they are employing here or proposing to employ here um do a good job of addressing that point. I guess. Um, Kelsey, did we have any Can

you remind us if we had any staff comments or recommendations for this one? No. No. Okay. No. I think what I'm trying to think through is like our future implications of moving it there. And maybe that's not what I'm supposed to be thinking about, but like they don't, as far as I know, have control of the neighboring site. So what if the neighboring site completely changes its use?

What happens then? Is there any planner there that shows with the Jason lot zone too? Like the design of of how you treated the solution.

Yeah. I mean, at the end of the day, somebody's going to be looking at the trash enclosure, right? And I think even if you if the retail guys and developers know their business better than I do, even if he rotated it so it was facing north and and then that trash enclosure would be in the same side facing that property to the south, it would be in the same condition. I think at least where it is um on the proposed plan, it's kind of built into the side of a hill and screened from anybody that's really to the north um as they drive into this center. anybody that's really going to see it is coming in that southern entrance. Um, and the the screening for it, the wall that they built is going to be taller than the minimum standard in the in the code to your point, Kyle. Um, and it's like oh so close to being on the side of the building versus the the back. Um, plus I think the vegetation that they've got around it, the tree conservation area, the trees that they've got planned to plant, I think, um, what are those? Oaks, red oaks that are along the back of the building, they're going to be 10 feet tall, 10 to 12 feet tall at install. Um, some wax myrtles. I mean, a lot of other vegetation that's really going to screen this thing from public view. So, um I do think my opinion it's a reasonable request for those reasons and meets all the findings.

Would anybody like to motion? Yeah, I'll move to approve uh as presented. Any seconds? Second. All those in favor I I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Uh the commission's written decision will be adopted when the minutes of this meeting are adopted and written decision will be provided to the applicant and other parties with a right to such notice following the adoption of the decision. Thank you all very much. Thank you.

Moving on with the agenda. Chris, if you need to take your leave. I think we got stick around for a couple more minutes. Thanks. Um, approval of minutes from January's meeting. Has anybody Everybody gotten a chance to read those? Any proposed alterations, amendments, changes to the meetings as drafted? Would anybody like to make a motion to approve those? Make a motion to approve. Second. Second. All those in favor?

I I any opposed? All right. Hearing none. Um I guess other business is um Mr. Attorney, do you have anything to share with us? No report. Thank you.

Thank you. Um report of the chair or vice chair? Dave is not here. Um as we touched on at our last meeting, our next meeting is going to be in two weeks. I don't know the date of that. I'm not great at math. The 19th. Um I think at that meeting we want to review some of the draft if we've gotten a chance to um move on that for the annual report. I think Casey said she was going to distribute that uh last year's report for us to kind of reference um probably within the next week or two. Um so if you all can take a um a look at uh the sections that you volunteered to help with and punch up. Um, we'll spend a little time reviewing that in two weeks and then be ready to adopt that uh more formally at our annual retreat in March. Um, Casey, Kenan, do you guys have anything you would like to share before we adjourn? [clears throat]

Hi everyone. Um, I did have one update. So, as you all recall, we're working on a revamp of the existing legacy project. So, we provided a report or summary to the council via their weekly managers update. Didn't receive any feedback, which is a good thing. Um, usually we just want to signal that we're moving ahead with something um and didn't get any cause for concern. So, we have moved ahead with the web page and um online form that we're going to launch this Friday. So, if you're signed up in the gov delivery list serer for the design review commission, you should get an email, but we'll forward it all to you as well. Um, we will also see if we can develop some type of digital flyer, but I think the web page is actually going to be a great resource for people. Um, and addition to that, email. So, definitely would encourage you all to share the email blast with your networks and direct them to the web page. um they'll be able to find our contact information. Everything that you reviewed in the outline will be on the web page. It's a relatively simple online form that they fill out. And the plan is to have that liactive for a one-month period to March 6th. And then after that, we'll compile the information and hopefully bring it to you at your whatever the next meeting is, presumably that second meeting in March for you all to have sort of first pass at. Thank you very much, Keegan.

Yep.

It's exciting. All right. Um, does anybody else have any matters they'd like to bring up before we adjourn? All right. With that, we'll join the meeting. Thank you all very much. Heat. [music] Heat. [music]

[music]

Heat. Heat. Heat.

[music]

wanted for. So we will start the meeting and uh first the pledge of allegiance and council branch can we ask you to lead us? To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I will also say before we go to the next item that uh Mayor Pro Tim Harrison will be out on leave and our thoughts will be with you as you