Joint Public Hearing

Good evening. Good evening. Uh thank you for joining us. We're going to go ahead and get started this evening with our joint public hearing for uh April. So starting with um and thank you council members. Thank you all of our lur members for joining us. First we'll start with the adoption of the agenda. Any changes to tonight's agenda, questions, comments, or motion to adopt?

Motion to adopt.

Second.

All in favor?

I.

Any opposed? Majority approves. Motion carries. We'll go with the agenda as is for the evening. Starting with ZMA-4-25. Overlook at Old Cruz. Good evening, mayor, members of the council, members of the land use review board. Um, [clears throat] I have before you tonight ZMA 425, which is the overlook on old cruise. What I'd like to do tonight is kind of give you a overview of the project profile, the timeline for the project, go over some of the site plan and some of the analysis we've done, including the transportation analysis, uh review the water allocation policy, uh go through the planing development and uh finalize uh looking at site development analysis or uh site development allowances and then looking at the comprehensive plan consistency. So, with that being said, uh this is the vicinity map and site profile. Um you'll notice on the uh aerial photo here, there's a large pond on the site. As we go through the site plan analysis, that's a large part of the amenity to keep that pond and make it part of the amenity package. Uh the property is on Old Cruz Road just south of the Copart um just east of Brio and north of Brio which is under development right now. Currently zoned rural transition uh just under 30 acres. Looking at the surrounding uh zoning, Copart zone manufactured industrial uh Brio is a neighborhood mixed juice plan

development as well as a general residential three plan development and there is some residential and agricultural land land surrounding it zoned rural transition. This is the proposed master plan. Again, it's 30 acres approximately 131 lots. a total proposed density of 4.3 units per acre which equates to a general residential 8 zoning district. They are requesting a general residential 8 plan unit development. Uh all of the public notification requirements have been met to hold the public hearing this evening, including sending out first class letters, signs posted on the property, and a legal ad published in the wake weekly. On the project timeline, we are at the town council joint public hearing. So, prior to this, there has been a neighborhood meeting. There have been uh development review, committee review, as well as a pre-application meeting and sketch plans reviewed with the developer. Next steps would be a lower recommendation and a town council final decision. There was a neighborhood meeting held back in December. It was one of those odd nights where we were expecting some winter flurries. So, uh, we did hold the neighborhood meeting due to the timing of the storm at East Regional Library next door, but the developer, uh, did offer any neighbor who wished to have a follow-up meeting just in case they weren't safe to travel that evening. There were two neighbors attended and topics included buffers and firearm discharge on agricultural land. Uh, the development review committee saw this in February. um they voted unanimously to continue it uh until the town council made a decision on the resoning application. Uh there were still some comments to be addressed around roadway infrastructure, some dimensional requirements, pedestrian connectivity and recreational open space. So the proposal going into the site plan analysis is for three uh product types, three different product types. Uh 56 single family rear loaded lots which are depicted by the blue on this map. So that's kind of the lot size for those. 30 front-loaded town homes which are

depicted in the red on the map on the screen. And then 45 rear loaded town homes that are 22 ft wide depicted by the green on the screen. You can see the roadway there is a large uh collector street on our collector street map. That is median divided two-lane collector avenue section. Um, looking at environmental protection, uh, flood planes and wetlands and stream buffers are protected up to 6.68 acres or 22% of the overall site, including that pond I talked about earlier and some natural, uh, overlooks as well. Um, there is a required 20ft type B buffer. Um, for the Copart side, there's a privacy fence already there. Um, so we're kind of working with the applicant to determine if there's a necessity for additional screening for the future residents. Um, Copart is a automobile uh salvage operation. They don't have a salvage yard anymore necessarily there, but they do have from time to time storage of vehicles and so just to uh lessen that uh visual impact of those incompatible land uses, try to increase the buffer a little bit there. Uh for the open space, it includes several amenities including greenway trails, a playground, gathering areas with seating, fitness stations, an enhanced landscaping, and a scenic overlook. Um a total of 13.7 acres. It also includes natural trails around the pond and a fishing um pond that I think we'll get to in a minute. Um parking is provided on street. Approximately 66 on street parking spaces are provided and because of the size of this there is no TIA required. Again the roadway network plan does have that future avenue section and the side path and greenway plan calls for a side path along Old Cruz Road or multi-use path. And so uh if you've been down Old Cruz Road recently, you can see it um starting to come to life through the Brio Divi uh subdivision. And this will continue that same treatment uh north.

Uh for the water allocation policy, they have met uh the requirements water water allocation. Um they need a minimum of 50 points. They have achieved 51 points through such things as public art, conservation of habitats, uh exclusive use of native uh species, uh zeroscaping techniques, uh contributing to the affordable night plan, and using enhanced landscaping and hardscaping. So with that, we'll kind of go through the plan development. Again, just as a reminder, because it's a plan unit development with a general residential 8based district, they are uh the GR8 district standards must be met unless alternative provisions are proposed and the council as well as land use board can request but not require additional conditions on that plan. Looking at site development allowances, the first is a common one we see which is to our lot dimensions. Uh so the lots are required to be 80 for uh front loaded lots and 30 for rear loaded lots. they are proposing 80 24 and 22 as we talked about. Um and then we'll have uh and then also the um town homes to have the 24 front loaded um as well. They're also requesting a site development allowance for our setback requirements. Uh we have a required front setback of 10 ft. They're requesting um that to remain but to adjust the corner side minimum, side minimum, and rear minimum. um for these lots. They're also requesting that the town the 30 the 30 town homes that are frontloaded be frontloaded. Our UDO requires them to be rear loaded. Um any town home to be rearloaded by an alley in the rear. And then they are asking for a site development allowance to the avenue cross-section to reduce the cross-section by a foot or so to accommodate on street parking. Um there's not really another uh place for them to provide for guest and uh resident parking. And then there are asking for site development allowance to the uh required

distribution of uses. We require a certain number of units in uh in this uh distribution and they're requesting that they have 57% uh dwell town homes and 43% single family as their uh required distribution of uses. Looking at the architectural elevations, they have proposed several conditions around architecture. Um, these are voluntarily uh committed to by the developer. Um, we do have some a few recommendations for uh consistency improvements as well as clarity to make sure they are enforceable once if this was to be approved um that they would be something that could be administered by our uh planning folks. Um I won't go through them all, but the single family architectural standards are fairly common to what we see. Um they also have included the town home architectural standards which are fairly common to what we see. So moving to comprehensive plan analysis. Um as you know uh prior to taking any action on a reasonzoning the town council is required to adopt a statement describing whether the plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan and whether it's reasonable and in the public interest. And so looking at the comp plan in a little uh deeper, this is in on the intentional growth areas map and a target growth area. Um we have a very long description of what that is, but kind of talks about uh areas that can accommodate growth for the 11-year planning horizon of this plan. So we did anticipate to grow into this area during this plan horizon. Um it also talks about uh having uh different districts, neighborhood centers, uh mixed use districts as well as um reimagining kind of the future and introducing new energized activity centers. Um looking at the urban small town framework map, this is on a rural preservation corridor as well as within a neighborhood activity center. So, uh, the rural preservation corridor talks about the current kind of status of these rural corridors and as they develop over time, how can we kind of memorialize that and

keep that feeling as you're riding down the road, not to, uh, have a sharp transition directly into more of an urban built environment. Uh, this is usually achieved through wide side paths that may meander um, as you see in the Brio application. You also have uh, increased landscaping. You'll have uh existing landscaping preserve usually as well as um uh fencing and other things that kind of nod to the rural heritage of the area. Uh and then this is in a neighborhood activity center which looks at small mixeduse uh destinations close to residential neighborhoods throughout the town's planning area. Um this is meant to be really neighborhood serving as a neighborhood activity center. Um, it speaks to, you know, having some, uh, single family housing and some standalone residential in it, but really serving as an overall neighborhood activity center in the comprehensive plan. And you can see here, it is a neighborhood center place type. And as you're aware, in our comprehensive plan, we kind of have spreads that uh, dictate how those should develop. It includes things about street and block patterns as well as open space, building types and massing, uh transportation improvement, sustainability and infield development and redevelopment, uh which is more applicable in a closer infield environment. And on the future place type transect map, those neighborhood centers are kind of the very beginning of what we consider our activity center. So they would be the smallest level of activity center. So, you'd expect a transition from neighborhoods, mixeduse neighborhoods to more of a a denser neighborhood activity center um with smallcale neighborhoods serving retail and services. So, looking at the guiding principles, this has an opportunity to advance two of those guiding principles as we've evaluated the home and neighborhood choices. Um there are three unique uh product types in this development. So, they're providing a lot of choice within the development. And then planned and orderly growth as this was one of our target growth areas. We plan to grow in this area during the time of this comprehensive plan. And so this is kind of part of the plan if you will. Uh

looking at the affordable night plan. This has an opportunity to advance kind of three of the parts of it. One is the developer has committed to providing contributions to the affordable housing trust fund and they're also providing missing middle housing through providing town homes. Uh, also looking at the livable neighborhoods, this would build some pedestrian connectivity to some of the existing neighborhoods in the area and could potentially support and help support a neighborhood activity center in this area if there was to be redevelopment of existing uses, etc. And looking at strategic plan consistency, um, in the safe uh, one, it's just ensuring that resources are aligned with our continued growth. um ensuring that multimodal transportation choices are there for connected and inclusive and looking at sustainable um looking at quality commercial and residential development as well as executing the plan. Reviewing the comprehensive parks and recreation master plan. This is within the service area of several park facilities including the Wakestone Athletic Park, Nightdale Station Park, and Nightdale Community Park. Uh so that concludes my presentation. Um I am happy to answer any questions that you have um from the council or the land use review board. Uh but following those questions for staff, we will open the public hearing. We'll give the applicant an opportunity to provide their comments and then we'll have an opportunity for the general public to provide their comments. Um and after that, um I'll come back up and make a recommendation.

All right. Thank you so much. First bringing it to the council. Any questions, comments? Jason, can you go back to the de developer requested allowances? [snorts] Okay. So, I know we've done a decent

amount of long old cruise. This just seems still excessively tight. I know a lot of this property is restricted from um is undevelopable, but going from an 80 foot to a 24 foot just seems dense. Um what do you recall what was the um lot whiffs for the development we had just down from this one on a cruise of town homes? Do you

I don't recall but they're roughly in that range 24

for the town homes but we didn't have any single family in those didn't they were all town homes right

there's some single family in that as well

okay

okay I just needed to see that one question though back to when they did have the resident residential meeting um just interestingly regarding the firearm discharge I know Wake County has a general buffer zone for the Wake County um area in terms of discharge and as we encroach more into those agricultural areas. How does this impact that from I mean I'm assuming that's not something that's grandfathered in, right? So we do have still a significant amount of agricultural land in and around this that discharge allowance. How does it impact when we get to encroachments like this?

Yeah. So once the development is built out and there's occupied residential units there, then the uh firearms ordinance of Wake County would take effect and it's I believe it's a 300 foot separation from occupied unit to fire firearm. It may have been extended, but that's the number I'm coming up with in my head, but yes. All right. I think it has be occupied dwelling unit. So once it's full

at this time, we will open it up for uh the applicant to speak. Good evening, mayor, uh, council, members of LURB. My name is John Meyers. Um, I'm with JPM South Development and representing the ownership group here today. We also have with me is Luke Turner from Kimley Horn. So hopefully if there's any questions that come up between the two of us, we can um can get those answered. Uh Jason, thank you. Staff Holes does a great job of presenting and so we appreciate that. Um want to spend a couple minutes just talking about the thought process that went behind the plan to get us kind of to where we are today. And I think when one looked at the plan plan that um that Jason pulled up u we definitely have a lot of constraints with this plan. Roughly 45% of it is unusable um which is either wetlands buffers or area that we really can't get to without significant environmental impacts which we really wanted to try and avoid. So a lot of topography here as well. And then we also have a collector road that cuts right through it from west going from west to east. And so there were fairly limited options I think in terms of design flexibility in in what we did here. And then I think as as we looked at it uh we also recognized we have to absorb the cost of about 1300 ft of collector road and significant frontage improvements. we needed to get enough density to be able to actually absorb all of that as well. So, trying to really balance a number of things on the front end and turn it into an attractive community um at the end of the day. Um we'll look at the land plan here in just

a second, but what we see up here is what is up against Copart today. And I think there had been a question raised earlier about, you know, buffering against Copart. How do we how do we do that? There's a lot of large natural vegetation there today, as well as an 8-ft opaque fence. Our intent would be to come in and supplement any areas that look like they didn't have enough density of vegetation because we want an opaque landscape buffer at the end of the day as well in addition to uh the 8-oot fence that's there. So, it is something that's important to us. Um, and we did meet with the Copart ownership group several times during the course of the process to just share our plans and and what we're thinking about doing along the way. So, we've been been very transparent uh with them through the process. Um, how do I get to the next slide? Just I just hit the forward button. There we go. All right. Um, so this is the uh this is the overall plan. And so what we really wanted to do here is try and really accomplish two things. One, um we're not part of Brio, but at the same time, uh if we look at what's been approved already right to the south of us with Brio and then immediately to the west with Old Mill Bernie, that's all part of the Brio plan today. We're really sort of a hole in the donut uh with what's left. and we wanted to make sure that what we proposed here was very much in keeping with what's already been approved in terms of the quality of development and it all sort of flowed seamlessly. So there's a number of components to that one is what we're doing along Old Cruz Road. So our fencing and buffering and landscaping is intended to mirror what's happening, what's already been approved. So again, it feels seamless. We don't want this to feel out of place. Um, the architectural

commitments that we're making here, again, almost identical to what was approved in those other communities. Again, speaking to the consistency and the quality, the product offerings are similar is what in that there's a lot of overlap here as well. Um, we're proposing three unit or three types be allowed here. Um we are asking for some flexibility in terms of um potentially changing out some product types going forward uh depending on what the market is looking for. Um but um the intent is to have multiple product opportunities here. The front load town houses uh that back up to old crews that again is virtually identical to what has been approved already right down the street in Brio. So again, looking to keep that consistency through the corridor so it feels good as as one drives through there. Um, and I think a question had been raised about just the lot dimensioning and setbacks. Again, that's all very consistent with what was approved at Old Mill Bernie and what was approved at Brio. So again, just um uh very very consistent. The other thing that um we wanted to really pay attention to as well is those are both amenity rich communities. We wanted also to be amenity rich here um but do it in a little different way. Um we have 14 15 acres of natural area and so we said how do we do something a little different? Let's really accentuate and make that natural area accessible, usable, bring it in so that people have a amenity that's a little different than a standard, you know, pool clubhouse. Um Jason had mentioned the pond. It's a nice 2acre pond. We could have drained it. We opted not to. Uh so we're keeping the pond and instead incorporating it

into the overall amenity package for the community to be utilized by the residents. So those are things that we we're trying to focus on. Um and in terms of the natural areas and accentuating those, it's a combination of preservation, limiting impacts, ponds being preserved. We do have a small impact through the center of the site, but that's because based on Cop Park drainage over the years, there's a small wetland finger that goes up to the north that we'll have to impact in order to be able to cross it roads. But I don't know the exact percentage, but we're probably not touching 95% of the natural areas and and buffers and wetlands that are are on the site. So, we're really making a conscious effort to uh preserve there. And then we wanted to integrate a an an interesting amenity offering here. And so, this slide speaks to that a little bit. And it it's really kind of a multi-pronged. You can see the pond there, which really is the focal point of uh of this amenity. And then we have up in the upper left corner, that's an overlook seating area because the way the site falls off topographically, there'll be some nice view corridor opportunities there just looking out over the pond and over the natural area. And then we have a children's playground that's there with a little circle in the square and that's is all connected by walkways. And you'll follow a walkway down around the pond. We'll have a gazebo and a covered seating picnic area. We will have a dock that will be fishing and seating that is uh will project out into the pond. And then you can follow the trail around. And then you'll you'll see a sort of circular with a square off to the right. Um that's a natural trail with fitness stations that will loop all around the

base of that larger null. And then there will be a covered seating area up on top of that as well. So combination of a lot of activities that we're looking to integrate here and to do it all in kind of a natural type of a setting. So this gives you a little ideas to the fishing dock and what that might look like there with that uh picture in the upper right corner. That pond actually kind of looks quite similar size-wise to to what we'll have here as well. So, the scale is is probably pretty good. And then an example of uh a pavilion. You can see on this plan here where the dock would be located again off of a hard hard surface trail. And then right up from it would be covered pavilion, picnic tables, grilling. So, a lot of lot of things to do here. And this is that null that I'd mentioned um as well with a natural trail all around the perimeter of it. and then a seating area up top, fitness stations around the trail. So, we'll have hard surface, we'll have more natural surface trails, uh fitness stations, kids play area, outdoor grilling, fishing dock, really all all focused on outdoor type activities. And um the plan would be for the furnishings themselves to have more of a rustic sort of a look as you can see here which again would sort of fit into the overall theme of natural area preservation etc. Um, so that is kind of a bit of a glimpse in terms of what we're trying to to do here and and trying to accomplish and to create something that's high quality, blends in with the area, but still has its own sense of uniqueness, uh, too. So, uh, appreciate your time and consideration and we're happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you for sharing. Are

there any questions for the applicant? with parking near your I must have missed the description. Where is the parking for?

There is not dedicated parking for the pond because of the size of the community and the compactness. Everything is very walkable. So, it's not it does not set up necessarily have the dedicated parking space for the pond or the fishing pier. that goes along with the thought of how does this design serve the purposes to allow the neighbors that are existing not the resisting infrastructure how they serve only

well so the amenity here is not designed for the greater area as a If Bria were to decide they were to decide they wanted to incorporate them together, then the usage might expand outside of the community. We do have, I think, as Jason mentioned, connectivity going down Old Cruz. We will tie all of our walkways to um to what's happening in Burrio down the street on Old Cruz. So there will be that connectivity but um the amenities are private in the sense that they are meant for the community and not for overall public use it which is similar really to what is in old Mil Bernie and Brio as well. Those amenities are typically more private neighborhood amenities. lining up our principles here. I am curious about your reasoning to have

frontloaded locks.

Um couple reasons for it really. A it's product differentiation um which we always find to be a good thing. Secondly, um buyers, consumers like front-loaded town home lots. there's there's value in that sense as well. And then also is we run parallel to old crews. Um we didn't want to have alleys that just ran parallel to old crews. And so that was another reason to go front load as well. And that was a lot of the reasoning behind the front load towns that were approved previously in Brio too was to not have garages fronting back out onto old crews and an alleyway facing onto old crews. This is a much cleaner streetscape in our opinion would be to bring those internal and that's why they're shown just in that location. They're not anywhere else in the community. It's just right along Old Cruz.

My last question is for staff. I believe out of the eight guiding principles, your report said it only met the home and neighborhood choices principle. Is that correct? I think we identified two. Um, so the expanded home and neighborhood choices as well as, let me review this real quick. Oh, there it went. Uh, the plan in Norly growth. So, this is in the target growth area and so it's the area we envision growing into during this time. There's water and sewer infrastructures in place or will be in place as part of the Brio expansion. So, that those are the two that we have identified.

Thank you. All right. Any additional questions before we open it up to have a

question.

First curious t

t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t typically our all of our playgrounds are fenced. Yes. And can you justify the reason behind the allowance of 80 to 24?

So the 80 foot is a depth. The 24 is a width. So two two different dimensions there. Um okay. And now the lots as they're drawn right now. Um most of them are 100 ft and some of them are 90 feet. There's nothing that's 80 feet on the plan today. Um but again when one sets standards you try and give yourself a little bit of wiggle room in case something doesn't quite work out but there are two different dimensions. The 80 foot is a depth and

and then I guess the last thing it's more of a common request. So I see the different elevation options or design standards you have with the single family homes and the town homes and they're comparable to what has been approved in previous neighborhoods. Is it possible by the time that this does come to that um this is niched down to some matching design concepts so we can really see the full scope of the character of the neighborhood. Um that is difficult and just reason being um until there's a builder in place. Um it's difficult for a developer to commit to actual specific elevations because each builder brings something a little different to the table. um if you set guidelines for them, they find a way to take what they've got if it doesn't quite match and tweak it and make changes so that it fits the guidelines. But I I wouldn't want to bring something

to the table and say these are the elevations. This is exactly what's going to get built because we don't know just yet. And nobody really does on the front end um until there's a builder in tow.

And so this is this is for me to know that there's a design before a builder.

How how soon do you think you would have in place? Would that be after this is approved or

It typically is. Um, it's it's pretty rare that a builder is in place before something gets approved. And and part of that is as a developer, I can't even bring a builder in and commit to something that doesn't exist until it's actually approved. Um, so we look to get the rights and the entitlements in place first. Um, and then move it towards market once we know what we actually have to sell. and that's would be based on what's approved. But that's why we do spend a good bit of time on the architectural detailing and try and get the um all of the different descriptions as accurate as we can and and staff does a good job of kind of pinning us into a fairly narrow band. So there isn't a whole lot of guesswork as to the quality, but there's enough flexibility to where it would work for a number of different potential builders. And and also just um I think something that is important this will be an HOA governed community. So there will be formal architectural guidelines there will be formal governance of what gets built. So, um, there is a lot of oversight through that whole process to make sure that what ultimately goes vertical in a neighborhood like this that it matches up with what has been approved as part of a a zoning or conditions.

Question. Um, was there any consideration given to mixed use within this footprint, this development? uh and you can you walk us through your thought process on that?

Sure. We did think about it. Um but one of the challenges that we've got here Oops. Am I going the wrong way?

Other way.

Oh, other way. All right.

Lower button. Switch button.

Oh.

Oh, I'm messing this all up. I'm just trying to get back to the land plan here. There we go. Um, so if you look at the plan here, you have that collector road that I mentioned uh early on and you can see where that sits and that tie point there on old cruise is fixed. That intersection is already in place and going to be constructed. So that's where we have to tie. And then going out to the east, you have Mr. Purier's property um immediat restricted on the other side. So there's another piece of this road that's built on Brio age restricted. It comes in from this direction. So we're really limited with what we can do with that road and where it goes. What that does is it leaves you little narrow strips that make it difficult to do anything non-residential on those because it's difficult to get a footprint and also if you don't get enough critical mass of whether it be commercial or retail or whatnot um then it's very hard to drive business. So we did talk about that. We did talk with staff uh extensively about that as well and and whether it was even practical to try and do something there and we just we could not get there. Um you know there is is a small commercial piece at the front of Brio. I want to say it's seven or eight acres. Uh the Brio age restricted. Um it's a very square parcel. um a little easier to do

something on that type of a a parcel of land than with what we have here. So, but it was discussed pretty extensively.

All right. Any additional?

All right. Thank you so much.

Thank you. At this time, we will open the floor for public comment. Uh, this is a public hearing item. If there's anyone here tonight who wishes to speak on this item, you may come forward. [clears throat] Please make sure that you have signed the speaker sheet located at the entry table. Comments are limited to three three minutes. We do have a timer the end here uh that will indicate when the time has expired. Uh, large groups are asked to designate a spokesperson. And when at the podium, please be sure to state your name and address for the record.

Fred per year, 8100 Buffalo Road. Um, I was that person in the public meeting. You asked how far. You did not get to answer. It's 300 yards. So, yes, it affects me big time cuz you've took away almost quarter mile is what you've done. when this happens. It was a town council of Nightdale that suggested this two-way count and I also asked for the fence to keep people off of my property because even now as they're trying to develop for some reason it's just sure it's hard to keep things on their property. Thank you for sharing and thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else here tonight who wishes to speak on this item? If not, I'll bring it back to council.

Last questions or comments or alert members, last questions or comments? If not, is there a motion? I I got a just a couple of quick comments. I would certainly encourage the developer to pursue um additional uh points on our or not points uh but additional guiding principles in our comprehensive plan. Um, we've certainly seen some, uh, successful neighborhoods that have recently been approved that have been able to achieve that without messing with the, you know, the actual design of the site. There's some things like, uh, ADUs being allow allowed by Wright, uh, not blocked by the HOA. Um, I like the comment about it being kind of a donut hole in Brio. Um, which I think, you know, we've we've made comments about the density. it it feels packed in even if it is a similar density to some of the places that are inside Brio. And I wonder if there's an opportunity to, you know, potentially look at different building styles that might allow the the residential density that you're looking for without using the same uh land area. Um you know that to allow for more open space. Um so you know that's just kind of my observations is there's opportunities to improve uh chase more comprehensive plan goals more open space um particularly looking at the keyhole aspect of it in Brio and the neighborhood uh zone neighborhood business zone.

All right. All right, I'll make a motion to close the joint public hearing refers ZMA 425 to the land use review board for

recommendation and advisory statement.

Second.

All in favor?

I I.

Any opposed? Majority approves. Motion carries. We'll move to ZTA1-26 [clears throat] transportation update. Mr. P.

Good evening, uh, mayor, council, and members of LURB. Um, for those who don't know me, my name is Tucker Foley. I'm a senior transportation planner here in the development services department under Jason. Um so I'm here tonight to present ZTA-1-26 which is a staffled text amendment. Um the first of the year to amend the procedures of our TIA process our transportation impact analysis. Um this is adding the potential for an additional requirement to this process which uh is a requirement as part of the master plan submitt of developments of a certain size. Um, so with that, um, the ZTA timeline, I presented this initially to town council at their work session last week, obviously here tonight at joint public hearing. Um, and if everything goes well tonight and there's not substantial revisions needed, um, this will go to both LURV and council next month. So to frame the scope of the text amendment tonight, I think it's important to recap the last text amendment to this section of the UDO. Um, that would be ZTA1 or 1-24. Um this was about two years ago. The it touched a lot of areas within the UDO regarding TAS. Um the top three most relevant to tonight's change is that um it re reestablish what the acronym means. It means 20 different things, but here in Nightdale we now call a transportation impact analysis. [clears throat] Um from what elsewhere is commonly referred to as just a traffic impact analysis. The point of that being that we're really wanting to take a look more at all roadway users. It's not just cars, it's pedestrians, bicyclists, everyone who's on the roadway. Um the other two changes are very similar to what's being proposed tonight. Um it is additions that uh reserve the right for additional requirements uh to be

enforced. Not necessarily outright required, but in areas where they are applicable and where they are needed, um they can be added to the process. The two uh main takeaways are requiring um site distance analysis to be considered. This is naturally considered as part of the construction drawing process. However, as I mentioned before, a TIA is prepared as part of the master plan process. Um, this catches it earlier in the process and ensures that the uh proposed you know driveway connections to our existing roadway network are safe and you have sufficient you know vision down the road to uh, you know, make safe maneuvers. Um, the second of which being um, the ability to require a bicycle pedestrian analysis in those TAs. The aim of that is to fill in gaps in the sidewalk network. Uh maybe put in additional crossings um to better connect the uh roadway network um beyond just cars. So as I mentioned in the very similar vein, this is to allow the requirement of crash data analysis as part of those TI as part of the TIA process. So the section of the UDO that this pertains to is section 12 administrative standards um subsection 12.3 development plan requirements and furthermore subsection J the TIA section. Um the town of Nightdale has a number of unique requirements above and beyond the status quo of other municipalities all of which are listed on there. Um two of which are required two of which are optional and this would be a third optional um item. So, the purpose of this um so the town um conducted and adopted the safety action plan at the end of 2024. Um this might be a little hard to read um but there was 28 action items that were identified as part of that plan um for the town to continue to act upon and demonstrate its commitment to safety um especially in regards to vision zero. Um and so the these are four of those 28 action items that this uh text amendment

serves to further. Um many of these action items we've already achieved. Many we're working on now. Um the top one there I7 which stands for uh implementation. Um it says to continue using the TIA process intentionally or to intentionally identify opportunities for new development to include multimmodal facilities. That first half was completed by the previous text amendment. the second half of that statement which is including the potential for additional safety improvements for projects along the high injury network or near the site of a past fatal or serious injury crash. That second half of that statement is what this text amendment seeks to uh check off so to speak. So why is this being added to the TIA process or why is it being proposed to be added? Because generally a TIA, as I mentioned, commonly referred to as just a traffic impact analysis, is really just focused on capacity. Cars are getting bottlenecked somewhere, whether it's a signal, whether it's a stop sign. You put in a turn lane, maybe you add a signal, maybe you add a roundabout. It's just about getting people through the intersection. It's not really concerned about safety. Um, maybe those improvements might have safety impacts, but it's not that's not the focus of it. It never really addresses, you know, unsafe conditions, people speeding, lack of signage, um unsafe roadway conditions, you know, overly sharp turn or adequate lighting. So, this would help to um include that in the conversation of these studies. Shown here on the map or shown here on the slides are two maps from the safety action plan. You'll see these throughout my presentation tonight. These are the high injury network and uh crash hotspot map. So, wherever you see color is bad. Um, darker red obviously is where there is more intensity. Any corridor that is shaded is a corridor that is, you know, less safe than average. And anywhere where you see uh a concentration of color there um is where crashes predominantly happen in town. So, you'll notice any interchange um in our main

roadways like Nitto Boulevard tend to have the most crashes. So um see to um sorry um lost my train of thought. Um so uh this amendment and and and requiring crash data analysis as part of the TIA process is not new. It's just not something that's um super widespread. So if we take a look at the Campo region um of the municipalities there there's only three currently that have this added to their UDO and only two regularly require this as part of their TAS. Um Nightdale town of Nightdale us being um only the only municipality at this point who has an adopted safety action plan. Raleigh is working on theirs expects to be adopted later this year and Campo as a whole uh did their blueprint for safety. But um the purpose of this is to we are already a leader in the safety sphere. We're already very committed division zero just continuing to lead the charge on that. Um and looking outside the campo region aside from Johnson County and Durham, most other municipalities that have such a requirement are located in the western part of the state. So on a very high level, just looking at Raleigh and Carrie um who are the two in our Campo region um that have this requirement, Raleigh's process is very high level in general. Um it's not always the most effective in um having an actionable outcome. Um whereas car's is very involved, but it is very effective. Um, so I won't dive into the spec specifics of those, but um, I think it there are positives of both programs that um, I you'll see later tonight that I've proposed that we can kind of blend the two together. So shown on screen here is an example deliverable of Raleigh's crash data analysis within their TIA. It's really not a big lift. It can take up less than a single page of the 30-page document. Um it's information that can be requested from DOT and provided free of charge. Um and

it can be summarized in a table like is shown here. Um based on a per intersection um list, you know, the same study area that matches the TIA just categorizing crashes based on year or crash type. This is a lot of information, but it also doesn't really paint a great picture at the same time. Um you'll see in the right up here that you know it identifies that there's a trend of rear end crashes. It says that that's typical of a signalized intersection which is true and then basically says that there's nothing that can reasonably done be done by the developer at this time. Um areas for improvement that I believe you know can kind of blend between Raleigh and Kerry would be to separate out bicycle pedestrian crashes. Um speak more to fatal and serious injury crashes. This gives you a summary and says that there were no fatal crashes. there's no more uh investigation into it other than that. Um as well as you know looking at the severity index of these crashes. Were these just fender benders? Were these more serious? You know identify patterns. Um in this report it's very summarized cleanly within the actual TIA. But the data behind it that you have access to goes into the nitty-gritty of everything involved with the crash. Was it raining? What time of day was it? Was the driver wearing a seat belt? Was somebody inebriated? um there are more patterns that could be drawn um from the information than is just typically done. So, so the initial concept that I have for you tonight that I'm looking for feedback on is um as is kind of industry standard looking at the most recent 5 years of data. Um doing an initial screening with information from our comprehensive transportation plan and our safety action plan to vet um intersections um and and areas around the proposed development that might warrant further investigation. Um and if so, require that as part of the study. um and required the um consultant that's preparing the TIA to you know attempt to recommend improvements that can improve safety. Not necessarily putting that burden on the development community, but

helping the town to identify problems that then the Vision Zero task force can seek to remedy. Um diving into some of that uh initial screening, DOT has a ton of information available online. It is completely free to access. You don't even need a login or anything. Um, two of those pieces of information shown on here that I mentioned would be used in addition to the um town specific comprehensive transportation plan and safety action plan that we've prepared. We have a total crash frequency by intersection. Um, this is limited to NC DOT roadways. However, for um non-motorist crashes, which include pedestrians and bicyclists, it's across the state. Um, so anyone can log in and and view this information. And this is very helpful in addition to the two documents that I've already mentioned in you know identifying corridors such as Hodge Road or Nitto Boulevard um that experienced a a number of crashes perhaps more typical than um similar roadways elsewhere in the state. So there was a question regarding study area that was received during the work session. So I just wanted to speak to that really quickly. Um the question was that the um should there be a definitive study area mentioned as part of this text amendment similar to the way that the bicycle and pedestrian analysis defines a halfmile buffer. Um and to that I've used Lynden Oaks as an example not to pick on them. uh they came through the process before any of these were requirements, but just to illustrate um an example of how this buffer, you know, could impact um the text amendment. So shown in blue would be that half mile buffer from their site driveways, which would extend, you know, almost to the bridge over I40 on Old Fasian Road and it would extend, you know, to the south on Bethlehem Road. The red dots are the study area intersections from the traffic impact or the transportation impact analysis, sorry. um including there's another

study area that's further south on Bethlehem Road that isn't shown here. So this is showing you know how those two a defined buffer area versus a subjective one that is negotiated between staff DOT and the applicant um don't necessarily match. And the reason why um a a definitive buffer area um could be a problem is if we look at the safety action plan, our hot spot and high injury network map, there's areas along Hodgej Road, the interchange with I 87 um and over on um over to the east there um where there's a serious injury crash that would not be captured within that fixed buffer. So, um, open to feedback, but I think it is there's there's, uh, value in not, you know, setting a cap on the extents that we're looking out. Um, so with that, tonight um, I know this might be a little early. I will plan to bring an actual, you know, amended UDO for review um, to LURB and to council next month. But um, I do have a draft of the proposed amendment to the UDO shown here on screen. Um, so it's really just touching two sections. it would be um section 12.3.j.2.8 which is the procedures of the TIA scoping meeting to add this in as another thing that can be required. Same wording as was done with the bicycle and pedestrian analysis and then um in section 12.3.8.4 or um the other factors to include. This is actually describing what it would be that would largely produce what was shown as that Raleigh example there just with all those um extra things like the severity index looking at bicycle pedestrian crashes um and and trying to make more of a recommendation from it rather than just producing a report. And so again, just to summarize, um there are two more steps after this coming to Lurve and council next month uh pending no major changes needed. Um, and that concludes my presentation for tonight. So, I welcome any questions that uh, council have at this time.

Thank you so much. Bringing it to council. Any questions?

I guess well a comment. I I really love the thoroughess of this and I think that it bodess extremely well with our um, with our current um, zero um, what is it? Action zero.

Vision zero.

Yeah, vision zero. There you go. So, as this being optional or not a mandatory requirement of TIA, is it just prompted based upon staff's determination looking at the data triggers of where there is possible hotspots as to when a developer would have to provide this as a part of the TIA?

Yes, that is correct. So, it would either um either would fall to town transportation staff, which is myself, or the land use administrator, typically Kevin or Gideon, um to require this. And the point of that being that um if I go back to I broke it. I'm sorry. I was going the wrong way. Um yeah, while that's happening. Um there are areas within town that are not on our high injury network. Um you know, towards the the edges of our jurisdiction, say Pool Road, you know, as you get closer to heading towards Wendle, there's not, as we can see on the bottom of those maps there, there's no color there. Um towards the top of the map, there's there's less color. um we know generally where problems are. Um and so just to not create unnecessary burden on every single development, especially ones that are smaller in nature, if I understood, the Raleigh version has NC3 information. version had proprietary software.

Do we know what type of software

it has a name? I don't remember what it is. It's it's a fancy acronym. It's they are the only municipality in North

Carolina that uses it. I'm pretty sure they developed it themselves. Um both use this publicly available information from NC DOT. the maps that are shown at the bottom there and on this screen here. This is not the information that's necessarily used to make those the crash data analysis reports. Um there is a software called um uh the traffic engineering accident analysis system TE's. Um, this kind of merges with the DMV's software where every single crash has a crash report and is fed into this system and you can use that program to generate, you know, with whatever criteria you've specified, a 5-year window on Old Fasian Road, you can pull every single crash that occurred during that time. Um, it's typically uh requested from DOT. those uh applicants that are pre-qualified, the DOT can obtain that information themselves, but that information that feeds into the report is not publicly available.

Any additional

Sorry, I do have a question, but I moved because the air conditioning is right there and I was becoming an ice cube. Um, can you go to the one where you categorized the crashes? That example one.

I think I'm going the wrong direction. Nope.

That

there.

Um, 26% of the crashes are categorized as other. That seems to be to not be very helpful information because other can cover a whole lot of stuff. And I see in the bottom it says a lot of them are primarily sideswipes. Um this is just an example that like Raleigh uses.

So yes, so this is an example. So I worked on the private side for a number of years before coming with the town. This was an example that I prepared for the

city of Raleigh. They don't have specific fill out this table.

They have you know conduct this crash study. this is something that they had commonly accepted that other is a catch all for about maybe eight other types of crashes

um that were all individually you know a small percentage

okay I see I see

you could certainly expand this table to have more categories

right right just other having 26% like fully a [clears throat] fifth of it or a fourth of it categorizes other just didn't seem very helpful my second question was about the severity you um does the NC do data capture the severity of the crash as well.

It does. Yes. Okay.

So, um the this map here um on the left there, it's just colorcoded by quantity, but if you were to click on one of those dots, this is GIS. I see.

Um it would break down the severity um for you. As well as the the reports that get generated from that software from DOT will spit out, you know, how many of those 50 crashes were fatal, how many were serious, how many were minor injuries, how many were just property damage only, just a busted headlight. Okay, I saw the raw number of crashes and I was like, if you want them to give you severity but the NC DOT doesn't give it to them, how will they get it? But they have it, so never mind. Thank you.

Quick question. You had mentioned that you can also pull data from the DMV. How much of this will be captured for non NCDOT roads? Like I don't know the percentage of non NCDOT owned roads in NDIL, but will this capture those those roads those crashes as well? Yes. So, this this captures um any uh publicly maintained road. So, if somebody gets into a fender bender in a target parking lot, that is just considered a PBA or a private vehicular area. Um that's treated differently and even in terms of insurance, but that is not captured in these reports, unfortunately. Um but if you're driving along, you know, any town owned roadway, it will be captured as well.

Thanks for clarifying.

Thank you. All right. At this time, we will open the floor for public comment. And is there anyone here tonight who wishes to speak on this item? If so, you may come forward at this time. If not, we'll bring it back for any final comments or questions.

I'll make a motion, if there are no comments, to close the public hearing, refer ZTA 1-26 to the Land Use Review Board for review and recommendation.

Second.

All in favor?

Any opposed? Majority approves. Motion carries. Well, that leads us to adjournment. May I have a motion to adjurnn?

Moved.

Any oppos? Majority approves. Motion carries. Stand adjourned. Thank you all for joining us. Thank you Lur members for joining us. Have a good evening.