Knightdale council hears plan for 184‑unit Phase and Reserve neighborhood; refers rezoning to Land Use Review Board

Knightdale officials opened a joint public hearing on ZMA‑1‑25 on the proposal for Phase and Reserve, a UR12 plan unit development on roughly 58 vacant acres near Old Facing Road that would allow about 184 residential units and a 7,500‑square‑foot commercial outparcel.

Planning staff presented the application and said the master plan calls for 106 detached single‑family homes and 78 attached townhomes, roughly three units per acre, nearly 10 acres of preserved open space and a phasing approach expected to be built in eight to ten phases. Staff also summarized requested site‑development allowances including reduced lot widths for townhomes (down to 20 feet), shorter driveway lengths (requested 20–25 feet vs. 35 feet required), narrower side setbacks for townhomes (as little as 3 feet instead of 10) and an allowance for mass grading of lots and infrastructure. Staff noted the applicant offered a zoning condition to contribute to the town’s affordable housing trust fund — $250 per front‑loaded lot and $100 per rear‑loaded lot, which staff estimated would total roughly $26,000 if the plan is approved as proposed.

"We are here tonight to hear from everyone, including the public, to gather feedback on this proposal," planning staff said in opening the presentation; staff described the project history (pre‑application, sketch plans and neighborhood meetings) and the technical topics raised by the Development Review Committee, including lot widths, stormwater design, roadway connectivity and traffic calming.

A major focus of council and public questioning was transportation and connectivity. Staff and the applicant said Widewaters Parkway will be constructed as a main collector with a required multi‑use trail, and that the applicant has been advancing engineering work on a potential railroad bridge to connect Nightdale Boulevard toward Bethlehem Road. The applicant said it would advance the engineering review costs with the railroad owner so the concept can be tested and, if approved, built.

"We will advance the money for Norfolk Southern. We'll advance the money if required for Coastal Carolina. We'll advance the money for the engineer," developer David Gorman said, describing the steps his team expects to take to move the bridge from concept to a constructible design.

Residents from adjacent neighborhoods — particularly Woodfield Lane and Shady Acres — urged the council and applicant to redesign the plan to limit through traffic, preserve neighborhood character and protect safety for children. Multiple speakers described Woodfield Lane as a dead‑end street used for informal play and local walking and said a new connection could turn the street into a commuter shortcut. "Please design this road so that it serves neighbors, not shortcuts," one resident said.

Neighbors also raised concerns about wetlands, stormwater impacts and buffers; a town clerk read a written comment from the Woodfield Homeowners Alliance asking that the Woodfield connection be eliminated or redesigned and calling for comprehensive traffic and environmental reviews and protections for existing residents.

On other technical points, staff said the traffic study was required because the project exceeds a 150 peak‑hour trip threshold and recommended turn‑lane work at the Old Facing Road access and studied a roundabout option the town has prioritized. Staff also said the applicant demonstrated compliance with the town’s water allocation policy and proposed a constructed wetland and bio‑retention features as part of stormwater design.

The applicant told the council it will route construction traffic via the project’s Old Fasin/Old Facing Road access and not through adjacent neighborhood streets, will seek to preserve mature tree canopy where feasible and will further refine phasing and parking as the design advances. The applicant said it provided 86 parking spaces outside private lots (on‑street or amenity/retail parking) and expects private garages and driveways to serve most household parking needs.

No final zoning decision was made. After public comment and applicant responses, a councilor moved to close the joint public hearing and refer ZMA‑1‑25 to the Land Use Review Board for review and a recommendation; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote (tally not specified). The council then adjourned. The LURB review and any subsequent council action will be the next formal steps in the rezoning process.

What’s next: the application will be considered by the Land Use Review Board for a recommendation back to council; engineering‑level stormwater and bridge designs, if developed, will be reviewed in subsequent technical submittals and permitting steps.