Apex planning board approves Horton Park PUD amendment tied to traffic improvements

The Apex Planning Board voted June 8 to approve an amendment to the Horton Park Planned Unit Development that lets the developer plat additional homes now while tying further residential buildout to specified traffic improvements and revised traffic-analysis conditions.

Planning Department staff presented the rezoning case (25 CZ23) and recommended approval with conditions after summarizing the site, completed and outstanding off-site road work, and the PUD's phasing rules. "Planning recommends approval of rezoning case 25 CZ23 with conditions," Joshua Killian of the town planning department told the board. Killian said the revision responds in part to the postponement of a state widening project (NC DOT project U5825), which he described as "postponed and ... no longer on the state's transportation improvement program with no dates for completion." The staff presentation emphasized that revised traffic analysis and specific improvements (including a required traffic signal at Jesse Drive and 1010 before platting beyond certain thresholds) would govern additional platting.

The applicant and its engineer said the amendment is a narrowly targeted request to let two undeveloped parcels proceed under the revised phasing controls. "We're not asking for additional units. What we're simply doing is we're moving the cap from 250 to 335," said Jeff Roach of Peak Engineering and Design, who described new outlet points and production-drive extensions that improved site connectivity since the PUD's original approvals. Leticia Shapiro, speaking for applicant PRMS Investments, summarized the PUD's progress and asked the board to allow the smaller exemption while adherence to a revised traffic-impact analysis continues: "we're just asking for that small exemption because we see that as a reasonable request."

The record shows 247 lots already platted within Horton Park; staff and applicant referenced several different interim totals in describing how phasing would proceed under various scenarios (staff described a scenario that would result in about 300 units under certain phased improvements and the applicant framed the immediate threshold change as 250→335). The board and applicant clarified that ultimate long-term density and the larger widening projects (including the off‑site 1010 widening) remain dependent on state actions and future infrastructure work.

After a brief public comment check (no speakers were signed up for the open comment period on this item), the board discussed the application and several members cited completed off-site improvements and the effort to phase new units while protecting neighbors. Committee member Christie moved to approve the amendment; Mark seconded. The board voted in favor and the motion carried.

Next steps discussed on the record include forwarding the Planning Board recommendation to the Town Council for final action (applicant noted "assuming we get approved from council on this, construction can start on those 25 lots relatively quickly"). The approval ties any additional platting to the revised traffic-impact analysis and the specific roadway and signal commitments described in the PUD amendment and staff report.