Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] My name is Mary SK and I'd like to welcome all of y'all to the October 20th meeting of the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh, I'd like to take a moment to welcome our newest commissioner, Ted Oliver. Glad to have you. If the other commissioners would introduce themselves from my right, please.

Stu Nichols, Betty Turner, Catherine Maggot,

War Downing, apologet. [Music] Uh, and if anyone participating online needs help with Zoom, please email Luke Carter lucaslucas.carter at greensboro-N.gov. Members of this commission are appointed by the city council and we do serve without pay. The commission reviews all original zoning and annexation and reszoning requests for the city of Greensboro. Each commissioner normally visits each site prior to the meeting. The procedure for all public hearings will be as follows. The planning staff will present background information and make a recommendation. The applicant 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 quest may speak for a total of 10 minutes and this time is shared with the applicant. Speakers opposed to the request will also share 10 minutes of speaking time. Those in favor of the request will all then share five minutes of rebuttal time and those in opposition to the request will then have five minutes of rebuttal time. Speakers for nonzoning related items like street closures and area plans of which we have one tonight will be granted three minutes of speaking time. At the end of the speaking time, we will close the public hearing. Any commission member may ask questions once a presenter has completed their presentation. All commissioners are required to vote unless they have a conflict of interest. In an effort to

run the meetings more efficiently, the commission may reorganize the meeting agenda. Cases in which there is no opposition um having been expressed to the planning department or No speakers have signed up to speak in opposition. Um, commission members do not feel necessitates an indepth discussion. Those items will be moved to the top of the agenda. Staff will provide a shortened presentation for those expedited cases and applicants, if desired, will have two minutes to address the commission to provide any additional information they want the commission to know. Expedited cases will then follow the procedures outlined previously. When speaking here tonight, please direct all questions and comments to the planning and zoning commission, not to staff. The commission will then ask staff to comment on any questions the speaker might have. When a case is called that you're interested in, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. If you are participating online, please find and use the raise hand function under the reaction button and you'll be called upon to speak in order in the order in which the hands are raised. And you'll also need to give your name and address. All approved or denied cases receiving six or more votes will constitute final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and the appeal is paid within 10 days. All cases receiving a majority of favorable votes but less than six will be subject to a public hearing by the city council. And all cases involving an annexation are also subject to final approval by the city council. Participants in the Zoom meeting will be able to view the meeting and speak when they are called upon. This meeting is being recorded and televised on Greensboro Television Network and in addition the telecast is being close captioned for the hearing

impaired. Now, we need to hear from our attorney regarding additional items we need to consider.

Thank you, Chair Sch. Good evening, everyone. Much of the commission's work this evening is going to relate to the consideration of reszoning applications. I'd like to remind everyone that when the commission considers reszoning applications, its determinations are based on the land uses that are allowed under the proposed zoning district that's been put forth in the application and any conditions that have been proposed by the applicant. Now, land use impacts public infrastructure are relevant in reszoning matters. It's important to know that the commission is not here to determine all details of the development. However, that process involves staff input and evaluation that goes beyond the scope of the commission's work. If a resoning would generate a certain amount of traffic flow, the commissioners will have been provided with a summary traffic impact study. Uh meanwhile, many sight specific development features such as the means of management of storm water are evaluated through the technical review committee rather than here in this forum tonight. Um lastly, concerns that are not related to land use are not gerine to the commission's consideration of reasonzoning applications. For example, generalized concerns about crime rates and questions of who may own or live at or use a subject property are not for the commission's consideration. is about what, not who. If there are questions about matters not addressed this evening, those may be referred to the planning department or the city technical staff as appropriate. Thank you. In looking over our speakers list, the information we have currently is the following cases will be expedited. If you are here for of I'm going to read out and you would like to speak in opposition, please raise your hand and we'll do some rearranging. The ones on the expedited agenda for right now are 2882 Fleming

Road, 5307 West Market Street, six Marath Court, portions of 8318 Lazy Sky Lane and Carlos Way, 105 and 107 South Edwardia. Um, and 801 801 CZ 803 and 815 Roerson Comr Road. Um now that also involves an annexation and we are good to go as an expedited correct. Okay.

Correct. Have the folks in opposition to Farlo come online yet? All right. We're going to proceed with the expedited agenda. Um And if we get to the end of it and we still don't have anybody online for FAR, then we'll hear it as an expedited case. Okay. So, um, what we need to look now at the approval of the minutes for the September 3rd and the September 15th meeting. Um, I understand there was some questions about the September third.

Yes, I just had two corrections. Um, on the page where you uh 230 North Elm Street. Uh just above the speaker, would you add the word opposition? And you spelled council wrong in the final sentence there. And then on the last page of the minutes, would you please add in when I was speaking that she said she enjoyed being I'm sorry, Miss May, you referring to the September 15th being clear. Okay.

Yes. Yes. I'm talking about the minutes and sorry um she said she enjoyed being a member of the commission. I said I enjoy being the chair and a member of the commission. And then I would like to request that the um the review of the September 3 um special meeting um be delayed until next month. I'd like to spend a little bit I'm looking at it. So we have to make a motion to for both of that for the correction on the September 15th and also to delay the September 3rd.

Ste moved as to both. I'll second it. Let's let's take them separately. The September third meeting there his minutes. There's been a request to delay that for a month um for some additional review. Do I hear a motion on that to delay the September 3rd minute approval to November? Stu Nichols, I move to delay the approval of the September 3rd minutes until the next meeting and I second that. Katherine Maggot.

All in favor signify by saying I raise your right hand please. opposed. Okay, we have one opposed. Okay, we have two. We still have a majority. Yes, motion would still carry. 62. Motion still carries. And then the September 15th meetings, we've had some corrections to those minutes. So with those corrections noted, do I hear a motion to approve the September 15th minutes? to approve. Second, Catherine Maggot.

Okay. All in favor signify by saying I and raise your hand. Okay. So, those are approved. Um, I do want to acknowledge at this point the absence of Keith Peterson is not here yet. So, if he comes in, we will acknowledge it at that time. Um, do we have any withdrawals or continuences?

No, we do not. Okay, then we will move into the agenda. Uh, and it will be the expedited agenda. That first case is 2882 Fleming Road. Very good. This is item PL uh 2538 and zoning case Z25101. It's an annexation and an original zoning request from county RS40 residential single family to city R3 residential single family. three for the property identified as 2882 Fleming Road and a portion of Fleming Road right ofway generally described as northeast of Fleming Road and south of Pleasant Ridge Road 1.59 acres.

Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to share that presentation real quick so that everybody online can see it as well. All right, this is the zoning map um which shows that the property contains approximately 0.92 acres and is located southwest of west of I'm sorry uh contains approximately 1.59 acres and is located northeast of Fleming Road and south of Pleasant Ridge Road. This is an annexation and original zoning request from county RS40 to city R3. North, east, and west of the request are zone Summerfield RS and south of the request is zone Summerfield RS and city R3. This is an aerial map of the subject property showing that it contains a single family dwelling and on all sides of the property are surrounded by single family dwellings. This is straight request. So there were no conditions proposed and in recommending approval of this request. Staff notes that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plan designates this site as urban general on the future format and residential on the future land use map. The proposed original zoning request supports the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans creating great places goal to expand Greensboro citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. 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 and request permit uses that are present on adjacent tracks. That I can answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. Any questions of staff? I want to ask the chair because my screen is showing the city council um materials for the the presentation presentation. Thank you so much. Did that work? Great. Thank you. Any and no questions of staff? Is the applicant here and would they like two minutes to elaborate on the presentation?

No. Okay. U without objection, we'll close the public hearing. Any comments or discussion? And we'll need two motions on this. One for annexation and one for the zoning. I'd like to make a motion for the annexation of PLP25-38. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the annexation. All in favor, please write raise your right hand. I that's unanimous. Um, now on the zoning,

I'd like to make a motion. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its actions to recommend the approval of the original zoning request for property 2882 Fleming Road and a portion of Fleming Road of Way from County RS40 residential single family to city R3 residential single family 3 to be consistent with the adopted 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future bill format and future land use map. The proposed city R3 zoning district permits uses that fits the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent property. The request is reasonable due to the 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.

Second War County. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve the zoning. All in favor signify by saying I raise your hand. Right hand. I.

That is also unanimous. 8 to zero. Because this involves an annexation. Um, this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 city council meeting. Thank you. Next case is 5307 West Market Street. Can you read that into the record, Miss Read the description, please?

Well, there it is. Thank you. Item Z-25-10-00002. This is a resoning request from LI Light Industrial to CDCM Conditional District Commercial Medium for the property identified as 5307 West Market Street, generally described as southwest Market Street at northwest of South Edwardia Drive. It's 92 acres. Thank you, Chair Schemes. This is a the zoning map for the subject property which is approximately 1.59 acres and is located northeast of Fleming Road and south of Pleasant Ridge Road. Sorry about that.

Okay, this is a zoning map for 5307 West Market Street. Sorry about that.

The subject property contains approximately 0.92 acres and is located southwest of West Market Street and northwest of South Edward Drive. This is a resoning request from light industrial to CDCM conditional district commercial medium. North of the request is zone CM commercial medium. East of the request is zone CDCM which is conditional district commercial medium and LI light industrial. South and west of the request are zone LI light industrial. This is the aerial map showing the subject properties currently contains a warehouse with accessory retail sales. North of the request contains a shopping center and vehicle sales vehicle sales and service. East of the request contains retail sales and vehicle service. South of the request contains vehicle sales and undeveloped land. West of the request contains vehicle service. The applicant proposed one condition which is as follows. And in recommending approval, the staff states that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plan designates this site as urban general on the future built for map and as commercial on the future land use map. The Reszoning request supports the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans filling in our framework goal to maintain inventory and market key un underutilized sites and structures to private industry and developers and growing economic

competitiveness. Big idea to build a prosperous resilient economy that creates equitable opportunities to succeed. The proposed CDCM zoning district limits uses to those permitted in the CM zoning district except for cemeteries, animal shelters, shooting ranges, funeral homes and crematoriums, taxi der dermatist and sexual oriented businesses and I can answer any question that you may have.

Any questions, Miss Harrison? Seeing none, uh is there is the applicant here and would they like a couple of minutes? Like records show that they have said no, they don't need their two minutes. So that being said, we will uh without objection close the public hearing. Dis discussion motions. Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion for agenda item number Z2510002. 5307 5307 West Market Street. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes it is action to recommend approval of the resoning request for the property at 5307 West Market Street from LI Light Industrial to CDCM 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 for map and future land use map. Number two, the proposed CDCM zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impact on 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 Gill.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying I and raise your right hand.

I passes 8 to zero and this approval constitutes the final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and appeal within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal and all such appeals will be subject to the public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 city council meeting and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. Thank you. Um the next case is going to be six court. This is a reszoning request from CDP BP conditional district business park to CDLI conditional district light industrial for the property identified as 6port generally described as west of Port and south of Kog Boulevard. This is 14.79 acres item Z2104 Harris. Thank you again chair schemes. This is a zoning map showing the subject property is approximately 14.79 acres and located west of Meritsport and south of Ker Boulevard. This is a resoning request from CD BP conditional district Business Park to CDLI conditional district light industrial north of the Request is zone CDCH conditional district commercial high CDCM conditional district commercial medium and CD RM18 conditional district residential multif family 18 east of the request is zone CD BP conditional

district business park and CDO conditional district office south and west of the request zone CD BP conditional district business park. This is the aerial map showing that the properties currently undeveloped. North of the request contains a shopping center, hotels and multif family dwellings. East of the request contains an office use and medical facility. South of the request contains a warehouse and distribution use. West of the request contains a multi multi-tenant office building. The applicant proposed one condition. And in recommending approval, the staff staff states that GSO 2040 comprehensive plans future built for map designates the subject property as urban general and as commercial on the future land use map. The proposed reasoning request supports the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans filling in our framework goal to maintain inventory and market key under utilized sites and structures to private industry and developers and filling in our framework. Big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend schools, shop and enjoy free time to create a more vibrant and livable green borrow. The proposed CD Alli zoning district permits all uses in the alli zoning district except convenient stores with fuel pumps. The proposed uses are broadly compatible with uses present in the surrounding area and high in density charact.

Any questions of M Harrison on this case? Thank you. Uh if the applicant is here, would they like two minutes to elaborate on the case? This is Michael Bell, the applicant. We don't need two minutes, but we're happy to answer questions.

All righty. Any questions of Mr. Bale? I don't see any. Thank you for your comments. Without objection, then we will close the public hearing and open it up for any discussion or motions. I'll make a motion. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the reszoning request for the properties at six Marath Court from CDBP conditional district business park to CD-LI conditional district light industrial to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the actions taken to be reasonable in the public interest for the following One, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future build format and future land use map to the proposed CDLI zoning district as conditioned permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on the adjacent properties. Three, this the request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area. that will benefit the property owner and the surrounding community and approval is in the public interest.

Commissioner Turner second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Um all in favor, please raise your right hand and signify by saying I.

That is an 8 to zero approval. 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, November 18th, 2025 city council meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeals. Next expedited case I have is portions of 8318 Lazy Sky Lane, 3941 and 3943 Castle Way and the Lazy Lane Lazy Sky Lane right ofway. Uh this is item PL2540 and Z25105. This is an annexation and original zoning request from county AG agricultural to city CDR5 conditional district residential single family five for the properties identified as portions of 8318 Lazy Sky Lane 3941 and 3943 Casillus Way and the Lazy Sky Lane right ofway generally described as north of Casillas Way and south of Leeburn Road and this is 0068 acres. Mr. Park,

thank you. Um, so this is the zoning map of the subject property. First thing I want to point out is the all the property to the south of that that is CDR5. That is all property that's already inside of the city limits. And and this triangular piece that is the subject property for tonight was not owned by the developer when all of the property to the south was annexed a few years ago. Since then, this triangular piece has been deeded to the developer and the developer would like to develop that as portions of three lots within their subdivision. So, that's the the reason that this small um 0068 acre parcel or or portions of parcels is before you tonight. Um, this is an an annexation and an original zoning request from county agricultural to city CDR5. North of the request is zoned county RS40. East, south, and west of the request are zoned city CDR5. This is the aerial map showing that the properties are currently undeveloped. North of the request contain single family dwellings and east, south and west of the request contain the subdivision that is under construction. There was one condition that was proposed by the applicant and this basically requires the triangle to be developed in conjunction with the surrounding subdivision. In recommending approval of this request, staff notes that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans future built form map currently designates the properties exurban. If annexed, the designation will be changed to urban general. The future land use map designates the properties as being within the western area plan which designates the

properties as agricultural. The proposed original zoning request supports both comprehensive plans filling in our framework big idea to arrange our where we live, work, attend school, shop, enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant livable Greensboro and the creating great places to expand Greensboro citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. The proposed CDR5 zoning district as condition permits uses that are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. The proposed request also reflects changes in land use patterns and add public infrastructure along this portion of road since the adoption of the western area. With that, I can answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, Mr. Carter. Any questions? Seeing none, um would the applicant like two minutes to elaborate on the request? She only wants to speak if you have questions. Very good. Uh that being said, without objection, we'll close the public hearing. Um open up for and we'll need two motions on this. An annexation and a reasoning. Commissioner Turner move for annexation. Second, Commissioner. Okay, we have a motion and a second to grant the annexation. All in favor, please say I and raise your right hand. I

That's unanimous 8 to zero for the annexation. And now we need a motion on the resoning. I'll do that. Um, it's Z25-10-5 portions of 8318 Lazy Sky Lane 3941 and 3943 Casillus Way and the Lazy Sky Lane right ofway. Uh, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at 8318 Lazy Sky Lane, 3941 and 3943 Cillis Way and the Lazy Sky Lane right ofway from county AG agricultural to city CDR5 conditional district residential single family 5 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. One, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future built form map and future land use map. Two, the proposed city CDR5 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.

Stu Nichols, I second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second for approval. Um all those in favor signify by saying I and raise your right hand. I

that passes 8 to zero. Uh and this is a uh represents a favorable recommendation uh and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 city council meeting. Next expedited case is 105 and 107. Thank you chair schemes. This is a zoning map showing the subject properties which are approximately 1.13 acres and located southeast of South Edward Drive and southwest of West Market Street. This is a resoning request from LI light industrial to CDHI conditional district every industrial. North and east of the request are zone CM commercial medium and LI light industrial. South and west of the request are zone LI light industrial. This is the aerial map showing that the subject properties are currently um currently contain a auto sales and service use. North of the request contains shopping center and auto repair minor. East of the request contains a shopping center and office use. South of the request contains a self storage unit. West of the request contains an auto sales and service use and a vacant residential structure. The applicant proposed one condition which is as follows.

And in approving the staff approving the request, the staff states that the GSO 2040 comprehensive plan designates this site as urban general and ex urban on the future built for map and commercial on the future land use map. The proposed reasonzoning request supports the GSO 2040 comprehensive plans growing economic competitiveness goal to focus on industrial uses to increase and preserve the inventory of developable sites compatible with corporate and industrial uses. The proposed CD hi zoning district limits uses to special events facilities. All uses permitted in the office use group and all uses permitted in the vehicle sales and services group. These uses are compatible with uses present in the surrounding area. And I can answer any question that you may have.

One minute for purposes of the record. Should I read the case which I failed to do? Cher out of an abundance of caution. I say why not? Let's do it.

This is item Z-25-10-00006. So resoning request from LI lot Industrial to CDH conditional district heavy industrial for the properties identified as 105 and 107 South Eduardia Drive generally described as southeast of South Edwardia Drive and southwest of West Market Street 1.13 acres that makes this legal. Now Miss Maggot has a question. Okay. So on LI there is um it's not permitted to do special events and it is permitted on HI. Is there a parking requirement um on an HI and what would that be?

Yes, for the special if you're asking about the special event facility. Yes, that same that parking ratio is required in the HI district. There are some exemptions in terms of paving of parking lots for heavy industrial uses in the hi district, but in terms of the actual provision of parking that is still required.

Did I get do I know what that requirement is? Um I can look for It's going to be the same as eating and drinking establishments. That's the use group it falls under. So, it's the one uh one space per 100 square feet. Thank you.

And I'd like to Commissioner I would like to express appreciation for the applicants outreach efforts that we were able to see in the record.

And is the applicant here? Would they like two minutes to elaborate on their case? So the answer is you're fine. Good. All right. That being said, uh without objection, we will close the public hearing uh and move to any comments or motion.

Eric Glass, this is item Z25-10-00006. Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the reszoning request the properties of 105 and 107 South Border Drive from Light Industrial to CDHI conditional district heavy industrial to be consistent with the adopted GSO 24 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan's future build format and future land use map. The proposed CDHI zoning district as condition permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjac 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 interest. Commissioner Gilma seconds.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. All in favor signify by saying I and raise your right hand. I that passes 8 to zero. Uh and this does constitute a final action unless an appeal is submitted in writing to the planning department and an appeal pay fee is paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals will be subject to public hearing at the Tuesday, November 21st, 2025 city council meeting, and all adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. All right, last expedited case.

Just so you know, we do not have the speakers for Farllo Road on yet at all. So, all right, we we will finish up with the with the known expedited um So now we are on to the Robersonson. Yes.

This item uh PLP25-42 and Z-25-10-00009. This is annexation request for a portion of 8001Z Robertson Comr Road which is 1.69 acres and an original zoning and a reszoning request from county AG agricultural to city R3 residential single family 3 and city PUD planned unit development to city CDRM12 conditional district residential multif family 12 for the properties identified as 801 801 ZZ 803 and 815 Robertson road generally described as south of Robertson com road and north of Interstate 840 consisting of 13.69 acres Mr. Carter.

All right. Thank you, Chair SK. So, let me unpack that a little bit. Um, so this is the zoning map. You'll notice there is a portion that is not in the city limits. Now, that is the annexation request for 1.69 acres. the the rest of the property that is in the city limits is um approximately 12 acres. So that is a total of 13.69 acres with the entire zoning request. Only 1.69 of that being included in that annexation request. So the subject properties are located south of Robertson Comr Road and north of I840. This is an annexation and an original zoning and a resoning request from county agricultural and uh city R3 and city planned unit development to city CDR12. So there is a portion of this property that is associated with an existing planned unit development. um got information on what the existing use for that plan unit development uh is in this section if you're interested at a later time, but I've got that if you need it. Um so, north of the request is zoned CDRM5 east of the request is plan unit development. South of the request is claim unit development R3 and CDRM5 and then west of the request is R3. This is the aerial map which shows that the property is currently uh mostly undeveloped. There is a boat and RV storage use on the property as well. North of the request is undeveloped. East of the request is Lake Janette.

South of the request is I840 and west of the request are single family dwellings. These are the zoning conditions that were proposed by the applicant and recommending approval of this request. notes that the GSO 2040 conference of plans future land use or future build format currently designates this property as urban general and residential on the future land use map. The proposed resoning and original zoning request supports both the comprehensive plans creating great places goal to expand Greensboro citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and the building community connections goal to maintain stable attractive and healthy places to live and raise families. The CDRM12 zoning district as conditioned would permit a mix of residential housing types at a density not 12 units per acre. The proposed uses are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation, building materials, and building height, visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the lower density residential adjacent tracks. With that, I can answer any questions that you have.

Any questions of Mr. Carter? Is the applicant here? and would they like to make any comments? All right, let the record show that the applicant is uh is good. So now this is two motions once again um for any discussion or motion but we'll need to I just wanted to know about the the the road the change the road is very narrow. Could you just explain what's what's going to be happening there? Answer that question.

Great. Sorry, what was the question? Well, the the road when I went to look at it was very very narrow. So, um, and I know I know that there is been conversation about changing the entrance into this development or something. Could we could we just speak to that? Yes, the development has gone through sketch plan review and they will be looking into that and also looking at the um construction of the roadway. So the T TRC is in the process of working on that. Correct.

Okay. Thank you so much. Any other questions? If not, we're ready for a motion. Stu Nichols. I first move for the city of for item PL25-42 to be annexed into the city of Greensboro. Commissioner Gilma second. We have a motion to grant the annexation and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying I and raise your right hand. I I. That is an 8 to zero vote for annexation. Now we need a motion on the zoning.

Stu Nichols. I move that as to item Z25-10-00009, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning and reszoning request of the properties at 801 801 ZZ 803 8:15 Robertson Comr Road from County AG Agricultural City R3 Residential single family 3 and city PUD planned unit development to city CDRM12 conditional district residential multif family 12 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. The request is consistent with a comprehensive plans future built form map and future land use map. The proposed CD city CDRM12 zoning district as conditioned 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 interest. Commissioner Gil.

All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the zoning. All in favor signify by saying I and raise your hand. I.

All right, so that's an 8 to zero zoning. This does involve annexation. So, this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 city council meeting. Do we know if we have the opposition online yet for Farllo? Then we are going to move Farlo to the expedited agenda. Okay, this is item PL2539 and Z25103. This is an annexation and original zoning request from county RS40 residential single family to city R3 residential single family 3 for the property identified as 4304 Farllo Drive and generally described as south of Farllo Drive and west of Youngs Mill Road 46 acres. Miss Harris,

thank you. Chair Stevens, this is zoning map showing the subject property is approximately 0.46 acres and located south of Far Drive and west of Youngs Mills Road, Youngs Mill Road. This is an annexation and original zoning request from county RS40 residential single family to city R3 residential single family 3. North of the request is zone county RS 40 residential single family and county RS20. East of the request is zone county RS40 single family residential single family. South of the request is zone county CZ RS20 conditional zoning residential single family. West of the request is zone county RS40 residential single family. This is the aerial map showing that the subject property is currently undeveloped. North, east, and south of the request contain single family dwellings. West of the request contains undeveloped land and single family dwellings. This is a straight um request and therefore there's no conditions. And in recommending approval, the staff states that the 20 GSO 2040 comprehensive plans future built for map designates 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 citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walk of life a variety of quality housing choices and filling in our framework big idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend schools, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant andable 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 request permits uses that are present on adjacent tracks and I can answer any question that you may have.

Any questions for Miss Harrison? Thank you, Miss Harrison. Uh, is the applicant here to elaborate? Would you like to say anything? All right. Record shows that the applicant uh chose not to speak. So, without further objection, we're with any objection actually, we will close the public hearing. Um, discussion. We need two motions on this one. Okay. Yes, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion for I move that we um and that's PLP 2539.

Second, Miss Maggot. We have a motion and a second to grant the annexation. All in favor signify by saying I and raise your hand. I I

That passes 8 to zero. And now we need a motion on the zoning, please. Madam Chair, I make a mo a motion for agenda item number Z2510003 at 4304 Farllo Drive. The Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that his action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at 4304 Farllo Drive from County RS40 residential single family to city R3 residential single family 3 to be consistent with the adopted GSO 2040 comprehensive plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons. Number one, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plans future built form map and future land use map. Number two, the proposed city R3 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impact on 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.

Steu Nichols, I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please sign by saying I raise your hand. I also

I believe that takes care of our expedited agenda. and we and that one did involve an annexation. So I need to make you aware that this constitutes a favorable recommendation and is subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday November 1825 city council meeting. Okay. Thank you. Now we're on to the first case on our agenda, which is now going to be the last of the 1018 and R1 1028 South Josephine Boyd Street. This is case Z259002. request from R5 residential single family 5 to CD RM18 conditional district residential multifamily 18 for the properties identified as 1018R1 and 1028 South Josephine Boyd Street generally described as west of South Josephine Boyd Street and north of Hertford Street total of 3.6 acres

before I get started just letting everyone We do have several people online that wish to speak as well in addition to people who are um the the subject properties contain approximately 3.6 acres and are located west of South Joseph boy north of street. This is a resoning request from 5 to RM8. North of the request is conditional district 26. East and south of the request are zone. West. This is the area map of the subject property showing currently north of the request contains multip street. This is the subject property street. These are multif family dwellings located north of the request on southse. This is an example of single family dwellings located east of the request on southse located west of the request on midway street.

This image shows undeveloped land is Midway Street. This view is facing northse property on the left. This view is facing south street property on the right. facing southway street property is on the left street property is on the right these are the conditions that were proposed by the applicant two additional conditions that I'll read into the record and then the planning and zoning commission will need to accept these conditions the second start at the second fence with a maximum height of six feet shall be construed and maintained property of 1030 with parcel number 149. And then condition number three, the street planting yard south of South Josephine Street, sorry, the street planting yard street with rate specified for a type buffer yard an average of 15. Sorry, we have a copy paste error with that condition. All

right. From the top, the street planting yard fronting South Josephine Boy Street shall have an average width of 15 ft with the planting rate specified for the tight C buffer yards. I'd like to make a motion to accept the two additional conditions. Commission. We have a motion and a second to accept the two additional conditions. All in favor, raise your hand. Say by saying I have three.

And recommending approval of this request. notes that the GSO 240 comprehensive plan currently designates the property as urban central on the future land use on the future for map and residential multif family and residential one to two family and office conversion on the future land use maping request supports the comprehensive plans goal to expand citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices the proposed zoning district as condition to limit available uses to single family detached dwellings single family detached dwellings zero lot line duplexes traditional houses and twin homes which are compatible with the uses in the surrounding area should be taken with respect to building orientation materials height and buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the lower density reser can you explain the Glenwood the need for the Glenwood neighborhood plan amendment

yes the Glenwood neighborhood plan designates the the property So the Glenwood neighborhood uh plans future land use map designates these properties as residential, multif family, residential and one to two family and office conversions. So this would exceed the density that is allowed by that designation and would requ It's been over 60 days and they have not responded with any objections to the change in the plan. Is that correct?

So yes, uh the neighbor association was made aware of this several months ago originally on there. We had not received any official comment from the association at the time the staff report was prepared. Uh, obviously you guys have since received some opposition that we forwarded to the commission for consideration this evening. I'm not sure that's coming if that's coming specifically from the association or just members of the local neighborhood and they can speak to that as part of their opposition. and and in our in our books, you indicated that if no comments are received from the neighborhood association within 60 days of receipt of the amendment proposal, the planning and zoning commission may proceed with review and consideration of the proposal to be forward to city council for final consideration during a public hearing.

Correct. Right. There enough time had elapsed this was able to move forward. The commission could take action on it. Um, again, there obviously are folks that are in opposition this evening and speak to their opposition to the commission this evening, but specifically the association did not respond within that. We did not get any official information from the association. Correct. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Carter.

Is the applicant here? Madam Chair and members of the commission, Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road here in Greensboro. Um, just one point of clarification before we move forward. I would like to confirm this with staff. I think this bullet point three reflects the previously submitted zoning condition that was originally submitted with our application, not the update to permit all res include apartment homes. So just wanted to make that point for the

and that part was advertised as part of the hearing this evening. Uh we were not able to hear this request last month because there was that last there was not time to get the advertising out for it. So yes, the first condition is different than they originally proposed but was advertised perfectly for this hearing. All right, thank you so much for your time this evening. Again, this is Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road here on behalf of the applicant. Um, I have with me this evening, Eli San who's part of the developer team, and he can assist with answering any specific questions that you might have as we move along. So to start, if you would flip with me to the second slide, so just included this slide to reiterate the zoning conditions. We're going to get into our neighborhood outreach later in the presentation, but did want to bring your attention to these two newly submitted conditions. The second condition regarding the fence, that

condition was added in response to a concern that we heard from the neighboring church to the south. They had some concerns about uh tenants and guests at our site wandering over to their church and interfering with their congregation in some way. So, we were able to add that condition to address that concern. Uh the third condition that you see um that that concern was raised during our neighborhood meeting on September. So, we heard with back to the adjacent apartment community to our north. One things that or one of the things that the neighbors appreciated about that development was that the buildings were were offset from the road and there was a nice landscaping buffer that obscured the view of those apartments from the rightway. So, we were able to reconfigure our site a bit, relocate some of our parking spaces that had been located along that rideway and provide an enhanced streetard buffer at that type CL rate which will allow or require trees to be installed in addition to the typical street wanted to do what we could to address that concern. So this lodge is a GIS aerial. This is very similar to what was included in your staff report. Just wanted to highlight some of the existing mix of uses that we have in the Glenwood neighborhood. So, as referenced by staff, we have the campus crossing apartments directly to our north, zone CD, RM26. There's another development immediately north of that development, Spartan Point Apartments. That's actually zoned office. There's some undeveloped RM18 zoning without any zoning conditions to the west of that Spartan Point development. And we have a mix of light industrial and commercial uses there to the north along that stretch. Um, the church that I referenced with respect to the fencing condition That's ACOG Fellowship Ministries that you see to the south. So again, just wanted to include this to show that what we're proposing here, it's not new to the neighborhood. It's

not as though we're intruding in a solely single family community. There's already a good existing mix of uses here in the breeze through this one. Just wanted to highlight those existing zoning that you've already seen. So this slide is an illustrative that our civil engineer has prepared. This sketch plan has evolved through several iterations including a new iteration after our community meeting on the second. If you look on the right hand side of your screen along South Street, that pocket of trees that you see to the north, that's part of that enhanced type buffer that we've added via that new zoning condition. There was also some parking area located in that area that would have basically run up against our northern property line. So those parking spaces have been relocated elsewhere on the site. We're wanting to provide as much of a landscape buffer as we can to observe just street. So when this project was originally submitted and as Iuded on that staff prepared slide with respect to uses my client had wanted to develop a town project that's what they had in mind another of this development that they really wanted to emphasize was providing an abundance of parking over and above what the ordinance required. We realiz Josephine void is an older narrow road. Same with respect to Midway Street and street. So with our civil engineer, we were able to to provide a town layout that worked. However, just naturally given the need for more land to those units across rather than up, we were just barely able to meet that parking requirement for the So we shifted gears a bit. That was a key point that my client wanted to focus on. We're wanting to mitate our impacts to the fullest extent that we can by providing that

additional parking. You can see here on our current sketch, we're showing 47 units, two spaces required per unit. So we're required to have 94 or the sketch is showing 141. So we're doing what we can to keep our tenants and our guests and their vehicles off of the shoulders of those adjacent public streets. I pulled this future plan from the neighborhood plan. This was adopted along with that plan about 15 years ago. And you can see kind of towards the middle a small red box with a little arrow. Just wanted to enlarge that to show you a better view of what our properties are currently designated for that plan. You can see that about twothird of our site is designated per that neighborhood future land use map for multif family use. So we have an excerpt what is multif family use for the Glenwood neighborhood plan multif family residential development at a net density of not more than 18 units an acre which is what we're proposing here. So you know along with this plan obviously this sort of land use discussion with respect to these particular properties and all the other contained within this plan area. Uh this was discussed amongst the stakeholder groups when this plan was adopted. It was determined at that point in time given the nature of the other uses in the area campus crossing apartments to the north and the other mix of uses that we already discussed. Multifamily development here on our properties at 18 units an acre uh was a reasonable request and it was incorporated as part of this future land use plan by the neighborhood. We did send out a notice letter to every property owner on the city's mailing list. Believe over 200 letters went out. Uh we also sent a um a copy of this letter directly to Miss Dana Carr who's affiliated with the Glenwood

Neighborhood Association. It's my understanding that she circulated that to her neighborhood group as well. Posted a neighborhood meeting on September the second. Had between 10 and 15 folks attend that meeting and I think we had a good discussion. Um there were concerns raised regarding traffic. I think we what we can with respect to our site design and our product type to get our vehicles off of the roads. We will not be furthering any sort of existing congestion issues as far as parking on the side of the street and with a apartment project approximately 50 units. We just don't get anywhere close to triggering a traffic stud with respect to our project. So that said, um if the reasoning is approved, we'll go through the site plan review process and it very well the case that G do imposes some um some traffic safety requirements um as part of that site review process but we just did not get anywhere near the unit count to trigger traffic impact study requirement in connection with our application briefly want to touch on just a couple of general overarching points with respect to the city's comprehensive and some of the housing goals that we're well familiar with that the city's put in place here recently. So, this is a textbook infield case. We have almost an identical type of development right next door. We have the infrastructure in place, utilities. Um, if we were to take this project and place it somewhere further out of, you know, out of reach of where the city limits are, we're extending utilities, extending city services, making those transportation improvements further out. that we need to support this project is right here ready for this site now. And I think this type of this type of infill development, this type of project in a location like this where we're not um you know consistent with what's already in the area, these are the types of

projects that I believe as a city we need to be comfortable with if we're going to put a dent in our our 10,000 home. So again, here's available to answer questions. respect to the design than that answer question. Any questions?

I just wanted to um let's see um adjacent to this is the campus crossing south and that is an RM26. It is a threetory. Okay. And then to the back of it is the Spartan Point which is the RN. I can't remember. I think it was three as well. I I don't want to just I'm not sure about the height. It is. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions?

Not at this time. Thank you.

Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this request?

I don't see any. So, we will move to opposition. We have some people online. What I'm going to suggest is the people that want to speak in opposition, if you move over here by the windows to save walking time and we'll we'll alternate if that's okay with Mr. Carter. And again, remember it's a total of 10 minutes. We do have Dana Carr online and she is the neighborhood association president.

Do we want I'm requesting her to um unmute and turn her camera. Do you want me to share first or do you want to start with folks? You're up and moving here. If you state your name and address, please.

Great. My name is Dana Carr. I live at 1511 McCormick Street um in Greensboro in Glenwood. I am the president of the Greater Glenwood Neighborhood Association. Um, I understand that it was stated that if the neighborhood association did not um, email back that the plan would go forward. Um, that was not communicated to us. We were invited to provide feedback and comments. Um, and we have neighbors here who are ready to do that. Um, and so I just wanted to make that point of clarification that um, that that wasn't made clear. Um, but in general, I'll say while our experience with the attorney has been um, fine, our experience with the developer is that they do not seem abundantly concerned with the the best interest of the neighborhood. Um, they've made clear that their goal in this process, and I quote, is to maximize profit. um and yeah have have shown little regard in our meetings um about how to adequately in uh include all of the people who have typically lived in the neighborhood. Um since we had a meeting with them, neighbors expressed concerns and to my knowledge they haven't circled back with adjusted architectural drawings or followup um for any of the major pieces that we ask questions about. Um, so I'll just open with that statement of of we do have concerns um and there are neighbors here this evening that are ready to speak on each of those.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Nancy Len. I live at 10:05 South Josephine Boyd Street about one block north of proposed zoning change parcels. I've lived here for 15 years, but have been associated with this street for 40 because my mother has lived there for 40 years living at 1010 South Void. And that apartment is um behind her directly behind her house, which is an eyesore, just so you know. Um so over the past 40 years, I've seen the traffic on our street grow and grow and faster and faster. Today, I join with my neighbors in opposing the proposed development and would like to see the land remain as it is. While I understand the city's goal of building 10,000 housing units, we should not continue to build highdensity living with low density streets. Our street is called a collector street, but that does not mean it's no longer residential. Single family homes line our street. Our street has children, and many pedestrians walking along the sidewalks. We have students walking to UNCCG and people walking to Gates City Boulevard to get the bus to work. It's already risky to cross the street from one side to the other. South Josephine Boyd has a serious traffic and speeding problem. After we as a community requested traffic management controls be implemented, we recently got our score back from the neighborhood traffic management program study of our street. Our score was 61, one of the highest streets in the city. You need a score of 40 to qualify for the program. This scorecard reflects the risk of traffic fatalities as evidenced by a high volume of traffic and a lot of speeding. Last year, a hit and run driver hit a pedestrian which actually right across the street from this proposed site which

included serious life-threatening injuries to this neighbor. We're concerned that adding a development at the proposed would add to the volume of cars contributing to the problems we already have with traffic and speeding. We heard from the developer that they were not required to complete a transportation impact study because they will only add 100 cars per day. However, the plan they showed us had the capacity to have 150 there. Now, they're saying they want 140 parking spots, but they're only going to have 40 something units. So, Sounds like a lot of guest parking. So, it sounds like they might be having more people per unit than they're actually reflecting in their um uh plan. So, what's to stop them from renting apartments to three occupants per unit? Guests could still park on the street. There's parking on the street. A 51 unit complex should realistically have about 76 parking spaces. And this makes me wonder why they feel they need so many. Plans do and we would like to be protected. Before you make a decision on this development, we urge you to require a traffic study and for you to require them to be responsible for a plan and funding to ameliorate any negative effects their extra cars would add to our already busy street. Adding up to 150 more cars going in and out on a regular basis is just not good for our neighborhood and our neighbors. Thank you. And you know the you know we're getting ready to to meet with the city do about our traffic plan. So adding more cars at this time is not a good idea.

Thank you. The next person we have online, uh, Adam Braun.

Hey, good evening. Uh, I'm Adam Brown. I live at 10:15 Portland Street, which is one block away from this new development. And I can definitely uh e echo what she said about the traffic. It's just gotten worse. It's gotten dangerous. This doesn't seem in keeping with this lovely neighborhood. I love this neighborhood and we all love each other here and I don't think this is the correct way to grow. They don't seem to care about, you know, this neighborhood at all. I doubt they've ever really been here. So, I'll yield the time to whoever else can articulate this better, but thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. Um, so first I just want to clarify that I'm on the neighborhood association.

Oh, sorry. My name Casey Thomas, address 1041 South Josephine Boyd Street, right across from the proposed development. And um, first I want to clarify that um, our neighborhood association president did send me screenshots of emails. None of them said you have 60 days to respond to proposed change to your neighborhood plan. Um she was very concerned he heard she was like we did not approve this. Um and the vice president was just texting me asking who did this go to. So even if that was their intent, it was certainly not something that people even in the meeting that a bunch of people attended with them on September 2nd um were told by like the city, look, you've got 60 days for your neighborhood association to respond. We're going to change your neighborhood plan. The other thing is that the neighborhood plan as it's reflected you saw on the map with the pink and the orange most of that that abuts our street that's visible from our street is for our future land use is supposed to be one like single family or one to two family or office. That's what it said. Um and that's what the majority of the development facing our road is zone for um in the future land use map. um behind it is multifamily there and so I mean it's not necessarily in keeping with what the 2040 plan is to just go ahead and make the entire thing very dense multiuse um multi-propy multif family property um because that's not what our neighbors got together with the city planners and like worked really hard to put together um all those years ago. And the other piece is around trees. Did you Did you get an email that I sent forwarded to you about that? Okay. So, Glenwood is an area that is on the city's priority list for areas that they

want to prevent deforestation and add more trees. And that particular part of the neighborhood that census tract um has had trees um decrease significantly. You see the figures that I sent you with that. Um and so that's one of the things. My kid is 2 and a half years old. He has We are really actively working with the city to decrease the amount of traffic that's on the street. I know they said that it's not that much of a concern um with the amount of people they're planning to have, but plans change, right? As we're seeing tonight, they're like changing their ability to change their plan. It's not a thing about whether they're honest or not, but we think that the traffic study requirement should reflect the capacity that they will have to put people on the lot, not what their current plans are today. Um We would like to have that traffic study. Um my kid does not play with the kids across the street, not because we don't like them, but because we're terrified that he's going to see his little friend and try to like go across the street. Um and so just adding more density and adding more cars to that um really concerns us. Um thank you so much.

Thank you, Miss Thomas. Next person. Next person on line is Miss Valerie Warren. Can you see her?

Hey y'all. Hi. Um, sorry about that. Uh, my name is Valerie Warren. I live at 1043 South Do Street, uh, right across the street from their proposed development. I've lived here since 2001, so almost a quarter of a century. And my kids grew up here. Um, we have been concerned about traffic the whole time. It gets worse and worse. Um, actually, it wasn't so many years ago that I was next door at Casey's house and someone ran into three cars parked across the street um while we were just sitting there. So, traffic is absolutely a concern and I think in addition to like the speed and the amount of traffic, just thinking about like the lack of access points to cross beneath the train tracks, it creates like a lot of at like key parts of the day. And so we're just talking about a quality of life issue. I also want to underscore what Casey lifted up about the tree cover. Tree cover is a major factor when it comes to resilience in the face of climate change. We're really blessed in our neighborhood to have beautiful, beautiful like mature tree cover, but unfortunately because our uh power lines are also exposed, power has come through and like cut out half of every tree facing a major road. And I know that isn't something under the purview of this panel, but the ability of us to maintain our mature tree cover and to maintain um the cooling factor that offers our community is really important to our overall quality of life. My kids also had asthma growing up. I have asthma. the air quality is a real issue. And so I just really hope that number one um we insist

on a traffic study because of the overall situation we're facing and that um we just put a pause on this development while we think about the overall stat of like our mature tree cover. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

All right. And now we'll move and we've got one person left in chambers and you'll be able to speak when we get into the rebuttal period. U we're now going to move to five minutes of rebuttal. First from the applicant Again, this is Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road. Just wanted to respond to a couple of the points that you heard from opposition. Uh first with respect to um the changing plans and the number of units, if you just look at our requested RM18 density across the 3.06 acres, we're capped at about 55 units and that's notwithstanding development standards and square footage requirements for for the units. So at at the very maximum, we're looking at 55 units. Our current sketch is showing 47. Uh the neighbor saw an iteration with 51 during the neighborhood meeting. We're going to be in that ballpark. It's not as if we're going to be able to to leave this meeting tonight and go stick 200 units there. And that that around 50 units that just in the grand scheme of things with respect to traffic is just nowhere near the density that would necessitate a traffic study at this stage. That traffic safety concerns and road improvements, rightway dedication, turn lanes, all of that sort of thing will certainly be considered, but it will be considered during the site plan review process. Uh rather than in connection with this zoning because G domined that no traffic study was required indicating that the infrastructure in the area and our

density can more or less accommodate what we're proposing. Uh with respect to the neighborhood plan and the portion of our property about a third of our site that's designated for that one to two family and office conversion. We understand that that at some point in time about 15 years ago uh our southern property was more or less splitzoned if you will uh with respect to these two differing uh future land use designations and we've taken that into account. So what we've done is to the extent that we can we have stacked the bulk of our multif family improvements to the western portion of the site where that RM18 zoning was designated on the plan. And like I said um earlier in the presentation, we've actually relocated some parking spaces that were pressed up against the South Josephine Boy Street rightway and replace that with an enhanced street yard buffer and some additional green space and open space where we can maintain uh some more vegetation. Um the concern with respect to tree conservation and certainly appreciate that. Again, that's another technical point to be reviewed as a design standard in connection with the site plan review process in review of the ordinance. So, there's no zoning condition that we could offer here this evening before we get on the ground before we go through the site plan review process uh to comfortably assure that any particular tree scattered throughout the property will be preserved. But I I can certainly attest that during the site plan review process, we will be required to demonstrate a certain percentage of tree conservation area and and we're going to be required in addition to that to install a type-C landscaping buffer along our western property line and southern property line sim similarly to the type C buffer that we've conditioned on the right ofway frontage on South Josephine Boyd. So it's not as if this is just going to be a clearcut site without any vegetation whatsoever. We just don't know at this stage um until

we get through the review process what that's going to look like. So, happy to answer any questions. I have one question and I appreciate the pretty map, but I need an additional explanation on it. This inset um the the purple there's two small purple spots that are supposed to be one to two family or an office conversion. The bulk of the orange is designed to be um residential multif family. Correct.

So I think your argument has been the bulk of the piece of property does meet the Glenwood area plan.

Correct. Yes. So our entire northern parcel is entirely designated for that 18 unit an acre multif family use. our southern parcel. It's more or less half and half. Um so to to effectuate the plan as drafted, it would really require a subdivision of that southern parcel and two differing land uses on that on that one piece of land in order to address uh both the multif family component and the one to two family and office conversion component. Uh so we feel just given that twothirds of what of our site is consistent with what we're requesting, it more or less aligns with what was contemplated when this plan was adopted. Okay, thank you.

I have a question. So, there sidewalks on Josephine Boyd. Are there are there sidewalks on both sides of the road? One side of the road? No. Not. So, I'm not sure about existing sidewalks, but as part of our site plan review process, we will be required to install sidewalks on our public frontage both sides. Any other questions for Mr. Blackwood?

Thank you very much. Now, the opposition has five minutes of rebuttal. We had one gentleman who did not get to speak during the regular time frame. So, if you'd come forward and give your name and address, please. Good afternoon. My name is Franklin Lewis. I live at 1032 South Josephine Boy Street. The property that was in the picture, that's my property. It's also the church Fellowship Ministry of which I'm a member. I've been living there for over 15 years. Come back to the mic, please, so we can hear you.

I've been living there for over 15 years. I've seen growth and I've seen some of the developments. My concern is I was there one night walking and I heard the banging and when I ran outside I saw a gentleman lying on the street and the car had taken off so nobody recognized who hit the gentleman. That street is a very busy street. during six and eight I may get emotional because developers do not understand how we have to live. They are there to make a profit. We are not against profiting. We are not against develop them but consideration should be given to us. Where would the children play who come to live there? What about the senior folks who have been living in Deadwood for 50 plus years? Children will be running in and out of the yard. What would the developer do? The architectural design is beautiful, but we cannot understand it. Why not attach a copy of the complete dwelling plan with all the houses, the roadway, the buffet path, attach it to one of this so that we can sit in our meetings and discuss it. Here is where the driveway is going to be. Here is where the walkway is going to be. I am objecting to it with a hard no. There is nowhere you could put those many houses to the back of my property and to the front of my property and don't expect congestion. This is not going to happen. The developer could never convince me

that they could take care of that. Not even a little park. The children is going to play in the church property. I'm a member of that church and has been there for 15 years. thankful for they don't put up a fence but we need more than that we need time so we can sit with the community and discuss what is happening there please remember the seniors who spent all their life on their property are we going to run them away for a few dollars for a few dollars 50 years 60 years opposite me is a senior person motorbike noise could send her Mr. Lewis, I see your passion. I hear your passion, but uh you've used up more than half of the time that's allocated and there's two more people to speak. So, I think you're kind of repeating what other no for that project right now.

We also have Miss Susan Lindsay online. Then we need to hear from her. We have not heard from her yet.

Miss Lindsay, can you turn your microphone on? So, the part of the property that is currently zoned single family and um like one to two um units there or office and whatnot. Um why not leave that the way it is and require that the rest of it I mean the rest of it you just deny the can still be multifamily, contributing to the city plan and the 2040 and the 10,000 homes that we're trying to get to. Um, but also still respect the neighborhood plan. I'm a big fan of splitting the baby and disappointing people equally.

Thank you, Miss Thomas. Do we have anybody unmuted for camera? No, we don't. Okay.

Since Casey's willing to split the bath water or whatever, look, I I think that if they're going to put multifamily housing on the west side, then the entrance to that should be on the west side and not on South Josephine Boy. It's dangerous. When I try to get in and out of my driveway, sometimes I have to wait for 21 cars to go by and I put my I slow down and when I make a left turn into my driveway, people zoom by and so it's like this. This is we're not kidding when we talk about the traffic. So adding I don't care, you know, you could say I have a driveway and put the housing all the way here, but if they're still using this street and that driveway, that doesn't matter where the where the buildings are located. They're still going to be going in and out of that driveway. And we're we're in the process of trying to get traffic control on our street, so we don't need to be adding more at this point. And the trees, we've lost 130 trees to UNCCG's development in our neighborhood in the past 10 years. And we have big older trees. Greensboro needs those trees. And don't attack older neighborhoods.

Thank you. That closes our public hearing. Um, so now we are open to questions, comments, and and I I would like to hear some comments. We we've had some uh some good points made. So, I had a question for staff first. Um, with the notification that went out, was there mention about the 60 days and corresponding back about the Glenwood plan? The reference to the 60 days is in the Glenwood plan itself that talks about if there are amendments to that. You I can't hear you. I'm sorry.

I said the ref the reference to the 60-day window is in the Glenwood plan neighborhood plan itself. It speaks to that if a plan amendment is triggered that the city would communicate with the neighborhood and that the neighborhood would have up to 60 days to make comment on the plan. So there's not an automatic if you hear from the neighborhood or not that the plan automatically and then it still goes through the normal reasoning process and conversations on there with that. Uh I am actually also looking at emails as well trying to verify that. I can't fully answer that question. The more recent communications were simply that we are trying to move forward with getting everything together to present this to the commission and we needed to know if you had any official comment or not and we didn't get any response from that information. I have to go back further in emails. I can't do it here very easily to see about that question, but certainly we'll have an answer for that um from the council level if we don't have it for the commission.

And I think the attorney wanted to on that as well. If I may, Commissioner Maggie, just to add on to to what Mike indicated a minute ago, um I think it's important to bear in mind as well that that opportunity for comment is a point in the process, but in no way, shape, or form changes the discretion that the board has to make a policy decision on the propriety of the current plan versus a potential amendment to it and the reasoning at large, right? Same sort of discretion and policy decision that you always have and they had more than 60 days, right? I mean, they had lengthy period of time, 60, 90 days.

This conversation has gone longer than that with the developer and with information from the city has provided but looking through information. I'm not sure we've made any complete clarification on that. It's in the plan itself. Uh but in terms of some of our communications, so I do apologize to the neighborhood if that was not clear about that time frame. Again, it was just to get comments from the neighborhood if they had comments. And so obviously we have some concern this even being expressed. But what I'm saying is they had plenty of time. They they've been aware of this conversation for a while. Yes.

August. Erica Glass, I will not be supporting um this application. I think the residents um have expressed very well their apprehension or objection to this application. Um my motto that I I express sometimes is you don't do things or vote on things just because you can. It may meet the requirements. Um the staff has recommended this application, but I think it is something to be considered. for those individuals who actually live in this neighborhood, the concerns about traffic. I know that um that question has been answered about whether that triggers a traffic study, but you do have to consider the thoughts of these individuals. Um I think this is a fairly uh tight area. Again, I understand the you know the requirements regarding density, etc. Um but I do have concerns regarding the compact of this area. Um there are a lot of moving parts that may have not been able to articulate been articulated in the application and so I will not be supporting this.

Um let me see. So I know there was some note about tree from the tree conservation um saying that uh I think we all received this at the stage of this development. A tree survey is not required by the land development ordinance. It would not be required and so forth. It says the site development will then require a landscape plan that shows all planting requirements in the LDO are met. So that they're saying that the addition of trees.

Yeah, I think just to add to that information, what the uh municipal arbors was trying to get to was A full tree survey where you actually looked at every single individual tree on the property is not something the city could require as part of this conversation. There is going to be tree conservation required as part of multif family development. Um and based upon the size of this lot, it's 5% of the lot area has to be conserved as part of the development. Some of that conservation can occur in those planting yards. So it can be part of the required plantings to preserve existing trees. does present um incentive to preserve existing trees to meet that versus having to create new landscaping areas on there. Um and of course the condition as for tonight with the um street yard would move it from normally that would be a 10 foot wide street yard that's required by the ordinance. The condition moves it to the type C which is a 15 foot wide um and it was noted would add understory trees to that required buffer yard that's not required the just to get some reference on those things.

And I remembered originally that there was like um the applicant was concerned about overpark to ensure enough parking would be is that the reason why we've moved it now from 94 required spaces to 141 because they wanted to fulfill that desire. The city can only require its minimum requirements based upon the total number of units and the configuration of those units on there. And this zoning doesn't specify that. So there's nothing I can speak to directly as to say what that number. The city must require. Um if someone chooses to park additional on that that is their purp ordinance. So I do want to say a few things um few quick points. Number one, I do appreciate the Genwood Association. I know things have evolved over the past 10 to 15 years. Uh especially with um some of the major developments. I also understand that this is adjacent to a I won't say major but let's say say a pseudo corridor and about a five mile radius you have several colleges and universities um but respect to that also I would say our college population here in Greensboro is about 16%. And it will continue to grow and this represents a area of opportunity for not only our college students but also for students we want people to remain in Greensboro. we lose too many people when they graduate to other cities. I also recognize the fact that we're right beside this property is adjacent to a CM CDRM26. And so to me speaking, this shows consistency with land use, but it also represents an infield. But with respect

to what you all have said, uh the traffic does give me grave concern and the neighbors are actively speaking, but I'm I'm also thinking about the growth that it represents and the consistency. So I have no idea how I'm going to vote at this point, but I do want to share that those are my five points. The main concern, I probably am illegal to say this, but the traffic does alarm me and I would love for the area to be a walkable area. I cannot redesign that particular area, but I am going to go forward and say that I see the potential that this neighborhood has as it has evolved over the years, and I welcome continued discussion. I don't know how I'm going to vote, so we'll see.

I just want to get a little clarity. So an R5 on three acres would mean that as it stands right now, you could build 15 homes on that would be theable density. You wouldn't need to obviously create lots on a public street. So that probably limits how much. So the frontage might not agree to that.

Okay, I'm getting there. Okay. So, what I heard from everyone speaking um in the neighborhood was a lot of concerns about the trees, the traffic, the speeding. You know, I I I don't think the speeding is something that we can be concerned about, but of course, I think that G dot is is attending to or that's something to speak to your city council person about. Could you put in a a light or something to help with this feeding? Um the trees were discussed and I think the applicant has agreed to add some trees and also um the the uh we heard about the conservation. I keep pressing the wrong button. Um, G dot was not required. That's what I heard. Correct. So, at this point, um, I think that I hear the applicant has done quite a lot in terms of trying to resolve the concerns that he could do in terms of land use. I'm just thinking land use here when I'm battling on like this. But anyhow, um so the trees and the traffic and the speeding we can't really be concerned about. But they have they have done added conditions in terms of blockage um with a high fence and additional planting. And I think this is a very difficult kind of situation because we have the

Glenwood neighborhood plan which is like two twothirds of the property is multifamily and one third is one or two single family and I I know I I really feel for you as as neighbors and I hate that there's so much traffic going down this street. I really do. Um maybe you can