Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

do do

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

Thank you, Chair. For the record, Andy Coe, Ruben Moore, Jeff Moncrief, and Chris Johnson are absent this evening, and I will verbally confirm the presence of the other members. Sal Camerata, Boshana Etten, Mike Roselli, Sean McAndrew, Diane Mayo and Ken George. Thank you.

Thank you, Julie. The Cary Community Plan will continue to be the guiding document for this board. Our role is to function as citizen advisors to the council who will ultimately make final 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 this year. The chapters of the plan include live, work, shop, engage, shape, move, enrich, serve, and act. The community plan can be found on Cary's website. Your citizen opinions based on the Cary Community Plan document play a very important role in advising our leaders. We encourage our citizens to refer to the plan and provide feedback that 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. All past planning and zoning board meetings are available to view on YouTube as well. At this time, we will adopt the agenda. Will someone please make a motion to adopt the agenda?

Motion to adopt.

Second. All those in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed, state nay. Passes unanimously. First item on the agenda is the approval of the regular meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve the March 24th meeting minutes? So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed, state nay. Approved unanimously. Our first case on the agenda is 19REZ25, Piney Plains Multifamily Rezoning. Aaron Puckett, principal planner. will share the staff's presentation. Following the presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Ms. Buckett, you may proceed.

Thank you, and good evening, board. This is a request to rezone approximately 31 acres located on Piney Plains Road at Stevens Road. The site is located south of US 1 and west of Walnut Street and the Crossroads area. There are existing residential subdivisions to the west, including portions of Wellington Park as well as the Wynwood South neighborhood. The recently approved Lovano multifamily development is located across Piney Plains to the east. There is also a large regional power line that bisects the site. This area is within an easement, and therefore no structures or trees would be permitted in this central portion of the site. I also want to note that a forthcoming NCDOT interchange project is likely to impact the site in the future. That project will redesign the Crossroads Junction interchange to increase safety and to relieve congestion. The Walnut Street eastbound on and off ramps will be closed and relocated to Piney Plains Road. Based on the most current information available from NCDOT, the project area, which is shown in purple, will likely impact the northernmost portion of the site. Cary's GIS indicates stream buffers along portions of the northern and western property lines. Field determination of such features is required at time of development plan review. Piney Plains Road is a five-lane thoroughfare with existing sidewalk on both sides. Stevens Road is a two-lane collector that is presently lacking sidewalks and bike lanes, which would be required by the future cross-section. The site is currently served by GO Triangle Route 305. Cary Transit staff will work with the applicant to evaluate the location for a potential transit stop during development plan review. The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Master Plan proposes an extension of the Piney Plains Greenway through the northern portion of the site. That's shown here in the green dashed line. That greenway corridor will ultimately connect the existing greenway segment to the west with the proposed tiny planes road street side trail on the east. The site is currently split sound. It is owned office and institutional on the northeastern half of the site and office and institutional conditional use on the southwestern half as well as transitional residential conditional use for a small portion of the site adjacent the existing residential neighborhood. The OICU portion of the site was rezoned in 2008 and allowed a variety of office and institutional uses with larger buffers and setbacks provided from the adjoining neighborhoods on Stevens Road. The applicant proposes to rezone the site to mixed-use district with a preliminary development plan, or PDP, and to expand the mixed-use overlay district across the entirety of the site. The PDP proposes up to 370 multifamily units in the southern half of the site within 10 buildings. Buildings 1 through 4 in the southern and eastern areas of the site, which are shown in the darker orange color, will be larger multifamily buildings, which may be as tall as 65 feet, or roughly 5 stories. The six buildings closest to the adjoining residential neighborhoods and closer to the center of the site are limited to 30 feet in height and a maximum of seven units per building with units side by side, so a more townhouse-style design. 5% of the multifamily units are proposed to be affordable to renters, making 80% of area median income, AMI, per period of 30 years. The proposal also includes up to 16 workforce townhouse units in the rear of the site, all of which would be affordable to those at or below 80% AMI for 30 years. No conceptual layout, minimum number of units, or phasing of this portion of the development has been committed to at this time. A minimum of 31,000 square feet of community gathering space is proposed to be dispersed throughout the site. At least 5,000 square feet would be provided in the townhouse pod. The applicant also requests a modification to allow decorative retaining walls around stormwater control measures to be up to 10 feet in height, which exceeds the LDO requirement of 6 feet, but only when they're not visible from a public street. The applicant proposes the removal of 10 champion trees. Staff notes that most of these are in central locations that could make their preservation difficult. Twelve champion trees are proposed to be preserved. Most of these are within the stream buffer areas. Some of these trees, particularly the two northernmost ones shown on this map, could be impacted by the forthcoming interchange project. The PDP would meet the LDO requirements for the 100-foot highway corridor buffer along the northeastern boundary of the site. And it proposes a 30-foot type A buffer along most of the eastern property line, as well as a 30-foot type A streetscape on Stevens Road and a 50-foot type A streetscape on Piney Plains Road, except at a pinch point that's created with the dedication of right-of-way associated with the Lovano project to the south. The applicant proposes to reduce the streetscape to a 10-foot type C as needed at that location. Also, as noted previously, a large overhead power line easement bisects the site, And the applicant proposes to use this space for surface parking, thereby requiring a modification to Cary's parking lot tree requirement. As an alternative, the PDP proposes to provide shrubs within the parking area and displace trees along the perimeter of the easement as space allows, otherwise elsewhere on site. The site also proposes modifications to Cary's required greenway connections. As shown on this slide, a greenway segment is shown through the site in the green dashed line, ultimately connecting to Piney Plains Road and future connections on the southeastern corner of the site. The applicant does propose to construct the northern portion of this greenway, routing it closer to the center of the site, which may help avoid conflicts with the future interchange project. And again, that's anticipated to be in the purple area shown on this map. The applicant then proposes connecting the off-street greenway to an internal street-side trail, which extends east along Piney Plains Road. Staff notes the inclusion of a street-side trail for a portion of the development is a beneficial enhancement to the 5-foot sidewalk that is otherwise required. However, the applicant also proposes a modification in order to not dedicate the LDO-required greenway easement along the western property line I showed in my previous slide. and instead proposes an easement stubbing to the future interchange, which will create a permanent gap in the planned greenway network in the area. There was a traffic study completed for this rezoning. The applicant committed to improvements at site access points on Piney Plains Road and Stevens Road, and the applicant will also extend Putney Drive into the site as required by Cary's LDO. The applicant has also committed to a signal warrant and installation of the signal if approved by Cary and NCDOT at the intersection of Stevens Road and Piney Plains Road. An analysis against the Imagine Cary Community Plan found that policies in multiple chapters apply. I first want to note the site's unique location on the border of a destination center and traditional neighborhood. The shape chapter of the Imagine Cary Community Plan notes that future growth framework categories are not intended to provide precise, parcel-level guidance, and for sites located on the boundaries between these categories, the edges of a particular development category are not rigid lines, but may be interpreted in light of other relevant policies or site circumstances. In this case, staff interpreted this imprecise line could be used to allow the applicant to request to extend the mixed use overlay district and utilize the tool of MXD zoning. Staff used the destination center guidance to evaluate this rezoning while still giving traditional neighborhood, excuse me. Guidance for destination centers include emphasis on mixing of uses, which can occur on individual sites or within the larger center. an active pedestrian realm with buildings fronting streets, a large share of structured parking, buildings of three to seven stories, a well-defined and interconnected street and pedestrian network, and multiple gathering spaces. The PDP proposes buildings up to 65 feet in height, including some buildings in the western portion of the site where smaller buildings are better supported, although this was reduced from 75 feet at the time of public hearing. Buildings have been oriented to Front Piney Plains Road, as encouraged in these areas, and significant gathering space is proposed. However, no structured parking is provided, and removal of the Greenway connection is also in contrast to the Destination Center focus on pedestrian connectivity, although some street-side trail connections are proposed. Therefore, it appears the Destination Center guidance is only partially met. Transitions to the traditional neighborhood may also only be partially met While the well buffer townhouses in the rear of the site may transition well to nearby detached residential It is less clear that the multifamily development fully considers transitions to these areas Regarding the live chapter the rezoning does provide smaller housing types that could support housing choice well with the majority of existing housing in the immediate vicinity being multifamily and Staff notes that a greater commitment to townhouses could help with this policy, along with the transitions policy discussed later. A variety of housing types, particularly those other than detached dwellings, are supported in destination centers, and a more modest variety is encouraged in traditional neighborhoods. Residential infill can be supported as long as context-sensitive transitions are considered, which can include density, form, height, buffers, or other strategies. And in terms of the affordable housing policy, the site could include up to 16 affordable townhouses, along with at least 5% of the multifamily units, which could be 19 units if the maximum yield is achieved, rented to those making 80% or less of AMI for a period of 30 years. Greater assurance as to the phasing of the workforce townhouse pod could even better support this policy. The related work chapter policy referencing the importance of diverse housing options also applies. And regarding the engaged chapter, as I mentioned, while the PDP proposes to construct a portion of the greenway through the site, the missing greenway easement removes a planned off-street greenway connection in this area, although a street-side trail link was added since the public hearing. Commitment to dedication of an easement, as shown on Carrie's plan, would more fully meet this policy. The shaped chapter encourages the most intense development in destination centers. At the same time, that intensity should transition down across the site in recognition of the location on the edge of a traditional neighborhood. Commitments to excess gathering space and LDO-required buffers, along with some champion tree preservation, may help speak to the aesthetics of the site. However, the surface parking area underneath an easement negates the LDO-required shade trees. Shape Policy 6 outlines a number of methods for providing transitions to adjacent development. Form transitions can include stepping down in terms of building massing or height. In this case, the PDP does propose primarily smaller townhouse-style multifamily buildings closest to the existing residential development to the southwest. These smaller buildings may help facilitate a form transition where the used transition is less clear. The exception is a larger multifamily building that fronts Stevens Road in close proximity to the Wynwood South neighborhood, which makes a comprehensive form transition somewhat challenging. Buffer transitions focus on separating development with existing or planted vegetation. The PDP proposes a 30-foot wide type A buffer where directly adjacent to residential development, which is the minimum LDL requirement. A neighborhood meeting was held in January of 2020. A number of questions and concerns were raised, including concerns about the height, density, and use of the site, the site's connection to Putney Drive, concerns around drainage and tree removal, and questions about the greenway. Given the length of time since the initial neighborhood meeting, the applicant held a second neighborhood meeting in February of 2024. Concerns voiced were similar to those shared at the initial meeting. Staff received continuous feedback from citizens between the time of the neighborhood meeting last year and the public hearing, along with some communication since that hearing. We largely heard similar concerns about the transitions from existing neighborhoods, and we also received some comments in support of the development due to the affordable housing conditions. public hearing was held in August of last year. There were 22 written comments, one call-in speaker, and 16 in-person speakers. Concerns included those regarding increased traffic, environmental and drainage concerns, the potential for increased crime, and objection to the density and height of the development, with some noting a preference for a smaller housing type. Several written and in-person speakers noted support for the project, specifically for the affordable townhouse component, with some noting they wish to see a minimum number or phasing to ensure those units. Council members had a number of comments as well, and all questions and comments are summarized in your staff report. Some members expressed a concern with the use and height transition and suggested townhouses as a potential transition use. Council supported the affordability aspect. Some suggested a greater commitment to the number of units or reduced income level could be beneficial, as well as a minimum number of affordable townhouses, and also noted the importance of providing good buffers and amenities for affordable housing projects. The applicant made a number of changes since the public hearing. They decreased the building height for buildings one through four, those are the larger multifamily buildings, from 75 to 65 feet, And for buildings 5 through 10, which are the smaller multifamily buildings, from 35 feet to 30 feet. They also clarified a 35-foot height limit for the townhouse pod, which is comparable to the typical townhouse height limit in the LDO. They clarified that the smaller multifamily building units must be side-by-side and not stacked for more assurance of a townhouse-style form. They added street-side trail along the northeastern half of the site's Piney Plains road frontage. and clarified the location of sidewalk along the site's frontage. Staff notes that many policies of the Imagine Cary Community Plan apply, as detailed in your staff report. I'll provide a high-level summary here. The proposal can support a number of LIV policies through the provision of a mix of housing types, including affordable units. Phasing of the affordable townhouse pod could even better ensure this. Smaller housing types and affordable units can also support Cary's workforce. Regarding engage provision of some street side trail links helps to bolster greenway policies, while the removal of a required off street greenway link is not supported by engage policies. The proposed use and intensity of the development can be appropriate in a destination center, but should transition clearly to the adjacent traditional neighborhood. This is partially addressed by the townhouses and smaller format multifamily, but the larger building along Stevens Road adjacent to the residential neighborhood does not clearly retain this transition. The proposal includes elements that appear to meet the Future Growth Framework designation, such as substantive gathering space and density sited in a destination center, with smaller buildings transitioning to the traditional neighborhood in some locations. The lack of structured parking, which also necessitates large surface parking areas under power lines, is not entirely consistent with destination center guidance, nor is the removal of a greenway easement in an area where pedestrian connections are of increased importance. Transition policies may not be fully addressed for the reasons mentioned previously. This concludes my presentation. Excuse me. Jason Barron, the applicant's representative, is here, and then I'm available to answer your questions.

Thank you, Aaron.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Jason Baron with Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of the applicant. Joining me tonight are representatives of the developer, but also the seller is here as well. And I mentioned that the seller is here because they're very interested in the outcome of tonight's hearing. Most sellers are. but it's specifically unique in this particular case. You may notice from the case caption that this is 19 R.E.Z. 25. And to avoid any confusion about which one of those represents the year this case was filed, it's not the 25. It was filed in 2019. We had our first pre-application meeting on this case back in 2018. There were a number of things that happened during that time that resulted in delays associated with the case through nobody's fault. Although DOT did play a hand in that, we spent the better part of a year and a half to two years trying to understand where that future interchange was going to be. They hadn't even started the public portion of the process when we filed our zoning case. So out of the gate, we were kind of hijacked a little bit on where was that gonna go? How was it going to impact the site? What was gonna change about the site? And one of the things that we learned during that process, and you saw the slide showing where the future interchange is now going to be, and that's Walnut Street. So Walnut Street is going away, as you may be familiar, the U.S. 1 and Walnut Street exit is being removed in its entirety by DOT as part of this plan, and it's shifting south. And so instead of the Walnut Street exit being the exit you take when you get off U.S. 1 to get into Crossroads, it's now Piney Plain slash Dillard Drive. I don't know exactly what they're going to call it, but that interchange that you saw that off ramp that you saw will be an off ramp and an on ramp and so just just so you understand in orders of magnitude kind of what change we're talking about the impact of that slide the impact of that slide not only represents a physical impact to our site and we've designed our improvements around that impact but it also represents a significant change with respect to the character of this particular property Instead of it being a property that was kind of just isolated on Piney Plains and Diller Drive, you know, within walking distance of Centrum, within walking distance, certainly bike distance of Crossroads, suddenly it is now at the corner of an interchange of US-1 and, you know, a major thoroughfare. And so I just mentioned that because what we learned during the process wasn't just where the physical improvements were going to be, but it helped inform my client about the type of development that would be suitable for this site, just given the fact that instead of it being, again, along Piney Plains, the neighbor to buildings one and two that you see on your screen is going to be an interchange. And they've put parking between the two to try to buffer the possibility that the site could still be impacted by what DOT is planning over there. They don't know exactly where it's gonna go, but they've got a pretty good idea, and that was reflected in that slide. So I just wanted to kind of give you a little bit of history associated with kind of how we got to where we are on that front, but also as it relates to, again, where is this site located? Because where it's ultimately gonna be located is gonna feel a lot different as a result of this interchange than it does today. The second thing I wanna talk about a little bit is the history associated with this case and how the building heights have come into existence based upon, in part, the DOT recommendations, but certainly based upon the fact that we have single family detached neighbors to our south. Now they are smaller lot single family detached, but they are single family detached nonetheless, and we've been cognizant of that all along. When this case started, This portion of the site that is now designated for affordable townhomes originally was planned for apartments. This entire site was planned for kind of four-story apartments scattered throughout the development, maybe smaller buildings, certainly smaller than buildings one, two, three, and four, but the idea was much more of a traditional kind of just put multifamily where it can fit, build multifamily. In addition to the DOT, factor changing and impacting how the site sits, which encouraged my client to consider doing larger buildings, taller buildings in buildings one and two, um, just because taller buildings make better neighbors for interchanges, interchanges, then do smaller buildings, uh, In addition to that, as you all are aware, there has started to be and there is now a fervor pitch discussion associated with housing affordability in the town and in the market in general. Back in 2018 when we started this process, the discussion associated with housing affordability was kind of lingering out there, but there certainly wasn't a zoning condition that had ever been adopted by the town. That was first adopted in 2021. I worked on that case. It was Highway 55. And Carpenter Fire Station Road, that was the first case that incorporated a zoning condition for housing affordability. And so when we started this case, the affordability discussion certainly wasn't where it is today. And it was just kind of operating on the periphery of what are folks' concerns. Well, obviously, over the course of time, housing affordability has become kind of the number one issue in the eyes of voters. The town conducted a survey, I think it was back three years ago, where the voters resoundingly said housing affordability is the number one issue for the town. in their opinion, at least the voters who participated in that survey. And I mention that because as the process has moved its way through and going through the pandemic and going through DOT, I encourage my client to think about housing affordability, not only with respect to the 5% of the units at 80% AMI, which we're seeing on a lot of cases, but to try to figure out a way that they could be creative around how to address housing affordability, and that resulted in bringing Habitat for Humanity to the table. Habitat has assigned LOI, or Memorandum of Understanding, rather, an MOU, to receive a deed of this property. It's going to be gifted to them at no cost, and they're going to build townhomes on the back portion of the site. The result of that is, instead of planning for an apartment community back there, and four story buildings or potentially three story buildings back there, those buildings needed to shift or the density associated with that needed to be changed. And so that resulted in a much more primary emphasis on buildings one through four of being the taller buildings, being the buildings where the vast majority of the density needed to be located. Additionally, with respect to the transitions component of this, and I know that transitions, as Erin noted in her presentation, transitions happen in a number of ways, form, height, oftentimes use. We believe we are doing that. Now, buildings five through 10, but I'm going to focus on specifically five through eight, those are multifamily buildings, but as noted in your staff report, they are two-story maximum height. They are 30 feet in height maximum, and I would note that the adjacent zoning classification in the existing single family neighborhood, the maximum building height is 35 feet in that neighborhood. So technically speaking, those two-story units that we're planning, that my client is planning along that boundary are in fact shorter than the zoning classification for the adjacent residential. Additionally, they are side-by-side units that are being designed to look feel and operate as if they were townhomes. And so while they're considered multifamily because they are single plat, while they are considered multifamily because one user is gonna be owning the building as opposed to multiple users owning the building, at the end of the day from a form standpoint, they create a form transition which we believe is very appropriate in this instance. And ultimately, what we're trying to achieve with that is to create, you know, kind of a townhome zone. Again, they're multifamily, but they're going to look, feel, and act like townhomes between the multifamily units that are proposed in buildings one through four and the existing single-family detached. And so I just wanted to mention to you kind of the role of transitions and the effort my client has put in to focusing on that boundary, recognizing that those people are going to be most impacted by this development. Hands down, without a doubt, and I believe my client has done a good job, an admirable job, an exemplary job in recognizing adjusting its form, adjusting its expectations, pushing density as far away from the existing single-family homes as they possibly can in an effort to provide for those transitions and to minimize impact to the adjacent neighborhood. The second thing I want to talk about is the greenway location. The greenway location, as was noted in Ms. Puckett's presentation, we are winding the greenway generally kind of where it's currently shown. And as noted, we are stubbing it out from a, we're not building this, we're dedicating the right of way for it, but we are pulling the greenway trail into this street side trail. And I do want to note for you, because it may not have been clear from the staff report of the presentation, this trail that we're showing through our neighborhood is 10 feet wide. So it is effectively a street side trail through the neighborhood. So the greenway width, which is 10 feet wide, it's going to be 10 feet wide as you make your way around the townhomes, it will be a continuous 10 feet adjacent to that street, out to Piney Plains, and then north to Piney Plains. And there's a couple of reasons that we believe this is actually a better outcome for the town. And it's certainly a better outcome for my client just given the challenges we have with being able to park these taller buildings from a density standpoint that we've located it. The biggest reason why we believe this is preferable is because, like I said, we still don't know where DOT is going to put that greenway. We actually think even if we were to put it in and DOT were to locate the interchange immediately north of this site the the greenway would be next to an interchange we believe a a tree-lined street a 10-foot wide street side trail through our neighborhood with street trees consistent with the ordinance requirements for the same we think that's a better experience for people who are going to be using that greenway to get out to piney plains to get up to the connection and so i just want to let you know you know, as is the case with every recommendation from the staff, we weren't callous in not honoring the staff's recommendation. We couldn't squeeze it into where they were asking for it to go. We couldn't squeeze it in where the map shows that it is located. And we believe for the benefit of our residents, for the benefit of people that are gonna be using that greenway, that where we are showing it provides greater predictability on where it could be located and where it should be located with the DOT changes that are coming. The last thing I want to talk about, and I'm going to circle back to the affordable side of the equation, because it's not just you bring in habitat and density moves. What is unique about this case is it is the single most creative affordable housing development from a private sector standpoint that I've ever worked on. and i give kudos to my client for their flexibility to pull habitat in to be willing to gift the property to habitat rather than have to sell it to them and so in addition to that they still made the commitment for buildings one through four that five percent of the units in those buildings are gonna be at eighty percent ami So you think about what housing affordability is designed to achieve, right? It's not just to provide a place for somebody to live today. The idea is you provide affordable housing and it allows people to build equity, to build wealth, so that they can move from the smaller units and potentially into a single family detached home. What we love, what I love, as somebody who's a huge fan of affordable housing, what I love about this plan and what I believe makes it the most unique and the most creative opportunity a way to approach housing affordability the town has ever seen in the private sector is that somebody could get one of those 5% at 80% AMI units in one of the multifamily buildings. They could then generate enough equity to move out of one of those 80% units and into 100% unit, a market rate unit. They could then move into a habitat townhome, generate enough equity to qualify for an habitat townhome, and then build enough equity to be able to buy in the adjacent neighborhood. And I mention it because the adjacent neighborhood, it's a very nice neighborhood built within the last 10 years, very nice homes, but they are smaller lot, they are smaller building products and smaller stock, single family detached. So it really represents an opportunity to capture a tremendous section of the market and watch people be able to work their way through various socioeconomic statuses and do so in one place without having to have their children change schools, find another community. I do believe, like I said, it's thoughtful, it's creative, it's aggressive, and it's kind of what you're looking for in providing and creating communities that are going to be mixed income. Otherwise, I believe the staff report does an excellent job of kind of covering the degree to which the Cary Community Plan addresses or deals with this property. I would note with respect to the traditional neighborhood that's shown on the map, even though it wasn't interpreted that way, we believe what we are doing with the two-story multi-family units along this property line, the reduced building height here, having townhomes that The vast majority of the property that was already being planned for traditional neighborhood, those are our transition areas. We are using that property, generally speaking, and that line would kind of run through here, so we're picking up some of Building 3 as well. But generally speaking, we believe that... The my client and I believe my client has done a good job of using those areas to provide the types of transitions to ensure that this development won't have a negative impact on folks way of life. And so with that, we're here to answer any questions that you all may have. We appreciate the time and we would respectfully request you all spining that this is consistent with the care community plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Baron. The care community plan is in place to guide development in carry. As you think about 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 live chapters. While this is not a requirement, it would help the town council understand how you think this case applies to the plan. Do any board members have any questions for Ms. Puckett or Mr. Barron? And let's start with Mr. George.

That was a great, great presentation from both of you. I certainly understand this trouble with the building a stub that goes nowhere. because of DOT. I think DOT even lost in the North Carolina Supreme Court by holding people hostage by saying, you can't sell your land because we might put a road there one day. And they wound up losing, and DOT wound up having to pay people millions of dollars. I don't think a developer should have to build something here. I think any engage would speak to engage part of the community. It speaks to that because it serves no purpose to put a road to nowhere. And I don't think it's a good use of it. I love the movement through the middle. So I think that fully, in my mind, that certainly works with the engaged part, and I appreciate your sharing that. I have a runoff question, and maybe it's for you, Jason, or one of your representatives. I know you can't exceed the existing runoff, but If memory serves me correctly, there's a runoff problem caused by the parking lots up the hill from this property, from all the old crossroads, Ford, the car dealerships, all the, you know, when they used to come and yell at us that they had acres and acres of Fords that they couldn't sell, come out and get a deal. Those acres and acres of fords were parked here on asphalt and that water runs downhill. What are you guys going to do about it as that comes through? That's going to be your problem because right now it's just running through and running to the neighborhood downhill. So your runoff, if you only have to protect from what's no more runoff than what you've got, how are you going to handle that massive amount of runoff from the car dealer or the former car dealer and how that works?

yeah and you can see the way that this slide shows you where those low-lying areas are and where that drainage feature runs and as you know mr george you know the town within the last several years adopted the most aggressive stormwater standards in the market requiring modeling for the 100-year storm which will which is what we are subject to and we're required to comply with. The existing drainage challenges, the existing drainage patterns really kind of operate away from the improvements that are planned for our site. So they don't really necessarily impact us directly just because they are technically on our site, but they are running through our site to essentially Wellington.

And because you're not going to build there, you're not going to be changing the amount of runoff that you produce or you destroy because it's going to be in that area where the runoff is happening, you're not even planning to build in that area? That's correct. Okay. All right. That answers that question. And then under the power lines, this is another question. So under the power lines, obviously, it seems like standard parking is the best thing. It's the best use of that land. Does that mean that under power lines, you can't fit tabletop parking? Or is any kind of elevated anything under power lines?

structures would typically not be permitted. Okay.

So this is the best use and so I have no problem with no lack of structured parking because it's the best use of whatever's underneath that. I think that's good. Are buildings five through eight that you mentioned, Mr. Baron, are those there to look like townhomes? Yes.

But they're going to be single-story? They're going to be two-story units side by side.

But you will have steps to go up and down? Yes. Okay.

But you'll have lower floor entry and a two-story unit, again, like a townhome. It's going to look, feel, and act like a townhome, but it's all going to be on a single lot with the rest of the multifamily.

Gotcha. I didn't know if the look and feel was like a mask for, like, It's really single story and you'll go up and you'll sneak in the upstairs or whatever to be a separate.

No, we have a condition requiring those units to be side by side. They can't be stacked.

Can't be stacked, okay. Yes, sir. And then on the affordability, help me understand because I know we've got a lot of apartments that come to work for 80% AMI. When there are, I guess if there's townhomes... If they're not, this is up to Habitat, because if they do it, then all of this, there's no percentage of anything affordability, because it's just gifted to them. So you're only conditioning.

The zoning condition requires them all to be affordable at 80% AMI.

Even if it's Habitat builds them.

Right, so zoning runs with the land and not the property owner.

Okay, so no matter who builds them, how is 80% AMI calculated, how's the difference in that on purchasing versus renting renting is easy to calculate can you explain somebody explain how the difference on purchasing and does interest rate come into that and payment how does that work it it comes down to in the way hud calculates this and i'm going to give you the reader's digest version of the answer it generally relates to your ability to cover your

your mortgage payment. And so that factors in interest payments. That factors in having to buy down points if necessary. It factors in origination costs and kind of everything that goes into it. It also factors in things such as if there are applicable homeowners associations dues and things along those lines. So it's kind of the total cost to get into the unit and continue to be able to pay your mortgage. That is what HUD uses.

Okay, so which would also be taxes, if the taxes, because you're paying your escrow because the total pay would include those taxes as well. Okay, that helps.

If I could just piggyback on that question, it's actually why when I talk to my client about this townhome section of the development, the decision to bring in a developer like or a builder like Habitat was so easy for them to make. As you could probably imagine, one of the challenges that market rate builders have is they don't know what to do with affordable units. They don't know how to build them. They don't know what the restrictions are supposed to be. There's just more questions because they don't operate in that world. The beauty of the townhomes at the back of the site is Habitat knows exactly what they're doing. You know, you don't, they're the experts in the room. We don't have to, my client doesn't have to be the expert with respect to what goes on with those units.

Awesome. Awesome. Now with respect to buffers and I appreciate your transition discussion. I think there was some question I think the town brought as far as whether there was 300 feet closest to that building number four and that might be not a proper transition. Sometimes we face things where you have to like drive through a neighborhood to get to denser, and some of those have come up in the past, and it's like, this is, or to get to, you go to the big lots to get to the smaller lots. In this case, it seems like we're going big to small, all the way down, and that, to me, seems like a transition, whether or not that big building that faces the road. So I think it meets the transition, in my mind, to go from multi to townhouses to small lots to large lots. Mr. Mayor, your comment, I just made a note when you were making that comment about the chance to habitat, to move from an AMI apartment to maybe buying a habitat house or building a habitat townhouse, then moving in a neighborhood. I think that's to build equity. I think there are restrictions, though, with habitat on the equity that you can build in that house, and they don't let you have all the equity that you can build in that house. So it's not quite as effective.

Yeah, I mean build buying power.

Okay. It's about by growing their income. Correct. Got you. By growing their income, not by selling their habitat house and moving into a... That's right.

By being able to live in an affordable place, it better positions people to be able to build a type of... I'll clarify that.

That helps. Let me see if I missed anything. I think generally this is, to me, you know, some things... check all seem to check all the boxes but but then they're it's kind of like questionable this time not all the boxes are checked but they seem to be good reasons why some of the boxes are checked uh... and and i appreciate your explanation of those reasons uh... right that's that's all i've got for now

I also appreciate the thought put into the transitions and the buffers. I do have one question, just looking at the townhomes. Has thought already been given to the orientation of those, like direction they'll face and how that will interact with the traditional neighborhood?

For that yellow pod that's in the rear of the true townhouses? So there's no conceptual layout that's a condition of this rezoning, because as you can see, there's no layout shown there. So they would still have to meet the LDO requirements in terms of fronting on a public street, certain building separations and other dimensional requirements. But no, there's no specific layout or even approximate layout for that pot at this time.

I could just clarify one aspect of that, and Ms. Puck is exactly right. We don't have a zoning commitment along those lines, but staff made us aware of that, also made us aware of the fact that some folks have recently had a challenge trying to figure out How do you get public streets to town homes? Can you actually yield what you think you can yield? So we went ahead with Habitat, did a design essentially of what the back portion of the site could be, and we did a pre-application meeting with the town to start to get feedback relative to that. We don't know exactly how the design's gonna go. That'll be determined by Habitat when they are ready to move forward on the site, but we're starting to get some idea about how it could lay out.

Going back to the affordable, on the local presentation, it says you're going to do the townhouses available 80% for 30 years. Since you're selling them, how do you do that?

It's more complicated than rental. And if I can give you the short answer, our housing and legal staff have worked very hard to construct language that, it's legal to correct me if I say anything out of turn, but to come up with language for an owner-occupied product that would still allow us to enforce that 30-year time limit. So that's the short answer. So we do have condition language that was put together, not just by the applicant, but our legal and housing staff that we believe is enforceable to keep those affordable for 30 years.

Is that fair? So they'll have a covenant that basically caps the market value of the house. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So I have one quick question. The greenway, is that going to be built by the developer independent of the townhouses? Is that going to start when the housing development is going to start, you know, the apartment buildings and everything else? Or are we waiting for that greenway when the townhouses are going to start?

I believe, and I'll have to double check, but I don't believe there's a timing on that condition, Jason. So at this point, it would be great if it was phased to be built with the initial phase. I don't believe that's in writing currently.

Yeah, I mean, and I think the ordinance would suggest that we need to do that. My client is planning on putting in the Greenway as part of the initial phase of development of the multifamily. Okay. Yeah, and if we need to clarify that, Erin, we're happy to do that. We may need to, yes. Yep, that's fine.

Okay, great. Yeah, because I was just thinking what if the townhouses only come up ten years after everything sure Yeah, the Greenway connection still would be great to have.

Yep.

Great.

All right.

That was actually my only question Um, yeah on the um, the maximum townhouse affordable, um, I mean I like that That habitat is involved in that. Um But that's a maximum right? So I mean if something blows up with

Habitat there could be none how does where's the commitment right so the maximum is 16 and when I noted earlier in the presentation some of the things that We've talked about or the council talked about was you know could there be a minimum could there be phasing right now? That's not on the table So you're correct. We'd be kind of waiting on a developer the zoning runs with the land not with the owner or the developer so for some reason habitat chose not to develop it could be waiting for some time.

Yeah, and the only reason we haven't made a specific commitment with respect to timing of the townhomes and when those would happen is because Habitat kind of prioritizes how they spend money, and I don't want to speak for them, but as I understand it, they prioritize their developments based upon kind of a variety of options and kind of what's going on. And so we didn't want to put in a zoning condition, and I've explained this to council as well, we didn't want to put in a zoning condition that would unnecessarily tie their hands with respect to when they got around to developing this site so it's certainly not reflective of a desire for it to not happen it's really just a matter of giving habitat the flexibility to be able to put this site into a priority list with a number of other competing projects that they're working on at any given time ah thank you um on traffic and and the traffic study um

Was this new interchange considered? Also, was the Levana Apartments, was it done after those were built? And my other question is, does it appear that any of the traffic would be sent south on Piney Plains?

So to answer the first part of that, Livano is still under construction today. Right, right. So that, you know, the real traffic generated from that would not be considered. In terms of the question about the interchange and the flow of traffic, I'm wondering if I can call on my colleague Priyatham Kanda in transportation. He might be able to better clarify that.

Good evening. So the build-out for NCDOT's project is much longer, right? So it's not going to show up for another maybe five, ten years? So when we do the traffic studies, the traffic changes from the new interchange are not factored into this TAR because this would be built out sooner. But what we did was we have a, I think, I believe it's a 2040 analysis that looked at a few intersections to understand how things would work along Piney Plains Road after the interchange is built. So we looked at some queuing at Stevens and Piney Plains Road. and that was okayed by DOT at that point. So that's the level of consideration that was given for the DOT's project in this star.

Okay. And on the warrant, the light warrant, so right now it's not warranted, but the developer is willing to do another study to see if it's warranted after some level of build-out on the project?

So you're asking about the traffic signal?

Yes, the warrant.

Yeah, so the traffic signal at Piney Plains and Stevens Road, so there are a total of nine warrants. We did a preliminary analysis with the TAR. We don't do a full warrant study with the TAR. It is showing that it is warranted during one of the peak hours. That gives you an indication as to, okay, is the signal going to be warranted into the future? We do expect and encourage the developer to go and install the signal, because there are going to be other benefits from the signal, not just capacity increases, but also a safer way for pedestrians to cross this area. If you look up and down the street on Piney Plains, there are not really many places where people can cross safely.

Okay, thank you. While you're still up here, can I? Piney Plains is a five lane right now. Was there not discussion this was going to be median divided, and is that still a plan that will be median divided at some point?

I don't believe so. I think there was at one point there was discussion on looking at Piney Plains as a four-lane median divided section, but... No decisions yet? Yeah, but that was not pursued further. Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I think it looks great.

I think specifically to the live, shape, work and engage chapters, it's very consistent. I like the transition between the taller buildings and the existing neighborhood. I think initially I had some concerns about the removal of the greenway connection. It sounds like the easement will still be dedicated and actually like mr george i like the multi-use trail coming through the through the development provided there are no other questions the only other item i wanted to mention was just making sure we're all aware that this goes with the land regardless of owner. I'm particularly very fond of Habitat for Humanity, but of course they just have a memorandum of understanding to purchase the site in the back. Would someone make a motion for 19REZ25, Piney Plains Multifamily Rezoning? The motions are provided on the screen for you, and a printed copy has been provided.

I move that the board find 19REZ25 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report presentation discussion by the Planning and Zoning Board. And especially in my comments about that, part of that discussion would be the last comment you made. We can't consider the applicant, we consider the use, and regardless, it's just a great attempt at making it all work together. Sorry, I didn't get a second before I made my comment.

Second the motion.

Any other discussion on the motion?

All right.

All those in favor state aye. Aye. All those opposed state nay. Unanimous approval. All right. Our second case in the agenda is Act 35, Land Development Ordinance Amendments. Rachel Smith, Principal Planner, will share the staff's presentation. This is a staff-initiated amendment. There will not be any applicant. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff. Ms. Smith, you may proceed.

Thank you. Good evening, Board. For your consideration is Act 35, a proposed minor amendment to the Land Development Ordinance. This amendment stems from a request to build a swimming pool behind an existing detached dwelling in the Town Center Cottage Business and Residential District, or TCCBNR, which is currently not permitted. The proposed LDO amendment adds swimming pools, hot tubs, or spas as a permitted accessory use in the TCCBNR sub-district. In response to public feedback on noise impacts, the amendment also revises the use-specific standards to include screening and setbacks for above-ground mechanical and utility equipment. These standards will apply to all accessory pools, hot tubs, or spas across all zoning districts. Carry pool regulations come from the LDO, the North Carolina Building Code, and the Carry Code of Ordinances. The LDO requires pools to have 5-foot setbacks from side and rear property lines. It also sets standards for gates and enclosures, including a minimum 4-foot fence height. The NC Building Code adds safety requirements for stairs, fences, gates, alarms, and release mechanisms, and outlines inspection procedures. carries noise ordinances set a 60 decibel limit for residential areas with some exemptions such as lawn mowers. This is enforced by the police and was discussed at the public hearing, which I'll cover more later. To understand the first part of the amendment, let's briefly review the origin and current status of the CBNR sub-district. The Town Center District and its 15 sub-districts were created in 2003 to implement the 2001 Town Center Area Plan. The CB&R sub-district was applied to residential lots along parts of Chapel Hill Road, South Harrington, Harrison, Faculty Avenue, Dry Avenue, West Park Street, and Walker Street. The sub-district covers 80 properties across roughly 40 acres. ITS GOAL IS TO PRESERVE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER WHILE ALLOWING COMMERCIAL USES ON BUSIER ROADS. FOR EXAMPLE, HOMES MAY BE CONVERTED INTO OFFICES OR LOW-IMPACT BUSINESSES LIKE PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIOS. PERMITTED USES INCLUDE RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICES ALONG WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL USES. THE 15 TC SUBDISTRICTS MAY BE CHARACTERIZED AS RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, INSTITUTIONAL, PARKS AND MIXED USE SUBDISTRICTS. EIGHT T.C. SUBDISTRICTS CURRENTLY ALLOW POOLS AS AN ACCESSORY USE. TYPICALLY THOSE THAT PERMIT TO RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USES. WHILE THE CB&R SUBDISTRICT ALSO ALLOWS A MIX OF USES, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL, IT IS THE ONLY MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT THAT DOES NOT ALLOW POOLS. Staff found no record explaining why pools were excluded from the CBNR when the LDO was adopted in 2003. The entirety of the town center area contains approximately 18 pools across all sub-districts. The public hearing was held on January 23rd of this year. The public input at the hearing included one speaker who had also submitted written comments in support of the amendment and one additional speaker with concerns regarding noise impacts. Council shared concerns regarding the noise associated with pools in denser areas, including a request that additional research be done on mitigation possibilities. There were questions regarding the existing noise ordinances and discussion regarding enforcement challenges. Since the public hearing, staff revised the amendment to require screening for all pool, hot tub, or spa equipment. The equipment and its screening must follow the same five foot rear and side setbacks as the pool itself. Screening must fully surround the vertical sides of above ground equipment, be fully opaque, and match the equipment's height. Walls and fences are acceptable materials. Encapsulated equipment, typically found in hot tubs, are exempt. This change updates the existing use-specific standards for pools in Section 5.3.4 of the LDO. The impact of this amendment in terms of the TC-CBNR sub-district is expected to be minimal. It only affects 80 properties, and most of which are still used as detached homes. If approved, we may see more permit requests for pools. This could lead to an increased development in the residential use, possibly delaying the shift to cottage-style businesses. However, future conversions could still occur, even if a home has a pool. This is a photo of pool equipment from a recently inspected pool. Here the fence screening exceeds the height of the equipment, but does not fully enclose the equipment, as is proposed by the amendment. The use-specific standard amendment is narrowly focused on reducing the noise impacts from pool heaters and pumps by requiring fully enclosed and opaque screens. As infill and densification increases, especially downtown and in neighborhoods with smaller lots, pool equipment noise can more directly affect neighbors. This amendment addresses that concern for new pools only. Existing equipment will be treated as legal non-conformities. This concludes my presentation, and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Please keep in mind the Cary Community Plan as you think about your questions and how these proposed amendments fit or do not fit the community plan. Do any board members have any questions? I'll start with you, Sal. I've got no questions.

I'm good, especially knowing that there's an apartment building with a pool right next to the park. So I don't see this being as much of an issue.

No questions. No questions. That makes sense, given the other sub-districts.

I heard the answer about the enforcement by the police. I guess they carry decibel meters. They've not come to my house with one. Even when I had teenagers. But the slits between that picture that you showed, when you said opaque, you said it didn't meet it. The picture that you had that didn't show it wasn't fully enclosed, it doesn't appear to be opaque even on the side that the fence is. So is there some sort of definition of opaque? Because there were slits in that thing. So if they can't hardly see it, but they don't hear 60 decibels, is that opaque? Or that's what I want to understand.

So, yes, we did not put right in a definition on how much slits or openings you could have. There are some industry-accepted standards on generally what opaque would mean when it comes to a fence or a wall as an easier thing to measure, certainly. There were also a lot of internal work on this. I'm really thankful for all of the permit and inspectors who provided feedback on this amendment. They did help write this, and they had strong opinions about not using landscaping because it would not be opaque all times of year. It would not have the same sound mitigation. So really this was a group effort to help to get to where we are.

And then if someone were to try to build that within standards, is this a well-known, built standard that have pooled Installer would know how to keep it to 60 decibels or do we have homeowners? You're gonna get stuck saying whoops.

It's not quite quiet enough So we recognize through this process that we need to have more education on the front end and in our permitting materials to help folks to understand how loud the equipment is Anecdotally, it does seem like some of it has gotten louder in recent years pools have maybe gotten bigger and More of them are heated than perhaps were in other times of life. So that was definitely part of this discussion, was providing more information on what 60 decibels looks like and how to mitigate that.

And especially with those, the lap pools that you don't have to lap, that the water moves and you don't, those are very loud. And I don't know, I just want to make sure we provide, that they provide enough internal, because I think it's important for internal help to help find those materials, or whether it's sound dating material, whatever, because I'd hate for somebody to get stuck and then find they're not in compliance, and then they've got thousands of dollars that they haven't counted on. So I appreciate what you said about trying to work up front. That's all I have. Oh, also, we don't require the same things of air conditioning units, do we?

So in one and two family, it's not required. So if you require a development plan, then McKenna will mechanical equipment would be required as part of the development plan.

But if you've just got a single family house, you don't have to meet a decibel standard for your air conditioning outside.

That's a good question.

Let me look at the exemptions. Are we going to try to keep pools quiet but not air conditioners? And I'm trying to be fair because, and of course they could be rattling because of fans going out or whatever, but I don't know if we make air conditioners, for giving them a free pass but not pools, which doesn't seem fair, for the noise, for the neighbors. We're trying to do this for noise reasons. It seems like we ought to be fair and that whatever you've got outside that runs that makes noise, it seems it should be fair to fit the care community plan. Shouldn't penalize pool builders and not homeowners that put noisy air conditioners in.

Yeah, I think that's a great question. So I've got the noise ordinance here in front of me. That might be something we want to take more look at. I do see some exemptions for things like lawn mowers, landscaping equipment, marching bands.

Yes, they did that. They marched through the neighborhood, don't they?

Yeah. So Rachel's right. There is no current exception for air conditioning units in the noise ordinance.

So if there's not an exception, that means they have to abide by the noise ordinance. Correct. That's where I'm going. That's great. Just so they're not, we don't pick on pools.

Yeah, I'm checking here to make sure that I'm telling you the truth. But, yeah, there is no current exemption for, nope, yeah, no current exemption for this.

And where is that, and is that measured at the property line, that 60 decibels?

Yes.

So the adjacent property, the closest property, clearly, when five feet or more. It can't be less.

Well, my question kind of related to that was, because there was a concern, what happens if someone gets the equipment, installs it, and it winds up being too loud? There's a pool permit that someone needs to pull before they install a pool, correct? Correct. And as part of that paperwork, do they submit something that says the manufacturers?

That's what Rachel was intimating when she said education on the front end and updating our permit requirements. Sure. So if this were to pass, then the plan, I believe, is to implement that kind of stuff in the permitting thing. Perfect. So yeah, the goal is to make it very clear on what you have to do to be compliant. And if we do what we want to do, the person who doesn't comply

And it could comply up front, but it could malfunction, right? A fan noise or something. So then they would have to, obviously, they'd have to fix it.

That would hopefully resolve itself as in someone would come out and say, hey, you're currently violating the ordinance. It's not like we would slap them with a violation immediately and say, hey, yeah, it's malfunctioning. We'll fix it. We'll give them a reasonable amount of time. We try to be reasonable in how we do things.

Awesome.

And we don't, yeah, we don't. We try to not draft our ordinances to violate folks for things like temporary malfunctions, like that kind of stuff. We know that it's not working as it should, so if they get it working as it should, then it should.

Thank you. Any other concerns, questions? Would someone make a motion for Act 35, Land Development Ordinance Amendments? The motions are provided on the screen for you, and a printed copy has been provided.

I move that the board find Act 35 amendments to the land development ordinance be 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.

Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, state aye. Aye. Any opposed, state nay. Motion carries unanimously. You're on a roll, Mr. Roselli. Thank you. I don't see any new or old business on the agenda after those items, so we'll move to adjournment. Thank you for participating in tonight's meeting. This meeting is adjourned.