TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Craig Harmon, CZO - Senior Planner
FROM: Demetrios Moutos, AICP - Planner II
DATE: March 10, 2026
RE:Title
P26-08 - Rezoning Request (Map Amendment)
Wiley Bunce requests to rezone approximately 11.78 acres at 603 Covey Dr. (PIN 9497743273000) and 618 Covey Dr. (PIN 9497733788000) from SF-10 and SF-6 to MR-5.
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
Council District 7 - Brenda McNair
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
This request directly advances the Strategic Plan’s focus on managing future growth and strategic land use, and it helps ensure that Fayetteville remains a desirable place to live.
• Goal III: City Investment Planning - Objective 3.2 (manage future growth and strategic land use): The request seeks residential entitlements in an area served by public utilities and within an established development context, aligning growth decisions with planned land use and service availability.
• Goal III - Objective 3.3 (timely and accurate construction review/inspection services): The rezoning decision establishes the entitlement framework, and subsequent development reviews apply adopted technical standards to address site-specific impacts.
• Goal IV: Live, Work, & Recreate - Objective 4.5 (ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods): MR-5 expands housing choices beyond SF districts, while later development review enforces neighborhood-compatibility standards such as buffers, lighting, access, and stormwater.
Executive Summary:
Request
The applicant seeks to rezone approximately 11.78 acres at 603 and 618 Covey Drive from SF-10 to MR-5 through a conventional map amendment.
Zoning Commission Decision Point
The Commission must decide whether to:
• Recommend approval of the request as submitted (SF-10/SF-6 to MR-5),
• Recommend approval of a more restricted base zoning district,
• Recommend approval of the request with a reduction in the area to be rezoned, or
• Deny the request.
The Commission must adopt a written statement on consistency and reasonableness as part of the decision.
Planning Staff Recommendation
The planning staff recommends that the Commission advise the City Council to approve the request as submitted, rezoning the properties from SF-10/SF-6 to MR-5. The staff based this recommendation on analyses that considered plan consistency, context, land use pattern, infrastructure service context, and administration and impact management.
Key Findings
• The Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designates the subject area as Medium Density Residential (MDR); the applicant requests MR-5.
o Map amendments must align with adopted plans and policies.
o The requested MR-5 district supports the MDR designation’s intent to provide a broader mix of residential housing types than low-density single-family districts.
• The Technical Review Committee (TRC) and publicly available information confirm that public water and public sewer serve the site.
o Map amendments should support orderly development and avoid premature development where services cannot support intensity.
o Existing utility service enables consideration of medium to high-density residential zoning at this location.
• Rezoning changes the permitted residential housing types from primarily detached single-family districts to a mixed-residential district that can allow multifamily forms.
o The Commission must weigh the benefits and potential detriments to surrounding properties and the community and consider compatibility.
The Commission can reasonably find the request appropriate if development review later applies buffering, lighting, access, stormwater, and other adopted standards to manage transition impacts.
Background:
Site Context and Existing Conditions
• The applicant states the site remains vacant and wooded, with no existing structures.
• The applicant states that public water and public sewer serve the site.
• The case exhibit illustrates how the parcels relate to surrounding streets and parcels (see map exhibits).
Surrounding Zoning
The applicant identifies adjacent and across-the-street zoning as MR-5, SF-10, and SF-6.
Applicable Planning Framework
Future Land Use Plan
The Future Land Use Plan:
• The Future Land Use Map and related policies guide rezoning decisions and communicate the desired development pattern and form.
• Citywide goals and policies prioritize infrastructure-supported growth, safe and stable neighborhoods, housing choice, and military compatibility.
Key policy anchors relevant to this case include:
• LU-1: Encourage growth in areas well-served by infrastructure and urban services; coordinate with utilities; and require adequate infrastructure in place prior to or in tandem with new development.
• LU-6/LU-7: Encourage development standards that result in quality neighborhoods and encourage a mix of housing types (including attached and multi-family forms in appropriate places), with design standards to maintain compatibility.
• Military compatibility goals/policies: Encourage growth patterns that respect the operational mission of the military while allowing reasonable property use near the installation, including coordination and compatibility measures where applicable.
Issues/Analysis:
1. Future Land Use Map consistency
a. The Future Land Use Map designates the site as MDR (Medium Density Residential). MDR’s description anticipates that primarily residential areas can accommodate a broader mix of housing forms than low-density-only patterns.
b. Map amendments should align with adopted plans and policies that guide long-term land use decisions.
c. The Commission can reasonably find the requested MR-5 district consistent with MDR because MR-5 implements a medium to high-density residential framework and expands housing choice relative to SF districts, within a residential land-use function.
2. Compatibility with surrounding zoning and development patterns
a. The applicant states that the area immediately surrounding the site includes a mix of residential zoning districts: MR-5, SF-10, and SF-6.
b. Map amendments should fit the surrounding context and rely on adopted development standards to manage site-specific impacts at the development-review stage. (UDO map amendment standards; compatibility and public-interest considerations.)
c. The Commission can reasonably find the request compatible with the surrounding zoning pattern described in the record because MR-5 already exists in the surrounding area, and the UDO’s development standards will govern transition impacts (buffers/landscaping, lighting, access design, stormwater, solid waste design) at the time of site plan and permits.
3. Orderly development pattern and isolated zoning
a. The applicant states that MR-5 exists on adjacent or nearby property and that the request extends a residential zoning pattern instead of introducing a new, unrelated district.
b. Map amendments should support a logical and orderly development pattern and avoid the creation of isolated zoning districts.
c. The Commission can reasonably find the request supports an orderly development pattern and does not create isolated zoning, given the presence of MR-5 in the surrounding zoning mix described in the record.
4. Infrastructure/service context and “premature development”
a. The applicant states that public water and public sewer serve the site. The Future Land Use Plan emphasizes growth where infrastructure and urban services exist and calls for coordinated utility planning and adequate infrastructure in place prior to or in tandem with development.
b. The Commission should consider whether the rezoning would encourage premature development, unsupported by infrastructure and services.
c. The Commission can reasonably find the request aligns with infrastructure-supported growth principles because the record identifies public utilities as available. The Commission can also rely on later permitting and utility coordination to confirm capacity, extensions, and service commitments consistent with LU-1.
5. Changed conditions and community need
a. The applicant asserts that conditions have changed in the surrounding area, including increased residential development and adjacent residential zoning that supports a broader range of housing types. The applicant also states that the request addresses a housing supply and choice need aligned with the City’s long-range planning direction.
b. The Commission may consider changed conditions and demonstrated community need as part of the legislative record supporting the amendment.
c. The Commission can reasonably find that the changed conditions and community-need assertions in the application support consideration of the request, particularly where the adopted FLUP framework (MDR + LU-7) supports a broader mix of housing types in appropriate locations.
6. Natural environment and stormwater impacts
a. The applicant states that the rezoning will not significantly harm the natural environment and notes that future development must comply with applicable environmental regulations (stormwater, erosion control, and regulated features). The Future Land Use Plan also emphasizes preserving and enhancing environmental features through open space protection and stormwater-resilient site planning policies.
b. The Commission may consider whether the amendment results in significantly adverse environmental impacts.
c. The Commission can reasonably find the rezoning itself does not directly cause environmental impacts; instead, it changes entitlements. The Commission can rely on subsequent development review and environmental permitting to address stormwater and land-disturbance impacts consistent with adopted regulations and FLUP policy direction.
7. Property values
a. The applicant states that the amendment will not significantly harm surrounding property values and anticipates compatibility with surrounding uses.
b. The Commission may consider potential adverse impacts to surrounding properties as part of the public-interest and reasonableness determination.
c. The Commission can reasonably treat this factor as neutral on the current record because the application does not provide quantified market evidence. The Commission can instead weigh compatibility based on the surrounding zoning pattern, MDR plan direction, and the ability of adopted standards to manage impacts during development review.
Budget Impact:
• Near-term (legislative action): Staff must process the rezoning and conduct public hearing procedures for this item, which primarily requires their time.
• Development stage (if constructed): Private developers must fund and construct on-site improvements and comply with permitting requirements. Council evaluates any potential public capital projects separately through the adopted budget and capital process.
Options:
The Commission may take one of the following actions:
1. Deny the application.
2. Approve a rezoning to a more restricted base zoning district.
3. Approve the rezoning with a reduction in area.
4. Approve the rezoning as requested (SF-10/SF-6 to MR-5).
The Commission must write and adopt consistency and reasonableness statements as part of the decision.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
Approve P26-08 as requested and rezone approximately 11.78 acres at 603 and 618 Covey Drive (PIN 9497743273000 and 9497733788000) from SF-10/SF-6 to MR-5, based on the following:
• Plan consistency: The Future Land Use Map designates the area MDR, and the Future Land Use Plan supports medium-density residential patterns and a mix of housing types in appropriate locations.
• Compatibility and orderly pattern: The record describes a surrounding zoning mix that already includes MR-5 alongside SF districts, supporting a finding that the amendment does not create isolated zoning and fits the broader residential context.
• Infrastructure-supported growth: The applicant states that public water and public sewer serve the site, and the Future Land Use Plan prioritizes growth in areas with infrastructure and coordinated utility planning.
• Strategic Plan alignment: The request advances Goal III’s strategic land use management direction and Goal IV’s neighborhood/housing objectives by aligning zoning entitlements with planned residential growth and housing choice.
end
Attachments:
1. Rezoning Application (Case P26-08)
2. Affidavit of Ownership
3. Zoning Map - Subject and Vicinity
4. Aerial Map - Subject and Surroundings
5. Future Land Use Map - Subject and Vicinity
6. Pre-Application/TRC Comment Letter (Covey Dr Apartments)
7. Conceptual Development Exhibits (for context only) - NCHFA preliminary submission package
8. Context Photos - aerial, context callouts, and street-view images of neighboring properties
9. Consistency and Reasonableness Statements