City Council Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

We have a quorum. Actually, we have more than a quorum. We'll get started. And we will begin our meeting with an invocation, expressions. Well, let's do our introductions of those at the dais first. And we'll start. Why don't we start with Council Member Masuera Arias. Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, everyone. J.D. Masuera Arias, proudly representing East Charlotte District 5.

Good evening, everyone. Malcolm Graham, District 2.

Good evening, Kimberly Owens, representing District 6.

Good evening, everyone. James Mitchell, Mayor Pro Tem. Good evening, Rob Harrington, Mayor.

Good evening, Joy Mayo, representing District 3 for Charlotte City Council. Good evening, thank you for your patience. I'm Victoria Watlington, and I have the pleasure of serving you as a member at large. Good evening, everyone. Dimple Eshmera, at large. Terry Hagler-Gray, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Billy Tons, Deputy City Clerk.

And we're going to wait just one second because I know Councilmember Driggs is doing the invocation.

He's coming. I went swimming last week. He's coming. He's coming.

He was helping me push myself.

All right, we will begin our meeting with an invocation, expressions of inspiration, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation by the council member is intended to solemnize our proceedings. We celebrate the religious diversity of our community, including those without a religious faith. Tonight, Councilman Ed Driggs will give our invocation.

So not only am I late, but I don't have a prepared invocation. So everybody bear with me. Heavenly Father, bless this city of Charlotte, North Carolina. Guide us in our efforts to make this a place that everyone can call home and where they are proud to live. Amen. Amen.

All right.

Let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

The rezoning process begins with applications submitted to the planning staff for review. There are two types of cases on the agenda, decisions and hearings. Decisions are cases for which a public hearing was previously held. No further comments. For public hearings, anyone wishing to speak is asked to see the clerk before the start of the hearing. Staff will provide a presentation, and the petitioner will have three minutes combined to present the case. The petitioner will have three minutes combined to present the case unless there are opponents signed up to speak or staff is in opposition. If there are opponents signed up to speak or staff is in opposition, the petitioner will have ten minutes to present. followed by opposition speakers who also have 10 minutes combined to present, and the petitioner then has a two-minute rebuttal. If no one is signed up to speak, staff provides a short presentation, and the public hearing may then be closed. Following public hearings, petitions go to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission. for review and recommendation, and I now turn it over to Zoning Committee Chairperson Wilton, who will introduce the Zoning Committee members and note their next meeting date.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council. My name is Douglas A. Wilton, and I am the Chairman of the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission. Allow me to introduce my fellow members of the committee. They include Melissa Gaston, Will Russell, Shawna Neely, Robin Stewart, Carolyn Millen, and Andrew Blumenthal. The Zoning Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 1st at 5.30 p.m. At that meeting, the Zoning Committee will discuss and make recommendations on the petitions that have a public hearing here tonight. The public is welcome to those meetings, but please note it is not a continuation of the public hearing that is being held here tonight. Prior to that meeting, you are welcome to contact us and provide your input. You can find contact information and information on each one of the petitions at the city's website at charlotteplanning.org. Thank you very much, and back to you, Mayor.

Thank you. Are there any deferrals or withdrawals on the agenda?

Yes, we have several deferrals that I'll review now. Item number nine, petition 2025-086 by Pensphere Development requesting deferral of their decision to September 21st. I'm number 14, petition 2024-143 by Panorama Development, requesting deferral of their hearing to September 21st. I'm number 15, petition 2026-014 by True Homes, requesting deferral of their hearing to September 21st. I'm number 16, 2026-027 by C4 Investments, Crossland Southeast, requesting deferral of hearing to September 21st. I'm number 19, petition 2026-034 by Sam Smart requesting deferral of their public hearing to September 21st. Item number 20, petition 2026-030 by Olympia and Wright requesting deferral of public hearing to September 21st. And item number 23, petition 2026-008 by CLAB DEV 6 requesting deferral of their public hearing to November 16th.

Thank you. Is there a motion for the deferrals? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Rezoning petition items three through eight of the consent agenda may be considered in one motion except for those items pulled by a council member. Please note that these petitions meet the following criteria to be on the consent agenda. Had no public opposition to the petition adhering. Staff recommends approval. Zoning committee recommends approval. And there were no changes after the zoning committee's recommendation. Are there any consent items council would like to pull for question, comment, or a separate vote? Council Member Mayfield.

Item six for comment. Thank you.

Are there any other items on the consent agenda that a council member would like to pull?

Move to approve the consent agenda, accept item six.

Second. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Okay, the consent agenda items saved for number six have been approved.

I need to read each one of them that were in the consent.

Okay, and those items are item number three, petition 2025-130 by Maruti Hotels, Inc., item number four. Petition for 2026-15-15 by KT Trading, LLC. Item 5, Petition 2026-18 by SR Mosley Properties, LLC. Item 7, Petition 2026-20-20 by Terwilliger. Pop us in item seven of petition 2026-21 by Hines. Item eight, yep. That moves us to item eight, sorry. That moves us back to item six, and we need to have a vote on the petition separately. May I have a motion to approve that petition?

So moved. Second.

Second. Um, and to adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency for each of these petition for that petition, as it appears in our agenda. Okay. Yep. Okay. Uh, council member may be comments.

Thank you, mayor. I just wanted to acknowledge that what we're looking at this 22.8, nine acres. That's located north of Moorhead and west of stone lane that this is actually an expansion. because when we've recently had conversations regarding manufacturing and logistics areas and the switching of where we have manufacturing versus where we have N1, but I do want to acknowledge that this is an expansion of a previously proved project and also acknowledge that the petitioner has agreed in writing an additional buffer area between what would be or what currently is the residential and where this particular development will start. And I believe it's like a 100-foot buffer, which is something that I think should be noted.

Any other questions or comments on Item 6? Council Member Mayer.

For the buffer, and maybe staff can answer this, is this going to be an undisturbed tree safe buffer?

So I'd have to follow Class A landscape yard requirements, which has specific planting requirements. So I'd have to go to Article 20, and I can follow up with you about specifically what those planting requirements are, but typically they're often undisturbed. But Class A is the most stringent of the planting requirements that you have in the ordinance for that 100-foot landscape yard. They also have Class B landscape yards along the other boundaries of their property, along Old Holland and Moorhead Road, and they're providing a berm along those landscape yards exceeding ordinance requirements.

I personally would like to know that part before I have that vote. Oftentimes in neighborhoods, we're having a lot of people, after they go back and clear cut and then they plant trees, it's going to take 20 or 30 years for them to be the size that they would be if we left it as an undisturbed buffer or tree safe. So that would be just my preference. I understand that's more... strict with you know adding more trees but i'm just thinking long term how are we being more thoughtful and proactive um and anticipating some of the issues that we know our residents are going to have so that they don't have to see manufacturing right next to them i mean this is an issue an issue i'm still going with with stillberry acres where yes they have a buffer but because we were not specific and intentional of having it undisturbed Buffer, those little trees aren't doing much, nor is that little fence. So I'd much rather we be proactive and do this in the front end.

Okay, any further? Council Member Johnson.

Thank you, sir. I also wanted to make sure that we specify that data centers are prohibited. We talked about that earlier. If you want to just clarify that, please. I don't think so.

Yes, sorry, telecommunications and data storage facilities are prohibited as part of the conditions of this plan. Okay, and then to piggyback off what Council Member Mayo said, can you provide additional information today? So Class A landscape yards, they have specific planting requirements. The notes of this plan don't specify that it would be undisturbed, but they have to comply with the Class A landscape yard requirements per Article 20 of the UDO, which specify the stringent densest planting requirements. So, for example, you have... You have requirements regarding shrubs as well as trees and the amount of shrubs and trees that have to occur within the amount of space. It's fairly technical. I don't know if you want me to go through it. Well, she has a concern.

So, Council Member Mayo, have you shared this concern before? No. So, this is kind of new, but Council Member Ajmer and I are thinking that if I think maybe we should defer this to think through that. That should be a condition of the rezoning, in my opinion.

And I know that this is, I think, Hendrix. Is this Hendrix? It's kind of a technical approval. But I'm willing to make the motion to defer only because this council has approved so many things with outstanding issues or questions. And then it comes back to haunt us later, i.e., the 2.5 million square feet data center in the university area. So I will make a motion to defer this. A substitute motion to defer this, to get this information, or I'm not sure. Will yes or be yes? Yeah, well, I'd like to talk to the representative, but I'll make the motion.

Is there a motion to defer?

Yes.

Is there a second to the motion to defer? Okay, any discussion on the motion to defer? Council Member Esmira and then Council Member Mayfield. Council Member Drakes.

Yes, thank you, Mayor Harrington. So this is a very intense use that's being proposed. It's going from N1A to ML2, which is manufacturing and logistics, too. So I think it makes sense for us to have a condition as part of this rezoning petition to include undisturbed buffer to Council Member Mayo's point. So just a question for the petitioner. Is there anyone here from?

Yes. Okay, good, okay. Okay, well, if they could come down.

So the question I have, would you be opposed to having the undisturbed buffer? And if yes, what are your concerns?

Good evening. Bridget Grant, land use consultant with Maureen Van Allen. Pleased to be here tonight with Greg Hartley with Accra Development. I think in combination we can answer the question. Greg has some more specifics with the design team.

Sure. So a lot of the buffer will remain undisturbed in the lower areas, but a lot of this is already pasture area. So the intent is to build the mounds towards any adjacent residential and implant those. Most of the residential is south across Moorhead Road. It's undeveloped to the west. This parcel is, like I said, an expansion of the Hendrick campus. manufacturing, a lot of race-related, also defense-related contract stuff.

So I didn't get an answer to my question. If you could just say, would you be willing to include undisturbed buffer as part of the condition of this rezoning petition?

I would have to check with Hendrick.

Okay, so I think this is where we can use this time to address the question. Would you be okay with the deferral? Is there any time pressing or sensitivity that we need to address?

I think we're fine with the deferral.

Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. So I think you have your Council Member Johnson that will work with you on the buffer. Absolutely. Thank you.

Council Member Mayfield.

Excuse me. Thank you. Actually, what I was going to do was to invite up the representatives for them to be able to answer the question. So thank you, Council Member Azmir.

Council Member Drakes.

If they're okay, I'm okay.

Okay. There has been a motion and a second to defer in discussion. All in favor of the substitute motion to defer this item, please raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. That is deferred. Takes us to item 10. Item 9 has been deferred. We are now at item 10. Item 10 is petition 2025-77 by Short Development Group LLC has had changes since the zoning committee meeting made their recommendation. Council is required to send the petition back to the zoning committee for further review unless council by a three-fourths vote of the members present determines that the nature of the modification is such that the further review is not necessary. Staff, could you please explain the changes on this petition?

Yes, so there were three changes that resulted as part of continued conversations with the community. So previously there were 40 units proposed across the site, multifamily units, and they have now decreased that to 36 units. And they have increased the number of the affordable units that are offered at 80% or less of area median income for no less than 15 years from four units previously to now six units of the 36 units. And they have also provided notes regarding retaining walls that could occur on the site and said that they'd be limited to five feet. no taller than five feet across the site and provided additional notes if they were tiered walls and such. And that's as a result, again, of continued conversations with the community.

Motion not to return to the zoning committee.

Okay. Any further discussion?

so if i can mayor i just i think i do have a bit of concern with respect to some exchange that i've seen as recently as 439 today around the precise language that will go with respect to the southern border has that been clarified can the petitioner maybe speak to that I appreciate that you said it was five feet, but there was some precise language around terracing that I just want to be very clear.

Yes, I can read you the language as it appears in the note, because it does address terracing and tiered retaining walls. So if terrace or tiered retaining walls are utilized along the southern property boundary, the combined vertical height of such walls shall not exceed five feet, as measured from the finish grade at the base of the lowest wall to the top of the uppermost wall.

Okay, so the language with respect to no more than one retaining wall, that is not addressed in the commentary that's been suggested to you?

What was the, because I'm not aware of the...

The request was that the language would read no more than one retaining wall shall be located along or adjacent to the southern property boundary or otherwise served to retain grade along the southern property boundary and such wall shall not exceed five feet in height measured vertically from finished grade at the base of the wall to the top of the wall.

So the revised site plan that we received as of just after 4 p.m., so not around 440, did not make mention of a limit of one retaining wall. It says in full proposed walls located to the south of the private alley adjacent to the southern property boundary shall be limited to a maximum of five feet measured vertically from finish grade at the base of the wall to the top of the wall. If terraced or tiered retaining walls are utilized along the southern property boundary the combined vertical height of all such walls shall not exceed five feet measured from finished grade at the base of the lowest wall to the top of the uppermost wall okay so colleagues i just want to speak to this one very briefly i would be interested if it's appropriate could i hear from the petitioner with respect to this language that's been added is that can i get that confirmation

This has been a really contentious issue because the petitioners own this property for a good deal of time and has been ongoing discussions with the neighborhood. And the neighborhood has some very valid concerns that I've really been trying to listen to. I've walked the site. I would like to hear your response with respect to this modified language.

Good afternoon, Council. Paul Pinnell with Urban Design Partners representing Short Development. Apologies for not wearing a sport coat. I was not prepared to speak today. Yes, so we have been having ongoing conversations with the community members to the south of this project regarding height of retaining walls, making sure that they're not too imposing on the site. Unfortunately, the language, the change of one singular retaining wall on site did not realize that email request had come out and did not realize that until I actually spoke to one of the community members here just a little while ago. But given the site, incorporating language into this particular development condition for limiting one wall along the south property line is certainly doable. That's fine.

Okay. So again, thank you. I appreciate that. So colleagues, I will simply say this has been one that I've been back and forth on. I will be voting in favor of it. It is not without some consternation on my part. I've walked the site. I've appreciated that the community does have some concerns. I also have a situation that we're all very cognizant of, which is an absence of housing choice and optionality in District 6. The petitioner has attempted to meet some of the concerns that we've raised, has ably done so with regard to the back wall, that southern line, has done so with respect to some element of affordability, and so I will be voting in favor of this petition.

Thank you. I just wanted to highlight the work that Council Member Owens has done on this project. I've been very impressed with you know, the conversations that she's had with the neighborhood and with the developer, even adding some affordability, I think is a really great asset. So I just wanted to commend you on that, Council Member Owens. Okay.

Is there any further discussion or comment or question on the motion not to send the changes back to Zoning Committee?

So moved.

It has been moved and seconded. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. We have it. We have the three quarters. We have unanimous, I believe. So now is there a motion to approve item 10, petition 2025-77, and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own?

So moved. Second.

Any further discussion on that? All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes. Item 11 on the agenda, petition 2026-001 by 2026. typo there, by MPV Properties and Mission Properties has also had changes since the Zoning Committee made its recommendation. Council is required to send the petition back to the Zoning Committee for further review unless counseled by a three-quarter vote of all members present determines that the nature of the modification is such that further review is not necessary. Staff, could you please explain the changes to this petition, item number 11?

Yes. This petition, since any committee's recommendation... reduce its site acreage from 12.67 to 8.56. That is just to exclude the rail right-of-way that was previously in the petition area. They also revised a conditional note to commit to that the proposed co-working space and retail that would be accessible to residents would be open at the time of certificate of occupancy and would remain operable for a minimum of two years. We believe those changes are minor and do not warrant additional review by zoning committee.

Is there a motion not to send the changes back to the Zoning Committee?

So moved.

Second. Any further discussion or comment about the motion not to send back to the Zoning Committee? All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? And now is there a motion to approve Item 11, Petition 2026-1, and adopt the Zoning Committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the Council's own?

So moved.

Second. Any further discussion there? Council Member Esmir.

Thank you, Mayor Harrington. Staff, could you please go over all the changes that were made to this rezoning petition after the hearing?

For 2026-001?

Yes, especially in regards to the noise buffering or the noise reduction window materials that's being used.

Yes, just a moment. I apologize. So they, like I said, those are the changes that we received since any committee, but they also did reduce unit count from 176 to 170 units following the public hearing. And as you noted, there was a conditional note regarding noise. And this was that building facades facing the railroad right of way will use noise reducing windows.

So I appreciate the changes that's been made to address all the concerns that were raised at the dais at the hearing. I had an opportunity to speak with the petitioner, Bailey, and I also had an opportunity to visit the site because I was concerned with the staff's concerns around this site being many, being a neighborhood adjacent to manufacturing site. And the petitioner mentioned how there is a natural buffer at this site, along with their investing in making sure that they'll be protected from the noise adjacent to the manufacturing site. So I appreciate the changes that's been made to this petition, and I look forward to supporting it.

Okay. Council Member Grant.

I think enough has been said. Let's vote.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. We've had discussion on the motion to not send this item back to the Zoning Committee. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Okay, is there now a motion to approve item 11, which is 2026-1, and adopt the Zoning Committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own?

Okay.

So moved.

Is there a second? Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? All right. That takes us to item 12. Is there a motion to approve item 12, which is petition 2026-009, and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council zone?

So moved.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Raise your hand. Any opposed? No? All right. Item 12 passes. And finally, item 13. Is there a motion to approve item 13, which is petition 2026-017, and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own? Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Any discussion on item 13? Council Member Mayfield.

Thank you. So there's... been changes on this that I would like staff to go over because what I'm looking at shows that it's been reduced from 7.85 down to 1.2, two, as well as some other changes. If you don't mind going over those.

Yes. So following public hearing, but before zoning committee, the petitioner worked with staff to identify some areas where they could get alignment with staff's recommendation. They reduced the acreage from 7.85 to 1.22, eliminating the portion of the parcel that was behind the single-family lots, if you remember the previous configuration. And they also noted the reduction of units or total potential units from nine to four units, and that it would be limited to a product type of only single-family detached, whereas previously they said it could include one duplex. Yeah, one duplex dwelling. And they also noted minimum front setback to be 27 feet, rear setback of 40 feet, and maximum height of 40 feet in alignment with N1A zoning standards.

And this one wasn't part of a conversation to send back to committee? We're able to just identify these amended changes and move forward?

Those changes were made prior to zoning committee's recommendations. The zoning committee reviewed all those changes as well. Thank you for the clarification.

Any other questions on item number 13? All in favor of the motion, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes unanimously. That moves us to public hearings. And on public hearings, I'm going to recuse myself as mayor from presiding over the public hearings for item 17, which is petition 2025-11, and item 22, which is petition 2025-123. Due to my law partner's representation of the petitioners, Mayor Pro Tem Mitchell will preside over those two hearings. And I'm going to step.

So motion to recuse Mayor Harrington.

Second. Is there a second?

It's a recusal, not an excusal.

He doesn't need a motion.

So we don't have to do the motion and second. Thank you. All right.

But Mayor and Council, I would like to make a motion to move those items 17 and 22 to the beginning of the public hearing. Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor of the motion, if I may raise your hand. Okay. Very good. So now to the public hearing portion of our zoning. Item number 17 was on the petition 2025-011 by Garrison Road Holdings, LLC. Location approximately 4.51 acres. Located on the east side of Garrison Road, south of West Boulevard and west of I-85. Condition zoning N1A. Opposed zoning ML-1. And city clerk, I think we have two speakers. Sign up to speak. Okay. Okay. First speaker, Mr. John Comey.

So this site, I'll speak first. I'm sorry.

Go right ahead.

So this site is just over four and a half acres along the east side of Garrison Road, south of West Boulevard, west of I-485 in an area where we have quite a few industrial entitlements as well as some industrial uses. As you can see, there's industrial use just to the east. East of this site here, and if you're familiar with the area, further to the northwest would be the River District. It's currently zoned Neighborhood 1A, and it's within the Airport Noise Disclosure Overlay. They are proposing to go to the Manufacturing Logistics 1 District, also still within that Airport Noise Disclosure Overlay. The policy map does call for the Neighborhood 1 place type, so this proposal is considered out of alignment with that policy map recommendation. The petition is considered inconsistent with the goals and policies of the West Outer Area Plan. And again, not in alignment with that current policy map recommendation. Does not directly facilitate priority goals. And here's a review of the minor map amendment criteria. Again, this is criteria that we look at when considering any place type change or any petition that would change the current place type from one to another. So it's currently neighborhood one. It would go to manufacturing logistics if this were approved. So it meets some of the minor map amendment criteria that we would look for. Considering that it is adjacent to existing manufacturing logistics, but it is adjacent to neighborhood one Which is not preferred for the site and it meets some of the locational criteria that we're also looking for Staff doesn't recommend approval of this petition in its current form. We think it could be generally compatible with the surrounding land uses. Again, there's a lot of industrial entitlements and uses already out in this area and directly abutting the site. But it also does have neighborhood one zoning directly adjacent to it. So we think it would be better pursued as a conditional rezoning petition so that they could prohibit uses and potentially also just prescribe or opt into stricter buffer standards than the ordinance typically requires, just so that they're being more sensitive to that neighborhood one police type that they are surrounded by. And that would be bringing them into alignment with specific community area plan policies that we look at, such as environmental justice policy, and just environmental justice policy 11 within those area plans. So I've talked to the petitioner team already. I think they already have some plans to address these changes. So we look forward to seeing what a revised petition looks like on this site. And I'll be happy to take questions following petitioner comments.

Thank you, Holly.

Mr. Carmichael. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of city council and the zoning committee, I'm John Carmichael. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, Garrison Road Holding, LLC. It's good to see everyone. As Holly stated, the site's about four and a half acres. It's located on the east side of Garrison Road between Swift Road and Dixie River Road. This is an aerial of the site. It's kind of washed out, but you can see it outlined in yellow. The site's currently zone N1A, and it's in the Airport Noise Disclosure Overlay District, as Holly indicated. The parcels surrounding and nearby are zone N1A. There's some MX2, A&DO a little further to the west, and then immediately to the south. It's a 150-acre site that's zone I1CD, once again in the Airport Noise Disclosure Overlay District. The petitioner is actually developing a light industrial business park on that adjacent south to the site. requesting the site be rezoned from N1A, A&DO to ML1, A&DO to accommodate uses allowed in the ML1 zoning district. However, as Holly indicated, we will be converting this rezoning request to a Tier 1 conditional rezoning request. And the Tier 1 conditional rezoning request will prohibit various uses on the site. There's a list in excess of 20 that the planes have provided to us. But one of the uses that would be excluded is a data center. We also work with the planning staff on the buffer concerns that they raised with me last week. We're happy to do that as well, and we will take care of that, hopefully in advance of the zoning committee meeting or hopefully in advance of this Thursday when we need to submit our documents back to planning. This is the approved rezoning plan for the adjacent site. I just want to show it to you just to show you how it would relate, the rezoning site would relate to the existing site, excuse me, the site to the south that's being developed as a light industrial business park. The rezoning site is mainly to the north and will be incorporated into this development. We will once again work with planning this week to convert this to a tier one conditional zoning district. We met with the Steel Creek Residents Association, the Laney's Committee of the Steel Creek Residents Association on July 14th, and they advised that they are not opposed to the rezoning request, and that was before the conversation started about converting it to a Tier 1 conditional rezoning request. Happy to answer any questions that you may have. We appreciate your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper. We have actually one more speaker on this topic. Is Mesa Flippy? He's with the petitioner. Okay. So you don't know the speaker? Yes, sir. Okay. So I'm going to give the Council Member Mayo.

Yeah. Hi. Same question I just asked earlier about the undisturbed tree save and buffer. Just thinking and looking at N1 is on the other side of that.

Can you show the map where that is, please?

Yeah, that's great. Is that something you're amenable to?

After hearing the conversation and after talking to Holly last week, we'll definitely look at that and let you know. We haven't really looked at it in any detail, but we can look at that and we will let you know in a very timely fashion.

Okay. I mean, I think that would just be helpful, particularly as we're thinking through if there is future single family or housing issues. adjacent to that based on the current zoning for those. So thank you for sharing.

You're welcome. And that would be presumably along the northern and eastern boundary, undisturbed there?

Yes.

Gotcha. Happy to look at that.

Does the motion close the public hearing? So moved.

Second.

Moving prop to second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Thank you all. Thank you. The next rezoning petition is item number 22, 2025-123 by Sanders Partnership, LLC. Location, approximately 61.26 acres, located east of Kelly Road, north of Pleasant Grove Road, and west of Western Woods Lane. Current zone is N1A. Proposed zone is N1D. Okay. Sir, would you like to give us an overview of this petition?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Good evening, everyone. Petition 2025-123 is a 61.26 acre site located on Kelly Road at the intersection of Pleasant Grove Road. Site's currently zoned N1A, neighborhood 1A. Opposed zoning is N1D-CD, neighborhood 1D conditional. 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type for the site. The plan is in alignment with the neighborhood one-place type. The rezoning proposal calls for the development of up to 212 single-family detached units, and the minimum lot size will be 4,800 square feet, which is in excess of the requirement for the N1D district. There's three points of access into the development from Kelly Road, and two of which will include right and left turn lanes on Kelly Road, 25-foot Class B landscape yard along the Southern property boundaries and a greenway easement and three acre Park site will be dedicated to Mecklenburg County The plan is in alignment with the policy map and it is consistent with the goals and policies of the West middle community area plan staff recommends approval this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and environment the proposed plan meets the place type 5 pt5 criteria for the community area plan and the PT five criteria are utilized to ensure new developments within the neighborhood. One place type fits existing neighborhood patterns, focusing on lot size street furniture, parcel location within a block. The plan also meets goal seven of the 2040 plan integrated natural and built environments by dedicating that greenway easement and three acre park site to Mecklenburg County. I'm happy to take any questions following Mr. Carmichael's presentation.

Thank you, sir. City Clerk, I see we have two speakers assigned to speak. Now, John, is Mark with you? He is. Thank you. Mr. Carmichael, go right ahead.

Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of council, and the zoning committee, I'm John Carmichael here on behalf of the petitioner, Sanders Partnership, LLC. With me tonight, as Mayor Pro Tem indicated, is Mark Kime. The site's about 61 acres east side of Kelly Road between Pleasant Grove Road and Weston Woods Lane. This is an aerial of the site. It's outlined in green. It's tough to see. The site is currently zoned N1A. The zoning of the parcels surrounding the site are a combination or primarily N1A, and then you've got some MX2 Innovative here across Kelly Road from the site. The request is to rezone the site to the N1D CD zoning district to accommodate the development of a residential community that would contain a maximum of 212 single-family detached homes The overall density of the development would be just under 3 1⁄2 units per acre. Some of the elements of the rezoning plan include a minimum 25-foot-wide Class B landscape yard along the southern boundary of the site next to adjacent existing single-family homes. That was a request to the community at, I believe, one of the first community meeting we had. There'll be a variable-width landscape yard on the site's frontage on Kelly Road. As Max indicated, a minimum three-acre portion of the site would be dedicated and conveyed to the county for a future public park, and then a minimum 100-foot-wide Greenway easement would also be dedicated and conveyed to Mecklenburg County. It's consistent with the policy map, the request is. This is the rezoning plan. This is Kelly Road here to the west of the site, and then this is Pleasant Grove. the three access points from kelly road there'd be a left turn lane installed here into this access point and then there'd be a right hand turn lane installed here at the southernmost access point this is the area in which the public park would be located the greenway easement would be over here uh... this is the twenty five foot wide buffer that would be established next to those existing single family homes and then this is the variable width landscape yard along the site's frontage on Kelly Road. We did have two community meetings. We had one on January 7 of this year, and as recently as January 30th, we had the second community meeting. Adjustments were made in response to comments received. At the first community meeting, we appreciate the planning staff's favorable recommendation. We will work with the planning staff this week to address those few remaining outstanding issues. I want to thank Mayor Pro Tem Mitchell and Council Member Mayfield for attending one or more of the community meetings that we had on this resuming request. We're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Council Member Mayo.

Thank you. Can we go to slide 124? Act 124. Or wait, no, no, 122, sorry. Yeah. Yeah, no, no, that one. No, 123, sorry. Yeah, sorry. So I have a couple questions. First, when you talk about the public park site in the Greenway easement, is that currently in the CIP for Park and Rec? I mean, do you have like an anticipated timeframe when that would even come to fruition?

I'm not aware of that. They asked us to do this, the parking rack. That was one of the comments to the rezoning process.

Is that possible for you to ask them? I'm just curious. I've had a couple of those, even the Morris Chapel data center. There was something similar, and I'm just wondering when these kind of things would actually occur. I mean, it's good we're land banking. My other question is, what would be the height of the buildings that you're proposing?

Well, they're single-family homes. Oh, single-family. Maximum height of 40 feet.

Okay, so two stories. Yeah. All right.

Let me just add a couple of comments and thank the Sanders partner, the LLC, and John, and for the neighbors. Council, if you can remember, this started almost two years ago. This was a landfill that was going to be built. Going to be built right near the resident. And so two years later, not only have we changed our policy to prevent landfill from being built beside residential, but more importantly, we're at a good place now After two meetings, the neighborhood is very supportive of this result. So I just want to thank everyone for hanging there, including the residents of the neighborhood who was very supportive. Nan, thank you for your engagement.

Any other comments? Alone, just me. Okay.

Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved. Second.

Second. All those in favor, raise your hand. Okay, great. Thank you all. Item 18, and I'm looking around waiting for the mayor to make his grand entrance, okay? It's on the petition, 2026-031 by Charlotte Pike and Foundry Location, 0.48 acres located south of Morvane Lane, west of Providence Road and east of, how do you say that, Hemmage?

Hemmage Road? Hermitage.

Hermitage Road and District 6. Current zoning is N1C and proposed zoning is NCCD. Staff is not recommending this approve this petition at this time. And staff, are you going to give us a presentation?

Yes, I'll just wait for our PowerPoint. This site is just under half an acre, located south of Moravian Lane, west of Providence Road and east of Hermitage Road, in an area where we have single family uses along this particular street, but it's located just west of a range of commercial uses along Providence Road. Currently, it's in neighborhood 1C, and they are requesting you go to neighborhood center conditional. The policy map calls for the neighborhood one place type. It is directly against that neighborhood center place type to the east. The proposal itself is for the development of a surface parking lot with approximately 25 spaces. They do provide a 25-foot class B landscape yard along the perimeter of the site. And in their site plan labels, they note that they would exceed ordinance requirements in the planting standards. And they also note that they would work to preserve existing mature trees and evergreen hedges on the site. provides full movement access point from Arabian Lane, eight foot planting strip and six foot sidewalk along the public frontage, and also commits to a potential pedestrian path on the southern portion of the site that would connect to the Charlotte Pipe and Foundry site, if feasible. This is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the south inner area plan. It's not in alignment with the policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type. It doesn't directly facilitate any priority goals or additional comprehensive plan goals. It would change the policy map to neighborhood activity center if approved, so we worked it through that minor map movement criteria. It does meet the minimum acreage criteria because it connects to the adjacent neighborhood center place type. And it meets some locational criteria. However, it's contextually proposing a surface parking lot within an N1 and N2 corridor, or a neighborhood one corridor, realistically. And it's not a preferred contextual landscape for that use. Again, we consider this inconsistent with the goals and policies of the South Area Plan. Just given the development proposal for a parking lot where this site is abutting single-family uses and some institutional uses, we don't think that's an appropriate location for such an application of an auto-centric type use. It could potentially service overflow parking for nearby commercial use. commercial uses and the petition does commit to preserving existing vegetation where feasible and also proposes additional standards that go beyond ordinance requirements in regards to the landscape yards. But the surface parking lot just on a whole policy wise doesn't meet what we would look for in the neighborhood one context that it sits in. And I'll be happy to take questions following petitioner comments.

Questions for staff? All right, I believe we have four people who are on our list to speak for the petitioner. Colin Brown, Brittany Lins, Cam Faison, and Allison Merriman are all speaking.

Well, if necessary.

Okay.

So ten minutes. Mr. Mayor, council members, any committee members, Colin Brown on behalf of Charlotte Pipe and Foundry. I'm sure most of you are familiar with Charlotte Foundry, one of our greatest local homegrown businesses that is still a major player in pipe manufacturing, cast iron and PVC around the nation. As you know, their factory for many, many years was located until about five years ago downtown, but we still have Charlotte Pipe's headquarters on Randolph Road, and their product knowledge facility is located on Providence Road. So thanks, Holly, for the overview of the petition, and unfortunately we don't have staff support. We've worked with staff. I think we've done about everything we can do to get them comfortable, and I know that people are not excited about a surface parking lot. But we are talking about an area of town where parking is very precious. What makes this unique is Charlotte Pipe and Foundry's product knowledge building is located here on Province Road. This is a facility that Charlotte Pipe uses. They bring in clients from all over the country to come and learn about their product, how to use their product, how to assemble it. So they come in from all over. So it's not a heavy traffic parking use, but there is a desire to have some additional parking in the area. And so here, again, here's the product knowledge facility. That's not subject to the zoning. The zoning is this interesting parcel here in green. It is a vacant lot on Moravian Lane. So it certainly presented an opportunity to find some parking to support Charlotte pipes use. And then as we started to talk with the neighbors, as I mentioned, no one gets excited about a parking lot, right? And certainly in this part of Charlotte, everyone's very concerned about development. So Charlotte Pipe reached out very early. I think we invited all the neighbors on Moravian Lane to come to the product knowledge building to meet with us to talk about the future of this vacant lot, what would it become. As we talked with the neighbors, frankly, I think they acknowledged, well, gosh, if anything's going to happen here, this is a pretty good fit for us. There is Little Church on the Lane, which has a robust pre-K class that I understand is very high traffic, and the Little Church could also use some additional parking. So there's certainly discussions between Little Church, this important institutional use that's been there for many, many, many years, and Charlotte Pipe about sharing some of that. So there became a positive community conversation. There was enough community support from the neighboring homeowners that we thought we would go ahead and file this petition. even though we knew staff would have hesitations. But there's a look at it. Again, it is a vacant lot now. As Holly mentioned, the site would have robust landscaping and buffering. We have areas that would be tree saved, predicting some existing trees. and then supplementing that with additional plantings. I've moved through here pretty quickly, happy to answer any questions. As Holly points out, if you can see the plant here, we are in N1, which is why staff is not supporting us, but we are directly adjacent to a commercial place type next door. We think this serves as a nice buffer. I think the neighbors on that street think the same. Councilmember Owens, I know you were able to attend our official community meeting, so you could hear some of that feedback. We have been asked by the neighbors to try and address some problems. There are some significant stormwater impacts on the site, not caused by us, caused by other development, but there is an opportunity to install a new stormwater pipe through our site to take care of, to solve some existing problems. We have committed to that. Those are commitments in our zoning, as well as the more robust landscaping and planting. Additionally, at the community meeting, we talked about concerns about lighting. Charlotte Pipe has added a commitment that all lighting will be shielded from adjacent properties, down leave directed at pedestrian scale, and have zero foot candle measurement at the property line. We've also provided some renderings. So again, on this parcel, as you can see, There are 25 parking spaces, but a great deal of the site will be buffering trees, protection of existing trees. And so I think that opportunity to really address a need, again, no one gets excited about parking, but it's a need, especially in this area. So I'm hopeful that with our community support, you all, and happy to have further conversations with you all between now and when we come see you next month for a decision. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay, just before we get to Council, Holly, staff, any rebuttal comments?

We don't provide a rebuttal.

All right, we'll start with Council Member Mayo and then Council Member Mayfield.

Thank you. Colin, quick question. Have y'all thought of using a different type of pervious pavement? So just when you mentioned that there are already some existing stormwater issues on the site, have y'all thought of using more innovative products that would maybe minimize that instead of just traditional asphalt?

We have. Allison Merriman with Land Design is here if you have detailed questions, but that's certainly something we're talking through with the neighbors as we talk about. There's some very real issues with this commercial, and so we're trying to find the most effective system to handle not only what we're creating, but some of the others that is being evaluated.

Okay. When will we know more about that?

We'll continue looking at that. Allison, I don't know if you've got... I'm happy to get you, you know, to tell you, hey, that's an option or not before we're here next month.

Yeah, I'm just wondering about cost, if it's cost-effective for y'all to do that. But I do think it would be an interesting idea when we're thinking about environmentalism and thinking through, like, our UDO and how can we be more proactive again. If we know there's already stormwater issues there, instead of just adding, you know, concrete, that's just going to have more...

water issues i don't put alice on the spot uh that we are working on it and i'll have an answer before we see you again all right thank you council member mayfield thank you mr mayor mr brown so because i was listening to this in the back what where the proposal is is for a surface overflow parking lot

It is for 25 parking spaces, yes, surface parking spaces. I don't know if I'd call them overflow, but yes, additional parking.

So the way we have the language written is that it's a surface overflow parking lot. So it's a couple of things that I'm wondering. What type of vehicle will be coming to and from that parking lot if that's the parking lot when we think about not only traffic but also weight that's on some of the roads because it's listed as A surface overflow parking lot serving an offsite business with principal parking uses are only appropriate, which one wanted to challenges the staff has that is only appropriate at the edges. So I want to get an idea of this is like, say an example during the golf match at quail hollow people park at south park and then there's a shuttle that takes them to and from, is it that type of anticipation?

No, that is not what's anticipated. Okay. And I'll say these would be passenger vehicles, not large heavy trucks. What works is the proximity to Charlotte Pipe's main office here. There's an alley that exists. They can walk.

So that's the anticipation is that employees will park there for overflow parking and walk through the path.

That's correct. Now, we have had conversations with the neighborhood about There is great demand for parking, and could Little Church use that? And yes, that is part of the discussion. And the neighbors have said, well, what if it's abused? You know, what if everyone starts parking? And Charlotte Pipe has said, well, at some point, we might have to gate it, you know, if it's abused. But we would like to have, you know, we're hopeful that with the relationships in the neighborhood, with the church could use that on Sundays when Charlotte Pipe does not need it. So it could fill several niches, and I think that's why the community appreciates, you know, some extra space.

So what I would ask the petitioners to consider, I necessarily wouldn't support a gate. I could see, since there is a need for overflow parking, whether it's for a church event or even for some of the restaurants that are by, having access to that, but to create a space that is only going to be accessible to a select group would be concerning to me versus if it's going to be public parking for 25 Monday through Friday for the business hours, but then after six o'clock or on the weekends, or if there's an event knowing that there's access to overflow parking, they'll figure out the details. I wouldn't necessarily have a challenge with that. I just wanted to make sure that once the employees park, they're trying to figure out how they would get from their building. from their parking to their building. Cause again, we got a hundred plus degree weather out here. Don't necessarily want anyone passing out along the path when our winter does come. If it comes for two weeks, we might get five inches of snow. We also have had tremendous rainstorms that have come through. So that's, I was just trying to get an idea of there is a shuttle. If so, what's the turning in and out? for a shuttle service, just seeing if that was something that was considered.

Our site, just to be clear, there's a path right here to the Charlotte Pipe building. So they have almost direct access.

Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Owens.

Thank you, Mayor. So I have walked the site on my own because obviously it's in my district. It's an area that I'm very familiar with. I appreciate the questions of council members, particularly the thoughtful questions out of council member Mayo around some sort of a pervious service. I will say that one of the challenges in Myers Park has candidly been the age of the infrastructure there. one of the oldest neighborhoods in town, we often do have infrastructure that is not kept pace with where we are with some of the sudden storms that come up and I'm very appreciative of that. I'm also very appreciative that we have some tight roads back there and we have some waiting times for parents who are picking up children and those sorts of things. So I'm very hopeful that I'm going to see a lot of collaboration, particularly around the lines of what Council Member Mayfield was talking about at those times when it is not necessary for it to be used for employees or for folks who are visiting. the Charlotte Pipe and Foundry to have that more open to parking uses during the weekend and in the evenings. So I am right now cautiously optimistic that this will continue to progress along some community benefits that will really present this in a little bit more exciting light because you are right, I don't get real jazzed about a surface parking lot, but if you can make it a little bit better, I can be amenable. So thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Johnson.

I'll work with the representative. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments from council?

I call to close the hearing. Second.

All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Okay, items 19 and 20 have been deferred, so we move to item 21, which is petition 2026-37 by Historical Excelsior, Inc., is approximately 0.88 acres located west of Beatty's Ford Road, south of Sanders Avenue, and east of Campus Street. in Councilmember Graham's district. The site is currently zoned Neighborhood Center and Neighborhood 1-C, and the proposed zoning is Community Activity Center 1, Exception, and Neighborhood 2-C, Conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues. There are no speakers signed up against this petition. The petitioner team will have three minutes to speak following staff presentation.

Staff. Yes, good evening. Petition 2026037 is a proposed rezoning of approximately nine-tenths of an acre on the west side of Beatty's Ford Road, south of the intersection with Sanders Avenue. The site is currently zoned NC, neighborhood center, along Beatty's Ford Road and N1C at the rear of the property. The proposed zoning is CAC1EX, community activity center one exception for the majority of the site, and N2CCD, neighborhood 2C conditional, along the western property boundary. The majority of the proposed zoning is in alignment with the adopted neighborhood center place type. However, a small portion of the site along Sanders Avenue is designated as neighborhood one place type. And the proposed CACEX and N2CCD portions of the site are not in alignment with that adopted place type. The proposal calls for the reconstruction of the historic Excelsior Club, including indoor live performance venue, nightclub, restaurant, bar, and community center uses. The N2C CD neighborhood two conditional zone portion of the site shall remain vacant, but it will be utilized as potential tree save area and or landscape yard. and the maximum building height is limited to 40 feet. The proposal is an exception EX request. An EX conditional rezoning is a request to modify quantitative zoning standards in exchange the petitioner agrees to provide at least two public benefits from two of the three categories of sustainability, city improvement, or public amenities. The primary driver of this exception are the required separation distances for live performance venues and nightclubs from neighborhood one place type and the architectural elements of the building. The requested exception provisions include a reduction in setbacks, reduction in ground floor transparency, a reduction in the number of prominent entrances, and modified signage to recreate the historic character of the Excelsior Club. In addition, the proposal calls for the reduction of separation requirements from neighborhood one place type increased parking and modifications of the sanders avenue street cross section in exchange the petitioner will provide a city improvement and that will be to replace the existing washington heights neighborhood identification sign with a new sign along badies ford road and to reconstruct sidewalk ramp at the intersection of Sanders Avenue and Beatty's Ford Road to meet ADA standards and also public amenity by increasing the required on-site open space and provide additional public open space. The plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the West inner community area plan and staff recommends approval this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to site and building design. Plan proposes the reconstruction of the Excelsior Club, which is a significant historic landmark for the neighborhood and city. Re-establishing the historical use creates a community gathering space and community center. The site is located along the future Links Gold Line extension, and the petition commits to making pedestrian improvements and increasing the amount of public open space in the area. I'm happy to take any questions following the petitioner's presentation.

There are speakers. signed up for the petitioner. There are three minutes. Please identify yourself.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council, members of the zoning committee. My name is Bridget Grant. I'm a land use consultant with Warren Van Allen. Pleased to be here tonight on behalf of Tim Sineba and Sean Kennedy with the Historical Excelsior. Staff did a fabulous job on their presentation. I know many of you are very familiar with the efforts that have been taking place on this site for some time. So we're pleased to be here tonight with staff support and with no speakers in opposition. This rezoning is really just to address a nonconformity that was established with the adoption of the UDO, and we're working to rebuild a building on the site that was there for over 80 years. So we're happy to answer any questions and appreciate the time.

Great questions from council members for either the staff or for the petitioners. Council Member Graham.

No question, just a comment. I'm so pleased that we are here and there's so much activity around the BFR, Beatty's Ford Road, and certainly the Historic Excelsior Club. I was at the Stell's Awards this weekend and talking to Shirley Caesar and she was telling me that she performed there and was wondering what was happening with the construction as she drove off and saw the demo site and I told her. Again, rich in history, tradition, legacy for the corridor, and certainly the rezoning is, again, a step in the right direction of getting it constructed and back in service for the community. And obviously everyone along the corridor is extremely excited about the project, extremely excited about the pace that is picking up on it, and can feel the excitement. And so maybe in a couple of years, if Stella comes back, We can have some good gospel music down there as well. Thank you.

Great. Council member Mayfield.

Ditto. Move to close the hearing.

Are there any other questions coming from council? All right. There's been a motion to close the hearing and a second. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. We have covered item 22. Item 23 is deferred. That takes us to item 24. Just petition 2026-11. That was item 21 that we just did.

Yeah, and 22 was covered while I was away. Right. Thank you. And 23 has been deferred. So item 24.

Petition 2026-11 by Tribute Companies Inc. is approximately 2.2 acres, located south of North Tryon Street, west of Caldwell Road, and north of Lempire Lane in Councilmember Johnson's district. The site is currently zoned multi-family, residential, conditional, and the proposed zoning is neighborhood center, conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues. There are no speakers signed up against this petition. The petitioner team will have three minutes to speak following staff's presentation, which will be now.

Thank you. This site is just over two acres along the south side of North Tryon Street near the county line in an area where we have a lot of residential entitlements slowly coming online. And as you can see, there's some single family here. We also have a lot of multifamily along this corridor. Not so much commercial uses, which is why we'll get into the intent of this petition. Currently zoned for R12 multifamily conditional. That's as a result of a 2021 petition. They're requesting to go to neighborhood center conditional. So that's just for a portion of this larger R12 site. You can see here that actually extends a little further down. The 2040 policy map calls for the neighborhood two place type. So this request for the neighborhood center district is considered out of alignment with that place type recommendation. The proposal is for a little under 23,000 square feet of non-residential uses. allowed in the neighborhood center district. So that can include retail, restaurant, personal service uses. Generally think about neighborhood commercial type establishments. It does prohibit auto-oriented type uses and other uses that just wouldn't be compatible given the residential context. Provides a 12 foot wide shared use path along the frontage. And at the intersection of North Highland Street and Hudspeth Road, it commits to a northbound U-turn bulb. And provides 25 foot class B landscape yard to the adjacent N1 properties. and also commits to an enhanced common open space. It is consistent with the goals and policies of the Northeast Middle Area Plan. It's not in alignment, like I said, with that policy map recommendation, but it does further a priority goal of the area plan. As a result of the neighborhood center request and its non-residential uses that it's proposing, it could help facilitate the 10-minute neighborhoods goal by increasing access to daily goods and services. In consideration of the minor map amendment criteria, this petition doesn't meet the minimum acreage that we would look for, but it does meet all of that locational criteria for the neighborhood center place type designation, and it has the preferred adjacencies for the neighborhood center designation. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of some outstanding issues. We think that modifying the previously approved petition 221.150 with this new NC request helps provide non-residential uses in an area where it's dominated by single-family and multi-family residential uses. And this could introduce, again, a potential for 10-minute neighborhoods with the introduction of potential neighborhood commercial-type establishments and a park-once-type scenario where you have residential uses already coming online with the 2021 petition entitlements. And I'll be happy to take any questions following petitioner comments.

OK. Commissioner, Mr. Brown. Mr. Mayor, council members, any committee members, Colin Brown on behalf of the Commissioner of Tribute Companies. Tribute is a large developer in the University City area, a lot of multifamily apartments, and we entitled this for them for multifamily apartments a few years ago, and they've kind of watched what's happening in the market. They see now demand for other goods and services to support not only their residents but some others, so they've asked to go back and kind of amend their old petition, take a couple apartment buildings off, and put in some retail office buildings. That's been very well received by the District 4 Coalition. Had good feedback on that. We had a couple attendees at the community meeting. Council Member Johnson, it was a few months back. I think you did attend as well. So happy to have staff support. We think it's a good modification. Council Member Johnson.

Are there any exclusions?

Um, there are, we've limited to like no drive through restaurants. Uh, we've kind of gone through with staff. It's, you know, they're really seeing this as kind of small office and neighborhoods serving retail. So we've eliminated, I don't think data centers are ever allowed in that district if that's where you're going. Um, uh, and then we've also excluded other just kind of like drive through uses and things like that.

Okay. I don't have any more questions. We can talk offline if I do move to close. Second.

Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right, thank you. It takes us to item 25, petition 2026-26, by Nativity of the Holy Virgin Orthodox Church. It is approximately 2.81 acres, located north of Mineral Springs Road, east of North Graham Street, and west of Century Oaks Lane in Councilmember Johnson's district. The site is currently zoned Neighborhood 2B, and the proposed zoning is Neighborhood 2A. Staff recommends approval of this petition. There are no speakers signed up against this petition. The petitioner team will have three minutes to speak following staff's presentation. Good evening.

The site is about 2.8 acres. It's on the north side of Mineral Springs Road, east of North Graham Street and west of Neal Road. The site is developed with a religious institution, and it's surrounded by residential uses, single family to the east and south, multifamily to the west and north. Current zoning is N2B with a proposed zoning of N2A. This is a conventional petition. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood two place type. The petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the north, middle, and outer community area plan and in alignment with the policy map recommendation for the neighborhood two place type. The petition does not directly facilitate any of the priority goals for the north, middle, and outer community area plan or directly facilitate any comprehensive plan goals. There are no outstanding issues. Staff recommends approval of this petition. The proposed zoning represents a slight decrease in intensity over the existing N2B entitlements. The N2A district permits religious institutions and their accessory uses. I will turn it over to the petitioner team.

Great.

Petitioner David Berg.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. Uh, thank you council member Johnson for coming to our community meeting for this petition. Uh, the church is seeking to build a new sanctuary. And so that's why the property needs to be sound down zone from into B to into a, because the into a district works better with religious, uh, uh, facilities. And so I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. My question's actually for staff. Thank you. So I'm looking at, and I know this is for, this one may not impact school value, but I noticed the school percentage is 120% utilization. So I have my own cumulative impacts spreadsheet that I have. And at some point in the past chambers high school was up to, it looks like 137% that the number was given to us. I have a spreadsheet from Alexis, um, or city staff person. So I want to know how the school impact is calculated, not necessarily on this petition, but what information are we using? Because we've been given, and I don't have the petition number, but we've been given petitions in the past where the school impact was already higher than 120% for chambers.

So with each petition, as we're preparing our pre-hearing staff analysis, we reach out to CMS. We get their latest data. So we can do some additional research and coordination with CMS to determine exactly why that number changed. But if it was a different school year, it would be a different calculation based on what the enrollment might be that particular year, how students might have been shifted with the different schools, depending on enrollment.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Move to close. Thank you.

Second. Any questions on the motion to close? Any opposition? All right. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. That takes us to item 26. Petition 2026-28 by Barnhart Manufacturing Company is approximately 21.25 acres, located east of Hawthorne Lane, north of Central Avenue, and west of Pecan Avenue in Councilmember Anderson's district. The site is currently zoned Manufacturing and Logistics 2, and the proposed zoning is Neighborhood Center Conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues There are no speakers signed up against this petition. The petitioner team will have three minutes to speak following staff's presentation.

Yes, good evening. Petition 2026028 is a 21.25 acre site located on the east side of Hawthorne Lane, west of Clement Ave. The site's currently zoned ML2, manufacturing and logistics. The proposed zoning is NCCD, neighborhood center conditional. The plan is in alignment with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood center place type. The rezoning proposal calls for a mixed-use development that may include multifamily stacked apartments, office, retail, restaurant, bar, personal services, and fitness studios. The following uses are prohibited. It will prohibit vehicle fueling facilities, which are gas stations, enclosed vehicle rentals, minor vehicle repair facilities, beneficial landfill sites, and wireless telecommunication facilities. The plan commits to a minimum of 20,000 square feet of non-residential uses on the site. A new public street to connect Hawthorne Lane to Clement Avenue and serve as the future Link's Gold Line extension alignment is proposed. The petitioner will coordinate with CATS on the street layout, transit corridor, and Hawthorne station platform needs. On-site parking will be prohibited along the Gold Line to protect its operations, and a minimum of half an acre of publicly accessible open space will be provided. The plan is in alignment with the policy map and is consistent with the goals and policies of the northeast inner community area plan. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation, environment, and site and building design. The proposal would contribute to the community area plan goals of creating a walkable mixed use area and contribute to the city's transportation plans through coordination on the future links goal line extension. I'm happy to take any questions after Ms. Grant's presentation. Thank you. Ms. Grant.

Good evening, Mayor, members of Council, members of the Zoning Committee. My name is Bridget Grant. I'm a land use consultant with Maureen Van Allen, and I'm pleased to be here tonight on behalf of Barnhart with Justin Swain. This one is pretty easy, and I think it's best shown with just a graphic that it's policy to implementation. The 2040 plan established the vision for this particular area. It was reinforced by the recently adopted community area plans. UDO identified appropriate zoning districts, and we're taking the step through that rezoning application of applying the appropriate zoning to the site for future redevelopment opportunities. We are happy to answer any question. Pleased to have no speakers in opposition and to have staff support this evening.

Any council member questions on item 26?

No, to close the hearing.

Council Member Anderson, I think, had one.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Just one quick comment. Thank you for your work on this particular petition. Um, I have not received a lot of, uh, of, um, communication against it. So that's a sign of a good thing. And I've had one or two, um, residents reach out and, and wanting this to move forward. I would say this is one of the ones that is pretty interesting as, as Ms. Johnson just mentioned schools and all three schools in this area are, are their utilization is under 90%, which is really, really interesting given the growing density along that corridor based on the UDO. So very interesting to see that. I wonder what it will look like in a couple of years. So just more of a comment around the densification and how it might be a lagging indicator of the utilization of the schools. Motion to close. Second.

Any questions there? Any concerns? All right. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. That takes us to item 27. Petition 2026-28 by Rachel Regalado is approximately 3. 06 acres located west of Henderson Circle, south of Henderson Valley Lane, and north of Judal Lane in Councilmember Graham's district. The site is currently zoned manufactured home park, and the proposed zoning is neighborhood 1C. Staff recommends approval of this petition. There is one speaker now. Signed up against this petition the petitioner team will have three minutes Following the staffs presentation and there is one speaker I'm pitching a red representing the owner. Correct. Yep, and then we have one opposed.

All right staff, please This site is just over three acres. It's located on the west side of Henderson circle and This is just west of Old Statesville Road and east of Statesville Road.

Ten minutes.

The site is developed with one single-family dwelling. It's surrounded by single-family dwellings to the north, a mobile home park to the east, and there are industrial and commercial uses to the west along Statesville Road. Current zoning is MHP, that is Manufactured Home Park, in a district from the Legacy Zoning Ordinance. The proposed zoning is N1C, conventional. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type. The petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the north, middle, and outer community area plan and also in alignment with the policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type. The petition does not directly facilitate any of the priority goals for the north, middle, and outer community area plan or any of the comprehensive plan goals. There are no outstanding issues. Staff recommends approval. I would allow this site to be developed under UDO standards in accordance with the N1C development standards, which would be compatible with the existing residential uses to the north of the site. I'll turn it over to the petitioners.

Great. Thank you. Just to clarify, there is one speaker, and it's poor, and Ms. Regalado. That's me. If I'm pronouncing your name right, I hope.

Yes, sir. I think it was wrong on the speaker list. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, council members. I'm the petitioner, Rachel Regalado, representing the owners Yvette de la Garza and Jaime de la Garza. And as he shared, this is in line with the policy map for Charlotte for 2040. Directly north, there's single-family home development on that same road, and there's also a whole neighborhood that you would go into right after that. We did hold a public meeting for the community members and had a few attendees and have experienced no opposition.

Great. Thank you. Any questions? Council Member Mayfield.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A question for staff, because I'm trying to understand. It says that it currently... is occupied by a single family home. When did the manufactured home park district, what was that identified as the designation for this area?

So that district is from the legacy zoning ordinance. I don't have a date as to when that was established, but under that district currently with the UDO in place, it would make it more challenging to develop. It would have to be a mobile home park with the associated amenities that you would typically find with a mobile home park.

So, colleagues, what I'm trying to understand is how we had a manufactured home park district that had a single family home on it, but we are seeing a loss of space for manufactured and or modular homes. with a major relocation that happened that started a year and a half ago and completed earlier this year. So I would like to get a little bit more information as far as if this area is actually designated as a manufacturer home park district, what does that actually mean? And how many do we have in the city? Because council needs to have a conversation of when we talk about Diversity in price points, diversity in housing, accessibility, modular homes are a part of that conversation, but we don't have designated land for it. So thankfully this is a hearing, but if we've had a single family home that has been on this land that is designated for manufacture and we're looking at a little over three acres, I think we owe it to ourselves and the community to have a conversation of how many more manufactured home areas do we have in the city, and if this is one of the few that are left, then we might need to have a different conversation of what our expectation is of providing diversity in location, as well as housing, as well as accessibility. So staff, it would be helpful to get that information back prior to us getting to the next meeting.

We can provide a follow-up report. Any further questions? Council Member Graham.

Go ahead. I think it was. Council Member. Okay. No, it's both. I just wanted to make sure.

This is your district, right?

Okay.

So, Council Member Mayfield, thank you for that. I would love to see some type of referral to the. committee housing and neighborhood services committee because we do you're absolutely right having that mobile home in district four that was rezoned you know and so many people lost affordable housing but there was nothing we could do because the owner is allowed to sell their property so i think that that's a great point this is the one of the last opportunities for truly affordable housing without a you know, five, 10, however long that wait list is. So I would love to, if there would be a zone area zone for that during that petition, we had a, an O a mobile park owner who wanted to expand and extend and opportunities, but her land wasn't zoned appropriately. So I think we do need some help in that area. I would love to discuss that. And you probably would remember Alison, the, yeah, the, owner that wanted to help out and couldn't. So I think that's a great idea. And also I wanted to just kind of follow up on what I said earlier. These conventional rezonings, they make it difficult for us to obtain the information that we need instead of conditional rezonings. And I was able to take a look at my worksheet and the petition where Garinger was up to 137%, they weren't able to provide that information with this percentage because the school information wasn't available with the conventional rezonings. So there is a challenge in the conventional rezonings. I saw it on the worksheet, but she wasn't able to provide it on the spreadsheet. So I'd like to talk more about conventional versus conditional rezonings and the information that were being provided.

Which petition?

I'll go back. We'll talk about it, but I just wanted to share my concern about conventional versus conditional rezonings and us being able to get the details that we need to move forward. Thanks.

Council Member Graham on item 27.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I found the answer to my question. I kind of went through the profile, but I'm still concerned that only two individuals showed up, staff or the a community meeting, right? And that's been a trend for a number of petitions. So I just bookmarked that as a, as a asterisk. Uh, but it's six single family last year going to develop, excuse me, six single family.

Yeah, there, um, I think there's various options with this rezoning, but right now they're planning on doing six single family. And if, if you go directly north, so you can see, um, if you see north of that black, the square, that right there is single family. It abuts right on the same street, single family on Henderson Circle and the Henderson Valley Lane takes you into a whole neighborhood of single family. So it really is just an extension of what's happening like right beside them. But yes, there is a, there's a house there. I believe it's manufactured and that would stay. they're not going to get rid of that. And then they would just do six more lots that would directly come into line. I don't think the photos were up when he was presenting it, but it shows the other single family that's right beside this piece of property. And in regards to your question, the two community members, we did mail out the entire list that the planning department did send us, and we sent invitations to you, Council Member, and did everything they asked us to do, but it wasn't, it wasn't a huge response. I don't know how the response could be.

I'm not picking on you. I'm just saying that it's a, it's a citywide thing that we're not in the type of feedback from, um, from residents that we need to, but I think we're good.

Great. Any other questions?

Second.

Any all in favor? Any opposed? All right. Passes. That takes us. Thank you very much. That takes us to item 28. Just petition 202632-32 Savilex Homes LLC is approximately 1.39 acres located east of Thriftwood Drive, north of Freedom Drive, and south of Marble Street in Councilmember Graham's district. The site is currently zoned neighborhood 1C. And the proposed zoning is neighborhood 1D, conditional. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of a technical revision. There are no speakers signed up against this petition. The petitioner team will have three minutes to speak following staff's presentation. Staff.

This site is 1.39 acres located east of Thriftwood Drive, north of Freedom Drive. It is vacant, wooded, and surrounded primarily by residential uses. There is a religious institution to the south of the site along Freedom Drive. Current zoning is N1C with a proposed zoning of N1D conditional. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type. The proposal would allow for uses allowed in N1D zoning district as the conditional notes are currently written would not allow townhomes condominiums or other single family attached housing with separate ownership, but would limit the number of parcels to four. Uh, we have the table on the screen that, um, tells you the differences between the N one C and N one D zoning district, primarily it's lot area. Um, 6,000 is what the current minimum lot area is. 6,000 square feet, um, would be 3,500 under N one D. Uh, similarly, uh, minimum lot width would be reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. The petition is consistent with the goals and policies of the west middle community area plan and in alignment with the policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type, the position does not directly facilitate any of the priority goals for the west middle community area plan or the comprehensive plan goals. Place type 5 criteria is used to evaluate requests for different N1 zoning districts. It does meet criteria to go from N1C to N1D CD. There's not a well-established lot pattern in the area, but the minimum lot width allowed under N1D would better fit the surrounding context. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of a requested technical revision, and that is just to better align the conditional notes with UDO terms. So I said the primary difference between N1C and N1D is in dimensional standards, lot size and lot width, and the site does meet place type five criteria for the transition to N1D zoning district. I'll turn it over to the petitioner.

Okay, for the petitioner, Russell Ferguson. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor, Council Committee. Russell Ferguson, I represent the petitioner. Salve Alex Holmes, Savannah and Alex combined. It's hard to say. This petition is supported by staff. We don't have any opposition. It's unique in that it is sort of we're upzoning to downscale the development here. We've been in contact with the district rep. To explain this, what the notes are doing is restricting it to four single-family homes. It really has to do with the uniqueness of that lot. It's currently subdivided into six different sub-lots and is permitted to go forward as three duplexes in a townhome style. Looking into the area, my clients thought it would be more appropriate to have four single-family homes. the approximate width of them will be about 45 feet. They'll vary a little bit because of the topography in the back. And that's the goal of it. So, you know, it's much more copacetic. We did not have tremendous attendance at our meetings, but we held two meetings. We were able to talk to both adjacent neighbors. One of the adjacent neighbors actually sold some of this property into development anyways. So happy to answer your questions. I don't, there's not much to the presentation, so we'll skip it. Here for any of your questions, I'll give, who's left? Bridget, the rest of the time.

questions all in favor thank you any opposed thank you all right and that brings us to our final item for the evening item 29 which is don't slow me down no petition 2026 Dash 35 by Dream Key Partners is approximately six acres located east of Beatty's Ford Road, south of Slater Road, and north of Cindy Lane in Councilmember Graham's district. The site is currently zoned neighborhood 1B, and the proposed rezoning is neighborhood 2A. Conditional staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues There are no speakers signed up against this petitioner So the petition the petition so the petitioner will have three minutes to speak following staffs presentation staff petition 20 20 6 0 3 5 is a six acre site located on the east side of a sport road currently zoned in 1b neighborhood 1b zoning is into a CD neighborhood to conditional and

2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type for the site. The plan is not in alignment with the neighborhood one place type. An approval of this rezoning would revise the policy map to the neighborhood two place type. The rezoning proposal calls for the development of up to 64 multifamily attached townhome dwelling units. The site is divided into two development areas, development area A and development area B. Development area A is limited to buildings of up to four dwelling units and development area B requires at least 60% of the buildings to have no more than two units and allows a maximum of three units per building. The plan does not propose a new access point on Beatty's Ford Road. Access to the site will be via the previously approved townhome development to the south, which was rezoning petition 24-112. A 12-foot multi-use path and 8-foot planning strip will be provided along the front of Beatty's Ford Road. An upgraded CATS bus waiting pad will be installed on Beatty's Ford Road. um ground floor residential entrances will be connected directly to the sidewalk buildings on bay's ford road must front the bay's ford road frontage the plan is not in alignment with the policy map but the plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the west middle community area plan staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design Opposed plan meets minor map amendment criteria to transition to the neighborhood two place type. The site is in an area containing a mix of single family, multifamily, commercial, and institutional uses. 2040 comprehensive plan calls for the development of multifamily housing along major roadways with access to public transportation and options for active forms of transportation such as walking and bicycling, which are provided within the Beatty's Road corridor. I'm happy to take any questions following Ms. Grant's presentation. Thank you. Ms. Grant.

Mayor Harrington, members of council, members of the zoning committee, it's not unusual for me to be last on the agenda. Not at all. Not uncommon at all. Pleased to be here tonight on behalf of Dream Key Partners. This is essentially a second phase of a rezoning that was adopted last year that introduced townhomes along the segment of the corridor. We worked in collaboration at the time with the adjacent property owners and are pleased to be moving forward with some additional development that will also include or increase the amount of proposed street network connectivity as well as improvements along the frontage. So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions? The BFR is at it again. Yes. Closed to public hearing.

Second.

All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. I think that does it. And unless there is opposition, we can adjourn. Council Member Mayfield.

Thank you, Mayor. Allison, between you and Mayor, If we can get a referral to Housing and Neighborhood Services Committee specifically on the manufacturing housing, that can be combined with our upcoming conversation that we're going to have about modular homes for our September meeting since we're running out of months. So if we can get that over to our leadership so that we can have that conversation in our September Housing and Neighborhood Services Committee meeting, that would be helpful.

Any other comments, questions before we close? Motion to close.

Second.

All in favor? All right. We are closed and adjourned. Thank you all.

Thank you.