Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll go ahead and bring this meeting to order, please. Good morning. It's May 12. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. My name is Dwight Otwell. I'll be chair today and this is Jessica Cochran. She's gonna be our vice chair. First order of business today is we will allow time for members of the public to make public comments for items that are not on the agenda. So if you're meeting, if you're here to speak about something that's gonna be presented and discussed, you'll speak at that time. But if there's anybody here that would like to speak about an item not on the agenda, please approach the podium.

Alright. Seeing no public comment, we will move on to our first order of business. The first order of business is our consent agenda and the only thing on the consent agenda is the approval of the minutes. Have the commissioners had a chance to review the minutes and are there any requested changes or additions to the minutes? Having no edits or corrections, I'll call for a motion to approve the minutes. We have a motion from Vice Chair Cochran. Seconded by Commissioner Fox. All those in favor? Opposed? Excellent.

Thank you. The meeting minutes from last meeting have been approved and we'll move on to our second order of business right into it. From the report of the committees. Normally, the vice chair would be presenting this, report of the committee, but commissioner Fox was chair of this, body when this actually came through and was discussed. So I will ask her to give the report for the Committee of the Whole, please.

Absolutely. This is in regards to rezoning case Z4825 on Lake Boone Trail and Blue Ridge Road. This is for the campus master plan for Rex Hospital. The committee met on April 23. We this amendment recommended approval of this amendment unanimously with some recommendations for further consideration pedestrian and bicycle connections within the campus. I believe we have an update from staff.

Barring objections, would like to provide staff time and the applicant to present the updates. So please, the public hearing is now open and we will hear updates from staff.

Thank you, chair and commission. My name is Jacob Hunt with Planning and Development. As you said, this was heard by the committee of the whole, and we'll quick quickly run through those updates for z forty eight twenty five. Just so everyone's aware, the deadline for planning commission action is June 22. Just a overview of the site.

No changes to the subdistricts or dimensions today to the development summary. Green spaces remain unchanged. The tree conservation plan is the same that was heard by community of the whole. There has been some updates to the bike and pedestrian circulation plan. Most notably, there is a intent statement that speaks to Rex Hospital's plans for the future and what they will intend to do with pedestrian and bike circulation.

I wanna this is not a condition. It is just their intention, and that is to, where feasible, support pedestrian safety, bike safety, and roadway improvements that would serve those needs. Their new condition does speak to a hub, and I'll let the applicant get into more detail when they come up to speak, but this would be a bike rack, bike share station on the site that would allow for the parking and safety of those means, and that would come in with the first tier three site plan. Again, the existing proposed zoning remains the same from committee of the whole. Bus service is still well served on this site.

It is still consistent with the future land use map, and there are no outstanding issues. Your upcoming meetings are May 26 and June 9. And with that, I'll turn it over to the applicant team.

And thank you. Do we have a we don't have a time limit yet because this is not old business. So yeah, we'd like to hear from the applicant, please.

Good morning chair out well and members of the commission and Jamie Schweather with Parker poe here on behalf of the applicant. Rex hospital. We presented to the committee the whole will try to keep our comments kind of level but want to make sure we're explaining it for the public and any members that might be here to speak. We also have members of the the hospital here with us. Emily Siegler is here as well as members of our Kimberly Horn traffic and site planning team. As the committee heard, this is a campus master plan to update the existing Rex Hospital and accommodate for plans twenty to twenty five years in the future so we can accommodate the needs of Raleigh's growing population. At this time, I'd like Emily to up and talk a little bit about the vision, and I'll go through the plans.

Thank you all for having us here today. Rex Hospital is very proud to be in this community as you see here. We've been here since 1894 and we want to be here for another many, many decades. We just need the ability to grow within the footprint of our existing campus. You all know how rapidly our community is growing and all of our hospitals are above capacity every day.

We actually have waivers that we get from DHHS every month to operate above our capacity. So we are just looking to be able to expand what we can do within our current footprint with the main project being a new bed tower on our campus to add capacity, add beds, and add some ORs. We had some really positive conversations with our neighbors, and they all recognize that the hospital needs to grow as well. So we just appreciate your support, your willingness to listen to us, and we look forward to continuing to serve this community for decades to come. Thank you.

So the site is roughly 60 acres across three parcels shown on the screen. The current zoning today is o x 12 urban limited that was placed on the site in the 2016 mapping. And of course this is along the active Blue Ridge Corridor. Very close proximity to other major employment employers, including the dhhs headquarters. Lenovo Center, and Bandwidth.

The future land use map designates this as institutional is really kind of perfect for the use and recognizes Rex's long history and presence in the area. It defines it as facilities such as colleges and universities, Medical complexes we really fit into all of those types of categories and recognizes that the appropriate zoning for this particular parcel would be CMP the campus master plan that we're seeking. We have a lot of urban instruction here as well. We're in a city growth center, a frequent transit area. We have a transit and this corridor and we're also on an urban thoroughfare.

So lots of policies that are appropriately saying your staff report related to transit facilities. You want to be placing people on on these edge areas and it was in close proximity to existing facilities. We do note that there are some mentions about urban thoroughfare and there was discussion at at committee the whole about the lack of frontage and I'll show you a little bit later in the slides of how that's really geared by several factors, not the least of which is the the tree conservation area on the edge as well as the existing bike and pedestrian facilities that are on the edge of our campus and where we plan to expand and needing that flexibility to not only accommodate the growth that Emily mentioned, but make sure we do it in a way that makes sense for our hospital operations. And this is all consistent with the Arena Blue Ridge plan that was adopted in 2012. Of course, the hospital was in existence at that time, and so the appropriate measures were taken to make sure that could accommodate the growth, both the expansion geographically of the hospital, but also recognizing that facilities would need to increase over time and so what we've done is is exactly that kind of lined up with adding those additional facilities but we've done it within our footprint at the heart of the Health And Wellness District to try to make sure we maintain a kind of a a neighborly attitude toward our surrounding areas and only impact our site and try to absorb the growth within our boundaries.

So that brings us to the rezoning request which is the CMP master plan we've chosen the 0 X District as the base district is that's consistent with the existing zoning with the future guidance is for the site. The height ranges from seven to 20 stories and staff report is a good job of explaining that's really to take our 12 across the board and push the height closer towards the core operations so that we can step down in height as we get closer to our residential neighbors to our East and to our North. Our uses are curtailed to what we might expect in a in a hospital facility and how it may change over time. I want to note that the uses are not intended to be independent multifamily. They can't.

We have to keep this as a a hospital owned and controlled facility but because the definitions of residential use may change over the next twenty to twenty five years and how the city chooses to recognize a a kind of creative living on-site. Situation we want to make sure we accommodated that too that we would have to be back before you again. This brings us to the master plan which really divides the area up into four different subdistricts subdistrict a is that 20 stories blue in the center. A subject to be would be 12 stories again what we could do today by right in the purple. We did drop little arm of the subject to be down to 12 stories instead of 20 in response to some concerns we heard from neighbors in that area and then allowed us to push the subject to exceed down to seven stories and subject to down to 10 stories because we're close those are closest residential neighbors.

Like the Lenovo Center we've adopted a district kind of characteristics and limitations on the square footage and the height you'll see those on the screen. And that brings us how we kind of came up with these caps what we've done is capped ourselves at maximum that we believe is enough for our growth in the future, but also make sure that we give some protections for traffic and I'll skip to the envision slide. What the envision revealed for the city's staff report was that under the existing zoning at twelve stories a day, we could go up to about 24,000,000 square feet. We don't have any intention of doing that, and with the caps and the height that we've placed on ourselves and looking at the hospital use of what nearing that hospital. Use down to not just all of o x but specifically what we would need to do for our uses.

We felt comfortable with a 9,700,000 square foot cap. And so when you go back to what that looks like in the districts and add up the existing square footage plus the new subdistrict maximums. We only get to about 6,500,000 and we've we've agreed to a voluntary once we exceed that kind of threshold so that not only are we living with the city's protections of TIAs are required at site plan but that we would voluntarily do an additional TIA as needed and that's in response to some traffic concerns that we heard and and folks are kind of concerned of how this area will continue to absorb the growth. These conceptual massings are also part of the application and start kind of from Lake Brook been trail looking can toward the heart of the site there in Blue And Subdistrict A and then wrapping around as you can move clockwise to show that even though it's 20 stories of course that doesn't mean the entire district will be built out at 20 in Subdistrict A will focus those needs on where they're needed most in terms of absorbing beds and the capacity that Emily mentioned earlier. This shows the development area in Campus Green space.

There's a lot of built area as it as it already is. You see that TCA area in the top left portion of the screen. That's existing mature trees. There are sidewalk facilities there, but there are some some geographic and and site constraints that prohibit us from committing to that frontage without having serious impact on that area. The bike and pedestrian circulation plan we noted since that committee the whole discussion we've added those existing transit stops that shown there in the blue and loans and then existing bike facilities within the campus there are some discussion about where those already were occurring where those could be absorbed in the future.

We want to make sure we highlighted that for for both the commission and the public. Which brings to the update since the committee of the whole and so Jacob focused on this just a little bit and I'll expand on it and then be happy to answer questions. We've added a micromobility hub in Subdistrict A for those who served on the commission at the time Lenovo came through. This is very similar to what you saw at the time trying to absorb different modes of transportation to and from the hospital so we're not just focusing on on cars or transit. That was in response to to recommendations that we heard throughout the case and then adding in the existing bike racks as I just showed and highlighted on that sheet MP five noting with those already exist and that those could be absorbed as we go forward and then highly not intense statement.

There was a discussion at committee of the whole about how we would work towards incorporating bike and pedestrian facilities as we go forward. That's absolutely the hospital's intent. It's difficult to either accommodate that in a frontage or exact pattern without interfering with emergency operations or hospital operations that will certainly change over time as new beds and new facilities are added in and so they of course want to work with the neighborhood and with the the city to be a good neighbor But need that flexibility to absorb whatever changes may come in the several decades. So with that I'm happy to answer any questions and Emily and our team as here as well. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll reserve thirty seconds for rebuttal and at this time we'll provide an opportunity for those opposed to the application to speak. Seeing nobody's standing up to oppose, we will close the public hearing and bring this discussion excuse me, I'm sorry. Yes. Close the discussion, close the open hearing, and we'll bring this back to the table for questions from staff. I guess that means the hearing has to be open. Sorry. Still getting used to the order of operations. The hearing's open. And we're back at the table for questions.

Please limit yourself to questions and we'll provide time for discussion later. Any questions from the commission for either the staff or the applicant or anyone else? Alright. That was short. We'll close the public hearing now and bring it back here for discussion. Any discussion at the table?

I was gonna say, as we discussed at the committee of the whole meeting, I believe the campus master plan is the appropriate district to be used here. The committee didn't have any issue with the height. It was merely connections throughout and within the campus. With those changes that were proposed, I'm comfortable supporting it at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Fox. Any further comments or discussion? In that case, I'll open the table for a motion. Commissioner Fox.

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated 05/12/2026 contained in the agenda materials and recommend approval of the zoning amendment. We

have a motion from commissioner Fox and a second from commissioner Sanchez. All in favor? All opposed? Motion passes six to one. For my statement, my major concern the whole time was to keep the frontage rules that prevented parking decks from being up on the major street and the plan does not address that.

Thank you. That concludes our committee business, and we'll move on to old business at this point. And I'd like to just make a quick note. I'm holding off on doing the attendance, so I still expect to see commissioner Neptune today. He's recovering from the flu and stumbling down the street to get here.

And commissioner Omakae is absent in excuse today. So our first order of old business is rezoning Z 57258020 Litchford Road. We will hear from Mehta Sheshbaradharan. Did I get that right?

No. But it's okay.

Mehta Sheshbaradharan. I need my accent notes on your name so I can practice. Sheshbaradharan.

It's alright.

I'll keep practicing. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. And we'll just turn it over to you. We'll hear from staff at this time.

Sweet. Good morning, commissioner members. Mitra Sheshpadaran providing an update on Z5725. This is a request three just over 20 acres of land located at 8020 Litchford Road to our six with conditions since it last appeared before you the April 28 meeting. The applicant has submitted revised signed conditions.

The agenda materials include the unsigned version, but they are the same as the signed version, and your deadline for action is 06/05/1940 bisected by Litchford Road, predominantly surrounded by low scale residential neighborhoods. The revision to the case is the applicant has removed what was formerly the first condition which only permitted the detached house building type. So the other two conditions remain the density cap of six units per acre and also the prohibition of the listed uses. No change to entitlement because the density cap has stayed. In terms of the affordability analysis, the request still subtract from the housing supply.

But what's now permit a variety of housing types, smaller units on smaller lots. It does not include any subsidized units and it's not within walking distance of transit. The request is still consistent with the future land use map designation of low scale residential and there's no urban format guidance. Overall, the request is now consistent with the comprehensive plan, a variety of consistent policies here that speak to flume consistency as well as conditional use district consistency and then reinforcing the housing or the urban pattern and then new consistent policies are related to housing variety, zoning for housing opportunity and choice and then also that EP one one point one which speaks to and your more energy efficient buildings. Inconsistent policies that remain are specific to fire service response time standards.

There are no outstanding issues and your deadline for action is June 27. Happy to answer questions. The applicant is also here.

Thank you very much. As an old business item, this has had a full presentation and discussion from both the applicant and those opposed. And I believe that the updates that have been made are direct direct responses to the concerns from staff and the members of this commission, and they do not seem to be very wide ranging. Without objection, I'm going to skip any more presentation by the applicant or the public and just bring it back here, keep the public hearing closed for discussion at the table. Any comments or discussion regarding this case?

In that case, I'd like to open the floor for a motion. Commissioner Robinson.

In regards to case, Z5725, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated 05/12/2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment.

Second.

We have a motion from commissioner Fox and a second from commissioner O'Haver. All those in favor? Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Alright. Thank you very much. Moving on to new business. Our first order of new business will be rezoning Z4625 at 523 Southwest Street in Downtown Raleigh. And we will hear from Matthew Burns from the planning department, and we will now open the public hearing. Thank you.

Good morning, chair Otwell, members of the Planning Commission. Matthew Burns with Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone a parcel at 523 Southwest Street in Downtown Raleigh, which is approximately three quarters of an acre from downtown mixed use, five stories with urban limited frontage to downtown mixed use, seven stories with urban limited frontage. The request would allow the Fairweather HOA to finish a community room on the property. The Fairweather condos on the site date to twenty nineteen twenty twenty, and your deadline for action is 07/11/2026.

Zoning in the area is predominantly mixed use. There is a DX zoning on the site into the East, to the West, and Northwest predominantly industrial mixed use zoning with many commercial uses, as well as residential and commercial uses to the Southwest. Here is an aerial of the site, and you can see some of those commercial and some industrial uses to the West. The site is the Red Hat Amphitheater And Convention Center and the heart of downtown. It's to the East of the site.

There are commercial warehouses and retail to the South as well as Heritage Park over on West South Street. To the West, if you there are some industrial commercial uses including Sam Jones barbecue. And if you go a little bit farther, there is also Boylan Heights neighborhood. And the Northwest is bolted bread and a spa with a sauna in a little commercial node, kind of in the Northeast area of Boylan Heights. Here's another zoomed in view of the site.

You can see the existing Fairweather condominiums on the property. Here are some views of the property, and you can see the site has a five story height limit. Per the applicant, the developer walled over a room on the mezzanine level during construction because zoning did not allow for it to be finished. And due to financial constraints, the developer ultimately abandoned the idea of building a community room just to get the project completed. This request is for a general use district, so there are no zoning conditions.

And the request represents a modest increase in entitlement due to the increase of two stories on the site. The site has an above average walk score, transit score, bike score, and low transportation costs and high access to jobs as it is in Downtown Raleigh. The site is served by Go Raleigh Route 11, Avon Ferry, as well as Route 21, Carrily. The request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, would permit a variety of housing types, and is within walking distance of transit. And area residents are less likely to be minorities than the city average, more likely to be low income than the city average, and the cost of rent increased 66% since 2016 and twenty five percent since 2019.

The request is consistent with the future land use map designation of Central Business District, which corresponds to downtown, and it's also consistent with urban form guidance for downtown and frequent transit areas. Overall, the request is consistent with a comprehensive plan, future land use map, and the urban format. And consistent policies are related to compact development, transit access, reinforcing the urban pattern, and complementary land uses, as well as zoning for housing, frontage, and many policies that are specific to downtown, as well as one policy in the Downtown West Gateway area plan, which speaks to mixed use development. And I'll note that staff identified two inconsistent policies with the request, and this is due to the fact that the Downtown West Gateway plan, which dates to 2004, recommends a maximum height of four stories for this area. I'll note that that policy guidance precedes the comprehensive plan, which was adopted in 2009, and the UDO, which was adopted in 2014.

Your deadline for action is July 11 and let me know if I can answer any questions.

Thank you, mister Burns. At this time, we will provide ten minutes for the applicant to present their case.

Good morning, planning board members. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today. My name is Suzanne Prince, and I'm a resident and consultant for the Fairweather HOA. Excuse me. So the request, as mister Burns said this morning, is for us to be able to put a community room in the Fairweather HOA.

There's no change at all to the height of the building, and it is to put a room in a voided area of the mezzanine area. It has we do not have any funds allocated for this project. It is this rezoning is the first essential part of that process. And until we get the rezoning, we don't have any plans to do anything anything other than do the rezoning and then we'll move forward. The surrounding zoning, this area has changed a lot since we originally moved into the building.

Obviously, we've got DX12 to the North. We've got DX 5 Storage Building to our South as well as the new Maeve Apartment Buildings, which is a DX 20. We've got a we've still got the Duke Power Station to our East. And then we've got the apartments that have all been built around us to the West. So everything is building around us.

The DX7 is, I think, within reason. It's still gonna be in keeping with everything around us. The fair weather will remain exactly as you see it here. We are not making any changes. It's just to be able to do the room.

This is the as built drawing. The voided area was walled over by the developer. He had intended to put the room in and found out that he was not able to do that because of the height restrictions, and we do not have the zoning to be able to finish, the area. We anticipate that the room is about 16 by 30. It's just a guess, but we anticipate that that's about what we have available.

And I'm gonna show you some pictures here so you can kinda get an idea. This is the area on the outside that goes from our roof area into the stairwell, and this is how you would access it from the outside of the building. This is the inside of the building, and the room is there to the right. And you can go through the doorway onto our roof area. And this is the hallway looking down and the room would be over to your left in this picture.

And then you could access our stairwell around to the right. So you have two ways to be able to access the room. You can come up through a stairwell, and then you can also come off the elevator on our roof area to be able to access this area. This is looking at the outside area of the room. So you can see how far back that room would go.

And again, it's a good sized room and it would make a big difference for us. This is looking at the outside north side and you can see where to the far right hand, where that kind of that blank wall is, that would be the room. You can see the condo building or the condos kind of right there with all the window space. The resident roof area, you can kinda see where we kinda sit, can sit outside and we could be able to access the community room as well. And, I'll kinda sum up the kind of the reason we'd like to be able to have the room is because, a lot of the condo buildings and apartment buildings have a community room.

And it's an amenity that we don't have. We'd be able to have potluck dinners. We'd be able to have other, board meetings. We're happen to have those off-site now. We'd be able to have mahjong, different things that we're just not able to have in our in our current facility.

So, you know, it's just a nice amenity that I think that the developer intended us to have and because of cost restraints and because of our height restrictions, we were not able to do. And, I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have, and I would appreciate, your, approval of this. It's really kind of a minor thing, but it would mean a lot to us. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll reserve four minutes and fifty seconds, if necessary. Alright. At this time, I'd like to hear from anybody in opposition to this proposal. Seeing no opposition, we will bring it back to the table and keep the public hearing open for questions from commissioners. Does anybody have any questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Fox.

This is a very small request for a building that already exists, but my my question is actually to staff. If someone could clarify for me the mechanism of how height is measured and just clarify if that includes habitable space or if it's literally a measurement of the side of a building Because I'm confused how we got here.

Yeah. So height is measured the question is is both or the answer is both. So the height itself is measured based on the average grade. There are specific measurements in the UDO which determine what the maximum height is. However, in this particular request, adding an extra habitable room, occupiable room on the floor that they're looking at would exceed that five story limit that they have because they already have five stories built on that side of the property.

So to to clarify, this was a function a of the days of yore when we measured both height in stories and in feet?

My understanding is that this is a function of what determines how many stories a site has. Currently, their rooftop level is considered just a just a rooftop, but adding that extra finished space would make it a sixth story.

Thank you. That that clarifies it.

I'd like to follow-up because if if I understood the picture that the applicant showed, there's a condo right next to the space they're trying to occupy. So I'm still confused about how adding two floors to the zoning is gonna allow them to build out that space.

I believe that's because the site has a sloping grade. So on one side of the building, it is five stories, but then the other side is five stories offset by one. So it looks like it's higher. One side of the building is higher than the other, and so if they finished off that space, it would be considered a sixth. I can pull up an image of the building.

Would it be fair to say that the height is the same across, but it goes down farther on one side?

I'm not sure off the top

of my head.

So there are I might be able to clarify that. So the on the penthouse units, some of those units are one story and some of them are are two story. So because that they are two story, my understanding was the two story units because they are finished on the inside, they were allowed to have that six story. But because this community room would be facing on an on a mezzanine level on the outside, it was excluded and would have to have the zoning change. Now that was what my understanding was.

Now, mister Barnes, I'm not sure what that is.

I think the picture in the bottom right hand corner illustrates this really nicely because you can see that the left side of the building in that bottom right hand corner picture, the number of stories on the left hand side is the same as the number of stories on the right hand side. But because the site is sloped, the number of it it looks shorter. Right?

So Yeah. And those are where you're these are this right here on the on the left hand side, that those are your one story penthouse units. The ones on your right hand side are your two story penthouse units. They have like almost a loft area that is two stories. Does that make sense to you? Yep. I know it sounds strange, but that's that's kinda how that works. And it does kinda look like a height difference.

Commissioner O'Haver? Yeah. I mean, it

seems pretty straightforward to me. But can, staff just and I know it's in the, staff report, but just give a broader overview of the inconsistencies and what any concerns on this would be.

Sure. So let me pull that up.

So

the inconsistent policies come from the Downtown West Gateway small area plan. That area plan dates to 2004 and recommended a maximum height of four stories for this site. Now the existing structure is already five stories tall. Nearby properties definitely exceed the height guidance in that plan. It's just a relict of an earlier plan for Downtown Raleigh. It's contained within the comprehensive plan. But so and because they're asking for an increase in height, it conflicts with that specific guidance. That's that's the reason it was.

Commissioner Walters.

Based on the information that we have in front of us I'd like to make a motion.

Just give me one second to close the public hearing if there's no more questions for staff or for the applicant. We will close the public hearing and we will bring it back to the table and open the floor for a motion. Commissioner Walters.

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated 05/12/2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment.

With a motion and second. Second by commissioner Burnett. Is there any further discussion or debate at this time? Alright. We have a motion and a second. All of those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Moving on, our next order of business will be rezoning z 09/26 at 5925 Glenwood Avenue.

And we will hear from Hiram Marziano. Oh, no. We won't.

Apologies. Yep. I'm covering for Hiram today.

Okay. Well, thank you.

Feature such brother on. Good morning again. Covering Z926. This is a request rezone just over two acres located at 5925 Glenwood Avenue from CX 3 with the parking limited frontage and R four to a unified CX three PL. This is a general use case, so there are no proposed conditions, and your deadline for action is July 11.

Zoning in the area is predominantly mixed use with some surrounding residential neighborhoods. Here is a look at the site and where it sits. Again, it fronts Glenwood Avenue, so there are some existing commercial mixed use developments, both like east and west of the site along Glenwood, and then some pockets of low scale residential neighborhoods, and then immediately abutting the site on its eastern property line is the Glen Forest NCOD, which you can see there. Here, if you look at this at the site and its frontage, currently on the site today is an existing commercial multi tenant building. I believe there are two tenants in it currently, a jewelry store, and a blood the blood connection and that's on the like front half of the site which is currently zoned CX three PL and then the rear of the site is that more forested area and also has a small parking lot.

And then there are some existing pedestrian facilities on either side of Glenwood on this stretch and no existing bicycle facilities. Here's a look at the difference in entitlement and setback requirements. We're seeing a slight decrease in entitlement here, but this is I think overall like a neutral impact on entitlement because of the slight increase. This comes from kind of bumping up to two acres unlocks TCA requirements. So, that's why that is going down a bit and then also setback requirements that come from the parking limited frontage and then also the base six district which is what exist on most of the site today and then the R4 setback requirements for the rear of the site.

And then again, a look at the change in commercial entitlement. Again, slight decrease. Overall, their site is in an area that is more walkable than other cities or other areas in the city with an average transit score, and there are no existing bicycle facilities on this stretch of Glenwood. Residents in this area have lower transportation costs and have better access to jobs. The site is most directly served by Route 6, which is serviced along Glenwood and Route 70 L, Briar Creek.

Overall, the request would subtract from the housing supply. It does not include any subsidized units. It would permit a variety of housing types, smaller units on smaller lots, and it's within walking distance of transit. I'll note the applicant is also here, but I'll note that the plan is to maintain commercial use on the site, not necessarily to build housing. In terms demographics specific to this area, residents are less likely to be low income and rent in this area has increased greater than the citywide average.

Overall, the request is consistent with the future land use map designation of community mixed use for the site. Two urban format guidance areas here. One, it fronts a trans emphasis corridor which is Glenwood and then also is within a frequent transit area. These would recommend a hybrid or urban frontage be applied, maintaining the parking limited frontage is consistent with both of these urban format guidance areas and also matches surrounding mixed use development that's west of the site along Glenwood. Overall, the request is also consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Consistent policies here speak to flume consistency as well as reducing vehicle miles traveled through mixed use development and capitalizing on transit access, and then some consistent policies relate to density transitions and buffering requirements come from the required neighborhood transitions that would be required on the portion of the site that abuts residential uses and then some urban design policies that relate to frontage and then also parking lot placement. No inconsistent policies were identified. There are no outstanding issues. Your deadline for action July 11. I'm happy to answer questions. The applicant is also here, and I believe also members of the public.

Alright. Thank you. At this time, we will allow time for both the applicant and those in favor and those in opposition. Ten minutes to speak and we will begin with those in favor and the applicant. Please state your name for the record when you reach the podium.

Real quick with the Brooks Pierce Law Firm here in Raleigh representing JDV Commercial which is the property owner. And thank you Mitra for doing such a great job in outlining things. I'm gonna go through this relatively quick because she hit most of the points that I wanted to hit and appreciate the work that Marzee has done with us as well up to this point. So Mitra showed sort of where the site is. If you're familiar with the area, I go to Fresh Ice Cream, which is in the Hollywood Shopping Center just to the sort of northwest of this on Glenwood.

And then across the street is the large rooms to go. The building that this is in was the original rooms to go facility built, I believe, in 2005 time period. Before that, it was a restaurant. My client, JDB Commercial, purchased it in, I believe, 2015. And JDB Commercial is also Well, the principal is James Vincent.

He's the founder of Raleigh Diamond. And that is the building on the right side of, actually I'll go back one just to show you. So Raleigh Diamond Fine Jewelry is sort of on the right in Unit 100. They have been there since 2015 and then the blood connection as Mitra mentioned is in Unit 102, believe it is, and they have been there since 2018. There were a couple other tenants prior to that at Taekwondo facility and some other things in that space.

So again, as Mitra mentioned, this is a split zone site with the very smallest for triangle almost in the back that is zoned as r4 and the request is to move the entire zoning to the to the cx three with parking limited. Again, it is consistent with the future land use plan. You can see there it's highlighted in red and the CX zoning is appropriate for that area. This would eliminate the split zoning and I'll get to sort of why we we are do why we're asking this because as Mitra mentioned, this does actually reduce some entitlements that we would have but there's a specific reason as to how we got here and I'll I'll hit on that here at the very end. Consistent with urban form map, it's in a transit corridor and a frequent transit area and again CX is an appropriate zoning district for this area for those reasons.

So here's kind of the where I think you will hear the most from the neighbors and what ultimately got us to this point. As I mentioned, the blood connection has been on the property since 2018 and my client put in a building permit, I want to say about a year and a half ago before engaging us and realized that a building permit to extend the parking lot and so if you see there on the image on the right, you can kind of see a bus sort of parked up to a little green dotted line that I put in to show where that boundary is. And they wanted to extend the parking lot slightly because those buses and that's not on the property there, the one on the left, but that's one of the blood connection buses parked at I believe a high school in that particular instance. Those buses are typically parked in the rear of the building and they go out to community centers, to high schools, to other areas to do blood drives and obviously help our local hospitals. I know Rex was here.

I'm one of the one of the hospitals that they they send blood to. And when that building permit was put in, they realized they could not extend that parking lot at all because of the r four zoning and and so the problem they keep having is those buses as they get into the back of the building and they're trying to maneuver around, I believe they've glanced the corner of the building a couple times. And James, who's the principal of JV commercial and owner of Raleigh Raleigh Diamond, he has a particular love for this tenant because he is a former emergency room nurse before he went into the jewelry business. And so he really would like to keep the tenant there, but they really need a little more space. And so the idea was simply to expand the parking, not make any additional changes to the property, but in order to do that, the entire property would need to be consistently zoned in that commercial way.

So, I believe we'll hear some from neighbors who have concerns about the existing use of the property and the blood connection that is there. There is no plan for the blood connection to leave regardless of what happens here today. So I want to make that clear to everybody. They're a great tenant and this was simply something to accommodate a little bit of a inconvenience that the property owner is having, but he thinks they're a great tenant, would like for them to stay. There's no real plans to expand the building.

Building's been the way it has been for, gosh, almost fifteen years now. And it's situated well for my client who's Riley Diamond for his side of the building. So I will turn this over to folks I know you will hear from, but happy to answer any questions you may have at any

Thank you. We'll reserve five minutes and four seconds for response time for the applicant. At this time, we will hear from those opposed to the application. I believe the neighbors have designated a spokesperson. Is that correct? Yes, sir. So please y'all have ten minutes to speak. You don't have to fill it all up, but it's all yours.

Again, good morning. My name is Tim Barton, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. So I'm representing the Glen Forest neighborhood Oak Park and our the Crabtree Swim Club. I would say we're not opposed to development as neighborhood. I think what we are and we're not anti business. What we are opposed to is the permanent removal of residential buffer for the city of Raleigh intentionally put in place to protect our neighborhood. And in doing so through a general rezoning with no congestions and no analysis of real world impacts. We have submitted a more in-depth analysis. I have it up. I believe I sent it in.

I really just have it up to show some pictures. I'm sorry, it's a fancy PowerPoint at this time. Why this parcel matters? Again, the rear portion is zoned r four for a reason. It wasn't accidental by the city.

The zone exists as a transition buffer between Glenwood Avenue and our neighborhood, which has been formally protected under a neighborhood conservatory overlay district since 1995. NCOD stated purpose is to preserve and enhance the general quality and appearance of established neighborhoods by regulating built environmental characteristics. That buffer is a scene that keeps intense commercial activity from spilling directly into our backyards. Once that is gone, it's gone forever, not just here, but as precedent for other neighborhoods. The problem for us.

This request is not conditional. There's no concept plan. There's no enforceable limits. Well, the app plan has talked about parking for the blood connection. The c x three rezoning would allow any commercial use by any future owner at any time for up to three stories directly behind single family homes.

Once that zoning is approved, the city's as a loss of control, residents lose certainty. What we're asking or what we're being asked is to trust that the future development will do the right thing without any legal mechanism to require it. This is not responsible planning in my opinion. This is a permanent solution for a temporary problem. Stormwater is not a theoretical concern for us.

I think what they lack to share is the steep grade in the rear of the property. So our neighborhood is a storm water. There's a a storm water creek that runs parallel to the residence. Water from the site flows downhill into some constrained water culverts that are already fails during moderate rain events. Homeowners downstream have been already flooded or have flooding concerns. Lawns become streams. They are select debris and have it up. So I just wanna share a picture. So this is as it is today. This is a nice fancy bridge.

But as you go down, you see just a normal rainfall and what happens. And then as a serious rainfall, this is here. And I would say, if I go to a site map of where this locates, as you could see here, this is the rear of the building, the residential community all encompassing it, and there is a stream that comes through the back end of the property. And what they're asking us is to create a 30 foot retaining wall and then a water basin that abuts all the properties. Talking about the commercial buses, it is a concern for us.

We live at the every day. There is currently six to eight buses that reside in the back of the building. They come at all hours of the day, but mostly between six to nine in the morning, six to nine at night. Back of alarm sound, engines continuously idle as they work to clean, get blood out, Headlights shine directly in homes. There's pressure washing and diesel exhaust as they keep it.

So yesterday morning, I woke up, came out, the wind was blowing the right way, and I could smell diesel exhaust. As you can imagine, the timing of them coming and going isn't optimal for us nor would it be for anybody. The applicant has indicated plans to grow the bus fleet. Again, they shared that they would love to expand the property, so six to eight could double. So what does that mean for us?

It's not a minor inconvenience, it's a quality of life issue, and in some cases a health concern. No neighborhood with a conservative conservation overlay should be expected to observe a commercial bus depot in their backyard. For reference, Morse Square has 16 bus stalls. What they're asking us to do is to have 12 in our backyard. Environment and physical reality. The rear portion of this parcel is heavily weighted with mature trees that took decades to grow. They provide meaningful screening wildlife habitat and storm water absorption. None of which can be replicated once removed. The land also drops 30 feet in elevation towards the creek. Any meaningful expansion require a massive retaining walls grading disturbance and directly against visible homes nearby.

This is not a low impact site. Going back to the neighborhood overlay district, this is right from the city's website. The NCOD is a zoning district intended to preserve and enhance the general quality and appearance of established neighborhoods by regulating built environmental characteristics such as lot size, in frontage, building setbacks, and building height. This district this district reduces conflict between new construction and existing development and encourages compatible infill development. This rezoning will request will create conflict and it is not compatible with established neighborhoods.

What are we asking for? Our primary request is simple, just to deny. The city determines some if the city determines some change is appropriate, then it must be conditional. With enforceable production, storm water studies completed first, limits on bus operations, preservations of buffers, and real transitions so that they respect the neighborhood. Development can be reasonable, unrespected rezoning, and this location is not. The formal statement this formal statement goes into detail kind of rezoning what it means for us. I'd also just elevate, we've attended every neighborhood meeting. We're here today. The the timing was quite rapid. We had our last meeting on the sixteenth or on the twenty eighth and they've asked us to come here today on the on the twelfth.

So great

turnaround. We're just asking the city to honor the protection that that already exists before rapper rapper decisions are made. Again, thank you and happy to take questions or share anything on the what was provided.

Thank you very much for your comments and we'll reserve three minutes thirty seconds. Would the applicant like to use their remaining time to respond?

First on that last point, I'll just note that our first neighborhood meeting was I believe on January 22. And so January 22, then April 28, and then we're here today. And this is the drawing that was submitted to the city of Raleigh in, I guess, 2024 when my client went to expand the parking with a line added in there, the red dash line is something I added at one of the neighborhood meetings to show residents what the parking expansion would potentially look like. Again, want to mention this potential because anything that's going to happen at this point is going go back through the process and and have to be thought through with engineers. And so I've used the the example of monopoly, right?

My client was going around the board and got sent back to go when they realized that in order to do anything, they needed to to come here to you all first. And so that does show what the conceptual plan would look like. It's been labeled that way previously. But the expansion is not large. The line currently is where the parking lot ends and then you can see, I believe, what we're looking to do there.

Certainly, whether they can happen or not is going to require review by other parts of the city and staff and we'll have to go through all those processes to ensure that runoff and retaining walls and all the things that would have to be done or done appropriately. A lot of the concerns that we have heard throughout the process are concerns with the existing operations of the blood connection and then with the storm water runoff. Some of those may be addressed through this process, particularly on any construction that would have to be done. We may be required to do things. My client may be required to do things that would lessen the current conditions on the property.

And then, of course, as was mentioned, with the entire property being zoned commercial CX three PL, we're gonna have to meet all the standards for transitions, buffer yards, all the things that would exist that don't currently exist. And then final point I'll make is that to the extent possible, my client would love to to do as little clearing in the back of that area as possible because otherwise they'll have to go back in and and and meet the requirements of the city. So the least bit of work that needs to be done would be ideal here. So those were the three points I wanted to address. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you very much. And I'll also provide the opportunity for the those in opposition if there's anything else you'd like to bring to the table. Alright. Seeing no more comment, we will keep the public hearing open and we'll bring this back to the commissioner's table for questions for staff, the applicant, and from those in opposition to commissioner Walters.

I just had a point of clarification for Mitra. Mitra, you talked about how, this would be subject to tree conservation, now that it's over to, two acres. If this went in for a site plan, the tree conservation ordinance would apply here. Is that correct? And so ostensibly, the trees in the back of the lot would be the location for the 10% tree TCA requirement?

I think that that is correct. It's upon, like, redevelopment of the site that it

would be its redevelopment. Assuming

Yeah. And it's assuming that the entire site would be developed together. Yes.

So in in the case where they were expanding the parking lot, I think it's clear that that tree conservation would not be required at that point.

I don't believe that extending a parking lot would count as a high enough tier to require that.

Okay. And, last other clarification, the r four section, parcel in the back of the site is not part of the NCOD. Is that correct?

Correct. Let me pull up my presentation.

Yeah. So this map shows it's abutting the NCOD, but it is not technically within the NCOD on the map. Okay.

Thank you. Any

further questions from the commission? Commissioner Box.

Just for my own education, Mitra, can you remind me what the width of a transitional yard would be?

Yeah. So in this case, I believe all three zones would apply, but for that protective yard, it could be up to 50 feet of a protective yard for that zone a.

Okay. Alright. If there are no do you have a question, commissioner O'Haver?

I do have a question. Please. Mitra, can you define or can you clarify where the rear yard would be applied, with this sort of v property line in the rear? Is it both of those?

It would apply there. Upon redevelopment of the site, then I believe it would extend.

That would be the rear yard up towards Glenwood?

Oh, I see

what you're saying.

Yeah. So it would just be along this property line.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Cochran, Vice Chair Cochran.

So in the report under storm water, you know, it notes that this is not subject to impervious limits because it's commercial property. So my question is if when they go for a site permit to expand that parking, what will be, I guess, the conditions they're gonna have to meet to deal with water on-site?

Sally Hoit, Raleigh Stormwater. So, because of the size of the slot and the use, it would be subject to the full storm water requirement. So any increase in impervious area. So even if they added 200 square feet. They would have to meet the nutrient requirements in the peak discharge requirements. So, typically, that involves installing some sort of detention.

Commissioner O'Haver?

Yeah. Sally. I guess, so I know the applicant had mentioned that that previous, exhibit was old. Part of what I'm trying to get to is seeing if it's worthwhile to ask the applicant to main that 30 foot buffer in the rear since that's what exists, but it looked like the storm water is gonna have to occur on the backside of that wall, which takes out the opportunity to preserve the 30 foot buffer. Is that correct?

So there's I'm gonna address two things there. So the there is a drainage channel in the back of the yard, in the back of the lot Yep. That shows up on the soil maps. So that is we consider that to be jurisdictional unless proven otherwise. My understanding is that when they looked at this previously, not all of it was determined to be jurisdictional.

So the stream buffer may stream buffer rules may not apply. So that's part of it. But then you were also asking about like the zoning buffers. There's many we stormwater does not dictate where the stormwater controls have to occur. So they can be above ground.

They are allowed in some of some landscape areas on the site, but not all landscape areas on the site. I will say that just anecdotally, we most commonly see commercial sites do underground detention, especially when they're constrained. But I I have no idea what this design would be.

I'm with you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Shelburne, saw you keep moving towards the microphone. Did you have a question?

A comment.

Okay. Thank you. We'll get to those in just one second. Are there any more questions from the commission? Alright.

Just trying to stay within the rules before I'd hear a little bit more discussion before I ask the applicant if they would consider a 30 foot rear yard buffer. I guess that can be a rhetorical comment question at this point before you close the hearing because I don't know that any of us know that right now. Thank you.

Seeing no more questions at this time, we will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion. Commissioner Shelburne?

Yes. So I see three topics here, at least as I understand it. The first, I'm pretty extensively on record, not seeing a need to keep the for this body to continue acknowledging conservation overlays, transitions. That's just my take. I get others see it differently.

But to me, we're a growing city and things change. I also don't think we regulate storm water, which is itself amply, extensively regulated in many different ways. I don't think we administer that by turning down proposals. But the third topic, as I see it, is an actual legit negative externality of them describing of the trucks backing up, moving around, turning their lights on, spreading exhaust. Those are, to me, legitimate concerns that cross the parcel boundaries that cause actual harms to neighbors.

And so I would be although the challenge, though, is already happening as amply described. And so it's not like this proposal is going to necessarily stop that or make it I guess it sounds like it could make it worse, which would be troubling. So I would be inclined to be curious to know if there were some way to mitigate those somehow. I don't know what that might be, but I know we've got big old walls along 440, which probably wouldn't be possible to do here, but seems like there ought to be something to protect the neighbors from those unpleasant circumstances.

Thank you, commissioner Shelburne. I I believe we will have questions for the applicant to come back. So but at this time, we'll keep the hearing closed and continue with discussion. But we'll we'll bring them back at the end of Are there any further discussion? Alright. I think we have some questions for the applicant. So I'll reopen the public hearing and if the commissioner would like to address those questions directly, provide the opportunity now to do so. I think commissioner O'Haver, you probably were on the record first.

Yeah. There's about 20 feet of grade change from the sort of the Northeast to the southwest side of the site. So there's definitely gonna need to be some grading, some retaining walls, etcetera. There's gonna be a cost. I agree with commissioner Selburn. Is there a consideration from the applicant for some type of wall or protection along there? I think underground detention, while expensive, I think Sally's right, that's typical nowadays for the cost of expanding. I think that should be considered to minimize the amount of disturbance to that grade change. I think it could could help. I'm not saying it will.

I think it could help alleviate some of the concerns considering those three things, of the applicant and would and would make me feel a little bit better about supporting this application at this time. I'm not sure I can support it, but possibly if there are some additional conditions applied.

The applicant like to respond.

Yeah. I'm not in a position to be able to agree to that today. And if ultimately, there's a consensus here that you want us to go back and consider that. I will say candidly, as I've mentioned, it's the monopoly analogy here. My client had, I believe, an engineering firm engaged, thought this was gonna be a pretty straightforward process to go five or six feet back and add a little bit additional parking. There really is no intent to be clear. There's no intent to expand the number of buses. It's just to give us a little more room. There's really not room, honestly, to expand the number of buses. But we don't currently have an engineer involved.

And so as an attorney, I don't feel comfortable saying, yeah, that makes sense unless we've had a chance to have that evaluated. So we're probably gonna need some additional time ultimately if we're gonna agree to anything like that.

Thank you. So to be clear, was just asking for a consideration, not not commitment at this point. And I don't know, Bynum, is it possible to consider some type of condition that limits the amount of expansion? I mean, we're talking about we're not expanding buses, we're looking at adding five feet. I don't know that we could craft a condition that would cover that. But we say constantly that we're trying to make sure that if we pass the zoning now and the property is sold, it still protects some of our concerns. And so if that's the intent, he I I know you're an attorney, but I'm talking to Bynum. Sorry. I got in a good way. Yeah.

Would say, I feel

like you and the neighbors have successfully communicated your concerns, and is really in the applicant's court to determine what they are willing to offer. Their conditions have to be offered voluntarily, and so I think they are asking for some time to evaluate that, to consider how they might approach that. And as you know, zoning conditions travel with the land, irrespective of owner.

And this is a general use case right now. So I think coupled with your request for consideration will be a consideration to actually convert it to a conditional use. Yeah.

I'll make Ted, I thank you for that clarification. Yeah. I think that should be considered.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Haver. Commissioner Shelburne, did you wish to follow-up? Said it all. So would the applicant like to defer this case and to have time to consider these, these requests from the neighbor and the commissioners?

We can certainly do that. And to clarify, it is as I understand it, underground, retention and generally the the the setbacks. Is that correct?

And some type of wall or screening or something again for headlights, noise, etcetera. So I think I know you don't come before us often, but just to be clear, I think this is my penultimate meeting, so I'll just continue to beat the same drum. Would love to support it. It's a great cause, but I've been pretty consistent about trying to take into account when you have existing single family homes and sort of what that expectation is when you make that investment. So I'm trying to find a way to support it, but I'm trying to balance that between what I think fair expectations for existing single family homeowners are.

And I've I've been kind of on that path for a couple years now. Alright.

Thank you. Would staff please help me out? I don't have my dates in front of me. Next meetings and what the deadlines would be for updated conditions.

Yeah. So the next meeting is May 26. Conditions to be considered at that meeting would need to be submitted by this Friday the fifteenth. And then the first meeting in June would be June 9, and conditions would need to be provided by the May 29. Thanks, Matt.

Thank you for that.

Then there's one more meeting before the break in June. Okay. Which would be the

question to the applicant, would you prefer to be on an accelerated timeline and get

this Realistically June 9 is probably I know we'll miss the city council with the break with that, but I think that's probably more realistic for us.

Excellent. To staff, is the agenda look like it could take it at that point? So alright. Without deferral, we will defer this case excuse me, without objection, I'm gonna defer this case to the June 9 meeting. This would require commit conditions to be submitted by May 29. And the conditions are concerning bus disturbances, noise and fumes and traffic, and storm water, I think were the major concerns of this commission. Did I miss anything?

Looking at seeing if we can maintain that rear buffer. I

The If if that's

what exists and and they can maintain that, I think it's fair to get behind it and and support it, in my opinion. Good news is I I won't I won't be here, so it might not matter.

Thank you

for bringing it up, commissioner. I'm I'm sure you'll get

to hear

about it.

You will continue to serve until your replacement is appointed, sir. Thank you. Gotta

wait for the beach. Okay. Without objection, we will defer this case to June 9 and thank the applicant for their willingness to consider these conditions.

Thank you, mister chair.

Mitra, you're earning your pay today.

I really am.

Moving on to our next case, rezoning Z1126, 3901 Stratford Court. And we will turn it back over to Mitra. Shesh Paradharan?

That was perfect.

Alright.

Third time's the charm. Alright. Good morning. For your last case, Z1126, this is a request to rezone point 81 acres located at 3901 Stratford Court from R 2 to R 4. This is another general use case so there are no conditions to consider and your deadline for action is still July 11.

Zoning in the area is predominantly low scale residential. Here's a look at the site and where it sits. It's just off of Lasseter Mill Road, South Of 440, and then just South of North Hills which is that commercial block in the top right corner of the screen and predominantly low scale residential neighborhood surrounding this area. Closer look at the site today, it sits at the end of the Stratford Court cul de sac. Currently, the site is vacant.

There was formerly a single family detached home on the site. Few looks at that cul de sac surrounded by existing single family detached homes. Look at entitlement between the existing and proposed zoning height and setbacks remain the same between the R 2 and R 4 districts but a slight increase in entitlement going to R 4 from two to six. Generally, this area is more walkable than other areas in the city and has the same transit score. There are no existing bicycle facilities in the in this area.

Residents are less burdened by transportation costs and have better access to jobs. The route is most directly served by Route 8 with which is service to six forks or along six forks within walking distance relatively of the site to take Stratford Court to Lake Stone Drive to Lacerdale. Overall, the request would add to the housing supply and does not include any subsidized units. It would or continue to permit a variety of housing types, smaller units, smaller lots and it's within walking distance of transit. Demographic specific to this area.

Residents are less likely to be less likely to be people of color and low income and more likely to be over the age of 64 and rents in this area have risen slightly slower than the citywide average. Overall, the request is consistent with the future land use map designation of low scale residential. It is within a frequent transit area, but no urban for map guidance as those are not supported by residential base districts. The request is overall consistent with the comprehensive plan. Couple of consistent policies here speak to slim consistency, compact development, neighborhood scale housing, and then some zoning housing opportunity and choice policies as well.

Inconsistent policies are related to fire service response time standards. Not standing issues, deadline for action July 11. Happy to answer questions. The applicant is also here.

Thank you for that presentation. At this time, we will provide ten minutes for the applicant and those in favor to present. I'll note that the public hearing is open. Please state your name for the record when you get to the podium.

Forming Commission, Kara Jennings. So, yeah, just goal here is to be consistent with the adjacent neighbors. The lot is surrounded by our four on all sides except for one lot adjacent. There was a zoning case in the same cul de sac went from r two to r four in the last couple of years, kind of just for the same reason to be able to accommodate a footprint on there of a single family home that can support, you know, a a family that can grow there. Happy to answer any other questions.

Well, will reserve some of your time. I think you took about a minute. So we'll leave nine minutes on there just in case, but we will now provide time for those in opposition to speak. The opposition will also have ten minutes.

Hi. My name is Josie Reeves. I hesitate to express my position as opposed. I'm here to clarify. I live in the little house on the long side of the the triangle, 3731 Lasseter Mill.

It's been my family's home for seventeen years, and we are absolutely in support of responsible development, and we appreciated our new neighbors reach out to with the mailing, and we attended the community meeting, and we're delighted to hear about their plans. They named best in class partners, expressed a beautiful vision for their home, and really said that they intend to have one single family residence, no athletic courts, no accessory dwelling units. You know, my property line has a unique relationship to theirs, as is the case in a lot of old neighborhoods in our in our city. And so whatever happens in their backyard really affects our family's ability to enjoy and have privacy and also hold on to home value. And so I'm here simply because the awesome comments made and vision shared in the community meeting, I know we're not binding.

And so I would very much like to ask the commission to consider conditional approval to this matter. The written statement or the written letter that I have filed would just ask that we put into writing what has been shared by the applicant. Limit one to one single family residence. I would like to respectfully request a landscape buffer installed and permanently maintained along the property line adjoining 373031 Lasseter Mill Road. The buffer would include evergreen plantings of sufficient density and height to provide year round visual screening and privacy.

Again, that was something that we spoke about in the meeting and sounded reasonable and appealing. At least that was the impression I got from our conversation. But again, just kinda making it formal. I would ask that we consider a minimum 20 foot side setback along the property line of 3731 Lasseter Mill Road to provide separation and reduce visual and structural impact. And I would ask that the impervious surface be capped at an appropriate level for one single family residence to mitigate stormwater runoff and prevent overdevelopment such as athletic courts that would be inconsistent with surrounding properties.

Again, we support reasonable development and we are delighted to have a new neighbor that has such a great vision and is bringing such great partners together. It certainly will be wonderful for our neighborhood to you know, even more children's voices coming from the backyard. We look forward to being good neighbors. Just in our opinion, this request would be aligned with what was shared at the community meeting and would move to make this conditionally approved as part of the zoning to ensure that our discussion is is what we see in future years. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. If the applicant would like to respond, there's still nine minutes on the in favor clock.

Sure. Yes. Thank you. I think, yeah, we've the intent here is to be good neighbors. That's that's the goal and you know, I've talked with all the other neighbors on the cul de sac.

I think the request for conditions was made on the same rezoning on the other lot at Stratford and they were not required to move forward with specific conditions on it. I think, you know, putting a condition on this lot would be inequitable against what was approved on other lots. The rezoning is is actually for the same zoning as 3731 Lassiter Mill Road. It It does align with the future land use of low scale residential there and the 2030 comprehensive plan. So, know, just in looking at a condition, it it there's not a cohesiveness.

You want a community to have a cohesiveness, and right now there's not any lots in there that have conditions on them. I think any time you're looking at investing and building a home on-site, then you have to look at future marketability of resale too and anytime you have a condition on a deed which does run with it, it it would just be seen, you know, on that. So, that that would be just the response of just, you know, the request is to kind of rezone in line with what the city wants to see here and, you know, follow all the codes according to those plans and so that would be the be the response.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Keeping the public hearing open, we will bring this back to the table for questions from for the applicant or for staff or from those in opposed. Commissioner Fox?

I think it's a question for staff. Do we have examples of other projects where we put conditions on an r four? It's kind of escaping me right now. I can't I can't think of that actually ever happening.

I can look around. I don't know off the top of my head. This area doesn't really it's predominantly less covered central and there aren't any conditions. I don't know if other staff Okay. At the table have examples to provide.

It's an it's an it's unusual to put it on an r two or an r four in my experience.

I would just add to that for a lot of this size, I don't recall. Like if it's a large subdivision going R4 or R6 or something for a new larger development, yeah, I'd say that'd be more common, but certainly less common in my Individual lot scale. Individual lot scale in my experience than what I can recall.

So second question, this is like planning quiz. So it it maybe it's a question for the attorney as well. Apologies. I didn't submit my question previously because it just occurred to me. With the inclusion of conditions on a parcel so small when the surrounding zoning is so similar in nature, would the existence of the conditions actually meet the threshold to be defined as spot zoning?

No. I wouldn't say so because the use generally is the same. It's still residential and it's still at the same density allowed as the surrounding parcels. I I would I would be hesitant to say that the conditions, which are just supposed to be addressing impacts to surrounding properties, I don't think that would kick it over into a spot zoning.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Fox. Further questions from the Commission? Alright. If there's no further questions, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for discussion and debate. Are there any comments? Commissioner Fox.

Yeah. Although I can acknowledge and empathize with concerns about change adjacent to a parcel, it doesn't feel like those are conditions. It feels like that's perhaps an agreement between neighbors, which can be documented in a number of different ways that aren't zoning. And just for it to be really clear, I don't generally recommend like buffering houses from houses. And so in this case, I wouldn't I wouldn't be supportive of that if it was offered as a voluntary condition.

Commissioner Shelburne.

So I'd be fine with a 20 story tower here, so no surprise. I agree with Commissioner Fox that there is no need to buffer houses from houses. I also agree with the applicant that got to think about fairness, what's being applied to her, be a lot more than her neighbors, and that doesn't sit right.

I'll add that I voted no on the property here on Stratford, but didn't came in before. And I'll admit that my my framework has shifted since this time. I don't I find it a little bit distasteful that we're rezoning to allow for more storm water and more impervious well, not more impervious service for bigger houses. This doesn't like the application is not gonna increase housing diversity or housing choice. But it does meet the zoning rules and we're voting on the zoning and not the project.

And to commissioner Shelburne's point, the fairness for the parcels and the owners surrounding it, that, I would be in favor of this particular request. Commissioner O'Haver?

Yeah. I just feel necessary since after my comments from the last case. And I think I agree with commissioner Fox, like this just is very atypical. I can't remember in six years that I've sat on the commission that we've done this. And so I think it's just a precedent that we haven't set, you know, all of the zoning around it is r four, and I'd be inclined to support the zoning.

Thank you, Commissioner Aver. Any further comments? If not, I would like to open the floor up for a motion. Commissioner Balters.

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated 05/12/2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment as presented.

We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by commissioner Bennett. Is there any further discussion or debate on the topic? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote. All of those in favor? Any opposed? The request passes unanimously. Alright. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you to the neighbors. Thank you for staying involved and waiting through the whole meeting. Alright. Thank you for making it through another one.

Fellow commissioners, that brings us to the end of our cases and we will move on to other business. Starting with the report from the chair. I'll start off with, I'm sure everybody received the email asking for a planning commission representative to the Sir Walter Raleigh Awards judges board. And I'll say this is a it's a really fascinating thing. Got to do it one time and seeing the projects and the discussion and the people in the room that you get to interact with, it was a real pleasure.

We've had a couple volunteers speak up and I just wanna make sure that everybody on the commission knew about the offer and what was involved and give everybody a chance to respond. And I'll I'll respond to emails and in discussion with Bynum and vice chair Cochran, we will designate a representative over the next week. Alright. I'll also like to mention that I would encourage the commission to, as they study the agenda packet, you can get out ahead of it by looking at the manager's report and seeing the cases that are upcoming because the agenda comes out Thursday. It's hardly time to schedule any meetings and ask anybody any substantial questions before Tuesday.

So but the the cases are posted on the rezoning page in the city well ahead of time. And Bynum does a very good job on the vice or the assistant director's report and lists the upcoming cases. And so I encourage you to study those cases and if you have any questions, especially for staff or the applicant to reach out ahead of time. And you can have a much more involved conversation than is possible here at this table. And I think that's all I have for my report.

Just one more quick clarification. I'd like to make sure everybody was marked present except for commissioner Omakae who is excused and absent. And that'll do it for me. I'll pass it on to vice chair Cochran. We

don't have any business for the committee of the whole next week, but we're still pending topics for June. So please keep that one available.

No report.

No

report. No report. No report.

Just briefly, the text change committee will be meeting on May 20 at 04:00 in Room 305 Of R And B. We'll be discussing the T C one twenty six school lot area amendment. Thank you.

No report. No report. Alright. That concludes the report of the members and now we will turn to the report of the assistant director.

Thank you. I did just want to mention that in coordination with the council's schedule, Planning Commission also takes a break. The summer. We will not have regular or committee meetings in July, because there would be no one there for you to report to. So our meeting in June we'll have two meetings our regular meetings in June, and then come back to that first meeting in August. The second Tuesday in August would be our next meeting after that. So enjoy your July's. Thank you.

Thank you for that report. One more item that I forgot to read off my list is we're approaching the end of the terms for Commissioner Fox and Commissioner O'Haver. They still have at least one meeting left each. I think the terms expire in early June and late June. So we will have a more meaningful goodbye at that time, but I just wanted to get that out there.

You're through June 30, you're June 9. But I would note you both, the per se code, all commissioners, not just the two of you, serve until their appointment, their replacement is appointed. And there is certainly action at the council table, but no resolution at this time. And Commissioner Fox's replacement is appointed by the Wake County commissioners. And again, I believe some discussion, but no resolution at this point.

And then I wanted to I would be remiss if I did not add that per your bylaws, you are required to hold June elections for officers, for chair and vice chair, and we will put that on the first June agenda.

Okay. Alright, thank you. And Commissioners Fox and O'Haver, your experience and insight and knowledge is invaluable, and so we will wring as much knowledge out of you as we can over the next month and miss you when you're gone.

Long goodbye.

Yeah. If there is no other business for the good of the order, without objection, we will adjourn this meeting.