One and welcome to the October Twentieth zoning meeting.

We're going to start with introductions, and we will start with the clerk.

Billy Thomas, Deputy City Clerk.

Good evening, I'm Renee Johnson, and I'm honored to represent District Four.

Good evening, everyone, James Mitchell at large.

Keep pounding.

Good evening, Lawana Mayfield, Councilmember at Lawrence.

And our invocation by a council member is meant to underscore our proceedings.

And we celebrate all religious diversity of our community, including those that do not practice a religious faith.

And it's less of an invocation, but more of a thought that I've been having over the last several weeks.

Right here in Charlotte in our region and across the U.S., you know, we are experiencing a sense of hopelessness and apathy.

And when we allow apathy and hopelessness to take over, it it robs us from our joy.

It robs us of being able to practice things that bring joy to others.

And it clouds our outlook on the art of possibility and what can happen if we put the work in and work together collectively.

And so I tonight I'd like to extend a prayer that we all uh combat apathy and hopelessness by having a renewed fervor in our spirituality, um, a renewed connectedness and looking out for our neighbors and reaching out to our neighbors, checking on friends and family members that you may not have seen or heard of in months.

Check on them.

Do wellness checks, do something that you believe brings you joy, whether it's taking a walk in the park, um, or playing playing with animals, adopting time with children, but we need to ensure that we are prepared to do the work, and in order to have that level of preparation, we have to stave off apathy and hopelessness.

So that is my prayer for myself and this council, as well as all of the residents here in Charlotte, North Carolina.

If you are able to stand, please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Amen.

Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and fans one nation.

So this is our third meeting of the month, which is our our zoning meeting.

Uh but before we uh continue with zoning proceedings, we have a topic that the council would like to uh have a conversation around this evening.

Um I will pass it over to uh councilmember Mitchell to jump start this conversation with the understanding that we need to have a vote to actually put this on the agenda.

Uh mayor council, I would like us to consider the vote to uh unanimous vote tonight to put on a new process for our MPT MPTA point appointment process okay.

Any comment hearing none, all in favor of placing this item on the agenda, raise your hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

I will uh again hand it over to Mr.

Mitchell to guide this discussion.

Mayor Pro Tim, thank you.

And and cut Council members, I have at your point of order.

Hold on, point of clarification from Ms.

I just wanted to ask the question because I know that uh Councilmember Melina uh is intending to request recusal.

So before we got into the discussion, I just wanted to make sure that we gave an opportunity to do that if now is the appropriate time.

Mr.

Fox, um we just we just made a motion, a unanimous motion to discuss the process and procedure of the MPTA, the transit authority appointment, because we previously voted on that process, so we need to vote to make those modifications.

Mr.

Fox with this introduction of this the motion was made and seconded and the vote was called for.

Ms.

Malin did not acknowledge participation, but by her presence will be deemed to have voted in the affirmative unless she chooses to ask for a recusal at this point on the appointment process.

The recusal relates to the appearance of impropriety.

Yes, even though, as I've opined before, there is there is no financial peculiar interest that would otherwise prohibit it from participating at this point in time.

I'd like to make a motion and if I stand to recuse uh councilmember uh Marlene from this process.

Second okay.

We have a motion and a second, any discussion.

All in favor of recusing councilmember Molina from this process.

Well, now my mayor, I would also reflect that and if the vote passes that to acknowledge her her that she did not participate in the prior action of the body, which was a vote to bring this on for consideration.

Yes.

Would you consider that please?

Okay.

Yep.

Hearing hearing no discussion, all in favor to uh accuse council member Molina, please raise hands.

Refuse three keys.

I'm sorry.

Trust me.

I say it's excuse.

Is it is it recused or is it recuse or excuse it's recused.

To recuse.

Okay.

We had all in favor.

Any opposed.

Any imposed?

All right.

That is unanimous.

And Miss Molina is recused.

Okay.

As she as she exits the room, I will hand it over again to Councilmember Mitchell.

Mayor Pro Tim, thank you.

And Council members at the Dyer's, you should have a copy of the work group new alternative schedule that we hope you will adopt this evening.

So keep in mind we we would like to encourage us to not to vote tonight, and we would do our vote on November 6th when our other partners would have uh the appointment process completed.

And so just to be in line, there's a total collaboration.

I will ask that we defer us voting tonight and wait to November 6th and start our voting.

As you can see before you, uh just for the viewers, then the interview uh would take place November 12th through the 15th, and we're gonna try to form a normal process that would then we would uh nominate per category of November 17th, and with the appointments made on November 24th.

I think it was very clear to Dr.

Wattington point that this council, this current council would do all the appointments uh for the MPTA.

So with that, I would entertain any questions or or uhcept a motion on the new okay.

Okay, so we have a um a motion and a second, and I recognize Miss Ashmira.

Yes, thank you.

So Mr.

Mitchell um where you have on November 10th.

Well we'll submit our recommendation on November 6th.

Yes.

So are we doing the same thing where we are picking three per category?

Yes.

Okay.

Because I know there were some discussion where council members did not want to pick three per category depending on the results of other entities' appointments.

Right.

Right.

Uh so are we changing are we incorporating that feedback into this new process now?

Yes.

So it would be in my goal that uh that morning I'm having breakfast with our partners to receive a nominee, and I will send an email out to council by 12 noon to inform who their nominees will be.

So you will have that information prior to you voting.

I I understand, but what I'm saying is that I know we had discussion over the weekend about some of us did in terms of having 27 names versus picking three per category.

Right.

Uh I know council member Watlington and Graham wanted to just give 27 names rather than picking three per category uh to ensure that there is balance because let's say if other entities are picking certain categories, we want to make sure that we are balancing that with other categories.

So would I suggest instead of sticking with three per category, we just submit 27 top 27, our picks, and then um follow the same process.

Um I have Miss Watlington and then I have Miss Mayfield.

All right, just a couple of things, and maybe just for the sake of this motion.

Um my thought is that we just um is that we leave it here as it says provide ranking from council input for top 27 candidates because that doesn't prescribe that it has to be the three per category.

So I think because I agree with you there.

I think even we may we've talked about this, and we can talk about this more um between now and then, but just ensuring that we're not um Xing people out that we would have otherwise chosen simply because we may be putting them in different categories, for example.

But I think that's something that can be worked out offline because ultimately council, if we're saying that we're only gonna use seven appointments, nine categories, we can't possibly pick one person per category.

So I just think we need to talk a little bit about how we meet the intent um here.

So anyway, I say that to say that I think we can get to where everybody's trying to get if we just um adjust this last the second to last bullet that says council will nominate one applicant per category.

I think if we just say council will nominate their so uh their um selections on the 17th, and then we will make the final vote on all appointments November 24th.

We can either strike that second to last bullet or we can adjust it to not say one applicant per category because we don't have enough appointments to select one applicant per category.

You follow what I'm saying?

We can talk about it offline, but okay.

Um I have Miss Mayfield and then Mr.

Driggs.

Right.

Thank you.

One, I just want to make sure that we are in compliance with now potentially changing language, whether it's the removal of a bullet and or the addition of a bullet, since this particular motion was to make sure that we are in alignment with the state mandated appointments through the business community and the date that they are looking at.

Are we able to have these conversations on this motion?

I think so.

I think the action that's before the board is the schedule and the processes outlined in this schedule that's being presented.

And what I'm hearing is some discussion we from around the dias about the schedule that's a component of what is being presented to the board.

Right.

So for still on the line of clarification, it was just mentioned well, we'll talk offline if we are going to change any of these bullets or add any additional language.

Now I would believe is the time that we need to do that in this motion, not submit what is written and then have a conversation later about it.

We need to identify and make sure that every zone everyone's on the same page because when we as committee identify up to three names, and I think that's what we wrote in the language was up to three.

We didn't specify three per category, but we said up to three per category.

I want to make sure that we have as much clarity on this as possible.

Yeah.

I think the up to three dealt with the initial 27, how you got down to 27.

Yeah.

And then the net the 17th date here reflects after you get down to that.

What do you nominate then?

And what I understood the the the suggestion was to is to just edit that next to last bullet to remove the one applicant per category and just to say the council will nominate um an applicant on the November 17th date.

Yeah, that's why I'm not sure.

Sorry, I mean to control.

Miss Mayfield, did you have anything else?

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Driggs.

I just wanted to note we did actually vote to adopt the procedure.

Yeah.

Right.

Like we we have already adopted a procedure and that's spelled out.

So all we're talking about now is a modification to uh to these certain dates because of the desire to align with the alliance and to know what the alliance appointments are before we make our decision.

So uh I don't see a basis for any modification to the action that we already took.

I think we're simply shuffling these dates so that we do not have to make our appointments before we know what their appointments are.

But then you just say that this was I have Miss Brown and then I have Mr.

Graham.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um the um we've adopted the procedure, and so for the record, I won't every time I speak, I want people to know that I'm against it.

Um it's a no for me, but I am want to be a part of the process and make sure that it's fair for the people if it passes.

You said we adopted the procedure, even though we adopted the procedure, we still need to make sure that the process is correct.

So I think Watlerton was trying to clarify some of the language so that we know clear.

And and one, why is there a delay anyway?

Say say it again.

Why is there a delay with the alliance working?

Hang on.

Hang on, hang on.

She's sitting in the seat, not you.

She addressed too.

Right.

So I can't answer the question, but I'm gonna allow Mr.

Mitchell because he's leading this process, so he can address your question.

All right, thank you for doing it.

Councilman Brown, some of our partners would not start a process throughout that election.

And so we want to coincide with them to make sure that uh we're collaborating on this process.

Yes, sir.

Thank you for answering that.

So the process is being delayed, not because of council, but because of partners that's supposed to get their votes into us.

Yes, ma'am.

So we're waiting on alliance and foundation caroline.

Okay, thank you so much.

Note it.

I really appreciate it.

Okay.

Did you have anything else, Mr.

B to you, ma'am?

Okay.

I have Mr.

Graham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Town.

I'm gonna approve this.

I think Victoria is right, right?

Um I just hope that we won't Councilmember Mitchell uh we understand this is gonna be a fluid process and that we're flexible while we're doing it.

And so that we're not boxing ourselves in a in a box that we can't come out of, right?

So I'm approving this because I think this is what we're doing, right?

We're demonstrating some flexibility, and I think the language that Councilmember Wallington spoke about is probably accurate, right?

We we don't want to box ourselves in that box and that last bullet, but that's something we can talk about among ourselves, doesn't have to be as formal as a as an amendment, right?

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

Um I will be um supporting this motion because it's after the election, which I um suggested a couple weeks ago anyway.

Um secondly, I want to clarify.

I heard two different things.

This specifically says one applicant per category, but we're saying we're not gonna change it, but we are gonna follow that.

We're gonna be flexible because when we looked at the categories this weekend, we know that some people may not fit perfectly in the category, so there might be someone that overlaps the different categories.

So we do need that.

I would like that flexibility.

So are we going to remove this language or not?

Because I don't want to move forward and then when it's time to vote for someone to say, well, this is what we voted on.

Well, their process was approved.

So I think if we are intending to be more flexible, then we should put that on record tonight.

So then I don't know if that's a substitute motion or how we proceed, but we know that we're not going to nominate one applicant per category.

We already we already know that.

Okay.

Miss Ashmer, you are did you already speak on this?

I wanted to follow up on the hold on one second though, because I I wanted to get the opportunity to speak on this.

Um Mr.

Mitchell and team, um Mr.

Driggs and uh Miss Mayfield.

I thank you for the work that you guys have done.

You've put a process together for us that that keeps us um in line with the General Assembly language uh that we make sure we have certain skill sets there in present.

Um I am I'm certainly flexible to um amend the process a little bit by taking out that specific word.

But if we do that, I also just want to again make sure that as we submit our names that we identify which category they represent because we do not want to have a glaring hole as it relates to skill sets and capabilities from our nomination pool.

So we want to make sure that we're covering the basis and we can do that by identifying what skill sets they have.

Right.

So that's that would be my perspective.

Okay.

Um, how do we how do we codify that, Mr.

Attorney?

In language-wise, yeah, yes.

I think it's as simple as um if it sounds like the uh the chair of the committee is flexible into adopting the the scratching out of um that language, and then as we nominate our our individuals identify which areas.

I mean, we know the areas, but of course the committee can um share that with us again so we're clear-eyed around how our individual nominees fit that skill set and capability.

Does that make sense?

Yes, um may pretend Mayor Pretem.

Um again remember the focus is really to get the broadest swatch of candidates and applicants available.

So the 17th is merely an exercise of you identifying candidates that are in each category.

Right.

So but I hear there's some resistance about doing that.

So you may want to just say council is encouraged to nominate one.

Okay, that's okay.

Applicant per capitalism.

That's great language.

Yeah, that's good.

That's good.

Yes, encouraged.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

All right.

Yeah.

So Mr.

Mitchell, before we vote, can you just read the this is the second to last bullet?

Can you read the the modification?

So we're going to be able to do that.

Uh the modification.

Council would encourage one applicant per category on November 17th at the start of the regular scheduled zoning meeting.

It is encouraged to nominate.

Yeah, that's what he said.

Mitchell before we vote can you just read the this is the second to last bullet can you read the the modification so we're too uh the modification council would encourage one applicant per category on November 17th at the start of the regular scheduled zoning meeting it is encouraged to nominate yeah that's what he said council is encouraged to nominate what he does okay let me repeat it for the record read it again please okay council would encourage to nominate is one applicant per category on November 17th at the start of the regular scheduled zoning meeting about every cat all right council is encouraged is encouraged council is encouraged yes is encouraged yes good okay so we we're we're clear on on the modification of the language and we're clear on the change of the dates we've had our deliberation any additional deliberation before we actually vote that's all hearing none all in favor of adopting the new timeline and the modified language please raise your hands any opposed you're opposed Ms.

Brown yep okay Miss Brown is opposed thank you council thank you mayor protail thank you okay so now we will proceed with our zoning uh meeting and I will provide an explanation of our zoning process the process begins with applications submitted to our planning staff for review the cases of two types are on the agenda this evening you have decisions and you have hearings decisions on cases for which a public hearing was previously held and there is no further public comment for hearings anyone wishing to speak on a particular petition is asked to see our cloak before the start of that particular hearing and then staff will provide their presentation and the petitioner who's in favor will get three minutes combined to present their case unless one of two conditions exist the first one is if there is opponent signed up to speak or if staff is in opposition the petitioner will receive 10 minutes the opposition will receive 10 minutes and there will be a two minute rebuttal if no one is opposed or signed up to speak staff will uh proceed with their short presentation and we'll have the public hearing closed and we'll continue with the agenda petitions go to our zoning committee of planning commission for review and recommendation and at this point I will hand it over to uh Chair Wellton so he can introduce his committee thank you very much Mayor Pro Tim my name is Douglas C.

Walton and I am the chairman of the zoning committee of the planning commission I'd like to introduce the uh my fellow members of the commission of the committee the zoning committee and they include Melissa Gaston Aaron Shaw Teresa McDonald Robin Stewart uh Carolyn Millen and Michael Caprioli the zoning committee will meet on Wednesday November 5th at 530 p.m.

at that meeting the zoning committee will uh meet and discuss and make recommendations on the petitions that have a public hearing here tonight the public is invited to that meeting but please note it is not a continuation of this public hearing that is being held at this moment prior to that meeting you are welcome to contact us and provide in any input you would like you can find contact information and information on each of the petitions at the city's website at CharlottePlanning.org thank you and back to you mayor protimment okay thank you so uh we will start with the deferrals and withdrawals for um this agenda and I will pass it over to staff to go through those thank you we have two decisions that are asking for deferral item number 12 by Mission City Church and Freedom Communities deferring their decision to November 17 2025 item number 14 2025 042 by Brian Elsey deferring decision to November 17th then on to hearings we have three requested deferrals item number 18 petition 2025 zero sixty three by Northwood Raven requesting deferral to November 17th item number 19th petition 202507 by Prosperity Alliance requesting deferral to November 17th and item number 23 petition 25052 by Charlotte Mecklenburg hospital authority also requesting deferral to November 17th I'll make a note that items number 12 and 14 previously had opposition at their public hearings so although requesting deferral to a decision on November 17th they would automatically have to have their decision in December due to our policies for election year.

To approve the deferrals.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Any comment?

Hearing none.

All in favor to defer, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank you.

And so now we will proceed with the consent agenda items.

Rezoning petitions items three through 11 may be considered in one motion.

Um except for those pulled by a council member.

And please note that these petitions have met the following criteria.

They had no public opposition at the hearing.

Staff recommends approval.

The zoning committee recommends approval, and there are no changes after the zoning committee's recommendations.

Are there any consent agenda items that council members would like to have pulled for a separate vote or comment?

All right, Miss Johnson.

Number four, please.

Okay.

Miss Mayfield.

Number five and number 11.

Thank you.

Number five and number 11.

Okay.

So is there a motion to approve the petitions, the following petitions, and adopt the zoning committee's statement as it appears in our agenda for the following petitions.

Item number three, petition number 2024 113.

Item number six, petition number 2025 051.

Number 7, 2025 064.

Number 8, 2025 066.

Number 9, 2025 068 and uh 10, 2025 037.

So moved.

Okay.

Any discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor of uh approving those petitions.

Raise hands.

Any opposed?

Okay, that is unanimous.

So is there a motion to approve and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency for item number four, petition number 2025 033?

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

Any discussion?

This is that's your number I know.

I thought you were okay.

Um yes, this is um, I wanted to talk about this.

This is a development in Innovation Park.

I've heard from several people.

I just talked to council member Mitchell how when this was opened, it was such a big deal and so exciting in District 4, the innovation park because of the office space, and I know there was a city office there, and this was a lot of office space outside of uptown.

Um the times have changed since then, right?

So this area is changing, and I'm happy to support this development.

This when you talk about innovation and innovative and uh live, work and play.

Um, I'm excited to support this petition.

This is supported by the district four coalition by University City Partners.

They're they're going to construct a 12-foot multi-use path.

Um there's going to be dedicated land for to the greenway.

They're contributing $75,000 in greenway funding to Mecklenburg County.

Uh, there's off-site trail access.

There's going to be amenities, food and drinks, and uh Sunday shopping and car detailing and dry cleaning and walking trails and fitness center.

So this is what we want to see in in district four, and I look forward to supporting it.

So I want to thank the developers and calling.

Thank you for your leadership on this as well.

Thank you.

So I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

Any other comment?

Hearing none, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Is there a motion to approve and adopt uh the statement of consistency for item number five, petition number 2025 041.

So we'll second.

All right.

Any comment?

Miss Mayfield.

Thank you.

So I would like to share and I appreciate not only staff but also the petitioners representative because I had a question regarding this request to reduce the parking that we have at this particular hotel, and was happy to learn that for this particular location, we don't necessarily have a lot of people driving in to the location.

This is a location where right share is used quite often.

Yet there are contractual agreements that are in place.

If there were to come a time, say we have one of our many multiple events in the sitting, and people choose to drive in versus flying or using other forms of transportation.

So I am happy to hear that there is language in place where there's a need for additional parking that is set up.

But I did want to thank the representatives of the petitioner as well as staff for responding to my request that specifically looked at if there are any current additional leases for parking if needed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional comment?

Hearing none, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Is there a motion to approve and adopt the statement of consistency for item number 11?

Petition number 2025 074.

I pulled this um specifically because I am voting against this, so someone else gonna have to do it.

So moved.

Second, any discussion?

Miss Mayfield.

So, due to the potential negative impact to the surrounding residential communities, when we keep telling community that we have a desire to create the opportunity for the U to age in place to preserve neighborhood continuity.

I feel this particular project is in direct contradiction to our agent in place goals.

We're looking at the current zoning that has about 15 trips per day.

The entitlement is 88, yet we're looking at potentially 144 trips with this based on the 12 multifamily dwelling units.

I feel like we need to actually slow down, and just because someone says they're building multifamily, that does not mean that every part of the city, because the reality is pricing is not dropping down the city in Charlotte.

Even though in other communities, if you build more, you'll start to see uh differing price structure.

You could drive around the city and see plenty of four-lease sale, four-lease signs, leasing now, giving one and two months discount.

But the impacts that we're having on residential community is detrimental because that is never going to be the same for those residents.

So I, along with the concerns that were shared with all of council, will not be supporting this, and those are the reasons why.

Thank you, Miss Mayfield.

Any additional comments?

Well, I definitely respect council member um Mayfield's concerns, and and she addressed them openly and honestly, but I don't honestly don't see any concerns or any issues with that.

I looked over it with staff.

I mean, you know, it's this growing city, and you know, I don't I'm not opposing it.

So okay.

Thank you.

Miss Swatlington.

Do you know if um SCRA went in on this one at all?

Skill Creek Resident Association, they didn't send anything to me.

Okay, we can double check with it.

Yeah, they didn't send anything.

They didn't see anything opposing it against it.

Normally they loud and clear.

Okay.

Um other comment, Ms.

Ashmere.

Um in favor um of approving this item, raise your hands.

Any opposed, Miss Mayfield is opposed.

Mr.

Dricks, were you thinking about okay?

Okay.

Ms.

Mayfield was the only one in opposition.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayfield, for your comments.

Okay, moving on, we're gonna move to agenda item number 13.

Is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the statement of consistency for agenda item 13, petition number 2025.

Oh move 032.

All right, there's a motion and second.

Any comment?

Miss Molina.

Uh, thank you, Madam Mayor Pratim.

I just I'll be brief.

Um, if you all remember from the public hearing, there was a speaker um for this particular petition last time, and there was some issues around uh buffering uh to the neighborhood.

Um, I did receive an email from Timothy Acaria, but actually um uh the representative for the petitioner had to forward it to me because he spelled my name wrong in the email.

So um, but he basically was okay with the petition because of some additional buffering that was um agreed upon by the petitioner.

Uh, this is about 15 acres, so it's a pretty large space, but it actually contains some activation for that far east area of where your far east, so you know uh East Charlotte.

Um, I've gotten favorable comments actually earlier on because of the size of this particular petition.

Um I um involved the county commissioner responsible for the area.

Um actually Chairman Mark Darill, because he you know this is an area where he lives.

Um, and Colin who is representing the petitioner uh had us on some calls to talk about the activation, the neighbors, and etc.

So the one outstanding issue, uh staff had some open ending issues that you can explain, I think, and then there was some additional buffering provided for the residents that came to speak to us last uh month that has been resolved.

So maybe you can speak to what those were so that uh the council and I apologize.

I'm really normally pretty good about sending you this, but I didn't get the email until today that actually but I'll send it to you to make sure that you have it as well.

Um, but staff, can you talk about what those additional changes were and where you arrived from where you were as opposed to where you are now uh with regards to recommending the petition?

Sure.

So our biggest uh point of concern was just the sensitivity to the existing single family neighborhood.

So we asked them to consider more neighborhood one building forms across the site, which they did by limiting unit counts to no more than four units per building across the site, and those are building forms allowed in a neighborhood one district, and they broke up some building forms so you can see duplexes and triplexes as well mixed in, but largely you'll see quadruplexes across the site and increasing that landscape yard that buffers to the adjacent single family.

So those were two of the larger changes that we saw.

There were some other transportation notes and open space items, getting those preferred architectural and design standards that were also addressed in the subsequent revised site plans, but it was that sensitivity to the surrounding single family that was our point of concern that they addressed, and so we're now at a point where we have no further outstanding issues with the site plan.

Okay, and I know there's some activation for retail space that I think that's the um yes, there is a portion of the site that's dedicated to neighborhood center uses.

So up to 20,000 square feet could be a health and fitness facility and 4500 square feet of retail uses as well in that neighborhood center portion of the site, bringing some necessary goods and services that could be activated in that in that area, which you know is primarily residential, and I think it was um a desire for for some folks to certainly see something that's non-residential come in this area that could help service those residents.

Okay, so um it's for that reason that I'm actually in support of it in alignment with staff and the zoning committee.

Thank you.

Miss Ajame.

Yes, I was going to ask staff to go over those changes.

So yeah.

Um I appreciate the work that was done uh between the hearing and now to get us to this point because I remember when this was at the hearing, staff wasn't recommending it.

Um I appreciate the petitioner and uh uh the community work for working together to get us to this point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comment?

Hearing none, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous, and that takes us to item number 15, um, which I will pass over to you at because it has changes after the zoning committee.

Yes.

Sure.

A couple of changes have been made since zoning committee saw this petition because it was previously up for decision last month.

So they have added some notes to their conditional plan to note that they would prohibit driveway access to the site from Parkwood Avenue and also uh committed to streetscape improvements along Parkwood Avenue in conjunction with redevelopment on the site.

So if redevelopment occurs, you know, they would be triggering any applicable sidewalk and planting strip improvements, for example.

Thank you.

Um is there a motion that the changes should not go back to the zoning committee?

So move for this item.

I have a motion for Miss Molina, a second from Mr.

Driggs.

Um hearing any comment.

Hearing none, all in favor to not send back, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Is there a motion to approve and adopt petition petition number 2025 055 as it appears in our agenda?

So move.

Second.

All right, there's a motion and second.

Um, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

And we will move on to agenda item number 16, which also had some changes after the zoning committee.

Yes, this one just had one minor change.

They modified the street cross section of Scaly Bark Road in coordination with C D out.

That's just the note that they put on the plan fairly minor and uh it's in good standing.

Move not to send back.

Second.

All right.

There's a motion and second not to send back to zoning committee.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Is there a motion to approve and adopt statement consistency for agenda item number 16?

So moved.

Second.

Any comment?

Hearing none, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

And we will move on to agenda item 17, which also had some changes after the zoning committee.

Yes, this one detailed their open space notes and provided further specificity about the enhancements that would be within the open space and quantifications and definitions for those open space variables.

And they also added a note stating that the petitioner would construct a mid block crossing, pedestrian crossing at Coca-Cola Plaza, subject to CDOT approval.

That was a C dot request.

It's not a requirement by any means.

It's an off-site improvement that they opted to do as part of this plan.

Okay.

I'm going to do a motion to not send back and then we'll have conversation.

Send back.

Second.

All right.

There's a motion to not send back and second.

I recognize Mr.

Drake's.

Do you want to vote on that?

I don't have a comment on that.

You don't have the motion.

Okay, you don't have a comment on that.

Any comment to not send back?

All right.

All in favor to not send back, raise hands.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Is there a motion to approve and adopt the statement consistency for agenda item number 17?

I'm also move down there and put him in.

Can I note this is in Mr.

Peacock's district?

He's not here.

He is in support.

Just so everybody knows.

And therefore, I make the motion.

Okay.

Clerk, did you catch the motion and the and the all right?

Thank you for that comment, Mr.

Driggs.

Any other comment?

Hearing none, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank you.

And that concludes our decision portion of the evening.

And we will now move over to the hearings.

And we'll start with agenda item number 20, which is petition number 2025025 by Angelo Tillman.

The location is approximately 4.72 acres located west of Moss Road, north of Scotman's Trace Drive, and south of Queen Water Lane in District 3, Miss Brown's district.

The current zoning is N1A.

Proposed zoning is N1C C D.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to site and building design.

And after staff's presentation, uh Miss Chantel Little and Kent Little will have 10 minutes.

And then we'll have Olnar Tostan and Glenn Vernon and Wendy Vernon will have 10 minutes in aggregate to speak in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Petition 2025-025.

It's approximately 4.75 acres located on the east side of Moss Road, south of Livingston Mill Road, and north of Scotsman Trace Drive.

This is a vacant parcel in the Steel Creek community that is currently zoned N1A with a proposed zoning of N1C conditional.

The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type.

The proposal would allow for a community of 21 triplex dwelling units in seven buildings.

Building height be limited to 40 feet, an eight-foot planning strip and six-foot sidewalk be provided along Laughlin Lane with street stubs towards Moss Road and Mill River Lane.

Commits to a 10-foot Class C landscape yard and opaque fence along the site's northern and southern property boundaries.

Commits to preferred architectural standards for Porsches and stoops and garage doors.

Commits to open space improvements to include a picnic table bench and outdoor playground.

Also is committing to a dedication and conveyance of the 100-foot swim buffer and 50% of the FEMA flood fringe of Polk Ditch, the Mecklenburg County for future greenway.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues relates to site and building design.

The petition is consistent with the policy map recommendation for the N1 place type and would allow for a modest increase in density on the site while remaining consistent with the N1 place type.

The proposed N1C C D zoning would allow 6,000 square foot lots as opposed to 10,000 square foot lots under the current N1A zoning while maintaining the intent of the N1 place type.

Given the substantial area of the site dedicated to tree safe, open space, and future greenway, the overall density proposed is compatible with the surrounding residential development.

The petition exceeds ordinance requirements in its commitment to provide a 10-foot Class C landscape yard with an opaque fence along the northern and southern property boundaries were adjacent to single-family detached dwellings.

The petition commits to dedication of a minimum of 100 feet along Polk Ditch to Mecklenburg County for a future greenway, as well as a 60-foot access easement to connect to proposed Laughlin Lane extension.

And I'd be happy to take questions, following comments from the petitioner and the community.

Thank you.

Are you here?

Can I also just confirm that Mr.

Tasten and Mr.

and Mrs.

Vernon are here?

Excellent.

Yes, you can step right up there, and when you begin, you will have the two of you have 10 minutes in aggregate.

Thank you.

So, first of all, we want to thank you all for taking the time out to be here this evening and hearing our petition.

Um we just wanted to say that the reason we were bringing these uh townhomes here to this community was to try to diversify some of the housing that is available in that neighborhood, um, since they are kind of limited on multi-family developments, um, but also keeping that emphasis there on home ownership in the community and the value in that.

Um, some of the things that we were able to do from the time that we started this petition here was meet with the Steel Creek residents as well as some of our HOA and neighboring um community members, and they've raised some of the concerns that they've had.

One of the major ones that we were able to address was excuse me, the construction entrance.

Um they were really concerned about the amount of traffic that would come through their community, and of course, you know, the impact that those machines would have on it.

So we did make a um I guess an adjustment there to make the main construction entrance come off of Moss Road, which would pass through the front entrance of the community there, which is by our dwelling.

Um, aside from that, is there anything you want to add?

Uh we attempted to we attempted to reach out.

I'll also like to thank you guys for your time this evening as well.

Um, we reached out um after our community meeting, um, where we were, you know, to no avail, we didn't get any response.

So um, as far as the changes we made since the community meeting, the major changes were as she stated the construct construction road, and we also consider removing a park, which we did initially intend to have.

Um, but many neighbors, you know, they didn't um agree with the park being there, they didn't want the traffic, so we did do away with the park.

Right.

So they were against the park um and the just the area and the traffic that it may bring or the parking situation behind the existing dwellings.

So that is thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

and Mrs.

Vernon and uh Mr.

Tasten, if you'll come down, and once you are in front of the podium collectively, you'll have 10 minutes.

So if you guys would like to come speak, if you'd like to speak, come down that way.

You don't have to go ahead and speak on the okay, great, wonderful.

Thank you.

Good evening, honorable mayor Pretem.

Honorable members of the City Council.

My name is Arnamunar Tasten, a concerned resident of the Kingsbridge subdivision community, directly impacted by the rezoning petition 2025-025 regarding the property at 13814 Moss Road Shallow.

On behalf of our Kingsbridge Subdivision Neighborhood Community, I stand before you tonight to respectfully request the denial of this petition in its current form as it presents unaddressed issues threatening our Kingsbridge neighborhood communities' safety, infrastructure, and quality of life.

Our opposition centers on three critical areas.

Clearly show a portion of this parcel at 13814 Moss Road lies directly within a floodplain.

Developing here poses immense risks, especially with the BMP right within the floodplain.

Construction can alter natural drainage patterns, potentially increasing flooding risks for existing homes.

Beyond safety concerns, there are increased public costs associated with managing future flood risks, especially if the BMP breaches during a significant storm event, like Hurricane Haleen last year.

We need assurances that this development does not increase flood risks for anyone in our Kingsbridge subdivision neighborhood community.

Second, regarding access, the proposal for 21 new multifamily units funnels all traffic exclusively through Laughlin Lane.

What is particularly troubling is that the current property owner is restricting direct access from Moss Road, forcing all new traffic into our quiet established residential neighborhood.

We would expect an access would be provided through Moss Road as well.

And Loughlin Lane alone was not designed for this increased volume.

Not only does this lack of access through MUSROAD impose safety risks to Kingsbridge, it will also increase safety risks to legacy at Moss residents, whereby they would only have one way in and one way out via Luftland Lane.

Additionally, this will lead to traffic congestion, create dangerous conditions, and safety hazards for our children and pedestrians, which could impede emergency vehicle access for all residents.

Not having direct access from MussRoad for the proposed development residents is an unnecessary and unfair burden for Kingsbridge residents.

Finally, rezoning petition 2025-025 presents a significant strain on our vital infrastructure, specifically our water and sewer systems.

These 21 new units will connect to existing water pipelines and sewer lines, currently serving only our lower density neighborhood via Laughlin Lane.

There is no clear demonstration that the existing design capacity of these lines is sufficient to handle this substantial increase without further compromising water pressure and or increasing the risk of sewer backups.

Such burden may necessitate costly and disruptive future upgrades, the cost and inconvenience of which should not fall on Kingsbridge residents.

Please take into consideration the attached petition to oppose the construction signed by Kingsbridge Subdivision Neighborhood Committee members with over 100 signatures here.

In addition, I would like to point out that the petitioner did not notify most of Kingsbridge community residents.

Specifically, 179 of 204 residents were not notified, even though they notified some residents even five miles away.

In conclusion, Honorable Mayor Pro Tem and Council members, approving rezoning petition 2025-025 in its current form sets a troubling precedent.

It prioritizes development convenience, financial or otherwise, over responsible planning, environmental protection, and the quality of life for current residents.

We urge you to deny this petition until a truly safe, equitable, and sustainable access plan is established, such as single-family homes with direct access through Moss Road.

And until comprehensive guaranteed solutions are presented for our water, sewer and floodplain concerns in Kingsbridge Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

You too have a two-minute rebuttal if you would like to utilize it.

We would like to thank Mr.

Testton for his input as well as his concerns because we understand that those are actually very important concerns.

Um one I would first like to say we did send out letters to all the residents in the area in an adequate amount of time.

Um we actually had about three community meetings, uh one with the Steel Creek Residence Association, one with the HOA of the Kingsbridge community, um, as well as the formal community meeting where we send out all the letters.

Um I able to defer to my developer as far as the flood risk if he is not um signed up signed up to speak, then he cannot speak.

Okay.

Um well, from my understanding, there is a uh stormwater department that runs uh tests as far as you know, we have a detention pond at the back of the residence, which should be able to hold this water.

So from my understanding, that will be covered under the stormwater department, um, as well as the emergency vehicle, which was an issue for him.

Um we believe that we're actually allowing the vehicles to be able to get in to turn around because we heard from some residents that they weren't able to actually get in and get out safely.

So actually extending this road making a three-point turn allows them to get in and get back out.

So as it currently stands, that road ends at a dead end.

So they stated in one of the previous meetings that emergency vehicles or you know, transportation and sanitary vehicles often get stuck there trying to turn around and that they had concerns with parking on the street and not being able to get those emergency vehicles in and out.

Um so we we feel like we helped that by having that T-bar there at the end of our community that will allow these larger vehicles to be able to turn our and there's currently a door in seconds.

Okay, there's currently a dwelling between Moss Road and the development, so we wouldn't be able to access that road.

Um, but we are able to get the construction road.

There's enough space to get a construction road through there.

Okay, but not an actual vehicle in pass to the community.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we will start with Miss Wattlington.

Thank you.

Um, a number of the things that I was gonna ask about have been um alluded to at least a little bit.

I just want to make sure I'm clear.

I'm looking at the petition, and I see that the petitioner is Angelo Tillman.

Correct.

That is our developer, he's here.

Yes, simple engineer was uh-uh.

So sorry, Mr.

Tillman, but you can't speak from the yeah, I just wanted a little bit more clarity around okay.

So, Angelo Tillman is our developer, he's gonna be heading up the project itself.

He's our general contractor.

Okay, we are speaking on behalf of the resident or property owner, which is Regina Kirton.

Um, we work alongside her, um, and we kind of you know navigate that um as far as our civil engineer, he's not able to be here because he's not local, um, so he wasn't signed up to speak tonight.

But he has uh you know, a lot more information, I guess, than we have that he'd be able to detail out for you guys.

Thank you.

Um I did have a question too about a comment that you made earlier in regards to ownership.

I just want to make sure.

Are you are you saying that these triplexes are for sale?

Yeah, so they're gonna be um town home community or town homes, but they're for sale, yes.

Yes, three apiece each building for sale.

Okay, and maybe that's a little I need a little clarity from staff.

Um, just because I feel like I remember like duplex triplex was something unless it was a it was specifically made a condominium and it was called like a duet or whatever, that those were automatically for rent properties in the state of North Carolina.

I'm not aware of that statute.

There they are just to clarify, there are triplex units, so three units per building, and there's seven of those, so 21.

Okay, yeah, I'd like a little bit more information there.

I just remember back when we were talking about the uh 2040 and the um the UDO plan.

There was this conversation around duets could be for sale, but duplexes were in general uh um for rent kind of product.

So I just would like a little bit of education in regards to that because I just remember there being a very high barrier to turn something into a condominium in North Carolina, which then made these types of units.

Yeah, they're uh good evening.

They're all treated the same from the building code standpoint.

It's really just comes down to uh how they're platted, lotted, and then offered for you know consumption by either a buyer or renter, but it really doesn't have any bearing for us from a zoning standpoint.

Uh, you can either have them on sublots or you can have them on just a common lot where they may be uh through a rental association or an hoa.

So we don't make a differentiation from the standpoint of having uh if we how we call it or term them, whether it's a duplex, triplex, duet, that's really just from a marketing standpoint.

Uh but a triplex or a town home, whether it's on a sub-lot or not, is just still considered that under the residential building code.

Okay, thank you.

And then um I did want to dig into this um Laughlin Lane, because it does appear that it would be upwards of 63 cars twice a day going back and forth through there, and that just seems significant on that on that road, given that it's a lane.

So I just wanted to understand staff's rationale behind supporting that.

Um so that that is the only access that this parcel has.

Um it's being subdivided from uh property that fronts on Moss Road, but there are uh two street stubs for future connection, one directly towards Moss Road, another one uh to the south.

There would be another connection into the uh existing neighborhood to the south.

But unless that particular lot is developed, they'll stay stubbed.

Correct.

Okay, and then my last question is you all mentioned you met with the Still Creek Resident Association.

Do you have their um comments or any minutes from that meeting?

Um not that I know that we received um, but they didn't have any rebuttals, they were actually in favor of it.

Um they did like the community park, but when we later met with the um actual neighbors and residents around the area, they were against it, so we made the adjustments according to that.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I think for me the the biggest sticking point point of concern is this um means of entry and exit to the lot.

Um that just feels like a significant amount of um of traffic without significant infrastructure improvements.

So I would love to I would love for y'all to explore how you could maybe reach that moss road connection.

Um so yeah, it's kind of a concern for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Ashmira.

Thank you.

Are you addressing that you guys thank you?

So I agree with council member Watlington.

One of my concerns is also ingress and egress.

Um I know that Mr.

Top Tossen, sorry if I'm butchering your name.

I'll go um he mentioned about having a direct access, there is a need for direct access from Moss Road.

Can you explain why you are not able to accommodate that request?

There is currently a dwelling on the property, and it is the primary residence of the owner.

Can we look at it on the map um site design so we know exactly what you're talking about?

So can we pull up the site map?

Okay, so do you have a pointer you can point to?

Oh, we don't have a pointer.

Okay, there shouldn't be one.

Okay.

Okay, yeah.

So as you can see, Moss Road, the actual okay.

Maybe not okay.

So as you can see there, in between there and the property, there is a dwelling, and that the property south of our lot is actually um where you where's a shared driveway already, so we haven't been able to really get the neighbor to cooperate with us as far as either trying to buy his property um or allowing us access.

He hasn't really responded.

Um, so our only option right now is Laughlin Lane.

Um otherwise the dwelling would have to be either you know torn down or we would have to get access to the property south of us.

I understand.

Okay, speaking to you notify all the residents that then in the list that was provided by the staff, yes.

Yes, and you have a copy of that.

If you could include that in our follow-up report, so that would be great.

Um I'm sorry, I didn't catch what's your role in the project because you said you were representing yes, who are you representing?

We're representing the owner, which is my aunt, Regina Kierton.

She's the owner, but she's the property owner of the existing dwelling that we're trying to separate from.

So we're representing the overall project in her.

Okay, so you what is your role in the project?

We are part owners of the project.

Okay.

Um, so uh, I do have concerns about developing on a floodplain, uh, but I'm gonna let the district council member address that.

But that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim.

And thank you all for the presentation.

I'm not familiar with the area.

I just want to understand if we can take a look at the map.

Is this a single family neighborhood?

Yes, correct.

So all these lots around there are single family homes.

Yes.

Yes.

So there's so I heard them say an HOA.

I obviously the HOA doesn't have the language single family in the HOA language, or we wouldn't be in this position as a public service announcement to all the other neighborhoods in the city.

But so this is a lot that you in the in the middle of a single family neighborhood that you all are proposing to put 21.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um that's due to the the UDO that they're able to make this change to the neighborhood.

Is that right?

This is a rezoning.

Right.

Right.

Red zoning requests.

Okay.

Yeah.

But the UDO would allow it based on the result.

Right.

It wouldn't come to rezoning if it didn't.

Well, they said 13.

I think they said that would be the by right allowance.

Yeah.

It would be by right.

Is that is that what I heard?

13 units by right.

Did someone say 13 units by right?

I'm I'm sorry.

I by right, what could be built there?

Um duplexes and triplexes could be built by right.

Limited to 25% triplexes under the current N1 AZONE.

Okay.

Um I also want to ask city staff is there anyone here from City Water or someone that can answer the question regarding the infrastructure.

We don't have anyone here from Charlotte Water.

Because that was one of the concerns they they brought up.

If the infrastructure of the current infrastructure, if this would put a drain on the current infrastructure, I would want we want information about that.

They also wanted a guarantee that their neighborhood wouldn't flood due to the new construction.

I don't know if this is on a hill, but we know we've seen this all over all throughout the city when there's construction and there is additional water, the new the residents, the current residents suffer, and they're responsible for any damage, if you will.

So I understand that this is a a lot of impact on an existing neighborhood.

So I don't know that I would be in support of this either.

I mean, I can't say either.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's that's concerning.

You know, if all of these are single families, um this is one of, and I know we're a growing city, but I still believe in character and location and neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have Miss Brown.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your presentation.

And to the um is it Kings Creek community?

Kingsbridge.

Kingsbridge community.

Okay.

I would I have a few questions about um a transparency process here because I hear you guys loud and clear.

Don't think I don't hear you as far as you're concerned.

There are a lot of concerns, a lot of things that need to be worked out before we could even even consider.

And it wouldn't be me, it would be the next, probably the next council member coming in, but they can go back and hit a recording for transparency purposes.

So I want to start with there are a lot of uh challenges with the petition, but I do you guys understand what by right mean community members?

Okay, if we get to that point, they would still be able to do something.

Um I like to uh come to some type of common ground where we can communicate um and be transparent about the process and what that looks like.

The petitioners are saying that they sent out all communication to everybody, staff members saying that they did it, and then the community members are saying that they did not get notifications.

So if community members are in the audience saying that they didn't get communication, then where did we fail?

Where we dropped the ball at well, every petition there are the same standards for sending out community notice.

Um every property owner within 300 feet, uh, as well as neighborhood organization leaders within a mile.

So there were 75 um individuals as well as 20 HOA leaders who received the should have received the notice.

So 75 individuals and then eight HOA members, 20 HOA, this is organizations, 20.

Yeah, no, homeowns homeowners association.

We get that, but but we got a line of folks in here that came to represent their community that said they didn't get the communication.

So my concern is for this particular petition, and we have in the past communicated that the process of people saying they're not getting it, so that's my concern.

That's a major concern.

Um, if we're saying that we're sending out 75 notices to our constituents, and then an additional 20 to HOA, but we have uh members of the community that are against it and have valid reasons to be against it, and then um it I'm just concerned about that.

And then um it I'm just concerned about that.

That's a major concern, and it continues to happen over and over and over again.

So moving forward with whoever sits on the council, we got to make sure that that process is rectified and that we try to get it cleared up because clearly here on October the 20th, 2025, we're still dealing with it, and we've had this come up reoccurring over and over and over again.

So that is something that we as council and city staff, we really have to get together and make sure that we get that loophole figured out.

As far as the density piece, we're looking at even just going down smaller from the 10,000 that was allotted to 6,000, which could create a different problem altogether.

But we don't have anybody here to answer the the expertise, the subject matter experts to answer the questions that we need to get answered.

So for me, before we even considered, but you know, it was let me just go back to one thing here at this state, and again, the UDO allows you know certain things to happen, but for me, a racket 2025-025 petition.

Um there's a lot of concerns for me, and and again, I appreciate you guys presenting.

And we would it's probably gonna fall into the hands of the uh representative that get elected on 11-4 in the election, so you would be communicating with them, but there's a lot of things that's wrong with the position that we really need to to look at it.

My concern on our end would be one the the communication piece because if you can communicate it, we can get our our literature if we can communicate and get it out in a timely fashion, and and we can get it into the hands of our community members.

People show up to community meetings, they get informed, they get educated.

You can talk, you can work this stuff out, but that's not happening.

We can say that it's happening all day, every day, but I don't think community members are gonna show up and tell us that they're not getting notifications about what's going on in their neighborhood.

I can't ignore the fact that community members are telling me that they're not getting a notification that's being sent out unless they're all renting, and then if that's the case, that's still a problem because that means that somebody that doesn't live in Charlotte is benefiting from our residents.

Yeah, I just want to touch on that for a moment because as Joe had mentioned, we did have the 300 foot radius that we adhere to for all of our petitions, so that captured, like we said, about 75 folks, including the HOAs, I think is I believe one of the communities is Kingsbridge.

I think that's the community just directly to the south of this.

Uh is that correct?

Correct.

And that HOA was notified with two separate addresses on our mailing list.

And the reason I bring that up is when we have that radius of 300 feet, that does give us limitations.

But the intent of capturing those community organizations and those neighborhood leaders is to also have that information disseminated by them to help us.

Uh, so is it a perfect system?

No, there's obviously some work we need to do, but when we actually notify the HOA of that community as well, we do hope that we that word does get out through their community meetings that they may have.

Uh, and I'm not sure if that transpired or not.

We'll look into that, but I did want to let everybody know that we did, you know, notify HOAs of those both of those directly, north and south uh communities from this petition.

Uh and also just in terms of the road connection, I know we talked a little bit about that on Laughlin Lane.

Uh, if this was a by right project, that connection would have to be made as well, regardless.

Uh, so that rezoning tonight that's being requested wouldn't change uh that road connection, that's why it is stubbed to this property.

So future development would get connected to whether it's by right or rezoning.

Um, and so that is something that they would have to go through uh regardless of of them being in front of you this evening.

Uh and then as far as the water and sewer, I know we had some questions, and we will provide you a follow-up from Charlotte Water.

Uh, we did not get any capacity concerns from them.

Uh, and all projects do have to go through a capacity analysis first before they can get access to Charlotte Water and Sewer.

Uh so if there is an issue where they're they don't have enough capacity to serve the project, they won't be able to build all the units that they may propose.

It really depends on them having the adequate service from Charlotte Water to be able to access that.

And if they can't build all 21 units at once, or if they can't build any until that capacity increases, uh, they simply wouldn't get permits for that.

So there is an analysis that happens regardless of the rezoning being approved.

That happens even in by right project.

So I just wanted to clear some of that up.

Yeah, I appreciate you coming up and definitely offering your expertise.

My only concern is, and I still would have to use my voice authentically like I always do.

I've worked with some of these wonderful folks over here on petitions all the time, and we have no community showing up.

But then we have a community showing up that's saying that they're not getting informed.

That is, I cannot overlook that.

Yeah, I fully understand, and we'll we'll find out what transpired with that as well.

Just wanted to go a little bit further in what we provided in terms of notices for this one in particular.

So HOA, I know that you say that we reached out to the H O A N supposed to just disperse all the information, but the community piece is the biggest feature for me.

It always has been and always will be with you all.

If we could just um I'm talking to the petitioners now.

Community one, let me go back to community.

Thank you for showing up because when you show up, it matters.

Your voice does echo and we hear it.

Um to the petitioners, we're not against you.

We just want to make sure that um because one, I like to see diversity.

I'm just gonna be perfectly honest.

I love to see that you're trying to build in a city where you don't always get the bill.

And so I would love to support you, but I would also would like for it to be on common ground where we get to speak with the community where it works for the community, where you can talk to the community.

I live in the area Mouse Road, it's already a disaster.

We got two two lanes down in the curb, everything traffic is bagged up from one end to the other, it takes you forever to get on one end of one sixty to the other.

So if we could just somehow communicate going forward, I'll I'll definitely have my voice into the representative, and this will be um flagged for me to um share my concerns, but thank you so much for coming out, and I would definitely like to see you be able to get your um petition and your project approved, but it wouldn't be able to get approved in this state in this form.

There's just too many uh things that need to be taken care of.

I'm happy to see you and hope to see you more.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean it.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um is there a motion of closed public care?

I think I just wanted to, yes.

You got something to say.

You have a follow-up as well.

Yeah, okay.

Um, Miss Ashmira and then Miss Johnson.

Thank you.

So in your follow-up report, if you can provide us by right, because this property, I know that duplex and triplex can be developed, but this one is unique because it's on floodplain.

So part of it cannot be developed.

So the density might be much less than what's being proposed.

So if we can get in a follow-up report, what would be the number of units by right?

Uh that would help us.

And I and I agree with uh district council member, I think the neighbors' concerns are valid, and I'm in Lord be supporting this in its current in its current form.

Thank you.

All right, Miss Johnson.

Yeah, just a couple questions for um for the follow-up as well.

Um thank you.

Thank you for asking that by right information.

I wanted some information on the infrastructure, the infrastructure to see if there is the infrastructure for that neighborhood.

And I'd like a little more information on the floodplain.

Yep.

Also, when you mention a community meeting, normally there are community reports, right?

If it's a formal community meeting, so if we could see that, I don't know if that's something you all had or the city members.

Yeah, it should be available on the on our website.

We can we can send it out to y'all though.

Okay, thank you.

And then if this this petition is one of the concerns that I had when I voted against the UDL.

I hate to, this is my second time tonight saying I told you so, but sorry.

Um, if there were an HOA that specifically said uh it's limited to single families, would that protect this neighborhood and other neighborhoods from petitions like this?

So, yeah, as we've said in the past, we don't the city doesn't enforce deed restrictions, they but they don't supersede zoning, so it becomes a private party issue.

So if somebody in the neighborhood said, hey, we've got deed restrictions, you can only build a single family detached dwelling.

That wouldn't prevent us from providing approvals to build something different.

Uh, but then it would put the onus on the folks that live in that community to take those, you know, folks that are building something that's not in compliance with the deed restrictions uh through their own court through that civil process.

So thank you.

And to the to the nice young uh couples and entrepreneurs, uh I support small business and and growth and progress.

Um but I do believe location matters, and just this seems to be implanted in a single family neighborhood, which kind of pulls the rug from underneath the homeowners that bought in that area.

When I look at the pictures of the homes, they're very nice, and they I'm sure that they didn't expect 21 units to be next door to them anytime in the near future.

So thank you.

Okay.

I have Miss Brown for the closing comment.

I think Ms.

Melina wanted to say something.

I'll see your hand on.

Yeah, no, no, you're good, you're good.

Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tim.

I'll be quick because a lot of what I would like to say has been said.

I think the challenge here, I see this as a unique challenge.

One, you're actually going to you got one road in, Laughlin Road, right?

I I can see that based on the um.

Yeah, you know, that we have in front of us.

And I even I who, you know, I I try to be very even-minded with how we approach things.

And you guys have already, based on what our policy states have, you know, staff have already arrived at approval based on what our policy currently, you know, will allow for, right?

I I think in in my mind, the way that I've always seen these exercises is that when someone comes to this body, they bear the burden of proof of why they are asking us for an exception.

And when you make the argument for an exception, that exception and that argument should be crystal clear.

It should be something that even if we have to make a concession for that, you know, um for for that, you know, exception, then it it should be clear.

And in this case, when we have 10 plus people who've come to say, like, hey, this is bad, it's going to be one way in, one way out, coming through our neighborhood.

And I look, this is now starting to happen across our city, and there are so many of these things that are going to continue to come to our front and back doors, even in some cases to our own neighborhoods where we see something and we're constantly constrained.

Um you know, I I'll agree in, you know, for as long as I serve on this council, I'd be interested in, first of all, with us being at the hearing, you may be making the decision if this comes back within 30 days.

That's first things first.

Uh, so this may actually be your decision.

Yeah, just to just to clear that up because there was opposition tonight, this can't be voted on until December.

Okay, well, it won't be yours.

Um, and so since there um is going to the current council is not even going to have the decision to make, someone brand new who don't even know where the bathroom is yet.

No offense to that person, but they won't even know right where the bathroom is, they're going to make a decision on this particular petition.

And and we're going to count on the continuity of the brain trust that's here to be able to remember that in order to do so.

Um and that's that's that's a that's a unique challenge for you too.

You you're going to be here, so hopefully you'll hold that uh for the district three rep and and be able to pull that forward.

But uh with the outstanding issues with going from N1A to a continu a conditional rezoning, right?

Again, that's a that's a pretty different type of ask.

And so I I think the argument should be very clear as to why this council's you know should say yes.

It should be clear.

Um and and the exception should be clear.

The request for it, whether it come from the zoning committee or the staff, by the time it reaches us, we haven't had the opportunity to engage with these off, you know, with these petitions as much as staff and you know, in some cases, even just the district rep.

So I personally don't see this as very clear yet.

And I and I opine that it needs more work.

Um making sure that I I saw head nods from the community, they don't even know what by right means, and I want to make sure that you know what that means.

By right, uh there was a there was a plan adopted by a previous council that that says that based on how something is currently zoned in our city, that if someone owns that parcel, they could do, they can create density based on what that parcel currently says.

And if they come to this body and they ask for, you know, like what's happening tonight by way of a petition, most of the time they're asking for us to give them an exception for additional density because otherwise they do it without us, right?

So when they come to this body, and all petitions don't come to this body.

If you buy a parcel, it's just like you.

If you buy a house and you want to put a fence up, you don't want to have to ask somebody, can you put a fence up?

So if you buy that house and that house allows you to put a fence up, by all means put a fence up.

It's the same thing for someone who buys commercial real estate.

If they buy it and the current zoning says that they can tear down a house that is just a single family and they can put two or three residences that are stacked on top, we call that duplex and triplex.

If they can put that there with the current zoning, they can, and they don't need this body's permission.

But if they want it to, let's say we've seen examples, I'm just gonna give you one where it's a large lot and they want to put, you know, two triplexes on there because it's enough land, then you know, they'd have to come to this body for an exception, and then they'd need to make the argument as to why that exception should be true for this body to grant that.

And in most cases, it creates what we call a precedent, meaning that the neighbor right beside them can come to us and ask for the exact same thing and change the character of a neighborhood, right?

So I want to make sure that you all know that before you walk away that even if this is not approved, there is something called by right, where the owner of that land has their owned opportunity to be able to do something with that project that would create some sort of additional density, but maybe not this much, right?

So I want you to walk away with the real understanding and expectation that some additional density can happen, but it may or may not be, depending on what the decision of the council is.

Uh, they may not have the ability to do more.

So I'll say that and then I'll be done.

So thank you, madam Mayor Pratim.

Miss Brown.

Thank you so much, Mayor Pro Tim.

And so thank you.

She's highly um intelligent when it comes to explaining.

I'm glad she took the opportunity to do that.

Some people may not like it, but I'm glad that she did it.

It's very uh necessary for you to know uh the process, but it's still it lies on us.

We have to do better.

And we want I'm a person that would love for everybody to be able to live wherever they want to live and and be good neighbors, and that just doesn't happen because of the UDO and some of our policies, which we around this day is make, and we have to work on it to be better stewards over that so that we can move forward intentionally, and and some things have been done that our hands are just tied like this, where we want to help the community, and we want to help uh the petitioners, because that's the world that we need to be able to live in where everybody can work together in unison and be good neighbors.

And that's what I'm trying to create, an atmosphere of good neighbors.

It won't be my problem in December, but I'll be sitting out there listening and looking because I am a voter and I'm a taxpayer.

So I want to make sure that you guys know that we do care.

And I thank council member Melinick for going into detail about what that means.

It took me two years, yeah, to get to learn this stuff.

It's very, very complex, very, very detailed and complicated, and you need to know.

So thank you guys so much.

Thank you, community members, for standing up for your community and showing up in numbers the way that you do, and using your voice is elevated, it matters.

And petitioners, thank you for having the courage to come out and want to move forward with your project.

And and thank you, my colleague, for being um highly intelligent.

Like I said, some people might not like it.

I don't care.

You guys need to know.

Thank you so much.

Thank you guys.

All right, thank you.

Uh, Mr.

Fox, did you side whispering?

No, just a couple things.

One, um, I've as the community can see the council is well informed on zoning matters.

There's just one couple of things to mention that I need to correct.

Um zoning or rezoning is a right that individuals have, uh, and therefore it is created through the ordinance and authorized by the general assembly.

So it is a right, and it is it's not an exception, it's a right that one can pursue through land use policies adopted by local governments.

Um, and the other thing is that we're unique here in that when we look at a rezoning, that rezoning is specific to the particular parcel of land, and that comes with certain factual predicates.

So it's it while in some situations it may establish a uh precedent, but it's not technically going to do so when the facts are generally different for each property uh in the and in each property under law, it's deemed to be fairly unique.

So I just want to clarify that.

Okay, thank you.

Um, is there a motion to close public hearing?

Some move.

All right, all in favor, raise hands.

Thank you guys.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank everyone for coming out this evening and voicing your opinion and perspective.

And so now we will move on to item number 21, petition number 2025039 by Christopher Martin.

The location is approximately 0.37 acres, located southwest of Scaly Bark Road, east of Lockridge Road, and north of Murray Hill Road and District 1, my district.

The current zoning is in one B.

Proposed zoning is in one C C D.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

And um after staff's presentation, Mr.

Martin, you're right.

You read my mind, you're right there, ready um to come to the mic.

Um is Mr.

and Mrs.

Howard here.

Okay.

So after staff's presentation, um Mr.

Martin, you and uh Mr.

Younger will have 10 minutes.

You all will how it's will have 10 minutes and then you'll have a two-minute rebuttal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This site is just about a third of an acre located southwest of Scaly Bark Road, east of Lockerge Road, north of Murray Hill Road.

It is currently zoned at neighborhood one B.

They're proposing to go to neighborhood one C Conditional in an area that is largely residential, as you can see, but there are some multifamily residential entitlements on the periphery.

Here's the MACK centers located further to the west, just outside of this map image.

This that the policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type.

This proposal for the neighborhood one C conditional district is consistent with that policy map recommendation.

The proposal itself just includes some conditional notes.

It proposes two single family detached homes on one what is currently one lot, and it limits the building heights for those homes to 30 feet.

Staff does recommend approval of this petition, which is consistent with the recommended neighborhood one place type, proposes just a slight increase in the intensity allowed on the site.

The neighborhood one B zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet, and this parcel is just several feet short of being able to subdivide naturally under the N1B district.

The conditions committing to single family development, no more than two single family homes and no more than 30 feet in height, keeping context with the single family environment that the law exists in.

The properties particularly large lot width relative to the surrounding properties and law area provides a strong basis for the proposed subject subdivision under the N1C zoning district.

And I'll take questions following comments.

Okay.

Mr.

Martin and Mr.

Younger.

Please approach the podium, and once you do, you will have 10 minutes.

Be careful.

Thank you.

Go to the one right behind you there.

And can you just state your name for the record for the clerk?

Sure.

My name is Chris Martin.

Uh my name is James Cole Younger.

Thank you.

Um I do have prepared remarks.

I just wanted to maybe clarify something that might have been missed in the presentation.

We also uh capped the size of the home that could be built as part of a conditional uh tier one.

Um so the home the homes that could be built on these lots cannot be larger than the largest home in the neighborhood.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

My name is Chris Martin.

I'm the owner of 4210 Murray Hill Road.

Please bear with me.

Public speaking isn't something I enjoy, but I felt it was important for you to hear from me directly.

I purchased 4210 uh Murray Hill Road about 18 months ago.

At the time, my fiance Cole and I wanted to be close to a sister who lives just a half a mile away.

Earlier this year we bought another home only four doors sound from her, where we plan to live after we marry in May of next year.

We're excited to raise our family in Charlotte.

4210 Murray Hill Road Murray Hill Road was my first home.

Uh I want to be clear I'm not a developer.

I'm requesting a rezoning to allow me to divide the property into two single family lots.

The parcel is currently zoned N1B, and I'm requesting N1C.

This request aligns with the City of Charlotte's uh 2040 comprehensive plan.

The only zoning standard that prevents a subdivision under N1B is lot width.

Each divided lot would be approximately 52 and a half feet wide from the setback, uh, which is just under the 60-foot requirement under N1B.

All other standards are met.

And importantly, the neighborhood does not have an established lot width or lot size pattern, so the subdivision would not be out of step.

It would keep the character of the neighborhood.

I also want to share the practical side of the request.

If I had to sell 4210 Murray Hill today in its current state under the current zoning, I would have faced about a hundred thousand dollar loss when you factor in the brokerage commissions, the improvements I've made to the home, and the gap between the rent and the mortgage.

This isn't about seeking a profit as a developer.

It's trying to make a reasonable use of the property in line with the city's plan with the way the neighborhood is really already evolving.

Because this is my first time navigating the process, I hired counsel to guide me.

Together we reached out to the community in good faith for our first community meeting.

We sent out nearly a hundred invitations, and about ten neighbors attended.

A few concerns were raised.

One person worried that this was the beginning of a multifamily development.

It was explained that was not the case.

This request only allows single-family homes.

Another person raised concerns about building height.

It was clarified that the proposed rezoning would actually decrease the maximum allowable building height compared to the current zoning.

Someone asked about my background and whether I was a developer, it was explained that I'm not.

I'm a homeowner who uh purchased the home before finding the one will now live and raise our family.

Because I want to personally engage the community, I decided to host a second public meeting.

Again, nearly a hundred invitations were sent out.

Five neighbors attended and three spoke.

I didn't host a second meeting because it was required.

I did it because I believe it's the right thing to do, and because my fiancee and I will raise our family in the community.

I under I understand that changes unsettling.

That's why I adjusted our request to tier one rezoning, which allowed spite site specific conditions.

This was an important step to demonstrate that we truly listened.

For example, we committed that any new homes on the subdivided lots cannot be larger than the largest home in the neighborhood.

For comparison, the newly subdivided lots would be approximately the same size as 4221 Murray Hill Road, located almost directly across the street from our property, and it'll be larger than 420 Murray Hill Road, which is two doors down.

So this would not be setting a new precedent.

It would be consistent with the way the neighborhood has already been evolving.

Several new homes have been built in the neighborhood over the past couple of years.

From the beginning, our goal has been uh to handle the process with transparency and respect.

I've engaged the community twice, clarified misconceptions, and adjusted the rezoning requests to to directly address concerns.

I made site specific commitments to prevent overbuilding and ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.

I believe this request is reasonable, consistent with the city's long-term vision and reflective of the growth that's already taken place.

Thank you for your time, your service to Charlotte, and your consideration of our request.

Excellent.

Did you have any words to say?

Chris speaks better than I ever could.

Excellent.

I got you.

Okay.

Well, um, Mr.

and Mrs.

Howard, if you can come down and upon uh reaching the podium, you'll have 10 minutes.

And Mr.

Martin and Mr.

Younger, if you can just hang out there in case someone has a question, that way you you'll be on deck.

Uh good evening, council members.

My name is Catherine Howard, and I live near the subject parcel at 4210 Murray Hill Road.

I'm here to tonight to voice my strong opposition to this rezoning request, which at currently presented lacks transparency and clear benefit to the surrounding community.

They've made it clear in the community meetings that he no longer lives in that community and has purchased a home nearby and does not determine intend to develop the property himself, but rezone, subdivide lot, and sell both parcels to third parties.

He's also claimed that in the community meetings he lose upwards of a hundred thousand dollars if sold, but has not made an attempt to list the home for sale.

Those numbers may reflect short-term capital gains since the property has not been lived in as its primary residence for the two of the last five years.

While I understand market flu fluctuations and the impact the current economy has set had on individuals, zoning decisions should not be the used as a mechanism to help individuals recover from personal losses or reduce their tax obligations.

While some may say this supports affordable housing, each subdivided lot would have to go for around $300,000.

Tacking on a $400 to $500,000 in home build costs for those developers, those homes would likely be selling for $900,000.

And just adding additional traffic to the to the neighborhood.

When we subdivide one lot, what stops anyone from subdividing other lots in the neighborhood?

And my concern is we don't have the infrastructure to support that kind of tran transportation that would be coming through the neighborhood at that time.

Murray Hill and Collins Park, it's a unique corridor corridor, has defined walkability.

It's defined by walkability, mature trees, and that cohesive single-family character.

While there are some town um split lots, those are the corner lots that have already been approved, and don't hinder as much of the in and out of the traffic as would be on that lane.

Um so I am asking council to evaluate not only the facts but also the precedent it's gonna set for our neighborhood.

It's going to split lots in the middle of the middle of the road instead of the corner lots that had already been approved.

Do you anything?

No.

Okay.

Hey, good evening, council.

I'm Jeremy Howard.

Catherine's wife.

Hold on, sorry.

Um I'll also live at App Gate directly, learning parallel Murray Hill.

Um, I'm not directly opposed to the rezoning.

It's more so the lack of there is no site plan, there is no development behind it.

I'm more concerned with, I know I sound like a big nib because I'm up here saying, don't rezone it.

I'm more concerned with the aesthetics of it.

Um I love our community, I love our neighborhood.

Um I would love to see some more thought put into okay.

There isn't an actual site plan or drawings on how this is gonna look.

And so I'm a real I'm a little confused on okay, I I don't care about it being multifamily knot, you can put a duet there, but I'm more concerned with the aesthetics and how it fits in with the neighborhood.

You know, I'm a I'm a I'm a real estate uh broker myself.

I've been in it for 10 years, and you know, the the dynamics behind developing that lot are a little bit more difficult because of that stormwater easement that runs down the right side of that property, and while the lot is wide, you know, 15 to 20 feet of that's kind of cut out, it's really unbuildable.

And so I'd like to I'd like to see a little bit more effort and thought put into the development of that site versus hey, we're just gonna subdivide it, and then you know, selfishly, I gotta walk by something that looks like it's track built, and you know the largest home in the neighborhood, which is actually to be built, is gonna be about 4,000 square feet.

You know, uh, and so I'm I just I'm not saying no, I'm saying I'm kind of like the girl when you ask her out and she goes, you go, hey, you want to go out tonight?

Well, that's not very enthusiastic.

We say, hey, I got dinner reservation six three at Australian Luca.

That's a plan.

I can get behind that.

Um so that's that's all I've got to say about it.

Um I just like to see a little bit more thought put into it.

I'd say 50% of the neighbors are vehemently against it that I talk to.

I'm not I'm not on that side.

I'm more concerned with the aesthetics, how it's gonna look.

And if we subdivide it and he sells to somebody else who is gonna develop that property, we kind of we've kind of lost it, right?

We don't have any insight, there's no plans, there's no drawings, there's no, hey, how is this gonna look?

I could give you change I was gonna always gonna cuss, sorry.

I could give two whatevers about how big it is.

I care more about the aesthetics and the planning behind it and how it's gonna integrate with our neighborhood more so than anything else.

So thank you.

Thanks well.

First, thank you for not cursing.

I appreciate it.

I too can get behind the dinner plan as you laid out in your second option.

So uh great job there.

Um what I want to say, and I'll kick it off because this is in my district.

So I've had conversations with Mr.

Martin for months on this.

Um he proactively reached, he proactively reached out, and um and and he has engaged with the community um above and beyond what he had to, and he wanted to ensure that because he will be a part of that community on a continued basis that um he wanted to be good stewards.

So I appreciate the outreach of uh a hundred residents twice and in listening to to the residents.

Um I will say um and uh and I and I might ask staff to chime in here, um, but based on the rezoning that he filed for the plans that you are speaking of, and and you have a desire to see are not a requirement, right?

And so um we can't hold him to that because it's not a a prerequisite for this particular uh petition change.

So I just want to be clear-eyed on that.

That I under I hear what you're saying, but he doesn't have to present that currently.

Understood.

Uh okay.

Could you could you um speak to the you know, building to the character and aesthetic of the neighborhood and the fears around that based on our policy?

Sure, in terms of, and I didn't know did we do a two-minute rebuttal?

Yeah, yeah, I'm wondering.

I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, I totally skipped over the two-minute rebuttal.

I didn't want to interrupt her.

Sorry about that, but Mr.

Martin and Younger come down and you have two minutes, and then I can I can get my question.

Get back to you.

Yes.

I thought I might have gotten out of the rebuttal.

So you don't have to rebuttal, but you have it available.

So if you don't want to speak, you don't have to.

Thank you, counsel.

Um, I want to begin by saying I respect my neighbors who came tonight and I appreciate their perspectives.

Um we did talk about potentially redeveloping it and and providing plans to the neighborhood.

Um, but that's uh a financial lift we just don't have the capacity to do right now.

Um so uh just to to clarify if there are any questions about that.

Um and I would just say um the larger context is also important when looking at this.

Um the house was built in 1959, the city of Charlotte's population was around 200,000.

Today it's close to 900,000, and 150 people move to the region every single day.

Uh we have a housing shortage and approving the rezoning uh adds another home to a desirable neighborhood while so preserving its character and it's consistent with the city of Charlotte's 2040 comprehensive plan.

And finally, I want to emphasize I'm not a developer.

This was the first time I've ever purchased my fiance Cole and I will raise our family a half mile from the house.

And uh I've worked hard to be transparent to listen and to adjust, and I believe the rezoning request is reasonable, responsible, and reflects the way the neighborhood is already evolving.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, so on lot character or neighborhood character and how a rezoning plan can address this and how it applies to this rezoning.

So they are requesting a neighborhood one conditional rezoning.

This is a considered a tier one plan, meaning we don't have a full site plan.

They provided conditional notes with conditional notes, which are still site specific notes tied to this specific site.

So they have limited their height, they have limited the use to two single family detached homes.

And as they stated in their comments, so I don't have it up on the slide, and I apologize.

They have also limited the square footage of each home to be in line with what is no greater than the largest home in the neighborhood.

These are fairly typical notes, so and they are more restrictive than you would see in our ordinance.

I will say if there are additional architectural standards or designs comments that the community would like to see incorporated into the notes, then I think that's a discussion that could easily be had between the petitioner and the community items, such as well, every single home in this neighborhood has an eight foot D porch, for example.

I would like to see that incorporated into the notes.

That's something that can certainly be discussed between the petitioner and the community.

Um architectural renderings are not typically included in the rezoning documents.

It's not an appropriate location for those, but the petitioner is certainly at liberty to share those with the community if they have them and would like to share them.

But we'd ask for those to not be submitted as part of the formal rezoning documents.

It's just not part of our process.

But this is a tier one conditional plan, so it has those notes.

They can continue adding notes as they wish to speak to some of the community concerns about design and some of that architectural nuance to make it fit in more into the character.

But when we also look at character, we consider some variables with the rezoning petition and the subject site.

And actually, um, as you all look forward to community area planning here in a month's time, you'll see within every area planning document.

It's called PT5, which is part of the complete communities uh section of every single document, and it lists out some variables that are considered with every single rezoning that is asking for a more intense neighborhood one classification, such as what is the existing lot pattern characteristic of the neighborhood, what are the individual lot characteristics of the subject site itself?

Uh, does it exist on a unique road frontage like a major arterial, for example?

So those so those are some of the characteristics that were already taking into account on a staff analysis side.

This does have a very large lot width itself that is much greater than its surrounding properties.

So we took that into note as part of the justification for a potential subdivision of the site.

And that speaks to character as well, because then once they do subdivide the site, it's not going to be too far out of step with what is already surrounding it.

Absolutely, and that was my understanding.

I just wanted to make it clear that they have added additional restrictions to what could be built to uh complement what is actually in our policy.

Um you all have a great neighborhood, it's a beautiful neighborhood.

I cycle through there whenever I can hop on my bike and um love looking at the homes, and I'm sure that um you know the character and aesthetic of the existing homes will be taken into account.

Um additional comments.

Move to close.

Second.

All right.

Um motion to close public hearing.

All in favor raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank all four of you for coming out this evening.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you for coming.

Okay.

We will now move on to agenda item number 22.

Petition number 2025 045 by J and J Custom Homes.

The location is approximately 9.09 acres, located south of McKee Road, east of Fred Gett Drive, and west of Glenmore Garden Drive and District 7, Mr.

Drake's district.

The current zoning is in 1A.

Proposed zoning is in one DCD.

Staff supports the approval of this petition.

And after staff's presentation, we will have Mr.

Floyd to join us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This site is just around nine acres along McKee Road, east of Fred Gut Drive, west of Glenmore Garden Drive.

As you can see, it's just to the east here of McKee Road, McKee Elementary.

And the area we have largely residential uses, some multifamily residential along the site's western boundary, and some single family residential on smaller lots along the eastern boundary of the site.

It is currently zoned neighborhood 1A, and they are proposing to go to neighborhood 1D conditional, which is consistent with the policy maps recommendation for the neighborhood one place type.

Similar to the last petition, this is a tier one conditional plan, so it doesn't have a full site plan, but it does have site-specific conditional notes tied to it.

And they are noting that they're limiting uses to just single family detached uses across the site.

Could also include accessory uses, that's standard language, but it would be limited to single family detached, so you could not build duplexes and triplexes under this plan.

Staff does recommend approval of this petition.

It is consistent with the policy maps recommendation for neighborhood one and proposes an increase in intensity that is compatible with what is developed on the eastern and western boundaries of the site.

The conditions of the plan commit to developing single family detached building forms and the lot sizes allowed in N1D would be pretty similar to what's already developed in that MX2 zoning to the east of the site.

Existing MX2 development as well as the attached building forms to the west, give credence to the intense, more intense residential district at this location.

I'll take questions following Tisser Comments.

All right.

Welcome, Mr.

Floyd.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Good to see you as always.

Likewise.

Again, uh Mayor Pro Tem, members of Council, I'm John Floyd with Moran Ben Allen here tonight on behalf of J and J Custom Homes.

I'm joined tonight by Jennifer Reim, who is the project coordinator for J, and uh Jeff McCluskey, uh, who is J and J's design consultant in case you have any questions that I can't answer.

Uh J and J is a local custom home builder.

Uh they've done a couple small single family developments here in the Charlotte area.

Uh I'll be brief.

Uh the site we're talking about again is 9.09 acres located off McKee Road.

Uh site is currently zoned N1A, and we're proposing N1D conditional.

Uh a couple things to point out about the site.

You've got at the south end of the site, this large pond that is going to inhibit development.

You also have a relatively narrow site.

Um, and you have townhome communities on both the east and west side.

Uh the petitioner planned on uh developing a single family neighborhood on this site.

Um, given the difficulties with the pond and the narrowness of the lot, they're requesting to move from N1A to N1D to allow more flexibility with lot size.

Um our design consultant estimates that with that N1D zoning uh and the limitations on the lot, we could probably get about 28 single family homes there, um which is about three acres per unit on a nine-acre lot.

Um I think that's a pretty reasonable request.

Uh we did originally file this as a conventional rezoning.

Uh some of the comments that we got back at the community meeting were just about how can we guarantee that you're going to put single family there, not duplexes and triplexes.

So we refiled as a conditional tier one, just to include that condition that it would be limited to single family detached.

Uh there's the conditions, nothing you know, special, just uh, you know, that's section two makes clear that we're limited to single family detached.

Uh not changing place type, it's neighborhood one, it's gonna stay neighborhood one, so it's consistent with the comp plan.

Um that's really it.

Happy to answer any questions that anyone has.

All right.

Any Mr.

Drake's I'll just comment quickly.

Uh I've had some engagement with the neighbors and uh walked the site with them.

Uh they communicated, I guess, some concerns or curiosity.

I I think you've done well to address for one the question about the conditional and uh being more specific about it.

Um I think there was a conversation about the preservation of trees, and the information I got was that best efforts would be used to preserve the trees.

So um, and then of course, there's the constant problem of traffic on McKee.

But I've advised them that in fact the impact of 28 homes on McKee, given the volume of traffic there now is almost uh not measurable.

So that wouldn't be a factor for us.

I this and therefore I don't actually have a question.

I'll just tell you I'm gonna follow up with them and uh and then be back to you if there are any other issues that they want us to consider before the vote.

Thank you for being here tonight.

It's good to see you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I will say on the tree issue, uh, if I can pull up this it's a little hard to see.

I think there is there's certainly tree lines on both sides.

A lot of those, particularly on the west hand western side, are not even on our lot.

Um those are on the the townhome community there, but certainly I mean I think the builder's view is the trees on on both sides are helpful to the communities that are there and also helpful to the new community that will come in, and so every effort will be taken to maintain the trees.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Excellent.

Two will attended committee uh community meetings.

Um it looks like you had good attendance on both.

Any additional comment?

Close.

Second.

All right.

All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

And thank you.

Great to see you.

We are gonna move on to agenda item number 24, petition number 2025 057 by TriBet Properties.

The location is 2.17 acres, located southeast corner of Lancaster Highway and Ballantyne Commons Parkway in west of Adir Manor Court in District 7, Mr.

Drake's district.

Current zoning is B1 C D.

Proposed zoning is B1 C D SPA.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

After staff's presentation, Miss Grant will have uh 10 minutes and is Ms.

Kimmel Luxka here.

All right.

I hope I didn't butcher your name.

But you will have 10 minutes after Ms.

Grant.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Petition 2025 uh 057 is just over two acres located at the southeastern corner of Lancaster Highway and Ballantyne Commons Parkway.

Site is wooded and undeveloped.

Uh it's about a mile west of the Ballantyne Mixed Use Center.

Current zoning is bent B1 conditional.

With the proposed zoning, there's a site plan amendment to that B1 C D zoning.

2040 policy map recommends the commercial place type.

No.

The proposal would maintain entitlements to allow 22,000 square feet of retail uses on the subject side as well as adjacent parcel, which are referred to as parcel one on the previous rezoning site plan.

It would maintain all conditions and design standards of the previously approved plan.

The sole change with this site plan amendment request is to allow a write-in, right-out driveway access from Valentine Commons Parkway.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

It is consistent with the policy map recommendation for the commercial place type, uh, which supports retail use in a walkable landscape public realm that balances automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian elements.

The petition would maintain the site's existing zoning while amending the site plan to allow right-in-write-out access from Ballantyne Commons Parkway.

The proposed site plan amendment would not make any changes to the previously approved entitlements, building envelope, setbacks, buffers, or landscape areas.

And will facilitate development of the parcel has remained vacant while all surrounding parcels have been developed.

I'll take any comments or any questions after uh comments from the petitioner and the community.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council, members of the zoning committee.

My name is Bridget Grant.

I'm a land use consultant with Moran Van Allen.

It's a pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of Blanton Hamilton and Triback Properties.

As Joe mentioned, this is a really simple site plan amendment.

The limits of the request is simply to add an additional access point off of Ballantine Commons Parkway.

In doing that, it it will it will be limited to a write-in, write-out movement, and it also changes our access off of Lancaster Highway, which will also turn into a write-in, write-out movement only.

This access has been changed and reviewed by both CDOT and NCDOT.

What it actually does is remove some of the retail traffic that would be created by this approved development from going to the nearby residential street at Dare Manor and give them direct access directly onto Ballantyne Commons and onto Lancaster Highway.

I won't use the full 10 minutes, but I'm happy to answer any questions after the neighbors have a chance to also speak.

What a go bridge.

Okay.

Thank you.

Miss Helomelowska, if you can come down.

Be careful coming down.

And you'll have 10 minutes once you reach the podium.

Good evening, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, Council members and planning staff.

My name is Anastasia Chmilowska, and I'm here accompanied with my husband Valentin Ribuchin.

We live in a Dare neighborhood, um, which is uh directly adjusted to the site under rezoning petition 2025 057.

First, I'd like to thank the council and staff for the opportunity to speak.

We understand that Charlotte continues to grow and this support for the full well-planned development that aligns to the surrounding community.

After reviewing the materials, including the rezoning transportation analysis and the community meeting report from July 1st, 2025, where petitioner indicates that the intended use for this parcel is a fuel station.

Our neighborhood has several concerns we'd like to share.

According to the city's rezoning transportation analysis for petition, a convenience store scenario was modeled, generating about 3,383 daily trips.

That level traffic aligns to the fuel station and convenience store combination, which would bring a very large increase in movements at this location.

We are also aware that this property already has commercial zoning approval from 1998.

However, since that time, South Charlotte in Ballantyne has experienced tremendous growth and traffic volumes have increased significantly, especially around Ballantine Commons Parkway and Lancaster Highway.

The development patterns, population density, and traffic conditions of today are entirely different from those of nearly three decades ago.

It's reasonable to reevaluate how new access or intensity changes will affect the area now, not just rely on approvals from a much quiet time.

Today, traffic at the Ballantine Commons Parkway and Lancaster Highway intersection is already heavy throughout much of the day, especially at peak hours.

Increasing daily trips by this magnitude, roughly 20 times more than what currently occurs at this site, would have a serious impact on travel times, safety, and overall quality of life for nearby residents.

Recently, the city implemented major improvements, adding new dedicated turn lines on Ballantine Commons Parkway and Lancaster Highway, which have helped significantly relieve congestion.

However, introducing a business generating over 3,000 new daily trips could raise the benefits and worsen safety and flow for everyone who uses that intersection.

They all are residentials.

Within just one mile, there are already two full service gas stations, a circle K and a BP that serve local residents and commuters.

Adding another one so close by would not mean fully improve access or convenience, but it would dramatically increase traffic, lights, and environmental impact.

Fuel storage and pump operation, post-fire spiel and vapor hazards, especially where prevailing winds and drainage may carry pollutants towards residential areas.

We respectfully request a full environmental and fire safety review before any consideration of approval.

The parcel is also currently for sale.

We can see sales signs on this lot.

It's less than 500 feet from this lot.

If a fuel station is constructed here, families and children using pool will be directly exposed to gas fumes and a door, especially during warm weather.

This raises genuine concerns about both air quality and overall enjoyment of our shared outdoor space.

And our concern is safety for children, as there is a school bus stop located very close to this site.

During morning and afternoon pickup times, children often wait near roadside.

A significant increase in vapor movements, especially with drivers turning in and out of a busy commercial entrance, poses a real safety risk for families and children in our neighborhood.

So our primary concerns include the substantial traffic increase and related safety issues for nearby roads, potential for 24-hour operation bringing additional noise and late-night activity, lightning glare from canopy and parking lot fixtures affecting nearby homes, and environmental and safety risks associated with fuel storage and delivery near residential areas.

We're not opposing development itself, but we ask that it balanced and considerate of the surrounding neighborhoods that have grown up since the original zoning approval.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Ms.

Grant.

Your two-minute rebuttal.

Good evening.

We appreciate the sentiment that definitely a lot has changed since this was originally approved in 1998.

So as part of this request, and I do want to note that a fuel station was noted on the original rezoning when this was adopted in 1998 and when they were laying out the townhomes adjacent to it, it was the anticipated use at the time of the original rezoning.

That said, when we revisited the change in access, we did a new traffic study to take into consideration how things have changed currently to make sure that what we were doing accounted for the level of development and intensity that's out there today and that our access points aligned in accordance with providing the most safe option to get in and out of the site.

So we're happy to continue conversations to see if there are other changes that can be made, but we're really just trying to narrow the focus to the access point, and we'll do what we can to continue to work with community.

Thank you.

Any comments?

Yes, I want to speak last.

All right.

Ms.

Mir.

Thank you.

No, I do have a comment.

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr.

Director.

Um, this is a site plan amendment.

Uh and that's not the same thing as a rezoning.

So technically, the conversation we should be having now is whether the change in the driveway and the proposed traffic routing on Valentine Commons is acceptable or not.

Um I'd have to talk to legal about what scope we have, but I I'm not personally inclined to go back and uh just because they came and asked for the site plan amendment rescind the authority they have under the existing zoning.

I mean that's an entitlement that's in place and it hasn't changed.

Um so I guess what I'll do is maybe follow up with council and uh if you want, write to me.

Uh okay, you can find my uh email address on the uh city council website, and we'll we'll have a further conversation.

But yeah, you just need to know a site plan amendment is is a kind of a limited action by us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Ejmeir.

Yes, thank you.

So this question is for Mr.

Attorney.

Um this is the first I have seen in past nine years that it's just the site amendment plan, but it still goes through the rezoning process.

If you can help me understand that, the site plan, as my understanding, the site plan, the site plan amendment process does go through the rezoning process as well.

And you can talk about whether or not community meetings are required or other aspects.

It's the exact same process.

So is this exact same process?

They still have to go through follow the same process of community and notifying the community, having community meetings, and having the council an opportunity to take a look at this again.

Okay.

Um there was a couple of suggestions made by the constituent about limiting hours and others.

If you can uh Mr.

Petitioner, if they can look into this, accommodating this request, that would be great.

We will look into it.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there a motion for closing?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands.

Any opposed?

Thank you for coming out.

And um you did a great job.

We're gonna move on to agenda item number 25.

Petition number 2025-075 by North Lake Pavilion Condominium Associations Inc.

The location is approximately 6.37 acres, located in the southeast corner of Metromont Parkway and Statesville Road and west of Metromont Industrial Boulevard and District 4, Ms.

Johnson's district.

The current zoning is ML1, proposed zoning as IMUCD.

Staff recommends approval of this petition, and after staff's presentations, Mr.

Hawk and Smith will have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This site is just over 6.3 acres.

On the southeast corner of Metramont Parkway in Statesville Road and West of Metro Industrial Boulevard.

In an area though, it has a lot of industrial zoning on the ground, is really a mix of office, industrial and retail uses.

It is currently zoned, manufacturing logistics one, and they are proposing to go to innovation mixed use conditional, which is inconsistent with the policy maps recommendation for the manufacturing logistics place type.

The conditional notes submitted for this petition are pretty minimal.

They have just noted that they are allowing for any of the non-residential uses permitted in the innovation mixed use sending district.

So whereas typically innovation mixed use allows for office, residential, retail, some artisanal industrial uses.

It is noting that any of those uses, as long as they are not residential, would be permitted on this site.

Staff recommends approval of this petition, although it is inconsistent with the policy maps recommendation for the manufacturing logistics place type.

It meets a lot of the variables that we look for in the place type change for innovation mixed use in terms of minimum acreage, preferred place type adjacencies, it's not located within uptown, and it's within an aging manufacturing logistics area that may be transitioning to other and more diverse uses.

And that prohibition on residential uses is really a preferred outcome given that many of the uh areas surrounding the site still have manufacturing logistics zoning on the ground.

So you typically wouldn't want to allow for residential uses to occur directly adjacent to that anyway.

And I'll take any questions following petitioner comments.

Okay.

You both have three minutes in aggregate.

All right.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Mayor Pro Tim, Council members, zoning committee members.

Um my name is Aaron Houck.

I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, North Lake Pavilion Conduminium Association, and with me tonight from the petitioner is Mike Smith.

Um the petitioner is seeking a rezoning of this site, it's about 6.366 acres on the southeast corner of Statesville Road and Metro Parkway.

Uh it's a it's a little northeast of the Interstate 77 uh WT Harris interchange.

Um as you can see from some photographs of the site, it's an existing there's an existing development on the site that has a mix of of office and uh commercial uses.

Uh some of the users on the site include uh multiple churches, various offices, including a medical office and a dental office, there's a beauty spa, there's some light industrial uses, uh, and there's an event space uh among others on the site.

The site uh is currently zoned ML1, and the site was rezoned ML1 as a part of the adoption of the UDO in in 2023.

Prior to the adoption of the UDO, the site was zoned I1 under the legacy zoning ordinance.

And again, the petitioners requesting that the site be rezoned from ML1 to the IMU conditional zoning district, where the condition would be no residential uses on the site.

And and the reason the petitioner is seeking this rezoning is because the site uh already has uh a lot of existing uses that were there prior to the UDO's rezoning of the site.

Uh those uses are are now not allowed on the site uh under the ML1 zoning.

They're their legal non-conforming uses because they were there before the rezoning occurred.

Um but rezoning the site to IMU CD would uh allow those uses to be allowed again, and again, residential uses would not be uh allowed as a part of this rezoning.

That's the condition.

Um thank you for your time, and and we're glad to take any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Any questions, Ms.

Johnson?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim, and thank you for the presentation.

Have we met, have we discussed this petition at all?

Uh have we met about this petition?

We have not.

Okay.

So I'm the district representative.

Um, and I don't have just any details about the project.

Okay.

So I know this is not a conventional, it is conditional.

Um I'd like a list.

I don't know if someone can pull up a list of what uses are allowed, if I can just see that.

Um, is there a reason we don't have any details about like a site plan or what the proposed use would be for this?

Yes, so we were comfortable with seeing this come through as a tier one conditional prohibiting just the residential uses because generally the other uses allowed with innovation mixed use, whether it be office or retail or some of those artisanal industrial things of something like a glass blowing studio, for example.

Those like a glass blowing studio, artisanal industrial, those uses within innovation mixed use that are allowed that are not residential are compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with what is already on the site and would allow the existing uses also to continue on the site or even expand if they needed to.

It's currently in a legal nonconforming uh status as the petitioner noted, so they can continue the use, but if they ever needed expand for some reason, they would be out of compliance essentially.

But I can follow up with you with a more complete list of the uses allowed under the innovation mixed use district that are exclusive of those residential uses which would not be permitted on the site.

Right.

So compared, um comparing what's currently allowed and what's not allowed, and and what's going on what they're proposing to be allowed.

And do we so it is a conditional?

So are we can we require a site plan or more specifics on what's being proposed there?

Sure, if it's the desire of council or community, you all can request of the petitioners certain conditions be added.

If there are uses that you are concerned about, um I'd encourage that conversation to happen with the petitioners, certainly.

Uh, from a staff's perspective, we don't have a concern with the conditions as they currently are.

This is currently a tier one conditional plan, so it doesn't have a site plan, it just has the conditional notes listed with the plan.

But if you are desiring a site plan, that's also a conversation to have with the petitioner.

But that can certainly happen, and you can always pivot a the pivot the type of rezoning petition to have a site plan if that's the desire of council and if the petitioner is willing to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Um I would like more information on what the plan is.

Yeah, the the there's an existing development on the site, and the intention is to leave the development there.

The uses of the site existed prior to the the adoption of the UDO, which rezoned the site from I1 to I uh to ML1.

And what's the current use?

The current uses include uh a number of office uses, including a medical office and a dental office.

Um there's three churches or two churches, two two churches.

Um there are uh there's there's a computer store, there's a beauty spa, there uh there is a real estate office.

An eye doctor.

Okay.

Um and the and so some of those uses, for instance, medical offices and um and dentist offices are not allowed in the ML1 zoning district.

But those offices were there prior to the adoption of the UDO and prior to the rezoning of the site to ML1.

So they're allowed because they're legal non-conforming uses.

And this rezoning to IMU CD would bring those uses back on the medical office and dental offices are allowed uses in in IMU.

And so the intention is to leave leave the site, leave the the development as it is, just to bring it back, those uses that are already there back into the allowed zoning.

Okay.

And then to prohibit the residential uses uh at the site.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

That's all the questions I have.

Mr.

Mitchell.

Thank you, Mayor Putin.

Just a follow-up on Councilmember Johnson.

So uh what location?

Because I'm familiar with the North Lake Mall area, so are you perimeter woods or are you closer to uh uh I 77?

Where are you actually located?

With the lights, it's hard for me to see here, but um the site is northeast of the 77 West WT Harris Interchange.

Um so that's statesful road.

You can see it where it labeled as 21 there immediately to the west of the site.

Uh, if you go down WT Harris is just just out of the picture uh at the bottom there.

And so North Lake Mall is you know, across 77.

Right.

Okay.

So you closer to Hickory Tavern?

Pretty close, yeah.

On the other side of Harris Boulevard from from Hickory.

So you had to give me an eating location.

Okay, yes.

So Consumer Johnson and I can understand where you're at.

Okay, thank you, Matt Prote.

Okay, thank you.

Is there a motion to close public hearing?

Moved to close.

Yes, second.

Thank you.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That's unanimous.

Thank you both.

We'll move on to agenda item number 26.

Petition number 2025 080 by SW Development Partners LLC, located approximately five acres located north of East W.

T.

Harris Boulevard, south of Briardale Drive, and east of East Independence Boulevard and District 5, Miss Molinas District.

The current zoning is R9 M F C D.

Proposed zoning is N1A C D.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site design after staff's presentation.

Brown will have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This site is five acres along EWT Harris, just east of East Independence Boulevard.

And an area where we have a lot of commercial uses along the Independence Boulevard corridor, some residential uses north of the site and some multifamily residential uses in the periphery.

The site is currently zoned, a legacy ordinance conditional zoning district of R9 multifamily conditional.

They are proposing to go to neighborhood to a conditional.

This is inconsistent with the policy maps recommendation for the commercial place type.

The proposal itself is for up to 44 townhome style units.

It would limit maximum building it would limit units to a maximum of six units per building, and only four of those buildings could have the six units per building.

And there would be no more than 10 buildings across the site.

And also provide provides preferred architectural design standards.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site design.

And those include minimum acreage, frontage along an arterial road, and the fact that it's a quarter mile rock walk to an existing bus stop.

It has adjacency to preferred place types, and it has close proximity to goods and services.

This rezoning could serve as a good transition between the commercial corridor along East Independence and EWT Harris and the single family area that's just to the north of the site.

The proposal maintains multifamily entitlements on the site, which are already there, and but brings them under preferred UDO standards.

And I'll take questions following petitioner comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tim, Zoning Committee members, Council Members, Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner SW development.

Holly did a great job.

So as soon as our slides come up, um, this is in Councilmember Malina's district.

If we do our job well, we will be back in time.

We don't have any opposing speakers tonight, so we could have a vote from you uh next month.

Um again, the petition we heard before this was at one end of Harris Boulevard.

This is all the way at the other end, right at um Harris Boulevard.

What's interesting, and Holly mentioned here's the site, five acres, uh, is it's currently zoned R9MF.

So it has a zoning on it that is multifamily, uh actually for apartments, but it's a very old one that's outdated.

So if you were to look at the current zoning and overlay it on the site, it would show apartment housing at a higher density than we're requesting.

So we would like to come in and just do a kind of modern townhome approach.

Uh the one challenge is Holly mentioned is the land use plan the 2040 map calls for business.

Uh as you know, there's a lot of uh car dealerships here.

Uh when we had our community meeting, we only had one person show up, but she was very pleased that we are proposing residential here to transition and not have an expansion of those heavier kind of auto-oriented oriented automotive dealerships.

Um so in a nutshell, as Holly mentioned, uh we're talking about 44 units on the five-acre site, which is a pretty good density, medium density project.

We do have we continue to work with the DOTs.

NC DOT has a project for some improvements, and so our engineering team is working with them.

We hope to have those issues ironed out and be back to you next month.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any comment?

Miss Molina.

Thank you, uh Mayor Pro Tim.

Um actually I I've driven the site uh and councilwoman Johnson would be pleased to know that the zoning petition actually has a QR code on it.

When I saw it, I was I was tickle pink.

I I I drove to it and I said it has a QR code.

Um so that that's first thing you you you did that girl.

You did that.

You did okay, thank you.

Um good job.

So my my challenge is Colin, and I know we can talk about this is that that's a that's a pretty intense curve.

Right.

Uh what's what what type of traffic are we?

Well, I'm happy to talk with you more about this, and I'll I'll involve our engineer.

If you could see this is set back because NC DOT has pretty significant plans for that area.

Yeah, I would imagine.

So I want to um let me incorporate them.

We'll bring that, but this isn't just getting built out there.

We're recording to them coordinating with them pretty closely on their future improvements, which are moving along.

So I can't.

So there are plans to improve right there.

That's correct.

NCDOT has pretty significant plans for adjusting that alignment.

Oh, okay.

So driving that I wouldn't know that because when I saw it, I was a little concerned because I was thinking to myself, like, this is Yeah, if you see all that frontage were set back, it's to accommodate for some of their future modifications, which I'm happy to share with you.

Okay.

Um second, I I see that there's a lot of single family that kind of abuts this property, and you only have one person come out.

That's right.

Uh, we were surprised as well.

Uh when we had another property owner over here.

Um, and uh frankly, I was a little disappointed because I think it's a great story.

You know, again, it's already zoned for apartments.

We're actually zoned for less than is there now.

And I thought, you know, the person from the neighborhood that comes, if we say, hey, the plan calls for business, what would you like to see?

They like the residential idea.

And even though no one came and complained, you can see they've kind of loaded the site so that it has all the open space to the rear to buffer from those single family homes.

So I think the team's done a good job.

You know, if you encounter others that would like to meet, we're happy to speak with them.

So, like you're saying, just to make sure that I'm clear, since there is no opposition, there is going to be a buffer that have you guys do you know where I'm talking about on WT Harris?

Have you ever driven WT Harris where it meets independence?

You know there's a pretty steep curve, like right there behind the car.

There's a car dealership.

Yeah that you meet like right there at the corner.

So this is yeah, well, no, CarMax is up the street.

This is um, I forgot what the name of it's a hint, it may be a hand.

I think it's Honda, I think Honda.

Honda, it's a Honda dealership, it sure is.

Um you hit that curve, but we're actually gonna have people coming in and out like right around that curve, right?

Yeah, and one thing is I wanted this well, I'll share with you.

See how see that building that like that's the car dealership.

See how close to the curve that is.

Yeah now.

If you follow it down, look how far back ours are, because this is um some of the NCDOT improvements are impacting here, and ours will be set even further back.

But again, I'd like to know more about what that is.

So we maybe can talk about that offline because I may get some future questions about that.

Um I I think another question that I have uh with regards to this property.

I love that you're not considering additional density, like more apartments behind single family that's normally frowned upon.

Um I I know that I made a comment and it was attacked earlier in that you know these have the burden of proof.

I actually stand on that.

It's I know that there's a right to axe for a petition change, but that's not something that's guaranteed.

I want to make sure that I say that and I'm very clear.

Um, but I like I said, I without any opposition, no one having emailed or called me.

Um I just um I uh it's it's current commercial, just for clarity.

You just gotta know where I live and where I represent to understand why I'm asking the questions that I ask.

Uh with the current commercial, could somebody just hypothetically have come and put like a different type of business?

So currently it's zoned R9MF, which has got multifamily, it's kind of got an apartment plan on it.

Um however, it hasn't really been it it would be hard to build that by right.

Uh the land use plan calls for commercial.

That's what the 2040 plan right now.

That's what I mean.

Is okay, so the land.

Either way, someone would have to come through the process, you know, to your point.

And the point we'll make to you, and we're making the hearing tonight is you know, as you said earlier, what's the justification for this?

Again, we think it's a step down from what's there.

We think the community, at least the one person we've spoken to said I'd rather have residential there than commercial.

Then seeing Honda expand back there and have another lot behind them.

And the way they've done a conditional plan, one, it allows us to work with the DOTs to get you know make sure the improvements are coming in, and we'll talk about those, and also have the buffering back there and the other uh commitments that Holly mentioned.

I've always known you to be very good at this.

So I I really appreciate your explanation because that helps, right?

Like you you really kind of weigh the pros and comms.

You're making the case, and that makes it easier for me when someone asks me then, well, you didn't hear from us, but why didn't you ask X question or why didn't you?

You know what I'm saying?

React on our behalf.

So um I look forward to having some more conversation offline.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to close public hearing?

So move.

Second.

All right.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

We'll go to agenda item number 27, petition number 2025 087 by Naman York Mott LLC.

The location is approximately 3.39 acres, located south of Oak Lake Boulevard, west of Waterridge Parkway, and north of York Mount Road in District 3, Miss Brown's district.

The current zoning is ML1 ANDO.

Proposed zoning is IMUCD, AND O staff recommends this petition, and after staff's presentation, Mr.

Carmichael will join us for three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh petition 25087 is located on the south side of Oak Lake Boulevard, just east of the intersection with York Mount Road.

Site's a little under three and a half acres and is currently undeveloped.

Current zoning is ML1 A and D O Manufacturing Just Logistics Airport Noise Overlay, disclosure overlay, excuse me.

The proposed zoning is IMU CD innovation mixed use conditional.

2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type.

The IMU district is inconsistent with this place type.

And the approval of this petition would revise the policy map to the IMU place type.

This is a kitchen conditional plan with the one primary condition being that it limits development to the site of a hotel use.

Staff recommends approval of this petition as the site's located in an area with mix of commercial and industrial uses, including other hotels.

Hotel would support the surrounding commercial and light industrial development.

The site is near the airport.

I'm happy to take any questions following the petitioner's presentation.

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr.

Carmichael.

Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tim, members of the council and the zoning committee.

I'm John Carmichael here on behalf of the petitioner with me tonight.

Is Nick Patel with the petitioner?

Nick's happy to answer any questions that you may have.

The site's about 3.388 acres, located on the south side of Oak Lake Boulevard and north of Yorkmont Road.

The site is in close proximity to the airport and to the old Coliseum site on West Tavola Road.

And for Council Member Mitchell, it would be north of the Jocks and Jills.

Thank you, JC.

This is this is the site here.

And then Tub Jox and Jills is about here.

He knows the and then um near Nana.

The site is currently zone ML1, Airport Noise Disclosure, Airport Noise is closure overlay district.

And the request is to rezone it to IMU CD Airport.

I can't say that airport noise disclosure overlay district to accommodate a hotel use on the site.

If the petition were to be approved, the only permitted use would be a hotel use.

It's compatible with the surrounding uses.

The hotel would serve the near power nearby airport and travelers.

A hotel use was permitted on the site under the prior I-1 zoning before the adoption of the new UDO.

And the a member of the petitioner bought the site back in 2022 with the intention of developing a hotel.

They're now ready to move forward.

Therefore, they've submitted this rezoned petition.

And uh we're pretty happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Any comment?

Is there a motion to close public hearing?

So move.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

Outstanding dub C that is unanimous.

And we will go to our final agenda item tonight.

Item number 28.

Um petition number 2025 090 by Stephen Siller Tunnels to Towers Foundation, a New York non-for-profit corporation.

The location is approximately 3.39 acres, located south of West Arrowwood Road, northwest of Forest Point Boulevard, and east of Forrest Pine Drive in District 3, Miss Brown's district.

The current zoning is B D C D.

Proposed zoning is IMU C D and staff recommends approval of this petition, and after staff's presentation, Mr.

Washburn will have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, this is also a rezoning petition proposing the IMU CD district.

Um 2025 90s located on the west side of Forrest Pine Drive, just south of the intersection with S West Arrowwood Road and also just shy of three and a half acres.

Um currently zone BD C District of Business Conditional 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing logistics place type.

Uh the IMU district is inconsistent with this place type and approval.

This petition would revise the 2040 policy map recommendation to the innovation mixed use place type.

Proposal calls for the conversion of a hotel into multifamily housing utilizing the existing building.

It limits the maximum number of units to 117.

And the plan states that no long-term residents are currently living on site.

Um staff recommends approval of this petition as the IMU district encourages adaptive reuse of buildings.

The site's located in an area developed mostly with office and commercial uses and the larger area is shifting to a greater mix of uses, including residential.

The site is served by transit.

I don't take any questions following petitioner's presentation.

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr.

Washburn.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim, and members of the council.

Um my name is Matthew Washburn.

I'm an attorney for Hankin and Pack here in Charlotte, and I'm representing the petitioner.

Um I know some of you are familiar with them from their climb they had back in August at the football stadium, but they're a non-for-profit out of New York.

Um Stephen Siller was a firefighter.

He was on his way to play golf when the towers got hit.

He ran through the tunnel.

He ran through the tunnel, he wound up perishing that day, and um his family set up this nonprofit to honor his legacy.

So what they're asking for is they're trying to buy this hotel, and the current zoning designation does not allow for long-term housing.

So we just need to um requesting to switch it to IMU C D to allow for the long-term multifamily housing.

Um, there are several other hotels in the area, and um, like Mr.

Magnum said, there is quite a bit of commercial and then some single family and some multifamily also in the area.

And um, we'd be happy to take any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Any comment?

Okay.

So I know it's the last petition of the night, so I think I don't know if we've spoken on the phone or I've spoken to someone.

So did somebody reach out to you.

They reached out quite a bit early on in the process.

Right.

And um, I'd like to hear more so we can talk offline.

But one of the concerns I have in Charlotte is that our lowest in uh income individuals live in hotels and motels.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, so I always ask when we we kind of set a precedent um by asking for a displacement plan if there are any long-term occupants in the hotel that you're yes, ma'am.

So we are under contract, we haven't purchased it yet, but in negotiations with the seller, um, it was contracted to be sold vacant.

I don't believe that he has any long-term residents that would be displaced.

And there are about five other hotels within a hundred yards of it, also, um, should there be any issues.

Okay, can you you said you believe can you find that out for certain?

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

And if it's not vacant, then we want to make sure that that folks have notice as soon as possible.

So, you know, wherever this location is, if we start to talk about it, council member brown, this is this may be sold so that people are aware.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Miss Brown.

Yes, I spoke.

Thank you.

Um I spoke in detail to him.

I had a lot of questions, and uh on the phone for over an hour uh about the process.

We did speak about displacement and what would be in place, and and and they assured me that there would not be any.

So I wanted to put that on.

Yes, ma'am, that's the same thing I've been told as well.

Okay, yeah.

So I just want to make sure, and so to council members Johnson point, very valid, but we did ask those questions.

Of course, I want to ask those questions up front.

I did ask those questions.

I love the mission.

I love the work that they're doing, and so uh as long as we don't displace any of our current human beings, we're good.

And thank you so much for um considering us what is the project.

Of course, thank you.

Thank you.

I I I really uh commend the mission as well.

And I was at the event earlier um at the Bank of America Stadium.

So absolutely.

Is there a motion to close public hearing?

So moved.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is a that is unanimous.

I have a motion to adjourn.

So moved by Mr.

Driggs.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Mitchell.

All in favor, please go home.

Thank you.

Thank you.