TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Craig Harmon, CZO - Senior Planner
FROM: Thomas Cohen - Planner I
DATE: May 12, 2026
RE:Title
P26-21 - Straight Rezoning
A request from Claudia Zamora to rezone the ±0.59 acres at 1406 Edgecombe Ave (0438332515000) from Single Family 6 (SF-6) to Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5).
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
District 2 - Malik Davis
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal II: Responsive City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
• 2.1 - To ensure a diverse city tax base
Further development of the property such as increased building size, additional units, or reconstruction to allow more than one family would enable a higher tax output by the property.
Goal III: City Invested in Today and Tomorrow
• 3.2 - To manage the City’s future growth and strategic land use
Classic infill development potential that acts as a pioneer case for further development potential especially if a buyer combined lots.
Goal IV: Desirable Place to Live, Work, and Recreate
• 4.6 - Reduce poverty and homelessness
Increased supply of housing equates to more competitive prices and availability.
Executive Summary:
Request
Single Family 6 (SF-6) to Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5)
Zoning Commission Decision Point
The Zoning Commission must decide whether to
• Recommend approval of the request as proposed
• Recommend approval of the request, but to a different zoning district
• Recommend denial of the request
The Zoning Commission must adopt a set of written Consistency and Reasonableness Statements as part of the decision.
Key Findings
Future Land Use: The Future Land Use Designation is for Office / Institutional (OI) which is not in total alignment with the request. However, when examining quintessential districts that are in total alignment (IE: O&I) one discovers that the request is arguably a residential side grade to the designation based on permitted land uses and dimensional standards.
Local Context: The local context aligns with medium-density builds. While MR-5 is seen as traditionally high-intensity, the build constraints on the property from lot shape and Cross Creek creating a floodplain heavily limits build potential back into the medium-density category.
Background:
Owner: Claudia Zamora
Request: SF-6 to MR-5
Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 0437477248000
Parcel Size: ± 0.59
Existing Site Conditions: Unoccupied Single-family home
Adjacent Zoning:
• North: SF-6 - Single-family home
• South: SF-6 - Single-family home
• East: UC - FSU Campus
• West: SF-6 - Forested section
Utilities: Public water, sewer, and electricity
Public Notice: Notification letters were sent to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site equating to 144 notices sent.
Issues/Analysis:
Case P26-20 is a request to rezone the parcel located at 1406 Edgecombe Ave from Single Family 6 (SF-6) to Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5). Pursuant to NCGS § 160D, a straight rezoning entitles the landowner to the full range of permitted uses constrained only by the Unified Development Ordinance and applicable licensures and jurisdictions.
Future Land Use
The Future Land Use Plan 2040 (FLUP) designations are central to policy analysis affixed by reasonableness to local contexts and service of the public good. According to the FLUP the subject property is dual designated. Part as Office and Institutional (O&I) and part as Parks and Open Space (PARKOS).
The former is defined within the plan as “Medium intensity nonresidential uses. Light industrial, office, flex spaces, warehousing, large schools/institutions. Businesses or buildings grouped, sometimes in business parks.” The latter is defined as “Areas generally not suited for development due to site constraints or environmental/cultural importance. These areas may include passive or active recreation amenities or reserved open space, such as undisturbed floodplains.”
The MR-5 district is intended to meet diverse housing needs by accommodating a variety of housing types and arrangements at moderate to high densities. This is one step in intensity above the existing SF-6 district which is intended to accommodate principally single-family residential development at moderate density.
Clearly, there is a disconnect between the request and the Future Land Use Designation. A designation exists as stand-in for the vision that the city has for how land might be used. It’s not an infallible document nor the only consideration meant to be given to a request. This is designated as O&I because of neighboring FSU and a vision of the land as serving FSU and its interests. However, based on the 2023-2033 FSU 10-Year Campus Master Plan there is not intention to acquire nor make use of the properties along Edgecombe Avenue.
The properties are also of dimension that would make individual conversions and sales to FSU or associated enterprises unlikely. Thus, the Future Land Use Plan can be out-of-date, and the property owners left to their own accord.
However, NCGS § 160D is clear that the Future Land Use considerations of the 2040 Comp Plan cannot be disregarded. Intensification of land use is part of that vision and MR-5 is the next stage of intensification and is a stage below low-intensity commercial districts. There is argument for it being a side grade to allow intensification, but on the owner’s terms.
In relation to the PARKOS designation, construction in that section is constrained by Cross Creek creating a floodplain. Construction within a floodplain requires the acquisition of a Floodplain Development Permit with requirements outlined in UDO Section 12 Floodplain Damage Prevention. This permit must be obtained from City Stormwater Division who will conduct their own investigation and processing.
Another factor of consideration is that the Office & Institutional (O&I) zoning district itself does have residential permitted uses including single-family attached & detached, multi-family, and two-to-four families. MR-5 also contains many of the permitted commercial uses as O&I, but where they differentiate is in the intensity of the uses that they are not shared. Thus, the disconnect is not so cut and dry as the difference is in primary focus - commercial versus residential.
Local Context
The building itself is a currently unoccupied single-family home built in the same style and construction as the surrounding area. The structure is in good condition and suitable for a family to inhabit with no enforcements on the property.
The area is mostly single-family residential properties or empty lots zoned for such that are equally, if not more, constrained by the flood plain as the subject property. The anomaly is the area under construction that is part of FSU and zoned for Universities and Colleges - a bespoke jurisdiction meant primarily to accommodate FSU and FTCC. The houses that are present along Edgecombe Avenue are single-floor and small due to the constrained build area and narrow lots.
While the overall size of the parcel is approximately 0.59 acres the buildable area is maybe a quarter of that and the lot being barely 60 or so feet wide renders the potential use cases for MR-5 quite minimal compared to the existing SF-6 district unless build permission was given by City Stormwater or extremely clever architectural work was conducted as setbacks are not based on the building but on the lot and the setbacks between MR-5 and SF-6 are the same. The key differences are permitted uses, maximum height allowance, lot coverage, and lot area per unit.
There are also the transitional standards outlined in UDO Section 30-5K when residential abuts commercial or multifamily. There are also existent design standards which mandate a Class A Buffer between MR-5 and the adjacent SF-6 properties of which chain link fences do not count towards buffer requirements.
Recently, a Zoning Compliance Permit was issued for the construction of a 6ft plastic fence on either side of the parcel and a deck. This fence is classified as a Type D buffer in Section 30-5D of the UDO and would meet the buffer requirements of the parcel.
Conclusion
While at first glance the request seems to not align with the Future Land Use Designation or local contexts it can be argued that it represents a transitional stage. MR-5 and O&I share a significant amount of Permitted Uses but differentiate in that MR-5 has more residentially oriented use allowances while O&I has more commercial use allowances and share many dimensional standards once breaking from the single-family residential use case. Thus, an intensity down step from the designation is reasonable and given the constraints on the lot, allow for more build flexibility.
Locally, the area is mostly medium-density residential adjacent to new construction within FSU. With the constrained build-area the high-density potential of MR-5 is limited to what is considered medium-density unless the necessary permission and engineering is done by City Stormwater to allow building within the floodplain.
Overall, the request exists within the bi-modal spectrum in that it is more consistent than it is inconsistent and more reasonable than it is unreasonable.
Budget Impact:
Immediate (Legislative): No additional costs, collection of a $1000 application fee
Longterm (Construction): Onsite improvements are funded by the developer. City Council evaluates any potential public capital projects via budget adoption and capital investment processes.
Options:
• Approval (Recommended Action):
Recommend approval of the zoning map amendment as requested - finding that the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan and reasonable to local context as outlined by the Consistency and Reasonableness Statements.
• Approval, but to a more restrictive district:
Recommend approval of the zoning map amendment from SF-6 to one that is more restrictive, but consistent with the Future Land Use Plan and Reasonable to the local contexts with amended Consistency and Reasonableness Statements.
• Denial:
Recommend denial of the proposed map amendment - find that the request is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan and unreasonable to the local context.
• Table the Case:
The Zoning Commission may offer to table the case to allow the applicant to reapply for Conditional Rezoning to address consistency and reasonableness concerns.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
The Professional Planning Staff recommends that the Zoning Commission recommend to City Council that the request be approved as presented - from Single Family 6 (SF-6) to Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) for the approximately 0.59 acres located at 1406 Edgecombe Avenue.
end
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Current Zoning Map
4. Future Land Use Map
5. Site Pictures (Subject Site)
6. Site Pictures (Surrounding Properties)
7. Consistency and Reasonableness Statements