City Council Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order this 04/20/2026 zoning meeting of the Charlotte City Council. My name is Ed Driggs. I am the District 7 council member, and I chair the Transportation Planning and Development Committee. And in that capacity, I am sitting in this chair tonight. We will begin with introductions, starting with Ms. Johnson.

Good evening. I'm Renee Johnson, and I'm honored to represent District 4.

Good evening. I'm JD Masueta Arias, and I proudly represent the East Side District 5.

Good evening. Luana Mayfield, council member at large.

Malcolm Graham, District 2.

Kimberly Owens, District 6.

Good evening, everyone. James Mitchell, mayor Proteo.

Ed Driggs, District 7.

Allison Craig, deputy city manager.

Good evening, and welcome back, miss Johnson. Dante Anderson, District 1.

Good evening, Joy Mayo, representing District 3.

Good evening. Temple Archmira at large.

Teri Hakeler Gray senior assistant city attorney.

Billy Tons deputy city clerk.

So, I'm leaving with the adjourned.

Thank you. We will begin our meeting with an invocation, expressions and inspiration followed by Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation by a council member is intended to solemnize our proceedings. We celebrate the religious diversity of our community, including those without a religious faith. Tonight, Council Member Mayfield will give our invocation.

For those who choose to participate, I ask for you to close your eyes. Father, mother God, creator of all, we come before you humbly first to say thank you. Thank you for allowing us to be of service on this dais. Thank you for allowing us to receive all the information that is provided to us through community. Thank you for allowing us to understand the readings that are presented to us by staff and understand through us showing up in neighborhood and community the true impact to the decisions that we make, knowing that whether we are district representative, whether we are at large, our decisions impact our entire city, which is growing rapidly.

I ask for you to continue to guide us, to give us the strength for when it is a no, to give us the strength for when it is a yes, to give us the strength for when we honestly don't know what the right answer is, but we are making a decision that is to the best of our ability as we represent our community. Continue to guide us and keep us. Cover our staff. Cover our first responders. Cover our neighbors because there are so many that are in hurt and in pain at this time. All of this, I ask in the name of your son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Amen.

Thank you. Now please join us in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. I pledge

allegiance to the flag of

The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, So as you know, tonight is a zoning meeting, and I would like to start with an explanation of our zoning process. The process begins with applications submitted to planning staff for review. Cases of two types are on the agenda tonight: decisions and hearings. Decisions on cases for which a public hearing was previously held where there is no further comment. The comment occurs during the hearing.

Hearings. Anyone who wished to speak at a hearing is asked to see the clerk before the start of the hearing. So, you can sign up with the clerk, but you must do so before the hearing in question starts. We then have a staff presentation, and after that, the petitioner and those in favor get three minutes combined to present their case unless there are opponents to sign up to speak or if staff is in opposition, in which case the petitioner gets ten minutes, opponents get ten minutes, and petitioner gets a two minute rebuttal. If no one is opposed or signed up to speak, staff provides a short presentation.

The public hearing is then closed, and the next public hearing is opened. After that, the petition goes to the zoning committee of the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. And at this point, I would like to introduce, the zoning committee chair for introductions of the members. Mister Welton.

Thank you very much, council member Driggs. My name is Douglas Say Welton. I am the chairman of the zoning committee of the planning commission. Allow me to introduce my fellow committee members. They include Melissa Gaston, Aaron Shaw, Theresa McDonald, Robin Stewart, Carolyn Millen, and Michael Caprioli.

The zoning committee will meet on Tuesday, May 5 at 05:30PM. At that meeting, the zoning committee will discuss and make recommendations on the petitions that have a public hearing here tonight. The public is welcome to that meeting, but please note it is not a continuation of the public hearing that is being held here tonight. Prior to that meeting, you're welcome to contact us and provide input. You can find contact information and information about each one of the petitions at the city's website at charlotteplanning.org. Thank you very much, Mr. Driggs. It is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Welton. So before we get into the items in our agenda tonight, we're gonna consider deferrals and withdrawals that have been requested. And Mr. Patton will tell us what those are. I hope. Excuse

me. Thank you. Updates on deferrals, right? Did I hear you correctly? Okay. So we did have several of those. First we'll start with decisions. We did have item number eight which is actually a withdrawal of the petition. Item number 9202035 by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority. That's a decision deferring to May 18 as well as item number twelve, twenty twenty five zero eight six, Penns Road Development LLC, also deferring their decision to May 18.

Item fourteen, twenty twenty five zero two seven Mission City Church and Freedom Communities requesting a deferral of their public hearing to May 18. Item fifteen, twenty twenty five one two zero by American Tower Asset deferring their hearing to May 18 and item number 20 143 by Panorama Development LLC also requesting a deferral of their hearing to May 18. Just one point of clarification. Item eight is petition twenty twenty five zero nine four by ATAPCO Properties. Again, that is an actual withdrawal of their petition.

That's all. You, mister Pettin. Do I have a motion?

For clarification because mister Petten went through that pretty quickly and that last comment because unfortunately my iPad is just moving slow with trying to catch up. What was that last one that you mentioned?

I just clarified the the first item I read was a withdrawal and it was item number 8202594 by TAPCO Properties.

Thank you.

Yes. So do I have a motion to approve the proposed withdrawals and deferrals? So move.

Second. All

in favor?

Aye.

All right, that's done. Good. So we now move on to the decisions in our agenda. And I will mention here we have consent agenda items and then we have individual items. Consent agenda items numbers three through seven may be considered in one motion except for those pulled by a council member. Please note that these petitions meet the following criteria: they had no public opposition to the petition at hearing Staff recommends approval. Zoning committee recommends approval. And there were no changes after the zoning committee's recommendation. So, colleagues, you can see the consent items on your agenda. Are there any consent agenda items council would like to pull for question or comment or a separate vote?

Ms. Johnson. Item number three, please.

Okay. Yes. No one else. All right. In which case, may I have a motion to approve the following petitions and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency for each of these petitions as they appear on our agenda as the council's own. Item four, petition 202032 by Hopper Communities Inc. Item five, petition twenty twenty five-one 138 by Coral Reef Investment Properties. Item six, petition twenty twenty five-one hundred thirty nine by Everett Express. And item seven, petition twenty twenty five-one hundred forty by Dolores Howard Leith.

Move for approval.

Second.

No discussion. All in favor? Okay. That covers our consent agenda. Yes, that's right.

So now we need to consider item three. Item three is rezoning petition 20202 by Lincoln Property Company. Approximately 44.02 acres located South Of Old Statesville Road, South Of Vance Davis Drive and North Of Reams Road in the ETJ County Commission District 1, it's Powell, and the closest city council district is 4, Ms. Johnson. Current zoning, OFC, Office Flex Campus, and MUDD CD, mixed use development conditional.

Proposed zoning, ML one CD manufacturing enlistees, Six one conditional zoning committee recommends six zero to approve. Staff recommends approval of this petition. So I will ask for a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own. So moved. Second. Alright. Any discussion? Yes, please. Miss Johnson.

Thank you. I had some questions for staff either staff or the developer. The question I had was about the native trees. We've all heard we've all heard from commissioner Elaine Powell. Mhmm. So I did want to follow-up. There's a commitment to native trees, and I wanna know if that commitment is just for the buffer or for the entire property.

So our understanding is all required buffers that are on the site would be planted with native species as approved by urban forestry.

So all required buffers? Yes. So will there be trees outside of the buffers in in the development?

There may be with parking lot trees or some street trees, but those would also have to be per the approved species list through urban forestry.

And it's my understanding that we have a list of invasive species.

We have a list of approved species but it doesn't contain invasive, it just contains the ones that are approved for planting.

One of the concerns that I know she had was if we're not requiring native trees on the entire property, that it could be counterproductive because the other trees, I guess, may be counterproductive to the native trees.

I don't know if I would understand how to fully respond, but I don't think there would be a conflict because the trees in the approved list should be planted in accordance with what urban forestry is approved for plantings across the site. So I don't think there'd be a mix of invasive trees. There's not invasive trees allowed that would be planted on-site. So they should all be able to coexist, but they may be the ones in the buffer would be against specific to those native species and the other trees on the site could just be done through the approved urban forestry list.

Okay. And do we know how do we know the size of the buffers? The

buffer for the space along where the county has property just to the south of the site is a required Class A landscape yard and they would actually increase the actual plantings in that by 10% of that type A standard. I think that is 25 feet for that one. Class A is just under 100. That would be a fairly large buffer to that site.

Just under a 100?

Yes. Okay. And are data centers included in the place types or in the allowed

They are prohibited as a use per the conditional plan.

Okay. That's all I have for now. Thank you.

Mhmm. Miss Mayfield.

Thank you, council member Drakes. And I mister Patton, I think you did answer it. So what they identify as in the area adjoining the parcel identified as the Mecklenburg County's Alexandria Historic Site. The petitioner proposes to install the enhanced landscape. They don't mention a number in this language, but what you're what you just stated is according to our language, it will be just under a 100?

The class a. Yeah.

For class a. Because it doesn't clarify in the language that they submitted in the proposed request details. It just states the petitioner proposes to install an enhanced landscape buffer as illustrated on the rezoning plan. This buffer will utilize native plant species and will exceed the standard type a buffer requirements along the old Statesville Road frontage, but it doesn't actually give me a number. But according to your understanding, when this move forward, because it's to exceed standard a, it is a buffer that would be considerable.

Yeah. So it ranges from about 91 feet down to 81 feet in its smallest area. And the Class A requirements are going to be so let's say you have to plant 25 trees in Class A, I'm just throwing a number out there, they're going go 10% beyond that. So if it requires 100 trees, they would get 110% or 110 trees. So they're going to plant more trees in that 91 feet, 81 feet than are normally required.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.

Yes, ma'am.

And one last piece, Mr. Dredge. Councilmember Johnson, welcome back. We have missed you. Thank

you. Bravo.

It's still early.

I was just gonna comment on Renee's question about the native trees. Random know a lot about trees based on where I work. Just thinking back on a lot of our trees are naturalized in this area. They've been in the area for hundreds of years. With climate change right now, we know that some of our naturalized trees are actually doing better than some of our native trees. So just I'm I'm sure that whoever the developers are have done a good job with that, and they're following the regulations of the city. Our urban forestry department is is stellar, so very excited to see the work that they are continuing to hold our developers accountable for doing right by the environment. I just wanted to put that

out there. Thank you.

There being no further comment and a motion having been made and seconded, all in favor? Okay, that concludes our consent agenda items. We will now move to the non consent decisions, and I will talk about those just for a second. In these, the council votes to approve or deny the petition. It takes six votes to adopt or take any action. And normally, the mayor can break a tie, but she's not here. So if we have a tie, it's a tie. If there's a motion to deny, there must be a corresponding consistency statement read by counsel. Vote on the petition and the statement of consistency is one motion. If a motion to approve or deny does not receive six votes, no action is taken and counsel can then vote to defer action on the petition.

So moving into our decisions, item eight is deferred. Item nine is deferred. So we have item 10. Item 10 is Reserving Petition twenty twenty five zero twenty one by Harold Jordan, approximately 1.24 acres located East of EWT Harris Boulevard and North of Idlewild Road and South Of Meadow Lane Meadowdale Lane in Council District 5, mister Marsuera Arias' district. Current zoning is N one B, Neighborhood 1 B.

Proposed zoning is NCCD, neighborhood center conditional. The zoning committee voted five to one to recommend denial of this petition. Staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form. So, I guess I will ask, is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own? Motion to deny.

Second. Second.

Alright, so we have a motion to deny. In this case, we are not actually denying the zoning committee recommendation because we're actually voting in accordance with the recommendation of the zoning committee. So in that case, I will ask if there is any discussion on the motion.

Hello? Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Drake. Well, this petition is inconsistent with the 24 policy map. Staff as well as the zoning committee denied it. And with that, I will support the denial motion. Thank you.

Yes. Mister Massuerre, Arias. Thank you, council member Driggs. I am motioning to deny this petition and to support staff's recommendation because we are currently saturated with gas stations in District 5. And like I've mentioned to my colleagues before, I think we need more amenities and more third spaces for community to gather.

And as we have approved a sales tax that will fund more public transportation options, we need to become a less car reliant city and really embrace walking ten minute neighborhoods, as well as buses and rail and transportation. And so those are the reasons to enhance the quality of life for District 5 residents that I'm motioning to deny this petition.

Thank you. There is no further discussion. The motion having been made is seconded. All in favor of the motion to deny? Is Yes. The opposed? That is unanimous. Okay. I understand. Next is rezoning petition sorry, agenda item 11, rezoning petition twenty twenty five zero three o by Triant Advisors LLC.

Approximately 8.65 acres located on the North Side of Mount Holly Huntersville Road, East of Roswell's Ferry Road and now South of Dunn Commons Parkway in Council District 2, mister Graham's district. Current zoning is N 1 A, Neighborhood 1 A, proposed zoning N 2 B C D, Neighborhood 2 B conditional. Zoning committee recommendation is six zero in support to approve. Staff recommends approval of this petition. So is there a motion

Changes after zoning.

I trust those sorry. Changes after zoning.

I do that before All the right. So this is an item where there were changes after the zoning committee met, and therefore, we need to vote as to whether those changes warrant sending it back to zoning committee. And it takes a super majority vote not to send it back. So, mister Petten, could you tell us what the changes are?

Twenty twenty five-thirty did make changes after zoning committee's recommendation and they are as follows they did intersection improvements to Rosselle Stray Road and Mount Holly Huntersville Road They increased their commitment in their contribution from $50,000 to $100,000 to be applied toward future intersection improvements at that intersection of Roswell's Ferry Mt. Holly Huntersville and or other mobility improvements identified in the area. They also reduced their driveways on Mt. Holly Huntersville Road from two driveways to one. They added additional building material standards for a minimum of 60% exterior wall area, which would be constructed of brick or stone on building facades that front Mount Holly Huntersville Road and they did prohibit vinyl and aluminum as a primary building material.

And also enhanced parking requirements and committed to providing off street visitor parking within the site as well as committed to electric vehicle charging infrastructure as an option to homebuyers. Staff believes that the changes are minor and do not warrant additional review by the zoning committee. We'll take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Pettin. Do I have a motion not to send back to the zoning committee? So moved. Second. All in favor? Okay. That passes. So, is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears on our agendas and on the screen as counsel's own?

Motion to deny.

Second. Okay.

We have a motion to deny and a second. Any discussion? Mister Graham.

Thank you very much, council member Draghes. This has been a petition that has been in front of, certainly in front of me and others for well over, I guess, eight, nine months that we have since I first walked the site with the petitioner as well as members of the congregation. First, let me say thank you very much to both of you for your willingness to dialogue back and forth, making concessions along the way for the last literally seven, eight months that both petitioner and the residents have been working together. However, I made a commitment about two years ago to take a different look at what's happening in the Mountain Island area, specifically relating to Mount Holly Huntersville Road with residents who have certainly organized themselves in a way to respond to some of the rapid growth that is occurring over there. In addition, not only is it rapid growth that the infrastructure is not keeping up with it, many of which are state owned roads, which creates a dilemma for a wide variety of projects in that area.

Those roads are not slated to be improved or upgraded for years. I think it's really important that as a district representative that I listen to the people and be an honest broker when items come before this council. I think I've done that. I wanna make sure that the residents over there are organized, that they have participated in a wide variety of Charlotte area plan studies and charrettes. They understand what's happening on the ground that's impacting their their neighborhoods and their communities.

And it's just not this petition. There are a number of others in the Mountain Island Lake area that feeds into Mount Holly Huntersville Road that causes much consternation for residents, neighborhood associations, and individuals who live in that particular part of the district. So I ask the council to take the lead of those individuals on the ground who's been doing the work, who understands the impact of this particular project. It's not that the residents are opposed of housing. They're opposed of housing at this location.

It's a problem some location based on Mount Holly Huntersville Road, and I urge the council to vote with me and vote no. Miss Mayfield.

Thank you, mister Joyce. As council member Graham has mentioned, this one has been a difficult conversation. I have been extremely vocal throughout the conversation regarding the impact both infrastructure wise and design wise for this project. I do want to acknowledge that, however, we had a very similar conversation regarding a project in another part of the city not too long ago that was in my colleague's district where they're having the same infrastructure challenges. I also recognize that young people today don't necessarily want a single family home.

A lot of young people are looking for access to townhomes. I do appreciate the petitioner really at the beginning addressing a number of the concerns that were identified. I know we the community would like to have a smaller number financially. That one really isn't as feasible to reduce the number. But for me, the two driveways was a major concern.

Reducing down to one, which is the one that's mainly used now is I added when identifying brick as far as the design of the structure, how it will be facing, it is honestly very difficult for I cannot say no for the sake of no. I hear and I have been in communication with the community. Y'all know I do love to say no, but most times that I say no, I have a very I have a good bit of research and information to go along with it. The infrastructure piece, although very concerning, we have to work to get our general assembly and that we as you, the community, need to help us work with the general assembly to get the support that we need back to our community. But it is very difficult for me to not support this, and I have been going back and forth, which is why I don't tell petitioners or anyone else where I'm gonna land on any particular piece.

But I do want to acknowledge and say thank you to the community for

Okay.

Actually moving the needle quite a distance and getting more for the community than what was initially identified for the beginning of this process. Thank you, Mr. Drakes. So

I don't see anybody else. I would just like to comment that I appreciate council member Graham's engagement on behalf of his constituents and his reasoning arriving at the conclusion he has. My own experience over twelve years is that denials are exceedingly rare. And here we have a case where a zoning committee approves six to nothing and staff recommends approval. So, I wouldn't advocate for approval of this, but I am not going to be on board with the denial for those procedural reasons. Unless anybody else has a comment, I will call. I'd like to clarify also this motion is a motion not to adopt the zoning committee's recommendation and and to deny the petition. Just so we're clear about that.

We'll do a separate motion if it gets all of them.

Okay. Alright? Okay. Call for the call

for the motion. Let our attorney repeat everybody say it's word of

of not not adopting the the zoning committee recommendation and denying the petition. Please raise your hand.

Yeah. What I said I'm sorry. Council member Mayfield, is that this is simply the motion to deny. So if that passes, then you will adopt the inconsistency statement.

Okay. So it's simply a motion to deny.

That was my part

of information that we typically have language when we do denials.

So we will then have a separate statement of consistency and somebody's going to read that?

If this motion passes, yes sir.

All right, so right now we're voting on denial. All in favor of denial raise your hand please. You deny. Denied, not me, yes. Okay, so we have one, two, three. That therefore does not pass.

So now, Mr. Driggs, you could entertain I

think we have a non action. You

can entertain a motion to defer or a motion to approve.

Mr. Driggs? Right. Yes. Go ahead.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the rezoning.

Second.

Okay. Any comment on that? If not, all in

favor of

Yes. The

you.

Yeah, this one's a challenging one because, you know, I am an affordable housing advocate, but I think Councilmember Graham made a great point that location does still matter. And we've talked you've heard me talk about cumulative impact for years, and Mount Holly Huntersville Road is one of those places where we do have challenge with infrastructure and with that traffic. So I appreciate the church, and I appreciate also the concessions that were made by the petitioner. But also as a district rep whose district overlaps Councilmember Graham's in many areas, I'm I'm going to listen to the district representative and also take into consideration the traffic and the cumulative impact in the big picture, And I'm going to support the district rep and in in this case. So I won't be supporting the petition.

I would have voted.

If there is no other comment The

vet has a comment.

Yes. Just to clarify that the motion made by mayor pro tem Mitchell includes adoption of zoning committee's consistency statement as your own. Yes. Just to clarify that. Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Just approved as community area policy.

In that case, all in favor please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. All opposed? All right. So that carries.

Item 12 has been deferred. So we go to item 13, rezoning petition twenty twenty five one twenty nine by True Homes, approximately five point o five acres located South Of W T Harris Boulevard, East of West Sugar Creek Road and North Of Brookstone Drive in Council District 2, mister Graham's district. Current zoning in CD, institutional conditional, proposed zoning, N2B CD, neighborhood 2B conditional. Zoning committee votes six nothing to approve. Staff recommends approval of this petition.

So this is another one where we've had changes and therefore we need to see whether it has to go back to zoning committee. Mister Patton, what are the changes?

Yes. Thank you. Twenty twenty five one twenty nine by True Homes made the following changes after zoning committee's recommendation. They changed streetscape shown would be for future back of curb location along Brookstone Drive while existing curb location would remain. Brookstone Drive is relabeled as Charlotte Land Development Standards Manual U-05A1 which is local commercial wide street type and they also made a change to say the option to develop live work dwelling units on-site was actually removed from the plan so that is no longer an option for construction of those units so no live work dwelling units are proposed on this plan after zoning committee's recommendation.

Thank you, mister Patton. Do I have a motion not to send back to the zoning committee? So

moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Oh, not to send

it back?

To send it

Not to send it back.

All Not to opposed? Okay. So that carries. And is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the

council's own? Motion to deny.

Second.

Have a motion to deny and a second. Discussion? Yes, sir.

Thank you, council member Drake, once again. This one is a tough one as well. Certainly a lot closer to home as it relates to petition 2025129 by True Homes in District 2 once again. Again, I would like to thank the congregation and the minister for really stepping forward and providing me information regarding this petition early on in the process. There were actually two community meetings, one that was somewhat well attended, but many of the residents in close proximity, I e, the Mallard Grove Homeowners Association, Brookstone Homeowners Association members as well, did not receive the initial notification about the community meeting.

A second one was planned. Those neighborhoods were able to engage, and they too have strong concerns regarding the, petition as it is written and amended tonight. Again, the residents are in favor of housing, affordable housing, but yet this is another issue with the location of the site, not the purpose of the site. The site is on the intersection of West W. T.

Harris Boulevard and East Sugar Creek. There's also a entrance into the Brookstone Mallard Grove neighborhood associations from West Sugar Creek as well as Brookstone Drive, which is part of the problem with this petition. Both of those intersection are always clearly backed up with traffic as it exists today, both in the mornings, in the afternoon. Brookstone Drive, if this petition is approved, will certainly be a cut through through the neighborhood of Brookstone and other dwellings along that drive. There is a legitimate concern of parking on Brookstone Drive, and the community, just over the last several months and years, council member Johnson worked extremely hard to eliminate parking of 18 wheelers on Brookstone Drive.

And so this development main entrance, one of two will be on Brookstone Drive, driving traffic on that street and add into the congestion that's already existing there as well. For so those reasons as well as others, I am asking the council to vote no based on traffic issues relating to that particular petition. Residents also continue to deal with congestion on West Sugar Creek and and Brookstone Drive as well as West Sugar Creek Road and Harris Boulevard. Adding more homes at this location will only make an already difficult situation worse. Again, many residents support affordable housing, but this is the wrong location and will intensify traffic and congestion at this intersection.

For that reason, and others, I urge the council, to deny this petition. Thank you.

Miss Johnson.

Thank you, mister Driggs. This one is even harder than the first one. First of all, thank you to University City United Methodist Church. I also live very, very close. You all do great work. I support the Boy Scouts. You're the Boy Scouts every you know, the cookout every year. And, actually, to be honest, I used to host a support group for loved ones of brain injury survivors in that church. That church is gracious. They do great work, and the developer does great work.

But I would be curious, and I'm not asking for an answer, how many of the congregants live in the area? We have to listen to the residents, and I've been one to push for balanced infrastructure and too much development in, you know, Mallard Creek and and W. T. Harris, and this is just not a great location. I appreciate the work that you all do.

I appreciate, again, the work of the developers. But I'm going to support the district rep on on this one, and I ask him to support me in the future, and you all and you have. So I think it's important that we stand together with the district reps as council members in order to raise the standard throughout the entire city as we're listening to our residents. So I won't be supporting this, but it's not because I don't understand the great work and your intent. And then you have God on, you know, on your sign, so you're we're like but I'm a former realtor, and location does matter, so I won't be supporting this. Thank you.

Mr. Masbara, how are you? Thank you, Mr. Driggs.

I will support the district rep on this one, because it is, if not almost the exact scenario that we faced with Wallora Lake last time, where location does matter, where density does matter, and traffic concerns do matter. And I would love my colleagues to refer to state statute on zoning that I read earlier today, that you know, if we're going to deny a zoning, a rezoning, it is because it's not going to enhance or improve the quality of life on residents, particularly if it comes to traffic congestion and other obstacles that prohibit the quality of life for residents to improve. And I can share that with you all after a meeting, but I will support the district rep on this one as well. Thank you.

So, I would like to take the quantarian position on this. The concern I have is that this exemplifies in many respects exactly what it is we are trying to achieve in terms of housing affordability, partnership with private investors, partnerships with churches. So, are issues as there are in most locations, frankly. I think if we hold out to find a location where nobody is opposed, we're not going to get much done. And, I'm concerned that by denying this or not approving this tonight, that we will discourage others who might want to follow True Home's example.

True Home is unusual and that they actually help to achieve a structure like this with a soft equity financing component. So they actively support it. The church supports it. We got a strong recommendation from Bishop Alexander and other emails in support, as well as in opposition, but it just concerns me. Zoning committee six nothing staff approves. It aligns with our policies, and we are talking not only about failing to approve it, but denying it. And I'll repeat what I just said before. I think a denial is a rare outcome for us. If you look back over the history of council votes, it is very uncommon that we actually actively deny. It's a slap.

It would be sufficient if there isn't enough support for this to pass to just let it not pass, and and express the lack of support from council that way. Denial is kind of an act of hostility. I don't see a foundation for that, given the engagement by True Holmes and the church. So, on this occasion, I I can't agree with the district rep, and I will be supporting the petition.

It's not Mr. Driggs. Anderson.

Okay. She has not spoken yet. Mr. Graham, I'll get

back to you.

Thank you, Mr. Driggs. And, I definitely appreciate the district rep's perspective and listen to the comments being made. You know, colleagues, I think this is an example of how some of our priorities become at odds with each other when it becomes time for execution. You know, a couple of years ago, the mayor stood up a faith in housing effort specifically to address affordability, to try and advance our housing stock and tap into real estate that the city doesn't have control over, but allow our faith based organizations to lend their land to help with workforce housing, housing for our first responders, teachers and others.

And this is a great effort and Ms. Mayfield has done a great job leading that charge for us. But this is another petition with under the faith in housing effort that we're discussing denying even though it has successfully gone through our rezoning process and our our planning committee has fully supported it. I understand the battle and the the the battle with the intersection of infrastructure growth and concerns with affordability and increasing housing stock. But this particular petition, an example, if it were a case study, it would be a great case study of how a faith based organization is lending their land to not only advance housing stock and create additional housing stock, but specifically for workforce individuals who we say constantly that we want to ensure they have affordability within the city of Charlotte so that they don't have to live in another community but then drive to work.

So we have tough decisions all the time. I know our decisions have impact on community and entities, but I think this is a great example. If we were to look at this petition, it would be a great case study of a faith in housing effort. Thank you, Mr. Driggs.

So Mayfield has not spoken yet, I think.

Thank you, mister Driggs. So as was noted, I've had the opportunity to lead our faith in housing initiative. Not only lead it, honestly, work with staff, and we built it from the ground up and identified what it would look like. I think there's a part of this conversation that I don't want that I know I don't want to get lost, and that is just because you can doesn't mean it's always in the right location. So we have churches throughout this city, and our religious community has been wonderful supporters.

They were doing this work long before we identified the initiative and the policy language to help move us forward. Yet at the same time, I've been saying now for over twelve years that we want residents to be able to age in place and stay in place and have community and neighborhoods, then we need to be conscious of the decisions that we're making. Is this a great project? Yeah. It is a great project.

For this location, not for me. In a different location, this will be an even better project. When we look at the way our city has grown and the developments that we collectively have approved, there are some areas where more development has happened than in other parts of the city. We can say, well, it's due to cost. Well, we've been a number of us have been around here for more than a decade.

So we can see what we thought was going to happen in development many years ago and what the reality of that is. The comments that came from community were reasonable from the residents, not just from the religious community. A lot of us don't attend the churches that's in our neighborhood. My church is twenty something minutes from where I live. I pass probably about five churches heading to my home church.

When something's happening in the community outside of showing up to volunteer, I'm not going to try to try to direct development. But when we have residents that send an email as an example to say, I experienced the day to day effects and will experience the day to day effects on this development on the community and the quality of life when we are interested in building a city, not just for those who are moving into Charlotte, but those who have been here and who have invested and who whose taxes has helped us to grow to this point. I appreciate that the community and the religious community has come out to show support with your signs. I'm more concerned about the emails, the calls, the text messages that we have received from the residents. And it is difficult because I just voted yes for project because of concessions and things that were made and because of the type of product that it is.

And I am gonna be supporting council member Graham on the no on this one. But I do want us to be very clear. I am not here for any part of the conversation where just because you say, well, it falls under Faith and Hauser, that's an automatic check. That doesn't work for me. Anyone that has ever watched more than two minutes, much two meetings, much less than ten plus years of me being on council knows that that isn't something that works for me.

I need a good project. I need our religious community to come together. I need us to create the language, but I need to be in a location that is going to build a stronger neighborhood, not create additional challenges, especially when we have a North Carolina general assembly creating language and potentially trying to create policy language where we are going to be tied in a tax rate, and we're gonna be locked in. And as we grow, we're not gonna be able to fund the infrastructure that is needed. But I do want to be very clear that there is no version where it would be okay with me for you just to put a stamp that you created to say, well, this falls under faith in housing, we should move forward.

It needs to be the right project in the right location that helps build community, not create additional infrastructure that we're gonna have to later figure out how to fund in order to balance. Thank you.

So miss Johnson hasn't spoken or you have spoken.

He did.

I've spoken. We spoke.

I'll have mister Graham next.

Thank you, mister Drakes. I just just want to reiterate that word choice matters, and just because a member or members request denial of petition, that is not hostile. Right? It's based on what we're reading, what we're hearing, how we are digesting the information, actually gone to the site and walked to site. Right? A number of homework and action steps have taken before I or any other members act for denial. It's not a hostile act. Secondly, I think miss Mayfield's correct. And and just because who can be against faith in housing? It's an initiative.

You can be against the location

Mhmm. Mhmm.

Of the faith in housing project, and I am against the location of the faith in housing project for this particular petition. West Sugar Creek and Brookstone has a congested intersection going into a neighborhood. Less than a block down, West Sugar Creek and Harris Boulevard is congested as well. The entrance to this project is on Brookstone. What we will while it may fit nice on that intersection, it will devastate the incoming traffic going to the community and creating yet a thoroughfare through the community.

Great initiative, great project, wrong location. Thank you.

Thank you. Miss Johnson.

Thank you, council member Graham, for that clarification. This is not a hostile decision nor is it a slap for us to to oppose a petition. Our residents expect us to thoughtfully consider each petition. So another thing I do want to add, and Councilmember Councilmember J. J. D, you got a lot of props, if you will, for talking about that affordable housing in District 5 a couple weeks ago or last was it last month?

Last month.

Last month.

And I know we're not gonna talk about it, but one of the things she talked about was location. And we have to build communities in our city and locations and consider that. So when we talk about affordability and affordable housing, we have to be considerate of the big picture, University City. And if you if you, led District 4, I think you did council member Mitchell years ago, our residents have been asking for restaurants, a sit down restaurant for years. We don't get sit down restaurants because we're told that we don't have the the income requirements or it's not an ideal area.

We have a wonderful piece of property in District 4 that would be ideal for a sit down restaurant, but you know what's gonna go there? A hair supply store. So we have to be cognizant of how we're growing our areas, and this is an opportunity to take a look at that. Again, it's a great project. I support affordability, but we've got to look at this from a cumulative perspective, from a location perspective, and this is just not the right fit for that area. Thank you.

Mr. Massuerre Arias. Thank you, Mr. Driggs.

I'd like to echo what my colleagues are saying. I sincerely, genuinely think this is not a hostile denial. I think that really sets us up for failure for future partnerships. I think council member Graham is very correct in terms of location. I also think that, you know, sometimes our priorities might be at odds, because policy is more complex than putting numbers and attaching it to people.

Lived experiences also matter. The quality of life that people experience every single day also matters, right? It's not black and white. There's definitely a lot of gray area that needs to be interpreted, and if you're on the ground, and if you're talking to community day in and day out, you'll understand that it's not just policy policy wonkiness or just attaching numbers to people and saying, you know, just because this is an initiative, we have to go for it. It's it's the lives of of people.

And and I don't know if my colleagues know this, but we we received overwhelmingly letters of opposition of residents who live in this neighborhood. Right? It we weren't elected, with all due respect, I love staff. We weren't elected by zoning staff. We weren't elected by the zoning committee. We weren't elected by bureaucracy. We were elected by the residents and constituents of the city Of Charlotte, and we should listen to the residents and constituents of the city of Charlotte. And right now, overwhelmingly, our inboxes are filled. So what is representative democracy if we're not listening to the people that elected in the seats to begin with?

If there is no further comment, all in favor of denial, please raise your hands. Four. All right. So that fails. Therefore, we go back to a motion to approve.

Either a motion to approve or a motion to defer.

I'd like to make a motion for approval.

Second. Second. Said no. All right, if there's no discussion, all in favor of approval, please raise your hands. One, two, 34, 5.

Six, right? Including you. Six. Okay.

All opposed. All opposed.

All All

opposed. Yes, let's make sure we get those. Thank you. So that carries. That ends our decisions.

Mr. Dukes, just need to make sure that No. Whoever made the motion, let's just make sure that it

I made the motion.

And it included the consistency statement of the zoning committee?

I was a motion to approve the petition and and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's vote. Right? Thank you.

Do got who second a motion?

Yes. Yes.

Thank you.

Alright. So we now move ahead to the hearings. Agenda item 14 is deferred. Agenda item 15 is deferred. Agenda item 16. Agenda item 16, rezoning petition 2024143

It's deferred. Deferred. It's deferred.

Oh, that's deferred as well. Yep. No one told me. Okay. Item 17.

Good. Yep. 17.

Alright. Item 17, rezoning petition twenty twenty five seventy seven by Short Development Group LLC, approximately 2.52 acres located South Of North Wendover Road, North Of Churchill Road, and East Of Wendover Hill Court in Council District 6, miss Owens District. Current zoning is N 1 A, Neighborhood 1 A. Proposed zoning is N 2 A C D, Neighborhood 2 A Conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation environment and site of building design. So it looks like mister Oliver is gonna talk to us about Members,

you have

a Yes.

Go ahead.

Thank you, counsel. 2025077 is a 2.52 acre site located along North Side of North Wendover Road, East of Randolph Road. Plan proposes the development of up to 40 multifamily townhomes on a vacant lot. The site is currently zoned N 1 A, Neighborhood 1. Proposed zoning is N 2 A C D, Neighborhood 2 conditional. Plan is not in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type. This proposal calls for the development up to 40 townhome units. A 12 foot multi use path with eight foot planning strip will be installed along North Wendover. All units will have

direct

all units fronting North Wendover have direct pedestrian connections to the sidewalk. A 10 foot class c buffer planted to class b landscape yard standards is provided where abutting the neighborhood one place type with a with an increased 15 foot setback along the western boundary next to the neighborhood one place type. Buildings abutting the street will be limited to a maximum of five units per building. Building height is capped at 48 feet, and vinyl is prohibited as a primary exterior material. While the plan is not in alignment with the policy map, it is consistent with the goals and policies of the South Middle Community Area Plan.

Community Area Plans provide information that staff uses to determine consistency with the plan and specific criteria to recommend minor map amendments to the policy map. This plan meets minor map amendment criteria to update the policy map from the neighborhood one place type to the neighborhood play two place type. And this criteria includes exceeding the minimum required acreage when combined with existing developments abutting the site. Preferred place type adjacencies, so place types that are in the area of this site, which include neighborhood two, campus, and commercial. And the site is located on our on our on an arterial road.

It has proximity to transit, and it's located in a housing gap as identified by the comprehensive plan. Plan could help facilitate the community area plan priority goals one and two, ten minute neighborhoods and neighborhood diversity and inclusion. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation, environment, and south site and building design. As the proposed n two zoning is compatible with the surrounding residential, commercial, and institutional uses. It's located along North Wendover Road, which supports the comp plan goal for placing multifamily housing along arterial roads with transit access.

Site is adjacent to existing multifamily developments. It's within half a mile of Wendover Plaza, offering convenient access to daily needs and services. And I'm happy to take any questions following the petitioner's presentation.

We have speakers signed up for and against. So, mister Penel, you have ten minutes.

Thank you, council member Triggs. Mhmm. City council, mayor pro tem, thank you for the moment this evening to present zoning petition twenty twenty five seventy seven. I'm Paul Pinnell representing Kyle Short, Short Development for a petition generally located at 600 North Wendover. Just a few slides here.

I think we're probably going to be heavy on questions after this, So I'm going to leave a lot of our time for that process after we're all done with our presentations. Just a little bit of references to the location of the site along North Windover. It's approximately zero five mile to the east of Randolph Road. Here

we go.

A little bit about the current development pattern within the area, a lot of N 2 and UR two CD. There is a predominant N 1 district with a lot of single family detached neighborhoods, existing well established N 1 neighborhoods to our south. And also across Northwindow for a few years ago, there was quite dense townhome community that was proposed, went through a rezoning process, and it's well established today. So it's directly adjacent our site. And to the east, there is an older multifamily stacked project as well.

So the current rezoning plan, there's still some work to do as Max had previously alerted alluded to. But we're happy to work continue to work with the community and and adjacent neighbors through that. I believe council may have a few questions tonight regarding topography and then also pedestrian safety along North Wendover. We can certainly talk about that. And earlier when we had our community meeting on December 6, there were some questions regarding topography and storm water and environmental impacts as well.

The next slide here that we provided community members and wanted to include in our presentation tonight shows a lot of that topography and how it will be addressed on-site. The three story townhomes which are being proposed here along Windover would be a two story townhome fronting the right of way, and it would be a basement park below. So that's one way that we're planning on addressing some pretty severe topography on-site as well. The townhomes in the rear would be a full three story product. But in doing that, we are able to include that basement parking for the units along Windover.

We're actually able to kind of tuck these units in a little better than if they were a full three story product fronting Windover. We have done a grading study. We have provided that grading study to adjacent neighbors. We do think that there will be a need for some walls on-site, but not as extensive as we had originally thought during our community meeting back in December. There are some areas of parking on-site, some surface parking, 11 parking spaces.

Those parking spaces will likely be the primary location for a retaining wall on-site. They'll probably be about five to six feet tall. Stoops along the back of the townhomes, those stoops would also help to make up the remaining grade on-site. So there's an opportunity for stoops to be raised fairly high, four feet approximately, and and those townhomes would front the green space, the existing stream on-site as well. Also with this cross section elevation illustrative, we wanted to show proximity of the proposed townhomes to the existing single family homes that are within the community to the south.

Those distances range from approximately 230 to 260 linear feet, and they are separated by stream buffer that will remain. With that, know I have plenty of time left, approximately five minutes left, but I'll go ahead and wrap up the presentation here. I'll let the community speak and have their presentation, then we can go into some questions.

You're not actually required to use all your time, so we appreciate that.

You're welcome.

I have three speakers signed up in opposition. They are Mark McManus, Andrew Trifan, and Justin Jones. So, you have a total of ten minutes. Alright.

Good evening members of City Council. My name is Andrew Trefan and I've been a resident on Churchill Road in the Cotswold neighborhood for the past nine years. I'm here today on behalf of many of my neighbors who share serious concerns about the proposed high density development along Wendover Road. Over the years traffic on Wendover Road like throughout the city has increased substantially. This is not just an inconvenience, it's become a growing safety issue.

The proposed development is located just beyond a sharp curve in the road, a stretch where visibility is limited and where unfortunately speed limits are not always observed. This creates a dangerous situation as drivers often have very little time to react. Many of us have witnessed accidents along this stretch over the years. To better understand the extent of the issue, we requested public data from NC DOT for this section between Randolph And Marvin Roads. From 2021 through January 2026, there have been approximately one hundred and sixty two reported accidents within this three quarter mile stretch.

Of those, around sixty five involved injuries, fortunately no fatalities, and just under a 100 resulted in property damage with an overall monetary amount of about $1,300,000. This averages to roughly 30 accidents a year. This data is available for you to review. I'm also happy to forward several other links to articles involving traffic accidents over the last few months, some significant enough to have made the news. I can also provide information on several accidents have just happened over the last few weeks on our street.

Our concern is that introducing a high density development in this location will significantly increase traffic entering and exiting onto an already hazardous roadway. It's worth noting that back in 2016, pre staff analysis on rezoning petition one one one had identified Wendover Road as heavily trafficked. We believe that the 2040 plan had taken this into consideration when it continued to have this area zoned as n one. The proposal here includes just two access points both directly onto Wendover Road. In contrast, the development across the street has multiple points of access on different roads for vehicles to enter, not just forcing all the traffic onto Wendover Road.

The other nearby mentioned developments are also positioned farther from the curve or located near signalized intersections. We understand there could be up to 90 parking spaces associated with this development. Concentrating that volume of traffic into these limited access points along a dangerous stretch of road raises serious safety concerns, not only for our residents but for all commuters who use this road each day. I believe I can safely speak for all my neighbors that even now attempting to cross Wendover from our exit on Churchill Road can be extremely difficult during peak hours due to the constant flow of traffic in both directions. To be clear, our position is not one of outright opposition to development rather we believe any development should be consistent with the character and safety of the surrounding neighborhood.

Developing this parcel under its current zoning, which will result in significantly fewer vehicles, could help mitigate the risk of additional accidents compared to a higher density project of the scale. At a time when traffic safety and responsible growth are critical priorities for our city, we respectfully ask that you consider the well-being of both current and future residents as well as all Charlotte commuters who take this heavily driven portion of Route 4 each day. We urge you to reject the proposed rezoning in its current form and encourage a lower density alternative that better aligns with the safety needs of this corridor. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hi, Council. I'm Mark McManus. I'm a native Charlottean. I've lived my whole life here. Really love the city and love to see the growth that's happening here. I've got geezer glasses on because of my age, so I'm going to do the same thing and read this. In 2015, I stood before the council asking them to vote no on a development plan similar to the one before us today. Very few things have changed in the eleven years since that council voted unanimously to deny the rezoning petition. In fact, the few things that have changed were against the petitioner. This time we have far less detail in the plan than we did before.

Their plan does not comply with the city's 2040 plan. Their plan does not comply with the city's tree save minimums. In fact, out of the 44 compliance items the city staff has listed for this zoning petition, short development has failed to adhere to 21 of them. Almost half the items listed the petitioner has failed to comply on. Our neighbor Kelly Strickland, who's up here with us today has pointed out in light of the new UDO's adherence to the intent reflected by the setback shown on the original subdivision plat maps, which I have and can leave for you all to review, is the original intent of the subdivision itself.

The original subdivision map does not depict the subject property or the proposed developments as original lots and it certainly does not reflect an intent for multifamily development along Windover Road. And then another neighbor who couldn't make it, Philip and Molly James, they asked a pretty succinct question. Why approve a rezoning petition when the developer has not demonstrated an ability to honor standards? So, with Charlotte's growth, we need more housing and single family homes are still the best use for this land and is consistent with Charlotte's twentyforty plan. Let's tap the brakes on some of this questionable precedent setting rezoning requests.

I sure do appreciate that time.

Hello. Good evening.

I have only nice things to say about Paul. I've spoken with him a lot. He's personable, professionalable. I've learned a lot from him and he's been good about sharing information. The developer on the other hand has not demonstrated any desire to communicate with the neighbors.

I don't think that the developer really cares about the neighborhood. I don't think that the developer cares about the impact of traffic and public safety on Wendover. I don't think that the developer cares if the future residents of this housing can easily and safely make turns in and out of their new homes. I don't think the developers interested in developing more affordable housing for Charlotte. These start at 600,000 and every decision I've heard about is based on market forces.

I believe that these may be expanded from 20 foot to 24 foot buildings. I think the height of two stories to three stories are all based on market considerations and not considerations for any of the aforementioned areas of concern. I don't blame a developer for seeing it that way. It's not their job to care about those things necessarily, although I certainly respect developers who are members of the neighborhoods that they develop in and take those things into account. But it's my job to care and I think it's your job to care too and make wise decisions about this when a developer trying to maximize profits oversteps what is reasonable.

This council member Owens was generous with their time to visit the site with us. And we live next to the site. I can see it from my backyard. I can see it when I drive on Wendover. If any of you would like to see it as well, I invite you to come.

We'd be glad to take you to see it. I think it's very from a top down view, it seems like you could build this in a three-dimensional view. There are severe challenges to the terrain slope, the water stream going through, the money that Charlotte has invested into that waterway. I think there's some comparisons to the things across the street, which technically I believe are in a separate 2 40 area, if I'm not mistaken. But briefly, when comparing the apartments across the street, I have a few notes.

The recent reports makes a comparison to the existing townhomes across Wendover. These are built around a larger parcel of land. They have a nice open space in the middle that's accessible to all the apartments show all the units unlike this. It's built on flat terrain most of the neighboring properties are community service such as atrium health medical campuses. The residents of these townhomes also have a similar right turn only exit on to Wendover but are also served by a separate exit onto Billingsville Road, which leads to a traffic light on Randolph where they can safely enter and exit their neighborhood.

The impact on Wendover traffic is apples to oranges comparison. I think a lot of comparisons across the street are apples to oranges. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about that as well. We this has always been zoned for N1 single family. That's what makes sense to build on this in my opinion, and I think if I would be interested if in your as you examine the actual terrain, if you agree.

We would welcome single family development. In 2016 there was another petition to change this from N1 to N2 and that was unanimously defeated. That petition was unanimously misly denied by the City Council at the time. This proposal is nearly identical, substantially similar to that proposal and I hope that when you examine it you may reach the same conclusion. I think this developer bought the properties at a good price from the developer who failed to get them up zoned.

And when we moved to our house three years ago, my wife and I wondered what might go in here. We looked at the website for Kyle Short and if you look at it today, believe

it There still three

twenty seconds, just so you know.

There are five to 10 single family homes planned to go in here. When we asked them December 6 whether that was being considered, they said it's not being considered at all. I hope this developer has their petition denied and I hope they sell it to someone who will build single family homes or he decides to build single family homes. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Penna, you have two minutes to rebut.

I won't take the full two minutes, but it is true that the city of Charlotte traffic has gotten greater in the last few years. And in fact, Wendover Road is referred to as Route 4, as we all know. And in fact, I lived in a townhome directly adjacent Route 4 that fronted on this road. So I'm very intimately familiar with what it's like to live in a townhome community, not all that different than what's being proposed here and look out my window and see a lot of cars and traffic and be concerned with that. Good development is about being creative with the land that you have provided and that's left in the city of Charlotte.

As we have grown, flat parcels of land, which were right across the street, are few and far between, and we're focused on trying to come up with creative solutions for good housing for people that want to live in this city. I welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the community. I'm happy to discuss the 21 plan that was just referenced or the 21 points that are concerns or problems with this petition, and we can go through those line by line with the community and work through this diligently. Thank you.

Thank you. Colleagues, I'll throw it open for discussion. Ms. Ajmera.

Thank you, Mr. Drakes. First, I agree with one of the public speakers who said Paul is great to work with. He definitely is. I enjoyed working with you, Paul. A couple of questions for staff. So one of the speakers mentioned that there have been accidents that have happened near this site. Is this part of the high injury network?

It is not part of the I'm getting notice from our CDOT colleagues. It is not part of the high in in injury network.

Okay. Okay. So other question I have in terms of the height, do we have a picture of how the what would what is the view like from the neighboring home in terms of the height? I wanna see if it will be towering over other homes.

Believe I believe the petitioner had a an exhibit that could demonstrate that.

So the town hall product would be a three story product. The units that are fronting on Wendover would not address Wendover as a full three stories. It would address Wendover as a two story product. And then you would pull into the community from Wendover, go down a hill essentially to access a rear basement that would be a tuck beneath the third storey. So essentially, the first storey would be accessed from the alley and then two storeys above that would be the two storeys that front on Wendover.

So essentially, it would still follow the same three storey pattern of townhomes. But in that instance, the 1st floor would be a tuck under basement. And then the units that are adjacent, the natural area, the creek in the back, those would be a full three story product.

So it's different height depending on what part of the site it is on. So my question is, so if we can go back to this site, is this a site design where so there are these are all homes, right? Right adjacent to the site? These are all single family homes, correct?

These are all single family homes, all approximately 230 to 260 feet away from the townhomes in the rear. Okay.

So I'm I'm interested in seeing what the view will look like for the single family homes, if they are looking at this townhomes.

So we tried to illustrate that with these three cross sections. And in the top right hand corner, there's a site plan with the three cross sections and where they're located on-site. That and I'm happy to share this presentation with you as well in this exhibit so you can better understand it. But generally speaking, there's quite a lot of natural area between the townhomes that are being proposed and the existing single family homes to the south of the development.

So what's that buffer like?

Well, the buffer itself, I believe it's a 25 foot PCO buffer, so it'll be 25 feet on both sides of the stream. We are trying to protect as much of that as possible. There is actually a comment that has come in from city staff requesting that we increase a setback along Wendover. We would like to have further discussion about that because the more that we push these townhomes away from Wendover, the more we encroach into that natural area. So there's a fine balancing act there on how are we going to protect those natural areas, keep the view shed between the single family homes and these townhomes. So there's some more work that has to be done here with staff.

Yes. Knowing that there is single family homes nearby, there certainly needs to be a smoother transition, right? Because townhomes is definitely a greater density in terms of intensity. So there needs to be a way where We are not we are introducing density at a gradual level. I know you mentioned about 21 points.

One of the speakers tonight had mentioned that there were 21 points how this petition is not complying. I I would like hopefully, we can coordinate with them so I can better understand what those 21

points are. I think it was mister was that mister Trifan?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Could you please come down and talk about your 21 points? And obviously, we don't have a lot of time because I want to be mindful of everyone's time. If you could just summarize and then provide us a copy of the 21 points

and see how

online. I just went out and looked at the petition and what the city had given back and they have in red circled the areas that are in non compliance. There are 44 total points and 21 of those points are circled in red and they include some pretty significant stuff.

Oh, that's just staff's assessment?

Staff. Yes.

Yeah. But I mean, with the staff's assessment, they still have they even if it was approved, they still have to address those 21 points.

Currently, as as mentioned in the presentation, there are some outstanding issues and they come from CDOT that have to be addressed. There's also a couple of urban forestry outstanding issues as well as a few asks from entitlement services, the rezoning group. They've when a plan is going to public hearing, they tend to be fairly minor, like some of it most of it is just for additional clarification. For example, one of the urban forestry's comments was regarding showing the location of the tree save area. So it's not necessarily a matter that they're not providing the tree save.

It's a matter that they're not showing it in a way that's clear, and we need to address that prior to decision. But for rezonings, they're just requesting entitlements, so there's a certain maximum level of development that can be achieved. And when if it was to be approved and they go to permitting, they have to comply with every standard of the UDO, which includes things like zoning requirements, setbacks and landscape yards and also storm water ordinance, street requirements, that sort of thing.

Right. So regardless of whether this gets I mean, once if this was to get approved, it'll they still have to comply with all of this.

There are

would have liked to have seen

that done before the hearing. I hear what you're saying. Well, mister Purnell, I have the confidence in your ability that we will work with the community and the petitioner to to have some sort of consensus here. And I know council member Owens will definitely work on this, but I really hope that in next month there is some sort of decision where the community and the petition agrees on. So we don't have to pick a side. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you. I had a bit of a question about some of the buffers. Paul, you're planning for that to be undisturbed. So just thinking as you know, the residents, single family, and then having these townhomes kind of adjacent to them, have you all committed to to that?

We can certainly make those commitments. That's the intent because we believe that the natural space is is good for for both of these communities, for the townhome community that's proposed here and for the single family that's lived adjacent to this for so many years.

I I think that will be a great addition. I hope that you'll work with staff on that so that it is very clear in the language. If this is to pass, you know, that there is some some real buffer, and I think leaving the the area undisturbed with the trees. Mhmm. This is something I've been talking to Stillberry Acres a lot about. We they had a buffer, but it was not undisturbed. And then you plant these little trees there. That doesn't feel like a buffer to me. So hoping that we're getting ahead and thinking through some of these things before we are approving things.

We can certainly do that. Miss Owens.

Thank you. So it's already been spoken into the room that I did go out and meet with the neighbors and luckily had my boots on and went tromping through the through the woods. I I will say that a couple of things that that I take away from both that exchange and then looking at what we've got here is a real concern around the the grade of the building and the changes that are gonna be necessary. It was a pretty steep slope down into there, and when you're envisaging coming up out of that development and God forbid, you should try to make a left hand turn. Hopefully, we're already looking at some restrictions that would make that right in, right out.

But, you know, coming up, you really don't have visibility and the proximity of that curve is something that has not really been changed. And so that does give me pause. I am, as you can see from some of the votes tonight, particularly supportive of dense housing. I think I made that very abundantly clear to the neighbors that I don't necessarily think that this is only a single family house situation, but it may well be a bit less dense than what you've got there. Particularly, if we are looking at what I think you've said or what the entitlement services have suggested with a 55 foot setback at the front, that really does begin to give me some pause about what that looks like for that buffered area and the distinctions that are going to be made between that area and the creek and just some of the infrastructure that is going to be necessary to really, you know, bring that grade and address what I think is going to be a whole lot of runoff.

So I just I do have some concerns. I'm appreciative of everybody who's come out. And, again, I I guess I would throw out to you, are are we wedded to this 55 feet from Windover Road? Is that

We're we're not wedded to the 55 feet specifically, but we do wanna work with the petitioner to ensure that there's adequate amount of setback. They're, of course, meeting the minimum standards, and they will have to meet the standards of the UDO. But we'll continue to work with them to make sure that we get a design that's, you know, safe and attractive.

And while I do appreciate this, the one that's up on the screen that shows sort of a cross section, I really would love to appreciate from the developer what you see as as great improvements that are gonna be necessary for you to do the vision that you've got out there. This doesn't really capture that for me. So, I'm hopeful that can be shared with the neighbors, because I think that was something that was consistent in their comments, both tonight and their comments to me. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

So, Mr. Massuera Arias would like to join the conversation. Sir?

Thank you, Council Member Driggs. Staff, what are the have we calculated the trips this would add?

Yes. There's trip gen included in the staff analysis. So with the 40 units proposed, that would be

I've got it here. It would be a 182

trips per day under the proposed zoning. Existing zoning would be 87 trips per day. So increase about approximately 100 trips per day.

100 trips per day. And do we know if this intersection particularly has been tracked through our Vision Zero data? Is it part of a high injury network? Do we

know It's not part of the high injury network. There's two intersections proposed. So there's one that's more easterly. It's a right in, right out only that aligns with the northern development that's right in, right out, and they're where you get a little bit clearer view, straighter section of road, more room, you have a left turn potential.

Cool. Thank you. Council Member Owens, this is, like, right near the border of our district. So if there's anything

we

can do to work together in terms of alleviating that congestion and particularly those left turns that are pretty dangerous, that air is very congested. There's a commercial as well there that's being that has been made. You have a Starbucks, a Chick fil A, a Food Lion, that area. And so, I can do to help with this petition in terms of, you know, getting more community benefits, let me know.

I appreciate that, May I? Yes. So, I just also will say, having been there out of the site, and I am really appreciative of road signage and things that we do try to encourage our drivers to adhere. You know, while I was out with these gentlemen, I must have seen three people go ahead and make a left turn, even though it says right turn only. So, there's a certain amount of me that, you know, does want us to be very thoughtful about further enhancing some of the engineering that we do so that we are not relying only on people doing what they're told to do, but also making it a tad more difficult to do the wrong thing and put themselves in harm's way. Thank you.

Redesign. Oh, if there's no further comment, do I have a motion to close the hearing?

So moved.

All in favor?

Okay.

So I've noticed a group up there in the gallery. Are you guys all together? What group are you?

We don't buy Real Estate

from New York.

Alright. Oh, wonderful. Nice to see you.

Thank you

for joining So

like Mr. McManus, need to put on these old man glasses to move to the next. All right, we move to agenda item 18, rezoning petition twenty twenty six zero zero three by SLRH Acquisitions LLC. Approximately point eight four acres located East Of Providence Road, North Of Fenton Place, and South Of Cherokee Road in Council District 6, Miss Owens District. Current zoning is OFC, Office Flex Campus. Proposed zoning is NCCD, neighborhood center conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to site and building design and a requested technical revision. So, to explain this one to us, we have miss Kramer.

Thank you. This site is part of a split zone parcel. The rezoning area itself is under an acre located along the north side of Fenton Place. Is currently zoned Office Flex Campus, and they are proposing to go to neighborhood center conditional. And just for context, do just wanna add that the Office Flex Campus District versus neighborhood center district, pretty similar in terms of scale when you think about the entitlements that they could go both upwards of 80 feet in height if you use the bonus provisions, but differ and uses office flex campus is really geared towards those campus and institutional type uses, whereas neighborhood centers for a broader range of activity center type uses.

It is recommended for the neighborhood center place type on the policy map, so this proposal would be in alignment with with that. And the proposal itself identifies some development standards. They note that the proposed uses on the site would include multifamily stacked residential and commercial uses, and those commercial uses permitted in the NC District could include office, retail, restaurant, bar, personal service and fitness uses or other NC uses. Parking would be at grade at the ground Floor or within subterranean levels. Portions of the structured parking at the Ground Floor level may be above grade only when screened from shared property lines with landscaping walls or similar treatments.

They also note some setback conditions, so they have increased setbacks for rear and side setbacks along the rezoning area. And they also proposed 10 foot wide classy landscape yard with fencing. And this is within the south inner community area plan. It is in alignment with that policy map recommendation as I noted. In terms of the priority goals that it could be facilitating, it could further priority goal number two for neighborhood diversity and inclusion because it could offer a range of housing uses and that could contribute to your neighborhood diversity in the area.

It could also facilitate goal one, ten minute neighborhoods by allowing a mix of uses in the area that could create more goods and services near the established neighborhoods that we have along that corridor.

I'm seeing it again.

This site is located or sorry. Staff does recommend approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues. Just a couple of minor ones related to site and building sign as well as the requested tightening or vision. Site is located within a neighborhood activity center on the 2040 policy map, and the petition's zoning request would allow entitlements that are consistent with the goals and intent of a neighborhood center. And the conditions of the plan note what mix of uses may occur on the site and enhance side and rear setbacks that are being committed to and a condition for underground parking.

The site is currently underutilized as surface parking, and the air the existing OFC zoning is more limited to campus activities rather than a fuller range of activity center uses. And I'll be happy to take questions following petitioner comments. Great.

I have five speakers signed up. It looks as if miss Grant is going to be the point person here. So, well, you have three minutes.

That is correct. Good evening, mister Driggs, members of council, members of the zoning committee. Bridget Grant, land use consultant with Van Allen. I'm pleased to be here tonight with Jeff Brown, my colleague, as well as representatives from Streetlight Residential, as well as Eastern Federal. We appreciate staff's detailed presentation and as you know, I'm accustomed to giving short presentations when we have staff support and no speakers in opposition.

So I'm just going to hit on a couple highlights. This one's a little more unique because it's more of a technical alignment rezoning. We aren't seeking any deviations in the permitted height or setbacks or deviations on the uses that are generally permitted broadly across the site. By rezoning our back portion of the site to NC, we're able to put residential units where there's currently only allowed to be parking for residential uses. Holly hit most of this, so I'm going to jump to this slide.

This really does a lot to describe majority of what's happening on the site. So we have a 2.77 acres that are currently zoned CG under the UDO. It allows multifamily stack, but when you develop multifamily you follow neighborhood center design standards, which are higher level of standard. The back 0.84 acres is zoned to OFC. So that doesn't allow us to zone the site with unified design standards.

By rezoning that back portion to NC, we're able to do unified higher level design standards across the site, which is why we're only seeking to rezone that back portion of the site. We had extensive community engagement throughout this process. We're pleased to say that we will continue to collaborate with the community. And with that, I am happy to answer I will say we left you a number of letters for your consideration review that we received from community members. With that, we're happy to answer any questions.

Ms. Owens?

Sir, thank you for that. I appreciate it. I have heard from a number of community members who have some concerns that I'm certain have been escalated to you, and I just want to park on those for a little bit. No pun intended when I say park on those. Squirrel Park, which is across the street, there's a lot of anxiety that I will communicate around future widening of Providence Road.

I think there's a deep appreciation for the fact that Providence Road and NCDOT Road is is not really a great commute experience for many folks. I am unaware of any immediate plans to widen it, but the concern that has been expressed to me is around the bounds of this construction. And I do get that it's a split zoning, and so we're really talking about the front of the project and not the back. But just writ large, I think there's a concern that going forward, if it is widened, it would take a really substantive portion of Squirrel Park. Do you have any thoughts on that? I appreciate that you're trying to rezone the back and not the front, but can

you Female You're correct. And there aren't any road widening plans to my knowledge either. I think CDOT can speak to that. We've been collaborating with both CDOT and NCD as part of this preliminary process, and we're going to continue to collaborate with the representatives for Squirrel Park as well. Okay.

Thank you. I appreciate that. One of the other concerns that has been raised is around the character of the building, facade, the sorts of things that would be done. I know that this has not been designated as a historical property, but can you speak some to the intentions with respect to what this project will look like? I know you've not done a site plan, so I don't think there's much of a visual.

We don't have the visual assigned with this because we are only talking about rezoning the back portion of the site. That said, we've spent a good bit of time with our architecture and design team talking about elements and I believe you may have received an updated letter from Stuart Gray with some of the considerations we're looking into as we look at the overall architectural character and how we can incorporate some of the site's history into future redevelopment of the site and that's going to continue evolve as we navigate through both this rezoning process and the land development process. And I also I know we signed up all of our speakers, if any of my team would like to join me, they're welcome to if there's anything I'm not hitting.

Okay. So one other comment that I just want to again put out into the room is concerns from the neighbors with respect to, you know, the impact on this already very crowded corridor. Can you speak a bit to ingress, egress, what the plans are with respect to ancillary access along ancillary roads or what's the in and out strategy here?

Absolutely. So I think anyone who has been to this site or any part of the site knows that there are about 11 curb cuts into the site, kind of hard to distinguish what's a curb cut and what's not when you're trying to get onto Providence Road. So we're going to be reducing the number of curb cuts and access on the Providence. We're intentionally looking at a one access point off of Providence and our other access points will be off of Fenton and Cherokee and again we though this whole site isn't going through rezoning, we've had conversations with CDOT to really look at how we can improve circulation from this site and make it better than what it is today.

Okay. Is there any appetite and I probably can answer my own question, but is there any appetite to bring this entire thing in so that the community has a greater sense? I appreciate that you don't have to, but I also appreciate that it's very hard to really envision what this will look like without a bit more of a sense of the entire site.

I think one of the unique things about the UDO and just from my experience in working both on the staff side and on the private side was that the UDO increased the design standards significantly in terms of the amount of glass that would be required on the Ground Floor, where access points were, where pedestrians would enter at the site. So, were really relying on the strength of the UDO when it comes to design standards to implement it, and that's one of the reasons why we weren't sure what else would go into the site.

Well, I will finally share that the neighbors that I've talked to are very concerned about this project and about it setting the standard for what else happens on Providence Road. And so, I'm hopeful that there's continued engagement with them in a really deep and meaningful way.

Absolutely. And I will say we've continued to meet with them and we've shared preliminary concepts and I believe we'll continue to do that.

Ms. Sajmira. Ms.

Thank you, Mr. Drakes. So I wanted to follow-up to Ms. Owen's point. This is not a conventional. This is a conditional request?

Tier one conditional, so there are notes. Okay.

So I'm trying to picture the site. So this is the Panera, right? Right in the front, right off of. So is this taking the parking in the back?

The rezoning is limited to the area that's identified as OFC on the site, and that's the back parking lot behind the Manor Theater. The ultimate redevelopment of the site will be both the CG and the OFC portions of the site. The CG portion already is zoned to require NC standards for us to do a mix residential and ground floor retail uses in that location. The OFC portion of the site would allow us to do structured parking without changing the zoning. We believe it's better for us to have residential units with at grade or subterranean parking in that location in proximity to the adjacent residential that's there.

Got it. Yes, I mean parking is an issue. When I have had meetings at that location, especially in the front. I look forward to seeing more in coming weeks. So that's all I have. Thank you. Move to close if there are no other questions.

Give me one second. So I just want to point out, Ms. Owens, there's a 2,055 MTP that schedules all of the so you'll be able to see in there. And since I have a shared concern about Providence Road all the way down in my district, I can tell you it's not soon. I think you can probably answer that question. Good. I have a motion to close the hearing. Second. Second.

Second.

All in favor? All right. Moving on to item 19, rezoning petition 202028 by AREG U. S. O p p four Shopton Road, Holdco LLC, approximately 15.16 acres located North Of Shopton Road, East Of Stonecliff Road, West Of I 485 in miss Mayo's District 3. Current zoning is B P C D Business Park conditional. Proposed zoning is N 2 B C D Neighborhood 2 B conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site design. Miss Kramer.

Thank you. This site is just over 15 acres north of Shopton Road, just north also of our Charlotte Premium Outlets in an area where we have range of multifamily housing directly to the west of this site, some single family housing, and quite a bit of vacant land in in addition to some activity center uses. The current zoning is business park conditional. That's from a 2,001 site conditional plan that called for an office park on this site. They are proposing to go to neighborhood to be conditional.

That is partially in alignment and partially out of alignment with the 2040 policy map. So as you'll see here, a portion of the map does call for Neighborhood 2 on the site, so that's where it'd be in alignment. And then a portion of the policy map does call for commercial place type, that's where it would be out of alignment. The proposal itself does include in site plan, so it has it calls for up to 330 multifamily units on the site. They also note that they coordinate with Park and Recreation for access easement on the site for future connection to Bearwick Park.

Note some transportation improvements, including upgrading sidewalk and planting strips and also would provide a separated bike facility along Shopton Road. And they also note some off-site transportation improvements as identified in their traffic impact study. They also identify open space areas and some enhancements that would occur in those areas for our preferred standards that we have in the resounding process. The site is within the West Outer community area plan. Like I said, it's not in alignment with the recommendation for the commercial place type, but in alignment with the neighborhood to place type for a small portion of the site.

In terms of the priority goals for the West Outer community area plan, it could facilitate goal one for ten minute neighborhoods by adding housing within a ten minute walk, bike, or transit to a community activity center. That community activity center is to the south here, again, where we have Charlotte Outlet's Premium Mall. And then we could also be potentially facilitating goal to neighborhood diversity and inclusion by allowing for a housing type of that could be multifamily in an area that is mostly single family residential. Though you are in a site that does directly abut other multifamily residential that would be similar to the product proposed on this site. This this project also went through our minor map assessments criteria.

So when we have projects that are proposing a rezoning that is out of alignment with the adopted policy map recommendation, we work it through these this evaluation tool to see how it could how it aligns with the vision and goals of the 2040 comprehensive plan for a place type change to neighborhood two. So it's going from commercial to neighborhood two for a majority of the site. So we identify here what the preferred criteria is and how the site is meeting it. So it is above the minimum acreage for the minimum acreage threshold of two to four acres. It also has preferred place type adjacencies for community activity center and parks and preserves.

It also is within a quarter mile of the Atlas Boulevard and Designer Drive bus stops. It's also, again, directly adjacent to community activity center within an access to housing gap, and it does have frontage along an arterial road. So generally, very much meeting our minor map criteria for a change to the neighborhood to place type. Staff does recommend approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues. Property has that older conditional zoning plan for an office park that may no longer be congruent with the development trends that we're seeing in this area.

Neighborhood two uses would complement the adjacent activity center, which offer goods and services for potential future residents. It's in an area that would have ample transit access and can generally support this type of multifamily product. And I'll be happy to take questions following petitioner comments.

So I have four speakers signed up, mister Brown, it looks like you're the ball carrier. So you have three minutes.

Thank you, Councilmember Driggs, council members, any committee members. Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner. Palmer McArthur from the petitioner is here as well. Holly did a great job with the summary. This has got an old zoning when there were some different plans for the area. Councilmember Mayfield, this was her district when Charlotte Premium Outlets came through and kind of changed the tone for the area. And so we're left with like with one of the last pieces of the puzzle that is owned by one of the original landowners. And so the petitioner has a plan proposal to kind of fill in that gap. We've been in touch with Councilmember Mayo throughout this process. Many of you all know the Steel Creek Residence Association, the umbrella organization down there, they don't love multifamily.

I do think there are meetings with them. They've kind of acknowledged, hey, it's going go somewhere, this would be a good place for it. It is close to a lot of employment. There are actually three schools, probably within a quarter mile of the site. So we've been working closely with the design team on a development plan that works. This is a constrained site. It's got some topographical challenges that have kind of pushed us into a plan, but we do have buffers on each side. We do continue to work with the county in Parks and Recreation on a connection to that park. And so we do feel like this is a good opportunity to create some housing opportunities in an area that is walkable to employment and activities and restaurants and schools and parks. And also as Holly mentioned has good connectivity to transit.

Happy to answer any questions.

Yes.

I'll just thank you again, Colin, for your work with Still Creek Residence Association. I really enjoy y'all's conversations that you have with them and the collaborative nature of those. So just wanna, not really a question, but very excited to continue to see y'all working and collaborating and being thoughtful of connectivity as well with the existing Park And Rec and Greenway, and also thinking through the school that is nearby. As a former teacher, I think that is so imperative. At one point, I lived right across the street from the school I worked at, and that made life a lot easier.

So I hope I'm hoping that more teachers and, you know, other public servants will also be able to live in the community where they work. So appreciate you building, you know, density in an area where we need that. Thank you. Motion to close.

Second.

So, move.

All in favor?

That's okay.

All right. Next up, agenda item number 20, rezoning petition 2025136 by Larry Cooper. Approximately two point o two acres located East Of West Sugar Creek Road, West Of Burgundy Drive, and North Of Knighton Lane in Council District 4, miss Johnson's district. Current zoning is N 1 B, Neighborhood 1 B. Proposed zoning N 1 C, Neighborhood 1 C. Staff recommends approval of this petition, and miss Kramer, you're up.

Thank you. This site is just over two acres along the West Sugar Creek corridor in an area where we have predominantly single family housing immediately adjacent to the site, though quite a few commercial and institutional uses walkable from the site and just to the north and the south. The proposed zoning is Neighborhood 1 B, and they are proposing to go to Neighborhood 1 C. So that is just one step up in our neighborhood one classifications. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type, so this request for the Neighborhood 1 C district is still considered in alignment with that adopted place type.

This is a conventional request, so we don't have a any proposal information to go through, but this proposal is considered consistent with the goals and policies of the North Middle and Outer Community Area Plan. It's in alignment with that policy recommendation in terms of our 24 in terms of our priority goals, it could be facilitating neighborhood diversity and inclusion by with the ability to develop more infill housing along a major arterial and near commercial areas. Staff does recommend approval of this petition. This site was evaluated using our place type five criteria, which is outlined in the creating complete community section of every single community area plan. And we do that for every single neighborhood one of zoning that we have for rezoning request to essentially make sure that they're appropriate and make sense for the areas that they're sitting within.

So some of the criteria that we look at for this petition is is there an existing lot pattern in the area? So where this site sits, and and you can see it a little bit better here. There's no real existing lot pattern that this site is sitting. And it's also located along a major arterial, which is a point in its favor for going up in the neighborhood one classifications. It also has in terms of average lot dimensions for the area, this has much larger lot dimensions than some of the adjacent parcels and certainly the parcels to its east and parcels directly to its west along the other side of West Sugar Creek Road.

So when we evaluated the place type five criteria for this petition, we felt it met those criterion for that one step up in classification to the neighborhood 1C zoning district, we believe that this is an appropriate request and we'd be happy to take any questions following commissioner comments. So

I have four speakers signed up. Are you Ms. Smith?

Yes.

All right. You have three minutes.

Good evening, counsel.

Good evening.

So, most of what I've got has already been covered by Holly, but my name is Elise Smith. I'm with LandWorks Design Group, and we're here tonight on behalf of the property owner and petitioner Larry Cooper and Sharitha Cooper. So this

is

a conventional rezoning located at 1800 West Sugar Creek 28262. As

skip ahead. So yeah. That's me,

and that's Larry, the petitioner, and Sheree, the property owner. This is existing n one b. The existing use is single family. Policy map calls for Neighborhood 1, and we are proposing from N1B to N1C. Both the existing and proposed zone matches the Charlotte policy map, as Yeah.

As staff has indicated and you'll find in your packet. So we had a successful neighborhood meeting on Thursday, March 5 with a few neighbors. We were primarily answering questions about the rezoning process, explaining the difference in lot sizes that would come with this potential change. And you can find the description of those changes in your packet. And just for clarity, this would be the same allowable building types with both.

And we had no objections from the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting and I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Comments or questions?

Are no questions. So, move.

Second. All in favor? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, agenda item 21, rezoning petition twenty twenty five one forty two by Third and Urban Urban LLC. Approximately 1.9 acres located North Of Tuckaseegee Road, East Of Berryhill Road, West Of Gesco Street in Council District 2, mister Graham's district. Current zoning is Mud O, mixed use development optional. Proposed zoning is IMUCD, innovation mixed use conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition. And Mr. Mangum, good evening. Good evening.

This site is just under two acres. It's located at the intersection of Berryhill Road, Tuckaseegee Road, and Thrift Road. Site is developed with a warehouse. It's surrounded by a mix of uses. You have single family to the Northwest across Berryhill Road. You have a historically industrial neighborhood to the east and south that's been transitioning towards commercial office and some residential uses. The current zoning is MUDO. That's mixed use development optional. That was established by a 2021 rezoning. Proposed zoning is IMUCD.

That's innovation mixed use conditional. The 2040 policy map recommends the innovation mixed use place type. This is a tier one rezoning request with a list of conditional notes, some prohibited uses, mostly those that are auto centric, including vehicle dealership, vehicle fueling facility, vehicle rental and repair, as well as parking lot as a principal use. Also, note that if residential use units are constructed on the site, they would have a minimum parking ratio of one parking space per residential unit. Building height be limited to 75 feet.

Petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the West Inner community area plan and also in alignment with the policy map recommendation for the innovation mixed use place type. While the petition does not directly facilitate any of the priority goals for the community area plan, it may facilitate the comprehensive plan goal for ten minute neighborhoods by proposing uses aligned with the IMU place type. Staff recommends approval of the petition. There are no outstanding issues. The conditions of the plan prohibit auto centric uses, encouraging development that may be more oriented toward pedestrians and in line with the newer projects in the area.

The petition is consistent with recent rezonings in the vicinity that include both adaptive reuse and new construction to permit mixed use development. I will turn it over to the petitioner. The team.

Thank you, Mr. Mangum. Mr. Brown, you have three minutes.

Thank you. Councilmember Triggs, councilmembers Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner. Joe did a good job, so I'll move very quickly. Third and Urban, the petitioner. If you've been out to Lower Tuck, it is a dramatically different place than it was ten years ago. They have been one of the leading developers on that transition. And I think have done a very nice job of adaptively reusing a lot of these old industrial buildings, breathing new life into them with creative office, with neighborhood serving retail and restaurants. And so this is one of the last pieces in the puzzle as they've kind of developed the other blocks. And we're really just bringing this into conformity with our new UDO. As you know, the UDO is very much a form based code and so we're trying to get away with our from our detailed conditional zonings.

We had a good community meeting involving some of leadership from the Innerley Park neighborhood. They mentioned to us a couple concerns. One, parking, height, uses. And so those are the conditions that Joe mentioned that we've incorporated. We've really, again, we're trying to keep it simple with just a Tier one, but we've ruled out some of those uses that I think everyone agrees they don't want there. As I mentioned, Third and Urban owns and operates these other buildings with restaurants. So they want to make sure that there's enough parking. So we were fine adding additional minimum parking standard as well as an overall limit on height. I did get a very nice letter from the Innerley Park neighborhood today, so I'll share that with you prior to the next meeting. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. Miss Mayo.

Yeah. Just a quick question, Colin. Will this site include some aspects of native plants? So I I know when I drive around there or walk around, they've done a great job of being thoughtful of using native plants, which is better for the environment, you know, with pollinators and just using less water as a result, like drought resistant. So just curious, are you all planning to use that same kind of theme with this as well?

I'm happy to talk with you and learn from you. I have been warned that some so and I appreciate you saying earlier, there's there's invasive, which is bad, there's native and then there's naturalized. And so I may need your help, because sometimes I think urban forestry tells us that maybe some of the naturalized are more hearty in our current environment. I'm happy to they'll be happy to work with you and get my vocabulary right.

Okay. Yeah. I'll just I'll touch base. I'm just curious of that. Okay. Also wondering, this area has a lot of connectivity going on. Just thinking like the bike trails. How how does that is that being integrated into what y'all were doing? Because I know Tukasegi, we have permanent bike lanes right there. We have those little thingies. Are are y'all continuing that or any type of improvement based on what you're doing

on that?

The Bergdorf has been pretty involved in the overall redevelopment of the area and are generally supportive of things that are going to serve that area. I don't think we've got any specific recommendations on the site, but I'm happy to kind of follow-up.

Okay. Yeah. I'll just I'll just email you, but I'm just curious. I want to make sure that it's aligned with the with the rest of that area and kind of the vibe that you all were going for, which I think it looks great, but I just want to make sure we're can can you go back to that other slide?

This is current. So that's a pretty nice obviously, this would be getting rid of that sea of parking and coming in with some active uses, but that is the current. That was pretty wide to me, but Yeah.

I'm just curious about the bike lanes further down Tuckusigi. So yeah, I'll just connect with you on that. So I just want to make sure that we're maintaining the standard that the city is already doing when it comes to connectivity, particularly in that area as it has so much mixed use. So it has the residential, it has the commercial, it has jobs. I mean, it's just a great example of us being thoughtful of ten minute cities and wanna make sure that we're continuing that trend. I just can't tell from this picture. Mhmm.

Do I have a motion to close?

So moved.

On your favor?

Got it? All right. We now come to our last one.

All right.

Agenda item number 22, rezoning petition 2020 six-two by Xi Zhang. I hope I'm pronouncing that. Approximately point one six acres located on the South Side Of Verbena Street, West Of Nations Crossing Road and East Of Gilead Street in miss Mayo's district. Mhmm. Current zoning is m L two, manufacturing list six two. Proposed zoning is Todd NC, transit oriented development neighborhood center. Staff recommends approval of this petition, and mister Mangum is gonna tell us about it.

Thank you. This site is less than a quarter of an acre located on the South Side Of Verbena Street between South Tryon Street and Old Pineville Road. It is developed with a small commercial building surrounded by a mix of uses, somewhat similar to the last petition where we have an older industrial area that's transitioning to a mix of commercial, office, residential uses. Current zoning is m l two with a proposed zoning of T O D N C. The 2040 policy map recommends the community activity center place type.

The conventional petition, which is consistent with the goals and policies of the South Intercommunity area plan and also in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the community activity center place type. It may facilitate the target goal for the South Intercommunity area plan for trail and transit oriented development by establishing TOD zoning within three quarters of a mile of two links blue line stations and allowing for a range of transit supportive uses in an activity center. Staff recommends approval of this petition. The site is surrounded on three sides by a property zoned for transit oriented development. The petition follows many other nearby petitions that rezone properties from industrial zoning to transit oriented zoning districts.

The site is less than three quarters of a mile from two Yenks Blue Line stations in Scaly Bark and Woodlawn, And the Lower South End area has transitioned rapidly from automobile oriented commercial and industrial uses to a mixed use walkable community. I'll hand it over to the petitioner.

Good evening, council members. Thank you Mr. Mangum for all your help. You've been most helpful. Thank you so much. I just acquired this property.

Can you state your names here?

Oh, I'm sorry, sir. My name is Zhi Zhang.

Okay. Got it wrong. I apologize.

Yes. Well, my friends call me Chi, but you know, it's spelled z h I, is It goes both ways. I've been in Charlotte for thirty three years and I I this is my home. This is my forever home. I bought a place next to this property that I just acquired. It's

such

a vibrant neighborhood. It's it's Lower South End. It's really close to the 0 N B Sugar Creek protagonist, the rally. And this is kinda like the last piece of the puzzle too and it's a my godfather built this building. He was a god contractor and he's 76 army vet. He says, know, I don't think I can do anything with anymore. So, godson, what do you wanna do? So, I was like, oh, well, you know, I live in this neighborhood. I love it. I love the walkability.

The the apartments is like within the eighth of a mile. We got like five apartments everywhere near the near the, you know, the breweries. So, you know, my wife and my four year old and my six year old, we live right here and I say, let's do a mom pop coffee beer wine shop. You know, sit in, take out, things like that. And just want to capture all the vibrant neighborhood feel and walkable.

Thank goodness fortunately, we have lots of street parking. So really, we don't have much traffic going in and out, and that's amazing to know in such a small little place. I wanted to make it really homey and mom and pop feel. Welcome for any questions, sir. Ma'am?

Yes, Ms. Mayo?

Yes, I did have a quick question. Thank you so much for, one, I just wanted to thank you for hosting the second community meeting just so community members can attend. So wanted to thank you for that. I did wanna briefly talk about something I'm hearing from a lot of business owners kind of in that area. With kind of people coming into shops and kind of messing things up, I'm wondering like how were you planning on being proactive? One thing I can think of like Thousand Hill Coffee over there has like a cold for people going into the bathroom. I think as you know, continue

to

have more density in areas, just thinking through how are we proactive to mitigate and minimize behavior we don't want. CMPD, we can't use CMPD as personal security for organizations. Hoping that you and I can talk more or other CMPD can do things like that to have conversations about being proactive. I just know that area. Was chief Odom and I just had a conversation about that last week, and just wanna make sure that we're giving you all all the tools you need to be successful and minimize any kind of issues that y'all are having.

Yeah, those are great questions. And some of them I can answer is that the area is such a vibrant up and coming, but it's really closer. There's a lot of like, closed down motels and things like that, you know, lower cell van. So we do see, you know, some unwanted, you know, activities, things like that. So living right next to this building with my two little ones, I think priority is to make sure this place will make it even more safe for the neighborhood.

And seeing this office building vacant for the last ten years because because Godfather, he's older now. Leaving someplace vacant is a lot more unsafe where people might kinda like go check it out. Why is nobody there? I believe that once and I can put a little, you know, beer wine shop there, people sitting out and the neighbors walking with dogs coming and see people and people see people. And, I think that would really make the neighborhood safer.

That's my hope because, you know, I live right next door to it. Like, literally, I walk out my front door and that's it. So so that's that's how close it is and I need to make sure that the clienteles and the demographic and the people that goes in, I I'll be really, you know, I will even probably have if a friends, officers, hey. You know, you wanna just swing by here and and things like that. I have all these ideas, that's the exciting part once I get through the rezoning process and then the, you know, permits and things like that.

But these are a lot of questions to answer. I won't know all of them but as when I'm able to open, I think having the first customer ready, I'll just be really excited just to see how I can make it safer and better along the way.

Ms. Johnson.

Just clarification. I thought I heard two things and maybe it's my subconscious. Did you say it was coffee shop or did I hear beer and wine?

So I've been in the service industry for my whole life since 16 years old. So it was like thirty two years ago. I wanted to do something. I was from a busboy server, know, just dishwasher manager, everything in the restaurants. And I'm trying to step away from the full service kind of sit down but I do wanna do like a small maybe coffee, beer, wine shop. You can sit down. It's cozy. Maybe some snacks, small bites. But it's going to be that picture right there, so that way the neighborhoods when customers, people walk by, they can come into this mom and pop. I'll always be there or April will be there or somebody.

It's going to be small operation, really small. Our son Joe a long time ago was like, oh, I don't need like 10 people working. Just need myself, my wife or someone else and that should be great. So it's going be very cozy.

Thank you.

You're welcome. I did want to point out it is a conventional request, so anything that could occur under the Todd NC zoning district would be possible under the rezoning request. She's

very busy.

Move to close in here.

Second.

All in favor? And that was our last one. Mister Wilson's class, thank you for your interest in planning. You have a great teacher. Okay?

Yes. Great professor.

I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor, get up and leave.