Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and Jessica Cochran is our vice chair. And the first order of business will be a public comment period. We will offer a public comment period for members of the public that are here to speak on an item not on the agenda. So if anyone is here to speak on an item not on the agenda, please approach the podium. All right, it looks like we have no public comment for the first period. And then we will move on to the consent agenda. On the consent agenda, we only have one item today, approval of the minutes. Have the commissioners had a chance to review the minutes? And is anyone prepared to make a motion?

I've reviewed the minutes and I would approve them as written. Make a motion to approve them as written. All right.

Motion to approve as written by Commissioner Walters. Is there a second? Second. by Commissioner Neptune so we have a motion to approve the minutes as written all those in favor opposed and that passes unanimously and right now that is six All right, moving on, we now have report of the committees, and I don't think, do we have a report to make at this time? I don't think there's any report for the committees to make today, so we will close that order of business and move on to old business. Our first order of business under old business is rezoning Z5425, and we will turn it over to Matthew Burns to give a presentation on what's changed since the presentation last time. The public hearing is now open.

Good morning, Chair Otwell, members of the Planning Commission, Matthew Burns with Planning and Development. As a reminder, this is a request to rezone approximately 32 acres, three parcels from City of Raleigh industrial mixed-use zoning with three stories with parkway frontage. and the airport overlay and special highway overlay district two, as well as Durham residential rural with one of Durham's airport overlays and Durham residential rural with both of Durham's airport overlays to office mixed use four stories, parking limited frontage with conditions, and office mixed use four stories with conditions. One of the properties in this rezoning is within Wake County. Two of them are within Durham County. And so the applicant has also submitted a simultaneous annexation petition. And this request is unchanged since May 26th. Just as a reminder, the Planning Commission have requested some additional time to consider this request due to its complexity. And your deadline for action is July 25th. Zoning in the area is a combination of industrial and mixed use to the north and south, as well as residential to the northeast and west. Here's just a map showing kind of the complexity of the zoning on the site. So the parcel labeled number one is in Wake County. It's zoned City of Raleigh. And numbers two and three are in Durham County and zoned with a base district of Durham's residential rural. Just another map showing what that looks like here. So you can see the Durham and Wake County boundary here in the aerial. And there are moderate scale residential uses to the north. To the southwest of the site is a future recreational site, swing, racket, and paddle. And to the east is a private open space with a golf course. And some views of the site from Shady Grove, Leesville Road, and ACC Boulevard. So the proposed conditions on the site would require any plats to disclose noise contours, would require dedication of an avigation easement, and require residential dwellings to be built with noise-reducing materials. So these are conditions that were offered in anticipation of comments from the RDU Airport Authority. They are also proposing a block perimeter exemption, as well as limits on overall development intensity on the site. So the requests would represent an increase in entitlement from very few residential units which are currently limited by both Durham's UDO as well as the airport overlay district which prohibits residential for the city of Raleigh zoning. Would also increase office entitlement whereas retail would remain about the same and industrial would, most industrial uses would not be permitted upon rezoning. So the site is eligible to be annexed into the City of Raleigh per our agreement with Durham, last updated in 2019. And just kind of a reminder of the overlay districts. So there are two City of Raleigh overlays, the SHA-2, which restricts height and requires protective yards near highways, as well as the airport overlay, which prohibits residential uses. So this is just showing those that would be removed. And Durham also has two airport overlays which apply to this property. The first permits agricultural, residential, and utility uses but prohibits everything else. And another which permits all uses except for firing ranges. And both of them establish standards for lighting, height, and electronic signals, which again are related to airport operations. And this is showing those that would be removed. The site has a below average walk score. This site is not served by transit, below average bike score, above average transportation costs, and below average access to jobs. Again, no bus service here on the site. The request would add to the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, permits a variety of housing types, and is not served by transit. Residents are less likely to be minorities, less likely to be low income, and the cost of rent has decreased about 2% since 2019 compared to the citywide average. So the request is inconsistent overall with the site's future land use designations, consistent with the urban form guidance, and I'll note that the site has several future land use categories on it. It's consistent with office and residential mixed use and public parks and open space, but the two other categories, office, research and development, and business and commercial services both mention in their descriptions that Residential should either be prohibited or discouraged on the property. Consistent policies are related to our annexation agreements, location of growth, and managing impacts of commercial development, as well as airport noise and zoning for housing. whereas inconsistent policies are related to infrastructure and fire service as well as future land use map and zoning consistency as well as some transportation related policies associated with that block perimeter exemption. So if this request were approved, the areas on the site that are currently designated office research and development and business and commercial services would be amended to office and residential mixed use and here's what that would look like on the map. There are no outstanding issues, and your deadline for action is July 25th. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Burns. By quick show of hands, are there any members of the public that are here to speak on this case? Okay, I got you in there in the back, and the applicant. We've had a full presentation and public discussion on this item at a previous meeting. And given that there are no updates to the request, I will keep the public hearing open but bring the discussion back to the table if the commissioners wish they can ask questions to the applicant or to the members of the public. But since there's nothing new, I don't intend to open the public comment without a request. So I'll bring it back here to the table. I believe last time we deferred on this to allow more time for consideration as this is a pretty complicated case. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir.

If I understand it correctly, there's three minutes and 48 seconds remaining for those in opposition. And so I would just, if it's... You know if the Commission would allow it I think for those Residents who may be here and spending their morning with us. I would appreciate hearing from them if that's the will of the Commission Certainly, that's how does everyone feel about that?

That's the will of the Commission so I will invite the the Opposition has three minutes and 48 seconds three minutes and 48 seconds remaining on the clock. I invite you to come and say your piece, but I would encourage you to keep from repeating what we heard last time, please, and I'll try to bring new ideas to the podium. And please state your name for the record.

Good morning, hey Nick. Tammy Spellman, resident. Bringing up new things, I think one of our concerns is that it references the fire. There is no ladder truck, so if we do a four story, there's no ladder truck within distance to get to that facility for services needed. There's a concern that in the other annexation, an AX44-25, It specifically outlays in there 324 units, but yet in the document that you guys have, it talks about Envision anticipating only 95 additional trips in the peak hours, and we just don't understand how with 324 units, this group decided there would only be 95 more trips. We do think there needs to be a traffic analysis, both to impact at Mount Hermon and Leesville, and also to Briar Creek because I don't think the Briar Creek at Glenwood has been taken into consideration for those additional car travels. Also, I don't know if it has been considered the movement of the runway 537 feet to the west and what impact that could have on the noise contour that currently we're looking at and using and that movement to the west, how much more does that impact this new area? That's it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wish to speak on the subject? All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for their comments. And I will continue to keep the public hearing open just for now and bring the conversation back to the commissioner's table. Open it up for questions and discussion.

Commissioner Neptune. Mr. Chair, I wonder if the applicant is here. I do have a question for the applicant, if they are present. Please.

Good morning. Molly Stewart, Morningstar Law Group, here on behalf of the applicant.

Good morning, Ms. Stewart, thank you for being here with us. I wonder if you could speak to this rezoning, so as I understand it, and just as a reaffirmation as to what we do here, we're here to reaffirm whether these rezonings are consistent with our comp plan, our comprehensive plan, consistent with our future land use maps, and of course, if there's an interest in the public good. And right now, this rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan that we have set forth as a city, but there is this inconsistency found with regard to the future land use map, but it seems to be partially, maybe a technicality, but I wonder if you could speak to, because it seems like portions of this rezoning are in fact consistent, and there's one portion that's inconsistent. I wonder if the applicant could speak to, or Ms. Stewart could speak to that inconsistency and kind of how it's come up in this case.

sure happy to talk about that so there are as you just heard four designations on this property from the creek all the way to the west are two designations that are consistent with the future land use map for this request to the east of that are two other designations one is a very tiny amount of land in the extreme southeast corner that is essentially undevelopable. That entire section of the land east of the creek, in the current configuration, extremely difficult or impossible to develop because of the required dedication of TW Alexander, which cuts off, unless it's actually constructed, which seems unlikely, and connected to something, then there's no access for that portion of the property without building something over the creek. So very difficult to do anything on that side anyway. But that larger area that is also inconsistent, that section does not support residential development, which was done to be consistent with that airport overlay, which also does not allow residential. So those things go together. Would things have been different had the airport overlay not fallen there? Perhaps. But those certainly...

Well, and thank you. And then just for further clarity, it's the portion that is sort of west of the creek that the applicant intends to, I suppose, build on, the sort of residential, the additional housing stock and supply. But east of the creek, where, as you've articulated, it's really, you can't really build there for a host of reasons. Right. But that's included in this larger package just for the ease of moving forward with rezoning. I mean, is that kind of the rationale?

Yeah, there are probably a few reasons there. One, it sort of more strongly connects it into the city because that is part of Wake County right now. So sort of closing that loop there eventually will help with the T.W. Alexander connection to Leesville Road as well.

Well, Ms. Stewart, thank you. I would just, for the good of the commission, I would acknowledge that I have had time to spend and sit down with, I think it was Ms. Spellman, I think she's in the audience. Ms. Spellman, thank you for being here with us. I had a chance to actually drive out and visit with this neighborhood and with the residents. And in addition to spending time with the applicant to get a fuller sense as to what's happening here and You know, there is a lot going on with this rezoning. I think for the sake of brevity, what I would acknowledge is that it is increasingly, let's say, intensifying in terms of development in this area, in this part of our city. There is growth, there's development happening, and you have an interest in facilitating, I think, on behalf of the applicant, the addition of housing stock and supply and options for this growing community. And this potential future T.W. Alexander, I think, connection is more likely to happen if this additional housing stock and supply comes online because it will, of course, apply additional pressure on that infrastructure in that part of our growing region. And again, I think as I understand it with this inconsistency with the future land use map, it's almost like a technicality because so much of this, in terms of where they want to develop, that actual portion of the rezoning is consistent. I do appreciate the comments made about, you know, the comments around, I think, our fire, sort of, you know, support and control. And, you know, I would have to defer to our colleagues with, you know, the fire department and the fire master plan and those investments that are, I think, intended as we continue to grow as a city. I mean, I know there's been a lot of discussion around that, but I think on the whole, as I've tried to sort through, at least as an individual member here at the commission, I think what I appreciate is that at the end of the day, this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. With regard to the future land use map and with regard to where the applicant intends to build and develop, it is in fact consistent. And where it is inconsistent, there is no intention to develop. There is no intention to disrupt that local environment along the creek. And ultimately, with this additional housing stock and supply, we're much more likely to see this potential extension of the T.W. Alexander corridor, which I also appreciate in terms of alleviating some of the traffic pressure in this growing part of our region. So again, I've spent a lot of time on this one with the residents who I really respect and appreciate. I have a friend who's been living out there for 10 years, had no idea until he showed up here at the commission. But I guess I say all this to say I am prepared to move forward with a vote on this item whenever the commission is ready.

Thank you, Commissioner Epstein. I think I saw Commissioner Fox back. Did you have a comment when we first came back to the table?

No, no comment, but thank you for your comments, Commissioner Neptune. I wholeheartedly agree.

Commissioner Berry. I had one question of Chairman Otwell. For staff, could you summarize the airport authority's objection to this?

Yes.

So the airport authority submitted a letter in response to this rezoning indicating that They're opposed to removal of the airport overlay. We've met, staff members have met with the airport for previous rezonings where this was the case and that is their blanket stance. They do suggest in the letter and in previous letters that we've received that there are certain considerations that they would like to be included were the overlay to be removed and those include including noise reducing materials, dedicating an easement and disclosure of airport noise contours on Platts. So those three conditions that are part of this rezoning reflects those asks from the airport authority. They would still be in opposition of removing that airport overlay.

And if I may, just for the benefit of our newer colleague here at the commission, I believe the airport generally wants to discourage folks from living out near the airport because it can be very loud. I mean, like when I was visiting with the residents, I could hear these airplanes coming in, taking off, etc. And so I think the airport, generally speaking, wants to discourage hearing all those complaints from folks who are moving out that way. So they're interested in discouraging it. At the same time, people are choosing to live out there. It's difficult for me to stand in the way of that choice. If people are choosing to live out there, the idea of saying no to additional housing stock and supply, creating that option for others, it's difficult for me to deny that. So ultimately, yes, the airport wants to discourage it because they don't want to hear the complaints, which I think is reasonable. I probably wouldn't want to live out there necessarily. But it is nice. You're out there away, easy access to the airport, easy access to the jobs. But I think that's kind of the function of that overlay.

Thank you, everybody, for your comments. If there is no further discussion, I would like to invite a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 23rd, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. We have a motion for approval from Commissioner Neptune. Is there a second?

Second.

Second from Commissioner Fox. And the question at the table, there's been a motion and a second to recommend approval for rezoning Z826. Am I looking at the right one?

I think it's Z5425.

I'm sorry, no, I'm not. Z5425, Leesville Road. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed, and that passes seven to zero. Thank you everybody for your time and for being here. Moving on, our next case, this one is Z826 on Rock Quarry Road, and we will have a presentation from Matthew McGregor to let us know what has changed since the last hearing.

Good morning. Matt McGregor. I am talking about the updates that have occurred to Z826 since our previous June 9th meeting. The site address, just as a reminder, is 5525 and 5605 Rock Quarry Road. The request is to rezone 1.52 acres from R4 to NX3PL, and now with the added conditions, dash CU. Conditions have been added since the June 9th meeting, and a final reminder that planning commission deadline for action is August 8th, so this is the last planning commission meeting before then. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential and mixed use. Surrounding zoning is residential four, residential 10, NX3, RX3. And here are the three conditions that were proposed. The applicant is looking to prohibit detention centers, jails, prisons, vehicle fuel sales, vape tobacco shops are prohibited, and internet and electronic gambling and sweepstakes cafes are prohibited. I'm including this slide because I did not include it in my last presentation, but this is just a look at the office and retail estimates that we got from internal Envision analysis. Just wanted to include this since I did unfortunately forgot to include that last time. Here are listed the consistent policies again. Nothing has changed in terms of the consistent policies from last time. Again, they just talk about corridor development, scale and design of new commercial uses, housing variety, and field development. And then three inconsistent policies are still the same, future land use maps and inconsistency, and then the LU26 and CS4.4 response time standards. If the rezoning is approved, the future land use map would amend the site to neighborhood mixed use because the site is still considered inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm sorry, the future land use map. And there are no outstanding issues, and planning commission deadline for action is August 8th. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr. McGregor. We previously had a full presentation and discussion on this item. So again, I'll bring it back to the commissioner table here. I believe we deferred this last time to ask for these conditions. So I welcome discussion or questions surrounding the updates to this case. I just, I think I would just say these conditions

appear to represent the requests that we made. And with those, I would be in favor of moving forward with this as presented.

Thank you, Commissioner Walters. Commissioner Omekye.

I would like to put this to the audience because it looks like there's four minutes and 23 seconds remaining for those in favor and six minutes and 45 seconds for those opposed. So if there's anybody in the audience.

I'd be happy to check. Is anybody in the audience here to speak on this issue today? Is the applicant available to speak? Would you like to hear from the applicant? Mr. Winstead, would you like to use some of your remaining time? Oh, we do have somebody to speak in opposition, so Mr. Winstead will go first, and then we'll bring up the opposition. Could you remind me of the times again? I didn't have those written down.

Four minutes and 25 seconds for those in favor, and six minutes and 45 seconds for those opposed.

Well, good morning, Chair Otwell, members of the commission, Hunter Winstead, Morningstar Law Group. representing the applicant. Again, just to kind of summarize how we see this case making sense. This is the current zoning showing that trend of neighborhood mixed use with a parking limited frontage. We're continuing that trend toward the intersection which is planned to be quite a major intersection at Barwell Road and Rock Quarry. This is showing what the zoning would look like if this case were approved. Again, current zoning, proposed zoning. There was questions from the commission if we could just put together a table of the different uses. We had specific requests from Commissioner Omekye to exclude. I'm happy to report that we were able to address each of those uses, put together this table just to show those specific uses that you Commissioner McKay and I believe Commissioner Burnett requested. Those are shown here in blue. Just to quickly summarize these, the first three of these are already excluded. We addressed them a little bit at the last meeting. They're already excluded in the NX district. That's Adult Establishment Pawn Shop Dormitory. um liquor stores are regulated at the state level only the abc commission controls where liquor stores can go and so we work with staff to make sure we address that there's just difficulty enforcing that at the zoning level so again that's addressed at the state level and then these final four you see are prohibited at the bottom right in green those are our zoning conditions detention center, jail, prison, vehicle fuel sales, vape shop, and those gambling establishments. Again, happy to answer specific questions about this, but wanted to make sure we had this table to show those uses, how they interact with what the neighborhood mixed use district already prohibits, and then the conditions that we're offering. And again, just to summarize those three reasons why we think this case makes sense to rezone to neighborhood mixed use, future single family development is unlikely to happen on this corridor here. I showed that slide of all those older homes It's been decades and decades since there's been single-family development under that R4 zoning. This application, again, pulls that retail toward the planned intersection, planned to be a major intersection. And then third and finally, the neighborhood serving retail capitalizes on that transit emphasis corridor that is Rock Quarry Road. So again, happy to answer any questions. We'd appreciate, we would respectfully request that the commission recommend approval. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Winstead. We'll reserve two minutes and 20 seconds.

for the applicant.

And now we will have six minutes and 25 seconds for those opposed. Welcome back. If you would please state your name when you reach the podium.

Yes, good morning. My name is Mary Goodson. I live at 3924 Barwell. And I was opposed last week, and I'm opposed now. And my reasons are the ones that I stated last week. But in addition to that, the biggest thing that I'm concerned about is that we already have a shopping center. This shopping center won't be that far from that one. Has anybody done traffic studies or anything to see how that's gonna affect? Because I live on Barwill and now the traffic backs up to get on to Rock Quarry, now. And when you think about putting a proposed center like they're talking about. They've got to get into that area. They've got to come out of that area. At the other shopping center up there, there's a problem getting in and out of that because the traffic is backed up. And it makes no sense to me to have a shopping center here and about 500 feet you got another shopping center. That to me, it just does not work. And the other reason for my concern is that The shopping center that we have now, we have Battle Bridge, which is the larger shopping center. After talking to the applicant's attorney and the applicant, they were talking about eateries. We have lots of eateries at that location at Battle Bridge. We have Dollar General, and thank goodness with this situation, we can put the opposition to vapes because we have vape shop up there. We have all of that at the other shopping center. So the concern, and then the kids, the children, they stand around at that shopping center. I'm directly behind the shopping center that they are proposing. We have new apartments back there. These kids, they're coming now into our neighborhood, into our our lots coming, going across to the park. He says a wall, but it's not going to deter any of that movement from people coming directly in the back to get to that shopping center. So all of those are concerns, the traffic, the There are different things that's going to arise because of that, what I see. And so I just hope that you'll consider that. And he mentioned the fact that there's no single housing, I guess, residential being proposed there. He's bought up, his client has bought up three or four of the houses that are there. So, I mean, if somebody else wanted to purchase it or purchased, he's already purchased the homes that were there, that were living there. People were living there. So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Goodson. thank you for your comments we're going to continue to leave the public hearing open for now there's a little bit of time on the clock if we need it and bring it back to the table we've had a discussion on this previously but there have been updated conditions and public statements so i would welcome discussion and debate open the floor commissioner um thank you chair chairman i do appreciate the client adding the extra conditions um

And part of my asking for that was in the event that this did go through, I do echo, I'm sorry, what was your last name again?

Ms. Goodson.

I do echo Ms. Goodson's sentiment. The client does own property 500 feet from where he's proposing to develop. There is a shopping center further up on Battle Ridge. It is a very tight corridor that we've already approved a lot of development up Rock Quarry that's in the proximity of this. Crime is an issue, but my major issue is traffic safety. young people crossing the street, not doing anything wrong, trying to get to the different stores, his other location across the street. I do, like I said, appreciate the conditions because that other location does have vape shops and gambling spots and Dollar Generals, which if anybody understands the mechanism oftentimes of Dollar Generals, they're put in neighborhoods and actually kind of help stifle the neighborhood. even if it's meant to help out. My concern is any fire response or police response to the area. My concern is still traffic in the area. 55 dwelling units over eight dwelling units adds a substantial amount more people flooding into this space. Currently when there is a concert at Walnut, it's not Walnut Creek anymore. What is it called? All its name changes. Coastal Federal. I have to beg to get in my driveway and I'm substantially far away from this and I know how far the traffic does go back. I am concerned about approving this development because of well-being of the neighbors around the development, safety of the area, traffic in the area, and increased congestion in the area, and the lack of traffic study done before we add more density to this very tight spot.

Thank you, Commissioner McKay. Commissioner? Oh, Commissioner Fox.

May I ask a question of staff?

Please go ahead.

I have a question for, I guess, transportation staff. If somebody could walk me through the Barwell Road Improvement Project.

I'd like to thank both Commissioners Omokae and Commissioner Fox because I, too, have questions about transportation, and so this is where I was going, so I appreciate the follow-up on this.

Good morning, Barbara Godwin with Transportation. So the Barwell Road Improvement Project is currently under construction, and it includes the addition of dedicated two-way left turn lanes at Barwell and Rock Quarry, additional sidewalks, multi-use path, transit improvements, and the realignment of the Pearl Road intersection at Rock Quarry.

Commissioner Walters.

Could you stay up there, Ms. Godwin? Thank you. Could you talk about those improvements or any facilities for pedestrians crossing Rock Quarry Road? or how someone, a pedestrian might cross Rock Quarry Road?

So currently there's no pedestrian facilities along the frontage of the site at Rock Quarry Road. There are proposed improvements along the Barwell Road as part of the improvement project, but there's currently no infrastructure to facilitate that crossing on Rock Quarry.

Thank you. Commissioner Makai.

And also in that intersection, I don't know if, can I see by show of hands how many commissioners have had a chance to actually see the intersection? Okay, great. So you all know how that intersection is not just a straight cross. That intersection has a bunch of lights. It's a bit confusing. It has some weird movement on the face of Rock Quarry. So to me, it's a bit concerning, especially since this site, if it was further on Barwell Road, that would still be concerning. But especially since this site affronts Rock Quarry, but there's no... plan to improve right now on that area, and that area crosswalk is a bit gnarly. Also, there's not a whole lot of transit in this area, also, as far as buses are concerned, so 55 more units of people. I know that we're trying to be a more public transit-oriented city. More people in this space without having proper transportation or things of that nature is also concerning to me with this project.

Thank you, Commissioner Makai. Any further comments, discussion? All right, if there's no commissioner last minute comment.

Just as a follow up for Ms. Godwin, I wonder if she could speak to from transportation staff's perspective and planning. I mean, are there any other future improvements that we know of intended for the sort of rock quarry road corridor in this area?

So not at this time the improvements in the area are mainly along bar.

Well, thank you As a part of the development of this site would there be pedestrian improvements to the right-of-way Required with a tier 3 site plan.

Yes sidewalks would be a requirement.

Thank you I have a question before staff goes back. If sidewalks are a requirement, I'm sorry. Please, Commissioner Obakai, go ahead. If sidewalks are a requirement, are we also adding crosswalks, bike lanes, is there anything else being added?

Bike infrastructure with a tier three site plan would also be required behind the curb. The crossing would be determined at site plan just based on the actual development and kind of how that interacts with the surrounding right of way.

And when you say behind the curb, can you help me understand what that means?

Yes. So it would be raised like out of the street, set back from the travel lanes with a vertical curb in place.

So it would kind of be a part of the sidewalk in a sense?

It would, but it would be separate from the sidewalk. It would be parallel.

Okay.

Is there a buffer between the bike lane and the sidewalk? Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Godwin, while you're there, I'm sorry. We're going to get you your exercise today. She's the star of the show today.

This is a state-controlled road at this point?

Rock Quarry Road is a state-controlled road, yes.

So it would be coordination with NCDOT if there were to be any kind of crossing treatment? That's correct. Okay, thank you.

Not for staff, but...

Please go ahead.

I do want to just echo a statement that the applicant made that one of the people in opposition made kind of added context to where the applicant said there's been decades since this area has been rezoned for single family uses. There are single family homes that currently sit on this site. other sites and that a may be a part of the reason why it hasn't been rezoned because it already sits there and B the applicant does own substantial numbers of properties connected to this site and that can also also be a reason why it wasn't rezoned so I just want to add context to that it's not because people don't want to build single-family homes there they either already exist or the applicant owns the property and has not rezoned it until now thank you Commissioner Omukai

Since there appear to be no further questions or discussions, I would invite a motion at this time.

I do have just some more comments if I can make them. Please, go ahead.

Commissioner Walters.

I think I really appreciate the conditions that were put on. Those were the conditions that we requested previously. This is an area of the city that is growing and will probably continue to grow whether or not we approve or deny this rezoning. Some of the concerns that I heard from Ms. Goodson about traffic make sense to me. Those are reasonable things to investigate. Upon speaking with transportation staff, I think that the development of this site under Tier 3 review would actually make you know start to spark more safety safe measures for pedestrians and cyclists and you know add to that safety level of safety along rock quarry road um and that you know to be honest makes me feel more comfortable um uh with moving forward with the rezoning

Well, if I could just follow, I agree with Commissioner Walters, and I do want to acknowledge, I deeply appreciate, is it Ms. Goodson who's here with us, the resident? I mean, I am really familiar with this area. I've lived in Southeast Raleigh for many years, and I've driven down this corridor, and I I think there's simply this sort of larger truth in that as we continue to grow, we're gonna come up against this tension where with that growth, we're trying to manage the improvements to our infrastructure, and many thanks to our colleagues with the city, trying to get ahead of it as best we can with these upcoming improvements along Barwell, and hopefully we can coordinate some improvements NCDOT along Rock Quarry, but I think what I appreciate about this particular case is that on the whole, number one, it is consistent with our comprehensive plan as we continue to grow. This inconsistency with the future land use map to me seems so... I suppose marginal is the word that comes to mind when you go from moderate-scale residential to neighborhood mixed-use. I think people appreciate having increasing access to mixed-use opportunities that they can walk to or bike to. We're working to manage and improve those conditions as folks try to get around their own neighborhoods to go shopping and maybe walk on back home or bike on back home. You know, that's, you know, ultimately I think it's, this is in many ways aligned with how we want to continue to grow as a city. And I think on the whole, given that there's, you know, that potential here, I think it's, there is this broader interest in this investment in the public's interest and the public good. So I'm also prepared to move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Neptune. Commissioner Walters, or is that you were trying to make a comment or a motion?

A motion. A motion.

I want to make a comment. I think we have one or two more comments left. Sure. Commissioner Omekai.

Being also familiar with this area, and I appreciate everybody's comments, being also familiar with this area, I do. I'm gonna go ahead and be the usual one that has an issue with this one, only partly because of all the development we've approved up this corridor, not just the corridor, but I would say in a two mile radius of where we're approving to put this, the strain that Residents feel not hypothetically, but actually from my own lived experience of the traffic in the area. I get that people want to build up there. This is a rife area. It's been held cheap. And what's happening now was part of the design for why this is happening now. My major concern is that gnarly intersection. It is traffic. It is the quality of life of the residents around it, and it is to keeping in mind what the residents are saying. We have, like I said, approved a lot of development up Rock Quarry, up New Hope. All of that is in the two-mile radius. As far as walkability, there is a shopping center 500 yards from or feet or whatever from where this site is that also is owned by the applicant. There's also a walkable shopping center at Battle Bridge and a drivable shopping center up the street at Southgate. My concern is not, I mean, I get that this is, I mean, aligned with the comprehensive plan. It is not aligned with the future land use map. And I believe our directive often is to go with both of those and not discount the one that is inconvenient to us. So I'm not uncomfortable moving forward with this. I appreciate that the applicant did put the conditions inside in the event that what may happen is gonna happen, but I am concerned with the residents. I am concerned with the quality of life, my own and others that live in this area. So I am not in support of this project.

Thank you for your comments, Commissioner Emoki. Commissioner Walters. Oh, sorry, you're indicating Commissioner Cochran.

In general I'm in favor of this. I know that area is in the middle of a lot of development so it seems kind of fractional right now but I do think that there's a time in the future where this whole corridor will be more cohesive and what I like about this opportunity is that it's putting mixed use rather than having these segregated uses. So you're driving past a bunch of houses and then you're driving past the shopping center but having more integrated and commercial and retail I think would be a benefit to this area because I think it will add a better texture and maybe slow down the traffic of people just flying through to the next place. So that's why I would like to support this whenever we're ready to make a motion.

Thank you Vice Chair Cochran. Commissioner Walters.

Just following up, Commissioner Omekai, I struggled with some of the same feelings that you had at this state-owned highway with a changing density and use along the corridor is complicated and it really isn't. It isn't a fun place to be. It's in a kind of pimpled teenage years, I would say, of the development of this area. But I think that this development opportunity and the rezoning can catalyze a better version along Rock Quarry Road specifically. And for that, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval. of this case with the conditions that have been added and moved to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 23rd, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

Thank you, Commissioner Walters. We have a motion to recommend approval. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Neptune. Is there any more discussion or debate on the topic? Question before the commission is to, there's a motion and a second to approve. Let me make sure I get my number right this time. All right. Z826. There is a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes six to one. Thank you, everyone, for your comments and your time.

I would like to add to the record my...

I apologize, yes. Commissioner Omekai, would you like to make a statement for the record? Yes. Any reason for denial?

While I do appreciate, like I said, the applicants adding the conditions and taking the time to do that and making sure that our concerns as far as what is there, what would be there, that the community's voices are heard in that. I do oppose this because of quality of life of the residents, safety of residents, congestion in the area, and overdevelopment in the area.

Thank you, Commissioner Omekai. That will be included in the public record. All right. Okay, that brings us to the end of old business today. Moving on, we have new business, which is familiar to us. We will hear a rezoning application for Z4325. This previously came through and received a denial from this commission. And there have since been some changes made to the request and council voted to send it back to the planning commission so we could give it another review. And so we are starting from scratch on this one like it is an item of new business. So at this point, I will turn this over to Hiram Marziano. We will open the public hearing and hear a presentation on the case.

Good morning, Hiram Marziano, Planning and Development. This is rezoning case Z4325. Location is 6309 Litchford Road. The request is to rezone 3.79 acres from residential four to residential six conditional use. Previously when this came before you, apologize, Previously when this came before you, it was requested for R10 conditional use. They have since submitted a new application and new conditions which have changed some of the analysis on this. So as previously, overall consistent with the comprehensive plan, the change to R6 now has it consistent with the future land use map as well. As you mentioned previously, y'all recommended denial eight to one on this request. Zone in the area is predominantly residential. There are commercial and industrial areas nearby the east and south. Again, overview of the site here. We're near Millbrook High School. The property sits between Litchford Road and Johnsdale Road. Just zoomed in a little bit for you. Views from the first one is from Litchford. The second one is from the rear at Johnsdale. Changes since the previous review. Boarding house is not allowed in R6 to begin with. They amended the prohibited uses and removed boarding house and included cemetery. They're still prohibiting the apartment building type. Made some technical corrections to condition number three here for the name of the historic preservation team. Number four's condition reduces the number of possible principal drilling units from 54 to 47. They've added in condition number five here which is extensive to say the least but it's in quick terms is how they plan to manage access to the site. And some of that is dependent on North Carolina Department of Transportation approval and review. Following this there's supplemental information in your packet as well as part of this type of condition that changes block perimeter of how they will be approaching the safe access of the site. Staff has some issues with what they've provided as their supplemental information, and we'll go over those as far as inconsistencies later. But that was a new addition to address access. And still requiring additional silt fencing type during development for soil erosion control measures. Only change here for the entitlement basically is the number of units. It was 54, it's 47. No change in the analysis here. It's still higher walk average than the city. Average transit score, average bike score. Lower cost of travel and higher proximity to jobs. There is the Route 25L triangle town link. However, there's no sidewalks down to it, so therefore we're not really considering it walking distance from transit. Again, with the change in the zoning, base zoning, it is now consistent with the future land use map of low-scale residential. There's no urban form guidance for residential districts. So overall, consistent with the comprehensive plan, overall consistent with the future land use map, some of those consistent policies. But inconsistent this time, again, because of that supplemental information provided, we just don't feel that it meets the measure of how it will be achieved. And we'd like to see some further legwork done on that to meet and become in compliance with the UDO for that condition number five to address access to the site. Upcoming meetings are August 11th, deadline for action would be August 22nd.

All right, thank you, Mr. Marziano. At this time, we will have comment from the applicant and from the public. So we will provide 10 minutes to the applicant and then 10 minutes to those in opposition. So we invite the applicant to approach the podium.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Amy Kraut. I'm an attorney at Smith Anderson. I'm here today on behalf of the applicant. As staff noted, this request was before you earlier this year, given the significant changes that we made between Planning Commission and City Council. City Council did vote earlier this month to send it back to you for your review and reconsideration. I'll be going through the changes that we've already made in between that time period and giving some more context for those changes, as well as highlighting some additional changes that we intend to make. So given that our goal is to make additional changes to further address some neighbor and staff concerns, we are asking that the case be continued ultimately to August 11th for the vote. So at the prior hearing before this commission, the main concerns we heard about was simply that R10 is inconsistent with future land use map, and traffic and infrastructure concerns related specifically to Johnsdale Road. Two of you specifically noted that these impact concerns weren't necessarily about density, they were really about the impact to neighbors and the infrastructure as it exists to Johnsdale. if the property is rezoned and access to Johnsdale is provided from the property, especially given its current state. So in response to these concerns, we made significant changes already. So the three main are we downgraded the rezoning request from R10 to R6, making it fully consistent with future land use map designation and comprehensive plan. We have prohibited vehicular access to Johnsdale Road to address some of those safety and quality of life concerns. We've also reduced the maximum number of homes from 54 to 47. Taking each of these in turn, kind of changing that rezoning from R10 to R6, it brings it into compliance with that low scale residential designation and the future land use map and makes it consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff did note that there are two inconsistent policies based on our access conditions. Basically, the UDO requires that when you propose certain conditions related to access, you have to provide additional justification for those conditions. We are working with staff to address those concerns. This is part of the reason we'd like to defer it to August. We really think that we are consistent with the plan and these changes meet those needs. We're just trying to get staff what they need to be comfortable with that. Going back to the main issue of existing traffic and infrastructure concerns on Johnsdale, we heard a number of contributing factors from the community on this. It's Johnsdale Road itself that was built well before current UDO standards and when the land was in the county's jurisdiction. It doesn't have sidewalks and the pavement is undersized. It's only about 17 feet wide, which is significantly smaller than UDO current standards. It's also how the street is currently being used. There's a lot of traffic from Millbrook High School. We recognize that both during the day and at events with complaints of speedings and even more recently with the addition of speed humps that hasn't fully resolved those issues.

And just generally issues of pedestrian safety.

So taking all those things into consideration, the current zoning request that is before you does restrict access to Johnsdale. So basically how that condition reads is it would only be used for emergency and utility vehicular access purposes. So it would be a locked gate or something similar. The only way that that condition lifts is if and when Johnsdale Road is upgraded, and we included specific things of what upgrade means. So back curb to curb would have to be the width for a neighborhood local street, which is about 31 feet, and sidewalks would have to be added to at least one side, and that would be about six feet of sidewalk. So that's the existing condition as it is today. We also have reduced the maximum number of homes. The city estimates that under R6 today we could get 54 homes on the property. We've already reduced that down to 47. So that's the conditions written today, the reduction to R6, the restricted access, and the reduction in number of homes. Our goals with these new condition has been and is to fully protect Johnsdale Road from the impacts of this rezoning and the additional 15 units proposed that would be allowed under the rezoning. As I noted in the beginning, we are asking for a delay of the vote to August 11th because we have some additional changes that we'd like to make based on further conversations with city staff. So those updated conditions really address the access and the number of homes. And what we will do is the first piece that the city has asked us to put in is that the developer will be required to ask NCDOT for a driveway permit for Litchford. So that's the first piece of that. We have had conversations with NCDOT and our expectation is that that permit would be granted. And so we do expect that we would be able to have access to Litchford. Assuming the driveway permit to Litchford is granted, then two things happen. We would be able to develop up to 47 homes on the property and we would still keep that restricted access to Johnsdale. So Johnsdale would still only be used for emergency and utility access. And again, it would only be lifted if Johnsdale is upgraded per the existing condition that we have today. If by chance that the driveway permit to Litchford is not granted and we are only able to access the property through Johnsdale, then what we've done is we've capped the development at 32 homes. and that is consistent with what staff says is allowed under the current R4 zoning. So that is kind of where we have been, where we are, and where we would like to go. We wanted to use this as an opportunity to solicit additional feedback from the commission, go ahead and make those changes as staff requested, and ultimately kind of hear the neighbors' concerns as it relates to Johnsdale. I think a lot of these additional conditions and what we plan to do addresses those. So we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation. We will reserve two minutes and 56 seconds for a rebuttal if necessary. Now I would like to invite members of the public that are opposed to the application to speak. Altogether, you will all have 10 minutes, so please be aware of your time or designate a spokesman, spokesperson.

When when you get started, please state your name for the record Good morning, I'm Larissa green now that the application is aligns with the future land use map, I ask you to focus on the compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Your own report of PC from 55 stated that the current zoning is sufficient for development. I want to acknowledge that the Planning Commission for standing up for our safety on March 10th and April 14th with the vote. eight to one to deny this. This site is smaller than a high school track and football field. The surrounding properties in Litchford Forest range from approximately 32,000 to 43,000 square feet per lot. Even R4 development would represent a significant change in scale from the existing neighborhood. The proposed R6 zoning would place 47 units here, less than 3,500 square feet per lot. The defining characteristics of Litchford Forest are land, trees, setbacks, and spacious lots. Our homes do not dominate the streetscape. We have covenants to protect these characteristics, That should be considered for compatibility. I will remind you that this application was already here prior, already claiming to operate under R6, and that 54 units was a labeling issue. Is 47 units truly different than 54? This proposal represents growth ahead of infrastructure. The Old Wake intersection project is a minimum of 30 months of actual construction once it finally gets funded. Litchford widening is not even on an official timetable. This is not smart growth. These inadequacies are directly related to city planning. Affordable housing built in 2022 without sidewalks in a school zone is a difficult reflection. Raleigh Transportation already said restricting access to Johnsdale will not mitigate traffic impacts. The additional residents added will walk, bike, park, and play on Johnsdale. The turn lane onto Johnsdale cannot be made any longer and only holds one vehicle. This van crossing the yellow is why we use the high school gate to access our homes, which is not locked, by the way. So I ask you directly, will streets be available at city standards to serve this use? Raleigh Planning knows that the NCDOT will never prioritize Litchford Road, which is why they need development to pay for the frontage improvements. These decisions continue to make the road inconsistent regarding width, turns, blind spots, and stop bar locations. Raleigh is putting lives at risk with these actions. We should not have to use a center lane to accelerate to fit into the traffic gaps. This must be said, but know this criticism comes from a community passionate about loving where we live. We love Raleigh and we have expressed that at length in public comment at city council. This tone is intense, but how else do we protect the beauty of our city as we build a better tomorrow? Finally, no Johnsdale access transfers the burden of turnaround traffic onto the apartments at Litchford 315. If you are hearing that Johnsdale won't be used as a loop around, the traffic will loop around to the apartment's parking lot across the street. They have children too. This is arguably a worse option. Speeds of 40 miles per hour plus make dangerous maneuvers across the future four lane divided road or will they, as Commissioner Bennett, who's not here today, hit the median and then go left creating more risky situations. This is not compliant with Policy 2.6 or UDO 8.3.5. These are children, Raleigh's children. Litchford Road is not included in the active mobility plan at all, despite being ranked highly. Raleigh is accountable for this. The DOT is not your scapegoat. All of Raleigh, Millbrook's 2,455 students, your children and mine too, deserve safe streets, not streets they've had to survive. Thank you.

I thank you for your comments and we will reserve five minutes and 45 seconds.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the slides.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record as you approach.

My name is Phillip Brown. Good morning, my name's Phillip Brown. I'm asking you again to deny this rezoning because it's inconsistent with Raleigh's comp plan, incompatible with existing neighborhood conditions, and unsafe for the residents already living here. The last 10 years, we've seen 100 residents added around our neighborhood, yet the infrastructure needed has not safely supported that growth, which is not materialized. We still don't have sidewalks, curb gutters, safe pedestrian access to Millbrook High School, nor adequate infrastructure. Johnsdale Road was already stated as 17 feet wide compared to the 36 foot standard found in Raleigh neighborhoods, yet we're asked to absorb even more density onto this 1960s county roadway. The comp plan calls for growth to be coordinated with transportation and infrastructure improvements, and this proposal would do the opposite. The comp pan also requires compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. On the west side of Litchford, the future land use map and established zoning pattern create a logical transition point between development types. The question then becomes, where's the dividing line? And for decades, it's been Litchford Road. R4 should stop at Litchford Road. Instead, this proposal pushes multi-unit intensity directly into an established single-family neighborhood with no meaningful transition. This is just a picture of a 45-foot tall building overlooking a single-story ranch. How would you like that in your backyard? It's not a question of whether growth should occur. It's a question of whether this location is appropriate for this level of density. We believe it is not. Traffic on Johnsdale has projected to increase over 40% alone from this development. There are nine intersections between Hunting Ridge and Dixie Forest alone. The south entrance of Johnsdale now functions more like a major intersection with Litchford 315 across the street as opposed to an entrance to a neighborhood. These distances demonstrate how compressed this corridor already is, particularly around Johnstale and the existing multifamily developments on Litchford. These access points are so tightly clustered, it's exactly why NCDOT has imposed restrictions on this project's access to Litchford Road. These measurements illustrate that both DOT and Raleigh already recognize operational limitations along this corridor. Throughout this process, residents have constantly found themselves caught between two agencies that continue to point the finger at one another as opposed to solving the problem. DOT controls Litchford and has determined that this development cannot safely have full access onto Litchford. Their solution is a write-in, write-out restriction. Yet the traffic generated by this development still has to go north on Litchford. Perhaps the answer is clear. Neither road can absorb this type of density without millions of dollars being spent increasing the capacity of both roads. And I would ask the commission a simple question. If Litchford Road is capable of accommodating this amount of cars, then why is full access being denied? And if it's not capable, why are the residents of Johnsdale and Johnsdale Road be expected to absorb it instead? Is the transportation network today prepared for the intensity it's being requested upon? Johnsdale Road has repeated sideswipe collisions and vehicles leaving the roadway. Multiple homes on our street have been struck by vehicles. An overturned vehicle the last planning commission when you voted eight to one during school traffic hours at the north entrance of Johnsdale. Two weeks ago, a school bus took out a neighbor's mailbox, causing a scene. Students are consistently skipping school, using our backyards as their playgrounds while they're trespassing. Trucks, commercial vehicles are constantly driving down our street, damaging our driveways. We've spoken about this before, but the devastating loss of a little girl, just nine homes down from this development. I ask you, where is vision zero in all of this? I want to be clear, Johnstale can absorb safely 12 R4 homes. 32 units and certainly 47 units should absolutely have no access to Johnstale, irregardless of what the DOT and Raleigh Transportation says. This proposal ignores longstanding neighborhood expectations and environmental impacts. The historic home on the property is recognized by the city as worthy of preservation and should follow other neighboring cities around us to become an HOA or an office or a gym of some sort for the development. Without it would dramatically alter the surrounding character tree canopy and land conditions that contribute to this historic setting. Flooding concerns, septic failures, well contamination will increase with surrounding development. Above ground catch ponds, 10% tree preservation along bordering properties and a 15 inch minimum tree diameter size should be in effect for any future development on this site. Neighboring homeowners will face connection utility costs upwards of $60,000 to bring it up to code because of impacts that we did not create. Again, this infrastructure is struggling to keep pace with development. applicant is asking you to approve density first and trust that the infrastructure issues will somehow work themselves out later. That's not what Raleigh's comp plan requires. It requires that transportation, safety, infrastructure, environmental impacts, neighborhood compatibility be addressed before growth of this intensity is approved, and this rezoning is trending towards the opposite. It overloads an already strained corridor along this neighborhood while asking us residents to absorb the consequences physically, financially, and emotionally. Please follow the comp plan. Please follow your already previous recommendation, and please protect our families in the Litchford Forest. We're happy to answer any other questions. We thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

And I'd like to say thank you to everybody that took time from your day to come out here and participate in this process. It's not easy, often not a lot of fun, and it can be stressful to stand up there at that podium. I've stood there and spoken myself, and I know how it feels. So I'd like to express my gratitude for everybody taking the time. At this time, we'll bring it back to the, I'm sorry, the applicant can, if you would like to, you have some time remaining on your clock for a rebuttal. I didn't catch that time. Ms. Walter, did you? Okay, thank you.

Not a problem. I'll keep this brief. We understand the neighborhood concerns. We are working diligently to address them. That's why we'd like to have the vote continue to the August 11th meeting. And, you know, at this point, we are asking for just an additional 15 additional units with the change from R4 to R6. and as we work to kind of address the concerns with Johnsdale. So thank you. Again, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. And we will keep that time on the clock, 2.36. At this time, we'll keep the public hearing open and move the discussion back to the table. I open up the floor for questions and comments. Commissioner Neptune.

Just briefly, Mr. Chair. First, I want to also thank the residents for attending today's commission hearing. I'd also like to thank them for the emails and the follow-up on this item. I certainly do appreciate the applicant coming back with a rezoning application consistent with our comprehensive plan and our future land use map. There are still significant issues as articulated by the residents and I appreciate that the applicant would like more time to engage the residents as well as our colleagues on staff to address some of these outstanding concerns and so I would just acknowledge with that I'm comfortable with the continuation of this item.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. I would also like to encourage a full discussion at this table, even though I think we're going to defer, because that will allow the applicant and the neighbors the most information moving forward. So I welcome all comments. Commissioner Walters.

I just want to echo the comments that my fellow commissioners have made. Thank you all for coming out. Yeah, I feel very similarly to the way that I felt last time this was presented. I think that what we see in front of us is a substantial and concerning transportation issue. I'M ALMOST HAPPY THAT THIS RESONING IS HERE IN FRONT OF US BECAUSE IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHED A LIGHT ON THIS TRANSPORTATION ISSUE. THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE TRANSPORTATION ISSUE. THIS HAPPENS WITH GROWING CITIES AND IT'S HAPPENING IN FRONT OF US NOW. SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR IT AND TO ELEVATE IT AND I WOULD DO THAT WITH wholeheartedly to counsel that they should be aware of and actively pursuing this transportation issue. Similar comments, I think that I'm not opposed to the density in this area. This is right next to a school. It's near a lot of jobs and commercial infrastructure. So I actually think that this would be a great place for people to live. And I think that this large lot is a good opportunity for increased density. And so with that, I have pretty much the same comments I had before.

Thank you, Commissioner Walters. Yes, please, Commissioner Omokai.

Does the staff know when this area will be, Leesville would be, or Litchford would be added to for improvements or expansion of the road or anything of that nature?

Good question, Commissioner Omokai. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Carter Robertson with Transportation. So right now there's no active projects planned, no timeline or design on that. I will note that Litchford Road is designated to be a four lane divided. Right now in this section it's on three lanes with a center turn lane. As developments have come along, like the apartments across the road, they have dedicated right of way, put in some pavement that's striped out. That's what we'll probably continue to see as development comes in. We do have Litchford Road identified in our active mobility plan, not as a bicycle priority corridor, but as a sidewalk. future improvement. That's not included in our big jump, but it did rank highly as future sidewalk projects. So as we work through the big jump of projects over the next five years, we'll be starting to look at those other highly ranked areas throughout the city.

While you're still up there, unless somebody else had a piggyback question. While you're still up there, what causes a road to be prioritized? Because we're hearing a lot of traffic, damage to property, loss of life of an adolescent, danger for students, imposition of quality of life of the residents. So what puts a street in the list of priorities to move up to be improved?

Yes. So as part of the active mobility plan, we had a pretty involved public engagement process where we went out to each of the districts, talked to residents to see where they wanted to see connections the most, where they'd be most valuable, and that's how we kind of made this list of future projects, and then from there to have a consistent approach of how we're prioritizing things. We had four different measures that we used to prioritize. One of those was related to traffic safety. So what are the speeds on the roadways? How wide is it? How difficult could it be to cross? That was a safety component. We also had a access component. Are there valuable destinations along the corridor like a school, a greenway, a park, transit stops. That's something else we looked at. We also included an equity measure. Is this a transportation disadvantaged area? Do we know that people are more likely to walk or use transit? And I think those were the four things, safety, access to transit, access to destinations, and equity were the four driving criteria.

When you all measure if people are walking, are you all measuring total trips? Are you all taking in consideration youth, or are you all just looking at peak hours, driving? going to shopping, anything like that. Are you all taking, when you add walkability, are you all also including in that measure or that analysis young people going to school or walking across the street or getting off the bus?

Yeah, we don't have a methodology at this point to measure, like put a specific number on how many people we expect to be walking to places. But when we're looking at those destinations, schools would be a driver that we would have included in our criteria.

And I don't know if this is your question to answer or somebody else's, but I'm sorry, ma'am, what's your name again? I'm bad with names. Ms. Green. Ms. Green. I'm equal opportunity at forgetting names. I apologize for that. She mentioned that there's a covenant in the space. Is there a covenant in this area like that is only designated for single family homes or a certain type of housing?

I'm not familiar. I'd defer to planning staff or attorney.

So the city does not regulate or enforce private covenants for neighbors. Those are considered private agreements between private owners so that it would not be something that the city would take into account in its zoning analysis. So I don't have an answer for that because that's not something that the city looks at.

Well, that's confusing a little bit because I do know that there was a covenant for a community in Brentwood and the whole 60-some-odd houses were being sued by one of their neighbors to break the covenant and redevelop because the covenant was put in place for only single-family homes. So it is something that the city does.

Well, no, that would be a private lawsuit that happened there.

Right, he didn't sue the city, he sued the neighbors. So the neighbors went into a covenant amongst themselves.

That's right, that's right. It's nothing that the city would enforce. It's nothing that we require of owners to do. Those are private contracts.

Okay, is there a covenant in the area?

So Litchford Forest is a covenant neighborhood since the early 1960s. This parcel was the original home for the farm that our neighborhood then became. This home was put into a trust. It was carried down through three or four generations, I believe, until the children went against Grandma's will to keep the home as part of the neighborhood in a covenant Obviously not part of our covenants, but you do mention being sued. A neighbor that owns on the north end of our neighborhood owns three properties. He sued our whole neighborhood last year and the year before. The judge did side with our case that our covenant should stand in perpetuity forever. So we do have protections there that we are one home per lot, three quarters of an acre, single family dwelling with one out parcel. We never thought that this property would come up for sale given the nature that it is the original farmhouse, which is why we would love for it to stay and become part of the community. If you look at Morrisville, Apex, Cary, all new developments at this point.

Please keep your comments brief.

Yes, sir.

I'll end with this. All these new builds in those municipalities are keeping the farmhouse as the HOA headquarters or fitness area and things of that nature.

Mr. Chair, I would like to acknowledge, again, I do appreciate the applicant coming back with perhaps more aligned or better aligned conditions. I would echo my colleague Commissioner Walters. I remain unchanged in terms of how I feel about this particular item, but I do appreciate that there is more time requested by the applicant to I hope, continue engagement with our residents. It sounds like there's an interest in continuing to work with the residents, listen, and understand the concerns, and see those reflected in the rezoning conditions, alongside working with colleagues on staff to address their concerns, but it sounds like there's a Tough mountain to climb in terms of addressing the concerns of the residents in this area But I do appreciate the the desire to at least make the effort and I believe it's in good faith. So godspeed Commissioner Fox

May I ask a question of the applicant? It wasn't clear to me. I was following Commissioner Omekaya's line of questions. Is there in fact a covenant on this parcel?

There's not. The same covenants that apply to the community around us do not apply to this parcel. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Cochran.

So this question is either for the applicant or for Hiram. In your presentation Hiram you mentioned that you felt that the inconsistency with LU 1.3 and LU 2.6 needed to be worked on and I'm assuming that's what that access condition is trying to work out. Can I kind of, what I'd like to hear is how that access condition is going to I don't really understand why just limiting access on one side of the site is gonna fix the whole problem here. So I just want to better understand your logic behind providing those conditions or why you think those conditions are inadequate.

We'll let the applicant address that because it is their condition and that is part of transportation's ongoing discussions with them about providing additional information explaining how that decision would be safe and efficient.

Yeah, so to make my question more specific than for the applicant is can you specifically say what issue that's addressing and how it's going to fix it?

Thank you, I think in terms of restricting access, what we heard, especially with Johnsdale Road, is all of the safety concerns and the concerns of adding additional density on this site and people either cutting through from Litchford to Johnsville to get to the school, like high school students, just kind of traffic kind of traversing through the site. the infrastructure on Johnsdale being a narrow road with no sidewalks. In this case, this would direct all that traffic from the property away from Johnsdale and on to Litchford. And so that is what we're really trying to address there is to kind of keep the traffic off of Johnsdale Road, which is one of the things that we really heard from the community members given the infrastructure that's in place there.

Thank you, and I have a question while you're up if you could please. I'd like some help understanding the condition that pertains to improvements on Johnsdale Road, that it would be, access would be restricted to only Litchford Road unless certain conditions are met on a portion of Johnsdale Road, like sidewalk and curb. Is that just the portion in front of the property? What are the specifics of that portion?

Let me pull up the exam.

Thank you.

Hiram, could you pull up the language just so the commissioners can see it? Thank you.

There we go.

There we go. Yes, so it's really in the event that the portion of Johnsdale fronting the property is improved so that back of curb to back of curb goes to 31 feet and there's a sidewalk on at least one side. So it is just fronting the property. And I did confirm that that is the same language in what we intend to submit, but we can take that into consideration.

And thank you. And just so I'm clear, so that... The way this condition works is if the property is redeveloped and right of way is dedicated, curb and gutter, et cetera, along the frontage of the property, at that time, direct access would be allowed to Johnsdale Road for the development.

My read of this, and I will confirm this, is it's not just dedication. Right, right. No, I think that I understand it to mean construction. It's construction and improvement, yes. Okay. All right. Yes. Thank you.

Commissioner Walters.

I wonder if you could elaborate or kind of describe to us the concerns that you've heard from transportation regarding the concerns that they mentioned earlier on in this case.

Sure, so whenever you propose an access restriction, you have to provide additional kind of justification statements. We've provided that. I think the understanding there is they wanted a little bit more on how this would work and protect the safety, so we're working to get them that information. The other thing that we did hear about the conditions as proposed is that transportation wanted us to go ahead and Revise the conditions to require us to request the permit from Litchford first So there was no way that we would be back during anything or creating a loophole We have to request the access from from NCD ot to Litchford.

Mm-hmm. Okay Could I talk to transportation Carter? Oh So earlier you were talking about some comments about planning the big jump and pedestrian safety, the cycle of safety. I think all of your comments were referring to Litchford Road, is that correct? That's right. Okay. I wanted to focus a little bit on Johnsdale Road and your opinion of the safety there because I think that's mostly what we heard from the public in opposition. Are you a professional engineer?

I'm not, I'm not a planner. Okay, you're a planner, yep.

In your opinion, do the concerns that they're presenting make sense and resonate with your understanding of planning transportation safety?

Seems like most of the concerns with Johnstown Road seem to relate to the school getting in and out and the events after hours, teenagers driving recklessly, and then also just the road isn't built to standard right now. It's narrow, no curb and gutter, so there's no space to accommodate people wanting to walk around safely.

Yeah, that makes sense. So hearing the metrics that you all used, I feel like John Steele Road would be a high priority corridor for improvement. Some of those four metrics, I think all of those four metrics might apply in this scenario. And I wonder if they just were missed somehow and if there was a way to elevate that.

I THINK IT WOULD SCORE FAIRLY I THINK IT WOULD SCORE FAIRLY WELL WITH OUR CRITERIA. WELL WITH OUR CRITERIA. WELL WITH OUR CRITERIA. BY THE TIME WE HAD ADOPTED THAT BY THE TIME WE HAD ADOPTED THAT BY THE TIME WE HAD ADOPTED THAT AMP, JOHN STILLROAD WAS NOT AMP, JOHN STILLROAD WAS NOT AMP, JOHN STILLROAD WAS NOT INCLUDED ON THAT LIST. INCLUDED ON THAT LIST. INCLUDED ON THAT LIST. BUT NOW WE HAVE IT DOCUMENTED BUT NOW WE HAVE IT DOCUMENTED Through this process we've received a lot of different requests for improvements through Ask Raleigh, so requests to do studies at the two intersections for potentially a future signal, putting in stop bars at the stop signs, extending turn lanes, things like that, but also the need for sidewalk has been So while it's not in our AMP, it is documented as a need.

OK. And one last thing. I want to just jump back real quick to Commissioner Otwell's line of investigation. If the road and facilities, both pedestrian and vehicle facilities, were widened along the frontage of the property in question here, That really wouldn't happen as a standalone. I would imagine that would only happen if the entirety of the road or a longer length of the road would be improved. In your opinion, is that true?

Yes, either that. Through a project, it would definitely be a larger portion than just a small section. I guess another thing that could trigger this potentially would be if assemblage of parcels across the street were to redevelop and they were required to put in the curb and gutter and the sidewalk. But other than that, it would probably be a full or at least up to Ravenhill project. Okay.

Thank you.

Of course. Well, and if I could just briefly follow this.

I think Commissioner Cochran, did you have your hand up at one point?

I'm fine to continue with this topic and then go back.

Commissioner Neptune.

Just briefly, I wanted to acknowledge, I appreciate this conversation with our colleagues on transportation because I think it daylights both for the commission and I think for our colleagues and residents. Ultimately, the residents here are in a position to further escalate this item to their council member, if I'm not mistaken, and that council member in turn can then work in perhaps encouraging staff to take on this item in terms of escalating it in priority. If I'm not mistaken, Carter, is that correct? Is that sort of a fair observation?

If it's the will of the council, I think that could be an outcome. That's right, that's right.

Well, I think it's worth acknowledging that for all the residents who have, I think, organized around this issue, I do appreciate that it has elevated this piece of infrastructure, which is currently inadequate. And to the extent that there's a desire to continue organizing and perhaps setting up a meeting with their council member or participating in some fashion and sort of identifying this infrastructure with council, council can follow through.

Mr. Neptune, you don't have to know what district that is, do you? Is this District A?

Oh, well, I think we've just heard that they already had a meeting, and so it's been elevated. Thank you. I appreciate you.

And are you following up on the same line of questioning? So we'll continue with Commissioner Omekai, please.

Thank you, Chairman. And I also want to elevate Commissioner Neptune's comments and also ask, and Commissioner Walters' comments, and also ask, is there, well, A, adding to that, I would definitely love for you all to, if you've already met, be the squeaky wheel, with your representation, but is there a way that by August 11th, if there can be any movement in priority before we make a decision of development and enhancements of Johnsdale? I know that there's a, no?

No, unfortunately, council is going on their, I think their last meeting is July 7th, and they won't be back until August 18th, I believe, so there won't be an opportunity. Scratch that question.

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I would like to note we have, I think, four additional items of new business, and we may want to.

Well, this is obviously an important city. I want to make sure that everybody gets their full say.

Commissioner Baird.

One quick question for Ms. Green or Mr. Brown. Could y'all talk about how the community may have engaged with the public school system with regard to access to the Millbrook High School property and the safety concerns that relate, seem to be primarily to that.

And please keep your comments brief and specific.

I'm actually friends with the Wake County spokesperson's wife, Miss Luton, and I've spoken with her directly. She has reached out to the principal, and the principal said, under no grounds will we lock that back gate keeping egress and ingress from Johnsdale. So effectively, the east-west road that would go from Litchford to Johnsdale through this parcel would then also create an intersection with Johnsdale Place on Johnsdale Road.

Commissioner Berry?

I guess along these lines and keeping with Commissioner Neptune's concerns about timeliness and so forth, I'd be fully in favor of continuing this matter for further discussion at our next meeting pursuant to the stated request from the applicant. And I would also suggest in the interim, my understanding of the current zoning and the proposed zoning, the delta really is 15 housing units and the applicant is willing to propose a set of conditions that could be acceptable. I would just invite the community and opponents to consider what those concessions and conditions might provide them in exchange for those 15 additional units.

Thank you. Commissioner Baird.

I'm happy to support that motion to defer.

Okay. If there's no more questions or comments, I think that we will just without objection defer this case to August 11th if that fits on our schedule. All right, without objection, this is hereby deferred to August 11th. Thank you everybody for coming out and thank you commissioners for your thoughtful discussion and I look forward to hearing the new conditions in August. At this time, I'm going to call a quick recess, seven minutes. Let's be back here, please, at quarter till 11. be back with us presently. I would like to note that Commissioners Burnett and Shelburne are absent and excused. I'd like to poll the room real quickly, if we could, and see who is here to speak from the public on these issues. I believe we have folks here for multiple cases, and I just kind of want to get an idea for who is in the audience. Could you raise your hand if you're here for Z43? Oh, we did that one. We're on to the next one. For CP126. Do we have anybody here for CP126? Okay, thank you. How about Z1826, Pool Road? Y'all are the applicants, right, okay. And Z1426, Gorman Street. applicant again, all right. So I think that, and there's somebody here for Z16. Do we have Z16? So we will hear CP1 and then barring objection, we will move item F5 after F2 to allow the members of the public to get out of here as soon as possible and hopefully not get deferred till next, till August. All right, so with that, Our next order of new business is item F2, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CP-126, Old Cruz Road. And we will have a presentation from Hiram Marziano from the Planning Department.

Mr. Chair, before we go on, related to this matter, I need to recuse myself from the conversation. The applicant is a client of my law firm currently, and so would ask to be excused to recuse.

Excellent, I'll open the floor for a motion for recusal.

So moved. Is there a second?

We have a motion and a second for recusal. All in favor? Opposed? Thank you, you're hereby recused for this case and we will call you back to the table when this case is over.

Okay, yes. Good morning, Hiram Marziano, Planning Director. This is Comprehensive Plan Amendment CP-126. This is a request to redesignate a proposed avenue four lane divided street. It's a privately initiated request. This is for the segment of Old Cruise Road from Buffalo Road to Old Mill Burnie Road and to redesignate it from avenue four lane to avenue two lane divided. Deadline for action is September 21st. The quick look at the existing map here on your left, as you see the teal line there, Old Cruise Road, Buffalo Roads at the south intersection, Old Mill, Benartney Roads at the northern intersection. On this map currently, it designates this segment as an avenue four lane divided. The map on the right will show you what the proposed request is to modify that segment. And what it does, as you go up Old Cruz Road and where it currently veers to the left and starts heading towards Old Milburnie, this segment of it would have it veer right and curve around and then come up Old Milburnie further east. This segment of the road, they're requesting to redesignate to the Avenue 2 lane divided. Just a quick aerial so you can see this is a aerial.

I'm sorry to interrupt. Are you drawing something when you say this?

No, I'm sorry. I was left and right, but I can draw for you right here. I was drawing in my head like this.

I just wanted to make sure we were seeing what you were wanting us to see.

Right here on the map, the whole segment of Old Cruise Road is... Avenue four lane divided. But where it dashes over here on the proposed map, that's the segment along with the remainder that comes down the road that they'd like to change to Avenue two lane. Let me clear real quick. I forgot we could do all this. So right now, Old Cruise Road does this. and one of the proposed routes for it would have it veer this way. But for the entire segment from here to here, they're requesting to take it down to Avenue two lane divided. Does that help with the segment that we're talking about? I know the map's kind of zoomed out so it makes it a little bit difficult. So this portion right there to become Avenue two lane divided. But let me stress, right now it already exists on the map that way as an avenue four lane divided. You gave me a toy to play with, I'm not gonna stop. So the aerial here, just to give you a better idea and a more clear vision of everything without all the parcel lines, shows that it's low scale development in this general area. The idea here is that even at an avenue two lane divided, the traffic impacts from the subdivisions would still be able to be managed without having to go all the way to the four lane divided. That also helps out with ecological concerns of the area. There is, did I include the map? I did. There's Hodges Mill Creek here that crosses where there'll be a bridge replacement. The bridge maintenance and replacement would be more cost effective, less impacts to the nature. With the avenue two lane divided, you also add the possibility of connecting pedestrians to greenway networks, issues like that. So for a variety of these reasons, so here's the, cross section for you. So this is the difference here on the left is the existing four lane avenue divided. On the right would be what would be the proposed two lane avenue divided should it be approved. And you see it's marginally less impactful, less surface area. So we found it consistent with multiple policies, largely dealing with road design, transportation impacts, multimodal development, protection of these corridors. I did not feel it was inconsistent with any of the policies as outlined in the plan. And deadline for action would be September 21st and here's some upcoming meetings for you. But overall, I think I left this slide out, overall we feel it is consistent with the comprehensive plan in general.

Just to be clear Hiram, when you said existing, that's existing proposed because it's Tulane now, right?

Yeah, there's a lot of terminology here that uses overlap. It is an existing proposed segment on the street map, on the street plan. This in no way is an active road. It's also not an active development. The proposal as well would not be under current active development either. This is just redesignating what would possibly be developed should it ever be developed.

All right, thank you, Mr. Marziano. I don't know if I mentioned at the beginning, but the public hearing is open and remains open. At this time, we will allow 10 minutes for the applicant to present their case. Please state your name when you get to the podium.

Just use that left and right. All right, awesome. Good morning. I'm Brian Vickery with Kimley Horn here on behalf of the applicant. A lot of what I've got to say, Hiram just covered very eloquently, so I'll try to save every one time and not just repeat it. So, as he mentioned, the area of the plan amendment that we're requesting is on Long Old Cruise Road from Buffalo Road all the way up to Old Mill Burney. As he mentioned, that segment that is... I'd say 2 3rds of the way up Old Cruz Road. That is a future planned alignment that does not have any current design or plan. It's just where the road would be if that area ever redevelops. So this is a little less beautiful picture of the Avenue 4 lane divided to the Avenue 2 lane divided. Do note that city transportation staff has requested that a 12-foot multi-use path in lieu of the separate bike and pedestrian facilities be used. So reason for the amendment, get a little more into the technicality of it. So the 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan that Campo has, The traffic volumes do not warrant a four lane divided section. The projected volume of about 10,000 vehicles per day fall within the street capacity range for two lanes within the comp plan. Little screenshot of the table here. You can see we're just at the top of the two-lane street, but then the next category is the three-lane street, and that would be a median turn lane. As a part of what we're doing, there will be left turn lanes incorporated into the median area, so any of those turns that need to be made can be accommodated with the two-lane avenue section. Another reason, the context of adjacent land uses. It's pretty rural and residential in nature out there. If the traffic volume doesn't demand it, the two lane divided facility would fit much better within the context of the adjacent land uses. The other thing is there's jurisdictional support for the amendment. It was originally suggested by city transportation staff and then as well as NCDOT and CAMPO are in favor of the change. NCDOT. it's an old cruise roads uh ncdot owned and maintained roadway and so this would also include a bridge that's going to be replaced and so it's less future maintenance less cost for the department in the long term so relevance to the six themes of the comprehensive plan managing our growth This would allow to keep, as we all know, as you build more lanes, it inevitably drives more traffic. Keeping the two-lane section would help to maintain traffic, but also, as Hiram mentioned, allow us to have more pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the corridor, encouraging those uses. Coordinating land use and transportation, we already kind of talked about that, this section, fits much better with the surrounding land uses than the four-lane divided section. Greenprint Raleigh, sustainable development. With the much narrower section, you've got a lot less environmental impacts, specifically at the stream crossing where the bridge is, as well as just less clearing, less grading, more trees can be saved, et cetera. and then growing successful neighborhoods and communities. As was mentioned with this typical section, this will allow us to, with the new bridge that's coming in, have 12-foot multi-use path lanes on both sides of the bridge, providing connectivity all along the corridor, across the bridge, which that's always a challenging area to provide pedestrian connectivity. And then finally, advancement of public health, safety, and general welfare. So less environmental impacts, less adjacent property impacts, promotes alternative transportation options, and the portion that is going to be constructed as part of the applicant's project will be fully funded by private means, allowing for public funds to address other transportation concerns within the city. So yeah, any questions?

No, thank you. We'll reserve four minutes and 52 seconds of your time in case it's needed. And now we will provide 10 minutes for those in opposition to the application request time to speak. So please, I think that we saw more than one person. So remember that we have, is there anybody else wishing to speak? All right, well, please state your name for the record.

Paul Baer. It's interesting, the map that they showed goes right through Coldwater Estates, which is already developed. It also goes right through my property. I don't know if they're proposing a crosswalk so I can go between my bedroom and my kitchen or traffic light. I don't understand this focus on growth. Planning is supposed to be a vision to the future. If your vision to the future looks like Los Angeles and Southern California, that's what it's coming to. Lennar is looking at developing 200 acres off of Old Mill Burnie. Why does every road here have to now look like a shopping center road? Divided highways, divided this, divided that. These are country roads that should maintain the aesthetic of the country. I don't understand why your planning department can't see that Coldwater Springs is in the middle of that proposed two lane divided highway with high value homes there. It's not to be developed. You already approved it being developed. And it goes through my home on Watkins Road, which is in the county. So how is Raleigh taking over and doing a proposal across my property when I'm in the county? Planning is a vision towards the future. Look towards the future. Stop bowing down to the developers who are like a locust, who come in and strip everything, and when it's gone, they leave and move on to the next. The growth keeps growing here. Where's the water coming from? You're running out of water. Durham is buying water from Cary. Where are you gonna buy water from? Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else that would wish to speak in opposition, please? Come to the podium. If there's anybody else that wishes to speak, you're welcome to come sit next to the podium and keep it kind of informal.

Good morning, afternoon. Please state your name for the record. My name is Karen Hindman. I just want to make sure that you guys are aware that this new proposed extension, as he stated earlier, goes straight through Coldwater Springs. The map that they have and have been showing does not include the additional seven lots that were just developed and built. and now homeowners living in at the end extension of Coldwater Springs, which is a cul-de-sac. That proposed road goes directly through all of those homes. I mean right through the homes, not just the lots. And I have a map if you'd like to see it. But it goes directly through those seven additional lots that ECI Construction just completed within this last year and is still finishing. So I just would like to know if you are aware of that.

We generally don't answer question and answer here from the table, so we'd be happy to engage with you outside. We're accepting comments at this time.

But none of the maps do show those seven homes developed, as well as his property through Coldwater Springs. It is a private community of million dollar plus homes. And I think the information that I'm seeing on this amendment and the first plan does not show, correctively, those additional homes. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I believe we have at least one more speaker. Please approach the podium and share your name for the record.

Brian Fogg. Expressing what the young lady and the young gentleman stated, I evidently live right behind him. And it's going to be impactful to my property as well as his. We both moved to the area for the serenity. And with that being said, if this proposal goes through, it's going to disrupt the serenity of this whole subdivision. And like the young lady stated, there are new million plus dollar homes that are being built and have already been built. And I'm afraid that if there's lots available, and they find out about this proposal, they're gonna turn that down. They're not gonna wanna move out there because of the disruption from this proposal. The whole thing, as a whole, to me, the area is quiet. That's probably the reason why we moved out there. It's the reason why I moved out there. And that's going to be, it's going to be interrupted greatly because we're seeing impact from the public that's been out there. We're seeing some of the impact from a new soccer field that's been built out there. And also across Buffalo Road going south, there's a new subdivision being built out there that I don't know whether they're affordable homes or whatever. Not my side of the call. we're seeing the impact on it from the soccer field and the new subdivisions being built out there and the changes. I understand growth is needed and it's important or whatever, but to bring in a new subdivision to impact an older subdivision, which we've been there almost 20 years, to build that subdivision there to make you happy and tear ours down to get your happiness is not what we moved there for. And I'm sure that the people that are from the subdivision and surrounding areas feel that same pain.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi, my name is Cheryl Fogg. I'm the wife of Bryant Fogg. We received this letter not even a week before this meeting. So we tried to let our neighbors know what was going on. A lot of people could not come today because we just got the letter. So I took the initiative to put the word out what was going on. We've contacted the... And they claimed that it wasn't going to affect our neighborhood. We received this map. It was nice to see the color on the walls, but we received the black and white. So you really couldn't see what was really going to go on. So we had to blow it up just to see how it was going to impact the newer houses. in addition to our home, and when we bought our home, like my husband said, we bought our home for the serenity, the quietness, the peacefulness of the rural community. And I understand they wanna make money, but you're impacting my life, my children, and my grandchildren. And when everybody goes home, we're the ones that's got to deal with this, not them. So we just want you to take this into consideration, also to allow us a continuance so more of our neighbors can come out because a lot of people are very upset about this. You're just going to take an older subdivision and bring in a road to appease the people that you want to move into this new subdivision and just forget about us. So please take in consideration those people who have lived out there, and a lot of us have lived out there more than 10, 15 years, and we are a community. We walk our dogs. We have our children up and down the streets. Everybody knows everyone. And if that comes in here, it's going to impact the safety of our neighborhood. Some property values are going to go down. More traffic, and like I said, safety concerns. We have well water. It's gonna probably affect the water and drainage situations that's going on. There's just other things that, and just because we are a community of people, and we do care about each other, and a lot of people know everybody, it may divide a community up. People may move out because of this development coming in here and taking over our little community. So we just want to keep that into consideration, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Fogg.

Good morning. My name is Kyra Staggers. I'm also a resident in Coldwater Springs. I think my request is just if they could look at the map and just reroute that road. As we mentioned, this road would go through like 10 of our homes if it were to happen. We do have million plus dollar homes. You're talking about loss of revenue from taxes as well. And so I just ask that please don't disrupt the neighborhood. Just reroute the road. There's some rural land you could go through. I think that would make us very happy. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Dagger. We have two minutes and seven seconds remaining on that clock. We will reserve if needed. We will keep the public hearing open.

Chair, may I offer some context?

Yes, please.

Thanks. So the proposed road on the street plan was added to the street plan in 2013. The segment of the road that the applicant is interested in has existing dedicated right-of-way already. Their interest is in what improvements they might have to make to the existing right-of-way and road. The proposed segment, again, has been on the map since 2013. The neighbors that we've heard from this morning are owners in a subdivision that was developed under county standards, and so the county did not require the dedication of right-of-way to advance Raleigh's street plan. And I think there's a little bit of confusion. The developer is not going to build, dedicate any new right-of-way. No new right-of-way in that northern segment will be required as part of development of Alderbrook. What I anticipate will happen is that when we review the street plan, in our Reflecting Raleigh process to make a new comprehensive plan that we will redraw the northern piece of that segment to not be on brand new houses with families living in them. we will look again at the viability of that segment, given that development has changed in the area. I just thought that might be helpful, because I understand why these neighbors are upset. I think it's very confusing, so I just wanted to offer that to you all to help you.

Thank you, Ms. Walter. Commissioner Fox, did you have a comment?

I have a clarifying question. I just wanted to see if Hiram could pull up the map again and just, to Bynum's point, just clearly articulate where the right-of-way is dedicated, what parcels this affects.

Would this map be a little more helpful? It still has everything there, but I can.

Sure, can we get really close? Like, zoom in.

I don't think I can unless.

Yeah, there we go. There you go.

Then just if I could, Bynum, Walter, were you saying that when it comes time for this, I guess improvement, it could be rerouted to not go through, I feel like you were saying.

Right, so the development that's in question, Alderbrook noted on the slide here, there Obligation will be in the area where there is already a solid blue line and there is right of way dedicated. The amendment that they're proposing reduces the size of the road for the entirety of the length, which is sort of a reasonable person's, you wouldn't build a four lane and a two lane part of the same road, right? But the part north of Old Cruz Road existing, that's shown in purple here, the part to the north and east of that is not really contemplated for development at this time because of the residential development that has happened. And so the question about how that segment will be realized is when and where is very much up in the air. It's certainly not gonna be on those people's houses. We don't do that.

Thank you.

Bynum, do you mind just speaking more broadly as to the dashed lines in the comp plan and their purpose?

Yeah, so the overall purpose of the street plan is to help us realize functional connectivity across the city for all kinds of travelers, walkers, and the dashed segments on the street plan show future right-of-way, future connections that would help make the grid more functional. They are, and you've had a lot of conversation about street plan recently, right? If it's drawn along the property line, Basically, whoever comes first is gonna be asked to start. In a situation like this, I think a more likely outcome is that the larger parcel to the south of the future road would be asked to advance the alignment if it develops at city standards. That's a little bit of the gap here.

Yeah. So just for clarification standpoint, I want to... make sure that we understand that really what's in front of us right now is deciding whether or not the section that's in bold at the lower portion of the map that's in front of us is two lane divided or four lane. Nothing to do with the future alignment north of this at all. Is that correct? So two lane, four lane on the solid section below near the thing that says Alderbrook. Thank you.

Chair, may I also, just also clarifying, I just wanted to be crystal clear. The map is not a representation of capital projects that the city plans on taking.

You are absolutely correct. Most of the dashed lines on the map, the expectation is that they would be built, constructed as a result of new development as part of the development process. That's right. And I think the way that you said it was great. It's really, what is Alderbrook gonna be asked to build in the existing right-of-way? And the questions about the proposed segment are really for another day.

Commissioner Amakaya.

A couple questions. The proposed segment, the dotted blue line, is not before us today.

It is. The applicant, as part of their request, is asking for the entirety of that segment between Old Milburnie on the north side and Buffalo Road on the south side. They are asking to change the width of all of it. Okay. Right? But there's no expectation that the northern part will happen now.

Okay. But is the northern part that's proposed, that is just so I'm understanding what we're doing. The northern part that's proposed is before city council to determine if that is going to come into play or it's already or because I see that we have because I'm confused. I'm just go ahead and admit this.

So help me like I'm three years old. So you got old Cruz Road right here.

That is already in place. That is already happening. The proposed dotted line is. So that hasn't, has that come before planning commission for that to even split off? So that hasn't even come before us or city?

The proposed alignment is already on the city street plan. It's already part of the adopted comprehensive plan and has been since 2013.

So it's happening?

No. It only happens when private development makes it happen.

Okay.

And there's no private development happening along that segment right now to city standards that would trigger creation of that piece of the road.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand, because we had a lot of questions before. So to the resident's concern, so I'm clear, can I ask, is that dotted line a part of you all's concern? The dotted line is the concern. Not the width of four lanes to two lanes, but that dotted line happening. And you're saying it's proposed in the comprehensive plan, but it's not in concrete yet, it's not in stone yet?

It's not a funded city project.

Okay. So when, and I know that this is not what we're making the decision on, but just for the people who are here and myself, when does that happen? It's not even confirmed that that's going to happen.

It would only happen with private development built to city standards. All of the property of this segment right now is in the county. And the development of the folks who spoke to you today who are concerned about their neighborhood, their neighborhood was developed under county regulations rather than city regulations.

Okay, so the people they may need to talk to in regards to their concern for the spotted line is who?

They could definitely talk to transportation staff as by dimension the city's undergoing a comprehensive plan Amendment right now and one of the things that is being reviewed and will be updated is the street plan As by them also mentioned that street plan with the dotted line was approved in 2013 So we're talking 13 years right of development that's been happening out in this this neighborhood And so our old street plan doesn't take into account all that new development our new street plan will take into account all that new development. And so a lot of those dotted lines are probably going to move. Just because, as Bynum said, City of Raleigh doesn't make it a habit of putting a brand new road through single family homes. That's just not something that we wanna do. But if the neighbors have any concerns that they would like to speak with transportation staff, we have Carter and Barbara here and I'm sure that they're happy to talk to them. afterwards just to note the objections and to bring that up to the Comprehensive Plan committees that are reviewing all of the street plan.

Okay, so we're only voting on that solid line. Four lanes or two lanes?

You're voting on the entire right-of-way with the whole old cruise, but it's just on the map. I'm sorry.

Just on the map. Just because sometimes when I'm asking a question, I get a little lost in the answer. So we're voting on the whole area. Right now that dotted line is not in play yet. It is on the proposed map from 2013. But development has happened in this area because that was obviously 13 years ago. So some of that may happen. Some of it may not or it may not look like what we're looking at right now. But what we're voting on is whether we're going to extend this to four lanes or two lanes.

No, you're not. Two lanes to four lanes. You're just voting on the map. I want to say the map is like an aspirational thing, right? The map is not a project. Can I get in?

I'm sorry. Thank you. Because the depth is.

Yeah, but I don't want to say you're extending the road because you're not extending the road. Right. Yeah. No, that's not what's happening.

No, we're not extending the road, but we're voting on all of it. But whether it's four lanes or two lanes. On the map only. Anything other than that, y'all have to talk to city staff. or maybe even county, because that's in county area, not incorporated into the city area. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Fox, I note that Commissioner Cochran had her hand up first.

So I'm in favor of this, because what I heard from the opposition is that they would like a smaller road, and what we would be doing is voting that when this gets developed, as it gets developed, it would be two lanes instead of four lanes, which I think actually does align a little bit more with what I'm hearing from the neighborhood of what they want is a smaller road. I know you want to preserve the character, but this would get you closer than making it a four lane divided. And then it would also help the developer make a narrow road so that developments more efficient and to the city's point it would Reduce the impact of hard service in the area as it gets developed and because of those three things I'm in I'm in favor of this, but I'm happy to hear everyone else's take on it if I'm misinterpreting it I Think Commissioner Fox would hadn't was next I

Yeah, I think the way that I'm thinking about this is the vote in question is on the cross section of a future connection that may be built based on private development. It is again not, the map is not representative of city plans for capital improvement projects. So in that sense the alignment I'm hearing is to be adjusted during the Reflecting Raleigh process. The width of it we are voting on today and in that sense I'm supportive of it and at the appropriate time I'd like to make a motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Fox. I wanna make sure that everybody really understands what's going on here before we vote on it. To the neighbors that are in the audience, from where I see, from where I sit, I think there's virtually no chance of your house being impacted in any way by this road. This is just, if somebody bought the whole neighborhood and decided to build a mall, then they would build this road. And it would probably not even be where this says it's going to be. But nobody will ever build a road on your property and take your property from you due to this line. So I don't see this as a danger to the old, to the Coldwater, Coldwater Stream? Coldwater? Coldwater Springs. Coldwater Springs neighborhood. This road is decades from being built, if it will be built. We have a headache with these kinds of dotted lines in lots of our cases. They cause confusion. They can be hard to enact, because these aren't street plans. An engineer didn't go out here and decide that a street could actually go here. It was a planner with a mouse on a map. So these are imaginary lines. There's no plans. There's no funding. this road is not gonna be built anytime in the near future.

Yeah, well, and again, I think if I could, Mr. Chair, just follow the conversation here at the commission table, but also with our colleagues on planning and development staff. I really appreciate the clarification because at first, hearing from the residents, this level of alarm and concern about potential traffic lights in our living rooms and kitchens, I mean, that was outrageous, but it is helpful to understand that. And I appreciate the comment made about thinking about the future, planning for the future. Ultimately, the comprehensive plan is that guidance, right? But it's also just, it's like planning guidance. And then when you actually get down into it and you have actual development come about, that's when you get into the details of the alignment of this and that and the other. And I think especially with these dotted lines, I really appreciate this clarification. First of all, we're gonna reevaluate this with the new comprehensive plan we're in the middle of right now for 2050. But then ultimately, when it does come time, to build and develop in the Coldwater Springs area, this alignment will be reconfigured to be appropriate to the context. And again, I think as our colleagues, I think Commissioner Cochran, I really appreciate the way you've sort of summarized it as far as the amendment that we're voting on is actually closer in alignment with what's been expressed by our residents and so. I think I too, I feel much more comfortable with this now and I would feel comfortable moving forward. Although I would acknowledge if I were living in this area and I got a letter like a week ago about this change happening in my backyard and I have this like black and white small map to look at, I too would be, you know, I think reasonably alarmed about what's going on. So I just, you know, I really appreciate the residents who have come out to speak about this. but from what I understand, I think based on the conversation at the commission, our colleagues on staff, I would feel comfortable moving forward with a vote.

Commissioner McKay.

I do have a question because I think that we're all in alignment that if the community is opposed to the shift over, then they may be opposed to four lanes cutting through some area in general. And our purview is not the dotted line. We don't control that. We only control whether or not you're only going to get two lanes or four lanes on that solid side is what we're voting on. But my question is to the lady and the gentleman who came up and talked about how they just found out about this. What is the parameters around community engagement when roads are being, I know what it is when you know, clients want to build or rezone a property for commercial or whatever like that. But what is the engagement requirements and the good faith efforts from the city side when road developments and things like this are happening?

Is that a question for staff, for transportation staff?

Whoever can answer the question.

As with rezonings and things like that, we did a notice. We did a courtesy notice of a 100-foot buffer from the line of the proposed, so the entirety of Old Cruise Road right there, the solid line and the dotted line proposed went 100 feet out, but we followed the same regulations of mailing notice 10 days prior to the meeting or before that, so it's our standard process.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Walters.

I just want to thank the neighbors for coming out. I know that city of Raleigh and any city of anywhere planning and development regulations can be really complicated and confusing. And so, I'm sorry that this has been confusing for you all. And I just wanna reiterate the scope of our decision being really just about whether or not this road will be two lanes or four lanes. And what's being considered here is not the alignment of the road. And with that, I think I would like to, I would like to say that I would like to move on and make a motion to approve this.

Can I read this?

THE REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE OLD CRUISE ROAD FROM AN AVENUE FOUR LANE DIVIDED TO AN AVENUE TWO LANE DIVIDED STREET ON MAP T1 STREET PLAN BETWEEN BUFFALO ROAD AND OLD MILBURNEY ROAD IS CONSISTENT OVERALL WITH THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT WILL MAINTAIN SERVICE FOR CURRENT AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA WHILE LOWERING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN AND NON-VEHICULAR SAFETY AND COMFORT reducing environmental impacts to the surrounding sensitive areas and providing access to greenways and natural features of the area.

Thank you. We have a motion for approval. Is there a second? Second. I think I'll give that one to Commissioner Cochran. So we have a motion to approve. CP 126 from Commissioner Neptune has been seconded by Commissioner Walters and has been seconded by Commissioner Cochran. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And I'd like to thank everybody that came out. I said this before already today, but it's a lot of work and it can be intimidating. So I really appreciate y'all engaging.

Can I also add to the residents that have come out? If you all would speak to your city council representation about the road deviation that you all are concerned about and your county people, feel free to, I'm willing to accept the email if there's any support that I can give on understanding the concern. And you said you had a map. Is there any way that I can just see it for my own edification? Thank you all for coming out.

Thank you, everybody, for your attention. Thank you for the discussion on this, and we are going to move on to our next item of business. Next up on the list will be rezoning Z1828. Is that right, after I messed up the whole order?

Or did you want to, did you, you had mentioned possibly doing Z16?

Z16, I apologize. Yeah, I'm... I'm getting my numbers confused. Yeah, we're gonna move F5 up to next and we're gonna hear rezoning Z1626 North Boylan Avenue. And we will hear a presentation from Jacob Hunt. The public hearing is now open.

All right. Good morning, chair and commissioners. My name is Jacob Hunt. This is rezoning Z1626 at 309 North Borland Avenue. The request today is to rezone about 1.15 acres from office mixed use three stories with a detached frontage and the NCOD to a commercial mixed use 12 stories with an urban limited frontage. Your deadline for action is August 22nd. Zoning in this area is pretty mixed. We have some downtown mixed use, some commercial mixed use, and then in the area surrounding the site, the office mixed use. Also pretty different height scales going from seven to 20 stories in the surrounding area and three on the property and in the NCOD, the North Boylan NCOD. As you can see, like I said, different mix of uses, downtown to the east, office mixed use surrounding, and then some school uses to the west here. This is a view of the site. There's an existing commercial building, one story, and a parking on the site today. This request would increase the maximum number of units from 7 to about 31. It would also increase the potential for office due to the height increases and retail would go up by about 1,000 square feet. This area has a higher walk score than average, higher transit score, bike score, transportation cost index and job proximity. This is a downtown location so all those high levels and high scores make sense for this location. Bus service is well served by Route 6, 8, and 11, which do a combination of different routes into North Raleigh, also located because of its downtown location to possible connections that would be other stops and other routes throughout the city. This would add to the housing supply with that increased height. It doesn't include any subsidized units today. It would permit a variety of housing types with smaller units and smaller lots and is very walkable to the transit stops in the nearby area. Area residents are less likely to be racial minorities than the city average and are less likely to be low income than the city average. The request is inconsistent. with the office and residential mixed use future land use designation. CX is not typically a district that implements that future land use designation. The urban limited frontage is consistent with the downtown urban form designations. There's multiple overlapping urban form designations in this area. But we do find that the request is consistent. It is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. Like I said, it is inconsistent with the future land use map of office and residential, but consistent with the urban form map. A lot of the consistent policies speak to housing, providing additional housing for the city, providing housing in areas well served by transit, providing housing in areas that are walkable and pedestrian friendly, providing correct frontages for the downtown area and providing mixed use development. There are a number of downtown specific policies that this application is compatible with that speak to heights and uses in the downtown edge that promote high density development in our downtown and that encourage housing there and face entrances and frontages to the street in an appropriate manner. Some inconsistent policies are the future land use, which I discussed, the fact that this will have some retail uses in an area not specifically designated for those retail uses, and that there is a downtown policy that speaks to height guidance in areas that have an overlay, and that when those heights are increased, additional planning processes might be suggested. Not required, but suggested. I think I skipped over it, but this is a general use rezoning today, so there are no conditions included in this application. It would just be a new zoning designation. Again, your deadline for action is August 22nd. There are no known outstanding issues with this application. Upcoming dates for meetings are August 11th. This does require a future land use map amendment associated with the request, and that would change the future land use map to community mixed use. As you can see here, that would connect it to the same future land use to the properties just to the south. And that is it from staff.

Thank you, Mr. Hunt. At this time, we will now provide 10 minutes for the applicant to present the case.

Thank you. Good morning again. Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group. Here on behalf of the applicant, and I have with me today Christopher and Jill Eichmann. They are the owners of both the property at 309 North Boylan Avenue, as well as of the Leela Improv Studio, which exists there on the site. So this is only the second location of the Lila Improv Studio. There was an original location in San Francisco still operating, while this location has relatively recently opened. So the current operations on the site include offering improv workshops and classes, and the piece that's missing is the ability to have a theater on this site. The OX zoning does not allow for that theater use, which would really complete their vision for the studio. And so that is the pressing item that has us here before you today is getting that additional use. It's actually, it would be considered indoor recreation, something that is permitted in the requested CX district. So that is the more urgent matter. However, in any major investment that a family makes in their property, they're going to step back a little bit and look at their long-term goals. And so, although there's not a proposal to redevelop the site today, in fact, they've recently made a major investment in renovating and doing some environmental remediation on the property, so definitely no short-term plan to redevelop the site. But looking long-term, since we're already in this process, they decided to step back and think about how they could build out their arts community in this area. as well as simply look around the neighborhood and see what are the recent trends in zoning around them. And so that's what we've done in putting together this proposal that's before you today. So the two primary changes being that use and the height. Just for some additional context before we really get started, here you can see the studio over there on the right hand side of the screen. This is the frontage along North Boylan Avenue and you see those two properties to the south already zoned to allow for 10 stories. So we started in looking at what sort of underlying zoning district we should request here. We started by looking at the most similar example that we have in downtown, which is the Burning Coal Theater. It's a larger facility than Lela would be able to construct here. And that is adjacent to Historic Oakwood. It's near the corner of Person and Polk. That site is in DX. It's a little bit of an island, and the yellow area right next to that zoning district is the R10, which is the Oakwood Historic District. So we looked at that example and then considered what zoning we have nearby. And directly across the street, we do have that DX downtown mixed use zoning, that was one of the options considered, as well as the CX commercial mixed use to the northeast there. Ultimately, either of those zoning districts would have achieved the use that we're looking for, and so we went with the less intensive use, which is that CX. So that's how we got to the use request before you today, but then in turning to height, why 12 stories? So that height, the existing height today, given all the overlays, is about two and a half stories, maybe three, depending on how it gets developed. But that is not aligned with the surrounding zonings that have happened recently. So looking just in that block that is between North Boylan Avenue and St. Mary Street, we have an assortment of different zoning districts and different heights. Those numbers in the blue boxes on the right, those do account for any zoning conditions. So you won't see a 10-story zoning on the zoning map. It says 12. But this reflects what the zoning conditions actually allow on those sites. And then similarly, looking east-west, we see here, we heard about that downtown transition. That's exactly what's proposed here. So on the far side of Glenwood Avenue, we have 40-story zoning. The entire width of that block between Glenwood and North Boylan is zoned for 20 stories. And of course, we have the 10 stories already zoned there immediately to the south adjacent to the site. We feel given this context, the 12-story proposal appropriate so given that you know sort of both the long-term plans for the site as well as just looking at what is appropriate in this area from a policy and trends perspective we felt that this made the most sense and our entire team is available for questions thank you thank you for your presentation we will reserve five minutes and 24 seconds

for use as necessary, and we will now provide an opportunity for those in opposition to the application to speak. All right, well, seeing no one in opposition, we'll bring it back to the table, keep the public hearing open, and invite discussion, debate. Commissioner Neptune?

Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to move forward. Would you like to make a motion, please? Yes, please. Thank you. I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 23rd, 2026, contained the agenda materials and I recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Walters. And is there any further discussion or debate?

Just a question on my part for folks with more knowledge of this history of this area than I. Could someone explain kind of the background on the North Boylan Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District? If that's going to be removed here, what's kind of the background for that whole, for that being put in place in the first place and the purpose it was meant to serve?

Yeah, thank you. Let me pull up the regulations. The North Portland and COD and all of our neighborhood conservation overlay districts are meant to provide additional regulation beyond base zoning for like bulk and height and setback typically. So removing the neighborhood conservation overlay district would revert standards to the base zoning. In this case, they're requesting for 12-story zoning.

Thank you. And Commissioner Omekye.

It's more of a comment than a question. Well, maybe it is a question. It seems like 12 stories in this area with the transition seem a bit, even though some areas are zoned for it, that's not what's currently built there. Even in the pictures that they showed us, everything is about one or two stories. So 12 stories with no transition seems a bit drastic to me. And I am I'm in favor of NCODs. I believe that they're put in place for their namesake to conserve neighborhoods, the characteristics of the neighborhoods, the character, the culture of the neighborhood, things of that nature. And while I think that rezoning this and gaining some height in housing especially to put in a theater for improv, I think is a good idea. But I am concerned about how tall they're looking to build this and the fact that we do have to remove the neighborhood overlay district. And the reason why I'm concerned about that is they were put in place for reasons to maintain character and things like I just mentioned. And removing them because of their inconvenience kind of violates the point of their existence. So that's my thought and concern about this.

Thank you for your comments, Commissioner Omekaya. Commissioner Fox?

I'd like to call the vote.

All right, there's been a motion for approval from Commissioner Neptune and a second from Commissioner Walters and the vote has been called. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes six to one. Commissioner Omekaya, would you like to add to your statement?

No, that's just it. I mean, I think that I knew it was going to pass, but I think that what you all are building there is okay. I just, for the record, am concerned about removing the neighborhood conservation overlay district. They're there for a reason. If we keep removing them, then what's the point of having them and trying to conserve historic neighborhoods and the lack of transitions to 12 stories from the surrounding areas, even with what is currently able to be built there, what is currently existing there is concerning to me.

Mr. Chair, if I could just briefly follow Ms. Omekaya and acknowledge.

I believe that the vote has been made. Let's save it for after the meeting, please. Okay. We'll move on.

I'm trying to get this last meeting in, this last one in.

Well, I'm right there with you. Okay.

So thank you. We'll move on quickly to our next order of business, and maybe we can fit one more case in today. Make sure I call the right one this time. We'll shoot stretch goals. All right, and so next up is rezoning Z1826 Pool Road, and we will hear a presentation from Hiram Marziano, and we'll open the public hearing now. Thank you.

Can't bring my glasses on. Sorry. There we go. This is Hiram Marziano, Planning and Development. This is Z1826. This is for a portion of the property at 6904 and Zero Pool Road. The request is to rezone 1.984 acres from Residential 30, which is in Wake County, to R10. This is also associated with an annexation case that will go before City Council, AX1726. Deadline for action will be August 22nd. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential. There is some commercial a little bit further east towards Hodge Road. I also point out that this is adjacent to plan development for Banks 20, and part of their requirements and conditions is to offer up land for annexation for a fire station. This is part of that request. The site here, it's located, there's a... Hiram, did you say banks?

What was the word you said?

Banks, B-A-N-K-S, 20. It's a development that would be coming through this area. Okay, thank you. I told you you gave me a toy to play with. I'm going to find reasons to use it. So the area itself is largely residential in nature. It is starting to develop some. There is commercial again over there towards Hodge. There is an auto yard over there just to the east as well. Most of that's county zoning and Knightdale zoning to the north above Pool Road. A little zoomed in here, the church outreach center there on this property would not be included in the rezoning or the annexation. Here's a shot from the street, one side over there where Pool Road and Blankenham, is it Blankenham? I believe that's the name of it, road is, and then from the other edge, here's the proposed annexation boundary survey, so that gives you a little more idea of what the rezoning boundary as well would be. Change in entitlement, because this would be going to request at R10, we still look at the possibility of residential entitlement. Changes and setbacks have been a little bit more reduced and more units than what would be allowed under R30. This area itself does have a lower walk score than average for the city, lower transit score, lower bike score, does have average transportation costs and a lower job proximity. The closest bus route is Barwell New Hope. There are no connecting sidewalks, there's not walkable distance and you would walk down towards the Neuse River where there is a nice parking greenway. Adds to the housing supply does not include subsidized units. It does permit a variety of housing types, smaller units that are allowed, smaller lots, but not walking distance of any transit. Area residents are more likely to be linguistically isolated as compared to the city average, and the median rent increase is actually lower compared to the city average for this area, but I also attribute that to there's not a lot of development in the area at this time. R10 request is inconsistent with low-scale residential designation on the future land use map. There is no urban form guidance for this section. Overall, this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan while being inconsistent with the future land use map. Some consistent policies include compact development, location of the growth, housing variety, the fire and emergency response facilities. Again, this is for a proposed fire station eventually. Inconsistent policies include zoning infrastructure impacts, response time standards, and inconsistency with the future land use map. Should proceed with the annexation, we do request that the future land use map be amended. As the request is to be donated to the city for a fire department, we are recommending public facilities as the claim designation for this area. Deadline for action is August 22nd. Upcoming meetings will be August 11th.

Thank you, Mr. Marziano. At this time, we will allow 10 minutes for the applicant to speak. If you would please approach the podium.

Left right. Thank you. So I do have a PowerPoint, but I am hopeful that we don't need it. So I'll just actually forward to this slide right here to give you some context. So I'm sorry, I'm Anne Anderson with the Morningstar Law Group on behalf of the applicant. And some nuance there. As you have seen from your packet, the actual proposed end user of this site is not my client, but the city of Raleigh for proposed fire station and the reasoning behind it is that you can see in the gray area there there is a future large residential development in the works and In 2023, when the city of Raleigh approved the rezoning for that large development, which is the Banks 20 that Hiram referred to earlier, they imposed a condition that the developer donate land to the city of Raleigh for the construction of a fire station, for the obvious purpose of making sure that folks in this area are safe. And that is why we are here. So this parcel, this partial parcel of land is proposed for the construction by the city of a fire station and annexation and rezoning are required to facilitate that. so in order to meet that condition that the city imposed and in order to allow the development to move forward and most importantly to allow the city to come up to the national fire protection standards requirements for this area we request approval of a recommendation thank you all right thank you for your presentation

Is there anybody present that wishes to speak against the application? Seeing no one present to speak against, we will keep the hearing open and bring it back to the Commission table for discussion and comments. Does anybody have any questions, discussion? Commissioner Fox?

I was gonna say I was fully in support of this as it's actually implementing conditions from a previous zoning case, so I'd like to motion at the appropriate time.

I remember this coming through as one of my cases in my first couple of years, and it's exciting to maybe be able to actually do something to help the fire department. So yes, Commissioner Omekai.

I have a couple of questions from my own edification. Will the Neuse River be impacted by the use of the fire station's water or anything at all? No? Just a little confirmative answer.

And I know Sally's coming up, but the fire department has done a feasibility study for this site, so I believe that water and stormwater were already taken into account in that feasibility study.

Okay. Thank you. And will access to the church be impacted by... the construction of this site.

I'll help you, Ann. I've been working with Ann and Molly on this. This is kind of a big deal for the city of Raleigh to get this land. No, the church will continue to use Blankenham Road. Blankenham is going to be rerouted through this site to make more room for the fire station, but the church will continue to have access off of that street.

Okay, even while the station is being developed.

That is correct, yes.

Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion or comments, I would like to call for a motion. Commissioner Fox.

In regards to case Z1826, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 23rd, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment. This recommendation also includes an amendment to the future land use map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement. Second.

We have a motion from Commissioner Fox and has been seconded by Commissioner Omokae to recommend approval for Z1826. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you and I think checking with the commission, can y'all stick around and try to get this last case done or do we have a hard stop at noon? few more minutes we can afford to lose maybe one okay but we'll still keep our quorum well when you gotta leave you gotta leave but we'll go as far as we can till then so i'd like to call up our next case that will be z1426 on gorman street and we will hear a presentation from jacob hunt and we will open the public hearing and we will also wish commissioner fox well thank you

Mr. Chair, is this Commissioner Fox's last meeting?

Indeed it is, and she has requested a low-key exit.

We will respect the Commissioner's wishes.

I'm imagining like a Chili's happy, happy birthday. Which is not what she wants.

Back to our business at hand, thank you. Still good morning. Jacob Hunt again for Z1426. This is an assemblage of properties on Gorman Street just south of Western Boulevard. This is a request to rezone about three and a half acres from RX3 with the transit overlay and the special residential parking overlay to RX7 with conditions and the same overlays in place. Neither of those overlays are being removed. So essentially this is just a request for an increase in height with conditions added. Again, deadline for action is August 22nd. Zoning in the area is a mix of NX, RX, and OX. This is the blue to the east here is the far west of NC State's campus on Western Boulevard. The closest RX7 zoning is a little ways to the southeast of this property. Future land use here looks at low-scale residential to the south of this site, higher-scale residential in this area, commercial development on western to the north, and then, as I said, NC State is to the east. If you look at the site today, it's made up of three different housing types. On the intersection of Gorman to the north, is a existing low scale or smaller apartment development. Further down on Gorman are two detached homes. And then on Carlton Avenue is a quadplex that exists today. So a few different housing types that exist on this assemblage of properties currently. The applicant has provided some conditions with this. Those include the reduction in some allowed uses, Tattoo, taxidermist, wedding chapels. They've also provided that they will be building a rapid flashing beacon to cross Gorman Street at the intersection of Gorman and Sherman Avenue. That's at that northeast corner. That was a request from our transportation colleagues. Also, they'll be providing existing residents with enhanced notice before early termination of any leases. and relocation assistance if those leases are terminated. Existing ZIP versus proposed zoning, this would drastically increase the number of units on site from 187 to 483. Setbacks remain the same because this is the same base zoning district with the same overlays in place. This site is well served by transit, has a high walk score, has a high bike score, good access to jobs and transportation. This is along the future bus rapid transit route. This is within a station area for that route, the Western route. But currently, the development is served by Route 12, which runs east-west through the city, as well as GO Triangle Bus Service, which runs from, in some cases, Cary or Holly Springs to downtown Raleigh and has stops along Western. This would add to the housing supply with that increase in height. It doesn't include any subsidized units, would permit a variety of housing with smaller units and smaller lots, and as I said, within walking distance of transit. Area residents are more likely to be racial minorities than the city average and are more likely to be low income than the city average in this area. The request for RX7CU is consistent with higher scale residential, the future land use map for this area supports this. and as well as the urban form map supports this request due to the fact that the TOD overlay essentially places frontage requirements on the site today, and with the request keeping that, those would stay in place in the future. We found this consistent with the future land use map, the comp plan, and the urban form map. Consistent policies really go back to supporting housing in areas that are well served by transit, a more compact development style. Policies that align with our TOD and our bus rapid transit systems and those station areas. This is within one of those station area plans and aligns with those objectives as well as the frontage as I discussed. No inconsistent policies were identified with this redevelopment and your deadline for action is again August 22nd.

Thank You mr. Hunt at this time we will provide an opportunity for the applicant to present and we will put ten minutes on the clock for you I apologize we're losing our quorum and so we're gonna have to bring this meeting to an end my clients flew in from Philadelphia last night if we could go through it I think we could do it pretty efficiently

I will fly through, how about that?

I don't think we're gonna make it. But you can have as much time as Commissioner Omokai is willing to give you.

All right, Collier Marsh with Parker Poe, 301 Fayetteville Street. Have applicants, clients flew in from Philadelphia last night for this meeting, so appreciate the accommodation. Michael Apt and Justin Wright with Kilbane Development here. Just to kind of summarize and to spare everybody, this is the rare situation where we've got overwhelming comprehensive plan consistency, 15 consistent policies, zero inconsistent. The city's facing pressures for growth, looking for opportunities to grow, and this is a convergence of comprehensive plan policy that supports it and a community and surrounding neighborhood that also supports it. We've had positive feedback from the neighborhood. We're asking to go up from RX3 to RX7, which we think is a reasonable adjustment, to allow for that growth. And again, no inconsistencies, no community pushback. Would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you for your presentation. That was the fastest one I think I've ever received. Is there any opposition wishing to speak? Since there is no opposition, we will bring it back to the table. If there's any discussion or questions for the applicant or for staff, Commissioner Omekai?

I saw on the slide that it said the relocation assistance would be provided within 120 days notice. Is the assistance consistent with the living cost of the current location and is it consistent with the cost of living for the surrounding area?

So it's modeled after recent conditions within this district. I haven't done those exact measures, but this has been requested of several recent cases by city council. It was not requested of us, but we made that proffer. This is student housing. There's no intention of breaking leases early. You try to time it, students leave, then the project starts. This is just a safeguard to say when, if for some reason leases are broken early, we would provide not only advance notice longer than is otherwise required, but also relocation assistance.

Ms. O'Connor. Commissioner Neptune and back to Commissioner Omekai.

Just briefly, I want to acknowledge for the good of the commission, as I was making an effort to use the restroom facilities, I ran into Councilmember Jane Harrison, within whose district I believe this is unfolding, and we actually discussed this item with regard to this transition and support for residents who may be disrupted by this sort of additional investment that I think we're seeking in housing stock and supply. And I know it was acknowledged how much we appreciate that support. It is that trade-off that we come across from time to time as we continue to grow and we want to see this additional housing stock. Whenever you see that disruption of you know, potential, you know, pre-existing affordable housing stock and supply. So I just know, just in conversation with the council member who is well aware of this issue, it was acknowledged just the appreciation for support for residents who might be in a position to be, you know, relocated. So I just know I appreciate that as well, and I'm prepared when the time is right to make a motion for approval.

Commissioner Omekye?

If we could make a, if they're ready to make a motion. Would you be willing to vote yes or no now?

I would like to make a motion to approve this. This is very similar to a case that we previously approved on Gorman Street that's student housing with the same conditions. So I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated June 23rd, 2026 contained in the agenda materials. to recommend approval of the zoning amendment, zoning case Z1426. All right, thank you.

We have a motion from Commissioner Walters. Second. We have a second from Commissioner Neptune. Any further discussion? There's a motion and a second to approve Z1426. All those in favor? Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously, and with that, we will lose our quorum. Thank you, Commissioner Omekai, and thank you to everybody for sticking around a little late. Does this mean that we need to disband, or can we go through with the board comments and the manager's report?

We're technically not able to do any more board business, so with respect to the report, just as received, right, from you?

As received. Everybody read the report. Thank you. Meeting's adjourned.