Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

904 and I'd like to call this in my monthly meeting of the Planning Commission to order For the record this meeting is being held on August 11th 2026 in the council chamber of the Raleigh Municipal Building We're confirmed that we have quorum, and we'd like to welcome Commissioner McAllister to his first session. He's our counted appointed representative. Commissioner Otwell and Commissioner Walters have requested to be excused from this meeting.

As other commissioners join, we'll note their time of arrival in the meeting minutes.

Before we vote on the consent agenda, I'll open the floor for public comment as it relates to any items not included on the agenda that was distributed last week. Can I get a show of hands of anyone from the public who'd like to make a comment? Seeing none. Oh, sorry. Please come up and state your name and address. And we'll allow three minutes.

Good morning. My name is Melinda Lipsy. I live at 4316 Azalea Drive. I was not expecting to walk in the door and speak, so I was expecting to get the lay of the land first. I wanted to come and comment that I just, Street received a notice that a lawyer is working with a developer for rezoning some area that falls behind our property, and so I would love to, I'm here to understand more about how y'all work and make those decisions, but I also want just put on the record that we We are concerned. The area behind us is well-treated. It is Crabtree Creek. It is a variety of things, and we've already had one very large development of apartments and condos go in behind us that has definitely affected quality of life for a variety of homes in our neighborhood. We are wanting to understand how y'all make the decisions and I would like to put on record that We would prefer that that not go in behind us We would love the neighborhood that we moved into To maintain the the character that it currently has and believe that that's in line with the various plans and future land use and all of that for all of us to live in a city that still has trees and Still has a creek that runs to the river and so on so but for the rest of the time I'm just gonna sit and listen and learn how y'all do what you do and what decisions you make so thank you for letting me comment and Thank you Thank You miss ellipse II any other public comment

Seeing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Our agenda today consists of one old case noted as D1 and six new cases noted as E1 through six. Do any of the commissioners wish to remove an item for a separate discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented?

So moved.

We have a motion from Commissioner Baird. And a second from Commissioner Shelburne. All in favor? Any opposed? It passes unanimously to stick with the agenda before us. The next thing on our agenda is approval of the meeting minutes. Commissioners, have you had a chance to review them and are there any corrections? If there are none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes from January 23rd, 2026.

I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from January 23rd, 2026. Oh, did I say January? Sorry, June 23rd, 2026. Apologies.

So we have a motion from Commissioner Omekai and a second from Commissioner Sanchez. All in agreement? Any opposed? That passes unanimously to approve the meeting minutes from June 23rd, 2026. Sorry, those I'm sure they were fine as well. Moving on to old business. Our first case in old business is Z4325 at 6309 Litchford Road. I'm gonna, we'll start this by hearing a presentation from staff.

Good morning, Hiram Marziano, Planning and Development. This is Z4325 returning. This was deferred at your last meeting in June to allow the applicant to revise conditions. They have submitted those. We received signed conditions last week with staff edits included. Just to refresh, this is a 3.79 acre property on Litchford. It's a three property to Johnsdale Road. The request is to rezone from R4 to R6 conditional use. This is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the future land use map. Refresher where the site is. Changes to the conditions include all the changes received up to this point. So here, replacing boarding house with cemetery. Some corrections on some terminology in condition number three. Former conditions four and five have been replaced and shuffled around a little bit. Former condition number six is now condition number four. but then adding in condition number five, which does require the developer to request a driveway permit from NCDOT on the Litchford Road. Then condition six deals with if that permit is, access permit is granted, then the following apply, the dwelling density would be limited to 47 units, and requirements for how access from Johnsdale would be handled. There's a lot here, so come back, but send your packets too. Sorry for the number of slides, this is a lot of text. Condition number seven deals with if that is not granted, then dwelling units would be capped at 32 units. And then they added in a storm water condition number eight to deal with the two 10 and 25 year storms at every point of discharge. Again, existing zoning R4, we estimate 32 units. They're proposing 47 under R6. There's your setbacks. This is consistent with low-scale residential. R6 is consistent in that district or that designation. So we do feel that based on review that is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the future land use map, some of the consistent policies here deal with missing middle housing, additional housing, zoning for housing. Inconsistent policies previously dealt with inconsistencies due to the language of the conditions involving the access on Johnsdale. Since they've made those corrections, discussions with transportation, we feel they are now consistent with what was previously inconsistent, which was conditional use of language and then the impact to infrastructure has been mitigated due to that condition language. This is the last meeting for action since your deadline is August 22nd, and available for questions. Like I said, there was a lot of text in those conditions, so I'm happy to go back over them and discuss.

Commissioners, would you like for him to review that condition now or do you want to review that as part of our discussion?

I think we can review it now so it can be added to the discussion.

Yeah, I think we'd like to dive into that condition right now.

All right. So with those conditions, the changes again deal with the John's Dill access. So developer, condition number five now has to require them to go out and seek that access off Litchford, so that would be the primary request. Should they get that, then the access from Johnsdale would have to include only emergency gate access for utilities and emergency services. Until such time as roadway improvements to Johnsdale, basically from the intersection up to the property are, made, condensing this down to its boilerplate. So no improvements to Johnsdale, only gated emergency access would be off of Johnsdale at the point after development.

Thank you, Hiram. We're now going to open up the public hearing. After the last time we heard this case, the applicant had two minutes and 36 seconds remaining and the opposition had 25 seconds remaining. We're going to give each party additional two minutes. So we'll start with hearing from the applicant and they'll start with four minutes and 36 seconds.

Good morning, Vice Chair Cochran, members of the Planning Commission. Toby Coleman with Smith Anderson here on behalf of the property owner and applicant for this rezoning. Appreciate you all taking the time. This has been a rezoning that has gone sort of up and down the chain and we've worked very hard to try to come up with rezoning conditions that address the neighborhood's concerns and that's why you've seen some of the complications this app this presentation will attempt to try to unpack that a little bit recognizing that as Hiram said it is a lot of words and can be a little hard to take in just if you're looking at it on the screen really quickly. To start out, I wanted just to level set things. This is the staff report again. Hiram showed it. I just want to emphasize, under the current zoning, staff has calculated that you can build up to 32 units, homes, town homes, on the site as is. So there's been, I think, a lot of discussion with the neighbors and others about the maximum number of homes that would be allowed. Just wanna emphasize that what we're talking about currently is 32 homes. So our rezoning proposal to go up to R6 would increase the total number of homes by up to 15. And it would only happen if the property has access from Litchford Road and if any access onto Johnsdale Road is restricted to only utility and emergency vehicles. That's the zoning condition in six that's set out there. If DOT does not allow development to take access from Litchford Road, and it has to go from Johnsdale Road, then the current zone, basically the current density that's allowed now would be the maximum density. So you basically would only be allowed to only develop up to 32 homes. So there would be no increase in density impacting Johnsdale Road. Wanna unpack that a little bit more. So one of the big issues we heard from the neighbors from the start, and the neighbors appeared at this commission, we had three neighborhood meetings, including a neighborhood meeting last month to discuss these zoning conditions, and neighbors were very active in, in fact, going to council on multiple occasions, and talking about their concern about Johnsdale Road, in large part, as I understand it, because of the high school access. So first, if you develop this site, you must go to DOT and say we want to take access from Litchford Road. Can't skip over that site. If DOT says yes, you must put a gate restricting access to Johnsdale Road such that only access for utility vehicles and emergency vehicles is allowed. Only at that point can you develop more than 32 homes on the site. Once that is developed and once you have a gate there, it cannot be removed until Johnsdale Road is improved. This is because what we heard from neighbors over and over is do not put more density on Johnsdale Road, do not put more traffic on Johnsdale Road until the road is improved. And so that condition says you can't remove the gate until curb and sidewalk are installed on the road and the road is widened to the existing neighborhood street standards. So that's it. The only other thing I'll note is that during our neighborhood meeting in July, we were asked to add a stormwater condition that increased stormwater protections. We've added that. The request was to go basically one tick above what the city currently requires. That's what we did. We've tried to address the neighborhood concerns as best we can. Obviously, there's a number of neighbors here who are opposed to it. But we are available for questions as is convenient for you.

Thank you, Mr. Coleman. So there's only two seconds remaining for the applicant. We'll now hear from the opposition. We'll have two minutes and 25 seconds for the opposition.

Good morning, my name is Natasha Wells. I live at 6320 Johnsdale Road, which is the property directly adjacent to the site that we've had in question today. My Duolingo just popped up, sorry, one second.

The owl wants me to practice Spanish.

I'm a 22-year-old Air Force veteran. I didn't grow up in Raleigh. I chose it. My family settled here because a VA loan made that possible, and I'm standing here today because I want this place to stay the way that it is. I'm speaking today on behalf of my neighbors on Johnsdale and the residents of Litchford who have asked us to carry their concerns forward. As Mr. Coleman mentioned, R4 zoning is already permitted on this site. The question for the Commission today isn't whether this land gets built, it's whether 47 units on an LOSF corridor without a site plan serves Raleigh's growth responsibly, or if it just serves the developer's interests. Since we last met, a gate has been introduced as a concession, and I'd ask you to consider what this is and what it is not. It isn't infrastructure, it isn't a sidewalk, and it isn't a traffic signal. Commissioner Neptune acknowledged while walking our street last week that it was difficult to envision how even 30 homes could safely fit on this parcel, and a gate does not change that math. Using the city's own crash records, there have been over 830 reported crashes within half a mile of the site over the last 10 years. Nearly one in four happened during school hours, while Millbrook's 2,400 students moved through a corridor with no signal, no crosswalk, no sidewalks. Pine Village was approved without sidewalks. Abington Square was approved without sidewalks. My son and I love to go to the Waffle House, but every new business and every new apartment on this corridor has added traffic without adding a single Safeway for students to cross the street. Litchford Road is at LOSE. The major intersection has been LOSF since 2014. Old Wake Forest and Dixie Forest improvements were promised in 2018 and are now projected to begin in winter 2027 if the funding holds. We are being asked to absorb more than what we've already been promised. We are not a closed community. Our apartment neighbors walk through to reach Millbrook Exchange Park regularly. High school kids cut through for football practice. We welcome that. And a gate on Johnsdale doesn't just create a traffic problem. It's sending a message about who belongs and who does not. And that is not who we are, and that is not the Raleigh that I chose to raise my family in.

Thank you, Ms. Wells.

Thank you.

Before we close the public hearing, do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant, the opposition, or the staff? Commissioner Neptune.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got a question for staff. And I think it's specifically about the R4 current zoning. And I would appreciate clarification as to how we arrived at the 32 sort of max zoning. potential number of units for that parcel?

We use an envisioning tool that we put in the data and the characteristics of the, well, in this case, this is residential. We took out just the exactions, basically, that would be required from Litchford Road for any kind of widening of the road in the future, and then based on unit size versus area, so it takes into account the full site of property without anything else being subtracted, because without development plan review would be the next step where things would be more precise and measured, so this is our estimate of the maximum theoretical possibility.

Thank you. There was just some confusion, I think, as to how we arrived at 32 as opposed to, say, like 12 units on the site. I've seen that question come up a number of times, including during my visit with the Litchford Forest residents. I've got a follow-up question for transportation staff, if I may. Sure.

If I may, to piggyback on what you just talked about, that would also take into account the most dense possible construction type. Like the townhome type. For this property, yes. For R4 townhome would be the most dense. So using that as the base for a maximum theoretical. So single family would be considerably less when you take into account things like that. So just to open that clarification out.

Thank you. And a follow-up question for transportation staff. I think this is for Mr. Roberson.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning, good to see you. This is with regard to our city's active mobility plan, which I believe we adopted late in 2025. For those who may not know, the active mobility plan is guiding the city's work and investing in future sidewalks, bike lanes, multimodal paths, that sort of thing. And I think I've seen some conversation between you and members of the public about where Litchford and maybe more specifically Johnsdale is sort of landing within that current sort of rating on the active mobility plan for future improvements. And I wonder if you could sort of speak to, again, specifically Johnsdale Road and where it's currently falling in terms of priority for any future or near-term improvements.

yes thank you for the question once again carter robertson with uh... city transportation you're correct the employees adopted late last year and that's kind of our guiding on Post for going forward with that active infrastructure specifically bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure Litchford Road is a very high priority Because of the nature of of it no sidewalk currently at all on either side high volume high speed and it has the potential to connect a lot of residences to different uses. When we look at local roads, like a Johnsdale, those are going to be at a disadvantage because of those lower overall traffic volumes, the lower speeds. It doesn't have quite the same safety implications as those higher roadways. also doesn't have the same connectability. There is, of course, the park and the school, but that only gives you a few points there. So when we're looking across the whole city, there are great needs everywhere across the city. I believe it's 43% of the roads in the city don't have sidewalk currently, and even more just have it on one side where there's gaps that be able to connect residents.

Thank you, Mr. Roberson.

Questioner Omekai. So with that, if this is approved, when would the Johnsdale Road be widened and given sidewalks? Would it be in conjunction with the construction of this project?

So this project would be required to dedicate right of way so that if it's a tier three development site plan, that's a little farther down the road when that determination is made. But if that's the case, they'll be required to widen their section and put in curb and gutter and sidewalk. That's required by the UDO. But they're only required to do that on their property frontage. So the way the condition is written, Johnstow needs to be improved from Litchford all the way up to Johnstow Place. That's the school entrance. The reason we put it that way, Mr. Coleman and myself, when we were talking about the condition, This is where we're hearing a lot of the concern about traffic and safety. This is where the volumes are the highest. This is where you get a few of those people outside of our speed patterns, speeding in between the bumps. So this is the section that needs to be improved most that would have the biggest impact. So there's not a timeline for when the city may come in. We don't have a timeline. a planned project here. Like I said, we're working down that amp and there's a lot of need, a lot of high priority projects across the city. Another avenue of how Johnstow could be improved is like this project, if other parcels come in, they'd similarly be required to improve their frontage.

So just so I'm clear, If this project is approved, the only required improvement on Johnsdale at this time would be right in front of the project area, basically generally where they put the fencing at.

Along the property line, yes.

Right, but then everything from Lynchford all the way down to where the property line is and then past that property line to Johnsdale Place would not be improved.

That would not be required by the code?

And we don't have a specific timeline of when those improvements would happen. So there would be like one section that would get wide and then it would bottleneck again right past the property line of this project and on the other side.

Are you referring to Litchford Road or to Jonesdale? Jonesdale. So we don't want to create, since it is such a narrow strip, we'll definitely get the right-of-way dedication so that can be widened. In terms of putting in pavement and bottlenecking, as you say, that might not be the case. We'll determine that at site plan because we don't want to have You're going from 18 feet of pavement to 26, I think, is the new requirement, and then back down to 18. So what may happen there is they may pay a fee in lieu that will go into future improvements.

but we don't have a timeline of when those future improvements would happen.

Yes, there's no planned project for Johnstone.

So in the interim, it would be potentially a bottlenecking situation if this project was approved until those improvements were had, but we don't know when those improvements would be made because of priority to other areas. I'm just making it clear first so that the audience also understands.

Yeah, like I said, probably in this case, I don't think our reviewers would opt to lay out that pavement for about, I think their frontage might be 100 feet or less. So I think the fee-in-lieu option might be there.

Can I ask a follow-up question about the fee-in-lieu?

Yeah, so Commissioner Neptune and then Commissioner Baird. Thank you.

Could you explain the fee-in-lieu process? I think there's some misunderstanding or confusion from some folks within our residency with regard to that because they've seen other projects come through. Some projects come through with sidewalks. Some projects don't come through with sidewalks. And so if you could just sort of briefly elaborate on how the fee-in-lieu works.

Yes. I may have to lean on some colleagues, but I think at a high level, that money is put in a place where it's not competing with projects across the city. That's separate than CIP money or money allocated to active mobility plan. That is specifically supposed to be for the improvements that would have otherwise been implemented along the Litchford Road corridor, for example. We don't want to create these bottlenecks where we're going from two lanes to four lanes back to two lanes. The goal is to keep that money somewhere so in the future we could come through with a project and improve all of that.

But for the sake of brevity and clarification, a developer may choose not to make the improvements with this fee in lieu process where they pay this fee and it goes into a separate bucket of money where the city may at some point in this undetermined future may come in with improvements down the way.

Right, that is an option in the code when I believe it says there's no continuous improvements to connect into. So that would be the case with any road widening.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baird.

This question I guess is for staff and perhaps the applicant. So the emergency gate concept, does that have to be approved by transportation and or the Raleigh Fire Department? Is this a a viable element of the case?

It is something that we have to provide an additional justification for. That is why you have the attachment on the back of the zoning conditions that provides that shows that it's safe convenient and forget the third word access but basically the city generally disfavors restricting access but council may approve conditions that allow such restrictions in cases where safe convenient and other accesses is can be shown and And in this case, we have shown that, presented our case to transportation. Transportation has agreed that our justification is sufficient. So transportation has reviewed it and has not raised an issue with it in terms of conformity.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Coleman. And then as a follow-up, the condition that would require application to DOT for the Litchford Road driveway access, it's written kind of sparsely in the conditions. Would you agree that there's an implied requirement for the applicant to follow through with that in good faith and run that to ground so as necessary?

Yeah, I don't think it's implied. I think it's required. I think you have to submit and you have to seek that. And I think the idea there is that when we initially, the background there is when we initially submitted this rezoning condition to restrict access to Johnsdale, again, based on neighborhood feedback, we did that. Our initial proposal was to say you can't access Johnsdale. There's gonna be a gate, there has to be a gate, period. And there wasn't a lot of the additional language. The feedback we got from the city was you shouldn't do that because if DOT says you can't access the site from Litchford, then basically the site's undevelopable under the zoning conditions. And so we, as a result of that, because we had to put in sort of an if, we had to put in language that basically said if we take access from Litchford, then we put a gate on Johnsdale. There started being concerns raised by the neighbors that this was all sort of a show condition and that what we're really gonna do was not even try to go through Litchford, that we're gonna go through Johnsdale. And so the zoning condition, to your point, I think it's more than implied, but the intent of the condition is to say, When you develop this site, you have to try to take access from Litchford. You can't go and try to go via Johnsdale because of the neighborhood concerns about access. And we heard that distinctly, and we're trying to honor that and respect that issue.

Okay. And then as it relates to the, this would be condition, I guess proposed condition 6B regarding improvements on Johnsdale Road. I think it was stated earlier, improvements to the curb and sidewalk requirements. I'm not sure I see language in here that refers to widening of Johnsdale Road.

It's baked into the – it has to meet the neighborhood street standards there. Okay, and that's where that widening concept – Yeah, within the UDO, the UDO sets out cross-sections for each type of road. And so, as Carter said, I think, what was it, 20 – I'm blanking on whether it's 26 feet, I think, approximately. But basically, what the UDO has is a layout, and it'll show – the width of basically curb to curb, the width of the street planting area, the width of the sidewalk, it has standards for everything for that type of street. And so by putting in that it has to meet that type of street standard before the gate is removed, basically the road has to be widened, sidewalks have to be on both sides, all of that, curb and gutter.

Thank you.

No, I think we only respond to direct questions in this portion of the discussion. Commissioner Omekai, I see you have another question.

This is for staff. What determines priority of a project? I know you said that there's a lot of different projects in the city that needs to be done. What determines the priority that we use to determine when we do street improvements or widenings or sidewalk additions and things like that? And does development at all play a part in that or is it just traffic and things of that nature?

Yes, I will pull up the four main categories. If you go onto the city website, we have the active mobility plan published. And in Appendix C, you could find the full scoring criteria. You get points for things such as being within a quarter mile of a school. That's something that would apply here. But you also can potentially get points for things like how much traffic volume there is, proximity to any transit stops, proximity to other types of services like groceries or a pharmacy. And so that's the scoring criteria. And so those are broken up into four main categories. And so the first one, context, the broader urban environment. So that's kind of where those services, those public amenities, those sort of things come in. The second is access, ability to create connections to active mobility corridors or nodes. That's thinking more of the overall network. So would this connection provide a, a better overall network connecting to adjacent bikeways and sidewalks and transit routes. So that's kind of a broader picture. And then density, part of this is people and jobs, but also We're also looking at places where community members are drawn. So that might be where the public institutions and amenities come in. And then lastly, that last category would be equity, the degree to which a project invests in socially vulnerable populations. And so, Those are the four main categories for how we score and prioritize. And as I said, in our active mobility plan, you could read more about those individual point system that we ran all these roads through and determined what was a high ranking project and what was a lower ranking project.

This is a follow up question. Once something is approved as a priority, How long does it take before the improvements are made?

That is something we're currently working out. So right now we're working on what we're calling the big jump. And so our goal is to have five miles of sidewalk installed in the next five years. And those are gonna be real high priority segments that are gonna connect populations to transit, amenities, all that sort of thing. So that's our goal for the next five years. And then as we work our way down, that's going to depend heavily on access to funding, the mechanisms for planning, designing these projects, if there's right-of-way acquisition needed, utility, relocation, a lot of those things on the back half, those all play into the timeline of a project. And so we have a pretty long list, and we hope to work on it fast, but right now it's hard to say what a certain timeline of when we'll get to certain projects.

One more question. Can you give us an example of a high-priority project that's on the list right now that has not been done yet?

Yes, so... Litchford, it's in the highest priority category. On our Active Mobility webpage, you could see the map. There's different symbologies you'll have to navigate through, but if you click on the legend and look at prioritized sidewalk segments, that'll be displayed from low to high in five different categories, and you'll see the darkest green areas are our highest priority projects.

Is there any way we can pull that up so everybody can see it?

I could send that to the... Go ahead.

Hi, Margaret Tartallo, Transportation. I think maybe this would be a good thing for us to bring to another meeting to talk you through the active mobility plan and all of these details. I don't know that it's relevant to this case at this point. But like Carter said, Litchford Road is a high priority project. The question is funding. So in 2017, we had a transportation bond and that has funded most of the projects we've done in the last 10 years. There's a new bond this upcoming fall and hopefully it'll get passed and we'll have a new surge of funding. But besides the bond funding, We only get money every year. So every year we ask for money. Every year we get that money. We get some of it. We get none of it. It sort of depends. So it's very hard to predict because we don't have a consistent budget every year.

Thank you. Can we pull up the map so that everybody can see what the priorities are on the plan, please?

Yeah, I mean, I think it's been clearly stated that Lichford is a high priority. I'm not sure if a map shown on the screen would be particularly helpful, but anyone watching at home or in the building, in the room, can have a look at the website and review it for themselves. Yeah. If you could just say again, like, how to find the website.

Sure. If you Google active mobility program Raleigh, it'll pop up the active mobility program page and the prioritization map is linked on that page. You can also go to the Raleigh ArcGIS online page and search there for active mobility plan. It will pop it up.

So the reason why I was asking is because people can find the map themselves, but being able to understand it is a little bit different. And though we have like a pathway to the map, being able to see it in real time and see like where the priorities are and maybe where this fits could be helpful. That's the only reason why I was asking, but if the commission feels like it's not important, then that's fine too.

Yeah, I don't know that it's going to... add additional information to the decision that we need to make today. So I think that that is something that people should investigate and reach out if they can't interpret those drawings the way they need to be, but I don't know that interpreting a city plan at that level is pertinent to this specific case. I think the key takeaways is that Litchford is a high priority. There is a plan in place to improve the streets in Raleigh but there are roadblocks to that and timing based on funding and that this isn't the only spot in Raleigh that needs to be improved however a part of this is is on the priority list already okay so are there any other questions from the commissioners to the applicant the opposition or the city staff Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the table for discussion. Does anyone have any comments prior to making a motion? And then Commissioner Shelburne.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just first, I'd like to thank all the residents who've come out and all the residents who've been engaged for many months throughout this particular rezoning process. I was grateful to spend a couple hours with the residents actually walking the neighborhood last week, both adults and children alike coming out with us. I'd also like to thank Mr. Toby Coleman on behalf of the applicant. I've spent some time with him as well throughout this, and he's been very engaged and I just appreciate his time. And then last but not least, I want to acknowledge the time and energy of our colleagues on staff, who I know have fielded numerous questions from our residents. And I just appreciate all the work that you've done in this case all throughout. You know, again, I always have to come back to the fact that as a commission, we're here to, along with our colleagues on staff, determine whether or not these rezonings are aligned with our comprehensive plan, the future land use maps, and whether or not, finally, this is in the public's interest, the approval or denial of these rezonings. And I think After all the time spent on this particular rezoning case, it's been helpful for me to go back to the comprehensive plan and more specifically to section 316 on evaluating zoning proposals and consistency with the comprehensive plan. And there's language there that's been really helpful for me and I think maybe for the commission with regard to this particular rezoning case. The designation of an area with a particular land use category does not mean that the most intense zoning district described in the land use categories is automatically recommended. A range of densities and intensities applies within each category and the use of different zoning districts within each category should reinforce this range and be based on infrastructure capacity, community character, protection of common open space and prevailing density and lot size in the surrounding area. Side considerations relating to topography, soils, or hydrology are also important in establishing the specific use and intensity of a particular parcel on the future land use map. And similarly, the presence of adequate streets, schools, parks, and other community facilities should be assured before a rezoning is approved that would otherwise be in conformance with the future land use map. So this is one long way of acknowledging that on the one hand, you know, we have checked boxes. We've checked boxes acknowledging that this rezoning is aligned, you know, with a comprehensive plan and future land use map. But checking a box doesn't fully acknowledge what this could look like in practice in the near term. And I think when we acknowledge that, though as a city we are working to invest in and improve our sidewalk and bicycle and active mobility facilities, I would also acknowledge that we've had residents in this neighborhood waiting for over a decade for improvements to be made. And I think there's a real valid concern with regard to the material impacts that could be made if this were to go through with, I guess, potentially up to 47 units. And frankly, even with 32. And I appreciate that it's an estimate. I mean, it could come back that when you get into further development of the site that you don't really land with a solid 32 units. But after spending time in the neighborhood, walking what is a very tight street, and knowing its proximity to Millbrook High School and to Millbrook Park, and having myself lived in neighborhoods and worked in neighborhoods where you've had schools with traffic backing up such that people can't get out of their homes. It's creating these unsafe conditions. At the end of the day, I think where I've landed on this is a deep concern and a compelling concern with regard to approving this at the expense of public safety and at the expense of public interest. And so with that, I would be prepared to make a motion, but I would also welcome further comment from our colleagues on the commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Commissioner Shelburne?

Well, I certainly don't have anything even remotely resembling those incredibly thoughtful and well-researched perspectives. So thank you for putting that much time and effort into this work. We all should be at that level. What I have are general observations. First, both in response to the second speaker, that we do need to consider who is served, but the list doesn't end with the neighbors versus the developers. The 47 households to live here are coming to Raleigh no matter what. That's just the reality. You don't get debt and equity investment to build this kind of housing unless you can prove they're coming. That's just the reality. And so if we don't build this, if we don't build other proposals like it, they're still coming. And so what they'll do is they'll bid up the rent or the housing price for some other property somewhere else in the city. and displace those lower income households. That's what happens. That's just the reality. That's what's happening in Chapel Hill. That's why it's nothing but a bunch of rich people, basically, because they didn't allow the supply to meet demand. So those folks aren't here today because they don't know who they are, but they're no less real. The second, with regard to traffic, it is absolutely a concern, and it's not just a concern here. We as a society tolerate a level of death and casualty with our road system that we wouldn't dream of in any other context, like airlines. And yet, I don't know how or when that will ever change to the material degree. We gotta do something about it. But in my opinion, the solution to that is not by freezing the community in Amber. We need to take other steps and other measures. We still have to grow.

Are there any other comments or discussion from the table? Commissioner Baird and then Commissioner Omekai.

Thank you. Yes. I mean, I guess I would just sort of reiterate my remarks at the last meeting, which was to encourage additional dialogue amongst the parties. I think what we need to focus on, or I would suggest we focus on, is the delta between 32 and 47. And the developer in this case, you know, they have nearly a four-acre property. The historic as I understand sort of the historic property that gave rise to the rest of the neighborhood and now that last piece of property is sort of slated for development so that's going to go forward one way or the other whether we recommend approval of this or recommend denial of it We've heard from staff that they could build up to 32 dwellings here. And if approval is denied, then they could build 32 and never apply for access to Litchford Road. And really the neighbors. whose concerns are valid, right? I drove Johnsdale Road over the weekend. I went and looked at this property and spent a little bit of time. I didn't speak to anyone, but I wanted to see it with my own eyes before we had this discussion today. And if the alternative from a Litchford Road entrance is simply putting all 32 dwellings with access to Johnsdale Road, I think that's going the wrong direction for public safety and security and so forth. So I would have encouraged a little more agreement that this is a good idea and access to Litchford Road is the way to pursue this. because we're really just talking about the difference between 32 and 47, and if Johnsdale Road's not improved, it's never going to get to 47 based on the conditions. It's going to stay at 32.

Thank you. Commissioner Omekai?

I too want to thank Commissioner Neptune for his in-depth research in this project and speaking with residents. I also did take some time over our break to drive through this area on Litchford and Johnsdale and understanding that this is a priority project for the city. I would hope that even if the developer who develops a lot of projects across this city cares about the residents in the areas that they're developing in then whether or not this is approved to forty seven units that should still be the priority that should still be something that's considered regardless of if the approval goes through because we're talking about safety of residents and we're talking about future projects and creating a legacy for a developer who can either just plot projects down because they can and if this wasn't approved we're not going to do anything for safety Or regards of this is approved because we still can still build there. We will and we care about the areas where we're building in the safety should be a priority regardless of whether we approve this or not. Also also understanding that we have approved as a planning commission and as city council. plethora of properties and projects and areas that do help meet the need of housing, whether this goes up another 15 units or not. I think that the priority here should be the safety of the residents. Also living in an area where it does bottom where it's hard to an area around where it is bottleneck Which does cause traffic which does cause people not to be able to move out of their property Which even if this was built and the improvements were not made the people who live there would then have to suffer the fate of that As well, so I do have concerns when it comes to safety I believe that residential concerns should be heavy can heavily considered in our decision-making And I am ready to vote on this project to decide what we do for next.

Thank you. Based on the comments, I feel that we have two motions. How would we typically? Just anyone can make a motion, then we'll .

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before I make the motion, I'd like to acknowledge that in conversation with this community, it's been observed how over the last decade, we've seen hundreds of new units come online through apartments and other adjacent complexes. And I think that in many ways, it feels like we are at capacity in this particular area of our large and growing city. And so while I do, I would love to see more housing everywhere. I think this particular area has seen a lot of investment and a lot of housing, and it's already at capacity. And with that, I would move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 11th, 2026, contained in our agenda materials to recommend denial of this zoning amendment. After considering the policies, maps, and other materials included as a part of the comprehensive plan, The Planning Commission determines that the proposed zoning amendment is consistent with the comp plan and other adopted plans and consistent with the future land use map, but the request should be denied. This is with regard to zoning case Z4325.

I second that motion.

So we have a motion from Commissioner Neptune and a second from Commissioner Omekai to recommend denial of Z4325. We'll do a vote. All in favor? All opposed? So we are tied with three to three. No, four to four. The recommendation to deny will go forward with four to three. Sorry. Okay, moving on to new business.

For the record for council, if the three commissioners that voted against the motion wanted to state the reason, we usually provide that to council.

To the three commissioners, I'm one of them, who voted against recommending denial would like to make a comment, you may do so now. So we have no comments.

Or you can let your comments stand that were already stated. That is acceptable as well. Thank you.

Okay, go ahead. For the residents, the motion has been denied. They seem like they were a little confused.

Well, we're recommending denial. Thank you. We'll take a quick five-minute break, and we will start again at 10.05. We have quorum, so we'll go ahead and begin. It's 10.08. AND WE WILL START GOING THROUGH THE SIX NEW BUSINESS CASES. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM IN ORDER. HOWEVER, IF TIME STARTS TO LAG, THERE IS ONE CASE ON THE LIST THAT HAS A DEADLINE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. SO IF THINGS TEND TO DRAG, WE MAY STOP AND MOVE ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS THE REZONING Z1726 UP IN THE AGENDA. Do any commissioners have an issue with moving that up in the agenda now?

No objection.

Thank you in that case. We will start with rezoning Z 1726 5507 and 5511 Hillsboro Street and 0 and 5508 Western Boulevard And we'll start with the staff presentation

Good morning, Mitra Sheshbaradaran covering Z1726. I'll just note that a resident from the community wished to share concerns and speak in opposition to the project but was moving her vehicle because she thought she had time. So I just wanted to note that she wasn't expecting it to end up in the agenda.

Thank you for letting us know.

Good morning, Mitra Cheshbaradaran covering Z1726. This is a request to rezone four parcels of city-owned land totaling just under four acres located at 5507 and 5511 Hillsborough Street, which are the top two parcels. currently purple, currently zoned IX3 with the parking limited frontage and the TOD and SRPOD, and also 0 and 5508 Western Boulevard, which are the bottom two parcels, colored in yellow, that are currently zoned R10 with the TOD and SRPOD. And the request is to rezone them to a unified general use district of RX3, maintaining the TOD and SRPOD. And then your deadline for action is October 10th. So any in the area is predominantly IX and R10 with a variety of other mixed use districts nearby. Here's a look at the site and where it sits with some surrounding existing land uses. As you can see, the site sits at a bit of a transition between an industrial area along Chapel Hill Road, this portion of Hillsborough Street and Barrel Road, and then a more residential and mixed use area along western and then southern of that. But for the industrial areas surrounding the site currently, it's a mix of lighter industrial uses, some auto vehicle repair, yards, storage facilities, and things of that nature, as well as construction-related businesses and places that may be processed like pool chemicals, lawnmower transactions, things like that. And then some commercial areas along Western Boulevard currently retail restaurants and things of that nature and then as you move away from the site additional moderate and medium-scale Residential areas consisting of townhomes duplexes smaller apartment complexes and things like that and then there's a townhome site or townhome development also immediately abutting the site Here's a look at the site a little closer than what exists there today. On the top two parcels, which are along Hillsborough Street, currently zoned IX, there are two existing structures that are currently vacant, but were previously used for auto repair and sales. And then the bottom two parcels on Western Boulevard are currently undeveloped. And then as you can see, the Bradford Place townhome development on the site's eastern boundary. Here are a few looks at the site's frontage along Hillsborough Street, which is the first image, and then Western, which are images two and three. Some existing pedestrian facilities in the area, although they're a bit disconnected, and then no existing bicycle infrastructure along this portion, or along the site's frontage. No proposed conditions here, this is a general use case. And then the next few slides are a look at entitlement between the existing and proposed zoning. The biggest difference you'll see is between the parcels that are currently zoned R10 and then the proposed RX3. A lot of similarities between the IX and RX zoning districts in terms of height and setback requirements. For the proposed zoning, a cumulative 115 units are estimated versus the, that was under the existing, versus the proposed 124 units. And then again, the biggest difference being for setback requirements between the R10 going to the RX3. I'LL NOTE NOW THAT THE SITE IS WITHIN THE TOD OR TRANSIT OVERLAY DISTRICT AND SITES WITHIN THAT THAT DO NOT HAVE A FRONTAGE APPLIED SPECIFICALLY IN URBAN STYLE FRONTAGE DEFAULT TO HAVING THE URBAN LIMITED FRONTAGE BUILD TO STANDARDS APPLIED. And so that goes for the IX site. It currently has parking limited. That's not considered an urban frontage. So it would default to the urban limitage bill two requirements of zero to 20 feet. And then that's the same for the RX, which is proposed. There's no proposed frontage, but again, being within the TOD, it would default to the urban limitage bill two requirements.

So that's explaining that there.

And then here's a look at some other use entitlement differences between the existing and the proposed. Again, we see an increase in the estimated number of residential units that can be built on the site, a decrease in the commercial entitlement, and that's because in RX, commercial uses are a limited use. They're limited to a certain building type and location, but they're also capped at 10,000 square feet when a site is in the TOD. Overall, the site is an area that is more walkable and bikeable than other areas in the city and better served by transit residents, have lower transportation costs, and better access to jobs. The site is immediately served by three existing Go Raleigh routes on Hillsborough Street and Western, and then the site is also within half a mile of a planned BRT stop, and that should say Jones Franklin Road, my apologies, but that's just south of the site. Overall, the request would add to the housing supply. It would permit a variety of housing types, smaller units on smaller lots, and would be within walking distance of transit. And then a note there for subsidized units. My colleagues from Housing and Community Development will share more in their presentation, but this is city-owned land, and the plans for the site are to develop it with affordable multifamily housing. A similar percentage of people of color live in this area as compared to the city and a slightly higher percentage of low income residents. And then rent in this area has increased less than the citywide average since 2019. There are two future land use map designations on the site currently. The top two portions which are currently zoned IX along Hillsborough Street have a future land use map designation of neighborhood mixed use with NX being the recommended zoning district and the bottom two parcels along Western are currently, or currently have a flume designation of moderate scale residential which would recommend anywhere from R10 up to RX4 depending on access to transit. The applicant has proposed or requested RX3, which kind of splits the difference and is consistent with the future land use map designation of providing additional density along a future or the future western BRT route and still allowing for some commercial to serve the area. The request is also consistent with the urban format. A variety of urban format designations here are on the site. It's generally in a frequent transit area. It's also within a bus rapid transit area in relation to the future western BRT route, and then also into transit station area buffers, and that's because of its proximity to a planned stop just south of the site. Like I mentioned before, the applicant did not propose a frontage, but again, being within the TOD and maintaining that applies the urban limited frontage which is consistent with urban format guidance for this area. Overall, the request is also consistent with the comprehensive plan, a variety of consistent policies here that speak to future land use map consistency, reducing vehicle miles traveled through mixed use development, and then a lot of policies focused on providing additional density and housing variety near future transit. Policies also related to, again, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing more energy efficient housing options. And then a lot of policies that speak to providing housing diversity and also housing accessibility, specifically affordable housing near future transit. And then there's also some area plan guidance here. The site is within the Arena Blue Ridge small area plan. That consistent policy speaks to encouraging mixed use development in this area. And then the site is also within the broader station area, area planning, because of its location near the western BRT. And so policies that speak to, again, encouraging density in these areas, as well as providing affordable housing options along future routes. INCONSISTENT POLICIES ARE RELATED TO FIRE SERVICE RESPONSE TIME STANDARDS. NO OUTSTANDING ITEMS, YOUR DEADLINE FOR ACTION IS OCTOBER 10. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE.

THANK YOU, METRA. HAS THE ATTENDEE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION RETURNED? NO, SHE HAS NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. So we'll now hear from the applicant as well as the opposition. Each will have 10 minutes and we'll start with the applicant.

Good morning commissioners and staff. My name is Lauren North and I'm on the redevelopment team for the Housing Community Development Department. I'm here to present a rezoning of our Hillsborough Western redevelopment site. So our goal with this rezoning is to develop the site at the intersection of Hillsborough and Western Boulevard as a multifamily housing development that includes an affordable component. These parcels were purchased with affordable housing bond funds by the city as a strategic investment in affordable housing along a future BRT route. We're proposing to rezone from a mixture of industrial and residential to residential mixed use. This will change two things about the current zoning. So we'll allow ground floor residential on the parcels that are currently IX and the possibility of limited retail on the R10 parcels. Having the same zoning for all four parcels increases flexibility and makes the site more straightforward for a developer. As we've seen, these are the street views from the site. This is from Western Boulevard, and this is from Hillsborough Street, where you can see some of the existing structures there. As Mitra mentioned, this is on a future BRT route. It's also served by current transit, including the 27, 9, and 11L that's right on the property. Those have 30-minute service intervals. We think that RX3 is the best future zoning for this site, as it will allow greater design flexibility while providing adequate transition to the surrounding area. This rezoning converts to industrial parcels to residential use, allowing ground floor residential. And then with RX3, limited retail of less than 10,000 square feet would be permissible. However, the site's size and location limits the viability of retail, so we aren't sure if a developer is going to include it in their proposal. With RX3, this will allow an apartment building of up to three stories, and the building can be up to five stories. The developer includes at least 20% of units that are affordable for someone making 60% of the area median income for 30 years. As you'll see later, we are actually, we are requiring that as a part of our RFQ. The TOD density bonus is not changing with this rezoning, but we think it's important to mention here is it will allow more affordable housing on the site. The site does have some limitations the developer will have to follow. On the Western Boulevard parcel, there's a small stream running through part of the property, which is subject to the noose buffer rules. That means that the future development, this developer must leave a 50 foot buffer on each side of it by law, and that's the large green area as an approximation of that on the slide. So here's a breakdown of the overall timeline of our proposed project. We contracted with a firm in April to demolish the remaining buildings on the Hillsborough Street parcels. That work is almost done obtaining permits and so the demolition should take place in the next month or so. We're also gonna complete a survey at this time of the stream buffer. We're utilizing a two-step process for selecting a developer for the site. We released an RFQ in June to select qualified developers. The responses were due last Friday and we received four responses. Once we have selected qualified developers and depletion is completed we will issue a request for proposals for the site So we're hoping to issue that in September after this rezoning decision is finalized We will use the remainder of q4 to receive responses Evaluate them and be ready to present our recommendation to Council once they're back from winter break in January of 27 This will allow time for the potential developer to meet the light tech deadline should they choose to pursue that funding mechanism. I We anticipate the design and permitting and obtaining firm financing will take the remainder of 2027 and we hope the construction can start in 2028 and would take approximately 18 months. Here are some of the parameters that were laid out in the RFQ. The developer must commit to at least 20% affordable units for a minimum of 50 years, so slightly more than what's required by the TOD designation. We're also working with RHA to offer an opportunity to partner up front to apply vouchers to bring deeper affordability. Our test fits indicate that for a three to five story service park development could yield about 89 to 124 units. The city is also prioritizing walkability and connectivity to the future BRT at this site. Based on our conversations with community members and our rezoning meetings, we will include language to prioritize retaining trees between the site and the townhomes on Bradford Paracourt. The city is making $1.5 million in gap financing available for this opportunity. And As this rezoning is consistent with comp plan and future use plan and use map and the council's state of priorities of putting more affordable housing near transit, we respectfully request that you recommend approval of this rezoning. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. North. We're aware that there is someone here to speak in opposition. Has that person returned to the chamber?

So one thing that the commission can do is you can hold the public hearing open, go ahead and start your next case, and when that resident returns, then you can go ahead and return to this case if you want, just given that she was under the impression that we were not hearing this case so early.

Any commissioners have an issue with that? Okay, thank you. So we'll leave this public hearing open and we'll move on to rezoning case Z5025 and we will revisit this case once we've completed Z5025.

Go ahead, Hiram, thank you. Hi again, good morning. Hiram Marziano, Planning and Development. This is rezoning Z5025. This is for 2233 and 2321 Capitol Boulevard. The request is to rezone 19.74 acres from industrial mixed use three with parking limited frontage to commercial mixed use 20 conditional use. The deadline for action would be October 10. Zoning this area is predominantly industrial mixed use as well as commercial mixed use being abundantly present in this area and has been growing along the corridor. Just a quick overview of how the area is here. There's a lot of commercial industrial mix along the route itself with some open space and residential nearby. Just some quick shots of the property itself. The site itself has had a distribution warehouse on it for many years. The conditions offered would prohibit detention center, jail, prison, and adult entertainment uses. Quick look at entitlement possibilities here. Under the existing zoning, industrial mixed use doesn't allow for residential as easily. So the unit count is about 525 for this site as the size. The proposed zoning taking account 20 stories over almost 20 acres with a maximum possibility there of near 6,000. You see the entitlement changes here, office increases but retail decreases slightly but mostly it's larger residential entitlement. The area itself has a higher walk score than average, higher transit, higher bike, better transportation cost index and higher job proximity. We are talking about the route into downtown here. Bus service is served by Route 1 along Capitol Boulevard and Route 14 along Atlantic Avenue. Under the affordability analysis here, we are talking about adding to the housing supply. This proposal does not include subsidized units. It does permit a variety of housing types, smaller units than normal, smaller lives than normal, and it is within walking distance of transit. Area residents are less likely to be racial minorities. Area residents are less likely to be low income. There is a higher than average population than under the age of five, and current rent in this area has... increased slightly higher, whoa, wait, hang on. Yeah, sorry, this slide was made before our latest updates, I apologize. It's still higher than the current, about 42 for the city, but that other number in this area is actually closer to 50-something increase. for cost of rent in the general vicinity. The request is inconsistent with the future land use map. This area is listed as business and commercial services where IX is the recommended zoning district. This designation is more high impact commercial uses, industrial uses, But as is the case, as you can see, it's just south of this community mixed use area has been growing along to Capitol Boulevard in alignment with the Capitol Boulevard area plan as the area's looking to design the crossover to more commercial mixed use areas. There is no frontage nor conditions that mimic a frontage for this area, and the property is within several categories on the urban form map, so we found it to be inconsistent with the urban form map, specifically given that it is in a bus rapid transit area station on the proposed northern BRT. So, inconsistent with that. However, several other properties in the area also do not contain any frontages so it still would be considered typical of the area but not consistent with how we would like to see things laid out. Again, we do believe however it is consistent with the comprehensive plan overall while still being inconsistent with the future land use map and the urban form map. Several policies of consistency involve infrastructure impacts, transit-oriented policies, station area policies, housing variety, rezoning of industrial areas, and some of the small area planned for Capitol Boulevard and for station area planning. Inconsistent policies would be future land use maps and zoning consistency and frontages. Should recommendation go towards approval, we would recommend changing this from business and commercial services to community mixed use as has been applied to several properties in the area. I will note that this entitlement will go from three stories to 20 stories under this request. Being an emerging urban center is part of that transit station area requirement. ON THE URBAN FORM MAP DOES ACCOUNT FOR A POSSIBILITY OF 20 STORIES WHEN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ITS PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT. DEADLINE FOR ACTION AGAIN IS OCTOBER 10TH. UPCOMING MEETINGS ARE LISTED HERE.

THANK YOU, HYRAM. We'll now open the public hearing on this and we'll hear from the applicant as well as opposition. Each will have 10 minutes. So we'll start with the applicant please.

There you go.

Thank you, Hiram. Good morning, Commissioners. Hunter Winstead, Morning Star Law Group, representing the applicant, Beacon Partners here. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss an exciting adaptive reuse development case that's really bridging this gap that's existed here between Raleigh Ironworks over to the west and Capitol Boulevard on the east of this site. There are really three main reasons we believe this rezoning case makes sense. Reason number one, as Hiram mentioned, rezoning this case to commercial mixed use with a height of 20 stories integrates with the commercial mixed use trend in this area, reason number one. Reason number two, it specifically advances a vast majority of, not a majority, many of the comprehensive plan policies and specifically in the Capitol Boulevard small area plan. Reason number three, this is a case that really capitalizes on transit. This case really is about putting people in proximity to transit and advancement of the comprehensive plan policies. So to point number one, this is showing the current zoning around the site with our site at the proposed zoning of CX20 conditional use. And you can see kind of that trend as Hiram mentioned along Capitol Boulevard. You see Ironworks over on the left side moving northeast of our site. These commercial mixed use 20 story zonings that have all occurred roughly in the past five years. And so we see this case as fitting in well, again bridging that gap. taking that more industrial corridor that's had this commercial mixed use trend to really revitalize this area to be a portion of the city that folks can be proud of as they're entering downtown and kind of that gateway idea that the comprehensive plan talks about. Point number two, again advancing the policies in the comprehensive plan, specifically the Capitol Boulevard area plan. We just pulled a few of the key policies that we think this case strongly advances. Really the main thrust behind the small area plan is again transitioning that industrial area that this northern portion of Capitol Boulevard has been known as, to turn it into an area that you can be at home on Capitol Boulevard. And the idea is having people close to transit, people near Capitol, having folks want to live in this revitalized area, to live, work, and play in this corridor. It's really the thrust behind the small area plan. So that's a specific policy we think this case strongly addresses. Also having a complimentary mix of land uses to really integrate with this surrounding area. Again, our client has a great relationship with the developers of Ironworks. The hope is to have this commercial mixed use center really integrate well with what folks are seeing now in Raleigh Ironworks, again, just to the west of this site. Also this case provides significant housing variety of placing that density where density makes sense, right in front of a transit station, the BRT transit station, it's just at the site's frontage on Capitol Boulevard. And then also that really integration with business and industry as this site develops, it helps not only those commercial uses on this site, but those commercial uses that are kind of budding up around the surrounding area here, that's a really exciting part of the city. And then finally, this case capitalizes on transit. So just to show the commission the urban format excerpt for this case, you can see that transit station area right on Capitol Boulevard, just at our site's frontage. Those station area land uses talk about the higher density commercial, having a complimentary mix of residential, commercial office. Developing the corridor, Again, I mentioned this revitalization from industrial to this attractive place that folks wanna be rather than the typical industrial trucks coming through. Again, that corridor as you come into downtown, that gateway idea. Transit station area recommended heights. You can see we're consistent with the 20-story zonings that surround us, advancing that policy. Pedestrian-friendly development. Also, I know Hiram mentioned that we don't have a frontage application on this case. There's really three reasons for that. Reason number one is consistency with the zonings that surround us that also don't have that frontage. We wanna have, again, a project that integrates well. Number two would be flexibility. The plan here is to take the building that's existing on the site, it's about 300,000 square feet, phase one is really an adaptive reuse, taking that existing industrial building, turning it into those commercial, that mix of uses, commercial office and residential, again, is the plan. So having that frontage requirement really limits the ability to revitalize that existing building, so that's reason number two. Reason number three is, A lot of the frontage policies are already advanced by the fact that this site is surrounded entirely by streets that are designated on the street plan. To the north of our site, to the northwest of our site, Laurelbrook is designated as a two-lane avenue. So once a site plan comes in for this site, just following the code, there'll be bicycle lane, sidewalk, six-foot sidewalk that's not there now. Again, that frontage requirement following the UDO. To the north of our site, Northeast of our site, Hodges Road is designated as a four lane divided avenue. Same thing, there'll be a pedestrian sidewalk, six foot sidewalk, five foot bike lane, and then Capitol Boulevard, six lane divided avenue. Also with that pedestrian sidewalk, six foot there, five foot bicycle lane, as addition to all the transit infrastructure that the UDO requires for these designations. So those are really the three reasons we don't believe it makes sense to have that front as designation here, because a lot of those policies are already integrated, again, with what the UDO mandates once this site goes to site plan, once this case goes to site plan, and also for that flexibility to have really an adaptive reuse project that can be built. So those are the three reasons, again, that we believe this case makes sense, it's reasonable and in the public interest. We would respectfully request that the Commission recommend approval. With that, I'll reserve the remainder of my time and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Winstead. The applicant has three minutes and 58 seconds remaining. Are there any other from the side? We will open this up to the opposition now. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition of the stoning case? So hearing none, we'll keep the public hearing open for a few questions. Are there any questions from the table? Commissioner Omekai.

My question is, in this area, and this is to the applicant, building 20 stories, and you've mentioned that the area is largely low income, largely minority, more than the city. What is the applicant's, I mean, just for my edification, reasoning for not at close to 6,000 units and 20 stories not having any measure of affordability?

Yeah, and that has a lot to do with what the site's currently used for. It's an industrial warehouse, right? And so the application itself is significantly increasing that ability to have residential, increasing the housing supply, which of course has that trickling effect to affordability around the area. So a lot of that, Commissioner Omekye, and I appreciate the question, is really related to what's there and how this development through a commercial mixed use, having potential apartments, really increases the housing supply.

If I may, Commissioner Omekye, just going back to the... The slide on the demographics and land use history says area residents are less likely to be racial minorities. So only 4% compared to the city average of 46.

That's my bad. I had it confused with the other one that we talked about.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then low income population is 5% compared to the average city, 29%.

That's my apology. I was looking at the other one before we switched to this one.

You're probably sorry.

But I do still see that 20 stories is a little concerning to me for lack of affordability. But I also understand that area use.

Are there any other questions Commissioner Baird two quick questions for the applicant? Do we know whether this is anticipated to be a brownfields project one and second? Can you remind us where this how this is classified as far as Flood zone area and what the plan is for stormwater management in this area. That's always a concern in this corridor. I

So yes to number one. I don't have, as far as the brownfield question, for stormwater, I don't have that fresh on the brain right now. But of course, once we go through site plan, the stormwater requirements for the UDO are very robust. The portion I do know is that post-construction runoff cannot exceed pre-construction runoff. I've got somebody who can speak to stormwater here. Thanks.

I am. Gray Harrell with Beacon Partners, the developer. As far as your question with floodplain, this site is not located in the floodplain. The floodplain is to the north on the other side of Hodges. And as far as stormwater, with the amount of impervious on this site, it's roughly 19 1⁄2 acres. As you can see by the screen, it's probably 17-plus acres of impervious. So we are not planning on adding impervious to the site. If we do, we will conform with the RELA UDO, treat in the 10-year.

Can I ask a clarifying question? When you're asking about brownfield, are you asking about previously developed land or are you asking about contamination that needs to be remediated?

The question was aimed at whether we anticipate the project going through the North Carolina Brownfields program as administered by the Department of Environmental Quality, which is really meant for redevelopment of contaminated or potentially contaminated property.

Mr. Winstead, can you address that?

We're currently working with the state and our consultant on the Brownfield application. We've had a pre-application meeting. This site does qualify, so we will, I think, in the next six to eight months be in the program. All with our engineering team, all on-site soil will remain on-site. There will be no export or import of soil. And then we will have the appropriate, as far as the adaptive reuse, we will engage monitoring over the next couple of months and conform with all the state guidelines for that.

Thank you.

If I may real quick, we'd like to clarify about the flood zone.

Sure. Thanks.

Yes, there is regulated floodplain on the site, not very much. There's a little bit in this area and then a tiny bit here along Hodges. That's future conditions, 100-year floodplain, which the city regulates the same as the base 100-year.

And Commissioner Omekai?

With your Good Faith efforts, what information have you gotten from people that live around the site as far as their opinion of the project?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner McKay. So I think we had two or three folks come into our first neighborhood meeting for the 500-foot radius. No major concerns. I think there was a lot of excitement about having the potential commercial to revitalize this area. I think we had one person come to our second neighborhood meeting for that 1,000-foot radius. Again, no major concerns. I think certainly the general tenor of the folks that live around this area who are experiencing ironworks, Dock 1053 across the street, which this client owns, are excited about the revitalization

Are there any other questions from the commissioners? If not, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for discussion. Are there any comments or discussion points anyone would like to bring up? Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 11th, 2026, containing 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 for zoning case number Z5025. After considering the policies, maps, and other materials included as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission determines that the proposed zoning amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map but should be approved. The Planning Commission also recommends an amendment to the Future Land Use Map as to the subject property only from business and commercial services to community mixed use. This action is taken that is taken reasonable in the public interest because the request would increase the amount of types of commercial development and housing that could be built on site which could add to the housing supply and increase access to lower cost housing for residents in a major transportation corridor near a variety of employment opportunities.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. We have a motion from Commissioner Neptune to recommend approval of Z5025. Is there a second? Second. We have a second from Commissioner Shelburne. We'll take it to a vote. All in favor? All opposed? That recommendation for approval passes unanimously. Thank you. So at this point, we're going to go back to zoning case Z1726. We had kept the public hearing open to hear from opposition, and we understand that there is now opposition to that case present.

Yes, she did come back, but Lauren and I were able to speak with her in the lobby, and Lauren's group is planning to meet with her separately, and so she didn't feel like this was the time for her to ask and get her questions answered. She could get them answered directly from Lauren at another time, so she has left.

Okay, thank you, and we understand there is a second person here in opposition of Okay, who's also declining to speak in the public hearing? Any others in the chamber who are here in opposition to Z1726? In that case, we'll keep the public hearing open so that the commissioners can ask questions. Are there any questions from the commissioners for staff or the applicant? At this point, we'll close the public hearing and open it back up for discussion at the table. Commissioner Shelburne.

I just want to commend staff on doing this. Since I had a dig on Chapel Hill, I'm going to be equal to the triangle here and have a dig on Durham. They've taken something like eight years to develop a marquee site that they own. And so we need to not follow that example and move quickly on the city-owned land. So I'm glad this is happening. We need to just keep going to do more of it.

Are there any other comments or discussion at the table? I would like to reiterate Commissioner Shelburne's praise. I think this is essential that we improve our public transit with all the other amenities across the city that we're building. Providing access to the citizens is critical to making those investments successful. So I appreciate the attempt to densify and the city taking the time to look for thoughtful ways to do that. At this point, oh, Commissioner.

I would also like to add my kudos. for affordability more than just density. So I appreciate the fact that the city is taking into account that as the city is growing that we also need housing where people can actually afford to live there and especially when it's around a transit corridor. So I appreciate the city taking consideration into that.

Thank you. At this point we'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 11th, 2026, contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment for zoning case number Z1726. After considering the policies, maps, and other materials included as a part of the comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission determines that the proposed zoning amendment is for a zoning district that closely corresponds with the development envisioned in the future land use map designation and is therefore consistent with the future land use map and consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans and the request should be approved. This is a reasonable action taken in the public interest because the request will increase residential entitlement on the site and will add to the city's overall housing supply and permit housing types that are more generally affordable contributing to overall affordability in addition to the fact that this is near the BRT or right off the BRT. So grateful to the work of staff on this one.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Is there anyone going to second that? And a second by Commissioner Omekai. At this point, we have a motion by Commissioner Neptune and a second by Commissioner Omekai to recommend approval of Z1726. And we'll now vote all in favor. All opposed? And that passes unanimously. Okay, on to rezoning Z5625. And we'll now have a staff presentation. That's 420 Carrier Drive, Carriah Drive? Carriah, thanks.

Good morning, Commissioners. Again, Mitra Shashbaradaran covering Z5625. This is a request to rezone just under 43 acres of county-owned land located at 4020 Carrier Drive from OX3 with the Shod 1 to IX3 with conditions and maintaining the Shod 1. Your deadline for action is October 10th. Stunning in the area is predominantly industrial with a mix of lighter and heavier industrial uses in IX and the heavy industrial or IH stunning districts. Here's a look at the site and where it sits and some surrounding land uses. Like I mentioned before, the parcels immediately abutting the site on its eastern boundary are industrial, a mix of IX and IH, so heavier and lighter industrial uses, primarily related to research and development labs, some construction related businesses as well. Two larger tracts of institutional office land across I-87 is a state-owned property that's primarily undeveloped, and then just southeast of the site under that other institutional office label is Go Raleigh Bus Depot. some commercial along Pool Road primarily the retail businesses and then some as you move away from the site some low-scale residential so primarily detached and duplex in some townhouse development neighborhoods and then just south of the site is also the Walnut Creek Sports Complex and Coastal Credit Union just for context for where we are in the city. Here's a closer look at the site and what exists on it today. Again, county-owned site with some county-related functions, including the Wake County Commons Building and Library Administration, North Carolina Cooperative Extension and Rural Economic Development Center, as well as the Olivia Rainey Local History Library. And then on the parcel immediately west of the site is the historic Oakview County Park, which is in the historic Oakview District. This is another county-owned site, 27 acres of parkland with some existing historical structures on the site as well. Here are a few looks at the site and its frontage along Pool Road, which is the first image, Caria Drive, which is the second inside the site, and then Civic Boulevard, which is the third image, which is on the northern part of the site. As you can see, some existing pedestrian facilities and some existing bicycle facilities also in this area, and then the site is immediately served by transit with a transit stop on Pool Road right on that site's frontage. The applicant has proposed two conditions. The first is prohibiting other uses normally permitted in IX, including the dormitory, fraternity and sorority use, adult establishments, pawn shops, detention centers, and retail sales. They've also introduced development caps to 948 residential units, 375 square feet of office, or 247,000 square feet of industrial space. And then the next two slides are a look at the difference in entitlement between existing and proposed zoning, height staying the same at three stories or 50 feet, maintaining that three-story limit, a reduction in the estimated number of residential units on the site, and that comes from the conditions cap, and then setback requirements staying the same. And then the double asterisks are related to the SHAD-1 buffer, a portion of the site. front i-87 and so that and the site is maintaining the map of the shod one which would require a 50-foot landscape buffer yard along that portion of the site And then here's a look at entitlement for other uses. Again, a slight reduction in residential entitlement coming from the conditions cap and then also caps coming from for the office square footage and then the introduction of additional industrial uses or industrial square footage also capped. Overall the site is in an area that is less walkable and bikeable than other areas in the city, but has a similar transit score and residents in the area have lower transportation costs and better access to jobs. Like I mentioned before, there is an existing transit stop near the site with current service for two Go Raleigh routes, Route 18 and 55X along Pool Road. The request would subtract from the housing supply, does not include subsidized units, and would not permit a variety of housing types. Specifically, in the IX district, the main intent is not for residential uses. So there is no, a residential is only permitted as part of a mixed-use development on upper stories. And then smaller units would be allowed, though, and the site is within walking distance of transit. Overall, there are a higher percentage of people of color that live in this area and a lower percentage of low-income individuals and then rent in the area has risen at a similar rate since 2019. Overall the request is consistent with the future land use map designation of public facilities This is maps on areas in the city that are owned our public owned land schools public works yards Industrial functions and things of that nature. There is no Recommended zoning district but IX fits the intent of that bloom designation and also matches the surrounding area and also the existing functions And the request is also consistent with the urban form map. This is just on a portion of the site that runs I-87, which is a designated parkway corridor, which would recommend a suburban approach to frontage, meaning heavily landscaped buffers. Again, maintaining that shod one buffer would still require that 50-foot landscape buffer on that portion of the site, so it's consistent with guidance here. Overall, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's consistent with policies related to future land use map consistency, large site development, particularly in the set aside of uses on large sites for community facilities, as well as preserving and allowing industrial land and uses in areas of the city where it fits the surrounding environment, which this site certainly does, and then also co-locating COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR EASIER ACCESS AND BETTER SERVICE. INCONSISTENT POLICIES ARE RELATED TO FIRE SERVICE RESPONSE TIME STANDARDS. NO OUTSTANDING ACTIONS OR ITEMS IN YOUR DEADLINE FOR ACTIONS OCTOBER 10TH. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE.

THANK YOU, MAJOR. WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE OPPOSITION. EACH WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES AND WE'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT.

Good morning. Ross Massey with Swift Partners here on behalf of Wake County. This is, I'll be brief today given the state of the agenda. Essentially what the county is trying to do here is kind of redevelop and refresh their facility here. It's been operated as county property for quite some time. They have identified this as a location where they'd like to utilize vehicle fleet services. That is in support of their mission to the county citizens. That vehicle fleet services was not consistent with the existing office and institutional use, so hence the reasoning for the IX request. We've added caps just to be consistent such that it would show our willingness not to basically increase significant traffic in the area. And with that, I'll just make myself available for questions. I will show you a concept. This is an early concept just to show you how we intend to kind of utilize the site where you see like a number of buildings which kind of consist of like office uses, a structured parking deck, and then vehicle fleet services for vehicle maintenance operations. Thank you.

The applicant has eight minutes and 39 seconds remaining. Is there anyone here in opposition to this case? Seeing none, we'll keep the public hearing open for the commissioners to ask questions. Are there any questions for the staff or the applicant regarding this case?

My question is what's going to happen to the current structures that are there? Will the library still be there and the cooperative extension still be there and things of that nature? Are you all planning on just redeveloping the site altogether and removing those things?

So the site will be redeveloped. The uses for the library support with Olivia Rainey will remain and kind of be modernized and updated with the development plan. And so there's going to be consolidation of like office uses that currently are kind of like underserved on the site today from other departments around the county. So it'll still have a significant support system for the library where they kind of house books and distribute them to the local library system.

So with all that, also keep the cooperative extension and things like that out there. I know there's a lot of community use in that space. So I'm wondering if that is going to go away with the redevelopment of this space.

Hi, good morning. I can jump in and maybe help answer that. My name's Dave Doakum. I'm with Wake County Facilities Design and Construction. So to answer your question, yes, it's a bit of a mix out there on site. Currently, Wake County owns the property, the various buildings that are, some are used now for county purposes, some are leased, like USDA, the soil and water that you mentioned. There's... I'm not sure if they're formal interlocal agreements, but there is cooperative use of some federal uses and county uses. The rural center is also there on site. So we've been in negotiations to relocate those other uses, hopefully within close proximity to the area. But the long-term plan is that future phases will construct office space that those could be repurposed, rehoused there on site.

I also know that it also has been used as a voting site. Is that going to go away?

Yes, it can still accommodate that now. The commons building there would be, we've been calling it a corporate training facility, but there would be a use there to have public meetings, public meeting spaces and that sort of thing, yes. Thank you.

Oh, another question. So just so I'm clear, I know that you all are restricting residential, but you all are allowing residential on this site also?

It's been thought of in the context of a future phase might develop residential, but at this point we're just focused on the Carrier Drive north portion of it. So that would be in the future fiscal years.

And with the add of industrial use and the rezoning, will there be any conditions for future use potentially against any data centers or anything of that nature in this space?

I would say no to that. It would be consolidating some of the county's fleet services and general services now. They're spread out. Part of the effort is in efficiency. They're spread out around the county in various areas. So it would be to help consolidate some of those, but no data center. It would just be county IT in regular support of county facilities. Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the commissioners? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the table for discussion. Are there any comments from the table?

I just have one comment just to add some context to the history of this space for those that don't know. This site was formerly the pool plantation. It was the largest plantation in Raleigh as part of why it's Wake County owned. So I do hope that any future advancements of this site takes that into consideration, the historic nature of the site, and take into consideration the importance of preserving and maintaining historically what has been there and having sensitivity to any burial or anything like that that's currently existing on the site.

Thank you, Commissioner Omekai. Any other comments? At this point, we'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 11th, 2026, contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment with regard to zoning case number Z5625, After considering the policy maps and other materials included as a part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission determines that the proposed zoning amendment is for a zoning district that closely corresponds with the development envisioned in the Future Land Use Map designation and is therefore consistent with the Future Land Use Map and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans, and the request would be approved. The action taken is reasonable in the public interest because the request will continue to permit a variety of residential and office entitlement on the site while introducing industrial uses in a manner compatible with the surrounding area. The request also will continue to support Wake County government operations on the site. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Is there a second? Commissioner Selburn seconded it. So there's been a motion by Commissioner Neptune and a second by Commissioner Selburn to recommend approval of Z5625. All in favor? All opposed? The motion carries six to one. Commissioner Omekai, would you like to make a comment for the record?

I think that it's what the county is looking to do with the site. I don't have a problem with it. I'm just very sensitive to redevelopment and commercial use of plantation land.

I appreciate that. Thank you. We'll move forward now with zoning case Z0726, Western Boulevard and Clatton Street. We'll start with the presentation by staff.

Okay, good morning. My name is Demetrius Mutos, senior planner with Comprehensive and Long Range Planning. Here presenting for Z726, which is a rezoning case for 3911 Western Boulevard. The applicant is requesting to rezone this 1.5 acre property from neighborhood mixed use with a three story height designation to neighborhood mixed use with a seven story conditional use designation. The transit overlay district and the special residential parking overlay district would remain in place. The request is for consideration of an increase in permitted height and development capacity. Deadline for action on this item is October 10th. The zoning in the area contains a mix of commercial and mixed use zoning with residential districts immediately to the south. And the site is located at this transition area. This request would increase permitted intensity along the corridor while retaining the neighborhood mixed use base district. Surrounding area includes commercial properties along Western Boulevard, some established residential neighborhoods, several apartment communities, and NC State facilities there to the east. The site is located east of Interstate 440, right at the intersection, or close to the intersection of Gorman Street, where the city has identified planned transit investments. This is on the Western BRT corridor. There is a planned transit station pretty much right there at the intersection, which we will see a little bit more of later. The property currently contains a low rise commercial strip and a surface parking area. The site has been in commercial use since the early 1960s. It does not contain any existing housing. The applicant has offered one condition for this request that prohibits several vehicle oriented institutional and financial service and other specialized uses. This condition will just limit the range of uses that are allowed on the property in addition to what's already prohibited via the UDO. Again, the rezoning would increase development capacity. Under our analytical assumptions, the maximum residential capacity would increase from approximately 75 units under existing zoning to 208 units. Office and retail capacity would also increase. These figures, of course, are just a modeled zoning capacity, don't represent any specific project, and the individual scenarios are not cumulative. So these are subject to change once an actual plan gets into development review. The area does perform well on walking, biking, and transit access and proximity to employment. It also ranks favorably on the low transportation cost index, which indicates comparatively lower model transportation costs than average. The key transportation consideration is the site's relationship to both existing bus service and, again, that planned Western BRT, Rapid Transit Corridor. Route 300 currently goes along Western Boulevard directly in front of the site. There's also Route 30, the Wolf Line, which connects to main campus east and west. Doesn't run onto Western Boulevard, but it's very close. I believe that service is actually free for anybody wanting to use that Wolf Line, not just students or anything like that. Future development, of course, would take into consideration right-of-way streetscape, sidewalk, bicycle, transit improvements, and all of that coordinated with transportation in future development review. The request could increase the potential housing supply and continues to allow multifamily or mixed-use development near employment in NC State and transit. Again, it's keeping the base zoning districts, keeping the overlays, just taking that height from three stories to seven stories. Surrounding area does differ in socioeconomic indicators compared to Raleigh overall. The subject property does not currently contain residential uses or has in the past that I was able to find, and redevelopment of the site would of course include residential development as a potential option. The request is consistent with neighborhood mixed use, which is the recommended zoning district for, sorry, NX-7 is the recommended zoning district for neighborhood mixed use the comprehensive plan also includes transit station area guidance that would support additional height in the stationary locations of which this is in one depending on of course applicable policies and context and so staff has found that the request is consistent with the future land use map here's the urban form map showing a variety of urban form designations it's located in that bus rapid transit area the transit station area and the frequent transit area the future transit station is MEANT TO BE LOCATED VERY CLOSE TO THIS SITE, ALMOST RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF IT. SO BEING RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN FORM MAP. THE SUPPORTING POLICIES INCLUDE PROVISIONS RELATED TO, I'M JUMPING AHEAD A LITTLE BIT AFTER WHAT I JUST SAID, AGAIN, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE URBAN FORM MAP, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE. is the designation, NX-7, the base district not changing is still consistent with that feature land use map. And again, being in all those urban form designations, this would be consistent with that as well. The supporting policies include provisions related to compact infill development, additional housing, transit access, development intensity near those transit stations, and redevelopment of surface parking along the Western Boulevard corridor. There were no identified inconsistent policies with this request. There are no outstanding actions for the applicant at this time regarding rezoning consideration. Just again to reiterate, the request would allow additional height and development capacity on an existing commercial site along a planned BRT corridor. It would permit additional residential or mixed-use floor area consistent with the proposed rezoning, just a little bit more intense than what's already currently allowed there with the three-story height. I'm here for questions, the applicant is also here. Thank you for your time.

Thanks Demetrius. We'll now open the public hearing. We'll hear from the applicant and the opposition. Each will have 10 minutes. Is the applicant here?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I am Collier Marsh with Parker Poe at 301 Fayetteville Street here on behalf of the applicant and the owner of the property at 3911 Western Boulevard. This case may look familiar. It's similar to a case that came through roughly a month ago around the corner on Gorman Street. And Commissioner Omekai, I appreciate you. taking your time to pack your bags at that meeting so that we could get that one through in record time. This is a very similar case from the comprehensive plan standpoint and just proximity to the prior rezoning. It came before the board. So again, 3911 Western Boulevard, it's a relatively small site at 1.5 acres. We have NX3 zoning today with several overlay districts. We don't propose to change those overlay districts, don't propose to change the base zoning. What we're really looking at is, when we look at the comprehensive plan here, urban form, This is a site where the city's plan calls for residential density with a number of different policies pointing towards that. We are on the future BRT corridor and extremely close to a planned BRT stop at the corner of Western and Gorman. So any number of policies support residential density here. The staff report found overwhelming consistency with the comprehensive plan, no inconsistent policies. And just to summarize that request again, we're asking to go keep the NX district, but go from three stories to seven stories, keep the same overlay districts. And then the sole condition we have is to prohibit certain uses. But a lot of the things you typically see in a zoning case, frontages and certain other use restrictions already apply in the TOD overlay. So with that, we're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, and we'll reserve eight minutes and 16 seconds for the applicant. Is there anyone here in the chamber for opposition to this case? Seeing none, we'll bring it to the table. Do the commissioners have any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Irving, hi.

What are the story, the height of the surrounding buildings? Does this fit in kind of the same format of the height of the other businesses and residents in the area?

I don't know that I've done a full survey. There's a mix of heights in the area. I think what we see, and we had focused a bit more on the Gorman Street rezoning, looking at the context there, but it applies here. The trend is increase in height through this corridor, and I think plans along the BRT corridor are for much greater height. You do have a lot of retail along Western today. I think the expectation is that with BRT coming through, that's going to redevelop with some greater height. But this is a bit of a pioneer in the area, but I think it's the trend that the comprehensive plan calls for.

Would the applicant be willing to also, thank you for the list of conditions that you all are willing to put in the space, would you all also be willing to add a condition to prohibit vape shops?

We can look into that. I'm not sure that we looked in that specifically or what the use is, but we can take that into consideration.

I have a question. With this being so close to NC State, are students gonna be a part of, I guess, the demographic for who you guys would wish to rent these units?

Yeah, I think the likely residential development here would be student housing. So there were previously student housing developers looking at this site. This case was filed by a student housing developer. They've since dropped and now it's the owner's, but that seems to be the most interested residential developers in this market. That being said, I think the current owners are commercial operators and so there's different potential outcomes here but residential is likely to be student housing just based on the market interest today.

a follow-up since student housing, I guess, would be the target. With this also, because it's a large number of students that live in this area that go to NC State, which I'm gonna assume that that may be a large contributing factor to the socioeconomic vulnerability in the neighborhood. Was there any particular reason why subsidized or affordability wasn't a part of this?

Yeah, and so we've evaluated affordable housing in the context of student housing. It's not the standard case because students need to either be essentially orphaned and meet their own qualifications. Their parents separately need to qualify. So it's just kind of a bit of a hornet's nest that we can't solve, especially without having a developer on board. But it's something I think that it's important consideration, but we're not able to address it with this rezoning.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions from the commissioners? Commissioner McKay.

Are you all interested in looking at different styles of housing if I mean to the point of student housing like shared space or shared housing things of that nature versus just apartment or condo style housing that will even if it's not subsidized allow the access to students who do go to NC State to be able to live there especially since we are losing some housing around NC State where students do live like the Gorman Street that we discussed before.

I mean, I think the owners are open to all opportunities here. As I said, we've had, I think, two residential developers. I worked with one of them come through. There's some challenges with the site, and so we're listening to the market, and I don't think we're foreclosing any opportunities like that.

Thank you. So I think it's important to clarify that the current owner is asking for this rezoning without their own development plans. They're trying to make the site open to purchase by a developer. That's right. Sure. If there are no other questions, we'll close the public hearing and open it up to discussion. We're also open to a motion.

Madam Chair, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 11th, 2026, contained the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment with regard to zoning case number Z726. Given that this is consistent with our future land use map, comprehensive plan and this action taken is reasonable in the public interest because it'll support compact mixed-use infill along the planned Western BRT corridor, expands housing and neighborhoods serving commercial opportunities near transit, and applies pedestrian oriented transit oriented development standards and limits incompatible uses.

Thank you. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER NEPTUNE AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF Z5625. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED? SORRY, Z725. THANK YOU. Z726, so I'll start over. It's been moved by Commissioner Neptune and seconded by Commissioner Sanchez to recommend approval of Z726. All in favor? All opposed? Z726 passes unanimously. Thank you. Moving on, we'll go to rezoning Z1926, Edwards Mill Road, and we'll start with the staff presentation.

Yes, good morning, Planning Commission and Chair. My name is Matt McGregor. I'm here to talk about case TCZ1926. The site address is 3717 Edwards Mill Road. The request is a text change to zoning conditions of 2.39 acres, and because it's a text change to zoning conditions, the base zoning designation of R6 conditional use is gonna remain the same. Planning Commission deadline for action is October 10th. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential, with most of the surrounding zoning being R4, R6, and R10. Here is a look at the site. Again, the site is surrounded mostly by low-scale residential single-family homes. There is moderate-scale residential closer to Crabtree Valley Mall, and there is some institutional uses down the street a little bit further down Edwards Mill. I believe it's called Iron Academy and Academy 31. And then the site is also directly across from the Laurel Hills Community Center. Here's just a closer look at the site. Here are four street-facing views of the site. The first one is west-facing on Edwards Mill, kind of at the end of the property. The second is northwest-facing on Edwards Mill, sort of the middle. And the third is further down Edwards Mill. And then finally, the fourth photo is around the corner on Carriage Drive. And then this is just a picture for context. So to try to make this as simple as possible, because this text changes any conditions, I figured I would just include a summary of the existing conditions that are currently on the site and then kind of break down the changes from there. The first condition on the site is caps the residential units at 25. The second condition on the site adds a 15 foot minimum setback from the essentially think like the southwest SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE LAST PIN NUMBER ON THIS CONDITION, THE 874671. THIS IS SITE ADDRESS 3505 CARRIES DRIVE AND THAT IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS REZONING REQUEST. ESSENTIALLY THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, THE 3505 CARRIES DRIVE NOW OWNS THE PROPERTY OF THE REZONING CASE 3717 EDWARDS MILL ROAD AND BECAUSE HE NOW OWNS BOTH PROPERTIES HE FEELS THAT THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS ON The 87-46-71 pin are just no longer relevant for what he has planned for the future. So again, I just wanted to highlight that. And I will show a slide next to, again, put in context of what site we're talking about. Condition three adds a 30-foot building setback from the pins listed below, and just think more of the rear of the property as a 30-foot rear setback. Condition four requires shading trees and shrub buffering along the 874671, the 3505 carriage drive site that is now owned by both property, that both property is now owned by the same owner. Condition five establishes states that a subdivision of the property shall provide, if necessary, an easement to accommodate placement of the traffic signal and condition six states that in lieu of constructing a traffic signal at the Edwards Mill Road and Carriage Drive intersection, the developer shall contribute $10,000 to pedestrian infrastructure. So here is the property that I was referencing, the 874671, the 3505 Carriage Drive property that the owner now owns this property and this property. This is the property that is in discussion right now. Ooh. Remind me how to get this off?

Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry about that. So these are a summary of the changes and the proposed condition on the site. Nothing has changed dramatically except for the removal of the 3505 carriage drive property, the 874671 pin. So you can see that removed in condition two, and then the entire removal of condition four. And here's just a cleaned up version of the proposed conditions. The existing zoning and proposed zoning designations will remain the same, R6-CU. The acreage is 2.39 acres. Per condition one, the maximum units on both the existing and proposed are 25 units. And then the setbacks are greater than your standard R6 setbacks due to conditions two and three. The site has a higher walk score than average, a slightly higher transportation, sorry, transit score than average, and it has a higher bike score than average. It also has a higher transportation cost index and a higher job proximity. The site is served by One Go Raleigh Route, Route 4, Rex Hospital. The request will neither add nor subtract to the housing supply. It does not include subsidized units. It permits a variety of housing types. Smaller units are allowed. Smaller lots than the citywide average are allowed, and it is within walking distance of transit. There's about three bus stops within reasonable walking distance of the site. The site has a lower percentage of people of color living in the census tract at around 12% compared to the citywide average of 46. It also has a lower percentage of low income residents that live in the area, about 18 compared to 29. And then the median rent has increased significantly less in this area than the citywide average at about 17.7% compared to the citywide average of 41. The requested R6 CU designation is consistent with low-scale residential because one, R6 is considered consistent with low-scale residential in the future land use map, but also I believe that the unit cap of 25 and the buffering requirements and stuff like that also just make it more consistent with low-scale residential in general. There's no urban form guidance on the site. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and again, consistent with the future land use map. Here are a list of consistent policies I found. Mainly they focus on future land use map consistency, conditional use consistency, buffering requirements, housing variety, zoning for housing. I only found two inconsistent policies, and they're your standard ones that you see quite often, the LU26 and CS4.4 response time standards. There are no outstanding actions. Deadline for action is October 10th, and upcoming PC meetings are August 25th and September 8th. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thanks, Matt. We'll now open the public hearing. We will hear from the applicant and opposition. Each will have 10 minutes. We'll start with the applicant.

Okay, good morning. Ladies and gentlemen of the planning commission, I'm Matt Kirkpatrick, the owner of the property Edwards Mill Road, as Matthew covered. We rezoned it several years ago, and this condition was a request of the 3505 Carriage Drive property to give them an additional buffer from the planned project. They've since sold the home, it went into someone else, A couple years later, we started talking. They wanted to sell themselves and move somewhere else. So we purchased the property. And the buffer no longer is warranted because this will be part of the property, part of the project. We, I think one of the, we had one public meeting with the neighborhood, and they just wanted to know, has anything changed about the project, et cetera, no, we're just gonna, we bought this property to move the, excuse me, let me start my exhibits, I'm sorry. Some of the reasons for the The request of the rezoning to remove this condition is it's no longer warranted because the property, you know, we purchased it. And then second, we want to move the driveway. We get to move it about 62 feet. Well, here's an illustration of the buffer that we're asking to remove. I'll just move straight to the site plan modification. Okay. Effectively, you see that this was the original design of this planned project. The driveway is, I think, about 70 or 80 feet from Edwards Mill Road, and by purchasing this property, we're moving it about 65 to 70 feet further away from Edwards Mill Road, which allows probably three-plus cars, additional stacking, and it would benefit everyone, the neighbors, the future residents, et cetera. So just making that access point, that connection at Carriage and Edwards Mill. beneficial to everyone in fact even the residents young and old that came to our meeting said yeah that would be good I mean so they they have the same buffer they had before but we're just effectively moving the driveway 60 I think 62 feet further away from the intersection to improve the access and it also makes our property a little more efficient to build so that is really the crux of the presentation. By removing the buffer, of course, we're able to make this driveway move, as you see, because it was blocked previously. I'm available for any questions if you guys, if you have any. But we think it's beneficial for everyone. It makes this site a little more efficient to build. All the residents like the idea of more further access from Edwards Mill Road, your transportation here, like the concept better. And that's all for me.

Thank you, Mr. Kirkpatrick. We'll reserve six minutes and 33 seconds for you. Is there anyone in the chamber here in opposition to this case? Seeing none, we'll keep the public hearing open, and are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant or the staff? Commissioner Omukai.

I have a question. Can we see that slide that talked about public benefit?

Okay. Let's see. Removing buffets. Benefits. Benefits of removing the buffer. Provider said, okay. Yes, ma'am. That's the slide.

And will there be any tree conservation in the development of this site?

Let's see, it currently is above, over two acres, so I think it's 2.4 acres.

There's a required tree conservation area, but 10% on the site anyway, and then if it's over two acres, it's an open space, an additional 10%, I believe. So 20%? I believe so.

Okay.

The primary tree conservation is just 10%. So 10% of the site will be set aside as primary TCA.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the commissioners? At this point, we'll close the public hearing. Thank you. And we'll keep it at the table for discussion. Are there any further comments? If there are none, we'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 11th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment with regard to zoning case number TCZ1926. After considering the policies, maps, and plans and other materials, we find that the Planning Commission determines that the proposed zoning amendment is in fact consistent with our future land use map and consistent with our comprehensive plan and other adopted plans, and the request should be approved. The action taken is reasonable in the public interest because the request maintains the existing zoning designation, which is compatible with the surrounding area. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Neptune. Is there a second? Commissioner Baird second. So there's been a motion by Commissioner Neptune and second by Commissioner Baird to recommend approval of TCZ 1926. All in favor? All opposed? TCZ 1926 motion carries unanimously. Right, we have one more to go. I did not think we'd get through all these today. Good job, gang. Rezoning case Z2126 Hodges Road. We'll start with staff presentation.

All right, thank you again. My name is Demetrius Mutos. This case is Z2126, located at 2905 Hodge Road. The request would rezone approximately 2.93 acres from Wake County R30 to Raleigh R10. This is a general use request, so it does not include any zoning conditions or any specific development plan. There is a concurrent annexation request that covers the same area. Your deadline for action for this case is October 10th. The property currently has Wake County residential zoning, R30. Zoning within the surrounding area is predominantly of Raleigh planned development districts with other residential districts nearby. The site is located on the east side of Hodge Road near Scenic Woods Drive. The surrounding area includes residential development, wooded land, stream corridors, and properties located both inside and outside Raleigh's city limits, which is denoted by the wonderfully hand-drawn green line there on the screen. Here's some images of the site. As you can see, there is a single family house on the site, but most of the surrounding land, pretty rural, residential, open space for the time being. So here's the comparison between existing zoning and proposed zoning. Our analysis estimated that a maximum capacity of four units would exist or could exist under the existing zoning district and then up to 60 units under the requested zoning district. The proposed district also has different height and setback standards and again these figures describe potential zoning capacity and don't represent any sort of approved site plan. The transportation analysis identified walk, transit, bicycle, and job proximity scores that are below the applicable averages. The transportation cost index is actually near the national median for this site. Just to explain the local transportation cost index a little bit, it estimates how much a representative lower income renter household would spend on driving and public transit based on where it lives. A score near the national median means that the site's estimated transportation costs are roughly typical compared with neighborhoods nationwide. A higher index would then indicate a lower cost. The closest identified transit service is Go Raleigh Route 18L, which you can see to the top left of your map there. It's the Barwell New Hope Route, so this site is not located anywhere really close to that route. The requested zoning has a potential to increase housing supply and permit a wider range of housing types, unit sizes, and lot sizes. This request does not include subsidized housing commitments, and the site is not clearly within walking distance of any existing transit service. Excuse me. The surrounding area has greater racial and linguistic diversity than Raleigh overall. The local share of low income residents is generally similar to the citywide share. Local rents have remained comparatively stable, while rents have increased citywide. Land use patterns in the area have also shifted from rural low density conditions toward additional residential development. Future land use map designates the site as rural residential. The requested R10 district does not align with that designation. It would align more with the moderate scale residential future land use designation. There is no urban form map guidance for this site. So there is no additional guidance for this zoning quest as far as urban form is concerned. Our analysis found that the request was consistent with the comprehensive plan overall. The analysis also identified an inconsistency with the rural residential future land use map designation. And again, notice that there is no formal urban form map guidance for this area. There are The request aligns with policies addressing compact development, density transition, housing variety, neighborhood scale housing, housing opportunity and choice, and zoning that accommodates a range of housing types. We identified four inconsistent policies, LU 1.2 and LU 3.1, concern consistency with the future land use map, including the zoning of newly annexed land, LU 2.6 concerns infrastructure impacts associated with increased development potential while that CS 4.4 concerns fire and emergency medical response time standards. The first two inconsistencies result from the current residential, rural residential designation of the site and then the remaining two relate to infrastructure capacity and emergency response coverage. This request, because it does not align with the current designation on the future land use map, approval of the rezoning would also amend the future land use map. That designation would change from rural residential to moderate scale residential, of which that R10 that is being requested is in alignment with. Here's a map just showing what that would look like if the rezoning is approved. So again, it would just change from rural residential to moderate scale residential. It already abuts moderate scale residential there to the south and east. No outstanding issues for the applicant regarding how this rezoning moves forward right now. Deadline for action again is October 10th. Upcoming meetings the 25th and September 8th. The applicant is here for questions and hopefully answers and I'm also here for questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Demetrius. We'll now open the public hearing and we'll hear from the applicant and opposition. Each will have 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Moutos. Good morning again. Commissioner Hunter Winstead, Morning Star Law Group, representing the applicant in this case, Mungo Homes. This case is really about integrating the three-acre site, small site, into the Banks 20 subdivision, which is currently undergoing several different phases. I think we're on phase five now. currently submitted under ASR, it's 1,800 residences. As you can see, this is really filling in the gap that's just south of Scenic Woods there to integrate with the higher density townhomes that's part of the PD for Banks 20. There's two main reasons we believe this rezoning makes sense. Number one, it really achieves that kind of cohesive development pattern, that integration with the Banks 20 PD that was approved years ago. Number two, increasing housing supply in this area to meet that demand. This is just a snapshot of the master plan that was submitted and approved back in, I believe it was 2022 or 2023 for the Banks 20 PD. You can see here's our site integrating with this darker tan color. which contemplates that multi-family or town home. It's the densest part from a residential perspective of that Banks 20 PD. A few of these specific comprehensive plan policies, we believe this case advances. That neighborhood scale housing, again, that integration, which is already approved, that totally surrounds the site, the street just to the north. Those density transitions, there will be a 20-foot buffer planted on the north side of the developments here, which is consistent with what's shown on the subdivision plans for this portion. of Banks 20 and also that compact development, placing density where density makes sense, again, in this area. And then reason number two, increasing the housing supply, consistent with the comprehensive plans, two specific policies here, zoning for housing opportunity and choice, and having that housing variety here, again, townhomes, that denser residential to really meet the demand that's in this area, and again, that integration to Banks 20 is really the thrust of this case. With that, this is a shorter presentation. I appreciate the commission's attention through the vast array of cases that we've had today. So with that, I will respectfully request the commission recommend approval and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Winstead. And we'll reserve seven minutes and 47 seconds. Is there anyone in the chamber here in opposition? So we'll also increase that to 10 minutes. And when you get to the microphone, will you state your name, please?

Hi, my name's Tamara Joyner. I live at 2725 Hodge Road. I did not attend the neighborhood meeting that the memo was sent out. I actually found it online when I got the packet of everything that Mongo Homes has started, and I understand that this is about the Banks Project, but that's across the street, and I want to give you a little history. I grew up on Hogs Road. I recently moved back to the home I lived in, 2725, after my mom passed, but what they're omitting to talk about is the mobile home park that is adjacent to this on the same side of the road. So Banks' 1800 home that they have is on the opposite side of what they want to do now. The 1800 homes has two outlets, Hodge Road and Pool Road. So we're hoping that majority of these 1800 homes that are on in this subdivision, Banks 20, uses Pool Road as their primary access and not Hodge Road. Because what we have there is true affordable housing. My grandfather actually developed the mobile home park. We recently lost 10 lots on the back of that due to the 540 DOT project. We have people that have paid for their trailers, lived there their entire lives, and when I say, I'm not just up here talking about the buzzword affordable housing, we get offers daily to buy our trailer parks. We do not sell because we have the family owned business with these tenants. We had a tenant that drives a scooter. We have no sidewalks on Hodge Road. It's predominantly single family homes all the way until you get to this point. He got hit on Poole and Hodge Road on his scooter leaving the mobile home park. um and is he would be here with me today but he's in rehab um he didn't make it but the point is if you add 60 town homes simply because mungo homes wants to add town homes it has nothing to do with the 1800 homes across the street they just found a little plot of land bought it from this gentleman and want to put 60 townhomes three stories high there's nothing on Hodge Road currently that means it and especially on this side of the road where the mobile home park is We have got at the end of our road. We're pulling Hodge intersect. We've got a dollar store It's not a dollar general. It's a dollar store, and then we've got a family-owned convenience store the kids and most of our tenants walk down this road daily to go to the grocery store and back. Many of them don't have cars. When you start adding 60 people in town homes, Let's just say we're going to add 45 more cars. There's no outlet but Hodge Road. This end of Hodge Road, there's not an outlet. So they have to take Hodge Road to Pool Road. Unlike the Banks 20 or the 18 homes, they can use Pool Road as their access. They have two ways. These townhomes, they have no way to go. So we don't have sidewalks. We've got affordable housing. These people have lived there their whole lives. It is going to be very, very unsafe. They walk and get their groceries. I mean, you know, I know that you guys did drive-throughs. I listened this morning for the Jonesdale. If you would just drive Hodge Road, you would see how unsafe it is going to be to add a maximum of 60 townhomes. just because Mongo Homes wants to expand. They listed in here in their public benefits, the surrounding development provide public benefits associated with the concurrent plan for the location. There's no public benefits to this. There's none. And then it says decreasing disruptions in the street section and pedestrian facilities. They're not decreasing anything. They're increasing traffic flow, they're increasing the safety is just not going to be there. And like I said, this accident that happened on the intersection of pool and Hodge road with one of my tenants was last month. He, this is only form. He drives a scooter to the store and he was bumped off his scooter. Um, I just, this is not about adding affordable housing. I'd still want to talk about safety concerns if it was affordable housing. This is about Mungo Homes adding 60 more town homes and not benefiting the community whatsoever.

Thank you, Ms. Joyner. We'll reserve four minutes and 57 seconds for you. We'll keep the public hearing open. Are there any questions from the commissioners for staff, applicant, or opposition?

Commissioner Omekai. For the applicant, has the applicant taken time to reach out or discuss or do his good faith efforts in having conversations and outreach with the surrounding residents?

Yes, so we had two neighborhood meetings. The first neighborhood meeting I believe we had either one or two folks attend. The second neighborhood meeting we had two folks attend and one of them, I believe both of them were the owners of these sites here. I think it was these two. their major concern was where 540 was coming through and so for just about the whole hour we talked with you know how 540 is coming through here that is just just well east of their site they had no concerns with density the proximity they were familiar with the overall project and again banks 20 already extends you know this is the entire boundary of where banks 20 so it goes a good degree east of Hodge already. Like I say, there's an ASR just submitted going through first round review for this portion here for town homes. So that's entirely surrounding our site. And so yes, I'll say we did have a good faith conversation with those two residents at that second neighborhood meeting for just about the whole hour. And again, that was the main concern was where 540 was coming through, which really has nothing to do with this specific rezoning case. I mean, this is just about the three acre site right here.

Were the signage put out for this rezoning to give people opportunity to come?

Do you remember if we had sign, yeah, I think we did, yeah.

There were, so there would have been mailings for the first neighborhood meeting, mailings with owners and tenants in the 500-foot radius, second neighborhood meeting, mailings with owners and tenants in the 1,000-foot radius, or I guess we did the signs instead of the tenant mailings, yeah.

Yes, ma'am, there was a sign placed on Scenic Woods Drive there, and then also a sign placed on Hodge Road, two signs.

Where on Hodge Road was the other sign placed? Just on the property frontage there. On the property frontage.

Yeah, it was on the property frontage. If I can kind of tag onto that, I think the question would be, are Ms. Joyner's tenants within that zone?

I would have to look at the radius map in the mailing list to see if her name was on there. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if her name was in the list for the required mailings or anything.

I think we were assuming the tenants would have received the notices is what we're asking is were they in that zone of residences that received a letter notice is the specific question.

Typically they are listed, tenant notices are listed if they're within the 1,000 foot or 500 radius. But off the top of my head, I'm not sure if those addresses were on that list.

It sounded like there was a little discrepancy of whether they did the mailings or just did the signage.

So, mailings and signage were both done, all of that was done, yes.

Okay, so they received notice appropriately.

Is there an opportunity to include the tenants who may be impacted by this? Because I do see there's a two-lane road. It is very rural. I know that area, it is a lot of mobile homes in that area where people are living. And to her point, well, that gets into discussion. But is there an opportunity for you all to do more due diligence to make sure that the tenants that will be largely impacted because it looks like there's more people that may be outside of that radius, and even if it's putting signage over there on Garden Valley or something like that, is there an opportunity to do that so that those tenants can have an opportunity to engage with you all in this development?

Well, anybody is welcome to contact us, our office, and have questions answered, anything like that. Obviously, come to public meetings. As far as adding people to lists or adding more signage, I'd have to defer to see what our policies are for that.

Well, it would be up to the applicant if they wanted to do any more outreach, because at this point they've done all the UDO-required outreach. Just to clarify, too, for all of the commissioners, I believe this was said already, but if it wasn't, the Banks 20, that big development you see on the screen, that's been approved for a number of years now, and there are going to be many, many improvements made to Hodge Road. And perhaps the applicant's team can speak to exactly what is planned for that. But there are UDO requirements. Hodge Road in that stretch will look very different in a few years than it does today as that development's coming in. So there will be things like sidewalks, road widening. There's gonna be a lot of improvements made out there. So that's gonna be part of that planned development.

Could the applicant speak to whatever infrastructure development they're planning on doing with the site?

Yes, absolutely, and that's tied to the approved PD that Ms. Ashton mentioned. I know that Hodge wrote, I believe it is a four-lane divided designation on the comprehensive plan, and so what Mungo's doing in conjunction with those ASRs that are going through their site plan applications that are already, many of them approved, some are underway, is bringing their frontage of Hodge Road up to that standard, and so it's got all of those facilities that are required, sidewalks being the main one, widening the road where it's necessary, and so that's all just for Hodge Road. There's also improvements up here to Pool Road as well, but there's a significant amount of that infrastructure. Hodge Road is gonna look much different than it currently looks once Bakes 20 is finished.

I have a question. Would that include the intersection at Hodges and Pool, or does it not extend to there?

I know there is work, I believe a median is getting installed on pool, specifically for the intersection.

Yeah, so we have road work going in at the Hodge pool intersection that is in conjunction with the DOT improvements.

And that would include pedestrian measures?

Yeah, the sidewalks on the northern side.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for that.

So I'm actually working on a case in Nightdale that's this site right up here, planned for a food line. So, yeah, eventually the folks that live in Banks 20 could walk up to that site as well with the improvements that are going in. They cannot do that now unless they want to walk on the grass or street.

Commissioner Nekton. Thank you. I just want to make sure I'm clear on the location of the current mobile homes. Are they in that gray area, RMH? Mm-hmm. Is that right? Okay. Okay. Thank you. That was just to make sure I was clear on what I was looking at.

Are there any other questions from the commissioners for staff, opposition, or applicant?

No, it's fine. Go ahead. A question to the opposition.

Madam Chair, I have a question after Commissioner McKay. Absolutely.

Thank you for coming here today. Have you worked to make sure that your residents that are in the mobile home know about the development and are able to be engaged with the applicant?

I just got the letter and we have reached out. They had said that they think everything is kind of, they think probably, my tenants have not gotten any letters or they didn't know about it at all. We reached out to them because like I said, I didn't receive a letter from Morning Star Law Firm. I found it online. I received a letter from the City of Raleigh And that's how I knew about it. So I don't know of two meetings that they mentioned. I just know about the April 15th, the letter that I saw. But my tenants do not know about it. My cousin who lives closer to this proposed development, he did not get a development, last name Myrick. So we were completely in the dark about this new project across the street from it. No one's been notified because I reached out to try to, the tenant that I spoke about that got hit by the car to see if he was available and he had no idea about any of it, wasn't reached out. That I'm kind of at a loss how they have reached out to everybody.

So I think we can quickly, this comes up a lot in terms of what the extent of the notices are. The notices are sent out based on a radius of the applicant's location, so I will direct to the city staff to confirm that they were sent out appropriately, and that may not happen today, but we'll see if we can.

Yeah, I'm looking at the mailing list now. We've got... Billy Steve Myrick Sr. at 2741 Hodge Road on the mailing list and Judy M. Hicks. at 2732 Hodge Road, which I believe is your residence.

Well, that was my grandmother's house, 2732, and then 2725 is Judy M. Hicks, that was my mom. And then my cousin that I just mentioned beside me is the first one you just mentioned, and we did receive those. So if we received them, everybody in the mobile home park absolutely should have received them, because the mobile home park is between my house and the proposed site, so they did not receive those. And I've got 104 units, minus the ones DOT took, and so that's a lot of people that are doing a lot of walking.

I just wanna weigh in here and say that we mailed notice to the owner of the manufactured housing community but not to tenants. Wake County does not have tenant addresses for that property, so we did not mail notice to those folks.

Thank you for clarifying. So in that case, I think it would be the responsibility of the...

So I am 50% of the owner and I work 50%. I am 50% of the park and I work there daily. We have not received notification.

So to clarify, the tenants would not have received individual notices unless they were on the deed of the property.

Correct, but we could have notified them if we had received. I've received one notification. I actually have it over there. That is all that we've received on the mailing. So I'm not sure if you have the correct mail.

So the address from Wake County is Valley Woods Mobile Estates 2329 Hodge Road in Nightdale. Yes, ma'am. That's correct. That's where we mailed notice.

I'm gonna have Commissioner Neptune ask his question. Is it relevant to this part of the discussion?

Oh, yeah, I think so, yes. This is briefly for the mobile home park owner. Could you restate how many, I guess, residents you currently have at the mobile home park?

Or maybe how many units, I guess. We have 104 minus 10, because DOT just recently took the back street of that.

104 minus 10. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And then, thank you. This is a question, I guess it's maybe for staff. How long has this planned development kind of been, I guess, ongoing or sort of in development?

Yeah, let me look up the approval date for the Banks 2020.

Thank you. And while you're doing that, I understand that this is also sort of moving in conjunction with a potential annexation that will go before council. Do we know, do we happen to know if that's been scheduled or that council vote?

So that will follow this rezoning case. They'll be at the same hearing. Don't know quite yet. Council has to schedule probably in a month and a half-ish would be my guess.

Thank you. The Banks 20 plan development was approved and effective September 5th, 2023. 2023. Thank you. And the request was filed in 2020.

Oh, wow. The request was filed in 2020, approved in 2023, and here we are in 2026.

And it sounds like the owners of the mobile home park near this planned development are for some reason just now receiving notice.

Well, this new piece.

This new piece.

We knew all about the 1,800 homes across the street from us. We also knew that they had another outlet. We had no idea about this proposed 60 townhomes with the only outlet being Hodge Road. I mean, so, we didn't have anything to do, the 1800, that's fine, as long as there's another outlet that we feel like they predominantly will use, Pull Road, keeps everything safe, but now that you have this right at the mobile home park, right at where they walk, and they talk about sidewalks, well, you heard earlier, you know, the hottest place, I mean, the most priority of putting sidewalks and all these different things hadn't even happened in the one this morning much less hodge road or two-lane road so i'm i'm not going to hold my breath on the sidewalk and the safety of my tenants thank you thank you madam chair are there any other questions from the commissioner madam chair i would note it's also 12 o'clock just for the good of the commission and then colleagues

this item's not due till october i don't believe yeah we do have time to decide on this so in the for the sake of time i will uh ask for a motion to adjourn or wait sorry So I would entertain a motion to defer this case to the next meeting.

So move. I make a motion to defer this case to our next meeting.

Do we need to ask the applicant if they have time?

Yes, and I would give the applicant some direction on what you would like them to do during the deferral period because there hasn't been any conversation about addition of conditions. It sounds like it's more about community engagement. So any direction that you can give I think would be helpful.

Well, if I may. In my opinion, the deferral is for us to, what I would like to see is us have an opportunity to investigate this a little more, maybe give the client more opportunity to engage, and then we can come up with if we do have conditions that we want to add to it in this area once we are able to glean more information about the project.

And those conditions would be voluntary based on conversations with the public engagement?

And if I could just briefly follow, I think something I'm sensitive to is the fact that we may have upwards of nearly 100 residents who could be potentially impacted, or maybe, you know, I think we can plan they will be impacted by what's happening with this larger development. And so just, I know for myself, I mean, I'm just now kind of grappling with the potential implications of approving the case. And so given that there's not, doesn't appear to be a rush item, I would appreciate more time just to sort of better understand it. And maybe if the applicant does want to sort of engage the ownership of the nearby property, I certainly would encourage it. I think this commission appreciates good faith engagement with neighbors, right? We all want to be good neighbors. So I think that's where it's coming from. I just, from this commission here.

And even if it's possibly to defer, maybe not to the next meeting, Just to give them more time to actually engage instead of just two weeks.

Understood. Mr. Winstead, we are considering a motion to defer this case. We could defer it. I think the deadline was October. We could defer it until August 25th, September 8th, September 22nd. We might be pushing it, but when would you be able to take a step back and re-engage?

I think the preference would be two weeks. I'm happy to give you my information today and we can meet this week. I've got availability. So I think that would be the applicant's preference. It's not a rush item to Commissioner Neptune's point, but we've got a site plan going in around it and like to integrate it as soon as possible. That would be the preference. Again, we'll leave it to the will of the commission. But I think two weeks is sufficient for us to be able to get together this week.

There's an intermediate deadline to be here on the 25th. What would that intermediate deadline be for changing the application?

It would be Friday, the 15th.

Friday.

That's like this week, so is it possible?

Yeah, Commissioner McKay. That's like by the end of the week. I don't know if it's possible. It seems improbable to be able to reach all the residents by then. if it's possible to, if the applicant is okay with it and if he can get with the residents and the owner of the property and maybe the first meeting in September, that gives them a little more time to actually. That would be September 8th.

Okay, yeah, then. That works for us then.

Thank you both. Perfect, thank you. In that case, Commissioner Baird.

I just have a question for the applicant. With regard to what we see here on the screen is characterized as pods C, D, and E, is rezoning required for development of those areas?

No, that's all been done. That's all done.

This is just for this three acre portion. I would encourage all of us to think about this in terms of sort of procedural issues and substantive issues. The procedural issues are related to who has notice, whether the applicant has met its requirements under the code and under the ordinance, if so the case should move forward if there's a question about that a legitimate question about that let's let's resolve that let's either get confirmation from staff that appropriate notice went out or an affidavit from the applicant that notice was given okay I'm fine to provide more time for the for the this property, the RMH property, and anybody else that maybe should have gotten notice but didn't get notice. Let's make sure they got notice or confirm that they got notice. But then the substantive issue, right, is if we're talking about 62 townhomes on this little three-acre property, That's the least of this community's concerns. If C, D, and E are already rezoned and going to be developed rather intensely, and if transportation is making improvements to Hodge Road, etc., The rezoning of this property is kind of a drop in the bucket, friends. I just want to share my thoughts on that. So I would suggest solve the procedural issues and then get to the substantive issues, which I think are not going to be material to the rest of this development.

Well, I would acknowledge that. I appreciate the note from our colleague on the commission. And I would, again, just observe that if we were to move forward, there would still be time available for the applicant to continue to engage nearby neighbors. as this moves forward with annexation and sort of the larger plan development, I think to the point of our colleague on the commission, much of this is kind of moving forward as far as like the larger planned development. I think in part I was asking for a potential deferral because we're at the end of our time here and I wanted to respect that and just allow ourselves more time to sort of chew on this. But I would acknowledge I think much of this I would feel comfortable I think moving forward with, but I also appreciate the applicant having that time to engage, you know, people whose lives will be affected by this. And, you know, there's a question. I mean, to me, it is substantive when human lives could be impacted by this, regardless of how long it's been in the offing. I just, I appreciate knowing that there's been an opportunity for further engagement when it feels like there hasn't been any, but I mean, I do believe that I think the staff has acknowledged, you know, notices went out to the owners. And I think from the owners, there's hopefully a movement forward and engaging the tenants and, You know, whether or not that's happened, I think you now have more time to engage your tenants about this issue specifically. But, you know, if there's a desire to put forward a motion, you know, to move forward with this, I would entertain it. Madam Chair.

So you're suggesting a motion to approve this today?

I would be comfortable with a motion to move forward on this item if another commissioner would like to make it.

I would like to make a motion that we defer this item as the applicant and the owner have already agreed that they have time to do it and we have time to make a decision that is not rushed. Even if things are moving forward with this property and this project anyway, we still have time to engage residents for them to know what's coming and give their viewpoints so that we can make conditions which we haven't made because we don't have enough information.

Understood, so we have a motion from Commissioner Omekai to defer case Z2126 until September 8. Do I have a second? I have a second from Commissioner McAllister. All in favor of deferring Z2126 to the September 8 Commission meeting, raise your hand, please. All opposed. If you abstain from voting, that's an automatic oppose. Okay, so we're unanimously supporting the motion to defer this case until September 8th's commission meeting. With that, we have a few pieces of stuff. There are no committee meetings between now and the next, so I think we can entertain a motion to adjourn. The text change committee meeting is happening next week. It's not, it's canceled, or it's going forward.

It's happening, it is happening.

The text change committee meeting is happening. Commissioner Neptune, are you the chair of the text change committee? We need to confirm the text change committee time and location.

I would love to. I believe that the text change committee of planning commission will be meeting on Wednesday, the 19th of August in the Raleigh Municipal Building. I think room, I want to say 305 at four o'clock.

anything else before I adjourn and announce this meeting. I have a question. Nope.

In regards to the exchange committee, can anybody on the commission go, even if they're not on? Okay.

As long as you all do not achieve quorum of the planning commission. Then I will say I have sent you all an email about scheduling a possible retreat, and I am looking for some responses from some of you still. I've re-shared that link with the folks I have not yet heard from. Thank you.

Our next meeting will be August 25th at nine o'clock here in the council chamber. And at this point I will entertain a motion to adjourn.