Charlotte council advances multiple rezonings after lengthy debate on senior housing, townhomes and traffic

Charlotte’s City Council spent most of its Jan. 20 zoning session navigating a wave of rezoning petitions, voting to defer several items, approving the consent agenda and hearing lengthy public testimony on two of the meeting’s most contentious projects.

Chair Ed Driggs opened the meeting by noting the shift in staff materials: planning staff has rolled out an expanded staff analysis that adds site background, rezoning history and a new approach to consistency statements when a petition lies inside an adopted community area plan. Planning Director Monica Holmes said the updated packet is intended to give both decision‑makers and neighbors more context before votes.

That added context framed a pair of high‑profile hearings. Developers seeking affordable senior housing on North Sharon Amity Road (Crossland Southeast, petition 2025‑126) presented a plan that would reserve the multifamily portion as age‑restricted units, all income‑restricted at 80% AMI for a minimum period described in the staff notes as 20 years. Developer representatives told council they intend a longer affordability commitment and said they will seek Housing Trust Fund and low‑income housing tax credits; the lead developer said they would pursue a “50‑year or longer deed restriction” and would reflect that in their HTF application.

Residents who live adjacent to the Crossland site opposed the scale and placement of four‑story multifamily buildings inside an established single‑family neighborhood, citing pedestrian safety on streets they described as narrow and already part of the city’s high‑injury network. “This proposal does not fit the neighborhood and presents serious safety conditions,” resident Maureen Mahood told council. Petitioner counsel and staff repeatedly pointed to built‑in transition measures — a 25‑foot landscape yard and a stepped height transition — and noted that the site has frontage on an arterial where multifamily is allowed under the proposed plan. Council closed the public hearing after questions and the developer agreed to additional neighborhood engagement and to update the record with the longer affordability restriction.

A separate hearing on a Tapco Properties townhome development on roughly 19½ acres near Mallard Creek Road prompted extensive resident testimony about traffic and cut‑through routing onto local streets. Petitioners said the project would create for‑sale townhomes with limits on the number of rental units and offered a one‑time $100,000 capital contribution to a nearby homeowners association to help cover maintenance for a private road that would see increased traffic. Neighbors said that amount would not cover long‑term maintenance or pavement reconstruction and warned that new connections could route thousands of additional daily trips through residential streets near Mylar Creek Elementary School.

CDOT staff told council they have begun preliminary evaluations for a traffic signal at Mallard Creek Road near Colbert Parkway and said initial work indicates that future warrants for a signal may be met if the area’s planned growth proceeds. Petitioner representatives said a multi‑million‑dollar stream crossing would be required to complete the development’s planned street connections and that connectivity could relieve some pressure on main corridors; the petitioner also pledged to continue community meetings.

Council also handled a number of other contested items: a Charter Properties rezoning (a large Mallard Creek Church Road site) that was amended after committee to clarify affordable‑housing application steps and to add a modest $10,000 traffic‑calming contribution; a petition seeking indoor precast concrete production (HK Cedarville) that staff recommended against because of the intensification of industrial uses adjacent to residences; and a Northway Homes petition in Coolwood where neighbors pressed for stream restoration and stronger stormwater protections. In many of these cases petitioners and staff agreed to additional community meetings and refinements to conditional notes.

Votes at a glance (recorded outcomes during the meeting) - Motion to defer several items to Feb. 16 — approved unanimously (motion and roll call during the early portion of the meeting). - Consent‑agenda petitions (items 3, 4 and 7 with pulled items excluded) — approved unanimously. - Item 5 (rezoning petition 2025‑107, Morris Holdings) — approved unanimously after Counc. Renee Johnson voiced support and cited neighborhood backing. - Item 6 (rezoning petition 2025‑109, Raven Partners, a site plan amendment) — approved unanimously after CDOT and staff clarified prior transportation commitments and the petition’s lower trip generation. - Petition 2024‑090 (Charter Properties) — council declined to send it back to zoning committee and then approved the petition; the record shows both votes carried unanimously after staff explained a clarification on affordable‑housing HTF application steps and a $10,000 CDOT contribution.

What council asked staff to follow up on - CDOT was asked to continue evaluating a traffic signal near Mallard Creek Road and Colbert Parkway and to report back on potential timing and NCDOT coordination. - Planning and stormwater staff were asked to provide follow‑up memos on cumulative school impacts, traffic‑study triggers, whether the stream at the Coolwood site triggers a full restoration requirement, and on how the new staff analyses and minor map amendment criteria will be applied consistently across area plans.

Why it matters - The meeting showed how Charlotte’s newly adopted area plans and the updated staff analysis are entering the day‑to‑day rezoning process: petitions located inside newly adopted area plan boundaries are evaluated against plan goals and minor map amendment criteria, which can alter how a consistency statement is written and how council assesses appropriateness. Council members pressed for improved cumulative analysis (traffic, school capacity, and stormwater) and for clearer, consistent public materials so neighbors can understand long‑term impacts.

Next steps - Multiple hearings closed with council taking no immediate final vote on the largest contested petitions; council directed staff and petitioners to return with additional info or changes. Several items were deferred to Feb. 16. For petitions approved, applicants must meet the technical and conditional revisions described by staff before final implementation.