[1:09] an

[2:43] I still think it's afternoon

[2:46] just in case you didn't realize

[2:48] that we needed more people to

[2:49] come and sing to us.

[2:52] You're welcome to come down and

[2:54] be a part of our opportunities

[2:58] to have people come in and

[3:00] serve our city as the people

[3:04] that we all really know that

[3:04] we're doing.

[3:07] So I love the signs on my that

[3:10] is that's great.

[3:12] Reminds me of my old church

[3:13] buildings and what I used to

[3:13] do.

[3:15] But anyway never work.

[3:18] I'm bylaws and I serve was a

[3:21] member of this council and what

[3:22] we want to do is start off with

[3:24] a welcome and a call to order

[3:27] and so why don't we start with

[3:27] our city clerk?

[3:30] I mean it's our council member

[3:32] I'm sorry a city clerk here we

[3:33] are billy tines, deputy city

[3:35] clerk carrie hagler gray senior

[3:37] assistant city attorney mayor

[3:40] at-large member victoria

[3:41] watlington at large julie mayo

[3:44] representing district three

[3:46] dante anderson and congratulate

[3:47] us to the carolina hurricanes

[3:51] from the state with and it's

[3:52] just one loving it all right

[3:54] allison craig deputy city

[3:57] manager law serving as mayor

[3:57] james mitchell mayor pro tem I

[4:00] have to say a special shout out

[4:02] to my lovely queen will be

[4:03] celebrating our 14 forward

[4:03] anniversary tomorrow.

[4:07] I love you very oh, that is

[4:10] great.

[4:10] >> I wouldn't know how much you

[4:12] paid for that.

[4:12] No.

[4:12] Great.

[4:15] She's a great woman.

[4:16] I don't know that he'd ever

[4:16] know.

[4:19] He never tells people that she

[4:19] was one of the very first

[4:22] astronauts truly in this in our

[4:25] country and so I think that's a

[4:25] big year for me.

[4:27] >> so thank you.

[4:30] And so now I've lost where we.

[4:30] >> all right.

[4:31] Kimberly owens representing

[4:33] district six malcolm graham,

[4:34] district two at drake's

[4:36] district seven the want to

[4:37] mayfield council member at

[4:39] large I want to thank our

[4:39] charlotte crowd yes

[4:40] congratulate them because they

[4:41] did win yesterday.

[4:45] >> all right jd MR. Arias

[4:47] probably representing the east

[4:50] side district five and go next

[4:50] to new york.

[4:53] >> good afternoon.

[4:54] I'm rene johnson and I'm

[4:55] honored to represent district

[4:55] four.

[4:58] >> I want to say that we begin

[5:00] our meeting with an invocation

[5:01] which includes express your

[5:04] expressions and inspiration

[5:04] followed by the pledge of

[5:06] allegiance.

[5:09] The invocation is by the city

[5:10] council member and is intended

[5:12] to solemnize our proceedings.

[5:15] We celebrate all of us but we

[5:18] also understand that there is

[5:18] diversity in what we do with

[5:21] our faith and we make sure that

[5:24] everyone has the opportunity to

[5:25] be proud of whatever faith they

[5:27] choose and we will do that.

[5:30] And so we tonight have a

[5:32] religious program about this

[5:35] for our using council member

[5:38] johnson to open our act our

[5:41] opportunities for beginning to

[5:41] work with what we're doing

[5:42] tonight.

[5:44] MS. Johnson thank you, madam

[5:45] mayor.

[5:45] And when we come back on our

[5:47] heads if you'd like and

[5:48] otherwise just a moment of

[5:49] silence.

[5:50] Heavenly father, we come

[5:53] together with gratitude for the

[5:54] opportunity to serve our

[5:56] community.

[5:57] We ask for your presence among

[5:59] us and for your wisdom to guide

[6:02] our thoughts, decisions and our

[6:02] actions.

[6:04] Grant us the clarity when faced

[6:05] with difficult choices courage

[6:08] when challenges arise and

[6:11] humility as we seek the

[6:11] well-being of those entrusted

[6:14] to our care help us to lead

[6:17] with integrity, compassion and

[6:18] fairness always mindful of the

[6:20] diverse needs and hopes of our

[6:20] community.

[6:23] >> place your protection over

[6:26] our leaders, our families, our

[6:27] first responders, our schools,

[6:29] businesses and our residents

[6:31] and all who call this community

[6:34] home keep us safe from harm,

[6:35] strengthen us in times of

[6:37] uncertainty and unite us in a

[6:40] spirit of cooperation and of

[6:42] mutual respect.

[6:43] MAY we be instruments of peace,

[6:45] builders of trust and faithful

[6:46] stewards of the resources and

[6:48] opportunities before us.

[6:49] Guide us to work together for

[6:51] the common good and to create a

[6:54] future marked by justice,

[6:54] prosperity and hope.

[6:57] We ask for your continued

[6:58] blessing, protection and

[7:00] guidance as we serve.

[7:00] >> amen.

[7:01] Amen.

[7:03] Thank you all.

[7:05] If you don't if you choose to

[7:08] be take along a pledge of

[7:09] allegiance.

[7:12] I pledge allegiance to the

[7:14] american and to the republic

[7:18] for which it stands one nation

[7:23] under GOD and justice for all.

[7:23] >> thank you all.

[7:26] All right.

[7:28] So we are going to do a brief

[7:31] crumb first to agree a brief as

[7:34] consent around explanation of

[7:34] the zoning process.

[7:36] It's I think most of you

[7:37] probably already know that.

[7:39] But we're going to use the make

[7:40] sure that we have the

[7:42] opportunity so that the

[7:43] questions or comments come up

[7:46] and prepare for that.

[7:48] So the rezoning process begins

[7:49] with applications submitted to

[7:51] the planning staff for review.

[7:52] There are two types of cases on

[7:54] the agenda decisions and

[7:54] hearings.

[7:57] Decisions are on cases for

[7:58] which a public hearing has

[8:00] previously been held and

[8:00] there'll be no further comments

[8:02] for public hearings.

[8:03] Anyone wishing to speak is

[8:05] asked to see the clerk before

[8:06] the start of our hearing staff

[8:09] will provide a presentation and

[8:10] the petitioner will have three

[8:13] minutes combined to present the

[8:13] case unless there are opponents

[8:16] signed up to speak or our staff

[8:19] is in opposition if they are

[8:22] and if there are opponents

[8:25] assigned to stand up to speak

[8:27] or the staff is in opposition

[8:28] the petitioner will have ten

[8:30] minutes to present followed by

[8:33] opposition suit speakers who

[8:34] will have ten minutes combined

[8:36] to present and the petitioner

[8:39] has a two minute rebuttal no

[8:40] one if no one is signed up to

[8:40] speak.

[8:42] Staff provides a short

[8:43] presentation and the public

[8:45] hearing MAY then be closed.

[8:48] So with that I'm going to turn

[8:51] it over to douglas who would

[8:54] add I believe help us

[8:56] understand how many people are

[8:57] supporting you and all of the

[8:59] work that they do for our city.

[9:02] >> douglas thank you very much,

[9:02] MADAM Mayor.

[9:04] My name is W.C. Welton and I am

[9:05] the CHAIRMAN Of the zoning

[9:05] committee of the planning

[9:06] commission.

[9:08] Allow me to introduce my fellow

[9:09] commissioners and they include

[9:11] melissa gaston, aaron shaw,

[9:14] teresa macdonald, robin stewart

[9:14] and carolyn millen.

[9:17] And right next to me today

[9:19] michael caprio only.

[9:20] The zoning committee will meet

[9:23] on tuesday AUGUST fourth at

[9:23] 530.

[9:23] At that meeting the zoning

[9:26] committee will discuss and make

[9:26] recommendations on the

[9:28] petitions that have a public

[9:29] hearing here tonight.

[9:31] The public is welcome to that

[9:32] meeting but please note it is

[9:34] not a continuation of the

[9:35] public hearing that is being

[9:36] held right now.

[9:37] Prior to that meeting if you

[9:40] are you are welcome to contact

[9:40] us and provide input.

[9:42] You can find contact

[9:45] information and information on

[9:46] each one of the petitions that

[9:48] is being heard here tonight at

[9:50] the city's website at charlotte

[9:51] planning.Org.

[9:53] Thank you very much MADAM Mayor

[9:53] .

[9:54] >> it is all yours.

[9:55] Thank you very much for the

[9:57] work that you do for our

[9:57] communities.

[9:59] So the next item that we want

[10:00] to do is deferrals and

[10:02] withdrawals and that's going to

[10:05] be done with holly kramer who

[10:06] reads this and makes it come

[10:08] alive for us.

[10:08] >> so thank you.

[10:08] Thank you.

[10:11] So we have a couple of

[10:11] deferrals to go through.

[10:15] I'm number 11 petition 25 dash

[10:15] series 37 by short development

[10:18] group requesting a deferral to

[10:22] their of their decision to the

[10:22] AUGUST 17th meeting which is

[10:25] our next zoning meeting just as

[10:26] a reminder since we do not have

[10:27] one in JULY.

[10:28] Item number 12 requesting a

[10:31] deferral.

[10:32] This is petition 1430 5-0 86 by

[10:33] pence for development

[10:35] requesting deferral of their

[10:36] decision to AUGUST 17th.

[10:40] I'm number 15 petition 2025 133

[10:40] by michael barnes.

[10:43] Also requesting deferral of

[10:45] their decision to AUGUST 17th

[10:47] and finally we have item number

[10:49] 17 decision 20 6-0 27 by sea

[10:52] for investments requesting

[10:53] deferral of their public

[10:55] hearing to the AUGUST 17th

[10:55] meeting.

[10:58] >> so all right.

[11:01] Do we have a motion for

[11:01] deferral?

[11:03] So move my second motion and a

[11:05] second all in favor please

[11:06] raise your hand.

[11:09] Anyone in opposition hearing

[11:09] none.

[11:12] That's our next step and then

[11:14] we will go to the rezoning

[11:14] petition items.

[11:18] Number three through ten of the

[11:19] consent agenda MAY be

[11:21] considered in one motion except

[11:21] for those items pulled by a

[11:24] council member.

[11:25] Please note that these petition

[11:27] petition ends meet the

[11:28] following criteria.

[11:30] Had no public opposition to the

[11:31] petition during the hearing

[11:33] staff recommends approval

[11:36] zoning committee recommends

[11:36] approval and there are no

[11:39] further changes to the zoning

[11:39] committee's report

[11:41] recommendation.

[11:42] Do we have anyone that would

[11:44] like I see MS. Mayfield would

[11:47] like to have comments.

[11:51] Item number four for separate

[11:51] vote and comment.

[11:51] >> right.

[11:54] We have an item number for

[11:57] petition 2025 141 by doorway I

[12:00] can't speak for now so correct

[12:02] name dalmiya I guess and they

[12:04] will be one of the petitions

[12:05] that we will have for

[12:07] consistency.

[12:07] Thank you.

[12:09] I mean that consistency and

[12:10] separate vote.

[12:13] All right so four items from

[12:15] okay MS. Johnson I'm sorry.

[12:16] That's okay.

[12:20] I items number or agenda item

[12:22] number six and seven.

[12:24] All right so two additional to

[12:26] exclude and have a petition on

[12:27] six and seven thurman brooks

[12:30] and good properties is that the

[12:32] correct one MR. Okay well

[12:35] that'll be coming up as well.

[12:43] Okay so for the 2 to 3 so we

[12:44] have three and I'm trying to

[12:50] make sure we have 335 all right

[12:51] good.

[12:52] Yeah it's nine and ten.

[12:53] Yes.

[12:53] All right.

[12:55] So here we go.

[12:56] The next thing is MAY I have a

[12:58] motion to approve the petition

[13:00] with those that we've

[13:01] recommended not be done?

[13:05] >> so of my second we have a

[13:08] vote and a second all in favor

[13:08] .

[13:09] >> you need to read this.

[13:10] We need to read all of the

[13:11] names to petition.

[13:14] Item number three petition 25

[13:17] dash 31 with queen city land

[13:20] llc item four petition to amend

[13:24] I'm sorry five go to five

[13:26] petition 20 204 by shoot

[13:30] chowder demo now I'm not doing

[13:32] that very well but we'll do the

[13:33] very best I can.

[13:33] All right.

[13:35] And eight, nine and ten are

[13:41] also set set up for on 20.

[13:41] All right.

[13:44] We had thurman books good

[13:46] properties had by had holdings

[13:49] llc that's also in can also and

[13:52] consent and avatar holding llc

[13:54] as well and petition by

[13:57] orangeburg media for the

[13:57] charlotte hornets.

[14:00] With that we'll move on to the

[14:01] next as we go there is no I

[14:02] don't have a motion second

[14:05] second all in favor anyone

[14:05] opposed?

[14:08] >> all right sorry.

[14:10] >> can I just get the motion to

[14:11] clear to adopt the zoning

[14:12] committee statement of

[14:13] consistency he she wanted to

[14:17] add that kind of stuff in the

[14:20] motion for multiple things at

[14:20] one time.

[14:23] >> so the motion saying and to

[14:25] approve the consent agenda and

[14:25] adopt the zoning committee

[14:28] statement or consistency yes we

[14:28] will do that.

[14:29] We're going to approve the

[14:32] petition for the agenda for

[14:34] excluding those petitions and

[14:35] that they were pulled for a

[14:37] separate vote and we're going

[14:38] to adopt the zoning committee

[14:40] statement of consistency for

[14:42] each as these petitions as they

[14:45] appear on our agendas as the

[14:45] council their own.

[14:46] Yeah.

[14:46] All right.

[14:56] Let's so much for for I really

[15:01] do I did yes I do you going to

[15:03] do item for councilmember

[15:10] mayfield so I'm not going to

[15:13] motion for this to be approved

[15:14] so someone at the I want to

[15:14] prove they need to make a

[15:15] motion because I'm speaking to

[15:21] it so I will move to approve

[15:21] it.

[15:25] So we have a motion to approve

[15:26] and we did I hear a second.

[15:27] All right.

[15:29] We have a second now discussion

[15:32] and now we have a second right.

[15:32] >> thank you, MADAM Chair.

[15:37] So I have concerns on this

[15:40] particular petition for a quiet

[15:43] this is a single family street

[15:44] that we are talking about at

[15:46] the corner basically creating

[15:49] an apartment complex, many

[15:52] apartment complex down on the

[15:53] end of this where we currently

[15:57] have two single family homes as

[16:01] we're looking at attempt to do

[16:03] infill this to me is not

[16:04] infill.

[16:06] I've had concerns regarding udl

[16:09] and the impact that judoka have

[16:12] so when we talk about that this

[16:16] request is going chroma in 1b2I

[16:19] am one see everyone see this

[16:20] district allows for single

[16:22] family duplex triplex and

[16:23] complexes in some situations

[16:26] basically only thing we did is

[16:28] reduce the lot size from

[16:29] 8000ft to 6000ft or greater

[16:32] but this does not specify

[16:34] exactly what is going to be

[16:35] right and I will clarify they

[16:38] wouldn't be able to do a

[16:38] quadruple plex on this site

[16:39] because they'd have to be

[16:41] located along an arterial road

[16:44] for this zoning district unless

[16:46] you're doing the in one

[16:47] standing district for all the

[16:48] other in one districts you'd

[16:50] have to be located on a

[16:50] frontage type that this does

[16:53] not qualify as.

[16:53] >> so that is not what I

[16:56] language this so the fact that

[16:57] our language does not clarify

[16:59] that what our language has on

[17:01] the planning staff review is

[17:04] what the existing zoning is and

[17:04] what qualifies what the

[17:07] proposed zoning is and what

[17:07] qualifies.

[17:10] And then we have the proposed

[17:13] request this details but we

[17:15] also know that this is a

[17:16] conventional rezoning petition

[17:18] with no associated site plan.

[17:21] So there is no language in here

[17:23] where we state what it cannot

[17:26] be according to was here in one

[17:29] c this district allows for a

[17:32] single family duplex triplex

[17:34] and quads are plexus so it

[17:37] doesn't specify since there is

[17:40] no associated site plan what

[17:43] this cannot be right so and

[17:45] that language is put in there

[17:46] to describe what the zoning

[17:49] districts allow for and the

[17:50] language does state in some

[17:52] situations quadruple taxes

[17:55] which is applicable here it is

[17:55] the situation in which a

[17:56] quadriplegics would not be

[17:58] allowed to wear.

[17:58] We keep that language in there

[18:00] to describe the intent of all

[18:03] of our zoning districts to give

[18:05] you an idea of what they could

[18:06] aspire to essentially and their

[18:09] maximum development levels just

[18:09] so that there isn't any

[18:12] illusion about what could be

[18:12] developed and where's the line

[18:15] that says what is not going to

[18:18] be this is as you noted, a

[18:18] conventional petition.

[18:20] So there's no description and

[18:24] clarification and focuses I see

[18:24] as I mentioned because what

[18:27] happens is what's in the

[18:29] contract so not having any

[18:32] language that actually

[18:33] identifies what you just share

[18:36] as far as what is not going to

[18:37] be in 3 to 5 years a very well

[18:42] could be acquired and what the

[18:43] developer and or community will

[18:46] read is this language because

[18:48] the language that you just

[18:49] stated without actually being

[18:51] in writing doesn't go anywhere.

[18:54] I had a lot of ideas around

[18:55] with a district.

[18:56] Guess what it didn't make it

[18:57] into the contract.

[18:59] So therefore isn't that ballot

[18:59] seven years later?

[19:02] So for that reason and because

[19:04] it is not clearly stated which

[19:05] we have done where we have

[19:08] except since we clearly type a

[19:10] little line in air regarding

[19:11] exceptions because that is not

[19:12] in here.

[19:13] That is why I have concerns

[19:16] when you look at this single

[19:16] family residential street and

[19:19] imagine that there potentially

[19:22] can be because it's

[19:23] conventional and there's no

[19:23] site you're saying it can't be

[19:25] who not is not written there

[19:28] could not be a quadriplegics on

[19:29] this site unless the uda were

[19:31] to be changed to allow for

[19:34] quadruple access because this

[19:34] is on cochran drive which is

[19:37] not an arterial the prescribe

[19:40] conditions of a quadriplegics

[19:40] for this zoning district

[19:43] stipulate that it has to be

[19:43] located.

[19:44] The site would have to be

[19:46] located on an arterial this is

[19:48] not an arterial frontage thank

[19:52] you.

[19:55] We have a motion on the floor

[19:55] and second all those in favor

[19:58] of this petition please raise

[19:58] your hand.

[20:01] >> all those opposed to an

[20:04] opposition.

[20:04] >> okay.

[20:04] Thank you.

[20:05] MAY I have a motion to approve?

[20:09] Petition number 2026 005I

[20:12] thurman brooks and to adopt the

[20:12] zoning committee committee

[20:15] standard consistency for each

[20:15] of these petition as they

[20:17] appear now agendas as the

[20:20] council zone so move move

[20:23] moving proper second I question

[20:23] I think this was poor by

[20:26] council johnson that

[20:26] councilmember johnson thank you

[20:28] mayor pro tem speaking of

[20:30] exceptions we talked about it

[20:33] and was in language added

[20:36] regarding this petition yes so

[20:39] as you likely recall at the

[20:39] public hearing you asked about

[20:42] the data center use in this

[20:43] zoning district they converted

[20:45] to a conditional type petition

[20:48] to prohibit telecommunications

[20:51] and data storage facilities

[20:52] which is the data center use in

[20:53] our udl.

[20:54] Thank you because the only

[20:57] condition of the plan but that

[20:58] is now a prohibited use on the

[21:00] site because originally it was

[21:00] filed as a conventional right

[21:02] is correct and like

[21:03] councilmember mayfield was

[21:05] saying with conventional we

[21:06] just don't get a lot of

[21:06] details.

[21:11] I don't know why we're moving

[21:14] toward that more but I

[21:15] appreciate the change and the

[21:17] the language so I will be

[21:18] supporting.

[21:20] Thank you.

[21:22] any more discussion?

[21:23] All those in favor petition

[21:25] please raise your hand although

[21:27] oppose.

[21:27] >> okay.

[21:28] Thank you.

[21:30] I have a motion to approve

[21:34] petition number 2020 6-006 buy

[21:36] good properties and to adopt

[21:37] the zoning committee standard

[21:40] statement of consistency for

[21:40] each of these petition as they

[21:43] appear and agendas as the

[21:46] council's own council member

[21:49] just the second the move by

[21:50] council member male second and

[21:51] councilmember anderson I'm a

[21:52] recognized council member

[21:54] johnson thank you mayor pro tem

[21:55] same question this is a

[21:57] conventional we talked about

[22:00] this this is the the old

[22:03] medical office and they want to

[22:06] keep it some type of medical

[22:06] facility.

[22:06] Right.

[22:08] That I understand.

[22:10] >> well, so as you said, it is

[22:11] conventional so they wouldn't

[22:14] be obligated to disclose that

[22:16] or note that at this time.

[22:17] But during their public hearing

[22:19] they did say that they are

[22:22] wanting to keep the urgent care

[22:23] facility that's on that site

[22:25] and that just utilize better

[22:25] the portions of the site that

[22:28] don't have anything developed

[22:28] on it.

[22:31] I think that's the intent of

[22:33] the petitioner.

[22:36] >> and is this zoning type

[22:38] would this allow data centers?

[22:39] >> no, it would none.

[22:39] Okay.

[22:41] And that's what I wanted to

[22:42] know.

[22:42] Thank you.

[22:44] I'll be supporting this more

[22:47] question all those in favor

[22:47] rezoning petition please.

[22:52] Assurance all those oppose now

[22:55] I just would take the time the

[22:56] mayor would like for COUNCILMAN

[22:58] Manderson to continue to run

[22:58] the zoning committee meeting.

[23:01] I'm turning over council member

[23:01] anderson thank you mayor pro

[23:04] tem and we will now advance to

[23:07] our non consent decisions and

[23:09] we'll begin with item number 13

[23:14] petition number 25 027 by

[23:16] mission city church and freedom

[23:18] communities.

[23:22] This one had changes since the

[23:24] zoning committee made their

[23:25] recommendation and council is

[23:28] required to send the petition

[23:30] back to zoning for further

[23:35] review unless council by a

[23:35] three fourths vote of all

[23:38] members present presented a

[23:41] determination that it doesn't

[23:41] need to go back.

[23:43] So I'm going to hand it over to

[23:46] MS. Cramer so she can walk

[23:46] through those changes.

[23:47] >> yes.

[23:49] This petition or revise these

[23:50] notes on their conditional

[23:52] planned to add that new parking

[23:55] signage will be installed along

[23:57] sommerville road and oak street

[23:57] and they'll be installed on the

[24:00] odd numbered side of somerville

[24:01] from valley dale road up to

[24:03] edge street and the new parking

[24:04] signs will be installed on the

[24:05] even numbered side of oak

[24:06] street from somerville road to

[24:09] freddie alexander boulevard.

[24:09] I understand that there is some

[24:12] conversations happening in the

[24:12] community in regard to this.

[24:14] So stuart trust those concerns.

[24:15] We believe that the change is

[24:17] minor and does not warrant

[24:18] additional review by the zoning

[24:20] committee.

[24:20] Thank you.

[24:24] is there a motion to not send

[24:25] back to the zoning board of

[24:26] second?

[24:26] Okay.

[24:28] All in favor of not sending

[24:29] back oh, I'm sorry MISS

[24:29] Mayfield.

[24:31] Have a question.

[24:32] >> thank you.

[24:34] So question was there because

[24:36] I'm looking at an email that

[24:39] was sent regarding the family

[24:40] dollar deed of easement with

[24:42] that MAY not be a part of this

[24:45] conversation and as far as

[24:48] additional information I'm I'm

[24:50] familiar with the email you

[24:53] might be okay you have a

[24:54] receipt you did me say that I

[24:56] do not believe so.

[24:59] Thank you.

[25:02] Any other comment hearing none.

[25:02] All in favor raise hand to not

[25:07] send back any oppose all right.

[25:08] That is unanimous.

[25:10] Is there a motion to approve

[25:14] petition number 2025 027 and

[25:15] adopt the zoning committee's

[25:17] statement of consistency as it

[25:20] appears in our agenda and on

[25:21] the screen as council's own.

[25:23] So move second.

[25:23] >> okay.

[25:25] Any comment?

[25:25] MR. Graham?

[25:28] Thank you councilmember

[25:30] innocent I had the opportunity

[25:31] yet again to go to the site

[25:34] last week and visit with the

[25:37] petitioner, members of the

[25:37] congregation as well as those

[25:42] who are still oppose of this

[25:42] rezoning.

[25:45] This is one that's been with us

[25:47] for well over a year for the

[25:47] petitioner and the church has

[25:50] made a number of considerations

[25:53] of on behalf of being a good

[25:53] citizen.

[25:56] You heard tonight additional

[25:58] language that they're trying to

[26:01] do to ensure that this is and

[26:02] compliance with the local

[26:04] community standards over there.

[26:07] It goes without saying this is

[26:07] a policy that still continues

[26:13] to to grow and still has a lot

[26:15] of state owned roads that make

[26:16] our rezoning decisions

[26:19] difficult at best.

[26:19] But this is one that I'm going

[26:21] to give a nod yes to.

[26:24] I hope that the council will do

[26:24] the same.

[26:25] Thank you, MS..

[26:27] Mayfield.

[26:27] >> no comment.

[26:29] No comment.

[26:30] All right.

[26:32] Any other comment?

[26:32] >> hearing none.

[26:35] All in favor please raise hands

[26:35] .

[26:38] >> any oppose you have, MR.

[26:40] Mayfield that is opposed and so

[26:43] we will now advance to item

[26:46] number 14 petition number 2025

[26:48] 058 by studio one nine

[26:51] architecture plc.

[26:52] It also has some changes since

[26:54] the zoning committees made

[26:57] their recommendation and as I

[26:57] just mentioned we are required

[27:00] to have three fourths of vote

[27:02] to not send back at this time

[27:03] and pass it back over to MS.

[27:05] Cramer so she can share the

[27:06] changes.

[27:06] >> thank you.

[27:08] Thank you.

[27:09] So this is for a proposal for a

[27:11] multifamily attached townhome

[27:13] style dwelling units after

[27:13] zoning committee's

[27:16] recommendation they were trying

[27:17] to address some outstanding

[27:19] issues and in order to comply

[27:22] with some tree save

[27:24] requirements but also meet the

[27:25] street extension that is coming

[27:25] through their site.

[27:28] They had to reduce dwelling

[27:29] units from 20 to 16.

[27:32] They also just meet a small

[27:32] technical revision to note that

[27:35] maximum height would be defined

[27:38] by the adu we believe that the

[27:39] changes are minor and do not

[27:41] warrant needing to be sent back

[27:43] to the zoning committee.

[27:43] >> thank you.

[27:46] Is there a motion not to send

[27:47] back to the zoning committee?

[27:48] >> move second.

[27:48] Okay.

[27:50] Any discussion?

[27:51] Hearing none.

[27:53] All in favor raise hands any

[27:53] opposed?

[27:56] That is unanimous.

[27:59] Is there a motion to approve

[28:01] petition number 2025 058 and

[28:03] adopt the zoning committee

[28:04] statement of consistency as it

[28:07] appears in our agenda and on

[28:07] the screen.

[28:07] So move second.

[28:10] Okay.

[28:13] Any comment hearing none.

[28:15] >> all in favor raise hands any

[28:18] opposed that is unanimous.

[28:24] >> so now we will see hear we

[28:28] will move on to item 16.

[28:30] Is there a motion to approve

[28:34] petition number 2025 meeting

[28:38] one three I'm sorry 15 and get

[28:40] the final list if you get

[28:40] together.

[28:42] Thank you.

[28:42] Yes.

[28:43] Is there a motion to approve?

[28:47] Petition number 2025 133 and

[28:49] adopt the zoning committee

[28:50] statement of consistency as it

[28:53] approves as it appears in our

[28:53] agenda.

[28:57] >> sorry 13636136.

[28:57] Yes.

[28:57] I'm sorry.

[28:59] Yes.

[29:02] petition number 2025 136 and

[29:02] adopt the zoning committee

[29:04] statement of consistency as it

[29:05] approves as it appears on our

[29:10] agenda so moved second.

[29:10] All right.

[29:11] We have a motion in a second.

[29:14] Any comment, MISS Johnson?

[29:14] Thank you.

[29:17] Council member anderson I had

[29:20] the pleasure of meeting MR. And

[29:20] MRS. Cooper larry and that I

[29:23] think I saw them.

[29:23] Did I see them?

[29:23] Yes.

[29:25] Thank you.

[29:26] I look forward to supporting

[29:26] it.

[29:28] This is a couple this is their

[29:30] property and their and this is

[29:33] when the idea was approved.

[29:34] These this is one of the one of

[29:36] the benefits of the udot allows

[29:36] individuals flexibility with

[29:40] their lots so when we talk

[29:40] about generational wealth and

[29:43] opportunities I look forward to

[29:46] supporting this so congrats it

[29:46] to be honest thank you.

[29:48] >> any additional comment?

[29:49] Hearing none.

[29:51] All in favor raise hands any

[29:54] oppose that is unanimous.

[29:54] Thank you.

[29:57] So now we will proceed to the

[30:00] public hearings portion of

[30:03] tonight's meeting item number

[30:06] 17 and 18 were deferred and so

[30:07] we will begin with item number

[30:11] 19 petition number 20 26 001 by

[30:14] m p v properties and mission

[30:18] properties is approximately

[30:22] 12.67 acres located south of

[30:25] mount holly road north of there

[30:27] to creek road and west of rye

[30:30] road in the east T.J. Closest

[30:31] to councilmember graham's

[30:33] district, the site is currently

[30:36] zoned manufac turing and

[30:39] logistics one and propose

[30:41] zoning is neighborhood to be

[30:44] conditional staff does not

[30:45] recommend approval of this

[30:48] petition in its current form

[30:50] and we do have some speakers

[30:53] who are signed up to speak

[30:54] against this one.

[30:56] Can I just check if MR. Greg

[30:59] powell is present as is MR.

[31:01] Greg powell present?

[31:01] Okay.

[31:04] In which case then we don't

[31:05] have anyone signed up since he

[31:07] is not here.

[31:09] So with with that after staffs

[31:12] presentation then we will have

[31:13] a three minute presentation.

[31:13] >> thank you.

[31:15] Just I'm sorry, councilor.

[31:17] I thought I got ten minutes and

[31:18] staff does not support staff

[31:20] opposes it.

[31:21] >> he gets ten.

[31:21] Yes.

[31:21] Okay.

[31:23] Yes, go ahead.

[31:23] >> all right.

[31:25] Good evening.

[31:27] Petition 2026 001 is a 12.67

[31:30] acre site located south

[31:30] mountain high road just west of

[31:33] I-45 plan proposed the

[31:35] development of up to 176

[31:37] multifamily stock apartment

[31:38] residential units on a site

[31:39] containing a single family

[31:42] house site is currently zoned

[31:42] eml one manufacturing and

[31:45] logistics the proposed zoning

[31:48] is into b cd neighborhood to be

[31:50] conditional 2040 policy map

[31:51] recommends the manufacturing

[31:53] and logistics placed over the

[31:53] site and the plan is not in

[31:56] alignment with this place type.

[31:59] The rezoning proposal calls for

[31:59] up to 176 multifamily stacked

[32:01] apartment units, construction

[32:02] of an eastbound and westbound

[32:04] left turn lanes on mount holly

[32:07] road as well as an eastbound

[32:08] right turn lane to the site on

[32:10] mount holly road there will be

[32:10] a 25 foot class b landscape

[32:12] yard along the eastern and

[32:15] western property boundaries and

[32:16] along the railroad right of way

[32:18] on the southern portion of the

[32:20] site and the building facades

[32:21] buildings facing mount holly

[32:24] road all to use at least 40%

[32:26] brick facades.

[32:27] >> the plan is inconsistent

[32:30] with the goals and policies of

[32:30] the west outer community area

[32:32] plan the abutting manufacturing

[32:35] logistics place type of the

[32:36] south, south, east and west are

[32:38] not preferred adjacencies to

[32:38] the neighborhood to place type

[32:41] and the plan would not

[32:44] facilitate any community area

[32:44] plan priority goals staff does

[32:46] not recommend approval this

[32:47] petition in current form as the

[32:49] proposed rezoning is

[32:49] inconsistent with the newly

[32:50] adopted west.

[32:53] Our community area plan and

[32:54] 2040 policy map the site

[32:56] directly above significant

[32:57] manufacturing logistics uses

[32:59] and there's an active freight

[33:00] rail terminal running through

[33:02] the property site is also

[33:03] lacking safe pedestrian

[33:06] infrastructure or that would

[33:06] allow it to access nearby

[33:09] activities centers and nearby

[33:09] bus stops.

[33:12] However, the site is within a

[33:12] housing gap and the less

[33:15] intense zoning district for

[33:15] townhome development MAY be a

[33:18] better balance between the

[33:18] needs and the surrounding

[33:21] community and the adjacent

[33:21] industrial uses.

[33:23] Happy to take any questions

[33:24] following the petitioner's

[33:27] presentation MR. Floyd, you

[33:27] have two minutes.

[33:27] Thank you.

[33:29] Councilmember anderson, members

[33:30] of council.

[33:30] I'm john floyd with more of an

[33:32] allen here on behalf of the

[33:32] petitioners mission properties

[33:35] and pb properties who are

[33:35] working on this together, I'm

[33:37] joined tonight by jason

[33:38] mcarthur and bailey patrick who

[33:39] are here in the audience in

[33:41] case there are questions that I

[33:41] can't answer we understand that

[33:44] relaxed have support for this

[33:45] petition but we're pleased to

[33:47] say that we do have the support

[33:47] of the mountain lake community

[33:49] association who is active in

[33:50] this area.

[33:52] We engage with them early on in

[33:55] the process, kept them informed

[33:55] throughout our discussion with

[33:58] staff and I'll talk a little

[33:58] bit about some of the

[33:59] commitments that the

[34:01] petitioners have made in

[34:01] discussions with the mountain

[34:04] hamlet community association,

[34:07] the property we're talking

[34:09] about is about 12.5 acres

[34:11] located along mount holly road

[34:14] close to I-45 and close to the

[34:15] entrance of pine island country

[34:15] club.

[34:17] A couple of key things that I

[34:18] want to point out on this slide

[34:20] that will come back to there's

[34:22] a commercial node about three

[34:23] quarters of a mile up mount

[34:25] holly road where you have a

[34:26] grocery store, gas station

[34:28] restaurants, personal services

[34:29] establishments to help our

[34:32] service residents in the area.

[34:32] You have a self-storage

[34:34] facility immediately adjacent

[34:35] to the site and then you have

[34:37] this railroad easement that

[34:38] runs along mount holly road and

[34:40] the southern side of the

[34:41] property on the railroad

[34:43] easement that was originally

[34:44] included as part of the

[34:46] petition we received a letter

[34:50] from csx objecting to inclusion

[34:50] and we are therefore going to

[34:52] amend the petition to remove

[34:53] that right away easement or

[34:55] remove that easement from the

[34:56] petition that doesn't have any

[34:58] practical impact on the site

[34:58] proposed development.

[34:59] But you might have received a

[35:01] letter about that.

[35:04] >> we're addressing it.

[35:05] There is not a lot of

[35:06] consistent zoning in this area

[35:06] .

[35:07] You do have some residential

[35:08] developments close by, some

[35:10] single family here and here

[35:13] apartment complex across the

[35:14] street and down closer to 485.

[35:17] You also have a new townhome

[35:18] community that was recently

[35:20] approved just on the other side

[35:21] of the self-storage facility.

[35:23] And then again you've got

[35:24] manufacturing logistics which

[35:27] is on the south side of that

[35:29] rail easement.

[35:30] Existing zoning on the side is

[35:30] in mill one.

[35:32] We're seeking to go to and to

[35:34] be conditional to allow the

[35:35] development of 176 unit

[35:38] multifamily development.

[35:41] This slide shows the policy map

[35:42] that was in place at the time

[35:44] of filing this petition earlier

[35:46] this year and I just want to

[35:47] show you how things have

[35:48] changed over the last couple of

[35:49] months.

[35:50] The site originally had a

[35:52] neighborhood one designation

[35:54] with some manufacturing

[35:57] logistics adjacencies.

[36:00] you also had neighborhood two

[36:01] across the street which remains

[36:02] there and then you have these

[36:03] two community activity center

[36:05] areas that's between the site

[36:08] and I-45 which is over here.

[36:11] Fast forward to the adoption of

[36:13] the revised policy map and now

[36:14] the place type of the site is

[36:16] manufacturing logistics the

[36:19] area on the other side of the

[36:21] self-storage is now has a

[36:22] neighborhood two place type.

[36:24] The areas that were community

[36:28] activity centers have been

[36:28] changed to a neighborhood

[36:28] activity center.

[36:30] An additional neighborhood to

[36:31] the manufacturing logistics

[36:33] really hasn't changed except

[36:34] for the fact that this site has

[36:36] been changed to manufacturing

[36:37] logistics.

[36:37] My point here is that the idea

[36:40] that you shouldn't arizona to

[36:40] be simply because you've got

[36:42] manufacturing logistics and a

[36:45] rail line nearby really doesn't

[36:45] carry a lot of water because

[36:47] you've already got things that

[36:48] are dealing with those

[36:49] conditions in the immediate

[36:51] vicinity that have been

[36:51] transitioned to that

[36:55] neighborhood to place type.

[36:56] This slide shows what the

[36:59] policy map manual says are

[36:59] things that should be

[37:02] considered when you change to

[37:02] the neighborhood to place type.

[37:04] We're well over the minimum

[37:05] acreage requirement although we

[37:07] have some manufacturing

[37:10] logistics adjacencies.

[37:12] Again it's self-storage to one

[37:12] side and then an area that is

[37:15] separated by a large railroad

[37:15] easement to the south.

[37:18] >> one thing I'll add regarding

[37:19] that railroad easement is that

[37:21] the right of way is not

[37:21] considered when determining

[37:23] your buffer.

[37:24] >> so not only do you have the

[37:26] railroad easement separating

[37:27] the site from the manufacturing

[37:30] logistics uses to the south,

[37:30] you also then on top of that

[37:32] have the standard buffer that

[37:33] would be required between a

[37:36] manufacturing logistics and an

[37:38] end to be place type.

[37:39] And then if you look at the

[37:41] other criteria for transfer to

[37:44] into b, I mean a lot of those

[37:47] factor in favor of this move

[37:47] particularly we look at the

[37:50] proximity to services and the

[37:50] proximity to public

[37:52] transportation.

[37:53] This slide shows the location

[37:55] of bus stops along mount holly

[37:56] road which are very close.

[37:58] You've got one here and here

[38:01] both within less than a half

[38:01] mile.

[38:03] You know, MR. Oliver mentioned

[38:04] in the report mentions a lack

[38:06] of sidewalks allowed along

[38:07] mount holly road.

[38:08] But again you have developments

[38:10] going online here and here that

[38:13] will require shared use pass be

[38:13] constructed I believe.

[38:16] And so what you're doing is

[38:18] that connectivity to those bus

[38:19] stops is being provided as

[38:20] development on this corridor

[38:26] increases.

[38:27] This slide contains information

[38:29] from the west outer community

[38:30] area plan and shows the

[38:32] existing profile of that area

[38:33] and the goals.

[38:34] Two things that I thought were

[38:35] interesting when reviewing the

[38:38] profile of the area is that

[38:39] number 133% of the west outer

[38:42] development is characterized as

[38:43] neighborhood one not

[38:45] multifamily which is a pretty

[38:45] large percentage.

[38:47] And the other thing is 26% is

[38:49] characterized as manufacturing

[38:50] logistics.

[38:52] So there's already a lot there

[38:52] .

[38:53] And then you look at the goals

[38:55] in that community area plan ten

[38:56] minute neighborhoods housing,

[38:58] diversity, housing access,

[38:59] transit oriented development

[39:01] and then diverse and economic

[39:04] opportunity.

[39:07] Look at what the community area

[39:10] plan says are the benefits of

[39:10] redeveloping a property to a

[39:12] neighborhood to development

[39:14] along a major thoroughfare with

[39:15] two bus stops and it looks to

[39:18] us like it would have a

[39:20] positive impact on four of the

[39:20] five goals of the community

[39:21] area plan.

[39:23] Again this isn't my slide.

[39:23] This is taken directly out of

[39:25] the community area plan to show

[39:26] what happens when you take the

[39:28] vacant land and transition it

[39:29] to a neighborhood two place

[39:30] type.

[39:31] And so we think that the

[39:34] community area plan absolutely

[39:35] supports a transition to

[39:39] neighborhood to this is the

[39:39] proposed site plan.

[39:41] You see three buildings along

[39:46] mount holly road with all the

[39:47] parking on the interior of the

[39:48] site and no one is driving or

[39:50] living across from parking lot

[39:51] at the request of the mountain

[39:53] and lake community association

[39:55] we included a condition that

[39:56] 40% of the facades facing mount

[39:58] holly road would have stone or

[40:01] brick masonry along this

[40:01] facade.

[40:02] So you'll get a you know, a

[40:04] higher end view along that

[40:07] stretch you've got the central

[40:07] buildings in the middle that'll

[40:10] also include, you know, some of

[40:11] the units as well as clubhouse

[40:13] an amenity area I'll talk about

[40:13] in a minute and then you have

[40:16] pretty significant buffers

[40:16] around the entire exterior.

[40:19] But again this is self-storage

[40:19] .

[40:19] You had approval for

[40:21] multifamily over here next to

[40:22] self-storage and then all of

[40:24] this is the right of way for

[40:25] the railroad that the developer

[40:27] can't really do anything with.

[40:28] >> you have three minutes left.

[40:28] Thank you.

[40:31] The petitioner has agreed to

[40:31] make traffic improvements that

[40:33] exceed what is required under

[40:35] the video or requested by ncdot

[40:37] or see that the development has

[40:38] one widen access point right

[40:41] across from stoney ridge which

[40:43] was requested at the community

[40:44] meeting and the developer will

[40:47] be constructing a right and

[40:47] left turn lane into the site a

[40:51] left turn lane for stoney ridge

[40:52] and three lanes in each

[40:52] direction right there in front

[40:54] of the site.

[40:55] So providing those left turn

[40:58] lanes in addition to the three

[40:58] lanes hopefully will prevent

[41:00] traffic back up in that area.

[41:01] Mount holly road, we understand

[41:03] that's not going to alleviate

[41:04] all the traffic that's on mount

[41:04] holly.

[41:06] That's an area that keeps

[41:07] coming up.

[41:07] That is something that needs to

[41:09] be dealt with.

[41:10] We don't disagree with that.

[41:12] But what the developers try to

[41:12] do is take a practical,

[41:15] reasonable approach to

[41:15] improvements that they could

[41:17] make that will, you know,

[41:20] mitigate their own traffic as

[41:21] well as try to provide some

[41:23] benefit to the median area.

[41:23] The last point I'll make on

[41:25] traffic is if you look at trip

[41:26] generation data, the proposed

[41:28] use generates much less traffic

[41:29] than some of the other uses

[41:31] that could be developed with

[41:31] the email.

[41:32] One zoning staff report has

[41:34] some information about trip

[41:36] generation but it's based

[41:37] solely on one lesser intensive

[41:39] use.

[41:42] Yes someone could put an 88,000

[41:43] square foot warehouse on that

[41:43] site but there are a lot of

[41:45] other uses that could go on

[41:46] that site as it's currently

[41:47] zoned that would increase

[41:48] traffic and then looking at

[41:51] amenities on the project you

[41:54] certainly have kind of the

[41:54] normal things like a pool

[41:56] fitness center, dog park that

[41:57] you would expect to see two

[41:59] other interesting amenities

[42:00] that I want to point out.

[42:03] One is an upgraded business

[42:03] center.

[42:03] The idea there is that you

[42:05] would be able to do more than

[42:08] just print or make copies.

[42:08] It's someplace where somebody

[42:11] who lives there could leave

[42:11] their house if they work from

[42:12] home but still have a place to

[42:15] go so they wouldn't have to go

[42:16] to starbucks or local library,

[42:17] keep them off the road.

[42:19] And then also the second thing

[42:19] is a small market something

[42:22] along the lines of what you

[42:25] might see in a hotel or again

[42:25] you need some detergent, you

[42:27] need a bag of chips, a frozen

[42:28] pizza, something like that.

[42:30] You can go pick that up on site

[42:31] without having to get on the

[42:33] roads and get somewhere else.

[42:34] So both those things all the

[42:36] services to that the community

[42:38] themselves are also helping to

[42:40] reduce traffic.

[42:41] And lastly we just have some

[42:44] sample elevations here.

[42:45] These are ideas of what it

[42:47] might look like.

[42:47] Mission properties is an

[42:50] experience developer in the

[42:50] region and so we have photos of

[42:53] their other some of their other

[42:56] projects here in the charlotte

[42:56] region.

[42:58] No architectural plans yet but

[42:59] it's consistent with what you

[43:01] should expect at this location

[43:01] .

[43:04] That's really all I have.

[43:05] Again, we think this is a

[43:06] quality project that makes

[43:07] sense in this location we

[43:09] worked hard to get community

[43:10] support on this one and we hope

[43:11] that each of you will support

[43:13] as well.

[43:13] >> with that I'm happy to take

[43:14] any questions that you have.

[43:14] Thank you.

[43:16] MR. Floyd.

[43:16] Any questions?

[43:19] MR. Graham thank you for the

[43:20] presentation.

[43:22] A question for staff so my eyes

[43:25] and ears the mountain lake

[43:28] homeowners association are in

[43:28] agreement with the project so

[43:31] with your and readiness based

[43:33] on I'm not having staff

[43:36] approval it's primarily based

[43:36] on the place type

[43:39] recommendation.

[43:40] So the cap as we all know was

[43:41] adopted in APRIL just a couple

[43:44] months ago which updated policy

[43:45] map and that envisioned

[43:47] manufacturing and logistics for

[43:47] the site.

[43:50] so I feel like it's difficult

[43:50] after all that community

[43:51] engagement and discussion

[43:53] around the community area plans

[43:54] to kind of go against that

[43:56] recommendation at this point

[44:00] and you know there is quite a

[44:01] bit over 1,000,000ft of

[44:01] development just across that

[44:04] railroad right of way of

[44:04] manufacturing and logistics in

[44:09] the area and that

[44:10] recommendation is not subject

[44:12] to change based on some of the

[44:15] leeway still made for their

[44:18] project in terms of trying to

[44:19] traffic county from the other

[44:21] things.

[44:24] So we do recognize that it is

[44:24] in a housing gap and you know

[44:26] we feel that maybe something a

[44:27] little less intense than

[44:30] stacked multifamily, maybe a

[44:32] townhome project or a single

[44:33] family project MAY be more

[44:35] appropriate for the site than

[44:37] for a full apartment

[44:38] development.

[44:40] Okay.

[44:41] I would love to come out and

[44:43] walk the site.

[44:46] I'm very I do that often

[44:49] especially in the the mountain

[44:52] bike area because I am too

[44:55] concerned about the traffic

[44:55] congestion and infrastructure

[44:58] over there and so sometimes

[45:00] seeing it is better than in

[45:01] person is better than on the

[45:01] map.

[45:03] So if you can contact my office

[45:04] would love to come out and just

[45:06] want to say I would love to set

[45:07] that up with you too for you to

[45:09] join me if you can and so we

[45:11] can make sure that we're all on

[45:12] the same page.

[45:14] Absolutely.

[45:16] Okay, MR. Mayor, thank you so

[45:20] staff thank you so much very

[45:20] for your due diligence.

[45:22] I'm reading and based on your

[45:26] notes here it states that there

[45:28] is an active freight rail right

[45:31] of way which makes up a quarter

[45:34] of this site along its southern

[45:34] boundary.

[45:35] Can you pull that up here on

[45:40] the map so the freight rail

[45:43] traffic I'm concerned it MAY be

[45:45] incompatible easier and

[45:46] impactful to this future

[45:48] residents who will be living on

[45:50] the site.

[45:53] I think there needs to be some

[45:54] measures that we need to

[45:56] discuss around noise and air

[45:56] pollution.

[45:59] >> okay.

[46:00] So if you can just tell me

[46:02] where where is that freight?

[46:04] >> it's it's a double tracked

[46:04] line.

[46:05] So there's a northern track

[46:08] right here where the pointer is

[46:09] and then there's a southern

[46:11] track right around the southern

[46:11] boundary where you see this

[46:14] yellow running concurrently

[46:14] with that yellow line that

[46:16] marks the site boundary.

[46:19] Yes, I do agree with staff's

[46:19] recommendations here.

[46:22] I think we are looking at

[46:25] potential air pollution as well

[46:28] as noise pollution for our

[46:29] future residents that might be

[46:34] living here also, have you

[46:34] considered a less intense

[46:39] zoning district?

[46:42] I think we looked at certainly

[46:42] a lot of options.

[46:43] I think the issue that you have

[46:45] here with the railroad track is

[46:46] that takes a lot of things out

[46:48] of play, right?

[46:48] Like single family residential

[46:51] right next to a railroad track

[46:51] is probably not something

[46:52] that's going to gain a lot of

[46:54] traction.

[46:54] An apartment complex is

[46:54] different.

[46:55] I mean my first department when

[46:58] I moved to charlotte was

[46:59] carrying south end or excuse me

[46:59] camden cotton mills which is

[47:01] right along the railroad track.

[47:02] That's just what you do when

[47:04] you're younger.

[47:05] You know you live with the

[47:05] noise.

[47:07] It's not that bad.

[47:08] But to think if somebody is

[47:08] going to buy a home in that

[47:10] location probably not.

[47:11] But yeah, we considered it and

[47:13] felt that multifamily was the

[47:14] best thing for the site.

[47:16] >> okay well in its current

[47:17] form I don't think it's a good

[47:18] idea.

[47:22] >> and other thing just a

[47:22] second.

[47:27] So I do see this site is right

[47:30] next to manufacturing logistics

[47:31] as well as to the south to the

[47:34] south east and we are talking

[47:39] about one point 2,000,000ft

[47:39] manufacture and logistic

[47:41] facility, am I correct?

[47:44] >> so yes, a long run road to

[47:45] the south and southeast.

[47:48] The site there's currently

[47:49] approximately one point

[47:49] 2,000,000ft of industrial

[47:53] development under construction.

[47:53] >> yeah.

[47:55] So you know, staff rarely

[47:58] provides opposition or doesn't

[47:59] support it.

[47:59] So when they do I think we need

[48:02] to take it seriously because we

[48:05] MAY not get calls now but once

[48:05] the residents do move in there

[48:08] might be calls coming about air

[48:11] pollution, noise pollution and

[48:11] many more.

[48:14] So I, I just think we need to

[48:17] take this thing through this

[48:17] and consider the staff's

[48:20] recommendations because I hear

[48:20] from the petition are pretty

[48:23] clear they are not willing to

[48:23] lower the intensity of the

[48:25] development and that concerns

[48:25] me.

[48:26] MR. Floyd that's all I have.

[48:28] Thank you.

[48:29] >> thank you, MS..

[48:30] Mayor.

[48:31] Thank you.

[48:34] Would job at all be open to

[48:34] spending more money on the

[48:37] quality of the windows to kind

[48:39] of impact sound for, you know,

[48:40] future residents that are going

[48:42] to be there just so I mean

[48:43] obviously I would need to talk

[48:45] with the development team but I

[48:45] don't want to say that we're

[48:46] opposed to anything.

[48:47] I mean I think the development

[48:48] team here has shown a

[48:50] willingness to take feedback

[48:50] from the area residents to

[48:53] incorporate a lot of the

[48:53] feedback that we got in the

[48:54] community meeting.

[48:56] That's how we got support from

[48:57] the community is hearing their

[48:59] feedback and going back in

[49:00] there so can't say yes, can't

[49:00] say no.

[49:02] I'm happy to to have the

[49:02] development team to look into

[49:04] that and see what the options

[49:04] are.

[49:04] >> okay.

[49:07] Okay.

[49:08] And just one last while you're

[49:10] looking at the this additional

[49:13] tools also if you can ask your

[49:15] development team to decrease

[49:16] the number of units and lower

[49:19] the intensity of development.

[49:19] Thank you.

[49:19] That's all I have.

[49:20] Thank you.

[49:22] I'm going to pass it over to

[49:22] mr. Graham to close out comment

[49:24] yeah and that's why it's so

[49:25] important for me to walk it

[49:27] right and kind of see the

[49:30] proximity to I see the line

[49:31] right before I get it and also

[49:33] to talk to the neighborhood

[49:34] association they don't grant

[49:36] their approval lightly and so I

[49:39] was pleasantly surprised that

[49:42] they were already on board.

[49:42] But I still have a couple of

[49:43] questions I want to ask based

[49:44] on staff's comments, but I'm

[49:47] very open and looking forward

[49:48] to the visit.

[49:50] >> happy to do it.

[49:51] >> thank you.

[49:51] Okay.

[49:53] MISS Mayo has a final comment.

[49:53] >> thank you so much.

[49:56] Would you at all be open to

[49:59] adding like in some of the

[50:02] conditions like undisturbed

[50:05] tree canopy like between where

[50:08] you're going to be putting the

[50:10] apartments in the actual

[50:11] railroad?

[50:13] >> I'm just thinking, you know,

[50:16] oftentimes if you leave those

[50:17] trees there that will help with

[50:19] sound and if if it's being

[50:21] undisturbed that will help with

[50:22] some of the noise and the

[50:23] pollution and that's something

[50:25] we've really learned from

[50:25] silvery acres.

[50:28] >> just thinking through how

[50:30] can we put some things in place

[50:31] in the front end so we're not

[50:33] having to deal with issues in

[50:34] the back end?

[50:37] Yes, ma'am.

[50:37] >> you asked him that is

[50:37] understaffed.

[50:38] Yes.

[50:40] So we've got here's kind of the

[50:40] part of the tree safe area this

[50:42] whole area here is also that is

[50:45] the right of way area.

[50:45] that doesn't mean that the

[50:48] tracks are right up next to

[50:48] this line.

[50:49] Right.

[50:50] The tracks are shown down here

[50:53] and all this is currently

[50:54] trees, you know, so there's a

[50:57] pretty significant gap not only

[50:59] between the railroad and but

[51:00] you've got all those trees then

[51:01] you've got the planting and

[51:02] then you've got the parking lot

[51:03] and then you've got the

[51:03] building.

[51:05] So it's pretty significant

[51:05] distance there.

[51:08] See we can't do anything in

[51:09] that area, right?

[51:11] It's if they own the property

[51:11] but the railroad has the

[51:13] easement and has all control

[51:14] over what can go on there.

[51:15] So that's certainly not a

[51:17] problem we don't have any plans

[51:17] on taking any of these trees

[51:18] down.

[51:20] It provides privacy, provides

[51:20] noise reduction.

[51:21] It provides a whole bunch of

[51:23] benefits that we're in support

[51:23] of.

[51:23] >> all right.

[51:24] Thank you.

[51:26] Thank you.

[51:26] >> is there a motion to close

[51:27] public hearings?

[51:28] The second.

[51:29] >> all right.

[51:30] All in favor raise hands any

[51:34] oppose that is unanimous and so

[51:36] we will now move on to item

[51:40] number 20 petition number 2026

[51:43] 009 by david simone signature

[51:43] homes llc.

[51:47] It's approximately three acres

[51:50] located south of all providence

[51:52] road east of jones ridge drive

[51:55] and west of mary butler way and

[51:58] council member drake's district

[51:58] .

[51:59] the site is currently zone

[52:01] neighborhood one b and the

[52:04] proposed zoning is neighborhood

[52:07] one d conditional staff does

[52:07] not recommend approval of this

[52:10] petition in its current form so

[52:13] the petitioner will have ten

[52:14] minutes to speak to to this

[52:16] item after staff's presentation

[52:22] and yes MR. Smith is this MR.

[52:22] Smith and MR. Crater all right

[52:24] after staff's presentation

[52:25] you'll have ten minutes.

[52:27] Thank you.

[52:29] The sites approximately three

[52:32] acres along the south side of

[52:33] old providence road east of

[52:35] jones road drive and west of

[52:37] mary butler ray right.

[52:37] Sorry.

[52:40] In an area where we have

[52:41] predominantly single family

[52:43] uses some institutional uses

[52:45] and multifamily uses though

[52:46] further from the site more

[52:49] eastern along providence road

[52:52] current zoning is neighborhood

[52:53] one b they are proposing to go

[52:53] to neighborhood one d

[52:56] conditional that is in

[52:59] alignment with the policy maps

[52:59] recommendation for the

[53:01] neighborhood one place type for

[53:01] this site as well as the

[53:03] surrounding area.

[53:06] The proposal includes a couple

[53:06] of conditional nodes so they

[53:09] stipulate that they would have

[53:10] ten single family detached

[53:12] residential lots.

[53:15] The minimum lot with would be

[53:16] 50ft and they would have a

[53:20] minimum lot area of 6000ft and

[53:22] just for a point of reference

[53:25] from where they're going to

[53:26] where they're starting with the

[53:27] and b district and where

[53:28] they're going to fit in one d

[53:31] district they are proposing a

[53:34] greater width and area than the

[53:35] minimum standards of n1d and

[53:36] the n1b with where they're

[53:40] starting at has minimum area of

[53:42] 8000 in lot with of 60ft.

[53:45] This area is within the south

[53:47] middle community area plan

[53:48] which does call for the

[53:50] neighborhood.

[53:51] One place type as I noted does

[53:53] not directly facilitate

[53:54] priority goals or comprehensive

[53:57] plan goals and we did assess it

[53:59] using the place type five

[53:59] criteria.

[54:02] That's an assessment tool that

[54:02] we have under the creating

[54:05] complete communities section

[54:08] under every community area plan

[54:08] which helps us evaluate

[54:11] rezoning petitions requesting a

[54:13] more intense neighborhood one

[54:16] zoning district in order to see

[54:18] if what is being requested

[54:21] meets essentially or ensures

[54:22] appropriateness review stablish

[54:25] community character in the area

[54:27] with what form and development

[54:27] .

[54:28] So when we look at this area

[54:31] there is a real established lot

[54:34] pattern and with what you see

[54:37] with the lots to the east and

[54:40] to the west here I'll exclude

[54:42] these because they're bit of

[54:43] outliers these large lots

[54:45] directly to the west but the

[54:48] ones along jones ridge drive in

[54:49] mary butler way these are

[54:51] predominantly developed to

[54:54] minimum standards of what you

[54:55] would see in the in one b

[54:58] classification and sometimes

[55:00] with greater law areas closer

[55:03] to and one a classification or

[55:06] somewhere in between a and b so

[55:08] what they're proposing would be

[55:11] a bit smaller than that or a

[55:13] bit out of line with what we

[55:14] think is the established lot

[55:16] pattern in the area.

[55:17] It is a long and arterial road

[55:19] which is a point in its favor

[55:21] in terms of the five criteria

[55:24] but it is also located

[55:25] mid-block which isn't

[55:28] necessarily preferred when

[55:30] we're stepping up the intensity

[55:30] in our neighborhood.

[55:32] One zoning districts on this

[55:35] type of site so on I would say

[55:37] they're not that far off from

[55:40] what we'd like to see in the

[55:41] area but stop does that

[55:42] recommend approval of this

[55:43] petition in its current form?

[55:46] We think that we can work with

[55:47] the petitioner to try and get

[55:47] this plan more in alignment

[55:49] with that.

[55:50] Please type five criteria to

[55:52] ensure that the proposals in

[55:52] creating a law pattern that's

[55:55] out of context with the

[55:56] established development that we

[55:57] see along this corridor which

[55:58] demonstrates a pretty

[56:00] consistent characteristics in

[56:03] terms of what area width and

[56:03] setback.

[56:06] So with that I'll leave my

[56:09] comments me and address any

[56:10] questions after petitioner

[56:12] presentation.

[56:12] >> okay.

[56:13] MR. Smith and MR. Kreider you

[56:14] have ten minutes in aggregate.

[56:17] >> thank you very much.

[56:17] Rumors of the council.

[56:18] My name is sunny kreider work

[56:22] for david simone signature

[56:24] homes work crew serving in east

[56:27] for over 43 years and the

[56:32] request is theresa owned to and

[56:37] one d this is a this three

[56:39] acres at 7000 old providence

[56:42] road it is a two david is a

[56:44] really special opportunity to

[56:47] create not just a single family

[56:48] home here and there but to

[56:50] create a real community and

[56:53] give that our whole company is

[56:56] really excited about the

[56:59] possibility for what david can

[57:04] do with his vision that he'll

[57:04] create something with lasting

[57:08] contribution and enhanced

[57:10] values to the whole area.

[57:15] Just a couple examples of the

[57:42] school that's going is our

[57:45] presentation on in that I'm not

[57:49] in there I'll ask questions

[58:05] generally MR. Time is there are

[58:10] we having a technical issue?

[58:11] I believe they're looking for

[58:16] their slides and I will see if

[58:19] somebody else has them.

[58:20] Well the studio is part of the

[58:22] time while we find the slides.

[58:50] >> thank you so we're working

[58:54] of the best way I can say it is

[58:58] we have we can see holes in

[59:06] okay okay pretty close.

[59:08] And your name is street.

[59:19] That's yeah he said he have we

[59:21] determine if we have the slide

[59:25] I believe I do not have them on

[59:25] hand.

[59:26] We're trying to see if they can

[59:27] send them to somebody else

[59:27] right now.

[59:35] Okay well we are using the next

[59:36] one and then come back.

[59:36] Yes.

[59:38] So why don't we do this because

[59:40] we want to continue to advance

[59:41] in the agenda.

[59:44] >> so while you all are looking

[59:44] for your slides, we're going to

[59:47] move to the next petition and

[59:49] after that petition will return

[59:50] if you have your slides

[59:51] available.

[59:52] >> okay.

[59:52] All right.

[59:55] Thank you, MR. Smith and MR.

[59:55] Crater.

[1:00:00] >> so who's the last one to be

[1:00:02] with that then we're going to

[1:00:05] advance to agenda item 21 and

[1:00:06] we'll come back when your

[1:00:08] slides are ready.

[1:00:10] Agenda item 21 is petition

[1:00:15] number 2026 017 by kevin curran

[1:00:17] it's approximately 7.85 acres

[1:00:20] located north of avondale drive

[1:00:23] west of shalamar drive and east

[1:00:27] of in tour avenue in the 80 j

[1:00:29] closest to MR. Graham's

[1:00:29] district.

[1:00:33] The site is currently zone

[1:00:33] neighborhood one eight in the

[1:00:36] proposed zoning is neighborhood

[1:00:39] one see conditional once again

[1:00:39] staff does not recommend

[1:00:42] approve all of this petition in

[1:00:45] its current form so the

[1:00:47] petitioner will have ten

[1:00:48] minutes to speak following

[1:00:50] staff presentation and MR.

[1:00:53] Sharkey I see you are in the

[1:00:53] audience and you are signed up

[1:00:56] to speak against this petition.

[1:00:58] So after staff's presentation

[1:01:01] the petitioner will have ten

[1:01:01] minutes.

[1:01:03] MR. Sharkey you'll have ten

[1:01:04] minutes and then there'll be an

[1:01:06] opportunity for two minute

[1:01:07] rebuttal.

[1:01:07] >> thank you.

[1:01:11] Petition 20.6017 is a 7.85 acre

[1:01:14] site located on riverdale drive

[1:01:16] shalamar drive and winter

[1:01:18] avenue plan proposes nine units

[1:01:19] including seven single family

[1:01:21] detached dwellings and one

[1:01:24] duplex on a site that is

[1:01:24] currently developed with the

[1:01:26] single family house current

[1:01:27] zoning is neighborhood one a

[1:01:30] proposed zoning is in one c cd

[1:01:31] neighborhood one c commercial

[1:01:35] conditional excuse me the 2040

[1:01:36] policy map recommends the

[1:01:37] neighborhood and one place type

[1:01:37] for the site.

[1:01:39] The plan is in alignment with

[1:01:40] the neighborhood one place type

[1:01:42] the rezoning calls for the

[1:01:43] development up to nine rolling

[1:01:45] units as I mentioned that would

[1:01:47] be on eight lots including up

[1:01:49] to seven single family detached

[1:01:50] dwellings and one duplex

[1:01:51] dwelling containing two units

[1:01:52] each lot will have a minimum

[1:01:55] lot area of 10,000ft which is

[1:01:58] the minimum lot area for in one

[1:02:00] a district and all lots will

[1:02:01] gain access from existing

[1:02:01] public streets.

[1:02:03] There will be no new public

[1:02:05] streets on this site while the

[1:02:08] plan is in alignment with the

[1:02:09] policy map, it is inconsistent

[1:02:11] with the goals and policies of

[1:02:12] the west middle community area

[1:02:12] plan.

[1:02:14] The proposed plan does not meet

[1:02:17] the policy type five five

[1:02:17] criteria from the community

[1:02:19] area plan 55 criteria are

[1:02:22] utilized to ensure new

[1:02:23] development within the

[1:02:23] neighborhood.

[1:02:24] One place type fits existing

[1:02:27] neighborhood patterns focusing

[1:02:28] on lot size street frontage and

[1:02:31] parcel location within a block.

[1:02:33] The proposed rezoning does not

[1:02:36] fully meet pt5 expectations

[1:02:39] because the lots width and lot

[1:02:40] dimensions are significantly

[1:02:42] smaller than those of the

[1:02:43] surrounding neighborhood.

[1:02:45] So even though it meets that

[1:02:46] minimum lot area for in one a

[1:02:48] it's not the proposed lots

[1:02:51] would typically be smaller than

[1:02:51] those in the existing

[1:02:54] neighborhood and this plan

[1:02:56] would not facilitate in

[1:02:57] community area plan priority

[1:02:57] goals staff does not recommend

[1:02:59] approval.

[1:03:00] This petition in its current

[1:03:02] form for this plan does not

[1:03:03] meet the five criteria in

[1:03:05] regards to lot dimensions in

[1:03:06] relation to the adjacent single

[1:03:08] family development pattern and

[1:03:08] the plan does not forward any

[1:03:09] priority goals.

[1:03:11] The community area plan however

[1:03:11] the plan proposes with low

[1:03:14] intensity primarily single

[1:03:15] family detached dwellings along

[1:03:17] public streets which is in

[1:03:17] keeping with the character of

[1:03:19] the neighborhood.

[1:03:20] Proposed dimensions and

[1:03:22] setbacks should be revised to

[1:03:23] better match the existing lot

[1:03:25] pattern in the area.

[1:03:26] I'm happy to take any questions

[1:03:26] following petitioner's

[1:03:28] presentation.

[1:03:28] >> okay.

[1:03:30] Thank you and MR. Shark I

[1:03:31] misspoke you on the next one

[1:03:31] right.

[1:03:33] This is now.

[1:03:34] Yes, sir.

[1:03:36] This is MR. Curran and he just

[1:03:37] signed up which is why he's not

[1:03:39] on our own.

[1:03:41] Our pieces of paper colleagues

[1:03:42] so MR. Curran, you have ten

[1:03:42] minutes.

[1:03:42] Yes.

[1:03:45] Thank you.

[1:03:45] Thank you, council, for all the

[1:03:46] work that you do.

[1:03:48] So yes, my name is kevin curran

[1:03:49] and the reason why I'm here

[1:03:51] today is to ask for this

[1:03:52] rezoning to move from in one 8

[1:03:53] in 1 c specifically for the

[1:03:55] purpose of just gaining two

[1:03:58] more lots excuse me there are

[1:04:00] some some some very important

[1:04:01] people to me that I have been

[1:04:04] friends with for a very, very

[1:04:05] long time now with the church

[1:04:07] and they would like to stay

[1:04:09] close together as a family.

[1:04:14] This one family has grown into

[1:04:14] three separate households and

[1:04:17] the children would like to stay

[1:04:18] close to their parents but

[1:04:22] really finding affordable land

[1:04:23] to build three homes in

[1:04:24] charlotte beside each other is

[1:04:26] proven to be a difficult task

[1:04:26] for this lease.

[1:04:29] These ones and so since I have

[1:04:32] this land that I'm willing to

[1:04:34] sell to them at below market

[1:04:35] costs for them to be able to

[1:04:39] fulfill their desire for two to

[1:04:39] out of their parents but at the

[1:04:42] current zoning I just do not

[1:04:44] have enough land to also

[1:04:46] fulfill the plans that I have

[1:04:49] for this property and to

[1:04:53] address the staff's disapproval

[1:04:53] .

[1:04:54] I'm just really asking for

[1:04:56] leniency on the lot with I am

[1:04:59] willing to comply with all the

[1:05:01] conditions of the n1a zoning to

[1:05:03] keep the 10,000 square foot

[1:05:06] minimum lot sizes and I'm

[1:05:06] willing to conditions to comply

[1:05:10] with the 27 foot setbacks from

[1:05:12] the front and the 40 foot rear

[1:05:14] setbacks as well into to follow

[1:05:15] all the ordinance when it comes

[1:05:17] to the air quality in the

[1:05:18] erosion control during any

[1:05:20] construction that would happen

[1:05:23] now my understanding is that I

[1:05:24] can achieve the number of

[1:05:26] dwelling units that I am

[1:05:29] seeking by currently building

[1:05:30] duplexes and triplexes by right

[1:05:32] under the existing zoning and

[1:05:35] the existing entitlement does

[1:05:37] allow up to 23 dwelling units

[1:05:40] on this property but in my

[1:05:43] opinion that would be way more

[1:05:46] out of character with the

[1:05:49] surrounding neighborhood than

[1:05:51] what I'm proposing as part of

[1:05:51] this petition.

[1:05:52] I know in the in the community

[1:05:52] meeting there do not to be

[1:05:52] appeared to be any strong

[1:05:53] objections to what was

[1:05:53] proposing.

[1:05:54] The discussion did seem to

[1:05:56] center primarily on the traffic

[1:05:58] and stormwater and regarding

[1:06:01] the concerns about the traffic

[1:06:04] staff did an analysis and they

[1:06:07] determined that based on the

[1:06:07] entitlement up to 23 dwelling

[1:06:10] units it would equate up to 261

[1:06:10] trips a day.

[1:06:13] But my petition would limit the

[1:06:16] numbers of dwelling units to

[1:06:17] nine which would only add 110

[1:06:18] per day.

[1:06:20] So those are well below what

[1:06:20] current time is that?

[1:06:23] I would not have to seek for

[1:06:25] rezoning on and on regarding

[1:06:28] the concerns about the

[1:06:29] stormwater runoff I did contact

[1:06:32] an engineer about it and they

[1:06:33] told me I will have to conduct

[1:06:34] a 100 plus one stormwater

[1:06:36] analysis to establish the flood

[1:06:39] elevation of the creek that

[1:06:41] runs adjacent to this property

[1:06:42] and whenever these lights would

[1:06:44] be developed we will make sure

[1:06:44] to design the grades in a way

[1:06:47] to keep the runoff from flowing

[1:06:49] into the neighboring lots as

[1:06:50] these lights that we're

[1:06:53] currently proposing are at low

[1:06:54] point in the neighborhood they

[1:06:56] mostly drain to the creek that

[1:06:57] flows to the property that I

[1:06:59] own already has it here.

[1:07:02] So we just want to address the

[1:07:02] the neighbors concerns and tell

[1:07:04] them we're going to do as much

[1:07:05] as we can to to keep their

[1:07:07] concerns at a minimum I am

[1:07:09] going to amend this petition

[1:07:12] later on to take off a portion

[1:07:13] of the property on ventura.

[1:07:16] I was informed that I do not

[1:07:18] need to keep that property on

[1:07:19] there so which would drop off

[1:07:22] language of the the duplex as

[1:07:22] well.

[1:07:23] so really only the five locks

[1:07:25] on shallow more is what we're

[1:07:27] going to be seeking eventually

[1:07:30] not even the eight lots so what

[1:07:30] that's all I have I'll take

[1:07:33] questions if you do have okay

[1:07:35] any questions?

[1:07:36] I do, MR. Mayor.

[1:07:38] Thank you again, staff great

[1:07:43] job with your due diligence to

[1:07:46] the petitioner, are you willing

[1:07:47] to revise the dimensions and

[1:07:49] setbacks so that this

[1:07:50] development better matches the

[1:07:52] existing lot written in the

[1:07:55] surrounding neighborhood?

[1:07:56] Does this currently doesn't

[1:08:00] align with the current current

[1:08:04] setbacks in one a is 27 foot

[1:08:04] that's what we are willing to

[1:08:06] go to 27 foot yes ma'am okay so

[1:08:09] the staff recommends that so

[1:08:20] currently please stay to be

[1:08:22] replaced by five right?

[1:08:24] >> yes the criteria okay.

[1:08:30] And so I know that your well in

[1:08:30] in your analysis you had

[1:08:33] mentioned the dimensions and

[1:08:33] setbacks.

[1:08:35] What would that be?

[1:08:39] I guess how much should they be

[1:08:41] revised to better fit the

[1:08:43] existing neighborhood?

[1:08:44] >> yeah, I don't have the

[1:08:46] dimensions in front of yes.

[1:08:46] So something staff can work

[1:08:49] with you on if you're willing

[1:08:49] to work with staff on that

[1:08:51] because we want to make sure

[1:08:52] that it fits into the

[1:08:53] neighborhood's character so it

[1:08:55] doesn't look out of place as we

[1:08:57] often get complaints about

[1:08:58] that.

[1:08:58] Yes ma'am.

[1:09:01] I'm willing to to do whatever

[1:09:01] work is necessary.

[1:09:03] They are long there would be

[1:09:06] long lots but there is that

[1:09:07] creek that runs behind it so

[1:09:09] there is a buffer stream buffer

[1:09:11] there in order to do setbacks

[1:09:14] from the stream and setbacks on

[1:09:15] the front there is a in an

[1:09:17] allowable building area.

[1:09:18] I'm not sure of what that is

[1:09:20] but yes, maximum sure has.

[1:09:21] >> so yeah, we're we're going

[1:09:23] to work with the petitioner on

[1:09:23] this.

[1:09:26] So you're not recommending

[1:09:26] anything current form that

[1:09:27] means there kind of is a we

[1:09:29] feel there is a path forward to

[1:09:30] get to a place where we could

[1:09:31] recommend approval.

[1:09:32] >> so we'll we'll work with the

[1:09:33] petitioner on this.

[1:09:34] Yes, I would I would suggest

[1:09:37] that you continue to work with

[1:09:39] staff to get their approval so

[1:09:40] that it fits into the

[1:09:42] neighborhood's character that's

[1:09:42] all right.

[1:09:43] >> thank you.

[1:09:43] Thank you, MS..

[1:09:45] Mayor.

[1:09:46] I would agree with

[1:09:48] councilmember are just hoping

[1:09:49] that you'll continue to work

[1:09:51] with staff I'd love to see some

[1:09:54] site plans this you know, being

[1:09:54] conditional I just felt it's a

[1:09:56] little broad particularly as

[1:09:59] staff is given some very

[1:10:00] specific things that they're

[1:10:00] looking for.

[1:10:02] So I would just like more

[1:10:04] specifications so that we

[1:10:05] understand exactly what we

[1:10:07] would be approving right now I

[1:10:08] don't feel comfortable in its

[1:10:13] current form but oh okay.

[1:10:13] Any other comment?

[1:10:15] No move to close the hearing

[1:10:16] second.

[1:10:16] >> all right.

[1:10:18] All in favor of closing public

[1:10:21] hearing raise hands any oppose

[1:10:21] thank you.

[1:10:23] that's unanimous and have we

[1:10:24] and thank you MR. Curran have

[1:10:27] we resolved the technical

[1:10:27] issue?

[1:10:27] Okay.

[1:10:29] So then let's let's backtrack

[1:10:34] back to item number 22 crater

[1:10:40] and once your slides are up MR.

[1:10:42] Smith and MR. Crater you will

[1:10:43] have eight minutes if the

[1:10:46] studio could set the timer back

[1:10:48] to the eight minutes that's how

[1:10:48] many minutes you had.

[1:10:50] Okay.

[1:10:51] Thank you very much.

[1:10:51] All right.

[1:10:55] Are presentation is up there as

[1:10:59] I was referring to earlier were

[1:11:01] to show you some examples of

[1:11:04] david's vision and what he can

[1:11:05] create other than when he gets

[1:11:07] a neighborhood that he can do

[1:11:08] other than just a single family

[1:11:10] which are incredible.

[1:11:12] Yeah, the first one this is

[1:11:15] from current grants is a

[1:11:17] mixture of french villas and a

[1:11:20] little one in cobblestone

[1:11:21] street this at the back

[1:11:25] appellant would the first time

[1:11:26] I saw this I thought walt

[1:11:28] disney had done this

[1:11:29] neighborhood and I think that

[1:11:31] you would probably agree if you

[1:11:34] were to view it itself the the

[1:11:36] talent and the energy that it

[1:11:38] took him to create this is just

[1:11:41] is mind boggling.

[1:11:42] The second one is chipping

[1:11:44] campden which is on vernon

[1:11:45] drive between wendover and

[1:11:49] providence road.

[1:11:52] This is an english village that

[1:11:58] david created based on

[1:11:58] townhomes with terraces

[1:12:01] overlooking the english garden

[1:12:05] that at the time in 2002 was

[1:12:05] about half million dollars just

[1:12:08] for the garden.

[1:12:11] The town homes here now selling

[1:12:16] $2.5 million range is an

[1:12:19] interesting story is that the

[1:12:22] english press covered this in

[1:12:23] several newspapers and actually

[1:12:27] did on air interviews with bbc

[1:12:28] with the couple agents and we

[1:12:31] also had a couple from the

[1:12:34] cotswolds come visit chip in

[1:12:34] camera to see that it was real.

[1:12:37] That's how dynamic this

[1:12:39] development was.

[1:12:40] So again we're excited about

[1:12:42] that opportunity.

[1:12:44] Three properties current lives

[1:12:49] own in one be requested zoning

[1:12:49] is in one day.

[1:12:56] There's 2 to 3 acres and we the

[1:13:04] proposal is for single family

[1:13:06] ten lots 50ft wide is a minimum

[1:13:11] and 6000ft I'll get to a

[1:13:11] preliminary site plan in a

[1:13:14] moment that preliminary layout

[1:13:16] actually there been a lot

[1:13:18] majority lot sort of 55 and

[1:13:24] closer to 60 700ft and as far

[1:13:27] as density it's at 3.4 units

[1:13:31] per acre which is less than

[1:13:35] than the neighborhood here.

[1:13:38] And here is again our really

[1:13:42] our clientele are four age

[1:13:44] targeted.

[1:13:46] That's the majority of who we

[1:13:47] we build to and sell to and

[1:13:50] that I expect no different

[1:13:50] here.

[1:13:53] It's one of the reasons that

[1:13:53] we're very intentional about

[1:13:56] having a certain lot size and

[1:13:58] yard area so that we could keep

[1:14:03] that to a minimum and so it's

[1:14:06] like say it really works well

[1:14:09] if you get approved here are

[1:14:11] just some other neighborhoods

[1:14:14] nearby this is the neighborhood

[1:14:17] subject neighborhood and again

[1:14:20] the lots on our site now which

[1:14:21] I'll show you in a moment is

[1:14:24] 55ft wide and there is 60

[1:14:24] 700ft.

[1:14:30] Mason next door there and there

[1:14:31] was in the report said that

[1:14:35] there's 63ft and they're

[1:14:38] actually the flats that are 58

[1:14:39] and 59.

[1:14:41] This little difference there

[1:14:44] and a little higher density

[1:14:49] also and hopefully a couple of

[1:14:50] you got emails from mason

[1:14:53] neighborhood expressing their

[1:14:56] desire to see this go forward

[1:14:58] we dealt with them before we

[1:15:02] even applied for rezoning and

[1:15:04] they were overwhelmingly in

[1:15:07] favor of what we were proposing

[1:15:07] to do.

[1:15:09] We got a couple other

[1:15:11] neighborhoods you've got these

[1:15:12] are 60 foot lots.

[1:15:14] They're all deeper but I can

[1:15:15] see why that would happen.

[1:15:17] Then you've got for some reason

[1:15:20] old man or white matter didn't

[1:15:21] make that the cut of of the

[1:15:24] what was analyzed but they're

[1:15:30] 50ft wide and 60 200ft deep as

[1:15:31] you can see over here this is

[1:15:32] one of the mary one of the

[1:15:37] neighborhoods that was used

[1:15:38] lots here and a few other

[1:15:40] places.

[1:15:43] One thing that stands out to me

[1:15:46] and we're we're all on board

[1:15:48] with the little plan with the

[1:15:53] 2004 area plan where we diverge

[1:15:56] from planning staff is the

[1:15:59] place type five which the

[1:16:02] statement is that it's

[1:16:02] inconsistent with the

[1:16:04] predominant lot pattern.

[1:16:07] I would suggest to you that

[1:16:09] between this one and this one

[1:16:10] and this one and all of those

[1:16:12] there is not a template or

[1:16:14] predominant lot pattern in this

[1:16:20] neighborhood.

[1:16:22] You have 2.5 minutes.

[1:16:27] >> okay.

[1:16:30] That's pretty much all I have

[1:16:32] to say.

[1:16:33] >> I have okay.

[1:16:35] thank you.

[1:16:36] I will go to MR. Driggs and

[1:16:38] then I have a mismatch here.

[1:16:41] >> so MR. Crater, you wrote to

[1:16:42] me a couple of times I was on

[1:16:44] vacation.

[1:16:45] I apologize for not scheduling

[1:16:47] a meeting and it looks like we

[1:16:49] ought to be able to work

[1:16:50] something out here.

[1:16:52] I would just say colleagues,

[1:16:53] what we're seeing actually is

[1:16:56] ironic because we started our

[1:16:58] 2040 process and we said

[1:16:59] density density density that's

[1:17:01] the answer to rising housing

[1:17:05] costs and now what's happening

[1:17:05] is that because of

[1:17:07] considerations like the

[1:17:09] discussions we had around 2.1

[1:17:11] where we appear to be kind of

[1:17:12] backing from there.

[1:17:15] So I think we haven't yet fully

[1:17:17] solved the question of how we

[1:17:18] achieve the density that is

[1:17:20] needed in order to keep housing

[1:17:23] costs down and compatibility

[1:17:26] with area sensitivity to the

[1:17:26] surroundings.

[1:17:29] This looks to me like a

[1:17:31] creative proposal so I hope it

[1:17:34] doesn't get stopped because of

[1:17:37] the wording in our plan.

[1:17:38] And what I'd like to do is in

[1:17:40] the next couple of weeks if you

[1:17:40] could give me some dates we'll

[1:17:43] get together, go over it and

[1:17:45] then perhaps I can discuss it

[1:17:46] also with the staff and we'll

[1:17:48] see where we go.

[1:17:48] The vote wouldn't be until

[1:17:51] AUGUST anyway.

[1:17:52] Your chance for me to show just

[1:17:54] a couple more slides I can get

[1:17:57] to do that.

[1:17:57] We've got to get thrown out of

[1:17:59] kilter there.

[1:18:02] Okay, well you I think I'll

[1:18:03] send it to some of you but the

[1:18:06] houses that david has already

[1:18:08] started with design he sort of

[1:18:09] goes ahead of it a little bit

[1:18:11] but they're incredible.

[1:18:11] >> okay.

[1:18:11] Absolutely.

[1:18:13] I didn't ask you a question

[1:18:14] just now so I'm sorry we can't

[1:18:17] discuss it at the moment.

[1:18:17] I'm just suggesting we will get

[1:18:18] together and talk to you.

[1:18:20] Okay.

[1:18:20] >> that's great.

[1:18:23] I want to close with lake

[1:18:23] henry.

[1:18:25] >> we have MISS Ash mira and

[1:18:26] then we have MISS Johnson.

[1:18:28] >> okay, so thank you.

[1:18:31] So couple of question, MR.

[1:18:31] Crater.

[1:18:35] First of all, simone, is it

[1:18:39] your company you work for the

[1:18:39] company?

[1:18:39] >> yeah.

[1:18:41] You have some of the best

[1:18:46] developments but I love the

[1:18:46] first few examples that you

[1:18:49] showed with the garden in the

[1:18:49] middle.

[1:18:51] >> it's beautiful.

[1:18:57] Well first so I'm again similar

[1:18:58] to the previous rezoning

[1:19:00] petition this is a gaining not

[1:19:00] compatible with surrounding

[1:19:04] residential so so you talked

[1:19:06] about there is no template or

[1:19:11] there is no rhythm in in in

[1:19:14] this neighborhood what do you

[1:19:17] mean by that?

[1:19:18] Well, what I was showing you is

[1:19:20] that there are a lot of

[1:19:23] different developments that the

[1:19:24] lots are not there.

[1:19:26] They're all over the place

[1:19:28] quite honestly in the one we

[1:19:31] are immediately above mason

[1:19:32] we're right there with them in

[1:19:34] terms of the lot size and

[1:19:35] pretty close into the mansion.

[1:19:39] We actually average about 57ft

[1:19:44] wide and so the when you look

[1:19:47] at other developments there

[1:19:48] again there's not a there's not

[1:19:50] a pattern that you could say

[1:19:53] okay, we're breaking the

[1:19:56] pattern because so so if you

[1:19:57] can hold on to that because

[1:20:01] staff if in your recommendation

[1:20:02] you mentioned that there is a

[1:20:06] noticeable mismatch in lot size

[1:20:12] and scale within this area I

[1:20:13] guess because of the lower

[1:20:19] density development as opposed

[1:20:19] to what they are proposing

[1:20:20] which is a hardened city is

[1:20:21] that what you're referring to?

[1:20:24] Not necessarily with density is

[1:20:25] just when we consider the

[1:20:28] proposal on a whole is slightly

[1:20:30] out of step with what we

[1:20:33] consider to be the law pattern

[1:20:33] in the area.

[1:20:34] They're not that far off.

[1:20:36] It's really not that far off.

[1:20:38] I think we have a way forward

[1:20:41] certainly but when you consider

[1:20:44] the holistic perspective of in

[1:20:47] one d or any in one district

[1:20:47] with your setbacks, your lot

[1:20:49] your and your lot with all of

[1:20:50] those dimensional standards

[1:20:52] combining to create a look and

[1:20:55] feel it's more than just one

[1:20:57] number and so that's what we

[1:20:58] were looking at when we are

[1:21:00] comparing the lot pattern in

[1:21:00] the area.

[1:21:03] >> but it it doesn't that far

[1:21:06] off they are most similar to

[1:21:09] the compact development that is

[1:21:10] to their east on mary butler

[1:21:12] way a little smaller than those

[1:21:14] lots and they would have

[1:21:17] smaller setbacks than those

[1:21:19] lots certainly under in one d

[1:21:21] but it would be closer to those

[1:21:24] lots than the other ones in the

[1:21:27] area which are larger.

[1:21:27] So it's good to hear that we

[1:21:30] are not too far apart here.

[1:21:30] Right?

[1:21:30] right.

[1:21:32] Oh, what stands out here

[1:21:38] because this this site is not

[1:21:40] located on a corner lot so if

[1:21:41] there is a mismatch it

[1:21:43] immediately stands out as I

[1:21:46] hope that you will continue to

[1:21:48] work with our staff to figure

[1:21:51] out how we can align in terms

[1:21:54] of it doesn't stand out from

[1:21:58] the neighboring properties

[1:22:01] because there needs to be some

[1:22:03] transition between neighboring

[1:22:03] properties in yours.

[1:22:06] Well that's all I have.

[1:22:07] >> thank you.

[1:22:09] Thank you, MS. Johnson.

[1:22:09] Thank you.

[1:22:12] Still seem pretty far apart to

[1:22:14] me but I'll tell you where I

[1:22:15] think these would fit

[1:22:18] wonderfully is in district four

[1:22:22] well to have the research park

[1:22:25] we've got tiaa vanguard banks,

[1:22:25] we've got the blue line.

[1:22:29] It's a great area so that's a

[1:22:29] $2 million apiece.

[1:22:32] They don't you know I mean

[1:22:33] we've have the talk so anyway

[1:22:35] yeah I think they're what I

[1:22:38] wanted to know is and I think

[1:22:40] steph answered the question

[1:22:42] it's interesting this is like

[1:22:43] the third or fourth petition

[1:22:45] tonight the staff does not

[1:22:46] recommending so I appreciate

[1:22:49] the diligence right in looking

[1:22:52] at the petitions but is there

[1:22:54] something specific that they

[1:22:57] would need to do do you think

[1:22:59] in order for staff to recommend

[1:23:00] we don't have a specific

[1:23:03] preschool option in mind in

[1:23:06] terms of a magic number but

[1:23:07] we're willing to work with them

[1:23:09] because we haven't we haven't

[1:23:12] looked at or been able to

[1:23:14] analyze a formal site plan so

[1:23:14] if they're working with

[1:23:18] specific site constraints as to

[1:23:20] that are dictating certain

[1:23:23] standards for them and making

[1:23:24] some of those smaller than what

[1:23:26] we would prefer, then we're not

[1:23:29] sure where to go from there.

[1:23:29] So if we could have more

[1:23:32] conversations on that and

[1:23:34] understand what needs more

[1:23:35] flexibility in terms of a

[1:23:37] smaller standard of standard

[1:23:38] and where they could create

[1:23:40] maybe a larger dimensional

[1:23:43] standard so we don't have a

[1:23:44] specific specific specific

[1:23:46] prescription in mind excuse me

[1:23:48] but we would just like the look

[1:23:49] and feel to be more in line

[1:23:51] with what we believe to be

[1:23:52] established in terms of the

[1:23:54] overall holistic neighborhood

[1:23:55] one dimensional standards when

[1:23:57] you look at with area setbacks

[1:23:57] etc..

[1:24:00] Thank you.

[1:24:01] >> thanks.

[1:24:01] Okay.

[1:24:03] Thank you.

[1:24:04] And certainly district one is

[1:24:04] open to some lovely homes as

[1:24:06] well.

[1:24:09] Is there a motion to close

[1:24:09] public hearings?

[1:24:10] So move second all in favor

[1:24:12] raise hands any opposed that

[1:24:13] see that in this.

[1:24:15] Thank you both.

[1:24:17] We will advance to item number

[1:24:22] 22 petition number 2026 025 by

[1:24:24] olympia and right homes it's

[1:24:27] approximately 3.8 acres located

[1:24:30] south of the almond road west

[1:24:33] of hampton place and east of

[1:24:35] mineral ridge way located and

[1:24:38] councilmember johnson's

[1:24:41] district the site is currently

[1:24:43] zoned institutional condition

[1:24:44] four and proposed zoning is

[1:24:47] neighborhood one e staff once

[1:24:49] again does not recommend

[1:24:52] approval of this petition in

[1:24:53] its current form and there are

[1:24:55] speakers at signed up to speak

[1:24:58] against this petition so the

[1:25:00] petitioner will have ten

[1:25:02] minutes after staffs

[1:25:03] presentation and then MR.

[1:25:05] Sharkey you will have ten

[1:25:07] minutes and there will be a two

[1:25:08] minute rebuttal available for

[1:25:08] you.

[1:25:10] MR. Brown thank you.

[1:25:11] >> thank you.

[1:25:13] This site is little under four

[1:25:15] acres along the south side of

[1:25:16] drummond road west of hampton

[1:25:19] place and east of mineral ridge

[1:25:22] way in an area where we have

[1:25:23] predominantly single family

[1:25:25] residential development here

[1:25:26] with the more mix of uses

[1:25:29] occurring east of the site

[1:25:31] along benfield road currently

[1:25:32] zoned institutional conditional

[1:25:34] an old plan for every sonic

[1:25:36] lodge requesting to go to the

[1:25:37] neighborhood one e zoning

[1:25:37] district.

[1:25:39] This is the conventional

[1:25:40] request so there's no site plan

[1:25:43] or associated conditional notes

[1:25:46] the request is considered in

[1:25:46] alignment with the

[1:25:47] neighborhood.

[1:25:49] One place type called for on

[1:25:50] the site five the 2040 calls

[1:25:53] map it is within the north,

[1:25:56] middle and outer community area

[1:25:57] plan again it's in alignment

[1:25:58] with that neighborhood one

[1:25:59] place type recommendation but

[1:26:00] it's not directly facilitating

[1:26:03] any priority goals for the area

[1:26:06] plan and it is the conventional

[1:26:09] request and as noted at the top

[1:26:09] staff does that recommend

[1:26:10] approval this petition in its

[1:26:14] current form?

[1:26:15] But we had a different side so

[1:26:17] I apologize.

[1:26:18] I was going to walk you through

[1:26:20] the place type five criteria

[1:26:22] here which is also at play

[1:26:23] similar to the other petitions

[1:26:25] that we've talked to and talked

[1:26:26] about in this meeting here.

[1:26:29] So please I five again we're

[1:26:30] considering that when looking

[1:26:31] at requests for a higher

[1:26:34] intensity neighborhood one

[1:26:34] zoning district this one in

[1:26:36] particular is the neighborhood

[1:26:37] one e zoning district though

[1:26:39] it's not currently a

[1:26:40] neighborhood one zoning

[1:26:41] district itself we would still

[1:26:43] wanted to consider it because

[1:26:43] it sits within a residential

[1:26:46] area with an established lot

[1:26:49] pattern and there is in one b

[1:26:51] zoning that it abuts and our

[1:26:52] six conditional zoning a lot of

[1:26:55] those lots are developed out to

[1:26:58] lot with ranging from maybe

[1:27:02] high 40s to 70ft in lot with an

[1:27:04] areas around 11,000 maybe a

[1:27:07] little bit less than the n1 e

[1:27:08] district.

[1:27:10] So in comparison would allow

[1:27:10] for a lot standards that are

[1:27:13] pretty different than what we

[1:27:16] have existing in that area.

[1:27:17] So in one e would have a

[1:27:18] minimum lot width of 30ft and a

[1:27:21] minimum floor area of 3000ft

[1:27:24] and you have a front setback of

[1:27:24] ten feet let me pretty

[1:27:26] different than what we see

[1:27:29] established along that corridor

[1:27:30] along the south side of diamond

[1:27:32] road there.

[1:27:33] So that's what's really driving

[1:27:35] staff's recommendation and why

[1:27:37] we believe it's inconsistent

[1:27:38] with the goals and policies of

[1:27:40] the north middle and our

[1:27:40] community area plan is when we

[1:27:43] take a look at the place type

[1:27:46] five criteria unlike the last

[1:27:47] petition where we were talking

[1:27:48] about I think it's it's close

[1:27:49] in some regards we're not that

[1:27:49] far off.

[1:27:52] I think the neighborhood one is

[1:27:52] zoning district.

[1:27:55] It's just is too far beyond

[1:27:58] what we find to be appropriate

[1:27:59] for the site considering the

[1:28:01] established lot pattern.

[1:28:04] We don't have any conditions as

[1:28:05] to what's occurring on the site

[1:28:07] or if they would like to

[1:28:08] condition out for different

[1:28:11] dimensions that are greater

[1:28:13] than the minimums allowed in

[1:28:14] one e we haven't seen seen or

[1:28:16] heard of those so far so that's

[1:28:19] where staff recommendation is

[1:28:19] stemming from.

[1:28:20] Happy to answer any questions

[1:28:22] following comments.

[1:28:24] >> okay.

[1:28:25] Thank you MR. Brown.

[1:28:28] Great your pro tem council

[1:28:30] members then you committee

[1:28:30] members colin brown on behalf

[1:28:31] of olympian right kind of

[1:28:34] continuing the theme of tonight

[1:28:36] where we got some

[1:28:37] inconsistencies or non support

[1:28:39] from staff I will go and say is

[1:28:40] holly mentioned and this is

[1:28:42] followed as a conventional

[1:28:45] petition I saw councilmember

[1:28:48] johnson shaking her head and

[1:28:48] I'll go ahead and let the cat

[1:28:49] out of the bag.

[1:28:50] We're going to convert this to

[1:28:51] a conditional petition so you

[1:28:54] MAY say well, this is a little

[1:28:54] premature to have the hearing

[1:28:56] tonight.

[1:28:57] But the reason we're proceeding

[1:28:57] with this I think you're going

[1:28:59] to hear from some folks in the

[1:28:59] community we've had a good

[1:29:01] amount of community engagement

[1:29:01] on the site.

[1:29:04] This is a site where everyone

[1:29:05] we've talked to says hey, you

[1:29:05] know what?

[1:29:07] we know something is going to

[1:29:07] happen here.

[1:29:08] The main feedback that we've

[1:29:10] gotten from the community is a

[1:29:13] request to condition this two

[1:29:15] single family homes only which

[1:29:16] the the petitioner is willing

[1:29:18] to do.

[1:29:19] The other challenge that the

[1:29:21] main challenge I think from

[1:29:22] some some of the neighbors

[1:29:23] we've heard from and that you

[1:29:24] MAY hear from tonight you know

[1:29:25] is often the stub street

[1:29:28] requirement that we run into

[1:29:30] and so we do have a stub street

[1:29:31] here to an existing

[1:29:31] neighborhood.

[1:29:33] We've got a tough site you can

[1:29:34] see it's a triangle so there's

[1:29:34] not a lot there's a lot of

[1:29:36] challenges for us already.

[1:29:37] So one of the real reasons I'm

[1:29:39] proceeding with the hearing

[1:29:40] tonight is to to let you have a

[1:29:40] little feedback from the

[1:29:42] neighborhood.

[1:29:43] This would be something and

[1:29:43] we're working with the

[1:29:45] neighborhood and expect to have

[1:29:46] some follow up meetings with

[1:29:48] this hoa here to talk about the

[1:29:48] options.

[1:29:48] Right.

[1:29:51] We know that the ordinance does

[1:29:51] encourage this.

[1:29:54] The uda likes this

[1:29:54] connectivity.

[1:29:56] It is very difficult for us to

[1:29:57] find a solution for that.

[1:30:00] So you know all that to say we

[1:30:02] we will convert this to a

[1:30:03] conditional rezoning we will

[1:30:05] commit to single family only

[1:30:08] and we will work with the

[1:30:08] community on this connection.

[1:30:11] Now we have to have again I did

[1:30:12] want you to hear from the

[1:30:14] community about their concerns

[1:30:15] on this parcel to see if

[1:30:17] there's some traction, if it's

[1:30:18] something the city's open to us

[1:30:20] finding an alternative.

[1:30:21] If not, then we will we can

[1:30:23] figure out a way to make this

[1:30:23] work.

[1:30:25] We did have some neighbors

[1:30:26] attend the meeting dyarman road

[1:30:28] as you know, prosperity church

[1:30:29] is right down the street there

[1:30:31] concerned with traffic impact.

[1:30:32] We had questions that you know

[1:30:33] could you guys install a median

[1:30:34] we'd be open to all of those

[1:30:37] things right so I think that's

[1:30:37] a conversation we're going to

[1:30:40] be willing to continue to have

[1:30:41] with the neighborhood.

[1:30:43] We did have a speaker sign up I

[1:30:43] think she signed up in office

[1:30:46] and support.

[1:30:46] >> I'm not sure she's actually

[1:30:49] supportive but I did want to

[1:30:49] give her an opportunity to

[1:30:49] speak.

[1:30:51] She I think represent is coming

[1:30:52] from this neighborhood here

[1:30:54] who've reached out and said

[1:30:55] look, we know something is

[1:30:58] going to happen on the site.

[1:30:58] You know our request or could

[1:30:59] you do single family homes?

[1:31:00] We don't want apartments.

[1:31:01] We don't want townhomes.

[1:31:03] You know, single family we

[1:31:03] could consider.

[1:31:04] But their main concern is this

[1:31:06] connection.

[1:31:09] And so I'm happy to devote some

[1:31:09] time to her.

[1:31:12] We probably would and brought

[1:31:13] this but with kind of the

[1:31:14] summer break we at least wanted

[1:31:15] to start this conversation let

[1:31:17] you all hear some feedback for

[1:31:18] the community about the

[1:31:20] connectivity issue and see if

[1:31:21] we can find a way forward that

[1:31:23] way if we can then we will

[1:31:25] amend we'll make the

[1:31:26] commitments to single family

[1:31:28] I'm not sure we'll we'll

[1:31:29] probably still be having a

[1:31:29] little bit of the conversation

[1:31:31] about well what is the right

[1:31:34] size of lots and hallways right

[1:31:36] you've got some giant lots here

[1:31:37] you've got some medium sized

[1:31:37] lots here.

[1:31:39] You've got some smaller lots

[1:31:40] here as you all know and you've

[1:31:43] heard from some in any team and

[1:31:44] they're doing $2 million houses

[1:31:45] on the small side you can get

[1:31:47] you know it is about the value

[1:31:50] of land and you know if we're

[1:31:51] committing not to do apartments

[1:31:53] and not to do townhomes we do

[1:31:53] need frankly as much

[1:31:55] flexibility as we can get on

[1:31:56] the lot sizes we're we're all

[1:31:59] talking we'll talk with our

[1:31:59] design team about whether we

[1:32:01] can come we're going to be in

[1:32:04] one place type but whether we

[1:32:05] can get to an end one c or d

[1:32:06] probably that's going to come

[1:32:09] down to what the fate of the

[1:32:09] street is.

[1:32:09] So if we have to bring the

[1:32:11] street through we might need

[1:32:12] more flexibility if there's a

[1:32:14] way for us to, you know, not

[1:32:16] make that connection that might

[1:32:17] give us a little more

[1:32:17] flexibility.

[1:32:20] So that's where we are.

[1:32:23] Mayor pro tem like I said,

[1:32:23] there was a speaker that signed

[1:32:24] up in favor.

[1:32:26] I'm not sure if she's in favor

[1:32:26] but I'll give her some of my

[1:32:27] time.

[1:32:28] >> so is this a talia nazario

[1:32:32] that you're speaking of that is

[1:32:34] that you see are you wanting to

[1:32:35] speak in favor of this

[1:32:35] petition?

[1:32:37] Because if you're not in favor

[1:32:42] you can't speak now against but

[1:32:43] she's welcome to so my time I

[1:32:43] think I know what she's going

[1:32:46] to say so we have you on the

[1:32:48] paper as being for the petition

[1:32:48] .

[1:32:48] Okay.

[1:32:52] I'm just learning about the

[1:32:53] n1eab okay.

[1:32:53] >> okay.

[1:32:56] As long as she has time to

[1:32:56] speak, we're happy.

[1:32:59] You want to see she's walking

[1:32:59] our time.

[1:33:00] All right, we're going to go.

[1:33:00] Sorry.

[1:33:00] Okay.

[1:33:02] Please come down, MR. Nazario

[1:33:04] and it's kind of when you get

[1:33:07] to the podium the balance of

[1:33:07] your time.

[1:33:11] MR. Brown is five minutes and

[1:33:12] 48 seconds to MR. Sharkey go.

[1:33:14] >> you know he spoke against

[1:33:18] this guy five and she's against

[1:33:20] you know she signed up for our

[1:33:23] and she's all here twice for oh

[1:33:26] well thank you.

[1:33:27] My name is selena zaria and I

[1:33:28] see was mentioning I live on

[1:33:31] ridgeline and my property is

[1:33:33] almost on that lot the

[1:33:36] neighbors around we gathered

[1:33:37] not everybody could attend a

[1:33:39] meeting that was held over zoom

[1:33:42] but we are all concerned about

[1:33:45] extending ridgeline towards the

[1:33:48] almond as cities there's a lot

[1:33:50] of traffic on that road we know

[1:33:53] we already knew there were

[1:33:55] plans to add sidewalks and

[1:33:56] there's a lot of tree cutting

[1:33:59] going on right now and then we

[1:34:01] are learning oh they're going

[1:34:02] to put like a something right

[1:34:04] in the middle of the road

[1:34:05] that's going to actually make

[1:34:07] traffic worse for the people

[1:34:10] that need to go in and out of

[1:34:11] the subdivisions.

[1:34:13] We also just learned that

[1:34:13] there's a petition for

[1:34:16] townhomes on a corner lot down

[1:34:18] department for townhomes.

[1:34:19] So we're really concerned about

[1:34:21] what all of this sudden

[1:34:24] development could mean.

[1:34:27] And he was saying we know that

[1:34:29] you know something was going to

[1:34:31] happen on that parcel of land

[1:34:32] when we the neighbors gather we

[1:34:35] weren't sure like how big are

[1:34:39] the lots we didn't know what

[1:34:40] n1e whatever that means.

[1:34:43] That's probably too small for

[1:34:43] the for the area for the

[1:34:45] neighborhoods.

[1:34:46] I know the thing that we're

[1:34:49] concerned is that our

[1:34:51] neighborhood fought really hard

[1:34:55] to restrict rental us and

[1:34:57] airbnbs and that sort of thing

[1:35:00] and there was a development 2

[1:35:02] or 3 years ago that that popped

[1:35:05] up near us that is just for

[1:35:05] rental homes.

[1:35:08] I think those things might

[1:35:08] change the character of the

[1:35:10] neighborhood that parcel of

[1:35:13] land like we're almost next to

[1:35:14] the highway and there are

[1:35:16] fireflies on that lot and they

[1:35:18] come out at this time of year

[1:35:21] it's that area in north

[1:35:22] charlotte it's like this little

[1:35:25] pocket of residential or single

[1:35:27] family homes and we do not want

[1:35:27] that to change.

[1:35:30] The neighbors across the street

[1:35:31] are really worried that they

[1:35:33] might be forced out especially

[1:35:36] if rich lane is extended just

[1:35:39] to fill that with apartments

[1:35:39] and townhomes and more homes.

[1:35:42] So we're really concerned about

[1:35:42] that.

[1:35:45] So we're not really you know,

[1:35:47] the neighbors around me we're

[1:35:48] not that opposed to having

[1:35:51] something build there but we

[1:35:53] don't want the street extended

[1:35:54] that's going to increase

[1:35:57] traffic and as cities already a

[1:36:00] lot of people if you see the

[1:36:02] map people use hampton place

[1:36:03] they forget their stop signs

[1:36:06] there and they just ran through

[1:36:08] to avoid the street on diamond

[1:36:11] ridge lane is opened traffic is

[1:36:11] going to get horribly worse

[1:36:14] across our neighborhood and

[1:36:14] there are children playing on

[1:36:15] the street.

[1:36:17] It's just a quiet little

[1:36:19] neighborhood and we don't want

[1:36:22] that road extended and we don't

[1:36:24] want too much you know,

[1:36:25] residential density more than

[1:36:27] it needs to be and we're not

[1:36:29] opposed per say to you know, to

[1:36:30] having something built there

[1:36:33] more like okay, thank you MR.

[1:36:36] Sharkey if you would like to

[1:36:39] come down and you you're the

[1:36:41] only one who signed up opposed

[1:36:43] to this petition so you will

[1:36:44] receive ten minutes I think to

[1:36:51] a roundabout well even though

[1:36:55] that is yeah I know that last

[1:36:57] we were used to the client

[1:37:02] didn't know what kind I was.

[1:37:02] Good evening counsel.

[1:37:05] I'm sure many of you on the

[1:37:06] council know who I am in my

[1:37:07] other role but today I come

[1:37:10] before you in my role as the

[1:37:11] PRESIDENT Of hampton place

[1:37:13] property owners association and

[1:37:16] I stand here before you today

[1:37:19] to be against this rezoning and

[1:37:22] as she has already shared with

[1:37:24] you, there are a lot of things

[1:37:25] going on associated with this

[1:37:28] that makes us concerned about

[1:37:31] what's going to happen to our

[1:37:33] subdivision as part of this she

[1:37:34] she alluded to a couple of the

[1:37:36] things.

[1:37:37] First and foremost we know that

[1:37:39] the dearman road improvement

[1:37:39] project is going on.

[1:37:42] it's going to put a center

[1:37:43] aisle in there as well as

[1:37:45] sidewalks.

[1:37:47] Dearman road turns into a

[1:37:50] parking lot every day and if we

[1:37:54] extend ridge line by adding

[1:37:56] this additional properties in

[1:37:59] that's going to make it even

[1:37:59] worse.

[1:38:00] So that's the first thing that

[1:38:00] I want to bring to your

[1:38:02] attention is we do not want to

[1:38:05] extend ridge line.

[1:38:07] Second thing is that you've

[1:38:08] already heard and it was good

[1:38:10] to hear some of the comments if

[1:38:13] we're going to do some

[1:38:14] development there.

[1:38:15] It needs to be single family

[1:38:15] homes.

[1:38:17] It needs to be the same as what

[1:38:19] is there now if you go just a

[1:38:22] couple of blocks up the street

[1:38:23] we've got townhouses going all

[1:38:25] up all over our neighborhoods.

[1:38:28] So we need to make sure that we

[1:38:31] keep the what made that

[1:38:34] particular area the place that

[1:38:34] people want to live the same

[1:38:37] for when these new houses get

[1:38:40] built if we move forward with

[1:38:40] this single housing I think

[1:38:42] that still is a doable plan

[1:38:45] right there that we can do some

[1:38:45] of the things you did hear

[1:38:48] about is still concerns for

[1:38:50] hampton place subdivision which

[1:38:53] is that we should be I think

[1:38:54] we've been approved for hampton

[1:38:57] place drive to get speed bumps

[1:38:57] in am I asked a city council

[1:38:59] can we get them like in the

[1:39:00] next couple of months because

[1:39:03] it's getting really bad.

[1:39:05] But the other thing that I will

[1:39:07] say is that if we if for

[1:39:08] whatever reason this does get

[1:39:11] approved by you guys we need

[1:39:13] speed bumps to throughout

[1:39:14] hampton place because it is a

[1:39:16] speed zone.

[1:39:17] It's like they just like you've

[1:39:20] heard in the previous

[1:39:23] respondent they've turned it

[1:39:23] into a cut through so that they

[1:39:26] could get to dearman road to

[1:39:28] get to 485 and without those

[1:39:30] speed bumps nobody's nobody is

[1:39:33] stopping at the stop sign.

[1:39:33] So we're having kids almost get

[1:39:36] hit daily in our neighborhood.

[1:39:39] So I petition to the city

[1:39:41] council this evening here to

[1:39:42] hear our appeal here to not

[1:39:47] approve this as it stands if it

[1:39:48] is going to get approved it has

[1:39:50] to be single family only just

[1:39:53] like what we have now with that

[1:39:53] I yield.

[1:39:55] >> okay.

[1:39:56] Thank you.

[1:40:00] Thank you, MR. Brown, you have

[1:40:03] two minutes to add some.

[1:40:05] Thank you.

[1:40:06] You know the comments were

[1:40:08] frankly what we expected.

[1:40:09] I don't know.

[1:40:09] I don't think we disagree with

[1:40:10] any of that.

[1:40:11] I think we're we're prepared to

[1:40:14] do to go with single family.

[1:40:15] We've got to figure out

[1:40:17] ridgeline I did want you to

[1:40:17] hear you say this MAY be a

[1:40:19] little premature but I did want

[1:40:20] you to hear from the community

[1:40:20] on that.

[1:40:22] We will work with the staffs to

[1:40:23] see if our options perhaps

[1:40:25] there could be a pedestrian

[1:40:26] connection to get folks through

[1:40:27] so they can take advantage of

[1:40:29] the sidewalks but not bring the

[1:40:31] traffic through.

[1:40:32] We'd also I think we'd be open

[1:40:34] to the commitments on you know

[1:40:36] like I said before sale housing

[1:40:37] we MAY also be able to

[1:40:40] participate in some funding of

[1:40:43] of the speed bump so we've got

[1:40:44] two months to work with the

[1:40:46] folks we've heard from tonight.

[1:40:46] We've got contact information

[1:40:49] on from them so we will be

[1:40:49] working on that have an

[1:40:51] answering questions.

[1:40:51] >> okay.

[1:40:52] Thank you.

[1:40:54] So I have MS. Watlington and

[1:40:55] then I have MS. Mayor, thank

[1:40:57] you.

[1:40:58] A couple of things you already

[1:41:00] spoke MR. Brown towards the

[1:41:01] speed mark slash road diet or

[1:41:03] pedestrian connection there.

[1:41:06] My question I think as it

[1:41:09] relates to that is highly this

[1:41:10] seems to be an amicable

[1:41:13] discussion here and there are

[1:41:13] some solutions that I that

[1:41:16] sounds like are coming forward

[1:41:16] so I'd like to know and you

[1:41:19] don't have to answer it tonight

[1:41:19] but I would like a report out

[1:41:21] on what in our policy needs to

[1:41:24] change such that this is the

[1:41:25] rule rather than the exception.

[1:41:27] I don't want folks to have to

[1:41:31] go through a conventional than

[1:41:31] conditional to have this kind

[1:41:33] of conversation if there is a

[1:41:34] way that we can bake it into

[1:41:37] our policies, I, I, I would

[1:41:39] prefer that.

[1:41:40] So again, I don't expect you to

[1:41:42] answer it tonight but if you

[1:41:43] all could come back to me with

[1:41:45] what places in our policy could

[1:41:47] we codify what's being

[1:41:50] described here that would be

[1:41:53] helpful I yeah I think we

[1:41:54] haven't had a lot of

[1:41:56] conversations with them about

[1:41:56] the possibility of conditional

[1:41:59] because we've expressed that we

[1:42:02] preferred to see the site go

[1:42:02] conditional from the start of

[1:42:04] this process and we just

[1:42:07] haven't heard back frankly.

[1:42:10] So I'm glad to hear that it

[1:42:11] will be changing the request

[1:42:13] and we look forward to working

[1:42:15] to improve that and see a

[1:42:16] better plan moving forward.

[1:42:18] But I don't know that we could

[1:42:19] have prevented tonight's

[1:42:21] situation because they were

[1:42:22] also just looking for more

[1:42:25] input on this forum frankly to

[1:42:27] understand where they can go

[1:42:27] from there and understanding

[1:42:30] that they do have a timeline

[1:42:33] situation where they could

[1:42:35] feasibly resubmit a conditional

[1:42:38] request by mid-JULY to come

[1:42:39] back before you in AUGUST with

[1:42:41] a conditional request for this

[1:42:44] allows them a chance to get

[1:42:44] twice the amount of feedback

[1:42:46] essentially.

[1:42:46] Sure.

[1:42:47] And I'm not talking about

[1:42:49] necessarily how to prevent what

[1:42:50] occurred here.

[1:42:50] What I'm saying is I think I

[1:42:52] like the way this is shaping

[1:42:52] up.

[1:42:55] If there is if there are points

[1:42:55] in our policy that can get us

[1:42:58] here as a matter of course

[1:43:00] rather than just being relying

[1:43:01] on the professionalism or the

[1:43:04] generosity if you will, of the

[1:43:05] petitioner or the petitioner's

[1:43:05] agent.

[1:43:07] That's what I want to

[1:43:07] understand.

[1:43:10] So I'm not sure who the right

[1:43:10] person necessarily to take that

[1:43:11] back is.

[1:43:11] Yeah.

[1:43:13] If you all could come back to

[1:43:14] me with maybe a white paper on

[1:43:16] that that right right.

[1:43:18] I think and I think there are

[1:43:19] portions I will just say I will

[1:43:21] follow up with that in a report

[1:43:21] out but I do think there are

[1:43:23] portions of our committee area

[1:43:24] plans and specifically what the

[1:43:26] police type five criteria

[1:43:29] speaks to is setting up for the

[1:43:29] conversation that we had here

[1:43:32] and for other petitions moving

[1:43:32] forward.

[1:43:32] So that is a big part of it.

[1:43:34] But we will outline more

[1:43:37] specifically how we can do that

[1:43:38] more moving forward.

[1:43:38] >> awesome.

[1:43:40] Thank you.

[1:43:40] And then my second question

[1:43:43] just I'm just from my own

[1:43:44] understanding as you all think

[1:43:46] about moving from multifamily

[1:43:46] to single family, I'm just

[1:43:48] curious from a price point

[1:43:49] standpoint how that how that

[1:43:52] shakes up.

[1:43:52] The reason I bring that up is

[1:43:53] because earlier in the

[1:43:55] conversation and here tonight

[1:43:56] we talked about density and

[1:43:58] affordability.

[1:44:00] >> and so I'm just curious what

[1:44:03] that looks like versus the

[1:44:06] houses that are already on the

[1:44:06] ground.

[1:44:09] >> you know, it's funny and the

[1:44:12] the per square foot price and I

[1:44:13] don't have the answer.

[1:44:14] I'm happy to give that to you

[1:44:15] and let the petitioner answer.

[1:44:18] But the per square foot price

[1:44:18] of these homes is to me

[1:44:20] substantially higher just

[1:44:21] because that's that's what new

[1:44:23] build is looking like this this

[1:44:24] petitioner is comfortable with

[1:44:26] going to the single family.

[1:44:27] You know most of the stuff we

[1:44:28] see is townhomes because that's

[1:44:29] all we can build.

[1:44:32] The people can afford this is a

[1:44:32] unique site here where he does

[1:44:34] think that he can offer single

[1:44:36] family homes.

[1:44:37] They MAY be slightly smaller

[1:44:40] than the lots we have out there

[1:44:44] but I want to throw out a

[1:44:44] number but I'll get back to you

[1:44:46] on that that that would be

[1:44:46] fine.

[1:44:46] Yeah.

[1:44:47] I just want to make sure that

[1:44:49] we're current and just thinking

[1:44:50] about as we're asking for

[1:44:52] different types of housing

[1:44:53] we've got a good sense of what

[1:44:55] that means relative to the

[1:44:56] surrounding area and we'd be

[1:44:58] happy to share that because

[1:44:59] there is as that lot gets

[1:45:00] larger that home price

[1:45:01] multiplies pretty quickly.

[1:45:02] >> so it's a great question.

[1:45:02] Awesome.

[1:45:04] Thank you.

[1:45:04] >> okay.

[1:45:07] I have MS. Mayo followed by

[1:45:07] MRS. Mira.

[1:45:10] >> thank you so glad to hear

[1:45:11] collin that your looking in the

[1:45:13] conditional rezoning I just

[1:45:15] wanted to address some of the

[1:45:16] community's concerns so

[1:45:18] thinking through ways that

[1:45:19] everyone's kind of heard my

[1:45:21] story about how we've been able

[1:45:22] to keep corporate landlords out

[1:45:23] of my neighborhood for the last

[1:45:24] 11 years by enforcing our

[1:45:26] bylaws in order to have owner

[1:45:28] occupied units.

[1:45:30] Are you all amenable to doing

[1:45:31] something similar with the ccr

[1:45:34] or some bylaws?

[1:45:34] I think so.

[1:45:35] The last olympiad right deal we

[1:45:37] did they were comfortable with

[1:45:37] that.

[1:45:37] That was in your district so

[1:45:41] okay so maybe like 20% only two

[1:45:41] or I don't know if I'm allowed

[1:45:44] to talk about something.

[1:45:44] >> it's okay.

[1:45:47] I'll I'll talk with you about

[1:45:47] anything.

[1:45:47] >> okay.

[1:45:47] Sorry.

[1:45:49] i'm what about a conservation

[1:45:52] easements?

[1:45:53] So thinking through like

[1:45:55] ridgeline where connex had a

[1:45:55] neighborhood can we go to the

[1:45:56] other side?

[1:45:58] >> that's a lot.

[1:45:59] This is not as great.

[1:46:00] Yeah.

[1:46:02] Yeah, that one.

[1:46:05] Could we do like a conservation

[1:46:06] easement potentially to help

[1:46:08] with some of those homeowners

[1:46:09] for just a little privacy so

[1:46:11] you all we're not going to be

[1:46:14] oftentimes I'll see developers

[1:46:15] clear cut and then they'll add

[1:46:17] trees back but you know it's

[1:46:18] going to take 20 or 30 years

[1:46:20] for those trees to be half of

[1:46:21] the size that the existing

[1:46:21] trees are.

[1:46:23] So I think that MAY be

[1:46:24] something that the neighbors

[1:46:26] made me appreciate keeping

[1:46:29] those existing mature trees

[1:46:30] there so they have some privacy

[1:46:33] and it's not just you know,

[1:46:35] they can see in the other

[1:46:37] person's yard or windows.

[1:46:40] So if you could take that back

[1:46:40] to the petitioner as well

[1:46:41] potentially putting an easement

[1:46:44] kind of along that one part of

[1:46:46] the triangle closer to

[1:46:47] ridgeline and maybe the other

[1:46:49] part but just for some privacy

[1:46:51] but you all can I can talk

[1:46:52] about that.

[1:46:53] >> I just wanted to throw that

[1:46:54] out there.

[1:46:55] Holly, have you ever thought

[1:46:55] about talking to the

[1:46:57] neighborhood at all and asking

[1:47:00] if they're at all interested in

[1:47:00] having like the planning

[1:47:03] department do their roadshow?

[1:47:03] >> oh, I can certainly follow

[1:47:06] up with them.

[1:47:08] We haven't had a lot of i

[1:47:08] haven't had direct

[1:47:09] conversations with these

[1:47:11] neighbors but we can follow up

[1:47:14] with you with information on

[1:47:15] the community area plans road

[1:47:18] show which as he noted is the

[1:47:21] planning tool and it allows

[1:47:21] communities to learn a little

[1:47:24] bit more about their community

[1:47:24] area plans and potentially how

[1:47:27] to use those area plans as an

[1:47:27] advocacy tool.

[1:47:29] So I will connect them with our

[1:47:32] long range planning team which

[1:47:32] sets those up.

[1:47:33] >> thank you holly.

[1:47:35] I think that would be really

[1:47:35] helpful just going forward.

[1:47:38] It seems like there's quite a

[1:47:40] bit of land in the area that

[1:47:41] you know MAY potentially be

[1:47:43] redeveloped in future years.

[1:47:44] So I always think it's

[1:47:46] important to have the

[1:47:47] opportunity to be the most

[1:47:48] effective advocate so

[1:47:49] definitely would take that

[1:47:51] opportunity up with staff.

[1:47:54] I think that has been helpful

[1:47:55] for a lot of different

[1:47:57] communities.

[1:48:00] And lastly seerat is here

[1:48:00] hopefully you see that if y'all

[1:48:03] can chat with them later about

[1:48:06] the traffic calming that that

[1:48:06] would be yours kind of domain.

[1:48:09] So if you all can get back with

[1:48:11] them about you know if those

[1:48:12] speed bumps have been or

[1:48:14] traffic calming has been

[1:48:15] approved what's the timeline

[1:48:17] for that?

[1:48:18] But we want to make sure we're

[1:48:20] being responsive to residents.

[1:48:21] >> thank you.

[1:48:23] Thank you.

[1:48:23] I have MS. As mira followed by

[1:48:24] MS..

[1:48:25] Johnson thank you.

[1:48:28] >> I agree with councilmember

[1:48:29] maile in terms of the speed

[1:48:31] bump requests, I think that's

[1:48:32] something city staff can

[1:48:34] address while working with the

[1:48:37] neighborhood and you heard from

[1:48:38] MR. Sharkey who is the

[1:48:40] PRESIDENT Of the tree so if you

[1:48:42] could please connect with him

[1:48:45] that would be great.

[1:48:48] Well, MR. Brown thank you and

[1:48:49] you always find a way to

[1:48:51] address communities concerns.

[1:48:55] I appreciate your and the

[1:48:56] petitioners willingness to

[1:48:58] address some of the concerns in

[1:49:00] terms of the large size and

[1:49:03] address concerns around single

[1:49:06] having lesser density so having

[1:49:07] single family homes so that it

[1:49:09] aligns with the existing

[1:49:12] neighborhood and surrounding

[1:49:15] homes because going from 11,000

[1:49:17] square foot lot to 3000 it's

[1:49:20] pretty significant and I think

[1:49:23] it's a noticeable difference.

[1:49:23] So I would like you to continue

[1:49:26] to work with them so that we

[1:49:29] can ensure that there is not a

[1:49:31] mismatch in this new

[1:49:33] development versus what

[1:49:41] currently exists there.

[1:49:44] So currently this rezoning

[1:49:48] request is for n1 e which is

[1:49:50] more intense.

[1:49:51] So if we were to go less

[1:49:54] intense road we'd go back to

[1:49:57] something lesser than n1 e

[1:49:59] right they could consider one

[1:50:01] or the other in one district as

[1:50:04] you can see in this map here

[1:50:08] what is zoned next to them is

[1:50:09] in one b and this is some old

[1:50:11] conditional single family

[1:50:14] zoning and the development in

[1:50:18] terms of the lot dimensions

[1:50:18] these lots often exceed the n1b

[1:50:20] dimensions they are developed

[1:50:21] out before the ada long before

[1:50:25] it but they could consider a

[1:50:26] less than ten zoning district

[1:50:27] which is what we discussed with

[1:50:28] them during the previous middle

[1:50:29] meeting before this was even

[1:50:32] filed in one e is certainly not

[1:50:34] something that we were wanting

[1:50:37] to consider on this site and if

[1:50:40] they have constraints that

[1:50:41] they're trying to work around

[1:50:43] and they do that in a

[1:50:44] conditional request but still

[1:50:46] commit to white dimensions or a

[1:50:49] product type that feels

[1:50:50] consistent with the

[1:50:50] neighborhood, then we can have

[1:50:52] that discussion.

[1:50:52] But I think and one is still

[1:50:55] too intense of a district.

[1:50:58] Yeah well I appreciate again

[1:50:58] staff's due diligence you're on

[1:51:00] a roll as a planning

[1:51:01] department.

[1:51:03] We appreciate it and I'm sure

[1:51:06] that it will be continued

[1:51:06] conversations.

[1:51:09] MR. Brown to come to a middle

[1:51:11] ground here and I appreciate

[1:51:14] the neighborhood for coming out

[1:51:14] to speak.

[1:51:17] It's only adds value and

[1:51:17] hopefully we can come to a

[1:51:20] better outcome.

[1:51:20] Thank you.

[1:51:23] Thank you, MS. Johnson and

[1:51:26] thank you, councilmember

[1:51:26] anderson.

[1:51:29] I wanted to ask MR. Sharkey the

[1:51:33] hoa PRESIDENT Just to come down

[1:51:36] for a moment please you don't

[1:51:39] mind while he's coming down

[1:51:41] I'll ask colin.

[1:51:45] Colin from MR. Brown thank you

[1:51:49] so so you have you met with the

[1:51:51] district four coalition on this

[1:51:52] ?

[1:51:52] We we have kind of given them

[1:51:55] an intro on the site.

[1:51:56] This is so close to this

[1:51:56] neighborhood.

[1:51:58] That's who we're concentrate

[1:51:58] on.

[1:51:59] the key to it is we've got to

[1:52:01] figure out what happens with

[1:52:02] ridge ridgeline.

[1:52:02] Okay.

[1:52:04] And then we'll know more and of

[1:52:05] course we'll present that to

[1:52:05] district four.

[1:52:07] But that's a real threshold

[1:52:07] question okay.

[1:52:10] >> so and MR. Sharkey, I wanted

[1:52:15] to ask you thank you for coming

[1:52:16] down.

[1:52:18] >> thank you also for your

[1:52:21] diligence to your community eye

[1:52:23] are you part of the district

[1:52:23] four coalition?

[1:52:24] Is your neighborhood a part of

[1:52:26] that coalition?

[1:52:26] >> I'll talk to you about it

[1:52:28] afterwards if you're not I'm a

[1:52:29] part of everything so that's

[1:52:31] why I'm here this evening.

[1:52:32] Okay, good.

[1:52:35] And I have your email so there

[1:52:37] are pending speed bumps for

[1:52:39] your neighborhood, right?

[1:52:40] >> correct.

[1:52:40] Yeah.

[1:52:42] Hampton place is on on the

[1:52:42] schedule but I don't know when

[1:52:45] it's going to be done so we

[1:52:48] need we need those now and we

[1:52:48] need more.

[1:52:48] >> right.

[1:52:51] So and I just forwarded an

[1:52:54] email to to councilmember to

[1:52:54] the at-large council members

[1:52:57] we're waiting on the chief the

[1:52:58] fire chief to give us a

[1:53:00] timeframe.

[1:53:01] So this is on the radar.

[1:53:03] They've already requested it.

[1:53:04] He's already worked on that.

[1:53:04] So we'll get that answer for

[1:53:06] you this week.

[1:53:06] >> we certainly appreciate it.

[1:53:08] This is this is we've been

[1:53:09] working on trying to get speed

[1:53:12] bumps for about 4 to 5 years

[1:53:14] and we finally made some

[1:53:15] progress over the last couple

[1:53:17] of years and I want to thank

[1:53:20] council woman renee for helping

[1:53:22] me in that part to get it moved

[1:53:23] up on a chain there but I can

[1:53:26] use all the help in the

[1:53:26] neighborhood because I'm

[1:53:27] telling you the people are

[1:53:28] going to we're going to have

[1:53:29] some people get hit by cars

[1:53:31] here real soon.

[1:53:31] >> okay.

[1:53:31] Thank you.

[1:53:32] Okay.

[1:53:32] Thank you.

[1:53:34] And then I have a question for

[1:53:37] cedar or jake about the

[1:53:39] ridgeline extension or similar.

[1:53:42] Thank you.

[1:53:48] Thank you, MR. Sharkey, jump in

[1:53:48] or that was a good evening.

[1:53:50] >> council travis miller will

[1:53:50] see that.

[1:53:50] >> hello.

[1:53:51] How are you?

[1:53:53] So the concern is ridgeline

[1:53:55] opening up.

[1:53:55] >> ridgeline?

[1:53:56] Yes.

[1:53:58] So rude.

[1:54:01] >> what does it take for a

[1:54:04] waiver for a neighborhood to be

[1:54:07] exempt from opening or from

[1:54:10] expanding or opening that

[1:54:10] stuff?

[1:54:12] >> it's a possibility under

[1:54:12] ordinance.

[1:54:15] The subdivision ordinance there

[1:54:16] are some specific requirements

[1:54:18] that they have we have not

[1:54:21] reviewed a site plan or

[1:54:21] anything like that.

[1:54:23] So I made note of it.

[1:54:24] Okay.

[1:54:24] We'll reach out to the

[1:54:26] subdivision to see if there's

[1:54:29] any possibility for some type

[1:54:32] of alleviation there.

[1:54:33] But we'd have to coordinate

[1:54:35] with them to do that.

[1:54:35] >> okay.

[1:54:35] Thank you.

[1:54:36] No problem.

[1:54:38] So MR. Brown, when when they

[1:54:38] told me about this petition

[1:54:41] earlier at the noon meeting and

[1:54:44] I heard it was conventional and

[1:54:44] staff didn't recommend it, I'm

[1:54:46] just like in this district for

[1:54:49] I mean so I'm glad that you all

[1:54:51] have reconsidered and it will

[1:54:52] be a conditional we do need

[1:54:55] more information especially

[1:54:55] this close to residential.

[1:54:58] It's not fair the current

[1:55:01] residents to to just to me in

[1:55:01] my opinion just to file for a

[1:55:04] petition and they have no idea

[1:55:06] what's going to be involved.

[1:55:09] So I think that the site plan

[1:55:11] will be helpful so that cedar

[1:55:14] can review it and also the the

[1:55:15] neighbors and s okay.

[1:55:17] Thank you.

[1:55:19] So I have moved to close

[1:55:19] second.

[1:55:20] >> all right.

[1:55:22] All in favor of closing public

[1:55:25] hearing raise hands any oppose

[1:55:25] that is unanimous.

[1:55:28] Thank you and we will move on

[1:55:31] to petition item number 23

[1:55:37] petition number 20 25 03130 by

[1:55:42] maruti hotel inc approximately

[1:55:45] 3.97 acres located on the west

[1:55:46] side of the business center

[1:55:49] drive south of tucker S.G. Road

[1:55:52] and east of colton lane and

[1:55:55] councilmember mayo's district.

[1:55:58] The site is currently zoned as

[1:56:01] manufacturing and logistics one

[1:56:04] and airport noise disclosure

[1:56:06] overlay and the proposed zoning

[1:56:06] is general commercial

[1:56:09] conditional airport port noise

[1:56:12] disclosure overlay staff

[1:56:15] recommends approval of this

[1:56:18] petition upon resolutions of

[1:56:20] outstanding issues.

[1:56:24] >> there are no speakers

[1:56:25] against this petition and so

[1:56:27] after staff's presentation is

[1:56:29] this MR..

[1:56:30] >> MR. Brown again you'll have

[1:56:31] three minutes.

[1:56:32] Thank you.

[1:56:33] >> evening.

[1:56:35] This site is right at four

[1:56:38] acres is located west of little

[1:56:40] rock road south of tucker S.G.

[1:56:43] Road and north interstate 85.

[1:56:46] It is wooded and surrounded by

[1:56:49] residential uses to the north

[1:56:50] and west with commercial uses

[1:56:52] to the south and east along

[1:56:54] little rock road.

[1:56:57] Current zoning is iml one and

[1:57:00] do airport noise disclosure

[1:57:02] overlay with the proposed

[1:57:05] zoning of C.G. Conditional

[1:57:07] eight and do you the 20 40

[1:57:08] policy map recommends the

[1:57:10] manufacture sharing and

[1:57:13] logistics please state the

[1:57:16] petition would allow for a

[1:57:18] hotel with 160 rooms.

[1:57:20] There is an extension of

[1:57:21] kanimbla drive proposed through

[1:57:23] the site.

[1:57:24] Petitioner does note an intent

[1:57:26] to abandon and a portion of the

[1:57:27] right of way and not construct

[1:57:29] the extension.

[1:57:30] There would be a 25 foot type b

[1:57:33] landscape yard along the

[1:57:35] northern property boundary open

[1:57:38] space areas along a beside the

[1:57:40] building and along the business

[1:57:40] center drive frontage

[1:57:43] petitioner is committing to

[1:57:44] certain preferred common open

[1:57:46] space standards be an eight

[1:57:48] foot planing strip and six foot

[1:57:49] sidewalk along business center

[1:57:53] drive position is consistent

[1:57:54] with the goals and policies of

[1:57:56] the west middle community area

[1:57:58] plan and MAY facilitate goal

[1:57:59] eight diverse and resilient

[1:58:02] economic opportunity by

[1:58:02] generating a range of jobs

[1:58:05] across different skill skill

[1:58:05] levels.

[1:58:08] This does not directly

[1:58:08] facilitate any comprehensive

[1:58:10] plan goals.

[1:58:14] Request to amend the policy map

[1:58:17] to commercial place type does

[1:58:17] meet minor map amendment

[1:58:20] criteria staff recommends

[1:58:23] approval this petition upon

[1:58:24] resolution of outstanding

[1:58:24] issues related to

[1:58:27] transportation vision and the

[1:58:27] environment.

[1:58:30] The site is adjacent to both cg

[1:58:32] zoning and the commercial place

[1:58:33] type and meets my amendment

[1:58:36] critical year for a change to

[1:58:36] commercial place type.

[1:58:39] The proposed hotel and zoning

[1:58:41] architecturally appropriate

[1:58:42] given the site's location in

[1:58:44] the little rock road commercial

[1:58:44] corridor near I-85 and

[1:58:48] charlotte douglas airport and

[1:58:50] also the proposed hotel is less

[1:58:53] intense and impactful to the

[1:58:54] adjacent residential uses than

[1:58:56] many uses permitted under the

[1:59:00] existing imo one zoning I'm

[1:59:01] taking questions following

[1:59:04] petitioners comments MR. Brown

[1:59:07] mayor pro tem council members

[1:59:07] and committee members colin

[1:59:08] brown on behalf of the

[1:59:09] petitioner joe gave a good

[1:59:10] overview.

[1:59:12] I do want to give quickly to a

[1:59:13] couple of things so site is

[1:59:15] currently zoned industrial and

[1:59:16] continuing this theme about

[1:59:18] unwanted connectivity.

[1:59:19] The ordinance would require us

[1:59:21] to extend kanimbla into the

[1:59:21] site.

[1:59:24] That is the last thing this

[1:59:24] neighborhood a very low density

[1:59:27] single family homes wants

[1:59:27] council room there has been i

[1:59:29] think up to speed on this

[1:59:30] petition for a while.

[1:59:32] I do want to recognize craig

[1:59:35] and cynthia devereaux who are

[1:59:35] here.

[1:59:36] They are the closest property

[1:59:38] owners they live right here.

[1:59:41] I met with them this morning.

[1:59:41] They're there and the main

[1:59:44] concern of the neighborhood is

[1:59:45] they do not want a road coming

[1:59:47] through the site.

[1:59:48] How are we proposing to do

[1:59:48] that?

[1:59:50] We are actually going to

[1:59:52] petition to abandon the portion

[1:59:53] of right away that is unopened.

[1:59:55] So we have filed an abandonment

[1:59:56] petition.

[1:59:56] The neighbors have signed on to

[1:59:58] that.

[1:59:59] If we abandoned this then that

[2:00:01] would not require connectivity.

[2:00:04] So I did not ask everyone to

[2:00:04] come out tonight and hollering

[2:00:07] about that but I think the

[2:00:07] neighborhood will will email

[2:00:10] you about the importance of

[2:00:10] that.

[2:00:10] The other item that is

[2:00:13] important for the devil rose

[2:00:13] and I'll point this out we

[2:00:16] provided tree safe next to

[2:00:16] their site because that's often

[2:00:19] what the neighbors would like

[2:00:19] to see in this case.

[2:00:21] >> and I met with the devil as

[2:00:22] this morning on their site

[2:00:24] there are trees out there in

[2:00:25] very poor condition and that

[2:00:27] have fallen on their home and

[2:00:27] continue to fall on their home.

[2:00:30] So they have asked we're going

[2:00:31] to have our engineer come out

[2:00:33] and meet them and we would like

[2:00:36] to remove some of those trees

[2:00:38] that are a problem and replace

[2:00:41] them with an appropriate buffer

[2:00:41] .

[2:00:42] So I think you'll hear from

[2:00:44] them on that.

[2:00:45] We need to make sure we can

[2:00:45] still meet the audit's

[2:00:47] requirements.

[2:00:47] Right.

[2:00:48] We've got to have tree saved

[2:00:48] there.

[2:00:49] So that's what we will continue

[2:00:50] to work on before we submit a

[2:00:55] revised plan.

[2:00:55] Okay.

[2:00:57] I have my sash mirror thank you

[2:00:58] .

[2:00:58] >> well, MR. Brown,

[2:01:01] congratulations.

[2:01:01] >> you have staff support on

[2:01:03] this.

[2:01:06] >> that's a to close the

[2:01:06] hearing no other okay.

[2:01:11] So I'll hang on.

[2:01:12] I have MS..

[2:01:12] Johnson.

[2:01:15] He's done it well and this is a

[2:01:17] question for staff and maybe we

[2:01:18] can talk offline.

[2:01:18] I'd like to know more about

[2:01:20] this abandoned road option that

[2:01:26] avoids the connectivity.

[2:01:29] Well, there's the abandonment

[2:01:31] and then there's also the the

[2:01:34] ordinance requirement to extend

[2:01:35] the public street.

[2:01:35] There's a subdivision

[2:01:37] requirement.

[2:01:41] There is a process separate

[2:01:41] from abandonment and there's a

[2:01:43] process to not constructed

[2:01:46] based on topographical

[2:01:46] challenges.

[2:01:49] But I think the abandonment

[2:01:50] will be there will be a

[2:01:52] different process by which they

[2:01:55] could petition to to remove

[2:01:58] that portion of the the public

[2:02:01] street that is currently

[2:02:01] touching the property.

[2:02:07] It okay can you explain the

[2:02:10] abandonment?

[2:02:10] It's different in this

[2:02:12] situation this situation this

[2:02:15] area in the green and yellow is

[2:02:18] dedicated already and it's it's

[2:02:19] on our site so there's an area

[2:02:21] for us to abandoned in the

[2:02:21] previous one.

[2:02:24] There's not an area for us to

[2:02:24] abandon so I'm not sure that

[2:02:27] we're going to continue talking

[2:02:27] to see if that's an option.

[2:02:30] >> okay.

[2:02:32] >> in in four terms I've never

[2:02:32] heard that term.

[2:02:34] I'd like to hear more about it

[2:02:37] and how that option applies to

[2:02:38] residents so we can talk

[2:02:40] offline.

[2:02:40] >> okay.

[2:02:43] Yeah, I think this might be

[2:02:44] unique situation but we're

[2:02:46] happy to follow up with you on

[2:02:46] that.

[2:02:46] >> okay.

[2:02:46] All right.

[2:02:49] Thank you.

[2:02:49] Okay.

[2:02:50] Is there a motion to close

[2:02:50] public hearing?

[2:02:52] I moved to make it all in favor

[2:02:55] raise hands any oppose that is

[2:02:57] unanimous.

[2:02:58] Thank you, MR. Brown.

[2:03:01] We will move on to petition

[2:03:04] item number 24 petition number

[2:03:10] 2026 015 by katie trading llc.

[2:03:11] So proximately 5.71 acres

[2:03:15] locate at south of reagan drive

[2:03:18] west of wilson lane and east of

[2:03:21] transporting ocean boulevard

[2:03:22] and my district district one

[2:03:25] the site is currently zoned

[2:03:28] light industrial conditional

[2:03:29] and the proposed zoning is

[2:03:31] manufacturing and logistics one

[2:03:34] conditional staff recommends

[2:03:37] approval of this petition and

[2:03:38] there are no speakers signed up

[2:03:40] to speak against it.

[2:03:43] So MS. Thompson lisa thompson

[2:03:43] you will have three minutes

[2:03:46] after staff's presentation.

[2:03:47] >> thank you.

[2:03:47] Thank you.

[2:03:49] This site is a little under six

[2:03:52] acres located along reagan

[2:03:55] drive west of wilson lane and

[2:03:55] east of transportation

[2:03:57] boulevard.

[2:03:58] >> this is in an area where we

[2:04:00] have a lot of industrial uses

[2:04:03] as well as commercial uses and

[2:04:06] some single family residential

[2:04:06] uses east of the site along

[2:04:09] wilson lane it is currently

[2:04:11] zoned light industrial

[2:04:12] conditional they are proposing

[2:04:15] to go to manufacturing and

[2:04:17] logistics one conditional that

[2:04:18] is considered in alignment with

[2:04:20] the manufacturing logistics

[2:04:21] place type that's on on the

[2:04:24] site of as per the 2014 policy

[2:04:26] memo excuse me the proposal

[2:04:29] itself there is new site plan

[2:04:29] but they do provide conditional

[2:04:29] notes.

[2:04:32] Part of this proposal and they

[2:04:35] note prohibited uses which

[2:04:38] include a noxious uses that we

[2:04:38] wouldn't want to see on the

[2:04:40] site especially given

[2:04:40] residential adjacency.

[2:04:44] Also just wanted to point out

[2:04:44] the prohibited use of

[2:04:46] telecommunication and data

[2:04:46] storage facility.

[2:04:49] They call out a six foot class

[2:04:51] a landscape yard along the

[2:04:52] southern portion of the site.

[2:04:55] They would also leave prohibit

[2:04:55] development along the eastern

[2:04:57] portion of the site and

[2:05:00] dedicate a permanent greenway

[2:05:01] easement to mecklenburg county

[2:05:04] park and rec along the east

[2:05:04] side of the site.

[2:05:06] So essentially the entire

[2:05:07] eastern portion of the site

[2:05:09] would remain on developed and

[2:05:11] they would also prohibit access

[2:05:12] from wilson lane which is that

[2:05:15] residential street.

[2:05:16] So access could only come off

[2:05:21] of reagan drive the petition is

[2:05:21] considered consistent with the

[2:05:24] goals and policies of the north

[2:05:24] intermediate area plan.

[2:05:26] It MAY further goal seven

[2:05:29] because it limits development

[2:05:32] adjacent to the residential

[2:05:33] areas and provides an easement

[2:05:35] to mecklenburg county park and

[2:05:35] rec for future greenway

[2:05:41] development staff recommends

[2:05:41] approval of this petition.

[2:05:43] We think although is proposing

[2:05:46] manufacturing logistics uses

[2:05:46] currently zoned for light

[2:05:49] industrial uses from an old

[2:05:52] plan and it provides adequate

[2:05:53] sensitivity for residential

[2:05:56] uses that's adjacent to the

[2:05:56] site along the eastern side and

[2:05:58] to the side.

[2:05:59] Given the class eight landscape

[2:06:01] yard and commitment for a

[2:06:03] greenway easement and also the

[2:06:06] fact that it prohibits access

[2:06:06] from wilson lane, the

[2:06:07] residential street east of the

[2:06:09] site.

[2:06:09] So with that I'll take

[2:06:12] questions following petitioner

[2:06:12] comments.

[2:06:13] >> okay MR. Johnson you have

[2:06:14] three minutes.

[2:06:14] Thank you.

[2:06:16] Mayor pro tem members of

[2:06:17] council on zoning committee my

[2:06:19] name's lisa thompson land use

[2:06:20] consultant with more in been

[2:06:22] alan happy to be here tonight

[2:06:22] on behalf of katie trading

[2:06:25] staff describe this as a clean

[2:06:27] up from an old 1980s

[2:06:29] conditional rezoning plan.

[2:06:30] By updating the plan we are

[2:06:33] able to be more aligned with

[2:06:35] the current udr and eliminate a

[2:06:37] outdated site plan.

[2:06:38] So we are pleased to have staff

[2:06:40] report no outstanding issues

[2:06:43] and I'd be happy to answer any

[2:06:44] questions.

[2:06:48] >> okay I have a question in

[2:06:49] the back of in the back of this

[2:06:52] packet there are some permitted

[2:06:54] and prohibited uses that we've

[2:06:57] we've outlined.

[2:07:00] Yes or to be do we what is the

[2:07:02] intention of this site?

[2:07:06] >> it'll be for sale but for

[2:07:08] all and the one uses besides

[2:07:08] the ones that we are

[2:07:11] prohibiting through the tier

[2:07:11] one conditional rezoning.

[2:07:16] Okay okay this particular area

[2:07:19] is an area that has been

[2:07:20] struggling for years around

[2:07:23] certain activity so I thank you

[2:07:25] for having these prohibit it

[2:07:28] uses there to preclude anything

[2:07:29] negative for coming into the

[2:07:30] community.

[2:07:31] Any other questions?

[2:07:34] The closing or second all

[2:07:34] right.

[2:07:36] >> all in favor of closing

[2:07:37] public hearing raise hands any

[2:07:39] opposed that's unanimous.

[2:07:42] Thank you, MISS MR. Thompson.

[2:07:47] We will advance to item number

[2:07:51] 25 petition number 2026 018 by

[2:07:53] S.R. Mosley properties llc

[2:07:57] approx whitley 3.8 acres

[2:08:00] located north of fred alexander

[2:08:03] boulevard east of oak street

[2:08:08] and south of 10th street and

[2:08:09] MR. Graham's district.

[2:08:12] The site is currently zoned as

[2:08:14] general industrial conditional

[2:08:15] on the proposed zoning is

[2:08:17] manufacturing and logistics one

[2:08:20] conditional staff recommends

[2:08:23] approval of this petition and

[2:08:24] we also have no opposition

[2:08:24] here.

[2:08:26] So after staffs presentation

[2:08:28] MS. Thompson you're back up for

[2:08:28] three minutes.

[2:08:29] >> thank you.

[2:08:29] all right.

[2:08:32] Petition 2026 018 is a 3.8 acre

[2:08:35] site located north of fred

[2:08:35] alexander boulevard just west

[2:08:37] of brookshire boulevard.

[2:08:39] Plan proposes the development

[2:08:41] of up to 135,000ft of

[2:08:41] self-storage sites currently

[2:08:44] zoned I two cd general

[2:08:47] industrial conditional present

[2:08:49] mill one cd manufacturing and

[2:08:51] one just x one conditional

[2:08:54] sorry sorry the presentation

[2:08:56] was just having a take a moment

[2:08:59] to catch up the rezoning

[2:09:02] proposal the plan is in

[2:09:03] alignment with the 2040 policy

[2:09:06] map for the manufacturing and

[2:09:07] logistics place type.

[2:09:10] The rezoning proposal calls for

[2:09:10] a self storage facility with

[2:09:12] outdoor accessory, outdoor

[2:09:15] storage all other use is

[2:09:15] permitted by right or with

[2:09:18] prescribed conditions no one

[2:09:19] zoning district are permitted.

[2:09:21] However, the plan prohibits

[2:09:21] certain uses such as car

[2:09:23] washes, drive thrus,

[2:09:26] restaurants, bars, vehicle

[2:09:27] sales, gas stations, data

[2:09:30] centers, parking lots and other

[2:09:30] more noxious uses and

[2:09:33] undisturbed undisturbed class a

[2:09:36] landscape yard with an eight

[2:09:37] foot fence will be installed

[2:09:39] along the boundary with the

[2:09:41] adjacent neighborhood one

[2:09:42] zoning the plan is in alignment

[2:09:44] with the policy map and is

[2:09:44] consistent with the goals and

[2:09:45] policies of the west middle

[2:09:47] community area plan staff

[2:09:47] recommends approval of this

[2:09:50] petition as again as consistent

[2:09:52] with the plan and the policy

[2:09:53] map and it also reduces the

[2:09:56] intensity of the previous

[2:09:57] entitlements under the I to

[2:09:59] district while maintaining the

[2:10:01] buffer and screening standards.

[2:10:02] I'm happy to take any questions

[2:10:03] following the petitioners

[2:10:05] presentation.

[2:10:05] All right.

[2:10:05] Thank you.

[2:10:07] Thanks again.

[2:10:08] Lisa thompson, land use

[2:10:10] consultant with more than been

[2:10:11] out more than we now and happy

[2:10:12] to be here tonight on behalf of

[2:10:14] the sara moseley team our staff

[2:10:16] describe this is actually a

[2:10:16] down zoning it brings the site

[2:10:19] into alignment with the current

[2:10:19] ordinance and maintains

[2:10:23] consistency with the adopted

[2:10:23] land use plan.

[2:10:26] Again, happy to have staff

[2:10:28] support and no outstanding

[2:10:31] issues and I'd be happy to

[2:10:31] answer any questions any

[2:10:34] comment during none is there

[2:10:37] emotional close public hearing

[2:10:39] so moved seconded all in favor

[2:10:42] raise hands any oppose that is

[2:10:42] unanimous.

[2:10:43] Thank you MS. Thompson.

[2:10:45] We will advance to item number

[2:10:50] 26 petition number 2026 zero 19

[2:10:53] by acr road development

[2:10:53] services.

[2:10:57] >> it's approximately 22.89

[2:10:58] acres located north of morehead

[2:11:01] road west of stone lane and

[2:11:05] east of old holland road in the

[2:11:08] 80 closest to MS. Johnson's

[2:11:08] district.

[2:11:11] The site is currently zoned as

[2:11:14] neighborhood one, a and

[2:11:17] proposed zoning is

[2:11:17] manufacturing and logistics to

[2:11:20] conditional staff recommends

[2:11:23] approval of this petition upon

[2:11:24] a resolution of outstanding

[2:11:26] issues.

[2:11:28] No no speakers are sign up to

[2:11:29] speak in opposition so after

[2:11:31] staff's presentation MR. Floyd

[2:11:32] you will have three minutes.

[2:11:34] thank you.

[2:11:34] >> thank you.

[2:11:37] This site is just under 23

[2:11:39] acres located along morehead

[2:11:40] road east of old holland road

[2:11:42] and west of stolen.

[2:11:43] This is along the conveyors

[2:11:48] county line and an area where

[2:11:51] we have some residential but in

[2:11:52] existing industrial facilities

[2:11:54] that this would be an expansion

[2:11:56] of currently in a neighborhood

[2:11:58] one a and it is asking to go to

[2:12:00] be manufacturing logistics to

[2:12:03] conditionals and in district

[2:12:03] history this would be

[2:12:06] considered out of alignment

[2:12:07] with the policy map which does

[2:12:09] call for the neighborhood.

[2:12:11] One place type at this site.

[2:12:12] >> the proposal itself calls

[2:12:14] for industrial uses which MAY

[2:12:14] include manufacturing

[2:12:18] fabrication and shop research

[2:12:18] and development among other

[2:12:21] uses that are permitted and

[2:12:23] mailed to district.

[2:12:23] >> all of those uses would be

[2:12:26] fully enclosed though and it

[2:12:26] also lists a number of

[2:12:28] prohibited uses so it really

[2:12:32] tries to limit the number of

[2:12:33] amount to uses on the site

[2:12:34] trying to be sensitive to the

[2:12:37] fact that it is in an area that

[2:12:38] has some neighborhood one

[2:12:41] zoning even if there aren't

[2:12:41] other existing neighborhood one

[2:12:43] uses in the area in terms of

[2:12:46] our landscaping improvements

[2:12:47] provides a 100 foot class

[2:12:49] landscape yard as well as 25

[2:12:53] foot class b landscaping yards

[2:12:55] that's along old holland road

[2:12:58] and the morehead road frontages

[2:12:58] in terms of streetscape access

[2:13:01] to the site would be the old

[2:13:03] holland road and team hendrick

[2:13:06] way and provides a for planting

[2:13:06] strip and 12 foot wide shared

[2:13:10] use path along moorehead road

[2:13:11] and 12 for shared use path also

[2:13:14] along old holland road it is

[2:13:17] considered and consistent with

[2:13:17] the north middle and outer

[2:13:19] community area plan.

[2:13:20] It's not quite in alignment

[2:13:20] with that neighborhood.

[2:13:22] One place type as I noted but

[2:13:25] it MAY facilitate that priority

[2:13:28] goal eight by providing jobs

[2:13:29] for the area as part of the

[2:13:32] expansion of the motor sports

[2:13:32] industry in the hendricks

[2:13:37] facility, staff recommends

[2:13:37] approval this petition upon

[2:13:40] resolution of our outstanding

[2:13:43] issues in a more rural area of

[2:13:45] charlotte c t j and it is an

[2:13:48] expansion of an existing use

[2:13:48] that we have on this site

[2:13:51] though in the adjacent county

[2:13:54] although it's in adjacent to

[2:13:56] neighborhood y in place type it

[2:13:57] is providing adequate

[2:13:59] sensitivity not only by the

[2:14:02] limitation of uses on the site

[2:14:02] but by noting that all uses

[2:14:04] that would occur would be fully

[2:14:05] enclosed.

[2:14:05] They also have those large

[2:14:07] landscape yards is typically

[2:14:10] stipulated by the ordinance so

[2:14:11] we have a couple of outstanding

[2:14:13] issues the clean up including

[2:14:16] potentially enhancing those

[2:14:16] class b landscape yards which

[2:14:18] are of a 25 foot wide ones.

[2:14:21] But we think that we can find

[2:14:21] resolution of those having to

[2:14:23] take any questions following

[2:14:24] your comments.

[2:14:24] >> okay.

[2:14:27] MR. Floyd thank you, john

[2:14:30] forward again here on behalf of

[2:14:30] accuro development services and

[2:14:32] joined by greg hartley with

[2:14:33] acro I was here in case we have

[2:14:35] any questions.

[2:14:35] Don't have a lot to add for ms.

[2:14:38] cramer's presentation.

[2:14:38] We certainly appreciate having

[2:14:39] staff support on this one.

[2:14:45] Just really quick again this is

[2:14:46] a tier one conditional rezoning

[2:14:48] that really is seeking to

[2:14:48] expand the hendrick motorsports

[2:14:51] campus most of which is in

[2:14:51] county.

[2:14:54] This property is right on the

[2:14:54] county line.

[2:14:57] You going to go to immelt to to

[2:14:59] allow flexibility with future

[2:15:02] motorsports r&d and development

[2:15:05] but what we've done there is

[2:15:05] included conditions to really

[2:15:08] kind of dial that back.

[2:15:08] I mean hendrick wants

[2:15:09] flexibility to be able to do

[2:15:10] what they need to do but then

[2:15:11] include a bunch of conditions

[2:15:13] to eliminate the possibility of

[2:15:16] a need to call it industrial

[2:15:17] type impacts on neighboring

[2:15:17] property.

[2:15:19] So things like we have a

[2:15:22] condition that all the primary

[2:15:24] uses onsite have to be indoor

[2:15:25] so everything has to be

[2:15:25] enclosed.

[2:15:27] We've eliminated a whole bunch

[2:15:28] of uses that are things that

[2:15:29] hendrick just really doesn't

[2:15:30] have any need to do.

[2:15:33] This property is technically in

[2:15:34] the t j it's not in the city of

[2:15:34] charlotte.

[2:15:36] We've included a condition that

[2:15:36] says we'll comply with all the

[2:15:37] requirements.

[2:15:38] The city of charlotte's noise

[2:15:42] ordinance and then as as MS.

[2:15:42] Cramer mentioned there's

[2:15:43] enhanced buffers and things

[2:15:45] along that one edge and we'll

[2:15:47] continue to have discussions

[2:15:48] about the 25 foot class b

[2:15:53] buffer although it wasn't

[2:15:53] included in the initial

[2:15:54] application.

[2:15:56] >> the petitioner has agreed to

[2:15:58] include a data center as one of

[2:16:00] the excluded uses on this site

[2:16:01] so that's not something bi has

[2:16:04] to worry about and with that

[2:16:04] happy to answer any questions

[2:16:06] that you all have.

[2:16:06] Okay.

[2:16:09] MS. Johnson I just wanted to

[2:16:11] thank the petitioner for for

[2:16:11] adding those additional and for

[2:16:14] the attention and

[2:16:14] responsibility to the community

[2:16:17] moved to close second all in

[2:16:19] favor of closing public hearing

[2:16:22] raise hands any oppose that is

[2:16:22] unanimous.

[2:16:24] Thank you MR. Floyd.

[2:16:26] We will move on to item number

[2:16:32] 27 petition number 2026 020 by

[2:16:32] two will occur pappas it's

[2:16:35] approximate lee 10.9 acres

[2:16:38] located on the east side of

[2:16:40] carmel collins boulevard

[2:16:41] commons boulevard pardon me

[2:16:45] south of pine ville matthews

[2:16:47] road and north of bennington

[2:16:50] road and MR. Dirks district the

[2:16:51] site is currently zoned mixed

[2:16:53] use development district

[2:16:57] optional and the proposed

[2:16:59] zoning is mixed use development

[2:17:02] district optional site plan

[2:17:03] amendment staff recommends

[2:17:06] approval of this petition and

[2:17:06] we have no opposition.

[2:17:09] So MR. Brown you will have

[2:17:10] three minutes after staff's

[2:17:10] presentation.

[2:17:12] Thank you.

[2:17:13] The site is 10.9 acres located

[2:17:16] on the east side of carmel

[2:17:17] commons boulevard south of

[2:17:19] pineapple matthews road and

[2:17:22] north of bennington road.

[2:17:23] This is in the carmel

[2:17:25] activities center community

[2:17:28] activity center site is

[2:17:28] currently developed with an

[2:17:31] office building and associated

[2:17:33] parking and surrounded by a mix

[2:17:36] of uses commercial office as

[2:17:39] well as multifamily residential

[2:17:42] current zoning which was

[2:17:45] established by a 2022 petition

[2:17:48] is mud optional this is a site

[2:17:48] plan amendment with the

[2:17:53] proposed zoning of mud osp the

[2:17:53] 2040 policy map recommends the

[2:17:56] community activity center place

[2:17:59] type and the proposal would

[2:18:03] allow for 360 residential units

[2:18:06] across both development areas

[2:18:07] on either side of the public

[2:18:10] street you see on your screen

[2:18:12] would preserve an option to

[2:18:13] maintain the existing office

[2:18:17] building would remove

[2:18:18] entitlements for 10,000ft of

[2:18:21] medical office and 40 700ft of

[2:18:21] coffee shop with drive thru

[2:18:24] uses of from this area but

[2:18:27] would allow for some

[2:18:27] development flexibility to

[2:18:30] spread out those 360

[2:18:35] residential units existing or

[2:18:35] completed transportation

[2:18:37] commitments have been removed

[2:18:40] from the conditional notes

[2:18:42] would require a minimum of 80

[2:18:44] 500ft of open space across

[2:18:47] both development areas with a

[2:18:48] minimum of 30 500ft of open

[2:18:50] space in each development area

[2:18:51] .

[2:18:54] >> the petition is consistent

[2:18:55] with the south middle community

[2:18:59] area plan and in alignment with

[2:19:00] the 2040 policy map though it

[2:19:02] does not directly facilitate

[2:19:03] any priority or comprehensive

[2:19:05] plan goals staff recommends

[2:19:08] approval this petition it would

[2:19:11] maintain entitlements of the

[2:19:11] previously approved plan while

[2:19:13] allowing for residential uses

[2:19:14] to be spread across two

[2:19:16] development areas.

[2:19:17] I'll turn it over to the

[2:19:17] petitioner team.

[2:19:20] thank you MR. Brown.

[2:19:21] >> you MAY have heard him

[2:19:23] council members and committee

[2:19:23] members colin brown on behalf

[2:19:25] of wilbur pappas creative

[2:19:25] review from joe this is a

[2:19:28] continued redevelopment of an

[2:19:31] early eighty's office park that

[2:19:33] just kind of fell out and so

[2:19:34] very successful mixed use

[2:19:36] redevelopment as joe mentioned

[2:19:37] this is really just a tweak to

[2:19:39] provide a little more

[2:19:40] flexibility, almost a down

[2:19:43] zoning I will say on our

[2:19:43] revised plan we we are going to

[2:19:47] adjust from 360 units to 366

[2:19:49] but very straightforward.

[2:19:50] We had attendees at our

[2:19:50] community meetings and business

[2:19:52] owners they were very pleased

[2:19:52] with the changes.

[2:19:55] >> okay MR. Driggs so I just

[2:19:58] want to note that right here if

[2:20:00] you look at this is where I had

[2:20:01] my bicycle accident about ten

[2:20:04] years ago oh and

[2:20:07] notwithstanding that I expect

[2:20:07] I'll be supporting this and I

[2:20:10] will move to close the hearing

[2:20:11] if I get a comment.

[2:20:11] >> okay.

[2:20:12] All in favor closing public

[2:20:13] hearing raise hands with bike

[2:20:16] lane any any oppose that is

[2:20:18] unanimous.

[2:20:19] Okay so we are at our final

[2:20:23] item tonight item number 28

[2:20:27] petition number 2026 0 to 1 by

[2:20:27] hines.

[2:20:29] >> so proximately 1.63 acres

[2:20:32] located south of east

[2:20:35] westinghouse drive east of blue

[2:20:39] central road and west of prompt

[2:20:41] road in councilmember mayo's

[2:20:41] district.

[2:20:44] The site is currently zoned as

[2:20:46] urban residential commercial

[2:20:47] conditional and the proposed

[2:20:50] zoning is urban residential

[2:20:53] commercial conditional site

[2:20:56] plan amendment staff recommends

[2:20:59] approval of this petition upon

[2:20:59] resolution of outstanding

[2:21:02] issues and after staff's

[2:21:04] presentation MR. Thompson will

[2:21:06] join us for three minutes.

[2:21:06] Thank you.

[2:21:09] Thank you.

[2:21:09] This site is 1.63 acres located

[2:21:12] on the south side of

[2:21:14] westinghouse drive east of blue

[2:21:15] central road and west of krupp

[2:21:17] road.

[2:21:19] The site has been used most

[2:21:20] recently as a staging area for

[2:21:23] construction of the neighboring

[2:21:25] townhome community.

[2:21:28] Traditional residential uses to

[2:21:31] the south and east with

[2:21:31] commercial and industrial uses

[2:21:33] across westinghouse boulevard

[2:21:37] to the north ern zoning as you

[2:21:39] are see conditional.

[2:21:40] This is also a site plan

[2:21:42] amendment where you are see as

[2:21:46] a proposed 20 40 policy map

[2:21:48] recommends the neighborhood to

[2:21:52] place type would allow for to

[2:21:53] development of nonresidential

[2:21:58] uses 14,500ft of gross floor

[2:22:01] area some prohibited uses which

[2:22:03] include drive through windows

[2:22:06] automotive sales, automotive,

[2:22:06] automobile serviceable repair

[2:22:09] and gas stations.

[2:22:11] There is a condition that if

[2:22:12] your restaurant use is

[2:22:15] developed that hours of

[2:22:19] operation could not go past 11

[2:22:21] P.M. There's a 50 foot wide

[2:22:21] class c landscape yard with a

[2:22:24] berm including a 50 foot wide

[2:22:26] undisturbed buffer along the

[2:22:27] southern property boundary

[2:22:29] where adjacent to establish

[2:22:32] single family residential.

[2:22:34] The petition is consistent with

[2:22:35] the south myrtle community area

[2:22:38] plan and in alignment with 2040

[2:22:38] policy map recommendation for

[2:22:40] the neighborhood to place type

[2:22:43] of partition MAY facilitate

[2:22:43] goal one ten minute

[2:22:46] neighborhoods by providing

[2:22:47] amenities, goods and services

[2:22:49] to the surrounding community.

[2:22:52] Staff recommends approval of

[2:22:52] this petition upon resolution

[2:22:54] of outstanding issues related

[2:22:55] to transportation and the

[2:22:58] environment.

[2:22:58] The petition is a site plan

[2:23:00] amendment requesting to amend

[2:23:01] permitted uses and site plan

[2:23:04] layout without increasing the

[2:23:04] maximum square footage of

[2:23:06] developable area area

[2:23:09] established in the original

[2:23:09] approved plan.

[2:23:12] I'll turn over to the

[2:23:13] petitioner team.

[2:23:14] >> okay westampton you have

[2:23:14] three minutes.

[2:23:15] Thank you.

[2:23:15] We have thompson land use

[2:23:18] consultant moore with moore and

[2:23:18] van allen.

[2:23:19] Happy to be here tonight on

[2:23:20] behalf of hines to close out

[2:23:23] this evening this is very

[2:23:26] limited narrowly focused of

[2:23:28] site plan amendment rezoning it

[2:23:29] really is to allow more

[2:23:31] flexibility to attract the

[2:23:32] neighborhood servicing

[2:23:34] businesses on the site.

[2:23:37] We're pleased to have staff

[2:23:37] report will address any

[2:23:39] outstanding issues and I'll be

[2:23:42] happy to answer any questions.

[2:23:42] >> okay.

[2:23:45] Any comment voted close to

[2:23:45] here.

[2:23:47] >> second all in favor of

[2:23:48] closing public hearing raise

[2:23:50] hands any opposed.

[2:23:50] >> okay.

[2:23:53] That is unanimous.

[2:23:53] Thank you, MR. Thompson.

[2:23:55] well, to adjourn second we have

[2:23:57] a motion to adjourn and a

[2:24:00] second it is 750 for the sun

City Council Zoning Meeting on 2026-06-15 5:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript