[1:17] started.

[1:18] >> we have a quorum.

[1:20] Actually we have more than a

[1:20] quorum.

[1:23] We'll get started and we will

[1:25] begin our meeting with an

[1:27] invocation expressions well

[1:29] let's let's do uh let's do our

[1:30] introductions of of those at

[1:33] the dais first and we'll start

[1:35] when we start with uh, council

[1:36] member aquarius.

[1:38] Thank you mayor.

[1:39] Good evening everyone.

[1:40] Uh, jd, I swear to rda is

[1:41] probably representing east

[1:42] charlotte district five.

[1:44] Good evening everyone malcolm

[1:45] graham district two.

[1:47] Good evening, kimberly owens

[1:48] representing district six.

[1:50] Good evening everyone james

[1:51] mitchell mayor pro tem.

[1:52] Good evening rob harrington

[1:52] mayor.

[1:55] Good evening joy male

[1:56] representing district three for

[1:57] charlotte city council.

[1:58] Good evening.

[1:59] Thank you for your patience.

[2:01] I'm victoria watlington and I

[2:01] have the pleasure of serving

[2:02] you as a member at large.

[2:04] Good evening everyone.

[2:06] Dimple ajmera at large.

[2:08] Terry hagler gray senior

[2:10] assistant city attorney billy

[2:11] towns, deputy city clerk.

[2:14] And we're going to wait just

[2:16] one second because I know

[2:17] council member driggs is doing

[2:18] the invocation.

[2:20] See?

[2:22] Ya.

[2:23] >> let me go.

[2:23] I mean.

[2:25] I they have.

[2:31] These I set up.

[2:37] Um.

[2:40] I holderness.

[2:57] anyway somebody play some

[2:57] elevator music.

[3:00] You know jeopardy.

[3:02] !

[3:03] Tonight right.

[3:06] >> I but you just let him do

[3:06] it.

[3:07] He's coming.

[3:14] I went swimming last week and

[3:15] someone is.

[3:17] Seems like really doesn't he

[3:18] know everything?

[3:21] Is funny?

[3:23] Uh, he who's helping me push

[3:24] me?

[3:24] Where are you?

[3:26] All right, we will begin our

[3:27] meeting with an invocation.

[3:29] Expressions of inspiration

[3:30] followed by the pledge of

[3:30] allegiance.

[3:32] The invocation by the council

[3:34] member is intended to

[3:35] solemnized our proceedings.

[3:37] We celebrate the religious

[3:39] diversity of our community

[3:40] including those without

[3:42] religious, without a religious

[3:42] faith.

[3:44] Tonight COUNCILMAN Ed driggs

[3:45] will give our invocation.

[3:47] So not only am I late but.

[3:49] >> I don't have a prepared

[3:49] invocation.

[3:51] So everybody bear with me.

[3:54] Uh, heavenly father, bless the

[3:56] city of charlotte, north

[3:58] carolina, guide us in our

[3:59] efforts to make this a place

[4:02] that everyone can call home and

[4:04] where they are proud to live.

[4:05] Amen.

[4:06] >> oh all right.

[4:08] To stand for the pledge of

[4:09] allegiance.

[4:12] I would.

[4:15] Just take the flag of a united

[4:17] states of america and to the

[4:19] republic for which it stands

[4:22] one nation under GOD,

[4:24] indivisible, with liberty and

[4:25] justice for all.

[4:26] Thank you.

[4:30] The rezoning process begins

[4:32] with application submitted to

[4:33] the planning staff for review.

[4:35] There are two types of cases on

[4:36] the agenda.

[4:38] Decisions and hearings.

[4:40] Decisions or cases for which a

[4:42] public hearing was previously

[4:42] held.

[4:44] No further comments for public

[4:45] hearings.

[4:46] Anyone wishing to speak is

[4:48] asked to see the clerk before

[4:49] the start of the hearing.

[4:52] Staff will provide a press pay

[4:52] presentation and the petitioner

[4:54] will have three minutes

[4:57] combined to present uh the case

[4:59] the the petitioner will have

[5:00] three minutes combined to

[5:02] present the case unless there

[5:03] are opponents signed up to

[5:04] speak or staff is in opposition

[5:05] .

[5:07] If there are opponents signed

[5:08] up to speak or staff is in

[5:09] opposition, the petitioner will

[5:12] have ten minutes to present

[5:13] followed by opposition speakers

[5:15] who also have ten minutes

[5:17] combined to present and the

[5:18] petitioner then has two minute

[5:20] a two minute rebuttal if no one

[5:22] is signed up to speak, staff

[5:24] provides a short presentation

[5:26] and the public hearing MAY then

[5:28] be closed following public

[5:30] hearings, petitions go to the

[5:31] zoning committee of the

[5:33] planning commission for review

[5:34] and recommendation and I now

[5:37] turn it over to uh zoning

[5:38] committee chairperson wilton

[5:40] who will introduce the zoning

[5:41] committee members and note

[5:42] their next meeting date.

[5:45] uh thank you mayor.

[5:46] Uh, and thank you council.

[5:48] My name is douglas welton and I

[5:49] am the CHAIRMAN Of the zoning

[5:50] committee of the planning

[5:50] commission.

[5:52] Allow me to introduce the my

[5:54] fellow members of the committee

[5:56] include melissa gaston, will

[5:58] russell, shawna neely, robin

[5:59] stewart, carolyn millen and

[6:00] andrew blumenthal.

[6:02] The zoning committee will.

[6:04] Meet on tuesday, SEPTEMBER 1st

[6:07] at 5:30 P.M. At that meeting

[6:07] the.

[6:08] Zoning committee will, uh,

[6:09] discuss and make

[6:10] recommendations on the

[6:11] petitions that have a public

[6:12] hearing here tonight.

[6:13] The public.

[6:15] Is welcome to those meetings,

[6:17] but please note it is not a

[6:18] continuation of the public

[6:20] hearing that is being held here

[6:21] tonight prior to that meeting.

[6:22] You are welcome to contact us

[6:24] and provide your input.

[6:26] Uh you can find contact

[6:27] information and information on

[6:27] each one.

[6:28] >> of the petitions.

[6:28] >> at.

[6:31] The city's website at charlotte

[6:31] planning.Org.

[6:32] Thank you very much.

[6:33] And back to you mayor.

[6:34] Thank you.

[6:37] Are there any deferrals or

[6:39] withdrawals on the agenda?

[6:41] Yes we.

[6:42] Have several deferrals that

[6:43] I'll review now.

[6:46] I'm number nine petition 2020

[6:46] 5-0.

[6:47] 86 by.

[6:48] Prince for development

[6:49] requesting deferral of their

[6:52] decision to SEPTEMBER 21st item

[6:56] number 14 to JUNE 2024 143 by

[6:57] panorama development requesting

[6:59] deferral of their hearing due

[7:02] at first I've number 15th JUNE

[7:05] 2020 6-0 14 by true homes

[7:07] petition requesting deferral of

[7:09] their hearing to SEPTEMBER 21st

[7:13] I'm number 16 2020 6-0 27 by c

[7:15] for investments crescent

[7:16] southeast requesting deferral

[7:18] of hearing to SEPTEMBER 21st

[7:22] item number 19 petition 20 2634

[7:25] by sam smart requesting

[7:26] deferral of their public

[7:28] hearing to SEPTEMBER 21st I'm

[7:32] number 20 petition 2020 6-0 30

[7:35] by olympia enright requesting

[7:37] deferral of public hearing to

[7:39] set SEPTEMBER 21st and item

[7:43] number 23 petition 2026 008 by

[7:46] club dev six requesting

[7:46] deferral of their public

[7:49] hearing to NOVEMBER 16th.

[7:51] Thank you.

[7:53] Is there a motion for the

[7:55] deferral so moved their second.

[7:57] All in favor raise your hand.

[7:59] Any opposed?

[8:01] Motion passes all right.

[8:03] Rezoning petition items three

[8:05] through eight of the consent

[8:07] agenda MAY be considered in one

[8:08] motion except for those items

[8:10] pulled by a council member.

[8:11] Please note that these

[8:13] petitions meet the following

[8:14] criteria to be on the consent

[8:15] agenda.

[8:17] Have no public opposition to

[8:19] the petition at hearing staff

[8:21] recommends approval.

[8:22] Zoning committee recommends

[8:24] approval and there were no

[8:25] changes after the zoning

[8:27] committee's recommendation.

[8:29] Are there any consent items

[8:30] council would like to pull for

[8:32] question, comment or a separate

[8:32] vote?

[8:33] Council member mayfield.

[8:35] item six for comment.

[8:35] Thank you.

[8:37] >> are there any other items on

[8:39] the consent agenda that a

[8:40] council member would like to

[8:41] pull?

[8:44] Move to approve the consent

[8:47] agenda item six second.

[8:48] All in favor raise your hand.

[8:50] Any opposed okay.

[8:52] The consent agenda items saved

[8:55] for number six uh, have been

[8:55] approved.

[8:57] Each one of them that were in

[8:57] the consent.

[8:58] Okay.

[9:00] >> and those items are item

[9:03] number three petition 2025.

[9:06] Uh dash 130 by maruti hotels

[9:08] inc. Item number four petition

[9:13] for 2020 2615 dash 15 by katy

[9:14] trading llc.

[9:19] Item five petition 20 2618 by

[9:21] S.R. Moseley properties llc.

[9:27] Item seven petition 2026 2020

[9:27] by.

[9:28] Turner.

[9:32] >> terwilliger liquor poppers

[9:36] and item seven uh petition 2026

[9:38] dash 21 by hines.

[9:39] I mean.

[9:41] >> that moves us to item eight

[9:43] I'm sorry that moves us to back

[9:44] to item six.

[9:47] Uh and we need to have a uh

[9:49] vote on the petition separately

[9:49] .

[9:51] MAY I have a motion to approve

[9:52] that petition?

[9:53] So moved.

[9:54] Second.

[9:54] >> second.

[9:55] Um.

[9:57] And to adopt the zoning

[9:59] committee's statement of

[10:00] consistency for each of these

[10:01] petition for that petition as

[10:03] it appears in our agenda

[10:03] council.

[10:04] MAY appeal.

[10:05] okay.

[10:05] >> yep.

[10:06] Okay.

[10:08] Uh, council member mayfield.

[10:10] Comments thank you mayor I

[10:10] just.

[10:13] Wanted to acknowledge that what

[10:15] we're looking at there's 22.89

[10:18] acres that's located north of

[10:21] moorhead and west of seoul lane

[10:24] that this is actually an

[10:26] expansion because when we've

[10:27] recently had conversations

[10:30] regarding manufacturing and

[10:33] logistics areas and the

[10:36] switching of where we have

[10:37] manufacturing versus where we

[10:40] have in one but I do want to

[10:42] acknowledge that this is an

[10:43] expansion of a previously

[10:46] approved project and also

[10:49] acknowledge that the petitioner

[10:52] has agreed in writing an

[10:54] additional buffer area between

[10:56] what would be or what currently

[10:58] is the residential and where

[11:02] this will be a this particular

[11:04] development will start and I

[11:05] believe it's like a 100 foot

[11:07] buffer which is something that

[11:09] they should be noted.

[11:13] Any other questions or comments

[11:13] on item six?

[11:15] Council member MAY mayor.

[11:17] For the buffer and maybe staff

[11:18] can answer this.

[11:18] Is this going.

[11:20] >> to be an undisturbed tree

[11:22] safe buffer?

[11:24] So I'd have to follow class a

[11:26] landscape yard requirements

[11:28] which has specific planting

[11:29] requirements.

[11:31] So I'd have to go to article 20

[11:32] and I can follow up with you

[11:34] about specifically what those

[11:35] planting requirements are.

[11:37] But typically they're often

[11:38] undisturbed.

[11:40] But class a is the most

[11:42] stringent of the planting

[11:43] requirements that you have in

[11:45] the ordinance for that 100 foot

[11:46] landscape yard.

[11:48] They also have class b

[11:50] landscape yards along the other

[11:51] boundaries of their property

[11:53] along old holland and moorhead

[11:55] road and they're providing a

[11:57] berm along those landscape yard

[11:59] exceeding ordinance

[11:59] requirements.

[12:03] I personally would like to know

[12:04] that part before I have that

[12:05] vote.

[12:06] Um, oftentimes.

[12:08] In neighborhoods we're having a

[12:08] lot of people.

[12:09] After they go back.

[12:11] >> in clearcut and and they

[12:12] plant trees.

[12:13] He's going to take 20 or 30

[12:15] years for them to be the size

[12:15] that they would.

[12:16] Be if we left it.

[12:20] As an undisturbed um buffer um

[12:20] or tree save.

[12:22] So that would be just my

[12:23] preference.

[12:25] Um I understand that's more

[12:27] strict with you know, adding

[12:28] more trees but.

[12:29] I'm just thinking.

[12:30] Long term how are we we.

[12:31] Being more.

[12:33] Thoughtful and proactive um, in

[12:34] anticipating some of the issues

[12:35] that we know our residents are

[12:37] going to have um, so that they

[12:39] don't have to see manufacturing

[12:40] right next to them.

[12:42] I mean, this is an issue I'm

[12:43] still going with we've still

[12:45] barry acres where yes, they

[12:46] have a buffer but because we

[12:47] were not specific and

[12:50] intentional of having it

[12:50] undisturbed.

[12:51] Um.

[12:53] >> buffer those little.

[12:54] trees aren't doing much nor is

[12:57] that little fence so I'd much

[12:58] rather we be proactive and do

[12:59] this in the front end.

[13:03] Okay any further council member

[13:03] johnson.

[13:06] Thank you sir.

[13:07] >> I also wanted.

[13:08] To um to.

[13:09] Make sure that we.

[13:10] Specify that.

[13:12] >> data centers are prohibited.

[13:13] We talked about.

[13:14] >> that earlier.

[13:15] If you want to just clarify

[13:15] that please.

[13:16] >> I don't think so.

[13:19] Yes sorry.

[13:19] Telecommunications and data

[13:20] storage facilities are

[13:21] prohibited as part of the

[13:22] conditions of this plan.

[13:22] Okay.

[13:23] >> and then to.

[13:24] Piggyback off what

[13:26] councilmember mayo said.

[13:28] Can you provide.

[13:29] Additional information today?

[13:31] So class.

[13:31] >> a.

[13:33] Landscape yards they have

[13:35] specific planting requirements

[13:35] .

[13:38] The notes of this plan don't

[13:39] specify that it would be

[13:40] undisturbed, but they have to

[13:41] comply with the class a

[13:42] landscape yard requirements per

[13:45] article 20 of the which specify

[13:48] the stringent densest planting

[13:48] requirements.

[13:52] So for example you have the you

[13:53] have requirements regarding

[13:55] shrubs as well as trees and the

[13:57] amount of shrubs and trees that

[13:58] have to occur within the amount

[13:59] of space.

[14:01] It's fairly technical.

[14:03] I don't know if you want me to

[14:04] go through it and.

[14:05] so she.

[14:06] >> has a concern.

[14:07] So COUNCILMAN Mayo, have you.

[14:09] Shared this concern before?

[14:09] No.

[14:11] So this is kind of new.

[14:13] But as council.

[14:14] Member amir and I are thinking

[14:15] that.

[14:17] If I think maybe we should

[14:18] defer this I think through that

[14:18] um.

[14:19] >> that should.

[14:19] >> be.

[14:20] A.

[14:20] Condition of the rezoning in my

[14:20] opinion.

[14:23] And I know that this is just.

[14:23] >> I.

[14:24] Think it's hendricks.

[14:25] Is this hendricks just it's

[14:26] kind of a for.

[14:28] Approval, but I'm willing to

[14:28] make the motion to.

[14:30] Defer only because.

[14:31] This council has approved so

[14:32] many things.

[14:33] With with.

[14:35] Uh, with outstanding issues.

[14:35] Or questions.

[14:37] And then it comes back to haunt

[14:38] us later.

[14:41] Fyi, the two point 5,000,000ft2

[14:42] data center in the university

[14:43] area.

[14:44] So I will make a motion to.

[14:45] Defer this.

[14:47] >> um, a so.

[14:49] A substitute motion to.

[14:51] Defer this to get this

[14:52] information or.

[14:55] Again I'm not sure.

[14:56] I should be asked.

[14:58] Yeah I felt well I'd.

[14:58] >> like.

[14:59] To talk.

[15:00] >> to the representative but

[15:00] I'll make them.

[15:01] Is there.

[15:01] >> a motion to defer?

[15:02] yes.

[15:03] Is there a second to the

[15:03] motion.

[15:04] To defer okay.

[15:06] >> any discussion on the motion

[15:08] to defer to council?

[15:10] Council member is mira and then

[15:11] council member mayfield.

[15:12] Council member drakes.

[15:12] Yes.

[15:14] >> uh thank you, mayor

[15:14] harrington.

[15:16] So this is a very intense use

[15:18] that that's being proposed.

[15:19] Is going.

[15:19] >> from around money.

[15:21] To aml to.

[15:23] Uh, which is manufacturing and.

[15:24] Logistics too.

[15:26] So I think it makes sense for

[15:27] us to have a.

[15:28] Condition as.

[15:29] Part of this rezoning petition

[15:32] to include undisturbed.

[15:32] Buffer to.

[15:33] >> council member mayor's point

[15:33] .

[15:36] So uh, just a question for the

[15:37] petitioner.

[15:39] If the.

[15:42] Is there anyone here from yes

[15:44] okay good okay okay on down if

[15:46] they could come down so.

[15:50] Um so the question I hear would

[15:51] you be opposed to having the

[15:53] undisturbed buffer and if yes

[15:54] what are your concerns?

[15:59] Good evening.

[16:00] Bridget grant land use

[16:01] consultant.

[16:02] >> with more on this now and

[16:02] pleased to be here tonight with

[16:04] greg hartley with acre

[16:04] development.

[16:06] I think in combination we can

[16:07] answer the question.

[16:08] Greg has some more specifics of

[16:08] the design team.

[16:09] Sure.

[16:13] >> um so a lot of the buffer

[16:14] will remain.

[16:16] Undisturbed in the lower areas

[16:17] but a lot of this is already

[16:18] pasture area.

[16:19] So the.

[16:20] >> intent is to build the

[16:22] mounds and any towards any

[16:23] adjacent residential and and

[16:24] plant those.

[16:26] The residential across the

[16:26] street.

[16:28] Resident most of the

[16:29] residential is south across

[16:32] morehead road um that's

[16:34] undeveloped to the west and

[16:35] this um.

[16:37] This is actually you know, this

[16:39] parcel is and like I said an

[16:40] expansion of the hendrick um,

[16:41] campus.

[16:44] So it's manufacturing um, a lot

[16:48] of race uh, race related also

[16:51] uh, defense related contract

[16:51] stuff.

[16:54] So I I didn't get an answer to

[16:55] my question if you could just

[16:58] say would you be willing to

[16:59] include undisturbed buffer as

[17:01] part of the condition of this

[17:02] rezoning petition?

[17:04] Uh, I would have to check with

[17:04] hendricks.

[17:04] Okay.

[17:06] >> so I think this this is

[17:09] where we can use this time to

[17:10] address the question.

[17:13] Um, would you be okay with the

[17:13] deferral?

[17:16] Is there any time pressing or

[17:17] sensitivity that we need to

[17:17] address?

[17:18] >> I think we're fine with the

[17:19] deferral.

[17:19] Okay.

[17:20] >> that's that's all I have.

[17:20] Thank you.

[17:22] So thank you, council member

[17:24] johnson that will work with you

[17:25] on the buffer.

[17:25] Absolutely.

[17:26] >> thank you.

[17:27] >> council member mayfield.

[17:29] Excuse thank you.

[17:31] I actually what I was going to

[17:34] do was to invite up the

[17:36] representatives for them to be

[17:36] able to answer the questions.

[17:37] So thank you.

[17:38] Council member as mayor.

[17:40] Council member drakes.

[17:42] If they're okay I'm okay okay.

[17:43] There has been a motion and a

[17:45] second to defer and discussion

[17:46] all in favor of the substitute

[17:49] motion to defer this item

[17:49] please raise your hand.

[17:51] Any opposed?

[17:53] All right.

[17:53] That is deferred.

[17:54] Uh.

[17:56] >> takes us.

[17:58] Item ten.

[18:01] Item nine has been deferred.

[18:02] We are now at item ten.

[18:06] Item ten is petition 2025 dash

[18:08] 77 by short development group

[18:10] llc has had changes since the

[18:12] zoning committee meeting made

[18:14] their recommendation council is

[18:16] required to send the petition

[18:16] back to the zoning committee

[18:18] for further review unless

[18:20] council by a three fourths vote

[18:22] vote uh vote of the members

[18:23] present that determines that

[18:24] the nature of the modification

[18:26] is such that the further review

[18:28] is not necessary.

[18:29] Staff could you please explain

[18:31] the changes on this petition?

[18:31] Yes.

[18:33] >> so there are three changes

[18:35] that resulted um as part of

[18:37] continued conversations with

[18:37] the community.

[18:39] So previously there were 40

[18:41] units proposed across the site

[18:43] multifamily units and they have

[18:47] now decreased that to 36 units

[18:48] and they have increased the

[18:50] number of the affordable units

[18:53] that are offered at 80% or less

[18:54] of area median income for no

[18:57] less than 15 years from four

[18:59] units previously to now six

[19:02] units of the 36 units and they

[19:04] have also provided notes.

[19:06] So yes.

[19:07] They have also provided notes

[19:09] regarding retaining walls that

[19:11] could occur on the site and

[19:13] said that they'd be limited to

[19:13] five feet.

[19:16] No no sorry no taller than five

[19:18] feet across the site and uh

[19:20] provided additional notes if

[19:22] they were tiered walls and.

[19:25] Such and that's um as a result

[19:26] again of continued

[19:27] conversations with the

[19:27] community.

[19:29] Motion not to.

[19:31] Return to the zoning committee

[19:31] .

[19:31] Okay.

[19:33] >> any further discussion.

[19:34] So if.

[19:34] >> I.

[19:36] Can mayor I just I think I do

[19:36] have a.

[19:39] Concern with respect to some.

[19:40] Exchange that I've seen as.

[19:42] Recently as 439 today around

[19:43] the precise.

[19:44] Language that will go with

[19:45] respect.

[19:46] To the southern border.

[19:48] Has that been clarified?

[19:49] Can the petitioner.

[19:49] >> maybe.

[19:50] Speak to that?

[19:54] I appreciate that you said it

[19:55] was five feet but there was

[19:55] some.

[19:57] Precise language around

[19:58] terracing that I just want to

[19:58] be very clear.

[20:00] I can read you the language as

[20:02] it appears in the note because

[20:05] it is it does address terracing

[20:06] and tiered retaining wall.

[20:08] So if terrace or tiered

[20:09] retaining walls are utilized

[20:10] along the southern property

[20:11] boundary, the combined vertical

[20:14] height of such walls shall not

[20:15] exceed five.

[20:15] >> feet.

[20:17] As measured from the finished

[20:18] grade at the base of the lowest

[20:19] wall to the top of the

[20:20] uppermost wall.

[20:21] Okay.

[20:22] >> so.

[20:22] The language.

[20:23] With respect to no more than

[20:25] one retaining wall that is not

[20:27] addressed in the commentary

[20:27] that's been.

[20:30] What was the cause I'm not

[20:31] aware of that request.

[20:32] >> was that the language would

[20:33] read no more than one retaining

[20:35] wall shall be located along or

[20:36] adjacent to the southern

[20:38] property boundary or otherwise

[20:39] served to retain grade along

[20:40] the southern property boundary

[20:42] and such wall shall not exceed

[20:43] five feet in height measured

[20:44] vertically from finished grade

[20:45] at the base of the wall to the

[20:46] top of the wall.

[20:47] So the revised site plan that

[20:51] we received as of just after 4

[20:53] P.M. So not around 440 did not

[20:55] make mention of a limit of one

[20:56] retaining wall.

[20:57] It did.

[20:59] It says and for proposed walls

[21:01] located to the south of the

[21:02] private alley adjacent to the

[21:03] southern property boundary

[21:04] shall be limited to a maximum

[21:06] of five feet measured

[21:07] vertically from finished grade

[21:09] at the base of the wall to the

[21:09] top of the wall.

[21:11] If terraced or tiered retaining

[21:12] walls are utilized along the

[21:14] southern property boundary, the

[21:15] combined vertical height of all

[21:17] such walls shall not exceed

[21:18] five feet measured from

[21:19] finished grade at the base of

[21:20] the lowest wall to the top of

[21:21] the uppermost wall.

[21:24] Okay so colleagues I just.

[21:25] >> want to speak to this one

[21:25] very briefly.

[21:27] I would be interested if it's

[21:27] appropriate.

[21:28] Could I hear from the

[21:29] petitioner with respect to this

[21:30] language?

[21:32] This added is that can I get

[21:33] that confirmation?

[21:35] I just this has been a really

[21:36] contentious issue because the

[21:37] petitioners of this property

[21:39] for a good deal of time and has

[21:41] been ongoing discussions with

[21:42] the neighborhood and the

[21:43] neighborhood has some very

[21:45] valid concerns that I've really

[21:46] been trying to listen to.

[21:47] I walk the site I would like to

[21:48] hear your response with respect

[21:49] to this modified language.

[21:51] Good afternoon.

[21:52] >> council uh popping up with

[21:53] urban design partners

[21:54] representing short development

[21:54] .

[21:55] Apologies for not wearing a

[21:56] sport coat.

[21:57] I was not prepared to speak

[21:57] today.

[21:58] Yes.

[22:01] So we have been having ongoing

[22:02] conversations with the

[22:03] community members uh, to the

[22:04] south of this project regarding

[22:06] height of retaining walls,

[22:07] making sure that they're not

[22:08] too imposing on the site.

[22:10] Unfortunately the language at

[22:12] the change of one singular

[22:14] retaining wall on site did not

[22:15] realize that email request had

[22:17] come out and did not realize

[22:18] that until I actually spoke to

[22:19] one of the community members

[22:20] here just a little while ago.

[22:22] But given the site

[22:24] incorporating language into

[22:25] this particular development

[22:27] condition for limiting one wall

[22:28] along the south property line

[22:30] is certainly doable that that's

[22:31] fine.

[22:32] Okay.

[22:34] >> um so.

[22:35] Again thank you I appreciate

[22:36] that.

[22:37] So colleagues I will simply say

[22:38] this has been one that I've

[22:39] been back and forth on.

[22:42] I will be voting in favor of

[22:43] it.

[22:44] I it is not.

[22:46] Without some uh consternation

[22:46] on.

[22:47] My part.

[22:48] I've walked the site.

[22:49] I've appreciated that the

[22:50] community does have some

[22:50] concerns.

[22:52] I also have a situation that

[22:54] we're all very cognizant of,

[22:55] which is an absence of housing

[22:57] choice and optionality in

[22:58] district six, the petitioner

[23:00] has attempted to meet some of

[23:02] the concerns that we've raised

[23:05] has ably done so with regard to

[23:06] the back wall that southern

[23:09] line has done so with respect

[23:11] to um, some element of

[23:11] affordability.

[23:12] And so I will be voting in

[23:13] favor of this petition.

[23:15] Okay.

[23:18] >> well thank you mayor.

[23:19] Uh thank you.

[23:21] Um, I just wanted to highlight

[23:21] the.

[23:23] Work that councilmember owens

[23:23] has done.

[23:24] >> on this project.

[23:25] >> I've been very impressed.

[23:26] Um.

[23:26] >> with you.

[23:27] >> know, the conversations that

[23:28] she's had with the.

[23:28] Neighborhood and.

[23:31] With the developer, um, even

[23:31] adding some.

[23:33] Affordability I.

[23:33] >> think.

[23:34] Is a really great asset.

[23:35] So I just wanted to commend you

[23:36] on that.

[23:37] Councilmember owens.

[23:39] Hey, is there any further

[23:40] discussion or comment or

[23:42] question on the motion not to

[23:43] send the changes back to zoning

[23:43] committee?

[23:46] So it has been moved and

[23:46] seconded.

[23:49] All in favor raise your hand.

[23:49] Any opposed?

[23:52] All right we have it.

[23:53] We have the three quarters we

[23:56] have unanimous I believe so now

[23:57] is there a motion to approve

[24:00] item ten petition 20 2577 and

[24:02] adopt the zoning committee

[24:04] statement of consistency as it

[24:06] appears in our agendas and on

[24:07] the screen as the.

[24:07] Council's own.

[24:08] So moved.

[24:09] Second.

[24:11] Any further discussion on that?

[24:14] All in favor raise your hand.

[24:16] Any opposed?

[24:17] Motion passes.

[24:21] Item 11 on the agenda petition

[24:24] 2020 6-001 by 2026.

[24:28] Uh typo there by mpv properties

[24:30] and mission properties has also

[24:31] had changes since the zoning

[24:33] committee made its

[24:33] recommendation.

[24:35] Council is required to send the

[24:36] petition back to the zoning

[24:38] committee for further review

[24:40] unless council by a quarter uh

[24:41] vote of all members present

[24:42] determines that the nature of

[24:44] the modification is such that

[24:46] further review is not necessary

[24:46] .

[24:47] Staff could you please explain

[24:49] the changes to this petition

[24:51] item number 11 yes.

[24:52] This petition since any

[24:54] committee's recommendation.

[24:58] Hearing reduce its acreage from

[24:59] 12.67 to 8.56.

[25:01] That is just to exclude the

[25:02] real right of way that was

[25:03] previously in the petition area

[25:03] .

[25:06] They also revised a conditional

[25:07] note to commit to that the

[25:09] proposed coworking space and

[25:10] retail that would be accessible

[25:11] to residents would be open at

[25:13] the time of certificate of

[25:14] occupancy and would remain

[25:17] operable for a minimum of two

[25:17] years.

[25:19] We believe those changes are

[25:20] minor and do not warrant

[25:21] additional review by zoning

[25:21] committee.

[25:24] Is there a motion not to send

[25:26] the changes back to the zoning

[25:26] committee?

[25:27] So moved?

[25:28] >> second.

[25:30] Any further discussion or

[25:31] comment about the motion not to

[25:32] send back to the zoning

[25:32] committee?

[25:35] All in favor raise your hand.

[25:37] Any opposed?

[25:39] And now is there a motion to

[25:42] approve item 11 petition 2020

[25:43] 6-1 and adopt the zoning

[25:45] committee statement of

[25:46] consistency as it appears in

[25:48] our agendas and on the screen

[25:49] as the council's own so moved.

[25:50] Second.

[25:52] >> any further discussion

[25:52] there?

[25:54] council member mia.

[25:55] Thank you mayor harrington

[25:57] staff could you please go over

[25:58] all the changes that were made

[26:00] to this rezoning petition after

[26:00] the hearing.

[26:03] For 2020 6001.

[26:04] Yes.

[26:07] >> especially in regards to the

[26:09] noise buffering or the noise

[26:10] reduction window materials that

[26:11] is being used.

[26:12] Yes.

[26:14] >> just a moment and apologize

[26:14] .

[26:15] So the.

[26:17] Like I like I said those are

[26:19] the changes that we received

[26:20] since then in committee but

[26:21] they also did reduce unit count

[26:25] from 176 to 170 units following

[26:26] the public hearing.

[26:28] And as you noted there was a

[26:30] conditional note regarding

[26:32] noise and this was that uh,

[26:33] building facades facing the

[26:35] railroad right of way will use

[26:36] noise reducing windows.

[26:40] So I appreciate the changes

[26:41] that's been made to address

[26:43] some of the concerns that were

[26:44] raised at the dias.

[26:46] So at the hearing I had an

[26:47] opportunity to speak with with

[26:48] the petitioner.

[26:50] Bailey and I also had an

[26:51] opportunity to visit the side

[26:51] because.

[26:51] >> I was.

[26:54] Concerned uh, with the staff's

[26:57] concerns around uh this site

[27:01] being uh many being uh

[27:02] neighborhood adjacent to

[27:04] manufacturing site and the

[27:05] petitioner mentioned how there

[27:08] is a natural buffer at this

[27:11] side along with uh, they are

[27:13] investing in making sure that

[27:16] there will not there will be

[27:17] protected from the noise

[27:19] adjacent to the manufacturing

[27:19] site.

[27:21] So, uh, I appreciate the

[27:23] changes that's been made, uh,

[27:25] to this petition and I look

[27:26] forward to supporting it.

[27:27] Okay.

[27:29] >> uh, council member graham.

[27:32] I can not this been said?

[27:32] Let's vote.

[27:35] Okay, so we have a motion and a

[27:37] second we've had discussion on

[27:40] the motion to uh uh not send

[27:42] this item back to the zoning

[27:42] committee.

[27:43] All in favor raise.

[27:44] Your hand.

[27:45] >> any opposed?

[27:46] Okay.

[27:50] >> is there now a motion to

[27:53] approve item 11 which is 2020

[27:54] 6-1 and adopt the zoning

[27:56] committee statement of

[27:56] consistency as it appears in

[27:58] our agendas and on the screen

[27:59] is the council zoning.

[28:01] Okay?

[28:02] >> so moved.

[28:03] Is there a second?

[28:04] Second.

[28:04] Okay.

[28:06] >> any further discussion?

[28:07] All in favor?

[28:09] Any opposed?

[28:10] All right.

[28:11] That takes us to item 12.

[28:14] Is there a motion to approve

[28:17] item 12 which is petition 2020

[28:19] 6-009 and adopt the zoning

[28:20] committee statement of

[28:21] consistency as it appears in

[28:23] our agendas and on the screen

[28:25] as the council's own so moved.

[28:25] Second.

[28:27] >> any discussion?

[28:29] All in favor?

[28:30] Raise your hand.

[28:32] Any opposed?

[28:33] No, ma'am.

[28:34] All right.

[28:35] item 12 passes.

[28:38] And finally item 13 is there a

[28:40] motion to approve item 13 which

[28:44] is petition 2020 6-0 17 and

[28:45] adopt the zoning committee

[28:47] statement of consistency as it

[28:48] appears in our agendas and on

[28:49] the screen as the.

[28:50] Council's own.

[28:53] Is there a motion so moved?

[28:54] Second.

[28:56] >> any discussion on item 13?

[28:58] Council member mayfield.

[29:00] Thank you.

[29:00] So there's.

[29:04] Been changes on.

[29:06] This that I would like staff to

[29:08] go over because what I'm

[29:11] looking at shows that it's been

[29:15] reduced from 7.85 down to 1.22

[29:16] as well as some other changes

[29:17] if you don't mind going over

[29:18] those.

[29:19] Yes.

[29:20] >> so following public hearing

[29:22] but before zoning committee the

[29:24] petitioner worked with staff to

[29:26] identify some areas where they

[29:27] could get alignment with

[29:28] staff's recommendation.

[29:32] They reduced the acreage from

[29:34] 7.85 to 1.2 to eliminating the

[29:35] portion of the parcel that was

[29:36] behind the single family lots.

[29:38] If you remember the previous

[29:40] configuration and they also

[29:43] noted the reduction of units or

[29:46] total potential units from 9 to

[29:49] 4 units and that it would be

[29:50] limited to a product type of

[29:51] only single family detached

[29:53] whereas previously they said it

[29:55] could include one duplex yeah

[29:57] one duplex dwelling and they

[29:59] also uh noted minimum front

[30:01] setback to be 27ft rear setback

[30:03] of 40ft and maximum height of

[30:04] 40ft in alignment with and one

[30:05] a zoning standards.

[30:09] And this one wasn't part of a

[30:10] conversation to send back to

[30:11] committee.

[30:13] We're able to just identify

[30:16] these amended changes and move

[30:16] forward.

[30:17] >> those changes were made

[30:19] prior to zoning committee's

[30:19] recommendation.

[30:20] So zoning committee reviewed

[30:21] all those changes as well.

[30:23] Thank you for clarification.

[30:25] Any other questions on item

[30:26] number 13?

[30:27] Okay.

[30:29] >> all in favor of the motion

[30:30] raise your.

[30:30] Hand.

[30:32] >> any opposed?

[30:33] All right.

[30:35] Motion passes unanimously.

[30:37] That moves us to public.

[30:39] Hearings and on public

[30:39] hearings.

[30:41] I'm going to recuse myself as

[30:43] mayor from presiding over the

[30:44] public hearings for item 17,

[30:48] which is petition 2025, dash 11

[30:50] and item 22 which is petition

[30:54] 2020 5-1 23 due to my law

[30:55] partners representation of the

[30:57] petitioners, mayor pro tem

[30:58] mitchell will preside over

[31:00] those two hearings and I'm

[31:01] going to step down.

[31:03] So motion to recuse mayor haley

[31:04] to second.

[31:05] >> is there a second?

[31:05] It's a.

[31:06] Recusal not an excuse.

[31:08] He doesn't need a motion we can

[31:09] do so we don't have.

[31:10] >> to do a motion a second.

[31:10] Thank you.

[31:11] All right.

[31:12] >> but mayor and council.

[31:13] I would like to make a motion

[31:16] to move those items 17 and 22

[31:17] to the beginning of the public

[31:17] hearing.

[31:18] Is there a second?

[31:19] second?

[31:20] >> all those.

[31:21] >> in favor of the motion I

[31:22] know raise your hand.

[31:22] Okay.

[31:24] >> very good.

[31:28] So now to the public hearing

[31:28] portion of our zoning.

[31:31] I item number 17 was on a

[31:34] petition 2025 zero 11 by

[31:34] garrison.

[31:38] Road holdings llc location

[31:38] approximately.

[31:41] 4.51 acres located on the east

[31:43] side of garrison road southwest

[31:45] boulevard and west of I 85.

[31:48] Condition zoning in one a

[31:50] proposed zoning ml-1.

[31:53] And city clerk I think we have

[31:54] two speakers sign up to.

[31:55] >> speak okay.

[31:59] First speaker MR. John

[31:59] carmichael.

[32:02] So this site.

[32:03] I'll I'll speak first.

[32:03] I'm sorry.

[32:04] >> go right ahead.

[32:07] So this site is just over four

[32:08] and a half acres along the east

[32:10] side of harrison road south of

[32:12] west boulevard, west of I-45

[32:14] and an area where we have quite

[32:16] a few industrial entitlements

[32:18] as well as some industrial uses

[32:20] as you can see some there's

[32:21] industrial use just to the east

[32:24] of this site here and if you're

[32:25] familiar with the area further

[32:27] to the northwest would be the

[32:28] river district.

[32:30] It's currently zoned

[32:32] neighborhood one a and it's

[32:33] within the airport noise

[32:34] disclosure overlay.

[32:36] They are proposing to go to the

[32:38] manufacturing logistics one

[32:39] district also still within that

[32:41] airport noise disclosure

[32:41] overlay.

[32:44] The policy map does call for

[32:45] the neighborhood one place type

[32:45] .

[32:47] So this proposal is considered

[32:49] out of alignment with that

[32:49] policy map recommendation.

[32:51] The petition.

[32:53] Is considered inconsistent with

[32:54] the goals and policies of the

[32:57] west outer area plan and again

[32:58] not in alignment with that

[32:59] current policy map

[33:01] recommendation does not

[33:03] directly facilitate priority

[33:03] goals.

[33:06] And here's a review of the

[33:07] minor map amendment criteria.

[33:10] Again this is criteria that we

[33:12] look at when considering any

[33:14] type change or any petition.

[33:15] >> that would.

[33:16] Change the current place type

[33:18] from one to another.

[33:19] So it's currently in

[33:19] neighborhood one.

[33:21] It would go to manufacturing

[33:22] logistics if this were approved

[33:22] .

[33:25] So it meets some of the some of

[33:26] the minor map movement criteria

[33:27] that we would look for.

[33:29] Um, considering that it is

[33:31] adjacent to existing

[33:32] manufacturing logistics but it

[33:34] is adjacent to neighborhood one

[33:36] which is not preferred for the

[33:37] site and it meets some of the

[33:38] locational criteria that we're

[33:39] also looking for.

[33:41] Staff doesn't recommend

[33:42] approval this petition in its

[33:43] current form.

[33:45] We think it could be generally

[33:46] compatible with the surrounding

[33:46] land uses.

[33:48] Again, there's a lot of

[33:50] industrial entitlements and

[33:52] uses already out in this area

[33:53] and directly abutting the site

[33:55] ,but it also does have

[33:56] neighborhood one zoning

[33:57] directly adjacent to it.

[33:59] So we think it would be better

[34:01] pursued as a conditional

[34:03] rezoning petition so that they

[34:05] could prohibit uses and

[34:07] potentially also just prescribe

[34:07] or.

[34:10] Opt in to stricter buffer

[34:11] standards than the ordinance

[34:13] typically requires just so that

[34:14] they're being more sensitive to

[34:15] that neighborhood one place

[34:16] type that they are surrounded

[34:18] by and that would be bringing

[34:20] them into alignment with

[34:22] specific community area area

[34:23] plan policies that we look at

[34:25] such as environmental justice

[34:27] policy three and just

[34:29] environmental justice policy 11

[34:29] within this area plan.

[34:31] So I talked to the petitioner

[34:32] team already.

[34:33] I think they already have some

[34:35] plans to address these changes.

[34:37] They would look forward to

[34:38] seeing what a revised petition

[34:40] looks like from the site, and

[34:41] I'll be happy to take questions

[34:42] following petitioner comments.

[34:43] Thank you holly.

[34:44] MR. Carmichael.

[34:45] Uh.

[34:46] >> MR. Mayor pro tem members

[34:46] of.

[34:47] >> city council and the zoning

[34:48] committee I'm john carmichael

[34:49] I'm here on behalf of the

[34:50] petitioner garrison road

[34:51] holding llc.

[34:52] It's good to see everyone.

[34:53] Um.

[34:55] As holly stated, the site's

[34:56] about four and a half acres is

[34:57] located on the east side of

[34:57] garrison road.

[34:59] Between swift.

[35:00] >> road and.

[35:00] Dixie river road.

[35:01] This is an aerial.

[35:02] the site.

[35:04] Is kind of washed out but you

[35:05] can see it outlined.

[35:06] In red and excuse me in yellow.

[35:08] Uh the sites currently zone in

[35:10] one a and in the airport noise

[35:11] disclosure overlay district as

[35:12] holly indicated.

[35:13] Uh the parcels.

[35:16] Uh surrounding a nearby or zone

[35:18] in one a there's some MR..

[35:20] And doe.

[35:21] >> a little further to the west

[35:23] and then immediate to the south

[35:26] is 150 acre site this zoned r1

[35:26] cdd.

[35:28] Once again in the airport noise

[35:28] disclosure overlay.

[35:30] District the petitioner.

[35:32] Is actually developing a.

[35:34] Light industrial business park

[35:34] on.

[35:34] >> that.

[35:35] Adjacent south to the site.

[35:39] Um requesting the site to

[35:39] resign.

[35:41] From n1 a.

[35:43] And go to ml1 eight in.

[35:44] To accommodate.

[35:47] Uses allowed in the ml1 zoning

[35:47] district.

[35:48] However as holly.

[35:49] Indicated we will be.

[35:50] Converting this rezoning

[35:51] request.

[35:52] To a tier one.

[35:53] Conditional rezoning request.

[35:54] And the tier one conditional.

[35:56] Rezoning request will prohibit

[35:56] .

[35:57] Various uses on the site.

[35:58] There's a list.

[36:00] In excess of 20 that.

[36:01] Uh, the planning staff provided

[36:03] to us, but one of the uses that

[36:04] would be excluded.

[36:06] As a data center.

[36:08] We also work with the planning

[36:10] staff on the uh the buffer.

[36:11] Um.

[36:12] >> concerns that they raised

[36:13] with me last week.

[36:15] We're happy to do that as well

[36:17] and we will take care of that

[36:18] uh, hopefully in advance.

[36:19] Of the zoning committee

[36:19] meeting.

[36:20] Or hopefully.

[36:21] >> in advance of this thursday

[36:22] when we need to.

[36:23] Submit our.

[36:24] >> documents back to planning.

[36:26] Uh, this is the approved

[36:28] rezoning plan for the adjacent

[36:28] site.

[36:30] I just want to show it to you

[36:31] just to show you how.

[36:32] Uh, it would relate the.

[36:34] Rezoning site would relate to

[36:35] the existing.

[36:35] Uh.

[36:37] >> site excuse me the site to

[36:38] the south that's being

[36:39] developed as a light industrial

[36:39] business park.

[36:41] The rezoning site is mainly to

[36:43] the north and would be

[36:44] incorporated into this

[36:45] development.

[36:46] Um we will once again work with

[36:48] planning this week uh, to.

[36:49] Uh.

[36:51] >> convert this to a tier one

[36:52] conditional zoning district.

[36:54] We met with the steel creek

[36:56] residents association on the

[36:57] land use committee of the steel

[36:59] creek residents association on

[36:59] JULY.

[36:59] >> 14th.

[37:01] ,and they advised that they

[37:02] are not opposed to the rezoning

[37:04] request and that was before the

[37:06] ,um, conversation started.

[37:07] About converting.

[37:08] It to a tier one conditional

[37:09] rezoning request.

[37:11] Happening and some questions

[37:11] that you MAY have.

[37:13] We appreciate your

[37:13] consideration.

[37:15] Thank you, MR. Cole.

[37:16] We have actually one more

[37:19] speaker on this topic is uh,

[37:19] masa flippy.

[37:21] Uh, he's he's with the

[37:21] petitioner.

[37:21] Okay.

[37:22] So you don't speak.

[37:23] Yes, sir.

[37:24] >> okay.

[37:25] So I'm a year the council

[37:26] member mayor.

[37:26] Yeah.

[37:28] >> uh huh.

[37:29] Same question I just.

[37:30] Asked earlier about the.

[37:31] Undisturbed um.

[37:33] Tree save in buffer.

[37:34] Just thinking.

[37:36] >> and looking at in one.

[37:37] Is on the other side of that.

[37:40] Can you show the map for that

[37:40] is.

[37:52] Yep yeah that's great yeah.

[37:53] Is that something you're.

[37:53] Amenable to?

[37:56] Uh, after.

[37:56] Hearing the conversation.

[37:58] And after.

[37:59] Talking to holly last week we

[38:00] will definitely look at that

[38:02] and let you know I haven't we

[38:04] haven't really looked at it in

[38:05] any detail but we can look at

[38:06] that and we will let you know

[38:07] in a very timely fashion.

[38:09] Okay I mean I think that would

[38:10] just.

[38:10] >> be helpful particularly as.

[38:12] We're thinking through.

[38:13] If there.

[38:14] Is future.

[38:14] >> single family.

[38:16] Or or housing.

[38:18] Adjacent to that based on the

[38:19] current zoning for those.

[38:20] So thank you.

[38:21] For sharing.

[38:22] Uh you're welcome.

[38:23] and that would be yes

[38:24] presumably along the.

[38:25] Northern and eastern boundary

[38:26] undisturbed there.

[38:27] Yes.

[38:28] >> got you.

[38:29] Happy to look at that.

[38:30] There's a motion to close the

[38:31] public hearing.

[38:32] So moved.

[38:34] Second moving properties second

[38:37] all those in favor oppose.

[38:38] Thank you.

[38:38] >> thank you.

[38:40] Okay.

[38:42] >> the next, uh, rezoning

[38:44] petitions item number 22 2020

[38:47] 5-1 23 by sanders partnership

[38:51] llc location approximately 6 to

[38:52] 1.26 acres located east of

[38:54] kelly road north of pleasant

[38:56] grove road and west of western

[38:57] woods lane.

[39:00] Current zone is and one a

[39:01] proposed zone is in 1d.

[39:03] Uh okay.

[39:04] Sir, would you like to give us

[39:05] overview of this petition?

[39:06] Yes sir.

[39:09] >> um good evening everyone.

[39:10] Petition 2025.

[39:11] Uh 123.

[39:12] >> is a.

[39:13] 61.26 acre.

[39:15] Site located on kelly road at

[39:16] the intersection and pleasant.

[39:17] >> grove.

[39:18] Road site is currently zoned in

[39:19] one eight neighborhood one a.

[39:23] Further zoning is in one d cdd

[39:25] neighborhood one d conditional

[39:26] 2040 policy map recommends the

[39:28] neighborhood one place type for

[39:28] the site.

[39:30] The plan is in alignment with

[39:32] the neighborhood one place type

[39:33] um.

[39:34] The rezoning proposal calls for

[39:36] the development of up to 212

[39:38] single family detached units

[39:39] and the minimum lot size will

[39:42] be 40 800ft2, which is in

[39:43] excess of the requirement for

[39:46] the in one d district there's

[39:47] three points of access into the

[39:49] development from kelly road and

[39:51] two of which will include right

[39:53] and left turn lanes on kelly

[39:56] road 25 foot class b landscape

[39:58] your right along the uh

[39:59] southern property boundaries

[40:01] and a greenway easement and

[40:03] three acre park site will be

[40:04] dedicated to mecklenburg county

[40:04] .

[40:06] The plan is in alignment with

[40:08] the policy map, and it is

[40:09] consistent with the goals and

[40:10] policies of the west middle

[40:12] community area plan staff

[40:13] recommends approval of this

[40:15] petition upon resolution of

[40:17] outstanding issues related to

[40:18] transportation and environment.

[40:20] Uh the proposed plan meets the

[40:22] place type five rt five

[40:23] criteria.

[40:25] For the community area plan and

[40:27] the rt five criteria are

[40:28] utilized to ensure new

[40:29] developments within the

[40:30] neighborhood one place type

[40:31] fits existing neighborhood

[40:32] patterns focusing on lot size

[40:34] street furnishing parcel

[40:35] location within a block.

[40:37] The plan also meets goal seven

[40:39] of the 2040 comp plan uh

[40:41] integrated natural and built

[40:42] environments by dedicating that

[40:43] greenway easement and three

[40:44] acre park site to mecklenburg

[40:45] county.

[40:46] I'm happy to take any questions

[40:47] following MR. Carmichael's

[40:48] presentation.

[40:49] Thank you.

[40:51] >> staff city clerk uh, I see

[40:52] we have two speakers sound to

[40:54] speak that john is mark with

[40:55] you?

[40:55] He is.

[40:56] Thank you.

[40:57] MR. Carmichael.

[40:57] Go right ahead.

[40:58] MR. Mayor.

[40:59] >> pro tem members of.

[41:00] Council on the zoning

[41:01] commission john carmichael here

[41:02] on behalf of petitioner.

[41:03] Sanders partnership.

[41:06] Llc with me tonight as mayor

[41:07] pro tem indicated as mark.

[41:09] Com uh the site is about.

[41:11] 61 acres east side of kelly.

[41:13] Road between pleasant uh grove

[41:15] road and western woods lane.

[41:17] Uh this is an aerial of the

[41:19] site is outlined in.

[41:19] >> uh green.

[41:21] >> is tough to see uh.

[41:22] >> the site is.

[41:23] Currently zoned in one a.

[41:25] The zoning of the parcels

[41:26] surrounding.

[41:28] >> the site are a combination

[41:29] or primarily in one a and then

[41:31] you've got some mix to

[41:33] innovative here across.

[41:34] Kelly road from the site.

[41:36] The request as a result of the

[41:37] site to the in one.

[41:39] Dcd zoning district.

[41:40] To accommodate the development

[41:42] of a residential community that

[41:44] contained a maximum of 212

[41:47] single family detached homes.

[41:48] They're all density of the

[41:49] development would be just under

[41:50] three and a.

[41:51] Half units per acre.

[41:53] Uh some of the.

[41:54] Elements of the rezoning plan

[41:57] include a minimum 25 foot wide

[41:59] class b landscaped yard along.

[42:00] The southern boundary of the

[42:03] site next to uh adjacent

[42:04] existing single family homes.

[42:05] That was a request to the

[42:06] community and.

[42:07] i believe one of the.

[42:09] First community meeting we had

[42:10] there be a variable width

[42:11] landscape yard on.

[42:13] >> the site frontage on kelly

[42:14] road as.

[42:16] Max indicated a minimum three

[42:17] acre portion of the site would

[42:18] be dedicate and conveyed to the

[42:19] county for a future public.

[42:21] Park and then a minimum 100

[42:23] foot wide greenway easement

[42:24] would also be dedicated

[42:25] conveyed to mecklenburg county

[42:25] .

[42:27] Uh it's consistent with the

[42:28] policy map.

[42:30] The request is this is the uh,

[42:31] rezoning plan.

[42:34] This is kelly road here, uh, to

[42:36] the west of the site and then

[42:37] this is pleasant grove.

[42:39] The three access points from

[42:41] kelly road there would be a

[42:41] left turn.

[42:41] Lane.

[42:43] >> uh.

[42:43] >> installed here.

[42:45] Into this access point and then

[42:46] there'd be a right hand.

[42:47] Turn lane.

[42:48] Installed here at.

[42:49] >> the southernmost access

[42:50] point.

[42:52] This is the area in which the

[42:53] public park would be located.

[42:54] The greenway easement would be

[42:55] over here.

[42:58] Uh, this is the 25 foot wide

[42:59] buffer that would be

[43:00] established next to the

[43:01] existing single family homes.

[43:03] And then this is the variable

[43:05] width, uh, landscape yard

[43:05] along.

[43:07] >> the site's frontage on kelly

[43:08] road.

[43:10] But we did have uh two

[43:10] community meetings.

[43:12] We had one on JANUARY 7th of

[43:13] this year.

[43:15] And as recently as JANUARY 30th

[43:16] we had the second community

[43:17] meeting.

[43:18] Adjustments were made in

[43:19] response to comments received.

[43:20] At the.

[43:21] >> first community meeting.

[43:24] Um, we appreciate the planning

[43:25] staff's favorable

[43:25] recommendation.

[43:26] We will.

[43:27] >> work with the planning staff

[43:28] this week to.

[43:29] Uh.

[43:30] >> address those few remaining

[43:31] outstanding issues.

[43:33] I want to thank uh mayor pro

[43:35] tem mitchell and council member

[43:35] .

[43:36] Mayfield for attending.

[43:36] >> one.

[43:37] Or more of the community

[43:39] meetings that we had on this

[43:40] rezoning request, but we're

[43:41] happy to answer any questions

[43:42] that you MAY have.

[43:44] Council member mayo.

[43:44] Thank you.

[43:45] >> um.

[43:49] Can can we go to slide.

[43:50] >> 124 at 124.

[43:52] Or wait no.

[43:53] >> no 122.

[43:54] Sorry yeah.

[43:56] Yeah no no that one no.

[43:57] >> one 2030.

[43:58] >> sorry.

[43:59] Yeah sorry.

[44:00] Um so I.

[44:01] >> have a couple.

[44:02] Questions.

[44:04] >> first when you talk about

[44:05] the public.

[44:05] Park site.

[44:06] >> in the.

[44:07] Greenway easement.

[44:08] Is that.

[44:09] >> currently in the.

[44:10] Um.

[44:12] >> uh, cip for park and rec?

[44:14] I mean, do you have like an

[44:15] anticipated time frame when

[44:17] that would even come to

[44:17] fruition?

[44:19] I'm not aware.

[44:21] That they ask us to they ask us

[44:22] to to do this the.

[44:23] >> park.

[44:23] And rec that was.

[44:24] >> one of the to the rezoning.

[44:25] Process.

[44:27] >> is that possible for you to

[44:28] ask them?

[44:28] I'm just curious.

[44:30] I've had a couple of those even

[44:33] in morris chapel uh data center

[44:36] there was some um something

[44:38] similar and I'm just wondering

[44:39] when these kind of things would

[44:40] actually occur.

[44:42] I mean I great it's good really

[44:42] in banking.

[44:44] Um, my other question is what

[44:46] would be the height of the

[44:47] buildings that you're proposing

[44:47] .

[44:49] Whether they're single family

[44:51] homes a maximum height of 40ft

[44:51] .

[44:54] Okay so two storey so yeah all

[44:54] right.

[44:55] Okay okay.

[44:58] Let me just add a couple of

[44:59] comments and thank the sanders

[45:02] partners llc and john and for

[45:03] the neighbors uh council if you

[45:04] could remember this started

[45:05] almost two years ago.

[45:06] This was a land.

[45:09] Field was going to be built.

[45:11] Oh going to be built by the

[45:13] reds uh uh right near the

[45:13] resident.

[45:15] And so two years later not only

[45:18] have we changed our policy to

[45:19] prevent landfill forbid built

[45:21] beside residential but more

[45:22] important we had a good place

[45:24] now at the two meetings the

[45:25] neighborhood is very

[45:25] supportive.

[45:26] This was on and so I just want

[45:26] to thank everyone.

[45:28] For hanging there.

[45:29] ,including the residents of

[45:31] the neighborhood who who was

[45:32] very supportive.

[45:33] Nan, thank you for your

[45:34] engagement.

[45:35] So thank you.

[45:35] >> any other.

[45:36] Comments?

[45:38] >> hello I'm just me.

[45:38] >> okay.

[45:42] >> uh is there a motion to

[45:43] close the public hearing.

[45:44] So moved.

[45:45] Second, second.

[45:46] All those in favor let me know

[45:47] the raise your hand.

[45:48] Okay.

[45:49] >> great.

[45:49] Thank you all.

[45:50] Just go.

[45:54] To item 18 and I'm looking

[45:54] around waiting for the mayor to

[45:55] make his.

[45:56] >> grand entry.

[45:56] Okay.

[45:58] >> there is.

[46:02] Only petition 2026 oh 31 by

[46:04] charlotte pike and foundry

[46:09] location 0.4 acres located

[46:11] south of moving lane west of

[46:13] providence road and isa uh high

[46:14] city.

[46:15] Image image.

[46:18] Hermitage hermits road and

[46:19] district six current zoning is

[46:22] in one c and proposed zoning in

[46:23] nc.

[46:26] Cdd staff is not recommending

[46:27] this approve this petition at

[46:28] this time.

[46:30] And staff you can give us a

[46:31] presentation.

[46:34] Yes I'll just wait for our

[46:34] powerpoint.

[46:35] I think 400.

[46:37] mhm.

[46:41] >> yeah this one I just because

[46:42] I'm.

[46:45] Too but.

[46:47] This site is just under half an

[46:49] acre located south um rabin

[46:51] lane west of providence for an

[46:53] east of hermitage road and an

[46:54] area where we have single

[46:55] family uses along this

[46:58] particular street but it's

[47:00] located just west of a range of

[47:01] commercial uses along

[47:02] providence road.

[47:06] Currently so neighborhood one c

[47:07] and they are requesting you go

[47:08] to neighborhood center.

[47:11] Conditional you post map calls

[47:13] for the neighborhood one place

[47:14] type it is directly against

[47:15] that neighborhood center.

[47:17] Please type to the east.

[47:20] The proposal itself is for the

[47:21] development of a surface

[47:23] parking lot with approximately

[47:24] 25 spaces.

[47:27] They do provide a 25 foot class

[47:29] for landscape yard along the

[47:31] perimeter of the site and in

[47:32] their um site plan.

[47:34] Labels they notes that they.

[47:35] Would exceed ordinance

[47:37] requirements in the planting

[47:39] standards and they also note

[47:40] that they would work to

[47:43] preserve existing mature trees

[47:43] and evergreen hedges on the

[47:44] site.

[47:46] Provide school movement access

[47:47] point from.

[47:47] >> arabian.

[47:49] Lane effort planting strip and

[47:50] six foot sidewalk along the.

[47:51] Public frontage.

[47:53] And also commits to a potential

[47:55] industrial and pedestrian path

[47:57] on the southern portion of the

[47:59] site that would connect to the

[48:00] toilet, pipe and foundry site

[48:01] if feasible.

[48:04] this is inconsistent with the

[48:05] goals and policies of the south

[48:06] inner area plan.

[48:07] And it's not in.

[48:09] Alignment with the policy map

[48:09] recommendation for the

[48:11] neighborhood one place type it

[48:14] doesn't directly facilitate any

[48:15] priority goals or additional

[48:16] comprehensive plan goals.

[48:19] It would change the policy map

[48:21] to neighborhood activity center

[48:21] if approved.

[48:22] So we worked it through that

[48:25] minor map and that criteria

[48:27] it's it does meet some uh of

[48:29] the minimum acreage criteria

[48:31] because it connects to the

[48:32] adjacent neighborhood center

[48:35] place type and it meets some

[48:36] locational criteria.

[48:39] However, um it's contextually

[48:42] proposing a surface parking lot

[48:44] within and one and into a

[48:45] corridor or a.

[48:45] Neighborhood one corridor.

[48:48] Realistically and it's not a

[48:50] preferred contextual landscape

[48:51] for that use.

[48:55] Again, we consider this

[48:56] inconsistent with the goals and

[48:57] policies of the south inner

[49:00] area plan just given the

[49:02] development proposal for a

[49:04] parking lot where this site is

[49:06] abutting single family uses and

[49:08] some institutional uses, we

[49:09] don't think that's an

[49:10] appropriate location for such

[49:13] an application of an auto

[49:13] centric type use.

[49:17] Um it could potentially service

[49:19] overflow parking for nearby

[49:22] commercial commercial uses and

[49:23] the petition does commit to

[49:25] preserving existing vegetation

[49:28] where feasible and also

[49:29] proposes additional standards

[49:30] that go beyond ordinance

[49:32] requirements in regards to the

[49:32] landscape yards.

[49:35] But the surface parking lot

[49:36] just on a whole policy wise

[49:38] doesn't meet what we would look

[49:39] for in the neighborhood.

[49:40] One context that it.

[49:40] Sits in.

[49:41] >> and I'll be.

[49:42] >> happy to take questions

[49:43] volunteering no comments.

[49:46] Questions for staff.

[49:49] All right.

[49:50] I believe we have uh.

[49:51] Four people.

[49:54] >> who are on our list to speak

[49:56] for the petitioner colin brown

[49:59] ,brittany lenz, kim faison and

[50:01] allison merriman are all

[50:01] speaking.

[50:04] Well if necessary.

[50:04] Okay.

[50:05] >> so tenant.

[50:07] See, MR. Mayor, uh, council

[50:08] members, any committee members

[50:10] colin brown on behalf of

[50:11] charlotte pipe and foundry.

[50:13] Uh, I'm sure most of you are

[50:14] familiar with charlotte foundry

[50:15] one of our.

[50:15] Greatest.

[50:18] >> uh, local uh, homegrown

[50:19] businesses that is still, um, a

[50:22] major player in, uh, pipe

[50:23] manufacturing cast iron and pvc

[50:24] around the nation.

[50:25] Uh, as you know, their factory

[50:27] uh, for many, many years was

[50:29] located until about five years

[50:30] ago, um, downtown.

[50:31] But we still have charlotte

[50:32] pipes headquarters on randolph

[50:32] road.

[50:35] Uh, and their product knowledge

[50:37] facility is located uh, on

[50:37] providence road.

[50:39] Um, so thanks, uh, holly for

[50:41] the overview of the petition

[50:42] and and unfortunately we don't

[50:44] have, uh, staff support.

[50:45] Uh, we've worked with staff i

[50:46] think we've done, you know,

[50:47] about everything we can do to

[50:48] get them comfortable.

[50:50] And I know that people are not

[50:51] excited about a surface parking

[50:51] lot.

[50:53] Uh, but we are talking about an

[50:55] area of town where parking is

[50:56] very precious.

[50:59] Uh, what makes this unique is

[51:01] charlotte pipe and foundry's

[51:02] product knowledge building is

[51:03] located here on providence

[51:03] road.

[51:05] Uh, this is a facility that

[51:06] charlotte pipe uses.

[51:08] They bring in, uh, clients from

[51:10] all over the country to come in

[51:11] to learn about their product,

[51:13] how to use their product, how

[51:14] to assemble it so they come in

[51:14] from all over.

[51:16] So it's not a heavy, uh,

[51:18] traffic parking use but there

[51:20] there is a desire to have some

[51:22] additional parking in the area

[51:24] and so um here again here's the

[51:25] product knowledge facility

[51:26] that's not subject to the

[51:26] zoning.

[51:28] The zoning is, uh, this

[51:29] interesting parcel here in

[51:29] green.

[51:32] It is a vacant lot on moravian

[51:32] lane.

[51:35] Uh, so it certainly presented

[51:37] an opportunity to find some

[51:39] parking to support, uh,

[51:39] charlotte pike use.

[51:41] And then as we started to talk

[51:42] with neighbors, as I mentioned,

[51:44] no one gets excited about a

[51:44] parking lot, right?

[51:46] And certainly in this part of

[51:48] charlotte everyone's very, you

[51:49] know, concerned about

[51:49] development.

[51:50] Uh, so charlotte pike reached

[51:52] out very early I think we

[51:53] invited all the neighbors on

[51:55] moravian lane to come to the

[51:55] product knowledge building to

[51:57] meet with us to talk about the

[51:58] future of this vacant lot, what

[52:00] would become uh and as we

[52:01] talked with the neighbors,

[52:02] frankly, I think they

[52:03] acknowledged well, gosh, if

[52:04] anything's going to happen here

[52:05] this is a pretty good fit for

[52:05] us.

[52:08] Um, there is little church on

[52:10] the lane which has a robust uh,

[52:12] pre-k uh, class that I

[52:14] understand is very high traffic

[52:15] and uh, the little church could

[52:17] also use some additional

[52:17] parking.

[52:18] Uh, so there's certainly

[52:19] discussions between little

[52:21] church, uh, this you know, this

[52:21] important institutional use

[52:23] that's been there for many,

[52:24] many, many years and charlotte

[52:26] pipe about sharing some of that

[52:28] uh, so there became a positive

[52:29] community conversation.

[52:31] There was enough community

[52:32] support for the neighboring

[52:33] homeowners that we thought we

[52:34] would go ahead and file this

[52:36] petition, uh, even though we

[52:37] knew staff would have

[52:37] hesitations.

[52:40] But there's a look at it again.

[52:42] It is a vacant lot now, uh, as

[52:43] holly mentioned, uh the site

[52:46] would have robust um,

[52:47] landscaping and buffering.

[52:49] We have areas that would be

[52:50] tree save predicting some

[52:53] existing trees and then

[52:54] supplementing that with

[52:54] additional plantings.

[52:56] I'd move through here pretty

[52:58] quickly happy to answer any

[52:58] questions.

[53:00] Um, as holly points out if you

[53:01] can see the plant here we are

[53:03] in in one which is why staff is

[53:06] not supporting us but we are

[53:08] directly adjacent to a

[53:09] commercial place type next door

[53:09] .

[53:11] We think this serves as a nice

[53:11] buffer.

[53:13] I think the neighbors on that

[53:14] street think the same council

[53:15] member owns.

[53:16] I know you were able to attend

[53:18] our official community meeting

[53:19] ,uh so you could hear some of

[53:19] that feedback.

[53:21] We have been asked by the

[53:22] neighbors to try and address

[53:23] some problems there.

[53:26] Uh, there's some significant

[53:27] stormwater, uh, impacts on the

[53:29] site not caused by us, caused

[53:30] by other development, but there

[53:32] is an opportunity to install a

[53:34] new stormwater pipe through our

[53:35] site to take care of to solve

[53:37] some existing problems.

[53:38] Uh, we have committed to that.

[53:40] Those are commitments in our

[53:42] zoning as well as the more

[53:43] robust landscaping and

[53:43] planting.

[53:45] Additionally at the community

[53:46] meeting we talked about

[53:47] concerns about lighting.

[53:49] Uh, charlotte pipe has added a

[53:50] commitment, uh, that all

[53:51] lighting will be shielded from

[53:52] adjacent properties download

[53:54] directed a pedestrian scale and

[53:55] have zero foot candle

[53:56] measurement.

[53:58] Uh, at the property line uh,

[53:59] we've also provided some

[53:59] renderings.

[54:02] Uh, so again on this parcel as

[54:04] you can see there are 25

[54:06] parking spaces but a great deal

[54:08] of the site will be buffering

[54:10] uh, trees protection of

[54:11] existing trees.

[54:13] And so I think uh I think that

[54:14] opportunity to really address a

[54:16] need again no one gets excited

[54:17] about parking but it's a need

[54:18] especially in this area.

[54:20] Uh, so I'm hopeful that with

[54:23] our community support, um, you

[54:24] all and happy to have further

[54:25] conversations with you all.

[54:27] Um, between now and when we

[54:28] come see you next month for a

[54:28] decision.

[54:29] Happy to answer any questions.

[54:32] Okay.

[54:34] >> just before we get to uh,

[54:35] council holly staff any any

[54:36] rebuttal comments?

[54:38] Uh, we.

[54:38] >> don't provide.

[54:38] A rebuttal.

[54:39] Okay?

[54:39] >> okay.

[54:39] All right.

[54:40] >> uh, we'll start with

[54:41] council.

[54:42] Member mayo and then council

[54:43] member mayfield.

[54:43] Thank you.

[54:45] >> uh, collin, quick question

[54:47] have you often thought of using

[54:50] a different type of like

[54:51] pervious pavement?

[54:53] So just when you mentioned that

[54:55] there are already some existing

[54:56] stormwater issues on the site.

[54:57] If y'all.

[54:58] Thought of using more

[55:01] innovative products that would

[55:02] maybe minimize that instead of

[55:04] just traditional asphalt.

[55:06] We have uh, allison merriman

[55:07] with land design is here if you

[55:08] have detailed questions but

[55:09] that's certainly something

[55:10] we're talking through with the

[55:11] neighbors as we talk about you

[55:12] know, there's some very real

[55:14] issues with this commercial and

[55:15] so we're trying to find the

[55:17] most effective system, you know

[55:19] ,um, to to handle uh, not only

[55:20] what we're creating but some of

[55:22] the other set that that is

[55:22] being evaluated.

[55:23] Okay.

[55:24] >> when will we know more about

[55:24] that?

[55:27] Um, we'll continue looking at

[55:27] that.

[55:28] Allison I don't know if you've

[55:28] got.

[55:32] Um I'm happy to get you, you

[55:34] know, to tell you hey, that's

[55:35] an option or not before.

[55:37] I'm just wondering about cost

[55:39] if it's cost effective for

[55:40] y'all to do that.

[55:41] But I do think it would be an

[55:43] interesting idea when we're

[55:45] thinking about environmentalism

[55:46] um, and thinking through like

[55:48] our youdo and how can we, uh,

[55:50] be more proactive again?

[55:52] Um, if we know there's already

[55:53] stormwater issues there instead

[55:55] of just adding, you know,

[55:56] concrete it's just going to

[55:59] have more water issues?

[56:01] I don't put else on the spot uh

[56:03] that we are working on it and

[56:03] I'll have an answer before we

[56:04] see you again.

[56:04] All right.

[56:05] >> thank you.

[56:06] Council member mayfield.

[56:09] Thank you, MR. Mayor.

[56:10] MR. Brown so.

[56:14] Because I was listening to this

[56:15] in the back what.

[56:18] Where the proposal is is for a

[56:19] surface overflow parking lot.

[56:22] It is for 25 parking spaces.

[56:23] Yes, a surface parking spaces.

[56:25] I don't know if I'd call them

[56:26] overflow but yes additional.

[56:28] So the way the way we have the

[56:30] language written is that is a

[56:31] surface overflow parking lot.

[56:33] So what is a couple of things

[56:35] that I'm wondering what type of

[56:37] vehicle will be coming to.

[56:37] >> and.

[56:39] from that parking lot if that's

[56:42] the parking lot when we think

[56:46] about not only traffic but also

[56:49] wait that's on some of the

[56:52] roads because it's listed as a

[56:53] surface overflow parking lot

[56:55] serving an off site business

[56:57] where principal parking users

[56:59] are only appropriate.

[57:01] Which one of the challenges

[57:03] that staff has that is only

[57:03] appropriate at the edges.

[57:05] So I want to get an idea of

[57:06] this is like.

[57:08] Say an example.

[57:12] >> doing the golf match at

[57:13] quail hollow people park at

[57:15] south park and then there's a

[57:18] shuttle that takes them to and

[57:21] from is it that type of

[57:21] anticipation?

[57:24] No that is not what's

[57:24] anticipated.

[57:24] Okay.

[57:26] Um and I'll say these are um

[57:28] these would be passenger

[57:29] vehicles not large heavy trucks

[57:30] .

[57:32] Uh, what works is the proximity

[57:34] to charlotte pike's main office

[57:36] here there's an alley that

[57:36] exists they can walk.

[57:37] So that's.

[57:39] >> the anticipation is that

[57:41] employees will park there for

[57:43] overflow parking and walk

[57:43] through the park.

[57:44] >> that's correct.

[57:46] Now we have had conversations

[57:47] with the neighborhood about

[57:48] there is great demand for

[57:49] parking and could little church

[57:50] use that.

[57:51] And yes that is part of

[57:52] discussion and the neighbors

[57:53] have said well what if it's

[57:53] abused?

[57:54] You know what if everyone

[57:56] starts parking in charlotte?

[57:57] Piper said well at some point

[57:58] we might have to get it.

[58:01] You know if it's abused.

[58:02] But we would like to have you

[58:04] know, we're hopeful that with

[58:05] the relationships in the

[58:06] neighborhood with the church

[58:08] could use that on sundays when

[58:10] charlotte pike does not need

[58:10] it.

[58:12] Um, so it could fill several

[58:14] niches and I think that's why

[58:15] the community appreciates, you

[58:16] know, some extra space.

[58:17] So what.

[58:21] I would ask the petitioners to

[58:23] consider I necessarily wouldn't

[58:24] support a gate.

[58:26] I would.

[58:29] I could see since there is a

[58:30] need for overflow parking

[58:32] whether it is for a church

[58:34] event or even for some of the

[58:36] restaurants that uh by having

[58:40] access to that but to create a

[58:44] space that is only going to be

[58:46] accessible to a select group

[58:49] would be concerning to me

[58:50] versus if it's going to be

[58:54] public parking for 25 monday to

[58:55] friday for the business hours

[58:59] but then after 6:00 or on the

[59:01] weekends or if there's an event

[59:03] knowing that there's access to

[59:05] overflow parking they'll pick

[59:06] out the details.

[59:07] I wouldn't necessarily have a

[59:08] challenge with that.

[59:10] I just wanted to make sure that

[59:11] was the employees part.

[59:13] They're trying to figure out

[59:15] how they would get from their

[59:17] building from the parking to

[59:18] their building because again we

[59:19] got 100 plus degree weather out

[59:20] here.

[59:20] .

[59:21] >> don't necessarily.

[59:22] Want anyone.

[59:23] >> passing out along the path

[59:24] when our winter.

[59:25] does come.

[59:26] If it.

[59:27] >> comes for two weeks we might

[59:30] get five inches of snow.

[59:33] We also have had tremendous

[59:34] rainstorms that have come

[59:35] through so that's why I was

[59:37] just trying to get an idea of

[59:38] there is a shuttle.

[59:41] If so what's the tone in and

[59:43] out for a shuttle service?

[59:44] Just seeing if that was

[59:45] something I was going to say.

[59:46] To our site.

[59:47] Just to be clear there there's

[59:49] a path right here to the

[59:50] charlotte pike building so they

[59:53] have almost direct access.

[59:54] Thank you.

[59:54] >> thank you.

[59:55] Council member.

[59:56] >> island thank.

[59:56] You mayor.

[59:58] So I have walked the site on

[59:58] my.

[59:59] Own um.

[1:00:00] Because it is obviously it's in

[1:00:01] my.

[1:00:02] District it's an area that I'm

[1:00:03] very familiar with.

[1:00:05] I appreciate the questions of

[1:00:06] council members, particularly

[1:00:07] the thoughtful questions out of

[1:00:09] council member mayo around.

[1:00:10] Some sort of impervious

[1:00:10] surface.

[1:00:12] I will say that one of the

[1:00:15] challenges in in myers park has

[1:00:16] candidly been the age of the

[1:00:18] infrastructure there one of the

[1:00:19] oldest neighborhoods in town.

[1:00:21] We often do have infrastructure

[1:00:22] that has not kept pace with

[1:00:24] with where we are with some of

[1:00:25] the sudden storms that come up

[1:00:26] and I'm very appreciative of

[1:00:27] that.

[1:00:28] I'm also very appreciative that

[1:00:29] we have some tight roads back

[1:00:31] there and we have some waiting

[1:00:32] times for parents who are

[1:00:33] picking up children in those

[1:00:33] sorts of things.

[1:00:34] So I'm very hopeful that I'm

[1:00:36] going to see a lot of

[1:00:37] collaboration, particularly

[1:00:38] around the lines of what

[1:00:39] council member mayfield was

[1:00:40] talking about at those times

[1:00:42] when it is not necessary for it

[1:00:43] to be used for employees or for

[1:00:44] folks who are.

[1:00:45] Visiting um.

[1:00:46] >> the charlotte pipe and

[1:00:48] foundry to have that more open

[1:00:50] to uh to parking uses during

[1:00:51] the weekend.

[1:00:52] >> and in the evenings.

[1:00:53] So I am right now.

[1:00:55] Cautiously optimistic that this

[1:00:56] will continue to progress along

[1:00:58] some community benefits that

[1:01:00] will really, um, you know,

[1:01:01] present this in a little bit

[1:01:02] more exciting light because you

[1:01:02] are right.

[1:01:05] Um, I don't get real jazzed

[1:01:06] about a surface parking lot but

[1:01:08] if you can if you can.

[1:01:09] >> make it a little bit better.

[1:01:10] You know I can be amenable.

[1:01:11] So thank you.

[1:01:12] Thank you.

[1:01:13] Council member johnson.

[1:01:15] I'll work with the

[1:01:15] representative.

[1:01:15] Thank you.

[1:01:17] >> are there any other

[1:01:17] questions.

[1:01:18] Or comments from council?

[1:01:19] I'll see you.

[1:01:23] Second all in favor any

[1:01:23] opposed?

[1:01:24] Thank you.

[1:01:27] Hey items 19 and 20 have been

[1:01:31] deferred so we moved to item 21

[1:01:35] which is petition 20 2637 by

[1:01:35] historical.

[1:01:36] Excelsior inc..

[1:01:38] Is approximately.

[1:01:41] 8.88 acres located west of

[1:01:43] beatty's ford road, south of

[1:01:45] sanders avenue and east of

[1:01:47] campus street in councilmember

[1:01:48] graham's district.

[1:01:50] The site is currently zoned

[1:01:51] neighborhood center and

[1:01:53] neighborhood 1-c and the

[1:01:56] proposed zoning is community

[1:01:56] activity center.

[1:01:59] One exception and neighborhood

[1:02:03] two specify conditional staff

[1:02:04] recommends approval of this

[1:02:05] petition upon resolution of

[1:02:06] outstanding issues.

[1:02:08] There are no speakers signed up

[1:02:09] against this petition.

[1:02:12] The petitioner team will have

[1:02:13] three minutes to speak

[1:02:15] following staff presentation

[1:02:15] staff.

[1:02:16] Yes.

[1:02:16] >> good evening.

[1:02:17] >> petition 2026.

[1:02:20] 037 is a proposed rezoning of

[1:02:21] approximately 9/10 of an acre

[1:02:22] on the west side.

[1:02:23] Of bs.

[1:02:25] Ford road south of the

[1:02:25] intersection with sanders.

[1:02:25] Avenue.

[1:02:26] >> site is.

[1:02:28] >> currently zoned nc

[1:02:28] neighborhood.

[1:02:30] Center along bays fork road.

[1:02:32] And in one c.

[1:02:33] At the rear.

[1:02:34] Of the property proposed owning

[1:02:36] a kc one x.

[1:02:37] Community activity center.

[1:02:38] >> one exception.

[1:02:39] For the.

[1:02:40] >> majority of the site and

[1:02:41] into cdd.

[1:02:42] Neighborhood two.

[1:02:44] C conditional on the western

[1:02:45] property boundary.

[1:02:47] The majority of.

[1:02:48] The proposed zoning is in

[1:02:49] alignment with the adopted

[1:02:49] neighborhood center place type.

[1:02:51] However, a small portion.

[1:02:54] At the of the site along

[1:02:54] sanders avenue is.

[1:02:55] Designated as.

[1:02:57] >> neighborhood one place type.

[1:02:57] >> and the.

[1:02:58] Proposed cac.

[1:03:01] And two cd portions of the site

[1:03:03] are not in alignment with that

[1:03:04] adopt place type um.

[1:03:06] The proposal calls for the.

[1:03:06] Reconstruction of.

[1:03:07] >> the.

[1:03:08] Historic excelsior club.

[1:03:09] Including indoor live

[1:03:11] performance venue, nightclub,

[1:03:13] restaurant, bar and community

[1:03:13] center.

[1:03:14] Uses into.

[1:03:16] Cdd neighborhood.

[1:03:18] Two conditional zone portion of

[1:03:18] the site.

[1:03:19] Shall remain vacant.

[1:03:21] But it will be utilized as

[1:03:23] potential tree save area and

[1:03:23] or.

[1:03:23] Landscape yard.

[1:03:26] >> and the maximum building

[1:03:26] height is limited.

[1:03:27] >> to 40ft.

[1:03:29] The proposal is an exception.

[1:03:30] X request.

[1:03:31] An x.

[1:03:33] Conditional rezoning is a

[1:03:35] request to modify uh

[1:03:36] quantitative zoning standards.

[1:03:37] >> in exchange, the petitioner

[1:03:38] agrees.

[1:03:39] >> to provide at least two.

[1:03:40] Public benefits.

[1:03:41] From two of.

[1:03:42] >> the three categories.

[1:03:43] >> of sustainability city.

[1:03:45] Improvement or public

[1:03:45] amenities.

[1:03:48] The primary driver this.

[1:03:49] Exception are.

[1:03:49] >> the.

[1:03:51] Required separation distances

[1:03:52] for live performance venues and

[1:03:53] nightclubs from neighborhood

[1:03:54] one place type.

[1:03:54] And the.

[1:03:56] Architectural elements of the

[1:03:56] building.

[1:03:57] The requested.

[1:03:59] Exception provisions include a

[1:04:00] reduction in setbacks,

[1:04:00] reduction in.

[1:04:02] Ground floor transparency, a.

[1:04:03] Reduction in the number of

[1:04:05] prominent entrances and

[1:04:06] modified signage to recreate.

[1:04:07] >> the historic.

[1:04:07] Character of the.

[1:04:08] Excelsior club.

[1:04:09] >> in addition, the.

[1:04:11] Proposal calls for the.

[1:04:13] Uh reduction of separation

[1:04:14] requirements from neighborhood

[1:04:16] one place type, increased

[1:04:17] parking and modifications.

[1:04:18] >> of the.

[1:04:20] Sanders avenue street cross

[1:04:20] section.

[1:04:21] >> in exchange, the petitioner.

[1:04:24] >> will provide um city

[1:04:25] improvement and that will be to

[1:04:27] replace the existing uh

[1:04:28] washington heights neighborhood

[1:04:28] .

[1:04:29] Identification sign.

[1:04:30] >> with a new sign along.

[1:04:31] Beatty's ford.

[1:04:32] >> road and to reconstruct.

[1:04:33] Sidewalk ramp.

[1:04:34] At the intersection.

[1:04:35] >> of sanders avenue and

[1:04:35] basford.

[1:04:36] Road to meet.

[1:04:39] Ada standards and also public

[1:04:40] amenity by increasing.

[1:04:42] The required on site open

[1:04:42] space.

[1:04:42] >> and.

[1:04:43] Provide additional.

[1:04:44] Public open space.

[1:04:45] The plan.

[1:04:46] Is consistent with the goals

[1:04:47] and policies.

[1:04:47] >> of a.

[1:04:51] West inner community area plan

[1:04:51] and staff recommends.

[1:04:52] Approval of this petition.

[1:04:54] Upon resolution of outstanding

[1:04:55] issues related to site and

[1:04:56] building.

[1:04:57] Design plan.

[1:04:58] Proposes the reconstruction.

[1:04:59] >> of the excelsior club which

[1:04:59] is.

[1:05:00] A significant historic landmark

[1:05:01] for the neighborhood and.

[1:05:03] City.

[1:05:04] Reestablishing historical use.

[1:05:05] Creates a community gathering

[1:05:06] space and community center.

[1:05:08] Site is located along the

[1:05:09] future links goal line.

[1:05:10] Extension and.

[1:05:10] The petition.

[1:05:12] Commits to making pedestrian.

[1:05:13] Improvements and increasing

[1:05:13] the.

[1:05:14] Amount of public.

[1:05:15] Open space in the area.

[1:05:15] I'm happy to.

[1:05:16] >> take any questions following

[1:05:16] the.

[1:05:17] Petitioners presentation.

[1:05:21] Uh there are there are speakers

[1:05:21] .

[1:05:22] >> who.

[1:05:24] Uh signed up for uh the

[1:05:25] petitioner there are three

[1:05:26] minutes.

[1:05:27] Please identify yourself.

[1:05:30] Good evening.

[1:05:32] Mayor members of council,

[1:05:32] members of the then committee.

[1:05:33] My name is bridget grant.

[1:05:35] I'm a land use consultant.

[1:05:35] Oregon allen.

[1:05:37] Pleased to be here.

[1:05:37] Tonight on.

[1:05:40] Behalf of tim cinema and sean

[1:05:41] kennedy with the historical

[1:05:42] excelsior.

[1:05:44] Um, staff did a fabulous job on

[1:05:45] their presentation.

[1:05:47] I know many of you are very

[1:05:48] familiar with the efforts that

[1:05:49] have been taking place on this

[1:05:51] site for some time, so.

[1:05:51] >> we're pleased.

[1:05:52] >> to be here tonight with

[1:05:54] staff support and with no

[1:05:55] speakers in opposition.

[1:05:57] This rezoning is really just to

[1:05:59] address a nonconformity that

[1:06:00] was established with the

[1:06:01] adoption of the udl and we're

[1:06:03] working to rebuild a building

[1:06:04] on the site that was there for

[1:06:05] over 80 years.

[1:06:06] So we're happy to answer any

[1:06:07] questions and appreciate the

[1:06:08] time.

[1:06:11] Great questions from council

[1:06:12] members for either the staff or

[1:06:12] .

[1:06:13] For the petitioners.

[1:06:15] Council member graham.

[1:06:17] No question.

[1:06:18] Uh just a comment.

[1:06:19] I'm so pleased.

[1:06:22] That we are here and there's so

[1:06:26] much activity uh around the bfr

[1:06:29] that is fort road and and

[1:06:30] certainly the historic

[1:06:33] excelsior cloud I was that

[1:06:35] distills or is this weekend and

[1:06:36] talking to shirley caesar and

[1:06:38] she was telling me that she

[1:06:40] performed there and was

[1:06:41] wondering what was happening

[1:06:43] with the uh with the

[1:06:44] construction as she drove off

[1:06:45] and saw the demo site and I

[1:06:48] told her and so again rich in

[1:06:51] history tradition legacy for

[1:06:53] the quarter and certainly the

[1:06:55] rezoning is again a step in the

[1:06:56] right direction of getting it

[1:06:58] constructed and and back in

[1:06:59] service for the community and

[1:07:01] obviously everyone along the

[1:07:03] corridor is extremely excited

[1:07:05] about the project, extremely

[1:07:07] excited about uh the pace that

[1:07:08] is picking up on it.

[1:07:11] Uh, and I can feel the

[1:07:13] excitement and so maybe uh, in

[1:07:14] a couple of years if stella

[1:07:16] come back we can have some good

[1:07:17] gospel music down there as well

[1:07:18] .

[1:07:19] Thank you.

[1:07:21] Council member mayfield.

[1:07:24] Did a move to close the

[1:07:24] hearing.

[1:07:26] .

[1:07:27] >> are there any other.

[1:07:28] >> any other questions.

[1:07:28] Coming from council?

[1:07:29] All right.

[1:07:30] There's been a motion to close

[1:07:32] the hearing and a second.

[1:07:33] All in favor is here.

[1:07:34] Any opposed?

[1:07:36] All right thank you.

[1:07:37] We have.

[1:07:39] Covered item 22.

[1:07:41] Item 23 is deferred.

[1:07:43] That takes us to item 24 which

[1:07:46] is petition 20 2611.

[1:07:46] Bus trip.

[1:07:47] That was.

[1:07:50] Item 21 that we just the.

[1:07:53] Yeah 2022 has been 22 was

[1:07:54] covered while I was away.

[1:07:55] Right thank you.

[1:07:57] And 23 has been deferred to

[1:08:01] item 24 petition 2026 dash 11

[1:08:01] by.

[1:08:03] Tribute companies inc. Is

[1:08:06] approximately 2.2 acres located

[1:08:07] on located south.

[1:08:07] >> of.

[1:08:09] North tryon street, west of

[1:08:11] caldwell road and north of

[1:08:13] olympia lane in council member

[1:08:14] johnson's district.

[1:08:16] The site is currently zoned

[1:08:18] multifamily residential

[1:08:19] conditional and the proposed

[1:08:21] zoning is neighborhood center

[1:08:22] conditional staff recommends

[1:08:24] approval of this petition upon

[1:08:25] resolution of outstanding

[1:08:26] issues.

[1:08:28] There are no speakers signed up

[1:08:28] against this petition.

[1:08:31] The petitioner team will have

[1:08:32] three minutes to speak

[1:08:34] following staff's presentation

[1:08:34] which will be now.

[1:08:36] Thank you.

[1:08:37] >> this site.

[1:08:38] >> is just over two acres along

[1:08:40] the south side of north tryon

[1:08:42] street near the county line in

[1:08:44] an area where we have a lot of

[1:08:46] residential entitlements slowly

[1:08:49] coming online and as you can

[1:08:50] see there's some single family

[1:08:50] here.

[1:08:51] We also have a lot of

[1:08:54] multifamily along this corridor

[1:08:56] not so much commercial uses

[1:08:57] which is why we'll get into the

[1:08:59] intent of this petition

[1:09:00] currently zoned for our 12

[1:09:02] multifamily conditional.

[1:09:04] That's as a result of a 2021

[1:09:05] petition they are requesting to

[1:09:06] go to neighborhood center

[1:09:07] conditional.

[1:09:09] So that's just for a portion of

[1:09:11] this larger ar 12 site you can

[1:09:13] see here that actually extends

[1:09:14] a little further down.

[1:09:18] The 2040 policy map calls for

[1:09:19] the neighborhood to place type

[1:09:19] .

[1:09:21] So this request for the

[1:09:23] neighborhood center district is

[1:09:24] considered out of alignment

[1:09:25] with that place type

[1:09:26] recommendation.

[1:09:28] The proposal is for a little

[1:09:30] under 23,000ft2 of

[1:09:33] nonresidential uses allowed in

[1:09:34] the neighborhood center

[1:09:35] district so that can include

[1:09:36] retail, restaurant personal

[1:09:38] service uses generally think

[1:09:39] about neighborhood commercial

[1:09:40] type establishments.

[1:09:42] it does prohibit auto oriented

[1:09:45] type uses and other uses that

[1:09:47] just wouldn't be compatible

[1:09:49] given the residential context

[1:09:51] provides a 12 foot wide shared

[1:09:53] use path along the frontage and

[1:09:54] at the intersection of north

[1:09:56] tryon street and hudspeth road,

[1:09:57] it commits to a northbound

[1:09:59] u-turn bowl and provides 25

[1:10:01] foot class b and landscape

[1:10:01] yard.

[1:10:02] The adjacent in one properties

[1:10:04] also commits to an enhanced

[1:10:05] common open space.

[1:10:08] It is consistent with the goals

[1:10:09] and policies of the northeast

[1:10:10] middle area plan.

[1:10:12] It's not in alignment like I

[1:10:13] said at that policy map

[1:10:15] recommendation, but it does

[1:10:16] further priority goal of the

[1:10:18] area plan as a result of the

[1:10:21] neighborhood center request in

[1:10:23] its nonresidential use is that

[1:10:25] it's proposing it could help

[1:10:26] facilitate the ten minute

[1:10:27] neighborhoods goal by

[1:10:29] increasing access to daily

[1:10:30] goods and services.

[1:10:33] In consideration of the minor

[1:10:35] map amendment criteria, this

[1:10:36] petition doesn't meet the

[1:10:38] minimum acreage that we would

[1:10:39] look for, but it does meet all

[1:10:42] of that locational criteria for

[1:10:43] the neighborhood center place

[1:10:45] type designation and it has the

[1:10:46] preferred adjacencies for the

[1:10:50] neighborhood center designation

[1:10:50] .

[1:10:51] Staff recommends approval of

[1:10:52] this petition upon resolution

[1:10:54] of some outstanding issues.

[1:10:56] We think that uh.

[1:10:57] Modifying the previously

[1:10:59] approved petition in 2021 150

[1:11:03] with this new nc request helps

[1:11:05] provide a house provide 19

[1:11:06] residential uses in an area

[1:11:08] where it's dominated by single

[1:11:09] family and multifamily

[1:11:11] residential uses and this could

[1:11:13] introduce again a potential of

[1:11:15] the forward ten minute

[1:11:17] neighborhoods with the

[1:11:18] introduction of potential

[1:11:19] neighborhood commercial type

[1:11:21] establishments and a park once

[1:11:23] type scenario where you have

[1:11:24] residential use has already

[1:11:25] come and are in with the 2021

[1:11:28] petition entitlements and I'll

[1:11:29] be happy to take any.

[1:11:30] Questions following petitioner

[1:11:30] comments.

[1:11:32] Okay thank.

[1:11:32] You MR. Graham.

[1:11:34] MR. Mayor council members any

[1:11:35] committee members colin brown

[1:11:37] on behalf the petitioner um the

[1:11:38] tribute companies tribute um is

[1:11:39] a is a large developer in the

[1:11:41] university city area.

[1:11:42] Uh a lot of multifamily

[1:11:44] apartments uh and we entitled

[1:11:45] this for them for multi-family

[1:11:47] apartments a few years ago and

[1:11:48] they've kind of watch what's

[1:11:49] happening in the market.

[1:11:50] They see now demand for other

[1:11:52] goods and services to support

[1:11:53] not only their residents some

[1:11:53] others.

[1:11:55] So they've asked to go ahead go

[1:11:56] back and kind of amend their

[1:11:58] own petition, take a couple uh

[1:11:59] ,apartment buildings off and

[1:12:00] put in some retail office

[1:12:01] buildings.

[1:12:02] Uh, that's been very well

[1:12:04] received by the district four

[1:12:04] coalition.

[1:12:06] Uh, I've had good feedback on

[1:12:06] that.

[1:12:07] We had a couple attendees at

[1:12:08] the community meeting uh,

[1:12:09] councilmember johnson it was a

[1:12:10] few months back I think you did

[1:12:11] attend as well.

[1:12:13] uh, so happy to have staff

[1:12:13] support.

[1:12:14] We think it's a good

[1:12:14] modification.

[1:12:17] Councilmember johnson.

[1:12:20] Are there any exclusions?

[1:12:22] Um there are we limit it to

[1:12:24] like no drive through

[1:12:24] restaurants.

[1:12:25] Uh, we've kind of gone through

[1:12:26] with staff.

[1:12:27] It's you know, they're really

[1:12:29] seeing this is kind of small

[1:12:30] office and neighborhood serving

[1:12:32] retail so we've eliminated I

[1:12:33] don't think data centers are

[1:12:34] ever allowed in that district.

[1:12:34] >> if.

[1:12:35] That's where you're going.

[1:12:37] Um uh and then we've also

[1:12:38] excluded other just kind of

[1:12:40] what like drive through uses

[1:12:41] and things like that.

[1:12:41] .

[1:12:42] >> okay I don't.

[1:12:43] >> have any more questions.

[1:12:44] We can.

[1:12:44] >> talk offline.

[1:12:45] If I did.

[1:12:46] Move to the.

[1:12:48] Second okay.

[1:12:48] >> any discussion.

[1:12:50] All in favor raise your hand.

[1:12:52] Any opposed.

[1:12:53] All right thank you.

[1:12:57] That takes us to item 25

[1:12:59] petition 2026 dash 26 by

[1:13:00] nativity of the holy.

[1:13:02] Virgin orthodox church is.

[1:13:04] Approximately 2.81 acres.

[1:13:06] Located north of mineral

[1:13:08] springs road, east of north

[1:13:10] grand street and west of

[1:13:11] century oaks lane in.

[1:13:11] Council member.

[1:13:13] Johnson's district site is.

[1:13:15] Currently zoned neighborhood.

[1:13:17] To be and the proposed zoning

[1:13:17] is neighborhood two.

[1:13:19] A staff recommends approval.

[1:13:20] >> of this petition.

[1:13:22] There are no speakers signed.

[1:13:23] Up against this petition.

[1:13:25] The petitioner team will have

[1:13:26] three minutes to speak

[1:13:27] following staff's presentation.

[1:13:29] Good evening.

[1:13:31] Site is.

[1:13:32] About 2.8 acres.

[1:13:33] >> is on the north.

[1:13:35] Side of mineral springs road

[1:13:38] east of north graham street and

[1:13:38] west of neil road.

[1:13:41] Site is developed with a.

[1:13:43] Religious institution.

[1:13:44] And is surrounded by.

[1:13:45] Residential uses.

[1:13:47] Single family to the east.

[1:13:47] >> and south.

[1:13:49] Multi-family to the west.

[1:13:50] >> and north.

[1:13:53] Current zoning.

[1:13:54] Is in.

[1:13:55] Thee with the.

[1:13:56] >> proposed zoning of into a.

[1:13:58] Is a conventional petition.

[1:14:01] The 2040 policy map.

[1:14:02] Recommends the neighborhood.

[1:14:03] To place eight.

[1:14:05] The petition.

[1:14:06] >> is.

[1:14:07] Consistent with the goals and

[1:14:07] policies.

[1:14:08] >> of the north.

[1:14:09] Middle and outer community.

[1:14:10] Area plan.

[1:14:12] And in alignment with the.

[1:14:13] Policy map recommendation for

[1:14:14] the neighborhood to place type.

[1:14:16] The petition does not directly

[1:14:16] .

[1:14:19] Facilitate any of the priority

[1:14:21] goals for the north, middle and

[1:14:22] outer community area plan or

[1:14:24] directly facilitate any

[1:14:27] comprehensive plan goals or no

[1:14:28] outstanding issues.

[1:14:29] Staff recommends approval of

[1:14:29] this petition.

[1:14:32] The proposed zoning represents

[1:14:33] a slight decrease.

[1:14:33] >> in.

[1:14:34] Intensity over.

[1:14:34] >> the.

[1:14:35] Existing into.

[1:14:36] B entitlements.

[1:14:38] The into a district permits

[1:14:39] religious.

[1:14:39] Institutions and.

[1:14:40] Their accessory uses.

[1:14:42] I will.

[1:14:43] >> turn it over to the

[1:14:44] petitioner.

[1:14:46] To petitioner david.

[1:14:47] >> burke.

[1:14:49] Thank you mayor thank you

[1:14:51] council uh thank you council

[1:14:52] member johnson for coming to

[1:14:54] our community meeting for this

[1:14:54] petition.

[1:14:57] Uh, the church is.

[1:14:59] Seeking to build a new

[1:15:01] sanctuary and so that's why.

[1:15:03] The property needs to be out

[1:15:06] down zoned from into bed into a

[1:15:07] because the into a district.

[1:15:08] Works better with.

[1:15:12] Religious uh facilities and so,

[1:15:13] um I'm happy to answer any

[1:15:13] questions.

[1:15:14] >> you MAY have.

[1:15:15] .

[1:15:16] >> council member johnson.

[1:15:19] Thank you and thank you for the

[1:15:19] presentation.

[1:15:22] Um my question is actually for

[1:15:22] staff.

[1:15:22] Okay.

[1:15:23] >> thank you.

[1:15:24] So I'm having.

[1:15:24] It and I.

[1:15:25] >> know this is.

[1:15:27] For this 1st MAY not impact.

[1:15:30] School value but I noticed the

[1:15:31] school percentage.

[1:15:33] Is 120% utilization.

[1:15:36] So I have my.

[1:15:40] Own cumulative impacts uh

[1:15:42] spreadsheet that I have and at

[1:15:44] some point in the past chambers

[1:15:46] high school was up to it looks

[1:15:46] like.

[1:15:48] 137% that the.

[1:15:49] Number was given to us.

[1:15:52] I have a spreadsheet from

[1:15:53] alexis um, our city staff.

[1:15:56] Person so I want to know how

[1:15:59] the school impact is calculated

[1:16:01] not necessarily on this

[1:16:02] petition but what information

[1:16:03] are we using?

[1:16:05] Uh, because we've been given

[1:16:07] and I don't have the petition

[1:16:07] number.

[1:16:09] We've been given petitions in

[1:16:10] the past for the school impact

[1:16:13] was already higher than 120%

[1:16:14] for chambers.

[1:16:17] So with.

[1:16:19] Each petition as we're

[1:16:21] preparing our pre hearing staff

[1:16:23] analysis we reach out to cms.

[1:16:25] We get the latest their latest

[1:16:27] data um I get it so.

[1:16:28] We can.

[1:16:31] Do some additional.

[1:16:32] >> uh research and coordination

[1:16:33] with cms.

[1:16:34] To determine.

[1:16:36] Exactly why that.

[1:16:37] Uh number changed.

[1:16:39] But um.

[1:16:41] If it was a different school

[1:16:44] year it would be um a different

[1:16:45] calculation based on what the.

[1:16:47] Enrollment might be.

[1:16:48] >> that particular year.

[1:16:49] How students.

[1:16:50] Might have.

[1:16:51] >> been shifted.

[1:16:52] Um.

[1:16:54] >> with the different schools

[1:16:54] uh.

[1:16:55] Depending on enrollment.

[1:16:57] Okay.

[1:16:57] >> thank you.

[1:17:01] That's all I have moved to

[1:17:01] close.

[1:17:01] Thank you.

[1:17:02] I can.

[1:17:05] any any, um, questions.

[1:17:05] On the.

[1:17:06] Motion close.

[1:17:07] >> we.

[1:17:08] Opposition are all in favor

[1:17:09] raise your hand.

[1:17:10] Any opposed?

[1:17:11] All right.

[1:17:15] That takes us to item 26

[1:17:18] petition 2026 dash 28 by

[1:17:19] barnhart manufacturing company

[1:17:23] is approximately 21.25 acres

[1:17:25] located east of hawthorne lane

[1:17:27] north of central avenue and

[1:17:28] west of pecan avenue.

[1:17:28] In.

[1:17:29] Councilmember anderson's

[1:17:30] district.

[1:17:31] The site is.

[1:17:32] Currently zoned manufacturing

[1:17:33] and logistics.

[1:17:34] Two and the.

[1:17:36] Proposed zoning is neighborhood

[1:17:36] center.

[1:17:38] Conditional staff recommends

[1:17:40] approval of this petition upon

[1:17:41] resolution of outstanding

[1:17:41] issues.

[1:17:43] There are no speakers signed up

[1:17:44] against this petition.

[1:17:46] The petitioner team will have

[1:17:47] three minutes to speak

[1:17:48] following staff's presentation

[1:17:49] .

[1:17:49] Yes.

[1:17:50] >> good evening.

[1:17:52] Petition 2026 028.

[1:17:55] Is a 21.25 acre site located on

[1:17:56] the east side of hawthorne

[1:17:56] lane.

[1:17:57] West of clement av.

[1:18:00] Um the site's currently zoned.

[1:18:01] Ml two manufacturing.

[1:18:02] >> and logistics.

[1:18:03] >> the proposed zoning is in.

[1:18:05] Cdd neighborhood center

[1:18:05] conditional.

[1:18:06] The plan.

[1:18:07] Is in alignment with the 2040.

[1:18:09] Policy map recommendation for

[1:18:09] the neighborhood.

[1:18:10] >> center place type.

[1:18:11] The rezoning.

[1:18:13] Proposal calls for a mixed use.

[1:18:15] Development that MAY include

[1:18:16] multifamily stacked apartments

[1:18:18] ,office, retail, restaurant,

[1:18:18] bar.

[1:18:20] Personal services and fitness

[1:18:20] studios.

[1:18:22] Uh the following uses.

[1:18:22] >> are prohibited.

[1:18:23] It will.

[1:18:25] Prohibit vehicle fueling

[1:18:25] facilities.

[1:18:28] For gas stations, close vehicle

[1:18:28] rentals.

[1:18:29] Minor vehicle repair

[1:18:31] facilities, beneficial.

[1:18:32] Landfill sites and wireless.

[1:18:34] Telecommunication facilities.

[1:18:36] The plan commits to a.

[1:18:36] Minimum of.

[1:18:38] >> 20,000ft2 of nonresidential

[1:18:39] .

[1:18:40] Uses on the site.

[1:18:41] A new.

[1:18:42] Public street to connect

[1:18:43] hawthorne lane to clement.

[1:18:45] Avenue and serve as.

[1:18:45] >> the.

[1:18:46] Future links goal line

[1:18:46] extension.

[1:18:47] Alignment is proposed.

[1:18:48] The petitioner will coordinate.

[1:18:51] With katz on the street layout

[1:18:51] transit.

[1:18:52] Corridor and hawthorne.

[1:18:55] Station platform needs on-site

[1:18:55] parking.

[1:18:56] Will be prohibited along.

[1:18:57] The gold line to.

[1:18:58] Protect its operations.

[1:18:59] And a minimum.

[1:19:00] Of half.

[1:19:00] >> an acre.

[1:19:01] >> of.

[1:19:02] Publicly accessible open space

[1:19:03] will be provided.

[1:19:04] The plan is in.

[1:19:06] alignment with the policy map

[1:19:06] and is.

[1:19:08] Consistent with the goals and.

[1:19:08] Policies of the.

[1:19:10] Northeast inner community area

[1:19:10] plan.

[1:19:12] Staff recommends approval of

[1:19:12] this.

[1:19:13] Petition upon resolution of

[1:19:14] outstanding issues.

[1:19:15] >> related to transportation.

[1:19:16] Environment and site and

[1:19:16] building design.

[1:19:18] The proposal would contribute.

[1:19:19] >> to the community area.

[1:19:21] Plan goals of creating a

[1:19:21] walkable.

[1:19:24] Mixed use area and contribute

[1:19:25] to the city's transportation.

[1:19:26] Plans through.

[1:19:28] Coordination on the future linx

[1:19:28] goal line extension.

[1:19:30] Happy to take.

[1:19:31] >> any questions after MISS

[1:19:32] Grant's presentation.

[1:19:34] Thank you, MISS Grant.

[1:19:36] Good evening.

[1:19:36] Mayor.

[1:19:37] Members of council, members of

[1:19:38] the zoning committee.

[1:19:39] My name is bridget grant.

[1:19:40] I'm a land use consultant with

[1:19:42] maureen van allen and I'm

[1:19:43] pleased to be here tonight on

[1:19:44] behalf of barnhart with justin

[1:19:44] swain.

[1:19:46] This one is pretty easy and I

[1:19:48] think it's best shown with just

[1:19:51] a graphic as its policy

[1:19:51] implementation.

[1:19:55] The other are the 2040 plan

[1:19:56] established the vision for this

[1:19:57] particular area.

[1:19:58] It was reinforced by the

[1:19:59] recently adopted community area

[1:20:00] plans.

[1:20:02] The udl identified appropriate

[1:20:03] zoning districts and we're

[1:20:05] taking this step through that

[1:20:06] rezoning application of

[1:20:07] applying the appropriate zoning

[1:20:09] to the site for future

[1:20:09] redevelopment opportunities.

[1:20:11] We are happy to answer any

[1:20:11] questions.

[1:20:13] Pleased to have no speakers in

[1:20:14] opposition and to have staff

[1:20:15] support this evening.

[1:20:17] Any council member questions on

[1:20:18] item 26?

[1:20:20] I'm would going close the

[1:20:21] hearing there.

[1:20:22] Council member henderson I

[1:20:23] think.

[1:20:24] Thank you thank you mayor.

[1:20:25] Just one quick comment.

[1:20:27] Um thank you for your work on

[1:20:28] this particular petition.

[1:20:31] Um I have not received a lot of

[1:20:34] uh of uh communication against

[1:20:34] it.

[1:20:35] So that's a sign of a good

[1:20:37] thing and I've had 1 or.

[1:20:37] >> 2.

[1:20:40] Um, residents reach out in in.

[1:20:44] Wanting this to move forward.

[1:20:46] I would say this is one of the

[1:20:48] ones that is pretty interesting

[1:20:50] as as MISS Johnson just

[1:20:51] mentioned schools.

[1:20:52] And all.

[1:20:53] >> three.

[1:20:55] Schools in this area are uh the

[1:20:57] utilization is under 90% which

[1:20:58] is really, really interesting

[1:21:01] given the growing density along

[1:21:02] that corridor.

[1:21:05] Um based on um the udo so.

[1:21:07] Very interesting to see that

[1:21:09] and I wonder what it will look

[1:21:10] like in a couple of years.

[1:21:11] So just more of a comment

[1:21:13] around the densification how it

[1:21:15] might be uh, lagging indicator

[1:21:17] of the utilization of the.

[1:21:19] Schools motion to close.

[1:21:22] Second any questions there.

[1:21:23] >> any concerns?

[1:21:24] All right, all in favor raise

[1:21:24] your hand.

[1:21:25] any opposed?

[1:21:26] All right.

[1:21:30] That takes us to item 27

[1:21:34] petition 2026 dash 28 by rachel

[1:21:38] regalado is approximately 3.06

[1:21:40] acres located west of henderson

[1:21:41] circle south of henderson

[1:21:44] valley lane and north of judo

[1:21:46] lane in council member graham's

[1:21:46] district.

[1:21:48] The site is currently zoned

[1:21:48] manufactured.

[1:21:49] Home park.

[1:21:51] And the proposed zoning is

[1:21:51] neighborhood one.

[1:21:53] See staff recommends approval

[1:21:55] of this petition.

[1:21:56] There are no speakers.

[1:21:58] There is one speaker now signed

[1:21:59] up against this petition.

[1:22:02] The petitioner team will have

[1:22:04] three minutes um following the

[1:22:06] staff's presentation and there

[1:22:07] is one speaker.

[1:22:08] For yes.

[1:22:10] Here for the petition.

[1:22:13] For sound of it I'm.

[1:22:13] Fischer red representing the

[1:22:14] owner correct?

[1:22:14] Yep.

[1:22:16] >> and then we have one oppose

[1:22:16] .

[1:22:18] All right staff.

[1:22:18] We have one against.

[1:22:20] This site is just.

[1:22:20] >> over.

[1:22:21] Three acres.

[1:22:22] It's located on the west.

[1:22:23] >> side of henderson circle.

[1:22:25] This is just west of old

[1:22:26] statesville road.

[1:22:28] And east of statesville road.

[1:22:29] It's ten minutes.

[1:22:31] Uh site.

[1:22:32] >> is developed with one single

[1:22:33] family dwelling.

[1:22:34] It's surrounded by.

[1:22:36] Single family dwellings to.

[1:22:37] >> the north.

[1:22:39] Um, a mobile home park to the.

[1:22:39] east.

[1:22:40] >> and there are industrial and

[1:22:42] commercial uses to the west

[1:22:43] along statesville road.

[1:22:46] Current zoning is.

[1:22:49] Uh, image pea that is

[1:22:49] manufactured.

[1:22:49] Home park.

[1:22:51] Uh in a district from the.

[1:22:53] Legacy zoning ordinance.

[1:22:55] The proposed zoning is in one c

[1:22:55] .

[1:22:57] Petition conventional.

[1:22:59] The 2040 policy.

[1:23:00] Map recommends a neighborhood

[1:23:01] one place type.

[1:23:03] Petition is consistent.

[1:23:04] With the goals and policies of

[1:23:07] the north, middle and outer

[1:23:10] community area plan and also in

[1:23:11] alignment with the policy map

[1:23:12] recommendation for the

[1:23:12] neighborhood.

[1:23:14] One place type petition does

[1:23:16] not directly facilitate any of

[1:23:16] the priority.

[1:23:17] >> goals.

[1:23:17] For the north middle.

[1:23:18] In our community.

[1:23:20] Area plan or.

[1:23:20] Any of.

[1:23:22] The comprehensive plan goals.

[1:23:25] There are no outstanding

[1:23:25] issues.

[1:23:26] Staff recommends.

[1:23:28] Approval uh would allow this.

[1:23:30] Site to be developed under.

[1:23:32] Us standards in.

[1:23:35] Accordance with uh the n1c

[1:23:35] development standards.

[1:23:36] Which would.

[1:23:37] >> be.

[1:23:38] Compatible with the existing

[1:23:39] residential.

[1:23:40] Uses to the north of the site.

[1:23:42] Turn it over to the petitioner

[1:23:42] .

[1:23:43] Great.

[1:23:44] >> thank you.

[1:23:44] >> uh.

[1:23:45] just to clarify there is one

[1:23:47] speaker and it's for and MISS

[1:23:48] Regalado, if I pronounce your.

[1:23:49] Name right, I hope.

[1:23:50] Yes, sir.

[1:23:50] It got.

[1:23:51] >> I think.

[1:23:51] >> it.

[1:23:52] Was wrong.

[1:23:53] >> on the speaker list.

[1:23:53] Okay.

[1:23:54] Thank you, MR. Mayor.

[1:23:55] Council members.

[1:23:55] Um, I'm.

[1:23:56] >> the petitioner.

[1:23:57] >> rachel regalado,

[1:23:59] representing the owners event.

[1:24:00] Uh de la garza.

[1:24:02] Uh and jaime.

[1:24:03] >> de la garza.

[1:24:04] And as.

[1:24:07] Um he shared this is in line

[1:24:09] with the policy map for.

[1:24:09] For charlotte.

[1:24:10] >> for 2040.

[1:24:11] Directly north.

[1:24:13] Uh, there's single family home.

[1:24:15] Development um, on that same

[1:24:17] road and there's also a whole

[1:24:18] neighborhood.

[1:24:18] That you.

[1:24:19] >> would go into right after

[1:24:20] that.

[1:24:22] We did hold a public, um,

[1:24:23] meeting for the community

[1:24:25] members and had a few attendees

[1:24:28] and have experienced um, no

[1:24:28] opposition.

[1:24:29] Great.

[1:24:30] >> thank you.

[1:24:31] Any questions?

[1:24:31] Council member.

[1:24:34] Mayfield thank you, MR. Mayor.

[1:24:35] Question was there was I'm

[1:24:37] trying to understand it says

[1:24:40] that it currently is occupied

[1:24:41] uh a single family home.

[1:24:44] When did the manufactured home

[1:24:46] park district what was that

[1:24:47] identified as the designation

[1:24:48] for this area.

[1:24:49] ?

[1:24:51] >> so that district uh, is a

[1:24:53] it's from the legacy zoning

[1:24:53] ordinance.

[1:24:55] Um, I don't have.

[1:24:55] >> a.

[1:24:56] Date as.

[1:24:57] >> to when that was

[1:24:57] established.

[1:24:59] But under that.

[1:25:00] District currently with the.

[1:25:03] Youdo in place it would make it

[1:25:03] more.

[1:25:04] Challenging to develop.

[1:25:05] It would have to be.

[1:25:06] A mobile home park.

[1:25:07] >> with the.

[1:25:09] Associated amenities um, that

[1:25:11] you would typically find with

[1:25:11] the.

[1:25:12] Resort.

[1:25:13] So.

[1:25:16] Colleagues, what I'm trying to

[1:25:20] understand is how we had uh,

[1:25:21] manufactured home park.

[1:25:24] District that had a single

[1:25:27] family home on it but we are

[1:25:29] seeing a loss of space.

[1:25:33] For manufacture and or modular

[1:25:37] homes with a major relocation

[1:25:40] that happened that started a

[1:25:42] year and a half ago and

[1:25:44] completed earlier this year.

[1:25:46] So I would like to get a little

[1:25:50] bit more information as far as

[1:25:52] if this area is actually

[1:25:54] designated as a manufactured

[1:25:56] home park district, what does

[1:25:59] that actually mean and how many

[1:26:01] do we have in a city because

[1:26:03] council needs to have a

[1:26:03] conversation.

[1:26:06] Uh, when we talk about

[1:26:07] diversity and price points,

[1:26:09] diversity and housing

[1:26:11] accessibility modular homes are

[1:26:13] a part of that conversation but

[1:26:15] we don't have designated land

[1:26:15] for it.

[1:26:17] so thankfully this is a

[1:26:17] hearing.

[1:26:19] But if we've had a single

[1:26:21] family home that has been on

[1:26:24] this land that is designated.

[1:26:25] For.

[1:26:29] >> manufactured and we're

[1:26:31] looking at a little over three

[1:26:35] acres, I think we owe it to

[1:26:36] ourselves and the community to

[1:26:38] have a conversation of how many

[1:26:40] more manufactured home areas do

[1:26:41] we have.

[1:26:41] In the.

[1:26:43] >> city and if this is one of

[1:26:46] the few that are left that we

[1:26:47] might need to have a different

[1:26:49] conversation of what I

[1:26:51] expectation is, uh, providing

[1:26:53] diversity and location as well

[1:26:55] as housing as well as

[1:26:56] accessibility.

[1:26:58] So staff it will be helpful to

[1:27:01] get that information back prior

[1:27:02] to us getting to the next

[1:27:03] meeting.

[1:27:04] We can.

[1:27:05] >> provide.

[1:27:05] All of.

[1:27:06] >> it.

[1:27:08] Any further questions?

[1:27:08] Council member.

[1:27:09] >> graham go ahead.

[1:27:10] Uh.

[1:27:10] >> I think.

[1:27:11] >> it was.

[1:27:12] Council member.

[1:27:13] I know it's both as one that

[1:27:13] makes.

[1:27:14] This is.

[1:27:17] >> new district right okay okay

[1:27:19] so council member mayfield

[1:27:20] thank you for that.

[1:27:22] I would love to see some type

[1:27:22] of.

[1:27:24] Referral to the committee.

[1:27:25] As a housing.

[1:27:27] And neighborhood.

[1:27:29] Services committee because we

[1:27:30] do you're absolutely right

[1:27:31] having that.

[1:27:32] Mobile home.

[1:27:34] >> in district four that was

[1:27:35] rezone you know.

[1:27:37] And so many people.

[1:27:39] Lost affordable housing but

[1:27:41] there was nothing we could do

[1:27:43] um because the owner is allowed

[1:27:44] to sell their property.

[1:27:46] So I think that that's a great

[1:27:46] point.

[1:27:46] This is.

[1:27:47] >> the one.

[1:27:47] >> of the.

[1:27:49] Last opportunities.

[1:27:51] For truly affordable housing

[1:27:54] without a you know, 510 however

[1:27:55] long that waitlist is.

[1:27:57] So I would love to if there

[1:27:59] would be a zone uh area zoned

[1:28:01] for that during that petition

[1:28:02] we had.

[1:28:05] A a mobile park owner who

[1:28:07] wanted to expand and.

[1:28:08] Extend and.

[1:28:10] Opportunities but.

[1:28:12] Her land wasn't zoned

[1:28:13] appropriately.

[1:28:15] So I think we do need some help

[1:28:16] in that area.

[1:28:17] I would love to discuss that.

[1:28:18] And you.

[1:28:20] Probably remember allison the

[1:28:23] yeah, the owner that wanted to

[1:28:24] to help out and couldn't right.

[1:28:26] So I think that's a great idea

[1:28:28] and also I wanted to.

[1:28:29] Just kind of follow.

[1:28:29] Up on.

[1:28:30] >> what I said earlier.

[1:28:32] Um because these um.

[1:28:35] Conventional rezonings.

[1:28:36] They make it difficult for us

[1:28:37] to obtain the.

[1:28:37] Information.

[1:28:40] >> um, that we need instead of

[1:28:41] conditional.

[1:28:43] Rezonings um and I was able to

[1:28:45] take a look at my worksheet and

[1:28:47] the petition we're going

[1:28:49] through was up to 137%.

[1:28:50] They weren't able to provide

[1:28:52] that information with this

[1:28:54] percent percentage because the

[1:28:55] school information wasn't

[1:28:57] available with the conventional

[1:28:59] rezonings so we do there is a

[1:29:01] challenge in um in the

[1:29:02] conventional rezonings I saw it

[1:29:02] on the.

[1:29:04] Worksheet but.

[1:29:05] She wasn't able to provide it

[1:29:05] on.

[1:29:07] >> the spreadsheet.

[1:29:07] So I'd like to.

[1:29:08] Talk more about conventional

[1:29:10] versus conditional.

[1:29:11] Zoning than the.

[1:29:12] Information that we're being

[1:29:12] provided.

[1:29:14] Which which petitioner.

[1:29:15] I'll go back I will that we'll.

[1:29:16] Talk about it.

[1:29:17] But I just wanted to share my

[1:29:18] concern about conventional.

[1:29:20] Versus conditional.

[1:29:22] Rezonings and us being able.

[1:29:24] To get the details that we need

[1:29:25] to move forward.

[1:29:26] Thanks.

[1:29:28] >> council member graham on

[1:29:28] item 27.

[1:29:30] Uh thank you MR. Mayor.

[1:29:31] I think I thought the answer to

[1:29:32] my question I kind of went

[1:29:34] through the um uh through the

[1:29:37] profile, uh and but I'm still

[1:29:39] concerned that that only two

[1:29:40] individuals showed up staff for

[1:29:42] the a community meeting.

[1:29:42] Right.

[1:29:43] And that's.

[1:29:46] It's been a trend for a number

[1:29:47] of petitions.

[1:29:49] So I just bookmark that as a as

[1:29:50] a asterisk.

[1:29:52] Uh, but it's six single family

[1:29:53] lots you're going to develop.

[1:29:56] Excuse me six single family.

[1:29:56] Yeah.

[1:29:58] there um I think there's

[1:29:59] various options with this

[1:30:01] rezoning but right now they're

[1:30:02] planning on doing six single

[1:30:05] family and if if you go

[1:30:06] directly north so you can see

[1:30:08] um if you see north of that

[1:30:08] black the.

[1:30:10] Square that right there is

[1:30:13] single family it abuts right on

[1:30:15] the same street single family

[1:30:16] um on henderson circle and the

[1:30:17] henderson valley lane takes you

[1:30:17] into.

[1:30:18] >> a whole.

[1:30:19] Neighborhood of single family.

[1:30:21] So it really is just an

[1:30:24] extension of what's happening

[1:30:25] like right beside them.

[1:30:26] Um.

[1:30:30] >> but yes, there is a there's

[1:30:31] a house there.

[1:30:34] Um I believe it's manufactured

[1:30:34] .

[1:30:36] Um and that would.

[1:30:38] Stay they're not going to get

[1:30:40] rid of that and then they would

[1:30:40] just.

[1:30:44] Um do six more lots that would.

[1:30:47] Directly come into like I don't

[1:30:48] think the photos were up when

[1:30:49] he was presenting it but it

[1:30:50] shows the other single family

[1:30:52] that's that's right beside this

[1:30:53] piece of property.

[1:30:55] And uh, in regards to your.

[1:30:55] >> question, the two committee.

[1:30:58] Members we did uh, mail out the

[1:31:00] entire list, um, that the

[1:31:02] planning department did send us

[1:31:04] and we sent invitations um, do

[1:31:06] you council member and did

[1:31:08] everything they asked us to do

[1:31:10] but it wasn't it wasn't a huge

[1:31:10] response.

[1:31:11] I don't know how the response

[1:31:12] could be.

[1:31:12] No.

[1:31:14] >> no, I'm I'm not picking on

[1:31:14] you.

[1:31:14] i'm just.

[1:31:15] It's a.

[1:31:16] >> it's a city wide thing that

[1:31:18] we're not in the type of

[1:31:20] feedback from um from residents

[1:31:22] that we need to but I think

[1:31:23] we're good.

[1:31:23] Okay great.

[1:31:24] Any other questions?

[1:31:26] Let's go.

[1:31:26] >> topic here.

[1:31:27] So second.

[1:31:29] Uh any all in favor.

[1:31:31] We opposed all right passes

[1:31:33] that takes us thank you very

[1:31:33] much.

[1:31:34] That takes us.

[1:31:35] >> to item 28.

[1:31:42] Inches petition 20 2632 dash.

[1:31:46] 32 uh salix homes llc is

[1:31:48] approximately 1.39 acres

[1:31:49] located east of driftwood

[1:31:51] drive, north of freedom drive

[1:31:52] and south of marble street.

[1:31:53] In councilmember.

[1:31:54] Graham's district.

[1:31:56] The site is currently zoned

[1:31:58] neighborhood one c and the

[1:31:59] proposed zoning is neighborhood

[1:32:00] one b.

[1:32:02] Conditional staff recommends

[1:32:03] approval of this petition upon

[1:32:04] resolution of a.

[1:32:05] Technical revision.

[1:32:07] There are no speakers signed up

[1:32:09] against this petition.

[1:32:10] The petitioner team will have

[1:32:11] three minutes to speak

[1:32:13] following staff's presentation

[1:32:13] .

[1:32:17] Staff I'd say is 1.39 acres

[1:32:18] located east of driftwood drive

[1:32:18] .

[1:32:20] North of.

[1:32:20] >> freedom drive.

[1:32:24] It is vacant, wooded and

[1:32:25] surrounded primarily by

[1:32:26] residential uses.

[1:32:28] There is a religious

[1:32:29] institution to the south of the

[1:32:30] site.

[1:32:31] Along freedom drive.

[1:32:35] Current zoning is in one c with

[1:32:37] a proposed zoning of n1d.

[1:32:38] >> conditional.

[1:32:39] .

[1:32:40] >> the 2040 policy map

[1:32:41] recommends a neighborhood one

[1:32:42] place type.

[1:32:46] The proposal would allow.

[1:32:49] For uh uses allowed in one d

[1:32:51] zoning district um as the

[1:32:52] conditional notes are currently

[1:32:54] written would not allow

[1:32:56] townhomes, condominiums or

[1:32:57] other single family attached

[1:32:57] housing.

[1:32:58] >> with.

[1:32:58] Separate ownership.

[1:33:00] But would limit the number of.

[1:33:02] Parcels to four.

[1:33:04] Uh we have the table on the

[1:33:07] screen that um, tells you.

[1:33:07] >> the.

[1:33:09] Differences between the n1c and

[1:33:11] one d zoning district primarily

[1:33:15] it's lot area um, 6000 is what

[1:33:18] the current minimum lot area is

[1:33:21] 6000ft2 um would be 3500 under

[1:33:24] in one d uh similarly uh

[1:33:26] minimum lot with would be.

[1:33:27] Reduced from.

[1:33:28] 50ft to 40ft.

[1:33:31] >> the petition is consistent

[1:33:32] with the goals and policies of

[1:33:33] the west middle community area

[1:33:36] plan and in alignment with the

[1:33:36] policy map.

[1:33:37] Recommendation for the

[1:33:38] neighborhood one place type

[1:33:40] positions is not directly

[1:33:41] facilitating the priority goals

[1:33:42] for the west middle community

[1:33:45] area plan or the comprehensive

[1:33:48] plan goals place type five

[1:33:51] criteria is used to uh evaluate

[1:33:53] request for different in one

[1:33:54] and zoning.

[1:33:56] Districts uh it does meet

[1:33:59] criteria um to go for in one

[1:34:02] seat and one dcd there's not a

[1:34:04] well-established uh lot pattern

[1:34:08] in the area but the minimum lot

[1:34:10] with um allowed under in one d

[1:34:12] would better fit um the

[1:34:13] surrounding context.

[1:34:15] Staff recommends.

[1:34:17] Approval upon this of this

[1:34:18] petition upon resolution of a

[1:34:20] requested technical revision

[1:34:21] and that is just to better

[1:34:24] align um, the conditional notes

[1:34:25] with youdo terms.

[1:34:28] Um so so.

[1:34:29] >> the primary difference

[1:34:30] between in one scene and one d

[1:34:32] is in dimensional.

[1:34:34] Standards lot size and lot

[1:34:36] width and the site does meet

[1:34:39] place type five criteria um for

[1:34:40] the transition to in one d

[1:34:41] zoning.

[1:34:43] District I'll turn it over to

[1:34:43] the.

[1:34:44] Petitioner okay for the.

[1:34:45] Petitioner russell ferguson.

[1:34:46] Yes sir.

[1:34:47] >> thank you mayor council.

[1:34:48] Committee uh.

[1:34:49] Russell ferguson I represent

[1:34:49] the petitioner.

[1:34:52] Um, so I have alex holmes,

[1:34:53] savannah and alex combined.

[1:34:54] It's hard to say.

[1:34:56] Um it's a petition supported by

[1:34:57] staff.

[1:34:58] We don't have any opposition.

[1:34:59] Um, it's.

[1:35:01] Unique in that it is sort of

[1:35:01] we're.

[1:35:03] >> up zoning to downscale the

[1:35:03] development here.

[1:35:05] Uh, we've been in contact with

[1:35:07] the district rep um.

[1:35:09] To explain this, but what.

[1:35:10] What the notes are doing is.

[1:35:11] Restricting it to for single

[1:35:12] family homes.

[1:35:14] Um, and it really has to do

[1:35:15] with the uniqueness of that

[1:35:15] lot.

[1:35:17] It's currently subdivided into

[1:35:19] six different sub lots and is

[1:35:20] permitted to go forward as

[1:35:23] three duplexes in a townhome.

[1:35:23] >> style.

[1:35:25] Um, you know, looking into the

[1:35:26] area my clients thought it

[1:35:27] would be more appropriate to

[1:35:30] have for single family homes

[1:35:31] and the approximate width of

[1:35:33] them will be about 45ft.

[1:35:33] They'll vary a.

[1:35:35] Little bit because of the

[1:35:36] topography in the back.

[1:35:37] Um and that's the goal of it.

[1:35:40] So um you know it's much more

[1:35:40] copacetic.

[1:35:42] We did not have tremendous

[1:35:43] attendance at our meetings but

[1:35:43] we held two meetings.

[1:35:44] We were able to talk.

[1:35:46] To both adjacent neighbors.

[1:35:47] Uh, one of the adjacent

[1:35:48] neighbors actually sold some of

[1:35:49] this property into development.

[1:35:52] Anyways, um, so happy to answer

[1:35:52] your questions.

[1:35:54] I don't there's not much the

[1:35:55] presentation sort of skip it.

[1:35:55] Uh.

[1:35:56] Here for.

[1:35:57] >> any of your questions I'll

[1:35:59] give uh, who's left bridget the

[1:36:00] rest of the time.

[1:36:00] Questions?

[1:36:03] >> we've got public here.

[1:36:05] Second area.

[1:36:06] All in favor?

[1:36:07] Thank you.

[1:36:07] Any opposed?

[1:36:08] Thank you.

[1:36:10] All right, that brings us to

[1:36:12] our final item for the evening

[1:36:12] item 29.

[1:36:13] Good.

[1:36:14] >> uh, so.

[1:36:15] >> yeah.

[1:36:16] >> you're right.

[1:36:17] It is.

[1:36:18] >> uh which is.

[1:36:19] Don't slow.

[1:36:19] >> me down.

[1:36:21] >> no petition.

[1:36:22] 2026 dash.

[1:36:26] 35 by dream key partners is

[1:36:27] approximately six acres located

[1:36:29] east of beatty's ford road,

[1:36:29] south.

[1:36:29] Of slater.

[1:36:32] Road and north of cindy lane in

[1:36:33] council member graham's

[1:36:33] district.

[1:36:35] The site is currently zoned

[1:36:37] neighborhood one b and the

[1:36:38] proposed rezoning is

[1:36:41] neighborhood to a conditional

[1:36:42] staff recommends approval of

[1:36:44] this petition upon resolution

[1:36:45] of outstanding issues.

[1:36:47] There are no speakers signed up

[1:36:48] against this petitioner.

[1:36:50] >> so the petition the petition

[1:36:51] so the petitioner will have

[1:36:51] three.

[1:36:52] >> minutes to speak following

[1:36:53] staff's presentation.

[1:36:55] Staff decision.

[1:36:57] 2026 035.

[1:36:59] >> is six acre site located on

[1:37:00] the east side of base ford.

[1:37:00] Road.

[1:37:02] >> currently zoned in one b

[1:37:03] neighborhood one b.

[1:37:04] Zoning is into.

[1:37:05] >> a.

[1:37:05] City neighborhood.

[1:37:06] >> two conditional.

[1:37:08] 2040 policy map recommends the

[1:37:09] neighborhood of one.

[1:37:11] Place type two the site plan is

[1:37:11] not.

[1:37:12] >> in alignment with the.

[1:37:12] Neighborhood one place.

[1:37:13] Type and.

[1:37:14] >> approval of this rezoning.

[1:37:14] Would revise the.

[1:37:16] Policy map to the neighborhood

[1:37:16] .

[1:37:17] Two place type.

[1:37:18] the rezoning proposal.

[1:37:20] Calls for the development of up

[1:37:21] to 64 multifamily attached.

[1:37:23] Townhome dwelling units.

[1:37:24] The site is divided.

[1:37:26] Into two development areas

[1:37:27] dormitory.

[1:37:28] Area a and development.

[1:37:28] Area b.

[1:37:30] Um development.

[1:37:31] Area a.

[1:37:32] >> is limited to buildings of

[1:37:33] up to four.

[1:37:33] Dwelling units.

[1:37:36] And development area b requires

[1:37:37] at least.

[1:37:38] 60% of the buildings to have no

[1:37:39] more.

[1:37:40] Than two units and allows a

[1:37:40] maximum of three.

[1:37:41] Units per building.

[1:37:44] The plan does not propose a new

[1:37:45] access point on betty's ford.

[1:37:46] Road access.

[1:37:48] The site will be via the

[1:37:49] previously approved.

[1:37:50] Townhome development to.

[1:37:52] >> the south which was uh.

[1:37:53] Rezoning petition 24.

[1:37:55] 112 12 foot.

[1:37:56] Multi use path and eight bit.

[1:37:57] Planning strip will be.

[1:37:58] Provided along the front of.

[1:38:00] Betty ford base baseboard road.

[1:38:02] Upgraded kat's bus waiting pad

[1:38:02] will be.

[1:38:03] Installed on betty's ford road

[1:38:03] .

[1:38:05] Um ground floor.

[1:38:07] Residential entrances will.

[1:38:08] >> be connected directly to.

[1:38:10] Sidewalk buildings on base.

[1:38:10] >> for.

[1:38:11] Road must.

[1:38:13] Front the base ford road

[1:38:13] frontage.

[1:38:15] Um the plan is not in alignment

[1:38:16] with the policy map but the

[1:38:16] plan.

[1:38:18] Is consistent with the goals

[1:38:18] and policies.

[1:38:19] >> of the.

[1:38:20] West middle community area plan

[1:38:20] .

[1:38:22] Staff recommends.

[1:38:23] Approval of this petition.

[1:38:25] Upon resolution of outstanding.

[1:38:26] Issues related to

[1:38:27] transportation and.

[1:38:27] Site and building design.

[1:38:29] Proposed plan meets minor map.

[1:38:31] Amendment criteria to

[1:38:32] transition to the neighborhood

[1:38:32] to place type.

[1:38:34] The site is in an area.

[1:38:35] Containing a mix of single

[1:38:36] family, multi-family commercial

[1:38:37] and institutional uses.

[1:38:39] 2040 comprehensive plan calls.

[1:38:41] >> for the development of

[1:38:43] multifamily housing along major

[1:38:43] roadways.

[1:38:45] With access to public

[1:38:45] transportation and.

[1:38:46] Options for.

[1:38:47] >> active forms of

[1:38:47] transportation.

[1:38:48] >> such as.

[1:38:50] Walking and bicycling which are

[1:38:51] provided provided.

[1:38:52] Within the betty's road

[1:38:52] corridor.

[1:38:54] I'm happy to take any.

[1:38:54] Uh.

[1:38:55] >> questions following this

[1:38:56] grant's presentation.

[1:38:57] Thank you, MISS Grant.

[1:39:00] Mayor harrington, members of

[1:39:01] council members, the zoning

[1:39:01] committee.

[1:39:03] It's not unusual for me to be

[1:39:04] last on the agenda I did.

[1:39:05] I'm not.

[1:39:06] Uncommon at all.

[1:39:08] Um, pleased to be here tonight

[1:39:10] on behalf of drink dream key.

[1:39:10] Partners.

[1:39:12] >> this is essentially a second

[1:39:12] .

[1:39:14] Phase of a rezoning that was

[1:39:16] adopted last year that

[1:39:17] introduced townhomes along the

[1:39:17] segment of the corridor.

[1:39:18] We worked.

[1:39:20] >> in collaboration at the time

[1:39:20] with the adjacent property.

[1:39:21] Owners and are.

[1:39:22] Pleased to be moving forward

[1:39:24] with some additional.

[1:39:25] Um development that will also.

[1:39:27] Include or increase the amount

[1:39:28] of proposed street network.

[1:39:30] Connectivity as well as

[1:39:30] improvements along the frontage

[1:39:31] .

[1:39:32] So I'm happy to answer any

[1:39:32] questions.

[1:39:36] Questions the bfr is added

[1:39:36] again.

[1:39:38] To public hearing.

[1:39:40] Second all.

[1:39:40] In favor raise.

[1:39:41] >> your hand.

[1:39:42] Any opposed?

[1:39:44] All right I think that does it

[1:39:45] .

[1:39:46] And unless there is opposition

[1:39:47] we can adjourn it a council

[1:39:48] member mayfield.

[1:39:49] So thank.

[1:39:49] >> you.

[1:39:50] Mayor.

[1:39:51] >> um allison.

[1:39:53] >> if it were between you and

[1:39:54] mayor.

[1:39:56] If we can get a referral to a.

[1:39:57] Housing and neighborhood

[1:39:58] services committee.

[1:39:58] Specifically on.

[1:39:59] >> the.

[1:40:00] Manufacturing housing.

[1:40:02] That can be combined.

[1:40:03] >> with our.

[1:40:04] Upcoming conversation.

[1:40:06] That we're going to have about.

[1:40:06] Modular homes.

[1:40:07] >> for our SEPTEMBER.

[1:40:09] Meeting since we're running out

[1:40:09] of months.

[1:40:11] So if we can get that.

[1:40:12] over to.

[1:40:14] Uh, leadership so that.

[1:40:14] >> we can.

[1:40:15] >> have that.

[1:40:16] Conversation and.

[1:40:16] Um.

[1:40:18] >> SEPTEMBER housing.

[1:40:20] >> and neighborhood services

[1:40:20] committee meeting, that would

[1:40:21] be helpful.

[1:40:23] Any other.

[1:40:24] Comments questions before we.

[1:40:26] >> close I should close second.

[1:40:27] All in favor?

[1:40:28] All right we.

[1:40:29] Are thank you mayor.

[1:40:30] All right thank you.

[1:40:31] >> all right.

[1:40:31] Thank you.

City Council Zoning Meeting on 2026-08-17 5:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript