City Council Meeting Agendas and Minutes

REGULAR SESSION OF JANUARY 28, 2025 The City of Kings Mountain, North Carolina met in Regular Session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 28, 2025 in the lobby at City Hall with Mayor Robert Wagman presiding. Council Chambers at City Hall is currently being renovated. ATTENDANCE The following Councilmembers were present: Annie Thombs, Shearra Miller, Phil Dee, Tommy Hawkins, Jay Rhodes, Mike Butler and Jimmy West. Also, present: Todd Carpenter, Interim City Manager, Mickey Corry, City Attorney and Karen Tucker, City Clerk. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Dr. Jonathan Bundon, First Baptist Church, Kings Mountain, North Carolina. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Robert Wagman. AGENDA ADOPTION Upon Motion by Councilmember Jay Rhodes, seconded by Councilmember Mike Butler it was voted unanimously to adopt the Agenda, as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS Mayor Wagman read a Resolution recognizing Corporal Harold Wayne Carpenter upon his retirement from law enforcement on January 31, 2025, after 30 years of service and presented him with his badge and service weapon. CITIZEN RECOGNITION No one signed up to speak. MAYOR, CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, AND CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS AND REMARKS No one requested to speak during this time. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Phil Dee requested to be recused from voting on the Consent Agenda since he is personally involved in Item D, which is the Petition requesting annexation. Upon Motion by Councilmember Tommy Hawkins seconded by Councilmember Shearra Miller it was voted 6-0 to allow Councilmember Dee to be recused from this vote. Upon Motion by Councilmember Jimmy West, seconded by Councilmember Annie Thombs it was voted 6-0 to adopt the following Consent Agenda items: A. Adopt the minutes of the Work Session of Thursday, November 14, 2024, and the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, November 26, 2024.  B. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Certification and Approval by Local Governing Board to make application for the 2025 NC Parks and Recreation Part F. Grant. C. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Certification and Approval by Local Governing Board to make application for the 2025 NC Parks and Recreation Accessible Parks Grant, Round 2. D. Accept a Certificate of Sufficiency from the City Clerk and adopt a Resolution 25-04 setting the date for a Public Hearing for Thursday, February 25, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall to consider a voluntary contiguous annexation for property known as Cleveland County Parcel 10968. PUBLIC HEARING Upon Motion by Councilmember Jay Rhodes, seconded by Councilmember Annie Thombs it was voted unanimously to close the Regular Meeting and enter into the Public Hearing. Item 10A – Consider an amendment to the City of Kings Mountain Zoning Map changing Cleveland County Parcel 10884 from Suburban Residential to Auto-Urban Commercial. Henry Earle, Planning Director addressed Council regarding this request. This property is located at 2110 Vestibule Church Road in the ETJ. The current zoning district of Suburban Residential permits mostly single- family dwellings, modular homes, and some nonresidential uses like churches and schools. The requested zoning district, Auto-Urban Commercial permits a wide range of retail, office and service commercial uses. The subject property is surrounded on all sides by Auto-Urban Commercial and Heavy Industrial. The aerial map shows that the property is bordered on the East by Atrium Health, South by Ingles Market, and on the West by Greenheck. The future land use map indicates that this entire area is Auto-Urban in character. Development Services staff supports this rezoning request as proposed by the applicant. This would be an extension of an already existing zoning district (AU) to the East and the request is in line with the Future Land Use Map’s designation of Future Auto-Urban Commercial. The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requested rezoning. The board stated that the requested zoning district was reasonable, as Auto-Urban Commercial uses are compatible with the area, and that the requested zoning district was consistent with the Future Land Use Map’s designation of future Auto-Urban. No one signed up to speak regarding this request. Item 10B – Consider an Amendment to the City of Kings Mountain Zoning Map changing Cleveland County Parcel 8153 from Suburban Residential to Semi-Urban Residential. Henry Earle, Planning Director addressed Council regarding this matter. After discussion with the applicant, it is requested that this item be continued to the Regular Meeting of February 25, 2025. Charlotte Ware, 200 Cleveland Avenue spoke against this request. Item 10C – Consider the annexation of property identified as Parcels 65976, 40830, 10523, 65988, and 10579, owned by the City of Kings Mountain and consisting of 14.342 acres which is not contiguous to the existing municipal boundaries. Mickey Corry, City Attorney gave a brief presentation regarding this matter. These parcels were purchased by the City in 2022 for the purpose of constructing a new wastewater treatment facility, known as Project South. The property is not contiguous to the primary corporate limits of the City and is closer to the corporate limits of the Town of Grover. The City entered into an Annexation Agreement with the Town of Grover in December of last year. The annexation of this property is appropriate due to the fact that this property is presently under the zoning jurisdiction of the County. The annexation of the property will trigger changing the zoning to suit what the City’s purposes might be. This area is served by Bethlehem Volunteer Fire Department; therefore, the City must comply with provisions requiring the assumption of debt, be reason of the reduction of its district. Mr. Corry reviewed this process, along with the formula that is defined by statute. The financial impact to the City relating to this provision will be minimal. No one signed up to speak regarding this matter. Item 10D – Consider an Amendment to the City of Kings Mountain Zoning Map Changing Cleveland County Parcels 10523, 10579, 40830, 65976, and 65988 from Cleveland County Zoning District Residential Manufactured Homes and Parks to Kings Mountain Zoning District Rural. Henry Earle, Planning Director addressed Council regarding this request. These parcels are a combined 14.3 acres located near Jim Patterson Road between Kings Mountain and Grover. The property is owned by the City, and Council has just held a Public Hearing to annex this property. Being that the parcels are currently within Cleveland County’s jurisdiction, the City must also hold a Public Hearing to create a zoning district for these parcels. The current zoning for Cleveland County is Residential Manufactured Homes and Parks. The zoning district that most resembles the County’s current zoning is Rural. There is currently no land use designation, so along with the rezoning, the City will apply a future land use designation to the affected parcels. If zoned to Rural, then the future land use designation would also be Rural. Development Services staff supports this rezoning request, as proposed. Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requested rezoning amendment. The Board stated that the requested zoning district was reasonable, as Rural uses are compatible with this area. No one signed up to speak regarding this matter. Item 10E – Consider an Amendment to Section 156.10, Zoning Districts and Standards, of the City of Kings Mountain Unified Development Ordinance, altering setbacks and zoning districts. Henry Earle, Planning Director addressed Council stating that this is a staff driven text amendment regarding lot sizes and setbacks. It is very in depth and involves a great deal of information. After review, Staff would like to request that this Public Hearing be continued to the Regular Meeting of February 25, 2025. No on signed up to speak regarding this matter. Upon Motion by Councilmember Tommy Hawkins, seconded by Councilmember Jimmy West it was voted unanimously close the Public Hearings as to Items, 10A, 10C, and 10D, and continue the Public Hearing at to Items 10B and 10E until the Regular Meeting of February 25, 2025 at 6:00 p.m., as well as including additional discussion on Item 10B on the Work Session agenda for February 13th. REGULAR MEETING Item 12A – Action on Item 10A Upon Motion by Councilmember Shearra Miller, seconded by Councilmember Phil Dee it was voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 25-01 amending the zoning map of the City of Kings Mountain, to rezone Parcel 10884 from Suburban Residential to Auto-Urban Commercial. This request is reasonable and is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. Item 12B – Action on Item 10B No action taken. This Public Hearing is continued to the Regular Meeting of February 25, 2025. Item 12C – Action on Item 10C Upon Motion by Councilmember Jay Rhodes, seconded by Councilmember Jimmy West it was voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 25-02 extending the corporate limits of the City of Kings Mountain to include Parcels 65976, 40830, 10523, 65988, and 10579. Item 12D – Action on Item 10D Upon Motion by Councilmember Annie Thombs, seconded by Councilmember Jay Rhodes, it was voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 25-03 amending the zoning map of the City of Kings Mountain to rezone Parcels 65976, 40830, 10523, 65988, and 10579, from Cleveland County Zoning Residential Manufactured Homes and Parks to Kings Mountain Zoning District Rural and apply the Rural Land Use designations to these parcels. Item 12E – Action on Item 10E No action taken. This Public Hearing is continued to the Regular Meeting of February 25, 2025. Item 12F – Authorize the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the Donation Agreement with Albemarle U.S., Inc. Todd Carpenter, Interim City Manager addressed Council regarding this matter. This item was pulled from the last work session agenda so that some of the language of the original agreement could be cleaned up. Staff has worked with Albemarle to clean up language around the overall Development Agreement being completed in December of this year instead of March, as originally stated. There was also language changed relating to the fees that the City could owe Albemarle, should we not finish that Development Agreement and should they ask for it. The language regarding the $45,000 per acre is still there, but the language stating “or the higher of the fair market value of the land” was removed. There was also added language to ensure that the conveyance of the property will take place within five days of the action taken here tonight regarding the First Amendment. Upon Motion by Councilmember Shearra Miller, seconded by Councilmember Tommy Hawkins, it was voted unanimously to authorize the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to the Donation Agreement with Albemarle U.S., Inc. Item 12G – Adopt an Ordinance amend the City of Kings Mountain ETJ to eliminate additional parcels Henry Earle, Planning Director addressed Council regarding this matter. In September 2024, the City relinquished a portion the two-mile ETJ, between the one- and two-mile limit, to Cleveland County. This was due to the enactment of House Bill 909. Through various discussions, there are an additional 239 parcels requested to be relinquished to Cleveland County. These are mostly tracts inside the Gold Run and White Plains neighborhood, and a few other parcels that are scattered throughout. Council will need to adopt the proposed map, then it will go to the County for their acceptance. The County will then vote to relinquish six parcels back to the City. After both actions, there will be internal work to begin the rezoning process on these parcels. Upon Motion by Councilmember Phil Dee, seconded by Councilmember Tommy Hawkins it was voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 25-04 amending the City of Kings Mountain Jurisdictional Map eliminating parcels from the Kings Mountain Extra Territorial Jurisdiction contingent upon Cleveland County’s relinquishment of Parcels 11598, 11599, 12880, 57246, 56672, and 65944 at their Tuesday, February 4, 2025 Board of Commissioners meeting. Item 12H – Authorize the Mayor to execute the Joint Engagement Letter issued by Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P. regarding the City’s purchase option of the power plant (Carolina Power Partners) Wayne Ledbetter, Energy Services Director addressed this matter stating that this action is to engage this law firm to assist us in deciding on what we should do, if anything, with the purchase option that we have of the power plant. This is simply to see how we can leverage the percentage that we own. There are five entities that are joining in this engagement letter, and each entity is taking this before their Councils as well. Upon Motion by Councilmember Phil Dee, seconded by Councilmember Tommy Hawkins it was voted unanimously to authorize the Mayor to execute the Joint Engagement Letter issued by Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P. regarding the City’s purchase option of the power plant (Carolina Power Partners), contingent upon the adoption of the other entities. Item 12I – Appointment of a Councilmember to the Kings Mountain Parks and Recreation Advisor Board There is one seat on the Kings Mountain Parks and Recreation Advisory Board that is reserved for a Councilmember. To date, this seat has not been filled, but should be by nomination and vote of City Council. Councilmember Jay Rhodes made a Motion to appoint Councilmember Shearra Miller to this seat. The Motion was seconded by Councilmember Annie Thombs. Prior to the vote being taken, Councilmember Tommy Hawkins made a substitute Motion to appoint Councilmember Jay Rhodes because of his experience in recreation. Councilmember Phil Dee seconded this Motion. The substitute Motion failed by a vote of 1-6, with Councilmembers West, Miller, Thombs, Rhodes, Butler, and Dee casting the dissent votes. The original Motion made by Councilmember Rhodes and seconded by Councilmember Thombs to appoint Councilmember Miller was back on the floor. This Motion was passed by a vote of 6-1, with Councilmember Hawkins casting the dissenting vote. Item 12J – Setting a date for a Special Work Session After discussion regarding the desire for a meeting to discuss the City’s advisory board and commissions, Council instructed Staff to look for a Saturday date in the coming weeks that will be suitable for both Councilmembers and staff to schedule a work session. The meeting should have a strict agenda. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion by Councilmember Shearra Miller, seconded by Councilmember Annie Thombs, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 7:22 p.m. ATTEST: BY:_______________________________________________ Robert C. Wagman _____________________________________________ Karen A. Tucker, City Clerk  3/13/2025 CITY COUNCIL January 28, 2025 Rezoning– Case Z‐24‐16 • Request: • Parcel 10884 • 2110 Vestibule Church Road CASE Z‐24‐16 • 1.35 Acres • Current Zoning District: Suburban Residential – This district permits mostly single family dwellings, modular homes, and some Rezoning Amendment – 2110 Vestibule Church Road nonresidential uses like churches and schools Suburban Residential to Auto‐Urban Commercial • Requested Zoning District: Auto‐Urban Commercial – This district permits a wide range of retail, office, and service commercial uses. Zoning Map Aerial Map • Yellow: Suburban • East: Atrium Health Residential • Southeast: Ingles Market • Purple: Auto‐Urban Commercial • Southwest: Greenheck • Orange: Heavy Industrial • North: East Dixon Blvd • Green: Rural 1  3/13/2025 Future Land Use Map Staff Recommendation • Purple: Auto‐Urban • Development Services staff supports this rezoning request as proposed by the applicant. This would be an extension of an already existing zoning district (AU to the east) and the request is in line with the Future Land Use Map’s designation of Future Auto‐Urban Commercial. Planning and Zoning Board City Council Consideration The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend When making a motion, City Council should include a statement of approval of the requested rezoning amendment. consistency and/or reasonableness. A sample motion is included below: The Board stated that the requested zoning district was reasonable, as Auto‐Urban Commercial uses are compatible with that area, and that Motion to (approve/deny) of the rezoning request on parcel 10884 from the requested zoning district was consistent with the Future Land Use Map’s designation of Future Auto‐Urban. Suburban Residential (SR) to Auto‐Urban Commercial (AU). The requested zoning district change is (reasonable/not reasonable) and/or is (consistent/not consistent) with the Future Land Use Plan. Rezoning– Case Z‐24‐18 • Request: • Parcel 8153 • 604 East Ridge Street CASE Z‐24‐18 • 0.58 Acres • Current Zoning District: Suburban Residential – This district permits mostly single family dwellings, modular homes, and some Rezoning Amendment – 604 East Ridge Street nonresidential uses like churches and schools Suburban Residential to Semi‐Urban Residential • Requested Zoning District: Semi‐Urban Residential – This district permits single family homes, modular homes, townhomes and apartments at a higher density than Suburban Residential. 2  3/13/2025 Zoning Map Aerial Map • Yellow: Suburban • East: Residential Residential • North: Residential • Green: Semi‐Urban Residential • South: Commercial • Purple: Auto‐Urban • West: Commercial Commercial • Blue: Suburban Commercial Future Land Use Map Staff Recommendation • Purple: Auto‐Urban Commercial • Blue: Semi‐Urban • Development Services staff supports this rezoning request as proposed by the applicant. Although there is no Semi‐ Urban Residential touching this property it is in the area and the request is in line with the Future Land Use Map’s designation of Future Semi‐Urban Residential. Planning and Zoning Board City Council Consideration The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend When making a motion, City Council should include a statement of approval of the requested rezoning amendment. consistency and/or reasonableness. A sample motion is included below: The Board stated that the requested zoning district was reasonable, as Semi‐Urban uses are compatible with that area, and that the requested Motion to (approve/deny) of the rezoning request on parcel 8153 from zoning district was consistent with the Future Land Use Map’s designation of Future Semi‐Urban. Suburban Residential (SR) to Semi‐Urban Residential (SU). The requested zoning district change is (reasonable/not reasonable) and/or is (consistent/not consistent) with the Future Land Use Plan. 3  3/13/2025 Rezoning– Case Z‐24‐19 • Request: • Parcels 10523, 10579, 40830, 65976, 65988 • Jim Patterson Road CASE Z‐24‐19 • 14.3 Acres • Current Zoning District: Residential Manufactured Homes and Parks – This county zoning district permits mostly single family dwellings, Rezoning Amendment – Jim Patterson Road modular homes, manufactured homes and manufactured home parks Residential Manufactured Homes and Parks to Rural at a relatively low density of two homes per acre. • Requested Zoning District: Rural – This district permits single family homes, modular homes, and manufactured homes at a density of one home per two acres. This zoning district most closely resembles what the current zoning is. Zoning Map Aerial Map • Orange: Residential • East: Vacant Manufactured Homes and Parks • North: Manufactured Home Parks • White: Residential • South: Single Family • Red: General Business Residential • Purple: Heavy Industrial • West: Single Family Residential Future Land Use Map Staff Recommendation • No current land use designation. • Along with rezoning the City will apply a future land use • Development Services staff supports this rezoning request designation to the affected parcels. as proposed. Annexation requires the city to apply its own • If rezoned to Rural, then the future land use designation will also zoning district to the property and Rural is the most logical be Rural. zoning district. It offers many of the same permissions that are allowed in the county’s RM district and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4  3/13/2025 Planning and Zoning Board City Council Consideration The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend When making a motion, City Council should include a statement of approval of the requested rezoning amendment. consistency and/or reasonableness. A sample motion is included below: The Board stated that the requested zoning district was reasonable, as Rural uses are compatible with the uses in the area. Motion to (approve/deny) of the rezoning request on parcels 10523, 10579, 40830, 65976, 65988, from Cleveland County zoning district Residential Manufactured Homes and Parks (RM) to City of Kings Mountain zoning district Rural (RU). The requested zoning district change is (reasonable/not reasonable) and is compatible with uses in the area. Text Amendment – Case Z‐24‐21 • Request: • Amend Section 156.10, Zoning Districts and Standards • Alter setback and lot width requirements CASE Z‐24‐21 • Clean up descriptions of zoning districts • Several zoning districts within the city’s jurisdiction have overly Text Amendment – Lot and Building Standards burdensome setback and minimum lot size requirements • The residential districts have descriptive language that has caused confusion and requires cleanup. • Elimination of Office Park and Business Campus zoning districts • The proposed changes will align the city’s requirements with other cities in our region. Table 156.10.02‐1, Zoning Districts Former Future Land Development Zoning District Purpose Zoning Use Category Type (By‐Right) Standards Proposed District Rural and Residential The preservation of natural areas, continuation of agricultural uses, and accommodation of very low‐density residential development in the extraterritorial jurisdiction Acreage (A) and the outlying areas of the city limits where infrastructure is not available and urban development is premature or inappropriate. Single‐family detached residential development on large Rural (RU) Rural platted lots within a rural subdivision where infrastructure None • Currently Rural, Suburban Residential • RU: Eliminate Estate and Cluster Estate (E) is not available and urban development is premature or inappropriate. Single‐family detached residential development on one‐ Cluster (C) half acre platted lots clustered around common open space used to protect natural resources, preserve greenbelts and provide areas for parks, recreation facilities and trails. and Semi‐Urban Residential have three and rename Acreage as Single‐family detached residential development on moderately sized lots within a platted subdivision where municipal water or wastewater may or may not be designations. Standard. Standard Lot (S) available. After 7/1/21, lots in existing platted SR subdivisions shall follow the list of uses in the matrix under (S). Single‐family detached and attached residential • Staff is requesting to move RU to one • SR and SU: Eliminate Cluster, development within a platted subdivision that is clustered Suburban Residential (SR) Suburban Cluster (C) around common open space used for stream buffering, separation from adjacent uses, and for parks and recreation areas and trails. Municipal water and R‐20, R‐10, R‐9 singular designation, eliminate the and specify that Planned is for wastewater must be available to serve this development type. Single‐family detached and attached residential cluster designation in SR and SU, and to Major Subdivisions only. development that is master planned to include common Planned (PL) open space for preserving on‐site resources, buffering single and multi‐family development, and providing for parks, recreational facilities and trails. Municipal water and clarify that “Planned” permissions only wastewater must be available to serve this development type. Single‐family detached residential development on a apply to major subdivisions. moderately sized lot within a platted subdivision that is served with municipal water and wastewater services. A Standard Lot (S) modest amount of common open space is required for on‐ site drainage ways and improvements. After 7/1/21, lots in existing platted SU subdivisions shall follow the list of uses in the matrix under (S). Single‐family detached and attached residential development on small lots within a platted subdivision Semi‐Urban Residential that is served with municipal water and wastewater RS‐8, R‐8, RS‐6, Semi‐Urban Cluster (C) (SU) services. A larger amount of common open space is R‐6, R‐O required for on‐site drainage ways and improvements and parks, recreational facilities and trails. A master planned development that may include a variety of housing types and neighborhood office and commercial uses organized around common open space areas used to Planned (PL) buffer single‐ and multi‐family and nonresidential development and as linear greenways and linkages within and around the property and connections to adjacent properties. 5  3/13/2025 Current Proposed Business and Industrial Business and Industrial A mixture of light and heavy industrial uses located away A mixture of light and heavy industrial uses located awa from residential areas that may include manufacturing of from residential areas that may include manufacturing Heavy Industrial (HI) Auto‐Urban Heavy Industry raw materials, fabrication, assembly, and warehousing H‐I Heavy Industrial (HI) Auto‐Urban Heavy Industry raw materials, fabrication, assembly, and warehousin with both indoor and outdoor storage, and may have heavy with both indoor and outdoor storage, and may have heav truck and traffic. truck and traffic. Light industrial uses located away from residential areas that may include fabrication and assembly that does not Light industrial uses located away from residential are Light Industrial (LI) Auto‐Urban Light Industry meet the standard of heavy industry and warehousing with L‐I that may include fabrication and assembly that does n both indoor and outdoor storage, and may have heavy Light Industrial (LI) Auto‐Urban Light Industry meet the standard of heavy industry and warehousing wi truck and traffic. both indoor and outdoor storage, and may have heav Office and Light A campus‐like office, research, technology, and light truck and traffic. Office Park (OP) Suburban Varies Industry Campus industrial park with site and building standards. Office, Light More intensive campus of industrial uses located away Office Park (OP) Suburban Office and Light A campus‐like office, research, technology, and lig Industry, from residential areas and that may include Industry Campus industrial park with site and building standards. Business Campus (BC) Auto‐Urban Warehouse, and manufacturing of raw materials, fabrication, assembly, Varies More intensive campus of industrial uses located away fro Heavy Industry and warehousing with both indoor and outdoor storage, Office, Light Industry, residential areas and that may include manufacturing of ra Campus and may have heavy truck and traffic. Business Campus (BC) Auto‐Urban Warehouse, and materials, fabrication, assembly, and warehousing wi Heavy Industrial both indoor and outdoor storage, and may have heavy tru Campus and traffic Table 156.10.03.1 Residential Lot and Building Standards Minimum Maximum Comparative Table Building District and Building Lot Setbacks Common Standards Zoning District RU SR SU AU LI/HI Type Corner Open Space4, Area1 Width2 Front Side3 Rear4 minimum % Height5 Lot Setback Front Side Rear Front Side Rear Front Side Rear Front Side Rear Front Side Rear Rural (RU) Acreage (A) 87,120 175' 75' 30' 45' 50' ‐‐ 35' Current 75’ 30’ 50’ 50’ 15’ 40’ 35’ 10’ 25’ 50’ 8’ 30’ 50’ 50’ 50’ Estate (E) 43,560 125' 60' 25' 35' 45' 20% 35' Cluster (C) 21,780 90' 50' 20' 25' 40' 30% 35' Suburban Residential (SR) Proposed 50’ 20’ 40’ 35’ 12’ 25’ 25’ 10’ 20’ 35’ 10’ 25’ 50’ 50’ 50’ Standard Lot (S) 20,000 85' 50' 15' 25' 40' ‐‐ 35' Cluster (C) 15,000 75' 45' 12' 22' 30' 20% 45' Peer Average 44’ 17’ 35’ 32’ 11’ 25’ 24’ 7.8’ 22 27’ 4.2’ 9’ 33’ 12.2’ 15’ Planned (PL) 10,000 65' 40' 12' 22' 30' 30% 45' 7,500 Performance/Flex (PF)10 (avg) 70'10 35'10 12'10 20' 30'10 30%10 45' Semi‐Urban Residential (SU) Standard Lot (S) 10,000 65' 35' 10' 20' 25' ‐‐ 35' Cluster (C) 8,000 60' 35' 10' 20' 25' 20% 45' Planned (PL) 6,000 50' 30' 8' 18' 25' 30% 45' Recreational Community (RC)6 Cluster (C) ‐‐ 25' ‐‐ 5' ‐‐ 5' 50% 35' Comparative Table Reasons for an Amendment Zoning District RU SR SU AU LI/HI • Staff recognized some of the UDO’s setbacks and lot size requirements were overly burdensome, especially in the Rural zoning Lot Standards Area Width Area Width Area Width Area Width Area Width district. Current 87,120 175’ 20,000 85’ 10,000 65’ ‐‐ 170’ ‐‐ 100’ • Other residential districts had confusing language that was unclear Proposed 43,560 100’ 15,000 85’ 8,000 65’ 10,000 75’ 20,000 100’ and difficult to explain to citizens. • Staff saw a discrepancy between our UDO and that of our peer Peer Average 45,848 98’ 13,400 86’ 7,600 68’ 3,400 36’ 11,912 26’ communities. 6  3/13/2025 Comprehensive Plan– Case Z‐24‐21 Staff Recommendation • Land Use and Growth: Policies for Land Use and Development: • Goal B: Accommodates a range of character settings within its planning • Development Services staff supports this as proposed. area to address preferences, from large‐lot living to denser and walkable mixed‐use living environments. Making zoning districts more understandable and thus • Goal D: Promote land use outcomes that further community objectives. more easily enforceable is key. Second, bringing the city’s standards more in line with peer cities makes sense and is reasonable. This will help alleviate some burden upon developers and citizens who want to use their property. Planning and Zoning Board City Council Consideration The Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend When making a motion, City Council should include a statement of approval of the requested text amendment. consistency and/or reasonableness. A sample motion is included below: The Board stated that the requested text amendment was reasonable, Motion to (approve/deny) the text amendment request for UDO and in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Section 156.10, Zoning Districts and Standards, amending setbacks and zoning district descriptions. The requested is (reasonable/not reasonable) and (is/is not) in line with the Comprehensive Plan. ETJ Relinquishment • September 2024: The City relinquished the two mile ETJ due to House Bill 909. • On January 21, Cleveland County further took action on 53 parcels ETJ RELINQUISHMENT that were partially inside and partially outside of the ETJ. • The county and the city have agreed on a further relinquishment of 239 parcels to the county and six (6) from the county’s jurisdiction into the ETJ. • The following map will show the parcels to be relinquished to the county. 7  3/13/2025 • Blue: Original ETJ, now Cleveland County Council Action • Pink: Current ETJ • Council will need to take action on the proposed map. • Orange: Proposed parcels • The county will then accept the relinquishment and take action on for relinquishment relinquishing parcels to the city. • Once received, the City will prepare the process of applying zoning districts to the parcels relinquished to the city. 8