[1:41] Call to order the July 26 meeting of the Carried Town Council, and at this time I'll recognize our mayor

[1:48] of Protem, Ms. Bush, for our ceremony of opening.

[1:51] Thank you, Mayor. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance.

[1:56] I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for

[2:02] which stands one nation under God in divisible with liberty and justice for all.

[2:18] First order of businesses to adopt the agenda, do I have a motion to do so?

[2:23] So moved.

[2:24] There's a motion.

[2:25] Second.

[2:26] The discussion?

[2:27] All in favor, please say aye.

[2:29] Aye.

[2:29] Your pose.

[2:30] The motion carries unanimously.

[2:32] We now move to recognition's reports and presentations.

[2:35] We have special group of people in our audience.

[2:39] Scouts from Troop-210 who are working on their citizenship and the community badge, if you will stand and be recognized.

[2:53] Thank you for being here and being involved in your government.

[2:56] I'll now turn it over to our town manager, Sean Stegel, for his update.

[3:00] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council.

[3:02] Well, on Tuesday, Ted Boyd and I and Evan from the Chamber had the pleasure of meeting with Epic Games,

[3:09] company, a very successful company that has their headquarters in carry, and many of you may

[3:14] not be familiar with Epic, but you may be familiar with the game Fortnite, and so if you haven't

[3:20] heard of Fortnite, it is right now the most successful video game in the world,

[3:28] and they just

[3:29] recently had their one-year anniversary where we were there on the one-year anniversary of

[3:33] fortnite to really celebrate their success with them and let them know how proud we are

[3:38] of them in carry. And it also happened to be the same day that they launched fortnite live

[3:44] in China. So this is a company that doesn't have a giant presence, it's not a big logo

[3:49] when you drive by their building that are genuinely changing the world in the space of video games

[3:54] and in many other areas in their right here in carrying North Carolina and so we want to

[4:06] do

[4:06] there. I have, it's worth a visit. Interesting how they treat their employees. Yes.

[4:11] They're going to just stop by, just pick a hit. I'd probably make a appointment, but you

[4:15] make it down like, hey, did you already stop by there? To keep them there day and night, they

[4:19] like provide food for them. It's really interesting. There's like sass. Well, sass isn't quite

[4:24] like that. Okay, we'll move to our next item, public speaks out. We've included instructions

[4:31] for speaking at public speaks out on the printed agenda and if you'd like to speak at public

[4:37] speaks out of it as you take a seat in the rows to my right that are shown as reserved

[4:43] and followed the instructions on the agenda. Public speaks out speakers have three minutes each

[4:49] for their comments and you may speak on any topic as long as it's not a public hearing and that

[4:54] works to your advantage because public hearing speakers get five minutes for their comments.

[4:59] The three-minute time limit will be enforced to be fair to all of our speakers not to be rude.

[5:05] There's a timer on the podium when the light turns from green to yellow that means you have 30 seconds remaining.

[5:11] Excuse me, and when the light turns from yellow to a flashing red,

[5:15] at that point I'm going to interrupt you and ask you to immediately conclude your comments.

[5:20] To have an effective public speaks out item on our agenda.

[5:25] And we ask that groups have a spokesperson to reduce repetitive comments.

[5:30] And we also ask that if you're the next speaker in line, if you would stand over by the

[5:35] stairway, one so that we can move more efficiently and two, so I'll know that there are other

[5:40] speakers, so that would be very helpful as well.

[5:44] I would ask the audience to respect that this is a business meeting, please do not applaud,

[5:50] make remarks from your seats or anything else that may distract from this meeting.

[5:55] So now's the time for public speaks out and I would invite our first speaker forward.

[6:13] Good evening Mayor, members of Council.

[6:15] My name is Glenda Top and I'm here to speak on an item that's not on the public hearing

[6:20] it is 16 REC-15.

[6:23] It's for the hotel resigning on North Harrison Avenue and I will be brief.

[6:27] Just wanted to point out that proposed use complies with the carry community plan that

[6:32] designation on the plan as a commercial mixed-use center.

[6:36] We feel that the use is an excellent transition from the arboretum and apartments to

[6:42] the residential development to the west and south.

[6:47] As was pointed out in the staff report, there is a need for additional hospitality rooms

[6:52] in this part of Carey, particularly given its location in the vicinity of I-40, North Harris,

[6:57] Avenue, and of course, the very successful person office park.

[7:02] We've worked with adjacent property owners to address their concerns.

[7:06] We meet or exceed buffer and set back requirements.

[7:11] We also believe that the use that's being proposed generates less traffic than other possible

[7:16] uses that could be on this site given its designation on the carry community plan, and

[7:22] also the trips tend to be not at peak hour times.

[7:26] I think it is also important to point out that during the time that it's taken to come to

[7:33] you tonight for the potential vote, we have worked very diligently to revise the plan

[7:39] to reflect the wishes and what the neighbors staff and the council have asked for.

[7:48] We do believe that the effort has been very collaborative and in this way we feel it has

[7:53] been extremely beneficial to everyone involved, and we believe that the product and the plan

[8:02] associated with it is not only good for this part of carry, but also good for carry

[8:07] overall.

[8:08] And again, thank you for the opportunity to address council.

[8:11] And lastly, I just wanted to recognize there are people here tonight in support of the request

[8:16] and just would like to have them either stand up or raise their hands.

[8:20] Thank you.

[8:21] Thank you, Ms. Tot.

[8:30] Good evening, Travis Fluitt with Kimlin Horton Associates here on behalf of the applicant for 16 R.A. Z. 15.

[8:38] I just want to talk briefly about the site access and now we go to this point.

[8:43] More coordinate with the OTH over the last two years in CQT has been very consistent.

[8:48] The access, which is very limited on Harrison Avenue, will be right in right out only.

[8:53] The only way to get full movement access would be halfway between West and Parkway

[8:58] and research drive, which falls on the property to the south.

[9:02] The applicant is trying to coordinate with that property owner and to obtain a cross-access

[9:06] easement to get that full movement access, power of that property owner was not interested

[9:12] in pursuing that.

[9:15] So where we are is any extrafic exiting the site that does not go through the arboretum left

[9:21] turn right on to Harrison and make a U-turn research done here in North Carolina and across

[9:25] the country has consistently shown that U-turns are safer than unsignalized left-turns

[9:31] for both fatalities and injury accidents and just a number of accidents in general.

[9:37] The TAR update has said that this will not be a problem for the access and will not negatively

[9:44] impact significantly the traffic on Monobillo Drive.

[9:50] The U-turn was originally supposed to be a research drive, however, in coordination with

[9:54] in CDOT and town staff, concerns were brought to light about the conflict with the right

[10:00] turns of research drive therefore that U-turn was moved to Monobello Drive.

[10:07] Kind of in summary, town staff, the towns consultant, traffic consultant, Kim Lee Warren,

[10:13] and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, I've said that the proposed access

[10:17] condition is a safe and efficient access condition for the site and really any

[10:23] development that goes in here whether it's single family residential hotels, Walmart,

[10:29] a 30 store office building will be subject to the same access conditions. This is

[10:34] really a case of NCDOT dictating the terms. I'm sure the applicant would love to

[10:40] have a full moon drive around here to have a new but that's just not not the case.

[10:44] Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all night.

[10:45] In case you have any questions.

[10:47] Next speaker please.

[11:00] My name is Jack Van Dyke. I live on 120 Winburne Drive.

[11:05] I have a piece of report which is called five reasons why Amsterdam works so well for bikes.

[11:13] And the under title is, if you don't follow all five,

[11:16] you city will not be successful with bikes.

[11:19] The city of Amsterdam has about 70 years worth of experience with it.

[11:24] And the main reason that I say this in person is because rule number two is very important.

[11:29] The rule number two says that you have to separate the car lanes and the bike lanes.

[11:35] In Amsterdam they do it by raising them like a sidewalk in which it or cancels

[11:41] I just read, they have toilet-ball blunders glued to the street, so to keep them separate.

[11:49] If you don't do that, keep in mind, someone will die.

[11:53] There is no battle that ever is won by a bike.

[11:57] It's always won by the car.

[11:59] So for that reason, I have given you all a point of fun, and you, Mr. Seagull, has it in your

[12:06] office, Mr. Alt, has it in his group?

[12:10] Thank you, Mr. Fendell.

[12:18] My name is Bill Wolfe, and I live at 121 West Cornwall Road, directly at the proposed

[12:24] new Glent Air entrance on Cornwall.

[12:27] I want to thank the Council and Zoning Board for moving forward with the expansion, and

[12:31] I want to briefly repeat three points I made at a previous public hearing.

[12:36] First, I'm convinced the new development will be attractive, add both to our neighborhood

[12:41] and the heart of carry and is better for my neighborhood compared to other likely

[12:47] developmental alternatives for this valuable property. Second, I've lived in

[12:52] Wake County since 1982. My observation is that during large projects, adjacent

[12:58] property values suffer due to uncertainty, but after good projects are completed,

[13:04] nearby property values recover. Therefore, my preference is for you to grant the

[13:11] forward and minimize our period of uncertainty.

[13:16] Third, there are still details to work out after the zoning approval as the project moves forward.

[13:23] But Glen Air has to get approvals as they go and they've demonstrated an attitude of cooperation.

[13:29] It's also obvious they are motivated to build another attractive complex.

[13:35] So again, please grant this rezoning request move forward and don't drag this out.

[13:40] Thank you all.

[13:42] Thank you.

[13:42] Next speaker, please.

[13:49] Good evening, members.

[13:51] The Mayor and members of the Council.

[13:52] My name is Mike Robbins, I'm the property manager for the Arboridum at Western, and I'm here

[13:56] tonight.

[13:57] I work with Stoltz property management, and I'm here representing Arboridum Kerry LLC, which

[14:01] are the owners of the Arboridum property.

[14:04] On behalf of the company, we'd like to offer our support for the proposed rezoning and for

[14:09] the daily seven hotel project that has been being discussed for a while.

[14:14] This type of hotel project would be a tremendous benefit for the restaurants and shops and

[14:20] services located in the arboretum, the access road that is being considered that would go

[14:26] there would be a tremendous benefit because of the connectivity that we would have between

[14:31] the two properties and it would give the hotel guests the opportunity to either drive or use

[14:36] the walkway that has been proposed.

[14:38] We also feel that it would be a benefit to the hotel guests because they would have the opportunity to

[14:44] use either the Harrison Avenue Exit or the two Western Parkway Exits located on the operating property.

[14:51] Thank you.

[14:52] Thank you.

[14:52] Next speaker please.

[15:05] Good evening, Mayor and fellow council members. My name is Joel Williams. I've been a citizen here in

[15:12] case. It's 1960, so I'm still alive. I live over in the wallet state area. I've lived there since

[15:22] June 1, 1973. I've owned the property that we're discussing the hotel property that's under

[15:34] forty-some years. And I won't repeat what the manager there at Arboridham or Ms.

[15:43] Linda Tuppet said, I've had many people approached me about this property of the

[15:48] years. I've never seen a family like the Daly's that are into the hotel business that

[15:57] have been over backwards to work with the town and all this around the neighbors. And I certainly

[16:03] hope that you find in your hearts to support this.

[16:07] Thank you very much.

[16:08] Thank you, Ms. Wood.

[16:09] Next speaker, please.

[16:21] Mr. Mayor and members of the Council.

[16:23] Good evening.

[16:25] My name is Chuck Anderson.

[16:26] I reside at 1429 Deborah Drive in Carrey.

[16:30] Where my family and I have lived for over 25 years.

[16:34] My three children attended Farmington Wood School.

[16:37] East Carrey Middle School.

[16:39] And they all graduated from Carrey High School.

[16:40] My wife, Marsha, is a teacher at Carrey High School and has been for almost 20 years.

[16:47] We are embedded in and committed to our great community.

[16:53] And it's in that capacity that I speak to you tonight.

[16:56] In support of rezoning case number 16, our easy 15, we're in the applicant request rezoning

[17:03] of Mr. Williams property approximately 7.2 acres at 1623 North Harrison from R40 to mixed

[17:10] use development. In connection with the planned development of two hotel properties consisting

[17:15] of about 250 rooms. The property is located just south of the arboretum development and is

[17:23] in a mixed use overlay district with mixed with mixed within a mixed use center. The rezoning

[17:31] and proposed use of the property is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the character

[17:36] of that district. Hotel development in this area will serve the needs of our community

[17:43] and create some employment opportunities. The hospitality industry generates direct spending,

[17:50] tax revenues, and employment. Occupancy in our area has grown consistently annually since

[17:58] 2009, and in fact now, room demand exceeds the growth in supply.

[18:06] And this project will employ about 100 people.

[18:11] I understand that our adjoining property owner really

[18:16] Creek investments, they own law for of the arboretum,

[18:21] recently contacted the town attorney and raised issues with a

[18:24] foot easement from the Williams property across the really creek property the lot for to the

[18:31] arboretum interconnecting street Renaissance park place. While I don't believe those issues

[18:39] bear on the rezoning case as presented to the Council, I do feel to clarify a couple of points.

[18:46] Recreak has not disputed the existence of the easement because the public land records clearly

[18:54] show that the easement has been there since his earliest 2005 reacquired the property

[19:00] lot for in 2008.

[19:04] In addition to the clear land title records, the access from the William's property through

[19:10] the Arboridum has been addressed in at least three zoning cases going back to 1996 and

[19:16] is recently as 2005. In each of those cases, the zoning case approval was expressly conditioned.

[19:24] Mr. Anderson, I'm sorry, but your time has expired.

[19:27] Thank you.

[19:28] If you would like, you can leave your comments with the clerk and she'll make sure we get

[19:32] a copy of that.

[19:33] Thank you.

[19:34] I appreciate your time.

[19:37] Next speaker, please.

[19:44] Good evening. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Jason Barron, with Morning Star

[19:47] a long group here on behalf of a redicrete investments to speak with respect to that

[19:51] Number 4.7 on your consent agenda, which is the North Harrison hotels, I'm going to jump right into the point that the last speaker was making with respect to the access easement.

[19:59] Redie Creek Investments does not dispute it all whatsoever that there is in fact an access easement.

[20:03] The question is, what can that access easement be used for?

[20:06] North Carolina law like many other jurisdictions provides that when an owner of land and this is a private access easement.

[20:12] When an owner of land conveys an access to an adjacent owner, there goes with it a certain bundle of sticks associated with those rights.

[20:19] what can I use it for? If I live next to my neighbor and he says, hey, I want access over your property,

[20:25] fine, you live next door. That's okay. You can't go develop a shopping center on that property.

[20:29] Then say, well, you have to deal with it because you gave me an access easement.

[20:32] That's the exact issue here. When this easement was created, the site was zoned for low-density

[20:37] residential. It had long been planned for medium-density residential. In fact, a site that

[20:42] re-creak investment owns on the south of this property that a buttsmanabella was also

[20:46] on range plan for medium density residential.

[20:50] The understanding at that time, when my client acquired the property in 2008, the assumption

[20:54] was at some point that site would develop for at most a medium density residential use.

[20:59] Reading Creek Investments hired there on traffic engineers to determine the difference

[21:03] in traffic between a hotel use and a medium density residential use.

[21:07] It's five times different.

[21:08] The peak hour trips generated by a hotel use versus a medium density residential use is five

[21:13] times different.

[21:14] Under North Carolina law, that's an unlawful enlargement of the access easement.

[21:18] We raise the issue because we want the council to understand, we want the community to understand.

[21:22] And it was certainly constructive and important to the planning and zoning board.

[21:27] We want everybody to understand if a plan is approved that proposes to put a hotel traffic through

[21:33] that redie creek investment site, that access is not going to be permitted.

[21:37] That redie creek investments will defend their rights as a landowner to not have that easement

[21:42] overburdened by a use that was never contemplated

[21:44] until the So-Tel Camelon.

[21:47] That's their first point.

[21:47] The second point is transportation changes in that area.

[21:51] They're concerned with health safety and welfare

[21:53] associated with what is currently being used as a suicide

[21:56] lane for left-hand turns out of Wessex.

[21:58] That lane is now going to become a dedicated U-turn lane.

[22:01] And the last point, they don't believe this is the right use

[22:04] in the right location.

[22:04] As I mentioned, they own the site to the south of this.

[22:07] They anticipate because it abuts Monabello,

[22:10] of monobellos or residential street, it serves exclusively residential uses, they anticipate

[22:16] that that site will be used for residential purposes whenever they develop it.

[22:21] They will be providing cross access to this site when they go to develop that site.

[22:26] Just like with the site that they currently own, they don't want to have cross access for a hotel

[22:30] use going through a residential use.

[22:33] They don't think it's fair to their future residents, they don't think it's fair to the current

[22:37] residential users of Montobello to have that much more traffic on Montobello. Thank you.

[22:42] Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[22:50] Good evening, Mayor, council members. I'm here as a resident of

[22:55] Wessex subdivision. Did you state your name? Oh, I'm sorry. Cindy Yager. Thank you. I live at 201

[23:01] Chiselhurst Way in the Wessex subdivision. And I'm here to speak on behalf of most of the people

[23:09] I speak to on a daily basis about their opposition to putting any more traffic on Montbello or on

[23:21] Western. We can't get out of our subdivision. We had accidents there. I have three grandchildren

[23:29] that can't even come to my house because the people are flying down Western Parkway. You make a

[23:40] And it's close calls every day.

[23:42] I see it every single day.

[23:44] So I was actually called the Kerry Police Department

[23:47] and said, what can we do?

[23:49] And he said, you need to go out the back way.

[23:51] Mon, excuse me, use Mon a bellow.

[23:54] Now they're going to this whole hotel development

[23:57] is going to do the same thing over there.

[24:00] We will not be able to get in and out of our neighborhood safely.

[24:04] And we all have children, and we all have grandchildren.

[24:07] And it's traffic is a huge issue, and unless you live in that little pocket, come and visit us, come and sit on our subdivision streets and try to get out, try to see what it's like.

[24:21] I was on West and Parkway yesterday. People were going 60 miles an hour down West and Parkway.

[24:26] And that's how they come up to our subdivision. We can't get out.

[24:30] As we try to get out the back way now, we're going to be in the U-turn lane for the hotel.

[24:38] We can't, it's not safe, and I'm begging you not to let this fall on deaf ears.

[24:44] This is a safety issue for the entire community.

[24:49] And I appreciate any support you could give to us because we are locked in.

[24:56] Thank you.

[24:57] Thank you.

[24:57] Anyone else for public speaks out?

[25:03] Anyone at all? Seeing no one will close public speaks out.

[25:09] The next item on our agenda is the consent agenda. This is item four. And for the benefit of people watching our meeting on TV,

[25:18] I'll take a moment to review the consent agenda items on the consent agenda we have.

[25:23] The final action on 17A-10 life international aka life community church of research triangle park and excision, calling for public hearing on the following annexations, 18A-08, Robert's Road and Page Road properties, 18A-11, seeing development LLC, and 18A-12, 8KM properties LLC.

[25:49] The 17-R-E-Z-31 Glent Air Expansion, 16-R-E-Z-15 North Harrison Hotels, final action on 17-A-13

[26:01] Campbell Investments in North Carolina LLC in Excession, 17-R-E-Z-32 Campbell Road Storage, proposed

[26:10] sale of real property located at 215 July Avenue, Condemnation Resolutions for an installation

[26:17] of traffic signals at intersections of old weatherstone at North West Kiri Parkway and North West

[26:24] Main Road. Bit of ward for South Kiri water reclamation facility centrifuge. I would like to pull

[26:33] 4.7 North Harrison hotels for discussion, and I know Councilmember Robinson would like to pull

[26:40] 4.6 the Glen Air expansion. I would ask Council at this time if there are any additional items

[26:46] you would like, called for discussion. If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the amended

[26:52] consent agenda.

[26:55] There's a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye.

[27:00] Aye.

[27:01] Any opposed, though? Motion carries six to one. We now move to public hearing. Same rules

[27:08] apply for public hearings that apply for public speaks out with one exception. Speakers will

[27:13] now have five minutes for their comments.

[27:16] Our first public hearing is for 1804 Camp Branch Forms LLC annexation.

[27:22] Planner Desmond Corley will introduce the hearing.

[27:25] No action will be taken, and it will return to Council at a future date for a boat at that time.

[27:32] Ms. Corley.

[27:33] Thank you, Mayor.

[27:34] Good evening, Council.

[27:35] This request is for annexation of a 25.716 acre portion of the properly located at 8732.

[27:42] and 32 Pierce Olive Road, approximately 3,200 feet south of the intersection with Holly Springs Road.

[27:49] Subject site is located on the east side of Pierce Olive Road.

[27:54] This property is not contiguous to the existing corporate limits, and is located outside of Kerry's ETJ in White County's jurisdiction.

[28:02] Currently is on White County residential 30.

[28:05] Their property must be brought within the town limits because the applicant wishes to develop it under Kerry's zoning and development regulations.

[28:11] and a carry zoning designation must be established at the same time.

[28:16] A rezoning petition has been submitted in conjunction with this annexation request.

[28:20] However, a public hearing has not yet been scheduled and will occur in the coming months.

[28:25] The proposed zoning would increase the residential density above that allowed under the

[28:29] properties current zoning and allow for the development of detached dwellings and townholds.

[28:34] This concludes staff's presentation.

[28:37] Thank you, Mr. Dudsman.

[28:40] At this time, I would open the public hearing for 1804 Camp Branch Forms LLC annexation out and I would invite a first speaker forward.

[28:50] Anyone to speak of this annexation public hearing?

[28:54] We'll close public hearing and as I mentioned earlier, we'll see this at a future meeting.

[29:00] I would open it up also for Council to see if they have any questions.

[29:04] I have one question mainly for everyone watching.

[29:09] Not allowed to have flagship annexation,

[29:11] but you're not allowed to have island annexations,

[29:14] and you showed a map where this look like it was an island,

[29:16] can you help explain that or get help to explain that?

[29:21] Yeah, I think I'm going to have to defer to all the friends.

[29:24] So can you lower you as far as that line?

[29:31] His grandads got on.

[29:32] Sorry, this would be a satellite annexation,

[29:36] which we do have capacity

[29:37] because this is not part of a subdivision.

[29:42] You don't have to have a full subdivision be a participant

[29:45] and the petition for an annexation.

[29:48] It is citizen initiated,

[29:50] but we have not exceeded the amount of land area that we could consider

[29:53] for a satellite annexation.

[29:55] We have evaluated at force efficiency that we could provide utilities.

[30:00] And emergency services, but it's within our urban planning area so it could be considered.

[30:06] Thank you, Ms. Green. Anyone else with questions?

[30:10] Okay, we'll move to our second public hearing, 18-A-O-5 Duke University Health Systems Incorporated

[30:16] and Exation Planner. Desmond Corly, once again, we'll introduce the hearing and once again, we will not take action tonight.

[30:23] Thank you Mayor. This request is for annexation of 69.5 acres located on the north and south

[30:30] sides of Green Level West Road, approximately 545 feet west of NC540. The annexation

[30:37] request also includes about 1.5 acres of adjacent right-of-way. The entire annexation area

[30:44] is continues with the existing corporate limits which you see in yellow. However, the area

[30:48] North of Green-Level West Road is within the town's E.T.J. while the area to the south is not.

[30:57] The area within Kerry's E.T.J. is zoned R-40, and the area within White County's

[31:02] jurisdiction is zoned residential 40 watershed.

[31:05] A rezoning petition has been submitted to designate initial carry zoning for the property

[31:09] south of Green-Level West Road and to change the existing zoning for the property north

[31:14] of Green-Level West Road.

[31:16] The public hearing for the rezoning has not yet been scheduled, but will occur in the coming months.

[31:22] The proposed zoning, which includes a preliminary development plan, would allow a mixed use development consisting of office, commercial hotel, and residential uses on the property.

[31:33] That concludes the presentation.

[31:34] Thank you, Ms. Corley.

[31:35] Now, this time, public hearing, 18-AO-5, Duke University Health Systems Incorporated in Exiation

[31:42] and I would invite a first speaker forward.

[31:45] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Jason Barran here on behalf of Duke

[31:48] University Health Care Systems.

[31:49] I don't have anything to say about the annexation, other than where we've been working through

[31:53] the process associated with the rezoning for several months working with your staff, and

[31:57] we are excited to bring that forward to public hearing when it's time.

[31:59] Thank you.

[32:00] Thank you.

[32:01] Anyone else to speak of this public hearing?

[32:03] I'm saying no one will close the public here and open out the council members for questions or comments.

[32:08] Mr. Yarhoff.

[32:09] Just a brief comment, Mayor.

[32:10] Although this is just the annexation and it's not the rezoning.

[32:13] It's never too early to mention when there are historic structures on the property.

[32:17] And there are several on this one that may be very worthy of preservation.

[32:22] Just want to let you know the staff is aware of that.

[32:24] They've been doing the research, capital area preservation.

[32:27] It's been involved into my knowledge.

[32:28] The applicant has been very cooperative to this point.

[32:31] But since it's not stark, structures are not included in an annexation staff report, I just want to make sure we understood that now, I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle because it's going to be a pretty big rezoning when we comes around to us and I didn't want the stark and certainly that's not the most important piece of it, but I want to make sure that we were aware of it at this early stage. So it doesn't look like it's coming out of the woodwork when it's too late.

[32:56] Thank you, Mr. Yeroh. Other comments for questions?

[32:58] All right, we'll see this at a future date.

[33:01] We move to our third public hearing,

[33:03] 18A06, PMP,

[33:06] Elijah, and Elijah's LLC annexation.

[33:09] Mr. Corley will once again introduce the hearing

[33:11] and no action will be taken.

[33:13] That's quite a few mayors.

[33:15] This request is for annexation of 2.38 acres located

[33:18] as 6900 Jynx Road at the northwest corner

[33:22] of the Jynx Road and NC55 intersection.

[33:26] As the man said, no action by council

[33:28] is necessary at this time as this request will move forward with this associated rezoning

[33:32] petition for final action.

[33:35] Although the property is continuous to the town's existing corporate limits, shown here

[33:40] in yellow, the request would constitute a satellite annexation because none of the adjacent

[33:45] properties are joined the town's primary corporate limits.

[33:49] The site is located outside of Carries, E.T.J., and currently zoned Wait County Highway

[33:54] District.

[33:55] The property must be brought within the town limits because the applicant wishes to develop

[33:59] a under-carry zoning and development regulations and a zoning designation must be established

[34:03] at that time.

[34:06] The rezoning petition, which accompanies this request, proposes to designate initial carries

[34:10] zoning for the property and to change the existing carries zoning for the two adjacent properties

[34:15] against zoning yellow.

[34:18] The public hearing for this rezoning has not yet been scheduled but will occur in the coming

[34:22] months.

[34:22] The proposed zoning would allow for commercial and or other types of non-residential development on this property, and that concludes that presentation.

[34:31] Thank you, Mr. Corley.

[34:32] Now's the time for the public hearing for 18A, it was 6 p.m.P.

[34:37] Bologna Enterprise's LALC annexation, and I would invite her first speaker forward.

[34:44] Good evening, Mayor, and members of Council Glenn to top.

[34:46] I just wanted to reiterate what staff pointed out.

[34:49] This is in conjunction with the resounding.

[34:51] We have met with the neighbors once since the public hearing, or actually since our first

[34:59] neighborhood meeting, we have another meeting that we're planning for August to continue

[35:03] to work with the adjacent property owners to address their concerns.

[35:08] And like Desmond said, it will be, at least probably a couple of months before you'll see

[35:13] it, but I didn't want Council to know that we are continuing to work with the neighbors.

[35:16] Thank you.

[35:17] Thank you.

[35:18] Anyone else to speak of this public hearing?

[35:20] Seeing no one will close the public hearing, open it up to council members for questions or comments.

[35:27] I have one question because Ms. Graham, while I go said that we are the other one was the satellite annexation, and it's within our limit corporate.

[35:38] The total amount.

[35:42] What do we run the risk of hitting the limit?

[35:46] No risk of hitting the limit.

[35:52] We don't anticipate that happening any time in the near future, because as properties are getting

[35:57] annexed so many of them are contiguous to our main corporate limits.

[36:02] So I can follow up with you on a more specific number, but we're not alarmed.

[36:11] Okay.

[36:12] We'll move to our fourth and fifth items on public hearings.

[36:19] The next two items are together, as I said, 18A09, Catherine, Bachelor, Glattis, Logan,

[36:26] Brady Lee, Bachelor in Exation, and 18RZ09, Bachelor row to Simlage, Assistant Planning

[36:32] Director, Reverend.

[36:33] Deborah Grannon will introduce the item.

[36:36] Council will not take action on the rezoning, and it will be referred to our planning

[36:41] and zoning board for their review and recommendation,

[36:45] and the item will return to us at a future meeting.

[36:48] It's granted.

[36:48] Thank you, Gideon.

[36:49] Again, this is a request to apply Kerry Zoning

[36:53] to 818.62 acres, and also to look at

[36:58] annexation of a portion of the property.

[37:01] Located here in between the Kerry Wake County,

[37:05] Chatham County line, and the American tobacco trail.

[37:08] So, the zoning applies to 118.62 acres and the annexation is for just a portion of that property, approximately 81 acres that was not already inside carries corporate limits.

[37:24] The growth framework map designates this area as suburban neighborhood, but what's more important is this property lies within the green level special planning area.

[37:34] and more specifically, designated as a neighborhood west of Flat Branch.

[37:40] According to the Imagine Carry Community Plan, that calls for a lot sizes of a quarter

[37:44] to one acre in size, predominantly detached residential, with pockets of other uses if clustered,

[37:52] rural character, views from the American tobacco trail shielded, and a 2.5 aggregate gross density.

[37:59] We've seen a lot of changes occurring out in this area, so this project, along with

[38:04] Another adjacent project is of interest to the council because, as you've said, to staff,

[38:10] we're seeing the rural character going away, so this is going to take some careful

[38:15] thought and evaluation as it goes through the process, but the standards and the policies

[38:20] are in the Imagine Carey community plan today.

[38:24] The existing zoning is residential, 40 watershed, and also the portion that's already been

[38:29] next into the corporate limits is our 40 conditional use. The only condition on that adjacent

[38:36] piece with the brown and the hatch marks is that the use is currently limited to detached

[38:42] residential but it was owned conservation residential overlay district so it also had an

[38:48] ordinance driven density cap of 1.5 at the time that it was developed. So the overall request

[38:54] is for transitional residential conditional use for the entire 118 plus acres.

[39:01] Proposed zoning conditions are to limit the use to age restricted town homes, detached

[39:06] dwellings, and neighborhood residential, to limit the density to three dwelling units per

[39:11] acre that town homes be grouped no more than two dwelling units per building so that would

[39:16] give the illusion of it being more like a duplex style, but they would still be on individual

[39:21] lots. A maximum of 20% of the unit shall be town homes. Community gathering space is proposed

[39:28] with 10,000 square feet minimum, which is double the standard in the LDO, a neighborhood recreation

[39:34] site with a minimum of three acres, and then the applicants proposed that lots east of the future

[39:42] whimperly road extension would not have town homes on them, and would have a minimum lot

[39:46] of 7,000 square feet. So this transportation map helps to illustrate where the future

[39:53] whimperly road extension would be located and then this area between the American tobacco

[39:57] trail and that future road is where there would be no town homes and this slightly larger

[40:03] lot sizes. So the transitional residential zoning district allows for a lot size down to

[40:09] 5,000 square feet in size. The site is impacted by stream buffers according to our GIS maps

[40:16] and field determination of that will be determined at the time of site plan review.

[40:21] There's a greenway trail on the opposite side of the American tobacco trail proposed.

[40:26] There are no transit facilities located in this area.

[40:30] However, C-tran does offer door-to-door service if requested for certain citizens, older citizens with special needs.

[40:39] With our preliminary look at the Carey Community Plan, staff has observed that this would provide a wider variety of housing choices.

[40:46] We're evaluating whether or not the conditions offered by the applicant truly address the maintenance of the neighborhood character.

[40:54] And does this provide appropriate transitions between land uses and buffering to the American tobacco trail.

[41:01] And does the road network today and in the future provide for a well functioning system?

[41:07] The biggest concern, as I mentioned, is the compliance with the policies of the ImagineCury Community Plan and this special planning area.

[41:14] So we're going to be taking close look at that and continuing to work with the applicant.

[41:21] We're also looking at development that's occurred in this area.

[41:25] There's been a lot of development that occurred under the Conservation Residential Overlay District.

[41:30] So we saw a number of lots that were one dwelling unit per acre up to 1.5.

[41:37] And we've recently seen a few pockets coming in with some higher densities.

[41:41] So right now, everything's been under two dwelling units per acre with the exception of the white oak

[41:49] PDD, where there were a couple pockets with some town homes and a multifamily development.

[41:54] And now we have two zoning cases that are both actively being pursued, one for 2.75, and

[42:00] this current one for three dwelling units per acre.

[42:04] So we're still a ways off from meeting, exceeding that 2.5 aggregate density for the area,

[42:10] But we're watching this, we're being conscientious about what's happening and what's occurring and are eager to hear your feedback and what's changing in this vicinity.

[42:19] Property owners within 800 feet of the subject property were notified of the rezoning request and the property was posted and advertised.

[42:26] There was a neighborhood meeting on June 6th. We had about 30 adjacent property owners.

[42:31] The primary concerns were density and the proposed use questions about town homes, age restricted

[42:38] use, questions about whether or not there were enough services in this area.

[42:43] Number of citizens said it's age restricted, but people are still going to have to drive to

[42:47] the doctor's office and drive to the grocery store.

[42:51] A lot of concern about Bachelor Road, the condition of Bachelor Road, need for improvements

[42:56] on it.

[42:57] It is a state-maintained road and it does have need for some repair work.

[43:02] Traffic impacts were big concern to a number of the neighbors.

[43:05] We've had two phone calls since then, two emails and citizens mostly concerned about access

[43:11] to the site and how would that work.

[43:15] At this time, the applicant would like to present an overview of the request and then following

[43:20] the public hearing, I'll be available for your questions.

[43:23] Thank you, Ms. Granted.

[43:25] This time I'll invite the applicant for the remarks.

[43:29] Good evening, again. Mr. Mayor,

[43:30] Members of Council, Jason Barry,

[43:31] with more in-store log group here on behalf of the applicant.

[43:33] In this case, I'm not going to reiterate what

[43:36] Deborah described as the nature of the

[43:38] Quest. She's on a good job of kind of covering the conditions

[43:40] associated with the use.

[43:42] I want to touch on a handful of things.

[43:44] One is we're still working with the staff to address the

[43:46] comments that we have the capacity to address

[43:48] as it relates to this age-restricted community.

[43:51] And a lot of what I'm going to talk about momentarily, a lot of the items that have been identified

[43:55] preliminarily as concerns associated with carry community plan compliance relate to the nature

[44:01] of the intended use as an age-restricted community.

[44:05] Lot's size is directly related to the fact that the target demographic, which is 55 and over.

[44:10] I mean, this is an age-restricted 55 and over active adult population, they don't want larger

[44:14] lots.

[44:14] They're looking for smaller lots.

[44:15] They had the larger lots and they're looking for the opportunity to move down.

[44:18] And so having the smaller lots of allowance for that flexibility,

[44:23] the density associated with

[44:24] it, and I want to talk about that in more detail momentarily, but the density, you know,

[44:28] is a direct reflection of the type of community this is.

[44:31] It's not your traditional market rate three units of the acre.

[44:34] It generates less traffic.

[44:36] It certainly has no impact on schools, and so, you know, age restricted communities just operate

[44:40] differently than a traditional market rate community.

[44:44] As you all are aware, there's a tremendous need for age-restricted housing and housing

[44:48] for seniors in general in the town of Cary and in the market in general.

[44:52] And so we believe that providing for age-restricted opportunities continues to be a priority

[44:57] of the town, as you all are aware that it's probably the good thing to do.

[45:00] I think the, I think it was said that the largest growing population in the town of Kerry right now is the, the, the aging population, the folks here getting ready to retire. And it, it continues to be who've the market if we're going to be successful as a community to provide opportunities for seniors who have lived in Kerry, whose kids have grown up in Kerry, to provide opportunities for them to stay in the town of Kerry. And we believe that this directly addresses that interestingly enough a couple of days ago and I don't know if this is a product of the fact that everywhere you go with an electronic

[45:29] to buy somebody is listening, but WRL pushed an article to me on my WRL feed that was published

[45:37] on May 22nd, and this happened two days ago, but it was talking about the psychological

[45:42] benefit of housing for seniors, of senior living communities.

[45:46] I could not actually send up to my team.

[45:48] I was like, this can't be serendipity, you know, big brothers out there listening to me.

[45:51] Herb me talk about senior handling, suddenly it shows up in my WRL page, but it was a great

[45:56] article on a happy identity, but it talks about the psychological benefits of

[45:59] having seen your communities, how important that is to the senior to seniors as they begin

[46:03] to age, to provide for communities where they are comfortable with, they're with people

[46:08] like themselves.

[46:11] As I mentioned previously, two clear benefits, and I want to talk about a third, but two clear

[46:15] benefits of housing, four seniors is first it generates significantly less traffic than a standard

[46:21] market rate community would, especially during the peak hour, where you see you're probably

[46:26] your biggest drop off as compared to market rate is during peak hour trips.

[46:31] And so one of the benefits is it generates less traffic.

[46:34] Second, there's not a whole lot of school impact when you have a senior living community.

[46:39] The condition, as it's currently worded, beats the federal guideline and one of the things they're still trying to figure out from a community standpoint,

[46:46] is how we're going to word that condition.

[46:48] The federal guidelines require that at a minimum 80% of the residents have to be above the age of 55.

[46:54] And that's it we've committed to we're still trying to figure out from a community operation standpoint whether that needs to be more than a but that's what the federal guidelines require in order to qualify

[47:05] The third thing I want to mention you know the benefit of senior housing relates to something I touched on previously

[47:09] It it allows for folks to stay in the area that they grew up and in an area like this as you all are where it's changing as Deborah mentioned a lot of development is occurred in this area

[47:18] there's a lot of market rate homes being built, providing for a blend of senior homes along with

[47:25] market rate homes provides for, in addition to Asian place opportunities, provides for

[47:30] intergenerational opportunities. There provides for the opportunity for folks who have lived here

[47:34] to live closer to their kids, closer to their grandkids. Whether they will, we don't know, but

[47:40] certainly provides the opportunity to do so and does so in close proximity. A couple things I want

[47:45] touch on, first we believe that having a senior community adjacent to the American

[47:49] Tobacco Trail is a real benefit to the site.

[47:52] This is an active adult population, it's 55 and older, and so we think the American

[47:57] Tobacco Trail is a real asset to a site like this.

[48:00] This site is actually only about two miles away from the edge of the Green-Level West Destination

[48:05] Center.

[48:06] As you all are aware, the town of Kerry, when you adopted the Kerry community plan, designated

[48:10] five areas in the town where the most intense development would occur.

[48:14] 5. There's just 5 of them. You all have talked about a lot of them so far. You've heard the annexation that's coming along for it for Duke's project in that

[48:22] Destination Center. There's going to be significant intense development in that Destination Center. There will be services provided in those areas and this site is only two miles from it

[48:30] And so it while it feels like it's isolated while it feels like services aren't there services are certainly coming to this area and it's only two miles away

[48:39] And again, it's a 55-and-older community.

[48:42] It's not, this is an a congregate care facility where we're,

[48:46] where travel will need to be provided for the residents who are there.

[48:50] They're certainly capable of driving back and forth to the grocery store.

[48:54] A handful of observations with respect to what the staff has talked about.

[48:58] Again, lots of size, it's a by-product of the target demographic.

[49:02] Shielding the site from view, we have located the larger lots, and it

[49:06] located, you know, detached large closures to the American tobacco trail, but we understand

[49:11] where staff is coming from and ensuring that we, we beef up our, our conditions with respect

[49:16] to streetscapes and things of that nature, uh, density. We recognize full well that there's

[49:22] an aggregate density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre in this, this special planning area that

[49:27] we don't meet that. We're, we're above three. Couple things on that first, it's an aggregate

[49:31] density so it contemplates some will be above and some will be below and we recognize

[49:37] we're above it but we think as a senior community it's the right opportunity to have

[49:42] that number bump above it that if you're going to exceed the two and a half dwelling

[49:46] unit per acre doing it with a senior community is the right thing to do and why is that?

[49:51] Well the traffic is a big part of that in fact if this were a market rate community as opposed

[49:59] seniors, the number of trips that we generate as seniors, the density would have to be 1.47

[50:05] dwelling units per acre at market rate to generate the same amount of traffic that's being

[50:10] generated for this three dwelling unit per acre senior community. Ironically enough, that's even

[50:17] below the 1.5 dwelling per acre's recommendation that was included before the carry community

[50:22] plan was re-adopted. And so we think that it's an aggregate number, we recognize we don't

[50:27] but we believe this is the right opportunity to exceed that number and exceed it in a way that won't end up being an overburdened to the area in general.

[50:37] Again, we're continuing to work through the process.

[50:39] We appreciate never making her staff available.

[50:41] We have done a lot of brainstorming with them and we will continue to do so.

[50:45] We look forward to you all's feedback tonight and we look forward to working through the process.

[50:49] Thank you.

[50:49] Thank you, Mr. Baron.

[50:50] Now's the time for the public hearing for both the annexation,

[50:55] 18A09, and the rezoning, 18RZ09, and I'll

[50:59] invite our first speaker forward.

[51:08] Good evening, Mayor.

[51:09] Members of council, I've been here before about the annexation

[51:14] of the property right behind my house.

[51:16] Could you give it to your name, please?

[51:17] Sure.

[51:18] I'm a dean of the lab.

[51:19] I live at 75th June, a assurance late.

[51:20] And you asked me for that last time.

[51:22] I'm just all nervous, sir.

[51:24] Thank you for allowing me to address you guys tonight.

[51:27] The definition of rural as defined by Webster is of or relating to the country country people or life or agriculture.

[51:36] I think that aptly describes the area of Bachelorette.

[51:39] There are currently less than 30 houses along at road around 50 vehicles and somewhere in the neighborhood

[51:44] have less than 100 people.

[51:45] That's what makes it rural.

[51:48] By rezoning for this new development, there will be 335 houses, nearly 700 more cars, and around

[51:54] 1000 people, the proposed area for this new development will change our community from rural

[51:59] to a high-density subdivision. In no way does that come under the definition of rural.

[52:05] When bachelor road was asphalted back in 89, the road was not designed for anything but rural

[52:10] traffic. It definitely won't be able to handle level traffic that is being proposed.

[52:15] I have lived off of bachelor road for eight years, and at time I've seen police response

[52:20] four times. Once when I accidentally set off my house alarm, once when Tom and Johnny had their

[52:26] house controlled burns, they could bring in a new house, when my neighbor had to call an ambulance,

[52:32] and then when another neighbor had a car, their house garage broken into four times and eight years,

[52:39] that is great for when you consider statistics and how much crime level is. By bringing in that level

[52:45] people, that level of traffic, you're going to have your crime rate go up. You're also going

[52:53] to have EMS and police response go up their rates go up exponentially and just given the

[53:00] sheer statistics. We live where we live because we want the rural setting. We want to be in

[53:06] the middle of the woods with the wildlife, the solitude, and peacefulness that company

[53:09] to be achieved with minimal human influence.

[53:13] Before we butter house, we looked at the master plan

[53:15] and the proposed sites.

[53:17] And we said, hey, we're going to be here for a while.

[53:20] We're going to be able to enjoy this.

[53:21] It looks like we're not.

[53:24] Our neighborhood is community.

[53:25] We all know the cars that travel bachelor road

[53:27] and who that car belongs to.

[53:29] We know who has dogs and who doesn't.

[53:31] We know that comes spring.

[53:33] Dickering full will be out there

[53:34] and mowing the bacon lots.

[53:35] And that the Johnson's at the end of the other street

[53:38] will open their pool.

[53:39] We know that the other Mr. Johnson will come home at 830 in the morning from breakfast with his

[53:43] cronies and I will wave at him while I'm walking my dog. Tom has a great garden. Dick puts

[53:49] out pumpkins. Every year that he grows for the residents of Bachelorette to take for their own.

[53:55] Done charge? That's what a neighborhood does. We know each other.

[54:00] By reason this rezoning isn't just by keeping the era rural. It's also about the negative impact

[54:05] that this change will have on our community.

[54:08] This proposed development is pushing us further

[54:10] from the small town field to residents

[54:11] along Bachelorette and Joy,

[54:14] and into the faceless, soulless subdivision

[54:16] that has become the dominant feature

[54:17] and not just carry, but apex as well.

[54:20] I urge the members of Council and Planning Board

[54:22] to keep Bachelorette rural

[54:23] and vote against this proposed rezoning.

[54:26] Thank you.

[54:27] Thank you.

[54:28] Next speaker, please.

[54:35] Jeannie Whittlsee, 1132 Bachelorette.

[54:38] I'm a North Carolina girl.

[54:40] I grew up in Wake County, graduate from Broughton Hospital.

[54:43] I know this area.

[54:44] I know how it's grown and how it's changed.

[54:46] They have to apex in 1979.

[54:49] Our last house on Kelly Road was finally

[54:53] imminent to main to Holly through it

[54:55] and road through it.

[54:56] We ended up selling it and having to move.

[54:58] So I've been through this stuff already.

[55:02] I moved out to Bachelor Road.

[55:04] I thought, wow, what a wonderful place.

[55:06] The neighbors like Adina,

[55:08] which are dogs chat, we know each other.

[55:11] We know each other.

[55:12] I mean, we know each other.

[55:14] We do things for each other, help each other out,

[55:16] feed your dogs when they're gone.

[55:18] Yeah, just, that's sort of thing.

[55:22] One thing, well, several things concern me.

[55:24] They're nice sidewalks there. It's a rural ride.

[55:26] So when we get a jogging or a dog walking or dog,

[55:29] riding the bike, grandkids come over.

[55:31] We're up and down the road because the traffic's not bad.

[55:34] And that in Ride is pretty safe.

[55:38] Except for some of the animals.

[55:40] I've said Wolf, Cody.

[55:44] I guess those are the biggest animals,

[55:46] but also are some other little critters on the Ride and Snakes.

[55:49] I've been seeing an eagle fly overhead one time towards the Lake.

[55:53] So we enjoy Ride like it is.

[55:56] And the last, one of the last meetings,

[55:59] they were talking about entrance,

[56:02] construction entrance and an out of one of these new subdivisions and it was a bachelor

[56:08] road over the loading up dump trucks and then coming back. That would destroy our road.

[56:14] It would literally destroy it. There are no sidewalks to walk a dog or do anything.

[56:22] There are already places in the road that are cracked and damaged a little bit just from

[56:28] traffic and some logging trucks that had never had logging.

[56:32] So that's a big concern as well.

[56:36] But I'd like you to come out there and see us some time.

[56:39] I'll, we'll fix these some cookies and tea, that's what we do in the south.

[56:45] So those are our concerns that damage to the road, and then the other developments that are

[56:51] down the road, and I'll then several other meetings and you know what they've discussed

[56:56] some of the meetings already.

[56:59] You know, we like to keep it like it is.

[57:01] We're not on some development, but we like the same type

[57:04] of development that we have now.

[57:06] That's what we've kind of affected the larger lives and

[57:10] neighbors that talk to each other in that type of thing.

[57:13] Although, I did kind of like the, I did have a

[57:17] senior community.

[57:17] I could fit right into that.

[57:20] I already have my part of the community that I like

[57:22] very much. So that's just want to come out and see me sometime. Yeah, I'm serious. I'm there

[57:30] a lot, see our garden, see our neighbors, and stuff. I'll take a walk down the road with me.

[57:35] We'll have fun. And we don't want that destroyed by multiple, multiple houses. We love our

[57:43] neighbors. We would like more neighbors. That's great.

[57:47] But kind of temperate or what is our

[57:50] That's a little treasure in that corner of Apex and right on the county line, keep it that way.

[57:56] Thank you.

[57:57] Thank you.

[57:58] Next speaker, please.

[58:01] Anyone else for this public hearing?

[58:06] Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing.

[58:09] One more.

[58:33] Mayor and members of the board.

[58:35] Thank you for allowing me this time.

[58:38] My name is Edward McGowan.

[58:39] I live at 4,300 Pine Rail Lane.

[58:45] Pine Rail Lane is adjacent to this complex as being talked about.

[58:54] I've lived there for over 40 years, in that time we have most of the owners on the road

[59:00] have agreed to road maintenance agreement, it is not a public maintain road and we've

[59:06] maintain this road for over 40 years in good condition.

[59:15] There was talk about using pine rail lane as an access.

[59:22] That's not going to work with

[59:28] the congestion.

[59:29] Our first speaker on this subject is made a very good point about the new congestion,

[59:35] in 300 plus homes, 400 and so, cars, I'm from a environmental study background and I would

[59:44] speak about the added pollution loss of habitat for wildlife decreased groundwater absorption

[59:54] because you're creating a hard surface with all these structures and roads.

[1:00:00] And a

[1:00:09] term that I heard a few minutes ago said they were going to shield the American, the Bucketrail. What do that means?

[1:00:18] I think the members upon rail laying except for one would like to be shielded from this project also.

[1:00:29] We don't want one particular member who is not here at this time, if they build condos

[1:00:37] across from his house, they'll be looking right into it as front door.

[1:00:44] At this time, I'd like to request that you deny this rezoning and hope you take any consideration.

[1:00:54] Thank you.

[1:00:55] Thank you.

[1:00:56] Next speaker, please.

[1:00:57] There

[1:01:04] are additional speakers out at us that choose weight on the steps, please.

[1:01:09] Next speaker, yes.

[1:01:10] You could do it afterwards.

[1:01:17] Mayor, members of the board.

[1:01:19] My name is Marilyn Miller, and I live at 1200 bachelor road.

[1:01:23] I didn't plan to speak today.

[1:01:24] But when I saw the earlier map with the carry limits,

[1:01:29] I noticed that nobody mentioned the density along the south side of west,

[1:01:34] screen or green-level west road, which I'm assuming is outside the extra territorial space

[1:01:41] for carry, but it is a higher density. There are multiple neighborhoods going from just

[1:01:48] east of batch the road all the way down green-level west on the south side. All of those

[1:01:55] neighborhoods will dump into green-level west, which will increase the traffic there. All

[1:02:01] So those pay services drain into wide oak creek, which empties into Jordan Lake.

[1:02:06] So please consider that when considering the rezoning, and that's all I have to say.

[1:02:11] Thank you.

[1:02:13] Thank you.

[1:02:13] Anyone else for this public hearing?

[1:02:16] Anyone at all?

[1:02:17] Going once?

[1:02:18] Going twice?

[1:02:20] I'm going to close public hearing and open it up to council members for questions or comments?

[1:02:25] How many at this time?

[1:02:28] I guess if this property is going to be developed, an age-restricted community seems like an appropriate way to do it, the applicants made a good case for that.

[1:02:40] But I'm glad to hear the applicant and Mrs. Green and both saying that you're going to continue to work together because I think before it goes too far we need to bring it more in compliance with that special planning area.

[1:02:51] There are the criteria that were on the slides.

[1:02:56] Density is one of them. It's an important one, but there's design guidelines,

[1:03:00] there's street state design. There's a lot of things to go along with that.

[1:03:04] And to get my vote, I would really like to see some added conditions

[1:03:08] or and or a concept plan that might delineate some of these.

[1:03:14] It's a special planning area, and I think 118.62 acres.

[1:03:18] That's a big chunk of land.

[1:03:19] And I think that ought to be special too.

[1:03:22] And right now, the rezoning that's in front of us

[1:03:24] doesn't look too special.

[1:03:26] Thank you, Ms.

[1:03:26] I'm optimistic.

[1:03:27] Thank you, Mr. Mr. Hurrah.

[1:03:29] The only thing I would add is that the applicants work on this.

[1:03:33] You still have to convince me that three units and acres

[1:03:36] are a good idea in that place.

[1:03:38] I'm not convinced that yet.

[1:03:41] So, Mr. Hurrah.

[1:03:42] Since I always had a habit of saying what's on my mind,

[1:03:45] I just wanted to point out that it was kind of fascinating

[1:03:48] meeting to me that an applicant earlier opposed a project on Harrison Avenue near Highway

[1:03:56] 40 because it's too dense, but yet supports the high density project near the White County

[1:04:05] I'm just fascinating to me, just figuring that out.

[1:04:13] Okay, I think.

[1:04:14] That's sure.

[1:04:15] Oh, no, I think that when we struggled with our planning 20, 25 years ago,

[1:04:22] I remember having discussed with you about, you know, how do you, how do you,

[1:04:28] well, you know, reaching a high school.

[1:04:32] We were struggling with the fact that we're going to get the settlers are coming.

[1:04:40] They're going to go out there and there was a hundred people a day coming to the county.

[1:04:47] And we tried to put some protections in.

[1:04:49] So I think the point, Mr. Yerha was making about the conditions.

[1:04:53] I think it's kind of the thing.

[1:04:57] We may just on the harsh reality of things have to look at the density differently in today's world.

[1:05:05] But that doesn't mean we can't put a high bar up for a lot of those conditions and a lot of those things that try to protect that field.

[1:05:14] And that's the only thing I would say to the applicant that a little more has to be done to put my mind at ease about that level of density.

[1:05:24] I will add something actually, I think it's going to be really challenging for any applicant

[1:05:29] on this site to develop and respect the rural feel or protect that rural feel because

[1:05:38] it's a little bit harder to what happens with the even at 2.5 units per acre, it's going

[1:05:45] to feel much more dense than what's out there today.

[1:05:49] So it really does put responsibility on the developer to make sure that whatever he does put

[1:05:54] and has those elements that make it incredibly special,

[1:05:58] that make it a place that enhances the overall community,

[1:06:02] especially since so many people are concerned about losing

[1:06:05] some really beautiful land around them, and a rural field.

[1:06:11] So, two things, and it was going to, you said,

[1:06:15] you were watching that density, Emma, kind of a math guy.

[1:06:19] If we could, you know, draw that out of that whole area that's left, it's supposed to be the 2.5, and if this goes at 3, what is, and we've already got some at 1.42, what is the rest of it have to average to stay under 2.5, and maybe if you'll know of stuff that's coming forward that's proposed at 1.5 for 2.5 for what if anything.

[1:06:47] I'd like to give you that matrix.

[1:06:50] I think it would be helpful.

[1:06:50] We'll have that going forward.

[1:06:52] I think that would be helpful to me.

[1:06:54] And on the rural field, I think the only way I could say that we could maintain it all

[1:07:00] the rural field for all those neighbors on Bachelor or anybody and go with a higher density

[1:07:05] than one or two is that you just, everything's got to be lined and buffered so that when

[1:07:11] you drive it on the road, you don't know there's 20 houses backed up to the road beside

[1:07:17] you because you can't see the houses because there's lots of trees and you're going to have a

[1:07:21] rural feel until you turn in that development. I don't know how it's going to develop a rural feel

[1:07:27] because the only places that have rural fields to me are like we talked about how special

[1:07:32] western bark way is. You drive down western and it's beautiful because you don't see what's behind it.

[1:07:38] You drive down these other places where you see the backyards of houses pushed up against the road

[1:07:42] it no longer feels rural. It has a different feel. So the only way I know to keep a rural

[1:07:47] feel is that when you drive in road, you just see trees so that you're taking, but you

[1:07:53] can still achieve density, but obviously buffering lots of trees. I don't know another way to

[1:07:58] make it look rural when you drive down the road.

[1:08:01] Look at trying to struggle with making it look rural, protecting that rural street scape and

[1:08:05] it was with the swells.

[1:08:07] But I don't.

[1:08:09] Yeah, I mean, there's a couple.

[1:08:10] One of the things I want to do is,

[1:08:12] because I think we owe it to the developer

[1:08:14] and to the community, it's to tell what we like

[1:08:17] and what we don't like, so it's the move forward.

[1:08:18] And I think you guys have done a great job of doing that.

[1:08:21] And I'm not going to mention any of the ones that you have.

[1:08:24] I think when we remove the conservation district,

[1:08:26] we removed rural field.

[1:08:29] I mean, that's my personal opinion.

[1:08:31] When we remove soils and we say,

[1:08:34] I'm not doing that anymore, we're doing curbing gutter.

[1:08:37] It no longer feels rural, and I respectfully disagree.

[1:08:42] Weston doesn't feel rural to me.

[1:08:45] Weston feels very manicured, and that's to be fair.

[1:08:50] What we appreciate about Carrie.

[1:08:52] I don't know that the folks that live on Bachelor

[1:08:54] would appreciate it.

[1:08:56] I don't think they would think that Weston Parkway,

[1:08:58] and I don't want to put words in their mouth,

[1:09:00] feels rural to them, and I don't know that they would want it.

[1:09:02] But no matter what, there's going to be curbing gutter there.

[1:09:06] So it automatically won't feel rural.

[1:09:09] And if that's the case, then we have to decide what should this look like.

[1:09:14] What would rural feel like?

[1:09:17] And then try to help the developer match that.

[1:09:20] Does rural feel like a curbing gutter with no houses that you can see from the front?

[1:09:26] I would really like to know.

[1:09:28] And I hope that the neighbors stay very much engaged because that's what I would like to know.

[1:09:34] What does rural feel like?

[1:09:35] Because we don't have a really good definition in that in the carry community plan.

[1:09:40] And I'm not sure I'm the best person to make that decision either.

[1:09:44] The other things that I would just give the developer feedback on is I love the intergenerational idea as an active senior,

[1:09:54] Thank you, Mr. Rand, I like the idea that there's somewhere here that I could potentially

[1:10:02] downsize.

[1:10:03] I like the fact that people are looking at housing stock with no yards, because to be honest,

[1:10:10] my kids are gone.

[1:10:10] There's nobody else to move along for maybe more.

[1:10:12] So I do like some of these ideas.

[1:10:15] I really do appreciate them, but I like for us to figure out what do we mean and what did

[1:10:22] the community mean, by real, because conservation district doesn't exist anymore.

[1:10:28] And so we need to figure that out, and where would we like to have the larger lots and

[1:10:33] give them some feedback to help guide the developer and help the neighbors really participate

[1:10:40] in defining what there is. There's lots of time. I hope that they will continue to reach out.

[1:10:45] I thank them so much for coming and being a part of this and helping to shape what the

[1:10:52] development will look like, should it move forward?

[1:10:56] Any other comments?

[1:10:57] Just pick up on the curb and gutter streetscape thing.

[1:11:00] From the, you may be 100% right.

[1:11:04] I may be.

[1:11:06] But from the Carey Community Plan in the Green Level Special

[1:11:09] Area, and I don't know exactly what this means either.

[1:11:12] But it says, Thurofare and collectors should have streetscape buffers

[1:11:16] that are more rural in character than the formal streetscape

[1:11:19] found elsewhere in carry. So I don't know exactly what is that look like.

[1:11:25] But that means, but that's what the conversations are going to be about, I think.

[1:11:29] So preserving existing trees, possibly wider buffers.

[1:11:33] I would love to see pictures as we move forward.

[1:11:35] I've never seen pictures. I'm at fence rails.

[1:11:38] Some had meandering sidewalks rather than the straight sidewalks.

[1:11:42] I'm strong rather than grass demo.

[1:11:44] Damn, I want to make sure there's a connection between what the residents,

[1:11:48] surrounding residents think it means because if they think it's going to look like it looks

[1:11:53] today.

[1:11:55] It's not.

[1:11:56] It's not.

[1:11:57] It's not.

[1:11:57] Well, man, I think Ken spoke to it pretty well.

[1:11:59] I just don't know.

[1:12:00] I agree with the example that he used.

[1:12:03] If you don't see it, it looks like there's nothing there.

[1:12:06] It looks like the trees that we're always there and you can't see the homes behind it.

[1:12:10] That feels pretty rural.

[1:12:12] My concern, I guess, question would be the road network, and can handle the traffic from

[1:12:18] additional 300 and some odd units, and what that looks like, what does that mean?

[1:12:25] I mean, can the existing roads handle that much additional traffic, because I hear the arguments,

[1:12:32] we hear a lot of projects, especially out west, where there's no services out there, but people

[1:12:39] over 55 do still drive cars people over 65 75 still drive car so that means they're going

[1:12:45] to be on the road every time they need to go to the store or run an errand they're going

[1:12:48] to be on the road you know transit is not coming out here any time soon remotely so

[1:12:58] let me let me help

[1:12:58] you with a little bit so to the south here you have green level west road and running perpendicular

[1:13:06] to that, you have Wimberly Road that goes down into Apex, and there's a plan on the intent

[1:13:13] on our comprehensive transportation plan to have Wimberly Road extend to the north and become

[1:13:19] a collector road that is still being debated, but on our plan to show us four lanes.

[1:13:25] So the actual plan is to have a very important north-south connector coming through this

[1:13:31] site and the site's to its north and south.

[1:13:34] So I don't think the existing roads will pick up, we'll bear the burden of carrying a lot of the traffic, I think this new road that these two developments would put in.

[1:13:45] So I think that would kind of address that aspect of it.

[1:13:49] I do want to kind of point out the fact that we had in place the rural streetscape for many years, and I don't know how many years, but let's just hypothetically call it 12 years or 15 years.

[1:14:00] And out of everything that was built, we ended up getting everything looking suburban with really crappy road system.

[1:14:08] He had bitches in everybody's front yards.

[1:14:10] Yeah, it just looks bad.

[1:14:12] And then the people who live there go, well, when am I going to get my sidewalk?

[1:14:16] And I said, well, I'm sorry, you're not getting the sidewalk because it was done this different way.

[1:14:21] There's only one exception to that, and that's on Morrisville.

[1:14:24] Parkway extended to the west of Green Level chirping road.

[1:14:29] Well, it's not the neighborhood, it's the road itself.

[1:14:32] If you look on the right side of the road, the north side of the road, there's some, like

[1:14:36] a split rail fence or something, there's, it's the greenway set off instead of a side of

[1:14:41] a little bit further away.

[1:14:42] That's the only example I can think of that kind of sort of got there, but it's not enough

[1:14:47] to hold on to, because that's just one small example that's, you know, basically overshadowed

[1:14:53] by a lot of rural streetscapes that didn't work.

[1:15:00] I would be trying to pursue maybe a well-vegetated street scape, one that is aesthetically pleasing that can, you know,

[1:15:09] buffers that can help screen the people who live there now from, you know, a lot of density.

[1:15:15] That's what I would be kind of striving towards more than trying to strive towards a rural street scape that may not manifest itself.

[1:15:24] Okay, despite my poor example, I'll say that and I was never to know the explain, but if we

[1:15:34] did have very wide roads for you driving down, very wide buffers that you couldn't see

[1:15:39] houses, then I think we could accomplish the smaller lots for the senior league that don't,

[1:15:46] they won't smile a lot because you're able to give up quite a bit in buffers and you still

[1:15:52] can get a pretty high density, but having just a lot small lots, and you're going to make

[1:15:55] the people happy that can't see the houses, and you're going to make the people happy

[1:15:59] they don't have to mow the grass, like Lori.

[1:16:01] That's a good point.

[1:16:02] Well, and then just be aware that when you say it, thank you.

[1:16:05] When you say it that way, what you're actually saying is you'd be okay for higher density,

[1:16:10] because the buffers are bigger, and so that gives some direction, I think, to the developer

[1:16:16] that says, okay, well, you know, we might, we might be open to higher density is

[1:16:22] you had 50 or 100 foot buffer so that you can't see any of those from the road. The question

[1:16:28] though that I have for them is if I were them is give me some definition, give me some ideas of

[1:16:34] what this looks like and I think these are some of the ideas, something that they're rallying.

[1:16:38] Okay, very good feedback. Good luck with that, Jason.

[1:16:42] You know, I encourage them one last time. Maybe laugh a little bit. Sorry Jason, I throw you into

[1:16:46] us here. When you're talking about they, you know, the 55 and older crowd, they, all but

[1:16:53] two of us up here, three of us up here sitting at this table are they. You don't have to

[1:16:59] tell us how they think. I think they know how they think.

[1:17:05] You're rubbing it in. Some of us just forget.

[1:17:10] All righty, this will go to our advisory board

[1:17:13] of citizens called the Planning and Zoning Board.

[1:17:16] And what they will do is review this from a citizens perspective

[1:17:20] and give their feedback, and it will come back to Council

[1:17:23] where we will evaluate all the information,

[1:17:27] including the staff's recommendation, the Planning

[1:17:30] and Zoning Board of Advisory citizens will evaluate

[1:17:35] their recommendation, and any other information

[1:17:38] that we have will make a decision at that point.

[1:17:41] And that's at least a couple of months away.

[1:17:43] So please stay engaged, please stay involved,

[1:17:45] and if you have any questions, please let us know.

[1:17:48] Thanks again for coming.

[1:17:50] Thank you, Bill.

[1:17:50] All right, we now move to the next public hearing.

[1:17:55] And again, it's going to be two together.

[1:17:58] It's 18A10, Robert, Louis, and Jack, Louis,

[1:18:01] Dillard, Annexation, and 18RZ10, Louis Drive,

[1:18:05] residential, rezoning, and senior planner, Katie,

[1:18:08] Drive will introduce the item.

[1:18:10] It will not take action on this item tonight.

[1:18:12] Instead, it will be referred to our planning and zoning board, and we will make our decision at a future day.

[1:18:18] That's trust.

[1:18:19] Good evening, Council.

[1:18:21] Well, your consideration is a request to annex and reasoned 6.72 acres at 675 Louis Drive.

[1:18:28] That's why you're like a victim to the ward.

[1:18:30] The site has one detached dwelling at the adjacent to the Brits Zone neighborhood, and it's just east of Highway 55.

[1:18:36] The properties within Wake County is sent Wake County R-40 watershed, and because the site's

[1:18:44] currently in Wake County's jurisdiction, annexation is required in order to apply carry zoning.

[1:18:51] The shaded areas in yellow within this map are within the town's existing corporate limits.

[1:18:58] So for this zoning, the applicant is proposing transitional, residential, conditional use.

[1:19:02] The zoning conditions they're proposing are to limit the use to detach dwellings with a minimum

[1:19:09] lot size of 8,000 square feet. They're proposing five foot, five side yards setbacks and 20 foot front

[1:19:17] and rear yards setbacks each.

[1:19:21] So staff has evaluated the site using the Imagine Carey Community Plan and our preliminary analysis

[1:19:26] found applicable policies from the live and the shape chapter.

[1:19:30] When looking at the lift, the lift chapter, the site is considered an infill development, given

[1:19:35] its proximity to the Brookstone neighborhood.

[1:19:38] Infill projects are evaluated to ensure the use of the transitions complement the adjacent

[1:19:43] neighborhood.

[1:19:44] And when we look at the shape chapter, we evaluate a case using the future-growth framework map

[1:19:49] and review transitions.

[1:19:52] The site is designated as a traditional neighborhood on the future-growth framework map, which

[1:19:56] is generally typified by large master plan communities which have some degree of housing

[1:20:01] mix, although detached dwellings are the most predominant.

[1:20:06] To evaluate transitions, we look at the site compared to the adjacent homes.

[1:20:11] In this case, the applicant has proposed a TR-C-U-Zoning district, which is adjacent to the

[1:20:17] Brooksstone neighborhood that has an R8-C-U-Zoning district.

[1:20:21] The applicants are proposing the limit they use to single family, and a lot sizes to 8,000 square

[1:20:26] feet.

[1:20:27] So in this case, the use and a lot sizes will be the same.

[1:20:32] We can also evaluate transitions by looking at the setbacks

[1:20:36] and the lot widths.

[1:20:37] This table shows you the proposed setbacks and lots

[1:20:42] widths for the proposed zoning compared to Brookstone.

[1:20:46] So as I noted, this site is asking for TRCU as opposed to Brookstone,

[1:20:51] which is RECU.

[1:20:52] They have increased the minimum lot size 8,000 square feet.

[1:20:56] So, these will be the same minimum lot sizes.

[1:21:00] The front yard set, that will also be the same at 20 feet, 20 feet, 20 feet each.

[1:21:04] We will see a difference when it comes to the side yard set back, which will be at 5 feet,

[1:21:09] compared to 10 feet in the Brooklyn neighborhood.

[1:21:12] Also, it's light difference with the rear yard set back at 20 feet, compared to 25 feet.

[1:21:17] And we'll also see a difference with a lot width, which is 40 feet compared to 60 feet.

[1:21:24] For the neighborhood meeting for this site, as well as the public hearing, notice was sent to

[1:21:30] property owners with a 800 feet of the property.

[1:21:34] And this neighborhood meeting was held on June 6, 2018, and there were 20 nearby residents who attended.

[1:21:40] There were questions and concerns expressed regarding the drainage in the area, specifically regarding a farm

[1:21:47] pit pond that was filled in on the site back in the 90s, which will talk a little bit more about in just a minute.

[1:21:52] We also heard concerns about traffic and road conditions of Louis Drive, setbacks proposed and

[1:21:59] stream buffers.

[1:22:01] And so to acknowledge a significant concerns that we've heard from citizens and residents,

[1:22:05] we're going to spend a little bit of time talking about some of these two key issues that

[1:22:09] we've heard first, drainage, and then traffic.

[1:22:14] So I'm going to turn the presentation over to Matt Flynn, Stormwater Field Services Administrator

[1:22:18] but with the water resources department to talk about drainage.

[1:22:23] Good evening, Council.

[1:22:25] So we understand there were some drainage concerns associated with the fill and the stream location on this property.

[1:22:32] So we've done some research and want to share with you what we've learned thus far.

[1:22:38] So in this picture, you'll see, in 1988, we have the stream shown in blue.

[1:22:44] It's an old agricultural pond to the west.

[1:22:49] The whole area was in Wake County at the time.

[1:22:52] The stream location on the Louis property actually is in the same location it is today.

[1:22:59] Fast forward to 2000, Brookstone subdivision is built out.

[1:23:04] The stream on that property has been piped.

[1:23:06] You can see the red lines represent the storm drain system.

[1:23:11] You'll see on the Louis property that the pond is gone.

[1:23:14] What we've learned is that pond was filled in a majority of the Louis property is filled in with excess dirt from the Brookstone subdivision.

[1:23:23] So we've got to remember though, stream buffer rules, environmental regulations as we know them today didn't exist in.

[1:23:31] So the placement of that fill during that time frame was legal.

[1:23:35] I've also placed the drainage areas for both lots to that channel.

[1:23:42] You'll see that about 12 acres of drainage goes to that channel from the Brooks Stone subdivision.

[1:23:47] In fact, the storm drain system acts as the headwaters for that.

[1:23:51] About four acres from the Louis property goes to that.

[1:23:54] So there's an opportunity to hear if and when that project develops,

[1:23:58] under Kerry's rules to capture the four acres from Lui and bypass it from that channel.

[1:24:05] When you do stormwater management, you're going to place the stormwater collection system

[1:24:08] at the lowest point.

[1:24:09] In this case, it's going to be on the southern portion of the property, and the developers

[1:24:13] really are going to have to speak to this because we're speculating, but it's a realistic scenario

[1:24:17] that they'll be able to capture and treat all of that on the southern portion which would

[1:24:21] discharge south of that channel, effectively cutting off those four acres of drainage, which

[1:24:27] is substantial. It's about 25% of the drainage area here. So in that case, every single storm event

[1:24:33] would be mitigated going forward. So from a drainage perspective anyway, there's an opportunity

[1:24:38] to really improve the situation from what it is now. So I'll be available to answer any questions,

[1:24:44] but thank you for your time. I'll turn it back over to Katie now. Thank you.

[1:24:50] Next we'll address

[1:24:51] transportation.

[1:24:55] So looking at the town's transportation plan, Louis Drive is a collector street.

[1:24:59] The staff is for concerns regarding maintenance of Louie Drive specifically to the west of this site.

[1:25:06] The town maintains Louie Drive within the Brookstone neighborhood and in front of the site.

[1:25:10] However, NCDOT maintains a portion of Louie Drive as to the west of this site on to Highway 55.

[1:25:17] This is approximately 600 feet.

[1:25:20] So to understand the history of this, we need to look at the area back before Brookstone was built.

[1:25:25] This is Louis Drive in the 1980s, the road provided access to just a few rural lots, and

[1:25:32] as you can see, there's a different alignment with Louis and NC55.

[1:25:36] For our research, we understand that as a condition of approval for Brookstone, it required

[1:25:41] a connection to Highway 55, and the developer at that time worked with property owners in

[1:25:46] White County along this area here on Louis Drive to realign and widen Louis to make the

[1:25:54] section to Highway 55.

[1:25:56] And so this is what the site looks like today.

[1:25:58] This picture is taken in front of the subject site.

[1:26:01] It's looking west towards Highway 55, right at Johnson, Joseph Pong Lane.

[1:26:07] You can see the curve gutter inside walk, drop stop, where Brookstone ends on both sides.

[1:26:15] And the connection out to Highway 55 is just the two lane road without curve gutter

[1:26:20] or sidewalk.

[1:26:21] This picture is taken from 55 looking back east towards the Brookstone neighborhood.

[1:26:28] Now, Brookstone homeowners association owns and maintains two 40-foot strips of land for landscaping on either side which you can see from this picture here.

[1:26:39] So, this portion of Louis Drive, again, which is approximately 600 feet, has been outside of Kerry's jurisdiction within Wake County.

[1:26:45] With recent developments, however, in annexations of some of the remaining properties, there

[1:26:52] will be potential for road improvements along this section of the road moving forward.

[1:26:57] We also look at transit opportunities, and there is existing, our go-triangle transit route

[1:27:03] on NC55.

[1:27:06] So this concludes the staff's presentation.

[1:27:08] The applicant is here to share a comment, following the public hearing staff will be available

[1:27:13] for questions.

[1:27:13] Thank you.

[1:27:14] Thank you, Ms. Triad, and I invite the applicant for their remarks at this time.

[1:27:31] Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Barbara Todd.

[1:27:34] I'm a landscape architect and land planner, and I'm representing applicant.

[1:27:41] This request is for 8,000 square foot locks, which is the exact lot size of the lots of adjacent to us on the east on Millibre Court.

[1:27:54] those are also 8,000 square feet.

[1:27:57] We were requesting the TRCU zoning in order to change the side

[1:28:03] setbacks so that we will have slightly more flexibility

[1:28:09] on the side yards.

[1:28:11] That's the only reason that we need the TRCU zoning

[1:28:16] is so that we can adjust and have the flexibility

[1:28:19] about the side setbacks.

[1:28:22] The rear yards will be required to provide a 10-foot type B buffer separating the lots on the

[1:28:30] Louis property from those on Millie Brook Court, and that 10-foot type B buffer will be included

[1:28:35] in the lot area.

[1:28:38] At the neighborhood meeting, we certainly heard a lot of concern from the neighbors about

[1:28:44] the drainage.

[1:28:45] And apparently it's been ongoing problem as Matt Flynn described and Katie described.

[1:28:53] And I want you to know and the staff to know that we are ready to work really closely with the staff as development plans are drawn up.

[1:29:03] So that we can do what we need to do on our property to try to mitigate whatever we can on our property in the impact

[1:29:14] that the storm water might have.

[1:29:20] We haven't, we don't have a certain plan yet.

[1:29:26] We don't have a survey of the stream buffer yet, although we are pretty sure where it is.

[1:29:32] So that as we go along in the development process, we will be much more able to understand

[1:29:39] the impact of the screen buffer and the drainage patterns on the plans that we will show to the staff for approval.

[1:29:51] I will be glad to answer any of your questions.

[1:29:55] Thank you very much.

[1:29:56] Thanks Matt.

[1:29:57] Thanks, Katie.

[1:29:58] Now's the time for the...

[1:30:00] Public hearing for annexation 18810 and rezoning 18RZ10. And I would invite our first speaker forward.

[1:30:19] Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of Council. My name is Jason Shees. I live at 112 Millibruck Court.

[1:30:26] I appreciate the staff's report and the feedback from the applicant.

[1:30:32] While I do have a couple of concerns about the development of this particular property as it relates to the side, setbacks and the rear sit back.

[1:30:40] I'm happy that the lot size would be the exact same as the houses to the east on Millibrook.

[1:30:47] My preference is that the side and rear-step acts but also be the same.

[1:30:51] Also I do have some concerns about the traffic, especially in the short term.

[1:30:56] That particular curve that staff showed you can be rather dangerous.

[1:31:01] There's a lot of cut-through traffic that goes through a brick stone for people accessing

[1:31:05] Highway 55 and Turner Creek Elementary and I know quite a few of my neighbors have been pretty

[1:31:11] much runoff of that road because of people cutting the corner there. So I'm concerned in

[1:31:16] the short term about the construction equipment that would be along that area. There is an

[1:31:22] elementary school bus route that stops right there. So that construction equipment would make

[1:31:27] those problems worth especially during peak use. And also potentially further damage the road

[1:31:34] there, where it's maintained by NCDOT.

[1:31:37] However, the long-term benefits, especially

[1:31:40] if Brooks don't annexes those 40 foot strips on either side,

[1:31:44] could ultimately, the long-term improve that road.

[1:31:46] My biggest concern I don't want to speak about tonight

[1:31:48] is really that strain and the drainage and the flooding

[1:31:52] that occurs.

[1:31:53] That strain really starts at the rear yard

[1:31:55] between 106 and 108 millibrook and heads to the south.

[1:32:00] When it rains, the backyards of all those houses

[1:32:03] between 100 and 106 they flood.

[1:32:07] Many days after a rain event, you can see water ponding on the sidewalk along Louie Drive

[1:32:13] there at the property.

[1:32:14] So although the four acres of mitigation that would occur would help improve the situation,

[1:32:20] I don't know that it fixes it.

[1:32:21] So what I would like to see occur is although I understand that the stream buffer restrictions

[1:32:26] would apply, I would like to see the stream restored to its original condition.

[1:32:31] My neighbor to the south has been an original homeowner out there since that development.

[1:32:36] He has pictures of when they moved that land fill over and filled in that pond.

[1:32:41] So when they did that, they built up the west side of that bank.

[1:32:45] So it's much higher on the west side than it is on the east side.

[1:32:49] So when it rains, the overflow from the stream really only overflows to the east.

[1:32:53] It can't overflow to the west.

[1:32:54] So, I would like to see that stream restored the stream bed restored to its original condition,

[1:33:02] so that on the west side it can overflow the same as it does on the east.

[1:33:06] That will have a lasting impact in addition to the four acres of drainage to the overall flooding

[1:33:13] and floodplain in that particular area.

[1:33:16] The buildup on the west side also has a loud foliage growth and that further restricts that drainage.

[1:33:22] That is the biggest concern that I have.

[1:33:26] If the developer would consider adding a condition that would restore the streambed to its original condition, then I would be satisfied.

[1:33:37] From a sentimental standpoint, I love the Louis property.

[1:33:40] That's a very entryway to the subdivision.

[1:33:43] My kids walked a school there.

[1:33:45] Mrs. Louis sat out on her front porch over kids, played soccer and football in the field.

[1:33:51] I would love to see it stay exactly as it is forever, but that's not realistic and I was very

[1:33:57] unfortunate to see Mrs. Louis pass away a few years ago.

[1:34:00] The applicant should have a fair opportunity to then develop that land and I think the

[1:34:04] way that they're proposing, it would be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood.

[1:34:09] If they can deal with the drainage and the flooding from that stream, then I would be satisfied

[1:34:13] as a homeowner that butts up adjacent to that proposed property, thank you very much for your

[1:34:19] time.

[1:34:19] Thank you.

[1:34:20] Next speaker.

[1:34:30] Hi, good evening.

[1:34:31] My name is Lindsey Busfield.

[1:34:32] I live at 102 Millie Brook Court and my property back directly up to the Louis property

[1:34:40] that we're discussing this evening.

[1:34:42] So the development of this property definitely has a significant impact on my property

[1:34:47] in terms of the view, as well as just the quality of life there.

[1:34:52] But echoing Jason's sentiments, we understand that it can't stay this way forever.

[1:34:57] And we had had a great experience having the Louis property there, love the view that it offers,

[1:35:04] loves, we love the flexibility that it offers in terms of kids being able to wander the neighborhood

[1:35:11] with out massive amounts of traffic other than what we're already seeing on a day-to-day basis.

[1:35:16] But we want to work together in the spirit of being neighbors.

[1:35:22] And we have an understanding that it's realistic and that this property has to be developed some day.

[1:35:29] And what is being proposed here could be a really great opportunity for our neighborhood if it's done right.

[1:35:37] And I want to echo and thank Jason for standing up and going in depth into what we have discussed as a collective neighbors.

[1:35:45] But I also wanted to speak on behalf of those who could not make it here tonight and make sure that they are represented as well

[1:35:53] So Andy took also wanted to echo the buffer zone and run off

[1:36:00] Issues that were brought up tonight as well as Amy Jaska House and we just wanted to show our collective

[1:36:09] Support for this project so long as we are taking into serious consideration

[1:36:15] the drainage issues, the traffic issues, the road conditions, and other issues that are arising

[1:36:22] just because of the complex nature of where this property is, and how this property has been

[1:36:28] treated in the past. And I think we have a great opportunity to rectify some mistakes that were made

[1:36:34] through stream restoration and protecting of the buffer zones that we have in place.

[1:36:40] My biggest concern being how close are these houses going to be to my backyard.

[1:36:45] I have a great view right now, and I would like for that to be kept in place as much as possible within

[1:36:52] reason.

[1:36:53] So those are the things that I know that I have concerns over.

[1:36:56] My husband has concerns over.

[1:36:58] Neighbors on our street have concerns over, but also the things that are affecting our

[1:37:03] neighborhood beyond those of us who back up directly to it.

[1:37:07] So the opportunity to take care of the stream and restoring that would be a great benefit.

[1:37:13] And I know that having a condition in this rezoning would greatly increase our neighborhood

[1:37:23] support.

[1:37:24] Thank you very much.

[1:37:24] Thank you.

[1:37:25] Next speaker.

[1:37:43] Good evening, Mayor.

[1:37:45] And all the comes council members, my name is Matthew Matterford.

[1:37:50] I stay in 11.05 ever at field road, more as well, I have a property behind the proposed

[1:37:59] Louis Drive. Even though the front of the property is valley would slain, because of the there is

[1:38:05] a stream immediately after the road, we cannot go inside the property. So I have requested already the

[1:38:13] So, can you make a road access road through the property to our property, there is a

[1:38:22] they will consider.

[1:38:24] So, and also I understand that the BMP they are going to make on the corner of the property.

[1:38:33] So, that will because back of the property is a low line area, eventually there may be

[1:38:39] a problem.

[1:38:40] So I request that council to consider that also.

[1:38:45] Thanks a lot.

[1:38:47] Thank you.

[1:38:48] Next speaker, please.

[1:38:49] Anyone else for this public hearing?

[1:38:53] If you know one, we'll close the public hearing.

[1:38:55] And open it up to council members for questions or comments.

[1:38:58] I would like to start the strike with a question of,

[1:39:02] the citizens want the stream moved.

[1:39:06] What kind of state restrictions, state federal restrictions prevent that or allow that?

[1:39:11] Or is it allowed? I didn't hear moved restored.

[1:39:14] Mr. Stor. I'm sorry.

[1:39:17] I'd look to ask, um, one of our stormwater experts to come up and help us assist with that question.

[1:39:22] Thank you.

[1:39:25] Good evening, Eric Coles, environmental specialists with water resources.

[1:39:31] Um, one of the solutions that we have tossed around, um, just in what is in the realm of possible,

[1:39:40] is not to do anything with the stream, the stream has been there for a long time.

[1:39:43] The bed of the stream has not been impacted.

[1:39:46] What has happened is the buffer or the land next to the stream has been built up with the material from the adjacent subdivision.

[1:39:59] And the Jordan-like buffer rules and our town ordinance does allow for removal of existing fill within the buffer.

[1:40:09] It would require identifying the original ground surface through use of

[1:40:16] borings and a sole scientist and then excavation down to that original surface and

[1:40:22] then replanting of the buffer. That would only require, as long as we're not

[1:40:28] affecting the stream channel, that would only require an authorization from the town.

[1:40:33] That's the only permitting that would be necessary.

[1:40:35] Great. And my follow-up question.

[1:40:39] Are you going to ask a question about what it fixed?

[1:40:41] That's exactly what I was going to ask.

[1:40:43] It's a great question.

[1:40:45] So my next question is, I don't have to have it tonight,

[1:40:49] but I need to know if that's the best solution,

[1:40:53] or if whatever's proposed is the best solution,

[1:40:56] or a combination is the best solution.

[1:40:59] What's the best solution to fix the drainage problem?

[1:41:02] It's what I want to know.

[1:41:03] because if that's not going to fix it, then I don't want to do it.

[1:41:08] And of course, we can't ask the applicant to do it.

[1:41:11] They have to volunteer to do it.

[1:41:14] We can't ask them to do anything.

[1:41:16] So just doing some quick math in my head while I was sitting there.

[1:41:19] You're talking probably.

[1:41:20] If we're averaging three and a half feet of depth for that,

[1:41:24] with the 100 foot buffer,

[1:41:25] you're talking about 7,000 cubic yards of dirt that would have to be hauling.

[1:41:30] You probably trees and shrubs and everything.

[1:41:31] Exactly.

[1:41:32] So not only is the cost of hauling that off would be probably half a million dollars, right there.

[1:41:39] Was it 70 bucks, a cubic yard, maybe?

[1:41:43] So you're probably talking about half a million dollars right there, and then the replanting of the buffer.

[1:41:48] So that's an expensive option.

[1:41:52] So hopefully the applicant can look at the combination of mitigating it by bypassing the drainage area

[1:41:59] in addition to maybe doing some of that, to try to be able to model it to show a significant improvement.

[1:42:07] But that's something the applicant will have to do, that's in our court.

[1:42:11] And whatever they propose, you will have data that can convince me one way or the other.

[1:42:16] Well, hopefully they're going to have beautiful pictures for all of us to see.

[1:42:19] These are general care about our data.

[1:42:22] As far as a model showing free and post-conditions and all of those things.

[1:42:27] So those would be very convincing, I think.

[1:42:29] Okay.

[1:42:30] Just to follow up the neighborhood to the east, you know, all of what used to be the

[1:42:34] stream there has now been piped and tripled over.

[1:42:38] Right.

[1:42:38] How much is that contributed to this problem?

[1:42:42] So the stream itself, the pipe itself is the headwaters for that channel.

[1:42:47] That 12 acres is the headwaters.

[1:42:50] So it was all, that stream was in the Brookstone subdivision prior to when it was a farm

[1:42:57] and it was pipe.

[1:42:58] So, the discharge would have increased just because the land use is increasing.

[1:43:02] I remember, Brookstone was developed prior to any storm water rules.

[1:43:06] That's why you don't see any storm water mitigation on that.

[1:43:10] So, there would be an increase in discharge from that.

[1:43:13] It's a 24 inch pipe.

[1:43:14] So, we're not really talking about a huge drainage area here anyway.

[1:43:18] But that would have an impact.

[1:43:20] That would certainly increase the amount of discharge.

[1:43:23] So, they had that subdivision been developed under today's rules and rags.

[1:43:26] they would have been required to keep the stream, not build near it, and it would have

[1:43:30] been less of a problem that is today.

[1:43:33] Moving the stream today or piping the stream is not realistic from a mitigation standpoint.

[1:43:37] That's correct.

[1:43:38] So they would have been in the stream buffer anyway, wouldn't be allowing to deal those

[1:43:41] sounds.

[1:43:42] That's right.

[1:43:43] So just to make sure that I'm on board, are you saying that the mitigation that would

[1:43:50] be proposed, whether it's a stormwater, BMP, or whatever comes up, the options that come

[1:43:56] are going to make it better for the Brookstone neighborhood.

[1:43:59] Are these lots that are flooding already going to continue to flood?

[1:44:03] Or does it not help them?

[1:44:04] I'm making a very educated speculation here because I have anything to react to at this point.

[1:44:11] The stormwater management system is going to be located at the lowest point.

[1:44:14] It's all going to be gravity flow.

[1:44:15] In this case, it's in the southern portion of the property.

[1:44:18] So the discharge point is going to be below that channel.

[1:44:21] So, that four acres that's currently going to the channel, in that case would be completely

[1:44:27] cut off.

[1:44:28] So, any storm event, 1, 10, 10 million is going to be reduced as a result of that because

[1:44:35] the drainage area has gotten smaller and that's 25% of the drainage area, so that's something

[1:44:43] they can model and convince Council with numbers if they choose to at that point or

[1:44:49] combinations of the fill as we discussed here, but there's a lot of options to show there's a lot of opportunity here to show it and prove it.

[1:44:59] Mr. Yer.

[1:45:00] How are you? You can walk the air from your house. I want to hear what you've got this.

[1:45:03] Well, I think the discussion has been great on looking forward to that data that you're looking forward to.

[1:45:08] We certainly want an improvement if possible to the tradition that we have today. It's just interesting we're talking about the

[1:45:29] It's, it's a, it's a problem throughout the, throughout the neighborhood, it was built before we had those requirements but I'm very optimistic based on what you're saying was Flynn and very optimistic based on Mr. Todd's history here that we're going to try to come up with the best solutions possible.

[1:45:47] Yeah, the clarifier, I just want to be, so if we've got two different levels on two different sides of the streambed, obviously, it's only overflowing onto the one side, and these backyards, so mitigating that reduces some percentage that's heading for the backyards, regardless of the cost I can't do that, you know, about the math, but that is part of something that is going to make less water running the backyards,

[1:46:16] of Millie Brook Court, if it's leveled out on a certain storm events, you're exactly right.

[1:46:23] Yes.

[1:46:23] Okay. And then there was the comment about somebody with a different piece of property.

[1:46:32] What is the connectivity requirement going to be if somebody's got property beside this?

[1:46:41] Is this going to be connected somewhere?

[1:46:43] So our ordinance says require connections to different properties, all sides, and of course there's going to be an evaluation of that at the time of development plan review, so we'll be able to learn more about that, but as it stands our ordinance does require connectivity.

[1:47:02] So if you had a requirement to the south for connectivity, but that was the place for the BMP, and you couldn't drive through that, then would the BMP have to be located.

[1:47:13] It's such that there would be some other connectivity.

[1:47:21] Yeah, it's a green field site.

[1:47:24] So they'll be able to manipulate the surface

[1:47:27] to probably meet any of our requirements.

[1:47:30] They'll be able to grade it out to meet connectivity,

[1:47:32] put the stormwater collection system.

[1:47:34] Stormwater collection system is going to be in this other

[1:47:36] portion.

[1:47:37] And where that goes is really going to be an exercise

[1:47:39] in grading.

[1:47:40] And that's, their engineers can have to get out there and do

[1:47:42] survey and all that.

[1:47:44] But yeah, at this point, there's really nothing

[1:47:47] constraining the site that I can see from my perspective.

[1:47:50] Thank you, Mr. Miller.

[1:47:51] Any other questions?

[1:47:53] Oh, only the comment is I'm, while I really like the site,

[1:47:57] that the lot sizes are identical to what's adjacent to it

[1:48:00] on the east, I'm not the biggest fan of a five foot

[1:48:02] side yard setback.

[1:48:05] On both sides, you got houses 10 feet apart from each other.

[1:48:08] I just, you know, I'm pleased to be here.

[1:48:09] That extra five feet, now we're 20 feet apart from each other.

[1:48:12] just seems to be a little more in harmony with what's adjacent to it. Other than that,

[1:48:18] I think the use is density, lots of sizes and everything else makes sense.

[1:48:24] So I agree with you. I can glad that they have the same size that 8,000 square foot.

[1:48:29] I will say that I'm not as inclined to like and I know your guys are surprised.

[1:48:35] The side yard set back at five feet foot and the front rear yard set back at 20 feet without some sort of

[1:48:42] I don't give a little bit give and take there

[1:48:45] You know if you're going if you already heard from a developer perspective that people are really concerned about the storm water

[1:48:52] Right, you know that then how about you know being able to mitigate a 25-year storm or 50 or storm if you want something from us

[1:48:59] That we wouldn't normally provide

[1:49:01] I think give a little something, right?

[1:49:04] You want to five-foot, you know, a side-rear set back?

[1:49:07] Make the stormwater, you know, manage a 25-year.

[1:49:10] I'd like to see something offered.

[1:49:13] That's better than what we have.

[1:49:15] OK.

[1:49:16] Any other comments?

[1:49:17] Great.

[1:49:17] This will go to our planning and zoning board

[1:49:20] for their review and recommendation.

[1:49:23] They'll get it in a month or two,

[1:49:24] and we'll probably get it in two or three months, that's

[1:49:27] a year earlier.

[1:49:28] And at that point, we'll make a decision.

[1:49:31] I would recommend everybody's stand-in ball.

[1:49:34] And if you have questions, please ask them.

[1:49:36] And we'll be glad to get you the answers to your questions.

[1:49:40] Or if you just have concerns, please let us know what the concerns are.

[1:49:43] We're trying to get input from all parties before we make a decision.

[1:49:47] So thank you all for being here and participating in this public hearing.

[1:49:52] All right, we'll move to our last public hearing.

[1:49:54] It's 18-RZ-13 Indian Wells Road Resonning.

[1:49:59] Principal planner Scott Rammage will introduce the item, and Council will not take action tonight,

[1:50:05] but instead we're going to refer it to our planning and zoning board, who will return it to us with a recommendation of the future.

[1:50:13] Mr. Rammage.

[1:50:14] Good evening, Council.

[1:50:15] For your consideration tonight is a Resonary request for 8.21 acres on Indian Wells Road.

[1:50:22] The sites on the north side of Indian Wells Road

[1:50:24] about a quarter mile west of NC-55 highway.

[1:50:29] And the site is about 600 feet south of cross-point church

[1:50:32] in the northwest Kerry YMCA.

[1:50:35] It's also about 400 feet southeast of the future park

[1:50:38] on carpenter fire station road that has

[1:50:40] a frontage on carpenter fire station road.

[1:50:44] The site is currently zone residential 40 district,

[1:50:47] New subdivisions, West, and South of the site have been resumed in recent years to R-H-C-U and to TR-C-U.

[1:50:55] The site is, does have adjacent R-40 zoning to the north and immediate east of the site owned by crosspoint church.

[1:51:03] The applicant has proposed to reason on the site to transitional residential conditional use.

[1:51:08] Now, if this location looks familiar to you, it's because last month you heard a resounding request for the adjacent site, the crosspoint church site immediately north and east of the site.

[1:51:19] There is a single proposed zoning condition for the site, limiting the loud uses.

[1:51:25] This is a list of most of the uses permitted by right in the TR district.

[1:51:30] And from among all these uses, the applicant's proposed only loud detached dwellings in townhouses.

[1:51:36] So in terms of maximum density and minimum lot size, the basic TR district standards would

[1:51:41] govern.

[1:51:42] So for a single family detached house in TR, the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet, and

[1:51:47] regardless of whether detached or town homes are built,

[1:51:50] the maximum density would be six dwelling units per acre.

[1:51:55] According to the Future Growth Framework map,

[1:51:57] the site is part of an area designated as a mixed neighborhood.

[1:52:00] The mixed neighborhood development category encompasses

[1:52:02] and describes neighborhoods in housing,

[1:52:05] located in the northwest part of Cary,

[1:52:08] Cary's planning area within about two to three miles

[1:52:10] of research trying a part.

[1:52:12] Mix neighborhoods are intended to have a mix of housing types

[1:52:14] and densities, including things like detached homes,

[1:52:17] patio homes, town homes, and multi-family, so as to offer a wide range of housing options

[1:52:22] within a reasonable and short distance of RTP.

[1:52:26] You also saw a map like this last month with the other case.

[1:52:29] This map shows all the mixed neighborhood areas surrounding RTP.

[1:52:33] The town's GIS data indicates that existing development within this area currently consists

[1:52:37] of about 9,000 dwellings.

[1:52:40] Those 9,000 dwellings are currently broken out as about 52% single-family detached.

[1:52:45] 28% of them are town homes, and 19% are multi-family, so you can see there is an emerging

[1:52:51] mix that's fairly intense in the area.

[1:52:55] Staff is evaluated this case regarding conformance with applicable policies in the Imagine

[1:52:59] Curie Community Plan.

[1:53:03] Staff feels the proposal supports two key policies in the live chapter by potentially increasing

[1:53:07] the mix of housing and the new neighborhoods developing in this part of Kerry, as well

[1:53:11] as town wide.

[1:53:13] Policy three in the lift chapter recommends the provision of a variety of housing options within newly developed neighborhoods.

[1:53:21] So this map depicts the mix of housing currently in this Indian wells and the Kina Road neighborhood that's been emerging over the last number of years.

[1:53:29] The maps taken from the interactive development map on the town's website, and as you can see there is quite a mix of detached homes and town homes that are emerging and developing in this area,

[1:53:39] most of it all happening just within the last five to eight years.

[1:53:44] The proposal also helps to support the plan's work policies concerned with providing ample housing options near major employment centers such as RTP in order to interact the workforce of tomorrow.

[1:53:57] Lastly, in the shape and chapter-shaped policy, six deals with transitions.

[1:54:02] The town's development ordinances will ensure the provision of a suitable transition by requiring context-appropriate perimeter buffers or landscape buffers to the adjacent sites.

[1:54:12] For example, if townhomes were built on this site, the next to that adjacent Indian well subdivision,

[1:54:18] there would be required a 40 foot type A buffer.

[1:54:23] The town's GIS mapping does not indicate any stream buffers or floodplain on the site.

[1:54:30] The Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources Master Plan identifies the proposed neighborhood,

[1:54:35] park about 400 feet to the northwest, as well as a future extension of the Pantheor Creek Greenway corridor,

[1:54:41] Just a couple hundred feet north of the site during development plan review pedestrian connections would be required and created to the greenway

[1:54:48] So there'd be direct pedestrian connection to the park as well

[1:54:53] Indian Wells Road is currently designated as a two-lane collector street

[1:54:57] But only for the section from highway 55 to a keen a road

[1:55:01] So about a third of the frontage is on a collector street the rest is simply has frontage on a local street

[1:55:07] There is a Go Triangle transit route that serves Highway 55, again, it's about a quarter mile distant from the site.

[1:55:15] The applicant conducted the required neighborhood meeting at Town Hall in June 6 and 5 neighbors attended.

[1:55:21] Residents expressed concern about overall amount of development in the area, traffic on Waquina Road, and Indian Wells Road,

[1:55:28] school impacts. They wanted to know more about the type of housing that might ultimately be built on the site,

[1:55:33] especially the part of the site next to the R8 lots in the adjacent subdivision.

[1:55:40] Notification of tonight's hearing was mailed to all properties with an 800 feet of the

[1:55:43] site and the property was posted.

[1:55:46] So that concludes Steph's presentation, I understand the applicants representative is here

[1:55:50] tonight to offer remarks prior to opening the hearing.

[1:55:53] Thank you, Mr. Ramon, Joe, and I invite the applicant forward for their remarks.

[1:56:12] Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and the Council.

[1:56:16] My name is Allison Pocott.

[1:56:18] I'm a landscape architect.

[1:56:19] And I'm representing this particular petition.

[1:56:23] Really Scott did a wonderful job.

[1:56:26] I'm really impressed considering that he's had some issues

[1:56:29] in the last couple of weeks.

[1:56:33] And he was able to come forward and get this.

[1:56:35] I really just want to kind of reiterate some of the things

[1:56:38] that he said, kind of let you know

[1:56:41] these were some of our key points as well.

[1:56:46] The intention of this site and they're still kind of debating this is that it either has single family or town home.

[1:56:52] We've looked at both types of development and come up with preliminary plans in both cases.

[1:57:02] And it's something that's still being studied at this point.

[1:57:07] regardless both uses, whether it's single-family or town home, work within the context of the surrounding properties as Scott mentioned.

[1:57:20] The site is kind of a transition.

[1:57:22] You've got sort of intense commercial and highway to the east.

[1:57:26] You've got single family to the west.

[1:57:28] You have a property that is being currently under rezoning consideration to the north with the proposal of town homes and to the south you've got a mix of town home and single family residential so this is kind of right in there with the other uses surrounding it.

[1:57:46] The site is within walking distance, potentially, once you get the connections built to the future town park of the Carpenter Fire Station Road.

[1:57:59] It's with that walking distance of the greenway, and it's within walking distance of the YMCA.

[1:58:05] It's also got some potential connections to RTP, it's within two miles of RTP and of some fairly substantial commercial developments.

[1:58:19] To the end of trying to make these connections we've already been meeting with the people who are developing to the North and are going to be trying to align both roadway and pedestrian connections so that we can go through

[1:58:32] to the site to the north and also connect to the green way when the green way comes through.

[1:58:39] It will be as much as possible a coordinated effort when it all goes through.

[1:58:47] Site is also within three miles of the assigned school for elementary and 1.2 miles for the middle school and it's less than a mile away from the assigned

[1:59:02] So there's a lot of potential there in terms of being able to get to the schools that the people that might be purchasing this property would need.

[1:59:13] In terms of the carry community plan, one of their directions says that you need to be able to connect to utilities and utilities are there and available and can easily be connected to for this site.

[1:59:25] basically requesting the same zoning as the site that is

[1:59:29] contiguous to the north, showing up as brown on that plan.

[1:59:36] It's a TRCU application as well.

[1:59:40] And you've heard that rezoning application last week.

[1:59:44] Excuse me, last month.

[1:59:46] And that was 18 REC-05.

[1:59:51] Again, this design and rezoning application is in compliance with both the Carey Feature growth plans.

[2:00:00] And also the carry community plan. The developer and I will be here if you have any additional questions.

[2:00:08] Thank you. Now it's time for the public hearing. For 18 or 18, any wells, road, rezoning, and I want to invite our first speaker forward.

[2:00:17] Anyone to speak at this public hearing?

[2:00:21] Seeing no one will close public hearing, open it up for questions or comments from the council.

[2:00:29] I'm sorry.

[2:00:32] I appreciate that this community is in close proximity to the YMCA, but in looking at the

[2:00:38] overall map of the area, one thing that concerns me is when you look to that subdivision,

[2:00:45] this is immediately adjacent to where has Pamela Cobra, Bay, Drive,

[2:00:55] and I can't really read that

[2:00:56] meaningful recreation space embedded in that community.

[2:01:00] And I didn't hear you say anything about what you're going to do in this site.

[2:01:04] For meaningful recreation space, these homes are attracting a lot of families.

[2:01:11] But even if you didn't have kids, you still want to have some place to recreate on sites.

[2:01:17] You don't have to walk all the way over to the YMCA.

[2:01:20] So, is there going to be some space and if so, what is it?

[2:01:27] Well, both scenarios that we've looked at, single family, in the town home, have both

[2:01:31] a community open space and some recreational space, and it's hard to give you an exact

[2:01:37] amount because it's still in transition.

[2:01:41] But they do both have some open space, they also have stormwater, which can kind of double

[2:01:50] to some extent with the open space or at least extend a visual to that open space so that

[2:01:57] not only do you have a more intense place but you can have some visual impact in the corner

[2:02:03] and because of the lay of the land the lowest point is actually the northwest corner of

[2:02:09] the site so it's kind of a long that Pantigo trail northern their northeast corner and it looks

[2:02:18] So this is the property to the immediate north, we'll also have their SCM right there on the other side of that property line.

[2:02:27] So you're going to have a lot of sort of shared visual and then within the property some more intense open space recreational areas.

[2:02:37] What I would recommend is that you all consider putting conditions in that talk about the aesthetics of that storm water,

[2:02:46] Because a lot of times what these groundwater devices end up being our kind of forgotten little

[2:02:51] wet ponds that are kind of attracting mosquitoes and nobody wants to have their lot

[2:02:56] right against it's like the last lot that sells in the community kind of thing.

[2:03:00] So if you're saying that that's going to be an amenity that, you know, that view shed that's

[2:03:05] going to enhance the community I recommend that you stipulate what those treatments are going

[2:03:11] to be that's going to make it better than that and then same with your recreation space.

[2:03:15] we have a lot of applicants who come in and give us a condition that talk about the elements

[2:03:22] of that recreation space, you know, maybe the minimum square footage of it or something so

[2:03:28] that we can understand, whether it's your client who develops it or someone else in the future

[2:03:33] develops it, that we have a guarantee that there's going to be something pretty meaningful there

[2:03:37] that makes it a community and not just a collection of houses. And I'll follow up. And you're asking

[2:03:42] As conditions, that asking for condition, I'm just suggesting that you, we can't, you're asking for a condition, but what we have to do?

[2:03:51] We could add at this point.

[2:03:54] So if you don't do a condition, we have to assume the minimum.

[2:03:58] So even though you're saying all these things, we have to ignore it.

[2:04:01] And we don't want to do that.

[2:04:03] So if you want to offer a condition, then we will certainly look at it.

[2:04:09] Any other comment?

[2:04:11] If you want, I can add to that a little bit.

[2:04:14] If you're looking up, because the town does have an

[2:04:16] Our development ordinance to cite design standards.

[2:04:18] For a parcel of the size, there would be required a minimum

[2:04:21] 1200 square foot community gathering space.

[2:04:24] That's the sum recent cases where there's been conditions where

[2:04:27] People have been offering increases above that, but 1200s

[2:04:30] The minimum.

[2:04:31] Also, it's good to remember, this is in the Jordan Lake

[2:04:33] Watershed overlay, which would impose a 70%

[2:04:36] maximum-pervious limit if you have a BMP without a BMP goes down to 30%.

[2:04:43] But so there'll be some limits from that as well.

[2:04:47] Also, perimeter buffers, you know, the extent of those happen.

[2:04:50] But in terms of a gathering area for the community, there would be at least a 12-hundred-foot

[2:04:54] square-foot space for whatever, you know, gazebo, or whatever.

[2:04:59] Right.

[2:04:59] And just for clarification, because I'm probably one person who's dissatisfied with a minimum

[2:05:04] standard. That's like 38 feet by 38 feet or something like that. I mean, it's a 1200

[2:05:10] sense of omega, I guess that's so much. But it's 38 feet by 40. Yeah, it's smaller than this area

[2:05:16] in here in this internal space. Yeah, I would be very happy if I knew that the people who

[2:05:22] move their heads, some kind of meaningful place to concrete. So I kind of want to speak to

[2:05:28] wet ponds, it's how they look today. I mean, we all think of wet ponds, like at the high

[2:05:31] shopping center where we've got, you know, the Constantine wire around it and it's got, you know,

[2:05:36] bottles and cans. Now they actually have a landscape area in the middle of them. We require

[2:05:42] quarterly monthly annual inspections, so they're regulated pretty heavily. We've got 1200 BMPs in the

[2:05:49] town and we've got a 99% compliance rate with those. To your point though, now aesthetically,

[2:05:58] there's a little bit more flexibility. You can have fountains in them now. You used to not be

[2:06:01] able to put thousands of them. So there's a little bit more flexibility now with making them look

[2:06:06] aesthetically pleasing. So there's a landscape piece inside of it. Now that's that type of stuff.

[2:06:12] But once again, that's going to be a community decision on how they want to maintain it. So

[2:06:16] you're spot on with that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. This will go to our planning and zoning board for

[2:06:22] their review and recommendation. We'll see you at a future date. Thank you, Mr. Energy. You're welcome.

[2:06:26] We now move to discussion items.

[2:06:29] Our first discussion item is for the lease agreement for Wake County Public Safety Radio Tower at Western Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility, Water Resources Manager Jeff Ackens will present the staff report and Council May take action, Mr. Ackens.

[2:06:47] Good evening, Council.

[2:06:50] It has been 16 years since the town began its journey with Apex and Morris Hill to develop

[2:06:56] a regional Western Wake County solution for wastewater services for our growing communities.

[2:07:02] Some of you will remember that work and those forward-thinking decisions.

[2:07:08] The Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility has been operating now for four years and it's

[2:07:14] been a great investment that continues to pay dividends as a keystone in our commitment

[2:07:19] to meet the needs of our citizens and support continued growth.

[2:07:25] From the very beginning, the town understood it was critical the Western

[2:07:29] Wake Facility be a good neighbor and it provide benefits to the community where it's located.

[2:07:36] We reached out to the families living in New Hill, got to know them, listened to their concerns

[2:07:41] about what they might lose when the Western Wake Facilities arrived.

[2:07:45] To address their concerns and fears, we committed to minimize the impact of the Western

[2:07:50] facility on the community, and to provide our neighbors with municipal water and sewer services.

[2:07:56] We published a newsletter so our new neighbors could follow the construction progress and be introduced to the staff who would be operating the plant.

[2:08:04] We invested in them funding new hills new community center.

[2:08:10] The decisions that Council made over the past 16 years are paying off,

[2:08:15] Constructing the Regional Water Activation Facility on that property and the way we focused

[2:08:20] on long-term relationships.

[2:08:22] Last week, we brought back Inge Kennedy of PBEQ, our outreach advisor from the Western

[2:08:29] Wake Project, and we asked her to check in with our new Hill Neighbors.

[2:08:34] Every resident she spoke with in those in-home conversations gave positive feedback about

[2:08:39] the plant.

[2:08:40] They told anger the plant is a good neighbor, and it kept its commitments that the town may prior to construction.

[2:08:49] One resident said they almost forget the plant is there because they can't see, hear, or smell it.

[2:08:56] We now have an opportunity for another return on our western-weight investment.

[2:09:00] It promises to benefit people throughout weight, can we?

[2:09:02] The counties identified an opportunity to enhance the public safety radio coverage in the

[2:09:09] Southwest corner of the county by constructing a new radio tower at Western Lake.

[2:09:15] Providing a site for this tower will improve radio coverage for police, fire, and

[2:09:20] EMS throughout that part of the county and support our imaginary commitment to exemplary

[2:09:26] and timely emergency services.

[2:09:29] Staff from our utilities, IT, and a lot of resources departments worked with our regional partners

[2:09:35] with Whitney and Apex to identify a location on site that's compatible with the plants

[2:09:40] operations and its long-term development plan.

[2:09:45] The site proposed for the radio tower shown in the lower left of this area of photo, away from

[2:09:49] operations in an area that was cleared during construction but not needed for future expansion.

[2:09:54] Due to the coverage area, the tower will be 400 feet tall, like the way county tower

[2:10:00] is shown on the photo and the right.

[2:10:03] The lattice height construction is similar to the town halls tower.

[2:10:07] The tower at Western Way can expect to be visible off-site, although the tree buffers and

[2:10:11] its location or the 700 feet from the nearest property line will help lessen the visual impact.

[2:10:19] No opposition to the project was registered during the neighborhood meeting way county

[2:10:23] held about proposed to our winning candidate met with our New Hill neighbors last week, she

[2:10:28] asked specifically what they thought about this opportunity. She found that our neighbors

[2:10:33] were aware of the project, they understood its public safety benefits, and they didn't

[2:10:37] object to the tower. One neighbor expressed they were glad the site was being fully utilized

[2:10:41] rather than constructing the tower at a new location in the community.

[2:10:47] Because of our investments

[2:10:48] at Western Wake, we're in a position to offer that benefit to the community. Tonight staff

[2:10:54] request council approve a resolution for the lease agreement for the

[2:10:57] Wakai public safety radio tower, Western Wak, regional water

[2:11:02] reclamation facility, Wakai county and apex have already approved

[2:11:05] the agreement. That concludes our presentation.

[2:11:08] We'd like to take any questions you have.

[2:11:10] Thank you Mr. Hattkins. I think you pretty much covered it all to me.

[2:11:13] This is a no-brainer. It opened it up to questions or comments, but

[2:11:17] probably for a motion. Yeah, motion to approve.

[2:11:19] Wait, I have a quick quick question. Are we going to be allowing

[2:11:23] any sub-leasing on the tower for any commercial

[2:11:27] opportunities?

[2:11:29] No, the county's radio tower for public safety

[2:11:33] is limited to public safety purposes only.

[2:11:38] The town and our co-owner of the Western Lake site,

[2:11:42] apex can locate public safety radio equipment.

[2:11:45] Can co-late locate it?

[2:11:46] So we're on the very far west southwest and what about our neighbors

[2:11:50] Right across the White County border, I'm sure they might be interested in its very close to the border.

[2:11:57] Have they been approached?

[2:11:59] To leverage that space?

[2:12:00] I am not aware that the county approached them about that.

[2:12:03] That would be an interesting regional opportunity to put the T.J. Council Government or one of the others,

[2:12:09] because it's so close to the border.

[2:12:11] Radio waves don't stop at the border.

[2:12:13] It would be a great way to do that.

[2:12:15] Mr. Smith.

[2:12:16] Motion approved.

[2:12:18] Motion on a second.

[2:12:19] discussion. All in favor, please say aye.

[2:12:23] I know what you're saying.

[2:12:24] I know what you're saying.

[2:12:24] I should carry as unanimous.

[2:12:26] Thank you.

[2:12:27] Now moved to our second discussion item 6.2.

[2:12:31] It's the planning and zoning board.

[2:12:33] Membership and duties.

[2:12:35] Senior counter-turning. This clever will give a report.

[2:12:38] And then we'll hear our planning boards recommendation.

[2:12:41] And we may take action on this.

[2:12:43] We may take action on this tonight.

[2:12:46] Item requires just a simple majority.

[2:12:48] It was closed.

[2:12:49] Good evening, Council.

[2:12:50] Before we tonight are amendments to the town code and land development ordinance related

[2:12:54] to the planning and zoning board.

[2:12:56] We started talking about this topic at your retreat in February and at a March work session

[2:13:01] with the Board.

[2:13:02] The impetus for the discussions were questions raised by the Board regarding their role in

[2:13:06] line of the new Care Community Plan and its emphasis on policies rather than matte-based

[2:13:11] classifications.

[2:13:13] At the retreat, we discussed the distinct roles of staff, the board, and council in the

[2:13:18] rezoning process. You asked staff to look at four areas. So the board focus on its role,

[2:13:24] mandated by state law, to determine whether the rezoning and text amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[2:13:30] Should the board continue to hold public hearings? What's the appropriate role of the EETJ member of the board?

[2:13:36] And it's the current number of board members appropriate. We presented text amendments to you at a public hearing

[2:13:42] in June, and the board has now reviewed these amendments as well.

[2:13:47] Briefly, the amendments are as follows.

[2:13:49] The board would determine only plan consistency and would not vote to recommend approval

[2:13:54] or denial of rezoning or LDO amendment cases.

[2:13:57] They would continue to recommend approval or denial of comprehensive plan amendments.

[2:14:02] The board would not conduct public hearings.

[2:14:04] Council would hold a second public hearing if an applicant submits newer change conditions

[2:14:08] on a rezoning.

[2:14:09] This amendment would also standardize the timeframes for submissions by applicants of new or changed conditions.

[2:14:17] Third, the ETJ member would vote only on ETJ rezoning cases, but would continue to participate in all LDO and comprehensive plan amendment cases.

[2:14:26] Finally, the board would be streamlined from nine to seven members effective with the new budget.

[2:14:31] This time, I'll ask Mr. Evangelist to present the recommendation of the planning and zoning board.

[2:14:41] I'd like to break them into two if I can.

[2:14:44] The first would be the first two items planned consistency in public hearings.

[2:14:49] We support both of those unanimously.

[2:14:52] Not only do we support them, but we're really excited about implementing these in the

[2:15:00] Just for a second or two, the clarity that comes from not only the community plan but streamlining this is really helpful, but you know, you know what we're supposed to be doing. We know what we're supposed to be doing. The clarity is really going to help all the folks who were sitting behind me earlier tonight. The folks who come up here and, and for, since as long as I've been on the board, stand there in petition of the planning and zoning board about things like their property values and my neighborhood character and, and they really honestly believe. I mean, we're sitting in those same seats.

[2:15:30] and they think we're somewhat comparable, and we just can't sit there and go, well, I'm

[2:15:34] sorry, but I'm just a group of citizens who are going to look at it as an individual

[2:15:38] citizen, has it affects the community plan? They don't know that. Now, under this new

[2:15:45] system, they will. They will speak to you. You're the accountable folks to them. You're

[2:15:50] the folks empowered to decide whether it's in the public interest. And so I think the

[2:15:54] clarity really is going to benefit the citizens who come here. That's why we're super excited

[2:15:58] about getting that to go, and none of this would have been possible without the community

[2:16:03] plan being so clean and so useful. So they all work hand in hand.

[2:16:09] I'll ask if you have any questions on that before I go to the other two if that's okay.

[2:16:13] Okay, keep going. That was the easy one.

[2:16:19] Onto the ETJ members and the streamlining. I'll talk about streamlining for a second. We were

[2:16:23] four to four on that, but we understand that we're one of the larger planning and zoning

[2:16:30] boards around anyway, but the idea was one of the members had pointed out that if both

[2:16:37] of these items three and four do work in tandem, then the effective voting block, the

[2:16:43] voting membership of PNZ goes from nine to six. That's a one-third reduction on most cases.

[2:16:48] So that's kind of drastic.

[2:16:49] That was behind some of the folks who were opposed.

[2:16:53] Other folks who were opposed said, well,

[2:16:56] we've heard time and time again that it's not so much the vote,

[2:16:59] but it's the comments, it's the thinking,

[2:17:03] and you're just taking away some of that thinking

[2:17:06] by going down to a smaller amount.

[2:17:08] But we did acknowledge that we are one of the larger groups.

[2:17:12] Someone said, and I'm not going to take credit for this,

[2:17:15] that if we're going to go down to seven just

[2:17:17] because the Council's at seven, then the Kerryteen Council

[2:17:20] should go from several hundred down to seven as well,

[2:17:24] but that was this one of the things.

[2:17:26] Each E.J., that was the big sticky one.

[2:17:28] You saw how we voted, we went down eight to nothing.

[2:17:32] Here's the idea.

[2:17:35] You've all said this, we've heard it over.

[2:17:37] We are individual citizens.

[2:17:40] We are not representing a constituency.

[2:17:43] We are not advocates for the folks who come up here

[2:17:45] and petition us.

[2:17:46] We are individual citizens looking at something as an individual citizen.

[2:17:52] Whether or not someone at the end of the row lives in an ETA or not.

[2:17:57] Doesn't affect how I, as an individual citizen, will decide whether or not something is consistent with the carry community plan.

[2:18:03] That is really where most of the folks were.

[2:18:05] No one on the board, sways or convinces other people on the board.

[2:18:11] No one on the board represents anyone.

[2:18:13] So we thought if we are to operate as an individual citizen, we should be able to do so without

[2:18:21] the cloud of the ETA person being different from everyone else because we never thought of them that way.

[2:18:27] So that's why it went down.

[2:18:29] It was more of a procedural operational thing than a philosophical thing.

[2:18:35] So that's how we looked at it, more of an implementation.

[2:18:38] And that's all I've got on that one.

[2:18:40] Any questions on those two?

[2:18:43] I would recommend that we hear you out and then we're going to take these one at a time and then we can ask questions of you or anybody else at that time.

[2:18:52] That's probably a linear way to do it.

[2:18:54] Works from that okay?

[2:18:55] Yeah, that's fine.

[2:18:56] That's fine.

[2:18:57] Those are questions.

[2:18:58] You can answer.

[2:19:00] Well, in that concludes our presentation.

[2:19:02] So we're eager to hear your thoughts and I'm ready to answer any questions.

[2:19:04] So there's a chart that was in the stab report.

[2:19:07] Do we have anything like that to look at?

[2:19:14] What's charter your record changes right now?

[2:19:17] But it had a breakdown of what we do, what's recommended.

[2:19:22] Existing proposed.

[2:19:23] Yeah.

[2:19:24] That's the chart.

[2:19:24] I don't have a slide at that.

[2:19:27] Okay.

[2:19:27] Bring it up.

[2:19:28] It's a link.

[2:19:29] Yeah, but nobody else can see it.

[2:19:32] So what do you want to tackle first then?

[2:19:34] Just let me know what that.

[2:19:36] All right.

[2:19:37] Board determines only plan consistency.

[2:19:40] I don't give you my me first and y'all can jump all over me.

[2:19:44] I want to, what is the biggest value to me as an individual citizen, I want to hear

[2:19:50] what anything you have to say about it, I don't care if it matches the plan, not match

[2:19:53] with the plan, I don't care if it helps your dog, I don't care, I just want to hear it.

[2:19:59] That's the value.

[2:20:00] Staff is going to give me their recommendation of what fits the plan or doesn't fit the

[2:20:06] plan.

[2:20:06] I want to know what the average every day citizen of course can't call you average because you know more than you ever citizens.

[2:20:12] But what you think about this proposal, regardless of the plan,

[2:20:18] you probably ought to make some comments to the plan that would help also in making my decision.

[2:20:24] But that's how I process everything.

[2:20:26] So I want to gather all that information, all the different perspectives,

[2:20:30] and then I think I have enough information to make a decision.

[2:20:33] decision. So that's kind of how I look at it. I'm sure my colleagues look at it differently.

[2:20:39] I would like to hear the boards opinion on whether or not whatever case before them is consistent with the plan,

[2:20:47] but using whatever they believe to be their reasoning to determine whether or not it's consistent with the plan.

[2:20:54] It's consistent with the plan because it's not consistent with the plan because

[2:21:00] And whatever those reasons might be, you know, whether they think it's, it doesn't fit

[2:21:06] because they think the plans are wrong, because this use will generate too much traffic,

[2:21:11] versus what they think the area should have, you know, just be in consistent or inconsistent.

[2:21:21] I think the arguments that we make up here to approve or deny a certain project, ultimately

[2:21:27] we're saying where is it consistent or not with our plans or our vision or I don't disagree

[2:21:34] with you.

[2:21:35] I just don't want to limit them.

[2:21:37] I don't think you're limiting them.

[2:21:38] I mean, I don't want them just talking about the plan.

[2:21:40] I want them talking about anything you want to talk about.

[2:21:43] So that's where I'm going to go.

[2:21:44] Yeah, I get your point.

[2:21:46] Yeah, by limiting them just to the plan, then the conceivably you could have an environment

[2:21:52] where board members cannot speak freely to say something such as, well, I don't really,

[2:22:00] you know, this area has always been rural, and I think this might just have the wrong

[2:22:04] field to it. This is some of my say to them, well, go back to the plan. How does it comply

[2:22:09] with the plan? You know, and the person feeling pinned in with what they're allowed to say?

[2:22:14] So is that basically what you're saying and I understand that point, I think that's a fair

[2:22:18] point. We want to hear, I'd like to hear the full perspective of why they think something

[2:22:25] is a good fit or not a good fit, not just within the context of the plan.

[2:22:31] Other thoughts?

[2:22:33] Well, I'm really confused now, because I was listening to you and I was thinking, right

[2:22:39] on, right on, I was thinking, that's good. And then I thought, you just said the same

[2:22:43] thing.

[2:22:44] I mean, I'm really, I think we are saying the same thing.

[2:22:48] I really do, because I don't want somebody on the board that has, you know, has the knowledge

[2:22:55] of how things operate, and if they are forced to say,

[2:23:05] well, it meets the plan, but I don't

[2:23:10] Like it, not like it for these reasons.

[2:23:13] That's kind of what you're saying.

[2:23:14] I think that's what you're saying.

[2:23:16] I was really surprised at the enthusiasm

[2:23:19] to stay with the carry community plant.

[2:23:22] I kind of want some independent thinking there.

[2:23:27] I think you're right.

[2:23:29] I think maybe it's the devils and details

[2:23:31] and it's getting people that have the ability

[2:23:33] to think critical thinking, you know,

[2:23:35] can look at things on a case by case basis.

[2:23:39] I just don't want people to feel totally hemmed in on some model we created for that

[2:23:46] next 20 years that says, or 40 years, that says, you know, well, it's not consistent

[2:23:52] with the point.

[2:23:53] I want them to be able to just spew out what they think is right or wrong with that.

[2:24:00] Mayor.

[2:24:00] I don't know if that makes any sense.

[2:24:02] I kind of same what you're saying.

[2:24:04] Yep.

[2:24:04] I just want to interject a little bit if you don't mind.

[2:24:06] So, by laws we talked about the retreat, the board has to give you a written determination

[2:24:11] on plan consistency.

[2:24:13] So that's under the statutes and so they have to do that job.

[2:24:17] The way the amendment is written right now, they would have to do that written recommendation

[2:24:22] to you but it doesn't limit what they talk about.

[2:24:25] So there's nothing in here that would limit them and say they could only talk about the plan

[2:24:28] and if there was another way you wanted to give them guidance either through their rules of

[2:24:32] procedure or, you know, some other policy statement of council, there might be a way to do that

[2:24:37] and make sure they understand that they can talk about whatever they want, if that's what

[2:24:41] you're looking for. But the amendment is written simply just says, your vote, the thing

[2:24:46] that you have to do is the written recommendation because that's what it's required by statute,

[2:24:49] but it doesn't limit the discussion. So this title here, where says board statements only plan

[2:24:54] that sounds, that's just miswritten vote. Well, no, that's, that's what the statute requires. They

[2:24:59] have to determine playing consistent.

[2:25:00] At least, that's the minimum.

[2:25:02] That's the minimum.

[2:25:02] But as they're doing that, Lincoln,

[2:25:04] they can talk about whatever they want.

[2:25:06] At the end of the day, they have to tell you whether they

[2:25:08] think it's consistent with the plan or not.

[2:25:09] They only vote on playing consistency.

[2:25:12] They can talk about whatever they want to,

[2:25:14] but they only make a written determination on playing

[2:25:16] consistency.

[2:25:17] Is that what we're saying?

[2:25:18] Well, that's how the amendment is drafted.

[2:25:21] Yeah, and that's, if I, as I have been,

[2:25:26] a planning and zoning board member, and now sitting here,

[2:25:30] I'm wondering, and maybe Mark, you can speak to this.

[2:25:34] But the people who voted 8 to 0, yeah, I'm all for that.

[2:25:37] I don't want to vote to recommend an approval or denial.

[2:25:41] I only want to match it up with whether or not it meets this piece of paper that I got.

[2:25:48] How did that conversation go down?

[2:25:52] Like, why was it 8 to 0?

[2:25:54] I would think that they would want a little bit more freedom.

[2:25:56] But maybe.

[2:25:56] There is quite a bit of freedom, in fact, in our last meeting just earlier this week.

[2:26:02] We had a situation where someone said, I believe I concur with staff that this element of the plan and this element of the plan and this element of the plan have been met.

[2:26:13] However, I concur also with staff that this one single solitary element of the plan has not.

[2:26:19] And in my view on balance, that outweighs the other three,

[2:26:23] therefore I find it inconsistent.

[2:26:26] That in the confines of the Kerry community plan,

[2:26:30] we were able to do, I think, as you suggested,

[2:26:32] saying, I don't like this part, and it's heavy enough

[2:26:34] that I can find it inconsistent.

[2:26:37] Because what I think the enthusiasm came from

[2:26:41] is we get wrapped around the axle on recommendation

[2:26:45] for approval as it is reasonable and in the public interest.

[2:26:48] And we are looking at a more confined space than you are.

[2:26:54] And so we come out with a recommendation for approval

[2:26:56] and you deny something.

[2:26:58] And then suddenly the folks who do view us comparable

[2:27:01] see a great clash.

[2:27:03] Here, if we just stay in the confines of the community plan

[2:27:06] with that latitude I talked about,

[2:27:09] that doesn't put us at odds with any determination you would make

[2:27:13] because we're dealing with two different parts of the same whole.

[2:27:17] So having said that if there's not a vote for approval or denial, do things ever get to go on consent?

[2:27:24] Because today they go on consent if it's a DeZero approval, would we never get a consent?

[2:27:31] And to follow up on that, I can see you recording to me.

[2:27:35] Some of them said this, some of them said this.

[2:27:38] Okay, how many said that and how many said this so essentially we were getting to a vote?

[2:27:43] You have to pull that, yeah.

[2:27:45] Right, and we're going to vote on consistency.

[2:27:47] The consent issue, so there are several procedural things we'll need to talk about once you've

[2:27:51] decided what you want to do with this entire amendment, and that's one of them.

[2:27:56] The board we can talk about it later, but the board also talked about perhaps not video

[2:28:00] and having their meetings on television anymore.

[2:28:03] So there are certain procedural things that you may want to change based off of what you

[2:28:08] decide to do tonight, and so how the consent agenda process works could be one of those.

[2:28:12] You could still say if they did it 8 to 0 or 9 to 0 vote on Plan Consistency, that could still go on the Consistency agenda.

[2:28:19] So that's a huge answer for me.

[2:28:21] How to do that.

[2:28:21] But that would be an example of one that tells, it makes me not want to do this number one at all,

[2:28:28] because you're not voting for an approval tonight.

[2:28:32] You're voting only for whether or not it's consistency.

[2:28:35] And I'm interested in their feelings about whether or not it's worthwhile or approval tonight.

[2:28:40] It might be consistent.

[2:28:41] But they might live right next to it and see some things that, you know, the average person might not see.

[2:28:48] Hey, you know what, I don't like, I don't know, let's, I don't want to pick one.

[2:28:52] I could just say, like, for example, people come and say, I live near this and I can tell you right now.

[2:28:57] There's no way that you can make a left turn out of this community.

[2:29:00] And if this, if you add an additional 100 units, it might be consistent, but it might be consistent, but it's not a good fit.

[2:29:09] And it would be wrong for us to get something on consent agenda just because it's consistent with the plan, which is very open-ended.

[2:29:18] Very, it's a very broad plan.

[2:29:20] You can pretty much recognize my game in consistent with the plan.

[2:29:23] And to be also honest, but the other reason I asked about the numbers and whether or not going consent or not, is I don't like the idea of making a decision procedurally.

[2:29:34] What we're going to do about consent after we decide this.

[2:29:37] I'd like to know all of the potential fallout from making this one decision, right?

[2:29:43] We've been operating that if it's approved unanimously, it goes on consent and we can always pull it off and I get that.

[2:29:53] But that approval of denial is valuable enough to know, to get the gut reaction of the planning and zone.

[2:29:59] I hate to-

[2:30:00] Consider these separately, when I think they should be tied.

[2:30:04] I've always heard everybody talk about that we don't necessarily look at what the vote is.

[2:30:08] We look at the comments of the members themselves.

[2:30:11] I think we could vote.

[2:30:15] Well, I've heard plenty of times that we don't necessarily look at the vote as much as we look

[2:30:20] at the comments of the members themselves.

[2:30:22] And if the only thing that the board is required to do by law is vote on whether or not

[2:30:27] consistent with the plan. That's ultimately what their board, the decision, or their vote is for, right?

[2:30:35] Yes. So I don't know how this really changes that and or limits their comments or

[2:30:44] thoughts or opinions that we want to encourage and get. I'm worried it's just going to

[2:30:57] I have the feeling you're going to talk a little bit if we let that go through, talk a little bit more than just playing consistency.

[2:31:04] I have the feeling that's going to happen.

[2:31:07] But it's not going to be a sea change, but I still think listening to the discussion at the planning and zoning board meeting about this,

[2:31:18] there was a feeling that we're going to be, we can reduce our commons, you know, our commons.

[2:31:28] The planning is only for members, what would you suggest?

[2:31:30] Right. And I just worry that that's going to happen.

[2:31:34] The board members are not going to be as free to come in six to the commons, and the advice is

[2:31:40] I think we're all saying are very important to us. It's a minimum requirement that you vote on

[2:31:45] play in consistency and I think that's good. The word only is a little stumbling block

[2:31:50] for me and the way that number one is free. Yeah, that's like that word in there. I just worry

[2:31:58] about constrained you. Now you can get off TV and you're going to conference rooms the way

[2:32:03] we used to do it when I was when I started on playing the Zoning Board. What was TV? I never

[2:32:08] wanted to be on TV. So what do we take only out? What happens is to do it? But only is not

[2:32:12] actually in the LDO. So only it's just how I put it on the slide. So I apologize if my wording

[2:32:18] on the slide is causing problems. I don't think the word only is actually I'm looking at

[2:32:24] the text and the word only is not in there. Okay. So I would say one thing that could address

[2:32:30] our concern is if you have a total support for consistency, it doesn't mean that goes on consent.

[2:32:40] I don't think we should bring anything automatically on a consent from the planning and zoning board,

[2:32:44] because that would mask the fact that there's still confirmation about it.

[2:32:53] And it may be not so much for us, because we're looking at the reports, but if you were a stakeholder

[2:32:59] and you saw that the planning and zoning board voted unanimously for consistency, and then the council of, like,

[2:33:08] It doesn't even, you know, it doesn't even

[2:33:10] drive with what we're picturing here for this area.

[2:33:13] You would kind of feel like, I just kind of got

[2:33:15] to do it here, you know, but that has happened.

[2:33:19] But that's what they're doing now and that's what they're

[2:33:22] cast with is determining whether or not it's consistent

[2:33:25] with our plans or all applicable plans and all that.

[2:33:29] A little bit different.

[2:33:30] There's a little nuance there because what's happening now is

[2:33:33] they're looking at it holistically.

[2:33:35] They're not right now the board is not looking at it.

[2:33:38] I like it or I don't like it.

[2:33:40] Yeah, and so if we get something that everybody says, I like it, that's sending a pretty strong

[2:33:44] statement from the board.

[2:33:46] I think that's a little bit different from what we have if they were just voting on consistency

[2:33:50] versus whether they like it or not.

[2:33:53] So I'm going to try to make a feeble attempt of summarizing what I think I heard and somebody

[2:33:58] helped me.

[2:34:00] Board determines plan consistency, but it's not limited to just that task.

[2:34:06] And it provides input and feedback or something like that.

[2:34:10] Council, if I can add, please, the real change in the ordinance, I think, or the LDO,

[2:34:16] at least, correct me if I'm wrong, is it's changing the language that the P&Z board, or makes

[2:34:22] a recommendation whether to approve or deny the amendment.

[2:34:25] So it's taking that out, and they're not recommending how you approve or deny the amendment,

[2:34:30] instead focusing on plan of consistency, but it's not in any way limiting them in their

[2:34:35] conversations or on what Mark reports back to you.

[2:34:39] And there are no longer going to be voting on rezoning.

[2:34:43] They're going to take a vote on consistency.

[2:34:45] On whether it is consistent.

[2:34:47] They just wouldn't be telling you whether they think you should approve or deny it.

[2:34:52] You said a amendment.

[2:34:53] That's what threw me.

[2:34:54] That's a rezoning amendment rezoning.

[2:34:58] If I may.

[2:34:59] Please.

[2:35:00] I'm open.

[2:35:03] Now, knowing the board as I do and the past members and everyone else, I find it really hard

[2:35:07] to think that an entire consensus, that every member of the board, if they disliked something,

[2:35:15] that not one member would say, I don't like this, but my hands are tied because it's consistent.

[2:35:20] Ergo, I will vote that it's consistent.

[2:35:23] Somebody is bound to say, if they don't like it, I don't like it enough that it's consistent.

[2:35:29] in my mind as me, Joe Citizen, and that's how I'm going to see this, regardless of what the staff

[2:35:35] recommended.

[2:35:36] So I think that's possible.

[2:35:38] I find it highly unlikely that if something goes unanimous, that it's consistent, that

[2:35:44] it's got a lot of consternation with that.

[2:35:48] Now, not to mix things up, but nine people being unanimous carries a lot more weight going on

[2:35:56] than six, just throwing that out.

[2:36:02] That's true.

[2:36:04] How does a council want to move on this one?

[2:36:06] I just got that.

[2:36:09] I like that if it's explained to them the way

[2:36:15] of Martin just explained it.

[2:36:18] Is that he doesn't say, by the way,

[2:36:21] your hands are tied, when you vote,

[2:36:23] you only can vote, whether it's consistent or not, and you have this authoritarian, this is

[2:36:30] what it's got to be, but he's saying you're still letting people say to them, speak to

[2:36:36] mine, and vote their conscience, and not you're not tying the pants on the vote. So in that

[2:36:41] regard, I see what you're saying about the nine votes. If there's a problem with several other

[2:36:46] than they're probably going to vote against us. So my follow-up to that would be, certainly,

[2:36:50] with today. Five years from now, you have a whole new board. Okay, maybe seven years from now,

[2:36:55] a whole new board. Does that still hold true? Or are they reading this a different way,

[2:37:00] interpreting it a different way? So I think the whatever we have needs to be clear of what we expect.

[2:37:07] And so we could address that by putting language in the text of the amendment, which isn't there now,

[2:37:12] to say that they're free to discuss and debate. And recommend. Well, that's a different question,

[2:37:18] But several things we could do, one is not making them in at all,

[2:37:22] and then they would still be essentially giving you two votes.

[2:37:25] One on consistency and one on approval or denial,

[2:37:28] which is really what they're doing today.

[2:37:29] You see one number, but if they're really making two decisions,

[2:37:33] the other option that might help is to take out the second vote

[2:37:37] on approval or denial, but put language in here to guide the board

[2:37:41] so that they know that they don't have to only discuss

[2:37:43] plan consistency.

[2:37:45] They can talk about whatever they'd like to in the context

[2:37:48] the rezoning, so therefore the chair can report that entire discussion back to you, but that

[2:37:53] the only piece they'd be voting on would be consistency. So we could add language in here to guide them along

[2:37:57] that path. So my humble opinion is, we're not ready to take this decision. Yeah. We'd like it

[2:38:03] is bring it back. Yes. And for any of these four, if there's additional things we need to do,

[2:38:08] we can tweak the language and bring it back. I probably need to discuss this more. I agree.

[2:38:12] I'm not comfortable. I also want to talk about the problem that we're trying to solve, right?

[2:38:16] because I think we're trying, again, we've seen some shifts.

[2:38:21] We've seen some change, right?

[2:38:23] Because the Imagine Carry is a big shift in change.

[2:38:26] So I think maybe this one's worth giving some time

[2:38:29] and watching and seeing how many-

[2:38:31] When's our quarterly meeting?

[2:38:33] Second.

[2:38:34] August 16th.

[2:38:34] The weeks coming up.

[2:38:36] We're not good.

[2:38:37] I'm just not sure what has changed to bring it back other than

[2:38:47] And just noticing over the past several months, since this topic first came up as a councilperson

[2:38:56] Bush is saying that there's been, there's, the board has evolved, the council's connection

[2:39:03] to the board has evolved, and by all what appearances it seems to be to the relationship

[2:39:08] dysfunction at a pretty high level, but as far as bringing it back, I don't know what's

[2:39:14] really different, you know, that would trigger from them.

[2:39:17] I'm hearing the explanation will be in right.

[2:39:20] If I saw that and go, yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

[2:39:23] Okay, then I would be ready to support it.

[2:39:26] Right now, I'm like, I'm not really sure what we're talking about here.

[2:39:31] And I'm just reading.

[2:39:32] So this fall, okay, so far as far as number one.

[2:39:35] Got to know it.

[2:39:36] Confidence level that it will be written in the way that we think what

[2:39:39] the reflex or conveying.

[2:39:42] Okay.

[2:39:42] So you'd like to see staff draft language to guide the board on that they can talk about

[2:39:47] a wide.

[2:39:48] And it might be a quick conversation and vote, I mean, as soon as we see it all fleshed

[2:39:54] out.

[2:39:56] Number two does not public hearings.

[2:39:59] I totally agree with what you said, gosh, you guys are not accountable and I've seen

[2:40:03] some of the things you guys had put up with and it was just shameful.

[2:40:07] The intention was you too.

[2:40:10] The original intention is probably my idea is, if things change, we need to give the public another opportunity to have a shot at this.

[2:40:18] And we still need to do that, but not at your expense, because that's not what you're there for.

[2:40:23] So I totally agree with the second one. I don't know about the others here.

[2:40:27] I think this might be an easy one.

[2:40:29] I think it was a great idea. I think it's good sometimes to try things.

[2:40:32] We learned from it.

[2:40:34] It was some unintended consequences.

[2:40:37] We own it. We're responsible.

[2:40:39] We're the ones of others, but of course, got to come back to us.

[2:40:42] So the way I understand the proposal is instead of going to P and Z for public hearing,

[2:40:49] he will reverse, come back to us because they may change is we'll have another public hearing

[2:40:54] on the changes or not on the changes.

[2:40:58] Well, it's hard to limit people to only talking to changes.

[2:41:00] So we might not even try that to say another public hearing.

[2:41:04] And now in a news that reverts back, so I want to make sure it's clear.

[2:41:06] We would still go counsel public hearing, go to PNZ.

[2:41:10] If at any point in there, they add new conditions,

[2:41:13] your final decision, the third meeting when it comes to you,

[2:41:17] counsel PNZ counsel would be a public hearing,

[2:41:20] and you could then decide that night.

[2:41:22] Or not, it's up to you at that point.

[2:41:25] You know, sometimes the changes are minor and you may get it.

[2:41:28] that there is they just get two more minutes to speak well I think I'm always the

[2:41:33] devil's advocate so what if it's eight to zero and it goes on consent but there

[2:41:36] were changes is there a public hearing on consent I mean how do you do that although

[2:41:41] it wouldn't be on consent anymore if it requires a different any changes yes then

[2:41:46] so consent is that that needs more work because no the public hearing is our

[2:41:53] opportunity to let the applicant know what our concerns are and then at that

[2:41:56] point, we actually expect them to go make some changes in order to earn our support.

[2:42:02] So we're almost like guaranteeing two public hearings in front of the Council and before

[2:42:07] the decision.

[2:42:08] And no consent.

[2:42:11] I would probably recommend that we don't do the second public hearing in front of Council

[2:42:16] and give people the opportunity to speak at public speaks out.

[2:42:20] And then if we think it's serious enough that it warns a second public hearing, we can

[2:42:25] call for it.

[2:42:26] All right, great. That's, yeah.

[2:42:28] Wait, when would they do it at the public?

[2:42:30] How are we supposed to?

[2:42:32] It's just like now, except for we've eliminated the PNC public here.

[2:42:37] Right.

[2:42:37] They could still come and talk.

[2:42:38] They could still always come and talk.

[2:42:39] It's exactly how they could still email.

[2:42:41] They could still call.

[2:42:42] They could still write letters.

[2:42:43] They could still do whatever.

[2:42:44] And if we think the changes are significant enough

[2:42:47] that warrant a second public hearing, we can call for it.

[2:42:51] So I just want to make sure.

[2:42:52] So we can let say something's on consent,

[2:42:55] but there's been big changes, right?

[2:42:57] It's on consent.

[2:42:58] So we do a public speak that.

[2:43:00] Right, are you saying that we would do a public hearing?

[2:43:03] We would call for public hearing.

[2:43:04] Would we table it?

[2:43:06] I mean, you're...

[2:43:07] Sounds kind of catching staff off guard,

[2:43:09] because there's a lot of work that's different

[2:43:11] for public hearing than for...

[2:43:12] But the public hearing couldn't happen that night

[2:43:14] because you'd have to give notice.

[2:43:15] So you'd be pulling it off consent,

[2:43:18] talking about it, voting to call a public hearing.

[2:43:21] So we're delaying the process.

[2:43:22] the process. And is that what is that? Is that is that it's optional? It's not. Yeah, that's always an option even today. It's an option. Right?

[2:43:33] And the reality is if it gets an 80 vote at planning and zoning board, I don't know that this council is going to at least the majority think it needs another public hearing.

[2:43:42] Oh, that's my question.

[2:43:45] Or you may, like, did we suddenly just suggest another neighborhood meeting like we do with the gas station?

[2:43:50] Right, wasn't a public hearing, but it accomplished the goal of the council was seeking.

[2:43:54] Right. So there's no, sorry. I don't know. Are there any legal reasons for having a second public hearing?

[2:43:59] You're only a project of one.

[2:44:02] All right. I just want to make sure I understood.

[2:44:04] So we have a public hearing.

[2:44:07] And you know how we make our comments.

[2:44:09] You know, we can't make you do this.

[2:44:12] It has to be your right.

[2:44:15] Right. Right.

[2:44:15] And if they decide

[2:44:18] between that public hearing and P&Z they make changes and P&Z looks at it and believes it's

[2:44:25] now consistent and it becomes unanimous that it's up to us if we want to make any changes

[2:44:33] but it'll come back on the consent.

[2:44:36] Just the gas stations are good examples have been out there for over a year and we think

[2:44:41] we've done our due diligence and actually it was late involvement so we had a little.

[2:44:46] All right, I just want to understand.

[2:44:47] The cool thing is we have the power if we think we need to table it and have another

[2:44:51] neighborhood being public hearing of what we want to do.

[2:44:53] We can do it.

[2:44:55] So what I'm hearing in our last four motion is on the second one.

[2:45:00] And we want to eliminate the public hearings at P and Z.

[2:45:03] So, I wouldn't have to mean this.

[2:45:05] I'm sorry, Ken.

[2:45:08] So, if we were to do the no guaranteed second public hearing, we've just communicated to people,

[2:45:17] they can make changes, and the only thing you'll have a public speaks out opportunity

[2:45:23] to speak.

[2:45:26] But they want, I'm concerned about them knowing that there's changes, whereas right now

[2:45:34] they're guaranteed to know there's changes because there's an automatic second public hearing.

[2:45:41] And that triggers in anybody who's watching it. Oh, there's another public hearing.

[2:45:46] They must have made changes because we were told if they made changes there's a second public hearing.

[2:45:52] If we don't, if we do away with that requirement for a second public hearing, then there's no trigger for

[2:45:58] Joe John Q. Public to know that they made changes. They're just going to have to call the staff and find out because

[2:46:05] it doesn't show up as a public hearing because there's changes.

[2:46:08] Can the staff report staff report or what?

[2:46:10] And the public, John Q. Public is not going to get the staff report and read it whereas if it's a public hearing,

[2:46:16] they're going to know about it.

[2:46:17] But if they're at the public,

[2:46:19] you're reading the staff reported.

[2:46:21] If it's happening next to your neighbor,

[2:46:22] you're reading the staff report.

[2:46:23] And if you're at a public hearing,

[2:46:26] you've made your concerns,

[2:46:28] and they've been addressed.

[2:46:31] Who are you?

[2:46:33] Who are you trying to make it aware to?

[2:46:35] It's better addressed.

[2:46:36] We think you're robbing.

[2:46:37] The condition doesn't satisfy what they're asking.

[2:46:40] That's right.

[2:46:41] But it is better than what it was.

[2:46:44] It's always better.

[2:46:45] They can always work.

[2:46:46] They can always come to public speaks.

[2:46:48] Right, and we always table it all for public hearing people.

[2:46:51] Absolutely.

[2:46:52] The most important point of this is we are not reducing any public input, any opportunity for public input.

[2:47:01] And we're not doing anything except streamlining it so that, in fact, we're giving our citizens a more direct line to us.

[2:47:10] and rather them feeling that they're only get an opportunity to talk about it at planning

[2:47:16] and zoning board, who, although we absolutely love you guys, you weren't elected.

[2:47:22] So I just want anybody who might be listening to this to think we are not deciding that you

[2:47:26] have less opportunity, but rather it's so important that we want to have the council table.

[2:47:31] And maybe we can enhance the staff reports to have a section called change.

[2:47:38] And we have that today.

[2:47:41] Yeah, but make it prominent at the top in red, I don't know.

[2:47:45] We're not red, that's fake color.

[2:47:47] Or on the, you know, on the zoning, not the staff report.

[2:47:52] But when somebody clicks on the website because they're following it,

[2:47:57] they don't have to drill down that they click on that.

[2:48:01] And right there at the top it says these following conditions have been added

[2:48:05] since the last public hearing, that's what I'm concerned about.

[2:48:09] And I want it to be clear.

[2:48:10] And Laurie, this is something that the web thing is so important

[2:48:13] when you talk about how the technology is doing,

[2:48:16] is that if we, if it's so clear and easy for somebody

[2:48:19] to click on it and say 16, R, E, or 18, R, E, whatever,

[2:48:23] and they click on it and they say, oh, look,

[2:48:25] they added new conditions, because it says right here,

[2:48:28] in bold print, right under the thing,

[2:48:30] and then I'm going to say, wow, and then you could say,

[2:48:32] And you can speak the next the next council you could have information. Yeah, about

[2:48:38] I think it's I think that will be all I don't think any of these changes are bad

[2:48:42] But just to reiterate for the general public for the most concerned citizens about an application our staff members have

[2:48:51] Face-to-face means with them. So forget, you know special highlighted parts of the staff report or clicking links

[2:48:58] That's actually meet with them, right?

[2:49:00] Deborah, Katie, Mary, I've been there.

[2:49:03] And I mean, this council doesn't do anything to reduce public input.

[2:49:11] You are always an hands-in, and I think Laura captured it.

[2:49:15] This is an efficiency that allows for the council to have more direct control over it.

[2:49:22] But it's an enhancement.

[2:49:23] And the staff will always know what are those items that are the most sensitive in trying to do it in theories kind of difficult

[2:49:31] And there's more public input that is needed

[2:49:34] You'll sense it will sense it and we'll know what to do

[2:49:37] Okay, and importantly deep politicizes a citizen advisory board

[2:49:41] Yep, it's good

[2:49:43] So

[2:49:44] We need a motion for the

[2:49:46] I would actually ask that you not because the way we have it drafted right now the language would require the second public hearing

[2:49:52] in front of you and I'm here and you don't want that. So we need to tweak the language.

[2:49:56] Okay, so we'll see that one.

[2:49:57] So we can bring that back as we bring back item one.

[2:50:00] Okay, we just, I think the whole tonight is to get the feedback and get it cleaned up.

[2:50:05] I don't want to rush it because we can't just make a motion that says that we may move

[2:50:09] that the planning is on in board no longer conduct public hearings.

[2:50:12] Very good.

[2:50:14] Yeah.

[2:50:15] I think it's, I think it'll, we could do it if it really matters to you, but I think the safest thing

[2:50:19] to wait and bring back the operative language to change.

[2:50:24] Yeah, when when that occurs.

[2:50:25] After I leave that to Mr. Stigol,

[2:50:28] it could be as soon as August the 9th

[2:50:30] when you had a QJ meeting.

[2:50:32] I'll be August the 9th when you have a QJ meeting.

[2:50:33] All right.

[2:50:35] We'll do it.

[2:50:36] I just want to make sure.

[2:50:37] That was E.T. J.

[2:50:39] Equate.

[2:50:42] Mr. Yara, I know you have a strong opinion.

[2:50:44] Let's go ahead.

[2:50:46] Yeah, what?

[2:50:47] The last two, I'm a no vote on those

[2:50:51] to the ETJ member, I think, Mr. Vangelist to explain his explanation before was really good

[2:50:58] on that one, usually is on everything smart. And it's also, it also gets complicated. I mean,

[2:51:06] what if something just butts the ETJ of what a rezoning comes in, but it's not in the ETJ.

[2:51:13] And the ETJ member can't vote on that even though it's going to be right next door to them.

[2:51:18] The ETA is don't at holes throughout town and traffic goes through the ETA.

[2:51:23] I mean, cutting the ETA member out of this discussion, I just don't, I don't see it.

[2:51:32] I think some of our most valuable planning is only board members in the past have been ETA members,

[2:51:38] and I don't think they just looked at the ETA.

[2:51:43] I trust them to be responsible planning and zoning board members across the floor.

[2:51:49] Okay, I thought I actually was surprised at the conversation and I missed that dialogue, but

[2:51:58] I don't want us to get to kindergarten where everybody has to be inclusive and we all get a star because we can talk

[2:52:05] I want ETA to represent ETA. I really do. I you know this argument that the tone of holes aren't that many we're fixing them

[2:52:16] I want an ETA perspective on those cases that impact them.

[2:52:23] But I thought when we were looking at not best practices, but we were looking at practices

[2:52:29] that other communities, they weren't involved.

[2:52:34] And I don't have a big dog at this fight.

[2:52:39] I don't know if the mood is let's let them talk, let them talk, but I think their focus

[2:52:44] should be on E.T.J., half the time we can't get anybody to film this lot.

[2:52:50] We have so few E.T.J. opportunities, I guess, for lack of a better word.

[2:52:58] I just, I don't think is that critical that they have a book on all the other things.

[2:53:07] I think the focus on E.T.J. should be E.T.J.

[2:53:09] But you all can talk, yeah, that's my thought.

[2:53:16] Well, I'll make a point, I guess.

[2:53:19] I was leaning towards this, that EEG members, right?

[2:53:23] They have a focus on EEG.

[2:53:27] They live in that area.

[2:53:29] They want to represent the area, right?

[2:53:32] They feel, you know, like we had discussions with the world.

[2:53:35] But I have to say I was a bit swayed by Mr.

[2:53:39] Evangelista that saying, you know, they're all

[2:53:41] come with their own individual feelings about something,

[2:53:45] whether or not they live in it or not.

[2:53:47] And there are ETJ, there's several ETJ,

[2:53:50] don't it holes near where I live.

[2:53:52] And I agree with you that when we have a great ETJ,

[2:53:59] remember, as we've had on PNZ and that we've worked

[2:54:02] within the past, I think they offer a lot of value

[2:54:05] Especially, some of those E.C.J. members have lived here longer than us collectively, right?

[2:54:12] So they have a point, some of them have had unique points of view, so I could, you know,

[2:54:18] I was leaning towards agreeing with that one, but I have to say that, you know, I, I'd like

[2:54:24] to hold off and see how things go, because I think we're going to have more and more down

[2:54:28] at all, and you also have a great point this year, how that, you know, a lot of people drive

[2:54:33] through the ETA to get from one part of Carey to another.

[2:54:36] So I'd be okay leaving it the way it is for now.

[2:54:40] And kind of tabling this one and maybe revisiting it

[2:54:42] as we tweak this slowly, right?

[2:54:46] So the ETA member votes on everything.

[2:54:50] Well, first of all, I thought we had codes

[2:54:52] that we don't allow any more op-dometals.

[2:54:54] We don't create the opportunity for don't votes.

[2:54:56] Am I wrong in that?

[2:54:57] Well, so ETA and Donut holds a really two different things.

[2:55:00] But we have not asked to create any more extraterritorial

[2:55:04] jurisdiction in a long time.

[2:55:05] I know 10 years because that's how long I've been here.

[2:55:08] So we're not creating new ETA at this point.

[2:55:12] You know, we have an ETA.

[2:55:14] You don't have a whole number.

[2:55:16] In your argument, that's what I'm saying.

[2:55:18] You mentioned earlier about rural.

[2:55:21] I think that's a good example why not.

[2:55:23] You get somebody on that was here 30 years ago.

[2:55:27] They have a lot of wisdom, they're bringing to the table, respect that, but we're not in a rural world anymore.

[2:55:35] This is the discussion we had 20, 25 years ago when we created all these conditions for that growth.

[2:55:42] And one of the things that we struggle with is eventually it's going away.

[2:55:49] By doing the zoning we did back then, which I know that you were very strong for,

[2:55:54] We tried to make sure that we were involved in the deliberation, that we were involved in the discussion,

[2:56:01] but the reality is those one acre lots aren't going to be there anymore in West Carrier.

[2:56:07] They're going away.

[2:56:10] And what I've experienced with E.T.J. is when the individual is so focused on the past,

[2:56:18] And is I struggle with making decisions that are unique to a D.T.J. that are not unique to the rest of the carry.

[2:56:30] I struggle with that. And I don't want an D.T.J. opinion affecting those when a lot of them had concerns about the fact that carry is encroaching on D.T.J.

[2:56:42] I mean, maybe I'm not saying it well, and maybe it sounds harsh, but types are changing.

[2:56:49] And I think it's fair that people that live in an ETA have a voice as curious in vacuum.

[2:56:55] I think that's absolutely valid concern.

[2:57:00] But if it's somewhere on the other end of carry and it affects growth or whatever, and we're

[2:57:09] allowing those concerns to be displaced over there, I don't think that that adds any value to the discussion, my opinion.

[2:57:23] Okay, well, one thing I'd say that I appreciate Mark's opinion on is going down from nine voting members to six.

[2:57:30] I'd much rather have seven voting members.

[2:57:33] Whether that person is from the ETA or whether it's a carry resident and flexible,

[2:57:37] but I'd like to ask to have seven people voting, not just six.

[2:57:42] Well, or not state rules require that we have an E.T.J. member, so it's, that's right.

[2:57:47] Right, but it's still that.

[2:57:49] But Mark would say if you take that person out of the vote.

[2:57:51] I hear what you're saying.

[2:57:53] But you said whether it's an E.T.J. member or not.

[2:57:55] So it's going to be an E.T.J. member.

[2:57:58] There is going to be one on the board.

[2:57:59] This could be one on the board, but may not,

[2:58:02] They're saying, there's not a case.

[2:58:03] They're saying what, a case?

[2:58:03] It's not voting.

[2:58:04] That I don't want to take two people, two additional people off the board.

[2:58:08] If like, keep one additional person on there so we have to sit in a voting amount.

[2:58:11] Gotcha.

[2:58:12] I agree with the argument to keep the E.T.J. Member, a voting member, and then I also agree

[2:58:20] with Mr. Smith's comments and my own personal feelings that should have non-carry, citizen,

[2:58:26] have a voice, an official vote on what happens?

[2:58:31] or doesn't happen, say, in downtown, for example,

[2:58:36] how we strike that balance of when

[2:58:39] it matters, or when they should be able to vote, or when they should, I don't know.

[2:58:44] At the end of the day, I think either let them vote, you know, that's the only way to do

[2:58:48] it.

[2:58:51] So if we were to go to seven members, if then I would come down on the side that you are talking

[2:59:01] about that you have an ATJ member and they're allowed them to vote.

[2:59:04] So you don't end up with a six voting and three to three votes.

[2:59:08] Okay.

[2:59:09] That's a good one.

[2:59:10] All right.

[2:59:11] So that that sweys me more to letting the ATJ member vote more than anything.

[2:59:16] And reality is you could make the same, whether you kept it at nine, because then you've got

[2:59:19] four to four on a lot of things.

[2:59:21] So it's, I have my own thoughts on number four, but the ATJ one I'm not married to, you know,

[2:59:29] There's certain, I mean, I actually attend every P&Z meeting, so I find it more valuable than

[2:59:38] watching them on TV because you get to watch the whole board dynamic as things are taking

[2:59:44] place versus where the camera's pointed. And I feel like I've gotten pretty good at determining

[2:59:54] who's sincere, who's making reasonable legitimate.

[3:00:00] Passionate cases on something, and then who's just voting note of vote no. Again. So I'm okay allowing the team members. So with all due respect, I'm hearing opinions voting up and down. So I would recommend we do a motion and go ahead and vote.

[3:00:21] That's what we're hearing. I like it. I don't like it.

[3:00:25] tied two of them together which is really interesting to me. I would vote if it were seven,

[3:00:31] if everyone wanted to go for a less number seven, then I would vote to include the ETA.

[3:00:37] If we're going to be nine, I might be swayed on the ETA one. So if we're going to do it,

[3:00:43] I'd like us to, you know, to talk about these together if we can't because I really get better.

[3:00:48] The way he tied them together made a lot of sense to me.

[3:00:56] I'm really, well, I find it very curious, one of the points of being made here about representation.

[3:01:03] There is, in my mind, and I believe the mind collectively of the planning and zoning board.

[3:01:09] There is a big difference between providing a perspective and representing a constituency.

[3:01:16] At our last PMZ meeting, I pointedly asked the ETJ rep, do you believe your job is to represent

[3:01:25] the ETJ consistency, or constituency, and she said no, it is to function as a board member,

[3:01:31] like everyone else, and she no more represents those folks than I represent Regency.

[3:01:37] It is just, we're just all, as you said several times, individual citizens thinking in terms

[3:01:43] of individual citizens.

[3:01:44] Now, that doesn't, in any way, get around the, they're not a citizen of carry voting on carry.

[3:01:49] I mean, we still have to deal with that.

[3:01:50] But in terms of the representation thing, I don't think in, in operation, that's how it goes.

[3:01:58] Now, if someone, and there's, I tried to look at this standing back from someone outside of the,

[3:02:04] the envelope who knows a little bit of what's going on, and if, and I kept thinking, there's

[3:02:08] two things that I would conclude.

[3:02:09] One is that the ETA person is representing ETA and the second would be that they're almost always doing that in opposition to carry at large.

[3:02:20] That's how someone would think of this the way it's always been discussed.

[3:02:24] In operation it's not that way.

[3:02:26] If you look back and see how many times there has been one no vote purely to get something off consent, it has not always been the ETA member.

[3:02:35] In fact, it's much more so not the ETJ member doing it.

[3:02:41] So I just, if they are representing, I think I need that as a clarification because at

[3:02:45] the moment, we operate as though they are not.

[3:02:48] So that's just the question I have to ask before you go to a vote.

[3:02:53] So before we continue, I've heard now that you're interested in combining three and four.

[3:03:00] And maybe that's the way to proceed.

[3:03:01] Maybe somebody makes a motion combining three and four.

[3:03:04] Now I could comment, I haven't heard of it yet, so one thing I think about this volunteer,

[3:03:10] if it's hard to get some ITJ, how hard it's going to be to get some way to show it.

[3:03:13] Just like if they say, well, I'm sorry, you can't vote or anything except that, and

[3:03:17] tonight there's nothing on the ITJ, so you don't get to vote, you don't get to play,

[3:03:21] you don't get to participate, and I don't think that's right when somebody volunteers for this,

[3:03:26] I think we want to involve them. I think to get a volunteer endorse them, as you said, Mark,

[3:03:32] They're not the one that you have now feels like they're representing their feelings,

[3:03:38] not necessarily representing it, they're actually making a judgment call.

[3:03:42] So I don't want to leave that out, and I just feel like some important somebody volunteers

[3:03:46] to the community that they actually get the vote.

[3:03:48] And the other thing is, I don't know why it's such a big deal that they vote on Kerry things,

[3:03:53] because they don't get veto power, they're just one vote, you know, and then the ultimate

[3:04:02] irony of streamlining to 9 to 7 is what was your vote on this one? 4 to 4?

[3:04:13] So while we're debating,

[3:04:14] I mean it's like we can't get 9 there to vote on whether it's 9 to 7 so we got a 4 to 4 tile vote

[3:04:22] when we've got those to have 9 members and we're going to then have a 3 to 3 vote. I mean I didn't even

[3:04:27] actually know honestly that there were 9 members on for my first few months. I didn't go through

[3:04:31] through the school of government, I didn't, I wasn't on it.

[3:04:34] I didn't know because I was sitting here and I never heard a total of nine votes for the first

[3:04:40] four or five times that you presented because we never got nine votes and we can go back and

[3:04:46] look but it was just amazing to me that we had votes that were two to six and five to two

[3:04:52] and I thought they're never added up to nine so I thought well I don't know how many members

[3:04:55] we've got. So I'm much more concerned that we get people there, they participate and we get

[3:05:01] those, whether it's offering it to whatever reason,

[3:05:04] that we get people there to vote,

[3:05:05] then I am what the number is,

[3:05:08] because I just sit going down and down

[3:05:10] if we cut it to seven,

[3:05:11] did we wind up with a two to three vote,

[3:05:14] and I don't want that input,

[3:05:16] I want the most possible.

[3:05:17] So I appreciate the comments here,

[3:05:19] but I'm gonna repeat again.

[3:05:21] I'm hearing, I like this, I don't like this.

[3:05:24] That's telling me we need to vote.

[3:05:26] We're just going down and expressing our opinion.

[3:05:29] We can do that with a vote.

[3:05:30] Well, the whole point of discussion, though, is that you have some, you hear somebody,

[3:05:35] you can put a straw.

[3:05:36] You could just, I just have a straw poll.

[3:05:39] Yeah, that's what I would recommend, rather than voting on the ultimate issue, a straw vote.

[3:05:43] To give us some direction on how to conform the changes to that code.

[3:05:49] Okay.

[3:05:50] Put three, four together.

[3:05:51] All right.

[3:05:52] So, do we have interest in putting three, four together?

[3:05:55] For a straw vote, I would.

[3:05:56] So let's can instead of putting together can we say would that or can you actually say what it means because to me

[3:06:04] They're not necessarily the same. Oh, it was his preliminary question

[3:06:07] We okay putting them together then you can craft how they go together. Yeah, this is asking you do mine

[3:06:12] What are you?

[3:06:14] So we can have several votes is what you're saying on different word different combos

[3:06:20] You guys want to look at three and four together. I knew okay?

[3:06:23] Okay, now let's talk about three and four together

[3:06:27] Yeah, I was just going to make a nice recommendation here, all is that you just take a

[3:06:30] straw poll to see if people are leaning towards, because that's what the conversation

[3:06:35] sounds like, leaning towards reducing the number to seven, but keeping the ETJ of voting

[3:06:40] members.

[3:06:41] So, trying not to make it sound like a motion, who is leaning towards seven members, not?

[3:06:48] Absolutely not.

[3:06:49] Yes, yes.

[3:06:50] I love it.

[3:06:51] Okay.

[3:06:52] So, I think five of us are leaning towards seven members.

[3:06:55] All right, who's not leaning toward it?

[3:06:57] Ed, the two end of the book.

[3:06:59] Look at the book ends.

[3:07:00] We keep you apart for a reason.

[3:07:02] Seven members, five are leaning.

[3:07:06] All right, now, how do you want to tie in the ETA?

[3:07:09] What's your concern about the ETA and seven?

[3:07:12] I would just keep the voting that we already have for it.

[3:07:16] ETA that they vote for everything.

[3:07:18] That's how I would like to say.

[3:07:19] Who is leaning unconditionally that ETA vote on everything?

[3:07:25] I'mаж.

[3:07:25] The audience.

[3:07:26] We're going.

[3:07:27] No, regardless of how many members.

[3:07:30] Because I'm there.

[3:07:31] I don't care how many members they are.

[3:07:34] I just want to,

[3:07:35] I let him bowl and everything.

[3:07:36] I want to go to an easy place .

[3:07:37] Not me.

[3:07:38] To not you?

[3:07:39] No, I, I feel, I'm more helpful.

[3:07:41] I would like to visit you.

[3:07:44] Okay.

[3:07:44] So the majority of counsel is leaning toward

[3:07:46] ETA members should just vote on everything.

[3:07:50] So that kind of answers that question.

[3:07:52] and we could actually make a motion that's prepared, right?

[3:07:55] Well, you're correct.

[3:07:56] We're not changing it.

[3:07:57] That's a lot of change.

[3:07:58] Yeah, that's true.

[3:07:59] That's just keeping that one's the same.

[3:08:00] It's just basically voting on a number four.

[3:08:03] But I feel particularly that ETA should have a voting

[3:08:06] power if we're down, if we reduce our numbers.

[3:08:09] We'll make that clear.

[3:08:10] So it's very comfortable going with it.

[3:08:11] That's on a new vote for the ETA.

[3:08:14] So ETA's not changing.

[3:08:17] And so how are we addressed this lack of everybody

[3:08:21] being there and now we if if we only have seven and a couple of more out more down

[3:08:26] to the top of y'all all comfortable with that is this no alternate still at five

[3:08:30] center recommendations we get from planning installing I've never had a problem

[3:08:34] with four and four that makes the state but the odd numbers okay it's just

[3:08:39] people aren't showing up but we have some standards if you don't show up for a certain

[3:08:43] number of meetings sure you're invited to leave the book and so if I didn't

[3:08:48] And I'm not sure.

[3:08:50] That's what you have conveyed that in that case.

[3:08:54] OK.

[3:08:54] I was just really shocked that people

[3:08:56] care about it if it's a Thai vote.

[3:08:58] No, I'm a place that Thai vote as a concern

[3:08:59] is right here with us.

[3:09:01] And that's not a problem here.

[3:09:02] I think it sends a message for what it's Thai.

[3:09:04] So I don't care about it being a majority minority

[3:09:08] at the Thai.

[3:09:10] The question that we do in other boards,

[3:09:14] so a comment that I'd like feedback on,

[3:09:16] is to deal with attendance besides just the attendance law, attendance rule, is we have

[3:09:25] alternate in other boards and when somebody's absent they're allowed to vote. Is that

[3:09:31] too- Is that too- Is that too- Is that too- Is that too- Is that too- Is that too-

[3:09:33] Is that too big of a deal with the thing that you're able to think about for being a member of the

[3:09:36] board? Could we deal with what we have on the two- I think it's a great idea because we

[3:09:41] have the same problem. Could I say be- But could we just finish these up before-

[3:09:47] And what are we trying to fix by moving it from 9 to 7?

[3:09:51] The research that's been done shows there's no right number.

[3:09:54] Different communities all over the place.

[3:09:56] 7, 9, 11, 30.

[3:09:57] What are we trying to fix?

[3:09:58] I mean, it doesn't make a difference.

[3:10:00] I don't think.

[3:10:01] What number we have.

[3:10:03] We have 9.

[3:10:04] I don't even know what I'm adding anymore.

[3:10:06] So I'm going to summarize where we are.

[3:10:08] I mean, I really knew what we were going to do.

[3:10:11] What did we do?

[3:10:12] We're going to revisit on August 9.

[3:10:14] Number three, we've decided to leave it as is, and we're now discussing number four, and the question on the table is not a motion, but the question is, why go from nine to seven?

[3:10:25] What is the process of writing it?

[3:10:30] Staff heard that there were some desire to change the number from nine to some other number.

[3:10:35] I'll leave it for you all to discuss.

[3:10:38] Okay, that's so.

[3:10:39] So as we change our mind.

[3:10:41] As the two recent planning and zoning board liaison, is there a reason that you both might

[3:10:51] think one way or the other?

[3:10:55] Giving what they're talking about and the topics are very much aligned with what we are

[3:11:00] discussing.

[3:11:05] I think it would just eliminate some of the noise at the table and allow the board to better function

[3:11:12] more cohesively given that there's not so many people.

[3:11:19] Sometimes you have too many chiefs, I guess.

[3:11:21] It was something that we passed our staff to look into

[3:11:26] and something that we talked about at the retreat.

[3:11:31] And we feel that the board could maybe function more effectively and efficiently

[3:11:35] with seven members versus nine, that it might be a change that

[3:11:40] First, pursuing.

[3:11:43] So efficiency, if I had summer up, no more,

[3:11:45] whether it was efficiency.

[3:11:47] I think on its face, it just didn't make sense

[3:11:49] why there was nine and seven council members,

[3:11:51] and I don't, I think, Dawn's right.

[3:11:52] It wasn't, wasn't discussed to the same degree

[3:11:55] that the other changes were.

[3:11:58] But it's a reduction of public input, two people.

[3:12:00] That's one way to look at it, in another way,

[3:12:02] is if you're more efficient, then your public input might

[3:12:05] be better.

[3:12:06] I think that's a better.

[3:12:06] a public implant out, but we've actually eliminated complete boards.

[3:12:10] We did away with the whole town center review commission.

[3:12:13] That's a reduction in public input.

[3:12:15] So I appreciate the feedback.

[3:12:18] I mean, it's just easy to say that, guys.

[3:12:21] What about the fact that the meetings are going to be shortened because they're

[3:12:25] doing away with public hearings?

[3:12:28] So the efficiency, we're increasing the efficiency right there, Mark,

[3:12:31] that you don't.

[3:12:32] You get to discuss everything, instead of listening

[3:12:34] to a bunch of citizens come up.

[3:12:37] So we've already made, that makes it more efficient.

[3:12:40] You know, can I ask another question?

[3:12:42] Maybe it has a different way.

[3:12:43] There's a lot of changes that we've been talking about.

[3:12:46] We've been talking about this for a while.

[3:12:47] I wonder if instead of making a whole bunch of changes,

[3:12:51] and I'm not saying a whole bunch,

[3:12:52] because we had four here, and there's other such

[3:12:54] jackets brought up that are interesting and great ideas.

[3:12:57] Maybe we just tweak this a little bit as we go on.

[3:13:00] We do the first one that we've made a decision on as a group,

[3:13:04] And then we see how things going, maybe we tweak it a little bit more down the line.

[3:13:09] We have the opportunity to do that as a council.

[3:13:12] We don't know if future councils might do.

[3:13:14] But maybe we just, you know, we've tweaked one thing,

[3:13:17] which I think is actually a big tweak.

[3:13:19] The public air into a huge, you know,

[3:13:21] I'm all about making small incremental changes and see how they work,

[3:13:25] rather than making two big ones.

[3:13:27] I did owe that.

[3:13:28] I'm cool then.

[3:13:30] So, I'm hearing we're going to lead three and four as is, and one and two come back on August 9th.

[3:13:39] Is that what I'm hearing with you?

[3:13:40] With that consensus that you've heard.

[3:13:41] But there's no motions needed on that.

[3:13:43] Nothing needed tonight.

[3:13:44] We'll bring back revised text for you on August 9th.

[3:13:51] Don't you okay with it?

[3:13:52] Anybody have a strong objection?

[3:13:55] with the, not talking about the seven, you're the one that met the efficiency of this, you guys worked with it not me.

[3:14:01] I'm apparently in the minority.

[3:14:03] I don't know.

[3:14:04] I don't know.

[3:14:04] It was, you had me about to be like that.

[3:14:06] I think it was, it was on the edge.

[3:14:09] I think there were a couple of us, it was four to three, right, at the table.

[3:14:13] And then several of us were going, and it was a strong pull.

[3:14:16] I mean, if you want to bring it up as motion.

[3:14:18] Yeah, if you want to make a motion, see how it happened.

[3:14:20] Yeah.

[3:14:20] make a motion that we reduce the board membership from 97.

[3:14:24] Do we have to read the motions that are prepared or what?

[3:14:28] We're going to, this would not be making changing the code.

[3:14:31] At this time, it would be, we'd have to act on it and bring back the code.

[3:14:36] Okay.

[3:14:36] Language, but.

[3:14:37] So, we have a motion.

[3:14:39] That's second.

[3:14:40] The second.

[3:14:40] Further discussion.

[3:14:43] All in favor, we need a hand showing here.

[3:14:45] Say, I, raise your hand.

[3:14:47] Those opposed.

[3:14:49] Motion fails.

[3:14:50] I've got…

[3:14:52] I've locked.

[3:14:54] So, we've…

[3:14:55] Once again, what we've done tonight is basically left everything as it is.

[3:15:00] One and two come back for the decision on August 9th, and three and four remain as is. Lisa, I appreciate you putting up with us. We struggle with this. Thank you.

[3:15:17] All right, this is, we now move to

[3:15:22] Hold items.

[3:15:24] The winner,

[3:15:26] Resonning.

[3:15:26] The winner, expansion,

[3:15:28] Resonning, 17,

[3:15:29] RZ31,

[3:15:30] Assistant Planning Director,

[3:15:32] DeBranon will present the report

[3:15:34] and council may take action.

[3:15:36] Thank you.

[3:15:37] I'll be very brief with this,

[3:15:38] but I have more detailed slides.

[3:15:40] If you would like them,

[3:15:41] this is a request to

[3:15:42] Reson,

[3:15:43] a portion of the May Fair Plaza Shopping Center.

[3:15:45] were a Carolina Potteries currently located. There was a mix of zoning designations on the property,

[3:15:53] commercial, an existing preliminary development plan. The applicant is proposing preliminary

[3:15:59] development plan with a retirement community and this is to living retirement community.

[3:16:04] Staff's recommendation was for approval. With concerns noted about whether or not this would

[3:16:10] really fulfill the promise of a mixed use center, whether or not this was going to meet all

[3:16:15] our goals for this gateway feature into downtown Kerry, but we felt that the positive

[3:16:22] aspects outweighed the concerns, and then the planning and zoning board also had a recommendation

[3:16:27] for approval by a vote of 8 to 0. And again, I have more details if you'd like them and

[3:16:32] Mr. Evangelista is here to tell you about the board deliberation.

[3:16:39] Well, there's not much to really say.

[3:16:41] There was 8 to 0.

[3:16:44] The same concerns that Deborah just mentioned.

[3:16:46] It's not quite mixed use, but on balance,

[3:16:50] it was enthusiastically supported by everyone.

[3:16:53] Thank you.

[3:16:54] Mr. Avison, this one's yours.

[3:16:56] You pulled this one.

[3:16:57] I get to do the next one.

[3:16:58] Okay.

[3:16:59] Yes, I asked to have it pulled because I am not enthusiastically

[3:17:02] supporting it.

[3:17:04] I'm looking out at the entirety of our community.

[3:17:07] I think we have fewer opportunities for dynamic mixed use

[3:17:12] development than we would even like.

[3:17:17] And while Glent Air is an excellent community,

[3:17:19] and they have a good asset to provide to people.

[3:17:22] I don't know that this is the right site for that.

[3:17:26] And my preference would be to have kept this available

[3:17:30] for some other opportunity for mixed use development.

[3:17:35] With that, I know I probably stand alone on this, so I won't be making a motion, but I wanted to vote against it rather than having it on consent.

[3:17:44] Okay, thank you. Other comments, questions or a motion?

[3:17:48] I think a motion that we adopt a statement of consistency as attached to the staff report and approve Glen Air expansion 17 or AZ 31.

[3:17:55] Second, if there's a motion, second, Mr. Smith, do you have something?

[3:17:58] Yeah, I mean, I don't think all hope is lost.

[3:18:02] down from on the rest of the property, but I do respect and understand that there's a lot.

[3:18:12] At the same time, breaking up a, I don't know what you call a retirement bill if you're

[3:18:18] whatever, having a different place as, you know, this is one of those where, you know,

[3:18:23] I want to go with the percentages, but you know what they are.

[3:18:26] one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, but I still think there's an opportunity.

[3:18:31] That is a center that is begging for redevelopment, and the problem, maybe you got a couple of long term leases there.

[3:18:40] And that's what we have all over where we have these redevelopment opportunities.

[3:18:45] There's stuck with a couple of other opportunities, but I think having the, the, the, they're there will not hurt the opportunity of an investor

[3:18:55] that wants to come in and make the rest of that something special.

[3:19:00] Yeah, and I would have, I would have liked the applicant to come in with something vertically mixed where there were, was,

[3:19:06] um, doctor's offices and retail on the first floor, really kind of tied into the spirit of downtown,

[3:19:14] with a residential above that first floor, you know, amenities could serve the population that lives above it.

[3:19:21] we could still have that continuation of excitement going on with those mixed uses without having

[3:19:29] just one area just completely consumed by residential. So that's my preference, but I respect

[3:19:35] everybody else having a different opinion. I do think the hope for the second half to be mixed is

[3:19:41] good. And if it weren't so close to downtown for these residents, I would leave more toward

[3:19:48] as Robinson, but I do believe that it actually could have more seniors this close to be able

[3:19:53] to walk the community downtown is a positive place and I don't want them. I think they

[3:19:57] need to use their other facility with all the meeting rooms and everything I want them to

[3:20:01] expand where they are and not have to go somewhere else.

[3:20:04] Other comments, questions? We have a motion to approve. I'll in favor of the motion, please say aye.

[3:20:10] Aye, pose? No. Motion carries six to one. Thank you, Miss Granan. You get the next one too.

[3:20:18] So the second item is the North Harrison Jose Hotel 16, R.E. Z. 15 and once again, you'll give the report.

[3:20:28] Okay. This is property located in a commercial mixed use center approximately 7.2 acres.

[3:20:34] This was first presented at a neighborhood meeting back in early 2016.

[3:20:40] A lot of neighborhood opposition, they were proposing 350 rooms, three buildings, eight stories,

[3:20:46] These champion tree removal, a lot of concerns, a lot of questions about traffic.

[3:20:51] The applicants listened to the citizens' concerns and came back with a much reduced plan.

[3:20:57] They reduced it from 350 down to 250 rooms.

[3:21:01] Reduce the building height, move some of the taller buildings away from the adjacent property.

[3:21:07] When you first saw it, they only had a 100 foot setback adjacent to the neighborhood to

[3:21:12] West, and they came back with a 250-foot building setback, so there was a second public hearing

[3:21:18] before the planning and zoning board.

[3:21:22] There were also elements of the plan that I wanted to point out the applicant is making

[3:21:26] a stub to the south, which is a requirement for the land development ordinance, and then one

[3:21:32] of the biggest issues that you've heard about is the stub to the adjacent property, which

[3:21:37] is a portion of the arboretum, but under separate ownership.

[3:21:41] It's an O&I parcel.

[3:21:43] There's dispute between this property owner and the staff about whether or not this connection

[3:21:47] is required.

[3:21:49] So that's one of the biggest issues.

[3:21:51] Also the applicant did agree to address some suggestions that were in the traffic study to

[3:21:58] provide a 100 foot long stacking lane for southbound access into the site and also to provide

[3:22:05] a bulbow on Harrison Avenue opposite Montobello Drive that would help to facilitate

[3:22:12] you turn movement. What is a bulbow you might ask? It's going to be opposite Montobello

[3:22:18] Drive and again would help to facilitate you turn movement, which is already allowed on

[3:22:24] Harrison Avenue. Great deal of concern about that, but we do already have some of these existing

[3:22:29] along Harris and Avenue. So they are legal. Is it the best solution? No. The best solution

[3:22:36] would be for the property owners to work together and be able to find a way to have full

[3:22:41] movement in and out of this site, but there's some differences of opinion. So it is a conundrum.

[3:22:48] Is it something that could be rectified at the time of development plan possibly?

[3:22:53] But we just don't know that yet. We don't have all those answers.

[3:22:57] There is a recorded easement to this property, this adjacent property, and there is a zoning

[3:23:02] condition that calls for connectivity, but again, as you heard from the representative

[3:23:07] for this property owner, some disputes that we're still trying to resolve and figure out

[3:23:12] how they would be addressed as we go forward.

[3:23:16] So, this is the zoning condition that I mentioned from a 2005 rezoning case and the

[3:23:22] courted easement.

[3:23:25] So staff's recommendation was for approval with noted concerns as we described that we

[3:23:30] don't have all those answers yet, but we, you know, would continue to work on those and

[3:23:35] address those at the time of development plan of approval and review assuming the

[3:23:40] rezoning's approved.

[3:23:42] And Mr. Evangelista will be happy to speak to the planning and zoning boards deliberation.

[3:23:48] traffic. Both the common in and out with that's under contested at this point, let's say.

[3:23:57] That was a big deal. The bulb out in the traffic mitigations, again, not optimal, but they meet.

[3:24:04] I don't want to say consistency with the plan, because we were still under the old rules at that time.

[3:24:08] But they meet those kind of obligations.

[3:24:11] I will point out that this is one of the times where the way we do business is vastly different than yours.

[3:24:18] You can look at what was originally put together and how they've modified things in response to public content.

[3:24:24] We look at a snapshot and whether or not that snapshot is consistent.

[3:24:29] And this one we found consistent with the exception of the traffic issues.

[3:24:34] But none of those issues were enough to make anyone want to not support the application.

[3:24:40] Thank you, Mr. Evangelista.

[3:24:42] So I pulled this one, and I don't know if I stand alone,

[3:24:45] but let me tell you my concerns,

[3:24:47] for a quarter of a century of driven this section

[3:24:50] or rev, and it's scary in the morning.

[3:24:53] Now we have visitors at this hotel

[3:24:56] that they're not going to downtown Kerry,

[3:24:58] they're going to RTP or Raleigh,

[3:25:00] and they need to go left, but they have to go right

[3:25:04] and make a U-turn in front of all that morning traffic,

[3:25:07] which, in my opinion, is dangerous.

[3:25:11] Yes, there are new terms existing today on a Harrison Avenue,

[3:25:17] but they are not forced, they're optional.

[3:25:20] This forces visitors to make a new turn

[3:25:24] to get to where they're going.

[3:25:26] In my mind, that's bad planning on our part.

[3:25:29] We should insist that they have a safe option

[3:25:33] if they want that option.

[3:25:34] and you can't force them to take that option.

[3:25:38] So I fear that this will result in bad things happening.

[3:25:44] And that's my biggest concern.

[3:25:47] Having said all that, I know that there's discussions

[3:25:51] planned, maybe, or confirmed, don't know,

[3:25:57] between the interested parties to the north and staff

[3:26:02] to discuss this. And if I'm standing alone, it doesn't matter. If it concerns other

[3:26:08] council members, that information may be important. It is for me to support it. I would

[3:26:14] have to give the visitors their an option to go into the arboretum and not force them

[3:26:20] to do a U-turn if they're trying to go to rally or RTP. So that's my concern. That's why

[3:26:26] that I can't support it the way it's proposed.

[3:26:29] And if there's a potential for meeting or if a meeting has been planned,

[3:26:35] I would recommend that we table it just to hear the outcome of that.

[3:26:39] Maybe the outcome is the same.

[3:26:40] No, we're what we heard tonight.

[3:26:43] But that was the representative and not the owner.

[3:26:45] And I think we're going to hear from the owner.

[3:26:47] If I'm not mistaken.

[3:26:49] Mr. Stegu, do you want to speak to any of that?

[3:26:50] Yeah, I just, with the concerns that were highlighted by Mr.

[3:26:55] and earlier at a conversation regarding that we would be interested in hearing those in person.

[3:27:03] Certainly didn't give any indication that it's going to, that the town will take any action,

[3:27:07] or it could affect the outcome at all, but simply allowing the opportunity to be heard.

[3:27:13] I will support gathering additional information, but I wanted to be very clear that connectivity is a paramount importance to me.

[3:27:20] and in particular at this location, because all of the area has a lot to gain from having

[3:27:27] connectivity between this site over to the arboretum, and it supports the theories that

[3:27:33] we stand by. So I'm very open to having additional conversations, but I want to be clear

[3:27:38] that connectivity is important. Other thoughts, so that I think the options are proved

[3:27:45] and I, or table, to get more information.

[3:27:48] Well, the only question I have.

[3:27:51] And I think I got a letter today.

[3:27:53] Did everybody else get a letter?

[3:27:54] I thought it said, they want to have connectivity now.

[3:27:59] I didn't think I read it.

[3:28:01] Busy Thursday, I already read it.

[3:28:03] There are different parties.

[3:28:04] The arboretum management would like connect connectivity,

[3:28:07] but really creek partners who owns a sliver of a lot.

[3:28:10] Oh, no.

[3:28:12] And then I understand the versity of your combat because we need to, okay, never mind.

[3:28:21] Those are three options.

[3:28:23] I think tabling to allow those discussions to happen and help unconfused me as a good thing.

[3:28:30] Is that a question?

[3:28:32] Well, if we tablet, can we put a table with a date?

[3:28:35] I indicated to the developer today that it would be our intent on putting it on the next regular council meeting,

[3:28:46] unless some information came to light that I'm currently not aware of.

[3:28:54] So instead of just keeping it open ended that we'll let you know when it'll be back on.

[3:29:00] Because as of right now our staff work is complete.

[3:29:03] And so we're operating under that, but we want to just give an opportunity for this to be heard,

[3:29:09] understand it better, and then proceed from there.

[3:29:13] But the plan would be to have it beyond the next regular schedule.

[3:29:16] I can't remember the date.

[3:29:17] I guess 23rd.

[3:29:18] 23rd.

[3:29:19] So that's 20th.

[3:29:20] Yeah, I'll make a motion table with that date.

[3:29:25] That's 23rd.

[3:29:26] There's second.

[3:29:27] Discussion?

[3:29:29] I will support the motion to table, I just want to add that after this project has been going on for two years or more.

[3:29:37] In for us to be getting information at the 11th hour, they've suggested we now table it is incredibly disappointing to me.

[3:29:47] So I hope that when it comes back next month we have all the information that we need to make a decision one way or the other.

[3:29:56] I do not like getting information at the 11th hour.

[3:29:59] I'm sorry.

[3:30:04] That's inexcusable to me. This has been going on for two years. This has not been a surprise to anyone.

[3:30:11] I agree with that. I agree. I was upset about it. I don't have to read those when you're busy working during the day.

[3:30:19] Okay, there's a motion to table all in favor, please say aye.

[3:30:23] Aye.

[3:30:23] As opposed to unanimous table to August 23rd's council meeting.

[3:30:30] That concludes the regular agenda.

[3:30:33] We're ready to go in the closed session.

[3:30:35] Now we've entertained a motion.

[3:30:36] So we are doing close.

[3:30:39] We're not.

[3:30:40] Yeah, we do.

[3:30:40] We're doing.

[3:30:41] Yes, we are.

[3:30:42] We're going to recommend that.

[3:30:44] Okay.

[3:30:44] I would do.

[3:30:44] Presented G.S. 1, 4, e, 3, 3, 18, 11, 11, 11, 3.

[3:30:49] I'm either with all the closed sessions to consult with attorneys employed by Andrew

[3:30:53] Regene by the time in order to preserve the attorney claim privilege, between the attorneys

[3:30:58] on the town, to bring the disclosure of information that is made privileged or confidential,

[3:31:03] which G.S. 1, 4, 3, 18, 10.

[3:31:05] Second, there's a motion in the second discussion.

[3:31:07] All in favor, please say, on any opposed, motion carried unanimously or we're going to the closed

[3:31:13] Thank you.

[4:00:00] Council

[4:11:58] member meeting and council member George has a special announcement. Yes, while we were debating, we had another grandchild. So we have number 13 was born, Tristan Kent was born, seven pounds and something, they got a picture and so with that I'd like to motion to adjourn so I can go call the parents.

[4:12:21] Thank you.

[4:12:23] There's a motion and the second discussion, congratulations, Kenyne.

[4:12:27] All in favor please say aye.

[4:12:29] Aye.

[4:12:30] Aye.

[4:12:30] Opposed?

[4:12:30] Motion carries unanimously and we're adjourned.

[4:13:16] Production of Kiri TV.

[4:13:17] The visit for time and please website for time and Kiri.

Town Council Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript