Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board denies rezoning for Star Road condos, 4-1
Summary
The Wake Forest Planning Board on a 4-1 vote denied a conditional rezoning (Case RZ-24-07) that would have allowed SJP Raleigh Durham LLC to build 108 stacked townhome units on roughly 14.12 acres at 0 Star Road.
The Wake Forest Planning Board voted 4-1 to deny Case RZ-24-07, a conditional rezoning request filed by SJP Raleigh Durham LLC to rezone about 14.12 acres at 0 Star Road from Highway Business to General Residential 10 Conditional District (GR-10-CD) for a proposed 108-unit “two-over-two” stacked townhome development.
The motion to deny was made by Elaine Shepherd and seconded by Mr. Almquist; the motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Redler recorded in dissent.
Patrick Reedy, the town’s development services manager, presented staff’s analysis and recommendation. Reedy said the site lies within the town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and is designated in the community plan as corridor commercial—intended for auto-oriented retail, grocery stores, restaurants, hotels and similar uses aimed at strengthening the town’s tax base. Reedy told the board that the application was inconsistent with the community plan and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) because the site did not provide the CTP’s identified “backage” road alignment and did not meet additional corridor commercial considerations described in the plan.
"So in conclusion, staff [finds the proposal] not in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan," Reedy said.
Reedy also summarized site details included in the applicant’s plans: 108 two-over-two units, 264 parking spaces (including garages and surface parking), 24 bicycle spaces, 47% open space (10% minimum required), and 2.8% park area (2.5% required) with amenities such as a playground and pickleball court. He noted constraints including a stream and stream buffer, a sewer easement between the house and the stream, and adjacent uses including the Hawthorne at the Forest apartments to the north and Merritt Business Park to the south.
The applicant’s engineer, John Frazier of FLM Engineering, and Dustin Akilski representing ownership, told the board they had evaluated transportation and topography constraints and argued the project design reflected those constraints. Frazier said the east–west drainages the board had asked about were "not jurisdictional features" but were accounted for in road and sediment control plans. He also said the only constructed public road to connect to on the site is Moonbow Trail and that the site’s slopes and topography make constructing an additional public “backage” road and a second public connection impractical without significantly impacting adjacent properties.
"The topography of the site makes it nearly impossible to then have a second public road that would serve as that baggage road," Frazier said, describing steep slopes and short distances that would make two public roads infeasible while leaving developable land.
Akilski, who identified himself as the applicant and the developer of the adjacent Wake Forest Exchange project, said the company had examined commercial uses but concluded commercial viability was limited because of restricted access and topography. He said their traffic analyses showed Star Road could absorb the expected traffic and that the developer planned improvements on Star Road, including lane widening and a center turn lane.
Board members questioned whether the proposal had appropriately followed the CTP alignment for the future Road 04 (the “backage” road) and whether off-site improvements could or should be required. Reedy noted that some right-of-way was dedicated earlier by adjacent developments (Hawthorne at the Forest and Casa Esperanza Montessori) but that the northern connection on the site was not compliant with the CTP alignment.
After discussion, Planning Board member Elaine Shepherd moved to deny the rezoning application on grounds of inconsistency with the town’s comprehensive plan; Mr. Almquist seconded. The board voted to deny the request 4-1, with Mr. Redler recorded as opposing the denial.
The board did not adopt an alternative condition package or remand the case to staff at the meeting; staff and the applicant were thanked for their presentations. The applicant may pursue the matter further before the Board of Commissioners or revise and resubmit the plan in the future.
