Planning Board Meeting

No, I Breakfast.

Good evening. Uh welcome uh everybody to the town of Apex Planning Board meeting. Today's date is September 14th, 2026. Uh please bow your head in prayer. Uh God, help us listen more than we speak. Even if we disagree, let there be respect. Keep emotions steady, words thoughtful, and conversations productive. Let there be unity be stronger than division. These things we ask in your name. Amen.

May we stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you. We have any items of information from staff?

Nothing this evening. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. So, now we will move into public comment. Uh if you've not done so already, to your left, you can sign in to speak on any agenda or non-aggenda items. Uh the purpose of public comment is to allow the public to speak on items that do not appear in the uh today's agenda under public hearings. Any member of the public wishing to comment on public hearings items will be called at the appropriate time later in the agenda. Um we do ask that all comments be limited to three minutes and please not repetitive. If there's a large number of speakers for one particular item, the planning board asks that a representative uh could be selected to speak for the entire group and limit the comments to nine minutes. Uh do we have anyone signed up to speak on any non-aggenda items? And we have uh Mr. Roach. Members of the planning board, uh Jeff Roach, 905 Newington Way. I'm here as a private citizen tonight, not as an engineer here in town. Um, but I do have a question about the uh new business item number one tonight, which is a UDO amendment concerning the appointment of

applicants for the planning board and the uh board of adjustments. Uh, there's a UDO amendment coming through without a staff recommendation. I believe staff did not write this. I mean, they generally wrote it, but um, in compliance with the UDO, it is changing the way that the mayor is able to appoint members to the those two boards. At present, the mayor is is the sole person that gets to nominate people. the board, the council then votes on them. Yes or no, gives them a thumbs up, thumbs down, we like you, we don't like you. That's how it is today. If they vote a member down, they go back or an appointee down, they go back, the mayor finds somebody else to appoint, the board, then council then votes on that person. uh the UDO amendment I think section under the planning board it's section F and under the board of adjustment it's section E that says that if the town if the mayor goes for an appointment place somebody in front of the town council and the town council votes that member down the council can immediately appoint somebody to that position. Um this is taking the power away from the mayor's office regardless of whether you like the current mayor hate the current mayor or the next mayor or four mayors from now. It's changing the way all the appointments for you guys and the board of adjustments are heard. So, um I'm a I'm a fan of keeping um those folks with the mayor. It's one of those powers as the citizens of Apex electing the mayor to that position. He should have the ability to recommend appointments to this to your board as well as a board of adjustments. So, I'm asking you guys to recommend denial of this tonight. Um, I like section E for the planning board and I like section D, which says if the mayor does not appoint somebody within 30 days, then the council can take action. I I think that's a great idea. Um, but I don't do not like the idea of the council voting somebody down and then turning around and electing putting their own person in the board. So, just my opinion, guys. I hope you uh I hope you will vote this down tonight um as it moves forward to council in a couple weeks, whenever it is. So, thank you for your time, guys.

Thank you, Mr. Roach. Do we have Well, we don't have anyone else signed up to speak on any non-aggenda items. Is there any other for public comment on items on this agenda?

Hearing none, we will close public comments. And we normally go to consent items, but we do not have any of those tonight. So, we will move directly into public hearings. Public hearing still has the same threem minute rule. And please, not repetitive. Uh we'll now move into item number one. Uh but before we move in, I'm going to need item number one. I'm going to need to recuse myself from the zoning. Uh I'm going to need to recuse myself from the reszoning case 26 CZ06.

I would like to make a motion to recuse Sher Brazwell.

Have a motion.

I'll second.

We have a second. All in favor say I.

I.

All oppose. Motion carried.

All righty. Uh we will move into then public hearing possible motion regarding reszoning case 26Z06 uh light industrial phase 3. The applicant Vertex Square LLC along with their agents Jason Baron and Leticia Shapiro Morning Star Law Group and Jeff Roach Peak Engineering and Design seek to reszone 8.45 acres from Techflex conditional zoning to tech flex conditional zoning TFC. Joshua, take it away. All

righty. Joshua Kian, planner 3 with the planning department here to present the resoning case for staff. Uh, this resoning is in the northwest area of Apex, just north of US64. The reasonzoning um the purpose of this resoning is to facilitate a contemplated buildout here of phase three of the remaining acreage in Apex Light Industrial. The parcel is roughly uh 8.45 45 acres and there were once a pond and a single family home on the lot and they have been removed as part of the overall apex light industrial development. The property is currently zoned tech flex conditional zoning as mentioned before. Um that was approved in reszoning case 22 CZ21. Uh to the west and is the continuation of that same zoning that this parcel currently has. And also to the north

there's also that continuation in this blue color. A small portion to the north and then to the east of the site you have rural residential um where a single family home is on both lots. To the south across US 64 we have plan unit development conditional zoning here. Um you'll know this site as the Harris ter in Sweetwater. And then directly to the south across US64 we have plan commercial where a landscape supplier currently operates. The applicant is proposing to update the a single zoning condition um to and retain all of the other tech conditional zoning standards within this resoning. Um, in the staff report you'll find condition one, which states maximum square footage changed from 500,000 square feet currently in the 22CZ21 zoning to now be two 530,000 square ft. Uh, this is an addition of 30,000 square feet um in limitation of the overall light industrial project. The 2045 land use map identifies this area as office employment and commercial services and the proposed reszoning to tech conditional zoning is consistent with that land use classification. The applicant conducted neighborhood meetings on April 16th and July 13th of 2026. Those reports are in your agenda packet. This resoning case was exempt from meeting with the environmental advisory board as um all of the environmental zoning conditions remain unchanged from the original zoning in 2022. Uh planning staff does recommend approval of reszoning case 26 CZ06 with the conditions offered by the applicant. We found that the reasonzoning is reasonable and in the public interest as the proposed amendment uh to the existing conditions will allow for an additional 30,000 ft of non-residential development within an overall development while maintaining all of the other zoning conditions that currently exist for this site. Happy to take any

questions and Tish is here and I believe Jason is here as well to answer any questions on the project.

All right, thank you very much. Uh questions from the board.

It looks like the primary access is coming off of the western boundary for that. So, there's no driveway off of US 64 to be expected with the one so close. Um, with the the three different, I guess, pods, if you will, any connectivity to the north parcel needed or is that not necessary because of that main corridor connection?

Yes. So, L Road, which is the proposed street here, um going east west, uh will separate phases one, which is this phase here, and phase three, which is this phase here on the south, from phase two to the north. There's going to be an access, there's going to be a public street here for L road stubbing to the east. And there's also access road to the north and parking lots will be access from l. Anything else

with that access from US 64? Is there is a developer adding like a turn lane as part of that or is it just pretty much

I don't believe there's a turn lane being added for this point of access. Um Goodwin Road does. Okay. The engineer will speak to that. [clears throat] [laughter]

Thanks Jeff.

All right. Now, I'm Jeff Roach with Peak Engineering and Design. Um, yeah, there's no changes. There's no access from this parcel to 64. Um, the gap between phase one, which is the are the white building roofs you see now. This is the existing driveway. It's a right in right out access off of US 64. They'll come in off off of US 64 onto what's called Brute Street. They'll be able to make a right turn into phase three. And we're also working to answer Alyssa's question, we're also working on making an access to the north to Low

Road. So, that's all part of our sketch plans. Um, but it the only zoning condition is a 30,000 square feet. So,

does that answer your question? Okay, D. Thank you.

All right,

Josh, thank you very much.

You're welcome. And the applicant does have a presentation.

I'll say the only person I hear that's here to speak is uh Tish Shapiro with Morning Star. So, come on up.

I just want to apologize in advance. uh cold caught me last week and doesn't want to let go. So, um I'm going to do my best here. So, good evening uh members of the board. Leticia Shapiro Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of the applicant Vertex Square. Joining me this evening is Jeff Roach of Peak Engineering and Design who's been involved in the engineering and design of the site. And Joshua did a great job outlining the details of the case. So, I just want to mention a few things. So, the case does involve the uh parcel that's highlighted in yellow, which was part of the an assemblage that was reszoned in March of 2023 via ordinance 22CZ21, known as Apex Light Industrial, that reszone to these properties to Techflex Conditional District. Morning Star Law Group and Peak Engineering both represented the applicant in this original resoning case. Also approved with the resoning were a robust set of conditions. Development of the property is currently under construction and phase one and phase two are making great progress and the project was able to create more usable buildable building square footage um during phases the first two phases which has been approximately 459,820 square ft of nearly finished construction and we would like to expand that success into phase three with the property along 64 frontage In order to do that, the project does need that flexibility with an additional 30,000 square ft. So again, the applicant is

just asking for that additional 30,000 square feet, which would change that maximum square footage of of uses to 530 ft instead of the 500,000 ft. And as Joshua noted, it also remains consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land use designation of office employment and commercial services which will allow that 30,000 square feet of non-res residential development within this development um and then maintain all of the other zoning conditions of the original reszoning. So with that, we thank you for your time this afternoon and we're here to answer any other questions that you might have and would appreciate your recommendation of approval. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh any questions for the applicant or Mr. Roach? All right. Uh anybody else to speak for or against the reszoning? All right. With that, I will bring it I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for discussion and a possible motion. Well, not all at once. I

say the silence is golden.

No, [clears throat] I mean, I've actually, you know, I've been to these buildings. They look great. Um, it's a welcome addition. I know that Apex is actively trying to expand its industrial commercial base and that we have people investing in that type of product to help us achieve that goal. So I think it fits in line with also what's going down the road at AP Apex. Yep. The one at the Beacon's doing.

Yep.

Um so if there are no other comments, I don't want to jump the gun in case anyone has feedback. I will make a motion to approve approve uh resoning case 26 CZ06.

Okay, we have a motion from Melissa.

Second.

Uh we have a second. Any further

discussion? All in favor?

Any opposed? Thank you very much, Joshua. Thank you very much. Good presentation and MP Shapiro. Thank you. Uh so I'll make a motion then now to bring uh Chair Brazwell back into the board.

Second, Christie.

We have a second from Christie. All in favor?

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Back on, gentlemen. Thank you. So now we will move on before we move into item number two on the result of case 25 ZZ 24. I believe we have a uh need a motion to recuse Alyssa Bird.

I'll make a motion.

We have a motion. We have a second.

Second.

Have a second. All in favor say I.

I.

All oppose.

Motion carried.

Mary. Mary.

All right. June.

Good afternoon planning board. Uh this is reszoning case 25 CZ24 located south of Highway 64 north of Apex Peekway. It's located at the southwest corner of Allwheel Drive and North Salem Street. Um the current zoning is residential agricultural and rural residential. There's a small piece of uh plan commercial conditional zoning. The proposed zoning district is plan unit development conditional zoning just to look at the surrounding areas. Um this is to the north plan commercial conditional zoning with the Ford dealership and to the east is light industrial. Uh this is um see to the east residential agricultural and office and institutional in this portion and then residential agricultural. So this is um the the auto dealership um for trucks and then we

have single family and office and then dies and a a church. So to the uh south is medium density conditional use and medium density Hen Hall and Hatton Place and then to the west is medium density conditional use and that is Haden Hall. So the 2045 land use um map classification this is to the um northeast section is high density residential office employment and commercial services at approximately 5 acres and then medium density office employment commercial mixed use um and that is at 27.3 acres. So the 2045 land use map if reszoning is approved there is includes an expansion of the high density residential to the south get um and then realignment along west portion. If the properties are reszoned as proposed, the 2045 land use will automatically be amended to uh the mixeduse highdensity residential office employment commercial services at 8.27 acres and then the rest is MC mixeduse medium density residential office employment commercial services at 24.03 acres. So, the existing um site, this is 16 parals totaling 32.35 acres. It includes several single family homes, um outuildings, barn structures, there's two ponds, and you can see there's uh several streams, um open fields, and the mature trees. So looking at the project site background um back in 1989

it was a low density residential on the 2010 land use map and then in 2020 20 uh for the 2025 land use map that was adopted in 2004 is mixeduse medium density residential office institutional and commercial. in 2013 on the 2030 land use map was mixed use um not on outlined. So there was no requirement for mixed use as far as um non-residential. The northeast area is as what it is that you see today is 4.92 acres and the remaining was 27.38 acres. In 2016, the 2030 land use map, the mixed use was outlined and that was a requirement for mixed use um 30% non-residential. And um the applicant conducted three neighborhood meetings on November 20th, 2025, March 3rd, and July 23rd, 2026. and the neighborhood meeting reports are attached to your staff report. A letter of impact from Wake County Public School System was received for this reasonzoning and it's included also in your staff report packet. Um they indicate that all grade levels within the current assignment area for this resoning development are anticipated to have sufficient capacity for future students. And looking at the proposed PUD master plan, um you can see that it has four districts. So, uh townhouse one, two, and three districts. And then the non-residential multifamily mixed use district is in the uh northeast corner. Um looking at the proposed residential

and recreational uses. So townhouse and townhouse detached are in the townhouse um one two and three district and then smallcale multifamily and multifamily or apartment um are located in the northeast section and then recreational um uses are all permitted in all four districts. This is the proposed U mixeduse district non-residential uses and all all of them are listed on the slide. The proposed design controls there's a maximum total units of 460 units maximum multifamilies 285 and then maximum townhouse or smallcale multifamily units 175 with townhouse district 1 and two there's a cap of not to exceed 120 units and then for the nonresidential maximum square footage is 22,000 and with a minimum um square footage of 10,000 square ft. So on this slide we're showing the setbacks for um for all the uses front loaded, rear loaded, multifamily and then the mixed use. The height standards are for the town houses at three stories 45t and then multifamily fourstory buildings 60 ft. If it is four to five story split, the maximum is 70 ft. The vertically mixeduse building is a maximum five stories at 75 ft. And now we get into the design controls as far as the building locations for town houses in the T1 um and smallcale multi- family in the mixed use along North Salem Street. They shall address

North Salem um street. So they would be alley access from the rear structures located within 55 ft of North Salem Street. that is a maximum um four story or 60 feet. And then structures located within 55 ft of street A maximum of four stories 60 ft. So underneath the mixed use one district building placement controls within 100 ft of street A and street B and street A and North Salem Street. No parking bays or drive aisles shall be permitted between a building's front facade and the adjoining street. And that's just to set up that corner to have that building placement. Corner of North Salem Street and All-Wheel Drive shall be anchored by a building with no more than one double um loaded that's parking on each side of the drive aisle, parking bay, and drive aisle between the street and the building. and underneath for uh parking town homes and non-residential uses shall comply with the UDO and state law. Underneath the MC multifamily mixed use, one to two bedroom units, that's 1.3 spaces per dwelling unit. And then at three, it's 1.8 um spaces per dwelling unit. So for the architectural conditions um these are divided into areas based on locations. So, how the putt is set up is town homes along North Salem Street is one has one section of architectural uh controls [clears throat] and then the next section is adjacent to single family homes and then of course the interior um for the rest of the area there's separate for smallcale multifamily buildings within that M1 MU1

district and then multifamily mixeduse buildings. So, all areas have similar architectural conditions such as material requirements. Front side, rear elevation windows facing public rideway shall have trim. These are just a couple of the architectural conditions that you normally see. Front entrances shall include an architectural covered porch. And then the very color palette. This is for along North Salem Street specific architectural conditions. As you remember, these are all just reared and facing North Salem Street. So, the building shall not exceed five townhouse uh units per building. Roof break will be at every townhouse unit. Front facade shall have varied setback for uh each unit. A minimum of three steps to the front porch for a total of 13 architectural conditions. And so here are some of the um concept elevation pictures. This next one is adjacent to the single family homes. Um and townhouse buildings where the front and rear facads are parallel with the southern shared property line with lots and hall shall not exceed four townhouse units per building. So it's less massing of a structure. Then townhouse buildings where they're um not parallel with the and padden hall shall not exceed six townhouse uh units per building. So if it's coming more vertical instead of running parallel or diagonals there's less of a massing of the building. front-facing garage doors. They will have to have a window or decorative details and then the garage and not protrude more than one foot out from the front facade or front porch. And those are 12 total architectural conditions. And then here's some um elevation

showing the front front loaded. And then the next one is the interior. Um townhouse buildings shall not exceed six townhouse units per building. Front facing again um windows for the garages and decorative details not protrude more than one foot out and there's 12 u total architectural conditions. Looking at the multifamily mixeduse concept elevations. these architectural conditions they include you know with the roof features materials and that facade art articulation and for the multifamily mixed users nine total architectural conditions. So an up and down of as far as the roof line is is varied and then articulation moving in and out so it's not just a flat building. And then here's some more multifamily concept elevations. the mixeduse concept elevation showing retail on the bottom and then of course residential on top. The applicant provided a conceptual streetscape, a view from the corner of North Salem Street and All-Wheel Drive. And this shows um a view of the building height in relation to North Salem Street. Here's the 10 foot wide uh side path that's required. A 15 foot type E buffer and the trees are shown ghosted so you can see through. And then a 7 foot wide um parking set back from the buffer. 92 feet uh from the rideway to the building on North Salem and also on all-wheel drive.

And then there's a um 12- foot sidewalk in front of the non residential area. This shows right here a pedestrian connection from North Salem uh street 10- foot side path. Uh there's going to be a proposed as far as relocation as the bus stop. So having that pedestrian crossing so they don't have to scoot in between parked cars. Um, we wanted to have that nice corner feature. Now, getting into the environmental elements. Um, here's the the buffers in this column is what UDO requires. And then um the project is proposing a 15- foot type E buffer along the MU1 North Salem Street and All-Wheel Drive adjacent and then 20 foot type E buffer along the Salem Street townhouse section adjacent to the south side of All-Wheel Drive. Um on the TH3 district is a 20 foot type D buffer and then along the southern perimeter adjacent to Haden Hall and Haden Place and the western is a 20 foot type B buffer. So in this area the RCA requirement is 20% and the project is meeting that um percentage. They are preserving streams, the wetlands and associated repairing buffers. Um, and that provides the primary portion of the RCA throughout the property. Additional would be portions of storm water control measures permitted by the UDO and then um a specimen tree and perimeter buffers. I wanted to note that um the single family house at 1303 it's in this

location um North Salem Street is listed on the historic registry capital area preservation performed an evaluation of the house and issued a report dated August 7th 2025. It deemed the house was not worthy of preservation. But the pub plan does include a condition that before demolition of the house, developer shall work with cap area preservation to identify historic elements including windows or the original doors so they could use those on um other uh historic preservation projects. So the PUD uh plan does include 12 environmental conditions. Um those conditions 75% landscaping native species, the PET way stations, that 5-ft additional um buffer along uh the southern and western per perimeter, and then the multifamily building designed to meet green building um certifications. Specific to the town houses are the garage shall be wired with 220 240 volt electric for electric vehicle charging. And then um there is the tree protection of this existing willow oak tree. They it shall be preserved unless an arborist determines that the tree is diseased or dying. So, an arbur's report um will be required to include recommendations for any protective mitigation measures uh during construction and that shall be submitted at the um master subdivision plan application. And the um proposed PB plan shall include storm water management requirements for quality and quantity treatment outlined in the UDO. On July 1st, 2025, soil and road

environmental consultant staff and town water resources staff met at the project site to evaluate three drainage features to determine if they are subject to town of apex repairing buffer rules. So it was determined that um pond one and uh the stream A1 we're required to have a um buffer also uh the wetlands W1 through five in this area and then W5 is over here are jurisdictional and will be protected. So W6 is isolated. There's no required buffer. Now the applicant does intend to drain pond one. They also submit a hydra hy hydraologic analysis memo and that's a study of what would happen if the dam failed in the pond. The request to North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality for the pond dam hazard determination which requests um concurrence that the dam is at high hazard uh class C. So NCDEQ determination later letter letter dated September 8th, 2026 determined that a class C high hazard classification is presently warranted. So all of those documents are included in the staff report packet. Um and they the applicant does propose draining the pond due to the high hazard classification. Therefore, the pug concept plan does not designate most of the repairarium um buffer around the pond as RCA. Any proposed impacts to repairing buffers associated with draining of the pond will be evaluated during the buffer authorization process as part of the construction drawing plan review.

for the um public facilities. The proposed uh pud will be served by town of Apex water sanitary uh sewer and electric systems. The utility design will be finalized at the master subdivision review and the ultimate design for the utility shall meet the current um town of Apex master water and sewer plans for approval. So for transportation conditions, Kimley Horn and Associates prepared a traffic impact analysis for the um North Salem Street mixeduse PUD. The TIA include trip generation, distribution, traffic analysis, and recommendations for transportation improvements required to meet anticipated project traffic demands. The report examined the existing traffic condition, projected background traffic condition, and projected buildout traffic conditions. I just want to note that the blue um represent steady intersections, but this does not include all of the the studied intersections. I just wanted to zoom in a little bit more um on this aerial. There's there's other intersections that were studied. And then the red dots are the access points for the project. So the transportation conditions and access locations. Let's look at all-wheel drive. that is classified as a minor collector and required a 10-ft side path along the southern side which the pup plan does um is consistent with for North Salem Street. It's a three-lane thoroughfare with a 10-ft side path along the western side and they are um providing that as well. The five access locations moving at the top

and moving clockwise. Access one all-wheel drive, that's a full movement intersection. And then um number two on North Salem, that will be a right in only. Number three, uh North Salem Street access, a left in coming north and then right in and right out. Friendship Way um is location is access number four and then Charlene Downs Lane is number five access. So the transportation conditions um for North Salem Street and Britley Way zoomed in on this section right here. They construct a second southbound thorough lane from north of All-Wheel Drive which shall drop as a right turn lane at Britley Way for North Salem Street and All-Wheel Drive intersection. Restripe the southbound right turn lane on North Salem Street at All-Wheel Drive as a thorough right shared lane to terminate at also at Britley Way as a right turn lane. modify the traffic signal to accommodate the new southbound thorough lane. And then at site access number three on North Salem Street, this is aligned with the Thales outbound driveway. And there is a revision to this um condition as you can see in bold. we're going to add and then the strike through with an exclusive northbound left turn lane on North Salem Street and a channelized concrete median between them to prohibit left turns from both sides of North Salem Street. And then looking at the project, sidewalks on both sides of the streets

within the project. Relocate, there's a existing bus stop um on North Salem Street on the Ford dealership side. Um relocate that bus stop with the landing amenity pad, the shelter with the bench, trash receptacle, and two bike racks. Construct this mini roundabout within the project. So this serves as a focal point and also traffic calming. So traffic coming up and down to get to All-Wheel Drive to get to this intersection to make a left. Pedestrian connection from North Salem Street side path to the mixeduse building. That was that pedestrian crossing going through the parking area. a sidewalk on the west side of Friendship Way. Extend the 10- foot side path along the project's North Salem Street frontage south to Britley Way and relocate and reconfigure the high visibility crosswalk that's currently at North North Salem Street for a possible rectangular rapid flashing beacon system on the north side of um access number three. Now the conditions here with all the asterisks means that um the applicant will need to work it's you know work with um transit because this is a transit line with a bus going I believe the town of Kerry going to downtown Kerry and also NC do they'll have to work with that as well if there's any construction um easements that are required. So if that cannot be achieved then there's a fee and loot built into that condition and it's listed in your staff report. also this rapid flash and

beacon system um if D NC do they don't work that out um then in the condition it does state that they would provide um signage for that as well for the construction traffic restriction a condition that states all heavy duty construction traffic shall enter and exit this site via North Salem Street and all-wheel drive no construction traffic sign shall be posted along on French Church Way and Charlan Downs Lane. Provide however the equipment and vehicles shall be permitted on those streets to construct the that extension um or pedestrian connection related infrastructure. Uh the project does in is consistent with the town's affordable housing incentive zoning policy which requests that 10% of the total proposed dwelling units be provided as affordable housing. They're restricted to um earning up to 120% of AMI for four cell units with a 20-year affordability period and then up to 80% AMI for rental units with a 30-year affordable um affordability period. So, the project was reviewed at the February 19th, 2026 um environmental advisory board. Out of the 12 recommended conditions, seven were provided. Um, note that the EAB only provided suggested zoning conditions for this reasonzoning because the current requirement for the EOB to make a recommendation on the resoning based on legislative condition number five that went into effect on July 1st. also noted was uh during that time in February, the applicant did state, I believe, at the EAB that they um were going to keep the the pond. However, that condition

does state if there's, you know, issues with the with the dam, then they they could drain the pond as well. Parks and Wreck reviewed on July 29th, 2026 meeting and they recommended a fem dedication for maximum combination of 175 single family attached and 285 multifamily residential units. So the um staff recommends approval of 25 CZ24 as proposed by the applicant. The 2045 land use maps designates the area to be reszoned as mixeduse highdensity residential office employment commercial um services and mixed use medium density residential. The proposed plan unit development conditional zoning includes residential density at approximately seven units per acre in the southern western sections closest to the existing single family and mixed use area with a higher density housing and non-residential uses at the corner of All-Wheel Drive and North Salem Street. If the subject properties are reszoned as proposed, the 2045 land use will automatically be amended to that um high density office employment commercial services at 8.27 acres and mixed use medium uh residential office employment commercial services that would be at 24.03 acres. The proposed reszoning to plan unit development conditional zoning will provide the flexibility to accommodate the growth in population infrastructure and coordin coordinated master plan development pattern consistent with the contemplated by the 2045 land use map. The proposed resoning is reasonable and is in the public interest for the following reasons. A minimum of 10% of

the units will be restricted for affordable housing. Increased buffers are provided along the western and southern project boundaries. Permitted commercial uses are limited to those that are more compatible with the uh surrounding residential uses. Enhanced architectural design standards are provided for all the uses. A bus stop with amenities will be constructed site and vehicular and pedestrian connectivity for the existing Haten Hall and Haten Place subdivisions are approved with a required extension of French Way Street B to All Wheel Drive which provides access to the light at the intersection North Street and Allwheel drive and the extension of Jarling Downs Lane Street C to Street B. And with that, if you had any questions, staff is here and the applicant does have a presentation.

Thank you, June. Any questions for staff?

Oh, I did want forgot this one item. This is the um public hearing emails received since the posted public notice and this is about 2:30 as of 2:30 today. June, when you talk about the Channel left turn lanes off of North Salem Street, what I'm imagining is what's in front of Costco at Chipotle, Starbucks where they it's concrete channels for those left turn and that will that pull those cars out of the main thorough air so north southbound traffic can continue while those cars wait to take a left turn. I'm seeing a nod

from our transportation staff.

[laughter]

Hey. Yes, there be they will be it'll be a left turn lane that just the channelization will prevent people from turning left out of the side street. So,

yeah. Okay. It'll take them out of the through traffic. [clears throat]

Okay. And then for the bus stop, this, you know, this comes to mind because as I was on Kilder Farm Road today, I got stuck behind a carry bus. And is is it is the bus stop going to have a little inset where it can pull off and not stop southbound traffic?

I don't know that this location is going to have that.

Okay, that's all I have.

Any other questions for staff?

I do.

Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Grace.

Oh, sorry. No, you go ahead. Go ahead.

Okay, so I had two questions. One was about the land use map. gotten some emails that said that this plan was not in accordance with the land use map, but it sounded like through your presentation that it was. Can you just clarify that for me? It expands. I'm going way back. Um, so you can see this is existing. Here's a line right here. And what they're proposing is to extend the high density to the south. But in this in the rest of the area, it is um consistent. It's just in this little portion area where it's just extending it to the south.

That would be amend um high density residential.

Right.

Okay. And then we've also had a lot of questions and thoughts and concerns about connections from this parcel into the existing communities. And in other uh when we've had other applicants come forward, I've always understood that that was part of the Apex has certain requirements like if you're connecting sometimes it's street material requirements they have to do. They want connectivity. You got to do a sidewalk. Um is that true? And if so, can you explain why those connections are required and preferred by the town?

Well, and just to build on that really quickly, um, before you answer, June, I

did notice one of the first plans culde-saced a hall. So, but this does not interconnect. So, yeah, just adding on that.

Yeah, we just got we got questions on it and I believe that's our I don't think that's an applicant issue. I think that's a town of apex requirement if I'm not mistaken. And I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind that.

Right. And in the first revision uh the first section they were showing the applicant was showing actually multifamily. So apartments did come all the way over here. So that's why the applicant was stating okay we would probably want to you know have that as a culac. And so staff, the UDO does require that all sub streets connect to um you know pro projects as far as it allows pedestrian and vehicular um connectivity. So the more connectivity you have, the more the the traffic is dispersed.

Yeah. And so I'd gotten some comments like, "Hey, what if it could be pedestrian andor a different type other than vehicular?" But then when I was listening to your traffic study, it sounds like along Salem where we've got some C and F existing now they're going to become A's and that you'll actually be able are you going to be able to come out onto Salem? In other words, will people who are adjacent be able to come through the community and come out at a red light onto Salem? That's my question.

Yeah.

Yeah. So they'll be able to get come off of be anybody in Haden Hall will be able to come up here on street B and then get on to all-wheel drive and same with this this area as well.

Okay.

To make a a left. This is a full full movement intersection.

Yeah.

Sorry. Go ahead. You have a question.

So street A is a is a light bird. No, that's not a light. The lights only

at all wheel.

Yes.

Okay. All right. Um, can you go back to your slide, please, about the buffers,

about what the UDO requires and then what the developer proposed.

Sure. And just while she's looking at that, a quick question. Do we know if the planned town home units in one and two will be their exterior ones, will they be facing out to Hayden Hall or will they be backing out to Hayden Hall? Are you saying is there going to be maybe a alley along? Is that what you're

I'm trying to understand the transition area. Right. So there's right now it's it's mostly pasture. Right. So there is some of that that I would hope the applicant would take into consideration as far as maturity and whatever. But before that, as someone who I know that if it's front facing, meaning if the fronts of the town homes are facing the backyards, for lack of a better term, for Hayden Hall,

there's less of a fishbowl feeling because the back the back porches are used. You know what I'm saying? On the other way versus if they are backing towards the backyards of Hayden, I mean of Yeah. of the residential. And that's what I was wondering if you knew.

No.

Okay. Is that something that we can ask the applicant then maybe when they come through the

I have that question too Christie just for placement purposes

if we're only having a 20 foot buffer I think it I think that yeah okay I had questions about what it was

a pasture 20 foot buffer right and something with trees but I I know that's

not y'all that's the applicant

and and the other thing is uh keep in mind that there is a 10 put um set back from all buffers for for structures.

Go ahead, Mo.

Um can you go over quickly again the um the difference between the the proposed um changes to the land use plan and what we what's currently on the plan? What's the actual difference in the size in the higher density area? Is there like percentage difference? See, I see it like visually, but what is it actually? How much larger is it?

That comes out to um it's 4.92 acres, so about five acres.

And then the extension is um changes to 8.27 acres.

So, another question for staff. got a lot of comments and questions about storm water and and it sounds like that staff says that the applicant will be required to build so that any discharge would not be greater than current. Is that correct? And just wanted to understand the volume. What does that mean and can we translate that for people like me who are an engineer? Hi, Brian Drake, assistant director of water resources. So, they will be required to um meet the preconstruction level for the one, 10, and 25 year storm. So,

what does that mean?

Uh the rate discharge, like the peak hour will be the same as it is today for the storm that occurs once every 25 years. So they're going to be required to just for lack of to dumb it down. They're going to be required to build it so that even with the additional concrete, right? So they're this is not grass etc. as a pasture right now that that flow would not be faster or more

than current in those conditions. What you just cited

it would not be faster. The [clears throat] total volume like per day per year will be higher.

Okay. Yeah.

And but and according to you guys that meets the standards that you applied for and you feel good about that,

we would work or ask the design engineer to design a system that you know works.

The reason I asked this question because I know like again I'm not an engineer, right? And so I understand that I live in Apex and recently we had some rains about a year ago or whatever. places that were gullies filled up and water and water came into people's yards, right? But that was a been here three years. So that was just once in in that time period and I understood that and then it eventually did go down. And so I guess I do know that you can build on their different standards and I know that there are different expenses to those standards. But there as my understanding is there is ways to build this so that they would not incur a lot of volume and um speed off property to surrounding areas including streams etc. They can do that.

Correct. There are multiple designs that the engineer can do. Um our current ADO UDO just recommends the uh or requires the 120 110 and 25 year storm rate to be met. Um and then during site plan review and construction drawings review, we would uh comment on the design. A downstream storm water analysis is required. Um that would be submitted for the site plan.

And how often like since 2010 have we had any of those type of storms you were just describing? of any of the ones that we've all experienced recently, like when the hurricane came through, is there anything because I I just need to see it in my mind's eye to understand it.

Um, we have um a recent storm on Salem Street um North Salem Street. Um we saw some flooding there. Uh I don't know the

the numbers off top of my head um until storm water the storm water folks are all at APWA conference right now. So I'm kind of filling in for them.

Is there an opportunity to address that at that time? And maybe if we have a concern, we just we put that in there. We question that. Is that is that what we're supposed to do?

Yeah, I think so. Um we would we would always ask for the the design um with the design engineer to work through those things.

Okay.

So, y

I just wanted to add that the UDO follows state law, just so you all know. Just so you're aware. It's not just that the town came up with these standards. This is the state law.

Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?

Go ahead, Mark. Staff or the

That was staff, right?

Oh, I'm sorry. Staff because he came in. I'm sorry. Yeah, staff. Any [clears throat] other questions for staff?

I have just two questions. Um, I saw the um staff letter about the TIA and recommendations that staff are making about the TIA. Have those been accepted by the developer?

Yes.

Okay. And I have one more question related to the um the rendering with the retail. Did the town request that the parking lot front Salem Street or was that being proposed by the developer? I thought it was odd that we didn't move the building closer to the street frontage and put the parking behind the building. what we were trying to do as far as looking at the relation to North Salem Street if this was too much of you know height right up to it. Um so moving it back reduces that impact and also as far as um for nonresidential you know always people like to have that parking right there

similar to Sweetwater I guess by Yes. Is that correct?

Right. and and and we that's why we kept it just as one and of course then there would be parking behind the um the

building as well.

Okay, thanks.

So June, that's the highest, right? The four

75 out of anything in there.

Correct.

Any other questions for staff? Thank you, sir.

Thank you, June.

Hey, would appetite like to speak. Good afternoon. Matthew Carpenter with Parker Poe, 301 Fable Street in Raleigh. here on behalf of the developer and applicant Merit Group LLC. Got a couple folks with me this afternoon. Paul Munana with Merit Group. Um, and also Kevin Dean with Kimley Horn, our our traffic engineer. I want to start by thanking staff, specifically June. We've gone back and forth for months. We we filed this case December 1st of 2025. Um, and there are a lot of conditions. As you can see that I think staff and the developer here have acknowledged the importance of this site. Um it's an infill site right near downtown. So I think everyone knew going into the process it was going to be important to to try to get this right. Um and we've had eight rounds of review. There are 564 pages in your agenda packet. Um, and so I hope you'll find at at the end of going through all this information, um, that we've respected the site and its location, uh, and and have a reasonzoning case that that checks most, if not all of the the town's current policy concerns. Um, as June mentioned, the site is 32 acres. It's 16 different tax parcels. Um the ownership here is unique because this owner uh there there are are many owners but maybe a hundred

years ago all this property was owned by the Goodwin family. Um a longtime apex family uh and and Mr. David Goodwin who's still one of the sellers um in he approached planning staff uh some of his relatives had passed away about trying to to sell this property for development. Um, and what staff told him, which I I think was wise, was you need all of these parcels to to bring in at once because staff did not want to see, you know, one parcel coming in, getting developed for commercial, another coming in, getting a few town homes. Um, and so what Mr. Goodwin did, he's not a broker, he's just a a seller of the property. Um, he worked with these different property owners and gotten them all on the same page. And now 8 years later today, um we've got a zoning case with with all of this property together. And so I think that's important because um there were over 25 signitories on the purchase contract. There are multiple heirs. Um and so this is a unique opportunity to to try to sort of master plan this property while all these owners are together um and and while they're marching in in one direction. the the land use map designation here is mixed use. June June went through that well. Um the high density designation which is the orange stripe has been on this plan since 2013. So it's been here a long time. Um and what this plan generally calls for is for the higher density residential and commercial usage to be located at the corner away from the established neighborhoods to the west and south. Um, as June mentioned, we we are requesting that orange area be extended south. When when these land use map um designations went on, they followed the property lines. Obviously, after we developed the site, um, and I'll get to this more in a moment, but those property lines will no longer exist. And so, we had to decide where the bottom of that MU1 district would

would would line up. Um, and the town home district was separated by that street A. And that street A was purposely put there to line up with the Thales exit. So that's where that street had to go. And then after the street was located, then we backed into how should each of these districts be located. And so so that's what led to the the expansion of that highdensity district. Um, I've also mentioned before in neighborhood meetings that the building height uh is also part of the reason the the land use map doesn't include a height limit for the high density uh designation. It it it would recommend recommends high density often in these mixeduse areas. You see buildings taller than five stories. Um staff was very concerned throughout the review process about building height, how it related to existing single family uses on the other side of North Salem Street and how it related to uh residences in Haden Hall and Haden Place. And so the the tallest building is the the five-story building at the corner. Um and then heights are limited to four stories in the southern section basically where that of MU1 where we're asking for the land use map extension. And so to to to build an efficient multif family project with those heights we needed and and park it correctly. We didn't want to skimp on parking. Um we we needed a little more land um along the southern portion of that district. So so that's the justification for the land use map change. Um, we also, I think it's important, we're not proposing any commercial or office uses anywhere near Haden Hall. The MU1 district is over 400 ft from from any of the shared property lines with Haden Hall. And that was on purpose. We we didn't want to propose office or commercial um near any of those neighborhoods. We we understand town homes are not the same product type, but they are medium density under the land use map. Um and that's consistent with the land use map and

will be what's adjacent to Haden Hall. So there will be no high density residential uses next to Haden Hall. And you can see from the plan here that that we've we started with the land use map. I I think uh we we went to staff with our initial sketch in early 2025. Um and staff had seen a lot of sketches over the years for this site. Um and and ours was the the closest at that point that that had gotten to the land use map designation. And at that time we were showing apartments where TH3 is shown now. Um part of the the benefit of going through staff review is that we heard from neighbors, we heard from staff. Um and and the multif family there in TH3 was was causing a lot of heartache because it was inconsistent with the land use map and it was closer to Haden Hall. Um and so we moved that to the MU1 district. So now all of the multif family is contained um in MU1 and that MU1 district is intended to be a true mixeduse district. That's why we've included the the commercial minimum. Um I know a lot of cases commit to commercial but they don't have that minimum. So there has to be uh commercial uses there in MU1. Um and then talking about the site buffers on the along the western property line see you can see the cursor here maybe not um but along the western property line over 60% of that property line will be RCA streams wetlands will not be developed so uh there only on that side there are only two lots in Haden Hall that are will be adjacent to town homes and in that area is where we'll have the 20 foot buffer Um and then similarly along the southern property line will also have a 20ft buffer. Um and we've looked at the existing tree cover in that area. You can kind of see it overlaid on on this plan or it's it's kind of under this

plan. Um but the majority of that area is cleared and the tree coverage is along the property line. So most of it is in the 20ft type B buffer and so we'll keep existing trees there um for the buffer and and supplement them where we can. Um a big part of this house of of this project is also the affordable commitment. Um there there are 460 total units. That's the maximum. uh it doesn't necessarily mean that much will be built, but if the total is built out, 10% of those affordable units will be 46 um affordable units in the project. And I think it's important here because of the location of those units. We're just less than a mile walk to downtown Apex. There will be the the bus stop along the frontage. And so it's exactly where um you want to put affordable units and and they won't be, you know, called out or or different units. They'll be part of the overall project um and most likely be a mix of for sale units and rental units uh in the multif family portion. And then this slide shows the rendering. Um we also spent a lot of time with staff working on the exact layout of this area. Uh and if you look in the PUD tax, June went through them. There are explicit building placement conditions which uh you don't see in a lot of puds in Apex. Um if you can see in the MU1 district, these cross-hatched areas, those are areas where the PUD requires our building to be placed closer to the street. So at the the roundabout, the building will frame the street. Um, same thing at the corner of Street A and all and uh, North Salem Street. And then for the building at the corner, uh, we were trying to balance um, you know, the sort of suburban character of Apex with the desire to have a more urban pedestrian focused mixeduse center. And so so where

we arrived with staff was, you know, let's let's limit um the amount of parking that can be between the building and street, but let's not put the street the building all the way up to the street. And that's also how we arrived at reducing the North Salem Street buffer uh requirement, which the UDO would be 30 ft. Um that is a a big challenge for retail uses that are incorporated into a multif family project. they really need visibility to be successful. Um, and reducing that buffer to 15 feet allows us to to hopefully strike a balance between creating that more urban configuration. Um, but also not having the building overwhelm the street like you would see in a more true urban area. Um, and so we we also have conditions about the sidewalk in this area. So there's a minimum sidewalk of 12 ft that's meant to facilitate um outdoor dining, you know, activated uses on the sidewalk and to your comment about Sweetwater, that that's the exact example staff is looking at um when when trying to to get this mix right here um is a success Sweetwater's had with with the retail and and multif family there. And then moving on to the pedestrian improvement. So, we'll be constructing over 2300 ft of side path. So, side path for the full length of all-wheel drive and North Salem Street. Um, we'll also be extending those connections offsite. So, if you look at the bottom of the screen, uh, I know you're probably tired of hearing about sidewalk gaps in Apex by now. I've encountered them in a number of cases. Um, but we're going to fix both of those with this project and those are zoning conditions. So on North Salem Street, there's a 5-ft sidewalk there now uh on the way to Britley Way, but there's no side path. So we'll be installing a 10-ft side path there um to get all the way to Britley Way. And then on French Church to get to Britley,

there's no um sidewalk at all there now. So So we'll be constructing that sidewalk connection to get to Britley Way. And then there is also a um an existing sidewalk on the south side of Britley Way. And so when all of these improvements are done, um there will be a a more cohesive pedestrian network here. That's one of the concerns we we've heard from neighbors, um is the safe the pedestrian safety in this area now with the traffic on North Salem Street. Um as June mentioned, the signalized crosswalk, that's also something the developer will be building um along with the bus stop and a dedicated pedestrian area. I think it's 300 square ft at the corner um where public art will also be located. Um and so again trying to create a cohesive safe pedestrian network in this area. Um the transportation improvements are are also important. Th the the the biggest improvements are along North Salem Street. Um and those the the road widening there will be for the full length of the project's frontage. will be installing um an additional through lane there. So, there will be two through lanes. Um I I'll show this in a photo in a minute, but the a big part of the queueing issue at at Thales now is because there's only one through lane and and a left turn lane. Um, and so that will be relieved by the additional lane that will be constructed along North Salem Street so that when traffic comes through there and cars are backed up turning into Thales, there will be an additional lane that that can keep moving. Um, as as uh Mr. Spanoli asked, we did have a TIA done. We've agreed to all of the recommendations in the TIA from staff and NC DOT. Um and so those are all included as binding zoning conditions. Um there's been a lot of conversation about the stub streets. Uh I think you know that that was answered

in in some of the staff questions. Um but those connections are required under the UDO when we originally filed this case. We had proposed a culde-sac at Charlie Downs Lane. Um trying to in some way limit access to to speak to neighbor concerns. Um staff preferred that we make the connection to improve all over overall connectivity. So we we took that culde-sac off um and we we made the connection um we we did agree to the to add the heavy duty construction traffic language. We we certainly don't want truck traffic going through here while while the project's being built. Um and then so this is a photo of North Salem Street. On the left is the Thales Academy um entrance and on the right is is our site. So you can see here I just thought sometimes a photo is easier than than looking at the aerial. Um there's one through lane and then that left turn lane which I don't think has a ton of storage there. Um and so hopefully you those improvements will the additional lane will open up traffic um to get through there during you know peak drop off hour for and and pickup for for the academy. And then this slide um shows some of the the connectivity that will be gained from these stub connections. So the the reason that the UDO requires stub streets to be connected is because um they open up additional routes for vehicles to go when when other routes are congested. Um, and so one one thing one complaint that we've heard and and that I've heard in Apex before um is the traffic caused by the July 4th events downtown and also the Christmas parade. Um, and so when as I understand it, obviously I I don't live here, but as I understand it, um, some of these entrances to Haden Hall are blocked during downtown events or at least heavily congested to where um, folks can't get out. If if this project is built, um drivers can follow the green

routes to get north, take a right on All-Wheel Drive and then take a left at the intersection of All-Wheel Drive and North Salem Street, which is already signalized. Um so we will be making changes to that signal to account for uh the changes we'll make to to uh North Salem Street. And so that that's a route that will be available um after this is constructed that that does help with with overall connectivity. Um again, we've gotten a lot of questions about our stream and wetlands determinations and so I want to try to clear it up as as someone who had to learn how to understand this um as part of this process especially. So the um we we did a stream and wetlands determination in 2025 at the very beginning of this process that was approved by town staff and the Army Corps of Engineers. Um and so the wetland W6 outlined in yellow or orange rather and then pawn two are both non-jurisdictional. So so those are the the features that will be removed as part of the project. W5 um the the wetland outlined in blue is jurisdictional. At one time early on in the process we had thought that our storm water pond might have some minor impacts to that wetland and so we had listed it to be disturbed. Um after some further discussion and and a lot of comments that we received, we have moved that wetland within our RCA area. If you can see at the bottom of this screen, that wetland is now in the RCA. So, we're not proposing any disturbances to to that jurisdictional wetland. Um, pond one is is a more complicated issue is as June mentioned at the beginning of this process, our goal was to keep the large pond and use that as an amenity for the neighborhood. Um, we did some studies as we went through the reszoning process about the pond because it's an old farm pond. Um it was built

years and years ago mostly for irrigation. Um and so we we were concerned about the the integrity of the dam and what um so we had the hydraologic study done and what the study showed is that if the dam were to to fail then there would be severe consequences for downstream property owners um in Haden Hall. And so that's how we arrived at the type C hazard designation. And then we recently received the um confirmation from NCDQ that they concur with with that uh designation. And so by draining the pond, we'll be removing the future risk of of that dam failing. Um and in in lie of of that current pond, installing storm water ponds um that meet current detention requirements. The reason we don't know yet what the buffer around that pond will be is because the Army Corps won't make a determination until we've drained the pond. So, we have to drain the pond and then they look to see if if water collects in the pond again to determine whether it's a jurisdictional wetland or not. Um, and so that's why that determination is made at subdivision plan. Um, and then to to address the storm water runoff comments, which are related to but but I think a different issue than the stream determinations. Um, I've heard comments that uh because we're removing this pond that will make storm water runoff worse for the the surrounding neighborhoods. Um, we feel based on the UDO requirements and the way the site's draining now that it will actually be the opposite. that after the pond is drained and we install modern storm water design um storm water management devices that the the water will be slowed down and detained to current standards. Right now there are not storm water control devices on the site. There are ponds that were built for farms um that don't detain storm water like like a storm water pond. And

so right now when when water hits the site, it drains naturally where it drains um to the the pipes south of here in Haden Hall. Um and so after we're we're done again that that standard that was cited by staff um that we that you know the the rate of flow post development can't exceed the rate of flow pre-development. That's a requirement. Um and and we even if the zoning case is approved, if we can't design our stormwater devices to meet that requirement, we can't move forward. So we can't build anything. Um and and so that the majority of that analysis is done at master subdivision plan because it requires the full design of all the storm water infrastructure. Um and so we we can't show you now here's exactly how we've divi designed this storm water pond, but we can tell you that it has to meet the UDO requirements. We're not proposing any modifications to those requirements and we can't build unless we meet them. Um and then to to wrap things up, um the the reasonzoning is in the public interest. It's consistent with the land use map. Um it adds 46 affordable housing units in a location near goods and services and transit. Um it includes a long list of pedestrian improvements, transportation improvements. Um, and as you've seen in the staff report, all sta town departments recommend approval. And so we appreciate your time this afternoon and and respectfully request your positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matthew. Any questions for the applicant?

We do. Go ahead, Mark.

All right. Um, I have a question about the TIA that's included in the package. Um the conceptual site plan shown in the TIA shows the old configuration with the culdeac at Charland Downs.

Yep.

And also shows a different configuration when it comes to the housing densities. How will that was that taken into

consideration when the revisions came through? How will that affect you know the final development that's being proposed today?

Uh good evening Kevin Dean Kimley Horn 1070 South Main Street in Holly Springs. Um after we prepared the original TIA um and after the plan was updated, we prepared additional analyses uh for staff review that included the connection to Charlie and DS. And so that has been accounted for. So the improvements and the references you see all account for that connection.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Mine is about the transition area. So you probably heard my question. So I'm interested to understand if you know now or uh what the possibility is for how the town homes will present towards the backyards of the neighborhood. Y

the question is

um you said that there were existing there's I've seen that so there's some trees there but what is the intention of to protect the privacy of the existing homes and the mostly it looks like T2 and T1 affects most of the

right yeah so so there are those zoning architectural conditions that apply specifically to um the that shared property line of that buffer and as June mentioned they limit if the this which is what we were getting to with with this condition. Um if if the buildings are parallel, you know, oriented the same way as homes in Haden Hall, they're limited to four units of building. And if they are perpendicular, so the the buildings are like this, and then the property lines like this, then we can put six units in six units in each building. Um and so that's that was set up purposely to incentivize us to turn the buildings, even though that's not the condition. Um but in our current sketches, we're showing buildings along that property line facing north south um perpendicular to homes in Haden Hall. So if someone in Haden Hall walked out their backyard, they would see the side

of the in town home unit, not the front or back. Um and and the goal there is so and let me see here if I can explain this better. So so if you can see the cursor, buildings now we're showing are like this.

Yeah.

Yeah. Um, and so we were trying to limit long facades facing the backyards of of of people in Haten Hall.

So there won't be back decks, for lack of a better term, that primarily face the the rear yards of That's right. property owners. There will be a side view.

That's right.

Okay.

Um, and there are arch other architectural conditions that apply to those units, too, so that they're architecturally in line. Obviously, they won't look exactly like homes in Haten Hall, but they're heightened architectural standards so that, you know, there's not a big change in quality between, you know, Haten Hall and and um our project.

Okay. I guess I was just building off of that too to ensure if they are perpendicular. So, three stories, right, for the town hall.

Yes, that's right.

And then the buffer is going to be 20. Is that what

That's right.

we decided. So, back of Haden Hall, 20 foot buffer, side of a town home, but it's three stories.

That's right. Yep. I

believe there's a set back from

20 ft with a 10 foot

setbackt.

Will there be a architectural element like a physical element that separates um from the end of the buffer to Haden Hall?

Uh like a fence you mean? Or

Yeah. Or Yeah. Um there there's not a condition for a fence. Um we we've assumed for now that the buffer would be a natural planted buffer. Um but I mean we're open to discussing that. The the goal with the type B planting standard is to keep existing trees where we can

and then supplement plantings. The and that's one reason we didn't use the type A standard there. Sometimes the type A standard is so packed with plants um and evergreens that it's hard to keep existing trees and plant to a type A standard. So B gives you that flexibility.

The reason why I ask is if those if the town homes are perpendicular to the Haden Hall um residents, the open streets would open up into their backyard. Well, they wouldn't open up into the backyard because they would have to stay outside of the buffer. And I also think there's a I think there's an additional buffer setback for the street. So, they wouldn't the street wouldn't come all the way to the property line.

Visually, it open to their backyard,

but but potentially there could be streets there. Yeah, that's right. Um, is

there an opportunity for already mature trees or something to be put in there rather than something that's going to take forever to grow like just to protect Taden Hall and make sure they don't have to see,

right? That that that's something we could look into. Right now, we uh typically in the resonings we default to the UDO planting standard just because, you know, it's easier to know what that is. We'd have to come up with some different, you know, mix of trees that we put into the pud if we if we did that. Miss Peterson, just to add to that, UDO's planting centers are set at a smaller caliber tree because those tend to grow faster when they're planted. The larger caliper tree, the bigger tree that you plant, um, at some point it the growth is stunted when you transplant it, and it takes a a much longer time for it to start growing again. So eventually that smaller tree is going to catch up to where that larger tree uh planting is and and they tend to do better and have more guarantee of living if you plant them smaller and allow them to grow and adapt to that environment than bringing in something that's more mature.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to

the less visibility possible however that can be achieved.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead.

Uh Matthew, I have a couple questions about the legislative considerations. Um could you expand upon uh consideration number two compatibility

and also number eight detrimental to adjacent properties?

Sure. Yep. Yep. So um compatibility is is always it's always a standard in in all these resoning cases. Um and in areas where there's a different housing type on the land use map like here where we have town homes next to to single family homes. um compatibility is looked at through things like uh architectural standards um and and so that's how we've approached that those standards with with th that legislative showing with with staff is we've tried to add conditions um that speak to compatibility like I mentioned limiting the number of town homes that can be in each building facing Hadenhal um so even though those are a different housing type the scale of the the overall building won't be significantly larger larger than than homes in Haden Hall. Um, you know, things like like buffering the the the landscaping we just talked about. Um, and then also not proposing any commercial or office uses in any of these areas. Um, and so we we know we acknowledge obviously that that town homes are a different housing product than than single family homes. Um, but I think with with all of the conditions that we have and how we've laid out these districts, including removing the multif family from TH3, um, that we've made this plan as as compatible as it can be with existing neighborhoods while still meeting the land use map designations. Um because we could say, you know, just in just in a planning sense, we're going to make all these TH3 uh districts just single family and and that would be more compatible, but then it would be um in contradiction with the land use map. Uh

and and so uh and on the you know, it's still very early, but on the um draft that I've seen of the new land use map, it also shows this as a mixeduse center. So, um, it's trying to reconcile those two things in a way that that meets both policy goals. So,

my second question was about detrimental to Jason property.

Yep. Um, that one is is I think I mean it can be looked at a number of ways. Is it you know I don't think it will I'm obviously not an appraiser. I don't think with the price of of land and housing and Apex that it's going to lower property values. um you know, these are are ultimately people's homes. They're they're not, you know, noxious uses that are going to that's going to have uh you know, negative impacts on the environment or odor. Um and and and then traffic is also, I think, sort of lumped into that detrimental language. Um and and so here we have done, you know, everything we we can, you know, we've agreed to all the improvements recommended by the TIA um to to help alleviate some of the congestion here. There will undoubtedly be more traffic. There are more units, more people. Um, but we've we've agreed to the improvements and and tried to uh handle the study in a way that that um that mitigates that additional traffic that we'll be putting out here. So,

Matthew, I have a question. Hi. Um, so can you please explain um the big pond, pond number one, if it does get drained um due to infrastructure concerns, whatnot, um will the new modernized, let's call it retention pond, will it replace the footprint of the existing?

No. No, it there will most likely be um two storm water ponds in in addition to where the current pond is and they would be um sort of to the left of of pond one

on the screen and then south of pond one on the screen. Uh because those are the lowest areas of the site. Um and so, you know, we're assuming that even if the pond is drained, I mean, we're not going to build where the pond is because it's most likely going to be wetlands. And so um so so that area will remain. The the question I was the issue I was raising about the buffer around it is is what they'll have to uh analyze once the pond is drained where the actual pond is. There likely won't be anything built there. So

thank you.

Thank you Matthew. Any other questions for

I have a question. I have a question about a question.

Okay. uh um that was in neighborhood meeting that you all had um and I'll I'll read it for everyone's context. So the question was why is the requesting proposing why is the request proposing to amend the land use map? Yes, we are proposing a slight expansion of the orange multif family designation with no changes in the southern portion of the site while the lum recommends highdensity residential at the intersection of North Salem and all-wheel drive. Staff has requested building heights be limited to four or five stories along North Salem Street. The existing uh land use map does not provide sufficient land area to accommodate multif family development with these height limitations. So the proposed lane use map amendment modestly extends the designation to the west and south to allow a feasible layout consistent with staff recommendation recommended transitions. So I'm guessing that feasible it's all about you know what you can monetarily get for the development. Um so what

so today we've heard like we're just extending south. So what was the what's the different differentiating factor that caused us to kind of drop the west expansion of opposed to just

Yep. Yep. I I I think it was um so first building heights were part of the

discussion with staff during that same time and so we didn't know um frankly if staff would be comfortable with the four fivestory building the fivetory building at the corner um and so we weren't sure if we could fit the density um in the district at the corner uh without the land that was shown as multif family before the TH uh let's see what is that TH3 um and So what we we we staff obviously mentioned, you know, could you drop the uh multif family in TH3, we heard it from the neighborhood. Um and then we also knew it would be more consistent with the land use map if we moved it. And so that's what we did. Um and and and so actually in an earlier plan, we had town homes um along street on the northern side of street A. Uh and so we thought it also made for a better transition for the street to be the divider between the town homes and and the multif family um rather than to have the street then a line of town homes and then a multif family building um and then multif family in TH3. So it was sort of uh consolidating the multif family in one area that'll be sort of the mixeduse destination.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you Matthew. Thank you.

No other questions applicant. Okay. Now we will move into o uh open public comments. U get the list of public comments. Please state your name and address when you come up. Please remember to uh the three minute rule. Thank you Jerry. Thank you very much. Okay. The first person to speak is, excuse me for is Laura.

Hello. Um I'm Laura Fenbury, 1012 Brit Leeway, one of the properties that directly attach it right to these. Um so

I'm asking this board to deny this root zoning request. Um last August, more than 9 in of rain fell in a single storm. Beaver Creek swelled, a culvert under Olive Chapel Road collapsed, and the road became a sinkhole. that lasted for months. Um, that's not this property, but it happened here and it's a warning. Even if this property meets the UDO's minimum storm water standards, that's not the same as studying what actually happens downstream. Every single time it rains, we have videos in our neighborhood. People share their backyards completely flooded several storms in very recent times. Every time you walk from Haden Hall down to Peekway, there are areas that when you're walking your dogs, you have to avoid the sidewalk because the water just sits there. It wasn't made for this. Draining these ponds is not going to help any of these things. The rain is just going to collect. Um, now on to the traffic. So, during the weekday afternoon peak hour alone, the applicant's own study projects 282 additional vehicle trips added to an intersection that's already failing. North Salem Street and Davis Drive already operates at a level of service F during the afternoon peak in the study's own 2025 baseline. And by their own numbers, it's still F in both peaks by 2032, built or not. Level F means that the intersection is failing, which means traffic demand exceeds what the road can handle physically. It means backed up cues, drivers sitting through multiple light cycles just to get through. And the recommendation is zero improvements because this site only adds 3% to that intersection's traffic. That's a loophole. That's not an analysis. So what you're saying is that on all of these roads, there are several level Fs right now. F is the worst. It goes A to F. So if you're adding more to an already F and you're not planning any changes, you're just making every single resident, every single person who's either trying to visit Apex or just get home or get to where they're working or pick up their children, you're making it so that they can't get there in a rapid

time. This is why me personally, I left Holly Springs and came to Apex because Apex was better because Holly Springs had a lot of problems at the time. And so with just that, it would take 15 minutes to get 3 miles down the road. We do not want Apex to have that. Right now with the downtown construction, you have a lot of businesses that aren't being visited. You don't want other things to prevent those businesses from getting business. Adding a few commercial properties is not the same thing as the already existing things that we have. Um, Hutenhal residents already struggle to turn safely onto North Salem Street. We've asked the town for a signal multiple times. Um the so has the town independently verified the traffic ascensions in this study? Has anyone actually evaluated what happens to Hadenhal and the potential for cutthrough traffic? Once North Salem Street gets more congested and drivers stop following the study's projected percentages, they're going to just cut through and cut through and cut through. All-wheel drive is already backed up. I can't even get through on Salem Street because I have to sit through every single time a stoplight at all-wheel drive and that's not adding any any traffic other than what's there now. So, as speaking on behalf of the people in Haden Hall, we're not against growth. We're against locking in 460 units and figuring out the flooding and traffic afterward. This needs to be slowed down. We need to verify the traffic assumptions. We need to look at this during phales traffic. We need to look at this during peak times and we need to make sure that the environmental impacts are actually studied and that the drainage is studied. We can't make the projections enforceable by conditions. We have to do it by conditions, not promises after the fact.

Okay. Thank you, Laura. [applause] Next we have Kevin. I'll t the last name, but I can't. Kevin

Dean,

he's with um

he's with us. Okay. And that was beside Matthew over there. So

Sasha Bravo.

Good evening, Sasha.

Please state your name and address, please.

I'm Sasha Bravo. at 916 Britley Way also directly abut this property or proposed property. Um so um I'm asking the board to deny this resoning request for for several important reasons. Um first the Apex UDA requires the town to consider the environmental impacts. Um I don't believe that those have been adequately demonstrated. This property is currently under devel undeveloped essentially as you know and provides wildlife habitat. I haven't seen any assessment of wildlife using this land or how clearing this land is going to affect their habitat. We don't even know what's there. How do we know it's going to impact them? I'm also deeply concerned about the mature and potentially old growth trees. I just heard the applicant say that the old growth trees are on the on the perimeter in the border. That's not true. You can verify that just visually. Take a quick look at the property. You can tell where the old growth trees are. And I guarantee you they're not all, you know, happily in the border of where they've put their, you know, uh um green space. That's not true. um and and they're saving one willow tree that there's many many old growth trees in that property. You can't simply plant a new tree and replace an existing 50 100y old tree. I have no idea how old they are, but I can tell you visually that they're pretty old, right? And that's a that's a significant concern. Um as as Laura mentioned, I'm also concerned about storm water and downstream flooding. We know we know that there is already flooding. Um, we know from USGS researched, uh, North Carolina Piedmont found that urbanization can significantly increase flood flows. In some circumstances, increasing peak discharge by as much as five times. So, you can't tell me that turning a meadow into a developed area with town houses and apartments is going to help. And we know that there the USGS has already looked at it. We know that

that's going to make that problem worse. Um so and the question is not simply whether a storm water system has been proposed by the applicant. The question is whether the applicant has demonstrated that this development will not worsen flooding for the communities downstream. And that has not happened. We do not have any kind of guarantee of that. Um and that's what's called special damages. If those people that own those properties are negatively impacted by this development, that is called special damages and that could fall back to this community to be responsible for that. Um, the town's own transportation planning identifies congestion and traffic delay as major concerns and specifically identifies Salem Street as a, and I quote, choke point. That's right now, um, during peak periods. The applicant is saying that this is going to be solved by adding a couple of left turn lanes into their, you know, development. That doesn't account for right turns into dailies. That doesn't account for people that need to move straight through that area. Um, at roughly two vehicles per household, this development could add approximately 920 vehicles. That's a conservative estimate to this area. Um, there's also an important legal point here. Ashby versus the town of Kerry. The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the town's denial of a resoning request based on concerns that even a relatively small increase in traffic would worsen existing congestion. The court recognized that resoning is a legislative decision that a council may deny a request when it has plausible reason basis related to public safety and welfare. Um, you know, this case makes it clear that the the board has the authority to say no to this. You have the authority to say don't be afraid that they're going to sue you. You can say no. Um, the the applicant is requesting greater density. I'm almost done. Okay, [laughter]

I've got what 20 couple more seconds. Um the applicants requesting greater density than the town's 2045 land use map that recommends for this property. Um as we've already discussed that's that that's not simply the development under the existing plan. It's a request to change the plan to allow a substantially more development. Um so respectfully asking that you deny this

resoning request for those reasons. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause]

All right. Next is Maurice Longo.

Hello.

Mercy. Sorry if I butchered the name.

Marcy Longo.

Yes. And on the way up here, please. I'd like to remember the three-minute rule and and the repetitive rule. Thank you.

Marcy Longo. Uh I live at 114 Blackburn Road. I'm the current president of the Hatal Homeowners Association. Um I wanted to let you know that as a resident of Haten Hall, I can tell you that I've um walked on my street. I live on Blackburn with waiters on to get eyes on our greenway stream overflowing its banks and rising up to the level of the street passing over it, rendering Blackburn Road essentially unsafe to drive to drive through. And the question is not if these events are going to worsen and occur again. The question is when will this type of event occur again and how much damage will it cause. Uh the developer says that stormwater controls will maintain or improve current runoff conditions and I would request that they prove this with an engineering survey before uh before approval. Um the town of Apex should require an independent third-party verification of wetland determinations and a comprehensive downstream impact analysis. Please um these measures should be taken at a very minimum. Um, my good friend and uh the former president of the Haten Hall HOA, Mike Rusher, was not able to personally be here to deliver his comments. Um, I'd like you to give me the opportunity to do that on his behalf. Um, Mike wanted to say that he is not opposed to this property being developed. Uh, he is opposed to the town changing its plan to make this particular development fit. The town's adopted land use map designates approximately 4.92 acres for

high density residential. This applicant wants 8.27 acres and that's a 68% increase. Why? Uh the applicant gave us a remarkably remarkably clear answer during the neighborhood process when asked whether lowering the height of the apartment buildings would reduce the number of apartments. Their response was, "We're just moving the apartments. we're not reducing the number of apartments. So, think about that. Um, instead of reducing the development to fit the town's plan, they're asking the town to change to fit their development. And I think that's backwards. Um, and Haden Hall will live with the consequences. And so, you know, we don't have to that I we don't believe that the traffic study adequately addresses what the additional traffic will do to Haden Hall and its neighborhood streets. Um, we don't have to speculate about about traffic problems during major downtown events like was mentioned July 4th and Christmas. Hadenhal already requires real time monitoring and assistance from the police department to manage traffic and and parking and protect public safety. Adding hundreds of residences and new connections into those same streets deserves far more scrutiny. Um we're equally equally concerned about the water. Like I mentioned residents, we have provided photographic evidence of our flooding streets, a water overflowing yearround through areas of this property where stream determinations remain a concern. Below this development, we already have streams experiencing flooding, severe erosion, and property damage. We are talking about replacing existing land, pvious surfaces, with rooftops, roads, driveways, and other impervious surfaces. changing the topography and then discharging managed storm water to an already stressed downstream s downstream system. Um so finally suggestions throughout this process that

some of these outcomes are simply required and that the town's hands are tied are just not true. This is a resoning request. You are being asked to make a land use decision. traffic, public safety, combatibility, storm water, and impacts on surrounding property are all legitimate considerations in deciding whether this pro um proposal is appropriate. So, our request today is simple. We recommend denial, please. And thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you. [applause]

Okay, next we have Kirk. Um, I'm Kirk Wkelman. I live at 112 Blackburn, right next to Marcy. Um, so I am I just wanted to say like right off the bat, I'm not uh opposed to the development just off the bat. Like, um, however, I'm actually kind of excited about the idea of having some commercial like within walking distance. I think that's a neat thing. Um, the thing that I have the most concern about is the storm water. Um, we've talked a lot about it. Um, one of the things that I I found when looking into this development, this situation, when I look at our neighborhood, um, there's multiple streams that run through it, as everybody has mentioned, they're they flood. Um, the when I look at, uh, the the development code, um, I think there's probably like a 100 houses in Haben Hall that if you look at our current development code, couldn't be put where they are now because they're so close to the stream. And um so while while I know we can't go back in time and change things um that change was made in in a consideration for um protecting people's property and people's lives and their safety. Um so what I'm asking of the town is to put that same level of consideration and uh care into people's property while evaluating this proposal. Um the we know that the stream can handle the

streams in the neighborhood can handle a small amount of rain. They can handle an inch of rain in 24 hours. We know they can handle two inches. Um they can't handle four inches. They can't handle five inches. So the concern is how does this how does this development how does it impact those extreme events? um how do we know that when um when a hurricane comes through and there's 10 inches of rain that this development doesn't make it worse, right? Obviously, and I wouldn't ask them to make it better for us. Uh that's maybe not the role, but let's make sure that they don't make it worse. Um I I I'm concerned about the statements about the volume increasing. I know that there's requirements about the UDO about the the um the speed or uh one one aspect of the discharge from the site, but I believe like the volume is of major concern. Right. So, just uh [laughter] I'm kind of going a little bit over. I didn't really prepare too much. Um but um I wanted to mention that uh so we've lived in Haden Hall for 5 years and um we've had uh one event uh I think I think um Helen um the stream overflowed um and the water touched my house. Um there's been another event uh a couple years before that where we definitely saw the stream overflow didn't touch the house u but it was very concerning. So we know that that stream can overflow. So please let's let's not make it let's not make this a a decision that happens after the approval. Let's make sure that before this is approved that we have some actual facts, actual studies, actual experts um tell us that this thing will not make it worse. So that's all that's all I really wanted to to ask.

Thank you. [applause]

Okay. Next I have Mayo. Good afternoon, sir.

Hey, good evening. I'll be real quick because I think my neighbors have handled uh my major concern very well, and that's with the traffic. Um I can't

imagine how the traffic study could not be um showing something that the the problem of this community will create. As mentioned, probably 900 cars. It may be a little bit fewer than that, but that's a lot of cars. And if you think about half of those cars getting on the road uh at rush hour along with the the thales uh school, it's going to be a problem. Um I just don't think our two-lane street of North Salem can handle the volume of traffic. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you, Mayor. [applause]

Next, we have uh Lucas Good afternoon, sir.

My name's Lucas Strobush. I'm at 10002 Triane Court. Um, yeah, traffic, that's my big concern. I'm not necessarily against this in general, this project. Um, but Salem is an absolute nightmare to try to turn left off of Britley. I feel like Blanch Dubois. I got to depend on the kindness of strangers more often than not whenever I'm trying to turn out of there. And it's bumperto-bumper uh for hours in the morning, several hours in the afternoon. Everything I'm hearing and seeing sounds kind of exciting for this, but it also doesn't talk about Britley. There's that extra road that's going south, leading right up to it and terminating right there. Which means now I got to look, okay, left and also left and then right and a shoot, now I got to look back left again. It's going to be an absolute nightmare and then we're going to start having safety issues. Um, we've got beautiful traffic signals coming through. We got a lot of nice little stop signs and whatnot, but I'm wondering, is it going to turn into I can either turn right out of my neighbor or right out of my street, left off of the Britley onto Salem, or am I going to have to go through a stop sign and a stop sign and a stop sign and a stop

light and then I can get on the exact same street? I've been here for 14 years in Apex in this place. Uh, I love it here. And when the Magnolia Pud went in, Haden Hall was basically told, "Ah, you'll be fine. It's not that much. Okay. When Thales went in, we were told it's going to be a little tight sometimes, but you can't get a light because it's too close to the Peakway and 64. Then when Ford went in, Ford got a light. That was kind of weird. And there's just more traffic and more traffic and more traffic. This is adding more traffic. Sure, it routes some of it, but Salem is still Salem. Same amount of people are still going through it. So, I'm asking you all to get something together for Bridley and for the Haden Hall residents that are currently here and currently taxpayers. Take us into account. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] Next, we have Elizabeth Scott.

Captain Elizabeth.

Good evening, members of the planning board. My name is Elizabeth Scott and I have lived in Haden Hall for 17 years now. I love Apex. This is my home. Um, I'm also here on behalf of the Haden Hall Homeowners Association and our more than 800 homes and 2,000 residents. We respectfully ask you to deny this resoning request as currently proposed. [cough] Allow me to be clear. We strongly oppose this proposal, not the development of the area. We believe this property should be researched, planned, and considered according to the town's existing land use plan and zoning framework rather than changing those plans to accommodate a development that does not fit the established transition

for this area. The town's 2045 land use map already provides for substantial development here while creating an important transition from the higher density to the existing single family neighborhood. We urge you to preserve that transition. This proposal will bring up to 285 apartments and 175 town homes right alongside our community with higher density development extremely close to existing Haden Hall homes. They are proposing only 15 to 20 ft buffer for a fourstory building next to sing two f two-story family homes. It also proposes road connections that could turn our residential streets into cutth through routes, creating significant traffic and safety concerns. An urban center, to use the developer word, will not fit the nature of our downtown neighborhood. Storm water is a serious concern. Our downstream areas already experience erosion and flood erosion and flooding and this proposal would add substantial imperous surfaces. With the increasingly intense rainfall and more powerful storms that we will be having, we have to ask whether yesterday's storm water standards are adequate for tomorrow's weather. We need to plan for the reality we're facing, not the climate of the past. We need more research before building commences. Our message is simple. Follow the plan that is already in place. Please deny this proposal as presented and require any future proposals to respect the town's existing land used framework. Provide appropriate buffers. Protect our streets and address

the significant traffic, storm water, and environmental concerns we have. We urge you to protect the integrity of the existing plan and the quality of life in the community and the surrounding areas that are already here. Thank you. [applause]

Those two uh Brandon Black, you and Christine are in here together. You're going to speak separately. Okay. Thank you. Uh, I'm Brandon Black. I live at uh [sighs] 10:04 Britley Way. It is, uh, literally right here on the corner. Um, I suppose I should be happy that the sidewalk's not being placed in my driveway. Um, it's being placed across the street. I do not think that Mr. Fong's going to be uh, excited about that. It's just not enough space. The street right there is already uh, narrow. You can barely fit three cars wide. And now we're talking about making that an exit for the neighborhood. Um, I have lived in Haden Hall for 15 years. Um, love the neighborhood. Um, I think like most people here in Apex, I have very fond memories of coming into town off of 64 and seeing Good Acres. Um, and I think what this council has to ask itself is, do you want the view of all of the people visiting Apex to be just like rows of town houses like Sweetwater? In fact, the applicant called out Sweetwater. Um, love it over there as far as the mixeduse piece, but the town houses are literally just row and row and row. Um, so yeah, lots of concerns. I mean behind me that is all forest. Um as you can see on TH2 even under the overlay that's presented there that is all old growth trees. Um the concerns about the dam I'

I'd like to know how long the dam's been there. Um if there's concerns about it breaking. Has it been there 10 years? Has it been there 50 years? Um so those are a lot of my concerns. The only other one that I would bring up um that's noteworthy was slightly mentioned, but the the row of single family homes that is along Britley along the south side here, many of these are two stories. Um and I think we've heard from the developer that this could be up to 60 feet or four stories behind us um 20 feet away. That's a that's a pretty drastic difference. Um so those are my thoughts. Uh Christine Wilson's actually uh a landscape architect um renowned in her field and I have her mic.

Okay, thank you. Hello Christie, how are you?

Hi. Um uh good evening. So Christine Wilson, I'm at 1004 Britley and I am a landscape architect. I um actually advise municipalities, developers around the southeast, northeast on um developments like this and I embarrassingly don't know a ton about this plan that's going on in my backyard, but I'm going just a couple comments on what I heard this evening. I think um there was discussion about that buffer that 20 foot buffer the a 10- foot setback I think I heard and I just was surprised about the um the call out of just that one willow oak and would say has a tree I I would recommend a tree assessment be actually done to identify um what mature trees are on this and that you know in the even 10 12 foot um DBH if those could be preserved along those edges of um this development and the Haden Hall neighborhood that can make a real difference because I completely agree with with staff that um the you need you plant the small trees and they'll get bigger in time. You can't just bring in a mature tree. It's just not going to be as happy as those smaller trees over time. And so

preserving some mature trees and interplanting with small trees that can really change the character of the area and will really benefit both those living at Haden Hall and those in this new development. Another thing um I wanted to note was um Salem Street is our main street in town and coming off of 64 and we have the Ford dealership which is a car centric development. And so I see this area in Pink um that corner of All-Wheel Drive and Salem Street as an opportunity to really anchor um this the um and be a gateway into to into into um downtown Apex. And so I'm really concerned about the um perspective view I saw this evening with the car parking between the main street, Salem Street, and the mixeduse. I think that um it to make this is an area that I too am excited to walk from my house to the mixeduse development and for those there to walk into downtown and back and forth and and so I like to see a buffer between um the uh pedestrian infrastructure and the the street and to not see parking between the main street and that mixeduse development. I don't think that is the right approach. And one last point I I'd like to make is just um the streets ABC. We we just haven't seen enough information about what those streets can do in terms of traffic calming, in terms of storm water management, and just more information about the pedestrian infrastructure and what that experience will be like to walk between Haten Hall throughout this community up to the mixed use, etc. Thank you.

Thank you, Christine. [applause] So, next we have George Waters. Hello, George.

Hi there. Thank you all.

So, just sort of we've heard a bunch tonight about Oh, I live at 1706 Charlian Downs Lane, George Waters. Uh,

we've heard a bunch tonight about UDO requirements, 245 plan, minimum storm water, you know, minimum buffer requirements. I think that responsible growth requires sight specific approaches and sight specific solutions, right? What is really happening on the ground and does it pass the eye test? Like is does what proposed pass the eye test? I live on Charlie Downs Lane. We've heard people talk about traffic. Stand on that street and look up the hill and tell me what that street needs is hundreds of additional units cutting through there to get over to Apex Peakway, to get over to West Williams. And also assuming that these businesses are successful, people coming from Apex Peakway, coming from West Williams, cutting through Charleion Downs to get up there. If one car parks on the side of the street, that road turns into a onelane road today. So if I'm coming down that street and around a bend and a kid's coming the other way and his e scooter and all these other things, it's a routine occurrence that you got to hit your brakes going 20 miles an hour on a street that you live on where you're trying to take care of your neighbor's kids. Never mind when you're creating a cutthrough. The same exact thing is true on Britley where we've got people running stop signs. We've got speeding issues all the time. All it takes is somebody cuts a tree down, puts a bunch of branches on the side of the road, and all of a sudden that traffic is constricted. Somebody's got a landscape truck out there in the middle of the day. It happens every single day all up and down those streets. That's just the reality of it. Like you look there and you think, "Does this need more traffic down these streets?" It doesn't. Just take a look, please. I bet you just drive up the street and look at it. Um, you look at North Salem traffic. People have talked a lot about that. If you just stand there, I mean, never mind the plan, never mind the extra lane. We've all seen an extra lane added to something and nothing changes at all, right? Like the extra lane just absorbs and it's just more traffic. Doesn't change. Stand there and look and be like, "Does this look like this really needs 400 units across the street from one of the worst spots in the whole town of Apex in terms of traffic?" Probably not. we already

have a dedicated police presence out there. How many days a week? And that's during the middle of the day. Never mind rush hour. Never mind these other things. It obviously doesn't need it. And so I think that that's something to just take a look at and ask your eye. Does that does this look like it makes sense on the storm water piece? Look at any of the creeks in Haden Hall. I live with a creek behind my house. I walk down there. It's got signs of erosion all over it. Right? That's what the current storm water load coming from that area. Look in those creeks. Do they look like they can handle an increased load from hundreds of additional units? The total amount of storm water will increase dramatically coming down through our creeks and through our infrastructure. That is a scientific fact. It's not my opinion. And the rate of it is one thing. Okay, we don't exceed the rate, but do we not exceed the rate all through the day? And we had a 500year storm through Chapel Hill last year. We have 500 year storms, 100redyear storms, 50-year storms with increasing frequency. That's a scientific fact as well. So that's something that we really need to be worried about. And finally, just look at the context of our thriving neighborhood. Does something like this fit respectfully with that? Does it try to minimize the impact? I don't think it does. I think that this board should reject the proposal until it addresses those issues. And appreciate you all time.

Thank you, George. [applause] Okay, we have a few more. Nick Good evening, Nick.

Good evening. Uh, my name is Nick Libby. I live at 10002 Overlook Drive in Haden Hall. Um, so they said tonight this plan aderes to the future land use map, but it does not. The plan asked to expand the high density by almost 70%. The the fact that the developer made a comment tonight that they're going to drain the stream and see if it fills back up fits this proposal perfectly. The impacts of the amount

of concrete and traffic added to this site needs to be scrutinized at a level that it hasn't been done today. The planning board suggests Charlie and DS connects to Street C to provide connectivity, but if you talk to anyone on Charlie and DS, they would prefer that be a culde-sac. So, you're only providing connectivity to the new um proposed development. Um, and lastly, reported on our community's concerns tonight on the news, and you've heard our concerns tonight from all the neighbors. So, I hope you take that into account and I hope you deny the proposal as it sits today.

Okay. Thank you. [applause]

Ted Stevens.

Good evening, Ted.

Hey, how are you doing? Um,

great.

I just want to further echo I live at 10002 Blackburn. Um, everybody's addressed this pretty well about the safety or the uh, traffic concerns, but the one thing I want to talk about is the cutthroughs, right? They are proposing it as a positive, but already the existing cut through traffic is a safety concern, especially where around Hayward's Heath and um, Blackburn, right? So, there's a lot of concern there. people flying up and down the street adding this additional capacity or this additional load as we like to say. I'm just concerned on what is that going to do with the traffic going towards the actual peak what was it the peak charter school. So I just want to understand did we do a thorough assessment um I want to understand what the acceptance criteria is with respect to adding this additional load. Right? So, I just ask the the board here to deny it. Um, thank you. Have a great rest of your day. [applause]

And last, we have Carl Fletcher. I'm not on the subject of Salem Street and I'm on the subject um my name is Carl Fletcher, 422 24 US1 Highway. Um next to the Gracewood subdivision, there's 434 homes getting ready to be developed. And my question is, we haven't had any notification of when the developers were going to come through the the uh road down the road on older US one to put in the water line and 5 years ago they talked about it and nothing happened at that time. Now they've come down the road, they're almost at my property and they want to discuss compensation. um when the connect when they're going to connect up the gas, water, and sewer. And uh I'm just curious why there was no no announcement of what when they were to come and what what they were going to do. So, it's like the last minute and the guy tells me, "Well, we're going to go through your property. We're going to compensate you. Um, we don't know what the value of ease the easement is. Um, I have an attorney, no information at all. Very everybody's very tight lipped about what's going on.

Okay.

So, that's my concern.

Thank you, Mr. Pusher. I would like to add that um that we are discussing the resoning for um for um Haden Hall and next to that. So, um we don't have any information on what you're discussing at

the moment. that I guess that would should have been done in public comment at the beginning. So that is not related to what we're doing here.

Give [clears throat] me a call or send an email and I'll I'll get some information for you.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes. You're welcome.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Well, let's see. All right. Is there any others that have not signed up that would like to speak on this agenda item? hearing. None. We're going to bring it back to to the board for discussion and possible motion.

I'd like to make just an observation on that. So, the uh the current 2045 land use map shows medium density office employment commercial uh with the higher density in the corner. And the reasoning that they're asking for is for an increase to the higher density. If we ignore that for a minute, we just think about the current 9 use map and somebody were to come in and develop under those standards without making any adjustments or changes, it's a pretty substantial development. It's going to have tunnas, it's going to have higher density, it's going to have apartments. So, from a stormwater perspective, the increase there isn't a difference, but it's still pretty high density. So, I think that's something we should consider when we when we talk about this. And um from a detrimental perspective, I would love the applicant to come back up and talk a little bit more about the storm water. I think we need some more answers those questions.

That's it.

Sure. About about storm water drainage and the effect on on adjacent neighborhoods. Yeah. So, um, again, those are maybe years and years and years ago, there weren't standards that address those things, um, for new subdivisions. And a lot of times, you know, the bad cases lead to changes in

the law. Apex has a very lengthy storm water ordinance um that that incorporates NCTQ storm water standards. And so, um, we we have to meet those. There there's also an operation maintenance agreement requirement. So, um, that agreement specifies how these these storm water ponds, drainage devices will be maintained. Um, there are yearly inspections by the town. Um, and there's also financial obligations in there about if something happens, if the pond's not maintained, who pays for what damages. So, um, there's an established process for that. That's most of what I know about it. If if staff wants to add to it, they can, but but that's my understanding. I I know you're in the resoning part of this, so you haven't really gone through the exercise of full civil engineering design for the storm water systems. Um, has there been any analysis to determine how the existing pond is discharging or impacting Hen Hall in a positive or negative way

because it's not in the lowest part of the property. So, in my mind, there's already kind of an issue. Yeah, we we don't there's not sort of a downstream analysis of the existing farm pond. Um but you're right, it's not in the lowest point on the site. The lowest point is is just south of there. Um and it wasn't built for for storm water. And so now, you know, uh that pond if it overflows, it just the water just drains naturally off the site. Um there's there's no detaining it at all. um if it if it you know the site is also not um engineered and graded today to divert water to that pond. And so you know now when rainfall comes down depending on where it falls on the site it might not go to a pond, a wetland or a stream at all. It might just flow right off the site um into existing streams in in Haden Hall. So that that's part of why I I brought up that um the situation, you know, will be better after storm water controls are

installed because the whole site will have to be graded to divert water to specific places where it will be held um for a period of time to allow those streams that are downstream to handle the the discharge. And that's why the rate of flow is so important because um even if it's less volume, if it's flowing at high speed, it can overwhelm the stream. Even if it's more volume, it may not over overflow downstream streams if it's detained for longer. Um and so that's that gets into the nuts and bolts of of the design of the storm water control devices. And I think as staff mentioned, there's a number of ways to do that through design. Um, and we'll have to show that our design meets those standards at subdivision and at construction drawing plan approval. Um, and if we can't, we can't build this. That I think that's that's an important point that uh there's no later phase where we can say, you know, we don't want to meet the stormwater requirements. We got our zoning. We can just skirt those rules. Uh, we can't build if we don't do it. And and maybe decades ago that wasn't the case, but it is now. Um and so those protections are in the UDO and and we are not modifying those. So

and just and just for reference during the resoning uh there isn't a requirement for provide these storm water calculations. So we just those are to provide

there's no project yet.

That's right.

And so there can't be

that. That's right. Yeah. And and it would be you know without full really the the key is to have full grading plan for the site which which we don't have yet. Um, and if we were to design storm water controls now, those would likely change in the future when we did have a full grading plan. And so, um, and so the, you know, these puds in Apex have obviously gotten very complex. Um, but really the purpose of reszoning is to focus on the uses and whether the uses are appropriate for the site and then the technical engineering details are hand handled through site plan and subdivision review. So,

can we ask the traffic consultant to a little bit just summarize the improvements so we can get a better feel for that one more time.

And while he's making his way up here, can I please make an observation that I think it is unfair to applicants and residents. No one from Bales has to address the traffic that they're creating. Like that is not okay. That is existing. It's existing for these residents. It's existing for everybody who comes down there. And I think it's really interesting that the school did not have to go through this sort of process now or have to come back and abate and that's what we're asking everybody else to do and they're a big problem and I just think that's I don't think it's fair.

I just wanted to state that. Go ahead.

Good evening again Kevin Dean Kimley Horn. Um so what you've heard tonight is we're going to be providing an additional southbound lane along Salem Street for the length of the project. Thank you. Um, one of the things that you have observed and that we've observed as we've driven through the corridor is that as people are traveling south on Salem Street, you can already see people switching over to the left of the two through lanes that start when you're behind peak gymnastics. There are two lanes right as you go under the bridge. And then you might have you might have somebody in the rightmost of those two lanes, but that's only because they're going to hit the the gas when the light turns green. They're going to try to beat the front of the queue and then they're going to slide over by the time you get to crossroads because that second lane doesn't continue beyond there.

And we've all done it.

We've all done it. Yep. Yep. You're you're you're judging what car is in the front of the line uh beside you to go.

That's right. That's right. But what what also happens is that when the cues from folks turning left to go to Thales either at all-wheel drive key ring drive or at the Thales driveway proper back out those vehicles back out into the through lane and that prohibits people's ability to get even through

those intersections. completely agree that today it is difficult to get through the intersection because it's not generally in my experience that it's always it's not always the through traffic at the signal that's blocking it. It's the the traffic that backs out into the lane. What this additional lane will do is it gets people who want to continue south on Salem and get past all the Thales traffic the ability to do that and not get stuck behind the queue because instead of having to race that first car off the line when you're at the the 64 ramps, you can stay in that outside lane through both ramps past the Ford dealership past the Thales frontage and then you can get back over if you need to or you can turn into the cider into Brley. What it does is it provides additional capacity at the signal because instead of having one southbound through lane, it has two. And what you'll often see in those cases is an ability to redo signal timings because instead of having to allocate so much time to just one lane that's not meant to carry that traffic when there's two lanes, you can give more time to other movements, which might mean you can give more time to the left turn into the Thales Q. You might be able to give more time to the northbound traffic. You might be able to give more time to some of the side streets when you have the traffic queuing back through key ring drive towards their site. So what that improvement does is it helps provide additional capacity on the corridor and through the signal that does not exist today. Um it's worth noting that while the typical section is three lanes along Salem Street, there will be a fourth lane with this project in place. Right. So there'll be there'll be one northbound lane, center left turn lane, and then two southbound lanes along the corridor. So instead of the town identified town required three-lane section, it ultimately becomes a version of a four-lane section in that way. Some of the other stuff you'll see, um, one of the things you've heard is there's a concrete divider that'll be constructed on Salem Street where our traffic will

turn left into the project. Um, what that also does is it reinforces what should be a right out only driveway at Thales. Um, you if you drive past their outbound driveway today, you'll see it is wide enough to have two outbound lanes. Um, it is striped as a right turn only. It is signed as a right turn only, but that doesn't keep people from making that turn. Um, so the channelizing island there will prohibit that formally. That doesn't mean that there still might not need to be police officers assisting with that effort, but it does help reinforce that. It also keeps southbound traffic moving a little smoother. Um, the other thing that's happening as part of our widening, you can see it faintly on the plan, but the idea is that where there is not a left turn lane into the Peak Church today, our widening would be sufficient to provide a left turn lane into the Peak Church driveway. Um, so while that volume may not be extremely high during school traffic, I'm sure it's going to be convenient to get out of the flow of Salem Street traffic if you're turning into the church um during whatever time you're visiting. And so that will also help traffic progress along Salem Street where that traffic is otherwise now stopping in the through lane and then having to make that movement across. Um, so those are some of the benefits we see. not contesting that there aren't traffic uh concerns today. We are thinking that there will be better lane utilization, better operations because of the additional lanage provided as part of this project.

Thank you.

We can I ask a legal question from our staff? Sure.

Are we allowed to require saving of certain trees? I know that that Carrie used to be very famous for that. Are we allowed to do that still?

We're not legal staff. We cannot give legal advice, but if you'd like to ask a planning question.

Okay. I was just curious because I've heard different things.

If you rephrase it, if you rephrase it, I can maybe

Oh, okay. I'm sorry. [laughter] Is the UDO require uh preservation of certain trees?

Currently,

it it does, but it's not specific. So if you were looking for every tree over the size of 30 in caliper must be uh preserved on the site that is not what the ordinance says. Um we have resource conservation area and buffer requirements and we do require um trees uh that are over 18inch caliper to be part of the tree survey at the time of site plan or subdivision plan. and they will be looked at, but there's not a flat requirement to save trees over a certain size.

Okay.

It's not in our ordinance.

I have a followup question. Is there is there mitigation required for for the larger trees over 18 inches in diameter or some type of

Not currently. Um, our environmental advisory board is working on a tree canopy um proposal for council. So, I think you you may start seeing some of those things being proposed to be added to the ordinance, but currently that's not in the ordinance.

Is there language in the UDO that specifies age of trees, not the diameter?

No, it's done by diameter. And um yeah,

not age.

Thank you, Diane. Thank you. I have traffic concerns and not I understand Salem Street absolutely that will fix that but my concerns are more Charlie and Downs Church

like those those are of concern to me. I mean wouldn't I just see Haden Hall already being a cut through from the Peakway and with Britley there's I I just see what's being proposed is opening up a neighborhood even more to some serious traffic issues that are already existing but will be made worse as someone pointed out trying to get on to Salem is already difficult. Is that new median that put in? Was that sort of an initial, you know, the median that just got put in outside? Is that

Oh, it's just a Oh, it's for It's for Thales.

There we go. Okay. All right. That was my question. Was it put in for the neighborhood? Was it put in for Apex? Was it put in for the It's okay. Okay. um like what are what's going to happen? I just have a lot of like what are we going to do in terms of traffic calming if if this does happen and we do open this up. I just am very concerned safetywise for what's happening actually in Hatton Hall. as as much as there are issues right now already trying to get out of it, but internally I just am concerned that there needs to be some type of traffic calming or something if this is going to go forward that there needs to be some protections for the people of Apex living in Haden Hall.

I will start public comment closed. I'm sorry.

It's just a board at Yeah. Sorry. Um, I do understand that the traffic calming measures and I do agree with uh with some with with the comments about I have been in Apex neighborhoods to where when someone's parked on one side of the road, it's completely it's one lane

where you have to wait and someone come by and move over and

just traffic calming by definition. That's why they do it like

Exactly. Yep. Yep. this uh so maybe some traffic common measures is is what you're you're talking

and how do we so for example the UDO was designated how it was and Apex is requiring the connections it's not the applicant right

and so like what how are we are we can't override what the council and the city's approved for the area I mean we can note I think I think it's totally fair to say you know maybe that 20 foot boundary needs to be a little bit deeper or um a little bit more screening or something. of the other things I thought were considered planned the way that they do all of that and that was we were supposed to make sure that it was meeting that and if the town is requiring them to connect the street I don't understand why we're that seems like a town council question

then

I mean generally for connectivity all these neighborhoods like like the connection off Britley and Charine those those were already deadends for future connect

and we do that now we say like you have to cap and we we know So that we approving them so that

development requirements the plan is going to ask for

and they plan no matter what plan or not.

Right.

Right. So that's that's what I struggle with on that. It's like and it's and the same thing on the traffic study. Well, we're not at the we did the traffic study. It was a third party. They talked about how far they did it. If they people don't believe I don't know how to respond to that. Um if there if there's not even belief on it on the storm water, we're not there yet. And he's correct. we have to grade it and all of that and so

there is the army corp of engineers involved in that

yep army corpse

so I don't feel yeah

and and I do understand ex their concern

let's see that first I understand that completely and also the other side that you have to drain it and if I'm not

mistaken six months is that right Amanda it's it's a time period to wait

to see what the buffer

or what is is it coming back to see what they're going to do later for a better outcome So I I see I see their concern and I see why they do the drain and wait at the same time.

I think we are and this is the we're talking about the zoning here. We're not into the particularities even though we've kind of talked about it

correct

and I feel like maybe we shouldn't have because maybe we maybe some of my questions kind of introduced things that were early in the in the cycle. Um if we're just saying does this meet the use or not?

I mean I mean not necessarily because there are there are 10 legislative considerations and the you're asking everybody to ask here are fall into those considerations.

Um I think we have to feel satisfied that the the development meets the 10 considerations.

The biggest one I'm concerned about is the um abutment and the buffer. That's my biggest concern.

You mean in terms of like the the trees buffer between the community?

Yeah. And they're looking down and she's right. I mean they're going to look down a street. Um, and hey, I live in downtown and I look at streets and I also have a sidewalk. It's all of that's they're going to put a sidewalk on my property. I don't get to say saying it either way, so I feel you on that. Um, whoever was talking about that, but um, I know that their goals are usually it's about connectivity. They want more people walking on the streets and not on the roads for safety. Um, at least in the sidewalk example. So, um, yeah, my biggest request would be to reconsider either the amount of the buffer and or the screening at least for part of it. Um,

I think the with the exception of one buffer, all of them met the

Yes.

the current year.

The one that didn't was on Salem.

It was Salem. That's right. And I understand that too because as somebody who's tried to get recruit commercial and retail, they want to be seen and

they want parking easy because people don't want to go behind and walk around. We're lazy. I'm lazy.

I want to park them right in front.

I asked that question. Landscape market. I don't remember her name. I'm sorry.

Um

she said the same thing I said, which is I found it odd to put the parking in front plus I don't really like parking that you drive by. I'd rather have see the retail and some landscape and then have a seat of cars. That's

but that's because that's how they're attract if you want to attract them they people want to get out easily and get to where they're going.

There's also like that concept of having that setback so you aren't in like you know a tunnel with high you know higherrise buildings right so you you tear it to go up as it goes further from the road

just conceptually

I know just count of carry has done similar stuff

right once they put the our place there. It's like

any other concerns

I guess

considerations I mean I should say

just a general comment because it's um and it it was actually triggered by the parking um commentary but you know like this is an important corridor you know like I I'd actually sent an email to the town council in 2020 about this for some discussions around widening of this um in the future, but it's it's essentially it's like the north entrance, you know, from 64 into Apex, downtown Apex, and for better or for worse, crossroads forward, ton of parking, and then it's like as you keep going down, like this quarter is going to keep developing and you're likely going to see more parking. Um, so, and I'm not saying that you're not doing what you need to do, you know, and you're not taking things to heart, but, um, this is an important piece of property. And so, as you develop it and make decisions around it, I would definitely encourage you to make decisions that would be high impact for your development and also be a benefit

to the surrounding community and area. um because you only have really one opportunity to do it right from the beginning because it could get redeveloped at some point but probably won't be in my lifetime. So um so yeah that's what I would say like if we could minimize parking that would be great. I think the question just goes back to the 2445 land use plan shows what it shows and if they built it just like that it would still be high density at the corner town houses surrounding it likely and this is a slight a deviation I won't say slight there's a percentage deviation from that but visually if you built one or you built the other they wouldn't be drastically different if you were driving by or interacting through it so how does that impact our decision I think is the final because it that's what it was. Yeah,

I I do appreciate the applicant working with staff and how much time they've all put into it. And I do recognize that it is an important piece of property. It's between 64 and downtown. Those are business districts and important transportation. And um I know we all would like to have more walkability. So, I do appreciate that and I understand um I understand the goal and I understand the angst as anybody who has seen a ranch or a duplex go down and four fourstory, you know, single family homes because you can also get density and height that way too. You can get three stories over a garage. Um because I've seen it. Um I understand it. At the same time, what I try to remember as I'm devastated by as I look out is those are four more families that are going to go downtown and spend some money. Um, and um, so I try to and if I wanted density, I probably don't want it on the edge of Apex. You probably want it where transportation, fire, police are already here. So, I do want to say thank you for trying and for working with the staff.

Any other discussion? Possible motion.

Just one more question. Sorry.

Yeah, absolutely. What's the the total acreage of the preservation area with the pond, the existing pond? Is there like a number for that?

I don't know off the top of my head. Yeah. Um, we can get that number for you. I know the RCA requirement is 20% of the the total site. Total site's 32 acres. Um, and and that's not all of the RCA, but it's a good chunk of it. So,

one is about eight, right? That's right. Yep.

About six maybe.

That's probably approximately right.

I have a what if question scenario, Matthew. Um if it becomes two pawns, if um the yellow area in TH-2 that would be reconfigured Is that correct? So, the number of town homes in TH-2 East would change.

Um, but potentially, so the pond will probably sort of straddle the line like right here. So, um, so, so the yes, you're right. There may not be town homes right up to the green boundary, but the unit counts in our pud will not change. Those are based on sketches we've done. So,

and then the existing boundary of the pond number one would remain because that's not buildable.

That's right. Correct. Yeah. Most likely. Yeah. And and if you see the dash line around it, that was the buffer if if we left the pond without draining it because it would be jurisdictional. Yep.

It was just wanted to visualize that.

Okay. Any other discussion? Possible motion. Not everybody. Just one at a time. He's putting on his glasses. I'm break. So I I know we're going to get another shot at this when it comes back through. So or the staff will for some of these questions. So I will put forth approval for uh 25 CZ24 with conditions of I would like the applicant as it joins the neighborhood.

Chissy, is that the buffer along the southern property boundary? [clears throat]

I'm talking about TH1 and TH2

along Britley Way.

Yes, thank you. I can't see that.

Okay, thank you.

And then that that one condition that was revised with the transportation.

I'm sorry, what? Oh, we had one revision to the uh channelizing.

Southbound.

Oh, sorry.

That was that just that revision.

Okay. Including

including staff revision. Sorry. Thank you.

Second.

Okay. We have a motion for approval uh with conditions of considerations for uh setbacks for TH1 and TH2 and also the transportation revision by staff.

Second I did I did I said approval.

You did you did I was just you did you did and and so do we have a second and a mark.

So we have a motion and a second. Uh so all in favor say I.

I. All oppose. All oppose is Mary, Sarah. Mary, and Sarah.

Okay, motion carries.

I make a motion to bring Alyssa back into the fold.

Second.

We got a motion in a second to bring Alysa back in. All in favor say I.

I.

All oppose. Motion carried. Welcome back, Alissa. Just a reminder to those who voted against that motion to fill out your dissenting member comment form.

Yeah.

Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

Let's just wait. That's all right. I'll just take it right between the eyes. Thank you.

I should I believe in it. I have some issues.

I thought you [laughter] just Okay,

that's

why we got to get political. You got it. I was like,

is it the charger?

Yeah, maybe

cuz some people were like, "Oh, we like Okay, it's not

100%."

Okay. Are we ready?

We are.

Okay.

All right. Okay. So, we have one UDO amendment before you that is actually a request by the town council to amend um the sections in the planning board and board of adjustment uh sections of the UDO to change the method for how these uh advisory boards are appointed. Similar changes are also being made to the town code for other all the other appointed boards. Um but the planning board and board of adjustment um the appointment standards are in the UDO. That's why you're seeing these two. Uh so there are a few minor changes such as um spelling out ETJ and clarification on um town council making membership recommendations to like Wake County Board of Commissioners for the ETJ member for example. Um but the two new standards are for planning board are subsections E and F. And the first is setting a time limit by which the mayor should make a recommendation to town council uh at either the expiration of a membership term or when someone has stepped down from a board uh due to moving away or or just relinquishing their their seat. And that time is 30 days 30 calendar days prior to the expiration of a term or no later than 30 calendar days calendar days after um receipt of the written notice of the vacancy from the town clerk. So that's the first change and it's a similar change for the board of adjustment. Um same wording um just in that section. Uh for subsection F, uh the uh UDO amendment states that the town council

may elect to not appoint an applicant recommended by the mayor, which is the case now. The mayor makes a recommendation for the appointment and it's up to the town council to confirm vote that recommendation up or down. Um but the change is that um this allows the town council to appoint another qualified applicant without a further recommendation by the mayor. So instead of sending it back to the mayor waiting on him to make another recommendation coming for another vote, it allows the town council to um make that um appointment uh themselves. Uh so and then also if the mayor does not make a recommendation within the time frames in subsection E then that would give the town council the ability to appoint a qualified applicant without that recommendation. So then when we go to the board of adjustment section you can see it's the exact same wording. It's just the subsection letters are are different. So, um, since this is not a planning related standard, it's more of a policy decision from council. Uh, that is why planning staff is not making recommendation on this. Um, but I'm happy to answer try to answer any questions you might have.

I mean, that kind of begs the question of if planning staff I know it's a UDO and so that's why we're seeing this, but if planning staff doesn't make a recommendation, why is the planning board

making a recommendation too?

Right. So, I mean the the planning board makes a recommendation on all UDO amendments to the town council. Um,

yeah,

we like our our concern is that board seats are filled.

We do we we do have a vacancy on the planning board that's been vacant for some time. Is it going to set a requirement that the town council already has they have to have a replacement already in their mind in case they reject who the mayor suggests? Doesn't that lend itself to saying that the town count that they've already discussed it ahead of time and know who they want and then is it is the time

frame that they would then suggest it right then because I know there's 30 the 30 days right where the mayor could suggest somebody else or

it doesn't say they have to do that at that meeting.

Okay. All right. So it's not an immediate response.

It could be. It doesn't have to be. So, whenever there's an a vacancy, um, as part of the council agenda packet, the town council can see all of the people who submitted applications for that position and, um, a list of whether they were deemed to be a qualified or not a qualified applicant. And so, part of that is as many of you have filled out the application, that's part of that packet is all the questions that are answered um, by each member. So there's there's already information that all the town council members have seen of everyone that's applied for the position and then who um the mayor recommended from that list of qualified applicants. So it's not like they're pulling a name out of out of a hat or just out of thin air. They're pulling from a list of qualified applicants. Um

could they push it back to the mayor though? So I mean let's say his list of five

he's got a backup.

Yeah.

He or she has a backup.

Yeah. I mean, instead of him recommending one, he can the mayor could recommend two or if he's recommending one, send it back just so it goes back through the mayor versus they just, oh, we're going to pick this.

Well, I have a question. How does it work for the other boards besides the two boards?

Like, does the mayor make a recommendation for all boards?

Yes.

And then it's uh accepted or not at the council?

Correct.

All appointed boards are the same. It's just that these are the only two boards with all of the appointment standards listed in the UDL.

I mean, I love an improvement to a standard operating procedure. Like, that's great. Section D. I think where I'm concerned on E is like no one wants to take something to council. I I this is how I envision council working. You all want consensus before a person is publicly denied

appointment, right? So, I guess there's just a little bit of concern about that if balancing out the interest of the mayor and council. Um, it

if the interest is in filling the space, then why not just do D? Why are we doing E?

Agreed.

Like, if you're going to just give them put them on a shot clock or her, whoever,

right?

And then just like leave everything the same. I feel really uncomfortable. I'm just going to be honest with you about this as a policy thing. I don't like changing things in the middle. I don't like there being an anomaly to how anything else is done.

Yeah.

Putting him on a shot clock is fair like because you need to have that. But I don't understand why we're even looking at E or whatever.

So is the concern about the first sentence with E, the second sentence of of E refers to D that if the if the recommendation is not made within the time frame specified, then the council may appoint a qualified recommendation.

That's fine. But so your concern is with the first sentence of E for the board of adjustment and F for the planning board [clears throat] and then if that there's no response just like right president like they don't respond it goes through. So then they can do that then I don't know why I don't I don't I feel uncomfortable with that first part for that reason. I don't want to I don't want to weigh into this. I don't want anomalies. People are suspicious enough. You heard it like actual reports are given by third party people and they're like there's no report

without an additional recommendation from the mayor. That's what I'm really getting. Yeah.

Still put it on a but put it on a shot. So then if that's the concern then go okay at the third time [laughter] and we still don't have it or something like that. If someone's being obstinate I get what you're saying but fine. But again, I just I am initially leerary, regardless of whom it is or what it's for, of having an anomaly in a system. It makes me

on something that I don't know anything about. I haven't heard anything about this except and we had another one

um about the EAB thing that they they brought over to us too and it's just like

well my my preference would be that whatever the other whatever happens to the other boards should remain with these two boards,

right? if I was

consistenc and the proposal is to amend the town code exactly consistent with this. So we have this language has been vetted from the clerk's office with consultation with legal and and so um it's the same language that's and same process that's being proposed for all appointed boards. So it so there would be consistency among all the boards.

Can I just ask a simple question? Why are we changing it if it's working now? Why do we

Well, I think the she did make the point that there is a very long-standing vacancy on this board in particular.

Is that why the vacancy on this board that was

I can't answer that question.

We don't have applicants. I mean,

we have applicants.

You have applicants.

So, I think it does warrant a like if we think of our UDO as a standard operating procedure like you know adding SOPs adding some efficiencies to your SOP it's a good thing.

Yeah. Um but it also has to come in the balance of interested parties within the decision-m authority

currently. Does the town council can they make can they appoint and recommend to the mayor or is that not happening now?

No. No. Right now the mayor in the ordinance

makes the recommendation and then the town council votes whether to approve that recommendation or not. that the mayor doesn't like the list. What you're saying the recommendations aren't happening.

That's what you're saying.

There's a lot of scenarios that could play out under the current rules.

I'll go ahead and say I'm I'm definitely in favor of the uh new business amendment excluding 2.12F and 2.12E.

All of F and E or

Oh, well, we just Yeah.

Or the first sentence of FNE.

While he's pondering, I do have one technical question.

So, the ETGA rep will now get be appointed by the uh county commissioner.

That's the same that that that's currently the practice.

Okay. Okay. Cuz I wondered why myself,

yes.

Being outside of the ETJ, why why that person would be appointed by the town council, but ETJ would be appointed by the county commissioner. Yes position is statutoily required by state law. Okay.

The Wake County position like you are was added by our town council.

Okay. That's

Yeah.

I just need a little clarification. So did I give you

I'm just curious if if the mayor has had any input or

Yeah. Did

my understanding is this was discussed to some degree in a work session, but I was not a part of those conversations and so I'm not gonna Well,

I can't answer anything about that.

Thank you. I think I would uh be my proposal to uh reschedule this until he's had a chance to have some input. Uh it definitely right affects his office,

right? Yeah,

that would be my proposal. Um just to make sure that everyone because we're not in a hurry here, right? Everyone has a have a time to have input

in case that has not been the case. So, I I'd have to double check, but I believe this has been advertised for town council. Um, they are scheduled to hear it on September. Yes, it has been advertised. They are scheduled to hear this on September 22nd.

Well, hang on.

I'm still recommending it proposed to uh

So, I I just need to discuss this. So, let's say like there's five of us go missing. The town council can appoint those five people to this board. No, the mayor will make recommendations to fill vacancies and the town council can approve or deny. If they deny the seat, then the council can select from that qualified pool. Who would fill that seat?

Does the qualified the people who the

applicants right of the form? Do they go through you guys first at all?

The clerk's office handles the applications. So, they

you guys don't see any of the

not until it's put on the agenda. So, planning staff is not giving input.

No, I got you. I got you. And to who gets appointed?

If you're gonna if you're going to put something before me that I don't know anything about and then you're going to shot clock me and tell me I have to vote on it because you're going to talk about it in two weeks, I'm going to say no because I don't know anything about it. I don't feel qualified to talk about it. So, I'm just going to go nope or come back and give us some answers. And if if our opinion doesn't matter, then why did they ask us? If they don't need our approval, then why ask us? Well, they do need I mean well

they don't need our approval.

That's a philosophical question. That's right. They don't need it.

Make a decision without it.

I mean this the state law says that the planning board shall make a recommendation to the town council. It's just the distinction for UDO amendments is that it's not a public hearing at planning board. Um it's only a public hearing at town council.

And I think delay in the matter would not really determine it ultimately. I I'm I'm thinking we should continue until we have a more informed transparent

Diane. Have you looked at the calendar to see if there's a planning board meeting with the 30 days?

29 days.

I just know buildings and design and zoning. I don't know.

It feels like we're just

like too legal for me.

Changing something that has been in effect and removing power from somebody's position in office without their direct input.

Chair's decision to defer the

That's important.

I support it. I that's my my consideration is to continue until everyone's been informed and uh make make sure that the mayor's had input. I don't think you know that's I think that's fair. It's balanced and I don't believe that uh rushing this is

is merited.

I would recommend that we approve it striking that first sentence in F

and E.

Yeah. Under board of adjustments, the first

which sentence

notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in subsections A through C, the town council may elect not to appoint an applicant recommended by the mayor, in which case the town council shall appoint another qualified applicant without further recommendation from the mayor. So that if we strike this that sentence in both sections that still helps maintain the existing balance of interest amongst the council and mayor while creating the timing perspective that helps move along.

I could I could and they'll see what the issue is.

Think that's

right. So you have that 30-day to move start moving things along.

So how would it read just so I'm clear?

So it would so subsection E or F in the planning board section would would just read beginning it at if if no recommendation is provided by the mayor within the applicable time frame established in subsection D or E in the planning board section. The town council may appoint a qualified applicant without a recommendation from the mayor. Now, it's going to come up with the question of, okay, we've outlined this procedure for making an appointment. What happens if the council votes no, and I think that then the mayor comes back with a

second subsequent applicant.

I still don't feel comfortable just because it's it's like I feel like

if we're going to change something that affects

his position

and there's something that

we're just making a recommendation. We're not changing anything. I agree with you.

For me, the recommendation that

I don't mind there being a shot clock. I just feel like I don't know right now and no one can tell me if all the interested parties have weighed in on this language.

Right. That's where that's where we're

I was thinking as well was if the

mayor's not been involved with the discussion at all, then shouldn't we have at least the mayor's office chime in somewhere?

What's the rest?

Without without, you know, without technically handcuffing him

completely. Amanda, what's the detriment to deferring the item? Like if we made that decision, what would What's the

Well, there is a state law time frame that the planning board has to make a recommendation to the town council within 30 days. So, your next planning board meeting is actually 29 days. It doesn't always work out that the planning board can actually defer time for another meeting, but then that makes it be like the day before the council meeting. So, um

why are we tied to that though? That's what I'm saying. That delay is state law and so

for 30 days I'm talking about this town it's it's going before town council on XYZ date why can't it go in October

before town council

so the direction was given that all of the town town code and UDO amendments would proceed at the same pace at the same time because they wanted to take care of all of the boards at the same time and so the town code amendments for all the other boards would be proceeding as of right now on September 22nd and that was what was discussed just um the direction given by town council through the clerk's office and and so on.

Um

we've been hearing UDO amendments all summer,

right? We we've approved other UDO amendments this summer, right?

Uhuh.

And we're just now getting this one and we're we're beyond the 30-day shot. That's I don't understand.

We're under with

No, we're on you're you're under. You would have the ability to recommend to to continue to not make a vote.

Let's continue. But you got I misunderstood. I thought it was the other way around. My bad.

So So I just have to interject. What information do you need? Because we probably aren't going to have any information for you at the next meeting either.

There may be nothing different and we don't know that we'll have anything.

I believe we we as staff will not have any other information to give to you. So if you need time to talk to people on your own, that's fine. But I'm just going to tell you right now that we're not g She did the whole presentation. It's just that's all we have and we will not have more.

I mean to put this delicately, we the last town council recommended UDO update we unanimously voted against twice and it still ultimately changed at town council level. Correct.

So I think I would like as a practice to at least make a recommendation to move the ball forward. So, I'm going to stick with my original thought and make a recommendation to approve the amendments, but striking the first sentence of 2.1.2 BF. This is hard, Amanda. You're doing great.

2.1.3 B. The first sentence of both of those sections.

So, we have two different recommendations. I guess if I'm not mistaken, we have one to accept Except for

that was my Oh, it was a motion. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the motion. I heard I'm going to make a recommendation. I'm sorry. My bad. I was listening for motion.

That motion is in the interest of moving this ball forward but keep maintaining the balance of powers within the current setup,

but

okay. So, we have a motion to accept the EU new amendments except on 2.12F and 2.13E striking the first sentence. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? We know we do not have a second. Now it's brought back to the board.

Motion fails. So I'll start out by making a motion that we uh postpone this until the

October 12th meeting. That's my motion. Do we have a second?

I second that.

We have one second. We have a motion in a second. All in favor say I.

I.

All oppose.

No.

Motion carries.

Two nos.

Secondar.

I do.

Mary seconded.

Mary. Sorry.

Desented was Alyssa.

Steven and Alyssa.

Stephen.

So I'll need your dissenting member report filled out. Say save to the laptop, please.

I got 2% battery, so maybe I should get a hard copy. [laughter]

Oh, I can plug in.

All right, we have one more motion, please.

I'd like to make a motion to adjurnn.

Got a motion to adjurnn. We got a second.

Second.

Motion. All the approve say I.

All post motion.