2026-09-14 - Planning Board Meeting

00:28No, I

00:32Breakfast.

10:41Good evening. Uh welcome uh everybody to

10:44the town of Apex Planning Board meeting.

10:46Today's date is September 14th, 2026.

10:50Uh please bow your head in prayer.

10:54Uh God, help us listen more than we

10:56speak. Even if we disagree, let there be

10:58respect. Keep emotions steady, words

11:01thoughtful, and conversations

11:02productive. Let there be unity be

11:04stronger than division. These things we

11:05ask in your name. Amen.

11:08>> May we stand for the pledge of

11:09allegiance.

11:14>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

11:16United States of America and to the

11:19republic for which it stands, one nation

11:22under God, indivisible, with liberty and

11:26justice for all.

11:30All right. Thank you.

11:34We have any items of information from

11:35staff?

11:38>> Nothing this evening. Thank you.

11:40>> All right. Thank you. So, now we will

11:42move into public comment. Uh if you've

11:45not done so already, to your left, you

11:47can sign in to speak on any agenda or

11:50non-aggenda items. Uh the purpose of

11:52public comment is to allow the public to

11:54speak on items that do not appear in the

11:58uh today's agenda under public hearings.

12:00Any member of the public wishing to

12:02comment on public hearings items will be

12:04called at the appropriate time later in

12:06the agenda. Um we do ask that all

12:09comments be limited to three minutes and

12:11please not repetitive. If there's a

12:13large number of speakers for one

12:14particular item, the planning board asks

12:16that a representative uh could be

12:18selected to speak for the entire group

12:19and limit the comments to nine minutes.

12:21Uh do we have anyone signed up to speak

12:23on any non-aggenda items? And we have uh

12:26Mr. Roach.

12:30Members of the planning board, uh Jeff

12:31Roach, 905 Newington Way. I'm here as a

12:33private citizen tonight, not as an

12:35engineer here in town. Um, but I do have

12:37a question about the uh new business

12:39item number one tonight, which is a UDO

12:40amendment concerning the appointment of

12:43applicants for the planning board and

12:45the uh board of adjustments. Uh, there's

12:47a UDO amendment coming through without a

12:49staff recommendation. I believe staff

12:50did not write this. I mean, they

12:52generally wrote it, but um, in

12:54compliance with the UDO, it is changing

12:56the way that the mayor is able to

12:57appoint members to the those two boards.

13:00At present, the mayor is is the sole

13:02person that gets to nominate people. the

13:04board, the council then votes on them.

13:06Yes or no, gives them a thumbs up,

13:08thumbs down, we like you, we don't like

13:09you. That's how it is today. If they

13:11vote a member down, they go back or an

13:13appointee down, they go back, the mayor

13:14finds somebody else to appoint, the

13:15board, then council then votes on that

13:18person. uh the UDO amendment I think

13:20section under the planning board it's

13:22section F and under the board of

13:23adjustment it's section E that says that

13:26if the town if the mayor goes for an

13:28appointment place somebody in front of

13:29the town council and the town council

13:31votes that member down the council can

13:33immediately appoint somebody to that

13:35position. Um this is taking the power

13:38away from the mayor's office regardless

13:39of whether you like the current mayor

13:41hate the current mayor or the next mayor

13:42or four mayors from now. It's changing

13:44the way all the appointments for you

13:46guys and the board of adjustments are

13:48heard. So, um I'm a I'm a fan of keeping

13:51um those folks with the mayor. It's one

13:53of those powers as the citizens of Apex

13:55electing the mayor to that position. He

13:57should have the ability to recommend

13:58appointments to this to your board as

14:00well as a board of adjustments. So, I'm

14:02asking you guys to recommend denial of

14:04this tonight. Um, I like section E for

14:08the planning board and I like section D,

14:10which says if the mayor does not appoint

14:12somebody within 30 days, then the

14:14council can take action. I I think

14:16that's a great idea. Um, but I don't do

14:18not like the idea of the council voting

14:20somebody down and then turning around

14:21and electing putting their own person in

14:22the board. So, just my opinion, guys. I

14:24hope you uh I hope you will vote this

14:26down tonight um as it moves forward to

14:28council in a couple weeks, whenever it

14:29is. So, thank you for your time, guys.

14:32>> Thank you, Mr. Roach.

14:34Do we have Well, we don't have anyone

14:36else signed up to speak on any

14:38non-aggenda items. Is there any other

14:40for public comment on items on this

14:42agenda?

14:46Hearing none, we will close public

14:48comments. And we normally go to consent

14:50items, but we do not have any of those

14:51tonight. So, we will move directly into

14:53public hearings.

14:57Public hearing still has the same threem

14:58minute rule. And please, not repetitive.

15:01Uh we'll now move into item number one.

15:03Uh but before we move in, I'm going to

15:05need item number one. I'm going to need

15:06to recuse myself from the zoning. Uh I'm

15:09going to need to recuse myself from the

15:10reszoning case 26 CZ06.

15:13>> I would like to make a motion to recuse

15:15Sher Brazwell.

15:17>> Have a motion.

15:18>> I'll second.

15:19>> We have a second. All in favor say I.

15:22>> I.

15:22>> All oppose. Motion carried.

15:26>> All righty. Uh we will move into then

15:28public hearing possible motion regarding

15:30reszoning case 26Z06

15:34uh light industrial phase 3. The

15:37applicant Vertex Square LLC along with

15:39their agents Jason Baron and Leticia

15:41Shapiro Morning Star Law Group and Jeff

15:44Roach Peak Engineering and Design seek

15:46to reszone 8.45 acres from Techflex

15:49conditional zoning to tech flex

15:51conditional zoning TFC.

15:55Joshua, take it away. All

15:56>> righty. Joshua Kian, planner 3 with the

15:58planning department here to present the

16:00resoning case for staff. Uh, this

16:02resoning is in the northwest area of

16:05Apex, just north of US64.

16:08The reasonzoning um the purpose of this

16:10resoning is to facilitate a contemplated

16:13buildout here of phase three of the

16:15remaining acreage in Apex Light

16:17Industrial. The parcel is roughly uh

16:198.45 45 acres and there were once a pond

16:23and a single family home on the lot and

16:25they have been removed as part of the

16:26overall apex light industrial

16:28development.

16:30The property is currently zoned tech

16:32flex conditional zoning as mentioned

16:33before. Um that was approved in

16:35reszoning case 22 CZ21.

16:38Uh to the west and is the continuation

16:42of that same zoning that this parcel

16:44currently has. And also to the north

16:46there's also that continuation in this

16:48blue color. A small portion to the north

16:50and then to the east of the site you

16:53have rural residential um where a single

16:55family home is on both lots.

16:59To the south across US 64 we have plan

17:02unit development conditional zoning

17:03here. Um you'll know this site as the

17:05Harris ter in Sweetwater. And then

17:08directly to the south across US64 we

17:10have plan commercial where a landscape

17:12supplier currently operates.

17:15The applicant is proposing to update the

17:18a single zoning condition um to and

17:20retain all of the other tech conditional

17:23zoning standards within this resoning.

17:25Um, in the staff report you'll find

17:27condition one, which states maximum

17:30square footage changed from 500,000

17:33square feet currently in the 22CZ21

17:36zoning to now be two 530,000

17:40square ft. Uh, this is an addition of

17:4330,000 square feet um in limitation of

17:46the overall light industrial project.

17:50The 2045 land use map identifies this

17:53area as office employment and commercial

17:55services and the proposed reszoning to

17:58tech conditional zoning is consistent

18:00with that land use classification.

18:03The applicant conducted neighborhood

18:04meetings on April 16th and July 13th of

18:072026. Those reports are in your agenda

18:10packet. This resoning case was exempt

18:12from meeting with the environmental

18:14advisory board as um all of the

18:16environmental zoning conditions remain

18:18unchanged from the original zoning in

18:202022. Uh planning staff does recommend

18:23approval of reszoning case 26 CZ06 with

18:27the conditions offered by the applicant.

18:29We found that the reasonzoning is

18:30reasonable and in the public interest as

18:33the proposed amendment uh to the

18:34existing conditions will allow for an

18:36additional 30,000 ft of non-residential

18:39development within an overall

18:40development while maintaining all of the

18:42other zoning conditions that currently

18:44exist for this site. Happy to take any

18:47questions and Tish is here and I believe

18:49Jason is here as well to answer any

18:50questions on the project.

18:54>> All right, thank you very much. Uh

18:56questions from the

18:58board.

19:00>> It looks like the primary access is

19:02coming off of the western boundary for

19:05that. So, there's no driveway off of US

19:0764 to be expected with the one so close.

19:10Um,

19:12with the the three different, I guess,

19:15pods, if you will, any connectivity to

19:18the north parcel needed or is that not

19:20necessary because of that main corridor

19:22connection?

19:23>> Yes. So, L Road, which is the proposed

19:26street here, um going east west, uh will

19:30separate phases one, which is this phase

19:32here, and phase three, which is this

19:34phase here on the south, from phase two

19:36to the north. There's going to be an

19:37access, there's going to be a public

19:38street here for L road stubbing to the

19:41east. And there's also access road to

19:43the north and parking lots will be

19:45access from l.

19:52Anything else

19:54>> with that access from US 64? Is there is

19:57a developer adding like a turn lane as

20:00part of that or is it just pretty much

20:03>> I don't believe there's a turn lane

20:04being added for this point of access. Um

20:07Goodwin Road does. Okay. The engineer

20:11will speak to that.

20:15[clears throat]

20:15[laughter]

20:17>> Thanks Jeff.

20:20>> All right. Now, I'm Jeff Roach with Peak

20:22Engineering and Design. Um, yeah,

20:24there's no changes. There's no access

20:26from this parcel to 64. Um, the gap

20:28between phase one, which is the are the

20:30white building roofs you see now. This

20:31is the existing driveway. It's a right

20:33in right out access off of US 64.

20:35They'll come in off off of US 64 onto

20:38what's called Brute Street. They'll be

20:39able to make a right turn into phase

20:41three. And we're also working to answer

20:43Alyssa's question, we're also working on

20:45making an access to the north to Low

20:47Road. So, that's all part of our sketch

20:49plans. Um, but it the only zoning

20:51condition is a 30,000 square feet. So,

20:53>> does that answer your question? Okay, D.

20:55Thank you.

21:02>> All right,

21:03>> Josh, thank you very much.

21:04>> You're welcome. And the applicant does

21:06have a presentation.

21:07>> I'll say the only person I hear that's

21:10here to speak is uh Tish Shapiro with

21:12Morning Star. So, come on up.

21:16>> I just want to apologize in advance. uh

21:18cold caught me last week and doesn't

21:20want to let go. So, um I'm going to do

21:23my best here. So, good evening uh

21:25members of the board. Leticia Shapiro

21:27Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of

21:29the applicant Vertex Square. Joining me

21:32this evening is Jeff Roach of Peak

21:33Engineering and Design who's been

21:35involved in the engineering and design

21:38of the site. And Joshua did a great job

21:40outlining the details of the case. So, I

21:42just want to mention a few things. So,

21:44the case does involve the uh parcel

21:46that's highlighted in yellow, which was

21:49part of the an assemblage that was

21:51reszoned in March of 2023 via ordinance

21:5322CZ21, known as Apex Light Industrial,

21:57that reszone to these properties to

21:59Techflex Conditional District. Morning

22:01Star Law Group and Peak Engineering both

22:04represented the applicant in this

22:06original resoning case. Also approved

22:08with the resoning were a robust set of

22:10conditions. Development of the property

22:13is currently under construction and

22:14phase one and phase two are making great

22:16progress and the project was able to

22:20create more usable buildable building

22:23square footage um during phases the

22:26first two phases which has been

22:29approximately 459,820

22:33square ft of nearly finished

22:34construction and we would like to expand

22:37that success into phase three with the

22:39property along 64 frontage In order to

22:41do that, the project does need that

22:43flexibility with an additional 30,000

22:45square ft. So again, the applicant is

22:48just asking for that additional 30,000

22:50square feet, which would change that

22:52maximum square footage of of uses to 530

22:56ft instead of the 500,000 ft. And as

22:59Joshua noted, it also remains consistent

23:02with the comprehensive plan and the land

23:04use designation of office employment and

23:06commercial services which will allow

23:08that 30,000 square feet of non-res

23:10residential development within this

23:12development um and then maintain all of

23:14the other zoning conditions of the

23:16original reszoning. So with that, we

23:18thank you for your time this afternoon

23:20and we're here to answer any other

23:22questions that you might have and would

23:24appreciate your recommendation of

23:25approval. Thank you.

23:27Thank you very much. Uh any questions

23:29for the applicant or Mr. Roach?

23:34All right. Uh anybody else to speak for

23:36or against the reszoning?

23:41All right. With that, I will bring it

23:43I'll close the public hearing and bring

23:45it back to the board for discussion and

23:47a possible motion.

23:56Well, not all at once. I

23:58>> say the silence is golden.

24:00>> No, [clears throat] I mean, I've

24:01actually, you know, I've been to these

24:03buildings. They look great. Um, it's a

24:07welcome addition. I know that Apex is

24:09actively trying to expand its industrial

24:11commercial base and that we have people

24:14investing in that type of product to

24:17help us achieve that goal. So I think it

24:19fits in line with also what's going down

24:21the road at AP Apex.

24:25Yep. The one at the Beacon's doing.

24:27>> Yep.

24:27>> Um so

24:30if there are no other comments, I don't

24:32want to jump the gun in case anyone has

24:34feedback. I will make a motion to

24:37approve approve uh resoning case 26

24:40CZ06.

24:42>> Okay, we have a motion from Melissa.

24:45>> Second.

24:46>> Uh we have a second. Any further

24:48discussion?

24:50All in favor?

24:52>> Any opposed?

24:54Thank you very much, Joshua. Thank you

24:56very much. Good presentation and MP

24:58Shapiro. Thank you. Uh so I'll make a

25:01motion then now to bring uh Chair

25:04Brazwell back into the board.

25:08>> Second, Christie.

25:09>> We have a second from Christie.

25:12All in favor?

25:13>> Any opposed?

25:15>> Thank you.

25:16>> Back on, gentlemen. Thank you. So now we

25:18will move on before we move into item

25:20number two on the result of case 25 ZZ

25:2324. I believe we have a uh need a motion

25:26to recuse Alyssa Bird.

25:28>> I'll make a motion.

25:29>> We have a motion. We have a second.

25:31>> Second.

25:32>> Second.

25:32>> Have a second. All in favor say I.

25:34>> I.

25:34>> All oppose.

25:36>> Motion carried.

25:37>> Mary. Mary.

25:41>> All right. June.

25:43>> Good afternoon planning board. Uh this

25:46is reszoning case 25 CZ24

25:49located south of Highway 64 north of

25:52Apex Peekway.

25:54It's located at the southwest corner of

25:56Allwheel Drive and North Salem Street.

26:00Um the current zoning is residential

26:04agricultural and rural residential.

26:07There's a small piece of uh plan

26:09commercial conditional zoning.

26:13The proposed zoning district is plan

26:15unit development conditional zoning just

26:18to look at the surrounding areas. Um

26:21this is to the north plan commercial

26:24conditional zoning with the Ford

26:26dealership

26:27and to the east is light industrial. Uh

26:31this is um

26:34see to the east residential agricultural

26:37and office and institutional in this

26:40portion and then residential

26:42agricultural. So this is um the the auto

26:46dealership um for trucks and then we

26:51have single family and office and then

26:54dies and a a church. So to the uh south

26:58is medium density conditional use and

27:02medium density Hen Hall and Hatton Place

27:05and then to the west is medium density

27:08conditional use and that is Haden Hall.

27:14So the 2045 land use um map

27:17classification

27:19this is to the um northeast section is

27:23high density residential office

27:25employment and commercial services at

27:28approximately 5 acres and then medium

27:31density office employment commercial

27:33mixed use um and that is at 27.3

27:38acres.

27:41So the 2045 land use map if reszoning is

27:44approved there is includes an expansion

27:48of the high density residential to the

27:51south get

27:54um and then realignment along west

27:57portion. If the properties are reszoned

28:00as proposed, the 2045 land use will

28:02automatically be amended to uh the

28:05mixeduse

28:07highdensity residential office

28:09employment commercial services at 8.27

28:11acres and then the rest is MC mixeduse

28:15medium density residential office

28:17employment commercial services at 24.03

28:21acres.

28:23So, the existing um site, this is 16

28:27parals totaling 32.35 acres. It includes

28:31several single family homes, um

28:34outuildings, barn structures, there's

28:37two ponds, and you can see there's uh

28:39several streams,

28:41um open fields, and the mature trees.

28:45So looking at the project site

28:47background um back in 1989

28:52it was a low density residential on the

28:552010 land use map and then in 2020 20 uh

29:00for the 2025 land use map that was

29:04adopted in 2004 is mixeduse medium

29:07density residential office institutional

29:10and commercial.

29:12in 2013 on the 2030 land use map was

29:17mixed use um not on outlined. So there

29:20was no requirement for mixed use as far

29:23as um non-residential.

29:26The northeast area is as what it is that

29:30you see today is 4.92 acres and the

29:33remaining was 27.38

29:35acres.

29:36In 2016,

29:38the 2030 land use map, the mixed use was

29:42outlined and that was a requirement for

29:44mixed use um 30% non-residential.

29:51And um the applicant conducted three

29:54neighborhood meetings on November 20th,

29:572025,

29:58March 3rd, and July 23rd, 2026. and the

30:02neighborhood meeting reports are

30:04attached to your staff report. A letter

30:07of impact from Wake County Public School

30:09System was received for this

30:11reasonzoning and it's included also in

30:13your staff report packet. Um they

30:15indicate that all grade levels within

30:18the current assignment area for this

30:20resoning development are anticipated to

30:22have sufficient capacity for future

30:24students.

30:27And looking at the proposed PUD master

30:30plan, um you can see that it has four

30:33districts. So, uh townhouse one, two,

30:38and three districts. And then the

30:40non-residential multifamily mixed use

30:44district is in the uh northeast corner.

30:50Um looking at the proposed residential

30:53and recreational uses. So townhouse and

30:56townhouse detached are in the townhouse

30:59um one two and three district and then

31:02smallcale multifamily and multifamily or

31:05apartment um are located in the

31:08northeast section and then recreational

31:12um uses are all permitted in all four

31:14districts.

31:17This is the proposed U mixeduse district

31:20non-residential uses

31:22and all all of them are listed on the

31:25slide.

31:31The proposed design controls there's a

31:34maximum total units of 460 units maximum

31:38multifamilies 285

31:40and then maximum townhouse or smallcale

31:43multifamily units 175 with townhouse

31:47district 1 and two there's a cap of not

31:50to exceed 120 units and then for the

31:54nonresidential maximum square footage is

31:5722,000

31:58and with a minimum um square footage of

32:0110,000 square ft.

32:06So on this slide we're showing the

32:08setbacks for um for all the uses front

32:12loaded, rear loaded, multifamily and

32:14then the mixed use. The height standards

32:16are for the town houses at three stories

32:1945t

32:21and then multifamily fourstory buildings

32:2460 ft. If it is four to five story

32:27split, the maximum is 70 ft. The

32:30vertically mixeduse building is a

32:32maximum five stories at 75 ft.

32:38And now we get into the design controls

32:41as far as the building locations for

32:44town houses in the T1 um and smallcale

32:48multi- family in the mixed use along

32:52North Salem Street. They shall address

32:56North Salem um street. So they would be

32:58alley access from the rear structures

33:02located within 55 ft of North Salem

33:04Street. that is a maximum um four story

33:08or 60 feet. And then structures located

33:11within 55 ft of street A maximum of four

33:15stories 60 ft.

33:20So underneath the mixed use one district

33:22building placement controls within 100

33:26ft of street A and street B and street A

33:31and North Salem Street. No parking bays

33:33or drive aisles shall be permitted

33:35between a building's front facade and

33:37the adjoining street. And that's just to

33:40set up that corner to have that building

33:42placement.

33:44Corner of North Salem Street and

33:45All-Wheel Drive shall be anchored by a

33:48building with no more than one double um

33:51loaded that's parking on each side of

33:53the drive aisle, parking bay, and drive

33:56aisle between the street and the

33:58building.

34:00and underneath for uh parking town homes

34:02and non-residential uses shall comply

34:04with the UDO and state law. Underneath

34:07the MC multifamily mixed use, one to two

34:11bedroom units, that's 1.3 spaces per

34:14dwelling unit. And then at three, it's

34:151.8 um spaces per dwelling unit.

34:22So for the architectural conditions um

34:26these are divided into areas based on

34:28locations. So, how the putt is set up is

34:32town homes along North Salem Street is

34:35one has one section of architectural uh

34:38controls [clears throat]

34:40and then the next section is adjacent to

34:43single family homes and then of course

34:46the interior um for the rest of the area

34:51there's separate for smallcale

34:53multifamily buildings within that M1 MU1

34:56district and then multifamily mixeduse

34:59buildings.

35:02So, all areas have similar architectural

35:05conditions such as material

35:06requirements. Front side, rear elevation

35:09windows facing public rideway shall have

35:11trim. These are just a couple of the

35:13architectural conditions that you

35:15normally see. Front entrances shall

35:18include an architectural covered porch.

35:20And then the very color palette.

35:23This is for along North Salem Street

35:25specific architectural conditions. As

35:28you remember, these are all just reared

35:30and facing North Salem Street. So, the

35:33building shall not exceed five townhouse

35:36uh units per building. Roof break will

35:38be at every townhouse unit. Front facade

35:41shall have varied setback for uh each

35:44unit. A minimum of three steps to the

35:47front porch for a total of 13

35:50architectural conditions. And so here

35:52are some of the um concept elevation

35:56pictures.

36:00This next one is adjacent to the single

36:02family homes. Um

36:05and townhouse buildings where the front

36:08and rear facads are parallel with the

36:10southern shared property line with lots

36:13and hall shall not exceed four townhouse

36:15units per building. So it's less massing

36:18of a structure. Then townhouse buildings

36:21where they're um not parallel with the

36:24southern shared property line with lots

36:26and padden hall shall not exceed six

36:28townhouse uh units per building. So if

36:31it's coming more vertical instead of

36:33running parallel or diagonals there's

36:36less of a massing of the building.

36:40front-facing garage doors. They will

36:42have to have a window or decorative

36:44details and then the garage and not

36:46protrude more than one foot out from the

36:48front facade or front porch. And those

36:51are 12 total architectural conditions.

36:54And then here's some um elevation

36:57showing the front front loaded.

37:03And then the next one is the interior.

37:06Um townhouse buildings shall not exceed

37:09six townhouse units per building. Front

37:11facing again um windows for the garages

37:15and decorative details not protrude more

37:18than one foot out and there's 12 u total

37:22architectural conditions.

37:26Looking at the multifamily mixeduse

37:29concept elevations. these architectural

37:31conditions they include you know with

37:34the roof features materials and that

37:36facade art articulation

37:39and for the multifamily mixed users nine

37:42total architectural conditions. So an up

37:45and down of as far as the roof line is

37:48is varied and then articulation moving

37:51in and out so it's not just a flat

37:53building.

37:55And then here's some more multifamily

37:58concept elevations.

38:02the mixeduse concept elevation showing

38:05retail on the bottom and then of course

38:07residential on top.

38:14The applicant provided a conceptual

38:17streetscape, a view from the corner of

38:19North Salem Street and All-Wheel Drive.

38:23And this shows um a view of the building

38:26height in relation to North Salem

38:28Street. Here's the 10 foot wide uh side

38:32path that's required. A 15 foot type E

38:35buffer and the trees are shown ghosted

38:38so you can see through.

38:41And then a 7 foot wide um parking set

38:45back from the buffer.

38:4792 feet uh from the rideway to the

38:51building

38:52on North Salem and also on all-wheel

38:55drive.

38:57And then there's a um 12- foot

39:01sidewalk in front of the non residential

39:04area.

39:06This shows right here a pedestrian

39:08connection from North Salem uh street

39:1010- foot side path. Uh there's going to

39:13be a proposed as far as relocation as

39:16the bus stop.

39:19So having that pedestrian crossing so

39:22they don't have to scoot in between

39:24parked cars. Um, we wanted to have that

39:26nice corner feature.

39:31Now, getting into the environmental

39:33elements. Um, here's the the buffers in

39:36this column is what UDO requires. And

39:39then um the project is proposing a 15-

39:43foot type E buffer along the MU1 North

39:46Salem Street and All-Wheel Drive

39:51adjacent and then 20 foot type E buffer

39:54along the Salem Street townhouse section

39:59adjacent to the south side of All-Wheel

40:01Drive. Um

40:04on the TH3

40:06district is a 20 foot type D buffer and

40:10then along the southern perimeter

40:12adjacent to Haden Hall and Haden Place

40:16and the western is a 20 foot type B

40:19buffer.

40:23So in this area the RCA requirement is

40:2620% and the project is meeting that um

40:28percentage. They are preserving streams,

40:32the wetlands and associated repairing

40:34buffers. Um, and that provides the

40:36primary portion of the RCA throughout

40:39the property. Additional would be

40:41portions of storm water control measures

40:44permitted by the UDO and then um a

40:47specimen tree and perimeter buffers.

40:53I wanted to note that um the single

40:56family house at 1303 it's in this

40:59location

41:01um North Salem Street is listed on the

41:03historic registry capital area

41:05preservation performed an evaluation of

41:07the house and issued a report dated

41:09August 7th 2025. It deemed the house was

41:13not worthy of preservation. But the pub

41:15plan does include a condition that

41:18before demolition of the house,

41:19developer shall work with cap area

41:22preservation to identify historic

41:25elements including windows or the

41:27original doors so they could use those

41:29on um other uh historic preservation

41:33projects.

41:40So the PUD uh plan does include 12

41:43environmental conditions. Um those

41:46conditions 75% landscaping native

41:48species, the PET way stations, that 5-ft

41:52additional um buffer along uh the

41:56southern and western per perimeter, and

41:59then the multifamily building designed

42:01to meet green building um

42:03certifications.

42:05Specific to the town houses are the

42:07garage shall be wired with 220 240 volt

42:10electric for electric vehicle charging.

42:14And then um there is the tree protection

42:19of this existing willow oak tree.

42:22They it shall be preserved unless an

42:24arborist determines that the tree is

42:26diseased or dying. So, an arbur's report

42:29um will be required to include

42:31recommendations for any protective

42:33mitigation measures

42:35uh during construction and that shall be

42:37submitted at the um master subdivision

42:40plan application.

42:44And the um proposed PB plan shall

42:46include storm water management

42:48requirements for quality and quantity

42:50treatment outlined in the UDO.

42:56On July 1st, 2025, soil and road

42:59environmental consultant staff and town

43:01water resources staff met at the project

43:04site to evaluate three drainage features

43:07to determine if they are subject to town

43:08of apex repairing buffer rules. So it

43:11was determined that um pond one

43:15and uh the stream A1

43:19we're required to have a um buffer

43:26also uh the wetlands

43:29W1 through five in this area and then W5

43:36is over here are jurisdictional and will

43:39be protected. So W6 is isolated. There's

43:43no required buffer.

43:45Now the applicant does intend to drain

43:48pond one.

43:51They also submit a hydra hy hydraologic

43:54analysis memo and that's a study of what

43:57would happen if the dam failed in the

44:00pond.

44:01The request to North Carolina Department

44:03of Environmental Quality for the pond

44:05dam hazard determination which requests

44:08um concurrence that the dam is at high

44:11hazard uh class C. So NCDEQ

44:15determination later letter letter dated

44:17September 8th, 2026 determined that a

44:20class C high hazard classification is

44:22presently warranted. So all of those

44:25documents are included in the staff

44:27report packet. Um and they the applicant

44:31does propose draining the pond due to

44:32the high hazard classification.

44:35Therefore, the pug concept plan does not

44:37designate most of the repairarium um

44:40buffer around the pond

44:43as RCA. Any proposed impacts to

44:46repairing buffers associated with

44:47draining of the pond will be evaluated

44:50during the buffer authorization process

44:53as part of the construction drawing plan

44:55review.

45:00for the um public facilities. The

45:02proposed uh pud will be served by town

45:05of Apex water sanitary uh sewer and

45:08electric systems. The utility design

45:11will be finalized at the master

45:12subdivision review and the ultimate

45:15design for the utility shall meet the

45:17current um town of Apex master water and

45:20sewer plans for approval.

45:26So for transportation conditions,

45:30Kimley Horn and Associates prepared a

45:32traffic impact analysis for the um North

45:36Salem Street mixeduse PUD. The TIA

45:39include trip generation, distribution,

45:42traffic analysis, and recommendations

45:44for transportation improvements required

45:46to meet anticipated project traffic

45:49demands. The report examined the

45:52existing traffic condition, projected

45:54background traffic condition, and

45:55projected buildout traffic conditions.

45:59I just want to note that the blue um

46:02represent steady intersections, but this

46:06does not include all of the the studied

46:09intersections. I just wanted to zoom in

46:12a little bit more um on this aerial.

46:15There's there's other intersections that

46:17were studied. And then the red dots are

46:20the access points for the project.

46:31So the transportation conditions and

46:33access locations. Let's look at

46:35all-wheel drive. that is classified as a

46:38minor collector and required a 10-ft

46:41side path along the southern side which

46:43the pup plan does um is consistent with

46:47for North Salem Street. It's a

46:49three-lane thoroughfare with a 10-ft

46:52side path along the western side and

46:55they are um providing that as well. The

46:59five access locations moving at the top

47:03and moving clockwise. Access one

47:06all-wheel drive, that's a full movement

47:09intersection.

47:11And then um number two on North Salem,

47:14that will be a right in only.

47:18Number three, uh North Salem Street

47:21access, a left in coming north and then

47:26right in and right out.

47:29Friendship Way um is location is access

47:33number four and then Charlene Downs Lane

47:36is number five access.

47:44So the transportation conditions um for

47:46North Salem Street and Britley Way

47:49zoomed in on this section right here.

47:52They construct a second southbound

47:54thorough lane from north of All-Wheel

47:57Drive which shall drop as a right turn

48:00lane at Britley Way for North Salem

48:04Street and All-Wheel Drive intersection.

48:06Restripe the southbound right turn lane

48:08on North Salem Street at All-Wheel Drive

48:10as a thorough right shared lane to

48:12terminate at also at Britley Way as a

48:15right turn lane. modify the traffic

48:19signal to accommodate the new southbound

48:21thorough lane. And then at site access

48:24number three on North Salem Street, this

48:28is aligned with the Thales outbound

48:31driveway. And there is a revision to

48:33this um condition as you can see in

48:36bold. we're going to add and then the

48:38strike through with an exclusive

48:42northbound left turn lane on North Salem

48:45Street and a channelized concrete median

48:49between them to prohibit left turns from

48:52both sides of North Salem Street.

48:59And then looking at the project,

49:01sidewalks on both sides of the streets

49:03within the project.

49:06Relocate, there's a existing bus stop um

49:11on North Salem Street on the Ford

49:14dealership side. Um relocate that bus

49:17stop with the landing amenity pad, the

49:20shelter with the bench, trash

49:21receptacle, and two bike racks.

49:25Construct this mini roundabout within

49:27the project. So this serves as a focal

49:30point and also traffic calming. So

49:33traffic coming up and down to get to

49:37All-Wheel Drive to get to this

49:39intersection to make a left.

49:44Pedestrian connection from North Salem

49:46Street side path to the mixeduse

49:48building. That was that pedestrian

49:50crossing going through the parking area.

49:53a sidewalk on the west side of

49:56Friendship Way.

50:00Extend the 10- foot side path along the

50:02project's North Salem Street frontage

50:04south to Britley Way

50:07and relocate and reconfigure the high

50:10visibility crosswalk that's currently at

50:13North North Salem Street for a possible

50:16rectangular rapid flashing beacon system

50:19on the north side of um access number

50:22three.

50:24Now the conditions here with all the

50:26asterisks

50:28means that um the applicant will need to

50:31work it's you know

50:34work with um transit because this is a

50:37transit line with a bus going I believe

50:40the town of Kerry going to downtown

50:43Kerry and also NC do they'll have to

50:46work with that as well if there's any

50:48construction um easements that are

50:51required. So if that cannot be achieved

50:55then there's a fee and loot built into

50:57that condition and it's listed in your

51:00staff report. also this rapid flash and

51:03beacon system um if D NC do they don't

51:08work that out um then in the condition

51:12it does state that they would provide um

51:14signage for that as well for the

51:18construction traffic restriction

51:21a condition that states all heavy duty

51:23construction traffic shall enter and

51:25exit this site via North Salem Street

51:27and all-wheel drive no construction

51:29traffic sign shall be posted along on

51:31French Church Way and Charlan Downs

51:34Lane. Provide however the equipment and

51:37vehicles shall be permitted on those

51:39streets to construct the that extension

51:42um or pedestrian connection related

51:45infrastructure.

51:50Uh the project does in is consistent

51:53with the town's affordable housing

51:54incentive zoning policy which requests

51:56that 10% of the total proposed dwelling

51:59units be provided as affordable housing.

52:02They're restricted to um earning up to

52:05120% of AMI for four cell units with a

52:1020-year affordability period and then up

52:12to 80% AMI for rental units with a

52:1630-year affordable

52:18um affordability period.

52:23So, the project was reviewed at the

52:25February 19th, 2026 um environmental

52:29advisory board. Out of the 12

52:31recommended conditions, seven were

52:33provided. Um, note that the EAB only

52:37provided suggested zoning conditions for

52:39this reasonzoning because the current

52:41requirement for the EOB to make a

52:43recommendation on the resoning based on

52:45legislative condition number five that

52:47went into effect on July 1st.

52:51also noted was uh during that time in

52:54February,

52:56the applicant did state, I believe, at

52:58the EAB that they um were going to keep

53:01the the pond. However, that condition

53:05does state if there's, you know, issues

53:08with the with the dam, then they they

53:10could drain the pond as well.

53:15Parks and Wreck reviewed on July 29th,

53:182026 meeting and they recommended a fem

53:22dedication for maximum combination of

53:24175 single family attached and 285

53:28multifamily residential units.

53:35So the um staff recommends approval of

53:3925 CZ24 as proposed by the applicant.

53:43The 2045 land use maps designates the

53:46area to be reszoned as mixeduse

53:48highdensity residential office

53:50employment commercial um services and

53:54mixed use medium density residential.

53:57The proposed plan unit development

53:59conditional zoning includes residential

54:02density at approximately seven units per

54:04acre in the southern western sections

54:07closest to the existing single family

54:09and mixed use area with a higher density

54:12housing and non-residential uses at the

54:15corner of All-Wheel Drive and North

54:16Salem Street. If the subject properties

54:19are reszoned as proposed, the 2045 land

54:22use will automatically be amended to

54:25that um high density office employment

54:29commercial services at 8.27

54:31acres and mixed use medium uh

54:34residential office employment commercial

54:36services that would be at 24.03 acres.

54:41The proposed reszoning to plan unit

54:43development conditional zoning will

54:45provide the flexibility to accommodate

54:47the growth in population infrastructure

54:50and coordin coordinated master plan

54:53development pattern consistent with the

54:55contemplated by the 2045 land use map.

54:59The proposed resoning is reasonable and

55:01is in the public interest for the

55:04following reasons. A minimum of 10% of

55:06the units will be restricted for

55:08affordable housing. Increased buffers

55:11are provided along the western and

55:13southern project boundaries. Permitted

55:16commercial uses are limited to those

55:17that are more compatible with the uh

55:19surrounding residential uses. Enhanced

55:23architectural design standards are

55:25provided for all the uses. A bus stop

55:28with amenities will be constructed site

55:31and vehicular and pedestrian

55:33connectivity for the existing Haten Hall

55:35and Haten Place subdivisions are

55:37approved with a required extension of

55:39French Way

55:42Street B to All Wheel Drive which

55:44provides access to the light at the

55:46intersection North Street and Allwheel

55:49drive and the extension of Jarling Downs

55:52Lane Street C to Street B.

55:56And with that, if you had any questions,

55:59staff is here and the applicant does

56:01have a presentation.

56:04>> Thank you, June. Any questions for

56:07staff?

56:08>> Oh, I did want forgot this one item.

56:13This is the um public hearing emails

56:16received since the posted public notice

56:18and this is about

56:202:30 as of 2:30 today.

56:25June, when you talk about the Channel

56:27left turn lanes off of North Salem

56:29Street, what I'm imagining is what's in

56:31front of Costco at Chipotle,

56:34Starbucks where they

56:37it's concrete channels for those left

56:39turn and that will that pull those cars

56:42out of the main thorough air so north

56:45southbound traffic can continue while

56:47those cars wait to take a left turn. I'm

56:51seeing a nod

56:53>> from our transportation staff.

56:57>> [laughter]

56:58>> Hey. Yes, there be they will be it'll be

57:01a left turn lane that just the

57:02channelization will prevent people from

57:04turning left out of the side street. So,

57:06yeah. Okay. It'll take them out of the

57:08through traffic. [clears throat]

57:09>> Okay. And then for the bus stop, this,

57:11you know, this comes to mind because as

57:13I was on Kilder Farm Road today, I got

57:15stuck behind a carry bus. And is is it

57:20is the bus stop going to have a little

57:22inset where it can pull off and not stop

57:25southbound traffic?

57:27>> I don't know that this location is going

57:29to have that.

57:30>> Okay,

57:32that's all I have.

57:34>> Any other questions for staff?

57:35>> I do.

57:36>> Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Grace.

57:38>> Oh, sorry. No, you go ahead. Go ahead.

57:39>> Okay, so I had two questions. One was

57:42about the land use map. gotten some

57:44emails that said that this plan was not

57:46in accordance with the land use map, but

57:48it sounded like through your

57:49presentation that it was. Can you just

57:50clarify that for me?

58:00It expands. I'm going way back. Um, so

58:03you can see this is existing.

58:06Here's a line right here. And what

58:09they're proposing is to extend the high

58:11density to the south. But in this in the

58:15rest of the area, it is um consistent.

58:19It's just in this little portion area

58:21where it's just extending it to the

58:23south.

58:25>> That would be amend

58:27um high density residential.

58:29>> Right.

58:29>> Okay. And then we've also had a lot of

58:32questions and thoughts and concerns

58:34about connections

58:36from this parcel into the existing

58:39communities. And in other

58:42uh when we've had other applicants come

58:43forward, I've always understood that

58:45that was part of the Apex has certain

58:47requirements like if you're connecting

58:50sometimes it's street material

58:51requirements they have to do. They want

58:53connectivity. You got to do a sidewalk.

58:55Um is that true? And if so, can you

58:58explain why those connections are

59:00required and preferred by the town?

59:02>> Well, and just to build on that really

59:04quickly, um, before you answer, June, I

59:07did notice one of the first plans

59:09culde-saced a hall. So, but this does

59:14not interconnect. So, yeah, just adding

59:16on that.

59:16>> Yeah, we just got we got questions on it

59:18and I believe that's our I don't think

59:20that's an applicant issue. I think

59:21that's a town of apex requirement if I'm

59:24not mistaken. And I just wanted to

59:25understand the reasoning behind that.

59:27>> Right. And in the first revision uh the

59:31first section

59:34they were showing the applicant was

59:36showing actually multifamily. So

59:38apartments did come all the way over

59:40here.

59:42So that's why the applicant was stating

59:44okay we would probably want to you know

59:47have that as a culac. And so staff, the

59:50UDO does require that all sub streets

59:53connect to um you know pro projects as

59:57far as it allows pedestrian and

1:00:00vehicular um connectivity. So the more

1:00:03connectivity you have, the more the the

1:00:06traffic is dispersed.

1:00:08>> Yeah. And so I'd gotten some comments

1:00:10like, "Hey, what if it could be

1:00:12pedestrian andor a different type other

1:00:14than vehicular?" But then when I was

1:00:16listening to your traffic study, it

1:00:18sounds like along Salem where we've got

1:00:20some C and F existing now they're going

1:00:23to become A's and that you'll actually

1:00:24be able are you going to be able to come

1:00:25out onto Salem? In other words, will

1:00:27people who are adjacent be able to come

1:00:29through the community and come out at a

1:00:31red light onto Salem?

1:00:33That's my question.

1:00:34>> Yeah.

1:00:35>> Yeah. So they'll be able to get come off

1:00:38of be anybody in Haden Hall will be able

1:00:41to come up here on street B and then get

1:00:44on to all-wheel drive and same with this

1:00:46this area as well.

1:00:48>> Okay.

1:00:49>> To make a a left. This is a full full

1:00:52movement intersection.

1:00:54>> Yeah.

1:00:57>> Sorry. Go ahead. You have a question.

1:01:00>> So street A is a is a light bird.

1:01:05No, that's not a light. The lights only

1:01:07at all wheel.

1:01:08>> Yes.

1:01:08>> Okay. All right. Um, can you go back to

1:01:11your slide, please, about the buffers,

1:01:13>> about what the UDO requires and then

1:01:16what the developer proposed.

1:01:22>> Sure.

1:01:43And just while she's looking at that, a

1:01:45quick question. Do we know if the

1:01:48planned town home units in one and two

1:01:51will be their exterior ones, will they

1:01:53be facing out to Hayden Hall or will

1:01:55they be backing out to Hayden Hall?

1:02:00Are you saying is there going to be

1:02:03maybe a alley along? Is that what you're

1:02:05>> I'm trying to understand the transition

1:02:07area. Right. So there's right now it's

1:02:09it's mostly pasture. Right. So there is

1:02:11some of that that I would hope the

1:02:13applicant would take into consideration

1:02:14as far as maturity and whatever. But

1:02:16before that, as someone who I know that

1:02:19if it's front facing, meaning if the

1:02:21fronts of the town homes are facing the

1:02:23backyards, for lack of a better term,

1:02:25for Hayden Hall,

1:02:27>> there's less of a fishbowl feeling

1:02:29because the back the back porches are

1:02:32used. You know what I'm saying? On the

1:02:33other way versus if they are backing

1:02:36towards the backyards of Hayden, I mean

1:02:38of Yeah. of the residential. And that's

1:02:40what I was wondering if you knew.

1:02:42>> No.

1:02:43>> Okay. Is that something that we can ask

1:02:44the applicant then maybe when they come

1:02:46through the

1:02:46>> I have that question too Christie just

1:02:48for placement purposes

1:02:50>> if we're

1:02:52only having a 20 foot buffer

1:02:57I think it I think that

1:03:00yeah okay I had questions about what it

1:03:02was

1:03:04>> a pasture 20 foot buffer right and

1:03:06something with trees but I I know that's

1:03:07not y'all that's the applicant

1:03:09>> and and the other thing is uh keep in

1:03:11mind that there is a 10 put um set back

1:03:15from all buffers for for structures.

1:03:24>> Go ahead, Mo.

1:03:26>> Um can you go over quickly again the um

1:03:28the difference between the the proposed

1:03:31um changes to the land use plan and what

1:03:33we what's currently on the plan? What's

1:03:35the actual difference in the size in the

1:03:38higher density area?

1:03:41Is there like percentage difference?

1:03:42See, I see it like visually, but what is

1:03:44it actually? How much larger is it?

1:03:47>> That comes out to um it's 4.92

1:03:50acres, so about five acres.

1:03:54>> And then the extension is um changes to

1:03:588.27 acres.

1:04:03>> So, another question for staff. got a

1:04:06lot of comments and questions about

1:04:08storm water and and it sounds like that

1:04:11staff says that the applicant will be

1:04:14required to build so that any discharge

1:04:19would not be greater than current. Is

1:04:21that correct? And just wanted to

1:04:22understand the volume. What does that

1:04:24mean and can we translate that for

1:04:25people like me who are an engineer?

1:04:33Hi, Brian Drake, assistant director of

1:04:34water resources.

1:04:36So, they will be required to um meet the

1:04:40preconstruction level for the one, 10,

1:04:42and 25 year storm. So,

1:04:44>> what does that mean?

1:04:46>> Uh the rate discharge, like the peak

1:04:48hour will be the same as it is today for

1:04:50the storm that occurs once every 25

1:04:53years. So they're going to be required

1:04:55to just for lack of to dumb it down.

1:04:57They're going to be required to build it

1:04:59so that even with the additional

1:05:00concrete, right? So they're this is not

1:05:02grass etc. as a pasture right now that

1:05:04that flow would not be faster or more

1:05:08than current in those conditions. What

1:05:10you just cited

1:05:10>> it would not be faster. The

1:05:12[clears throat] total volume

1:05:14like per day per year will be higher.

1:05:17>> Okay. Yeah.

1:05:18>> And but and according to you guys that

1:05:21meets the standards that you applied for

1:05:23and you feel good about that,

1:05:26>> we would work or ask the design engineer

1:05:28to design a system that you know works.

1:05:35>> The reason I asked this question because

1:05:37I know like again I'm not an engineer,

1:05:39right? And so I understand that I live

1:05:41in Apex and recently we had some rains

1:05:42about a year ago or whatever. places

1:05:45that were gullies filled up and water

1:05:46and water came into people's yards,

1:05:48right? But that was a been here three

1:05:51years. So that was just once in in that

1:05:53time period and I understood that and

1:05:54then it eventually did go down. And so I

1:05:56guess I do know that you can build on

1:05:59their different standards and I know

1:06:00that there are different expenses to

1:06:02those standards. But there as my

1:06:05understanding is there is ways to build

1:06:07this so that they would not incur a lot

1:06:10of volume and um speed off property to

1:06:15surrounding areas including streams etc.

1:06:18They can do that.

1:06:19>> Correct. There are multiple designs that

1:06:21the engineer can do. Um our current ADO

1:06:24UDO just recommends the uh or requires

1:06:26the 120 110 and 25 year storm rate to be

1:06:30met. Um and then during site plan review

1:06:34and construction drawings review, we

1:06:35would uh comment on the design. A

1:06:37downstream storm water analysis is

1:06:39required. Um that would be submitted for

1:06:42the site plan.

1:06:43>> And how often like since 2010 have we

1:06:47had any of those type of storms you were

1:06:49just describing? of any of the ones that

1:06:50we've all experienced recently, like

1:06:52when the hurricane came through, is

1:06:53there anything because I I just need to

1:06:56see it in my mind's eye to understand

1:06:58it.

1:06:58>> Um, we have um a recent storm on Salem

1:07:02Street um North Salem Street. Um we saw

1:07:06some flooding there. Uh I don't know the

1:07:08the numbers off top of my head um until

1:07:10storm water the storm water folks are

1:07:12all at APWA conference right now. So I'm

1:07:14kind of filling in for them.

1:07:16>> Is there an opportunity to address that

1:07:17at that time? And maybe if we have a

1:07:19concern, we just we put that in there.

1:07:21We question that. Is that is that what

1:07:22we're supposed to do?

1:07:23>> Yeah, I think so. Um we would we would

1:07:26always ask for the the design um with

1:07:29the design engineer to work through

1:07:30those things.

1:07:31>> Okay.

1:07:31>> So, y

1:07:34>> I just wanted to add that the UDO

1:07:37follows state law, just so you all know.

1:07:40Just so you're aware. It's not just that

1:07:42the town came up with these standards.

1:07:43This is the state law.

1:07:45>> Okay.

1:07:45>> Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank

1:07:47you.

1:07:50>> Okay. Any other questions for the

1:07:51applicant?

1:07:52>> Go ahead, Mark. Staff or the

1:07:54>> That was staff, right?

1:07:55>> Oh, I'm sorry. Staff because he came in.

1:07:57I'm sorry. Yeah, staff. Any

1:07:58[clears throat] other questions for

1:07:59staff?

1:07:59>> I have just two questions. Um, I saw the

1:08:02um staff letter about the TIA and

1:08:05recommendations that staff are making

1:08:08about the TIA. Have those been accepted

1:08:10by the developer?

1:08:12>> Yes.

1:08:12>> Okay.

1:08:14And I have one more question related to

1:08:16the um the rendering with the retail.

1:08:21Did the town request that the parking

1:08:22lot front Salem Street or was that being

1:08:26proposed by the developer? I thought it

1:08:28was odd that we didn't move the building

1:08:30closer to the street frontage and put

1:08:32the parking behind the building.

1:08:34what we were trying to do as far as

1:08:36looking at the relation to North Salem

1:08:39Street if this was too much of you know

1:08:43height right up to it. Um so moving it

1:08:46back reduces that impact and also as far

1:08:51as um for nonresidential

1:08:55you know always people like to have that

1:08:57parking right there

1:08:58>> similar to Sweetwater I guess by Yes. Is

1:09:01that correct?

1:09:02>> Right. and and and we that's why we kept

1:09:04it just as one and of course then there

1:09:07would be parking behind the um the

1:09:11building as well.

1:09:12>> Okay, thanks.

1:09:15>> So June, that's the highest, right? The

1:09:18four

1:09:18>> 75 out of anything in there.

1:09:21>> Correct.

1:09:29>> Any other questions for staff?

1:09:31Thank you, sir.

1:09:33>> Thank you, June.

1:09:34>> Hey, would appetite like to speak.

1:09:53Good afternoon. Matthew Carpenter with

1:09:55Parker Poe, 301 Fable Street in Raleigh.

1:09:59here on behalf of the developer and

1:10:01applicant Merit Group LLC. Got a couple

1:10:03folks with me this afternoon. Paul

1:10:05Munana with Merit Group. Um, and also

1:10:08Kevin Dean with Kimley Horn, our our

1:10:10traffic engineer. I want to start by

1:10:12thanking staff, specifically June. We've

1:10:15gone back and forth for months. We we

1:10:17filed this case December 1st of 2025.

1:10:20Um, and there are a lot of conditions.

1:10:22As you can see that I think staff and

1:10:25the developer here have acknowledged the

1:10:27importance of this site. Um it's an

1:10:29infill site right near downtown. So I

1:10:32think everyone knew going into the

1:10:33process it was going to be important to

1:10:35to try to get this right. Um and we've

1:10:38had eight rounds of review. There are

1:10:40564 pages in your agenda packet. Um, and

1:10:44so I hope you'll find at at the end of

1:10:46going through all this information, um,

1:10:48that we've respected the site and its

1:10:50location, uh, and and have a

1:10:52reasonzoning case that that checks most,

1:10:54if not all of the the town's current

1:10:56policy concerns. Um, as June mentioned,

1:11:00the site is 32 acres. It's 16 different

1:11:04tax parcels. Um the ownership here is

1:11:07unique because this owner uh there there

1:11:10are are many owners but maybe a hundred

1:11:13years ago all this property was owned by

1:11:15the Goodwin family. Um a longtime apex

1:11:18family uh and and Mr. David Goodwin

1:11:21who's still one of the sellers um in

1:11:232018

1:11:25he approached planning staff uh some of

1:11:27his relatives had passed away about

1:11:30trying to to sell this property for

1:11:32development. Um, and what staff told

1:11:34him, which I I think was wise, was you

1:11:36need all of these parcels to to bring in

1:11:39at once because staff did not want to

1:11:41see, you know, one parcel coming in,

1:11:43getting developed for commercial,

1:11:44another coming in, getting a few town

1:11:46homes. Um, and so what Mr. Goodwin did,

1:11:49he's not a broker, he's just a a seller

1:11:51of the property. Um, he worked with

1:11:53these different property owners and

1:11:55gotten them all on the same page. And

1:11:57now 8 years later today, um we've got a

1:12:00zoning case with with all of this

1:12:02property together. And so I think that's

1:12:04important because um there were over 25

1:12:07signitories on the purchase contract.

1:12:10There are multiple heirs. Um and so this

1:12:12is a unique opportunity to to try to

1:12:15sort of master plan this property while

1:12:17all these owners are together um and and

1:12:19while they're marching in in one

1:12:22direction.

1:12:24the the land use map designation here is

1:12:26mixed use. June June went through that

1:12:28well. Um the high density designation

1:12:31which is the orange stripe has been on

1:12:33this plan since 2013. So it's been here

1:12:37a long time. Um and what this plan

1:12:39generally calls for is for the higher

1:12:42density residential and commercial usage

1:12:44to be located at the corner away from

1:12:47the established neighborhoods to the

1:12:49west and south. Um, as June mentioned,

1:12:52we we are requesting that orange area be

1:12:56extended south. When when these land use

1:12:58map um designations went on, they

1:13:01followed the property lines. Obviously,

1:13:04after we developed the site, um, and

1:13:06I'll get to this more in a moment, but

1:13:07those property lines will no longer

1:13:09exist. And so, we had to decide where

1:13:12the bottom of that MU1 district would

1:13:14would would line up. Um, and the town

1:13:18home district was separated by that

1:13:19street A. And that street A was

1:13:21purposely put there to line up with the

1:13:24Thales exit. So that's where that street

1:13:26had to go. And then after the street was

1:13:28located, then we backed into how should

1:13:31each of these districts be located. And

1:13:34so so that's what led to the the

1:13:36expansion of that highdensity district.

1:13:38Um, I've also mentioned before in

1:13:40neighborhood meetings that the building

1:13:42height uh is also part of the reason the

1:13:45the land use map doesn't include a

1:13:47height limit for the high density uh

1:13:50designation. It it it would recommend

1:13:52recommends high density often in these

1:13:55mixeduse areas. You see buildings taller

1:13:57than five stories. Um staff was very

1:14:00concerned throughout the review process

1:14:02about building height, how it related to

1:14:05existing single family uses on the other

1:14:08side of North Salem Street and how it

1:14:10related to uh residences in Haden Hall

1:14:13and Haden Place. And so the the tallest

1:14:16building is the the five-story building

1:14:18at the corner. Um and then heights are

1:14:20limited to four stories in the southern

1:14:24section basically where that of MU1

1:14:27where we're asking for the land use map

1:14:29extension. And so to to to build an

1:14:31efficient multif family project with

1:14:33those heights we needed and and park it

1:14:35correctly. We didn't want to skimp on

1:14:37parking. Um we we needed a little more

1:14:40land um along the southern portion of

1:14:42that district. So so that's the

1:14:44justification for the land use map

1:14:46change. Um, we also, I think it's

1:14:49important, we're not proposing any

1:14:51commercial or office uses anywhere near

1:14:53Haden Hall. The MU1 district is over 400

1:14:57ft from from any of the shared property

1:14:59lines with Haden Hall. And that was on

1:15:01purpose. We we didn't want to propose

1:15:02office or commercial um near any of

1:15:05those neighborhoods. We we understand

1:15:07town homes are not the same product

1:15:09type, but they are medium density under

1:15:11the land use map. Um and that's

1:15:13consistent with the land use map and

1:15:15will be what's adjacent to Haden Hall.

1:15:17So there will be no high density

1:15:20residential uses next to Haden Hall. And

1:15:23you can see from the plan here that that

1:15:26we've we started with the land use map.

1:15:28I I think uh we we went to staff with

1:15:31our initial sketch in early 2025. Um and

1:15:35staff had seen a lot of sketches over

1:15:36the years for this site. Um and and ours

1:15:39was the the closest at that point that

1:15:41that had gotten to the land use map

1:15:42designation. And at that time we were

1:15:45showing apartments where TH3 is shown

1:15:48now. Um part of the the benefit of going

1:15:51through staff review is that we heard

1:15:53from neighbors, we heard from staff. Um

1:15:56and and the multif family there in TH3

1:15:58was was causing a lot of heartache

1:16:00because it was inconsistent with the

1:16:02land use map and it was closer to Haden

1:16:04Hall. Um and so we moved that to the MU1

1:16:07district. So now all of the multif

1:16:09family is contained um in MU1 and that

1:16:13MU1 district is intended to be a true

1:16:16mixeduse district. That's why we've

1:16:18included the the commercial minimum. Um

1:16:21I know a lot of cases commit to

1:16:22commercial but they don't have that

1:16:24minimum. So there has to be uh

1:16:26commercial uses there in MU1. Um and

1:16:31then talking about the site buffers on

1:16:34the along the western property line

1:16:38see you can see the cursor here maybe

1:16:39not um but along the western property

1:16:42line over 60% of that property line will

1:16:44be RCA streams wetlands will not be

1:16:48developed so uh there only on that side

1:16:51there are only two lots in Haden Hall

1:16:54that are will be adjacent to town homes

1:16:56and in that area is where we'll have the

1:16:5820 foot buffer

1:16:59Um and then similarly along the southern

1:17:02property line will also have a 20ft

1:17:04buffer. Um and we've looked at the

1:17:08existing tree cover in that area. You

1:17:10can kind of see it overlaid on on this

1:17:13plan or it's it's kind of under this

1:17:15plan. Um but the majority of that area

1:17:17is cleared and the tree coverage is

1:17:20along the property line. So most of it

1:17:22is in the 20ft type B buffer and so

1:17:25we'll keep existing trees there um for

1:17:28the buffer and and supplement them where

1:17:30we can. Um a big part of this house of

1:17:34of this project is also the affordable

1:17:37commitment. Um there there are 460 total

1:17:41units. That's the maximum. uh it doesn't

1:17:44necessarily mean that much will be

1:17:45built, but if the total is built out,

1:17:4710% of those affordable units will be 46

1:17:51um affordable units in the project. And

1:17:54I think it's important here because of

1:17:56the location of those units. We're just

1:17:58less than a mile walk to downtown Apex.

1:18:01There will be the the bus stop along the

1:18:03frontage. And so it's exactly where um

1:18:07you want to put affordable units and and

1:18:09they won't be, you know, called out or

1:18:11or different units. They'll be part of

1:18:13the overall project um and most likely

1:18:16be a mix of for sale units and rental

1:18:19units uh in the multif family portion.

1:18:24And then this slide shows the rendering.

1:18:26Um we also spent a lot of time with

1:18:28staff working on the exact layout of

1:18:31this area. Uh and if you look in the PUD

1:18:33tax, June went through them. There are

1:18:36explicit building placement conditions

1:18:38which uh you don't see in a lot of puds

1:18:41in Apex. Um if you can see in the MU1

1:18:44district, these cross-hatched areas,

1:18:46those are areas where the PUD requires

1:18:49our building to be placed closer to the

1:18:51street. So at the the roundabout, the

1:18:54building will frame the street. Um, same

1:18:56thing at the corner of Street A and all

1:18:59and uh, North Salem Street. And then for

1:19:02the building at the corner, uh, we were

1:19:05trying to balance um, you know, the sort

1:19:08of suburban character of Apex with the

1:19:10desire to have a more urban pedestrian

1:19:13focused mixeduse center. And so so where

1:19:15we arrived with staff was, you know,

1:19:18let's let's limit um the amount of

1:19:20parking that can be between the building

1:19:22and street, but let's not put the street

1:19:24the building all the way up to the

1:19:26street. And that's also how we arrived

1:19:28at reducing the North Salem Street

1:19:30buffer uh requirement, which the UDO

1:19:33would be 30 ft. Um that is a a big

1:19:36challenge for retail uses that are

1:19:39incorporated into a multif family

1:19:41project. they really need visibility to

1:19:44be successful. Um, and reducing that

1:19:46buffer to 15 feet allows us to to

1:19:49hopefully strike a balance between

1:19:51creating that more urban configuration.

1:19:54Um, but also not having the building

1:19:56overwhelm the street like you would see

1:19:57in a more true urban area. Um, and so we

1:20:01we also have conditions about the

1:20:03sidewalk in this area. So there's a

1:20:05minimum sidewalk of 12 ft that's meant

1:20:08to facilitate um outdoor dining, you

1:20:11know, activated uses on the sidewalk and

1:20:14to your comment about Sweetwater, that

1:20:15that's the exact example staff is

1:20:17looking at um when when trying to to get

1:20:21this mix right here um is a success

1:20:23Sweetwater's had with with the retail

1:20:25and and multif family there.

1:20:29And then moving on to the pedestrian

1:20:31improvement. So, we'll be constructing

1:20:33over 2300 ft of side path. So, side path

1:20:38for the full length of all-wheel drive

1:20:40and North Salem Street. Um, we'll also

1:20:43be extending those connections offsite.

1:20:45So, if you look at the bottom of the

1:20:47screen, uh, I know you're probably tired

1:20:49of hearing about sidewalk gaps in Apex

1:20:51by now. I've encountered them in a

1:20:53number of cases. Um, but we're going to

1:20:55fix both of those with this project and

1:20:58those are zoning conditions. So on North

1:21:00Salem Street, there's a 5-ft sidewalk

1:21:02there now uh on the way to Britley Way,

1:21:06but there's no side path. So we'll be

1:21:07installing a 10-ft side path there um to

1:21:10get all the way to Britley Way. And then

1:21:12on French Church to get to Britley,

1:21:15there's no um sidewalk at all there now.

1:21:17So So we'll be constructing that

1:21:19sidewalk connection to get to Britley

1:21:21Way. And then there is also a um an

1:21:24existing sidewalk on the south side of

1:21:26Britley Way. And so when all of these

1:21:28improvements are done, um there will be

1:21:31a a more cohesive pedestrian network

1:21:33here. That's one of the concerns we

1:21:35we've heard from neighbors, um is the

1:21:37safe the pedestrian safety in this area

1:21:39now with the traffic on North Salem

1:21:42Street. Um as June mentioned, the

1:21:44signalized crosswalk, that's also

1:21:46something the developer will be building

1:21:48um along with the bus stop and a

1:21:51dedicated pedestrian area. I think it's

1:21:54300 square ft at the corner um where

1:21:57public art will also be located. Um and

1:21:59so again trying to create a cohesive

1:22:02safe pedestrian network in this area.

1:22:06Um the transportation improvements are

1:22:08are also important. Th the the the

1:22:11biggest improvements are along North

1:22:13Salem Street. Um and those the the road

1:22:16widening there will be for the full

1:22:18length of the project's frontage. will

1:22:20be installing um an additional through

1:22:24lane there. So, there will be two

1:22:25through lanes. Um I I'll show this in a

1:22:28photo in a minute, but the a big part of

1:22:31the queueing issue at at Thales now is

1:22:33because there's only one through lane

1:22:36and and a left turn lane. Um, and so

1:22:39that will be relieved by the additional

1:22:41lane that will be constructed along

1:22:44North Salem Street so that when traffic

1:22:46comes through there and cars are backed

1:22:48up turning into Thales, there will be an

1:22:50additional lane that that can keep

1:22:51moving. Um, as as uh Mr. Spanoli asked,

1:22:56we did have a TIA done. We've agreed to

1:22:58all of the recommendations in the TIA

1:23:01from staff and NC DOT. Um and so those

1:23:05are all included as binding zoning

1:23:07conditions. Um there's been a lot of

1:23:10conversation about the stub streets. Uh

1:23:13I think you know that that was answered

1:23:16in in some of the staff questions. Um

1:23:18but those connections are required under

1:23:20the UDO when we originally filed this

1:23:23case. We had proposed a culde-sac at

1:23:25Charlie Downs Lane. Um trying to in some

1:23:28way limit access to to speak to neighbor

1:23:30concerns. Um staff

1:23:34preferred that we make the connection to

1:23:35improve all over overall connectivity.

1:23:37So we we took that culde-sac off um and

1:23:40we we made the connection um we we did

1:23:43agree to the to add the heavy duty

1:23:45construction traffic language. We we

1:23:48certainly don't want truck traffic going

1:23:50through here while while the project's

1:23:52being built. Um and then so this is a

1:23:55photo of North Salem Street. On the left

1:23:57is the Thales Academy um entrance and on

1:24:01the right is is our site. So you can see

1:24:04here I just thought sometimes a photo is

1:24:06easier than than looking at the aerial.

1:24:08Um there's one through lane and then

1:24:10that left turn lane which I don't think

1:24:12has a ton of storage there. Um and so

1:24:15hopefully you those improvements will

1:24:17the additional lane will open up traffic

1:24:20um to get through there during you know

1:24:21peak drop off hour for and and pickup

1:24:24for for the academy.

1:24:27And then this slide um shows some of the

1:24:30the connectivity that will be gained

1:24:33from these stub connections. So the the

1:24:35reason that the UDO requires stub

1:24:37streets to be connected is because um

1:24:40they open up additional routes for

1:24:42vehicles to go when when other routes

1:24:43are congested. Um, and so one one thing

1:24:46one complaint that we've heard and and

1:24:48that I've heard in Apex before um is the

1:24:52traffic caused by the July 4th events

1:24:54downtown and also the Christmas parade.

1:24:57Um, and so when as I understand it,

1:24:59obviously I I don't live here, but as I

1:25:01understand it, um, some of these

1:25:03entrances to Haden Hall are blocked

1:25:06during downtown events or at least

1:25:08heavily congested to where um, folks

1:25:10can't get out. If if this project is

1:25:13built, um drivers can follow the green

1:25:16routes to get north, take a right on

1:25:19All-Wheel Drive and then take a left at

1:25:21the intersection of All-Wheel Drive and

1:25:23North Salem Street, which is already

1:25:25signalized. Um so we will be making

1:25:28changes to that signal to account for uh

1:25:31the changes we'll make to to uh North

1:25:34Salem Street. And so that that's a route

1:25:36that will be available um after this is

1:25:39constructed that that does help with

1:25:41with overall connectivity.

1:25:43Um again, we've gotten a lot of

1:25:46questions about our stream and wetlands

1:25:48determinations and so I want to try to

1:25:51clear it up as as someone who had to

1:25:53learn how to understand this um as part

1:25:56of this process especially. So the um we

1:25:58we did a stream and wetlands

1:26:00determination in 2025 at the very

1:26:02beginning of this process that was

1:26:04approved by town staff and the Army

1:26:07Corps of Engineers. Um and so the

1:26:10wetland W6 outlined in yellow or orange

1:26:14rather and then pawn two are both

1:26:16non-jurisdictional. So so those are the

1:26:18the features that will be removed as

1:26:21part of the project. W5

1:26:24um the the wetland outlined in blue is

1:26:27jurisdictional. At one time early on in

1:26:30the process we had thought that our

1:26:32storm water pond might have some minor

1:26:34impacts to that wetland and so we had

1:26:36listed it to be disturbed. Um after some

1:26:40further discussion and and a lot of

1:26:42comments that we received, we have moved

1:26:44that wetland within our RCA area. If you

1:26:48can see at the bottom of this screen,

1:26:49that wetland is now in the RCA. So,

1:26:51we're not proposing any disturbances to

1:26:53to that jurisdictional wetland.

1:26:56Um, pond one is is a more complicated

1:27:00issue is as June mentioned at the

1:27:02beginning of this process, our goal was

1:27:05to keep the large pond and use that as

1:27:08an amenity for the neighborhood. Um, we

1:27:12did some studies as we went through the

1:27:13reszoning process about the pond because

1:27:15it's an old farm pond. Um it was built

1:27:18years and years ago mostly for

1:27:20irrigation. Um and so we we were

1:27:23concerned about the the integrity of the

1:27:26dam and what um so we had the

1:27:29hydraologic study done and what the

1:27:31study showed is that if the dam were to

1:27:34to fail then there would be severe

1:27:36consequences for downstream property

1:27:38owners um in Haden Hall. And so that's

1:27:41how we arrived at the type C hazard

1:27:44designation. And then we recently

1:27:46received the um confirmation from NCDQ

1:27:50that they concur with with that uh

1:27:53designation. And so by draining the

1:27:56pond, we'll be removing the future risk

1:27:59of of that dam failing. Um and in in lie

1:28:03of of that current pond, installing

1:28:05storm water ponds um that meet current

1:28:08detention requirements.

1:28:10The reason we don't know yet what the

1:28:12buffer around that pond will be is

1:28:14because the Army Corps won't make a

1:28:16determination until we've drained the

1:28:18pond. So, we have to drain the pond and

1:28:20then they look to see if if water

1:28:21collects in the pond again to determine

1:28:23whether it's a jurisdictional wetland or

1:28:25not. Um, and so that's why that

1:28:27determination is made at subdivision

1:28:29plan. Um, and then to to address the

1:28:33storm water runoff comments, which are

1:28:36related to but but I think a different

1:28:38issue than the stream determinations.

1:28:40Um, I've heard comments that uh because

1:28:44we're removing this pond that will make

1:28:46storm water runoff worse for the the

1:28:49surrounding neighborhoods. Um, we feel

1:28:52based on the UDO requirements and the

1:28:53way the site's draining now that it will

1:28:56actually be the opposite. that after the

1:28:58pond is drained and we install modern

1:29:00storm water design um storm water

1:29:03management devices that the the water

1:29:06will be slowed down and detained to

1:29:08current standards. Right now there are

1:29:11not storm water control devices on the

1:29:12site. There are ponds that were built

1:29:14for farms um that don't detain storm

1:29:17water like like a storm water pond. And

1:29:20so right now when when water hits the

1:29:22site, it drains naturally where it

1:29:24drains um to the the pipes south of here

1:29:27in Haden Hall. Um and so after we're

1:29:31we're done again that that standard that

1:29:33was cited by staff um that we that you

1:29:37know the the rate of flow post

1:29:39development can't exceed the rate of

1:29:41flow pre-development. That's a

1:29:42requirement. Um and and we even if the

1:29:45zoning case is approved, if we can't

1:29:47design our stormwater devices to meet

1:29:49that requirement, we can't move forward.

1:29:51So we can't build anything. Um and and

1:29:54so that the majority of that analysis is

1:29:56done at master subdivision plan because

1:29:58it requires the full design of all the

1:30:01storm water infrastructure. Um and so we

1:30:03we can't show you now here's exactly how

1:30:06we've divi designed this storm water

1:30:08pond, but we can tell you that it has to

1:30:11meet the UDO requirements. We're not

1:30:13proposing any modifications to those

1:30:14requirements and we can't build unless

1:30:17we meet them.

1:30:19Um and then to to wrap things up, um the

1:30:23the reasonzoning is in the public

1:30:24interest. It's consistent with the land

1:30:25use map. Um it adds 46 affordable

1:30:29housing units in a location near goods

1:30:31and services and transit. Um it includes

1:30:34a long list of pedestrian improvements,

1:30:37transportation improvements. Um, and as

1:30:40you've seen in the staff report, all sta

1:30:42town departments recommend approval. And

1:30:45so we appreciate your time this

1:30:46afternoon and and respectfully request

1:30:48your positive recommendation.

1:30:50>> Thank you.

1:30:52>> Thank you, Matthew. Any questions for

1:30:54the applicant?

1:30:56>> We do. Go ahead, Mark.

1:30:58>> All right. Um, I have a question about

1:31:00the TIA that's included in the package.

1:31:02Um

1:31:06the conceptual site plan shown in the

1:31:08TIA shows the old configuration with the

1:31:11culdeac at Charland Downs.

1:31:14>> Yep.

1:31:14>> And also shows a different configuration

1:31:16when it comes to the housing densities.

1:31:19How will that was that taken into

1:31:21consideration when the revisions came

1:31:22through? How will that affect you know

1:31:25the final development that's being

1:31:26proposed today?

1:31:27>> Uh good evening Kevin Dean Kimley Horn

1:31:291070 South Main Street in Holly Springs.

1:31:32Um after we prepared the original TIA um

1:31:36and after the plan was updated, we

1:31:39prepared additional analyses uh for

1:31:42staff review that included the

1:31:43connection to Charlie and DS. And so

1:31:45that has been accounted for. So the

1:31:46improvements and the references you see

1:31:48all account for that connection.

1:31:50>> Yes, sir.

1:31:54>> Okay. Mine is about the transition area.

1:31:57So you probably heard my question. So

1:32:00I'm interested to understand if you know

1:32:03now or uh what the possibility is for

1:32:06how the town homes will present towards

1:32:09the backyards of the neighborhood. Y

1:32:11>> the question is

1:32:12>> um you said that there were existing

1:32:14there's I've seen that so there's some

1:32:16trees there but what is the intention of

1:32:18to protect the privacy of the existing

1:32:20homes and the mostly it looks like T2

1:32:23and T1 affects most of the

1:32:26>> right yeah so so there are those zoning

1:32:29architectural conditions that apply

1:32:31specifically to um the that shared

1:32:35property line of that buffer and as June

1:32:37mentioned they limit if the this which

1:32:40is what we were getting to with with

1:32:41this condition. Um if if the buildings

1:32:45are parallel, you know, oriented the

1:32:47same way as homes in Haden Hall, they're

1:32:49limited to four units of building. And

1:32:52if they are perpendicular, so the the

1:32:55buildings are like this, and then the

1:32:56property lines like this, then we can

1:32:58put six units in six units in each

1:33:00building. Um and so that's that was set

1:33:03up purposely to incentivize us to turn

1:33:05the buildings, even though that's not

1:33:07the condition. Um but in our current

1:33:10sketches, we're showing buildings along

1:33:12that property line facing north south um

1:33:15perpendicular to homes in Haden Hall. So

1:33:18if someone in Haden Hall walked out

1:33:20their backyard, they would see the side

1:33:22of the in town home unit, not the front

1:33:25or back. Um and and the goal there is so

1:33:28and let me see here if I can explain

1:33:31this better. So so if you can see the

1:33:33cursor, buildings now we're showing are

1:33:36like this.

1:33:36>> Yeah.

1:33:37>> Yeah. Um, and so we were trying to limit

1:33:40long facades facing the backyards of of

1:33:43of people in Haten Hall.

1:33:46>> So there won't be back decks, for lack

1:33:49of a better term, that primarily face

1:33:52the the rear yards of That's right.

1:33:54property owners. There will be a side

1:33:56view.

1:33:57>> That's right.

1:33:58>> Okay.

1:33:59>> Um, and there are arch other

1:34:00architectural conditions that apply to

1:34:02those units, too, so that they're

1:34:04architecturally

1:34:06in line. Obviously, they won't look

1:34:07exactly like homes in Haten Hall, but

1:34:09they're heightened architectural

1:34:10standards so that, you know, there's not

1:34:12a big change in quality between, you

1:34:15know, Haten Hall and and um our project.

1:34:19>> Okay. I guess I was just building off of

1:34:21that too to ensure if they are

1:34:24perpendicular.

1:34:25So, three stories, right, for the town

1:34:28hall.

1:34:28>> Yes, that's right.

1:34:29>> And then the buffer is going to be

1:34:3320. Is that what

1:34:34>> That's right.

1:34:35>> we decided. So, back of Haden Hall, 20

1:34:39foot buffer,

1:34:41side of a town home, but it's three

1:34:43stories.

1:34:45>> That's right. Yep. I

1:34:46>> believe there's a set back from

1:34:49>> 20 ft with a 10 foot

1:34:50>> setbackt.

1:34:53>> Will there be a architectural element

1:34:56like a physical element that separates

1:34:59um from the end of the buffer to Haden

1:35:02Hall?

1:35:03>> Uh like a fence you mean? Or

1:35:04>> Yeah. Or Yeah. Um there there's not a

1:35:08condition for a fence. Um we we've

1:35:10assumed for now that the buffer would be

1:35:12a natural planted buffer. Um but I mean

1:35:16we're open to discussing that. The the

1:35:18goal with the type B planting standard

1:35:21is to keep existing trees where we can

1:35:23and then supplement plantings. The and

1:35:26that's one reason we didn't use the type

1:35:27A standard there. Sometimes the type A

1:35:29standard is so packed with plants um and

1:35:32evergreens that it's hard to keep

1:35:35existing trees and plant to a type A

1:35:37standard. So B gives you that

1:35:39flexibility.

1:35:40>> The reason why I ask is if those if the

1:35:43town homes are perpendicular to the

1:35:47Haden Hall um residents,

1:35:51the open streets would open up into

1:35:54their backyard.

1:35:57Well, they wouldn't open up into the

1:35:59backyard because they would have to stay

1:36:01outside of the buffer. And I also think

1:36:02there's a I think there's an additional

1:36:04buffer setback for the street. So, they

1:36:06wouldn't the street wouldn't come all

1:36:08the way to the property line.

1:36:10>> Visually, it open to their backyard,

1:36:12>> but but potentially there could be

1:36:14streets there. Yeah, that's right.

1:36:17Um, is

1:36:17>> there an opportunity for already mature

1:36:20trees or something to be put in there

1:36:21rather than something that's going to

1:36:23take forever to grow like just to

1:36:26protect Taden Hall and make sure they

1:36:28don't have to see,

1:36:30>> right? That that that's something we

1:36:32could look into. Right now, we uh

1:36:34typically in the resonings we default to

1:36:36the UDO planting standard just because,

1:36:38you know, it's easier to know what that

1:36:40is. We'd have to come up with some

1:36:41different, you know, mix of trees that

1:36:43we put into the pud if we if we did

1:36:45that. Miss Peterson, just to add to

1:36:47that,

1:36:49UDO's planting centers are set at a

1:36:51smaller caliber tree because those tend

1:36:54to grow faster when they're planted. The

1:36:56larger caliper tree, the bigger tree

1:36:58that you plant, um, at some point it the

1:37:01growth is stunted when you transplant

1:37:03it, and it takes a a much longer time

1:37:05for it to start growing again. So

1:37:07eventually that smaller tree is going to

1:37:09catch up to where that larger tree uh

1:37:11planting is and and they tend to do

1:37:12better and have more guarantee of living

1:37:15if you plant them smaller and allow them

1:37:17to grow and adapt to that environment

1:37:18than bringing in something that's more

1:37:20mature.

1:37:21>> Okay, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to

1:37:23the less visibility possible however

1:37:26that can be achieved.

1:37:28>> Okay, thank you.

1:37:29>> Go ahead.

1:37:30>> Uh Matthew, I have a couple questions

1:37:32about the legislative considerations. Um

1:37:34could you expand upon uh consideration

1:37:36number two compatibility

1:37:38>> and also number eight detrimental to

1:37:40adjacent properties?

1:37:42>> Sure. Yep. Yep. So um compatibility is

1:37:46is always it's always a standard in in

1:37:48all these resoning cases. Um and in

1:37:51areas where

1:37:53there's a different housing type on the

1:37:55land use map like here where we have

1:37:57town homes next to to single family

1:37:59homes. um compatibility is looked at

1:38:02through things like uh architectural

1:38:04standards um and and so that's how we've

1:38:08approached that those standards with

1:38:10with th that legislative showing with

1:38:12with staff is we've tried to add

1:38:14conditions um that speak to

1:38:16compatibility like I mentioned limiting

1:38:19the number of town homes that can be in

1:38:21each building facing Hadenhal um so even

1:38:24though those are a different housing

1:38:26type the scale of the the overall

1:38:28building won't be significantly larger

1:38:30larger than than homes in Haden Hall.

1:38:32Um, you know, things like like buffering

1:38:35the the the landscaping we just talked

1:38:37about. Um, and then also not proposing

1:38:40any commercial or office uses in any of

1:38:42these areas. Um, and so we we know we

1:38:45acknowledge obviously that that town

1:38:47homes are a different housing product

1:38:50than than single family homes. Um, but I

1:38:52think with with all of the conditions

1:38:54that we have and how we've laid out

1:38:56these districts, including removing the

1:38:58multif family from TH3,

1:39:01um, that we've made this plan as as

1:39:03compatible as it can be with existing

1:39:05neighborhoods while still meeting the

1:39:07land use map designations. Um because we

1:39:10could say, you know, just in just in a

1:39:13planning sense, we're going to make all

1:39:15these TH3 uh districts just single

1:39:18family and and that would be more

1:39:20compatible, but then it would be um in

1:39:22contradiction with the land use map. Uh

1:39:25and and so uh and on the you know, it's

1:39:27still very early, but on the um draft

1:39:30that I've seen of the new land use map,

1:39:32it also shows this as a mixeduse center.

1:39:34So, um, it's trying to reconcile those

1:39:37two things in a way that that meets both

1:39:39policy goals. So,

1:39:42>> my second question was about detrimental

1:39:44to Jason property.

1:39:46>> Yep. Um, that one is is I think I mean

1:39:51it can be looked at a number of ways. Is

1:39:53it you know I don't think it will I'm

1:39:55obviously not an appraiser. I don't

1:39:57think with the price of of land and

1:39:59housing and Apex that it's going to

1:40:00lower property values. um you know,

1:40:03these are are ultimately people's homes.

1:40:05They're they're not, you know, noxious

1:40:07uses that are going to that's going to

1:40:08have uh you know, negative impacts on

1:40:10the environment or odor. Um and and and

1:40:13then

1:40:15traffic is also, I think, sort of lumped

1:40:17into that detrimental language. Um and

1:40:19and so here we have done, you know,

1:40:22everything we we can, you know, we've

1:40:24agreed to all the improvements

1:40:25recommended by the TIA um to to help

1:40:28alleviate some of the congestion here.

1:40:30There will undoubtedly be more traffic.

1:40:32There are more units, more people. Um,

1:40:34but we've we've agreed to the

1:40:36improvements and and tried to

1:40:39uh handle the study in a way that that

1:40:42um that mitigates that additional

1:40:43traffic that we'll be putting out here.

1:40:45So,

1:40:48>> Matthew, I have a question. Hi. Um, so

1:40:51can you please explain

1:40:54um the big pond, pond number one, if it

1:40:58does get drained

1:41:01um due to infrastructure concerns,

1:41:04whatnot, um will the new modernized,

1:41:08let's call it retention pond, will it

1:41:11replace the footprint of the existing?

1:41:14>> No. No, it there will most likely be um

1:41:17two storm water ponds in in addition to

1:41:21where the current pond is and they would

1:41:23be um sort of to the left of of pond one

1:41:26on the screen and then south of pond one

1:41:28on the screen. Uh because those are the

1:41:31lowest areas of the site. Um and so, you

1:41:34know, we're assuming that even if the

1:41:36pond is drained, I mean, we're not going

1:41:37to build where the pond is because it's

1:41:39most likely going to be wetlands. And so

1:41:42um so so that area will remain. The the

1:41:45question I was the issue I was raising

1:41:46about the buffer around it is is what

1:41:49they'll have to uh analyze once the pond

1:41:52is drained where the actual pond is.

1:41:54There likely won't be anything built

1:41:56there.

1:41:58So

1:42:01>> thank you.

1:42:03>> Thank you Matthew. Any other questions

1:42:04for

1:42:05>> I have a question. I have a question

1:42:08about a question.

1:42:09>> Okay. uh um that was in neighborhood

1:42:12meeting that you all had um and I'll

1:42:15I'll read it for everyone's context. So

1:42:17the question was why is the requesting

1:42:19proposing why is the request proposing

1:42:21to amend the land use map? Yes, we are

1:42:23proposing a slight expansion of the

1:42:25orange multif family designation with no

1:42:27changes in the southern portion of the

1:42:28site while the lum recommends

1:42:31highdensity residential at the

1:42:33intersection of North Salem and

1:42:34all-wheel drive. Staff has requested

1:42:37building heights be limited to four or

1:42:38five stories along North Salem Street.

1:42:40The existing uh land use map does not

1:42:43provide sufficient land area to

1:42:45accommodate multif family development

1:42:46with these height limitations. So the

1:42:48proposed lane use map amendment modestly

1:42:51extends the designation to the west and

1:42:54south to allow a feasible layout

1:42:56consistent with staff recommendation

1:42:58recommended transitions. So I'm guessing

1:43:01that feasible it's all about you know

1:43:03what you can monetarily get for the

1:43:05development. Um so what

1:43:09>> so today we've heard like we're just

1:43:10extending south. So what was the what's

1:43:12the different differentiating factor

1:43:14that caused us to kind of drop the west

1:43:17expansion of opposed to just

1:43:20>> Yep. Yep. I I I think it was um so first

1:43:25building heights were part of the

1:43:26discussion with staff during that same

1:43:28time and so we didn't know um frankly if

1:43:32staff would be comfortable with the four

1:43:34fivestory building the fivetory building

1:43:35at the corner um and so we weren't sure

1:43:38if we could fit the density um in the

1:43:41district at the corner uh without the

1:43:44land that was shown as multif family

1:43:46before the TH uh let's see what is that

1:43:48TH3

1:43:50um and So what we we we staff obviously

1:43:53mentioned, you know, could you drop the

1:43:55uh multif family in TH3, we heard it

1:43:58from the neighborhood. Um and then we

1:44:00also knew it would be more consistent

1:44:02with the land use map if we moved it.

1:44:04And so that's what we did. Um and and

1:44:06and so actually in an earlier plan, we

1:44:09had town homes um along street on the

1:44:13northern side of street A. Uh and so we

1:44:15thought it also made for a better

1:44:17transition for the street to be the

1:44:19divider between the town homes and and

1:44:21the multif family um rather than to have

1:44:23the street then a line of town homes and

1:44:25then a multif family building um and

1:44:27then multif family in TH3. So it was

1:44:29sort of uh consolidating the multif

1:44:32family in one area that'll be sort of

1:44:34the mixeduse destination.

1:44:37>> Thank you.

1:44:38>> Yep.

1:44:42>> Thank you Matthew. Thank you.

1:44:45>> No other questions applicant.

1:44:49Okay. Now we will move into o uh open

1:44:53public comments. U get the list of

1:44:57public comments. Please state your name

1:44:58and address when you come up. Please

1:45:00remember to uh the three minute rule.

1:45:06Thank you Jerry.

1:45:08Thank you very much. Okay. The first

1:45:09person to speak is, excuse me for is

1:45:12Laura.

1:45:19>> Hello. Um I'm Laura Fenbury, 1012 Brit

1:45:22Leeway, one of the properties that

1:45:24directly attach it right to these. Um so

1:45:26I'm asking this board to deny this root

1:45:28zoning request. Um last August, more

1:45:31than 9 in of rain fell in a single

1:45:33storm. Beaver Creek swelled, a culvert

1:45:35under Olive Chapel Road collapsed, and

1:45:37the road became a sinkhole. that lasted

1:45:39for months. Um, that's not this

1:45:41property, but it happened here and it's

1:45:43a warning. Even if this property meets

1:45:46the UDO's minimum storm water standards,

1:45:48that's not the same as studying what

1:45:50actually happens downstream. Every

1:45:52single time it rains, we have videos in

1:45:54our neighborhood. People share their

1:45:56backyards completely flooded several

1:45:59storms in very recent times. Every time

1:46:02you walk from Haden Hall down to

1:46:05Peekway, there are areas that when

1:46:07you're walking your dogs, you have to

1:46:08avoid the sidewalk because the water

1:46:10just sits there. It wasn't made for

1:46:12this. Draining these ponds is not going

1:46:15to help any of these things. The rain is

1:46:17just going to collect. Um, now on to the

1:46:19traffic. So, during the weekday

1:46:21afternoon peak hour alone, the

1:46:22applicant's own study projects 282

1:46:25additional vehicle trips added to an

1:46:27intersection that's already failing.

1:46:29North Salem Street and Davis Drive

1:46:31already operates at a level of service F

1:46:34during the afternoon peak in the study's

1:46:36own 2025 baseline. And by their own

1:46:39numbers, it's still F in both peaks by

1:46:412032, built or not. Level F means that

1:46:45the intersection is failing, which means

1:46:47traffic demand exceeds what the road can

1:46:49handle physically. It means backed up

1:46:51cues, drivers sitting through multiple

1:46:53light cycles just to get through. And

1:46:55the recommendation is zero improvements

1:46:57because this site only adds 3% to that

1:47:00intersection's traffic. That's a

1:47:02loophole. That's not an analysis. So

1:47:04what you're saying is that on all of

1:47:06these roads, there are several level Fs

1:47:08right now. F is the worst. It goes A to

1:47:10F. So if you're adding more to an

1:47:12already F and you're not planning any

1:47:15changes, you're just making every single

1:47:17resident, every single person who's

1:47:19either trying to visit Apex or just get

1:47:21home or get to where they're working or

1:47:23pick up their children, you're making it

1:47:25so that they can't get there in a rapid

1:47:27time. This is why me personally, I left

1:47:30Holly Springs and came to Apex because

1:47:32Apex was better because Holly Springs

1:47:34had a lot of problems at the time. And

1:47:36so with just that, it would take 15

1:47:38minutes to get 3 miles down the road. We

1:47:41do not want Apex to have that. Right now

1:47:43with the downtown construction, you have

1:47:45a lot of businesses that aren't being

1:47:47visited. You don't want other things to

1:47:49prevent those businesses from getting

1:47:51business. Adding a few commercial

1:47:53properties is not the same thing as the

1:47:55already existing things that we have.

1:47:57Um, Hutenhal residents already struggle

1:48:00to turn safely onto North Salem Street.

1:48:02We've asked the town for a signal

1:48:04multiple times. Um the so has the town

1:48:07independently verified the traffic

1:48:09ascensions in this study? Has anyone

1:48:11actually evaluated what happens to

1:48:13Hadenhal and the potential for

1:48:14cutthrough traffic? Once North Salem

1:48:16Street gets more congested and drivers

1:48:18stop following the study's projected

1:48:19percentages, they're going to just cut

1:48:21through and cut through and cut through.

1:48:23All-wheel drive is already backed up. I

1:48:26can't even get through on Salem Street

1:48:30because I have to sit through every

1:48:32single time a stoplight at all-wheel

1:48:34drive and that's not adding any any

1:48:37traffic other than what's there now. So,

1:48:40as speaking on behalf of the people in

1:48:42Haden Hall, we're not against growth.

1:48:43We're against locking in 460 units and

1:48:47figuring out the flooding and traffic

1:48:48afterward. This needs to be slowed down.

1:48:50We need to verify the traffic

1:48:52assumptions. We need to look at this

1:48:54during phales traffic. We need to look

1:48:56at this during peak times and we need to

1:48:58make sure that the environmental impacts

1:49:00are actually studied and that the

1:49:02drainage is studied. We can't make the

1:49:04projections enforceable by conditions.

1:49:07We have to do it by conditions, not

1:49:09promises after the fact.

1:49:12>> Okay. Thank you, Laura. [applause]

1:49:20Next we have Kevin.

1:49:24I'll t the last name, but I can't. Kevin

1:49:27Dean,

1:49:28>> he's with um

1:49:29>> he's with us. Okay. And that was beside

1:49:31Matthew over there. So

1:49:33>> Sasha Bravo.

1:49:36>> Good evening, Sasha.

1:49:40>> Please state your name and address,

1:49:41please.

1:49:41>> I'm Sasha Bravo. at 916 Britley Way also

1:49:44directly abut this property or proposed

1:49:46property. Um so um I'm asking the board

1:49:50to deny this resoning request for for

1:49:52several important reasons. Um first the

1:49:54Apex UDA requires the town to consider

1:49:56the environmental impacts. Um I don't

1:49:58believe that those have been adequately

1:50:00demonstrated. This property is currently

1:50:01under devel undeveloped essentially as

1:50:03you know and provides wildlife habitat.

1:50:06I haven't seen any assessment of

1:50:07wildlife using this land or how clearing

1:50:09this land is going to affect their

1:50:11habitat. We don't even know what's

1:50:12there. How do we know it's going to

1:50:13impact them? I'm also deeply concerned

1:50:16about the mature and potentially old

1:50:17growth trees. I just heard the applicant

1:50:19say that the old growth trees are on the

1:50:22on the perimeter in the border. That's

1:50:23not true. You can verify that just

1:50:25visually. Take a quick look at the

1:50:26property. You can tell where the old

1:50:28growth trees are. And I guarantee you

1:50:30they're not all, you know, happily in

1:50:32the border of where they've put their,

1:50:34you know, uh um green space. That's not

1:50:38true. um and and they're saving one

1:50:41willow tree that there's many many old

1:50:43growth trees in that property. You can't

1:50:45simply plant a new tree and replace an

1:50:47existing 50 100y old tree. I have no

1:50:50idea how old they are, but I can tell

1:50:51you visually that they're pretty old,

1:50:53right? And that's a that's a significant

1:50:55concern. Um as as Laura mentioned, I'm

1:50:58also concerned about storm water and

1:51:00downstream flooding. We know we know

1:51:02that there is already flooding. Um, we

1:51:05know from USGS researched, uh, North

1:51:08Carolina Piedmont found that

1:51:09urbanization can significantly increase

1:51:11flood flows. In some circumstances,

1:51:13increasing peak discharge by as much as

1:51:15five times. So, you can't tell me that

1:51:18turning a meadow into a developed area

1:51:21with town houses and apartments is going

1:51:24to help. And we know that there the USGS

1:51:26has already looked at it. We know that

1:51:28that's going to make that problem worse.

1:51:30Um so and the question is not simply

1:51:33whether a storm water system has been

1:51:35proposed by the applicant. The question

1:51:36is whether the applicant has

1:51:38demonstrated that this development will

1:51:39not worsen flooding for the communities

1:51:41downstream. And that has not happened.

1:51:43We do not have any kind of guarantee of

1:51:45that. Um and that's what's called

1:51:47special damages. If those people that

1:51:49own those properties are negatively

1:51:51impacted by this development, that is

1:51:53called special damages and that could

1:51:54fall back to this community to be

1:51:56responsible for that. Um, the town's own

1:51:59transportation planning identifies

1:52:00congestion and traffic delay as major

1:52:02concerns and specifically identifies

1:52:04Salem Street as a, and I quote, choke

1:52:07point. That's right now, um, during peak

1:52:10periods. The applicant is saying that

1:52:11this is going to be solved by adding a

1:52:13couple of left turn lanes into their,

1:52:15you know, development. That doesn't

1:52:17account for right turns into dailies.

1:52:19That doesn't account for people that

1:52:20need to move straight through that area.

1:52:22Um, at roughly two vehicles per

1:52:24household, this development could add

1:52:26approximately 920 vehicles. That's a

1:52:28conservative estimate to this area. Um,

1:52:31there's also an important legal point

1:52:32here. Ashby versus the town of Kerry.

1:52:35The North Carolina Court of Appeals

1:52:36upheld the town's denial of a resoning

1:52:38request based on concerns that even a

1:52:40relatively small increase in traffic

1:52:42would worsen existing congestion. The

1:52:45court recognized that resoning is a

1:52:46legislative decision that a council may

1:52:48deny a request when it has plausible

1:52:50reason basis related to public safety

1:52:52and welfare. Um, you know, this case

1:52:55makes it clear that the the board has

1:52:57the authority to say no to this. You

1:52:59have the authority to say don't be

1:53:00afraid that they're going to sue you.

1:53:02You can say no. Um, the the applicant is

1:53:05requesting greater density. I'm almost

1:53:07done. Okay, [laughter]

1:53:08>> I've got what 20 couple more seconds. Um

1:53:11the applicants requesting greater

1:53:12density than the town's 2045 land use

1:53:14map that recommends for this property.

1:53:17Um as we've already discussed that's

1:53:19that that's not simply the development

1:53:21under the existing plan. It's a request

1:53:22to change the plan to allow a

1:53:24substantially more development. Um so

1:53:26respectfully asking that you deny this

1:53:28resoning request for those reasons.

1:53:30Thank you.

1:53:30>> Thank you. [applause]

1:53:37>> All right. Next is Maurice Longo.

1:53:41>> Hello.

1:53:42>> Mercy. Sorry if I butchered the name.

1:53:44>> Marcy Longo.

1:53:46>> Yes. And on the way up here, please. I'd

1:53:47like to remember the three-minute rule

1:53:48and and the repetitive rule. Thank you.

1:53:50>> Marcy Longo. Uh I live at 114 Blackburn

1:53:54Road. I'm the current president of the

1:53:56Hatal Homeowners Association. Um I

1:54:01wanted to let you know that as a

1:54:02resident of Haten Hall, I can tell you

1:54:03that I've um walked on my street. I live

1:54:06on Blackburn with waiters on to get eyes

1:54:10on our greenway stream overflowing its

1:54:13banks and rising up to the level of the

1:54:15street passing over it, rendering

1:54:17Blackburn Road essentially unsafe to

1:54:20drive to drive through. And the question

1:54:22is not if these events are going to

1:54:24worsen and occur again. The question is

1:54:27when will this type of event occur again

1:54:29and how much damage will it cause. Uh

1:54:31the developer says that stormwater

1:54:33controls will maintain or improve

1:54:35current runoff conditions and I would

1:54:37request that they prove this with an

1:54:39engineering survey before uh before

1:54:41approval. Um the town of Apex should

1:54:45require an independent third-party

1:54:48verification of wetland determinations

1:54:50and a comprehensive downstream impact

1:54:53analysis. Please um these measures

1:54:56should be taken at a very minimum. Um,

1:54:59my good friend and uh the former

1:55:02president of the Haten Hall HOA, Mike

1:55:04Rusher, was not able to personally be

1:55:06here to deliver his comments. Um, I'd

1:55:08like you to give me the opportunity to

1:55:09do that on his behalf. Um, Mike wanted

1:55:13to say that he is not opposed to this

1:55:15property being developed. Uh, he is

1:55:17opposed to the town changing its plan to

1:55:19make this particular development fit.

1:55:22The town's adopted land use map

1:55:25designates approximately 4.92 acres for

1:55:28high density residential. This applicant

1:55:30wants 8.27 acres and that's a 68%

1:55:33increase. Why? Uh the applicant gave us

1:55:36a remarkably remarkably clear answer

1:55:38during the neighborhood process when

1:55:40asked whether lowering the height of the

1:55:43apartment buildings would reduce the

1:55:45number of apartments. Their response

1:55:47was, "We're just moving the apartments.

1:55:50we're not reducing the number of

1:55:51apartments. So, think about that. Um,

1:55:55instead of reducing the development to

1:55:57fit the town's plan, they're asking the

1:56:00town to change to fit their development.

1:56:03And I think that's backwards. Um, and

1:56:05Haden Hall will live with the

1:56:06consequences.

1:56:08And so, you know, we don't have to that

1:56:11I we don't believe that the traffic

1:56:12study adequately addresses what the

1:56:15additional traffic will do to Haden Hall

1:56:18and its neighborhood streets. Um, we

1:56:20don't have to speculate about about

1:56:22traffic problems during major downtown

1:56:24events like was mentioned July 4th and

1:56:27Christmas. Hadenhal already requires

1:56:30real time monitoring and assistance from

1:56:32the police department to manage traffic

1:56:35and and parking and protect public

1:56:37safety. Adding hundreds of residences

1:56:39and new connections into those same

1:56:42streets deserves far more scrutiny. Um

1:56:46we're equally equally concerned about

1:56:48the water. Like I mentioned residents,

1:56:50we have provided photographic evidence

1:56:52of our flooding streets, a water

1:56:54overflowing yearround through areas of

1:56:57this property where stream

1:56:58determinations remain a concern. Below

1:57:01this development, we already have

1:57:03streams experiencing flooding, severe

1:57:06erosion, and property damage. We are

1:57:08talking about replacing existing land,

1:57:11pvious surfaces, with rooftops, roads,

1:57:14driveways, and other impervious

1:57:16surfaces. changing the topography and

1:57:18then discharging managed storm water to

1:57:20an already stressed downstream s

1:57:23downstream system. Um so finally

1:57:27suggestions throughout this process that

1:57:29some of these outcomes are simply

1:57:31required and that the town's hands are

1:57:34tied are just not true. This is a

1:57:36resoning request. You are being asked to

1:57:39make a land use decision. traffic,

1:57:41public safety, combatibility, storm

1:57:43water, and impacts on surrounding

1:57:45property are all legitimate

1:57:47considerations in deciding whether this

1:57:50pro um proposal is appropriate. So, our

1:57:53request today is simple. We recommend

1:57:55denial, please. And thank you for your

1:57:58time.

1:57:58>> Okay, thank you. [applause]

1:58:04>> Okay, next we have Kirk.

1:58:15Um, I'm Kirk Wkelman. I live at 112

1:58:18Blackburn, right next to Marcy. Um, so I

1:58:21am I just wanted to say like right off

1:58:23the bat, I'm not uh opposed to the

1:58:25development just off the bat. Like, um,

1:58:28however, I'm actually kind of excited

1:58:30about the idea of having some commercial

1:58:31like within walking distance. I think

1:58:33that's a neat thing. Um, the thing that

1:58:35I have the most concern about is the

1:58:36storm water. Um, we've talked a lot

1:58:38about it. Um, one of the things that I I

1:58:41found when looking into this

1:58:43development, this situation, when I look

1:58:44at our neighborhood, um, there's

1:58:46multiple streams that run through it, as

1:58:48everybody has mentioned, they're they

1:58:49flood. Um, the when I look at, uh, the

1:58:53the development code, um, I think

1:58:55there's probably like a 100 houses in

1:58:57Haben Hall that if you look at our

1:58:58current development code, couldn't be

1:58:59put where they are now because they're

1:59:00so close to the stream. And um so while

1:59:04while I know we can't go back in time

1:59:06and change things um that change was

1:59:08made in in a consideration for um

1:59:11protecting people's property and

1:59:13people's lives and their safety. Um so

1:59:16what I'm asking of the town is to put

1:59:18that same level of consideration and uh

1:59:20care into people's property while

1:59:22evaluating this proposal. Um the

1:59:27we know that the stream can handle the

1:59:30streams in the neighborhood can handle a

1:59:31small amount of rain. They can handle an

1:59:32inch of rain in 24 hours. We know they

1:59:34can handle two inches. Um they can't

1:59:37handle four inches. They can't handle

1:59:39five inches. So the concern is

1:59:43how does this how does this development

1:59:47how does it impact those extreme events?

1:59:50um how do we know that when um when a

1:59:53hurricane comes through and there's 10

1:59:55inches of rain that this development

1:59:56doesn't make it worse, right? Obviously,

1:59:58and I wouldn't ask them to make it

2:00:00better for us. Uh that's maybe not the

2:00:01role, but let's make sure that they

2:00:03don't make it worse. Um I I I'm

2:00:06concerned about the statements about the

2:00:08volume increasing. I know that there's

2:00:10requirements about the UDO about the the

2:00:13um the speed or uh one one aspect of the

2:00:16discharge from the site, but I believe

2:00:18like the volume is of major concern.

2:00:20Right. So, just uh [laughter] I'm kind

2:00:23of going a little bit over. I didn't

2:00:24really prepare too much. Um but um I

2:00:27wanted to mention that uh so we've lived

2:00:29in Haden Hall for 5 years and um we've

2:00:32had uh one event uh I think I think um

2:00:35Helen um the stream overflowed um and

2:00:38the water touched my house. Um there's

2:00:40been another event uh a couple years

2:00:42before that where we definitely saw the

2:00:43stream overflow didn't touch the house u

2:00:46but it was very concerning. So we know

2:00:48that that stream can overflow. So please

2:00:50let's let's not make it let's not make

2:00:53this a a decision that happens after the

2:00:55approval. Let's make sure that before

2:00:56this is approved that we have some

2:00:58actual facts, actual studies, actual

2:01:00experts um tell us that this thing will

2:01:03not make it worse. So that's all that's

2:01:05all I really wanted to to ask.

2:01:07>> Thank you.

2:01:08>> Thank you.

2:01:11[applause]

2:01:13>> Okay. Next I have Mayo.

2:01:22Good afternoon, sir.

2:01:23>> Hey, good evening. I'll be real quick

2:01:25because I think my neighbors have

2:01:26handled uh my major concern very well,

2:01:29and that's with the traffic. Um I can't

2:01:32imagine how the traffic study could not

2:01:34be um showing something that the the

2:01:37problem of this community will create.

2:01:40As mentioned, probably 900 cars. It may

2:01:42be a little bit fewer than that, but

2:01:44that's a lot of cars. And if you think

2:01:45about half of those cars getting on the

2:01:47road uh at rush hour along with the the

2:01:52thales uh school, it's going to be a

2:01:55problem. Um I just don't think our

2:01:57two-lane street of North Salem can

2:02:00handle the volume of traffic. Thank you.

2:02:02>> Excellent. Thank you, Mayor. [applause]

2:02:07>> Next, we have uh Lucas

2:02:19Good afternoon, sir.

2:02:20>> My name's Lucas Strobush. I'm at 10002

2:02:23Triane Court. Um, yeah, traffic, that's

2:02:26my big concern. I'm not necessarily

2:02:28against this in general, this project.

2:02:31Um, but Salem is an absolute nightmare

2:02:33to try to turn left off of Britley.

2:02:36I feel like Blanch Dubois. I got to

2:02:38depend on the kindness of strangers more

2:02:40often than not whenever I'm trying to

2:02:42turn out of there. And it's

2:02:43bumperto-bumper uh for hours in the

2:02:46morning, several hours in the afternoon.

2:02:48Everything I'm hearing and seeing sounds

2:02:50kind of exciting for this, but it also

2:02:53doesn't talk about Britley. There's that

2:02:56extra road that's going south, leading

2:02:58right up to it and terminating right

2:03:00there. Which means now I got to look,

2:03:02okay, left and also left and then right

2:03:05and a shoot, now I got to look back left

2:03:07again. It's going to be an absolute

2:03:10nightmare and then we're going to start

2:03:12having safety issues. Um, we've got

2:03:15beautiful traffic signals coming

2:03:17through. We got a lot of nice little

2:03:19stop signs and whatnot, but I'm

2:03:21wondering, is it going to turn into I

2:03:23can either turn right out of my neighbor

2:03:24or right out of my street, left off of

2:03:26the Britley onto Salem, or am I going to

2:03:28have to go through a stop sign and a

2:03:30stop sign and a stop sign and a stop

2:03:32light and then I can get on the exact

2:03:34same street? I've been here for 14 years

2:03:37in Apex in this place. Uh, I love it

2:03:40here. And when the Magnolia Pud went in,

2:03:44Haden Hall was basically told, "Ah,

2:03:46you'll be fine. It's not that much.

2:03:48Okay. When Thales went in, we were told

2:03:51it's going to be a little tight

2:03:53sometimes, but you can't get a light

2:03:55because it's too close to the Peakway

2:03:58and 64. Then when Ford went in, Ford got

2:04:01a light. That was kind of weird. And

2:04:04there's just more traffic and more

2:04:05traffic and more traffic. This is adding

2:04:07more traffic. Sure, it routes some of

2:04:09it, but Salem is still Salem. Same

2:04:12amount of people are still going through

2:04:13it. So, I'm asking you all to get

2:04:16something together for Bridley and for

2:04:18the Haden Hall residents that are

2:04:20currently here and currently taxpayers.

2:04:23Take us into account. Thank you.

2:04:26>> Thank you. [applause]

2:04:31Next, we have Elizabeth Scott.

2:04:37>> Captain Elizabeth.

2:04:38>> Good evening, members of the planning

2:04:41board. My name is Elizabeth Scott and I

2:04:43have lived in Haden Hall for 17 years

2:04:46now. I love Apex. This is my home. Um,

2:04:50I'm also here on behalf of the Haden

2:04:52Hall Homeowners Association and our more

2:04:55than 800 homes and 2,000 residents. We

2:05:00respectfully ask you to deny this

2:05:03resoning request as currently proposed.

2:05:07[cough] Allow me to be clear. We

2:05:09strongly oppose this proposal, not the

2:05:12development of the area. We believe this

2:05:15property should be researched, planned,

2:05:18and considered according to the town's

2:05:20existing land use plan and zoning

2:05:23framework rather than changing those

2:05:26plans to accommodate a development that

2:05:30does not fit the established transition

2:05:32for this area. The town's 2045 land use

2:05:36map already provides for substantial

2:05:39development here while creating an

2:05:42important transition from the higher

2:05:45density to the existing single family

2:05:48neighborhood. We urge you to preserve

2:05:51that transition.

2:05:53This proposal will bring up to 285

2:05:56apartments and 175 town homes right

2:06:00alongside our community with higher

2:06:02density development extremely close to

2:06:06existing Haden Hall homes. They are

2:06:08proposing only 15 to 20 ft buffer for a

2:06:12fourstory building next to sing two f

2:06:16two-story family homes. It also proposes

2:06:20road connections that could turn our

2:06:22residential streets into cutth through

2:06:24routes, creating significant traffic and

2:06:27safety concerns. An urban center, to use

2:06:31the developer word, will not fit the

2:06:34nature of our downtown neighborhood.

2:06:37Storm water is a serious concern. Our

2:06:40downstream areas already experience

2:06:42erosion and flood erosion and flooding

2:06:45and this proposal would add substantial

2:06:48imperous surfaces. With the increasingly

2:06:51intense rainfall and more powerful

2:06:54storms that we will be having, we have

2:06:57to ask whether yesterday's storm water

2:07:00standards are adequate for tomorrow's

2:07:04weather. We need to plan for the reality

2:07:07we're facing, not the climate of the

2:07:09past. We need more research before

2:07:13building commences. Our message is

2:07:16simple. Follow the plan that is already

2:07:19in place. Please deny this proposal as

2:07:22presented and require any future

2:07:25proposals to respect the town's existing

2:07:28land used framework. Provide appropriate

2:07:31buffers. Protect our streets and address

2:07:35the significant traffic, storm water,

2:07:38and environmental concerns we have. We

2:07:41urge you to protect the integrity of the

2:07:44existing plan and the quality of life in

2:07:47the community and the surrounding areas

2:07:49that are already here. Thank you.

2:07:54[applause]

2:07:58>> Those two uh Brandon Black,

2:08:02you and Christine are in here together.

2:08:03You're going to speak separately. Okay.

2:08:07Thank you.

2:08:11Uh, I'm Brandon Black. I live at uh

2:08:13[sighs] 10:04 Britley Way. It is, uh,

2:08:16literally right here on the corner. Um,

2:08:18I suppose I should be happy that the

2:08:20sidewalk's not being placed in my

2:08:22driveway. Um, it's being placed across

2:08:24the street. I do not think that Mr.

2:08:25Fong's going to be uh, excited about

2:08:28that. It's just not enough space. The

2:08:30street right there is already uh,

2:08:33narrow. You can barely fit three cars

2:08:36wide. And now we're talking about making

2:08:38that an exit for the neighborhood. Um, I

2:08:42have lived in Haden Hall for 15 years.

2:08:45Um, love the neighborhood. Um, I think

2:08:48like most people here in Apex, I have

2:08:50very fond memories of coming into town

2:08:52off of 64 and seeing Good Acres. Um,

2:08:58and I think what this council has to ask

2:09:02itself is, do you want the view of all

2:09:06of the people visiting Apex to be just

2:09:08like rows of town houses like

2:09:10Sweetwater? In fact, the applicant

2:09:13called out Sweetwater. Um, love it over

2:09:15there as far as the mixeduse piece, but

2:09:17the town houses are literally just row

2:09:19and row and row. Um, so yeah, lots of

2:09:22concerns. I mean behind me

2:09:25that is all forest. Um as you can see on

2:09:29TH2 even under the overlay that's

2:09:32presented there that is all old growth

2:09:34trees. Um the concerns about the dam I'

2:09:38I'd like to know how long the dam's been

2:09:40there. Um if there's concerns about it

2:09:41breaking. Has it been there 10 years?

2:09:43Has it been there 50 years? Um so those

2:09:47are a lot of my concerns. The only other

2:09:48one that I would bring up um that's

2:09:50noteworthy was slightly mentioned, but

2:09:54the the row of single family homes that

2:09:56is along Britley along the south side

2:09:58here, many of these are two stories. Um

2:10:01and I think we've heard from the

2:10:02developer that this could be up to 60

2:10:04feet or four stories behind us um 20

2:10:08feet away. That's a that's a pretty

2:10:11drastic difference. Um so those are my

2:10:13thoughts. Uh Christine Wilson's actually

2:10:16uh a landscape architect um renowned in

2:10:19her field and I have her mic.

2:10:22>> Okay, thank you. Hello Christie, how are

2:10:23you?

2:10:24>> Hi. Um uh good evening. So Christine

2:10:27Wilson, I'm at 1004 Britley and I am a

2:10:31landscape architect. I um actually

2:10:34advise municipalities, developers around

2:10:37the southeast, northeast on um

2:10:39developments like this and I

2:10:41embarrassingly don't know a ton about

2:10:44this plan that's going on in my

2:10:46backyard, but I'm going just a couple

2:10:48comments on what I heard this evening. I

2:10:51think um there was discussion about that

2:10:55buffer that 20 foot buffer the a 10-

2:10:57foot setback I think I heard and I just

2:10:59was surprised about the um the call out

2:11:02of just that one willow oak and would

2:11:04say has a tree I I would recommend a

2:11:07tree assessment be actually done to

2:11:09identify um what mature trees are on

2:11:12this and that you know in the even 10 12

2:11:16foot um DBH if those could be preserved

2:11:19along those edges of um this development

2:11:21and the Haden Hall neighborhood that can

2:11:23make a real difference because I

2:11:24completely agree with with staff that um

2:11:28the you need you plant the small trees

2:11:30and they'll get bigger in time. You

2:11:32can't just bring in a mature tree. It's

2:11:34just not going to be as happy as those

2:11:36smaller trees over time. And so

2:11:38preserving some mature trees and

2:11:41interplanting with small trees that can

2:11:43really change the character of the area

2:11:45and will really benefit both those

2:11:47living at Haden Hall and those in this

2:11:50new development. Another thing um I

2:11:53wanted to note was um Salem Street is

2:11:56our main street in town and coming off

2:11:58of 64 and we have the Ford dealership

2:12:00which is a car centric development. And

2:12:03so I see this area in Pink um that

2:12:06corner of All-Wheel Drive and Salem

2:12:08Street as an opportunity to really

2:12:10anchor um this the um and be a gateway

2:12:14into to into into um downtown Apex.

2:12:18And so I'm really concerned about the um

2:12:20perspective view I saw this evening with

2:12:23the car parking between the main street,

2:12:26Salem Street, and the mixeduse. I think

2:12:29that um it to make this is an area that

2:12:33I too am excited to walk from my house

2:12:37to the mixeduse development and for

2:12:40those there to walk into downtown and

2:12:42back and forth and and so I like to see

2:12:44a buffer between um the uh pedestrian

2:12:47infrastructure and the the street and to

2:12:50not see parking between the main street

2:12:53and that mixeduse development. I don't

2:12:55think that is the right approach. And

2:12:57one last point I I'd like to make is

2:12:59just um the streets ABC. We we just

2:13:02haven't seen enough information about

2:13:04what those streets can do in terms of

2:13:06traffic calming, in terms of storm water

2:13:08management, and just more information

2:13:11about the pedestrian infrastructure and

2:13:13what that experience will be like to

2:13:14walk between Haten Hall throughout this

2:13:17community up to the mixed use, etc.

2:13:20Thank you.

2:13:20>> Thank you, Christine.

2:13:22[applause]

2:13:25So, next we have George Waters. Hello,

2:13:29George.

2:13:29>> Hi there. Thank you all.

2:13:32>> So, just sort of we've heard a bunch

2:13:34tonight about Oh, I live at 1706

2:13:36Charlian Downs Lane, George Waters. Uh,

2:13:39we've heard a bunch tonight about UDO

2:13:41requirements, 245 plan, minimum storm

2:13:45water, you know, minimum buffer

2:13:48requirements.

2:13:49I think that responsible growth requires

2:13:52sight specific approaches and sight

2:13:54specific solutions, right? What is

2:13:56really happening on the ground and does

2:13:58it pass the eye test? Like is does what

2:14:00proposed pass the eye test? I live on

2:14:02Charlie Downs Lane. We've heard people

2:14:04talk about traffic. Stand on that street

2:14:06and look up the hill and tell me what

2:14:08that street needs is hundreds of

2:14:11additional units cutting through there

2:14:12to get over to Apex Peakway, to get over

2:14:15to West Williams. And also assuming that

2:14:17these businesses are successful, people

2:14:19coming from Apex Peakway, coming from

2:14:21West Williams, cutting through Charleion

2:14:23Downs to get up there. If one car parks

2:14:25on the side of the street, that road

2:14:27turns into a onelane road today. So if

2:14:30I'm coming down that street and around a

2:14:31bend and a kid's coming the other way

2:14:33and his e scooter and all these other

2:14:35things, it's a routine occurrence that

2:14:37you got to hit your brakes going 20

2:14:39miles an hour on a street that you live

2:14:40on where you're trying to take care of

2:14:42your neighbor's kids. Never mind when

2:14:44you're creating a cutthrough. The same

2:14:46exact thing is true on Britley where

2:14:48we've got people running stop signs.

2:14:50We've got speeding issues all the time.

2:14:52All it takes is somebody cuts a tree

2:14:54down, puts a bunch of branches on the

2:14:56side of the road, and all of a sudden

2:14:58that traffic is constricted. Somebody's

2:14:59got a landscape truck out there in the

2:15:01middle of the day. It happens every

2:15:02single day all up and down those

2:15:04streets. That's just the reality of it.

2:15:06Like you look there and you think, "Does

2:15:07this need more traffic down these

2:15:09streets?" It doesn't. Just take a look,

2:15:11please. I bet you just drive up the

2:15:12street and look at it. Um, you look at

2:15:16North Salem traffic. People have talked

2:15:17a lot about that. If you just stand

2:15:19there, I mean, never mind the plan,

2:15:21never mind the extra lane. We've all

2:15:22seen an extra lane added to something

2:15:24and nothing changes at all, right? Like

2:15:25the extra lane just absorbs and it's

2:15:27just more traffic. Doesn't change. Stand

2:15:30there and look and be like, "Does this

2:15:31look like this really needs 400 units

2:15:34across the street from one of the worst

2:15:36spots in the whole town of Apex in terms

2:15:38of traffic?" Probably not. we already

2:15:40have a dedicated police presence out

2:15:41there. How many days a week? And that's

2:15:43during the middle of the day. Never mind

2:15:45rush hour. Never mind these other

2:15:46things. It obviously doesn't need it.

2:15:49And so I think that that's something to

2:15:50just take a look at and ask your eye.

2:15:52Does that does this look like it makes

2:15:53sense on the storm water piece? Look at

2:15:57any of the creeks in Haden Hall. I live

2:15:58with a creek behind my house. I walk

2:16:00down there. It's got signs of erosion

2:16:02all over it. Right? That's what the

2:16:04current storm water load coming from

2:16:06that area. Look in those creeks. Do they

2:16:09look like they can handle an increased

2:16:11load from hundreds of additional units?

2:16:13The total amount of storm water will

2:16:15increase dramatically coming down

2:16:17through our creeks and through our

2:16:18infrastructure. That is a scientific

2:16:20fact. It's not my opinion. And the rate

2:16:22of it is one thing. Okay, we don't

2:16:24exceed the rate, but do we not exceed

2:16:26the rate all through the day? And we had

2:16:29a 500year storm through Chapel Hill last

2:16:31year. We have 500 year storms,

2:16:33100redyear storms, 50-year storms with

2:16:35increasing frequency. That's a

2:16:37scientific fact as well. So that's

2:16:39something that we really need to be

2:16:40worried about. And finally, just look at

2:16:42the context of our thriving

2:16:43neighborhood. Does something like this

2:16:47fit respectfully with that? Does it try

2:16:49to minimize the impact? I don't think it

2:16:52does. I think that this board should

2:16:54reject the proposal until it addresses

2:16:56those issues. And appreciate you all

2:16:58time.

2:16:59>> Thank you, George. [applause]

2:17:03Okay, we have a few more. Nick

2:17:10Good evening, Nick.

2:17:12>> Good evening. Uh, my name is Nick Libby.

2:17:14I live at 10002 Overlook Drive in Haden

2:17:17Hall. Um, so they said tonight this plan

2:17:21aderes to the future land use map, but

2:17:23it does not. The plan asked to expand

2:17:25the high density by almost 70%.

2:17:28The the fact that the developer made a

2:17:31comment tonight that they're going to

2:17:33drain the stream and see if it fills

2:17:35back up fits this proposal perfectly.

2:17:39The impacts of the amount

2:17:42of concrete and traffic added to this

2:17:44site needs to be scrutinized at a level

2:17:46that it hasn't been done today.

2:17:49The planning board suggests Charlie and

2:17:51DS connects to Street C to provide

2:17:54connectivity, but if you talk to anyone

2:17:56on Charlie and DS, they would prefer

2:17:58that be a culde-sac. So, you're only

2:18:00providing connectivity to the new um

2:18:04proposed development.

2:18:06Um, and lastly, reported on our

2:18:10community's concerns tonight on the

2:18:12news, and you've heard our concerns

2:18:14tonight from all the neighbors. So, I

2:18:16hope you take that into account and I

2:18:18hope you deny the proposal as it sits

2:18:20today.

2:18:21>> Okay. Thank you. [applause]

2:18:25>> Ted Stevens.

2:18:36>> Good evening, Ted.

2:18:37>> Hey, how are you doing? Um,

2:18:38>> great.

2:18:39>> I just want to further echo I live at

2:18:4110002 Blackburn. Um, everybody's

2:18:44addressed this pretty well about the

2:18:45safety or the uh, traffic concerns, but

2:18:48the one thing I want to talk about is

2:18:49the cutthroughs, right? They are

2:18:51proposing it as a positive, but already

2:18:54the existing cut through traffic is a

2:18:57safety concern, especially where around

2:19:00Hayward's Heath and um, Blackburn,

2:19:03right? So, there's a lot of concern

2:19:05there. people flying up and down the

2:19:06street adding this additional capacity

2:19:10or this additional load as we like to

2:19:12say. I'm just concerned on what is that

2:19:15going to do with the traffic

2:19:18going towards the actual peak what was

2:19:22it the peak charter school. So I just

2:19:24want to understand did we do a thorough

2:19:26assessment um I want to understand what

2:19:29the acceptance criteria is with respect

2:19:31to adding this additional load. Right?

2:19:34So, I just ask the the board here to

2:19:37deny it. Um, thank you. Have a great

2:19:40rest of your day. [applause]

2:19:46And last, we have Carl Fletcher.

2:20:04I'm not on the subject of Salem Street

2:20:07and I'm on the subject um my name is

2:20:10Carl Fletcher, 422 24 US1 Highway.

2:20:15Um

2:20:16next to the Gracewood subdivision,

2:20:18there's 434 homes getting ready to be

2:20:21developed.

2:20:22And my question is,

2:20:26we haven't had any notification of when

2:20:29the developers were going to come

2:20:30through the the uh road down the road on

2:20:33older US one to put in the water line

2:20:37and 5 years ago they talked about it and

2:20:41nothing happened at that time.

2:20:43Now they've come down the road, they're

2:20:46almost at my property and they want to

2:20:49discuss compensation.

2:20:52um when the connect when they're going

2:20:55to connect up the gas, water, and sewer.

2:20:58And uh

2:21:02I'm just curious why there was no no

2:21:06announcement of what when they were to

2:21:08come and what what they were going to

2:21:10do. So, it's like the last minute and

2:21:13the guy tells me, "Well, we're going to

2:21:14go through your property. We're going to

2:21:17compensate you.

2:21:19Um, we don't know what the value of ease

2:21:22the easement is.

2:21:25Um, I have an attorney, no information

2:21:28at all. Very everybody's very tight

2:21:30lipped about what's going on.

2:21:33>> Okay.

2:21:33>> So, that's my concern.

2:21:34>> Thank you, Mr. Pusher. I would like to

2:21:36add that um that we are discussing the

2:21:39resoning for um for um Haden Hall and

2:21:43next to that. So, um we don't have any

2:21:45information on what you're discussing at

2:21:46the moment. that I guess that would

2:21:48should have been done in public comment

2:21:49at the beginning. So that is not related

2:21:51to what we're doing here.

2:21:52>> Give [clears throat] me a call or send

2:21:53an email and I'll I'll get some

2:21:54information for you.

2:21:56>> Okay. Thank you.

2:21:57>> Yes. You're welcome.

2:21:58>> Thank you very much.

2:22:01>> Thank you.

2:22:01>> Thank you, sir.

2:22:03Okay. Well, let's see.

2:22:08All right. Is there any others that have

2:22:10not signed up that would like to speak

2:22:12on this agenda item?

2:22:16hearing. None. We're going to bring it

2:22:17back to to the board for discussion and

2:22:19possible motion.

2:22:25>> I'd like to make just an observation on

2:22:27that. So, the uh the current 2045 land

2:22:32use map shows medium density office

2:22:35employment commercial uh with the higher

2:22:37density in the corner.

2:22:40And the reasoning that they're asking

2:22:42for is for an increase to the higher

2:22:43density. If we ignore that for a minute,

2:22:46we just think about the current 9 use

2:22:48map and somebody were to come in and

2:22:49develop under those standards without

2:22:51making any adjustments or changes, it's

2:22:54a pretty substantial development. It's

2:22:56going to have tunnas, it's going to have

2:22:57higher density, it's going to have

2:22:59apartments. So, from a stormwater

2:23:02perspective, the increase there isn't a

2:23:04difference, but it's still pretty high

2:23:06density. So, I think that's something we

2:23:09should consider when we when we talk

2:23:11about this. And um from a detrimental

2:23:14perspective, I would love the applicant

2:23:16to come back up and talk a little bit

2:23:17more about the storm water. I think we

2:23:18need some more answers those questions.

2:23:23>> That's it.

2:23:30>> Sure. About about storm water drainage

2:23:32and the effect on on adjacent

2:23:34neighborhoods. Yeah. So, um, again,

2:23:37those are maybe years and years and

2:23:39years ago, there weren't standards that

2:23:40address those things, um, for new

2:23:42subdivisions. And a lot of times, you

2:23:45know, the bad cases lead to changes in

2:23:49the law. Apex has a very lengthy storm

2:23:51water ordinance um that that

2:23:53incorporates NCTQ storm water standards.

2:23:57And so, um, we we have to meet those.

2:24:00There there's also an operation

2:24:02maintenance agreement requirement. So,

2:24:04um, that agreement specifies how these

2:24:07these storm water ponds, drainage

2:24:08devices will be maintained. Um, there

2:24:11are yearly inspections by the town. Um,

2:24:14and there's also financial obligations

2:24:17in there about if something happens, if

2:24:19the pond's not maintained, who pays for

2:24:21what damages. So, um, there's an

2:24:24established process for that. That's

2:24:26most of what I know about it. If if

2:24:27staff wants to add to it, they can, but

2:24:29but that's my understanding.

2:24:33I I know you're in the resoning part of

2:24:35this, so you haven't really gone through

2:24:36the exercise of full civil engineering

2:24:38design for the storm water systems. Um,

2:24:42has there been any analysis to determine

2:24:46how the existing pond is discharging or

2:24:49impacting Hen Hall in a positive or

2:24:52negative way

2:24:53>> because it's not in the lowest part of

2:24:55the property. So, in my mind, there's

2:24:56already kind of an issue. Yeah, we we

2:24:58don't there's not sort of a downstream

2:25:01analysis of the existing farm pond. Um

2:25:04but you're right, it's not in the lowest

2:25:06point on the site. The lowest point is

2:25:07is just south of there. Um and it wasn't

2:25:10built for for storm water. And so now,

2:25:13you know, uh that pond if it overflows,

2:25:15it just the water just drains naturally

2:25:17off the site. Um there's there's no

2:25:19detaining it at all. um if it if it you

2:25:22know the site is also not um engineered

2:25:26and graded today to divert water to that

2:25:29pond. And so you know now when rainfall

2:25:32comes down depending on where it falls

2:25:34on the site it might not go to a pond, a

2:25:36wetland or a stream at all. It might

2:25:37just flow right off the site um into

2:25:40existing streams in in Haden Hall. So

2:25:42that that's part of why I I brought up

2:25:44that um the situation, you know, will be

2:25:47better after storm water controls are

2:25:49installed because the whole site will

2:25:51have to be graded to divert water to

2:25:54specific places where it will be held um

2:25:57for a period of time to allow those

2:26:00streams that are downstream to handle

2:26:02the the discharge. And that's why the

2:26:04rate of flow is so important because um

2:26:07even if it's less volume, if it's

2:26:09flowing at high speed, it can overwhelm

2:26:11the stream. Even if it's more volume, it

2:26:13may not over overflow downstream streams

2:26:16if it's detained for longer. Um and so

2:26:19that's that gets into the nuts and bolts

2:26:22of of the design of the storm water

2:26:24control devices. And I think as staff

2:26:26mentioned, there's a number of ways to

2:26:28do that through design. Um, and we'll

2:26:30have to show that our design meets those

2:26:33standards at subdivision and at

2:26:35construction drawing plan approval. Um,

2:26:38and if we can't, we can't build this.

2:26:39That I think that's that's an important

2:26:41point that uh there's no later phase

2:26:45where we can say, you know, we don't

2:26:46want to meet the stormwater

2:26:47requirements. We got our zoning. We can

2:26:49just skirt those rules. Uh, we can't

2:26:51build if we don't do it. And and maybe

2:26:54decades ago that wasn't the case, but it

2:26:55is now. Um and so those protections are

2:26:58in the UDO and and we are not modifying

2:27:01those. So

2:27:02>> and just and just for reference during

2:27:04the resoning uh there isn't a

2:27:06requirement for provide these storm

2:27:07water calculations. So we just those are

2:27:09to provide

2:27:10>> there's no project yet.

2:27:11>> That's right.

2:27:11>> And so there can't be

2:27:13>> that. That's right. Yeah. And and it

2:27:14would be you know without full really

2:27:18the the key is to have full grading plan

2:27:21for the site which which we don't have

2:27:22yet. Um, and if we were to design storm

2:27:25water controls now, those would likely

2:27:27change in the future when we did have a

2:27:29full grading plan. And so, um, and so

2:27:32the, you know, these puds in Apex have

2:27:35obviously gotten very complex. Um, but

2:27:37really the purpose of reszoning is to

2:27:39focus on the uses and whether the uses

2:27:42are appropriate for the site and then

2:27:43the technical engineering details are

2:27:45hand handled through site plan and

2:27:46subdivision review. So,

2:27:50>> can we ask the traffic consultant to a

2:27:53little bit just summarize the

2:27:54improvements so we can get a better feel

2:27:57for that one more time.

2:28:00>> And while he's making his way up here,

2:28:02can I please make an observation that I

2:28:04think it is unfair to applicants and

2:28:06residents. No one from Bales has to

2:28:08address the traffic that they're

2:28:10creating. Like that is not okay. That is

2:28:14existing. It's existing for these

2:28:16residents. It's existing for everybody

2:28:17who comes down there. And I think it's

2:28:19really interesting that the school did

2:28:20not have to go through this sort of

2:28:22process now or have to come back and

2:28:24abate and that's what we're asking

2:28:26everybody else to do and they're a big

2:28:27problem and I just think that's I don't

2:28:29think it's fair.

2:28:30>> I just wanted to state that. Go ahead.

2:28:34>> Good evening again Kevin Dean Kimley

2:28:36Horn. Um so what you've heard tonight is

2:28:38we're going to be providing an

2:28:39additional southbound lane along

2:28:42Salem Street for the length of the

2:28:44project. Thank you. Um, one of the

2:28:47things that you have observed and that

2:28:50we've observed as we've driven through

2:28:51the corridor is that as people are

2:28:52traveling south on Salem Street, you can

2:28:56already see people switching over to the

2:28:58left of the two through lanes that start

2:29:00when you're behind peak gymnastics.

2:29:02There are two lanes right as you go

2:29:04under the bridge. And then you might

2:29:06have you might have somebody in the

2:29:08rightmost of those two lanes, but that's

2:29:10only because they're going to hit the

2:29:12the gas when the light turns green.

2:29:14They're going to try to beat the front

2:29:15of the queue and then they're going to

2:29:17slide over by the time you get to

2:29:18crossroads because that second lane

2:29:21doesn't continue beyond there.

2:29:22>> And we've all done it.

2:29:23>> We've all done it. Yep. Yep. You're

2:29:25you're you're judging what car is in the

2:29:27front of the line uh beside you to go.

2:29:30>> That's right. That's right.

2:29:33But what what also happens is that when

2:29:35the cues from folks turning left to go

2:29:39to Thales either at all-wheel drive key

2:29:41ring drive or at the Thales driveway

2:29:43proper back out those vehicles back out

2:29:46into the through lane and that prohibits

2:29:49people's ability to get even through

2:29:51those intersections. completely agree

2:29:52that today it is difficult to get

2:29:54through the intersection because it's

2:29:56not generally in my experience that it's

2:29:58always it's not always the through

2:30:00traffic at the signal that's blocking

2:30:02it. It's the the traffic that backs out

2:30:03into the lane. What this additional lane

2:30:06will do is it gets people who want to

2:30:09continue south on Salem and get past all

2:30:11the Thales traffic the ability to do

2:30:14that and not get stuck behind the queue

2:30:16because instead of having to race that

2:30:18first car off the line when you're at

2:30:20the the 64 ramps, you can stay in that

2:30:23outside lane through both ramps past the

2:30:27Ford dealership past the Thales frontage

2:30:30and then you can get back over if you

2:30:32need to or you can turn into the cider

2:30:33into Brley. What it does is it provides

2:30:36additional capacity at the signal

2:30:38because instead of having one southbound

2:30:40through lane, it has two. And what

2:30:42you'll often see in those cases is an

2:30:44ability to redo signal timings because

2:30:48instead of having to allocate so much

2:30:50time to just one lane that's not meant

2:30:52to carry that traffic when there's two

2:30:55lanes, you can give more time to other

2:30:57movements, which might mean you can give

2:30:59more time to the left turn into the

2:31:01Thales Q. You might be able to give more

2:31:03time to the northbound traffic. You

2:31:05might be able to give more time to some

2:31:06of the side streets when you have the

2:31:08traffic queuing back through key ring

2:31:10drive towards their site. So what that

2:31:12improvement does is it helps provide

2:31:15additional capacity on the corridor and

2:31:17through the signal that does not exist

2:31:19today. Um it's worth noting that while

2:31:21the typical section is three lanes along

2:31:24Salem Street, there will be a fourth

2:31:27lane with this project in place. Right.

2:31:29So there'll be there'll be one

2:31:30northbound lane, center left turn lane,

2:31:33and then two southbound lanes along the

2:31:35corridor. So instead of the town

2:31:36identified town required three-lane

2:31:38section, it ultimately becomes a version

2:31:40of a four-lane section in that way. Some

2:31:43of the other stuff you'll see, um, one

2:31:45of the things you've heard is there's a

2:31:46concrete divider that'll be constructed

2:31:48on Salem Street where our traffic will

2:31:51turn left into the project. Um, what

2:31:53that also does is it reinforces what

2:31:56should be a right out only driveway at

2:31:58Thales. Um, you if you drive past their

2:32:01outbound driveway today, you'll see it

2:32:02is wide enough to have two outbound

2:32:04lanes. Um, it is striped as a right turn

2:32:07only. It is signed as a right turn only,

2:32:09but that doesn't keep people from making

2:32:11that turn. Um, so the channelizing

2:32:14island there will prohibit that

2:32:16formally. That doesn't mean that there

2:32:17still might not need to be police

2:32:19officers assisting with that effort, but

2:32:21it does help reinforce that. It also

2:32:24keeps southbound traffic moving a little

2:32:25smoother. Um, the other thing that's

2:32:27happening as part of our widening, you

2:32:29can see it faintly on the plan, but the

2:32:31idea is that where there is not a left

2:32:34turn lane into the Peak Church today,

2:32:36our widening would be sufficient to

2:32:38provide a left turn lane into the Peak

2:32:41Church driveway. Um, so while that

2:32:44volume may not be extremely high during

2:32:47school traffic,

2:32:49I'm sure it's going to be convenient to

2:32:51get out of the flow of Salem Street

2:32:53traffic if you're turning into the

2:32:54church um during whatever time you're

2:32:57visiting. And so that will also help

2:33:00traffic progress along Salem Street

2:33:02where that traffic is otherwise now

2:33:04stopping in the through lane and then

2:33:05having to make that movement across. Um,

2:33:08so those are some of the benefits we

2:33:09see. not contesting that there aren't

2:33:11traffic uh concerns today. We are

2:33:15thinking that there will be better lane

2:33:17utilization, better operations because

2:33:19of the additional lanage provided as

2:33:20part of this project.

2:33:26>> Thank you.

2:33:30>> We can I ask a legal question from our

2:33:32staff? Sure.

2:33:33>> Are we allowed to require saving of

2:33:36certain trees? I know that that Carrie

2:33:39used to be very famous for that. Are we

2:33:41allowed to do that still?

2:33:43>> We're not legal staff. We cannot give

2:33:45legal advice, but if you'd like to ask a

2:33:47planning question.

2:33:48>> Okay. I was just curious because I've

2:33:50heard different things.

2:33:51>> If you rephrase it, if you rephrase it,

2:33:54I can maybe

2:33:55>> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. [laughter]

2:33:57Is the UDO require uh preservation of

2:34:00certain trees?

2:34:02>> Currently,

2:34:05>> it it does, but it's not specific. So if

2:34:08you were looking for every tree over the

2:34:10size of 30 in caliper must be uh

2:34:14preserved on the site that is not what

2:34:17the ordinance says. Um we have resource

2:34:19conservation area and buffer

2:34:21requirements and we do require um trees

2:34:24uh that are over 18inch caliper to be

2:34:28part of the tree survey at the time of

2:34:30site plan or subdivision plan. and they

2:34:32will be looked at, but there's not a

2:34:34flat requirement to save trees over a

2:34:38certain size.

2:34:38>> Okay.

2:34:40>> It's not in our ordinance.

2:34:42>> Okay.

2:34:44>> I have a followup question. Is there is

2:34:46there mitigation required for for the

2:34:48larger trees over 18 inches in diameter

2:34:50or some type of

2:34:52>> Not currently. Um, our environmental

2:34:54advisory board is working on a tree

2:34:56canopy um proposal for council. So, I

2:34:59think you you may start seeing some of

2:35:02those things being proposed to be added

2:35:04to the ordinance, but currently that's

2:35:06not in the ordinance.

2:35:08>> Is there language in the UDO that

2:35:11specifies age of trees, not the

2:35:14diameter?

2:35:15>> No, it's done by diameter. And um yeah,

2:35:20>> not age.

2:35:27>> Thank you, Diane.

2:35:29Thank you.

2:35:37I have traffic concerns and not I

2:35:40understand Salem Street absolutely that

2:35:43will fix that but my concerns are more

2:35:46Charlie and Downs

2:35:49Church

2:35:52like those those are of concern to me. I

2:35:55mean wouldn't I just see Haden Hall

2:35:58already being a cut through from the

2:36:00Peakway

2:36:02and with Britley

2:36:05there's I I just see what's being

2:36:09proposed is opening up a neighborhood

2:36:12even more

2:36:14to some serious traffic issues that are

2:36:18already existing but will be made worse

2:36:20as

2:36:22someone pointed out trying to get on to

2:36:26Salem is already difficult. Is that new

2:36:28median that put in? Was that sort of an

2:36:31initial,

2:36:33you know, the median that just got put

2:36:35in outside? Is that

2:36:38>> Oh, it's just a Oh, it's for It's for

2:36:40Thales.

2:36:41>> There we go. Okay. All right. That was

2:36:44my question. Was it put in for the

2:36:46neighborhood? Was it put in for Apex?

2:36:47Was it put in for the It's okay. Okay.

2:36:52um like what are what's going to happen?

2:36:56I just have a lot of like what are we

2:36:57going to do in terms of traffic calming

2:36:59if if this does happen and we do open

2:37:01this up. I just

2:37:04am very concerned safetywise for what's

2:37:06happening actually in Hatton Hall. as as

2:37:10much as there are issues right now

2:37:11already trying to get out of it, but

2:37:13internally I just am concerned that

2:37:17there needs to be some type of

2:37:20traffic calming or something if this is

2:37:22going to go forward that there needs to

2:37:24be some protections for the people of

2:37:27Apex living in Haden Hall.

2:37:31>> I will start public comment closed. I'm

2:37:34sorry.

2:37:35>> It's just a board at Yeah. Sorry. Um, I

2:37:39do understand that the traffic calming

2:37:41measures and I do agree with uh with

2:37:44some with with the comments about I have

2:37:47been in Apex neighborhoods to where when

2:37:48someone's parked on one side of the

2:37:50road, it's completely it's one lane

2:37:52where you have to wait and someone come

2:37:54by and move over and

2:37:56>> just traffic calming by definition.

2:37:58That's why they do it like

2:37:59>> Exactly. Yep. Yep. this uh so maybe some

2:38:01traffic common measures is is what

2:38:03you're you're talking

2:38:08>> and how do we so for example the UDO was

2:38:13designated how it was and Apex is

2:38:15requiring the connections it's not the

2:38:17applicant right

2:38:18>> and so like what how are we are we can't

2:38:21override what the council and the city's

2:38:24approved for the area I mean we can note

2:38:27I think I think it's totally fair to say

2:38:29you know maybe that 20 foot boundary

2:38:30needs to be a little bit deeper or um a

2:38:33little bit more screening or something.

2:38:35of the other things I thought were

2:38:38considered planned the way that they do

2:38:40all of that and that was we were

2:38:42supposed to make sure that it was

2:38:43meeting that and if the town is

2:38:46requiring them to connect the street I

2:38:47don't understand why we're that seems

2:38:49like a town council question

2:38:52>> then

2:38:53>> I mean generally for connectivity all

2:38:55these neighborhoods like like the

2:38:57connection off Britley and Charine those

2:38:59those were already deadends for future

2:39:01connect

2:39:02>> and we do that now we say like you have

2:39:03to cap and we we know So that we

2:39:05approving them so that

2:39:07>> development requirements the plan is

2:39:08going to ask for

2:39:09>> and they plan no matter what plan or

2:39:11not.

2:39:12>> Right.

2:39:14>> Right. So that's that's what I struggle

2:39:16with on that. It's like and it's and the

2:39:18same thing on the traffic study. Well,

2:39:20we're not at the we did the traffic

2:39:21study. It was a third party.

2:39:24They talked about how far they did it.

2:39:26If they people don't believe I don't

2:39:27know how to respond to that. Um if there

2:39:29if there's not even belief on it on the

2:39:31storm water, we're not there yet. And

2:39:33he's correct. we have to grade it and

2:39:35all of that and so

2:39:35>> there is the army corp of engineers

2:39:37involved in that

2:39:38>> yep army corpse

2:39:39>> so I don't feel yeah

2:39:42>> and and I do understand ex their concern

2:39:46>> let's see that first I understand that

2:39:48completely and also the other side that

2:39:51you have to drain it and if I'm not

2:39:53mistaken six months is that right Amanda

2:39:54it's it's a time period to wait

2:39:56>> to see what the buffer

2:39:58>> or what is is it coming back to see what

2:40:00they're going to do later for a better

2:40:02outcome

2:40:03So I I see I see their concern and I see

2:40:05why they do the drain and wait at the

2:40:08same time.

2:40:09>> I think we are and this is the we're

2:40:11talking about the zoning here. We're not

2:40:12into the particularities even though

2:40:14we've kind of talked about it

2:40:15>> correct

2:40:15>> and I feel like maybe we shouldn't have

2:40:18because maybe we maybe some of my

2:40:19questions kind of introduced things that

2:40:21were early in the in the cycle. Um if

2:40:24we're just saying does this meet the use

2:40:27or not?

2:40:28>> I mean I mean not necessarily because

2:40:29there are there are 10 legislative

2:40:31considerations and the you're asking

2:40:33everybody to ask here are fall into

2:40:34those considerations.

2:40:36>> Um I think we have to feel satisfied

2:40:39that the the development meets the 10

2:40:40considerations.

2:40:42>> The biggest one I'm concerned about is

2:40:44the um abutment and the buffer. That's

2:40:48my biggest concern.

2:40:52>> You mean in terms of like the the trees

2:40:54buffer between the community?

2:40:55>> Yeah. And they're looking down and she's

2:40:56right. I mean they're going to look down

2:40:57a street. Um, and hey, I live in

2:40:59downtown and I look at streets and I

2:41:01also have a sidewalk. It's all of that's

2:41:04they're going to put a sidewalk on my

2:41:05property. I don't get to say saying it

2:41:06either way, so I feel you on that. Um,

2:41:08whoever was talking about that, but um,

2:41:11I know that their goals are usually it's

2:41:13about connectivity. They want more

2:41:15people walking on the streets and not on

2:41:17the roads for safety. Um, at least in

2:41:20the sidewalk example. So, um, yeah, my

2:41:24biggest request would be to reconsider

2:41:27either the amount of the buffer and or

2:41:32the screening at least for part of it.

2:41:35Um,

2:41:37>> I think the with the exception of one

2:41:39buffer, all of them met the

2:41:40>> Yes.

2:41:41>> the current year.

2:41:42>> The one that didn't was on Salem.

2:41:43>> It was Salem. That's right. And I

2:41:45understand that too because as somebody

2:41:47who's tried to get recruit commercial

2:41:50and retail, they want to be seen and

2:41:53they want parking easy because people

2:41:54don't want to go behind and walk around.

2:41:56We're lazy. I'm lazy.

2:41:57>> I want to park them right in front.

2:41:59>> I asked that question. Landscape market.

2:42:01I don't remember her name. I'm sorry.

2:42:02>> Um

2:42:03>> she said the same thing I said, which is

2:42:05I found it odd to put the parking in

2:42:06front plus I don't really like parking

2:42:08that you drive by.

2:42:10I'd rather have see the retail and some

2:42:12landscape and then have a seat of cars.

2:42:14That's

2:42:14>> but that's because that's how they're

2:42:16attract if you want to attract them they

2:42:17people want to get out easily and get to

2:42:20where they're going.

2:42:21>> There's also like that concept of having

2:42:23that setback so you aren't in like you

2:42:26know a tunnel with high you know

2:42:29higherrise buildings right so you you

2:42:31tear it to go up as it goes further from

2:42:34the road

2:42:35>> just conceptually

2:42:37>> I know just count of carry has done

2:42:39similar stuff

2:42:40>> right once they put the our place there.

2:42:43It's like

2:42:53>> any other concerns

2:42:55>> I guess

2:42:56>> considerations I mean I should say

2:42:58>> just a general comment because it's um

2:43:01and it it was actually triggered by the

2:43:03parking um commentary but you know like

2:43:06this is an important corridor you know

2:43:08like I I'd actually sent an email to the

2:43:10town council in 2020 about this for some

2:43:13discussions around widening of this um

2:43:16in the future, but it's it's essentially

2:43:19it's like the north entrance, you know,

2:43:20from 64 into Apex, downtown Apex, and

2:43:25for better or for worse, crossroads

2:43:27forward, ton of parking, and then it's

2:43:29like as you keep going down, like this

2:43:30quarter is going to keep developing and

2:43:32you're likely going to see more parking.

2:43:34Um, so, and I'm not saying that you're

2:43:37not doing what you need to do, you know,

2:43:39and you're not taking things to heart,

2:43:41but, um, this is an important piece of

2:43:44property. And so, as you develop it and

2:43:47make decisions around it, I would

2:43:49definitely encourage you to make

2:43:50decisions that would be high impact for

2:43:52your development and also be a benefit

2:43:55to the surrounding community and area.

2:43:58um because you only have really one

2:44:01opportunity to do it right from the

2:44:02beginning because it could get

2:44:04redeveloped at some point but probably

2:44:05won't be in my lifetime. So um so yeah

2:44:10that's what I would say like if we could

2:44:11minimize parking that would be great.

2:44:17I think the question just goes back to

2:44:19the 2445 land use plan shows what it

2:44:23shows and if they built it just like

2:44:25that it would still be high density at

2:44:28the corner town houses surrounding it

2:44:30likely and this is a slight a deviation

2:44:33I won't say slight there's a percentage

2:44:35deviation from that but visually if you

2:44:37built one or you built the other they

2:44:38wouldn't be drastically different if you

2:44:40were driving by or interacting through

2:44:42it so how does that impact our decision

2:44:45I think is the final because it that's

2:44:48what it was. Yeah,

2:44:51>> I I do appreciate the applicant working

2:44:53with staff and how much time they've all

2:44:54put into it. And I do recognize that it

2:44:56is an important piece of property. It's

2:44:58between 64 and downtown. Those are

2:45:01business districts and important

2:45:02transportation. And um I know we all

2:45:05would like to have more walkability. So,

2:45:06I do appreciate that and I understand um

2:45:09I understand the goal and I understand

2:45:11the angst as anybody who has seen a

2:45:13ranch or a duplex go down and four

2:45:17fourstory, you know, single family homes

2:45:20because you can also get density and

2:45:21height that way too. You can get three

2:45:23stories over a garage. Um because I've

2:45:25seen it. Um I understand it. At the same

2:45:28time, what I try to remember as I'm

2:45:30devastated by as I look out is those are

2:45:32four more families that are going to go

2:45:34downtown and spend some money. Um, and

2:45:37um, so I try to and if I wanted density,

2:45:40I probably don't want it on the edge of

2:45:42Apex. You probably want it where

2:45:44transportation, fire, police are already

2:45:47here. So, I do want to say thank you for

2:45:50trying and for working with the staff.

2:45:57>> Any other discussion? Possible motion.

2:46:01>> Just one more question. Sorry.

2:46:02>> Yeah, absolutely. What's the the total

2:46:04acreage of the preservation area with

2:46:06the pond, the existing pond? Is there

2:46:08like a number for that?

2:46:13>> I don't know off the top of my head.

2:46:16Yeah. Um, we can get that number for

2:46:19you. I know the RCA requirement is 20%

2:46:22of the the total site. Total site's 32

2:46:25acres. Um, and and that's not all of the

2:46:28RCA, but it's a good chunk of it. So,

2:46:30>> one is about eight, right? That's right.

2:46:32Yep.

2:46:33>> About

2:46:35six maybe.

2:46:37>> That's probably approximately right.

2:46:39Yep.

2:46:47>> I have a what if question scenario,

2:46:50Matthew. Um if it becomes two pawns, if

2:46:55um the yellow area in TH-2

2:46:59that would be reconfigured Is that

2:47:02correct? So, the number of town homes in

2:47:04TH-2

2:47:06East would

2:47:08change.

2:47:09>> Um, but potentially, so the pond will

2:47:12probably sort of straddle the line like

2:47:16right here.

2:47:19So, um, so, so the

2:47:25yes, you're right. There may not be town

2:47:26homes right up to the green boundary,

2:47:29but the unit counts in our pud will not

2:47:31change. Those are based on sketches

2:47:33we've done. So,

2:47:34>> and then the existing boundary of the

2:47:37pond number one would remain because

2:47:40that's not buildable.

2:47:42>> That's right. Correct. Yeah. Most

2:47:43likely. Yeah. And and if you see the

2:47:45dash line around it, that was the buffer

2:47:49if if we left the pond without draining

2:47:51it because it would be jurisdictional.

2:47:53Yep.

2:47:57It was just wanted to visualize that.

2:48:04>> Okay. Any other discussion?

2:48:06Possible motion.

2:48:16Not everybody. Just one at a time.

2:48:21He's

2:48:27putting on his glasses.

2:48:41I'm break.

2:48:48So I I know we're going to get another

2:48:50shot at this when it comes back through.

2:48:51So or the staff will for some of these

2:48:53questions. So I will put forth approval

2:48:56for

2:49:01uh 25 CZ24

2:49:05with conditions of I would like the

2:49:08applicant

2:49:12as it joins the neighborhood.

2:49:17>> Chissy, is that the buffer along the

2:49:18southern property boundary?

2:49:19[clears throat]

2:49:20>> I'm talking about TH1 and TH2

2:49:23>> along Britley Way.

2:49:24>> Yes, thank you. I can't see that.

2:49:26>> Okay, thank you.

2:49:30>> And then that that one condition that

2:49:32was revised with the transportation.

2:49:36>> I'm sorry, what? Oh, we had one revision

2:49:39to the uh channelizing.

2:49:43>> Southbound.

2:49:44>> Oh, sorry.

2:49:45>> That was that just that revision.

2:49:50>> Okay. Including

2:49:52>> including staff revision. Sorry. Thank

2:49:53you.

2:49:54>> Second.

2:49:57>> Okay. We have a motion for approval uh

2:49:59with conditions of

2:50:02considerations for uh setbacks for TH1

2:50:05and TH2 and also the transportation

2:50:07revision by staff.

2:50:10>> Second

2:50:11I did I did I said approval.

2:50:14>> You did you did I was just you did you

2:50:16did and and so do we have a second and a

2:50:19mark.

2:50:20>> So we have a motion and a second. Uh so

2:50:24all in favor say I.

2:50:26>> I. All oppose.

2:50:28All oppose is Mary, Sarah.

2:50:34Mary, and Sarah.

2:50:36>> Okay, motion carries.

2:50:40>> I make a motion to bring Alyssa back

2:50:41into the fold.

2:50:43>> Second.

2:50:44>> We got a motion in a second to bring

2:50:46Alysa back in. All in favor say I.

2:50:47>> I.

2:50:48>> All oppose. Motion carried. Welcome

2:50:50back, Alissa.

2:50:54Just a reminder to those who voted

2:50:55against that motion to fill out your

2:50:57dissenting member comment form.

2:50:59>> Yeah.

2:51:00>> Thank you,

2:51:01>> Mr. Chair.

2:51:04>> Let's just wait.

2:51:29That's all right. I'll just take it

2:51:30right between the eyes. Thank you.

2:51:31>> I should I believe in it. I have some

2:51:34issues.

2:51:34>> I thought you [laughter]

2:51:37just

2:51:53Okay,

2:51:54>> that's

2:51:57why

2:51:59we got to get political.

2:52:09You got it. I was like,

2:52:12>> is it the charger?

2:52:13>> Yeah, maybe

2:52:14>> cuz some people were like, "Oh, we like

2:52:16Okay, it's not

2:52:20>> 100%."

2:52:23>> Okay. Are we ready?

2:52:24>> We are.

2:52:25>> Okay.

2:52:27>> All right. Okay. So, we have one UDO

2:52:29amendment before you that is actually a

2:52:31request by the town council to amend um

2:52:34the sections in the planning board and

2:52:36board of adjustment uh sections of the

2:52:38UDO to change the method for how these

2:52:40uh advisory boards are appointed.

2:52:42Similar changes are also being made to

2:52:45the town code for other all the other

2:52:47appointed boards. Um but the planning

2:52:49board and board of adjustment um the

2:52:52appointment standards are in the UDO.

2:52:53That's why you're seeing these two. Uh

2:52:56so there are a few minor changes such as

2:52:58um spelling out ETJ and clarification on

2:53:02um

2:53:04town council making membership

2:53:06recommendations to like Wake County

2:53:07Board of Commissioners for the ETJ

2:53:08member for example. Um but the two new

2:53:12standards are for planning board are

2:53:14subsections E and F. And the first is

2:53:17setting a time limit by which the mayor

2:53:19should make a recommendation to town

2:53:20council uh at either the expiration of a

2:53:23membership term or when someone has

2:53:26stepped down from a board uh due to

2:53:28moving away or or just relinquishing

2:53:30their their seat. And that time is 30

2:53:33days 30 calendar days prior to the

2:53:36expiration of a term or no later than 30

2:53:38calendar days calendar days after um

2:53:41receipt of the written notice of the

2:53:42vacancy from the town clerk. So that's

2:53:44the first change and it's a similar

2:53:46change for the board of adjustment. Um

2:53:48same wording um just in that section.

2:53:52Uh for subsection F, uh the uh UDO

2:53:56amendment states that the town council

2:53:58may elect to not appoint an applicant

2:54:00recommended by the mayor, which is the

2:54:02case now. The mayor makes a

2:54:03recommendation for the appointment and

2:54:04it's up to the town council to confirm

2:54:06vote that recommendation up or down. Um

2:54:10but the change is that um this allows

2:54:13the town council to appoint another

2:54:15qualified applicant without a further

2:54:17recommendation by the mayor. So instead

2:54:18of sending it back to the mayor waiting

2:54:21on him to make another recommendation

2:54:23coming for another vote, it allows the

2:54:25town council to um make that um

2:54:28appointment uh themselves. Uh so and

2:54:32then also if the mayor does not make a

2:54:35recommendation within the time frames in

2:54:38subsection E then that would give the

2:54:40town council the ability to appoint a

2:54:43qualified applicant without that

2:54:44recommendation.

2:54:46So then when we go to the board of

2:54:48adjustment section you can see it's the

2:54:49exact same wording. It's just the

2:54:50subsection letters are are different.

2:54:53So, um, since this is not a planning

2:54:56related standard, it's more of a policy

2:54:59decision from council. Uh, that is why

2:55:01planning staff is not making

2:55:02recommendation on this. Um, but I'm

2:55:04happy to answer try to answer any

2:55:06questions you might have.

2:55:08>> I mean, that kind of begs the question

2:55:09of if planning staff I know it's a UDO

2:55:12and so that's why we're seeing this, but

2:55:13if planning staff doesn't make a

2:55:14recommendation, why is the planning

2:55:16board

2:55:17>> making a recommendation too?

2:55:18>> Right. So, I mean the the planning board

2:55:20makes a recommendation on all UDO

2:55:22amendments to the town council. Um,

2:55:26>> yeah,

2:55:27>> we like our our concern is that board

2:55:28seats are filled.

2:55:30>> We do we we do have a vacancy on the

2:55:32planning board that's been vacant for

2:55:34some time. Is it going to set

2:55:37a requirement that

2:55:40the town council already has they have

2:55:43to have a replacement already in their

2:55:45mind in case they reject who the mayor

2:55:50suggests?

2:55:51Doesn't that lend itself to saying that

2:55:53the town count that they've already

2:55:54discussed it ahead of time and know who

2:55:56they want and then is it is the time

2:55:59frame that they would then suggest it

2:56:00right then because I know there's 30 the

2:56:0230 days right where the mayor could

2:56:04suggest somebody else or

2:56:06>> it doesn't say they have to do that at

2:56:08that meeting.

2:56:09>> Okay. All right. So it's not an

2:56:11immediate response.

2:56:13>> It could be. It doesn't have to be. So,

2:56:14whenever there's an a vacancy, um, as

2:56:17part of the council agenda packet, the

2:56:19town council can see all of the people

2:56:22who submitted applications for that

2:56:24position and, um, a list of whether they

2:56:27were deemed to be a qualified or not a

2:56:28qualified applicant. And so, part of

2:56:30that is as many of you have filled out

2:56:32the application, that's part of that

2:56:34packet is all the questions that are

2:56:37answered um, by each member. So there's

2:56:39there's already information that all the

2:56:41town council members have seen of

2:56:42everyone that's applied for the position

2:56:44and then who um the mayor recommended

2:56:48from that list of qualified applicants.

2:56:50So it's not like they're pulling a name

2:56:52out of out of a hat or just out of thin

2:56:54air. They're pulling from a list of

2:56:56qualified applicants. Um

2:56:58>> could they push it back to the mayor

2:57:00though? So I mean let's say his list of

2:57:02five

2:57:03>> he's got a backup.

2:57:04>> Yeah.

2:57:05>> He or she has a backup.

2:57:06>> Yeah. I mean, instead of him

2:57:07recommending one, he can the mayor could

2:57:09recommend two or if he's recommending

2:57:12one, send it back just so it goes back

2:57:14through the mayor versus they just, oh,

2:57:16we're going to pick this.

2:57:19>> Well, I have a question. How does it

2:57:21work for the other boards besides the

2:57:22two boards?

2:57:23>> Like, does the mayor make a

2:57:25recommendation for all boards?

2:57:26>> Yes.

2:57:27>> And then it's uh accepted or not at the

2:57:29council?

2:57:30>> Correct.

2:57:30>> All appointed boards are the same. It's

2:57:32just that these are the only two boards

2:57:34with all of the appointment standards

2:57:36listed in the UDL.

2:57:40>> I mean, I love an improvement to a

2:57:42standard operating procedure. Like,

2:57:44that's great. Section D. I think where

2:57:48I'm concerned on E is like no one wants

2:57:50to take something to council. I I this

2:57:53is how I envision council working. You

2:57:54all want consensus before a person is

2:57:57publicly denied

2:58:00appointment, right? So, I guess there's

2:58:02just a little bit of concern about that

2:58:04if

2:58:06balancing out the interest of the mayor

2:58:09and council.

2:58:12Um,

2:58:13it

2:58:14>> if the interest is in filling the space,

2:58:16then why not just do D? Why are we doing

2:58:18E?

2:58:19>> Agreed.

2:58:19>> Like, if you're going to just give them

2:58:21put them on a shot clock or her,

2:58:23whoever,

2:58:23>> right?

2:58:24>> And then just like leave everything the

2:58:25same. I feel really uncomfortable. I'm

2:58:27just going to be honest with you about

2:58:28this as a policy thing. I don't like

2:58:30changing things in the middle. I don't

2:58:32like there being an anomaly to how

2:58:34anything else is done.

2:58:36>> Yeah.

2:58:36>> Putting him on a shot clock is fair like

2:58:38because you need to have that. But I

2:58:40don't understand why we're even looking

2:58:41at E or whatever.

2:58:43>> So is the concern about the first

2:58:44sentence with E, the second sentence of

2:58:47of E refers to D that if the if the

2:58:51recommendation is not made within the

2:58:53time frame specified, then the council

2:58:55may appoint a qualified recommendation.

2:58:57>> That's fine. But so your concern is with

2:58:59the first sentence of E for the board of

2:59:02adjustment and F for the planning board

2:59:04[clears throat]

2:59:05and then if that there's no response

2:59:07just like right president like they

2:59:09don't respond it goes through. So then

2:59:10they can do that then I don't know why I

2:59:13don't I don't I feel uncomfortable with

2:59:15that first part

2:59:17for that reason. I don't want to I don't

2:59:18want to weigh into this. I don't want

2:59:20anomalies. People are suspicious enough.

2:59:22You heard it like actual reports are

2:59:24given by third party people and they're

2:59:26like there's no report

2:59:27>> without an additional recommendation

2:59:29from the mayor. That's what I'm really

2:59:31getting. Yeah.

2:59:32>> Still put it on a but put it on a shot.

2:59:35So then if that's the concern then go

2:59:37okay at the third time [laughter]

2:59:40and we still don't have it or something

2:59:42like that. If someone's being obstinate

2:59:44I get what you're saying but fine. But

2:59:47again, I just I am initially leerary,

2:59:50regardless of whom it is or what it's

2:59:52for, of having an anomaly in a system.

2:59:54It makes me

2:59:56>> on something that I don't know anything

2:59:57about. I haven't heard anything about

2:59:58this except and we had another one

3:00:01>> um about the EAB thing that they they

3:00:04brought over to us too and it's just

3:00:05like

3:00:07>> well my my preference would be that

3:00:09whatever the other whatever happens to

3:00:10the other boards should remain with

3:00:12these two boards,

3:00:12>> right? if I was

3:00:14>> consistenc and the proposal is to amend

3:00:17the town code exactly consistent with

3:00:19this. So we have this language has been

3:00:22vetted from the clerk's office with

3:00:23consultation with legal and and so um

3:00:27it's the same language that's and same

3:00:29process that's being proposed for all

3:00:31appointed boards. So it so there would

3:00:32be consistency among all the boards.

3:00:35>> Can I just ask a simple question? Why

3:00:38are we changing it if it's working now?

3:00:41Why do we

3:00:41>> Well, I think the she did make the point

3:00:43that there is a very long-standing

3:00:45vacancy on this board in particular.

3:00:47>> Is that why the vacancy on this board

3:00:49that was

3:00:50>> I can't answer that question.

3:00:51>> We don't have applicants. I mean,

3:00:52>> we have applicants.

3:00:54>> You have applicants.

3:00:55>> So, I think it does warrant a like if we

3:00:59think of our UDO as a standard operating

3:01:01procedure like you know adding SOPs

3:01:04adding some efficiencies to your SOP

3:01:06it's a good thing.

3:01:07>> Yeah. Um but it also has to come in the

3:01:09balance of interested parties within the

3:01:11decision-m authority

3:01:12>> currently. Does the town council can

3:01:14they make can they appoint and

3:01:19recommend to the mayor

3:01:21or is that not happening now?

3:01:25>> No. No. Right now the mayor in the

3:01:27ordinance

3:01:28>> makes the recommendation and then the

3:01:31town council votes whether to approve

3:01:34that recommendation or not. that the

3:01:35mayor doesn't like the list. What you're

3:01:37saying the recommendations aren't

3:01:38happening.

3:01:39>> That's what you're saying.

3:01:42>> There's a lot of scenarios that could

3:01:44play out under the current rules.

3:01:48>> I'll go ahead and say I'm I'm definitely

3:01:49in favor of the uh new business

3:01:51amendment excluding 2.12F

3:01:54and 2.12E.

3:01:57>> All of F and E or

3:01:59>> Oh, well, we just Yeah.

3:02:00>> Or the first sentence of FNE.

3:02:06While he's pondering, I do have one

3:02:07technical question.

3:02:09>> So, the ETGA rep will now get be

3:02:12appointed by the uh county commissioner.

3:02:16>> That's the same that that that's

3:02:17currently the practice.

3:02:19>> Okay. Okay. Cuz I wondered why myself,

3:02:23>> yes.

3:02:23>> Being outside of the ETJ, why why that

3:02:26person would be appointed by the town

3:02:27council, but ETJ would be appointed by

3:02:29the county commissioner. Yes position is

3:02:32statutoily required by state law. Okay.

3:02:34>> The Wake County position like you are

3:02:36was added by our town council.

3:02:38>> Okay. That's

3:02:39>> Yeah.

3:02:40>> I just need a little clarification. So

3:02:41did I give you

3:02:42>> I'm just curious if if the mayor has had

3:02:44any input or

3:02:45>> Yeah. Did

3:02:46>> my understanding is this was discussed

3:02:48to some degree in a work session, but I

3:02:50was not a part of those conversations

3:02:52and so I'm not gonna Well,

3:02:55>> I can't answer anything about that.

3:02:56>> Thank you. I think I would uh be my

3:03:01proposal to uh reschedule this until

3:03:05he's had a chance to have some input. Uh

3:03:07it definitely right affects his office,

3:03:10>> right? Yeah,

3:03:10>> that would be my proposal. Um

3:03:14just to make sure that everyone because

3:03:15we're not in a hurry here, right?

3:03:16Everyone has a have a time to have input

3:03:20>> in case that has not been the case. So,

3:03:22I I'd have to double check, but I

3:03:24believe this has been advertised for

3:03:26town council. Um, they are scheduled to

3:03:30hear it on September. Yes, it has been

3:03:32advertised. They are scheduled to hear

3:03:33this on September 22nd.

3:03:38>> Well, hang on.

3:03:39>> I'm still recommending it proposed to uh

3:03:41>> So, I I just need to discuss this. So,

3:03:44let's say like there's five of us go

3:03:46missing. The town council can appoint

3:03:48those five people to this board. No, the

3:03:51mayor will make recommendations to fill

3:03:53vacancies and the town council can

3:03:55approve or deny. If they deny the seat,

3:03:58then the council can select from that

3:04:00qualified pool.

3:04:02Who would fill that seat?

3:04:04>> Does the qualified the people who the

3:04:06applicants right of the form? Do they go

3:04:09through you guys first at all?

3:04:11>> The clerk's office handles the

3:04:13applications. So, they

3:04:14>> you guys don't see any of the

3:04:17>> not until it's put on the agenda.

3:04:23So, planning staff is not giving input.

3:04:26>> No, I got you. I got you. And to who

3:04:28gets appointed?

3:04:29>> If you're gonna if you're going to put

3:04:30something before me that I don't know

3:04:32anything about and then you're going to

3:04:33shot clock me and tell me I have to vote

3:04:34on it because you're going to talk about

3:04:35it in two weeks, I'm going to say no

3:04:37because I don't know anything about it.

3:04:38I don't feel qualified to talk about it.

3:04:40So, I'm just going to go nope or come

3:04:42back and give us some answers. And if if

3:04:44our opinion doesn't matter, then why did

3:04:45they ask us? If they don't need our

3:04:47approval, then why ask us? Well, they do

3:04:49need I mean well

3:04:50>> they don't need our approval.

3:04:51>> That's a philosophical question. That's

3:04:53right. They don't need it.

3:04:55>> Make a decision without it.

3:04:56>> I mean this the state law says that the

3:04:58planning board shall make a

3:04:59recommendation to the town council. It's

3:05:01just the distinction for UDO amendments

3:05:03is that it's not a public hearing at

3:05:04planning board. Um it's only a public

3:05:07hearing at town council.

3:05:09>> And I think delay in the matter would

3:05:10not really determine it ultimately.

3:05:16I I'm I'm thinking we should continue

3:05:18until we have a more informed

3:05:20transparent

3:05:22>> Diane. Have you looked at the calendar

3:05:23to see if there's a planning board

3:05:24meeting with the 30 days?

3:05:26>> 29 days.

3:05:27>> I just know buildings and design and

3:05:29zoning. I don't know.

3:05:30>> It feels like we're just

3:05:31>> like too legal for me.

3:05:33>> Changing something that has been in

3:05:34effect and removing power from

3:05:36somebody's position in office without

3:05:38their direct input.

3:05:39>> Chair's decision to defer the

3:05:41>> That's important.

3:05:42>> I support it. I that's my my

3:05:44consideration is to continue until

3:05:46everyone's been informed and uh make

3:05:49make sure that the mayor's had input. I

3:05:50don't think you know that's I think

3:05:52that's fair. It's balanced and I don't

3:05:54believe that uh rushing this is

3:05:58>> is merited.

3:05:59>> I

3:06:01would recommend that we approve it

3:06:05striking that first sentence in F

3:06:10and E.

3:06:12>> Yeah. Under board of adjustments, the

3:06:14first

3:06:15>> which sentence

3:06:16>> notwithstanding anything to the

3:06:17contrary, in subsections A through C,

3:06:20the town council may elect not to

3:06:22appoint an applicant recommended by the

3:06:24mayor, in which case the town council

3:06:26shall appoint another qualified

3:06:27applicant without further recommendation

3:06:29from the mayor. So that if we strike

3:06:32this that sentence in both sections that

3:06:36still

3:06:38helps maintain the existing balance of

3:06:42interest amongst the council and mayor

3:06:46while creating the timing perspective

3:06:51that helps move along.

3:06:53>> I could I could and they'll see what the

3:06:55issue is.

3:06:57>> Think that's

3:06:58>> right. So you have that 30-day to move

3:07:00start moving things along.

3:07:02>> So how would it read just so I'm clear?

3:07:04>> So it would so subsection E or F in the

3:07:07planning board section would would just

3:07:10read beginning it at if if no

3:07:12recommendation is provided by the mayor

3:07:14within the applicable time frame

3:07:15established in subsection D or E in the

3:07:18planning board section. The town council

3:07:20may appoint a qualified applicant

3:07:21without a recommendation from the mayor.

3:07:25Now, it's going to come up with the

3:07:27question of, okay, we've outlined this

3:07:28procedure for making an appointment.

3:07:30What happens if the council votes no,

3:07:32and I think that then the mayor comes

3:07:35back with a

3:07:37>> second

3:07:39subsequent applicant.

3:07:40>> I still don't feel comfortable just

3:07:42because it's it's like I feel like

3:07:44>> if we're going to change something that

3:07:45affects

3:07:47>> his position

3:07:48>> and there's something that

3:07:49>> we're just making a recommendation.

3:07:50We're not changing anything. I agree

3:07:52with you.

3:07:54>> For me, the recommendation that

3:07:57>> I don't mind there being a shot clock. I

3:07:59just feel like I don't know right now

3:08:01and no one can tell me if all the

3:08:03interested parties have weighed in on

3:08:04this language.

3:08:06>> Right. That's where that's where we're

3:08:08>> I was thinking as well was if the

3:08:12mayor's not been involved with the

3:08:14discussion at all,

3:08:16then shouldn't we have at least the

3:08:21mayor's office chime in somewhere?

3:08:24>> What's the rest?

3:08:24>> Without without, you know, without

3:08:27technically handcuffing him

3:08:30>> completely. Amanda, what's the detriment

3:08:32to deferring the item? Like if we made

3:08:35that decision, what would What's the

3:08:38>> Well, there is a state law time frame

3:08:40that the planning board has to make a

3:08:41recommendation to the town council

3:08:42within 30 days. So, your next planning

3:08:44board meeting is actually 29 days. It

3:08:46doesn't always work out that the

3:08:48planning board can actually defer time

3:08:50for another meeting, but then that makes

3:08:52it be like the day before the council

3:08:55meeting. So, um

3:08:57>> why are we tied to that though? That's

3:08:59what I'm saying. That delay is state law

3:09:02and so

3:09:02>> for 30 days I'm talking about this town

3:09:04it's it's going before town council on

3:09:06XYZ date why can't it go in October

3:09:09>> before town council

3:09:10>> so the direction was given that all of

3:09:12the town town code and UDO amendments

3:09:15would proceed at the same pace at the

3:09:17same time because they wanted to take

3:09:19care of all of the boards at the same

3:09:21time and so the town code amendments for

3:09:24all the other boards would be proceeding

3:09:25as of right now on September 22nd and

3:09:28that was what was discussed just um the

3:09:31direction given by town council through

3:09:33the clerk's office and and so on.

3:09:36>> Um

3:09:38>> we've been hearing UDO amendments all

3:09:40summer,

3:09:42>> right? We we've approved other UDO

3:09:44amendments this summer, right?

3:09:46>> Uhuh.

3:09:46>> And we're just now getting this one and

3:09:48we're we're beyond the 30-day shot.

3:09:50That's I don't understand.

3:09:51>> We're under with

3:09:51>> No, we're on you're you're under. You

3:09:53would have the ability to recommend to

3:09:55to continue to not make a vote.

3:09:58>> Let's continue. But you got I

3:10:01misunderstood. I thought it was the

3:10:02other way around. My bad.

3:10:03>> So So I just have to interject. What

3:10:05information do you need? Because we

3:10:08probably aren't going to have any

3:10:09information for you at the next meeting

3:10:11either.

3:10:12>> There may be nothing different and we

3:10:14don't know that we'll have anything.

3:10:16>> I believe we we as staff will not have

3:10:19any other information to give to you.

3:10:22So if you need time to talk to people on

3:10:25your own, that's fine. But I'm just

3:10:26going to tell you right now that we're

3:10:27not g She did the whole presentation.

3:10:30It's just that's all we have and we will

3:10:32not have more.

3:10:33>> I mean to put this delicately, we the

3:10:35last town council recommended UDO update

3:10:40we unanimously voted against twice and

3:10:43it still ultimately changed at town

3:10:46council level. Correct.

3:10:48>> So I think I would like as a practice to

3:10:52at least make a recommendation to move

3:10:54the ball forward. So, I'm going to stick

3:10:55with my original thought and make a

3:10:57recommendation to approve the

3:11:00amendments, but striking the first

3:11:02sentence of 2.1.2

3:11:07BF.

3:11:08This is hard, Amanda. You're doing

3:11:10great.

3:11:10>> 2.1.3

3:11:13B. The first sentence of both of those

3:11:15sections.

3:11:20>> So, we have two different

3:11:21recommendations. I guess if I'm not

3:11:22mistaken, we have one to accept

3:11:25Except for

3:11:26>> that was my Oh, it was a motion. I'm

3:11:27sorry. I didn't hear the motion. I heard

3:11:29I'm going to make a recommendation. I'm

3:11:30sorry. My bad. I was listening for

3:11:32motion.

3:11:32>> That motion is in the interest of moving

3:11:34this ball forward but keep maintaining

3:11:36the balance of powers within the current

3:11:39setup,

3:11:40>> but

3:11:41>> okay. So, we have a motion to accept the

3:11:44EU new amendments except on 2.12F and

3:11:482.13E striking the first sentence. So,

3:11:52we have a motion. Do we have a second?

3:11:56Do we have a second?

3:11:59We know we do not have a second. Now

3:12:01it's brought back to the board.

3:12:03>> Motion fails.

3:12:04>> Motion fails.

3:12:07So I'll start out by making a motion

3:12:09that we uh postpone this until the

3:12:13October 12th meeting.

3:12:17That's my motion. Do we have a second?

3:12:20>> I second that.

3:12:21>> We have one second. We have a motion in

3:12:23a second. All in favor say I.

3:12:25>> I.

3:12:26>> All oppose.

3:12:27>> No.

3:12:28>> Motion carries.

3:12:30>> Two nos.

3:12:32>> Secondar.

3:12:34>> I do.

3:12:34>> Mary seconded.

3:12:35>> Mary. Sorry.

3:12:43>> Desented was Alyssa.

3:12:45>> Steven and Alyssa.

3:12:46>> Stephen.

3:12:48>> So I'll need your dissenting member

3:12:51report filled out. Say save to the

3:12:53laptop, please.

3:12:55>> I got 2% battery, so maybe I should get

3:12:58a hard copy. [laughter]

3:13:00>> Oh, I can plug in.

3:13:01>> All right, we have one more motion,

3:13:03please.

3:13:04>> I'd like to make a motion to adjurnn.

3:13:05>> Got a motion to adjurnn. We got a

3:13:07second.

3:13:07>> Second.

3:13:08>> Motion. All the approve say I.

3:13:10>> All post motion.