Planning Board Meeting

This way you're

No, it was right before rental.

Good afternoon. Welcome to the town of Apex planning board meeting. Today's date is March 9th, 2026. Um, and I'd like to ask Mr. Rhodess if he could lead us in prayer.

If we will bow our heads. Heavenly Father, we seek your blessings upon our discussions tonight. Grant us the wisdom to engage in meaningful conversations that lead to productive outcomes. Amen.

Amen. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have any items of information from staff? All right. Good afternoon. Have a few items here. So, peak plan 2055, public forum number two, uh is planned for Wednesday, March 25th. It'll be here at town hall uh upstairs in uh 3A and 3B. Um and it's 4 to 7. You can drop in anytime, but we do suggest everyone arrives no later than 6:30 in order to complete all activities. This is both for the planning board members and the public. Um, five different growth scenarios will be shared, each with different development patterns, types, and densities as well as associated impacts and opportunities for services, infrastructure, and open space. And your input will inform uh the ultimate recommendation, combining preferred aspects of each scenario. And if the public's interested in more information, it's www.apexnc.org peak plan. We also wanted to let everyone know that we uh are introducing our newest data product. It's called the Apex Social Explorer. It's an interactive dashboard where users can explore data from the most recent U US Census Bureau American Community Survey uh which are five-year

estimates as it relates to Apex. And this is a long uh uh website address, but you can just go to planning department and look under uh demographic and development data to find it there. And then the last item I just wanted to mention um you probably saw it in the news, but the um the new hill uh digital campus data center uh has been withdrawn. um the annexation and reszoning uh were done via a letter um recently, but we uh have the property owner signatures now and they have withdrawn the UDO amendment. So, it's all official as of this afternoon that they have withdrawn uh all of their applications. All right, that's it.

Thank you, Diane. Now, we will move into public comment. if you have not done so already. To your left, you can sign in to speak on any agenda item or any non-aggenda item for tonight. The purpose of public comment is to allow the public to speak on items that do not appear in this agenda. All members of the public wishing to comment on public hearing items will be called at the appropriate time later in the agenda. We do ask that you sign in if you wish to speak. Uh all comments uh should be limited to three minutes and not representative. If there's a large number of speakers on one particular item, a selected um we do ask that a representative be selected to speak for the entire group and limit the comments to nine minutes.

Do we have anyone signed up for public comment?

Okay. All right. We will close com public comment. All right. We will open consent item number one, minutes from the February 9th, 2026

regular meeting. I assume everyone's had a chance to review.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve for Mr. Hastings.

Second.

We have a second. All in favor say I. Hi I.

All oppose.

Motion carried.

It was Chrissy.

Chris.

All right. Now we will move on to public hearing. Um section same three minutes guess we're moving to open item number one uh Jenna on the traffic on the public hearing possible motion regarding BO 2416 tingen road crossing feasibility study. Hi, good afternoon. Today I'll be presenting the public hearing for the Tingen Road bicycle and pedestrian crossing feasibility study with Russell Dalton will be co-presenting today. So the agenda, we'll start out with a project and o project overview and background and then get into a summary of the public engagement that was completed for this study and then share the functional design and some visualizations that have been prepared and the cost estimates for future phases of this project, some potential next steps and recommendations and the recommendation to town council which is to advance this project through right-of-way plans. So the project overview and background information was presented at your August 2025 meeting. So it's just provided tonight as a refresher. So the project history, the existing tingen road at Grey Crossing of the railroad is required to be closed upon

the opening of the Apex Peakway Southwest connector bridge that's currently under construction. And the proposed bike bike bike ped tunnel would replace the vehicular access by when that vehicular crossing is closed. And this project is currently programmed for design funds. So the purpose of the feasibility study is to look into the opportunity to maintain connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the CSXS line railroad tracks either at or near the current tingen road crossing and then to determine the relative need for this project and whether to move forward with further design. And the study area for this for the feasibility study is on the right in red. And the exhibit on the left displays the existing and active transportation network. I just want to highlight a few things. So the study area again is in red and the lo and the grade separated bike ped crossing or I'll refer to it as the tunnel is shown here. And then there are three other proposed grade separated crossings in the larger vicinity of this project on the town's transportation plan. So there's a crossing of 55 at the Beaver Creek Greenway and then there are two more crossings associated with the mob the S-line mobility hub. The first being a crossing of the railroad tracks at East Moore Street and then a crossing of 55 parallel to the railroad tracks. And the exhibit on the right displays adjacent development and infrastructure projects. And I'd like to highlight a few developments that are beyond the extent of this map further south that are anticipated to just further increase the demand for bicycle and pedestrian travel along Tingen Road and into downtown including Vidia, the NC Children's Hospital and the Grace Christian School. And then to the north, the extension of Justice Heights Street to the Apex Peakway is intended to

increase that bike ped demand as well for connectivity. So a summary of public engagement. So the first public engagement opportunity was held excuse me in May of last year and there was a design cheret and at that event four alternatives were presented three bridges and one tunnel and when asked about the overall impression of the project 81% of participants had a positive impression while 6% had negative and 13% either had neutral or no response. When asked about their preferred alternative, the vast majority of respondents selected the tunnel with the then the the next highest selection was the bridge without loops, but not nearly as many selected that option. So at the August 202 2025 public hearings to planning board and town council, this board and town council selected the tunnel for the functional design as the preferred alternative. And the primary reason for that selection is that it received the most public support. It has the least anticipated cost. It has the shortest crossing distance of the railroad tracks, the least changing grade throughout the full project, and the shortest structure. Additionally, it has the lowest potential impact to existing water water lines and utilities, and it's generally considered less of a visual impact to the surrounding community in comparison to the bridge options. The next public engagement opportunity was an open house held in November and then we also had an online comment form available and here's a highlight of the public comments that we received during that meeting. So first there were some concerns regarding the value of the need the value and need for the project in comparison to the cost and then there were some comments regarding pedestrian safety and access that would be addressed in the next um phase of design

and then there were a couple of specific comments that we were able to address through the feasibility study phase. So a comment to add more landscaping. So, a landscaping line item was added to the cost estimate. And then we revised the angle of entry for the bicycle ramp from Salem Street toward the tunnel to to make it more accessible in both directions based on the input provided. And I'll hand it over to Russell Dalton to share the functional design. So, for the overall design, what we ended up with, as you can see on the image, um he has a side path along Salem Street connecting to an off-road trail which goes under the railroad tracks down to the south side where it goes through several turns before coming back up to grade at James Street. Um and this again is associated with the closing of the tingent road crossing which is xed out here in the image. Uh what you see here is the plan view um with the features and as well as the profile. We shared this information with the public. Um so this sets us up for the next phase of design uh where we would go into more detail obviously and then move toward final plans um for the project. There is a project underway uh to extend Justice Height Street to the Apex Peakway. So that is very important to remember here. So that will change traffic patterns that'll increase traffic on Justice Heights Street. Um that was part of the reason uh but not the whole reason for the proposed realignment of Tingen Road across from Justice Heights Street. Right now you know it's an offset intersection. Um it wasn't very conducive to pedestrian traffic and that was one of the concerns we heard at the public meeting to so to remedy that we do show that realignment in our functional design plans. Um as well as the proposed side path along NC55 which extends um extends outside of the scope of this project in future plans that we were proposed tonight. Um, the idea is we'll shorten pedestrian crossings with the four-leg alignment. Um, we'll simplify the signal phasing for drivers navigating the intersection,

which is both for safety and operational improvements. Um, it also creates a potential opportunity for a gateway. If you notice in the image, there's a triangular area where when the road is realigned, it'll leave that area open for potentially something to go in there. It could be a nice nice feature. Um for Salem Street, uh this shows a three-lane widening with curb and gutter also shared lane markings for bicycle traffic. Um and again the side path along the east side. So just to recap the design criteria. So we ended up with a tunnel of about 105 ft long, which is a relatively short distance considering the length we have to get under the railroad tracks. Um so the length you would have to walk from James Street to South Salem Street are actually This is bicycle or ADA compliant would be 1,090 feet versus the shorter walk if you use the staircases that are built into the project of 735 feet. So that shaves quite a bit of distance, you know, more than 300 feet off the off the distance you would have to go otherwise. Uh the grades are moderate 5%. That's one of the other concerns we heard when we looked at some of the alternatives was we didn't want too steep of a route. Um also the uh the northern approach for this to the tunnel is along South Salem Street. That's that green that um side path that connects to the off-road greenway is where that where that ties in um versus following the tension road alignment. Uh the uh landings required for this one is zero which is a good thing. Um but there are two switchbacks and overall tree clearing was 1.6 acres for the project. Uh these are a couple tunnel types. So, one of them, the above image, if you've uh you may have encountered this one before over in Kerry, um it was a a tunnel that was bored under the railroad tracks that goes under the DNS spur. Um the the boring, if we had to use that for this project, would increase cost compared to what we we showed as the open cut method, which is more of a box tunnel, which you'll see in this image. This this open cut box cover here. Um you know, using what I'll show in an

image coming up is is the more practical way to do it. you know, less, you know, less excavation, um, lower cost. Um, so on the left side of the image here, you'll see a cross-section of South Salem Street, uh, with a sidewalk on the north side, um, and side path, 10 foot path on the south side. It's a three-lane section that includes sherrows for bikes. And on the right side of the image, um, you'll see the open cut method. So you can see our culvert in the image, but very importantly you'll see what's labeled as a jump span beam. Um so essentially it's a temporary bridge um for the railroad as we're installing the culvert. There will be some interruption to railroad operations and when this goes to CSX for review if we go to the next design stage. Um there would be input on what we're allowed to do with the design of this project and how that would be handled. With all CSX projects, anytime you're crossing the railroad, you're going to have you're going to have an agreement. you have to have a preliminary engineering agreement for them to review your plans. Um, as well as once you get to construction, you construction phase agreement which would involve a flagging operation which is just like we have for the Peekway Southwest project. So now I'll turn it back over to Jenna for visualizations. So a few visualizations were prepared to get an idea of what this could look like. So the first one is looking from James Street toward the tunnel. So on the left is are the the switchbacks heading down to the tunnel. On the right is the staircase heading toward the tunnel. And this is the same side but looking higher up down onto the tunnel. And then you can see the railroad tracks in the background. This is looking from the railroad tracks toward James Street. So the opposite perspective of where we just were looking. So with the staircase on the left side and the switchbacks and the retaining wall to head back up toward James Street. So this is a detailed look at the switchback still on the James Street

side. You see the switchback, the retaining wall and the handrails. And then this is from the opposite side of the project. So looking from Salem Street toward the tunnel and input that we received from the public throughout the project was to ensure good visibility and lighting. And so this is meant to display that the each end of the tunnel would be visible from a far distance and all the way through. And then looking from the railroad tracks toward South Salem Street. So seeing where that greenway connector would tie into side path along South Salem Street. And then we have a series of cost estimates for potential next stage next steps for this project. So this slide sh displays the cost estimates for preliminary engineering through rideofway plans. And on the left the left side of the screen, this table are the allocated funds plus staff CIP requests. And then the on the right side are incurred costs and future estimates. So the town has entered into a federal funding agreement for preliminary engineering and rideway. We received earmark funding for this project of $550,000 and then the local allocation or the local match is just under $140,000. So the total federal agreement is just under 690,000 and staff are requesting approximately 300,000 to complete the prelim preliminary engineering for this project and that would be in fiscal year 27. So the total available funds plus the funding request is 980,000 and that lines up with the right side. So I'll run through that. These are the incurred costs and future estimates. So starting with the feasibility study which is the only incurred cost to date of 180,000. The CSX PE agreement that Russell mentioned is anticipated to cost 100,000. And then NC DOT internal review

cost of 100,000. And then the preliminary design through rideway plans is estimated to cost 600,000. So the the key takeaway from this slide is that based on current information, available funds combined with this 300,000 in the fiscal year 27 CIP request is anticipated to fund the project through ride-of-way plans. And the current federal funding agreement that I described at the top of this table for preliminary engineering and rideway expires in April of 2029, which is five years from the date that those that those funds were authorized. I just want to note that NC DOT and FHWA reserves the right to revoke these funds from Apex if we're unable to meet the deadline for design and rideway. However, a supplemental agreement could be would be required to extend the schedule to complete these phases. So, the key takeaway is um the funding request is 300,000 to get through this next the next phase which is ride ofway plans in addition to the funding that we've already received through the grant. So, this slide displays rideofway and construction cost estimates. So on the left are the rightway cost estimates which are 975,000 including right-of-way acquisition, NC dot review and then completion of final plans. And the construction cost estimate for this project we put in FY30 as that's when construction is anticipated and that's just under 11 million. So here's a series of potential next steps for this project in April. or next month. Staff are planning to publish the feasibility study report. And then we're what we're asking for input on today is the item highlighted in red, which is to prepare preliminary design through ride-of-way plans. And that would be

complete in mid 2028. Then the next step could be to acquire rideway and prepare final plans and then secure con construction funding and that would be approximately in mid 2030 and then construction could start in late 2030. So the possible motion for the planning board today we divide it into two pieces. The first is to approve the draft feasibility study with some updated construction cost estimates as presented in the public hearing. So there are there are a couple changes an increase based on what was presented here today in comparison to what's in the draft report online. So just want to make that clarification. And then number two to approve advancement of the tingen road bicycle and pedestrian crossing through the rideway plan stage which would require additional local funds of 300,000 in the FY27 budget. We're going to try to answer any questions you may have. That was very well done, Jenna. Any questions for Jenna?

Jenna, I'll ask you a couple questions real quick. So, um, we have to involve DOT simply because we're looking at widening Salem Street or versus going under CSX. I mean, CSX is different from DOT, right? So, we'd have to incur we'd have to get their approval because of what we're doing to Salem Street

and Russell can correct me if I'm wrong, but DOT is a a party to this federal funding agreement.

Okay. Okay.

And the rail division as well.

And rail division. Yeah. Be involved.

And then right away, who own so rightway acquisition, who would that who would we incur on rightway acquisition? I thought who owns that property other than either CSX or the town of Apex. Right now

there are two other part there's this parcel on the north side that would need

to be acquired and then I don't have the name of them right now but and on the south side this is owned by um Wake County Public School System.

Okay. Okay. Fair enough. No, thank you very much.

Any more questions for Jenna? We get back to that cost estimate.

Yeah, the construction or the

the construction estimate.

Jenna, what would happen if NCO does not approve?

They don't approve of the tunnel

of the funds. Would we have to resubmit and go through a re-re?

I'm not sure I understand the question. So, we have this this agreement in place and 500,000 from it's federalally remarked but it's being administered through the state is my understanding and then we have our local allocation but we need additional funding to complete this stage in the process. Are you talk is your question about engineering

that federal funding allocated is guaranteed already.

We have five years to spend it or from we have until 2029.

So no, we have three years.

I haven't.

Okay.

Sure.

Any more questions for Jenna? Thank you, Jenna.

Um, guess now we will open public comments. Do we have any public comments for this?

Thank you.

I think I'm the only one. Uh, Lawrence Kevin, uh, 1628 Salemvilles Drive. So um part of that a 400 house neighborhood in Salem Village kind of close by. Um so first thing is I didn't see any data on current or projected pedestrian or bicycle traffic. I think um Brett Gant actually mentioned that in the previous um he had a previous question and I don't know any data was collected on that. Um uh like personally like when I travel bike or pedestrian um I go up James Street and then the South Hughes to go across the so it's 25 miles an hour versus 35. So I don't anticipate use using um the tunnel. Um so that's just what I that's my preference when I'm going to town campus driving the Christmas parade. That's just the route I take. Um, so as far as like the like the focus I would like to see is on the pedestrian crossing, bicycle crossing that's going to go across William Street. Um, there's also I think it's going to be later, but there's a side path plan along CSX that kind of joins up with that. Again, CSX is very difficult to work with. I don't know what the possibility of that actually happening. I mean, it's planned to go parallel right along uh CSX. So, but that would be a more of a logical way to to kind of kind of push people, you know, that pedestrian bicycle traffic. This is just just safer. Um, so again, I I provided some information on that safety issue at the public shade. I didn't see anything summarized that that that was included. So, again, that's just my and I have some pretty experienced, you know, riding a bike and and walking. And that's what I would advise my kids and my neighbors to do is to go that route. Um the other thing I just want to mention is I would like to see um the planning board or even the plan department to ask for more line of sight documentation of

what it looks like. I mean there is some visualization here but um I'm not sure you know I just like to see everything I see is orthographic as far as top down view buffers and uh easements and that makes it much easier to make decision but I like to see more line of sight. Um I also didn't like the description of Sline included in the report because my understanding feasibility studies that Sline's not going to happen. So it did kind of bundle it that that's that's going to be a commuter railway going through there. It's just not I don't see it and that's what I've seen as far as reports. The S-line I mean it's it's just not it's kind of it's a dead project but that the I don't see it happening. Um couple other things. Um how how's the town and CSX going to mitigate ad hoc crossings across the train tracks? Um, I mean again like we have some some pipeline areas that that's kind of clear for for kids at the the cross that's that's a little farther up and I think you know how you going to mitigate that as a safety issue. Um, again there's a long stretch and I understand CSX wants it closed. Um, I doesn't want I mean they pretty much demanded it and the the town staff has kind of stated that that's almost non-negotiable. Um, I like to think it's negotiable. CSX has a new um CEO as of September October time frame because he wasn't negotiable. So look into that. And that's all I got. Thank you.

Thank you, Lawrence.

Uh we will bring this back to the board for possible discussion and a motion. Possible motion. comments.

I think this is moving the ball forward on what was evaluated in our previous

discussions and adopted by town council. Um, so with that, I would Do you want to do this all at once or do you want We'll go. Okay. I would recommend approval of item BO2416, tension road crossing feasibility study.

We have a motion on the table from Melissa. We have a second.

Daniel got a second rail CSX.

Have some more questions before we

Sure. Go right ahead. So, so at this point we're looking at spending 300,000 pretty much just to figure out if this can be done. And if it can, then we're going to look at spending 11 million for the pedestrian. I just got a I don't think that was ever in the very beginning when we talked about it general idea of what the tunnel would cost. I know it was going to be substantially more than doing um some of the other options that were out there, but it it seemed more feasible to do. But I'm just wondering at some point 11 million is a lot for a pedestrian crossing. I'm just kind of wondering, do we need to before we invest, you know, invest another 300,000 into engineering only to know that we already know it's going to be 11 million. Are we okay with this? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the tunnel was the most affordable of the options that were presented with preliminary plans. Is that correct? Okay.

So, just a lot of money. It's kind of stickers. I'm just trying to be conscious of, you know, taxpayers dollars. 11 million is a lot. Do we have an 11 million pedestrian problem at that intersection? you know, that's is there is there any data that shows, you know, that this is a very high use area that we desperately need.

Um, I understand we have earmarked money, you know, from CSX, you know, we don't want to let that go, but is there anything else along the way just before we commit to spending another 300,000 knowing that 11 million's coming down the road if we decide to go that route? I'm just pumping the brakes for just a second just before we decide to spend 300,000 I guess because it's not my money.

Yeah.

Yeah. If you'd like, I mean, I could speak somewhat to that. We we discussed that as well, and that's part of the reason why Jenna mentioned the recommendation um to to to get through rightway plans because that gets us to a stage where, you know, we understand what exactly what rightway we need. Um have a much better picture, you know, complete picture of the project. Um, and then if there are funding sources out there to assist, um, you know, with with some portion of that, then then we would be, you know, we'd be in line to to be able to do that, to be able to go for those funds. Uh, but you're right. I mean, it is a large amount of money. We have a lot of priorities. So, that is sort of the question on the table. It's like, do you want us you want to recommend that additional money, that $300,000 to wrap up sort of the work we've been doing, use the rest of the federal money we had for design, um, and then we would have to go to the next step, which would actually be right away acquisition. So there's actually another I think amount of money we'd need to spend to get through that part before we even get to construction. I'm just just overall I mean you guys look at town budget more than we do but I understand we're two million over on the streetscape in downtown. I mean that's that's going to be more um and then we're looking at $1 million pedestrian. That just seems like you know quite a bit. Um what additional sources of funding do you see that we could possibly get? Do you want to talk to potential?

Yeah. I mean typically the LAP program locally administered project program with NC do is where we seek funds. Um you know through that program you know for our peakway we got 50/50 cost share

up to 25 million. So 12 a.5 million through that program. um you do with and this is already set up as a federal project coming in because we got a federal earmark. So it's already on that track to potentially receive eligible you know be eligible for federal funds in the future. Um however that's not you know LAP is not 100% funding like I just said peak wave is 50%. So if this project was 50% for instance, you know, if you were just to get right away for construction, if it was $1 million project, you might get $5.5 million. So you'd still have to make up about a $5.5 million funding gap in case like that once you get to that point. Um I'm not saying it would be eligible for lap necessarily. It's it's a competitive program. It might be a good project or it might not when we get to that stage. And I don't know that we've had discussions with Campo as far as

not for this project. not for this project for potential eligibility and well maybe eligible but again it's it's compet it's the competition when you get to that point and you just don't know it's it's when you submit it you know once you're ready to submit it which this would help set us up you know going down that route to find out what you're in competition with how much funding is actually available.

Okay. As far as a prioritization for for the town, I mean, are we is this considered to be one of the town's highest priority items, you know, as far as the pedestrian crossings and whatnot, or

is this where we're really struggling?

So, it's I'd say I don't see it on the road, you know, driving through. I just don't see where it's like

people are lost trying to figure out how to cross the road there.

Yeah. often, you know. Yeah, I'd say it's it's it's a high priority in terms of the fact that we have gone through the feasibility study process. We're wrapping up feasibility study for it. Um, we um we also did have a mobility hub study that showed a bridge on that one as well in advance of this one. Um, I don't know that it was necessarily it wasn't quite this deep of a dive into the bridge itself, but it did show a layout potentially for where the bridge would go to support future rail operations for people to be able to cross the tracks. And it's a little bit different uh it's a little bit different type bridge when we talk about the

mobility hub because that one was literally to get people back and forth to the platform. Um it wasn't really a greenway type facility. Um there is the other bridge however though that was associated with mobility hub that would potentially parallel uh the CSX bridge on NC55 to get people across NC55. Um, and there's also a bridge on our plan that was on the the exhibit we showed that would potentially go under NC55 west of Salem Street. Um, so that may be a question for and our parks and recck staff are here tonight um to ask about green, you know, the priority for that type of project and and where that would be in terms of requests because potentially with the NC55 widening, there could be an opportunity there to do a um, you know, an enhancement cost contribution to NC DOT to get that grade separation. um which which in that case it would be high priority in the sense that we've got an active NC DOT project and that would be cheaper than us having to go on our own and build a grade separation to cross NC55 over or under.

Right. Okay.

So just to give you an idea of priorities in this area. So those are those are several but you know as far as the highest priorities from a greenway perspective I would probably defer to parks and rec staff as far as their priorities for greenway connections. um in term in terms of what we're looking at it is is important from our perspective because it's closing an existing crossing um where we have an opportunity um it looks like a pretty good opportunity to cross. It's just it's going to be more expensive than we originally thought.

Can I add one thing?

Sure. I just want to add one point as we're having this discussion because what really prompted this project is the peakway requiring the closure of the roadway and so we were looking at the closest crossings if this didn't exist. So to the west it adds about one, it's in the report, I believe it's about 1.1 miles to go James Street and up the peakway and down the new ramp. And if you were

to go James Street to Hughes to 55 and and back to the other side in both cases, it's about 9/10 of a mile. So it's it's more so about the closure is what what drove this feasibility study. And you did you guys have the the numbers that he was I know you said that there was Vidia at the hospital. Is there some sort of further statistics about that about those type of facilities? Typically you will see an increase of X for pedestrians or bicycles that this would be needed for.

Well, we didn't this we didn't count how many people are currently crossing because it it really wouldn't be an apples apples. There's not sidewalk across the the railroad tracks right now with tension. It's not very comfortable and the new tunnel would really would be a very different experience. But I know when you build it, they come, but we don't have numbers for Yep. Thank you. Just thinking out loud. This to me is money spent by the town for protection of you know citizens trying to make it across the road right and just I think about well are there other areas that also have concern that you can spend like I just don't see this as being a a high traffic area already just because of CSX I understand also just kind of the housing it's not like there's not a lot of business that's right there people are trying to get to I understand they're trying to get to downtown, but I I kind of doubt looking at your map that they would go around and then come back to the point where they were to start and just kind of if they're going to go, they're going to go to downtown anyway. That's where the businesses are. That's where that's where money will be spent

by our citizens. Um, helps out the economy in that way. I just don't know that this is just more or less just trying to get people from one side of the track to the other safely. And I understand the concern and I'm all about trying to mitigate any, you know, harmful things that can possibly happen, but I'm just wondering, not that we're here to discuss whether we pull the plug on a project, that's not what we're here for. But if we're looking at spending 300,000 only to know that we got 11 million down the road if we get the 50/50 lap, you know, that's just a concern of mine. Um, just putting that out there just for thought. That's a good that's a good thought because it's 11 million now. So, it's going to be then and I did like Mr. Lawrence's idea kicking it down to Highway 55 right down. If we just turn and go right down there, then spend the money there. That is a good point. That is a good point. All right. Well, we have a we have a motion and a second. So, I guess we'll move forward with uh do we have a all in all in agreement say I

I all oppose.

No.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Just a reminder for those who voted no to um fill out your uh the form the dissenting members form that's on the laptop. Christie,

that was just going to approve the draft feasibility study. Was that correct?

Yep.

Or was it that together? That was together, right?

Second question. Is that was the denial of one and two or just one? I mean, excuse me. The the that vote.

My motion was to approve both of

Okay. Okay.

Okay, we will move on and open agenda item number two. Agenda again, public hear and possible motion regarding amendments to the bicycle pedestrian plan. Okay. So public hearing number two are proposed amendments based on the feasibility study that was just presented. So the Tingen Road crossing. So this exhibit is looking at amendments along South Salem Street or along and adjacent to South Salem Street and Tingen Road. The first proposed amendment is to relocate the grade separated bicycle and pedestrian crossing from the railroad tracks at tingen road to the location as shown in the feasibility study and in the fun functional design that Russell sh that Russell presented as this crossing location allows for a perpendicular crossing of the railroad tracks and avoid and avoids impacts to the residential properties along the east side of Tingen Road. The next proposed amendment is to shift the greenway that's currently shown along the west side of Tingen Road from South Salem Street to James Street. Shift that west to align with the ADA and bicycle route that follows through the tunnel and from James Street to Salem Street. And then the next amendment would be to add side path along the east side of South Salem Street from that greenway connector north to 55 as there are plans for side path along both sides of 55 at this location. The next piece is to add side path along the west side of South Salem Street from Justice Heights Street down to Sugarland Drive as this would provide a connection from the tunnel to the future Southwalk Greenway shown here between Ada Street and Salem Creek Drive as well as provide a connection to the side path that's

being constructed as part of the Apex Peakway Southwest Connector project. And finally to add proposed side path along the east side of Tingen Road from the railroad corridor to the t to the greenway that goes into the tunnel to provide that connection from the side path that runs along the edge of the railroad corridor to to the tunnel essentially and planning staff, parks, recreation and cultural resources staff and transportation infrastructure development staff recommend approval of these amendments and that their February ruary 25th meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments, and I'm here to try to answer any questions you may have.

Can you tell us the difference between a side path and a sidewalk?

Sure. So, a side path, it's typically asphalt, a sidewalk is concrete, and side path is um 10 feet wide typically. So, a wider path for cyclists and pedestrians while sidewalk is really intended just for pedestrians.

Jenna, where you have the uh existing pathways now that are xed out, are they are they to remain or will they be removed completely?

Removed. So, the greenway instead of following here because the intent is the greenway to provide that connection through the tunnel. So, everything's being realigned. The purpose of this is to align with the feasibility study. So it's shifting to the west both the greenway and the crossing so that the the path would follow through the tunnel.

Do we have a study if the existing path is being utilized actively right now currently?

Well, there's not a path there right now. Yeah, there's sidewalk on the east side, but there's a gap at the railroad tracks.

So, what was your question? Would something be like torn up? No. Or the No, because there's nothing there. But there will be fence put up when the peakway closes, so this sidewalk won't be usable.

I have a question. Um, so and this might involve parks and wreck, but uh the southwalk greenway that kind of funnels sort of in that corridor between the town homes at Salem Creek and Justice Heights and up into Sugarland for future potential use. Um, where that pops out on South Salem, it's kind of like directly across from where the greenway path from the tunnel will be. Is there any potential consideration for having a crossing there or will we kind of want to steer people up more toward the intersection up at Justice Heights and then have to cross over? Because I could just foresee people wanting to take the quick way, which is cut directly across rather than having to go like all the way up and then come back down.

Yeah, we talked about this during the study and Russell may want to add, but we we decided to keep the the pedestrian crossings at the signal. So encourage people to go up to Tingen Road and Justice Heights Street. And then we looked at there was a request I think from a town council member could the tunnel just extend all the way to the South Wall Greenway, but there would need to be a separate tunnel. It couldn't just be one long tunnel. So there would need to be another tunnel under Salem Street in addition to the tunnel at the railroad track. So for safety and what NC do would likely allow, we're encouraging crossings at the signalized intersection. And then to make it more comfortable and more feasible on a bike, we're proposing to add that side path so that you can safely and comfortably get from the tunnel to that south wall greenway one day when it's constructed. Got

Thank you.

Sure. Any more questions for J? Thank you, Jenna. U now we'll open public comments for this in case anyone signed up to talk on this.

Mr. Kevin again.

Welcome back Mr. Kevin.

I'll repeat the 1628 Salem Bills Drive. Um again I've been looking over this area and I'm familiar with driving a lot. Uh, one thing that popped up was, uh, the traffic impact on James and Tingen. Um, when the construction is going on, um, that's going to be the main with the peakway opening up in Tingen. I don't know what what what's the timing of when, uh, Tingen closes. So, um, it could be a bit of a mess. Um, again, I I don't see any consideration for that. Um, again, I'm concerned about I mean, I like the idea of of the side path here. Um, to me that makes more sense. Uh, as far as getting into downtown, again, I I emphasized that pedestrian crossing. Um, I just noticed a pedestrian crossing bridge um by the North Carolina Museum of Art um the other day. It looks like a a separate standalone construction and they're dropping it in place um next to a bridge. I mean, obviously there's a bridge next to it, but we'll probably have to do the same thing along Highway One. So the other questions I had again is um and again I I asked to send a note to uh town council um about the use of getting BIM models or being being part of the requirements from from these design um I don't see where BHB specifically is doing that. um they they will give you 2D

uh exports from 3D models they probably created but the town seems like they never have that as as far as uh requirements that's going forward data wise that's going to be very important for planning and there's a lot of use for that and again we're going through a great expense I don't think we're getting much of a discount to be honest u but we're getting a bare minimum as far as like 2D drawings export off for construction so the 3D aspect of it can be used for simulation and um data crunching. I mean I mean we're not going to have a data center but we shouldn't be turning down data, right? So especially when we're spending, you know, again this my guess is a million dollars, you know, for for this pedestrian on design. Um CSX has got some agreements where they're probably going to get 400k, you know, for for traffic mitigation. We pay 700k for traffic mitigation for the train tracks for the peakway. Um paid upfront. Uh so and again seem like not negotiable. So I just want to see the you know the town say hey or the staff hey be a little bit u mindful of what you're getting for for design work because it may maybe doesn't go through here but it could go towards something else. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you sir.

We'll bring it back to the board for discussion. possible motion. I think safety wise for this area, for the town, it makes sense. Seems like it's must it's really needed. I mean, it's that that intersection right now is crazy. We all know.

I can make a motion.

Does that sound like a motion?

Okay. I'd like to make a motion um to approve amendments bicycle and pedestrian. Let me see.

This plan map as present presented by Jenna.

Thank you, sir. Have a motion. Have a second.

I'll second.

Second from Stephen. All the say I.

All oppose. Motion carried. Now we'll move on to item number three. Jenna, you're very popular tonight. Uh public hearing, possible motion considering the amendment to the bicycle pedestrian system plan. So here for public hearing number three, an Apex transportation plan amendment associated with the Lawrence property that's now known as the estates at Olive Chapel. So here, just to give you an idea of of the area that we're looking at, we're looking at the area north of Olive Chapel Road and east of New Hill Olive Chapel Road. And here's the proposed estates at Olive Chapel, which was formerly known as the Lawrence property when it went through the resoning process. So the proposed amendment is to add a proposed greenway connection from the future extension of Aderondac Way to the Deer Creek C to the Deer Creek Greenway corridor. And as part of their zoning conditions, the estates at Olive Chapel agreed to con to provide or dedicate a 20 foot public greenways within the extent of their development. And the reason this is being brought forward today as a plan amendment through a public hearing is because this greenway connection would extend outside would cross property lines would extend outside of the estates at all of Chapel in order to connect to the Deer Creek Greenway. So adding this proposed greenway connection is what's being presented and planning staff and parks recreation and cultural resources staff as well as transportation and infrastructure development staff recommend approval and at their February 202 February 25th meeting the parks recreation advisory board unanimously

recommended approval as well. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. So Jenna, just for clarification, we're using this sort as a roadmap for future development on that property considering it's in Wake County and not in the ETJ or the corporate limits right now. Is that correct?

Right. It's in neither.

Yeah.

Right. So we're just trying to give developers, future developers, a roadmap of what we're looking to do down the road. Right. That's great. beyond the estates at all chapel piece,

right? Which which I applaud for trying to get ahead of that sort of stuff rather than behind it. So

agree.

Any other questions?

Possible motion public. Oh, sorry. Excuse me. That we will move on to item number three, public hearing. Anyone signed up for the speak?

Oh, thank you. Close public hearing. Very good. Thank you, sir.

We'll bring back to the board for comments. Possible motion. I think this one's kind of straightforward. I also see hearing a lack of of comments. I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the long range bicycle pedestrian system plan for Olive Chapel adding the proposed greenway connection. We

have a motion for Mr. Hastings. Do we have a second?

Second from Mr. Tim. All in favor say I.

All oppose. Motion carries. Then we'll move on to agenda item number four. Bruce with possible hearing with

hearing possible motion regarding resulting case 25 ZZ10 Welch Homestead PUD. All right. Good afternoon everyone. Bruce Venable Pler 3 with the town of Apex. Today before you we have resoning case 25 ZZ10. As you just said, the Welch Homestead PUD. The applicant today is Lonar Carolina's LLC. And again, we're here to consider the facts, public comment, and to formulate a recommendation for town council today. Uh looking at the map in front of you to provide some context where this is located, it's in the southwestern part of Apex's planning jurisdiction, just north of Old US Highway 1 and uh east of New Hell, Olive Chapel Road, where that little star is there. Here is an aerial image for you. This aerial image consists of three parcels totaling about approximately 83.53 acres. It's located to the east and south of existing residential subdivisions Woodberry and Friendship Station. A portion of the two parcels is located south of Old US One Highway and north of the railroad. I'll just highlight that there with my mouse. So, it's just there south part of the parcel there. Um, additionally, the the parcel is bisected by a couple streams on the site and the current um, existing structures on the site are single family dwellings, accessory buildings, and most of the parcels are predominantly wooded. This is the current zoning district map that we're showing you here. Um, the current zoning district is the Wake County residential 40 watershed zoning district, as it is with the other properties that are currently outside the town's uh, jurisdiction and zoning jurisdiction. If reszoned, the map will show this area as uh plan unit development conditional zoning district here, which is in line with the additional properties that have come in before you in previous times have been approved. The 2045 land use map has this area designated as medium density residential, medium density residential/commercial

services, park, public or private. As a little reminder, whenever we see the future land use map has two colors on it, that means it can be either one or the other. Um, it does not have to be required to have both. You might see that in other plans where there's like maybe three or four colors. That's where we typically want to see some type of mixed use. In this situation, it could either go uh be consistent to either be medium density residential or commercial in this case. Should this uh resoning go before town council and ultimately be approved, that'll automatically amend the 2045 land use map to this area would now be um medium density residential and park public or private. Uh Wake County did provide an impact letter for this area for this development and the letter indicates that middle schools within the current assignment area for this resoning are anticipated to have insufficient capacity for future students. So, transportation to the schools outside the current assignment area should be anticipated, while possible long-term solutions may include capping students out to other schools with available seats, reassignments, or calendar changes as well. The applicant did hold their two required neighborhood meetings. The first meeting May 20th, 2025, and more recently January 20th, 2026. To give you some details and context for the project itself, uh the project is proposing a maximum of 270 residential units. This is we have product mix of 105 I'm sorry product mix of single family detached and town homes as well split accordingly based on final design layout. Um we can see here on the map that the A pods here are showing the single family detached areas where the town home is confined to this B pod here. You can see that there are little portions of additional single family to the southeast on the map here and to the north up here towards Friendship Station as well. The approximate density for this development is about 3.3 units per acre. There will be buffers provided around the perimeter. They'll vary from 20 to

30 ft type B semiopaque buffers around the perimeter as well. You can see it's kind of highlighted in green and it was also in your staff report a little more visible there. Um, additionally the this project the applicant is proposing architectural controls and conditions. It'll include uh enhanced architectural standards that are consistent with other recently approved PUDS and in these include but are not limited enhancements such as limiting vinyl to decorative trim and other decorative elements. Facade material shall be brick or cultured stone or fiber cement and also visible sides of homes and corners shall contain at least three decorative elements and have and more that have been provided in your packet as well. There are additional conditions there for the architectural standards. There will additionally be connective and transportation improvements. Um first access there'll be access full access movement driveway on old US1. Just for clarification and context these blue arrows indicate where the access will be. So this will be the full movement access on old US1. Additionally stubs will be provided to the adjacent already developed subdivision here to the um currently under review subdivision here and then there'll be stubs provided along uh undeveloped property to the south and to the east as well. Um so they'll include that. Uh the applicant is also proposing uh conditional conditions. They'll provide temporary turnarounds. The uh temporary turnarounds and a fee in L for the removal temporary turnarounds for sub streets that are not connecting to existing streets. So anywhere we have a potential stub street that wouldn't be connecting to anything existing. A temporary turnaround will be provided in a fian loo so that can be removed. Um this is so that emergency vehicles can move freely about the place without having any issues of having to turn around or any kind of issues like that. Additionally, uh two parcels have been uh have worked with two parcel owners have worked with the applicant to con to ensure that the stubs will stop 25 ft short of the property line. These two parcels in question are numbers 14 here where this stub is proposed. And then

this one down here, I believe it's 24 where this stub is proposed. uh they'll still dedicate the necessary rightaway and they'll provide a fee and loot for this section that's not being built. But they're proposing this in order to give the current property owners a little bit of relief and established a little bit of buffer there so that they're not feeling the impact of the future development. Additionally, there'll be improvements off the old US1 uh widening to a four-lane median divided thoroughare with turn lanes at the site entrance. There will be multimodal features, 5-ft sidewalks on both sides of the internal streets, and then there'll be separated bike lanes along Old US1. Um, on old US1, a separated bicycle lane and a 5-ft sidewalk will be constructed on the north side of the site. So, here um and then a separated bicycle lane with reduced width 8ft wide side path will be constructed on the south side of old US1 in accordance with the advanced Apex's transportation plan. There'll be improvements to the New Hill all of Chapel Road and Old US1 intersection as well. And then there'll be also off-site improvements northbound turn lanes added on New Hill almond road in old US1 as well. Uh the site will dedicate 30% growth site area designated as resource conservation area with an additional 5% for masquerading for any of the single family detached area of the site. There will be park dedication. The parks and recreation advisory board unanimously recommended land dedication with the provision that the final combination of land dedication, construction of credit or fee and loo would be determined at the time of subdivision plan approval provided it qualifies for parkland dedication under the UDO. A portion of the subject site located south of old US1 shall be uh proposed to be dedicated to the town of Apex for use as a linear park in accordance with the town of Apex's 2045 land use map. So, that area on the map here is this green green little sliver. There's a proposed plans for a linear park right there. Um, affordable housing. The applicant is proposing a minimum of 5% total units

committed as affordable housing at 120% uh area immediate income and a 20-year term for purchase homes and an 80% AMI for a 30-year term for rentals at full buildout. This would approximately provide 14 affordable housing units as part of this development. Um, however, this 5% is currently inconsistent with the adoptable affordable housing policy that recommends 10% of all units be designated as affordable. Because of this, housing town's housing staff is not in favor of this condition at this time. Um, additionally, there's historic structures on the site. Uh, so the applicant has proposed that the u the site contains a historic house and crib structure. Both of these have been evalu evaluated by capital area preservation and it was determined that the house had not maintained its historic integrity and cap does not recommend the preservation of the house at this time but does recommend the preservation of a corn cry on site. So the out building itself the applicant has agreed to to provide and remove and recall this to the preserve site at a different time before minor uh master subdivision final plat. the environmental standards conditions provided by the applicant include um include they went to the envir environmental advisory board meeting u this and provided they were provided a list the applicant has chosen to provide an alternative list that includes some but not all of the originally recommended conditions the applicant's conditions include but are not limited such things as the following they'll provide signs at SCMs to reduce pet waste and prohibit fertilizer and locations that are publicly accessible uh they shall ensure 60% of landscaping shall be native species which provide for diverse and abundant pollinator and bird food sources. The project shall install at least one petway station per 25 residential units throughout the community and more that have been provided as part of your staff report. Uh ultimately staff planning staff recommended approval of this resoning. We find that it's consistent because the proposed resoning is uh consistent with the land use map which designates the subject properties as medium density

residential, medium density/commercial services and park and public or private. The land use map will amend the changes to the medium-density residential services designation to medium-density residential to accurately reflect the proposed development. The proposed PUD district supports the and implements the future land uses designations by allowing coordinated master plan development pattern consistent with the town's adopted policy framework. and we find it to be reasonable and in the public interest and that it allows for residential development, including affordable housing units, that it's compatible with the established residential character of properties to the north and to the west of the site. The development will support continued residential growth in an area identified for such growth, provided additional housing opportunities in an appropriate planned location. And furthermore, the resoning promotes compatibility with surrounding land uses and will contribute to the town's tax base, thereby supporting long-term fiscal sustainability and the provision of public services. The resoning will also improve both vehicle and pedestrian connectivity by connecting roads with the existing Friendship Station and Woodbury subdivisions and providing new connections to Old US Highway 1. So, that is the the end of our presentation. We're here to answer any questions. The applicant also has a presentation and there are members of the public that would wish to speak on this resoning as well.

Thank you.

Y any questions for Bruce?

Bruce, I got one question for you talking about the historic structures.

You said that the applicant has agreed to relocate the corn crib.

Correct.

Yes, sir.

Even though in the paperwork it says that the corn crib shall be evaluated by one or more third party licensed professionals. So are they willing to bypass the third party professionals to look at it and agree to have it relocated?

Um as as part of it the professional will come out and make sure that it is capable to be moved. There'll be the feasibility if the crib is unable to be moved like it's not structurally sound or anything like that then that that's when they would have the ability to not

to remove it or not preserve it as well. But at this time the feasibility is to make sure that it is structurally sound and safe to move at this time. Could I ask that they also not rely strictly on a third party professional but also get the recommendation from capital preservation? It's been known for properties like this to have something that is historically accurate to suddenly not be allowed not it's not deemed to be salvageable. And so the third party, I'm not gonna say they did anything wrong, but the third party was relied on too heavily versus the uh professionals that the town's already paying for, which is Capital Area Preservation, to get their recommendation to to second that opinion, I'll say.

Sure. Um I'll have to check into that. I'm not familiar with CAP being able to provide um more construction and feasibility for actual movements of the structure. They from what I understand they really look at just the historical integrity and whether or not it should be preserved itself. But I'll look into that for you and see if we can.

Right. But they they've got property they've got building movers on standby that could be the third party evaluation on that sort of stuff. So,

okay.

I just hate to see a structure go away because it somebody an an independent person above and beyond capital preservation thinks that it's not worthy of being moved.

Especially because CAP already said it was historically Yeah.

accurate. We should check in with CAP again just to make sure because as Jeff said, they do have those moving capabilities

in the contract.

Just let just lean on them a little bit more.

Sure. Absolutely. And just as a reminder, these since these are these are conditions, they're also profered by the applicant. So that'd be something the applicant would also have to Okay.

To absolutely.

Just for clarification, I have a question. The 25 ft stop is 25 ft short of the property line. Is that is that I

don't remember it, but it certainly could have been part of the uh the turnaround study we just did recently. I I just don't remember a road sub stopping 25 ft short of a property line in the past. Um, is that something new or is that something that's part of the uh fee in lie of the temporary turnaround?

So, you might might be familiar. There was a UDO amendment that came before you not long ago and council just acted on it that had the temporary turnaround. Uh, council instructed staff at the time when we presented to them that they actually wanted that to be pulled back from the property line outside of the buffer itself. So, that that will be the standard going forward for new developments. This project was applied for and submitted before that went into effect. And so staff had worked with the applicant to kind of put in similar language for temporary turnarounds and things like that.

This specifically though I believe came out of conversations with adjacent property owners requesting that were just these two access points have be pulled back even further.

Okay, good. So that was part of the temporary turnaround thing and I I just didn't remember if that was or was not and that's why I guess and I guess the only other question the five foot bicycle path was that correct is putting that on both sides of US1.

Uh it looks like the the bicycle path is on the south side.

The south side. Okay. to the side the side with the with the park.

Yes.

Well, that makes sense.

Yeah.

Okay.

And given I think given the the the amount of bicyclists that travel like to travel that route, it's kind of separated. Gives a little more protection to pedestrians just walking as well, too.

Sure.

Yeah.

Thanks for the clarification, Bruce.

Any other questions for Bruce? Hearing none, would the applicant like to speak? Good afternoon. Matthew Carpenter with Parker Poe, 301 Fable Street here on behalf of the applicant, Lenar. Got several folks here that will be available for questions, including Tyler Wilson with LAR, David Bergmark with McAdams, our landscape architect, and

Nate Bowwin with McAdams, our transportation engineer. We appreciate your time tonight. As Bruce mentioned, this is the Welch Homestead PUD. Um I think he described the the area very well. The the only context that I'll add um is that there are several recently approved and pending projects in this area that I do think affect the evaluation of this project. Um, at the intersection of Old US1 and New Hill Hollowman Road, there's the New Hill Commons Pud. Um, which you may remember was approved, I believe, in May of last year. And that was for grocery anchored retail project with some uh adjacent single family homes. And since since that was approved, those homes u there's been a subdivision plan filed for those. And then the commercial portion is coming right behind it. Um, and so I think that will also impact this area with the overall growth there to to have those commercial uses there. Um, and then just off the the screen that there's also the Gracewood project um, a little bit south southwest of here that that's also moving forward. It's been in the works for many years. So um, a lot of development happening here. Uh but but so far what what's being proposed and is pending is generally consistent with the land use map um which proposes high uh commercial services and office at the intersection. And then you can see as as it moves away from the intersection it calls for lower density residential uses you move towards existing neighborhoods and and lower density housing um in the New Hill area. And so like like we do in a lot of these projects, we started with the land use map designation and have tried to honor that with our PUD plan. And so that's how the districts have been laid out where you see the the town homes are in the southern section adjacent to the existing town home subdivision to the north of us and closest to the commercial area at the intersection. Um and then as you move north on the site

northeast towards these existing, you know, large tracks that are undeveloped or have single family homes, um our density transitions down. And so overall across the site, we're at 270 units, which is 3.3 units an acre, which is well below the seven units and up to seven units an acre that the land use map designation recommends. Um, what's also unique about this case, I think, is it from from some other other residential puds you see, we do have a commitment to a minimum number of town homes. You see we have those ranges on on the screen that are in the PUD text document. And the goal there was to um to certify essentially that there will be a mix of housing types here. The the medium density land use map designation calls for town homes and single family. Um, sometimes products may get approved that way. both are permitted, but then they're built out, you know, as fully town homes or fully single family. Um, and so here we're trying to ensure that there will be that mix of housing, which is consistent with the what the land use map um proposes. The affordable housing piece, I I do want to add some context there. Um, the commitment is 5% of units at 120% AMI. Um, and the reason that we haven't committed to the 10% is not because um, we we we don't want to or, you know, it's just too much. We Lar in in 2021 um, I believe was the first builder to commit to an affordable housing commitment as part of a reasonzoning case. It was Yellow Bridge, which is on US64. That project has worked through the approvals um, and is currently being constructed. And so they're at the other end of the development process and so they're working to try to understand how to identify affordable buyers for those units. Um and that case was so early it was just two units. Um, but we're we're now at at the time, town staff had told us that, you know, staff didn't

currently have the capacity to help identify buyers because that was really the biggest concern from builders is with a deed restriction on the the appreciation of these lots, how do we find buyers who can afford them, who can get a mortgage? Um and so recently staff has said that um staff doesn't have the capacity to help with that which we certainly understand. you know, we we know that uh you know, staff is really busy and has limited resources. And they directed us to work with DHIC and some of the local nonprofits, which we have over the last couple of months. Um and and what we've heard from DHIC, is that the AMIs that are in um the policy, the incentive policy for single family homes, it's a 120% AMI. And I believe the original thinking there was um we know it's a big cost for each unit for a for sale affordable unit and so we we can make the AMI higher um but most of the available buyers are part of the down payment assistance program which is a HUD program and that's at 80% AMI. Um, so a lot of these units that we've committed to over the years may actually have to be sold at a lower AMI than even the zoning condition indicates. Um and and at least the initial word that I've gotten from DHIC is that there are limited buyers from 80 to 120% AMI um who can qualify for the loans and also want to live in this area of Apex because of it's you know it's a little further out not near transit goods and services um although some of that is changing but so for that reason we we've stayed at 5% because the concern is that these unit you know if we commit to 10% that's 27 units across the site and there's a legitimate concern that they may be constructed and then sit unsold. Um, and I think that's the the worst case scenario for uh the project and for

affordability generally. And so we're still working through that and and and Lunar has experience doing this which is why you know we have committed to 5% um but we we are concerned about pushing it to 10%. Um and and also the the 10% recommendation is the policy is the in the town zoning and incentive policy uh which lays out incentives for affordable housing commitments. This project is not using those incentives. So we're not requesting a reduction in RCA. Um we're not going above the density recommended by the land use map. Uh so we're yes the the profer is below the recommendation. Um, but we're also not not asking for any incentives. Um, this this slide calls out several changes we made based on conversations with neighbors, particularly with the the neighbors adjacent to the east. Um, so we we have wider buffers in several areas where there's 15t buffer required. We've bumped that to 20 feet. Um there was a concern expressed uh and to provide some more context, the adjacent property owners have had in in some ways a negative experience with the recent subdivision constructed to the north. Um and so some of their complaints were were very specific and very well understood by us because they they just recently went through this with another builder. And so we've tried um to account for some of those concerns in the conditions and that that's why they may read a little funny. Um but one is that you'll see in the PUD text we have a typeB buffer standard laid out um in the PUD text the UDO allows the the standard to be supplemented with allows existing trees to be used to meet the condition but sometimes those trees are pines and there's not a lot of coverage or opacity uh at the bottom you know 10 to 15 feet up and so it can result even though it's a type B in a buffer that um you know is you can see through at the ground level. And so we've specified

that we'll use existing trees where we can, but we also will meet the buffer planting standard that's in our putt text. Um, so to to give comfort that there won't be any gaming of the buffer where we say, you know, we're using existing trees, we're not touching them, um, but there's not a meaningful buffer there. And then the stub street condition, uh, that also arose because of the subdivision to the north. I believe the current UDO standard says that stub streets should stop within 10 feet of the property line. And so even if you have a 20 foot buffer in those locations, if there's a stub street clear to the property line, um it's sort of a big hole in in the perimeter buffer. And so we wanted to prevent that. Um, and so we specified that it would stop 25 ft short of the buff of the property line so that it's at least 5 ft from the edge of the buffer um to to keep that buffer undisturbed, but we understand the town's desire for connectivity. Um, and so it specifies that the rightway will be dedicated to the property line. And so if those adjacent properties develop in the future, they could come in and and uh take the fee and loo that we're paying for the part that we're not constructing and extend the road into the new project. Um so we're trying to accomplish both goals there with with that condition. And then this slide just outlines the the transportation commitments that we have. Um I know this this area is highly trafficked area. That intersection is is old. And so, um, you know, wanted to to call out some of these improvements. There are several improvements at the intersection that are either commitments of New Hill Commons, which is the the grocery anchored retail project, or Gracewood, which is is further west of here. So, some of those things are already commitments that are in the process of being constructed or will be constructed soon. Um, and so our TIA takes took those into account and then layered these improvements on top of those. Um, and so the the first is the

the road widening on Old US1, which is shown here in orange. And what's unique about this project is usually you see products come in and they widen their half of the road. Um, here we technically, even though the south side is not usable other than for potential park purposes, we have frontage on both sides. So we'll actually be installing the full street section uh along our frontage on both sides of the road. um to the town's thoroughfare and collector street plan standard. Then at the intersection um in green, we'll be extending a left turn lane that that's already committed to by New Hill Commons. So that additional storage will account for the traffic that we're adding. Um and then in blue, we'll also be installing a right turn lane um on New Hill Hollowman Road here. Um and there are some uh rightway issues there. there's the CJ Bright store um that's in the uh that's right up at the rightway. And so, you know, as part of our subdivision plan process, we'll evaluate that um structure, work with the property owners uh to to try to construct the turn lane. Um but that is an off-site commitment. So, it's something that'll be worked through later in the process. Um and also to address uh well, maybe I'll wait till he's back, but I can say it again. Mr. Hastings concern. Uh the CAP has been involved in the evaluation of the corn crib to this point and so um we we have no uh objection to them being involved later in the process. Uh but as long as you know whoever is evaluating the the structure has the you know structural engineering background to be able to make make the determination. Um CAP at least now feels like it can be moved. Uh but we just have that in there, you know, so that that evaluation is done again at um at subdivision plan. Uh so we're okay with that. Um this

slide just just summarizes the overall case. So the the reasoning is consistent with the land use map. It has conditions to address neighbor concerns. There are transportation improvements to address traffic in the area. Um an affordable housing commitment and then as you heard staff recommends approval. So, we appreciate your time and respectfully request your recommendation for approval. Thank you.

All right. Have any questions?

I do. Has the applicant considered rental for the affordable housing solution since probably affordability is tougher for not just

Yeah.

Right. Have they considered that?

So the the actual pud tax is written so that the affordable units can be for sale or for rent units. Um LAR is a builder and so they don't build rental units. All of their products are for sale. So the the intent is for the whole project to be for sale. Um but but the conditions do allow for that. But but no, LAR um Lenard doesn't build or operate rental units. And so um

so they would only do it if they're the builder. They wouldn't have do it to a third party.

Um they they could, but every project is different. We talked about some creative options here. Um, but you know, there are there are other issues with having a rental project, you know, in the middle of a forale subdivision. Uh, ju just in terms of maintenance, ownership, you know, common areas. Um, and and the location because we we are a little further out here sort of in the southwest area of the town's boundaries. Um and and so the goal and and two, the town has gotten, at least in my anecdotal observation, the town has gotten more uh rental

affordable units than they have for sale. And so so there's been a push for that, too, um in some of these cases. So,

thank you.

Y more questions. I just wanted to say thank you to Lonard for being willing to assess the horn crib. We appreciate that. We do try to preserve the history of Apex when we can and it's important that we do recognize that. So, thank you for that and thank you for involving Capital Area. That's very important. Um I know that they've said the house is a wash but that the corn crib is savable. So, if that can be determined, you know, as Mr. Hastings said, there have been situations where it was deemed savable and then happened at the last minute and it didn't. So, if you could continue to work with them or at least ask about the movement of it, it is appreciated. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, now we will not seeing any. We'll open public comment for this resolment. Have any

Thank you. Good evening. Please let state your name and address, please.

Great. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Mike Quallace. Uh my family resides at 3300 and 3308 Whittingham Drive, just to the east side of the proposed uh Welsh homestead. Uh I do first want to thank uh Lenar and Parker Post, specifically Matthew, for um being super communicative and collaborative with us. Uh I think they've done a great job with communication throughout the process thus far. They've listened to our concerns and facilitated some of the major uh issues that we presented at the neighborhood meetings in the past. Um we're generally supportive of this project. It's a it's a good good design, good project so far. Uh and provides some really great updates to that new hill area and traffic patterns and all that good stuff. Um however, we're uh as

Matthew had mentioned, we're currently dealing with the consequences of uh an inadequate buffer requirements from a previous developer. um whether it's the lack of uh planting uh mandatory requirements for the buffer or uh some of the uh details. I'm not sure what slipped through the cracks, but the result the end result to this day uh is still the uh friendship station development um uh directly contributing to trespassing, constant littering, dumping of yard waste, and now a civil action due to a felony level commercial dumping incident on our property. um in hopes to not repeat this uh with this new development. Uh we're asking for a couple of uh specific conditions to be further considered. Um the application states that uh the layout provides a uh transition to larger residential lots to the east. Uh but it's not clear the size of those uh lots. Um if they're uh the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet or maybe those are some of the smaller homes. We're not sure. Uh but we're asking that uh there is a more reasonable transition between this development and 5 to 10 acre parcels uh directly to the east of it. Um you know that's a reasonable step down condition uh that that we'd like to see put forwards. Um the we did request fencing uh and there was some push back on fencing uh due to some environmental concerns. uh we are still like to just formally request uh some level of fencing throughout that entire eastern property line even if it can be done in segments or sections or with strategic break break points to facilitate animal crossing or raised 4 in off the ground to facilitate animal crossing. Um we we just don't see a way to protect our property and our land from uh previous experience without a uh a very strict and uh physical limit of disturbance um from from the development. Um, so we're we're hoping that can be uh

further discussed and reconsidered. Um, I've submitted a a written packet of documentation given the history of uh previous developments and stating some of these requests in more detail. Um, it also includes some requests for uh mitigating street lighting uh with downward-f facing uh fixtures. Uh so we're asking for your support in in these considerations um and uh helping us to secure the safety and sanctity of our of our home. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Nate.

They're just here for questions.

Okay.

All right then. But we will close public comment and bring it to the board.

What was the response on the request from the the property owners? I understand you did some of the um vegetation and the landscaping, but what about the um I think he's looking for size of lots of ajacent and a fence. Correct.

Sure. So,

lighting, street lighting.

Yep. A couple of those. And I haven't seen the written document that that Mr. Claw has had tonight, but um he he we talked about a couple of those already, so I can respond to them sort of point by point. So, with the layout condition, the issue there um is that it would result in in the loss of lots and and we're already at 3.3 units an acre, which is is well below um the seven units an acre recommended by the land use map. And so, if if we were to reduce density further, then you're getting down to three units an acre below, which is low density residential, um which would be inconsistent with the land use map. So, uh, the goal is to to stick with the lot sizes that we have. Um, but we've tried to to meet the the, um, you

know, meet his concerns through the the buffer, the street sub condition. Um, and there also, uh, is the the large riparian buffer in that area, which by itself reduces the the overall density in this area compared to the the southern section here, which will be more dense. Um and so and then uh the the fencing question. Um we we did discuss a fence too. The the issue really here with the fence is just that it's a very long property line there. Um and and I think Mr. Qualice mentioned that that our concerns were were animal freedom of movement and wildlife. That was something that the EAB um had sort of gotten on to me for before when we've added fences was, you know, well, how how do animals um move around and wildlife? And and I know that there are ways to account for that. Um and there can be strategic breaks and fencing, but we don't have a subdivision plan at this point where we know where lots will be and open spaces. And so it's difficult to know where those breaks would be. So, um I think we're we're open to more discussions with him about, you know, can we agree to a fence, um but we just haven't been able to make it a zoning condition because of the environmental concern with with wildlife and then not being able to plan where those gaps would go at at this stage. I think it's subdivision, we'll have a better idea um of where we could put fencing and and where it could break, you know, to allow that. Um, and then the the third question about lighting. Um, I don't know the exact provision that that he's requesting, but I do know that, uh, I believe under the new lighting regulations in the UDO, which were adopted towards the end of 2024, I think full cut off fixtures with downward facing shields are required, but I'd defer to staff on on that. I think we're we're certainly open to trying to fill any gaps if there are gaps where the UDO

doesn't address it.

That's require for on-site lighting. Street lighting um may not have the full cut off shields all the way around, but those are, you know, in the road and they are directed downward. Um so,

right. And then with our um street stuff stopping 25 feet short of the property line, I think that'll also help contain the the street lighting. So, um, no, we're open to any condition that would help, but but recently I've deferred to the UDO lighting standards because they're they're pretty comprehensive. So, um,

and and just to clarify, the uh UDO does not regulate lights within the right of way

because they're in the public street, right?

Correct.

Yeah. any other questions or concerns?

Yes, I guess as we move forward, I would like to ensure that Mr. Quales's concerns about fencing are are remembered, recognized, and that that is a consideration once you do establish that more. And I recognize say that you haven't decided what is going to be and where your map is. I understand all that, but just that

Yeah, we we've met with Mr. Kus a month or so ago and we've been emailing back and forth within the last week trying to schedule another call and so we'll do that this week and and follow up. Y the comments. I would just second that I would like them to I'm sure they have some ideas of they've probably done at least a sketch plan internally probably have some ideas

but if they could uh try to that then say to help them out considering all the problems that they've had I think it would be very helpful

yeah I hate to hear about the problems that was a felony dumping that's pretty bad that's pretty bad

but I would like to thank the applicant staff Obviously, they've worked together for a while on this one. Um, on that note, I think a five to acre 10 acre lot, five to 10 acre lots is is unreasonable. That's that's large. Um, especially considering I would like to thank the on the 3.3 units per acre, especially considering this property is allowed up to seven units per acre. That's a large that's that's a good concession. And moving the town home section on the roadside closest to the commercial at the intersection there. And then phasing out to the single family in the rear is a good idea. Um, again, without a conception plan, but I think it fits this area well. Um, I would like to re reiterate the use of cap on the corn shed. I think that's a great idea as well.

Um, and those are my thoughts. I'll make a motion to approve reszoning number 25 CZ10, the Welsh Homestead PU.

Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?

Second, Christie.

We have a second from Christie. All that agree say I. All that opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. We'll move on to agenda item number five. Joshua on public hearing and possible motion regarding resoning case

25 CZ19 Camp Branch Lane.

Good evening Joshua.

Good evening everyone. All righty. Joshua Killian with the planning department here to present reasonzoning case 25 CZ19 Camp Branch Lane. Uh this resoning is located near the geographic center of Apex just west of North Carolina Highway 540. Um this the partials that are to be reszoned in this case equal about 22.19 acres. Uh both lots are currently wooded with a single family home in this location. Um the site itself is biseected by a stream uh roughly in this area and then there's also a branch of the stream that straddles the northern property line. The parcel to be reszoned um in this case are currently zoned res rural residential. The land to the north of this parcel is a mixture of both medium density residential in this sliver and a continuation of rural residential. That medium density area is reserved as open space for the Crockett Ridge subdivision which is across Holland Road. Um rural residential zoning does continue along the east and south of this uh property where single family homes have been established and to the west across Holland Road is again rural residential. The applicant is proposing to reszone these parcels to medium density conditional zoning. Uh the applicant held neighborhood meetings on October 29th and February 6 October 29th, 2025 and February 16th, 2026 and those reports are in your agenda packet. a Wake County Public Schools letter of

impact was received for this resoning and indicates that schools at the middle grade levels within the current assignment area for for the proposed resoning are anticipated to have insufficient capacity for future students and that school expansion, construction or reassignment within the next 5 years may address these concerns at these grade levels. uh 25 CZ19 met with the environmental advisory board on December 18th of 2025 and nine recommendations were made from the environmental advisory board. A total of four of those zoning conditions were added, two with modifications and two without modifications. Um due to sight limitations associated with the bisecting streams, the applicant is proposing a maximum density of four units per acre while altering a few of the dimensional standards from the medium density district. Um these alterations can be represented by the zoning condition um limiting the minimum lock width to 40 feet, the side setbacks of five feet with a combination side setbacks totaling 10 ft and the 20 foot front setback. In comparison, the typical standards for medium density are a 50 foot minimum lot width, six feet on the minimum side setbacks with a combined total of 16 feet for both sides combined and then a 25 ft front setback. Uh public street improvements have been offered through the zoning conditions as well um including specified widening of Holland Road consistent with the town of Apex's bicycle and pedestrian street plan map. Um, this includes dedication of rightway for the length of the property's Holland Road frontage and widening an improvement of Holland Road um in that frontage to a three-lane uh thoroughfare section including sixoot bike lanes and a 5-ft sidewalk. Uh provisions do allow for a fee and loot to be paid um should there be an inability to acquire rideway or

easements and also due to potential limitations from the permitting body. As stated before, there's a stream that crosses Holland Road to the north here and goes along the northern property line. So, should Army Corps of Engineers not allow that um street section to be widened through this project, then there are provisions for that. The town of Apex's affordable housing incentive zoning policy recommends 10% of the total units be designated for affordable housing. Uh the applicant here has provided a total of 5% um with the uh time limitations um kind of matching what the incentive zoning policy sets out. But due to the inconsistency with the policy, the housing division does not support this specific zoning condition as offered. Uh the 2045 land use map identifies this area as medium density residential and the proposed zoning district is consistent with that landage classification. Planning staff recommends approval of reszoning case 25 CZ19 with the conditions as offered by the applicant. Um the p the proposed resoning is reasonable and in the public interest as the proposed density and uses are consistent with those contemplated by the 2045 land use map. The conditions provided will allow the property to be developed in a manner consistent with the residential character of the area and limits the allowable density to be consistent with subdivisions located within 300 ft of the resoning. Uh the proposed resoning also includes dedication of rightway along the property's frontage consistent with the apex transportation plan. If you have any questions for myself, I'll be happy to answer. And the applicant also has a presentation. Joshua, did you say there was nine recommendations? Four of them were accepted with conditions.

Yes, there were four uh environmental

that was from the environmental advisory board that there were nine recommendations. Four of which were accepted. Two of those with conditions.

Yes. Two of those were slightly amended based on wording.

Okay. And the other five

and the other five were not added. Any other questions for Joshua?

Thank you, sir.

All right. Thank you.

Matthew Carpenter again uh here on behalf of LAR. We've got a different group with us for for this project. I've got Chris Baldley with LAR. Um and Don Curry with with Curry Engineering behind him. Uh as Joshua mentioned, this is a a much smaller scale project than the the last project you saw. Um it's a little further uh east towards Apex. It's still west of 540, which um I know a lot of the town documents use sort of the dividing line for RCA and what's, you know, more urban and what's more rural. Um what makes this site, you know, different than the other site is that it's relatively small at 20.7 acres. Um and it has existing streams across the property uh on the northern portion and through the center. So um those streams have to be buffered and so uh it really the the natural characteristics of the land really dictate where the houses have to go. And so the majority of the lots um will be in in this section, there may be a couple here. Um but you know, whereas the I think the other subdivision plan was very open um and on on the the Welch Homestead PUD, this plan is really set by um the environmental constraints. The land use map again is medium density residential and and here you can see that mixed use area on the right side of your screen around 540. The land use map really views that area as the higher density commercial and residential uses

and then transitions density down to the west. So, as you get closer to New Hill, the the density and intensity uh decreases. And so, this site is sort of in between. And again, it's it's medium density, which recommends town homes and single family up to seven units an acre. Um, but this project is just single family. So, we and and it's a medium density conditional case. So, the other project that was much larger had a PUD with a concept plan, um, a PUD text. This is just a a conditional resoning with a set of conditions. And so um we have 19 proposed conditions and the uh proposed uses only allow single family detached. So so no town homes on this one. And that's again that's shown here on the left side of your screen with our proposed permitted uses. Um we have some greenway park active uses in there. uh we generally include those just in case there's some later opportunity for for a park or a greenway. Uh we wouldn't want to prohibit those uses. Um an accessory apartment. That's one that um staff recommends that we include in most of these cases to allow accessory dwelling units if if an owner later wants to construct those. Um and then the affordable condition. Uh again, this this is another another project for LAR and so um they're working through their yellow bridge project which is now called Inis Branch on 64 and and we're in the process of working with DHIC. So we've kept it at 5% here um for those same reasons. It it is an ongoing conversation. We I talked to uh folks at DHIC as recently as last week and then I know the town has an affordable housing roundt next week too. And so, um, I think we're we're working to try to connect the right people to understand, you know, how we can find buyers for these properties, um, and and be sure they're sold to to the right folks.

Um, so, as Joshua mentioned, there are several conditions that slightly modify some of the design guidelines. Uh, and the reason for that again is because of the natural conditions on the site. So um to to get anywhere close to four units an acre which our initial sketches are below that because of these streams um we needed a little relief on the minimum lot width and then some of the setback requirements and it's not we don't expect it will be for every lot um but there are pinch points in certain areas in in this section. Um and so so that's the the justification for the modifications to to some of those design guidelines. Um and so really the the overall density will be closer to low density but then some of the lot sizes will be um a little smaller than than uh what what medium density allows. Uh the buffer and stub street condition. So uh the stub street condition I went through in the other case. A lot of that language was actually worked through in in this case too because neighbors had similar concerns. Um we met with Mr. Donnelly who lives to the east of us. Um and he was concerned about the buffer. He asked for a 20ft type B buffer. Um and he also asked for a fence and uh in in this case we agreed to the fence. This is actually the case where the EAB did not like the fence condition. Um and so after that EAB meeting we looked at our internal plans because the site's much smaller. you know, our our sketch plan is much more set than the Welch Homestead PUD. Um, and so we did agree to the the privacy fence and that the stub street would stop stop short of the property line. Um, Mr. Donnelly had similar concerns in that he wanted a a thick perimeter buffer. Um, but he also wanted the street and utility stubs in

case his property uh were developed in the future. And so we we drafted that condition to to accomplish both um both things to keep the utilities in the road at the property line and keep the perimeter buffer in place until you know if at sometime in the future his property is redeveloped. Um and then we applied that same language to the property to the south. um but specified that the fence will stop short of this riparian buffer because we again we didn't want to fence uh the the open space and wetland area there. Um we wanted to allow you know freedom of movement for wildlife and uh if I remember correctly I believe that was a change we made after the EAB meeting. So um we agreed to the fence EB asks about wildlife and then we've modified that language and so uh this is how the the condition reads now transportation zoning conditions this case was small enough that it did not trigger a TIA because it's uh below the threshold for a TIA reszoning but staff recommended a left exclusive left turn lane on Holland Road. So we have agreed to that as a condition of the PUD text um which is above and beyond the UDO requirement since the no traffic site was required. Um and and Joshua mentioned that language for the the frontage widening on Holland Road that will um we'll widen Holland Road along our frontage to the ultimate street section but where there are stream buffers we'll have to get approval from the Army Corps of Engineer to do that. Um, and so the language is written so that if they don't give us approval to do that, we can't disturb the stream, then we'll pay a fee in L for those improvements. And then in the future, if there's some other larger project that does in the core's eyes justify that that disturbance, then they can use that money to um to widen the road there. And so with that, the the project on the

whole is is in the public interest. It's consistent with the land use map. Um we've we've included the max of four units an acre and it will likely be below that when it's finally laid out at at subdivision. We've addressed neighbor concerns. Um we've committed to a left turn lane and then we do have an affordable housing commitment um which for this project guarantees a uh at least a few forale single family detached units. So, uh, since there aren't town homes, those will definitely be single family detached, which I think, um, is really helpful to add to the the stock of affordable housing. So, um, we appreciate your time and and request your approval. Thank you.

Thank you, Matthew.

Any questions for Africa?

Um, I don't have a question, just a general statement. I was thinking about this. you know, Apex is getting rid of the yard

collection and I was thinking about the situation that the gentleman in the previous but as we're going forward if there are I think it I think it's something we should keep in mind because I mean if if there's no if I can see tra you know what I mean yard waste getting dumped in the buffer and then that can be a real eyesore for that next neighbor. I just want us to be thoughtful about that since that is something that's going away

that a service that is provided by the town and the town limits but thinking about these other areas too that that's something that might happen. I just want us to be mindful of it as all

any other questions.

Was there mention of accessory dwelling units in this one or was that

I believe so. Let me double check.

Thought I saw. Okay.

Yes. Accessory apartment. Yep. Staff asked us to include that in in every reszoning case.

And I don't know, Joshua, if you want to speak about that. Don't want to speak for you.

I just

since it is such a limited property and they're already making the concessions of, you know, putting those probably four, right? What What's that going to look like for an accessory dwelling? What are we are we talking a single small that's going to fit on that lot or help me out. Tell

So, accessory apartment can take many different forms. It could be someone having an addition to their home that's more like an in-law suite. Um, it could be a unit above a garage that has a separate entry and access with, you know, its own complete living facilities and everything like that. So, it really depends on what the individual owner would like to do with their property. But just having the ability to do that and um along with this with this use, we also ask applicants to include a condition that HOA covenants cannot restrict them. That way, it it still leaves it open because even with the use being there, if the HOA covenant says that you can't have it, then the use doesn't matter. So just having that in there kind of just gives the opportunity for, you know, if you got a kid in college going to NC State, you know, having a separate unit for them, you know, creating some independence there, things like that.

Thank you. Wanted that clarification. Thank you.

So it's just allowing for the opportunity. It's not requiring them to continue stubbing all the way out for that use at the time of the of close. That's just something that would happen in the future.

Yes, it would be on each individual property owner to make that choice.

Okay. Thank you.

Joshua, I have a question.

Yes.

What's the buffer? I guess minimum distance the buffer for the streams on each side.

So it would follow the riparian buffer standards. I believe that's 20 feet for zone one, 30 feet for zone 2. So total of 50 ft for those two zones. And then depending on the area of town, I'm not sure if this part of town has the zone

three town of apex buffer which is an additional 50 feet. So it's basically 50 feet to 100 feet on both sides of the stream and I believe this one would have that 100 feet on both sides of the stream.

So we have a lot of streams that are going through these parcels. How much I guess what's the acreage usable acreage of the site? Just wondering,

I'd like to call Mr. Curry up if he he may not have that number either, but but I I certainly don't. Uh you're asking for the

the buildable acreage that doesn't include the riparian buffers. Okay.

Good afternoon. My name is Don Curry with Curry Engineering, 205 South Fugway Avenue in Fuway Verina. Um, yeah, I actually don't have that acorage, but um but the the staff is correct. It's a 50- foot buffer that goes through the middle of the property, 50 feet on either side and a 100 foot buffer on the north side. So, it's a larger larger creek, larger buffer. So, it is quite a bit of acreage when you add it all up that that we can't touch that we need to stay out of. But, you know, two different streams, two different buffers due to the size of the stream. I don't have the acreage, though. I'm sorry. You have a rightaway rightway,

sir.

And there's a dedicated rideway. Is that

Absolutely. Yeah, there's there's rightway certainly that's not buildable. Um and so yeah, we're we've got um as Matthew stated seven up to seven units per acre typically allowed. We're conditioning down to four. So that's quite a quite a big decrease. Um and hence the different lot sizes. So

thank you. Any

other comments, questions?

Not we we haven't done public speaking.

No.

All right. Then we'll take this to public comment. Anyone signed up to speak on this only?

No. Signed up. We'll close for the comment. We'll bring it back to board for discussion. Possible motion. So I'll go first. This seems like it's pretty straightforward. Um it's land use map. It's decrease in number of homes allowable. but also understand the reason of why is also because well you're up against nature so I get that um appreciate you working with Mr. Dan. Um, getting that squared away with the other neighbors. Um, with that, I would make a motion to approve case 25 CZ19. Have a motion for Tim. We have a second.

I'll second it. Mary.

A second from Mary. All those in favor say I. I.

All oppose. Motion carry. All right, then we have no new business this evening.

I guess we're just waiting for one more motion.

Make a motion to adjurnn.

We have a motion to adjurnn. Do I second?

Sarah can second.

Sarah second. All approved say I.

I.

All oppose.

Good evening. Under the thing that's all got to do, right?