Zoning Committee Work Session - Regular Meeting

Travis, can you hear me?

Yep. I can hear you now. Can you hear me?

Yep.

No.

Okay. Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the May 5 zoning committee work session. My name is Douglas A. Welton, and I serve as the chairman of the zoning committee. This meeting is being streamed online via YouTube in accordance with all applicable meeting statutes. Requirements of notice, access, and minutes are being met by electronic means. And he's reading his script and it is scrolling slowly. Few orders of business before we get started here. Please, if you are speaking and making a motion or a second, keep your mic muted when you are not speaking. State your name before you make that motion or second.

So, those who are listening at home, old school like the radio will know who's talking. The public hearing for the zoning petitions we are hearing tonight has been held at some previous date in front of city council and the zoning committee. This meeting is not a continuation of those hearings. So, there will be no public input unless the committee has a specific question in which case, the committee will suspend the session and ask the petitioner that question directly. We'll begin our meeting as always with introductions. We're going to begin today to my right with Commissioner Shaw.

Aaron Shaw, Planning Commission. Melissa Gaston, Planning Commission.

Robin Stewart, Planning Commission.

Carolyn Millen, Planning Commission.

Michael Caparelli, Planning Commission.

Thanks very much. Thanks very much, everyone. Now we will also have introductions by staff, and we'll begin with miss Kramer.

Holly Kramer, Planning Staff.

Michael Russell, Planning Staff.

Joe Mangham, planning staff.

Shayla Tippett, planning staff. Emma Knaarhos, planning staff.

Thanks very much. We also have some folks joining us online, I will assume. Can we see their pictures? Is Can you We we only see Travis. Oh, oh, there's everybody. Alright. This is Chris Mano with CDOT.

Brett Hyatt with CDOT. Isaiah Washington, CDOT.

Natalie King, CDOT.

Travis Miller, CDOT.

We can barely hear those folks. I don't know if we can make that a better situation just in case we have to ask them a question. Dave Pettin's here

as well.

Thank you.

Oh, Dave Pettin is out there as well? That's me. Yeah. One nil to the arsenal, Dave. Miss Kermit, do we have any deferrals for tonight's meeting?

Yes. We have two deferrals and one withdrawal. 2025036 is deferring to the August 4 work session twenty twenty five series 77 by short development group is deferring to the June 2 work session and twenty twenty five dash one twenty seven by 4,749 is withdrawing their petition.

Alright. Do you have motion for these deferrals and withdrawals?

Shaw motion.

Stuart second.

It's been moved by commissioner Shaw and properly seconded by commissioner Stewart. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And opposed? Then we will wow, we have sound effects and music tonight.

I I feel like late breaking news is about to occur or something. I don't know. Alright, then those those have been deferred and or withdrawn. We will begin our our program tonight with item number four on our agenda which is rezoning petition number 2025Dash128 by a r e g u s op four Shopton r d Road Holdco LLC. And I'm, apologies if that wasn't, as graceful as the person that wrote it thinks it is. Michael, would you tell us about that?

Sure. This is, approximately 15.16 acres located North Of Shopton Road, East Of Stone Stonecliff Road and West Of 85. It's just north of the, outlet mall there. The existing zoning is, business park conditional, which was never developed, And the proposed zoning is neighborhood 2B conditional. The 2,040 policy map recommends the commercial and the neighborhood two type places.

Some of the proposals are three thirty multifamily stacked residential units, and the petitioner should coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park and Rec regarding the location of access easement on the site for future connectivity from Shopton Road to the Berwick Park. Some of the transportation improvements are eight foot sidewalk, eight foot planning strip along Shopton Road frontage and along all internal public network required streets. The petitioner will provide a separated bike facility along Shopton Road consisting of a five foot bike lane and a three foot buffer. Off-site transportation improvements as identified at the traffic impact study include new turn lanes, approach lane construction, signal phasing modifications, and compliance with the CTR requirements during permitting. And then open space areas shall consist of enhanced planning, specialty paving materials, shading elements, seating options, public art, sculpture, decorative lighting, interactive elements, and such.

The plan is consistent with the goals policies of the West Outer community area plan. The petition is not in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the commercial and neighborhood two place types. The West Outer community area plan may facilitate the ten minute neighborhoods and neighborhood diversity and inclusion. For the minor map amendment criteria. The preferred minimum acreage in the site is 15 acres, and the petition also abuts an area designated as into to the west of the site.

Some of the preferred adjacencies, it is adjacent to, parks and preserves and the, CAC place types. The petition is within a quarter mile of the Outlets Boulevard and Designer Drive bus stop, and within, between a quarter and a half mile of a community activity center and the petition is with in access to housing gap. And the petition does have road frontage along, Choptin Road. They had some changes since the public hearing. They are providing a vegetative buffer along the interstate border, those two buildings, and they've added active open space pockets internal to the site.

The petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the West Outer Community Area Plan. And the site is currently governed by the conditional rezoning from 2001, which entitled the property to business office park uses, but it was never developed. Since that time, Still Creek area has experienced rapid residential growth, and the opening of the, outlet mall has further shifted development patterns in the area to support multifamily stacked housing. And although a majority of the site is recommended for commercial, based on the old rezoning, it does meet the minor map criteria for place type change two and neighborhood two due to its acreage, place type adjacencies, and locational context I just went over. And the petition does provide substantial transportation, pedestrian, and bike improvements, creating a more walkable and connected site.

And it's served by two CATS routes, which provide local bus service. There's two outstanding issues, but we talk with the petitioner, and they'll button those up before it goes to decision. And staff does recommend approval.

Thank you very much, Michael. Does anybody have any questions or comments on this particular petition? If none, Michael, I'll just ask a a question for point of clarification, just perhaps as a learning experience. Again, this had a policy map designation of of what was the policy map? Commercial. Commercial. And neighborhood too. But okay. Okay. Now I see the small sliver.

Alright. Yeah. I see the small sliver now. I wasn't paying attention when that that happened. And so, in essence, from a policy policy perspective, intuiteness that is is met by being immediately adjacent to it. Right? Would that be a fair characterization?

Yeah. That's one of them.

Okay. Alright. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm good. Anybody else got any questions?

I have a question. Gaston, how many housing units was that?

330.

330. I'm going to ask this. I probably know the answer. Was any of that indicated going to be affordable?

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number four on our agenda rezoning petition twenty twenty five dash one two eight?

Shaw, motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2020 100 and adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. Nolan, second.

It's been moved by commissioner Shaw and seconded by commissioner Millen. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed? That passes unanimously. Hey. We're all here. It's I think it's been a minute since we were all here. Haven't?

We're all here.

Yeah. I'm excited in a way I haven't been in five or ten minutes. Rezoning petition, item number five on our agenda is rezoning petition 2025Dash136 by Larry Cooper. And, Michael, it looks like it's your time to

be busy. So this is approximately two acres located East Of West Sugar Creek Road, West Of Burgundy Drive, and North Of Knighton Lane. The current zoning is Neighborhood 1 B. The proposed zoning is Neighborhood 1 C. The policy map recommends the Neighborhood one place type.

The petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the north, middle, and outer community area plan. The petition is in alignment with the 2,040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type. The North, Middle, and Outer Area Plan, the neighborhood diversity and inclusion may be facilitated by adding the ability to develop more infill housing along a major arterial and near commercial areas. Like I said, the petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the North Midland Outer Area Plan. The site is designated as a neighborhood one place type.

The request is in alignment with the site's place type designation and the community area plan goals. The proposed zoning represents a slight increase in intensity over the existing N1B entitlements. And as you know, the primary difference between N1B and N1C is in the dimensional standards, such as lot size and lot width. And the two N1 districts permit the same uses, And the site meets the place type five criteria using the creating complete communities policy guidance in the subject's property, particularly large lot with, without a lot of a pattern relative to the surrounding context. And being on our arterial provides a strong basis for the requested rezoning to the M1C District.

There are no outstanding issues and staff does recommend approval.

Thank you very much, Michael. Does anybody have any questions or comments on this particular petition? Commissioner McDonald.

It's maybe a little bit off topic, but this strikes me as a parcel that is ideal for a cottage court. I don't know if that where that would come up if the petitioner does not come up with that idea. Because it is on the arterial, maybe one driveway would make sense. I do not know. Obviously there is no site plan. But yeah, I just had that thought that this seems like an opportunity for something like that. I I mean I just don't think we see enough of those proposed.

Yeah I think we've only had two cottage court rezonings and certainly they would be eligible for applying for that since it's a a in one district. But they they didn't apply for that. So, Do you want to add anything to?

You good?

Yeah. Thank you.

Anybody else? Have a question. Commissioner Gaston.

Commissioner Gaston. So, basically, they're just changing the zoning because they want to have a smaller footprint or lot size. That's instead of 8,000, they want to do 6,000 but they didn't have to submit any kind of site plan or anything like that because it's currently really the same designation except for the site, except for the square footage?

Yes, because they were, you know, consistent with the area plan and the policy plan just going up from M1B to M1C, we felt like it didn't need to come in conditionally and they could just do it conventionally since it's just you know, it's two acres and it's just a small jump and like I said, the lot size and setbacks.

Okay.

So, they're kind of limited really, it's still in one, it's going to be residential of some sort.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number five on our agenda, presenting petition 202036 by Larry Cooper.

Caprioli, motion to approve, having read the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition. I move that we recommend approval of petition twenty twenty five dash one three six as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

McDonald, second.

It's been moved by commissioner Caprioli and seconded by commissioner McDonald. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number six on our agenda is redoneing petition twenty twenty five-one 142 by Third and Urban LLC. Emma, would you take us through this one, please?

Petition twenty twenty five dash one four two is approximately 1.9 acres located North Of Tuckaseegee Road, East Of Berry Hill Road, and West Of Guesco Street. The current zoning is MUD O mixed use development optional and the proposed zoning is IMUCD innovation mixed use conditional. The 2,040 policy map recommends the innovation mixed use place type for this site. The original proposal presented at public hearing includes development standards that will prohibit the use of vehicle dealership and closed vehicle fueling facility. Vehicle rental enclosed vehicle repair minor, and parking lot principal use.

Policy information. I do want to note that since the public hearing, there were some changes made further restrictions actually. So, the petitioner has committed to a minimum residential if there was a residential component to this petition, there would be one space per unit. It is more restrictive than the UDO requirements and was added in response to concerns regarding parking but into nearby residential streets. And additionally, the building height limitation of 75 feet is also lower than the height otherwise permitted in the proposed district.

It was incorporated at the request of community members. So, the agents and the petitioner listened to the community members feedback at the community meeting, took it under consideration, and appropriately applied development standards. That slide is not present. Sorry about that. The plan is consistent with the goals for the policies of the West Inner community area plan.

The petition is in alignment with the Charlotte future 2040 policy map recommendation for the innovation mixed use place type. It was in the wrong spot. But they added a note if residential units are constructed on the site. They shall include a minimum parking ratio of one parking space per residential unit. As well as added a note on building height shall be limited to 75 feet. Staff recommends approval of this petition and this petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the West Inter Community Area Plan. I'll take any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, Emma. Does anybody have any questions, comments on this particular petition? Commissioner McDonald.

Did you say the the parking commitment was added

because of community requests? Yes, the agent held the community meeting and the neighbors came and spoke about their concerns. And one of the concerns was parking. I believe if you have additional questions, their report is very detailed and the agent is also here if you have additional questions. Thank you.

I don't know if you've ever gone over it,

but it's very hard to mark. So they're probably just concerned about under parked. And under part another under part site and their neighborhood, which I guess.

Anybody else? I will just, this is IMU, so they can put anything IMU, right?

Correct. Except for the limitations.

The limitations.

Yeah. Listed.

And we had had a an IMU previously that was I think, people came in and put all residential in that IMU. And I'm just I'm interested to see what staff's reaction would be if this were all residential, Holly. Would that be a bad thing?

I think it's a little bit different in this.

Contextual perhaps.

This is this is a rapidly transitioning area and I live close here so does Michael. So, we have big thoughts and feelings perhaps.

I just visit every once in a while.

So Right.

Yep. Actually recently got front porch Sunday too, so that's probably another reason people wanna see additional parking in this area. But when you think about adding residential product, it would actually really go a long ways in directly supporting a lot of the commercial tenants that we're seeing come in there. Okay.

A lot

of the adaptive reuse projects and from the old muddle plans that we've seen have successfully turned over those old industrial sites, and it helped to have a bit more, frankly, multifamily come into that area as it transitions and densifies.

Okay. Alright. Just just curious that drew that connection from previous rezoning. Anyone else? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number six on our agenda rezoning petition twenty twenty five dash one four two?

Let me get my glasses. Caprioli, motion to approve, having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition. I move that we recommend the approval of petition twenty twenty five dash one forty two has presented as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Shaw second.

You guys wanna wrestle over that one? I'm gonna get I'm gonna give it to to Erin. That's been moved by commissioner Caprioli and seconded by commissioner Shaw. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number seven on our agenda rezoning petition 2026Dash002. See if people are leaving once their cases have been heard. By Zi Zhang, and please correct me if I alright. I I in the ballpark. Consonants. Consonants. Joe Mangum, take us through this one, please.

This site is just 0.16 acres. It's located on the South Side Of Verbena Street between Yancey Road and Nations Crossing Road. This is in the Lower South End area. It's about three quarters of a mile to either the Woodlawn or the Scaly Bark Light Rail Station. Area has seen a tremendous amount of change in recent years with conversion of industrial properties to residential as well as commercial.

Either side of this property or apartment, new apartments on the West Side and new townhomes on the East Side. Current zoning is ML two with proposed zoning of TOD NC. The 2040 policy map recommends the community activity center place type. Tough people. The petition is consistent with the south inner community area plan as well as in alignment with the policy map recommendation for the community activity center's place type.

May facilitate the trail and transit oriented development. Staff recommends approval. It is surrounded on three sides by property zone for TOD, and I will take any questions.

Thank you very much, Joe. Does anyone have any questions, comments? Commissioner McDonald?

If I remember from the presentation at the public meeting, this is a proposal for, like, a third place, a gathering place? Coffee shop, perfectly. Coffee, beer and beer and wine. It's awesome. I think we need these in every neighborhood.

Obviously spoken from our alcoholic council or commissioner.

It's about the hours, you know. You can have coffee in the morning and you can have a business that can operate into the evening hours. It's

it's Oh, so logical.

Fills a gap.

You've you've covered yourself. I think it's all good.

Thank you.

Alright. Does anyone else have a comment? Question? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number seven on our agenda, rezoning petition 2026Dash002.

Millen, having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2026Dash002 as it appeared for us and the adoption of the consistency statement.

Stuart,

Oh god. It's getting it's getting rough in here. Uh-uh. Death mess. Yeah. It's been moved by commissioner Millen and very promptly seconded by commissioner Stewart. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously and very quickly as it were.

You can now leave if you would like because that's what happens when people hear their petitions. Unless you'd like to stay and hear what these can. We are we are we are on our last one, so you are it's it's your lucky day. Yeah. Rezoning item number eight on our agenda is rezoning petition 2026Dash003 by SLRH Acquisitions LLC. And Sheila, would you take us through this one, please, ma'am?

Yes, sir. So petition 2026003 submitted by the petitioner as you've mentioned is for parcel located at 514 Fenton Place, which is approximately point eight four acres and is located East Of Providence Road, North Of Fenton Place, and South Of Cherokee Road. The site is indicated by a red star and is surrounded by diverse land uses, including offices and retail to the North near Providence Road condominiums and single family homes to the South and east over, established single family homes to the East, and office and small commercial buildings across Providence Road to the West. The site is currently zoned office flex campus, and the petitioner is requesting a tier one conditional rezoning to neighborhood center conditional. This is consistent with the recently adopted revised 2,040 policy map recommending the neighborhood center place type.

The petition proposes to rezone approximately 0.84 acres to allow uses including multifamily stacked residential and commercial uses permitted in the NC District, such as office retail, restaurant bar, personal services, and fitness uses. Parking may be located at ground level with any above grade portions on the Ground Floor required to be screened as well as or possibly below grade parking. The petition sets specific building setback requirements from the Eastern property line, 38 feet, 24 feet, and 18 feet, depending on the adjacent parcels. Similarly, the rezoning proposes a minimum 10 foot wide Class C landscape yard and a six foot tall fence to be installed between the building and the required landscape yard on the Eastern property line. Changes since public hearing include the 10 foot Class C landscape yard along the Eastern property line to include enhanced plantings meeting the Class B landscape yard buffer standards, allowing it to be more dense screening compared to the Class C.

The petition prohibits vehicular facilities and minor vehicle repair facilities. And staff has also received confirmation that the final submission for this petition will include a condition to prohibit enclosed vehicle retail uses unless otherwise identified as an accessory use as an amenity to the residents. That said, staff recommends approval of this petition as it is consistent with the goals and policies of the South Inner Area Plan. The petition is also consistent with the goals and policies of the south of the revised of the South Inner Area Plan and the revised policy map. It may facilitate goal II of the priority goals by opening entitlement options for development.

That said, staff recommends approval of this petition as the proposed rezoning allows for more opportunity to introduce diverse residential and commercial options. That said, my presentation is over, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Can

I just ask for a quick repeat of the last, the newly added restriction because I didn't there were that was a big word sandwich, and I didn't follow it?

Yes, ma'am. And you're referring to the changes since public hearing. Correct? Staff has also received confirmation that the final submission will prohibit enclosed vehicle rental uses unless identified as an accessory use to the primary residential use. Yes. You're welcome.

It's residential. What is that?

Commissioner Stewart, Sheila, was this, did we rezone this whole area before or did I just read about that in the ledger? Theatre, the Starbucks, Laurel Market, that whole thing has been.

Yes. So, that is. Yes, sir. That is all on the same parcel but that section of the parcel will not be touched as far as the rezoning goes.

Is it the same owner or is this a different owner? Holly?

Same parcels in the inner here but this rezoning area.

I mean, is it going to be part of the same development? Is that why they're rezoning this bit as well? Or is this going to be a separate use?

It could be, but the manager here could be developed that whole site can be developed independently from of the sub.

Right.

The idea is that this could potentially be one large unified development.

Okay.

But I'd like to make it fair to this present area.

Is this being rezoned for the same uses as what we rezoned the larger site for?

That's because it had old business zoning on it a while back. It's the neighborhood center place type though. So they wanted to do something like a mixed use development or residential usage, we would develop to NCU standards on the neighborhood theater side. So what they're seeking from this site is a neighborhood center designation.

So similar?

Same development standards being one of the keys there. Correct?

Right. It has staging there. And

I'm sorry. I've been on mute this whole time. So it's We ignore you anyway. Sorry Don't for the purposes of the recording. That's unfortunate. The Mariner Theater site has CG zoning again, but if it wanted to develop something like residential uses, you would develop using the NC development standards because it's in a neighborhood center activity center place type. And this is this rezoning site on the OFC portion of the parcels seeking the neighborhood center zoning district. So you'd be if they were seeking a unified development, you'd be operating under the same set of standards

Okay. Thank you. Conceivably. You good?

I'm good. Thank you.

Alright. Anyone else have questions? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of, item number eight on our agenda rezoning petition twenty twenty six dash zero zero three? Oh, like you guys were racing today.

Hold on. I didn't I didn't have a microphone here. Caroline stole it.

Oh.

Okay. Having reviewed the petition and considered statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition twenty twenty six dash zero zero three. Has it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement has it appears before us?

Gaston, second.

That was that was swift too. Yeah. It's been moved by commissioner Caprioli and seconded by commissioner Gaston. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Do you have a motion for us to adjourn the quickest zoning meeting that I have been in in the last six

Shaw.

Motion to