Welcome everybody to tonight's public hearings.

We've got three cases scheduled.

And I will start with Binum Walter to introduce Z3825.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of Council Bynum Walter, planning and development.

This is a new keyboard.

This is Z38.

And I just will note before I start that the property to the south of the request here has been rezoned since this map was made.

And the this parcel is now R10.

So this is a request to rezone just under 14 acres from a combination of R6 and R4, a portion with conditions, all with the special residential parking overlay district to a combination of uh residential mixed use with a three-story height limit and conditions and then residential 10 with some conditions.

This is consistent with the comprehensive plan, but inconsistent with future language map and the urban form map and planning commission recommends approval.

So you can see the site here uh located on both sides of Trailwood Drive.

They have offered a uh variety of conditions here.

So the first uh limits the total uh square footage of disturbance uh permitted with the within the hundred-year uh floodplain, and then they have also committed to pursuing a no-rise certification in accordance with the city storm order design manual.

Uh they have uh offered a build to along Trailwood Drive and also offered that parking areas would not be located between those building, the building facade and trailwood.

They've offered a street-facing pedestrian entrance on the west side of Trailwood, uh, and then along the limit of disturbance adjacent to regulatory water course buffer, they have offered a brand name, uh protective fencing of super salt fence uh prior to grading our construction.

And you can see the flood hazard areas here.

Uh and the site is outlined in yellow, so the flood hazard is all on the west side of Trailwood.

The uh change in entitlement here is going to increase the maximum number of residential units that's allowed.

The um setbacks also change.

This, as I mentioned before, this is consistent with the comprehensive plan, but inconsistent with future land use and urban format.

So consistent with uh policies around compact development, connectivity, capitalizing on transit access, uh very heavily related around housing supply.

Um I'll leave it at that.

Um then a couple of inconsistent policies here.

Uh one tied to the inconsistency with the future language map, and then the other two tied to fire response time standards for this location.

Uh Planning Commission recommends approval, and then uh there were concerns from a couple of members who voted in opposition about the floodplain protections, and I will note those have been revised to address the enforceability concerns that were raised previously.

And a rezoning here would amend the future latency map to moderate scale residential similar to what is on the property to the south here already has been has resulted from that previous rezoning.

What question uh I will note the applicant would like to defer uh your action to your next meeting if possible.

And any questions I could answer for you before the public hearing.

Questions for Ms.

Walter.

Okay, but go ahead and do the hearing tonight and then just keep it open, right?

Okay.

So I will open the hearing for Z38, and we have four people signed up in support.

Anoj Matal, Molly Stewart, Daniel Watley, Jason Meadows.

Thank you, Mayor Cow, and members of council, Molly Stewart, Morning Star Law Group, on behalf of Floresta LLC, the applicant.

Uh as you heard uh from staff, we do request a furlough this evening.

And uh based on some new suggestions and new feedback that we've received recently.

Uh, we would like to make significant changes to the case.

We are still evaluating those.

Um and so we would like to bring those back.

Um if we could reserve the remainder of our time, uh we would very much appreciate that.

Uh it is probably unhelpful to go through what we had planned for this evening, as uh likely the changes would be quite significant.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh we did have anybody want to ask anything?

Okay.

Um as we said earlier, we have so many cases on May 19th.

Um I'm a little bit worried about pushing this to the 19th.

Um so I don't know what the appetite is for council to move it a little bit further out or any other thoughts.

I want to make sure we get to hear from everyone because I think we also have folks here um signed up to speak in opposition.

Um I also don't know what the deferral is for in particular.

Um I think there are a lot of concerns that I have about this case.

So no matter what, I want to make sure that it's heard during an evening session.

And I I know folks are here for this case.

So I have some concerns about this deferral.

Got it.

Well, May 19th is not an evening session anyway.

So if the desire is for evening, then we need to at least bump it to June.

It sounds like they're considering what they want to do, uh, they don't even have a plan yet.

And so we could set it in June.

And certainly if folks want to speak, they're reserving their time, so the folks who sign up in opposition may want to reserve their time until they actually give the presentation and when we know what the actual conditions are.

Just a suggestion, because if you use all your time tonight and no more gets added when they present what they're actually going to present to us, there won't be anything left.

Um just wanted to flag that as well.

Yeah, because folks are here today, they aren't necessarily gonna want to come back.

So I just want to throw that out there too.

Like, you know, if you were going to speak tonight, you might so I will um yeah, if you want to set the clock to eight.

And I do have John Totten and Chris Bass signed up in opposition, and you are welcome to come down and say a few words if you want tonight or you know, hold your time.

Before I start the clock, um I'm a novice at this.

I don't understand how this can just change at the last minute.

So I definitely don't want to use up on my time and find out the entire plan is changing because it really is no clear plan right now.

Yeah.

So yeah.

So I was just making sure you were clear about that when you came to the case.

Yeah, I mean, I just want to know when are we gonna have enough time to react to a new plan because this plan has been in place for quite some time.

Well, can I I will make a motion to set this out to the to in June.

But the mayor has to while we're leaving open.

And then based on that.

Yeah, I think but they're trying to determine what they're gonna do by understanding what the process is.

So um the proposal.

They want us to roll there because they're gonna try to revise the conditions, which and they've asked us to reserve their time.

So when they come back, they can present the conditions to us.

Yeah.

I was suggesting that if you may want to reserve your oppositional time, so you can also talk to us.

And and I'm gonna make a motion for the first meeting in June.

So that would be June uh June 2nd.

However, if you cannot come in June 2nd or you want to speak tonight, you've got eight minutes.

So I believe I'll be able to make that, and I would rather talk once the plan is clear.

Okay.

Thank you very much for your time, please.

Someone else is the other person.

Chris Bass.

Yeah, I'm just uh looking at my calendar real quick and see if I'm available June 2nd.

Okay.

Yeah, and it's always helpful to know these things ahead of time because it's hard for folks who are signed up to again be prepared to know what's happening and to be part of this process.

And there's a lot of public interest in this case, so um I just want to make sure everyone gets their chance.

Uh, Chris, did you were able to check your schedule?

Yes, we we'd also just defer and speak about time.

Okay.

Okay.

You have one more question.

How are we gonna have any ideas to when we when we will get the new updated conditions so that we can prepare?

And can I just process question, right?

Yes.

And this is just an observation.

I think you know the planning commission voted on this case.

They reviewed this case based on what was presented, and now we're hearing that an entirely new plan is being presented to us at the table.

So there was not that opportunity for these residents to be able to vet that plan at the planning commission or the planning commissioners to be able to weigh in on that plan before it was sent to us.

I think that this is not the best process that we should be following.

I think that the applicants want to pull their plan and start the process all over again.

That would be fair to everybody involved because it's it's not fair to have people coming in at the 11th hour looking at something they haven't had a chance to see or review.

Planning commission has not weighed in on it and given us any guidance or information or anything.

So I'm just noting for the record that I don't think this is the right process that we should be following at this stage.

I have a question for the let me just hear from I was just gonna say that uh if you are to continue the public hearing until June 2, revised conditions would be due no later than May 22nd.

And that because the public hearing has been opened and they're not requesting a new hearing, the request must be more restrictive than what is already on offer.

Okay.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

I need to think about that.

You can if you close the public hearing, but I don't think that um that would open the door for something less restrictive, which I don't think is what you are interested in.

Thank you.

Yeah, I mean, I'm just entertaining all this because I know this is complicated.

Yeah.

I mean, didn't they already get an extension to redo conditions in a closed session where we weren't able to attend two weeks ago or something for that at all?

No, they didn't do everything closed at all.

Oh, so that was no closed session on closed.

No.

No.

So we'll see the new plans by the 22nd, and they will be more restrictive than current.

So at least that gives somebody a starting point.

Um then it sounds like people will be here on the second.

And you can go back to planning commission if you would like you have that discretion.

And to be clear, because I know there was a question about a new plan.

Uh it appears the request is for revised conditions, not a new plan per se.

So there's no question those conditions can materially change the plan, but I just want to make sure that what is being contemplated, and correct me if I'm wrong by them, is that they're looking to revise conditions.

They have a limit of what they can change before it becomes a new case.

That's right.

Okay.

Everybody clear, so I am keeping the hearing open.

Is that a motion?

We'll move to continue this public hearing to June 2nd at 7 p.m.

in the evening.

Second.

All right.

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay.

So we have four no's.

So uh, do the hearing now.

Motion didn't pass.

Okay.

So go ahead and allow people to speak on a plan without the revised conditions.

I don't know.

I'm I'll turn to Molly Stewart.

Um, for me.

Um I don't know, I'll let Molly speak, but we were given some information last night that was not shared that went to the council.

And so it gives me less than 24 hours to have my team review it.

And uh I believe you all got that information much earlier than me.

So it doesn't sound like um we can present it.

But anyway, whatever we can.

I know.

I'm not sure we can.

I'm not sure what information we're talking about.

Yep.

Simply feedback is what we received.

And the suggestion is that that we're evaluating it would be to potentially uh drop the two Western parcels from the case.

Um so we are looking at that option.

Um so it does require some evaluation.

Um we don't have a presentation prepared on that option, and most of the uh well, all the conditions relate to what is going on on that western portion of the site.

We understand there were many concerns about the recent rezoning on that site.

The eastern portion was not recently rezoned.

Um so that is what what was under consideration.

Okay.

Does that change anybody's mind knowing where they're trying to go?

No.

Okay.

So what happens when we have a nobody they don't have a plan to present, and we're not willing to defer.

Yeah, I know.

I mean, but I don't think anybody it has anything to present.

Then you have the closing hearing council can make a decision of what's before you.

Okay.

All right.

So closing the hearing.

Um do we have a motion on Z 3825?

Motion to deny.

I gotta read it.

You got it.

Let me find it.

Okay.

I am just checking.

If we do have this open right now, do we still need to let the opposition close hearing?

So we have I think we started to have a motion.

We do not have a second yet.

Okay.

So you ready to make the motion?

Do we have a sec?

No.

Counselor Ford was starting to make a motion, but then it's sort of stalled.

I move to adopt a proposed consistency statement date at May 5th, 2026 containing the general agenda materials and to deny the zoning amendment.

Second.

Okay.

Yep.

Go ahead.

I am personally uncomfortable making a decision without hearing from both sides.

I've known I spoke to the applicant.

I have questions.

I don't know where I'm going to land.

I am just uncomfortable voting on something, recognizing right now that it seems that people have discomfort with moving it to June 2nd.

That motion failed.

So I'm just uncomfortable voting on something without hearing both sides.

Anyone else?

Yep.

Yeah, I was just going echo the same thing.

And I get it, but this is this has never happened since I've been on council in my 11 years.

Yeah, and I would agree.

I I think this is really new territory to me.

Yeah.

That's the part I'm talking about.

I don't think there's five votes to approve, and there's not five votes to move it.

So as I was saying, this has never happened before.

This is new to me.

I always at least like to hear both sides of those in favor and those in opposition, regardless of you know where I may fall with my vote.

But you know, since this motion has been made, I just want to publicly state, you know, that fact that I wish we have heard at least both sides, and even those who are in opposition hearing why they're in opposition.

But it's been closed, and we have a motion on the floor, so we move as a body.

All right.

And so the motion is to deny.

So if you vote yes, you are denying.

So all in favor, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, I'm a no.

I'm just clarifying for the record.

I voted to deny because if I vote against denial, we're stuck 4-4 again.

So I tried to move it.

Wasn't votes to do that.

I don't think it's going to be votes to approve it, so here we are.

Okay.

So basically with the denial, this gives them an opportunity to redo whatever it was is start the process all over again, starting with the planning commission.

Okay.

We will move on to rezoning case Z5225 3470 Blue Ridge Road.

Matthew Clem.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Thank you.

Matthew Klim Planning and Development.

This is a request to rezone 1.6 acres from residential four to residential mixed use with a three-story building height limit and zoning conditions.

Your planning commission uh has made a recommendation for approval of 9 to 0.

Speaking to the 100%, yep.

Uh how's that?

Better?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um here is the site on Blue Ridge Road.

Uh you can see it's surrounded by uh various uh residential scales, low, moderate scale residential, uh Laurels Hill, Laurel Hills Park to the northwest.

Uh zoning conditions on the site uh limit residential density to 20 units, uh prohibits retail uses on the property.

The residential mixed use zone would permit some small amount of retail if it were on the corner of two public streets.

The site is not currently.

However, the applicants have still pro uh prohibited that.

Uh any uh potential development scenario and have also prohibited the apartment building type.

Um just a look at existing and proposed zoning.

So under the existing R4 zoning, uh 11 units could be delivered.

Uh the 20-unit cap comes from zoning conditions.

Uh you can see the change in building setbacks as well.

Uh inconsistent with the future land use map, uh, which would recommend low-scale uh residential uses, uh inconsistent with the urban form map as well, um, consistent with the plan overall, uh considering the um small increase in zoning, excuse me, uh residential entitlement on the site, um, compact development, capitalizing on transit access, uh housing variety, uh, and reduction of greenhouse gas um emissions from uh permitting the shared wall type.

Uh again, inconsistent with future land use and uh frontage guidance and uh approval would modify the future land use map for the site uh to moderate scale residential and oh going the wrong way.

Planning commission recommendation recommendation of approval is nine zero.

Happy to take any questions.

Okay.

Questions from Mr.

Let's go quickly back to the conditions.

I know I can look at it here, but it's easy to see it.

Sure.

There.

20 units.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilor Johnson.

Uh yeah, I just have a few staff questions.

Um was that as I was going through the back up background uh material, I did see that there were some questions brought up by a few departments, but I didn't see the report from fire.

So I was wondering they had noted there was some questions, and I just was wondering what those questions were from fire.

I can look.

Um, uh yeah, we do have fire here, actually.

Thank you.

All right.

Council, Herbert Griffin, the fire chief.

Um I am underware what question you talk about, Council Mr.

Jones.

Can you So in the trade review section of the staff report?

Um there was noted that there were some, I don't know if there are concerns or thoughts, and then you guys get the review.

Normally that's where I see where there are fire issue, you know, response time concerns, but I didn't see that.

So I was just wondering, was it an accident?

I don't I just don't want to ignore your concerns if there are some.

And if there aren't, cool.

Right.

The fire service review was submitted with this.

All six apparats meet this NFPA 17 team response times perfectly.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um my next question was for transportation.

And I was wondering, since this is a transit corridor, um, will pedestrian connectivity to the bus stop be required as a condition or will be put in as a condition, or will we required uh by code when with a Blue Ridge riding widening project that's already happening?

Good evening, everyone.

Carter Robertson with transportation.

Yes, that gap would be filled by the Blue Ridge widening project.

They'll be installing a sidewalk on the southern side and a multi-use path on the northern side.

That's so exciting.

Thank you so much.

Of course.

And then my last one was for stormwater.

And I just wanted to confirm uh the stormwater.

I just asked what stormwater management measures will be required at the site plan stage to protect the downstream neighbor who was noted as experiencing flooding.

Sally Hoyt Raleigh Stormwater.

Uh this would be subject to the full stormwater requirements.

So uh that's water quality and peak discharge control.

So that would protect the capacity of downstream drainage systems.

We also have a rule about where things can be discharged either to an easement or to the right-of-way or to a stream.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay.

I will open the hearing.

Uh and we have Isabel Maddox signed up.

Good evening.

This Madam Mayor and members of council, Isabel Maddox here, representing homes by Dickerson, uh, who is the prospective developer of this property.

It's a pretty straightforward request, as you have heard.

Uh going from R4 to Rx3.

Uh this property is about 1.7 acres, very near the intersection of Morningside and uh Blue Ridge.

It's in an area where there, as you can see, their you know multifamily type townhouses close by.

We're proposing a townhouse development.

Um they've gone through the conditions already.

Uh the at the neighbors request, we excluded retail uses.

It's difficult to do in in um RX anyway, but they didn't want to see that.

They didn't want apartments.

We said we're not planning on doing apartments anyway.

We excluded that building type, and we have a maximum of 20 units.

Um again, an aerial photo.

This is a conceptual site layout.

It will be a mix of three and two townhome uh buildings.

And we'll have our neighborhood buffers on the sides of the property as they have but adjoining properties.

One thing to note, there was this developer did the uh Blue Ridge sewer extension underneath Blue Ridge Road to facilitate this development and in other future developments.

So that's a that's a benefit to the city in addition to just the benefit to this um development.

This is just sort of walkability uh grid that shows you what's within a quarter mile.

You go at a half mile, and you've got um Laurel Hills Park.

Just slightly outside of that, you've got Glenn Eden Pilot Park, and you've got about maybe three quarters of the mile, Lake Boone Shopping Center, Old Raleigh Village Shopping Center.

So it's walkable and you know the quarter mile, five minutes, half mile 15 minutes.

I think some people Mitch can make it way quicker than that.

Um 30 minutes.

So that's for a fairly slow walker can make it those um those distances.

So it's a you know, it's a walkable area.

Um, yes, we're inconsistent with the future land use map, but we are in the uh in the um frequent transit corridor, which recommends a little more density, so we think that sort of outweighs the future land use map in this case.

Um we did not apply frontage here.

As we look through Blue Ridge, we considered it, um, but there are really very few properties with frontages applied, and the closest one to this property was a parking limited, which didn't seem to really meet the intent of bringing buildings close to the street.

So we our proposal actually brings the buildings very close to the street.

So we think we'll be meeting that, but but we didn't officially apply a uh a frontage.

Um in summary, we think it's reasonable in the public interest.

We've already extended the public sewer under Blue Ridge Road.

It's directly adjacent to another townhouse development, increases the number of dwelling units.

It's in a frequent transit area on a transit emphasis corridor, close proximity to the hospital, art museum, old Raleigh Shopping Center, other retail consistent with the comp plan and planning commission recommended approval nine to zero.

So certainly available for questions.

I've got Emily Rothbrock, our landscape architect here.

Um to answer any questions that you all may have.

Okay.

Questions for Ms.

Maddox?

There was no one signed up in opposition, so um, Ms.

Maddox, pleasure to see you.

Did I count in correctly?

There are three conditions.

That's right.

Okay.

Very happy to see that.

Can you pull up the site plan again?

The conceptual.

I know you say they want a frontage, but was that a walkway with steps going to the front of Blue Ridge?

Is that what you are referring to?

It's not the frontage per se, but those units will be accessed off of Blue Ridge.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I have no other questions.

No one in opposition, so I'll close the hearing.

Do you have a motion?

Yes.

I'm making a motion to I move to adopt the proposed consistency statement uh dated May 5th, 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.

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

Second.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

Aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that is unanimous.

Congrats.

Okay.

Next, Z0126, 307 West Martin, Bynum Walter.

Yes, ma'am.

This is a request for uh about one and a quarter acres uh with addresses on Martin Street, Commerce Place, and Davy Street.

Uh requesting to go from really unifying the uh zoning across the site.

So right now a combination of downtown mixed use with a five-story height limit and a shop front shop front frontage, and then uh DX20, downtown mixed use 20 with conditions, all going to DX20 with a unified set of conditions.

Planning commission recommends approval.

RHDC recommends approval with caveats, uh, and I'll talk a little bit about that later.

So this is a look at the site.

Uh so we're uh just southwest of Nash Square here with frontage on both Dave and West Martin Street.

This is part of the um Depot National Register Historic District, not a local district, not a local landmark.

Um views of the site.

I should have said from the outset, the applicant does intend to uh would very much like the opportunity to revise conditions and will be asking for a deferral uh for for in order to revise.

So they have offered some uh there are existing conditions on the site related to uh I think Jamie Schweidler is about to have a heart attack behind us.

Would we like to see how the hearing continue to add?

Yeah.

I'm sorry.

Continue the hearing.

Not mine.

I was here earlier.

So there are conditions on the site currently that relate to uh how the existing facade on uh Westmarton Street as well as um Commerce Street will be treated.

And so similar but different conditions are currently in place, and it's my understanding that the applicant would like to revise this portion of the request.

Um then also a condition uh speaking to how the contributing structure would be treated if it is damaged, partially damaged or destroyed.

Um they've prohibited a handful of uses.

They are providing for a dogway station that's steady between the current state and the new offer.

They are offering uh uh to provide a plaza on the site, and that a minimum of that should be open to the public.

And then they are also saying that the main street streetscape street main street streetscape standards would be applied to the site's Dawson Street frontage.

So the um change in entitlement is very limited, um, really pretty neutral.

Um this is consistent with the future land use map as well as the urban form map and consistent with the plan overall.

A number of consistent policies here.

And then the uh two inconsistent policies uh noted here, ground floor uses on the primary retail streets.

That's part of the downtown element, and then good zoning consistency with the area plan that applies here, which is the downtown West Gateway Plan.

Um much of the guidance of that plan that plan uh dates to very early days of the current conference plan uh adopted in 2009.

Um the zoning guidance there has been very loosely interpreted by uh council action over the past 15, 20 years.

Planning commission recommends approval, RHDC recommended approval, but with caveat, um they were looking for stronger conditions relating to treatment of the existing uh contributing structure facades on uh Martin and Commerce with a preference for the conditions that are currently in place there.

What questions could I answer for you before you open the public hearing and hear from folks who are signed up to speak?

Yep, Councilor Powell.

Hi.

Um I noticed that one commissioner, I think Commissioner Otwell voted against us with for the loss of the shop front frontage.

What are what like kind of more specifically, does that do?

Like what are we losing by taking off?

Uh so I his primary interest was in what would happen on Dawson Street, because the conditions currently on the site and being offered are pretty clear about what will happen to the facade on Martin and Davey, the frontage is a matter of feet, right?

There's not gonna be a a building there.

Uh and so he was interested in the um shopfront frontage there.

And that as I recall, that is why the streetscape street standard for Dawson Street is uh offered as their way of indicating what they expect to happen there.

So shopfront frontage has a um strong build to, it's one of the uh most demanding build to it requires the most facade in the um frontage and on the street right-of-way, uh, transparency requirements, pedestrian facing entrance, uh, and then also as I recall the um blank wall standards as well as some streetscape requirements.

Got it.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Not a question.

I just want to point out it says district C, but this is actually in district D.

Thank you.

Good catch.

All right, so we'll go ahead and open the hearing.

Invite the same time.

Thank you for taking my uh stress level into account there.

Appreciate it.

Uh good evening, Mayor Callum members of the council.

I'm Jamie Schwadler with Parker Poe here with my colleague Walker Abbott as well as Brian Purdy representing the applicant Turnbridge Equities.

Jason Davis is the representative of Turnbridge and is here tonight.

And we have been the proud owners of this building for about four years since the council saw this zoning back in 2022.

So I'll highlight the changes since then and why we're bringing this case forward.

Bynam summed it up well.

This is really just a cleanup of what the result of adding the small city-owned parcel that we purchased some years ago in furtherance of the city's efforts to redevelop Commerce Place.

We tried to redevelop that small parcel with the existing DA DX five-story shop front, but that shopfront condition, as Binum just outlined, is very difficult on such a small parcel.

And so it came time to bring that parcel in with the rest of the assemblage that was approved in 2022.

And the second reason is is really for the unity of preserving these important historic buildings that we've been able to preserve voluntarily, but also maintain the viability of the retail on the street.

We have a lot of difficulty in renewing tenants.

The uh building is only about a third leased with existing tenants we'd be able to extend.

But new tenants have been attracted to all of the newer spaces in Raleigh and have had a hard time with the historic conditions as is.

So we need to come in and clean those up just a little bit.

As Bina mentioned, this is consistent with the future land use map and urban form.

This is a little pocket of the commercial uh business, and but it's surrounded by central business district.

And it's since 2022, uh the council's approved not just the 20 stories on which the majority of the site is, but 20 and 40 stories kind of surrounding this entire parcel.

So bringing everything to DH to DX, excuse me, uh really makes sense here.

It's also consistent with the urban form map, which has a lot of uh frequent transit area and downtown designation, really where you want to put height and people living and shopping and working all on your major transit lines.

Uh the site is in the downtown West Gateway Small Area Plan and within the depot historic district of that plan.

Uh the main tenants of that plan envision redevelopment of surface parking lots, which is a vast majority of what the site is today, as well as new mixed use uh uh opportunities, which is what we're proposing here, and this would help us kind of round out that uh mixture of uses on the remainder of that tail.

This slide shows the two contributing structures.

As Bina mentioned, there are no historic there were no historic protections before Turnbridge sought to rezone this parcel in 2022 and place those historic preservation uh conditions on the site.

Um so we put those conditions in place.

We tried to make that work, but as I mentioned, the leasing was a struggle, and so I'll go through what we've tried to do and in response to RHDC staff and um vote, make those a little bit more workable.

And so the zoning request before you would bring uh forth a lot of the similarities to 2022.

D DX20CU, the same current designation, the same 20 stories, um, a lot of the same conditions, and Vinum went through many of those on the screen, the usage, the dogway station, uh, the the public plaza, the main street that's to simulate the shop front the best we can uh on Dawson Street, but that is our primary access, and so there's some limitations there.

And then frontage is not really available on the rest of Martin or Commerce Place where we're preserving those historic buildings and have kind of a zero lot line there.

Um I'll highlight the two the two main changes of of course bringing that one kind of tail parcel in that we purchased from the city.

And then the only other uh condition that's really changed materially is this preservation condition.

So the changes on the screen are what the planning commission and RHDC saw, which was one B preservation of the first 85 feet of the contributing structures shall maintain the overall building massing.

We wanted to strike that the rest of that language to be able to have a lot of flexibility on the Martin Street facade.

It mainly focuses on the openings of the doors and windows.

So a lot of retailers want to have a custom door, you're gonna think of anthropology and their their signature doors, just not possible with some of these historic preservation conditions.

Um but when we went to, and and this was the version that uh the planning commission recommended approval of.

But when we went to RHDC, they struggled with um several of the definitions and what preservation really meant, what maintaining meant.

And so we worked with RHD staff and we appreciate their their collaboration on trying to meet the intent of the RHDC's motion and reserved um the definition in 1A to kind of define what preservation was.

And so if you look in one B or the first 85 feet of the contributing structures, building massing shall be maintained, which is an important distinction from preserved, and then subject to 1D on the Martin Street facades, the exterior masonry and rough openings shall be retained, and on the upper stories, a comparable fenestration pattern shall be retained.

And the distinction there is having enough flexibility to preserve as much as the masonry as we can, keep the overall form and structures of the doors and windows openings, but have some flexibility so that we can accommodate those custom requests of the retailers.

And so this is the portion of the zoning conditions that are not currently before you to be taken action that we would like to be able to continue the hearing to submit these formally and become part of the case.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Okay.

I will Oh, keep it open.

Yes.

Ah!

Stress level going up again.

I do have a question.

Um is are you on any time constraints with this case?

We are trying to move forward with the ASR, but I believe that we I understand the May 19th is is fairly full.

If we're able to be able to come back on June 2nd, that would work for us.

Um would that be at the afternoon hearing still?

Yeah, I will yeah, I was rather I'm fine with that than noon said the evening since this is a minor change.

So my motion would be to bring this back on June 2nd at our afternoon, our 1 o'clock council meeting.

Second.

Thank you.

Okay.

All in favor of the motion, aye.

All opposed, nay.

And that is unanimous, and that concludes our hearing.

13 minutes.

Whatever courtesy.