Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

do do Thank you. you

Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Thank you for joining us tonight. I'll call this meeting to order. Our board clerk, Julie Mitchell, will take roll this evening.

Thank you. For the record, Boshana Etten is absent this evening. I will verbally confirm the following board members as present. Sal Camerata, Ruben Moore, Chris Johnson, Mike Roselli, Jeff Moncrief, Sean McAndrew, Andy Coe, Diane Mayo, and Ken George. Thank you.

Thank you, Julie. The Cary Community Plan will continue to be the guiding document for this board. Our role is to function as citizen advisors to the council who will ultimately make final decision on all rezoning activity. We recognize that not all rezoning requests are supported unanimously by members of our community, but we strive to balance the impact of increased building density required to support Cary's growth while maintaining the historic charm and character of Cary. The Cary Community Plan was initially adopted in 2017 following a collaborative effort between Cary's citizens and our town government. That collaboration has continued and resulted in a recently updated version of the plan adopted by Council in January of 2025. The chapters of the plan include the Live, Work, Shop, Engage, Shape, Move, Enrich, Serve, and Act. The Community Plan can be found on Cary's website. Your opinions based on the carry plan document play a very important role in advising our leaders, and we encourage you as citizens to refer to the plan and provide feedback based on the guiding principles of the plan as it relates to the rezoning requests. While this is a public meeting, it is not a public hearing. There's no opportunity for the public to speak during this meeting. If you have comments about any of the items, we encourage you to reach out to staff by email or phone. You may also reach out to our board members through email. or we can contact council directly through email or during the public speaks out portion of any regularly scheduled meeting. These meetings may be streamed live on Carrie's website and will be posted to YouTube. All past planning and zoning board meetings are available to view on YouTube. And with that, I would move for an adoption of our agenda tonight. If someone would please make a motion to adopt the agenda.

So moved.

Second. All those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, so we are moving on to our first case of the evening. And the April minutes will be approved in July, just as a formal record. 24REZ06 Regency Multifamily Rezoning. Our first case is that rezoning and Erin Puckett, principal planner, will share the staff's presentation. Following her presentation, the applicant will share their remarks and then all board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Ms. Puckett, please proceed.

Thank you and good evening, board. This is a request to rezone approximately 10.03 acres at 12010 Regency Parkway. The site is located southeast of US 1 with frontage on Regency Parkway. There is an office located west of the site, a telecommunications tower north of the site, and several vacant parcels east of the site associated with the Holt PDD rezoning case, which went to public hearing last year. This board has not yet reviewed that case. Cocoa Booth Amphitheater is also located roughly half a mile from the site. The property is located in the Regency Park Plan Development District, or PDD. It is a portion of Tract 7 in the PDD, along with the site to the west, which was developed with an office building in 2007. Tract 7 is currently entitled for office and bank uses only. For additional locational context, this slide shows the entirety of the Regency Park PDD with the uses as currently built out. The site is along the northwestern boundary with US 1, and the PDD is mostly built out with multiple residential neighborhoods, offices, and the Cocoa Booth Amphitheater. The dark blue areas on this map indicate existing office sites. According to Cary's GIS, there is a potential stream buffer located on the western portion of the subject property. Field determination of such features is required at time of development plan review. The existing Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Master Plan proposes the Swift Creek Greenway Corridor approximately 300 feet east of the site. There is also an existing Greenway Trail and Streetside Trail located along Regency Parkway 200 feet to the south. Additionally, the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources System Plan was approved in December 2024, and a comprehensive amendment to the engaged chapter is currently in the public review phase. After that phase, the system plan would be incorporated into the engaged chapter of the Imagine Cary Community Plan through a plan amendment pending adoption by council. The proposed greenway map from that system plan, which is shown on this slide, indicates a greenway corridor extending through the northwestern edge of the site and street-side trail along the site frontage on Regency Parkway. The site has sole access from Regency Parkway, which is a collector. And the site is currently zoned Plan Development District Major, or PDD Major, and it contains an office entitlement as part of Tract 7 in the Regency Park PDD. The applicant proposes an amendment to delineate a separate tract 7B, allowing for multifamily uses, so the base zoning would remain PDD major. Within the new tract, the applicant proposes to replace the office entitlement with a maximum of 245 multifamily dwelling units in buildings up to 60 feet in height, a minimum of 5% of the units. That would be approximately 13 units if the maximum site yield is achieved. would be designated as affordable at 80% of area median income, or AMI, for a period of 30 years. 10% of the units, or 24 units, whichever is fewer, will be limited to 800 square feet in size. The applicant also commits to a bronze-level construction standard per the National Green Building Standard guidelines, at least 10 two-port electric vehicle charging stations, and the preservation of all champion trees on site. Four are identified on the master plan. You can see them on this slide. The streetscape along Regency Parkway is proposed to be an average of 30 feet with a 25-foot minimum dimension and would also apply to the streetscape on the right-of-way stub along the eastern boundary. There is also a proposed 10-foot-wide bike and pedestrian multi-use path along Regency Parkway, a 10-foot-wide greenway trail along the eastern boundary of the site, and a greenway easement proposed parallel to US-1 for the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources system plan. Finally, a minimum of 5,000 square feet of gathering space is offered. The rezoning also proposes several modifications, including reduction of the perimeter buffers along both adjacent properties with a 20-foot Type B buffer proposed along both. The LDO would otherwise require a 30-foot type B buffer along the office property to the west and a 40-foot type B buffer along the northern property line adjacent to the cell tower site. We do note that the buffer along the cell tower site is impacted by the power line easement, so may not be fully planted. As a side note, the 30-foot streetscape on Regency Parkway is the minimum required by the LDO and would be continued along the eastern boundary along that local road, which the LDO does not specifically require a streetscape along that small segment. The highway corridor buffer along US 1 is proposed to be averaged with an average width of 100 feet and a minimum width of 70 feet. This is modified from the straight 100-foot buffer that is otherwise required. We note there is a small area of existing parking projecting into the westernmost corner of this buffer. However, staff has concerns that additional future parking projections into this buffer are shown on the PDD, as parking is not an appropriate buffer disturbance, nor can the buffer averaging be reviewed comprehensively until time of development plan. An analysis against the carry community plan finds the policies in the live, work, engage, shape, and enrich chapters apply. The proposal would provide multifamily units in an area that is predominantly developed with employment uses and detached dwellings, which may address policy two of the live chapter. There is no multifamily residential in the immediate area, although there is a 138-unit age-restricted multifamily development just over a half mile east of the site. The proposal may also modestly address Live Policy 6 regarding the provision of affordable dwellings as the applicant commits to a minimum of 5% of the units being rented at 80% AMI or less for 30 years. It also offers 10% of the units, or 24 units, at a maximum size of 800 square feet. Staff notes smaller units can potentially provide opportunities for long-term affordability, although size is not a guarantee of affordability. As written, this condition is not specifically in addition to the 5% of affordable units, so could include those units. Regarding work policies, the provision of a smaller housing type, such as multifamily, may help fill a housing need of Cary's workforce, which can generally support Policy 1. However, Policy 11 notes the importance of reserving and providing office and employment spaces in Cary. The removal of the office entitlement at the site reduces opportunities for future employment uses. Policy 4 of the shape chapter generally supports the development of infill. However, it is still important that infill sites are compatible with surrounding uses. Policy 6 notes the various transitions that may be utilized between different land uses. The proposal offers a maximum building height of 60 feet that is similar in height to neighboring structures, which may help facilitate a form transition. At the same time, the layout of the site with the building pulled up closer to the street is different from an established development pattern in Regency. There is not a clear use transition as the site would be the sole multifamily use amid office and detached residential uses and is located between an office and a cell tower site. Modifications to the buffers may also serve to increase incompatibility between sites and between residential uses on the highway, given the proposed change from office to multifamily. Regarding the move chapter, this site is anticipated to generate 96 trips in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, which is just below the threshold for a traffic study. Given how close the development program is to triggering a traffic study and the site's unique location in proximity to Cocoa Booth Amphitheater, with sole access to Regency Parkway, a voluntary traffic impact analysis could be helpful to assess potential traffic impacts. At this time, the applicant has declined to prepare a voluntary traffic analysis for the rezoning. As a result, staff does not have any additional information on the subject rezoning traffic impacts. Regarding the engaged chapter, the applicant has committed to partial construction of the greenway in the site, as well as the multi-use path along the site's Regency Parkway frontage. The proposal may meet several enriched policies. Commitments to electric vehicle charging and green building certification may at least partially address policies regarding sustainability and green building practices. The applicant has committed to preserving all four champion trees on site, which can partially address policy nine. However, the surface parking below the power line easement on the site will limit the ability to provide replacement canopy trees throughout the majority of the parking area, Thus, replacement tree canopy will likely be less than would otherwise be required by the LDO. There is no structured parking proposed with this amendment, which could help reduce the amount of surface parking lacking tree cover. The site has a business and industrial park designation on the future growth framework map. This designation predominantly supports traditional suburban office parks and light industrial uses. Residential uses are not specifically identified as an appropriate standalone use in these areas, although the plan notes some residential may be incorporated into new development, so those uses should be more incidental in nature. This proposal deviates from this guidance as multifamily is the sole proposed use. Staff knows that today's market may not support the provision of large amounts of new professional office space. However, the business industrial park designation supports a variety of other non-residential uses, complementary to an office park and the nearby Cocoa Booth amphitheater. A neighborhood meeting was held on May 1st of 2024. 72 members of the public attended and asked questions about the proposed use and density and expressed concerns about traffic impacts, particularly in conjunction with Cocoa Booth Amphitheater event traffic, as well as the potential for increased crime and environmental impacts. After the neighborhood meeting, staff continued to receive emails and calls, most of which reiterated the previously mentioned questions and concerns. A public hearing was held in April of this year. There were 31 written comments and 11 in-person speakers. Comments cited concerns involving the proposed use of multifamily residential, the density of the project, increased traffic, the potential for increased crime, decreased property values and environmental impacts. Council also shared some feedback at the public hearing, including concerns about the proposed use and transitions, although some members acknowledged multifamily could contribute to housing diversity in the area. They also noted the vision and future for Cary and Cocoa Booth should be considered, not just the current office market trends. And some members noted that 80% AMI is still relatively high. The applicant did make one substantive change since the public hearing. which was the addition of at least 10% of units or 24 units, whichever is less, to 800 square feet maximum in size. And minor clarifying edits were made to the PDD language and notes. Staff notes that many policies of the Cary Community Plan apply, as detailed in your staff report, but I'll provide a high-level summary here. Some policies of the plan are at least partially met, and these include the LIV policy regarding housing options, as well as the engage policy regarding the importance of the greenway system. Commitments to a bronze level green building standard and 10 EV charging stations, along with preservation of four champion trees, can partially address enriched chapter policies, while the large surface parking lot without options for tree canopy appears to be somewhat at odds with the tree canopy policy. A number of policies are not met by the proposal. The proposed use is not consistent with the Future Growth Framework designation, and exclusively residential development in a business and industrial park is not supported by the plan. This also relates to the associated work policy, which notes the importance of preserving employment opportunities in these areas. As noted earlier, non-residential uses other than office could be supported at this location. It is not clear that any of the transition strategies described by the shape chapter are fully met. The residential use between an office and a cell tower use and in close proximity to the Cocoa Booth Amphitheater does not make a clear use transition. The site layout, while notably impacted by the power line easement, departs from the established form and regency of large buildings nestled back behind vegetation. Where form and use transitions cannot be fully met, We would expect buffers to facilitate transitions. Here, buffers are reduced, and the highway corridor buffer is averaged to as little as 70 feet. This concludes my presentation. Jason Barron, the applicant's representative, is here to provide their comments, and then I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

than the ones you've seen me give before just because I want to provide a little bit more detail related to the site that may not be obvious from the information that you have. And so with that said, I've got some handouts that I'm going to pass around that I'm going to walk through. Aaron, I'm going to provide you a copy as well. And to be clear, the cover page that you're getting is illustrative in nature. The rest of the information, I really kind of want to do a deep dive relative to why we believe this site is unique and to tell a little bit of a clearer story related to how this site fits, site constraints, and why we believe a multifamily use in this location is good. Not only it's the right fit, not only in the short term, but also in the long term for a site in this location. And so before I get into it, the second page kind of gives you a little bit more context in terms of where this site sits relative to kind of everything around it. Cocoa Booth, Those parcels that are R40 and GC to the east of the site were those that Aaron mentioned are subject to the whole PDD that's going through the process. And there's a variety of office uses that are in and around, as you all are aware, what Regency is. And what Regency is and has been for a long time is a historic, historically suburban office park. And for years, those were a huge hit. And they were tremendous generators of office and employment for the town of Cary. Weston and Regency were kind of the gold standard for being able to bring employers to this market. As we have experienced over the course of time, and this was pre-pandemic as well, but even before the pandemic hit, there was a significant move. There started to become a significant move away from the suburban office park. And you started to see vacancy rates in those suburban office park. really significantly increase, while at the same time you saw places like North Hills, Fenton, their office markets are doing great because they're highly amenitized areas where people can live, work, and play all in the same location. And so pre-pandemic, the office market had already started to decline. Obviously, with the pandemic and the work-from-home phenomenon, and as you've heard before and the town council has mentioned on a number of occasions, in this market, there is no greater employer of work-from-home options than the town of Cary right now. The town of Cary, the employees that work in the town, not for the town, in the town, have the greatest percentage of people working from home as compared to every other jurisdiction in this market. And so the result of those things, the office markets, the suburban office market being a dying breed, the impact of the pandemic, the work from home phenomenon. These are things that aren't going anywhere. These are things that have resulted in significant negative impacts to Regency. And the result is there are a number of vacant buildings in Regency Office Park as of today. Not just struggling buildings, there are vacant buildings in Regency Office Park as of today. And there probably are more coming. I worked on Regency Creek, which are the two office buildings kind of around the corner from the site if you're looking at your site. If you're looking at your page, kind of just south of Regency Lake, and I know it's tough to see, but if you look at Regency Lake, to the south of that it says PDD Major in two different places. There are two office buildings that are located there. The one kind of on the east side of those two parcels on the south of Regency Lake, it's completely vacant. The other one was built within the last eight years and is currently receiving the benefit of tenancy from folks who signed long-term leases when that building looked like it was a little bit more viable. And so I mention that because, again, this isn't speculation and conjecture associated with where is the office market, especially in suburban office parks. The reality is it's a dying breed. And so it's incumbent upon, we believe, the town to figure out, okay, if these sites are going to fall into a state of disrepair, we don't want blight, right? That's bad for everybody. We don't want vacant office buildings just sitting there. What can we do? What should we do? We believe, and I'm going to walk you through the remainder of this information, and I'll talk a little bit about the master plan itself, but we believe that this site, given its unique configuration, sets up well for a multifamily use, and that multifamily long-term is the type of use you would want to put here regardless. And so the second page is the page that is up on this screen. And I want to walk through a handful of the unique site constraints and kind of explain how they all work together. So obviously you've got Regency Parkway along the eastern portion of the site. This peach portion is essentially where all of the buildings and most of the parking is going to be located on this site. And the reason why all of the buildings are there is because this giant gray area, most of this giant gray area is that transmission line. As you all are aware, due to Duke standards, you can't put any structures in those transmission areas. You really can't change the grade of those areas much. They do allow you to do some planting. And so you can plant up to 20 trees that will reach 25 feet in maturity and that will be the plan as part of this process when we get into the development plan process. But that transmission line essentially serves as a significant barrier to where anything on this site can be located. So that peach area is roughly 4.75 acres of land. approximated. Let's call it five for the sake of discussion. And I mention that because all of the buildings associated with any use of this site, whether it's for the office that it's currently zoned for, which we know is not coming anytime soon, or the multifamily that we're proposing, or whatever use could be put to the site, it's going to have to go in that peach area because we know Duke won't allow buildings there, and you're not going to put it in the thoroughfare corridor buffer, obviously. This site, in addition to having the transmission line that serves as a wall to where things can go, there is a public right of way to the east of the site that will be improved as part of this development that serves as a barrier to where this site could go. You have Regency obviously to the east of the site and then to the west of the site There is a significant environmental feature that serves as the entire western boundary of this property. There's a stream feature that runs through here. That's why you see those champion trees in that location because they've been able to grow up in those riparian areas and that's why they're able to be saved so easily is because that's where those champion trees are. And so the end effect of this is that you have a parcel, and granted it's in Regency, but it's kind of a parcel on an island. There's only so many things that can happen with it. You've got public right of way to the east, you've got public right of way to the east and north, you've got a transmission line to the north and west, and you have an environmental feature to the west and south. And so again, the environmental constraints, the transmission line, and the streets really create an island unto itself. There's nowhere else for uses to go on this site. It's not like the adjacent office building, which is doing well, could be recombined with this site and redeveloped as this bigger vision because you've got a giant stream between it. It's not like this site could be joined with the whole PDD, whatever happens on that, and could be redeveloped in a way because you're going to have a public street separating the two anyways. And so, again, I just wanted to do a little bit deeper dive relative to the constraints of the site itself because I do think it makes it incumbent upon us to make intelligent decisions about what should go here. And what it's currently zoned for is six stories of office at roughly 119,000 square feet With respect to the tree canopy in that transmission line, I would note that any use of this site is gonna be subject to the same things. That by putting parking under it actually, it encourages and requires the planting of landscaping in an area that otherwise doesn't have that requirement, and it requires the maintenance of that landscaping in that area. And so I believe that by putting surface parking in there, you're not only making a better and more efficient use of the land, you're actually putting in planting that will be code required to be maintained that otherwise wouldn't be maintained as of today. But it kind of gives you kind of current thinking with respect to building configuration. So I just wanted to give you an understanding of based upon those constraints, this is how current thinking for this site, and I want to be clear, this is not a zoning condition, but I just want Given that it's five acres, there's only so many things we can do. My client has spent a lot of time trying to figure out how does this site fit, how does this site work, and this is the current thinking with respect to building configuration on the site. The transmission lines naturally push the buildings up to Regency Parkway. The transmission lines naturally encourage the use of those under the transmission areas for things like parking. I would tell you, and the staff report makes mention of the fact that parking decks could theoretically serve to be an advantage to the site, If you did deck parking on this site, the building heights would be a heck of a lot higher than what's being proposed today. Given the current six stories and the existing challenges with this site, I think you'd be hard-pressed to figure out a way to do deck parking office on this site within six stories of use. Traffic is something that we've heard a lot about in this case. The next page is a trip generation analysis that our traffic engineers have prepared. And they ran this at 245 dwelling units, which is where we started the case. We think we've dropped below that by now. And we compared it to 118,000 square feet of office. And so again, as of today, the site is owned for roughly 119,000 square feet of office. We rounded that down to 18. I won't go into the details, but long story short, in the daily trips, our proposed use is reducing trip generation by 129 trips on a daily basis. At the a.m. peak, it's 83 less trips. And in the p.m. peak, it's 78 less trips. And this is information that was prepared by Kimberly Horn. Unfortunately, they're not here, so if you have questions about it, you're going to have to ask Priyatham, who I saw in the room. But the point being, this is, in fact, a downzoning. It might not feel like it because you're introducing apartments to an area where apartments don't currently exist, but I do think it's a very relevant point related to what is the current entitlement and what is everybody's anticipation with respect to what that entitlement would produce from a traffic standpoint. Another thing that we are sensitive to is making sure that as we introduce height related to this property and we've heard questions from the neighbors and in addition to the code required neighborhood meeting, we had a separate neighborhood meeting with folks that live in this community and we had very good attendance and I appreciate everybody who was there. I think I saw some familiar faces tonight who are in the audience with us today. But one of the concerns we heard was related to building height. So these next two pieces of information that I've shared with you are showing the distance between the corner of our parcel and the nearest single-family residential. One is to the large homes on Michelangelo Way, and the other one is to Angelica Way. In addition to it and as you can see to Michelangelo it's 515 feet to the edge of that property to the closest single-family home is roughly 515 feet and then to Angelica it's roughly 421 feet. Additionally from a topographic standpoint and that's why I turned those contours on each of those properties sits at roughly 380 feet. The corner of our site which is at that corner of the existing street is at roughly 360. So the grade difference is this site sits 20 feet lower than the homes in each of those instances, and those are the closest homes to us. And so I make that point because, again, if height is a concern, the good news is that Mother Nature has kind of dictated how this site and building heights are going to relate to the things around it because those things sit fairly significantly higher than the site that we are working on. So like I said, I wanted to run through that additional detail because I do think it's important context related to what this site can be. how it can build and how it will relate to the things that are around it. And from an alternative uses standpoint, and we do this in every case, right? First, we're gonna look at the Cary Community Plan, we're gonna look at the Comprehensive Plan, we're gonna look at the policies, and that's you all's job is to make that determination. And we believe on balance, and we recognize that there are policies that we are inconsistent with, and we're not gonna argue that we are consistent with all of them, but we believe on balance this case is the right case. If you start to think about the uses that could be put to the site, If we recognize that it's not going to be office, certainly no time soon. There's already existing vacant office. We'd prefer to see that fill up before you start building new office. If we agree that it's probably not a retail site, right? I mean, if you think about what retail is looking for, retail is looking for things that with lots of pass-by traffic, easily walkable. And while there may be walkable opportunities to this, it's not in a location where retail would typically go. And so I would venture to guess that in the long term, if this isn't going to be office, that a multifamily use is probably the most logical conclusion to draw. Recognizing the business industrial park is not one that contemplates residential, but I think we all agree that at some point residential needs to be introduced in this area. We believe that ultimately because this is the right place for this type of use, but because it will be walkable to things like Cocoa Booth, it is reducing traffic and it's reducing building height as compared to what's permitted today. It's making a smart use of the land. It's doing so in a way that we believe ultimately achieves the fundamental purposes of the Cary Community Plan. And so I apologize for the atypical nature of my presentation. I do think it's important to understand the context of the site and we're here to answer any questions that you all may have.

Thank you, Jason. And I appreciate the way you went about it because it is a little bit of an unusual request. We've got something that previously was specifically zoned to be one thing for specific reasons at that point in time, and now we're reconsidering it at a different point in time. So that context was helpful in my mind. So I guess we'll open the floor now for questions. I guess what we can do is maybe just start down south to my right on this first case, and we'll flip it up to the next and open it up to questions, and then we'll take it from there.

I think I'd like to understand that Holt, what's going on there, what it's zoned right now, it's in for rezoning, do we know what they're proposing at this point?

It's in for rezoning. It initially came in as a semi-mixed-use project, so it could be a large number of multifamily, I believe up to about 700 or 750 units. And then there is a smaller commercial piece that could legitimately be retail and restaurant or could also be hotels. So it could end up as just residential and hotel uses. That case did go to a public hearing it has not progressed from there The applicants have not withdrawn to date We don't know what the future of that case will look like exactly And then as far as the reduction in the buffers I'm After now seeing kind of how tight that site is is that why those were reduced is that?

To minimums?

Yeah, and so a couple points on that front. The two perimeter buffers, not the thoroughfare corridor buffer. The westernmost perimeter buffer is kind of an easy request because there is an environmental feature that's creating more of a natural buffer in that area. With respect to the one to the north of the site, where it's adjacent to a cell tower. It's separated by a transmission line for most of it. We did volunteer. I mean, staff encouraged it for us to consider putting in that future greenway connection in that area. Our ability to be able to deliver the code required buffer is candidly constrained by putting in that greenway connection. But we probably wouldn't have been able to meet the full 40 feet. And so it is really related. It's just, this is a tough site. You've got, not only is it just five acres, you have that environmental feature that sneaks into the front of the property along Regency. So yeah, Mr. Kamara, that's exactly why.

And then that little triangle piece, that's to the northeast. Does your client own that? No. No, okay. So does that pose some problems?

And you're referring to the cell tower property that's shown on this map?

Is that where the cell tower is?

The triangle to the north of this site is that cell tower, yes. I'm sorry, I missed that.

Okay. And on the... this one that you showed. These black lines, I can't read what sort of the hatched black lines are.

So that's the proposed vehicular connection through the site. It's conceptual, but it would be roughly in that location.

Okay.

That's all I got at this time.

You had a pretty quick statement in passing about making this a uniformly residential site. I think you were speaking to the lack of a maybe for some kind of multi-use features, kind of based on it not being a walkable area. I guess this is an observation, maybe a little bit on the personal side. 245 units could help support some certain types of commercial, like if you would consider some type of first floor retail, maybe not the entire first floor, but just maybe corners, something kind of like the Walker in downtown Cary has a restaurant, but it's an apartment building. Also, I'm aware of a couple of other really small shopping centers in Cary that I think do quite well, even though there's not a huge retail attraction, but just having a few storefronts does seem to be an attractor for traffic from somewhere else. And as far as being walkable, You basically cross the street and go south a couple hundred feet, and it's a fairly new access from Symphony Lake up to Regency Parkway. There's a lot of people that walk there, and I don't do a lot of walking, but I do a lot of biking, and this site could be... I would consider this a very bikeable site as far as getting on existing infrastructure and making bike trips. I agree with that completely, which is why we're incorporating those wider side paths. And some of the people I know, biking's not just a uniform activity. It's like bike to a bar, bike to a coffee shop, bike to some other attraction, bike and then have lunch somewhere. So again, I think if you had a little bit more openness for a couple of retail spots, it might be more attractive than just a uniform residential area. And it would probably make the office part a little bit more attractive as well, like you were mentioning, say, with Fenton, North Hills, that if there's a lot of, say, lunch attractions, then it would make it a little bit nicer to have an office there so that everybody didn't have to get in a car at lunchtime to go somewhere. just walk over to the restaurant. So that's my speech on multi-use development. Understood.

And I don't disagree with any of that either.

Okay. Yeah, I agree. Maybe not for all of it, but at least for the part of it that's along Regency Parkway, I think it would be a great location for some multi-use. One of the things that did stick out to me that, just for context, You made note about the distances from the site to the other homes. But the elevation, I think, was lacking context. The 360 is not the elevation of the site. That's the elevation of a draw at the property line at the very corner of the site. Most of the site is around 370 and upwards. I doubt that you all would be dropping the entire site to 360. that probably wouldn't make too much sense, I wouldn't think, but maybe you could clarify that, but if you're somewhat keeping the earthwork and keeping most of the site grades close to what they are, then it would certainly be 10 foot higher than what I heard, which I don't know if that's enough to cause an issue,

uh with the building heights and what's seen from those extra other locations but could you respond to that sure yeah and again what i was doing was doing from the closest point the the primary issue that i was trying to demonstrate was at that corner that's the closest point and what that that topo is now i didn't i included the contours for that very reason not trying to hide the ball on that at all whatsoever that's absolutely a low point it is the fixed point where that finish floor elevation ends up being in terms of leveling things out and grading don't know exactly what that is I was just trying to communicate a piece of information that we know won't change but certainly included the contours in full disclosure yeah I mean I think that I don't know if you if this would be one of those series where a balloon test might be helpful but to know what the impact is of the height of the buildings I think that would be helpful

Can you clarify, and I know you said this is more of a, like a, not in stone, but you've got the parking and then you've got these large green areas. I'm looking at the square areas of green between the parking bays. Can you, is that intended to be, what is that?

not sure which point which area you're pointing to the two two gray or green it's in the it's within the i guess the easement of the duke energy but it's like you've got yeah areas where there's no parking yep it's that's right and so based on current information this building layout is supported by the parking that is shown on that screen or on that page and so as you're probably aware duke only requires only wants you to put in their easements as much as you need and so we don't think the entire easement area is going to be parking maybe it will maybe it won't but circulation is going to require that kind of that the parking behind that and so current thinking is it will be less than a hundred percent of the easement area but we don't know that right now that's really just kind of representative we're not going to we're not planting any open spaces for people to patronize in there and the reason i was asking was because i didn't know

why the other parking was set so far back so what i'm hearing if i heard you right is you can't just put all the parking in the duke energy easement only what you have to put in so you're trying to put some of it further back on the property outside of the easement yeah and so outside of the easement and can i use this for a second

Mr. Johnson, so this arrow here is a drive aisle that is coming out of the existing office. And we ultimately have to pick that up and get it over to here. And so that's why we have this configured in this way. And the moment we put that drive aisle in, and what you see in front of you in terms of this exhibit, um that has been modified since we made these modifications because these will only be parallel spots they won't be perpendicular so the impacts to the the buffer have been minimized but since we were since we know we've got to put that dry vial in to essentially connect those two points we're putting parking in those areas and so by being able to take advantage of those parking areas it may reduce the number of spaces that we need in that duke easement okay i just didn't know if it was possible to

pull the road, the part of the roads that you were building, not tying. I know you got, where you're tying on both ends. I didn't know if you had any flexibility in the alignment of the north, the eastern, western leg to be pulled further into the site so you would have more of the perimeter buffer that you're not able to meet on the backside.

Yeah, and as you know, during the zoning process, we're setting kind of the box, and then when we get into development plan, we'll figure out what that box is. Right now, our conservative estimate anticipates we're going to need to have some encroachment into that thoroughfare corridor buffer if it's avoidable obviously taking down trees costs money and so developers don't want to take down trees to the extent they don't have to and if it can be avoided they'll i'm sure they'll try to but at the end of the day our assumption is there's going to need to be those impacts in order to facilitate the development okay but point noted and and can you just and i think you touched on it if you could say it again what's the reason why you can't meet the other buffers It's really just trying to fit everything onto the site. And the reality is for the western edge between us and the existing office building, that's a giant environmental feature. And so we're replanting a portion of it. But generally speaking, that's where our champion trees are. That's where that low-lying area, that's where that feed is. To the northern boundary, it's because there's a transmission line that occupies the vast majority of that. And then you've got the – The limited section that we have essentially the ability to replant to those standards outside of that transmission line is just not a significant amount of land and it's adjacent to a cell tower that's not going anywhere anytime soon. They've got a long-term lease on that site. So it was being practical about where to push the envelope. We increased our buffers throughout this process. We squeezed the thoroughfare corridor buffer. When we started, we had a much... more narrow thoroughfare corridor buffer and a much more significant reduction of that. And as we, you know, just kind of working around the edges, just trying to make educated decisions about where we should poke and where we shouldn't.

And can you, one more time, just show me on the map where the cell tower is again?

Yes, so it's to the north of the site. I'm sorry, now I'm having the Jason Varon problem with the mouse. Does it work for me? Oh, there it is. So it's just north of the site. It's the sort of triangular piece. I can show you on the vicinity map the entirety. Okay, it's outside the property. But

You can see the arrow there for the approximate location.

And I do just also want to add, and I know the board is aware of this, the conceptual plan that the applicant shared with you tonight, obviously it's not a zoning condition. And I do just want to caveat that staff is seeing that for the first time as well. We've not reviewed that layout at all for compliance with the code.

The last question I had was when you had your table when you were going through the plan uses and stuff, I thought what I saw was detached residential did i miss maybe misunderstand that can you go back do you recall was that the analysis slide it was one of your slides uh that you had when you're doing existing in proposed zoning oh yes i believe i just want to make sure i understood because i didn't know i thought it was all non-residential but then yeah that

yes so and maybe actually let me pull up an earlier map to show this and i apologize this this exhibit may have been a little bit confusing this is the entirety of the regency pdd um so you can kind of see how the southern portion so most of the area south of symphony lake is currently detached residential so there's no other multi-family directly adjacent you will see and i I have it flagged as life care on this map. I believe it's actually just age-restricted multifamily now, this one multifamily piece.

Okay, thank you.

Does that help?

Yes. I just want to make sure it wasn't, I didn't misunderstand what was the option.

Yes, there is a large amount.

To have one option for non-residential, but then find out that they could also do detached dwellings. This is going to be specifically non-residential, like just apartments? Yes, correct. That's all.

so i did notice um on this particular image that we have here in front of us there's a a wetland area pointed to kind of on the western side that looks like it lines up with the area on the illustrative that doesn't have parking in it right and then the second area on the illustrative that doesn't have parking just looking at google aerial it looks like it lines up with a duke power the structure, a structure that holds the lines. And there is, of course, an area around that.

You can only get so close to those.

One of the questions I had specifically about traffic. I didn't know if you had worked with Kimley Horn or spoke with them about the scope of the trip generation that was performed. But I didn't know if it considered trips from folks that would live here if it was multifamily walking to office within the PDD or walking to Cocoa Booth.

Yeah, we haven't received that information. But in general, you know, if one were to build an office building of that size, the trips might be a little bit higher with an office building. And to answer your question, there's always possibility of multi-model trips through walking or biking if appropriate connections are made.

I know that I've been in the office buildings just over Regency to the east within the last few months, and they're very vacant. Does the town maintain occupancy statistics?

The town does not specifically. However, for this case, when it went to council a few months ago, we did ask the chamber to assist us with some of that data. So we are aware there are relatively high vacancy rates in Regency. I believe at the two or three months ago at the time of the public hearing, it was right around 46% vacancy.

Yeah. I think about it a lot that a lot of times we're looking for multi-use, mixed-use developments. And here's an opportunity to... take some, you know, there's already office there that's mostly vacant. You know, could folks who lived here actually work in those buildings and walk to Cocoa Booth? Let's see. I think that was all the questions I had. Thank you.

All right.

Go ahead, Sean.

Now, I guess I'd like to iterate or understand, is this supposed to be walkable at all? Is that how it's being designed?

So the Regency area in general should be. I showed that greenway map earlier. You all are probably aware. We've got the existing greenway system that goes around the lake, kind of connects to a street-side trail to the south, future planned greenway to the north. The site has offered, let me pull up, sorry to jump back and forth. So they have offered to construct a greenway sort of along the southern and eastern boundary and to increase to a 10 foot wide, so essentially a street side trail width facility along the frontage. Now again, those are things that are in excess of our PRCR plan today, but those are also features that are shown on that updated PRCR system plan that we anticipate would eventually be adopted into Imagine Carry.

Besides getting to Cocoa Booth, what else can they get to on these greenways that would be somewhat close to keep this actually walkable? Because we keep saying mixed use. Without it, as it stands, what's close?

I mean, you have that Swift Creek Trail that runs you all the way back to Kildare Farms Road, and then you've got Walmart, Whole Foods, Waverly, you know, all those kind of things. I mean, that's definitely bikeable. Walkable, you know, I mean, it is technically walkable, but you're getting into technicalities probably.

Well, and that's the whole thing is, like, there seems to be just this gap, you know, for this use where, you know, this is supposed to be, you know, office, maybe not retail, but something that would actually have a little bit of a work aspect to support with the Imagine Carry, and it just seems to be missing.

Yes, and I think maybe part of what you're hitting on, too, is this area is largely office, some of which is vacant and residential. The business and industrial park designation does also talk about appropriate incidental uses being other things like commercial uses. So especially with this being a business industrial park and having Cocoa Booth in the business industrial park, You know, could some of those incidental uses, like restaurants, retail, those types of things, make it more walkable, perhaps?

Yeah, that would be something that I'd like to see as conditions, just because that, to me, is the direction and makes it attractive to keep people there. And, you know, talking about blight and bringing down, well, you have to build so that the blight doesn't come. And I think there's the opportunity here to make that more attractive, and I'm just not seeing all of it.

Go ahead, Andy. Do you have any more questions?

Yeah, just in regards to the traffic study, one of the comments that you had made was that there was a volunteer traffic analysis that was denied, but then I guess they did their own traffic analysis?

Yes, so I think they've pulled some trip generation numbers. Our staff had suggested they do an actual traffic memo, so they're not required to do a TAR that the LDO would require for a rezoning of this size. And as I noted, they're close to that trigger with the peak hour trips, but they didn't trip it. What we typically recommend in that instance is that they consider a voluntary traffic impact memo of some kind that our staff can review, especially in this case, so just for additional context, the Holt PDD that was mentioned earlier, that was of such a size that it did trigger a tar, but they then voluntarily did some additional event traffic capture to see the impacts of the Cocoa Booth traffic in concert with the residential traffic. We would have liked to see a voluntary tar, or excuse me, a voluntary traffic impact analysis, but it is not a requirement. But it would have been helpful information with the unique context of this site.

Did they not do that just because of the cost, the time, or what?

That would be a question for the applicant.

Yeah, it would be helpful to get some clarity there.

Sure. The traffic engineers who performed the original Holt PDD as well as the, or who reviewed the original Holt PDD and then who performed and reviewed work with the town on the updated The update to that traffic study, that's Kimley Horn. They're the same traffic engineers who are working on this site. So they looked at our plan for development of this site and determined that the recommendations that are in the whole PDD, as well as the update to it, wouldn't change with what is being proposed associated with this site. So we have certainly done analysis on our end, but they haven't spent the money to do a full-blown analysis. And the reason why is that Kim Lee Horn, who has done both studies, is working with both developers, determined or at least advised that there aren't material changes to the recommendations of the whole PDD. And we're aware of what those traffic improvement recommendations are.

Okay. Yeah, it just helps get some clarity. But I guess also to clarify, you had not seen this traffic study prior to tonight?

I had not specifically, I'm not sure.

Okay. No other questions? Do you have any questions, Diane?

No, thanks.

Ken, any additional questions?

Yeah, I do, thanks. I think when we talk about business and industrial and uses, we have to just, you know, in recent news, we've watched RTP 2.0. Most people in Cary probably wouldn't be here if it weren't for RTP. I'm not sure Cary would be maybe 20,000 people if RTP had not blown up and all the people in the job. And that's changing because now they're putting people to live in RTP. So I certainly see the mixing of offices and places, and whether it's on Weston or whether it's in RTP, I see that happening. I think knowing that these buildings are done, even if the Dude Software building, I guess which is the closest one to the, this side of regency in that parking lot across the street i think they went bankrupt and i think the bank owns that building and i guess they're getting money off renting the parking spaces to the town so this is not a this is a real thing this is a real thing happening that people just these buildings are empty and they can't put people in them um and i think there's gonna be more redevelopment like this that's some of these buildings are going to come down If they can't put people in them, what are they going to do? But I do have some questions. That was my observation about the mixing the two. So the Greenway connection that they're voluntarily doing to the north, when I saw, when you go back to that proposed Greenway, I think that's the one that comes down from Lake Pine and crosses over 64 and then comes back. So they'll be able to bike from Lake Pine to, the way into the park and that'll also mean that the people in the apartments about walkability is certainly bike ability to be able to get out the backside and and bikes I appreciate the the backside of that but I think that's going to be I think that's one of those in that proposed overpass that's one of those like the bike bridges there is a proposed grade separation across the highway we don't have any sort of project for that or time time frame for sure So you spoke of, Erin, I think about transition between office and cell tower. What would be an appropriate transition between an office building and a cell tower? I'm trying to figure out how you transition between those two.

You're right. It's tricky. I think we would think something more non-residential in nature would probably be a clearer use transition. And as the plan notes, transitions can be made in a variety of ways. It doesn't have to be strictly use. If you're going to go with a Use like residential, can you buffer it more? Can you do other things?

And I think about what came before us, different place up Piney Plains last time, next to US-1. You certainly want to put, I mean, if their apartment's next to US-1, their apartment's next to US-1, people, it may, you know, prices may be lower, but that's up to the developer, right? It's their problem if there's noise from that. i was noticing though is that you know this new wall we've got coming down us-1 and i got to looking at it uh those walls are 15 20 feet tall and here we're they're putting buildings that are is it 40 feet what's the six max of six max of 60. and uh it's almost like they're providing that becomes a buffer and a noise reduction. And I did see a notice in here. I don't think you went over that, Jason. There's a reduction in noise buffer in that last page that you gave us. So in addition to having a noise reduction just from the distance and the buffer that's there, I think these buildings, if you look at any kind of layout, it's going to reduce some noise. I see that. So this transition is what I'm trying to figure out. If there's going to be parking, it seems like there's transition between those if there want to be an apartment building. And the height difference, it could be 90 feet there, is that right? Office building, six stories, is that?

Six-story office building is what's entitled today. I would have to double-check the PDD to see if there was a specific height.

Or just six stories. And so we're dealing with only 60 feet. Is that a four-story with a roof? Five? Okay. So it could be taller, I'm assuming. So I might assume a balloon test. If people moved in there and it could have been an office building, then it certainly could have been something sticking up higher than what these are. Let me see. Five acres.

Just a couple more.

I was scratching notes. I got to be able to read my writing. Oh, on the, I know this isn't, I got the Kimley Horn thing about the traffic, but our traffic studies, and Ruben probably can answer this, but traffic studies, in general, they do updates of what typical, like this 118 square foot office building. They applied for more parking spaces to this office building to the west because they're putting more people in smaller spaces, right?

I can't tell you the exact reason that a private developer requested that, but certainly that's a conclusion you could draw. It was approved to put more parking spaces there.

It was, correct. So that would seem to me that that means they're saying that that number of thousand of office buildings, there's an increased number of cars because they wanted more parking spaces. which means that you have to change those calculations for traffic studies now versus 10 years ago. And I'm assuming those things are always in flux and stay current. And so I'm saying I think this is – I'm happy that there's fewer trips, and I can see why that would be a difference. It looks like there's one difference on the peak hour, but it still looks like it's – You know, people commuting, people are staying at home versus going to an office. It seems like it's a lower, it's a reduction. So I'm not sure whether there was a question in there or not, but it was certainly some comments, the way I'm looking at it. I think that's it.

All right. So I guess, you know, back to your point about saying something that this is presented in a slightly different way. I, you know, I too, candidly, when I look at this, I think that's a long way. You know, I, as someone looking at a residential location, might not find it attractive to have to drive all the way to the end of this kind of, you know, single access place. And I'm next to a highway and all that. But to Ken's point, I'm not the one who they have to attract, you know, to be the tenant. And so I'm thinking about, you know, is it consistent with the plan? Well, The plan, that's where we get a little bit tricky and a little gray here. We had a plan before and said, here's what we want to do in this place forever and for always, and the world changed. And so is it consistent with the plan that's evolving? Has our plan evolved such that this has been specifically identified? No, but that's why we have this opportunity for the rezonings. The one thing that we see in all of these lately, and I just want, you know, I'm not trying to kind of get on a soapbox, but I'd like to focus on the affordable housing aspect because we've leaned on it pretty heavily in this and in some others and you know I just did some math this afternoon and the AMI we talked about that council and otherwise you know it's a hundred thirty two thousand dollars and so at eighty percent that's a hundred and five thousand dollars that's for a family of four household And so 80% of that number is like, and then they had 30% is what you're saying you would apply for housing. So now you got $31,000 for rent divided by 12, that's $2,640 in rent per month. So by giving this condition that I've got 800 square foot apartments, Well, if I have to pay $2,640 for an 800-square-foot apartment, I would argue that's not affordable. So I'm not sure I get much with that condition when I do that math, and maybe I'm not thinking about that exactly correctly. But that's just one component. One I wanted to also nail down is this division. I'm struggling a little bit with the 7A and the 7B and the rezoning. If I heard this right, we've got now $118,000 in effective square footage that's available to be rezoned. This 245 units, if I've read it correctly, I think is 180,000 square feet. So we're increasing the density of square footage of building on the location, but the uses associated with that are less. Am I getting that correct, or does anyone know?

So we don't know the exact square footage. It's to be determined. Yeah, it's far versus residential density. There is, I think, that entire track 7, if I understand where you were going originally, got amended back in 2006, 2007 for a total of 240,000 square feet on the site. And roughly 1,920,000 are built out, so half.

I'm just wondering if you've got kind of this lost rezoning, and maybe to Ken's point, if that office ends up dying, I'm not sure if it's owned. Is it the same ownership? I don't know that I need to know all of those things. But the point is, we've got this other property here that's in the same condition, immediately adjacent to it. And so if we're making things in a vacuum about this one property, we could have problems down the road. I think those were literally the high-level things that I wanted to understand a little bit better. So with that said, I would take a motion, I think, at this point.

Can I make a comment? Yeah, sure. Not to be repetitive on the condition of office in that part, but that part's hurting. Oh, yeah. If we don't rezone this for multifamily, nothing's going to be built on that for a while. I mean, it's going to remain empty, right? I think it's time that we can revive this park, the Regency Park, by rezoning not only this, but possibly the Holt coming down the road. So this kind of kicks that off, and there'll be some synergies now created as we look into the future for this park. And I kind of look at it as Weston and Ken, you brought it up, you know, I mean, it's got high-end housing, it had office, it didn't have any, it did have some industrial, I think, but then they added the multifamily to it, and that was probably controversial at the time, but it seems like it's working now.

This could be... And you just reminded me of... I don't know that this question may be answered or not by the developer, but that was one that I just thought is why multifamily versus mixed use? If you could develop multifamily... So that's the one thing that I think that some way to tie the gap between a residential development without any resources, grocery stores, retail, all those things. I think that's the one piece of the equation, that if there were a way to mitigate that, I would be on record as saying I think that might enhance the inclusibility of the plan, but I don't know that it's a requirement. Their question really was why residential, you know, multifamily versus mixed use, you know, and specifically already having decided it's all going to be for residential.

Yeah, it's really site constraints. I mean, we've got five developable acres and right now there's not a whole lot of demand for retail in this area. As of right now, we recognize that's a point in time. We think that introducing multifamily in this location will increase the likelihood that parcels to our east that are closer to Cocoa Booth could potentially yield meaningful commercial on those sites and we think that that's where they should be located because it's directly across the street. But to answer your simple question, why not on this site? It's site constraints, limited ability to be able to park. As you heard, we are already reducing some of the buffers in order to fit what we can with the program that we've got. Just trying to make the bottom line work and still have a project.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. Yep. And then the last point on the buffers, you know, and I know this is a nuance and it's all got a dollar out, but you know, when you're looking at profit versus buffers and enhanced bill, I mean, that's one, the comment there I think as well was that it's, we've got to make it work. We're site constrained. We need a certain number of units to make it all work to the extent that you can, like you said, you would, that you can maximize, you're asking for what you know you need, but to the extent those buffers can stay within the LDO, all the better, right? Yeah.

Just one more question. Just to add on to that, can you just reiterate, I guess, why you feel the site can't handle that? Is it just the additional parking for the retail is the only difference?

Parking for the retail? Certainly. Again, it's constrained already to fit the program that we've got on the site. And so when you add retail, you add additional parking to that. Also, just candidly, the cost of construction of the building goes up dramatically when you introduce non-residential into a residential building. It's a totally different category of building. So, I mean, it's not the sexiest defense of it, but just the economic reality associated with a severely constrained, minimally usable site.

prevents the flexibility that you're that you're looking for and you know i think there are other sites that set up well for those type of things this is just a tough site to be able to achieve all of the things that you would like to achieve go ahead just wanted to add a note to what now said about the synergy um from what i've seen of other studies if you're building from scratch it takes usually takes like 20 25 acres to have like a concentration of i've heard called the 10 10 10 like at least 10 different businesses at least 10 different uh types of offerings open till 10 o'clock at night you do all that and you've got like a nightlife in a center so maybe this place isn't uh big enough to start doing that but it is like a step in in the right direction um and i do agree like there's two competing things here i think the plan calls for the preservation of office space At the same time, if we don't let market forces determine what needs to be in different places, we're stuck with vacant land and unused buildings, which I think everybody's agreeing that we don't want to see that. And then to get back in the weeds, I had a couple traffic questions or pointers. Go ahead.

I was just going to say, earlier I tried to call for the question for a motion. I don't know what the rules or Robert's rules are and stuff. So I don't know. Normally we would do that and allow for any final comment. But I'm just trying in the spirit of you kind of moving things along, I want to make sure I follow the proper protocol. So I think if we could call for a motion at this point, then we usually give an opportunity to go back around one last time. So do I have a motion for the motions in your package here, if someone's so inclined?

I move that the board find 24REZ06 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation and the discussion by the planning and zoning board.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right, so at this point, I would allow for any final discussion before we call for the vote. So, Sal, any additional comments?

I mean, I said what I probably should have said now.

No problem. Hey, I'm just trying to make sure I know how to keep us on track here, so that sounds good.

But I will make a couple real quick comments. One is I think we've got an opportunity to transition this, make a difference on this part. Secondly, retail... depends on other retail and density, right? So this is creating the density for the retail to come down in that hole down the street. So yeah, that's it for me. Gotcha.

Ruby? There was several questions about the traffic, and I guess I wanted to just add a comment about that. And I'm assuming Kimley Horn, knowing Kimley Horn, they would have looked at the trip generation manual, and it's got charts in there for trips per And then you can fill in the blank for the per because you can look at it from square footage of office space. You can look at it from number of employees in the office. I'm curious if those two things were compared for any differences. And it's not like the number of current employees. It's the number of maximum possible employees based on the business. And then comparing that to residential, what's the current figure for trips per residence now per day?

I cannot speak to what Kim Laihan has done in the analysis because that was not submitted to staff. But I do want to make a general comment that I think it is okay when you compare office uses and residential uses to understand the overall trip generation, whether it is peak hour or whether it is daily. But you also have to take into account how these trips are being distributed. The trip patterns for office are opposite of the trip patterns for residential. So whether it is multifamily or single family, the trip patterns are similar. So you kind of have to take those into account, too. And the analysis that you have from Kim Lihong, I don't know if that is just a trip generation, which is not a TIA. That's just a beginning of the TIA. Or if it has other analysis included in it. So I cannot speak to that.

It's a very general question. It's not the specifics of the TIA.

And for office users, you can generate trips based on the square footage and also based on the number of employees. It is very specifically determined what variable you use. It depends on the office user itself. In general, in North Carolina, what DOT uses and what we use, we use square footage. Unless we know for sure a developer is coming in with a specific user and they're conditioning the use in the building to that specific user, we don't generally change that.

Right. I guess what I'm One to make sure of is that we're not picking the formula that gives us the best answer that we want because you can get different answers with different. Right.

Yeah, I don't know the answer to that because I have not reviewed that. Sure.

And then one other comment in defense of comparing residential to office. Office tends to be very specific times because like, okay, we go to work at this time, we leave at this time. It's like a lot of traffic, a lot of traffic, and then the rest of the time can be real quiet. Residential is going to be a little bit more spread out over the day, so.

would agree that this is a less traffic intensive use what they are proposing that's great and that's all i have thank you any other comments chris mike anything sean no any ken i'll ditto sal i think this this thing about uh if this is the beginning of if holt pdd has some mixed use and you're right across from coco booth i would certainly see you could dine across from coco booth then go to the go see something, but this would be definitely walkable to that area.

And I just wanted to make a follow-up comment to something I said earlier about affordable housing. That was not intended to be directed to this project or this developer anyway. It was more a question of at what point does it become applicable to the plan? So that comment about affordable housing, it was specific to the 800 unit. If it costs that much, then I'm not sure we get a lot, but I just want to clarify that. So at this point then, I would say I agree with what's been said by the group. So all those in favor and in support of the plan, please say so by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed?

Nay.

So we've got two opposed and the remainder ayes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I've got to keep this going tonight. And I forgot to put my glasses on. Bear with me one sec. So our next case is the 24 REZ 13, 227, and 309, Barbie Road rezoning. And so Ms. Smith now will provide her presentation, and afterwards the applicant will make their case, and then we can ask questions thereafter. Would you please proceed, Ms. Smith?

Yes, sir. Good evening, board. This is a request for the application of initial town of Kerry zoning for approximately 9.18 acres located in Chatham County, addressed 227 and 309 Barbie Road. The property is located at the western edge of Kerry, just north of Ludo Shop Road and adjacent to the corporate boundary. The applicant has filed a concurrent annexation petition. On this map, the pink color represents property zone Chatham County R1. The Chatham County Windy Hill neighborhood is immediately to the west. Destin is directly to the south. Other carried developments in the vicinity include the Homestead, Woodhall, Young Farms, and Providence at Yates Pond neighborhoods. The Homestead development is in review. The rest are either under construction or complete. The proposed feral road rezoning across Barbie Road had a neighborhood meeting in April, but has not yet had a public hearing. The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Master Plan does not propose any greenway quarters within or immediately adjacent to the site, with the Luter Shop street side trail 0.2 miles to the southeast. Barbie Road is a local road adjacent to the site. The existing zoning is Chatham County Residential 1, and the proposed zoning is Residential 12, Conditional Use. The proposed rezoning would allow up to 14 detached homes, each on a lot that's at least 15,000 square feet, about 1.53 homes per acre. The proposal also includes a community gathering space that's at least 2,400 square feet, which is double what the LDO requires for development of this size. The applicant has further specified that gathering area will not abut neighboring property lines. All perimeter landscaped areas shall be a minimum of a 30-foot type B, which is 10 feet more than would otherwise be required by the LDO. The applicant is also offering a 30-foot type A streetscape on the Barbie Road frontage. Without this commitment, no streetscape would be required as it is a local road. Staff has evaluated the requested rezoning against the Imagine Cary Community Plan. First, we note the site is within the Chatham-Cary Joint Land Use Plan low density residential sub area, which recommends densities not to exceed two dwellings per acre. The proposal has a maximum density of 1.53 dwellings per acre which is consistent with the joint plan. In terms of the live chapter, the proposal will add additional housing stock to Western Cary. As applicable to the shape chapter, the plan describes transitions between land uses via use mix, design, and buffers. The proposed lot sizes and density are similar to other nearby Cary developments, The offer of wider perimeter landscaped areas, as well as the 30-foot type A streetscape buffer on Barbie Road, may help to meet policy objectives for transitions via enhanced buffers. We again note the voluntary streetscape buffer when looking at the move chapter's guidance to address land use context. When looking at the enriched chapter environmental policies may be partially met as the additional gathering space and buffers may help to encourage open space preservation entry canopy. Neighborhood meeting was held in November of 2024. Ten nearby residents participated questions and concerns were related to stormwater buffers density construction impacts traffic study requirements and road connectivity. Staff has received communication from nearby residents since the neighborhood meeting regarding density, stormwater, and impacts. At the Town Council public hearing in March, there were three written comments and three speakers. Topics included rural character, tree health and wildlife protection, light pollution, pedestrian safety, construction, speeding, and road connection impacts, density buffers and setbacks, stormwater, pump station, and community gathering area concerns, and concerns that detailed engineering plans were not available. As described in more detail in the staff report, council had questions and comments regarding infrastructure and utilities, including questions regarding the existing dust and pump station and stormwater requirements. Streets, gates, and buffers, including options to address the concerns of the Wooded Lake Drive properties, connectivity and access questions, And other topics included lot sizes, construction impacts, street lighting, adjacent rezonings, and appreciation for the degree of coordination between the applicant and neighbors. Since the public hearing, changes included a strengthened commitment to provide a 30-foot Type B landscaped area along all shared residential property lines, now including the western edge near Wooded Lake Drive. The applicant has also committed that community gathering space will not abut neighboring lots. Since the public hearing, utilities staff investigated concerns and performed maintenance on the dust and pump station, and communication and coordination is underway regarding potential stormwater easements. In terms of staff findings, policies from the Chatham-Curie Joint Land Use Plan and the shape and enrich chapters of the Imagine Curie Community Plan apply. For the Joint Land Use Plan, the proposal aligns with the low-density residential sub-district with up to 1.53 dwelling units per acre. The voluntary streetscape along Barbie Road also supports the plan's rural character and transition goals. For the shape chapter, the proposed density and minimum lot sizes are compatible with nearby carry developments, and the wider landscaped areas may improve transitions to those existing homes. For the enriched chapter's environmental goals, the expanded streetscape and landscaped area buffers may help to preserve tree canopy, and the additional gathering space may contribute to open space protection. This concludes my presentation. Ashley Terrazas, the applicant's representative, is available to provide comments. And following her remarks, I am available to answer your questions.

Great. Thank you, Rachel.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Board. My name is Ashley Honeycutt Terrazas with Parker Poe, 301 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh. Here tonight on behalf of the applicant, Cary Custom Builders, and I also have with me tonight Dan Gunter with the applicant and Bill Daniel and Brian Nichols, the engineers working with us on this case, if there are any technical questions. So thank you, Rachel, for that presentation. As always, very detailed. This is a small case, small site, just over nine acres, but R12CU that we've requested with that watershed protection overlay fits neatly into Cary's future plans for this area. And it's appropriate and preferable that this nine-acre site, which the town can serve and has planned to serve, comes into Cary, develops under Cary's more restrictive development standards, In terms of stormwater, frontage improvements, which would include a sidewalk connection all the way down to Lootershop Road, which Destin built along their frontage on Barbie Road, and then street standards buffering, et cetera. And our overall goal for this small subdivision is 14 larger lots with custom homes, very similar to the Destin subdivision immediately to the south and other newer subdivisions in the area around Barbie and Lootershop Roads. Again, like Rachel mentioned, east of the rural boundary line and the Chatham-Carrie Joint Land Use Plan. And we've worked on conditions throughout this process with staff and the neighbors, had a lot of coordination with them, including capping that density and increasing the minimum lot size from when we first filed, doubling the size of the community gathering space to make it a meaningful amount of space for this handful of neighbors to congregate and recreate. Also to respond to neighbors, we committed to not put that community gathering space abutting the existing residential properties. And then also that 30-foot streetscape buffer on Barbie Road, this was not provided on Destin, but in working with staff, we included this to provide that wider buffer and screening of the homes from Barbie Road into better meet policies related to transitions and buffering. So like Rachel mentioned, we've had some meaningful community engagement in this case, and I'll outline that. We, you know, heard the neighbors during the meeting last fall, and we met them on site. Everybody who asked to be a part of the meeting joined the meeting. Cary Stormwater's staff also tended to be a part of the conversation, and it was very productive. We talked conversation between staff and our project engineer and developer neighbors about solutions and addressing their concerns. And then as a result of the meeting, we committed to the wider perimeter buffers, which is wider than the 20 feet that's on the Destin side. So there would be a total of 50 foot buffer, you know, with both perimeter buffers between the backyards of the homes. And then we also started one of several conversations now with a few desks and neighbors about stormwater. We've been discussing preliminary design with stormwater staff since the very first pre-application meeting and as stated in the staff report, coordinating on that easement from a neighbor to enable a solution. would be fully designed studied and implemented at the development plan stage um and then you know we also heard at the at the hearing um the neighbors on the west side and wendy hill um expressed concern about the buffer um as well even though those those properties are quite a bit larger than um desk the properties and destined to the south so we went ahead and included that wider perimeter buffer um adjacent to them as well um and then you know just to That's in a nutshell to sum up. It's the type of development envisioned and still needed in this area, and it should be a part of Cary's growth and plans for the western part of town, and we've put in a lot of work in this process, had many constructive conversations with staff and neighbors, and we're looking forward to providing a small but beautiful community that fits within this area of Cary. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll just go to the opposite end of the table here, and we'll be kind of fair. So, Ken, if you want to ask any questions about this one.

Well, I think they were all this easy to me. I think the 30-foot Type A on the road gives that, maintains a rural feel that they're looking for, and I appreciate that commitment to do that, because I think this is, you have to strain to even know what's back there, I guess, with 30 feet of type A, so I'm really happy.

Diane, any comments or questions?

No, this makes sense.

Agreed. Much easier decision than the last one. Let's start it with this one. No questions. Chris?

No questions. Reuben?

No questions.

All right. Sal? All right, well, I'm not normally the question guy, but I was compelled to do math earlier today, and... So just the minimum lot size is really... Because we use the average of the 14 dwellings and the 1.53 per acre, but the minimum lot size is a third of an acre. So obviously there may be some portion of the land that would be more difficult to develop than others, but the density, just... That just stood out to me, the disparity between the two. That's more of a comment. My question is, just in general, when we make assessments as a town, I know this may not be a rezoning question per se, but to do an annexation outside of the, because it's happening in conjunction, right? So is there another decision about the benefit of the annexation that happens in conjunction with this? And if I'm not allowed to ask that question, but I'm just trying to get educated on the process a little bit better in conjunction with this.

Sure. So there's a sufficiency of services test that is done for all annexation. So that is all town services generally must be offered or available to be offered. So it's going to be your water, your sewer, your police, your fire. Now, occasionally there are agreements, you know, like apartment complexes, you might see private haulers for for trash service, for instance, there are some things that are acceptable, but in general, they have to be able to be served. by Town and Care Utilities. So that's a great question.

And that was the minimum lot size and whether you had septic or sewer was sort of what vetted all of that and what got me to the point of even thinking about it, right? Because it would be hard to put septic, I think, on a 15,000 square foot lot. But anyway, but that was really it. So I find this consistent personally. So if there's anyone that wants to ask any additional questions, then please do. Otherwise, I'd look for a motion.

I'll make a motion.

All right.

I move that the board find 24REZ13 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation and the short discussion by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Second.

And Sean and or Andy, we got co-seconds on that one. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Let's see if I can keep this moving. It looks like we had no new or old business, so the next thing in order is that I call this meeting adjourned. Have a good evening.

Thank you.