Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you. 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. We'll ultimately make final decisions on all rezoning activity. We recognize that not all rezoning requests are supported unanimously by members of our community, but we strive to balance the impact of increased building density required to support Cary's growth while maintaining the historic charm and character of Cary. The Cary Community Plan was initially adopted in 2017 following a collaborative effort between Cary 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 that plan include live, work, shape, engage, shop, 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 is 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 is 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 to staff by email or phone. You may reach out to our 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 may be streamed live on Cary's website and will be posted to YouTube. Past planning and zoning board meetings are available to view on YouTube as well. First item on the agenda is to adopt the agenda. Will someone make a motion to adopt the agenda? So moved.

Second.

All those in favor state aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And the opposed, nay. Will someone make a motion to approve the July 27 minutes?

So moved.

Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Motion carries. Cases. Our first case on the agenda is 22REZ06, Green Level Church at Mills Farm Road rezoning. Erin Puckett, Planning Manager, will share a staff's presentation. Following the presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Ms. Puckett, you may proceed.

Thank you, and good evening, Board. This is a request to rezone approximately 11 acres located along the eastern side of Green Level Church Road within the Green Level Special Planning Area. The site may look familiar to some of you, as the Planning and Zoning Board previously reviewed this case in November of 2022. As it is unusual for this board to review a case more than once, and many of you may not have been here the last time it was in front of this board, I do want to take a moment to briefly review the history of this case and the process so far. Staff hosted a neighborhood meeting for this rezoning in July of 2022. A public hearing was then held for this item at Council's November 2022 meeting, They referred the case to this board, and it was considered at your meeting in February 2023. At that time, the board found the request inconsistent with the plan by a vote of five to four. Recently, at their July 2026 meeting, council referred the case back to the Planning and Zoning Board for additional consideration at the applicant's request. They are proposing several changes, which I will go over momentarily. While this is somewhat uncommon, it is one of the options for council action per the LDO. The site consists of four parcels and is located between the Sutherland neighborhood to the south and the Toscana neighborhood to the north. According to Cary's GIS, there is a potential stream buffer crossing the property. Field verification of such features is required at time of development plan review. The site is located in close proximity to Thomas Brooks Park to the northeast. There is a future street-side trail proposed along both the future Mills Farm Road extension as well as along Green Level Church Road along most of the site's frontage, and this would help complete the current gap between the trail north and south of the site. The site is currently zoned Residential 40, and the applicant proposes a rezoning to Transitional Residential Conditional Use, or TRCU. The applicant has proposed several zoning conditions. These include limiting development of the site to a maximum of 39 dwellings or about 3.5 units per acre. This was reduced from 44 units, as proposed the last time the Board evaluated the case. Limiting uses to detached dwellings and associated neighborhood recreation and accessory uses. Previously, townhouses were also proposed. Providing a minimum of 7,200 square feet of community gathering space, which is three times the LDO requirement. Providing a 60-foot wide streetscape along Green Level Church Road, which may be averaged as long as it is no less than 50 feet at any one point. This does exceed the LDO requirement by 10 feet. The applicant also offers additional plantings within this type A buffer. Providing an electric vehicle charging ready receptacle in the garage of each unit. providing a decorative wood fence feature at the Mills Farm Road entrance from Green Level Church Road for consistency with the rural look of the area, and at least five additional understory or ornamental trees in proximity to the fence, which will be of a species native to North Carolina's rural areas. Conditions further commit to calculating lot size separately from any stream buffers, which state general statutes otherwise would allow. Provide a 65-foot building setback from the closest lots in Sutherland to the south. Clarify no direct driveway access to Mills Farm Road. And include architectural conditions such as a mix of building materials on front facades and pitched roofs. The applicant has excluded vinyl siding and offered two car garages for all units, in addition to some other more minimal architectural details or treatments, which are included in full in your staff report. Finally, several conditions have been added to address road improvements, including providing sidewalk on both sides of all streets built with development of this site. This is consistent with conditions offered by the recently approved rezoning to the east that this site would connect to. Restriping the existing northbound right turn lane north of the site into Carpin Lane to provide additional storage length and or taper length. Striping the widened pavement of the Green Level Church Road frontage south of the proposed Mills Farm Road intersection to provide a northbound right turn lane into Mills Farm Road. And providing additional street lighting along the east side of Green Level Church Road from the site's northern property line to Carpin Lane. An analysis of the request against the Imagine Cary Community Plan finds the policies in the live, shape, engage, move, and enrich chapters apply most directly as well as goals and policies of the Green Level Special Planning Area. The proposed rezoning generally contributes to area housing choice on an infill site. The infill policy notes the importance of development compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods, and with the removal of townhouses as an option, this appears to be more clearly met, although the density is higher and lot size smaller than that of adjoining neighborhoods. This also speaks to the associated shape policy regarding transitions, and in this case, the use helps to provide a transition along with the Mills Farm Road alignment and additional 65-foot setback from the south, which will provide some separation for residents in Sutherland. Development of the site would require the extension of Mills Farm Road, including the associated street side trail, as well as a continuation of that street side trail along much of the Green Level Church Road frontage, which will help provide additional multimodal connectivity in the area, addressing certain engaged policies. Modest improvements to nearby turn lanes and street lighting, along with a commitment to sidewalk on both sides of internal streets, does help to address some move policies. And the proposal includes a slightly increased streetscape width and extra gathering space, which may support enriched chapter policies regarding tree preservation and open space. The site is located within the Green Level Special Planning Area in neighborhoods east of Flat Branch, as shown on this map with the blue star. This area begins the gradual downward transition in density, moving west from NC 540 towards Chatham County, and recommends that new development be shielded from view of thoroughfares and collectors, be of a clustered development pattern, use elements that harken back to the rural character of the area, and limit the aggregate density of the sub-district to three units per acre. This site does offer a slightly increased thoroughfare buffer of 60 feet compared to the LDO requirement of 50. However, as discussed in further detail in the staff report, many of the neighborhoods in Green Level offered wider streetscapes or bonus open space to separate and screen development from thoroughfares. The 10-foot increase to streetscape width does modestly address the open space policy of the special planning area. No clustering is specifically proposed, although the site is somewhat constrained by potential stream buffers and, again, the required Mills Farm Road extension. A decorative fence and additional native plantings have been proposed to help provide an aesthetic nod to Green Level and the nearby historic district, and the relatively small size of the site itself may help justify the smaller lot size and higher density. The proposed density of 3.5 units per acre is higher than the recommended aggregate density for this area of 3 units per acre and does exceed the density of other subdivisions in Green Level to date, including the two townhouse neighborhoods in this subdistrict. Currently, developed sites within neighborhoods east of Flat Branch range from about 1.1 to 2.7 units per acre. which means that the aggregate density of the developed areas of the sub-district would still remain well below three units per acre if this rezoning is approved, even at that higher density. The plan does also specify that higher density should generally be found closer to 540 and transition down towards the west, but the small area of the site means that the density transition can be generally maintained. A virtual neighborhood meeting was held in July of 2022 Over 50 citizens participated in the meeting and had questions regarding parking requirements, community gathering space, and road improvements along Green Level Church Road and Mills Farm Road. A number of concerns were also expressed, including the need for an affordable or workforce housing component, concerns about traffic impacts, buffering of existing neighborhoods, drainage, density, and a general concern with townhouses at this location, as was originally proposed. Again, that has been changed to detached units since. Between the neighborhood meeting and public hearing, staff received five emails, three simply seeking information about the rezoning process, and two reiterated similar concerns as heard at the meeting. A public hearing was held in November of 2022. There were two written comments and two in-person speakers, and concerns included those with proposed use and density, environmental and drainage impacts, transitions to adjoining neighborhoods, traffic, property value impacts, and lack of affordable housing. Council members agreed with resident observations about traffic on Green Level Church Road, and some commented on the difficulty of justifying townhouses as a transitional use. Additional questions and comments were summarized in your staff report. A number of changes were made following the public hearing, and additional changes were made following the first planning and zoning board meeting, and those are summarized here. Changes include a reduction to the maximum number of units and a removal of townhouses as a permitted use. A number of architectural requirements were added, including those material and roof form specifications mentioned previously, as well as two-car garages, transportation improvements to include turn lanes, lighting, and sidewalk, exceeding minimum LDL requirements, and a clarification that no driveways will directly access Mills Farm Road, which is a collector. Staff found the request addresses or partially addresses some live, shape, engage, move, and serve policies. We found the request provides for more housing in the area on an infill site. Regarding transitions, again, the proposed density is higher than that of surrounding neighborhoods, but we note the construction of the Mills Farm Road extension will naturally provide some separation and buffers between this site and the neighborhood to the south. Construction of Mills Farm Road, including the street side trail, is required by the LDO and supports connectivity goals of the engage and move chapters. Pre-wiring for electric vehicles and an increased streetscape and gathering area help to address enriched chapter policies. Regarding the Green Level Special Planning Area, the maximum gross site density proposed is higher than that aggregate maximum density recommended for neighborhoods east of Flat Branch. However, the small size of the site means the proposed density will not substantially increase the overall density of the subarea. The small site and site constraints, along with the slightly increased streetscape, help with screening of denser development. Conditions do not explicitly address additional open space or perimeter buffers. This concludes my presentation. The applicant's representative, Will Yadusky, is here to provide the applicant's comments, and then I'm available for questions.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you, Aaron, for that rundown of our process so far and for actually some really good graphics expressing our transportation conditions as well. I'm here on behalf of the Yen family, who owns these four parcels. They're there. And as Aaron said, we've made a number of changes in the last couple years, four years, since the last time this came here. And obviously, the Change from allowing townhomes or detached to just allowing detached is a fairly substantial one with respect to some concerns by the neighbors. In terms of discussions with staff and council and the neighbors, Green Level Church Road is a real sore spot. So you'll see a number of our conditions are relating to extending our required widening up to Carpin Lane where we've been told The right turn lane is dangerously insufficient. Extending the street lighting, the darkness, the generally, you know, heretofore Green Level Church Road was not widened with street lights, so we're adding street lights, which, you know, will help 700 feet of a several mile section, but nevertheless, we're doing what we can. You know, as noted, we've dropped the density down to three and a half units an acre, and to the point it is Higher than the three unit per acre gross area wide density guidance But also because of the existing density that's below two units an acre. It's it's a drop in the bucket for the green level density, so That's what I've got and I'm here if you have any questions Thank You miss bucket Thank You mr. Yudusky

The Cary Community Plan is in place to guide development in Cary. As you think about your questions, keep in mind how this proposed case fits or does not fit the Community Plan. When making a motion, it would be helpful to describe how you see your motion impacting the Cary Community Plan. For example, with work, shape, or lived chapters. While this is not a requirement, it would help the Town Council understand how we think this case applies to the plan. So questions, let's start down here, Mr. George.

Just a couple that came to mind. Is it fair to say, Ms. Bucket, that when you anticipate an average of three, you've got to go over three, otherwise it's pointless. You'll never average three if everything stays under three. It's a math. But in the district overall, it seems like in this case that stream buffers may strictly, may reduce the amount of really developable land in there. And then again, so smaller lots are called for so you can get that many in there is that fair because it looked like it was pretty that's accurate right and to your point the site is fairly constrained so even at that max it's likely that there could be fewer lots ultimately yeah that's what it looked like to me uh and then do we define what ev suitable charging is because i just moved into a place that um doesn't have enough, it's got a charger port, but there's not enough amperage. So do we, I know it says 240 volts and somewhere, but what do we specify is what we consider EV suitable if somebody defines, it says I'm going to provide an EV suitable outlet or drop. What do we define as that?

So our ordinance actually doesn't provide specifics. It's a little bit of a gap. That's something that staff have looked into in the past and can continue discussing as a possible LDO amendment going forward. Right now, because like any other condition, it's voluntary, we sort of let the market drive it and go with what the applicant proposes, unless it's something that seems completely out of keeping with current standards.

Okay. I think that would be helpful, because we're following the community plan, and we talk about EV charging and meeting demand, but when cars can charge at 48 amps and they put 30 amp circuits in that you can charge with 24, It just seems like we're not meeting it, so it would be great. I know things keep changing, but also it's almost like you index it with inflation. You index it with the way that cars can take more and more as we move forward. Otherwise, we just stay left behind.

It's something that staff can continue looking into, for sure.

Awesome. And we don't – do we define – because we're talking about how it fits in the community plan –

is the word decorative wood fence what does decorative mean um so to your point it's a fairly vague descriptor um this is a little bit it's one of the challenges of this special planning area in particular there is a historic district in this area and there's this rural character that the plan talks about we get this question a lot because the special planning area never actually defines what does rural mean what should that aesthetic character look like um From a precedent standpoint we have several other developments in this area including actually the one you can see on this slide in r12 across the street offered a similar feature So for better or worse, we're kind of going with what a few other developments have already provided It's typically like a split rail Style fence with some additional native plantings around it kind of just to give it that nod to rural character and

Yes, the split rail is, I've seen them out there, so that fits. Yes, that's typically what we look for. That's what they mean, decorative or style.

And in the condition, it does specify that our planning staff have to review that, kind of make sure that it follows that same aesthetic detail as some of the other ones that have been built out there. I don't have that level of detail on the slide for you, but it is in the written condition that planning staff would review that.

I guess technically, I remember when Kildare Farm Road had barbed wire fences because there were cows.

It will not be that.

It will not be cows.

I think we can say that would not be rural.

Okay, not that rural. Okay, thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you.

No questions. The two things that I see from the, that they have really changed in the conditions was from 44 to 39 and the removal of townhouses. Was there anything else that was previous that's a change of the conditions that they previously offered that previously came in front of this board?

Yes. So the ones that were changed since it came in front of this board, the architectural requirements that I mentioned were new since it came to this board. The transportation improvements were the other kind of big one since it came in front of this board that was very recent change. So the offsite turn lane improvements. This rezoning did not have a traffic study associated with it. So that was all completely voluntary. along with the street lighting and the sidewalk. Those were the main ones. So the gathering space, the streetscape, those things were already in place when it came in front of you before. To your point, the biggest changes are the density and use.

Right. Just because I remember our arguments, you know, because it is so congested, the argument was it is over that 3.0. It's just not consistent with the rest of the area and the architecture. and they still come back and it's still not within the three that we had talked about and discussed previously. So the concern of the board was not truly addressed, which was one of the reasons why we found it inconsistent the last time.

I think that's a fair observation. The density did come down slightly. I think it was closer to 3.9 previously, but did not fully come down to be entirely within that aggregate recommendation.

I would ask, you know, from the staff's perspective, you know, again, we recommended inconsistent the last time.

Yes.

And in my mind, is there any reason to, you know, it's still in my mind inconsistent based on, you know, based on our conversation from, you know, the last one and because of how, I'll say, you know, the traffic ones are great for that. But at the same time, they didn't come back and really address the concerns that we have. Are you seeing the same thing?

So when staff is looking at this, and as you'll note, when we provide our summary, we kind of go through all of the policies. And really, we're looking to you to tell us how you weigh those, because I might weigh them and come up with one. Recommendation and you might weigh those same things come with another I think to your point we fully understand that one of the major concerns was density That is a discussion that staff had with the applicants. They chose to hold firm with the 3.5 Okay, so that's what's in front of you this evening to consider.

I appreciate the insight.

Thank you. Yes. Thank you

So I have a question regarding the stormwater runoff with that stream coming through, and it's kind of substantial based on the blue. I don't know, in reality, is there actually you can see the water or it is underground? So is that going to actually impact potentially the 3.5, and it's going to be like three at the end of the day?

It could possibly. It's not uncommon that the maximum they ask for at time of rezoning comes down slightly at time of development plan. I will say from some of the exhibits the applicant shared, it looks like they've done some survey work out there and that stream buffer may not be As our GIS shows it across the entirety of the site, they seem to show a determination that would show it's stopping further south, so they may have more developable area than what that stream buffer map shows. We only have our GIS to go off of until we get a formal determination of time of development plan. But to your point, there certainly are some constraints associated with those stream features that could limit the developability of the site further. Okay.

That was my question.

so yeah i was looking at the density as well um so originally it was at 4.0 44 units now to get down to three it would have to be 34 and they're three so they split they split it so it's like right in the middle 3.5 um the carpent lane improvements that was a staff recommendation is that what i heard

Correct. And that's in part because there is sort of a partial turn lane there now, but it's not fully consistent with today's standard specifications, so they would be improving that and adding some additional capacity as well as, I believe, curb and gutter.

But they're not getting a benefit from that improvement, correct? They're not having access to carpent lane or anything?

Correct. They would not directly access carpent lane. That is a voluntary offsite improvement that they have offered.

Okay. Yeah, I think all the other questions I had were previously addressed.

I think just to go back on that density, just to get one more clarification. So there is a density for the overall area that we're trying to hit by averaging developments. Can we go over that one more time?

Yes. So and this is unique to the Green Level Special Planning Area. It talks about a maximum aggregate. So it certainly could be lower than that. But the maximum aggregate that's envisioned for the areas east of Flat Branch is three units per acre. So I think Mr. George mentioned this earlier. We know that with the small size of this site, even if it's over, the aggregate of what's developed so far will still be under three. So it's just a balancing act of, you know, if everything from here on out develops at three and a half, do we ultimately tip it? Quite possibly. So far to date, everything that's developed has developed at below that three. So this will not tip it over. Again, it's just a matter of balance. Does this one go over? That means someone in the future might have to be less. They can't all be over three and still maintain that three. We don't have a crystal ball, but as of today, this would not be anywhere close to tripping that maximum aggregate density.

I just had one more that I forgot. and I don't know if I missed in the presentation or not, did you say, was there notes on, I may have been on the planning board at that time, I can't remember, right when I started, but was there a list of what the main issues were for the dissent on not approving it the first time? Yes, and I do this one more time.

I believe miss McAndrew kind of hit it on the head the density was the big one Okay, and I believe the use and how it transitioned to town hatched Yep, because at the time it could have been entirely townhomes There was no limit on the townhome so could have been 44 townhomes the density and the use Seemed to be the major sticking points So going back if

To find it inconsistent, I see, and I wasn't here for that, but I can certainly see the inconsistency when there's town homes, partly because of the other neighborhoods and the transition.

It was the transition. It's the decorative wood. It's the keeping the historic context. There wasn't enough there. It was not consistent with everything, you know, that was laid out for that district. And so that's one of the reasons, you know, Everything combined was a lot of the reason why it was found or voted inconsistent.

All of it together.

All of it together.

I can see that. And is there a way, I'm sure that we could load a spreadsheet up with everything on that side and easily tell right now where our density is. And we could actually say if we develop the rest of them at 3.0, where would that final number be? That would be helpful to me because we say this is a, it is a little one, I realize it's a little one, but there's going to be more little ones coming, and then there may be some medium-sized ones coming. I'm certainly in favor. I don't have a problem with the, if 3.0 was supposed to be the average, that to me means some of them are going to go over, and I have no problem with them going over if they're meeting a lot of other stuff. I think that's really important for me to look at is that if you go over, If it's 3.5 in townhouses, I think I'd still have a problem with it. But we're going to have to go over 3.0. It's easy to stay under if we just go barely over 3.0 for some small places, even some medium-sized places, because you showed right now it's 1.2 to 2.7 is what I saw the range. But I would like to know, it would be great to help us make a 3.0 decision To just put it in a spreadsheet, you've got to know what these all are. And if we could lump those in, it'd be great to know. I think I'd have more informed decision if I had that information.

Understood. We can probably put some of that together for a final council decision. I will say we kind of went through that exercise for what has developed so far. And it's about 1.6, 1.7 units breaker if you take all that's been developed. It's a little more difficult when we get into what percentage is undeveloped because is someone's single-family home going to redevelop? If an area has not built out the full rezoning approval, could it add lots? So it's a little more nuanced than just a flat undeveloped-developed XY, but I take your point, and we could probably get something close to that if you think that would be helpful for council to consider.

If it's 1.6 now, clearly we're not going to tip it with 39. We wouldn't tip it with 50. We wouldn't tip it, but we're going to meet the nature of the neighborhood and the split rail, and I think it's a wonderful opportunity, especially if it's a difficult topography, or at least with the buffers, the riparian buffers and the problems. I think we need to be able to go over in these small areas, so we're still going to be under it, and we're still going to also, people want smaller Yards to keep up as well. I mean, there's people that do want that. So I think to provide that variety of housing is another reason that I think it's important. And it can be a good point. Anyway, that's my point on the numbers. Any other questions?

I just wanted to kind of the availability of housing diversity. And I like what Ken said, because I'm looking at it.

And yeah, the fact that they changed to single family homes, not like townhomes, they're going to cost a little bit less than some of the other homes around that area that are on larger acres. And affordability that we talk about, that's one way to do it, right? So just putting it out there, I think there's a point to be had with that. Still not very affordable, but...

I would say they did make several updates and changes to the... Yeah, several concessions. Some of which are not tied directly to this property.

Mm-hmm. With that, would someone make a motion for 23REZ14, Entry Property Rezoning?

I will. I move that the Board find 22REZ06 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report, the presentation, and the discussion we just had here in the Planning and Zoning Board.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Any discussion? All right. All of those in favor, state aye. Aye. Any nays, state nay.

Nay.

Motion carries. And I believe I apologize. I need to make a correction for the record. I think when I did that, I said, will someone make a motion for the 23REZ14? And that was for 23REZ06. Matt, are there any issues with that? Perfect. All right. Perfect. All right. Our second case in the agenda. Perfect. Our second case in the agenda is 23REZ14, Hatcher Property. Principal Planner Rachel Smith will show staff's presentation. Following the presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Ms. Smith, you may proceed.

Thank you. Good evening, board. This is a rezoning for an assemblage of approximately 23.15 acres in Western Cary. One parcel is unaddressed, and the others are addressed 74 and 80 Saunders Grove Lane. The property is located within Cary's corporate limits and is in the Carpenter Special Planning Area shown in red and adjacent to the Carpenter National Register Historic District shown in blue. There are no documented historic buildings on the site. The surrounding neighborhoods include Old Carpenter, Carpenter Village, and Magnolia Estates. The Carpenter Special Planning Area shows the conceptual alignment of several planned greenways, including the Village Trail, a character-defining feature of the special planning area and a unique element within Cary's planning framework. The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources System Plan further refines locations of these proposed trails, and the applicant has committed to build the Village Trail along the western edge of the property and to build the portions of the Kitt Creek Greenway corridor which run along the boundary of the site. The site is south of Saunders Grove Lane and north of April Bloom Lane. Braybrook Way stops just to the east of the property. The current zoning is Cary Residential 40, and the applicant requests re-zoning to Residential 8 Conditional Use. The proposed zoning conditions limit the development to a maximum of 52 detached dwellings and includes a concept plan that illustrates the overall layout and special key zoning commitments. The R8 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and the applicant is committing that at least 40% of all lots will be a minimum of 10,000 square feet and will be located in the yellow pod areas as shown on the concept plan. Community gathering area will be a minimum of 7,000 square feet, 2,000 square feet more than the LDO requirement. Most perimeter buffers, which would otherwise be permitted on residential lots, will be on common lots. And the applicant has offered architectural commitments. Non-traditional exterior building materials are prohibited, including vital siding, EFIS, and plastic composite lumber products. And quarter lot homes must incorporate additional architectural details and foundation plantings on side lot facades. Homes located within 100 feet of the Village Trail or Saunders Grove Lane, both important to view shed corridors leading into the historic Carpenter Crossroads area, must incorporate at least two traditional architectural design elements from an approved list, such as gable roofs or front porches. These commitments help ensure that the homes most visible from these key corridors incorporate design features that complement the character of the historic crossroads area and reinforce the unique identity of Carpenter. The village trail will be located along the western edge of the site as a 12 foot wide meandering ADA accessible trail located within a 60 foot wide corridor. Consistent with the carpenter special planning area vision, the trail will incorporate context-sensitive materials and design elements intended to evoke the area's historic character. The applicant also commits to provide at least two interpretive signs that tell the story of Carpenter's history, subject to review and approval by Cary Historic Preservation staff. Additionally, using a pick list, stormwater facilities will include modest pedestrian amenities. conditions also include multimodal commitments a transit easement will be dedicated along the saunders grove frontage and there will be a raised pedestrian crossing on april bloom lane additionally the developer will construct the greenways street side trails and the village trail as shown on the concept plan sidewalks will be constructed on both sides of all internal streets where the ldo only requires sidewalks on one side of local streets And subject to securing the necessary easements, the applicant has offered to extend Braybrook Way beyond the subject property to connect with the existing street network. The missing segment is relatively short, approximately 60 to 65 feet in length, and is located within existing public right-of-way. However, as written, there is some uncertainty regarding implementation because the connection may require easements from adjacent property owners that have not yet been secured. The offer also does not include removal of the existing Braybrook Way turnaround bulb upon street connection. The applicant has also offered a condition to put up traffic barriers to mitigate construction traffic to April Bloom Lane, which connects to the Old Carpenter neighborhood. The applicant has not offered such a condition for the extension of Braybrook Way on the eastern extent of the property, which would provide connection to the Magnolia Estates neighborhood should the necessary easements for the extension be acquired. Staff has evaluated the request with the Imagine Cary Community Plan. We note the Carpenter Special Planning Area has one of the most detailed and place-specific planning frameworks within the Community Plan. The subject property is located within two Carpenter sub-areas. The Crossroads Village sub-area is envisioned as the historic heart of Carpenter, where development should be particularly sensitive to the area's historic character and rural setting. And the Neighborhood South sub-area is intended to consist of detached residential neighborhoods similar in scale and character to establish subdivisions. The village trail is envisioned to provide place to finding connectivity and transition between the Crossroads Village and the neighborhood's south sub areas. When looking at the policy guidance of the special planning area, the proposal includes architectural commitments specifically designed to complement the character of the National Register Historic District, including restrictions on exterior building materials and enhanced design standards. Use and form transitions, which are discussed in the shape chapter analysis as well, include a development program similar to the surrounding neighborhoods. And the proposal would build the very first portion of the village trail through the site to help connect new residents in existing neighborhoods with community destinations. The architectural commitments also help to meet historic preservation master plan goals, as does the offer for historic interpretive signage to share the history of Carpenter. For the live and shape chapters, the proposal creates a detached dwelling residential neighborhood that adds to the housing supply in Western Cary while remaining generally compatible with the surrounding area. Transitions are provided through the use of 10,000 square foot lots 2,000 square feet larger than the minimum required in the r8 district Primarily located around the periphery of the development as well as an overall density of 2.25 dwellings per acre which is compatible to nearby neighborhoods For the enriched chapter, the proposed 7,000 square foot lot community gathering area may contribute to open space preservation. The gathering area also supports broader live and shape chapter objectives by enhancing neighborhood design, community interaction, and overall development quality. For the engage and move chapters, the proposal includes several multimodal improvements that would enhance safety and connectivity both within the development and to the surrounding area. The dedication of a transit easement also helps support future transit service as the area continues to develop. If construction can be more fully assured, as discussed in the staff report, the Braybrook Way extension would eliminate a gap in the transportation network. The staff report also notes the benefits to removing temporary turnarounds when streets are extended, and also cites several recent rezonings and development projects where they have been removed by the developer. If the bulb is not removed by the developer during the street connection, the redundant pavement is likely to remain as is until the neighborhood or the town paid to remove it. A neighborhood meeting was held in October of 2023. 25 nearby residents participated. Questions and concerns related to traffic, privacy, buffers, community character, the location design of stormwater facilities, greenway and trail connections, tree preservation, and the future layout and architecture of the development. The applicant voluntarily held two additional neighborhood meetings to meet with neighbors and keep them updated on the case as conditions were refined, including one held earlier this summer. The minutes from all three neighborhood meetings were attached to the staff report. There has been light but consistent contact with neighbors since 2023 regarding the case. At the June 25 Town Council meeting, there were five written comments and three in-person speakers. The overall tenor was positive for the case with questions and comments regarding the provision of utility stubs to neighboring properties, a recommendation for fast growing trees and vegetation for buffers, and concern with the extension of Braybrook Way to the Magnolia Estates neighborhood. Council questions and comments were also generally positive for the provision of robust multimodal facilities and consistency with the Carpenter Special Planning Area. Specific questions and the answers for utility connections, annexation, stormwater facilities, stormwater facility amenities, dimensional standards, transitions, transportation elements, and construction traffic mitigation were summarized in your staff report. Since the public hearing, the applicant has added a condition to divert construction traffic away from the Old Carpenter neighborhood through temporary barriers on April Broome Lane, has committed to modest pedestrian amenities for stormwater control measures using a pick list, has clarified that sidewalks will be built on both sides of all streets, and has made technical corrections, including revised terminology to replace multi-use path with street side trail for consistency with the LDO and other technical corrections requested by staff. Staff offers the following observations in terms of the case's consistency with the Imagine Cary Community Plan. For the carpenter special planning area, live and shape chapters, the detached dwelling use, transition to the historic carpenter crossroads, the architectural commitments, and the construction of the village trail collectively help to achieve plan objectives. For the move chapter, many policies are met by the provision of pedestrian infrastructure and the construction of the village trail. However, we note that all connections are not assured per the caveats included in the zoning conditions. For the engage chapter, the proposal will add to the area's greenway and pedestrian network and will provide access to cultural and historic resources. And for the enrich chapter policies, the proposal provides modest increases to buffers and gathering space. This concludes my presentation. Jason Barron, the applicant's representative, will provide comments, and following his comments, I'm available to answer your questions.

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

Good evening, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Board. Jason Barron with Morningstar Law Group. Happy to see each of you tonight. I'm going to try to keep my comments brief. I do have a handful of things that I want to touch on. I want to out of the gate mention that I'm here with Juan Montes of MI Homes. MI is the proposed developer of this site, and I've had the pleasure of working on this case. Fortunately, not for the entirety of this case. Lord knows I've worked on plenty of zoning cases in the town of Cary that take three-plus years. I've only been involved in this case since the fall of last year. And that's similar to Mr. Montes, who recently joined MI. And since we have taken over running the case, I will tell you our engagement with the community has been fairly direct. We volunteered to have that meeting in June, and it was a breath of fresh air. I don't do a whole lot of work in the town of Cary that when we have a neighborhood meeting, I walk out and say, man, that was a really good meeting. I think everybody likes this project, but that's exactly what happened. And I think if you watched the public hearing on this case, The comments that were made at that public hearing, the only speakers who spoke related to the case, they may have raised some thoughts associated with the case, but each individual speaker who chose to take time out of their day to show up to the public hearing spoke in favor of the case. And I think that is reflective of, not just because I'm a likable person or Juan's a likable person, I think it is highly reflective of a development project that has taken advantage of some bad case history. And what I mean by that is what I've learned through this process, I didn't work on previous cases, but apparently there were previous attempts to try to rezone this property for much more dense product. Apparently townhomes have been a suggestion at some point. So I think that the community, and that was certainly what I felt when I met with them back in June, I think they're just very happy to be dealing with a developer who's taken a look, has heard kind of what the community comments were on those other cases, have been able to incorporate those comments in a plan and have been able to work with the owners candidly to come up with a development plan that not only squarely is consistent with the Cary Community Plan, and we believe that it is entirely consistent. Kudos to my client for doing things like working with the staff on determining what a village trail is. That's a first of its kind in the town that exists nowhere else to date until this case. Those were fun conversations because we kind of get to make it up as we go along. But also, you know, I think, again, it's reflective of the significant degree to which people feel this fits with where it is going to be located. And I think that that is the high degree of commentary that we received. And I think the town council comments at that public hearing were reflective of that. Even with that, as you heard, there were updates to the conditions made following the public hearing. There was a question related to construction traffic and making sure that April Bloom wouldn't be opened early. that condition has been added. You all have seen that in other cases. That is not something that's atypical, and we understand why those conditions are requested, and we were happy to add it. I do want to mention pedestrian connectivity, and then I want to talk about Braybrook. Pedestrian connectivity, as was mentioned, and I'm going to, the western side of the property is essentially that village trail, and I'm not going to bore you with all the details that are included in the carpenter special planning area associated with the village trail, but we have worked closely with staff to craft a condition that everybody understands will be enforceable at the time of development plan and will achieve what is a unique greenway. And so the village trail is 12 feet wide, which is not inconsistent with the greenway trails and the street side trails that you see. It's just going to be of a different style. It's going to look different. It's going to feel different. So that is along the entire western boundary of the site. We measured it today. That's 875 feet of village trail along the entire western boundary of the site. As you saw during the presentation and you heard from Rachel during her discussion, the remainder of the site is essentially encircled with greenways and street side trails. The Kitt Creek Greenway lines the entire eastern boundary of the site, and then there's a connection along April Bloom, kind of running east and west, Sorry, the mouse is not cooperating very well, but there's another connection down here that essentially creates a 12-foot-wide walking trail, multimodal trail, that encircles the entire development and connects to adjacent communities. As you heard, the community also is proposing to have a raised crosswalk to provide connectivity. And just for your edification, so we've got 875 feet of the village trail along the western edge of the property. We have another 2,620 feet of 12-foot-wide either greenway or street-side trail, creating 3,500 linear feet of greenway. Just to... That's two thirds of a mile. There's two thirds of a mile of walking and multimodal path that will completely encircle this trail for 52 lots. I've never worked on a community at the town of Cary that on a per lot basis was providing more in terms of multimodal connectivity than this 52 lot single family detached community. I took the math even further because I'm a math nerd. That's 42,000 square feet of pavement devoted to nothing but trails. That's almost an acre of pavement devoted to nothing but trails. And so the point being, it's not an easy site in terms of making sure you're addressing all those multimodal connections, but I give credit to the staff for working closely with the applicant, give credit to my client for making sure that those things come to life, and you're really going to be able to create a community that, in addition to the The street, you know, the regular sidewalks that you have adjacent to streets, you're going to have a very vibrant and active community for places for people to get out and to walk. With respect to Braybrook, and this is that connection right down here. We have no problem connecting to Braybrook. Our condition acknowledges that we have no problem. What we have a problem with is guaranteeing that in the event that construction easements are going to be required from the HOA, we can't guarantee that anybody's going to sell us a construction easement. Now, the town certainly has condemnation authority. If the town chooses to condemn construction easements for a future public street which this will be well we're happy to go through that process we just can't commit as part of a zoning condition that we can guarantee that those things will happen with respect to the the temporary turnaround which exists in front of those homes and you saw it with respect to the the feedback that was provided at the you know in the neighborhood meetings in the as well as the town council public hearing the neighbors don't want to removed They do not want us going in and removing that temporary turnaround I had that conversation very directly with them in June, they do not want that. That removed, and so the reason why those conditions exist in the way that they do is because it's reflective of the fact that we can't guarantee. That construction easements can be delivered but we'll do our level best. And we know that the neighbors do not want us in their front yards ripping up their front yard, even if their front yard. will get bigger in the process they just don't want to deal with that so i just wanted to explain a little bit we're not being obstinate we're not trying to be problematic we're just being real associated with what we can guarantee and we're trying to keep a handful of neighbors happier than they than they otherwise would be so with that otherwise we think we are squarely consistent with the requirements of the carry community plan and we would respectfully request you all's recommendation in favor thank you thank you mr baron

Do any members have any questions?

Just a quick question. I'm just curious about the density around that area, like south, east of it. Do we have some numbers? Like we know what the density they're asking for about, but I'm just curious. I do.

So the proposal is 2.25 dwelling units. And the neighboring communities, I just took the nearest platted actual density, not the entitled density. So Old Carpenter is 2.89, Magnolia Estates 2.1, Carpenter Village 2.8. So I'd say this is fairly in line with those. I've got kind of a graphic as well. That's right.

Thank you. That was it for me.

I just kind of wanted to go through that. A handful of questions. One was, I didn't see it on the maps. Is there an idea of where the stormwater amenity was going to be on this tract? Is it down near the wetlands in this bottom middle?

So general locations are not shown for SCMs on this plan, but SCMs will be located on HOA open space and not on residential lots. and SCMs will be placed at natural low points adjacent to established draining features and consistent with existing natural drainage patterns. And stormwater staff did prepare me for that question.

I remember seeing some notes about how the pedestrian amenities were tying in. It's nice to understand where it was going to be. I also saw a slide that mentioned something about not allowing construction traffic at one entrance but not mentioning it about at Braybrook Way, and I just wanted to find out if there was a reason for that. It doesn't seem like Braybrook Way would need to be a construction access for this if they can get access off the other streets, so just curious if there was a reason why that was being left off.

I'll ask Mr. Barron to come up.

Sure. Great question. Because the folks who live on Braybrook didn't ask for it. I mean, that's as simple as answer. We're fine with the condition. The staff mentioned that to us a few days ago about the possibility of adding that. It's not designed for anything other than the fact the folks who live on April Bloom asked for the condition and the folks in Braybrook didn't.

Right. Yep. I would recommend definitely doing that just because it doesn't seem like a good access for construction traffic.

It's definitely not a place where we're bringing traffic through. Right. Yep.

And then for staff Maybe I missed it. Can you just one more time explain the difference between a greenway and a village trail? I sounds like this is the first one and mm-hmm It is is it solely serving just the neighborhood or is it tying it to other areas of the greenways?

So it'll tie into the larger greenway network and let me pull up the map Here we go, so it's gonna tie into the larger kit Creek and greenway network and you can see all of these dashed lines are the proposed trail network and all the solid are the existing trail network. So the village trail is envisioned by the carpenter special planning area as a character defining trail. So it has special treatments associated with it. It's a wired or Corridor is intended to both separate two sub areas of the special planning area the crossroads village in the neighborhood south But then also connect you know the neighborhoods within this area to that historic crossroads area, so that's generally going to be up in here Okay, and what kind of special treatments? So, that's all signs. Yeah, so there'll be two interpretive signs and then the actual materials themselves will be ADA compliant, but most likely a stained concrete or a brush surface. They'll have to be ADA. They'll have to meet our other specs, but here it's envisioned to be a character defining greenway that looks different than other greenways in the network. Gotcha.

And then one last question. The temporary turnaround that Mr. Barron was talking about, is that Located inside existing public right-of-way, or is it inside an easement?

It is in right-of-way.

Okay. So, really, you're not required to get homeowners permission to remove it? Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Ms. McAndrew? No questions. No questions.

I did have a... I would like to comment on what Mr. Barron said. I remember a... a proposal for townhouses with no conditions along the side. And I think it's the only 7-0 unanimous defeat I've ever sat in on. It was no thought. This is just completely different. I appreciate all the effort that went into it. The great work on the pick list, historic field, I think it's great to have that. And I realize, he answered the question, it could get condemned and be be condemned and connected by the town if they so chose. So it's not up to the developer. And then I guess on that bulb removal, if it did get removed, is town owned? If it got removed, has it become the town's or has it become the HOA's if it got removed?

So

So, yes, if it were initially removed, it's still town right-of-way. But in a circumstance like this, what would most likely happen is the town would then abandon that right-of-way and in doing so return that property to those adjacent property owners.

So then they just have more grass to mow?

Or a bigger front yard. Yes, yes. And Mr. Barron mentioned this. I believe he phrased it as even though they would get more property, they do not want it removed. But, yes, that would happen. And so the town is not in the business of keeping right-of-way. It does not use.

Okay.

And it would. But that's council action. So it's not a guarantee. So there is a scenario where Mr. Barron's client does remove this, and then for whatever reason the town council declines to close that street. and it would remain town right-of-way. But traditionally, in instances like this, it was put in place, and we keep talking about it as a temporary turnaround, and that is the goal for it to be temporary.

Okay. And that buffer, it's really good in this picture we're up with the future. Are those buffers above and below the gap right now from the other neighborhood to this area? Because there's no houses, that big spot that says future road expansion. Is that picture, is that hiding a house underneath it?

Oh, no, no, there's no house under there.

That's the buffer.

Let me, I can get the picture for you.

It's still, it's kind of a buffer, right? It's not a... It's public right away. Okay. Looks like a stormwater device. Is that a stormwater thing going through there? Is that water on the northern side? Yeah, there's stream buffer here, and then this is an HOA lot right here and right here And so that that's why the condition would be temporary construction easements the HOA would have to work with them on that that helps and then let me Let me take tack on to what Mr. Barron said about so they can have a one acre of paved impervious is it gonna be impervious surface if we're gonna pave an acre of whole acre with greenway trails are they all going to be impervious because then we're going to cause additional runoff just by paving greenway trails or or do we also have an option to be pervious in in greenway especially in a special sensitive area it's got to be treated either way so there are also competing goods in terms of ada compatibility so there are some things to think about with that it will have to meet our trail specifications

So in terms of how pervious different specs are, I'm not able to answer that. Yeah, but they will be ADA compatible.

But there are ways to be ADA compatible and be material that's pervious, right?

But either way, they've got to treat it.

I do. I agree. I agree. But I'm saying it's got to be. It just seems like it's a lot. It is a lot, and it's great for people to walk on. But I guess they're going to have to treat that water either way if they're adding all that impervious. Okay. Well, it kind of fits this whole ecological thing here. So I'm just looking at the stormwater and everything. It just seems like there's a lot of pavement. So great for people to walk on. And that's my last question.

Thank you.

I think my questions were asked. Would someone make a motion for 23REZ14 Hatcher property?

I move that the board find 23REZ14 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.

I'll second. Any discussion on your motions?

I think we'll put together a plan to keep with a historic consistency. The conditions match. and the work with the staff and the applicant to keep it consistent with the idea of what's going to be built. I think there's been a lot of great work that has been done. Thank you.

Any other discussion?

I know we've read or heard, you may have read or heard that Ed Yerhad passed away. And sitting with him on the council and knowing all the comments he made about the historic planning district, maybe it's fitting for me to just say, I think that this is the kind of thing that Ed appreciated. He really worked hard for this historic planning district to do what it would do. And having spent so much time with him talking about this at Carpenter, I just thought it'd be nice to... mention that now that i want to with him in mind i'm going to support this wholeheartedly it's just a major major improvement over what was proposed before and uh hit the direction that i think that uh it would appreciate thank you ken all those in favor stay aye aye aye any opposed state nay

Motion carries. If there is no new business, I'll call this meeting adjourned.