Charlotte City Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009

January 26, 2009
Business Meeting and Zoning Meeting
Minute Book 128, Page 261

The City Council of the City of Charlotte, NC, convened for a Dinner Briefing on Monday,
January 26, 2009, at 5:24 p.m. in Room 267 of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
with Mayor Pat McCrory presiding. Council members present were: Michael Barnes, Susan
Burgess, Nancy Carter, Warren Cooksey, Andy Dulin, Anthony Foxx, Patsy Kinsey, James
Mitchell, Edwin Peacock III, Warren Turner

ABSENT UNTIL NOTED: Councilmember John Lassiter

********

ITEM NO. 2: MAYOR AND COUNCIL CONSENT ITEM QUESTIONS

Councilmember Dulin said 12-B is spending money in Belmont and Seigle Avenue Streetscape,
Phase 2, spending $1.8 million in Belmont on streetscape. We got in a lot of trouble. I voted
against the purchases of the convenience stores, but this makes sense, and I‟m pleased to support
that. This community ought to know that we are spending 1.8 on streetscapes in Belmont. And,
12-H, West Corridor Sprinter Enhanced Bus Shelters, I thought looking at that route, I thought
that was going to be more of an express route for people coming into the Airport and getting
them uptown and back and forth. It looks like there are ten or 12 stops along there. Is that the
standard? Is there going to be like maybe every other one is an express?

Keith Parker, Charlotte Area Transit System, said it won‟t be an express route, but it will be
more direct than what it currently is. What we want to create is a better environment in terms of
more amenities, better schedules, and more frequent service than you have got there now. One
of the nice things about this is that we are using congestion mitigation for air quality funds to pay
for it, so the vast majority of the cost is actually being borne by a grant that has to be used for
this type of purpose.

Councilmember Dulin said is that including the – for instance, an express route to get business
people from the Airport to town and back, you don‟t need the extra shelters, etc.

Mr. Parker said but the people in that community, one of the things we want to do – this is
supposed to be a streetcar corridor eventually. This is an intermediate step before we get to
streetcars, so we wanted to have an upgraded level of bus service as one of those things we want
to do between now and streetcars.

Councilmember Dulin said these would not be considered projects for the shelters that we are
stopping other places around town?

Mr. Parker said, no, this is from a separate pile of money.

Mayor McCrory said let me follow up. If the grant runs out, do we still need the shelters then?
What will we do when the grant runs out?

Mr. Parker said the shelters will be paid for – well, let me try to back up a little bit. We set up a
certain budget of exactly how much we needed to pay for buses, shelters, the bus stop amenities,
and so forth, and we are still well within that budget with the amount of money we had allocated.

Mayor McCrory said what does the grant pay for?

Mr. Parker said it pays for all the capital items, pretty much all the capital items that are in there.
Remember, we have a bus route traveling along there, so we are taking operating costs from
existing operating dollars to continue running the service. We will upgrade it a bit so it costs a
bit more than what we currently spend but still not dramatically. Again, that‟s an area of the city
when we look at how many – we are doing something on the northeast, we are trying to make
progress on the north with commuter rail, we are trying to do some other areas. This is a place
that is quite a far distance off in terms of major rapid transit improvements.

bvj

January 26, 2009

Councilmember Dulin said that‟s fine. I‟m going to let you run your business. I wish it was
more of an express to get folks in and out quicker.

Mr. Parker said just to stay on that. What we do every few years is assess what the ridership
demand is, and if we find there is enough of a market, we will certainly set up an express bus,
but today it doesn‟t quite exist.

Councilmember Dulin said 23 is the Water Quality Education Program, $145,000 for media
advertising -- $89,500 is City expense. Right now I don‟t think we need to be spending
$145,000 letting people know to drink our water.

Curt Walton, City Manager, said, Mr. Dulin, we are required to do some form of this as part of
our permit, and we looked at this as the cheapest way to go about doing it, otherwise, we would
have to buy the media time a la carte.

Councilmember Dulin said we physically by law have to advertise our water?

Mr. Walton said we have to do the public education, a component of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, so it‟s part of getting our permit, yes, sir.

Councilmember Dulin said 24. This is the grant application for Wilora Lake and Ivey Pond. I
went out and saw Wilora Lake, and a lot of this is grant money.

City Manager Walton said this is seeking grants for those projects you approved last week.

Councilmember Dulin said grant money is tax money that has gotten from somebody else and
paid. I mean it‟s still tax money, somebody‟s cash. So, as a matter of record, I want to let you
know that I‟m against that. Then 30-B, C, and D is all Mr. and Mrs. Freeman, and that per acre
out on Dixie River Road – that per acre price of $357,000 just seems high. We are paying them
$470,921.00 to get that road realigned. They have been difficult to work with, haven‟t they?

Councilmember Lassiter arrived at 5:34 p.m.

City Manager Walton said actually if you remember we had the Freeman‟s and the McKee‟s, and
the Freeman‟s were a little bit easier than the McKee‟s. These folks are basically having to
relocate as part of the Berewick-Dixie River –

Councilmember Dulin said that whole house is getting shifted or moved.

City Manager Walton said I‟m not sure if they are staying there at all, so it‟s part of moving that
Berewick project along.

Councilmember Dulin said it was the McKee‟s that were difficult. I forgot them.

Councilmember Barnes said I have a question regarding Items 17, 18, 21, and 26. Regarding
Item 17 the question I have is it seems according to the information we have spent or will be
spending about $3.3 million on professional services before anything is built, and I wanted to
make sure that is accurate. I also wanted to confirm the SBE commitment, which appears to be
less than 1% on that item. Regarding Item 18, I have the same question. There the SBE
commitment was .4%, and I believe the percentages for both 17 and 18 were negotiated by staff,
so why did we negotiate such low goals, and also relative to 18 we spent about $7 million before
anything has been built. I just want to get confirmation. Regarding Item 21, I wanted to know
how much the planning phase and design phase has cost for that project. For Item 26, I wanted
to know what the intended outcomes are of the project, and if they are not achieved, what do we
do – send back the trucks? Then I wanted to know if we could lease the trucks for a year during
this demonstration project to determine if it‟s feasible as opposed to committing ourselves to
purchase the vehicles.

Councilmember Carter said three questions. No. 15, the police janitorial services, I‟m
wondering if we are getting into the green products and recommending them to our providers,

bvj

January 26, 2009

and 27 and 29 are the same issue. These are new construction, and I‟m wondering if we are
involving green practices in our building.

Councilmember Kinsey said 29, the light vehicle maintenance facility, I was just wondering if
this could be deferred until the February 9th meeting. I have some concerns about it. I want to
find out a little more about it. I just have several questions. That piece of property is in District
1, so I want to make sure I know exactly where it is, and also the architectural services I want to
know if an RFQ was sent out, and if it could be deferred, I would appreciate it.

City Manager Walton said we have no problem with that. Councilmember Kinsey and I talked at
the beginning of dinner, and that is information we are certainly happy to provide, so we will
move it to the February 9th agenda.

Mayor McCrory said before we get to the zoning issues I did want to make Council aware of one
thing. I have asked staff to do a small assignment, which doesn‟t take time, to draft a Bill that I
will ask for a future agenda item to change the state equity formula so the equity formula would
not be used for any money allocated down from the federal government during the next year as
part of the stimulus package and also to take away interstate highways that go through cities and
towns as a part of the equity formula. That is being drafted. One of the Mayor‟s major goals of
the state is to try to change the equity formula, and Lee Myers and other local mayors also want
to do that.

I will go ahead and get drafted some thoughts on that, get your input, get the other mayors‟ input,
and then try and get that in front of the legislature if this Council agrees. I also think it‟s going to
have to be a combination of many cities to get this involved. I just want to make you aware of
that, and I will look forward to hearing your feedback on that when I put it on a future agenda,
but I think we need to move on that pretty quickly because if money does go through the state,
through the Governor‟s Office, that means it will work against our equity formula according to
state law, and I think that could work against us in the long run. I wanted to make you aware of
that.

Councilmember Burgess said a couple of things. One, on Consent Agenda, I was looking for the
In Rem case. I thought it was 14, but it‟s on Allen Street. Mr. Abernethy, do you know what
agenda item number that one is?

City Manager Walton said 13-B on page 19.

Councilmember Burgess said there may be some speakers on that, but I want to make sure that
one is pulled for consideration.

City Manager Walton said there is a speaker.

Councilmember Burgess said I don‟t know if you want to talk about it now or downstairs since
there is a speaker.

City Manager Walton said if there are questions we can answer for you we‟ll be glad to.

Councilmember Burgess said I happened to talk to the investor that backed the person who was
trying to rehab that house, and they got involved with this foreclosure issue that the investor just
found out about sort of late so has jumped in and is working very vigorously to try to save that
house. I just wanted to make sure that all of that was known, and I guess we could talk about it
later or now.

Walter Abernethy, Neighborhood Development, said I talked to Mr. Worsley about three
weeks ago and kind of explained the process to him. He has done a good job thus far in these
last three weeks. My message to him three weeks ago he needed to get in there and start working
on the house. He pulled all his permits. I was by there today. I‟m pretty comfortable that he has
made substantive progress. I also think he met with the neighborhood association people
himself, which is a good thing, too. We are still recommending that we leave it on the agenda
and approve the demolition, but, of course, with any of our demos, we‟ll continue to work with
him if he continuously makes repairs. It‟s been a long time on this house. As you said, it‟s been
bvj

January 26, 2009

through different ownership changes, it‟s been through foreclosure, it‟s had a lot of pieces that
have made it difficult in terms of getting it where it is today and getting it before Council. I‟m
convinced that within a few weeks he really will have made major progress. It‟s one we will not
tear down if he continues on.

Councilmember Burgess said I think this is going to be something different we are going to see
with In Rems when the investor gets caught in this foreclosure and didn‟t know until the very
end that progress wasn‟t being made by the person who was supposed to be rehabbing it. I think
we may be seeing more of this in the future, and hopefully we‟ll have investors like this guy who
will get in here and protect his investment and save the house. I just wanted to make sure that
didn‟t get lost in the discussion. I wanted to comment also on your potential resolution, I guess,
about the stimulus money.

Mayor McCrory said it was a request to change the state law of the equity formula so if any
stimulus money comes to a city or town that stimulus money will not work against the equity
formula. In addition, the mayors of North Carolina of 25,000 and over have talked about also
changing the equity formula so cities that have interstate highways going through them like I-40,
I-95 in the east, they would not be punished. Like I-77 wipes out the whole division if we do
that, and we feel very strongly that any town whether it be small or large that has an interstate
highway shouldn‟t be punished for the maintenance or widening of those highways. Those were
some recommendations. Then the stimulus package, from all indications, it looks like there is a
good chance it will go through the states, and, therefore, they would have to follow state law in
the distribution of the money.

Councilmember Burgess said at the inauguration I went to a meeting of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors for the Democratic mayors, and the Obama liaison to local governments was there.

Mayor McCrory said I wasn‟t invited to that.

Councilmember Burgess said at any rate they are pushing for the distribution not to come
through states but to be distributed as community development block grants, 70% directly to
cities and towns, and 30% to the state. They haven‟t given up on that. The woman from the
White House was very open to that, so I wouldn‟t say it‟s a done deal that it‟s going to come to
the state. If history is any indication, it probably will, but it‟s a new day. You never know what
is going to happen now. I would think that our advocacy position is that we should have the
money come directly to us. I happen to be on the Obama Policy Committee, and last night was
corresponding with some of the members including Lynn Cutler, who coincidentally is one of
our lobbyists with Holland and Knight. We were emailing back and forth about this, and they
have already on our behalf talked to the new Secretary of Transportation to try to –

Mayor McCrory said who is a Republican.

Councilmember Burgess said to try to get this money directly to cities and towns. Her advice is
to stay very close to Kay Hagan and Richard Burr and Bev Purdue about getting the money
directly to cities and towns. I don‟t think we should give up on that yet.

Mayor McCrory said I don‟t disagree with you. In fact, at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, they
passed resolutions asking that we lobby through. Other sources, and I talked also to Lynn also,
and are telling me right now it looks like the governors may be winning that battle. Of course,
the Legislature and Congressman still are going to want to go through their districts and through
appropriations, so I think the battle will be between will Congress distribute the money, do
governors distribute the money, do cities distribute the money, counties, you name it, so I think
that is going to be the battleground that no one can determine.

I want to let you know also that last week I had a change to meet with our new congressman. I
had a wonderful meeting with him and also met with Kay Hagan and also had a meeting with
Richard Burr, and very productive meetings, and I told them our agenda and other mayors also
were in some of those meetings – the large city mayors, and we are all pretty consistent in our
message including that message that you just gave. I think one of the big issues that also came
up. The state, in addition to asking for stimulus money for infrastructure, something I wasn‟t
aware of is the state is also asking for a billion dollars of bail-out money of state operating costs,
bvj

January 26, 2009

which is something I strongly disagree with personally, and I don‟t think cities or states should
be asking for bail-out money of operating costs. I think that is not stimulus money; that‟s bail-
out money, and some cities, by the way, are doing the same thing. There are some other cities
that are requesting the president deal with their operating losses, and apparently the governor is
doing the same thing and other governors – the governor of California is doing the same thing,
too.

Councilmember Carter said on that same issue last week I emailed to everyone a resolution that
was sent to me from Nick Macada, a Council member in Seattle, recommending the
establishment of an urban advisory group for the president for his Office of Urban Planning, and
Mr. Cooksey emailed back a suggestion that perhaps we already have that advisory group in the
Large Cities Council with the National League of Cities. I agree with that, but there is no
problem. I think it would be rolling that as a formal status for an advisory group. I think it‟s
essential that we broaden the membership because that Large Cities Council is not very broad in
its membership, so I would like to bring this up at the end of the meeting. I do have the
resolution.

Mayor McCrory said I think I wrote back to you. Someone was supposed to. I said it over a
phone. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I think they will end up doing it anyway.

Councilmember Carter said to have someone as we have issues through these four years I think
would be very advisable for the president and for his office of Urban Affairs.

Councilmember Foxx said I just would ask you what kind of spade work do you anticipate being
part of this legislation?

Mayor McCrory said I think that is really what was up in the air based on my conversations on
the Hill and with other mayors and even with new members of the administration is that the term
“shovel ready” has not been defined whatsoever. I heard day before yesterday that they are
talking about expanding the definition from 60 days to 180 days. I personally think 180 days is
too short, too. I firmly believe that I hope this money coming down will be for long-term
projects that have long-term viability for the next generation that will be paying for it. I
remember a couple of years state government borrowed a bunch of money out of the trust fund, I
believe, to improve a few intersections here and there, and now it‟s gone, and no one really
knows where it went. It was spent, I suppose, wisely, but I hope that is not what is going to
happen here, and I think that is going to be a huge debate on the Hill during the next several
weeks in addition to who makes the decision.

Councilmember Foxx said to clarify I was speaking about the equity formula bill. What kind of
spade work do you anticipate being part of that?

Mayor McCrory said I think what we need to do is form a coalition with other mayors across the
state and this region. I don‟t think it should come just from Charlotte in asking for this. That is
why I wrote back to Lee Myers, too. I think the only way we have a chance is to form coalitions.
I just heard about an hour ago, too, I was going to the Chamber meeting real quick. I walked in
and one of the Channel 18 FOX reporters told me that Becky Carney is talking about changing
the equity formula, which is brand new news to me because I have been trying to get the
Chamber to make that a major priority, and the Chamber is not interested, and I disagree with
them on that. I just heard this about 40 minutes ago, and my correspondence with Lee and others
has been during the past several weeks, and last week Mac agreed to help me with some brief
wording on bills that could go with those two things – the stimulus package and the interstate
highway. So it‟s not a huge revamping of the equity formula; it‟s a modification to the equity
formula. It‟s a first try.

Councilmember Foxx said it‟s certainly good to build coalitions. I would just strongly
encourage reaching out to our delegation and making sure this is not something that takes them
by surprise.

Mayor McCrory said I agree, and this is what I heard about Becky a half hour ago, and the
reporter kind of blind-sided me on that, which is good news. I don‟t know what angle she is
taking, but I went great.
bvj

January 26, 2009

*********

ITEM NO. 2: ZONING AGENDA REVIEW

Mayor McCrory said let‟s go to zoning real quick. I think this is the first time that I can ever
recall that we have had a zoning and regular business meeting, so let‟s pull out those zoning
cases we need to review and defer. If you notice, those zoning cases are getting shorter and
shorter, and during lunch today or at 11:00 today I met with some of the zoning people today.
I‟m getting more and more requests, and I‟m going to maybe come back to you all and discuss
this at a later point, but I talked to Debra and others about this that I think because of the
economy not only are we seeing very little, if any, new development at this point in time, but I
think we are going to get requests where people are going to want more flexibility in our rules
and procedures especially if they are going through a zoning, and then they realize they can‟t get
it done because of the finances. Are we going to require them to start all over and pay all the
new costs over and over again because we have a time limit, I think, of what, one year?

City Manager Walton said for subdivisions I think that‟s right.

Mayor McCrory said with today‟s financing I think we have to be much more flexible to possible
investors in not having to start all over in the process. If they went through this whole process
and all of a sudden they couldn‟t get a loan, I would hate to say, sorry, you have to start all over
again with whole new fees, which we increased the price of and everything else. I would like to
come back and talk at a later point in looking at flexibility and in talking to Zoning staff, I think
they are already doing some flexibility. I think we might need to visit the fee structure, too. As
you know, we increased the fees a tremendous amount last year, and we might be discouraging
investment at a time when we need to encourage investment more than ever by our fee increase.

Councilmember Lassiter said on the recommendations coming from the Economic Development
and Planning Committee for the focus area we have on there whether or not we are business
friendly to examine our regulatory framework, so that will be coming to us at the time of our
Retreat.

Mayor McCrory said perfect. That‟s great. That‟s good to hear. We won‟t duplicate each
other‟s efforts then because it‟s bad out there.

Councilmember Carter said to make sure though that our costs are covered if they duplicative
services that we won‟t have to reduplicate if they are reissuing or treating the same project again.
It seems like we could offset, but I would want to make sure we cover our costs.

Mayor McCrory said we might need to look at that whole re-examination because if our costs are
so high to get in. Say, someone has to pay $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000 that because of that entry
level cost they don‟t get in at all, how much money do we lose over a two- or three-year period if
the development can‟t be built in property tax especially during this downturn in the economy?
John, do you understand my point there? In other words, in order to make $4,000, we might be
losing 30 or 40 a year in potential property tax. Right now someone putting down $5,000 when
cash is light is very difficult, but anyway that‟s a future discussion.

Councilmember Barnes said I look forward to debating it and talking about it at the Retreat. I
would want to know from staff what the entry level fee, as you described it, covers, and I think to
Nancy‟s point, are we recovering our own costs. One part of me says absolutely let‟s be as
business friendly as possible, and the other side says that if people can‟t come up with that entry
level fee then what sort of product are we going to get long term anyway.

Mayor McCrory said it will be a good discussion.

Councilmember Burgess said I have just an opinion to state about a new format of the Zoning
Book, and I want to tell you I really, really appreciate the condensation of it. I even like the
binding, but I do have one suggestion. In the write-up of the hearings for community meeting, it
says, “The community meeting was held, and you can see on-line what happened there.” I
bvj

January 26, 2009

always enjoy reading if anybody came to the community meeting; if it was zero or a hundred
people. That, to me, says there is a lot of interest in it or not, and I‟m wondering if it would be
too difficult just to have a summary statement of the community meeting – the community
meeting was held on “X” date and 50 people showed up, or something to give us some indication
about the interest of the neighborhood before the hearing.

Curt Walton, City Manager, said I don‟t think that would be a problem.

Tom Drake, Planning¸ said I don‟t think it‟s a problem. The only problem in timing is that
those community meeting reports are actually due after the first staff analysis is put together, so
that‟s why you see oftentimes that it‟s not available yet.

Councilmember Burgess said we used to get it.

Mr. Drake said we can work on those that are available.

Councilmember Burgess said that would be helpful because I want to gauge the – balance the
interest with the neighborhood and the developer. My other question-- was Hayden Hall
deferred?

Councilmember Dulin said Hayden Hall was deferred.

Councilmember Burgess said is No. 23 deferred – 2009-007?

Mr. Drake said yes. We are working with the property owners.

Mayor McCrory said can we go through these? Let‟s do it right now because we are supposed to
be out there right now.

Mr. Drake said under Decisions we have two deferrals: Item No. 10 (08-154) and Item No. 13
(08-158) one-month deferral. Petitions of interest would be Item Nos. 11 and 12. Remind you
that those are cases that both the staff and the Zoning Committee have recommended denial of.
Additional withdrawals or deferrals in the hearing: Item 15 (08-32) is a six-month deferral. That
is unusual but not unprecedented. Item 16 (08-102) deferred to February. Item No. 17 (08-112)
deferred to February. Item 18 (08-132) deferred to March. Item 19 we need a Council decision
on. It was opened in November, continued until tonight. The petitioner is requesting an
indefinite continuance to some point in the future.

Mayor McCrory said if I can make a recommendation on that one. I would recommend we make
a decision on that. We still have to close the public hearing, and can we do the decision the same
night? I would recommend that we close the hearing and have a decision. I think it‟s unfair to
that neighborhood with all respect to my UTube buddy, David Thompson. He and I are together
in a UTube that is still floating around this nation. You know the Helicopter Man.

Councilmember Dulin said can I say something about that. We kept it open because Mayor
Knox had some surgery coming up. Apparently he has –

Mayor McCrory said I don‟t think he is the lawyer anymore; is he?

Councilmember Dulin said I hadn‟t heard that he wasn‟t. I think there are going to be some
neighbors here tonight, and that is my district, and I would support going ahead if the Council
wanted to go ahead, if we can.

Mayor McCrory said you mean go ahead and end it.

Councilmember Cooksey said close the public hearing.

Mayor McCrory said not do an indefinite.

Councilmember Cooksey said and send it to the Zoning Committee.

bvj

January 26, 2009

Councilmember Dulin said move it forward.

Mr. Drake said, Mayor, if we do continue that hearing tonight staffs needs to give a little update
on it.

Mayor McCrory said we are not going to continue. We‟ll close the public hearing.

Mr. Drake said Item No. 22 (09-006) is a one-month deferral to February. Item No. 23 (09-007)
is another February. We would like presentations, Mayor, on Items 27 and 28, which are the
TOD and TS amendments.

*********

The meeting was recessed at 6:02 p.m. for the Council to move to the Council Meeting Chamber
for the regularly scheduled Business Meeting.

********

ZONING MEETING

The Council reconvened at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Meeting Chamber of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Government Center with Mayor Pat McCrory presiding.

Mayor McCrory said we are starting about 14 minutes late. We just came back from a dinner
meeting where we discussed agenda items on basically two meetings that we have tonight. This
is the first time that I recall in at least the last 25 years that the City Council is actually holding
both the Zoning Meeting tonight and a regular Council Meeting tonight. That was due to
postponing a meeting last week.

********

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Mayor McCrory gave the Invocation and the Panther Patrol from Boy Scout Troop No. 1,
sponsored by Holy Comforter Church on Park Road, led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.

********

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Burgess, seconded by Councilmember Barnes, and ]
[ carried unanimously to defer the following decisions: Item No. 10, Petition No. 2008-154, ]
[ one-month deferral; Item No. 13, Petition No. 2008-158, one-month deferral; Item No. 15, ]
[ Petition No. 2008-032, six-month deferral; Item No. 16, Petition No. 2008-102, one-month ]
[ deferral; Item No. 17, 2008-112, one-month deferral; Item No. 18, Petition No. 2008-132, ]
[ two-month deferral; Item No. 22, Petition No. 2009-006, one-month deferral; and Item No. ]
[ 2009-007, one-month deferral. ]

Mayor McCrory said, Mr. Dulin, would you like to comment on 2008-140? Do you want that
deferred, or would you like to keep that open?

Councilmember Dulin said, no, close the public hearing.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Dulin, seconded by Councilmember Lassiter, and ]
[ carried unanimously to close the public hearing on Item No. 10, Petition 2008-140. ]

Mayor McCrory said with regard to the deferral of 2008-140 the petitioner is David Thompson.
The request was for an indefinite continuance. Instead of that, we voted to go ahead and close
the public hearing, which means that next month we‟ll make a decision on that petition, so we
bvj

January 26, 2009

will not have an indefinite deferral of that petition. We will either vote that up or down after
getting recommendation from the Zoning Committee. I know there are some people in the
audience, both the petitioner and neighborhood groups, so just want to let you know we are not
going to keep that petition open. We are going to make a decision, and we are not going to
discuss it any more tonight either, so it‟s done.

********

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mayor McCrory introduced David Howard, Chair, Zoning Committee, who introduced his
committee. He said because of the Council‟s change in their schedule the Zoning Committee
meeting will be different than what it normally is. We will meet this coming Monday, February
2, at 2:00 p.m. on the second floor of this building.

********

ITEM NO. 1: ORDINANCE NO. 4103-Z AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE TO AFFECT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR
APPROXIMATELY 0.30 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST 36 TH
STREET BETWEEN NORTH DAVIDSON STREET AND THE NORFOLK AND
SOUTHERN RAILROAD FROM B-1 TO NS

Mayor McCrory said the Zoning Committee found this petition to be consistent with the North
Charlotte Plan and the Northeast LRT Transit Station Area Concept, therefore, reasonable and in
the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Burgess, seconded by Councilmember Barnes, and ]
[ carried unanimously to approve the Statement of Consistency and Petition No. 2008-057 for ]
[ the above rezoning by Michelle Strause as modified and as recommended by the Zoning ]
[ Committee. ]

The modifications are:

A note has been added under “Zoning” that restaurant parking will meet the minimum
1.
parking requirements of one space per 150 square feet but no more than a maximum of
one parking space per 75 square feet.
A note has been added that the maximum height of freestanding light poles will be 25‟.
2.
The text on the site plan that states, “5‟ setback from centerline of alley” has been
3.
corrected to read: “10‟ rear yard from centerline of alley”.

The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 56 at Pages 1-2.

*******

APPROXIMATELY 9.05 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TODDVILLE
ROAD BETWEEN PAW CREEK ROAD AND FREEDOM DRIVE FROM R-3(LLWPA),
R-9MF(CD)(LLWPA) AND R-17MF(LLWPA) TO INST (CD)(LLWPA

Mayor McCrory said the Zoning Committee found this petition to be consistent with the
Northwest District Plan, therefore, to be reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Burgess, seconded by Councilmember Dulin, and ]
[ carried unanimously to approve the Statement of Consistency and Petition No. 2008-117 ]
[ for the above rezoning by Medical Facilities of North Carolina, Inc. as modified and as ]
[ recommended by the Zoning Committee. ]
bvj

January 26, 2009


1. The site plan clearly delineates the boundaries of the rezoning in a heavy dark line on the
site plan.
2. The site plan has been redrawn with the north part of the site at the top.
A note was added to include a 24-foot buffer along those portions of the site‟s “northern
3.
boundary line” that are adjacent to the adjoining religious institution.
Notes #3 and #4 have been amended to reflect that only “required” sidewalks are
4.
permitted in the buffer and have eliminated the use of a berm to reduce buffer width.
5. Notes #5 and #6 have been amended to indicate that parking, maneuvering, and
detention/water quality facilities may not be located within any buffer or setback.
Staff has determined that right-of-way for the unnamed 60-foot street along the site‟s
6.
southern boundary already exists.
7. A minimum five-foot sidewalk and eight-foot planting strip along all street frontages will
be provided.
8. A note has been added that the petitioner will submit a Solid Waste Management Plan
prior to initiating land clearing, demolition and/or construction activities.
9. A note has been added that the unnamed public street will be constructed to the
office/commercial narrow street cross-section.
10. The site plan now reflects proposed zoning of Institutional CD.
11. Elevations have been submitted.


*******

APPROXIMATELY 4.40 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF STATESVILLE
ROAD BETWEEN TWIN LAKES PARKWAY AND FUTURE I-485 FROM R-17MF, I-1,
AND NCDOT RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE ABANDONED TO B-D(CD)

Northlake Area Plan, therefore, to be reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Mitchell, seconded by Councilmember Barnes, and ]
[ for the above rezoning by Sherpa Land Company, LLC, as modified and as recommended ]
[ by the Zoning Committee. ]


1. Setbacks along Interstate 485 and the new alignment of Statesville Road have been
labeled.
2. Dumpster location is shown.
3. Total site area is reflected as 4.18 acres.
4. The maximum square footage is listed as 90,000 square feet.
5. The floor area ratio (F.A.R.) depicted on the plan is 0.37. Total building area will not
exceed a F.A.R. of .50.
6. A note has been added that the petitioner will submit a Solid Waste Management Plan
prior to initiating land clearing, demolition, and/or construction activities.
7. Sidewalk widths have been labeled.
8. All streets have been labeled. An access easement will be provided for the property to
the west.


*******
bvj

January 26, 2009

APPROXIMATELY 3.49 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF REMOUNT
ROAD BETWEEN SOUTH BOULEVARD AND SOUTH TRYON STREET FROM B-2
AND I-1 TO TOD-M

Mayor McCrory said the Zoning Committee found this petition to be consistent with the New
Bern Transit Station Area Plan, therefore, to be reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Turner, seconded by Councilmember Barnes, and ]
[ the above rezoning by The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission as recommended ]


*******

APPROXIMATELY 0.59 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH TRYON
STREET BETWEEN REMOUNT ROAD AND BASIN STREET FROM I-1 TO TOD-M

Mayor McCrory said the Zoning Committee found this petition to be consistent with the New
Bern Transit Station Area Plan, therefore, to be reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Turner, seconded by Councilmember Burgess, and ]
[ the above rezoning by The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission as recommended ]


*******

APPROXIMATELY 1.44 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
RODMAN STREET AND SAM DRENAN ROAD FROM R-22MF TO I-1

Mayor McCrory said the Zoning Committee found this petition to be inconsistent with the
Central District Plan but reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Cooksey, seconded by Councilmember Burgess, and ]
[ the above rezoning by Kennington Family, LLC, as recommended by the Zoning Committee. ]


*******

APPROXIMATELY 3.60 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH TRYON
STREET BETWEEN EAST PALMER STREET AND EAST CATHERINE STREET
FROM MUDD-O TO MUDD-O SPA

bvj

January 26, 2009

Mayor McCrory said the Zoning Committee found this petition to be consistent with the South
End Transit Station Area Plan and reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Lassiter, seconded by Councilmember Burgess, ]
[ and carried unanimously to approve the Statement of Consistency and Petition No. 2008-151 ]
[ for the above rezoning by Steve Smoak as modified and as recommended by the Zoning ]
[ Committee. ]


The modification is:

1. Note 3 has been amended to state that the columns are in the setback and right-of-way
and will remain.

*******

APPROXIMATELY 1.13 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
BEATTIES FORD ROAD AND FAIRDALE DRIVE FROM O-2 TO B-2(CD)

Northwest District Plan and reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Carter, seconded by Councilmember Burgess, and ]
[ carried unanimously to recuse Councilmember Foxx. ]

Councilmember Carter said there was an amendment here that the parking will be screened from
abutting properties and from public streets. Has the Police Department commented on that? I
know with certain practices it is not normal that we screen parking from streets.

Tom Drake, Planning, said actually the screening is a minimum ordinance requirement.

Councilmember Carter said it‟s intermittent and you can see through for the safety of the people
who are parking there?

Mr. Drake said it‟s not intended to be an opaque, solid vegetation. It‟s screening, so it‟s shrubs
five feet on center.

Councilmember Burgess said are the six notes that are noted here considered modifications?
Does the motion need to be with modification or not?

Mr. Drake said some of these are modifications, so as modified would be correct.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Mitchell, seconded by Councilmember Carter, and ]
[ for the above rezoning by Friendship Missionary Baptist Church as modified and as ]
[ recommended by the Zoning Committee. ]



1. A note has been added that the existing drive aisle will be removed.
2. The width of sidewalk and planting strip along Beatties Ford Road has been labeled.
3. A note has been added confirming that there is not a group home within 800 feet of the
site.
4. Note 4 under General Provisions has been amended to allow up to 30 women to be
housed overnight.
bvj

January 26, 2009

5. Note 1 under Access Points has been amended to specify only one access off Beatties
Ford Road.
6. A note has been added to the site plan that parking will be screened from abutting
properties and from public streets.

*******

UNIVERSITY CITY BOULEVARD AND SAM’S LANE FROM B-1(CD) TO B-2(CD)

Northeast District Plan and reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Barnes and seconded by Councilmember Kinsey to ]
[ approve the Statement of Consistency and Petition No. 2008-153 for the above rezoning by ]
[ Sam‟s Mart, LLC as modified and as recommended by the Zoning Committee. ]

Councilmember Barnes said, Mr. Drake, after the Public Hearing I had asked staff about a large,
old tree on this site near Highway 49. Did we get any confirmation as to the fate of that tree?

Tom Drake, Planning¸ said, yes, sir. They clarified on the site plan. They had just noted it as
existing before, but they have clarified their note to say it will be preserved.

The vote was taken on the motion and recorded as unanimous.


Site plan has been amended to correctly label Class “B” Buffer with Berm along the
1.
north property lines.
Existing building and parking on the west side of Sam‟s Lane has been added to the site
2.
plan and parking meets the requirements of the ordinance.
3. A long term parking lease will be provided for parking on the adjacent site that is actually
on this site.
4. Site plan has been amended to correctly identify side and rear yards including required
widths.
Required sidewalks and planting strips along Sam‟s Lane and University City Boulevard
5.
have been labeled on the site plan.
6. Note has been added to site plan agreeing to provide a Solid Waste Management Plan
prior to initiating land clearing, demolition, and/or construction activities.
7. Note has been added to site plan agreeing to CATS request for a waiting bench pad.
8. Maximum building height of 35 feet has been added to the site plan.
9. Lighting will be shielded with full cut-off fixtures.
An easement for sidewalks along Sam‟s Lane will be provided.
10.
11. Parking area between first driveway and convenience has been modified to address
CDOT concern with respect to circulation.
12. Proposed two-way drive aisle has been converted to one way to address CDOT concern
with respect to two-way drive aisles and angled parking.
Note has been added agreeing to provision of an easement for sidewalk along Sam‟s Lane
13.
in right-of-way per CDOT‟s request.


********

bvj

January 26, 2009

ITEM NO. 11: PETITION TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY
OF CHARLOTTE TO AFFECT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY
24.61 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH TRYON STREET
BETWEEN YORKDALE DRIVE AND THORNFIELD ROAD FROM R-3 TO R-
17MF(CD)

General Development Policies but reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Lassiter and seconded by Councilmember Peacock to ]
[ JDR Communities as modified and as recommended by the Zoning Committee. ]

[ Substitute motion was made by Councilmember Barnes and seconded by Councilmember ]
[ Dulin to deny the petition. ]

Councilmember Foxx said I don‟t know if this is appropriate, Mr. Mayor, but there have
apparently been some changes to the plan since our hearing, and I wanted to know whether staff
now recommends approval or disapproval of the plan.

Tom Drake, Planning, said, no, sir, we are aware of the changes. Essentially our issue on this
one was connecting to an existing stub street near the rear of the property. What the petitioner
did before the Zoning Committee was agree that if a vehicular connection was not engineering
and economically feasible that they would do a pedestrian connection to the stub street. After
that they modified their note to say that they would allow for emergency vehicle access at that
stub street. We discussed this with the Charlotte Department of Transportation, and we, the
staff, are unwilling to support that provision. We are still looking for a public street connection
at this existing stub street.

Councilmember Burgess said we have two conflicting things. We have a gated community with
a public street, and we can‟t have both, but it seems to me like they have found a compromise to
have an emergency vehicle entrance that is gated and will be accessible to emergency vehicles.
But my question is in the original write-up it said that the petitioner wasn‟t sure he could add that
because of water quality feature, I guess water retention or whatever. Have they found a way to
solve both vehicular access and the water retention issue?

Mr. Drake said I will be honest with you, Ms. Burgess, I was not in on the detail levels of that
discussion, but in my view clearly they would have to have solved that problem in order to offer
up even an emergency vehicle connection.

Councilmember Dulin said the neighbors that are bordering, the ones I have heard from, aren‟t
really against the project, but they are against the extra connectivity. Now, it‟s staff saying that
you must have more connections to other neighborhoods.

Mr. Drake said that‟s correct. Mr. Cooksey, I believe, was alluding to adopted policy, and in
addition, the subdivision ordinance requires extension of existing stub streets unless, and then
there are four or five exceptions. It‟s a requirement, and, yes, the staff is –

Councilmember Dulin said I‟m in a little bit of a quandary because I would like to help this
fellow go build a nice project, but I don‟t want to have the residents of his development dumping
into this quiet neighborhood.

Mr. Drake said let me make this parallel for you. I believe it‟s recent enough that you all will
remember the rezoning we had on Park Road and Woodlawn, the large multifamily project.
Those were the same issues there. We were looking for a second access for residents. If we
couldn‟t get the public street, we wanted at least a second access for residents. There are
actually more dwelling units in this project than there were in that one. Council did not appear to
agree with the staff on that issue, and that rezoning was approved. We have the same issue here
for the staff. We are not going to be able to support this without at least a second access for
tenants. We would like to have a public street.

bvj

January 26, 2009

Councilmember Dulin said I‟m confused because I really do – particularly in these economic
times we have got somebody here that wants to do a project, and I would like to help that person
do the project, but I also want to be cognizant of the neighbors that are behind. So I hate to vote
no for the project to solve the neighbors. What can we do about eliminating the second access
point, so we can vote yes for this project? That‟s just an open question.

Councilmember Turner said I had the opportunity to speak with some of the residents who live in
the neighborhood. Well, you actually have two neighborhoods that are adjacent to this project
that is being proposed, and one of their concerns as it was currently zoned that they had, of
course, in this day‟s market is getting what they would call starter homes there, single family.
They did not support that thought. In fact, when the developer came to me, I expressed my
concern even with multifamily at this point, but after numerous time and hours with them, we did
come up with I think a very nice project, and it was agreed upon that this would be a gated
community, and then it was brought back to me that staff would not support this particular
project because of the connectivity issue.

Yorkwood community has been there a very long time, and having the opportunity to speak to
some of those citizens that live there in that neighborhood they have the same concern that most
of us would have. When we have been somewhere and live in a particular neighborhood or in
your environment without it being disturbed, people have a very deep concern about when we
add additional cars or traffic into their neighborhood, and the particular street we are talking
about is a stub street. On that street, it‟s a very long street, and what we are getting ready to do
now is continue the street and make it even longer from Longdale all the way into this
development. If you look at this entire neighborhood, they have more than one way out, so this
is not an issue or concern that Yorkwood wants. They feel like they have more than their share
of exit points getting in and out of their neighborhood. This is about a new project. This project
would have a negative impact on the existing neighborhood. I think we should always put the
concerns of that new neighborhood as well as the one already in existence.

The new neighborhood basically all they want is to have the ability to build this development and
meet the City‟s requirements. That is one of our requirements is connectivity, but as I have said
in the past when we first adopted that as one of our policies is one size don‟t fit all. I‟m one that
still believes at this point allowing them to put an emergency road in place there for emergency
vehicles, if there is an incident or accident that happens on South Tryon, York Road, where this
particular development folks could not get out – they would have an exit point out of that
community. As I spoke with Ms. Campbell, I don‟t see any benefit for Yorkwood having access
to enter into this family complex off this stub street and vice versa. In fact, I gave the best
scenario I could give at this moment.

If we built this community and folks buy into this multifamily apartment complex, I hope many
of them would get jobs in Arrowood, Westinghouse, Whitehall area, and the only advantage any
of them would have if they got a job at Time Warner, which is on the back side of this
community off Arrowood Road, they still cannot access that property from Yorkwood because
that is a street stub that goes into the back side of Yorkdale into the Time Warner complex. They
couldn‟t even get there. They still have to go back out on Arrowood Road is my point. There is
really no advantage. When you look at the distance that one would have to travel to use that as
an advantage point, it is not an advantage. I‟m going to ask Council.

I have asked staff to really try to work this out, and I don‟t like really going against staff when I
think we adopted this policy, and we should support it, but I also adopted it with caution because
I didn‟t believe then and I still don‟t believe now that one size fits all, and I think this would be
more of a detriment to a neighborhood that is already in existence and their quality of life to
allow us to change that because of a new development that is getting ready to happen; and at the
same time, I don‟t think we should punish this opportunity for my district and this community
that surely would like to see a quality project put on that piece of land, on that tract of land there,
that we say no just to stop because we can‟t get our way on whether we get a street or not. So,
I‟m not going to support the motion, and I‟m going to ask that we really consider what is being
asked of us here to try to work with this developer and work with this project and really look at
this. I have asked Ms. Campbell to try to get staff to go out. I think that‟s one of our other
problems that I always brought up here at this Council is we look at it from a map position, and I
think it‟s important that we go out in the community and see exactly from a ground position and
bvj

January 26, 2009

see exactly what we are talking about and how it affects the quality of life in this community if
we open this street up, and that‟s what I‟m asking, and I don‟t support it. What I support is the
street stay a stub street or turn into an emergency exit street.

Councilmember Lassiter said I want to make sure I understood the district representative‟s
suggestion. Are you suggesting we defer this matter?

Councilmember Turner said I am.

Councilmember Lassiter said are you making a motion to that effect?

Councilmember Turner said I make a motion that this 2008-155 be deferred.

Mr. Drake said I assume that‟s a one-month deferral.

Councilmember Turner said if we can get it done in one month. I mean we have to do
something. I don‟t think this is the time to make a decision. One month is fine.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Turner and seconded by Councilmember Lassiter to ]
[ defer the decision on Petition No. 2008-155 for one month. ]

Councilmember Burgess said I think if I understood Mr. Turner‟s comments and concerns I think
the developer has offered that even though we don‟t have it in writing. Well, maybe we do in the
latest memo from him, but what he is now offering is to do the connectivity but only for
emergency vehicles, so the neighborhood actually wins. They won‟t be having the through
traffic, but on the other hand, the public safety concerns also are addressed, and it seems to me
like this is a very reasonable compromise, and I don‟t think it‟s going to get better than this even
if we delay it a month. I think the neighborhood‟s concerns have been addressed, the ones that
you articulated have been addressed and will be accommodated with this emergency gate. I
don‟t know what another month buys us. My question was can we still have the access, the road
access for emergency only, and still protect the water quality, and the answer to that was yes.
The developer has found a way to do that, so what will a month really buy us to do?

Councilmember Turner said let‟s ask the question. I think what it does is it allows the Zoning
and Ms. Campbell‟s office to have the opportunity to have further dialogue with them, but if our
position is not going to change then what is being proposed for us tonight we only have one other
choice, and that is to defeat the motion set before us, a request. But to answer your question,
there is a water basin where the water would be gathered. What we have done on this project is
they reduced the size of that basin to put the street in.

Mayor McCrory said the way I understand this, and let‟s see if we can move this forward one
way or the other, you either vote it up or down tonight or you defer it, and you defer it primarily
for those who do not want the connectivity possibly except of emergencies, which goes against
Council policy. If you defer it, you make those adjustments to the next month‟s meeting. That‟s
the way I understand it tonight. If you defer it, that means you probably are in favor of the
project but only if you have a closed street except possibly during emergencies. If you vote on it
tonight, you are either for or against it for the various reasons you may be for or against it; okay?
If that is the case, I would like to caution Council that this Council and previous Councils put a
lot of work into making sure we have an inter-connective road system, and I agree it doesn‟t fit
all things, but the reason we did that is so our traffic system, which impacts our environment,
would move in an orderly fashion and have more choices for the driver and consumer and
pedestrian and bicyclist.

I will give you an example. In the 1920s when Myers Park was developed as a suburb, there
probably was pressure – well, let‟s don‟t connect Myers Park with the Cherry neighborhood
because of higher density and lower density and economic factors, but it never happened. There
is connectivity between those neighborhoods, and it‟s not a big deal, and thank God for it
because the pedestrian, the motorist, and others have many, many choices to get in and out of
that neighborhood, and, therefore, there isn‟t a lot of traffic because all traffic is not funneled
onto one road. That is why many of us spent a long time on working on inter-connectivity and a
grid system of roads, which stopped in the 1960s, „70s, 80s, 90s, and we have reestablished ‟95
bvj

January 26, 2009

on. I disagreed frankly with the decision on Woodlawn, too, because I think it‟s going to be a
mess on Woodlawn with one entrance coming out of the neighborhood right next to the traffic
light, but I understand some of the logic there. I just do want to caution us that if we keep
making exceptions to the connectivity process for whatever reason I think you are causing more
long-term damage and cost to our road system and to the taxpayer of Charlotte. I understand the
disagreement, and I understand some of the exceptions. The more exceptions you are going to
get these so-called compromises between two groups, which is not necessarily the best
compromise for the City‟s transportation system.

Councilmember Cooksey said I have been persuaded to vote to defer this now because I agree on
the connectivity side, and I have been struggling with how to deal with this petition and go with
connectivity because the difference with the Drexel petition that we dealt with was clearly that
the road that cars would have gone on could not have handled that traffic, but this road with a
stub street there was built to handle a certain amount of traffic, but I would suggest based on the
land use it was built to handle lower density single family homes. However, I have heard from
the district rep that one of the reasons the neighborhood liked this project was they didn‟t
necessarily want what kind of development would occur if it developed at R-3 single family. Of
course, if it developed R-3 single family under the subdivision ordinance, that connection would
be made, and we wouldn‟t be having this conversation.

So, I don‟t know if there are six votes for it, but I am now going to support deferral because I
would like feedback from the neighborhood as to which choice is preferable -- this project as a
gated community with the connection to the street to allow the apartment dwellers access to
Arrowood without going through South Tryon or the lower density as zoned residential and the
connectivity because that, I think, is the choice that faces us, and it is a choice that recognizes
both that we have a connectivity policy, but in this case, we have a stub street that was
anticipated to connect to a lower density development than is being proposed before us.

Councilmember Foxx said in the spirit of the new politics I will say that I wholeheartedly agree
with what you have said about this, Mayor. I think you have made some very, very good points,
and I would only add to that. In the rezoning context, these cases are very hard because you are
dealing with the dynamics of policy that Council has established, you are dealing with neighbors
that are dealing with the immediate impact of these decisions, and you are dealing with the fact
that we are still in the process of trying to create a city in which people can move around. When
I get a chance to remind these people that even if we were able to build the roads that we need in
the future over the next 11 years we will still see 64% more congestion in our most heavily
traveled intersections if we are able to find the money to do that. So, we are looking at a
community that will likely to be very, very congested no matter what we do, and the more routes
or possible routes there are to helping people move around the better off we‟ll be, I think, as
distinguished from the Woodlawn situation where I think the ultimate solution to that involved
moving a new road through some homes on the other side of the street connection was being
contemplated. This one is clearer to me, and I think it makes a lot of sense, so I‟m going to
support the motion to deny the rezoning.

Mayor McCrory said we first have a motion to defer, which we put ahead of all regular motions,
and if that passes, we defer it to next month. If it doesn‟t pass, we‟ll go to the motion to defeat,
which was the substitution motion of the original motion.

The vote was taken on the motion to defer one month and recorded as follows:

AYES: Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Cooksey, Dulin, Kinsey, Lassiter, Peacock, Turner

NAYS: Councilmembers Carter, Foxx, Mitchell

********

APPROXIMATELY 0.44 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CENTRAL
AVENUE BETWEEN CRYSTAL ROAD AND CYRUS DRIVE FROM R-22MF TO NS
bvj

January 26, 2009

Mayor McCrory said the Zoning Committee found this petition to be inconsistent with the Briar
Creek/Woodland and Merry Oaks Small Area Plan but reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Lassiter and seconded by Councilmember Kinsey to ]
[ Michael Berglass, DDS as modified and as recommended by the Zoning Committee. ]

Councilmember Barnes said I make a substitute motion to deny.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Barnes and seconded by Councilmember Carter to ]
[ deny the petition. ]

Mayor McCrory said we don‟t really need a substitute to deny. We can just vote against it. Why
don‟t we just do that – up or down vote.

Councilmember Barnes said trying to have a little fun here.

Councilmember Burgess said I just need a refresher. When the neighbors came and spoke at the
hearing, they spoke in favor of the rezoning; is that correct? Were they the same neighbors that
participated in the Briar Creek/Woodlawn Area Plan process? Is that about the same
neighborhood?

Councilmember Kinsey said yes.

Councilmember Burgess said so they voted for the plan and now they are voting to go against the
plan, okay.

Councilmember Mitchell said, Ms, Kinsey, you are saying the citizens are supporting.

Councilmember Kinsey said, yes, I have not heard from a single citizen in those two
neighborhoods that don‟t support it.

The vote was taken on the motion to approve and recorded as unanimous.


********

APPROXIMATELY 4.80 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ERWIN ROAD
BETWEEN SOUTH TRYON STREET AND MOSS ROAD FROM R-3 TO I-1(CD)

Southwest District Plan but reasonable and in the public interest.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Barnes, seconded by Councilmember Cooksey, and ]
[ the above rezoning by Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. as modified and as recommended ]


********

bvj

January 26, 2009

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ITEM NO. 20: HEARING ON PETITION NO. 2009-001 BY JANICE WHITE FOR A
CHANGE IN ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.45 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HICKORY GROVE ROAD AND LAWRENCE ORR
ROAD FROM R-3 TO INST(CD)

The scheduled public hearing was held on the subject petition.

Councilmember Carter said I was hoping that staff could discuss traffic flow and stacking with
us before we vote on this issue.

Tammie Keplinger, Planning¸ said I will ask CDOT to come up for that.

Councilmember Carter said you can do it now or later.

Mayor McCrory said consider a note on it or something.

Councilmember Carter said all of us, please.

Mayor McCrory said absolutely. I want to read that.

[ There being no speakers either for or against, a motion was made by Councilmember ]
[ Cooksey, seconded by Councilmember Kinsey, and carried unanimously to close the ]
[ public hearing. ]

********

ITEM NO. 21: HEARING ON PETITION NO. 2009-005 BY REGENCY CENTERS, INC.
FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 21.75 ACRES LOCATED ON
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CARMEL ROAD AND PINEVILLE-MATTHEWS
ROAD FROM B-1SCD TO MUDD-O


Councilmember Dulin said the only note I made during my reading this weekend was about
parking – going from 146,000 feet to –

Laura Simmons, 214 N. Tryon St., said we have increased the number of parking spaces. We
worked with Tom Drake and increased number of parking spaces so it more closely resembles
what you would typically see in a shopping center.

Councilmember Dulin said there is about a five-story office building on the back side of the
property. Is it leased now or empty?

Ms. Simmons said it‟s leased, and they have their own separate parking, and they are on a
separate parcel of land.

Councilmember Dulin said for y‟all‟s information this is Carmel Commons built in about 1978,
and the developer went broke because nobody lived on Highway 51, and there was nobody there
to shop. From 1978 to today, it‟s sort of amazing.

[ There being no speakers either for or against, a motion was made by Councilmember ]
[ Burgess, seconded by Councilmember Barnes, and carried unanimously to close the ]
[ public hearing. ]

********

bvj

January 26, 2009

ITEM NO. 24: HEARING ON PETITION NO. 2007-124 BY THE CHARLOTTE-
MECKLENBURG PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR
SOUTH TRYON STREET AND WEST TREMONT AVENUE FROM I-2 AND MUDD-O
TO TOD-M(CD)


Tammie Keplinger, Planning, said just a few things on this petition. It‟s an I-2 and MUDD-O
to TOD-M(CD). The purpose of the conditional request on this plan is for the construction of a
connector street from West Tremont to Doggett. That is the main reason for the CD plan. Staff
is recommending approval of this petition.

Walter Fields, 1919 South Boulevard, Ste. 100, said my client is The Boulevard Company.
You will notice this petition is the City of Charlotte, the Planning Commission, so you know
right away there is going to be a story that goes with it. This piece of property is located in an
area that is covered by the South End Station Area Plan that was adopted a couple of years ago
by the City Council.

Mayor McCrory said you are speaking in favor of this, right?

Mr. Fields said, yes, sir. The station area plan calls for this property and numerous other
properties in the immediate area to be rezoned to a transit-supportive district. Most of it is TOD-
M, transit-oriented development mixed-use. You may also recall that the Planning Department,
once the plan was adopted, embarked on a process which was defined in the plan to go ahead and
rezone or pre-zone these properties to implement the station area plan to put the new transit-
supportive zoning in place rather than awaiting for one property owner or the other to bring in
one petition at a time. That met with some concern from some members of the community -- I
think mostly it would be fair to say the Dilworth community – when they began to understand
the magnitude of the TOD-M zoning and the geography it would cover, so those petitions
essentially were suspended and haven‟t moved forward in quite some time, but individual
property owners were allowed to bring forward a specific proposal if they wanted to, and some
of those were straight up and some of those were conditional depending on the circumstances,
and in many cases, the City became the petitioner and sponsored those petitions, and there was
no filing fee, and the process was expedited because the whole idea was to get the TOD zoning
on the ground consistent with this plan.

Well, this plan, as you might expect, also has lots of other things in it including dotted lines to
represent a proposed future street network, and that is what is bringing us to the table tonight.
You will notice the zoning case number here is an „07 case – 07-124 was filed quite a while ago
as a conditional case, and the purpose was to implement the transit station area plan by changing
this to the TOD zoning but based on a specific plan. One of the things that came up during that
review, and I was not involved with that nor was The Boulevard Company, was the desire of
CDOT to have a street, which would cross this property at some point. Now, I don‟t know the
details of that, I wasn‟t involved, but suffice it to say that petition didn‟t go anywhere. I‟m told
the fact that nothing could be worked out about the street in fact killed the deal. But the zoning
petition was still there. It just sort of went into limbo.

Many months ago The Boulevard Company approached the City about sort of resurrecting this
petition. I was already in the hopper -- it already had a case number, it already had some initial
review by the staff – to see if it was possible to come up with a plan for this very same piece of
property to allow transit-supported development to go forward, basically go ahead and change it
to the TOD-M classification.

Mayor McCrory said, Walter, can you stop just a second? Can I ask the people there to please
flash what they are seeing there onto our monitors? We couldn‟t see what was back here.

Mr. Fields said as a result of the conversations with the staff, and I want to thank publicly both
the Transportation staff and the Planning staff because we were able to work out an arrangement
by which this property could be rezoned to TOD-M with a conditional plan with only one
condition, and that one condition was along what I will call the easterly boundary of the site that
bvj

January 26, 2009

an area would be set aside for a future street – not the entire street – but a portion of the street
that would be built as part of this development on this property. Then at some point one of the
adjoining tracts redeveloped, as it may do at some point in the future, the other half of the street
would be developed there. That seemed fair because the plan is not specific in terms of where
the street goes. There are just sort of dotted lines out there going across people‟s property.
Again, that was the only condition on this entire plan was this street, and that was by virtue of
CDOT‟s desire to have this street here to implement the station area plan.

Now, the irony is that putting the street on the plan has now caused concern on the part of our
neighbor. Mr. Fox is going to speak about that in a moment – the other Mr. Fox. You might
speak on it, too, since this is about connectivity. Neighbors came to our community meeting and
said we are not sure – we don‟t have a problem with your project, but we are concerned about
this street because if we look in this plan there is another street, another dotted line that crosses
our property a little bit further down, so now we have a piece of street here and another street
there. It‟s really chopping up our site, and, again, keep in mind, this is not the piece that is being
considered for rezoning. This is our neighbor.

Well, obviously we have no desire to do anything that would do anything but benefit the folks
around us. We would be happy to have this property zoned to TOD-M as the plan calls for as
was going to be initiated by the staff at some point without the street. We would be happy to
build the street. We would be happy to just approve the straight up rezoning. All we are trying
to do is fulfill the objectives of the plan that calls for this to be transit-oriented development, but
we don‟t want to do it to the detriment of our neighbor, and I think you are going to hear a little
about that later.

One of the things that somebody suggested to me today was it was a curious state of affairs if, in
fact, our compliance with the request of the City staff in fact triggers a protest petition, so now
we have a higher bar to have to jump over to do what we were asked to do. As I said a moment
ago, we would be happy with any combination that would result in the approval of either the
TOD-M just straight up, which quite frankly, we think is the most appropriate; a TOD-M(CD)
that has the street, as we discussed. We would be happy to support and work with the adjoining
owners on a plan amendment so there can be an actual look at the impact of these proposed
streets and how they impact these very tightly knit urban properties to see if, in fact, it makes
sense to have a street there at all. We are open to working this issue out in whatever fashion we
can, but we do want to move forward with this development, and we do want to have a plan that
can be supported by the staff, which they have already indicated they will, and hopefully
supported by our neighbors. I will stop at this point and let Mr. Fox come to the microphone and
describe to you the concerns of his client. We have been in conversation today and on Friday.
We know what their concerns are. I don‟t think I have said anything here that he is going to
correct me on, and we‟ll both be happy to answer questions at the end of his comments.

Anthony Fox, 401 S. Tryon St, Ste. 3000, said Mr. Fields was very accurate and fair in his
representation of the dilemma that my client, Gas Fired Products, finds itself in. Gas Fired
Products is a half a century old business that has operated out of Charlotte at this location. It has
over 50 employees all operating from this site. Gas Fired Products has no objection to a change
in the land use by its neighbor or to the general idea of the neighbor redeveloping the property in
conformance to the TOD standards, and we do not object to the idea of our neighbor receiving
just straight up rezoning without the conditions attached under the conditional rezoning process.
The only objection that we have is the condition that was placed on their rezoning. That
condition would call for a future 70-foot right-of-way. That alone sounds okay, but the problem
here is 35 feet of that 70 feet would have to come from my client‟s property on the eastern
boundary, and that is what poses a dilemma for us.

Several years ago this Council adopted the South End Transit Station Area Plan. That plan calls
for another 70-foot right-of-way that, too, across and dissects my client‟s property, Gas Fired
Products. That right-of-way would extend Abbott Street from Doggett Street to West Tremont
Avenue approximately 200 feet to a proposed road. Again, the petition before you actually shifts
the road proposed under the plan that was entirely located on their adjoining property to one that
moves that one-half, 35 feet right-of-way, to our property. We were not involved in those
discussions when that decision was made and did not find out about it until the community
meeting.
bvj

January 26, 2009

We believe there is a fundamental unfairness with regards to my client‟s situation, my client
having to bear the brunt of not only 70 feet but an additional 35 feet just as a result of the timing
in which the neighbor goes forth and seeks the rezoning. It appears that land owners who decide
to cooperate with the City‟s plans for the area get first preference on where the roads will go
including shifting the roads to their neighbors‟ property, and, again, we believe it‟s unfair and
fundamentally a burden on one property or landowner to locate two new right-of-ways on the
property of my client about 200 feet apart. Even with these objections though, we believe that a
compromise might be available. The compromise might take the form of revisiting the small
area plan. That dotted line, 70-foot right-of-way that dissects my client‟s property, could be
alleviated from the plan certainly if this condition is imposed upon the eastern boundary of our
property with the additional 30-foot right-of-way to accommodate that. That is not something
though that can be achieved during this process realizing that this is a rezoning process, and,
therefore, the option might include something that we might want to seek an amendment to the
small area plan, and that would require maybe a deferral of this petition to allow a study and
consideration of such a compromise.

We will be more than happy to work with the adjacent property owner to try to develop an
appropriate solution. We have filed a protest petition that is pending on this matter, and we
would be more than happy to assist the Planning staff and the applicant with this dilemma. We
just believe there is a fundamental unfairness of 70 feet and an additional 35 feet on this one
parcel of property.

Councilmember Burgess said, Mr. Fox, we are at a disadvantage because we don‟t have a map
that shows your client‟s property. It‟s probably on this map, but it‟s not identified or the other
road that is on the map that goes through your client‟s property entirely. We don‟t have that on
our screen. There it is. So, it‟s the light brown and the purple?

Mr. Fox said yes.

Councilmember Burgess said where is the road that is on the site plan right now that goes
through this second property? Okay, here is the road on the property that is the petition property.

Mr. Fields said it‟s right along the edge of the boundary between the two. The second road that
shows up on the station area plan, Ms. Burgess, I believe was your question, is right about here,
if I recall from the station area plan, and it goes to a point on Doggett where there is no public
street across the way to connect it.

Councilmember Burgess said now my question for you, Mr. Fox. If the road is entirely on the
petition property, all 70 feet of it, instead of half the road, the entire road on the petitioner‟s
property, would you oppose the petition?

Mr. Fox said I can‟t speak for my client who is not here tonight. Unfortunately he is out of town,
but that would be a better solution. The ideal solution would be if that road is going to be moved
in that direction, that is a deviation from the original small area plan, therefore, it raises the need
to continue to have the other road proposed in the plan that would literally bisect our property
and impact the development options for Gas Fired Products.

Councilmember Burgess said on the area plan only half the road is on the petition property and
half of it is on your property?

Mr. Fox said the area plan shows a road coming from Worthington for Tremont that goes on the
middle of our property to the right of the bolded area. Of course with the petition, there is a road
that would run parallel to the border on that property, the eastern border of the hatched area. So
what you are looking at is a situation where you have a road on the eastern border of that cross-
hatched area and then you would have another road shown on the plan that would come down
and further dissect our property as well.

Councilmember Burgess said my question to you is your client maybe would support it if the
entire road were on the petitioner‟s property, and I heard Mr. Fields say that you don‟t oppose
the road. Do you oppose it all being on the petitioner‟s property, Mr. Fields?
bvj

January 26, 2009

Mr. Fields said if you will allow me. I don‟t know if you have any more questions for Mr. Foxx,
but I have two minutes sort of in rebuttal, and I think I can address that.

Mayor McCrory said the reason I don‟t give you a rebuttal is because the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Planning staff is the petitioner.

Mr. Fields said but they need me to help them.

Mayor McCrory said they have never told me that.

Mr. Fields said, Ms. Burgess, let me try this way. As I said, it‟s part of our presentation, and Mr.
Fox is correct. If you look at the small area plan, and I would ask you to look at that because we
are dealing with lines which are hardly engineering drawings. They are just big dotted lines that
cross the map at various angles. If you look at the plan today, there is a road somewhere about in
here, a dotted line, that Mr. Fox is referring to, and then there is another dotted line that crosses
his client‟s property down here. Again, these roads don‟t connect to anything, but they are on
the plan. In our conversations with the City staff, with CDOT and with Planning, because
nobody knows for sure -- I attended the public meetings – nobody knows for sure how that line
got to be where it is. The conversation revolved around putting it on a property line. That way it
would benefit two property owners – benefit in that both would have access to this new road in
the future.

We understand completely the concern of Mr. Fox‟s client that a road here may very well benefit
his development of the property in the future if this road were eliminated because then you have
Tryon Street, you have a street in mid-block, and then you have Hawkins Street, and then you
have Camden. That‟s a pretty good spacing of streets in the future, but actually there are two
streets in here – one right about here and one right about here. The comment I made about being
more than willing to work on an amendment to the plan, and, in fact, we talked about that at the
community meeting was it seems to us that maybe one of those streets is enough – that, in fact,
that provides the connectivity from Tremont to Doggett and to other points up to West
Worthington, and it‟s true that having two streets on one piece of property seems unfair to us as
well.

Whether or not we can accommodate the entire right-of-way on this piece, I don‟t know. We
worked very hard with the staff to get to where we are, but we do not minimize the concern of
our next-door neighbors. We understand completely why they don‟t want to be impacted by two
different streets. We think part of the solution there is simply to eliminate the second street
altogether. That‟s something the staff could choose to do in interpretation of the plan, or it‟s
something they could choose to bring back to you in terms of an amendment to that plan. We
would support that process as well, but we are concerned in terms of the time that would take
because we have been involved with this for many months working with the staff and working
this issue out. I have been involved with planning amendment processes which can take
anywhere from three months to almost two years, and that clearly would be a problem for us in
terms of meeting contractual obligations. I think the simple solution is to zone the property
straight up TOD-M, which is what the plan recommends, and that removes the issue that Mr.
Fox‟s client is concerned about.

Councilmember Carter said is there a way someone could tell us, please, the dimensions of the
street – of Doggett – the length of that street between South Tryon and Hawkins?

Unidentified Speaker, Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT), said I work on
station area plans. You are asking between Doggett and Tremont the length or between Tryon
and Hawkins?

Councilmember Carter said Tryon and Hawkins.

Unidentified Speaker said that‟s over 1,000 feet. I know that. Guessing probably 1,200.

Councilmember Carter said it‟s 600 feet that is the prescribed block footage.

bvj

January 26, 2009

Unidentified Speaker said ideally 400, but we are very flexible. That is why we are trying to at
last break this block into two. It is true that there are two streets shown in the station area plan,
however, there is flexibility built into that. Anything consistent with that intent should still be
considered. In this case, we are trying to just get one street.

Councilmember Carter said so it‟s an either/or situation – the one that is proposed at this area or
the one that would connect with –

Unidentified Speaker said could be. If this parcel by itself that the gentleman owns or is
representing came in by itself, I highly doubt that we would then encumber him with a second
street request, but maybe if multiple parcels did come all in together, then maybe we would try to
consider a second street. There is that flexibility built into the plan trying to scale streets and
blocks to the development.

[ Motion was made by Councilmember Peacock, seconded by Councilmember Burgess, and ]
[ carried unanimously to close the public hearing. ]

Mayor McCrory said, Anthony, I suppose if a decision next month, if someone wants to take
your recommendation and defer that would have to come at next month‟s hearing when we
typically defer – not during the public hearing. Let Council have that debate.

********

Mayor McCrory said I‟m going to recommend that Mr. Lassiter be allowed to go home. He is
fighting the flu, and I am sitting next to him. Mr. Lassiter, get in bed. Thank you very much for
being here. He has hung in here as long as he could. I had to do it about four weeks ago, if you
recall. It‟s going around the whole city.

Councilmember Cooksey said, Mr. Mayor, before we get to that, this is the fourth Monday of
January. We have just been joined by a bunch of people wearing name tags, so that suggests to
me it‟s the 13th Civics 101 class that we should recognize and welcome to the start of their
endeavor in studying local government. The League of Women Voters has been sponsoring this
program. I forget if they are in conjunction with someone this year, but I think they found a
pretty good replacement teacher for the City Council course.

Mayor McCrory said who is that?

Councilmember Cooksey said some guy named Marstall, I think.

Mayor McCrory said Dennis Marstall from the Mayor‟s staff?

Councilmember Cooksey said, yes, I think he knows a little something about city government, so
they are getting a very good education about it, plus they can ask personal questions about the
Mayor.

Mayor McCrory said hopefully he won‟t use the same language the Mayor uses. That‟s a great
program, and Warren Cooksey graduated from that.

Councilmember Cooksey said as did Councilmember Mitchell.

Mayor McCrory said and they both ran for the City Council.

********

MECKLENBURG PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ADOPTION OF A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEAR VARIANCES TO THE STANDARDS

bvj

January 26, 2009

FOR BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS AND TO CLEAR UP
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE REGULATIONS


Councilmember Carter said I have a question on this. On the summary, No. 3 says it clarifies
that bed and breakfast establishments are permitted in the mixed use development district
MUDD zoning district. Is it exclusively permitted in this district?

Tammie Keplinger, Planning¸ said, no, ma‟am. There is just an error in the text that we need
to clarify that they are permitted in that district as well as single family districts and other mixed
use districts like MX-1, 2, and 3.

[ There being no speakers either for or against, a motion was made by Councilmember Burgess, ]
[ seconded by Councilmember Carter, and carried unanimously to close the public hearing. ]

********

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY
THE SCREENING AND STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF PED AS WELL AS
MODIFY THE APPLICABILITY SECTION REQUIREMENTS


[ There being no speakers either for or against, a motion was made by Councilmember Burgess, ]
[ seconded by Councilmember Cooksey, and carried unanimously to close the public hearing. ]

********

AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY
CERTAIN REGULATIONS IN TOD TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF
ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS PARTICULARLY WHERE TOD
IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM OR ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AS A
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND TO MAKE MINOR REVISIONS SUCH AS
CLARIFYING TEXT, ETC.


John Howard, Planning, said this is a brief presentation on the overview of the process for the
TOD text amendment and a brief summary of the text amendment in detail. The purpose of the
project was to assess the issues that were related to consultant‟s findings on TOD and TS. The
process we used was the stakeholder process where we invited folks from the five corridors,
property owners, and neighborhood leaders, and the development community. We had about
five public meetings with the stakeholders, identified the key issues, and then we drafted those
TOD and TS details. The three major issues that came out of those meetings were: 1)
neighborhood transition, meaning how does TOD interface with single family development, 2)
parking impacts on single family districts, 3) open space.

Councilmember Lassiter left the meeting at 7:27 p.m.

Mr. Howard continued under neighborhood transition we wanted to focus on the interface
between the single family districts and the TOD districts. We did want to look at, first,
increasing the setbacks to kind of mimic the single family districts, second, adjust the building
height or the measuring height for TOD starts. Right now it starts from the zoning line, and we
looked at moving it back to the setback line. That way the building starts higher a little bit later.
bvj

Charlotte City Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009

Charlotte City Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (19)

Ähnlich wie Charlotte City Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009

Ähnlich wie Charlotte City Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 (20)

Mehr von Daniel X. O'Neil

Mehr von Daniel X. O'Neil (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Charlotte City Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009