Zoning Committee Work Session - Regular Meeting

[clears throat] Oh, do you want to talk about Phil? Oh, yeah. That's right. You have a Philadelphia connection, don't you? [clears throat] Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the February 3rd, 2026 zoning committee work session. My name is Douglas Welton. I am the chairman of the zoning committee. This meeting will be streamed online via YouTube in accordance with all applicable meeting statutes. The requirements for notice, access, and minutes are being met by electronic means. And now we get on to the fun part called our meeting. Uh we are going to have a few items of business right before we get started though. For the committee members, if you are uh not speaking, please make sure your mic is muted. And if you do have to speak to make a motion or a second, please um state your name before you It was It was that old age memory lapse thing. State your name before you uh make that motion or second. The public hearing for the zoning uh petitions that we are hearing here tonight has been held at a previous date in front of Charlotte City Council and the zoning committee. Uh this meeting is not a continuation of those hearings. So there will be no public input unless the committee has a specific question in which case the committee will suspend the session and ask the petitioner directly. We'll begin our meeting as we always do with introductions of the zoning committee members and we will begin to my left with commissioner Milan.

Carolyn Milan, planning commission. Michael Capriilli, Planning Commission. Melissa Gaston, Planning Commission. Theresa McDonald, Planning Commission. Robin Stewart, Planning Commission. Thank you very much. Commissioner Shaw will not be joining us this evening, but we will send her like love and good feelings wherever she is. We will now begin with introductions to our staff and we will begin all the way to my left with uh Mr. Pton. Thank you. Dave Pentton, Entitlement Services. Holly Kramer, planning. Michael Russell, planning. Max Oliver, planning. Joe Megan, planning staff.

Shayla Tippet, planning staff. Emma Canaraas, planning staff. Thank you very much. We are also joined by some folks who are online and uh those of you who are out there in uh the on the interweb, could you please introduce yourselves as well? Isaiah Washington, C dot. Natalie King, C dot. Chris Mano, C dot. Brent Payatt, C dot. Juritter C dot. Travis Miller C dot.

Thank you very much. Um that's great. Good to have everybody here on the meeting. I hope everybody enjoyed the snow this weekend. Did anybody uh lose like a child or a relative in the snow? We're good then. Um now uh before we get started, we'll take a look at the deferrals. Miss Grahammer, are there any deferrals for this particular hearing? Yes, we just have one deferral petition 2536 by Range Works deferring to the March 3rd zoning committee meeting. All right. Do I hear a motion for the disposition on the deferral for item one on our agenda?

Yes. Then I make a uh motion that we approve the referral request for zoning petition 2025-036. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we accept these deferrals. All in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously and we're on to item number two on our agenda this evening [clears throat] and we'll get started with the fun one. It's uh reasonzoning petition 2025-030 by Trion Advisors LLC and uh Max, will you take us through this particular uh petition?

Yes, good evening. Petition 2025 030 is an undeveloped portion of a track containing a church approximately 8.65 65 acres in size and it's located along the north side of Mount Holly Huntersville Road. Site is currently zoned N1A neighborhood one and the proposed zoning is N2B CD neighborhood 2B conditional 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type of the site into district is inconsistent with the N2 place type. Um since the public hearing presentation, the petitioner has eliminated the proposed child care center from the site. They did note this in their presentation, but um the plans have been submitted since then to actually remove it. The resoning proposal now calls for the development of multif family attached town home development containing 95 dwelling units. Petitioner will contribute $50,000 to be applied towards future intersection improvements at Rosles Fairy Road, Mount Holly, Huntersville Road. Payment shall be made to the city of Charlotte prior to the issuance of the first CO. 12T multi-use path will be constructed along sites furnished with Mount Holly Huntersville Road um connecting to an existing sidewalk to the east. Um street trees will be planted along internal alleys and between buildings were feasible. Town home buildings will contain no more than six units each. Walkways will connect units to adjacent sidewalks. Architectural requirements such as blank wall limitations, transparency minimums, porches, stoops, and roof line variation will be provided. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of one outstanding issue related to C dot. [clears throat] The site is a budding properties designated as the community activity center. Um place type commercial neighborhood 2 place types. Um the proposed neighborhood 2 zoning could provide a more appropriate transition from the adjacent place type designations um than the current in one place type. Development is within a quarter mile of the Mountain Island Place shopping center which boasts a variety of daily

goods and services. It's also adjacent to a commercial center to the west at Rosles Ferry and Mount Holly Huntersville Road. positioner will contribute $50,000 to be applied towards future intersection improvements. Um, and the plan includes a 12- foot multi-use path and the site is served by transit. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Max. Does anybody have any questions or comments that they would like to put forward on this one? Um, you're good. Anyone else? Uh, Commissioner Melon,

real quick. The money that the developer is putting forward for future transportation, where is it? 50,000. Is that what you said? Yes. $50,000 towards um improvements at the intersection of Russell Ferry Road, Mount Holly, Huntersville Road um just to the west of the site. How soon will that happen or occur? It'll have to be um it'll a check will have to be mailed out to the city no later than the first CO. So the the first building to receive a certificate of occupancy, they'll have to have contributed the money by that time.

How quickly will the city start the improvements? Um I don't know that this may be a better question for C do, but I don't know that there's anything in particular the money will be used for. I think it may be more general um fund, but maybe our colleague at C do could answer more.

Hi, this is Isaiah with C DOT. Um we would have to uh do some due diligence and some coordination as well and we'd also would have to uh speak with NC DOT, but uh the money would uh ultimately be need to use uh in that area uh mostly. Was this part of some of the community meeting input that some of the community were having issues with? I'd say I know Oh, go ahead, Isaiah.

Um, we've received a few calls from um some of the residents in the area uh stating about some of the uh traffic issues that they had and we believe that that money would be useful in um mitigating some of those concerns. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else got any comments? Commissioner Gast. Um, yeah, Gaston. Um, I noticed it said that they changed the access point. Can you show on a map or somewhere where the access points are for Mount Holly Holly Huntersville Road? Sure. Max.

Um, if you can go back. So they um it so the access point shifted I believe to the west but there's still two access points. Um one will be created at the intersection with what is that Abington Holly Drive um just adjacent to the church site and then there'll be another access point just the southwest of that. Um, one of those access shifted slightly during the review process. You're good. I'm good. Thank you. Anybody else?

If not, then I will go. Um, I'd like to uh thank as as um some of you may have gotten some feedback, but I did receive uh feedback from Morgan, Kelly, uh Cynthia, Jesse, and Tim. These are all people who took time to send me an email and I do appreciate that. I think if some of you sent me an email over the weekend, I might not have gotten back to you, but I I I I do appreciate getting the feedback. [clears throat] When I look at this particular petition, um, uh, one of the things that is a consideration for us is where do we place new residences and where do we place them in reference to places where people may work or shop or play and the surrounding m as Max pointed out, the surrounding place types do very much support the notion of um, living near those types of amenities uh, which I found a compelling part of this uh, adventure. Um, also I I got something Max and maybe you can tell me about this. One person sent me an email said that that there was an agreement with the with the developer to have a no trespassing sign and that wasn't in the

in the and I'm not sure it should be in the resoning stuff. And so so that that requirement has not been codified on the resoning plan. I mean, they're they they they're welcome to put up a no trespassing sign on their property. Okay. Yeah. Without any sort of city approval.

Okay. All right. That that's fine. I just I thought exactly what you just said, but I wanted to make sure that was clear if somebody were listening uh and was wondering about that agreement, quote unquote, agreement not being uh upheld. Um, also, uh, one of the people that sent me something said that the only thing that could be placed on this site by Wright was a single family home or an adult daycare. And when I looked at the use table, I saw more uses than that. Am I correct that there are numerous other uses beside those two that could be done at this site?

Yeah, from a zoning perspective, it's zone N1A, which, you know, generally permits single family, duplex, triplex development by right. also some other uses, schools, daycarees, uh, churches as what currently exists on the site. Um, there's a few other things that are allowed, but temporary entertainment was my favorite. And stables. Yeah, stables. Yeah, stables. So, but with prescribed conditions. Yes, you you can have some livestock [clears throat] in the city under certain

cases. Um, all right. Um, those are I think those are all of my um my issues and concerns. If if no one else has any, do I hear a motion for the disposition of uh item number two on our agenda, reszoning petition number 2025 uh- 030. Steuart. Uh, having reviewed the petition and consider the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025030 and the adoption of the consistency statement. Gaston second.

It's been moved by Steuart and seconded by Gaston. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That motion passes 6 and unanimously. We're on to item number three on our agenda. Reszoning petition number 2025-078 by Image Custom Homes LLC. Shayla, would you take us through this one, please?

Absolutely. 2025 078 petition involves a parcel just under an acre approximately. 0455 acres on the north side of Castleton Road corridor. The surrounding area includes a community center and a mix of residential uses ranging from single family homes to multif family home developments. Um the site is currently zoned neighborhood 1A and the request is for a conventional resoning to neighborhood 1 C. The proposed change the proposed development aligns with the 2040 policy map which recommends the neighborhood one place type for this location. The staff recommends approval of this petition because it is consistent with the adopted policy and aligns with well with the surrounding development patterns. Um as presented at public hearing, the petition the proposed resoning reflects the character of nearby neighborhood one place types where lot width typically range from 50 to 100 ft and lot size vary between 10,000 and 20,000 square ft. In addition, the site is adjacent to several properties that have already been reszoned to neighborhood 1C, which demonstrates a clear trend towards this zoning CL classification within the corridor. And finally, it's important to note that both N1A and N1C districts allow the same single family residential uses. The primary difference are the limited are limited to dimensional standards such as lot size and lot width. With that, this concludes my presentation for 202578 and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions or comments about this petition? Commissioner McDonald. McDonald. [clears throat] It's just a comment really that it it strikes me that this street, this particular street is a an example of a ne neighborhood change um and gentle density um and adaptation to to the needs for for housing in desirable areas. That was my comment. I would be happy to support this. Thank you very much. Anybody else got anything? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number three on our agenda, reszoning petition 2025-078?

McDonald. Motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025-078 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. Milan second. It's been moved by Commissioner McDonald and seconded by Commissioner Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any oppose?

That motion passes unanimously. 6. We're on to item number four on our agenda. Reszoning petition 2025-00004 by the Charlotte Mechckinberg Housing Authority Hospital Authority, excuse me. Charlotte Meckhamburgg Hospital Authority. Uh Max, it looks like it's your day to be up to bat again.

Yep. Um thank you. Petition 2025004 is a 3.14 acre site at the intersection of Morhead Street and Uclid Avenue. plan proposes a mixeduse building containing 390 multif family units and 10,000 square feet of commercial space on site that's currently developed with an office building. Site is currently zoned NC proposed zoning is CAC2 CD that's community activity center um 2 plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the south inter community area plan. So this is a within an adopted community area plan. Um however it is inconsistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood center place type. Um and as as before, you know, change in zoning will still update the policy map. Um this resoning calls for the development up to 390 multif family dwelling units of which at least 20% will have rents affordable to households earning between 30 and 80% of area median income. uh and that's maintained for a minimum of 30 years. Additionally, a minimum of 25% of those age restricted units will be affordable households earning under 30% AMI. Um up to 10,000 square feet of ground floor. Commercial uses will be allowed. A minimum 20 foot wide community wide open space labeled as a community buffer will be established along portions of Myrtle Avenue, Lexington Avenue, and Morehead Street adjacent to uh the less intense residential uses that are mapped as neighborhood one place type. Plan limits the building height within three height envelopes, A, B, and C. Envelope A closest to the single family um limits the height to 35 feet. Envelope B label

uh limits the height to 65 ft. And envelope C um closest to Morehead Street will allow up to 129 ft with a bonus uh with bonus provisions being utilized. Um stepping up in height about seven minutes wireless all you happen to need it'll probably what? [clears throat]

Yes. This has been out there for several months. Should have come from Rich Williams. How long do you guys need right now? [laughter] everyone.

Um, my name is Oh, no, no problem. So, um I guess what I was saying was basically the intens the height steps up from uh the neighborhood one place type at the rear of the site to to the higher portions of the building being along Morehead Street. Uh there'll also be 8ft sidewalk and 8ft planning strip on the three frontages other than Morehead Street which will have a 12-oot multi-use path and uh on street parking shall not be used to satisfy off- streetet parking requirements. Um, since public since the public hearing, um, the petitioner has further clarified the affordable housing standards, adding in that sub 30% AMI, uh, restriction that I mentioned. Staff recommends approval of this petition as the petition is consistent with the policies and goals of the south inner area plan. proposes a CA CAC2 zoning um which is appropriate for the site as it's in a rapidly developing area and adjacent to other community activity center and regional activity center place types plan provides landscape and

height transitions adjacent to more sensitive uses. Um it commits to maintaining at least 20% of the units as affordable um and uh you know a certain subset of those being very affordable and the proposed commercial space supports walkability by adding mix of uses and sites within half a line of the blue line half half a mile of the blue line. Happy to take any questions. Thank you very much Max. I have two quick ones before I let anybody else jump in on here. Um, you said that the on street requirements would not be used to satisfy the requirements for the project. You did not say there was not going to be on street parking. Am I correct?

There is proposed on street parking for the site, but they've added a condition um through working with the Dworth Community Association that that those parking spaces on street cannot be used to satisfy the minimum parking requirements for the site. All right. Uh, and you mentioned the Dworth Community, what are the DCA, DCA, community association, association, whatever they are, amalgamation. Um, [clears throat] they uh did they send a letter of support or anything of that nature?

Um, I do not have a letter of support, but I have been in contact with um the land use committee chair and um I believe everything is in order as far as they're concerned.

All right. Thanks. Anybody else got any questions, comments? If not, um, do I hear a motion for the disposition of, uh, reszoning petition 2025-04? Stuart, having reviewed the petition and consider the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025004 and the adoption of the consistency statement. Second, McDonald. Um, that motion's been moved by Commissioner Stewart, uh, properly seconded by Commissioner McDonald. All those in favor, please say I. I.

Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We're on to item number five on our agenda, resoning petition 2025-085 uh by HK Cedarale LLC. Uh, Joe, it's your turn to shine.

Thank you. This site is just about 10 acres located on Cedarville Road um just north of 85 and west of 485. It's uh surrounded by residential uses to the north, industrial and commercial uses to the east, south, and west. Current zoning is I2CD with a proposed zoning of ML2CD. The 2040's policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type. The proposal to pause for the entitlement uh currently is for all uses permitted in the I1 district as well as a contractor office with outdoor storage. The proposal would would simply add the use of an indoor pre-cast concrete production um and bring it into ML uh 2 as opposed to uh I2. Most of the existing buffers um you see there to the north would be maintained or or slightly enhanced uh building envelope there in purple and a outdoor storage yard and parking area in in gray. Since the public hearing, the petitioners clarified landscape yard widths and addressed all outstanding transportation issues. U I did want to bring up at the public hearing um the petitioner uh stated or implied that the use of the con indoor concrete production could be accomplished under the current zoning. We met with the zoning administrator and concluded that that is not the case. So I wanted to make sure that the committee understood that distinction. Uh staff does not recommend approval of this petition. The petition is consistent with the

manufacturing logistics place type. However, uh the request to expand industrial uses on a property that's abuing residential uses is not supported. The the 2019 reasonzoning that entitled uh I1 uses in a contractor office with outdoor storage. Uh staff felt like that resoning was as far as as we were comfortable going expanding industrial uses next to residential uses. and and we're not um inclined to support the effort to uh expand industrial uses and and specifically the uh indoor concrete production. I'll take any questions.

Thank you very much, Joe. Now, I've got a letter from the petitioner and they in this letter say, "We've coordinated directly with the zoning administrator and have received confirmation that this use is allowed under current zoning." uh that correspondence is attached for your reference. So, one of you is he said and the other one is she said. How do I how do I how do I get to a place to decide this? Somebody help me out here. We spoke with zoning administration staff this morning. [clears throat] Okay. We also pulled up those receipts with them and we went through and detailed

the old entitlements. Did you all talk to the petitioner about this and see what the petitioner had to say about it? I I did not. I intended to. I apologize for that. Yeah, that's fine. We had just met with zoning administration staff today because it's the first time that we had had time to meet with them today about clarifying it. So,

we hadn't had a chance to connect with the petitioner team yet. Does anybody have any comments or questions about this? Because I I I had done my homework based on something different than what just came out of your mouth, Joe. Not that I don't love the things that come out of your mouth and stuff, but yeah, that um Michael, do you have a comment?

Yeah, Commissioner Capri, I have to agree with staff. I do not see it being feasible having an in indoor concrete factory in the middle of a next to a neighborhood. It just it just seems like a a bad idea, especially after what I experienced in Los Angeles. I have to agree with staff to deny this. Does anybody else have any comments? I will put this out there. I would prefer to defer this just so that everybody can have a conversation because I mean we've gotten to this point where up until six o'clock I had a certain notion about how this petition set in my head. I don't know how you guys feel about that. Do you have any comments?

Uh Stuart, I agree. I I mean I I don't like the idea of prefab concrete construction next to a residential neighborhood. Um as a zoning commission, if it it feels very difficult to approve this. Yeah. But it is it is indoor, right? This is an indoor facility which I'm told this is I'm reading from the letter again. Uh the petitioner will provide the following clarifications. Air quality. the facility will be fully electric and there's no air pollution anticipated. Okay. So, but again the use the land use was the issue that I had with this trying to go forward.

I think the entitlement is the issue that I have. I I don't I don't like it. But if they are entitled and the current zoning then I don't know that there's a lot we can do about it. Um, but if if as a zoning commission, if we're not against this, then what are we doing as a zoning commission, we might as well allow anything?

Uh, I won't go that far. You know, I'm I'm down to, you know, again, there was there's a I think some parties to this particular petition were uh moving forward under the impression that they had a right uh an entitlement. Now, if that was not the case, and we're just discovering it, and I will pretend this petition just came to be a month ago, okay, but if this petition's been rolling around for five or six months, seems like somebody might have stumbled across that and it's the petitioner's job to to stumble across it, right?

Yeah. I think for us, we heard about it at public hearing

that they conveyed they had an entitlement to do this potential proposed use. That's when we decided we needed to get more information. There were lots of emails that went back and forth that our team was not copied on. Uh so we as we mentioned sat down with zoning administrator and staff this morning determined that what was being proposed does fall under an I2 use which the only I2 use allowed on that site is a contractor's office and outdoor storage. So therefore it wouldn't be an allowed use under the entitlements because anything else is I1 and it's not an I1 use. The only reference to concrete production is I2 with prescribed conditions and that's the manufacturing of concrete, gypsum and plaster products and that doesn't specify indoor outdoor. It really doesn't matter which which direction it goes in but that is an I2 use. So that's uh that's our understanding. Again that was the first time we had heard that there was some assumption that there was already an entitled use and it was really just about uh a transportation network access issue. Uh so regardless whether it's an entitled use or not, we're our recommendation still stands on what's being proposed. Uh

even though it is indoor, we have no real clarification on storage or uh transfer of any of those materials to produce the concrete indoor. So then we don't know about any dust impacts, noise impacts from that. Uh I believe we have asked for that information. Uh have not really gotten any clarification on it to date. So, uh, that is something else that we have concerns about and just we can only go off the information we have, which is very little.

Okay. [clears throat] Yeah, I'm I'm going to leave it up to you guys. I I I would prefer to defer this in the sense of the petitioner has the it is the petitioner's duty to go and get their ducks in a row and make sure that they can actually proceed as has been presented to us and clarify that the issues that perhaps Dave has me just mentioned or we can just simply um vote to deny and go from there and everybody has to back up and figure out what they're going to do. you guys um talk to stop me from talking because you know I'll just keep going. [laughter] Somebody [clears throat] else I mean I don't I I'm just I'm thinking out loud here. So, anybody else got a comment? Michael's already thrown his two cents in. Uh if you have two more cents, feel free to throw it back in.

Yeah. Be very interesting to see what's the predominant wind direction in that location. I would imagine it's east to west as most of uh the area. If that's the case, if something bad would happen at that facility, all of that dust ends up in those homes next to it. Yeah. I mean, we don't know that information for sure, but regardless of any of that, yeah, if there is any type of uh, you know, dust that comes as a result of transferring that material back and forth, uh, I don't know if that's all going to be stored indoors as well, but that is something again that we had concerns with. Thank you. Yeah. What's the Do you have a distance that from the particular facility to the nearest house? I guess it's it's in one right next to

Yeah, I can I can estimate that here. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I don't know that there's any buffer requirements that might have been a little. So there's an 85 to 100 foot buffer between um this use and the homes. Okay. Um

could I ask if if the petitioner's position is that they can do this under their existing I2, why are they even asking for a change in the zoning? The my understanding was the original ask was to allow the um one more entrance and exit driveway. Correct.

So if it was allowed [clears throat] under I1 zoning, I guess it would be the use I believe would have to have access out to Performance Road, which is south of the site. There's a property in between. I believe it's the same ownership between the two. Um, but that's how what I understand the the purpose of the reasonzoning. Yeah, they wouldn't be able to get the additional access point off Cedar Veil with this new proposed use.

And and I haven't asked, but are is the petitioner's agent anywhere that we can talk to and ask a question? Um, anybody want to ask that we suspend the session and maybe we can ask question to get some clarification? I don't see them online. We've got a we got a hand right behind you. [laughter] Okay, perfect. Um, just this is um suspend the rules. I'm going to make a a motion to suspend the rules or for the temporarily while we ask the petitioner a question. Is there a second on that? Milan second.

Uh with thing is for an additional entry exit.

Did the petitioner get that from him? And if the petitioner could please tell us his name so that we can have that for the record as well. Brian Smith with Urban Design Partners. So, we had coordinated ear before we filed the reszone. We coordinated with staff on the use and were told that it was an allowed use and I think that email was shared with you Douglas. Um so this was the first I've heard of it not being allowed. Okay. Um yeah and and I I you know I've read from Francis's email here. Thank you very much, Brian.

Um we will unsuspend our session unless somebody else has any questions. All right. I just I mean I just feel like we're in We're in a not good situation here. We I I don't I don't see a path to approving this at this moment. So, we have three options for everything we do. We can either uh you know approve, deny, or defer. So, um you guys make a choice. This is Gaston. I make a motion that we defer this petition until I know Capri second. Do we have to defer to a specific date or how does it work? No. Okay. We don't have to def

Okay. Okay. Uh I've got a motion from Gaston. It's been seconded by Capri Caprioli. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That is unanimous and that gets deferred and we will see those. And I encourage everybody to go talk to everybody because that that that one was uh that was interesting. All right. Um I wish the iPads stayed open for more than two minutes.

Yeah. All right. So now we're up to item number six on our agenda. Reszoning petition number 2025-088 by Northway Homes LLC. Max, looks like you get to work overtime today.

This is the last time, I promise. Um, position 2025 088 is located at the intersection of Kentbury Drive and Bell Haven Boulevard. Sites approximately 3.51 acres and is vacant. Current zoning is R8 MFCD multif family. The proposed zoning is N1DC, neighborhood one conditional, and N1A neighborhood one, which is a conventional district. 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type for the site proposed zoning districts are consistent with the policy map. A little background site was zoned to R8 MFCD which is a multif family conditional district per conditional reszoning petition 200511 and is entitled for up to 28 multif family units. The proposal permits um the development of single family detached dwellings in the 2.62 acres that is proposed to be zoned N1DC um which is along the portion of the site adjacent to Kentbury Drive. And it also permits the development of any use allowed in the N1A zoning district on the 0.9 acre portion of the site along Valleyale Road. Staff recommends approval of this petition as the proposed zoning is consistent with the policy map. Site is currently zoned for multif family entitled for 28 units sites adjacent to the Coolwood Shopping Center designated as a community center place type. The site is directly served by transit. Happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Max. Uh, does anybody have any uh questions on item number six on our agenda? I'm not hearing anything. Max, I did not see a site plan when I clicked on the site plan link. Is it just notes?

It's just It was originally a tier 2, so it had a site plan, but it's now as a tier one, so it's just notes. Okay. All right. And that's the entirety of the plan is just specifying what portions of this parcel will be what zoning and that the N1D portion is restricted to only single family homes, single family detach homes.

All right. Uh thank you very much. Um does anybody have you guys got comments down there? No. Yep. Anybody car? Nothing. Um I will uh have comments then. Um, I will thank the folks that reached out to me from the community. I had something from Sydney, hopefully I'm pronouncing that correctly, Elundo and Sheila. Um there were some comments at the um public hearing regarding the creek and runoff and I would assume that that post construction storm order ordinance would just be in effect and in essence nothing would be different about the creek because this development had been done. Correct. Um the it sounds like based on the petitioner's comments and the requirements that were confirmed by our storm water staff that any development would have to meet the storm water ordinance. It's intense enough pretty much no matter what they do that they would have to provide

um improvements to um you know treat and detain the water. Okay. All right. Um and again just to point out that this is in essence a less intense use than what is already by right allowed on this property. Correct. Yes. Um yeah. Currently entitled for 28 multif family units. They're uh restricting it to single family detached for the majority of the site and um whatever they can fit on the N1A portion for the for a small portion at the southern side of the site.

Okay. All right. um you know that again we had had some folks who were in opposition. I wanted to make sure that we clearly stated some of those things. Um Commissioner McDonald

McDonald I just remembered something from the public hearing. The last speaker in opposition um was cut off and I believe his point was going to be he was against this petition because of the reduction in units. Um, I just wanted to reiterate that because um that's that's a first [laughter] at city council public hearings.

All right. Um, do I hear a motion for the disposition of uh reszoning petition 2025-088? Stewart, having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025088 and the adoption of the consistency statement. Gaston second. It's been moved by Steuart and seconded by Gaston. All those in favor, please say I. I.

I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We're on to item number seven on our agenda. resoning petition 2025-091 by Embark Development Company LLC. Joe, it is our pleasure to hear from you yet again.

Thank you. This site is um right [clears throat] about 7 acres on Steel Creek Road just north of Shopton Road, surrounded by primarily residential uses. is there's single family detach to the east, uh some town home style units to the south, and then commercial and industrial uses on the uh south side of Shopen Road. Current zoning is 02CD. The northern half of the site is in the airport noise disclosure overlay. That's that uh diagonal lines. Uh proposed zoning is into CD. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood two place type. A proposal is for 72 town home style units with two to four two to five units per building. There is an enhanced landscape yard along the north uh east property line where closest to single family uh detached be street extensions uh from both the south and the east through the site and connecting out to Steel Creek Road. This is an adopted uh cap. It's in the southwest middle community area plan and it is consistent with the N2 place type that is recommended. Um would could facilitate goals one and two. Since the public hear and the petitioners clarified the maximum number of units, quantified open space amenities and addressed all transportation issues. There's one minor technical revision um that the petitioner understands and is intending to correct. Um the staff does recommend approval as I mentioned is consistent is adjacent to to similar housing types. Um

also is within a quarter mile of a commercial node there at Steel Creek and Shopton Road. And I'll take questions. Thank you very much Joe. Uh, does anybody have any questions or comments on reszoning petition um 2025-091?

If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number seven, reszoning petition 2025-091? Yes. I make a motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025-091 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. Milan second.

It's been moved by Gaston and seconded by Commissioner Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We're on to item number eight on our agenda. Reszoning petition 2025-094 by Atap Co Properties, Inc. Hopefully I did not butcher that too much. Um, and Michael, we haven't heard from you. And um, be a ray of sunshine, my friend.

I'll try. So, [clears throat] this is approximately 19 and a half acres located east of Malard Creek Road uh on the north and south side of Alexander Road along the west coast of west side of College View Lane. So, you can sort of see the existing zoning is [clears throat] uh M1A neighborhood one zoning is uh neighborhood 2A conditional. You can sort of see that it's surrounded by a lot of um multif family units with UR um and campus more toward the east. Uh the policy map does recommend the neighborhood one place type. Uh this proposal is up to 195 multif family attached units. Uh a minimum of 50% of the buildings will contain four or less dwelling units. Um, and no [clears throat] more than 25% of the buildings may contain more than uh six dwelling units. Uh, they do have the uh 10- foot wide class C landscape yard along the external property boundaries. Um, some of the [clears throat] transportation streetscape improvements include uh establish a public street network to connect to Alexander Road, College View Lane, Ashmore Square Road, Jillian Place Road, and uh Treble Court. uh furthering the connectivity for this area, especially [clears throat] along the Malard Creek corridor. Uh 8 foot sidewalk and planning strips. Um and they'll provide a sidewalk extension from Alexander Road to Mal Creek Road. Um and [clears throat] the even though it's inconsistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation of the neighborhood, one place type for the site. Um staff does recommend approval of this uh

petition. They've um cla uh cleaned up the uh outstanding issues and I know that the petitioner is working with uh C do DOT uh on some other transportation uh improvements that will be reflected in the next uh site submitt. Um, so [clears throat] they they will agree to pay the cost to restripe the intersection of David Taylor Drive and Malard Creek Church Road up to a maximum of $50,000 to allow a designated left turn lane from David Taylor Drive onto Malard Creek Church Road. Um, in the event that CDOT or NC DOT does not approve of the change prior to the issuance of the 100 certificate of occupancy for the site or the cost to perform the restriping is less than 50,000, uh, C dot may utilize the 50,000 or remainder thereof to offset the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at CVO Parkway and Malard Creek Road. Um, and also prior to the issuance of the 100 certificate of occupancy for the site, petitioner shall make a payment of $150,000 to S DOT to offset the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at Kovar Parkway and Malard Creek Road. Um, and then in the event that the restriping schedule is not approved or costs less than 50,000, any unused amounts from the restriping commitment shall be used to increase uh the payment for the signal installation. Um, such as the payment for the signal installation could increase to the maximum of $200,000. Be glad to take any questions.

Thank you, Michael. Uh, does anybody have any questions or comments about this particular petition? Commissioner McDonald.

Um, just a comment really that section of Mallet Creek could definitely use a lot of traffic calming, but other than that, this is a great location for more housing um, with greenway connections as well as very close proximity to community activity centers, to employment. Um you I believe you can even get to the light rail station on the greenway from these uh proposed town homes or apartments. So I'm very happy to support this. Anyone else have any comments? Uh Gabriella,

go for it. Uh just a comment. I spoke with the uh petitioner's attorney. Um I had some misunderstandings about it. He cleared them up. I'm now kind of impressed with what they did. They're actually taking into consideration a already established housing development, helping them out for the development of this development, and they're going to be spending $2 to3 million to build a bridge for uh some mobility issues over there. That's going to help everybody. All right.

Okay. Anybody else? Uh I will say that I think that this is good. The connectivity that's going to be gained there will hopefully give people some alternative routes uh to get around uh particularly because you can reach get into uh the the research park uh via some of these these pathways. Uh do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number eight on our agenda resoning petition 2025-094. McDonald. Motion to approve. Did I win? You won. You won. You won.

Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025-094 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. [laughter] Caprioli second. It's been moved by Commissioner McDonald and somewhat in his own time, seconded [clears throat] by Commissioner Caprioli. All those in favor, please say I.

I. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much, everyone. Now, we're on to item number nine. Um, reasoning petition 2025-096 by Justin Barry. and Emma, uh, would you take us through this one, please? Petition 2025-096 is approximately 0.21 acres, located south of State Street, north of Kata Ona Avenue, and east of Mahopac Street.

The current zoning is ML2, manufacturing and logistics 2. The proposed zoning is N1D, neighborhood 1D. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type for this site. Staff does recommend approval of this petition and the petition is consistent with a 2040 policy map. The site is designated neighborhood 1 and surrounded by mixed zoning located on a local street with single family and some multifamily homes in an area transitioning from industrial to mixed use. It's within a half mile of Five Points, a designated neighborhood center close to Steuart Creek Greenway and Serviceville and MLK parks and well serviced by transit half mile from two Linux gold line stations and multiple CAT bus routes connecting key destinations. I will take any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, Emma. Does anyone have any questions, comments on this particular site? [laughter] If not, do I hear do I hear a motion? Turn your mic on. Okay. Caprioli. Motion to approve. Having read the petition and consider the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition. I move that we recommend approval of petition 2025-096. uh has appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement. Mill second. Yeah,

it's been moved by Commissioner Caprioli and seconded by Commissioner Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We're up to item number 10, resoning petition 2025-102 by Olympia and Wright Homes. Uh Joe, would you please take us through this one? The site is uh about 0.8 acres located on the north side of Morris Chapel Road at Old Morris Chapel Road and just a short distance east of I485 surrounded mostly by residential uses. Um there is a shopping center just to the west of the site. Current Jo zoning is CG with a proposed zoning of N1ECD. 20 240 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type. And there's just one uh sentence in the conditions for the notes that limits the number of driveways on Morris Chapel Road to two. Staff recommends approval of the petition. It is consistent with align policy map with zoning. The N1E zoning district allows residential uses a small number of non-residential uses on lots of 3,000 square feet with 30 ft width. I'll take any questions.

Yeah, thank you very much, Joe. Um, have seen an an N1E before? I don't feel like I've seen an E. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, I'm excited. Um, doesn't take much. Um, does anybody have any questions or comments on this particular petition? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 10, reszoning petition 2025-102?

Gaston, I make a motion we approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025-102 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. Milan second. It's been moved by Commissioner Gaston and seconded by Commissioner Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I.

I. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. We're up to item number 11. We're cruising along here, folks. Either that you're very quiet or we could have possibly gotten out of No, we couldn't get out by 6:30. I'm sorry. That just wasn't going to happen. Um, reszoning petition 2025-11 by Quick Trip Corporation. Michael,

yes, this is 1.49 49 acres located south of Lake View Road, west of Lake Drive, and east of Harris Technology Boulevard, not too [clears throat] far from WT Harris. Um the existing zoning is um manufactured home park uh that was never developed. Um the proposed zoning is manufacturing and logistics one. Uh the adopted place type recommends uh manufacturing and logistics. As you can see by the map, it's surrounded by uh M&L. Um this is a conventional, so there's no site plan. Um and even though it's inconsistent, a sort of leftover mobile home park, uh but it is the neighborhood. Um one place type was what was recommended. Um so the petition would align the site with the surrounding area zoning of manufacturing, logistic and industrial uses. Uh this petition [clears throat] is more compatible with existing um standard and helps to excuse me achieve what is envisioned for the manufacturing and logistics place types. Um, and it could facilitate uh diverse and economic resilient economic opportunity uh from the comprehensive plan goals. Uh, and staff recommends approval of this petition.

Thank you very much, Michael. Um, do I have any comments or questions, concerns? Commissioner Gaston. Gaston, I just have um a comment about this. Um, typically I wouldn't say moving from home where you could have homes, whatever type they are, moving to manufacturing and logistics, but since it's been vacant as many times I drive by it almost every day. Um, and uh, I'm I like QT, so we're good. [laughter] Well, there's that. Yeah. Um,

um, all right. That's uh that's that's a powerful comment. Commissioner Stewart, you got something? All right. Do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 11 on our agenda 2025 uh-11? Stuart. Uh motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025111 and the adoption of the consistency statement. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Gaston. All those in favor, please say I.

I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We're up to item number 12 on our agenda. Reszoning petition 2025-112 by Alexander Meyers family. Um, Emma, would you take us through this one, please?

Petition 2025-112 is approximately 0.82 82 acres located north of Gibbon Road, south of Henderson Circle and west of Old Statesville Road. The current zoning is I2 conditional general industrial conditional and the proposed zoning is ML2 manufacturing and logistics 2. The 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type for this site. Staff does recommend approval of this petition and this petition is consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation. The site is currently zoned for general industrial and surrounded by manufacturing logistic uses. The proposed use aligns with the manufacturing and logistics place type. Located on a major thoroughfare with quick access to I77 and I 85, ensuring efficient goods movement and minimal impact on local streets or nearby homes. It is served by cats Route 7 connecting to key transportation centers and maintains consistency with surrounding land use. I will take any questions you might have.

Thank you very much, Emma. Does anyone have any questions or comments on this petition? Do I hear a motion for the uh disposition of item number 12 on our agenda regarding petition number 2025-112? Caprioli. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend the approval of petition 2025- 112 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement. Milan second.

It's been moved by Caprioli and seconded by Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Now we're up to item number 13 on our agenda. Reszoning petition number 2025-113 by Sea Lion LLC. Joe, would you take us through this one, please?

Yes, perhaps the perhaps the smallest tree zoning site I've seen. This is uh just 03 acres. Uh it's located on Reed Avenue just south of West Boulevard. It is surrounded mostly by residential uses to the south with with some commercial uses along West Boulevard. Currently zoned CG with a proposed zoning of M1C conventional. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood center place type. Staff recommends approval. While it's inconsistent with the NC place type recommendation, the petition would bring the parcel, which is currently splitzoned, under one zoning district and allow it to be developed uh entirely under N1C. Uh N1C is the zoning district for the majority of the neighborhood to the south. I'll take any questions.

Thank you very much, Joe. Anybody got any questions besides how the hell do you end up with 03 acres of anything? [laughter]

Uh yeah, that that's that's something. Um anybody, you know, I would just like to say that that the petitioner's agent has a really nice haircut. Um that's all I can say about this. Does anybody do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 13 on our agenda? Resoning [laughter] petition 2025-113. Milan. Motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025-113 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement. Stewart second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Milan and seconded by Commissioner Stewart. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? All right, we keep rolling up to item number 14 on our agenda. Uh, rezoning petition 2025-115 by Abacus Capital. Michael, give us the news.

This site is approximately 71 acres located north of Greensboro Street, west of East Sher Creek Road, and south of North Triion Street. Uh, the current zoning is transit oriented development uh transition. Uh the proposed zoning is uh transit oriented development community center. Um the 2040 policy map recommends the community activity place center type. Um the petition is consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the community activity uh center place type. The site is under half a mile walk to the Sugar Creek light rail station along the links blue line. the proposed uh Todd CC zoning district aligns with the Todd CC zoning to the north, south, and east of the site. Uh and the CC district is appropriate for parcels near moderate intensity uh rapid transit station. Um and it's also less than a half a mile to two different uh bus stations. uh and it could [clears throat] facilitate the from the 2040 comprehensive plan the uh 10-minute neighborhoods and the trail and transit um portions of that staff does recommend approval. Thank you very much, Michael. Does anyone have any questions or comments on this petition? If not, uh, do I have a motion for the disposition of item number 14 on our agenda, reszoning petition 2025-115? Gaston, I make a motion that we approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025-115 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as appears before us.

Mil one second. It's been moved by Commissioner Gaston and seconded by Commissioner Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Rolling on along, we're up to item number 15 on our agenda. Reszoning petition number 2025-116 by Piedmont Land Development, Inc. And uh Joe, would you take us through this one, please?

Yes. This site is 5.8 acres uh located on Wilkinson Boulevard, west of Sam Wilson, further west of 485. uh surrounded primarily by commercial and industrial uses along Wilkinson Boulevard. There's some residential to the south. Current zoning is CG with a proposed zoning of ML1. The 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type. Staff recommends approval as as it is consistent with the M&L place type recommendation would align zoning with place type. Um, as I mentioned, a lot of industrial and commercial uses along Wil Wilkinson Boulevard. The closest residential uses are about 500 ft from the site and there's a wooded uh HOA property uh between the subject property and those residences. I'll take any questions.

Thank you very much, Joe. Do we have any uh questions, comments?

Yeah, Stuart. Um, talk to me about how this is different than the prefab concrete manufacturing 100 ft away from a residential neighborhood. This is 500 feet away. Um, I guess they're not doing contra uh concrete manufacturing, but how do we how did you sort of differentiate between those two petitions? So the uh the concrete factory is yeah it is immediately adjacent to um residential uses. Um and this this site is it's about 500 ft. So pretty big difference. Um this site is located with access along Wilson Boulevard. Um there is a a wooded HOA property in between and even on the the subject site there is a uh a 40ft water quality buffer. So even further into the reszoning site they wouldn't be able to that's an additional 40t they wouldn't be able to get any closer to residences. Um, so I mean honestly pretty pretty different um view on this position versus seeker rail the 500 ft. Could you go to the map? So from that the bottom of that parcel down to the is that Dewey Drive? That's only that's only 500 ft or that's that looks like it's about

um so right about 500 ft from there to that closest residence. This is the HOA property here. So expect the main condition. This is zone CP. So there's [clears throat] potential that something something could happen there. But then again, you have that parcel in between the one proposed for and then you have that 40 foot street level that kind of mirrors the southern property. I'll also add this is a request for MNL1 which is the lease intense whereas the Cedarville property was of course requesting ML2 because it's asking for that general industrial use.

Thank you. Good. Anyone else? U Caprioli, do we happen to know what they want to manufacture on the site? Um, I I believe it's Well, it is conventional, so I can't The petitioner could speak directly to that, but it's conventional, so we [clears throat] we can't I don't want to tell you it's they could turn around and say, "Well, we decided to go in a different direction." So, if it would be all uses allowed under this particular allowed under ML1. Yeah. Yeah. So, all right. Everybody

good? Do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 15 on our agenda resoning petition 2025-116?

Milan motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025-116 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement. Gaston second. It's been moved by Milan and seconded by Gaston. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed?

There are none. So that passes unanimously. We're up to item number 16 on our agenda. Reszoning petition 2025-119 by Hines and U. Shayla, take us through this one, please.

2025-119 involves approximately 3.17 acre parcel located on the north side of Carnegie Boulevard corridor within the Charlotte's South Park Regional Activity Center. The surrounding area is a mixeduse district characterized by mid to high-rise structures and various uses including office, retail, multif family, residential and commercial uses. The site is currently zoned business shopping center and mixeduse development optional and the request is for a conditional reszoning to regional activity center conditional. This request aligns with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the regional activity center. The proposal includes a mixeduse redevelopment with multif family residential units and groundf flooror commercial space to maintain the corridor's mixeduse pedestrianoriented character. Likewise, nonresidential uses or commercial uses will include office, retail, restaurant, personal services, and fitness facilities permitted under the RAC zoning. The site commits to enhancing connectivity by upgrading Adair Court to public street standards with a public access easement and a link to Colonial Plaza Drive. Moreover, the petition commits to building height to a building height limitation of 275 ft per the RAC standard with bonus menu options required to for structures over 150 ft as well as providing a prohibited use list that includes driveway or drive-thru establishments, vehicle dealerships, rental facilities, facilities, public health services,

transit terminals, and industrial uh operations. This request is consistent with the South Middle area plan with the opportunity to facilitate South Middle Area Plans priority goal number one of 10-minute neighborhoods by providing multiple multifamily residential units and a higher concentration of essential amenities, goods, and services in a walkable activity center environment. Similarly, although not a priority goal, this petition has the ability to facilitate 2040 comprehensive plan goal number five with the commitment to upgrade a dair. Since public hearing, there has been one significant change to the proposed development related to the maximum building height of 275 ft including bonuses as permitted by the RAC zoning district. The petition commits to limit to limit portions of the buildings exceeding 150 ft to no more than 50% of the site's total area. The intent of this condition is for the purpose um for the proposed development to scale their structures so that they are comparable to surrounding areas entitlements. That said, staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues. This recommendation is based on the Carnegie Boulevard corridor being located in the Charlotte South Park Regional Activity Center with an existing mix of uses. The proposed redevelopment presents an opportunity to maintain the character committing to a mixeduse project with multif family residential units and ground floor activation with commercial spaces. Um, as well as having access to the site via public transportation. With that being said, that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions or comments? That whole thing about the height. Um, yes sir. Can you can you go through that and explain that to me what the rationale is there because it's I may I may be wrong maybe and the the whole notion is it seems to kind of tie the height to what is in existing structures around is that correct? So the proposal would allow for the permitted height, maximum height in the RACH. Mhm.

Um but that being said, we still wanted to be considerate of the existing characteristic and we didn't want the entire site to exceed the existing entitlements that are already there. And Holly the intent of the note the what is already on the ground the entitlements on the ground don't go up to 275 around the site establishing 275 ft across the entirety of this whole site. We were worried could feel out of character. So we asked them to consider notes where they wouldn't have the entirety of the site going all the way up to RAC's maximum limit. So they opted to put this condition on themselves where they would say, "Okay, we won't go up to 275 across the whole site. This is we will only do it under these parameters."

Okay. So the the petitioner put this, but didn't we approve one across Sharon Road that I think is two had a 275 on it? I think there's one and I know the one out at where the old Phillips place used to be, wasn't that one? I think that one has 275 directly adjacent to it. That was 275 that I recall. No, so we just trying to make it something that felt more appropriate and considerate of its surroundings, but recognizing that it is a regional activity center.

Yeah. Which Yeah. I mean, so I would you my bias?

Sure. build it high, build it big. Um, so, you know, I would I didn't understand why that how that got in there, but it's in there. If everybody agrees to it, then, you know, I'm I'm on the outside on that. So, but that's just me. Anybody else got any comments, questions? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 16 on our agenda, reszoning petition 2025-119? Stuart, motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and consider the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025119 and the adoption of the consistency statement.

Second, McDonald. It's been moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner McDonald. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Um, last but not least, reszoning petition number 2025-126 by Crossland Southeast. Uh, Shayla, you get to round this evening out. Create a create a memorable last chapter for us, please.

Yes, sir. [laughter] Petition um 2025-126 involves approximately 6.6 acre parcel located on the north side of Wora Lake Road, east side of North Sharon Amity Road and west of Mayberry Lane corridor in eastern Charlotte. The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of single family neighborhoods, institutional uses, and emerging multi multifamily developments reflecting a gradual transition towards the activity center.5 miles from the site. The site is currently zoned in neighborhood 1A and the request is for a conditional resoning to neighborhood 2B conditional. Uh the proposal the proposed change does not align with the 2040 policy map which recommends campus place type for this location. The proposal as presented at public hearing includes 144 senior multifamily stacked units and 20 attached units um town home units. All stacked units will be incomerestricted for househ holds earning up to 80% AMI for at least 20 years in housing trust fund approval. If if housing trust fund approval is not secured within 18 months or two cycles, the site may be developed with market rate units. A 25 foot class B landscape yard buffer was also committed to adjacent to single family neighborhoods. Transportation involve or improvements include a 12- foot multi-use path along Northshar and Amity Road, a 8-foot sidewalk with plantings strip along Walora Lake Road and Mary Berry Lane and vehicular access for all of these three roads. Since the public hearing, the proposal

has been revised to reduce the total number of units from 144 to 125 multif family stacked units and from 20 to 14 town home units uh and extends the afford affordability from 20 years to 50 years. Multif family stacked units are no longer contingent um on the housing trust fund financing as well. If funding is not secured, the site reverts to other byright uses under the N2B zoning, but that also excludes the multif family stacked. Additionally, adding extra the petition commits to add extra plantings around the edge to hide the cellular tower um which is more than the minimum requirement from the UDO. And the petitioner also agreed to design or agreed to design details for buildings facing public streets. The petition also adds ownership restrictions for the 14 town homes proposed so that no more than 20% of the units may be rentals without HOA approval. And no entity or person may own more than two units and units cannot be rented within the first 12 months of purchasing without HOA approval. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues. This recommendation is based on the northsharan amity road corridor serving as a key connection in eastern Charlotte characterized by single family neighborhoods institutional uses and emerging multif family developments. The proposed redevelopment introduces a multif family residential community that complements the evolving character of the corridor offering up to 139 dwelling units including the senior housing and attached units with a strong affordability commitments for the households. Uh streetscape improvements such as

enhanced sidewalks and multif family use p or multiuse paths will promote walkability and connectivity supported by nearby transit routes and community amenities. Approval revi approval will revise the recommended place type from campus to neighborhood 2 reflecting the site's frontage on an arterial pro road proximity to an activity center and access to transit. With that being said, I've finished my presentation and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Uh, does anyone have any comments or questions or things they'd like to say? Commissioner Melon, [clears throat]

thank you. Um, I know this is the last one, but please bear with me. I went I was part of the virtual meeting which I think we had 35 38 participants and then the in-person meeting last week. I believe we had almost 40 members from the community show up and I was there. Um I'm going to I've got a thing here. So just like I said bear with me and especially with some updates since the community meeting. Um neighborhood compatibility. The proposed resoning introduces a level of density that is incompatible with the surrounding Vernell and Glor Lake area which is characterized by large acre single family homes. The scale and intensity of this project represents a disruptive departure from the existing neighborhood com excuse me I'm losing my voice tonight context infrastructure and transportation gaps. The site is served by two-lane road and I don't know how familiar y'all I'm this is a lot of feedback that was given during the two community meetings. Sharon Amy I don't know how many y'all are familiar with that is four lane two lane both ways it's it's an unbelievable high injury network in that area. Number one there's not a there's no plans from CDOT to do any improvements at this point. probably the next 10 to 20 years out and there's only one signalized traffic light right now and that's at Wora Lake and Sharon Amity and if you'll pull up the map of where this is going in Lake is barely a two-lane residential that dumps everything out of that back neighborhood. But if you'll look down up down Willora Lake and you get to Stalewell Oaks, what's not shown is that's going to be opened up to the Eastland Yards, which if you're familiar

with Eastland Yards at all, the development going in on there is is an unknown number right now with all the housing, the commercial development, all that. And that's going to be dumped out either on Central Avenue or into that little two-lane residential going up to a lower lake. Then you add in this development accumula but otherwise you have to go right take a U-turn and Sharon Amity isn't the safest place and I know there's a assumption that if you have 55 plus age group that there's less vehicular traffic because people 55 and plus don't drive. Um, and the majority of the people were in that meeting, both meetings above 55 all drive. It is not safe to walk along Sharon Amity. It it's just not safe. Um, again, high it is one of the city's high injury network. There is community opposition um and the reliance on housing trust funds. If the housing trust funds don't get approved in 18 months and there's a lot of a lot of people asking for housing trust funds, this gets moved to a neighborhood too. And we all know by legal right the zoning stays with the zoning. We understand the churches wanting to sell the land, but why not keep it at the neighborhood one level if they were going to? and one of the community members said why not see if Habitat for Humanity might want to do something there and having that our area plan hasn't been approved yet we don't know if that's even approval of the community

area plan so as it is right now as it's proposed and I know Croslin and Bridget have done concessions on the town homes taking them down that only a percentage of them can be rental for HOA two per two owner I mean owner can own two well we're trying to get home ownership we need housing but we particularly need a lot of home ownership especially in the east side so they can't be rent for 12 months there's a concern there and it's just you know so those are the particular things that I came back with from the both meetings and as it stands right now I would not be in support of this plan as it is right now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Um, anyone else have any comments, questions, concerns? I will add one thing um to your comment. They did consider um less intense zonings, but due to the site constraint um them subdividing it off, they were not able to meet some of the open space requirements.

There's there's N2 basically right down the street, right? And Eastland Yards isn't on the map, but there's an abundance of N2. Is it on a map that I just don't have? Uh, but [laughter] yeah.

Uh, okay. Yeah. I mean, I I I guess I I bring that up because I don't

No. Yeah, I I I I I hear the concerns about the, you know, the neighborhood's concern about wanting to maintain N1 there, but I I I believe that there's an abundance of N2 right down there at Eastland Yards because I I just can't remember the map of all of the different projects that are going on in there. Um, you know, and I appreciate Commissioner Milan, you know, for going to that community meeting in person. Uh, and, um, thank her very much because I was planning on going, but I just got double booked. And I really should have gone to your meeting because I was on a a Zoom call for 45 minutes. It really, it was awful. It was the most awful thing I've ever done. Um, yeah. [laughter] Um but you know from a land use perspective I I see this as very much a positive in terms of there's a lot of um churches that have a lot of land that is available that could be used for housing and I'd like to see success in in this particular uh part of town. I I was at a meeting last week and and another minister at a church asked me about doing something just like this. and so got her connected. And so I'd like to see projects like this go forward just because like I said, there are a lot of churches with a lot of land that is uh could could have a higher and best use. So I would be supportive. I got comment from Commissioner McDonald. Yeah, it may not be um much more to add to your comments, Chair Welton, but um the proximity to Eastland Yards to me is the biggest positive um for this uh you know, the biggest reason to approve something like this because of the

massive public investment and private investment at Eastland Yards. um if we can't put and especially affordable senior housing or or really I it does market rate any kind of housing in a location like this I'm at somewhat gentle density we're not talking about 275 ft high tall

um Yeah, I'm I'm happy to support this. I I know it's it's a tough call in the in the community, but um the mall couldn't be supported by the residential area around there. And you know, in order to support all the investments and the businesses along that corridor, you need rooftops. And that's my um two cents. Thank you very much. Anybody else got any comments? They want Commissioner Melon again

just I agree there's a lot of churches that have a lot of land that could be used for housing. This particular one just the way it's locked in with the way it's backed in is just a very difficult difficult spot for this type of density. And as far as rooftops for Eastland, we have rooftops. We have lots of rooftops to support Eastland and they're coming in both in private investment and uh affordable housing development, everything in the east in district 5. We have rooftops. We have no jobs, but we have rooftops. Um and I I understand I really appreciate appreciated Tim with Croslin the other night really explaining the housing trust and the census tracks and everything else. And um district five is in the census track that we do qualify for a lot of saturated type of affordable housing. And yes, we need senior housing, but I just don't it's it's a great plan, but I just don't think it works. And I know there's into because there were just like I think 98 town homes Yeah. that are being developed and they're they're closer they're block not even the block down and and they're closer to the eastland but still that's dumping out on the Sharon Amity and there's no no plans for at least the next 10 to 20 years bare minimum for any infrastructure improvements right there to handle density and as much as we need density and everybody keeps preaching about it I get it but it doesn't mean just because we need it that always the best for a certain plot and that's why I don't agree with this.

Thank you. There's not a light there at will lake, right? Where there there's a light at Sharon Amity and Will Lake because the neighborhood association president fought for it for 10 years and got it installed. Okay. All right. I I will just say I've if there was a light I I've driven through it. Uh, [laughter] there used to not be a light there. That's what I remember is there used to not be a light. [snorts] Okay. Um, does anybody else? Yeah.

Um, anybody else got any comments, questions? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number 17 on our agenda resing petition 2025-126? Stewards. Motion to approve. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025126 and the adoption of the consistency statement. Second McDonald. It's been moved by Stuart and probably seconded by McDonald. All those in favor, please say I. I. Those are opposed. I Milwin. Gabriel.

All right. Uh that passes 4 to two. Um, we have to have a um, you know, your opposition viewpoint thingamabob. Okay. I've never done this, so I don't know how to. We're We're casual, so we can have Well, you just have to tell us why you It's just a minority opinion. based on the current plan as it stands, I don't believe it's um the best use for the density and because of current infrastructure because of all the statements that I gave previously that I don't have in front of me.

I don't know if you if if you have those written down, Holly, can you just hand you the piece of paper? Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean get the general. Yeah. Neighborhood compat compatibility infrastructure transportation gaps. Um traffic safety vision zero high injury network community opposition um reliance on the urban uncertain housing trust fund dollars and we do not have community area plan at this point approved. So that's my reason for opposition. Okay. Um, do I hear a motion for us to adjourn?