TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Kelly Strickland - Assistant City Manager
Dr. Gerald Newton, AICP - Development Services Director
FROM: Craig M. Harmon - Senior Planner
Demetrios Moutos - Planner II
DATE: February 23, 2026
RE:Title
Approve P26-02. A request to amend the MR-5/CZ conditional zoning conditions for property located at 0 Mount Rainer Rd and 0 Rock Creek Ln (PINs 0439300490000 and 0439302525000), consisting of 17.61 acres and owned by Northridge Towns, LLC, et al. to allow up to 200 residential units.
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
3 - Jones
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2025
This conditional rezoning request - amending the MR-5/CZ conditions to allow no more than 200 residential units - tracks closely with the Strategic Plan’s core intent: providing “quality and sustainable public service” and supporting communities and business growth. It’s also consistent with the MR-5 district purpose of accommodating a wide variety of housing types at moderate to high densities.
Goal I (Safety & Security). The applicant cites a Fire Marshal access requirement - ingress/egress from Rosehill Road - as a driver for revising the prior plan. That directly touches the Strategic Plan’s emphasis on emergency preparedness/response and traffic/pedestrian safety. In practice, the rezoning decision point is less “does housing support safety” and more “do the access/connection conditions and resulting street design support safe response and safe daily movement.”
Goal II (Diverse & Viable Economy). Adding housing units generally supports a stronger tax base and a favorable development climate - both explicit objectives of Goal II. The applicant also asserts the change would have “only… positive impacts” on surrounding property values through reinvestment in existing infrastructure, which is the same basic mechanism Goal II is trying to cultivate (private investment outcomes alongside quality-of-life improvements).
Goal III (City Investment Planning). Goal III is where this case most cleanly lands: managing future growth and strategic land use is an explicit objective, and the applicant’s justification is fundamentally an infrastructure-and-access argument (water/sewer already established; changes would be cost-prohibitive; access requirements force a redesign). Put simply: this is a request to adjust entitlements to match real-world infrastructure constraints and emergency-access expectations - exactly the “invested in today and tomorrow” frame Goal III is written around.
Goal IV (Live, Work, & Recreate). Goal IV includes the plain objective of ensuring “a place for people to live in great neighborhoods” and a strategic priority explicitly emphasizing affordable housing needs. The applicant ties the request to Fayetteville’s “shortfall of homes needed”. Whether the units end up affordable (in the strict income-based sense) isn’t established in the submittal, but the request still aligns with the Plan’s broader housing-supply and neighborhood-stability direction.
Goal V (Financially Sound City). Goal V is about fiduciary accountability and aligning resources with priorities. More housing can expand the tax base (Goal II) while also increasing service demand (Goal V’s “resource sustainability” lens). This rezoning fits Goal V best when it is paired with clear infrastructure/service assumptions - because Goal V is explicitly about keeping that alignment disciplined, not just approving growth in the abstract.
Goal VI (Collaborative Government). The conditional rezoning process itself is a public-facing decision workflow - public notice, hearings, and a record - so it’s inherently tied to the Plan’s objectives on transparency, customer service, and public outreach/dialogue. In other words: even when the underlying project is “just housing units,” the way the City processes and conditions it is part of delivering Goal VI.
Executive Summary:
Case P26-02 (Northridge Park) is a request to amend the existing MR-5/CZ conditional zoning conditions on approximately 17.61 acres at 0 Mount Rainer Rd. / 0 Rock Creek Ln. (PINs 0439300490000 and 0439302525000) to allow up to 200 residential units. The applicant cites changed conditions - existing water/sewer infrastructure where modification would be cost-prohibitive (for the developer and PWC) and a Fire Marshal access requirement from Rosehill Road - that together make the previously contemplated 125-unit plan “moot,” while asserting consistency with the Future Land Use Plan goals LU-6 (quality neighborhoods) and LU-7 (mix of housing types). Adjacent context noted in the application includes SF-10 and SF6/CZ with single-family neighborhoods and two churches, and public notification is shown as mailing to property owners within a 1,000-foot buffer. The map amendment fee ($1,000) is shown as paid for project #1954501, with the application entered 12/8/25. As with City submittals, the package relies on standard requirements like a signed/notarized Affidavit of Ownership and scaled site drawings.
On January 13 the Zoning Commission held a Legislative Hearing regarding this case. There two speakers in favor, none in opposition. The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval. The applicant agreed to reduce their requested conditions to only one, which is to allow up to 200 residential units. This change in conditions was offered by the owner and accepted by the Commission.
Background:
Owner: Northridge Towns, LLC, et al. (Deed Book/Page: 11893/0322; 11899.0300)
Applicant: The Charleston Group (Catherine R. Iwashita Bamba), on behalf of Northridge Towns, LLC, et al.
Requested Action: Conditional rezoning request to amend the MR-5/CZ conditions to allow up to 200 residential units. (Submitted by the applicant and accepted by the Zoning Commission)
Zoning District: MR-5/CZ -Mixed Residential 5 Conditional
Property Address: 0 Mount Rainer Rd. and 0 Rock Creek Ln., Fayetteville, NC 28301 (PINs 0439300490000 and 0439302525000)
Size: 17.61 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped/vacant tract (Northridge Park area).
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: SF-10 and SF-6/CZ nearby (single-family residential) and two churches
Letters Mailed: 243 within a 1,000-ft. buffer (per the generated notice list); rezoning notice area shown as a 1,000-ft. buffer on City maps.
Issues/Analysis:
The request is to amend the existing MR-5/CZ conditional zoning conditions for 0 Mount Rainer Road and 0 Rock Creek Lane, a combined 17.61-acre tract, to allow up to 200 residential units - envisioned as a mix of townhomes and apartments - “without restriction on use.”
The project history shows a consistent through-line: connectivity and access have been central to staff review and public response across multiple cycles. Early TRC comments dated November 30, 2020 reflect a subdivision-style framework focused on final plat requirements, easements, common-area maintenance disclosures, future street-connection notes, and provisions for governmental access on private streets, with those early expectations embedding the same connectivity tools that surface later (stub-outs, cross-access easements, and “future connection” signage).
In the P21-26 conditional rezoning (LC to LC/CZ), the minutes document that the Fire Department required secondary access, which drove the need for access to Rosehill Road. The applicant described a 66-lot single-family pattern and stated the neighborhood would not be gated, while opponents raised concerns about cumulative development and prior expectations related to gating/design and the Rosehill Road connection. The Zoning Commission approval recommendation carried 3-2.
By March 13, 2024, TRC comments had shifted squarely into the MR-5/CZ framework and explicitly identified the operative conditional limit as “MR5/CZ number of units (max 125).” TRC also flagged mechanics that matter for a multi-parcel, multi-building layout (recombination and final plat sequencing) and reiterated the MR-5 unit/area math concept used in prior review. The P24-10 amendment then set or confirmed that 125-unit maximum as the controlling condition for the site, establishing the “previously contemplated development” baseline referenced by the applicant now.
On December 8, 2025, the applicant filed the current P26-02 request, proposing a revised condition of “no more than 200 residential units without restriction on use.” The application describes the surrounding area as primarily SF-10 and SF-6(CZ) single-family development plus two churches, and it asserts changed conditions - established water/sewer infrastructure that is costly to modify and a Fire Marshal requirement for ingress/egress from Rosehill Road - that together make the earlier 125-unit concept “moot.”
In the current TRC cycle (December 17, 2025), staff reiterates MR-5 dimensional compliance expectations (setbacks and building spacing) and requires parking calculations demonstrating a minimum of 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit with stall/aisle dimensions. TRC also requires an open-space plan with a calculation table distinguishing usable versus non-usable open space (including ADA access, shade and seating, furnishings, and tree planting expectations). In addition, TRC requires colored elevations showing design-standard compliance for clubhouse and apartment buildings, along with a sidewalk connection (with ramps and striping) tied into the public sidewalk system.
With that context, the core issues for decision-makers are straightforward. The proposed condition is intentionally broad because it caps units at 200 but does not constrain unit mix, building count, massing, phasing, or internal circulation, and that breadth matters here because the record repeatedly shows access and connectivity - especially Rosehill Road - driving both technical requirements and neighborhood expectations. The practical decision is whether the Commission intends only to adjust the unit cap and leave form and impacts to later site plan review, or whether the Commission needs the conditional rezoning to provide more predictability about the outcomes that most affect neighbors.
Although MR-5 is designed to accommodate a range of housing types at moderate to high densities with associated design standards and potentially complementary neighborhood-serving uses, the surrounding context described in the application remains largely single-family with institutional uses, and the FLUP context in the record has been consistently described as low-density residential. That makes the policy question less about introducing multifamily in the abstract and more about what level of intensity - and what guardrails - are compatible at the edges and across the street network.
Numerically, 200 units on 17.61 acres implies roughly 11.36 dwelling units per acre gross, which is below MR-5’s maximum gross density range, but the recurring impacts raised in the file - traffic distribution, emergency access, and cut-through behavior - are driven as much by access-point configuration and network design as by raw density. That is why transportation and emergency access remain the deepest issue: secondary access has been a hard requirement in prior approvals, the applicant now claims fire ingress/egress from Rosehill Road is required, and current fire access guidance ties unit count to the number of required access points - meaning a 200-unit concept triggers a different access-point expectation than the 125-unit baseline, changing circulation patterns, neighborhood experience, and even basic feasibility without redesign. Traffic Engineering is also indicating a Traffic Impact Analysis will be needed to validate assumptions and mitigation.
At the same time, many of the recurring “quality and predictability” items TRC flags - dimensional compliance, parking ratios and geometry, elevations, sidewalk connections, and open-space calculations - are enforceable through normal site plan review under the UDO, so they are not usually the best use of conditional-zoning language unless the City needs commitments beyond the baseline requirements. The applicant’s main justifications should be read through that lens: even if 200 units can be argued as below a theoretical maximum yield, the more decision-relevant comparison in this record is how 200 units changes access-point requirements, traffic distribution, and edge compatibility relative to the previously conditioned 125-unit baseline. Likewise, the “cost prohibitive” utility argument is strongest when backed by a specific constraint statement rather than general assertions, particularly since TRC already anticipates coordination with utilities and easements.
Ultimately, the few items most likely to drive outcomes are the number and location of access points (especially if 161+ units implies a third access), the scope and conclusions of the required traffic analysis, the strength of edge compatibility measures where the site meets SF-10 and SF-6(CZ) areas (buffers, building placement, height transitions, lighting and operation impacts), the functionality of open space rather than minimum compliance, and the predictability of the final built form given the requested condition’s breadth. Framed fairly, the central question is not “neighbors versus housing,” but whether the amended conditions produce a development that can be served safely and efficiently by infrastructure and emergency access, while remaining legible and predictable enough that adjacent property owners can understand the likely end state - particularly on access routing - before the decision shifts to administrative site plan review.
Future Land Use Plan Analysis
The Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) is intended to function as the City’s citywide framework for “sound development patterns,” with staff specifically directed to review rezonings (including conditional rezonings) and other land-use petitions for consistency with the Future Land Use Map and the plan’s goals, policies, and strategies. The FLUP is organized around (1) the planning/public-input process, (2) the Future Land Use Map and character areas, (3) goals and policies, and (4) implementation strategies. For Case P26-02, the adopted Future Land Use Map context shown in the case materials includes LDR (Low Density Residential) as a mapped designation in the immediate area (with additional mapped categories nearby, including Park/Open Space and Office/Institutional). This matches the City’s prior public-hearing record for these same parcels: during the 2024 conditional-zoning amendment (P24-10), the Zoning Commission minutes explicitly note the FLUP “calls for the area to be designated low-density residential.” Against that framework, the current proposal seeks to revise the conditional-zoning condition to allow up to 200 total residential units and explicitly contemplates a mix of townhomes and apartments.
Looking at the FLUP in its entirety (not just the map color), three plan-wide threads matter most for how P26-02 relates to the FLUP. First, the FLUP’s planning-process results show Fayetteville residents expressed split preferences between low-density and medium-density single-family forms, while showing a strong preference for neighborhood character patterns that include mixed use and conservation subdivisions (more open space/parks). At the same time, the plan records mixed support for apartments/duplexes/townhomes, with the key qualifier that most people viewed those housing types as appropriate “only in certain places.” That qualifier becomes a central consistency question when a Low-Density Residential area is asked to absorb a larger multi-family component: the FLUP’s narrative does not read as a blanket endorsement of apartments anywhere; it reads as a location-dependent tool.
Second, the FLUP’s goals/policies create a two-part test: (a) whether the location is appropriate for growth intensity, and (b) whether site design mitigates impacts and delivers “quality neighborhood” outcomes. The plan’s land-use policy set begins with “Strategic, Compatible Growth,” including a policy direction to encourage growth in areas served by infrastructure and public services (roads, utilities, parks, schools, police/fire). The applicant’s narrative argues changed conditions and existing infrastructure (e.g., established water/sewer) support revisiting the prior condition set. Separately, the plan’s “Safe, Stable, and Attractive Neighborhoods” policies emphasize development standards tied to connectivity and livability - connected streets and stub-outs, sidewalks, open space, street trees, and CPTED principles. The FLUP also supports a broader mix of housing types, including attached and multi-family, but it frames that support as being especially appropriate within/near Downtown and designated Centers, and calls out medium-density and neighborhood-improvement areas as the places to intentionally allow smaller-scale attached types. In other words: the FLUP supports housing diversity as a citywide objective, but it pairs that objective with an implied geography. With the subject area mapped as LDR in the case record, the key FLUP-consistency issue becomes whether the site can be credibly treated as one of those “certain places” where a higher-intensity, mixed-format residential program is appropriate - and whether the proposal’s conditions meaningfully secure compatibility outcomes rather than relying on aspirational statements.
Third, the FLUP repeatedly elevates environmental performance and resilience as core land-use expectations, not add-ons. It directs the City to require reservation of open space and unique natural features in new development, including stronger open-space expectations, connected open space where practical, and clarity about what counts as open space. It also calls for a connected system of parks/greenways and for site design/capital improvements that reduce flooding impacts - specifically emphasizing on-site stormwater controls that mimic pre-development conditions, reduce downstream impacts, and carefully control development in floodplains. Even where a specific parcel is not documented in the case file as being flood-prone, the FLUP’s broader “natural resources and environmental constraints” discussion frames floodplains/hydric soils as areas generally unsuitable for intense development and encourage minimizing development in floodplains as a protective strategy. For P26-02, that means FLUP alignment is strengthened when the conditional rezoning (or subsequent site plan) clearly commits to open-space structure, tree/feature preservation where feasible, and stormwater/resiliency practices that track the plan’s intent - not merely minimum compliance language.
Put together: the FLUP clearly recognizes a citywide need to manage growth, enable housing variety, and require better neighborhood/environmental outcomes, but it also anchors these choices in mapped character (here, Low Density Residential) and in the “only in certain places” public expectations record for multi-family formats. Since the prior amendment case for these parcels treated low-density FLUP designation as compatible with MR-5/CZ when capped at 125 units, the shift to a 200-unit cap with an explicit townhome/apartment mix is the FLUP-critical change: it increases the burden on the rezoning record to demonstrate (1) why this site is one of the plan’s “certain places,” and (2) how the project will deliver the FLUP’s quality-neighborhood and environmental-performance expectations in a way that is legible at the zoning-decision level (which is exactly how the FLUP instructs the map and policies to be used).
Budget Impact:
Approval of this conditional rezoning amendment does not, by itself, authorize or appropriate any City funds and is not expected to create an immediate, direct budget impact. The action primarily changes the allowable intensity under the existing MR-5/CZ framework; any site-specific construction obligations would occur later through the normal development review and permitting process.
If the rezoning is approved and the property is subsequently developed, there may be indirect fiscal effects over time. A higher unit cap can increase demand for public services (fire, police, solid waste, parks, and transportation operations) and may prompt the need for roadway or access improvements identified through traffic review or required to meet emergency access standards. In general, on-site infrastructure and developer-triggered improvements are addressed through TRC review, required construction, and utility connection charges/fees as applicable, while any broader, discretionary capital upgrades beyond required improvements would only occur if separately programmed and funded by the City or the utility provider. Over the longer term, redevelopment of the site may also increase the tax base relative to the current condition, but the magnitude and timing of any revenue change depends on the final development program and assessed value at buildout.
Options:
Following staff review and the close of the legislative hearing, the Zoning Commission must make a recommendation - by majority vote of a quorum present - based on the conditional rezoning standards. For Case P26-02 (0 Mount Rainer Rd. / 0 Rock Creek Lane.; 17.61 acres; request to amend MR-5/CZ conditions to allow up to 200 residential units, the recommendation options are:
Approve as submitted. Recommend approval subject to the conditions included in the application (i.e., the requested amendment/condition as filed).
Approve with revised or additional conditions. Recommend approval subject to revisions or added conditions, but only if those changes are agreed to by the applicant in writing. The Commission may suggest changes during its review; however, only written applicant agreement can make those changes part of the recommendation. (The applicant agreed to reduce their requested conditions to only one, which is to allow up to 200 residential units. This change in conditions was offered by the owner and accepted by the Commission.) Recommended
Approve with a reduction in area. Recommend approval of the application, but with a smaller land area included than what was requested.
Deny. Recommend denial of the application.
Regardless of the option selected, the Zoning Commission’s recommendation must include a written statement addressing plan consistency and the reasonableness of the amendment.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
The Professional Planning Staff and the Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve the proposed map amendment to the requested Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5/CZ) conditional zoning to allow up to 200 residential units on approximately 17.61 acres located at unaddressed Mount Rainer Rd. and unaddressed Rock Creek Ln, based on the following:
• Policy Consistency: The Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) serves as Fayetteville’s citywide framework for guiding sound development patterns and directs staff to evaluate rezonings and land-use petitions for consistency with the Future Land Use Map, goals, and policies. For Case P26-02, the subject property is mapped Low Density Residential (LDR), consistent with prior public-hearing records, yet the current proposal seeks to amend the conditional zoning to allow up to 200 residential units, including townhomes and apartments, representing a higher-intensity, mixed-format development. While the FLUP supports housing diversity and strategic growth in areas served by infrastructure, it emphasizes that attached and multi-family housing is appropriate only in certain locations and must be compatible with neighborhood character. The plan further calls for high-quality design outcomes-connectivity, sidewalks, open space, trees, and CPTED principles-as well as environmental stewardship through preserved open space, stormwater controls, and resilient site planning. Accordingly, consistency hinges on demonstrating that this site can function as one of the plan’s intended “certain places” for increased intensity and that enforceable conditions will ensure compatibility, livability, and environmental performance aligned with the FLUP’s expectations.
• Contextual Appropriateness: The rezoning is contextually appropriate given the established land use pattern along Distribution Drive. The property is already developed as a beer and wine distribution campus, is surrounded by other LI-zoned industrial uses, and is buffered by a rail corridor and additional commercial properties, with residential uses located across the street. Required setbacks, separation standards, and Article 30-5 development regulations will help ensure continued compatibility and maintain appropriate visual and operational buffers between industrial activities and nearby homes.
Public Interest: The proposed amendment is in the public interest because it supports the City’s goals of managing growth responsibly, encouraging reinvestment in areas served by existing infrastructure, and expanding housing opportunities to meet evolving community needs. By allowing a broader mix of residential options while maintaining appropriate development standards and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, the request promotes efficient land use, strengthens the local housing supply, and advances the City’s long-term vision for orderly, sustainable, and context-sensitive development.
end
Attachments:
• Rezoning application + proposed amended conditions (and any submitted narrative/exhibits).
• Owner authorization/affidavit.
• Primary concept plan / plan exhibit being relied on for the conditions.
• Zoning map exhibit (existing zoning/context).
• Future Land Use map exhibit (plan context).
• Aerial + notification/buffer map (supports the record for notice/outreach).
• TRC comments for this submittal (what agencies flagged; what remains open).
• Prior approval record that established/modified the current CZ conditions (minutes/decision record).
• MR-5 dimensional standards (one-page reference to ground the density/standards discussion).
• Older TRC history (access, utilities, subdivision framework, etc.)
• Signed Consistency and Reasonableness Statement P26-02