[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.
[7:01] 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.
[52:27] 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