Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. Thanks, Josh.

Good afternoon. My name is Jason Grubs. I'm the chair of the city county planning board. Welcome to the September 11th, 2025 meeting of the planning board. Prior to our pledge of allegiance, I'd be remiss if I did not note the significance of today's date in the history of our nation. I'd ask you as you stand in a moment to reflect upon the loss our nation suffered 24 years ago today. I think it's a reminder to all of us that we should really each strive to live our lives and conduct ourselves every day in a way that honors the legacy of those we lost that day. So, if you'd please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Today's meeting is being broadcast live by Winston Salem TV digital media and will be rebroadcast at 10:00 a.m. Friday morning and again at 4:00 p.m. Sunday afternoon. Additionally, an on demand recording will be available on the city of Winston Salem's YouTube channel. Our first order of business this afternoon will be the consent agenda containing items for which the petitioner is requesting withdrawal or continuence or items which the planning staff has recommended approval and no one has signed up to speak in opposition. For our public hearings today, each side will have a total of 12 minutes. There is no rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed and the board goes into work session, no one is permitted to speak unless the planning board asks them a question. The items under section B of our agenda will require final action by the elected body, either the Winston Salem City Council or the Force County Board of Commissioners. As such, votes taken today are recommendations which are considered by the elected body during their review of the requests. For general use zoning requests, the planning board must consider the full range of uses allowed in the zoning district being requested. Petitioner may not refer to a specific intended use of the property. For special use zoning district requests, the petitioner must identify the intended use or uses of the site and give specific details for how the site will be developed. If you're addressing the board today, please begin your comments by giving us your name, address, and zip code for the record. First item on the consent agenda is the approval of the minutes of the August 14th, 2025 public hearing. Is there a motion? Move approval.

Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second. Second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Now going to call on Mr. Mark who will take us through the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First up we have is item B1. This is W3657. The petitioner is Golden Opportunity Investments LLC. This is a general use reszoning from RS7 Martin Luther King Overlay to RSQ Martin Luther King Overlay. This is 0.27 acres at the southeast intersection of East Fourth Street and North Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. And as you can see here across the street, you do have a highway business special use. And then most of North and East and South is RS7. As you can see from the aerial, there used to be a house here, but it has since been removed. So, this is now a vacant lot. The area plan recommends um single family residential with a density of 0 to eight dwelling units per acre. The reasoning would allow for h housing flexibility and GMA2 and although the U unit type is different, the density of our RSQ would still meet. So um the resulting request would be supported by 42045 and the east northeast area plan which goals by adding housing near your transit sidewalks and multimodal and for those reasons staff does recommend approval.

Any questions for staff? No one has signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing closed. What is the pleasure of the board? Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find that the request is consistent with a comprehensive plan. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion. All those in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of W3657. Second. Motion by Mr. L, second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

Next up is item B2. This is W3658. The petitioner is VNC Land Company LLC. The owner is Foresight County. This is Institutional and Public Resoning from Institutional and Public to Highway Business Limited use. This is a three and a half acres at the Northwest intersection of University Parkway and Shadeline Drive. As you can kind of see on each of the corner intersections, you'll see Highway on each side. So, you see the uses that they're requesting is an allowed use in the area. And to the north of the IP, you'll see a general use GB up here. The area, the aerial shows this as a vacant undeveloped lot. The area plan um recommends institutional use which recognizes the current owner, Foresight County, as the owner of this property. The staff does find this consistent with 42045 in a north suburban area plan by supporting infill along major corridors with existing utilities and transit access. Uh so for those reasons, staff does recommend the resoning.

All right. No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing closed with the pleasure of the board. Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of W3658. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion? All in favor? Sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

Okay. Item B3 does have opposition. So, this is coming off consent. So, our next item is B4. So, next is item B4. This is W3660. The petitioner is Arboracres United Methodist Retirement Community. The project is Arboracres UMC. This is resulting from RS9 to RM8s. This is 3.09 acres on the south side of West 25th Street and Arboracre Road between Arbor Place Drive and Kirkwood Street. The uh life care community is located to the west and to the south of this development. And then you see RS7 or single family residential is to the north and the east. The aerial is showing a single family house, but this house has since been removed. Um, you can see from here that Francis Ashberry Court and Francis Ashberry Drive does stub into this property, which shows there was a future plan to extend this development to the east. Um, to the southwest, you'll see here are the two assisted living living facilities, senior living facilities. My fault. Um, right now there's a current storm water device that's located right here. when we go into the site plan that will be moved to this section south of the property and this parking lot that you see here will be extended over into this property. All right. So, the area plan does have this the Northwest Winston Slam area plan does call for single family 0 to8 dwelling units per acre and a petitioner is requesting RM8. However, the project will actually build single family homes at an RS9 density. This is just getting it to the same zoning as the rest of the lifeare community. Okay. So, you see here on the site plan again as talked about before, you see Francis Asbury Court and Francis Espberry uh Drive. They both extend. You see the 10 single family homes that are uh coming off of the the new road. You also see, as mentioned before, the parking lot extending here. And the storm water device, which is currently,

if you can see, you see these contour lines going on wrap around in circles. It's being moved over here to the east. There is a condition that's being continued from the from this development which is a 50-foot type 3 buffer yard along West 25th Street which will be extended along the entire strip site plan does meet all other UDO requirements and staff recommends approval. No one assigned to speak in opposition to this item. Is there anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Was the pleasure of the board. Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find that the request is consistent with a comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Pino. Any discussion? All in favor? Son of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of W 3660. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion? All in favor? Son of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

Okay. Next is an annexation. This is item B5 W3661. The petitioner is a city of Winston Salem. This is a uh reszoning from county limited industrial special use to city Winston Salem limited industrial special use. It's 30.46 acres located east side of Wahberg Road between Union Cross Road and Business Park Drive. The property was resone to LIS on April the 24th of this year, 2025 by the county commissioners. So you see from the aerial that this is mostly a wooded lot, but over here you see a former driving range. That's why you see some it's a little more clear, but it's been closed a while. So you see some growth coming back in. Uh the area plan has the southeast Winston Salem area plan does recommend commercial recreation, but that's due to again the driving range that was there. The area plan does recognize the most recent resoning from this year to LIS and staff does recommend uh the resoning. No one here's signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board?

Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Patinho. Any discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of W3661. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor, sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

Okay. Next is item B6. This is F1392. This is the petitioner's Brookberry Farms LLC. The applicants Brookberry Land base 7. This is a final development plan of 89.23 two three acres at the northern terminus of Ker Road and the southern terminus of Glad Acres Road. So you see on here the much larger northern parcel is split from the southern front from due to a future extension of Brookberry Farm Circle that you see right here. This parcel that this parcel this rightway that you see here is the northern beltway. The aerial shows that most of the northern property is wooded. You do see some clearing here in the middle. The southern portion or parcel here is totally cleared. The area plan recommend the west suburban area plan recommends single family residential 0 to8 dwelling units per acre. The sluca what you see here is sluca e um that states that it comes from the Brookberry master plan which states that low density attached res residential less than eight units per acre is recommended along the beltway. So in areas along the beltway here. All right. So here is the overall site plan. And I apologize because the way this is oriented, we had to orient the north to the plan E. So we're going to see this on every slide. Um the overall site plan is 118 single family homes and 86 town homes. The density of this development is 2.29 units per acre. There are two access current access points being proposed which is Ker Road which leads out to Shallford Road down here to the south or plan west and Glad Acres which leads you into the town of Lewisville and um Robin Hood Road over here to the plan it's north but it's plan east. So we're going to start with the

northern section first. Uh this is 84 single family homes. This is Gladacres Road. Again this is north but it's plan east. The road goes into a all the homes of this development are attached to this circular road that's coming around. There are multiple open spaces that you kind of see here. And there is a the southern connection is Beethoven Boulevard which goes across this tributary to Tomahawk Creek. This is the central portion. Again, if you look at this, if we this we were coming from Beethoven Boulevard coming from this section from phase four. This is phase three or the central section. This is 33 single family homes. Um, and Ker Road, which ends before you get here, is is to be extended to Beethoven Boulevard portion right here. And then here is the southern section. This is phases one and two. Um, this is 86 town homes. The western boundary line is Ken Road. The eastern boundary line is the future northern beltway. Um phase one and two, which this is phase one, this is phase two, are separated by the future Brook Farm circle extension. And um as far as this overall site plan, it does do a good job of conserving a lot of wetlands, which you see here, the pond, and there's some wetlands here in the middle. This development does also have a total connection of sidewalks for all four phases. And the road network supports integration with the broader community and has multiple ways of getting in and out. So not all your traffic is going all south or through one out through one access point. There is an amended condition. So in 2003, the city uh was doing storm water review for properties close to the city limits. The storm water department has confirmed that they do have an approved master plan for storm water here. So we need to amend the storm water condition that you guys have. And so this is how I'll read it out real quick. developer shall show compliance with the approved

storm water management master plan for Brookberry Farms as on file at the city of Winston Sam storm water division. And here is the elevation of the town homes. Um again this is a final development plan. So this is the seventh land bay of Brookberry Farms which um this does align with the Ford 2045 and west suburban area plan as single family homes if remember on the west and the attached residential homes were on the east along the beltway. This does meet all the phase one requirements of Brookberry plus it does meet all UDO requirements. So staff does recommend approval. All right before we um move on further, any questions for staff?

I have a question. Yeah. The um project the this expansion would it actually be connected to the existing neighborhood prior to the beltway because I I heard you say there's a there's a Brookberry extension road or something something like that road. To my knowledge, it's part of the if you want, it's part of the the actual project, but I don't know if it's going to be before.

It's my understanding that that connection is going as part of the negotiations with NC DOT for the purchase of the rightway through the through the project through Brookberry proper. It was negotiated that NC DOT would be building that connection whenever they build the beltway. So, that connection will not exist until the beltway is constructed. But again, there is an existing southern connection to Ker and then there would be a a connection of this development into Gladacres Drive, I believe is the name. Um, so again, you still have, you know, multiple ways in and out and then ultimately this will connect whenever the beltway is constructed to Brookberry proper.

Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Murphy, before we proceed, um, we got several new faces here. Can you explain procedurally because this is a final development plan sort of what the significance of how we move forward is?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh yeah, whenever the chairman read the opening statements, it said generally the items on section B of the agenda have to go on to the elected body for formal approval. This is one of those exceptions. Uh the reasonzoning for Brookberry in and of itself was approved in 2003. This area here has been shown as MUS since that time and it was located in landbase 7. There were conditions of approval related to that whenever the uh resoning was approved by the county back in 2003. So as such items that had first phase approval that kind of leaves a blank slate for the future as long as you have conditions and those kind of things are what we call final development plans. This is one of these uh this is one of those things where if the planning board approves this project today, it is approved. It does this will not go on to the elected body. This is as long as it's determined it's consistent with the phase one approval and it meets all the requirements of the ordinance. The planning board is the approval authority on this item. So, thank you.

All right. Any questions for staff about that? No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is there anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed with the pleasure of the board. Mr. Chairman, I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion? All in favor? Son of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Do you need any reference to the amended condition? Yeah, I I believe so. If you just if you just want to reference as the the amended condition as presented at the hearing or something along those

Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board approve F1392 subject to compliance with the amended condition as referenced in this presentation. Second motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion on that? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

All right. Next up is KC1. This is subdivision number 2025097. This is the Cold Water Farm subdivision. This is a 13 lot major subdivision in AEG. This is 59.42 acres at the southern terminus of Plunkett Road. All right. Again, it's a 13 lot subdivision in AG. There is a public road right away throughout the entire development, but it's privately maintained about where you see the pointer is. So, just north of the traffic circle. Um, all lots exceed the AG minimum standards ranging from 1.6 to 8.6. 7 acres. The design maintains rural character consistent with the AG zoning purpose of large lots, agricultural open space, and no increased demand on public util utilities. The subdivision meets UDA requirements and staff recommends approval.

Move approval. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patin. Any further discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

Next up is item D1. And this is PBR 2025-14. This is the Wexom Road subdivision. This is a 37 lot PRD and RS9. It's in it's 24.07 acres at the north located north of I40 at the eastern terminus of Wexom Road. As you can see here, it does have RS9 all the way around it and a stream just to the east and subdivision to the to the west. All right. This again is a planned residential development for 37 lots in RS9 on 24 acres. There is two open spaces here with playgrounds, walking trails, and a greenway easement, which is the greenway easement you see here along the the creek. There is a connection from the active open space here to that greenway. There is a 20 foot type one buffer yard on the perimeter which helps provide separation from this PRD and the traditional lots that are planned north on this map. There is. So, since we did the agenda book, we have had quite a few comments about this from the neighborhood. Um, the developer has agreed to this additional condition that you see here. So, prior to signing a final plat, the developer shall repair or provide funds to repair any damage to the entrance island within Wexom Road as a result of its infrastructure con construction activity related to this development. So, in particular, what you see right here, if con while there's construction going through, they will use Wexum Road. If there's any damage that happens to this, the developer has said that they'll bring it back whole.

Uh they'll have to they'll have to repair the entrance island, not not the street itself.

That's correct. I mean basically it's a public street and you know obviously if there is damage you know Winston Wlam DOT engineering streets they will take a look at that and make a determination what the cause of that damage is but just like driving on any o over any other public street they can't be held to a standard that's different than other construction traffic on other public streets. So again I'm not saying that it couldn't be done but we can't impose a condition specifically related to that. Any further questions for staff? All right. What's the pleasure of the board? Uh, move approval subject to the additional condition pertaining to the entrance island repair.

Second motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Patinho. Any further discussion?

Um, I would just like to thank the people that live out there for for the for the thought and time that they have provided. Um, I'm especially aware of uh the u the nature of uh the intersection um the speed limit there and along Waxford uh and would would request the staff pass your transportation related concerns on to the appropriate people uh within the transportation department And if uh any of you that are here uh can speak to staff while you're here, I'm sure they'll also be glad to give you that individual's name and number. Thank you. Just so you know, we did the information. All the emails that were sent to us, any any of the ones that I saw, I did specifically send to both Jeff Fansler and Bobby Kroom, who's the dire who respectively are the director and deputy director of Winston Salem DOT. So they are aware for the ingress and egress concerns dealing with McGregor and its odd angle with South Peace Haven. Um so again those have been relayed and you know if there are are any issues with construction and those kind of things you know if folks want to reach out to us again we can get that to who it needs to go. I don't want you to have to go hunting for folks who you would get it to but we could get it to our folks in the traffic field office to take a look at as well.

I didn't hear my ears are old. Did does staff recommend approval? Yeah, staff does recommend approval. We didn't get there, but I was wondering because we didn't get there because we were talking about that condition and there was a question, but yes, we we are recommending approval of this because again, it is it's allowed by right. It's 37 lots on 24 acres, so about one and a half units per acre. It's consistent with the ordinance. It's consistent with the requirements of uh of the district. just think one part of the ordinance that needs to be understood as a connectivity part and that that is part of their evaluation in terms of the flow of traffic and your intersections within that. So if the neighbors weren't aware of that it' be uh good to understand that.

All right, any further discussion? Do we have a motion in a second already? Yes. Yes, you do. So you approved it. If there's no other discussion, all in favor sign of I. I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous. We didn't Did we already vote? Did we vote twice on that? No. No, you had not. Just making sure. That's okay.

Wouldn't put it past me. Next up is item D2. This is PBR 202515. This is Forest Life Jail and Prison Ministries. This is the group care facility B in general business. 0.45 four or five acres at the southeast intersection of University Parkway and Brownsboro Road. You can see here again, it's a group care facility. This was already an existing uh building, existing parking lot. Nothing's changing from what was already there. It's a 3,622 foot building with existing parking. They will have up to 10 residents plus two employees at one time and it does meet UDO requirements. Staff does recommend approval. Move approval.

Second motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. You have any further discussion? Just question. Is this the kind of office looking building at University in Brownsboro? Okay. Just want to make sure I was thinking the right spot. All right. Any further discussion? All in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? That's unanimous.

All right. So, next is item D3. This is PBR 202516. This is a uh the petitioner's Carver Estates Town House community. That's the name of the project. This is a 40unit town home development in RM12. It's 5.51 acres. It's south of Mont Royal Road east of Pine Tag Road. This is the elevation. So, what you see here is a 2 and a half story elevations uh with uh Stone Veneer at the bottom. And as you see here is a 40unit town development on 5.5 acres. So the density is 7.3 dwelling units per acre. This will be served by one public street Josiah Lane and two private streets which is Carver Lane and Kyler Lane. So this does meet RM12 density parking setbacks and recreation standards. It's consistent with UDA requirements. Staff does recommend approval.

Move approval. Second motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. Pinho. Any questions for staff or or further discussion? All right. All in favor sign of I. I I opposed and that's unanimous. And we are going back to I think it was 36593. There we go. Yeah, we'll hear from Rory Howard. And if if folks won't I mean you're more than welcome to stay around, but if your case has already been heard, you're more than welcome to also leave. So, however you want to handle.

I apologize for leading us. Oh, no, no, no. That's very I was second guessing myself cuz it, you know, kind of like I said, my ears are old. [Music]

Okay. Um, this is case W3659. The petitioners are Walter T. Wilson and Helen S. Wilson. Uh, the site is 8.8 acres on the west side of Sides Road, south of West Clemensville Road. and the petitioners are proposing a special use reszoning from RS9 to RM8s. So, here is the location of the subject property. Um, it is within GMA3 and it is along Peters Creek Parkway within the Peters Creek Parkway growth corridor. Uh, looking at the location map here, you can see it is bounded by the Peters Creek Parkway uh to the west. Um and uh commercial use to the north. Um to the east uh is single family homes and utilities and to the south as utilities as well. Just for reference is where the uh the otter water tank is water.

Um looking at the property via an aerial image, you can see the property is currently undeveloped and mostly flat. Um, looking at the south suburban area plan update, uh, the case does or the sorry, the area plan does currently recommend single family residential between 0 to 8 units per acre. I'll come back to that number in another slide. Looking west, here's a picture looking west into the subject property from Sides Road. Uh you can see it is uh developed and is uh very well grown. Looking east from the subject property across the side across sides road you can see single family home and in the rear you can see the utilities station. Uh here's looking south along sides road subject properties to the right and here is the otter mural water tank. And here's a picture looking north along sides road subject properties to the left. In the distance you can see the um traffic circle that leads onto West Clemensville Road. So looking at the overall site plan here, uh the petitioner is proposing eight apartment buildings uh comprised of each having eight apartment units for a total of 64 uh with the density of 7.2 units per acre. Um there is one proposed driveway connection to Sides Road and one centrallylo open recreation area which is 18,952 ft in the middle of the development. To the south you'll see a type 2 buffer yard against the uh single family zoned land as well as the one proposed storm water device. Um and there also there are street yards proposed along both road frontages as well as pedestrian connections and sidewalks along both.

And that is more clearly seen here in this photo um where the light green encircles the large centrallylo open area. You see the orange and blue uh town home buildings or sorry town apartment buildings. Uh and then you can see uh both sides the pedestrian connection and sidewalk extension along both road frontages. So here is a picture showing the proposed elevations for the apartment project. In summary, the request is consistent uh with the general recommendations of for 2045 and South Burban area plan. It does provide higher density housing um close to services in transit being uh close to the commercial areas to the north as well as Peters Creek Parkway to the west. Um the area plan does recommend single family development for this site. Um but the density of this apartment uh proposal um still falls within those those bounds of 0 to8 units per acre. It's just a separate housing type. Um and finally, the request would encourage a variety of housing types for different income levels, uh family sizes, and personal preferences um throughout our city. So therefore, uh, the site plan meets UD requirements and zoning does recommend approval. I'll take any questions at this time.

Yes, sir. I've got a question or it could be for an applicant, but why is there a decent amount of buffer space? If you go back a couple couple slides where it's like note eight and three. Yeah. Yes, sir. Just on the east side, plan view east of this. Are they staying underneath eight units?

Yeah. I mean, obviously they're under eight units an acre. They're they're right. They're they're allowed 70 units and they have they're at 64. Perhaps they could speak to why that area is there. One of the things that we recommended, if you look at the the our comments in the when we did the interdep departmental review is since there are six additional units that are allowed, we felt like it would be a great opportunity to provide it doesn't have to be six. You could do four or five lots that fronted on sides road as single family lots and actually, you know, either develop them develop them yourselves or sell them off. That would then provide a mirror to the three or four single family homes on the other side of Sides Road. provide a little bit of a buffer between those single family homes and the proposed multifamily units further into the site and kind of provide that kind of bookend edge that kind of insulates the existing single family on the east side of Sides Road to the to these multif family units. I'm not sure why they didn't choose to do that. Uh they could answer that. they would probably be able to better answer the question as to why it's designed the way that it is. But that's that was our recommendation was to bring in some single family lots and if you don't want to build them yourselves, sell them. We're in the need of h, you know, we're in the need of housing and again it would provide that it would provide that built-in sort of transition on the site.

That was our fault. Yeah, makes sense. I'd be curious to know just if they're intending to do anything other than just grass. I love the common area in the middle. Wonder if there's at least going to be I guess they've got some trees shown there. But yeah, see what they thought. Yeah. And again, I think probably it might be best just to hold that until they actually give they could address at their presentation if that after we've done the public hearing, you could probably ask them if if they don't address it during during that.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. Prior to beginning our public hearing, as a reminder, each side will have 12 minutes. Prior to beginning your remarks, please state your name, address, and zip code for the record. We'll now open the public hearing on matter uh 36 59. 3659. Thank you. Um and signed up in support, I've got Brennan Mahoney.

Hey, good afternoon. My name is uh Brennan Mahoney. Um, I'm at 3021 East Dublin Granville Road in Columbus, Ohio, 43231. Um, you know, I'm the vice president of development for Buckeye Community Hope Foundation. We're a nonprofit developer. Um, as you saw, you know, it's mentioned servicing many income levels. Um, part of servicing those income levels is kind of to answer your question about leaving the green space up front is we're going to pursue funding through the LITC portal and that's strictly a rental income source and we can't really put housing lots up front like that. That just doesn't work with that funding um unfortunately. So, that kind of is our direction towards just sticking with apartment buildings. Um, you know, we think that this project will be a great resource to the area. Uh the rents are going to be structured to target households um who are earning 60% of the average median income or less. And kind of in numbers that's about $54,000 a year or less. Um and as a point of reference, you know, the average teacher in Foresight County makes 51,000 a year. Average childare worker makes 28,000 a year and average firefighter is $33,000 a year. Um, and you know, based on the US census data, we can see that there's 70,000 individuals earning less than that $50,000 a year within 10 miles of this site. Um, you know, and additionally, 47% of the residents in the county are considered rent burden, meaning that they're paying more than 30% of their income towards their rent, towards their house uh, house payments essentially, the rent. And that's something that this is going to directly address in that our rents are structured at to not exceed 30% of various rental income levels. Um and you know as a company Buckeye being nonprofit you know our goal is to provide affordable housing and we stay involved in the project you know beyond construction through the management through the operation through the ownership for the

long term you know as a way to really just ensure long-term affordability. It's not something that we're a developer building it, selling it, getting out, or just getting, you know, just trying to be out of it and just make make the profit and leave. We're here to operate it, manage it, and provide the uh the affordability. Um, and, you know, in terms of achieving that affordability, that's kind of why we're here. We have to go to a rental apartment style building. Um, the single family just doesn't really work for what we're looking to do. And you know, we've tried to stay pretty thoughtful of that in this design process, sticking with two-story buildings, um, only 64 units. Now, you might ask, why aren't we pushing up higher and higher? It's because we want to stay within really what the existing zoning kind of allows, just in a different use. We don't want to come in and just greatly change the the idea of what this property was to be. Um, and you know, if you said you could roughly put 40 single family homes on this property, those are all going to be three to four bedrooms, maybe two stories. Uh, you know, that's going to be 120 to 160 bedrooms. We're at 120 bedrooms total. So, you know, same number of bedrooms. We're impacting less of the site, maintaining some green space as well. Um, which we we do feel kind of just not just densely packing in as much as possible, like we said, just for the surrounding residents. Um, and also pushing it back off the property a little bit. It's like you said, we can't do the single family homes as the buffer, but we can provide that green space buffer to the surrounding people. Um, and additionally, we've got like the fences on the on the edges of the property as well. Um, you know, there's concerns with apartments and, you know, noise and dumpsters and trash and things like that. All you can see we've got ample dumpsters all around the property. Um, dumpster locations are fully screened in, so no one no neighbors, people driving by, they're not going to be looking at trash. You can see we've got trees there along the property as well to help kind of screen things in. Um, and you know, that's kind of really what

our project is. Uh, you know, thank you again and we kind of look forward to hearing y'all's uh recommendation. All right. Any questions for Mr. Bahoney? Yes, Mr. Mahoney. The um the intention to retain management. What is that pursuant to your funding? Is that a requirement or something like that? Okay. So, if you sell it in 18 months after you've We can't settle it in 18 months with the funding, that's what I'm after.

Um, it's not able to um you know, they have qualifi qualified contract periods and stuff and we have to agree that we're not going to do that. Um, and it's going to have, you know, minimum 30 years of affordability, really longer. If you know our company, we've been around we did the first deal in Ohio back in 1991 and we don't we buy up other affordable portfolios and rehab them and keep them affordable, right? You know, our goal is really not to to get out of what's the enforcement provision that keep that binds you to

maintaining ownership for 30 years or maintaining affordability for 30 years. So, it's all governed by the uh IRS and through NCHFA, which is a North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, um a state agency that awards tax credit based funding for these. Um and it's just being in compliance with them. And it's something that if we fell out of compliance on one of these things, we wouldn't ever be able to do another one. Okay. And our company would just be disbarred basically. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Mahoney? I've got a question. the you talked about you could not if it fell through you if you built it you could not sell it within so many years which is typical of the litec

but for Chris if that really has nothing to do with our zoning decision right we need to separate out correct specific use with the appropriateness for them

correct basically I mean again and you know obviously you know we see several lch projects a year and those kind of things you one of the things that we're looking at the land use is truly just the multifamily use. We're not getting into affordability management, um what the price point of the units are, you know, market rate versus subsidized or any of those kind of things. It we're truly looking at the land use. And again, as Rory alluded to, the area plan recommends 0 to 8 units per acre. So, we're kind of in we're kind of in the good column on that when you look at compliance with the plan because it's, you know, less than eight units per acre. On kind of the con side, it is a uh it is not single family residential. Uh but again, it's meeting the density based on some past precedent uh especially along growth corridors. We have taken a more uh approach more looking at density versus product type. And so again looking at balls and strikes we kind we feel like this is in compliance because again there's been a lot of changes since these plans were done in the mid two mid20s. Uh and we see much more of a movement towards um housing choice and housing variety. So we're really looking at the unit base and this being less than eight units per acre. Staff feels like it is consistent with the plan.

And just to echo Mr. Murphy's comments, we we can't consider funding sources or affordability issues in either direction. So, we can't use that as a as a reason to oppose it or or support it. Just just so really that's for the the public understanding.

Two questions. One about the affordability part. Uh one, we've all said that that's not part of our decision to be made here. Uh the first one is more of just a normal question. Uh so on like this schematic or the more structural rendering um we see mention of Buffy Yard and all of that but we don't see plantings along size road and so um one question um Mr. pit had about trees and things

or the open space. Now on the colored rendering you um image you just had there was some trees. So um facing the homes do you intend to leave it whatever natural ve vegetation or planting trees because I think the neighbors probably would be interested to know what they're going to be looking at.

Yeah. Mr. Mr. Farby if I could just interject on that one. Uh the plan that's on the screen now, the the render doesn't indicate those trees, but you can see the label uh kind of in the middle of the site alongside the road says 10ft street yard. So that would be required to have some deciduous trees and some of the corresponding shrubs. So that would provide a level of screening for the the folks who live on the other side of Sides Road, but it wouldn't uh make the folks on the site feel like they were being cordined off from the rest of the community. I would like to add to the architectural designs has a lot of notes.

There's a table over here that you can't see off on to the right that has the notes and it says note 10, note 9, all these things. So those things are pointed out. are just labeled off and it, you know, when you try to pull the whole map into a screen this big, it gets really hard to see. So, we like to show the site plan up close. We need bigger screens. Got it.

And and you know, and keep in mind again whenever we're reviewing this for compliance, you know, landscape compliance isn't necessarily something that we're approving at this level. when if this were to get approved and LITC funding was secured and they came in to secure their entitlements um building permits, zoning permits, etc., they would have to submit a plan that demonstrated compliance with all UDO provisions. So again, we would be looking at their motor vehicle surface area planning requirements. So, I mean, again, while they have some schematic trees shown in that large open space area in between sides road and like their internal courtyard, it may not look exactly like that, but they would probably have some large variety trees and other things that would be along that to meet that motor vehicle uh surface area planning requirement. And again, as uh as Kirk alluded to, they would also have to meet that streetyard requirement along the road. Yeah, my concern was just one, it's a lot of notes. Um, but also just because the colored rendering showed trees and I know people here in the audience and the neighbors here may not know what all those things mean or the difference in the two. Um, and then the second question is for our friends in the audience, can you please give a brief someone a brief description of what LITC means? I don't think everybody knows that.

I can I can jump on that. So, LIITEC is low-income housing tax credits. Um, it's kind of the best tool that the government has to provide uh housing to its people. Um, it's got bipartisan support. I'm sure we've all heard of the the big beautiful bill recently. Um, it has increased the supply of it. So, it's been both sides are just kind of agreeing that housing is one of the biggest issues in America. This is our best tool to tackle that. Um, and what they do is every year a QAP come states are allocated them. States then come out with something called a QAP, which is the roadmap to how to receive them. And we go out and we find a piece of property um that is going to match their standards of what the state is looking for. And every state's different and yearbyear that can be different. Um this is a piece of property that gets a perfect sight score. So it kind of meets what they're looking for. And that's, you know, in terms of just being near amenities, near schools, near education, things along those lines. Um and if we receive an award on the tax credits, we then take these tax credits and we go to investors who have a you know large tax bill essentially and they buy the tax credits from us. So we take turn these tax credits into capital to then develop this and that company usually it's a it's a fund of investors maybe banks insurance companies you know larger corporations um they will receive those tax credits over the course of 10 years and they don't get those tax credits if the projects aren't affordable. So if it fall aren't affordable falls out of compliance anything of those sorts. So then once again that's just a incentive for us to to maintain it. Um, and yeah, it's just it's just an avenue for us to turn tax credits into funding to build these things. It's not necessarily just money that the government gives. It's more of a tax credit.

Thank you. All right. Any further questions for Mr. Mahoney? I would just like to make one remark and that is though though the area plan calls for single family residential in my wildest imagination I can I cannot cannot imagine single family residential fronting on Peters Creek Parkway. So I find this uh to be an improvement. Mr. Pit. Yeah, I've just got a comment. Uh there's a lot of parcels between here and Ohio. So thank you for bringing this to Winston in a thoughtful way again highlight the med the central gathering area in between the great

I'm from here I'm from South Carolina so I'm spend a lot of my time between South and North Carolina is where I grew up and spend all my time so good thank you kind of more my neck of the woods I will say this was a very hot property for u proposals in this I mean we saw probably three four different kind of layouts on this piece of property for affordable housing. So, all right. How much time's left for the Eight minutes. Eight minutes. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in favor of this proposal?

All right. Seeing no one, we'll shift to the opponents. I've got uh Rachel Sides and Adolf Curtain signed up. Um just as a reminder, please state your name, address, and zip code for the record. And um you've got 12 minutes total. Whoever would like to go first.

Hello, my name is Rachel Sides. No relation to the road. Um, I live on 105 Kings Meadow Court, 27127. Um, I purchased my first home this summer, um, right across from this development or this planned development. Um, so I was glad to be, um, given the opportunity to participate in this decision. Um, my two main points of opposition are the impact to traffic, the fact that there's only one entrance to this community on Two Sides Road. Um, the roundabout that was shown in one of the images that connects Clemensville Road to Sides Road sees really bad backups right now as people are trying to get into those commercial areas. And so since that is really my main way of coming home, um adding so many residential areas or housing units will surely increase traffic through that roundabout. Um which that may be a DOT thing that can be resolved that way, but it surely should be considered um given that there's only one point of entrance. Um my second point is, you know, the economics of it. Um, we currently are attempting to slow down inflation in our economy. Um, I was really nervous about that in buying my first home at this point um, in my life. And so having a development go in by me that would potentially lower or at least reduce the um, appreciation of my home value is something that would be of great concern to me. So that's it for me.

Any questions for Missades? Thank you, Miss Sides, very much for coming out. Mr. Curtain, good afternoon, everyone. Um, my name is Adolf Curtain. I stay at 116 Royal Kings Court, uh, right off of Sides Road. Um, two points. One of them, Mr. Curtain, I'm sorry, your zip code, uh, 27127. I'm sorry. Thank you. All right.

Um, one good point. We already there's a lot of traffic from Orchard Creek, which leads onto our onto Sides Road, which is one apartment complex that we have. um been dealing with for a long time and they do have a lot of different buffers on it. One of my neighbors of course sees a lot of different traffic and trash that will come onto that street and I'm very concerned about them changing it to a apartment complex because of the traffic basically the one entrance that will be there. There are no sidewalks on that on um sides road sidewalks that are planning to be built on side that I've heard from the plan that we asked them about at the entrance meeting. So, and that's a real big concern that I see about putting apartments there. And I do understand I think one uh councilman said that there are no houses that will sell in that. I disagree. If you you put the right buffer there, there will be plenty of houses that will will sell in that neighborhood right across the street from us. We have one that is being built now that's uh right next to um a neighbor up there that's uh that owns um uh what's I can't even remember the name of the restaurant, Dario's right down the street. He stays right across. didn't even know about this meeting. So, we we've kind of been shortch changed a little bit to know about it. I've been going around in the neighborhood to tell people about this meeting that's was uh going to happen. But the traffic and that one circle and a lot of people there not having a sidewalk, not having a buffer is going to be a major influx in that neighborhood right there. Thank you for your time.

Any questions for Mr. Sides? Thank you, Mr. Sides. Very curtain. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. Sorry, sides road. Rachel, sorry. Um, all right. How much time is remaining? Nine minutes remaining. Just just to provide a little clarity, uh, planning board members, sidewalks are proposed along both the sides road frontage of the entire site and the Peters Creek Parkway. Uh, you can see on the gray line on the on the site plan kind of bordering both of those frontages. Yeah. Which gray line? the very the very thick uh gray line. Got it. I don't know if it

all right. Um how much time remains? Nine minutes. All right. Um yes, ma'am. Would you like to speak? Come on up and just give us your name, address, and zip code, please.

I'm Couture Wilson, and my address is 3055 Sides Road, zip code 27127. And you actually saw my home on the slide. I'm directly across the street um from the uh proposed apartment complexes and just to kind of echo what everyone else is saying with the traffic are even though we are a small side street and we do see a lot of traffic. So that is my main concern with this uh uh residential uh complex being built and as well you know we are building uh incomebased homes as well to um help our community because we all are aware of the housing situation and and unhoused um people that we have here in Winston Salem. Um but we also have Orchard Creek who is income based not even 700 ft away from us on the other side. And so I do think that home ownership is something that is also important in providing affordable homes, houses that people can also have in the future. So you know that is my biggest proponent as well. And I do agree what the gentleman was saying if we could have a buffer of single family homes in the front because literally we just looking right across the street from that. So um that was my two cents. Thank you.

Any any questions? Thank you Miss Wilson. Question for staff. Would it if they're within their density and they've got density to spare, I I understand the model doesn't work for them to develop single family, but could they not sell the single family before development? And

probably not under the existing proposal as is because based on the size of that area if they were to do some type of a something to cut that out and then do an exempt subdivision along road. Again, I'm not sure what the model calls as far as units to to area, but obviously our ordinance requires it to the numbers to pencil out. So, if that area were cut out, they would have to request a more they'd have to request a denser zone. They'd have to go to RM12 or something else to set that area aside to then cut off single family homes. If they could do it all as one project, right, get it approved as such through the reszoning, it would function as one site and therefore they could sell that off because it got approved as one overall development. But again, that doesn't sound like it fits the litec model and you know what they have to do to go through their process. So I I don't know. I don't think there's any solution that could that the board uh could come to to basically make that happen today. I think you'd have to go back to the drawing board to do it.

All right. How much time is left? Unfortunately, eight minutes. Eight minutes. Anyone else here that would like to speak in opposition to this request? All right, seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Um, was the pleasure of the board. Mr. Chairman, I move the planning board time find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Pino. Any further discussion on that? I I would just like to confirm that um that there that even with this being apartments multif family, there are not any if very few more units being uh proposed than would be already uh available to the owner under the current zoning. Under the current zoning, there are more units that are that are being proposed, but under the recommendations of the area plan, which recommends 0 to8 units per acre. So, you know, going from RS9, I believe, is what this is currently zoned at 8.8 acres.

It's 4. It's right at 40 45 units. So, they're going from 45 to 64. So they're doing an increase of about 19 units as a result of the reszoning. But again, we're looking at the area plan recommendation. The zero to 8 units per acre is what is recommended. Clarification. All right. Any further discussion? Got a motion in a second. Any or all in favor sign of I. I. Any opposed? Like sign. That's unanimous. Mr. Chairman, I further move the planning board recommend approval of W3659. Second. Motion by Mr. Lamb. Second by Mr. continue. Any further discussion? Right. All in favor sign of I. I.

Any opposed? That's unanimous as well. Before we jump into the staff report, I should have probably mentioned this as we got started. We've got a new face here at the table with us. Haley Jingles is joining us and she's taking Chris Leak's uh spot on the board as his term ended and we're going to recognize him whether he likes it or not next meeting. Um, so plan on being here for that. But Haley, just want to give you an opportunity to introduce yourself.

Thank you very much. Um, Mr. Chairman, yes, I'm Haley Jingles and I currently serve as vice chancellor for strategic communication over at Winston Salem State University. I was a city of Winston Salem employee for about eight years and then transitioned over to um the the Chamber of Commerce. So, I've been in the area uh for a very long time. Um, and I appreciate this opportunity. I've served on other boards and commissions with the city and so I enjoy this work and so I'm uh thank you all for welcoming me. Absolutely. As much as we'll miss Mr. Leak, we're glad to have you. Thank you. And that brings us to our staff report. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You took away one of my items I had, but that's fine. Uh with that, I will turn to Kirk who'll give you a preview of your work session for two weeks from today.

All right. Uh good afternoon again, planning board members. Uh we've got three items slated for the work session this month. We've got two text amendments. We haven't done one of those in front of the board in a while. So, both of these are scheduled for the October uh public hearing meeting. The first is a text amendment that would revise sign standards for parks and recreation facilities in the county zoning jurisdiction. This is something that's spurred on by the county's new uh 25,000 plus square foot agriculture uh

uh an or what's it called? the agricultural extension and event venue in north of Tobaccoville. So, we're going to be hearing about that. We also have a text amendment that would revise the comprehensive plan references in the UDO to go from legacy 2030 and legacy to forward 2045 since, as you all know, that plan was uh adopted uh a few weeks ago at the county commissioners. Lastly, staff is going to be discussing the results of the housing input meetings and survey that we uh well, the survey is still running until Monday, Friday, Friday. Friday,

Friday, tomorrow. And uh we had the five uh five public meetings over the last couple of weeks. So, uh we should have a full uh agenda for you all. All right. Thank you, Kirk. Uh the next item I'll turn to Brian who'll give a preview of your October zoning case load. So, a month from today. All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good evening. Um, we're going to keep you busy. Next month, uh, we have 12 total items. We got six new residing cases, site plan amendment, one final development plan, as Kirk mentioned, two text amendments, and then two additional plan board reviews. So, um, just be prepared for a full agenda.

Mr. Mr. Chairman, the the next item I have on the staff uh staff report is just wanted to um specifically think Amy and Tiffany and Kelly and but all of our staff uh you know, even though we hit about a 9-month pause on forward 2045 so the county could uh have a consultant who was looking at some uh industrial site studies to have that come to a completion. We uh did have uh the uh county commissioners adopt forward 2045 on August 28th. We had uh several folks there who were uh there to speak in support including our vice chair and uh including uh Mr. Steelman. And we appreciate that. And now that we have uh both the city and the county uh have adopted forward 20 245, we can uh continue to move forward with the work program items and other things that have uh kind of been on hold uh while we u made it through that process. Again, we've been doing some internal research and some work that we could do, but as far as taking things out to the public, we we haven't been and we haven't been bringing y'all a lot of things because of that. as well. Uh the final thing I did have uh was again to welcome Haley and also just to let folks know that we will be having we'll send uh we'll send something out. We'll have a small reception for uh former chairman Leak. Prior to uh your October meeting, but then we will also have a resolution honoring his uh years of service, not just to the planning board, he was on the board of adjustment for a long period of time before that. and it's my understanding he might already be in the process of being appointed to another board. Uh so again, uh he may be tuning in. I'm sure this is he's probably going through some PTSD. He hasn't missed one of these in over eight years. Um but anyway, if if you are watching again, thank you for your service, Chris. And

with that, I have nothing else. All right. Anything else for the good of order? We'll have our motion to adjurnn. Excellent. Very good. Very good. Thank you. Thank you.