Zoning Committee Work Session - Regular Meeting

Stop. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the April 7th zoning committee work session. My name is Douglas A Welton. I'm the chairman of the zoning committee. This meeting is being streamed online via YouTube in accordance with all applicable uh state statutes. Requirements for notice, access and minutes are being met by electronic means. Fewers of business before we get started. If you are here um around the dis, please keep your mic muted when you're not talking and uh state your name before making a motion or a second. The public hearing for the zoning petitions that we're hearing tonight has been held in a previous date in front of city council and the zoning committee. This meeting is not a continuation of those hearings. So there will be no public input unless the committee has a specific question in which case the committee will suspend the session and ask the petitioner directly. We will begin with introductions of the members of the zoning committee and we will begin to my left with commissioner Milan.

Carolyn Milan, planning commissioner. Robin Stewart, Planning Commission. Melissa Mton, Planning Commission. Aaron Shaw, Planning Commission. Michael Capri, Planning Commission. What you did to him? Sorry. Obviously, Commissioner Happy to be noticed. Commissioner Gaston is obviously ready to roll and get a bone out of this joint. Um, well, with that little bit of drama, we will also now do a little bit of staff introductions. And we will begin all the way to my left with uh Miss Kramer. Holly Kramer, planning staff. Michael Russell, planning staff. Max Oliver, planning staff.

Joe Mangum, planning staff. Shayla Tippet, planning staff. Raquel Jones, planning staff. Emma Canaras, planning staff. Thank you very much. And uh now uh have we got the folks online? They are they ready to chat with us? Who's in Washington with C dot? Right. C dot Chris Mano C dot. Travis Miller C do Dave Fenton planning.

Did we get everybody? Great. Uh, all right. We will uh open our meeting uh and we will listen to uh any deferrals or withdrawals. Miss Kramer, would you would you inform us, please? Thank you. We have two deferrals. Petition 2025 036 by Range Works and petition 2025-127 by 4749 West Boulevard LLC both requesting a deferral to the May 5th zoning committee work session. All right. Uh do I hear a motion for the disposition of those deferrals? Stuart motion to defer. Gaston second.

It's been moved by Stuart and properly seconded by Gaston. All those in favor, please say I. I. All right. Anybody opposed? That passes unanimously. We will get to work um with our business tonight. Item three is first on our agenda. Reszoning petition number 2025-072 by Lincoln Properties Company. And uh Michael Russell, will you take us through this please, sir?

Sure. Uh this is approximately 44 uh acres located west of Old Statesville Road, south of Vance Davis Drive and north of Range Road. You can see there um in between sort of Old Statesville uh road and statesville road. Uh the current zoning is office flex campus and mixeduse development uh conditional and the requested zoning is to manufacturing and logistics. Uh the 2040 policy map recommends the community activity uh center place type. Uh the proposal is up to 350,000 square ft of warehousing uh warehouse distribution, manufacturing, office and other industrial uses under prescribed conditions. They do provide uh a list of prohibited uses which includes agriculture, industrial processes, crematoriums, vehicle repair facilities, fill sites, car washes, uh dry cleaning and laundry establishment, indoor shooting range, correctional facilities, cemeteries, landfills, quaries, raceways, railroad freight terminals, stadiums, and more importantly I guess data center. Um they do commit to providing Meckllinburgg County Park and Wreck with a 35- ft wide easement for the construction and maintenance of a county greenway. They make uh several uh transportation and streetscape uh improvements along Old Statesville uh road um and Independence Hill Road. Um, one of the uh changes after uh include the the um the area adjoining um parcel 02505101 identified as the Meckenberg County uh

historic site. The petitioner proposes to install an enhanced landscape yard as illustrated on the resoning plan and the buffer will utilize native plant species and will exceed the standard type A yard requirements along the old statesville road frontage there. Um so the petition is inconsistent with the 2040 policy map. Um, however, the surrounding area is characterized by large-scale low-rise manufacturing, warehouse buildings, offices, and other assembly and distribution facilities. And uh, this petition would be compatible with the character, building form, and land uses in this historic industrial corridor. Um, we feel the petition is reasonable because it aligns with the existing development pattern. Uh the request supports the continued reinvestment in an area long characterized by industrial and employment based uses. Um and we recommend approval. There are one or two technical revisions that the petitioner is aware of and has agreed to change concerning the UDO language. Uh just correction there. So other than that, staff does support Thank you very much, Michael. Uh, does anyone have any questions, comments? I will just say, Michael, you did say that there was an enhanced landscape yard for the county's property that was to the south, correct?

All right. Okay. All right. That's great. I'd gotten a letter from Commissioner Pal regarding that, so it's nice that they were able to do that. Uh, anyone else have any questions, comments? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of reszoning petition 2025 uh-072?

Stuart, 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 2025072 and the adoption of the consistency statement. Milan second. It's been moved by uh Steuart and seconded by Commissioner Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number four on our agenda is resoning petition number 2025-086 by Pence Road Development. Um Mac or no, Joe, would you take us through this one?

We'll do. This site is about 31 acres. is located on the north side of Pence Road, west of Harrisburg Road, um, east of WT Harris. It's mostly wooded. There is the AC&W railroad line that forms the southern property boundary um, until you get towards Pence Road and then actually bisects the site. Um, but it's surrounded by a new single family subdivision under construction to the north of the site. There's the county owned uh golf course and associated facilities to the east and then some commercial and light industrial uses uh to the south along Pence Road. Current zoning is mostly ML1 with a sliver of N1A, also a little I1 CD and B2C along Pence Road. Proposed zoning is ML2CD. The 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type. The proposal would allow for 150,000 square feet of warehousing, warehouse distribution, manufacturing, rail, freight, terminal, office, and other uses permitted in ML2. It is petition does prohibit many obnoxious uses permitted in ML2. There would be rail spurs coming off that AC&W line into the site that would allow for transfer of goods and materials between uh rail and trucking landscape yards. 100 foot class A landscape yard with a burm would be along the northern property boundary where adjacent to single family residential. Also a 50- foot class C landscape yard where adjacent to ML1 and I1 CD and a 25- foot class B landscape

yard along the southern property boundary and Pence Road where across Pence Road from residential uses. There'll be streetscape upgrades along Pence Road and petitioner is reserving right of way for a future realignment of Pence Road. Since the public hearing, the petitioners clarified conditional notes regarding landscape yards and BMS also cleaned up some conflicting notes about planning strip and sidewalk width. Also um revise the site plan to show they proposed Pence Road rightway as reserved for future developments. Staff does not recommend approval of this petition. While it is consistent with the policy map recommendation for manufacturing and logistics place type, the petition requests to expand industrial uses on a property that abuts residential and recreational uses. The majority of the site is currently zoned ML1, which allows for a variety of light industrial uses. Staff does not support expanding the permitted uses to include those allowed in the ML2 district and more specifically a rail freight terminal. Those uses may be incompatible and impactful to the adjacent N1 and parks and preserve place types. The request to expand industrial uses adjacent to residential uses is in conflict with the 2040 comprehensive plans goals for environmental justice. And I will be happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much, Chair. Uh, Commissioner Stewart. Um, so this is a conditional approval going from M um ML1 to ML2. So do we know specifically what they would be doing in ML2 that they're not that they're not permitted to do in ML1 and the objection to it? Is it just the rail? It's the the rail freight terminal use and associated uses.

Is it the rail? Is it the number of trucks? Like what is what is the the objection to the use? Um I think it is the intensity of the use as adjacent to residential use in in particular as well as the the parks and preserves use. Um and that as I kind of pointed out during the um public hearing, you can see along the northern property boundary in the aerial what's been cleared for part of a neighborhood, but that actually extends in a second phase all the way towards the northeast property line. So that entire northern boundary is adjacent to residential uses. So it's kind of a it is ML place type, but we're trying to be respectful to that single family to the north and kind of recognizing it's already zoned ML1 staff's not comfortable expanding the industrial uses to ML2 and and rail freight terminal

and the rail line is in use currently right uh not spur but the the rail line

okay thank you good anyone Um, Joe, I would throw a question out here. I I I hear I've sat in front of people who talk about the notion of not expanding industrial next to residential. And mostly I guess I can go with that. But it seems to me that all expansions of industrial next to residential are not the same. And in this particular case, I somewhat see it not being the same as, you know, perhaps anything involving the airport or something of that nature. Um, are are there gradations of that or is it just a hard no, we're not going to expand industrial next to residential?

I think each situation's a little bit different, right? which yeah what are the uses surrounding um what what is the the specific use that is requested and how impactful might that be to the the neighbors? Yeah. Um so each one is is kind of judged on its own merit. Yeah. you I know you you said all right across the entire northern border is going to be uh residential but that green blob is a 100 foot landscape yard right yes with with a burm with a burm

and is there in the plans of the other side is there additional buffer that they would have had to put in on their project on this or they are they are approved and it's titled so that would have predated this proposal. But yeah, residential projects, industrial projects when developing next to really any use have to put in landscape yards. It's not the same for projects. Okay. All right. I just didn't know if they were if I mean if they were going to put houses right up to the property line there or not. Um,

and I want to add, I mean, we do have policy guidance that we're looking at about these industrial uses and that specifically points to not wanting to approve or intensify zoning districts in a category beyond what they're essentially already zoned for. So there's policy guidance stating, you know, when a new zoning district is requested adjacent to something like neighborhood one, you should seek the least intense option possible. That would be ML1 in this situation. And going to ML2 and and obviously the petitioner needs an ML2.

Sure. For that use for this use. Um because I know a couple of months ago we had the Cedar Veil, right? And this is similar. Yeah. I mean, it just and you know, that one went away, but we also had one off of was that Wilkinson Boulevard or something out there that was ah yes. Yeah, that was that was the same I believe.

Yeah, it was the same meeting. But that that I you know that's the thing that I um it's not a rational thought but the gospel according to Douglas says oh you live right next to a railroad track right which you know you're going to get some degree of discomfort from that. Um I will ask this question and it may not be something you can ask and we may have to suspend the session. There was in the public hearing this notion of the the railroad being able to do a certain thing regardless of whether or not this zoning went through it. And I think there was some there wasn't 100% certainty about that when we were talking. But if if you guys got 100% certainty about it or if the petitioner's agent is in the room and wants to provide some certainty, do which one of these do I need to go to?

I'm not sure that we have 100% certainty. So perhaps agent could uh enlighten us. Okay. Uh, I'm going to make a motion that we suspend the session uh so that we can hear from the petitioner's agent in regard to any federal laws that might affect uh the ability to develop this property. Gaston second. It's been moved by Welton and seconded by Gaston. All those in favor, please say I. I. Um, and now we have the petitioner's agent. Press the little green button. Yay.

Good evening, everyone. Britney Lind representing the petitioner petitioner. Um, my understanding, I'm not a federal uh lawyer when it comes to to those laws. However, my understanding is that they already have the rights as a railroad. They kind of, you know, kind of trump all the all the rules um of zoning. They have the right to do a freight terminal for the railroad. The reason why we have to go through this resoning is that the freight terminal is for a third party. So the same intensity could go onto that site if the railroad itself constructed it and used it. However, because there is a chance for a you know private company um who has had some discussions with economic development team since they want to come in and use this site,

it has to go through a reszoning or the same intensity that otherwise would have been allowed. All right, that's separate from zoning. So I'm speaking a little outside my lane. That is my understanding. Okay. All right. Uh that that is the understanding that I left the public hearing with.

Um which yeah, I'm trying to square these two because without a reasonzoning with a certain business configuration, you could do this and staff doesn't see the way forward with the reasonzoning. Um, do we have any other questions we'd like to ask of the petitioners agent while they're here? Otherwise, we'll resume our session.

Hearing none. Thank you very much. Um, I I'll ask you to show, is there any is there a way forward from staff to get um an approval for this or is this Have we talked a lot and we're done talking? It's it's really just a use issue. Um, we our recommendation is is is not in favor, but they're not outstanding issues that could be resolved that would get us closer to changing our our stance. Mhm.

I I think they've done a good job addressing what they can and trying to make the use palatable to what they can, but at the end of the day, like like Joe said, it's a use issue and we're going to be held to what we're considering on our side with policy and the intensification of industrial next to what we believe to be sensitive land uses. So, that's where staff's recommendation is still going to be pinned back to. Yeah. Um, just one more question because I'm just trying to be pain, I guess. Um, does this inform how staff's policy should should or could potentially change for other situations in the future? Are there other things that have popped up like this that because you mentioned perhaps having some additional policy language about uh um proximity of industrial next to neighborhoods. It we're we're we're stuck with this policy I guess is what I hear. Am I right in that? Yeah, I think this is the policy functioning and I think with the new policy items that were discussed at the March meeting before our zoning items that's only going to be further extrapolated on once those are brought into all the community area plans and I think that's going to help further environmental justice goals and preservation of you know residential character intent and goals there as well. So that's speaks to our our intent and vision with some of the comprehensive plan goals and it's it's helping to capitalize on that. And

if there are areas where we believe it's hindering reszoning petitions and unfair ways, then we would have that conversation. But I think this is this would be the policy working as intended. Okay. Anybody else? that Commissioner Shaw.

Sorry. And this is just one general question. Um, since we don't see behind the curtain for this portion of the process, when you all come up with a recommendation to approve or not or sorry, to recommend or not recommend, is that a vote? Is it just a discussion? Is it just the um is it the contact, you know, within staff that handles a petition? How do you guys come up with that decision? because it is there is obviously some gray right in what you're doing,

right? um you know it it usually in most cases it goes back to a presummittal meeting and um talking through it amongst you know our leadership as well as as Dave um all the way up to to Monica and that and it does evolve over time in some cases but um in this in this situation I think we've been pretty clear as to where we were um from the beginning and um and We've we've stayed with that stance. Thank you, Mr. Capri.

Um, yeah, I don't have my reference notes with me. The uh class C and the class uh A buffers, does that include trees in there or is it just grass? Yes. Um, the petitioner typically has the option of whether they want to maintain the existing vegetation. Um but there is a planting a prescribed planting that includes trees of various maturing levels this big and so many that big this tall and all that shooting Yeah. Thank

uh Commissioner Mill. from my memory and forgive me my memory is not as good as it used to be but from the public hearing the the intensity going to ML2 has to do with a possible third party that we couldn't talk about because contractually economic development. So we really don't know what that third party really has planned there. So there's there's a big question mark there between what ML1 allows right now in intensity and what ML2 could become and allowed by whoever this third party could come in. Am I remembering that from the public hearing correctly?

Well, we it's we know what the uses could be and couldn't be based on um the conditional notes. There's there's a list of uses that are not permitted. Um those that are permitted include a rail freight terminal. We c we don't know who exactly that intended user may be. Could it possibly with intensity include heavier traffic, heavier traffic with semis with cargo car containers and that sort of thing now coming in to the back side of the neighborhood one development.

They could that could be included with that intensity. Okay. Thank you. If I recall correctly though, there was no plan to go north with any of the uh traffic, right? The access is solely from the existing Pence Road. Yeah. Yeah.

Anybody else? Well, um, does anybody have a want to put forth a motion on the disposition of this? Milan. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to deny this petition, I move that we recommend denial of petition number 2025-086 and then the adoption of the consistency statement. Is that right? Yep. Okay. Second.

It's been moved by Milan and seconded by Gaston. All those in favor of the denial, please say I. I.

Those that oppose, please say I. I. So that the denial passes 4 to two. Um Erin, you and I need to craft a uh the other side statement. Thank you for feeling that love. Um, I am um I'm uneasy with the fact that the property could be developed with the same use and intensity if it was if no third party was involved. And when a third party is involved, we have to have this resoning. That just doesn't quite sit right with me. I'm also uneasy with as much as I understand people's um uh flight to the virtue of uh environmental justice. I am not necessarily uh believing that it will serve us well in the long run if we constrain the amount of land that can be developed uh for industrial uses uh with it at all times. Uh but that's do you did I say anything stupid?

Uh no no that's no I I would just clarify just from a staff perspective that it's it's not all industrial uses. I think Joe articulated a bit that it is on a case-bycase kind of basis. And when we consider the two that we've looked at that didn't have favorable recommendation, the main concern was noise impacts, dust impacts, traffic impacts to uh adjacent neighborhood one uses. Uh a rail freight terminal is not a quiet use.

Uh it's a very active and much different use than just a rail line running through the site. So you've got houses to the north that that noise will impact and that's a much more intense outcome than let's say just a warehouse space with some office and they you know store materials to be shipped out to other locations. That's a a bit different if you had to go to ML2 for that versus a rail terminal or a concrete manufacturing facility or those types of things. So I think I don't want it to just be a blanket statement that there can never be an expansion or intensification of industrial zoning. It's really comes down to the use and the impacts on the adjacent land uh that are you know either around it or under construction or in the process of you know being you know occupied at that time. So I just want to make sure that we're we're clear on that.

I I I I hear you Dave. I'm clear on that. I I just um my um issue is probably the prioritization of environmental versus uh residential environmental justice versus residential uses perhaps may be the different side of that coin. And it could be anything that causes an environmental issue and it's not just manufacturing and logistics that can be uh the source of that. Uh so you know again the it is for me particularly it is the environmental uses or the environmental justice um the phrase dogma comes to mind that I I I want us to avoid.

So understood. Okay. Thank you. All right. Everybody good? All right. We're on to item five on our agenda tonight and that is reszoning petition 2025-123 or 132, excuse me, by uh Hopper Properties and Hopper Communities, Inc., excuse me. Shayla, it's your turn to talk.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Um, so this is petition 2025132 submitted by the petitioner Hopper Communities, Inc. is for the parcel located at 3726 Providence Road, which is approximately44 acres and is located west of Providence Road, north of Edgemont Road, and south of Caendish Court. The site is indicated by the red star on the map and is immediately surrounded by single family residential on all sides. There are both town homes and multif family stacked nearby to the south and southeast. And farther out along the corridor, a variety of commercial uses are present as well. Um, and those uses include restaurant and bar, neighborhood services, office, and several mixeduse developments. The site's current zoning is residential 8 multifamily conditional, and the petitioner is requesting a conventional reszoning to neighborhood 1A. This is consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for neighborhood one place type and that said staff recommends approval of this petition as it is consistent with the goals and policies of the south middle area plan. The petition is also consistent with I'm sorry it is consistent with the 2040 plan as well as the south inner community area plan and aligns with um the goals the priority goals such as goal two from the plan by removing narrow entitlements on the site as part of a previously approved conditional plan. That said, staff recommends approval of this um as the proposal reszoning allows for more opportunities for diverse um residential options and that they can be more compatible with the existing character. That is the end of my presentation and I will be happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions or comments on this petition number five? I don't think we've heard a simpler uh reszoning. Uh do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number five reasonzoning petition number 2025-132? 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 2025132 and the adoption of the consistency statement.

Shaw second. It's been moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Shaw. All those in favor, please say I. I. Anybody oppose. That one passes unanimously. We're on item number six on our agenda. Reszoning petition 2025-135 by the Charlotte Meckberg Hospital Authority. And Michael, would you take us through this one, please?

Sure. This is approximately 41.2 two acres located south of North Triion Street, east of uh East WT Harris Boulevard and north of Johnson Alumni Way. Um as you're probably familiar with this site, it's uh University City uh Atrium Hospital. Um the existing zoning is institutional campus one. The proposed zoning is institutional campus 2 with the exception uh provision. Just to remind the exception provision or sort of a mechanism by which uh quantitative and some qualitative uh benefits in at least um or that zoning and streetscape changers may be modified in exchange for the commitment to public v benefits and at least two out of three category city improvements, public amenities and sustainability measures. Um the 2040 policy map recommends the campus place type. Um so the proposal is that the site may be devoted to a healthc care institution and to any uses permitted by right permitted by um with the prescribed conditions permitted with conditional uh zoning and permitted with the conditional zoning with prescribed conditions. The uh existing building structures, parking facilities, and any other existing improvements on the site may remain in place and continue to be utilized. Um they're using the exception provision um and their commitments to the public benefits for public amenity. They will install a trail head connection to the University of North Carolina Charlotte fitness trail that will contain bench seating, a trail map, signage, and trail lighting. uh for their city improvement. They'll provide a micro transit area on the site to include dedicated curb space for ride share and a waiting pad consistent with the with the cats. And for a city

improvement, they will construct a bus stop waiting pad and shelter at the existing bus stop located along the site's frontage on North Triion Street. Um so, excuse me. Uh the petition is consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the campus place type. Um one of the rationale the developments such as healthcare institutions and their associated facilities result in unique zoning scenarios that challenge typical ordinance regulations and prompt innovative solutions to contend with regulatory limitations. the exception um conditionals or mechanism by which as I said earlier quant quantitative and some qualitative zoning and street standards may be modified. Um so the petition would allow the site to be redeveloped and updated to better utilize the property and enhance the use of a site that serves as a medical hub and an important focal point for the surrounding uh community. Um, so with that, uh, staff does recommend approval of this petition.

Thank you very much, Michael. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Michael, I I have a quick one. I'm I'm trying to think on You said that they were u they're going to install a bus stop on North Trion. Mhm. Is Isn't there was an existing one or something? Yeah, I'm and I was trying to pull up my my map here real quick to see what was there and then I looked and there's no site plan. So, it's like, oops, where are they going to put it? It's a tier one. It's in the existing one. They're just uh improving it and expanding it. Okay. Shelter. Okay.

All right. Yeah, because I'm I'm memory is a little bit foggy going through there. It's been a while and so I Okay. All right. I'm good. Anybody else? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of um what item are we on here? 2025 item number six. Sorry, you have to turn the page every once in a while, don't you?

Uh reszoning petition 2025-135. Gaston, having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025-135 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 Milan. All those in favor, please say I.

I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. uh resoning petition or item number seven resoning petition 2025-138 by Coral Reef Investment Properties and Max you get to talk this time.

All right. Petition 2025138 is an 8.62 acre site located on the east side of West Tyola Road south of South Triion Street. Plan proposes changes to a previously approved multif family residential resoning. Site's currently undeveloped. site zone R17 MFCD multif family conditional proposed resoning is R17 MFCD SPA um that's multif family site plan amendment plan is in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood to place type background on the site um in 2022 petition uh 21235 was reszoned uh to the R17 MF district to allow for the development up to 129 multif family apartment dwellings including six workforce housing units and three principal structures. Site plan amendment calls for the reduction of the total number of multif family stack buildings from 3 to two. Increase the maximum number of apartments from 129 to 134 including an increase in workforce housing units from 6 to 7. removal of a pedestrian connection between West Hyola Road and Sleepy Hollow Road and the modification of site access by shipping shifting the norm northern driveway on West Tyola Road approximately 200 ft to the south. The plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the southwest middle community area plan and could facilitate priority to goals two and three. Staff recommends approval of this petition as site plan to the previously approved resoning plan makes only minor changes. The proposal is consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation and the sites abudding a park and is served by transit. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much Max. Uh does anyone have any questions or comments on this particular petition? If not, do I hear a motion for the

disposition of item number seven, resoning petition 2025 uh-138? Gaston, I make a motion to 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 2025-138 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. Shaw second. That one's been moved by Commissioner Gaston and seconded by Commissioner Shaw. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. We're up to item number eight on our agenda, resoning petition 2025-139 by Avaret Express. And this one, uh, we get Joe again. Thank you. This site is about 53 acres located on the north side of Shopton Road, west of Beam Road, about two miles south of Charlotte Douglas Airport. The site is is been cleared um this site and about 50 additional acres to the north were entitled in 2021 um for I1 uses. Uh but it's surrounded by a mix of commercial industrial uses to the north uh west and east and residential uses across shop and road to the south. Current zoning is as I mentioned the 2021 resoning uh is or established I1 CD NO that's airport noise disclosure overlay proposed zoning is ML2 CDO the 2020 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type the proposal would allow expansion of

industrial uses on the site for a limited number of ML2 uses including a vehicle operations facility would allow for a maximum bu building square footage of 180,000 square ft. Uh prohibits many of the noxious uses that would be otherwise allowed in ML2. Access will be provided through Shopton Road as well as to beam road through an adjacent property. Be streetscape improvements along Shopton Road. buffers uh would be a 100 foot class A landscape yard along the southeastern property boundary that's adjacent to an institutional use. A 75- ft landscape yard uh along the also in the kind of south uh eastern corner adjacent to institutional uses as well as a 50-foot landscape yard along the site's Shopton Road frontage. that is where it's across Shopton Road from single family residential uses. The physician commits to dedication of the flood plane uh for to Meckllinmberg County for future Coffee Creek Greenway. So, this is an an adopted community area plan. uh petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the southwest middle community area plan and in alignment with the policy map recommendation for the manufacturing and logistics place type. Since the public hearing, the petitioner revised landscape yard notes and labels to match UDO terminology. Staff recommends approval of this petition. The site is entitled for light industrial uses. The petition would allow expansion of industrial uses while reducing the building footprint on the site. Most of the noxious uses allowed in ML2 are prohibited. The site's

located within the airport noise disclosure overlay and provides appropriate buffering to adjacent institutional and residential uses located across Shopton Road from the site. I'll take any questions. Thank you very much, Joe. Uh, does anybody have any questions about this particular petition? Do I hear a motion for the disposition of item 8 on our agenda 2025-139 Shaw? 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 2025-139 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us.

Long second. It's been moved by Shaw and seconded by Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. All right, we're up to our last petition of the evening. Reszoning petition item number nine, resoning petition 2025-140 by Excel Financial Services, Inc. Max, would you take us through this one, please?

Yes. Petition 2025140 is a43 acre site on the east side of Sandy Porter Road, west of South Triion Street. Petition proposes an adaptive reuse of a single family home for activities permitted in the community activity center zoning district. The site is developed with a single family house. Current zoning is N2B neighborhood 2. Proposed zoning is CAC1 CD community activity center conditional. The plan is not in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type. proposal allows for the adaptive reuse of an existing structure to accommodate uses permitted by right and under prescribed conditions in the CAC1 district such as personal services office medical and dental office but prohibits uses that may be incompatible with the neighborhood such as automotive oriented uses. While the plan is not in alignment with the policy map, it is consistent with the goals and policies of the southwest outer community area plan. Intermediate area plan provides information that staff uses to determine consistency with the plan and specific criteria to recommend minor amendments to the policy map. This plan meets minor map amendment criteria to update the policy from neighborhood one to the community activity center place type including exceeding the 20 contiguous acres of CAC place type when you combine the site with the abuing parcels. preferred place type adjacencies such as neighborhood 2 and community activity center and it has proximity transit sites less than a quarter mile from multiple bus routes and the proposed plan could facilitate um community area plan priority goal one. Staff recommends approval of this petition as it meets minor map amendment criteria. Um supports a shift to the community activity center place type enabling a wider mix of retail office medical and service uses sites surrounded by CAC and um neighborhood 2 areas making the proposed adaptive reuse compatible with the existing commercial multif family development while expanding goods and services. Sites also served by transit. I'm happy

to take any questions. Thank you very much, Max. Anybody have any questions or comments about this petition? If not, do I hear a motion for uh the disposition of item number nine on our agenda, reszoning petition 2025-140? Stewart, having reviewed the petition and consider considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2025140 and the adoption of the consistency statement. Caprioli second. It's been moved by Commissioner Stewart, seconded by Commissioner Caprioli. All those in favor, please say I. I.

I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. That's all on our agenda for this evening. Do I have a motion for us to adjourn? Thank you very