progress stopped recording in progress. personal information that was passed out earlier They all need to be turned into the security guard. That is information that is not to be disseminated. it address that our home addresses, which was not appropriate Email is the preferred method of communication. And we do read them and lots of times we'll respond if a request is asked. So The attorney is back, so let's get started. Um, my name is, uh, Mary Skenes. Good evening everyone. Uh, I'd like to welcome you to the April 20th, 2026 meeting of the Greensboro Planning and zoning. Commission. If the other commissioners would introduce them still starting from my right. Stu Nichols Betty Turner Catherine Ma War Downing Paul Gilmer Senior Ted Oliver Thank you Uh note that this is being conducted in and if anyone participating online needs help with Zoom please email staff out and this is a new address, so zoning, administration at Greensboro-NC g ov Members of the commission are appointed by the city council, and we do serve without pay. The commission reviews all original zoning and annexation cases and rezoning requests for the city of Greensboro. and each commissioner normally visits each site prior to this meeting. The procedure that will be used for all of our public hearings is as follows. Planning staff will present background information and make their recommendation for the case. The applicant will then present a short summary of how he or she communicated with the neighborhood and why the request is reasonable. Other persons in favor of the request. for a total of 10 minutes and this time is. 0. that We were just asking that question as well. 5 minutes of rebuttal time. and those in opposition to the request. We'll have 5 minutes of rebuttal time. At the end of the speaking time, we will close the public hearing. Any commission member may ask questions once a presenter has completed their case. and all commissioners are required to vote unless they have a conflict of interest. In an effort to run the meetings more efficiently. The commission may reorganize the meeting agenda. Cases in which no opposition has been expressed to the planning department or in which no speakers have signed up to speak in opposition. and in which commission members don't feel it necessitates an in-depth discussion. Those items will be moved to the top of the agenda. Staff will provide a shortened uh presentation for those expedited cases and applicants if desired, will have 2 minutes. to address the commission to provide any additional information that they would like us to know. Expedited cases will then be discussed and voted on by the commission. When speaking here tonight, um, please direct all questions and comments to the planning and zoning commission. uh, not to staff The commission will then communicate with staff on those questions. When a case is called that you're interested in, you need to please come to the podium. state your name and address for the record. If you're participating online uh, please find and use the raise hand function under the reaction button. You'll be called upon to speak in the order in which the hands were raised. All approved or denied cases receiving 6 or more votes will constitute final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. All cases receiving a a majority of favorable votes, but less than 6. will be subject to a public hearing by the city council. In all cases that involve annexation are also subject to final approval by the city council. Participants in the Zoom meeting will be able to review the meeting and speak when they are called upon. This meeting is being recorded and televised on Greensboro Television Network. And now we need to hear from our attorney about items that we need to consider or not consider in hearing cases tonight. Thank you, Chair Skenes, and good evening, everyone. Uh, much of the commission's work this evening is going to relate to the consideration of rezoning applications. Um, I'd like to remind everyone in attendance that when the commission considers rezoning applications, the determinations that it makes are based on the land uses allowed under the zoning district that's put forth in the application in any conditions that have been proposed by the applicant. Um, these decisions take broad policy questions into account and those considerations are summarized by the factors outlined in the reasonableness statements that you'll hear the commissioners read when they make their motions on these items. Um. land use impacts on public infrastructure are relevant in rezoning matters. And it's important to know that the commission is not here to determine all details of the development. That is a process that involves staff input and evaluation that goes beyond the scope of the commission's work. If a rezoning would generate a certain amount of traffic flow, the commissioners will have been provided with a trafficked impact study, uh, a summary traffic impact study. And meanwhile, many site-specific development features, uh, such as the means of, uh, management of stormwater are evaluated through the technical Review Committee rather than here in this forum. Uh, lastly, concerns that are not related to land use are not germane to the commission's consideration of rezoning applications. For example, generalized concerns about crime rates and questions of who may own uh live at or utilize the subject property in a rezoning application are not for the commission's consideration. If there are questions about matters that are not addressed this evening, those can be referred to the planning department or city technical staff as appropriate. And chairskenes, if I may, uh, have one thing I do want to add on, uh, to my usual comments. This is, uh, gonna be a one time thing in relation to uh something that was brought to our attention earlier today, um. I understand that at least some members of the commission had the unusual experience this weekend of receiving a visit at their homes, uh, from someone who apparently wanted to discuss an item or items that are on tonight's agenda. Uh, first, I want to highlight the fact that the city staff, uh, who were seated around me from the planning department and other departments have an excellent system, uh, to ensure that community comments are relayed to members of the commission in advance of these meetings, right? I see many such emails from staff that come to y'all as the commissioners, and I know that, uh, the staff members uh take a good number of phone calls from members of the community as well. And of course when it comes to in-person comments, uh, you know, we have a very engaged community, uh, where folks do show up to these com mission meetings every month uh, and relay their concerns about rezoning requests uh during the allotted time, uh, for each public hearing. Um, Now, those are the methods of communication that this commission has relied on for effective communication with the community, uh, for as long as I've, I've been, uh working with y'all Um, as for someone just showing up at your door to discuss a zoning item. Well, I empathize with the, you know, the unease that that situation could bring for any of the commissioners. Um, and ultimately it is up to each of y'all individually, uh, whether you want to make it clear for folks that you do not wish to discuss the business of this commission at your own doorstep. Um, and it would also be up to you whether you want to contact the police if someone fails to respect that wish, uh, from the city's vantage point, I can simply say that, uh, you know, we would not want to endorse the idea of, uh, folks showing up at your homes to discuss the work that you do here, uh, as volunteer members of the commission. Uh, just wanted to make those comments, uh, for the moment and Chair Skenenes, I understand, perhaps the commissioners may uh look to make additional comment later in the evening, but thank you for some clarification on that. Yes, ma'am. Um, to the agenda we have uh minutes from the March 16th meeting. um, that, excuse me, first thing is we need to acknowledge absences, uh, Commissioner Erica Glass and Commissioner Keith Peterson, uh, will not be with us tonight, um, but we still have a, a full complement of members to be able to hear the cases and vote. uh, and we wish Keith Peterson a speedy recovery for some surgery that he just had. Now we can move to the minutes from the March 16th meeting. Stu Nichols moved Gil OK, all in favor of approving the March 16 minutes, please signify by saying I, I. posed OK, those minutes are approved. Our next item is withdrawals and continuances. Uh, do we have a request for either one? Yes, uh, Chair Skenes, we have a request to continue item Z-26-04013, which is for 12:01 and 12:07 Piske Church Road. The applicant is requesting that this item be continued to the July, planning and zoning commission meeting. All right, um before we get started in discussion on that, I would like our attorney, because I know it's going to come up in, in discussion. I would like our attorney to speak to the validity of hearing a case that is involved in pending litigation. Uh, Chair Skenes, I can be pretty brief on the point, um, you know, uh, rezoning is a legislative act that's guided by policy considerations. Property owners have a right and ability to request a rezoning, uh, and the city has continuing authority to consider those rezoning, uh, applications when they're brought forward, um, you know, certainly there are examples, uh, from other, uh, municipalities around the state where rezonings have been challenged and there have been successive applications for rezoning that is sort of inherent in the legislative nature of that process that folks may uh look to get a new determination if they decide they want to do something slightly different. So. purposes of right now, the determination has been there are two separate items impending litigation does not prevent us from hearing anything about a rezoning Cherskenes, that's correct, yeah. Very good Um we are going to, because of case itself and the interest that has been um, I'd like the applicant to come forward. We're give each side 5 minutes. to explain the reason for the re the uh continuance. request and members of the commission, uh, thanks for having my time. I'm William Johnson. Um, everybody calls me BJ. I live at 2406 North Elm Street here in Greensboro. And just due to the fact how we went through the process last year and given It's a little louder. OK. Given, um, the nature of this case and um the experience we had last year, we felt like there's more time needed to engage the community, uh, have more discussion, and also make sure the process was done in a proper way. There's still a lot of things that are evolving in terms of our project and feel like a continuance would be the best interest for everyone here. And that continuance is to the July meeting. Yes, the July 20th meeting and that Kirkman would be Sorry, looking it up here real quick Make sure I had the right date. The 3 in July. Yes, uh, July 20th is the date. OK. Anything else you want to share, Mr. Johnson? No, that's enough. OK, um, I understand there are some people opposed to this request and they, you have 5 minutes if you'd like to come to the mic, give your name and address. uh, and speak to the reasons why you do not think that continuance should be granted. The volume level OK Oh, good evening, uh, Chaskenes, appreciate it. I want to you We're good to go. OK, take 2. Good evening, Cheriskenenes. I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I want to thank all the members of the council. I know this is a volunteer, uh duty that you do for your city, and we really appreciate it, um, Ms. Turner, I appreciate you speaking to me directly on the phone and Stu Nichols as well. I appreciate you speaking to me directly on the phone. So I'm gonna start off this evening and just ask a question. Name and address. Oh, I'm sorry, Timothyuhan 624 Willoughby Boulevard, Greensboro. So I'm going to start with the question, why the delay? Uh, the rezoning request itself, which I have in my hand here was entered on March 6th. We found out about this rezoning request. when the public notice went up the day before Good Friday, that was April 2nd. Now the city and the developer selected this time and date, and we are present in the chamber, and we are prepared to speak against this rezoning. With respect, we believe this needs to be voted on tonight. We think the neighborhood deserves this level of dignity This is a professional developer or so he builds himself. We're ordinary people with jobs, with lives, we have spent over one year. opposing this situation. and I will add before the city council meeting last year. the developer was also granted another delay, the same day, I believe, March 17th, when people were headed to this meeting. literally in cars to come down here. putting off this vote to July 20th is simply inappropriate. Again, the developer is a professional We think it's fair, no more delays. Let's make the vote. Again, why the delay Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stuhand. Is there anyone else who would like to speak specifically to the request of not granting the continuance. Good evening, Mikey Derry Adams, 602 Blanton Place. um land use is the purpose of this commission and land use is how Irving Park, and by extension New Irving Park were designed. Insurance and real estate developers in Greensboro and formed the Irving Park Company. They engaged John Nolan, one of the country's premier landscape architects and city planners in 1911 He developed a master plan that provided for the comforts of the city with the joys of country living. All streets, sidewalks, gardens, homes, and other man-made objects were designed to blend into the area's natural surroundings, creating a park-like setting. telephone and electric wires were buried. Special deed restrictions were also used to ensure that the attractive character and appearance of the area would be preserved. Irving Park was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1911. 1201 Pisah Church is at the main entrance and egress of Newerring Park. As already noted, Miss Adams, you've only got 1 minute and 45 seconds left, and you've yet to tell us why we shouldn't hear this continuance, ma'am, uh just to piggyback, um, of course, you know, the what's in front of you right now is, is purely a uh consideration of that motion for a continuance. So yeah, getting into more of the substantive, uh, piece of the rezoning question wouldn't, wouldn't be appropriate at this stage, so. it sounds like you're arguing the case and we're not here to hear, hear the case. We're only here to get a continuance with uh the planning commission to change it to from R3 to CD. RM 12 and we still maintain that position. OK. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? against granting a continuance. And we need to start the clock again when Miss Smith gets to the podium. committee members, my name is Nikki Smith. I live in Greensboro, 402 Kemp Road West, and I'm here to express my strong opposition to continuing this in July. That's gonna put us well into the month of summer This group of individuals have come tonight to represent their community. and the city has made the decision to have this meeting tonight, and I think they deserve to be heard tonight and not delay this for 3 more months. So I ask you to please not allow a continuance of this to kick this down the cannon on the road for 3 more months and make it difficult on the homeowners where the developer has got the freedom to come to these meetings and be a part of it, these homeowners don't, so please give them the respect. Thank you. Smith Anyone else that would position to the continuance. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion regarding the request I'm just wondering, um whether council can comment on what the legal standard is for that we should be considering and looking at whether to grant the continuance. Commissioner Nichols, I think ultimately what we are looking at is a question of whether there would be any real inequity to any of the parties uh by doing so. um, I will say that I know historically the commission has looked heavily upon whether or not um you know, a project, uh, is, is still being refined such that a, a newer version of it may, may come back before the commission and in successive months. Um. but again, it's just a general policy consideration there. comments Yes, I'll make a comment. So, the biggest inequity would be not having more time and information from both parties. As a city and as a group, we value information, we value perspective. And if a party is asking for continuance, I have in my hand lots of your emails on this evening and some of the emails allude to, of course, the litigation that is happening. However, such litigation is happening that is not contingent upon this matter on tonight as our attorney said, but some have also expressed more communication. So if that's going to give additional time and that's, that's gonna rectify the problem. To me, my perspective, we want sense of belonging. We want the community to talk, to resolve issues. Let's talk So I'm going to be supporting the continuance on this evening because it is incumbent upon us to do such a thing for both parties. There is no bias, it's just the right thing to do. By the way, my address was wrong. I moved 5 years ago. Ms. Skenenes, can you lift your microphone just up a little bit? We're having a little trouble hearing you with the audio, so. you can just get a little closer, that'd be great. Thank you. Is that better? Very good. Anybody else wanna comment or make a motion or Yes, Madam Chair, I will be leaning for a continuance to the July Ma He just said he no no, he did not But, but you can I'd like that we um accept the continuance for Z 26-04-013. at 21 12:01 Willoughby, that we um vote on. whether we should continue this or not. And your motion is to grant the continuance. Gil We have a to grant the continuance on K Z 26-04-013 to the July 20th meeting. All in favor of the motion. Please signify by saying I, I. oppose like sun that motion passes, and this case will be continued into the July 20th meeting. Give just a minute to clear I'm going to give a few minutes for the, for the room to, to clear. We hope to see you in July. OK, let's move forward. Um, we have been asked to move a text amendment. um, up on the agenda. And that's, uh, item 26-12. And this is a zoning planning and development text amendment amending the Greensboro Land Development Ordinance, Section 30-12-2. Flood damage prevention specifically Section 30- 12 - 21 General and Section 30-12-2.4 amendments to the Flood Insurance map. I believe we have some staff that's gonna enlighten us on this without a whole lot of detail that we don't understand. Yes, good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Planning commission. Uh, my name is Chrissy Andrews, deputy director of the planning department. Yeah, I want to thank your willingness for, uh, considering this at the beginning of your, uh, agenda. Uh, we do have representatives from the city's water resources department, uh, Danielle Quick and Chester Holder here in case there are any questions related to the technical reason for these, but uh we want to keep this pretty short tonight, uh, staff did not even prepare a presentation. So um, what is before you tonight is your consideration and recommendation of a city initiated text amendments, uh, related to verbiage in the flood damage prevention section of the Land Development Ordinance. Uh, there's some very minor changes that were necessitated by a change in recent maps, as well as, uh, terminology in, uh, documentation at both the federal and state levels. So, uh, the first thing there that's the amendment to the actual floodplain ordinance is due to federal and state requirements of the new maps that are being made available. Uh, and this makes the city's preliminary maps for, uh, floodplains, uh, effective and is required by FEMA for the city's participation, uh, in, uh, national flood. Insurance program. Uh, so that's pretty important. And the second is the language that's uh related to no rise. Uh, it's just a, a change in language, uh, to reflect the current current documentation that's being used. So, uh, again, both of these are really changes in language, not necessarily, um, you know, material for the development process. So unless there's any questions of either planning or my colleagues in water resources, uh, staff asks for your forwarding of this item to the city council for approval at their May 19th meeting. And as a text amendment, uh, reminder, this does require the uh consistency and reasonableness statement. books, I do believe. first item um, and, and, and bottom line, just to elaborate, and I believe I had mentioned this in the memo that I sent, that this is precipitated by changes at the state level. and in order for us to be in compliance, we've got to adjust our text amendment accordingly. uh, and make it consistent with what the state is requesting and requiring. That is correct. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. OK. if there's any questions or motion. I need to read the statement The dreaded consistency question. Um regarding item PLP 2. 2612, the text, the LDO text amendment flood damage prevention. Um, the text, um, uh, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the text amendment request for the flood damage prevention text Amendment to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. One, the request is consistent with allowing development that supports the comprehensive plan's future-built form man and future land use map. The request is reasonable as the proposed amendments are reflective of changes in state and federal floodplain mapping and reflect current document language. Stu Nichols, I second to recommend, um approval or recommend, uh, passing this request on to city council. All in favor, please signify by saying, I, I. opposed like Sun, uh, this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to public hearing at the Tuesday, May 19th, 2026, City council meeting. Thank you all very much OK. um now we will move to the agenda and unless something has changed and someone has come in, we have a number of cases that will be on the expedited agenda, and I will read out by address, since a lot of you don't have an agenda and don't know the case numbers. Um 2507 and 2511 Freeman Mill Road and 1402 near Minor Street. has been expedited. 3705 Flint Street. 2612 Rear South Holden Road. 544 Joelson Street. 536 Farragut Street 3700 Liberty Road. 3101 3 1301, 1305, 1307, at all, North Elm, Cone Hospital, that's been expedited. Uh, 611 and a portion of 613 Pisser Church and a portion of 3917 Baylor Street. and a portion of 6:13 Pisa Church Road and a portion of 3917 Baylor Street. been expedited 27, 11 and 27-13 YY Liberty Road. and that is the end of the agenda. Did I miss anything or add something I shouldn't have? Uh, no, those are the ones that we're aware of, so we just need to make sure there's no one in opposition to any of those items that Miss, uh, Chair Skenenes has just read to the record. Yeah could you hear that? If, if there's someone who's in opposition to any of those cases, I've read out let us know then we will proceed Um and the first case we will hear is actually under old business. uh, 2507 and 2511 Freeman Mill Road. um, and, and the way this works is staff will give us a presentation, brief presentation. If the applicant is here and wants to say anything, we give them a couple of minutes. to, uh, elaborate. and then we will close it and and have a vote. Mr. Kirk. So Skenes, you'll be so kind as to read the first slide, so we have the official information in the record. Very good, thank you. Thank you. This is item 2501-006. This is a rezoning request from R5 Residential Single Family, 5. RM 18 residential Multi-family 18 and CDCM Conditional District commercial Medium to CDLI Conditional District Light Industrial for the properties identified as 2507 and 2511 Freeman Mill Road, and 1402 near Minor Street generally described as east of Freeman Mill Road, west of Beagle Street and north of Coliseum Boulevard, 1.001 acres. Thank you, Chaske. Uh, yes, again, the request this evening for the commission is to rezone property from our 5 residential single family, RM 18 residential multi-family and CDCM Conditional District commercial Medium 2 Conditional District light industrial. Zoning to the north of request is office, east of the quest is RM 18 residential Multi-family, South of Questst is zon CDCM Conditional District Commercial Medium and West Quest is our five residential single family. The subject properly currently contains a contractor's office with outdoor storage. North of the request is a government facility, the DMV office. Easter requests, are single-family dwellings, and undeveloped land south of requests is a convenient store with fuel pump and other retail shops and uses. West Quest is undeveloped land. This is a conditional zoning application. and these are the two conditions that were offered in advertised as part of the hearing this evening. and recommending the approval of their requests, staff notes the comprehensive plan designates this property as Urban Central on the future built form map and residential and the future land use map. Steph has determined that this resigning quest does support the comprehensive plan's growing economic competitiveness goal to build a prosperous, resilient economy that creates the equitable opportunities to succeed and promotes homegrown businesses, supports entrepreneurship cultivates industry leaders, and welcomes major corporations and institutions. They proposed CDLI district as condition does allow all uses, generally permitted in the LI district, but then it also includes conditions to limit negative impacts on surrounding properties. This resigning quest, uh, does allow uses that are complimentary to the existing uses in the area, given its proximity to a major thoroughfare with quick access to interstate highway and would help resolve a current zoning use violation on portions of the property. So again, staff was recommending approval of requests, and we can answer questions. Any questions of staff Would the applicant like 2 minutes to elaborate on the case. or anything that was said Uh, uh, CNO All righty. With that, we will close the public hearing and move to discussion and or motion If you recall this is a case that we heard last year. Um, and this is bringing it into compliance, correct? So right now we have an issue where the existing use does not match the zoning, so this would resolve that issue. Great, thank you. With, with, with that said, I'd like to make a motion. Z25-01-006 of the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the resigning request for the property at 2507 and 2511 Freeman Mill Road. and 1402 near Minor Road from R 5 residential single Family 5 RM 18, residential multi-family 18 and CDCM Conditional District, commercial medium to CDLI Conditional District Light Industrial. To be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future build format and future land use map. The proposed CDLI zoning District as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, and it will benefit the property owner and the surrounding community and approval is in the public interest. Gil. motion by Ms. Maggott is seconded by Mr. Gilmer, to approve, uh, 25-01-006, all in favor, please signify by saying I, I. like that passes on a 7 to 0 vote, and this approval constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the FOP appeal fee is 10 days. expedited case. is going to be Z-26-04-002. And this is a rezoning request from R5 residential Single Family 5. to CDRM18 Conditional District residential Multi-family 18 for the property identified as 3705 Flint Street, generally described as west of Flint Street and north of Berryman Street, 1.22 acres. Mr. Nelson, thank you, Skenes. rezoning request from R5 to CDRM 18. North and west of the request are zone R5. east and south, the request are zon RM 18. The aerial map shows the subject property currently contains a single-family dwelling north of the request contains a religious assembly use and single family dwellings. East and south the request contain multi-family dwellings and Westbrookquet contains single family dwellings. So the condition advertised with the request proposed by the applicant. And he recommended approval of the request, staff noted that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plan designates the site as Urban general on the future built format. map. The proposed rezoning request supports the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans filling in our framework big idea to arrange our land uses where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro and the creating great Places goal to create a citywide network of unique neighborhoods. offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. And staff know that the proposed CDRM 18 zoning district as condition would permit a maximum of 20 residential dwelling units and that the proposed uses are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. and that care should be taken with respect to building orientation, materials, height, and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the lower density and residential on adjacent properties in I have to answer any questions. Uh yes, I think we need to change the header on this page. Oh, we certainly do. It's not Vivian Lane. No, it is not. Yeah Any questions of staff Would the applicant like 2 minutes to elaborate on the request. I'm getting a no. We're good. Uh, so I will close the public hearing, open the floor to discussion and or motions. regarding item Z26-04-002. The planning and zoning Commission believes that its action to, well, I'm going to make a motion for approval. Yes, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning. for the 705 Flint Street from R5 Residential Single Family 5 to CDRM 18, Conditional District residential multi-family 18 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan. and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. One, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future-built form map, and future land use map. to the proposed CDRM 18 zoning district as conditioned permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community and approval is in the public interest. Second, Miss Magid We have a motion for Ms. Turner, seconded by Ms. Magid to approve um, Z-26-04-002, all in favor of the approval. Please signify by saying I. Aye. pose like sign that passes on a vote of 7 to 0, and this approval constitutes a final action and unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Moving on to the next expedited case. which is, uh, Z-26-04-003. This is a rezoning request from BP Business Park. to CDRM26 conditional District residential Multi-family 26. for the property identified as a portion of 2612 Rear South Holden Road, generally described as west of South Holden Road and south of Farmington 10.27 acres. Kirkman Skenes, the request is a rezoning from BP Business Park to CDRM26 Conditional District residential Multi-family. North of the Quest is currently zoned RM 18, residential Multi-family, and BP Business Park. Easter Quest is um BP Business Park with R3 residential single family further to the east. South of West is um BP Business Park in West Quest is in CDRM12 Conditional District residential Multi-family. The subject property is currently undeveloped. North of their quests are multi-family dwellings as well as a credit union with drive-through facility. Eir Quest, also the credit union, with drive-through facilities as well as single-family dwellings and undeveloped land further to the east. South of the requests is undeveloped land uh, and Wester Quest is also undeveloped land. This is a conditional zoning application and there is one condition associated with it that was advertised as part of the hearing this evening. The comprehensive plans feature built format designates the subject properties as urban in general and is also designated as an industrial on the future land use map of the support the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans filling in our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time. to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The request also supports the conference of Plans creating great Places strategy to meet housing needs and desires with a sufficient and diverse supply of housing products, prices and locations. The proposed CDRM 26 S condition allows uses that are compatible with existing residential uses and densities in the surrounding area, and the proposed zoning is also appropriate given the location along a major thoroughfare. Can you answer any questions? Any questions of staff Would the applicant like 2 minutes to elaborate on the request. OK, we have a raucous no on that one So we will close the public hearing open for discussion or motion. St Nichols, I'll make the motion relative to item Z26. - 24 - 003 The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning requests for the properties at a portion of 2612 rear South Holden Road from Business Park to CDRM 26, which is conditional district residential multi-family 26. to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. First the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future form-built map and future land use map. Second, the proposed CDRM 26 zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. Third, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community and approval is in the public interest. Second, Warche Downing. We have a motion by Mr. Nichols in a second by Mr. Downing to approve Z04003, all in favor, signified by saying I, I. opposed like sign that passes on a 7 to 0 vote and this approval constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Just just wanted you to know that consistency statement that we were reading on, on our monitors had the wrong address. for that. The statement was read correctly and that is what matters at the end of the day. good 26-04-004 and this is a rezoning. from commercial medium to CDO Conditional District Office for the property identified as 544 Joelson Street, generally described as east of Joelson Street and south of East Bessemer Avenue, 0.54 acres. Mr. Kirkman. Yes, thank you, Chair Skenes. Again, the request is rezoning from existing commercial medium CM to CDO Conditional District Office. North of requests is currently zoned. Excuse me, RM 26, residential multifamily, Easter quest is on CEM commercial medium, as well as RM18 residential multi-family South of requests is its own HI heavy industrial and West Questst is zone CM commercial medium. Subject property currently contains an existing office use, North requests are multi-family dwellings, Easter quest is of equal sales use as well as multi-family dwellings. South of Request is a manufacturing facility in West Sir Questt our vehicle sales and services. This is a conditional application and this is the condition that was offered and advertised for the hearing this evening. GSO 24 Comprehensive plan designates the subject properties Urban Central on the future Built form map, as well as being within an urban mixed-use quarter and a reinvestment quarter, and the properties are designated as commercial on the future land use map. The proposed resigning request does support the conference of plans growing economic competitiveness, big idea to build a prosperous, resilient economy that creates equitable opportunities to succeed. and the filling in our framework goal to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed CDO district as conditioned and does allow uses that are compatible with the existing uses in the surrounding area. Staf also notes, excuse me, that the subject property is located in immediate proximity to existing commercial and industrial properties as well as being at the periphery of a residential neighborhood, and we're recommending approval of the request. Any questions? Well, again, Martin Luther King Martin. Yeah, I don't know. We apologize for those things. We were focused on the text, apparently and not the headings. Our apologies. OK, on the, this is, we are talking about 544 Joelson Street. Um, so is there, uh, one, any questions of staff on this one. Just explaining why it's gone from M to O. Yeah, so there's an existing office use on the property. Uh, they are considering the option to do residential development on the property, but want to maintain the existing office use rights. So the office district allows for both of those, whereas the commercial medium would not allow the residential use rights. You're welcome Any other questions? Uh, with the applicant like 2 minutes to elaborate on the case? I'm not seeing any hands raised. So with that, we will close the public hearing and move to discussion and or motion. on Farragut Street Yes, madam Nelson, excuse me, Ilsea. I make a motion for agenda item number Z2604004. 544 Jolson Street. The Greensboro planning is only commission believes that his action to recommend approval of the rezoning requests for the property at 544 Jolson Street from CM Commercial Medium to CDO Conditional District office to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, Future built form map and future land use map. Number 2, the proposed CDO zoning district as conditioned, permits uses that fit the contents of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. And number 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interests. We have a motion to approve by Mr. Downing, and seconded by Mr. Gilmer. All in favor of approval. Please signify by saying I, I, I. opposed to like sign that passes on a vote of 7 to 0. This approval constitutes a final action andless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Next, expedited case is, uh, Z-26-04-005. This is a rezoning request from CDCM Conditional District Commercial Medium. to Elli Light Industrial for the property identified as 536 Farragut Street, generally described as north of Farragut Street and west of Raha on Road 2.94 acres. Ms. Harrison. Thank you, Sheriff Ste This is a zoning map and it shows that the subject property contains approximately 2.94 acres and is located north of Fargot Street and west of Randerman Road. This is a rezoning request from CDCM Conditional District, Commercial medium. to light industrial ally. North, east, south and west of the request are Zone LI Light Industrial. This is the aerial map and it shows that the property currently contains a retail building north of the request contains undeveloped land. east of the request contains a vehicle rental storage and office use. south of the request contains Interstate 40 west of the request contains a wholesale use. There are no conditions associated with this request. and in recommending approval. the staff states that the GSO 2040 comprehensive Plans, Future Built form map, designates a subject property as urban general and as residential on the future land use map. The proposed rezoning request also supports a comprehensive plans, growing econ economic competitiveness goal. to increase and preserve the inventory of developer sites, compatible with corporate and industrial uses. The request also supports a comprehensive plans prior to rising sustainability goal to cultivate a diverse range of industries sectors and scales of operation in the local economy to help. minimize the impact of major fluctuations within any single sector. The proposed Lally zoning District allows uses that are compatible with the general character of the area. and it's continued development trends. The change in zoning for this property is appropriate, given its location in proximity to the interstate and a major thoroughfare. and I can answer any question that you may have. Any questions? No. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. open for discussion, motion. I'll make a motion In a matter of item Z-26-04-005. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the properties at 536 Farragut Street from CDCM Conditional District commercial medium to LI or Light industrial, to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future built form map and future land use map. Number 2, the proposed LI zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. Number 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Gilmer Thank you. We have a motion to approve from Mr. Oliver a second from Mr. Gilmer. All in favor, please signify by saying I, I opposed like sign. that passes on a 7 to 0 vote. Disapproval constitutes a final action, um, in less you've got the next screen up. OK. This approval constitutes a final action unless appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Next case uh, this involves an annexation. It's PL P 2611 and Z-26-04-006. This is an annexation and original rezoning, original zoning requests from County RS 40 residential single family to city R3 residential single family 3 for the property identified as 3700 Liberty Road, generally described as West of Liberty Road in south of Delmore Drive, 0.49 acres. Harrison. Thank you Chaskenes This is a zoning map showing that the property contains 0.49 acres. and is west of Liberty Road and south of Delmar Drive. This is an annexation and original zoning requests from County RS 40 residential Singer Family. to city R3. residential, single family 3. North, South, and west of the requests are zoned county RS 40 residential Singer Family. east of the request is Zone County LO Limited Office District and county RS 40 residential Sing Family. The aerial map shows the the properties is undeveloped, but site visit shows that the property currently contains a single family dwelling on the construction. North of the request contains a single family dwelling east of the request contains medical facility, a dental office. and undeveloped land used for animal grazing. south of the request south and west of your requests contain undeveloped land. There are no conditions associated with this request and in recommending approval, staff states that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans Future built form map currently designate the property as urban general. and as residential on the future, land use map. The proposed original zoning request supports both the comprehensive plans. creating great places, goal to expand Greensboro's citywide network. of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walk of life. a variety of quality housing choices, and the filling in of our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable greenspar. The proposed R3 zoning district is primarily intended to accommodate low density single family detached residential development of up to 3 dwelling units per acre. The request permits uses that are present on adjacent tracts. Now I can answer any question that you may have. Any questions to staff on this case? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Um and again, we need two motions on this 11 for the annexation and one for the zoning. I moved for the annexation matter number PLP 26-113700 Liberty Road. Ma We have a motion to approve the annexation by Miss Turner and a second by Miss Magid, all in favor of the request, please signify by saying, I, I posed like sign please. ding 9 that passes on a 7 to 0 vote. Um, and then we need to do the rezoning, then then the recommendation. OK. So now we hit need a motion for the uh zoning. uh, regarding Z-24-04-007 3700 Liberty Road. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at 3700 Liberty Road. from County RS 40 residential single Family to city R3 residential single Family 3 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons One, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future-built form map and future land use map. to the proposed City 3 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community. and approval is in the public interest. Stu Nichols, I second, subject to one minor clarification. The item number is Z26-04-006. You're welcome. OK We have a motion to approve the zoning, uh, by Ms. Turner, a second by Mr. Nichols, uh, all in favor, please signify by saying I, I. that passes on a 7 to 0 vote. and this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, May 19th, 2026 City council meeting. Our next expedited case is going to be. Z-26-04-009. This is a rezoning request from O Office and LI Lott Industrial to CDPI Conditional District Public and Institutional. for the properties identified as 1301, 1305, 1307, 1309, 1309A, 1311 1310 to 1314 North Elm Street. 1304 and 1306 Carolina St. and 10104 and 108 East Northwood Street, generally described as west of North Elm Street and north of West Northwood Street. and south of East Northwood Street and east of North Elm Street, constituting 4.16 acres. Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Chair Skenes As you stated, these properties are currently zoned office and light industrial. and the request is to take them to CDPI Conditional District Public and Institutional. North and west of the request are his own office in Latin industrial. Each the request is on PI. South the request is own office. and I want to point out that the, uh, there's a portion of the property which is apart from the others on the western side of, uh, Carolina Street. A map shows that the subject properties currently contain surface parking and medical facilities. North and south the request contains offices. Each of the requests contains the hospital and other medical medical offices. in West Quest contains offices and a warehouse use. I This is the condition that was proposed by the applicant and the advertisers associated with the request. and recommend approval of the request, staff know that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans Future built format currently designates the subject properties as urban general and major campus and within an urban mixed-use corridor. The comprehensive plan's future land use map designates these properties as residential, major campus, and commercial. He proposed rezoning requests supports the comprehensive plans filling in our framework big idea for how we arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro in the economic development goal to ensure that adequate land is zoned and has infrastructure available for the various stages of business development. and staff noted that the proposed CDPI zoning district as condition would allow a variety of institutional and supporting office uses connected to an existing hospital campus. This request is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning code, the comprehensive plan, and is generally compatible with the existing development trend and trend in the surrounding area. Have to answer any questions. Any questions of Mr. Nelson? Is the applicant here and would they like to speak for a couple of minutes on the case. Good evening. I'm Tom. I just want to say that Conn Health would be grateful for your support of this application. We need your address for the record. 23 North Elm Street. Thank you. That's it That's all you want to say OK Well, no, it's OK, it's OK, just I've never known you to be so short-winded, all right? We'll, we'll close the public hearing. um for discussion and or motion on this particular case on Elm Street for Cone Hospital. I'll make a motion. OK. regarding Z 26-04-009. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its actions to recommend recommend of the rezoning request for the properties at 1301, 1305, 1307, 1309, 1309-A. and 1311 North Elm Street, 1304, 1306, 1310 through 1314. Carolina Street and 10104 and 108 East Northwood Street from O Office and LI Light Industrial to P C DPI Conditional District Public and Institutional. to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. One, the request is consistent with a comprehensive plan's future build format and future land use map too. The proposed CDPI zoning district conditioned. permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent property and 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and the surrounding community and approvals in the public interest. Stu Nichols, I second OK, we have a motion to approve by Ms. Maggott a second from Mr. Nichols. All in favor of the motion. Please signify by saying aye, I oppose like sign. that is a 7 to 0 approval, and this constitutes the final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Next, expedited case. is Z-26-04-010. This is a rezoning request from Arre residential Single Family 3 to CD CM Conditional District commercial medium for the properties identified as 611 and a portion of 613 Episcate Church Road, and a portion of 3917 Baylor Street, generally described as South Episa Church Road and west of Baylor Street, 0.82 acres. Mr. Kirkman. Yes, thank you Chair Skenes. Uh, again, the request is to resign from our three residential single family to CDCM Conditional District commercial medium, north of the quest is currently zoned R7 residential Single Family, East of the quest is Zone C DCM, South and West is zoned R3 residential single Family. The subject property currently contains a single family dwelling as well as undeveloped land, north and west the requests are single family dwellings. East of their quest is a retail sales use in South the request is undeveloped land and single family dwellings. This is a conditional application, and so these are the conditions that were offered by the applicant and advertised as part of the hearing. GSO 2040 comprehensive plan designates the subject properties as urban general on the future built form map within our urban mixed-use quarteror and a district scale activity center. The feature landing map designates these properties as commercial. The resigning request does support the comprehensive plan's growing economic competitiveness goals to build a prosperous and resilient economy. that creates equitable opportunities to succeed and the filling in our framework goal to arrange our land uses where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time to create more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed CDCM District limits uses to all of those uses in the CM district except for eating and drinking establishments with drive-through facilities and staff has concluded that the request is appropriate given the location along our major thoroughfare, and being adjacent to and in close proximity to other commercial zoning around the intersection of Episco Church Road in North Elm Street. Answer any questions. Mr. Kirkman Thank you Uh, would the applicant like 2 minutes to elaborate on the case? Being nothing, we will close the public hearing. I've opened for discussion. motion. I'll make a motion Um regarding Z-26-04-010. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the properties at 611. and a portion of 613 Pisah Church Road and a portion of 3917 Baylor Street, from R3 residential Single Family 3 to CDCM Conditional District commercial medium. to be, to be consistent with the adoption, with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan. and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. One, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future-built format and future land use map. The proposed to, the proposed CDCM zoning district as conditioned permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area. and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Second, Miss Maggott OK, we have a motion to approve for Ms. Turner and a second, uh, from Ms. Maggot, all in favor of approval. Please signify by saying I, I. hose-like sign right, that request passes on a 7 to 0 vote, and this approval constitutes final action unless appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Next case is Z-26-04-011. This is a companion piece actually to the previous case. It's a rezoning request from R3 residential Single Family 3. to CDR5 Conditional District residential Single Family 5 for the properties identified as a portion of 613 Pisker Church Road and a portion of 3917 Baylor Street, generally described as south of Pisker Church Road and west of Baylor Street, 1.04 acres. Thanks this evening is a rezoning from R3 residential Single Family to CDR 5 conditional district residential single family. North request is currently zoned to our 7 residential Single Family, Easter Quest is currently a zoned R3 and R5 residential single family. South of Quest is zoned R3, West Quest and zoned R3 as well as CDRM8 Conditional District residential Multi-family. The subject properties currently contain a single-family dwelling in undeveloped land. North and south or west are single family dwellings. Easter Quest contains single family dwellings, as well as a place of religious assembly. Western Qust contains single family dwellings and town homes. This is a conditional zoning application. with one condition, as noted on the screen. Compressive plans feature built format designates as properties as urban in general and adjacent to a district scale activity center. and the future Lany Spep Spep designates these properties as commercial. The rezoning request does support the conference of plans filling in our framework. Big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro and the creating great Places goal to create a citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life, a variety of quality housing choices, the proposed CDR 5 district as condition is limited to residential uses only, which is similar to existing uses in the surrounding area, and against staff committing approval of the request. Can any questions. Any questions of Mr. Kirkman Thank you. Is the applicant here to elaborate on the case? I He said he has no additional comments OK Then we will close the public hearing. um, and, and proceed just as an elaboration Um, if you looked at the zoning map um, the reason for this is because of the way that they divided the corner and this did not leave enough frontage for the house that is going to stay there, so they needed to rezone it to, so the frontage was appropriate and also to create a buffer for the houses that are back on Baylor Court. Yes. Yes. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion for item Z2604011. The Greensboro Plan ison commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the Arizona requests for the properties at a portion of 613 Pissa Church Road, and a portion of yes, 3917 Baylor Street from R3 residential Single Family 3 to CDR 5, Conditional District residential Single Family 5 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plansu built for map and future land use map. Number 2, the proposed CDR 5 zoning district as conditioned permits uses that fit the contents of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. And number 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in public interests. We have a motion to approve from Mr. Downing and a second by Mr. Oliver, all in favor of approval signified by saying I. I oppose like sign. that passes 7 to 0 constitutes a, uh approval. and it constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. The next case is going to be Z-26-04- 012 and this is a rezoning request from R5 residential Single Family 5 to CDRM12 Conditional District residential Multi-family 12 for the properties identified as 2711 and 2713 YY Liberty Road, generally described as east of Liberty Road and south of Elements Church Drive. 17.75 acres. Ms. Harrison. Thank you, Chair Skenes. Um, this is a zoning map and it shows that the subject properties contain approximately 17.75 acres. and are located east of Liberty Road and south of Ayman's Church Road. This is a rezoning request from R5 Residential Single Family 5. to CDRM12 Conditional District, Multi-family 12. North, east, south and west of the request are zone R5, residential Single Family 5. This is the aerial map and a portion of the property contains a single-family dwelling and the remainder undeveloped land. North, east and west of the request contains single family dwellings and south of request contains a religious assembly. This is a condition associated with the request. and in recommending approvals, staff states that a comprehensive plans future built for map. Currently designates this property as urban general and as residential on the future land use map. The proposed rezoning request supports the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans. filling in our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work attend school, shop and enjoy free time to create a more vibrant and livable green sorrow and the cre creating great places goal to create a citywide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all War of life, a variety of quality housing choices. The CDRM12 as condition would permit a maximum of 120 dwelling units. The proposed uses are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. The proposed density is also appropriate, given its location in proximity to a highway. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation. building materials, building height and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the low density residential on adjacent properties, and I can answer any question that you may have. Any questions Ms. Harrison Thank you very much Um, it's the applicant here with the applicant like to speak to this request for 2 minutes. seeing, seeing none, we will close the public hearing. um, opened for discussions and or motion. I just wanted to ask him at the public meeting. um, there was a comment about the units um, and, uh, it says that it would likely reduce the count of the units. Is that correct? Thank you. Did somebody nod? I would encourage if you do have a comment from the uh from the applicant, you probably do want them to come to the microphone to verify. Magid, I think if I understood, it was, you know, the condition the commission is considering tonight is a maximum 120 units, as with many developments they maybe can cite constraints or other things that will reduce the actual developed site eventually, but what you are considering this evening is 120. yeah obtain approval for development and construction at approximately 104 modification improvement with the site was reduced. Unit count to 8 to She's reading from the applicant's neighborhood summary. but the, the applicant is not. it's it's less. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion for agenda item Z2604012. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval. Oreon a request for the properties at 2711 and 2713 YY Liberty Road from RF5 Residential Single Family 5 to CDRM12 Conditional District residential Multi-family 12 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future built form map and future land use map. Number 2, the proposed CDRM12 zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the contexts of the surrounding area and limits negative impact on adjacent properties. Number 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property own er and surrounding community and approval is in the public interest. Gils a motion to approve by Mr. Downing a seconded by Mr. Gilmer. All in favor, please signify by saying aye, I pose like sign. that passes on a vote of 7 to 0, and this approval constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. We now move to the unexpedited agenda items and that takes us back to Z-26-04-001. And this is a rezoning request from LI L Industrial to CDR5 conditional District residential, single-family 5 for the property identified as 1898 Willow Road. generally described as west of Willow Road and north of Interstate 404.64 acres. Ms. Harrison. Handkerchief schemes This is a zoning map and it shows that the property contains approximately 4.64 acres. and is located west of Willow Road and north of Interstate 40. This is a rezoning request from LI Light industrial to CDR5 conditional District. residentialing Family 5. North of the request is zoned CDO Conditional District Office. east of the requested zone R5 residential Single Family 5. South and west of the request are Zone LI, Light industrial. The aerial map shows that the property is currently undeveloped and not of the request contains a religious assembly. east of the request contains single family dwellings. south of the request of the request contains interstate 40 and west of the request contains undeveloped land. This image shows the subject property as seen from Willow Road. This image shows the religious assembly which is located north of the request on Willow Road, and it is zone CDO. This image shows examples of single family dwellings located east of the request on Munstead Lane. Zone R5. This image shows the interstate 40 located south of the crest on its own LI. This image shows undeveloped land located west of the requests on Bothwell Street, Zone LI. This view is facing north on Willow Road and the subject properties on the left. This view is facing south on Willow Road and the subject properties on the right. These are the conditions associated with the request. and staff recommended approval and it states that the GSO 2040 comprehensive Plans, Future Built form map. currently designates a property as urban general and as residential on the future land use map. The proposed rezoning request supports both the comprehensive plans, great creating great places goal to expand Greensboro's citywide network. of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life. a variety of quality housing choices. and the filling in of our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time. to create a more vibrant and livable greensboro. The proposed CDR 5 as condition would permit a maximum of 2 single-family dwellings. The proposed use is similar to existing uses in the surrounding areas This request is consistent with intent and purpose of the zoning code. the comprehensive plan, GSO 2040, and its general com and is generally compatible with the existing development. and trend in the surrounding area. And I can answer any question that you may have. Any questions of Ms. Harrison Thank you. Uh, is the applicant here to present the case. Alex Carter, PO Box 669, Waow, North Carolina 27051 Uh good evening, Madam Chair and council members. I just have a few brief comments on this particular zoning case. Uh, this zoning request to, um rezone this to a conditional residential 5 from light industrial greatly reduced the intensity of use of this site. Uh, the site is largely covered with flood plain, and there's only about a half acre available in the front of the property along Willow Road. So, obviously, we greatly appreciate, um and would request your support for this resenting action. Any questions? There had been a member of the public wanting to know how you were going to place the proposed two houses on the property. Will it split down the middle evenly? Will you have enough frontage? Can you elaborate on that? Um, it will, it will basically split down the middle for for two building lots. It'll split down the middle and I'm assuming it's a buildable area is to the front. Build areas along the frontage Willow Road frontage. OK. Any other questions Is there anyone else to speak in favor of the request? And we'll now move to opposition Yeah. Do we have opposition online? Put your little switch on The microphones. We do not chairskkes. no one in opposition in chambers or online. At this point it appears that it is the case. All righty seeing no other comments, we will close the public hearing, uh, and move to discussion and or motion. I'll be happy to make a motion Ted Oliver, uh, any item Z-26-04-001. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend for approval of the rezoning request uh for the properties at 818-98 Willow Road from Light Industrial to CDR 5 conditional district residential single Family 5 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's Future built form map and future land use map. Number 2, the proposed CDR5 zoning district as conditioned permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. Number 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community and approval is in the public interest. Gil a motion to approve from Mr. Oliver and a second from Mr. Gilmore. Um, all in favor, please signify by saying I, I. those like sign I know you're still trying to raise your hands, but all right, this constitutes approval constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. We now go to one Brigham Road Yep. 8 Oh. I think we need to ask the applicant of that. OK, we're up hereurning papers because we have nothing about any neighborhood summaries. on 8 or 9, and if there are we OK. we have item Z-26-04-007. This is a rezoning request from R3 residential Single Family 3 to CDRM26 Conditional District residential Multi-family 26 for the properties identified as 701 Brigham Road, 7924 Eri Road in 7911 Atchison Road, generally described as west of Brigham Road in south of Atchison, 14.53 acres. Mr. Nelson, thank you, Chair Skenes. And you say that this is a request to go from R3 to CDRM 26. North, south, and west of request are zone R3. East of the request is zone R3. CDRM 18 and PUD as well as the business part. The sublet properties is currently contains single family dwellings, outdoor storage, and undeveloped land. North of the request contains single family dwellings. Each of the requests contains single and multi-family dwellings in undeveloped land. south and west of the quest contains single-family dwellings and undeveloped land. This image shows one of the subject properties as seen from Atchison Road. This image shows another of the subject properties as seen from Eric Road. and this image shows one of the subject properties as seen from Machison Road. The, this image shows an example of the single family dwellings located north of the Brooks on Atchison Road, Zone R3. This image shows multi-family homes under construction, located east of the requests on Brigham Road, zone CDRM 18. This image shows undeveloped land located east of the requests on Brigham Road, zone BP. This image shows a single family home located south of the requests on Brigham Road, Zone R3. and this image shows a single family home located west of the requests on Atchison Road, Zone R3. This image is facing south, pardon me. This image shows a single family home located west of the West, on, on Achison Road. uh Zone R3 This view is facing south on Brigham Road. Is that the properties here on the right? And this view is facing north on Briggerm Road, so the properties here are on the left. This view is facing west on Eri Road. Cic properties are on the right and this view is facing east on Eri Road. The other properties are on the left His view is facing east on Atchison Road, so the properties are on the right. and this view is facing west on Natchison Road. Senic properties are on the right This is the condition that was submitted by the applicant and advertised associated with the request. and they recommended approval of the request, staff know that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans future built format currently designates these properties as urban general. and the Western Area Plan designates this location as employment area on its future land use map. The proposed rezoning request supports the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans filling in our framework, big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro, as well as the creating great Places goal to create a city-wide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all walks of life or variety of quality housing choices. And staff noted that the CDRM26 owning District as condition would permit a variety of residential uses, residential housing types. The proposed uses are similar to those existing uses in the surrounding area, and the change in zoning for this property is also appropriate, given its location in proximity to the Greensboro urban loop. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation, building materials, building height, and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the lower density residential autoation properties and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions Is the applicant here to present the case? one Madam Chair and members of the commission, my name is Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road here in Greensboro, um, here on behalf of the applicant and, uh, the party who's under contract to purchase a portion of this development, um, and I think just for storytelling purposes and for simplicity, uh, realize these are two separate cases on the agenda, one after the other, but they really function together and don't really function without each other, um, so I think as part of this presentation, um, we kind of touch on some elements from both together, um, and then, you know, certainly happy to come back up and touch on, on the second case during the the second public hearing, um, with the commission finds that to be helpful. So just kind of wanted to give you a um an aerial, you know, context of a blown out image from what you saw on your staff report with the subject property being highlighted in red, um, wanted to highlight some of the transportation infrastructure in the area, uh, sits right, right, um, off of Pleasant Ridge Road. If you go, uh, north on Pleasant Ridge Road, you'll hit the Brigham Road intersection, um, very close to the West Market Street access off of Pleasant Ridge Road, um, in close proximity to I-73 and Highway 68. Um, so those are some of the transportation, um, uh, thoroughfares in the area that are attractive for this type of development. Um, you also have, um, you know, very, very, uh, proximal access to PTI, um, and just given some of the recent economic announcements out at the airport in connection with the city's initiative to, to really encourage development of 10,000 additional housing units, uh, to address some of the, the growth, um, in connection with those economic announcements. I think that proximity to the airport is really important to highlight And, and, and again, what you see there outlined in red, that's both the the subject property for the first agenda item 007, as well as the subject property for 008. Again, separate requests, but they function together in many respects. Again, just to highlight how how these properties work and just to, I wanted to give you a little background on how this came together. Um, so initially uh, we have Philip and Brad, uh, with us as well as, um, our civil engineer Chuck Truby, and they had under contract a portion of property north of Atchison Road. You see that parcel 97746, as well as a portion south of of Atchison Road, and that's the larger chunk where you see the white text blurb, um, for the CDRM26 request. That's, uh, owned by the Atchison family. That's what, uh, Philip and Brad's group has under contract. They were planning to do just a straight multi-family apartment. project on those two parcels, so you'd have the Atchison right of voice splitting, splitting that development. Um, when they're going through the process, um uh, Phillips management had the large piece to the west of Atchison Road, that the biggest track that you see there, 97741, as well as some other parcels kind of sporadically located along Atchison, including 97755 down at the tail end of Eri Road, just kind of a sporadic ownership pattern, uh, for the Philbus Management Group and so just kind of by virtue of good fortune, um, and good timing. um, when Philip and Brad were going through their, their process and their site design for what would have been kind of a split multi-family development. Um, Brad Deaton and, uh, Phillips, uh, management. They, they got together and decided it might be a good opportunity, uh, for them to make some moves with the with respect to the property they owned and and swap a little property with Philip and Brad and allow both parties to have more contiguous land to develop, which will really result in a better project for everybody. I just wanted to highlight some of the existing zoning districts in the area. You see there's already a, a pretty well established mix of, of higher density multifamily zoning, um, we, we back up to a PU zoning district. It's apart an apartment community northwest of that is existing CDRM 26 zoning, which is what we're requesting with this particular rezoning request, item 007. You'll see there's also some existing RM18 across the street as well as a PU district. um, that those properties, two of the CDRM 18 properties east of Brigham Road. We're actually on the PNZ commission's agenda a couple of months ago for phase two of an existing Hawthorn development out, out that way. So you can see there's a real pattern of this type of growth out near the airport. There's a real need for additional housing in the city generally, but, uh, particularly in proximity to the airport. For the subject case, item 007, you'll see here an illustrative sketch, um, just a general idea of how, how we think that these apartment buildings may lay out, um, on this assemblage and again Chuck Truby, our civil engineer, is here to help address any technical questions that you might have with respect to our, our illustrative layout And then with respect to the PU request, which is item 008. We'll, we'll touch on that in the next public hearing matter. Just wanted to again kind of give you an illustrative layout. This is intended to be a town home development, um, obviously flexibility built in for various types of multi-family uses under the RM 26 district as a component of that PU, uh, but the real intent is to be a town home development and then we'd also, uh, like to have some mixed office commercial and kind of neighborhood supporting use fronting Brigham Road. So with all of these folks coming in to live in this area off of Atchison Road, wanted to provide some, uh, walkable, proximal amenities, uh, commercial and, and service-oriented uses so that they're not having to get out on the primary thoroughfares. Here's a copy of our notice letter. Uh, we did send out a notice, uh, to every property owner on the city's notification list, offered to have a neighborhood meeting. I did not hear from anyone except for one, representative from an adjacent apartment community, um, spoke with that gentleman for 15 minutes or so separate apart from this meeting, provided him copies of the same materials you've seen this evening. uh, and did not hear any opposition with respect to land use. I understand uh, Mr. Lewis is here tonight. Uh, he's been retained by that ownership group on that apartment community. I spoke with Mr. Lewis briefly before the hearing and my understanding, uh, certainly not to put words in his mouth, is that a lot of the concerns are more so related to, um, an over dilution of multifamily generally and impacts on marketability of their existing development rather than, um, land use considerations, but, uh, certainly would look forward to to hearing Mr. Lewis's comments with respect, uh, to that neighbor's position on this request. Um, we do have uh, as I said, Philip and Brad here on behalf of the developer, uh, with respect to this first case, as well as Mr. Truobby. Uh, so with that, we'd like to turn it over and ask if there are any questions I might be able to address. Any questions of Mr. Blackwood None at this time. And, and we will take them 7 and then 8 because we have a UDP to approve on 8. Yes, yes, correct. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in favor? All right, then we'll now move to the opposition. Good afternoon or good evening now. Britton Lewis of Carruthers and Roth, 235 North Edgeworth Street. I'm here on behalf of West Shore Pleasant Garden LLC as Mr. Blackwood mentioned, they are an adjacent property owner, uh, a company that owns an existing multi-family development. kind of unusual, to be honest, to be here speaking on behalf of a property owner that owns and has something that's already zoned in line with what's being requested. Um, but here I am, and the reason for that is we've got a road for 10,000 units here in Greensboro, but we weren't anticipating all 10,000 units we're going to go on one literal road. Um, if you look at what's going on with, uh, Brigham Road, Pleasant Garden Road. These are two rural roads on the outskirts of town, where we are right now, it's a 22 minute drive. Um, not exactly proximate to the city center, not filling in our existing framework and there's an existing development, uh, where, where my client sits as well as, uh, two other developments that are already built. The Hawthorne development across from what's being proposed is being expanded right now. Um, in the meantime, we've got all of this development in the southeast corner of the city, um, where we're looking at trying to get jobs, uh, and, and proximity to that. That's like a 35 minute drive. Uh, this is, um, an area in terms of northwest corner that it is ripe for development, but not development of this scale. Uh, when we're talking about putting between these two projects, 1100 of our targeted 10,000 units. um right on top of 3 projects that are under construction right now. We're putting way too many eggs in one basket. Um, the, the concerns are, are about traffic. I know they have gone through the traffic impact assessment. Um, I'm not an engineer. I'm not going to be able to refute what is in their engineering report, but at the same time, we all know what Pleasant Garden, uh, Pleasant Ridge Road looks like. That's not something that you expect to see uh, this level of traffic coming and going all day. Um, on top of that, um, I guess we're not quite to the next matter, but there's, there's some ambiguity in the pod that I just wanted to bring up in terms of they say, all right, we're gonna have some kind of amenity for these residents, but it's open to everything from commercial, uh, use to light industrial, um quite plausible this is gonna be a, a self-storage facility or something that has use, uh, things that need to be built, but it's not going to be something that these tenants and residents use on a daily basis, everybody that's going to these units and making sure on time here is gonna be um getting in their car driving up and down to two-lane roads in order to get to Highway 68 Um, and so it's, it's just a high burden of stress and I apologize, I'm here without a lot of prepared remarks, a lot of presentation like I would typically have, but my client reached out to me Friday night about this. We've been chewing on this for a while, and we expected neighbors to come up and oppose because this is something that that doesn't make sense, but they hadn't heard from anybody else, and so they, they felt like they needed to be the responsible voice in the room to come in and at least call some attention to this. Um, I mean, something that has this much of an impact on a community on our city shouldn't be considered lightly, shouldn't certainly be put onto an unopposed docket. And so just wanted to express those concerns. Um, we could talk about all of the different features and conditions you can put on this, but if there's 1100 units and you put a sidewalk on the side of, uh, one of these roads. It's a sidewalk to nowhere. No one's gonna use it. We're gonna spend city and developer dollars, putting a sidewalk in that takes you literally nowhere. Um, and so there's that piece of it, um. there's also the concerns about putting this much stress on our, our, our school district in terms if you put, uh, continued development just in one area. Um, we, we know, I think everybody here knows where kind of the Northwestern schools sit in terms of overdevelopment. And you talk about putting multiple new large scale developments, one on top of the other. It's just too much, too quickly. Um, so that was, that was what my client wanted to bring up with regards to the existing matter, talking about RM 26 uh, which, when I've come before the council before to try to get things rezoned for RM 26 in areas that are much closer to the city center, uh, in years past, that was a challenge. And I, I think the plan here is to talk about doing town homes. Uh, it's a 14 acre tract. You're talking about a lot of units, and certainly something that is, is denser than the area may prescribe if we came down from RM 26 to something lower density. I think the project makes more sense, um, but that doesn't alleviate some of the concerns with respect to the next, next matter with regards to talking about another 750 units on top of that. Uh, happy to entertain any questions, although like I said, I'm getting up to speed, uh, probably more than you guys are in terms of just jumping onto this, uh, yesterday. Any questions of Mr. Lewis? Yeah, you said a lot of numbers. I, I'd like to, um, so you said 1100 units and 750 units. So 1100 units are there now, or that's what's being proposed or that's what we will be there in total after all this is done? what is that number? 1100 came from the, the proposal between this current request for RM 26 for these 14 acres, and then the companion case where the put is requesting to put another 750 units on top of that. So how many units do you know will will be there when every all the construction has been approved is, is done. It's a good question. Uh, um, I know that the, the Hawthorne matter that was just approved at the last hearing or maybe one before that was, uh, another RM 26 for a handful of acres. I, I, I can't give you an exact number, but it's um you're talking about 1100 and then you've got an existing project under construction adjacent to this right now, plus the Hawthorne units um, our, our units aren't that new, or aren't that old either. So you, you're talking about I'm, I'm fairly confident it would be in excess of 2000 units in, in between those two streets. OK Thank you. Any other questions Uh, what is the proximity from this development to the airport, which of course, as you know, is going to be a major center for employment, and one of the things about filling in the framework is having, uh, homes in proximity to jobs. You talked about jobs being 35 minutes away, but the airport is not 35 minutes away. Can you address that? Yeah, there's there's proximity to to the airport. I can't refute that. My, my, my client built units here as well. Uh, that it makes sense for there to be, um, units and housing close to the airport. There's opportunity for expansion there, and it is, I mean, it's, it's minutes from the airport, which does make it desirable, but there's not going to be um. 1100 new people coming on board to go work at the same airport site the same day. I mean, the, the, the jobs are there, the opportunities come, but it's not going to be every single person lives right there. And again, there's no proximity to, um, to the other amenities of the city offers in terms of um, parks and grocery stores and all of the things that we go to on a daily basis. So, um, even though the airport is right there, it's not something that's that's walkable, that's close, you still have to go, I mean, just navigating the airport process requires you to get on the highway. So, um absolutely no argument that it's close to, to the jobs that are coming to the airport. It makes sense from that perspective. I'm not saying there shouldn't be housing there. I just think that this project is too big, too fast. You also made a comment about how the uh this development would dilute the investment that your client has made. Is that a, should, um, the planning and zoning commission as a matter of land use, take into consideration your client's ROI. I said that I don't think I did. Um, Mr. Blackwood did say that that was his understanding of our position. Um, not a matter, uh, that is certainly not a matter of, of land use, um, no, so I don't, I don't think so. I do think having smart strategic planning is what the commission and us as citizens are called to do. But uh not evaluating what the ROI of a given developer looks like. And your development, the development that you're representing you said was West Shore. West Shore, Pleasant Ridge LLC. Yes, ma'am. It's um got an existing uh apartment complex there known as uh Plantation at Pleasant Ridge. And is that is that fully filled or is it? are you, are you're not developing any new parts. No, it was by a prior owner. It, it's up and running. It's up and running. I'm not sure what their rates or anything like that. OK. Or how many units it has? OK Any other questions Mr. Lewis? Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition to this case Seeing none, we'll move to rebuttal from the applicant. Again, for the record, Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road in Greensboro, um, did want to briefly address a couple of Mr. Lewis's points. I'm not sure. Did they see my cursor on this if I move it? Oh, I see. OK, great So this CDRN 26 project up here is, is the, the client who Mr. Lewis represents. So you could see the, the OK you can see the, the hand moving. So what we're requesting here with respect to the the subject request, the 007 request is, is entirely consistent with the, the dense development density of the, the existing apartment development that's, that's opposing our request here, uh, so I did want to make that point, make that note for the commission's consideration. Uh, Mr. Nichols, um, to address your, your question with respect to the number. um, that's of, of possible employment opportunities coming to the airport. We know that the JetZero announcement estimated 14,500 jobs out at the airport. Um, so yes, this is a, a sizable development with respect to density, um, when you consider the total number of units, but when you look at the, I mean, it's, it's also a good amount of land. I mean, when you look at the residential density, uh, with our RM 26 requests and the PU request combined, it comes out to about 19.6 units an acre, uh, from a residential standpoint. So it's entirely consistent with the existing residential density in the area. Again, it's a lot of units, but it's a big piece of property. So that's, that's where that that falls in line, um the reasoning for, um, this amount of, of growth that you're seeing along Brigham Brigham Road and Pleasant Ridge Road. I think again it's just entirely driven or in large part driven by the airport and the, the proximity to those jobs that are coming, as well as the existing transportation infrastructure in the area. Uh, we did have a traffic study performed both for this request and the PU request next on the agenda. There were no significant transportation improvements recommended, um, both of these projects were considered during that review as well as the existing multifamily in the area and the recently approved multi-family in the area, uh, which indicates to me that the existing transportation network is sufficient to handle this growth, and that's the reason for the public investment in Pleasant Ridge Road and West Market Street, I 73, um, the reason why those, those public dollars are spent are to accommodate this sort of growth in areas where we need additional housing for this economic type of economic development. So with that happy to answer any additional questions you might have. Any other questions that Mr. Blackwood? Uh, just like, uh, uh, I have a couple. Um, the traffic impact study is worked with 336 units on this case 7. And then you've limited to 7:15 on 8. That would be a total of maximum buildout of 1,051 units. That's right. Um, has your client shared with you what the buildout is proposed to be with respect to the timing I might let Brad and Philip, uh, come up and address that question. as far as proposed bill, I'll tell you it can it can just be an estimate. It doesn't have to be anything definitive at this point. Yeah. I'm trying to put together, you know, these, these jobs that are coming online are not going to hit all at once. Yeah, they're going to be gradual as the companies come online. That's right, and, and one thing I think it's important to keep in, in the back of our minds is, is we're at such an early stage in the process now, um, I mean, even if approved, we're still years away from having a finished product for these people to live in. So time really is of the essence. It's a, it's a curiosity based on the numbers we're getting out of the airport and when the jobs would come online and looking at uh a typical absorption rate. So what's, what are you anticipate for buildout? Yeah, so the plan would be for construction to start and I'm sorry. Uh, the plan would be for construction to commence first quarter of 2027 with first units delivering first quarter of 2028. Construction would wrap up at the end of 2028. So two years numbers. 2 years OK. OK. All righty, that's the only question I have. Can you, can either of you comment on the, uh, there was a statement made that you had to get in a car to go for shopping or grocery or uh what have you, um, can you comment on present or planned, um, amenities for of that type, you know, gas stations, the sorts of things that people need when they live somewhere. Sure, and I'll let, I will let, um, Brad speak to that a bit, but just kind of generally with respect to protecting the interest of these potential, um, you know, lot owners or tenants here, you know, we are our biggest, uh, stakeholders in the area. Now, we're developing property here. We're not going to put anything on our front door that's going to jeopardize our ability to lease units and sell lots. And that's still blur for me that that'll be on the Philbus management portion of the PU. We can address that in the next hearing. Yeah. Next case. OK. All right. Anything else that y'all want to say or any questions you have of the applicant. Then let's move to with the opposition like 5 minutes of rebuttal OK, thank you very much. Um, that being said, we will close the public hearing. and, uh, this is just a straight rezoning request. Comments, motion I do want to make a comment, uh, very briefly is that um thank you to can't remember your name Thank you both. And to Blackwood. Yes, thank you. And then also to Mr. Lewis, to all due respect to your client, uh, I'm gonna just say this competition is good. and that one can compete with quality and exceptional service, and when a product is in high demand, it will sell itself. But thirdly, I would say land use. the western Are Development Plan is still something that we look at. And, uh, there are growth tis to this, and we also mentioned that this is probably gonna start maybe in about 2 years. So, uh, the housing is necessary. I do understand the perspective that is, it seems like too much at the same time. But if we are to grow and if we are to maintain and attract businesses, not just what we see at the airport, but the prognostication of other businesses, then we have to build. And um so I'm gonna be supporting this on this evening, and I thank you both for your arguments as well. District 5, my district. Thank you for, um, doing this. We, we need more housing in that district. I'd like to make a motion in Turner, I just want to say, uh, one thing, I think that this is really an impressive future-oriented kind of project, and I wish we saw more of these all around the city, because this is, these are the kinds of things that I think can best address housing needs in these really growing and growing fast areas. So, thank you. And I just wanted to say the, the, the fact that these developers came together. to figure out the best use. of this land is so, so, um. wonderful to hear that they, they were working together. for a common goal And I would just like to remind everybody that even though JetZero has said 14,500 jobs and boom, uh, a lot more jobs too. There's a multiplier effect, you know, it's, it's not just the people that are gonna be working at Jet Zero. You also will need, you, you'll have supporting jobs that get developed as well. So that's like a 2 to 3 times that. So there's gonna be a lot of people coming to Greensboro, and we're gonna need places for them to live. Any more comments I was gonna make the motion. OK, so I'd like to make the motion. Um, Z 26-04-007. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its actions to recommend uh, of the rezoning request for the properties at 701 Brigham Road and 7924 Eri Road and 2911. Atchison Road and from R3 residential single Family, 3 to CDRM26 conditional District. uh. residential multi-family 26 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. One, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future build format and future land use map to the the proposed CDRM 26 zoning district as condition permits uses that fits the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impact on the adjacent properties and 3, the request is reasonable to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and the surrounding community and approval is in the public interest. Thank you. We have a motion to approve by Ms. Maggott, a seconded by Mr. Gilmer. All in favor of the approval. Please signify by saying I, I pose like sign that passes on a 7 to 0 vote, and this approval constitutes a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. I know it's past 7:30, but we've only got the one case, and they are linked and I would like to proceed if no one has an objection. Very good. We'll now move to Z-26-04-008. This is a rezoning request from R3 residential Single Family 3 to PUD planned unit development and consideration of the associated unified Development Plan for the properties identified as 709,711, and a portion of 715 Brigham Road, and 7914 and 7927, Atchison Road generally describe d as west of Brigham Road and south of Pleasant Ridge Road, 41.23 acres. Mr. Nelson. like your schemes Uh, you say that this is a rezoning request from R3. 2 PUD Planar Development. north of the request is on BP Business Park. as well as our 3 residential single Family 3. East the request is on R3. C DRM 8 and CDRM 18. South the request is on R3 and two distinct CDLI conditional district light industrial districts. West, the request is on R3 and CDLI. The subject properties currently contain single family dwellings, outdoor storage, and undeveloped land. North of the request contains a multi-tenant industrial park. each of the, as well as a single-family dwelling. Each of the requests contains single family and multi-family dwellings. Outdoor storage in undeveloped land. South of the requestst contains single-family dwellings, a distribution facility, warehouse uses under development. and undeveloped land and we the request contains single family dwellings, warehouse uses under development and undeveloped land. This image shows one of the subject properties as seen from Brigham Road. This is another of the subject properties as seen from Brigham Road. This is one of the subject properties on the north side of Atchison Road. It's one of the subject properties on the north side of that, pardon me, on the south side of Achison Road. This is another of the subject properties on the north side of Atchison Road. and this image shows one of the subject properties as seen from the end of Anderson Road. This image shows a single family home located north and east of the requests on Brigham Road, Zone R3. This image shows the industrial park located north of the request on Brigham Road, Zone BP. This image shows, uh, this image shows a drainageway in open space, pardon me, located north of requests on Pleasant Ridge Road, Zone PUD. And this image shows some of the multi-family homes under development, located east of the request on Brigham Road, Zone CDRM 18. This image shows a single family home located south of the requests on Brigham Road, Zone R3. This image shows undeveloped land located south of requests on Atchison Road, Zone R3. This image shows a single family home located south of the requests on Eri Road, Zone R3. This image shows a warehouse use located south or west on Brigham Road, zone CDLI. And this image shows uh warehouse use underdevelopment. located west of the west on Pleasant Ridge Road, So CDLI. This image shows a single family home in undeveloped land located west of the West on Pleasant Ridge Road, Zone R3 This view is facing south on Brigham Road, the other properties are on the right. wa lk And this view is facing north on Brigham Road, C of properties on the left This view is facing west on Atchison Road. So their properties are on either side and this view is facing east on Achison Road, these other properties are on either side and directly behind you. These are the conditions that were proposed by the applicant and uh advertised associated with the request. And this is the unified Development Plan which was reviewed by TRC and recommended for approval. And in recommending approval, staff noted that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans FutureBuil format. currently designates the other properties as urban general. The western area plan designates this location as employment area on its future land use map. The proposed rezoning request supports the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans filling in our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop, and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro, as well as the creating great places goal to create a citywide network of unique neighborhoods, offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. The staffnered that the PUD zoning district as condition would permit a mixture of residential and non-residential uses and that the proposed uses are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area and that the newer users are consistent with the growth character of the area. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation materials and height and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the pre-existing lower density residential use on decent properties. and Bet to answer any questions Any questions of Mr. Nelson Thank you. Mr. Blackwood Madam Chair and members of the commission, again, this is Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road, uh, here in Greensboro. I believe I covered the nuts and bolts of this in the last case. So I'll be brief, um, but did want to offer, um, Brad Deaton an opportunity to come up and address Mr. Nichols's question with respect to the possible commercial uses, uh, fronting Brigham. Good evening, uh, Brad Deaton, 1400 Battleground Avenue. I represent, uh Cross Point Homes, which will be the residential component for the property related to the phys the Phillips family in the Phillips group. So um, there are multiple tracks involved with this. So there are residential tracts and the, the mixed use version is gonna be uh in preliminary conversation. So when we were approached, um, we have sewer along our western boundary and that was what presented the opportunity for these two companies to work together. um, and, and with that in mind, we had to design our project to get sewer to their project. And so that's kind of what we did. And so we did the residential component, which does have um, the majority of the, of the residents on that project, the the. mixed use being the light industrial, the commercial, um, it is gonna have specific uses to benefit the residents, so it'll have amenities Um, these uses haven't been determined completely yet. We have talked about I mean he's to support the area, and that is, um but, but in a true conjunction of amenities for the residential plus other amenities that would be useful. Um, there are other tracks that we're associated with that are more commercial uses as well. Um, we think some of those would be more of a um. um larger service type uses there. So we have multiple places to put services for both properties There are questions you may have My question wasn't so much focused. It's great to have that context of what you're involved in, but I also meant other commercial developments that are in that other people are doing either existing or or planned that are within a short drive of your development. the cursor, there's a track right there that we're associated with that will is currently zoned commercial. The future of that would be one of those tracks that I said that would be closer to this, but also commercial oriented. Yep. And, and Mr. Nichols, just to, to add to that point as well, there was also a recent pud on the zoning commission's agenda here on the western side of Pleasant Ridge Road, and that incorporated up, it was also a fairly large residential development, but it incorporated a fair amount of square footage for, um, commercial and office and some of those other supporting, um, you know, uses that would allow this additional residential component to really thrive in the area. I don't, I don't think there's gonna be a shortfall of commercial opportunities for development in this area. That was exactly the implication of my question. I figure with this density of building and this number of people in a relatively small area, which, by the way, is exactly what you want to do from a land use planning perspective. um, there will no doubt be all of the types of infra infrastructure, shopping, etc. etc. that, um, you know, movie theaters or whatever people want to do, um, it'll, it'll get developed because it's, it's well known that if you have the people there, then the commercial developments will come and follow them. That's right. And I think with this putt in connection with the other putt I referenced the, the unique opportunity of having this commercial services within the same, the confines of the same development, keeping that traffic off the streets and more internally located is a real benefit as well. With that, I'm, I'm happy to answer any additional questions that the commission may have. I don't see any more questions. All right, thank you Mr. Lewis Well, uh, without any opposition being spoken, then we don't even need to go to rebuttal, do we? So. seeing no other comments we will close the public hearing, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion for gen item Z26. Oh yes How do we do D um I'm just moving it motion I motion that we accept the UDP Yeah, so you need to establish the zoning first, which is what Mr. Downing was doing with the PED zoning and the zoning in place, then go ahead and do the motion for the unified development plan that then flushes out the. the zoning. and then the UDP Got it. OK. I'm making a motion for agenda item Z2604008. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the resulting requests for the properties at 709-711 and a portion of 715 Brigham Road and 7914 and 7927 Acheson Road from R3 residential Single Family 32 PU Planned unit development to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 Comprehensive plan and considers the action taken. to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future built form map and future land use map. Number 2, the proposed PU PUD zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the contexts of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. And number 3, the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. It would benefit the property owner and surrounding community. and approval is in the public interest. Stu Nichols, I second. a motion to a motion to approve a motion to a motion to approve of Mr a motion to. Downing, and a second from Mr. Nichols, all in favor, please signify by saying I, I oppose like sign. that passes on a 7 to 0 vote. Um, this approval constitutes final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal fee is paid within 10 days. Now finish up this case. UDP. Oh yes, I move that we accept the unified Development Plan UDP. should be able to say OK, we have a motion to approve the UDP and Mr. Gilmer has seconded it. All in favor, please signify by saying I, I opposed like sine. So the UDP stands approved Do we need to indicate that that constitutes final action also, or is that assumed since the zoning was yeah, effectively you've taken final action on that particular piece of it, so I think you're fine. There's not an appeal for that. You have taken action on that one. That is. the zoning will go on appeal potentially the UDP is already approved. OK, now we've, we've got, we're up to items from the planning and zoning commission. And I believe our attorney has some items that they want, that he would like to, and he's looking at me like, me? Cheer Skenesa, are you referencing the comments earlier about the visits to, uh, folks' homes. Yeah, I, I mean, again, chairskenes if, uh, if there are any comments that any of the commissioners want to make about that individually, certainly. You know, you are welcome to, but I would just echo what I what I stated earlier this evening, of course, we do have, uh, you know, a variety of, uh, means through which the community communicates with this commission and uh you know, folks showing up to y'all's doorstep is maybe not one that we exactly want to endorse, but it is ultimately up to y'all as uh the owners of the property to, to let folks know, uh, if they do appear that you, you don't wish to discuss the board's business at your own doorstep. I looked, the only thing on the city website as it relates to identifying us. is there an email address there? No, I checked it today. You're, uh, on the planning and zoning commission site, it simply lists your name and the terms that you have for the position um. so that was not at least out there publicly. on our website for anybody to get to. There may have been other ways they got that information, but it's not from the website. But if someone wants to communicate with us, they can contact you and you will supply them with the email. We will give the addresses if you receive email commentary and then you wish to follow up with that person, you can certainly provide your phone number at that point or anything else on there, but that's to your discretion with that individual conversation. The only thing is we're gonna provide are your email addresses. OK. And, and I think everyone's aware that, that several of us had someone show up at the doorstep Sunday afternoon and wanted to talk about the Episc Church case and and Willoughby. Um, and it was a little unsettling, um. and we were just looking for some direction and is it I guess we're on our own to decide how we want to handle it, but is it appropriate to say that, uh, probably the better approach is not to engage. Char skins, y'all would, yes, individually be, you know, really uh you would need to make that determination yourself, right? I, I think I would echo what I stated earlier, which is, uh, certainly if you want to be clear with folks that you're not looking to uh discuss the business of this board at your own home. There's nothing wrong with doing that. And, uh, you know, if folks are not able to respect that wish, it's up to y'all whether you wish to contact the authorities. comments Yeah, I'd just like to say thank you to the staff and for hiring the extra security and for your comments earlier in the meeting for the people who were there then to hear. I, I think your message was received and uh I appreciate you collecting those uh addresses. So, uh, thank you for the extra steps that you took, uh it was unsettling at my house, uh, when I wasn't there and my wife answered the door. Uh, so I appreciate it And I'll just say from staff's perspective, we, we ask a lot of our volunteer boards and commissions anyway, the last thing we want to do is to have other issues outside of the purview. please let us know because there's nothing else we want to coordinate on our end to make sure we're getting all the right information about. Any other comments or observations Do I hear a motion to adjourn for sandwiches. Oh, and cake Happy birthday to Mike And and to Miss Magid Yes cake cake and sandwiches in the, in Brent's office. All right, we have a motion to adjourn. We are adjourned. Was it an ice cream cake