Okay.

Oh, that's what we want.

Let me just read it out.

Hey, good evening, everybody.

Thanks for coming to the matters scheduled for public hearing.

First, I just want to make an announcement about a special committee on council advisory boards and commissions.

This is a task force that we formed.

As you can tell, Christina Jones here is on it and excited about this particular hearing.

We're going to meet a week from yesterday, 6 30 p.m.

on Monday, September 8th, here in this room to just get feedback from our various citizen advisory commissions.

So reading it out here as a public announcement, and then we will also, I'm going to pass this back around to the clerk.

We will also, of course, publicize that online.

So with that announcement uh out of the way, the first matter scheduled for public hearing is the business investment grant program, and we have uh Evan Raleigh from the City Manager's Office and Kyle Stutch Touchstone from the Raleigh Chamber.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um before you is the business investment grant for build-ops.

Um this uh investment grant is the state matching provision that would um pay eighty-seven thousand three hundred dollars um over a five-year time period.

This was an office recruitment into downtown uh Raleigh.

The investment is six hundred thousand six hundred one thousand two hundred dollars in real estate and um equipment, um, creating two hundred and ninety-one uh permanent full-time jobs with an annual average wage of 110,997.

Um it was approved for a job development investment grant and workforce training support has been offered as part of this uh incentive from the state.

So the recommended action for you tonight is following the hearing make a determination that the incentive will increase the taxable property employment and business prospects of the city and authorized finalization and execution of an incentive agreement by appropriate city officials.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Touchstone.

Any questions for him before we open the hearing?

Yes.

Hi, Kyle.

Hello.

As always, you're not in front of us very often, and so I feel like it's always helpful for the public to know there are lots of strings attached to this incentive, and if for any reason the business does not fulfill the obligations they've committed to they continue to pay their taxes in full.

Is that right?

That is correct.

Uh thank you for that question, Councilmember Patton.

Um the business investment grant requires that the company um meet all of those minimum requirements.

So the investment, the create all of the jobs, um meet that annual average salary, and then the payment would start.

And they also have to meet all of their um of their property taxes.

So all of that has to be paid in full, and then this is a portion basically that is um granted to them.

So yes.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I will open the hearing, and I will say that we have no one signed up in support or opposition, so I'm going to close the hearing and leave it to council to any other discussion?

If not, all in favor, aye.

All opposed, nay.

Thank you.

Next we have uh street closing uh STC 05 2023, uh Woodside Drive, and this was withdrawn.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Next we have street closing STC 01 2025, uh, the Willow Street right of way, and we have Amanda Jones from Transportation.

Uh good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

My name is Amanda Jones of Transportation.

Uh, the proposed street closure we had today is Willow Street.

Uh so it's the area indicated in red.

It's just south of Conn Elementary in between two residents.

So this closure area is approximately 0.16 acre.

Willow Street was dedicated back in 1920 as part of the subdivision of W.

L.

Johnson and E.

V.

Crow.

The applicant was requesting permission to close Willow Street right away without signature from the adjacent neighbor at 619 Edmonton Street who does object.

And the applicant intends to put a new single family home on the parcel.

If approved, staff recommends the city receive value consideration for the amount of 163,000 based on the appraised value of that right-of-year.

And lastly, as part of the city standards process, it's good to note that all property owners are to sign the plat that is being recorded.

So that is can stated that is stated as a condition on all resolutions.

So it's um just under 22 feet for each property owner.

There is also a duke easement that needs to be maintained, and that's going to be 15 feet, which you can see at the um bottom of the screen.

Uh this is what it looks like today.

Um so it is um it is an unpaved road, however, it is maintained by the city.

Um so as early as April of this year, uh our street maintenance has gone out there and done some grading.

And we do have three options today.

Um so if we were to, or if you were to approve the council finds the closure is not detrimental to the public interests, and or does not deprive any individual owning property in the vicinity of reasonable means of ingress and egress to their property.

Um to deny cancel finds the closure detrimental to the public interest and or the owners in the city are d vicinity are deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress, or you can refer to a committee.

And that is the end of my presentation.

Okay.

Questions?

Just one question.

You mentioned one property owner did not sign.

Correct.

But how many property owners are there in all and how many have signed?

Um so there is uh three that needed to sign.

So again, the applicants at 701 the uh at 619 Edmond Street, they are the ones that did not sign and oppose the closure, and Conn Elementary they had signed.

Okay.

Okay.

Just so I can better understand this.

So this is a public right-of-way.

Owned by the city.

Yes.

And this applicant, they want to close the street.

Well, it's a dead end.

But it's uh dead end street.

Yes.

Um are they also but they're also asking for the public right-of-way.

There's a required Duke um easement, it's required.

Oh, okay.

So can you just give me like a full like so you have two so you have one applicant on one side that um has requested the closure of that strip of land.

Um, the school system has signed off on it, the applicant has signed off on it, and the other applicant has not signed off on it.

Um the way our policies work, you needed all applicants to sign off on it.

We sent this to transportation, transportation looked at it and allowed and referred it back to council, and council approved that this could move forward through the process.

So that's why we're here tonight at a public hearing, because council approved for it to move forward.

So now the question before council tonight is do we treat this as a street closure and close it?

And what happens is every basically that property is going to be split in half between the other two applicants.

Khan does not, then they wouldn't get any of it, they're not requesting of it.

And on their side of property is all wooded in prone up.

Mm-hmm.

But that this so the middle section is going to be split.

Split in half.

Between those two.

Okay.

And then likely another home will be built or I have no earthy idea.

I mean, when you're dealing with an easement, you there's certain things you cannot build upon.

So you can't build upon an easement.

So that will limit the footprint of the property anyway.

Okay.

But those could be questions to ask the applicant.

The applicant will speak to that, I assume.

Okay.

Thank you.

You said the applicant stated purpose is to build a different single family home, right?

Yeah.

Um this picture was just taken last week.

So the home uh was on the right.

It's now demoed.

Um so they are looking to uh reconstruct a single family dwelling.

Good morning.

All right.

Um I'm gonna open the hearing.

Uh have one person speaking in support, and then one in opposition.

Uh Mr.

Ryan Reed.

Did I just hit buttons down here to advance slides?

Let me play this this.

Got it, cool.

You guys ready?

We are ready.

All right.

Um, I'm Ryan Reed.

My wife and I own 701 Edmond Street.

We've lived in the neighborhood since 2013 on Glasscock Street.

Um we are here to talk about closing Willow Street.

Um, and um I'm just speaking on behalf of everybody that supports closing the street.

Uh one quick piece to note until 2018 there are three acres at the north side of Willow Street that were privately owned.

Um, and willow street access those three acres.

It would have been landlocked without that.

In 2018, Conn acquired those three acres, combined it back with their property, and now that entire property is accessed via Cahn's main vehicle entrance.

So it took away the need for Willow Street, and it doesn't serve a public function today like it did back until 2000 or 2018.

Uh quick background, like they'd said it's seldom maintained, seldom maintained, and there's yard waste that's dumped at the end of it.

It seems like for a long time now, it's supported by us in Wake County.

There's personal reasons we want it closed, happy to address and answer any of those, but I really want to focus on the statute today, which says there's two reasons you should close a street, right?

That it's not contrary to public interest, and that no property owner loses reasonable means of access to their properties.

So I think we'll focus mostly on those and happy to answer questions about anything else.

The first reason we think it's in the public best interest to close the street is enhance school and community safety.

So back in 2018, when Conn acquired those three acres, they also completely tore down the school when they rebuilt it from the ground up.

There were blocked perimeter guidelines that said CON should have access from Willow Street at that time.

And um Wake County schools submitted a variance that was approved by Raleigh City Council in 2018 that said a few things about why they didn't want access from that street.

It said multiple points of public access to or egress from the site is extremely difficult to staff to monitor, and that connectivity from Willow Street would not only pose a safety hazard to school students, but could create an opportunity to have unauthorized persons access a site without staff supervision.

Fast forward to today, Wake County schools signed our petition to support closing the street.

And in my research, I found that Conn is the only elementary school in Wake County out of 122 that has an unsecured, unimproved public right-of-a budding campus that's not used for school access.

Our oldest son is a first grader at Conn.

The first day of school was on Monday last week.

Um there was a code yellow, first time it's happened for us.

Unfortunate situation, we never like to see that as parents, and it's scary.

I took the time to walk around the campus and I saw police stationed at all of the known pedestrian entrances to Cahn, the vehicle entrance, but nobody at Willow Street because it's not really known as an entrance, even though it backs right up through woods to the carpool lane of Conn.

I think that you know, if closing a street that serves no public function can make schools a tenth of one percent safer, then it's something we should do every day.

Second reason it's in the public best interest is reducing municipal costs.

Um the city does pay for maintenance, like Amanda said.

There was a tree that fell on a few weeks ago, the city had to pay for remove.

Um there's also potential for increased county tax revenue with private ownership of the land.

We don't think the city should bear responsibility for maintaining land that serves no active public function and that it's um reduces a municipal burden to close it.

There's also precedent of closing a similar street on the exact same plat that was dedicated in 1920.

Edmund Street originally continued beyond boundary street street, shown on the left.

It was closed in the 80s.

I couldn't find exactly when it was, but it was combined back with those properties as well.

So same plat, same type of substreet that's been closed um for decades now, but was originally dedicated.

The other part of the statute says that no neighbor or no property owner should lose reasonable access to their properties when they take them in to address what we know is opposition from the neighbors at 619 Edmond Street.

Primarily they use this parking today.

It functions more as a private space for them than public infrastructure.

When they do use this parking, they often violate parking laws with perpendicular parking, parking all over the street to um side by side, too close to the stop sign.

They have been largely unresponsive when we try to talk about closing the street, but the one email we did get from them said unfortunately removing the easement would prevent us from maintaining our current parking setup, even with the proposed 22-foot property extension.

In our mind, if they're losing using more than half of the street for parking, then it's not really used as a street, it's just for their private convenience.

Addressing the statute piece, right?

They do gain if the streets closed 22 feet of additional width to their land.

That would ensure that they are not deprived of any reasonable means of access now in the future to the front of their house, the back of the house, anywhere they want because they get that extra land.

They also the previous public comment session had stated that they maintain the street themselves today and have taken that burden off of the city.

That raises the questions: do they have the proper permits to do that?

Do they have the proper insurance to do that?

How do we know the work they're doing to the public street isn't affecting potential stormwater runoff under our property or other things like that?

Um the city staff had recommended that we pay 163,000 for the property if closed.

Um we're not developers, we're not trying to, you know, subdivide this lot and build something that's aggressive that you know couldn't happen today and that is out of our means.

It's also well beyond the value of any lot that's ever been sold in that area, even ones that were subdivided before.

Um there's a couple of reasons we would object to that.

The statute establishes two criteria, just that the closure is not contrary to the public interest and that no property owner is deprived of reasonable means of access to their property.

There's no language in the statute for a compensation provision, and we think that it's more designed to eliminate municipal burdens and not create revenue streams.

The public interest standard can focus on street closures that are for the community benefit and not necessarily municipal compensation.

While we do understand that compensation could be one part of the public interest standard for that statute, in some cases, we believe that the standards met without compensation in this case, and is more consistent with previous street closures that have happened before where compensation hasn't been acquired required.

If you do require compensation, we have appraised concerns about how the appraisal was conducted.

It values the street as one piece of land, even though by statute it can only be split by two and only has two potential buyers, it values it is it as if it could be sold to the public.

Um the comps used in the appraisal were nine to fourteen years old in completely different areas without the same zoning.

Um assume that there was a larger development benefit available and there's not.

It's an NCOD that would limit the development beyond what could be done today.

There's not really a functional or development benefit beyond just a slightly bigger yard and maybe a different configuration for the home we would build.

There's also a concern, you know, what if it was Wake County schools who submitted the petition who doesn't get any land from this and we were just a signer on the petition, rather than being a signer on our petition, are you setting a standard and asking for compensation here that you couldn't close potentially problematic right-a-ways without a need for compensation?

So in conclusion, um we think all statutory requirements are not only not only met but also exceeded.

Um the increased school neighborhood safety along with reduced municipal costs, ensure the closing is not contrary to the public best interest, and it's actually in the public best interest.

No landowner loses access to property that they would need because they gain that.

So if we look at the documented safety risks and the fiscal benefits for closing the street, it outweighs the private convenience and parking preferences of one private landowner.

So we would ask you to vote to close Willow Street to increase safety, save resources, and improve the neighborhood.

Happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Yep.

Um so if compensation is required, how would you proceed or uh it sounds like that's not something you want to proceed with?

I think if there was a need for compensation, we would be open for a discussion.

But the 163,000 is well outside of our means for what we're doing.

And I don't think the appraisal um took into the fact that it's surplus land that only has a couple buyers, and that isn't on a standalone property ability to be built, even if it is just one.

And when you split it in half, right, two halves of a property don't equal a whole from a valuation perspective.

That 163,000 is for the entire property.

Um, if there is a need for compensation, it can be in discussion, but I do think that the statutes are kind of met without the compensation need.

Could I get a staff just input on this?

So with the compensation, I'm not sure who would be the right person.

Um how does this work?

Is it only for the applicant to have to pay?

Or does it get split?

And what if they don't want to pay it?

Well, we can't require the non-applicant to pay.

So it would be um a part of the applicant.

And what if they don't want to pay or can't pay?

That's a part of the condition of this closure.

So it would not be closed if they if we set a price and they can't meet it.

For this resolution, they would have to pay the compensation.

But they're not forced to like if if we were to approve this closure with a compensation requirement and they couldn't pay it.

It would not be closed.

Correct.

We would have to go through the street closure again.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Counselor Silver.

And if you can come back, I just need clarification.

So two questions.

If they were unable to pay, it's not a lien against their property, the condition is they have to actually pay the appraised value of 163,000.

Correct.

They would have to pay and then they could plat the um to do the new survey in order for them to get the right way.

And not to get in weeds about the appraisal, but I'm hearing there's an easement.

What is the buildability?

What is the lot buildable?

I don't know where the easement I was trying to look on the survey, but just trying to understand if it was its own lot.

I'm just trying to understand the appraisal a bit more.

I don't know the comps in the surrounding area, but just want to know a little bit more about the appraisal process, knowing there's an easement, not knowing exactly where it is is in the middle of the lot.

So uh can you answer the question about the appraisal?

Is you said it was before the closure was requested, so you're saying it's reasonably current.

Kenneth Ritchie for transportation.

So yes, that appraisal probably is has been done within the last six months.

Um as it relates to the compensability question, the so what staff did with the appraisal is just establish a value for the council to consider of the property itself.

Now, with the consideration of the closure, council could say, okay, the mitigated maintenance, things like that could equate to that value.

I think it's just establishing what a value constant for consideration as it relates to it.

Now, what if the council should so choose that there that the public value is being met and then that the private value is not going to outweigh the public, then no, there would not necessarily be a requirement for compensation in that regard.

So I think I just want to make sure we clarify that we can go from zero to 163.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, counselor Lambert Bell.

I just want to add, I think somebody has signed up in opposition, and I feel like before we continue to ask staff questions and deliberate, we need to hear from them.

Um I just wanted to throw that out.

Yep.

There is some other.

All right.

So uh we will hear from the opposition, which is Andrea Merrickle, and you have eight minutes.

Thanks for the time.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Andrea Merkel.

Um thank you for letting me speak tonight.

My family and I, we live at a 619 Edmond, uh, which abuts the Willow Street right of way.

We purchased our home in 2006, continuing a long precedent of using Willow Street as the only vehicle access to our property.

We rely on Willow Street every single day as our only safe and practical access to our home.

For this reason, we are asking City Council to vote against closing Willow Street.

The petition submitted by the new property owners of 701 seeks to close Willow Street right of way without our consent and with full knowledge of the significant impact it would have on our family.

It claims Willow Street is a safety risk to con elementary and that it is unmaintained.

These claims are invalid.

And they are unaware of the impact it would have on us.

In reality, the school really doesn't have a stake in the matter.

Um the claim that Willows is unmaintained is also misleading.

Um we have maintained it, maintained it ourselves.

Um mowing, trimming um, and replenishing the gravel periodically when needed.

Um the city hasn't really done much of anything.

It did do the it did take down the tree, um, take away the tree the other day.

Um, even just with all the things that we've done, um, Willow Street has remained safe and accessible uh because we've consistently taken responsibility for it.

Um I don't know how to Okay, there we go.

Um North Carolina law is clear.

Um under the general statute 168-299.

A right of way may be closed only if it is not needed for public use and it's not contrary to public interest, and if no property owner loses reasonable access, um that's the standard.

Um unfortunately this closure will fail it.

Um as you can see in the image above, Willow Street runs between 619 and 701.

701 already has a driveway on Edm from Edmund, um, and it has additional access to their property from Willow Street.

We do not at 619.

We don't have a driveway.

The only way we can get to our property is by Willow Street.

So if Willow is closed, the portion that we would acquire would have to serve as our driveway.

But there's a problem because general access requirements say that existing and reposed development must provide vehicular ingress and egress to and from a street or a budding site.

Parking must connect to a street alley or easement, and it must allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward motion.

And driveways must follow the street design manual.

The street design manual requires a minimum of a 10-foot driveway with a three and a half foot apron on either side, meaning that we would need a total of 17 feet to make a UDO compliant driveway.

Unfortunately, if you look at the map from above, this is from IMAPS and the property surveys ours and the one that 701 recently got with the new proposed property line.

They extend over nine feet off of our property line, which takes up almost half of that 22 feet, and it does not give us the full 17 feet that we need to have a compliant driveway.

So I even contacted one of the engineering reviewers at the City of Raleigh and the transportation department, and he confirmed that the curb line would have to be relocated in order to meet permit standards.

So that would mean removing the existing curb and gutter.

And we have to do that all at our expense.

The other fun little part of that is that there's a utility pole right there.

So depending on how much we would have to move from the curb and gutter, Duke may require us to move that utility pool.

And then also if you look at the other requirements, we may also have to move a storm drain.

And all of that, from my understanding, falls on us.

So this is just another picture.

It shows the frontage of our street.

So it shows you the utility poll that I was just talking about, shows you where the current property line is, which is right at our the white fence line, that 22 feet.

And then the 17 that would be needed to meet the UDO requirements.

So the safety claims in the petition that point to the 2018 Wake County Public School Report from the renovation of Cahn Elementary.

They actually found that because of there is such a severe grade change.

It's like a 15 to 20 foot drop where there's a stream in between Willow Street and Conn Elementary.

And because of that, they couldn't create an access point because you you can't walk through there.

It's too steep.

So Willow Street is it is a dead end, but you can't go through the woods to get access to CON very easily that way.

You'd have to be very fit, quite honestly.

So the owners of 701, they purchased their lot fully aware of the Willow Street right of way.

Their motivation for closing Willow Street is not about safety or public benefit.

It's more about enlarging their private envelope.

The petitioners have misrepresented the current and historic use of Willow.

These inaccuracies overlook the real impact on neighboring properties and further emphasize that the request is driven by private benefit rather than community interest.

It also conflicts with the residential infillity stand compatibility standards, which are intended to preserve the scale and consistency of established neighborhoods.

So splitting Willow Street to enlarge 701's lot would allow a wider home out of step with a neighborhood character while placing undue hardship on us.

This would it would allow one property to keep full benefit while depriving another of essential access, creating an unequal outcome.

North Carolina law and Raleigh's own policies make it clear that such results are contrary to the public interest and incompatible with statutory statute requirements.

For these reasons, I ask you to vote against the closing of Willow Street.

Thank you very much.

Counselor Lambert Melton and then uh Mayor Partem Fort.

Um can I uh can someone from your office, Karen, answer?

I have a question about the thank you.

This will be for staff.

I I have a question about the standard that we're being asked to apply.

Um my recollection from committee was different.

Um the standard we're being asked now is to apply one, whether it is not detrimental to the public, and then two this ingress and egress.

At committee, I believe our conversation focused on whether there is a public benefit, which I think is a key distinction between is this detrimental to the public or does it provide a public benefit?

And my recollection from committee was the entire reason why we implemented other options for public benefit.

One of them would have been compensation, was is because we had to meet that threshold.

But now we're being told a different standard, I think, and I think that's a a pretty big difference.

So can you help what is the actual statutory standard for it?

Sure.

Brandon Poole, City Attorney's Office.

So I think at committee the discussion was staff in transportation did not know how to process an application that pursuant to their application process, they could not advance it because it was inconsistent with the statute or inconsistent with their determination of how the city policy works on the comp plan.

And so the two cases that stopped at the staff level, it was because they couldn't find that there was a public benefit to the closure under the standards they were looking at under their review.

The statutory standard is that it's not contrary to the public interest or it's not depriving property owners reasonable ingress and egress to their property.

And it's both it's an and or or is an and.

Okay.

And so I think that's a little different.

Um I apologize for the folks involved in this case because this was like our first pass at trying to do something different, because normally it would just get denied by staff, and then maybe someone would come to City Council during a public comment and ask us to take it up.

And that didn't seem like a good process.

Um I'm sympathetic to both arguments.

I will say one point on the ingress egress.

There are plenty of homes that do not have driveways.

Um Boil and Heights, a lot of these more historic older neighborhoods, they don't have driveways.

And so I I think saying if this gets closed, we don't have vehicular access to our house.

I I'm not sure that that meets the standard of no ingress or egress.

I I I think of a property that would be literally stuck in the middle of surrounding properties with no access to it.

And so that's a little bit different.

That said, I'm very confused about this switching of not switching, but we've had a different discussion in committee than we're having today.

In the public interest is much different than not detrimental to the public.

And then it also sounds like the folks that are asking us to close it don't want to pay the money.

And so I don't even know where that leaves us, but I feel like this may need to go back to committee or have another discussion about what is the standard, what are the options?

Um, it sounds like it's a mess on both ends now, and um certainly was not our intent when we advanced this to public hearing.

So I have a question for staff.

Oh, she pointed the mayor looking at me.

So that you're right.

You're right.

I had staff may the mayor say go while Ma'am, can you come back to the mic?

Thank you.

Yes.

So put a driveway in.

Do you have like any cost estimates of how much that will cost?

And has anybody offered to compensate you for it?

Um the the cost estimates um are thousands of dollars.

Um we the problem is is that because we don't have the exact um like measurements that would you know for a permit, like we can't have anything to submit, then we can't get an exact cost.

Um, you know, but we're looking at my husband would be better at this.

Um who is over there.

Um, hubby.

Sorry.

Um Good evening, everyone.

So so far we have received some some estimates on the concrete work.

We've also received some estimates on the curb and gutter.

We've received estimates on the telephone pole relocation.

Um we've also had some soft costs related to other uh landscaping that will have to just be removed.

I'm not talking about beautification, just bare bones in order to get everything moved out of the way.

Um so far we're in the range of about $30,000 to do the bare minimum.

And is anybody offered to cover the cost of that?

No.

Okay.

No.

Nope.

So I have a question.

Okay.

Um this is actually for staff.

I have one for you while I will go to staff first.

Okay.

Um we just did a street closure in North Hills in which we didn't close all of it.

Is that am I was that not?

Am I not correct?

So that was the case that was withdrawn earlier tonight.

Right.

But that case that was withdrawing still the idea in the proposal was to divide that in half, correct?

So I think there's a little bit of nuance difference between the two cases.

Uh one with with that woodside case when you originally saw that one.

That street not had never been maintained by the city, was never considered an open street.

It was really a paper right-of-way, how it was being used, access and other things.

This one, we do have this one identified as a street that was a as a street that the city has maintained.

And being cutting this one in half does essentially create an inconsistent noncompliant street.

Okay.

Only asked because hearing from the neighbors, they're saying they're maintaining it and not the city.

So I'm confused.

So I mean I think based off the records we have got from our maintenance staff, I guess dating back to I think April, Amanda, is that 2020?

So we do have records of city staff going out there.

From 2020 to now.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

I have good hearing.

Um, even though that other case was withdrawing, we were going to see a case right before this that was going to divide a street in half and keep part of it open and close part of it.

Um can't talk that point because it never happened, because it was withdrawn.

But to bring it to this case, um my question too to the applicant, um, not the applicant to the neighbors that were just up here.

My question to you is if this was cut in half based upon the property, would your vehicle be able to get on your property as is?

Um I mean it would be tight, but it wouldn't be like a city compliant access point.

Right.

Okay.

Is I'm not even going to ask the next question, my attorney is here.

Never mind.

Okay.

Counselor Silver.

If this goes back to committee, uh I would certainly appreciate a conversation because to hear zero to one sixty-three is a it's a huge scale.

And don't know how you evaluate what is right, should this go forward?

So that's question number one.

Should this go back to committee?

The second one is I just want to be clear, this is no disrespect at all to Ms.

Merkel, but I understand and and her husband, uh, if this is closed to understand what does the city require.

Uh because right now with 22 feet, a car is about 10 feet wide.

I am just trying to understand there is currently ample room for a car to get in and to get out.

Uh and then about the curb and utility pole, I just want to make sure from staff that I fully understand uh for uh for the Merkels to improve that property to make a compliant driveway.

Are they required to do it?

Or can it just leave it as is once that street is split?

So those are just questions I have, just to understand, because looking at the width of it, it seems adequate about the vehicles.

I'm looking at Google Earth, the carts that are parked there.

It seems that they are at least three or four times the width of what the vehicles there are.

So I'm just trying to place in reality if in fact it was closed, 22 feet for each property owner, and what are they mandated to improve a driveway or leave it just unimproved as is.

So those are questions if it goes to committee.

Counselor Lambert Milton.

And then Counselor Patton.

Um if this were to be approved, this is for staff.

The applicants are paying would have to pay the one sixty something, right?

I don't know who I am looking at you, I'm sorry, because you presented.

I just need to applicants would make the payment to the city pursuant to how it's currently on our agenda.

But they are getting half of it.

And so the folks who are here in opposition would get the other half and they don't pay for the other half.

Is that how it works?

That that's how so obviously with this total closure, the the valuation that we have done is on the total 1.6 acres.

And you've got the basis of that would be from the applicant or some combination of petitioners.

Typically you that's where having all those signatures and support, I think can be is usually part of this consideration.

Okay, so my question then is if the gentleman here we close it, he pays the amount.

Is he getting the full thing or half of it?

So the way that the closure and Brandon, I'm gonna ask you to keep me honest here.

The way the statute is, it splits it down the middle.

So For the purpose of the closure now, between that point and when the plat is done, if there is some exchange of property that is done beyond that.

There was a question about how much will this driveway cost?

And we heard $30,000.

And there's a question of are you getting compensated for it?

It seems to me if they pay for the full amount and only get half, then the folks who are getting the other half are getting half of the value of the property for free.

Um then if they choose to put a driveway in there paying for that.

So I I'm I'm working through that issue.

But then the bigger problem I have is they don't want to pay the 160.

So it feels like this is a fool's errand to even consider this right now because it's not this doesn't feel ready for prime time.

And I know we put it here on prime time, but I also think the discussion at committee was under different terms.

And so the whole thing just does not feel right for a vote right now.

And I apologize for the folks who are here, but this is the first time we've done one of these, and so I think it's just we're working through the issues.

All right, Councillor Patton and then Councillor Harrison.

Yeah, I think um when we well, one thing I think we discussed in committee was that compensation could be considered as a consideration of public benefit.

I don't know that I remember that we decided that would be required.

I do I think it's a reasonable question to call.

And um, but certainly also understand how the people have been proceeding through this process this time, might be like that's not exactly what we signed up for.

So I understand the sort of dissonance there.

I also understand the dissonance between saying like there's 44 feet of space, you pay for 22 feet of it, you get 22 feet for free, and how that there's some unfairness there.

I am also hearing that it would create an immense challenge for some of the property owners, and that the intention is to build a single family home where there already was a single family home.

So this isn't preventing the intended outcome.

Um I if if it's the will of the council to take this back into community to hash these things out more fully, I think I'm I'm happy to do so.

I think we could call this question here tonight, though.

I mean, I think if it's not ready for prime time, make a motion.

Sorry.

Happy to do it.

Yes.

With all that preamble, I also will say I don't necessarily agree with the Waite County Public School's policy that children need to only approach their schools from the front.

People who are coming into schools to do harm to our children are doing it through the front door.

And this policies like this push kids onto Brookside Drive instead of walking through safer paths to their schools.

So anyway, with all that said, I would um motion to deny the street closure.

Second.

All right.

Any other discussion?

Just wanted to add, is it possible if we did close the street, could we build affordable housing here?

I'm just curious.

Like, what are the other options for the city?

Is this is it only for the owners, like only for the adjacent homeowners?

I'm just curious how this works.

I mean, they have to both sign off on it and they're not, right?

So there's no other.

So no matter what, to close this road at some point, it has to come from the adjacent homeowners if they want to do that.

Well, we own it, so that's the other option.

So the city could close this and use it for something else entirely.

I'm just trying to understand the process.

Yeah, I'm not saying we will do this.

So the the street is only allowed one method under state law for closing a public right of way.

And that's the statute that Mr.

Richie referred to that sets up by default that the property is divided down the center line to the property owners on either side.

Okay.

So it has to be split between them.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So the motion has been made to deny um ST01 2025.

All those in who are you want to say something else?

Yeah, I I thought it was going to committee, so I wasn't prepared to vote yes or no, but the has been motion and second, and so I will.

Okay.

So and remember, because we're this is a vote to deny.

If you vote yes, you are voting to deny.

Okay.

So all in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay.

So that is a five-three vote to deny.

All right.

Thank you.

Next we have petition annexation AX 1825.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Christopher Golden with Planning and Development.

So we've got one annexation this evening.

This is AX 1825 at zero mid Pines Road.

And you'll see here on this map.

It will look a bit familiar on the lines you see there that are diagonal.

That is an annexation that came into the city with an improved subdivision.

Came into the city on December 3, 2024.

So these three parcels that are looking to be annexed, or the owners are looking to annex tonight, is 0.17 acres.

They're very small tax parcels that are included into that larger site plan.

These small parcels are intended to be landscape buffer and part of the right-of-way.

So it is associated with that previous annexation case.

So these sliver of land here, which is about roughly 20 20 feet wide at its widest point, is contiguous or it's contiguous to a satellite and inside the ETJ.

So it is in zoned R6.

It is in the Swift Creek Land Management Plan.

So the surrounding uses in this area of residential and agriculture.

So I mentioned before it does have an improved site or subdivision plan on it.

And there are two plans in review, so site permit review, two site permit review plans on this property.

You can see the site location there in Mid Pines Roads to the south of Tryon Road, which you'll be able to see in the zoom out.

You can see the site location in any aerial there as this picture was taken.

It's fairly treed lot around some agricultural lands.

And you can see the zoom out where you can see Tryon Road just to the north and Mid Pines Road moving south, and you see those small little parcels uh next to that larger parcel.

Um you have utilities that are located in Tryon Road, that larger parcel with the plans for that one is to extend those utilities into this area.

This these sliver properties actually won't hook up to utilities in their own right since they are landscape plannings and uh right of way, um, these will not be connected to water and sewer.

Um you can see here the current zoning, R6 uh conditional use residential, the largest site that was recently annexed in.

And you can see the future land use for this area is at rural residential, some institutional to the south.

You've got some NC state land there, and low-scale residential.

And you can see here clearly that's within the Swift Creek Watershed Protection Overlay District classified as new urban.

Um I think that about covers it, other than that you can see here uh there is a blue line stream, part of the development plan has that at a 50-foot buffer, and that's along the lines of the requirements of the watershed.

You can see the site plan and topography here, no actual floodplain of note, and you can see uh the photo of the site from the roadway uh currently treed.

Uh combined acreage on this one of those three parcels is about 0.17 acres.

Um I think that pretty much covers it.

What questions can I answer for you all tonight?

Questions?

How wide is this?

Uh roughly 20 feet at its widest point.

So they're uh they're tax parcels for Wake County that weren't included with the larger site, but they are included in the site plan.

Uh so they're just strip buffer areas.

I think uh if I believe that there is uh I thought the site plan was included in there, but it is included in the packet and it's landscape buffer along a roadway that's gonna access the site.

So if it's annexed today, it will be brought into the boundaries of council district eight.

Always important to know.

Okay.

Um questions.

Then we have uh Isabel Maddox uh signed up, so I'll open the public hearing for AX 1825.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of council.

Uh this is a very uh what I hope is a very benign case.

There's some slivers of property.

It wasn't included in the original annexation because it we acquired these slivers from actually an adjacent cemetery.

And unfortunately, the prop that property was tied up in a bankruptcy proceeding, so we weren't able to include it in our annexation.

Um we have since acquired, we did acquire the properties, and it's kind of a long convoluted story, but they're not it in order to recombine these slivers, and so we have one big development parcel, which will be better for everyone going forward.

We need to do this annexation that will clean up uh problem that we created by conveying the slivers prior to them being part of the development parcel.

We had to do it out of order because of the bankruptcy proceeding and contractual deadlines to close by December 31st.

So long way of saying I've got a presentation.

Again, there's no utilities that will be included in these slivers.

They just make the site plan work because we need a little extra land.

We also agreed to provide the cemetery, which now has no real physical good access.

They will have a paved way to get to their cemetery.

That was part of the arrangement that there we've we've examined this and surveyed the property for graves, and there's no graves on these particular slivers.

So that's your site.

This will be a townhouse development.

That's the overall site plan, and we're just coming right down here like that.

Little slivers.

So again, the larger portion annexed in December 2024.

We conveyed an unsubdivided and unrecombined slivers because we had to before December 34st of 2024.

To get those back rolled into this development parcel, we need to have it is annexed because the Wait County GIS won't put it all as one parcel until either we're annexed or we're not annexed.

So we've got the main tracks in the city, and it shows on GIS, but these slivers show a separate tax parcels, so it's really kind of awkward.

So we'd like to clean it up.

It cleans up the city and county data.

It's very very minimal.

Any questions?

Thank you, Ms.

Maddox.

Any questions?

All right.

We will close the hearing discussion.

I'm prepared to make a motion.

I motion to approve the annexation petition.

Let's see, with effective date, September 2nd, 2025.

Second.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

All right.

That passes.

Thank you.

Next we have rezoning Z7022, which is Glenwood Avenue, Lake Ann Drive, Hannah Recall from Planning.

Good evening, Hannah Recau, Planning and Development.

So this is a request Z 7022, a request to rezone three parcels that are 6.85 acres.

And currently split zones between neighborhood mixed use, three stories, conditional use, office mixed use, three stories, R2, and conservation management.

And the proposals to rezone them commercial mixed use, five stories, conditional use, R 10 conditional use, and conservation management.

So this is a site located on the south side of Glenwood Avenue, north side of the Lake Ann neighborhood.

Like much of Route 70 commercial, light industrial uses along Glenwood Ave, and then various um scales of residential surrounding.

Zooming in to the site, you can see kind of a irregular shape.

Some views of the site currently.

So the CX5 portion would have the following.

These conditions apply just to the R 10 portion, so a cap on number of units at 12, a um setback from surrounding properties of 65 feet, and then limiting the number of stories containing dwelling units in that portion of the site.

The application of some landscape bus buffers along uh the south side of uh Winchester Drive.

And granting the Lake Anne HOA assigned easements for the purposes of identifying the Lake Anne neighborhood.

There are a number of conditions that pertain to stormwater control.

So these include super selt fencing along the downhill perimeter prior to any land disturbance, underground stormwater control measure on uh tract one, such as the CX5 portion that would manage the 10-year and 24-hour storm and an underground or above ground stormwater control measure installed on track two.

Um there's a condition that would require a third-party consultant to oversee stormwater measures and receive questions and uh complaints from the neighborhood.

Um the developer would be under this condition required to comply with the recommendations of that consultant.

Um then there uh is a condition um pertaining to a stormwater pipe installed um from the retention device on tract one uh to the um Lake Ann Drive right-of-way.

Uh and then there's another condition that would um extend uh public water and sewer lines to a neighboring property up to the site's property boundary, and then a condition pertaining to notice with regard um for any blasting that would be required for construction.

Um just for visual on the site.

Um this is the CX5 portion, the CM portion is roughly where it is currently here, and then the rest is the R10 conditional use.

So big picture existing for versus proposed.

There's currently split zoned between mixed use and residential and conservation management.

The request is uh also to be split zoned.

Um higher uh taller buildings would be allowed in the commercial mixed use portion, the residential district, the requesting is a higher scale, would allow more dwelling units, smaller lots.

Um relatively small change across the uses as you can see here.

Um the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, also consistent with the future land use map designations, which are a mix of community mixed use and moderate scale residential, and then the public parks and open space designation.

See some um consistent policies here.

There were no inconsistent policies found with the request.

And then finally, the planning commission uh recommended approval in a split vote five to three uh with the opposing members um referencing discussion during planning commission about the enforceability of the proposed conditions.

So with that I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Questions from Ms.

Requell?

Okay.

I will open the public hearing, and we have uh Isabel Maddox signed up in support, and no one in opposition.

Good evening again.

It's been it's been a while.

Um, I'm Isabel Maddox, representing the property owner here, and I'm here joined with my team tonight.

Tom Worth, my co-counsel, ummy Craven of Priest Craven, our engineer, Chuck Walker, uh, our land planner.

Um also here tonight is Josh Hanson, who represents the HOA, and we've worked very closely together to try to come up with a an arrangement that the Lake Anne HOA could support.

And um pleased to say that it it I believe they do support this this rezoning proposal.

Um Hannah did a good job going through it and you can see the parcels there.

There are rather odd-shaped.

But the interesting thing about this, we have a we have a couple of really important water bodies here.

Um we've got Turkey Creek coming down through here, and then we got Lake Anne here, and so a lot of our discussions with the HOA involved protection of Lake Ann.

Lake Anne is owned by the Lake Anne HOA, uh, which Ann neighborhood, generally speaking, is not in the city of Raleigh, but they've had some difficult um issues in the past, and so they've been they're super sensitive to damage to their lake.

They spent a lot of money uh remediating development issues that have been caused by, for instance, the townhouse development, which is immediately northwest of the site.

The challenges were that because of a long history with this property and the HOA, there was some law litigation in the background, there's some restrictive covenants that were very tight.

And we can combine those with zoning restrictions on the property.

It made the property almost impossible to develop.

Again, we are focused on the highly sensitive Turkey Creek and Lake Ann protection issues.

Also, the city is requiring a an extension of Winchester Drive.

You can see the line in red here would be the root of that.

The I think the Winchester ends about right here, and we we would be continuing that through our site, which creates that parallel road to Glenwood Avenue, uh, which both NCDOT and the city insist on.

So that that adds even more um impervious and more just disruption to the general area.

Um we have been working really hard with the neighborhood to try to come up with a solution that would give them the protections they wanted, and in order for them to release their covenants and support this case, and we would create some conditions that would allow us to develop the property.

Um there's our track one, there will be a mixed-use building there.

Uh we envisioned ground floor retail of some sort with residential above, and then we have 12 town homes on track two.

This green, dark green area here, track three will all be conservation management.

So Hannah went through the conditions well enough.

I won't go through those again.

Um I will say that we we did agree to height limits on track one, three occupied stories on track two, the townhouse is two occupied stories.

And I know that certain council members and certain staff members have had a few concerns about our stormwater condition.

Um I think the one that was most concerning was this appointment of a third-party consultant.

Um we feel like that will we're not second guessing the city's stormwater um department.

We're not saying that they don't do a good job.

It's just this is an extra layer of protection to give the neighborhood.

So this is somebody who will have a pre-construction meeting with the neighborhood and with the city to say here's what we're gonna do, and to understand everybody understands.

There will also be a contact point that the neighborhood, the neighbors can call and get an answer if they want to.

If they see some you know problem, they can potentially get quicker results than going through the city.

Um I feel like it'll it will not um hamper the city's enforcement, it will help.

It will be an extra uh set of eyes to to look at this and uh advise.

And they also if if if they don't think something is working properly, there's a way for a mechanism in place that they can you know stop it.

So I I think that uh historically in the many zoning cases I've worked on, if you can, you know, work with the neighbors as much as we have and get their buy-in, then you've done the the hardest work.

Uh I think we've done that here.

Um I can go through more detail about the stormwater conditions.

I've talked to probably most of the council members, and we've gone over this, so I won't belabor the point at this point.

Uh but just to conclude, I think this is this rezoning cleans up some regulatory restrictions for this site and allows for some development.

It will allow more housing units, it will add commercial opportunities, which will be walkable for both new and old neighbors.

Um it will facilitate the extension of Winchester Drive as an important parallel road for Glenwood.

Um, and it importantly will protect Turkey Creek and Lake Anne, and the neighbors, you know, will be comforted that they have some, you know, their lake is going to be protected.

We we also have a private agreement with the HOA, and there'll be there's some financial arrangements between the developer and the HOA that will give them some extra protection.

So uh, as I said, Mr.

Hansen is here.

He said he did not stand up to speak tonight, but I think he is here on behalf of the neighborhood if you would like to hear from him.

And if you have any questions, specifically engineering questions, uh Tommy Craven is here and can feel those.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh questions for Ms.

Maddox, yes.

So good to see you.

I know we've had many conversations over the summer.

Uh and wanted to get in a second about the condition.

Uh I first want to applaud you.

It seems to be a long effort working with the community.

Mr.

Hanson, I did read your letter I received before we came in this room.

It was a very compelling letter.

So I'm understand why you did not testify, so thank you for sending that.

Um I am inclined to support this case, even though you and I had many discussions over the summer.

Uh it is consistent.

Uh it does remove certain covenants that allows this project to go forward.

Uh, but I look very carefully at conditions, and this is one I was troubled by.

You know, you proactively stated this is not discrediting stormwater staff.

I believe if there's something wrong with our rules, let's fix the rules rather than doing a one-off.

Uh but I understand the long trajectory.

I do have one question about the third party, because this is a person that's going to be hired to monitor, but staff is going to have to monitor the monitor.

And so just so I understand, you and I had a conversation.

There's a point in time when the third party monitor would cease their oversight because these conditions run with the land in perpetuity, uh less zoning is changed.

Uh I have a more detailed one.

I know Hannah did a summary you did as well.

But is there a point in time when a third party's job is done?

And we talked about is it post-construction, or is there ongoing monitoring going into the future?

No, the the idea is that they will be involved pre-construction and during construction.

They will be reporting.

I think it's initially every 30 days and then it goes to every 90 days.

But once the construction is complete, we wouldn't envision them continuing in in any role.

Is that in the condition?

Because I want to be clear that it seems that there's a lot in this condition.

Uh again, in our notes, it is quite extensive to know that there is a sunset uh on this.

That's what I'm trying to get, because that way at least staff would know they no longer have to monitor the monitor that now after construction, everything is proceeding.

That's the part I wanted to get clear on.

I can't say there is an absolute statement saying that at the completion of construction of this project, and what is this project, because as you know, I mean, projects do change sometimes.

Uh so there's not an express termination provision.

So I think conceivably it could be any construction project would revive it.

Other questions.

Yep.

I just wanted to come on.

I am uh uh district representative for this case, and I really appreciate all the work.

I have spoken with both uh Josh, I've spoken to some of the uh HOA members and um with the applicant.

And I do want to commend you on working is what we ask from the development community.

We ask you guys to work with the community to find out.

I also want the residents you guys to hear me when I I understand your concern by being in the county.

I know that you're not looking at staff going, oh, you're not gonna do it, but there is a question by not being a member of the city, there is well, are they gonna represent me?

I get that concern.

And I really appreciate uh staff for, or I'm sorry, the development team and staff, of course, but the development team for hearing that and recognizing it and over these last over a decade uh having this conversation to the point where we can come in collaboration and in support of a project, even though there are I am sure there are still concerns.

I am sure there are still issues, but knowing that development and adding more housing is very important to the city as well.

Um so I really just wanted to commend everyone on this.

I think you guys have done a phenomenal job and and in communicating with us, you have also done a great job.

So before unless there's anything else, uh I'll be ready to motion uh I will close the public hearing.

And if you want.

Okay.

I had just a question for Stormwater staff, because I was reading this condition.

I think it's six IV, and it says um, let's see.

Um the representative or the consultant shall prepare and submit to the city inspector and representative at least once every month during the first 90 days after an erosion control permit is issued, and quarterly thereafter for any construction project, a report on the status and efficacy of construction of temporary and permanent stormwater and sedimentation and erosion control facilities.

So it looks like for any construction project, there's a quarterly report.

Or is does it seem like there's an end time or what is construction potentially entail?

Uh Sally Huite, Riley Stormwater.

Quite frankly, staff is concerned about having to enforce this condition because it appears to be something that is really an agreement between the homeowners association and the applicant, and that they could handle privately without it being a zoning condition by you know the applicant could grant the third-party inspector access to the property, the third-party inspector could report to the HOA and not involve the staff.

This is placing burden on staff time who already go out and inspect sites at least every two weeks to be involved in that relationship.

So we are not clear on when it would end.

Can I comment on that?

Yep.

Yeah, that's fine.

Um, I think when you the beginning of that sentence, it says after an erosion control permit is issued.

So I would think that it would go along so long as that permit was opened.

So I think once that permit is closed, then the obligation as far as regular reporting would go away.

But if there was a new you know, another another construction project down the road, I think it would revive.

So as if you have an erosion control permit, I think that's what would trigger the third-party consultant.

So is that how you understand it, Sally?

Like that it's when there's an open sorry erosion control permit?

That that would make sense to us.

We wouldn't want to be involved in this any outside of those parameters.

Okay.

And so are you saying that's how you interpret this statement that's in the condition now?

Or that how you can interpret it?

Yes, I think that's how we would interpret it unless we were getting complaints from the homeowners association that we were interpreting it incorrectly.

Thank you.

Counselor Silver.

I mean, that's very helpful for stormwater.

I can support it if I know.

I understand there are different phases.

But I want to make sure this condition does not run once construction's completed all phases.

I want to be assured, I don't know if the current language states it, that this condition sunsets.

And uh I mean, Isabel, you could tell me you weren't 100% clear, but that would give me the satisfaction we heard from staff, this is adding an additional burden.

And if we're clear that after all the different phases, the mixed use, the townhomes, all the improvements that you have to make to the road, that construction is done, then the third party's job is completed.

And then it transfers over to the normal stormwater operations about any stormwater that flows on the site.

I would agree that that would be the way it would work.

Um I can't tell you there's an express statement that says that in the condition, because there's not.

And I do think if you say 20 years from now, they decided to tear down the building and start over, and these conditions were still in place, I think you would still have that when they opened a new erosion control permit.

I think you still have an argument that that's that revives.

And and and it probably should.

So I I'm sorry if it's not as clear.

Um but uh but I think the the theory that you we were operating on is that the Lake Ann wanted protection from a store from a construction project, period.

That's what we've tried to try to give them.

So, yes, I believe the work will be done once the once the development is completed.

But you know, if for some reason they bulldoze some building and start it over, I think you would have that condition come back.

Mayor Proton.

Uh whoever from the city attorney's office is ready to come up and speak is who I want to hear from, because as a lawyer, I would say there's a lot of uncertainty about this.

And so I don't know what the legal opinion is, but maybe there should be some conversation around that because it is very vague to say, you know, 20 years from now, five years from now, who's responsible, who has the follow these conditions.

I agree.

And lawyers united.

We talked about some of this.

Um, you know, with with direction from council, we can certainly tailor it.

I mean, we could sunset it after you know development's done, but then what about redevelopment?

So that's one issue.

I am having a hard time reading these.

But my other concern, just with enforceability, was that it requires this unknown person to do things.

And we can't tell an unknown person to do anything.

Like we couldn't give a zoning violation to ABC stormwater expert.

Because they don't have a permit with the city.

They're not a property owner.

I don't think this condition is ready for us to move forward.

So I think folks need to I think we could probably make it so maybe we the developer causes the person to submit the report.

I think there are some ways that we can fix this.

But as written, we can't, I wouldn't suggest we move forward.

We have some enforceability issues.

I think we probably just need a little direction from the council and we can we can come up with something that would work.

I think we say in here that the applicant shall calls a third party consultant to be applied.

I didn't I'm trying to read these little counsel branches.

Yeah, I was gonna ask words, but I didn't see the question.

Because obviously we're gonna be holding this tonight.

Um looking at this.

Is there a way to tie it to the permit?

So as long as the permit is open, then there's a requirement there.

But once that permit is closed, then it goes away.

If you all I don't know the answer to that question.

If counsel is inclined to accept this condition, then we would ask that you hold this open to allow us to re-word or or work on that condition first.

I'm gonna reopen because I had already closed the hearing.

So I'm reopening the public hearing.

I had a question just on process uh city attorney's office.

This um I guess maybe because I was working with the lawyers here.

Um how I I didn't realize that the city attorney's office would have an issue.

So how does that move forward?

Is this the only place or have you guys been looking at it and knew that there was concern, or was this the first time?

I'm just a little confused.

How come I didn't understand it was an issue?

This exact version until they were signed.

And then they were signed.

And so I just didn't weigh on in on this version.

Councilmember Jones, when this was presented to us, it came up because it was a 5-3 split vote and there was some discussion on condition number six and the discomfort from staff.

I think it came more from stormwater than it did.

Well, they said staff, and I assumed it was stormwater.

So that did surface.

We didn't go deep into it.

Right.

And I met with stormwater.

My concern was that I didn't hear about the legality portion of this part until like I I knew that that was the question, but we were working internally here.

And I think from a process perspective, uh I knew to reach out to Stormwater because of that meeting.

But how do I how do how do I moving forward, make sure that before we get to this moment that I'm hearing from attorney's office?

Because now I feel like I'm misguiding because I was like, okay, great, great, great.

And now I'm like, we didn't even realize the city attorney's office is going to have an issue with this.

Didn't even realize that.

Yes.

Back in whenever the public hearing, you know, back in June, I think that the there was some issue.

Yeah, I remember raising the issue about the ombudsman and that whole thing.

So I think that's how this door kind of got cracked open a little bit.

But I mean the language says the developer will shall retain and compensate the third-party consultant.

Um I was just gonna add that as a lawyer myself, sometimes this is an example of what happens when too many lawyers get involved.

But the HOA has a lawyer as well who emailed us saying that they are fully in support so long as these conditions do not change.

And so if we're holding this and the condition is going to change, we're gonna be sort of cracking that egg open again.

Um the enforceability piece, in my opinion, I know our staff is I don't want to put our staff in a bad situation.

So and so if we're holding it to try to give clarity to our staff, I think that makes a lot of sense.

But if we're holding it because the enforceability may not be that strong for the residents, they have a lawyer, and their lawyer says he's fine with the conditions.

And if it's the enforceability leaves it wide open for the applicant, well, that's the property owner.

And so if they're signing themselves up in perpetuity to monitor the site, and that's what their lawyer is telling them to do, then that then that's that.

And so you've got a lawyer here, the HOA has a lawyer, then obviously we have our city lawyers.

And so I'm looking really for our city lawyers.

If you tell us this is going to put a huge burden on our staff and we need to hold this, then I would be inclined to hold it.

If it's if that's not the direction, no one's here signed up a post, the lawyers in support of it, the applicant's attorneys in support of it.

A lot of work has gone into this.

You know, best of luck to them.

That's kind of how I feel about it.

All right.

So with that, the city attorney's office.

We would ask that you hold it so that we can clarify the condition so that everybody going forward is clear what is expected.

We don't want exactly what you say, which is there is some dispute.

Our staff is in the middle.

Everybody have at it.

So two weeks.

Can I comment one thing?

We we do have this set of conditions, which the HOA has agreed to.

And they have been pretty clear that they're not going to accept any change to the conditions.

I mean, I can speak with the But but this is the thing.

We can't box our staff in just based on the HOA not necessarily being flexible about or inflexible about conditions.

I mean, that's not our role.

Our role is to make sure that our staff is in a good position to be follow-out.

Well, but our city attorney's office is advising them that advising us that they want extra time to make sure everything is clarified.

I mean, that's that's what our obligation is at this table.

Yeah, they've had since like two three months, but I mean got two other options.

One is to deny.

If you prefer us to do that.

I think the city attorney has requested to hold it open.

I've held the thing open, so if we can sit on it and bring it back in two weeks.

Yes, if you would.

Well, I don't want to be involved in this, so someone else could I motion that we hold it open for two weeks to give the city attorney's office and the staff an opportunity to get clarification around the conditions and then we can come back and take our vote.

Second.

Wow.

All right.

Any other discussion?

If not, all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Thank you, Council.

Okay.

So that was a six-to-vote.

And so, mayor, uh, when you reopen the hearing, there'll be a minute, nine seconds left for those in support and eight minutes if anyone signs up in opposition.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we've got Z5224 Tryon Road.

All right.

This is rezoning Z uh 5224.

Uh requests to rezone three properties on Trion Road together are uh just under 44 acres in size, currently zoned R4, R 10 with a special residential parking overlay district requesting a mix of R 10 and RX4 conditional use districts keeping the overlay.

The site is off of Trion Road, which runs right here.

Um currently no structures on the sites owned by the Raleigh Gulf Association.

Um surrounded generally by residential.

You can see um Renaissance Park uh area there for reference.

So a set of conditions that would apply to I should have mentioned the property um to be rezoned RX4 uh is this one here, and then uh this other part parcels R 10 conditional use district.

So any conditions that would apply to the Rx or piece would prohibit um some uh residential land uses would cap the number of dwelling units.

Um provide a um height limitation um within 100 feet of certain neighboring properties.

Um it would um install a traffic signal uh on at Trion Road and Fairway Drive.

Uh if more than 100 units are are developed, that's um assuming uh C D O T signs off on that.

Um there would be a stub for feature cross access provided uh to 1526 Trion Road, and then a condition committing two percent of the dwelling units uh to be made affordable for households earning 60 percent uh of area median income.

These are the zoning conditions that would apply to the R 10 portion.

So also prohibiting uh one one use boarding house, capping the number of dwelling units and prohibiting the apartment building uh type.

So existing versus proposed, I see an increase in residential uh entitlement.

Um portion of the RX4 portion of the site would allow up to four stories building heights.

And then Rx does allow a small amount of commercial use uh if located at the corner of two public streets.

Request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

It is inconsistent with the future land use map, particularly the private open space and low-scale residential, requesting additional intensity than those both envision.

Um some consistent policies triggered here, some inconsistent policies are future land use map consistency, and then zoning and infrastructure impacts is cited uh because of the uh nearby road par drive is actually surrounded by an uh separate parcel.

So access to that road would require coordination with with that neighboring property owner.

Planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.

Um and as I mentioned, is inconsistent with the future land use map, so approval would amend the map both of those areas to medium scale residential.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Uh questions, yes.

Yeah, this might be for transportation.

I know there was some mention in the staff report about concerns for um entrance and exit on try-on road.

Um have those been addressed by NC DOT.

Uh transportation staff can answer that question.

Thanks.

Good evening, Carter Robertson with transportation.

Yes, in our initial conversations with NC DOT, uh they did express some hesitancy and some concerns about providing some access in this area right here on the try-on road.

Um it's my understanding that the application or uh the applicant has been working with NC DOT and they've been warming up to the idea.

I think they may be able to speak more to where their current position is on this, but ultimately since that is uh DOT maintained roadway, they'd need that permitting to get that access point right there.

And so if there was not access on Tryon Road, the development would need fairway drive, I assume for all entrance and exit.

Right.

Well, when it comes in for site plan, depending on how many uh units are developed.

Um if more than 300 are developed, there'll need to be three different access points that would be allowed under the proposed zoning.

So fairway drive would be an option, um trion road, and Bruce Circle, uh another one in there, and I expect the applicant will um go through their their plans for those access points.

Could you also talk about the status of fairway drive just as uh a road, what it is like right now, and any plans for improvement?

Right.

Uh right now it is unimproved with no curb and gutter.

It is a city-maintained road.

Um our leadership and our department have had some preliminary conversations with the applicant about potential opportunities to bring fairway up to standard, maybe get some sidewalk down to try-on road, but as of now there are no conditions or formal development agreements at the table.

Right now, uh conversations have been high level, seeing what we could do on fairway.

Okay.

And I my understanding is traffic calming is planned for fairway.

Is that correct?

Right.

Um, that was one of the traffic calming projects in this current bucket of projects.

It's been advertised.

Our staff is working with the um contractor right now to get that finalized.

Um, we hope to have that due by the end of September construction schedule, and we'll make that known on the website.

And what type of measures would be installed there?

Five speed cushions from Trion up to Carolina Pines.

Five speed cushions between Trion and Carolina Pines.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Okay.

All right.

So we will open the public hearing for C 5224.

We have uh two folks signed up in support, Toby Coleman, Ryan Summerwell, and one in opposition.

Need to reset the clock.

All right.

Uh good evening, Mayor, members of council, Toby Coleman with Smith Anderson here on behalf of uh the applicant.

Um and in particular, I'm here on behalf of Dominium, their uh nationwide affordable housing developer who is uh has brought this rezoning forward to facilitate affordable housing on the property that's zoned RX4.

Um did a good job of uh explain outlining the uh the zoning conditions.

I think a couple things I just want to underline.

Um these are, as you can see, two different sort of zoning areas.

Um the area in blue is where the uh apartments would go.

Um the uh purple area, which is referred to often by our team as the hook.

It's like the 14th through 16th hole, perhaps, um uh on uh the RGA course currently um would be zoned R 10.

Um what happened there uh was we had initially proposed zoning at RX4.

We heard from the neighbors in Renaissance Park that they had concerns about density.

Um so we downzoned it to R 10 uh with a limit of 175 units.

Um as you can see there, it's rough that's roughly about uh eight units an acre, which is consistent actually with the Renaissance park density and it's lower density than the greens at the existing apartments that it surrounds.

Um it's more or less consistent actually with an R6 density.

Um it's a little bit dense allows a little bit more density uh for single family homes than R6, but a little less density than uh for townhomes than R6.

Um one other things I'll note is because it is consistent with R6, we would argue that uh the hook portion actually is consistent with moderate scale residential designation, um, which is pretty much everything that surrounds it.

Um just to note that one of the reasons, one of the conditions we have for the uh for what I'll call the apartment block, the area zone to RX4, was a height limit along Bruce Circle.

The reason we did that was because the intervening road, Bruce Circle, um basically created an area where there weren't neighborhood transitions that were other would otherwise be applied by the code.

So we wanted to put those in just to ensure that everybody, all of our neighbors on Bruce Circle had consistent height restrictions in that area.

Um as already been noted, we are looking at uh we've been working with the city for uh probably four or five months now to try to uh come up with a public-private partnership to do some improvements on Fairway Drive.

This would all be off-site improvements.

A lot of the discussion to date has focused on basically that area from Trion Road up to that uh intersection, the uh access area for the development for the apartments and looking at doing a sidewalk and curve and gutter uh along that stretch of road.

That would all be off-site improvements, and so a lot of the discussion has been around how could if you know if we did that, you know, would there be a way for the city to uh participate that either with fee waivers or other things.

We've been working through all the uh issues there.

And with that, I'll hand it over to uh Ryan Somerwell of Dominion.

Good evening, council.

Uh appreciate you listening to our speech this evening.

As uh Toby mentioned, you know, Dominium has been specializing in the development and ownership of affordable housing for nearly 50 years.

Uh we feel that through years of trial and error, we are one of the most experienced developers, owners, operators, and managers of this specific type of housing uh across the country.

Um the site plan that you just previously saw that is a 370 unit proposed apartment community, of which 100% of those units would be set aside at 60 percent of area medium area median income.

I think some other you know, notions for Dominium as a team.

We are a vertically integrated company.

Um, you know, we have an internal contractor and architecture services team that focuses primarily on the quality control of the communities that we design and develop.

Uh we consider ourselves you know the antithesis of your call it market rate or merchant builder.

We pride ourselves on being part of the community.

Our intention is to own and operate this community for the long term, you know, typically 15 to 30 years, if not longer.

Um and so as part of that, we also manage every single community that we operate.

The the goal of that and really um the intent is to have an alignment of values and interests at the site.

We don't view our property management portion portion of our community as profit-driven.

We spend the time to put in the necessary capital improvements, put in the amount of quality and repairs needed to ensure that the communities that we own and and operate are at a quality that's consistent with us uh nationwide.

So happy to answer any additional questions about this community and this proposed uh development.

Like Toby mentioned, we've we've had you know multiple neighborhood meetings.

Uh we engage with planning commit planning commission, we've been engaged with uh city staff as it relates to a public-private partnership of some aspect because you know, given our intent and desire and our commitment to this area and to being an owner and operator, we do want to see the improvement of Trion Road.

We do want to be a part of that benefit to get it to the level of quality that would require ongoing maintenance.

So again, appreciate the time.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Uh any questions for Mr.

Summerwell.

Yep.

Um, could you just speak to the fact that the conditions mention two percent of the units being 60% AMI, but you intend to build 100% of the units at 60% AMI?

Correct.

The intent there was to provide a minimum just to ensure that um, you know, the community itself and the land that we are rezoning has an affordability component.

That being said, us as the developer, we have the full intent to develop this and and set aside these units at the affordability restriction.

I think the key component there was the two percent minimum affordability applies to our specific the the non-hook piece of the property as part of the rezoning.

And I would just note that Dominium is a contract purchaser, so a lot of the reason for the two percent versus say a hundred percent is that um is Domini is the the property owner, which is Raleigh Golf Association, didn't necessarily would be saddled with a 100% affordable uh commitment if you know in the unlikely event that this thing fell apart.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh we also have um Mr.

Gene Cobb in opposition, so we will ask Mr.

Cobb, yes, here good evening.

My name is Gene Kaho.

I'm a representative this evening uh uh Dell Sigma F road chapter alumni corporation board, which is the owner of that property at 1526 trying road.

Uh I live and work uh formerly worked in uh uh and West Raleigh and the old part of Meredith Wish Subdivision, so uh Christina is our rev.

So I suppose uh uh saw me and Jonathan also.

Uh I'm a retired civil engineer.

Uh helped design many uh development projects in the triangle area over the last 50 years.

We're we're on a little bit of dilemma tonight.

We don't really like to uh oppose this development, but we feel like it uh it will impair our property if it's not properly protected, particularly with a buffer on our along our western border, and we want to help you understand that if we can.

Uh we submitted a written statement through your portal, and I hope that you that you receive that.

And I believe you have sure and on our that's great.

But I do have hard copies here if anyone would want a hard copy.

Uh our we've submitted the written statement that kind of describes our process of our tenants at the neighborhood meetings and the and the planning commission and Dominion's representatives uh made a presentation at each of those and and uh included uh preliminary site plan, which I believe is not required, and it is not legally binded for rezoning.

But uh and we noticed a couple of things.

Uh one was uh the uh that did include a cross access to the back of our property, which we would just uh ask that that be added as a condition, and it has been, I know, so we're pleased with that.

Uh the we've come to a uh I guess a point of uh uh not having agreement on the easement uh and to um I say to Dominion's uh uh credit uh we've had some mishaps on our timing on uh several proposals they had asked for our recommendation.

We've had that batted back and forth, and uh, but at the end of the day at our last public hearing, our understanding was that uh they were not in agreement to provide one, that it uh wasn't required by you, the UDO, and uh uh it did not fit their proposal.

It did not fit their plan.

So we're at that uh loggerhead and we'd like to resolve that uh and have that added as a condition if if we can.

And what does that matter to us?

Well, we have a unique nature of our house relative to the other fraternities at state.

We're naturally buffered by the golf course, which um we have been called a Palace in the Pines as a source of pride for our brotherhood, and we we've um been in the pos uh process of uh trying to renovate that old property, and we've commissioned a number of studies uh prior to this proposal rezoning, and they've spent some time and money in doing that.

Uh it called for uh two million dollar uh capital and funding uh solicitation project, and we uh had actually polled our about 800 of our brothers and found that that might be feasible for us, but that was uh and then when we commissioned planning staff to uh go through the preliminary planning for our uh proposed improvements, and including as a first step the uh getting a going through your historic properties people and getting uh uh certificate of appropriateness, which we finally uh were able to obtain this summer.

So we've had all that prior to this rezoning.

So now we've we uh uh at uh uh at an impasse on just uh we we feel like we're we'll be compromised a bit in proceeding.

Now we've we noted a couple of flaws, I think in the application.

One is that the his and the in the spot it calls for uh historic properties, the notation is N slash A.

And we just say we're in the middle of all that, and we're as we're historic property, and we've uh in the in the uh in our reference material, we have a historic report that was done in 99, and it it's uh uh interesting to read if you have it might take the time.

It uh outlines the development that was proposed then back in the 30s for uh the Carolina Pines Resort uh complex, and which uh unfortunately the timing was bad and it went uh bankrupt, but uh our house was cut out as uh that seven acres as a separate property, which we acquired in 50 1957, have maintained ever since as a fraternity house.

So uh we want to emphasize that we've maintained that site pretty much as it was in that report that was done 25 years ago, which noted that it was pretty much in the same shape that it was originally.

So our question is, will you help us or will you not?

We thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions for Mr.

Cobb, yes.

Yeah, a couple questions for you.

Um you mentioned that something about egress on the back side of your property.

Can you speak to that?

Because I see par drive goes directly along your property from the front to the back.

Oh the uh that's a uh an odd situation.

The property along power drive on both sides is owned by the apartment develop development in the back of the property.

Okay.

So uh and we do have a uh access easement uh 30 foot wide at a spot 400 feet from the from the front kind of entrance.

And we have not chosen to develop that as of now.

We have tried to uh we've we've uh tried to have the prop the apartment owners move that easement a little further up toward the Tron Road and have been refused.

So that hopefully will be part of our uh capital improvement project when we when we get to that point of uh in time.

But it also means that uh all this property that you're looking at at the hook track has no access to par drive.

So that's uh that's uh some someone of a flaw and would it is gonna require properly identified in your report from your staff that it will require uh uh access agreement to the property the apartment properties in the back there.

Okay, so access agreement similar to what you do or don't.

I'm confused.

You do or don't have an access agreement of a par drive.

They don't have they don't have one.

Okay.

Um then the other thing is I know you say you're applying for historic designation, um, but the other property is separate, so I don't see unless staff or someone knows something I don't, I don't see the conflict there.

Okay, sir.

Yeah, I just had a few items I want to bring up.

Um so what I'm hearing, I think the main request was a 65-foot wooded buffer between your property and this rezoning case.

Correct.

Yes.

And so in my experience with cases, that's um pretty big number.

We don't usually have that kind of separation between properties.

Would staff though speak to what is required in terms of the property line separation, any vegetation.

Um sometimes there are conditions added for vegetation, so this is to staff what would be required.

So taking a look at the zoning map again, um, to jog my memory.

Um between mixed use and residential districts, neighborhood transitions apply.

Uh in this case, though, the the property in question is right here, also has mixed use zoning.

Um so that is not a requirement that would be um triggered um under mixed use zoning uh on this parcel.

Um so in short, um we're looking at setbacks.

Setbacks.

And what are the setbacks?

I'd have to I just want to note that that's been a request made to have some kind of vegetative buffer.

Um that could be a potential condition to add.

I will say I would like to hold this case for two weeks, um, and primarily because of the hook and some of these transportation questions.

Um there were a number of residents who live on the southeast side here of the property in Renaissance Park, who were not able to be at the public hearing today because they got confused by the notice.

The notice went out for this public hearing.

It was supposed to be 1 p.m.

But then obviously we're hearing it at 7.

My intention was that it would be at 7 so that neighbors could attend, and there were a lot of interested neighbors.

And we received a number of emails from them today.

And the hook is just still an uh area of contention.

And you know, I'm very uh excited about the affordable housing opportunity here.

I think that's a great opportunity.

But the hook, from what I understand, there's no plan at the moment to develop it.

And so if that could be reduced or removed from this rezoning case, um it would certainly um make me feel a little bit better about the number of units that are coming online here given the potential transportation issues.

I know at the end of the day, the developer team has to figure that out.

So you won't be able to build what you can't get in and out of the property.

Um but given the state of Fairway Drive, I just think there's a number of questions there.

Um so that would be my suggestion.

And I know it within two weeks, um, it would be up to the applicant team to provide any new conditions by this Friday.

Toby, is that sound reasonable or would you all want more time?

That's reasonable.

We'd be happy to uh try to work with both council and the and the neighbors to to see what we can do.

We are limited to some extent, just just to put all the cards on the table.

Dominium is not does not have the quote unquote hook under contract.

So it the its purchase contract, what it says is you are required to try to rezone this property.

And so we have not we are not, we're contractually obligated to continue to move this forward unless the uh unless the Raleigh Golf Association says no, you can drop it.

Um Dominium doesn't have any plans for it, uh, but um we have been working with the Raleigh Golf Association to do so uh because it's their belief that they would like it done all together.

Thank you.

Yep.

Just to clarify, um your client is under contract for all of it, including the hook.

There's just no development plans for the hook.

No.

So the Okay.

So they're sort of on the hook to rezone the hook, even though they're only purchasing a portion of it.

That's very well said.

All right.

Um if I if I could, I'd I'd just like to note um a couple things.

Um is is that obviously we while we have had some unique um access issues for the uh for the portion that would have apartments, we do think there's multiple accesses on the on the east side, there's multiple streets on the or I'm sorry, on the west side.

Um and as transportation reported, we have been making progress with DOT.

Um they initially said, no way, no how are you accessing try-on there now starting to modify that.

So we we feel very encouraged about that.

We did hear a lot at the neighborhood meetings about the desire for a light at uh fairway and for improvements.

So that's why we've been working very hard on that.

Um we have tried to work with uh Mr.

Cobb and his fraternity um uh uh regarding their their requests.

We did make we did honor their request and put in a condition for cross access, um, just to make that explicit as they asked.

Frankly, the reason we didn't grant their request for a buffer is um it's a fraternity house next to apartments and it's zoned OX3.

And you know, I I'm not making any assumptions about about fraternities, um, but I did go to college, so you know I I you know we just we sort of looked at that and we said, well, that's one one area where we're not not gonna give a buffer.

So I'll just add one thing.

I wasn't a fraternity in college, so our house was not over here.

Uh I did go to NC State though.

I will say I do think what makes maybe their home a little unique is it is a historic property and it has been there a very long time.

And so if there is any flexibility on providing them some sort of vegetation, I think that would be would go a long way to some goodwill to your clients uh future neighbors.

We'll take a we'll take a look at it.

I'd also add that the new residents might enjoy uh separation from the fraternity.

Yeah.

Well, and and I mean certainly we we would we are sensitive to that.

Okay.

Do I need to make a motion to hold it?

Okay, that'll be my motion to hold it for two weeks and then come back for our September, let's see, 16th meeting.

And that will be a daytime meeting, yeah.

That's we can do.

Uh motion and a second.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

Right.

So that passes.

Appreciate it.

All right, we have two more items this evening.

TC 1124 pedestrian passages.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Justin Armetta with planning and development.

This text change TC 112024 is uh being brought forward by staff in sustainability, transportation, and planning and development.

As background, the uh the goal here really is to implement some portions of the community climate action plan, um specifically some goals and action items related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, uh reducing vehicle miles traveled and improving safety and comfort for pedestrians and bikers.

So to that end, there's three uh components to the text change.

The first is uh hoping to provide safer crosswalks by reducing the distance uh pedestrians have to cross and encouraging uh motorists to slow down as they approach intersections.

Uh there are some design specifications intended to improve safety on pedestrian passages, and finally some language that would um incentivize the construction of more pedestrian passages uh with new development.

So, with regards to crosswalk safety, um you can see here this uh what this ordinance would implement is the um curb out curb extensions or ball bouts that would kind of narrow the distance that a pedestrian uh has to uh travel to cross an intersection.

Also kind of encourages motorists to slow as they approach those intersections.

Um you can see in the graphic there how the um visibility sight lines are enhanced for both the pedestrian and the and the motorist in these scenarios.

A couple images of these in practice.

Finally, the uh actual UDO street sections, how they would be amended.

You can see that um crosswalk distance being uh intersection distance, excuse me, reduced to to 20 feet.

Uh this is the neighborhood yield street, but uh these rules would apply to uh a handful of uh street sections, any that allow for on street parking.

With regard to pedestrian passage design, um the intent here is to signal pedestrian priority.

So through the construction of a pedestrian passage when it intersects with an internal access drive, i.e.

a surface parking lot um or drive aisle, uh the paving material either would have to uh continue across the drive aisle or parking lot, or the height would have to be raised um of the access drive to meet the height of the passage through the intersection.

In the scenario where the um passage is parallel to the the parking area, um again, either the pedestrian passage would have to be raised above the grade of the parking lot, or um if at the same grade, some type of permanent physical separation would be required, ballards, etc.

Finally, to uh incentivize the construction of pedestrian passage passages.

Um text amendment would expand uh current allowance that permits a block perimeter to be extended by 50 percent when pedestrian passages are included.

This text change would uh increase that 50 percent up to 100 so in the hopes of kind of uh creating more pedestrian passages uh and improving the uh pedestrian network over time.

Uh the one exception here is that uh with the street is mapped on the comprehensive plan, the the passage could not be used in place of that.

It would still have to be constructed.

That concludes my presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Do we have questions?

Councillor Patton.

Kind of adjacent it doesn't we already did this one before, right?

And we're having to redo it because of state legislation.

No, no, no.

Okay.

You may have seen it well when it came through to authorize um like some of the concepts, but the actual ordinance hasn't been adopted yet.

Okay.

I'm thinking of something else in the validation.

Any other questions?

Okay, I will open the public hearing for TC 1124, and I have no one signed up for or against closing the hearing.

Yes.

My move to adopt the proposed consistency statement data September 2nd, 2025, containing the agenda materials and to approve the zoning text amendment.

Second.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next one is TC225.

These are just a couple of um pretty straightforward changes to the stormwater ordinance to reflect some updates in state law.

So there's uh two pieces to this amendment.

Um the first relates to the construction of one or two unit dwellings on parcels that are greater than one acre in size.

Uh there were some rules adopted in May of 2023 that kind of um inadvertently had the unintended consequences of uh requiring for full stormwater regulation compliance um when these uh one or two unit dwellings were being constructed on these lots.

And so what this text change would do would um uh uh match some language in the state administrative code um and apply the full stormwater requirements, not on uh parcels of one acre or greater, but only when land disturbance reaches one acre or more.

The second piece then is just an update to the definition of built upon area to match um or to um comply with state law that was passed last year.

Um that ordinance or that state law is already in effect.

My understanding is stormwater staff is already applying it.

Um this would just update the UDO to match that state law.

And you can see the changes here.

Um changing the definition of built upon area to um you can see how um decks and gravel would no longer count as built upon area.

Artificial turf would no longer count so long as it's placed on a on top of a pervious surface.

Just a question.

Is artificial turf so it's permeable?

Uh that's uh by definition it would be so long as whatever it's placed on top of uh also allows water to flow through.

So again, just two changes to update the UDO to reflect state law.

Um happy to answer any questions.

More importantly, stormwater staff is here to answer questions you might have that are of a technical nature.

Thank you.

Questions.

All right.

I will open the public hearing for TC two twenty-five.

We have no one signed up for or against closing the hearing.

You I'm ready with the motion if we are.

I know, that's what I was thinking.

Somehow I thought he might Okay, go ahead.

I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement data September 2nd, 2025 containing the agenda materials and to approve the zoning text amendment.

Right.

Motion and a second.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you, and we are adjourned.

902.