Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Ond Each North topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OnDeach North rezoning proposed to turn 196 acres into clustered residential development; traffic questions remain
Summary
Developers presented a planned development (PD) master plan for 'OnDeach North'—a 196-acre annexed parcel proposing a clustered residential subdivision—while committee members pressed staff to confirm whether traffic studies evaluated local intersections such as Plymouth/Reno.
The Development Review Committee reviewed a rezoning and master plan proposal for OnDeach North on Thursday, a project the applicant described as a clustered residential planned development on 196 acres that was recently annexed into the city.
Jean Sanchez, the city project manager, said the proposal seeks to rezone the property from county rural to a city planned development (PD) and that staff and the applicant have worked through numerous site-design comments. "They have this clustered site design that preserves a whole lot of green areas and will not be removing as many trees as we initially thought," Sanchez said.
Luke Class of 1828 Engineering, representing the applicant, said the engineering team would address comments generated by the Development Review Committee and expected some technical review items to be resolved at the master-plan versus the later construction stage.
Traffic and safety questions drove committee discussion. Committee member Mike McKinley asked whether the project's traffic study analyzed the intersection of OnDeach (project area) with Plymouth/Reno, where only stop signs currently control traffic. McKinley said he is concerned the intersection could become more dangerous as multiple developments in the corridor are built. Luke said most traffic reports incorporate other nearby developments but that he would double-check whether the OnDeach North study specifically evaluated the Plymouth/Reno intersection.
Sanchez said some photometric and external-utility coordination (notably Duke Energy) remain ongoing items. Staff also noted they had not located a proposed PD agreement in the submittal and described several housekeeping comments.
No formal vote occurred. Staff said they will continue to coordinate review comments with the applicant and will follow up on whether the traffic report assessed the specific intersections raised by committee members.
Ending: The applicant agreed to address the DRC comments and to provide additional information on traffic-study coverage and the proposed plan development agreement; no final action was taken at the meeting.
