Rick Harris
112 Maplewood Drive
04/22/2021
Please know that I am opposed to the rezoning proposal for Forestville Road. I am writing to you today, and within the 24 hour period following yesterday's public hearing to submit my comments and objections arising from that meeting. Please make this email an official part of the public hearing record. As such, ensure that it is made available to the Mayor, the Town Council and all internal Staff Personnel with responsibility to account and to respond to it as an official submission. As I have given a large amount of feedback, I have sectioned it in the hopes that it will be easier to read, understand and digest.
- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
- If the Town is going to deviate from the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and use this location as a Mixed-Density Neighborhood instead of a Neighborhood Node, then the housing density should be compatible with the surrounding subdivisions with a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre.
- Surrounding neighborhoods, specifically those directly across from this new neighborhood are significantly less dense than the proposed development. This drastic change in density is unacceptable and incompatible with the concept of a neighborhood node.
- The proposal as it stands on 4/21/2021, is not a neighborhood node as mandated by the Comprehensive plan. The proposal is "medium" density housing and a fire station. No justification has been offered as to why the Comprehensive Plan is to be set aside for this development. No explanation has been given as to what has changed so drastically in the last 2 years that justifies throwing away the neighborhood node in this location?
- ROADS
- The number of trips generated by the proposed development was misstated on several occasions. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) estimates the development will generate approximately 5,570 vehicles per day. The TIA states that some of the improvements discussed are for the Town’s information only and are not part of the developer’s plan. The TIA also states that some of the improvements are not warranted or feasible, such as a roundabout at Forestville Rd and Old Knight Rd. Please read the TIA. The actual findings have not been fully disclosed by the Development Services Department. (See ‘WHO PRESENTS WHAT AND HOW’ – Second bullet point below)
- From page 16 of the Development Staff report, IX. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS: 'The TIA was reviewed by Town Staff and the Town’s consulting engineer AMT and it meets all Town standards for level of service at all intersections, with the exception most of the site driveways serving the proposed development'. Unless the Town standard allows a LOS of ‘F’ for Town intersections, then this statement is false and misleading to the Town Council. Please follow up with Chris Hills for the full details. Or simply look at the opposition presentation that is now part of the public record.
- Strengthening the above point, The existing Traffic Impact Analysis conclusions specifically state all but 2 intersections will not operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) even with recommended improvements. This development will bring unacceptable traffic to the two-lane roads surrounding it.
- The current ‘cut through traffic’ issue was not addressed at the meeting and there appears to be no plan to mitigate it. The reason there is no plan to address it is because it is simply impossible to do. You can’t build this proposal on the property in question without allowing cut through traffic to worsen. That alone should be enough cause to reject the rezoning for Forestville Village.
- Further to the point above, there is already significant cut-through traffic in Magnolia Place and Edenburgh's Keep from Forestville Road Elementary School (and Lockhart Elementary on the other side). An entrance off Lawson Ridge Road will encourage more cut-through traffic.
- Further to the point above, there is already significant cut-through traffic in Beaver Dam from Knightdale High School. An entrance off Lawson Ridge Road would encourage more cut-through traffic.
- The existing Traffic Impact Analysis and proposed traffic study made no mention of the new soccer park which has just opened and will further burden the two-lane roads in question.
- Allen Park is now approved. It will increase the traffic on the two-lane roads in question, and the current traffic impact analysis and proposed studies do not control for this impact. The capacity of the roads is already set to be impacted dramatically with both Allen Park and the soccer complex developments.
- The roads in question are State Roads and as such making the necessary improvements needed to support all of the above uses is out of control by the Town government. No improvements are planned or budgeted between now and 2035. It is unwise to create a nightmare traffic situation for Knightdale residents. Elected officials are the watchdogs who should detect and reject proposals that do harm like this one will.
- PARKING
- Parking on a state-maintained road such as Forestville Road is prohibited by NC General Statute 20-161 (a1). Since it is not legal, then no consideration should be given to the idea that it might be used to solve parking issues or somehow mitigate traffic flow or congestion.
- WHO PRESENTS WHAT AND HOW
- I was very disappointed to find that the Town of Knightdale Development Services Director made the Forestville Village presentation for JPM South. This is a bad practice. In all cases the applicant should be responsible for their presentation. Then the Developments Services staff should be called upon to critique or report their findings to the Council. I would think this report from Development Services would be an exception report, pointing out inadequacies, omissions or shortcomings in meeting Town standards and Town vision for the development.
- Further to the above point, I found Director Hills presentation slanted and lacking in objectivity. It appeared that he presented only the information that favored the applicants position. Since he works for us, I have not been able to find any reasonable explanation for this appearance. I have to assume it was not intentional, again because he would be expected to protect the best interests of the Town and it’s citizens. I suggest that the Council discuss the appearance of impartiality with Director Hills.
- As an example of my above statement, I give you this. The definition and the intent of the neighborhood node is to be low-intensity and walk-able for nearby residents. The estimated increase in traffic presented by Mr. Hills was incorrect for a development of that nature and frankly outright misleading about the impact commercial development would have should the parcel be used for its intended purpose per the Comprehensive Plan. Please reference my first point under ‘ROADS’.
- PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE UDO STANDARDS:
- The applicant is being given too many exemptions from the UDO standards that make Knightdale communities attractive and functional.
- I know from page 14 of the Development Staff report, 'In accordance with UDO Section 15.C.5, Planned Unit Development rezonings allow the applicant to request exceptions to certain standards identified in the NMX zoning district.' Just because the applicant make a request to lower our standards, does not mean we should grant them. If an applicant can’t or won’t meet our standards for quality communities, then we should not reward them with opportunities to make developments in Knightdale. I know this sounds awfully obvious and simple, but please don’t lower standards.
- From page 14 of the Development Staff report, A. Driveway Length (Section 2.10.B.2): Required: In accordance with UDO Section 2.10.B.2, driveways for single-family homes shall be a minimum of 35-feet in length. Requested: The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum driveway length for single-family homes to 20-feet from the edge of the right-of-way. This is a very bad idea. We see this problem in Knightdale all the time! This forces residents to park cars across the sidewalks. Which in turn forces children and walkers into the street. This is a huge safety issue. The fix is to lower the dwelling density to the point where proper parking can be constructed.
- From page 14-15 of the Development Staff report, B. Street Cross Sections (Sec 17.3): • Required: Uniform street cross sections are required to ensure adequate space for vehicular movements and uniformity throughout Knightdale. Generally, local streets feature a 54-foot-wide right-of way with a minimum of 27-feet of pavement. This is another case demonstrating that this proposal is too dense. We should not lower our standards of 'Street Cross Sections’. It will only constrain proper traffic movement within the development. This problem is stemming from the on-street parking within the development. Another objection I have.
- FIRE STATION
- It was made clear in the Public Hearing that approval of this proposal will mean a fire station being constructed at the corner of Forestville Road and Old Knight Road. I object to this idea in the first place because Knightdale does not need to spend money to have two fire stations within 2 miles of each other.
- Further, rejecting the applicants proposal will likely result in construction on the Town's existing land off Lawson Ridge Road. Again, I don’t see the need for that either.
- The recommendation of a traffic circle at the corner of Forestville Road and Old Knight Road where a fire station is supposed to be built seems unusual and inappropriate. It is unclear how a traffic circle at the driveway to a fire station can properly function. It seems like this poses a serious threat to the safety and lives of motorists.
- Further to the above point, how large would that traffic circle need to be to accommodate fire trucks and rescue vehicles. These vehicles have large dimensions and clearances. They will require a very large traffic circle.
- Further to the above point, whose property will need to be taken over and whose property value will be damaged by this piece of roadway infrastructure. Again, this is where citizens have a reasonable expectation that the Council will protect our interests.
- Have you considered the impact on Poole's Funeral Home? This is a very important business that provides very needed services to our community. I recommend that you do not damage or make them dysfunctional.
- Further to the above point, the best mitigation for the problems in this section, is to reject the applicants proposal.
- FALSE ASSUMPTION ABOUT A WALK-ABLE KNIGHTDALE
- The assumption that existing residents will simply walk across 64 to access existing retail and consider these options as a substitute for a “neighborhood node” is false. Residents do not currently walk or bike across 64 to access retail. It simply is too far and too dangerous despite the Town’s efforts to date to mitigate the risks. A true neighborhood node on this parcel of land would include pedestrian and bicycle access and would be easily accessible by 14% of Knightdale’s residents who live nearby.
- GREATER NEED FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD NODE CREATED
- I was not in favor of approving Allen Park mostly on the basis of the burden it puts on our little two-lane roads. Now that decision is taken, the approval of Allen Park PUD on 4/21/2021, removes 1 of the 5 neighborhood nodes set aside by the Comprehensive Plan. Allen Park brings more homes, lower density housing, and higher quality homes. The approval of Allen Park negates the need for any additional housing in the proposed location (that is higher density and lower volume) and intensifies the need for a neighborhood node north of 64 for all residents in northern Knightdale.
- MISSING ELEMENTS
- The multitude of missing elements and the lack of information regarding the missing elements of this proposal make me recommend rejection of the proposal. We should not approve a half-baked development. If we rubber stamp this now, then we will be out of control from the first moment of this project. Would I admit my child to a hospital with permission to do whatever is needed to make her right? Of course not! As the responsible party, I’d need to know up front what will be done – exactly what will be done. And until I had proper assurances that the hospital and surgeons had the necessary credentials and experience to provide the care, I’d walk away. I’d look for another team to help me. I recommend that Council members do not trust our future to vague promises, generalities and assumptions about the integrity of the development proposers. haven't we been tricked before? Make the applicant provide proper assurances or walk away. I recommend we walk away.
- Further to the above point, I cite ‘No builder named' and no assurances the eventual builder will deliver on anything the applicant has claimed.
- Further to the above point, I cite, ‘No plan for the commercial acreage’.
- Further to the above point, I cite, ‘No plan or concern for road improvements before 2035’.
- Further to the above point, I cite, ‘No plan or concern for impact on our schools.’
- Further to the above point, I cite, No commitment to ban on-street parking for Forestville Road’.
- Further to the above point, I cite, ‘Nothing in the proposal that will do anything to control cut through traffic’ in six of our neighborhoods.
- There are just too many unknowns and lose ends to approve this proposal. I recommend rejection.
Marvin Hillman
1201 Cassia Lane
04/22/2021
Please know that I am opposed to the rezoning proposal for Forestville Road. I am writing to you today, and within the 24 hour period following yesterday's public hearing to submit my comments and objections arising from that meeting. Please make this email an official part of the public hearing record. As such, ensure that it is made available to the Mayor, the Town Council and all internal Staff Personnel with responsibility to account and to respond to it as an official submission. As I have given a large amount of feedback, I have sectioned it in the hopes that it will be easier to read, understand and digest.
- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
- If the Town is going to deviate from the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and use this location as a Mixed-Density Neighborhood instead of a Neighborhood Node, then the housing density should be compatible with the surrounding subdivisions with a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre.
- Surrounding neighborhoods, specifically those directly across from this new neighborhood are significantly less dense than the proposed development. This drastic change in density is unacceptable and incompatible with the concept of a neighborhood node.
- The proposal as it stands on 4/21/2021, is not a neighborhood node as mandated by the Comprehensive plan. The proposal is "medium" density housing and a fire station. No justification has been offered as to why the Comprehensive Plan is to be set aside for this development. No explanation has been given as to what has changed so drastically in the last 2 years that justifies throwing away the neighborhood node in this location?
- ROADS
- The number of trips generated by the proposed development was misstated on several occasions. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) estimates the development will generate approximately 5,570 vehicles per day. The TIA states that some of the improvements discussed are for the Town’s information only and are not part of the developer’s plan. The TIA also states that some of the improvements are not warranted or feasible, such as a roundabout at Forestville Rd and Old Knight Rd. Please read the TIA. The actual findings have not been fully disclosed by the Development Services Department. (See ‘WHO PRESENTS WHAT AND HOW’ – Second bullet point below)
- From page 16 of the Development Staff report, IX. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS: 'The TIA was reviewed by Town Staff and the Town’s consulting engineer AMT and it meets all Town standards for level of service at all intersections, with the exception most of the site driveways serving the proposed development'. Unless the Town standard allows a LOS of ‘F’ for Town intersections, then this statement is false and misleading to the Town Council. Please follow up with Chris Hills for the full details. Or simply look at the opposition presentation that is now part of the public record.
- Strengthening the above point, The existing Traffic Impact Analysis conclusions specifically state all but 2 intersections will not operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) even with recommended improvements. This development will bring unacceptable traffic to the two-lane roads surrounding it.
- The current ‘cut through traffic’ issue was not addressed at the meeting and there appears to be no plan to mitigate it. The reason there is no plan to address it is because it is simply impossible to do. You can’t build this proposal on the property in question without allowing cut through traffic to worsen. That alone should be enough cause to reject the rezoning for Forestville Village.
- Further to the point above, there is already significant cut-through traffic in Magnolia Place and Edenburgh's Keep from Forestville Road Elementary School (and Lockhart Elementary on the other side). An entrance off Lawson Ridge Road will encourage more cut-through traffic.
- Further to the point above, there is already significant cut-through traffic in Beaver Dam from Knightdale High School. An entrance off Lawson Ridge Road would encourage more cut-through traffic.
- The existing Traffic Impact Analysis and proposed traffic study made no mention of the new soccer park which has just opened and will further burden the two-lane roads in question.
- Allen Park is now approved. It will increase the traffic on the two-lane roads in question, and the current traffic impact analysis and proposed studies do not control for this impact. The capacity of the roads is already set to be impacted dramatically with both Allen Park and the soccer complex developments.
- The roads in question are State Roads and as such making the necessary improvements needed to support all of the above uses is out of control by the Town government. No improvements are planned or budgeted between now and 2035. It is unwise to create a nightmare traffic situation for Knightdale residents. Elected officials are the watchdogs who should detect and reject proposals that do harm like this one will.
- PARKING
- Parking on a state-maintained road such as Forestville Road is prohibited by NC General Statute 20-161 (a1). Since it is not legal, then no consideration should be given to the idea that it might be used to solve parking issues or somehow mitigate traffic flow or congestion.
- WHO PRESENTS WHAT AND HOW
- I was very disappointed to find that the Town of Knightdale Development Services Director made the Forestville Village presentation for JPM South. This is a bad practice. In all cases the applicant should be responsible for their presentation. Then the Developments Services staff should be called upon to critique or report their findings to the Council. I would think this report from Development Services would be an exception report, pointing out inadequacies, omissions or shortcomings in meeting Town standards and Town vision for the development.
- Further to the above point, I found Director Hills presentation slanted and lacking in objectivity. It appeared that he presented only the information that favored the applicants position. Since he works for us, I have not been able to find any reasonable explanation for this appearance. I have to assume it was not intentional, again because he would be expected to protect the best interests of the Town and it’s citizens. I suggest that the Council discuss the appearance of impartiality with Director Hills.
- As an example of my above statement, I give you this. The definition and the intent of the neighborhood node is to be low-intensity and walk-able for nearby residents. The estimated increase in traffic presented by Mr. Hills was incorrect for a development of that nature and frankly outright misleading about the impact commercial development would have should the parcel be used for its intended purpose per the Comprehensive Plan. Please reference my first point under ‘ROADS’.
- PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE UDO STANDARDS:
- The applicant is being given too many exemptions from the UDO standards that make Knightdale communities attractive and functional.
- I know from page 14 of the Development Staff report, 'In accordance with UDO Section 15.C.5, Planned Unit Development rezonings allow the applicant to request exceptions to certain standards identified in the NMX zoning district.' Just because the applicant make a request to lower our standards, does not mean we should grant them. If an applicant can’t or won’t meet our standards for quality communities, then we should not reward them with opportunities to make developments in Knightdale. I know this sounds awfully obvious and simple, but please don’t lower standards.
- From page 14 of the Development Staff report, A. Driveway Length (Section 2.10.B.2): Required: In accordance with UDO Section 2.10.B.2, driveways for single-family homes shall be a minimum of 35-feet in length. Requested: The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum driveway length for single-family homes to 20-feet from the edge of the right-of-way. This is a very bad idea. We see this problem in Knightdale all the time! This forces residents to park cars across the sidewalks. Which in turn forces children and walkers into the street. This is a huge safety issue. The fix is to lower the dwelling density to the point where proper parking can be constructed.
- From page 14-15 of the Development Staff report, B. Street Cross Sections (Sec 17.3): • Required: Uniform street cross sections are required to ensure adequate space for vehicular movements and uniformity throughout Knightdale. Generally, local streets feature a 54-foot-wide right-of way with a minimum of 27-feet of pavement. This is another case demonstrating that this proposal is too dense. We should not lower our standards of 'Street Cross Sections’. It will only constrain proper traffic movement within the development. This problem is stemming from the on-street parking within the development. Another objection I have.
- FIRE STATION
- It was made clear in the Public Hearing that approval of this proposal will mean a fire station being constructed at the corner of Forestville Road and Old Knight Road. I object to this idea in the first place because Knightdale does not need to spend money to have two fire stations within 2 miles of each other.
- Further, rejecting the applicants proposal will likely result in construction on the Town's existing land off Lawson Ridge Road. Again, I don’t see the need for that either.
- The recommendation of a traffic circle at the corner of Forestville Road and Old Knight Road where a fire station is supposed to be built seems unusual and inappropriate. It is unclear how a traffic circle at the driveway to a fire station can properly function. It seems like this poses a serious threat to the safety and lives of motorists.
- Further to the above point, how large would that traffic circle need to be to accommodate fire trucks and rescue vehicles. These vehicles have large dimensions and clearances. They will require a very large traffic circle.
- Further to the above point, whose property will need to be taken over and whose property value will be damaged by this piece of roadway infrastructure. Again, this is where citizens have a reasonable expectation that the Council will protect our interests.
- Have you considered the impact on Poole's Funeral Home? This is a very important business that provides very needed services to our community. I recommend that you do not damage or make them dysfunctional.
- Further to the above point, the best mitigation for the problems in this section, is to reject the applicants proposal.
- FALSE ASSUMPTION ABOUT A WALK-ABLE KNIGHTDALE
- The assumption that existing residents will simply walk across 64 to access existing retail and consider these options as a substitute for a “neighborhood node” is false. Residents do not currently walk or bike across 64 to access retail. It simply is too far and too dangerous despite the Town’s efforts to date to mitigate the risks. A true neighborhood node on this parcel of land would include pedestrian and bicycle access and would be easily accessible by 14% of Knightdale’s residents who live nearby.
- GREATER NEED FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD NODE CREATED
- I was not in favor of approving Allen Park mostly on the basis of the burden it puts on our little two-lane roads. Now that decision is taken, the approval of Allen Park PUD on 4/21/2021, removes 1 of the 5 neighborhood nodes set aside by the Comprehensive Plan. Allen Park brings more homes, lower density housing, and higher quality homes. The approval of Allen Park negates the need for any additional housing in the proposed location (that is higher density and lower volume) and intensifies the need for a neighborhood node north of 64 for all residents in northern Knightdale.
- MISSING ELEMENTS
- The multitude of missing elements and the lack of information regarding the missing elements of this proposal make me recommend rejection of the proposal. We should not approve a half-baked development. If we rubber stamp this now, then we will be out of control from the first moment of this project. Would I admit my child to a hospital with permission to do whatever is needed to make her right? Of course not! As the responsible party, I’d need to know up front what will be done – exactly what will be done. And until I had proper assurances that the hospital and surgeons had the necessary credentials and experience to provide the care, I’d walk away. I’d look for another team to help me. I recommend that Council members do not trust our future to vague promises, generalities and assumptions about the integrity of the development proposers. haven't we been tricked before? Make the applicant provide proper assurances or walk away. I recommend we walk away.
- Further to the above point, I cite ‘No builder named' and no assurances the eventual builder will deliver on anything the applicant has claimed.
- Further to the above point, I cite, ‘No plan for the commercial acreage’.
- Further to the above point, I cite, ‘No plan or concern for road improvements before 2035’.
- Further to the above point, I cite, ‘No plan or concern for impact on our schools.’
- Further to the above point, I cite, No commitment to ban on-street parking for Forestville Road’.
- Further to the above point, I cite, ‘Nothing in the proposal that will do anything to control cut through traffic’ in six of our neighborhoods.
- There are just too many unknowns and lose ends to approve this proposal. I recommend rejection.
Jerri Buck
7336 Forestville Road
04/22/2021
To briefly recap the main issues as I see them:
1. I found it disturbing that our Knightdale Planner Chris Hills presented the developer’s plan – not only that but that he prefaced it by noting he was “excited” to present it. I believe in his position he should take the concerns of the citizens of the town first and foremost – or at least remain neutral in his comments. The developer should have presented their revised plan in the allotted 10 min. time frame.
2. A neighborhood node is designated to be a low intensity and walkable space for nearby residents. Mr. Hills advised that this usage would increase traffic exponentially, which to me clearly shows he does not understand or grasp the concept of a neighborhood node in the first place. Since this property is also located directly on the Knightdale Transit Bus Route, which is currently underutilized, it would be less traffic since citizens would be able to walk or bike there or use this bus transit service to drop them off and pick them up if they are located outside the immediate vicinity – a plus for the citizens and for better utilization of transit services.
3. The Comprehensive Plan 2035 designated 5 areas as neighborhood nodes. Since the project for Allen Park has now been approved, there are 4 remaining. This “Forestville Village” property is so centrally and ideally located to become an integral part of the overall vision of Knightdale by creating a true neighborhood node that it reinforces the stated directive to resist all attempts to rezone this for any other use.
4. Approval of Allen Park also will add 600 more homes, albeit in a lower density but higher quality setting, and will add more traffic on this two-lane road already at less than acceptable levels. I noted that the TIA referenced by Mr. Hills was done by a contractor hired by the Town (at what cost to town residents???) and that some of the impacts noted were for Town information only and are not included in the developer’s plan. When a roundabout was suggested, the developer replied that they would look into it. Also, even though it was advised that the numbers given were “preCovid” numbers, the additional traffic from the newly created soccer park, and additional subdivisions that have since been completed further down Forestville Road were not included in these numbers. Town Council and LURB members need to read the conclusions section of the TIA.
5. Once again, the idea was mentioned that they were “still studying” parking on Forestville Road, which had been tossed out from the initial proposal from Meritage. This is a state-maintained road and I believe that is in conflict with NC General Statute 20-161(a1). Additionally, due to the sharp curvature on Forestville Road, this would surely create a hazardous situation during peak times when people were leaving or coming home from work and trying to park on an already overcrowded roadway – which includes two “school zone” designations as well and is heavily utilized by concrete and gravel trucks coming in and out of the quarry all day long. This is an unrealistic absurd proposal to park on this road.
6. The Fire Station – didn’t see that coming and it was apparently going to be kept under wraps until this rezoning was a done deal. But clearly this has been discussed and ultimately decided by town officials – so all the time the citizens were led to believe that this “commercial space” was undecided because they had not nailed down any business yet, it was truly never in discussion at all… it had been decided that it would be the new Fire Station. Another example of the citizens not being told the true intent for this property.
7. A roundabout/traffic circle at Forestville and Old Knight Road – right where the Fire Station is to be built – I can only envision a fire truck navigating a traffic circle going in or coming out onto these already unacceptable service level roads… not to mention the confusion of drivers when they need to “pull over” for emergency vehicles. This is almost laughable except for the fact that I can envision how many ancillary accidents/fender benders will be caused by this.
8. This type of thinking involved in #7 goes right along with the statement made regarding the “1/2 mile – 1 mile” walkability to access other options as a substitute for a neighborhood node … I have no desire, and frankly have more common sense than to try to walk or bike across Knightdale Blvd/64 Alt. And exactly what options do you see as retail destinations within that distance… 3 gas stations, car repair service – neither of which I would have a reason to walk to since my car would be needed for each of those. A Bojangles that I already walk to occasionally, a funeral home that I don’t have a need to walk to, a grocery store (which is over the 1-mile designation for me) that I need my car to carry home my groceries. What we are looking for is what Knightdale DOESN’T have – a destination “village” encompassing residences along with needed services, boutiques, restaurants, flower shop, bakery, ice cream store, green spaces for pop up events such as weekend farmer’s markets, art shows, cultural events – all the things that make a community desirable – a walkable neighborhood node… a personality. Something Knightdale does not currently have… we are known as a bedroom community to Raleigh and if you want entertainment or social life, then you go to Raleigh. Regarding sustainable retail, JPM South representative said “it’s complicated to get something started that ultimately you can keep the doors open” – but if you don’t even start or look into the process, you never will. I had the opportunity to see it first hand a week ago in Houston TX. There is an area called Rice Village – that is the ideal of a neighborhood node. It was built in 1938 so I think you could call that sustainable. In fact, it is currently being renovated and updated to keep it current and relative. There are new residential areas being built around it and it sits among large residential neighborhoods that embrace it and support it and appreciate it for what it is… a walkable neighborhood node that serves its residents and the community at large. We went for lunch at one of the many restaurants and ended up spending the entire day walking from shop to shop, stopping for a coffee, and enjoying the wide-open public spaces, well planned and definitely loved and utilized by the community. Having such places located so close to the high school would also eliminate the need for the students to jump in their cars at lunch and race off to grab lunch away from the school cafeteria – which prepandemic happened all the time. Cars raced down Forestville and Old Knight roads to get lunch and get back in the short-allotted time – endangering the young inexperienced drivers and others on the roads at the time. This would give them walkable options and support the businesses as well. Perhaps our town planners and the developers could glean some ideas from Rice Village as to how to scale such a project to meet the needs and wants of Knightdale residents. A quick Google search would give you an idea of this type project.
9. Cut through traffic has been addressed in many ways but it is inevitable with this proposal as it stands now. The surrounding neighborhoods already see it, and this will just add to it in a big way. Proposals for “right in, right out” turns will not stop it, roundabouts will not stop it… it is human nature that drivers will do what is needed to get somewhere in the shortest time and shortest distance. If they turn right out, they will simply go as far as the Later Day Saints Church where the road widens and make a U-turn to cut through Pebblebrook and Maplewood, or go down a bit to cut through Magnolia Place and Edinburgh’s Keep… they already do. The fact that this is being brushed aside shows that the planners do not fully realize or appreciate the conditions that already exist and that this high-density development will only worsen the situation since no concrete road improvements are projected for years to come. Proposals for future improvements are great, but they do nothing to improve the “here and now” reality.
10. The proposed high density does not fit well with surrounding neighborhoods in size or type. The builder has not been selected so we don’t know what “quality” homes and townhomes would be built. There are still questions regarding foundations, length of driveways, wraps on the foundations, spacing and fronting appearance of townhomes on Forestville Road, and many other things briefly mentioned and moved past during the Council meeting last night. Mr. Hills mentioned the “playbook approach” – that may work well in sports in a game that has an outcome but no permanent impact. This project once it is completed will be permanent – this piece of property that is centrally located and so ideal for a neighborhood node to benefit all of Knightdale is an opportunity to do this right. Once you put up more dense residential then you have lost this opportunity forever. This project is not ready to move forward and no rezoning based on the information available should be approved. There was a reason that it was stated that this should be a neighborhood node and to avoid changing that…
Dream big and have a vision for what Knightdale can be… don’t just infill with more dense population growth. Step out on a limb and be creative.
Jennifer Burt
1109 Edenburghs Keep Drive
04/22/2021
4) As I have said before, the 2035 Comprehensive Plan tells you what you should do here and I hope that you will listen: "Town officials should resist any future land use changes or rezoning requests for residential development within any of the neighborhood nodes". I beg you to please follow the 2035 plan and save this land so that it can live up to its full potential.
Stan Harward
302 Pebblebrook Drive
04/22/2021
Matthew Racher
306 Morganite Court
04/21/2021
1. The impact of traffic volume, including safety, due to the addition of an excessive amount of vehicles from the proposed development that would travel on Forestville Road, Old Knight Road, Lawson Ridge Road, Pebblebrook Drive, Sugar Lane, Maplewood Drive, Cassia Lane, Clematis Street, Belfry Drive, Edenburghs Keep Drive and N. Smithfield Road which are either 2 lane roads or narrow residential streets.
2. Proposed on-street parking along the north side of Forestville Road for the proposed development.
3. Unknown future concerning the expansion of Forestville Road to handle the increased traffic volume generated by this large number of proposed new residences, as well as the impact of this on the existing residents.
4. Environmental issues and concerns with water, waste water, sewage, and storm water runoff from such a large number of structures on a relatively small tract of land.
5. Ecological and nature concerns that impact wildlife in this area.
6. Lack of transparency regarding the development of the neighborhood retail space on the 3-acre tract on the corner of Forestville Road and Old Knight Road, which will magnify the issues mentioned in this petition.
7. Concerns for the safety of students, parents, teachers, school staff, and school buses due to the significant increase in traffic due to the impact of the proposed residential structures close to Knightdale High School, Forestville Road Elementary School, and Lockhart Elementary School.
8. Major concerns of overcrowding at the schools mentioned above. Quality of education for our students will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
9. Concerns due to the impact on Town services and responsibilities, such as police and fire, as well as public utilities.
10. Concerns regarding the proposed development's impact on existing property values and quality of life in the adjacent neighborhoods due to the close proximity of a high density development with all of the issues that are contained in this petition.
Rebecca Lassiter
1009 Edenburghs Keep Drive
04/21/2021
2. There is already significant cut-through traffic in Beaver Dam from Knightdale High School. An entrance off Lawson Ridge Road would encourage more cut-through traffic.
3. It was made clear in the Public Hearing that approval of this proposal will mean a fire station being constructed at the corner of Forestville Road and Old Knight Road - rejecting the proposal will result in construction on the Town's existing land off Lawson Ridge Road.
4. Surrounding neighborhoods, specifically those directly across from this new neighborhood are significantly less dense than the proposed development. This drastic change in density is unacceptable.
5. The existing Traffic Impact Analysis conclusions specifically state all but 2 intersections will not operate at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) even with recommended improvements. This development will bring unacceptable traffic to the two-lane roads surrounding it.
6. The existing Traffic Impact Analysis and proposed traffic study made no mention of the new soccer park which has just opened and will certainly impact the traffic and capacity of the two-lane roads in question.
7. The proposal as it stands on 4/21/2021 is not a neighborhood node - the proposal is "medium" density housing and a fire station. No justification has been offered as to why the Comprehensive Plan is to be set aside for this development. No explanation has been given as to what has changed so drastically in the last 2 years that justifies throwing away the neighborhood node in this location?
8. The definition, the intent of the neighborhood node is to be low-intensity and walkable for nearby residents. The estimated increase in traffic presented by Mr. Hills was incorrect for a development of that nature and frankly outright misleading about the impact commercial development would have should the full parcel be used for its intended purpose per the Comprehensive Plan.
9. The assumption that existing residents will simply walk across 64 to access existing retail and consider these options as a substitute for a “neighborhood node” is laughable. Residents do not currently walk or bike across 64 to access retail. A true neighborhood node on this parcel of land would include pedestrian and bicycle access and would be easily accessible by 14% of Knightdale’s residents who live nearby.
10. The approval of Allen Park PUD on 4/21/2021 removes 1 of the 5 neighborhood nodes set aside by the Comprehensive Plan. Allen Park brings more homes, lower density housing, and higher quality homes. The approval of Allen Park negates the need for any additional housing in the proposed location (that is higher density and lower volume) and intensifies the need for a neighborhood node north of 64 for all residents in northern Knightdale.
11. Approval of Allen Park will again increase the traffic on the two-lane roads in question, and the current traffic impact analysis and proposed studies do not control for this impact. The capacity of the roads is already set to be impacted dramatically with both Allen Park and the soccer complex developments.
12. The recommendation of a traffic circle at the exact intersection where a fire station is supposed to be built seems unusual and inappropriate. While a traffic circle alone may help alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection of Forestville Road and Old Knight Road, it is unclear how the circle functions and affects response times for the fire trucks leaving that station.
Richard Harris
112 Maplewood Drive
04/21/2021
Jason Shephard
2018 River Grove Lane
04/21/2021
Glenn Buck
7336 Forestville Road
04/21/2021
Connor James
324 Jewel Haven Way
04/21/2021
Stanley Richardson
1010 Edenburghs Keep Drive
04/20/2021
Richy Narron
1105 Clematis Street
04/20/2021
Rebecca Lassiter
1009 Edenburgs Keep Drive
04/20/2021
Don Topps
99 Maplewood Drive
04/20/2021
Larry Bradbury
205 Maplewood Dr
04/20/2021
Angela Griffin
1206 Edenburghs Keep Drive
04/20/2021
- Does not fit the definition of a Neighborhood Node per pg 43-44 in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan
- Each Node should be "neighborhood serving", this is not happening by placing townhomes or SFR without the retail
- The homes going in the area should be comparable to the homes surrounding the NN
- The plan does not call for a safe walking environment for surrounding neighborhoods
- The potential for cut through traffic through Magnolia Place/Edenburgh's Keep is increased by the entrance being straight across from Magnolia Place. Per the Comprehensive Plan, sites should also effecctively minimize the impact of cut-through traffice on nearby neighborhood streets
-The traffic Impact Analysis confirms that the already congested area will become worse with the development of this project
- A NN should provide goods and services to the surrounding neighborhoods and that is not shown to be immediate in this plan
- A certain portion of the NN that was to be commercial is not showing that a potential fire station will go on that land
- Do we really need another fire station flanking BOTH sides of our neighborhood?
- Per the 2035 Comprehensive Plan "Town officials should resist any future land use changes or rezoning requests for residential development within any of the neighborhood nodes". I beg you to please follow the 2035 plan and save this land so that it can live up to its full potential.
Debbie Irgens
1202 Clematis Street
04/19/2021
1. A retail/commercial space that would "blend" in with its surrounding neighborhoods.
2. Provide goods and services for daily living.
3. Easy and safe for the community to bike and walk to.
4. Should not allow cut-through traffic to its nearby neighborhoods.
Now ask yourself, does the proposal meet these requirements? They present it as if it does, but does it really? I don't think so.
1. Only 6% retail/commercial space.
2. 280 units, with 560 cars traveling through with possible street parking, is that safe for one to bike and walk?
3. Same 560 cars can exit Lawson Road, encouraging cut through traffic into Magnolia Place/Edenburghs Keep subdivisions.
Jennifer Burt
1109 Edenburghs Keep Drive
04/19/2021
Anthony Welliver
1202 Jamison Pond Dr.
04/18/2021
Martin Silva
306 Star Ruby Dr.
04/18/2021
Keith Clark
318 Knollcrest Ln.
04/17/2021
Sharon Johnson
100 Pebblebrook Dr.
04/17/2021
Charles McConnell
107 Pebblebrook Dr.
04/17/2021
Stan Harward
302 Pebblebrook Drive
04/16/2021
I am opposed to the rezoning for ZMA-8-20 Forestville Village Planned Unit Development. The location of the proposed development is identified in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan (2035 CP), Growth and Conservation Map as a Neighborhood Node. The 2035 CP states the Growth and Conservation Map refines the intent and focus of the Growth Framework Map. The 2035 CP defines a Neighborhood Node in part as follows: “Neighborhood nodes provide goods and services to surrounding neighborhoods. Their proximity to neighborhoods requires that operations be low-intensity, unobtrusive, and at a scale and design compatible with nearby residential development. The design of a neighborhood node transitions effectively between residential and nonresidential uses and includes safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access for nearby residents. Sites also effectively minimize the impact of cut-through traffic on nearby neighborhood streets by orienting vehicle access, circulation, etc. away from the neighborhood.” The proposal as submitted by JPM South Development does not meet this standard. The 2035 CP also states that “Town officials should resist any future land use changes or rezoning requests for residential development within any of the neighborhood nodes identified on the Growth Framework Map.” If this proposal moves forward, the traffic impact will be disastrous. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) estimates that Forestville Village will generate 5,570 vehicles per day. The site boundary roads are Lawson Ridge Road, Forestville Road, and Old Knight Road. Lawson Ridge Road is an access road for Forestville Elementary School. Forestville Road and Old Knight Road are two-lane farm to market type roads. The TIA states the current Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Forestville Road and Old Knight Road are 3,400 and 6,800, respectively. The additional 5,570 vehicles per day is significant! The TIA studied seven (7) area intersections. The Conclusions section of the report states in part: “All the study area intersections … are expected to operate at acceptable levels-of-service under existing and future year conditions with the exception of the intersections listed below.”:
- Horton Road / Smithfield Road and Forestville Road
- Forestville Road and Old Knight Road
- Old Knight Road and US Highway 64 Business
- Forestville Road and Lawson Ridge Road / Cassia Lane
- Old Knight Road and Bryan Chalk Lane
Five (5) of the seven (7) intersections studied will not operate at acceptable levels-of-service! Forestville Village Site Drive 1 intersects with Lawson Ridge Road which has elementary school traffic and pedestrians (children). This will create a high-risk situation for the safety of the students. The increase in traffic at Forestville Road and Lawson Ridge Road / Cassia Lane will create cut-through traffic through Magnolia Place and Edenburghs Keep Subdivisions to Smithfield Road. Forestville Village Site Drive 3 located approximately 600’ east of Pebblebrook Drive is designed as a right turn only which will direct all egress traffic towards Pebblebrook Drive. This will also invite cut-through traffic on Pebblebrook Drive and Maplewood Drive to Knightdale Boulevard. Pebblebrook and Maplewood Subdivisions do not have sidewalks. Residents walk, run, and bicycle with their children and pets. Cut-through traffic on these roads will create a hazardous situation and threaten the quality of life we currently experience. The TIA confirms that the proposed high-density development is not suitable for this location. I have heard it said that the 2035 CP is used as a “playbook” and that the Town should be able to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. The Playbook on page 7 of the 2035 CP also states that “Some parts of the document – things like the community vision, guiding principles, and Growth Framework Map – should remain constant and keep Knightdale on a focused path for success”. The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods would welcome a true Neighborhood Node developed on this site as indicated in the 2035 CP. I would also point out that the NCDOT 2020-2029 Current State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes no projects to improve / widen any local state-maintained roads in Knightdale. The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) 2045 Adopted Plan does include road improvement projects but not until 2035 for Smithfield Road and Forestville Road Extension and then Old Knight Road in 2045. Per www.ncdemography.org, Knightdale is one of the fastest growing municipalities in North Carolina. If Knightdale is to continue this rate of growth, town leaders must do more to push local road improvement projects.
Joe Bryan
206 Maplewood Drive
04/16/2021
Joe Brown
1006 Belfry Dr.
04/16/2021
Janet Doll
118 Mingocrest Dr.
04/16/2021
Kristen Shamblin
200 Maplewood Dr.
04/16/2021
Michael Roten
4602 Sir Barton Dr.
04/16/2021
Kay Green
203 Breckenridge Dr
04/13/2021
Dale Medlin
1108 Edenburghs Keep Dr.
04/05/2021
312 Knollcrest Dr.
03/18/2021
I am writing to oppose the rezoning proposals. There are several reasons why I oppose the development plans. A few of these reasons are: The Gentrification occurring in SE/downtown Raleigh is forcing disinvested geographical change and relocating lower income residents to counties offering lower housing costs. With no offense to them, am considering current home values, and in anticipation of where the home value should be, I am not in favor of the rezoning. This will also result in overcrowded schools, decrease in quality of education. Thank you for listening to my concerns. I ask that you vote 'NO' on these proposals.
Rachel Ogle
02/22/2021
Don Topps
99 Maplewood Dr.
02/20/2021
This is Don Topps, one of the representatives of the Maplewood Homeowners Association, one of the neighborhoods opposing the Forestville Village rezoning proposal. Your response to Mr. Shermer was very concise and informative. These points contained in your response are the exact reasons that we oppose the JPM South development plan and rezoning request. An owner has the right to develop his/her property provided it meets all applicable laws and local plans. Likewise, surrounding property owners should expect well designed and orderly development around them. As evident with Knightdale’s significant growth, our community continues to be attractive to developers as well as individuals and families looking to move here. The Town Council’s goal is to create a community that is safe, attractive, and enjoyable for all current and future residents. Knightdale has dedicated significant resources in creating a strategic vision and comprehensive land use plan to ensure that we make the informed and thoughtful decisions. You are 100 percent correct when you stated that requests to develop land are often a challenging process for local governments. This process can become very emotional on all sides, which makes it very difficult to make the correct decisions. That is why the previous and current Council and Staff had the wisdom to invest heavily in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The advantage to this was to be able to take the time to make smart long range plans for the benefit of current and future residents of Knightdale in a calm and orderly environment. In a way, the 2035 Comprehensive Plan is like Knightdale's "Constitution." It lays out how the vision of future development should unfold and gives the Council and Staff the guidelines and framework within to approve or reject rezoning requests and proposed developments. A proposal can meet the technical requirements based on applicable laws and codes, but if it does not fit into the vision of orderly development outlined in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, it should and must be rejected. Every resident in Knightdale is required to "fit" into their neighborhood, community and Town by maintaining their property, making improvements in accordance with Town plans,guidelines and requirements. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan was designed to make sure that new developments "fit". This development proposal does not "fit". The contents of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan states that future Council and Staff should resist the urge to approve rezoning requests that are contrary to the Neighborhood Node Concept for this exact reason. The proposal by JPM South, as drawn, should give us all pause to the obvious consequences if this request is approved. They have been well enumerated during this process. When you see a high density development proposal such as this, you can really appreciate the wisdom in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan that was designed to provide for more congruous development in regards to surrounding neighborhoods, schools and roadways. This proposal does not pass that test, nor the common sense test of what immediate and long range consequences would be. Any smart company, such as JPM South, will do what they can to maximize their return on investment. If this is what is driving the density of this development, it is not the Town's responsibility to wedge this into such a tight area that does not fit the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. It is not our position to offer alternatives, but if they truly want to fit into the Plan for Knightdale, this is not the right development. While I understand that there is a required process that must be followed, I urge the Council and Staff to keep your eye on the 2035 Comprehensive Plan "ball" and follow the wisdom laid out in the plan. The main stakeholders in Maplewood, Magnolia Place, Edinburgh's Keep, Pebblebrook, surrounding residents and other citizens of Knightdale will continue to mount vigorous opposition to the rezoning request and the proposed Forestville Village development based on our "Constitution" of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, concerns for the quality of life for everyone in Knightdale, and the safety of our children. I urge you all to do the same during this process.
Stan Harward
302 Pebblebrook Dr.
02/20/2021
This is Stan Harward, a resident of Maplewood Subdivision. I, as other Knightdale citizens in Maplewood, Pebblebrook, Magnolia Place, and Edenburghs Keep, oppose the proposed rezoning for Forestville Village. I agree with all points previously made by my neighbors. I want to focus on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Ramey Kemp Associates. There is plenty of data to comprehend in the 75-page TIA. I will try to summarize as I understand it. The proposed development, anticipated to be completed in 2025, is estimated to generate 5,570 vehicles per day. The main roads to receive this traffic are Forestville Road and Old Knight Road. Current Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Forestville Road west of Old Knight Road is 3,400 and Old Knight Road north of US Highway 64 Business is 6,800 (2015 AADT). The increase of 5,570 vehicles per day is significant. The study analyses traffic conditions during the weekday AM (7:00 – 9:00 AM), school PM (2:00 – 4:00 PM), and weekday PM (4:00 – 6:00 PM) peak hours for the following scenarios:
- Existing (2019)
- Background (2026)
- Combined (2026)
- Combined (2026) with Improvements
- Future (2035)
The study area for the TIA consists of the following existing intersections:Horton Road / Smithfield Road and Forestville Road
- Forestville Road and Old Knight Road
- Old Knight Road and US Highway 64 Business
- Forestville Road and Lawson Ridge Road / Cassia Lane
- Forestville Road and Pebblebrook Drive
- Forestville Road and Western Church Driveway
- Old Knight Road and Bryan Chalk Lane
The TIA states intersections were analyzed using the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM defines capacity as “the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions”. Level of service (LOS) is a term used to represent different driving conditions and is defined as a “qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and/or passengers”. LOS varies from Level “A” representing free flow, to Level “F” where breakdown conditions are evident. The TIA includes twenty pages of capacity analysis with tables presenting the various scenarios, peak hour periods, and Level Of Service for the study area intersections. TIA Section 9. Conclusions, Intersections Capacity Analysis Summary states: “All the study area intersections (including the proposed site driveways) are expected to operate at acceptable levels-of-service under existing and future year conditions with the exception of the intersections listed below.”:
- Horton Road / Smithfield Road and Forestville Road
“Capacity analysis of combined (2026) traffic conditions indicates that the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F during the weekday AM peak hour …”
- Forestville Road and Old Knight Road
“Capacity analysis of existing (2019), background (2026), and combined (2026) traffic conditions indicates the minor-street approach is expected to operate at LOS F during all peak hours with the exception of the school PM peak hour …” “Under future (2035) conditions, with the recommended developer improvements, the subject intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS F during the weekday AM peak hour...”
- Old Knight Road and US Highway 64 Business
“Under background (2026) and combined (2026) traffic conditions, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS F during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours and LOS D during the school PM peak hour. Under future (2035) traffic conditions, the intersection is expected to operate at an overall LOS of F during all peak hours analyzed.”
- Forestville Road and Lawson Ridge Road / Cassia Lane
“Capacity analysis of combined (2026) conditions indicates that the minor-street approaches are expected to degrade to LOS E or F during the weekday AM and school PM peak hours…”
- Old Knight Road and Bryan Chalk Lane
“Under future (2035) conditions the minor-street approach is expected to operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour.”
The recommended improvements by the developer amounts to adding a few turn lanes at the Forestville Road and Old Knight Road intersection which will do little to improve the capacity of Forestville Road or Old Knight Road. The TIA also included a statement for future roadway improvements. “Based on coordination with the NCDOT and the Town, it was determined there were no future roadway improvements to consider for this study.” I confirmed this by reviewing the NCDOT 2020-2029 Current State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Based on the conclusions of the Traffic Impact Analysis and the unacceptable level of service for the intersections above, the proposed development is not suitable for this location. One last note, during the neighborhood meeting of February 11, 2021, a statement was made that on-street parking was being considered for Forestville Road which is maintained by NCDOT. North Carolina General Statute 20-161 prohibits parking on a state maintained road. Paragraph (a1) states “No person shall park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main-traveled portion of any highway or highway bridge with the speed limit posted 45 miles per hour or greater unless the vehicle is disabled to such as extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving the vehicle upon the paved or main-traveled portion of the highway or highway bridge.”
Tim Shermer
101 Beechwood Court
02/17/2021
I am Tim Shermer and live at 101 Beechwood Court, the Pebblebrook Neighborhood in Knightdale. I believe that Pebblebrook is the oldest neighborhood outside the core of downtown/old town Knightdale. I have lived in Knightdale for 35 years and Wake County 42 years. I contact you today concerning proposed rezoning of land along Forestville Road for the development of Forestville Village by JPM South. Many of you will remember me as the neighborhood leader in Pebblebrook, as we opposed the previous rezoning request by Meritage Homes of the Carolinas in 2019-2020. I give you notice that again the residents of Pebblebrook Neighborhood adamantly oppose the rezoning of the two plots of land owned by the Suggs Family and the Town of Knightdale for high density residential housing to be known as Forestville Village. I possess and will furnish to the Town Clerk signatures of 100% of the residences in Pebblebrook that oppose this rezoning request. Our opposition here in Pebblebrook is based on the reasons that I present and explain below.
Our first reason for opposition involves following the Knightdale 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The approximately 53 acres on the two plots of land are currently zoned Rural Transition (R/T). These two plots combined are also designated in the 2035 Knightdale Comprehensive Plan as a Neighborhood Node. This is defined in the plan to provide goods and services to surrounding neighborhoods, providing operations that are low intensity, be unobtrusive, and at a scale and design compatible with nearby residential development. The plan goes on to say that this concept provides for safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists, and further minimize cut through traffic and orient vehicle access and circulation away from the neighborhoods. (Page 53 of the Knightdale 2035 Comprehensive Plan). From the virtual Neighborhood Meeting held on 11 February 2021, JPM South was introduced as the new developer for Forestville Village. With assistance from ESP Associates, an 18 page power point presentation was reviewed with residents from the surrounding impacted area, to include the Pebblebrook, Maplewood, Magnolia Place, and Edinburghs Keep neighborhoods, as well as several Knightdale citizens that live along Forestville Road and outlying areas. The take away for all of us was basically the same as had been presented by Meritage Homes in 2019-2020. That is to develop a high density residential neighborhood to include 280 single family homes and town homes. High density residential development for these plots of land is not defined in the Knightdale 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This proposal for rezoning as such is wrong and should be stopped immediately.
Our second reason for opposition pertains to the large increase in traffic that would occur with such development. With a proposed 280 residences, you may conclude an increase in vehicles present in the area at between 500-600. This is absolutely ludicrous with Forestville Road and Old Knight Road being two lane highways and the use of Lawson Ridge Road as an entry/exit for Forestville Village. The safety of children, students, pedestrians, school staff, parents, school buses, sports participants and their families during the entire week and weekend would be jeopardized with this influx of vehicles. We understand from the meeting that the developer would be working to widen Forestville Road, but we heard nothing about Old Knight Road or Lawson Ridge Road. To whose expense of property would this fall, as far as property being taken for such work? Also, from past transportation and highway meetings, how is the State going to be involved with this since Forestville Road is a State highway? Previously, Meritage Homes had removed from their proposal on-street parking along Forestville Road for Forestville Village. Now we hear from ESP that they are considering re-implementing on-street parking. Bad idea! There are still going to be horrific traffic impacts from this many vehicles for all four neighborhoods and surrounding Forestville Road residents, as well as the schools. As requested, the access into Pebblebrook was removed with the Meritage Homes plan and JPM South/ESP Associates claim that this will continue to be the case per covenants of Forestville Village. That leaves two entry/exit points, Old Knight Road near the high school entrance and Lawson Ridge Road that goes directly into the elementary school and recreation center. Again, bad idea! With Lawson Ridge Road handling such traffic, now Magnolia Place and Edinburghs Keep would get a huge amount of cut through traffic. We in Pebblebrook and Maplewood are not convinced that cut through traffic will be hindered for us. Forestville Village commuters would come through our neighborhoods to avoid congestion on Old Knight Road at Knightdale Boulevard, as well as to avoid the traffic light at Forestville Road and Smithfield Road, as well as Lockhart Elementary School. Once again, bad idea! I would add that the street infrastructure for Pebblebrook and Maplewood does not have sidewalks or curb and gutter. Any amount of extra traffic such as the Forestville Village project would quickly breakdown these roadways, and most importantly present negative traffic safety issues for our neighborhoods' children, walkers, runners, and bicyclists. When the Forestville Village rezoning proposal started in late 2019, our neighborhoods were notified, met with the developer, and began our opposition to this plan then. On numerous occasions, I have met, had telephone conversations, and emailed Town Staff about the Forestville Village project. I was adamantly told by one Town planner in early 2020 that in reference to high density residential development on these plots of land, and I paraphrase, 'This is the way of Knightdale, of Wake County, of North Carolina. The County is growing fast and this is best and only way to provide affordable housing.' When I further questioned this, he finally said 'That's the way it is and that it was "a done deal", all Town Departments had signed off on the plan and it would be approved by Town Council.' In May 2020, I had a telephone conversation with former Mayor James Roberson. Upon hearing our concerns and what I was told by a member of staff, he relayed that these comments were not the case and that the Forestville Village rezoning would not be pushed through without proper and diligent review. A question that arises would be that if the Knightdale 2035 Comprehensive Plan is what Town Leaders and Town Staff utilize to guide and meet development priorities, then how did this issue get to this point? The request does not meet the definition, objectives, and requirements of the 2035 Plan. Should Town Staff have stopped this process even as far back as 2019 with Meritage Homes? It appears to be wasted time and effort on the part of our Town.
The four neighborhoods, Pebblebrook, Maplewood, Magnolia Place, and Edinburghs Keep, as well as surrounding residents along Forestville Road implore you stringently to review this proposal for rezoning. We ask that you vote against the rezoning of these two plots of land to high density residential use. We ask that you do the right thing and follow the Knightdale 2035 Comprehensive Plan. All of you were either on the Town Council or a member of the Land Use Review Board, and supported and voted acceptance of the plan. Over $150,000 in taxpayer money, as well as Town Staff time (salaries) were used to develop the plan. Within the plan, it is stated that Town Officials should avoid "short sighted" decisions to modify the plan. (Page 7 of the Knightdale 2035 Comprehensive Plan). Again, what has changed since August 2018 to go from a Neighborhood Node to high density residential development of this area? Please be responsible, ethical, and honorable, performing due diligence in reviewing and voting against this rezoning. We again ask that you listen to our concerns, do the right thing, and vote against the rezoning for Forestville Village. You have this opportunity on 22 February 2021 when the plan will be submitted for initial application. Please stop it at that time.
Burt Willis
1002 Edenburghs Keep Dr.
02/12/2021
I hope you folks didn't get sold another bill of goods like you did with the "shopping center" down by Sheetz, with the Forestville Road proposal. It doesn't take much consideration to conclude that what is proposed is another "concentration camp" that will clog our streets and have vehicles parked along Forestville road because of a lack of on site parking. This is exactly what we refused to accept with the previous proposal. The property is simply too small to support the density proposed. I guess that our town fathers need to be reminded that this is not Raleigh and I don't think our residents want to be another Raleigh.
Marvin Hillman
1201 Cassia Ln.
02/02/2021
Dear President Myers. I just received a letter from ESP Associated announcing a community meeting for 11-Feb-2021. This is in the matter of your proposal for the development of the property located in Knightdale, North Carolina, along Forestville Road. As a businessman and the head of your company it is natural for you to seek profitable opportunities for the continuance and growth of your company. I understand this. But it is also your responsibility to carefully choose projects that will result in a proper return on your investment (ROI) as well as projects that will enhance the reputation and standing of your firm in the long term. Given that, I would ask you to consider, or reconsider as the case may be, whether this project meets these goals. Let me share with you why I think that your ROI may not be as favorable as you might first think and also why this project could tarnish your reputation. Here are some facts that will make this project more difficult for you – things that will consume more time and money than you anticipate and therefore adversely affect ROI:
- You will find great community resistance to your development and the rezoning proposal. Surrounding neighborhoods, such as Pebblebrook, Maplewood, Edensburghs Keep, Magnolia Place and others, all lined up to oppose this same proposal last year when another developer, Meritage Homes, made the same proposal you are making now.
- There is a grass roots organization already well positioned to oppose rezoning. This organization produced signed petitions opposing the rezoning from nearly 100% of the Knightdale citizens in the neighboring subdivisions and very good support from Knightdale citizens in the broader community.
- Knightdale Town Council is composed of elected officials who serve at the pleasure of the electorate, an electorate who do not want to see this rezoning proposal go forward. Therefore, Town Council support for this proposal is not guaranteed especially in the face of such of high community opposition. Will the Town Council ignore this community opposition since it is at their peril? Will they also ignore the Knightdale 2035 Comprehensive Plan for our community? It seems foolish to go against the same people whose support is needed for reelection.
- The 2035 Comprehensive Plan plan was professionally developed and crafted from the joint input of the Town Council, the Knightdale Planning Department and Knightdale citizens at large. There are very good reasons why the existing zoning is as it is. Community leaders do not think it needs to be changed. The plan specifically warns that Town officials should avoid short-sighted decisions to modify the plan. The citizens of Knightdale will hold our elected officials accountable for any unfavorable decisions they make in this regard.
- Knightdale already has a glut of low cost housing which does not bode well for sales of the housing units in your plan. Sources like Realtor.com report that Knightdale is a ‘Buyers market’ which supports my claim of excess low cost housing in Knightdale at this time. Due to Covid 19, I think if more people were willing to have face-to-face meetings (showings) with potential buyers and realtors, there would actually be more homes on the market than exist now.
- The Covid 19 pandemic has had a severe impact on the financial well being of potential home buyers, especially in the price range you are targeting in your proposal. Households are struggling just to put food on the table in this damaged, infected economy. Buying a townhome or a house is not within their reach. I honestly believe that you would find more potential buyers should you choose to build more up-scale housing instead of the compact, high density housing you have planned. The same would be true for senior living housing which Knightdale has none!
- Meritage Homes invested a lot of time and money into trying to do what you are considering now and failed. Nothing has changed since their failure last year. It suggests that Meritage Homes saw the handwriting on the wall and heeded it.
Now as to the reputation of JPM South Development and how it may be damaged by bringing this development to fruition, consider this:
- The citizens of Knightdale know that this development will damage the quality of life in Knightdale. This development will bring high traffic congestion, reduce pedestrian safety in our neighborhood streets and at our community schools, expose the lack of resources for needed highway improvements, have a detrimental impact on schools & school overcrowding, place excessive demand on strained town services, have a negative impact on our ecology, and not the least of all, have an unfavorable impact on property values in existing neighborhoods.
- JPM South will forever be remembered as the progenitor of this harm to our community and our quality of life.
- I think it is safe to say that, just as in the case of Meritage Homes, many stories about the harm JPM South may inflicted on us will appear in social media such as Facebook, Instagram and Nextdoor as these are tools that have been used by the rezoning opposition parties in the past.
As you may have guessed, I am opposed to the rezoning proposal which will be presented at the upcoming meeting. I will be attending this meeting as will others who oppose rezoning and we will be happy to have a dialog with you regarding our many concerns. Please make this email a recorded part of the meeting summary to be submitted to the Town staff and our elected officials. I hope you will take this input seriously and make sure that you are making the right decision for both JPM South and the Town of Knightdale before going forward.