Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. For the record, the following board members are absent. Sal Camerata, Boshana Etten, Andy Coe, and Ruben Moore. The following are present. Chris Johnson, Mike Roselli, Jeff Moncrief, Sean McAndrew, Diane Mayo, and Ken George.

Thank you. So 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 the final decision on all rezoning activity. We recognize that all rezoning requests are supported unanimously by the members of our community. 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 live, work, shop, engage, shape, move, enrich, serve, and act. The Community Plan can be found on Cary's website, Your citizen opinions based on the Cary Community Plan document play a very important role in advising our leaders. We encourage our citizens to refer to the plan and provide feedback that's based on the guiding principles of the plan as it relates to the zoning request. 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 these items, we encourage you to reach out directly to staff by email or phone. You may also reach out to the board members through email. You may also contact council directly through email or during the public speaks out portion of any regularly scheduled council meeting. These meetings are also streamed live on Cary's website and will be posted on YouTube. Past planning and zoning board meetings are available to view on YouTube as well. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, we're going to adopt our agenda, and would welcome someone to make a motion to approve the agenda set out for tonight. So moved. And a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please state aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? And we have a couple of minutes to approve, and so... Yeah, I guess I'll do these independently. And so the first is our March 23rd, 2026 meeting, regularly scheduled meeting. We need to approve those minutes. If someone would approve the motion or suggest a motion on that, I'd appreciate it.

So moved.

And any second?

Second.

All right, all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, and then we also... And I have a question before we move on, on this one.

Because I wasn't here and I don't think I can vote present, so...

I think I had the same issue with March as well. I was here for June.

I didn't watch the meetings. I don't know if the minutes are accurate.

So can we pass it with just the five of us?

So as a board, even though you weren't here for that meeting, you can still vote on the minutes. And so if you hear from your colleagues that the minutes seem accurate to you, you can vote as well.

Okay. Okay. Do you all think this is right?

If you're okay, yes. I did read them this afternoon. So we'll take a unanimous vote on that as aye. Moving forward to the June 22nd minutes, I'm looking for a motion there.

So moved.

Any second?

Second.

All right. All those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. All right, that moves us to our order of business for this evening. We have a case 25REZ16, Jacobs Creek Lane rezoning. Our case here is Rachel Smith will be the presenter on this. Following her presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. Board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of the staff and the applicant. Ms. Smith, please proceed.

Thank you. Good evening, Board. The owner of approximately 8.99 acres, addressed 4312 Jacobs Creek Lane, requests the application of initial Town of Cary zoning upon annexation. The property is located east of the Chatham and Wake County line and west of the American Tobacco Trail and White Oak Elementary School. The site is located a sixth of a mile west of the American Tobacco Trail, which is accessible via an existing Greenway Trail connection extending east from the Jasper-Olive Road and Yates-Store Road intersection. Yates-Store Road, a four-lane thoroughfare, provides access to the site. The applicant will extend Yates-Store Road along the site's eastern boundary. You may recall the courtyards at White Oak Rezoning approved last year, now known as the Courtyards at Jacobs Creek, a 55 and older age-restricted community. This community is presently under a development plan review and surrounds the subject property on three sides. This development will provide additional connectivity to the site via the extension of Mystic C Lane. The current zoning is Wake County Residential 40 Watershed, or R40W. And the applicant requests rezoning to carry Residential 12 Conditional Use, or R12CU, with the Jordan Lake Watershed Protection Overlay District and the Conservation Residential Overlay District. The proposed zoning conditions include limiting the use to 16 detached dwellings, a minimum of 2,400 square feet of community gathering space, and minimum lot size calculations will not include repairing buffer areas. Buffers shall be in common open space, and there will be sidewalks on both sides of all streets, and Yates Door Road will be constructed to all applicable specifications. Because the courtyards at Jacobs Creek Development is expected to be built first, Mystic Sea Lane will initially terminate with a turnaround bulb at the courtyard's property line. The applicant will remove the turnaround bulb when they connect their development to Mystic Sea Lane. Staff has evaluated the request with the Imagine Cary Community Plan. The site is located within the Green Level Special Planning Area, neighborhoods west of Flat Branch Sub Area. This special planning area supports a gradual downward transition in density moving west from NC 540 towards the Chatham County line with areas west of the flat branch stream not to exceed about 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Additional policy guidance includes shielding development from streets, context sensitive design, and a predominant land use of detached dwellings on a quarter acre or larger lots. The proposed 16 detached dwellings on 12,000 square foot minimum lots and the resulting density of 1.78 dwellings per acre is in keeping with the area's land use pattern and generally meets the policy guidance of the special planning area and the shape chapter for compatibility and transitions. The proposal would provide at least 2,400 square feet of community gathering area, which is twice the LDO requirement for a development of this size, which may help to promote open space and tree canopy preservation. Move chapter policies are generally met by the proposal's commitment to build sidewalk on all sides of subdivision streets, where the LDO only requires one side for local streets. the removal of the Mystic C Lane turnaround bulb, and the extension of Yates Door Road as a multimodal street subject to all town specifications. A neighborhood meeting was held in February and six nearby residents attended. There were no direct questions or concerns related to the proposal, only a question about a different rezoning. Staff has received intermittent emails with questions and concerns about existing and future traffic on Bachelor Road. A public hearing was held in June. There were no written comments and there were no in-person speakers. Council had questions and comments regarding rezonings and special planning areas, watershed overlay zoning, the timing of the removal of the Mystic Sea turnaround and town policies to place street connection signage on turnaround and cul-de-sac bulbs that will be connected in the future. and comments regarding the relationship between density, revenue, and the cost to provide service to annexed property. There have been no changes made to the request since the council hearing. In terms of staff's evaluation of the case against the Imagine Cary Community Plan, We find that for the green level special planning area and the live-in shape chapters, the proposed 16 detached dwellings at 1.78 units per acre with 12,000 square foot minimum lot sizes generally aligns with the recommendations for the neighborhood's west flat branch sub area and fits the established residential pattern of the area. In rich chapter, the applicant is committing to 2,400 square feet of community gathering area, double the LDO requirement, supporting open space preservation. And for the move chapter, sidewalks on both sides of all subdivision streets, frontage improvements along 8 Store Road, and removal of the Mystic C Lane turnaround to support multimodal connectivity and street continuity. This concludes my presentation. Worth Mills, the applicant's representative, is available to provide comments. And after his comments, I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Terrific. Thank you.

Good evening, Planning and Zoning Board members. Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners. I'm here on behalf of Sterling West LLC, who is the property owner and the rezoning applicant for 4312 Jacobs Creek Lane. Will Norton, an engineer with Jones Knosson, is also available and present to answer questions after my brief remarks. Thank you to Rachel for giving a very comprehensive summary of what we're asking to do here. But Again, just to reiterate some of the key points, our rezoning to R12 conditional use would allow up to 16 single-family detached homes on this approximately nine-acre parcel, which results in a 1.78 dwelling units an acre density. That density in the minimum lot size is consistent with the green level special planning area. To the south and southeast are planned developments with denser housing products, so I think we're very much keeping in line with the density recommendations and the minimum lot size recommendations of that special planning area. Key commitments include requiring that all perimeter buffers be in the common open space, a commitment to sidewalks on both sides of all internal streets, and 2,400 square feet of community gathering area space, which is, again, doubled the amount required by the LDO. Town Council did raise a few points at the public hearing that I would just like to respond to. Some of these may deal more with the annexation, but they are somewhat linked, given there wouldn't be a rezoning without an annexation here. But the extension of Mystic C Lane into this site and the removal of that bulb at the boundary line, to my knowledge, that is a standard operating procedure in the town of Cary. I know that I worked on a Previous case a couple months ago where we had a similar situation where that bulb would be removed to provide that vehicular connectivity. And then there was, I think, just a general concern about extending town services to this site. This is not an extension of sort of current municipal limits. We are within a sort of a somewhat large doughnut hole where we are surrounded by town-of-carry corporate limits on all sides. So this would just be really filling in that Wake County gap that exists today. But just to summarize, because of the consistencies with the community plan, the compatibility with the surrounding developments, and the offered zoning conditions, we think that this request is reasonable and in the public interest. Will and myself are available to answer questions, but we appreciate the time to speak with you this evening. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thanks, Worth.

So before we have any dialogue, I'll just state that the Cary Community Plan is in place to guide the development in Cary. As you think about your questions, keep in mind how this proposed case fits or does not fit within the Cary Community Plan. When making a motion, it would be helpful to describe how you see your motion impacting the Cary Community Plan, for example, the Work, Shape, or Live chapters. While this is not a requirement, it would be helpful for the town council to understand how we're thinking about the case as it applies to the plan. And so I would just start maybe down with you, Chris, if you have any questions or comments, we'll work our way down.

I just had one quick comment or question. What's the primary difference between R12CU versus the TRCU that's there surrounding the current property?

So the TRCU allows additional uses, primarily townhouses. It also has a smaller minimum lot size, 6,000 square feet.

Okay. So this is a little bit less dense.

Correct.

Gotcha. That's all I have. Okay.

Mike? Ms. Smith, so council members had questions and comments, and they said there was a discussion of annexation costs, balance between service costs and anticipated property tax revenue. I guess what was the crux of that discussion?

So this case, I think, was also maybe influenced by other discussions about budgeting, right? It got adopted right at the same meeting as the budget being adopted, so it seemed like the council was relatively sensitive to the cost of extending services to newly annexed property, if I were to characterize their comments.

Sure. Was there an answer?

cost of extending services more than the cost of revenue so there was discussion of previous study that had been undertaken by the town maybe 20 years ago or so the mayor specifically was talking about that he was during his tenure tenure he described that typically only high density would have return on investment in terms of property revenue now other council members did have suggestions or commentary about there are other reasons perhaps to annex as well other than just the sheer cost of services and then the amount of revenue taxes would bring in. There was also a discussion about the potential to have a new study undertaken that might look at density and development patterns and then the return or the cost on that investment.

But there is a max density in this watershed anyways? I think it's, is it two dollars? 1.78.5. In the area, I'm sorry, the watershed was like...

correct two point five i believe two point five down to one point five if you go further right so this is in the green level special planning area and that plan recommends that the aggregate for this area relative to the flat branch stream be about two point five now there's some averaging certainly over the larger development scale not just site specific no more questions is this development part of the courtyards at jacob creek or is it just a completely

new development at least i just wanted to yep compliment okay thank you diane no question yeah ken almost had no questions i was going to mark the calendar um we see a lot that try to maintain with the energy and and having you know plugs for evs and stuff as part of the care community plan on energy and conservation and Um, and I don't see that in this one. We see it in a lot of them. And I just was wondering, um, there's no discussion of that here. So I guess there's no, there's no guarantee. There's no, they're not proposing any kind of conditions. Um, then, then my other question is, it's, it's still kind of overlaid with the, with the budget and people's budget in mind, uh, and the constructing budget. If, if the other develop, if the other Jacobs Creek group, um, development around it is in planning, is in review right now?

It's in development plan review, yes.

Development plan review. If this gets approved by council before it gets out of development plan review, can't the bulb be changed to a street?

Yes, the timing could absolutely align where the bulb is not built. With a development of this size, they might be able to move a little bit faster, but the courtyards at Jacobs Creek is just farther ahead in the process.

Because we have plenty of places with dead ends, and if we know that there's something on the other side, I didn't understand how that in the care community plan, the interest of the, it just was curious.

Yes, certainly the development timelines could align.

Okay, great. That's all I have.

No, I don't think I have any specific questions either. I think this is a small infill area. We're trying to maintain density, those types of things. So it seems pretty straightforward. Anyone like to make a motion or any additional comments or questions prior to a motion?

I move that the board find 15 RUZ 16 is 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. We have a second. Okay. So I guess, Sean, if you have any comments to support that recommendation or motion.

No, again, looks well-researched, good infill, you know, good report, good presentation, you know, continue. continued shaped growth.

Ditto. And the EV things don't bother me if people can choose to buy a house without an EV connection and pay for their own. So it doesn't bother me. Diane, anything? No. Mike?

No. and i would say the same thing i mean one of the things i asked rachel about in advance was this is an area that has some of our older structures in the county in the area and you know whether or not there's a there's a hope that we would have some architectural or some character things ultimately the design of some of these single families may have some of those characteristics but it's not a requirement so um you know it would be unfair to impose something on such a small infield development to fix a much bigger uh... kind of development plan so uh... i guess in that case we would move forward with the vote all those in favor please state uh... uh... any post all right that means that our one and only case has been concluded unanimous uh... uh... conclusion and at this point i think i'm allowed there's no new business some allowed adjourn the meeting was anyone opposes that art major