Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to Planning and Zoning board meeting. Thank you for joining us tonight. I'll call this meeting to order. Jess Chaba, would you please call the role force, please?

Thank you. No members are absent this evening. For the record, I will verbally confirm the following board members are present. Sal Kamarata, Bajana Eaton, Chris Johnson, Ruben Moore, Mike Roselli, Jeff Moncrief, Sean McAndrew, Andy Coe, Diane Mayo, Ken George. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. The Cary community plan will continue to be the guiding document for this board. Our role is to function as citizen advisers to the council who will ultimately make the final decision on all rezoning activities. We recognize that not all rezoning activities or requests are supported unanimously by members of our community.

We strive to balance the impact of increased building density required to support our growth while maintaining the historic charm and character of Cary. The Cary community plan was initially adopted in 2017 following a collaborative effort between the citizens and our town government. That collaboration has continued and resulted in a recently updated version of the plan, which was adopted in January 2025. The chapters of the plan include the live, work, shop, engage, shape, move, enrich, serve, and act. Community plan can be found on the Cary's website.

Your citizen opinions based on the 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 is based on the guiding principles of the plan as it relates to the specific rezoning request. While it's a public meeting, this is not a public hearing. There's no opportunity for the public to speak. If you have comments about any of these items, we encourage you to reach out to staff by email or phone.

You may also reach out to the board members through email. You may contact counsel directly through email or during the public speaks out portion of any regularly scheduled council meeting. These meetings may be streamed live on Carrie's website and will be posted to YouTube. All past and planning zoning board meetings are available for your review on YouTube. At this point, would someone make a motion to adopt the agenda?

So moved. Second.

I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Alright. So we also will need to approve our regularly our meeting minutes. We're gonna be approving meeting minutes from a couple of meetings this month. So I guess first, I I would actually, I don't know the rules here, so we'll do them independently. We'll the or someone make a motion for the April 28 meeting minutes. So moved.

Second.

And a second. So all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And then we also need to approve the May 19 meeting minutes. I'm looking for a motion there as well.

Motion to approve.

Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Alright. We've got all these orders of business out of the way. We'll move on to our first case. It's 22 REZ 20, Austin Commons PDP. Erin Puckett, our principal planner, will share the staff's presentation. Following the presentation by the applicant, will share their remarks, and then all board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of the staff and the applicant. Ms. Puckett, you may proceed.

Thank you, and good evening, board. This is a request to rezone approximately twenty two point seven four acres at NC 55 Highway and Petty Farm Road. The site is located on the East Side of NC 55 with frontage on both sides of Petty Farm Road. The recently constructed Nobel Cary apartment development is located to the north. Alston Town Center is across NC fifty five to the west.

A town of Cary Water Tower is also located directly south of the site. For some additional site history, this assemblage is within the Alston Activity Center concept plan approved by council in 2006 and is in Traffic analysis Zone 15 of the Petty Farm neighborhood. This area generally allows office, commercial, and residential uses. For additional locational context, here is the site in the greater Austin area. Here you can see the proximity to the Brickyard development nearby and Parkside Town Commons, which is further to the north.

There are a number of multifamily developments nearby within the Austin area. And the recently approved rezoning and annexation for the Austin Yards case is approximately 1.2 miles to the north. Cary's GIS indicates potential stream buffers impacting portions of the subject property. Field determination of such features is required at time of development plan review. Parks, recreation, and cultural resources master plan includes a proposed street side trail along a portion of the NC 55 frontage of the site south of McCrimmon Parkway.

In addition, a portion of the old Carpenter Greenway corridor is planned along Good Hope Church Road. The site has frontage on two thoroughfares, NC 55 and the future extension of McCrimmon Parkway, which would be constructed through the site with this project. The site also fronts Good Hope Church Road. NCDOT will close Good Hope Church Road at its crossing with the CSX Railroad in the future. The site is currently zoned Office Research and Development or ORD, and it is also in the mixed use overlay district, and as I previously noted, is currently within the Alston Activity Center.

The applicant proposes to rezone the site to mixed use district with a preliminary development plan or PDP, and the mixed use overlay district would remain. The preliminary development plan is seen here, and it's divided into five pods. Pod one is a commercial pod, which may be developed with single story commercial uses and surface parking. PODs two and three are mixed use PODs, which may include commercial, office, and residential uses. Buildings may be between three and seven stories, and at least 75% of parking will be in structured parking facilities.

Pod four includes only residential uses, and they also be three to seven stories with at least 75% structured parking. And finally, pod five is an office pod. Some commercial uses are also allowed. The tallest buildings would be permitted in this pod between three and ten stories, and at least half of the parking would be in structures. Some conceptual detail of the potential layout of pods one through four are shown on the PDP, while pod five lacks any conceptual details regarding the site layout.

The PDP also provides a 15 foot streetscape along Petty Farm Road and 30 foot streetscapes along the NC 55, McCrimmon Parkway, and Good Hope Church Road frontages. This is consistent with LDO requirements, except for a portion of the McCrimmon Parkway frontage which abuts the residential pod, where a 50 foot streetscape would otherwise be required by the LDO. 10 foot perimeter buffers are provided to the north and south. As the adjacent properties are also within the mixed use overlay district, perimeter buffers are not required, so this does exceed the LDO standard. A perimeter buffer is required adjacent to the railroad as that is outside of the Mixed Use Overlay District.

And in this case, the applicant proposes to meet the LDO required width of 20 feet along the office pod or pod five, and modify the perimeter buffer to a 20 foot buffer along the residential pod four, only if parking is provided between the railroad and residential units. Otherwise, a 50 foot Type A buffer would apply. One champion tree is proposed to be preserved of the two that were identified on the site. And street side trail is offered along all site frontages on NC 55, McCrimmon Parkway, and the short site frontage on Good Hope Church Road. This exceeds the minimum LDO requirement as Carrie's long range plan shows street side trail only along a portion of the NC 55 frontage.

The applicant has also offered traffic improvements at all seven site access points and will be subject to right of way dedication and improvements along all the frontages as applicable. This includes construction of the portion of McCrimmon Parkway through the site. We anticipate the railroad crossing will be grade separated, so details regarding the full extent of the road construction to be completed with this project would be reviewed at time of development plan. We anticipate McCormick Parkway to stub to the potential future bridge. The LDO would require a site of this size to provide a complete street network through the site, which connects to adjacent thoroughfares and collectors.

Based on the conceptual PDP layout, the road network would be provided approximately as shown here in yellow. The applicant proposes to modify a portion of this network with an access way midway through the site, which would be loaded on one or both sides with parking and may only have sidewalk on one side. This cross section is also a departure from the Petty Farm Road design, which this ties into. Use intensities across the site include up to 625 residential units, a maximum 30,000 square foot car wash, a minimum of 15,000 and maximum of 25,000 square feet of commercial uses other than the car wash, and a minimum of 50 and maximum of 200,000 square feet of office uses. Within these use categories, the following are permitted.

Residential uses may include multifamily or a life care community. Office uses may include business or professional office, as well as medical office, as long as it does not exceed 60,000 square feet. The applicant has limited the size of this use, as it typically generates more trips than professional office. Office uses could also permit broadcasting studio or wellness center. Commercial uses include those such as bank, bar, restaurant with drive throughs prohibited, recreational uses, and a number of retail uses.

Car washes permitted as previously noted only within POD one. Additional development standards include providing a minimum of 5% of the units as workforce housing units affordable at or below 80% of the area median income or AMI for a period of thirty years, as well as constructing at least 5% of the units at a maximum of 750 heated square feet. This condition could overlap with the affordable housing condition. A commitment to vertical integration of 15,000 square feet of commercial uses, 7,500 each in Pod 2 and Pod 3, and over 20,000 square feet of community gathering space distributed across the site with at least 500 square feet in pod 1 And 5000 in the others. The PDP also commits to screening of parking decks by wrapping them with buildings in pods two and three, at least partially wrapping decks in pod four, and in the office pod, again, that's pod five, decks may be screened with green walls or artwork.

There will be at least six EV charging stations accommodating two spaces each in pods two through five, or a total of 48 spaces minimum. An eight foot sidewalk is provided along all internal streets and travelways, which is an increase to the LDO required five foot sidewalk. The applicant has also provided several development standards that would apply specifically to a car wash use on pod one. These include fully enclosing all equipment, including vacuums in the building, limiting the dry limiting drive through lanes through the building to only one, including eight solar panels on the roof, and designing building facades with 85% masonry, which exceeds the community appearance manual requirement of 75%. The PDP also includes a number of proposed modifications, including the ability to clear and grade all streetscapes, a reduced perimeter buffer along the residential pods border with the CSX Railroad, as previously noted.

However, this modification again is proposed only if parking is located between the multifamily units and railroad. The 50 foot residential streetscape along the Crimmon Parkway is reduced to 30 feet. Internal streetscapes are proposed to be reduced from the 15 foot width required for nonresidential uses to eight feet. These may be largely hardscaped areas with a reduced planting rate. Removal of one champion tree of the two surveyed on-site with replacement inches to be provided per the LDO.

An allowance for decorative retaining walls around stormwater control measures to be 10 feet in height, which is an increase to the LDO limit of six feet, but only where they're not visible from public streets or greenways. And as noted previously, some modifications to the LDO requirement for a complete street network through the site. An analysis against the Imagine Cary community plan finds that policies in many chapters apply. The project contributes to housing variety by providing multifamily and or life care units in a mixed use center, and ensuring some smaller units. While the overall concentration of multifamily in this area is high, denser housing types are intended to be largely cited in these mixed use areas.

The commitment to reserve at least 5% of the units, and this could be about 32 units if the maximum yield is achieved, as affordable at 80% of AMI can support the housing affordability policy. Smaller housing types and affordable units can also support workforce housing needs. The proximity to future office and commercial space in a somewhat walkable environment also supports work policies. However, while a significant amount of office space is offered in Pod 5, without phasing, there's no guarantee the employment uses would be delivered alongside the residential uses, which would more strongly support these work policies. The PDP includes a commitment to a minimum amount of vertically integrated commercial space, which can support SHOP policies.

The proposal contributes to the Greenway network by extending the street side trail beyond the required areas. Enhanced pedestrian infrastructure internal and external to the site supports mobility goals of the MOVE chapter. However, the absence of a complete street network connecting major roadways adjacent to the site reduces overall area connectivity, which is a key expectation in mixed use centers. Taller, higher density buildings in a designated destination center aligns with policies regarding appropriate locations for the most intense development. Vertical integration in two pods and a mix of residential and nonresidential uses overall further supports the policy intent of the shape chapter.

The internal layout generally places residential uses to the rear and commercial and office to the front, which helps manage transitions to surrounding existing multifamily development. Pod five's proximity to lower density areas to the east is mitigated somewhat by distance and the railroad separation, but the lack of site design detail for this pod limits the ability to assess how well transitions to adjacent development will occur. The plan includes excess gathering space, which may support open space goals, Request to clear all streetscapes and apply smaller, less dense streetscapes internal to the site do not directly support tree canopy preservation. However, soil cells or structural soils are proposed in these areas to help support tree health. And the provision of at least 48 electric vehicle charging spaces and some solar panels in pod one can at least partially support sustainable energy policies.

The site is within the Austin Destination Center. Destination centers emphasize walkable, mixed use development, structured parking, vertical integration, active public space, and a well connected street network. There are both positive and challenging aspects of this request in regard to this policy guidance. Commitments to structured parking except in pod one, vertical integration in two of the pods, wider pedestrian facilities, buildings pulled up to the street, and large amounts of gathering space do support destination center objectives. The lack of a complete street network and absence of conceptual layout for pod five limit the full alignment of connectivity and transition goals.

And the single story vehicle oriented commercial use proposed in pod one is inconsistent with the intent of a destination center. Finally, the absence of phasing provides no assurance of when the office or mixed use elements would be delivered. A neighborhood meeting was held in December 2022. 15 members of the public attended and asked questions about the location of the car wash, location of site access points, transportation improvements, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and general questions about the rezoning process. Following the neighborhood meeting, staff received follow-up emails from two citizens with general questions about the proposal and the rezoning process.

A public hearing was held for the rezoning in April. There was one in person speaker and no written comments. The one speaker lives adjacent to the site and noted concerns about site access and previous issues with NCDOT during development of the site north of the subject property. Council members did have a number of questions and comments, which were summarized in your staff report. Key items included discussion of the wide range of building heights, particularly in pod five, and how this may raise questions about transitions.

There were both critical and supportive comments in regards to the car wash use, with the main concern being the appearance of the building and ensuring it does not have the appearance of a large storage facility. There were also positive comments regarding the commitment to some units rented at 80% AMI, as well as comments that deeper affordability in terms of the income cap or number of units could be beneficial. Since the public hearing, the applicant has made several changes, including adding a condition for a minimum of 5% of the units to be no larger than seven fifty heated square feet. They also added conditions addressing the potential car wash use, as noted previously, including limiting the scope to a single drive aisle through the building, enclosing all equipment, installing eight solar panels, and increasing the required masonry percentage. Commitments were added for all streetscapes to have soil cells on public streets or structural soil on private streets.

Conditions were added to pod five to specify that no parking will be located between buildings and NC 55 or McCrimmon Parkway, and that this pod would be served with a primary street. And the PDP was clarified to indicate construction of McCrimmon Parkway to the property line is the responsibility of the developer for this site, with a note to acknowledge that the actual pavement terminus will be determined during development plan review, and it's possible a payment in lieu for a portion of the work would be accepted due to the future grade separated railroad crossing. Overall, the proposal includes a number of elements that align with the Imagine Cary community plan. As discussed previously, LIV policies are supported by the provision of dense housing and some affordable units. With similar which similarly support work policies, although detail and phasing of the office pod would better support the work chapter.

Vertical integration of commercial uses supports the shop chapter, and the overall mix of uses in a strategic location supports SHAPE. Engage policies are addressed through commitments to pedestrian infrastructure, and Enrich is partially addressed with EV charging and an overall dense development pattern, although reduced internal streetscapes and grading of streetscapes is proposed. The proposal off also offers a number of commitments consistent with the vision for destination centers as previously discussed. These policies are most directly addressed by PODs two, three, and four. On their own, these central PODs are closely aligned with destination center guidance.

POD V is also generally consistent in its proposal of complementary office uses and a commitment to structured parking, although the lack of detail makes it difficult to deem fully consistent with all plan guidance. The absence of phasing also creates uncertainty about when or if key nonresidential components will be delivered. Finally, POD one on its own is inconsistent with the destination center due to the proposed use and form. Overall, the proposal does not fully address all policies, but does largely offer positive commitments that are generally in line with plan guidance. This concludes my presentation. Jason Baron, the applicant's representative, is available to provide the applicant's comments, and then I'm available for any questions.

Great. Thank you,

mister Bucket.

Good evening, mister chair, members of the board. Jason Baron with Morningstar Law Group. Sorry. I don't know if I'm standing close enough to this. It's great seeing everybody tonight. Happy to be here on behalf of my client, Capital Commercial. They are the proposed developer of the site. Tyler Morris and Jason Stagall are joining me. They're they're here tonight as well to hear your discussion associated with the case. Like with most cases involving a preliminary development plan, we've been at this for a little while.

We've been in the zoning process, but that's the nature of it. And, you know, as as it goes through the various, submittals and plan reviews, plans have a tendency to get better, and I think this case is an example of that. I'm gonna highlight a handful of things. The staff report and Aaron's presentation have been excellent, just kinda giving you the nuts and bolts of where we are as it relates to the submittal itself, the proposal itself, what we're trying to achieve here, and the role of the Cary community plan in reviewing that. I did wanna provide, and I've mentioned this, to Katie before we started.

One of the questions we received during the public hearing was, from the from the town council was just, you know, what's the what's the idea? What's the sense of place? What are we trying to achieve here? And oftentimes, especially with these preliminary development plans, you have these, like, two dimensional concepts that you don't have an idea of what that three dimensions is supposed to look like. So we shared some renderings with the town council. I've got three of them that I'm gonna distribute to you all so you can kinda take a look and see what we shared with council shortly after the public hearing. And, Jess, if I could hand these to you, that'd be great. And while those are going around, I will take, some thunder from, Ms. Puckett or potentially Mr. Pence and let you know that these are not conditions of the zoning case.

I do wanna highlight a handful of things associated with these renderings that are conditions of the zoning case. Really, what these renderings do is just to help provide, like I said, the vision related to this project that the two dimensions often don't give a a good feel for that. And my client has done, I think, a really good job in working with his experts, his engineers, his planners, his architects. They've done a great job in coming up with a plan that candidly, I've done a lot of work in Alston. I was around briefly when the Alston plan was approved, and I think most of us recognize that the vision that was embodied in the Alston activity center concept plan really didn't end up bearing out the way that we thought it would.

Most of the development in Alston has been kind of single use, stand alone. You have a multi family deal. You have a commercial deal. Some of that's been changing, but certainly haven't seen a whole lot of structured parking. That's changing a little bit, which is nice to see.

It's exciting for me to be able to work on this development in this area in Alston because I think it starts to combine the vast majority of the elements of what Alston was intended to do. And that is to provide that kind of mixed use environment, that walkable environment, much more urban environment than you see in the rest of the town, but certainly in the rest of how Austin has developed to date. And just so you know, the the the first rendering that you have in that and what I handed out is essentially the front door to the development. That's that pod two and pod three that you see on the screen. That's that rendered version.

And and again, this is designed to give scale, but I'm gonna walk through a little bit of that with you. The next page is just kind of zoomed out a little bit so you get a full understanding of how all of the uses relate to each other. And then the last page is is pod it really focuses on pod one, and that's the the car wash, and I'm gonna talk about here that here momentarily. But the the commitments that are relevant as it relates to reviewing this rendering and relevant as it relates to your kind of view of the case, in my opinion, are really the commitments around structured parking for pods two, three, and four, which is going to be the core of the development. The kind of that plaza area that you see in the middle of the site, that is a commitment of the case.

We have a particular street design that's included in the preliminary development plan that has that angled parking associated with it in that area. Vertically integrated mixed use is a requirement of PODs two and three. And so, that that rendered version, you start to see, okay, you've got the structured parking. It's wrapped by buildings. You've got that, you know, kind of that core area.

You've got minimum commitments for nonresidential uses on the Ground floor of those buildings in pods two and three. And so, again, this is from scale. You can kind of ignore architecture because that is yet to be determined. That will determine when they get to the time of building permits. But I just wanted everybody to understand, this is the vision for what they're trying to do, and the conditions that are associated with the case, the commitments that have been made in the case are reflective of that vision.

And, again, those key elements being that pedestrian core, that, you know, highly walkable and engaged environment that's being very intentionally curated around vertically integrated mixed use with structured parking that's wrapped, and to really do something that we think is gonna be an overall net benefit to the Austin area. A couple of other items. Pod five is planned for office. No surprise to anybody in in this room. Not a huge demand for office right now.

So the reason why there's less detail in the office pod is just a product of we don't know when that site will develop. We are zoning it for a minimum of 50,000 square feet up to potentially 200,000 square feet. Don't know exactly where that's going to fall. Don't know if it's going to be medical office or traditional office, but want to create the entitlement so that when that site does move forward, office is the plan in that area. And so I just wanted to let you know the lack of detail associated with the location of buildings is really just reflective of the fact that, being perfectly honest, there's not a market for office right now, but we want to create the opportunity when the market comes back for office.

With respect to the car wash, and some of you may know this. I think, mister George, you might have been on council, when this car wash came before council not too long ago. I guess it was about four years ago, maybe at this point, five years ago, somewhere in that ballpark. The the folks who are gonna be building that car wash already own Frontage on Highway 55. They bought their site with the intent of building a car wash on 55.

That has not happened. And so I would never stand up here and suggest that a car wash is an ideal use in a destination center. However, we think the the the bulk of this case make it the right case for this area. And what my client has been able to do with the owners of that site that has proposed for the car wash is narrow their frontage and to make it the best car wash we possibly can. And by and by when I say that, that is all of the use associated with the car wash is low is being conducted inside that building.

And so when you see 30,000 square feet, you're thinking, what kind of car wash are you building at 30,000 square feet? Is it a play land? It's actually just a single drive aisle, and we have a condition that makes it clear that that's a single drive aisle. It's just all of the things that you would otherwise see in a car wash are now in a building. And it's a building that has increased masonry requirements.

It's a building that has solar panels installed on the top. And so, again, I recognize it's not necessarily an ideal use, but under the circumstances, we've made it as good as we possibly can. The owners of the car wash have been willing to work with my client to narrow their frontage and make it a better fit for the area. But it kind of is what it is, for lack of a better way to put it. But I I I do want to stress the fact that it's fully enclosed, which I've never seen before, and it does have commitments with respect to solar.

Otherwise, I think the conditions of the case that Aaron ran through, the staff report covers, I think they kind of speak for themselves. And they speak to not just housing affordability and not just one form. It's actually in two different forms. It's in size of the units, but it's also at the 80% AMI that we're typically seeing in multifamily deals. You have a significant commitment to EV charging stations.

You've got the solar panels on top of the on top of the car wash. And the commitment with respect to doing soil cells in the public streets and structural soils along the private street is something that we work closely, with the town's urban forester. I know that there have been some issues that the town has experienced with respect to having, upper story trees grow to healthy maturity in public streets that have a more narrow streetscape. And so that commitment to a soil cell is significant. Those are expensive.

If you're not familiar with them, those are very, very expensive options. But we understand the town's goal. My client understands the town's goal in the value of trees, especially in those public spaces. And so it was an easy call for my client to make even though it was an expensive one. But it's consistent with the environment that they're trying to create for the folks who are gonna be living here, for the folks who are gonna be shopping here, hopefully at some point for the folks who are gonna be working here.

And so with that, you know, we're here to answer any questions that you all may have. We believe that we are we are consistent with the recommendations of the Cary Community Plan. We recognize that we don't stripe every single one of them, but we believe that the vast majority of policies that speak to this case, this case speaks right back to them and does so in in clear and convincing fashion. And so with that, happy to answer any questions that you all may have, and we would respectfully request you all's finding of consistency. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we let everyone ask questions, I'm just gonna go ahead and throw it out there. I don't know what soil cells and structural, soil are. So I I would love an education. You know, if you could keep it at my level, that'd be even better.

Well, I'll probably be able to one up you because I'm not sure that I could answer it. I I I could could do one better. I I soil cells do you wanna try to take this?

It's just a term I'm not

familiar with. Basically, they're very expensive wells that are designed to ensure that there's appropriate sufficient amount of soil and the right type of soil to support healthy growing trees.

That's pretty much the high level summary. Yes. Okay. They're more expensive. It's a structured actual component that goes into the soil that maximizes the volume in a certain space. Structural soil is more of a soil rock composite. So from our what I understand from our urban forester, the soil cells are preferred for long term tree health, and that's also the reason they're more expensive and more difficult to install. So it's a balancing act.

Thank you. Alright. I'm I don't know if anyone else had that question. But

And I'm, yeah, I'm obviously not a.

Well, good. I think maybe we'll just start here with, Mike, and I'll run that way and then, run down the other end.

Miss Pocket, could you give us just a little bit more background on the, activity center concept plan? So, this plan was approved in 2006. It was nearly twenty years ago.

Yes.

But it's still in effect. Like, this is supposed to adhere to the policies in that plan.

So, yes, it is still in effect. And our activity center concept plans or mixed use sketch plans, those were sort of what came before what we see today, which is typically those MXD rezonings within a mixed use overlay. So in the past, you had these activity center concept plans. Alston is the largest one in Cary and probably the the most well known one. So it it set very specific design standards as well as certain uses and caps on those uses that could go within each of those traffic analysis zones.

And what we're seeing, because to your point, that plan is almost twenty years old, You all have probably even seen there were getting more requests in recent years to rezone portions of Alston to MXD with a preliminary development plan because those allotments that are left for these sites, certain caps on the amount of commercial or residential units that can be provided, developers can't make them work. So that's essentially what we're seeing here. The cap on multifamily in this traffic analysis zone 15 would be well below what they're requesting, the maximum square footage of the commercial in the office as well. So they would need to rezone in order to get those allocations for those uses.

So

So so this would kind of remove it from the requirements of that plan?

Correct. It's removing it and setting its own requirements.

What about for some of the character elements that may make sure it's kinda cohesive with the other areas kind of in Alston? So I noticed in the in the plan, there's gateway and artwork framework, and I think there's even a gateway at the intersection of McCrimmon and 55 was identified on the plan. Does that remove that as well?

I believe that would still apply in terms of, I think, the signage is what you're getting at, sort of that required Alston signage. I believe that would still apply because it would apply to that roadway network. There aren't explicitly signed modifications being proposed with this proposal.

K.

That's all I got right now.

Thank you.

Chris.

How far is the nearest existing car wash from this location? Do we know that?

That's a great question. I don't actually have that in front of me. I'm not sure if we know. We we can look that up and Okay. And circle back.

I guess, and may maybe you covered this, but is is there a reason why the commercial area has to be the same roughly the same size as one car wash? I know it's a little bit more, but is there a reason why they couldn't be more commercial, more pod one? Just question. Just curious.

Are you asking if Pod 1 could be larger or if there's commercial elsewhere in the development? Both.

Okay.

Yeah.

So Pod 1, I mean, this is what the applicant has proposed, and they can speak further to that why the 30,000 square foot car wash on this size site. That's simply what they're asking for here. I'm assuming that's the desire of the property owner. There is additional commercial uses and minimum square footage is required outside of the car wash use. So regardless of whether that car wash gets built or at what size, they still do have the commitment to a minimum of 7,500 square feet of commercial in each of pods two and three that have to be vertically integrated into that residential building. So there will be commercial elsewhere on-site assuming that they build the the mixed use pods in the center of the site.

Okay. So you say 7,500 in each of two and three?

Right. So 15,000 will be required as a minimum assuming they build out pods two and three.

Okay. That's all I've got. Michelle? Yep.

I have a one quick one. Since it's kind of like a destination center with a lot of uses, is bus route something that's considered there as a stop?

So Go Carry does not currently have a route that goes that serves this area currently. I believe that Go Triangle does have a route in this area. Our transit staff will evaluate a development plan, whether a future stop is needed here. I believe the applicant does have a note on their PDP to essentially say that they'll work with Cary staff at time and development plan if it's deemed that a stop is needed.

That was kind of my question on disability.

Sal, do you have any questions?

Yeah. On the rendering here, with this grand entrance, I'm assuming this is a, like, a write in and write out.

I'm gonna look to my colleague in transportation. Yes. It is write in,

write out.

Would there be any issues with this being so close to McCrimmon and the the signalized corner there?

So that's something that'll be reviewed specifically at time of development plan. The access points as shown in front of you on the preliminary development plan are somewhat conceptual. However, our transportation staff do review these preliminary development plans to sort of make sure that those access locations do make sense and meet those separations, but that'll be specifically reviewed, at time of development plan.

Okay. And one other question. As it relates to the, office in the future, could, as it as it would be now zoned, could, retail be, placed on the 1st Floor of the office buildings?

So that is what they're proposing. The majority of that pod five, because of the large square footages they've shown there, would be office, but they have allowed the possibility of retail to to go there. You're asking about the existing zoning. That's currently zoned ORD, so office would be supported today but not at this height.

Yeah. Yep. Okay. That's it

for me. Thank you. Sean? Yep.

The architectural requirements that it currently exists now, how many of those get transferred over with with this? You know, what what are we losing, you know, with that adherence to those guidelines? Because it doesn't seem that the conditions would match. So that's what I'm asking.

Sure. So it would still need to meet the requirements of our community appearance manual. And even sites developing within Austin do have to meet those requirements as well. But to I think the other part of your question, they are essentially removing and setting their own design standards for this assemblage instead of some of the design standards and things at the Austin Center. But those things speak more to, street frontage, those types of things. Architecturals aren't necessarily specifically addressed in Austin. That's more of a community appearance manual item, and that would still apply.

Okay. The next is with the the car wash. You know, taking a look again, just down the street is, you know, a storage unit and the rendering. I know it's not exact, and we're not holding them to it, But I also see the buffer, the 30 foot buffer, is very sparse. You know, is there a you know, with that, you know, with that, the whole idea, you know, there's the concern of having the car wash, There already are trees, and they're also talking about fully grading it away.

Yes. They're putting in the soil cells, but it's one of those. It seems counterintuitive to what they're doing and not in line with, you know, the concerns that, you know, both the council had rendered of with this car wash and trying to get it moved forward. It just seems very spartan with the buffering.

Am I missing something with that? No. That's a correct observation. And our commercial streetscape planting rate is relatively sparse compared to a residential streetscape, and that's somewhat intentional because most commercial development wants that visibility. But you're correct. That's a little bit at odds perhaps with the appearance concerns that were raised previously.

Are there any concerns from the town with that water tower with Phase Area 5 being right there with the height? Is are there any concerns in the future with that water tower being in that little corner, that would impact anything infrastructure wise for the town?

I am not aware of that. This was the water tower site in relation to this site was looked at by our DRC when this first came in by our utility staff. I'm not aware of any issues that were raised in regards to the water tower. That's, yeah, I'm not aware

of any issues. Alright. Those are the questions I have. Okay.

I think most of the questions that I had have been answered. The champion tree, though, it sounds like that one of the two is not going to be saved. Is that just because of the position or where where it's physically located?

Yes. So the other tree is a bit more centrally located and quite close to NC 55. So it is possible well, probable based on their sort of conceptual layout here that that tree would be heavily impacted. So you'll notice that the one that's being preserved is sort of further removed in a buffer area adjacent to the railroad.

Okay. And then I know this was brought up already, but, I guess just to get a little bit more clarity, as you mentioned about the office space, that that may not come back for some time. What is plan b if you decided to do something different?

And so I'll start, and then I'll let the applicant finish. So, the way that the zoning conditions are written, if if this was rezoned, including that pod five, it would only allow office and commercial uses. So some small amount of commercial uses could go there if this rezoning is approved. But, really, office, a small amount of commercial, and structured parking would be what's Correct. The requirement if this is approved. Okay.

Yeah. So the plan b at that point would have to go through a rezoning. It would have

to come

back through this process, if that's exactly right.

Yep. Alright. Thank you.

That's all. Yeah. Diane?

No questions. Thanks.

Ken?

Yeah. So the the adding of the extra street side trail to the north, because I noticed on the drawing, of course, and it was mentioned. Is it going are they continuing it to the North? And if they continue it to the North as as they're planning, if if it passes, would the town then go look again? Would our staff look again at whether they would want that to continue up 55 so it wouldn't be a street side trail to nowhere? There's gotta be a purpose in them putting that up there instead of stopping in that little part that was planned.

Sure. So, you know, we do rely on development to sort of extend those facilities. So there's as far as I'm aware, there's not a funded plan for the town to install additional street side trail. I'll look to my colleague in transportation. Do you have anything to add about the future street side?

I'll I'll just add that the recommendation for a street side trail along 55 is also partly based on the upcoming carry bike plan to be able to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians safely. So we're we're constantly looking at future opportunities. So when that happens, it'll be extended.

So this this does fit with the what the town would would envision. That's what I was hoping.

Does fit

with what the town okay. Because the walkability and the and the ped, the bike and ped would be great. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

Just just curious. Who knows how tall the the water tower is here?

I believe it's a 178 feet, so it's about 12 plus or minus stories Okay.

Ish. That answers that question? That was my second question that you, you anticipated. And where are we anticipating that crossing the road by foot or by bicycle would happen to get to the up upside? Is it would be at the McCremon extension? What has has that been thought through? I should've got it by transportation was up there because we gotta know how they gotta get across to walk from those apartments to across to the other Austin.

So you're saying essentially, like, from Pod 3 to Pod 5? How would

we No. It grew across the it grew across 55, a little further up where it it where the other Austin commercial

To the shopping center.

Yeah. To the shopping center. Yeah.

And, I am gonna I apologize for you, though. I'm gonna

I do.

I do.

I I do.

Where the closest crosswalk is. I'm gonna see if we can get some context.

Yeah. The nearest crosswalk would be, at Meckerman Parkway and, 55. Otherwise, the next, signal to the north is going to be at Mahal Avenue And 55.

Further up. Okay. Well, so this would and and but that's in the in our walkability plan, clearly, to get to the shopping centers.

Yeah. Yeah. We tried we tried to make those crossings at signalized intersections because that that would be the only safer relatively safe location for pedestrians to cross, and a mid block in this area would be really challenging.

Yeah. Or or an above grade crossing would very expensive too. So I was just wondering what there was a plan. Okay. That's helpful. Let me see the next one. No. That's good for our transportation. I do understand, I I don't know where the the next closest car wash is, but it does seem like in in fitting the community plan and fitting this all this if we've gone up so much on the the number of cars and the number of people and the number of in and outs here, it seems to me to be a perfect place. Lots of apartments around that have a car wash, is to be close to all the apartments.

And at some point, you have to provide services. And I I certainly would prefer it, to be behind a wall than than out in the open. So I think of of places if there's gonna be a car wash, that'd be great. And I hope that there's no orange that shows through those windows like it does at the the mini storage right down the road, but, it it it I I think it fits. In general, it fits with our the community plan to try to make it cohesive and and make it look look better. Think it's with the appearance manual, adding the extra amount of masonry. I like that. So my comment, that's it.

Okay. A couple of clarifying questions. And when I read through the report, it obviously, since it's a long process, there's some iterations. At one point, it looked like there's gonna be a filling station with 12 pumps and 525 units versus this car wash in 06/25. I mean, insofar as specifically in the client's, you know, statement, it it was still referencing the 12 fuel the the fuel pumps, gas stations, car wash.

Just I I guess at the end of the day, what I'm trying to understand is why do we go from 05:20 like, 05:25 to 06:25? And then as far as the car wash is concerned, I agree that it makes a lot of sense with all those units there. But but I'm I was I was not understanding, like, someone else owns the property, and they're not may I I was just confused by the explanation as to why we're so set on a car wash. And and, I mean, it means it sounded like we were hand strung. Like, if you don't do it, it I I don't know. I just was trying to understand the the why we're so nailed down on a car wash.

Let me speak to the first part of your question, and the applicant may need to give more context on the why of the car wash.

Yeah.

In terms of the question about this started as 12 fuel pumps. It went to a larger car wash. So you're correct. The first iteration of the PDP, which again was two and a half, two plus years ago, and the traffic study was also originally scoped for that 12 fueling pump gas station. At some point, the fueling pumps fell off, I think, in order to do this larger format car wash where everything is internal. In terms of the actual trip generation, we did verify with our colleagues in transportation that that would still be at or even under what was scoped initially for the 12 fueling pumps.

Okay.

So that was a change that was, allowable within what had already been scoped for the traffic study. But I'll let, mister Barron speak to the Sure. The use question.

Yeah. Again, I did I a poor job of explaining it. I apologize for that, mister Moncrief. The reality is the folks who are are gonna develop the car wash, they already own their property. They have made it clear that they're gonna own their property for time immemorial. They own a larger portion of the frontage than we're showing on this plan. We've condensed their frontage, slightly in order to accommodate this plan. And so, really, it's just a product of trying to, my client, work with those folks to come up with a better plan to make the car wash something that, you know, is gonna be an asset to the area. Anecdotally, I'll tell you there was a question about where the nearest car wash is. I don't know specifically, but I do know I have a law partner of mine who lives in this area who's really excited about a car wash because they have one nearby.

I don't know what that means, but he's told me that. And and so I I think the the answer is those folks already own the site. And the best thing my client felt like they could do under the circumstances, recognizing they can't require anybody to not just sit on their property, was to try to work a deal with them where we just made it the best car wash we could, and then we built some pretty awesome stuff next to

it. Okay.

Thank you. Yep. Sure. Go ahead.

I was looking at the Cary GIS map and pulled up the the actual overlay district for the Austin area, and it looks like there was a rezoning in 2014. It was town initiated. Fourteen r e z eighteen, deter to determine whether or not land uses and densities allowed in the zoning district are appropriate for the site. And I think they removed some uses, added some uses.

And that was likely an amendment to the Alston plan if that was the town initiated.

Okay. So I guess.

And I guess so that was ten years ago. Since then, is this basically as far as anything has kinda happened on this site?

Yeah. To my awareness, yes. And I believe what we're seeing more often in the last few years is rather than amending the Austin plan, we're seeing these requests for mixed use district as sort of the way to pop sites out of the Alston plan and give them their own set of standards.

Gotcha. And and my other question was related to the to the 10 stories. I mean, what what's the just trying to understand. We've got a a use over there proposed that's not very high in demand right now. Why are we modifying to go to 10 stories on something that just what's the purpose of getting to 10 stories versus I think there were seven that were already approved. What do we get with three stories in something that's in low demand?

Right. And I'll let the applicant speak to that. The the three to 10 range was not a a requirement or suggestion by staff. I think that's what they've asked to to allow that flexibility. Okay. I'll let the applicant speak to that.

Yeah. It's really, trying to position the site as strong of an office site as we possibly can, recognizing that office is not strong right now. And in looking at how that site could lay out with the structured parking that's required for it, a 10 story, 20,000 square foot floor plate is something that is at least feasible, but we just don't know. So it's really just around making it flexible, making it attractive for when the office market returns.

Okay. That makes sense. I believe those were my my key questions. Anyone else have any follow-up before we

Yeah. So whether or not, you know, Google people pay Google to show where their car washes are. Across 540, way down Carpenter Fire Station, there's one. Fact, it's at Arlington and Amberly near there, so it's a long ways away. And the other way, it's near Morrisville Community Park. It's the closest too, and it looks like it's it's quite a ways. There's nothing on 55 anywhere close to people going to and from work. I think there's also one near, Green Level West Road. So it's it's a ways it's a ways away. So there's nothing over on 55 at all. Maybe that's why they bought it and wanna put a car wash there years ago.

Thank you for checking that.

Gotcha. Well, if there aren't any additional questions, I guess we've got a motion before us here for this case. And if someone's or we don't have a motion yet. We're looking for a motion in reference to case number 22REZ20. If anyone's so inclined, I would would welcome a motion.

I move Sorry.

Go ahead. Either you you you

I move that the board find case number 22REZ20 as consistent with the comprehensive plan in all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation and just by our discussion by the PNC board.

Do we have a second? Second. Alright. We've got a motion and a second, so I think that allows for some discussion. Ken, you'll just give some basis for for your motion.

I think we wanna we we have a need for apartments. So when you can put them on Highway 55 near a rep between a railroad track and Highway 55, that's where people want them. I think it keeps traffic off the neighborhood streets, and I think this is what, and and height's good. Density's good. It's a it's a great place. It's not infringing on anybody's neighborhood. They're next to other apartments. I think it's an ideal place.

Yep. Diane, any of the

Structured parking too, love.

Yeah. Just I know that traffic concerns often come up, but I think having office space, if it is occupied in the future or having these mixed uses kind of can help reduce the traffic load as well. Think that Sure.

Great. Andy, any other?

Yeah. The same. I mean, I appreciate, the applicant recognizing that it's not the perfect proposal, but it it does check all the boxes, for the most part. So

I agree. Sean?

No, just

No comments. Mike?

I think the original Alston plan was well intended, but I think after, ten years in trying to modify it and then another ten years and just, no bites, I think I think it's time to do something different.

Sure. Chris? No additional comments.

We have additional So Okay. So and I agree with all the comments that have been made. I think one thing that my brain sometimes is very, very literal. And so when I'm being told that things are definitively inconsistent with the plan and being asked for them to be deemed consistent, I struggle a little bit with that, but it's absolutely directionally correct. You know? We're not I'm not allowed to vote almost consistent. So I I don't know exactly where I'm gonna go with it. But but the point is is regardless, it's a it's I agree that it's exactly what we need in that location, this type of, thing. There's a lot of variability and a lot of unknowns because you're trying to develop a very large piece. And so that's another thing that makes it a little bit hard.

I I didn't ask this question earlier. But when we're looking at the 5% AMI, I was curious. Like, as you're phasing this, is that something that's gotta be held consistent at each development pod at the time they're developed? Is it a how do you calculate some of those things where we're committing to certain amounts of something based on the size of the development?

So I believe the way they have it written in the condition, and Jason can, correct me if I'm wrong, they do have it on a per pod or per phase basis to avoid kicking the can. That's okay.

Okay. Does anyone else have any additional comments? If not, then I guess we'll call for the vote. Would all those in favor of motion 22 r e z twenties being consistent with the plan, please state

aye. Aye.

Any opposed? That's gonna be this guy. I'm sorry. I do find it to be a really good plan, but I think there's some additional discussion that we'll be benefit from, as we go through the final approval process. But thank you very much. I appreciate it. So I guess that moves us on to the the next case, which is 24 R E Z 08 Yates Store Road rezoning. Our second case on the agenda is that that I just stated. Miss Smith, Rachel Smith, our principal planner, will share our presentation. After that, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Miss Smith, you may proceed.

Thank you. Good evening, board. This is a rezoning request for approximately 48.79 acres located on the Chatham and Wake County line at the western edge of Cary. The property is generally located North of Weldon Ridge Boulevard and at the southwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Yatesboro Road and New Hope Church Road. A concurrent annexation petition has been submitted.

The site is surrounded by existing Cary subdivisions. To the west, south, and east is the Weldon Ridge plan development or PDD, which includes the Cary Diavolo At New Hope Disc Golf Course Park, a future school site, the Mother Teresa Catholic Church, and The Grove At Weldon Ridge, which is a townhome neighborhood. The Northeast is the Rendhurst neighborhood, and to the North is the Peninsula At Amberley, which is part of the Amberley PDD. To the West of the Disk Golf Park is the American Tobacco Trail. According to Cary's GIS data, portions of the site may be impacted by stream buffers.

Field determination of such features will occur at the time of development plan review. According to the park's recreation and cultural resources master plan, no greenway is planned within or directly next to the site. A street side trail and trailhead exist on the north side of New Hope Church Road. Potential bike and pedestrian connections from the Disc Golf Park to the development will be evaluated during development plan review to assess opportunities and challenges. Adjacent to the site, New Hope Church Road is a two lane undivided thoroughfare, and Edinster Road is a four lane thoroughfare with landscaped median.

The existing zoning is Chatham County Residential 1 and Cary Residential 40 on the Wake County side of the assemblage. A portion of the property on the East Side of Gate Store Road is zoned Cary General Commercial, where there is a vacant commercial building. The proposed zoning is residential eight conditional use for detached dwellings and transitional residential conditional use for townhomes. The applicant has provided a concept plan that illustrates many of the zoning conditions, including the proposed use and maximum units for each area. There are two R8 CU areas for detached dwellings on 10,000 square foot minimum lots with a maximum of 57 homes on the western area and 10 homes on the eastern area.

The

TRCU area, shown in pink, is for a maximum of 25 townhouses. The concept plan also illustrates the locations of streetscapes, buffers, community gathering areas, and access points. Other zoning conditions include a community gathering area of 12,400 square feet, which exceeds the LDO minimum of 5,000 square feet for a development of this size with a pick list of amenities for the two locations. Minimum lot sizes shall be calculated outside upstream buffer areas. Some required perimeter buffers will be uncommon open space lots.

The applicant will also certify they have offered historic materials for salvage if demolition permits are sought. The applicant has also committed to providing additional buffer adjacent to the Kerry Disk Golf Park. This commitment and the numerous transportation improvements to meet or exceed LDO requirements in terms of connectivity, traffic calming, access management, and pedestrian and roadway improvements are best understood visually. The 30 foot type A buffer along the western edge of the site adjacent to the Disc Golf Park is wider and denser than the 20 foot type B buffer required by the LDL. As shown in pink, the applicant is committing to build a street side trail along the west side of Yatester Road, where only a five foot sidewalk is required along the site's frontage.

They've also committed to extending the street side trail north to the Yates Door Road and New Hope Church Road intersection beyond the rezoning area, an off-site improvement that adds about 900 feet of new trail and connects the existing street side trail network on the north side of New Hope Church Road via the pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection. To provide connectivity, a new access point will be built from Yates Door Road to serve the 10 homes proposed on the east side of Yates Door Road. This access point and the existing roadway stubs will connect via a roundabout, helping to slow traffic. During construction, access will be limited to Yates Door Road with barriers on existing roads to help reduce construction impacts. Access management will occur via direct driver restrictions to Weldon Ridge Boulevard.

Pedestrian improvements include previously mentioned street side trail on the west side of Yates Store Road, as well as an off-site commitment to install a high vis crosswalk at the eastern leg of the Yates And New Hope Church Road intersection. Finally, as described in more detail in the staff report, the applicant will construct numerous roadway improvements, including frontage widening, adding turn lanes, striping, and improvements at intersections and site access points. Staff has evaluated the rezoning against the Imagine Cary Community Plan. First, we note the western portion of the site is located within the Cherry within the Chatham Cary Joint Land Use Plan low density residential sub area, which recommends densities not to exceed two dwelling units per acre. This proposal has a maximum density of 1.74 dwellings per acre in the portion of the site in Chatham County.

This is consistent with the joint plan. This site spans two future growth framework designations. Suburban neighborhood on the West Side of Yates Door Road and traditional neighborhood on the East. Suburban neighborhoods primarily support detached homes with limited townhouses in appropriate locations. The proposed townhouse area may align with this given its defined location, limited number, and added community gathering space.

Detached homes are supported in the traditional neighborhood area. When looking at the LIVE chapter, we note the proposal will add additional housing stock to Western Cary and the option to live in either a townhouse or a detached dwelling. The shape chapter emphasizes transitions through use mix, design, and buffers. The proposed density is under two units per acre and is similar to nearby developments, though with somewhat smaller lots. Clustering of development is likely to offset the lot sizes given the stream buffer and and additional community gathering space.

Enhanced buffers, such as the wider, denser buffer along the Cary Disk Golf Park and perimeter buffers on common lots, may also improve transitions. Wider streetscape and perimeter buffers in other targeted areas may further support goals in the Shape and Engage chapters. Cary's twenty ten historic preservation master plan, which is part of the Imagine Cary community plan, supports preserving historic resources. Two surveyed sites are on the property, the Yates Grocery and Farm Supply on Yates Door Road, and the Yates House on New Hope Church Road, each with multiple structures. Neither is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or designated as a Kerry Local Historic Landmark, though the State Historic Preservation Office has deemed the Yates Grocery and Farm Supply eligible for the National Register.

Information from Capital Area Preservation is included in the staff report. A zoning condition has been offered to certify that historic material salvage will be pursued before any future demolition. This condition does not require demolition or prevent preservation efforts. Salvage may offer some benefits in terms of the reuse of building materials. When looking at the move chapter, we note policies to ensure the safety and design for all users.

On the East side of Gates Road, the applicant will build a new connection to Gates Door Road as well as a roundabout to provide connectivity and slow traffic. And construction traffic will use Yates Store Road to minimize impacts to the existing neighborhoods. The driver restrictions on Walden Ridge Boulevard will also have access management benefits. The addition of approximately 900 feet of street side trail on the west side of Yates Door Road will connect residents to the existing street side trail network on the north side of New Hope Church Road, and the high vis pedestrian crossing at the Yates And New Hope Church Road intersection will enhance multimodal safety. The commitments to frontage and access point improvements address land use context, though the staff report does describe additional safety improvements staff recommended to the applicant to better meet the intent of this chapter.

When looking at the Enriched chapter, policies may be partially met by the proposal as the additional gathering space may help to encourage open space preservation. The wider buffer adjacent to the Cary Disc Golf Park site may also help to preserve open space and tree canopy. A neighborhood meeting was held on 06/05/2024. 30 nearby residents participated. Questions and concerns included the intended scope of the project, LDO requirements, school capacity, and concerns regarding traffic, speeding, pedestrian safety, and construction and connectivity impacts.

At the March 13 public hearing, there were three written comments and four speakers. Some were in support of the rezoning, while others raised concerns about property preservation, infrastructure costs, and the impacts on nearby property values. Key issues included traffic, the number of proposed dwellings, and the private roads maintained by The Grove at Weldon Ridge HOA connecting to public streets. The council discussion focused on traffic impacts and roadway design, including the feasibility of a new connection to Yates Door Road and strategies to discourage cut through traffic. Questions were raised about pedestrian infrastructure gaps, the proposed densities and lot sizes in comparison to nearby developments, and joint land use plan guidance.

Other topics included historic preservation, affording affordable housing opportunities, buffer widths, and access limitations on collector roads. The applicant made a number of changes since the public hearing. They increased the required buffer between the carried disc golf course and the site by 10 feet and upgraded it from a type b to a type a. They committed to building a new access point to the development east of Yatester Road and to connecting this new access point to the existing roadway stubs via a roundabout. They expanded the commitment to build a street side trail along the west side of Yatesdorf Road, extended along the subject site, along an off-site parcel, and via existing right of way north to the New Hope Church Road intersection.

They added details of the the the pedestrian crossing on the eastern leg of the intersection of Yates Door Road and New Hope Church Road will be a high visibility crossing. And there were minor technical edits to the zoning conditions and the concept plan. Staff offers the following observations on the Imagine Carry Community Plan. Relevant policies from the live, shape, engage, move, and enrich chapters as well as the Chatham Carry Joint Land Use Plan apply. The proposed use and density of 1.74 units per acre on the Chatham Side is consistent with the joint land use plan.

Under live, the proposal offers a mix of detached homes and townhouses. For shape, transitions are provided through density, use, and enhanced buffers in some areas. Engage is supported by a new street side trail along 8 Store Road that expands the pedestrian network. For historic preservation, the applicant has committed to salvage if demolition occurs, but stronger preservation efforts would better support the historic preservation master plan. For move, commitments include a new access to Yates Door Road, traffic calming, and pedestrian improvements.

These align with safety and connectivity goals, though additional staff recommended improvements are not being included. The Enrich chapter is supported by new gathering space, preserved buffer areas, and wider buffers along the Cary Disc Golf Park, helping promote open space and tree canopy retention. This concludes my presentation. Leticia Shapiro, the applicant's representative, is available to provide comments. And following her comments, I'm available to answer your questions.

Great. Thank you. Ms. Smith.

Good evening, chair, members of the board. Leticia Shapiro, Morningstar Law Group here on behalf of the applicant, Tucker Development. Here with me this evening is James Tucker of Tucker Development, Ed Tang of Withers Ravnall who's been involved in design of the site, and Travis Fluitt who has helped the applicant team with regard to traffic. I wanna thank staff. I wanna take the time to thank staff for all of the hard work that went into getting us here tonight, and Rachel did a wonderful job of presenting the details of the case.

So I would just like to highlight a few points. As mentioned, the case is supported by policies within the live, shape, engage, move, and enrich chapters of the community Cary community plan and is also keeping with the Chatham Cary joint land use plan. With respect to transitions, as you see, this is a split rezoning. And the reason for that split rezoning is because we wanted to be very mindful of the transitions that were supported in the Cary community plan and in the Chatham Cary land use plan. So the split zoning allows us to develop the townhomes directly on the East Side the West Side of Yates Store Road across from The Grove At Weldon Ridge Townhomes and then transition into single family as you move towards Chatham County.

And then on the East Side of Yates Store Road to the North of The Grove At Walden Ridge Townhomes, there's that, again, that transition into single family adjacent to the single family of the existing Runhurst neighborhood. With respect to transportation, infrastructure, and safety, in addition to the LDO required frontage improvements, the applicant has offered on and off-site pedestrian and bicycle improvements that include the installation of the high visibility crosswalk, street side trail, and other improvements to eliminate sidewalk gaps. And with regard to engagement with neighbors, in addition to the neighborhood meeting before and after the public hearing, we have engaged in conversations with the neighbors from the Weldon Ridge Townhomes HOA and their attorney related to their specific concerns which were construction traffic and the connection to Flybridge Drive, which is a private street. The applicant has offered conditions related to construction traffic management and committed to construction of a roundabout at the connection of Flybridge Drive with the sign noting that it is a private street, along with that ride in, ride out access off the eight store road. And both of these improvements may help slow and deter cut through traffic, reducing the likelihood of undesirable impacts on the existing private street.

And with regard to traffic, the project does not meet the threshold requirement for a traffic study. However, the applicant did conduct a traffic analysis, and that report was provided to the town as well as the neighbors who attended the neighborhood meeting. So I have lived in West Cary in this area for nearly seventeen years. So this is my stomping ground. A few of those years, Yatesville Road was essentially my backyard.

And I have raised three children who moved through Mills Park, Elementary and Middle Schools and Panther Creek High School. They are all either done with college, in college, and getting ready to go. And this project offers that single family and townhome option that will allow other families other families to to be able to, you know, enjoy Carrie and and just have the wonderful experience that our family had. So as you can imagine, I'm extremely excited to present this to you tonight, and we appreciate your time and look forward to your feedback. And we'd ultimately appreciate your recommendation for consistency. Thank you.

Thank you. Did you have any other comments, Rachel, or you're just getting ready for questions? We'll start with Sean then if you have any questions on this one.

What were the staff improvements for the traffic that were not included that were not offered as conditions? Mhmm.

So at the intersection of Yates Store and New Hope Church Road where it extends to Rolling Springs Drive, so generally right here, staff recommended a pedestrian hybrid beacon or PHP facility or a signalized traffic signal. Is that

the only one that was not included?

Those are the two items that were not included. The high vis crosswalk is acceptable, but additional, facilities would be appreciated for safety.

Alright. Thank you.

Andy. She just asked the question I was going to ask. Is that that basically includes the recommendations for the under the move?

Correct. It's in the move section of

the staff Same. Okay.

That's all. Thanks. Diane?

I have a question about nature with the store in the house. Mhmm. I just wanna understand. It says it's on the study list for natural sorry. National Register of Historic Places. So does the re how does the rezoning impact does that allow the demolition of it before that study is complete, or how does that work?

So those are excellent questions. So the National Register of Historic Places is a federal listing of sites and districts that are recognized at the national level. Properties are not required to be listed on that. The study list, it determines eligibility. So these properties have been surveyed by a 2020 survey that was done, mainly because, section one zero six of federal law requires anytime there's federal transportation funding involved with either, you know, a a street project, a DOT project, etcetera, that there be a survey and a study of all historic properties in the area.

So the Yates Grocery and Farm Supply was found to be eligible for listing, so that's something that the property owner could pursue. There are some benefits to that program that become available. It's it's definitely, a good recognition program. There are some benefits at the federal level as well.

I guess my question is how does the rezoning like, do they have the opportunity to demolish it regardless if we go forward with rezoning, or is that impacted by this decision?

There is no, protection precluding demolition of those properties at this time.

Okay. So it's not impacted by the rezoning, basically?

Now if they're gone, they wouldn't be able to be listed on the National Register.

Right. Thank you.

Ken?

The Flybridge Drive, the the neighbors can considered, so so that's a private that is a private street?

Correct. It is. It's Okay. Maintained by the HOA.

And okay, which I think we're getting fewer hopefully, fewer of those. Is the but the connection, if if I looked at the drawing, right, the the traffic calming was like a circle on that street, and then the ride in, ride out, they said, precluded the the drop passing through the need to pass through the neighborhood. Did I understand that correctly? It was kinda

Well, if one wants to take the most direct route to the 10 homes on the East Side of Yatester Road, going in and off of Yatester Road would be the most direct route.

Okay. That's it. Thank you. That's all.

Mike, do have any questions? No questions. Chris?

My question was already answered. Okay. Yoshana?

So I just maybe want a clarification. So if we're trying to get to the homes that are on the, like, the southern part past the townhomes along the Weldon Ridge Boulevard, are we gonna we can't use Weldon Ridge Boulevard to get to them, or we can't? Like, the the homes that would be located in that bottom quadrant

Ah, so

single family. How many

So the east eastern connection that's shown on the screen here in kind of a brown color would only provide connectivity to those 10 homes on the East Side. The pods on the West side of Yates Door Road would take Walden Ridge Roll Walden Ridge Boulevard.

Okay. And that's fine with them. Okay. And then do we have any kind of retention pond or any kind of concern because of what we have a stream going through, right, a watershed or I'm trying to read what's you know, the blue. Is that the just a stream or watershed setbacks there?

So a 100 foot stream buffer will be required. Now that will there will be field investigation of the exact extent at the time of development plan review, but that will be a a subject regulated waterway. Okay.

The these are my two. Mhmm. Okay.

Yeah. To piggyback on on her question, so can you can you cross the stream buffer with the with the street, or you don't know that at this point?

So all those connections will be determined at the time of development plan.

Okay. Okay.

And and although not noted, I'm assuming there's gonna be connectivity through the townhouse community into single unit detached homes?

So exact connectivity will be determined at the time of development plan. The, connections to the adjoining properties are generally shown by the gray. I would presume that there will be street connectivity between the two sides given the extent. My friend from transportation may perhaps wanna speak to that.

Yeah. There will be connectivity between the single family parts and the the townhome parts.

Okay. That's that's all my questions.

Okay. I don't think I have any additional questions. So if there are if there's willingness to put forth a motion, we have the 22 24 r 08 before us. Would welcome a motion. Yeah. I'll make

a motion to find consistent with the comprehensive plan that case number 24REZ08 is consistent in all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report, presentation, and discussion by the planning and zoning board.

Second.

Great. Do you have any specific, things you wanna offer supporting that? Or

Well, just, you know, kind of, you know, overview of all the things that that were already laid out. The the live, the shape, engage, move, and enrich chapters are are consistent.

Yep. Sean, anything?

No. Again, I think comprehensive and, you know, working with, you know, the two different counties, consistency to keep the neighborhoods, you know, across and continue to develop. It's all good.

Diane, anything?

No. Thanks. Anyone

this way? So it it would be cool. I know it's not an obligation, but if there was a clubhouse where you could turn the store into something that was like little community gathering space or something along those lines, that would be neat. But it obviously probably doesn't make a lot of fiscal sense. So I guess we would, take a vote at this point. All those in favor of, 24 REZ o eight, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Motion carries. Thank you. Let me move us along here. We've got a couple of more items of new and old business. So we have planning and zoning board annual report, and our assistant planning director, miss Katie Dry, is gonna give us that report.

Good evening, chair and members of the planning and zoning board. Each year, all boards and commissions prepare annual reports documenting their activities during the year. This is a chance to look back at work accomplishments. All of these reports will be submitted to the clerk's office upon approval by the board and then submit to town council. So this year, the planning and zoning board reviewed, provided recommendations on a total of 18 rezoning requests, two land development ordinance amendments, and two amendments to the comprehensive plan.

Some of the notable cases that you saw included the South Hills redevelopment project rezoning, the updated rules for accessory dwelling units in Cary, as well as your recommendation on the Imagine Cary community plan update. With that, that concludes my summary. I'm happy to answer any questions or, just any discussion that you have amongst yourself.

Anyone have anything to discuss? No? You guys did all the work. We just gotta sit here and say say yes or no. So we really you guys did all the work. We appreciate it. We need a motion, though, to approve the annual report, if someone would provide that. So moved. Alright. Chris, move. Second?

Second.

Alrighty. All those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. And I the only thing I really get to do is call the meeting adjourned. So Thank you. Thank you. Have a good one.

Appreciate it. And then we'll call