All right, everybody.

Thanks for coming.

We have the public hearings tonight.

The first is street closing STCO2 2025.

Mr.

Rao.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

My name is Amanda Jones with Transportation.

I have for you today a proposed closure for a portion of Swinburne Street.

So the area indicated in red is the closure area, and our applicant is Thomas Kavanagh of Wake Med.

He is the Vice President of Facilities and Construction.

This area is.

You can see the site outlined in a heavy black line in the drawing on the right.

So there are some use restrictions here.

They have prohibited a handful of uses, an old establishment, pawn shop, other things.

They have also limited office square footage to 500,000 gross square feet.

They have offered some conditions around building height and stepbacks.

So building heights are limited based on a submitted exhibit.

I'm going to talk through that in a little bit more detail on a subsequent slide.

So they have prohibited, they are prohibiting on site surface parking between any building and the eastern boundary of the site, which is the location of the park.

They have said that any site plan will include pedestrian connectivity along the eastern boundary of the site to the park.

And they have also specified a minimum 2500 square foot outdoor amenity area meeting the urban plaza standards and city regulations that would be located either along Peace Street andor adjacent to the park.

They have also made a condition around affordable housing, making a contribution to the city's affordable housing fund.

This is staggered across four payments.

The first is tied to the first building permit for the first 200 units.

The second payment is tied to the final building inspection for the second for the first 200 units, and then another pair of payments on that same timing at the 500th unit.

They are offering tower separation between floors 13 and 20 for a minimum of 50 feet, and then floors uh 21 through 27, separated by a minimum of 75 feet.

That's a 50% increase above what's currently required by code.

Zoning in the area is mixed.

There's industrial mixed use on the site and immediately adjacent, downtown mixed use adjacent, and then uh R10 as well as office mixed use, residential mixed use, neighborhood mixed use, all in the vicinity.

This is an aerial view of the site.

You can see the future Smoky Hollow Park site on the east side of the site.

You can see Seaboard Station on the other side of Capitol Boulevard and the railroad tracks, and then on the uh to the west across West Street and Railroad Tracks, Glenwood, Brooklyn neighborhood.

Another more of a 3D view of the site.

You can get a feel for the low-scale industrial development that's currently there.

A view from Peace Street, a view from West Street.

This is looking south, and then a view from West Street at the north end of the site.

So I want to go back to that condition around building height.

What they have done is set the ceiling for building height rather than the floor because there's significant grade on the site, right?

So the north end of the site is limited to 24 stories, not to exceed 240 feet, and then could be taller if the primary street is P Street, and then in the southern portion of the site, limited to 27 stories.

Again, that 20-foot differential and a maximum of 360 feet.

So the bottom half in blue here is the 27-story, northern half in yellow, 24 stories.

And here's roughly, this is not a surveyor's drawing.

This is a PowerPoint drawing, but roughly where that falls on the site applied to an aerial photograph.

So the big change here is a significant increase in residential units.

The office square footage is actually going down, being held steady by the zoning condition.

Industrial uses are also going away because of the zoning condition as well as the base district proposed.

So this is consistent with the future land use map.

The future land use map designates this site as central business district.

The DX base district is consistent with that.

On the urban form map, this site is located in the downtown area, which is one of several types of mixed-use centers defined in the comprehensive plan.

The downtown and the frequent transit area shown on this map in purple combined, make that 30-acre or more mixed-use center that qualifies this as core transit on the table LU2, which guides us around building height.

A number of consistent policies identified here, so consistent with the future land use map, consistent with the urban form map, consistent with the plan overall.

A number of land use policies here that are relevant.

So the future land use map, ideas around density and compact development, uh leveraging proximity to downtown to transit to station areas.

And then a number of policies around transportation, parks, urban design, hit by conditions that they have offered, frontage that they have offered, more uh consistency with downtown policies around density of development, density adjacent to public amenities, public realm, parks, as well as downtown gateways.

No inconsistent policies were identified.

The planning commission recommended approval unanimously.

They agree, agreed with the policy analysis and thought that this was an appropriate location for hype.

Could I answer any questions for you before you open the public hearing?

Any questions for Miss Walters?

Yeah.

Okay.

So we uh it looks like we have none.

Um we knew we'd have some crowds, so we did extend the time to 12 minutes per side.

And I know you all have been coordinating, so as is usual protocol, we'll have the supporting side first, and we've moved the clock to 12 minutes instead of eight.

And uh I will let the supportive side, if y'all are going to speak, you probably just want to line up and make sure you speak into the mic.

Okay, are you gonna give some instruction?

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council.

Uh Rand Northam with the communications department.

Uh Bynum did a great job of expressing uh exactly how we can hear you best in the chamber and watching on video.

Uh just a couple quick tips for everybody so we can hear you.

Uh, make sure you do not turn away from the microphone and you do not need to lean into the microphone, but uh stand in front of it uh just a couple inches away from your mouth and uh look towards the council and speak uh speak up, speak clearly and speak close uh slowly so we can hear you here in the chamber.

Thank you very much.

Uh good evening, Madam Mayor, members of council, Jason Baron with Morningstar Law Group here on behalf of the applicant and owner Raleigh Development Company, appreciate the opportunity to be here to present this case tonight.

I'm gonna keep my comments brief.

We have a number of folks who are here to speak in favor of the case.

I do want to focus on three primary points that we think are relevant associated with the council's continued analysis with this case.

Uh the first is that this there can be no denying that this case is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um the second is that this is a unique site.

There is no real precedential value associated with approving this site in this location, and I'll talk a little bit about that.

And third, this is where from a big picture standpoint, as we plan for future growth in the city, this is where we want to put people.

And so from a future land use map standpoint, and and Bynam's done a great job of presenting uh the staff's analysis of it, and we agree completely.

There are a number of policies that speak with respect to urban form, height, densities in this location, and they would suggest up to 40 stories in this location.

Now, of course, there's a site across the street from this that's caddy cornered, the site that's smoky hollow phase three that is zoned for 40 stories.

And I've got a note on the screen just for your benefit that the 27 to 24 stories that we are at, that's an average of 25 and a half stories over the entirety of our site, which is roughly the midpoint between the 12 stories of zoning that's there today and the 40 stories that the land use plan would recommend.

And we think that that's not only appropriate, I mean it may be uh rough justice on how to get to the kind of the midpoint between opposing views, but we also think it's representative of a developer who is sensitive to the fact that this is in a different area than a number of other sites, and we think that this is an appropriate transition in this location, recognizing that we have 40 stories just across the street.

Um I won't bore you with that.

Site site uniqueness.

We don't believe there's any precedential value associated with this case.

Uh we think it stands on its own, but there are very few sites that have its qualities.

Um from a downtown mixed use center, this is the downtown area, it's 942 acres.

As you continue to apply the land use policies in the comprehensive plan, once you add in the mixed-use land category and not in the edge, we're down to 94% of downtown.

Once you add in restrictive overlays, remove those sites from there, we're down to 81% of downtown.

Future land use, we are in the central business districts, and now we're down to 64% of downtown.

And again, this is just applying the various layers of comprehensive plan policies that speak to this site.

You once you factor in the transit designation associated with this case, we're down to 50 percent of downtown just using the comprehensive plan.

When you take it one step further, and you look at developable property, it's actually only 11 percent of downtown that would be consistent with all of those things, plus is remaining to be developed.

And then from a sustainability through walkability standpoint, 4% of downtown meets the within a quarter mile of a park, quarter mile of a grocery store, and has all of those various factors.

And I just want to make that point because I think there's a lot of concern in the community relative to what is going to be the impact on my community where I live if this case is approved.

We think this information clearly demonstrates the site is unique.

The factors that are at play at it are very unique to this site.

And again, the last thing I'll say is it's an area where you want density.

It's an area that's planned for transit, it's across the street from a grocery store, it's next to a park.

This is where we want to put people long-term.

And so at that, I'm gonna cede the rest of my time to our speakers.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Counselors.

Um, I'm Sig Hutchinson, former Wake County Commissioner, and I'm here to speak in favor of the Peace and West Street Project.

But in reality, I'm here to talk about much more.

In addition to this project, this conversation is about abundant housing, housing affordability, clean environment, and improved quality of life.

The increased access to parks, green space, greenways with more accessibility to transit options and transit, all of which will be putting more money in people's pocket, allowing them to spend less times in their car, with a higher quality of life, and greater access of things and of things that make their lives better and happier.

How is this possible?

Well, if you'll take go with me just for a minute from this project along north along Capitol Boulevard, along the new BRT corridor, uh, out of the city, up Atlantic Avenue, past the Ironworks project, to Six Forks, over to Wake Forest, up to St.

Albans, to North Hills.

All right, if you think about that corridor and think about along that corridor, there are warehouses, unused and unused and unutilized properties along this corridor that could be turned into tens of thousands of affordable and market rate housing, all with the ability to access the BRT, connecting downtown to midtown, which is exactly where we want to build this level of vibrancy and density.

Now think about the smoky hollow park with the stream restoration project along Pigeon House Branch Creek and the new greenway, which will travel up Capitulately to Crabtree Creek Greenway, all with all that green space in between, and the integration of the park with the new project with additional private funding to make it even more beautiful and accessible as the park expands along the corridor.

All this vision is set and right to happen with this project right across the street from where you already have density and height and vibrancy of a growing city.

This project needs your approval to complete the next piece in the public complete the next piece in the puzzle and the continue of the expansion of our amazing and growing and beautiful city where everyone has an opportunity, no matter where they came from, how much they're worth, or the dreams of their future, we can make it happen.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Cowell and uh council members.

My name is Larry Miller.

I'm president of the Glenwood South Neighborhood Collaborative.

Uh, we're a community organization that brings residents and business owners together to strengthen our Glenwood South neighborhood and address issues affecting our community.

You may have uh seen a petition circulated by opponents of this project with a bunch of signatures from people with no association with this case or this area.

I'm here on behalf of the 1,000-plus member collaborative made up of members of our neighborhood to express our support for this project and urge you urge you to vote yes for this rezoning.

The project will bring more residents, retail customers, and investors to our area, helping sustain local businesses, strengthen strengthen the tax base, and keep downtown a vibrant destination.

The project fits well into the context of the area, and the transitions and buffers between the project and the Glenwood Brooklyn neighborhood are more than adequate to protect that neighborhood.

This is exactly the kind of development that a majority of the residents want to see, as you can see from the crowd here tonight.

They want to bring life to our streets, supporting public investments like Smoky Hollow Park and helping to ensure that local businesses can continue to thrive in this part of uh Raleigh.

I want to commend the uh Raleigh Development Company for adopting additional conditions, and particularly the one that will expedite uh payment of funds into the affordable housing account.

We urge you to follow the advice of the professional planning and development staff and the Glenwood South Neighborhood Collaborative and its 1,000-plus community members strongly urge you to vote yes on this rezoning to support a sustainable and flourishing Raleigh.

Thank you.

When was that vote taken?

I think they're being very disrespectful.

Yeah, please, yeah, we've frozen the clock.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hey, Jen Truman here to speak in support of this rezoning.

Because really every few years we hear the same things from neighbors who protest new housing.

Someone always says that green spaces can only protect it, be protected if we keep density away.

But in effect, what they're really saying is that people in apartments don't deserve to live right next to the park.

Parks in general.

This site, between West Street and the Planned Smoky Hollow Park is exactly where apartments belong.

In downtown Raleigh, beside a new park, across the street from a grocery store, along a future bus rapid transit line.

When the city invests millions of dollars in infrastructure like parks and transit, we are collectively saying that this is where tall, mixed use, dense development should go.

The supporters here tonight are from the neighborhood, Englandwood South, they're from downtown Raleigh, they're from your local Yimbi and Strongtown chapters.

We're wearing green because we share the same belief.

We support this rezoning.

We're here together because this is what it looks like when residents show up to actually say yes.

If you care about both housing and green space, say so tonight.

Approving this rezoning shows Raleigh believes in a city that welcomes more neighbors and builds toward our shared housing climate and transit goals.

My family and I live directly across the street.

And on this beautiful fall evening, we've all gathered here in this brown windowless pit because we collectively share a burning passion for zoning ordinances and legislative proceedings.

No, just kidding.

Um I think all of us are here tonight because we truly want the best for the future of our neighborhoods.

For that, I'd like to applaud everybody in this room, regardless of shirt color.

And I say this with sincerity.

And I know it can feel like developers are out to squeeze profit at our expense.

And I know the flashy renderings can feel like smoke and mirrors.

And I know these mega products feel like they're erasing the charm of our neighborhoods in Raleigh.

I know this because I've been working for developers of all shapes and sizes since I was an intern architect 20 years ago.

I can't promise none of these fears will materialize.

Some buildings really are bad for neighborhoods.

And they come in all flavors tall, short, historic, modern, multifamily, single family.

Downtown is full of them.

But even in the worst case scenario, this rezoning will absolutely enable something that I think is unequivocally positive.

It will create new homes and destinations for other people.

They will be a part of our neighborhood.

I think all of us chose to live in a densest neighborhood in the whole city because we like people and want to be around them.

I do.

With more of us here, we will see crime reduced from more eyes in the street.

We will see our streets come alive with activity and less parking lots.

Our empty parks will be teeming with life even without Dreamville and IBMA.

This is the power of a humble apartment building.

The convenience of struggling to get groceries, the joy of running into friends at lunch, the romance of the midnight walk after a movie at Marvel's.

The school drop-off where I hug my son, not my steering wheel.

These are the things that I cherish about the about living in the densest part of our city.

And I want more people to experience this with me because I love being around people.

And I hope we can all agree with that sentiment.

In these challenging times in America, I hope that we are becoming a neighborhood that embraces our growing community rather than putting up fences and pushing them out to suburban enclaves that surround our wonderful downtown.

Thank you.

Hello, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Jim Baldwin.

I live at 614 Capitol Boulevard in Raleigh, which is the historic cotton mill.

And I'm here to speak in favor of the Peace West rezoning.

Thank you.

All right.

If we have the uh thank you.

If we have the uh opposition, uh I know Roy had organized folks, so you're against the standards.

I have some time.

I need the button.

Maybe you pass it off to council members?

Yeah, I mean, if you want to pass them along.

You're not supposed to stand.

Okay, yeah, we saw everybody standing, but if you can sit down for the comments, thank you.

Roy Attride, historic Limer Booker neighborhood, and one of the leaders for Raleigh Neighbors United.

We can all agree that Raleigh must grow and it should grow, but how it grows matters.

We definitely need more housing, increased affordable housing, thoughtful transit transportation solutions, and expanded parks.

Our adopted plans were created to make this happen and ensure everybody had opportunities around the city.

A 240 and 360 foot towers, almost 800 feet along a neighborhood in a transition area, only 240 feet from historic homes, violates many policies and plans, violates urban planning guidelines, and violates logic.

This type of height does not make sense here.

This developer has already been upzoned once.

They don't deserve or need additional entitlement, especially at other people's expense.

We'll talk about how this violates height guidance policy, context and transitions, neighborhood protections, comprehensive plan, the Capital Boulevard Corridor study, and does in fact set a precedent that would put maximum height with no transitions in and around many neighborhoods in Raleigh.

This is what they're proposing.

You have a small model in front of you.

This is overwhelming, inappropriate, and unjustified height.

In the current zoning map, it's at the edge of the downtown mixed-use center.

It is in the middle of a transition area that's supposed to provide appropriate transition and engagement with the neighborhood, which this does not.

Terms matter.

The intent of the comprehensive plan and equitable transit-oriented development guidebook is very clear on transitions and engaging lower density.

Some people would like to disqualify this guidance based on terminology.

This analysis clearly shows that the neighborhood is adjacent to the site, and that all transition and protection policies should apply.

Height should be policy-driven, contextual with transitions.

Table LU2 is a policy framework that links land use categories to height ranges and transitions.

Clearly, the holistic guidance is for moderation in this area.

If you wanted to justify additional height, you might talk about this being a core area.

In the staff report, they talk about the fact that this is in a BRT area, a frequent transit area, and a station area.

Those are urban form transit designations.

They are not land use mixed use, land use categories of mixed use.

The difference is urban form transit designations are for frontage and design features, while land use is for height, scale, and transitions.

You cannot take urban form transit designations and make them land use designations.

Furthermore, you can't add transit designations together to falsely create a large mixed-use center just to make it a core.

It's clearly factually not core.

Another way you may try to increase the height allotment is to say it's in a transit area.

Staff report says there are four different bus lines that go along Peace Street.

Two of them are frequent.

One of them is moving to Bendy buses for high for higher capacity.

These routes alone or together do not meet the definition of high capacity.

High capacity is a textbook guide policy definition that demands dedicated infrastructure and design features for car competitive speeds and passenger volume.

Bus lanes, Q jump lights, level boarding, prepayment, and of course, frequent and high capacity.

However, if you take frequent and high capacity and jam it into a mixed traffic setting, the highest you can get is medium capacity.

The fact that it's not a high capacity corridor is bolstered by the fact that Pea Street is not designated as a transit emphasis corridor.

These are areas where height should be on these transit emphasis corridors like Capitol Boulevard, not here.

It's not court, it's not transit transit, and so moderate height of 12 stories is appropriate.

If you were looking to add additional height, you might also say it's in a station area.

But station areas happen during detailed design.

And it's detailed design has not started for this for the northern route.

Therefore, factually, it is not a station area, it's not transit, and it's not core.

So a moderate height guidance of 12 stories would apply.

No matter what category it is, height must be contextual and requires transitions.

LU2 provides height ranges for this reason.

Look at the top right.

This is not a contextual development.

It's completely overwhelming to our neighborhood.

Yes.

Guide sustainable growth, human-scale development, and protect livability.

There are many different policies, and the intent is very clear about transitioning from height into lower density and into neighborhoods.

LU2 itself dictates transitions from core to general to edge.

If you look at the top right, that's a compatible transition.

This offers no transition.

The intent is clear.

Highest buildings at the core and abutting transit and height tapering down to engage neighborhoods, not overwhelm them.

Specifically, there are two pro two policies that the staff report says are consistent, which we say are inconsistent, because there is no way that going from a 56-degree angle down to a neighborhood can be seen as an appropriate transition or tapering to be compatible.

If it were a station area, once again, there's significant guidance on transitions to neighborhoods.

You can see it in the images, you can see it in the text.

In the comprehensive plan, it has a specific policy.

Developments of greater height should be located immediately surrounding transit stations.

And as you go away in distance, they should taper down.

This doesn't do that.

Urban planning guidelines for many cities around the U.S.

use 30 to 45 degrees.

At 30 degrees, you would get 12 stories.

Clearly, this is this violates the transition area, it violates transition policies, it violates urban planning, and it violates logic.

This does not make sense to have this much height in this area.

The city made a commitment to preserve historic neighborhoods.

The plans and policies are clear.

Development impacts must be carefully weighed and mitigated.

Reducing excessive height, limiting shadow and glare, and ensuring transitions.

This project does none of these things for our neighborhood.

This is clearly inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Some of this is factual and some of it is interpretation.

Policies that listed are consistent.

We directly refute, are irrelevant to the height, but none of them, none of them advocate for additional height over 12 stories.

They would all still be consistent.

It violates the small area plan and its guidance of three to twelve stories.

If you ignore all policies and plans in this area, you will create a precedent that will allow maximum height without transitions in and around many neighborhoods.

If you look at the image on the right, that small red triangle is what we're talking about.

The other areas in red, those are the areas that are directly applicable, and those neighborhoods would be at risk for maximum height.

Many people oppose this.

We're up to over 830 signatures on our petition.

They oppose it because there are real and tangible long-term negative impacts of this project for the city, neighborhoods, citizens, and our planning framework.

Please bring this height down to something that's appropriate to engage our neighborhood.

Doesn't cut across all plans and policy and urban planning guidelines.

Protect our historic neighborhoods as you committed to, please.

Good evening.

My name is Connie Upchurch.

I live at 501 Devereaux Street.

My husband and I have a small home there.

That is the first home, the first single family home directly impacted by this building.

And if you can imagine a space about three times as wide as this room is how far my front door will be from a 27-story building.

About three widths of this room, 200 feet.

Okay.

So I my husband, I'm getting off script, but I'm just, I'm very emotional.

We have lived in Devro for over 10 years.

Brian and I grew up in the Raleigh area.

We love the city.

His granddad played baseball for Connie Mack at Devereau Meadows.

Okay, we have roots here.

We love the city.

We love growth.

My neighbors and I are not against growth.

We want more apartments, affordable apartments near us.

That would be great.

Affordable.

Not $4,000 a month for a one-bedroom condo.

That's not affordable.

I am sorry, I'm off track.

Growth is important, but it needs a purpose and a plan, and it's got to benefit everybody.

In 2015, as has been said, they tripled from 4 to 12 stories.

12 stories.

That's a lot of housing.

I can't help it if somebody's invested too much and they can't get their money out.

A 20 a 27-story tower would drastically and permanently, permanently, change the historic district.

Okay?

My house is 110 years old.

It's not going to be the same.

We've already got single-family families moving out and short-term rentals appearing in our neighborhood.

We've got to protect the historic districts, because when we lose them, they're gone.

And that's a huge selling point in Raleigh.

So it's affordable housing.

But the historic districts make us special from other urban areas like Charlotte and some other areas that don't have what we have.

I just want to finish by saying your adopted plan promised thoughtful transitions.

Protections for historic districts.

That was part of the plan.

Please honor your plan.

Reduce the height of Z-12.

We're not saying don't build.

We're just saying respect and appreciate and protect what we've got.

Don't lose in order to add.

Thank you.

No detriments.

That's what the applicant says.

Public input from individuals and members of groups representing more than a thousand people have suggested to you that the analysis is incomplete.

These groups include the Society for the Preservation of Historic Oakwood, Preservation Raleigh, and Neighbors United.

Don't make a mistake.

Complete the process.

Respect the comprehensive plan.

This cake is not done in the middle.

Deny it now or send it back for further analysis before you decide.

Thank you.

Let's make this win-win.

Right now we've got a big win and a big lose for the people living over there.

Let's y'all want a bit y'all want to win win.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So that closes the hearing.

We have discussed moving it to committee of the whole in two weeks.

But I will say that.

Thank you everyone for being here.

I I feel I have to say this is my 13th wedding anniversary, and this dress is my husband's favorite.

It does not signal one way or the other how I feel about the case, but this is my husband's favorite dress.

So happy anniversary, husband.

Now to my comments.

During the last term, I voted against this case because I didn't see enough public benefit and felt that many of the neighbors' questions remained unanswered.

When it returned this March for a waiver to restart the rezoning process, I again voted no.

Over the summer, I spent time listening to residents and to the development team.

I made clear that that I represent community voices and that that voice is going to remain a no tonight.

However, I want to acknowledge the development team for responding to feedback and strengthening the affordable housing condition.

They amended it to include a $400,000 contribution before their certificate of occupancy, something that I deeply appreciate.

That is a meaningful change and a sign of good faith.

I also want to recognize the level of community engagement on this case.

It has been extraordinary.

We received more input than before from supporters and opponents alike.

People built models, uh, attended meetings, sent emails, and shared thoughtful perspectives.

I am so grateful for that effort.

Conversation doesn't always lead to agreement, but it should lead to understanding.

I see my role as a bridge between residents and development, not to guarantee consensus, but to provide clarity and to keep us moving forward.

While I believe progress has been made, I also hear and respect those who still have concerns about the comprehensive plan, infrastructure, and transportation.

I do believe their voices should be represented in this vote.

Our city is changing, and we are all here because we care about a building a better future.

Each of us with a different idea of what that means.

And while my vote will not change from a no, I am deeply, deeply grateful for this process and everyone in it.

So thank you so much.

I have a question too.

Okay.

All right.

So go ahead, Counselor Potton.

Okay.

Um questions for staff.

Umsportation staff, fire, and maybe budget.

I'm not sure.

I'll throw them out and y'all can come up and turn.

Sorry.

I get I get that feedback a lot.

You're not the first to say it.

My apologies.

Um.

First of all, I was hoping for um traffic count data for regarding Peace Street.

How much is it built to carry and how much is it currently carrying or trending to?

So the uh Pea Street is built to the four-lane avenue capacity shown in the green line at the top of this graph.

Right.

The blue line is counts over the past twenty years.

The yellow line is the three-lane avenue capacity.

Which uh Pea Street is built at four.

Okay.

Great.

Help that's very helpful.

Thank you so much.

And then um I know fire response times are not always included in the rezonings, but instead in annexations, but is there any chance we have that information for this site, even still?

Yes, so fire completed their analysis and this site meets the standards.

Okay.

It's meeting current all the standards.

Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And then last one is just around like we also get some revenue analysis on annexations.

Again, not provided with rezonings, but do we have any sort of revenue analysis for this site?

I know that finance is working on that information.

I don't know if they have that information available right now.

Okay.

But you're telling me that there is still a friend behind you.

Hi there.

Ryan Bergman, City Manager's Office filling in for finance and budget.

There's actually a budget community hearing right now.

Finance did, because they were requested, put it through the tool that they typically use for annexations.

Based on uh kind of comparables, they they had the assumption that it would produce about $22 million in revenue over 10 years with a cumulative net positive of about $5.5 million.

Now, a reminder that this is uh a very basic tool that is used for a lot of different cases, and it's typically for annexations.

Uh but that is the analysis that they did.

Okay.

And um I got a whisper, my ear can you remember if this site is in the downtown MSD boundaries?

I do I do not know.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all I have got.

I am sorry, $22 million for the proposed um rezoning.

Do you have a current number what it would be?

With the UV scene, if you did it at the lower unit number, I do not have it if you did it at the 433 level.

We can get that information later, I think.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Council Sullivan?

Uh I have uh comment and then I have a question for staff.

Uh just wanted to say that um we are all talking about the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2009 with thousands and thousands of citizens and stakeholders weighing in to determine that plan that council ultimately adopted.

It was updated again in 2019.

And in both cases, in 2009 and 2019, the future land use MAC called for the location in question to be part of the Central Business District to be extended north along Capitol Boulevard and South along South Saunders.

The City Council adopted the policy guidance and a direction with the expectation that the applicant or anyone pursuing a rezoning application would submit proposals consistent with that guidance.

We put out the plan, our expectation is they would follow it.

And in this case, the applicant has.

I don't know, Ms.

Walters, if you want to answer or Mr.

Young, but I had a couple of questions about transitions.

I guess I'll address it to you since you are still standing there.

Uh can you just explain uh well, first uh the transitions were adopted in the Comprehensive Plan as policy, but as a follow-on action, it was codified in our unified development ordinance.

Can you talk about the what is in that unified development ordinance?

And if this was either a 12-story or 30-story, how would the code, the code deal with transitions?

Right.

Thank you, Councilmember Pat Young, planning and development.

Director, um to your point, the um it is common for policies from the Comprehensive Plan to be implemented through uh adoption incorporation into the Unified Development Ordinance.

That was done, as you know, with the with the adoption of the UDO in 2013.

Um the transition provisions uh terminate at 150 feet.

So this site, under any scenario, current zoning, even a lower zoning would not be subject to transition policies under in the UDO.

Okay, thank you.

And just to be clear, typically didn't happen in this case, but there's policy guidance, but once it is codified, that policy guidance goes away, because now you have policy subjective and code objective competing with one another, which leaves both the public, council, and even staff in a very awkward position.

In effect, the policy is preempting the law.

I am hopeful, and maybe this is a question you could answer as we look at the new compensative plan.

Would it be advisable that we actually have a policy if there's a conflict between the policy and the code that the code would prevail?

Sure.

Thank you, Councilman, for that question.

I I think our intention, again, with council support is to make sure that each policy will have a means and method of being implemented, whether that's the UDO, whether that's through your consideration during a zoning case, whether that's through a program or other policy.

So I think being real clear and specific.

And then there certainly should be some kind of typology about which prevails.

Because again, the clarity in transitions is important for the public and for you all as decision decision makers.

Right.

And just the last question so the public would understand there are triggers for transitions.

It's not just height, but it's a different number of uses.

Do you know offhand what those triggers would be?

I know you mentioned 150 feet, but it's two different uses next to one another would actually kick the transition in where it comes into play.

You are right, Councilmember, and I I don't have that right in front of me, but it is essentially looking at incompatible uses, right?

So industrial to residential institutional uses next to residential, things of that nature.

And again, that wouldn't apply based on the mix of uses that are is being proposed here.

Thank you, Mr.

Young.

Janet?

Yes.

So I just want to thank everyone for being here.

Um everyone in green and red.

I'm wearing teal.

Um but it's just, you know.

Um I do want to reflect on the rezoning case.

Um, in particular, how it's changed from two years ago and how it may still be the same.

I want to reflect on city policies and plans regarding this case.

And um, you know, this case is slightly different from what we saw two years ago, but similar in that it started with a 30-story request.

The current height allowance is 12 stories, which was rezoned to that height in 2016.

The current case requests up to 360 feet of height.

I've got a couple questions, I think, for Pat, so just uh to have you on deck.

The staff report shifted some from the rezoning case two years ago.

The case went from eight key consistent policies two years ago to now 13 key consistent policies.

The new ones are compact development, healthy community, zoning and infrastructure impacts, downtown edges, and downtown transitions.

So these are new in this case.

And I want to start with downtown transitions, as Councilmember Silver was just asking about those.

Um, in my understanding of it, the idea is that you know, downtown section boundaries located in proximity to established residential neighborhoods.

We should see tapering compatible with adjacent development.

And so can you just explain again how does this case now meet this, but it wasn't included in the previous case?

Yes, I'll explain it to come up and expand on the answer.

But I think as you alluded to at the outset, there are different cases, right?

And so that resulted in a different analysis.

I think in terms of adjacency, because this will come up repeatedly, that's a key provision in several policies in reference.

Since the adoption of the conference of plan 16 years ago, the adjacency has never been interpreted as anything other than directly abutting or touching.

And again, of course, there's both sides of West Street and West Street right away, well over 200 feet distance between the neighborhood to the to the west and the site.

So the provisions pertaining to adjacency were not considered to be applicable because this area was not now.

Some of those reference other terms, which I'll let Bynam expand on.

Sure.

So uh Z 52, 5422 is the prior request, and Z1225 is the request in front of you tonight.

Both have the 30-story base height, height district.

Uh Z1225 includes zoning conditions related to building height restrictions.

C 5422 did not have any of those restrictions.

So the step down, the um from the north to the south is a di is a different different uh aspect of the request you are talking about tonight.

Uh the earlier request was inconsistent with policy DT 1.12 downtown edges, that's one you were just uh speaking to.

So the new request uh that those additional uh height restrictions bring that policy into consistency.

Uh the difference uh between the two cases regarding affordable housing.

This case includ the request in front of you tonight includes an offer of a contribution to the city's fund.

Um the site now is mapped in the downtown transition area.

That was your question, I think about uh map DT2 and policy DT 1.14 that goes with that, the downtown transitions.

Not relevant to Z5422 because the map had not been amended at that time.

Uh and then in this case, uh the request includes conditions that limit high-intensity uses and also provide for building height restrictions less than what would otherwise be allowed by the 30-story-based district.

Uh in both instances, DT 1.12, the downtown edges and the 1.14 downtown transitions relate to adjacent residential development.

The residing site is not adjacent to residential development.

I know you heard a lot of um have heard and and a lot of correspondence, and also you heard from Mr.

Tride tonight, the uh disparity in definition of adjacent historically, the planning department has used adjacent to mean a joining, and we have applied the policy the same way for this request as we have for every other request that we have considered.

So, Bynam, when you were talking about the height, so now that there is a restriction on the number of feet, I think is what you were mentioning.

Um is there a objective height measure where we say there the transition is there?

Is it about the height or is it simply about the adjacency?

So the future land use map and the urban form map and policies generally support the 30-story request that's asked requested here.

So the offer of the transition the fact that a transition is offered, yes, is what satisfies the policy.

So any just shift in height between the two buildings is considered acceptable.

I believe so, yes.

Okay, I'm just trying to understand the interpretation.

I've got another question on the downtown edges.

So again, downtown edges is defined as appropriate transitions in height, scale, and design, that that should be provided between central business land uses and adjacent residential districts.

In the previous case, the staff report said that lower heights included in the request could be actually more appropriate here.

So the general category in table LU2 prescribes 12 stories, for example.

That last sentence is a quote from that staff report.

The general category and table L U2 prescribes 12 stories, for example, and that is where we ended with that case.

And I just wonder if you can speak again to that change in the interpretation of the downtown edge policy, going from it was inconsistent last time, but now is considered consistent.

Is that just because of that step down in height?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Have other conversation or questions.

All right.

Well, I mean, I'll I'll I didn't know whether we were going to vote tonight or not.

Maybe we are, but um, so I'll share my thoughts.

I, you know, there's been first off, thank you for everybody being here.

And I think there's been so much homework and so much research, and I myself read the comprehensive plan.

I got a copy of the UDO, we've got these technical questions, and I all that is extremely important and valuable, but I'm gonna take it up a level and just say, okay, so as I look at this, to me, this is a really intensive site.

It's a railroad, it's Capitol Boulevard, it's a really degraded stream that we're gonna restore and make this incredible park.

So it is a very intense place, and to me, it is part of downtown.

I mean, and when I think about what is gonna make the city great, we have we need a really resilient downtown.

We need more residences.

And I value historic properties.

I live in a historic home.

I've saved Dick's Park, I have renovated things.

I I value that, and I get that there will be some shadows.

But I think to me, I I guess Will Choi and Jen Truman really captured to me the excitement and the forward looking and the inclusiveness.

I mean, this project reminds me when I went to Atlanta and we saw the belt line and we saw these buildings that were facing the greenways and leveraging off the creeks.

I mean, I think this is you know where Raleigh needs to go.

So I'm gonna be voting for it.

I just I just wanted to add a couple couple things.

Um we did receive an email from a future resident who would love to live here.

It was one of my favorite emails.

Uh they told us about their neighbors, how they could walk to work, school, and play from this location.

Now I just want to say, could they do this?

In a 12-story, 27-story or 30-story building, yes.

This is a site of density, no matter what.

If a 12-story building was constructed ten years ago, these future residents could already live there.

But with greater heights, there could be more of them.

What I ask for in this case is further consideration by my colleagues of the downtown edge and transition policies.

I find them confusing.

I've had great discussions with Councilmember Silver about how to interpret them.

I am curious from planning staff, how are they going to be incorporated into the update of our comprehensive plan?

I do think that the concerns raised by my residents in District D about whether this will be precedent setting for neighborhoods across downtown in or near downtown is worth discussion.

My motion for this rezoning case is it be held with uh an opportunity for the Growth and Natural Resources Committee to take the case at the end of October.

I'm not hearing a second, so is there a uh alternative motion?

I would move approval for the case.

Second.

Yeah.

Okay.

Do we have the uh yes, I did close the hearing.

I I wonder that um as a compromise, would the council be open to holding it at the table for two weeks and not sending it to committee?

Does that split the difference?

Well, I know.

I had originally thought we would hold this, listen, and reflect, but I mean we didn't really do that.

I think we've we've had a pretty fulsome discussion, so I guess I'll defer to my colleagues.

Do you want to hold it or you got a motion on the floor in a second?

Yeah.

Move to approve adopt a proposed consistency statement dated October 7, 2025, contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended.

Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

If not, all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Nay.

So the nays were there were two no's and six yeses.

Thank you all.

We'll give you time to clear out.

Good job, Jason.

I didn't know if you stay.

All right.

The next one.

Yeah, I'll wait just a minute more.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you all would exit so we can continue the meeting.

All right.

Z thirteen twenty-four, New Hope Road, Hannah Rekau.

Good evening.

Hannah Rekau Planning and Development.

So this is rezoning requests, Z thirteen twenty-four.

Uh eighteen eleven sounds like a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of speaker, Hannah.

Can you speak up and wait till the door closes?

We can't hear you.

Sorry.

It's one parcel.

Between R six.

So this is a request to rezone one uh parcel that is a little under eight acres in size.

It is currently split zoned between R six, R ten, uh, and conservation management.

The conservation management uh portion is not a part of this request.

The request is to rezone the R six and R ten pieces to NX4 uh conditional use.

So an aerial uh view of this site.

You can see there's some neighbor uh residential neighborhoods um on either side on Maybrook Drive.

Uh the site is currently undeveloped, forested.

Um this is very approximate, but roughly there is Walnut Creek.

Um the proposed conditions uh include the following, so a prohibition on some uh land uses, the ones you see here, uh a prohibition on hookah bars and uh to vapid tobacco shops, um a sort of two hundred foot setback um from two adjoining properties, which are on the eastern side of the the site.

Uh limit uh on the number of dwelling units, two hundred and fifty, and then caps on residential um non-residential uh office and retail uses.

Um there is a commitment of a ten foot wide multi-use path from the development to the Walnut Creek Greenway Trail to the south, and then uh a condition that would it states that um the portion of the property south of the sewer easement would not contain residential units.

And uh the uh commitment to connect to the greenway.

Uh inconsistent policies, uh these are touching on the future land use map and consistency, um as well as um the response time standards which are not met for the site.

Uh the planning commission recommended to uh approve for approval um eight to one.

Um you can see they're finding here.

Uh the reason for the opposition uh is is listed here.

Um concerns about traffic uh and how that development might affect that.

So with that, happy to answer questions before you proceed with the hearing.

No.

Okay.

Um we will open the hearing.

For Z thirteen.

And I'm even seeing yes.

Worth Mills.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

Worth Mills here on behalf of Golong Holdings LLC, who is the rezoning applicant and the property owner.

As Hannah laid out, we're asking to rezone about seven and three quarters acres of a 22-acre parcel from R6 and R 10 to NX4 parking limited conditional use in order to develop that portion for multifamily and for uh commercial uses.

And as I lay this out, I think you'll find that this is the best and highest use for this site.

At the outset, though, I I did want to mention, and I sent an email earlier today that we are requesting that uh the public hearing be kept open and council defer decision to the 21st.

We are continuing to work with partners for environmental justice on additional conditions to mitigate any impacts to Walnut Creek.

So here's a aerial of the site.

Again, you can see the Greenway Trail there to the south.

Um here is a street view of South New Hope and Maybrook Drive.

Currently, Maybrook Drive is not open as a public right-of-way.

Um with this development as well as the planned townhome subdivision just to our north, uh, those two uh developments in concert will provide a complete street of Maybrook Drive and then open that up not only for uh residents guests of both of those neighborhoods, but also for the communities uh that live east of these sites.

So again, we are only looking to rezone the portions that are R6 and R 10.

We are keeping the conservation management uh zone property uh as it is.

And I did want to go through some of the constraints on the site.

So this is the Walnut Creek floodplain, um, the 100 year floodplain outlined in pink.

That very closely lines up with the existing conservation management line on the property today.

There are also some man-made obstacles on this site.

So the blue lines are the 200 foot wide Duke power line easement uh that runs through this site as well as a sewer easement uh that sort of runs diagonally through the site.

And so what we're left with are these two areas.

The area in blue are is an area where we can uh locate parking.

We cannot locate any structures within that Duke power line easement, but we can park within there.

We've spoken with Duke Energy representatives uh and gotten positive feedback from them.

The areas in the orange are um approximate locations of building placement, uh taking into account the sewer easement.

As mentioned, the future land use map does designate these uh properties for low-scale residential, but again, we think because of those constraints on the site that the um X4, the multifamily, the commercial use makes the most sense given our frontage as well as those site constraints uh that I just mentioned.

The street plan calls for South New Hope to be a four-lane avenue divided uh street and Maybrook Drive as a uh neighborhood street.

There's currently sufficient right-of-way for the ultimate build-out of South New Hope Road.

Uh we've spoken with the Transportation Department, and um we fully expect uh this development to make those roadway improvements along South New Hope Road.

Um while a TIA was not required at the rezoning stage, we also think that development um as it's listed in the zoning conditions would rise to the level of a TIA at site plan submittal.

And you can see the two ultimate uh street widths uh here on your screen.

Um to date uh we've offered six zoning conditions.

Again, we plan to offer more uh as we continue working with partners for environmental justice.

We've prohibited some uses that uh don't make sense given the context of the surrounding neighborhood.

We've prohibited the uh hookah bar vape tobacco shop, which we've sort of written our own condition or our own definition for since it's undefined in the UDO.

We've got the 200 foot setback to the townhome community to our east.

We're limiting development to 150 dwelling units, 35 35,000 square feet of non-residential space, uh, up to 15,000 square feet of office and up to 20,000 square feet of retail.

We're offering a 10-foot uh wide pedestrian connection from the development to the existing walnut greenway trail, and we are prohibiting residential development south of that sewer easement as a way to uh sort of memorialize and dedicate that area for uh non-residential development.

And this is a concept plan that was prepared by Peter Conasson of Conossen Engineering.

Um the left-hand side is the intersection of Maybrook and South New Hope.

That's where we envision multifamily sort of an L-shaped building there to uh match the intersection, uh, as you can see, kind of parking throughout uh and within the uh Duke Energy easement with two standalone retail buildings um south of that sewer easement line.

So again, when you when you factor in all of these different constraints, um, you know, a low-scale residential development here uh just didn't make a ton of sense to us, and we think that this provides more benefits to the community.

Um it opens up helps to open up Maybrook Drive and to uh build out those improvements along South New Hope Road.

So again, we we think that you know this request is reasonable and it's in the public interest.

We are consistent with the comp plan.

We would ask for a two-week deferral.

We're having additional meetings with PEJ this week, and we feel confident that we can get updated conditions to council uh by the end of this week.

But happy to answer any questions that you have and appreciate your time this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions from Mr.

Mellishill?

Yeah, really not a question, more of a comment.

Um, it's really for our transportation department as they're looking when whenever if this gets approved and they have the road widening project part done.

Can we also look at a turn lane going a left-hand turn lane onto Maybrook opposite of their site because I am concerned about that intersection right there.

Now, if you have some information about the intersection, I'll let you speak to it.

Yes, sir, uh I do.

And I've I've spoken with some of the individuals at NC DOT for for our district.

There are there are currently two NC DOT projects along South New Hope today.

Um the first one is related to the Eva May Drive intersection, which is probably a quarter to a half mile north of this site there.

They are proposing uh both a northbound and a southbound left turn lane uh to that intersection, and that is planned to be a signalized intersection.

Um as you get closer to our intersection, uh there's another project that anticipates a northbound left turn lane to Maybrook Crossing, which is Caddy, well, not Caddy Corner, but uh across South New Hope from us.

In that initial plan, because Maybrook Drive was not open, there was not plans to install a southbound left turn lane to Maybrook Drive.

Um, but again, with the um development of this site as well as the townhome community to the north, they expect um one or both of us to contribute uh to including a inner to a left turn lane that matches what goes to Maybrook Crossing.

Thank you.

See you in two weeks.

Yeah.

We need a motion to uh hold it open or a move that we hold this open uh bring it back in at our net city council meeting.

All right, second.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

Okay.

And next we've got Z1025.

Hello again.

I am Walter, Riley Planning and Development.

This is rezoning 1025 on the west side of Liesel Road.

I'm blind, I'm sorry.

Uh important feature of this site is that Ghost Pony Trail that ends into the site.

You'll hear a lot about that as we go along.

You can see uh zoning here, predominantly residential, that's R4 with some manufactured housing on the very northern portion of the map here.

So this is 8125 Leesville Road.

It's a 2.66 acre site going from R R4 residential four to residential 10 with some conditions.

It is consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan as well as the future land use map and planning commission recommended approval unanimously.

So this you can see this is just east of Leesville Road School, K-12 on the west side of Leesville Road.

And again, you can see the uh residential development along Coast Pony Trail on the south side of the site here.

This is a view of the site from coal views from Leesville Road.

There are a lot of conditions.

I'm going to walk you through these.

Uh the first is that they prohibited uh handful of uses that otherwise would be allowed in residential 10.

They have limited themselves to no more than 18 dwelling units.

They have uh limited the number of units possible in a townhouse building type.

So they're saying they would not have more than six units in a townhouse unit townhouse building, uh, which effectively it limits the bulk of the building.

Uh they have also prohibited the apartment building type.

They have specified some minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks adjacent to the two Ghost Pony Trail addressed parcels on the south side of their of their site where they have that shared boundary.

And then they've also offered a wall that's at least at least six feet tall, some uh understory plantings, uh and just for clarification, they are saying this does not prohibit the extension of Ghost Pony Trail.

They've also exempted, they are exempting themselves from the block perimeter and dead end street requirements as well as the stub street requirements.

They have specified a minimum roof pitch for residential buildings on the site, and they have also limited maximum building height below what would otherwise be allowed.

And then they have offered uh in the event that they take access from Ghost Pony Trail, that they would provide uh traffic calming speed hump either within the Ghost Pony Trail right of way or an internal private drive on their property, uh, and that that location of that calming device would be determined during plan review and subject to city approval, city staff approval.

And then they have specified uh that at least two of the following lists of materials will be included in front facades of the buildings, whatever they build.

So the entitlement here is going up by uh two units, the um front and side uh and rear setback here.

I will just note this should say 40 feet down here for the parcel uh immediately adjacent, the parcels immediately adjacent to the um Ghost Pony Trail parcels.

This is consistent with the comprehensive plan, uh with the future land use map, number of consistent policies here around uh residential zoning, a couple of uh inconsistencies here, generally around the response time for fire.

Uh planning commission recommends approval, and I'm happy to answer questions you might have before you open the hearing.

You do have folks uh signed up on either side of this tonight.

Any questions for Ms.

Walters?

Yes.

Hi.

Hello.

Um there can you the conditions around the stub streets and dead end?

Does it mean if you went to like the site map uh one of these aerials?

Like so are we we're getting to Leesville Road or not?

Is that how the conditions all stack up?

I'm gonna defer, I'm gonna phone a transportation friend.

Okay they have said that the um they're not foreclosing the extension of Ghost Pony, but I think I do believe the all that exempting themselves from other stuff is about not making the Liesville connection.

But I I want it.

Yeah.

Good evening, Carter Roberson with uh transportation.

I think Bynam explained it pretty well basically what that condition does is our requirements would we would want to see a connection through the site or from here to Leesville with that um condition.

They would not be required to do that.

So they could access from Ghost Pony or from Leesville or from the north, but they wouldn't be required to pull it through and make a through street.

Got it.

Okay.

Helpful.

And then um maybe for stormwater.

Um we've got a lot of community concern about stormwater, and I just wonder if stormwater staff could speak to or like where the water on this site is going.

Or if there's any documented downstream flooding or all the all the things.

Uh yes.

So the site, there's a um draw that's just off site on the uh northwest corner, and then also ghost point trail is probably in a low spot as well.

Um we don't have any documented structural flooding downstream.

There were some issues with ghost pointing trail a few years ago as far as flooding, but I've but I believe that has been taken care of.

But I could be proved wrong through the comments tonight, so we'll see how that goes.

I don't know if it's for you or they just had a question.

Um I understand from the condition that if there is a speed bump, that location is going to be determined at site plan.

All right.

Um typically in a case like this, and maybe this is transportation question, uh, and I'll I'll make sure I do ask the applicant.

Um is a speed bump required for a neighborhood street?

No, they're making that offer.

Okay.

Right.

Uh and I just want to say thank you to Ben Brown from Raleigh Stormwater staff.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

One quick one.

What districts is it in?

Easy.

Okay.

Well, why don't we go ahead and open the public hearing?

We've got, as you said, folks, uh and support and opposition, so the support we have Worth Mills, David Blevins, and Gary Walston.

Do I need to pull the presentation up?

Okay, okay.

Should somebody be doing something?

Staring at the end of the day.

Sorry, I'm not sure.

Oh, yeah, y'all can't see what I'm seeing.

I'm seeing somebody try try real hard to that's my fault.

I will say before uh the presentation does come up that I will try to answer some of those questions that council had while we give our presentation.

Okay, Mayor, we we we're not finding that presentation was submitted.

So let me pull up display on the if you can just pull up staffs, that'll be a good thing.

Great, thank you.

Um so again, uh Worth Mills here on behalf of Vibes Fund LLC, who is the property owner and the rezoning applicant.

Um I'm joined by David Blevins and Gary Walston, who are an engineer and landscape architect respectively, uh, with BK engineering consultants.

Um again, I think Bynum did a great job of laying this out.

Um we are consistent with the future land use map.

We are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Uh Planning Commission did vote unanimously in favor of this rezoning.

So to speak on the uh access, the speed hump issue, and the conditions related to uh dead-end street and block perimeter.

So firstly, um we do plan to gain access via Ghost Pony Trail.

Um the transportation staff early in our uh uh review determined that we meet one of the exceptions in Section 8.3 um that does not require a project to extend streets or meet block perimeter or the um connectivity requirements.

And so we memorialize those in our zoning condition, but even without that condition, we would not be required to extend Ghost Pony north or uh out to Leesville Road.

So what we're planning to do is to create this extension sort of as a private drive aisle or a private street and and build town homes along that area.

Uh the property to our sort of northwest is owned by the Church of Latter-day Saints.

They currently have a uh open lot subdivision under review.

The plan is to sell about four and a half acres uh to the same individual who built the homes along Ghost Pony Trail uh for another six to seven homes on that site.

Uh and they would have connections to Lisville Road.

Um thing that we heard a lot during our meetings with um neighbors was about traffic concerns.

And in our view, the layout that that we are offering or proposing provides a uh safer uh sort of outcome than what uh could otherwise sort of be done if this was all sort of one homogenous development.

What that does is it prevents the eventual extension of Ghost Pony up to Leesville Road where Kingsland Drive is, which would essentially create another cut through for vehicles that wanted to save, you know, however many seconds it would it would save from driving down Liesville and then making a right onto country trail.

So we think by limiting this street to you know sort of a private loop that's going to be a better outcome for uh for everyone that lives here.

It's going to reduce um really any any through traffic here.

Um as it relates to the speed hump, that was something that we heard at uh our neighborhood meetings as a way to try to reduce vehicular speed for uh future residents coming down Ghost Pony Trail.

We think um we have every intention of of locating that uh speed hump within the private street section of of this Ghost Pony Trail extension.

Um hopefully you know that that results in uh maintenance shifting to a homeowners association rather than the city of Raleigh having to install and or maintain that area.

Um just to highlight some of the uh conditions that we have offered to date.

Again, we're asking for a maximum of 18 dwelling units.

Um that's two more than the uh current R4 zoning allows today.

We have extended our side yard and rear yard setbacks to 10 feet and 40 feet.

Um feet is equal to the R4 side yard setback, 40 feet is 10 feet greater than the R4 rear yard setback.

And uh we are also um offering to construct a wall and plant those four understory trees per 100 feet to try to maintain as much privacy as possible for those two single-family homeowners that live uh immediately south of this property.

We have um also prohibited flat roofs, we've limited maximum building height to 40 feet, uh which is the maximum building height in an R4 district.

Um we have offered this zoning condition related to building materials in order to try to create as much consistency with the existing single family homes along Ghost Pony Trail today.

Um, for I'll I'll wrap my portion up just by saying again, we've we've met with neighbors three times, you know, had three neighborhood meetings over the course of this rezoning process.

Uh we've tried to incorporate as many of their comments as we possibly can into these zoning conditions.

Um for those reasons and the the policy reasons that Bynam stated, we think that this is reasonable and in the public interest.

I do want to have uh Mr.

Blevins uh come up and potentially Mr.

Walson just to speak about the um stormwater and how we intend to detain and release stormwater from this site uh into that existing channel.

Yeah, good evening.

Uh my name is David Blevins.

I'm an engineer with uh Bassing County in Engineers.

Uh the site drained naturally from Leesville Road uh to the west back just a general slope.

And so that's the way uh that's the way the stormwater will be discharged.

It'll be uh it'll be discharged back on the back side of the site.

Um I looked at the layout that we prepared for town homes, uh, it was approximately 40,000, about 40,000 or so uh square feet of impervious area.

And and then I did a layout uh with Gary uh on a six-lot uh sub single family subdivision, R4, and just extended a cul-de-sac in there and develop those lots at 38 percent, which is uh maximum allowable.

And the and that uh in R4 and the it came out to about 38,000.

So there really was only a couple of thousand square feet of difference in impervious area between the two uh between the two layouts.

This is something that typically as we track through the process, uh and we haven't heard anything otherwise from stormwater staff that if there's if there is an issue with stormwater or anything downstream, we would, as we track through the process, uh we would address it then.

And I'll be happy to answer any questions about stormwater that anyone anyone else has.

And Gary's here about the layer.

Okay.

All right.

So um that kind of closes out the support side.

Um we can go ahead and hear from the opposition.

I have VJ Ravendron and Alex Milosuk signed up.

Hello, good evening.

Uh I'm Alex Mulashik.

I'm speaking on behalf of uh the home homeowners association there at Ghost Pony Trail.

So tonight uh I just wanted to talk through three outstanding concerns that our community has about this.

Again, we're we're a relatively small community, um, and so some of these impacts can be magnified for us definitely.

Uh first the part the parking, then the stormwater, uh, and then a potential development delay of the whole region.

So parking, as we've talked about, the renderings that they provided, show 18 units with a, I want to believe say a total of 12 parking spaces on the streets or in um driveways.

I think we all know that garages get used for things other than cars.

And um realistically, we expect these homes to have two cars.

Uh it's just realistic for that the area.

That's going to cause parking to back up onto the existing street.

And this is a relatively narrow street.

Um I know they mentioned not having a cut through there going to Leesville, but that's actually a almost dead spot in Leesville because there is uh a connection to the north that goes into the high school and a connection to the south coming to the high school.

Very, very few people will be coming south to Leesville and making a right-hand turn to go to the school that way.

They would be going farther than if they had come otherwise.

Um at the very least, we would appreciate a condition that that puts in place at least two external parking spots uh per home.

On the stormwater side, uh, as was mentioned, we we've had issues in the community with stormwater causing flooding.

Um we had a very modern uh nice uh retention system put in, and if it's not maintained religiously, what we find is that it blocks up and some homes have actually been flooded because of it.

There's also a stream protection area uh behind the community and and tree protection areas back there too, where we've seen what is a dry creek bed on any average day like today, um rips right through, and there are exposed routes, there are dying trees, um have fallen and hidden hit homes out of a tree protection area on there.

One of our concerns here, as we've met as has been mentioned, is there's going to be another development process going in across that creek bed uphill.

Realistically, these concurrent developments are not going to be necessarily speaking to each other.

They aren't going to be planting their stormwater together.

And the reality is that whatever erosion and damage that's happening to that existing protected area is going to continue to happen.

Um it will probably be exacerbated.

And uh frankly, in in my personal view, we've it seems to be an inconsistency, not necessarily with code, but with the spirit of why we have these protected areas in our community where we try to preserve these green spaces where we're actually damaging them in some of these instances.

Um I guess as as like a reasonable mitigation, it if we could have some kind of a condition that there are you know 100, 50 year storm considerations put into place when any uh stormwater is designed, it it would mean a lot to us because we have seen these frequencies and these big storms being damaging to the re area.

Uh the last thing that uh well, and sorry, the one other thing with that is we know that there's already existing backlog with in Raleigh with stormwater mitigation.

I I believe that people try to build to the code.

I think they try to do a reasonable job to it.

And what we find is that as areas are developed, they just more consequences occur.

What we don't want to have happen out of this is for it to turn into, you know, we've heard the number 900 million dollar backlog.

We won't want this to be 902 million dollars.

We don't want this creek to be the next, you know, trees falling on homes for insurance costs to go up.

Um that's kind of our concern back there.

And then finally, one thing that we found in this process, and uh you'll have to forgive us, we are not professional land developers, so maybe our tools are a little fuzzy here, is there are at least three other R6 plus lots in the area that are available.

I believe one uh 16-acre R10 lot is being developed less than two and a half miles away.

Um there are two R6 lots less than a mile from this site that have been sitting that total out to three and a half acres.

Um if there were high demand for housing in the region, my question is why are those not being actively developed?

Uh at the same time, what we do see is that there's active interest even in the site right behind this site in pursuing R4 development.

So we we were told tonight that the difference here is between 16 units and 18 units.

And I I might be ignorant of of the rules around R4, but I'm a little curious how we get to 16 units out of uh 2.6 acres with uh R4.

But that's that's perhaps something I just don't understand, not being in my area.

But what we see is an up zone for definitely less than 10 additional dwelling units.

Um what we're showing tonight is two extra dwelling units for an up zone.

And we just don't necessarily understand where that's coming from.

And if it increased the costs of the land, it may actually stall development.

Where there might be immediate interest right now in an R4 development for 16 units, this could stall out development for another decade to get 18.

Um we we want to be neighbors to more people, we don't want to shut things down.

We just don't necessarily this feels like forcing a square peg into a square into a round hole, and we kind of that's how our small community sees it.

So again, the parking, um just creating a single outlet street where we're gonna have probably overflow no matter how many speed humps we put in, the parking speed humps don't stop parking.

Um the storm water where we already see damage and erosion to creek beds, and then delayed development.

We we do want the region to be vibrant, we do want more homes to come in, and if this stalls it out so we have another property that sits for 10 years, it frankly just doesn't help that.

So I I appreciate your time um and your kindness.

Thank you.

Any questions for I'll butcher your last name again, Alex.

I'll just call him Alex.

I I joke, most people just say M.

M.

Okay, Alex M.

Thank you.

I have a question for Alex, Mr.

I keep walking back and forth.

Has um you mentioned parking as stormwater.

Has staff had a chance to come out and look at your concerns and what it is.

We have um so we have.

Uh stormwater was they they kind of they were very all staff were very kind, and um even Christina came out and heard some of our concerns.

We appreciate the city's involvement.

Um Stormwater looked around and um when when they heard about the issues that we had had with our own stormwater mitigation, they kind of gave the nod and said, yeah, that's not an altogether uncommon thing.

There are new rules in place, but um uh you know, rules were in place when those got built as well as our understanding.

You know, when was your subdivision built?

Uh I I can't speak firmly.

It was somewhere in the 2018 17 to uh 2019 range.

Okay.

So it's it's a fairly new.

Um the other thing that's worth mentioning, uh city came out for traffic.

And we were told counterintuitively uh as a community, we wanted to try and highlight to people how congested the street is.

So we we kind of parked on the street and tried to show, hey, this is what happened.

And counterintuitively we were told, well, we view that as a as a traffic um mitigating device, the fact that people have to park on the streets.

You've made it narrower.

I can tell you personally, I have a two-year-old son uh who loves to ride his little pedal bike.

We jokingly call him the bear cub because he listens about as well as a bear cub.

And uh you can you can put as many traffic mitigating devices as you want there, but um Joe Fish is probably gonna be out trying to pedal bike and we have a community, I think all houses but two have kids, some babies, some in high school, the two houses that don't have kids, they they have dogs and they're great.

The two houses that don't have kids, they they have dogs and they're great.

And it's it is a very like literally I I can't make this up.

It's like Mayberry in some ways.

Uh all of our kids just run out and there's just a little gang going up and down the street.

But really, it does mean that that one-way street.

I get worried about Amazon drivers who are who are genuinely trying to make their quotas, trying to make time, and they they come flying in there.

And when we start stacking up more cars, when we start stacking up more people who are busy and are stressed coming home from work, we just it's going to create a scenario where we have we as parents have to be more concerned about our kids on pedal bikes.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yes.

I'm gonna I don't have a question.

I'm just gonna I have a question for stormwater.

Can I have um stormwater come down?

My question is what is can you help clarify what is required by code in terms of um what the tenure storm, the tone of what what we currently require?

You're getting your steps in today.

I know.

Apologies, Ben Brown, stormwater.

Uh uh Yeah, so the UDO condition for the site would be to control the two and ten-year storm to pre-development levels, which is looking at the site now.

Is there any way we can get the aerial to come back up?

Because I'm looking at it here, that's why I was but it's a fairly wooded site now, so we would take that to be the pre-development condition for for those calculations, and then the two and ten-year storm would uh need to be detained by code, and they would also have to treat for um Pluton being nitrogen in this case, leaving their site to a certain level.

So thank you so much.

This one's for you too, Ben.

Counselor Patton has a question.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Same thing.

Um we heard from one of the speakers that the existing stormwater detention is perhaps not built super well.

And the commentary was that's not uncommon.

What are what's our role and our responsibility if an existing stormwater detention is not serving its purpose as well as it should?

So um it is at the bottom edge here, which I think yeah, I just mark with my finger there.

Um so it's actually more on this side, apologize.

Um it's an uh pipe detention uh down there, I believe, and it's actually the issue with the maintenance that I believe they were talking about going back through my records real quick back there was that the slopes are right at a minimum going into the pipe attention.

So they're right.

If it's not maintained, then any sort of backup will kind of back up into the street there.

Now it's not designed to function that way, but the reality is it's a little bit tougher to maintain because of the slopes going into the detention device.

So I believe that's what they're referencing, but feel free to correct me.

Yeah, okay.

Feel free to uh but so that's the issue there.

Um technically it's they are um compliant.

They've uh for the past three years had passing inspections and everything like that.

So that's all been fine, but the slopes going into it are at the minimum level.

So that's kind of why the backup water function can become an issue on Ghostbony Trail.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, so I'll bring this back.

This is another case where I'm so sorry.

Sorry.

Um this is another case where I'm proud of the level of engagement and outreach from both the community and the development team.

There's a lot of change happening along Leesville Road.

My kids also go to Leesville Middle, so um I'm well aware of the of the area, and I understand how that can feel overwhelming.

We have a state road uh with paused improvement plans and three different properties that all drain into small creek behind this neighborhood.

I understand why neighbors are concerned because we can't require all three properties to coordinate their plans for the area.

This makes it even more important that each project has a strong responsible plan for our stormwater retention.

We updated our storm model design stormwater design manual in 2024 and continue to work with residents in areas where older developments were built under less rigorous standards.

I believe we're making progress in mitigating these impacts for future projects, but I also understand that residents are focused on worst-case scenarios based on what they've already experienced.

I'm grateful to the applicant and I appreciate the neighbors' input and continued engagement through this process.

These are complex issues without simple answers.

So as the representative for this district, I will be voting in opposition to this case while recognizing that my colleagues on council may see it differently.

But I would like to open the floor for any other questions or concerns.

For me, this is a tough case.

Condition number four, uh I understand the need for privacy, uh, but uh it's not often that I see a wall uh between two different developments, a landscape buffer, uh, with vegetation would have served the purpose for privacy if that was the desired.

Uh but to me I struggle because I looked at the map and did not see many walls uh in this neighborhood.

And to me, I just want to make sure as we evolve this city uh that we want to make sure there's compatible transitions between neighbors.

I struggle with a six-foot wall.

Um in terms of the speed bump, uh, the nature of the street itself, the narrowness, the curved nature.

It automatically is traffic commed by the nature of its design.

Uh so while I'm not as concerned about it, but I always look to see whether these conditions are meeting it in impact or they are anticipating a future impact that is yet to be disclosed.

And then finally, uh I also struggle with being very prescriptive as it comes to materials, materials relate to cost of construction.

We all seek to ensure that projects are affordable and really left up to the individual applicant to design these buildings, and for that reason, um I will not be supporting this case.

Councillor Patton.

Sure.

Um, I'll just say thank you, neighbors, for your engagement on this.

Thank you for coming out.

I definitely understand the heartburn it can bring to see our neighborhoods change.

And like do you as a parent who is also teaching her child to ride a bike?

I understand the fear associated with like increased traffic on your roads and and the tension that that brings.

I also am also often tasked with determining whether we think what can be built under the proposed proposal is bet produces a better outcome than what could be built today.

Um as you noted, there's not a big difference in that in the number of units.

I do think that because of this change, they can be for sale units where they would be more likely to be rental units in the under the what's allowed today.

And I do think that by their conditions that don't connect to Leesville, you'll have less traffic than might otherwise happen on just being built, what's being built by right.

Um I empathize and acknowledge the concerns, but I do think this is a good project that will produce good outcomes for the new neighbors, but also better circumstance for you all than might be allowed under the um current conditions.

So with all that said, I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement date into October 7, 2025 contained in the agenda materials, and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action.

Second.

Any other conversation or questions?

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Okay.

So we had six for and two against.

All right.

Thank you.

Next we have rezoning Z5124 Fairbanks Drive.

Hannah Recco.

Hello.

This is rezoning Z5124.

There's a request to rezone one property uh 9308 Fairbanks Drive.

Um NX3 conditional use to R 10 conditional and R 10 conditional use, currently split zoned to a new neighborhood mixed use, three stories conditional use district.

So this is in uh Northwest Raleigh has property, has frontage along Fairbanks Road.

You can see this is near uh the convergence of Leesville Road, Westgate, and Fairbanks Road.

Um, mainly residential to the north and to the west, some commercial on this portion of Leesville Road, though.

There are three proposed zoning conditions.

Uh one that prohibits some uses normally allowed in NX, one that would cap the number of uh dwelling units, and one that would cap office and retail use to 65,000 square feet each.

This request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

It's consistent with the future land use map designation of neighborhood mixed use.

And here are some of the consistent policies.

These have to do with uh maintaining the base district, removal of some of the limitations on included in the current conditions.

And then there are no inconsistent policies found for this request.

Planning commission recommended unanimously for approval.

And with that happy to answer any questions.

Questions for Ms.

Requell.

Okay.

If not, we will open the public hearing, and we have Toby Coleman signed up to speak in support, and then Andrew Tattersall, an opposition.

Good evening, uh Mayor, members of council.

Uh Toby Coleman here on behalf of uh the applicant.

Uh with me tonight is uh Jason Meadows uh with uh RDU Engineering and Concept 8.

Um this is a rezoning of a property that's primarily already zoned in X3, so we're not really changing the zoning district.

This is much more of more or less a change in um zoning conditions.

There's a there's a little bit, there's two things going on here.

Number one, as we went through the process, we realized that the property lines did not match up.

They looked like they matched up initially with the zoning, but it turns out they didn't.

So uh that's why you see that sort of map that's a little off kilter there.

Um so we're correcting the the zoning uh there to make sure that the entire property is NX3 uh consistent with what the city did a few years back.

Um and then we are we've added a couple of conditions, which I'll talk about in a minute, and Hannah talked about, mainly um capping uh some some the density of uses uh and adding some uh use limitations.

Um and then we're getting rid of a bunch of old conditions.

There was a 25-year-old set of conditions on there, a lot of them referenced the old um the old uh UDO uh chapter 10, and um and in other cases uh required things that are already required in the UDO, so we're duplicative.

Um the key issues here, so the the main change here was to increase the building height from two stories to three stories uh and uh eliminate a requirement for a landscape buffer for the adjoining compartment complex.

Um just to give y'all a sense of things, there's an apartment complex to the north and the west, as Hannah said, some offices and retail along Leesville Road, and then immediately sort of there to the south where that red CX3 is, that's a food lion uh anchored uh shopping center with Taco Bell and all that stuff.

So this is an area where there's a fair amount of uh existing commercial use.

We're not asking for a change of the use, we're just tweaking the conditions here.

And we are available for questions.

Questions for Mr.

Toby?

No.

Okay.

Uh Andrew Tattersall for opposition.

Do not see him.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we'll close the hearing.

Thank you guys so much.

This is actually really close to the last case, it's just down uh the road.

Uh and but it does have precedent for adding multiple stories just down the street from this.

We, as I I would say, as a council body are interested in making this area more walkable, and this case will bring more foot traffic to the area.

And I think adding more retail and commercial uses will help bring necessary traffic improvements to Leesville Road down the road.

Um so for those reasons, I am going to motion to approve.

If I can pull it up, hang on one second.

There it is.

So I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated October 7, 2025, contained in the agenda materials, and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action.

Second.

Any other discussion?

If not, all in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Ayes have it.

And that was our last case.

And with no further ado, we're adjourned.