Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening. Welcome to the planning and zoning board meeting. Thank you for joining us tonight. I'll call this meeting to order. Our board clerk, Jessica Haba, will take roll call this evening. Thank you. For the record, Sal Camarada is absent this evening. The following board members are present. Bjanna Eaton, Chris Johnson, Ruben Moore, Mike Rosselli, Jeff Monreef, Shawn McAndrew, Andy Co, Diane Mayo, and Ken George. Thank you. The Kerry Community Plan will continue to be the guiding document for this board. Our role is to function as citizen adviserss to the council, will ultimately make the decisions on all resoning activity. We recognize that not all resonings requests are supported unanimously by our members of our community, but we strive to balance the impact of increased building density required to support K's growth while maintaining the historic charm and character of Kerry. The Kerry community plan was initially adopted in 2017 following a collaborative effort between Kerry's citizens and our town government. That collaboration has continued and resulted in recently updated version of the plan adopted by council in January of 2025. The chapters of the plan include live, work, shop, engage, shape, move, enrich, serve, and act. The community plan can be found on K's website. Citizen opinions based on the Kerry community plan document play a very important part role in very important part in advising our feedback. We encourage our citizens to refer to the plan and provide feedback that is based on the guiding principles of the plan as it relates to the specific zoning request. While this is a public meeting, it is not a public hearing. There's not an opportunity for the public to speak during the meeting. If you have comments

about any of these items, we encourage you to reach out to staff by email or phone. You may also reach out to our board members through email. You could also contact your council member directly via email or some of the public service speaks out portions of any regularly scheduled meeting. These meetings may also be streamed live on car's website and will be posted to YouTube. All past planning and zoning meetings are available to view on YouTube. Uh moving into the order of business, we'll look for an adoption of the agenda. Um would someone like to make a motion to move for the agenda? So moved. Second. All right. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

Um approval. We'll need to approve the regular meeting minutes from February. So would someone make a motion to approve the February 23rd meeting minutes? So moved. A second. Second. All those in favor, please state I. I.

Any opposed. All right. Moving to our our business for the evening. So our first case is 24 ReZ14 Weston PDDD amendment oi tract 4. Aaron Pucket the planning manager will share the staff's presentation. Following the presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Miss Pucket, please proceed.

Thank you and good evening, board. This is a request to reszone approximately 8.7 acres at 70001 Weston Parkway. The site is located at the intersection of Weston Parkway and Norwell Boulevard. There are existing offices to the north, east, and west of the site and detached dwellings to the south, including the Beexley subdivision, which abuts the site. There is an existing office building and associated surface parking on the site which was originally constructed in the late 90s. Car's GIS indicates a possible stream buffer impacting the northwestern corner of the site and a very small area along the southern boundary. Field determination of such features is required at time of development plan review. There is an existing greenway to the west of the site within Weston Property Owners Association common area. Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources System Plan pending adoption by a future amendment to the Kerry Community Plan indicates a streetside trail along the Weston Parkway frontage. Weston Parkway and Norwell Boulevard are both four-lane thoroughares and Goary Route 7 runs in both directions along Weston Parkway. There are bus stops in close proximity to the site but not directly along the site frontage. The site is currently zoned PDD major or plan development district major and it has an existing office entitlement along with other office and institutional uses as part of tract OI4 in the west and PDD originally approved by council in the 1980s. The southern portion of this subdist was resoned for detached dwellings via a 2003 resoning case. The applicant now proposes an amendment to allow for multif family units and commercial uses on the northern portion of ii4. So the base zoning would remain PDD major.

The proposed development of the site includes up to 275 multif family dwelling units and a minimum of 1500 and maximum of 5,000 square ft of non-residential area vertically integrated into the buildings. The non-residential square footage could consist of retail, personal service establishment or restaurant uses. Buildings within this principal use building envelope shown in the hashing here will be a maximum of 75 feet and five stories and accessory buildings may be located elsewhere on site and be up to one story and 20 ft in height. The proposal also includes 50ft type A streetscapes along both site frontages and this is consistent with the LDO requirement for a residential project. A 15-oot type-C buffer is proposed along the west where adjacent to western common area as well as for a short portion of the southern boundary adjacent to the widest portion of the adjoining neighborhood's open space parcel. The remainder of this southern buffer will be 30 to 45 ft in width and planted to a type a standard. An additional evergreen screen is proposed outside of this buffer in the area overlaid with green hashing on the plan which will consist of shade tolerant evergreen plantings achieving at least 10 ft in height and maturity and space closely together. At this time the specific location of the screen is not identified but it must be located between the southern buffer and the principal building and a 75 ft building setback is also proposed in the southeastern portion of the site. The proposed development also includes 12 foot wide side paths along both site frontages. This is more than was required under the original Weston PDDD, but is consistent with recently updated national guidance and the parks and recreation parks, recreation, and cultural resources system plan, which

proposes streetside trail along Western Parkway. The applicant has written an option to narrow the facility to 8 ft if needed to meet other LDO or PDD requirements that would create conflicts with locating that trail within the streetscape. And a private greenway connection will be built internal to the site to connect to the western property line and allow for a potential future connection into the larger greenway network nearby. Additional development standards include a minimum of 5% of the units offered at a rent affordable at 80% of the area median income or AMI for a period of of 30 years. A minimum of 3,000 square feet of community gathering space is offered which is more than double the LDO requirement. Gathering area will be amenitized and a pick list of options is proposed. A minimum of 5% of the parking spaces will include EV charging with an additional 5% of spaces constructed with conduit for possible future EV charging. And architectural commitments include increased masonry on multif family building facades, fronting facing streets, a prohibition on vinyl sighting, and variation in the building roof lines. An analysis against the imaginary community plan finds that policies in the live, work, move, shape, and enrich chapters apply. The proposal would provide multif family units in an employment mixeduse campus. Residential units within this mixeduse area are predominantly multif family today, but multif family units are supported in these areas. A commitment to town houses as part of a mixed residential project could more directly address this policy. The provision of residential uses on a redevelopment site can support infill and redevelopment policies of both the liv and shape chapters. And the proposal at least modestly addresses the live policy regarding the provision of affordable dwellings as the applicant commits to a minimum of 5% of

the units that could be approximately 14 units at full site yield being rented at 80% AMI for a period of 30 years. Multif family housing can also support the associated work policy regarding the diverse housing needs of car's workforce. And regarding the applicable move policies, the provision of a 12- foot wide side path helps meet several multimodal policies, but a clear commitment to a consistent 12- foot wide facility would more fully meet these policies. The shape policy regarding mixing uses may be somewhat met by the overall campus, but could be better met by commitment to a mix of fuses and housing types on this site. The proposal does offer a small 1500 square ft minimum of commercial uses. The site offers vegetated buffers which can help with transitions to detach dwellings to the south paired with a 75- ft building setback. A commitment to town houses as a transition use could even better meet the transition's policy. The vegetated buffers and streetscapes along with amenitized gathering space and an evergreen screen can speak to the aesthetics of the site and commitments to some EV charging and meeting or exceeding LDO buffer and streetscape requirements helps address enriched chapter policies. An employment mixeduse campus recommends a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses in a walkable pattern with buildings fronting streets. Building heights of three to seven stories are supported. The proposed resoning would be primarily residential in nature. And while multif family dwellings are a supported use in these areas, stronger commitments to commercial uses or a mix of residential uses could more clearly meet this guidance, as could a more definitive commitment to the 12t wide trail. I want to also acknowledge the Weston study, a transportation and land use study for this area which builds upon the existing

employment mixeduse campus guidance. As directed by council in December of 2021, staff worked with a consultant to prepare a multimodal study for Weston and that is available online. That study expanded to also begin exploring potential land use considerations. Staff presented a highle overview of that study at the council retreat last year and the preliminary results of that study suggest that a special planning area for Weston could be beneficial. Staff is anticipating beginning work on the special planning area later this year. This site represents one of the first redevelopment opportunities in Weston. And while we anticipate that more specific guidance could be provided by a forthcoming special planning area, the existing direction from the employment mixeduse campus designation does still provide valuable guidance for this site. This current designation is what the board should consider this evening in the evaluation of their case. A neighborhood meeting was held in November of 2024 and 36 members of the public attended. Attendees voiced concerns regarding the use and density as well as traffic impacts. They had questions about buffers, the greenway connection, and proposed commercial uses, as well as general questions about the resoning process. Since the neighborhood meeting, staff continued to receive many emails, calls, and 311 inquiries, most of which have voiced similar concerns as those noted above, particularly with the site density and potential traffic impacts. The applicant also made staff aware that they held a follow-up neighborhood meeting with concerned citizens prior to the public hearing. A public hearing for this request was held in September of last year. There were 32 written comments and seven in-person speakers. Comments included concerns with the use, density, and height of the proposed development, concerns with traffic impacts and potential overflow parking, concerns with construction traffic and noise, and

concerns regarding potential impacts to property values. Some comments expressed a request for larger buffers or better screening related to concerns with privacy and request that the current non-residential zoning and use remain. Some suggested considering other residential types. Council members also had questions and concerns and these were shared in greater detail in your staff report. There was a request for a balloon test to better visualize the proposed building height and the applicant did perform a balloon test on site in January of this year. Several council members noted the importance of town houses as a transition use and some also noted how the proposed redevelopment and change in use proposed for the site makes the request more complex and subject to greater scrutiny than a typical reasonzoning. And finally, they had questions around the timing of the bike plan and the forthcoming Weston special planning area. The applicant made a number of changes to their proposal following the hearing, including removing town houses as a permitted use and therefore pod 2 was removed from the PDD. Neighborhood recreation was removed from counting toward the commercial square footage, which better ensures that there will be some non-residential use on site. The PDD was revised just to specify the mixeduse or multif family buildings will be located in the northern portion of the site within 400 ft of both Weston Parkway and Norwell Boulevard. Accessory buildings up to one story in height are allowed elsewhere on the site. The six-foot fence within the southern perimeter buffer was removed and in lie of the fence an evergreen screen is proposed consisting of shade tolerant plantings. The location will be determined at development plan but will be between the southern buffer and the principal building and extend for at least 450 ft from Nora Boulevard. The width of the multi-use side path along the site frontages was increased

from 8 feet to 12 feet with a caveat that it may be reduced to 8 feet if there are conflicts within the streetscape. And the workforce housing condition was updated to a time frame of 30 years. Staff found that the case can at least partially meet applicable live policies related to infill and housing choice, while a mix of housing types could even better meet those policies along with the associated work policy. Shape policies are also at least partially met given the proposal would redevelop a vacant office building, although only a modest mix of uses is proposed given the small minimum commercial square footage. While the use and height alone does not provide a clear transition, setbacks and buffers help provide separation to aid in facilit facilitating transitions. Side paths along the site frontage and a private greenway connection can help address move policies, while EV charging and buffer commitments help to address enrich policies. The proposed multif family use can be generally supported in an employment mixeduse campus. Although again, a stronger commitment to a mix of uses or housing types would even more directly meet this guidance from the future growth framework. This concludes my presentation. Jamie Schwedler, the applicant's representative, is available and then I'm here for your questions.

Terrific. Thank you. There. Good evening, chair, members of the board. I'm Jamie Schweather with Parker Poe at 301 Fateville Street. I'm here on behalf of the applicants and property owner Highwoods. I'm joined tonight by Skip Hill with Highwoods as well as Travis Fluitt with Kimley Horn, Tucker Mackenzie with Withers Rabinell, and my own colleague Walker Abbott. And we're all here to answer any questions. Um, we appreciate the input by the staff, the council, and the neighbors over the past several years that this case has been pending. They've helped us to create a new PDD amendment that better addresses all of the Kerry Community Plan policies that were cited by Aaron tonight. And I'm going to address those in a slightly different order. But what that allows us to do is to replace a 28-year-old vacant office building with the new residential and mix of uses that carries population and growth needs now demand. The Western PD was approved as a key office corridor back in 1984, and portions have developed since then from that original office intent into residential uses. For example, the Beexley neighborhood directly to our south, as Aaron illustrated, was resoned in 2003 from office and industrial use uh to residential use, as was the Weston Manor just across Norwell Boulevard to our east. So, both of those residential uses went through that train that change about 20 years ago. Um the 2017 adoption of the imagine carry plan recognized this office corridor as it is today the employment mixeduse campus where multif family was recognized in 2017 as a predominant use type. So even in 2017 recognized that this was an important type of housing to fill the needs in

Kerry. But in 2024, the staff and the council went through an update to imagine Carrie to reflect the changes in the population that we've seen over the 40 years since this PDD was originally adopted. And what that says is in in the adoption was that the new housing plan and the change in population warranted new types of housing policies policies. Car's population is aging. It's attracting smaller households. It's attracting single persons. And as a result, more density and more housing is needed than in 1984 or in 2004 or in 2017. At the same time, we're recognizing that these green fill in green sites are disappearing and that this infill and redevelopment is going to become part of K's pattern of growth and the mayor did a great job of addressing that in his state of KY's speech. This particular site has an office building that's over three decades old. It can't compete with the Metifees across the street. And so it has to evolve. It can't bring in the type of rents that the other class A offices can. And so we should leave those high-erforming offices as they are and adopt these new transitions of use with the predominant use type that was recognized um with this PDD and in the Kerry community plan back in 2017. And that combination of change in your Kerry community plan plus the change in population that we've recognized recently in the update to the plan and the change in that residential use now being appropriate to our south and east is what makes this property appropriate as an infill redevelopment site. Bringing multif family as a transition between the single family homes to the south and the east and the taller and higher density intensity uses of office to our north across Weston Parkway. Um, this property, as I mentioned, is home to a 1990s vacant office building. The last tenant has left, and the property has sat vacant since last March. Instead of building a new 75- ft tall office

building only 60 ft from the property line, which we would be permitted to do under the existing zoning, Highwoods chose to pursue a use that was now recognized and needed in that Kerry community plan update and pursue housing and infill development on this site. After listening to council input to neighbor requests from four neighborhood meetings and from staff review, we're proud to bring forward this reduced density, intense um amount of screening, greater setbacks, and commitment for the new building location to be essentially in the same place that the office building uh exists today or as close to it as we could. As a result, the CA the request meets the Kerry community plan in five key ways. It's consistent with the LIV chapter policy five residential development on infill and redevelopment sites as well as policy four placing higher density housing development within the employment mixeduse center. Policy 5 encourages residential development on in infill and redevelopment sites understanding that these sites need to transition to their next life and recognizing that green field sites are in fact becoming more scarce in the town. As the council noted at the public hearing, this is a classic redevelopment site and housing closer to employment is needed to attract those workers in a close and convenient way to be able to get to work and reduce the cost of of uh commuting. It's also important for those smaller households, as the 2024 Kerry Community Plan update recognized, that might not be able to afford the single family product that's to the south and the east, and the apartment provides a more affordable product to be able to live close to your work. To further help with that, we're also offering the actual commitment to affordable housing, the 5% at 80% AMI for 30 years, and we're proud to have increased that uh to be consistent with policy six since the public hearing. As for this number two, the shape chapter policy three, um encouraging mixeduse development and policy four, redevelopment and infill development. So similar themes and as the staff note staff report notes the

designation of employment mixeduse campus recommends commercial office and residential uses mix vertically and heights 3 to seven stories all of which aligns with this request. We're offering 275 multif family units with a minimum ofund 1,500 um square feet of commercial up to 5,000 ft of commercial vertically integrated into the building and a five-story limit all consistent with those policies I just mentioned. The reason we're including a minimum and a maximum is based on feedback we heard from the neighborhood meeting where the neighbors wanted us to rightsize that retail. So they didn't want the retail to overtake the space. They were concerned about traffic and so we did that limitation to honor both the future growth framework map designation but respect the neighbors wishes. Um number three it's consistent with work policy two to support the location needs of new and expanding firms by providing a mixeduse employment center. So here we're focusing not just on traditional business parks, but the changing nature of the workplace to attract millennials to the area to be able to work in a place where they can live, work, and enjoy the greenway. Um, in the 2024 update, the Kerry Community Chapter 1, page 7 notes that quote, "It will be important for Kerry to accommodate the housing needs of its growing workforce and locationational needs of industries to make sure employment centers offer the type of workplace environment that modern businesses desire. So by placing this multif family close to Western Parkway and established office corridor with many headquarters uh thriving and in place, we're able to continue a car's pattern of economic prosperity and attracting new jobs where there's convenient housing product located nearby uh that is attainable for folks that are working there. Number four, the enriched policy four, protecting the environment, and policy 8, urban tree canopy, are met by our commitments to ensure the appropriate transition between our site and the lower intensity uses to the south. We did that since the public hearing in several key ways. First, we added the building envelope that you can see on your screen. And this was important because there was a

lack of certainty of where the building could go. Folks were worried it would go too far south or too far east. And so we've pushed that up to only 400 feet within uh the intersection of Western Parkway and Norwell Boulevard there where their principal multif family use um cannot exceed. Then beyond that, we've limited ourselves to only one story. We actually had requests for three stories from the neighbors. We limited out even further to one story because those are really just for kind of minimal um structures, mail kiosks, and things like that that might need to go um beyond the principal use building envelope. But all of that would be prohibited within that 75 uh foot setback that you see there on your screen. So adding each of those added an element of certainty to help neighbors understand where buildings could go and what the heights um could be. Then we increased the buffer on the southern portion of the site and added that 75 ft setback um within that that buffer area. So you see the green area, the 45 foot buffer towards the bottom of the screen and the 75 foot building setback. And then Erin did a great job of explaining that evergreen screen. We worked u for about six months with staff on how to make that evergreen screen, the best performing screen it could be. The arburish provided a lot of great input on that. And that's where you see some of the language suggested about how that could be positioned, how that could thrive um and be able to provide an appropriate screen for the neighbors to the south. All of those together are our efforts to meet those policies four and eight uh to protect the environment as well as making an reasonable transition. And we're in response to direct requests we heard from the neighbors to try to provide more screening from that southern property line. In so doing, we're also consistent with shape uh chapter policy six. And finally, policy five um improving the air quality and reducing emissions with the addition of the EV chargers that Aaron mentioned. And finally, with moved um chapter um the move chapter policy one, ensuring safety for all users and multimmodal designs, we've committed to all transportation improvements that were recommended by the TAR. And that's

significant for this case because we're not producing any more traffic than we would with an operating office building, which is what uh this board is to consider the existing use as fully operating as office compared to our 275 units of multif family. And the does a great job of explaining that there really is no difference. Um, but in in any event, some of the lanage and improvements that were recommended, we've committed to doing subject to achieving those off-site uh easements, which is typical where you don't control the land. And that's important because we've heard from the neighbors throughout those meetings and over the course of the year and a half that we've been working towards this concern about density. And when you talk about density, you're really talking about two things. You're talking about height, and we've already covered that the height could be much just 75 ft is as much as we're asking for, but much closer to that property line. and you're talking about potential impacts in traffic, which I've just explained in the TAR. There really aren't any here. And so what we've have is a change in use, and that change can be hard. But what we're offering not only just a change in use, but an actual more predictable, more certain area and form and relationship to the southern property line than folks might otherwise be able to get by, right? Uh, for example, we're providing that 12-oot multi-use side path for pedestrians and cyclists. We're not required to do that under the existing PDD or the um the existing LDO. That future bike lane um plan is still under consideration. So, we're overcommitting and providing more certainty um with this uh proposal. We're also limiting surface parking between the building and Western Parkway and building that on-site uh greenway connection. Again, providing more connectivity um and better transition than uh the surrounding neighbors would otherwise get with an office building that was closer to the property line. Uh we did examine uh incorporating town homes unfortunately because of the location of the um entrances on Norwell Boulevard and Weston Parkway that we anticipate we'll have to make at site plan and because we increased um not only our 75 ft uh building setback but that evergreen screen all of those kind of

conflict with where the town homes would otherwise been placed and we had to take those out of the plan. So while that could be one way of transition, we contend that listening to the things that the neighbors actually asked for here and increasing that screening, increasing that building setback, pushing the building further toward the road is a better transition and responds both to the Kerry community plan and the neighbors requests. And for those reasons, this request follows the policies in the Imagine Carry plan, responds to the very issue that plan was updated to address in 2024, how we are housing our changing population in Kerry, and presents the opportunity to transform the site into a fuller mix of uses as the area in evolves in line with the Kerry community plan and projected growth here. We very much appreciate the work of the staff to get us to this point and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Terrific. Thank you. So before we take any questions, just as a reminder, u as we've discussed previously, the Kerry community plan is in place to guide the development and carry. As we think about our questions, keep in mind how the proposed case fits or does not fit within the Carrier community plan. When making a motion, it would be helpful to describe how you see your motion impacting the community plan. For example, which which uh chapter the work shape or live. While this is not a requirement, it would be helpful town council to understand how we think about the case as it applies to the plan. Um, so at this point, I would just offer up, we can start with Ruben down here on the right. Uh, do you have any questions?

I probably got several, but I'll defer to the rest of the group to pick up some of them. One first question is, do you have a a map or an image that shows where the 75 ft building setback compares to the limit of the uh parking uh at present? Um I was perusing the street view of Juliet looking through the woods and one place I can see it. So, um, like to know if it's within that 75 setback or is it outside of that 75 ft setback, which would give us an indication of the the woods separating the neighborhood from the new development. Yes. So, you're asking essentially where like the existing vegetation and the parking relate to that setback? Yes.

So, it's not an exact one to one, but if you see where their southern buffer is, it's kind of a variable width from 45 ft and then narrows down to 30 ft. that approximately follows the curb line of the parking lot currently. Is that okay to say? That's very helpful. Yeah. Thank you, Bashana. Um I had one question for the onestory accessory structures. Was there a thought on what that might be?

So typically for multif family um and Jamie mentioned like mail kiosks can be a separate accessory structure. Um we've seen more of a trend recently with multif family providing like separate standalone parking garages for um individual units. So things like that could be accessory structures of of even the um the communal um clubhouse something like that could potentially be or it could be inside the main building. Thank you

Chris. Uh what was the existing building height and number of floors? So, it's approximately 40 feet in height with that sort of central higher feature, maybe closer to 50. It's three stories. Three stories. Okay. And um I I heard that they did a balloon test, but I did not see the results. Was that available? Um and I'll let the applicant speak to that further. I will say staff did go out during the balloon test. Um, it was difficult to get a good picture of the balloon from the adjoining neighborhood. So, that's that's the only comment I can offer there, but the applicant may have more to share.

Yeah, thanks Aaron. And we did check the height of the building before the hearing. It's actually closer to 55 ft. And there are some kind of stepping areas, but um the bulk of it would be about 55. We did do two um balloon tests. we did one day um and had the balloon kind of positioned in the highest point of the site really just where that um I don't know if you can see I can show up. Yeah, right about here um kind of in the high point of the site and then a neighbor asked us to move it closer to this position so that um he could get a better view from his backyard and so we actually ran it in two different locations. Um and I think Aaron we did provide that information to the staff, the reports to the staff. Um, I believe the policy is not to put that into the planning and zoning board agenda because it's not a regulatory document. It was something requested by council, but it is available. Um, and I think Erin described it well. It's very difficult to see the balloon because there's a significant tree stand um that runs through all of this HOA land that separates the Beexley neighborhood um from the site. Those trees are anywhere from um 60 to 80 feet tall. They're deciduous which was which led to the neighbors request for the evergreen screen at the lower scale. Um but even running it in both locations there was some viewpoints where you could see it um but from for most of it it was not very visible.

Okay. And then um for the parking requirements is that it sounded like the traffic all the traffic's been addressed. Is there any kind of recommendation on the part how the parking is addressed? So, the parking would default to our LDO requirements as they're not proposed to be modified by this PDD. Okay. And then last, the side path. I noticed that there was comments in there about concerns about conflicts and the reduced width and is there more to explain on that like what what they foresee being an issue with um and I won't holding to the 12oot or speak

for the applicant. I see that their engineer is coming up. So, I'll let them explain that caveat. Hey, Tucker McKenzie with his drive now, 167 East Chadam Street. Um, so the primary purpose of having that variability, it's the option to kind of reduce it in case like when we get into development plans and specific CDs for obstacles we we haven't seen and and can't foresee right now. So trying to provide ourselves the ability to provide 12 foot everywhere where we can and for whatever reason if we're running into um conflicts with other either LDO or other elements that allows us the flexibility to still provide a wider sidewalk than what's required right now but we may not be able to get to that full 12 feet and it's also something we were working with staff on to try and get as much detail as we could but also understanding that at this level you know we can't provide enough detail for staff either. Okay, thanks. Um, that's all the questions I have. Mike, any questions?

So, we have this uh employment mixeduse campus future growth area framework. Do we have a a sense of what percentage of this uh campus right now is multif family or retail? Obviously, we see office and single family detached. I do have those numbers. So within the campus it is currently about 68% multif family. Um and within a mixeduse campus we do anticipate that the types other than detached dwellings would be a little bit higher but yes it is largely multif family today. Thanks. Anything else? Sean,

looking at the principal use building envelope, is that itself a condition so that so that it we can't get you know that building location can't get moved or pushed around in the footprint as we have it now. Correct. So even though a concept plan like this is conceptual, they do have a paired written condition that that 400 foot dimension from both of the thorough affairs. It would have to be within that envelope. Okay. Thank you, Andy. Uh no questions. D.

Yeah. Um it looked like it came up in the neighborhood discussions a couple of times about pedestrian and bicycle safety and that that was something that's still being discussed. It just seems like in this location that will be very important if you're adding this many units and a greenway and you know just that just seems like something to call out as being important in this case.

Yes, that that's fair. Um and this is an area of Kerry where it was built to specific standards that were designed for Weston. It was a lot of internal greenways rather than those frontage improvements. So, this would at at least be providing the multi-use path along their frontages. And I believe there was also a sidewalk recently constructed on the opposite side of Norwell Boulevard. So, we are getting some improvements in that area. Anything else, Ken?

Um, yeah, I'm pretty familiar with this because every uh every Friday morning we uh ruck and walk through the greenway and up to the parking lot there. We use those steps. You had a lot of exercise up in the steps and I I was asking the question earlier the this means that by the principal b building use being up there that means you don't have to tear up parking that's at the bottom and all the trees that are in that parking area that if we started from scratch we'd have to do is that correct? We can reuse that parking at the bottom.

So depending ultimately on the layout of the site and the applicant has shared with staff that they may look to preserve some of the existing parking areas. That's not a zoning commitment and that's because the site has not been fully engineered yet. But to your point, you know, that that building envelope, you know, knowing the size of the building that would probably need to go there, yes, at least some of the existing parking lot will likely come out.

Okay. And then I I really, you know, been been very sensitive in listening to the the feedback. Uh obviously there's no public hearing, but we certainly hear from the public. and and hearing from the public, I I noticed several people talked about harmonious transitions and brought that up that it wasn't harmonious transition. And I'm trying to understand what overall how you would be more or less harmonious going from business and office building to single family versus multif family to single family. So, how how is the uh in the town's view, how does a community plan, it would seem to me that from my memory that when you transition from a not similar use like office that you need more transition than you do from residential multif family to single family. Is that a making a fair statement or am I

sure? Yeah, that that could certainly be a way to look at it. So we're evaluating what's proposed today and that policy does also note there's a variety of ways in which one can make transitions. So use is just one of the ways the additional buffer the setback are also ways to speak to transitions. Yes. So, I I would think that the you paying attention to that um if if a building under the current standards could be 75 ft tall and it could be an office building and it could be torn down if we needed office and there be a beautiful new building put up there. Uh there would be it'd be could be closer to the neighborhood without even having to go through zoning. Is that correct?

It could potentially be closer. Yes, there's an existing office and institutional entitlement on that site. So, um, and and the fact that it's just three stories and you compare three to five, aren't threetory office buildings that aren't the the floors further apart normally, unless they've unless they're going to have a really high ceilings in the apartment buildings. the floors. If it's fits 55 at the top and there's three stories, then we're talking five stories and

right commercial I think what you're getting at a commercial building tends to have taller stories than a residential use. Okay. Um and I think maybe some of the discrepancies in the building height there's sort of that central feature that goes to a higher height. So I'm just going off of our very old development plan is where I got that height from. Um, and my my question was answered with the tar is it if the if the trip if the trip you know it's negligible on the trip then obviously that's not a traffic issue and I don't know that that was people's issue but I and then I also noted that some people mentioned that town homes would be a great transition but then that puts more buildings on the site and puts more buildings closer to the neighborhood even though there only would be three stories or two whatever you do town homes But if I understand they were withdrawn to give the wider buffer. Is that what I understood from?

That is what the I see not heads. Okay. Well, I just wanted to make sure I understood they were removed to provide more buffers rather than uh than change and and put the apartment building closer and and just to add, town homes do tend to require more land per unit to meet all of the requirements in inherent in that. So they they'd have to have lots right front and back public street, additional parking, all of that. Yeah. Okay. All right. And that may take down more trees, right? Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I got.

I I I guess you know sometimes I wonder if questions are inbounds or out of bounds, but my my question is just if all things equal, we would probably prefer this to remain office. It would be easier for this particular oper. I mean this is a question for the you know for the developer for the uh the applicant but all things equal we would we just move forward with office if the whole world hadn't changed versus where we are today I guess is a question I'm I'm asking if that's fair

I mean I think I think what we're seeing not only in Kerry but in the office market is is definitely a result of of COVID and some of the hybrid work models but it's also just the natural age of these particular buildings if these buildings were, you know, built in the 2010 era and could be upfit with the price of those upfits being made up for in rent and to be able to compete with the Metifees and attracting some of these, you know, global companies that are choosing Metife over other older products, um there could be a path forward, but when you have a building that's, you know, over 30 years old, um all of the not just the attractiveness to attract an employee, but all of the internal upfits that would be necessary is is cost prohibitive. It's like, you know, having a a home and then doing an addition that's twice the value of the home, but you can only sell the home for the same price. You're just not going to be able to do that. And so, um, I do think there's, you know, there's several PDDs throughout the town where the original intent was that office would be king and that would remain that way forever. And now because of COVID, because of hybrid work, but because of the age of when those PDDs were developed, we're seeing these new mixeduse centers really take that class A office and run with it. And some of these older centers not being able to compete just because of, you know, just functional obsolescence or economic obsolescence that they won't be able to make the improvements to to compete in the future. And that's, you know, I know that change is difficult. It's difficult for residents. It's difficult for the council to make those decisions and for this board perhaps. Um, but what it presents is an opportunity to meet all of those goals in the Carrie community plan that recognize that there's people moving here that need a place to live and they want to be located here where they can get out to 40, not live out in Johnston County or or Chattam County and have to commute 30 minutes in. Um, so we can think of it as a a rebirth in a way that is necessitated by the age of the structures themselves.

Great. Thank you. Can I can I follow up on that because I can imagine if you know Highwoods being a publicly traded company if if class A office was redot right now we hadn't gone through COVID and they were all full then one of their solutions would be tear this down put a big building up and and lease it at full rate because that if it were hot and so and then it would be a taller building closer to the neighbors and the market did that not the zoning

but the market seems to be where we're at not Because if it were red hot, you you'd tear it down because people tear down stuff all the time because of the need. And there's a new building across Norwell, a new office park across Norwell with tabletop parking already that's being developed new, not high, not tall because they didn't need it, but but they're developing new office, but I think there may be just three stories across. I can't I remember we walked past that, but uh so it's going in and being constructed now. So there was a need for that. It just didn't fit. evidently didn't fit this site,

right? Yeah. And that's a great point because I think it's easy for us to compare what it is today versus the new proposal. But that's not really the question. The question is what could be done on the site today given all of the zoning parameters. And and Ken's right. It could be a taller building closer to the property line from that one for one rate that Kerry approved so long ago. And so we could have a more intense building by right, but because the market is trending in a way that the Cary community plan reflects that we need more housing for folks in a different way than we have just a lot of single family suburban housing. We need that kind of denser product closer to where people work. Um, that's where the market is headed for these types of sites that are the kind of perfect transition between that class A office is successful and and the single family that's been approved. Well, it's it's like looking at the Fenton and knowing that PY Homes wanted to put single family homes where the Fenton is. Uh what was it 20 years ago? Whenever it was and uh we'd just had a big neighborhood there. So, this is it's it's just a change. It's just a change.

Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Can I ask one more question? I just thought about through that discussion. Um it might be both of you again. Um, but just uh curious with regard to parking, is it in envisioned to be surface lot, continued surface lot parking, or is there going to be any kind of deck? And if so, is that deck going to be hidden or wraparound? I know how it was going to be done with the mixed use.

Yeah, great questions. Um, as Aaron pointed out, there aren't zoning conditions for this, but the intent, um, as Ken mentioned, is to by pushing that building up to the edge, um, to use the rest of the existing, uh, surface parking as is to the extent that we can and still meet the LDO. The reason we don't have a zoning condition is that, um, there are certain regulations with parking islands and things that might need to be updated from when this was originally built. Um, we're going to try to work as hard as we can with staff to save as many of those trees that are already in those islands and do restriping instead of moving the, you know, things that would impact the trees root zones. Um, but we can't guarantee what that will be because staff can't um do that site plan review until we're through the zoning. And so the intent is to try to push that everything within um that building, the principal use building envelope has to be all of the multif family has to be there. And we aren't intending to do a structured deck, just surface parking. Um there's a great deal of of grade along that site. And so it it does a lot of things by saving the trees, saving the parking, saving the grading, and and in in essence trying to get to what the neighbors asked us to do is to leave it as as much as as it is today. Um that enables us to to accomplish that.

Okay. Thank you. Um go ahead, Ruby, if you had another question. Yeah, Chris kind of hit on uh something I was wondering about. When I first read this, I assumed that the parking would go away just because of the all the asphalt area and the distance of the parking from the building. Um, so I'm wondering does the impervious area go down or is it going to stay the same? Is it going to increase? We wouldn't know that level of detail until time of development plan when we know exactly what's going to happen with that surface parking. Um, but if there was additional impervious, they would have to mitigate for it.

Okay. So I, you know, put a note in there. We need to check this later. Another question is traffic related. Is the proposed road that comes through the quadrant proposed to come out at the same location as the office park across the street? I think there's a spectrum sign there, I believe. So there is sort of an alignment with that um office building across the street. If they wanted to shift it, we would look at that at time of development plan with our transportation staff. Do we know if the traffic volumes on Norwell have started asking has anybody started asking for a signal at that location or is it analysis part of the TIA or I'm going to see if my colleague Priam can Are you shaking his head? No. So it looks like a no.

Okay. So that's probably going to be a full movement left turns coming out like it is now. Yes. Yeah. Okay. And I'm assuming that the entrance on Western Parkway since it's divided would be right in right out. That's a right in. Thank you. One one point I just wanted to make with it sounds like the the study that is being recommended or guidance for this specific area is not going to be for some time. So we're in a little bit of a

no man's land to an extent, right? Have as far as guidance on how to how to look at this. Well, and what I what I would clarify is that that employment mixeduse campus that was so carefully thought out in our original Kerry community plan, it any sort of special planning area that does come and we hope that it'll come in the next year or so um would build upon that. So, we do still have that guidance that we would have you defer to tonight. Uh but yes, there could be additional more specific guidance in the future.

Okay. Thank you. So, uh, at this point, we would, you know, entertain a motion for 24 ReZ14 Weston PDD amendment. Um, the motions are on your screen if anyone's so inclined to make a motion. I move that the board find 24 REZ14 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation and what we just discussed here by the planning and zoning board. I'll second. Have a second. So any discussion do you want to uh

looking at what it you know what it could be if we if class A was redot would certainly be a lot be more units more traffic and closer the neighbors and taller so u I think at this point this is just the best best use for this for this property and with no traffic increase I think it's a I think it's a winner and I would add that it's it's kind mixed use is kind of like the live work play model. I mean, that's that's kind of what we're looking for. Um, not just Carrie, but everywhere. Um, so I think it it meets and they've done a lot to help address some of the concerns with the balloon test and the screening and everything. So, yeah, compared to what could be out there without a reasonzoning, I think it's a win.

Yeah. R. Yeah. Just another thing about the um the parking and the traffic uh existing use or replacing the same use. you're going to have the 8 to5 9 to5 super busy peak hour and then not have the distribution that you would have from a neighborhood over the day. So shouldn't have the peak hour congestion would be more balanced. I mean um of course these people going to work but um otherwise it'd be more like a neighborhood rather than a office park which is the whole point. Yeah. Yeah.

I would just add it. I mean, it seems that the project fits a lot of the live policies in the Kerry plan. Um, I would just, I guess, bring up that one of them is maintaining neighborhood character, and that seems like more of a design issue further down the line, but that would be something to be considered. I think it seems like there could be a lot of benefits to the area to have this project there if they're taking into consideration pedestrian safety and neighborhood character and, you know, a lot of these factors. So, um, I just want to point that out.

Yeah. No, I I think Diane makes a good point. These are two fourways. We decided, you know, they're large large roads with significant traffic. So, the pedestrian concerns with this many households, 275, I think are are, you know, warranted concerns. Um, but I also think that, you know, it's important to note that, you know, this applicant has spent over a year and a half time really trying to make certain that they are compliant with the plan. That's my perception of this. At the end of the day, no, you know, no scenario is going to appease all of the people, but there's been a real concerted effort in this in this case, I feel, to try to address both the changing demands and what we set out to do, you know, 40 years ago versus what the market claims today. So, um, I guess we'll take then a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please state I. I. I. Any opposed?

All right, motion carries. Thank you. All right, moving on to our second order of business. We have 25 rez3 ka senior living of Kerry reszoning. Uh again, Miss Aaron Pucket will be the uh presenter for this case. Uh we'll all have an opportunity to ask questions and the staff and the applicant. Miss Pucket, please proceed.

Thank you, chair. This next request is to reszone approximately 7.4 4 acres located at 1005 and 107 Rei Creek Road. The site is located south of the intersection of North Harrison Avenue and Rey Creek Road with frontage on both streets. It is largely surrounded by detached residential development and Rey Creek Middle School and Elementary School are located southeast of the site. The parks, recreation, and cultural resources system plan was approved in December of 2024, and a future amendment to the engaged chapter will occur through a comprehensive plan amendment pending adoption by council. That updated system plan indicates a greenway corridor along the southern edge of the property. Both North Harrison Avenue and Rey Creek Road are thoroughares and there is existing sidewalk along both site apprentiches. Go Carry Route 3 has service on North Harrison Avenue adjacent to the property and the current zoning of the site is residential 40 or R40. The applicant proposes to reszone the site to office and institutional conditional use or ONICU and the applicant has offered several zoning conditions. Those conditions limit the uses to life care community and nursing home. And for context, these uses could include facilities similar to Searstone or Glenn Air. Additional conditions limit the density to 75 units, which would be just over 10 units per acre. Commit to construction of the greenway on site as shown on the PRCR system plan, and to construct it at least 30 feet from the southern property line such that an average 30- foot wide area will remain undisturbed. Limit buildings on the site to one story and 35 ft in height. Provide a 75 ft building setback from the southern property line. Provide a 75

ft setback for parking spaces from the southern property line, although drive aisles may be closer. Provide a bus stop pad along the north Harrison Avenue frontage. And provide a six- foot wide sidewalk along the North Harrison Avenue frontage. An analysis against the imaginary community plan finds that policies in the live, engage, shape, move, and enrich chapters apply most directly. Live policies speak to the importance of housing choice and specifically encourage senior housing as is further supported by the Kerry housing plan. The site, which is bounded by two thoroughares and existing development, also provides an opportunity for residential development on an infill site. The commitment to construct the greenway segment on site as shown on the PRCR system plan speaks to the engage goal related to the provision of greenways. This condition exceeds the minimum LDO requirement to dedicate an easement for future greenway construction. Regarding the transitions policy of the shape chapter, the proposed residential use of the site appears to make a reasonable use transition to nearby detached residential lots, particularly when paired with the one-story height limit on the building height, which helps to speak to the form of the building. The condition to apply a 75- ft building setback from the southern property line helps ensure additional separation from the detached lots to the south than would otherwise be provided by the required 40 to 50 foot wide buffer alone. The applicant has offered six foot wide sidewalk along North Harrison Avenue which is a modest increase to the 5-ft sidewalk existing today but less than staff recommends given current national guidance and the forthcoming bike plan. It is possible a time of development plan if the bike plan and associated move chapter update has been approved by council. A wider facility will be required as the timing related to final decision on this resoning and the bike

plan is unknown. A stronger commitment would better meet move policies. And regarding the enriched chapter, no specific conditions have been offered to exceed LDO required buffers. A condition to avoid grading the outermost edge of the southern buffer does not appear to be a significant commitment as the LDO already discourages grading out of buffers. The traditional neighborhood development category supports detached dwellings as a primary use with moderate amounts of other housing types in discrete pods. This site, which is bounded by the existing road network and residential neighborhoods, could be an appropriate location for a discrete pod of age restricted housing. There are currently no nursing homes or life care facilities within a mile of the site. Staff facilitated a virtual neighborhood meeting for the proposed resoning on April 2nd, 2025, and 43 members of the public participated. Questions and concerns expressed at the meeting included questions about parking requirements, buffer widths, the height and size of buildings, traffic impacts, impacts to property values, and the location of the greenway. Following the neighborhood meeting, staff received emails, calls, and 311 inquiries from 10 citizens. Some shared similar concerns and questions as those voiced during the neighborhood meeting, with most concerns focused on buffers and the greenway. Some inquiries were simply seeking information about the resoning process. A public hearing was then held in June of 2025. There were four written comments and three in-person speakers. Concerns and comments included concerns that the proposed facility will have ambulance traffic and noise which might be incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Concerns about the lack of a traffic study and potential cut through traffic in the adjoining neighborhood. Concerns regarding drainage and potential impacts to private wellwater. Requests for larger buffers to protect privacy, wellwater, and residential character.

And there were some statements of support for senior housing in this area. Council members also had several questions and concerns and a more detailed summary again was provided in your staff report. Generally, they expressed a desire to ensure buffers are preserved, including a suggestion to locate the greenway outside of the southern buffer and comments to consider potential impacts on nearby wells. The applicant made the following changes to conditions following that public hearing. A commitment to a one-story and 35 ft height limit for the building. This zoning condition is more restrictive than the LDO because while buildings within 100 ft of a residential district would be limited to 35 ft, the maximum height may be increased by one foot for every additional foot of setbacks. This condition then caps the maximum height at 35 ft. A 75 ft setback for parking spaces and 50 foot setback for associated drive aisles from the southern property line was added. I do want to note that the southern buffer will be 40 to 50 feet in width depending on the ultimate use of the site with 50 feet required for assisted living. So the setback for drive aisles does not appear to exceed the LDO requirement. A commitment to constructing a bus stop pad within a transit easement needed to carry along the North Harrison Avenue frontage. A commitment to providing a minimum six foot wide sidewalk along North Harrison. As mentioned earlier, this is smaller than staff recommended based on the forthcoming bike plan and smaller than may be required should that plan be approved. And thus, this condition does not appear to make a substantive commitment. And a commitment to locate the greenway no closer than 30 feet from the southern property line and leave a minimum 15 foot wide and average 30 foot wide area of the buffer undisturbed. As car's LDO typically limits substantial grading out of buffers where existing mature vegetation exists, it is not clear that this commitment exceeds the LDO

requirement. Further, it is unlikely the greenway will be able to be within 30 ft of the southern property line as the southern buffer would need to retain approximately 30 ft of planting width at a minimum outside of the greenway easement to support that dense type A planting rate. Staff found that the proposed use is consistent with LIB policies based on the use and the context of the site. Commitment to constructing the site's greenway segment meets engage policies and the use one-story building form and additional setback helps to facilitate transitions and meet traditional neighborhood guidance. a stronger commitment to a multimmoal facility along North Harrison with better support move policies and conditions speaking to grading into the southern buffer are minimal and do not clearly exceed LDO requirements. This concludes my presentation. Aaron Catlet, the applicants representative, is here to speak and then I'm available for questions.

Terrific. Thank you. Good evening, chair and member board members. My name is Aaron Catlet. I am an attorney with Fox Rothschild located at 301 Hillsboro Street Suite 1120 in Raleigh. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant Kaix Senior Living by Carolina Assisted Living to share more about a plan for a senior living facility. Uh, with me tonight is Karen Morardi and Lester Ping with Caroline Assisted Living, Kaix Senior Living, and Charlie Townsen with VHB. They'll be available to answer any questions you may have. We'd first like to thank the town of Kerry's staff and especially Aaron Pucket for their work in this resoning process. Miss Pucket did a great job of presenting the background of this resoning request to you all tonight, and we will try not to repeat too many of the things that she said, but do want to share just a little bit more about this proposed resoning. The applicant Kaix Senior Living is an owner operator of licensed assisted living communities. It's based here in Raleigh and has been operating for 30 years. The Kaix communities provide uh care for the frail elderly that require assistance with activities in daily life, including those that who require memory care. This is done in a homelike environment with holistic and integrated approaches to health, wellness, and support for the residents. Kaix has similar facilities in the triangle area including Raleigh, Fugquway, Durham, and most recently in Apex. Kaix would like to operate a similar community here in Kerry. The proposed community is designed to be low impact and residential in nature and would have a similar look and feel to those existing communities. Kaix builds and operates these

facilities, meaning that Kaix is here to stay and wants to be a good neighbor in the Kerry community if the resoning is approved. The Kerry community plan notes a need for more senior housing because the population of Kerry is aging due to longtime Kerry residents that want to stay here in Kerry. Um, additionally, Kerry continues to increase in attractiveness to retirees and thus K's median age to become uh has become the second oldest of the 14 largest cities in North Carolina. In fact, as of 2020, that 20 25% of the population in Kerry was over the age of 55, making it one of the oldest communities uh in in North Carolina. Kaix hopes to provide an option for senior living here in Kerry. Uh throughout this resoning process, we have met with our neighbors several times. first at the required town of Kerry neighborhood meeting as Aaron shared uh Kaix heard concerns from our neighbors and recognized we needed to sit down and speak with them further. So we held a second in-person neighborhood meeting uh to discuss the project further. We then also met with several of the neighbors on site several months later. Additionally, we've met with council members and uh of course had the public hearing and since then we have had we have tried to accommodate and address a lot of the concerns we've heard. Um, as Aaron shared, we have limited the uses on the site to only life care community and nursing home, which are both residential in nature. We've limited it to 75 dwelling units, the building height to one story and 35 ft. And we've committed to setbacks of 75 ft from the southern property line for both the building and parking lot. Additionally, we've committed to the greenway construction. Not just an easement, but actually construction constructing the greenway. A bus stop and transit ement easement along North Harrison and the side path along uh Harrison as well. Miss Pucket walked through several of the ways this

proposed resoning is consistent with the Kerry community plan. Um I won't rehash all of them, but just a couple of highlights. Again, um the need for a variety of housing choices specifically for seniors. Um we note that the aging the aging population and the need is is is certainly significant. Uh the live chapter policy 5 encourages residential and infill development and redevelopment sites and here is an opportunity for that. Um Kaix is committed to conditions to facilitate the transition between those land uses including the buffer setback and height limitations. The engaged chapter goal two is to provide Kerry citizens with a greenway network connection. Again, we've committed to constructing that greenway. The shape chapter policy six is to provide multiple transition strategies between the existing residential and our use. And again, as we've noted several times, we've committed to uh to those trans those transition strategies of buffer, setback, height limitations, and greenway. The proposed senior living facility is residential in nature and complements the area while providing appropriate transitions between the proposed project and the homes that abut the property. Kaix wants to be part of the town of Kerry and provide a muchneeded senior living option. Thank you to you all the board for your time and consideration of this senior living facility and how this proposed resoning fits within the Kerry community plan. Um we thank you for your support.

Thank you Aaron. Um any qu I guess I can in in the spirit of consistency start on the other end down here. Do you have any uh any questions Ken? Well um just a couple I guess this um if I understand the sidewalk thing is that so if before this if it were to be approved by the council if they've adopted a bike bike bike path there then they would just be required to do that at the time. Is that right? It depends. It's a little more complicated. It depends on the timing of all of these things that are currently going on. So, if this zoning were to be approved prior to that adoption of

then and if it were to come in for a development plan, it would potentially only have to do the six foot wide sidewalk. Whereas, if the bike plan is adopted, then it would have to do that larger bike ped facility.

Okay. And u I made uh I saw a note and received some confirmation. I mean some u uh email I guess I know that people worried about ambulance and buffer noise. So I I thought I remember something in the news but it it absolutely by March which is now that Wake County EMS only does sirens if it's a critical emergency. So not they used to run sirens all the time and the reason was that is fewer accidents. So I think people were looking at the quality of life and what's going to happen to the neighborhood. I think there's something to be said that uh if there's just a routine, somebody has to be picked up and carried for something that's not life-threatening, but this needs to have transport to the doctor or the hospital, then if it's not critical or life-threatening, they won't run sirens. So, this does not won't be as disturbing. And I think that's probably a lot of the bother is that yeah, if you live across the road from somewhere that they always ran the siren, it makes a difference. So, I think it it fits well. I think it's uh it's what we need. we don't have and I think other places that are in maybe in uh other communities that are you know not not as populated as Kerry they have more of more beds for this type than Kerry does and I think it's uh I think it's it's needed well needed

Diane any questions coming I have a question and a comment um is zoning for a nursing home and assisted living the same so they are different uses defined in our ordinance with the caveat that a nursing home can be part of an assisted living facility. Um, and the only real difference there is that it changes the width of those um buffers to the adjacent detached residential. So, it's a 40 foot type A if it's solely a nursing home. If it's assisted living or a combination assisted living nursing home, it would be a 50-ft type A buffer. And this is assisted living.

Well, so the conditions would allow it to be either. We do understand that Kaix is most likely to develop an assisted living facility as defined by our ordinance, but as zoning runs with the land, they've built in that additional flexibility. There could potentially be a scenario in the future where just a nursing home was developed.

Okay. I I it kind of ties in I'm thinking a lot tonight about pedestrian safety I guess but you're talking about adding a bus stop and Harrison is a very like people drive very fast on that road and so I'm wondering if it would also include a bus stop on the opposite side and across light and walk there or I mean if you have I don't know if you're intending the bus stop for mostly staff coming and going or if there are any residents who would actually use um that but that that safety would be important I would think to have the crosswalk walk and the bus stop on both sides. And so just wanted to bring that up.

Yes. And I know that our transit staff did look at this and and I believe actually specifically requested the bus stop pad here. We have some bus stops in the area that recently were relocated. So knowing now that there's the potential to develop this site. There was the feeling that there could be a need for a bus stop and by having them at least put in the pad and the easement then our transit staff could determine whether whether when if um you know how far down the line that that stop specifically is needed. But it gives us flexibility and there is a route that runs through there now. Right. I I I know. Um I guess there was one other question. There was mention of an entrance off of Harrison itself. Is that in the plan?

It's not specifically a zoning condition. So that's something that we would evaluate a time of development plan. Typically since this does have frontage on two thoroughares, they would need an access from both. Um, we understand from what the applicants have shared with us, there could be some concerns about topography. So whether they can make both of those connections to time and development plan, our staff would have to to review once we have fully engineered plans. I'm going to look to our transportation staff to make sure I didn't misstate anything. Does that cover it? Yeah. Okay. And I want to agree that I think this type of housing is very important for our community and um I'm glad that that's being considered. Andy, any comments, questions?

Yeah, to have um maybe a question for the applicant. I mean, I don't think anyone would argue that we need this type of housing, especially for aging population. I have both my mom and mother-in-law nearby that could use housing sooner than later probably. But, um you know, I think considering the location and considering the neighborhood nearby that the transition is going to be really critical. And it seems, you know, I'm really kind of reading through the the report here, and to an extent, there's some areas that I think could improve the application by offering additional commitments, but there aren't really any additional commitments or conditions offered to exceed LDO required buffers, street scapes, open space. Can you just maybe provide some background about the rationale of maybe not doing a little bit more to address the conditions

invite Charlie down to speak with BHB. He's our engineer. He can speak to some of the topography challenges and the thought process.

Great. Good evening. Charlie Towns and I'm with BHB 940 Main Campus Drive in Raleigh. Um, so this site, while it does look like a pretty picture, it is severely steep topography, especially along the front edge of Harrison, you have about from the back of curb to the guardrail 12 feet, then it drops off 20 ft. There's also a storm water easement that the town of Kerry has that would prevent widening, excuse me, for that wider edge. And so in meeting with staff as we're trying to resolve the comments that we've been getting, we wanted to put at least some sort of commitment. We know that along Harrison when it comes along the multimmoal facility there's always the potential for something more but at a minimum 6 ft and as it relates along the buffer to the south when we first had our pre-application meeting I think it was back in 2024 town staff made us aware of the intent of having the greenway there also knowing our potential end use we know that we're going to have to have a substantial type A buffer there the commitments that we're proposing we're guaranteeing that within that first 30 ft, that's where we're going to have the densest plantings. We're trying to give us a little bit of leeway, depending on the site's condition to potentially route just the edge of that greenway within that type A buffer. We're trying to prevent and not disturb as much of the buffer as possible. So that's why we said at a minimum, we're going to leave 15 feet of that completely undisturbed. The rest of it is an average of 30 feet. We could greatly exceed it. We could go up to 50 60 feet as long as the site can be conducive. The other thing with the potential bus stop, um, if you look at the intersection where the two brown parcels are, there's kind of a little circle. There's a turnaround there. That's where the existing bus stop is. It cuts out and carves our parcel. That's where in preliminary conversations with town staff, they want to have the bus stop, but they also want to have the greenway connection. Um, that area also has a Duke Power Pole and

10 ft of grade change. Um, so a lot of the conditions we propose typically when we come in front of you, we want to exceed as much as we can. I think it's the unique nature of this site, it's been undeveloped for so long for a reason. It's kind of everything filled in around it. The site from its tallest to its lowest point drops about 50 feet. The tallest being right across from Japa Court. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you, Sean. Um, what is the definition of a dwelling unit? Oh, wow.

I would have to um pull that and get back to you. Was there a specific There there are there's follow on um R12. What is the density requirement there or maximum? So, that's just to the south. Um well, so it's 12,000 square foot lots and I don't have that right off the top of my head. um ballpark is good enough.

Okay. I can tell you that like that Melody Lane development for the south, it's around 1.5. Um R12 can actually go denser than that. Um that's sort of what the existing lot pattern is. Um the one even further to the south, I believe that's called Canterbury Woods, that's 2.25. Um again, one of the things you said is is, you know, this is basically 10 units per acre, you know, and that's why I'm like, okay, define me. What is a dwelling unit? Is it a room or is it an apartment or you know what exactly? That's why I'm asking what is the definition of a dwelling unit? The follow on is if we really want to see this as more community care than a nursing home in case the developer itself falls down, what is left with the conditions? Do we want a minimum number of dwelling units because that makes sense to align with the structure of the surrounding area to keep it that residential look and feel.

Understood. So, let me go back and maybe address that first part. So, in terms of the actual units, so you're right. Typically, when we're talking about dwelling units, like the last case, we're talking about an apartment. An apartment is one dwelling unit. um nursing home and assisted living get a little bit different because a lot of these um types of facilities have those smaller units with like shared communal facilities. Um so this is 75 units. Some of those could have one bed, some could have two beds, probably smaller than a typical, you know, nonassisted apartment. Um that does that help with the residential unit piece? I'll say it does, but again, when we're left with it, is there a reason that would make sense that we would actually have a minimum number of dwelling units, not just a maximum to ensure that is what we actually get regardless of developer?

I think I'm tracking. And so, just to clarify, so lifeare community and nursing home are the only allowed units under the proposed resoning. So, if they were to develop anything, it would have to have residential units. Okay. Um, so you're correct. It doesn't have a minimum. That's something we could work with the applicant to consider if it's important, but yes, those uses would would have the residential is the main component. They might have shared facilities, but they will have units. No. And it's one of those like it said residential in nature, and the in nature is the concern. Gotcha. to make sure that it stays more residential than in nature.

Right. So is your are you trying to ensure that like the residential units are more of the building than like the communal facilities? Is that I'm trying to make sure that it doesn't morph into more of an office or medical complex. Gotcha. Versus a true assisted living community which we desperately need. Yes. And so and that's what I'm trying to make sure the conditions are set so that we actually have the land use for what we're all intending that we see. And so that's why I'm honing in on this dwelling units and a minimum number to ensure the residential quality really stays the focus

and that's something we could definitely work through with the applicant. Um, I will say right now with the way the conditions are written for life care and nursing home, those are the only permitted uses. They couldn't do, for example, like a standalone medical office. They couldn't do a hospital. It would have to have some residential component. That's why I'm asking for a minimum. Gotcha. So, it has to have some some Yes. residential component. So, that so that is that is a key element. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. C can I tag on that? Well, it was very So, so when we do when we do apartments and we do parking for apartments, we count bedrooms, don't we?

Yes. So, it is based on the bedrooms for multif family. It is. So then when we get to this and you think assisted living nursing home, there may be two beds in the room, but we really are thinking beds. Yes. Right. Bedrooms is really kind of what we're thinking. If I've unders I've been up and down the halls of assisted living. I think you're looking really at bedrooms is the unit is what I would think. They've got a little accessory in there, but it's basically a bedroom. Is that And so for parking, it actually is different for life care community or nursing home than it is for a standard apartment. So it is based on the number of beds and the number of staff, not on the number of apartment units. Okay. So that's so then units. Well,

it's less like a full apartment with like kitchen and kitchenet everything. It's like it's different. Right. Right. That's why a dwelling unit, but it's also how do you ensure that it stays more residential than becoming more officelike in case the developer falls. I don't think this developer has any intention to not do that. But I'm saying worst case scenario, does the land use meet what we really want? Well, in the conditions. So with with life, if it's those two conditions though, right, the revenue is from people living there.

So there's no revenue if there's no people. So I I think that almost that that I think that almost solves itself for if if it's going to be built and somebody builds it there and they got enough for four people to live, nobody can afford to live there. But but maybe that's But you make good point. Minimum. Yeah, I think that's a good point. Um, Mike, no questions. Chris,

um, I saw some in in the back of some of the questions. Uh there was a question regarding concern that because of congestion that there'd be sacrificed EMS response times to this location. Have staff or fire, police taken a look at that and if so do they have any concerns?

So the next step if the resoning gets approved would be development plan and this site is in the ETJ. So they would have to request annexation at that time and that annexation is when we loop in police and fire and any other departments who review that annexation to make sure that they can serve it at the same um level as any other site in Kerry. So that step would be to come. Okay. Um and then I guess you just going back to this bike situation, the sixoot sidewalk. Did I hear you right that the when was the new plan supposed to be done?

So we have several moving pieces and parts. The PRCR system plan which sort of sort of shows six foot sorry 10 foot wide streetside trail through this area has been approved but it's forthcoming in a in rich engage sorry um that always throws me the two E chapters now the engage chapter update and then the bike plan which is forthcoming is going to be paired with an associated move chapter update. We have a public hearing pending for those items probably later this spring um potentially as soon as April, but the date is not solidified yet. And as with any comp plan amendment, you all would see that at some point as well.

Right. I guess I'm I'm just curious how I I understand heard just mention about the topography. Um it doesn't appear that it's a blue line stream or anything. Is there any kind of major environmental impacts by filling in that ditch? have to fit a larger path. Yeah. Um, so there's not necessarily a blue line stream. There is the storm water easement. Oddly enough, water goes from north Harrison, north of North Harrison, and discharges onto our site, then gets rerouted back under North Harrison, of course it does,

to the Blue Line stream up north. Um, it's a unique kind of situation. Um, and when this comment first came up as we were working with staff, um, there's a lot of things, not only the guardrail, the shallow shoulder. Um, we and there's also Duke power poles. We've met with Duke. Duke said that this frontage alone doesn't qualify for direct burial. We've really tried to look into what all of the things would happen should we widen that frontage out. Um, if we extend that slope out, we would also need to get NC DOT's approval for the clear zone width for the guardrail with the sidewalk. Um, and then it's we're more than committed as the applicant team to working with town staff dedicating an appropriate easement. I know it's a fourlane section here, but six lane just on the other side of North Harrison. Should a capital improvement plan comes through or another comprehensive plan or transportation plan, we're committed to dedicating easements for whatever that ultimate section would work out to be. I think it's just all of the current site encumbrances itself. That's where we feel that at the time, given the conversations we've had, knowing that we're not in the development plan process, we can commit to six. We might be able to push it a little bit up, but we would need confirmation with DOT for encroachment closer to their guardrail. Um, and a few other items. Does that answer your question?

It does. Um I guess I I just feel that if there's not an envi major environmental I understand it it might be a little bit more money. I just I'm not I'm not a real big in favor of putting kicking it down the road with just a dedication of an easement because that just puts it back on the taxpayers to to take on that burden at a later date and it'll be more expensive as a public project later. So I mean I would feel a lot more comfortable if it was incorporated as part of the plan. um especially if it is so close to being uh approved in the comprehensive plan. Yep. Great. It's a good point. Chris Bashana.

Um so I had a quick question. So is the building massing then going to be closer to Rei Creek due to these kind of the fallback of the site the high point being closer to Reedi Creek just kind of I know we're not like specific but I'm just kind of curious what you guys are thinking. Having not seen an engineered site plan yet, I can't really speak to that. Um I know the applicant clearly has done a lot of work with the topo of the site, but our um development review committee has not reviewed a layout yet. That was my only question.

Point of clarification with the engineer. Are you thinking that that would mean because the water comes on from the north and discharges, are you talking about like piping that ditch the expense of that to transfer the water? It would be extending the existing cover that already goes under Harrison while also widening all the discharge from Harrison into the existing goes anywhere from one to one to two to one slope. Um right now it's all natural state. It's been in that area for quite a while. If we were to have to go back in, we would look at restabilizing it. We've also no short answers, right?

Yeah. Um, and especially about this, this is one that we've talked adnauseium with staff about. And so, we wanted to throw in a condition. Um, to staff's credit, they said, "Don't put in a condition, just leave it alone." But we wanted to say we're working with transportation. We did it in a good faith effort. Um, and so the slope, the relocation of the Duke Power Poles. And then the other thing when we were meeting with town council members, um, after our public hearing, we heard a lot about protection of the existing tree canopy. So, if we have to widen this, we're cutting down the canopy, moving the Duke Power Poles to get farther away from the guard rail, extending that clear zone easement, and then dealing with the drainage and discharge. Um, so it's a complex, convoluted little corridor in Harrison with a lot of competing priorities, and we're trying to do what we can. Um, we can definitely think about maybe increasing it a little bit. Once again, we'd have to talk to DOT about that, but I know that when we looked at 10 or 12, it just starts down this rabbit hole of what's the next domino that's going to fall.

I withdraw the question. Question. Um, let's see. Um, something Sean said made me think of assumption. I'm making too many assumptions tonight, but I'm I guess when I heard nursing home, I'm thinking like one larger structure with hallways and units or rooms off the hallway, but it could this take the form of detached apartments like a bunch of little buildings that it wouldn't be detached units, but whether or not it would be more than one building. Okay, that could potentially

Okay. And last question I have is do we have a town definition of what infill development is? because I don't know if it's related to like green field versus brown field. No, it's it's more um and there isn't a specific definition. It is a little bit subjective. Um typically when we're looking at that, we're asking is there sort of already existing development around it. We're kind of infilling that piece. We do feel that this does sort of meet that implied definition. We're surrounded on multiple sides by thorough affairs and then we have existing residential development. So, we do think it could pass the straight face test as a I just wonder how big would it have to be to be considered the woods. Great question.

No answer. I don't have a good answer. Um, and I did just want to I several people have mentioned questions about the transportation improvements which are for all the reasons you have heard incredibly complicated for this case. Um, if it's helpful, Priyam can certainly speak more to what would actually be required along that front edge because I do think we got a little bit in the weeds with what's modifications versus what's required today. Would that be helpful to have him speak to briefly? Sure. Go ahead.

Thank you. Um, just wanted to clarify Harrison Avenue is a four-lane median divided roadway. So when it comes to development plan, I don't think we're expecting any road widening. The lanes are already there. If anything, the out outside lanes are 14 feet wide, you know, which we do not recommend these days. Um there's also a streetside trail shown on the PRC or master plan, which means it is going to be a requirement to build a streetside trail. Uh at when it comes to development plan, um to the engineers's point, yes, would work with their team to understand how much of the 10 ft could be built. The minimum a nation national national standard will allow for both bikes and peds to coexist is 8 feet. So we would not be going less than eight feet and uh we are actually discussing a recommendation to remove the zoning condition of 6 feet because 6 feet would be just one foot wider than what is what is there today and we we don't see any value in that. So I just want to clarify that and I know some other things need to happen between now and the final council hearing as well as the development plan but the requirement is going to be 10 ft. Thank you.

Thank you.

So you I I have I don't know if it's a question or a comment but of the concerns from the neighborhood the one that I've seen as I've been involved here as a volunteer um is issues with water and runoff. you know, we've seen neighborhoods who are having to dredge their, you know, their ponds and whatnot as development happens around, you know, this being annexed and not being sewer service there now and the concerns that the people from Melody Drive in particular have raised about impacts to their septic. So, I guess my questions kind of twofold. One is what's the process to allow them that's what I heard from the neighborhood was if we're going to have an impact with your changes in the way that you know water kind of seeps through the through the land here can we get access to sewer just I don't know if I'm asking the question the right way but I just I want to be sensitive to the impact of other people I want these guys to develop their land productively in a way that works for the community but I don't want to have a negative impact on the neighbors so can we speak a little bit to potential impacts to their septic tanks and ways that we could mitigate that going forward.

Yes. And maybe I can speak to the first part of that which was the public water and sewer access and then if the applicants team would like to speak a little more to information they found about potential well impacts. Um so this site as well as the Melody Lane neighborhood to the south are both in the ETJ currently and that's why the Melody Lane lots are on well and septic. Um this site if it is successfully reszoned and moves forward to development plan would have to annex. they'd have to bring that sewer service, you know, to their site. So, it will bring things closer. You know, unless they were to commit to it as a zoning condition or a time of development plan, it wouldn't specifically pull the sewer and the water along Melody Lane. What it does do is it opens up that opportunity for individual lots on Melody Lane to annex as they so choose. But, of course, then there would be an expense associated with extending the water sewer line. Um, so and I don't know if you'd like the applicant to speak for other

do you have any idea of is that a valid concern I guess is my question

and I would say um it is a valid concern anytime you're developing right next to well and septic um that being said um subject matter experts from VHB and site investigation and remediation who do with groundwater sampling contaminants um as well as our geotechnical engineer with geotechnologies uh they both reviewed the geotechnical report and information of the underlying surface and substrate. Um both of them have said that there's going to be no adverse impact to wells from this proposed development. Um as it relates to surface runoff and septic uh with the site draining um from that high point just kind of around Japa. The entire site for the vast majority of it goes from the Japa point on the high end towards North Harrison Avenue. um talked about the challenging topography on site. It's really hard to get a greenway connection and a buffer and meet everything else. And so when we look at how the site's going to be designed, uh town of Kerry also has some of the most stringent storm water requirements. And so one of the things that we would be looking at specifically is we don't want to send any excess runoff onto any of the septic tank leech fields. Um that's something I live in a well and septic community. I would want someone to look at that. And so we believe that through good engineering practices as well as confirmation from those experts VHB and Geote Technologies uh that we don't anticipate any adverse impacts from our proposed development. And I believe both of those letters were included in the staff report.

Okay. Thank you. No, I appreciate that. Um any additional questions or comments?

I do on this bike path because from riding around there, we have elevated bike paths on bridges. We have, you know, we have lots of places that you don't impact the ground. And if it's a falloff, it's elevated and then you're not, you know, you're not covering up ground. I mean, so is is is it an option when somebody commits to a path or a greenway, is it an option to have it a bridge or something that's that's running over a a grade with with railing like we do on you heading to the American Tobaca trailer. all these greenways that we have bridges on. Is that a valid for pedestrian and for for bike?

Um, and I can let Pritham speak to that further. I will say a time of development plan and again not having reviewed a an engineered site plan yet, but I'm sure our transportation engineers are going to look at any sort of creative approach that we can take to make sure we get as much of that facility with as we can. Um, but I can have them speak to this further. Um, as the applicant said, it's a little difficult to determine the the alignment of the site path at this point, but once you start to take the site path away from the right of way, you have a little bit more flexibility to put that in an easement and that can be, you know, elevated like you're saying, we've seen some locations along 55 that exist that in that fashion

um, and kind of meander it back to the right of way where the grates are working. So maybe a way to do it without just having to move every even move the Duke power poles. We could you could go around them if you were allowed to go meander into the site to make it work and it may even be less expensive. Okay. Just just asking because it's

sure uh absent any additional questions or comments, we'd be willing to entertain a motion which is in your packet. So if anyone would like to make a motion, uh please do so. I'll make a motion to find uh case 25 RE Z3 consistent with the comprehensive plan and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation and discussion by the planning and zoning board. Second have a second. Okay. All those in favor, please state I. I. Any opposed? Nay.

So, uh any comments? I'm sorry. I I may have gotten out of out of it's been a long night and I was moving things along, but any any additional comments related to those I I would all I just think it was mentioned many times. I think it's the right um we we need more housing like this. Um so I think from a land use standpoint I think it's good. Um my main concern was just getting the the the side path and conforming to the new plan. It sounds like staff's on top of that. So I just think it's uh overall a good fit. Yep. And and then a case too. I mean, please.

Yeah. No, it's one where um you know, again, 49% yes. Um it's just, you know, and it's in it's what is the land use and making sure that residential in nature quality is truly preserved and is talked about because there have been so many other different conversations going on. I think a a a close look to make sure the the land use, the conditions, the assumptions that are being made um with the challenging, you know, topography, you know, and everything we've learned is, you know, it needs a a nice close, you know, second look and make sure it's as tight as we can because yes, I do want to see this, you know, go forward, but I have some hesitation.

A great comment on the minimum. We rarely people want a minimum. They want a m the neighbors want a maximum, you know, but if you want to get housing, you need a minimum. Yeah. And and it's one of those like it's a great point. What what does make sense? So

and I just a a generic comment from from my position is that although we are moving away from residential to OICU, the conditional use is inherently residential. And so I think that's a key component. And anyone's who driven up and down Harrison, you can see from a, you know, I'm I'm I'm a finance guy and I don't understand much in engineering, but I can tell there's a lot going on there uh to the slope of that property. So, we appreciate you wanting to make an investment in the community and doing so in a way that, you know, considers the impact to others around you. So, we appreciate that. Um, the motion carries. Um, and at this point, unless someone has any new business, we can adjourn. So, motion to adjurnn. Actually, I can just call us adjourn. We're journey.