Planning and Zoning Commission

MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 The regular meeting of the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission was held in person and electronically through a Zoom meeting and broadcast simultaneously on the City of Greensboro’s website on Monday, October 20, 2025 beginning at 5:35 p.m. Members present were Chair Mary Skenes, Vice Chair Warché Downing, Catherine Magid, Betty Turner, Paul Gilmer Sr., Stu Nichols, Erica Glass and Ted M. Oliver. Present for City staff were Mike Kirkman, Luke Carter, Andrew Nelson and Carla Harrison (Planning); Brent Ducharme (City Attorney’s Office); and Marjorie Manzanares (GDOT). Chair Skenes welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted the meeting was being conducted both in-person and online. Chair Skenes advised of the policies, procedures and instructions in place for the Planning and Zoning Commission. She noted that not all concerns expressed by residents could be considered by the Commission. She stated that the Commission reviews all original zoning and rezoning requests for the City of Greensboro. Chair Skenes said the Commission could only consider a case based on the recommendations of the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and whether a request is otherwise reasonable. Chair Skenes briefly explained how the Commission members normally prepare for the meeting by reviewing materials and visiting the subject properties. She advised that participants attending virtually would be called upon to speak when the request they are interested in is presented. Chair Skenes requested residents to direct all questions and comments to the Commission only. If needed, the members would seek staff or the city attorney’s advice. Chair Skenes noted the online meeting was being recorded and televised and was close- captioned for the hearing impaired. She further explained the expedited agenda for items without any speakers in opposition and that staff would give a shortened presentation. Applicant would have up to 2 minutes to speak if they had additional information they wanted Commissioners to know. Chair Skenes noted that for non-zoning requests the applicant would have up to 3 minutes to speak on the item. Brent Ducharme, Assistant City Attorney, then advised that, when considering rezoning applications, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes determinations based on the land uses allowed under the proposed zoning district put forth in the rezoning application and, where applicable, any proposed conditions included with the application. Land use concerns can be wide reaching and, by way of example, impacts on public infrastructure such as traffic concerns may be relevant when new land uses would be allowed by a rezoning. However, concerns not related to land use and the conditions of a rezoning application, including concerns about school impacts and crime rates, are not germane to the determinations made by this body. Such issues may be referred to the Planning Department or the Technical Review Committee (TRC) as appropriate. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ABSENCES: Chair Skenes acknowledged the absence of Commissioner Keith Peterson.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: (APPROVED WITH AMENDMENT) Chair Skenes requested approval of the September 15, 2025 meeting minutes and the September 3, 2025 special meeting minutes. Ms. Magid made corrections to the September 15, 2025 meeting minutes as follows:  Z-25-09-004 and Z-25-09-005: Correct spelling of “Cuncil to Council”. And to add heading “Opposition” for persons speaking in opposition to the request.  Items from Commissioners: Addition of “the chair and”, “She said she enjoyed being the chair and a member of the commission during all this.” Ms. Magid requested that the approval of the September 3, 2025 meeting minutes be delayed for additional review to the next meeting scheduled for November 17, 2025. Motion Mr. Nichols then made a motion to approve the September 15th meeting minutes with the corrections noted. Ms. Magid seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Mr. Nichols made a motion to delay the approval of the September 3, 2025 minutes, to the November 17th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Ms. Magid seconded the motion. The Commission voted 6 - 2, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Gilmer Sr., Nichols and Oliver). Nays: (Glass and Turner). WITHDRAWALS OR CONTINUANCE: Chair Skenes inquired if there were any items withdrawn or to be continued. Mr. Kirkman advised there were no withdrawals or continuances. PUBLIC HEARINGS: EXPEDITED AGENDA: Chair Skenes noted there were items on the agenda that did not have any opposition signed up to speak and were eligible for the expedited agenda. These items were: Z-25-10-001 and PL(P) 25-38 for the property identified as 2882 Fleming Road and a portion of Fleming Road right of way; Z-25-10-002 for the property identified as 5307 West Market Street; Z-25-10-004 for the property identified as 6 Marithe Court; Z-25-10-005 and PL(P) 25-40 for the properties identified as portions of 8318 Lazy Sky Lane, 3941 and 3943 Cassillis Way, and the Lazy Sky Lane Right- of-way; Z-25-10-006 for the properties identified as 105 and 107 South Edwardia Drive; Z-25-10- 009 and PL(P) 25-42 for the properties identified as 801, 801-ZZ, 803, and 815 Roberson-Comer Road.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Chair Skenes then asked if anyone in person or online wished to speak in opposition to any of these items. Hearing none, she noted the Commission would address these items through expedited review and reordered the agenda accordingly. Chair Skenes noted that item Z-25-10-003 and PL(P) 25-39 for the property identified as 4304 Farlow Drive; would be added to the expedited agenda if there was no one present in the chamber or online to speak in opposition when called on. Z-25-10-001 and PL(P) 25-38: An annexation and original zoning request from County RS- 40 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) for the property identified as 2882 Fleming Road and a portion of Fleming Road right of way, generally described as northeast of Fleming Road and south of Pleasant Ridge Road (1.59 acres). (RECOMMENDED APPROVED) Mr. Carter reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Mr. Carter advised that the item was a straight rezoning request, therefore, no conditions associated with the request. Mr. Carter stated that the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Urban General on the Future Built Form Map and Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed original zoning request supports the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. The proposed R-3 zoning district is primarily intended to accommodate low-density single-family detached residential development of up to 3 dwellings per acre. The request permits uses that are present on adjacent tracts. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak in favor of the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant was present but declined on speaking on the item. Hearing no further comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Annexation Ms. Magid made a motion to annex item PL(P) 25-38 for the property identified as 2882 Fleming Road and a portion of Fleming Road right of way. Ms. Turner seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None).  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Original Zoning Ms. Magid then stated regarding item Z-25-10-001, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the properties at 2882 Fleming Road and a portion of Fleming Road right of way from County RS-40 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City R-3 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Vice Chair Downing seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. Z-25-10-002: A rezoning request from LI (Light Industrial) to CD-C-M (Conditional District – Commercial-Medium) for the property identified as 5307 West Market Street, generally described as southwest of West Market Street and northwest of South Edwardia Drive (0.92 acres). (APPROVED) Ms. Harrison reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Ms. Harrison advised that the applicant proposed the following condition: 1. Permitted uses shall include all uses allowed in the C-M zoning district except: Cemeteries; Animal Shelters; Shooting Ranges; Funeral Homes and Crematoriums; Taxidermists; and Sexually Oriented Businesses. Ms. Harrison stated that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Urban General on the Future Built Form Map and as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed rezoning request supports the GS02040 Comprehensive Plan’s Filling In Our Framework goal to maintain, inventory, and market key 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. proposed CD-C- M zoning district limits uses to those permitted in the C-M zoning district except Cemeteries; Animal Shelters; Shooting Ranges; Funeral Homes and Crematoriums; Taxidermists; and Sexually Oriented Businesses. Staff recommended approval of the request.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak in favor of the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant was present but declined on speaking on the item. Hearing no further comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Rezoning Vice Chair Downing then stated regarding item Z-25-10-002, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the property at 5307 West Market Street from LI (Light Industrial) to CD-C-M (Conditional District – Commercial-Medium) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed CD-C-M zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the vote constituted a final action, unless appealed in writing and the appeal fee paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals would be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. Z-25-10-004: A rezoning request from CD-BP (Conditional District - Business Park) to CD- LI (Conditional District - Light Industrial) for the property identified as 6 Marithe Court, generally described as west of Marithe Court and south of Koger Boulevard (14.79 acres). (APPROVED) Ms. Harrison reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Ms. Harrison advised that the applicant proposed the following condition: 1. Permitted uses shall include all uses permitted in the LI zoning district except: Convenience Stores with Fuel Pumps.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Ms. Harrison stated that the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map designates the subject property as Urban General and as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed rezoning request supports the GS02040 Comprehensive Plan’s Filling In Our Framework goal to maintain, inventory, and market key underutilized sites and structures to private industry and developers and the Filling in Our Framework Big Idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed CD-LI zoning district permits all uses in the LI zoning district except Convenience Stores with Fuel Pumps. The proposed uses are broadly compatible with uses present in the surrounding area and higher-intensity character of established development in the area. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak in favor of the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant was present to answer questions on the item. Hearing no further comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Rezoning Ms. Magid then stated regarding item Z-25-10-004, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the property at 6 Marithe Court from CD-BP (Conditional District - Business Park) to CD- LI (Conditional District - Light Industrial) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed CD-LI zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Ms. Turner seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the vote constituted a final action, unless appealed in writing and the appeal fee paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals would be subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Z-25-10-005 & PL(P) 25-40: An annexation and original zoning request from County AG (Agricultural) to City CD-R-5 (Conditional District - Residential Single-family – 5) for the properties identified as portions of 8318 Lazy Sky Lane, 3941 and 3943 Cassillis Way, and the Lazy Sky Lane Right-of-way, generally described as north of Cassillis Way and south of Leabourne Road (0.068 acres). (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) Mr. Carter reviewed the summary information for the subject properties and surrounding properties. Mr. Carter advised that the applicant proposed the following condition: 1. Subject properties are to be developed as part of the Dillon Ridge Subdivision recorded in the Guilford County Register of Deeds in Plat Book 217 and Page 36. Mr. Carter then stated that the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map currently designates this property as Exurban. If annexed, this designation will be changed to Urban General. The Future Land Use Map designates the properties as being within the Western Area Plan. The Western Area Plan designates the property as Agricultural. Staff determined the proposed original zoning request supports both the Comprehensive Plan’s Filling in Our Framework Big Idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro and the Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. The proposed CD-R-5 zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that are similar to existing uses in the surrounding area. The proposed request also reflects changes in land use patterns and additional public infrastructure since the adoption of the Western Area Plan. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak in favor of the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant was present (virtual) to answer questions on the item. Hearing no further comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Annexation Ms. Turner made a motion to annex item PL(P) 25-40 for the property identified as Portions of 8318 Lazy Sky Lane, 3941 and 3943 Cassillis Way, and the Lazy Sky Lane Right-of-way. Ms. Magid seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None).  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Original Zoning Ms. Turner then stated regarding item Z-25-10-005, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at Portions of 8318 Lazy Sky Lane, 3941 and 3943 Cassillis Way, and the Lazy Sky Lane Right-of-way from County AG (Agricultural) to City CD-R-5 (Conditional District - Residential Single-family – 5) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City CD-R-5 zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Nichols seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. Z-25-10-006: A rezoning request from LI (Light Industrial) to CD-HI (Conditional District - Heavy Industrial) for the properties identified as 105 and 107 South Edwardia Drive, generally described as southeast of South Edwardia Drive and southwest of West Market Street (1.13 acres). (APPROVED) Ms. Harrison reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Ms. Harrison advised that the applicant proposed the following condition: 1. Permitted uses shall be limited to the following: Special Events Facilities; all uses permitted in the Office Use Group; and all uses permitted in the Vehicle Sales and Service Use Group. Ms. Harrison stated that the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Urban General and Exurban on the Future Built Form Map and as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed rezoning request supports the GS02040 Comprehensive Plan’s 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 Service Use Group. These uses are compatible with uses present in the surrounding area. Staff recommended approval of the request.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Ms. Magid noted that special event was not permitted in the LI zoning district but was in the HI zoning district. She asked if there was a parking requirement for the special event use in the HI zoning district. Mr. Kirkman responded parking was required for the special event use in the HI zoning district. Ms. Magid asked staff what the parking requirements was. Mr. Kirkman advised that the parking requirements would be the same for eating and drinking establishments, which was the category for the special event use. The parking ratio would be one parking space per 100 square feet of building area. Ms. Turner expressed appreciation for the applicant’s outreach efforts. As evident in the neighborhood outreach submission. Chair Skenes then asked if the applicant wished to speak in favor of the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant was present but declined on speaking on the item. Hearing no further comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Rezoning Ms. Glass then stated regarding item Z-25-10-006, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the properties at 105 and 107 South Edwardia Drive from LI (Light Industrial) to CD-HI (Conditional District - Heavy Industrial) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed CD-HI zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the vote constituted a final action, unless appealed in writing and the appeal fee paid within 10 days. Anyone may file such an appeal. All such appeals would be subject to a  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. All adjoining property owners will be notified of any such appeal. Z-25-10-009 & PL(P) 25-42: An annexation request for a portion of 801-ZZ Roberson-Comer Road (1.69 acres) and an original zoning and rezoning request from County AG (Agricultural), City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) and City PUD (Planned Unit Development) to City CD-RM-12 (Conditional District - Residential Multi-family – 12) for the properties identified as 801, 801-ZZ, 803, and 815 Roberson-Comer Road, generally described as south of Roberson-Comer Road and north of Interstate 840 (13.69 acres). (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) Mr. Carter reviewed the summary information for the subject properties and surrounding properties. Mr. Carter explained that a small portion of request was not within the city limits, hence the annexation request for 1.69 acres. The remainder of the subject properties was approximately 12 acres having a total of 13.69 acres for the entire zoning request. Mr. Carter noted the applicant proposed the following conditions: 1. Permitted uses shall be limited to the following: a. Single-family Detached Dwellings; b. Single-family Detached Dwelling, Zero Lot Line; c. Duplexes; d. Townhouses; and e. Twin Houses 2. There shall be no more than 130 homes. Mr. Carter then stated that the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map currently designates this property as Urban General and as Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed rezoning and original zoning request supports both the Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and the Building Community Connections goal to maintain stable, attractive, and healthy places to live and raise families. The proposed CD-RM-12 zoning district, as conditioned, would permit a mix of residential housing types at a density not to exceed 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, building height, and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the low density residential use on adjacent properties. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak about the request. The applicant was present but declined on speaking on the request. Chair Skenes asked for a motion or comments from the Commissioners.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Ms. Magid noted that the road was narrow and asked staff to explain what would happen at the site. Ms. Manzanares asked Ms. Magid to clarify the question. Ms. Magid stated that during site inspection the road appeared narrow, and she was aware of changes to the site entrance. She asked staff to elaborate on this. Ms. Manzanares stated sketch plan review was done and TRC would later examine the construction of the roadway and changes in the site entrance. Ms. Magid confirmed that TRC was reviewing the site plan. Ms. Manzanares agreed with Ms. Magid. Chair Skenes asked for further questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing no further comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Annexation Mr. Nichols made a motion to annex item PL(P) 25-42 for a portion of 801-ZZ Roberson-Comer Road. Mr. Gilmer, Sr seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Original Zoning Mr. Nichols then stated regarding item Z-25-10-009, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning and rezoning request for the properties at 801, 801-ZZ, 803, and 815 Roberson-Comer Road from County AG (Agricultural), City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) and City PUD (Planned Unit Development) to City CD-RM-12 (Conditional District - Residential Multi-family – 12) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City CD-RM-12 zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. Chair Skenes asked if there was anyone online wishing to speak in opposition to item Z-25-10- 003 and PL(P) 25-39 for the property identified as 4304 Farlow Drive. Staff advised there was no one present online or in the chamber wishing to speak in opposition to the request. Z-25-10-003 & PL(P) 25-39: An annexation and original zoning request from County RS-40 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) for the property identified as 4304 Farlow Drive, generally described as south of Farlow Drive and west of Youngs Mill Road (0.46 acres). (RECOMMENDED APPROVAL) Ms. Harrison reviewed the summary information for the subject property and surrounding properties. Ms. Harrison then stated that the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map designates the subject property as Urban General and as Residential on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed original zoning request supports both the Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices and the Filling in Our Framework Big Idea to arrange our land uses for where we live, work, attend school, shop and enjoy our free time to create a more vibrant and livable Greensboro. The proposed R- 3 zoning district is primarily intended to accommodate low-density single-family detached residential development of up to 3 dwelling units per acre. The request permits uses that are present on adjacent tracts. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if the applicant wished to speak in favor of the request. She noted two (2) minutes was available to elaborate on the request. The applicant was present to answer questions on the item. Hearing no further comments and without opposition to the request Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Commission Motion: Annexation Mr. Downing made a motion to annex item PL(P) 25-39 for the property identified as 4304 Farlow Drive. Ms. Magid seconded the motion.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Original Zoning Mr. Downing then stated regarding item Z-25-10-003, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the original zoning request for the property at 4304 Farlow Drive from County RS-40 (Residential Single-family) to City R-3 (Residential Single-family – 3) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed City R-3 zoning district permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Nichols. seconded the motion. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. REGULAR AGENDA Z-25-09-002: A rezoning request from R-5 (Residential Single-family – 5) to CD-RM-18 (Conditional District - Residential Multi-family – 18) for the properties identified as 1018 R1 and 1028 South Josephine Boyd Street, generally described as west of South Josephine Boyd Street and north of Hertford Street (3.6 acres). (APPROVED) Mr. Carter reviewed the summary information for the subject properties and surrounding properties. Mr. Carter advised the applicant added two conditions and read the conditions as underlined. The applicant proposed a total of three conditions as follows: 1. Permitted uses shall be limited to: Residential Uses. 2. A fence with a maximum height of 6-feet shall be constructed and maintained adjacent to the northern property line of 1030 S. Josephine Boyd Street (Parcel Number 11495). 3. The street planting yard fronting South Josephine Boyd Street shall have an average width of 15 feet with the planting rate specified for the Type C Buffer Yard. Ms. Magid made a motion to accept the two additional conditions, seconded by Mr. Gilmer, Sr.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (None). Mr. Carter stated that the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan currently designates the property as Urban Central on the Future Built Form Map and as Residential – Multi-family and Residential – 1 to 2 Family and Office Conversion on the Future Land Use Map. Staff determined the proposed rezoning request supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to expand Greensboro’s citywide network of unique neighborhoods offering residents of all walks of life a variety of quality housing choices. The proposed CD-RM-18 zoning district, as conditioned, would limit available uses to Single-family Detached Dwellings; Single-family Detached Dwellings, Zero Lot Line; Duplexes; Traditional Houses; Townhouses and Twin Homes which are compatible with the uses in the surrounding area. The proposed overall maximum density is similar to existing uses in close proximity. Care should be taken with respect to building orientation, building materials, building height, and visual buffers to ensure an appropriate transition to the lower density residential uses on adjacent properties. Staff recommended approval of the request. Chair Skenes asked for any questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Turner asked staff to explain the need for the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan amendment. Mr. Carter explained the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan Future Land Use Map designated the subject properties as residential multi-family, residential, one to two family dwellings, and office conversions. The proposed rezoning request exceeded the designated density therefore the need to update the Land Use Map for Glenwood Neighborhood. Chair Skenes stated she understood the Glenwood Neighborhood Association was aware of the change since sixty (60) days and did not object to the change in the Plan. She asked staff to clarify if this was the case. Mr. Kirkman agreed the Glenwood Neighborhood Association was aware of the change and staff did not receive any official comments when the staff report was prepared. He stated since then staff received emails with some opposition, which was forwarded to the commissioners for consideration. He noted he was unsure the emails were from the Association or residents of the Glenwood Neighborhood. He advised the commissioners they could find out during the residents’ presentation. Chair Skenes noted that the staff report indicated if no comments were received from the neighborhood association within 60 days of receipt of the amendment proposal, the commission could consider the request. She noted that after the commission’s recommendation the request would be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Mr. Kirkman agreed with Chair Skenes and noted that enough time was given. He advised the commission could consider the request. He noted the residents were present to speak in opposition to the request. Chair Skenes noted particularly that the association did not respond within the sixty (60) days notification period. Mr. Kirkman noted staff did not receive any official information from the association. Chair Skenes then asked for any questions or comments from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked the applicant to come to the podium to speak about the request. Chair Skenes noted the applicant had 10 minutes to speak on the request. Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road, clarified that the zoning conditions presented earlier by staff were from the original submission. However, there were updated conditions. Mr. Blackwood corrected condition # 1 to read as follows: Permitted uses shall be limited to: All Residential Uses. He stated the updated condition would include apartment homes. He emphasized that the updated condition was advertised as part of the notice mailed by staff. Mr. Kirkman confirmed the request was advertised with the updated condition. He said the request was unable to be heart last month due to the last minute change in the condition. There was not sufficient time to readvertise the request with the change in the condition. Mr. Kirkman emphasized the request was appropriately advertised for this hearing. Nick Blackwood, 804 Green Valley Road, said he was present on behalf of the applicant. He introduced his colleague Eli Seman, who was present as part of the developer’s team. Mr. Blackwood stated Mr. Eli Seman could answer specific questions that the commissioners may have. Mr. Blackwood pointed to his slide presentation and noted that the two (2) conditions added. He stated the second condition was in response to concerns raised by the neighboring property (church) south of the request. Mr. Blackwood noted that the third condition was responding to concerns raised during the neighborhood meeting (held September 2nd). He also noted that the owners of the apartment on adjacent property, north of the requested mentioned shared insight on the residents’ appreciation on their development. The residents appreciated that the existing buildings were offset from the road, allowing for nice landscape buffer that obscured the view of those apartment buildings from the right of way. Therefore, the site plan associated with the request was reconfigured to provide an enhanced street yard buffer as per the Ordinance Type C planting rate. Mr. Blackwood stated the Type C planting allowed for three (3) understory trees in addition to the typical street yard planting requirements. Mr. Blackwood highlighted the mix of uses in the Glenwood Neighborhood. He noted there was an apartment development directly north of the request, zoned CD-RM-26. And there was another apartment also north of the request, in the office zoning district. Mr. Blackwood stated there was undeveloped land zoned RM-18 with no conditions, which was west of the apartments  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 north of the request. He said there were a mix of light industrial and commercial uses north of the request. Mr. Blackwood noted there was a church (which he referenced earlier about the fence condition) south of the request. He emphasized that the request was not adding any new use to the neighborhood. Mr. Blackwood said the request was not intruding in a solely single- family community. Mr. Blackwood referenced an illustrative site plan, which he noted evolved through several sketches in response to the residents’ concerns. He highlighted the screening (landscape and fence) along the eastern property boundary, along South Josephine Boyd Street. He indicated that the applicant initially planned on townhomes for the site. However, the plan changed and he emphasized that with the proposed apartment parking would be provided over and above the requirement as per the Ordinance. Mr. Blackwood stated that with the townhomes the parking requirements could barely met. Because dwellings were spread out rather than up, they had to change plans. Mr. Blackwood said the applicant was focused on providing more than the required parking space to keep the potential tenants’ and guests’ vehicles off the shoulders of adjacent public streets. Mr. Blackwood pointed to the future land use plan for the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan. He noted the Plan was adopted about 15 years ago. He highlighted that about two thirds of the site was designated for multi-family use. He said as per the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan the multi- family use was for multi-family development with a net density of not more than 18 dwellings per acre. He noted the request was for multi-family RM-18. Mr. Blackwood stated the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan designated uses were discussed amongst stakeholder groups and was adopted. He said the designated uses were determined, already discussed. Therefore, the rezoning request was reasonable, the multi-family use was already incorporated as part of the future land use plan determined by the neighborhood. Mr. Blackwood said notice letter were sent to property owners as noted on the city’s mailing list (750ft radius from the subject properties). He said letter was sent directly to Ms. Dayna Carr of the Glenwood Neighborhood Association. Mr. Blackwood stated he understood Ms. Carr circulated a copy of the letter to the members of the association. He said the neighborhood meeting was held on September 2nd, and about ten (10) to fifteen (15) persons attended. Mr. Blackwood felt there was good discussions at the meeting. He stated traffic concerns were raised at the meeting. He noted the traffic concerns should be addressed with the parking provisions noted on the sketch plan. Mr. Blackwood said the request would not be furthering the existing traffic congestion as far as parking on the side of the street. He said proposing approximately 50 apartments would not trigger a traffic impact study. Mr. Blackwood noted that should the rezoning be approved it would go through TRC review process. He said at that review if needed staff (GDOT) could impose traffic safety requirements. He emphasized that request did not trigger the need for a traffic impact study. Mr. Blackwood stated the request was consistent with the GSO 2040 Comprehensive Plan and was a good exampled of an infill development. He noted there was an existing similar apartment  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 development adjacent to the request. The infrastructure and utilities were in place. Mr. Blackwood stated that if the request was to be placed out of the city limit, then there would be need to extend utilities; extending city services; improving transportation further out. He said everything needed to support the request was existing and ready for the site to be developed. Mr. Blackwood noted the request being an infill was consistent with the surrounding development. He noted that the request was needed to put a dent in the 10,000 home goal over the next five years. He concluded and said Mr. Seaman was present to answer any questions relating to site design. Chair Skenes asked for any questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Magid noted the adjacent apartment (Campus Crossing south) was zoned RM-26. She asked if the building was three (3) story. Mr. Blackwood agreed with Ms. Magid the building was three (3) story. Ms. Magid stated to the west of Campus Crossing, was another apartment (Spartan Pointe) development zoned RM-18. She asked if that apartment was also three (3) story. Mr. Blackwood noted he was sure of the building height for the Spartan Pointe. A resident in the chambers confirmed the Spartan Pointe apartment was three (3) story. Chair Skenes asked for any questions from the Commissioners. Hearing none, Chair Skenes asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the request. Hearing none, Chair Skenes then called for persons, online and in the chamber, wishing to speak in opposition to the request. She recommended the speakers would alternate between person on line and person in the chambers. Chair Skenes noted there was a total of ten (10) minutes to speak on the request. Mr. Carter noted that Ms. Dayna Carr, the neighborhood association president was online. Opposition Dayna Carr, 1511 McCormick Street, stated she was the president of the Greater Glenwood Neighborhood Association. Ms. Carr restated that if the neighborhood association did not email response then the plan would go forward. She said this was not communicated to the association. Mr. Carr noted they were invited to provide feedback and comments, and the residents are present to give feedback. She emphasized it was not made clear the association needed to respond to the change in the plan. Ms. Carr stated that in general their experience with the attorney for the request was fine. However, experience with the developers seemed they did not have the best interest of the neighborhood. She said the developers made it clear their interest was to “maximize profit”. And  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 made little effort to include the residents after there neighborhood meeting. Mr. Carr said residents expressed concerns and she was not aware of any revised architectural drawings or follow up to reflect concerns or questions raised. She noted the residents do have concerns and they were present at the meeting to speak on their concerns. Chair Skenes then called on residents in the chambers to speak. Nancy Lenk, 1005 South Josephine Boyd Street, noted she lived one block north of the request. She lived in the area for fifteen (15) years. But she has been involved with the street for forty (40) years as her mother lived at 1010 South Josephine Boyd Street and the proposed apartment would be directly behind her mother’s home. Ms. Lenk stated the apartment would be an eyesore. Ms. Lenk said over forty years she saw the traffic increase and moved faster along South Josephine Boyd Street. She said she was present with the residents to opposed the request and asked for the site to remain as existing. Ms. Lenk said she understood the city’s goal of building 10,000 homes; however, high density development should not exist on low density streets. She stated South Josehine Boyd Street was a collector street, but it did not mean it was no longer residential. She noted single-family homes lined the street. Along the street were children, pets, and many pedestrians walking along the sidewalk. There were student walking to UNCG, people walking to Gate City Boulevard to get the bus to work. Ms. Lenk noted it was risky crossing street, and South Josephine Boyd Street had a serious traffic and speeding problem. She said the community requested traffic management control for the street and recently received traffic score. Ms. Lenk noted the traffic score was 61, which was one of the highest for the city. She said a score of 40 was needed to qualify for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Ms. Lenk said the score they received reflected the risk of traffic fatalities. She said last year there was a hit and run, with life-threatening injuries, adjacent to the subject properties. Therefore, the residents were concerned that the request would add more traffic thus increasing traffic and related problems in the area. Ms. Lenk stated the applicant reported there would not be a traffic impact study for the request as only 100 cars per day would be added to the traffic. However, the sketch plan showed 140 parking spaces for about forty (40) apartments. She felt that with the excessive parking spaces, guest could still park on the street. She noted that the sketch plan could change and urged the commission to require a traffic impact study to be done for the request. Ms. Lenk informed the commission that the residents would be meeting with GDOT about the traffic plan for the community. Therefore, adding more cars before the implementation of the community traffic plan was not a good idea. Chair Skenes called for the next residents online to speak. Adam Brown, 1015 Portland Street, said he lived one block away from the request. He agreed with Ms. Lenk about the traffic situation in the area. He stated the traffic got worse and dangerous over the years. The worsen traffic was not in keeping with the lovely neighborhood. Mr. Brown  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 said he love the neighborhood, the residents loved each other and this was not the way to grow. He stated the applicant did not care about the neighborhood nor did they know the neighborhood. Chair Skenes then called on the next resident in the chamber to speak. Casey Thomas, 1041 South Josephine Boyd Street, said she lived directly adjacent to the request. Ms. Thomas clarified the president of the association (Dayna Carr) send her screenshots of emails. She confirmed the association was not aware they had sixty days to respond to the proposed change to the Neighborhood Plan. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the future neighborhood Plan designated the properties abutting South Josephine Boyd Street as single-family or one (1) to two (2) family or office. She noted the properties adjacent to the properties abutting the street were designated multi-family. She said the request was not in keeping with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Also, having multi-family on the subject properties was not what the community got together with the city planners and worked hard for over the years. Ms. Thomas asked the commissioners if they received her email regarding trees in the area. She noted that Glenwood was on the city’s priority list for areas to prevent deforestation and to add more trees. Ms. Thomas pointed out the subject properties was within the census tract where trees had significantly decreased. She noted she included data in her email to the commissioners. She added that her child was two and half years old and had asthma. Ms. Thomas stated the community was actively working with the city to decrease the amount of traffic on South Josephine Boyd Street. She said even though the applicant said there was not much of a concern with the amount of traffic the request would generate, the plan could change. She noted the plan was already changing even at the meeting. Therefore, a traffic impact study should be required to reflect the capacity for the site. Ms. Thomas stated her child could not play with other children across the street because they were terrified crossing the street. She said adding more cars really concerned the residents. Chair Skenes called for the next resident online. Valerie Warren, 1043 South Josephine Boyd, said she lived directly adjacent to the request. She lived in the area since 2001, and her children grew up there. She stated traffic was always a concern and it got worse. Ms. Warren mentioned she and Ms. Thomas witnessed a traffic accident (passing vehicle hit three parked vehicles) in the area. She noted that the traffic concerns were a quality of life issue. She also agreed Ms. Thomas that tree cover was a concern. She noted that Duke energy removed half of every tree facing a major road in the area. She said even though the removal of the trees was not for the commission to consider, she wanted to highlight the significance of the tree cover. She stated the trees would maintain the cooling factor offered to the community, which was important to the overall quality of life. She mentioned her child also had asthma. She insisted on having a traffic impact study, and to pause the request for the community to assess the mature tree cover.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Chair Skenes noted the ten (10) minutes expired for the residents to speak on the request. She stated they could continue speaking on the request during the rebuttal period. Chair Skenes called the applicant’s attorney to the podium to address concerns raised by the residents. Rebuttal Nick Blackwood, said the applicant requested RM-18 density for the 3.06 acres, which allowed a density of 55 apartments. He noted the sketch plan at the meeting showed 47 apartments, and the plan displayed at the neighborhood meeting showed 51 apartments. Mr. Blackwood stated the final plan would having apartments close to the allowable density of 55 apartments. He noted that the potential traffic generation for the request would not necessitate a traffic study. Mr. Blackwood stated the traffic safety, road improvements, dedication, turn lanes, all transportation requirements would be considered during the site plan review process. He said the neighborhood Plan designated about a third of the site as one to two-family and office conversion. He noted that at some time, fifteen years ago, the subject properties were split zoned. However, the request took the split zone into consideration, by situating the bulk of the multi- family development to the western section of the site. He reiterated the development would be offset from South Josephine Boyd Street to allow for enhanced street yard buffer, green space and open space. Mr. Blackwood addressed the tree cover concerns and stated that such concerns would be reviewed during site plan review stage. He noted tree preservation could not be addressed with the rezoning request but during site plan review. He assured the residents that under the Ordinance, at the site plan review stage, any tree scatter throughout the site will be preserved. He said in addition to the tree conservation, a type C landscaping buffer would be required along the western and southern property boundary like what would be implemented along the street. Chair Skenes pointed to the future land use map for the area and asked about the “purple spots” the area designated for one to two family, or office conversion use. She noted the “orange” on the map was designated for multi-family residential. Mr. Blackwood agreed with Chair Skenes. Chair Skenes stated the bulk of the development would be on the multi-family zone and would be consistent with the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan. Mr. Blackwood agreed and stated the northern portion of the site would be used for the multi- family development. The southern section would be less dense. He said since two-thirds of the site was designated multi-family, the request would be consistent with the Plan. Mr. Oliver asked if there was sidewalks on both sides of South Josephine Boyd Street.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Mr. Blackwood said he was not sure of the existing condition. However, the request would be required to install sidewalks along the street property boundary. Chair Skenes asked for any comments or questions from the Commission. Hearing none, she called on the residents to speak in the rebuttal. Chair Skenes noted there was five (5) minutes rebuttal time for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the request. She called on residents in the chambers. Opposition Rebuttal Franklin Lewis, 1032 South Josephine Boyd Street, stated his property (church) bordered the subject properties. He said he lived in the area for over fifteen years. Mr. Lewis spoke of a hit and run incident, which made him very concerned. He stated the street was very busy during six and eight. He said he might get emotional because developers did not understand how they lived. They were only there to make profit. Mr. Lewis noted the residents were not against developers making profit or against development, but considerations should be given to their concerns. He noted some concerns: where would the children play; who would live at the development; and what about the senior residents living in the community. What would the developer do?. He said the architectural design was beautiful, but the residents did not understand the proposal. He noted he would appreciate a detailed plan. He also pointed out that no park was provided for the request, and the children might instead play at the church. Mr. Lewis said the community needed more time to discuss the request. Chair Skenes then called on the next resident online, Susan Lindsay. Ms. Lindsay did not come online so Chair Skenes called on the next resident in the chambers. Casey Thomas, asked for the portion of the site designated single-family and one to two dwellings or office conversion remained as existing. She said the portion designated for multi-family use could be used as such, contributing to the 10,000 homes and be consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She said she was a big fan of splitting the baby and disappointing people equally. Chair Skenes asked if there was anyone else online wishing to speak in opposition to the request. Staff advised there was no one else online wishing to speak. Chair Skenes called on residents in the chambers. Nancy Lenk agreed with Ms. Thomas about splitting the baby. She noted that since the multi- family would be concentrated on the western portion of the site then the access should be along the west side and not along South Josephine Boyd Street. Ms. Lenk stated the traffic situation is dangerous, and when she tried getting out of her driveway sometimes she would wait for twenty- one cars to pass. Ms. Lenk said placing the development on the western section would not  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 change the access would be along South Josephine Boyd Street. She said there should not be additional traffic added to the area since they are in the process of improving traffic control measures on the street. Ms. Lenk said the area lost one hundred and thirty trees to UNCG development in the neighborhood over 10 years. Chair Skenes asked for further comments and questions. Hearing none, Chair Skenes closed the public hearing. Chair Skenes asked for comments from the Commissioners. Ms. Magid asked staff about the notice mailed to the property owners within the notification radius. She asked if the notice mentioned the sixty (60) days period to correspond about the Glenwood Plan. Mr. Kirkman stated that the reference to the sixty (60) days period was in the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan. He said the update to the plan would still go through the usual rezoning process. Mr. Kirkman said staff was reviewing email and he could not fully answer the question. He said recent communication with residents was information them staff was preparing for the meeting and if they had official comments on the request. He said no comments were received. Mr. Kirkman stated staff would be able to answer the question prior to the request going before the City Council. Mr. Ducharme added that the opportunity to submit comments was part of the rezoning process. He said the plan amendment and the rezoning process had the same process allowing for comments from the residents. Mr. Oliver asked whether the residents had more than sixty (60) days. Mr. Kirkman said that discuss between the applicant’s attorney and the residents was longer than the 60 days period. He reiterated that the need for the residents sending comments was noted in the Plan. Mr. Kirkman apologized to the residents that the timeframe for comments was not clearly outlined. He said nonetheless, their concerns were head at the meeting. Mr. Oliver restated the residents had plenty of time to talk about the request. Mr. Kirkman confirmed the residents were aware of the request for a while. Ms. Glass did not support the request. She said though the request met the requirements and staff supported the request; the residents’ concerns should be considered. Ms. Glass pointed out that the request did not trigger the need for a traffic impact study, but the area is tight area. She emphasized the request met the density requirement, but she had concerns regarding the compactness of the area. She said there was a lot of moving parts that may not been able to been articulate in the application.  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 Ms. Magid, read from the staff report that a tree survey was not required as per Ordinance. However, a landscape plan would be required showing all planting requirements as per the LDO. Mr. Kirkman explained that the city’s arborist stated a tree survey was not required. The survey would look at individual trees throughout the site. However, tree conservation would be required since the request was for multi-family development. He said based on the size of the site, 5% of the land was required to be preserved. Mr. Kirkman said for this type of development the street yard planting would usually be 10 feet wide and the applicant was proposing type C, which would be 15 feet wide. Ms. Magid asked about the increase of parking spaces from 94 spaces to 141 spaces. Mr. Kirkman noted the city could only require the minimum parking based on the total number of units and the configuration of the units. Mr. Kirkman stated the zoning did not specify the required parking. Therefore, he could not speak to the required parking. He emphasized that city could only require the minimum parking. Vice Chair Downing expressed appreciation for Glenwood Association coming to the meeting to talk on the request. He pointed out the area evolved over the years and the request was adjacent to what he considered a “pseudo-corridor” and within five mile radius to several colleges and universities. Vice Chair Downing said the college population made up about 16% of the city’s population and continued to grow. He stated the city lost too many of the college graduates and he would want them to remain in Greensboro. He said there was similar use (CD-RM-26) in the area. Therefore, the request was consistent with surrounding uses and was an infill. Nonetheless the traffic was grave concern, but he was thinking about the growth and the consistency. He was unsure of how he would vote. He said the traffic situation as presented was alarming and he would want the area to be walkable. He said the neighborhood had potential in achieving walkability. Ms. Magid, sought clarity on the density and asked, under the current zoning R-5, fifteen homes could be built on the site. Mr. Kirkman clarified that this would be the allowable density under the current zoning district. However, individual lots would need to be created, and this would limit the amount that could be built. Ms. Magid stated the street frontage would not allow the fifteen homes. Ms. Magid restated the residents’ concerns: the trees; the traffic; and the speeding. She noted that the commission could not consider traffic speeding. She noted the tree issues was discussed and the applicant agreed to adding trees and noted the tree conservation. She mentioned GDOT did not require a traffic impact study. Ms. Magid said the applicant had done quite a lot in terms of trying to resolve the concerns that could be done in terms of land use. Ms. Magid stated she was focusing on land  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 use. The trees, traffic and the speeding was not issues for the commission to consider. However, the applicant proposed conditions in terms of blockage with a high fence and additional planting. She mentioned the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan having two-thirds of the property designated multi-family and one-third for one to two single-family dwellings. Ms. Magid expressed concerns for busy traffic along the street. She recommended that the residents talk with their City Council member regarding the traffic situation. Ms. Magid supported the request. Ms. Turner stated the residents’ concerns would be looked at during the TRC process. She noted that both sides indicated willingness to continue talking about the request, she encouraged them to continue the dialog. Mrs. Turner said that in terms of the proposal and what could be considered by the commission, she supported the request. Mr. Nichols supported the request. He said the existing conditions were because of the existing conditions. He said there was a lot of passion and activism within the group and that could be leveraged to address some of the concerns raised. Mr. Nichols stated the request was clearly consistent with the surrounding land uses. He believed the applicant made efforts to address the residents’ concerns. Chair Skenes asked for further comments from the Commissioners. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. supported the request. He recalled the review of the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan in the 1990’s. He said neighborhoods would be changing and read from the staff report “the proposed rezoning request supports the Comprehensive Plan’s Creating Great Places goal to meet housing needs and desires with a sufficient and diverse supply of housing products, prices, and locations.” Mr. Gilmer, Sr. agreed with Vice Chair Downing that college graduates were leaving the city. He noted that with neighborhood changing there would be need for different types of housing. He expressed appreciation for the residents coming to the meeting to talk about their concerns. He said traffic control measures such as stoplights could be implemented on the street. Vice Chair Downing felt that making the community walkable was very important. He stated street scaping was for another department. He encouraged the residents to reach out to their council member. He noted the community would continue to grow given its proximity to Coliseum Boulevard. He supported the request because the land use was consistent with the existing development on adjacent properties. He stated he was confident the city would address the traffic concerns. Vice Chair Downing emphasized he had confidence in the city’s plan to address traffic issues and what the GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan entails. He also commended the applicant for working with the community. Mr. Oliver stated the city was growing and needed housing. Mr. Oliver said if the housing was not placed in Glenwood, it would go to some other location. And going some where else meant trees would be removed. He noted that the infrastructure was already in place in Glenwood. There were roads, sewer, sidewalks and all the necessary infrastructure in place. Mr. Oliver also  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 said the request would be near grocery stores, and city amenities. He said the infill was needed, he supported the request. Hearing no further comments Chair Skenes asked for a motion. Commission Motions: Rezoning Ms. Magid then stated regarding item Z-25-09-002, the Greensboro Planning and Zoning Commission believes that its action to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the properties at 1018 R1 and 1028 South Josephine Boyd Street from R-5 (Residential Single- family – 5) to CD-RM-18 (Conditional District - Residential Multi-family – 18) to be consistent with the adopted GSO2040 Comprehensive Plan and considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: (1.) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Built Form Map and Future Land Use Map; (2.) The proposed CD- RM-18 zoning district, as conditioned, permits uses that fit the context of the surrounding area and limits negative impacts on adjacent properties; (3.) The request is reasonable due to the size, physical conditions, and other attributes of the area, it will benefit the property owner and surrounding community, and approval is in the public interest. Mr. Gilmer, Sr. seconded the motion. Chair Skenes noted the votes would be a recommendation because the request included an amendment to the Glenwood Neighborhood Plan. The Commission voted 7 - 1, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols and Oliver). Nays: (Glass). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. Chair Skenes advised the residents they could attend the City Council meeting to express their concerns on the request. Recess Chair Skenes announced recess at 7:30pm The reconvened at 7:45pm Chair Skenes called on staff to present the South Greensboro Plan. Consideration of the South Greensboro Plan Mr. Russ Clegg, manager for long range planning division, introduced his colleague Christa Jordan. He said Ms. Jordan was the project manager on the South Greensboro Plan. He advised  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 the commissioners that they needed to make a recommendation on the plan adoption to the City Council. The plan adoption was tentatively scheduled for the November 18th, City Council meeting. He gave a brief overview and update on progress since the presentation at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held in September. Mr. Clegg said that since the presentation at the last meeting, an advisory committee meeting was held on October 6th. He noted there was no change to the plan. However, the committee was emphatic that they wanted to see implementation of the plan. Mr. Clegg said his team was working with the various committees to prioritize early action items. He mentioned they were still getting data from the committees and from other city departments. Mr. Clegg noted some of the comments formulated the final plan, which has been posted online. The final draft that was online included comments from the city plan, staff and from the advisory committee. Mr. Clegg said the team are looking at the cost for the priority items. He lighted some project that started: the crosswalk at West Elmsley Drive, funded by the AARP; Vandalia Road improvement project by GDOT; and Code Enforcement focused on Randleman Road. Mr. Clegg stated the Area Plan covers about eight square miles extending from I-40 on the north and I-85 to the south; Highway 220 on the west and Highway 421 to the east. The area consisted of nineteen (19) neighborhoods, very stable single-family neighborhoods. There were different housing types throughout the area; schools; and commercial areas including the Randleman Road. Mr. Clegg mentioned the area was in proximity to the Toyota mega site, which he said could have significant positive effect on improvements and investment in the area. Mr. Clegg spoke about the community engagement process. The process involved series of public meetings focusing on different themes. He said the process started with a vision worked into mobility in great places. The process also looked at the environment, the economy and housing culture in the area. In addition to public meetings, advisory committer meeting were held; stakeholders interview and focus group work. Mr. Clegg said staff talked to business owners in the area; and virtual meetings were held. He said surveys were done. He noted there was rich input as the plan progressed. Mr. Clegg emphasized the city’s vision’ to have a prosperous, safe, and inclusive city. He noted there was plan to have a vibrant and distinct city; maintaining sense of place, well designed stable neighborhoods; inviting public spaces, streetscapes; and introducing investments in the are to make it a healthy and thriving community. He said the intention was to have an action oriented plan. Mr. Clegg said there were illustrations and ideas in the plan which could guide future rezoning presented to the commission. He mentioned the plan incorporated the Randleman Road phase two plan. Mr. Clegg stated there were several systems bringing the plan together, such as transportation and green spaces. The roads in the area needed to be modernized to suit the respective land use and how people move around. The plan looked at green spaces, parks and neighborhood  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 amenities and how they connect neighborhoods using trails. As well as using creeks and other natural amenities in the area. The plan also look at the built environment and urban form: how to balance and preserve the stable neighborhood while inviting investments to the area. All these elements are tied together in the final plan. Mr. Clegg spoke about the plan of action by prioritizing the recommendations from each of the different components making up the plan. Thus, moving into the implementation of the final plan. Ms. Magid stated she had an overview question and a bunch of little questions. She commended staff saying the plan was incredible with so much creativity and many parts to it. She asked if part of this plan was an actual recommendation about a three year plan that in the first year focus would be on specific concerns. Or the plan was bringing out just creativity. Ms. Magid wanted to know if there was an action plan. Mr. Clegg explained there would be action plan, which would be separate from the final plan. He noted the action plan was in progress and staff was working with the advisory committee and other departments. The action plan would give a sense of what things need to be done first; and allow flexibility as things will change over time as those projects are completed. Mr. Clegg also stated that staff continue to work with the neighborhoods. He said one the action plan was completed there would be a better picture of timeframe, funding and priorities. Mr. Clegg said since recommendations may change the action plan was designed to be a separate document. He emphasized that there were big picture pieces in the plan. And the intention was to make the recommendations more aspirational. Staff were fine tuning the recommendations that would be included in the action plan. Ms. Magid expressed concerns with aspects of the plan. Mr. Kirkman advised to allow speakers who may want to talk on the plan. Chair Skenes enquired if there were anyone wishing to speak on the plan. Staff informed Ms. Valerie Warren was online, one of the residents from the last request heard. Ms. Valerie said she was just listening and did not want to speak on the plan. Chair Skenes asked again if there was anyone to speak in favor or in opposition to the plan. Hearing none, she asked for questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Glass said she lives in the area covered by the Plan. She noted the plan would be adopted, and the action plan completed. She wanted to know if there was another department to follow through with the implementation of the plan. Mr. Clegg stated the implementation might be monitored by the project manager, a member of  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 staff from the planning department. He noted that for the most part the implementation would be done by other departments. He explained that items such as transportation projects or parks would be part of the respective department’s work plan. He noted the planning department would continue to monitor the progress of the plan. Ms. Glass further asked who would be responsible for the implementation of the plan. Who would the residents hold accountable? She said the plan should not be pieces done by several departments or as an item as “when we get to it, we’ll get to it.” Mr. Clegg said his colleague Christa would fill the role of project manager. He said if there should be any questions, persons should contact the planning department. However, the implementation would still be up to the city department leaders and the city manager’s office. Nonetheless the planning department would be the point of contact. Ms. Magid pointed to map on page 25, page 30 and page 164 of the plan. She asked about the color code for the planned industrial district. She wanted to know if one map was for existing and the other for future land use. She stated the colors did not match. She wanted to know if the industrial designation in the southern section of the area would be as such since it was in proximity to the Mega site. She said on one map the southeastern section is designated industrial and on another map the area is shown as green space. Mr. Clegg explained that one map showed the future land use. The section pointed out would be for industrial growth. He said the other map showed exiting land use and that area was close to the county. Therefore, the existing use could be green space or undeveloped. Ms. Magid noted the maps were 2.1 and 2.2, and they were conflicting. Ms. Magid noted the section about flooding in South Buffalo Creek and Ryan Creek. She said the map on page 64 spoke about this. Ms. Magid pointed out that there were red areas or areas of concern in the natural environment. She said it seemed there was one area with a lot of flooding; in the vicinity of Ryan Creek between Randleman Road and South Eugene Street. She asked if the flood concerns would be addressed before allowing new development in the area. Mr. Clegg stated that the area pointed out as flood prone was already built up as industrial areas. He agreed the area flooded a lot, with most of the water draining from outside the study area. Mr. Clegg said work was being done to reduce the amount of water flow into the area. He said the area has a lot of business, so the focus was on how to mitigate the flooding. Ms. Magid read the plan “given that much of this area is within the flood plain, a feasibility study is needed to more clearly identify installation and maintenance cost.” She stated the plan included the building of parks and other amazing new ideas for parks. She asked if the plan was to build the parks and simultaneously working on the flooding issues. Mr. Clegg explained the flooding would need to be addressed before the implementation of some  MEETING OF THE GREENSBORO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 2025 of the parks and other development in the area. Ms. Magid pointed out the report talked about over retail, with approximately 1.95 million square feet of retail space for a population of 16,000 people in the study area. But it was estimated that with that much square footage of retail space it was really 5.3 times the amount of people living in the area. Therefore, it should have like 85,000 people living in the area where they have all this over retail area. And the aging roadside motels were mentioned. Ms. Magid asked if there was plan to examine the retail locations as well as the aging motels to see what shopping areas could be closed or what motels could be closed and turned into housing, affordable housing. She indicated the plan was amazing including the rate of crime in the area. Mr. Clegg explained staff was working with retail strategies to try to recruit appropriate businesses that would work well and do well in the area. where we can. And staff were also looking to see what other uses could fit in such as residential. There are places where we can support local businesses with pop-up markets rather than the sort of traditional retail format that we don't see coming back in some of those areas. Mr. Clegg mentioned the staff was looking at creative ways to reuse derelict properties. He noted there was another map that talked about future sites for residential development. Ms. Magid noted there were a lot coming out of the plan what the staff could consider while moving forward with the implementation of the plan. Mr. Downing made a motion to recommend the adoption of the South Greensboro Plan, seconded by Mr. Gilmer, Sr. The Commission voted 8 - 0, (Ayes: Chair Skenes, Vice Chair Downing, Magid, Turner, Gilmer Sr., Nichols, Glass and Oliver). Nays: (0). Chair Skenes advised the votes constituted a favorable recommendation and was subject to a public hearing at the Tuesday, November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Mr. Kirkman advised there were no items from the department. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: The Commissioners had no items. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Skenes adjourned the meeting. There being no further business for the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.