City Council Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

. . .

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Still think it's afternoon. Just in case you didn't realize that we needed more people to come and sing to us, you're welcome to come down and be a part of our opportunities to have people come in and serve our city as the... people that we all really know that we're doing. So I love these signs. Oh my, that's great. Reminds me of my old church buildings and what I used to do. But anyway, nevermind. I'm Vi Lowes and I serve as a member of this council. And what we want to do is start off with a welcome and a call to order. And so why don't we start with our city clerk? I mean, our council member.

I'm sorry, city clerk. Here we are. Billy Tons, deputy city clerk. Terri Hagler-Gray, senior assistant city attorney.

Impalaj Mehra, at-large member.

Victoria Wellington, at-large.

Julie Mayo, representing District 3.

Dante Anderson, and congratulations to the Carolina Hurricanes for the Stanley Cup.

District 1. They're loving it up there. Allison Craig, deputy city manager. Vi Liles, serving as mayor.

James Mitchell, Mayor of Pro Tem, I have to say a special shout out to my lovely queen. We'll be celebrating our 14th wedding anniversary tomorrow. Love you, babe.

That is great. I wonder how much you paid for that. Great she's a great woman. I don't know that he'd ever never he never tells people that she was one of the very first astronauts in this in our country Thank you, and so now I've lost where we are Kimberly Owens representing district 6 Malcolm Graham district 2 at Driggs district 7 I want to make you a council member at large.

I want to thank our Charlotte crown Yes, congratulate them because they did win yesterday

JD Masueta-Arias, proudly representing the Eastside District 5, and go Knicks.

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

I want to say that we begin our meeting with an invocation which includes expressions and inspiration followed by the pledge of allegiance. The invocation is by the council member and is intended to solemnize our proceedings. We celebrate all of us But we also understand that there is diversity in what we do with our faith, and we make sure that everyone has the opportunity to be proud of whatever faith they choose, and we will do that. And so we tonight have a religious program about this for using Councilmember Johnson to open up our opportunities for beginning to work with what we're doing tonight. Ms. Johnson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. We can bow our heads if you'd like, otherwise just a moment of silence. Heavenly Father, we come together with gratitude for the opportunity to serve our community. We ask for your presence among us and for your wisdom to guide our thoughts, decisions, and our actions. Grant us the clarity when faced with difficult choices, courage when challenges arise, and humility as we seek the well-being of those entrusted to our care. Help us to lead with integrity, compassion, and fairness, always mindful of the diverse needs and hopes of our community. Place your protection over our leaders, our families, our first responders, our schools, businesses, and our residents and all who call this community home. Keep us safe from harm, strengthen us in times of uncertainty, and unite us in a spirit of cooperation and of mutual respect. May we be instruments of peace, builders of trust, and faithful stewards of the resources and opportunities before us. Guide us to work together for the common good and to create a future marked by justice, prosperity, and hope. We ask for your continued blessing, protection, and guidance as we serve. Amen.

Amen. Thank you all. If you choose to take along a pledge of allegiance, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you all. All right, so we are going to do a brief conversation, a brief content around explanation of the zoning process. I think most of you probably already know that, but we're going to use to make sure that we have the opportunity so that if questions or comments come up, we can prepare for that. So the rezoning process begins with applications submitted to the planning staff for review. There are two types of cases on the agenda, decisions and hearings. Decisions are on cases for which a public hearing has previously been held, and there will be no further comment. For public hearings, anyone wishing to speak is asked to see the clerk before the start of our hearing. Staff will provide a presentation, and the petitioner will have three minutes combined to present the case unless there are opponents signed up to speak or our staff is in opposition if they are in opposition. If there are opponents assigned up to speak or the staff is in opposition, the petitioner will have 10 minutes to present, followed by opposition speakers who will have 10 minutes combined to present, and the petitioner has a two-minute rebuttal. If no one is signed up to speak, staff provides a short presentation, and the public hearing may then be closed. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to... Douglas, who would, I believe, help us understand how many people are supporting you and all of the work that they do for our city. Douglas?

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. My name is Douglas A. Welton, and I am the chairman of the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission. Allow me to introduce my fellow commissioners, and they include Melissa Gaston, Erin Shaw, Teresa McDonald, Robin Stewart, Carolyn Millen, and right next to me today, Michael Caprioli. The Zoning Committee will meet on Tuesday, August 4th at 5.30. 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 right now. Prior to that meeting, you are welcome to contact us and provide input. You can find contact information and information on each one of the petitions that is being heard here tonight at the city's website at charlotteplanning.org. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. It is all yours.

Thank you very much for the work that you do for our communities. So the next item that we want to do is deferrals and withdrawals, and that's going to be done with Holly Kramer, who reads this and makes it come alive for us.

So thank you. Thank you. So we have a couple of deferrals to go through. Item number 11, petition 2025-07 by Short Development Group requesting a deferral of their decision to the August 17th meeting, which is our next zoning meeting, just as a reminder, since we do not have one in July. Item number 12, requesting a deferral. This is petition 2025-086 by Penn Square Development, requesting deferral of their decision to August 17th. Item number 15, petition 2025-133 by Michael Barnes, also requesting deferral of their decision to August 17th. And finally, we have item number 17, petition 2026-027 by C4 Investments, requesting deferral of their public hearing to the August 17th meeting.

All right. Do we have a motion for the referral?

So move, Mayor.

Second. And a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Anyone in opposition? Hearing none, that's our next step. And then we will go to the rezoning petition items number 3 through 10. of the consent agenda may be considered in one motion except for those items pulled by a council member. Please note that these petitions meet the following criteria. Had no public opposition to the petition during the hearing, staff recommends approval, zoning committee recommends approval, and there are no further changes to the zoning committee's recommendation. Do we have anyone that would like, I see Ms. Mayfield would like to have comment item number four for separate vote and comment all right we have an item number four petition 2025 141 by darway i can't pronounce the correct name dalmia i guess and they will be um one of the petitions that we will have for consistency thank you I mean, not with consistency. Separate vote. Separate vote. All right. So for items from...

Okay. Ms. Johnson, I'm sorry. That's okay.

Items number or agenda item number six and seven. All right. So two additional to exclude and have a petition on six and seven Thurman Brooks and good properties. Is that the correct one, Ms. Johnson? Yes. Okay. That'll be coming up as well. Okay.

So for the, so we have three, I'm trying to make sure we have three, five, nine, good.

All right. So here we go. The next thing is, may I have a motion to approve the petition? With those that we've recommended not to be done.

So moved, Mayor. Second.

We have a vote and a second. All in favor? We need to read the names. Oh, we need to read all of the names. Item number three, petition 25-31 with Queen City Land LLC. Item four, petition 20-5. Go to five. Petition 20-26-04 by I'm not doing that very well, but we'll do the very best I can. All right, and eight, nine, and 10 are also set up for on 20. We had Thurman Brooks Good Properties by Had Holdings LLC.

That's also in consent.

Also in consent. And Avectar Holding LLC as well. And petitioned by Orangeboro Media for the Charlotte Hornets. With that, we'll move on to the next. Is there a motion to have a motion? Second. And a second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? All right. Sorry.

Can I just get the motion to include, to adopt zoning committee statement of consistency?

She wanted to add that kind of stuff in the motion pool, multiple things at one time.

So the motion saying, and, to approve the consent agenda and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency.

We will do that. We're going to approve the agenda, excluding those petitions, and that they were pulled for a separate vote, and we're going to adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency for each of these petitions as they appear on our agendas as the council their own. All right.

I'm going to get your sheet. Item four, Council Member Mayfield.

So I'm not going to motion for this to be approved. So someone, if y'all want to approve, they need to make a motion because I'm speaking to it.

So I will move to approve.

So we have a motion to approve and we, did I hear a second? All right. We have a second, um, now discussion and now we have a second, right?

Thank you. So I have concerns on this particular petition for a quad. This is a single family street that we are talking about at the corner, basically creating an apartment complex. a mini apartment complex down on the end of this where we currently have two single-family homes. As we're looking at attempting to do infield, this to me is not infield. I've had concerns regarding UDO and the impact that UDO can have. So when we talk about that this request is going from an N1B to an N1C, Everyone see this district allows for single family duplex, triplex and quadplexes in some situations. Basically, the only thing we did is reduce the lot size from 8,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet or greater, but this does not specify exactly what it's going to be.

Right. And I will clarify, they wouldn't be able to do a quadruplex on this site because it'd have to be located along an arterial road for the sending district. Unless you're doing the in one F standing district for all the other in one districts, you'd have to be located on a frontage type that this does not qualify as.

So that is not what our language says. So the fact that our language does not clarify that what our language has under planning staff review, is what the existing zoning is and what qualifies, what the proposed zoning is and what qualifies. And then we have the proposed request details, but we also note that this is a conventional rezoning petition with no associated site plan. So there is no language in here where we state what it cannot be. According to what's here, M1C, this district allows for single family duplex, triplex, and quadruplexes. So it doesn't specify, since there is no associated site plan, what this cannot be.

Right. And that language is put in there to describe what these zoning districts allow for. And the language does state in some situations, quadruplexes, which is applicable here. It is the situation in which a quadruplex would not be allowed for. We keep that language in there to describe the intent of all of our zoning districts, to give you an idea of what they could aspire to, essentially, and their maximum development levels, just so that there isn't any illusion about what could be developed.

Where's the line that says what it's not going to be?

This is, as you noted, a conventional petition, so there's no description as to what could occur on the site.

For clarification and for consistency, as I mentioned, because what happens is what's in the contract. So not having any language that actually identifies what you just shared, as far as what is not going to be in three to five years, it very well could be acquired and what... the developer and or community will read is this language because the language that you just stated without it actually being in writing doesn't go anywhere. I had a lot of ideas around the river district. Guess what? It didn't make it into the contract. So therefore it's not valid seven years later. So for that reason, and because it is not clearly stated, which we have done where we have exceptions, We clearly type a little line in there regarding exceptions because that is not in here. That is why I have concerns when you look at this single family residential street and imagine that there potentially can be because it's conventional and there's no site. You're saying it can't be. It's not written.

There could not be a quadruplex on this site unless the UDO were to be changed to allow for quadruplexes because This is on Cochrane Drive, which is not an arterial. The prescribed conditions of a quadruplex for this zoning district stipulate that it has to be located, the site would have to be located on an arterial. This is not an arterial frontage.

Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor of this petition, please raise your hand. All those opposed? Two in opposition.

Okay, thank you.

May I have a motion to approve petition number 2026-005 by Thurman Brooks and to adopt the zoning committee's standard of consistency for each of these petitions as they appear in our agendas as the council's own. So moved. Move in proper second. Second. I think this was pulled by Council Member Johnson. Council Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Speaking of exceptions, we talked about it, and was there language added regarding this petition?

Yes, sir. As you... Likely recall at the public hearing, you asked about the data center use in this zoning district. They converted to a conditional type petition to prohibit telecommunications and data storage facilities, which is the data center use in our UDO. Thank you. That is the only condition of the plan, but that is now a prohibited use on the site.

Because originally it was filed as a conventional, right? That is correct. And like Council Member Mayfield was saying, with conventional, we just don't get a lot of details. I don't know why we're moving toward that more, but I appreciate the change and the language. So I will be supporting. Thank you.

Any more discussion? All those in favor of the petition, please raise your hand. All those opposed? Okay, thank you. I have a motion to approve petition number 2026-006 by Good Properties and to adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency for each of these petitions as they appear in our agendas as the council's own.

So moved.

Council Member Johnson.

Second.

It moved by Council Member Mayo, seconded by Council Member Anderson. I'm going to recognize Council Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Same question. This is a conventional. We talked about this. This is the old medical office, and they want to keep it some type of medical facility, right?

Is that my understanding? Well, so as you said, it is conventional, so they wouldn't be obligated to disclose that or note that at this time. But during their public hearing, they did say that they are wanting to keep the urgent care facility that's on that site and that just utilize better the portions of the site that don't have anything developed on it. Okay. That's the intent of the petitioner.

And is this zoning type, would this allow data centers? No, it would not. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. I'll be supporting this.

One more question. All those in favor of this zoning petition, please, by show of hands. All those opposed. Now, at this particular time, the mayor would like for Council Member Anderson to continue to run the zoning committee meeting. I'm going to turn it over to Council Member Anderson.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, and we will now advance to our non-consent decisions, and we'll begin with item number 13, petition number 2025-027 by Missions city, church, and freedom communities. This one had changes since the zoning committee made their recommendation and council is required to send the petition back to zoning for further review unless council by a three-fourths vote of all members presents a determination that it doesn't need to go back. I'm going to hand it over to Ms. Kramer so she can walk through those changes.

Yes, so this petitioner revised notes on their conditional plan to add that no parking signage will be installed along Somerville Road and Oak Street. and they'd be installed on the odd-numbered side of Somerville from Valleydale Road up to Oak Street, and the new parking signs will be installed on the even-numbered side of Oak Street from Somerville Road to Fred D. Alexander Boulevard. My understanding is that there are some conversations happening in the community in regard to this, so it's to address those concerns. We believe that the change is minor and does not warrant additional review by the Zoning Committee.

Thank you. Is there a motion to not send back to Zoning Committee?

So moved. Second.

Okay. All in favor of not sending back. Oh, I'm sorry.

Ms. Mayfield had a question. Thank you. So question for staff, because I'm looking at an email that was sent regarding the family dollar deed of easement. Would that not be a part of this conversation as far as additional information?

I'm unfamiliar with the email you might be referring to. Okay.

You haven't received. You didn't receive that. I do not believe so.

Thank you. Okay, any other comment? Hearing none, all in favor, raise hand to not send back. Any opposed? All right, that is unanimous. Is there a motion to approve petition number 2025-027 and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agenda and on the screen as council's own?

So moved. Second.

Okay, any comment? Mr. Graham.

Thank you, Council Member Anderson. I had the opportunity yet again to go to the site last week and visit with the petitioner, members of the congregation, as well as those who are still opposed of this rezoning. This is one that's been with us for well over a year. The petitioner and the church has made a number of considerations. On behalf of being a good citizen, you heard tonight additional language that they're trying to do to ensure that this is in compliance with the local community standards over there. It goes without saying this is a part of the city that still continues to grow and still has a lot of state-owned roads that make rezoning decisions difficult at best. But this is one that I'm going to give a nod Yes, too. I hope that the council would do the same. Thank you. Okay.

Ms. Mayfield. No comment. No comment? All right. Any other comment? Hearing none, all in favor, please raise hands. Any opposed? You have Ms. Mayfield. That is opposed. And so we will now advance to item number 14, petition number 2025. 058 by Studio 19 Architecture PLLC. It also has some changes since the zoning committees made their recommendation. And as I just mentioned, we are required to have three-fourths of vote to not send back. At this time, I'm going to pass it back over to Ms. Kramer so she can share the changes. Thank you.

Thank you. So this is for a proposal for multifamily attached townhome style dwelling units. After zoning committee's recommendation, they were trying to address some outstanding issues and in order to comply with some tree save requirements but also meet the street extension that is coming through their site, they had to reduce dwelling units from 20 to 16. They also just made a small technical revision to note that maximum height would be defined by the UDO. We believe that the changes are minor and do not warrant needing to be sent back to the Zoning Committee.

Thank you. Is there a motion not to send back to the Zoning Committee? So moved. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Is there a motion to approve petition number 2025-058 and adopt the Zoning Committee Statement of Consistency as it appears in our agenda and on the screen? So moved.

Second.

Okay. Any comment? Hearing none, all in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. So now we will, let's see here. We will move on to item 16. Is there a motion to approve petition number 2025? Is there a motion to approve petition number 2025? one, three, three, and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it approves, as it appears in our agenda. Sorry, one, three, six, six, one, three, six. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. Petition number 20, 25, one, three, six, and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it approves, as it appears in our agenda.

So moved. Second.

All right. We have a motion in a second. Any comment? Ms. Johnson.

Thank you. Council member. Anderson, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. and Mrs. Cooper, Larry, and Sherita. I think I saw them. Did I see them? Yes, thank you. I look forward to supporting it. This is a couple. This is their property, and this is when the UDO was approved. This is one of the benefits of the UDO. It allows individuals flexibility with their lots. So when we talk about generational wealth and opportunities, I look forward to supporting this. So congratulations.

Thank you. Any additional comment? Hearing none, all in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you. So now we will proceed. to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting. Item number 17 and 18 were deferred, and so we will begin with item number 19. Petition number 26001 by MPV Properties and Mission Properties is approximately 12.67 acres located south of Mount Holly Road, north of Verde Creek Road, and west of Rhine Road in the ETJ closest to Council Member Graham's district. The site is currently zoned Manufacturing and Logistics 1, and proposed zoning is Neighborhood 2B. Additional, staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form, and we do have some speakers who are signed up to speak against this one. Can I just check if Mr. Greg Powell is present? Is Mr. Greg Powell present? Okay, in which case then we don't have anyone signed up since he is not here. So with that, after staff's presentation, then we will have a three-minute presentation. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Council Member. I thought I got 10 minutes and staff does not support.

Staff opposes it. He gets 10.

Yes, yes.

Go ahead. All right. Good evening. Petition 2026-001 is a 12.67-acre site located south of Mount High Road just west of I-45. The plan proposes the development of up to 176 multifamily stacked apartment residential units on a site containing a single-family house. The site is currently zoned ML1, manufacturing and logistics. The proposed zoning is N2B, CD, neighborhood 2B conditional. 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type for this site. The plan is not in alignment with this place type. The rezoning proposal calls for up to 176 multifamily stacked apartment units, construction of an eastbound and westbound left turn lanes on Mount Holly Road, as well as an eastbound right turn lane to the site on Mount Holly Road. There'll be a 25-foot Class B landscape yard along the eastern and western property boundaries, and along the railroad right of way on the southern portion of the site. And the building facades, buildings facing Mount Holly Road will use at least 40% brick facades. The plan is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the West Outer Community Area Plan. The abutting manufacturing logistics place type of the south, southeast, and west are not preferred adjacencies to the neighborhood two place type, and the plan would not facilitate any community area plan priority goals. Staff does not recommend approval of this petition in current form. As opposed, rezoning is inconsistent with the newly adopted west outer community area plan and 2040 policy map. The site directly abuts significant manufacturing and logistic uses, and there's an active freight rail terminal running through the property. The site is also lacking safe pedestrian infrastructure that would allow it to access nearby activity centers and nearby bus stops. However, the site is within a housing gap, and a less intense zoning district for townhome development may be a better balance between the needs of the surrounding community and the adjacent industrial uses. Happy to take any questions following the petitioner's presentation.

Okay, Mr. Floyd, you have 10 minutes.

Thank you, Council Member Anderson. Members of Council, I'm John Floyd with Moore & Van Allen here on behalf of the petitioners, Mission Properties and MPB Properties who are working on this together. I'm joined tonight by Jason McArthur and Bailey Patrick who are here in the audience in case there are questions that I can't answer. We understand that we lack staff support for this petition, but we're pleased to say that we do have the support of the Mountain Island Lake Community Association. who is active in this area. We engaged with them early on in the process, kept them informed throughout our discussions with staff, and I'll talk a little bit about some of the commitments that the petitioners have made in discussions with the Mountain Highland Lake Community Association. The property that we're talking about is about 12 and a half acres located along Mount Holly Road, close to I-485 and close to the entrance of Pine Island Country Club. A couple of key things that I want to point out on this slide that we'll come back to. commercial node about three quarters of a mile up Mount Holly Road where you have a grocery store, gas station, restaurants, personal services establishments to help or service residents in the area. You have a self-storage facility immediately adjacent to the site, and then you have this railroad easement that runs along Mount Holly Road and the southern side of the property. On the railroad easement, that was originally included as part of the petition. We received a letter from CSX objecting to inclusion, and we are therefore going to amend the petition to remove that ride-away easement, or remove that easement from the petition. That doesn't have any practical impact on the site proposed development, but you might have received a letter about that. We're addressing it. There is not a lot of consistent zoning in this area. You do have some residential developments close by, some single family here and here, apartment complex across the street and down closer to 485. You also have a new townhome community that was recently approved just on the other side of the self-storage facility. And then again, you've got manufacturing logistics, which is on the south side of that easement. Existing zoning on the site is ML1. We're seeking to go to N2B, conditional to allow the development of 176-unit multifamily development. This slide shows the policy map that was in place at the time of filing this petition earlier this year. And I just want to show you how things have changed over the last couple of months. The site originally had a neighborhood one designation with some manufacturing logistics adjacencies. You also had neighborhood two across the street, which remains there. And then you have these two community activity center areas between the site and I-485, which is over here. Fast forward to the adoption of the revised policy map, and now the place type of the site is manufacturing logistics. The area on the other side of the self-storage now has a neighborhood two place type. The areas that were community activity centers have been changed to a neighborhood activity center and additional neighborhood two. The manufacturing logistics really hasn't changed except for the fact that this site has been changed to manufacturing logistics. My point here is that the idea that you shouldn't rezone to N2B simply because you've got manufacturing logistics and a rail line nearby really doesn't carry a lot of water because you've already got things that are dealing with those conditions in the immediate vicinity that have been transitioned to that neighborhood two place type. This slide shows what the policy map manual says are things that should be considered when you change to the neighborhood two-place type. We're well over the minimum acreage requirement. Although we have some manufacturing logistics adjacencies, again, it's self-storage to one side and then an area that is separated by a large railroad easement to the south. One thing I'll add regarding that railroad easement is that the right-of-way is not considered when determining your buffer. So not only do you have the railroad easement separating the site from the manufacturing logistics uses to the south, you also then on top of that have the standard buffer that would be required between a manufacturing logistics and an N2B place type. And then if you look at the other criteria for transfer to N2B, I mean, a lot of those factor in favor of this move, particularly when you look at the proximity to services and the proximity to public transportation. This slide shows the location of bus stops along Mount Holly Road, which are very close. You've got one here and here, both within less than a half mile. Mr. Oliver mentioned and the report mentions a lack of sidewalks along Mount Holly Road. But again, you have developments going online here and here that will require shared use paths to be constructed, I believe. And so what you're doing is that connectivity to those bus stops is being provided as development on this corridor increases. This slide, it contains information from the West Outer Community Area Plan and shows the existing profile of that area and the goals. Two things that I thought were interesting when reviewing the profile of the area is that number one, 33% of the West Outer development is characterized as neighborhood one, not multifamily, which is a pretty large percentage. And the other thing is 26% is characterized as manufacturing logistics. So there's already a lot there. Then you look at the goals in that community area plan, 10 minute neighborhoods, housing diversity, housing access, transit oriented development, and then diverse and economic opportunity. Look at what the community area plan says are the benefits of redeveloping a property to a neighborhood two development along a major thoroughfare with two bus stops. And it looks to us like it would have a positive impact on four of the five goals of the community area plan. Again, this isn't my slide. This is taken directly out of the community area plan to show what happens when you take vacant land and transition it to a neighborhood two place type. And so we think that the community area plan absolutely supports a transition to neighborhood two. This is the proposed site plan. You see three buildings along Mount Holly Road. with all the parking on the interior of the site, so no one's driving or living across from the parking lot. At the request of the Mountain Island Lake Community Association, we included a condition that 40% of the facades facing Mount Holly Road would have stone or brick masonry along those facades, so you'll get a higher-end view along that stretch. You've got the central buildings in the middle that will also include some of the units as well as clubhouse and amenity area that I'll talk about in a minute. And then you have pretty significant buffers around the entire exterior. Again, this is self-storage. You had approval for multifamily over here next to self-storage. And then all this is the right-of-way for the railroad that the developer can't really do anything with. You have three minutes left. Thank you. The petitioner has agreed to make traffic improvements that exceed what is required under the UDO or requested by NCDOT or CDOT. The development has one widened access point right across from Stony Ridge, which was requested at the community meeting, and the developer will be constructing a right and left turn lane into the site. a left turn lane for Stony Ridge, and through lanes in each direction right there in front of the site. So providing those left turn lanes in addition to the through lanes hopefully will prevent traffic backup in that area of Mount Holly Road. We understand that's not going to alleviate all the traffic that's on Mount Holly. That's an area that keeps coming up as something that needs to be dealt with. We don't disagree with that, but what the developers try to do is take a practical, reasonable approach to improvements that they could make that will, you know, mitigate their own traffic as well as try to provide some benefit to the median area. The last point I'll make on traffic is if you look at trip generation data, the proposed use generates much less traffic than some of the other uses that could be developed with the ML1 zoning. Staff report has some information about trip generation, but it's based solely on one lesser intensive use. Yes, someone could put an 88,000 square foot warehouse on that site, but there are a lot of other uses that could go on that site as it's currently zoned that would increase traffic. And then looking at amenities on the project, you certainly have kind of the normal things like a pool, fitness center, dog park that you would expect to see. Two other interesting amenities that I want to point out. One is an upgraded business center. The idea there is that you would uh be able to do more than just print or make copies it's someplace where somebody that lives there could go leave their house if they work from home but still have a place to go so they wouldn't have to go to starbucks or the local library keep them off the road and then also the second thing is a small market something along the lines of what you might see in a hotel or again you need some detergent you need a bag of chips a frozen pizza something like that you can go pick that up on site without having to get on the roads and go somewhere else so both those things all those services to the The community themselves are also helping to reduce traffic. And lastly, we just have some sample elevations here. These are ideas of what it might look like. Mission Properties is an experienced developer in the region, and so we have photos of some of their other projects here in the Charlotte region. No architectural plans yet, but this is consistent with what you should expect at this location. 30 seconds left. That's really all I have. Again, we think this is a quality project that makes sense in this location. We worked hard to get community support on this one, and we hope that each of you will support it as well. With that, I'm happy to take any questions that you have.

Thank you, Mr. Floyd. Any questions? Mr. Graham.

Thank you for the presentation. A question for staff. So my eyes and ears, the Mountain Island Lake Homeless Association are in agreement with the project. So what's your unreadiness based on on not having staff approval?

It's primarily based on the place type recommendation. So the CAP, as you all of course know, was adopted in April, just a couple months ago, which updated the policy map. And that envisioned manufacturing logistics for the site. So I feel like it's difficult, after all that community engagement and discussion around the community area plans, to kind of go against that recommendation at this point. And there is quite a bit over a million square feet of development just across that railroad right-of-way of manufacturing and logistics in the area.

And that recommendation is not subject to change based on some of the leeways they've made for their project in terms of? trying to traffic count and some of the other things?

So we do recognize that it is in a housing gap, and we feel that maybe something a little less intense than stacked multifamily, maybe a townhome project or a single-family project may be more appropriate for the site than for a full apartment development.

Okay. I would love to come out and walk the site. I'm very... I do that often, especially in the Mountain Island Lake area because I am too concerned about the traffic, the congestions, infrastructure over there. And so sometimes seeing it in person is better than on the map. So if you can contact my office, we'd love to come out there and just walk this out. We would love to set that up for you to join me if you can so we can make sure that we're all on the same page. Absolutely. Okay.

Okay. Ms. Azmir. Thank you.

So staff, thank you so much for your due diligence. I'm reading based on your notes here, it states that there is an active freight rail right of way which makes up a quarter of this site along its southern boundary. Can you pull that up here on the map? So the freight rail traffic, I'm concerned it may be incompatible and impactful to this future residents who will be living on the site. I think there needs to be some measures that we need to discuss around noise and air pollution. Okay, so if you can just tell me where is that freight?

It's a double-tracked line, so there's a northern track. right here where the pointer is, and then there's a southern track right around the southern boundary where you see this running concurrently with that yellow line that marks the site boundary.

Yes, I do agree with staff's recommendations here. I think we are looking at potential air pollution as well as noise pollution for our future residents that might be living here. Also, have you considered a less intense zoning district

I think we looked at certainly a lot of options. I think the issue that you have here with the railroad track is that takes a lot of things out of play, right? Like single-family residential right next to a railroad track is probably not something that's going to gain a lot of traction. Department complex is different. I mean, my first apartment when I moved to Charlotte was Camden South End, or excuse me, Camden Cotton Mills, which is right along the railroad track. That's just what you do when you're younger. You know, you live with the noise. It's not that bad. But to think if somebody's going to buy a home in that location, probably not. But, yeah, we considered it and felt that multifamily was the best thing for this site.

Okay. Well, in its current form, I don't think it's a good idea. And other thing, just a second. So I do see this site is right next to manufacturing logistics. as well as to the south, to the southeast. And we are talking about 1.2 million square feet manufacturing and logistic facility. Am I correct, staff?

Yes. Along Rhine Road to the south and southeast of the site, there's currently approximately 1.2 million square feet of industrial development under construction.

Yeah. So, you know, staff rarely provides opposition or does not support it. So when they do, I think we need to take it seriously because we may not get calls now, but once the residents do move in, there might be calls coming. about air pollution, noise pollution, and many more. So I just think we need to take this, think through this, and consider the staff's recommendations, because I hear from the petitioner pretty clear they are not willing to lower the intensity of the development, and that concerns me, Mr. Floyd. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Mayo?

Thank you. Would you all at all be open to spending more money on the quality of the windows to kind of impact sound for future residents that are going to be there?

I mean, obviously, I would need to talk with the development team, but I don't want to say that we're opposed to anything. I think the development team here has shown a willingness to take feedback from the area residents to incorporate a lot of the feedback that we got in the community meeting. That's how we got support from the community, is hearing their feedback and going back in there. Can't say yes, can't say no. I'm happy to have the development team to look into that and see what the options are.

Okay. Okay. And just one last. While you're looking at this additional tools, also if you can ask your development team to decrease the number of units and lower the intensity of development. Thank you.

That's all I have. Thank you. I'm going to pass it over to Mr. Graham to close out comment.

Yeah, and that's why it's so important for me to walk it, right, and kind of see the proximity to, I see the line, right? So I get it. And also to talk to the Neighborhood Association. They don't grant their approval lightly, and so I was pleasantly surprised that they were already on board. But I still have a couple questions I want to ask based on staff's comments, but I'm very open and Looking forward to the visit.

Happy to do it. Thank you.

Okay. Ms. Mayo has a final comment.

Thank you so much. Would you at all be open to adding, like, in some of the conditions, like undisturbed tree canopy, like between where you're going to be putting the apartments and the actual – Railroad, I'm just thinking, you know, oftentimes if you leave those trees there, that'll help with sound. And if it's being undisturbed, that will help with some of the noise and the pollution. And that's something we've really learned from Stillbury Acres, just thinking through how can we put some things in place in the front end so we're not having to deal with issues in the back end.

Yes, ma'am.

Can you ask them that? Is it undisturbed?

Yeah. So we've got, here's kind of the part of the tree safe area. This whole area here is also, that is the right of way area. That doesn't mean that the tracks are right up next to this line, right? The tracks are shown down here and all this is currently, uh, trees, you know, so there's a pretty significant gap, not only between the railroad and, but you've got all those trees, then you've got the planning, then you've got the parking lot, then you've got the building. So it's pretty significant distance there. Obviously we can't do anything in that area, right? It's, I mean, they own the property, but the railroad has the easement and has all control over what can go on there. So That's certainly not a problem. We don't have any plans on taking any of these trees down. It provides privacy. It provides noise reduction. It provides a whole bunch of benefits that we're in support of.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there a motion to close public hearings? So moved. Second. All right. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. And so we will now move on to item number 20, petition number 2026-009 by David Simone, Signature Homes, LLC. It's approximately three acres. located south of Old Providence Road, east of Jones Ridge Drive, and west of Mary Butler Way in Councilmember Driggs' district. The site is currently zoned Neighborhood 1B, and the proposed zoning is Neighborhood 1D conditional. Staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form. So the petitioner will have 10 minutes to speak to this item after staff's presentation. And yes, Mr. Smith, is this Mr. Smith and Mr. Crater? All right. After staff's presentation, you'll have 10 minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. This site is approximately three acres along the south side of Old Providence Road, east of Jones Road Drive and west of Mary Butler Ray. Sorry. In an area where we have predominantly single-family uses, some institutional uses, and multi-family uses, though further from the site, more eastern along Providence Road. Current zoning is neighborhood 1B. They are proposing to go to neighborhood 1D conditional. That is in alignment with the policy map's recommendation for the neighborhood 1 police type for this site, as well as the surrounding area. The proposal includes a couple of conditional notes. So they stipulate that they would have 10 single-family detached residential lots. The minimum lot width would be 50 feet, and they would have a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. And just for a point of reference from where they're going to... where they're starting with the N1B district and where they're going to the N1D district, they are proposing a greater lot width and area than the minimum standards of N1D. And the N1B with where they're starting at has minimum area of 8,000 and lot width of 60 feet. This area is within the south middle community area plan, which does call for the neighborhood one place type, as I noted, does not directly facilitate priority goals or comprehensive plan goals. And we did assess it using the place type five criteria. That's an assessment tool that we have under the creating complete community section under every community area plan, which helps us evaluate rezoning petitions, requesting a more intense neighborhood one zoning district. in order to see if what is being requested meets essentially or ensures appropriateness for the established community character in the area with lot form and development. So when we look at this area, there is a real established lot pattern. And with what you see with the lots to the east and to the west here, I'll exclude these because they're a bit of outliers, these large lots directly to the west. But the ones along Jones Ridge Drive and Mary Butler Way, these are predominantly developed to minimum standards of what you would see in the N1B classification, sometimes with greater lot areas closer to N1A classification or somewhere in between A and B. So what they're proposing would be a bit smaller than that or a bit out of line. with what we think is the established lot pattern in the area. It is along an arterial road, which is a point in its favor in terms of the PT5 criteria, but it is also located mid-block, which isn't necessarily preferred when we're stepping up the intensity in our neighborhood one zoning districts on this type of site. So all in all, I would say they're not that far off from what we'd like to see in the area, but staff doesn't recommend approval of this petition in its current form. work with the petitioner to try and get this plan more in alignment with that police type 5 criteria to ensure that the proposal isn't creating a lot pattern that's out of context with the established development that we see along this corridor, which demonstrates the pretty consistent characteristics in terms of lot area, width, and setback. So with that, I'll leave my comments be and address any questions after a petitioner presentation.

Okay, Mr. Smith and Mr. Crater, you have 10 minutes in aggregate.

Thank you very much, members of council. My name is Sonny Crater. I work for David's Seminaries Signature Homes. I've worked for the Seminaries for over 43 years. And the request is to resign to N1D. This is three acres at 7,000 Old Providence Road. To David, it's a really special opportunity to create not just a single family home here and there, but to create a real community. Our whole company is really excited about the possibility for what David can do with his vision. He'll create something with lasting contribution and enhanced values to the whole area. Just a couple examples of that. Let's go on. Let's go on.

Is our presentation not in there, finally?

Is it not in there?

I'll ask.

Are we having a technical issue?

I believe they're looking for their slides. I will see if somebody else has them.

Well, the studio has paused the time while we find the slides.

Thank you.

All right.

That's all right.

We can see all the emails. Okay.

Have we determined if we have the slides?

I believe I do not have them on hand. We're trying to see if they can send them to somebody else right now. Okay. Well, we are...

So why don't we do this? Because we want to continue to advance in the agenda. So while you all are looking for your slides, we're going to move to the next petition. And after that petition, we'll return if you have your slides available. Okay? All right. Thank you, Mr. Smith and Mr. Crater.

So who's the last one to be here?

With that, then we're going to advance to agenda item 21 and we'll come back when your slides are ready. Agenda item 21 is petition number 2026017 by Kevin Curran. It's approximately 7.85 acres. located north of Ravendale Drive, west of Shalimar Drive, and east of Ventura Avenue in the ETJ, closest to Mr. Graham's district. The site is currently zoned Neighborhood 1A, and the proposed zoning is Neighborhood 1C conditional. Once again, staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form, so the petitioner will have 10 minutes to speak. following staff's presentation. And Mr. Sharkey, I see you are in the audience, and you're signed up to speak against this petition. So after staff's presentation, the petitioner will have 10 minutes. Mr. Sharkey, you'll have 10 minutes, and then there'll be an opportunity for a two-minute rebuttal. Thank you.

Petition 2026017 is a 7.85-acre site located on Raymondale Drive, Chalamar Drive, and Ventura Avenue. The plan proposes nine units, including seven single-family detached dwellings and one duplex on a site that is currently developed with a single-family house. Current zoning is neighborhood 1A. Proposed zoning is N1C-CD, neighborhood 1C commercial. Conditional, excuse me. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type of the site. The plan is in alignment with the neighborhood one place type. The rezoning calls for the development up to nine dwelling units, as I mentioned. That would be on eight lots, including up to seven single-family detached dwellings and one duplex dwelling containing two units. Each lot will have a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot area for the N1A district, and all lots will gain access from existing public streets. There will be no new public streets on this site. While the plan is in alignment with the policy map, it is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the West Middle Community Area Plan. The proposed plan does not meet policy type 5, PT5 criteria from the community area plan. PT5 criteria are utilized to ensure new development within the neighborhood one place type fits existing neighborhood patterns, focusing on lot size, street frontage, and parcel location within a block. The proposed rezoning does not fully meet PT5 criteria. Expectations because the lots, widths and lot dimensions are significantly smaller than those of the surrounding neighborhood. So even though it meets that minimum lot area for N1A, it's not, the proposed lots would typically be smaller than those in the existing neighborhood. And the proposed plan would not facilitate any community area plan priority goals. Staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form. The proposed plan does not meet the PT5 criteria in regards to lot dimensions in relation to the adjacent single-family development pattern, and the plan does not forward any priority goals in the community area plan. However, the plan proposes low-intensity, primarily single-family detached dwellings along public streets, which is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Proposed dimensions and setbacks should be revised to better match the existing lot pattern in the area. I'm happy to take any questions following the petitioner's presentation.

Okay, thank you. And Mr. Sharkey, I misspoke. You are on the next one. This is Mr. Kern. He just signed up, which is why he's not on our pieces of paper, colleagues. So, Mr. Kern, you have 10 minutes.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, counsel, for all the work that you do. So, yes, my name is Kevin Kern, and the reason why I'm appearing today is to ask for this rezoning to move from N1A to N1C, specifically for the purpose of just gaining two more lots. Excuse me. There are some very important people to me that I have been friends with for a very long time now with the church, and they would like to stay close together as a family. This one family has grown into three separate households, and the children would like to stay close to their parents, but really find an affordable place. land to build three homes in Charlotte beside each other has proven to be a difficult task for these ones. And so since I have this land that I'm willing to sell to them at below market cost for them to be able to fulfill their desire to honor their parents, but at the current zoning, I just do not have enough land to also fulfill the plans that I have uh... for this property and to address the uh... staff's disapproval uh... i'm just really asked for leniency on the lot with i am going to comply with all the conditions of the n one a zoning uh... to keep the ten thousand square foot minimum lot sizes and i'm willing to add conditions to comply with the uh... twenty seven foot setbacks from the front end of the forty foot rear setbacks as well into to follow all the ordinance when it comes to the air quality and the erosion control during any construction that would happen. Now, my understanding is that I can achieve the number of dwelling units that I'm seeking by currently building duplexes and triplexes by right under the existing zoning and the existing entitlement does allow up to 23 dwelling units on this property. But in my opinion, that would be way more out of character with the surrounding neighborhood than what I'm proposing as part of this petition. I know in the community meeting there did not appear to be any strong objections to what I was proposing. The discussion did seem to center primarily on the traffic and stormwater. Regarding the concerns about the traffic, staff did an analysis and they determined that based on the entitlement up to 23 dwelling units, it would equate up to 261 trips a day. But my petition would limit the numbers of dwelling units to nine, which would only add 110 per day. So it's well below what current entitlement is that I would not have to seek for rezoning on. And then regarding the concerns about the stormwater runoff, I did contact an engineer about it and they told me I will have to conduct a 100 plus one stormwater analysis to establish the flood elevation of the creek that runs adjacent to this property. And whenever these lots would be developed, we will make sure to design the grades in a way to keep the runoff from flowing into the neighboring lots as these lots that we're currently proposing are at low point in the neighborhood and they mostly drain to the creek that flows to the property that I own already as it is. We just want to address the neighbor's concerns and tell them we're going to do as much as we can to keep their concerns at a minimum. I am going to amend this petition later on. to take off a portion of the property on Ventura. I was informed that I do not need to keep that property on there, so which would drop off the language of the duplex as well. So really only the five lots on Chalamar is what we're going to be seeking eventually, not even the eight lots. So that's all I have for it. I'll take questions if you do have any.

Okay. Any questions? I do. Ms. Esmeralda.

Thank you. Again, staff, great job with your due diligence. To the petitioner, are you willing to revise the dimensions and setbacks so that this development better matches the existing lot pattern in the surrounding neighborhood? Because this currently doesn't align.

With the current setbacks, the N1A is 27 foot. We are willing to go to 27 foot, yes, ma'am.

Okay, so the staff recommends that. So currently, place type. So we have place type five, right?

Yes, the criteria.

Okay. So I know that you're, well, in your analysis, you had mentioned the dimensions and setbacks. What would that be? I guess how much should they be devised to better fit the existing neighborhood? I don't have the dimensions in front of me, but that's something staff can work with you on if you're willing to work with staff on that because we want to make sure that it fits into the neighborhood's character so it doesn't look out of place. We often get complaints about that.

Yes, ma'am. I am willing to do whatever work is necessary. They are long. They would be long lots, but there is that creek that runs behind it, so there is a buffer, a stream buffer there. In order to do setbacks from the stream and setbacks from the front, there is an allowable building area. I'm not sure what that is, but yes, Maxim sure has...

So yeah, we're going to work with the petitioner on this. So we're not recommending a current form. That means there kind of is a, we feel there is a path forward to get to a place where we could recommend approval. So we'll work with the petitioner on this.

Yes, I would suggest that you continue to work with staff to get their approval so that it fits into the neighborhood's character. That's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Mayo.

Yeah, I would agree with Councilmember Ejimera, just hoping that you'll continue to work with staff. I'd love to see some site plans. This, you know, being conditional, I just felt it's a little broad, particularly as staff is given some very specific things that they're looking for. So I would just like more specifications so that we understand exactly what we would be approving. Right now, I don't feel comfortable in its current form. Oh, okay.

Any other comment? No, move to close the hearing.

Second.

All right. All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands. Any opposed? Thank you. That's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Curran. Have we resolved the technical issue? Okay. So then let's backtrack back to item number 20. Secreter. And once your slides are up, Mr. Smith and Mr. Crater, you will have eight minutes if the studio could set the timer back to the eight minutes. That's how many minutes you have. Okay?

Thank you very much.

All right.

Our presentation is up there. As I was referring to earlier, I want to show you some examples of David's vision and what he can create other than when he gets a neighborhood that he can do other than just a single family, which are incredible. The first one, this is from Carrance. Carrance is a mixture of French villas and a little winding cobblestone street that's at the back of Pellenwood. That's nice. The first time I saw this, I thought Walt Disney had done this neighborhood, and I think that you would probably agree if you were to view it itself. The talent and the energy that it took him to create this is just mind-boggling. The second one is Chipping Camden, which is on Vernon Drive between Wendover and Providence Road. This is an English village that... David created based on townhomes with terraces overlooking an English garden that at the time in 2002 was about half a million dollars just for the garden. The townhomes here are now selling in the two and a half million dollar range. It's an interesting story is that the English press covered this in several newspapers and actually did on-air interviews with BBC with the couple agents. And we also had a couple from the Cotswolds come visit Chipping Camden to see that it was for real. That's how dynamic this development was. So again, we're excited about that opportunity. Properties currently zoned N1B. Requested zoning is N1D. There's the three acres. And the proposal is for a single family, 10 lots, 50 feet wide is a minimum and 6,000 square feet. I'll get to a preliminary site plan in a moment. Our preliminary layout, actually, the majority of lots are 55 and closer to 6,700 square feet. And as far as density, it's at 3.4 units per acre, which is less than the neighborhood here. And here is, again... Our clientele are for age targeted. That's the majority of who we build to and sell to. I expect no different here. It's one of the reasons that we're very intentional about having a certain lot size and yard area so that we can keep that to a minimum. It really works well if you can approve it. Here are just some other neighborhoods nearby. This is the neighborhood subject neighborhood. And again, the lots on our site plan, which I'll show you in a moment, is 55 feet wide, and they average 6,700 square feet. Mason next door, there was, in the report, it said that they're 63 feet, and they're actually, the plat says that they're 58 and 59. There's a little difference there, and a little higher density. Also, and hopefully a couple of you got emails from Mason neighborhood expressing their desire to see this go forward. We dealt with them before we even applied for rezoning, and they were overwhelmingly in favor of what we were proposing to do. Okay. Now you've got a couple other neighborhoods. You've got these are 60-foot lots. They're a little deeper, but I can see why that would happen. Then you've got, for some reason, Old Manor, White Manor didn't make the cut of what was analyzed, but they're 50 feet wide and 6,200 feet deep. As you can see over here, this is one of the neighborhoods that was used, lots here and a few other places. The one thing that stands out to me, and we're all on board with the south middle plan, with the 2004 area plan, where we diverge from planning staff is the place type five. which the statement is that it's inconsistent with the predominant lot pattern i would suggest to you that between this one and this one and this one and all of those there is not a template or predominant lot pattern in this neighborhood you have two and a half minutes okay um That's pretty much what I have to say.

Thank you. I will go to Mr. Driggs and then I have Ms. Cashmere.

So Mr. Crater, you wrote to me a couple of times. I was on vacation. I apologize for not scheduling a meeting. it looks like we ought to be able to work something out here i would just say colleagues what we're seeing actually is ironic because we started our twenty forty process and we said density density density that's the answer to rising housing costs and now what's happening is that because of considerations like the discussions we had around two point one where we appear to be kind of backing from there. So I think we haven't yet fully solved the question of how we achieve the density that is needed in order to keep housing costs down and compatibility with areas, sensitivity, to the surroundings. This looks to me like a creative proposal, so I hope it doesn't get stopped because of the wording in our plan. And what I'd like to do is in the next couple of weeks, if you could give me some dates, we'll get together, go over it, and then perhaps I can discuss it also with the staff and we'll see where we go. The vote wouldn't be until August anyway. Was there a chance for me to show just a couple more slides?

I kind of didn't get to do that. We kind of got thrown out of kilter there. Ten minutes. Okay. Well, I think I'll send it to some of you, but the houses that David has already started with the design, he sort of goes ahead of it a little bit, but they're incredible.

Okay. I didn't ask you a question just now, so I'm sorry. We can't discuss it at the moment. I'm just saying we will get together and talk. Okay. That's great.

I want to close. Wait, hang on. We have Ms. Ashmira and then we have Ms. Johnson. Okay.

Thank you. So a couple of questions. Mr. Crater, first of all, Simonini, is that your company?

Yeah, I work for the company.

Yeah, you have some of the best developments. I love the first few examples that you showed with the garden in the middle. It's beautiful. Well, first, so I'm, again, similar to the previous rezoning petition. This is, again, in not compatible with surrounding residential. So you talked about there is no template or there is no rhythm in this neighborhood. What do you mean by that?

Well, what I was showing you is that there are a lot of different developments that the lots are not. They're all over the place, quite honestly. And the one we are immediately about, Mason, we're right there with them in terms of the lot size and pretty close in the dimension. We actually average about 57 feet wide. But when you look at other developments there, again, there's not a pattern that you could say, okay, we're breaking the pattern.

So if we can hold on to that, because, staff, in your recommendation, you mentioned that there is a noticeable mismatch in lot size and scale within this area? I guess because of the lower density development as opposed to what they are proposing, which is a higher density. Is that what you're referring to?

Not necessarily with density. It's just when we consider the proposal on a whole is slightly out of step with what we consider to be the law pattern in the area. They're not that far off. it's really not that far off i think we have a way forward certainly but when you consider the holistic perspective of n1d or any in one district with your setbacks your lot area and your lot width all of those dimensional standards combining to create a look and feel it's more than just one number and so that's what we were looking at when we were comparing the lot pattern in the area But it isn't that far off. They are most similar to the compact development that is to their east on Mary Butler Way, a little smaller than those lots. And they would have smaller setbacks than those lots, certainly under N1D. But it would be closer to those lots than the other ones in the area, which are larger.

So it's good to hear that we are not too far apart here. Right. Right. What stands out here, because this site is not located on a corner lot, so if there is a mismatch, it immediately stands out. So I hope that you will continue to work with our staff to figure out how we can align in terms of it doesn't stand out from the neighboring properties. Because there needs to be some transition between neighboring properties and yours. Well, that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Johnson. Thank you. They still seem pretty far apart to me, but I'll tell you where I think these would fit wonderfully is in District 4. We have the research park. We've got TIAA, Vanguard Banks. We've got the Blue Line. It's a great area. So that's all.

At $2 million apiece, they don't fit everywhere.

You know, I mean, we have to talk. So anyway, yeah, I think what I wanted to know is, and I think staff answered the question. It's interesting. This is like the third or fourth petition tonight the staff is not recommending, so I appreciate the diligence in looking at the petitions, but is there something specific that they would need to do, do you think, in order for staff to recommend it?

We don't have a specific prescription in mind in terms of a magic number, but we're willing to work with them because we haven't We haven't looked at or been able to analyze a formal site plan, so if they're working with specific site constraints that are dictating certain standards for them and making some of those smaller than what we would prefer, then we're not sure where to go from there. So if we could have more conversations on that and understand what needs more flexibility in terms of a smaller standard and where they could create maybe a larger dimensional standard So we don't have a specific prescription in mind, excuse me, but we would just like the look and feel to be more in line with what we believe to be established in terms of the overall holistic neighborhood one dimensional standards when you look at width area setbacks, et cetera. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay. Thank you. And certainly District 1 is open to some lovely homes as well. Is there a motion to close public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor, raise hands. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you both. We will advance to item number 22, petition number 2026025 by Olympia and Wright Homes. It's approximately 3.8 acres located south of the Armand Road, west of Hampton Place, and east of Mineral Ridge. way located in Councilmember Johnson's district. The site is currently zoned institutional, conditional, and proposed zoning is neighborhood 1E. Staff, once again, does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form. And there are speakers signed up to speak against this petition. So the petitioner will have 10 minutes after staff's presentation, and then Mr. Sharkey, you will have 10 minutes, and there will be a two-minute rebuttal available for you, Mr. Brown. Thank you.

Thank you. This site is a little under four acres along the south side of DeArmond Road, west of Hampton Place, and east of Mineral Ridge Way, in an area where we have predominantly single-family residential development here with a more mix of uses occurring east of the site along Binfield Road. Currently zoned institutional conditional, an old plan for a Masonic Lodge. Requesting to go to the neighborhood 1E zoning district. This is a conventional request, so there's no site plan or associated conditional notes. The request is considered in alignment with the neighborhood 1 place type called for on the site by the 2040 policy map. It is within the north middle and outer community area plan. Again, it's in alignment with that neighborhood one place type recommendation, but it's not directly facilitating any priority goals of the area plan. And it is a conventional request, and as noted at the top, staff doesn't recommend approval of this petition in its current form. But we had a different slide, so I apologize. I was going to walk you through the place type 5 criteria here, which is also at play, similar to the other petitions that we've talked about at this meeting here. So place type 5, again, we're considering that when looking at requests for a higher intensity neighborhood 1 zoning district. This one in particular is the neighborhood 1E zoning district. Though it's not currently a neighborhood 1 zoning district itself, we still wanted to consider it because it sits within a residential area with an established lot pattern and there is n1b zoning that it abuts and r6 conditional zoning a lot of those lots are developed out to lot widths ranging from maybe high 40s to 70 feet in lot width and areas around 11,000, maybe a little bit less than. The N1E district, though, in comparison would allow for lot standards that are pretty different than what we have existing in that area. So N1E would have a minimum lot width of 30 feet. and a minimum lot area of 3,000 feet. And you have a front setback of 10 feet. It'd be pretty different than what we see established along that corridor along the south side of DeArmond Road there. So that's what's really driving staff's recommendation and why we believe it's inconsistent with the goals and policies of the North, Middle, and Outer Community Area Plan is When we take a look at the place type 5 criteria, unlike the last petition where we were talking about, I think it's close in some regards. We're not that far off. I think the neighborhood 1E zoning district is too far beyond what we find to be appropriate for the site, considering the established lot pattern. We don't have any conditions as to what's occurring on the site or if they would like to condition out for different dimensions that are greater than the minimums allowed in 1E. We haven't seen or heard of those so far. So that's where staff's recommendation is stemming from. Happy to answer any questions following comments. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brown?

Great. Mayor Pro Tem, council members, committee members, Collin Brown on behalf of Olympian Right. Kind of continuing the theme of tonight where we've got some inconsistencies or non-support from staff, I will go ahead and say, as Holly mentioned, this is filed as a conventional petition. I saw Councilmember Johnson shaking her head, and I'll go ahead and let the cat out of the bag. We're going to convert this to a conditional petition. So, you may say, well, this is a little premature to have the hearing tonight. But the reason we're proceeding with this, I think you're going to hear from some folks in the community, we've had a good amount of community engagement on the site. This is a site where everyone we've talked to says, hey, you know what, we know something is going to happen here. The main feedback that we've gotten from the community is a request to condition this to single-family homes only, which the petitioner is willing to do. The other challenge, the main challenge I think from some of the neighbors we've heard from and you may hear from tonight is often the stub street requirement that we run into. And so we do have a stub street here to an existing neighborhood. We've got a tough site. You can see it's a triangle. So there's not a lot, there's a lot of challenges for us already. So one of the real reasons I'm proceeding with the hearing tonight is to let you have a little feedback from the neighborhood. This would be something, and we're working with the neighborhood and expect to have some follow-up meetings with this HOA here to talk about the options, right? We know that the ordinance does encourage this. The UDO likes this connectivity. It is very difficult for us to find a solution for that. So, you know, all that to say, we will convert this to a conditional rezoning. We will commit to single-family only. And we will work with the community on this connection. Now, we have to have, again, I did want you to hear from the community about their concerns on this parcel to see if there's some traction, if it's something the city's open to us finding an alternative. If not, then we can figure out a way to make this work. We did have some neighbors attend the meeting. DeArmond Road, as you know, Prosperity Church is right down the street. Their concerns with traffic impact. We had questions that, you know, could you guys install a median? We'd be open to all of those things, right? So I think that's a conversation we're going to be willing to continue to have with the neighborhood. We did have a speaker sign up. I think she signed up in support. I'm not sure she's actually supportive, but I did want to give her an opportunity to speak. She, I think, is coming from this neighborhood here who've reached out and said, look, we know something is going to happen on the site. I request her, could you do single family homes? We don't want apartments. We don't want townhomes, you know, single family we could consider, but their main concern is this connection. And so I'm happy to to her. We probably wouldn't have brought this but with kind of the summer break we at least wanted to start this conversation let you all hear some feedback for the community about the connectivity issue and see if we can find a way forward that way. If we can then we will amend we'll make the commitments to single family. I'm not sure we'll probably still be having a little bit of the conversation about well what is the right size of lots? And Holly's right, you've got some giant lots here, you've got some medium-sized lots here, you've got some smaller lots here. As you all know, you just heard from the Seminini team, and they're doing $2 million houses on the smallest lots you can get. It is about the value of land. um and you know if we're committing not to do apartments and not to do town homes we do need frankly as much flexibility as we can get on the lot sizes uh we're we're talking we'll talk with our design team about whether we can come we're going to be the n1 place type but whether we can get to an n1c or d probably that's going to come down to what the fate of the street is so if we have to bring the street through we might need more flexibility If there's a way for us to not make that connection, that might give us a little more flexibility. So that's where we are. Mayor Pro Tem, like I said, there was a speaker that signed up in favor. I'm not sure if she's in favor, but I'll give her some of my time.

So is this Talia Nazario that you're speaking of?

That is it.

Are you wanting to speak in favor of this petition? Because if you're not in favor, you can't speak now. She's welcomed us on my time. I think I know what she's going to say. We have you on the paper as being for the petition. Okay.

I'm just learning about the N1EAB.

Okay. Okay. As long as she has time to speak, we're happy. You want to? She's welcomed our time. All right.

So, Ms. Nazario, please come down, Ms. Nazario. And when you get to the podium, the balance of your time, Mr. Brown, is five minutes and 48 seconds. Okay.

Mr. Sharkey, you go too.

No, he's against.

He's got five minutes. She's against it. She signed up for it. And she's on here twice.

Well, thank you. My name is Selena Zario, and as he was mentioning, I live on Ridgeline. My property is almost on that lot. The neighbors around, we gathered. Not everybody could attend the meeting that was held over Zoom. But we are all concerned about extending Ridgeline towards the Armand. As it is, there's a lot of traffic on the road. We already knew there were plans to add sidewalks, and there's a lot of tree cutting going on right now. And then we are learning, oh, they're going to put something right in the middle of the road that's going to actually make traffic worse. for the people that need to go in and out of the subdivisions. We also just learned that there's a petition for townhomes on a corner lot down the armand for townhomes. So we're really concerned about what all of these sudden development could mean and as he was saying we know that you know something was going to happen on that parcel of land um when we the neighbors gathered we weren't sure like how big are the lots we didn't know what n1e whatever that means um that's probably too small for the for the area for the neighborhoods um Another thing that we're concerned is that our neighborhood fought really hard to restrict rentals and Airbnbs and that sort of thing. And there was a development two or three years ago that popped up near us that is just for rental homes. I think those things might change the character of the neighborhood. That parcel of land, we're almost next to the highway, and there are fireflies on that lot. and they come out at this time of year. That area in North Charlotte is like this little pocket of residential single-family homes, and we do not want that to change. The neighbors across the street are really worried that they might be forced out, especially if Ridgeline is extended just to fill that with apartments and townhomes and more homes. So we're really concerned about that. So we're not really, you know, the neighbors around me, we're not that concerned. OPPOSED TO HAVING SOMETHING BUILT THERE. BUT WE DON'T WANT THE STREET EXTENDED. THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC AS IT IS ALREADY. A LOT OF PEOPLE IF YOU SEE THE MAP, PEOPLE USE HAMPTON PLACE They forget there are stop signs there and they just run through to avoid the street on the . If Ridgeland is opened, traffic is going to get horribly worse across our neighborhood. There are children playing on the street. It's just a quiet little neighborhood. We don't want that road extended. We don't want too much residential density more than it needs to be. We're not opposed per se to having something built there. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Sharkey, if you would like to come down, and you're the only one who signed up opposed to this petition, so you will receive ten minutes.

Well, even though that really sounded like a kid. Yeah, I hear you.

Last one.

I did not know what calling gay was.

first good evening council i'm sure many of you on the council know who i am in my other role but today i come before you in my role as the uh... president of hampton place property owners association and i stand here before you today to be against this rezoning. And as she has already shared with you, there are a lot of things going on associated with this that makes us concerned about what's going to happen to our subdivision as part of this. She alluded to a couple of the things. First and foremost, we know that the Dearmon Road Improvement Project is going on. It's going to put a center aisle in there as well as sidewalks. Dear Monroe turns into a parking lot every day. And if we extend Ridgeline by adding this additional properties in, that's going to make it even worse. So that's the first thing that I want to bring to your attention is we do not want to extend Ridgeline. Second thing is, that you've already heard, and it was good to hear some of the comments. If we're going to do some development there, it needs to be single-family homes. It needs to be the same as what is there now. If you go just a couple blocks up the street, we've got townhouses going all up, all over our neighborhood. So we need to make sure that we keep what made that particular area the place that people want to live, the same for when these new houses get built if we move forward with the single housing. I think that still is a doable plan right there that we can do. Some of the things you did hear about is still concerns for Hampton Place subdivision, which is that we should be, I think, We've been approved for Hampton Place Drive to get speed bumps in. I'm going to ask the City Council, can we get them in the next couple months? Because it's getting really bad. But the other thing that I will say is that if, for whatever reason, this does get approved by you guys, We need speed bumps throughout Hampton Place because it is a speed zone. It's like they just, like you've heard in the previous respondent, they've turned it into a cut-through so that they could get to Dearmont Road to get to 485. And without those speed bumps, nobody is stopping at the stop sign. So we're having kids almost get hit daily in our neighborhood. So I petitioned to the city council this evening here to hear our appeal here to not approve this as it stands. If it is going to get approved, it has to be single family only, just like what we have now. And with that, I yield.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brown, you have two minutes.

Thank you. You know, the comments were frankly what we expected. I don't know. I don't think we disagree with any of that. I think we're prepared to do to go with single family. We've got to figure out Ridgeline. I did want you to say this may be a little premature, but I did want you to hear from the community on that. We will work with the staff to see if our options, perhaps there could be a pedestrian connection, you know, to get folks through so they can take advantage of the sidewalks, but not bring the traffic through. We'd also I think we'd be open to the commitments on you know like i said the for sale housing uh we may also be able to participate in some funding of of the speed bump so um we've got two months uh to work with uh the folks we've heard from tonight we've got contact information on uh from them so we will be working on that happy to answer any questions okay thank you so i have miss watlington and then i have miss mayo

Thank you. A couple of things. You already spoke, Mr. Brown, towards the speed bump slash road diet or pedestrian connection there. My question, I think, as it relates to that is, Holly, this seems to be an amicable discussion here, and there are some solutions that sounds like are coming forward. I'd like to know, and you don't have to answer it tonight, but I would like a report out on what in our policy needs to change such that this is the rule rather than the exception. I don't want folks to have to go through a conventional then conditional to have this kind of conversation. If there's a way that we can bake it into our policies, I would prefer that. So again, I don't expect you to answer it tonight, but if you all could come back to me with what places in our policy could we codify what's being described here, that would be helpful. Are you...

Yeah, I think we haven't had a lot of conversations with them about the possibility of conditional because we've expressed that we preferred to see the site go conditional from the start of this process. And we just had it heard back, frankly. So I'm glad to hear that it will be changing the request. And we look forward to working with them to improve that. see a better plan moving forward. But I don't know that we could have prevented tonight's situation because they were also just looking for more input on this forum, frankly, to understand where they can go from there and understanding that they do have a timeline situation where they could feasibly resubmit a conditional request by mid-July to come back before you in August with a conditional request. So this allows them a chance to get twice the amount of feedback, essentially.

Sure. And I'm not talking about necessarily how to prevent what occurred here. What I'm saying is I think I like the way this is shaping up. If there are points in our policy that can get us here as a matter of course, rather than it just being relying on the professionalism or the generosity, if you will, of the petitioner and the petitioner's agent, that's what I want to understand. I'm not sure who the right person necessarily to take that back is, but if you all could come back to me with maybe a white paper on that, that would be great.

I think there are portions. I will just say, I will follow up with that in our report out, but I do think there are portions of our community area plans and specifically what the place type five criteria speaks to is setting up for the conversation that we had here and for other petitions moving forward. So that is a big part of it. But we will outline more specifically how we can do that more moving forward.

Awesome. Thank you. And then my second question, just for my own understanding, as you all think about moving from multifamily to single family, I'm just curious from a price point standpoint how that shakes up. The reason I bring that up is because earlier in the conversations here tonight, we talked about density and affordability. And so I'm just curious what that looks like versus the houses that are already on the ground.

You know, it's funny. I mean, the per square foot price, and I don't have the answer, but I'm happy to get that to you and let the petitioner answer. But The per square foot price of these homes is going to be substantially higher just because that's what new build is looking like. This petitioner is comfortable with going to the single-family. Most of the stuff we see is townhomes because that's all we can build that people can afford. This is a unique site here where he does think that he can offer single-family homes. They may be slightly smaller than the lots we have out there. I don't want to throw out a number, but I'll get back to you on that.

That'll be fine. Yep. I just want to make sure that we're current and just thinking about, as we're asking for different types of housing, we've got a good sense of what that means relative to the surrounding area.

And we'd be happy to share that because there is, as that lot gets larger, that home price multiplies pretty quickly. So it's a great question.

Awesome. Thank you. Okay. I have Ms. Mayo followed by Ms. Ajmera.

Thank you. Um, So glad to hear, Colin, that y'all are looking in the conditional rezoning. Just wanted to address some of the community's concerns. So thinking through HOAs, everyone's kind of heard my story about how we've been able to keep corporate landlords out of my neighborhood for the last 11 years by enforcing our bylaws in order to have owner occupied units. Are you all amenable to doing something similar with the CCRs and bylaws?

I think so. The last Olympic right deal we did, they were comfortable with that. That was in your district.

Okay, so maybe like 20%. I don't know if I'm allowed to talk about some of this. Okay.

I'll talk with you about it offline.

Okay, sorry. What about a conservation easement? So thinking through like Ridgeline where it connects to the neighborhood. Can we go to the other slide? This is not as great. Zoom view. Yeah. Yeah, that one. Could we do like a conservation easement potentially to help with some of those homeowners for just a little privacy so you all are not going to be, oftentimes I'll see developers clear cut and then they'll add trees back. But you know, it's going to take 20 or 30 years for those trees to be half of the size that the existing trees are. So I think that may be something that the neighbors may appreciate, keeping those existing mature trees there so they have some privacy. And it's not just, you know, they can see in the other person's yard or windows. So if you could take that back to the petitioner as well. potentially putting an easement kind of along that one part of the triangle closer to Ridgeline and maybe the other part, but just for some privacy. Um, but yeah, y'all can, y'all can talk about that. Just wanted to throw that out there. Um, Holly, have y'all thought about talking to the neighborhood at all and asking if they're at all, um, interested in having like the planning department do their roadshow?

I can certainly follow up with them. We haven't had a lot of, I haven't had direct conversations with these neighbors, but we can follow up with you with information on the community area plans roadshow, which as you noted is a planning tool and it allows communities to learn a little bit more about their community area plans and potentially how to use those area plans as an advocacy tool. So I will connect them with our long range planning team, which sets those up.

Thank you, Holly. I think that would be really helpful. Just going forward, it seems like there's quite a bit of land in the area that may potentially be redeveloped in future years. So I always think it's important to have the opportunity to be the most effective advocate. So definitely would take that opportunity up with staff. I think that has been helpful for a lot of different communities. And lastly, CDOT is here. Hopefully, CDOT, if y'all can chat with them later about the traffic calming, that would be y'all's kind of domain. So if you all can get back with them about if those speed bumps have been or traffic calming has been approved, what's the timeline for that? But we want to make sure we're being responsive to residents. Thank you. Thank you.

I have Ms. Ajmera followed by Ms. Johnson.

Thank you. I agree with Council Member Mayo in terms of the speed bump request. I think that's something city staff can address while working with the neighborhood. And you heard from Mr. Sharkey, who is the president of the HOA. So if you could please connect with him. That would be great. Mr. Brown, thank you. You always find a way to address community's concerns. I appreciate your and the petitioner's willingness to address some of the concerns in terms of the lot size and address concerns around having lesser density, so having single family homes, so that it aligns with the existing neighborhood and surrounding homes. Because going from 11,000 square foot lot to 3,000, it's pretty significant. And I think it's a noticeable difference. So I would like you to continue to work with them so that we can ensure that there is not a mismatch in this new development versus what currently exists there. So currently, this rezoning request is for N1E, which is more intense. So if we were to go less intense route, would it go back to something lesser than N1E?

right they could consider one of the other in one districts as you can see in this map here what is zoned next to them is n1b and this is some old conditional single family zoning and the development in terms of the lot dimensions these lots often exceed the n1b dimensions they were developed out before the udo um long before it but They could consider a less intense sending district, which is what we discussed with them during the pre-middle meeting before this was even filed. N1E is certainly not something that we were wanting to consider on this site. And if they have site constraints that they're trying to work around and they do that in a conditional request but still commit to... what dimensions or a product type that feels consistent with the neighborhood, then we can have that discussion. But I think N1E is still too intense of a district.

Well, I appreciate, again, staff's due diligence. You're on a roll at the planning department. We appreciate it. And I'm sure there will be continued conversations, Mr. Brown, to come to a middle ground here. And I appreciate the neighborhood for coming out to speak. It certainly adds value, and hopefully we can come to a better outcome. Thank you all.

Thank you. Ms. Johnson? Thank you, Councilmember Anderson. I wanted to ask Mr. Sharkey, the HOA president, just to come down for a moment, please, if you don't mind. While he's coming down, I'll ask Colin. Colin, or Mr. Brown, thank you. So have you met with the District 4 Coalition on this?

We have kind of given them an intro on the site. This is so close to this neighborhood. That's who we're concentrating on. The key to it is we've got to figure out what happens with Ridgeline.

Okay.

And then we'll know more. And, of course, we'll present that to District 4. But that's a real threshold question.

Okay. And, Mr. Sharkey, I wanted to ask you. Thank you for coming down. Thank you all for your diligence to your community. Are you a part of the District 4 Coalition? Is your neighborhood a part of that coalition? I'll talk to you about it afterwards if you're not.

I'm a part of everything. So that's why I'm here this evening.

Okay, good. And I have your email. So there are pending speed bumps for your neighborhood, right? Correct.

Yeah. Hampton place is on, on the schedule, but I don't know when it's going to be done. So we need, we need those now and we need more.

Right. So, and I just forwarded an email to, to council member, um, to the at large council members, um, We're waiting on the chief, the fire chief, to give us a time frame. So this is on the radar. They've already requested it. He's already worked on that. So we'll get that answer for you this week.

We certainly appreciate it. We've been working on trying to get speed bumps for about four to five years. And we finally made some progress over the last couple years. And I want to thank Councilwoman Renee for helping me in that part to get it moved up on the chain there. But I can use all the help in the neighborhood because I'm telling you that people are going to, we're going to have some people get hit by cars here real soon.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And then I have a question for CDOT or Jake about the Ridgeline extension.

Or someone. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sharkey. Good evening, Council.

Travis Miller with CDOT.

Hello. How are you?

Good.

So the concern is Ridgeline, opening up Ridgeline.

Yes. So rude.

What does it take for a waiver for a neighborhood to be exempt from opening or from expanding or opening that stuff?

Under ordinance, the subdivision ordinance, there are some specific requirements that they have. We have not reviewed a site plan or anything like that, so I made note of it. We'll reach out to subdivision to see if there's any possibility for some type of alleviation there. but we'd have to coordinate with them to do that.

Okay, thank you.

No problem.

So, Mr. Brown, when they told me about this petition earlier at the noon meeting, and I heard it was conventional and staff didn't recommend it, I'm just like, and this is District 4? I mean, you know, so I'm glad that you all have reconsidered and it will be a conditional. We do need more information, especially this close to residential. It's not fair for current residents to just, to me, in my opinion, just to... file for a petition and they have no idea what's going to be involved. So I think that the site plan will be helpful so that CDOT can review it and also the neighbors and us.

Thank you.

That's all I have. Move to close. Second.

All right. All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you. And we will move on to petition item number 23. Petition number 2025-03-130. by Maruti Hotels Inc. Approximately 3.97 acres located on the west side of the business center drive, south of Tuckasegee Road, and east of Carlton Lane in Councilmember Mayo's district. The site is currently zoned as manufacturing and logistics one. Airport noise disclosure overlay and the proposed zoning is general commercial. conditional airport noise disclosure overlay. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolutions of outstanding issues. There are no speakers against this petition. And so after staff's presentation, is this Mr. Brown? Again, you'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Good evening. This site is right at Four Acres. It's located west of Little Rock Road, south of Tuckasegee Road, and north of Interstate 85. It is wooded. It's surrounded by residential uses to the north and west with commercial uses to the south and east along Little Rock Road. Current zoning is ML1ANDO. It's Airport Noise Disclosure Overlay with a proposed zoning of CG Conditional ANDO. The 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type. The petition would allow for a hotel with 160 rooms. There is an extension of Canempla Drive proposed through the site. Petitioner does note an intent to abandon a portion of the right-of-way and not construct the extension. There would be a 25-foot Type B landscape yard along the northern property boundary. Open space areas along... beside the building and along the business center drive frontage. Petitioners committing to some preferred common open space standards be an eight foot planning strip and six foot sidewalk along business center drive. Petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the West Middle Community Area Plan and may facilitate goal eight, diverse and resilient economic opportunity by generating a range of jobs across different skill levels. This does not directly facilitate any comprehensive plan goals. Request to amend the policy map to commercial place type does meet minor map amendment criteria. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and the environment. The site is adjacent to both CG zoning and the commercial place type and meets minor amendment criteria for a change to commercial place type. The proposed hotel and CG zoning are contextually appropriate given the site's location in the Little Rock Road commercial corridor near I-85 and Charlotte Douglas Airport. And also the proposed hotel is less intense and impactful to the adjacent residential uses than many uses permitted under the existing ML1 zoning. I'll take any questions following petitioner's comments.

Okay, Mr. Brown.

Mayor Pro Tem, Council Members, Zoning Committee members, Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner. Joe gave a good overview. I do want to go quickly to a couple things. So site is currently zoned industrial and continuing this theme about unwanted connectivity. The ordinance would require us to extend Conembola into the site. That is the last thing. this neighborhood of very low-density single-family homes wants. Council Member Mayo has been, I think, up to speed on this petition for a while. I do want to recognize Craig and Cynthia Devereaux, who are here. They are the closest property owners. They live right here. I met with them this morning. They're there, and the main concern of the neighborhood is they do not want a road coming through the site How are we proposing to do that? We are actually going to petition to abandon a portion of right-of-way that is unopened. So we have filed an abandonment petition. The neighbors have signed on to that. we abandon this then that would not require connectivity so i did not ask everyone to come out tonight and holler at you about that but i think the neighborhood will will email you about the importance of that uh the other item that is important for the devros and i'll point this out we we provided tree safe next to their site because that's often what the neighbors would like to see in this case and i met with the devros this morning on their site There are trees out there that are in very poor condition and that have fallen on their home and continue to fall on their home. So they have asked, we're going to have our engineer come out and meet them. And we would like to remove some of those trees that are a problem and replace them with an appropriate buffer. So I think you'll hear from them on that. We need to make sure we can still meet the ordinance requirements, right? We've got to have trees saved there. So that's what we will continue to work on before we submit a revised plan.

I have a massage mirror.

Thank you. Well, Mr. Brown, congratulations. You have staff support on this to close the hearing.

No. Oh, sorry.

Hang on. I have Ms. Johnson. I know he's done. Is that it?

Well, and this is a question for staff and maybe we can talk offline. I'd like to know more about this abandoned road option that avoids the connectivity.

Well, there's the abandonment, and then there's also the ordinance requirement to extend public street. It's a subdivision requirement. There is a process, and it's separate from abandonment, but there's a process to not construct it based on topographical challenges. But I think the abandonment will be a different process by which... they could petition to remove that portion of the public street that is currently touching the property.

Okay. Can you explain the abandonment process?

It's different in this situation. This situation, this area in the green and yellow is dedicated already, and it's on our site, so there's an area for us to abandon. In the previous one, there's not an area for us to abandon, so I'm not sure that'll work. We're going to continue talking to see if that's an option.

Okay. In my four terms, I've never heard that term. I'd like to hear more about it. and how that option applies to residents. So we can talk offline. Okay.

Yeah, I think this might be kind of a unique situation, but we're happy to follow up with you on that.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Is there a motion to close public hearing?

Moved. Second. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Brown. We will move on to petition item number 24. Petition number 2026015 by KT Trading LLC. It's approximately 5.71 acres located south of Reagan Drive, west of Wilson Lane. and East of Transportation Boulevard, and my district, District 1. The site is currently zoned light industrial conditional, and the proposed zoning is manufacturing and logistics 1 conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition, and there are no speakers signed up to speak against it. So Ms. Thompson, Lisa Thompson, you will have three minutes after staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. This site is a little under six acres located along Reagan Drive, west of Wilson Lane and east of Transportation Boulevard. This is in an area where we have a lot of industrial uses as well as commercial uses and some single family residential uses east of the site along Wilson Lane. It is currently zoned light industrial conditional. They are proposing to go to manufacturing and logistics one conditional. That is considered in alignment with the manufacturing logistics place type that's on the site as part of the 2040 policy map. Excuse me. The proposal itself, there is no site plan, but they do provide conditional notes as part of this proposal. And they note prohibited uses, which include noxious uses that we wouldn't want to see on the site, especially given residential adjacency. I also just want to point out prohibited use of telecommunication and data storage facility. They call out a 65-foot Class A landscape yard along the southern portion of the site. They would also prohibit development along the eastern portion of the site and dedicate a permanent greenway easement to Mecklenburg County Park and Rec along the east side of the site. So essentially, the entire eastern portion of the site would remain undeveloped, and they would also prohibit access from Wilson Lane, which is that residential street. So access could only come off of Reagan Drive. The petition is considered consistent with the goals and policies of the North Intercommunity Area Plan. It may further Goal 7 because it limits development adjacent to the residential areas and provides an easement to Mecklenburg County Park and Rec for future greenway development. Staff recommends approval of this petition. We think that all those proposing manufacturing logistics uses is currently zoned for light industrial uses from an old plan, and it provides adequate sensitivity for the residential uses that's adjacent to the site along the eastern side and southern side. given the Class A landscape yard, the commitment for a greenway easement, and also the fact that it prohibits access from Wilson Lane, the residential street east of the site. So with that, I'll take questions following petitioner comments.

Okay, Ms. Thompson, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council and zoning committee. My name's Lisa Thompson, land use consultant with Moore and Van Allen. Happy to be here tonight on behalf of KT Trading. As staff described, this is a cleanup from an old 1980s conditional rezoning plan. By updating the plan, we are able to be more aligned with the current UDL and eliminate a outdated site plan. So we are pleased to have staff report no outstanding issues, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Um, I have a question in the back of, uh, in the back of this packet, there are some permitted and prohibited uses that we've, we've outlined, um, or to be, do we, what is the intention of this site?

Um, it'll be for sale, but for all ML one uses, besides the ones that we are prohibiting through the tier one conditional rezoning.

Okay. Okay. This particular area is an area that has been struggling for years around certain activities. So I thank you for having these prohibited uses there to preclude anything negative for coming into the community. Any other questions? I'll go to closing here. Second. All right. All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you, Ms. Thompson. We will advance to... Item number 25, petition number 2026018 by SR Moseley Properties LLC. Approximately 3.8 acres located north of Fred Alexander Boulevard, east of Oak Street, and south of 10th Street in Mr. Graham's district. The site is currently zoned as general industrial conditional, and the proposed zoning is Manufacturing and Logistics 1 conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition. And we also have no opposition here. So after staff's presentation, Ms. Thompson, you're back up for three minutes. Thank you.

All right, petition 2026-018 is a 3.8-acre site located north of Fred D. Alexander Boulevard, just west of Brookshire Boulevard. The plan proposes a development of up to 135,000 square feet of self-storage. The site's currently zoned I2CD, General Industrial Conditional. The proposed zoning is ML1CD, Manufacturing and Logistics 1 Conditional. Oh, sorry. Sorry, the presentation was just having to take a moment to catch up. The rezoning proposal, the plan is in alignment with the 2040 policy map for the manufacturing logistics place type. The rezoning proposal calls for a self-storage facility with accessory outdoor storage, all other uses permitted by right. prescribed conditions the ml1 zoning district are permitted however the plan prohibits certain uses such as car washes drive-throughs restaurants bars vehicle sales gas stations data centers parking lots and other more noxious uses and an undisturbed undisturbed class a landscape yard with an eight foot fence will be installed along the boundary with the adjacent neighborhood one zoning the plan is in alignment with the policy map and is consistent with the goals and policies of the west middle community area plan staff recommends approval this petition as again is consistent with the plan and the policy map and it also reduces the intensity of the previous entitlements under the i-2 district while maintaining the buffer and screening standards happy to take any questions following the petitioner's presentation

All right. Thank you.

Thanks again. Lisa Thompson, land use consultant with Moore & Van Allen. Happy to be here tonight on behalf of the SR Mosley team. As staff described, this is actually a down zoning. It brings the site into alignment with the current ordinance and maintains consistency with the adopted land use plan. Again, happy to have staff support and no outstanding issues. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any comment? Hearing none, is there a motion to close public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor, raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you, Ms. Thompson. We will advance to item number 26, petition number 26019 by ACRO Development Services. It's approximately 22.89 acres located north of Moorhead Road, west of Stowe Lane and east of Old Holland Road in the ETJ, closest to Ms. Johnson's district. The site is currently zoned as Neighborhood 1A, and proposed zoning is manufacturing and logistics 2, conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon approval. Resolution of Outstanding Issues. No speakers are signed up to speak in opposition. So after staff's presentation, Mr. Floyd, you will have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. This site is just under 23 acres located along Moorhead Road, east of Old Holland Road and west of Stowe Lane. This is along the Cabarrus County line. In an area where we have some residential, but in existing industrial facilities, that this would be an expansion of. Currently, it's in neighborhood 1A, and it is asking to go to the manufacturing logistics two conditional zoning district. This would be considered out of alignment with the policy map, which does call for the neighborhood one place type at this site. The proposal itself calls for industrial uses, which may include manufacturing, fabrication, a race shop, research and development, among other uses that are permitted in the ML2 district. All of those uses would be fully enclosed, though, and it also lists a number of prohibited uses. So it really tries to limit the number of ML2 uses on the site, trying to be sensitive to the fact that it is in an area that has some neighborhood one zoning, even if there aren't a lot of existing neighborhood one uses in the area. In terms of our landscaping improvements, provides a 100-foot Class A landscape yard as well as 25-foot Class B landscape yards. That's along Old Holland Road and the Moorhead Road frontages. In terms of streetscape, access to the site would be via Old Holland Road and Team Hendrick Way and provides 8-foot planning strip and 12-foot wide shared use path along Moorhead Road and 12-foot shared use path also along Old Holland Road. It is considered inconsistent with the north, middle, and outer community area plan. It's not quite in alignment with that neighborhood one place type, as I noted, but it may facilitate priority goal eight by providing jobs for the area as part of the expansion of the motorsports industry in the Hendricks facility. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of our outstanding issues. It's in a more rural area of Charlotte CTJ, and it is an expansion of an existing use that we have. on this site in the adjacent county. Although it's adjacent to neighborhood one place type, it is providing adequate sensitivity not only by the limitation of uses on the site, but by noting that all uses that would occur would be fully enclosed. They also have those large landscape yards as stipulated by the ordinance. So we have a couple of outstanding issues to clean up. including potentially enhancing those claspy landscape yards, which are the 25-foot wide ones. But we think that we can find resolution on those. Happy to take any questions following Commissioner's comments.

Okay. Mr. Floyd. Thank you. John Floyd again here on behalf of Acro Development Services. I'm joined by Greg Hartley with Acro, who's here in case we have any questions. Don't have a lot to add for Ms. Kramer's presentation. We certainly appreciate having staff support on this one. Just really quick. Again, this is a tier one conditional rezoning that really is seeking to expand the Hendrick Motorsports campus, most of which is in Cabarrus County. This property is right on the county line. Seeking to go to ML2 to allow flexibility with future motorsports R&D and development. But what we've done there is included conditions to really kind of dial that back. I mean, Hendrick wants flexibility to be able to do what they need to do. but then include a bunch of conditions to eliminate the possibility of any, to call it industrial type impacts on neighboring property. So things like we have a condition that all the primary uses onsite have to be indoors. So everything has to be enclosed. We've eliminated a whole bunch of uses that are things that Hendrick just really doesn't have any need to do. This property is technically in the ETJ. It's not in the city of Charlotte, but we've included a condition that says we'll comply with all the requirements of the city of Charlotte's noise ordinance. Um, and then as, as Ms. Kramer mentioned, there's enhanced buffers and things along the N1A edge and we'll continue to have discussions about the 25 foot, uh, class B buffer. Um, although it wasn't included in the initial application, the petitioner has agreed to include a data center as one of the excluded uses on this site. So that's not something anybody has to worry about. Um, and with that, happy to answer any questions that you all have. Okay.

Ms. Johnson. I just wanted to thank the petitioner for adding those additional and for the attention and responsibility to the community. Move to close.

Decker. All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Floyd. We will move on to item number 27, petition number 2026020 by Terwilliger Pappas. It's approximately 10.9 acres located on the east side of Carmel Collins Boulevard, Commons Boulevard, pardon me, south of Pineville Matthews Road and north of Bennington Road in Mr. Drake's district. The site is currently zoned Mixed Use Development District Optional, and the proposed zoning is Mixed Use Development District Optional, Site Plan Amendment. Staff recommends approval of this petition, and we have no opposition. So, Mr. Brown, you will have three minutes after staff's presentation. Thank you.

This site is 10.9 acres, located on the east side of Carmel Commons Boulevard, south of Pineville-Matthews Road and north of Bannington Road. This is in the Carmel Community Activity Center. The site is currently developed with an office building and associated parking. Surrounded by a mix of uses commercial office as well as multifamily residential Current zoning which was established by a 2022 petition is mud optional This is a site plan amendment with the proposed zoning of mud o SPA The 2040 policy map recommends the community activity center place type and The proposal would allow for 360 residential units across both development areas on either side of the public street you see on your screen, would preserve an option to maintain the existing office building, would remove entitlements for 10,000 square feet of medical office and 4,700 square feet of coffee shop with drive-thru uses from this area, but would allow for some development flexibility to spread out those 360 residential units. Existing or completed transportation commitments have been removed from the conditional notes. We require a minimum of 8,500 square feet of open space across both development areas with a minimum of 3,500 square feet of open space in each development area. The petition is consistent with the South Middle Community Area Plan and in alignment with the 2040 policy map, though it does not directly facilitate any priority or comprehensive plan goals. Staff recommends approval of this petition. It would maintain entitlements of the previously approved plan while allowing for residential uses to be spread across two development areas. I'll turn it over to the petitioner, T. Thank you.

Mr. Brown?

Yes.

you mayor tim council members any committee members colin brown on behalf of twigler pappas uh great overview from joe this is a continued redevelopment of an early 80s uh office park that just kind of fell out and so very successful mixed use redevelopment as joe mentioned this is really just a tweak to provide a little more flexibility uh almost a down zoning I will say on our revised plan, we are going to adjust from 360 units to 366. But very straightforward. We had attendees at our community meeting, some business owners. They were very pleased with the changes.

Okay. Mr. Driggs. So I just want to note that right here, if you look at this, is where I had my bicycle accident about 10 years ago. Notwithstanding that, I expect I'll be supporting this, and I will move to close the hearing if there's not a comment.

Okay. All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands. With byclaims. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Okay. So we are at our final item tonight, item number 28, petition number 2026. 021 by Heinz. It's approximately 1.63 acres located south of East Westinghouse Drive, east of Blue Central Road, and west of Crump Road in Council Member Mayo's district. The site is currently zoned as urban residential commercial conditional, and the proposed zoning is urban residential commercial conditional. Site plan amendment. staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues. And after staff's presentation, Ms. Thompson will join us for three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. This site is 1.63 acres located on the south side of Westinghouse Drive, east of Blue Central Road and west of Crump Road. The site has been used most recently as a staging area for construction of the neighboring town home community. Additional residential uses to the south and east with commercial and industrial uses across Westinghouse Boulevard to the north. Current zoning is URC conditional. This is also a site plan amendment with URC CDSBA proposed. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood to place type It would allow for development of non-residential uses, 14,500 square feet, a gross floor area, some prohibited uses, which include drive-through windows, automotive sales, automobile service or repair, and gas stations. There is a condition that if a restaurant use is developed, that hours of operation could not go past 11 p.m. There's a 50-foot-wide Class C landscape yard with a berm, including a 50-foot-wide undisturbed buffer along the southern property boundary where adjacent to establish single-family residential. The petition is consistent with the South Middle Community Area Plan and in alignment with the 2040 Policy Map recommendation for the Neighborhood 2 place type. The petition may facilitate Goal 1, 10-minute neighborhoods by providing amenities, goods, and services to the surrounding community. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and the environment. The petition is a site plan amendment requesting to amend permitted uses and site plan layout without increasing the maximum square footage of developable area established in the original approved plan. I'll turn it over to the petitioner team. Okay. Ms. Thompson, you have three minutes.

Thank you. Lisa Thompson, Land Use Consultant with Moore & Van Allen. Happy to be here tonight on behalf of Heinz to close out this evening. This is a very limited, narrowly focused site plan amendment rezoning. It really is to allow more flexibility to attract the neighborhood servicing businesses on the site. We're pleased to have staff report. We'll address any outstanding issues, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Any comment? Move to close the hearing.

Second.

All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands. Any opposed? Okay. That is unanimous. Thank you, Ms. Thompson. Move to adjourn. Second. We have a motion to adjourn and a second. It is 7.54. The sun sets at 8.39, so go enjoy some sun, colleagues. We are adjourned.