Zoning Committee Work Session - workshop

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the September 1st Zoning Committee Work Session. My name is Douglas A. Welton. I'm the chairman of the Zoning Committee. This meeting is being streamed online via YouTube in accordance with all applicable meeting statutes. Requirements for notice, access, and minutes are being met by electronic means. We've got a few items of business before we get started tonight. For those of you on the committee, please keep your mics muted when you're not speaking. and state your name when you're making a motion or a second so we'll know who's actually speaking because not everybody's watching. Some people are just listening. The public hearings for the zoning petitions that we're hearing here tonight have been held At a 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 directly. We'll get started with introductions, and I will begin all the way to my left with Commissioner Russell. Russell, Planning Committee.

Carol Millen, Planning Commissioner. Shauna Neely, Planning Committee.

Andrew Blumenthal, Planning Commission.

Melissa Gaston, Planning Commission.

We will now take up introductions from the staff and we'll begin with Ms. Kramer.

Holly Kramer, Planning Staff.

Michael Russell, Planning Staff. Max Oliver, Planning Staff.

Shayla Tippett, Planning Staff. Emma Canarajas, Planning Staff.

Thank you very much. We have some folks joining us online and usually it's the gang from CDOT. And if you would, folks, please introduce yourselves.

Good evening. Brent Hyatt, CDOT.

Schroeder, CDOT. Isaiah Washington, CDOT.

Natalie King, CDOT.

Chris Maddow, CDOT. And Travis Miller, CDOT. Thank you very much. Is that everybody? We have a latent Dave out there somewhere? No? Okay. All right. Cool. Thanks very much, everybody, for doing those introductions.

Um, holly, would you take us through any deferrals that we might have on our agenda this couple of deferrals 1, additional deferral, not listed in your agenda, but we have 20, 25, 0, 36 by range works, deferring a month at least. And sorry, differing a month to the October meeting petition 2026 dash 025 by Olympia, right? Homes deferring to the October meeting and a late edition 2025 dash 011 by garrison rule road holding. Deferring a month as well October meeting.

Thank you very much. We have 3 deferrals. Do I hear a motion for the disposition of those referrals?

Yes, and I make a motion that we approve those are accept those deferrals.

That's been motioned by Gaston and Russell is 2nd, and all those in favor of accepting the deferrals please say aye aye any opposed. Then those deferrals will be passed on to October 6th date. We will begin our journey into rezoning heaven tonight with item number four on our agenda rezoning petition number 2025-123 by Sanders Partnership LLC. Max, would you take us through this one to get us started?

Yes. Good evening. Petition 2025-123 is a 61.26 acre site located on Kelly Road near the intersection of Pleasant Grove Road. The site is currently zoned N1A. The proposed zoning is N1D, as in David, neighborhood 1D conditional. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type for the site and the plan is in alignment with the neighborhood one place type. The rezoning proposal calls for the development of up to 212 single family detached dwellings. minimum lot size will be 4,800 square feet which is larger than the requirement for the N1D district. Three access points onto the development are proposed from Kelly Road with right and left turn lanes proposed onto Kelly Road into the site. 25-foot Class B landscape yard will be provided along the southern property lines and a greenway easement and three-acre park site will be dedicated to Mecklenburg County The petition is in alignment with the policy map and consistent with the goals and policies of the West Middle Community Area Plan. The proposed plan meets PT5 criteria to upzone the site within the neighborhood one place type based on existing neighborhood patterns. Lots size of the street from just and partial location within the block staff recommends approval. This petition has a meets criteria and meets plan goal. 7 of the 2040 comp plan integrated natural and built environments. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much Max. Do we have any questions from anybody on the committee regarding this petition? If not, Max, could you restate the traffic again about there's three entrances and exits? Are those all full access?

I believe they're all full access, and two of the three will have right turn lanes in and left turn lanes in. Okay. So a diesel lane and a left turn lane center of the road.

Okay. Thank you very much. I didn't have a chance to look at it in detail, but that was a question I had. Anyone else? If not, do I hear a motion regarding item number four on our agenda rezoning petition 2025-123?

Gaston? 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 2025-123 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Mill, one second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Gaston, seconded by Commissioner Millen. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That passes unanimously, 6-0. We're up to item number five on our agenda, rezoning petition 2026-011 by Tribute Companies, Inc. And Michael, would you take us through this one, please, sir?

Sure. This site is approximately 2.2 acres, located south of North Tryon Street, west of Colwell road and north of lane. Uh, the current zoning is multifamily residential conditional, um, and the proposed zoning is neighborhood center conditional. Uh, the 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood to place type. Excuse me in this proposal, it allows up to 22,725 square feet of gross floor area of non residential uses, including retail restaurant and personal service uses. It does prohibit other auto oriented uses, such as gas stations and drive throughs. They will provide a 12 foot wide shared use path. with an 8 foot planning strip along the site's frontage on North Triumph Street at the intersection of North Triumph Street and Hudspeth Road commenced to a northbound U-turn bulb within the existing right of way for passenger vehicles and provides a 25 foot Class B landscape yard to the adjacent M1A property. Uh, the plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Northwest middle area plan. Um. And it may facilitate. Goal 1 of the community area plan, it does meet most of the minor map amendment criteria. Um. The only changes since public hearings, they just updated the transportation notes. Like I said, it is consistent with the goals and policies of the North East, middle and outer community area plan. It is part of a. Larger previously approved resigning petition 2021, 150 that originally showed the site proposing residential development. And. It is consistent and staff recommends approval.

Thank you very much. Michael. Do we have any questions or comments on this particular petition?

Anyone Mr. Russell.

Uh, if not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item? Number 5 on our agenda rezoning petition 2026 dash 011.

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 2026-011 as presented in the adoption of the consistency statement.

It's been motioned by commissioner Mellon and seconded by commissioner Blumenthal. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes 6-0. We're up to item number 6 on our agenda, rezoning petition 2026-026 by Nativity of the Holy Virgin Orthodox Church. Michael, it's your turn to be at the party again.

Yeah. This site is 2.81 acres located North of mineral Springs road, East of North Graham street and West of century Oaks lane. There's an existing church there. Um, so the current zoning is neighborhood to be they are seeking a neighborhood to a. District. The policy map does recommend the Neighborhood 2 place type, but 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 2040 policy map. It doesn't facilitate directly any of the priority goals of the North, Middle, and Outer Community Area Plan, and staff recommends approval.

Thank you very much, Michael. Um, just a quick question. They wanted to go from, uh, in to be to in 1 a for a specific provision. Is that am I remembering that public hearing correctly?

Yeah, it was for the parking minimums, but with the state law that will do away with it, they still wanted to move forward with it because. They didn't know. Yeah, okay. That would take.

All right, that's cool. Um, information for everybody all made. More or less. not an issue anymore anybody else got any questions about this particular petition if not do i hear motion for the disposition of item number six on our agenda rezoning petition 2026-026 gaston

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 2026-026 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Neely, second?

It's been moved by Commissioner Gaston and seconded by Commissioner Neely. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None opposed. That petition passes unanimously. Item number seven on our agenda, rezoning petition 2026-028 by Barnhart Manufacturing Company. And Max, would you take us through this one in particular, please?

Petition 2026-028 is a 21.25 acre site located on the east side of Hawthorne Lane and the west side of Clement Avenue. Site is a Currently zoned ML2 manufacturing logistics. Proposed zoning is NC, neighborhood center conditional plan is in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood center place type. Rezoning proposal calls for a mixed use development that may include multifamily stack departments, retail, restaurant, and bar. Personal services and studios just name a few. It does prohibit certain uses such as vehicle fueling facilities, vehicle rental, dealership, vehicle repair, and wireless telecommunications. The plan commits to a minimum of 20,000 square feet of non-residential uses on the site. A new public street to connect Hawthorne Lane to Clement Avenue and will serve as a As the route of the LINX Gold Line extension, the petitioner will coordinate with CATS on the layout and transit corridor and the Hawthorne station platform needs. On-street parking will be prohibited along the Gold Line route to protect its operations. An amendment of half an acre of publicly accessible open space will be provided. As of the last revision, however, Uh, the applicant has stated that that will be up to a minimum of 1 acre of publicly accessible open space. That'll be revised prior to the. Decision the plan is in alignment with the policy map and is consistent with the goals and policies, the Northeast inner community area plan. Um, in addition, since the public hearing, um, the petitioner has committed to, um, a portion of that 20,000 square feet of non residential uses be adjacent to the goal line route staff recommends approval this petition upon resolution about seeing issues related to transportation environment and site and building design. The proposed plan would contribute to the community area plan goals of creating a walkable mixed use area. and contribute to the city's transit plans through the through coordination the future cold line extension i'm happy to take any questions thanks very much max does anybody have any questions yep after will you first commissioner russell

All right, thank you. Max handful of questions. So this is pending outstanding issues. And as I look through. 1 of these is on the environment if the. Did you say that the whole situation with the park had been resolved? Because it looks like they're providing a minimum of half acre. But then Mecklenburg county is requesting a full acre.

Yeah. Park and rec has a certain. Percentage that they ask for for sites. But that that's a request that's to be coordinated with the applicant. So, um. We'll make park and record aware of this additional open space. Provisions that they're putting in a space, so the ordinance requires 2 layers.

And I spoke with sister today. happening to a full acre of publicly accessible space.

Okay. Then one more question on stormwater. If I'm remembering this correctly, this is just the owner of the property, Barnhart, is just making, I guess, their zoning conforming to the new ordinance. Why is stormwater requiring stormwater notes if they're just doing the corrective rezone?

They'll have to follow the stormwater requirements of the ordinance either way. but often stormwater will ask for specific references to that on conditional plans. It's more just reiterates what's already required. It wouldn't change the requirements one way or another.

Um, commissioner, the only question that I had was, you mentioned there also still outstanding issues related to site and building design. What were those?

So, as staff has requested that minimum dimensions be applied to the part. Or the open space provided and, um. of certain and that they specify a mix of uses or square footage, those types of uses. Okay.

So it seems like they've verbally so far but addressed that in the latest conversation today, right?

Yeah. As of today, I think we've made progress on addressing those remaining issues.

Got it. And then, Will, to your point, a conversation we had earlier said You know, for all intents and purposes, I think we can look at this as a preemptive rezoning for a site that's going to get brought to market and it's either going to be adaptive reuse or mixed use development. Right? And so I agree with you as it relates to the storm water. Eventually, whoever builds this out is going to have to get a land development permit anyway. So it's not like this is storm waters last. Last touch point, for lack of a better word. Right? So, I think that I think that again, just with the uncertainty of resigning timelines, right for them to get out in front of it is smart. But a lot of these different different groups are still going to have an opportunity to come back in once a form is submitted to clean it up. Right? So I'm good with it as is.

I don't necessarily have a problem with it. I was just wondering why the, why the requirement for stormwater notes if it's not going to change until until it's not changing hands.

No, no, it's really not changing materially. Right.

Right. You're just changing the entitlement with with the eye out for sale in the future, which was still going to require a permit and possibly a reason anyway.

If yeah, like I said, somebody comes in and sold it is the right hour. Right? Right. So I will say page.

Yep. Uh, commissioner Mellon, did you have a hand up there? I did, but he asked the question. Okay. Um, anybody else. Neely yes. Um, Max, I will just, uh. Ask I had participated with several of the community meetings in the community had thrown out a list of things that they wanted. Did you hear from them? In any shape form fashion, I'm just circling back around.

I have not heard from any member of the community regarding the site.

Okay.

All right. That's fine.

They may have talked directly to the petitioner, which I told them if you don't ask, you don't get so that, um.

Uh, if there's a motion, somebody, please make it a motion 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 028 as it appears before us. And the adoption of the consistency statement, as it appears before us. With the up down and do I have to reference the updated open space on there at all? No, no. All right. Cool done.

Mill and 2nd, it's been moved by commissioner Blumenthal, 2nd, by commissioner mill and all those in favor please say aye aye. Any opposed. That passes unanimously, we're up to rezoning petition number 8 or item number 8 reason petition 2026 dash 0 to 9 by Rachel. Please please forgive the butchering there. I'm going to go with I can't read. Emma, would you take us through this petition please?

Yes. So petition 2026 dash 029 is approximately 3.06 acres located west of Henderson circle, south of Henderson Valley lane and north of judel lane. The site is denoted with the red star. The current zoning is manufactured home park district. The proposed zoning is neighborhood 1 C. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighbourhood one place type for this site. The petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the North middle and outer area plan. The petition is also in alignment with the Charlotte future 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood. 1 place type. This is a conventional petition. So there is no associated site plan for this request. The petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the North middle and outer community area plan. I will take any questions you guys may have.

Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions? Commissioner Russell.

Thank you. I'm a question for you. So there seemed to be some concern from council on this rezoning because the place type is being changed from a manufactured home to in 1 C. Which I don't think makes a material difference, but can you explain. Any potential difference in size or a lot. Lot counts from going from a manufactured home part to. In 1 C, I will defer to Holly.

I think their concern was as it relates to losing optionality for affordable homes, essentially, right? But that's using the old MHP district. From the ordinance, um, so the image. He would allow for, of course, manufactured homes, and once he has minimum lot standards prescribed, and you could still do single family, detached duplexes or try plexus within in 1 CC. Do you have a lot more flexibility than the previous? Single family sending districts had in the legacy ordinance that particular question was being referred to the housing committee, because I believe they wanted to study it on a. Across a larger data set essentially so. That's going to be followed up outside of the context of just this petition.

Right? Yeah, I just wanted to ask the question because it came up and I mean, if you look at the overlay of M. H. P. A large majority of it is already existing single-family homes and townhomes anyway. So I don't know that you're actually losing anything. I think you're actually gaining more utility by changing the zoning. You're going to get more housing units. Right now, you've got one mobile home on three acres, and you have opportunity to add way more than that at a still affordable rate. It just won't be manufactured housing, which has challenges of its own from building, construction, and delivery. you know, you six one way, half a dozen or another, but I just think that this is probably not as big of an issue as some would make it up to be. Thank you.

Anyone else? Yeah, I'm going to jump in with Will on this because I took a look and this is 300 acres of MHP. It is not like we're pushing out a mobile home park at all. and there is a mix of how Laborde Avenue is the one above it. And you go up that street and on one side, there's a mobile home and on the other side, there's a ranch house and vice versa and on and on around. So there's quite a bit of intermixing there. So I believe that any alarm related to losing mobile homeness may be built out of lack of knowledge about what the area is actually about. But it did, I thought the MHP, did the MHP translate or not translate during UDO time?

We have a manufactured home overlay.

Oh, okay.

So when you want to establish new areas to have that type of development, you have to go through resending to establish the overlay itself.

Yeah. I mean, it was just such a, like I say, I took my little Google map do to my Bob and trace the whole sucker and it was 300 acres. And I thought, did this, did somebody just all of a sudden decide to make a 300 acre mobile home park or was this something from a long time ago? And, um, okay. Yeah. I mean, to Will's question, you know, this won't materially change, the physical layout and we'll provide some additional housing. So I think that that's all good. Anybody else?

Did I cover your question enough?

Okay. Everybody good with this? Do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number whatever this is on our agenda? Because I've moved to the wrong screen here. Item number eight on our agenda. Do I hear a motion for disposition of that one?

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 2027029 as it appears before us in the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Neely, second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Blumenthal, seconded by Commissioner Neely. I just want the combo back so bad is what it rolls down to. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We're up to item number 9, rezoning petition 2026-031 by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry. And Shayla, this is you. It is. Party on.

Pedition 2026-031 is located at 537 Morraven Lane. Moravian, there we go, which is approximately 0.4, 8 acres located South of Moravian lane West of Providence road and East of hermitage road. The site is indicated by a red star on the map and it's predominantly single family residential neighborhood with a strong tree canopy commercial and office uses are clustered along Providence road to the East while additional housing surrounds the site on the other sides, institutional and commercial uses appear further South and Southeast. The site is currently zoned neighborhood 1C and the petitioner is requesting a conditional rezoning that includes a site plan to neighborhood center conditional, which is inconsistent with the 2040 policy map recommending for a neighborhood 1 place type. The petition proposal consists of the development of a surface parking lot with approximately 25 parking spaces and a 25 foot class B landscape yard along the perimeter of the site. The petition commits to the preservation of existing mature trees and evergreen hedges a full movement access point from moravian lane and 8 foot planting strip and 6 foot sidewalk along the public frontage and to a potential additional potential pedestrian path on the southern portion of the site if feasible. For additional accessibility. Even with that in mind, the petition is inconsistent with the overall goal and policy of the South inner area plan and it is not in alignment with the Charlotte future 2040 policy map recommendation for neighborhood 1 place type and it does not facilitate the prior priority goals from the South inner area plan. This was determined based on the request to amend the policy map from neighborhood 1 to neighborhood center in reference to the minor map amendment criteria located. And the adopted policy map manual, this petition site itself does not meet the intent of the minor map amendment criteria related to minimum acreage, locational requirements and similar standards at is as it is surrounded by predominantly residential context. And it does not align with the conditions typically sought after to justify such amendment. That said to make the petition more palatable, the petitioner did make changes to the site plan after public hearing to commit to exceeding the minimum planting standards for a class B landscape yard to provide a lighting plan during permit permitting to ensure compliant appropriately shielded lighting that minimize the spillover onto adjacent properties and to use pervious pavers as the parking lot materials as requested by city council. And although these commitments could make the petition less invasive staff does not recommend approval of this petition as it is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the South inner area plan and is also out of alignment with the Charlotte future 2040 policy map. That said staff does not recommend approval of this petition as the proposed rezoning does not meet or support the intent identified in the area. And that is the end of my presentation and I will take any questions.

Thanks very much. We got any questions comments, hints, suggestions, threats any of those things. I hear commissioner Russell saying something. He has that look on his face. Would you go? Let us let us have it.

Well, this 1, this 1 bothers me a lot. Mainly because you make an argument for both ways. Like, I understand, like, the land owner, they want to have parking. For their headquarters, granted, and honestly, you're having parking, you're going to do a walking trail. It is kind of matching the whole pedestrian thing. But the flip side of me says that we're still not learning our lesson about how we build stuff in this city and to take a perfectly good lot. That's in between 2 single family homes and pave it. For no reason other than just to pave it is just is irksome to me. I just feel like there's a better way to solve that problem than just add a parking lot in a random neighborhood. So I'm having some internal battles on whether or not I'm going to support this one or not. I need to hear some more from my fellow commissioners before I make a decision.

Who else wants to get in on this? I'll hop in for a moment.

Yeah, because I, I visited the site a couple few hours ago, um.

With, uh, commissioner, um. Uh, we, we rolled over there this afternoon and, um. There are advantages. As much as staff has pointed out that it's not in the plan, I have my policy map thing here and the property adjacent to it is of the pink color, which I think is neighborhood center, correct?

Yes, sir.

All right. So is it really between two single-family homes or not? It's between a neighborhood center on the left as you look at the property And single family home on the right side, and it's right across the street from from the church, the little, the little church on the lane. I don't think it actually has moravian in there. I think it's just a little church on the lane. Yeah, because everybody doesn't love the cookies. I'm sorry, people. If you like the cookies, that's fine, but not everybody loves the cookies. I'm not saying – well, I should probably stop talking now. Anyway, about the cookies. But one of the things that I noticed was the little church on the lane has a parking lot, and it also has – I was going to use buttload, but I'm not sure if that's a technical term – of cars that were on the road today. It was definitely one car going through there at a time. um it's a quiet street but i actually think that they've committed to putting materials that will allow for uh non-impervious materials for the the surface right correct which to me mitigates any issues of all this running off into their next door neighbor also having the nc uses right next door smells to me like somebody's going to put an accountant office in the you know in that house that looks like a house but they're a real estate firm in there i don't know who would do that but something like that would would be a next door neighbor so that was my observations this afternoon i don't know if that means anything to you all or not but other comments the petitioners here if Representative is here if you guys want to get any more feedback, or we just need to ponder for a minute.

I haven't heard anything directly, but I'm assuming there's a community meeting on this, right?

Yes. Yes, sir.

What feedback came from the community meeting and the reason I ask is, for example, there's a. There's another piece not far from, you know. And, uh, like, it's another mid block lot doesn't have to go through a rezoning, but it's vacant right now and it's getting developed. It's kind of a. For lack of a better word, a gaudy duplex and I've heard I do it. And the irony is that, like, in theory, I agree with that use entirely right to have some sort of slightly more. Thank you slightly more dense housing, but the neighbors are up in arms about it. Right and so I'm curious what did the neighbors along Moravian lane? What was the feedback that came from that community meeting?

If any, I would actually be willing to defer to the petitioner because I feel as though since they actually attended in person, they might be able to provide better insight.

Yeah. Brittany, this is you, right? Can I make a motion to suspend the rules? Would you like to make a motion to suspend the rules motion to suspend the rules to hear from the petitioner about feedback from the community meeting?

Do I have a 2nd on that? All those in favor? Aye. The petitioner is here. State your name into the microphone.

Hey, everyone. Brittany Lenz. Thank you. Representing Charlotte Pipe and Foundry. So we held multiple outreach meetings before our official community meeting, even before filing the rezoning. We invited all of the Moravian neighbors to come to the Charlotte Pipe Product Knowledge Building, kind of walk the site, see what was going on there. The main feedback we heard in that really early meeting before we even filed was they have existing stormwater concerns that were real and significant. And frankly, that they didn't want the duplex, triplex redevelopment because the lot is currently vacant and is ripe for redevelopment. So that was the early feedback we incorporated into our rezoning plan early on that we were going significantly above and beyond on the stormwater commitment. So we were actually making their existing condition better. And that was even before the pervious paver commitment. So stormwater was the first kind of main feedback. At the official community meeting, we got feedback about the lighting. So we incorporated that note for the downwardly directed, you know, zero foot candle at the property line so that there wouldn't be kind of that more commercial lighting for something that is otherwise a rezoning or a neighborhood zoning. And then, yeah, the lighting was really the only main concern. And that came from Council Member Owens as well. And so we've incorporated that. And then the pervious favors being a city council.

Awesome. Thank you. Yep.

Hi, this is Sean Neely. Just my question, is there a plan B if you don't, if they don't get the parking lot? I mean, no.

Not that I'm aware of. So Charlotte Pipe, I mean, they aren't anticipating, you know, expanding buildings there. It's part of the rezoning commitments is that there would be no buildings there. So they have no intention of it being an expansion into anything other than Their overflow parking, and then, of course, the expensive buffering around the outside of it. So they're not maxing out the parking, but they've committed to no buildings and it's 25 spots.

Correct.

Thank you.

There's an existing.

Little trailing looking thing there already there's an alleyway and some rights of way kind of off that corner and existing path. So, there there's potential access that can go directly to the other side of the product knowledge building. There also is the side. We'd kind of on the other side of Moravian that people wanted to go down Providence connect via the sidewalk. They could do it that way as well.

But there would be direct access from parking lot to the rear of that building. Oh, thank you.

Pretty.

Do you have a question for the overflow? Is it just for vehicles? It's not for service trucks and that coming down Moravian. That's a great question.

Yes. So this, the product knowledge building is really more for there. There's no manufacturing really going on there. That's not delivery trucks. That's not where their actual manufacturing side of things. This is their education building. This is where they're entertaining clients. It's a beautiful building. If you ever want to check it out, it's where they wine and dine. It's not where they're, you know, really putting pipes together. So there's no specific commitments in the zoning, but the intention of the product knowledge building has and always will be it's not the manufacturing.

And one last question. Is there access control?

There is not currently a gate, but we have not precluded the idea of a gate or some type of arm to make it restricted. And I think that is something that Charlotte Pipe is open to essentially if they don't need it and don't abuse it, you know, if it doesn't get abused, that's one thing. If they see that it starts getting abused or it really is not intended to be a parking lot for all. And I know there was a little bit of discussion about that at the city council meeting. And since there's been some, Some good progress on kind of those discussions, but it was never intended to be overflow parking for, you know, someone to have a few extra drinks and then walk across Providence. And, you know, that that's that's that sounds like so if that were to happen, there are ways to prevent that. Right. Right. So there is not currently a gate arm, but we have not precluded it. And if if it were to get, you know, abused, that would be something that they would consider. Charlotte Pipe is. is pretty, you know, keeps it close, close and tight. They wouldn't want it to become abused.

Are we through asking questions to the petitioner?

Then we will resume our session and further discussion. No, just as a follow up to that, I kind of started in the same boat as Commissioner Russell, which is like, It's hard to say it's hard to be against it, but I also, you know, it was kind of hard to before it because of the housing issue, but where I am, I mean, after hearing from everyone that if there were a house being torn down. Then we were losing housing and then I would be against it, but as is, I'm ready to support it.

I did want to add one thing for clarification. The alleyway separates the two parcels. So technically there's not direct access from one parcel to the next.

Yeah. You know, alleys have their own life in Charlotte where there's an alley. And I know that that's it's just beautiful and special. And so, yeah, but I just I noticed that today. Um, I will also add to the discussion that, uh, there are a mix of uses on the street in terms of housing types. It is bizarre, uh, in a certain way, but there is a quadruplex, like, 3 doors down, which I've always loved that quadruplex. I thought it was a cool thing. And then when you get down the end of Arabian lane, um. Somebody is going to build something on a half an acre land, and it's going to be big. Probably I'm pretty sure they're not going to put a ranch house there. I'm just saying. That 1300 square foot ranch, those things just pop up everywhere. Anybody else have any questions, comments, hints? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number nine, rezoning petition 2026-031.

Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition,

I move that we recommend that they're not approving. So they're not approving staff. We're going to we're going to have that's right.

Staff is not approving. Right? My bad. Okay. Yeah, I was like, thank you. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I need to read it and not know.

We, you need to you'll have to craft our own.

I know you did gosh, you know what? I'll get you all back. Okay. Okay. So having reviewed the petition and consider. Okay, wait a minute. So, based on the information provided by. I'd say name petitioner. We recommend approval of the petition.

And adoption of our consistency statement.

Oh, and adoption of our consistency statement. We have a petition number 2026-031. Is that enough?

Now we have to come up with our consistency statement.

Oh, gosh.

I think that it is consistent because it is the proximity to the NC parcels that are immediately next door. And the mixed use component of the street. Yeah, the mixed use component of the street being that the church is immediately across the street.

Also negatively impacting housing.

Not negatively impacting housing. And there are a mix of types in the street, housing types on the street. Then the petitioner has gone above and beyond to address the stormwater issues. That enough Lord go here a 2nd on that. Gaston is down here. She really wants the 2nd minute. It's been moved by commissioner Neely and seconded by commissioner gas and all those in favor. Please say aye aye. Any opposed. Nobody okay. All right. Wouldn't want to make you have to do that over again. Resigning item number 10 on our agenda is resigning petition 2026-032 by Savilex Homes, LLC. And Michael, would you take us through this one?

Sure. This is a mere 1.39 acres located east of Riftwood Drive, north of Freedom Drive and south of Marble Street. Uh, the current zoning is neighborhood 1, see, uh, proposed zoning is neighborhood 1 D conditional. Uh, the 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood 1 place type. Um, it proposes the following development standards allows all uses permitted by right and under prescribed conditions in 1 D zoning district. Uh, and then they are not allowing. Uh, town homes, condominiums, or other single family attached housing, and that the site may be divided into no more than 4 separate parcels. Meaning you're going to get single family homes here only. So, the petition is consistent with the goal and some policies of the West middle area plan, and the petition is in alignment with the Charlotte future 2040 policy map recommendation. Um, it does meet most of the, uh, minor map. Correct or place type 5 criteria. Um, and.

Staff does a support.

Yes. Do we have any questions comments on this particular position? Uh, 2026 dash 032. If not do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 10 on our agenda, uh, reasoning petition 2026 dash. 0, 3 to 1.

Having reviewed a petition and considered the consistency statement. Prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number. 2026 dash 032 as it appears before us. And the adoption of the consistency statement.

It's been moved by Commissioner Mellon and seconded by Commissioner Blumenthal. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number 11 on our agenda, rezoning petition 2026-035 by Dream Key Partners. Max, would you take us through this one, please?

Yep. Petition 2026-035 is a six-acre site located on the east side of Beatty's Ford Road. Site's currently zoned N1B. Opposed zoning is N2ACD, neighborhood 2A conditional. 2040 Policy Map recommends the neighborhood one place type and the plan is not in alignment with the neighborhood one place type. The rezoning proposal calls for the development of up to 64 multifamily attached townhome dwelling units. The site is divided into two development areas, Area A and Area B. Development Area A is limited to buildings with four dwelling units, and Area B requires at least 60% of the buildings to have no more than two units and a maximum of three units per building. The plan does not propose a new access point on Bates Ford Road. Access to the site will be gained via the previously approved townhome development to the south. 12-foot multi-use path and 8-foot planning strip will be provided along the sites from Bates Ford Road. An upgraded CATS bus waiting pad will be installed on Bates Ford Road. Ground floor residential entrances will be connected directly to the sidewalk and Buildings on base Ford road must front on babies for road plan is not in alignment with the policy map, but it is consistent with the goals and policies of the West middle community area plan. Um. Since the public hearing as of today, the petitioner is committed to addressing the outstanding issues from C dot, which are mostly just labeling issues on the site plan themselves. Not conditional notes necessarily. Staff recommends approval of the petition upon resolution of those outstanding issues related to transportation, site, and building design. The proposed plan meets minor map amendment criteria to transition to the neighborhood two-place type. So, as in an area containing a mix of single family, multi family, commercial institutional uses 2040 policy map, or the 2040 comprehensive plan calls for the development of multi family housing along major roadways with access to public transportation and options for active forms of transportation, like walking cycling. Which are provided along the base for road corridor. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much. Max commission Russell.

Thank you Max question for you. Um. I heard you mention that in development area a, that the lots that front babies for road that the housing will have to front babies for it. Is that a function of the zoning ordinance?

It not necessarily it depends on the arrangement of the site in regards to the location of public streets within the site and outside the site and also the. The location of boundary lines, you know, property lines to the. the edges of the site uh the orientation of buildings are dictated by those features i was trying to figure out was that it was that a call made by the petitioner is that a call made by the planning department um we asked that um typically that the housing units Front or the buildings that the housing units are contained in front public street, if possible from urban design. A static reasons.

Okay, and the reason I'm asking is just because babies for road is a high volume high speed road. And it just seems a little. A little dicey to have my front door in front of a row where people drive 4550 miles an hour. I was just wondering if that consideration was. Was taken into account, like, the arterial and the speed of the arterial is considered when you're making fronting decisions.

Sure, it is considered, but I think there are great improvements that we made to babies for road regarding this. I mean, it doesn't change the fact that that's a. 5 lane section, but they are adding 12 foot multi use path, 8 foot planning strip bike lanes on babies for red. They're upgrading the bus stop. Um, we feel that having the buildings front babies for road is turning their back to them. 1 per the. Environment of the street, thank you.

Anybody else? Yeah, I do. Mr. So, uh.

I guess I understand not having an additional curb cut on Beatty's Ford since you have the public street right next to it. But is there, I mean, it's not that far, right? But you have a building that fronts on a bus stop and you're going to make the rest of the community walk around. Unless I'm missing something, is there like a path along the boundary that is like a public access path to get out to the street?

There's a public street that runs through the site. And so the site to the South, which was petition 2024, 1, 12 has a public street access at that intersection with the.

I see that this is I'm talking about pedestrian pedestrian. It's like, you're going to have units that are 80 feet from a bus stop and they're going to have to walk a quarter mile to get there.

yep so we have that as an outstanding issue that we were requesting direct sidewalk connection from public street b within this site to beatty's ford road um the petitioners pushed back a bit um the you know uh dream key feels that there's a i guess for lack of a better word a safety issue um with bringing a public path between the buildings containing in the homes um It's something that we'll still need to discuss internally. Okay. That's a request that we've made can't be required by ordinance and they do have. You know, at least from. The proposed public street, the site is a short distance to baby's Ford road and a signalized intersection with crosswalks.

Yeah, I mean, look, I understand that. Right.

But it's, it's like, and the housing units that are on babies will have direct access to babies. Right.

But that's just a small component component of the overall development. Right. So that's not I don't think that's like an acceptable compromise.

Just to tag on to that development. Area a, is there are there constraints about what can be developed there? Like, no more than 4 in a row or, you know, how are those? Are there constraints about what units can be developed? Yes.

And you may have said that and I, yeah, so in development area, a, um, their buildings are limited to no more than 4 dwelling units quadruplexes and in development area, a 60% of the buildings will be duplexes with the remaining. allowed to be triplexes.

I mean, I just see a little walking path between those four somewhere.

And that's an outstanding issue that we have on the staff side. That's something that we discussed with them as recently as this afternoon. No decision has been made whether to accept that, but I'm getting the sense from you all that that's not a compromise you would prefer to see.

It just feels like a very simple solution, and I don't buy the security issue.

Yeah.

I mean...

so there's got to be some way to get something simple there and i understand somebody's going to be trying to shave you know two feet off of the side of a town home there to get that to work right yeah but instead your buffer on the side is now going to be a walking path yeah okay whether you like it or not i'll make a motion okay there are a motion for disposition of item number what are we up to 11. um

Yeah, Blumenthal, having reviewed the petition and consider the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition. I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2026 035 as modified as follows. We want to see some sort of pedestrian access directly from the site. To babies for road to access the bus stop so that residents do not need to walk around to public street a showed on plan South and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

2nd, Russell 2nd, it's been moved by commission Blumenthal 2nd, and by commissioner Russell, all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed. That passes unanimously. We're up to our last petition of the evening folks. And it is just 630. I've never heard of this. This Holly's homemade dinner. How Holly has date night so we got to get out of here on time. Right? A rezoning petition number 2026 dash 037 by historical Excelsior Inc. And Max, would you take us through this from police, sir? Yes.

Petition 20, 26, 0, 3, 7 is probably 9 tons of an acre on the West side of base board road. South of the intersection with Sanders Avenue. That's currently zone NC along the Bates-Ford frontage and N1C along Sanders. Proposed zoning is CAC1EX. That's Community Activity Center 1 exception for the majority of the site and N2C, neighborhood 2C conditional along the western property boundary. The eastern two-thirds of the site along Bates-Ford Road is in alignment with the adopted neighborhood center place type. However, the Portion at the rear along Sanders Avenue designated as neighborhood 1 place type and proposed CAC1EX and N2CCD. Portions are not in alignment with that adopted neighborhood 1 place type. That's confusing, but you see the yellow on the screen. That's not in alignment with the proposed plan. The rest is. The purple or pink up there. The proposal calls for the reconstruction of the historic Excelsior Club, including indoor live performance venue, nightclub, restaurant, bar, community center uses, the N2C CD. So a portion of the site shall remain vacant, but may be utilized potential tree save area and or landscape yard. maximum building height is 40 feet. Pro zoning is an exception request. An EX conditional rezoning is a request to modify quantitative zoning standards in exchange for the petitioner agrees to provide at least two public benefits from two of the following three categories, sustainability, city improvement, or public amenities. The driver of this exception request are the required separation distance for live performance venues and nightclubs from the neighborhood one place type as well as architectural elements of the building. The request to exception provisions include a reduction in setback, reduction in ground floor transparency, reduction in the number of prominent entrances, modified signage, requirements to recreate the historic character of the Excelsior Club. In addition, the proposal calls for the exception to reduce separation requirements from the neighborhood one place type, increase parking, and modification to Sanders Avenue street cross section. In exchange, the petitioner will provide the following benefits. Under city improvement, they will replace the existing Washington Heights neighborhood identification sign along Bates Ford Road and reconstruct sidewalk ramp on the north side of Sanders Avenue at Bates Ford Road to meet ADA standards. And under the public amenity category, they are increasing the, Required on site open space to provide additional public open space. This plan is consistent with the policies goals and policies, the West inner community area plan. And since the public hearing petitioners community. Committed to coordinate with urban design on the replacement of the Washington Heights, the neighborhood identification sign. Staff recommends approval as petition as the, as the plan proposes the reconstruction of the Excelsior club, which is a significant historical landmark for the neighborhood and the city as a whole reestablishing the historical use and. And create a community gathering space and community center and sites also along future goal line extension and the pitching commits to making pedestrian improvements and increasing the amount of public open space.

Thanks very much Max. Does anybody have any questions? Comments? Um, we're we're into ladies 1st.

Okay. Commissioner gas commissioner gas and thank you, Max. I didn't mention I saw where they're going to put the parking behind the building. Is there any mention of the number of parking spots at all?

There's not a commitment specifically. If you look at the plan, I have not counted. Um, what the number of parking spots is, but it's, it's more than what is typically allowed under the district falls under tier 2 parking, which has both a minimum. And a maximum parking requirement, no more minimums, but we still have maximums.

We still have maximums.

Yep.

That sucks.

I didn't say that. I'm sorry. Yeah.

All right, you good?

Commissioner Russell? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Max. So age-old question. Potential open space versus public open space versus common. Or if you thought we were going to get out of here without having that question tonight, and you'd be wrong. This has just become a pet peeve of mine. And so I want us to clarify, is this You've got public open space, and then you've got potential open space, but I read potential open space as common. Which means that, in my opinion, common is just for folks who are using Excelsior club. And then you've got potential public. Which theoretically should be for anybody that's walking along babies for a row. They can stop and sit down and do whatever. That's correct.

Yeah.

So I just want to make sure that that is actually public space and not common space.

So there's open space and the ordinance is clear as mud. So open space is a general term to refer to a lot of things. But there are standards in CAC that the site shall provide a minimum percentage of open space and a percentage of that must be publicly accessible. This plan is proposing to go beyond that minimum amount and that minimum publicly accessible percentage of that amount.

And I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure that we're clarifying what part is public and what part is not. I mean, I don't have a. A feeling either way, I just want to make sure that we're clarifying that so that because. I've run into that issue before where you've got the open space and it becomes common space, which means that then insurance gets involved in the land on and gets involved. And so what we think is public is no longer public. But it is public facing, so I just want to make sure we're clarifying that so that it doesn't become an issue going forward.

Yeah, they're committing, I mean, it still will follow the. The regulations established by the ordinance, they're just increasing those percentages. Thank you.

Anybody else got anything? Do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 12 on our agenda, rezoning petition number 2026-037.

Yes. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition. I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2026-037 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Neely, second.

It's been a motion by Commissioner Gaston and seconded by Commissioner Neely. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. And that is our last item of the evening, folks. Do I have a motion for us to adjourn this meeting? Motion.