[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.
[4:05] 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.