Charlotte City Council Zoning Meeting – March 18, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Charlotte City Council Zoning Meeting – March 18, 2024
The Charlotte City Council held a zoning meeting on March 18, 2024, beginning at 5:00 PM in the Council Chamber at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center. The meeting covered 23 consent agenda items, 5 decision items, and 20 hearing items, with extensive public comment and deliberation on several high-profile rezonings. The meeting concluded after 10:00 PM.
Consent Calendar
- Items 3 through 23 were approved on a single motion, with the following items pulled for separate discussion: 4 (2022-107), 5 (2022-154), 6 (2022-210), 9 (2023-111), 10 (2023-125), 11 (2023-131), 13 (2023-138), 19 (2023-149), and 21 (2023-158). All were subsequently approved after brief discussion, with noted concerns about conventional rezonings without site plans.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Petition 2022-121 (RK Investments – 53.07 acres on Elm Lane/Rea Road): Over 20,000 residents signed petitions in opposition. Speakers cited traffic congestion, school overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, stormwater flooding, loss of tree canopy, and incompatibility with the surrounding single-family character. The petitioner argued for a density of 640 units (down from 1,100) with significant transportation improvements, but staff did not recommend approval in its current form.
- Petition 2023-046 (Childress Klein/CMS – 124.6 acres on Tom Short Road): Opponents presented binders with data showing cumulative impacts from 15 rezonings in the 28277 ZIP code, adding over 65,000 daily vehicle trips. They argued the 682 apartments, 211 townhomes, and 24 single-family homes would overburden roads and schools. The petitioner highlighted the need for a new middle school, enhanced stormwater measures, and traffic improvements.
- Petition 2023-172 (BVB Properties – 0.78 acres on Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road): Wanda Mathis, whose mother lives adjacent, expressed concerns about increased traffic, noise, and lack of screening from a proposed drive-through establishment.
- Petition 2023-112 (FCA, LLC – 5.03 acres on Christie Lane): Stephanie Lance was not present, but Councilmember Brown raised concerns about insufficient community notification; the petitioner agreed to follow up.
Discussion Items
- Petition 2022-079 (Will Pappas – 2.23 acres on Pearl Park Way): The petitioner reduced residential units from 450 to 425 and committed to 10 workforce housing units (5 at 60% AMI, 5 at 80% AMI) for 20 years. Council commended the collaborative approach with the Cherry community.
- Petition 2021-085 (Raven Property Group – 5.86 acres on China Grove Church Road): The zoning committee recommended denial due to insufficient buffering, but Councilmember Brown supported the petitioner after site visits and noted the need for truck parking. Council voted 7-0 to approve, overriding staff's outstanding issue.
- Petition 2022-121 (RK Investments): Councilmember Driggs detailed the difficult choice between the proposed rezoning and by-right development (potentially 400 units of duplexes/triplexes). He committed to working with the community and petitioner to seek a middle ground, noting that no vote would occur until May.
- Petition 2023-046 (Childress Klein/CMS): Councilmembers expressed concern about density and infrastructure, but acknowledged the benefit of a new middle school. Councilmember Driggs noted ongoing work to address traffic and stormwater issues.
- Petition 2023-174 (Text Amendment – Campus Zoning Districts): Staff presented a text amendment to restructure the use matrix for campus districts (IC-1, IC-2, OFC, RC) and create a new General Office (OG) district. No public opposition; the hearing was closed.
- Petition 2023-062 (White Point Partners – 2.59 acres on Commonwealth Avenue): The petitioner worked with Plaza Midwood Merchants and Commonwealth Morningside Neighborhood Association to convert from conventional to conditional, adding adaptive reuse provisions. Staff recommended approval upon resolution of outstanding issues.
- Petition 2023-176 (Smith Douglas Homes – 14.85 acres on Paw Creek Road): Staff did not recommend approval due to compatibility issues. The petitioner noted community support for for-sale housing and expressed willingness to modify the plan.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Agenda (Items 3-23): Approved unanimously except for pulled items, which were also approved individually.
- Petition 2022-079 (Will Pappas): Approved unanimously (7-0) with workforce housing and height reductions.
- Petition 2021-085 (Raven Property): Approved unanimously (7-0) despite staff's outstanding buffer request.
- Petition 2022-121 (RK Investments): Public hearing closed; no vote taken. Councilmember Driggs announced continued negotiations with petitioner and community, with a potential vote in May.
- Petition 2023-046 (Childress Klein/CMS): Public hearing closed; no vote taken. Continued discussions expected.
- Petition 2023-174 (Text Amendment): Public hearing closed; no vote taken.
- Petition 2023-062 (White Point Partners): Public hearing closed; no vote taken.
- Petition 2023-176 (Smith Douglas Homes): Public hearing closed; no vote taken.
- Petition 2023-112 (FCA, LLC): Public hearing closed; no vote taken. Petitioner agreed to hold additional community meeting.
- Petition 2023-172 (BVB Properties): Public hearing closed; no vote taken. Petitioner noted revised plans to reduce traffic impacts.
- All other hearing items (38-56) not mentioned above: Public hearings were closed without votes, with staff recommendations pending resolution of outstanding issues.
Several councilmembers emphasized the need to address cumulative infrastructure impacts, update the UDO to raise minimum standards, and improve community notification processes.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. We are going to begin our meeting in just a few minutes. Welcome. Welcome to the government center. Welcome, welcome to the government center. We're going to begin our meeting in just a minute or two. I will say if you do not have a seat in the chamber, and there's some seats here and there, but if you do not have a seat in the chamber, you're going to have to move out into the foyer, and there are televisions there where you can watch and see everything that's going on. Okay. So just make your way out to the foyer if you can if you do not, if you have not secured a seat. Stephanie Kelly, City Clerk. Good evening, Liz Babson, Assistant City Manager for the City of Charlotte. Good evening, Dante Anderson, Mayor Pro Tim and District One Rep. Is anybody here from District Seven tonight? Jar Picard, District 6. Good evening. I'm Victoria Watlington and I have the pleasure of serving you at large. Terry Hagler Gray, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Excellent. So we begin our meeting with an invoction, an expression and inspiration, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation by a Charlotte City Council member is intended to solemnize our proceedings. We celebrate the religious diversity of our entire community, including those without religious faith. And tonight, Councilmember Johnson will uh provide us with the invocation. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. We can bow our heads. Dear Lord, please grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change. The courage to walk boldly and lead boldly to change the things we can and the wisdom to know the difference. Amen. Amen. Amen. Please rise if you can for our Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance. Underg. So tonight is our zoning meeting, and I will go through the explanation of the zoning process. The zoning process begins with applications submitted to our planning staff for review. There are two types of cases here on the agenda this evening. We have our decisions and then we have our hearings. Decisions on cases for which a public hearing has already occurred, so there's no further public comment on the decisions this evening. For our hearings, if anyone wishing to speak, is we ask that you come and see the city clerk before the beginning of that particular hearing. And we will have staff presentations, of course, for all of our hearings. They do not have a time limit. The petitioner will have three minutes combined to present on the case, unless there are two different exceptions. The first one is if there is opposition that's signed up to speak against that petition. And then the second one is if staff is in opposition of the petition, then in both those cases, the petitioner will get 10 minutes, and the opposition will get 10 minutes in aggregate, and then the petitioner will get two minutes for a rebuttal. If there is no one that's supposed to speak up to speak against it, then staff will just provide a brief presentation, and the public hearing will be closed and we'll move on. The petition goes to the zoning committee and planning commission for review and recommendation. And that particular committee is chaired by Mr. Welton, and I will pass it over to him so he can introduce that committee. Mr. Wilton. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tim.
openpublica.com