Zoning Committee Work Session - workshop

Tell me when I can talk. Am I good to go?

Good afternoon everyone. My name is Douglas Welton. I'm the chairman of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Commission and the Zoning Committee of that Planning Commission. This is our August 4th, 2026 Charlotte Zoning Committee work session. I'd like to welcome you here. We are meeting in the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government Center, 600 East 4th Street. We're up in room 280 for those of you who would like to come visit us. You can also see us on the city's YouTube page. We will begin the meeting with introductions of the members of the zoning committee, and I will begin all the way to my left with, uh, commissioner millen.

I think commissioner carol millen. Shawna neely zoning committee.

Robin Stewart zoning committee. Andrew Blumenthal zoning committee.

It's on the committee.

Um, staff introductions will be moving this framework. holly kramer planning staff john kinley planning staff michael russell planning staff max oliver planning staff joe magum planning staff raquel jones planning staff emma canarjas planning staff thanks very much and do we have uh some folks joining us online and if so would you all please share your beautiful faces

Natalie King, CDOT.

Chris Mano, CDOT. Travis Miller, CDOT.

Brett Hyatt, CDOT.

Is that everybody online?

Great. Thanks very much. We will begin our meeting and first item we will talk about are our Uh, deferrals and or withdrawals is grammar. Would you tell us take us through this please?

Yes, we have 2 deferrals petition 2025 036 by range works requesting deferral to the September 1st sending committee session and then petition 2026 dash 025 by Olympian right? Homes requesting deferral to the September 1st sending committee session. That's it.

Thank you very much. Do I hear a motion for us to accept those deferrals?

Yes, and I make a motion to accept the 2 referrals.

2nd, it's been moved by commissioner Gaston and 2nd by commissioner Blumenthal. All those in favor please say aye. All right, that passes just a note of business before we get started. For those of you who are here on the committee, if you are making a motion, please say your name before you make that motion. So that those folks listening online who aren't seeing us can know who's making the motion. And also, if you are not speaking, please keep your mic muted. We'll begin our work session this evening with item number one. It's rezoning petition 2016-056 by Edwin Sudreth with Ardura on behalf of Crescent River District LLC. He's the property owner. This is an innovative request, and we are visited by our friend, John Kinley, who comes to do innovative requests. And, John, could you please give us the explanation?

Thank you, Mr. Walton. I will do so. Yeah, this is a rezoning from 2016. It's the River District rezoning out west beyond the airport. And it's starting to develop. You can see on the aerial photograph on the screen, you got a lot of construction happening down around West Boulevard and then kind of extending north towards the railroad tracks. There's some subdivisions that are starting to pop in and then there's plenty more development planned for the area in the coming future. The specific site that we're looking at is highlighted in green on the screen, and it's the parcel numbers listed there, but that's the within the river district development and it's within the area that is on 2 and from that rezoning petition and it's area is proposed for a amenity for the amenity site for the surrounding residential community. And if you go to the next slide, please. This is just a zoomed in area of the property is currently wooded and you can see some of that residential development coming in along a hollow branch road along with new sidewalks and the streetscape that's being installed and the same improvements will be made alongside the road in the future as the development occurs around this parcel. Next slide. This is a copy from their image from the approved rezoning plan showing the different areas of zoning and the area zones. The parcel is conditionally zoned under the legacy zoning ordinance due to that 2016 conditional zoning petition. And per the approved site plan, the parcels within residential district number 5, which allows residential uses, which also includes associated community amenity facilities. Next slide. This is a site plan, a kind of zoomed out site plan showing the area of the innovative request and the exhibit shows the proposed amenity facility surrounding subdivisions that would be coming in the future with parking opportunities and pedestrian connectivity in the area. The purpose for this innovative request has to do with the required parking for the amenity site that's required on-site parking. So this exhibit shows areas of opportunity for parking off-site within these subdivisions. So there's an area here, area here, some on-street here, and then along the road here, there's on-street parking. It's hard to see, but it's there. And so surrounding the amenity facility are parking opportunities, but the whole idea and concept behind the river district Is to create a kind of an area of residential communities that are tied together with sidewalks and walking paths. And 1 of the things, even in their vision statement, I think it's on the next slide. Perhaps I put it in there somewhere. Maybe. Well, it might be coming up. Basically, the vision for the river district was the area with a lot of natural paths and pedestrian connectivity. So, here's a zoomed in version of the site plan showing the proposed amenity building and other facilities and then their parking that would be on site. And then they also show this trailhead that would connect into their existing trails facilities that are being developed. And then they also show the cell connectivity throughout crosswalks that would be installed with curb ramps. to get to some of this on-street parking that's over here. And then there's also sidewalks coming down here and around. So it's pretty well connected from a pedestrian standpoint within the area immediate surrounding the site. Next slide. The following items are requested for innovative provision. The reduction of the minimum on-site parking requirement for this amenity center required per the ordinance space standards would be 74 on-site spaces. And they're asking for that to be changed to 40 on site spaces, which would be a reduction of 37 spaces applicants plan show off site parking with surrounding subdivisions and that they seek to count towards that amenity site parking requirement. And then additionally swapping the required 2 long term bicycle spaces for 2 additional short term bicycle spaces. For a total of 6 short term bicycle spaces, but no long term. And the reason for that request is due to the nature of it being a community amenity facility. They feel like people will potentially walk or bike there just for the short term. There would be a need or desire to have a long term bicycle parking at that facility.

Next slide.

So the approved rezoning plan states in development standard 2B that the petitioner or the assigns reserve the right to seek innovative requests or provisions in the future. Basically, sections 11.208 of the legacy zoning ordinance describes innovative development standards and provides applications, may request to modify regulations established by the base ordinance standards, including off-street parking. The applicants are proposing to develop the subject parcel with a 3,500 square foot clubhouse and a 5,000-square-foot swimming pool, tennis court, pickleball courts, and supporting site improvements. And the ordinance would require, based on those proposed facilities, 74 vehicle parking spaces and two long-term bicycle parking spaces. The proposed amenity is a private neighborhood facility, so it's not open to the general public or for commercial recreational use. It would only be for the residents who reside in the area around the the amenity facility. Next slide. Again, as I was mentioning, the vision statement from the approved rezoning plan states that the districts within the development will evolve over time, remaining connected through extensive network of parks and open space, trails and greenways, and multimodal streets. The site is connected to the overall development's extensive pedestrian and trail network. The amenity site will include a trailhead connection Uh, to this network, allowing residents to access the facility via walking, biking, running, et cetera, additional parking opportunities exist in the surrounding neighborhoods that are also part of the river district. And the parking nearby provides the additional capacity during the occasional peak use periods while the remaining while remaining within walking distance of the amenity complex. And then the base ordinance parking requirement does not require unique operational characteristics. of a private HOA facility, and it results in a parking supply that exceeds any anticipated demand. And given the private nature of the facility, extensive pedestrian trail connectivity throughout River District and the availability of parking, supplemental parking within the adjacent neighborhood for those additional parking spaces is expected to accommodate that additional, any anticipated demand that there might be. The request to exchange long-term bicycle parking for short-term is based on, again, the anticipated use patterns of folks visiting the facility. Clubhouse, pool, tennis court, and pickleball courts are intended to serve residents and their guests for short durations of recreational activity. Short-term bicycle parking located near the clubhouse would better serve those people visiting the site. Next slide. Staff recommends approval of the innovative request, reduction of the minimum on-site parking required for the amenity center from 74 On site spaces to 40 and a reduction of 37 spaces plans show off site parking with surrounding subdivisions and they seek that account towards their amenities site parking requirement. And then to that reduction in the long term parking from 2 to 0, and then the additional short term parking spaces for bicycles to bring it up to a total of 6 and we don't have any outstanding issues. And I'll take any questions if you have them. And do we have that 1 here? He's here if you'll have any questions that I can't answer as well.

All right, thanks very much John. Does anybody have any questions about this particular request? Hearing none, this is one where we just vote up or down whether or not we accept this request. So do I hear a motion that we accept this request? I'll make a move. Okay.

Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff. Don't do that. Don't redo this one?

No, we just, this is just an up or down vote, right?

Yeah, thank you. We don't have to do that. Yeah.

Yeah. You just. Yeah, you just say, I moved it weeks. I moved to approve or accept the. All right. All right. Uh, it's been moved by commissioner Blumenthal 2nd, by commissioner Stewart, all those in favor of approving this, uh, uh, conditional request. Uh, our innovative requests. I all right any post. That passes, and this is the part where John gets up and leaves. How does he always get the first one? This is an inside job, isn't it? An in-fave request is one of those things that just, yeah, we'll talk about it. Just roll it.

Okay.

All right. We are up to item number four on our agenda. which is rezoning petition 2025-077 by Short Development Group, LLC. And Max, would you talk to us about this particular petition, please, sir? Sure.

Good evening. So this is the second time that y'all will have reviewed petition 25077. The first one was at the June zoning committee work session. And there were a couple changes that we felt were significant enough to warrant another Uh, zoning committee review prior to moving forward the city council decision. Um, but. 577 is a 2.5, 2 acre site looking on the South side of window road used to brand off road. This is a 40 unit town home development on a site that's currently vacant. Current zoning is N1A, neighborhood 1. Proposed zoning is N2ACD, neighborhood 2 conditional. Plan is not in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type. Resigning proposal calls for up to 40 units, including four dwelling units reserved for households earning 80% AMI area median income for a period of not Less than 15 years, there's a 12 foot multi use path of 8 foot planning strip proposal on North window road. All units will have pedestrian connections to the sidewalk, 10 foot class C, landscape yard planted. Class B standards will be provided a budding the neighborhood. 1 place type with a 15 foot setback along the Western property boundary adjacent to the neighborhood. 1 place type pointer. No. OK, we don't have a pointer, so you'll just have to. Imagine.

Release the pointer.

Buildings abutting the street would be limited to 4 units. Maximum building heights 48 feet rooftop terraces and patios are prohibited and vinyl is prohibited as a primary exterior exterior material. While the plan is not in alignment with 2040 policy map, it is consistent with the goals and policies of the South middle community area plan site plan amendment. The site plan meets minor map amendment criteria. Um, to update the policy map in the neighborhood 1 place type to the neighborhood 2 place type. Uh, the proposal. The proposed plan could also facilitate priority goals 1 and 2, 10 minute neighborhoods and diversity inclusion. So, as mentioned, this is the 2nd is any committee review at the previous committee meeting in June. The number of units had been reduced from 40 to 36. petitioner has since increased that number of units back to 40. But with that committing to at least 4 of them being reserved for households, earning 80% or less for a period of 15 years staff recommends approval of this petition. As the proposed into a zoning is compatible with the surrounding residential, commercial, institutional uses, it's located on North window road, which supports the plan goal, placing multi family housing along arterial streets of transit. site is adjacent to multifamily development within a half mile of Windover Plaza, which is the shopping center that offers daily needs, goods and services. And now it also has an affordable housing component. Happy to take any questions.

Thanks very much, Max. Are there any questions or comments about this particular petition? Commissioner Mellon?

Can you pull up the site again? Pull out on the window over where is it 1 way? Is it only a right hand turn out or is it so right hand left hand turn on a window?

This this center. Entrance exit is restricted to write in write out only this 1 on the Eastern boundary is full movement.

Is that where the new traffic lights going in or is that kind of the picture?

There is a traffic light. Farther to the east towards, um, Home Depot and the food line shopping center. Um, but there's not 1 proposed for the site.

Okay. So the 1 furthest this way would be a left and a right.

Yeah, I can't think of the name of the road that it's at, but it's, um, just to the east of this site.

We're looking at the street name. Like I said in the last meeting, I'm very familiar with this area. I travel it at least twice a day.

Is that light going in where you turn off to go by the park there?

There's an existing light at Marvin.

They're putting in a new light at the rec center.

Yeah, bill bill is the name of it.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, so bills up.

Yeah, and that would be not the closest light, but the next slide down, because that's east of Marvin.

And whereas always appreciate. Affordable units going in, I believe. I have a concern about the density on this 1. Even with 36, 12 things going in and the last 1 I brought up because environmentally. The areas so developed that there is major flooding issues down on window. And I know it was brought up in the last meeting to that. Well, there's all these traffic lights, so you can't speed. Well, I can tell you the state has put in extra traffic lights because. That area is dangerous for accidents, especially if you're trying to pull out left or right. And flooding, I did read the post stormwater construction was suggested by our chair. It's lovely reading material, but you have no life nighttime at 3 in the morning when I have nothing else to do. But I still have my concerns about this and I do know that we receive at least 1 email from. A couple of neighbors that live there, and they did want it to go on record. I don't know if I'm allowed to read it or not, or if it's just because it was sent to all of us, it's considered on record. I don't.

I'm perfectly fine to let you put in something.

I mean, yeah, community when they get involved, I appreciate it when they do get involved.

So I'm fine with that.

I am right this is from the neighbor. I am writing in regards to the upcoming zoning committee meeting on August 4th. It appears. that the zoning petition for Wendover 2025-077 will be readdressed at the meeting. I am a resident of adjacent property on Churchill Road. and I would appreciate it if my comments below would be read at the meeting. I attended the initial zoning committee meeting on June 2nd, 26, and would like to clarify traffic and safety concerns in the area. The parcel in question lies at the end of a sharp blind curve on Wendover Road. There are only three before traffic lights on Wendover between Randolph and Monroe. None of these lights are along the stretch where the parcel lies. Cars drive well above the speed limit, and there's a high number of traffic accidents on this stretch. According to, there have been over 160 accidents in the last 5 years. In fact, there have been multiple accidents over. Let's see, I'm sorry there have been multiple accidents over the last several months examples, including a car that flew off the road across the street from the site on April 8th. Most recently an accident the site on July 29th. Adding high density housing at the site would exasperate traffic and increase risk of accidents for future current residents and commuters. To mitigate our safety concerns, members of the community had requested a reduction in density as well as an increase in the setback from the road. Looking at the most recent proposal, these changes have not been made. The original proposal had 40 units then decreased to 36 and now it's back to 40. There is no increase in setback from the road, making it substantially closer to the road compared to neighboring developments along Wendover. Members of the neighborhood had also expressed concerns there would not be a sufficient tree save, eliminating the natural buffer from multifamily to single family homes. The current proposal shows minimal tree save between our properties. Overall, there has been no meaningful changes that address our concerns regarding safety with the development of high density housing at the site. Location matters when planning new developments, and this is not a safe or appropriate location for such dense housing. Under the, the current in 1 zoning would permit the development more suitable density in the neighborhood. This would be welcomed by the community members. Thank you for your time consideration. I plan to attend a meeting will be available to answer any questions before during the meeting if needed. Sincerely, Jessica. K, for I may be pronouncing that wrong, but I appreciate. Anytime the community reaches out to us and it gets involved and. At this point, I still have my same concerns from last time and they've increased now that we've gone from 36 to 40. I think environmentally this just is just because you can doesn't mean you should. And I, I could kind of been a little bit if we stayed at 36, but the setback needs to be different and the tree save needs to be different. So, thank you.

Anybody else have comments? Commissioner Russell?

Yeah, so in talking to the same email that Commissioner Millen mentioned, I have a couple of questions. So it says in some deeper dive that I did with Ms. Kafer that city staff originally recommended a 55-foot setback.

that has since changed can you can you confirm that max what the setback was and what it is yeah so the required setback is 24 feet the proposed setback is 28 feet we weren't asking for necessarily a 55 foot setback for a setback that was um greater than what was proposed by the plan um you know through discussions with developer it seems like it's unable It's not possible to provide a greater setback than what's proposed. And overall, it does meet the goals of the comp plan. So they are providing, admittedly, a small increase to the minimum setback, but it is greater than the minimum.

Okay. And then can you clarify something for me? Because I think this is something that comes up a lot when it comes to Charlotte. Everybody's dealing with traffic. And so you look at the vehicle trip generation and you see 87 trips per day. as in, well, I'm sorry, the proposed zone will be 182 trips per day. Can you clarify what constitutes a trip?

A trip is anytime someone leaves or enters the site.

And so, and following that logic, if I'm in a car and I leave, that's one trip. And then if I come back, that is a second trip. That's two trips. Yeah. Okay. So that's, I think that bear some clarification as well to understand the numbers that we're reading it's not 182 cars it is essentially if you're talking about 82 trips you really can say it's about 90 cars so i just wanted to clarify that um yep that's all i got thank you did i hear see a hand down there nope anybody else my turn um

We saw this petition before. I had spent some time with the developer, with the community, and had spoken with the representative for the area district, city council district, and basically we do have the same petition here, and these are the reasons that I talked to her about why I believe that this petition was good. This project is adjacent to several multifamily developments up and down Um, window over that is not in dispute is immediately adjacent to 1 and apartment complex and town homes across the street. More apartments up in front of the shopping there. Uh, the 2040 comprehensive plan. Wants us to put multi family along roadways with access to pedestrian facilities. This petition accomplishes that, um. It meets the Minor Map Amendment criteria, still does, correct? And those are put into place so that the plan, even though the 2040 policy map is there, it's not written in stone. It does have within it the mechanism to allow change to occur, and this does meet that criteria. In terms of the whole notion of a 10-minute neighborhood, You can walk from this place to the grocery store and get your groceries or your coffee or McDonald's, or you can go to Home Depot. And those are all things that we're trying to create is these places where you have a community that you don't have to generate a trip. And if we don't embrace that somewhere, why are we even doing this? There is the issue of traffic and when, when I was meeting with the neighborhood and I'd gone out and visited, and this may get esoteric as hell, but. We'll just go with it.

Um, never stopped.

Yeah, that didn't stop me before. It's not going to stop me now. Um. It's 700 feet to that 1st from the curve that everybody knows about to that 1st entrance, which is plan. Left okay. At 700 feet, a car at 45 miles an hour travels 66 feet a second. That gives you 11 seconds once you turn that curve before you get to that entrance. Humans make decisions that are snap decisions within 100 to 300 milliseconds. That means you'll have a lot of time to make that decision, relatively speaking. I took a look at the number of trips that are on that road on a day looking at the trip. If CDOT's little map thing that tells you about all the traffic around the city is accurate, there are 23,000 trips on whatever this road is, Wendover, every day, 23,000 trips. This petition adds 182. That's a fraction of 1%. in terms of the number of trips that will be provided. I took a look at the high injury network. Guess what part of Wendover does not belong to the high injury network? The part that's in front of this particular project. So, you know, I think, yes, we all maybe go around that curve. And I don't know, I'm in a car. I can't judge how fast I'm going. I can't judge how fast the other cars are going. And I think there's a perception that, yes, it's, you know, everybody's going around there 70, 80 miles an hour. They're probably not. There's a left turn when you go, when you're headed north on Wendover, there's a left turn into the office facility that's actually in the turn, in the curve. I don't see this as having much of a material impact on the traffic. The plan right, No, the plan left exit, there's a median in the road there, so you can only turn right. Okay, it's only right in right out unless you have a Hummer or something. I guess you could probably go off roading that way. When I was out there before, the thing that did impress me was that there are times when traffic is busy, and those are probably the times that we think of trying to get across there at 5 o'clock in the evening is what it is. But when you try and do it at 11 o'clock in the morning, it's not so busy. It's just regular traffic, and it's navigable. So I don't have that issue with this particular project. In terms of the setbacks, the petitioner did provide us with elevations to show how far the units would be from the nearest neighbor in the back. And they drew a couple of lines across those, and we don't have those in front of us. But those, it says in my notes here, there's no direct connection between this project and Churchill Road. And the buildings would be 230 to 329 feet away from the existing homes on Churchill Road. If this was an N1 project, the rear yard setback for an N1 project is... Somebody pulled that number out. 40 feet? Last time I checked, 230 was bigger than 40.

And so, you know, this...

I am supportive of this project as is and I don't believe that there's this is the place where we need to put these types of things. That's basically what I have come to a conclusion. So that's my have I rented and was it esoteric?

I like esoteric. So, yeah, you're fine with me.

Yeah, that whole thing. So, anyway, anybody else have any comments. Got nothing, uh, do I hear motion for the disposition of item number 4 on our agenda? Resume petition 2027 dash 077.

Stuart motion to approve having. Having reviewed the petition and consider the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition. I move that we recommend approval a petition number 2025 077 and the adoption of the consistency statement.

Russell said, and it's been moved by commissioner Stewart, seconded by commissioner Russell. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed. All right 1, opposed that passes 6. I don't know if I've had a 6 to 1. Hey, everybody's here tonight. This is exciting. Commissioner Mellon would you craft an opposition statement, which I'm sure you probably.

With my position is, as I said before, I think they're the density is too high for this area. I'm concerned about the tree, save environmental and. It's pretty much it. I had the opposition of environmental. I believe the tree save and the density. I would be more comfortable if it was lower density. That good enough or okay.

Thank you very much. Everybody can we go on to item number 5 on our agenda, which is rezoning petition 2025 dash 130. And that's by hotels. Would you take us through this and please sir?

Yes. This site is just shy of 4 acres. It's located on the West side of business center drive South of Tuck a CG road. Um, this is just. North of 85 and Charles Douglas airport. The site is wooded surrounded by commercial uses to the East along little rock road. Single family residential to the North and West. The current zoning is ML1 with a proposed zoning of CGCD. The entirety of the site is within the airport noise disclosure overlay. The policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type. The proposal would allow for a hotel with 160 rooms. There'd be an extension of Canembola Drive into the site. I will note that the petitioner is seeking to abandon the existing, um, stub of drive. Um, that is an ongoing process with. Um, there'd be an 8 foot planning strip and 6 foot sidewalk along business center drive right of way. A 25 foot type B landscape yard along northern property boundary. Potential open space areas that would be along the business center drive frontage petitioners committing to some preferred open space standards. Petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the West middle community area plan may facilitate goal 8 by generating a range of jobs across different skill levels does not directly facilitate any additional comprehensive plan goals. But the request does meet minor MAP amendment criteria for a change from the manufacturing and logistics to commercial place types. Since the public hearing, just one small change, the petitioner is committed to working with a neighboring property owner who's concerned about some of the existing trees and their condition. So they've committed to working with a certified arborist to examine and remove any trees that might potentially cause any issues. Staff recommends approval of this petition. It is adjacent to both CG zoning and the commercial place type. The hotel and CG zoning are contextually appropriate given the site's location in a Little Rock Road commercial corridor near I-85 and the airport. And the hotel use is less intense and impactful to the adjacent residential uses than many of the uses permitted by right under the current ML1 zoning. I'll take any questions.

Thank you very much, Joe. Does anybody have any questions? Comments? Joe, you said, uh, was that the road? Yes, the petitioner I thought I remembered from the public hearing they were seeking to abandon that road, but you said something like that's going to come into the site. Can you explain that to me? So the.

It's required it's required at the rezoning stage that they show the extension of. Okay, subdivision subdivision ordinance thing ordinance requirement. However, the petitioner has the right to pursue the abandoned process. I understand that they have begun that process with. Okay.

All right, thank you. Well, do you have a question?

I do. This is something I think we're going to start seeing a lot more of this.

As in, is that common open space or is that.

Private or yes, because I just see it says potential public open space. So, what my purpose right?

My understanding is that is. For the users of the hotel and Holly, if I'm wrong and steering back on the track, but I think that's intended for users of the hotel.

Yeah, and these notes aren't uncommon. You are seeing them more. They're frankly standards that. We probably would have an ideal world would have liked to have seen included in the in some way, but we weren't able to do it in that mechanism. So we're asking for these higher standards of open space, at least through the resounding petition. So. You see the most commonly through our residential petitions, mostly the into petitions, but certainly instances like this, where there are spaces for open space that can be monetized or activated in some way. Then you see these these notes and we've crafted these with the help of. Our urban design team, and also have looked them over extensively with the folks down in land development to make sure they're enforceable and we think it creates a better outcome for the site in the long term.

follow-up question to that. You mentioned the word enforceable. Is there a mechanism for the city to do that? And the reason why I ask is because I've seen this we leave the space as open but then the dreaded i word insurance shows up and so now a public space no longer is public because you can't use it consideration concerns whatever potential public open space amenity is no longer a public open space community and now has the city

So, I mean, you do have to sometimes the terms can be defined that careful definition between public open space and common open space. Or is it common open space meant for just the residents or is it public open space for any. Member of the public, and that can be a conversation that we're having with the petitioner and also based off what the ordinance requires for that. District or anything like that, but we've worked with folks in land development to make sure this makes sense for them if. Changes are needed on the back end. They don't think they can comply with whatever standard they've put in and the reason they need a reduction to a standard that they've made that is exceeding the ordinance standard. Then it would come in for a site plan amendment.

I just, I mean, for me. It'd be nice to have clarity between as you just mentioned a common public open space and spaces. I think those are 2 separate things. It is open space for the hotel. That's 1 thing, right? Of the space for if I'm walking down. And then we'll drive with my sheet on and I saw public open space. Yes. Yeah, it's definitely something that we pay attention to.

We try to catch it in the instances that we can. We do our best. I have recently had conversations just a couple weeks ago with somebody who committed to public open space, but they're trying to make it just for residents and that's not what they committed to in their resounding petition notes. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Stewart super interesting conversation. So, is it public or is it not public?

I'm confused. I see.

I see public open space. I see public art. Does that mean I can go there or. Is it just for hotel?

Yes, theirs is defined and their notes as common open space.

Yeah, it is not strike the public in the landscape description that it's I mean, it's clearly not on the site plan.

It says potential public.

Right, so then we can work on clarifying with them any discrepancies with where it uses common open space and public to make sure intent.

I mean, even common has an implication that it's public, right? Yes, like the village common is a place where anyone in the village can go. Right?

Yeah, colloquially. Definitely.

Father, it depends.

It's, it's, uh, it's English common law, which are. Judicial system is based on, so.

Yeah, thank you.

Anybody else want to weigh in on. The common publicness of this. If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of whichever item this is on our agenda? We're up to four, five. Resounding petition 2025-130. Do I hear that motion?

Yes. I make a motion that we approve this. 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 2025-130 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Millon, second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Gaston, seconded by Commissioner Millon. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes 7-0. We're on to item number 6 on our agenda rezoning petition 2026-001 by MPV properties and mission properties. Max, would you take us through this please?

Yes, petition 2026-001 is a 12.67 acre site located south of on the south side of Mount Holly road just west of I-45. The plan proposes the development of up to 170 multifamily stacked apartment residential units on a site containing a single family house. Sites currently zone ML1, Manufacturing and Logistics. The proposed zoning is N2BCD, Neighborhood 2B conditional. 2040 policy map recommends the Manufacturing and Logistics place type for the site. The plan is not in alignment with the Manufacturing and Logistics place type. Rezoning calls for up to 170 multifamily stacked dwelling units. Destruction of eastbound and westbound left turn lanes on Mount Holly Road. as well as an eastbound right turn lane to the site. 25-foot Class B landscape yard will be provided along the eastern and western property lines and along the railroad right-of-way. Buildings facing Mount Holly Road will use brick or stone facade for at least 40% of the facade. Building facades facing the railroad right-of-way will use noise-reducing windows. A co-working space, including food and sundries market, will be provided on-site. The plan is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the West Outer Community Area Plan. It's an abuts manufacturing and logistics to the south, southeast, and west. and which are not preferred adjacencies for the neighborhood to place type. And the proposed plan would not facilitate any cap priority goals. There's been some changes since the public hearing. The ML1CD portion of the site has been removed from the site area, which would reduce it to 8.56 acres. We just need some clarification that that's actually removed from the plan altogether. So the intent is to remove the railroad right-of-way area from the proposed zoning. So this would remain ML1, and this would be rezoned into BCD. What's the width of that?

What's the width? From the top to bottom.

I believe it's a 100-foot center line, so 200 feet, if I'm not mistaken. All right. Staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form. It's proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the newly adopted West community, West outer community area plan in the 2040 policy map. Site directly abuts significant manufacturing and logistic uses, and there's an active freight rail right of way running through the property. Site also lacks safe pedestrian access to nearby activity centers and bus stops. However, this area is within a housing gap. So, maybe a less intense zoning district might better balance the needs for housing and surrounding industrial conditions. How do you take any questions?

Thank you very much Max. Does anybody have any questions comments?

I have 1 question, Max, you mentioned that it about significant manufacturing logistics uses other than than the freight rail line. What what are those?

So to the south of the site, there was a somewhat recent rezoning a couple years ago that permitted over one point.

It's Crescent and Beacon. The warehouse for Crescent's already been built out, and that's Amazon and Beacon, Aaron. Is that they are going to build out on their property and they'll be roughly equal sizes. There was like 50 something acres or something like that.

I don't know the acreage, but it's over 1.2Million square feet. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay, I guess my point, my point being, I don't, I don't.

I would dispute that a little bit the adjacency.

I don't think that that's really a factor to consider on this. Right? I think that the housing gap is much more important than any adjacency to. any sort of manufacturing logistics here, frankly. And I think that this is a much better, highest and best use for this site than additional manufacturing logistics would be. Much better.

You good? Yeah. Anybody else?

Question.

Commissioner Russell.

So, concern about adjacency and ability to walk from the site to amenities. yet there's an r17 mf directly across the street that presumably under that scenario has the same challenges i guess i'm trying to understand why would that parcel be any different from this one considering that it is almost across the street the r17 mf across the street um has internal access to the proposed neighborhood center um and uh and a connected sidewalk network

whereas there's no ability for a pedestrian to cross Mount Holly Road because there are no crosswalks or signalized intersections, and there's no connected sidewalk network along that side of the road. Are you good?

Formulate it.

Thank you. Hi, Commissioner Neely. Is there no way for the developer to add that?

I mean, there will be a multi-use path built along Mount Holly Road. And there are signalized intersection plans for Mount Holly and Rhine Road in the future, but those have not come to fruition yet. so at this time we don't feel that there are safe conditions for them for any pedestrians to access that neighborhood center or to access the transit that is along mount holly road thank you anybody else my turn um you guys ever get a call from commissioner powell on the border county commissioner yes i didn't

Yeah. Elaine went out and visited at five o'clock. Um, and, um, she was concerned. So, uh, she told me that I had to go visit at five o'clock and I said, no, I'm, I'm not really going to do that. 5 PM. Yeah. So I went like at 11 o'clock on a Saturday morning or something. It was 11 o'clock. I think it was a Thursday morning, actually. Um, I, I concur with, uh, Commissioner Blumenthal, the notion that this is housing that will be near and provide adjacencies and immediate access to a lot of jobs. The Amazon facility there and whatever beacon we'll put there. You also are immediately adjacent to the interstate so you can drive to the airport or to Westinghouse Boulevard or to the centers of jobs up at Brookshire Boulevard. So, those all, I think, are very Berkshire Boulevard's 1 exit up. So, you know, if you work at Corning, you're 5 minutes away from work. I believe that having onsite coworking space and a sundry store, and I got in a, I love these into bees because you can put a little store in there and that saves you a trip. Because these people will not get on Mount Holly road and go to whatever that grocery store is up there that I didn't see it, but I know it's, it's a food line. Okay. I just turned left and went to Mount Holly. I'd never gone to Mount Holly in my entire life. It's a beautiful experience. I don't know if I'm going to go back, but I did. Get there. Yeah. Okay. All right there. I spoke with Travis and there is a traffic light coming in at. mount holly and um ryan road uh travis i don't know if this is still the deal but you said that that uh the state was doing or the railroad was doing their pre-work on that in july and that once the railroad finished their pre-work then the i guess the city would begin their installation of traffic is that still more or less the case unless something awful has changed

Yes, they, they started their work. I haven't received any updates on where they are, but that's still the case.

Okay, well, if you'd like to go out at 5 o'clock and check it out for me, just say. Okay, 1 of the fun things 1 of the fun things about this particular site and traffic count on this. was 20,000 cars roughly divided evenly going back and forth. There were roughly about 6,000 trips going on the interstate north, 6,000 trips going on the interstate south. So that was... One of the drivers of the 5 o'clock adventure was that particular bit of stuff. I do believe the traffic light will make some difference. I spoke with Neil Burke at CRTPO about whether or not something was going to happen to this road, if it was going to magically become better or whatever. It is designated as needing assessment. That was what Neil said. And I've got his notes here, but I'm not going to read, you know, how there are phases that these things go through. It may. Through all of these phases, it could possibly get on the transportation improvement plan for 28 to 37. It might also get on the, the plan that's, uh, 36 to 45. so, I mean, tomorrow the road is not going to be improved. However, my male lady lives on this road. And so we actually had a conversation. You never can, you know, she got a cucumber. We had a conversation, just saying. And she was, she understands that, yes, there are times when there are traffic and people taking her word for how she experiences it. When she knows when there's traffic and she knows that that is built into her decision making about being on this road. And other times it's really not so bad.

Okay.

And if I lived out there, I wouldn't get in my car at five minutes to five either. Right. Um, I, I, one of the things we also noted about this petition was, and I talked to Max about this before, the community area plans were adopted, this area was designated for what was it?

Neighborhood one.

Neighborhood one. Okay. And I can see and I can understand why it got converted over to manufacturing logistics. But again, it was neighborhood one.

And

I can see a transition from neighborhood one to neighborhood two. There's a lot of new development out in this particular area. I don't have the same heartburn that staff has. So that's basically where I've gotten to with this. So I'm going to stop talking. Does anything esoteric in that one?

No.

I want to clarify staff's position just real quick. It was maybe interpreted that staff doesn't support residential On this site, but that's not true. We don't find there to be justification for multifamily stacked. On this site, and we've relayed that to the petitioner from the start that we'd be willing to consider a different type of residential product. And we just haven't been we haven't had movement there. So there have been other petitions along this corridor. We've been in support of multifamily attached. There and other petitions that we haven't been supportive of on this court or print into be requests. So we carefully analyze. Each petition, it's sensitive area. We realize that given all the conversations that we've had. So I just wanted to. Note that real quick, I know the policy map says 1 thing. I think it's tricky because it's not necessarily thing that we think that manufacturing logistics is. The highest and best use. I don't know that that makes sense given that we want to introduce more industrial next to what is established residential. So it's just about trying to find the right balance. So just wanted to add that.

Okay. Fair. Commissioner Millen?

I just want to confirm real quick. So you're saying you asked the petitioner to maybe change From stacked something else. So you're saying I want to confirm this and I heard it right at this point. The petitioner has not moved at all on changing any of that.

Not from a stack proposal. Right? Okay.

I just want to confirm this. What I've heard. Thanks.

All righty folks. Do I hear a motion?

Do I hear a motion about this petition?

I'd make a motion to approve Gaston 2nd. Oh, I got it, but I appreciate you. I haven't reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition. I move that we recommend approval of petition number. Number 26, 0, 1, look on the screen on the screen, 26, 0, 1, as it appears before us. And the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

You actually need to. And we need to make a consistency statement.

Oh. And the adoption of the consistency statement as presented by me. I believe that this is a fitting development type for the area where there is a universally recognized housing gap. I think that we need to continue to focus development along these corridors with interstate proximity and with proximity to current and what we can only imagine will be future retail and other amenities. And jobs and jobs.

2nd, anybody else got a 2nd. Anybody else want to add anything to that? Um. It's been moved by commissioner Blumenthal and 2nd, by commissioner Gaston all those in favor please say aye aye. Any pose. That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. You're you're demonstrating you're demonstrating beautifully. All right. We're on to item number seven on our agenda. Rezoning petition 2026-009 by David Simonini Signature Homes LLC. And where is Shayla? Are you Shayla today?

I am myself.

Shapeshifting as you may be.

So this site is right around three acres along Old Providence Road, just west of Mary Butler Way in an area that is, of course, predominantly residential. and typically single family detached nature. Next slide. Okay, next slide. Currently zoned neighborhood 1B. They are proposing the neighborhood 1D request and they have conditions on this petition in the form of additional notes, no formal site plan. Next slide. The requested zoning district is in alignment with the neighborhood one place type along this site, as well as the surrounding properties. Next slide. never go down the proposal as it was presented at the public hearing committed to the development of 10 single family detached lots and the minimum lot width of 50 feet this again this was as it was presented at the public hearing is there a question no not okay not about this there's a lot going on but also committed to a minimum law acreage of 6 000 square feet so just for reference the N1D district typically has minimum lot area of 3,500 square feet. So that's exceeding it up to 6,000 square feet and typical lot width for N1D is 40 feet. And there at the public hearing, they noted 50 feet. And of course, typically N1D would allow for duplexes and triplexes. They are committing to only single family detached at the site. So, next slide policy information, it's within a South middle community area plan petition does not directly facilitate in a priority goals. Typically, when it's a. And 1 request from 1 sending district to another in 1, any district, we're not noting any priority goals or comprehensive plan goals. Generally next slide. This is the criteria that's the police type 5 criteria. So we take every and 1 reasoning through this criteria to analyze the appropriateness of the request for that in 1 up zoning. So we're looking at establish lot pattern in the area, average lot dimensions around it. Road frontage classification and location of the subject parcel. Now, if you remember at the public hearing. we the staff's recommendation was not in current form and we running it through the pt5 criteria it met some of it we thought that it fell short of some of it and we met with the petitioner team following the public hearing talked about what they could do to come closer to staff's positive recommendation next slide so they've made a couple of changes well one item this is in response to community requests They've noted an 8 foot sidewalk exceeding the ordinance requirement support, 6 foot sidewalk in the area. They're also committing to a. Oh, sorry and this doesn't include 1 other change, but they've. Increased lot with to 55 feet. which is much more in alignment with what you see for other lots in the area that it's directly surrounded by. But I've also committed to a 20 foot wide open space area along the frontage. So that's just setting back the development a little bit more so that you have a bit more of an established edge between this development and what's occurring along Old Providence Road. And then also committing to a 1500 square foot amenitized open space area within the development proper. I think those changes, although they seem minor, they were enough for us to reconsider our recommendation. And I think it brings it more into alignment with the lots that you see surrounding the site. It's pretty similar to the Mary Butler Way. Again, we are fortunately already exceeding lot area. And lot width for the district, and they're committing to single family, detached. And so you're not going to see a character that should be wholly out of step with what's in the area and adding that open space strip in front of the development is going to set it back a little bit more, which I think creates a preferable condition along old Providence Road. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of one minor outstanding issue to clear up Uh, something about the open space note, and the petitioner has a plan to address that and then we should be good to go.

Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions or comments about this particular petition?

Just 1 question, Holly, sorry, sorry. Um, that 1500 square feet of improved urban space is separate from the 20 foot setback. Obviously. Right?

That's right.

Okay. But there's no site plan.

Yeah, they have conditional notes.

Okay. I was just curious how that's going to be apply. I mean, 1500 square feet is like, not dramatically bigger than this room. Right and so just curious kind of how that was going to be. Incorporated. I'm still in favor of it, right? I mean, the other thing that you talk about, you have 3 acres, 10 lots point, 3 acres a lot, but then you go. What was that street right next door? Mary something way Mary Butler way and those lots are point 1, 5 acres. So it's not out of line at all. I was just curious if there was. An illustration somewhere of how that amenitized open space will be will be incorporated.

They shared us an illustration of it occurring towards the rear of the site. Anecdotally, of course, because they don't have a conditional site plan, but that would be the plan. And they're here if you would like to suspend their rules for further clarification, not that important.

Okay. Thank you. All right.

Uh, commission Russell, I have a question just because I like the whole open space debate. Is this public open space or common office?

Well, it should be public open space. It's occurring right along the right-of-way. It would act as public open space, but we can clarify in the notes.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right.

Anybody else got a question, comment? Do I hear a motion for the disposition of item 7 on our agenda, rezoning petition 2026-009?

Commissioner Neely, 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 2026-009 and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Stewart, second.

Move my commissioners Sealy and seconded by commissioner. Oh, God, I'm sorry. No ceiling nearly combo here. I'm sorry. It's been moved by commissioner nearly and seconded by commissioner Stewart. That's what was getting me all those in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed. That passes seven zero we're on to item number eight on our agenda rezoning petition twenty twenty five or twenty twenty six dash zero one five by kt trading llc.

Emma would you take us through this please yes so petition twenty twenty six dash zero one five is approximately five point seven one acres located south of reagan drive west of wilson lane and east of transportation boulevard. The current zoning is a light industrial conditional and the proposed zoning is conditional the 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type for this site. This proposal is tier 1, so most of the petition refers more to conditional notes. So the following manufacturing and logistics uses shall not be allowed on the site. And if you have any very specific questions, I can come back to reading all of those restrictions. I do want to point out that the. For the landscape, there will be a 65 foot class, a landscape yard, which shall be provided along a portion of the southern property line. The petitioner shall prohibit development on the East side of Dorita branch creek, except for the installation of a greenway along the East side of Dorita branch creek. The petitioner shall dedicate a permanent grease greenway easement to Mecklenburg county park and recreation along the East side of Dorita branch creek. Access to the site shall be exclusively via Reagan Drive and internal vehicular connection to Wilson Lane shall be prohibited. I do want to point out, because it has been a very talked about conversation, especially council meetings that 1 of the 2 of the uses that will be prohibited on the site are telecommunication and data storage facility. The petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the North inner community area plan. The petition is in alignment with the Charlotte 2040 policy map recommendation for this site. I do want to highlight that the community area plan, the goal that is being met is the integrated natural and built environments would be facilitated by helping to protect and enhance to read a branch creek development adjacent to it and dedicating it as an easement to county parking rack. Staff does recommend approval of this petition and this petition, as I have said, is consistent with the goals and policies of the North inner community area plan. I will take any questions you may have.

Thank you. Emma. Anybody got any questions about this particular 1? Hearing none, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number eight, rezoning petition 2026-015? Steward 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 2026-015 and the adoption of the consistency statement.

Millin, second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Millen. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We're on to item number nine, rezoning petition 2026-017 by Kevin Curran. Max, would you take us through this one, please?

Yes, petition 2026017 is a 1.22-acre site located on Ravendale Drive. The plan proposes four single-family detached dwellings on a site developed with a single-family house. The site is currently zoned N1A. The proposed zoning is N1CCD, neighborhood 1C conditional. 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one-place type. The plan is in alignment with the N1 place type. The rezoning proposal calls for the development of four single-family detached dwellings. Each lot must have a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, which matches the N1A district. The minimum front setback is proposed to be 27 feet, also matching N1A. The minimum rear setback is 40 feet, also matching N1A. The maximum height is proposed to be 40 feet, which is lower than the N1A district, and all lots will gain access from existing public streets, no new public streets proposed. The plan is in alignment with the policy map. The plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the West Middle Community Area Plan. And the proposed plan meets the place type five, PT5 criteria from the community area plan. The proposed plan would not facilitate any cap priority goals. There's been some changes since public hearing. They include a reduction in site area from 7.85 acres to 1.22 acres. The proposed number of dwelling units has been reduced from nine, which include one duplex down to four, single family detached only. Front setback was increased from 17 to 27 feet. The rear setback was increased to 40 feet from 30 feet. from 30 feet and the maximum height was reduced to 40 feet. Staff recommends approval of this petition as the plan meets the PT-5 criteria. The plan proposes low density, primarily single family detached dwellings along existing public streets that are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. And I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much, Max. Does anybody have any questions, comments? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number nine, rezoning petition 2026-017.

Commissioner Neely, 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 2026-017 and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Commissioner Miller, second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Neely and seconded by Commissioner Millen. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number 10 on our agenda is rezoning petition number 2026-018 by S. R. Moseley.

mostly properties lls i'll see that was very esoteric pronunciation there max would you take us through this one please yep petition 2026 018 is a 3.8 acre site located on the north side of fred d alexander road um west of uh brookshire boulevard the plan proposes the development up to 135 000 square feet of self-storage the site is currently um zoned in or I2CD, general industrial conditional. The proposed zoning is NL1CD, manufacturing logistics conditional. The plan is in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for manufacturing logistics. The rezoning proposal calls for self-storage facility with accessory outdoor storage. Other uses allowed by, right, or with prescribed conditions in the 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 more noxious uses that may be allowed in the ML1 district. And an undisturbed Class A landscape yard with 8-foot fence will be installed along the boundary with the adjacent neighborhood 1 zoning. The plan is in alignment with the policy map, and it's consistent with the goals and policies of the West Middle Community Area Plan. Staff recommends approval of this petition, and as it reduces the intensity compared with the current I-2CD entitlements while maintaining the buffering and screening standards. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much, Max. Does anybody have any questions about item number 10 on our agenda? If not, do we hear a motion for the disposition of presenting petition 2026-018? Make a motion.

To approve, Commissioner Blumenthal, 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 2026 dash 018 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Oh, you guys want to wrestle.

Aye. Okay. Steel cage death match. That has been moved by Commissioner Blumenthal, seconded by Commissioner Russell. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number 11 on our agenda, rezoning petition 2026-019 by Acro Development Services. Michael, you've been waiting patiently all evening. It's your time.

Thank you. This is approximately 22.89 acres located north of Moorhead road, west of stone lane and east of all Holland road. The current zoning is neighborhood 1, a proposed zoning is manufacturing and logistics to. The proposal industrial uses, including manufacturing fabrication and a race shop and research and development. Among others allowed in the, and all principal uses on the site will be fully enclosed building. They do have a list of prohibited uses. Which would include adult electronic gaming establishment, adult use drive through establishment, heavy rental and service establishment vehicle, fueling facility, vehicle, rental, homeless, shelter, truck, terminal. And you can sort of see the list there they are providing a minimum 100 foot class, a landscape yard along the Northwestern external. Property boundary, and they will provide a 25 foot class B landscape yard along the more head and old Holland road. Frontage is, um. If we're playing consistency, it's consistent with the goals and policies of the North middle and outer community area plan. The petition is not in alignment with the. Charlotte future 2040 policy map and it may facilitate a goal 8. Of the priority goals. In this sort of the minor map amendment criteria, it sort of meet some of them, such as the preferred acreage. The site is 22.89 acres. And. The preferred type adjacencies of the IMU and commercial. The subject property is adjacent to manufacturing logistics to the East, but the majority is adjacent to the existing neighborhood. 1, although many of the joining lane uses are either vacant or undeveloped or not within a neighborhood. Um, so. Given where this area is, it's in the, and has much more of a rule nature at borders to Barrett's county Concord, which is adjacent to actually be Hendrix. campus, and this is just an extenuation of that. So sometimes we forget that there's an imaginary line. But if you're out there in person, it looks rather the same. So So I think in this case, it sort of makes sense. One of the changes since the public hearing, they did add telecommunications and data storage facility and vehicle dealership to the prohibited use list. Um, like I said earlier staff does recommend approval of this petition. It's consistent with the North middle and outer community area plan. Um, and just given this particular location, we recognize that manufacturing logistic place types are not generally ideal. To be adjacent to the end 1, but they do provide a 100 foot class, a landscape yard to the existing neighborhood 1 zoning district as well as the 25 foot landscape yards along both of the road frontages or more head and old Holland. And, you know, in addition. you know the petition acknowledges the need to be responsive of neighbors and agrees that all the principal uses on site will be fully enclosed building no manufacturing fabrication processing will take place outside any of the enclosed structures and they do um commit to complying with the city's noise ordinance so i'll be happy to take any questions

Thank you very much, Michael. Does anyone have any questions or comments about this particular petition? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 11 on our agenda, rezoning petition 2026-019.

Stewart, motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency stated by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2026-019 and the adoption of the consistency statement.

Gaston 2nd, it's been moved by commissioner Stewart 2nd, and by commissioner Gaston all those in favor. Please say aye by any opposed that passes unanimously item number 12 on our agenda is rezoning petition 2026 dash 020. but to williger Pappas and Joe, would you take us through this and please.

Yes, the site is about 10.9 acres on the East side of Carmel commons Boulevard, South of pineville Matthews road. Site is developed with an office building and associated parking. Currently zoned MUD-O with a proposed zoning of MUD-O site plan amendment. The 2040 policy map recommends the community activity center place type. The proposal would allow for 360 residential units across two different development areas, A2 is north of the east-west street, development area B to the south. Current zoning allows 360 units, but only on development area B, so the southern portion. The proposal would allow them to be spread across both development areas. Does preserve an option to maintain the existing 127,000 square feet of office uses on development area A2. would remove entitlements for 10,000 square feet of medical office, 4,700 square feet of coffee shop when drive-through from A2. This follows another petition, so transportation commitments from that petition were removed from the conditional notes, those that had been completed. There are 8,500 square feet of open space that are required to be spread across both development areas with a minimum of 3,500 square feet on each area. Petition is both consistent with the south middle community area plan and in alignment with policy map, but does not directly facilitate any priority goals of either. Since the public hearing, just one small change, An increase of 6 dwelling units from 360 to 366. Staff recommends approval petition would maintain entitlements of the previously approved plan while allowing for residential units to be spread across 2 development areas. And the petition would support the ongoing evolution of this activity center from segregated office and commercial uses to a broader mix of uses in closer proximity to one another. I'll take any questions.

Thank you very much, Joe. Quick question. Did you say it was removing 4,500 square feet of non-residential space? Yes. Which was just added in the previous rezoning, correct?

I believe so, yes.

Okay, just curious.

Anybody else got a question about that? This particular petition?

I see furrowed brows.

The writing is tiny.

Oh, the writing is tiny? Yes, it is. Not hearing anything. Do I hear a motion for the disposition of this petition, item number, what is this, item number 12-ish? 12, a rezoning petition 2026-020.

Neely, 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 2026-020 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Blumenthal, second. Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Neely and seconded by Commissioner Blumenthal. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. And now we're on to item number 13, rezoning petition 2026-021 by Hines. Michael, get a bonus to do the last ones here. Excited for you. I'll try to make this quick then.

Uh, this is approximately 1.63 acres located South of East Westinghouse drive East of blue central road and West of crump road. This is, um, this is a site plan amendment. It's from our legacy district and probably not 1 year familiar with it's the. Uh, current zoning is urban residential commercial conditional proposed zoning is urban residential commercial conditional site plan amendment. Um. The proposal, uh, the uses permitted within development area 1 B, she'll be limited to. non-residential uses the prohibited uses include drive-through windows automotive sales automotive service or repair and gas stations development area 1b should be limited to a maximum of 14 500 square feet of gross floor area and if a restaurant is located within development its hours of operation will be limited so that it closes no later than 11 p.m It does include a 50-foot wide Class C landscape yard with the berm, including a 15-foot wide undisturbed buffer along the property line where the Uh, the residential would be, uh, it is consistent with the goals and policies of the South middle community area plan and it is in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood to place type. Um. And it may facilitate a goal number 1 of the 10 minute neighborhoods by facilitating uses, which may provide additional amenities, goods and services to the surrounding neighborhood. Um, like I said, it's consistent with the area plan and. So, in this 1, they're just requesting to amend the permitted uses and site plan layout without increasing the maximum square footage of developable area, establishing the original approved plan. We feel that this does not meaningfully alter the approved intent or development area limits of the existing entitlements. So staff does. Recommend approval of this petition.

Thank you very much, Michael. Anybody have any questions or comments about this particular petition? I will say I like it because it's walking distance to the housing that's there. Do I have a motion for the disposition of item number 13 on our agenda rezoning petition 2026-021? Gaston.

I make a 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 2026-021 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as appears before us.

It's been motioned by Commissioner Gaston, seconded by Commissioner Neely. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? that passes unanimously folks we have done it it's time for a new year to adjourn all right we're out people