Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds rezoning Z‑392 (Honeycutt Road) after Planning Commission concerns; public hearing set for April 15 as special item
Summary
Council agreed to bring a rezoning request for roughly 14 acres on Honeycutt Road back as a special item and set a public hearing for April 15 after Planning Commission recommended approval with edits to conditions that conflict with the UDO.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The council received a Planning Commission report on a rezoning request (Z‑392) for about 14 acres on Honeycutt Road that would change the property from R‑1 within the Falls Watershed Overlay to R‑6 conditional use within the same overlay. Planning staff said the commission recommended approval 4–2 but asked for revisions because several proposed conditions conflict with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Why it matters: The proposal affects zoning, neighborhood connectivity and watershed protections. Commissioners raised concerns about pedestrian safety, water quality in the watershed and conflict with the city’s Greenprint Raleigh vision theme.
Key points from the discussion Planning staff (Hannah Rekau) told council the Planning Commission’s approval included recommended language changes to align the conditional use conditions with the UDO and that council could defer the public hearing to allow the applicant to revise conditions. Councilors pressed for specifics: one councilor noted a proposed condition would remove a planned street connection through the site and expressed concern about loss of grid connectivity and emergency access. The councilor suggested the applicant consider a constrained, greenway‑level connection that would permit emergency vehicles but limit regular traffic (bollards, emergency access standard).
Council action and next steps Councilor moved to bring the item back as a special item and set the public hearing for April 15; motion passed and the hearing will be scheduled as a special‑item public hearing. Staff will work with the applicant to revise conditional language so it does not conflict with the UDO language and to address pedestrian and watershed concerns raised by commissioners and councilors.

