Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mr. Chairman, I have a proposed agenda change. I'd like to add a new 5B to the other business for election for a board chair and vice chair to serve the next year.

We have a motion to add 5B for the election of the chair and vice chair. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second, any discussion? All those in favor? Okay. Okay, next we'd like to welcome our newly appointed members, Caleb Newman and Christine Summers. Welcome and thank you all for serving. Next, the approval of the minutes from the June 23rd, 2026 meeting.

Mr. Chairman, motion to approve.

I have a motion to approve. I have a second.

I have a second.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? unanimous thank you next item there are no public comments as I understand it so we will move into the action agenda and before we move into the action agenda I would like to I would like to recuse myself from item 4a and 4b as our firm has got a relationship with the clients and it would not be appropriate

I'll make a motion to recuse Jay Henson as the chair for items 4A and 4B.

I second.

Those in favor?

Thank you.

Goodbye, Jay.

We're moving along. Next agenda item is 4A. Consider a recommendation or rezoning petition R2607. a request by Bipart Development LLC located at 23331 Maple Branch Drive to amend the approved rezoning R2404 to allow for two additional flex buildings on parcel A.

mr. James thank you sir and welcome new board members so real quick background on this site and the larger rezoning from the previous years on the page you see in the hatched area the site that is proposed today and 2018 that entire site including Northbrook subdivision was in for rezoning. That whole site was CB. It changed to TR, CD to allow the neighborhood, and then it left over the frontage on 73 for CB for employment uses. And 2024 Northbrook storage rezoning came in and changed that from CB to SPCD to allow for more uses and to enter a modification in for a buffer. And then today we have R2607. That's just parcel A from the previous rezoning. And that is the site we are talking about today. So on the screen you see the difference between R2404 and R2607. R2404 did have an allowance to split the site and add a building on the lower portion of that site. And what they did was they did put a flex warehouse style building along that road frontage. But what they are in today for with R2607 is to allow two buildings behind that building. with a parking lot in between and a parking lot behind that so why are we here today and that's because as we all know in huntersville all buildings are required to front on a street public street or an urban open space in this condition rather than having a large building that extends from the front all the way back to the property the applicant felt it served his purpose better by splitting that up and putting two buildings behind it, which technically does not meet the ordinance. The ordinance requires public streets for things like connectivity and frontage conditions just to have a building on the front so that pedestrians can go in and out of the building. In this case, the applicant felt there's not a need to do that. Due to certain things like lot orientation, size, topography, it was a little difficult to get as much of that building on that site as he would like to. So in this case, to maximize economic development, like I said previously, the first rezoning took that entire parcel, including the Northbrook neighborhood, and it was all set aside for employment services. um now it left over the skinny portion on 73. so in order to maximize the site and work along with the topography and shape of the lot it just makes more sense to put the buildings behind that and staff is is okay with that in the public hearing there was a modification to not have screening to the adjacent parcel The applicant did agree verbally to add that screening, and I'll point to that here on the screen. That is along that portion. They are going to screen that in accordance with the ordinance. So the only modification left over would be the frontage situation. So as far as the 2040 plan goes, it does support LU6, support mix of land uses, allows more economic development on that smaller parcel. And the ordinance does emphasize, especially in employment generating areas, form and flexibility and development regulations. So therefore, in this case, because of things like topography and there's not really an ability to have a connecting street on that small parcel with topography, it does meet LU 8.1. And with that being said, staff does recommend approval with the condition that the modification is approved and any staff comments are revised, including the screening that I had pointed to previously on the screen. They did commit to all TIA. improvements that NCDOT will have, and those would be required to be built when this is constructed. Are there any questions?

Any questions for Michael?

Just got the one. What was the TIA requirements that they'll be meeting?

The previous rezoning had a requirement for a turn lane on 73. And I think I actually have this engineer report here with me.

I mean, give me a read a digest version. I don't need the whole thing.

I don't have the diagram in front of me. It's basically the same TIA improvements from R2404. So there's some stacking and some turn lanes on 73. The approved TIA has not been completed quite yet. And the applicants here as well. Jake, has that TIA been approved by NCDOT?

The first one was approved.

Come on up.

Jake, if you'll just introduce yourself with your name, please.

Jake Polillo, 17532 Sailview Drive, Corrineos. The first TIA was approved, but we're redoing the four parcels along 73. So we did a whole other new TIA. So there are going to be a lot more improvements. So it's all incorporated. We have three, four parcels. This is parcel A, across the street is parcel B, parcel C is in the middle, and then parcel D is on the corner of Oak Branch. So we got 22 acres, a half a mile of frontage along 73. So with the new projects on parcel B and D, we had to do a whole nother TIA, which involves a lot more road improvements. So this has very little impact.

And those improvements are included in the in the package as well. It shows the turn lanes and all those other improvements.

I just have a couple questions. So I see the stormwater has changed a little bit. So that takes into account the three new buildings with the existing stormwater? Is that the way that's working?

Yeah, so the previous, on the rezoning, it was a shared SCM on that lower parcel. The rezoning did allow for that parcel to be separated and more development on that lower portion. SO THIS NEW SITE INTEGRATES UNDERGROUND RETENTION WITH A SHARED SCM. SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO TELL, BUT THAT'S THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. THAT'S ACTUALLY UNDERGROUND DETENTION. SO IT'S TECHNICALLY AROUND THE SAME AREA. IT WILL BE ABLE TO TREAT BOTH PARCELS ON THAT PARCEL A SITE.

Okay.

And then for the I mean, the front buildings have not been built, correct?

That this this building here. Yes. Has been approved and it meets the 24 or four rezoning. So it is it's technically approved. I believe they're waiting for this rezoning to get all the details for the shared SEM.

So will they be built at all five buildings at the same time or all, I guess, four or three buildings at the same time?

I can't answer that one.

Are you building the one in the front first before the. The way it currently is right now is the underground temporary detention is right in front of building the first building. So what we have to do is go in and build It's a difficult site because in order to put the permanent detention in, you have to have most of your land stabilized, because they don't want you to get sediment in that permanent. So we have to go back and build the back two buildings, put the parking lot in, and then fill in the basin, and then build the front building last. And that's only because of the way the site conditions are. The only way we can do it.

And last question is so all the buildings match as far as elevation and finishes, etc.

Yeah, they're more reflects office warehouse space and has a really modern front to it and then the inside of them has a like a loft. The front section has a lot to it to the back part of the buildings warehouse in the front has office space with the locked on top.

Any other questions.

Yeah, I'll ask a quick one. This is sort of related to Michael's question about traffic. So with these additional buildings, what sort of additional traffic impacts do we expect to see as far as coming and going on a day-to-day basis? I know it's hard without knowing the tenant specifically, but generally what?

Most of the uses in there are low. So you get a little morning, like construction yard, you may have like a cabinet shop. Okay. So it's not... It's not really retail driven tour.

Right. And I noticed you've got the spaces back there for, I guess, rear loading or whatever, however you want to define it. So I guess there's maybe some potential impacts for larger vehicles using those coming and going.

Yeah. Typically, you're not going to get a really long. You're going to get more of a short trailer delivered to these. But you see a lot of these. These are like lightened. There's a huge demand for the smaller vehicles. INDUSTRIAL USER VERSUS THE BIG MONSTER ONE. I THINK THIS WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE ONE ON RAMA CHURCH. AS YOU GO OVER THE TRACKS, THAT LITTLE PARK TO THE LEFT, IT'S COMPARABLE TO THAT.

IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES ARE NECESSARILY CONDUCIVE TO HIGH TRAFFIC RETAIL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? Jake, did you have a presentation or are you just here to answer questions? Just to answer questions. Okay. All right. Anyone have any other additional questions before we entertain a motion? Go ahead, Michael, please.

Yeah, just from the budding neighbor behind you, I know the last time when we met to approve the first application, there were a bit of concern about the distance and the ability to see what was going on at your site versus from your yards. And I noticed in the public hearing there also was some concerns about safety factors. So tell us a little bit about the buffering that will make them feel comfortable that they aren't getting encroached on now with more buildings that weren't in the original plan, and then the safety factor.

So I met with a gentleman, I think his name is TJ, really nice guy, and he was concerned, and then him and I walked the site. So I don't know how you, how do you use this? You just push the buttons. But they can't see, right?

They can see what's on the screen. So your slides are starting here.

So there's a full line of trees. You can see where his house is there, and you see where the lot line is, the white.

That full... You can also point and draw on here. Oh, there you go.

Modern technology. Yep. All along here is a full stand of trees, really mature trees. So when him and I walked the whole property all the way through here, he looked and saw that you can't see his house. All of this is common area, all in here, and this is all mature trees that are untouched. And then he spent a lot of money putting all sorts of plants and stuff along his. So he came out to the public here to the community meeting. After the community meeting, we laughed and went there. He said, I'm very comfortable. That's why you don't see any of them here today. So we've made sure that we took care of them.

And to direct your question more towards the ordinance, the 80 foot buffer remains similar to the previous rezoning.

I do have a question the. The outstanding buffer on the back that I guess is a buffer for the industrial behind it. Do we have details on that? I guess the applicant has agreed to. increase that buffer. Do you have any, is a staff have any concerns over that buffer or the ability to just be clear?

It's, it's, uh, the ordinance requires screening. Okay. It's not necessarily a buffer. Um, but it typically a screening is just about 10 foot wide and it's, um, they're able to do that. We haven't gotten details yet because the, the, uh, the public hearing would have technically been the first week of July, but it was all crammed in.

in one week time period so there hasn't been a revised plan yet, but I can let Jake speak on whether not it'll so electric cities parking lot is Right on the property line their fences there, and it's about 10 feet of fall from their parking lot to ours so what's going to happen is we're going to plant that whole slope and in between there because truthfully I don't want to see their parking lot and trucks and all their stuff back there so we're going to put a lot of green giants and stuff that grows tall and and kind of make a wall of shrubbery to block their parking lot from from our property.

But you feel confident with that slope that you can get something that will take and survive.

Yeah, we in we may even have to put a small retaining wall along that back along this section here so we can build it. Soil up enough so we're not like this we can taper down, but yeah, we we fully intend to. Even if the town didn't require we we're going to buffer and landscape that.

Those need to be a 3, 3, 1, maximum.

We'll make sure that happens but again that's handled by code so you know that. Any other questions. Entertaining motion.

I'll do it. In considering the proposed rezoning application R26-07, a request by Bipart Development LLC, located at 23331 Maple Branch Drive, from special purpose conditional district to special purpose conditional district for commercial uses, the planning board recommends approval of rezoning to allow for additional flex building on parcel A, with the screening for the parking loading areas on the back building to be added per ordinance standards that has been added on the new plan, and all other staff comments and recommendations to be addressed. It is reasonable and in the public's interest to approve the rezoning to special purpose conditional district for commercial uses, and it is consistent with the Huntersville 2040 plan policy LU 6.1 and LU 8.1. And do I need to add anything to that?

The only thing I think we're missing is the request or the required modification to allow the two buildings to the rear of the site. Am I correct, Jesse? Yep.

Yes, sir.

So I would like to add the modification to allow the two buildings to the rear of the site is approved.

That works.

Great. Thank you.

Is there a... I have a question. Oh, go ahead. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. I have a question.

How does it address the fact that there is no improvement in TIA? It's a... So it would be a requirement for the final hearing for it to be approved. Well, he has to agree to meet NCDOT's TIA improvements. It's a...

The TI for this has been approved. So the TI for this site and adding those two buildings didn't have any impact. So we already did a TI, which was for the daycare.

For amendment. Amendment to the TI.

Yeah. So the daycare was approved. This was approved. So the original TIA we did included the daycare, this building, parcel B, the approved mini storage that was on parcel C, and flex, so much flex warehouse on parcel D. So all of that was incorporated. So the TIA for this project is approved. The TI for the projects that we're doing differently that we don't need any rezoning on parcel B and D We had a it intensified the traffic so we had to do a new TI for those two properties But this one here has already been approved So can I make amendment to just say?

Applicant to verify all TI a requirements are met for this property. Would that be acceptable? Okay, right You can strike that.

We still have a valid

I'm just looking just from a procedural standpoint. Is it acceptable for the board to approve without a final TIA? That's just a fundamental question.

Since it's deferred to NCDOT, then it is. He's accepted that all TIA requirements by NCDOT will be constructed.

Procedural issue is all. That was a good question. Yeah, good question.

Okay. Good question. Valid motion, second. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor? Any opposed? Okay, that passes. Thank you, Jesse. I did now.

You didn't see that, Tracy?

I'm just making sure you're doing your job, Tracy. Moving on, 4B, consider a recommendation of rezoning petition R2609, a request by Tree Nail Development located at the northeast corner of Hambright Road and Mount Holly Huntersville Road to amend the approved rezoning R22-07 to allow for the addition of 1.042 acres of land and site plan revisions. Mr. Richards.

Good evening. I'd like to add this staff report to the record. As the interim chairman has said this evening, this is a revision to R2207, which was originally approved in June of 23, looking to add just over one acre of land, which is one of the holdout parcels along Hambright Road. As you can see here highlighted in red on the left, that is the holdout parcel, which is now integrated. No additional density, no additional square footage, same plan, same numbers, just picking up this one piece of land and squaring up the building orientation along Hambright Road there. And you can see a little bit blow up of that same area. And you can see the revised area, how that's now reoriented Couple modifications that these are some cleanup items that have come about during the construction project this this process this site is completely Under grading provisions right now through the town originally and the original rezoning there was a permitted disturbance of the i-77 buffer you can see that highlighted in red and Due to some changes in topography and additional field data that was gathered, the applicant is requesting to increase the buffer impacts along I-77 there. Staff can support this due to allowing for proper drainage and mitigation will be presented a little bit later from the applicant. But again, this is just needed normal site work. We're in here. Let's just get this cleaned up as opposed to trying to do some of this administratively. Next, second one is they are requesting to remove one row of street trees along the thoroughfare. Typically, this is not something we mess around with, but the applicant has a very unique landscaping design that he'd like to present this evening. We think it would be a great way to try to introduce something here. A little background knowledge for you guys. It is getting increasingly more difficult to get two rows of street trees along DOT roads due to their planting requirements, clear recovery zones, those types of things. To add to it, in this particular area, there's a very steep drainage ditch along Hambright Road, which is not very conducive to trees growing. So we thought this would be a great place to try something different. I think when he shows his pictures in a little bit, you guys will be pleased with the designs that they've got. So again, we'll be in support of that modification. Do you want to come up, Ben? I have a question for you in a second. Also, as part of the revisions to the construction documents, there's been an increase in block length. along block H here. You can see the two pedestrian crossings along there on the top near J and near towards the bottom towards I. Typically that's about a 500 foot block length, but we had to relocate some storm sewers and some drainage easements and some inlet boxes, which made us move the tabletops to some different areas along with some topographic issues. So they're asking for an increase of 72 feet in this particular area. And again, because of the reasons I just mentioned, staff will be in support of that. And then at the public hearing, we had some TreeSafe modifications. And Mr. Geisler is here to give us an update on the TreeSafe situation for the arborists. I was not in that conversation, so this will be fun information to learn.

just prior to public hearing something popped up where it looked like we may be getting into the tree canopy of a handful of our specimen tree save trees in this area so Brian added it we since had a meeting with the art town arborist and actually had everything kind of staked out and flagged out and looked to see exactly where our impacts were going to be and we're not into the canopy of any of those trees we are into the Kind of like there's an additional five foot buffer outside of the drip line of the canopy for one tree. And Arbor said she didn't see any issues with it in that area. So she gave us a blessing on that.

So this is a non-issue. I had not had a chance to get it with Mary yet. Oh, yeah, your name. Sorry.

Ben Geisler, Tree Nail Development, 20501 Shear Road, Davidson.

Just for the record, we don't have to do addresses anymore. Just name. It's yesterday. All right. So, again, this will be getting removed when we go to final action from the town board. So there will not need to be any recommendations from you guys this evening. Approved development, appropriately located in the mixed-use zone, so it's consistent with the 2040 plan. And, again, here are the staff's recommendations. We are in favor of these changes minus the tree-safe mitigation. Here for any questions you guys might have.

Yes. I'll open it up for staff first. Any questions of staff before we let the applicant come up and present?

yet you mind just a little bit more detail about the clear recovery zone for ncdot and what the challenges are there specifically sure uh... at different speeds uh... of of the roads uh... you need with uh... clear recovers if a car were to go off the road you need a certain amount of space for the car to slow down before it impacts something higher speed more space this case we've got a really steep ditch not going to end well if someone goes off the road. And you don't want to put a tree right there either, so you don't want the car bouncing off the tree. So the theory is going to be that we'll have a back row of trees and the front will have some very enhanced plantings along there. Typically what you might see down south in some of the fancier areas of Charlotte, they're going to introduce this here. I think you guys will please. We have sort of an example over at the Holbrook where instead of having just grass in the planting strips, they've got some plantings. It's going to be that kind of thing. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

Anyone else before the applicant comes up?

Yeah, I'll ask one more. Sure. The block length, it looks like it's just defined by the pedestrian crossing? Correct.

In the TOD district, you are allowed to use pedestrian crossings as opposed to streets.

And those had to be moved to where they are just due to, you said, drainage requirements?

Drainage requirements where the sewer system's set up and where the inlets had to go.

Okay.

Yep. Typically, we'd have handed some of that administratively, but we're here. We're just going to get it cleaned up.

And Brian, while we're on the topic, the idea of that is just to, is it as much of a traffic calming device? Correct.

Correct. So you get good pedestrian movement and good block length typically in small urban environments, 500 feet is the typical, anywhere between 500 and 800 feet is acceptable. So at 572, we're right in that range.

Okay. Applicant, Mr. Garcia, you want to come up?

There you go. Right button.

And I'll flip through these pretty quickly. I think Brian covered pretty well. We talked about where it is. Just to give an idea of what that triangle looks like today, it's a one-acre triangle. It's a one-story manufactured home with carports. The guy runs a concrete pumping business out of the back. When we went through our original rezoning and assemblage out here, we worked hard to try to bring him into, so we had that full frontage across Canberra. He just wasn't interested in selling. Supported the project, never made any negative comments to the town, never sent any emails. Said it, I think his words were, do what you ever wanna do, we're good with what you do. As we're out there now clearing and grading, we kind of had a window this spring to say, man, are you sure you don't want to? And he said, I think I might. And we got together on it. And so that's kind of what you see. We've graded all around him now. It's also it's tough. You can see in the bottom left picture, it's kind of a hole as well. So it avoids us putting a bunch of retaining walls up around that property. And ultimately, we'll fill that in and kind of bring everything. So it's a nice grade coming off a ham right into the site. We were CB is what he is now. We're kind of splitting it. We had rezoned the TOD on one side of him and TODR and the other. And we're just kind of splitting the difference there. This is rendering of the four-story office building that is going at the corner of 77 and Hambright. Potential, I think we're approved up to seven stories. Our development partner on that is trying to find tenant interest to get to a five-story building, but a four-story building is where we're tracking right now. And you can kind of see the multifamily building to the left. It's pretty much sitting about where that triangle property is today. That's that U1 building that you're seeing as you come in. This is that U1 building, just for visuals for you guys. This is another building that's sort of our premier building coming into the site, leasing office. Sorry, going the wrong way. The I-77 buffer, Brian talked a little bit about it. The top left image you can see, there's a couple hundred feet of stream there. What had happened when they put 77 in, they piped the stream coming from the east side of 77 all the way under 77 until they hit our property. They left it open for a couple hundred feet before it turned and went back under 77 headed east now over, you know And so you have this stream that's it's all piped under 77 in two directions and you have this little piece And there's a ton of topography there and it's just become a really big erosion problem as we got into clearing grading and Engineering realize that it's a bigger problem what we thought it was which is why we've asked for the increase in the buffer disturbance there. The image you see top middle is an example of some of the types of plantings that we would be putting in kind of screening as well as the bottom left. There will be some plantings at the bottom of the wall where we're permissible and then plantings probably across the top of the wall in certain areas as well. top right corner gives you an idea the pink line is our 50 foot buffer line and you can see where our property line is that's the white line there is even though it doesn't count towards the buffer there is already about 40 to 70 feet of hardwoods between our property line and 77 that will remain so there's kind of a natural dot buffer then there'll be our mitigation We have two commercial buildings in this area. Just again, so you kind of see where the project's headed, look and feel wise. These are retail, restaurant, F&B. And those buildings, if you see, are sort of more, would be more reminiscent of something you see in South End, like a Pins Mechanical or a High Wire Brewing. There are some older industrial buildings on the east side of 77 in this area. So we're building new, but we're kind of making it look old. And or at least up fitted and this is one of the areas where we're looking at this single row street tree That would have a little more urban feel Two examples in the middle top and bottom were examples that we actually took a couple commissioners planning staff and our consultants on a tour last fall and driving around Charlotte and looking at some areas where they're doing this in more urban conditions and Town 1 does kind of vary from some of the rest of Huntersville and that is a more of an urban type product buildings are pull up to the street tighter we do also have some of the the challenges with DOT and the ditches and so on and so forth The last thing I just add on that block length piece, we were actually approved and we met the 500 foot block length requirement using a pedestrian enhanced crossing that we worked with town to develop. Because town didn't have one at the time, a detail. Engineering subsequently came out with a detail for how they wanted to see those pedestrian crossings built. And they came back to us and said, hey, would you consider using this detail instead of the detail that we approved you for? Their detail requires storm inlets on the uphill side of the pedestrian crossing to prevent kind of a damming effect. We already had all of our stormwater storm pipe ordered, so we couldn't move where our inlets were. And engineering said we really like to use the new detail. And we said we'd be happy to move it, but we need this block requirement. So I think Brian hit on no, no additional density, no new buildings, no impact on TIA. And that's where we are.

great thank you open it up for questions for the applicant thank you very much and welcome to the board all right need to get questions for staff if not we'll entertain a motion motion motion If you've got one, go, please do.

Okay, y'all can help me if I'm missing things. Okay, and considering the proposed rezoning application for R26-09, Town 1 revision, the Planning Board approves to add approximately 1.042 acres to Town 1, which was previously approved under R22-07 for a mixed-use development, and no additional square footage will be added to this project. The modification request for the I-77 buffer impact revision must maintain a 50-foot buffer with the appropriately designed buffer mitigation and replanting. Modification requests for the street trees along the thoroughfare can be approved with the appropriately designed plantings and detailed with approval from staff. The modification request for the block link waiver can be increased to the requested 472 feet due to the topography and previously approved design. All minor outstanding staff comments are to be addressed. It is reasonable and in the public's best interest to approve the request to be consistent with the Huntersville 2040 plan, including policies LU-2, LU-2-2.1, LU-5.1, and LU-6.1. And any other additions anybody would like to add?

That's a valid motion. Is there a second? Second. Brian or Tracy, do we need a statement about it being reasonable in the public interest?

That would be nice.

It's okay. I'll just read your own thing.

It is reasonable in the public centers to approve the rezoning because the revised and proposed project is the more efficient land use than previous plans.

Okay. Do you accept the modification, Mr. Pollard?

She did have the modification of 50-foot buffer.

Correct? Yes. But do you agree with the seconding the? Yes.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, we're good. Yeah, we have a second. Amendment's acceptable. Thank you. Open up for discussion. Any discussions with the motion?

I just want to say that I'm so I'm so glad that the landowner decided to sell because I think that will be a beautiful project and that is so nice of him to do that.

Michael any comments would be in the second the first time it was approved it was a good project then it's a better project now with the addition of the land absolutely yeah no I agree I think it's a again a much better plan being able to incorporate that small piece so congratulations I can only imagine what that felt like going through for that long period of time but congratulations and uh obviously been a lot of dirt moved out there so it looks like y'all have been good progress No other questions? All those in favor? Any opposed?

Passes.

Thank you. Thank you. Would someone care to make a motion to bring Mr. Henson back?

Motion to bring back Mr. Henson. Second. Chairman Henson.

Second. All right. All those in favor? Jay, welcome back.

Thank you.

We're on to 4C, of course.

Okay, item 4C, consider recommendation on text amendment petition TA26-01, a request by the Huntersville Planning Department to amend Article 3.29 of the Huntersville Zoning Ordinance to increase the amount of indoor recreation in the corporate business zoning district.

Thank you. I'd like to enter the staff report to the record. Here we are. Well, didn't update the slide from last week. We're at the planning board, the 28th, final actions anticipated on August 18th. Here's the current definition of indoor recreation. We all kind of know what it is. We could have Jay Henson's Pickleball Court. We could have Christine's Yoga Studio. Those types of things are all what we're looking for here. As we know, in Huntersville, these are limited in use in our corporate business district today. It's an accessory used to a business park. It is limited to 10% of that park area not to exceed 70,000 square feet. We do have those strewn out throughout the community. Challenges that have been brought to the board. We started talking about this in... uh... early spring or late actually late winter last year at the board retreat a number of local business owners who were uh... facing a challenge of lease renewals and those types of things because of the limited area that these could go on town they didn't have a lot of negotiating power uh... but also folks were coming in were buying these buildings and then executing executing their lease option out tripling these folks rents it's very difficult for these types of businesses to stay in huntersville typically you'd like to see some of these in the highway commercial business district but with rents approaching 35 to 40 dollars a square foot not making it very economically viable for these types of businesses in town it is also allowed in the special purpose district which has some reduced rents from the highway commercial and then again limited use here in the corporate business district so what we've come up with is I spent a Good portion of the spring and early summer talking to a lot of these business owners and finding out what challenges they are having. One thing that we did come up with was allowing these, this used to be allowed in non-business park properties that are zoned corporate business. So that would be a new twist on it right now. Met with several different groups, different types of businesses, and we came up with a scaled approach here for businesses and buildings that are less than 15,000 square feet. They could occupy up to 100% of that building. from 15,000 to 50,000 up to 50,000, I'm sorry, up to 50% of the building, which gives you a range of 7,500 to 25,000. And then buildings that are larger than 50,000, they could do up to 40% of those buildings. Do we think they're going to hit those numbers? No, but what it does do is give us an awful lot of flexibility. Speaking to a property owner in the park, Huntersville right now, they've had 55,000 square feet that they've been trying to lease for over a year. They're having a hard time finding industrial or light industrial or office tenant in there they do have a group of business of sports owners can't name who they are but it's a there's baseball track and a couple other things that could combine together and take up that space and allow them to do that remaining portion of the building that's been sitting open for some space for some time again I think this is going to give a lot of flexibility to our local business owners that will help you know we can pick up our kids from school drop them off at these places and Do our errands pick up dinner those types of things keep that money in Huntersville because if not I've talked to a lot of these folks one in particular They are looking at moving to Mooresville Because of the rent change here and they anticipate losing over 60% of their clients when they do that move So that really wouldn't be a Huntersville based business anymore They would go to Mooresville and they'd have to rebuild up their business all over again So we'd like to try to get these folks to stay here in town And we feel that this is a good vehicle to do that and I am here if you guys have any questions

Thank you.

Yep.

Questions for staff. Go ahead.

I'll just play devil's advocate. Sure. I get what you're trying to accomplish, and I think you're right. There's probably plenty of demand for those type of uses. But the flip side of it is, is are we limiting the available properties for the more traditional industrial users, service oriented businesses? So that's my concern is, is it make it more difficult for them and Is it possible some of these indoor rec, if they're now permitted here, can, again, pay higher rents? Does it now drive up the rents for these small businesses that can't afford it? So I'm not saying I'm opposed to it. I'm just saying there's a reaction.

That's an absolutely great question. We did have that. So I did go out to some of the building owners, and they said, If you had Scott's Plumbing, he could probably charge $25 a square foot for that. So if he had the opportunity to rent to someone in that business level or office level and charge a little bit more premium rent, they would love to do that. What they're looking for in these indoor rec, it's more towards that $18 to $20 a square foot range for those businesses to stay economically viable. So if they have the opportunity to get that extra rent, they obviously would want to do that. But again, this is a lot of what we're finding is leftover space. You can squeeze some in. maybe an oddly shaped piece that's been pretty hard to lease for an industrial use those types of things so really we're just trying to fit these guys in create that opportunity for that fit in so they can still stay in huntersville But we hear you, and we had that same concern after talking to a lot of business owners. It doesn't bother me anymore.

I have a question I just thought about. Is there a restriction on outdoor recreation space in the CB or with this new?

No outdoor recreation.

So it's prohibited? It's all indoor. A lot of gyms like to have that turf. Outdoors, yeah.

No, we wouldn't allow that. Okay. Yep.

Yeah, I just want to ask a question about this scaling table here, just to make sure I understand it correctly. So a 50,000 square foot building, 25,000 square foot max, one foot more, so 50,001, now their capacity is dropped down to 20,000. Yep. Okay.

You want to make a recommendation to change it?

We'd be more than happy to listen. I mean, I don't know how on the fly here to do it. I mean... We got calculators. You would want it to be the greater of either that maximum amount on the lower tier or the listed percentage. Correct. At 40%.

We played with it both ways. We picked one. And if you want to make a recommendation to change it, we're very fluid.

It just feels like... I don't know, it may just feel like an unintended consequence, I guess, to have it drop if you add one more capacity to drop.

No, I mean, we talked about it, having the first one go 15,000, then go 15,000 to 40,000, then 40,000 to infinity, you know, or up to 100,000.

I mean, I don't want to make a decision on what to do with it. I'm just trying to figure out if that was intended or not.

You would be amazed at the Excel spreadsheets we came up with. Meeting with 25 business centers, I had 24 different answers. I'm sure.

I'm sure. Okay.

And Brian, this would obviously be specific to a building, not necessarily a park. Correct.

Correct.

So again, if an existing business is in there and is already, is indoor rec, has met the 50%, that landowner, building owner would not be able to increase that because it's a totality. Correct.

Other questions for staff? If not, are we ready for a motion?

We'll entertain a motion.

No, mine's actually probably a denial, and I don't necessarily make yours.

Sure.

Okay.

Okay. I'll just, I'll just read this in considering the proposed amendment to a 26 dash Oh one, the planning board recommends approval based on the amendment being consistent with policies, Evie 1.3 and Evie 1.4 of the Huntersville 2040 plan is reasonable in the public interest to amend the zoning ordinance because it will allow greater utilization of the corporate business CB zone for indoor recreational use.

Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you. It's a discussion. Jody, your motion?

I just think it's great for business to have opportunities, and I think this gives people a lot of opportunity.

Michael. Yeah. The 2040 plan, one of the emphasis points is about health. I mean, if you're aligned gyms to be in new places, new spaces, it offers the community opportunity to be a healthier community. Not many things come before this board that enables that to happen. I'm fully behind it. Scott.

I'm not going to vote in support of it, not because it's a hill I want to die on or I'm that passionate about it, but I do think there's some potential unintended consequences with it, and I think the staff has probably vetted it out. It sounds like you guys have done plenty of interviews and discussions, so I'm not questioning that. I just do think they're concerned.

Fair enough. Hale? I'm the new guy.

What are some unintended consequences that you could foresee?

Um, so full disclosure, I'm in commercial real estate in this space, in flex space for 37 plus years. And, um, you know, and I supported what Bipart's doing because I think there's a need for it. Um, is the unattended consequence again, as I'm kind of repeating myself is, you know, yes, there are some spaces out there that have gone unleashed, but in general, we've got a very tight market up here. If you start introducing additional competition for Scott's Plumbing or Scott's Cabinetry or whatever those service-oriented businesses are that serve the community, generally speaking, I would say I don't think they could probably pay the same amount that maybe somebody that's indoor rec could, just my opinion. So kind of what has happened to these indoor recs on the highway commercial could be the same unintended consequence for the more traditional industrial users. Again, if... Jay's Pilates comes along and Scott's plumbing is looking at the same thing. Jay's Pilates may be able to pay more. So does that continue to ratchet up the rent? Hey, it's free market. That's fine. But that's, again, I don't think there's, I don't have enough data on either side to say that's a terrible thing. That's just, I want to argue tonight.

The request for indoor recreation space I'm sure the reason you're doing this is because you had a great demand for it, correct?

We did. Typically, you get an inquiry once a month. In the spring, we had an influx, especially with outside investors coming in and buying the existing buildings and raising rents. These folks wanted to know where they could go. So, again, we're trying to create that opportunity to keep locally family-owned businesses here in town as opposed to moving to the Cornelius, Charlotte, Morrisville, where you might get a little bit different rent rate.

Yeah, I seem to remember we did have some rezonings over that same topic recently. Yep. Other questions for staff? Do we have a motion, a second? So we'll go ahead and call the vote. All those in favor? Those opposed?

Great.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, moving on. Next item is, and he is not here tonight, but we do want to thank Prince Topka for his service on the planning board. I think he was transferred out of state, so we do appreciate his time and thank him for his service there. Item 5B is this time of year we have our elections for the chair and the vice chair, and In order to do that, the first thing I'd like to say is really enjoyed this I've enjoyed chair and I really appreciate all the help Tracy has given me although notes and cheat sheets but I do not want to put my name in the hat for the next term I'd like for somebody new to do that and I'll still be here still be on the planning board still serve just like somebody else to have a chance to do that so what we'll do is we will nominate we'll go through and make nominations after we make those um and we complete that we'll have a motion to close the nominations and do that then we'll take a vote on each name that's nominated and the majority wins and i do not vote unless there's attack correct on this one okay so um we'll get started um Actually, I'll make a nomination. I'm gonna nominate Marshall.

I don't know if I need to formally accept the nomination, but I'll accept it at least.

I'll second Jay's suggestion. I think Marshall would be wonderful.

Others.

I think we should nominate Trina only because she's not here, but I won't do that.

That would be good. Any others? Hearing none, can we have a motion to close the nominations?

Second.

All those in favor? I guess we need to vote on that. Okay, well, we have one nomination, so we will take a vote. All those in favor of Marshall? Unanimous, congrats. Thank you. Now we need to do the same thing for a vice chair, and we'll take nominations for a vice chair.

Can Scott just stay as vice chair, please?

Sure he can. Great.

I would accept it, but I'd also be very happy if someone else would like to get the experience. But again, I'm happy to continue to serve, but if someone else would like to, I'm certainly willing to do that.

Just seconding Scott's nomination.

Any other nominations? Okay. If we can have a motion to close the nominations.

I'll make a motion to close the nominations. Second.

Those in favor? Okay, so this makes it very easy. Assuming you get the votes. All those in favor of Scott? Please, everybody abstain. All those in favor of Scott as the vice chair? Those opposed? Great.

Thank you all. Like Jay, I've enjoyed serving, so I'm looking forward to working with Marshall and having Tracy tell us what we're supposed to do.

Yeah. She does a great job at that. Okay. That's it. So if we could have a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

And a second.

Second.

All those in favor? Thank you all very much.

Caleb, Christine, welcome.

Yeah. Thank you all. It was painless tonight.