This February 16th zoning meeting of the Charlotte City Council.

My name is Ed Briggs.

I am the District 7 Council Member and also the Chair of the Transportation Planning and Development Committee.

And in that capacity, I'm sitting here tonight.

We will begin with introductions around the day, is starting with Mr.

Masuera Riaz.

Thank you, Councilmember Driggs.

JD Masuera Arias, probably representing the East Side, District 5.

Good evening, everyone.

Happy Black History.

Malcolm Graham, District 2.

Kimberly Owens, representing District 6.

Good evening, everyone.

James Mitchell may have pro town.

Allison Craig, Deputy City Manager.

Dante Anderson, District One.

Joy Mayo, District Three.

Terry Hagler Gray, Senior Assistant City Attorney.

Billy Tons, Deputy City Clerk.

Thank you.

We will begin our meeting with an invocation.

Expressions and inspiration followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

The invocation by the Council Member is intended to solemnize our proceedings.

We celebrate the religious diversity of our community, including those without a religious faith.

Tonight, Councilmember Graham will give our invocation.

Well, Heavenly Father, as we come to you on this evening, we ask for your grace over our city.

We ask for every neighborhood, every community to feel your touching hand.

We ask that you bless over this council and give us the wisdom and the courage to make wise decisions on behalf of this great community.

Amen.

Councilmember Otomira, would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure.

Good evening, Dimple Ashmer, Councilmember at large.

So it's a zoning meeting tonight.

It begins with applications that are submitted to the planning staff for review.

The planning staff basically conducts a thorough review of these petitions from very different standpoints and then ultimately makes a recommendation to the council.

Decisions and hearings.

Decisions on cases for which a public hearing was previously held will be made tonight, and there will be no further comment about those.

gets uh and those in favor get three minutes in total to present the case unless their opponents signed up to speak or if staff is in opposition in which case the petitioner gets ten minutes opponents get a total of ten minutes combined and petitioner then gets a two-minute rebullet rebuttal after the opponents speak if no one is opposed to signed up to speak staff provides a short presentation the public hearing is closed and the next public hearing is opened the petition goes to zoning committee of the planning commission for review and recommendation and at this point I'd like to ask the zoning committee chair to introduce himself and his members thank you very much councilmember Driggs my name is Douglas A Walton I am the chairman of the zoning committee of the planning commission please allow me to introduce my fellow commission or commission committee members uh they include Melissa Gaston Aaron Shaw Teresa McDonald Robin Stewart Carolyn Millen and Michael Caprioli the zoning committee will meet on Tuesday March 3rd at 530 p.m at that meeting the zoning committee will meet to discuss and make recommendations on the petitions that have a public hearing here tonight.

The public is welcome to that meeting but please note that meeting is not a continuation of the public hearing that is being held tonight.

Prior to the meeting you are welcome to contact us to provide your input you can uh contact you can find contact information and information about each petition on the city's website at Charlotteplanning.org and that is it back to you uh councilmember Driggs thank you Mr.

Chair uh at this point we need to consider deferrals and withdrawals so what can happen is we have a schedule of zoning hearings or decisions and then at some time before our meeting tonight uh they are withdrawn or deferred so now we're going to hear from Ms.

Kramer which ones uh those are yes we have several deferrals I'll start with decisions item number 13 petition 2025-021 by Harold Jordan deferring decision to March 23rd item number 14 petition 2025-039 by Christopher Martin deferring decision to march 23rd item number 15 petition 2025-091 by embarked development companies deferring decision to march 23rd item number 17 petition 2025-030 by try on advisors deferring decision to march 23rd item number 20 petition 2025-094 by a Topco properties deferring decision to March 23rd and item number 21 petition 225-126 by Cross and South East deferring decision to March 23rd and we have one public hearing deferring i that is item number 22 by uh Northwood Raven 2025 063 deferring their public hearing to March 23rd so council do I have a motion to defer these agenda items so move second any discussion hearing none all in favor that's unanimous thank you uh the next thing we'll look at is consent agenda items so uh on our uh agenda are items three through twelve that may be considered in one motion except for items that are polled by a council member please note that these petitions meet the following criteria for one they had no public opposition at the public at the hearing two the staff recommends approval three the zoning committee recommends approval and four there were no changes after the zoning committee's recommendation so now I ask are there any consent agenda items council would like to pull for question or comment or a separate vote seeing none we will proceed that's great good uh so then may I have a motion to approve the following petitions and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency for each of these petitions as they appear in our agendas as the council's own and I will read them item number three petition 202504 by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority number four petition 2025 078 by Image Customs Homes LLC Item number five petition 2025 096 by Justin Perry Item number six petition 2025 102 by Olympia and Wright Homes Item number seven petition 2025 11 by QuickTrip Corporation item number eight petition 2025 112 by Alexander Myers Family LLC Item number nine petition 2025 113 by C Lion LLC Item number 10 2025 115 by Abacus Capital Item 11 petition 2025 116 by Piedmont Land Development Inc.

And item 12 petition 2025 119 by Hines so did we have so move second all right we have a motion and a second any discussion hearing none all in favor that carries so at this point we can proceed to our decisions 16 right and I've got those yeah all right so uh consent to the back of consent we go 13 deferred 14 deferred 15 deferred so the first item uh on our agenda for our decision tonight is one uh I I will read the description it's one in which was in respect of which there were changes after the zoning committee so we'll have to vote on that

All right.

So the back of consent.

We go.

13 deferred, 14 deferred.

15 deferred.

So the first item uh on our agenda for our decision tonight is one uh I I will read the description.

It's one in which was in respect of which there were changes after the zoning committee, so we'll have to vote on that.

But this is rezoning petition 2025 025 by Angelo Tillman.

The location is approximately 4.75 acres located east of Moss Road, south of Livingston Mill Road, and north of Scotsman Trace Drive in Council of District 3, Ms.

Mayo's district.

Current zoning is N1A, neighborhood 1A.

Proposed zoning is N1C, C D, neighborhood 1C conditional.

The zoning committee's recommendation is uh a vote six to nothing to recommend approval of this petition.

The staff recommends approval of this petition.

So we do have changes after, and therefore I need to call for a motion that the changes actually, first of all, Miss Kramer, would you tell us what they are?

Yes, so in the past month the petitioner made some minor changes to their conditional notes that they would meet or exceed ordinance requirements related to their sewer, water, and stormwater infrastructure on the site.

And we believe that the changes are minor and do not warrant additional review by the zoning committee.

So uh do I have a motion that the changes should not go back to the zoning committee?

So move.

Second, all right, and then comment.

Ms.

Mayo.

I think we can move the next one, right?

This is just for not sending back.

We have to vote.

Do you want to comment on sending it back?

Oh no, I do not.

I apologize.

All right.

So let's do this vote.

I thought maybe you had a comment about that.

So uh given that there are no comments on sending it back.

Uh all in favor.

Okay, that is unanimous.

And now we can proceed to uh the actual item.

Is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own?

So move.

Second.

Okay, discussion.

Ms.

Mayo.

Um so I appreciate that.

We have many um members of the community here to talk about this.

Uh we've talked extensively about this.

Um you've chatted with the planning department and I've met with the community as well.

Um I think it's really imperative that we think about the difference between by right um in a rezoning, and for this one, um, the rezoning actually allowed us some community benefits.

So that enabled uh the petitioner to do some of the things that the community wanted.

Um, and they even did more, which we just saw.

So I will be supporting this.

Um, and I'm welcome to chat more about it if anyone has questions.

Thank you.

Appreciate your work on this.

Any other comments?

If not, all in favor.

All opposed.

Got that.

Yep.

Uh that passes.

Okay, moving on to agenda item 17.

18.

Uh did we do 17?

17 was deferred.

Oh, deferred.

Okay.

Hold on.

Uh 18.

This is another one with a uh send back, right?

So I agenda item 18, rezoning petition 2025-076 by Kevin Nagoyan, LLC location approximately 2.5 acres located on the north side of Shopton Road, east of Steve Chapman Drive, and west of Pinecrest Drive in Council District 3, Miss Mayo's district.

Current zoning is C G A N D O, General Commercial Airport Noise Disclosure Overlay.

Proposed zoning is N2A C D A N D O Neighborhood 2A, conditional airport noise disclosure overlay.

The zoning uh committee recommendation is 6 to nothing to recommend approval.

The staff recommends approval, and again we have changes there, so Miss Kramer.

Yes, so for 2025 076 changes since zoning committee saw this petition, they added a sidewalk connection from units to the public right-of-way, also added a crosswalk to connect units to that public right-of-way, converted visitor parking at the rear of the site from parallel parking to in an effort to increase the number of parking spaces.

And they also committed to all windows having a minimum sound transmission class rating value of 35.

That's a an effort for sound mitigation at that site.

Staff believes that these changes are minor and do not warrant additional review by the zoning committee.

Thank you.

Do I have a motion that the changes should not go back to zoning committee?

So move.

Second.

All in favor.

Okay, that's unanimous.

So now is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen is the council's own.

So move.

Second.

Any discussion?

Yes.

I think this is another great example of the community and I working together, working with a petitioner to address some of their concerns.

Um as you saw with some of the additional language that the petitioner agreed to.

That was so imperative based on those conversations.

So very grateful for Still Creek Residents Association for spending time working with the petitioner to figure out how we can collaborate and make this uh work for everyone.

Um so just as a FYI, that's something that I do with all of my rezonings.

Um I think it's very important that I am hands-on and having those conversations to make sure that the community feels that they are heard.

Um this is also one in which we have changes after the zoning committee.

So Ms.

Kramer, what are those?

25076.

I I can review those again if you would like.

Is this 19?

What are we doing?

I marked up 19 is also 18.

Uh we're on 18 now.

Okay.

Sorry, guys, I got my notes mixed up here.

Hold on.

Um, so we're here, right?

And we have voted on the changes after committee.

So now uh we have a motion.

And we have a motion.

That's a second.

Second.

Sorry, guys.

Is there any discussion about the motion to approve it?

We just had it.

And uh that was it.

Any further comment?

All in favor.

I'm catching up.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mike.

All right, so now we're on 19, right?

Which also has okay.

Agenda item 19, rezoning petition 2025 088 by Northway Homes LLC.

Uh, approximately 3.51 acres located south of Kentbury Drive, west of Bellhaven Boulevard, and north of Gum Branch Road in Council District 2, Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is R8 MF C D, multifamily conditional, proposed zoning is N1D C D, neighborhood 1D conditional, and N1A, neighborhood 1A.

The zoning committee recommends 60 to approve uh recommend approval of the petition, and the staff recommends approval of the petition, and we do have changes after the zoning committee.

So, Miss Kramer, what are those?

Yes, so since zoning committee reviewed this petition, the petitioner did add one condition to their development standards, and that was to prohibit vinyl siting on their plan.

This is as a result of community conversation, and staff believes that this change is minor and does not warrant additional review by the zoning committee.

Okay, so do I have a motion uh that the changes should not go back to the zoning committee?

So move.

Second.

All in favor.

Good.

Is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen is council's own?

So move.

Second.

Any discussion?

Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

Councilmember Jake.

Just a question for staff of clarification.

It was noted that the petitioner had committed to individual driveways for the development.

But I didn't see and maybe I missed that language.

That was the understanding of community on this budget.

Yes, I'm unfamiliar with that commitment because as it stands, the development standards that are being committed to as part of the rezoning conditions relate to single family detached uses and the prohibition for vinyl siting.

If there is a discussion, it could be that that is perhaps their development intent based off plans that they're looking into, but they're not willing or ready to commit to that in a conditional note.

I appreciate that.

I I do want to say to the developers and the petitioners that we do appreciate the fact that it is restricted to single family detached homes, as well as I want to thank community members that have reached out, including Morgan Eberley, who we had a chance to speak early, and do know that for council member Graham that there is support in the community.

They're not overly excited, yet they do recognize what can be built by right, but they also appreciate the concessions that this developer has made and the commitments that it has made to the community.

So and I will be supporting it along with my colleague on behalf of the community tonight.

Any further comment?

If not, all in favor.

Any opposed?

Good.

So item 20 is deferred.

Therefore, we move on to item 21.

This is we're in decisions, yes, that is indeed deferred.

How could I miss that?

Okay, that one is deferred.

So we're into hearing.

So uh look at my tape.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So we're now going to start the hearings.

Uh I explained the process for those earlier.

Uh agenda item 22 is deferred.

And therefore, we will start with agenda item 23.

Zoning petition 2025-118 by Charlotte Planning Design and Development Text Amendment.

Purpose of this text amendment is to update the UDO to implement and support the goals and policies of the Charlotte Future 2040 comprehensive plan.

This includes updates to reflect best practices, address new and emerging trends, address implementation challenges identified by external and internal stakeholders, and correct scriveners areas.

Updates are proposed to 25 of the 39 articles.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

Uh to I have uh is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own.

We're just on we're just doing hearing.

We just don't want to hear anything.

I know I've still got my script.

If we want to go through and decide on it, it's great as well.

I should know by now.

So I guess then what we'll do is we will invite you to comment on that.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Um council.

Again, we have our public hearing for uh our text amendment.

Uh it's petition 2025-11.

Uh see if we can speak to that.

No.

Next slide.

Uh so again, why is this text amendment needed?

We've done several text amendments over the years since the UDO has gone into effect.

This again is helpful in facilitating the goals of the 2040 plan.

Uh it's a document again that we've always described as a living document, and we do make routine updates, uh, you know, just to uh make sure we're doing things to uh you know get into best practices, add clarity, adjust use permissions, prescribe conditions, correct errors, uh, and this proposed text amendment will again try to make the UDO more user-friendly uh and result in better functionality.

Uh this petition was originally filed in October of 2025.

Next slide.

Uh and we did provide some updates and filings back in December, and then again, uh just last month in January.

Uh it does address multiple items that were identified by both stakeholders and internal staff.

Uh we did engage with our UDO advisory committee back in October and November.

I also provided an update on this text amendment to the Transportation Planning and Development Committee back on January 5th, uh, and then had virtual community engagement that same week uh on both January 6th and January 8th.

And then, of course, we're here tonight with our public hearing on February 16th.

Next slide.

So we just want to go over a few of the highlights that are included in this text amendment.

Uh the first one we'll talk through is just some changes to our regulations on accessory dwelling units.

Uh, this is uh you can see the red line text there on the left.

Uh we made some modifications to uh state that the heated floor area of the ADU shall not exceed 600 square feet or 70 percent of the total floor area of the principal residential use, whichever is greater.

Uh however, they can in no case can they be more than a thousand heated square feet.

Uh, this change was essentially made to accommodate ADUs of different sizes and give folks a little bit more flexibility, particularly uh when they have maybe a home in one of our older historic neighborhoods that may be 900 or a thousand square feet, uh a 400 square foot ADU may not be uh something feasible.

They may need a little bit more space or square footage.

So uh this was done in order to try and accommodate um, you know, again, just some greater flexibility with folks that may be deciding to pursue uh constructing an ADU on their property.

Next slide.

Next highlight we want to go over is just uh some changes to where we allow our outdoor markets or farmers markets.

Uh these are now proposed to be allowed in ML1, ML2, IC1 and 2 in our OFC and OG zoning districts.

Uh those were historically areas that were not allowed to accommodate these types of uses, but uh certainly will expand the availability uh of food access, particularly to uh these outdoor markets in areas that may have that as the predominant zoning and may struggle with access to uh fresh and healthy food.

So again, this is just opening that use up uh in some more areas uh across the city and in some different zoning districts.

Next slide.

We also made some changes uh to our solid waste standards in the UDO.

Uh just to highlight some of those.

If you have a project that's one through eleven dwelling units uh for all development types, you are eligible for city provided rollout uh and you're not required to construct an area for solid waste space and collection, uh mainly a dumpster pad.

If you have 12 or more dwelling units for all development types, you're eligible for uh city provided dumpster service.

Uh you may also be required to construct this on-site solid waste space.

There are some exceptions uh for duplexes, triplexes, and quads uh that would not be required to construct that on-site solid waste space uh when meeting criteria of either being located on an individual lot uh and fronting on a public street.

Uh so that would again provide that eligibility then for uh city provided.

Uh and then we do have some uh standards for 12 through 49 dwelling units.

Again, they're eligible for city provided dumpster service, be required to construct that on-site solid waste space again, except uh you're not required to wait again, you meet those criteria of being located on an individual lot or fronting on a public street.

Uh these changes in no way preclude folks from pursuing private uh hauler service.

Uh so solid waste collection done through a private contractor can still be pursued.

Uh, this again is just to provide a little more flexibility and clarity uh in the eligibility for uh different projects and also when those uh solid waste spaces need to be constructed and how they need to be constructed.

Next slide, we did have to make excuse me, a change uh based on House Bill 926.

Uh a lot of we've talked about this at a couple of various meetings in the last month or two.

Uh the main challenge uh that we saw out of this bill for the UDO was the uh waiting period for rezoning petitions.

Uh this passage of this House bill eliminated that across the state, so no uh jurisdiction in North Carolina can have a uh waiting period for refiling development applications, which include rezoning petitions.

We did have that language explicit in our UDO and also in our legacy ordinance, so that is uh something that we do have to strike now as a result uh of the passage of that House bill, so we are taking that out of our UDO just to make sure there's no conflict with state law.

Next slide.

We did update some general use standards and development standards, uh just different flexibility for transparency, particularly for modular buildings.

Uh we see these use quite a bit for schools.

Uh our transparency standards, of course, require more windows than a lot of those pre-manufactured buildings can accommodate.

Uh so schools were running into some challenges in getting those permitted quickly and effectively.

So uh worked with uh the school district and came up with some standards that would work for all parties.

Also, some flexibility on uh certain design standards for larger health care institutions, uh setbacks from new wireless telecommunications infrastructure have been added, uh flexibility for some driveway widths uh to ease conflicts between city and NC DOT standards.

Uh there were some instances where the city standard was uh more restrictive than the state, and the state was asking for a wider width, and the city said, well, we just can't allow that per the UDO, so we've put in some uh flexibility in there for both parties to work together uh to make sure the driveway standards meet both uh both parties' needs, and also updates some notice requirements for floodplain regulations.

Uh so the next slide.

So we do recommend approval of the petition.

It is consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan based on uh the information in the staff analysis, and also because we are facilitating a lot of the goals from the comprehensive plan through our regulatory standards, and these changes continue to uh try to facilitate those goals in a more effective and efficient way.

Uh so we'll be happy to take any questions and discuss this further.

So uh colleagues, particularly for our new members.

This is a petition by the City of Charlotte uh to make some changes to the text of the UDO as part of an ongoing process of basically trying to align it better with our experience and input from the public.

Uh we have no speakers sign up.

Are there any comments?

Uh I guess I'll just go around Saj Miron.

Thank you, Mr.

Dregs.

Uh couple of questions.

Is this something that was reviewed by the transportation and planning committee?

Yes, uh back on January 5th.

Okay.

So have we heard from the industry and the community any opposition on any of this proposed changes?

Uh none that we've made made aware of, no.

And we have engaged our ordinance advisory committee, which does include folks from both the community and the industry.

Uh and haven't had any uh feedback from from either group on it.

At some point, we were also looking at design templates to incentivize ADU developments to help us tackle affordable housing crisis.

Uh could you also update me on that?

Yeah, they are still working through those.

Uh that's in partnership with our housing and neighborhood services group.

Uh, some of the changes that we uh came through for the UDO uh did come out of some of those conversations as we saw some of the templates that were being uh explored, they would conflict with some of the standards we currently have in place, which is why some of those changes are being made to open up uh opportunities for folks to take advantage of some of those templates should they come online for us.

So, what's the timeline?

Uh that I don't know.

I'd have to reach out to our folks in housing, but we can certainly get you that in a follow-up.

Yes, I think if we can prioritize that as we are looking at affordable housing and incentivizing ADUs, I think it's important for uh us to have this design templates that can save uh thousands of dollars to homeowners that are looking to do this.

Um that would be helpful.

And last but not the least, um logistically, my screen is not working, so it's hard for me to go back and forth.

So if someone can look into this screen and um or give me a copy of the deck, that would be helpful.

Thank you.

We can certainly provide that.

Ms.

Mayo.

Uh yes, I just wanted to note that I really like that part about establishing outdoor markets as by right in various areas.

I thought that was a really innovative and thoughtful approach that you all were taking, particularly as we know in black and brown neighborhoods.

Uh, we do have a larger implex of industrial complexes in zoning, so this can give us opportunities to work innovatively with our peers with groups like the bulb so that we can bring fresh food fruit, fruits, excuse me, and vegetables to historically underserved community.

So just want to highlight that and thank you all for thinking outside the box in order to really support our various neighborhoods.

Although we don't necessarily deal with those human services as much as the county.

I think that um thinking through the zoning for this and reworking it gives us an opportunity to be part of the solution.

Ms.

Owens.

Yes, thank you.

Um, just wanted to go back to the um ADU template for a second, and I'm I'm gonna um throw out another acronym and just ask if it's been part of the process for developing those templates, and that's the ADA.

Do we have a template that we envision will be really useful for people who are looking to house an elder family member in a way that really does cut through some of the noise on that process and make that more accessible?

Uh that's a good question.

I'd have to go back and see if the template any of the templates included that, uh, if there's any kind of you know elevators or anything like that that are included just for any accessibility if they're built on maybe a second level or uh but let me go back and take a look at what's being explored in the templates and see if that's addressed, uh, and then we can provide that both uh the timeline for those in that question in the follow-up report.

I do appreciate that.

And if I can, um I I don't know that I'm thinking as much around elevators, but more well around the widths of doorways to accommodate wheelchairs and just some things that would make that a little bit easier bite for somebody who is looking to house an elder.

Sure.

Um, that would be really useful.

So thank you.

Yeah, we'll certainly look at that and get you that information.

Thank you.

Mr.

Graham.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Draggs.

I just want to compliment staff for for listening, right?

One of the things that we said when we adopted the 2040 plan was that and the UDO that it was a living document, and that we would continually take a look at what we're doing, get public feedback and make adjustments along the way.

We all talk about 159 folks moving to the city of Charlotte every day.

And I just want to relate to the community that there's been some planning along the way as well for the last four years, going to the 2040 comprehensive plan, uh, doing the UDO, having a robust discussion about that, and saying at that time that we would make necessary changes, corrections and the and um edits to it as we go along.

Now we're doing the strategic area plan.

I just want to leave the the notion to the public that we are responding through planning through the for the growth, uh and we're hearing um the citizens and uh some of the petitioners when they're coming to us about how the UDO needs to be adjusted and changed to make it a lot more user-friendly as they apply what we have uh voted on doing.

So thanks a good job.

Something that we should vote on and uh uh continue to kind of listen and learn and and adjust along the way.

Thank you.

Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

Also want to compliment staff on the quickness of making the amendments as this is a living document, and want to reiterate my colleagues' comments regarding ensuring that we have ADA compliance with our ADUs.

We have examples.

We can look at projects we supported and challenges that some of our elders are having structure is in and out of the bathrooms, the width, as well as the tubs, how tall tubs sit.

So making sure to my understanding, we receive over 130 plus applications for the ADU process currently, but making sure that our language is as clear as possible on what can be built and what the expectations are to ensure that we're creating, and it's not just elders who may need a home that's ADA compliant, but making sure we have that language in place so that potential partners clearly know what the expectation is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I did get some clarification from uh staff while I was up here that the plans that we're looking at, most of them are that one-story option for an ADU would be uh yeah, should be ADA compliant as a result.

We'll again look at that and and do some confirmation.

Uh but the templates that were designed now that's still folks can work outside of any templates that the city may you know provide or or give guidance on, uh, but the ones that we've been working on should meet a lot of those criteria and guidelines.

But we'll again follow up and give you that information in that report.

Mr.

Joyce may have some follow-up.

Please because what you just mentioned, I was under the impression that the template is from where anyone interested in taking advantage of the ADU should be pulling from, not also have the ability to submit their own design.

Well, the template would be for anybody that wasn't really as well versed or equipped to go out and maybe hire a contractor to come out and design plans for them.

Uh be somebody that just decided they may want to construct one of these in their yard and have options in the city would have uh, you know, templates that could be looked at and potentially be pre-approved.

Uh we still have to work with the county on some of those nuances.

Uh, but that would be something folks could come in and say, yeah, this one looks good, it suits my needs.

Uh but private residents, you know, citizens also have the ability to call a designer, contractor and say, hey, can you you know work with me on this?

It just depends which route they want to go.

But uh, we do try to provide some way that that makes it a little bit more uh easy to access.

Uh but folks uh as always can go out and hire somebody private to develop an ADU stuff to meet all the same standards.

Uh, but it's just providing more options and and making it a little bit easier for folks to to get into it versus you know having to call somebody and and explore something they may know nothing about.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Pettin, I I I had a question about um this last question here.

So um I appreciate the increase of uh usability and ease with uh template and certainly if it's pre-approved, I think that will definitely um take away some reduced bureaucracy.

Um however, I wanted to make sure that we weren't dictating what homeowners can do with their property.

So if they wanted to build a ADU to a specification that meets our requirements, they should certainly have the right to if it goes outside a specific template as a private home.

And they and they certainly would.

Yeah, that wouldn't preclude anybody from you know working with somebody to design it specifically for their needs or or whatever their you know uh desired outcomes were.

It's just another way to you know provide access to options.

Uh but that option certainly always exists for somebody to hire somebody on their own and and design it however they need as long as it meets you know all the city and county and other requirements that are applicable.

Okay, great.

And then uh my next question is um around the slide that you have up here.

I just want to make sure we're changing the the percentage of the total floor area.

Um however, there is a cap on the square footage, and that's a thousand square feet.

Yes, and that's unchanged from how it was when the UDO was adopted.

Okay.

Is that a an industry standard or is that a best practice that we've seen in other cities?

It's more of a best practice standard uh that we've seen it replicated in other places.

You do want to have some level of a cap.

Uh you know, if you've got a uh let's say a three, four thousand square foot home, you know, that 50 percent or more could lead to you know almost another small home versus the ADU, which is really supposed to maintain that accessory and subordinate status to the principal structure, so clearly smaller.

Uh so that thousand square feet was more of an industry uh best practice kind of standard, uh, but that's not something again that we propose to change.

We haven't run into any real challenges with that.

Uh but certainly will monitor it if folks feel like they need more when they have a larger our home and they need something to better accommodate, there's certainly some flexibility and option for us to you know revisit that number.

Uh but for now we're leaving that proposal unchanged.

Okay, I I think that's a a great statement to make that if we find that residents want the flexibility uh to increase that square footage that perhaps uh that that could potentially occur because you know we're talking about elderly and um you know uh grandparent suites here, but there are other opportunities where family members might want to leverage this tool and they may have children, small children that need space.

So I just wanted to make sure that we stated that on the record.

We've done a a lot of a lot of work on the ADU front, not just with our partners in housing, but just from a service delivery standpoint, we've got staff that have created you know times to meet specifically with folks that just want questions answered on ADUs, and we saw a really big influx of folks calling in and uh working with our staff to kind of understand the process and what the requirements were.

So as we've learned more, that's where some of this came from.

But as we continue to have those conversations and meetings with residents and see these start to come out of the ground, hopefully a little bit more uh than we currently are, and we need to continue to make some tweaks, and certainly we're we're open to that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Hajmira, uh I have Mr.

Moses, who has not spoken yet, so I'm going to take him next and then you're okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Driggs.

Um I wanted to quickly talk about uh the section where it talks uh prescribed conditions for wireless telecommunications and how it establishes a setback for new wireless telecommunications towers from buildings located in neighborhood one or neighborhood two place types.

I'm interested to know and what relation is similar, like it could be also applied to data centers, and if that's something we're currently discussing.

So we haven't applied it to to that standard uh at this point.

What this standard would do is essentially protect current homeowners from a new cell tower being built in their backyard overnight without any real uh knowledge.

Right now, that that could potentially be a scenario.

Uh now that doesn't preclude if you have an existing cell tower and somebody does want to build a new subdivision or new houses uh right next to that.

That's a little bit different because folks know what they're buying into, they know there's a tower there, they know there's you know that type of use next door.

But what this does is really say that if you've got existing homes, those new towers have to meet certain distance requirements uh to make sure that they're if they do fall, they're they're in a safe fall zone area.

Uh but we haven't really looked at anything of like that uh related to data centers.

There are some challenges with introducing uh spacing requirements like that for particularly a lot of the existing uses.

This applies only to new.

Uh and so we do have some challenges from a state standpoint with uh some legislation passed about a year and a half ago uh where we'd have to be very careful about nonconformities and how that would relate.

Uh but it's not something we've explored yet on the uh communication centers yet.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

Yep.

Ms.

Ashmira, to you for follow-up.

Yes, uh thank you, Mr.

Drake.

So uh I just wanted to sort of clarify the whole process we went through in the housing committee last year, was to come up with innovative ideas, creative ideas to reduce the cost of building ADUs.

And one of the ideas that came out of that was to have pre-approved plan that really reduces not just the cost, because it costs thousands of dollars in designing fees, but also saves time.

Um I think when we have pre-approved templates, that will help with overall process.

And I think that's a great way to incentivize building of more ADUs, which helps us with affordable housing crisis.

I was reading the ADU and how you are having requirements around square foot square footage, which is certainly more lenient than what we had earlier, which is great because especially when you look at uh neighborhoods closer to Uptown where you have smaller units.

So this will really help if they want to build ADU in the back where the main house is only thousand square feet or less.

Uh proposal which will help us with building bigger ADUs, though less than thousand square feet, but still.

Are we making any updates in the approval process?

Because I know other cities have done that where uh approvals for ADUs has been streamlined.

Have we looked at that, or is this would that come down the pipe later on?

We've we've had to uh come up with some plans to to accommodate the influx that we've seen through the program that that housing put together.

Uh we've got staff even in my group and my division helping out with our land development team doing those reviews.

So there's overlap between even you know within divisions throughout the planning department that are helping to kind of move these along and get them through, hopefully quicker.

Uh so you know, we continue to work through that and see how that process is going.

You know, if we have to add you know any more additional resources for reviews or come up with a you know kind of a streamlined process, we certainly will.

Uh but there's been a lot of collaboration and even within the it's within the department on trying to get those uh reviewed a little bit quicker and put some more resources on those knowing that we've seen a lot come in through that uh housing program.

So it's good to hear that there is collaboration underway, uh, but I think I believe that having streamlined process would be helpful because municipalities across the nation have done that to really incentivize ADU constructions.

Um would that be something that will come in front of the council for an approval?

So I will one of the things we are working through, and I'm I'm grateful to have some staff on my team that really are all in on ADUs and really want to look at our UDO and and right now it's a little bit fractured on where you go to find all the information on how to build one.

So what we're working on for an upcoming text amendment is trying to consolidate all that into one place.

So you say, hey, I want to build an ADU.

You have a section that's got everything you need to know.

Uh and if there's other checklists and things we can put out for folks if they come in for permitting, you know, there's always ways we can try to streamline it and make it easier uh for folks to enter into that process.

Uh but that's something that I think we're gonna start to put together over the next few months, and then when we do another round of a text amendment later, uh probably later in the summer, early fall, we will have a lot of that pulled together and hopefully streamline it even more uh from start to finish.

So some of the things like the procedural stuff within the review process wouldn't come through necessarily council, but any of the regulatory change to kind of repackage how we share that information in the UDO would certainly come back through through y'all as a group.

Yeah, I I whatever we can do to not have homeowners jump through because they are not experts in building ADUs, right?

And I think if you want to incentivize more of it, we got to figure out a way.

I mean, cities across the nations have done that uh where it doesn't take months to have to get a permit for ADU.

So if we can find a way to do that sooner, um that would help with our affordable housing crisis.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Seeing no one else, do I have a motion to close the hearing?

So move.

All in favor, okay.

So we move on now to item 24.

Rezoning petition 2025 086 by Pence Road Development LLC, approximately 31.17 acres located on the north side of Pence Road, west of Harrisburg Road, and east of Bandy Drive in Council District 5, Mr.

Maswera Resistrict.

Current zoning is ML1 manufacturing and logistics one, N1A, neighborhood 1A, uh I1 C D, Light Industrial Conditional, and B2 C D General Business Conditional.

Proposed zoning ML2 C D manufacturing and logistics two conditional.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition.

And uh with that, I will hear from Mr.

Mangum.

Good evening.

The site is just over 31 acres located on Pence Road, uh at East Charlotte.

Site is largely wooded.

There's a small area with uh storage of some materials and vehicles along Pence Road.

Um the AC and W rail line uh runs along the southern property boundary that goes from uptown through East Charlotte all the way out to the Sand Hills region.

Uh the site is surrounded by a mix of uses.

There's a single family residential neighborhood under construction to the north.

Uh Charles T.

Myers golf course, which is a county-owned golf course to the east, and some commercial and light industrial uses to the south along Pence Road.

Current zoning is primarily ML1, smaller areas of N1A, I1 C D and B2C D, with a proposed zoning of ML2 CD.

The 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type.

And the proposal would allow for some ML2 uses and specifically a rail freight terminal.

There are there would be rail spurs coming off the main line into the sites, allowing for transfer of goods from train uh cars to trucks, uh driveway out to Pence Road, um be how trucks would access the site.

There is a 100-foot class, a landscape yard shown along the northern property boundary.

Um and also the petitioner is accommodating uh a right of way for a Pence Road realignment.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition.

While it is consistent with the policy map recommendation for the manufacturing and logistics place type, it would expand industrial uses on a property that abuts both residential and recreational uses.

The majority of the site is currently zoned ML1, which does allow for a variety of light industrial uses, but staff does not support expanding those uses and in particular for a rail freight terminal.

I will pass it over to the petitioner.

Thank you.

We do have two speakers signed up, Mr.

Colin Brown and Nick Elder.

And given the staff's opposition, you have 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Drigs, Council members, zenning committee members, Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner.

Um thanks.

I'll say I think this is a work in progress.

I'm happy to have the hearing so we can answer questions, respond to you all.

Um, but this isn't, of course, I think all petitions are interesting, but I do think this is an interesting one.

There's some uh different background on this.

Um as Joe mentioned, the property is already zoned ML1, so it's got the industrial designation.

Uh what's more interesting to me about the property is that it is owned by a railroad.

So, you know, railroads, we don't have many of them.

This is owned by the Aberdeen and Carolina Western Railroad.

Nick Elder from uh from the railroad is here.

Uh and so there's a rail corridor that basically runs all the way from NODUP down to uh as just said, I like he said the sand hills, but it runs to Pinehurst.

So they own that.

So in addition to the railroad, uh the railroad also owns this 30 acres of land right here next to the rail.

Now, what I think is so interesting is we've talked about here's the 30 acres, we've talked about um staff's um opinion on it, and it's true that staff is not supporting.

I've heard you guys mention uh tonight a couple times, and I think this is I think um council member um and I will have some ongoing conversations about that.

But what's important, I've heard you mentioned tonight are understanding by right and and conditions, and we're often able with a conditional zoning to come out with something better than by right.

What makes this even more interesting is there's not just by-right zoning here, railroads have very interesting and um generous federal laws that protect them.

So on this site, if Aberdeen and Carolina wanted to build a rail facility that was just theirs, they could do that.

Uh essentially, there's federal legislation that preempts local zoning law.

So Aberdeen and Carolina on this 30-acre site on their rail line could build a rail terminal tomorrow.

So why are we here?

They can build a terminal for themselves.

But if they are going to build a tournament terminal that serves another business, then the law doesn't preempt, and we need to comply with zoning.

There is a pretty exciting opportunity.

Uh, another third party uh that is active in the area, has come to the railroad and said, Well, this is pretty unique.

You've got a rail line, you've got land, uh, we would like to start an op, we would like to do an operation here.

Um, that there's some kind of economic development things going on, so I can't share all that, but I'm happy to have some conversations about that.

Uh and so I actually think that if we go through this rezoning process with conditional zoning, I think we could add more at essentially more conditions to our zoning to protect the public, regulate what goes on the site than could be done today.

So I do think there's a path forward.

Again, I think this is a work in progress, and we'll continue having conversations.

Uh, I don't think there's a speaker signed up in opposition, but I did just receive uh a comment uh from a neighbor, a memo, which I'm sure you'll receive as well, and we're happy to have the same conversation uh with the neighbors because I do think there's an opportunity for a win-win here.

So interesting triangle-shaped site, uh, one access point coming in.

This would be kind of where the activity is.

Uh we do have on the north side of the site, there is some single family homes, and so I think staff has accurately asked for some buffering.

We can agree to where the site activity will take place.

And so I think we can offer more protections than certainly would be allowed if the railroad developed their own facility on the site.

A couple things I wanted to respond to and thank you for letting us do that.

So staff has pointed out staff is not supportive.

Um and I'm struggling with that.

I'll tell you why on a couple reasons.

But staff has said, hey, it's adjacent to single family to the north and Mecklemer County golf course to the east.

And so, you know, that doesn't call out.

Well, this is pretty bucolic, Colin.

Why are we trying to build a rail facility next to single family uh and a parks and preserve place type?

The reality out here is a little bit different.

Uh it is true.

Here's our site in purple.

And so it's important to remember we're already zoned industrial, and the land use plan call not industrial, calls for us to be manufacturing and logistics.

The land use plan shows the area uh just here to the um east of us as parks and preserve.

However, in reality, Mecklenburg County has um just built a pretty nice new recycling facility.

Uh so it's a kind of waste collection site.

So it is not a park and preserve, it is a waste collection site.

Uh they've worked closely with a railroad.

This is uh uh the Aberdeen Carolina Railroad here.

They worked with Mecklenburg County, gave them the permissions necessary for this facility.

This is a pretty large and intensive facility.

So this sits on our on our western boundary.

Uh it's got trucks coming in and out.

Also, uh, as Joe mentioned, we're working with CDOT.

So here's our site again.

This is a little bit different map.

What you can see there, this says proposed Pence Road Realignment.

The departments of transportation are working on relocating Pence Road to essentially bring it through our site.

So one of the things we've done is the railroad has actually redesigned our plan.

Uh railroads don't love rail crossings, cars going across crossings.

Uh the department of transportation have indicated us that this would be a flyover.

So they have plans for a bridge uh essentially over our site.

Wow.

And so we're working with them on that.

Uh we've reoriented our plan and could dedicate right away to accommodate that.

So I think now when you you know you look at our site and say, well, yeah, I see staff's position, and I'm not sure staff was aware.

You know, if you look if you look at the maps, you see park and preserve, you do not see a recycling facility next door.

So now as you look at this parcel, here we are.

Here's a railroad here.

We have a large recycling facility here, and we have a future uh this and this is not AIL.

I did this, did this myself.

Uh we can talk just to try and you know, see in reality, there's something different happening.

Uh and I hope we can have a further conversation about that.

Uh so I know I've I've gone back and forth with staff a little bit, you know, about this and said, gosh, I'm really surprised you're not supporting this.

Can we have a further conversation?

I think we're going to continue these conversations.

I think their point to me, as you all have said tonight, well, let's talk about some conditions.

And so, you know, my concern is we do need some industrial uses in Charlotte.

And um, and the potential user of this site would be a good operator, it would be an economic development opportunity, some good kind of blue-collar jobs coming in this area.

I think that's a positive.

Where does that go?

Well, they've got to have a railroad.

So there are not many choices in Charlotte where we can find railroad setup.

So here we have a site that is currently zoned ML.

The plan calls for ML.

We sit on a rail line, the property is already zoned, I mean, already owned by the railroad.

We've got a um recycling facility here, a future road, and probably bridge to the to the north of the site, and the the railroad itself could develop this terminal tomorrow.

Um so if this is not a site that that can support some more industrial intensity, I don't know if we'll find one.

Uh I do think, again, I think this can be a win-win.

And um, if it your constituent you've received communication from, I think they uh attended our community meetings, we followed up, uh, but I'm happy to continue the conversation both with staff, uh both with the district representative, because I I think there's an opportunity for for a win-win outcome here for a better situation than than what's currently uh allowed.

Happy to take questions.

Okay.

Uh I don't know whether staff gets to re-button this situation.

Uh do you have anything further you want to say, Joe?

Uh well, just I think maybe one point of clarification.

The terminal that could be developed under current zone, I believe is a passenger terminal.

Is that what you're no, it and I I am not the is this the federal under federal that's under I'm saying on federal law essentially federal law preempts.

So zoning doesn't apply.

I am not that lawyer, and if you'd like, I'm sure Theria and I could could get together with that lawyer and get everyone the answers on that.

But uh that's what I'm understanding from the railroad is essentially if it is a railroad use that just the railroad is using, it preempts.

Um if and the reason we're here is Everton Carolina is saying, well, we don't want just one our terminal, we've actually got a user that wants to come have a a business use on the site that would use the terminal.

If it is not just the railroad use, we do need to comply with zoning.

So that is our hope for the site.

Right colleagues under the UDO.

Oh, sorry.

All right, go ahead.

Yes.

Under the UDO, the rail freight terminal use requires the ML2 zoning.

So that's why we're having this conversation.

Um sorry, say that again.

Under under the UDO, the the rail freight terminal use, which is the primary use that's proposed here, it requires the ML2 zoning as opposed to the current ML2.

And to be clear, we agree with this.

Uh unless the terminal is operated by the railroad itself, the UDO requires it, but you don't have to obey the UDO.

We're asking for this terminal not used by the railroad.

So we're not we're not arguing with staff over this.

Okay.

So I just think I saw some hands.

Uh let me start over here.

Sorry, to ask a clarifying question.

Um thank you, by the way, and thank you, Councilmember Drake's.

Um, if you can find that so you're asking to rezone this to use a railroad terminal.

But it could be used by right as a railroad terminal.

Sorry, I'm I'm a little bit confused.

It's it it is confusing, and I've done this for a long time and I've never had the situation.

Okay.

So I would say by right, no.

The ordinance does not allow it.

But if the railroad for its own use on its own property wishes to um operate a terminal, they do not have to abide by the ordinance federal law will preempt.

That is not what they'd like to do here.

There's a user that would like to come in and put in a facility, and therefore that that user has to comply with the ordinance.

It is not allowed by uh by right in ML1.

So we're uh requesting to zone to ML2 so a third party could.

If this rezoning did not move forward, if you guys said, you know what, we don't like it, you're not gonna do that.

Aberdeen and Carolina could then build their own facility on the site.

Got it.

So who is going to be the primary user of the site?

Cannot share that publicly.

I'm happy to have that conversation.

Uh got it.

And and this is uh this has evolved.

You know, staff asked us earlier on.

Um, you know, there's some um you know non-disclosure things happening, uh, but happy to talk with you.

Uh that that user does have a facility in Charlotte, and I've driven by it.

I bet you've driven by it a thousand times and didn't know it was there.

So we we can share some of that offline.

I've got to be a little careful.

Gotcha.

And given that it is adjacent to some single family neighborhoods, uh, is there a study on noise disruption, sound vibrations, environmental impact?

Um I I do not have that.

Again, the railroad is there and it is used and can be a rail facility.

I think you know, as part of our rezoning, we can offer more buffering separation that would currently be required.

And the railroad may have that information, if so, we're happy to share it.

Got it.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Anybody?

Yeah, I have to.

Thank you, Mr.

Dreeks.

This is one of a kind.

Yes, I haven't seen this at least in last 10 years.

Uh couple of questions.

So I just want to make sure since the user is not the landowner, that's why you are having to do this rezoning.

But if if the landowner was the user under federal law, they would be able to build the f facility without having to come for rezoning.

That that is roughly my that is my understanding, and again, Tere and I will be happy to get on with with the federal guys and make sure we both understand it.

But yes, Councilman Jamira, that is my understanding that if the railroad is operating its own facility, then federal law will preempt.

We have another user that would like to use this spot, and so that's why we're here for a rezoning.

Got it.

Um, I have concerns, especially with having ML2 so close to single family neighborhoods.

Um what are some of the uses?

Uh this question is for staff.

What are some of the uses under ML2 that are not allowed under ML1?

Uh I know there is probably a long list, but if you could just tell me a few.

Um well, essentially ML1 is light industrial, ML2 is heavy industrial.

So would the recycling facility fall under ML1 or ML2?

Conveniently, the county has ML2 zoning already next to us.

So did they go through rezoning?

It is conventional ML2, and I'm not sure at what point it became ML zoning.

It would have translated from I2 from the old ordinance.

Yeah.

So you know, once we adopt to ML2, what I the next wave of rezoning petition could potentially come.

Hey, you there is ML2 nearby.

And I I think that's something we have to keep that in consideration.

Uh if that overall aligns with the area plan.

Oh I guess you could go ahead.

You want to say something?

Which haven't been.

If you were asking, I would say I do think as part of our conditional rezoning, we could get rid of most of the noxious ML2 uses.

Yeah, that's where I would like to see.

What's the list, right?

Uh I mean, we have to be very cognizant about single family neighborhood nearby, because when residents bought their home, they didn't sign off for having ML2 next to the door.

So I I think that is something we got to be very considerate of, uh, especially as council member JD mentioned about noise pollution, environmental concerns.

I I think we need to take those into serious consideration.

So I agree with staff here.

Uh I would like to see that detailed list and and even potentially a study about what are some of the things we need to be concerned about if there is an ML2 next to a single family neighborhood.

Uh, because this is about quality of life for residents that are living nearby that have uh home, and a lot of homeowners uh ultimately have I mean that is probably for a lot of uh homeowners when you're looking at ML2.

There is a reason we don't allow ML2 close to single family neighborhoods.

So certainly there is quality of life impact study that we need to do to make sure we are taking those concerns seriously.

And the proposed use for this rezoning, Mr.

Brown, you mentioned this is going to be what is the proposed use?

I know you cannot go into detail about the uh entity who will be operating it as the user, but what's the proposed use here?

Um essentially, and I think maybe we can go into details move forward about the frequency of uses, but essentially, you know, products are brought into the Charlotte market on rail and distributed by vehicle.

And so this is a facility where that would happen.

You know, product would come off the train and be distributed into Charlotte.

And I think with its user, there's a potential that actually actually the the amount of deliveries is fairly low.

So you granted staff doesn't know that and you don't know that, and we haven't committed to that.

So I think that's something we need to look at that very carefully because there is train honking at 2 a.m., 3 a.m.

close to single family neighborhoods, no one would want that in their neighborhood.

So uh obviously there is more work that needs to be done, uh, but I certainly I'm with staff on this rezoning petition.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay, I have Ms.

Anderson.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Drake's.

Just so I'm clear here, if we're looking at the slide you have uh here.

This area is effectively all ML1 sub this slide here.

Um all ML1, uh some pre-existing ML2, as well as um I one, which is the manufacturing and logistics designation.

So this whole area is already manufacturing and logistics.

Oh a tiny sliver of our site is not zoned now.

That's that's actually in the railroad, but yes, the vast vast majority of it's already already zoned ML1.

So what is um just south as this as this uh map here ends?

Is it more ML2 that's just south of that?

Um it is we could hand out and show you more.

There are uh kind of a variety of commercial uses along this this portion of the Pennsylvania.

Uh this is more of the this is the county recycling facility.

They have some more recycling going on, and then there's um there is some multifamily in this area now.

Again, our site is away from it will be it would be accessed here but set back pretty significantly.

The neighborhood that we're talking about to the north is here.

This area is pretty far away from our operations, and recall there's also a plan for a new road and bridge essentially through this area here, which would also separate us and buffer us from that neighborhood.

Okay.

It's helpful to see this particular map here because I can see the um the parcels in the building.

I I do want to point out if we go back to that map.

Trying to come out from truck.

Um do you want?

Um do you want so you can see the area that's been cleared in the northwest corner for uh subdivision?

Well, the area to the right, all the way toward that's also been approved.

Uh it's an approved subdivision that has yet to then be built.

So just to point out that there's residential along the entire northern property boundary.

Yep, in the north, yeah.

Thank you.

It's helpful to see it on the map.

Ms.

Owens.

Mr.

Brown, thank you.

I um I just want to be very clear.

When you do um consult with the attorneys with respect to what can be done by right by the owner of the property.

Could you also give some clarity with respect to any expectations around buffers or anything?

Because what I'm hearing you say is that there's a pretty big difference between what you would be bringing to the table with respect to this if it is being um used by a third party versus what you can do right now with it.

Can you give some clarity to that?

Yes, and I'd like to have that clarity too, and make sure because I believe you're correct that if it if it's preempted, they don't have to meet the buffer requirements anyway.

That's why I think the conditional plan would be better, but we will investigate that.

That would that would be helpful.

Thank you.

Oh, yes.

Thank you, Councilmember Dregs.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Um, correct me if I'm wrong.

A community meeting was had, was advertised, but there were zero in attendance.

Um correct.

We did.

We had RSVPs, but we did not have attendance, and then we have five we had um some owners to the south contacted us, and then we had an HOA person uh who reached out and we followed up with and were not able to connect with, and I did just receive a letter from him this literally 10 minutes before I stepped up here.

Got it.

Um so we're happy to have this conversation with you and the community, you know, about this.

Perfect.

Yeah, my follow-up question was will there be a second meeting giving the lack of participation.

I should do that.

I think, and I will say this um the user has evolved since the community meeting.

Also, our conversations with the DOTs about the bridge has evolved.

So thank you.

So uh I have I have a couple sitting in this chair, okay.

But uh just to be clear, there is existing rail traffic through here.

Yeah.

Or or or it's it's our railroad, and we use it.

Right.

It's his railroad and he uses it.

Correct.

Uh so the trains go through this site now.

Correct.

But what we're proposing is they would get to this site, there would be a terminus there.

And it looks like, in effect, what you're asking for is a conventional ML2, and that sort of mystery user, I think is what I I mean, in the sense that you are not prepared to disclose any more than you have.

Uh so I think this is going to come down to a discussion about the limits that can be placed on ML2 at least.

Would we know before we vote?

I I think so.

And to be clear, it is a conditional zoning, and we have offered a site plan.

I don't have specific details on the user, and I'll tell you if you're a railroad, railroad says we can do anything we want with a site on our own.

So we've got to be cognizant of what we're willing to compromise, right?

So and that's a fair conversation, right?

But yes, I I imagine before you vote on this, you're gonna have as much information as we can provide.

So I I just would encourage you as you ask us to consider this, not to hold out the specter of the railroad exercising its authority.

Uh I've been in this situation before, and it puts a kind of pressure on us that uh it's informational.

I guess it's something we need to know.

Uh, but I sure hope that we can just achieve you know an outcome here and and not feel threatened by something they might do in spite of our concern about the adjacency of ML2 with residential.

So uh let's keep working on that one, I guess.

All right.

Um I have a motion to look here.

Yeah, second.

Second, second.

Yes, if you want to.

Oh, second.

I see English.

All in favor, get your hands up.

There we go.

All right.

Um up to 25, right?

Yeah.

Um that is 25.

No, one four, yeah.

Okay, agenda item 25, rezoning petition 2025 114 by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

AKA trim.

Um approximately 0.56 acres located east of Lombardy Circle, north of East Boulevard, and west of South Kings Drive in Council District 1, Ms.

Anderson's district.

The current zoning is in 2B, neighborhood 2B.

Proposed zoning is OG C D, General Office Conditional.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

Mr.

Oliver.

Yes, uh petition 2025 114 is a 0.56-acre site on Lombardy Circle near the intersection East Boulevard.

Plan proposes a private outdoor recreation facility associated with the adjacent health care institution.

The site is currently vacant.

Site's currently zoned in 2B, neighborhood 2.

Proposed zoning is OG C D, General Office Conditional.

The plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the South Intercommunity Area Plan, and it is also consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the campus place type.

The proposal calls for the development of a therapy park and open space associated with that adjacent health care institution on the prescribed conditions of Article 15.4 of the UDO.

It will include elements such as pedestrian features, therapeutic structures and equipment, seating, shade elements, raised garden beds, landscaping, fences, walls, lighting, and art installations.

No buildings are permitted on the site.

And a minimum 25-foot wide class B landscape yard will be installed along the northern and southern property boundaries adjacent to residential uses.

Staff recommends approval of this petition as an alliance with the South Inter Area Plan and Campus Place type and corporates incorporates landscaping buffers, adjacent to residences, introduces a therapy park with a miniatized open space along the little Sugar Creek Greenway.

That may advance the 2040 policy goals of integrating natural and built environments.

I'm happy to take any questions following Mr.

Carmichael's presentation.

I have two speakers signed up.

Mr.

Carmichael and Mr.

Baugh.

There being no one in opposition, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Councilmember Dreggs, members of City Council, and the zoning committee.

I'm John Carmichael here on behalf of the petitioner, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, also known as HRM Health.

Kyle Ball is with me tonight.

The site contains just over half an acre located on the east side of Lombardy Circle, just north of its intersection with East Boulevard.

It's immediately adjacent to HRM Health's Carolina Medical Center campus, which you can see here.

And this is zoomed in area of the site.

The site's currently vacant, so it's next to the health care campus, and in particular, it's really close to the rehab, the new rehab hospital on the campus.

And this is a view into the site from Lombardi Circle.

The site's currently zoned in 2B.

The surrounding parcels are also zoned in 2B, with the exception of the hospital campus, which is zone MUD-0.

The N2B is a residential district that allows, among other things, uh apartments, duplexes, triplexes, single family detached.

The request is to resonate the site to OGCD to accommodate a therapy park and open space area on the site that would be associated with Carolina's Medical Center campus.

That would be the only permitted use of the site.

No buildings is as Mr.

Oliver stated could be located on the site.

The only allowed improvements would be pedestrian improvements and various walking surfaces, seating elements, shade structures, raised garden beds, landscaping and hardscape, fencers or walls.

At the option of the petitioner, the site could be fenced if it needed to be for security purposes, lighting and art.

There could be security cameras on site, and then there'd be a minimum 25-foot-wide type B landscape yard along the northern and southern boundaries of the site next to next to uh existing residential.

You could also put a fence or wall in that buffer area.

The therapy structures were originally proposed.

They were no longer proposed.

There's really no active component here.

It's really passive in nature.

Um we did meet with the DCDA land use committee and the property owners Lombardy prior to the filing of the petition.

We also had an official neighborhood uh meeting, and we've been in constant contact with the DCDA and land use committee, and we're not aware of any opposition.

I'm not saying there's not any, but we're not we have not been made aware of it.

Um we think this is really last thing.

It's consistent with the policy map.

Uh this lot here, the site, the subject site, half acre site, is in the uh campus place type.

So happy to answer any questions as you may have.

Ms.

Anderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Drake's.

Um I did speak with the Dillworth land use leader, and they're very happy with uh negotiations that have occurred.

And in addition to this being a therapy park, the it will also be open to the neighbors uh along Lombardy, so they will be able to access this open space as well.

So it's a win-win all around.

Thank you.

Ms.

Mayfield.

Actually, my question was just answer, and that was if it was going to be open to the community, but I didn't know state.

Well, so I was so to clarify you're right.

So that was asked at the neighborhood meeting.

I opened it doing it.

Oh, sorry.

I thought she was asked.

That was asked in the neighborhood meeting.

That is certainly an intention.

There is a little uh difference of opinion amongst the neighbors.

Um are concerned that atrium employees would park on Lombardi, walk through the therapy park to get the work.

Uh atrium is said we'll communicate to team members that that should not occur.

If there were security, there's the option to fence this in the rezoning, just to be perfectly candid.

If there were security concerns or you know things getting uh broken or some sort of things like that, then they may fence it.

That's not their intention.

They want it to be open to the community, but it's not a dedicated open space, it would be privately owned by HRM.

So for clarification, this will be a privately owned space, but there may be an opportunity basically hours, like we have at the parks.

There's posted hours that are up that may be a conversation that can be held at with the petitioners.

We can follow up.

We don't have to have a commitment now, but thinking about maybe posting hours, but there is a possibility that it might be available for community.

Yeah, like you said that we would we have not discussed hours, but I'm sure there would be uh councilmember Mayfield and and we would have the security phones that would be monitored by the security staff on at the health care campus.

Um yeah, the intention as we see it tonight is not to fence it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion to close public here.

Second.

All in favor.

Okay.

Item 26.

Petition 2025 121 by the Huntington National Bank.

Approximately 3.67 acres located north of Ballantine Commons Parkway, south of Conland Circle, and west of Huffins Glen.

That's actually in my district.

Current zoning NS, neighborhood services proposed zoning NS site plan amendment, neighborhood services, site plan amendment.

Uh staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of a requested technical revision.

And Ms.

Kramer.

Thank you.

This site is just over three and a half acres located along the north side of Valentine Commons Parkway in an area where we have a real range of commercial institutional and office uses along that north side, and then some residential uses along the south side.

Proposed zoning is for a site plan amendment to the existing neighborhood services plan, which is from 2004.

And the policy map does recommend the regional activity center, which is the most intense and scaled up of our activity center place types on the site.

The proposal itself is for a very small modification to that 2004 plan, which is an increase to the square footage allowed from 30,000 and 500 square feet of uses to 300 35,100 square feet.

All other conditions of the plan would remain as is it is within an adopted area plan.

That would be the South Outer Community Area Plan, and it is in alignment with that area plan and the 2040 policy mass recommendation for the regional activity center police type.

And in terms of the priority goals of that community area plan, it helps to facilitate goal one for 10-minute neighborhoods by helping to contribute to that concentration of goods and services within a designated activity center.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

A small modification to the existing neighborhood services plan, and we believe it keeps the intent of that uh conditional plan intact and provides for greater efficiency and use of the site.

And I'll be happy to take questions following petitioner comments.

Yeah, we have two speakers signed up.

Uh Mr.

Moore and Mr.

Fisher.

And since there's no opposition, you have three minutes.

Good evening, Councilmember Driggs, Councilmember Zoning Committee.

My name is Eddie Moore with McAdams.

I along with Jeremy Fisher of Gensler, who is here tonight.

We are representing Huntington Bank, who is the petitioner and the in the ownership group, York Development Group.

Holly's done a real good job outlining the location of the site.

Um the zoning is not changing.

We're just doing a small site plan amendment.

We are in alignment with the 2040 policy map.

This is a copy of the approved 2024 petition, and there are three buildings as part of it.

And in the southeast corner, that area is developed with parking.

So this is the area of the redevelopment.

Um, since the approval of the rezoning amendment, a few administrative amendments from staff, and as of today, the allowable square footage is 30,005 square feet.

So our request is to increase that maximum allowable square footage from 30,500 to 35,000 30,500 square feet to 35,100 square feet for redevelopment of that corner.

This is a rendered plan that shows the three buildings.

The area that you do see the building will be in the corner of Huffings and Ballantine Commons Parkway.

Right now, what is just being used as parking?

Half of that parking will remain with the building at the corner.

And the end user is a Huntington bank that will not be a drive-through.

This will be a the walk-up bank and neighborhood type bank.

And this is another rendering that is just the zooms in a little bit more, and from there, glad to answer any questions that you may have.

So I have a quick question.

We have a number like the Crater Joe's shopping center and Waverly, where there are real problems about parking.

No, sir.

The the ownership group they are fine.

You know, they understand they will be losing the parking.

We did take a you know a pretty hard look at the we're not under any parking minimums that's required as part of the old legacy zoning ordinance, and they do not feel it's going to create any issues since there's not a drive up component to this to this facility.

Anyone else?

More to close here.

Second.

All in favor.

I will move on to item number 27.

Rezoning petition 2025-122 by Union Church.

Location approximately 14.92 acres, located south of East WT Harris Boulevard, east of Old Concord Road, and west of University East Drive in Council District 4, Ms.

Johnson's District.

Current zoning BP C D, Business Park Conditional, proposed zoning OFC, Office Flex Campus.

Staff recommends approval of this petition, and we will hear about it from Miss Kramer.

Thank you.

This site is just southwest of EWT Harris Road along Old Concord Road in an area where we have a lot of office uses primarily.

There's some residential more outside the periphery of this rezoning, though it's mostly entirely surrounded by office uses.

It is currently zoned business park conditional, and they are proposing to go to Office Flex campus.

The current place type is manufacturing logistics.

That's as a result of that BP conditional zoning.

A lot of sites translated to ML on the policy map.

Though I will just call out when you go to consider the revised policy map, hopefully here, maybe in another month or so.

You might see that this site is calling for a change to the campus place type.

So this request for the office flex campus district would be if there we had the revised policy map would be considered in alignment with that campus place type.

But as it stands, out of alignment with the manufacturing logistics place type called for the site.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

It's calling for the Office Flex campus district, which is really in alignment with the uses and the general trend that we're seeing this area go towards.

And I'll be happy to take questions following petitioner comments.

Mr.

Brown, you're back.

No opposition, you have three minutes.

Thanks.

I'll go quickly.

I will say this is a very interesting one.

Uh because that before we do so many church rezonings these days, and unfortunately it's a little depressing because usually it's because the congregations have diminished and they don't need the property.

So happy to be here on behalf of Union Church.

Uh Pastor Brian Bullock is here as well with a church that is expanding and growing rapidly and needs a permanent home in the University City area.

Um as Holly mentioned, you know, a lot.

I think it's a great adaptive research uh reuse of the site.

What do churches need a lot of?

Parking.

What does this have?

Take a look, a lot of parking.

Um, so happy to have staff support.

Had a good community meeting.

We've got very positive feedback from the district four coalition.

Happy to answer any questions.

Anybody?

Close.

Go to close to here.

Second.

All in favor.

Okay.

Congratulations on the globe.

Agenda item 28.

Rezoning petition 2025, 127 by 4749 West Boulevard LLC.

Approximately 5.35 acres located south of West Boulevard, east of Ceros Lane, and west of International Airport Drive in Miss Mayo's District 3.

Current zoning is ML2 ANDO Manufacturing and Logistics to Airport Noise District Overlay.

Proposed zoning IMU CD Airport AMDO innovative mixed use conditional airport noise district overlay.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

You're going to tell us about it.

Yeah, this site is 5.35 acres located on Watson Boulevard and just south of Charlotte Douglas Airport.

You can even catch an airplane in that uh aerial there.

Uh the site is is surrounded by uh a lot of light industrial uses is currently developed uh with a warehouse and office use.

Current zoning is ML2 A N D O Airport Noise Disclosure Overlay with a proposed zoning of IMU C D A N D O The 2040 Policy Map recommends manufacturing and logistics place type for this property as well as all surrounding properties.

This is a tier one uh conditional rezoning with with just the condition that residential uses will be prohibited.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

While it's inconsistent with the policy map recommendation for the manufacturing logistics place type, it is uh the innovation mixed use play type and associated zoning is a preferred adjacency uh compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses.

I'll turn it over to the petitioner.

So we have signed up to speak.

Uh Ms.

Todd.

You have three minutes.

How are you?

Thank you so much.

Uh good evening, Council zoning committee.

My name is Suzanne Todd.

I'm an attorney with Johnson Nelson Horde here on behalf of the applicant 4749 West Boulevard.

With me tonight is also Larry Sullivan.

Larry and his wife Sharon own this property.

It's subject to our resenting request.

Property consists of five acres.

It's located generally between I-485 and Billy Graham Parkway.

The property's currently zoned to ML2 conventional.

So it can be developed by right for any general industrial use allowed in the ML2 zoning district.

Charlotte residents, Larry and Sharon Sullivan bought this property about five years ago and have been operating their window and door replacement business on the existing warehouse in the existing warehouse building on the property.

The window replacement business has changed over the past years.

It is no longer where you warehouse, a huge inventory.

Most of the window and door orders are custom.

So as they come in, um they go back out.

So you don't need to store as much inventory as you used to.

Additionally, the Sullivans do own affiliate businesses in North and South Carolina.

And they want to make Charlotte their corporate headquarters by consolidating the day-to-day operations of these various businesses under one roof.

The Sullivans are looking to expand their operations in Charlotte by building a 10 to 12,000 square foot building on the property that would include a call center and training facilities.

As staff mentioned, ML zoning limits office use to 40% of the building area.

So in order to span their operations in Charlotte, the Sullivan's are requesting IMU zoning.

The innovative mixed use zoning allows for similar uses as ML but doesn't place limits on the office use.

The rezoning would allow for more uses that are in line with surrounding property while prohibiting introduction of hazardous obnoxious uses that may negatively impact these neighboring properties.

It also allows for an opportunity for new development and employment in this area.

And finally, IMU is the preferred adjacent zoning to ML zoning.

We appreciate your support.

Excellent.

That was quick.

Oh, I think that's a good question.

Oh, no question, but uh excited to see y'all in person.

I know we met virtually last week.

Uh excited to continue to hear about uh potential jobs that will come to our to our area if this is passed.

Um, and loved our conversation as well, talking about potential uh bus stop at this location.

So as we bring uh additional jobs for residents of district three, great opportunity to also think about multimodal transportation.

So excited to continue this conversation and bring investment to the area.

Thank you, Councilmember Mayo.

We appreciate your time last week.

Uh it was a great opportunity to get to meet you and discuss this project.

We have reached out to the um West Neighborhood Code.

Sorry, there wasn't actually a question.

Oh, yeah, sorry, just a comment.

Thank you.

Second.

All in favor.

Sorry.

Fair enough.

Just I chat too much.

Thank you.

No, you're great.

You're doing fine.

Um it looks like um we are up to our last one.

Could that be?

It's early, you know.

Maybe we should have a workshop or something after this meeting.

So we want to say aye.

No, no.

All right, all right, just kidding.

Let's go.

Uh oh.

Agenda 29.

Uh really.

Zoning petition 2025, 129 by True Homes, approximately 4.94 acres located south of West W.T.

Harris Boulevard, east of West Sugar Creek Road, and north of Brookstone Drive.

In Council District 2, Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is institutional conditional, and proposed zoning is N2-B, neighborhood to B conditional.

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

So, Mr.

Oliver, let's hear what those are.

Yes, uh, in 2025 129 is an undeveloped portion of a track containing a church, approximately 4.94 acres in size, and located on the southeast corner of West Creek Road and West WT Harris Boulevard.

Site's currently zoned institutional C D.

Um the proposed zoning is N2B C D, neighborhood two.

The 2040 policy map recommends the campus place type of the site.

N2B district is inconsistent with this place type, and uh approval of this would revise the policy map to the M2.

The re zoning proposal calls for the development of up to 65 multifamily attached townhome dwelling units, including potential living work units within that.

Um, all residential units will be offered for sale or lease to households earning 80% or less of area median income.

Eight-foot sidewalk, eight-foot planning strip will be provided along the site's front with Brookstone Drive to the south, and a 12-foot multi-use path and eight-foot planning strip along West Sugar Creek Road.

Uh minimum 9,750 square feet of enhanced open space will be provided.

Buildings along public streets will have a maximum of five units per building, and they are allowed up to two six-unit buildings on site.

Um units will have predominant porches and stoops and front porches will be covered in a minimum of four to six feet in depth.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution mouseing issues related to transportation, same building design and environment.

Proposed development supports the institution's mission by providing affordable housing for households earning 80% AMI or less.

Um introduces a little work units, enhances open space beyond ordinance requirements, and rezones the site and neighborhood two place type, which is adjacent to commercial amenities on improving housing diversity and access to daily needs.

I'm happy to take any questions following the petition presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Oliver.

We have three speakers signed up.

Pastor Donau Fitz Jeffries, Ron Staley, and Cassie Schilling.

You have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you for receiving us.

I'm Donnell Fitzgeffies.

I'm previously the pastor at University City.

Uh we see this project as just continuing our ongoing call of God.

Uh our campus uh in our building host about a thousand people a week walking through our doors for various meetings, accountability groups, uh schools, uh, people just walking the campus.

And we feel that we are a place where God's kingdom can grow, and we want to offer something to our community that will allow people to have a place to live, a clean, wholesome place to live that is also relatively affordable.

I say relatively because we live in Charlotte and prices are going up and up and up.

But we want we want police people, nurses, uh teachers to be able to come and actually live in the city where they work.

And we think by doing this, we enhance our community, we follow our call of God, and we make a place uh where the community can gather in an even greater way so that we can be called a place of peace, hope building a place where people can feel good about themselves, and good about the possibilities that can be in their lives.

And then I'll allow Ron to come and speak.

Thank you, Council members, staff.

I'm Ron Staley with True Homes, True Home Foundation.

Uh this is part of our True Housing Trust initiative.

Um we're going to be building 65 townhomes on this campus, three bedrooms, two and a half baths, and in conjunction with the church.

Uh all of the homes will remain 80% AMR or below for a century or more, unlike the LITEC model, which can expire in 20 years or so.

So we're extremely about excited about bringing this model to University City UMC, and we appreciate your support.

Mr.

Graham.

Thank you, Councilmember Drags.

I was telling Councilmember Mayfield I can literally walk from my house to the site.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I'm very supportive of it, um, given all the restrictions are um uh um made uh in terms of the where there's some disagreements, right?

Uh I think we can get there for sure.

Uh but it's a very good project, very good intent.

Um, and uh uh no city money, right?

Which is even better that we get housing um um brought to us from the uh from the community and uh obviously the the church has been a mainstay in that community for years, and we appreciate the work that you done.

More to close in here.

Uh just a quick comment.

So the program you referred to that true homes is using is one in which you essentially have no return on your equity, or you that's right.

So it's an investment you're making in the community.

Just wanted to express my appreciation for that.

I did hear a motion to close.

Is there a second?

All in favor?

I think I'm ready to entertain a motion to adjourn.

So we'll say all in favor, get up and leave.

Four seven o'clock.

Amazing.

Oh wow, yeah, yeah.