Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mm.

On the agenda, if there's anybody that would like to comment, please come to the podium.

And if you would state your name for the record. Good morning, Chris Crew, 306 Elm Street, Raleigh. Our neighborhoods are the framework upon which we build community. And we care enough about them that we've codified preservation of character in section 2.2.7 of the UDO. We've got good written guidance and process for consideration of new development in our historic districts. but we seem to have only nominal process for examination of proposals involving NCODs and neighborhoods otherwise protected under Section 2.2.7. The Commission should be uncomfortable making a recommendation to Council concerning a zoning proposal that involves removal of character protection without a set of plans and drawings detailed enough to reach a rational, reasonable, and consistent conclusion that the resulting development will be compatible and will reinforce the established character of the neighborhood while mitigating adverse impacts on adjacent homes. Public stakeholders should not be left to their own devices in presenting you with an impact statement. The city staff and commission should be advocating for neighborhood preservation with the same zeal and intensity that they are advocating for density. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else present that would like to speak at this public comment period? Seeing no one approach the podium, we will move to our next item on the agenda. This will be item C, the consent agenda. The only thing we have on the consent agenda today is the approval of the minutes. Have the commissioners had a chance to read and review the minutes? And if so, could I hear a motion? Yes, please.

Can we add to Section E2 regarding case Z5625? Commissioner Omekai asked to have a comment included in her vote against approval. Her comment was that she does not have an issue with what the county was proposing, but wishes that all future decisions and plans would be sensitive to the history of the site.

Unless there's any objection, I think that's appropriate, and we will include that in our motion. Is there any other comments or corrections to be made? I'm gonna go ahead and move that we approve the minutes with the comments included from Commissioner Omokaye. Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor? Any opposed? That passes unanimously, thank you. WE'RE GOING TO ADJUST THE AGENDA HERE JUST A BIT. OUR TEXT CHANGE CHAIR IS ON THE WAY, BUT NOT QUITE HERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO HOLD ON SECTION D, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEES, AND MOVE RIGHT INTO NEW BUSINESS SECTION E. SO UP FIRST FOR SECTION E IS REZONING Z 1526, 7600 FALLS OF THE NEUCE ROAD, AND WE WILL HEAR FROM JACOB HUNT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU.

Good morning Planning Commission and Chair. Again, my name is Jacob Hunt. This is Z1526, 7600 Falls of Neuse Road. This is our request to rezone about six acres from Residential 4 to OX3 with a parking limited frontage and some conditions attached to that application. Your deadline for action is October 24th, 2026. Zoning in this area is predominantly R4, but there is OX3 existing north and south of the site on Falls of Neuse Road. A little aerial view of this site. This is in North Raleigh. To the southwest there is Ravenscroft. And then there is, as you can see, office and residential mixed use, institutional and low-scope residential future land use maps around this area. This site is part of that broader institutional future land use, which generally recommends essentially any zoning district that would allow for the institution to exist and remain in effect. This is street view of the site as it stands today. The top two are from Falls of Neuse Road and the bottom is from Boros Place, which is a stub out in the residential community behind this site. The proposed conditions would prohibit outdoor storage, excluding those that are being used, vehicles used by the church or the school on site. The conditions would also prohibit connection between Boros Place and Falls of Neuse Road. and prohibit a number of different uses including multi-unit sororities, colleges, outdoor sports, prisons, things of that nature. The requested zoning would increase entitlement from 30 units to 70 and reduce the setbacks along Falls of Neuse and increase the allowed office and possible retail development on the site. This had a very average across the board scores for walking, transit, bike, transportation cost index with a higher proximity to jobs than the average site. As you can see, the site is served by Route 2, which runs from Lafayette Village to the downtown station. This request would add to the housing supply. It doesn't include any subsidized units. It would permit a variety of housing types with smaller units on smaller lots than the city by average and is walking distance of transit. AREA RESIDENTS ARE MUCH LESS LIKELY TO BE RACIAL MINORITIES THAN THE CITY AVERAGE AND LESS LIKELY TO BE LOW INCOME COMPARED TO THE CITY AVERAGE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE REQUESTED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF INSTITUTIONAL. FOR VERY LARGE SITES, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS A CAMPUS MASTER PLAN BUT THIS SITE WOULD NOT BE AT A SCALE WHERE THAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED. PARKING LIMITED FRONTAGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR WHICH ENCOURAGES A MIX BETWEEN walkability, and the kind of frontages you expect to see along a street like Falls of Neuse. This request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, both the future land use map and the urban form map. Some consistent policies include the connection to the existing transit, the height as a good buffer between Falls and the neighborhood behind it, and just generally the composition of this mixed use district. SOME INCONSISTENT POLICIES LOOK AT CONNECTIVITY BECAUSE THERE'S A CONDITION THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN BOROUGH'S PLACE AND FALLS OF NEUCE. THAT DOES LIMIT SOME OF THE CONNECTIVITY POTENTIAL OF THE SITE AS WELL AS LIMITING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IS JUST BROADLY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR HOUSING GOALS. YOUR DEADLINE FOR ACTION IS OCTOBER 24th. WE DID HAVE AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE. THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE IN AGREEMENT ON The language, this wasn't a disagreement about the change that resulted in a new condition, just in some finer points of how it would be implemented. And with that, your upcoming meetings are September 8th and the 22nd. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hunt. We will now hear from those in favor of the application. If those in favor would approach the podium, you will have 10 minutes to make a presentation and speak. And please state your name for the record as you begin.

Absolutely. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Preston Mitchell. I'm the planning consultant with Womble Bond Dickinson, 555 Fayetteville Street here in Raleigh. I don't want to repeat what Jacob provided in his presentation. He did a great job. I just want to make a few points. Let me pull up my information here. Really, I just want to reinforce what this request is, and just as importantly, what it is not. At its core, this is a signage request. Mount Vernon Baptist Church has been at 7600 Fallsville News Road since 1969, more than 50 years. Under the current R4 zoning, the Raleigh UDO allows no permanent ground sign for the church other than a tracked identification sign. And I have an example of a tracked identification sign here, and it might have been seen in those images, but it is this small sign out here directly on Falls of Neuse. It is roughly 12 square feet. I believe the maximum is 16 square feet. The church simply wants the ability to install a modest, low profile ground sign that is right sized under the UDO so that members and visitors can easily identify and safely enter the campus from Falls of Neuse. It's a practical need, not an ambitious one. It is worth noting that this is not a single-use site. The campus today is home to three distinct operations, Mount Vernon Baptist Church, obviously, The Growing Place, their daycare facility, and New Christian Academy. Each serves its own members, families, and students. Some do crossover. And each has to be found from the road. We don't yet know exactly what the future sign package will look like, but this rezoning if approved, gives the church far greater flexibility than it has today. to identify all three in a coordinated right size manner. I'll note and respectfully only in passing that this is a challenge shared by many established churches that are cited in residential districts today across the city. There may one day be a broader conversation through a UDO text amendment about whether churches in residential zoning should be permitted a right size sign without the need for a rezoning, but that's another conversation for another day before this body and ultimately city council. Second, this request is consistent, as Jacob noted, with the comprehensive plan. 2030 Future Land Use Map designates it as institutional category that expressly contemplates place of worship in private schools on sites of this size and character. Third, the OX3 district is compatible with this area. As you saw on the existing zoning map, this is not an isolated request dropped into a residential pocket. The property fronts onto a major thoroughfare, Falls of News, shares access and adjacency with St. Andrews Presbyterian to the south and an office building to the north. and steps down appropriately to the neighborhood behind it. The three-story height limit, which was chosen, again, consistent with the other OX in the area, and the PL, the parking limited frontage, keeps the scale in check. Fourth, and this is the point that I'd really most like to leave with you, is that the applicant has volunteered or voluntarily offered conditions that bring the proposed office district back in line with the intensity of the R4 zoning. We recognize that the OX district, if left unconditioned, and staff had ultimately, or in the beginning, staff had recommended that we seek a conditional zoning. Originally, we had discussed just general or base one zone to another, but with the recommendation to provide conditions, that was the important part of bringing it back into the intensity level of the R4 district. So the church has proffered to prohibit those uses that Jacob had noted. Also proffered to limit outdoor storage with that narrow carve out for the church and school vans and vehicles. And then also the access management condition, which Jacob had noted, which would ensure no vehicular connection is made to Borough's Place from Falls of News, protecting the Plateau Woods and Northridge neighborhoods behind. Taken together, those conditions do one thing. They give the church the signage relief it needs while holding real-world intensity of the property at or below what the R4 allows today. In practical terms, the neighbors gain protections they do not have under the current zoning. I'd like to thank staff, Jacob, and the other planners that we worked with in preparation of our application. Appreciate legal and transportation and working with us through those conditions all the way up until yesterday, as a matter of fact. So I do want to acknowledge those individuals and their professionalism here on the record. So for those reasons, we respectfully request that the commission recommend approval of consistent with staff recommendation and with the comprehensive plan, and here to answer any questions we do have with us in the audience. We have our pastor, the director of operations, and one of the church trustees. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. And we'll reserve four minutes and 21 seconds if you need it later. And we'll now hear from any of those here opposed to the application. If you're here and would like to speak against the application, please approach the podium. Okay, seeing no one approach the podium, we will allow time now for some questions from the commission. We'll keep the public hearing open. This is our opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and of the staff. Are there any such questions?

Commissioner Walters. I have one question for staff and one question for the applicant. Hey, I was just looking at IMAPs, and I noticed that Ravenscroft is R4 and has a much larger sign. I don't know that much about sign regulations in the city of Raleigh. Could you help me understand how that is occurring?

That's a good question. I'm not sure why Ravenscroft would have that sign today, besides possibly having it before existing UDO regulations went into effect.

Okay. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to hear a little bit more about how you came up with your conditions for this resounding request.

Absolutely. So... In our internal conversations, knowing, first of all, what's the genesis? And that's for sign relief. But then also understanding that because... we needed to seek a rezoning. There wasn't going to be an opportunity to wait on a text amendment. There wasn't some other administrative or quasi-judicial relief. We needed to proceed with a rezoning. And so in our conversation, I shared with the client When you're seeking to change from residential zoning to commercial zoning, that's a fairly large jump. And so that can be scary for some folks. Let's first of all try to find the most appropriate zone that is already shared in the area, the OX3. And then when we do that, let's offer conditions that essentially pull the zoning back down as close as we can, recognizing that there are gonna be new entitlements. But let's pull that back down in a way that softens the rezoning for the adjoining neighbors. Also, since we know that there is no development proposed there was no site plan submitted zero development zero redevelopment and in fact the site's already uh... really as developed as it can be with the church, the two schools, and the parking. And then of course, the access management, the entrances are shared. It doesn't even have its own independent driveway. So with no development and with the desire to make this rezoning as soft as possible, on the adjoining area. That was the reason for the conditions.

Okay.

Thank you. Sure.

Commissioner Omokai.

I have a couple questions. Just from my own edification, it says that there's no connectivity driveway, vehicular connection, or public street to connect Burroughs Place to Falls of News Road. Why is that prohibited?

Sure. So, Let me go back and touch on my particular job in the firm. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a planner. And so I, like Jacob, spent many years in local government planning. And so this is a conversation that's not just had here in Raleigh. It's had all over the state. It's all over the country. And one of the most important things pieces of your zoning ordinance is if there are opportunities for connection, we should make those connections. And so there is a stub there. Borough's Place stubs into the back of Mount Vernon Baptist Church and St. Andrews. And so what that means is that if the site was ever redeveloped, That connection should be made. Now, I cannot speak for your UDO. I don't know the Raleigh UDO like I knew my old UDOs. But it is likely that the connection would be mandated. Now, exactly when and how and under what circumstances, I don't know. But I know that that stub exists. And one of the... one of our ideas or efforts to help again soften this rezoning on the adjoining areas was to share one there is no development proposed with this this is signage related number two we want to ensure that single-family low density neighborhood behind at no point uh... as part of this rezoning is this church seeking to open borough's place to vehicular traffic does that mean that In however many years, if the church decided to move and someone bought the property and they wanted to do a redevelopment there and they wanted to open it up, that would have to go all the way back through this process. It would be a new rezoning. But that would be a conversation for another property owner at another day. What this property owner is saying is we recognize we are seeking a rezoning. We want to make that happen. that situation on you as soft as possible. And so we want to offer to you that we will not open boroughs place to vehicles and potentially have cars coming into your neighborhood off of falls and news. So we're going to ensure that as part of this rezoning.

Okay, thank you. And you said that the owner is not looking to develop, they're just looking for a rezoning category, categorization?

Just for signs only. Because the ground sign cap in the R4, the tract identification sign, I believe, is at 16 square feet. And so what they gain by going to the OX3 is they gain, I believe, what's called a medium ground sign or a low-profile ground sign, which would give them up to 70 square feet. So you gain a significant area in signage. You don't gain height. It still needs to be a low-profile sign, but you do gain significant area. And so that's what they're seeking.

Okay. And I see that in the conditions, multi-unit, boarding houses, dormitories, fraternities, sororities, colleges, outdoor sports, prison uses shall be prohibited. Because we don't know about what may happen in the future with the church, and it is around school, would the church be willing to also add adult entertainment and vape shops and things of that nature that may impede on the young people that are in the area?

We can certainly inquire of that, but I don't know, can someone help me, if those are even allowed in the OX, if it was a standalone district?

Yeah, adult entertainment is not allowed in the office mixed-use district. I'm sorry, what were the other uses you were asking about? Vape shops. Retail sales are already limited in OX.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Back to Commissioner Walters.

Sorry, one more thing. So Northridge Church and St. Andrews Presbyterian Church are just adjacent to this site. And if you look at their signage, it's very similar to the signage that you have. They also have R4 zoning currently established. I'm playing out in my mind what happens when we rezone yours and you get a bigger sign with those. I'm sure you've thought about this. Care to share?

Yes, to your question, not only this question, but to the Ravenscroft question, in our research before submitting the application, I just simply drove around the city and shot photographs of churches that, now I'd confirm whether or not they're in residential zoning or not, but yes, there do appear to be discrepancies. How those happened, we don't know. We only know that our sign is limited to 16 square feet. The one that you see there that I showed is roughly 12 square feet. There is no other administrative remedy for us, and so that's why we're here. As part of the neighborhood meetings, we held two neighborhood meetings. Representatives from St. Andrews came to both of those meetings, so they were very much a part of the conversations. And whether or not they choose to proceed with a similar rezoning, we don't know. Maybe that is the impetus to kick off the UDO text amendment. I don't know. But they were very much a part of the conversation. And, in fact, from what I understand, Mike Devon, the director of operations, has been my primary contact, the gentleman in the middle. And he, too, was in regular conversation with St. Andrews. They didn't object to this. They understood why. But sure, it could happen, but we would hope for the benefit of all churches in the city that that UDO text amendment could happen first. Thank you.

I had a quick question for staff, and perhaps I missed it in the presentation, and so forgive me. Could you explain a little bit the difference in the sign entitlements in the different zoning districts? Yeah.

This is one of those things that almost all the rezonings that come before you would result in some difference in regulation. For this one, we're still generally speaking to the Theoretical changes even though knowing that their actual request relates to these sign regulations This shows you which different signs are allowed by district so our residential districts being Typical neighborhoods that don't have retail or commercial uses have very limited sign allowances. And as the district gets more intense, going from residential mixed use all the way up to our downtown district, those sign allowances get more and more expansive. As it was said, the OX district would allow for a low profile ground sign, which wouldn't change the height, but would give more

What's a vehicular sign?

Sign that is stuck on a van that drives around town or a box truck.

Okay. Yeah Thank you Thank you If there any further questions for the staff or the applicant from the Commission Seeing none without objection I will close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the table if there's any discussion to be had amongst the commissioners or any debate does anybody have any comments or Seeing none. I'd like to entertain a motion. One of the commissioners would be willing to commissioner Walters. Excellent.

Being polite. Um, so I really don't care too much about what the request, I think it's a reasonable request on its own. The only, I don't know if anyone else is concerned about this or cares about it, but it seems like it's opening up a little bit of a Pandora's box of not just these churches right here, uh, adjacent to this property coming for rezoning to get a little bit bigger sign which doesn't seem like the right pathway or reasonable pathway or that burden for for these churches um but it seems like that's what would happen if we were to approve this um again I don't really have any problem approving this but is anybody else thinking in the same way that I am about this

Was that just a sense or do you have a comment, Commissioner Cochran?

No, I have a comment. So I second Commissioner Walters' concerns here. I'm not an advocate for bigger signage in general. I think, you know, it clutters the road. But in this case, recognizing that there are three different entities there and that you know if you have a daycare and if you have a school the option for signage does create a sense of place and so in this case I would support it because I think those are those are great services that they're providing and those are impacting the lives of anyone engaging with those other two businesses so maybe I don't necessarily feel like the church needs a big billboard but I do think that those other two institutions would benefit from having a placemaking opportunity.

Commissioner Omokai.

I also agree with the two commissioners, but I also wonder to the applicant, what is the reasoning, I guess, for the sign increase? Is it to be able to identify the other locations on the property? Is it because the church's sign is outdated and they just want a new one? Just wondering what the reasoning is for the rezoning for signage.

Sure. Go ahead and, without objection, reopen the public hearing and allow the applicant to address the question.

It's a great question because it was asked directly that same way in the second neighborhood meeting. And Mr. Devon's answer, I thought, was it couldn't get any better. When you see that sign, the existing sign, which is roughly 12 square feet, it's the acronym of the church. You can't even fit the entire name of the church on the existing sign, Mount Vernon Baptist Church. So at its core, they would very simply like to – they recognize that the height cannot change. They're still limited to three and a half feet, I believe, three and a half or four feet. But the area, they would like the ability to – and signage is up to them. How they decide to do it and how they work with a sign contractor, all that is a later day. But they can't even spell out the name of the church. Right. as we sit here today. And then the other, the Growing Place is actually a fairly new addition organizationally, and so to the point that was made, being able to have the Growing Place recognized from Falls of Neuse, not only recognized, but in terms of being able to easily access it for new parents and things like that, and then of course with the Christian Academy.

Thank you for that. I think to the commissioner's point, while we do understand this case, I think that each case should probably be taken as an isolated situation and asking those questions to make sure that we're doing the right thing. Thank you for that, though.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any further questions or comments for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Walters.

Sorry, I'm dragging this out. This is for staff. What other uses that would have a track sign are allowed in R4?

residential r4 is very limited yeah right so we're talking about i believe some daycare use potentially uh churches and homes so the sign code is there to kind of mimic what you would see at the entrance of a subdivision it's supposed to be low profile um not there to attract business to the site just because it is recognizing that there are surrounding homes

So churches, daycares, and neighborhood entries. And some schools.

And some schools. Like public schools, I think, can be in R4, and private too, yeah.

Okay, thanks.

Are there any further questions or comments for staff from the commissioner? Without objection, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the table. Are there any internal comments or debates, discussion? Seeing none, I'd like to open the floor for a motion, if anyone would be so willing.

I'd move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 25th, 2026, containing the agenda materials, and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment, this being case number Z-15-26-7600, Falls and Neuse Road, applicant being Mount Vernon Baptist Church, After considering the policies, maps, and other materials included as part of the comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission determines that the proposed zoning amendment is for a zoning district that closely corresponds to the development envisioned by the future land use map designation and is therefore consistent with the future land use map, consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans, and the request should be approved. That's my motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Baird. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and I think the question was thoroughly stated by Commissioner Baird, so we will leave it at that. The motion is to approve Z1526. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. I'd also like to make sure that we have Commissioner Burnett and Commissioner Neptune marked as present. And I would also note that we have full attendance today. So thank you to all the commissioners. I think it's always notable when we all get here. So at this time, I'm going to call a short recess. We will take a break for 10 minutes. And we will come back at quarter till. And the commission is invited to come outside and take the official picture for the website. So we're going to break. If we could go ahead and bring this meeting back to order. We're going to work back in our agenda and pick up section D, report of the committees. And with that, I will turn it over to Commissioner Neptune, chair of the text change committee for the report on text change TC426.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The text change committee met last Wednesday and, in fact, did receive a presentation and public comment on text change TC-426, minor and exempt subdivision regulations. Ultimately, the committee had a number of questions that were still outstanding, and in conversation with staff, it was understood that there was a desire, I think, given direction from council, to continue to move this forward. if at all possible, and so the committee determined to report this out without recommendations so that the entire commission could hear it and ultimately hear a larger, sort of more robust presentation on this text change, which is, you know, somewhat complex, and I think we'll all appreciate having the fuller presentation. So with that, I'll turn it over to staff.

Sorry, I have issues opening this file. It might be too large, we'll see.

It's already open.

Justin, I believe it's already open if you go to the toolbar at the bottom.

Oh, really? Ah, there we go. Great, thank you. So good morning, Planning Commission. My name is Justin Booker. I'm in Planning and Development, specifically in Zoning Administration. Here to give you kind of a more detailed presentation about the minor and exempt subdivision regulations. This is TC-426. So this text change was authorized back in July of this year by city council with really the designated purpose of expanding housing choice. Really thinking about reducing kind of barriers to small scale subdivisions, as I'm sure you all are very aware. COUNCIL MADE A LOT OF EFFORT IN UPDATING AND STREAMLINING A LOT OF OUR ZONING REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE MISSING MIDDLE TEXT CHANGES. THIS IS KIND OF SEEN AS THE SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT, UPDATING AND STREAMLINING SOME OF OUR SUBDIVISION PROCESSES AND LANGUAGE. SO LIKE I SAID, THIS IS ABOUT EXPANDING HOUSING CHOICE, REDUCING UNNECESSARY COSTS AND BARRIERS AS WELL AS ADAPTING TOOLS THAT ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE TO US UNDER STATE LAW. So getting into that, most if not all North Carolina municipalities utilize a state exemption. This is NC General Statutes 160D802. This is known as the kind of exempt subdivision language. It allows for people to take advantage and be exempt from subdivision regulations if they meet certain criteria. So if they're under two acres, up to three lots, there's no new public street involved and the lots meet zoning. then they could be eligible to be an exempt subdivision. Raleigh is a little bit different. We act under special legislation from a state law dating back to 1955, which allows us to regulate these exempt subdivisions. So what that means is there is no exempt subdivision kind of process at the City of Raleigh. All subdivisions, whether you're a two lot subdivision or a 100 lot subdivision, you gotta go through the same process. So why this matters, a lot of these smaller, primarily infill residential projects that are looking to subdivide, they can face a lot of disproportionate costs associated with it. Namely, some of the big ones include right-of-way dedication, sidewalk upgrades, fee and lieu, and occasionally variances are needed if that right-of-way dedication takes you under the minimum lot area requirement. So... The image on the screen is actually a real world example. This was once one parent track that was subdivided into three lots. You can see kind of the property line before that subdivision, it was uniform, and then after subdivision due to right-of-way dedication, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THAT LAND WAS TAKEN. AND OF COURSE, WHAT THIS MEANS IS NOT ONLY IS THERE A LOT OF ESTIMATED BETWEEN $20,000 TO $30,000 OF ADDITIONAL PROJECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, IT OBVIOUSLY REDUCES BUILDABLE AREA, AND AS A RESULT, FEWER HOMES CAN BE BUILT. A LOT OF THAT COST IS OFTEN PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER, SO YOU DEAL WITH HIGHER HOUSING PRICES. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY OR NOT MOST IMPORTANTLY BUT ALSO IMPORTANTLY LONGER REVIEW TIMELINES AND CONSUMING STAFF RESOURCES. SO THIS ITEM THAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL BACK IN JULY REALLY DIRECTED STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD DO TWO THINGS. IT WOULD ADOPT THE 160D EXEMPT SUBDIVISION LANGUAGE. THIS IS THAT STATE LAW WHICH ALLOWS FOR SUBDIVISIONS TO BE EXEMPT FROM OUR REGULATIONS. creating a minor subdivision process is kind of the second portion of that. So to just give you some context about what the existing process is like, I know I mentioned it, but whether you're a two lot subdivision or a 100 lot subdivision, you're going through preliminary subdivision review is what it's called here at the city. So this is a pretty lengthy process. It's a detailed staff review, interdepartmental. So you have stormwater reviewers, transportation planners, All reviewing this, depending on the complexity of the subdivision, it could take anywhere from one to potentially 18 months to complete. throughout this process right of way to dedication and other kind of development related improvements, IE, um, like sidewalk construction might be triggered as a result of this subdivision. Um, and then following that, you know, you go through infrastructure plan review and then final plat approval and then you can record it with the county and your subdivision is kind of complete. Like I said, every subdivision, whether you're a small residential infill or you're a large hundred lot subdivision, they go through this process. This text change would essentially seek to do two things. It's kind of creating two new avenues, assuming you can meet the eligibility criteria. So one being the exempt subdivision, pulling in language from state law, and the minor subdivision process. So the exempt subdivision process is really incorporating language from state law that allows small subdivisions, again, under two acres, no more than three lots, to be exempt from our subdivision requirement. I'll go into detail about what that means from a process and timeline standpoint, but this is the overall kind of overview. And then the minor subdivision process is kind of this intermediate tier where it's not fully an exempt subdivision, but it's not really gonna go through the full gauntlet of preliminary subdivision review. It's kind of this intermediate tier that state law provides municipalities with the ability to create a minor subdivision process. So that being said, the city can establish specific criteria, we can set minimum standards, and we can provide kind of a more streamlined review for these kind of subdivisions that we feel fit within a minor subdivision so that they can avoid kind of the time that it takes to go through the preliminary subdivision review. So I'll go into a lot of detail on both of those two processes starting with the exempt subdivision piece. Again, this is language from General Statutes 160D-802. There are essentially five kind of different situations in which you can have an exempt subdivision. We actually have the first three kind of already codified and within our UDO. So for our purposes, we're really focusing on number four and five there and just taking that language essentially verbatim and putting it into our code. What this does, two things. So the first kind of qualifier for an exempt subdivision is when there is a tract in single ownership, no greater than two acres, no more than three lots, no street right-of-way dedication is involved, and the lots have to essentially be UDO compliant. So this kind of graphic shows a 1.5 acre site. You can divide it three times, 0.5 acre sites, and essentially skip that preliminary subdivision process, go to recorded map review, and then record it with the city. Very streamlined, very easy. The second kind of exempt subdivision language that we're incorporating is, speaks to a division of a tract into parcels in accordance with the terms of a probated will. This is a very kind of, from my understanding, unique and rare situation. And it was really, in essence, to pull in all exempt subdivision kind of components in. So we are doing the first one that I just highlighted, so we're throwing in the second one as well. Like I said, it's pretty rare that this happens, my understanding. So to give you kind of a more detailed picture of what the process looks like and what kind of implications this has, this is kind of an overall of a typical kind of subdivision that you can see. You have a pre-application conference, a scoping meeting. The second step in green, light green, kind of speaks to the preliminary subdivision plan approval step, your sub plan. This can be, like I said, a lengthy one to 18 month process. It's interdepartmental review. After you get that, you can go to SPR, and then final plat approval, so recorded map review, and then you can take that after you got that approval, go to the county, and record it, and then your subdivision is complete. Again, all subdivisions today in the city have to go through this process. What the exempt subdivision language essentially enables people to do, assuming they meet that eligibility criteria, is go straight to final recorded map review, as it's called. Interdepartmental staff will kind of confirm that it is exempt, and assuming it's approved, they can go and file it with the county. So you're skipping a lot of kind of lengthy steps. So to kind of show what this looks like in practice, a real world example, so to speak, this is a subject property. I think it's zoned R6, it's 1.37 acres. Say the property owner wants to split this into three tracks, roughly .46 acre sites. They're able to do this assuming they have no new public street. It's all under single ownership. It's meeting the rest and it is still, those lots are still UDO compliant. They can be an exempt subdivision and they can go straight to the recorded map, final plot review, and then onto the county and to record it. The minor subdivision is a little different. Again, this is kind of an intermediate tier between fully exempt, as we just discussed, and the major subdivisions, or what we call kind of this preliminary subdivision review. It gives us flexibility in what requirements we can kind of ask for. So think about right-of-way dedication, sidewalk construction type of thing. We can set the number of maximum lots that come out of this minor subdivision process. And we can also have the ability to kind of limit it to existing infrastructure we feel IS SUFFICIENT OR WHERE WE REQUIRE SOME BUT MAYBE NOT ALL IMPROVEMENTS. AND THAT IS WHAT WE'VE DONE. WE'VE WROTE IN SOME ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. So you can see on the screen here there's kind of really six kind of buckets that would allow for something to be minor if it's eligible. So it can only abut existing local streets. It has to be located completely within residential zoning districts, meaning R1, R2, R4, R6, R10. It can create no more than six lots. There's no new public street created with it. and then a provision that essentially no portion of that parent track can be included within a recorded minor subdivision within the preceding five years essentially. An effort to prevent kind of stacking these subdivisions together. With regard to sidewalks, there are some provisions about when sidewalk construction would kind of kick in. So if it's contiguous with an existing sidewalk or a planned sidewalk, meaning as part of a public project or as a submitted development plan, you'd be required to construct and install sidewalks. If you are located within a quarter mile street network distance of those public facilities, so public school, Greenway Trail Library, community center, or an existing or planned transit service, And then lastly, if you are within a quarter mile of a transit stop serviced by, essentially, that is a frequent transit, so schedule waits of 15 minutes or less during peak hours, or a quarter mile of a bus rapid transit station, then you would be required to provide sidewalks. And this is essentially recognizing the need where these areas might desire walkability, so if there's not a sidewalk, sidewalk would be required. So again, to reorient you about our site or process, or review process, kind of big overview. What this does is essentially, again, oops, skipped a step, removes this preliminary subdivision plan step, which is, again, pretty time-consuming, lengthy, and instead replaces it with this site plan review. So somebody coming in for a minor subdivision They'd have to come in and get an SPR, which means reviewers would look at a plan, check to see if it's eligible, meaning it's residentially zoned, it only abuts local streets, et cetera, and to check to see if it's compliant with these minimum standards. These minimum standards that we have written into the code or draft ordinance, excuse me, are shown on the screen here. You can see they're really essentially a street cross-section, so a lot of specific measurements. 44-foot right-of-way width, 25-foot back-of-curb to back-of-curb minimum, ONE-FOOT MAINTENANCE STRIP, FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK, IF YOU'RE ELIGIBLE, IF YOU'RE WITHIN THOSE AREAS, A PLANTING AREA, ET CETERA. AND THIS IS REALLY VERY MINIMAL STANDARDS. THE IDEA IS THAT THESE ARE THE MINIMAL STANDARDS THAT ARE NEEDED, THAT TRANSPORTATION STAFF I THINK FELT COMFORTABLE WITH. Again, if somebody comes through the minor subdivision process, it grants them the ability to go and essentially abide by these rules. One important caveat is that it doesn't preclude somebody. So if they only have a right-of-way width of 40 feet, they can still come in and show dedication to make up that remainder and still utilize these kind of relaxed standards. So what this kind of looks like in practice, again, back to our kind of example property, 1.37 acres, say instead of three lots, they want to do five lots. Well, they can do this under our proposed minor subdivision. So it doesn't create a new public street. It only abuts local streets completely located in a residential zone. There's no more than six lots. And otherwise, those lots are compliant. Then they could be eligible. They would just have to additionally show that they're meeting these kind of minimum standards when it comes to the street cross section. So they have to show they have a 44 foot right of way. They might have to install sidewalks or have a planting strip with some trees installed. And just for kind of reference, this existing right-of-way as shown on the screen is approximately 60 feet of right-of-way width, so they wouldn't have to dedicate any right-of-way in this scenario. They might just have to go through that SPR approval and show potentially sidewalk if they're required, as well as some trees planted and designating a maintenance strip. So with that, that's all I've got, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Booker.

At this time, I'd like to allow time for public comment. Could I get a show of hands from those that are here to speak in favor of the application? And is there anybody here that would like to speak against the application? We're going to, without objection, allow two minutes per speaker. And if you would migrate towards the podium and try to minimize time between transitions. Look forward to hearing your comments. Please state your name for the record as you begin.

Ryan Johnson, Raleigh citizen at 4408 Pitt Street. What I want to say is I'm really impressed. I want to thank the staff because they did a great job thinking through this and all these options because it's really right-sizing the reviews for these project sizes. And that's what we really need in the city of Raleigh to kind of, one, save city time and money and resources they can focus on more complicated other projects. And also where Raleigh's changing from you know, large developments to these small pockets of development. We need to have something like this that will allow it to go quicker, faster, and provide more housing options for the city because it gives us a missing price point because you could build on a large lot, but if you could subdivide it and build smaller houses on those smaller lots, it's going to give more opportunity to build in the city. So that's all I have. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hey, how y'all doing today? My name is Harold Yale. I'm a professional land surveyor and a professional engineer. And I ran into this problem in 2022 when I was working for the Holloways who came here. And he wanted to put his family next to him. He bought a one and a half acre lot. And I thought, like Kerry, probably had adopted the exempt subdivision. Well, I found out, surprise, they hadn't. And... So I decided to go to work and try to convince the city to move in accordance with state law. And I'm glad to see we're here talking about it. And as I can tell, we're on the track to get it approved by the city council. I hope that you all work to approve the measure. Now, as far as, I started with just the exempt subdivision, three lots of lots, two acres. The staff has come up with, What I think is an excellent idea. We had reservations based on last week, but with their explanation, I think it's a winner. So I would like to see everybody here move forward with the process and help the Holloway family that we still got a couple lots to make for their children. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Will.

Good morning, Daniel Coleman. Can you put the original banner up there that stated the two things that are being discussed? Because you put two different concepts together. Can you?

Excuse me.

I with Harold, initially we were proponents of the exempt subdivision compliance. Then when we had the meeting last week, we witnessed that the staff had layered in minor subdivision into the process. The minor subdivision, if it does not waive any of the stormwater requirements, makes sense. But if the minor subdivision does not include the stormwater management that regular subdivision requires, then that's a Pandora's box for the neighborhoods that are gonna be inundated with these applications. So I support the exempt subdivision, but I think that the minor subdivision, without the stormwater compliance, it's going to be more harm than good. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Coleman. And I think we'll address that during discussion. Is there anybody else that would like to speak?

Good morning to all. My name is James Holloway. My wife, Pamelia Holloway. We have been directly impacted by the minor subdivision. We purchased property in 2019. And then the owner and the seller of the property that we purchased on Forest Rear Road, they told us about an additional 1.5 acres that was connected to the property that we purchased. So we kind of bought it with the idea that we could have family. moved down. My uncle and his wife were planning to move down from New York, which that has already happened. And of course, without him, this happened after his death. But our main objective was to have our grandkids grow up next to us, five and seven now. But we started this process before one of them was even born. We've gone through this process and we're at an impasse. We can't go forward because of all the costs incurred with the minor subdivision. They said two houses or more is considered as a minor subdivision. So with that in mind. I didn't know I had to be independently wealthy to be able to do that. And so right now, we can't move forward with our daughter. She's living in an apartment less than a half a mile from us with our two grandkids that may not ever be able to grow up next to the grandparents. And we certainly appreciate you all at least addressing this today, not just for us. Because I don't want any favoritism for me or my family, but I think that it will help a lot of people in the Raleigh area if we adopt this policy as far as the minor subdivisions, based on what the rest of the state is doing. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments.

Good morning, y'all. Jen Truman. I'm here on behalf of City Builder, the Triangle's pro-housing organization because this is a pro-housing text change. I'm also a designer and have many clients in Durham that do exempt plat subdivisions who would love to help families like Mr. Holloway's do the same thing here in Raleigh. to have affordable housing. Just for comparison, Durham sees about 200 of these exempt plat subdivisions a year, whereas Raleigh sees maybe a dozen two and three lot subdivisions. We know for a fact that there are small local builders working to build attainable housing that are currently choosing to build it in Durham instead of Raleigh. And the main reason is that it takes 18 months as long to do the same process in Raleigh because we put a two and three lot subdivision through the same hoops that 200 or 1,000 lots subdivision on the edge of town has to do. We have a lot of places in town where we could build attainable housing that's walkable and accessible if we allow it through a simplified process which is what the exempt plots do. And I also wanted to note that we know from history that the decision to regulate these small subdivisions in Raleigh in 1955 did not have motivations that matched the values that we hold today in 2026. Larger and more expensive lots were part of the broader effort in zoning to control who could afford to live in Raleigh and where. And we don't need to carry that legacy forward any further. So as I said last week, the best time to fix this was yesterday, but the next best time is now. And then last week I spoke asking that the minor subdivision be more permissive, allow more allowances, and help small, medium projects get out of more things. To Mr. Coleman's point, there's still probably discussion that needs to be had there, so I wanted to speak in favor of how it's written right now. as well because it's better than what we have and it's a step forward and we'll be able to see later if more needs to be done. So please do both.

Thank you, Ms. Chewman. Well-timed. Are there any more comments from the public? At this time, I'd like to bring the discussion back to the table for the commissioners and open the table for questions from staff. Yes, Commissioner Baird.

I guess the question for staff is, could you remind us exactly what the charge was from city council?

Yes, so city council essentially authorized us to, one, adopt the exempt subdivision language. and then to create a minor subdivision process. So these are essentially the two charges. We've laid them out with, I think, an authorization we laid out. You can either singularly adopt the exempt subdivision language, or you could do that and the minor subdivision. They went with the second option.

Okay, so they were that specific in the assignment for staff. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Omakai. Yes.

I have a question.

Can somebody, whoever can answer this, can someone purchase, okay, so does the subdivision have to identify as residential at all, or does this apply to commercial use as well? So, like, can somebody purchase a residential lot, split it in three, and then rezone it for commercial office or mixed use after? Okay.

So the minor subdivision doesn't stipulate anything about zoning, so it could be used for either. The minor subdivision process, as part of the eligibility requirement, it does have to be located in a residential zone or zones, meaning R1, 2, 4, 6, and 10. I guess hypothetically somebody could undergo that minor subdivision process and then rezone it, but again, that's just a hypothetical.

But in that scenario, that rezoning would come in front of this planning commission and you would have an opportunity to look at it and see whether or not that rezoning made sense according to the comp plan guidance.

Okay. And then if the city council is asking, wait, one, the adoption of the exempt subdivision language, but asking to create a minor subdivision process, then is that something that can be considered also considering with the minor subdivision process that all the infrastructure that's necessary for other subdivisions so that we're understanding that we want to make a more streamlined process, but we don't want to skip steps to where something is built that's not sustainable and doesn't fit the infrastructure and may cause flooding or other issues in the area just to make a more streamlined process, especially if that streamlined process could eventually include removing housing and adding commercial use. Is that possible that some extra, more specific language could be added to the minor subdivision process?

It's certainly, I think, possible. I think the minor subdivision process was crafted in a manner that we have those eligibility requirements that try to act as a guardrail. So primarily that requirement that it's all located in residential zoning. Again, it could be rezoned, but it would have to come before you guys in council, and that would be made aware. the infrastructure related question, those sidewalk creation and the minimum standards as shown in that big table, which I can pop up on the screen, those are crafted in such a way that with staff, transportation staff, essentially noting that these were the minimum standards and areas where we felt that the existing infrastructure was sufficient, And then with regard to your stormwater question, there are certain stormwater requirements that are state laws that would not be exempt in any capacity from the minor subdivision process. It's part of the reason why we drafted it in such a way that it would have to go through SPR review first. So there's this first set. Unlike the exempt plat, which can just go to kind of... final plat kind of approval step. This has to go through a minor subdivision, would have to go through an SPR, which reviewers, interdepartmental trades would review, and that includes stormwater, and be checking for those kind of requirements, because there are some specifics as to when those stormwater requirements kick in. and that review staff would be able to check and make sure and determine, oh, well, you have to provide these requirements. It doesn't get you off the hook for stormwater, essentially. Commissioner Burnett.

I like to applaud staff on this because this is something that has really affected Raleigh's housing stock as someone who's gotten their teeth kicked in on a development and just really understanding the amount of the lengthiness of a review process, the cost. that are involved with your site engineers, structural engineers, architects, site plan, right of way, so on and so forth. This is one of the huge bottlenecks of housing in our city, so I applaud staff on pulling this together. Speaking of Pandora's box, I was wondering, this is for staff, would there be any way to pull the data Within the last, I don't know, 90 days of approvals or applications that fit this criteria, like within a two-acre, I believe, site plan that could have qualified for this but still had to go through the lengthiness, the same lengthy process if someone was doing like $100. acre development, is that possible?

Yeah, I think we could probably pull that data. Anecdotally, I think it'd be very little.

Right, but I think it's good just to kind of see the comparison, you know, like looking at a site that .3, a .7 acre site, to be subdivided, going through the same process as something that's like a 70-acre site is huge. And to you guys' point, like that cost, those $20,000, $30,000 costs, I mean, that's on the low side, right? Because we're talking about the engineering, the site plan, all the other things, and so on and so forth. And I'd also like to say, I think as a city, I feel like we are moving in the right direction because I didn't see any dissenting about this proposed text change. So I think that's huge. That's a huge feather in our cap as well. So I just want to say thanks. And if I get that day, that'd be awesome. Appreciate it.

IF I CAN JUST ADD ON TO COMMISSIONER BURNETT'S COMMENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WE WOULD FIND TRYING TO APPLY IN THE LAST 90 DAYS TO DO A SMALLER TYPE SUBDIVISION. WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND FROM OUR HOUSING PROVIDERS IS THAT OUR CURRENT RULES ARE REALLY A CHILLING EFFECT ON THEM EVEN TRYING TO APPLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THOSE WAIT TIMES, THEY KNOW THOSE EXTRA COSTS AND SO THEY'RE GOING ELSEWHERE. THEY'RE GOING TO DURHAM. and they're building these small subdivisions not in the city of Raleigh. So we can definitely look at data. I just don't know how helpful it would be because so many people just don't even bother applying because they know the rules.

We're not taking public comment at this time. We will get to the stormwater, please.

Commissioner Walters, I believe you had a comment.

I echo a lot of the comments from my fellow commissioners and the public comment. I think my main question is for staff in how they came about the unit cap for the minor subdivision. When investigating some other larger cities in North Carolina that have minor subdivisions, they lean on not unit cap, but the infrastructure and their current UDO design guides to limit how many units are put on a minor subdivision. If you imagine LESS THAN TWO ACRE SITE YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ENDLESS NUMBER OF UNITS AND YOU'VE GOT SETBACKS BUILD TO ALL KINDS OF OTHER ELEMENTS IT SEEMS ALMOST OVERLY REDUNDANT TO ADD A UNIT CAP TO THAT AND I JUST WONDER WHY SIX WHY NOT TEN WHY NOT FOUR HOW DID YOU GET TO THAT NUMBER OF SIX

Yeah, that's a great question. So the council actually authorized in their specific authorization language, we proposed that it was anywhere between three to ten lots, not specifically units. And this current draft proposed six out of a kind of a middle ground approach. That being said, within that range of three to ten, you could up it to 10 if he felt it was necessary, but it was really just picking a middle ground lot count between that three and 10 number that council originally authorized.

So I see the unit cap came from a council recommendation.

Correct. Or the range did. Yes.

Commissioner Baird. Yes, this question is also for staff. So my recollection of some of the comments that were included in the packet were that the, this is for the exempt subdivision, that the inclusion of the requirement that no street right-of-way dedication is involved, that that would severely limit the, I don't know, the number of projects that would be subject to this would... REALLY END UP MAKING THIS NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS COUNCIL MIGHT HAVE WANTED.

YEAH, SO THAT LANGUAGE, IT IS PULLED STRAIGHT FROM THE STATE BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE EXEMPT SUBDIVISION KIND OF ALLOWS ONE TO DO, LIKE I SAID, IT ALLOWS YOU TO KIND OF SKIP THAT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REVIEW STEP AND THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE DURING THAT STEP, THAT ESSENTIALLY THINGS LIKE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ARE TRIGGERED. SO IN SKIPPING THAT STEP, ESSENTIALLY, ONE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY. ESSENTIALLY THAT LANGUAGE ALLOWS IT SO THAT SOMEBODY COULD JUST GO AND GO FOR A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND THEN RECORD IT WITH THE COUNTY. EVEN IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY IF THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE EXEMPT SUBDIVISION OPTION, they'd go through preliminary subdivision and their road is substandard, doesn't meet the requisite right-of-way width, they would have to dedicate extra right-of-way. In this, they just skip that completely and they do not have to dedicate.

And if Raleigh is in the vast minority of municipalities that have this as part of their ordinance, is this right-of-way dedication exclusion required? Is it part of their codes as well?

Most likely.

Yes, if they are following the 160D requirements, then that language would be, they would not allow an exempt subdivision to go through if there was public street dedication required. Our understanding is everybody else pretty much except the city of Raleigh follows the language of 160D to a T.

Yes, please. This is for the attorney, our city attorney. Why not just reference the state 160D instead of copying the language into the UDO itself in the text change?

It's truly to be user-friendly. We don't want people to have to hop between codes to find out requirements, especially for folks that maybe aren't doing land development on a daily basis like some of us. So I think it's more of a user-friendly mechanism just to allow everyday residents who maybe want to see what an exempt subdivision looks like, okay, here's the rules. We went ahead and laid them out for you.

So in that scenario, if the state statute changed, would...

you all update it to meet that there's really no difference than deciding and just convenience for the reader yes i believe so yeah and in the event that the general assembly updated that section of 160 at some point in the future yeah we would probably come in either on an omnibus or some other text change bring it before you all so you can see the the changes okay yeah thanks

I have a couple questions for staff. Would enacting this ordinance remove Raleigh's special legislation ability to write different ordinances than what the state has?

Yes. I think that would be the choice of council ultimately. Council right now has the choice under the 1955 law to continue following that law or going with 160D. If council chooses to adopt this text amendment as it's currently written, council would be making that choice to follow 160D and no longer follow the 1955 law.

But would the 1955 law still be in effect and council could decide to go back at some point in the future?

I would be hesitant once exempt subdivisions came in to take that away from folks just because there are other state statutes at play there that would maybe prevent us from doing that.

Great. Is there a stormwater staff present? Yeah. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the implications of the exempt subdivision process on what that would look like for stormwater control for typical development.

Good morning. Ben Brown, City of Raleigh Stormwater. Yes, we've talked to our partners in Durham, Wake County, and Charlotte, and they are able to... handle for the exempt and do it either with a quick review at the final plat with like plat notes and things like that to kind of handle anything that the individual properties would then have to do for stormwater. Now, for the minor, as Justin said, the fact it's coming in for that site permit review process would catch all the major stormwater implications there, so...

Would the same general restriction apply that any new development would be required to maintain or improve the stormwater runoff conditions that currently exist?

So calling back to the state ordinance or the state statute, I apologize, of 160D kind of brings with it the stormwater regulations that are in there too that are statewide that anything over an acre would have to comply with stormwater. Right. It's still going to be caught, but like I said, our partners in Durham and Charlotte and Wayne County are using plat notes and things like that, and they haven't said there's been major headaches with that or anything like that.

Thank you. I believe my next question is for Mr. Booker. By my math, and it's not my major, it seems that with the exempt subdivision process, a landowner could have an exempt subdivision, go through the process, go from one to three to six, and then immediately come back and still have a subset of that would be eligible for another exempt subdivision. I notice there's language in the minor subdivision ordinance, proposed ordinance, that restricts that kind of behavior. Is there any sort of consideration about what that would look like with the exempt subdivision?

I don't think we've considered that. There is a standard that it would have to still be UDO compliant. So those lots would still need to meet minimum lot widths, minimum areas, et cetera. So it doesn't get you off the hook from other dimensional standards.

That's right, the 160DA exemption says that it has to meet all of the zoning requirements, the lot dimensional requirements that the city has, so there would only be so much gamesmanship somebody could do. Staff did have quite a few conversations about that, where somebody would come in, on an exempt and then continue whittling down, right? And eventually end up with many, many lots and avoid the subdivision process altogether. But given that you only qualify for that exempt subdivision, if you're two acres or less and our minimum width requirements for lots, minimum depth in certain circumstances, there would only be so many lots you could even create on a two acre. So we felt like just the zoning code provided sufficient protections from that. But yeah, great question. We did have quite a few conversations about it.

I have one question if you don't mind to follow up. In the exempt subdivision clause, it mentions where no street right-of-way dedication is involved. What sort of situations would street right-of-way dedication be involved? When would they be required? And perhaps your example of the 1.3 acre, when does that apply?

I think that's a scenario in which a new street would be created. You would not be eligible to have that exempt subdivision. But typically, like I was saying earlier, if you're coming in and you do not require a new street, even if typically under a normal preliminary subdivision review, if your right-of-way width isn't sufficient, then you could essentially bypass that and just go to final plat, and you wouldn't be required to have that dedication. Thank you. Commissioner Omekai?

So in the case that we're...

In the case that we're going to look at after this, it shows that somebody bought like a swath of 10 houses. And could they then take one of those houses that's less than two acres and break that into six lots and then do that repetitively for the other lots that they also purchased? Or no, they would be outside the realm of doing that? So if somebody bought 10 houses that's larger than, of course, two acres, but chose to take two of those houses or one house that meets the requirement, two of those houses and the 10 houses that they purchased, could they then take that, those two houses, go through the minor or exempt subdivision process, break those into multiple houses on one lot, and then do that repetitively if they're only doing it two acres at a time?

So the way the minor subdivision process works is it's a little different from the exempt so the acreage kind of limitation isn't there. So the acreage limitation is really specific to the exempt subdivision. Minor subdivision, we have that clause about the parent tract being part of a minor subdivision process so that essentially if that parent tract is part of a minor subdivision process. You cannot go back and do another minor subdivision within five years of that original subdivision. So if you waited five years, they could probably do that, but there's a little bit of time that you'd have to wait.

Okay, so they could do it. It's just they have to take their time before they go to the next one.

Correct.

I believe this is kind of in line with the gamesmanship that the attorney was describing there in the minor subdivision there is a written fail-safe, if you will, the five-year wait, and then the other piece in the development code is the minimum lot widths and dimensional standards of the base zoning. So that alone is fail-safe for the exempt, and then we have written additional for the minor. But I believe it is in line with those other comments.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner McAllister.

Could staff explain the rationale for making sidewalks conditional and any concern that this could create gaps in the pedestrian network?

Yeah, that's a good question. So the thinking was those are areas specifically that we laid out where there is an expectation that walkability be maintained and provided. So I can get to that slide, but it's essentially areas that are around those kind of public facilities within frequent transit area, et cetera, bus rapid transit within a quarter mile. And again, these are all areas where I think there is an expectation that walkability being maintained and created if it's not already there. And then outside of that, again, those sidewalk requirements would not kick in. So that area, I think if you look at it mapped, is pretty expansive. I hope that, does that help answer your question? And there are provisions about sidewalks being required if it's adjacent to either an existing sidewalk or a planned either through a public project or through a submitted development plan with the intent of filling in those gaps if there's not a complete kind of sidewalk network there already.

Do I have any more questions or comments from the commissioner for staff? I just have a comment on a question. Please.

Yeah, serving on the Planning Commission means the occasional eye-popping disappointment. And today's is that Raleigh has been uniquely terrible on this front for 70 years. I just can't believe that We have tolerated this for that long, not having this exempt ordinance thing. I'm not even sure it's legal under federal or maybe even state law. So thank goodness we're finally fixing this egregious oversight. And I do applaud staff for taking this opportunity while we're doing that to add in the improvement of the minor subdivision. So I very much look forward to voting in favor of this proposal as soon as we get a chance.

I have a comment myself. I came onto the Planning Commission from the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Commission, and I'm a big proponent of including sidewalks wherever we can in pedestrian safety. I was a natural resource management major coming out of grad school, and I'm concerned about flooding the stormwater, and I've seen the stormwater damage in a lot of instances across the city and right next to my house and in my neighborhood, and I know that it's a... It's a very important issue that the city's having a hard time addressing. I think that this, TEXT CHANGE THE POSITIVE BENEFITS OF CREATING LESS EXPENSIVE HOUSING AT A GREATER SCALE IN THE CITY SIGNIFICANTLY OUTWEIGH THE CONCERNS I HAVE ABOUT STORMWATER AND THE SMALL LITTLE STUBS OF SIDEWALK WE MIGHT GET IF WE'RE OTHERWISE MAKING THESE SMALL SUBDIVISION DEVELOPERS PUT IN SIDEWALKS IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY DON'T EXIST THAT MIGHT SIT ALONE BY THEMSELVES. AND OUR STORMWATER RULES ARE STILL STRICT. and apply to any kind of development and zoning that is applied to these properties post-division. So I am in full support of this as well. Look forward to helping move this along. Commissioner McAllister?

Yeah, could I just ask why the Tax Change Committee didn't propose like a recommendation?

I'm gonna speak for text chair Neptune because it was on me. I didn't fully understand the implications. It was a complex issue. Land development is not my forte. I don't spend a lot of time talking about it here and I wanted more time to digest what the actual implications were and study some of these issues and I've had a chance to do so and I'm fully satisfied.

I was also there and I'll also say that I had questions and I specifically wanted to see if there was an example they could um, they could show us to make it easier to Understand versus all of the words so I was also a part of that hold up as well, but I'm good now Commissioner Walters

Is there any more discussion, comments, questions for staff? Yep, by all means.

Okay, I'll make the motion. I propose the text change is consistent with the relevant policies in the comprehensive plan and approve of the proposed text amendment is reasonable and is in the public interest.

We have a motion, is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Burnett. The question on the table is text change TC426, minor and exempt subdivisions. We have a motion and a second for approval. At this time, is there any final debate or comments? All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously, thank you very much.

Thank you for your time, everybody.

And thank you for everybody that came and commented. We appreciate your time. All right, moving down the agenda back into new business, we will now move on to rezoning Z2226, Bragg Street and South Street. We will hear a full presentation from Mina Sheshbaradaran, Mitra, excuse me, Mitra Sheshbaradaran from Planning and Development. Did I get it right?

Yes, you did. Excellent.

Thank you.

Good morning, Commissioners Mitra, Shesh Baradaran, presenting Z2226. This is a request to rezone 10 parcel assemblage on Bragg and Southeast Street, totaling just under one acre. It's currently zoned R10 with the South Park NCOD, and the request is to maintain that R10, provide conditions, and then remove the NCOD. And your deadline for action is October 24th. Zoning in the area is predominantly residential. The site is within the NCOD, towards the edge, but still within it. And properties surrounding it are primarily R10 with that NCOD as well, with some pockets of mixed-use districts nearby. Here's a look at the site and where it sits and some surrounding existing zoning designations and land uses. A pretty residential area generally, again, being within the NCOD, primarily a residential area comprised of detached homes. There are a variety of some civic and institutional uses nearby, two parks, Bragg Street Park and Junius Sorrell Park as well, as some churches in the area. Along Bragg Street there, or at the, INTERSECTION OF GARNER AND BRAGG. THERE IS A SMALL COMMERCIAL AREA WITH SOME RETAIL BUSINESSES AND THEN SOME POCKETS OF SITES ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE ACTIVELY RESIDENTIAL USES ON THEM TODAY. And then moving further south of the site, pockets of industrial zone land, both for lighter and heavy industrial uses. It's a kind of a mix of some actual industrial uses related to like vehicle repair, auto shops, things like that, as well as like construction material businesses, as well as just some general retail. And then moving northwest of the site, that commercial area is to kind of show the transition into downtown Raleigh. And then here's just a look at the NCOD requirement and where the site sits within it. Generally, it regulates minimum, maximum lot size, lot width as well, front yard setback, and where the building should be placed and face along the primary street. It caps building height at 28.7 feet, and it also regulates off-street parking to the side or rear of the building for building types other than detached houses. And then here's one more look at the site. On the site today are currently five existing detached houses, roughly 900 square feet, and then built in the late 1980s. Here are a few looks at the site and its frontages. The first site are the two properties that front Bragg Street, and then two and three are along Southeast Street, and then you can start to see that neighborhood park there as well that abuts the rear of the site. Generally in this area, no immediate existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities along the site's frontage, but there are some... SIDEWALKS AND BICYCLE FEATURES NEARBY AS WELL AS PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS GENERALLY IN THE AREA TO IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY. In terms of conditions, the applicant has proposed three. These mimic the NCOD requirements pretty closely. The first is requiring a front yard setback between 8 and 30 feet. The second is requiring main building entrances to face the primary street, as well as limiting the upper story entrances of any multi-story building, limiting that view from the public street right-of-way, and requiring that parking be located to the side or rear of the building. for building types other than the single unit living, so primarily the detached building type. In terms of entitlement, the change here comes from, primarily is driven with height. Under the NCOD, height is capped at 28.7 feet. That's roughly two stories. And then under the base residential district for R10, it's three stories or up to 45 feet. A slight reduction in entitlement here, and this comes from the NCOD requirement. If you remember, the minimum lot size for the NCOD is 3,000 square feet. Under the base residential 10 district, it's 4,000 square feet, so that's where that slight reduction in entitlement is coming from. But setback requirements remain the same. Under the NCOD, front yard setbacks are required between 8 and 30 feet, and that's carried over with a condition. in terms of connectivity and transportation analysis for the area. There's a higher walk score and transit score and generally better served by bicycle infrastructure. Residents in the area have lower transportation costs and better access to jobs. In terms of transit service, the site is immediately served by Routes 20A and 20B with stops along Bragg Street and Garner Road, as well as Route 21, which is just west of the site along South Blount Street. The site is also within half a mile of a planned BRT stop for the Southern BRT, which will run along South Wilmington. In terms of affordability, the request does slightly reduce residential entitlement here, and it does not include any subsidized units. It would permit a variety of housing types, smaller units on smaller lots than the citywide average, and the site is within walking distance of transit. In terms of residents in this area, they are more likely to be people of color and more likely to be low-income residents. They're a greater percentage of children under the age of five and residents over the age of 64 in the area. And then rent has increased slightly less in this area, but still 35% increase since 2019. Overall, the request for R10 with CU is consistent with the future land use map designation of moderate scale residential. This flume designation envisions encouraging housing variety in existing neighborhoods, particularly those nearby frequent transit. And then the R10 district is one of the recommended zoning districts for this flume category. In terms of urban format guidance, the site is within a frequent transit area and just outside of that BRT station area as well. Frontages are not supported for base residential districts. However, policy guidance is generally encouraging an urban kind of development pattern for these areas. Overall, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Consistent policies here speak to flume consistency, as well as conditional use district consistency, providing additional housing variety and types in existing neighborhoods, particularly those near transit. as well as compatibility with the surrounding area. That consistency is helped by the proposed conditions that similarly mimic the NCOD requirements, as well as encouraging a use of a variety of housing types in the areas that surround future BRT corridors. No outstanding issues here in your deadline for actions October 24th. Happy to answer questions, applicants here, as well as members of the public.

Thank you for that presentation. We will now allow 10 minutes for the applicant and those in favor of the application to speak. The public hearing is open without objection.

You did. Okay, good. Okay, good, because I lost. Yeah, there it is. Is it this one? The middle one. Oh, great. Thank you. Yeah.

Well, thank you, Mitra. Good morning, Chair Otwell, members of the Planning Commission, Hunter Winstead with Morning Star Law Group, representing the owner of this site, Weathervane Properties. Happy to be here this morning. Before we jump in, just a few things really specific to this site. As you can see on the screen, there are five existing duplexes built in 1986. This is really a unique site for a few reasons within the NCOD, near the edge of the NCOD. These duplex buildings, again in the 80s, don't really match any of the surrounding area. There's kind of a uniform culture of its own that's present on the site that we're really preserving through the tailored zoning conditions here, but I think a big point to note here is the historic overlay district that is just to the east of the site ends right there. These properties over here on the other side of Southeast Street are much older than 1986. Again, that character of the NCOD generally is not really present on the specific site with those 1986 duplexes. Just something that's specific about this site that's just under one acre. Let me get my handwriting. off of here. There's really two big points associated with this case. The first one is comprehensive plan consistency. This is a case that is squarely consistent with the future land use map. It's squarely consistent with Table LU2, which recommends height in the different zoning districts. That's a height of three stories with a maximum LINEAR FOOTAGE OF 45 FEET. IT IS SQUARELY CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN FORM MAP LOCATED IN THAT FREQUENT TRANSIT AREA, SQUARELY CONSISTENT WITH THE SMALL AREA PLAN FOR SOUTH PARK. SO THAT'S COMP PLAN CONSISTENCY. A big piece of the urban format is that frequent transit area. And that brings me to point number two, which is really housing opportunity. And Sumitra mentioned that really the entitlements under conventional development are that slightly decreases very close to the same. But a big piece of this case is removing the NCOD from this specific site. Again, it's that full block where these five duplexes currently sit. allows access to the frequent transit development option, which significantly increases residential density here. The number we were just calculating is the potential for 50 residential units. There's also built-in affordability in the frequent transit development option, happy to discuss, but we really see that as a large piece of this case, so comprehensive plan consistency and that housing opportunity being the big two points from our end. This is just an excerpt from the UDO showing the various requirements of the South Park Neighborhood Conservation District. They're really... A big picture here that is different from the historic overlay district, which is just adjacent to the site. The site is not within the historic overlay district. The NCODs are not designed to preserve historic character. They're all about quality and appearance. And there's really two different subsets of these various provisions of the South Park NCOD that I think is worth highlighting. First is lot size. And so you see that minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet. The reason these don't really apply to this site is, and we can show again back to that first slide, there's already very small lots that exist that are legal nonconformities. They're already 30 feet wide, so they're actually smaller than the lots that are allowed in the NCODs. Again, that legal nonconformity, they don't really apply these specific provisions, so that's why we don't address them in the zoning conditions. What we do address is this section two that all governs building form. There's four specific regulations. Front yard setbacks are governed. We've essentially adopted that exact language in the zoning condition to preserve that portion of the NCOD, really respecting the neighborhood design, the quality and the appearance. Building entrances, they've got to be located at the primary street face entrance. We've preserved that through the zoning conditions as well. SKIPPING DOWN TO THE BOTTOM, OFF STREET PARKING, WE PRESERVED THAT THROUGH THE ZONING CONDITIONS, GOT TO BE ON THE SIDE OR THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. THIS CASE REALLY IS JUST ABOUT 16 FEET OF HEIGHT. SO THE ONLY MATERIAL CHANGE HERE IN ADDITION TO ALLOWING ACCESS TO THE FREQUENT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS JUST REMOVING THIS 28.7 HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WHICH IS QUITE RESTRICTIVE. AGAIN, JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THESE 10 existing lots that are legal nonconformities. About 30 feet is the width for each of them. These are about 130 feet deep. These are about 100 feet deep. This table really shows the change here, which is in the bottom right, that's that 16.3 foot change to the height. On the left side are those four different subsets of the building form standards that are shown in the neighborhood conservation overlay portions of the UDO, so that's the different rows you see here. This first column is what the South Park NCOD shows broadly. The second column here is our conditions. And as we go through these, you can see there's no change to the front yard setback. That's preserved through the condition. No change to the building entrance. No change to off-street parking. That only change is here through the building heights. This really is just a case about that 16-foot height. And really the reason for that is you can't develop three-story buildings with a height restriction of 28.7 feet. And so that... Removing that portion of the NCOD allows us to use the base R10 zoning district to have three-story development here, which we certainly believe makes sense and what the comprehensive plan even more specifically recommends here. Again, we mentioned earlier the historic overlay district. You can see it's a little bit difficult, but it's this dotted kind of overlay here that ends just east of our site, so we are not in the historic overlay district. Again, just the two big picture pieces for us, comprehensive plan consistency, all the relevant policies, this rezoning case is consistent with, and again, that housing opportunity, particularly through the frequent transit development option. Very much appreciate your time. It's good to see everyone, happy to answer any questions, and with that, I'll reserve the remainder of my time. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We got three minutes and 50 seconds, 56 seconds left on the clock. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Seeing none at this time. Are there any people present that would wish to speak against? Please approach the podium. Those opposed will have 10 minutes. Good morning. Please state your name for the record.

Yes, my name is Robert Rosati, and I live at 410 Worth Street, and I've been a resident of South Park since 2006, and I'm asking you to please recommend denial of Z2226. The applicant's own filing states, the sole purpose of this rezoning request is to remove the subject site from the 28.7 foot height limitation restriction of the South Park NCOD. That's the sentence that stands in front of you right now. I'm not opposed to housing, density, or responsible development. I am opposed to dismantling a neighborhood conservation overlay district one property at a time simply because its protections interfere with a particular development plan. The height restriction isn't an accident. It's one of the very protections the South Park NCOD was created to provide. If we remove that protection, whenever it becomes inconvenient then is it really a protection at all? And approving this creates a simple argument for the next property owner. What you're deciding right now is a very slippery slope. You remove the overlay for my neighbor, why not for me? And the next owner will ask the same question. That's how we lose heritage, material culture, neighborhood scale, and the character of a historic neighborhood. Not all at once, but one lot at a time. South Park should continue to grow and evolve, but development should adapt to our neighborhood's adopted conservation standards, not the other way around. And I would leave the commission with one question. If South Park height restrictions can be removed simply because it prevents the building of a property owner wants to construct, what principle reason will the city have to deny the next request? If Raleigh believes South Park's height restriction is outdated, then let's have an open conversation with the residents. But please don't dismantle it parcel by parcel. I respectfully ask that you recommend denial of Z2226. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good morning, Chris Crew, 306 Elm Street. This is a case about spot zoning. Why would you remove protection from the center of one of Raleigh's intact historic neighborhoods? Absent specific plans, what public benefit can you count on? Why would you want to lose six units of housing entitlement if housing is an issue here? Neighborhoods like South Park constitute the historic and cultural fabric of Raleigh, and removing this small protection invites a thousand more tiny cuts. Spot zoning is not good zoning. Without NCOD protection, this property will still be bound by the purposes of Part 2.2.7 of the UDO, which says to accommodate and encourage compatible development in existing residential neighborhoods, while reinforcing the established character of the neighborhood and mitigating adverse impacts on adjacent homes. Putting 50 units in there is going to be an impact on adjacent homes. Four percent of Raleigh's parcels are protected by NCODs. Twenty-five percent of the parcels in Raleigh are zoned for multi-story mixed use already. Protect the historic fabric, protect the community that helped weave it, Ask for documentation of both impacts and benefits as a basis for a rational decision so that you can give sound advice to the council. Otherwise, please recommend denial of Z2226. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

And would the applicant like to use any of your remaining time? If staff would please reset the clock to, oh, I wrote it down somewhere. Three minutes and 56, yeah, four minutes.

Thank you, and I'll be very quick. This is not a dismantling of the neighborhood conservation overlay district, and I hope that's seen through the very specific zoning conditions that really preserve those character-defined elements of why the NCOD exists in the first place. We're talking about 16 feet of height. Certainly not a dismantling, and that's why we made sure This rezoning case really is a surgical approach that makes sense, that keeps those important elements of the NCOD. It's really just about the height to get to that three stories. Again, which is what's recommended by the comprehensive plan, the various policies that are applicable here. To the slippery slope point, again, that's why I mentioned this site is very specific. This is a one-acre site that takes up this entire side of the block that doesn't really match what's in the surrounding area, that's in the frequent transit, has the frequent transit development option to be able to take care of that and unlock that additional housing to public benefits. And so this really is a specific portion of the city, a specific portion of the NCOD. Certainly don't see it as a slippery slope given the unique features of this site. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Fair is fair. If anybody would like to use the remaining time to speak against, I believe you had six minutes left.

Who's gonna be purchasing these 50 units? Certainly not people that are currently living in the neighborhood. I would imagine it's probably gonna be very expensive and sure, less dense or more dense, I'm sorry, but I don't know. It just doesn't seem like the right thing to do for me. I'll leave that up to you.

Thank you. I'd like to take just a couple more seconds to argue against the proposal that adding 16 feet to this is not counter to what the NCOD is designed to protect. Drive around the neighborhood, look at it. There aren't any 40 story buildings there now. Yeah, this is another, this is the slippery slope. This is, you know, you cut one more lot out of the NCOD, how are you going to deny cutting another one out of it? You need to pay attention to what... the citizens of Raleigh decided was the best way to handle these things, and that is to honor, please stop shaking your head, Mr. Walters, the way to do this is to honor what we have set up in our comprehensive plan and our UDO. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments at this time. Public hearing will remain open, and I'd like to bring discussion and questions back to the table for commissioners. If anybody has questions or comments at this time, I think I saw Commissioner McAllister first, and then Commissioner Baird.

Yeah, sorry if this is a clarifying question, if this is already covered, but does removing the overlay change the minimum lot sizes?

Yes, it would. It would change it to the base residential, like R10 size. development regulation standards.

Thank you.

Is that an increase or a decrease from the NCOD?

In this instance, the NCOD minimum lot size is 3,000 square feet, which is maybe a bit of a more unique case, which is slightly smaller than the R10 base residential, which is 4,000 square feet.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baird? Yeah, so this, I guess, is for staff and or the applicant. A little confused on the maximum number of residential units. The information in the PAC, I talked about the proposed zoning, reducing that from 26 to 20 units, yet there was a discussion, I believe, of 50 residential units.

Yeah, so what we report in the SAF report and on our slides are reflective of the conventional development option or conventional development regulations. What Hunter was mentioning was the frequent transit development option, which the site is within a frequent transit area, and so it is an option to develop with different regulations in exchange for sometimes affordability dedication. So that is what Hunter's referring to. So it generally might allow for smaller setbacks or lot sizes for additional density near transit. And so that's where that higher number's coming from. Does that clarification make sense?

Was that discussed specifically in the application?

It's just an option that exists for any site within the frequent transit area, which the site is. So it's a development option, so when it comes in for site plan review, the applicant or developer can choose to develop under that option.

Okay, I guess I would suggest going forward that if something like, if that frequent transit development option is discussed in the application, maybe it wasn't in this case, but if it was, it'd be nice to have that addressed IN THE STAFF REPORT, SO WE CAN MAKE THAT COMPARISON.

NOTED. IF YOU SCROLL A BIT DOWN TO THE TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW, THEY DO KIND OF WRITE A TRIP ANALYSIS ON THOSE EXTRA UNITS THAT CAN COME FROM THE FREQUENT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT OPTION, BUT NOTED FOR INCLUDING IT IN THE FUTURE.

COMMISSIONER OMAGAI?

Well, I don't know if this is time for comments or just questions. Comments are welcome at this time, thank you. Okay, so I want to speak in form of the NCOD. I do agree that these policies were put in place to protect neighborhoods and know it's not the historic overlay district like Oakwood with historic homes, but neighborhood conservation districts. overlay districts still matter. I think that we do get into the slippery slope of spot zoning and dismantling naturally occurring affordability that exists in the area already. I think that In increasing the house and in looking at the area, it's not just when the applicant mentioned that quality and appearance are what matters. Quality of living for residents that live around it should be chief in what quality is. And appearance, townhomes that are four stories in that neighborhood, do not fit the appearance of the other homes, do not fit the character of the neighborhood that's in that area, including the houses across the street, even if the houses that he's talking about dismantling look different. In the presentation that they presented to us, they are removing housing from this area by six units, even if they're saying, well, if we... You know, in site planning, if we use the transit overlay district, we can go up to 50 when providing affordability. Oftentimes, that affordability piece is utilized as a poison pill or a magic bullet in case council doesn't want to approve this. Then they'll say, well, we'll add affordability. But that doesn't mean it's going to be an affordable unit. They add five units. It's considered affordability added to a 50-unit project. which then does increase the cost of living for people who live in this area around this project, which then does dismantle naturally occurring affordability. So while we're building more housing, we may be losing more naturally occurring affordability than affordable houses that we're building in this city, and that's a fact. I personally do not think that this project Even if you're looking at other areas around it where they show commercial use, commercial use, they are small spot commercial uses. There is a small, tiny convenience store where it says commercial or mixed use that has a restaurant in it. There is a small, I think it's a smoke shop up the street from it that is considered commercial use. Everything else around it is residential, which then does... impact the character of the neighborhood if everything is residential and they're asking for commercial use in addition to residential use. In addition to the asking of commercial use, there's been no conditions added to what that looks like for commercial use. Am I wrong where CU is commercial use?

No. That means conditional use. Okay, conditional use. And that's just for residential. Correct. There's no commercial entitlement with this.

Let's X that because I was going to go into what other conditions we could add if there was commercial use. But conditional use of the space. So... All of my other comments are, I mean, still stand. Like, I do believe that we do need to listen to residents who live in an area. We have built and approved a lot of housing, more housing than is actually being occupied at this time or even developed at this time. And we do have these conservation overlay districts for the point of preserving and protecting neighborhoods. I believe that Raleigh is getting to a place now where it is having an identity crisis. Raleigh is now more dangerous than Durham, and that's something I never thought I would hear myself saying. Some of that is the increase that we're seeing in the city and the mass development that we're allowing, including the busing of people into the city without putting them in housing. And the housing that we're approving to move forward with is not affordable for people to move into. So if they want to go to council and say, well, as a magic bullet, just like somebody else did when we were the case on New Hope when the guy was going to build in a floodplain and then went to council and said, well, I'm going to add affordability, though they didn't mention that here in front of us, it also put residents in a dangerous neighborhood, I mean, a dangerous situation if that area was to flood. So flooding is not the issue necessarily for this one. But I believe that residents who have worked hard to afford their houses, who have lived there for decades, who have worked hard to be in a neighborhood and build community in an area that then can get disrupted by giant town homes that do not fit the character of the neighborhood that they go into, that then does subtract from housing, and again, impacts naturally occurring affordability is something that we should heavily consider when we're thinking about removing parcels, bit and piece from an overlay district that was created to protect neighborhoods.

Thank you, Commissioner Omukai. Are there further comments or questions from the commission? I have another question. Oh, please go ahead.

Outside of the residents that are here, and I see the engagement report only has one, how much good faith efforts and community engagement has been done on this project to make sure that residents are informed about it, which we've been hearing in the past couple of meetings sometimes is lacking, and then how many people showed up to those and what ways did you engage them?

So we had our neighborhood meetings, that 500 foot list that we talk about often. Had a lot of good discussion, a lot of positive comments. There's certainly notes of the need for housing in this area. So a mix of comments, but there was certainly a lot of positive comments and more honestly than I usually see on rezoning cases. We've also had several folks write in support. I hope the Commission received those emails. I think there was four or five emails for folks in support. Obviously, it's difficult for folks to come speak, especially in support in the middle of a workday. But yeah, this is the case that certainly has community support to your question, Commissioner Omekye. Thank you.

It just seems like there's something that we have to trust because we don't see it. Thank you, Commissioner Omekye.

Commissioner Walters?

I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS SO FAR. I SPENT SOME TIME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THE YEARS AND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS CHANGED A LOT IN THE PAST YEARS IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT. Recent buildings that you see along almost all of the streets are really in contrast with the older houses in the neighborhood They might be a similar height, but they don't look anything like the the older houses in the neighborhood and and I could expect that with or without this rezoning, this assemblage of parcels would have that new and non, in contrasting or non-compliant, oh it is compliant, non-contrasting look of the neighborhood. So in my mind, what we're talking about is not, is this going to look different than the, More historic homes in the neighborhood. It's really more of in my mind a question about density and Being able to get the good project forward Just those are some of the thoughts going around in my head at this moment Thank You Commissioner Walters There any further comments or questions from the Commission I

At this time, without objection, we'll close the public hearing and bring the conversation back fully to the commission table. Open up the table for debate. Any more comments? Commissioner Omakae.

I'm looking at some of the emails that were sent, and for the most part, it seems like the common thread in them is that one of them mentions that wait, I'm trying to find the email really quickly, but basically one of them mentions that it's not worth having, it's a waste of space to only have a single family home on the plot, which to me is a bit much to say that anybody having a detached home that they worked hard for is a waste of space because more could be used with their land.

Any further questions? Comments, and if not, I would invite a motion at this time. If anybody's unsure about how they feel about this, we can ask further questions. Commissioner Walters.

I move to recommend adoption of the proposed consistency statement dated August 25th, 2026 contained in the agenda materials and to recommend approval of the zoning amendment.

We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Shelburne. The question at the table is rezoning Z2226, Bragg Street and Southeast Street assemblage. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes seven to three. Would those that voted in opposition like to state for the record their reasons? Commissioner Cochran, Vice Chair Cochran.

When I first reviewed this case it seemed very reasonable but hearing the back and forth and the intent behind the rezoning I think that there's is a way to develop this property and make it better without rezoning it so I'm just I mean I support developing this property I just don't think it's the only option.

Thank you. Commissioner McAllister.

Yeah, I just want to echo Commissioner Omukai's issues with the rezoning. I think that the naturally occurring affordable housing on the property is important to preserve. And yeah, I'm not sure if the aesthetics of the neighborhood are a great reason to rezone.

Yes, please. Just piggybacking what they said and what I said previously, we need to make sure that as we're growing as a city that we're protecting the affordability that currently occurs, especially since we can't force anybody that develops new housing to add affordability. So wiping out what exists there or making neighborhoods less affordable, I don't know if that's something that's a direction that this commission would want to be something that's a legacy that we're leaving. Also, if there are conservation overlay districts, we need to be mindful of that. The development of this property is fine by me. We just passed some more regulations around subdivisions. I don't think the rezoning of this property to pass it and make it higher is necessary.

Thank you for that. And I think the whole commission, I think it's important when we send a split vote to council, I think it spurs important discussions and thoughts as this case goes forward. With that said, that concludes our new business for the day. Thank you to everyone that presented and that came to speak. We're gonna now move on to other business, and we will start with the report of the chair. First of all, I would like to say that I am working on getting the text change committee appointed. Currently we have, Nick Neptune will continue as the chair, and we have Commissioner Sanchez. We have Commissioners Omukai that are currently full members of the committee. I would also like to make it clear that everybody on the planning commission is designated as an alternate to the text change committee in case we need to switch somebody in to make a quorum for any of those meetings. Continuing to work on the last two members to get commitments to serve on the commission and the committee. And I will announce that at the next meeting, hopefully. I believe that's it for my comments for the day. And with that, I will cede the floor. We will go to report from the members, and let's start down with Commissioner McAllister. Let's start with Commissioner Cochran, and we'll come back to you, Mr. McAllister. Thank you.

I don't see an upcoming committee of the whole, so I assume we don't have one. Okay, no other comments for me.

I think that we should give Mr. McAllister a chance to see what everybody else is saying here before he decides what he needs to say in public.

I know that we are planning our retreat, or will we have an implicit bias training at our retreat? And have we found the instructor?

So I can provide an update at the retreat as to new state law that prohibits the city of Raleigh from conducting that.

That's hilarious.

No reports. No report.

I don't believe we have any pending items for the text change committee, given that we just reported out or approved TC 426. I mean, I don't see anything. I see...

I do expect there is very likely an item for discussion. I would ask that you hold that time and date, please.

Thank you, Ms. Walter. Thank you. Well, for the members of the text change committee, I hope you'll please set aside time to join us on September 16th, 2026 at 4 o'clock. Raleigh municipal building room 305 where we do anticipate having an item to discuss for text change other than that I just wanted to mention I had the pleasure of seeing a Commissioner Shelburne host and moderate an affordable housing panel during the city of Raleigh's affordable housing summit over the weekend and I thought he Represented the Commission quite well and in doing so and led a great discussion No report

No report.

No report. Just would thank everyone for a good meeting and thoughtful consideration of all the issues before the commission.

Commissioner McAllister.

We'll come back to you, Commissioner Omakai. Yeah, I'll just say thank you for all the warm welcomes and, yeah, no report.

Thank you. Commissioner Omakai, would you like to follow up?

I've been researching implicit bias during our break, and currently there's no statewide statute that says that we cannot host an implicit bias training, but it does say that we cannot mandate it. I know that this commission said that they wanted to have implicit bias, which is different from mandating and saying that you have to do that, and implicit bias is not just racial. but it also includes disabled, I mean people that are handicapable, gender and all sorts of other biases that we may hold. So I would like to see the staff present us something that says that we cannot hold an implicit bias training at all, especially since this commission said they wanted one. I do believe that it is necessary for us to understand our maybe inherited biases when it comes to neighborhoods and things of that nature if we are to make fair and just decisions

decisions and recommendations to the council thank you commissioner mckay and i'm happy to follow up with you personally on that as well sure i'm not missing anything and now we will move to the report of the assistant director

I wanted to note that I have had good response from most of the members of the commission and ask that you hold the morning of September 29th for the retreat date. That's the fifth Tuesday in September. We would meet at nine, likely at a city park facility.

Thank you for that.

And if there are no other items for the good of the order, this meeting is adjourned.