I just hope it is Bill I'm too low.

All right.

All right, welcome everybody.

We're gonna play a video just around the microphone.

Not that this is rocket science, but it is a little tricky at times, so we've got a video that we'll play just to make sure everybody knows what's happening.

Hi, Raleigh.

Welcome to Council Chambers.

At today's meeting, your elected leaders will have the opportunity to hear from you.

Before the gavel, let's make sure everyone can hear you here in the room and watching online and on TV.

When you step up to the podium, adjust the microphone so you're speaking right over it.

If you lean in too close or pull back too far, or turn your head, we'll lose your voice.

Just speak clearly, and we'll hear you.

If the podium mic is out of reach, no problem.

Our staff will bring you a handheld microphone.

Want to speak at a future session?

Head to Raleigh NC.gov and search public comments.

Or sign up to speak when your item comes before council as a public hearing.

Thank you for sharing your time and ideas with us.

We're glad you're here.

The meeting starts now.

Okay.

First item, we have the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Action Plan, and we have Ashley Tucker from Housing and Community Development.

So today we'll be talking about the funding priorities, accomplishments, and next steps for the annual action plan.

So increasing affordable housing options, preventing and reducing homelessness, and increasing housing stabilization and supportive services.

Under increasing affordable housing options.

And these are where our grants, community enhancement grant, and human service agency grants, as well as home buyer counseling fall.

So to conclude, I just want to briefly outline our timeline.

We're currently in the comment period phase, which includes a combination of in-person and virtual meetings as well as a 30-day comment period.

The next step is to incorporate the feedback that we receive into the plan that'll come back to council for adoption in May.

That concludes my overview, and we just ask that council over the public hearing.

Great.

Thank you.

We will go ahead and open the public hearing, and we have two uh members of the public signed up.

Octavia Rainey is the first, and we have uh three minutes per speaker.

Good afternoon.

I'm gonna start off and I'm gonna stick to my three minutes.

First of all, the NRSA.

The plan sucks.

It really sucks.

Larry did not follow any fair housing guidelines.

Number two, the city don't enforce the fair housing act.

So I don't even think how you can move forward with any of your policies and housing without enforcing the act.

It's terrible.

Number three.

This is a report from North Carolina State University on Newman Avenue.

I was the co-chair of the Newman Avenue Alliance.

So I know what went on and I know what happened to the city.

So it was Edison Street and College Park.

I went through my storage and bought this personally tonight because I wanted you to know that you didn't follow any of the guidelines in this either.

Something is wrong with that picture.

Third, I'm hot.

Here is the document from 2007, and it was the Southeast Raleigh Assembly that we did with the City of Raleigh Planning Department.

The NRSA was not a part of that plan.

As a matter of fact, Eileen Brazil, Julian Prosser, Dimston Benton said they would not do the NRSA.

But what happened, you did it anyway.

Fourth, you know, I call myself being famous, but when they did the policies, I was talked about, but that didn't bother me because that's what the council did.

It was half Republican and half Democrat.

And they really talked about me.

But do you think I cared a hoolifru?

I ain't care at all.

But my point is you did college park and injustice.

You really did.

You let Cliff Zenna bill a $500,000 house.

You did that.

You turned around and let them put infrastructure on the new homes, then on the black homes.

They didn't even put the wiring underground.

That wasn't fair at all.

What I am asking, because y'all got to make up for the fairness in this project.

What about what I am asking?

And I gave to Corey.

I'm asking for a $500,000 project on Newman Avenue and the property that you bought with the bond dollars to do for College Park and Idawild and Memorial Garden.

You gotta make up for that.

You got to make up.

You can't continue to go around and treating black communities like their stepchildren.

Second, I want to see the consolidated plan on the citizen participation plan that talks about relocation.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, next we have Kimberly Wright.

Is Miss Wright here?

Okay.

Not seeing her, I will go ahead and close the hearing.

Anything else?

Ms.

Tucker, is that okay?

All right.

Uh next, we have the limited obligation bond anticipation note series.

Alison Bratcher.

All right.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Alison Bradshaw from the Finance Department.

Um tonight is the public hearing for the city to move forward on a draw program to support the convention center expansion and the Red Hat relocation.

The request is to open a draw program to cover $32.5 million for the Red Hat relocation and to cover $125 million for phase one of the convention center expansion.

The funds to cover these costs is part of the Wake County hospitality taxes, which is the occupancy tax and prepared food and beverage tax levied here in Wake County, and is supported by the 23rd interlocal agreement between the City of Raleigh and Wake County.

I do not believe anyone has signed up to speak tonight.

It is staff's recommendation to adopt the resolutions in the agenda at the conclusion of the public hearing.

And once adopted, this item will move forward to the LGC's May agenda.

And I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have prior to opening the public hearing.

Okay.

Questions for Ms.

Bratcher.

You know, it often comes up on like social media threads and stuff.

People see debt applied to these things and think, well, I I would rather this be going to police or parks or whatever.

And while we've talked about this extensively, we have a full house.

Can you um just avail us?

Can these could these funds have otherwise been used for other purposes?

Yeah, thank you, uh, Councilmember Patton for that question.

And the simple answer is no.

Uh these are governed by statute and a series of interlocal agreements.

Again, we're on the 23rd one that specifically addresses where these funds can be used, and they really are for convention and amenities here in Wake County, uh, and the city is lucky to be a recipient of that.

Okay.

Seeing no other questions, I will open the hearing, close the hearing, and is there a motion?

Move for approval.

Second.

Right.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we have the petition annexation AX 4825, 1415, and 1507 Trailwood Drive.

Vine and Walter from planning and development.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of council.

My name is Vinham Walter.

We're going to be planning and development.

I'd like to offer you a combined presentation for annexation AX48 and rezoning Z45 as they are addressing the same parcels.

You will need to hold two separate public hearings.

And just you will need to act separately on the two items.

So the petition annexation request is for 1415 and 1507 Trailwood Drive, as well as Zero Crump Road.

The property here is currently zoned residential two.

There's a neighborhood conservation overlay district as well as a special residential parking overlay district here.

Portion of the property is also residential four with that same parking overlay.

Their proposed the proposed use here is multifamily living, multi-unit living.

To the east of this site is Centennial Campus, and then single unit living on the on other sides of the property.

So this is an unincorporated area fully within Raleigh's corporate limits.

So you can see the site here.

You can see the corporate limits in gray and the smaller area, the lighter color, sort of in the center of this photograph that is not been annexed into the city at this time.

There are utilities roughly proximate to the site.

Some topography on the site, no floodplain present.

The fire service report is included in your agenda materials.

There is an service issue here.

So moving then to the rezoning request, this those same parcels.

So this is just under eight acres.

The request is to go to residential 10 with conditions.

The planning commission recommends approval.

This is inconsistent with the future land use map.

So here we are.

Some views of the site from the street.

There's some conditions provided here.

So they have said that the minimum lot size will be at least 20,000 square feet.

It's about half an acre.

The minimum lot frontage here would be 100 feet per lot.

And then they're saying that the units would be affordable for residents at 60% of Raleigh's area mean median income.

They are limiting themselves to no more than 156 dwelling units, requiring a 60-foot setback from trailwood drive, and then a 10-foot setback setback from side lot lines and 20-foot from side lot lines within 100 feet of trailwood drive.

So a look at how the zoning is changing here.

The front setback is not is steady.

The rear is reducing slightly.

And the entitlement generally is increasing.

This is consistent with a comprehensive plan, but inconsistent with the future lane use map, which calls for low-scale residential here.

Number of consistent policies here around compact development, housing variety, generally all of the policies around increasing housing in the city are consistent here, as well as some of those around sustainable development.

The inconsistency here is around the future land use map, as well as I mentioned the fire service report previously.

So the zoning and infrastructure impacts policy shows up as inconsistent as well as those response time standards.

Again, planning commission recommends approval.

What questions could I?

I'm sorry, one more uh point to make.

Since this is inconsistent with the future land use map, uh an action on your part to rezone would result in a future land use map amendment to that moderate scale residential category.

What questions could I answer for you before you open each of the public hearings?

Questions?

Councilor Silver.

Um in the staff report that there are two NCODs outside of the cities.

Um sorry.

Just want to make sure I have this correct.

One of two outside of city corporate limits, but within the ETJ.

Um can you just I'm just trying to get an understanding of how that happens.

I know it was before your time, before my time.

That is somewhat unique.

I don't know where the other is unless you know where it is.

I think it's Foxcroft.

Okay.

Uh can you just talk about because this is one that is not within the city's corporate limits.

So can you just explain when that was and how that evolved because that is seems like one of the earlier NCODs.

It is one of the earlier ones.

I will say uh you'll remember uh in our corporate limits, we have zoning authority, and we also provide service and collect tax.

In our extraterritorial jurisdiction, we have zoning authority, we don't collect tax or provide service.

So this is one of those places where we we have zoning authority.

Um residents in this area appealed to council, right?

Petition to develop this NCOD.

I want to say it dates back to the late 80s, early 90s.

That's my thought.

Um, which is very early days for NCODs in Raleigh.

That is true.

He says 99.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions before we start the hearing?

Okay.

So this is the I have two different hearings.

So this is for the annexation, and for this one, I have three people signed up in support and one in opposition.

So support is Molly Stewart, Ryan Fisher, and Landon Cox.

And then in opposition, uh Paul Moore, we will then open a second hearing, which is for the rezoning.

And I have additional people there, but I will uh eight minutes per side.

Is Molly Stewart?

Yeah.

Shall I give my combined presentation?

Sure.

Okay, great.

Um we do have two other speakers in support who will be speaking on the rezoning at that portion.

Great.

Thank you.

Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of the applicant, LDG Development.

Um LDG is very pleased to be here tonight to propose to you up to 156 units of badly needed housing, all of which is affordable and at a wide range of affordability levels, including 39 deeply affordable units at no more than 30 percent of AMI, thanks to LDG's partnership with the Raleigh Housing Authority, who you'll hear from a bit later tonight.

The applicant has been able to accommodate this request, not within a mixed-use district, which are fairly common in the area, um, but within a simple R 10 residential district, which is found throughout the area today, as you can see, highlighted on your screen.

They've also been able to largely retain the NCOD requirements.

Uh they have included four of the five trailwood NCOD requirements directly into their zoning conditions.

And those zoning conditions will restrict the entire site and not only the portion of the site that is controlled by the NCOD today.

So in that sense, actually expanding uh the reach of those four NCOD requirements.

That four that fifth NCOD requirement caps building height at two and a half stories.

Although we're unable to accommodate that one within this affordable proposal, um, I just want to uh remind uh everyone that that the R 10 request does limit height to three stories in this area.

Making those conditions binding uh on this site brings that 60-foot front setback onto the site, providing the opportunity to maintain tree conservation area along the trailwood drive frontage with the goal of making it difficult or impossible to see the proposed buildings from the site.

Now we have heard concerns from our neighbors that trailwood drive lacks the visibility necessary to add traffic at this location.

This is a bend in the road.

Um and and that we can see the trailwood does have that rural character today.

But trailwood drive is not a cul-de-sac, it's a connector between Tryon Road and Avant Ferry Road.

It's located inside the belt line, adjacent to Centennial Campus, and minutes from downtown.

It happens to run through a large lot, Wake County enclave outside of the city's boundaries.

Even if we prevented all development forever within this area, traffic will increase as the city grows around it.

As we've heard, that rural roadway street type is already not serving uh this this traffic level today.

However, if this site is brought into the city, the developer will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way on their side of the street to meet site distance requirements that don't apply today, and to improve their side of the the outside of this bend in Trailwood Drive to an urban street type, improving the safety and visibility exactly at the point that we've heard is a problem today, um, due to that existing mismatch between the rural street type and its location and function here within Central Raleigh.

This proposal can fix that problem at this location.

I'm going to skip a few slides for time and simply summarize that this area has remained largely unchanged uh in form over its past 75 years, almost 75 years of existence, while the city grew around it and the area benefited from that growth.

And despite that lag, uh again, this this request before you is not to bring in massive height or density, but a simple three-story R10 residential district, um, which exists all around the area today.

The site is 350 feet from the nearest R 10 apartment complex, uh, which has defined the character behind many of these NCOD controlled lots since the early 1980s.

I will skip these as you saw them in our staff presentation.

Um just note that the site is also located in a location encouraged by the city's affordable housing location policy.

We know there is no perfect site for affordable housing.

They are very hard to find.

I'll be surprised if we ever see one that meets with every city policy on the books.

But this one comes very close.

One can certainly identify some differences between the NCOD regulations that apply today and the requirements proposed under this request, as well as some small differences between the that low-scale and moderate scale residential future land use map designation.

We bring you here a proposal tonight that, in exchange for the smallest possible deviations on those two uh scores, also proposes to make major improvements to eliminate existing visibility issues at a critical point on this street, um, which will otherwise only continue to get worse as traffic increases, as well as to provide a very broad mix of affordability levels within a convenient and central location within the city, largely out of sight of the roadway, and we're supported by our our affordable housing location policy.

For all these reasons, we believe this request is reasonable and in the public interest, and we request your support.

We have a full team uh available tonight to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so the other two individuals uh will speak at the next one.

So uh I guess we can reset the clock and then Paul Moore.

Mr.

Moore here.

Yeah.

Please come on down.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And we'll put eight minutes on the clock.

Thank you.

My name is Paul Moore.

I live at Anon 1600 Crump Road, which is uh this notch here.

Have you been interested in hearing from me at all?

I hope you have.

Uh, I wanted to speak against the annexation because it's going to leave me as a three-quarter acre county enclave surrounded on all sides by the city.

I wanted to speak against the annexation because it's gonna leave me as a three-quarter acre county enclave surrounded on all sides by the city.

The the plan as I understand it is to run a water pipe down trail wood, and that'll bring it to within 200 feet of my property.

And my fear is that they're gonna say, you're on your own, buddy, if you want to get into the city, build your own pipe down the the road I live on, Crump Road, which is here.

But as this uh application states elsewhere that Crump Road.

It is uh a pro or it isn't a public road, is it's private road.

Uh yeah, here it is.

I'm sorry, I'm getting nervous here.

Uh private drive.

I don't know if you can see it right about here.

Well, I just crossed it out.

Anyway.

I'm afraid that they're gonna have asked me to or a developer that I may sell to build a redundant pipe across this disputed land or down this road, and that leaves me in a very bad position.

Uh I think they're gonna say that my dragging my feet on this is part of why I'm in this position.

I was excluded from this from the very beginning.

I've got a letter here dated September 18th, where all of the players are in in uh position here.

This is the same diagram.

It is an application for the zoning request, naming the other three parcels, and I was supposedly sent a letter on September twelfth, scarcely seven days prior.

However, this document was actually a PDF created on October 15th by a person by the name of Carmen Quan, K-U-A-N.

She is a real person that apparently worked for the city of Raleigh for some time, but has apparently taken a hike the morning star.

So set September 15th was a Monday, and they apparently sent me this notice on the previous Friday.

And I'm supposed to get that through the mail and jump into position.

No, this is fairly clear evidence that I was excluded from this from the beginning.

There is a practical reason why they've excluded me.

In every case that they've built a project like this, it's been 156 units all over.

This is their number.

And they've gotten it on this property without my land.

They don't need it.

I've spoken with the developer, and even if they bought the land to solve the problem of me being an enclave and this water pipe problem that I I'll get into, they wouldn't they still wouldn't build on it.

The water pipe problem is that so long as it stays on their single property, it is a private entity and they've got a sump pump of a certain size.

If it crosses the uh property line onto mine, it becomes a public entity.

And the sump pump has to grow bigger to the tune of about a quarter million dollars.

I don't think this is a problem that I put into action here, for one thing.

But had they acquired my property, they wouldn't need they wouldn't be creating this county enclave, and they would have it all on one property, and it wouldn't have this pipe problem.

And I was excluded from it.

I've got it right here.

Uh that's all I have.

Thank you for listening, and I have it um here for any questions you may have.

I've got all right, thank you.

Um we'll go ahead and close the hearing.

Do anybody want questions before I close it?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So we'll close this section, and um everybody just stand by.

We'll go ahead and open rezoning Z4525, um, which is a different set of speakers.

So uh opening the rezoning and uh Molly Stewart's already spoken, so I have Ryan Fisher, Landon Cox, Rhinal Stevenson, and Jen Truman.

Oh, and Ashley Fox.

Uh you are not on this list.

Um I'm not quite sure uh we could ask you questions later, but I do not have you signed up.

Head of the Raleigh Housing Authority there.

Uh and so we may have questions for you, but my apologies.

We we did believe he was signed up, so there was some error here.

Okay.

How about uh Ryan Fisher, Landon Cox, Ryan L.

Stevenson, Jen Truman?

Okay.

Hello, everyone.

Um I'm here to speak in support for Z45.

Um I actually live just a few neighborhoods over, and I regularly bike and drive along Trailwood uh to get to my favorite city pool and many other things that I do on Avon Ferry Road and Tryon Road.

Um I used to live on Avon Ferry for many years as well.

Um I'm here to say, as someone who's really familiar with the area that this is the right place for more housing.

Um I'm also here on behalf of the local Yemby chapter to say that many of us believe this is the right place for more housing.

Um it's a small pocket of county, but it's surrounded by city services in a growing city within walking distance of frequent transit and right next to NC State.

Uh importantly also for many of us Yembies, this proposal includes conditions specifically for affordable housing at the at the 60 percent and with the partnership with RHA even lower.

So at this table, I think you often hear support for affordable housing in theory, um, but in practice, many people say just not here.

Um and you may hear concerns about scale or fit in this or any specific neighborhood, but those concerns really come up in every neighborhood.

So I'm here to remind you that this is the moment where the pattern comes to you for a decision.

Um either we allow homes in a place that can clearly support them, or we continue to say not here everywhere.

If this is the right place for housing, then it's the right place for affordable housing.

This is exactly the kind of proposal that should have your support.

And it provides homes that are deeply needed in our community.

So I'm asking you to take this moment to say yes to more housing and to welcome new neighbors into this neighborhood.

Thank you.

Do uh Ryan, Landon, Rhinel, anybody else on the list?

Okay.

All right.

So we will um then ask the opposition.

We have John Bagan, Sarah Dietrich, and James Sommerell.

Yep, and you all have eight minutes combined, so however you want to.

We have to be in that order?

Uh no, you can choose your order.

Yeah, so you have eight minutes between the three of you, yes.

Thank you.

My name is Jane Jimmy Sommel.

I live at 1515 Trailwood Drive.

I have lived there for almost 50 years.

I am a retired drafting teacher for Ewenlo High School.

Before teaching, I worked at the NC Department of Transportation and Roadway Design.

I helped design and draw the plans for I-95 bypass the Federal.

I also helped with the upgrades and everything to Avon Ferry Road.

I am concerned that traffic study has not been conducted to determine if this location can safely handle the traffic turning into and out of this proposed apartment complex.

How many more sets of apartments are you going to approve without adding enough infrastructure to support this growth between 5,000 and 10,000 students live beyond our Trailwood community and use Trailwood Drive to go back and forth to school?

These students or their parents expect you to provide safe roads to travel on.

The only access to them to the university is Trailwood and Golman Street, which only have one turn lane on each one on the Avon Ferry.

Trailwood has not been updated to handle the traffic safely that use it.

Trailwood is one of the more dangerous roads around Trailwood Drive as you know it today is a combination of Trailwood and Crump Road joined to make Trailwood Drive.

The NCBOT wanted to cut through road from Tryon Road to Avon Ferry.

Trailwood Drive was chosen.

Trailwood was just a community road only.

And was not designed or built as a cut through road.

The students on our road tailgate and pass on double yellow lines with oncoming traffic.

Trailwood is still that farm road that originally developed the developers built and kept up.

Paving that road does not change the design of the road and make it a safe road.

These students are the future of our nation.

Their safety is your responsibility.

Higher density development without safety and infrastructure is not responsible growth.

Do you want your kids and grandkids running up and down the road at 50 and 60 miles per hour because they will.

I've been there 50 years.

I see it all the time.

I'm concerned about the safety of more people having to turn off and on to Trailwood Drive from this location.

The road in this location was not designed for this amount of traffic.

I asked that the City Council take this info in consideration.

I fear that there will be more accidents if this factors are not considered.

Traffic engineers standing across the street from 1507 Trailwood admiring their ability to mark off the curve where they can't put a driveway and doing a traffic count beside the entrance to Centennial Campus and a half a mile north of the project.

A traffic study.

Nothing was done at the project at all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have material for the city council.

Okay.

If you just put it in that basket, they can distribute it.

Thank you.

Can I can I start?

Please.

Good evening.

My name is John Began.

I reside at 3204 Tanager Street in the Trailwood and COD.

I would like to provide safety facts showing Trailwood Drive is unsafe at current baseline traffic.

An NCOD NC DOT, sorry, crash analysis reports 124 crashes in the last five years, including one fatal crash, 27 injury crashes with 40 injuries.

So when normalized for comparison, the total crash rate approaches 476 crashes on trailwood, much above the statewide rate of 260 crashes.

Trailwood fatal crash rate is 3.84 crashes, more than twice the state fatal rate of 1.77 crashes.

Trailwood is also dangerous for pedestrians and bikers.

There are no sidewalks and no bike paths available.

Eight cyclists and pedestrians were struck in those wrecks.

In the last seven weeks, two crashes with injuries took place, and they are not reported in this analysis.

LDG refused to share its traffic analysis.

The Planning Commission traffic impact estimate is wrong.

So we request a safety analysis by the NCDOT of the cumulative impact of adding hundreds of vehicles on Trailwood Drive, Z29, Z45, and Z38, and required remediations.

So remember, one crash every 15 days at the baseline traffic.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Mayor and Council members, I'm Sarah Dietrich.

My family and I live at 1414 Trailwood Drive.

I want to talk from the heart.

Trailwood Drive is a product of a hilly land with blind spots and driveways that are hard to pull out of.

There's a double curve with both vertical and horizontal components, leading to our road safety concerns.

We want to protect the old hardwood forest, which provides the oxygen to breathe, water vapor, so critical for air quality, shelter for wildlife.

We have a pair of mating bald eagles.

And most importantly, to reduce runoff, which is so important to the health of the watershed.

All three zoning requests impact the watershed with massive removal of trees and replacement with parking lots and buildings.

Each family in the trailwood community deals with lot topography that limits the location of the home, the driveway, the well, the septic tank drain field.

We each depend on private well for drinking water, and all of us are at rest when the over eight acres is clear-cut for the proposed Z 45 project, leaving a maximum of a 20-foot buffer at the property lines, and today we learned it's 20 around, I mean 10 around and 60 at the front.

One property will fill immediate impacts, and no privacy with three-story buildings.

Z 45 will literally make an enclave of the property.

You've heard from Paul Moore at 1600 Crump.

And the issue is access to water and sewer.

Our neighborhood was defined with R2 zoning, UDO, NCOD, and overlays, as well as the future comprehensive plans.

Today we still trust that the Raleigh City Council, as we'll represent our interest and promises that were made when we purchased our lot.

We are deeply concerned about the road safety, the cumulative environmental and community impacts from these proposals.

I respectfully urge the Raleigh City Council to uphold the city's own planning guidelines and protect established residential neighborhoods.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and your time to reflect on our ask of you to deny the Z 45 zoning.

Thank you.

All right.

So I'll go ahead and close the C 45 and now questions.

Start with Councilor Branch.

So I have a question from Mr.

Moore.

You mentioned your water connection.

Do you want to be connected to Raleigh Water and Sewer?

Can you come down?

Yes, sir.

If the project if if the proposal moves forward, my intention is to do likewise to what these other landowners are doing.

I would like to come back and ask for R 10 and annexation of my property.

This isn't anything they're not doing.

They don't live in the area.

They've hired a Harvard-trained attorney to attack me over there.

And so the question was about the water pipe.

Yes, I have offered a lot of the questions about the water.

I've offered to sell my house.

Okay.

So I'm not standing in the way.

And I've had I haven't asked for $3 million for it either.

I'm not gouging them on the price.

The issue is that they are going to build it in such a way that it will block my access to it.

And they also it's a private thing so long as it stays on their property.

If it crosses my property line, it's a public thing and it's it's complicated.

I don't know if I'm answering your question.

You gave me the information that you have, so that's fine.

Um that's helpful.

Um that is definitely helpful.

So thank you.

Um my other questions is for our city staff, Transportation Department.

Can you speak to when site our road improvements would be reviewed and what type of thing?

We saw the presentation from the applicant, but can you speak from the city standpoint what would be required?

Yes.

So good evening, everyone, Carter Robertson with transportation.

Um ultimately the determination of roadway improvements and access to the site, both of those would be determined at site plan after official site plans submitted for us and for NC DOT to react to.

It is an NC DOT roadway, so any driveway permit would be subject to their approval.

And likely in this scenario, given that it's right at the sharpest point of this curve, um, some evidence about visibility and site distance would be a condition of that approval in terms of the road improvements.

If a site plan rises to the level of tier three or subdivision, uh that's when the full um cross-section improvements that uh Molly put up on the screen would be required.

So right-of-way dedication for the ultimate divided section, curb and gutter, sidewalk, bicycle facilities, all of that.

So basically there are built-in triggers for improv improvements, basically of the road that is in front of their property only, though, correct?

Their half from the center line on their frontage.

Okay.

And as far as the rest of Trailwoods, that is really, I guess, unfortunately, kind of at the mercy of the NC DOT.

That's right.

Okay.

Any other counselor Silver and then Patrick?

Oh, I think that's a good question.

Sure.

Okay.

I don't know.

Um.

Okay.

So just building on Councilmember Branch's point.

Um, so if they submit a tier three-site plan and they are on the hook for the road improvements, can you just put a really fine point on it?

Who pays for those road improvements?

That would be their responsibility.

The applicant pays for it, right?

Um thank you.

And then can you speak to the crash, any crash cluster that is noted there?

Yes.

What's happening at that intersection?

So with all these rezoning requests on the corridor, we did uh pool crash data for trailwood from Avent Ferry all the way down to Tryon.

Um we did find that in general the rate of crashes is higher than the average what you would expect for a two-lane roadway.

Um most of those crashes are occurring at the intersections, the exception being this curve in the road.

And so we pulled data for the past five years.

Um there were 10 crashes at this curve in the road.

Um most of those were runoff the road crashes where traffic was traveling northbound.

Most of them were going over the speed limit and they ran off the road to the right.

Um fortunately, um there were no serious injuries involved with any of those.

So with the uh improvements, hopefully um, you know, the vertical separation that would come from curb and gutter, sidewalk and all of that um would bring some more visibility.

Um I'm not um totally prepared to say that would totally solve the problem of visibility, though.

So you think it's possible it would improve, but you're not not stating your career.

Most of the crashes are related to higher speeds coming up on that curve.

So having better visibility would help.

Um but of course, uh uh site plan as it came in.

Our development review team would be working with our vision zero team, um, bike and ped team, all these other people in our transportation department to make sure that safety is addressed in some way.

Thank you.

My next question is for the applicant, but do you have any more for staff?

No.

Um how about a question?

I got a statement, so I'll wait till I see.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead.

Of a staff?

Okay.

Um I have a question for Ms.

Stewart.

I read through this thoroughly.

Um and it's consistent, comprehensive plan, inconsistent future land use map.

You're meeting four of the five NCOD.

We have to make a finding that this is reasonable in the public interest.

Can you talk about that inconsistency and anything that through your conditions you are mitigating to show us that this is actually in the public interest and reasonable?

Sure, thank you.

Um there are several uh ways that that we've addressed that inconsistency.

So uh first I would like to point out that it is uh the smallest inconsistency possible with the future land use map going to the very next um category up to that moderate scale residential.

Um so the difference is quite minor.

The low-scale residential supports up to an R6 zoning.

We're requesting the very next district above that.

So it is truly as small as it can be.

Um in order to help offset that.

Um we definitely feel that um that beefing up those um those setbacks that the NCOD requires, you know, putting those in place, uh capping the units at 156, um, as well as uh you know simply uh making sure that this is truly affordable housing all come together to offset that.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions down here?

If not, I'll go back to uh Lambert Melton.

Do you want to for someone on the applicant team?

Um I just want to hear more about the relationship with the housing authority.

The sound like there's 39 deeply affordable units.

I'm curious about the unit split if that's known on the like the bedroom split.

Um and just kind of hearing more about that partnership.

That was my question as well.

Okay, so I'll introduce Landon Cox from LDG development.

Hi, good evening.

Um we're working to um still in the early stages of speaking with the housing authority, but we've both both sides um are moving toward a partnership at the project.

Um the housing authority would be providing 39 um project-based vouchers to the community, which are are are very helpful from an underwriting perspective.

Um you're right to say that there are some very uh there's deep uh low-income targeting here.

So eight of the 156 units, eight of those would be for families earning 20 percent AMI and below.

Um 31 units would be set aside for folks earning uh 30 percent AMI and below.

So altogether, 25 percent of the units will be reserved for folks making uh at or below 30 percent AMI.

Um then yet your question was about the the bedroom.

Yeah, for those deeply affordable units, do you know how many will be one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedrooms?

Sure.

So we we've spread them proportionally across the the AMI levels.

Um I should say um uh there will be folks earning 20, 30, 60, and 70 percent AMI that would live with the the community it would average to six year below.

Um three one bed for the folks earning twenty percent AMI, three one bedrooms, three two bedrooms, and two three bedrooms.

Um for the folks earning thirty percent AMI below, that would be uh nine one bedrooms, twelve two bedrooms, and ten three bedrooms.

So uh the same proportions are observed for all the the AMIs.

Thank you.

I mean if it's appropriate, I'd like I mean we have the CEO of Raleigh Housing Authority here.

I'd like for him to answer how you plan to partner with the development.

So good evening, uh Mayor and Council members.

Um my name is Ashley Law Miss Johnson, I'm the CEO of the Housing Authority.

Uh we are uh in the process of forming partnerships uh across the city with developers like uh LDG to uh ensure that our clients and uh can live in places across the city and not uh in areas of concentrated uh poverty, and this is a huge uh opportunity for the housing authority and the folks that we serve.

So uh we will be providing uh uh the project-based vouchers that uh will provide very deep affordability.

So while there are 20 percent, 30 percent units, and 50 percent units, one of our clients may move into a 50 percent unit, but they will be able to pay you know based on their own income, even if it's 10 percent of area median income.

So this is a much needed resource, so those uh area median income levels uh, you know, they are part of the tax credit program, but when you have a voucher, you pay whatever is 30 percent of your adjusted income on rent.

I have a question for Ashley while you are here.

Um just curious with those vouchers, um, can they be provided like at for with any apartment complex?

Like what is the criteria?

Um is it existing developments or only new developments?

Um because there's only a certain number of vouchers, correct?

Yeah.

So all of the above, it can be for you know new and and uh existing uh properties.

Uh so these uh the housing authority uh uh auth is authorized to uh serve or use uh just over 4,000 uh vouchers uh unfortunately over time.

The funding for those vouchers can't actually uh support all four all 4,000, but we are uh close to the 4,000 mark.

We can project base tie the vouchers to uh units uh weekend project base, up to 30 percent of the vouchers that we have, so uh 1,200.

However, these vouchers that we are talking about here are vouchers that we will uh receive uh once as we convert our public housing uh under a demonstration program uh where we will uh the subsidy will be replaced with vouchers.

So these would be an additional, you know, up to 1,0100 additional vouchers that uh that can be project-based, meaning that we can attach the subsidy uh to the to the property rather than the tenant.

Uh so uh in addition to that, one of the important pieces of this demonstration program is that these are long-term uh basically for the life of uh the property that gets developed that we can uh so we have to make those commitments and our partner has to make the commitment that these uh uh project-based subsidies uh will never uh go away unless you know the When you say never, do you is there a term on that?

Uh it will be uh initial 20-year term and then uh a required second 20-year term and uh then beyond that also.

So the affordability is but every 20 years renewable.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Councilor Fort, do you want to make your statement?

This is not a question, so you can you don't have to stand there for that.

You probably don't want to hear what I got to say, so you probably don't want to stand there.

I will say since I've been on council, there have been a number of projects that have been proposed on trailwood.

Most of them have been market rate, um, and they have been turned down or denied by the council for variety of reasons.

The traffic issue was one.

Um, but the the larger issue for me has always been environmental issues, particularly as it relates to stormwater.

Um I can't tell you how many times I've driven by the method, daycare that's at the intersection of trailwood and avent ferry and seeing it underwater because there's been so much storm water in the area.

Um so often what happens when folks can't get market rate stuff approved, they come and dangle the affordable housing carrot in front of us and say, well, we're going to put affordable housing here, so that should give you the impetus to approve the project.

Um I have historically not supported projects on trailwood just based on the environmental impacts and the other issues, and so I just want to put that out there that previous councils have denied a variety of market rate development based on challenges with this particular area.

So I'm not necessarily swayed, though I know how important affordable housing is to the City of Raleigh, but I also recognize what the challenges are on trailwood, and those challenges to me have not changed in the last six or seven years since I've been on council.

Yeah, I've just got a few comments as well.

Um I believe we're being asked to vote on this today because of the timing around this proposal for affordable housing.

And I will say I wish we had at least one more meeting to ensure some of the promises that have been made here.

If I could see those in conditions, I would like that.

Um I know some concerns could be addressed, others probably can't.

Um of the concerns I do have is the low-scale residential, this being inconsistent with the future land use map.

Also the gap financing is not secured yet.

So the affordable housing that is being requested is going to request funds from the city.

We won't know whether those have been secured, I think, until later in the month, or I'm not sure when.

As far as the partnership with RHA, I think that is wonderful.

I would love to see that.

I'd also like to see a condition around it.

Currently the conditions read a 60% AMI, so we don't have that deeply affordable part here.

Um also there are no sidewalks that connect this site to the bus areas on Avon Ferry or down the road off of Trailwood.

So even with sidewalks with a bike lane built because of this development, we don't get the connectivity.

And this road, I find it dangerous from a pedestrian and bicyclist standpoint.

It's a road I wouldn't recommend someone on.

I do cross it frequently on the greenway, and it's where people are coming pretty fast.

They come down the hill, they come around the bend, and I am careful.

I watch out because I do not expect them to stop, and unfortunately they go quite fast.

So I do appreciate the improvements that could be made at that corner.

Um I just know there's more that would have to be done, I think, for it to be truly safe.

One other condition I would love to see is that I appreciate all the NCOD uh mimicry.

I think that's great.

Um, but having the trees in front would be something that could be added right now, the frontage, that setback, you could have a parking lot there.

It does have a picture I know in the design we saw to keep the tree conservation area in the front on trailwood.

That would be great, but it's not conditioned.

So this area um as council member Fort noted is environmentally sensitive.

It is a wildlife corridor, it does drain into the walnut creek.

So just a couple improvements I'd love to see.

Um at this time, I'm not gonna support the case.

Any other comments?

I'll make I'll make one, which is um I did go out to the site and I um this is a really this area is an anomaly, right?

It is a um old rural right has been uh in a county um and is basically a rural road right in the middle of an incredible um dense urban area with a major university just steps away from it.

And um to me, uh I know uh we've talked about environment.

I none of this is on a floodplain.

All of this is um, I think an incredible site to get to distributed housing in an area that does not have concentrated housing, and as the number one goal of this council is affordable housing.

Um to me, given the location, the access, um, I will be supporting this.

Uh I'll add a comment too.

Um, I will agree.

Um for me, this being a hundred percent affordable project does does tilt the scale.

Um there was a comment earlier about students.

Um students who need a place to live.

Uh 60 percent AMI is typically folks that are coming out of college, young professionals, they need housing.

Um this is being conditioned to 150 something units, so less than I think they could have gotten by right for a full R 10 rezoning.

Um we've heard the commitment and the plan specific units, particularly three bedrooms for folks at deeply, deeply affordable.

I mean, those are families that are probably living in shelters or on the street.

Um I don't think this project is gonna make the traffic much worse on Drawwood.

I don't think it's gonna make it much better.

Um but we're gonna be able to house a lot more people here.

The students, the folks who are unsheltered, the folks that are probably living in in uh in temporary shelter spaces, and I I just can't and good I cannot vote it down.

So I'll be voting yes.

Okay.

Yes.

I rarely come to a hearing with an undecided uh in my notes.

And I wanted to hear the testimony, and I have to say uh this is one case where I'm uh struggling.

Uh I a lot to the benefit of this case.

Uh I agree providing affordable housing at a variety of levels.

The fact that it's going to be set back, not conditioned, but set back with a buffer of trees where it cannot be seen.

Uh four of the five NCOD criterion is moving forward.

Uh in terms of my concern, uh, I agree with Mayor Pro Tem uh that if we're gonna have a frequent treasant area, I would like the connectivity to that transit area.

So this is putting pressure over time in.

The applicant will build out uh their section.

Uh so I am still trying to decide how I'm going to vote on this one because there are aspects of it that I see extremely positive.

Uh there are other ones, and like as Mayor Pro Tem said, uh we need a decision today.

So I am still processing uh what my vote is going to be.

Uh to me that there are both pros and cons to this.

Uh I do believe as uh the applicant's representative said, uh there is a small uh difference between the R6 and the R 10 and uh the conditions um and other benefits bring it closer.

So uh I will see how the votes go, and I will I'll let you know in about a few minutes how I'm gonna decide.

I think it's gonna be a few seconds about to call to question.

Did you close the hearing already?

Uh everything's been closed.

Any other comments or statements?

Okay.

So on you do the annexation first.

Uh for the annexation, I move to approve the annexation with the effective date of April 7, 2026.

Second.

All in favor of the annexation.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Okay.

So two no's.

Um and then rezoning.

Yes.

Um I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 7th, 2026, contained in the agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoptive adoption and effective dates described in the agenda item under recommended action.

This approval is also deemed amendment to the future land use map map to the extent described in the adopted consistency statement.

Second.

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Okay.

So that's a five-three vote and that passes.

Um thanks to everybody who came down for that.

All right.

Uh next we've got um text change.

I'm just making sure I'm on the right.

Yeah, text chain TCZ 1425.

This is on New South New Hope Road.

Matthew Klem, thank you.

Yep.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Matthew Clem, planning and development.

Uh so this is a request to rezone about 60 acres.

Uh it's a text change to rezoning, uh, excuse me, text change to zoning conditions, so the base districts and heights aren't changing.

Uh as you can see on the screen, the planning commission recommends approval 8 to 1.

The request is consistent with the future land use map and the comprehensive plan.

Um overall, this is a request to reduce commercial entitlement and increase residential entitlement.

And I'll talk about uh specifically um what that looks like.

Um so this is the site.

You can see it is undeveloped.

Uh it comprises three tracks.

Uh it's in the old town subdivision.

You can see uh to the north, uh east, and south, uh newly developed townhouses, uh detached homes, and uh apartment homes as well.

That's at the intersection of uh Rotquoy Road and South New Hope Road.

A couple of views uh on the site.

This is from New Hope.

Uh this is internal on Animosa.

You can see uh in the distance the tract under rezoning.

You can see it's undeveloped uh and it has some fill uh dirt placed there from the new construction you see on the left side of the screen.

Um another view uh at a stub street here uh with some townhomes, um, and just four more views of the recent construction.

So there are uh several rezoning conditions.

The first prohibits uh number of uses.

Uh the second limits residential development to the attached house, townhouse, and apartment building type, so no mixed-use building type.

Uh non-residential uses are limited to 285,000 square feet.

Uh the existing zoning limits it to 360,000 square feet.

So it goes down from 360 to 285.

Uh condition number four puts in place uh some phasing.

What this says is once 75,000 square feet of non-residential use is developed, no additional non-residential square footage uh can be uh delivered until a uh site plan or a plan with a grocery store is submitted and approved to the city.

So they could build up to 75,000 square feet of commercial, no more commercial until there's a plan for a grocery store.

Uh additional limits on commercial use here.

Uh 2231 South New Hope Road, which is uh this site.

Is limited to uh nine buildings containing no more than 75,000 square feet uh containing exclusively restaurant uses.

A building height is limited to four stories within 150 feet of uh the streets listed here, Anamosa, uh Adasign, and Arcosa Drive.

Uh all required shade trees planted are required to have a caliper of three and a half inches.

Um buildings containing barred nightclubs uh are and taverns are required to be uh at least 250 feet away from properties uh on the adjacent streets.

Um nine is another condition that puts into place some phasing.

So it says no more than 450 residential units can be built until a plan containing a grocery store is submitted and approved, at which point 625 can be built.

So the existing zoning limits development to 450,000 square feet.

What this condition is saying is they can build up to 450,000, which they can do today.

Uh no additional units can be built until there's a grocery store plan submitted and approved, at which point a total of 625.

So an additional 175 residential units.

Uh condition number 10 uh provides for 12 and a half percent of the site to be set aside as open area.

Uh the condition is long and um details what exactly that means.

Um the intent here is clearly to have additional open area that would otherwise be required compared to the amenity space and tree conservation area uh requirements of our unified development ordinance.

Um the applicant may have additional information about how exactly they plan to facilitate that.

Um and I can walk you through um uh the challenges of saying exactly what that means at this stage in development because of how and when uh amenity area and tree conservation area are calculated.

Um and the final condition is um states that the type one protective yard uh shall not be used to satisfy any neighborhood transition requirements.

Um just so you know, when protective yards are required, you have three options.

They've said they won't use the smallest one.

So one of these other two are on the table for them.

Uh just a look at the change of entitlement again 58.

Uh 65 acres.

Existing residential entitlement is 450.

The request goes up to 625 when those timed qualifiers and the zoning condition are met.

Uh, and the reduction of commercial entitlement goes down from 360,000 to 285,000.

Uh consistent with the future land use map, the comprehensive plan.

Um, inconsistent with the urban form map, uh consistent policies here about um more compact development, increasing housing in the area, uh zoning for housing, and managing commercial development impacts by providing the spacing requirements uh from the bar tavern uh use and also the prohibition of the smallest protective yard allowed by our code.

And also the prohibition of the smallest protective yard allowed by our code.

Zon get infrastructure impacts, uh response time standards are not met in the area and it is uh inconsistent with the frontage condition.

The planning commission recommends approval, uh, and this is their statement.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Questions, Counselor Silver.

Can you just go over the inconsistency with the urban form map?

Yes.

Yeah.

So Rock Quarry Road is identified on the urban form map as a transit emphasis corridor.

And when properties are touching or adjacent to streets with that designation, our comprehensive plan recommends an urban frontage.

What that would do would require any new building to be built, like snugged up in this corner.

The applicants can speak to why they chose not to include that.

I believe it is likely due to the shape and geometry of the parcel in that location.

Um but it there's no frontage uh requested in the resigning request.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Clem?

Yeah, Counselor Pott.

So just in summation 75,000 of non-residential uses, and then they have to stop and put in a grocery store.

And or for 450 residential units, then they have to stop and put in the grocery store before they can keep going to the 625.

Yep, is that right?

Okay.

Okay.

Anyway, it will speak.

All right.

Okay.

So I will go ahead and um open the public hearing uh for TCZ 1425.

And we have one person signed up in support, Amy Kraut.

Eight minutes.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

My name is Amy Kraut.

I'm an attorney at Smith Anderson.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant with members are of our development team in support of this text change to zoning conditions requests.

Staff did a great job outlining what those changes are.

I'm really here to kind of give you the why behind them.

Um these part parcels are a part of the larger old town project.

This site was actually rezoned with those conditions in 2019 and currently allows up to 450 residential units and 360 square foot of commercial.

So we're not starting with a completely blank slate here.

The purpose of this request is really just to tweak those conditions to help facilitate development of a site that sat vacant for 20 years as everything else has grown up around it.

Um that to say our revised conditions are an attempt to balance the history of the site, the need for flexibility to encourage future development, and also a desire to meet the neighbors kind of concerns and feedback.

The main purpose of our changes is really to increase residential density to facilitate development of grocery store.

The biggest conversation for the development of this site has really been trying to get a higher-end grocery store on the property since there is limited variety of groceries in the area.

While there's been some interest in the site, um there hasn't been a commitment.

And since 2019, based on one of our conversations with grocers, one of the biggest issues and one of the things that they look at is high density areas and increased residential density immediately nearby the proposed site.

So to help provide what grocers are looking for, we revised a couple of the conditions adopted in 2019.

Condition number two, we revised to allow more flexibility in the type of development.

So it allows a mix of residential building types and removes the two-bedroom unit cap.

That's a really big deal because in today's market, most, if not all residential developers need the ability to develop three or four bedroom um units.

And then condition number nine increases the number of the units on the property from 450 to 625.

This is actually a decrease from what we originally proposed at Planning Commission.

We dropped it from 650 to 625.

Um but again, it only allows those additional 175 units with the approval of a site plan for a grocery store.

We're trying to tie this to the development of the grocery store.

These changes really are here to help us attract the residential builders and provide the rooftops to get a higher-end grocery store on site.

Also just kind of wanted to note in response to some of neighbors' concerns.

Any residential development on the site will have its own pool or clubhouse, so it's not going to be using the old town subdivision facilities.

We also updated our conditions throughout the process to address other parts of community feedback.

Part of that is right sizing the commercial development that would be primarily located along New Hub and Rock Quarry for what's appropriate to the area.

So for example, in condition one, we added back in medical uses that would allow like a pharmacy with a minute clinic.

That was based on some community feedback we received.

Condition three reduces that commercial from 360,000 to 285.

We actually think that's more appropriate for a grocery anchored commercial development for the size of that property.

And then again, we're tying this was in the previous conditions, but we're tying development, commercial development to grocery store.

So only 75,000 units until there's a site plan for a grocery store approved.

In terms of the old town subdivision in particular, if you look on the map on the screen, there's that yellow highlighted line.

We updated the zoning conditions to just be really clear and add some additional setbacks.

So any buildings within 150 feet of that line have to be limited to four stories, even though zoning allows up to five.

It also increases the setback for bars, taverns, nightclubs from I think it was 100 feet to 250 feet.

And we added that additional open area for the net site area.

That was a request specifically from planning commission.

They wanted to see a little bit more of the property preserved.

In terms of the neighborhood transition condition, we also added this one at Planning Commission.

We heard a desire from the community members to have a 50-foot setback along the property lines.

So we did our best to accommodate this request while maintaining flexibility for future development of the site.

So we would have to have a protective yard to meet neighborhood transition requirements.

And this condition commits to a type 2 or type 3 yard.

This gets us close to what neighbors asked for as there's already a 20-foot kind of buffer between the townhomes to the south of HOA property and on the east.

There's already greenscape parking and a road that averages anywhere from 50 to 150 feet between the property line and the and any of the townhome lots.

So here we're trying to meet those concerns while providing flexibility.

We want to be conscious of the conditions that we add.

There's no site plan contemplated for this property yet, and various factors like location of easements could further affect the developable area.

So under the current approved uses, we're about 21,627 daily trips.

These proposed uses drops that down to 20,791.

So it is a reduction in overall traffic impact, and that's our own independent analysis.

The staff report finds the same thing.

We just note that that area along Rock Quarry, so it's less than about 50 feet long that triggers that requirement.

And given the shape of the site and the major transmission line that runs through it, we just wanted to be careful again about allowing for flex flexibility of development in the future.

Overall, we think that this request is consistent with the goals for the site.

It's reasonable and in the public interest as it meets the neighbors' concerns and maintains some flexibility for us.

We really want to see this site developed, and we think this helps us get one step closer to developing this vacant site.

As such, we ask for your support and are here to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll move to the um opposition.

We have three people signed up, uh, sign up.

I'll ad I'll yes.

Sorry, Merit.

Just to make a clarification, and I believe Ms.

Crow made that clear.

Uh, the zoning condition regarding timing and the delivery of a grocery store is tied to administrative site review.

So what that means is uh an applicant team or developer team would submit plans for review.

Um, and it's likely at that time in the development process that they would have an anchor tenant identified to deliver a grocery store.

But there is some um some outcome of qualifying for the condition by submitting and getting an ASR approved that a grocery store may actually not be delivered.

I think that would be an exceptional outlier knowing what we know about who is involved in a project at the time of ASR, but just a clarification for you to consider.

Thank you.

Okay.

So now resetting the clock to eight minutes, and we have Zyna Aladina, Dev, Mash Ruala, and Katie Lee.

Good morning, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Zainab Alidina, and I'm speaking on behalf of many residents of the Old Town community, which sits directly next to this purpose development.

I'm also the HOA president for Trace at Old Town, but I'm here as an individual.

First, I want to emphasize that our neighborhood is very engaged in this process.

The two neighborhood meetings for this rezoning each had about 50 to 60 residents in attendance.

And many of us are here today.

Raise your hand if you're here for our old town.

Yep.

We're all here for that.

All right, so this level of participation shows you how much people care about the outcome of this project and how we will shape our community for years to come.

I also want to acknowledge that the developer has made several improvements based on neighborhood feedback, and we really do appreciate that.

These are all meaningful um steps, and we thank the applicants for listening.

Um, however, reducing the project by 25 units does not meaningfully change the overall impact.

Under the original zoning conditions, the site allowed 450 apartments, each limited to two bedrooms.

That meant the original plan anticipated about 900 bedrooms.

Under the current proposal, there are no bedroom limits, and the project would now include 625 units.

Even assuming an average of three bedrooms per unit, that's a hundred and uh eighteen hundred more bedrooms.

So roughly double the residency intensity originally contemplated for this site.

This translates into significantly more residents, more cars, more pressure on the roads, utilities, and service in the area of Southeast Raleigh that already struggles with infrastructure and amenities.

So our community understands that development will happen here, and we're not asking to stop it, but we are asking for a reasonable compromise.

We really do want this grocery store, but it shouldn't come at the expense of everybody living in that area.

Um we asked that the project be cape capped at 550 units.

That still allows a hundred more units than the original zoning permitted while keeping growth at a level that our infrastructure has a better chance of supporting.

It is a fair middle ground between the developer's request and the original entitlement.

We believe this approach allows the project to move forward but while respecting the needs of the existing community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Good morning, or good evening, council members.

Sorry, I've been at work all day.

Um myself and many others in the Trace at Old Town neighborhood are an extreme uh opposal of these rezoning changes.

Uh the first is the increase in apartment numbers.

Uh when I looked today, there were over 70 uh vacant apartments within a two-mile radius of the uh Trace at Old Town neighborhood.

All of them are within um the reasonable price around that area.

Uh some of them were open for more than 30 days or more, and the longest one that I saw had been open for over 70 days without a um tenant.

Within five miles of our neighborhood, there's already three city-funded affordable rental developments indicating that there is already a saturation of subsidized housing in and around our area.

More apartments will not solve Raleigh's current housing issue, as the issue is not that the space does not exist, but rather that the developers and landlords of the space have priced these homes out of reach of average income families.

There will never be enough space until the developers are held accountable and rent caps are imposed on areas where housing is most urgently needed, which is also where the empty space is more prevalent.

Once that has been accomplished, then the discussion of additional units can be raised.

As it is, Raleigh's vacancy rate is already significantly above the recommended healthy vacancy rate of 5 to 8 percent, with our city sitting at 11.8%, which is higher than both the national and state average.

There is no evidence-based fact-supported reason for any additional apartments in our area that amounts to anything other than corporate greed.

Southeast Raleigh is also a historically high crime area of Raleigh, with the majority of those crimes being property related.

Our most recent crime score was an F.

We advised a community watch program and close relationships with the RPD just to try and manage the significant property crimes having happening every year in our neighborhood alone, most of which are vandalization, break-ins, and destruction of property.

Additional vacancies, which is likely given the already high vacancy percentage, will lead to increased petty crimes and lack of both perceived and actual safety, reducing long-term investment opportunity and driving out already established residents.

As Mr.

Klem very well pointed out, there is no solid breakdown guarantee of a grocery store.

The developer said that this is because they are looking for population density, which is interesting because we are actually classified by the FDA as a food desert.

So I'm curious to know why we would be unqualified for a grocery store if we are classified by the government as a food desert.

This is nothing but an underhanded delay tactic and a way for the developers to wiggle out of making less profit because retail is not as profitable as apartments.

So they would like to cut that out entirely.

And that's one way that they can do it.

Southeast Raleigh is also predominantly a minority area with African Americans and Hispanic families.

Our medium house price is low compared to the four closest zip codes around us, and it is $200,000 lower of the average income.

Excuse me, sorry, the median house price is $200,000 lower than the four closest zip codes, and the average income is 100,000 lower.

Is it this council's desire to continue to see people of color once again push to the side in favor of making sure big bank developers are happy?

As um the councilwoman very elegantly pointed out earlier.

A lot of uh developments have been proposed over the years, and they were opposed because of transportation or other infrastructure issues.

If those infrastructure issues haven't been fixed, which they haven't, and they weren't good enough for the buyers that were paying full price, why are they good enough for affordable housing?

Why do we continue to push Raleigh's poorest residents into the least developed parts of our city?

I I ask you council to think carefully about the answer to that question before you take your vote and understand whose side you're on when you do.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Dev Mashwala.

I also live in the old town community next to this proposed uh development, and um I'm also the HOA vice president, but I am here as a concerned citizen.

Um our neighborhood has been very engaged in this process, and while we appreciate the adjustments that have been made, uh we do not believe that they accurately reflect two of the concerns that we face today, which are traffic and safety.

So starting with traffic, since January 1st of 2024, the intersection at South New Hope Road and Rockware Road has experienced 57 accidents, and there's been an additional eight accidents at the intersection of Annamosa Street and South New Hope, which is 65 accidents in just over two years.

For a context, a typical intersection see is about five to fifteen per year.

So this has far exceeded um you know that average.

Adding more residential units, we believe will increase traffic, congestion, and just conflicts at intersections that are already unsafe.

But beyond traffic, personal safety concerns have also been a paramount issue amongst residents.

Our area's crime score has rapidly dropped from a B to an F in 2024 and has remained there for two years, which also reflects growing concerns.

We are already seeing the effects of increased turnover and instability in old town and surrounding areas where residents are noticing more frequent safety issues.

And the rapid increases in dense or rapid increases in density without matching infrastructure can lead to higher residential turnover, making it harder to maintain long-term community stability, an important factor in overall safety.

Um Southeast Raleigh already has far more density than inf than the infrastructure supports.

We're currently dealing with a um ton of stormwater and sewage issues, and as Katie pointed, this area is currently currently classified as a food desert.

That's actually why the rezoning for Z1125, which is directly across the street, was um denied due to its location in a floodplain and with major stormwater and sewage infrastructure concerns.

And these are just not isolated issue um issues.

At the last planning commission um event, um Commissioner Omakai actually stated that these rezonings need to be evaluated as a collective, not in a vacuum because all of their issues end up comp uh compounding, and it's important to note that she was the only one who was twice opposed to this rezoning.

During the last uh sorry, and we do understand that this is already a mixed-use proposal, but this rezoning shifts the balance further towards residential and increases the one.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I will close the hearing and let me start with them if they have questions.

Start down here.

Okay.

Um applicant.

Uh after hearing from the speakers.

It sounds like there's still a lot of community consternation.

The one specific uh request that I drew out of those is a request to see the uh that delta on the new residential entitlement be limited to 550.

Is that something you've spoken with the residents about?

Have you considered that?

Would would you consider that?

Etc.

Thank you for your question.

It was something that was brought up at Planning Commission and we did reduce from 650 to 625.

Um we're, you know, here to hear the council's concerns and and take on that.

But I do think, you know, here we're going from 450 to 625.

We have already reduced and we're still tying it to the development of the grocery store.

Um what we've heard is really from the higher end grocers is you know, the denser the better to attract.

So thank you.

Questions?

I asked staff about the inconsistency with the urban format.

I did read the section in terms of being on a potential uh transit corridor.

So can you just speak to that in consistency on the urban format?

Sure.

So with the urban format, it does propose some type of urban frontage.

I think here, you know the only piece of our property that aligns with Rock Quarry is less than 50 feet wide.

So it is a very small portion of it.

There's also just the transmission line that's on the site, a limited developable area.

Um, in order to kind of protect kind of future development, we didn't want to try to track craft a condition that limited it in the future for such a small area.

The transmission line, can we pull up the map just so I can see the location of the transmission line?

So it's the highlighted area in blue.

So you have this developable area, but really the only thing that's triggering that weren't urban format is this very tiny strip right here.

Thank you.

So um before you step away, I'm sure you and Matthew kind of got me a little bit confused.

What grocery store are you trying to get?

Because I know further up on Barwell, there's a food line and there's another food line on the other end of Rock Quarry.

So what grocery store are you trying to attract?

So our goal is to provide a a variety in the area, and we do know that there are several food lines around.

So preferably uh a higher end grocery store or a different type of grocery store for the area.

But you haven't you don't have anything secured with any particular we don't, because all of them have looked at us and you know, in our conversations have really wanted that increased residential density on site.

So we've had interest, but we don't have commitments yet.

Okay.

That's why we're here.

Couple questions.

Um first question I have is um one of the opposition, they mentioned affordable housing as far as apartments.

Are these affordable housing rental or is this market rate?

Yeah, so we don't have necessarily all of our um multifamily developers lined up with, so we're still open to what that looks like on the site.

But you don't have anyone lined up to provide any affordable housing at the same time.

I think we're talking to both, but um nothing fully secured at this point.

Um what has delayed this project so far?

Because this rezoning happened in 2019 and I have been pushing for a grocery store forever over here, even before these residents moved in.

So what's delayed the grocery store?

Our development overall.

Sure.

So I think part of the grocery store is just trying to secure the commitment, the need for that residential density.

Um I think overall, you know, there are some other issues on site in terms of like stormwater management and development.

We have a cooperative development agreement with the overall old town subdivision.

And so one of the things that we're trying to figure out is getting a stormwater pond, because under that agreement, um these property owners can't build it.

It's um someone else's responsibility.

So we're also working through that um to make sure that this development does happen, because my clients, the applicant, that's what they want.

They want to put the grocery store in.

They want to kind of meet the request of of council here.

Okay.

Is who's here from stormwater?

I can't everyone's blaming it.

Can you speak to the issue they are having with the stormwater?

At least from a city perspective.

Good evening.

Uh yes.

So um there is another developer that is building the stormwater devices for these lots.

Is it the same developer that built all the other residential?

I believe so.

Okay.

Holly company.

Yeah.

Okay.

Holly Company.

And so uh those uh those uh permits have been issued and we're just waiting for construction for those stormwater management devices to begin.

How long have those permits been issued?

Uh I would say at least five months now.

Okay.

Okay.

So we're just waiting for them to start on the infrastructure so that stormwater piece can be addressed.

That's correct.

Because even if this were to be approved, if the stormwater part isn't done, they still can't move forward.

Is that correct?

Correct.

They wouldn't be able to get COs on any of the future buildings here, like without the storm devices in place.

So it's not they don't have to wait to start construction on these on the storm devices, but the stormwater devices need to be complete by the time they are getting to the certificate of occupancy level.

So thank you.

And um and I know I think it was XANUP, you mentioned president of the HOA.

Are you president of HOA or Halley Company?

Okay.

So can you speak to the Sorry?

No, that's fine.

So you're president of the townhome.

Yes, that's the townhome, it's not the master.

That's still Eric from Haley Group.

Okay.

So the master HOA is who is over this stormwater connection.

They are doing the stormwater side of things, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Is anyone here from Halley?

I guess not.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um.

So that's one thing, it sounds like it's been delayed.

And I will share this.

Um, I have a classmate way back from high school before this was developed, before Halley did their part, I asked the question what's taking so long to get grocery stores developed.

And one of the things in just retail period, and one of the things he shared with me was rooftops.

And when they talk about rooftops, they also talk about disposable income as far as those rooftops.

Um that's one of the reasons why.

And I think from talking to these residents, when we talk about affordable housing and things, we want to see a mix.

No one wants to see everything isolated in one area.

You don't want to see it all over in in District A, we don't want to see it all over in District C.

So I think that's the thing that here I know I've been trying to balance, I've been trying to push.

This was supposed to have been a golf community that was built in 2007.

Um the economy crashed.

Um when the economy crashed, this went into foreclosure.

When it went into foreclosure, 2015 was when it was finally sold to Halle Company who built all the residential town homes and those other apartments, 366 apartments that are on the corner of Rock Rari.

Waiting on Toll Brothers to build some senior housing, well, residential housing in the back.

Um, and then we have the previous rezoning case across the street.

There's a creek there.

It didn't make sense to put residential there when the biggest thing, the biggest push that everybody has had and everyone has been pushing in this community is more retail.

They're tired.

I love my neighboring communities, but they're tired of having to leave the community to go to a grocery store, to go to a pharmacy, all of those things.

So now we're at a mix.

The question is we have an opportunity to move forward, and there are changes.

The question is, will these changes foster that growth and that development?

If I had a crystal ball, I would tell you the answer.

But I don't.

But one thing I can say is I know the work in the labor that goes all the way back to when Councilmember James West was sitting up here trying to get this property, trying to get something developed in this community, and it continued on to Councilmember Weeks.

And now here I am.

And I'm sorry.

I I this has to move forward.

It it needs to move forward while I'm still here.

So before I say anything else, I will leave it.

See, Councilman Silver is there.

But you know, we have to find a way to figure out you know, how do we get Southeast Raleigh out of that food desert to reflect the other parts of this community and other the city?

You know, I'm a product.

I I didn't move here.

I was born here.

I was born here.

And I've seen the challenges.

I've seen the the things.

We talk about income and crime rates.

They look at the district.

Actually, district C crime rate has gone down compared to our other districts.

Is it still too hot?

Yes.

It's way too high.

It's way too high.

I know the challenges.

I've met with these residents.

I've been over there a number of times to talk about the issues that they are having.

The issue, some of the issues they are having, it doesn't matter what we do here for some of those issues.

But we're still trying to work and we're still trying to address them.

So that's where I stand and at the appropriate time, I'm going to make a motion to approve.

Okay.

Counselor Silver.

I want to uh amplify uh what Councilmember Branch has just stated.

Uh probably have a long history with this project as well.

But for people to understand and what the applicants said about having rooftops and council members said it as well.

When you look at a supermarket, people look at a trade area.

They draw a circle.

And within that circle, they want to determine how much income can be generated to support a grocery store so it does not close after a short period of a time.

If there's less disposable income, that circle gets larger.

And then it starts to overlap with other circles from other supermarkets.

And so you do need the density to support it.

So that's one of the reasons I am going to support this case because that is true.

There are many places that have multiple supermarkets in the close distance.

The disposable income is higher.

So you'll see over every quarter of a mile a supermarket.

That is not the case in Southeast, and having more residential units will give the best likelihood of not just a supermarket opening or grocery store that it's staying open.

Also about the consistency, which to me is very important.

After hearing uh reading both the staff report and hearing the applicant talk about uh the side conditions, having an urban frontage uh at this location uh probably would not be in the best interest at this time.

And so I too, uh, when a time comes as a motion, I will be supporting this case.

Any other comments?

If you all want to make a motion.

I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 7th, 2026, containing in agenda materials and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates to scribe and the agenda items under recommended action.

Second.

All in favor of the motion?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

So that is unanimous.

All right.

Thank you all.

All right.

Uh we will move on to Z 2925 Trailwood Drive again, uh, but separate case.

Matthew Clem.

Yep.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um this is a request to rezone uh 2.8 acres from residential four with the special uh residential parking overlay to residential 10 uh conditional use with the special residential parking overlay district.

Uh the planning commission recommends approval 8 to 0.

This is consistent with the future land use map and the comprehensive plan overall.

This is the site.

Here we are again on Trailwood Drive.

You can see AB Ferry to the north, Centennial Campus and Lake Raleigh to the east, uh, Walnut Creek Greenway uh runs kind of here.

Um a couple of views on the site.

Uh it's currently developed with uh uh single house.

The conditions on this case prohibit uh the uses listed in condition number one.

The apartment building type is prohibited.

Uh residential development is limited to 32 dwelling units.

Um these two conditions deal with uh the property adjacent to the south.

So the first condition uh states that for uh depth of 200 feet into the site, uh a minimum building setback of uh 20 feet shall be developed uh adjacent to the properties of the South.

And I know that the applicant has a um diagram showing what that looks like.

Um not I can draw it here in a minute.

Um five uh similarly addresses the property to the South.

It says for the first 300 feet of lot depth, uh there shall be a uh increased landscaping along the southern property line.

Uh and there's a planting schedule for that in the zoning conditions.

Uh these next conditions uh deal with light spillage, uh pole mounted lighting uh on the property uh to reduce uh light spill.

So the rezoning request would increase the permitted density from 24 units to 32 units.

Uh and there are some changes to the setbacks as well, going from the R4 to the R 10 district.

Consistent with the low-scale residential designation on the future land use map and can uh consistent with the urban form map as well.

Um R10 is consistent with low-scale residential when it is in uh frequent transit areas.

So the property farther to the south was inconsistent with the future land use map and the R10 zoning.

This one is consistent because it is with close walking distance uh to frequent transit along Avon Ferry Road.

Consistent policies here about increasing development capacity uh in the city uh and specifically uh capitalizing on transit access, um, more info compatibility uh and zoning for housing policies referenced here.

Um sorry, uh inconsistent with zoning and infrastructure impacts and uh response time standards.

Um this is the planning commission's recommendation for approval.

Okay.

Questions for Mr.

Clemens.

Yeah.

I am trying to understand the future land use consistency.

In the staff report, you're saying that R6 is normally the limit, but if there's an RX3 in a core transit area, I thought it also said in the staff report, because there's no sidewalk connectivity, it is not accessible to transit.

So I'm just trying to reconcile the statement of the staff report about the it does say close to a greenway, uh, but for this one too, it said that uh there's no sidewalk connection.

They will build it on the front end of their property, but the balance of uh trailwood would not be there.

And I'm trying to I mean, I was going to ask a question about the greenway, but you're showing it here on the map, but your line went in for a different direction.

So I'm just trying to square that uh about the future land use consistency, and then with the frequent transit area, just like the previous case, you you you can't walk to the transit stop.

Right.

There are no sidewalks there today.

Um there are sidewalks existing here connecting to the greenway.

As this property to the north develops, sidewalks will be developed or delivered by the developer at that time.

So based on its proximity to the transit infrastructure, it is uh an appropriate level of density as far as the comprehensive plan is concerned.

Um over time, as these properties develop, there will be more sidewalk infrastructure delivered.

So the idea is that the plan is providing a long-term vision for how things grow and change over time.

Um, because we have a limited ability to do these types of improvements on NCDOT roads, as these properties develop, we get infrastructure delivered um by those developments.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Not I will open the public hearing.

Uh we have three people signed up in support, Worth Mills, Ross Massey, and Jen Truman.

Good evening, Mayor.

Council members Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners.

I'm here on behalf of Arya Esgari.

Uh he is the owner of the two lots.

He's a rallied resident and a local builder.

Ross Massey, Director of Civil Engineering with SWIFT Partners is also here to answer questions.

I want to focus too on the uh discussion about sidewalk connectivity.

The two properties uh that look forested undeveloped uh to our north are currently um under a pending rezoning request, that is Z3825.

Those two properties were rezone R6 uh a couple of years ago, and the uh the applicant has refiled a new application to rezone those properties and one more across Carlwood to RX3.

Um that being said, I think there is a clear intent of that property owner who again owns both of those properties to eventually develop that property, whether it be for their existing R6 zoning or their requested RX3 zoning.

Uh and so our expectation is that either sort of simultaneous or shortly thereafter, uh, if our rezoning case is approved, that there will be some cohesive sidewalk network, at least from our southern boundary, spanning the length, the the western length of trailwood that will then connect you both uh to Avon Ferry and also to the Walnut Creek uh Greenway Trail.

I want to highlight a couple of things about the existing conditions.

The property was subdivided in 2009.

This is a sort of enhanced blown-up version of the subdivision plat.

Just wanting to highlight that there is existing uh tree tree conservation area along our southwest corner as well as secondary tree conservation area along our frontage of Trailwood Drive.

This is the existing Trailwood NCOD.

Again, the the previous case that you heard was sort of right in the middle of the overlay district.

Our property is not in the overlay district.

We do have that special residential parking overlay district, but I just wanted to highlight sort of where the Trailwood NCOD is in relation uh to our request.

And as uh Matt mentioned, we are within uh frequent transit area.

Uh I think both from the urban thoroughfare transit influence corridor designation on Avant Ferry as well as the designation uh along Gorman Road.

So we have um you know high frequency bus travel uh planned along both of those roads.

We have a mixed-use center uh on the uh west side of the Gorman Street Avant Ferry intersection.

I did want to highlight some of the recently uh proposed conditions uh that came about between our first and second planning commission meeting.

After that first meeting, we met again with Trailwood neighbors on a uh virtual meeting uh and delivered the uh following zoning conditions uh in response to some more of their concerns.

Uh the first being that residential development shall not exceed 32 units uh under a straight R10 zoning, we would be permitted up to 40 uh homes.

So what this translates to is an eight-unit increase uh when compared to the maximum number of uh homes that you could build under the current R4 zoning.

We also increased the setbacks uh to our southern property line, our southern neighbor, which again is sort of the northwest boundary for the Trailwood NCOD.

Uh so for the first 200 feet of our property's lot depth, we wanted to establish at least a 20-foot uh building setback under R4 zoning.

If you were to maybe say further subdivide this property uh and just look line up uh single family detached homes along trailwood, you would be looking at a 10-foot um minimum uh side yard setback with no required screening.

So what we've tried to do here is create some additional uh distance between any future development and our neighbor to the south.

And you can see that his house sort of shades to the north, so we know that this is uh especially sensitive, sort of given the layout uh of both of these two lots.

We also included a screening condition that applies for the first 300 feet of the property's lot depth.

We chose 300 because we think that's where sort of the maximum sort of length of development is going to be.

We expect these to be served by private drives, private streets.

The UDO says that townhomes can't be any farther than 300 feet from a public right-of-way.

So that's sort of our demarcation line for screening.

What we've offered to do is plant 30 evergreen shrubs per 100 feet with a uh planting height of three feet and an average mature height of at least 10 feet, two understory trees, and two shade trees per 100 linear feet as well.

When looking at the types of shrubs, we want again bushy, thick, fast growing shrubs.

Um we think Anelli Stevens Holly is sort of the um a great candidate for the type of green screen that we can create at the ground level, and then having those shade trees and those understory trees uh further enhance this sort of green screen that we want to create along our southern boundary line.

And then this is a concern that we heard from neighbors at that December meeting uh as it relates to lighting.

Um we offered new conditions that require minimum setbacks for pole-mounted lighting fixtures, uh, maximum height of pole-mounted lighting fixtures, and bringing the maximum light level of any pole-mounted light fixtures to 0.0 foot candles at the 1132 Trailwood Drive property line.

Uh so again, trying to minimize the impacts as much as possible to our uh southern neighbor who is again sort of the northwest boundary of the uh Trailwood NCOD.

We think this case represents a gentle density increase over uh current zoning.

Uh we think that we have uh offered uh a number of conditions that address and mitigate the impacts to the the existing NCOD and our southern neighbor.

Uh for those reasons we think that this case is reasonable and in the public interest.

Uh happy to answer any questions and we appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

Hello again.

Um checking how much time okay.

Uh Jen Chairman, uh, as I mentioned in the earlier case, um I live uh just a neighborhood hood or two over um and travel here regularly.

Um I wanted to talk a little bit about that because uh the people who live on trailwood are not the only people that live in Southwest Raleigh.

Um and it's one of the only roads that connect many neighborhoods.

So all of the people who bike along our beautiful bike path on Lineberry have to connect to trailwood and ride their bike on it to connect to the bike lane that's on Thistledown, and that spits us out on Gorman Street.

So if we want to go anywhere on Avon Ferry for transit-oriented things, um I actually choose to bike on trailwood because it's safer than Gorman Street.

Those aren't great options.

I wish we had better options for sure.

But I want to be clear that um this project is one step in getting there.

Uh if we wait until we have sidewalks and bike lanes to add housing, we'll never have housing and we'll never have bike lanes and sidewalks.

Um this is the kind of project that we need.

This is the right place for housing.

If I was supportive of apartments here, I'm certainly supportive of less density here.

The only problem with this case is it's not enough density because the neighborhood has talked it down.

Um we really truly need housing in this place.

It is the place that there needs to be more housing, and it makes sense here.

Please vote yes.

Okay.

That concludes um the supportive side.

We now have um two people signed up in opposition, John Totten and Sarah Dietrich, and we can reset the clock to eight.

Hi, I think I'm gonna be taking the eight minutes because Sarah is no longer gonna speak.

Is that okay?

Okay.

Um hello, good evening.

Uh mayor and council members.

I'm John Totten.

My family and I live at Trailwood, uh, 1132 Trailwood, uh, just south of uh the Z29 property.

We've lived there for nine years.

Um I'm asking uh you to deny this rezoning request from R4 to R10 based on objective planning principles, the preservation of a carefully designed zoning transition that has served the area for over a decade, and data-driven safety concerns.

We do appreciate the conditions that have been put forth so far, um, and we do feel that in part we've been listened to.

Um, and so I just wanted to acknowledge that.

Uh I think the core issue is eliminating intentional uh transition zones.

Uh this property currently serves as an intentional transition zone between R2 neighborhood conservation overlay district and higher density plan development.

The current zoning progression is R2 to R4 to R6.

Uh each step increasing density gradually, exactly as the UDO and comprehensive plan envision.

Approving the proposed R10 zone uh zoning eliminates the transition entirely and violates two fundamental uh comprehensive plan policies.

Uh it would take us from R2 to R10 to R6 uh as it was mentioned related to the Z38 property down the hill.

Uh policy LU5.4 requires appropriate graduated transitions between different densities, not abrupt jumps.

It contemplates R2 to R4 to R6 not leaping from R2 to R10.

Policy LU 8.12 states that infill development should be consistent with the design elements of adjacent structures, including CEPX, height, and massing.

This property sits between a one-story single family home and a currently planned R6 zone development.

That's the one that is now after pulling their existing plan, seeking RX3.

Uh R10 zoning, uh allowing up to three plus stories and 32 units is not consistent uh with those neighbors.

UDO violations are clear.

UDO section 5.4.3 defines NCODs as encouraging compatible infill development, R4 with 12 to 24, depending on how this is being calculated.

Um I'm not an expert in this.

Um is compatible.

R10 with 32 is not.

UDO chapter 2 establishes an intentional density hierarchy where transition matters.

Skipping from R2 to R10 to violates that.

Comprehensive plan policy LU 5.4 requires graduated transitions, R2 to R 10 is an abrupt jump.

Future land use map designates this area low-scale residential, missing middle uh missing middle dwelling types.

Tree conservation requirements applied to properties over two acres.

This property is 2.5.

I'm still getting used to this, but um I'm understanding that there's a bonus related to the frequent transit area, and so that may be how the tree conservation is not being provided.

I'm under the assumption based on what has been shared with me that there's not true tree conservation, there is additional setbacks.

So that means 100-year-old trees will be cut down and replaced with fast growing uh trees.

Uh addressing, we've been hit on a lot of diversity questions.

Our neighborhood is diverse beyond 49 single family homes in the NCOD.

We're surrounded by 670 nearby apartments, multiple townhome developments, and smaller single family homes.

Within the NCOD, we have residents from China, India, Ethiopia, Japan, and Latin America, ranging from young families to retirees, and we skew on the lower income side of average.

What unifies us is a shared commitment to preserving wooded lots, protecting the fragile ecosystem that has been mentioned.

I think uh council member Fort had addressed that.

We support affordable housing and would welcome smaller owner-occupied homes like those along Fistledown Street.

We work collaboratively with the Z38 developer on a previous townhome proposal for 40 units down there, uh, which they abandoned without explanation.

We are not anti-growth.

We are opposed to forcing higher density development and onto a site with inadequate infrastructure and documented safety hazards because that is inequitable.

Uh opposing R 10 does not mean opposing housing diversity.

Current R4 zoning permits approximately 12 to 24 units on this 2.5 acre property, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and small apartments.

City zone missing middle uh reform defined missing middle as housing typically between two to sixteen units, twelve units is missing middle, thirty-two is not.

What's proposed here is larger scale apartment density, more appropriate for transit corridors, not a narrow county road with a conservation overlay.

The development developer already has the right to build housing diversity on this property.

They're asking for permission to build density that's inappropriate for the site's location and infrastructure.

Uh this sets a dangerous precedent.

Approving rezoning undermines uh NCOD citywide.

Developers are learning that zoning is a temporary hurdle rather than a guideline to rallies planning framework.

This case is the third simultaneous rezoning requesting uh requests affecting trailwood, um, including Z45 and Z38, which um has been rezoned and now is already in a process of being rezoned again.

This affects nearly 20% of the neighborhood and proposes over 400 units.

Uh collectively, systematic erosion of the conservation protections is not hypothetical.

It's happening right now.

Uh this is the first demolition case in our area.

Z38 or Z29 represents a troubling new pattern.

The demolition of a recently renovated home to the tune of $300,000 worth of improvements.

Not only should this not qualify as infill based on the LU 8.12, but approving this signals to every uh owner, homeowner in the R2 and R4 zone that they are at risk of speculative teardowns.

Location matters.

This is not transit-oriented uh in some ways.

The map puts the site in a frequent transit area.

However, it does go beyond the quarter mile and half mile frequent transit stops.

Um there is currently no safe way to bike trans uh bike to transit groceries uh pharmacies.

It all is dependent on that Z38 development that is in a flood zone, um, and there is uh a lot of contention around uh you know the damage that that development will do.

So I don't think it's a sure shot.

I think we're getting a cart before the horse.

Um when it comes to uh the safety data that was presented early.

Earlier, trail's crash rate is 1.8 times the statewide average.

Uh fatal crash rate is 2.3 times the state average, trail roads fatal crash rate is 2.3 times the state average.

Trail drives has no sidewalks, and in that area, there are no sidewalks.

The um the embankment on the side of that road is about a 12-foot drop-off.

Um you might want to bike the trailwood, but we seldom see people biking and or walking.

Um, and we have had multiple accidents recently.

Uh we are asking you to deny Z29 2025 and preserve the existing R4 zoning, maintaining the existing zoning is not a prohibition on development.

Uh it allows approximately 12 to 24 units of middle income housing missing middle housing, maintains intentional zoning transition, respects the conservation overlay, avoids overwhelming dangerous infrastructure, and follows the UDO and comp plan.

Over the past two years, the council has denied two of 54 zoning cases.

I mean the mic, the mic turns off, so I think yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

I will close the hearing.

Questions.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh a couple questions for staff.

Um is the commenter mentioned that uh TCA would not be applicable, but this site is 2.8 acres.

So I'm hoping I'm hoping there's just a misunderstanding that DCA would be applicable because it's over two acres, right?

Yep.

Yep.

I think um from what I gathered from the comments was a reference to the difference in TCA being required um on properties like this and TCA being required when properties have the transit overlay district, TOD zoning on them.

Um all properties in the city that are greater than two acres are required to have TCA.

If a property is zoned with the TOD overlay district, that two-acre threshold goes up to four acres.

Got it.

But that's not applied to this.

It is not.

Okay.

I've got one more for you.

Um the speaker mentioned the FTDO, frequent transit development option.

And the way and I think again, maybe hopefully just misunderstanding it's there's a density bonus there, which allows for a greater number of units.

However, not applicable in this case because the it's not in an FTDO or maybe it is in a frequent transit area, but there's also the unit limitation in the conditions.

Correct.

So the property as zoned would be uh it's in a frequent transit area, so it could take advantage of the FTDO, the frequent transit development option.

Um under the proposed zoning, the unit count is capped at 32 units, and so would not be um they would not avail themselves to the FTDO because of that limit.

Got it.

Okay.

Helpful.

I also have one for the applicant, if that's okay.

Um, can you just speak to why your client is not just building by right?

It's a relatively modest increase.

Um a lot of a lot of rigor role to go through.

Yes, I I can speak to that.

So correct.

The property is within that frequent transit area and would be eligible for that development option.

However, the plan for these townhomes or uh you know the cottage court development, whatever sort of plans are to go here is that it would be um fee simple for sale townhomes.

The way that the FTDO is currently written, I believe it's related to the minimum lot width or minimum site width as it's as it's currently written.

It doesn't allow for that that option when you have a for sale townhome product.

I believe for that to work, it needs to be a true multifamily building uh to meet that minimum lot width.

Um Matt may have some corrections for me, but that's been our experience in the past where we we otherwise would have that option, but because the developer is looking to sell those lots rather than rent, they can't condominize them and locate them all on the same lot.

Now I'm even more confused.

I have a question question for staff.

So if this case is denied, what can what can they build by right?

24.

Of the same type, though.

Yeah, based on our envision, that would be like 24 or like 12 duplex units or something like that.

Right, but they just can't do the condo type.

Um these conditions they've included the um evergreen shrubs, the 100 linear feet, the two understory trees, the two shade trees, conditioning out the light pollution.

Is any of that going to be required if they just do the buy right 24.

Yeah, there's uh the property is currently uh general use zoning, so R4 with a special residential parking overlays.

So all of the conditions that you see here are in addition to the base standards of the development code.

Okay.

And so in exchange for the eight yes, what it is, thank you.

Eight additional units, they're adding these other conditions.

Okay.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Other comment?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Um yeah, I just want to thank um, I know the neighbors have been very engaged in this, and I know the applicant's team has done their best to uh, I think respond to concerns.

Um of the three trailwood cases, this is really the the least you know impact overall in terms of the number of units, and I think it's pretty reasonable and the fact that we have this issue with the way that our FTDO policy is currently written that prevents for sale townhomes.

Um I mean, I think that's a product that is actually a nice transition from the NCOD area to you know a lot of the apartments that are around, and it's a product that's I think in demand.

So with that, I am going to make a motion to approve this case.

Um this is I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 7, 2026, 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.

Oh I was gonna say second.

I also will add, I I think it's gonna be potentially worse outcome for some of these neighbors if it's denied because they're not gonna get these conditions as planting and light pollution, all that other stuff.

So I'm happy to second this one.

Okay, any other discussion?

Not all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed, nay?

Okay.

So we have um six to vote on that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh next we're moving on to Z31 uh 25, which is the North Blunt Street case.

Good evening again, Madam Mayor, members of council, Bynam Walter, planning and development.

This is a request for 516 North Blunt Street.

This is on the uh west side of Blunt Street.

It's uh less than a half an acre going from office mixed use with a three-story height limit, has a detached frontage now.

The hist the general historic overlay district would remain in place, and the new base district uh proposed is a commercial mixed use district with a three-story height limit and some conditions.

Uh the Raleigh Historic Development Commission recommends approval.

Planning commission recommends denial.

This is consistent with the future land use map as well as the 2030 uh comprehensive plan overall.

So here's a look at the site.

You can see again on the uh east side of North Blunt between uh Polk and William Drummond Way.

So the um applicant has oper offered a number of conditions here.

They have restricted the allow the allowed uses in the commercial mixed-use zoning district, uh reducing what would otherwise be allowed by right.

They have limited event attendance, so no more than 65 attendees.

Uh prohibited amplified sound out of doors, prohibited service of food or beverage outdoor, outdoors after nine.

Um a requirement for a designated property manager to uh handle short-term rental and event operations on the property.

Um provided some regulations around short-term rental guest parking, some landscaping requirements for the uh eastern property line, subject to certificate of appropriateness approval.

Also restrictions on overnight short-term rental occupancies per bedroom, and then restriction on vendor-related parking in the shared driveway with an adjacent property, and then some time-related restrictions on vendor deliveries.

So the uh change here is that the uh retail square footage would increase.

Uh just would note that uh free standing retail not permitted in the under the current zoning, uh would have to be part of a mixed-use development.

Mixed use building.

Uh so an increase there in total square footage as well as form that that might take.

So they have uh not offered a frontage designation, which is inconsistent with the future with the urban form map.

I would note that the Blunt Street Historic Overlay District, which is general historic overlay district, uh would remain in place.

So certificate of appropriateness process controls would remain in place here.

Which are going to be thinking addressing urban form issues.

So this is consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the future land use, although inconsistent with the urban form map, number of consistent policies here around managing commercial uh development impacts, uh complementary lean uses and urban vitality, things of that nature.

The front edge policy is the uh sole inconsistent policy.

Uh Planning Commission recommends denial here.

Uh they felt that the current zoning is sufficient to allow for development of the site.

There were a number of planning commissioners and opposition feeling that there were no extraordinary circumstances about the request that would justify a recommendation of denial, and then the historic development commission does recommend approval.

What questions could I answer for you before you open the public hearing?

Questions from Ms.

Walters.

Yep.

Um a lot of these conditions seem um, I guess related to the behavior of the users.

Uh and I guess I wonder if you can speak to how enforcement works.

I don't tend to think of zoning enforcement as being a real-time team like the police who might descend on the site and say, oh, do you have to go back inside or you have too many people here?

So how does zoning enforcement work?

Right.

We have a I would say a very diligent zoning enforcement team.

They generally are responding to complaints from uh folks in the community.

They are not staffed or really expected based on how zoning enforcement typically works to uh respond in real time.

They are typically responding to uh persistent problems, not problems of a of the moment.

Um typically what would happen is they would receive information about a complaint, go out and investigate, collect information, um, do some research.

For an of the moment issue, it's a it's a kind of a um it's just not how they operate.

Sure.

And what does happen if uh a property is found to be in violation?

Right.

So the um typical uh process is that first there's a notice of violation, an expectation that the property will bring itself into compliance, persistent uh violation.

Again, this is really the the process is geared towards ongoing persistent problem, not of the moment.

And so um, you know, the ongoing persistent problem might face a $500 a day fine for the one thing that happened last night and now it's already over.

Um not a lot of leverage for the for the program.

Question.

So one of the conditions says electronically amplified sounds shall not be permitted outdoors.

So could they have a live ban?

I I don't think if if we're amplified, no.

But if it was just bluegrass or light something is long as there's no electronics, could any other?

All right, we will open the hearing, and we have uh Isabel Maddox in support.

Good evening, members of the council.

Isabel Maddox here tonight.

Representing 1893 LLC, the owner of this property.

Um have a presentation that I want to show you.

I did want to respond to a couple of comments about the zoning conditions and how enforcement works.

First of all, City of Raleigh, all zoning zoning is in complaint-based.

So that's how they come out and check something.

Um there are a number of zoning UDO requirements in our code that they deal with, like you said, behavioral issues or number of people issues.

Um there's there's number of people for schools, for daycares, uh, there are you know, for live certain living arrangements, there are on-site managers required in certain types of facilities.

There are certainly the noise ordinances behavioral, uh, there are parking issues that the city deals with all the time.

So I think the the many of the conditions are very parallel to other zoning requirements that are enforced in the and that the city does enforce.

Um getting to my presentation.

Um, and and to your question, Corey, yes, uh, you could have an unamplified ban, but I think you'll find even bluegrass, they have an amplifier.

So that's a unlikely scenario.

Um that's the that's just the house from the blunt street view.

Here's the aerial.

And on this block, I will note that almost every uh parcel on this block is entitled to do event space other than ours and maybe two others.

Uh several of them actively have events.

There's a large church on the block, there's an art gallery, and there's the Merriman Wynn event space on this same block.

They don't have none of those uh users have any zoning conditions that that bind them as we are proposing here tonight.

Um those are the three parcels that are not covered by this PD, which allows uh event space.

Uh Bina went through the conditions.

I won't go through through those again.

Uh but I do think we've we've uh worked very hard to try to come up with conditions that are responsive to the neighbors' issues.

Um, and just to take a look, the noise, we have no amplified sound outdoors, we have no food and beverage service after nine outside parking.

We have said no vendor vehicles serving events shall park in the shared driveway, or no vendor deliveries, breaking down, setting up should be uh there after 7 p.m.

or before 7 a.m.

So all that has to happen in other hours.

Um we we do have a restriction on the number of guests.

We have an on-site property manager who could respond to any questions or issues.

We have uh proposed a uh fence or a wall and screen plantings along the rear line to buffer the condos that back up to the site.

We had we had asked to, we had initially proposed a specific uh uh buffer type, uh, but the staff came back and said they'd rather us make that more general because we do have to get RHDC approval for that.

So I think that's gonna be controlled otherwise.

Um there are some alternatives in this zoning that we have now that we could do here.

We could have retirement home, a school, a daycare, medical, we could have an outdoor sports facility for less than 250 seats.

We could have a bed and breakfast, a parking facility, a vet clinic, we could have retail sales, we could have RD, community garden, nursery, produce stand, uh, restaurant use, beauty salon, emergency shelter.

And the one I want to focus on is the restaurant use.

In OX, restaurant use is permitted, and there are certain parameters.

It can only be 4,000 feet, which would be plenty for this house.

We could include the ground floor of the house, plus a nice, excuse me, nice outdoor area, and still be within the 4,000 feet.

You can do it seven days a week, 6 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

Uh music is allowed, noise ordinance is the only um restriction that we would have, and we we wouldn't contemplate violating that.

Um alcohol sales can be up to 70 percent of receipts for a restaurant in this context.

And this is a real a real option.

Um the family that owns this uh property has a son who lives in New York who operates a restaurant, and his restaurant is is is something like um coffee, brunch, and cocktails.

And so he has I mean fairly light food, but he does serve coffee and brunch, and it could be a seven-day a week operation if if they wanted to do that.

Um I think here we do have, I think there are some public benefits.

This is a an adaptive reuse of a historic home.

It's a beautiful home, nicely redecorated.

Um it it sort of I think it's something y'all should consider is equal protection.

We've got users on this same block that can do an event space, and you know, without this rezoning, we can't do that.

Um I think it out adds to a mix of uses in the in the frequent transit area, it's consistent with a comprehensive plan, the future land use map, and the some historic policies.

Uh the one inconsistency, and the staff report even says uh the the lack of a frontage shouldn't be a big deal because since it's governed by RHDC, and we thought it's better just to leave that being the main governing for the street front.

This building is gonna stay as is.

Um I do want to add a couple things.

Um on the uses, uh I had a comment or uh email from a counsel for Merriman Wynn raising a question about some uses that were not prohibited, and I think that was an oversight.

There are a few uses that um we we were focusing so much on eliminating all these so-called indoor recreation uses uh that we did not want to do.

We failed to exclude bars and then there's some vehicle uses that would never seem to be appropriate here.

We didn't exclude those.

We're more than happy to come back in in two weeks and add some additional excluded uses.

So I did want to respond to that.

And the also this same email indicated that we had an issue with garbage.

We hadn't said how we would handle garbage.

But we feel like we can handle garbage without a dumpster.

If we had a restaurant, we would probably have to do a dumpster.

But for for this use, I think we can have the caterers, and we we've done some math and you know, looked at industry industry standards for how much garbage per person is generated by a group of 65 people, and we think we can handle that with push-out receptacles and take away from the site, will require all our vendors to remove it from the site that day or the next day.

So with that, I'll reserve any time remaining for rebuttal.

I don't think have much.

Thank you.

Okay.

We will move to the opposition.

And I have five people signed up.

Andy Pettish, Chad Esick, John Crue, Scott Idol, Tom Burkhart.

Morning.

Uh Chris Krug, uh, Mr.

O'Cart would not be here.

I would just like to say on behalf of the preservation community, that the concern is not the current use or the proposed use for this property, but that the zoning change will forever alter the value of the dirt under this property, and you know, bringing this to more intensive use, could very likely result in the demolition of this priceless historic structure with for replacement with another uh with another commercial structure.

So thank you.

Um hi, my name is Scott Idle.

I'm president of the Blunt Street Commons 1 HOA, and I live directly behind the property.

I'm Maggie McDonald.

I live next to the property, and I have the shared driveway.

And we do have a lot of neighbors here with us tonight if you could raise your hands.

Here is a view of our block of the Blunt Street Commons.

As you can see, everything in blue are residences.

We do have an art gallery and office, and you can see the Merriman Wynne located on that bottom corner.

Um we have an HOA.

We're all bound under HOA Covenants.

No other property in this community can be an event venue.

Even the Merriman Wynn, they are bound by the HOA Covenants.

They are governed by them.

There are strict rules with it.

Um you see the 1893 house is located in the middle of our development, but it is not a member.

It is not bound by the HOA Covenants.

This is why the Merriman Wynn works in our community.

It's located on a corner location.

It has a private loading area.

It's fully visually screened from the community, and most importantly, their event building was built with acoustic dampening materials and the three carriage houses.

Go back one.

Directly behind it, they were also built with acoustic dampening materials to shield the entire residential community.

Here's a view from about street looking back, and you can see that 1893's backyard, their event space, is open all the way back to our private road, John Haywood, John Haywoodway, and it's surrounded by existing three-story um condos.

Um these condos, unlike the ones behind Merriman Wynn, were not constructed to be able to deal with an added event space noise issue.

There's also uh issues with visual screening, and then the shared driveway.

To try to figure out what we were up against, we hired Stuart Acoustical to do a noise report.

Um they did project out, and as we expected, that would result in a significant impact in the noise levels in the area from the outdoor gatherings and the indoor amplified sound.

This is a view out of my bedroom window.

Um you'll note that all of the units surrounding it, all of our living spaces are on the second and third floors.

You can see it will do almost nothing to screen anything visually.

And Stewart confirmed in their report that it is highly ineffective for any sort of noise dampening from the event noise.

These are pictures of their seplights that they had during some past events.

Conditions do not address any event lighting that would be an addition to this.

Here is a visual of our shared driveway.

In the red, you can see the easement as the easement ends after 100 feet.

The red line is showing the division between the private property.

The yellow square shows the addition of a mud room that they added to the property.

Due to that, they have a 10-foot clearance between the end of the easement and the building.

When you are talking about large box trucks for rentals and stuff, it's almost impossible to do it without encroaching onto my property, and especially if my car is pulled up to the front.

Here's a picture of their current parking limitations.

They can fit four cars comfortably.

They can put one in a diagonal.

It's likely going to encroach onto the private driveway.

That includes the garage.

So for a short period of time.

Last year they were they were able to host some very small events, 10 to 30 people.

The driveway was consistently blocked.

Here is a vendor truck.

This is an example of a single event.

You have a limo blocking the front of the driveway.

Behind that is a blue sedan.

There's a Jeep.

That Jeep is parked about two inches from my car, my personal driveway.

Conclusion, there's really no way to add a clean visually or noise screen.

There is a partial solution.

We think if they did just daytime events, that would at least get rid of the obstacles of visual screening and noise.

Remaining obstacles are still the shared driveway, and then also a history of noncompliance.

They can do the restaurant under the current zoning, and that would add a lot of value to our neighborhood.

That's something that the neighborhood would support as long as it's within the rules and regulations in their current zoning.

Good evening, Andy Pettish, Pettish Law.

I represent Maggie and Mackie McDonald who reside at the home just north of the subject property with our two children.

I just want to point out that this application is one that really is much closer to a request for forgiveness than permission.

This property was acquired by the Forbes in 2022.

And it wasn't until 2024 that they sought a determination from Justin Remetta as to whether they could do events.

Mr.

Rometta said that you could do them in connection with short-term rentals, but only as an accessory use, and you would have to submit supporting documentation about exactly what you are doing to do for us to be able to decide whether it is qualified as accessory use or not.

They never submitted any information, but they went on to start operating events, which the McDonald's and other members tried to report to staff.

Staff went out, was not able to observe the actual infractions.

And so the McDonald's brought me in.

I submitted a request for interpretation, put in about 30 exhibits.

Mr.

Remetta decided that what that there was a violation issued in NOV that was appealed.

And during the appeal, because that stays enforcement, they continue to have more intense and more frequent events for the next five months from July to November of 2025 before that Board of Adjustment upheld the decision.

So we have a track record here of noncompliance.

And I think there is a number of enforcement potential issues here in well, I'm going to wrap up so Chad.

Mr.

Essex has a couple of seconds.

I would just say business growth is a valid policy goal, but bailing out business owners who make imprudent business decisions is a different proposition.

And in this case, I would um uh restrictfully request that this council deny this application.

Thank you.

Chad, before you start, we all got your email, which was very thorough, so don't I don't don't feel stressed to get it all in.

Fair.

Well, great.

I did send an email yesterday, Chad as a porners rule here on behalf of Merriman Wynn.

Uh we are currently opposed to this case as it currently exists.

Um for a number of reasons I expressed in my email.

Uh we are for events based in downtown Raleigh, but the look the challenges of this site and the conditions that are currently uh in place are not sufficient.

And so uh for all the reasons I set forth in my email, the Mayorman Wynn um is is not supportive of this case at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We will close the hearing.

And I have my 37 seconds.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I just want to respond to a couple of things.

First, uh RHDC did approve this rezoning case, uh recommend approval.

Um we have no plan to remove the building.

This like the person who spoke said, uh, we would be glad to even condition the case in that regard if necessary.

Um as far as the driveway, a shared driveway, somebody is blocking somebody over the history of the use.

Uh Ms.

McDonnell has blocked my client's use of that driveway before as well.

I interestingly, if they're supportive of a restaurant, it would be a restaurant.

I wonder why they were making such a big deal about this.

Okay.

Now I will close the hearing.

Okay.

No, go ahead.

Start down there.

Uh close.

I think.

I just have some more comments.

Um, I'm not prepared to support this case, at least not tonight.

I mean, I think maybe I could get there, but there's a lot of stuff I I just want to highlight.

Um I think most of it, Mr.

Essex actually put in his email.

I'll start by saying this.

I went into this case thinking this was a no-brainer, why would we not approve this?

I went out, I walked all over this property.

Um it is very different than the event space that's on the corner here.

Very, very different for a number of reasons.

Um of which is very obvious if you look at a map.

There's really not a backyard here.

It the backyard goes directly.

They're they're neighbors with these residential properties in the back.

And so this idea of putting a fence along the back property line doesn't really solve that problem.

Um the presentation from some of the neighbors raised some issues that I wasn't even really aware of, like the lighting that's already installed there.

Um the current event space, they contain all of their outdoor amplified and events in an accessory structure that they built.

They also have their own driveway and access point.

Um I just think there's a lot of different stuff about this site than the one on the corner.

I don't now, however, this corridor here is mostly commercial.

Um the historic houses across the street are I think our offices.

You have the one event space on the corner, the one residential that's an adjacent neighbor with a shared driveway.

But for the most part, it is commercial or retail-oriented spaces.

So I can certainly get there on it being something other than a house people live in.

I just don't think the conditions are tight enough right now for it to support the type of request that's being made.

Um I do think that bar, nightclub, tavern needs to be excluded in the prohibited uses.

I think there needs to be more done to address how many people could be in the space and how vendors may access the space if that's even possible.

The outdoor part of it is an issue for me.

Just you know, this would be different if they had subdivided the lot, sold the back half to this townhouse community.

They had built some townhouses back there, and then the keeping everything in the front part.

But their backyard is it's not like backing up to residential next to.

Like if you're in the backyard of this property, you can look to your left and there's a house and look to your right and there's a house.

And it's very different than the event space on the corner.

And so I'd be happy to try to get this to a place where everybody feels like they can win, where there are some conditions that prohibit just a free-for-all if it's a restaurant, but I just don't think it's um I I don't think it's ready for tonight.

I um if a vote was called for tonight, I would vote no.

Um but I think if we can try to move this in the right direction, maybe we can get there.

I don't know though.

Okay.

Uh I'll call the ask.

Go ahead.

Uh yeah, counselor Potton.

Yeah.

Um just two clarifying questions for staff.

Um is I feel like I've heard two different things related to the restaurant use.

Um can you just speak to whether a restaurant could be allowed today?

It would be my pleasure.

Thanks for the question.

So restaurant is not allowed here as a standalone use.

A bed and breakfast might operate restaurant as an accessory use for uh restaurant to happen here otherwise.

You would need it would need to be part of a multi-tenant operation of the building, which would require a separate operator from any other program happening in the building.

Got it.

Helpful.

And my second one is can you just can we saw a slide that suggested there's a notice of violation, board of adjustment appeal.

Can you just like confirm that that is true?

I will need to consult with some colleagues about that.

Okay.

And your question is is there a just like has there been a notice of violation and a board of adjustment appeal on this site?

There was a board of adjustment case that has been resolved.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll just say for my part, uh we have turned down other cases that could be used as homes and uh and are requesting to be used as something other than homes, and so I think we're faced with a similar thing here.

I'm inclined to be consistent with that position again.

I also um it resonates with me that the idea that the whole re the that the reason we're here is because of consistent persistent uh violations of the existing zoning that have resulted in these notice of violations and so to say that to to think that an applicant didn't follow the their zoning before and that they now somehow now would also to load down all these behavioral pieces into the zoning conditions, puts them at places enforcement at the feet of a team that's not built to enforce that type of thing.

And so for all those reasons, I would I would also vote to deny this case at uh if the vote were called right now.

Council Branch.

Yeah, so I have a question for Isabel.

Um the um neighbors stated that they would be open to a a um earlier ending time.

Right now it's 9 p.m.

Would your client be open to ending at six?

Um never mind, your client answered the question for me.

Um I see his head in the background.

Uh I don't think he said no.

I think that would say no.

Yeah, we can say no.

Um this property we do move, we're inside after that.

We're in we're in inside building, inside events.

I hear you.

I hear you.

Um thank you.

Um I'm I'm good there.

Um I too visited the site.

I've driven by this site so many times.

Um, and I understand the challenges, I understand the um issues that this represents.

Um in taking all of that into you know my thought process and things that I've heard across the other parts of the city.

Have you closed the with it being closed?

Um I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion.

And um I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April 7th, 2026, contained in the general materials, and to deny the zoning amendment.

Thank you.

Any other conversation?

All right.

All in favor of the denial.

Aye.

Okay.

All opposed, nay.

So that is unanimous.

Okay.

All right.

Maybe Cadence is asleep, yeah.

Yeah.

She is.

Okay.

But I got it.

Really cute picture.

That's a door should be good.

Happy camper.

Happy camper.

She's like, you're at that meeting and I'm not.

So precious.

All right.

Next case is Z 4025, which is Wake Forest Road.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of council.

So this is a request for just under two acres.

Two parcels on the uh northwest side of Wake Forest Road, the east side of Mordecade Drive.

It's going from office mixed use with a three-story height limit and a uh neighborhood conservation overlay district would remove the overlay, keep the base district the same, increase the height to four stories, allowed and add some conditions.

Planning commission recommends approval with a split vote.

RHGC recommends denial with a split vote.

This is consistent with the future land use map as well as your 2030 comprehensive plan.

You can see this site here outlined on uh in blue on the west side of uh Wake Forest Road, the east side of Mortique Drive on the south side of Mimosa Street.

Aerial view of the site, so you can see Mordecai Historic Park on the north side of Momo Mimosa Street here.

So um downtown to the south.

Some neighborhoods surrounding this is the view of the site.

This is the view of the site.

A couple of views from the street.

I would just note perhaps of interest to you.

This central portion of the structure on the site is the contributing portion of to the historic district.

So the applicant has offered a number of conditions here.

They have narrowed the allowed office mixed use district uses.

They are providing for archival documentation for the existing contributing structure.

They are offering advertisement and solicitation for salvage of the existing structure, which could be wholesale relocation and or disassembly for components.

They are specifying some frontage elements for build to and pedestrian access on Wake Forest Road along with restrictions on parking structures.

They have provided for a height step back for structures within 50 feet of Mordequy Drive having a maximum height of three stories.

And then some setback requirements for Mordequay Drive and Mimosa Street for a 10-foot minimum with provisions for adjustment relative to right-of-way expansion.

So what's allowed here now is we forecast about 80 units could be built here now.

The increase would the additional story and height would increase the total number of allowed units.

The front setback is late.

I apologize.

The range of front setback is narrowing very modestly.

But the zoning condition does require at least a 10-foot setback on Mordequy and Mimosa.

Which could vary depending on whether that's the uh uh depending on building orientation.

Um then the office and uh the office square footage is going up here.

Uh retail square footage is going down modestly.

This is consistent with a comprehensive plan with the future land use map, inconsistent with the urban form map.

The frequent transit area and transit emphasis corridor designation on Weg Forest would suggest a frontage.

They have uh made some concessions to that in their conditions.

So a number of consistent policies here, really focused on um capitalizing on transit, on sustainability, housing variety, just delivering housing in general to our market.

Uh the inconsistent uh policies here flagged around the conservation of existing neighborhood resource uh as well as the frontage issue that I already mentioned.

So uh the Historic Development Commission recommends denial.

Um they uh were interested in retention of the contributing structure, the the central portion of the existing structure on site.

And then planning commission recommends approval.

What questions could I answer for you before you open the hearing?

I've always got one.

Uh the contributing structure.

Is it under any sort of preservation easement or other kind of protection today?

It's in a national register district, which offers recognition but not regulation.

Okay.

Got it.

So the current property owners could tear it down to Councilor Brown.

Just one, just making sure I'm understanding the conditions as far as height.

The back, I'm gonna say the back side away from Wake Forest Road, there towards the community, the resident, single family homes is fifty feet, and then the front side is 68 feet.

Am I reading that correctly?

I'm gonna look at the um verbatim because that's not what's in the presentation.

Okay, because I'm just looking at the proposals has four stories, but I know they've conditioned this down.

Yeah.

So uh for buildings within 50 feet of Mordequy Drive, building height shall be limited to three stories.

That would be 50 feet.

50 feet, okay.

Yeah.

So the um 50 feet.

Let's go back to a picture.

So within 50 feet here.

Right.

Then that's not to scale.

Right.

Because it's after dark.

I don't draw it to scale after dark.

But you know, roughly in this area, that's where the limit on height you would expect to see.

Okay.

50 feet from there, the height is 50 feet.

I'm sorry, 100 feet.

Within 50 feet of Mordecai of the Right.

Yeah.

Getting rough.

I'm sorry.

I apologize.

Within 50 feet of Mordecai and Mimosa.

Okay.

So that's going to be along here and here.

Yeah.

It is limited to three stories.

Okay.

Any other questions for we hazard another question?

Just kidding.

We'll we'll give you a break and we will uh open the public hearing for Z4025, and we have uh five folks signed up in support.

Walker Abbott, Jamie Schwedler, Justin Passfield, Tom Barry, Aaron Sterling, Lewis.

Good evening, Mayor Cowell, members of council.

I'm Walker Abbott with Parker Poe at 301 Fayetteville Street here on behalf of the applicant, Carpenter Development and Elmwood Development.

I'm joined by my colleague Jamie Schwedler as well as David Meeker and Kate Charland with the applicant.

This is a request to rezone two infill parcels at a transition between downtown and the Mordecai neighborhood to add housing and walking distance to transit and neighborhood amenities.

Staff covered the parcel overview really well, so I'll just flag that this is currently home to the Brian Lee Funeral Home.

You can see that on the Wake Forest parcel to the right, and then its surface parking lot to the left.

This process actually started because the owners of the Brian Lee Funeral Home are seeking to retire, and they actually approached Carpenter Development about selling the property to them so that they could redevelop it and the lease could ultimately retire.

The site is currently zoned office mixed use with the three stories with the neighborhood conservation overlay district, Mordecai 2 uh district, and that was put in place many years ago back in the 90s when the to preserve the character of the residential neighborhood when it was predominantly single family residential.

Um it limits the height to two stories and 35 feet.

The site is also within the Mordecai Place Historic District.

Um it is a contributing structure to the Mordecai Place district, but um because it does not have a standalone historic designation, it could be demolished under the current zoning without any additional historic permitting.

While RHDC recommended denial, the discussion only focused on keeping the building or adaptive reuse of the building for apartments.

Um we are offering a salvage and documentation condition, which I'll discuss in more detail later, but we did not receive specific feedback on those.

And the only specific feedback we heard was related to the transition to the adjoining properties, uh, which we did address and I'll discuss more with our conditions later.

The Raleigh Comprehensive Plan supports additional density and housing on this site.

The future land use map is office and residential mixed use, which is applied to frontage lots along major streets where low density residential uses are no longer appropriate.

The OX is the closest corresponding zoning district, and four stories is recommended when near neighborhoods.

The urban form has two designations.

It is a frequent transit area, and Wake Forest Road is a frequent transit corridor.

The site is also within two small area plans.

And both these small area plans and the urban form designations indicate where the city has planned transit and transportation investments and envisions greater density.

Our rezoning request is to go to office mixed use four stories with conditions and remove the NCOD.

OX and four stories are both consistent with the future land use map, which recommends four stories.

It's also consistent with the comprehensive plan, which recommends a four-story maximum for areas that are considered the edge area that are those within 150 feet of low to moderate density residential areas, which is exactly what we have here.

Carpenter actually met with over 20 neighborhoods or neighbors, not neighborhoods, um, over the course of several months prior to filing and had originally considered filing at five stories, which was encouraged by some neighbors and housing advocates, but they made the decision to deliberately file at four stories based on feedback from other neighbors.

Um since then we have dropped the western side along Mordequee Drive to three stories after meetings with neighbors and planning commission.

And like several other nearby cases, we are requesting to remove the NCOD because it restricts housing products.

Our conditions prohibit certain uses in condition one, condition two, and condition three relate to the documentation and salvage of the historic building.

We worked extensively with RHDC staff on getting having these changes, and some of those changes that were requested by RHGC or shown in or sorry, historic staff are shown in underlines there.

We also worked with Preservation Raleigh on these.

We are prohibiting vinyl siding in condition four.

That was a direct request from neighbors.

And then condition number five adds an urban limited frontage to Wake Forest Road, which we intentionally only added to Wake Forest Road to accommodate requests for a greater transition on Mimosa and Mordequy, which we addressed in conditions six and seven.

Condition six, we are limiting height within 50 feet of Mordecai Drive to three stories.

You can see that highlighted approximately with GIS in yellow there.

And then we increase the setbacks on Mimosa and Mordecai to try to bring the setbacks to be more consistent with the neighborhood character under the NCOD today.

15 feet would be required as the primary setback.

And then OX, there were options where it could only be a five-foot setback.

So we tried to split the difference and uh committed to a 10-foot setback.

This request is consistent with several policies noted in the staff report on page 11.

It's consistent with the comprehensive plan.

It's consistent with the future land use map and planning commission commission voted to recommend approval.

This request to add one story of height will allow more families to live on a prime infill site within 600 feet of the border of downtown, and it provides greater diversity in housing types and close walking distance to transit, shops, restaurants, neighborhood amenities, and employers.

We appreciate your time and we are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Tom Barry, I live at 811 North Bloodworth Street.

I'm a professor of architecture at NC State.

So I'm a neighbor.

The project is just across Wake Forest Road from my home.

I fully support this project.

It's rezoning request and its request to be removed from the neighborhood conservation overlay district.

Carpenter Development is currently building a 19-town home, eight-studio apartment development right behind my house.

During the process, I observed how David Meaker and his team consulted with and meaningfully responded to the community.

I had a lot of conversations.

Originally it was proposed as five stories, which I fully supported.

I would support the project across the street if we're also five stories.

Here's why.

It's a reasonable request.

It will be a quality project built by a local company.

It will provide compact housing where it's most needed in an inner city neighborhood.

It will support the local person street businesses and the Wake Forest Road public transit.

And it will be part of a future economically and environmentally sustainable Raleigh.

I urge council to support this project.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Aaron Sterling Lewis.

I live at 1229 Courtland Drive in the Mordecai neighborhood.

I am an architect and I'm here to speak in favor of this development.

I think it's very thoughtful and really needed in our area.

I feel very grateful to live in the neighborhood that I do, and I love the idea of sharing it with others.

And as a personal side note, just on the topic of the NCOD overlay.

It was actually my time in serving on the planning commission years ago that made me start to think that I wish that neighborhood conservation overlay districts had an expiration date or something where they could be revisited every so many years because changes happen in our city as you well know way more often than these to be written in stone kind of deserve to be.

So here to speak in favor.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

We can move to the opposition.

And we have four folks signed up, although I think Tom Urkhart Wright was not here.

So Shay Denning, John Crue, and Matthew Brown.

Hello.

Good evening, distinguished members of the Raleigh City Council and Mayor Cowell.

It is almost my bedtime, so I'll be brief.

I'm Shay Denning.

I've lived at 909 Mordequy Drive for more than 20 years.

So the applicant is requesting to rezone property that is sitting in the heart of one of Raleigh's oldest neighborhoods.

And in fact, this property sits right in front of the Mordecai house.

And you all know, because everybody who lives here is required to know that that is the oldest house in Raleigh still sitting in its first location.

So if you grant this request, the thousands of school children who visit the Mordequay House Park every year on their annual field trips, and I do still remember mine, are not going to look out of their uh front porch of that house on the 1918 house built by the Dorch family.

Instead, they will look out and they will look up, and they will look up to a sea of townhomes and maybe apartments permitted to rise to 68 feet on Wake Forest Road, and even under these conditions to 50 feet on Mordequay Drive.

Those structures are going to tower over the Mordecai House, and they are going to tower over all of the original homes, including mine on the 900 block of Mordequay Drive.

I implore you not to let that happen.

Mordequy is a modern neighborhood that values its historic roots.

We have a great variety of homes, some old, some new, some single family, some multifamily, some large, and some small.

The neighborhood conservation overlay district that the applicant seeks to remove has allowed that growth.

And it's done that while at the same time protecting our neighborhood's historic character.

That NCOD, which the city itself has identified as a tool for maintaining and conserve and conserving its historic residential neighborhoods, limits buildings to 35 feet and requires 15-foot setbacks.

The reason that overlay district exists is to, in the city's words, reduce conflict between new construction and existing development.

This rezoning request actually creates that very conflict.

And if you grant it, you will declare petitioners the winner, and the losers are going to be the Mordecai neighborhood, our city, and our precious Mordequay Park.

Thank you.

Change is inevitable and development can be good, but it's best when it shows an interest in the people already living here above the interest of those who might move here.

The vague descriptions of new housing provided in this request do not provide anything unique and will forever alter the historic and cultural landscape of the city of Raleigh.

We do need affordable housing.

We've got plenty of rapidly built luxury housing already.

The preservation community and the uh historic development commission have all expressed concerns about the implications of the removal of the NCOD protections and the precedent that it sets for further destructive erosion of all such districts and resources.

Please support the preservation of our history, our culture, and our city character by denying this request.

Good evening.

Thank you for your service and thank you for letting me speak.

The magnificent Dorch Andrews House was built in 1918 for Gavin Dortch, who, along with Dan Allen, developed the Mordecai neighborhood in the 1920s.

It is a masterpiece of Georgian revival architecture designed by one of Raleigh's greatest architects, James Salter, who also designed the Sir Walter Hotel, the Capitol Apartments, the old agriculture building across from the State Capitol, and many important buildings statewide.

It is a treasure.

It sits uh across the street from the valuable tourist attraction of the Mordecai House.

This uh developer told us at the neighborhood meeting that denial of this rezoning might make the demolition and redevelopment not financially feasible such that he would not undertake it.

Therefore, if you value Raleigh's architectural heritage, I hope that you will vote to deny.

There are hundreds of acres in Central Raleigh of useless surface parking, uh crappy low-rise buildings and vacant land that nobody cares about that are perfect for development into housing.

It is said, therefore, that this uh developer has decided instead to destroy our historic architecture.

He already tore down three historic houses across the street from this.

There were nice affordable rentals.

Originally, Mayor Cowell spoke about the soul of Raleigh.

Raleigh's historic architecture is part of that soul.

Compared to other cities our size, we don't have a whole lot of nice historic architecture.

We don't have a lot of soul.

We need to keep what we have.

This stretch of Wake Forest Road is a beautiful treasure that visitors and residents alike enjoy driving down.

We have so many ugly main streets in this town.

Those few that retain that beautiful character are so precious to our city.

The developers offer to uh salvage the house is not of much value because there's nowhere to move it to.

However, he could move it to the back of this property and still put a whole lot of units on the property.

You all could send this to committee and work out a deal like that.

Um I know this is a long shot.

I know I'm up here, I'm going to lose.

But I just think it's important that somebody stand up here and speak about for the soul of Raleigh.

Thank you.

All right, that concludes all the speakers.

So I will close the public hearing.

I actually have a question for um Matthew and Chris.

We received an email stating that if a condition was added to the property that it would be supported.

You spoke I I know Esther, I see you're here, but I was wondering because you spoke.

Would you be in support of a condition that was added that allow preservation Raleigh to be part of that savaging of the home?

I personally do not think that would be acceptable because it's not going to result in the saving of that home.

Okay.

You know, unless it can be removed somewhere on that property.

It is just not financially feasible.

First of all, you gotta have a place to move it in order to move it.

So yeah, you know, that's that's one of those conditions that sounds nice, but it's really empty.

Okay.

Well, I just asked because that was the email that was sent to us.

I mean, it but you know, saving pieces of it is better than nothing.

Saving it is what you want.

Okay, gotcha.

Are there other questions?

Um, thank you all for coming out tonight.

Um, I know it's been a long night, so I'm not going to belabor the my point or my motion.

I move to adopt the proposed consensus statement dated April 7th, 2026, contain in the items contained in the agenda materials, and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption and effective dates described and the agenda items under recommended action.

Before we go, I just want to say I appreciate the preservation community and that your efforts here.

I do think the salvage condition is better.

Do we have a second?

Not yet.

I think she's I appreciate your efforts.

I think what I'm mindful of is that a denial of this case doesn't necessarily ensure the preservation of the building, and so I think we should redouble our efforts on applying the protections that are needed to these treasures so that we aren't like I mean this case rhymes with the C-Board station case to me in the sense that there were no protections in place right now.

And so um yeah, I am committed to that, but I do think these salvage conditions are um you know, are in this in the right spirit for this case.

Second.

Okay.

Any other conversation?

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

So that is okay.

So one.

All right.

Thanks, everybody.

Okay.

Final case of the night is Z 4925 South King Charles Road.

Uh thank you.

Uh Matthew Clint Planning and Development.

So, excuse me.

This is a request to rezone uh.69 acres from uh residential four with the neighborhood conservation overlay district to residential six with conditions.

Uh Planning Commission recommends approval 9 to 1.

The request is consistent with the future land use map and the 230 comprehensive plan.

Uh so you can see the site here, south of New Burn Avenue on King Charles Road.

Uh there's a mix of uses in the area.

You can see the golf course uh to the right.

There's low-scale, uh moderate scale residential, uh commercial and some industrial uses, and office and institutional.

Uh this is a map of the NCOD.

You can see it hatched with the little uh housing symbology.

This map also shows the location in green of the transit overlay district that was applied to Newburn Avenue.

You can see the site in yellow on the south side of the King Charles neighborhood conservation overlay district.

Some images showing what is currently developed on the site.

There are four zoning conditions.

One limits uh future subdivision of the site uh to no more than four total parcels.

So it's one parcel today, it could be up to four under the proposed zoning.

Uh principal dwellings shall be limited to the detached housing type, detached house type.

Um principal building shall have uh minimum setback of 25 feet from the primary street, and maximum building height is limited to two stories.

Uh so the comparison of existing and proposed zoning.

So under existing zoning, two units could be delivered.

Under proposed zoning, four could be delivered.

Uh that's limited by the um zoning conditions.

Uh front yard setback under the NCOD is 76 feet.

Uh the proposed setback under the zoning conditions is 25.

Uh also have a slide here comparing the King Charles NCOD with the proposed zoning.

So minimum lot size for the NCOD currently is 33,000 square feet uh under R6, that's 6,000 square feet.

Uh two-story building height is the same.

The minimum lot width under the NCOD currently is 144 feet.

Uh the request would be um the R6 standards of 50 feet.

Uh you can see the rest of the setbacks compared there as well in the final column.

Uh consistent with the future land use map designation of low-scale residential R6, maximum of four units.

Uh consistent policies shown here, uh inconsistent um with the urban design policy here uh is related to the removal of the NCOD and is inconsistent with the missing middle housing policy because of the limitation of building types under the proposed zoning.

Um, R6, townhouses uh and other building types would be permitted.

The principal or the zoning conditions limit development of the property uh for principal building uses as uh detached housing type, um, also dinged for housing variety there.

So the planning commission finds uh recommends approval nine to one, and this is their findings, um, and the opposed uh vote is there as well.

Um happy to answer any questions.

Questions for Mr.

Clem.

Okay.

Uh we can open the public hearing.

I have three folks signed up in support.

Patrick Battigan, Andrew Henry, and Raymond Ryland.

Have eight minutes.

Hi, thank you all.

Um my wife Sarah and I um purchased this property about nine years ago and have lived in it for all that time, except for about a year and a half during COVID.

Um past uh recent uh recent development is we've started to talk about what we could do with the property as we've seen Raleigh grow and change.

Um and so we would uh we've been chatting with neighbors, begin to have a neighborhood meeting, had some good feedback.

We decided to do a conditional application, and then uh based on the first PC meeting, decided to add two more conditions.

And so uh here's our proposal to uh rezone our primary residence, uh, which is currently one home, and to build up to four homes could end up being less once we get to that stage of the process.

Um the main feedback we've gotten early in the process was how can you fit four homes?

Where will people park?

What are you going to build?

Um I'll address those up front.

And then um, what if we sold the property after rezoning?

That's where we added the conditions to ensure that no matter what happens to our ownership that the property would be um preserved with this intent.

And then um, I think the big one is the fear of setting a precedent of NCOD removal, which I I definitely respect and uh would want to discuss here.

So the existing site, um, I'm not sure why that's rotated, but it is um a little over two-thirds of an acre, small home, three beds, one bath.

Um here's a potential sketch of what those lot lines could look like if we did go up to the maximum of four lots.

Uh you can see they're all about 65 to 70 feet wide, uh 120 feet deep.

Uh one of the questions is how in the world can you fit four homes where there's currently one?

And so um Sarah and I did some research on recent homes of this size on lots of this size to see what it looks like in Raleigh.

And this is partially how we came up with the four maximum is that I believe with the frequent transit overlay, or certainly if we went town homes, a developer who just wants to maximize this would probably be doing 15 or 16 townhomes.

Um this is really the max at four homes of where this kind of squeezes in terms of the yard.

This is where we feel comfortable because we do intend to live on this lot.

Um we love our girls going to INLO.

Uh, our youngest is a second grader, so if we stayed there through her time at INDLO, it would be about 10 years.

Um and so as we as we see homes in Raleigh, this is what we felt comfortable with living in, and also what we felt comfortable giving to the neighborhood because we respect that there's a lot of feelings about this, that change is really scary, it's really hard, and that even a gentle density increase like this, it it feels really disrupting.

And so this is a building pattern that's around Raleigh.

Uh all these are different neighborhoods inside the belt line.

Um by no means are these tiny homes, they're not mega mansions, they have sizable yards.

Some of them have garages, some of them have screen porches.

Um and then lastly, just to jump ahead and be brief, um you can see our zoning conditions.

The last two that were added was uh when planning commission wanted to see us do a better job mimicking the NCOD.

Uh the NCOD has a two-story max, so that's just a a one-to-one copy.

Uh the the building setback will most likely be further than 25 feet, however, we wanted to offer that because the R10 minimum would be 10 feet, which is very or excuse me, R6 minimum would be 10 feet.

Uh we have no intention of building that close to the street.

Um after the infill compatibility is applied, we'll see most likely that will bring us further back than that 25-foot minimum.

And then when we look at the NCOD removal, this is really the big one.

Um it's naturally out of my control.

I can't decide what council does with future rezoning cases.

Um there are a few reasons why I do believe our property is unique.

One of them is that um the the Longview or the King Charles NCOD uh loosely matches with our kind of sister Longview Gardens Historic District.

Uh there's a really long PDF document you can look through that lists all the homes that contribute to that character and also the ones that don't contribute.

Our property here, along with a few others are not included in the uh district itself.

So if any of these other NCOD homes wanted to remove in the future, they're gonna have an extra layer of difficulty arguing that their home needs to be allowed to leave the NCOD.

And when we look at that NCOD, the first two restrictions are about the lot size and width.

The last two, if the home qual if the lot qualifies are for the structure.

And I understand that um when an NCOD is created, any sort of um homes that are in violation of that aren't there's no penalties, your grandfathered in.

And yet when you look at this NCOD, I was surprised that my lot as it currently stands is too small.

So I actually question for staff.

Um I do know that with R4 zoning, we could technically fit two homes, but I don't believe we would be allowed to do a second unit in the NCOD because our lot already is too small.

So that I'd be interested to know if that's possible, but um duplex.

Oh, okay, so yeah, if we went multifamily.

Um so when you look at this, out of the 280, 273 parcels that qualify, it's excluding like Inla High School.

I think there's two churches, two HOA lakes, uh and some other properties.

When you look at the residential parcels, only 7.3% of them meet all four of those criteria.

So if this were flip-flopped and 93% of homes met all four of these criteria, I would totally get what we're preserving.

Um as it stands, if we were to allow up to three new lots, uh the compliance of lots would 59% of of lots right now currently don't meet either of those first two requirements, and that would increase by about one percent.

Um that's all that I wanted to share, and I'm gonna um share my time.

Oh, and lastly I wanted to mention there.

I know there's been feedback about a lack of traffic study, environmental, stormwater.

Um, we're happy to do anything the city requires, and those uh for whatever reason, those have not applied to this project, and so uh something we're happy to do if that's something the city requires at any stage in the process.

So um, and that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I guess he's uh holding that time.

Or is there someone else who's gonna speak?

Okay.

Evening, Maryland Mayor, Council.

I'm Andrew Henry.

I live at 2631 Pool Road.

Um I walk my dog past this property every morning.

Um and I'm just here to support the uh the passing of this um, I guess NCOD adjustment.

Um and I think it's a thoughtful and uh trust Patrick that he would uh want to preserve the community.

Um so support it.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then Raymond Ryland, yeah.

Hello, council.

Uh I'm Raymond Ryland.

I live at 303 Golf Course Drive.

So around the corner from the property in question.

Uh I am a member of the COA committee and Raleigh Historic Development Commission.

I'm not here in that capacity.

I'm just here as a neighbor.

Uh and I Patrick has shown me at least most of what you just saw.

I feel compelled.

Uh I would I'd like to see even more housing in the area, but I think it's it's a good project, and I'll be happy to see it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um we can move to the opposition, and we have three folks signed up.

Matthew Butler, Charles Hassel Jr., and Kerry Alcock.

So if one couldn't attend, can we do a swap out?

We we generally don't know.

So yeah, I'm going to speak first.

So I just wanted to talk about wow.

Um the fact that a lot of you are anti-gentrification, and I just want to know what replacing one little house in Southeast Raleigh with four or three big houses that are way outside of anyone's range to actually buy into is going to help with middle housing crisis or any housing crisis going on.

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say, so you can stop the time.

I would like to help Charles work the computer so that he can go through his presentation.

Thank you.

Oh, oh never mind.

Can you give me a second to figure out the computer?

Thanks.

Oh, you can?

Yeah, if you just do it.

Oh, that arrow key.

All right, remember.

All right, so he actually wants to start here.

Ready?

Uh good evening.

Um members of the council.

My name's Charles Hassel.

I've lived in Raleigh since 1968.

And in my home on at 334 Golf Course Drive for 33 years.

I was living there when the uh NCOD was approved unanimously by this council after lengthy proceedings in 2004 and 2005.

I may uh emailed a written statement to all of you uh last week.

Uh I hope you had an opportunity to read it.

I just have a few more few remarks to make.

Uh this uh exhibit is shows King Charles and Peel.

It's on the corner of King Charles and Peel.

All of the lots in the neighborhood with indications no are our neighbors who have filed written statements or have emailed you either at the Planning Commission or before the council opposing.

There are more than this.

There are now 26 of us, and I have I sent today a uh an email with a list of the 26 in the neighborhood with the um addresses.

I'm not very technically capable, so I I think I sent three copies of it.

I apologize for that.

But uh Mr.

The applicant said uh before the Planning Commission and filed a document stating that he had he had six had personally contacted 16 neighbors who supported his application.

We asked him twice to tell us who they were because we couldn't find them, and he refused to do that.

There are 26 of us, and that number may grow, and we pay taxes, and we would uh we would like to for our our our concerns to be considered.

Um this is is the same uh um exhibit that the applicant put up.

I have drawn in also I have well actually he drew these.

As you see, there are going to be two driveway accesses on Peel Place and two on King Charles.

Uh King Charles is a high-speed corridor between Newman Avenue to Poole Road.

I've been living there a long time, and I can tell you people drive 55 and 60 miles an hour up and down that all the time.

There are going to be two driveways added right there at the corner on King Charles into the and two lots that he drew it.

And then there are going to be two more on Peel.

Peel, on the other hand, is a narrow street with no sidewalks.

And neighbors that walk, neighbors frequently walk their dogs, their children, baby carriages down Peel to King Charles and around.

And I can tell you I've had many close calls to add four houses, probably two cars per house, and across immediately across Peel, there are new tenants over there, and there are three cars that belong to them is going to create some serious problems.

I've almost have been rear-ended trying to turn right on to Peel.

I make this trip every day several times when somebody's coming up behind me.

With when there are four four new houses and as many as 11 cars, it's going to be uh more congested and it's going to be a s a real safety hazard.

When the uh NCOD was approved in 2004, uh there were um 329 parcels.

The uh applicant slides.

The applicant um the applicants in in that proceeding that which took more than two years were able to get half of the people up to a hundred and 165 to 200 people signed and asked the uh uh in and got the approval of the planning commission and the unanimous approval of of this council.

Um of those people have signed to support support what we're doing here.

And I it seems only fair that if a applicant wants to change or alter the the uh the NCOD that they go through the same process that was required to get it put in place.

He's going he wants to do it with one by uh removing it for his one lot, but it's gonna affect all of us.

Um the he recently he just put up the put them up again.

He recently put up these specimen houses that he thought he could build on on this lot, on this lot that he wants to convert into four four lots.

Um these are the same ones that he put up.

What I've added to it is are the prices.

They either list or tax assessed in a range from $900,000 to almost a million four.

Uh I don't believe that there's anything about what he purports to be able to do here that's gonna create any affordable housing.

So I'm I wonder about the possibility of I wonder about the ability for anybody to conclude that there's any sort of public benefit here.

It's not gonna be adding any affordable housing to Raleigh.

Um again, I would like I would like to the houses, the houses in this in our subdivision, uh probably 40 or 50 of them that go around the corner from King Charles up Peel and around Golf Course Drive are all pretty much ranch or split level homes that were built in the 50s and 60s.

Uh they've I've watched them people die and people new people move in.

Uh we have folks ranging in age from one month to late 80s.

So uh and they're they're they were well constructed and they're valued in the 250, 350 to 500,000 dollar range.

And people buy them all the time.

They do in fact provide affordable housing at you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, I will close the hearing.

Questions.

Um excuse me, I have a question for staff.

Um I'm reading the backup and it's around transportation.

Um it says um for this street.

It says the site lies on the corner of South King Charles and Peel Place, both of which are city maintained roads.

South King Charles Road is designed as a neighborhood street in Raleigh, and it mentions um street plan, the UDO number.

But it says development on the site through subdivision or tier three site plan will require streetscape improvements in the UDO 8.5.

Can you speak to what does that mean?

Yes.

Um the neighborhood street, I believe um King Charles has already built out to that cross section.

It has the um sidewalk, curb and gutter.

There's also um a traffic calming project that's going to come through, install some speed humps and uh a cycle track on the south side.

So I don't think much would be required on uh South King Charles.

Um Peel Place, however, while it does not have a street designation, the UDO still would require the curb and gutter in the sidewalk along that frontage on Peel Place.

Okay.

So that curb and gutter and sidewalk plus 25 feet in I am trying to understand is that curb and gutter within that 25 feet that is in the zoning case, or is the 25 feet past that sidewalk?

Does that make sense?

I'm familiar with the 25 feet you are referring to.

Is that a front yard setback?

Front yard setback.

The front yard setback.

That is within the public right of way and depending on what the right of way is, if they can't fit the curb and gutter in the sidewalk, they would need to uh dedicate a few feet as public right of way.

Okay.

I I have a question uh for staff.

I think for planning.

Um can you tell me about I think there is a statement from the applicant about how consistent other properties are in the NCOD?

Can you speak to those claims?

Uh yes, I think I was just looking um at IMAPs now, and actually if you turn on the parcel layer and you can turn on the um dimensions of each of the lots uh and see that you many of them along Golf Course Drive and South King Charles Road in this section are narrower than the 144 feet that is required by the NCOD.

Um we could do some specific analysis of all of the standards of the NCOD and give you a better idea of which properties are currently consistent with those standards that would require uh lot size analysis, uh lot width and analysis, building height, of course, um, and then front yard setback.

Um but anecdotally, like looking in this in this area, there are many that don't appear to be um consistent with uh standards of the NCOD today.

Thank you.

Can I answer your question?

No.

No.

No, sir.

Oh good.

He he answered it.

I think so.

I have a I have a question as a follow-up to that.

Um if an instant N C O D was set up today, would it have the large of inconsistencies?

So there's a standard in the code that says uh at the time that the NCOD is applied, if there are properties that don't meet the standards of the NCOD, that they're not made nonconforming, like a legal nonconformity solely by the application of the NCOD.

Um in this situation where the NCD is placed and you may have properties that are noncompliant with those standards, if that property was redeveloped, if that building was torn down and something replaced it, anything that went back in its place would need to be um compliant with those standards.

So this goes back to I think a case we had before.

And so I asked this question.

Um if something were to happen to a home through and it needed to be replaced, but the lot size is inconsistency with the NCOD, could it be replaced?

Uh yeah.

So um again, an NCOD doesn't make a legal nonconformity, right?

And um no lot is nonconforming for the development of a new home in that in that scenario.

So if I want to redevelop it, I have to be conforming.

Correct.

And you know, I think there's more specifics to the example you gave, like how much of the home was demolished or destroyed by an act of God or a fire or something, or if the foundation is still in place, like there's a little more nuance to that question, I believe.

Okay.

So I just think this is a case in some other cases that we've had that at some point we have to have the hard conversation, rip the band-aid, and talk about NCODs.

Just have a conversation.

I'm not saying one way or another, but there has to be a conversation about them.

So um but that's another day, another time and another hour.

I think Councillor Silver would be.

This is so deje vu.

I just uh um another conversation we couldn't talk about it, but uh I'll let you continue, Councilman.

Well, if there's nothing else, um this was not an easy case for me just because of the history of this area, the history of this community, um, the different challenges with missing middle, um, you know, applications and all those things.

Um, but I am ready to make a motion.

I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement dated April seventh, twenty twenty-six, contain in agenda materials, and to approve the zoning amendment with the adoption, the fate of dates described, and the agenda items under recommended action.

Is there any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

Okay, so one um against the concludes the hearing this evening.

And we are adjourned.