Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

you

Recording in progress. We're all live.

What? I'm having a hard time hearing you.

Just pull it closer.

I'm not hearing you. Turn your mic on.

Yes, I was saying we can't hear you. If you could pull the microphone a little closer to you.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, thank you.

My name is Mary Skeens and I'd like to welcome you to the July 20th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Please note that this meeting is being conducted in person and online. And if anyone participating online needs help with Zoom during the meeting, please email and please give me that address. It is, I did not make note of it.

It's andrew.nelson at greensboro-nc.gov.

All right, now the other one I had was zoning administration. So which one should it be?

Either will be fine, but I think we'll just, yeah. All right.

If anyone needs assistance with the online during the meeting, please email the Zoning Administration Division at zoningadministration at greensboro-nc.gov. Members of this commission are appointed by city council and we do serve without pay. The Commission reviews all original zoning and rezoning requests for the City of Greensboro and each Commissioner normally visits each site prior to the meeting. The procedure used at all public hearings is as follows. Planning staff will present background information and make their recommendation. Applicants will present a short summary on how he or she communicated with the neighborhood and why the request is reasonable. Other persons in favor of the request speak 10 minutes, and this is shared by everyone that wants to speak in favor. Speakers opposed to the request will share an additional 10 minutes of speaking time. Then those in favor of the request will share five minutes of rebuttal time, and those in opposition to the request will share five minutes of rebuttal time. Speakers for non-related items, and tonight we do have a street closure. If you wish to speak, you'll be granted three minutes. Any Commission member may ask questions once a presenter has completed their presentation, and all Commissioners are required to vote unless they have a conflict of interest. When speaking here tonight, please direct all questions and comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission will then ask the staff for any recommendations or comments on the questions. When the case is called that you are interested in people wishing to speak who are online will need to use the raise hand function and you'll be called upon to speak in the order in which the hands were raised. Please find the raised hand function under the react button. Participants in the Zoom meeting will be able to view the meeting and speak when they are called upon. People wishing to speak in person will need to come to the podium When you're called upon to speak, please state your name and address for the record. And again, please direct all comments and questions to the Commission. This meeting is being recorded and televised on Greensboro Television Network. In addition, the telecast is being closed captioned for the hearing impaired. In an effort to run the meeting more efficiently, the Planning and Zoning Commission may reorganize the meeting agenda. Cases in which no opposition has been expressed to the Planning Department and which Commission members do not feel necessitates an in-depth discussion will be moved to the top of the agenda. Staff will provide a shortened presentation for those expedited cases and applicants, if they wish, will have two minutes to address the Commission to provide any additional information. Expedited cases will then follow procedures outlined previously. All denied cases and all approved ordinances receiving six or more favorable 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. Annexations receiving a majority of favorable votes but less than six will be subject to a public hearing by the City Council. Well, let's approve our minutes first. We have minutes from the June 15th meeting.

Do I hear a motion? Approved. Betty Turner? Approved.

Steve Nichols, second.

Okay, we have a motion to approve the minutes from June. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. We have no absences this evening, so I will not be acknowledging anything. Let's talk about withdrawals and continuances.

Yes, thank you, Chair Gaines. The item Z-26-07005 for 60001 Burlington Road. This item is not able to be heard by the Commission this evening. The city is needing additional information from the applicant to complete one of the components, so the application effectively is not complete tonight, and this needs to move to the August agenda. This does not require any action by the Commission. Just to notify yourself and the public that this item will not be heard tonight.

Okay, if there's anyone here regarding 6001 Burlington Road, That's the case. It will not be heard tonight. The application was not complete, so it has been pulled off the agenda. It will be heard in August. That's 6001 Burlington Road. Got it? Okay. Before we get into the agenda, let's introduce ourselves, starting to my right.

Stu Nichols. Betty Turner.

Keith Peterson.

Katherine Maggot.

Marshae Downing.

Erica Glass.

Paul . Ted Oliver.

Thank you. Now, based on the information that I've received regarding speakers, we have some cases that will be expedited. And those cases will be in order on the agenda. 5503 Burlington Road. 210 Leftwich Street. 1340 Village Road. And then the 4500, 4512, 4520, and 4600 High Cone Road. If there's anyone that was going to speak on any of those issues, you need to sign in. I'm not seeing any hands, so we're moving forward with those as expedited cases. Before we start hearing the cases, I'd like to call on our attorney to give us some background and some additional information that we can and cannot consider.

thank you chair skeens and good evening everyone much of what the commission will hear this night tonight is related to the consideration of rezoning applications i'd just like to remind everyone in attendance that when the commission considers these rezoning applications its determinations are based upon the land uses that are allowed under the zoning district that is in the application and any conditions that have been put forward by the applicant. These decisions take broad policy questions into account, and those policy considerations are summarized by the factors that you'll hear outlined in the reasonableness statements that our commissioners read when they make a motion on these rezoning items. Now, 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 process involves staff input and evaluation that goes beyond the scope of the commission's work here this evening if a rezoning would generate a certain amount of traffic flow the commissioners will have been provided with a summary traffic impact study and meanwhile many site-specific development features such as the particular means of managing storm water are evaluated by the through the technical review committee rather than here in this forum 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 or live at a subject property are not for the commission's consideration. If there are questions about matters that are not addressed here this evening, those may be referred to the planning department or to city technical staff as appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. we'll now move into our agenda first case 5503 burlington road all right you want to introduce the case and then we'll go from there i'll do that now item plp 26-22 Z2607-001. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County AG Agricultural to City CDRM8, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 8, for the property identified as 5503 Burlington Road, generally described as north of Burlington Road and east of Mount Hope Church Road, consisting of 5.62 acres. And on the item PLP 26-22 and the Z 2607-002, this is an annexation and original zoning request from County AG to City LI for the property identified as a portion of Burlington Road right-of-way generally described as east of Spruce Tree Drive and west of Birch Creek Road. And that case is highway right-of-way zoning, correct?

Correct.

Okay. All right.

Thank you, Chair Steens and Commission. Again, the request is for annexation and original zoning of the private property at 5503 Burlington Road and a portion of Burlington Road right-of-way. The request is from County A&T Agricultural 2. city cdrm8 conditional district residential multifamily for the private property and then city li light industrial for the portion of burlington road right of way north and west of these requests are currently zoned county aeg agricultural visa request is zoned city cbcm conditional district commercial medium and county aeg agricultural as well as county czli conditional zoning light industrial South of the request is then a City LI, Light Industrial, and County RS-40 residential single-family. Decision properties are currently undeveloped at this time. North of the request are a single-family dwelling and an outdoor storage use. East of the request are single-family dwellings and outdoor storage use, as well as an office use. South of the request are single-family dwellings and a warehouse use. West of the request are a single-family dwelling and undeveloped land. This is a conditional application and this is the condition that was offered as part of the request and advertised in the hearing this evening. staff notes that the gso 2040 comprehensive plan's future built format designates its properties urban general and as residential on the future land use map this request supports both the comprehensive plans creating great places goal to expand greensboro citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and they're filling in our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live work send school shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable greensboro Proposed CDRM8 district as condition offers a range of residential uses at a maximum density of eight dwelling units per acre, and this is consistent with uses in the surrounding area. Staff notes care should be taken with respect to building orientation, materials, height, and visual buffers to ensure appropriate transitions to the lower density residential uses on adjacent properties. I can answer any questions.

Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to speak to this request? Since it's expedited, it will be a shortened presentation if you choose to do it. I'm not seeing any hands. So we will close the public hearing. We're open for discussions. And this is going to require three motions. Correct.

Commissioner Keith Peterson, I make a motion that we annex PLP 26-22-5503 Burlington Road.

And that also includes a portion of the right-of-way.

And a portion of Burlington Road right-of-way generally described as North Burlington Road, east of Mount Hope Church Road.

Second, Ms. Nagy.

Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Peterson and a second by Ms. Magid to grant the annexation for the property as well as the right-of-way. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that passes, and this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18th, 2026 City Council meeting. Now, we need a motion for the zoning on the property itself.

Commissioner Keith Pease make a motion for annexation Z-26-07-001-5503 Burlington Road. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the property at 5503 burlington road from county ag agriculture to city cd-rm-8 conditional district residential multi-family 8 to be consistent with the adopted gso 2040 comprehensive plan and considers that action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan future built format and future land use map the proposed City CD-RN-8 as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. The request is reasonable due to the size, physical condition, and other attributes of the area. It will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest.

Steve Nichols, I second.

Mr. Nichols, did you second that one? Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Peterson and a second by Mr. Nichols to approve this request. All in favor? Please feel free to signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That zoning then becomes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18, 2026 City Council meeting. And now we have the zoning on the actual right-of-way.

I'd like to make a motion for Z26-07-002. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the property at the portion of Burlington Road right of way from County AG to City LI 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. Two, the proposed City's LI as condition permits uses that fits the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. Three, the request is reasonable to the size conditions and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and the surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest.

Commissioner Keith Peterson, I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Maggot, a second by Mr. Peterson to approve the zoning for the right of way. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right, that passes 9-0, and this constitutes also a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18, 2026 City Council meeting. Next expedited case is going to be 210 Leftwich Street. This is item Z-26-07-003. This is a rezoning request from R7, residential single family 7, to CDRM 26, which is a conditional district residential multifamily 26. for the property identified as 210 leftwich street generally described as south of leftwich street and east of magnolia street 0.16 acres mr kirkland yes thank you chair skeens again the request is a rezoning from r7 residential single family to cdrm26 conditional district residential multi-family north

East and west request is currently zoned R7 residential single-family. South request is zoned RM26 residential multifamily. The subject property external contains a non-conforming multifamily dwelling use, a triplex. Staff notes that north, east, south, and west requests are also a variety of non-conforming multifamily dwellings. This is a conditional application and these are the key conditions offered by the applicant and advertised as part of the hearing this evening. Staff notes in its recommending approval for this that the site is currently designated as urban central on the future built form map and as residential on the future land use map. The reserve request does support the comprehensive plans filling in our framework strategy to encourage higher density mixed-use walkable infill development and the creating great places strategy to meet housing needs and desires with a sufficient and diverse supply of housing products, prices, and locations. Proposed CD arm 26 zoning district allows lane uses that are compatible with the general character of the area. And this request would also permit an existing non-conforming use to then become conforming. I would also note that this property is located in a local historic district, and so the Historic Preservation Commission also considered this zoning request at their last meeting and recommended approval of the request. Thanks for your questions.

Great. Any questions for Mr. Kirkland?

I have a question. R7 does not allow for duplexes or twin homes? Correct.

It's still a single-family only zoning district.

Thank you so much. Any other questions?

Thank you. Is the applicant here and would they like to speak? I'm not seeing any hands.

Chair Steens, the applicant is online.

Okay. And that, okay.

I'm asking him to show his camera.

Okay. Thank you. So, good evening. My name is . And I'm requesting approval of case 2607003 to rezone the property R7, I mean, from R7 to conditional R26. We don't see him.

They're working on it.

We can hear you. We just can't see you. Oh, there you go.

Yeah, there it is.

Oh, there it goes. There it goes. Sorry. The property is existing while it has historically operated as a triplex on a non-conforming permit. And our proposal is not to demolish the building and to keep the existing construction. And we have agreed to the conditions to remain at its use as residential. And our goal is just to preserve and improve the existing property and use it as residential responsibility. And that's all.

Okay. Any questions of Mr. Gonzales? Anyone else who wishes to speak? There's just a few seconds left. All right, we will close the public hearing and open it up to discussions or motions.

Regarding Z26-07-003, 210 Leftwich Street. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it's action to recommend approval of the rezoning requests of the property at 210 Leftwich Street from R7, residential single family 7, to CD-2. R.M. 26 Conditional District Residential Multifamily 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 built form map and future land use map. Two, the proposed city CDRM 26 zoning district as conditioned permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. Three, 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, Warshay Downing.

Thank you. We have a motion from Ms. Nichols and a second from Mr. Downing to approve.

Ms. Turner.

What did I say, Nichols? Ms. Turner. Nichols sits beside you. Okay, Ms. Turner. Very good. A motion by Ms. Turner, a second by Mr. Downing to approve the rezoning request. All in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

That passes 9-0 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. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals will be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18, 2026 City Council meeting and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. Next expedited case, I believe, is 1340 Village Road. This is item PLP 26-24 and Z-26-07-007. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County AG Agricultural to City CDRM 18, Conditional District Residential Multifamily 18 for the property identified as 1340 Village Road, generally described as west of Village Road and north of McConnell Road, 21.45 acres. Ms. Harrison.

Thank you, Chair Steens. This is a zoning map and it shows that the subject property contains approximately 21.45 acres. and is located west of Village Road and north of McConnell Road. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County AG Agricultural to City CDRM18 with Conditional District Residential Multifamily 18. North of the request is zoned County AG Agricultural East of the requested zone, County RM18MH, residential multifamily with a manufactured home overlay. South of the requested zone, County AG Agricultural and City Plan Unit Development. West of the requested zone, City Plan Unit Development and City LI, light industrial. This is the aerial map. and it shows that the property is currently undeveloped. North and west of the request contain undeveloped land. East of the request contains manufactured home, park. South of the request contains partially cleared and undeveloped land. These are the conditions proposed by the applicant. And in recommending approval, staff states that the GSO2040 comprehensive plans future built form map designates the subject property as ex-urban. And if this original zoning request is approved, the future built form designation for the subject site is considered to be amended to urban general. The subject property designated 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 city-wide network of unique neighborhoods, of 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 CDRM 18, a conditional district, residential multifamily 18, district would allow a range of residential uses with a maximum overall density of 2.56 dwellings per acre as conditioned. This original zoning request allows uses that are similar to surrounding uses. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation, building materials, building height, and visible buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the low density residential on adjacent tracks. And I can answer any question that you may have.

Any questions from the Commission? I don't see any. Thank you. Is the applicant here and would they like to speak for a couple of minutes?

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road here in Greensboro. I just wanted to make myself available for any questions that you might have. This is just the next chapter in the larger Gardenia residential development. The project was on your agenda a couple of months ago. This is just a continuation and more to come after this, but this is just the next step.

I have a question. Mr. Blackwood, can you just explain for us the PUD aspect of this in terms of continuous or repeated considerations? Sure. Yeah, and can I get the slides up for this?

So the property that you see outlined in red, that's the property subject to this request. If you can see my cursor. So over here on the left-hand side of the screen, that was a three-parcel assemblage that was on your May agenda, a similar RM18 request. this larger PUD zoning district, and it actually extends further south and dips below McConnell Road. That was annexed and zoned back in 2021. So we have several properties coming online out in this area, a few more under contract, and several that we believe will be placed under contract in the near future. I don't believe that it's the most efficient path to continuously update the UDP to incorporate those properties into the PUD. when we know that there's going to be more iterations than than just this current request so what we're doing what we're trying to do is bring these properties in to the city's jurisdiction under the rm18 original zoning designation so that we know they can be developed for our intended use but once we believe that we've tied up or acquired all the other properties that will be part of this larger development we would intend to bring everything back through a rezoning process at that point in time to encompass all of these properties under a single PUD district, including the property that was previously zoned PUD. So the intent is to bring everything under kind of a unified zoning district at some point in time. This is just a placeholder of sorts to get us there. Thank you.

Any other questions?

And this would be considered low density because it's only 55 units. on 21 acres.

As conditioned, this density for this subject property comes out to about two and a half units an acre. So the RM18 request is to allow for flexibility with the development standards. We can develop 45-foot wide lots under RM18, so that's the reason for that request.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Thank you, Mr. Blackwood. Seeing no other speakers, we will close the public hearing. Open the floor for discussion motions. We'll need two motions on this one, one for annexation and one for the zoning.

I'll make the one for annexation, PLP 26-24, 1340 Village Road.

Second, Ms. Mayer.

Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Turner and a second by Ms. Megan to approve the annexation. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes on a nine to zero vote. Now on the zoning.

Commissioner Keith Peterson, item Z-26-07-007, Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it's action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the property at 1340 Village Road from County AG Agriculture to City, CD-RN-18 Conditional District Residential Multifamily 18 to be consistent with the adopted gso 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in public interest for the following reasons the request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future built format and future land use map the proposed city cd-rm-18 as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties the request is reasonable due to the size physical condition and other attributes of the area it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community and approval is in the public interest okay we have a motion by mr peterson and a second by mr nichols to approve this request all in favor aye opposed

that passes nine to zero and this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the tuesday august 18th 2026 city council meeting and this is for the annexation and the zone the next Expedited case will be PLP 26-25 and Z-26-07-008 and Z-26-07-009. This is 4500, 4512, 4520 and 4600 High Cone Road. Mr. Kirkman.

Thank you, Chair Skeens. Again, the request is any station in original zoning for private property from County CZHB, which is Conditional Zoning Highway Business, to see CDCM, Conditional District Commercial Medium. There's also a small piece of Hikeland Road right-of-way that is also being requested to come in to be zoned straight CM Commercial Medium. North of this request is currently zoned in combination of City O office, County CZRS3, conditional zoning residential single family, and County AG agricultural. East request is zoned City CDRM12, conditional district residential multifamily. South request is zoned City CDRM8, conditional district multifamily. West request is County RS30, as well as County RS30MH, which is residential single family with a manufacturer home overlaid. subject properties are currently undeveloped at this time north of requests are single family dwellings as well as a personal professional service use of that service office in undeveloped land east and south of requests are multi-family dwellings and west requests are single family dwellings on undeveloped land this is a conditional zoning application This is the condition that was offered by the applicant as associated with this request. The comprehensive plan does designate the property as urban general and a residential urban general future built format residential future land use map this request does support the comprehensive plans growing economic competitiveness big idea to build a prosperous and resilient economy creating equitable opportunities to succeed and the filling in our framework goal to arrange lane uses for a more vibrant and livable greensboro this proposed cdcn district as condition allows a variety of commercial retail office and service uses that are compatible with uses present on adjacent tracks staff notes care should be taken with respect to building orientation materials height and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to lower density residential uses on adjacent properties. I can answer any questions.

I just have a question about the county CZHB. primarily intended to accommodate those retail services and distributive uses which are typically located along thoroughfares. Is this a lateral zoning with the M?

Yes. So the Highway Business District was changed to CM in the city when the land development ordinance was adopted in 2010. very similar in terms of the types of uses and the scale of uses that would be allowed as the county obviously you have city services so you have a little more flexibility on some of the uses but as far as what's generally intended they are the same so with minimal front setbacks and all of that correct okay thank you so much you're welcome

before we proceed any further uh legal has suggested that i make uh everyone aware that uh and i just calculated it's been over 20 years ago that i was involved in this zoning uh when it was zoned uh conditional district highway business i've done what i needed to do okay

is the applicant here and would they like to speak or excuse me are there any other questions in staff okay would the applicant like a couple of minutes a couple of minutes thank you madam chair members of the commission i'm mark isaacson at 804 green valley road here on behalf of the property owners and the applicant with me this evening mr Parker from C.S. Smith Company who came in to sit in on the meeting and glad to answer any questions. We think this is essentially a lateral from the current county zoning into the city to obtain utilities to help with development of this, we think, much needed commercial and retail site. And Madam Chair, I think we were involved 20 years ago as well, so it went by quickly. So thank you.

Yes, it does. Any questions of Mr. Isakson?

Well, glad that it's coming back around. We appreciate it coming back around. Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of this? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. And on this particular item, we're going to need Three motions. One for the annexation, one for the zoning, and one for the annexation of the zoning and annexation of the right-of-way.

Yes. Madam Chair.

Okay.

I move that we annex PLP 26-25. Commissioner Gilman seconds.

And to confirm that it's going to be the private property as well as the portion of right-of-way. Yes.

Private property and the right-of-way.

Okay, is that going to be the same number? Same case number?

Yes.

Okay, 26-25. All right, we have, do we have a second on that one?

Commissioner Gilmer seconds.

Okay, Mr. Downing has made the motion and Mr. Gilmer has seconded for the annexation. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? That pass is none to zero. And then we need to talk about the actual zoning on the property.

yes madam chair i'd like to make a motion for agenda item z2607008 the greens for 4500 4512 4520 and 4600 high cone road the greensboro planning and zoning commission believes that it's action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning requests for the properties at 4500, 4512, 4520, and 4600 High Cone Road from County CZHP Conditional Zoning Highway Business to City CBCM Conditional District Commercial Medium 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 two, the proposed city CDCM as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impact on adjacent properties and number three 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 okay we have a motion by mr downing and the first second i heard was from mr gilmer

Mr. Gilmer. The first one I heard. I knew there were multiples. The first one I heard was Mr. Gilmer. To approve. You can do it next time. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, these are put together and this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18, 2026 City Council meetings.

I'd like to make a motion for Z26-07-009. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its actions to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the property at a portion of High Cone Road right of way from County CZ HB to City CM 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. city cm as condition permits uses that fit the concepts of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties three 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 approval is in the public interest commissioner gillis seconds i was waiting

Now, Ms. Magid has made a motion. Mr. Gilmer has seconded to approve the zoning. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right, and we handled that annexation in the previous motion. So this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18th, 2026 City Council meeting. Now, I defer to staff. Do we hear the street closing or do we move to the regular agenda? i think we're okay to move to the regular agenda to the regular and leave the street closing until the end yes all righty that then takes us to the top of our agenda this is going to be the hackamore and jessup groves give me one second here i know

Okay, there we go.

That's it. This is item PLP 26-17 and Z-26-05-008. This is an annexation and original zoning and rezoning request from County CZ PDR, Conditional Zoning Plan Development Residential, and City R3, Residential Single Family 3, to City PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUIRED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS 3663 LOUISTON ROAD AND 4931ZZ AND 4937ZZ HACKAMORE ROAD GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS WEST OF JESSEP GROVE ROAD AND SOUTH OF HACKAMORE ROAD, 35.5 ACRES.

Thank you, Chair Skeens. Again, the request is annexation of a portion of the property and then original zoning for that part and then rezoning for property that's already in the city's jurisdiction. So it's going from county CZPDR, conditional zoning plan development residential, and city R3 residential single family to city plan unit development. North of the request is currently zoned County RS-40. East of the request is zoned City R-3 as well as County RS-40. South of the request is zoned City R-3. West of the request is zoned City R-3 and City PNR Parkland and Natural Resource Area. The strategic properties are currently undeveloped at this time. North of the request are single family dwellings. East and south are single family dwellings as well as common elements. West or Quest are single-family homes, common elements as well as drainageway and open space. This image shows the southern portion of the subject properties as seen from the northern terminus of Jessup Grove Road. This is the southern portion of the subject property as seen from the southern terminus of Jessup Grove Road. This is an image showing a single-family home that's located north of the Quest on Hacklemore Road, Zone County, RS-40. This is another single-family home that's located north of Quest, also on Hacklemore Road, Zone County, RS 40. This is a single-family home located east of Quest on Jessup Grove Road, Zone City, R3. This is another single-family home located east of Quest, also on Jessup Grove Road, Zone City, R3. This is a single-family home located south of the Quest on Jessup Grove Road, Zone City, R3. This is a single-family home located south of Request on Trellis Court, Zone City R3. This is another single-family home also located south of Request. This one's on Quail Canyon Court, also Zone City R3. And this is another single-family home also located south of Request, Zone City R3. This is a view facing east on Jessup Grove Road, so your property would be directly behind you in this picture. This is a view facing south on Jessup Grove Road. Again, the subject property would be located directly behind you. This is a conditional zoning application. There were several conditions that were advertised as part of the request. The applicant wishes to amend those conditions to add additional information and to add new conditions. So I'll read those into the record. Condition number one would be amended to say uses shall be limited to residential uses only single-family homes and townhomes. Sorry, single-family homes and townhomes only. A new condition number three, there shall be a 25-foot landscape buffer along the eastern boundary adjacent to the existing two homes on Jessup Grove Road. And new condition number four, there shall be a 30-foot landscape buffer along the northern portion, northern property boundary, excuse me, west of the existing pond. So I'll ask the commission to accept those amended conditions.

It means that we accept those conditions as read into the record.

Okay, we have a motion from Ms. Turner and a second from Ms. Peterson to accept the additional conditions and the adjustment to condition one. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, those conditions have been added and approved.

As noted, this is a plan unit development. That means there is an associated unified development plan. One thing we will note for the Commission's consideration is we have a plan that was approved by a technical review committee heading into this hearing. The applicant is asking for amended conditions, as you saw, so the new unified development plan will have to reflect those additional buffers and conditions. So we have that just as an illustration for the Commission's consideration. staff does note in approving this request that this property is designated as urban general on the future built form map and as residential on the future land use map the proposed original zoning and rezoning request does support the 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 liberal greensboro and the creating great places goal to create a network city-wide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices The planned unit development zoning district as condition permits a mixture of residential housing types that are generally compatible with those in the adjacent community. Staff with no care should be taken with respect to building orientation, materials, height, and visual buffers to ensure appropriate transitions to lower density residential on adjacent properties. I can answer any questions for the commission.

Any questions of staff?

seeing the applicant here to present the case good evening my name is brad deaton i'm uh my address is 1400 battleground avenue in greensboro i do have some clarification materials that will allow you to see the presentation a little larger format

Please. You can hand them up and we can pass them down.

Thank you.

First, I'd like to thank the Commission for their patience during our two continuances. I know it's difficult to continue them because everybody's kind of geared up for each time. So, I appreciate your patience there. And also, I would like to thank the neighborhood. We had open dialogue and actually hopefully addressed a lot of their concerns. Okay. Addressed their concerns and hopefully we can have a good outcome tonight. So Crosspoint Homes was established in 2017. We are locally owned and operated.

We currently have... Mr. Deaton, get a little bit closer, please.

Okay.

Some of us are hard of hearing.

All right. I'll start over. So Crosspoint Homes was established in 2017. We're locally owned and operated. Our mission at Crossborn Homes is to seek to deliver a new standard of living by integrating thoughtful home design, quality craftsmanship, and purposeful technology into masterly planned neighborhoods. We truly live by that, so we are very interested in making our product very appealing and very useful. We currently have two projects underway. It's an existing townhome project. and another one in development. Those are going to be pertinent here in a little bit. We have two completed projects that we've referenced in these conversations. One is Bartleton Ridge, which is just up the road on Lewiston, and Cannon Crossing, which is a townhome development on Mears Chapel Road. During the meetings, like I said, we've used those projects to reference our quality and style. As stated before, we are requesting a zoning change from R3, residential single family, and county CZPDR to city PUD, planned unit development. We are requesting that no more than 175 homes be permitted, with a maximum of those being 120 townhomes. The total project size is 35.5 acres, which lends to a density of 4.9 acres per unit. Since this is a PUD zoning, I've labeled the properties one, two, and three. So property one is the piece that is currently located in the city. Two and three are located in the county. We are required to create a UDP plan, which Mr. Kirkland mentioned. That plan was approved, but we will amend that with the changes we've made and some other items that we'll mention in a few minutes. This is a copy of the UDP that was presented to TRC and approved. Again, we will revise the conditions, the buffers, and get that approved as we move forward. It also gives additional dimension requirements that we will have to follow as it relates to home size and lot size. The 2040 comprehensive plan for Greensboro is where we normally start our research on a project. It is a great document. If you want to understand where Greensboro is headed, go take a look at that. The key piece for us in this was the growth tiers. And so since we're having to annex two pieces in, what the city is projecting as growth tiers. So property parcels two and three are both located in growth tier one. Growth tier one is an area where the city is currently able to provide all city services, including water and sewer service based on the location of existing infrastructure, including roads and fire stations. Parcel 1, being already in the city, is located in the urban general future land use. It allows residential uses, including single-family as well as a variety of multi-family housing. Again, we've conditioned this to just count homes for the multi-family proportion. part that everybody likes to hear about we would do this step if even if it wasn't required our company feels that we want to be a good neighbor we want to understand residents concerns and so forth so even though it's required we take great pride and effort to make this step a big one one of the reasons we continued this project was we can we met with the neighbors somewhere in the neighborhood of eight different times how many eight different times so we mailed out our community meeting invitation letters to all property owners within the first the 750 feet notification area required by the city of greensboro on may 7th 196 notices were mailed out we hosted our community meeting via zoom at 5 30 pm on may 13th 2026 seven people attended that meeting from that zoom meeting we began the on-site process where we met with three different actually four different groups the group of residents that live at the end of jessup grove near lewiston the end of jessup grove on the south side of the property and the residents that live on hackamore road area also we met with mr carter who is a large property boundary with us on the northeast corner of the property we met with him several times as well What came out of those meetings was a list of changes that we've already made to the conditions, plus some other conversation points that we'll talk about now. We did limit the residential uses to single-family and townhomes only. We added the buffers along the two existing adjacent homes on the Jessup side. And there is a map in your packet that makes this visual more legible. The buffer was added along the northern property boundary near the Hackamore neighborhood. That's a 30-foot buffer. And then we agreed to a couple other items here. We agreed to continue communication with the neighbors to coordinate the buffer design. I did find out that the final approval of that will be CTRC and the technical staff with the city. So we'll coordinate that with both city and neighbors. We agreed to evaluate street calming devices were practical and coordinate with that city staff. So we had multiple conversations with city staff that most of those types of efforts are to be determined during our TRC and our final construction document phase. So we will address that as we get to that point. And then we explained the lighting would be per the City of Greensboro and Duke energy standards. and would be similar to the lighting in Bridleton Ridge and Cannon Crossing. So that would be our recommendation of what we use. The concept plan. So this plan was revised three different times during the process. It shows a mix of single family detached and townhomes. The buffers have been shown along the eastern boundary next to the existing single family and also along the northern boundary adjacent to the Hackamore Road neighborhood. We'll also put a buffer along the northeast corner along the Carter property as well. In conclusion, we feel the proposed project provides a variety of housing types which meets Greensboro's goals. The proposed project will provide housing supply to meet the growing needs of Greensboro in a well thought out and masterly planned neighborhood. I would be open to any questions. What you're looking at on the screen here is just a sampling of our past two projects that gives an insight as to style and quality that we would propose similar to these.

I just had one question about Reading the meeting notes from last month, I wasn't here, it said that a dam safety study was conducted and you were awaiting the results from that?

It was not a full dam safety study. We have hired a consultant that is an expert in dam engineering. That, the existing pond, let's see, right there. So there's an existing pond in the center of the top piece of the property. We were still determining what will happen with that pond. The initial evaluation is that the dam has a tremendous amount of larger vegetation than what would normally be permitted. And so as we move through the process, we have the property under contract, so it's not ours to be able to finalize the results of that until we own it. But that pond, our intention would be to drain the pond if that dam is determined to be unsafe. Our preliminary review does show that it would not meet current dam safety requirements.

That's not really something we're concerned about, but it was in the minutes, you know, along with the buffer concern, and you've addressed the buffer concern, so I just thought I'd bring that up and mention that it's really not something for us to be concerned about at this point.

But it is a point of discussion with the neighbors, and we've been very forthright in what our intentions were.

Thank you for that. That was great.

Any other questions of Mr. Dayton?

I have one small one. So single-family homes and townhomes are allowed, which means that the things that are not allowed are apartments, condominiums, and commercial development of any kind? Is that what that means?

That's correct. We're only going to propose single-family and townhomes.

Is there anything else that I leave anything out that's not allowed? I just wanted to underwrite that.

You know, if you look at duplexes or triplexes, and those all can be deemed townhomes. I mean, that's a staff question, probably more so than I can answer that. But our intention is to single-family detached and townhomes which would be a fee-simple type sale, but attached. Okay, if that makes sense.

Perfect. Thank you.

Any other questions of Mr. Deaton? There's a minute and 52 seconds left. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this request?

I think I'm the sole person here.

Okay.

Actually, the sellers are out of town, so they couldn't be here.

Okay. We'll move on to the opposition. We only have one person signed up, and that's a Michael... Michael Jernigan is who we have signed up.

Good evening, Chair Wiskins and members of the Commission. Thanks for the opportunity to speak up. When I arrived and saw that I was the only person speaking in opposition, I was... We need name and address. You did cover that, didn't you? Michael Jernigan, 3613 Calix Court. My property abuts for a thin portion of neighborhood association land, abuts the southern, the main, the largest body of land. And Mr. Deaton is proposing developing. And, again, when I arrived and saw I was the only one in opposition, I was surprised and dismayed. I know there's some written opposition on file that hopefully gets voiced, but it came to me as a surprise that the buffer zones have been established and agreed to for the north and east edges of that property, but none to the south, which my property faces. That would ease my concerns, our concerns, and my neighbors' and mine. primarily three phases of our opposition to this. One is the aesthetics of it. Mr. Deaton has stated that he does have developments just along Lewiston Road on the east and in the crook of Lewiston Road. They are high density. We oppose, my neighbors and I oppose the high density developments. It's the methodology with which they construct them and the manner in which they go in and clear cut everything. There's environmental concerns that are raised. Just now I heard that they're thinking about getting rid of the dam or saying that the dam's unsatisfactory and getting rid of the pond there. That is an environmental concern. It's a water source for bats which greatly populate our evening summer skies especially and greatly control our mosquito population. So there's runoff concerns, there's water quality in the lake just to the north of Lewiston Road and the loss of the pond comes as bad news as well does the loss of the forestation. If their methodology was not going in and clear cutting and plowing everything level and then just building quickly built high density projects, I think we would object less. I was not going to use the word vehemently, but now that I heard there are buffer zones on the other side, I would say my opposition is vehement. The environmental consequences I address, and then the infrastructure, the traffic that comes along with the higher density housing greatly loads Lewiston Road, and it's already evident from the projects that exist. So I don't see how it is in the public interest, especially when Greensboro is not constrained by available land. To all quadrants of the city, there's available land for expansion. I see no articulable reason that we should override what the original planners had with a comfortable free home per acre zoning for this land which we don't oppose the scholar farms should be able to sell their land and make make money on it mr dean and his cross points should be able to you know profitably build their homes however to increase the density addition to what has already been done in that narrow piece of land that's already loading up the traffic is does not seem to be in the public interest and in the uh in the interest of the original development ideas of those who originally zoned the area so i too am open for questions i know my neighbor has some written input that hopefully will get read here in a moment but have you all any questions for me what was your address again i'm trying to figure out you said you were in the southern portion It's on the southern portion of 3613 Calix Port.

I'm sorry. I'm not hearing that.

Calix. That's C-A-L-Y-X. So it's, again, but for maybe 10 or 15 feet of neighborhood association land to make the line straight.

What was the number?

3613. 3613.

Okay. I just wanted to find it on the map. Where is it?

Just one quick question, too. This is residential backing up to residential, so there's no buffers required. Is that correct?

Typically, with single family, that is correct. If you had single family, you have single family. Obviously, with the plan unit development, they are able to establish separately landscape standards and other things with the plan unit development.

Okay.

Is not the land just to the east and the north also residential? And they are establishing buffers there. Now, I'm sure that's to appease the other neighbors, and perhaps that's why I'm the only one speaking in opposition here, because they worked it out with them, but not with those of us along the southern border of the planned development.

Did you attend a meeting and have a – was there a conversation between –

I wish there would have been. I was not aware of them, but I'm an airline pilot. I spend most of my time in New York, so it's understandable. Perhaps some communication arrives, but no, ma'am, I was not part of that. I'd love to be part of that. I'd love to work out something like that because, again, I'm not opposed to progress, but I do think that there's no need. to have denser housing when we already have it almost all around us at this point and it doesn't, the aesthetics of it are displeasing. Subjective, of course, but they are displeasing aesthetics and the more we load up with high density housing zones around us, the more traffic, the more infrastructure load, which I think is not what we address here. But it is a real factor that goes to the building there.

Thank you.

Certainly, thank you. Sorry, I skipped the name and address at the beginning. Madam Chair, did you find the address?

Yeah, I knew where it was.

I'm sorry, that was missing the gate.

Yeah, there's quite a few.

They generally are quarter to half-acre lots along the southern border of that, whereas the northeast and north border on Hackamore and Lewiston are larger lots.

I drove that neighborhood, so thank you.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Excuse me, Chairperson. Erica Glass, can you ask that the opponents speak into the microphone, because it's hard for us to hear, as well as the members of the committee. Thank you.

All right. Now, what we have is no one else has signed up to speak, but I see people lined up. We have six minutes left. Just be aware of the time constraints.

Yes, ma'am. I'm Anthony Leonard. I'm at 4942 Hackamore Road, the end of the road, northeastern corner.

And your name again, sir? I'm sorry.

Anthony Leonard.

Leonard. Mr. Leonard. Okay.

So I just want to start off and say we are not opposed to development. We are asking for written binding conditions that run with the land. Brad, to his credit, has worked with us and engaged us to help along these plans, but our remaining concerns are that the zoning conditions run with the land, not with the owner. So we don't distrust him, but we need to make sure that this is durable. Let's go to the next slide.

Would you like that question answered as you go? Would you like the questions answered as you proceed?

Please.

Mr. Kirkman?

the conditions the question is do the conditions run with the land that part i think he's clear yes yes i'm clear yeah that was a statement right that was more of a statement than a question i think he's clear on that part so thankfully you know he has provided some of the uh requests that we have made uh and in terms of zoning conditions that you saw today and we saw for the first time today uh including the additional buffers that we had requested One of the concerns we have is that in this buffer zone there isn't any condition as to whether the trees will be matured or will be preserved in those buffers. plan, which was shown to us last Tuesday, very similar to what you have in your hands and what he's shown earlier, shows a total of 152 homes. Approximately 87 are detached single families and there's about 65 townhomes, which is significantly less than the 175 total that's in the zoning request. So we would kindly request that the overall density and level of what's been proposed to us be reflected in those zoning conditions. So that if the plan significantly changes from this for him or another developer, that we're not surprised. So in the original approval in 1988, it was approved for single-family detached housing only. And I just wanted to emphasize here that the watershed and erosion control restrictions were significant in this land because this isn't a Tier 3 watershed area. The old 1998 record shows that this was classified by different standards, but still, in a typical watershed, the numbers differ. But the point is that this isn't a sensitive area, and I'll highlight here, if I can with my pointer, that there are some perennial streams that run here west of the land, and then the pond, which is located here, is also associated with a perennial stream, which is upstream of House D, C, and my house, B, right here. So the status of that pond and dam are of significant importance, especially to my neighbors and myself. More information. showing that this concern about watershed is not a new concern. This is a more up-to-date map showing where that pond is with its own particular lot, and then our neighbor's lots here, here, and here on Hackamore Road. So with that, I'll yield to my neighbor and colleague.

Hello, my name is Lynn Shazer, S-H-A-Z-E-R. I live at 5106 Mountain Ashport, which is on that backside of Jessup Grove, approximately. So, one of the big concerns that many people have in our neighborhood comes down to traffic. Now, I want to give them tons of credit. They did a great job overall covering traffic studies. I was able to sit down and go over the TIA with Nolan. There was one thing that was missed in there, and while I don't think it will have an excessive impact, it was the fact that the rerouting of the neighborhood itself, changing traffic that can now go through this street, was not taken into account. And while it will likely not make enough of an impact to change our study, it is one of multiple missed items that have occurred in the entire process that the street was going to be cut through so the street is now a three street right so jessica grove is has two current endpoints it's a connector street however the rerouting of people because it's now a more convenient path to that light a larger portion of the neighborhood will likely commute through that section as opposed to going up through Scarlet Hall, which is the next closest road to get over to Lewiston. And that quantity, according to our conversations with Nolan, was not accounted for in the DIA. With that, transitions from one section to, let's stick on traffic, I apologize. Last thing, cut through for traffic is supposed to be minimized. So with this, we are hoping that he will work with us, and he already has said he will, on cut through traffic for traffic calming conditions. But that is a big thing that is worrisome. There's a lot of kids that play on the street. I know that's not a main focus. Buffers. Currently, the buffers at his suggested or promised amount on large portions are just gaps with no trees. While he does intend to include trees, the problem is we trust Noland as a community. We don't necessarily, as stated, trust that if somebody else comes next when he doesn't own the land, that these things won't be an issue. And that with the density that even he's planning, we aren't getting smooth transitions from current houses that are on very large lots going into this much more condensed neighborhood. So with some of the buffering, we very much appreciate it. I think it might need to be more. And then closing requests is essentially due to the fact that The signs at the end of Jessup on both sides are currently no longer up to date for today's meeting and one of them is missing and was never updated. While Nolan has reached out to us and done some community meetings, they haven't been to everybody and there has been missing communication on that invite and reasonable amount of time to attend that meeting. some of the things just don't currently align with the GSO. And so with that, we're not asking to not develop, right? We know it needs to be developed. We're here for it. It's residential. We're asking for more time and a continuance to finish working out that last little bit. I know we've continued multiple times. I think we've gotten to a really great place. But I don't think we're quite there. And I will yield my time unless there's questions.

Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Shaver? And the time is up. Thank you. We now move into the rebuttal period.

I actually want to give one minute to that gentleman right there. He's been great to communicate with. Can I give one of my minutes to him to continue on on their side?

Well, they'll have time in their rebuttal. Their additional speakers will be able to speak.

Let's address their concerns then. All right, let's address their concerns.

Or adjust the podium so that it...

I'll do this. I'll speak like this. So I do want to clarify several things. That the southern border has a 100-foot Duke power easement through it. So it's got high... tower type and a low tower low type utilities running through that there was a lot of grade change between the existing jessup and the northern jessup and that road has been planned that way since the mid-1980s it's on the original plan that i saw from 1985 we're using almost the same exact alignment so the connection between these neighborhoods was planned back in the mid-80s That southern boundary has some other grade changes. And we've had this conversation. We're going to try to save as many trees as we can along our side of the buffer. We have Duke Power to deal with as well. But there's some trees that I don't know if we can save. But we're going to try. But at this point in the design, at this point, so I've told them worst case scenario, those trees would not be there. But that whole buffer, there's a hundred foot buffer in between, which is Duke Power's easement. So Duke Power has maintenance of that that we can't control. We own to the center. We would own to the center, but it's their easement. So the pond, the pond would be deemed unsafe. And so the people who live below that pond it's in our best interest to solve this it would be very expensive to fix so that that would it would be probably cost prohibitive to fix the dam it's not a watershed from from our standpoint we're going to have to build a new pond which deals with our watershed and so forth so all of our runoff will go can i get our map back yes Okay. So the southern boundary, the one we've been talking about, is this boundary here. We have left green space as much as we could. Part of it's in the easement. Part of it is along. We pushed this internal to the property as much as we could. we're going to have to build that pond right there for our watershed. That will be what devices we install. So the pond that's of question is the existing pond on the north side. The dam that is situated right here has large trees, it has things on it that would prevent, would ultimately cause its safety to be compromised. So our plan, and this is just to be very vocal, would be to remove the pond unless we come up with a very good way to save it, because I'm saying worst case scenario, we're going to remove it. The buffer along this north side here was established. It is very steep terrain. We walked it with Mr. Leonard and his wife. We kind of saw trees that could be saved and couldn't be saved. And so we talked about that is to preserve what we can in that and that goes back to the design of the buffers. We want to preserve as many trees as we can that are existing and then supplement it with other things. Like we have to take out some trees and we supplement it with additional landscaping. Traffic, I've got Dion Brown here.

Dion Brown's here with Davenport.

They can speak to the traffic that was missed coming through. Would you like to say something about that?

This relates to the comment about the traffic study not reflect the cut-through? Correct. Okay.

Good evening. Dionne Brown, Davenport, 119 Bookstown Avenue, Winston-Salem. Yes, I did conduct the TIA to the standards of NC DOT as well as GDOT. I had a SCOPA meeting with the DOTs to get all the information you guys are familiar with the process. Cut-through traffic. Typically, no, we do not account for cut-through traffic. because it's usually a smaller number that will not affect the intersection as much. Based upon our data for this intersection, it's gonna operate at level service A or B in a.m. and p.m. with or without the development, and adding additional 100 cars is not gonna drop it to a half. So, again, based upon her comment as well as her, I guess, coordination with Nolan, that the cut-through traffic would not be significant enough to cause much of a difference in our TIA findings. Any questions?

I don't see any. That sounds great. Thank you, Ms. Brown.

So I do want to just make a couple other quick points. Understand this is land use. We live in this community. I live about two miles from this site myself. I've lived here since 1990 and don't plan on moving anytime soon. So, us agreeing to on this, we agreed to communication with neighbors and coordinate buffer design. We're going to stand by that. So, agreed to evaluate street calming devices. We're practical in coordinating with city staff. And then the lighting explanation between Duke Power and the city. Those are things that we can't put in a condition, but we're going to publicly say we're going to support and help walk through that with our residents, with our neighbors. We want to be a good neighbor. We're a local company, and this is just the way we want to do business. Or I think I've addressed everything.

There was one I think Mr. Leonard brought up about the numbers of units didn't match based on the drawings and the UDP.

That's a great question. So the zoning, the TIA was based on 175 units. That was where the threshold was that we did not impact. We want to give ourselves flexibility. Our current concept plan says 152 units. Right. You can see we've taken up most of the site. The back portion, which is in this area, you can see the cursor, is all wetlands. It's undevelopable from that standpoint without extensive permits, which we would not intend to go get. We will have to cross it with a sewer line, but that's a different type of permit after we do that. um and so there is a considerable amount of open space and if we drain this pond we cannot read we cannot read or move our design into that it's it has to get re-established and new buffers put on it that takes years to do so the pond is a safety issue only and try and and what that looks like and if we have to drain it or not so you can see the buffers that are that are on the pond and the stream coming into it

know we're going to keep those in a bottom even if we drain the pot or not open any other questions you may have yes i'd like to ask so one of the comments in opposition was why r3 why not just build more r3s and i'm curious why you made that decision was it because of the market demand i know that greensboro is not The demand for R3s may not be that high anymore. So townhomes with the typical size of a household in Greensboro is less than three people. There's, I think, 47,000 households that are one person. Like 37% of the households are one person. So is that why you went with townhomes rather than bigger R3 kinds of houses?

So our original plan was all single family. And that's a plan that we could possibly go back to. We feel this is the highest density multifamily project that we could produce. I know we set up to 120 units. I just don't feel we'll get there. So we've backed single family to single family. There is a... there are a lot of townhomes in the works right now. And so that's why our main component is single family. And that is what we would intend to do first. And there's, I think, 84 single family and 65 townhomes is the split. So it is a variety of housing. Density makes the numbers work now. I mean, that's just to be very, very transparent. Density is what makes, this land is, is in a prime location, prime everything, and it's pretty expensive. So you've got to make the numbers work and to make home attainable by the mass of people that want to buy homes, the numbers have to work to a market condition.

The market demand, apparently, is what I'm hearing. The market demand is dictating

Some of the research that we are showing are we're changing the product to a double-car garage here. Some of the features are going to be more of a single-family type home, but you can get the economy with a townhome that's attached. A lot of the lots are a smaller lot that allow us to do a more economical, but it's still be very compatible to the neighborhood in price point. We can build much more efficient houses now in size and have five bedrooms in a house that historically may have been three. So there's a lot of efficiencies that the whole building industry has in their homes these days.

have a question uh and you might not have the answer uh lewiston oaks to the south i believe cavanaugh built that neighborhood okay all right um how do those i remember those lots being very small and and they visually look small how do the size of the lots are to the south compared to the size of the lots that you will be built have on jessup grove

I do not know the size. I don't know if I can answer. I'd be happy to get the information. The lots are probably slightly bigger, but the homes are in very similar size for the homes. There's a variety of homes in there. There's truly a variety of single-car garage, double-car garage. There's truly a variety of homes on the existing south neighborhood.

Okay. Any other questions?

Yeah, there was a comment about the dam providing a water source for bats. What is your response to that? Is there any evidence of that? And if there is any evidence of that, what remediation steps are you concentrating?

I have no knowledge on bats or how they exist. I do know we're going to build upon the other side of the property that will be almost as big as the existing one there so we're going to provide a new water source that we can control through city of greensboro design standards and so forth it'll be a wet pond as we're proposing it right now and so we're creating a new habitat my only logic but i know very little if anything about bats any other questions

You have 39 seconds.

I'll be happy to answer any more questions. I can, yeah, I think that the one comment that did step, kind of, I did want to, we had conversations with other residents about the south border. And I will give you some logic here. So what we did with our meetings, we had 17 people that attended the first meeting. It was open to all 196. Once we had the on-site meeting, that group of actually 18, because I missed one of the residents, so we brought it into 18 people. That's where we focused our efforts. Communication, we communicated with those 17 people of a meeting on-site. A lot of times it was for those people that were there. We specifically met with them, Mr. Leonard and so forth. So we were happy to go meet with residents on Hackamore. We spent an afternoon with them walking the pond and looking at the pond. And so we were happy to meet with whoever wanted to.

Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Deaton. Now we'll move to five minutes of rebuttal from the opposition.

So good evening. My name is Jim Elias, and I live at 4618 Jessup Grove Road, the second home from the entrance to the proposed subdivision adjacent to Lewiston Oaks. So I do live in Lewiston Oaks neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. First, I want to acknowledge that we've had several meetings with Crosspoint Development and Brad regarding this project. During those meetings, Brad's been very open and courteous and willing to listen to the concerns of us and our neighboring property owners. We appreciate his willingness to meet with us and discuss ways to make this development a better fit for our community. I'd like to discuss quickly about the entrance buffers. The one that's going to affect us is in the Lewiston Oaks neighborhood. CrossPoint's presented ideas for creating a landscape buffer, and we've had discussions on that, and the transition area at the entrance to the new subdivision. We appreciate the discussions and are supportive of the concept. However, the plans are still conceptual at this point. And we respectfully request that the rezoning conditions include a requirement for Crosspoint just to work collaboratively with us, Lewiston Oak Homeowners Association on our side, and then any other in the other neighborhood to develop and implement an appropriate entrance buffer. Including this commitment as a condition of the rezoning would help ensure a thoughtful transition between the new development and the existing neighborhood. In closing, we're not here to oppose growth. We recognize that the development is going to occur in this area. Our goal is simply to ensure that it's done in a way that protects the safety, character, and quality of life to the existing residents while creating a successful new neighborhood. This is a big change for us all, and we just want to make sure that the transition of this new neighborhood to the existing neighborhood works. Thank you for your time and your comments. Any questions?

Yes. Currently, we've got a 25-foot buffer between the new neighborhood and the existing neighborhood. Are you saying that's not enough? I'm just asking.

So right now, it's been verbally discussed that there will be a buffer there. What we would like is just to make sure that we stay in the communicated process to be included in how that buffer is created.

It's part of the conditions of this zoning.

But what is a buffer, right? Is a buffer just a piece of land with no trees in the middle of it? Is it a buffer, a 10-foot tall barrier with trees and bush? We just want to be in the discussions on that buffer zone.

Okay.

And we have been. I mean, Brad's been very good working with us on this. We just want to continue that. Everything is verbal. So, I don't know how binding verbal discussions are. I have no reason to believe that everything he says is not true. Like I said, he's been great to work with. We've had a lot of conversations on this. We just want to continue that.

All right. The conditions indicate landscape buffer that are part, we just made them part of this zoning before we started the public hearing. So, landscape buffer is the way it's worded.

Okay.

which goes with the request.

So, again, I'm just trying to say we would like to be included in how that buffer is designed and looks.

Well, landscape is going to be plants, but okay. All right. Any other questions?

No.

I don't.

Any other questions of Mr. Elias?

Thank you.

Anthony Leonard, 4942 Hackamore Road, again. I agree with Mr. Elias. It is nice to have things specified and to be involved, so I'll move on past that. One point I was going to bring up was his representative from Davenport had made the assumption that the amount of cars with this connection was about 100 or less. The Cardinal neighborhood is connected into Jessup Grove Road there, so I would envision that there's at least 300 homes. I haven't done the formal math on that, but that is a significant difference, and I think 100 is a very low assumption. That was a point I wanted to make, and I think TRC can work on that. But the biggest thing I wanted to discuss was to have the developer consider And the Planning and Zoning Commission consider limiting the overall number of townhomes in that case. So rather than allowing them to swell up to 120, which I believe is going to help with the traffic, let the experts tell you, if we can limit the number of townhomes to 90, perhaps that could be a mitigating standard on the traffic.

Thanks. Michael Jernigan again, 3613 Calix Court. That's beneficial. They have to have water in it. So are the pollinators and birds. Brad said that the homes are generally compatible with the surrounding areas. You guys saw the photographs at the beginning. His developments are not, their developments, excuse me, are not generally compatible visually, certainly speaking, with the neighboring homes. Second, he mentioned that he's talking about making a new pond to replace the one that's removed. Okay, good move. That also opens up some land at the northern portion of that tract that would then allow perhaps transposition of those that his developer farther to the north to allow for a border a buffer on the southern side because as he points out that's the power easement there can be no landscaping in the duke power easement you can plant it there but they're going to come around every year and a half with a giant machine that will chew at the pieces so there is no visual break in that buffer on the south side yes it's in sound buffer it's just distance that you know allows sound to decay but visually there's nothing so if there's a new pond being made to the west of the existing one, move the tract of new homes farther to the north to allow for a visual landscaping buffer to the southern border. And I think those of us, my neighbors on the north and east would also like some specification in landscaping to be something that's tall enough to provide a modicum of visual buffer and not just shrubs between the two. Thank you.

So one more thing to say, Anthony Leonard, 4942 Hagamore. There's a practical consideration, as Mr. Deaton has mentioned, that if the pond is drained, it would take years to redevelop that. So rather than allowing time to be the barrier to redevelopment, perhaps a zoning condition stating that the drained pond area will remain natural and undisturbed.

There's two seconds left. Okay, we're going to call it. Time is up, so we're going to close the public here and open it for discussions, comments, and motions.

Erica Glass. There was one comment that was made I think several times limiting the conditions, I think the number of homes. And my understanding is that this particular, there was already a condition adopted that it would be limited to 175 homes. Now whatever combination that is, I think that's up to the developer. Moreover, these plans that were displayed by the developer are illustrative, right? So technically he doesn't have to show anything. in terms of how this development will be laid out, et cetera, et cetera. I think it is wonderful that the developer went through this entire presentation and they provided the types of details, the engagement with the community. I think you would like to see that with most applications. That is wonderful. But technically, that's not required. But I guess what I'm getting at is, several comments about, well, it would be nice to see some type of condition or some type of guarantee that the 175 homes would be limited to a specific combination of single-family homes and townhomes. That is technically illegal, right?

Mike, I'll speak to the legal piece if you want to speak to the phrasing of the current condition as it is and sort of the pivot that it seems like the opposition is asking for.

Yeah, the question is I understand it and ultimately this would be a decision on the applicant was whether to reduce the total number of units allowed, period, regardless of the combination. It seems to me at least, and I'm not trying to speak for neighbors, I just... i think i understood that was part of the question given the illustration showed a different total number of units on there but that again was completely up to the applicant nothing that the commission would be able to weigh in on in terms of reducing the overall unit count the mixture within itself is it is addressed in the condition a little bit in terms of maximum number of town homes on there so there is some um language in there on that but um and i would say i guess the commission would probably remind that this is not the last step on this conversation This still has to go to City Council because there's an organization involved with this as well. So I'll just put those out. And then I'll let Brent speak more to the legality question.

Yeah, just to build off of Mr. Kirkman's question real quick, Commissioner Glass, again, the condition does identify a max number of townhomes, I believe, as Mike stated. But, you know, trying to pivot on a condition really is up to the applicant. If they want to amend their conditions, that is on them. The, you know, application as conditioned and as presented to the commission, it's really within y'all's purview to decide is that, does that bear approval or denial, right?

But the condition, and thank you, but the condition that has been, well, I guess that's been considered by the commission is a maximum of $120,000. townhomes with I guess a total of 175 but it is not a requirement and ultimately I guess it's up to the developer further discussions if it goes forward with the city council that it shall be whatever number that the community is asking for because again that's the applicant's determination they've given a maximum but that's not a requirement correct they've given you a top line number you're considering that top line number and making your recommendation tonight thank you

I also want to add that I would be voting in favor of this, and there are six reasons, very quickly. Subsequent meetings were had, and I believe the developer came to the committee about, what, two months ago? Mm-hmm. Conversations were had, several meetings, individual meetings, different meetings. And this is credence to the community because everyone's perspective matter in this case, but this gentleman also, he lives like two or three miles away from that development, and this may be illegal for me to say that, but I believe there is a subsequent proof to say that there is evidence that he believes that this is going to be a good development, and he's been working with the community as well. Number two, this falls into the growth tier for the city of Greensboro. And I'll just leave it at that. The buffer designs, looking at the community meetings and the meeting results, there are several things or outcomes as a result of meeting with the community that the developer has listed. And I believe that is a plus from talking with the members of the community. The watershed or the pond aspect, I believe he also mentioned that this was going to be a fix, if I'm not mistaken. Whatever terminology it was, the diction, I have no idea my connotation. Number five, the traffic. The gentleman mentioned about there may be an increase in traffic. Well, based upon the traffic study, 124 trips in the morning, 168. The other caveat to this, there are people that work from home. Everyone may not have a vehicle. Some people carpool. And then, ultimately, this fits the land use. So we're not here to go back and forth about the nuances of the minutia, but we're here to look at the big picture, the land use. And is this good for the city of Greensboro? Yes. So that is why I'll be voting in favor to the credence and the thankfulness to both the community and the developer. So this is very thoughtful, but it is time for us to move forward.

Hi. Steve Nichols. I will also be supporting the application. One of the things that concerns me about the statements that were made in opposition had to do with I think the phrase I hope I'm quoting accurately was no articulable Reason to develop. Well, let me give you a reason. We've got a path to 10,000. That's an articulable reason. And it's going to be in everybody's backyard. Sorry, but I'm happy if it's in my backyard. It has to happen somewhere. That's an articulable reason. It's not in the public interest. That was another statement that was made. We have to develop housing for the tens of thousands of jobs that are coming into Greensboro. We have to. So that's a public interest. Several people said, I'm not opposed to progress. But all of the people in opposition are opposed to progress in their backyard. So we have to all make sacrifices and if it were in my backyard, I'd go for it. This is the path that Greensboro is heading down and we need to make this happen. And this developer, by the way, exercised what I regard as the model for good interactions with the communities and compromises with the members of the community to make sure that the development was mindful of those considerations. And by the way, this is land use. This isn't design. So many of the things that were raised in the meeting today were about the design. But that's not what we're here to judge. We're here to make a determination about land use. And for all of those reasons and many more, I support the application.

Anybody else?

I'll echo some of the things that have already been said real briefly, but the developer of the applicant was very, very open and listened, and I think was a model for, again, like Stu just said. And also the feedback we heard from the people was that you were open, that you did listen. And I've heard it from other people that are not here that are residents in the area, and they said that you could not have been better about this. So I will be supporting this as well.

I'd just like to thank everyone for coming to let us hear your point of view. This development has been developed with consideration for the neighbors and a lot of conversation. We appreciate that. really aware that this is a process and the next process is, you know, a more specific design and a much more specific design and a much more specific design, which will happen after we determine land use. So my suggestion to all of you people who are concerned, keep in touch with the developer. Let him share with you as it unfolds because now the city will take over and the technical review committee will now look at this again with all of the additional changes that you've made and so forth. And as it's developed and the experts go through this process, it will keep unfolding and unfolding and becoming more and more. So stay in touch. And the person who wasn't around, the pilot, please stay in touch and state your concern with the developer as it goes forward. Thank you for coming.

Madam Chair, I'll make a motion if unless.

We need three motions on this case. Is annexation, zoning, and the approval of the UDP, or recommending the UDP.

So Madam Chair, I'd like to make a, to move that we annex this property, PLP 2617. Commissioner, do you have a second?

Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Downing and a second by Mr. Gilmer to approve the annexation. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes 9-0, and this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18, 2026 City Council meeting. Now, on the rezoning request.

Yes, Madam Chair, I can make a motion for agenda item Z2605008 and for the UDP to reflect the updated and added conditions as well. I'll make the whole thing. So Z26-05008, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that it's action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the properties at 3663 Lewiston Road and 4931ZZ and 4937ZZ Hackamore Road from County CZ PDR Conditional Zoning Planned Development Residential and City R3, residential single-family, the region's city PUD plan unit development, and consideration of the required unified development plan to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and its action to, yes, to reasonable interest. Okay, number one. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future built form map and the land use map. Number two, the proposed city PUD zoning district and consideration of the required unified development plan as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. Number three, 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. Commissioner Gilmer seconds.

Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Downing and a second by Mr. Gilmer to recommend the rezoning and to recommend the UDP with the added conditions. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That passes nine to zero.

yes right well we need one more motion on the unified development plan it included he included it i can do it separately if we need to i think it'd be cleaner if you just took a separate yeah because that's technically the final action by the commission versus recommendation on the other two items okay i'd like to make a motion for the unified development plan to be reflected and updated with the conditions which were previously or are going to be approved

We have a motion by Mr. Downing and a second by Mr. Gilmer to approve the UDP subject to the added conditions. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? So the UDP has been approved.

um on the zoning that was it will be a recommendation a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the tuesday august 18th 2026 city council meeting and madam chair yes may i add one more thing my apologies i do want to just say again thank you to echo what my fellow commissioners have said thank you to the neighbors for being here to this evening i did not mean to be hostile but I wanted to share that this is a very necessary development, and your perspective over the past two months have been much appreciated. You are a model for other communities, but I would say this is a very necessary development for the City of Greensboro, and we appreciate both parties and your consistent deliberations, so thank you.

Legal, are we okay with the conglomeration of motions that we made on this case? We're straight. Okay?

Yes.

Very good. We are going to take a 20-minute break so that we may have some dinner. We will reconvene at 10 to late.

We're very excited to gather today to give everyone a sneak peek at our 2026-27 First Bank Broadway Season Series. This year's lineup will feature seven shows on series and two specials. The season seat members will be able to purchase the specials when they renew. Today we are thrilled to celebrate the 26-27 season of live musical performances with three entertainers from three of the shows coming to Greensboro. We just finished an incredible week of Hell's Kitchen, which will be followed by an expected sellout for The Sound of Music. So please get your tickets now if you haven't. With over 16,000 subscribers in our current season, it will be very difficult to top the success of our fifth year. Our Broadway partners at PFM and Nederlander have put together an incredible list of direct from New York Broadway shows for the Tanger Center stage. Is everyone ready? Please direct your attention to the video screens to see the first seven spectacular shows coming to the Tanger Center direct from New York for the First Bank Broadway 2026-27 season.

Thank you.

Thank you, those are all truly direct from New York shows, so it's very exciting to see those coming, and thank you to Nederlander, PFM, and First Bank. The support of the Greensboro City Council has been instrumental to the success of the Tanger Center since its opening in 2021. Please welcome our next speaker, Greensboro Mayor, Mary Kay Abouzwader.

What an incredible lineup of shows. I believe they deserve one more round of applause. Thank you, First Bank and everyone who has had a part of Tanger Center. It is amazing. And I'm sure that it will captivate audiences and bring our city to come here to see not only the shows, the fabulous shows, but also everything in the Tanger Center. The Tanger Center is a cornerstone of our city and our thriving art scene. It enriches our quality of life and is part of what makes people want to live, work, and play. in the city of Greensboro, North Carolina. It's the Tanger Center's program, the Broadway series, and it has all brought an incredible energy to downtown and our community as a whole. And now we will have a sneak preview and the first of three live performances we have for you today. And one and utterly electrifying from Entertainment Weekly, new musical, just in time brings to life the story of Bobby Darin. He's the legendary singer who had a short but remarkable journey, and it took him from a teen idol to global sensation. Packed with his biggest hits, including Beyond the Sea, Mack the Knife, Splish Splash, and Dream Lover. Just in Time is a hell of a good time at the theater. That is from Time Out and A Wallop of Joy by the New York Post. Let's take a look.

Well, me, I know we'll meet beyond the shore We'll kiss just as before Now that Maggie's back in town Look out, old Mackie is back.

And now, please welcome to the stage Matt Magnuson, who will perform the song Mack the Knife from Just in Time.

Thank you very much. Oh, the shark, babe, has such teeth, dear, and it shows them pearly white. Just a jackknife has old MacHeathen, babe. But it keeps it out of sight. You know when that shark bites with its teeth, babe. Scarlet billows start to spread. Fancy gloves know where's old MacHeathen. So there's never, never a trace of red Now I'm a sidewalker, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh Could that someone be Mack the Knife? There's a tugboat on down by the river, don't you know? Where a seaman bags just a droopin' on down. Oh, that seaman is just, it's there for the wait, dear. Five will get you ten, oh, Mackie's back in town. Now, did you hear about Louie Miller? He disappeared, babe, after drawing out all of his hard-earned cash. And now Mac Heath spins like a sailor. Could it be our boy's done something rash? I said, Jenny Diver. Now that Mackie's back in old New York town. I, I, I said, Jenny Diver. Back in town. Look out, old Mackie is back! Yeah, Bobby! Thank you.

I don't know about you, but that just screams direct to New York, and it gets you very exciting for a great day. A critical ingredient to our continued success at the Stephen Tanger Center for the Performing Arts Broadway season campaigns in support of our members, but also our sponsors. We are thrilled that our Broadway season seat sponsor and official bank for the fifth consecutive year is First Bank. Please welcome back the Chief Executive Officer of First Bank, Adam Curry.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Thank you to everybody that has been involved in this. Y'all, this is our fifth year sponsoring this, and it's crazy to think about it because when we started this, we didn't all know if we'd ever put 3,000 people together again ever. It was right in the middle of COVID. See Matt over there. It was right in the middle of COVID. And we were asked to step up and take a big risk and make a big commitment on behalf of the city. And we were really proud to do so. But it was scary at the time. We stepped up, sponsored this. We thought that if we brought Broadway to Greensboro... that the city would embrace it. And that has been an enormous understatement. It has been incredible what this has turned into. It's been incredible, has become just a part of the fabric of the community. And we are really honored to be a small part of that. So thank you to everybody. Thank you to all in this room that had the vision to put this together. Five years later, it's become something really incredible. All right, and now I'm excited to introduce our second special sneak preview. Winner of six Tony Awards, including Best Musical, Maybe Happy Ending, tells the deeply human story of a chance encounter that sparks connection, adventure, and maybe even love. Helmed by Tony Award-winning director Michael Arden, Maybe Happy Ending has been called one of the best musicals in years by USA Today and the best musical in eons by Observer. Don't miss the totally original new musical adventure that explores what it means to be human, even if they're not.

And a high of 68. With four days of rain behind us, the yellow sand conditions have cleared. So, leave that mask at home. It's the perfect day for outdoor activities.

Today the air in Seoul is very clear and warm. Today the smiles, too, are warmer than the norm. My hopes and albums, my expectations. We'll be right back.

And now please welcome to the stage Elon graduate Daniel Brackett who will perform Ginny from Maybe Happy Ending.

wanted to keep the whole thing under wraps. You might have observed something fishy perhaps and wondered what it means. Now we're ready to spill the beans. I love I love Jenny and it's time you knew. I love Jenny and Jenny's in love with me too. There might be many. Rainy days ahead But I'm with Jenny So you'll see me smiling instead With every stranger I meet I wanna stop them in the street And be completely indiscreet I know it isn't nice to brag But secrets are a drag Incredible, beautiful, lovable Jenny I'm the guy she chose. I love Jenny and I'll swear to it. I don't care if it shows. Cause now everyone knows. Jenny. Everybody knows.

Let's give him one more round of applause as an Elon University graduate. And thank you again, Adam and First Bank, for being our season sponsor. Bringing an amazing lineup of shows to Greensboro and the Tanger Center each year would not be possible without our Broadway partners, Nederlander and PFM. Unfortunately, their representatives could not make it to Greensboro today, but their efforts are bringing us not only an incredible season of seven shows, but also two spectacular Broadway special engagements that are sure to bring capacity crowds to the Tanger Center. And those special engagements are Mamma Mia, March 2 through 7 of 2027, and returning to the Tanger Center, Disney's The Lion King, May 19 through 30 of 27. So we want to thank PFM and Nederlander for helping establish Greensboro and the Tanger Center as one of the top one-week markets in America for Broadway. And now we have one more musical performance to get to, and everyone will get more excited about the 26-27 season. Welcome to the wonderful land of Oz, where there's a young woman born with emerald green skin, smart, fiery, misunderstood, and possessing an extraordinary talent. When she meets a bubbly blonde who is exceptionally popular, their initial rivalry turns into the unlikeliest of friendships, until the world decides to call one good and the other one wicked. With a thrilling score that includes hits Defying Gravity, Popular, and For Good, it has been called a magical Broadway musical with brains, heart, and courage. Time Magazine. Here's a look at Broadway's biggest blockbuster hit, Wicked.

You can room with Miss Galinda. Who got a room?

Who got a room?

From becoming popular.

And nobody in all of us, no wizards that there is or was, is ever gonna break.

And now please welcome to the stage Allison Bailey as she performs the song Popular from Wicked.

Whenever I see someone less fortunate than I, and let's face it, who isn't less fortunate than I, my tender heart tends to start to bleed. And when someone needs a makeover, I simply have to take over. I know, I know exactly what they need. And even in your case, Though it's the toughest case I've yet to face, don't worry, I'm determined to succeed. And yes, indeed, you will be popular. You're gonna be popular. I'll teach you the proper ploys when you talk to boys, little ways to flirt and flounce. I'll show you what shoes to wear, how to fix your hair, everything that really counts to be popular. I'll help you be popular You'll hang with the right cohorts You'll be good at sports Know the slang you've got to know So let's start! Cause you've got an awfully long way to go The bad guys who become a pal A sister and advisor There's nobody wiser The chosen to become a pal A sister and advisor There's nobody wiser Not when it comes to popular I know about popular And with an assist from me To be who you'll be Instead of dreary who you were Well, are There's nothing that can stop you From becoming popular Lar? Lar We're gonna make you pop you When I see depressing creatures with unprepossessing features, I remind them on their own behalf to think of celebrated heads of state or specially great communicators. Did they have brains or knowledge to make me laugh? They were popular, please. It's all about popular. It's not about aptitude. It's the way you're viewed. So it's very shrewd to be very, very popular like me. And though you protest your disinterest, I know clandestine be. You're gonna grin and bear it, your name's on popularity. La, la, la, la, you'll be popular, just not quite as popular as me.

Thanks again to all of our special performers, including Just In Time, Maybe Happy Ending, and Wicked. We hope to see everyone back here this spring and summer as we continue our current first-rank Broadway season and special engagements, including The Sound of Music, March 10 through 15, Kimberly Akimbo, Tony Award winner, April 21 to 26, and The Notebook, the musical, June 2 through 7. and a special performance of six, May 5 through 10. Thank you for joining us today, and we hope you have a great afternoon.

This is an annexation and original zoning request from County CZRS5 Conditional Zoning Residential Single Family and County AG SP Agricultural with a special use permit to City LI Light Industrial for the property identified as 1515 Stuart Mill Road and a portion of Stuart Mill Road right-of-way generally described as east of Stuart Mill Road and east of Terrapin Ridge Road, total of 1.935 acres. Ms. Harrison.

Thank you, Chair Steens. This is the zoning map, and it shows that the subject property, including the right-of-way, is 1.935 acres and is located east of Stuart Mill Road and south and east of Terrapin Ridge Road. This is an annexation, an original zoning request from County CZRS5, which is a conditional zoning district, residents have seen the family. and County Ag SP, Agriculture with a Special Use Permit, to City LI Light Industrial. North, east, and south of the request are zone County Ag, Agricultural. West of the request is zone City PI, Public and Institutional. The area map shows that the subject property is currently undeveloped. North of the request contains single-family dwellings and solar farm. East and south of the request contains solar farms. West of the request contains a city wastewater lake station. There is no condition associated with this request. And in recommending approval, 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 original zoning request supports both the 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 and the growing economic competitiveness big idea to build a prosperous resilient economy that creates equitable opportunities to succeed. The proposed CDLI zoning district would allow land uses that is in their normal operations have little to no adverse impact on adjoining properties. And I can answer any question that you may have.

Any questions on this case? It's owned by the city. Any elaboration at all, Mr. Kirkland?

No, the city doesn't have any specific plan for this point. It's under the purview of water resources, which is we have that water facility that's just to the west of that. So most likely there will be some additional infrastructure as part of that development.

Okay.

Okay.

So there's not anyone to speak in favor of it at this point. We just have the presentation by staff.

Correct.

So we will close the public hearing and move to discussion and two motions.

Commissioner Keith Peterson, I'll make a motion. PLP 26-26 annexation of 1515 Stuart Mill Road and a portion of Stuart Mill Road right away east of Stuart Mill Road and south of east of Terrapin Ridge Road second okay we have a motion by Mr. Peterson and a second by Mr. Turner to approve the annexation all in favor aye opposed

All right, that passes 9-0, and it constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18, 2026 City Council meeting. Now on the rezoning.

Commissioner Keith Peterson. Item Z-26-07-010. The Greensboro Plan Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the property At 1515 Stuart Mill Road and a portion of Stuart Mill Road, wide away from County CZ-RS-5, conditional zoning residential single family in County AG-SP, agricultural with a special use permit to City LI Light Industrial to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action to be taken reasonably and in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future built form map and future land use map. The proposed city ally as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties. 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's interest.

Second. Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Peterson and a second by Ms. Turner to recommend approval on the zoning. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? That passes 9-0 and it constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, August 18, 2026 City Council meeting. We're going to move now to the street closure. on Fuller Street. This is item PLP 26-27, a street closure request. It's a request to close a portion of Fuller Street from its intersection with Midway Street southward approximately 150.958 feet along its longest portion to its terminus at the northern property line of 1700 Hertford Street. Mr. Kerr.

Yes, thank you, Chair Steens. Again, this is basically a request to close an unimproved section of Fuller Street, as you can see on the map, kind of located south of this intersection near Midway Street and Fuller Street to the property line on Hertford Street. This came up as part of a discussion for development plans here for these properties, which were rezoned by the Planning and Zoning Commission a few months ago. for new multifamily developments. Basically, this is designed to not have to trigger additional public improvements on the area that doesn't need them by closing the street. So the street being closed, the area that's in this unopened right-of-way would then be go 50-50 to each property owner, and that street would be closed with that. GRC did evaluate this request. The city has two findings when you do a street closing, one that the they're closing the streets not contrary to the public interest and that no property in the vicinity is deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress those determinations were made by the technical review committee they did as you saw in your memo that they did add two conditions to their approval for the street closing so i'll just reread those for the commission's understanding The street closure will not be considered final until a plan is recorded showing the area from the right of way of being combined with the adjacent properties and that the city shall retain 20-foot utility easements centered over existing utility lines until such time as the lines are no longer needed for public use. So we are asking the Commission to make a recommendation on the street closing as this does have to go to City Council for final action.

So this is a recommendation to grant closure or to recommend the closure?

Correct.

All right, any questions, comments?

Motion. Motion to recommend closure for PLP 26-27. And do we need to put, to refer to the conditions?

Just note with the conditions that were recommended by the TRC. Okay. Second.

okay on the street closure on fuller street we have a motion by ms turner and a second by mr downing to recommend the closure of that section of fuller street all in favor aye any opposed okay this will constitute a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the tuesday august 18th 2026 city council meeting Now, we have one case left. Have we figured out if we have anyone to speak in opposition?

Chair Steens, Noel and David Stevens requested to participate online and are online, but are not responding to my messages.

All right. So, yeah, good question. Now what do we do?

yes ma'am they are currently online can you see their faces no but they're still logged in basically but we have not gotten any responses from them through the chat on zoom so you are you considering them not participating i think if the commission would like to consider this as an expedited review and then we can check at the very end and make sure that there's no opposition would that be sufficient

Let me read the case and we'll move forward on item PLP 26-23 and Z-26-07-004. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County AG Agricultural to City R3 Residential Single Family 3 for the property identified as 1410 Stuart Mill Road and a portion of Creek Road right-of-ways, generally described as west of Stuart Mill Road and east and west of Creek Road 1.5 acres. Ms. Harris.

Thank you, Chair Skeens. This is the zoning map, and it shows that the subject property and the Creek Road right-of-way contains 1.5 acres and is located west of Stuart Mill Road and east and west of Creek Road. This is an annexation and original zoning request from County Ag, Agriculture to City R3, Residentials in the Family 3. North, East and South requests are Zoned County Ag, Agricultural and Western Zone is Zoned County Ag and County CZLI, Traditional Zoning Light Industrial. The aerial map shows that the property is currently undeveloped. North, east and west of the request contains single family dwellings. South of the request contains single family dwelling and on developed land it contains a creek as well. There is no condition associated with this request and in approving the request, staff states that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans, future built form map, designate the subject 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 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 R3 zoning district is primarily intended to accommodate low density single family detached residential development of up to three dwelling units per acre. The proposed original zoning request allows uses that are similar to existing uses in the surrounding areas. And I can answer any question that you may have.

Any questions? The applicants, do they wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Brad McCoy. I live at 4175 Birchbridge Road in Burlington, North Carolina. So this is simply a lot that we've been looking to build, my wife and three kids, and we found this lot and it's very convenient for our careers. And we're just simply going to build a house, a single dwelling, probably about a half million value. And so in making the bid on this property, it is in the flood zone. I think it's only happened once in 100 years. So that's why I want to connect to the city sewage, which is already at this property. So to not have to try to figure out a way to put a septic in in the flood zone. So that's why I would like to be annexed in.

Is there a well there? That's why you don't want to do water?

No, there's not. But I'm planning on doing a well because the city water is like 16 feet. is it 1600 feet away so i'll probably just have to do it well any other questions mr mccoy thank you very much thank y'all for your time is there anyone else who wishes to speak

if not we will close the public hearing and open for discussions or motions and we're looking at two commissioner keith peterson item plp 26-23 an annexation of the zoning request of county age agriculture to cdr3 residential single family dash three second warshay downing and this includes the portion of the of the right-of-way your motion does Okay. Portion of right-of-way west of Stuart Mill Road and east of West Creek Road.

You still second it? Yes. Yes. Second. Okay, we have a motion from Mr. Peterson, a second by Mr. Downing to approve the annexation that also includes the portion of Creek Road right-of-way. All in favor? Aye.

Opposed?

All right. Annexation passes 9-0 and this constitutes a favorable recommendation and will be subject to a public hearing at the August 18, 2026 City Council meeting.

I'd like to make a motion for Z26-07-004. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the property at 1410 Stuart Mill Road and a portion of Creek Road right of way to be consistent with the adapted 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 bill format and future land use map. city r3 as a condition permits uses that fits the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impact on adjacent properties three 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 approval is in the public interest steve nichols a second

Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Maggot, a second by Mr. Nichols to approve the rezoning request. All in favor? Aye. Proposed. That pass is nine to zero and it constitutes a favorable recommendation. It will be heard at the August 18th, 2026 City Council meeting. That finishes our agenda. Any items that the planning department wants to talk to us about?

We don't have any items for the commission. It looks like right now we have 13 items on the August Planning and Zoning Commission. Still to be finalized.

Okay. Items from the commission? Okay. Motion to adjourn?

Recording stopped.