Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Thank you for joining us tonight. I'll call this meeting to order. Our board clerk, Julie Mitchell, will take roll call this evening.

Thank you, chair. For the record, Andy Koh is absent this evening. And tonight tonight's board members who are present are Sal Kamarata, Boshana Etten, Chris Johnson, Mike Roselli, Jeff Moncrief, Sean McAndrew, Ruben Moore, Diane Mayo, and George Ken George.

Thank you. So the Cary community plan will continue to be our guiding document for this board. Our role is to function as citizen advisors to the council who will ultimately make the final decision on all rezoning activity. We recognize that not all rezoning requests are supported unanimously by our members of our community. We strive to balance the impact of increased building density required to support Cary's growth, while maintaining the historic charm and character of our town.

The Cary community plan was initially adopted in 2017, following a collaborative effort between Cary citizens and our town government. That collaboration has continued and resulted in recently updated version of the plan adopted by council in January 2025. The chapters of the plan include live, work, shop, engage, shape, move, enrich, serve, and act. The community plan can be found on website. Your citizen opinions based on the Cary community plan document play a very important role in advising our leaders.

We encourage our citizens to refer to the plan and provide feedback that's based on the guiding principles of plan as it relates to the zoning request. While this is a public meeting, it is not a public hearing. There's no opportunity for the public to speak during this meeting. If you have comments about any of the items, we encourage you to reach out to staff by email or phone. You may also reach out to board members through email.

You may also contact your council members directly through email or during various public speaks out portions at any regularly scheduled council meeting. These meetings may be streamed live on Cary's website and will be posted to YouTube. All past planning and zoning board meetings are available to view on YouTube as well. At this point, we would be looking to adopt our agenda, and so if someone's willing to make a motion to adopt the agenda, I would appreciate that. So moved.

Second.

Alright. All those in favor, please state by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. We will move forward with that. And we also now need to review our minutes from the November 27 meeting of twenty twenty five. Does anyone like to make a motion to approve those minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from November 17.

Thank you. Okay. Sorry. I've got the wrong date. So November 17, let's document that and make sure we get that corrected in the in the record. Any second?

Second.

Alright. All those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Alright. That brings us to our cases tonight. We have two cases. Our first case is 25 REZ 5, Pittered Sears Road rezoning. It's

on

the agenda. Miss Erin Puckett, our principal planner, will share the staff's presentation. Following that presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and the applicant. And miss Puckett, may proceed. Thank you.

Thank you and good evening board. This is a request to annex and apply initial carry zoning to approximately 12.6 acres at 606 And 694 Pittered Sears Road. The site is located in Chatham County on the Northwest side of Pittered Sears Road, approximately point three miles east of the American Tobacco Trail. The site is surrounded by detached residential development. Carrie's GIS indicates a stream buffer impacting the northern portion of the site, and field determination of such features is required at time of development plan review.

The parks recreation and cultural resources master plan does not identify any greenway corridors within or adjacent to the site. A street side trail along the south side of Pittered Sears Road is currently under construction as part of a capital project that will complete a gap between O'Kelly Chapel Road and the American Tobacco Trail. Pittered Sears Road is identified as a two lane collector on Cary's planned roadway width map and will require roadway improvements including sidewalk along the site frontage. The site is currently within Chatham County and is zoned Chatham Residential 1, and the applicant proposes an initial carry zoning of residential eight conditional use or r eight c u. The applicant has offered several zoning conditions including limiting development of the site to a maximum of 23 detached dwellings, which is approximately 1.8 units per acre.

Ensuring lot size will be calculated exclusive of stream buffers, which would otherwise be allowed by North Carolina general statutes. Providing a two car garage for each unit and wiring each garage for future electric vehicle charging. Ensuring all perimeter buffers will be within common open space, increasing the required site frontage improvements to accommodate a five foot wide bike lane in lieu of the four foot wide lane that would otherwise be required today, Removing the temporary turnaround to the north on Bataso Drive as that street will connect into the site. And installing a mid block pedestrian crossing, which will include a rectangular rapid flashing beacon or RRFB. An analysis against the Imagine Cary Community Plan finds the policies in multiple chapters apply along with the guidance of the Chatham Cary Joint Land Use Plan.

As seen on this slide, the site is within the low density residential subdistrict of the planning area. These areas recommend a maximum density of two units per acre. And as noted previously, this request proposes approximately 1.8 units per acre. The plan also underscores the importance of transitions within this area. In this case, the request proposes lot sizes and density generally consistent with those northeast of the site.

And we note the densities are intended to generally decrease and lot size increase from east to west within this planning area. The site is largely surrounded by existing carry development and could therefore address the live chapter infill policy. Regarding the shape chapter, transitions can be made via land uses, form, and buffers, and the proposed rezoning would provide the same use as surrounding development, thereby making a logical use and form transition. And the r eight minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet is consistent with development in the North, although slightly smaller than that of the development to the West. Buffers are proposed to default to LDO minimum widths with the condition ensuring they will be located on common open space as some buffers may otherwise be on individual lots.

The proposed rezoning includes frontage improvements increased slightly to accommodate a five foot wide bike lane. And additionally, the proposal would provide a pedestrian crossing, as I mentioned previously, on pittered Sears Road with an RRFB or rectangular rapid flashing beacon subject to carry an NCDOT approval. That enhanced crossing would facilitate access to the street side trail on the south side of Pittered Sears Road. The proposed rezoning commits to wiring garages for potential future electric vehicle charging, which may help speak to sustainable energy practices. And as noted previously, ensures a commitment to locating all required buffers in a common open space, and this may help to ensure preservation over time.

A neighborhood meeting was held in June and 72 members of the public attended. Questions and concerns included those about site access and connections to adjacent development, questions about buffers, concerns regarding traffic, drainage, loss of open space, and tree canopy. And following the meeting, staff received calls and three one one inquiries from seven citizens, most of which were seeking additional information about the rezoning process and opportunities to have their feedback heard. Staff also met with representatives of the Dunhill neighborhood to the west who shared concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety, drainage, and the site density. A public hearing was held in August 2025, and I do want to note that at that time, the proposed zoning district requested was transitional residential conditional use with smaller lot sizes.

There were five written comments and five in person speakers at the public hearing. Comments included concerns with the lot size and proposed density in regard to consistency with the surrounding development. General traffic concerns including bicycle and pedestrian safety, concerns regarding the required road connection from the subdivision to the north, and concerns regarding area drainage. Council also had clarifying questions regarding the surrounding transportation network and the guidance of the Chatham Cary Joint Land Use Plan and shared comments regarding a concern that the lot size may be too small and the density of the site could appear denser understanding there were site constraints which may limit the developable area. And a more detailed summary of the public comments and council discussion was included in your staff report.

Following the public hearing, the applicant changed their rezoning request from from transitional residential conditional use or TRCU to our eight CU, which guarantees a larger minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Previously with the TRCU request, the applicant had offered a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet And the maximum number of lots was reduced from 24 to 23. Staff find that the overall density is consistent with the maximum density recommended in low density residential areas of the Chatham Cary Joint Land Use Plan. And development of the site for detached residential lots could address the residential infill policy of the LIP chapter, as well as providing a good use transition. Also regarding shape, we know lot sizes are consistent with those of Sequoia Creek to the North, although smaller than those in Dunhill to the West.

The change in request from TRCU to r eight CU guarantees this minimum lot size as well as slightly larger setbacks, which collectively may help with that overall transition. Provision of a pedestrian crossing with an RRFB to help facilitate pedestrian traffic to street side trail on the south side of Pittered Sears Road helps to meet move chapter policies and commitments to future EV EV wiring in the garages for all homes and providing perimeter buffers in common area help to at least modestly address some enriched policies. This concludes my presentation. Worth Mills, the applicant's representative, is here to provide comments, and then I'm available for your questions.

Terrific. Thank you. I have an opportunity for our requester to present.

Good evening, board members. Worth Mills with Longleaf Law Partners here on behalf of Gala Investments LLC, who is the applicant and the, contract purchaser of these three lots. When we initially filed this rezoning request, we did we were pursuing a transitional residential zoning district for up to, at that point, 25 homes with minimum lot sizes between 6,508,000 square feet. After multiple meetings with the adjacent neighborhoods, primarily those within Sequoia Creek and Dunhill Estates, and following the town council meeting, we then amended this application to request the r eight zoning, to allow up to 23 single family detached homes and which would also require a minimum 8,000 square foot lot size. And that result says, miss Puckett said in a density of 1.8 units per acre.

We think that that update is more compatible with the minimum lot sizes that you see in the Sequoia Creek neighborhood to our Northeast. And this update also furthers the Chatham County Cary joint land use plan, which recommends density be lowered as you move from east to west as you approach the western boundary of that land use plan area. And so as you can see on the screen, the resulting zoning districts decrease in intensity as you go from the transitional residential in Sequoia Creek to the R 8 zoning district that we're requesting to the R 12 zoning at Dunhill Estates, and the resulting density, decreases as well. Sequoia Creek is two units an acre. This rezoning would allow for 1.8 and Dunhill Estates at 1.4.

So both in zoning district and density, moving that that development potential down as you go from east to west. A couple of conditions that I did wanna highlight. We are providing a new pedestrian connection to the multiuse path on the south side of Pitter Sears Road. That multiuse path will connect O'Kelly Chapel Road and American Tobacco Trail, giving new residents as well as existing residents new ways to get on and off the American Tobacco Trail. We are also offering a wider bike lane along our pittered Sears frontage than is required to improve pedestrian mobility there.

And we are requiring that each home have a two car garage that is wired to support EV charging. To summarize, we think that this requested zoning is consistent with the Cary Chatham Joint Land Use Plan and furthers many of the goals in the overall community plan as outlined in the staff report. I'm available to answer any questions, but appreciate the opportunity to be heard this evening. Thank you.

Terrific. Thank you. Thank you, mister Miller. So now we have an opportunity to ask questions as a board. Just as a reminder, the Cary community plan is in place to guide the development. As you think about your questions, keep in mind how the proposed case fits or does not fit within the Cary community plan. And when making a motion, it would be helpful to describe how you see your motion impacting the Cary community plan. For example, is it the work, shape, or live chapter that you've decided, you know, supports this request? It's not a requirement, but it would be helpful for town council as they consider the final approval. So do any board members have any questions at this time?

Go ahead.

I guess this would be for planning staff. Just wanna find out if the treatment for the multiuse path and the bike lanes is intentional. McConnell Lane going towards American Tobacco Trail, that's where the multiuse path starts at McConnell going towards the trail. And going away from the trail, there's a bike lane and a sidewalk. So for this frontage, are we talking about a consistent bike lane? And I assume there would be sidewalk also if it was a bike lane.

So and I'll look to transportation, correct me if I'm wrong, but this would be a wide outside lane for bikes and then it would be a sidewalk along this northwestern frontage. It would just be sidewalk. So the street side trail is just on the south side, which is part of why they're offering the pedestrian crossing so they can bring pedestrians across to that wider treatment. Did I get that wrong about the outside lanes?

How much wider would the road be?

It's just an addition well, so we don't know how much right of way is out there now. Just like any other site, they're required to improve their half out to what the Cary Community Plan requires. What they've offered to do is where our cross section typically requires a four foot wide bike lane on the outside, they're increasing it to five feet, which is more in line with that.

One of things, a couple of things I'm curious about is the Sherbro marking going to be four foot from the curb or the center of the lane?

I'm going to let Priyatham Kando with our Transportation Department.

Thank you. Good evening. The sheriffs are probably going to be centered in the lane. And the reason for that being, when Peter Sears was built or widened along the stretch, it was done in a piecemeal manner. So, the cross section varies a little bit from Oakleigh Chapel Road down all the way down to the trailhead.

A couple of years ago, there were several concerns from the residents, and we worked with DOT to have some level of consistent notation for bikes and the resolution of that was that there is not sufficient pavement to have a striped, separate striped bike lane along the entire length and so, for now, the most consistent treatment would be to place the sharrows in the centre of the lane. So, it's a clear indication to the drivers that it is going to be a shared path between vehicles and bikes. At some point in the future, when the Chatham District NCDOT office resurfaces the street, we would have an opportunity to work with them to decide whether we want to continue that same notation or if we want to stripe a separate bike lane, depending on the asphalt that we would have. So, that's why it feels a little bit uncertain, but just a couple of years ago, we did some resurfacing and re striping, and we added additional signage just so the drivers are aware that bikes have right of way also along the street.

Part of what I'm confused about is there's already a widening on the McConnell Lane side, and this development is on the narrower lane side where you're talking about the right of way. Doesn't that land use approval include building to whatever right of way is required?

Yes. So there is also another element here. The road in this area is not exactly centered within the right of way. So you're you're dealing with that asymmetry here. Mhmm. So once we get the additional five feet of asphalt, we'll have to see if it makes sense to strike that area out, so it is not confusing to the bikes, or we include that asphalt and center the sharrows in the total asphalt on the southbound direction.

So I wonder why you couldn't pull a consistent road width from the curb that exists on the other side of the road.

I'm not entirely sure because we haven't looked at a full striping plan for that entire segment of Peter Sears Road at one time before. It all happened in a piecemeal fashion. So, have segments that have a certain width that would allow you to stripe a bike lane, and you have segments that would not allow you to stripe a bike lane.

So, your project is an opportunity to correct those

Yeah, when the development plan comes in, we'll look to see where we can maximize consistency of the signage and striping. And, you know, we'll do whatever is best and also we'll have to respect how much the developer is willing to go beyond their frontage to make changes. NCDOT from the Chatham District also is going to be looking at that. A lot of times, they will have the final say on how striking should be done. So, it'll be a it'll be a teamwork from everybody.

I just want to express my opinion that whatever you do out there should match the other side of the road.

Yes.

And don't take NCDOT's word for what you can't do.

Yes. No. We we have we have good bike experts on our team as well. So and we're also following the latest ASTER guidance for bicycle accommodations, and we've been requesting DOD to allow Keri to strike bike lanes according to that.

Don't overlook NACTO along with AASHTO. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's good. You're good? Any other questions? Go ahead, Ken.

A clarification, miss Bucket. So when we have a two dwelling units per acre and we say that, are we applying the state statute which does include the stream buffers in the two per acre? Is that what the official two per acre was was set by?

No. And that's a great clarifying question. So that density calculation is gross. So that's whether you have a stream buffer on your site or not, it's just total acreage, the calculation of density. So I think I know what you're getting at which is it feels more dense, you know, if you're accounting for the stream buffer. The fact that there's gonna be a portion of the site that's undevelopable.

Feels more dense but we're not we're we're getting 1.8 for the area but that's counting. But that when you say you don't we don't count, that's without the adjacent street buffer, the 1.8.

Well, so that's just a gross density calculation. That's for rest of Total acreage. That's separate of the condition that they will calculate each lot size separate of the stream buffer. And that's that additional provision that is allowed in state code if they don't write themselves out of it, which they have in this case.

Okay. So back so back to the two, are we comparing apples to apples when we say two per acre versus 1.8? Are we comparing similar measurements?

We are. Okay. So it's gross density versus I gross want

to sure that because that

No, it's a great question.

And then the second thing, I think I'll just assume is it it said chargers and it's two car garage. I'm I'm assuming they're wiring one charger for two car garage.

I believe so. There's no the way the condition is written, it would just require the wiring.

That's what okay. That's all I need. Thank you.

Go ahead, Diane.

Yeah. I just I noticed a couple of neighbor comments about drainage and storm water runoff, and I was looking at the enrich policies as part of the plan. Could you speak to that?

Yeah. So any development of the site today would have to meet Carrie's stringent storm water requirements, mitigating to the one hundred year storm, making sure that preconstruction runoff rates are not exceeded by post construction. So all of those things will be in play if the site is developed in the future. I cannot speak to whether that will help reduce some of the impacts on adjacent sites. Sometimes it does, just depends on the way that the drainage is running currently from that site. But yes, they will have to meet our very stringent storm water requirements at time of development plan if they're rezoned.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Lashan?

I have a quick one. Were there any champion trees identified on

the site that might wanna be saved? So because this is a conditional use rezoning, they've not yet completed a tree survey, but that will be part of the discussion at time of development plan. And, of course, our LDO puts the priority on preservation unless, of course, it's right where a road or a storm water device or something critical has to go.

Anyone else? Yeah. Go ahead, Ruben.

Do we know what the existing and proposed speed limit are on pittered Sears?

I'm not certain. It's I believe it's 35.

35. Can double check. Otherwise posted. No. I'm just kidding.

We can verify that. I believe it's 35, but I would have to double check. I think that question came up at council too, and it's been a while ago.

Sorry. I have one

at the bottom. Go ahead.

I'm sorry. I've I've the and the I read about the connectivity and obviously people we we have to have connectivity because that's our ordinance. But I that I didn't quite that back corner for Cole Colmer Manor Drive.

Yes. Let me pull up that

Really in the corner. I don't it doesn't look like it's connectable. But I just wanna be sure if that I'm looking at that right or if it's.

Sorry. My number lock was not on. So you're speaking about the Colmar Manor Drive that comes in.

Yes. Right there in the corner where there's no room to connect to anything really, it looks like.

Yes. So default requirement is for it to connect. And then in reality, we are aware that's where that stream buffer is that I spoke about previously. So assuming that is an environmental feature that's there, they would still have to go through the modification process at time of development plan to not connect it through. But if that's a physical impediment to the connection, it is likely that that may just cul de sac into that corner of the site. That's certainly a possibility at this time.

That's what I was okay. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Not a not a question, but I just wanted to point out that, you know, going back to the drawing board, coming back as a R8CU, really to get in the context of the adjacent developments, I think they did a really good job threading the needle, like, you I don't think you could more appropriately set the the density and zoning here. So I I really appreciate that.

Yeah. I appreciate that. You preempted my comment. I I think too that this shows really the spirit of collaboration and cooperation in my mind and what I've seen. To that extent, if anyone's willing to make a motion there in your package, would be willing to entertain in a motion for this rezoning request.

I move that the board find 25REZ05 is consistent with the comprehensive plan and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the staff report, presentation, and discussion by the Planning and Zoning Board.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Alright. So we've got a motion on the floor. Sean, I'll let you provide any additional commentary on that motion.

I I think to echo what has already been said, it's thread the needle very well. It's appropriate for the area, and it's, you know, the continued, you know, collaboration for, you know, responsible development.

Chris, do you have anything else you want to add

to No. Pretty much the same thing.

Sal, I'll just start with you in case you have any additional questions or comments.

Just one question. Is there going to be sidewalks within the development?

So there would be. It's required to put them on at least one side of the street. We will encourage two, but they have to do at least one.

Thank you. Anything, Sean? Mike? Anyone? Ruben? Yeah.

Based on George's comment about the dead end roads that exist now and their connections, I noticed both of them are marked for future road extension. So has that already been looked at? You know, you talked about it going into the stream buffer.

Yes. I can speak to that a little bit further. So the one to the north of Etasso Drive connection, that we know will connect into the site as you've noted, that's marked as a future street extension. The one coming in in that northern corner, Colmar Mainnet Drive, is also shown as a future road extension, but may be constrained by the physical topography and environmental features. So we don't have that full engineering yet to know for certain, but we're aware that there could be an impediment to that full connection in that that northern corner.

Can I just add a comment to that? Other situations like this have been handled with a good pedestrian connection. Sure. Even if there's not a road or automobile connection, and that would be a shortcut to the American Tobacco Trail if they could come this way.

And I think a time of development plan that typically is our approach from a transportation side. If you can't facilitate the full road connection, we often look at a pedestrian connection as an alternative.

Thank you. A good that's a good point. Thank you. Diane or Ken, any any comments? Alright. Well, I guess I would take the motion to a vote. So all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. So we've got motion carries. Well, thank you. I appreciate the presentation, and we appreciate your appearance this evening as well. Thank you. Alright.

So we're moving on to our second case today, and this is 25 R E Z 08, and it's 8732 Green Level Church Road rezoning. And so Micah Arnold, our senior planner, will share the staff's presentation. Following the presentation, the applicant will share their remarks. All board members will once again have an opportunity to ask questions of the staff or the applicant. Miss Arnold, you may proceed. Thank you.

Thank you, and good evening board. This is a request to rezone approximately 3.31 acres located at 8732 Green Level Church Road. The site is located east of Green Level Church Road and south of the existing stub of Nodley Place in the Toscana subdivision. The park's recreation and cultural resources master plan does not indicate any greenway corridors planned within or directly adjacent to the site. A street side trail is proposed along Green Level Church Road and Mills Farm Road to the west.

Thomas Brooks Park is located about a third of a mile northeast of the subject property. Green Level Church Road is a thoroughfare west of the site, and Mills Farm Road is proposed collector southwest of the site. Nottoli Place, the only public street directly connecting to the site is a local street. The current zoning is residential 40 or r 40, And the applicant requests rezoning to residential 12 conditional use or r 12 C U. The proposed zoning conditions include limiting the use to detached dwellings and associated accessory uses, a maximum density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre, which could allow up to six homes, a commitment to providing perimeter buffers and common open space as some may otherwise be located on lots, A minimum of seven fifty square feet of community gathering space, which is 150 square feet more than the LDO requirement for a development of this size.

And finally, a commitment to curb gutter and sidewalk on both sides of streets within As shown by the blue star, the site is located within the Green Level Special Planning Area, neighborhoods East of Flat Branch sub area. This special planning area supports a gradual downward transition in density moving west from NC 540 towards the Chatham County line with areas East of the Flat Branch Stream not to exceed about three dwelling units per acre. Additional policy guidance includes cluster subdivision design and a predominant land use of detached dwellings. The proposed r 12 zoning and density of 1.9 dwellings per acre is in keeping with the area's current pattern and generally meets the policy guidance of the special planning area. When looking at the LIF chapter, we note the proposal will add a maximum of six additional homes on a small site at a density comparable to adjoining developments.

Regarding shape, the proposed rezoning would provide existing detached residential developments, thereby making a logical use and form transition. The applicant has committed to providing five foot sidewalks on both sides of any streets within development exceeding the current local street cross section requirement of sidewalk on only one side supporting the move chapter policy of applying multimodal street designs. When looking at the enrich chapter, the proposal includes a commitment to ensuring all required buffers are in common open space. The LDO otherwise allows buffers for 8,000 or more square foot lots to be on individual lots. This commitment may help better ensure tree preservation over time, which can help protect existing tree canopy.

The project would otherwise meet minimum LDO requirements for open space and buffer planting rates. A neighborhood meeting was held on 06/04/2025, and 14 citizens participated. Questions and concerns were related to an adjacent rezoning request, the proposed density, stormwater control measures, and the extension of Nautilus Place. Staff has since received one email citing concerns with the proposed density of the development and received one call with questions about the proposal. A public hearing was held in October.

There was one written comment and two speakers who expressed concerns regarding compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the adjacent rezoning, drainage in the area, and potentially prohibitive costs related to stormwater ponds for a small subdivision. The lot size and suggestion that the lots be larger for better consistency with the surrounding development, general traffic concerns, including a desire for a traffic study, and concerns regarding the road connection from the subdivision to the north. Council comments and questions included clarifications regarding traffic studies, including support of a signal warrant study on Green Level Church Road, clarification that there are existing neighborhoods with swales connected to newer neighborhoods with curb and gutter, clarifying questions about the surrounding density and lot size, and observations that community gathering area and perimeter buffers in open space are positive. Following the public hearing, the applicant made no changes to the proposal. Staff notes that many of the policies of the Cary Community Plan apply as detailed in your staff report.

A high level summary is provided here. Staff find that the small residential infill site is supported by the green level special planning area neighborhoods East of Flat Branch and some live policies. The proposed use of detached dwellings amidst existing detached dwellings makes makes a logical use and form transition supporting shape policies. The commitment to providing sidewalk on both sides of all new street construction ensures consistency with move policies. And finally, the proposal's commitment to locating all perimeter buffers and open space may help with tree canopy preservation, which supports the Enrich chapter.

This concludes my presentation. Randy Miller, the applicant's representative, is available to provide comments, and following the public hearing, I'm available to answer your questions.

Terrific. Thank you. Mr. Miller, thank you.

Good evening, board members. Good evening. Which one?

Maybe that one, I think. Yes. Just lift make get it high enough for you. There you go.

Good evening. My name is Randy Miller with Thompson Associates. On behalf of the owners who are also here tonight, staff presented, I think, everything very well. This is a unique piece of property. In fact, it's sort of landlocked.

There's only one access to it. It's through Naughtyley Place. I know there were some concerns about access to it, but there's only one access. It's it's the extension of Nautilus Place down into the site. I do know there were some talk that any development would have to provide a stub to the west, to the adjacent property, and any development would be posed to do that.

I know, homeowners were concerned about the fact that the curb and gutter we required and sidewalks along this street extension where the existing street is just a ditch and shoulder section. I know we'll have to work out some issues on how to make that transition. And I know some other concerns of storm water, but there is we believe there's enough area to control the storm water, and part of any development plan would have to control it anyways to meet the requirements, and the intent is to do so. Other than that, that's about it. And there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer.

Sure. Thank you. So at this time, we have an opportunity for the members of the board to ask questions. Once again, just please keep in mind the relevance to Cary Community Plan. I guess we went down to the left previously. Sal, any questions?

Could I see the slide on the PRC slide on connectivity there?

Sure.

So the blue is existing. I just felt that there was, it looks like there's, it sort of begs to have some connectivity to the south, to the bottom along that those property lines and seeing it. Nothing's gonna happen in this with this site, then I would expect that probably nothing will happen with the other site. Anything reasoning behind, you know, no connectivity to the existing street side trail?

Well, the site does not have frontage along Green Level Church Road or Mills Farm Road. The site's only frontage is along Nottoli Place, which is why they're required to provide the connection there.

Just through the the access streets?

Correct.

Okay. I thought sometimes they put them on the borders of of some of the the lots and sites.

So are you talking along

Like a street stub.

North of Holston Bank Way?

I would just, sort of

along

the, let's see, along the borders where the buffers would be.

So they would be required to provide a stub to the site to the west Okay. Which that site has frontage along Green Level Church Road, but is not part of this rezoning. So if that site were to eventually develop, the stub that would be provided by this site would eventually connect out to Green Level Church Road and provide that connection.

Okay. Thank you.

LaShawn?

Kind of going off what you were talking about. So is that is then we're not we're not gonna be having like a cul de sac situation. You will have to come through and stub out.

Yes. And I'll look to transportation to talk about the details of what that stub may look like at time of development plan.

I'll try my best to answer the question because we don't have any design drawings for this. So, Knotley Place would come down south and then it would it would have to curve west. So, we don't know if that curvature would work or they would have to put a small roundabout there to provide a continuous circulation, but it will not be a cul de sac.

Okay. That's what I was wondering.

I mean, if it is a cul de sac, then there would be another that would go west.

Yeah. What saying. There has to be still

a It would not be a dead end, so there will be some connectivity.

That's what I was wondering. Okay. That answered my question. Thank you.

Oh. Ben, while you still up there, can I ask one?

Yeah. Sure.

Before you

go too far.

So if if it came down from the north to the south and there was a cul de sac at the bottom and there was a an angle off the t off to the left. It did they did require that he have five foot sidewalks on all streets. So if they stub, they're gonna put a five foot sidewalk on both sides even if it's just a stub because I think they said all streets.

Yes.

Is that right? Okay. Just make sure of that. Okay. Thank you.

Sure. Chris, any questions?

Did I hear right? Is the the the density it is at the same or greater than the surrounding?

Yes. It's to surrounding

development.

Thought that's the case. I just wanted

to verify. That's all I had.

Mike, anything? We said 3.3 acres at a density of 1.9. It's basically a maximum of six units.

Correct.

Okay. No more questions

from me. Thanks. Sean, anything?

Same thing. Good.

I'm curious about why we are going from sidewalk section to existing shoulder section, and I'm wondering about where the high ground is related to that.

That was a commitment of the applicant to make that rezoning condition for the curb and gutter. The existing conditions in Toscana along Nodley Place and the subdivision to the north was a condition based on previous plans that the town had for a more rural subdivision feel that we do not use anymore.

It's I guess Stormwater has reviewed this or will review

They will. Yes. Stormwater will review this at time of development, Lynn.

I just voice a concern that there's a transition. And generally, ditch sections are better for stormwater runoff, but I understand we're transitioning. I think it's gonna be a weird transition between the two.

Yes. And we have seen other conditions around the town where curb and gutter is connecting to existing swale, and we've reviewed those.

I also think we're gonna end up with sidewalks that end in a ditch. One. We're not careful.

Do do they curve at these other places? How how do they handle it? If you if if it lines up with a ditch, do they curve it back out the road so people can continue along the road rather than falling in the ditch? Right? At the sidewalk?

I would have to get more details for you on There

there's gotta be we if they know there's I'd I'd like to hear that because that was my fault to it. It can't line up with a ditch. It's gotta turn or something to get to the road so people can keep walking.

Yeah. That's good. So to answer the first part of the question, we do not allow shoulder and ditch sections anymore. Okay. Those are gone.

I'm sorry. Did not allow what?

Shoulder and ditch sections for for new roadways. Thank you. Over time, you know, when they are initially built, they have better conveyance of the water and stuff, but over time, maintenance becomes an issue. So, it's a lot easier to maintain a curb and gutter section. That is why we only have a curb and gutter section for storm water conveyance. And to answer your question, you know, what would happen to the sidewalks? We would have to see where a logical terminus is. You know, we may have to put some object markers letting people know that the sidewalk doesn't go beyond that. I would have to terminate it a little ahead of the ditch, so we don't have a situation where people are running into the ditch. So, we we don't have too many situations like this.

The neighborhood to the north is an older neighborhood that was built with, you know, shoulder and dissections, no sidewalks back in the day, but multimodal, just having all streets, having multimodal, accommodations has become very important for us. In the future, maybe the neighborhood to the north will come and say, hey. We want sidewalks here. We don't know that, but we want to make sure we set up the new subdivision streets in the right way where if people want to walk, they're able to walk. And again, the sidewalk doesn't go anywhere yet, but once they once the properties to the west develop, they'll have a connection to Greenville West Road. Sorry. Greenville Church Road.

I got a related Yeah.

Stay out

there. Well, let's see where else I go with that. Have we ever considered stubbing out a sidewalk to the edge of the road because in the absence of sidewalks, pedestrians have a defined place on the roadway. In a lot of neighborhoods that don't want sidewalks is because walking in the street is perfectly safe.

Right.

So instead of having a dead end and it'd be fifty years before they ask for sidewalks Right. On the other side, could we just transition the sidewalk to the edge of the street?

A great question. So, I don't know the answer to that because when this comes in, goes through the design, we'll have to evaluate what the national guidance is for these kind of situations. Okay. It makes sense in a neighborhood situation where, you know, there's a cul de sac nearby. You know, you do not really expect too many cars flying by, so Right. Maybe maybe that's considered safe. Mhmm. But along a mid street segment Mhmm. I'm not sure we should be directing people to go into the street.

Yeah. I agree a 100%.

So that's a decision that we had to make at

Given it's a residential neighborhood already and fairly new homes, it's probably not like to be sidewalks anytime soon.

But what we do, we are looking and thinking about some kind of signage Mhmm. That that tells pedestrians that, you know, this is dead end and know, try not to go, you know, ahead of that.

Yeah. It's kinda like like for bicycles, it's a neighborhood greenway on the streets perfectly fine and safe. Same thing for pedestrians. I just hate to see that concrete wasted where, you know, that last little leg nobody's ever gonna use. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else, Diane? No. Okay. Well, yeah, I would say too that a lot of those last things that we've discussed are a little bit beyond maybe the scope of, you know, whether or not this zoning is consistent with the plan, but all very good feedback for consideration in the future.

Well, was thinking that we're trying to make it fit to the neighborhood. That was how I was thinking about it because part of the care community got to fit in the

Yes.

So that I was trying as Ruben was talking, was trying to say how was this gonna fit Yep. Because that's part of the care community plan. It's not a technical part but there's gotta be something and and to me dead inside on the street it's like separates these two neighborhoods. I'm sorry. You can't go any further. Know, you you hit the end of the road. Yep. You can't go in the next neighborhood. It it seems like we gotta make it fit if we're gonna follow the care community.

Yeah. No. No. I agree a 100%. I just think that that's the next phase of the equation and and it's good feedback for people to consider as this thing moves forward. I think it's very very valid and I'm glad you guys were willing to continue realize it's love a little

the more detail. Since it's in the planning document,

Yeah. Good good comments.

And and I would say this this goes back to what beat the beat the drum again is that when you when you have a handful of checks on a on your on your list of where it fits care community plan, I really, really would like to see an NA for the ones that just don't apply to this thing so that as the public looks at these things, they don't have to digest everything. And then if it fails in one thing, I'd like to see an x because then I think we would we would get a better overview and the public would get a better overview of of how it lines up because it says something about, you know, commerce. Well, that's NA. You know, we're not doing commerce. That's selling, you know, lemonade on the street.

But I think it's important. It would be better I think for, you know, to to show that because then if it if there is an x because sometimes the staff says it doesn't fit something. It's not it'd nice to know that and this is one thing where I think that the fitting in the neighborhood is kind of a it's gonna be difficult with the neighbors have a right to be a little concerned. It goes from one ditch to a sidewalk. It has a different feel. That's what I'm concerned about. Yeah.

Understood.

So Well, at this point, absent any additional questions or comments, we're willing to accept a motion which is in your package. If someone's willing to provide a motion on twenty five REZ08, I would appreciate that.

I move that the board find 25 REZ08 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all other applicable plans for the reasons set forth in the task force presentation and discussion by plan aims only.

Second.

Any additional questions or comments? Mike, do you want to make any additional comments?

No. Think there's only so much you can do here. I think even, you know, the context of some of the great comments on sidewalks, things like that, the applicant's gonna have to conform to town's current standards, and that's gonna get figured out. So that's what I got.

Ken, anything? Current current standards. We gotta do it that way. Alright.

So it sounds like we're in a good spot. We can willing to entertain the motion that's been before us. So all those in favor, please state aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright, motion carries. And just as a comment, both of these cases came, and I think they both demonstrated a really good collaboration between the town and the applicant. Both considered feedback, made changes to their plan. At the end of the day, maybe not everybody's satisfied, but I really feel like both of these sort of garner what this whole process is about. So I appreciate both the applicants and the staff for working together to bring these to us.

So as we move forward, let's see if I find my spot here, we have finished that. So we're heading on into new business. And so for the 2026 meeting schedule, it's been presented to all of us. Does anyone recognize anything from that schedule that there's a conflict or any of the holiday issue that we should be aware of otherwise? You know, we'll we'll move forward, and we would be prepared to adjourn. Any additional comments other than let's go home? Alright. I deem this meeting adjourned. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. Thank you.