City Council Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Travis, can you hear me? Yep, I can hear you now. Can you hear me?

Yep. Okay. Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the May 5th zoning committee work session. My name is Douglas Welton and I serve as the chairman of the zoning committee. This meeting is being streamed online via YouTube in accordance with all applicable meeting statutes. Uh requirements of notice, access and minutes are being met by electronic means. Um and he's reading his script and it is scrolling slowly. Um few orders of business before we get started here. Uh please if you are speaking and making a motion or a second, uh keep your mic muted when you are not speaking. State your name before you make that motion or second so those who are listening at home old school like the radio will know who's talking. The public hearing for the zoning petitions we are hearing tonight has been held at some 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 that question directly. We'll begin our

meeting as always with introductions. We're going to begin today to my right uh with Commissioner Shaw. Aaron Shaw, Planning Commission. Melissa Gaston, Planning Commission. Robin Stewart, Planning Commission. Carolyn Millan, Planning Commission. Michael Capri, Planning Commission. Thanks very much. Thanks very much everyone. Now, we will also have introductions by staff and we'll begin with Miss Kramer. Holly Kramer, planning staff. Michael Russell, planning staff. Joe Mangum, planning staff. Shayla Tippet, planning staff. Emma Canarhas, planning staff.

Thanks very much. We also have some folks joining us online, I will assume. Can we see their pictures? Is we we only see Travis? Oh. Oh, there's everybody. All right. This is Chris Mano with C dot. Brett Hyatt with C dot. Isaiah Washington C dot. Natalie King C dot. Travis Miller C dot. We can barely hear those folks. I don't know if we can make that a better situation just in case we have to ask them a question. Um, Dave Pton's here as well. Thank you. Oh, Dave Pton is out there as well.

That's me. One nil to the Arsenal. Okay. Um, Miss Kerman, do we have any deferrals for tonight's uh meeting? Yes, we have two deferrals and one withdrawal. 202536 is deferring to the August 4th work session. 2025-77 by Short Development Group is deferring to the June 2nd work session. and 2025-127 by 4749 West Boulevard LLC is with is withdrawing their petition. All right. Uh do I have a motion for these deferrals and withdrawals? Shaw. Motion Stewart second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Shaw and properly seconded by Commissioner uh Stewart. All those in favor, please say I. I. And opposed then we will uh Wow, we have sound effects and music tonight. I I feel like late breaking news is about to occur or something. I don't know. All right, then. Um those those have been uh deferred andor withdrawn. We will begin our our program tonight with uh item number four on our agenda which is reasonzoning petition number 2025-128 by AR EG US OP 4 Shopton RD road hold LLC and I am uh apologies if that wasn't as graceful as the person that wrote it thinks it is. Michael would you tell us about that?

Sure. This is approximately 15.16 acres located north of Shopton Road, east of Stone Stone Cliff Road and west of uh 85. It's just north of the um uh Outlet Mall there. The existing zoning is uh business park conditional uh which was never developed and the proposed zoning is neighborhood 2B conditional. The 2040 policy map recommends the commercial uh and the neighborhood two type uh places. Some of the uh proposals are up 330 multif family stacked residential units. Uh and the petitioner shall coordinate with the Meckllinburgg County Park and Wreck regarding the location of uh access easement on the site for future connectivity from Shopton Road to the Barowick Park. Uh some of the transportation improvements are 8oot sidewalk, 8ft planning strip along Shop Road frontage and along all internal public network required streets. The petitioner will provide a separated um bike facility along Shopton Road consisting of a 5-ft bike lane and a three-foot buffer. Uh off-site transportation improvements as identified in the traffic impact study um include new turn lanes, approach lane construction, signal phasing, modifications and compliance with the U CTR requirements during permitting. Uh and then open space area shall consist of uh enhanced planning, specialty paving materials, shading elements, seating options, public art, sculpture, decorative lighting, interactive elements uh and such. The plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the west outer community area plan. The petition is not in alignment with the 2040 policy map

recommendation for the commercial and neighborhood two place types. Um The West outer community area plan um may facilitate the 10-minute neighborhoods and neighborhood diversity and inclusion. Um uh for the minor map amendment criteria um the preferred minimum acreage um the site is 15 uh acres. Uh and the petition also abuts an area designated as into the west of the site. um some of the preferred adjacencies. Uh it is adjacent to uh parks and preserves and the uh CAC place types. Um the petition is within uh a quarter mile of the outlets Boulevard and Designer Drive bus stop uh and within um between a quarter and a half mile of a community activity center. And the petition is with in access to housing gap. Uh and the petition does have road frontage along um Shopton Road. Um they had uh some changes since the public hearing. They are providing a vegetative buffer along the interstate border those two buildings and they've added uh active open space pockets internal to the uh to the site. Um the petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the West outer community area plan. Um and the site is currently governed by the conditional reasoning uh from 2001 which entitled the property to business office park uses but it was never developed. Uh since that time, Still Creek area has experienced rapid residential growth and the opening of the uh outlet mall has further shifted

development patterns patterns in the area to support multif family stacked housing. Um and although a majority of the site is recommended for commercial um based on the old resoning, uh it does meet the minor map criteria for place type change to a neighborhood 2 due to its acreage, place type adjacencies, and location context I just went over. Um, and the petition does provide substantial transportation, pedestrian and bike improvements, create a more walkable and connected site. Um, and it's served by two cats uh routes which provide local uh bus service. Um, there's two uh outstanding issues. We would talk with the petitioner uh and they'll button those up before it goes to decision. Um, and staff does recommend approval.

Thank you very much, Michael. Uh, does anybody have any questions or comments on this particular petition? If none, Michael, I'll just ask a a question for point of clarification just perhaps as a learning experience. Again, this had a policy map designation of of uh what was the policy map

commercial and neighborhood too, but okay. Okay, now I see the small sliver. All right. Yeah, I see the small sliver. Now, I wasn't paying attention when that that happened. And so in essence from a pol policy perspective that intuitess is is met by being immediately adjacent to it, right? Would that be a fair characterization? Yeah, that's okay. All right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um I'm good. Anybody else got any questions? I have a question. um

gas and how many um housing units was that? 330. 330. And I'm going to ask this. I probably know the answer. Was any of that uh indicated going to be affordable? Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else? If not, uh, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number four on our agenda, resoning petition 2025-128? Shaw. 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 2025-128 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. Nolan second. It's been moved by Commissioner Shaw and seconded by Commissioner Milan. All those in favor, please say I. I.

All those opposed. That passes unanimously. Hey, we're all here. It's I think it's been a minute since we were all here, haven't we?

Yeah. I'm excited in a way I haven't been in five or 10 minutes. Uh resoning petition. Uh, item number five on our agenda is reszoning petition 2025-136 by Larry Cooper. And Michael, it looks like it's your time to be busy. So, this is approximately 2 acres located east of West Sugar Creek Road, west of Burgundy Drive and north of Nighton Lane. Um, the current zoning is neighborhood 1B. The proposed zoning is neighborhood 1C. Uh the policy map uh recommends the neighborhood one place type. Uh the petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the north, middle, and outer community area plan. The petition is in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type. Um the north, middle, and outer area plan. Uh the neighborhood diversity and inclusion may be facilitated by adding the ability to to develop more infill housing along a major arterial and near commercial areas. Um I said the petition is consistent uh with the goals and policies of the north middle and outer area plan. Uh the site is designated as a neighborhood one place type. Um the request is in alignment with the site's place type designation and the community area plan goals. The uh proposed zoning represents a slight increase in intensity over the existing N1B entitlements. Uh and as you know the primary difference between N1B and N1C is in the dimensional standards such as lot size and lot width. Uh and the two N1 districts permit the same uses. Um and the site meets the um place type five criteria using um the creating uh

complete communities policy guidance. Uh and the subject's property particularly large lot with lot width without a lot of a pattern relative to the surrounding context and being on our arterial provides a strong basis for the requested resoning to the M1C uh district. Um there are no outstanding uh issues and staff does recommend approval. Thank you very Thank you very much, Michael. Uh does anybody have any questions or comments on on this particular petition? Uh Commissioner McDonald,

it's maybe a little bit off topic, but this strikes me as a parcel that is ideal for a cottage court. I don't know if that where that would come up if the practitioner doesn't come up with that idea. Um because it's on the arterial, maybe one driveway would make sense. Um I, you know, I don't know. Obviously, there's no site plan. Um, but yeah, I just had that thought that this seems like an opportunity for something like that of I I mean, I just don't think we see enough of those proposed.

Yeah, I think we've only had two cottage court reszonings and certainly they would be eligible for applying for that since it's a in one district. Um, but they they didn't apply for that. said, "Do you want to add anything to you?" Good. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else? So, I I have a question. Commissioner Gaston.

Commissioner Gaston. Um, so basically, they're just changing the zoning because they want to have a smaller um footprint or lot size. That's instead of 8,000, they want to do 6,000. But they didn't have to submit any kind of site plan or anything like that because it's currently really the same designation except for the site except for the square footage. Um yes, because they were um you know consistent with the the area plan and the policy uh plan just going up you know from M1B to N1C. we felt like didn't it it didn't need a to come in conditionally and they could just do it conventionally since it's just uh you know it's two acres and um it's just a small jump and like I said the lot size and setbacks.

Okay. So they're kind of limited really with got you know still in one it's going to be residential of right some sort. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number five on our agenda presenting petition 2025-136 by Larry Cooper Caprioli. Uh motion to approve. Having read the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition 2025-136 as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. McDonald second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Caprioli and seconded by Commissioner McDonald. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any oppose? That passes unanimously. Item number six on our agenda is reszoning petition 2025-142 by Third and Urban LLC. Uh Emma, would you take us through this one, please?

Petition 2025-142 is approximately 1.90 acres located north of Tuckiji Road, east of Barry Hill Road and west of Gest Street. The current zoning is MUD O mixeduse development optional and the proposed zoning is IMU CD innovation mixeduse conditional. The 2040 policy map recommends the innovation mixeduse place type for this site. Um the original proposal presented at public hearing includes development standards that will prohibit the use of vehicle dealership enclosed vehicle fueling facility vehicle rental enclosed vehicle repair minor and parking lot principal use um policy information. I do want to note that um since the public hearing there were some changes made um further restrictions actually. So the petitioner has committed to a minimum uh residential part. If there was a residential component to this petition, there would be one space per unit. It is more restrictive than the UDO requirements and was added in response to concerns regarding uh parking but into nearby residential streets. And additionally, the building height limitation of 75 ft is also lower than the height otherwise permitted in the proposed district. It was incorporated at the request of comm community community members. Um so the agents and the petitioner listened to the community members feedback at the community meeting, took under consideration and appropriately applied development standards. That slide is not present. Sorry about that. Um, the plan is consistent with the goals for the policies of the West inner community area plan. The petition is in alignment with the Charlotte Future 20 240 policy map recommendation

for the innovation mixeduse place type. It was in the wrong spot, but they added a note if residential units are constructed on the site, they shall include a minimum parking ratio of one parking space per residential unit, as well as added a note on building height shall be limited to 75 ft. Staff recommends approval of this petition and this petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the West inner community area plan. I'll take any questions you may have. Thank you very much, Emma. Does anybody have any questions, comments on this particular petition? Commissioner McDonald,

um, did you say the the parking commitment was added uh because of community requests? Yes, they held the agent held the community meeting and the neighbors came and spoke about their concerns and one of the concerns was parking. Um, I believe if you have additional questions, their report is very detailed and the agent is also here if you have additional questions. Thank you. I don't know if you've ever gone over, but it's very hard to bark. So, they're probably just concerned about underparked an under park another under site in their neighborhood which I guess.

Anybody else? I will just this is I imu so they can put anything I imu right correct except for the limitations the limitations that they have listed um and we had had a an IMU previously that was I think people came in and put all residential in that IMU and I'm just I'm interested to see what staff's reaction would be if this were all residential Holly would that be a bad thing? I think it's a little bit different in this contextual perhaps.

This is this is a rapidly transitioning area and I live close to here. So does Michael. So we have big thoughts and feelings perhaps. I just visit every once in a while. So right, we actually recently got front porch Sunday, too. So that's probably another reason people want to see additional parking in this area. But when you think about adding residential product, it would actually really

go a long ways in directly supporting a lot of the commercial tenants that we're seeing come in there. A lot of the adaptive reuse projects and from the old MUT plans that we've seen have successfully turned over those old industrial sites and it helped to have a bit more frankly multif family come into that area as it transitions and densifies. Okay. All right. Um just just curious that I drew that um connection from previous resoning. Anyone else? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number six on our agenda, reszoning petition 2025-142?

Let me get my glasses. Caprioli. Motion to approve. 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 2025-142 as presented uh as it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement as it appears before us. Shaw second.

You guys want to wrestle over that one? I'm gonna give I'm gonna give it to to to Aaron. Uh, that's been moved by Commissioner Caprioli and seconded by Commissioner Shaw. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Item number seven on our agenda, resoning petition 2026-002. See, people are leaving once their cases have been heard by Zang. And please correct me if I

All right. I I in the ballpark. Consonants. Consonants. Um Joe Mangum, take us through this one, please. This site is just 0.16 acres. It's located on the south side of Verbina Street between Yansy Road and Nation's Crossing Road. This is in the lower south end area. It's about 3/4 of a mile uh to either the Woodlon or the Scaly Bark light rail station area. Seen a tremendous amount of change in recent years with conversion of industrial properties to residential um as well as commercial either side of this property there. Apartment new apartments on the west side and new town homes on the east side. Current zoning is ML2 with proposed zoning of TODNC. The 2040 policy map recommends the community activity center place type.

The petition is consistent with the south inter community area plan as well as in alignment with the policy map recommendation for the community activity center place type may facilitate the trail and transit oriented development. Staff recommends approval. Um, it is surrounded on three sides by property zone 4 to I will take any questions. Thank you very much. Joe, does anyone have any questions, comments? Commissioner McDonald,

if I remember from the um presentation at the public meeting, this is a proposal for like a third place, a gathering place. That's coffee shop type thing. Coffee, beer, and wine. Coffee, beer, and wine. That's what I wrote down. It's awesome. I think we need these in every neighborhood. Um, obviously spoken from our alcoholic council or commissioner. It's about the hours. You know, you can have coffee in the morning and you can have a business that can operate into the evening hours. It's It's Oh, so logical. Fills a gap. You've you've covered yourself there. Yeah. Thank you.

All right. Um, does anyone else have a comment, question? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of uh item number seven on our agenda, reszoning petition 2026-002? Milan, having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition number 2026-00002 as it appeared before us and the adoption of the consistency statement. Stuart second. Oh god, it's getting it's getting rough in here. Uh um yes, ma'am.

Yeah, it has been moved by Commissioner Milan and very uh uh promptly seconded by Commissioner Stewart. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed?

Uh that passes unanimously and very quickly as it were. Uh you can now leave if you would like because that's what happens when people hear their petitions. Unless you'd like to stay and hear what these get. We are we are we're we're on our last one. So you are it's it's your lucky day. Um yeah. Reszoning item number eight on our agenda is reszoning petition 2026-00003 by SLRH Acquisitions LLC. And Shayla would you take us through this one please ma'am?

Yes sir. So petition 2026003 submitted by the petitioner as you've mentioned is for parcel located at 514 Fenton Place which is approximately 84 acres and is located east of Providence Road north of Fenton Place and south of Cherokee Road. The site is indicated by a red star and is surrounded by diverse land uses including offices and retail to the north near Providence Road, condominiums and single family homes to the south and east over um established single family homes to the east and office and small commercial buildings across Providence Road to the west. The site is currently zoned office flex campus and the petitioner is requesting a tier one conditional reszoning to neighborhood center conditional. Um this is consistent with the recently adopted revised 2040 policy map recommending the neighborhood center place type. The petition proposes to reszone approximately.84 84 acres to allow uses including multif family stacked residential and commercial uses permitted in the NC district such as office, retail, restaurant, bar, personal services, and fitness uses. Parking may be located at ground level with any above grade portions on the ground floor required to be screened as well as or possibly um below grade parking. The petition sets specific building setback requirements from the eastern property line 38t, 24 feet, and 18 ft depending on the adjacent parcels. Um, similarly, the reasonzoning proposes a minimum 10- ft wide class C landscape yard and a 6-ft tall fence to be installed between the building and the required landscape yard on the eastern property line. Changes since public hearing include the 10-foot class C landscape yard along the

eastern property line to include enhanced plantings meeting the class B landscape yard buffer standards allowing it to be more um dense screening compared to the class C. The petition prohibits vehicular facilities and minor vehicle repair facilities. And staff has also received confirmation that the final submission for this petition will include a condition to prohibit enclosed vehicle retail uses unless otherwise identified as an accessory use as an amenity to the residents. That said, staff recommends approval of this petition as it is consistent with the goals and policies of the south inner area plan. The petition is also consistent with the goals and policies of the south of the revis of the south in inner area plan and the revised policy map. Um it may facilitate goal two of the priority goals by opening entitlement options for development. That said, staff recommends approval of this petition as the proposed resoning allows for more opportunity to introduce diverse residential and commercial options. Um, that said, my presentation is over and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Sorry. Can I just ask for a quick repeat of the last the newly added restriction because I didn't there were that was a big word sandwich and I didn't follow it. Yes, ma'am. Um, and you're referring to the changes since public hearing, correct? Um staff has also received confirmation that the final submission will prohibit enclosed vehicle rental uses unless identified as an accessory use to the primary residential use. Yes. You're welcome. It's residential. What is it?

Uh Commissioner Stewart. Uh Shayla, was this did we reszone this whole area before or did I just read about that in the ledger theater, the Starbucks, Laurel Market, that whole thing has been? Yes, sir. That is all on the same parcel, but that section of the parcel will not be touched as far as the reasoning goes. The same owner or is this a different owner? Holly parcel theater, but this area I mean is it going to be part of the same development? Is that why they're reszoning this bit as well? Or is this going to be a separate use?

It could be, but the man could be developed that whole site could be developed independently regardless of rightite. The idea is that this could potentially be one large unified development. Okay. But I'd like to make it clear that this area is this being reszoned for the same uses as what we reszoned the larger site for

site is. That's because had old business zoning on it a while back. It's the neighborhood center and place type though. So they wanted to do something like a mixeduse development or residential usage we would develop to NCU standards on the repeater site. So what they're seeking for this site is a neighborhood center designation. So similar same development standards being one of the keys there. Correct.

Right. It has Sorry, I've been on mute this whole time. Um, so it's We ignore you anyway. Don't worry.

Sorry for the purposes of the recording. That's unfortunate. Um, the manor theater site has CG zoning again, but if it wanted to develop something like residential uses, you would develop using the NC development standards because it's in a neighborhood center activity center place type. And this is this resoning site on the OFC portion of the parcels seeking the neighborhood center zoning district. So, you'd be if they were seeking a unified development, you'd be operating under the same set of standards. Okay. Thank you. Conceivably. You good?

I'm good. Thank you. All right. Anyone else have questions? If not, do I hear a motion for the disposition of item number eight on our agenda, reszoning petition 2026-00003? Oh, like you guys were racing to dance. Here, hold on. I didn't I didn't have a microphone here. Carolyn stole it.

Okay. Having reviewed the petition and considered the consistency statement prepared by staff to approve this petition, I move that we recommend approval of petition 2026-003. Has it appears before us and the adoption of the consistency statement has it appears before us? Gaston second. That was that was swift too. It's been moved by Commissioner Caprioli and seconded by Commissioner Gaston. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Do I have a motion for us to adjourn the quickest zoning meeting that I have been in in the last six motion to