City Council - workshop

Well, I'd like to call to order the City of Concord City Council Work Session for Tuesday, September 8th. Welcome, everybody. We're going to start out. First of all, let me ask, are any of our Concord 101 members here with us tonight? If you would stand up and tell us your name and what your impression is of Concord 101 so far. I know you're just starting.

My name is Herman Lynch. I've been here for 34 years. I came from Charlotte six years before that. Air Force retiree. Let's see. We wanted to be in a small town, so we came up here. It's grew on us in 34 years, big time. I remember you saying just the other week that we're up to, what, 115,000, I think?

That's right.

Really enjoying the course. Today's day four. In fact, I left five minutes earlier from down at the chamber, or down at Cabarrus.

The Cabarrus Center. center to come up here to get this in tonight so yeah but no really enjoying it right great information right well we're glad you're here and glad you're participating in the course thank you yes sir is that our only concord 101 here tonight i think it must be so we're going to Start out with, let's see, our approval of minutes will be for Thursday. So we'll start with a discussion about our upcoming public hearings. And first up is Kevin on item number one.

In the background, this item was deadlocked 3-3 at the July Planning Commission meeting, so therefore it's coming in front of you. They made a motion to approve the statement of consistency to vote to approval deadlock, and so that's That's why it's here. In terms of the background, it's a home that was built in the 1960s. It's at 285 Palisade Drive, about 1,600 square feet, and the applicant is Lorena Romero. Existing zoning is RM1, and they wish to change it to conditional district light commercial and office for use as an accountant's office. And just to show you the existing, Conditions, a couple of drone photos. If you look on the left, you see the subject property at the corner of Palisade and Burridge. Atrium Health is in the foreground. The right side, you see the Beverly Hills neighborhood in the back. Subject property in the foreground in the cornerstone condos in the upper right-hand part of the Photo. So the petitioners purchased the property in 2024 and they did make some improvements prior to occupying the structure. They paved a driveway coming in off of Palisade. You see that on the left-hand side with the circle. They also added a small walkway going to the other driveway. So they're essentially two separate driveway areas. There's one off Burge, one off of Palisade. for the home. This is the demolition plan that shows what they're proposing to do. They're looking to take off that corner of the existing outbuilding and take out a concrete ramp on the north side to be able to connect the two parking areas. This is the site plan that goes with the rezoning. You see they have a one-way in, one-way out circular drive. The traffic would come in off of Burge Road and it would exit from Palisade. And you see seven parking spaces there. THE PLAN THAT WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION IS ACTUALLY THE ONE ON THE LEFT, AND SO YOU SEE SOME 90-DEGREE PARKING. THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION WITH, AT THAT HEARING, ABOUT, WELL, CAN THEY REALLY BACK UP? THE PETITIONER DECIDED AT LAST MONTH'S HEARING, IT WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE YOU, TO CONTINUE IT ONE MONTH TO GO IN AND GO AHEAD AND TWEAK THE SITE PLAN TO, IS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, AS YOU SEE THE AREA THAT'S the part of the outbuilding that would be demolished with the improvements. So in terms of the surrounding zoning, you see to the north you have Light Commercial and Office, that's the medical office across the bridge on the north side and the Northeast Medical Center, Atrium Medical Center to the west. To the northeast you also have medical offices and the Epworth Methodist Church. to the east and to the south, Beverly Hills neighborhood, there's a vacant parcel across the street, and you have the cornerstone condos to the west, fairly high density developments. So the 2030 land use plan designates the property as a mixed use activity center and C1 is one of the zoning districts that is permissible in the mixed use activity center. There was some conversation at the planning commission meeting as to how the mixed use node got to be there and it was actually adopted in the previous land use plan back in I think 2000 was the adoption of the 2015 land use plan so this area has been considered a mixed-use activity node for for quite some time just to back up one thing I did not mention I think it was pretty obvious by the site plan the existing structure would remain I mean it's gonna it's gonna look like a single-family home but it will just be housing an office So this is the notice map. So of course the PNZ hearing was noticed, all adjacent property owners and the HOA, the Beverly Hills Neighborhood Association. The August council meeting, last month's council meeting, was also noticed, as was this month's council meeting. So we sent out three separate notices. The petitioners did have a neighborhood meeting when they first started this process back in March. Had a few people there. A few notes about the planning commission meeting. I think six or seven people spoke in opposition to the request. So here's the statement of consistency. As I mentioned, the Planning and Zoning Commission did adopt the statement of consistency supporting approval. And that is on your left. Basically, the subject property is approximately 0.51 acres and currently zoned RM1. The subject property was annexed prior to 1968. The zoning is consistent with the 2030 land use plan. A C1CD is a corresponding zoning classification of the Mixed Use Activity Center. land use category which is intended to support a mixture of land uses including residential and office functions. The zoning amendment is reasonable and in the public interest as it is consistent with the existing zoning to the north and would limit the C1 district to an office use and aligns with the neighborhood character and density. So just to go back one thing of course I forgot to mention to you is they have conditioned this approval it will only be a tax office. It cannot be a medical office, can't be an insurance office, can't be a car sale. So it will be conditioned specifically for use as a tax office. And so the statement of consistency on the right hand side would be one, supporting denial, they're exactly the same except for that last bullet point which says the amendment is not reasonable and not in the public interest. And so these are the conditions, basically compliance with their site plan, and on the site plan it references a tax office, so it's pretty airtight. Compliance with the sewer allocation policy, some conditions on backflow assembly, bicycle parking, signage requirement they have agreed they will not have an illuminated freestanding sign and so there would be no lit sign there. Of course it would be required to have technical site plan review and that would include all approvals from any outside agencies that includes Cabarrus County for the interior work for any ADA compliance etc etc. So that is That is pretty well the end, so your steps Thursday would be to approve or amend the statement of consistency, and approve or deny the zoning map amendment, and if you approve, it would be with those conditions. So are there any questions?

Would you mind going back to the map that shows all the zoning in that area? Yes. I just wanna, yeah, that one. I just wanna absorb that for just a minute.

So while she's absorbing that, did I understand you correctly that these alterations that they've made regarding the traffic flow, this one way in, one way out, the P&Z did not consider that?

They did not. They slightly, very slightly amended the site plan that's coming to you. Let me go back to that and explain. Yes, the one on the left is the one that Planning and Zoning Commission considered. Right. That's the one where the two parking lots are not connected. And so for last month, they deferred the zoning in front of you to tweak the site plan to reflect the one to the right, which shows a more consistent flow and a connection between the two. Gotcha. And I'm sorry I took you off the record.

No, that was quite all right. I just wanted to look at what was kind of around it. So it's all RM- are in one now.

It is.

Except they're asking for this one to be changed. Does that allow the next neighbor to allow it to be, to petition to change it?

It's basically a case-by-case basis. And as a staff, we've discussed, well, is this going to be a domino effect? And I think if you look at this one, our conversations were, well, it's been on the market for probably seven or eight years. It hasn't been sold as a single-family home. And this is adjacent to a higher density residential to the west and adjacent to C1 across the street. And there are policies in the comp plan that recommend conversion of single family homes to offices and lower intensity uses.

This is a... piece of property about a quarter mile from my house. And I know many of you have also, I've had over 50 emails from people within about three quarters of a mile of this. And one person has been in favor, which was the next door neighbor. And everybody else has been very opposed to this. So the community association, the neighbors, the church, the other groups around this are very opposed to this. I appreciate the work the owners have put into it, you know, planning and zoning, spent a lot of time on that. But it's fairly clear what the neighborhood thinks about this.

Okay, any other questions for?

Kevin, go ahead. Remind me, and I could be totally wrong on this, but for some reason I vaguely remember this and I don't remember what I had for lunch last Thursday, so this could be, but I think it was years ago. Where that office industrial is, that's the church, correct? Yes. Was there not a time that the church had a house, am I remembering that right? And then that house, when they went to sell it, they rezoned it back to residential I cannot believe, like, I just want you all to know, I'm so impressed that I remembered that, but I just, I was thinking that it was this same area, so the house that's to the right of the office of that church, when they sold it, it went back to residential, correct? Correct. And then do we know if the next flat, and I'm sorry, because I can't do, I'm only a MAC person, so I can't pull up GIS, so is the parcel next to that, do you know if that's residential also?

The parcel next to

where the church is, and then there's a house that's residential?

I think it is.

How do you pull up the internet on this? Okay, I'll find it. Thank you, Kevin.

Kevin, can you go back to the slide you just had for Lori?

On the zoning or the- Yes.

One more, I'm sorry, one more back, I think. Yes. I didn't enlarge it. I didn't want to touch the screen and mess things up. On the left side, what are those two gray areas say?

Those are two outbuildings.

Okay.

And they will take, they would be demolishing the one on the south.

Right. So we lose the little one for lack of better words.

Right, to allow the two parking lots to connect.

Hold on. Thank you, Kevin.

Okay, any other questions on this item for Kevin? Valerie, I have a question for you. Given the fact, the number of, where we've got two back-to-back controversial issues here, and given the number of people that have e-mailed and communicated What is our flexibility as far as establishing public speaking on this in advance? I've read those before about so-and-so should represent a group and this and that. So I thought it might be helpful for us to kind of Think through that in advance.

So your rules of procedure do contain some rules about that. Just off the top of my head, and not having looked at them in quite some time, it's basically 21 minutes per side. So each group gets 21 minutes to present their side. The way that has been done in the past is if the applicant is obviously going to be an individual presenter. So good, they have 21 minutes, that part's easy. The opposition, sometimes in the past, they have appointed a spokesperson, right? So they would have one spokesperson to come up and give their presentation. Sometimes 100 different people wanna speak. And the way that has been handled in the past is each person gets three minutes to speak The council can limit the number of people that speak. It's probably a best practice to just let people speak as long as they're not being repetitive. And then if it exceeds 21 minutes, the proponent of the rezoning, the applicant, would get time added so they can come back and use that additional time to clarify or try to explain what the other people have said.

So if we have more than seven people that sign up to speak in opposition, we're likely going to be in that position.

In all likelihood, yes.

And so we just go and let them all talk. And they're all likely going to have similar comments.

And I would suggest at the beginning of the hearing just say, you know, everyone is welcome to speak and we want to hear what you have to say, but don't repeat what your neighbors have said. If somebody has already made your point, the point's made and we don't need a lot of repetition because, you know, if we have 20 people signed up, then we're looking at, you know, an hour of people talking and, you know, That's unnecessary.

Right, right. Okay. Just wanted to kind of have that conversation in advance so that we would know what we were.

Steve, I suspect we're going to have a lot of people coming this week. You may want to speak to Valerie and come up with a written statement about how we're going to handle this.

Right.

Instead of winging it on Thursday and say, this is going to be our policy for this year. and some future issues so that everybody's clear. It's not looking like we're trying to change the rules at the last moment.

Yeah, it's already written in your Rules of Procedure.

And so just be clear if you can read a statement. This is how we're going to handle this to give everybody a chance to speak, but otherwise we could be in here a long time.

Yeah, I'll just read what we have in our Rules of Procedure, which have been, established for some long period of time and hope that folks will abide by it. Great.

Kevin, may I ask you one last question, if you don't mind? Would you repeat what you said about the signage and that they can't have digital signage?

Yeah, they have committed as a condition of the rezoning to not have an illuminated sign on that parcel.

Okay, so let's just say that this passes and they don't have an illuminated sign, but they eventually sell that building to another accountant. Is that rule, does that rule apply to them too? So that rule stays with the land forever, not the owner.

Yes, until it's changed through an amendment to the zoning.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay, anything else? All right, we'll move to item number three. And I think I've got Fred down for, or no, no, we're at item number two, which is still Kevin.

So I am pinch hitting on this one. This is an item, I think we've spoken to you a little bit about it, our tiny home ordinance, tiny and cottage home ordinance. We've had some developers say, hey, if you were to tweak this just a little bit and take out some redundancies and some confusion, we think we can jumpstart some projects. So we've decided to bring this amendment to you with some very minor changes to the tiny and cottage home ordinance. ordinance. And the signs that you approved for downtown last month, we made a Scrivener's error and we didn't include the directory sign. So, we're tacking that on to the end. So, back about three years ago, you adopted the NRD, the cottage home and the tiny home requirements after a lot of discussion. We thought we wanted to allow those by right, but we're making them a zoning district now. And again, we've received quite a bit of input on the development standards and some of the challenges with some of these projects. And so we've tried to make things a lot simpler. And so what we've done is, some of you may have heard that the General Assembly changed the statutes that says that after January 1st, we cannot impose minimum parking requirements for developments. So shopping centers, whatever, we can't even have that in our code. So the first thing we're doing, we're taking out the minimum parking requirements for developments. The tiny homes, we might as well do it now as opposed to having to come back. So one of the things that we found out, we allowed tiny homes and cottage homes, the NRD district, in only the urban neighborhood land use designation. We also have the village center and the mixed use activity center, which also should allow them. So we're changing that to allow them in mixed-use activity center and the village center we're also putting a statement in the code that there's no impervious maximum in the neighborhood infield residential district you're not going to have one that's got a hundred percent impervious but we're just we don't really have a standard for it we are clarifying that our square footage limitations refers to gross floor area not heated So this section, we have a little bit of redundancy. The adopted code has a minimum number of dwellings of four and a maximum of 18, so we just decided to get rid of that. I mean, why would we care if someone puts three tiny homes on a parcel? The 18 seems to be, according to the tiny home developers we're talking about, maybe a little bit limiting. They think we should just go with We should just go with that density. So setbacks don't change. Maximum building height, we're clarifying that the building can be elevated with two stories above parking. So it used to just be two stories, and now we're saying two above parking. That gives you a little more flexibility with the land. Minimum open space, we had 30%. The developers are saying, well, that's a little too much. Can you reduce it? So we're going with 15. That's pretty common with most of our other zoning districts. We had an eight foot wide type A buffer around the development, and now We think it's better to go with a 12-foot average planting strip around the perimeter. That seems to give a lot more flexibility for the development. And minimum separation, it was 10 feet, and now we're reducing that to eight. That gives you a little more, you know, a little more better utilization of the lands would still meet fire code. That's really about the same. This is for the cottage homes. Same standards as the tiny homes. We've rewarded some things to make it a little easier. We had a requirement that a certain percentage of the development had to be Adjacent to common open space, we're just basically saying that now the common open space has to be accessible to all dwellings. Some of these parcels, it's really impossible to get 60% of the dwelling units to have direct access to open space. So as long as we have a way for these units to be able to get to the open space, we will be good. So Article 12, the sign standards, this is the directory signs that we accidentally left out of the ordinance from last month, so we are putting that back in to make that correction. Again, essentially just a scrivener's error by leaving that out. So P&Z approved this unanimously with very little discussion. So this is the statement of consistency that you would consider Thursday night, the top two, if you agree with the ordinance changes, and the bottom if you do not think they are appropriate. The next steps would be to consider the text amendments, approve and amend the statement of consistency, and approve or deny the proposed text amendments. And we have had positive responses from folks on the tiny home board about these changes also.

Questions for Kevin.

Mayor, if I can. Kevin, this is becoming more and more popular, not just here, but nationwide. What kind of benchmarking, if you did some, and that's fine if you did, and I'm sure you did, but how does this relate to how other cities are handling this same thing?

It's very similar. Ours is a little different in that we do require a rezoning. A lot of other places do allow them by right. Now, it's going to be very interesting when we have these pop up now where there are no parking requirements based on the legislature eliminating those parking minimums. So I know when we were looking at our ordinance, we found some tiny home sites in Greensboro that had no parking and they were on a major thoroughfare. And we saw a lot of cars parked right along the street. So that's gonna be a challenge.

Kevin, just a quick question because I've seen some cities define tiny homes as also just pre-manufactured homes, but they also include container homes. What does it mean here for us?

You could use a container home as a tiny home also. And I mean, it's really, the container home is something As long as it meets building code, it doesn't matter what it's made out of. So I mean, that's definitely a good option for tiny homes. Of course, they would have to be retrofit with the right studs and interior walls and so on and so forth. They could definitely be utilized as tiny homes.

So does size really matter when we're saying tiny?

Well, we have the two definitions. We have a cottage home, which is a slightly larger Version of a tiny home, 1,500 square feet of floor area. And the tiny home, I believe, is 600 square feet maximum of total floor area.

So even if we had a bigger structure, because container homes are usually bigger, then it wouldn't be classified as a tiny home.

They would have to meet that requirement. Okay. That requirement, I guess they would have to cut off part of the container and retrofit it, which is not an uncommon thing.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions? All right, thank you, sir. Okay, I think Fred Womble has the next item three.

Good afternoon, Mayor Morris, members of council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Glachynski, and Ms. Jenkins. You are correct, Mayor, the item before you is another conditional rezoning application. It's case number Z2325. This conditional rezoning request is for a single parcel consisting of approximately 4.879 acres located at the intersection of the George Lyles and Weddington road intersection, it's actually in that southeast quadrant there. And the request is to rezone the property from C1CD, Light Commercial and Office Conditional District, to C2CD, which is General Commercial Conditional District, in order to construct a 5,600 square foot convenience store and gas station, as well as a 1,330 square foot car wash. And the applicants for this particular item are TWP Acquisitions LLC, And council will see on the screen the existing condition slides. Staff captured some drone footage of the property. The first photo on the left is looking south towards the site with the Sheffield Manor subdivision shown there on the left side of the picture. And with the various uses of the Willow Oaks commercial subdivision shown across the George W. Lyles Parkway on the right. The photo on the right is looking east toward the site. I mean, that actually shows the same residential and commercial uses, just from a different angle. For a bit of history on this parcel, the parcel was annexed into the city in 1995. And upon annexation, it was zoned R2 for residential uses. But once the CDO was adopted, the property was converted to residential village. Prior to the construction of the George Lyles Parkway in 2015 and 2016, the parcel was a part of a larger parcel to the west that's denoted by the C2CD. And at the land use plan at that time, the 2015 land use plan characterized the area, both parcels as village center and commercial. In effect, the Lyles Parkway construction wound up impacting the development character of the area. nearest this newly developed parcel that was eventually developed on the west as the Willow Oaks commercial development, i.e. the Publix, the BP gas stations, some other retail, and leaving the remaining portion to the east as undeveloped. So in effect, the parkway bisected the larger parcel. Regarding the surrounding zoning of the subject property, to the south and east are RC zone parcels. that have residential uses. They're used residentially in nature as well. And to the north and west is a C2 conventional as well as C2 conditional zoning and some RV residential village zone parcels with a mix of commercial uses and other undeveloped areas. For some additional background regarding this conditional rezoning application, staff has created a brief timeline of events of the subject property and this particular project and basically how we got to this point today. In November of 2023, we received the initial conditional rezoning application for the property. And that property, the application was for the development of various commercial and retail uses, including daycare and a quick serve business. Following that, next month in December of the same year, staff as well as DRC received and reviewed a sketch plan with a little bit more detail with the application, which showed a childcare center, a retail use, a drive-thru restaurant, and an oil change facility to be constructed on the property. The applicant also, in that following month in January of 2024, the applicant also applied for and received a preliminary sewer allocation for the childcare center retail use drive-through restaurant and oil change facility that I had mentioned previously. And then in November of 2025, we received a new conditional rezoning application and site plan, which this time showed a 3,000 square foot car wash and 5,600 square foot convenience store with gas. Fast forward to August of this year is where Planning Commission heard the rezoning petition, which was changed slightly to a 1,330 square foot car wash with, again, a 5,600 square foot convenience store with gas, which that application in that case was presented. Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of that zoning map amendment request at that time. This next slide is showing the site plan that was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their August meeting. I mean, as I mentioned previously, the applicant is again proposing this 5,600 square foot convenience store gas station and a 1,330 square foot car wash as shown on this site plan. But as you can see from the site plan, the applicant is proposing to create three lots, with lot one being used principally as the sea store, lot two as noted there as future development, and lot three would be a parcel that would be dedicated solely for stormwater management, as a stormwater management area. The proposed development will have vehicular access off of George Lyles Parkway and Weddington Road via two right in right out driveways as recommended by the applicant's traffic impact analysis that was reviewed and approved by both city transportation as well as NCDOT. Again, this particular site plan received a recommendation of denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, I'll have another slide that'll show you a little difference between this one and the one that you'll be considering. But this particular site plan showed a 20-foot Type C buffer adjacent to the Sheffield Manor parcels, which are on the western property boundary. All of those are zoned RC and RV. This is the revised site plan that came to us and was brought to us by the applicant to address some of the concerns that were brought forward by the neighborhood during the PNZ Commission meeting on that last month. The most significant of those revisions to the site plan are the applicant's now proposing to increase that buffer from 20 feet to 30 feet. along the Sheffield Manor property boundary, as well as they're proposing to install a 10 foot high masonry wall along the western edge of the drive aisle nearest the subdivision. It should also be noted that these proposed changes have not been reviewed by DRC for adherence to the CDO standards. This is a preliminary landscape plan that was shared at last month's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It's just a colorized rendering of the applicant's preliminary landscape plan. Again, that was introduced last month and we just wanted to share that with you guys so you could see a better image of that 30 foot landscape buffer that's proposed along that western border shared by the Sheffield Manor subdivision. In regards to the 2030 land use plan, the land use plan characterizes the subject property as urban neighborhood. And the request that C2, general commercial conditional district, is not a corresponding zoning classification. Therefore, an additional land use plan amendment would be required for this request. The subject property is located adjacent to a large commercially designated area, the Willow Oaks development to the west, as defined by the 2030 land use plan. And if approved, staff would recommend that the land use category be amended to commercial as C2CD is a corresponding zoning classification within that land use category. As with all rezonings and Article 3.2.4 of the CDO, the applicant notified formally recognized neighborhood groups and homeowners associations within a half mile of the subject property. Council should also be advised that the applicant held a virtual community meeting with the surrounding property owners in recognized neighborhoods on August 3rd of this year at 6 p.m. And staff did, they did provide staff with a transcript of that community meeting. Additionally, planning staff notified the adjacent property owners, recognized neighborhood and HOAs of the August P&Z Commission hearing via letters dated August 3rd and with ad runs in the Tribune dated August 8th and August the 15th. Similarly, we did the same with you guys here with the Council hearing via letters which were dated August 24th and with advertisement runs in the Tribune dated August 29th and September 5th as well. Regarding the suggested statement of consistency, should Council support approval of this request, they would adopt the statement shown on the left of this slide. And should they favor a denial, as was recommended unanimously by P&Z at their August meeting, they'd adopt the statements on the right side of this slide. As with all rezoning MAP amendment applications, planning staff represents, we present both an approval and denial language for the Board's consideration or for Council's consideration without taking a stance on any of these. Regarding the suggested conditions, staff recommends the conditions as enumerated there and that these conditions have actually been shared with the applicant and agreed to by the applicant, including compliance with the site plan as shown, and dated 8-25-26. Some provisions regarding the sign permit being approved and applied for separately. Compliance with building materials subject to Article 7.10 design standards of the CDO. Some detail on the dumpster enclosure. some additional understanding that although preliminary sewer allocation was granted, a new preliminary sewer allocation request may be required per the adopted sewer policy. Items six and seven are the most, the variance or the difference from P and Z to this one. The applicant shall provide a 30 foot undisturbed buffer along the eastern property line adjacent to the residentially zoned and developed parcels as well as the applicant will provide that 10 foot masonry screen wall alongside the driveway of the property. Eight and nine are your standard conditions regarding technical site plan review as well as any future modifications requiring, may potentially require future approval by Planning and Zoning Commission and thereby potentially council as well. In regards to the next steps for council is to approve or deny the statement of consistency, to approve or deny the zoning map amendment with conditions, and to approve or deny the land use plan amendment. That's all I have and I'll gladly answer any questions that council may have at this time.

And you may have said this, the reason this is on our agenda, planning and zoning moved denial of this. It's on our agenda because the owner wants us to consider this. Why is this on our agenda? If planning and zoning said don't do this.

Yes.

When planning and zoning deny a petition, it automatically comes to city council for a second hearing. Okay, thank you.

Fred, I have a couple questions. First of all, I always wondered why that property, I never knew that George Laws bisected that, and that's why. I've always wondered that. So I want to go back a little bit in the history. So it was R2 and then RV. Correct. And then C2 conditional use.

Well, C1CD. C1CD.

Correct. And was that when the Lidl...

That's correct.

When we did that? Okay.

Yeah, that conditional rezoning was for that property, for that project, the Lidl project.

So question is, and we were just talking about this on the conditional use, for instance, on the tax office, that there's a site plan attached to it. So is this the case that if anything goes on this property outside of that Lidl store that has, this is what was presented, it always has to be rezoned? That's correct. Even if it is a C1 use? that's correct okay that's what i thought but i just wanted to make sure and so when the daycare and that package came through it was a conditional use also that's correct it was going to be it was a an application for a conditional rezoning okay and then the leader was an application for a conditional rezone as well was still in the c1 and then the sewer was granted for that piece of it. Correct. On the daycare.

The daycare, I want to say the various commercial. That trifecta. Right, the kind of mixed uses that were proposed. The three parcel. Correct.

The Lidl never came through on sewer, correct? Like that never, that project never got off. Am I?

If I'm not mistaken, they did get.

They did get sewer? I think they did get sewer. Or was that prior to our, okay. I don't remember, I was just curious. Prior to the allocation. That was prior to allocation, so it was for comfort serve, okay.

I stand corrected.

Okay, this plot has a lot of history, so thank you, thank you.

Fred, so question. Yes, ma'am. Can you go back to the one that had the two blue items?

Going the right way?

No.

Wrong way, okay.

Don't worry.

I'm sorry. Here?

No, right here. Okay, I'm sorry. Okay, right here. Conditions, yes ma'am. So you stated that point six and seven were not presented before planning and zoning, correct?

That's correct. The suggested conditions did not include six and seven that night. Six and seven have been offered by the applicant since that meeting to address some of the concerns that were brought forward during that Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing.

Okay, perfect. So based on these concerns or things that they added, the different conditions, have those also been presented back to the community association so that they're aware of proposed changes by the applicant?

Not formally, however, the staff report is online the Friday before the actual hearing, so they have access to seeing those. I don't think that they made an expressed distribution to the neighborhood regarding items six and seven.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

So what are you saying that anything, any commercial use on that property would require a rezoning?

That's correct. So there's nothing by right? That's correct. Okay. This is a conditionally zoned parcel. At present, the only zone, the conditional rezoning that's been approved is for that Lidl. Right. Ergo, while we're here pursuing this, the C2 for a different kind of convenience store use. Right. Gotcha. Yes, sir.

Any other questions on this item? All right, then I think you have the next one, item four as well.

You're absolutely right, Mayor. I actually completely forgot about that one, thank you. Good afternoon again, Mayor Morris, members of council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Golchinski, and Ms. Jenkins. The item before you is a volunteer annexation petition for a single parcel totaling approximately 32.927 acres located at 9511 Benjamin Walker Lane. This property is owned by the City of Concord and the applicant for this rezoning is the City's Parks and Rec Department. The proposed annexation would be for the construction of a greenway that would connect the J.E. Ramsor Park to the nearby neighborhood. The zoning map shows that the property in the Red Cross Hatch area is currently zoned Cabarrus County LDR, which is low density residential. And if this annexation is approved, the request for zoning would be to the City of Concord OI office institutional for the proposed greenway use. Regarding the 2030 land use plan, the proposed O&I zoning is consistent with the suburban neighborhoods land use category. and the park slash greenway use is compatible with the surrounding zoning in the area. If council approves of the annexation petition, this property will become a part of district four as shown by this council district map here. As with all annexations, both internal and external entities were notified and given the opportunity to provide comments and or feedback on the proposal and no comments were returned. Additionally, the adjacent property owners recognized neighborhoods and HOAs were notified via mail of the proposed annexation by planning staff in letters dated August 24th of this year, also with advertisements run in the Tribune and dated August the 29th of this year as well. in regards to council's next steps is to consider the annexation request, to adopt or deny the annexation, and if adopted, consideration before the planning is under commission for the recommendation on the rezoning will be held at their October 20th meeting. I will gladly take any questions that the council may have at this time.

Any questions on this one? All right, thank you, sir. We move now to presentations of petitions and requests. And item one, I think Jeff and Alex are teaming up on that one.

Yeah, we'll do it together. Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Golczynski, and Ms. Jenkins. This item is twofold. Ultimately, it's approval of seven total change orders for our meter replacement AMI project. We've been underway for what about a year with our contractor on board doing a lot of integration work. So we're bringing you these today and as well as asking your permission to additionally authorize the city manager up to $250,000 in additional discretion as we move forward and we'll talk about really why we're in the situation we're in. So again, this project is a full replacement of electric meters nearly a full replacement of our water meters and then a complete replacement of our Aging AMI system that is at the end of its of its useful life And we do have some scope and fee change requests what this isn't we do not need more money in I'll say that again. We do not need more money. We have about $34 million that's been allocated to this project. If you approve this today, we'll be at about $31 million, so we still have a real healthy financial position. And where we are in the project process, we feel really good about where we are. What we are up against, we did not put a large contingency that you usually see in construction projects, that it gives us that built-in flexibility. Due to the the large cost of the project we didn't want to encumber a lot of money that we did not need to encumber So we're up against the $50,000 contract increase Rule, so we'll go through what these items are here I'll cover the first four and then Alex will do the final three so these really fall into two two groups The ones in green are changes that the multi-departmental project team have elevated to Alex and I and changes they would like to make to make sure we get the functionality we need. These are not things that were missed as part of the scoping. These are new additional items that the team has learned as we've worked with the contractor that will make tremendous improvements We're gonna live with this system for 10 years plus, right? So we're finding things that would make remarkable improvements to the way we do things. So the SmartWorks MDM updates, this is some additional integration. The largest amount here is the integration of Waters advanced leak detection process that is already built into the project. We'll actually integrate with the city's existing communication system and automate those high bill calls and leak calls without the need for someone in billing to have to do that evaluation and manually make those call campaigns. So the system will identify accounts that have leaks and will automatically be able to relay that message to a customer as soon as that leak is found. The next two items there, the Aclara Events API, this is a further integration with our additional system in our customer information system that we use for our customer accounts and billing. So there are things like remote cutoff on the electric side. We have the ability to cut off an electric meter remotely. The Aclara system will be the actual system that sends that command to that meter to turn off, but we need to be able to, if the billing tech is running that cutoff in Northstar, we can add a button there that sends that command from Northstar and doesn't require that technician to have to get out of Harris, get into Eclairus, send a separate alert, and then all of those communications and all those alarms are all tied together forever in the CIS system. We know who did it, when it happened, and how it happened. It's just going to be a really big help and not a large number there either. The fourth one, we have some sites that will be cellular backhaul. So think of these meters are communicating to 44 different data collectors in the system. We have some that are on fiber. Fiber is obviously what we prefer. We own and maintain that network. But some are in areas, specifically in our water only areas, that will have cellular backhaul using cell service. So what we are asking for here to not have to stock multiple types of devices. We're just going to make every device a dual cell fiber unit, which we'll be able to operate anyway. If one of the devices goes down, we'll have a spare. It doesn't matter what kind, because we're just itemizing one type of DCU, if that makes sense.

And the last three is once we identified where the four DCUs were going, and a DCU is a data collection unit. That is the piece that goes on the pole that will actually receive all the information from both the water and the electric meters. But once we identified where the 44 DCUs were going with the elevation and the terrain, that's all just hardware up there, the last three. Those are the mounting kits, the antenna mast, how tall those antennas needed to be, and then the cables to run up and down the poles. So like I said, the last three are just hardware.

So really what we're asking is approval of these seven changes and then also your consideration on the additional $250,000 at Lloyd's discretion moving forward. Now, we don't right now, we don't expect to, we have nothing on the horizon we see that we're going to need that for. One of the challenges is now that we've hit that threshold, Every single thing has to come back to you, and Valerie's nodding her head. So if we have a $1,000 change order that we'd like to do, that would have to come before you. And we're getting to the point in the integration, we actually have field test meters in. We'll talk a little more tonight about where we are in the project, but it's really critical that we're not waiting, you know, 30, 45 days for some of these smaller changes that might have to come to you. If you do approve that we obviously commit to giving you that information when we do use some of that 250,000 to keep you updated on what we've what we've continued to use that for but We just really think that the team needs the flexibility to make sure we're not getting in the position Where work is stopping in order to get to potentially a relatively small change order in front of you guys. So all that makes sense Does to me

So you're saying basically we've only got like a 16,000 spread right now. And you're saying we need an additional 250 because we've already eaten up 234. So the process is gonna be the same. Is that what I just heard you say? Am I looking at the right?

The 234 will get everything approved that we know about that we're pushing to you right now. And then we're asking for an additional 250, which will be really like adding a contingency after the fact. But again, that gives us enough to be able to move some of the smaller ones that we need to move. And if anything large came, over 250,000, obviously that would have to come to you anyway.

I'm just going to jump in. What you're doing is essentially, so you know you've delegated approval authority to Lloyd, and there's certain thresholds of that authority. So we've exceeded that authority here. You're giving Lloyd an additional $250,000 on this project only authorization to approve change orders.

Any other questions?

I just have one or two. So you're still working with ESOIS as the consultant? Yes, ma'am. And WESCO as the contractor? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you.

Just one quick question, kind of off the ball. I know we may not be far enough along. Are we starting to see any savings yet on this project? Are we seeing any return on our investment?

How are we looking at that? Yeah, so we'll talk in project update. So what has been happening is the integration of these systems, so the work. that the project teams are doing to make sure each system can talk. And if you remember, we're adding the meter data management system, the MDMS. So we actually have three systems that have to be integrated together. The majority of that work has been done, but there's no data in those systems yet. The next step, we have our field test meters in hand. Our first data collector unit is in hand and will be mounted, I think the pole's already up.

We've set the pole, yes, sir.

So we are right, that's why we're bringing these to you today, is we are right at the point where we're gonna turn on those field test meters, actually put real billing data into these integrated systems. And then the next step after that, after we prove that out is, is the limited field test environment where we deploy about 2,000 water, about 2,000 electric. So we go to a little bigger scale, prove it out again, and then once that is done, we go full scale. So there are no active meters being built in the new system as of right now.

Can I follow up on Terry's question? The goal of these systems and the APIs and everything is to optimize the way that billing is currently occurring, correct? And the data is being, the way the data is also being collected.

Yes, ma'am. But this was also, this was an operational issue or an operational thing for both electric and water. We were an electric meter last about 12 to 13 years, physically last in the field. And we were pushing year 10 on our electric meters. And so when we started this project, it was operational. So we were going to have to replace our meters as well. So we partnered with water and looked at those guys to do a wholesale meter change out as well. This is something, this is not a one-time thing. This is something that we'll do every 10 years going forward. We'll have to change our meters out. They physically don't last in the field. So we have an AMI system now that probably is not up to par. It's old technology, it's old way of thinking. And so this is the new AMI system.

Any other questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up, item two. Eric Pratt has that one for the airport. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Kolchinski, and Ms. Jenkins. The first item that I have before you tonight is a contract with J.D. Goodrum in the amount of $13,229,842, which is this. This is for the construction of a hangar in common at the Concord Pageant Regional Airport. We selected JD Goodrum through an RFP process, which we had four bidders that had responded. They were the lowest bidder on the project, and so we are recommending that we move forward with the contract. The facility itself is gonna be about a 40,000 square foot hanger with roughly 9,000 square feet of office attached to it. And we are very fortunate that the vast majority of this project is gonna be funded through grant dollars that we're gonna receive through the state as well as through the federal government. And with that, I will ask if there are any questions.

We love these projects that you don't ask for any money for. Any other questions? All right, I think you have the next one as well.

Yes, so the next item, this is actually a recommendation for a contract with Talbert Brighton Ellington in order to provide engineering services at the airport. TB&E, as we shorten it, they have been our engineer of record at the airport since 2020. I'm sorry, yes, 2020. I'm sorry, 2,000. I keep adding a two in there that doesn't belong. And so they've been with us for quite a while. Our contract did expire, which we did an RFQ. We had three applicants that had responded. Through that process and the evaluation, we determined that it was in the best interest of the city as well as the airport to continue that relationship and do another five-year contract with TB&E. And with that, I'll ask if there are any questions on that matter.

It doesn't appear to be. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Next up, item four, and I think Jessica is going to talk to us about some financing contracts.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Kolchinski, Ms. Jenkins. As you'll remember, last month I came to you with a resolution to move forward with the financing for the communications building, and we were awaiting bank bid responses back, so we now have the responses from our bank bid and have selected or are recommending Flagstar Public Funding Corp. for that financing. The interest rate is just below 4% for a 10-year term. And so this is just the next step to move forward with awarding that financing contract to them and proceeding with the approval from the LGC at their October meeting. We have already submitted an application to the LGC with all of the information related to this proposal, and it is on their agenda for October. So happy to answer any questions.

Questions for Jessica? All right, I think we're good. Thank you. Okay, next up is item five, and I think Rick from engineering is going to talk about that one.

Mayor Morris, members of council, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Kosinski, and also Ms. Jenkins. Before you, for your approval, is the construction of the emergency, the City of Concord Communication and Emergency Operations Center, or EOC, by the contractor, Edifice Construction. The proposed building will be constructed on city property at the same parcel where Fire Station 3 is located, and the address of the building would be 110 Warren C. Coleman Boulevard. It will be a 9,001 square foot facility with a brick veneer. It will have exterior, it will have exterior veneer, brick veneer, slab on gray foundation, and a metal roof. Once completed, the building is going to house the City Emergency Communications Center staff and will feature nine offices. If I can have the second slide, please. Here's the rendering of the front of the building. As you can see, most of the offices are located in the front of the building and on the left side of the building. And there is also a large emergency communications center, which is the building in the top right. This will be big enough to house ten new consoles. It will be named in honor of Chris Linker, our former communication director. There's also a large multipurpose building, which is towards the center of the building, and this will be a conference room, and there's also a training room. It will have operational support that will include break room, bunk room, and also a gym. The project is being delivered via the design-build method. We began this process three years ago in the fall of 23, and we advertised for firms for the design-build process of this building. We received several, and we selected three for interviews, conducted interviews, and we selected Edifice Construction and ADW as the team to design and build this project. ADW is the architect that designed this building and Edifex Construction is the contractor that just recently finished the fleet building that we inaugurated earlier this year. So they have a good reputation with us and they've done an excellent job for us. After the design was completed and all the different permits were acquired, the contractor, Edifice, bid the different trades individually. So after all the trades were, they were bid on August 4th and August the 18th. After all the trades were, bids for the different trades were selected, we selected the responsive and and responsive and responsible bidders, the lowest responsible bidder. And all those were added up and he submitted a GMP or a guaranteed maximum price to construct this building of $7,523,869. So I open for question if you have any. A quick question, so this,

gives us 10 emergency consoles, whatever that's called. How many are we now using? Does this have capacity for expansion as the city grows?

This is the capacity that we'll have, 10. Right now, we are at six consoles. Six. So we've got two. So we're expanding. It has room for four more.

So, Rick, the... Bunk room, is that like overnight accommodations for staff in case of an emergency? Exactly.

Okay.

Okay. Other questions?

I just had one. It's trivial. Where exactly is this located in relation to the fire department that faces?

It's right behind the fire station. Okay. And it's facing Lyric Drive, which is the drive that you use to get into... The church? The church, yeah. Okay, so it's kind of back there.

It's a parking lot now?

Yeah, the parking lot is ours right in front of the building, a portion of it, not the entire, but it's connected to the church parking lot.

But you won't see this necessarily from Warren Coleman Boulevard? The building, no. Okay, great. I was just trying to get a spatial of where it's going to be. So thank you.

Okay, any other questions? Thank you. All right, next up, item number six, and I think Valerie's going to handle that one.

Hi, good evening. So Habitat for Humanity reached out, and they are interested in building affordable housing at 91 Kroll and 515 Honduras. If you will recall, these properties were part of the Barbara Scotia settlement, which was a big thing I'll tell you all about sometime. And they were acquired in that settlement for the specific purpose of providing affordable housing. This is the same type of transaction that we do with WeBuild, which we see more frequently. And if you approve this transaction, the deeds, the properties will be deed restricted for 40 years to guarantee 40 years

Any questions for Valerie on this one? All right, thank you. Next up, item seven. I think Jackie's gonna handle that one.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council, Mr. Payne, Ms. Kolchinski, and Ms. Jenkins. We have an application from Daniel Sergeyev at 925 Silver Fox Drive in Concord. This is a .87 acre parcel within Cabarrus County jurisdiction zoned LDR. This is within area B of the interlocal agreement with Cabarrus County and the owners wish to build one single family home. There's a map of the site. There are several homes on that street and water services available within Silver Fox Drive. This shows where it is within area B. And to summarize, this is considered served by water. No sewer is available, so the recommendation from staff would be to accept the preliminary application and have the owner proceed to final application, excluding annexation. Are there any questions? Thank you.

All right, thank you. Okay, next is item eight, consider making an appointment to fill the at-large vacancy on public art commission. That, when we filled our other committee vacancies a month or so ago, we did not have applications for this position. Since that time, we've had two applications to come in. Our small subcommittee group from city council met and discussed the applicants and made a decision to appoint Carl Strominger to the at-large vacancy on the Public Art Commission. So that'll come before us on Thursday night. Anybody have any questions on that? If not, next up is the consent agenda, and I am not aware of any, no one has expressed any concern about pulling anything off of that.

Steve, on the consent agenda number H, us buying 26 acres for Greenway, I think that's a great one. That's all.

Very good. Good job. Yeah. Exactly. Thank you for mentioning that. Okay. Anything else? All right. We have got... Following this meeting, we have project updates, a pretty long list that you all have before you. So we are going to take a 45 minute recess for dinner and then meet back in here for those project updates at about five minutes until six o'clock. 5.55, so we stand in recess, thank you. Started to round that up.