I would like to call to order the welcome for our um meeting tonight and introductions at the dais.

We'll start with our city clerk.

I mean, not the city clerk, the city attorney.

Terry Hagler Gray, Senior Assistant City Attorney.

Good evening, all Victoria Watlington.

I have the pleasure of serving you as a member at large.

Good evening, Lawana Mayfield, Councilmember at large.

Ed Drags, District 7.

Malcolm Graham, District 2.

Dante Anderson, Mayor Pro Tem, District 1.

Oh, good evening, everyone.

Uh Shawlett City Councilman James Mitchell at large.

Good evening, Renee Johnson, and I'm honored to represent District 4.

Good evening.

This is T1 around representing the Charlotte City Council, District 3, and JCSU, of course.

Come on, Malcolm.

I'll wait for Malcolm.

Let's continue this on.

Um, Miss Brown, um, would you provide us our invocation for today?

Miss Johnson, Ms.

Johnson for our invitation today.

Thank you.

If we can all bow our heads or just give a moment of silence.

Lord, we come to you tonight with humble hearts, recognizing both the weight of the decisions we make and the needs of the people we serve.

Remind us that it is you who has chosen us to serve your people.

As we gather for this meeting, grant us the clarity of mind, steadiness of purpose, and a spirit of compassion.

Help us to consider every neighborhood, every family, and every future shaped by the choices that we make.

Lord, we lift up our community during this challenging time.

As people are hurting, displaced, and homeless, and as the border patrol invades our city, we pray for protection, compassion, and justice for all who are affected.

Calm their fears and safeguard the vulnerable.

Lord, remind us of the teaching in your word that when we care for those with the least protection and the least power, that we honor you.

Bless our staff with endurance, bless our residents with peace and understanding, and bless this council with wisdom so that all of our work will honor you.

Amen.

If you choose to please um join us in our pledge of allegiance.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Yes.

Before we do that, we are going to um have an action item that is to um part a point appointments to the Metropolitan Public Transportation Authority Board.

Mr.

Mitchell, Miss Mayfield, and Mr.

Driggs.

And so this has been truly a journey.

Um I think I've worked on this for five or six years, actually.

But here we are today, and I'm proud to be able to uh um make this action noble item.

So let's go ahead and start talking about adopt the action is to adopt a resolution appointing members to the Metropolitan Public Transportation Authority Board based upon the recommendations of the Charlotte Region recommendation of the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance, the recommendation of the Foundation for the Carolinas, and confirming the appointments made by me as Mayor.

Um Mr.

Mitchell, would you like to address uh thank you, Mayor?

Uh I'd like to uh make the motion on the floor.

Second.

Thank you.

And so just a brief comment.

First of all, let me thank the work group who the mayor um have formed, and I think we put in about 17 hours of interviewing.

And then let me thank this council because this was a truly a team effort.

We went from 145 applicants down to 27.

Then we interviewed 27.

And today we uh we had our first round of voting.

Um Mr.

Ferguson withdrew, so we went out 27 to 26.

So thank you, Councilmember Brown.

And to all those who apply to interview, we thank you for sharing your time and talent with us for a very long but I think a very productive process we had.

And so I do think we have some results.

So if Ms.

Stephanie Kelly, oh she's at okay.

Stephanie, can you come to the podium, please, and share any earlier results we have from the nomination, Mayor and Council.

Um from the results of your voting um last night and this morning, you have um confirmed the five individuals that were um recommended from the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance from the Foundation for the Carolinas and the two from the mayor, and um each of those individuals received seven nominations.

Um so they will be um appointed or the and following your process for nominations and appointments.

The following categories, I will read each uh category received six or more nominations, and so at the conclusion, if you so choose, you can um offer a motion, a second and a vote to appoint uh these individuals from the law category.

Frank Emory received six nominations from the government category, David Howard received seven nominations from the architecture category, Todd Collins received seven nominations, and from the logistics category, Jocelyn Jones Nollie received six nominations.

Mobile acclamation, second second uh we have a motion pending.

You made a motion and I seconded the action that's in our our agenda which was the appointment of the foundation, the alliance, and the mayor.

So we should complete that action and then act on this.

Okay.

Stephanie, do you mind calling the names of the uh Carolinas for the found uh I'm sorry uh for the uh the recommendations from the Charlotte Regional Business Alliance, Wyatt Dixon, and Lucia Zapata Griffith from the Foundation for the Carolinas, Peter Pappas and the two recommended by the mayor are Charles Bowman and Christy Long.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so we had a motion and a second to approve those five individuals before we go into a second motion to approve the the council's appointment.

Okay any any questions or conversations on those five individuals apologies.

I did turn the ballot um here in the last little bit I just want to I'd like to verify a couple of things because I'm I'm the numbers that I looked at would have put a couple more people over, at least one more person over so you may not have the results.

I know you may not have the results from my particular one.

So I just wanted to verify okay.

Did you say you didn't vote for the five?

I know, but so all others will come back to you on the 24th.

Do you have all of the ballots that the council members have turned in?

I do.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other discussion on those five individuals?

Hearing none, all in favor, raise hands.

It's five.

It's five.

Two for the mayor, two for the foundation.

Okay.

Any opposed?

All right, that is unanimous.

Okay.

Um, Madam Clerk, could you read um for the council appointees those individuals that reached six or more votes?

Again, please.

From the law category, Frank Emory received six nominations for the government category, David Howard.

Excuse me, that number is eight.

Okay.

That number is eight.

Nominations.

Todd Collins, seven nominations, and Jocelyn Jones Nolly, six nominations.

Okay.

So we all so we probably have have to have another motion now.

Move by acclamation.

Second.

Okay.

Any discussion?

Miss Watlington.

Are you able to read the council members that um supported Katrina Jones, please?

That supported who I'm sorry I didn't hear the name.

My question is for Katrina Jones or Young, excuse me.

Katrina Jones.

Young, I'm sorry, yes.

We recommend it.

There these will come back, but I have council members Anderson, Graham, Mayfield, Mitchell, and Watlington.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So I got a question too.

Yes, Miss Brown.

Thank you so much.

Mayor Potem.

And I have a great.

I have a question.

I want to know the six members that voted for Joshly Nolly.

Somebody should finish.

Well, so the clerk can read them now, but you know she's gonna publish everyone that got there.

Okay.

I'm requesting for them to be read now.

For what?

Um Jones Nollley.

Yes, Miss Nolly.

Anderson, Driggs, Graham, Johnson, Mayfield, and Mitchell.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Graham.

Did any other candidate reach five?

Other than the one that you mentioned earlier.

Yes, sir.

The ones that were less than six will come back to you on the 24th.

And in the council action, get it done to me.

Those that nominated that voted or nominated those individuals will be shown in the council action.

Six.

But there were a number of others that reach five.

Yes.

And those will come back to you next at the next business meeting.

We just can't take an action.

We can't take an action to she has a question.

Miss Brown.

Yes.

Ms.

Brown is not finished.

Now I know you said that are going to be public.

No, he didn't.

So we got one, two, three, four.

And we have confirmed, right?

I didn't know.

Mayor?

Yes, we yes, we have we have changes.

Frank, David, Todd, and Jocelyn.

Those were the four that reached six or more votes by council.

Who got five?

So the remaining three will come back to us next week, right?

Yes.

For the 24th.

Yes.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, so just so that there's clarity, will you just state what next steps are?

Next steps will be anyone that received less than six, more than two nominations, but less than six will come back to you at your November 24th meeting.

You will receive the council action, uh, the RCA that states which individual council members nominated each individual that falls within the more than two nominations and less than six.

With the understanding that with tonight's passing of those four, we have three remaining approvals.

Total seven.

Yes.

Uh Miss Mayfield.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, for clarification, because as part of the ad hoc committee, we know it identify the categories.

So when this comes back to full council, are the categories that we still need to fill going to be identified.

So for transparency's sake and for clarity, once we completed all of the interviews, then we went back to the specific categories that were identified, and we made recommendations based on those categories.

So we have three seats that are that did not receive enough votes.

With those three are the categories that are still vacant based on the PAVE Act.

Is that going to be identified to ensure that we have parity?

Because one of our challenges was that between business community, mayor's appointment, economic development, as well as finance and small business was identified, so we were looking at the other categories to ensure that we had diversity and experience.

So would that information be identified for those that will be voting in this next round?

I would say yes, council member, in order to be consistent with what you the process that you used this time.

I would say yes.

So hang on, I'm gonna go to Mr.

Mitchell and then I'll follow up with Mr.

Graham and then Miss Brown.

So I I let's make sure we level set and just 12 leveling council members are clear.

So today we approve the category of law, government, architect, and logistics.

Correct.

So on November 24th, those categories would not be on our ballot for November the 24th, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh I have Mr.

Graham and then I have Miss Ms.

Brown.

So I'm under the impression, and let me first thank the committee uh for doing some good work and the fact that we were able to get four nominations um clear tonight is good work.

But I'm under the impression though, notwithstanding the recommendations from the subcommittee that the council has the choice of selecting any seven from any categories, and the categories only uh are a litness test for qualification.

We don't have to break them up by categories, and that's how I made my selection tonight.

I didn't kind of make it based on where they fell.

I I I kind of selected the quality of the seven individuals, I believe, that meet my individual standards for my vote, notwithstanding which category they fell in.

There were some categories I chose none.

Right.

So I I think when they come back, we should be able to choose anyone of the 27 or right.

Am I going to do that?

Well, um, so I'm going, thank you, Mr.

Graham.

I'm gonna go to the city attorney um so she can uh speak on this matter.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem um and Mayor, or excuse me, Councilmember Graham not to um block anything that you're suggesting right now, but I do want to remind council that there are two categories that are yet to be filled and will need to be filled, and that is with respect to the bus rider category, which is required by the memorandum of understanding, and the small business category, which is required by the PAVE Act.

Um the small business category that has been appointed by the business alliance, that is not to the exclusion of the requirement by council because the payback specifically calls for a remaining vote or remaining one.

See some puzzle faces.

And just to follow, I think you're you're absolutely correct.

So those are the only two requirements that we have to fill by categories.

The other five, uh, it can be all of them hypothetically if they were in the category of logistics could that could be chosen, right?

Because it only prescribes that the individuals that serve on the board meet these one, two, three, four, five, six type of characteristics.

It doesn't say that they have to um that the council has to fix certain um categories or individuals based on because it's like nine categories and only seven appointments, right?

So that's the math doesn't even make sense, right?

Exactly.

So yes, Councilmember Graham, and again, I was just reiterating the the statutory requirement under um I get that PAVACT and separately the MOU.

But yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

I have Miss Brown and then I have Miss Ashmira, then Miss Watlington, okay.

So I understand that we're going to um this is gonna come out publicly, but some people watching now, and they may miss it.

So if I could I would like to know the votes for Emma Allen, please so okay, so no, hang on, Miss Ashmer.

Um Ms.

Brown, all of the votes will be baked.

I understand that.

So I I understand that you have a list of individuals.

Do you want to know I I have a list of individuals that I'm asking, and that is my rights?

So I would like to know who vote for Emma Allen.

Okay.

Clerk or what category?

Who has their vote for Miss Emma Allen, please?

I'm sorry.

Who casts their vote for Ms.

Emma Allen Allen?

I have Miss Asmer Brown Johnson and Watlington.

Okay.

And might I also add that um according in the the uh consideration of the work group as they were going through the qualifications, Jocelyn Jones Nolly does meet the transit rider category for specification.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I have Ms.

Ashbeira, and then I have Miss Wattlington, and then Miss Johnson.

Thank you.

So I agree with what Councilmember Graham said.

He said it very well in terms of the category.

When we were discussing the process earlier, we had decided that it will give council a flexibility to decide on the final selection on the final seven.

Because if you look at the category, there are individuals that are meeting multiple categories.

And just because they were assigned one category and they it was more competitive, they didn't make it to the final round.

So I think we need to keep that in mind.

So it's it's not I feel like if we choose the category, we are choosing winners and losers based on the competitiveness.

So I just don't think that's fair.

So I will be uh uh making my decision based on what councilmember Graham said uh as to who will be the best seven to serve on this story.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Miss Watlington.

Thank you.

I just wanted to reiterate.

I think Councilmember Smir and Graham said it best.

The thing that um I want to be clear about because I will also be selecting based on who I believe are is the best fit for the um for the collective based on who's already been selected.

I just want to make sure that if people's names showed up in categories that um have already been filled based on these appointments, are we still going to see the full slate of remaining candidates so long as they got at least two votes?

You will.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Have Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

Uh I'm just clarifying a little as mere Ms.

Ashmira and Dr.

Watlington have already clarified it.

But as far as categories, when we were voting, there were nine categories.

Business and transit rider were at the end.

Small business and transit rider were at the end.

So I remember calling Mr.

Driggs about uh the categories, and he was saying transit rider was not a standalone category.

That was my and I and I don't know the small business was either.

That was my understanding.

Well, no, we can let the um city attorney can city attorney right.

Can you respond to the question?

The question was around the two categories, the um the transit right, the public transportation rider and small business.

They were not a part of the original categories within the actual um referendum.

Or the or the survey, I think if I'm correct.

I know transit rider wasn't, and I believe small business.

They were part of the act.

And that's and we we vetted our office in conjunction with the Madam Kirk's office as well, vetted the applications to ensure that there was at least one applicant available and eligible to fit those categories, Councilmember Johnson.

And so I don't know that I'm answering fully your questions.

I want to make sure I circle back to clarify anything I missed.

I can't explain that.

Okay.

May I respond?

Yes, uh, Mr.

Dregs.

Thank you.

Uh what the act says is the city will appoint 12, right?

Five of them we know about, seven for us.

And it says that among the twelve, there will be at least one small business.

That means though that you choose from the nine categories, and your choice in those nine categories must include somebody who's a small business owner.

It's not a it's not a tenth category.

It's uh it's an additional requirement of at least one of the people from the nine categories.

The memorandum of understanding that we entered into with the members of Mecklenburg County, a separate agreement among the municipalities, then further provided that there would be a rider among our city's 12 appointments.

Now I think from the discussions that we had, we have a rider and we have a small business.

So there uh that nothing to limit more writers and more small businesses, but the requirements of those two agreements that there be a rider and a small business in the nine categories, you know, in addition to the category uh has been met.

Yes.

So that was the practical application.

There weren't those standalone categories of small business and transit writer, which I thought that's what you explained earlier.

Okay.

But but those but that qualification, that minimum threshold has been met with those that have uh are being appointed.

That's correct.

Okay.

That's correct.

All right, Miss Brown.

Thank you so much, Mayor Pro Tim.

You're doing such a great job.

I greatly appreciate you.

I want to say that thank you to the committee.

You guys worked hard.

Uh I really appreciate your efforts and time.

That you took a side to work through this.

But uh reach out to them.

As the clerk, I want to ask you, did anyone in opposition?

Is there anyone in opposition?

Um in that list that we didn't email I wouldn't say we, but in in that list.

Is there anybody in opposition?

Is anyone on the committee can answer that?

That uh that we selected is anybody in opposite that was in opposition, like me in opposition of the referendum to move forward.

Um I don't believe that that was a qualification for the application.

Was it a qualification?

No, but what I'm getting to, Ms.

Brown is I don't know that we can state with full certainty that there is or or that there isn't.

In the applications, we asked the question.

Did you support it?

And that data was on a spreadsheet that was given to everybody.

Again, Mayor Pro Tim.

Again, since Mr.

Dregs was on the committee, he answered that question.

He asked that question.

I would like to know.

And if whoever needs to get it done, attorney, whoever, I would like to know if we are showing that we had someone that was in opposition within the pool of the 27 applicants that was recommended.

That was recommended, not not the applicants.

I know there was opposition in the applicants.

Okay.

I know there was opposition in the recommended.

The recommendations, did we have anybody that was opposing?

I I get what you're saying.

So, madam clerk, if you have the recommendations.

No, no, I I could answer that.

Uh I don't, Councilmember Brown, I don't think I'm thinking about all the names we recommended.

I don't think there was no one in that list.

Correct.

I didn't think it was either, but I just wanted to confirm it for the record.

And so that's something to consider.

Yeah.

That's something to consider on this next round.

It really is because we want to be fair.

We want to be fair.

And if everybody, we had 80 something thousand people that disagreed.

It was almost as many people said no that said yes.

That's something not to be ignored.

Understood.

I hope it's understood.

Yes, yeah.

Uh I understand.

Okay.

So we have um the motion through acclamation to approve uh the four individuals who have met six or more votes.

Um we've had our discussion.

Are we ready to vote?

All right.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

Any opposed?

I'm I'm confused.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

I don't I can I understand.

I'll clarify.

Okay.

Um we we had ballots that were given to council for the for all 27 applicants.

Um we've had four individuals through our ballot process who have met the threshold or of six or more votes from the council member.

The clerk has read those individuals, and we've had a motion and a second to approve those, like we typically do for any other board or or commission.

And we've had we've had our discussion and now we're ready to vote.

We did vote.

No, we well we did vote.

We didn't yes, we did vote, but just point of information for Miss Brown.

That's fine, but the we did vote.

Okay.

So we just raised we we just raised our hands to vote, and then I was in the middle of saying any opposed to approving these four individuals who have met the threshold of six or more votes by a council member.

Is are there any any opposed one opposed?

Okay.

Miss Brown is opposed.

Uh so uh Mayor Pro Tem, could I make two comments?

Yes, sir.

One, I see one of our partners here, so I want to thank the business regional alliance, David.

Thank you for your partnership.

And I think we have I'm looking around.

I think we have at least one applicant in attendance.

Congratulations, David Howard.

Okay.

Um I have Miss Mayfield.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim.

The vote has passed, but I want to make sure that we have as much clarity as possible.

Hopefully, those of you in the community were able to tune in to all of the interviews.

Between the three of us, we had a scoring system of zero to three based on the actual questions.

If you participated or watched, you notice that each block of interviews had a different set of five questions.

Mainly to ensure that we did not have anyone watching the meeting on Wednesday when their interview wasn't until Friday or Saturday to try to prep for the responses.

So each block of interviews were asked five questions.

Those questions were then ranked.

You had the opportunity to receive up to 15 points total for excellent per each one of us, which would have given a total of 45.

We then we did not look at who had what scoring.

So on Saturday afternoon is when staff brought back to the committee.

We had six total that actually scored a 45 across in total.

One individual scores, I believe.

We had four individuals.

Two three four, five, six, two.

Yeah, correct.

Six individuals that scored a 45, two individuals that score a 41.

Now the clarification that my colleagues just asked for regarding committees when the three of us were in conversation based on our understanding of the payback and what was required of us because the mayor as well as business community had made appointments to economic development and small business.

Categories, logistics, finance, government, public transportation, urban planning, economic development.

Okay.

And made our recommendations based on that.

I will also say it was a recommendation from the committee.

One of the committee members didn't necessarily choose all of the seven that we recommended.

At the end of the day, council has the ability to then vote.

What we were under the impression of, and the way that we move it maneuvered throughout these interviews, was based on the categories and making sure that to the best of our ability, the city of Charlotte is going to be represented by someone with finance background, government, public transportation, urban planning, economic development, engineering, and if we had that department, that particular category was already identified, then we look to see that this individual fall into any of the other categories.

Those who scored at 45.

And that is how we identify our seven that we recommended.

Recognizing and knowing that as a full council, you have the ability to support who you support.

Thursday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and the multiple meetings prior to getting to the interview process.

It is now the opportunity for full counsel.

There are still three seats because there were individuals that I personally would have loved to say, yeah, this is who I'm voting for, but I chose to commit to the process that we verbally committed to, and that is supporting the seven recommended.

There's the opportunity where we have three additional appointments as a council.

We then get to see six plus.

I would hope, considering there are 11 council members, and some individuals receive seven or six, seven or eight votes that everyone will fully participate in the last three, so that we can move it forward.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we've had our vote.

I just as we transition into the uh zoning aspect of our meeting.

I just want to close it out by thanking the selection committee.

Um, I sat in on as many meetings, interviews as I possibly could that you guys were there for all of the interviews, all of the all of the uh workshops that you guys had working through it, and I appreciate your collaboration and your time commitment because it was truly an investment over the last several days.

So thank you to um Mr.

Mr.

Mitchell, who was our chair, Mr.

Driggs, as well as Miss Mayfield.

All right, and thank you to the and congratulations to those that were appointed this evening.

So now we're going to transition to the zoning part of our meeting, and I'm going to explain the zoning process.

The process begins with applications submitted to planning staff for review.

Cases of two types are on the agenda decisions and hearings.

Decisions on cases for which a public hearing was previously held, so no public comment tonight.

For hearings, anyone wishing to speak, they're asked to see our clerk before the start of that particular hearing.

Staff will give a presentation with no time limit.

The petitioner will have three minutes combined to present the case, unless one of two things have occurred.

One is if there is opposition signed up to speak against that petition, or if our staff is in opposition.

In both cases, the petitioner gets 10 minutes.

The petitions go to the zoning committee of planning commission for review and recommendation.

And at this time, I'm going to pass it over to Chair Wilton so he can introduce his committee.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim, and uh thank you, Council.

My name is Douglas A.

Welton, and I'm the chairman of the zoning committee of the planning commission.

Allow me to introduce my fellow uh commissioners.

We have uh Melissa Gaston, Aaron Shaw, Teresa McDonald, Robin Stewart, Carolyn Millen, and Michael Caprioli.

The zoning committee will meet on Wednesday, December 2nd at 5 30 p.m.

at that meeting.

The zoning committee will discuss and make recommendations on the petitions that have a public hearing here tonight.

The public is welcome at that meeting as well, but please note it is not a continuation of the public hearing that is being held right now.

Prior to that meeting, you are welcome to contact us and provide us with input if you would like.

You can find information uh on our contact information and information about the petitions that the are being reviewed here at the city's website at Charlotte Planning.org.

And that is all.

I will hand it back to you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So we will begin with all of our uh deferrals and withdrawals, and we will um we will attend to those all in one motion.

I will pass it over to staff so um they can go through it.

Yes, thank you.

We have quite a list, so please stop me if you would like me to repeat something.

So starting with decisions, item number nine, 2024-127 by Wood Partners, deferring decision to December 15th.

Item number 10, 2025-025, 021, excuse me, by Harold Jordan, deferring decision to December 15th.

Item number 11, petition 2025-027 by Mission City Church and Freedom Communities deferring decision to December 15th.

Item number 12, petition 2025-042 by Brian Elsey, deferring decision to December 15th.

Item number 13, petition 2025-039 by Christopher Martin Martin, deferring decision to December 15th.

Item number 14, petition 2025-057 by Tri Bag Properties, deferring decision to December 15th.

For our hearings, we have item number 15, petition 2025-063 by Northwood Raven, deferring hearing to December 15th.

Item number 16, petition 2025-096 by Justin Berry, deferring hearing to December 15th.

We just added item number 19, petition 2025-088 by Northway Homes, deferring their hearing to December 15th.

Item number 21, petition 2025-100 by Roll and Development Group LLC, deferring hearing to December 15th.

Item number 25, petition 2025-070 by Prosperity Alliance, deferring hearing to December 15th.

And item number 30, petition 2025-094 by Atopico Properties Incorporated, deferring hearing to December 15th.

Move to approve all referrals.

Second.

Second.

All right.

Thank you.

Any comment, Miss Wattlinton.

And my question is I realize that the specific motion right now is just to defer these, but in the spirit of an agenda adjustment, which essentially is what it is.

I'll notice that number 31, though not deferred, is the only one that's got opposition.

Um so I'm wondering if there's any ways part of this agenda adjustment that we can move that one up so that Mr.

Dunn doesn't have to wait until item 31 to speak in the hearing.

I'll second that.

We have we have a motion.

Okay.

Sorry, no.

We do have a motion.

Uh we do have a motion pending right now.

Um you're just asking to move something up.

Can we get through this one first?

And I'm fine, however, we do it.

I just didn't know if this needed to be part of this motion or we can do it as a separate motion to adjust agenda.

I'm fine with that.

Madam Attorney, I think if it's a separate motion, I think um if you can vote on the after we vote for the deferrals, then we can we can go there.

Okay, any other discussion?

All in favor to uh move the aforementioned petitions to December's zoning meeting, please raise hands.

Any opposed?

All right, that is unanimous now.

Uh Miss Watlington, would you like to make a motion?

Yep.

Um I move to bring item number 31 rezoning petition number 2025-095 to the top of the zoning hearings agenda in order to hear the opposition or the only opposed uh position.

Okay, there is a second.

Um madam attorney, do we need a motion to do that or can we simply just move it up?

I'm thinking through that if there's no objection from the council.

If there's no objection, you can move it up.

Okay.

So is there any objection to moving that item up?

No.

Hearing none, we can we can begin with that item.

Thank you.

And that item is number 31.

So we don't confirm we'll continue with the consent agenda after.

Yes, yes, yes, absolutely.

That was only approved.

I'm with you, ma'am.

Hang on.

Hang on now.

We're at the we're at deferrals and withdrawals.

We just had that motion, but first we're gonna do the consent agenda, and then we'll start with that one.

Okay, all right.

Um, so now it that brings us to our consent agenda portion of the uh agenda.

Rezoning petition items four through eight may be considered in one motion, except for those pulled by a council member.

Please note that these petitions meet the following criteria.

They had no public opposition at the at the petition hearing.

Staff recommends approval, zoning committee recommends approval, and there were no changes after the zoning committee's recommendations.

Are there any consent agenda item that a council would like to pull for a question comment or a separate vote?

Uh Miss Mayfield.

Separate vote for number four and eight.

Separate vote for number four and eight.

All right.

So it is there a motion to approve the following the following petitions and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency for each of these petitions as they appear in our agenda, and I will read the the petition numbers out loud.

Item number five, petition number 2025 075, item number six, petition number 2025 080, and item number seven, petition number 2025 087.

Is there a motion to adopt and approve?

Motion.

Oh, can I make a comment on that?

I I need a second.

I have one second.

Okay.

I have a motion from uh Mr.

Peacock and a second from Mr.

Driggs.

Any discussion?

Miss Johnson.

Yeah, I wanted to make a comment on item number five.

I don't need to pull it.

Uh this came before us last night, excuse me, last month.

This is just a petition to kind of clean up some of the uses and bring it back into compliance since the UDO change.

And we also added language to restrict the data center.

I don't know if you all remember that, but it was kind of open uses, and we made sure.

I wanted to make sure we added uh the data center are restricted for this petition.

Okay.

That's all.

Thank you.

Any other comment?

Hearing none, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

Okay, that is unanimous.

Is there a motion to approve petition number 2025 045 by J and J Customs Home?

So moved.

Second.

All right.

There's a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Miss Mayfield.

Question for staff.

We have on here that this petition proposes for the development of a single family detached residential community and accessory uses as allowed by right.

The city is in discussions.

We have a pilot regarding uh ADU program that potentially can benefit government homeowners.

Would this new development qualify for that ADU program that is being implemented?

Correct.

There's no reason that the conditions would prohibit that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any additional comment?

Hearing none, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

Miss Mayfield is in opposition.

Is there a motion to approve petition number 2025 090 by Stephen Siller Tunnel Towers Foundation, a New York not for profit corporation?

Supposed.

Second.

There is a motion and a second.

Any discussion.

Miss Mayfield, any discussion on item 8?

Yes, please.

Yes.

As this, so I am going.

I have already shared uh email regarding concerns with this particular development.

Well, more importantly, as this plan is inconsistent with our 2040 policy map recommendation, then I will be a no vote.

Thank you.

Ms.

Johnson.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um, one of the things that we mentioned last month when they were in front of us uh was about a displacement plan, and we were told that they uh didn't think there was any long-term tenant uh or excuse me, occupants of the hotel.

Did we get confirmation of that?

Can we as far as we're aware, there are no long-term tenants from the conversations that we've had with the petitioner.

Did we get anything in writing or anything from the I do not have anything in writing as of this exact moment?

The the petitioner is here, but he's not allowed to speak.

Okay, well, if the petitioner can just send an email that's verifying that, that would be great.

You can ask him a specific question.

I can ask him to come down.

Okay, can you come down then to the podium and uh the email not too fast?

No slips, trips, or falls.

Yes, because we need this point.

Okay, we have a directive question to you from Miss Johnson.

Ms.

Johnson, can you so last month I asked specifically about a displacement plan and you advised that there were no long-term occupants?

That's correct, ma'am.

Were you able to verify that?

I was.

I spoke with the seller and they verified that.

I did attempt to send you an email.

I'm sorry if you did not receive that, but probably a few days or a week after the hearing.

I did try to do that.

Okay, all right.

If you could just resend that so we have that.

Thank you so much.

Any more questions?

No, I have nothing.

Okay.

Hearing no further uh discussions, all in favor raise hands.

Any opposed?

Miss Mayfield is in opposition.

Okay, so then that takes us to the hearings portion of our agenda, and we will begin with agenda item number 31.

Petition item number 2025095 by Gus Levy.

The location is approximately 0.26 acres west of Statesville Road, south of Hutchinson McDonald Road, and north of Riley Avenue and District 2, Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is N1B, proposed zoning.

Uh CG staff approves this petition.

And do we have someone to speak for the petition?

Because I don't have a name, I only have opposition listed.

I have it for you.

Okay.

So one right here.

Okay.

So all right, so after um just receiving it here.

So after staff's presentation, uh, Mr.

Levy or Levi, you will have 10 minutes, and then uh Mr.

Dunn will have 10 minutes and you'll have a two-minute rebuttal.

So you can make your way while staff is doing their presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and just wait for the PowerPoint moving stuff around.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

This site is just over a quarter of an acre, located just west of Statesville Road, south of Hutchinson McDonald Road, north of Riley Avenue, in an area where we have predominantly industrial uses to the south.

Directly to the west.

Thank you.

Our neighborhood 1B uses and to the north, but industrial uses further to the west and commercial corridor all along Statesville Road, vacant commercial lots directly to the east of this site.

It is currently zoned, neighborhood 1B, and they are proposing to go to General Commercial.

This is a conventional rezoning request, meaning that there is no associated site plan.

It is considered inconsistent with the 2040 policy maps recommendation for the neighborhood one space type of site.

Given that the area is pretty commercial in nature with that uh the industrial and commercial uses surrounding the site to the south and to the east.

We felt that this was an appropriate shift to the commercial place type of the site when we looked at some of our criteria for that commercial place typology mapping.

And it's within an area that has an access gap for access to essential amenities, so this helps provide more acreage to that commercial place type.

The zoning district, the general commercial zoning district, would require class B landscape yards, which is 25 feet wide along any property lines that abut neighborhood one districts, which it does abut to the north and to the west, which provides additional screening between any potential uses that would be on that site.

Located near transit and three different bus stations.

And like I said, this is a pretty commercial corridor in nature, though.

This exact section has a bit of neighborhood one B zoning on it.

So I'll be happy to answer further questions after petitioner and opposition comments.

Okay, welcome, Mr.

Lee.

You have 10 minutes.

Uh yes, thank you guys.

Um, I just wanted to state that I did hold our community meeting on October 9th, uh, which I did send out all letters to the surrounding neighbors on September 18th, and I did get confirmation from a majority of all uh that they did receive that letter.

Um, however, knowing that my opposed my opposition is Mr.

Dunn, is whom my client had purchased the land from two years ago back in August 17th, 2023, and has been on board and has known what the original plan was for the future of that lot.

Um he has been on board for the past two years uh in constant communication with my client up until I believe a week ago or two weeks ago.

So I'm not sure what the opposition is now.

Um so before having to get dive too much into detail, I'd like to know what his opposition is to be able to respond to that.

Okay.

We also have a Carolyn Westbrook that is listed in opposition as well.

Miss What Westbrook, are you okay?

All right.

Uh just for clarity's sake.

Um, if you're transitioning over to allow them to speak, you don't get the balance of your 10 minutes, you only get a two-minute rebuttal.

That's okay.

Okay.

All right.

So then I would ask that um Mr.

Dunn and Miss Carolyn Westbrook, you guys can come to the podium.

Are you are you complete?

No, are you done?

All right, excellent.

Um, if you two can come to the podium, you will have 10 minutes in aggregate.

And then Mr.

Levi, you will have two minutes for a rebuttal after they speak.

Yes, ma'am.

You can go in whatever order you like.

You just have 10 minutes combined.

Mine won't take 10 minutes.

Uh my position is definitely no.

I bought that property in um 1988.

I've got one point one acre, point two, two, one and a quarter acres of land there.

This lot backs up to my back lot.

When they came in and graded the land out, I asked what were they doing with it.

Had they gotten uh permit to park cars back there, and the answer was they did have rezoned to do so, and then later I find that they do not.

I'm finding that to be a hazard to my property.

Alright, I'm seeing snakes, seeing rats coming from that vacant lot with all the cars parked.

And I feel that if he's gonna buy the property, he should have done his due diligence before paying that money for that property.

And now he's asking us, go asking me and Mr.

Dunn to jeopardize what we've done, which is home for us to make a company for him to have a business in our backyard.

And I am definitely against it.

I have had to deal with them having dogs out there and not being able to go out because the dogs will get out, and I have a small dog.

My dog when those dogs are running around.

And I think they misled me, especially when they were doing this construction to that lot to tell me that they had had to rezone and it was okay.

So I do not want to jeopardize my property for somebody else's benefit, and that's home for me and just a business with them.

Mr.

Dunn.

When uh when my neighbor bought that property, I didn't know who would buy it.

I had no idea.

I didn't tell him he could do anything with that property.

I just figured somebody was buying it and build a house.

And when he bought it, he tore out all the grass and paved the whole thing.

And I thought that looked kind of odd.

And I asked him what he's doing, so he's gonna park cars back there.

Yeah, toy business.

Well, yeah, I'm okay with parking cars.

I don't make no noise.

I can live with that and got a fence around it.

But then he starts working on them and messing with them, and there's compressors and generators and impacts and noise and smells and gas fumes and old gas and engines running all hours and days and night.

And they ain't even got the building built yet.

This is just an empty parking lot, they're doing all this in.

Just think what it's gonna be when they get a dad gum truck and a car garage there.

My yard's gonna be turned into a waiting room for a dead blame garage.

I mean, and I've put over half my almost half my life in this house, 26 years building it to make it.

It's a 90-year-old house making something that I'm proud of.

I really am.

I'm proud of people see it.

But I won't be proud of it.

They being tired being thrown over the fence and people, you know, working on cars in the yard.

I I'm won't be proud of that.

It's gonna run our property value down because nobody's gonna want to rent it from me or buy it from me because there's a garage in the backyard.

And then my taxes are gonna go up because of course it's commercial property around there, so commercial taxes.

We all know that's higher than residential.

So it's gonna bite me about two different ways.

And I just don't think that you know, if you if you're going to buy a property, you ought to look into the zoning on it before you buy it, or at least the capability to rezoning it, not just buy it and say you move out or do with whatever you want, I'm gonna build what I want, and you know, the heck with you.

That that ain't that ain't right.

I was here first.

Actually, Carol was here first, and I was here a second.

And I think if you don't build something like that, you'll build it somewhere else.

Build a house back there.

You know, I told me that's what he's gonna do.

So you're gonna build a big old two, three-story house back there.

People look down on me.

I said, go ahead and build it.

That'd be fine.

I way better.

That'd be all right, as long as you don't make noise.

That's all I had to say.

Okay.

Another one of my concerns is that um, as I said, I've been there for more than 20 some years.

I'm a senior.

I don't, I'm not ready to move, and I can't afford the price of housing now on a fixed income.

So, no, I don't want to move out of my property into an area where I'm going to be paying more than what I'm receiving on fixed income.

Amen.

Mm-hmm.

Both on fixed income.

Yeah, so that should have been something he should have looked into before he bought the property and decided to do what he's gonna do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

I I even tried to buy it back from him, and uh he he wouldn't accept my offer.

So I have questions for them before they walk away.

Uh well, they get the don't they get the Mr.

Levi gets a rebuttal?

And then we can open it up for questions.

So hang tight, Miss Mayfield.

If you guys can stay close, because we already have questions from council members.

Uh Mr.

Levi, you have two-minute rebuttal.

So uh my only opposition is um you know they claim that the backyard is gonna be commercial, it's gonna be a business.

Their backyard right now is businesses and it's industrial and it's large manufacturing plants, used car dealership in the back on the cul-de-sac.

Um, so that whole street is predominantly all industrial and commercial.

Okay, so their backyard is yes, right now we don't have a building built there.

He's complaining about noisiness or any work that's being done in the backyard.

Obviously, when you have a building, it all is gonna be enclosed.

And when I had the preliminary uh community meeting, I was trying to show on the PowerPoint presentation of what we were gonna build there, what the what the building was gonna look like, which I shared with several of the other neighbors on that motorsports lane street, which they were all on board for.

That's why they're not here.

Um so as far as giving them what they want, we had the option of building a three-story town home building there that would be looking over their property, block any view that they had, block any sunlight that they wanted.

We've been courteous as far as putting fences up and um screening on the fences so that they can't see into the property to be courteous to them.

I can't control dogs, rats, snakes, or anything.

No one can do that, whether it's a backyard of a residential property or commercial building.

Those are things that I just cannot control.

Um so with that being said, it's they've had plenty of time to talk about this situation.

Mr.

Dunn, I know has been constant communication with Mr.

Marcus Williams.

Um text message over text message over text messages.

Uh, the city of Charlotte had came out wanting to do a pump station on the land.

He uh then said to him, we don't want that either, so we're gonna go against you on this end, and then we're gonna go against the city on that end.

City of Charlotte has already gave us an offer of close to 200,000 to buy the land from us.

10 seconds.

And um, so just whether either we put a building there or we're gonna put a pump station, the city's gonna do that, one or the other.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

We we will go to discussion, and I have Miss Mayfield.

Thank you.

For Mr.

Dunn and for either of you, you mentioned that there's already work happening on that lot.

Yep.

Have either of you call 311 for code enforcement because we track all of that information.

Have either of you call 311 regarding the fact that there has been work that's being done on that lot.

No, I haven't.

No, I have not.

Just for I didn't know I could the sake of making sure community understands that is something where calling 311 or if you have the CLT plus app on your phone, not everyone uses their smartphones that way, but you can call 311 regarding a code infraction if there is work that is happening on that land, especially when we have not gone through this process.

Well, there's there's work going on on there, and there's there's callers partner, and there's there's uh uh you have to ask a question.

I don't know what else is going on there.

For our process, I have to ask you a specific question in order for you to respond.

I asked the specific question, which is have you called 311.

I would encourage you to do that.

I will also say that photos also tend to help if there is work that is going on prior to this process.

So that is just information for you to know of other ways to make sure that if there's an impact to your home, that you know how to utilize your local government to address certain things, whether it's noise, whether it's vehicles, you can either call 311 or utilize the app, but pictures will also be helpful for upload for that information to make its way to us.

But for the sake of how the process works, I had to ask you a specific question, but I wanted to make sure that you knew that those are options that are available to you.

Okay, um, ma'am, without me asking, unless you're going to be able to answer the specific question I asked of if you call 311, that I can get a response to just based on our rules of engagement.

We're calling um 311 about the dogs running in my property.

Would that be a considered?

Yes, ma'am.

When I've done that, yes, ma'am.

The impact of all of that would definitely be a 311 call and or if on your phone, the city of Charlotte created an app, CLT and just the plus symbol.

But if you're more comfortable calling 311 and or emailing all of your counsel, your council, all of our emails are pretty much the same.

It is our first name dot last name at Charlotte NC dot gl for government, of which the clerk's office can get you if you contacted the clerk to sign up, you can pretty much get access to our email addresses just by going to the city of Charlotte's website.

But yes, you can fraction that is what you can call 311 for.

Well, may I repeat something I said earlier?

I'm gonna have that we'll again I have to ask you a very specific question for you to respond based on the rules.

I can't meet with you after the this if you have an additional question for me.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have Mr.

Driggs.

So just a quick question for staff.

We've got this activity going on on what is currently an N1B.

So is this petition trying to cure non-conforming use?

Yes, so code enforcement is aware of this, and it would it would help the act, but I'd have to get more information about the uses occurring on site.

So for example, if it's still not a use allowed under CG, then it won't cure that.

If it's outdoor storage or some type of industrial use that's not permitted under the general commercial district, then it won't solve for that issue.

Outdoor storage.

It's not a legal non-conforming use.

What's occurring on site, as far as I'm aware, I think there's some outdoor storage activity, which is not permitted under the general commercial district as well.

So that this is under an N1B in this.

And this petition would mean that it could happen there.

Outdoor storage cannot happen under CG zoning.

Uh what cannot, I'm sorry, outdoor storage as a use cannot happen under.

Yes, so um so we because this is a conventional petition, we weren't discussing at length specific uses that could occur on site.

We presented to them, you know, what CG allows for.

It's kind of incumbent upon the petitioner to understand their site uh lot dimensions, limitations, that sort of thing.

What could we actually fit here?

We explained to them what uses aren't allowed under that zoning district, though, and code enforcement has said that they've been out to the site, and they also left comments within our review cycle about the violation on the site for outdoor storage.

Very capable guy, and and he I think he will help to resolve this.

Uh it just on its face looks a little odd to me right now.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay, Miss Ezhmer.

Thank you.

So this question is for staff.

This petition is inconsistent with the 2040 policy map recommendations for neighborhood one.

So could you just elaborate on your rationale for recommend recommending this petition?

Yeah, so I'll start with the criteria that we look at when we're considering a police type change from neighborhood one to commercial, which you're probably familiar with because it is presented in the program guide of all the community area plan documents under the what's called the minor map amendment criteria.

So we're looking at this informally when we're considering our rezoning petitions, and that criteria that we're looking at is first and foremost is there a significant acreage that you're plugging into when you're adding this commercial lot onto it, and that minimum acreage threshold for the commercial place type is 10 acres.

As you can see, I'll go to the place type map here.

This is the place type map.

Uh that red is the existing commercial place type on the ground.

There's a significant contingency of commercial place type already following along Statesville Road, and so it would plug into that and it meets that minimum acreage threshold.

It also has uh preferred place types, including manufacturing logistics and the commercial place type.

It's also not located within uptown, it is located near transit.

It's located near those three bus stops that I mentioned in my initial pre presentation.

And it's also within an access to amenities gap that the uh our long-range planning folks help us to identify.

So that's meeting every single piece of our criteria that we're looking at for that N1 to commercial place type shift and the minor map amendment criteria.

And when we're looking at the specific context of this site, it's as I stated previously, that's a very commercial corridor and motorsports lane that it fronts.

The lots along motorsports lane, so you have the vacant lot that is zoned commercial to its east, and then to the west, you have N1B lots, though they are also vacant.

And then to the south, you have a commercial lot and a manufacturing logistics zoned lot.

And the uses on those sites are are pretty industrial specific, industrial uses specific, some office uses, but a lot of industrial uses are occurring on that site.

So what we are seeing is there are neighborhood one uses adjacent to the site, but they're only occurring directly to the north of the site.

So there would be that required 25-foot landscape yard where it's adjacent to any bit of neighborhood one zoning, regardless of the vacancy of the lot.

But we did take into consideration the surrounding land uses and the overall context of motor sports line.

So thank you for that very detailed response.

This helps right here.

And where we have so there are setbacks, right?

So since we are proposing this to go from N1B to general commercial, are we requiring additional buffer?

So the buff the landscape yards triggered are Class B, which is 25 feet, wherever adjacent to neighborhood one zoning.

There would also be 20 foot rear yards and I believe at least a 10 foot uh side setbacks.

But you that 25 landscape yard is where you're getting a lot of that screening, but it because it has those minimum plantings.

So for reference, you have the class A, Class B, and Class C, Class C is your smallest, it's 10 feet.

Most minimal plantings, class B is a little bit larger.

Class A is what you see when you have those heavy industrial uses.

So this is right in the middle of those, but it provides a pretty good screening where adjacent to any commercial activity.

So uh just to follow up on that.

So you said 20 feet buffer that would 25 feet, that would be wherever it's adjacent to the neighborhood one zoning, so that would be required along its northern property line as well as its western property boundary, even though that's a vacant lot.

So if you ever wanted to adjust that for some reason, and if anybody that ever wants to adjust their landscape yards, have to follow different processes, whether it's you're asking for a variance because there's a demonstrated hardship, or you're performing exceptional kind of design standards.

You can follow the ACR alternative or compliance review board process.

So, yes, 25 feet is the minimum required in the ordinance.

And are these continuous tree lines?

Are we talking about?

I'm sorry, what was that?

Is this buffer continuous tree line?

Are we talking about?

So the minimum plantings uh I'd have to go back to the actual text of Article 20, but it's not it's a mixture of trees as well as vegetative plantings.

Okay, I I just want to make sure we are addressing the concerns uh of the neighbors.

Uh I know there is a we will work with you all on the landscaping and the buffer and so on, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about 25 feet buffer that will be required and that will be included in this plan.

Would that address your concerns about around um all the things that you raised in your remarks?

Yes.

I don't believe 25 foot of uh Sir, could you step up to the um Mr.

Dunn?

Can you step here to the microphone, please?

Thank you.

Sorry.

I don't think 25 foot of property land with a little bit of weeds or brush growing on it, and a few trees are gonna stop the smell and the sound of auto repair shop.

That's just me.

So in terms of the smell, um, this question is for staff.

Uh what what can we?

I've never seen anything that come in front of us where there are concerns around smell.

Uh what can we do within the tools that we have at our disposal to address that issue?

So you could ask for specific prohibitions on uses that you believe would be noxious.

You could ask for increased landscape yard standards.

So for example, sometimes in our rezoning petitions, we might ask for a higher classification of a landscape yard planting standard, even if it's not that same width standard.

So, for example, maybe where typically we see a class C required, we ask for class B planting standards, which is thicker.

And so you could ask for in this situation, even though class B is already required, maybe you ask for a class A planting standard and adding a fence.

So there are items that you can build into this, it would require it to convert to a conditional plan, and that could be a conversation between you all, the uh folks that from the community as well as the petitioner to see what makes the most sense.

But there are certainly some conversations that could be had as it relates to uses and screening.

That is helpful.

So, Mr.

Petitioner, if you can come forward, uh, would you be willing to include class A?

Our our original plan was to do go from chain leak fence to vinyl or solid wood fence, a continuous trick tree line on the west and on the north side to complete block everything from them so they don't have to see anything we don't see out.

Um the landscaping plan that we had to show during our hearing um displayed all that.

So it wouldn't be just a vegetation or anything like that, it would be continuous tree line on both sides with solid panel fencing as well.

Okay, so when I hear him say that he's okay with the conditions for class A.

Well, so I I will say if that's desired because currently it's conventional, so there's nothing being required beyond the Class B standard.

So if it's desired by the community and by the dais to hold them to a more specific standard, then it could be that you want it to convert to a conditional plan to to essentially codify that within the entitlements.

But it sounds like they are stating that they were already planning to exceed the minimum standards, whether or not that was exactly the class A standard as defined by the ordinance.

I I think we could include that.

Well, thank you.

Um I hope that you will continue to work with the district representative, Councilmember Graham.

And hopefully we can find a middle ground here.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there a motion to close public hearing?

Some second.

Second.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank you all for coming out.

Uh we will move on to agenda item number 17.

Petition number 2024 uh 129 by Brookhill Investments LLC.

The location is approximately 42.47 acres, located on the west side of South Tryon Street, north side, north side of Remont Road, east of Tummy, and south of Tremont Avenue in District 3, Miss Brown's district.

Current zoning in to B, proposed zoning.

In to B BVO.

CAC1 as well.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form after staff's presentation.

Mr.

Murray will have three.

Well, Mr.

Murray will have 10 minutes.

Oh, you're talking opposition.

Yeah.

Correct.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh petition 2024 129 is just over 42 acres, about 42 and a half acres.

Uh it is uh currently zoned and two.

Uh get to our slides here.

So I can see what we're working through.

One moment, please.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

Current zoning is N2B, and as discussed, proposed zoning is for uh N2B to remain as well as CAC1 on a portion of the property, and also uh to establish the Brookhill Village Overlay.

Uh and the adapted place type for this uh petition is uh neighborhood two.

You can see there's quite a bit of activity center around it.

We are in decent proximity to uh the blue line, and I've had a lot of transition uh and redevelopment in the area.

Uh the proposal for this one is a little bit unique.

Uh I will say this is probably one of the more unique projects that uh most of us that have uh been working on this have really encountered uh for most of us over some of our professional careers a very unique scenario with a 99-year ground lease on the site.

A lot of us are familiar with it.

Uh there was uh existing development, a lot of that development has been uh since removed from the site.

There have been some reinvestment rehabilitation for uh the existing residences that have remained behind.

Uh so this project and this petition and this property in general do again carry a lot of unique challenges.

Uh so as we sat down to try to figure out some solutions to uh try to activate this site and really bring this site uh to some uh liveliness in this area.

Uh really we talked through a lot of uh potential options through the UDO uh for EXEX provisions, uh whether that be through alternative compliance review board, uh, and a lot of those really just kept running into roadblocks and and challenges.

So as we uh continue to look at some options, one of the things that we uh came up with was to try to establish an overlay district, uh which really, when you do an overlay district uh for a property, uh it does come with the opportunity to really create uh unique set of standards for that uh and for that kind of geography that we've identified uh in this area for for Brookhill Village.

Uh it's really a tool that uh we really don't use often and probably won't use very often.

We've seen it with historic districts.

Uh the old ordinance used to have uh pedestrian overlay in certain corridors and in Dillworth and on Central Avenue.

Uh so this is really the first time we're deploying it in a way uh to try to solve some cre uh challenging problems with this kind of creative solution.

Uh so this proposal again is to rezone a portion of the site to CAC one.

You can see that area in blue.

The area that's in orange would remain N2B, does have some uh area that uh does again have existing housing on and have some other existing uses, those will remain.

The overlay will be uh across both of those portions of the site.

Uh it would allow uses in the CAC one district in that area that again we see in blue.

Uh does allow some things like amphitheaters, rideshare terminals, uh, and also allow some outdoor temporary uses like seasonal sales, uh temporary RV uh uses, and also uh would allow for uh the establishment of two accessory drive-through areas along either South Tryon or Remount Road frontages, so those would be at the hard corners uh where typically, if you saw that type of use, uh that's where they would they would uh like to be located.

Uh it doesn't limit building height to 48 feet, uh commits to minimum of 25% ground floor transparency on new construction.

Uh there is a commitment to provide at least 100 residential units on site that are income restricted to households earning 80 percent AMI or less for the duration of the land lease, so it's about another 25 years that that land lease has left on it.

Uh it does uh limit surface parking lots to 35 percent of the site.

Also would uh look to exempt the site from subdivision and streetscape requirements.

Uh does state that the maximum block length for Brookhill Drive would be modified uh to 1,350 feet and then 900 feet for all other internal streets uh would provide an exemption from the site from uh tree save requirements as well as internal planting requirements, uh including landscape yards between uses uh within the site itself.

That does commit to providing 15% of the site is open space.

Uh would also establish on street parking dimensions for internal streets.

Uh and there is a clause in there because again, because this is a unique situation with that land lease expiring in 2049.

Uh so again, that's about 25 years from now.

Uh, that once that land lease would expire, we did have to have some type of sunset clause where the uses wouldn't continue to be perpetuated on the site.

We would have an opportunity to really think about this site in a more of a permanent long-term use.

These are really just uses that are being proposed that could be there in a temporary nature over the course of that land lease, uh, potentially be removed without really any hassle to the site and the long-term use of the site, so then that would all get revisited in 25 years from now when that land lease would be up, and somebody wanted to really activate the site with the type of uh permanent uses that you may see uh that have continued to kind of be redeveloped in that area uh around Remount Road and Tremont, South Boulevard, and Tryon.

Uh so as we work through the petition, uh we do still have some questions.

There are some challenges that that staff has identified.

Uh again, if we're trying to activate the site with uh uses that would bring uh lots of folks for potential entertainment uses, for uh with the outdoor amphitheater for live music, things like that.

The pedestrian infrastructure, frankly, in the area is a challenge.

A lot of the sidewalks are substandard from what our our requirements are today and what we would typically ask for uh for a project going through a redevelopment, we would ask for uh those streetscapes to be enhanced and modified to meet our current standards, at least be up to a six-foot sidewalk or an eight-foot sidewalk with planning strips.

And again, if we're looking at activating the site with folks that uh would be using it for entertainment purposes and other activities, we want to make sure that that infrastructure is in place.

Uh that does provide some challenges because the land lease itself again is only there for those 25 years, so the investment desire uh from the the development side you know is definitely uh some there's some hesitancy there because again that long-term investment really could be torn up at a later date uh if it's made.

So what we're trying to find at this point is a balance in the commitment from uh the development team and what partnerships could be broached for uh potential reinvestment and redevelopment of that site to at least uh get back up to some of the minimum standards that we would ask for, uh particularly for that pedestrian infrastructure.

Uh again, we are really committed to working with the petitioner team, uh working with the development team on this one.

Uh we do think that what's being proposed does make some sense giving the again unique nature of the site, given the the ground lease being uh uh somewhat of a restriction for what can be done from a more permanent standpoint, but we do have to also think about and users for the site for folks that are gonna be coming out uh and and uh going out to the site again once it is activated.

Uh so we're trying to again find that balance.

Right now, there are more a little more questions than we have answers for for some of that.

So our recommendation currently is not in current form.

Again, not because of what's being proposed in terms of the uses that that they want to do on the site, uh, and understanding again that temporary nature and that unique scenario.

It's more trying to get answers to those infrastructure questions about where that responsibility lies, what are the minimums that we can all kind of walk away from and feel comfortable with.

Uh, and I know again the petitioner team has worked pretty diligently with us.

We'll continue those conversations as it stands today.

You know, we're we're just not quite there, uh, so that's why our recommendation is what it is.

But I do feel like we will get uh to a point where we can kind of find that middle ground and find that area of of commonality for uh solving some of those infrastructure challenges uh and figure out a good way to again get that balance to activate the site, but also make it uh make the accommodations appropriate for the types of uses and the types of pedestrian activity that we may see, uh, even if it is for that temporary nature uh for those 25 years, because again, a lot of the streets that are out there are already public right-of-way, so uh they would remain, the uses may go away, but that street infrastructure likely would stay uh in place.

So uh there is some permanence with with that.

So again, finding that balance is going to be critical.

I do think we will get there uh just as of this hearing tonight.

We're not quite there yet, but we will uh really look forward to continuing those conversations and hopefully continue to work with them and bring forward a project that I think everybody is generally excited about.

This is really the closest we've gotten to activate the Brookhill site uh in probably the six plus years that I've been here working on it and even before.

So uh I hope that we can get across the finish line on this one, and and again, we're committed to uh working with everybody, and we'll turn it over to the petitioner team, uh, let them go through their presentation and then take forward uh any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr.

Brown.

Good evening.

Uh Mayor Pro Tim, Councilmember, Zening Committee members, Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner, uh, the Brookhill Village site.

This is exciting.

Uh Dave has done a really good job in his presentation, so that'll make my job a little bit easier tonight.

If I could get the slides up, there are some things I'd I do want to walk um walk you through.

Go to start the game.

Um a number of you have been involved in conversations, uh, been out to the site.

Uh so thank you for that.

Oh we're still waiting on the slides there, Emma.

Um, studio, we can see it here on the small screen, is it not?

It's not showing up there.

No.

We need it on the on the large screen, studio.

Yeah, and I do think because we have um staff is not supported, we have 10 minutes.

I have um only three minutes on my timer.

Um so again, introducing our team uh here on behalf of um Brookhill Investments uh led by Mike Griffin.

If y'all don't know Mike, I know many of you do.

Uh his family, the Griffin Brothers company's roots are in the west side of Charlotte.

Uh, and I think we're so fortunate that they've been stewards of this property uh for many years.

Uh Shook Kelly is our design partner.

Um Colin Pinkney from the Harvest Center, the Harvest Center is a very important uh player in this site.

Colin had a board meeting tonight.

Uh but if you have questions, we're happy to set up a meeting if you have questions about what's going on.

Uh also David Howard, who is here earlier, looks like he snuck out but uh is joining us on the transportation committee.

He is involved as well.

Uh I know many of you know Brookhill Village already.

Um, some of you have ties with it, and so I won't uh try to give a history, uh, but it does it it has had a place in this community for about 75 years now.

And what makes it so interesting, uh what Dave just mentioned in his presentation is what the um what my client controls is the remainder of a 100-year lease.

So there is just 25 years left on the lease, and that really limits what can be built on the site.

And so essentially at the end of 25 years, uh this site uh can become a blank slate.

And so that's the big challenge.

The things we'll talk about tonight, and I want to make sure zoning committee and council members understand is this is not a scenario where there's gonna be big buildings on the site, there's not gonna be a lot of infrastructure in buildings and a built environment.

Um I think many of y'all know the history of Brooklyn.

It has been a challenge to our community for many years.

Uh what the current owner has done is they've come in, they've stabilized the site, they've removed substandard housing, they've partnered with the Harvest Center, which is now operating this portion of the site uh to have some very affordable housing in an area of Charlotte where we really need it, and are working to build some community um uh enhance that uh kind of have wraparound service for their constituents.

They're gonna have gyms, activity centers, a lot of things that are gonna really be accredited with this community.

So harvest center is a very important uh part.

They have also those units out there, 75 years old, not much had been put in them.

The first thing that um the current ownership or current leaseholder did was come in remove the very substandard housing.

This was literally an interior of units that were being occupied just a couple years ago.

Uh these have been totally revitalized and revamped.

This is a look at the current units uh that the harvest center is operating.

They have uh 89 res 89 units that are being occupied, and these are at very low rents.

We talk about affordable housing, we're talking about rents around 500.

Um, so less than 30% of AMI, that commitment will remain going forward.

So here's a look at the site today.

Uh the areas that I have high highlighted in blue.

This is the harvest center area, and this area here that the team would develop new homes.

These would be market rate housing, 74 units.

But again, remember they can only be there for 24 years.

So the units that they're looking at here are kind of very innovative, maybe modular that are constructed and brought in that can be um can be occupied for 24 years and then removed from the site.

So the area in blue, we know what's going on here.

The question tonight that we're talking about is what happens on the remainder of this site?

Uh, under the current end to zoning, as I mentioned, again, because of the lease interest, no one wants to build buildings.

So it's not gonna look like the rest of South End, no one's gonna build tall buildings.

So the ownership team has said, well, what can we do?

Could we do a could we do a temporary?

Could we have entertainment on the site?

Could we have a farmers market?

No, you can't have a farmer's market.

Could we put sports courts and just have volleyball or tennis?

No, you can't do that.

That's not allowed by zoning.

So there are a lot of the simple things.

Uh the team has said, hey, we just need to get some excitement back to Brookhill.

You know, could we do have a food truck rally out here and just have people come in, see it again, and let's establish this site.

But none of that is allowed uh by our UDO.

Our UDO is set up, this is a very urban area, and it's set up for this type of development that you see all around South End.

It just doesn't have the flexibility to come in and do kind of small scale development.

Because frankly, this will never happen again.

There's just nowhere else in Charlotte where there's this much land that's restricted by that lease.

So I will say, as Dave mentioned, uh none of us really knew how to deal with this or on our side or the staff side.

It's something we've not seen before, we didn't know how to deal with.

And so staff really put their thinking caps on and said, well, what if we came up with an overlay and could overlay some special rules on this zoning and create the flexibility to have kind of those small minor uses and make them okay.

So your planning staff deserve a great deal of credit for figuring this one out.

So we have that.

Uh as they've they've did a good job of going over what is allowed, some of the flexibility to have entertainment uses, uh, things that'll bring the community together that really don't require a lot of buildings.

And so um I I Dave has reported, I'm happy to reflect, we have done, I think a good job of creating an environment that'll allow something to happen on the site that allow the community to come in and use it with not big expensive buildings.

And so it'll be something really unique.

The the current challenge that we have, as Dave mentioned, is of course, under the UDO, when you come in and develop, every other developer that comes in and builds big buildings, they then build new streets, they build new sidewalks, they put in the big nice sidewalks, they do new curb and gutter, we put in all the tree requirements.

Uh and you could do if we were developing this like the rest of South End, where we're developing a couple hundred million dollars worth of real estate here, all that infrastructure could be paid for.

But when we're doing things like entertainment and farmers markets and food trucks, that type of development just cannot fund new streets, new sidewalks, and tree plantings.

And so that's what we're discussing with staff now.

Uh we have some city departments that say, yeah, but when a developer comes in and does something on the site, they've got to bring everything up to standard.

And we're saying there is no money to do that.

Uh so if you would like that to be done, we're going to need some cooperation, you know, some city dollars to do those things.

And so that's the conversation we're having now.

Uh, I think it's reasonable, and I think Dave's right, we do think we're we're going to find a way forward.

Staff has put forward some pretty reasonable requests.

Hey, we at least need a connection to Dunavant, and can you give us some pedestrian connections here to serve the site?

We're we're working on that.

The team knows that they can be provided.

But we've now talking about, well, what about the infrastructure?

What about the streets, the sidewalks, the street trees?

This is a picture from 2000, sorry, 2022.

So three years ago, uh, before the current owners came into the site.

I don't know if you can see it, but this is the condition.

Look at the curb and gutter.

You can hardly see the sidewalk in some places, the street trees not in good condition.

Part of the reason that the infrastructure needs to be improved is frankly, the city spent very little uh improving the infrastructure in this area.

Uh for about 75 years, it doesn't look like much happened.

So that was uh three years ago.

Just this is the same corner this year.

You can at least see the current ownership has come in, they've cleaned it up, you can see the sidewalks, they've removed substandard housing.

Um, so this team has been good stewards, you know, on their own to come improve this environment.

Uh here's another look at a corner.

Uh this was a look at it three years ago.

This is what it looks like today.

You also see there's a lot of parking because but folks come here, they park on the site, they do work in the area.

So I just wanted to demonstrate for you there is subpar streets.

There's subpar uh curb and gutter, there's subpar sidewalk, because we as a city have not invested uh in this area.

And so the conversation that we need to have, and I'm thinking we're having a hearing tonight.

We we do need some leadership.

I think your staff needs some guidance from council um and and the man in city manager's office on what's the right balance.

Okay, we've got kind of a list.

The city's staff gave us a list of infrastructure they would like.

The price tag on that is about seven million dollars.

Um, as we talked to ED, they said, you know, on that, we'd like to see we could maybe help out if you're getting 70 million dollars worth of new construction here and improvements.

Are you getting that?

No, we're not.

Uh the type of development we're doing is not generating that much tax base because we're not building big buildings.

So I think there's somewhere in between where maybe we go through that list and say, okay, what are the absolute priorities?

What can our team bring to the table, and how can we, you know, reach a consensus so that we have infrastructure that functions without assistance, frankly, from the city or the public, we would not be able to bring these up to a standard that we we typically require.

And as we talk to your staff, you know, it does make sense of hey, do we really want to go in and put in all new streets because they may get torn out at the end of this lease anyway?

So that's a lot, but credit to staff for thinking outside the box.

We we have a way to make this work from a zoning perspective so these unique uses can work.

We have an ongoing dialogue about the infrastructure, uh, what exactly is needed and how we'll fund that.

And so we'll continue those, and we will need some guidance from you also.

You may get some follow-ups from us.

Your staff uh may as well to figure out how we kind of meet, hopefully in the middle and find a way forward with infrastructure that serves the city, and this will be a great uh attribute to uh this part of Charlotte.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um I have Miss Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim.

So this is a uh a big project.

And the last time, I think five years ago or so when we talked about Brookhill, it seems as though there were a series of small meetings and council meetings to really get us up to speed, and and there was a lot more lead time than it coming straight to a zoning meeting.

Um, and and it still seems like there's like staff doesn't recommend it.

Um we need to be creative in the Brookhill Village Overlay.

Is there a reason, Mr.

Petton, that we didn't talk about this more or talk about solutions more than more this time than like last time?

I'm not well, I don't think we've had a rezoning proposal on this in the past.

Uh was it because was there public dollars that were requested requested last time, right?

Yeah, there was a previous uh housing trust fund ask on this, that was several years ago, but that didn't involve a rezoning, that was just a financial.

We were having a lot more discussion about it than it coming straight to a rezoning super meeting.

Yeah, they there was not a rezoning at that time required for that project.

Uh so a lot of that conversation revolves strictly around the the HTF ask or the housing trust fund asked uh this one has been going on for quite some time in terms of dialogue with uh city staff.

I know there's been some conversations with I believe some of the council members that are either district rep or close and in close proximity.

As you can see, it's a 2024 petition, so we've been at this for a good while now.

Uh so there's been a lot of those kinds of conversations.

And frankly, it's been more about trying to identify how to establish the uses uh and how to come up with some solutions to the zoning challenges.

Uh so that's why a lot of those conversations have been at the staff level working through that before we get to a point where there's uh an understanding of being ready for the hearing.

The not in current forum really is not a surprise, I think, to any of the parties that have been involved in in the conversations.

I think again, we're we're also kind of looking for some conversation to continue about what are those uh kind of needs that have to be fulfilled and where we kind of draw the line to say what types of investments are we comfortable with and what do we need to make versus what are kind of more of a wish list?

Uh so I don't think we're at a point where it's premature to have the hearing.

I think we're having the hearing to get those conversations out and allow the petitioner team also to start that dialogue, uh, make everybody else aware.

I think there will be a lot of work that'll still be needed uh need to be done on this before it gets to a decision.

But uh I think we were all comfortable with where we were uh on the petition uh as it stands tonight, and and just wanted to get that dialogue going with uh the council and move it forward from there.

Thank you.

And then the Brook Hill Village Overlay.

That seems um you unique with an overlay for a specific area.

Do we have this in any other areas in the city?

Yeah, as I mentioned, we do uh have them through our historic districts, those are all overlay districts.

Okay.

Um we did have overlays again in the previous ordinance.

Uh East Boulevard comes to mind where we had pedestrian overlays, uh part of uh Brookshire, I think, or excuse me, Bates Ford, uh part of Central Avenue, those had overlay districts on them.

Uh so typically we've used them in that fashion, but using them to kind of solve and craft a set of standards and uses for a geography of this scale is probably a one-time thing that we needed to do for the challenges that we had from the land lease.

Uh, but I don't see this as being a tool we would use often uh for this type of scenario.

This is really just one of the more unique projects that we've seen with that land lease being a somewhat of a restricting aspect of it.

Okay, yeah.

I've heard of the historic overlays and different, but for to be specific for a project that's unusual.

Um you mentioned income restricted housing, Alan.

Uh income restricted for up to 80 percent.

Uh our commitment is 100 units uh at less than 80 percent of AMI.

But as a as a practical matter, there are currently 89 units on the ground uh that are already operated by the Harvest Center, and they are targeted at very low income levels.

Right.

So we're going from 30 percent, which would equate to $36,000 per year if I'm using 120,000 as the the area median income.

To 96,000.

So family earning 96,000.

So it's going to jump significantly in the income restrictions, right?

Well, um the 80 percent refers to the zoning commitment.

I don't think the Harvest Center, and and we're happy to introduce you to their leadership.

I don't think they have any intention of increasing.

I mean, I think that they've got a target, that's who they want to serve.

So those existing 89 units, I think will continue basically to what they're currently serving.

Uh they hope to add more.

Uh the harvest.

I'm sorry.

I thought you were saying 80 percent AMI.

80 percent is what the zoning commitment is.

There may be more units that are added to the site, the harvest center would like to add more.

Those would have to be under 80 percent.

You're you're correct.

There is not a we don't have a condition that says 30 percent of AMI, but we know that the units out there are being targeted at very low incomes.

I'm sorry, I really got to clarify that.

Is it 80 percent AMI or 80 percent of the units?

I'm sorry.

Uh it's 80 percent of AMI.

The um there will be at least 100 units.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I have Mr.

Driggs.

Um there is a lot of history here.

Is this the Spangler property?

Uh some might call that, yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the easiest way to do this would be to negotiate an early termination of the lease.

Is that not an option?

Is that totally unavailable?

Have you ascertained the terms on which you could do that and get free simple fee simple control?

I have not been involved in those conversations.

I know that there is a very close relationship to the leaseholder and the family.

Uh the family has attended our community meetings.

Mike, if you want to respond to that, I'll let you know.

Sure.

First of all, thank you for your time.

My name is Mike Griffin with Griffin Brothers Company.

Representing my family.

Uh we have very wonderful relationship with the Spangler Cornwell family that manages the property.

Um their intention was for us to come in and take the 350 units were there, not displace any families, improve the units and and put them there.

Their intention is to keep the families there through 2049.

And this property is in a trust, and I think those kids to be in born now to probably age 16.

So though that family will will take the opportunity in 2049 to take their property from there.

So uh in the past we had conversations about this, I think, with a different party who had the idea uh of getting trust fund money in in what was frankly uh not a reasonable structure.

So uh this is a different approach.

I think um at that time these units were in bad shape.

They are many of them were unoccupied, uh people weren't paying rent in a lot of the units.

Are any of the residents who were there still there?

Yes, that's a great question.

So in March 2022, we took it over.

There were 350 units, a little little more than 100 families.

Um pretty good percent not paying rent because they knew that possibly they would be displaced.

We partnered with Harvard Center from that day, and they worked with each individual family.

We're proud to say 70 of those families remain on the property, and I think the average age is in the 60s with their average tenure of 25 years.

So we have a lot of legacy families that are there that Harvard Center is working with.

And I think at this second, if you're looking at AMI, it's all 30 percent or lower AMI, and they're paying actually 450 a month rent.

So they're still paying that.

Yes, sir.

Now, Harvest Center manages transitional homeless, and their 20 or so tenants are not paying anything.

That's from charity being raised by the Harvest Center to manage those families.

So uh I'm kind of with Ms.

Johnson on this.

I think we're in somewhat uncharted waters.

I like that we're being creative, uh, but it's hard to make a value judgment based on where we are right now.

Uh the idea of this novel ad hoc overlay, which could establish a precedent.

So uh, you know, I think we we need to be very careful that the circumstances are unique and that this doesn't give rise to uh requests for for similar treatment elsewhere.

I think the uniqueness is the 25-year horizon that's dictated by the lease and the limit that places on the economics of investment.

Um I don't know.

I mean, as a land use decision, uh probably not that hard, but uh when you start making concessions on the typical zoning requirements, and we have to know what the quid pro quo is.

So I'm just interested to learn more as your discussions continue.

Um I think the questions that are need to be answered still are significant.

Thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Mayfield.

Starting route to 134.

I want to go to so here's questions for staff.

So right now, sitting on this diet, going back to 2011, you have three representatives for district three.

So for my eight years as the district rep, the city during that period of time did contribute funding, resources, assistance through Charlotte Water and other departments.

We have had several potential business ideas and starts and stops.

Our biggest challenge is the fact that this is under a hundred-year lease for a family.

That family could have easily at any time over this last decade plus, chose to relinquish it because we've had a number of different projects.

So I can understand the trepidation of staff saying that right now this proposal is not recommended.

I do not know if an overlay is going to address the biggest challenge that we have, and that is the fact that you don't own the land, that the land is owned in this trust, and we'll continue to be in this trust for the foreseeable future.

So we have had multiple challenges to try to figure out how not to displace, especially when we have seen so much displacement from South Boulevard coming back, what is now named South End or Loso or whatever named others want to give to the area.

We have seen individuals and community members be moved further and further, and now they're going to be crunched because now it's coming from the other direction.

It's coming from West Boulevard moving towards Trion.

I don't know what this looks like.

I don't think us creating something new in this overlay is necessarily the answer that's going to work.

It would be helpful if prior to this coming back for forward decision if staff can give some very specific details on what would this look like moving forward.

Meaning if we were to create this overlay, that is setting a new precedent.

So where are all the potential new language that can be created in other areas?

Because we don't have another area like this that's sitting under this trust, but how could it possibly be interpreted for other parts of the city where there may be some challenges?

I think that could be very helpful for us moving forward to have a better understanding of what the creation of this type of overlay could mean moving forward when we already have a number of projects that are proposed that are inconsistent, but yet it's a support it and we move forward with it.

What does consistency look like?

What would this new language create as far as future inconsistent proposals?

I think that would while I know that would be helpful for me.

I think it will be helpful for my colleagues as well.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I agree with some of the remarks that's been made by my colleagues.

First, let me thank you for taking on this project.

This is a difficult site.

There are very unique constraints that makes this development very difficult.

And we know that.

And I think there's just more work that needs to be done here, especially to get staff support on the piece where we have community activity center.

So I'm sure that you will do more work in the coming weeks and months, and uh hopefully we can uh come to a middle ground here.

Uh and again, thank you for taking this project on because this is certainly not easy.

And I recognize that.

So thank you.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Miss Ashmira.

Um, I'm gonna go before I pass it over to the district rep.

Um, first of all, Mr.

Griffin, thank you for this effort.

And as someone who actually lived in Brookhill for some time, um, it is an important site, it's a historical site for us.

So many families who who are part of uh Charlotte then Charlotte Native group have spent time in Brook Hill and are connected to Brookhill in some way.

And so we want to see something um interesting and dynamic uh at this site.

The site has been, as you as many of you know, as you drive past it, the site has been uh largely flattened.

And and it and Mr.

Griffin and team have cleaned up the infrastructure and it looks better.

It's it's more um it's it's easier on the eyes for the community.

Um, but I feel also as someone who grew up in South Side Homes as well, that having this site uh vacant for so long really uh does not bode well for the the neighbors around it, including the neighbors of South Side Homes.

Um I'd like to see something there within the 25 years left that can be dynamic and bring some energy and vibrancy that the community can utilize.

This overlay perspective is is unique, but as uh as Ms.

Mayfield said, this this whole 99-year lease is unique as well, and we don't really have any other area in the city of Charlotte currently that's under this unique umbrella.

And so I I've met with you all several times.

I know that the district rep has as well, and I think that the dynamic opportunity of bringing some temporary structures and and bringing farmers markets and bringing um music and other activities that will bring the community out and give the community a bit of a green space and vibrancy outdoor space as well, well fits in well with that area because that area has uh increased densification as well as so many residents that live in Southside homes that would love to take advantage of it.

I we're in this conundrum here around infrastructure because it is a 25-year lease, and so you know, investing millions of millions of dollars in infrastructure on something that you won't really um have an opportunity to leverage over a longer runway doesn't make a whole lot of business economic sense.

So the the point is if we can come together with some type of uh with some type of agreement here where the sit both the city and the petitioner can invest to bring proper infrastructure up for this site so we can introduce vibrancy.

It hurts me a little bit because it it's effectively a blight on the community because it's just flattened and it's been vacant for so long.

And yet I know that we've had a variety of fits and starts around potential opportunity on the site is one of those uh unique sites that are troubling, akin to our experience with Eastland.

Um I my hope is we're getting we got Eastland over the finish line.

We've got we've taken care of that for East Charlotte.

I would love for us to do something unique here that will get this site over the finish line uh for use for for the 25 years for the west side for South Side Homes and part of South End.

I think it's it's really important for us to have that commute commitment to those community members.

So I'm open and always available to continue to meet with you all and ideate around the art of possible and how the city can join up with you because that area is such a historical area, is so important to the history of Charlotte.

I'll pass it over to Miss Brown.

Hey, say the best for last.

Why not?

Bring it home, D3.

Absolutely.

So um, Colin.

It's feels always a pleasure.

Thank you guys so much for all the work that you put into trying to get this taken care of.

You know how you have people not showing up for community meetings.

That's gonna change.

Because I'll be transitioning over um into the community, and I'll be watching to see uh exactly what we can get done and what kind of input I can have and how I can gather more people that are gonna be affected by it, as Mayor Pro Tim did state.

Uh, both our families lived in Brookhill and Southside for a very, very long time.

And um, but I don't like riding by and just seeing what I see as well.

I don't like seeing the weeds coming out of the ground and sidewalls cracking, and um, you know, the few residents that we do have over there.

I know you you did something with the harvest center.

I went over to and looked inside of the units and saw what they had done.

But I would say that the residents, they definitely deserve more because I've lived inside of Brookheel when they were first constructed, like my mom, my grandmother, everybody lived over there.

So as a little girl, I was in those apartments a very, very long time.

And some of those apartments were still in the condition that they were decades and decades ago.

So I am very excited about what it could be.

But of the four the affordability piece, the people that uh come from there uh that love that neighborhood and call it home, they go to work every day and they they're not able to pay much.

And so I saw that the income, what we're gonna be requiring, which we it this project unfortunately won't be approved under my watch.

I won't get to see that part of it.

I'll see it from a different angle.

I'm just concerned, I don't know the pricing mark.

Uh I saw what we said about the AMI, but I'm just curious as to who could really afford it and what it could be come to be, but there's a lot going on with the project, right?

And um you'll be connecting with, I'm sure the West Will World Coalition and all the other communities, um, district three community coalition, which I started.

It's already registered with the Secretary of State, and I'll be um all eyes on what's going on in the community.

So you'll see me a lot on the community side of things and advocating for people that really wouldn't get to advocate for them, but I'm I'm happy to champion that and to work with you.

So I look forward to what it could be and how it's gonna be moving forward.

So just thank you for all your hard work.

Your job isn't easy.

It's an eye source for me, and that's a problem for me as well.

It definitely is an eye source, it's a bad eyesource, it's hard to watch as a kid who played in the park right across the street.

And I know there's something going on with the county, the field, the open field across from Brookhill, it's not safe.

And they're doing some work over over there.

So definitely the city, county, whoever, there wasn't not enough love put in that area the way that it should be.

And I'm hoping that we can, you know, do about face and change that and make that a priority to put the same love that we would into any other areas of opportunities that we want to see flourish and grow and want people to be attracted and want to live there, walk their dogs there, play with their children in the parks there, all the things that all of the people that I grew up with deserve.

So I'll be very, very close by, and thank you so much for all your hard work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to close public hearing?

Second.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank you for coming out.

Really appreciate it.

We're gonna move on to agenda item number 18.

Petition number 2025 031 by James Shruggs.

The location is approximately 23.37 acres, located on Neal Road, east of Catalyst Boulevard and south of IBM Drive and District 4, Miss Johnson's district.

Current zoning is R8 MFCD.

Proposed zoning is into BCD.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form.

After staff's presentation, we have um Frances Finnell, Jane Shruggs, and uh Randy Goddard uh for the petition.

You will have 10 minutes, and in opposition, we have Roxana Marinesco.

We'll have 10 minutes.

Okay.

Was number 18 deferred?

Oh, I don't know.

Sorry.

I don't think he'd be sitting up there all night if it were too.

Yes.

I apologize.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This site is just over 23 acres along IBM Drive, Neal Road, and Catalyst Boulevard, south of the Innovation Park Development.

The area surrounding the site is primarily single family, but a lot of multi-family directly to the west and south with schools to the east and multifamily and a mix of uses to the north around the innovation park.

Site is currently zoned.

R8 multifamily conditional from petition 2020-102.

They're proposing to go to neighborhood to be conditional, which is inconsistent with the policy maths recommendation for the neighborhood one place type at the site.

The proposal is for 73 town home units and 324 apartment units for a total of 397 units.

Of the 73 townhomes, 30% of those would be reserved for households earning between 80 to 110% AMI for at least 15 years.

And that includes commitments for deed restricted uh accelerated homeowners equity program for those units.

They provide transportation improvements, including a 12-foot shared use path along IBM Drive and the Neal Road frontages.

An A-Put sidewalk along Catalyst Boulevard ingress lane and two egress lanes along proposed access A, free striping of the existing median to include a northbound left turn lane on Neal Road, signal modifications, updates to signal phasing and timings.

One ingress and egress lane at access B, a westbound ingress and egress lane on proposed access C and access D, full movement configuration at XSD.

And they provide commitments for the tier three multimodal and mitigation assessment, including updated bike and pedestrian commitments, filling in sidewalk gaps off-site, installing pedestrian crossings, and pedestrian scale lighting.

Petitioner also provides some preferred open space and architectural standards that exceed ordnance requirements.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form.

The current entitlements on the site from petition 2020-102 allow for 157 townhomes across the site.

And this current proposal is for 397 total units, 324 of which would be multifamily stacked units.

The site is situated in an area where more intense mixed-use areas are oriented to the north and east around the innovation park development, and more moderate housing to the south and low density neighborhood one areas further to the west.

Showing that this site is in a transitional area between neighborhood two and some neighborhood one place types and the abutting activity center.

The current entitlements allow for a mixture of duplexes, triplexes, and multifamily attached units, which is compatible with the townhome development directly to the south and the entitlement to the west.

This current proposal that we're considering tonight is a significant increase in the residential intensity on the site in terms of building form and unit and count.

Staff would prefer to see a greater proportionality of townhome units across the site to better transition against the school uses and townhome developments that are already surrounding the site.

Neighborhood two uses are generally appropriate at this location when we look at the criteria we consider for a place site change to the neighborhood two place type, including the site's acreage, place type adjacency, street frontage along arterials, and access to goods and services within a designated activity center just to the north of the site.

And I'll take questions following comments.

Okay.

No, this is uh Ms.

Fennel, Mr.

Scruggs, and Mr.

Goddard.

You will you all will have 10 minutes.

Okay.

Well, good evening.

I'm Francis Fanel.

I'm with Urban Design Partners.

I am representing James Scruggs, the petitioner.

Yes, good evening.

My name is James Scruggs with Kingdom Development Partners and the founder of Ascension CDC.

I'm just waiting a second for our slideshow to come up.

Okay, here we go.

Um so the site is uh Neal Road residential.

It is located at 8001 Newell Road.

Um this petition is um currently zoned, um it's currently zoned R8MF, and we're asking for N2B C D.

So it'll be a mix of multifamily stacked and multifamily attached units.

So, as mentioned previously, the site is along Neal Road, is directly north of the Chambers High School.

Um, we have three surrounding uh streets around us.

We've got IBM Drive, um, Neal Road as mentioned previously, and then Catalyst Boulevard.

So existing zoning, um, we're R8 MF, as mentioned previously, right to the north of the site, there is UR2.

So that was a conditional petition that went before you a couple years ago in 2022.

So that allows for the development of 200 multifamily units.

Um, there's also innovation park that should be mentioned kind of north of the site.

That was a petition from 2020.

Uh that allowed for up to 575 multifamily units.

Um, there's also the Way Wayford at Innovation Park Development directly next to us.

That um is the kind of existing town home community.

And then the big purple blob you see there is the high school.

So the future 2040 policy maps, the adopted map, uh, as mentioned by staff, currently has the site as a neighborhood one place type, um, but it should be noted that the revised policy map shows this as a neighborhood two place type.

So it takes both this site and then the adjacent part of the adjacent site and turns it to neighborhood two.

Uh so this kind of petition would be compliant with that revised uh policy map.

So here is uh a copy of the rezoning petition that was filed, and I'll just kind of flip through to the colored version.

It's a little bit easier to follow.

So, as mentioned, this is a mixture of both multifamily stacked and multifamily attached units.

Um, we were very strategic about where we place the multi-family stacked, or sorry, the multi-family stacked and the attached units.

So we purposely wanted to put the town homes adjacent to where there already are townhomes, right?

And we purposefully also did the unit groupings to make sure that we have lower density where it makes sense, um, and then the higher density, meaning like the six unit tri uh the six unit townhomes on Catalyst Boulevard.

That's where the townhomes already exist uh in that form.

Uh the multifamily stacked is only along Newell Road, and then it's also along our two proposed uh public roads.

So we have two proposed public roads internal to the site.

These would both be following that residential wide street section, meaning that there would be eight-foot planting strips and eight-foot sidewalks.

Um we've also committed to the 12-foot multi-use path, so that would be along Newell Road as well as along IBM Drive.

Um, all of the green area credit or tree save area is uh located directly along IBM Drive.

And then this uh site, we had to do a traffic impact study as part of this site, um, and we've committed to all the improvements that came through from that traffic study.

I wanted to point out a few things um directly from the 2040 comprehensive plan that this uh rezoning petition directly meets.

Um, one of them is that idea of the 10-minute neighborhood.

So, how you uh make that happen by increasing and expanding tree saved pedestrian and bicycle network.

It's pretty uh evident with the inclusion of the two 12-foot shared use paths.

We're also widening the existing sidewalk along Catalyst Drive from six feet to eight feet, and then the neighborhood diversity and inclusion.

So, this project is proposing both multifamily stacked and multifamily attached dwelling units, and we're also um, but with inclusion of this multifamily attached, those townhomes, we're meeting the city's desire for the middle density housing.

And then the housing access for all.

So we're committed to 30% of the multifamily attached units to be affordable units, and James will speak more to that component.

And then this will also purposely be a mixed income development, which is uh consistent with that housing access for all as well.

And then the safe and equitable mobility that just points back to the shared use paths, the sidewalks, and the uh eight-foot planting strips, and those wide eight-foot planting strips allow for those large maturing trees.

And then I wanted to take a second to read a letter of support that we received from University City Partners.

Um, so this was addressed to James.

It says, Dear Mr.

Scruggs, dear Mr.

Scruggs, on behalf of University University City Partners, I am pleased to express our support for the legacy of Neal Road Development in University City.

This thoughtfully designed project featuring 324 rental apartments and 73 for sale townhomes, offers an impactful blend of rental, home ownership, and attainable housing.

It's 730 mix of market rate and attainable on the townhome element of the project, directly supports our mission of fostering inclusive economic growth and creating housing opportunities for residents across income levels.

We're especially encouraged by the developers partnership with Ascension CDC, whose model combines financial education, home maintenance training, and wealth building resources.

Their tax grant program, designed to prevent displacement, is an innovative tool that aligns with university cities partners' commitment to long-term residential stability.

Legacy and Nil Road represents the kind of inclusive community center development our region needs.

We fully support this project and look forward to seeing its positive impact on University City.

This was signed by Keith Stanley, the president of University City Partners and Drew Gardner, the senior manager of economic and land development at University City Partners.

I'm gonna pass it off now to James, and he's gonna speak more about Ascension.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Um I'm excited about this project, and um one of the things that I'm hoping to accomplish is that Kingdom Development Partners will set a precedent with other developers that you truly can have a mixed use, you truly can have a mixed income development.

Um we're excited when we heard loud from the community that we would love to see home ownership as well in this area as opposed to just rentals.

Um we we listen loud and clear.

Um I listened to um the district for for rep, Ms.

Rayna Johnson.

I met with her coalition and um spoke to them about what we do with this engine, and we're very excited about our partnership with this engine because here we're gonna allow 30% of these homes to be provided for school teachers, social workers, police officers, firefighters, and and and first responders.

And what you will receive and what you would get out of this community is economic mobility, right, that would be driven.

And here's how so our say of our attainable, our market rate homes might sell in this area for 450,000, but these market rate homes with our partners that we have through banks and down payment assistance, right?

These attainable home mortgages are for 80% AMI households, and these family members will receive these homes for less than 300,000 on their mortgage.

So we're very excited about that.

But what's bigger than us just handing them a set of keys, um, we have an education component on what we do.

So we help get these school teachers and these police officers and these social workers home ready, right?

But then we also teach them financial literacy because for us we have to teach them how to fish, right?

We want to teach them on what to do with that equity once we give them access.

As you heard, we do put a 15-year deed restriction on these properties, and ascension does have the first right of refusal to ever buy them back, so that way we can always keep them attainable in mixed income.

But our goal is to teach them financial literacy, right?

Our goal is to teach them how to maintain this property, right?

We have to educate them on how to keep this asset of blessing that they receive and how to keep it, how to keep it beautiful.

Um, and then as you also heard in a letter from um from Keith, right?

Our goal is to make sure that none of our school teachers and our social workers and our firefighters get displaced, right?

So we will meet we want the values of the homes to go up, but we don't want their taxes to go up so high that they get displaced out of our community.

So we will meet them where they are.

So we're very excited about this project.

Um we hope other developers will follow suit and and and take heed to what we're doing and how we're truly trying to impact the city, right?

And create mixed income attainable housing to create economic mobility.

And for that I say thank you.

Great job, Jeff.

Okay, you have about a minute left.

All good?

Okay.

Go ahead.

Do you have a minute left?

She might be.

We're finished.

Okay, great.

All right.

So um we'll have uh Miss Marinescu, if you could come down, and once you reach the podium, you will have 10 minutes.

She decided.

Okay.

So, honorable council members, we speak today on behalf of um CV uh activists, uh, citizens of Friends of Charlotte Alliance, Wellness Alliance, and other organizations who also have as uh values uh conservation and forest urban forestry protection as uh citizen climate lobby, CR Club, uh Green Peace.

Um we advocate here for forest urban forestry conservation, climate resilience and public health across Charlotte.

We emphasize that digital communication from citizens is as valid and reliable as in-person uh testimony, and should be fully considered in council decisions.

We also acknowledge that we mentioned whose mission aligns with advocacy aligns with forest and environmental protection, even they have not uh endorsed this petition.

So at the federal level, we already have the bipartisan forest opportunity and flexibility act that was passed by both the US Senate and House of Representatives, established national priorities, protecting full growth forests, prohibiting clear cutting and promoting ecologically responsible forest stewardship.

Federal law is binding, and local zoning decisions should comply with these standards.

Charlotte forests are part of national climate resilience.

The devastating impact of hurricane aline, including loss of lives, loss of property damage, massive federal expenditures, demonstrate the cost of failing to protect forests.

These events make it clear that inadequate local environmental protection directly increases federal and public money waste.

By preserving forests, Charlotte can reduce storm damage, protect citizens and alleviate the financial burden on federal resources.

Friends of Charlotte Alliance group that submitted last year in April 2024 to all the authority like City of Count uh City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, NC General Assembly.

And wellness alliance previously submitted a petition last year requesting protection for Charlotte full growth forest, explicitly opposing clear cutting.

This petition was then 700 signatures, right now is 1,500 Charlotte citizen signatures, reflecting broad community concern.

However, due to lack of transparency like today and delayed availability of information, such as other properties like in my C Zip Code Area 2815, Rocky River Road, Harrisburg Road, Plaza Extension Road, that was approved after this petition was submitted this year, 2025, and after Hurricane Alin made so much damage and brought so much federal waste.

So citizens were not properly informed and their input was not considered.

Yet large-scale tree removal has been allowed and we are witnessing in all areas of urban Charlotte and also suburban Charlotte.

Charlotte forests also have spiritual and well-being significance.

Trees and green spaces contribute to mental clarity, stress reduction, and uh community health.

Protecting them supports not only physical safety but also the emotional and spiritual balance of our citizens.

Tonight we focus on rezoning petition item 18.

This site is currently wooded land.

We don't have enough transparency, we don't have access to uh let's say we don't have access to information on timely manner, so that citizens and civic uh activists and non-profit organizations to have transparency of how this wooded uh lots of land get clear cut in front of our eyes, such as I witnessed in my zip code university area.

So large-scale tree removal could reduce natural storm protection, exacerbating hurricane, as we saw last year, the hurricane aline, and flood impacts.

It increased heat, runoff, and soil erosion, affecting local infrastructure, flooding and neighborhood uh flooding in neighboring areas.

They harm the public health and spiritual well-being by reducing green space benefits recognized by the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, one of the very many medical association who uh includes stress reduction, improve air quality, so promotes advocates for air quality and uh well-being again and the prevention of heat related illness.

We respectfully request that city shity council um a tree preservation canopy loss report for each of these uh zoning petitions.

I'm witnessing in my neighborhood that a full lot of land was clear cut, and I was not informed what was going on.

And that was after Hury Canalin in April 2024.

It was in December 2025, after we submitted that petition assigned by already 700 people.

We asked for a site-specific tree safe plan showing how many existing trees will be removed versus preserved.

We deny approval if the petitioner intends a clear cut.

We demand mitigation if trees are removed, as happened uh in my um uh neighboring area, Hereisbu Road intersection with Rocky River 3 uh 031.

Uh recognize the ethical and spiritual responsibility do we have for the future generations to prevent forest loss, otherwise we will uh become only concrete from shifting harm and uh uh to adjacent neighborhoods and recommend highly recommend to expand uh expand equally throughout uh all areas use uh of flat land and um use smart uh smart um approaches uh to um maximize optimize the use of land with the protection of forested um especially old forests, mature forests areas.

Uh aligned decisions with FOFA that this uh just passed federal law for uh forest preservation principles, limiting clear cutting and promoting ecologically responsible development as required under federal law.

Ensure citizen input is fully considered and the citizens are transparently informed about all this zoning, uh including our digital communication and submissions as legitimate and legal public participation.

Uh retroactively review all zoning approvals in 2025 for potential clear cutting according to the federal law.

Uh for any permits where environmental regulations, tree protection standards, or forest preservation requirements were violated.

Clear cutting occurred without adequate environmental impact assessment in many uh areas of Charlotte and uh Charlotte Suburbs, Morrow, Indian Trail, Pineville, um, and in Zipco 2815 and university uh area.

Citizen input was ignored or uh inadequately considered, we request that council revoke suspend on condition dose approvals, require mitigation or reforestation plans, and ensure compliance with forest protection, public health, and federal standards before any development proceeds.

Charlotte full growth forests are irreplaceable.

Uh protecting them safeguards public health, climate resilience, federal fiscal responsibility and waste, and spiritual well-being for all residents.

On behalf of Friends of Charlotte and Wellness Alliance and other act uh non-uh governmental uh environmental activists, 1,500 petitioners across Charlotte, we urge City Council to act with transparency, environmental responsibility, federal compliance, and full regard for all communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

Thanks for your comments.

Um I think I'm a little confused direct like how directly that was related to this uh exact petition, but just to speak, I believe the issue is tree preservation.

Um, and this petition is compliant with all um with the UDO and the standard for what the green area credit is.

Um, and as far as you know what's already allowed by right, it's already been approved or an R8 MF zoning, so it's already allowed with that zoning to move forward.

So this isn't a case where this could be a conservation development or anything like that.

Thank you.

Um I have Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim.

Um so I wanted to ask the city attorney first.

So I know that there's some rule, if there is any opposition to a petition in October.

I don't know about tonight.

Tonight, the last meeting of this council, that it delays the decision.

Can you talk about it?

You're speaking of the election rule, and that's why you only had decisions that didn't have opposition tonight.

So that is for the November meeting.

Okay.

So this this public hearing wouldn't be impacted by that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Because I also had a question about that opposition.

That sounded like a general opposition to our growth.

So I wanted to ask the ma'am.

Do you were you opposing this petition specifically?

Do you do you uh so you can come to the microphone?

Miss Can you have to come down?

Thank you.

So I was clearly uh asking for tree loss uh map uh to know exactly uh how much clear cutting is done mathematically and to stop clear cutting from all these practices uh for real uh state development.

Uh so they need to uh come with a specific mathematic um how much uh tree loss will um uh forest uh canopy will be damaged and will be lost, and uh to be denied if there is um uh mature forest uh involved and if mature forest in uh significant uh quantity.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um thank you for your comments, and thank you for your presentation.

I have some questions for staff.

So currently staff does not recommend the approval of the petition in the current form.

Is can you tell me why specifically?

So the current plan from 2020 was a all town home development proposal for 157 units.

This current proposal that we're looking at tonight is for a total of 397 units, the majority of which are multifamily stacked.

So we are generally supportive of neighborhood two uses on this site.

What we're just looking to see is a greater proportionality of town homes across the site.

That two and a half times increase in units from current entitlements seemed really significant to us.

So we'd like to balance that a little bit with better site design by the with the inclusion of more town home units, which makes more sense with the context of the less dense uh transition that you see to the south, southeast, and to the west there.

Recognizing though that we do have a large community activity center just to the north.

So again, it's not that we're at all opposed to neighborhood two uses or or even the inclusion of multifamily stacked units, it's just about the balance of it all.

Okay.

When you started your presentation, you said that this area was surrounded by single family.

It's it's single family just to the west.

So if we could get it's mostly town homes, as you can see, actually in this.

Oh, I can actually I was just wondering where those single family it's single family more towards the west.

Is we see Ridgelane Road here, but it's predominantly town homes along its west along the south and west, and then it's more neighborhood one further to the west.

So it's a transition, like I said, where you're talking about the neighborhood one, then neighborhood two, and then of course that community activity center to the north.

So being mindful of that transition where it is in that neighborhood to area, just adjacent to that community activity center, having the inclusion of more of those townhomes, but still having some apartments could be appropriate if you just balance it right.

Right, but the single family, where are those?

To the west.

And how further to the west?

Are those?

Do you know the distance?

I I don't have the distance that I could measure.

All right, so fortunately, I was around in 2020 when we approved the original petition.

Um, thank you, District 4.

Right, and uh, and I remember this, and I've talked and I've spoken to the to Mr.

Suggs, who does a great job, and one of the reasons when they developed or or requested that petition, there wasn't a lot of development in that area at all.

Since then, if you look at the growth in that area, his petition, this petition is more in line with the surrounding petitions.

And I and I looked, if you all look at page six of this petition, and look at the numbers uh or the density that's been approved surrounding it, and I'm just looking at it.

Looks like there were 250 single family attached units and 50 multifamily units.

2021 12.

There were 575 multifamily dwelling units.

Um then I asked, I sent you an email and asked for numbers of more development around there.

Catalyst partners.

There was 278.

Graystar, is that 712 multifamily across 70 acres?

Okay.

And um 26 town homes, and then I asked about 85 in Harris.

And I was given the number 300.

That seems low because I think there were like two or three separate petitions.

So there were um, it seems like more than like there might be double this amount.

So there's a petition that was recently approved just to the west of it, but the petition that we were speaking about uh earlier today was for 300 apartment units across 28 acres.

Okay, and there's also I didn't count the 2021 02 was for 157 duplex triplex or single family attached dwelling units because I know that's 157 units, but if they're duplexes, that would be double the amount of no.

No, so it's 157 units total, inclusive of all unit types.

So whether it's duplicate okay.

So even with that, um the total number of units that I counted was 1697.

First of all, was there a traffic study if we're looking at cumulative impact?

But of those 697 units, I don't know how many of those pledged any affordability.

And you know me as district four representative.

I want to see balanced approach and and the density I I understand, but when we talk about strategic and responsible development, this developer colleagues is proposing 78 uh for sale uh units at 300,000.

And he didn't mention it, but I believe they're going to be eligible for up to 100,000 dollars worth of down payment assistance.

So I just want us to consider that there have there is a precedent in this area.

We um again one of the complexes is 575 months family units, 1697 with no pledge for affordability, and here we have a developer that's giving us this.

You can look at the pictures and you can see these large complexes close to this.

So I'm I want us to always support staff's recommendation, so I certainly hope that within the next month we can come to a uh a place.

However, um, I appreciate the petition.

I appreciate the commitment to affordability for for sale uh projects, and this seems these this number seems in right in line with the surrounding complexes around it.

So that's all I have.

Oh, and another thing, I'm sorry.

You um this is close to a school.

You mentioned teachers, you mentioned affordability for teachers.

So there's jobs we know we have uh lots of jobs in district four.

Uh we we do need housing.

Uh I don't know of where this single family complex is or how close that is to this uh complex.

We don't have any speakers from those neighborhoods.

The only opposition was in general, it sounded like she was asking about the cumulative impact and us and tree preservation, which this development uh does commit to.

So thank you again, and that's all I have.

Move to close.

Well, I think oh, sorry, okay.

Miss you, thank you, Councilmember Johnson for highlighting the commitment to affordable housing.

Um also I'd like to thank uh public speakers, community members who came out to speak.

Thank you for speaking at our public forum.

Um I'm with councilmember Johnson.

I hope that we can come to an agreement.

I understand that going from 157 to 397, it is substantial increase in density.

Uh and it does not align with what we had previously approved.

Um but I also understand that uh a lot of development that was approved recently had intensified density nearby.

Uh so I hope we can look at that.

We can also look into just some of the recent developments that have been approved nearby.

And uh certainly at the end of the day, we had to make a land use decision.

And I look forward to continuing to hear from the district council member on how we can come to an agreement here with staff as well as the district representative with petitioner.

Thank you.

Okay.

I have a motion to close public hearing and second.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank you all for coming out.

Well, we're going to move on to agenda item number 20.

Petition number 2025 097 by J H Investments LLC.

The location is approximately 1.22 acres, located west of North Tryon, south of Orchard Trace Lane, and north of Graham Meadow Drive and District 1, my district.

The current zoning is TOD TR.

Proposed zoning is CG C D.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition.

And after staff's presentation, we have Miss Marjorie Parker and Mr.

Cullen Brown, who will have three minutes, and as well as others.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Petition 2025 097 is an undeveloped site, approximately 1.22 acres.

Located on the west side of North Trion Street at the intersection of Orchard Trace Lane.

Site's currently zoned TOD TR, transit oriented development transition.

Proposed zoning is CGCD, general commercial traditional.

2040 policy map recommends the community activity center place type for this site, and the CGC D district is inconsistent with the CAC place type.

Approval this rezoning would revise the policy map to the commercial place type.

The rezoning proposal calls for the development of up to 1,000 square feet of non-residential space with an accessory drive-thru.

The petition prohibits certain more noxis uses on allowed under the CG district, including electronic gaming establishments, nightclubs, dealerships, gas stations, et cetera.

Access to the site is proposed via Orchard Trace Lane and an internal driveway connection to the shopping center located to the south.

An eight-foot sidewalk and eight-foot planning strip will be constructed along the site's frontage with North Tryon Street.

Buildings must be positioned to allow pedestrian access from North Tryon Street with outdoor seating near the sidewalk.

Drive-thru lanes shall not be placed between the building and the street, and the parking and maneuvering areas will be screened from view on Orchard Lane.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition as the site's located within a short walk.

The Tom Hunter Lynx Blue Line Station, an area that's quickly developing to transit-oriented housing, promoting community activity center place type intention to create places where people can walk, bike, or take transit to access goods and services within a 10-minute trip.

The proposed development on the site does not align with the goals of the community activity center place type as drive-throughs prioritize vehicular access and circulation, which undermines the activities center's emphasis on walkable pedestrian-friendly environments.

And the current TOD TR districts permit a wide variety of uses, including restaurant buyright.

Following the standards of the TOD TR district would not permit a drive-thru, however, in this location, and it would achieve a more pedestrian focused design.

Happy to take any questions following Mr.

Brown's presentation.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brown, my correction, you have 10 minutes.

I don't think we'll meet need it, Mayor Pro Tim.

Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner, if I can grab our slides.

Okay.

Sorry, I don't know if the boot we're we're still not seen on the screen.

Booth team.

Looks like it crashed.

Um okay.

Well, I'll start.

Hopefully, hopefully it'll pop up.

I'm better with some visual aids.

We do have it on here.

I know it's difficult for you to navigate, but we have it on our monitors.

Yeah, it's real difficult for me to have you without saying.

There we go.

There we go.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Uh Mayor Puritim, Councilmember, Zenny Committee members, Colin Brown, on behalf of the petitioner JBJH development.

Max did a good job on the presentation.

You know, this is pretty pretty much straight, pretty straightforward.

This is a small site.

Uh, it is on Tryon Street, is adjacent to an existing shopping center.

Uh, we concede we are proposing a uh very automobile-oriented use.

Um, frankly, this is a Dutch Brothers coffee, uh, a new retailer that is entering the market that is very excited to be here.

Uh, we get staff, I'm not gonna jouse the staff over the challenges of putting a uh a drive-through use near transit, understand understand their position.

Uh the client team, though, is very active in the community.

They know that there's some challenges there.

Um, there's some challenges with a nearby center, and this is just a situation where we believe the community is looking for some positive development.

Uh so at the outset, we said, hey, let's go out and talk to the community.

Uh the what what we believe we will hear is that folks want something positive to take place on the site.

And so you're here from uh Ms.

Parker who's here tonight on behalf of the Hidden Valley community.

They've been very involved in this project, and essentially that was kind of the agreement from the outset.

We said, look, we we know where staff will have to be because of the plan.

We'll we'll do as much as we can to design a plan that that is as as accommodating and as attractive as possible if this is something the community would like.

Uh very much strong support from the community on hey, we want something to happen there, so so let's work together and make it happen.

Uh so this is the site plan uh that we've put together.

I maybe I'll just stop there and let the community speak, but we'll continue to work with staff again.

We've done as much from a design perspective as we can.

We we do understand the use and where staff is with the plan and understand that.

Uh but sometimes we we take direction from our community.

Um so Ms.

Parker, if you don't mind.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, Council, Ms.

Parker, City Planning, City Staff.

Of course, I'm Marjorie Parker.

On behalf of the Hidden Valley Community Association, I would like to thank Brian Weiker uh for working with the Hidden Valley Community Association and the CMPD to help clean up his property at Tom Hunt and North Trine.

We also support the Dutch Brothers Coffee Shop.

He wants to develop near Orchid Trace.

We all see firsthand the major economic development stretching from I-485 to University City.

These areas have gained businesses, jobs, amenities, and their neighborhoods have been strengthened.

While we celebrate their growth, it's important to acknowledge that from Sugar Creek at North Tryon to Tom Hunter, there has been little to no economic development.

And so we are asking that you put support this development for us and other developments in the future.

We have had apartments being built.

Something that Mayor Pro Tim said that resonated with me, and also Council Member Tijuana Brown when they talked about uh Brook Hill.

Mayor Pro Tim, Madam Smarizing.

Uh bring vitality and positive energy to that area.

Councilmember Tiawana.

Not enough love in that area.

So we want some economic development from Sugar Creek to North Trion to Tom Hunter Road.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Ms.

Parker.

Um again, happy to answer questions.

Small small site try-on next to existing shopping center.

We've done as much as we can on the site design.

We do think it will bring some stability to that site, bring some investment, provide some jobs.

So appreciate it, and we'll happy to answer any questions.

Absolutely.

Um thank you.

So I just like to say, of course, this is my district, and uh Miss Parker said it aptly.

Uh we've been in discussions ideating around how we can bring some economic vitality to that corridor.

Uh, this is a partner who is willing to work with the community and invest in that area, and we understand uh where staff sits from a drive-through perspective.

Um, but however, I I know that staff understands that this economic opportunity for that area is doesn't come along every month, it doesn't come along every term, and the community is asking for it.

And so I'm hoping that as we move forward that some of my colleagues would support this effort, understanding where staff is, but staff staff is not against the economic aspect of it.

It is from um a policy perspective.

So any other comments.

There's a motion to close public hearing.

Is there a second?

So move.

All right, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That's unanimous.

Thank you, Ms.

Parker, for coming out.

And the Hidden Valley Association.

We will move on to agenda item number 21, petition number 2025 100 by Roland Development Group LLC.

The location, approximately 3.16 acres, located west of Marsh Road and south of Auburn Avenue and East.

That petition is deferred.

Oh, this one is deferred.

Okay.

Well, we'll move on to 22.

Which is agenda item number 22 petition.

No.

No, it wasn't.

But that's a great joke, Ms.

Brown.

Great joke.

Uh petition number 2025.

T three.

Hi, Anthony Cood.

The location is approximately 1.49 acres located on the west side of Greensboro Street, north of Raleigh Street and east of East Sugar Creek and District 3, Miss Brown's district.

Current zoning is TODMO.

Proposed zoning, T O D C C staff recommends the approval of this petition.

And after staff's presentation, we do not have anyone speaking on this.

Is that correct?

I don't have anyone listed on my paper for agenda item 22.

So we'll just have staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is one and a half acres east of East Sugar Creek Road along Raleigh Street and just north of the Sugar Creek Street station along the Link's Blue Line in an area where, of course, we've seen a lot of change over from industrial uses to transit-oriented supportive projects.

It is currently zoned, transit-oriented development mixed use optional.

They are proposing to go to Transit Orient Development Community Center.

Which is consistent with the policy maps recommendation for the community activity center place type.

This is a conventional petition with no associated site plan.

Staff does recommend approval of this petition.

It brings the site into alignment with its community activity center place type, maintains transit-oriented development zoning on the site, but updates it to a TODCC district.

It has very close proximity to that sugar creek station just south of the site, and I'd be happy to take any questions.

Yes, so um, Ms.

Kramer, I believe this is actually in my district.

I just want to double check.

Um the listing says district three, however, with the proximity to the Sugar Creek Light Rail Station.

I I don't believe that could be yes.

Um sorry, on our mapping, I have it listed as your district.

Was it no, it's just in a language on the first page.

Okay.

Okay, I apologize for that.

North of Raleigh Street is yours.

Yes, it is.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you for that.

So the only question I have, and and Miss Parker actually had left, but I I see that there wasn't high attendance for the community meeting.

Yeah, was yeah.

Can we you speak about that?

I mean, as as you can see in this aerial, it's in an area with a lot of commercial or some still industrial uses.

So because of the users that it is directly surrounded by that 300 foot radius wouldn't necessarily pick up a lot of folks that might typically come out to a community meeting, like a neighborhood, for example, like a single family neighborhood.

So that's likely the reason for low attendance.

Yep, I I see that it's also by um the independent picture house as well.

Correct.

And um, and there are some new um multifamily that are going up, but um not actually populated just yet.

So I I understand exactly where it is in um the mix of that neighborhood.

Okay.

I don't have any additional questions.

All right, motion of closed of a second.

Second.

All right, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous, and it takes us to uh agenda item number 23, petition number 2025 052 by Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority.

The uh location is approximately 0.81 acres, located south of South Tryon, west of Steel Croft Parkway, and north of Steel Creek Road in District 3, Miss Brown's district.

Let's verify that on the back.

And it is indeed it is.

Um, the current zoning is N1A.

Proposed zoning is OG.

Staff recommends approval of this petition, and after staff's presentation, Mr.

Carmichael will have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The site is just under acre along South Tryon Street, west of Steel Croft Parkway, north of Steel Creek Road, the most southwestern portion of our city and county.

It is currently zoned, neighborhood 1A, and they are proposing to go to general office.

This is consistent with the policy map's recommendation for campus.

As you can see in this image here, we have a lot of existing office zoning, neighborhood services.

There's some multifamily zoning to the north.

But what you don't see is single family zoning, unlike what is directly on this parcel.

So it's bringing a zoning district onto the site.

That makes a lot more sense just given the context that it sits in and the uses that it's surrounded by, which is predominantly medical offices, some commercial, and some multifamily to the north.

And because this is a conventional petition, there is no associated site plan.

Again, staff, this is bringing the site into alignment with that campus place type recommendation from the 2040 policy map.

Staff does recommend approval of this petition given the area that it's situated in, removing the neighborhood 1A zoning designation on this parcel.

Just makes sense to bring it into alignment with uh the broader area.

And I'll take questions following petitioner comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Carmichael.

Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tim, members of the council and the zoning committee.

I'm John Carmichael here on behalf of the Charlotte Meckenberg Hospital Authority and Bennett Thompson with the hospital authority is with me tonight.

I do have a some slides.

But um, as Holly said, the site is very small, it's eight tenths, a little over eight-tenths of an acre is located on the south side of South Tron Street, just west of the intersection of Steelecroft Parkway and South Tron Street.

The petitioner's Steel Creek Emergency Department and Medical Office Facility is adjacent to the site.

In fact, property owned by the petitioner surrounds this eight-tenth of an acre site.

All the property surrounding this site is zoned O2 C D, which is an office zoning district under our legacy ordinance.

The policy map recommends or places the site in a campus place type.

Therefore, this request to resonate the site to office to OG office general is consistent with the 2040 policy map.

And this is this is the existing uh Steel Creek Emergency Department and Medical Office facility here.

This is the site.

Property owned by the petitioner surrounds this eight-tenths of an acre parcel.

It used to be the Steel Creek Volunteer Fire Department.

You may recall that.

This is looking at the uh uh towards the site uh at the intersection of Steelecroft and South Tryon site here.

This is the emergency department and the medical office facility operated by HRM.

Once again, the site surrounded by office zoning and the policy map to places this parcel on the campus place type.

Uh this zoning would be more compatible with the surrounding uses and surrounding zoning than the current N1A zoning, which is a single family zoning district as you're aware.

Um we're happy to answer any questions.

We did meet with the Steel Creek Residents Association back in May, and they're not opposed to the request.

Happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Miss Azimeira.

Yes, thank you.

Um so Mr.

Carmichael, is this for emergency uh visits or urgent care?

What is what is the side going to be used for?

Well, I don't think they've decided what exactly what type of use it would be, but it'd be consistent with what their their purpose is, A trim's purpose.

They have an existing council member as mirror, they have an existing emergency department right here.

I don't think they've determined the pro the exact use yet, but it would be something to be consistent with what services HRM provides.

Um is this atrium?

Yeah, Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority is A trium.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, very good.

Uh that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Brown.

Mr.

Carmichael, thank you.

Thank you.

For all your heart work.

Thank you for always reaching out to me and um making sure that I know what's going on with the petitions in the community.

Members um as I reached out to them, so as this is our last yeah, I'm the only meeting with me sitting um in the seat.

But thank you so much for your heart work and thank you.

I support this.

It won't be under approval under my watch, but you've already come as you always do with all your petitions to meet diligently, making sure that the community voice is heard and it means a lot to me.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your service.

Good night.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

All right, is there a motion on close public interval?

Second.

All right, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

We will move on to agenda item number 26.

Petition number 2025 076 by Kevin Newan LLC.

Location is approximately 2.58 acres located north of Shopton Road, east of Steve Chapman Road, and south of Sullivan's Trace Road and District 3, Miss Brown's district.

The current zoning is C G A N D O proposed zoning is N2ACD ANDO.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

After staff's presentation, Miss Finna will uh join us again.

She'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

I believe we're on item 24.

The petition 2025 61.

Are we?

Did I skip one?

I may have skipped one.

Let's see.

Yeah, we're on 24.

24.

Is it the one you call?

Ah, I may I may have just skipped it.

Living spaces.

Living spaces.

All right, let's back up to living spaces.

Item number 24.

This says petition number 2025 061 by living spaces.

The location is approximately 20.95 acres located north of Tribola Road, east of I-77, and west of 77 Center Drive in District 3.

Ms.

Brown's district.

The current zoning is ML2.

Proposed zoning is ML1 CD.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolutions of outstanding issues related to environment.

And after staff's presentation, we'll have Mr.

Carmichael again come up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This site is uh just shy of 21 acres located north of Tyvola Road, just east of I-77 and west of 77 Centric Drive.

It is currently vacant.

Surrounded by a lot of office uses and commercial uses.

Current zoning is ML2 with the proposed zoning of ML1 C D.

The 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type.

Yes.

The proposal would allow for 165,000 square feet of gross floor area of retail goods showroom as well as 2,000 square feet of accessory restaurant.

Proposed building envelope is illustrated in purple with a parking and loading dock envelope surrounding it.

There'll be a 100-foot class A landscape yard along the northwestern property boundary.

We're abutting OFC zoning.

Site access would be through an access easement to Tyvola Road at West Park Drive.

Yes, right.

Committing to implementing a an eight-foot plank strip and twelve-foot multi-use path along the site's Tybola Road frontage.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of an outstanding issue related to the environment.

The petition is consistent with the policy map recommendation for the manufacturing and logistics place type.

And would allow for uses permitted in the ML1 district while eliminating the possibility of more noxious uses that would otherwise be permitted under the existing ML2 zoning.

The proposed retail goods showroom is more compatible with the adjacent office and commercial uses than development that would be permitted under the ML2 zoning.

And retail goods showrooms along with several other commercial commercial uses are not permitted in the ML2 zoning district, while they are allowed in ML1, necessitating a rezoning for the site to be able to accommodate the proposal.

I'll take any questions following petitioner comments.

Thank you.

Welcome back, Mr.

Carmichael.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Pro 10 members of the council and the zoning committee.

I'm John Carmichael here on behalf of Living Spaces.

Living Spaces is the petitioner.

With me tonight are Brian Saltikoff with Living Spaces and Ron Lewis with Kimley Horn.

Living Spaces is a California-based retail furniture showroom.

And if this rezoning petition is approved, this would be their first location in the Carolinas.

Um as Mr.

Magnum stated, the site contains just over 20 acres.

It's located on the north side of Tybola Road at the I-77 Tybola Road Interchange.

The site is currently zone ML2, which is manufacturing and logistics.

You have ML2 zoning to the east.

The request is to resonate the site from ML2, basically down zone it to ML1 C D to allow uses allowed in the ML1 zoning district, including a retail uh furniture showroom and an accessory restaurant.

The maximum size of the building would be 165,000 square feet.

Um the posley map places the site in a manufacturing logistics place type.

This request is consistent with our 2040 policy map.

This is the rezoning plan, Mr.

Mangum shared with you.

And then this is just a picture of a living space retail furniture showroom.

And this just gives you a sense of the accessory restaurant.

It's just a place where customers can go, take a break from shopping, and then resume shopping after they restore their energy.

Um we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

We do feel like this use is more consistent with the surrounding office and commercial uses.

We're happy to answer any questions that you may have missure.

Well, welcome to Charlotte.

Hopefully, we'll see more of living room spaces.

That's all I have.

Move to close.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh all in favor of closing uh public meeting.

Raise hands.

Or public hearing.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

And thank you for coming out.

Sounds like a unique concept for our city.

We will now move on to agenda item number 25.

Petition 6.

25 is deferred.

Okay.

You guys are helping me out tonight.

It's okay.

Teamwork.

25 is different.

26.

We're at 26, yep.

All right.

Agenda item number 26, petition number 2025 076 by Kevin Young LLC.

The location is approximately 2.58 acres, located north of Shopton Road, east of Steve Chapman Drive, and south of Sullivan's Trace Drive.

Once again, in District 3, Miss Brown's district.

The current zoning is C G A N D O.

Proposed zoning is in to ACD ANDO.

The staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolutions of outstanding issues related to transportation site and building design after staff's presentation.

Then we will have Ms.

Fennel join us again.

And you'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

The site is just uh over two and a half acres located on the north side of Shopton Road, east of Steve Chapman Drive, and west of Pinecrest Drive.

Site is currently vacant.

Current zoning is C G A N D O that is airport noise disclosure overlay.

Proposed zoning is into ACD with the overlay carrying forward.

The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type.

The proposal would allow for a community of 24 multifamily attached dwellings.

That would include two six-unit buildings, one quadruplex, two triplexes, and one duplex building.

Access would be provided to uh through private alleys.

A 20-foot Class B landscape yard with six-foot opaque fence is proposed along the site's northern property boundary with a 10-foot Class C landscape yard and six-foot fence along the site's eastern and western property boundaries.

Green area is proposed along the western property boundary with open space along the eastern boundary.

Proposed eight-foot planning strip and eight-foot sidewalk along the site Shopton Road frontage.

Petitioners committing to preferred design standards, including usable porches and stoops and recessed garage doors.

Provides a menu of possible open space components of which the petitioner is committing to provide four of those.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

The petition is inconsistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type.

However, the site is adjacent to multi-family attached residential dwellings to the west along Shopton Road.

The site is within one-third mile of a commercial node at Shopton Road and Steel Creek Road, providing walkable access to goods and services.

The petitioner is committed to providing a larger landscape yard than required by ordinance with a 20-foot uh class B landscape yard with six-foot opaque fence along the northern property boundary.

We're adjacent to single family dwellings.

I'll take comments following uh or questions following the petitioners' comments.

Thank you.

You have three minutes.

Okay, good evening.

I'm gonna wait a second on that presentation.

Um but I'm Francis Veneligan.

I'm with Urban Design Partners.

Um representing the petitioner, Kevin Nugent LLC.

Um, this is rezoning petition 2025-076.

So we're asking to rezone the property from CG to into A C D.

Uh and this is for the development of a 24-unit townhome community.

I think we're still waiting on those slides.

Um, right there.

We're ready.

Yeah.

Okay, there you go.

Um, so the site context, so um surrounding us uh directly uh adjacent is actually multifamily attached, and the site is directly south of Sullivan's Trace residential community.

Uh as mentioned, the zoning is currently CG, but it should be noted that the properties directly adjacent to us are actually developed as townhomes, but they were developed under that CG zoning that was allowed uh previously.

Uh the future 2040 policy map has a site as a neighborhood one and everything kind of surrounding directly as a neighborhood one across the street.

There's manufacturing and logistics and a little bit of commercial in the area as well.

So the revised policy map actually changes that uh townhomes adjacent to us in two, uh, and so this site would be consistent with that uh following uh the approval of this petition.

Uh this is our rezoning uh plan that was submitted to staff.

And then here is our uh rendered site plan.

So uh as staff mentioned, this is 24 units.

Uh they take the form of duplexes, triplexes, uh, and two six unit buildings in the back.

Uh the six unit buildings were done that way purposefully because there is very steep topography as you uh move from Shopton Road towards the back of the site.

Uh and so there's some concerns uh with sewer and just making sure all the topography works out.

So that's the the reasoning for those larger buildings.

Um we purposely did those internal to the site and made sure uh we have adequate landscape yards and tree safe screening those from surrounding area.

Uh as mentioned, there's an eight-foot planting strip and eight-foot sidewalk.

Uh, this also includes a left turn lane in uh into the site along Shopton Road, and then that buffered bike lane.

So there'll be a three-foot buffer and then a five-foot bike lane.

Um, I think that's really it on our end.

Okay.

Any questions?

Hearing none, is there a motion to close public hearing?

Second.

All right, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank you.

Miss Fanel, is it the nell?

It's Vanel.

Vanel.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll get it right.

Maybe seeing more of you.

Yeah, we'll continue.

We are moving on to Francis.

Okay, all right.

See you in the community Francis.

I'll be looking for you.

Um we are moving on to agenda item 27.

Petition number 2025 078 by Image Custom Homes LLC.

The location is approximately 0.46 acres located east of Castleton Road and west of Craig Avenue and north of North North Sharon Amity Road in District 5, Miss Molina's district.

The current zoning is in one A.

Proposed zoning in 1C.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

And after staff's presentation, Mr.

Murray will join us and he will have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This parcel might look a little familiar because we've had a couple of rezonings uh in this direct neighborhood, just along Castleton Road, but also along Craig Avenue, just to the east there.

This site specifically is a half acre along Castleton Road and north of North Share and Amity Road.

It is currently zone neighborhood 1A.

They are proposing to go to neighborhood 1C.

This is an area that is predominantly single family, but there are two community or two activity centers just to the east and west along North Share and Amity Road in this area.

It is consistent with the Puls Maps recommendation for neighborhood one.

This is a conventional petition, so there is no associated site plan.

Staff does recommend approval of this petition.

Like I noted at the top, this is a half acre lot, so this is a very large lot, and they're looking to take it to neighborhood one C.

There is no established real lot pattern in this area, especially as a couple of the lots have moved to the neighborhood one C designation along Castleton and Craig Avenue.

There's some multifamily uses just north of the site.

And when we're looking at a higher classification neighborhood one district, we're looking at are there significant established lot patterns to consider and are what are the significant or what are the individual characteristics of this lot specifically?

And given what a large lot is and the existing lot patterns that we're seeing being relatively mixed in this area.

We thought that this was an appropriate request.

I'll take questions following petitioner comments.

Okay.

Welcome, Mr.

Murray.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem and Council.

David Murray, attorney for the petitioner.

Um happy to answer any questions you have.

Okay.

Ms.

Eshmere.

Thank you.

So this question is for staff.

This rezoning petition is from N1A to N1C.

What is it in N1C that's allowed that's not allowed in N1A?

So the two zoning density?

The two zoning districts allow for the exact same uses.

The only differences are really related to dimensional standards.

So for example, the minimum lot width is 70 feet in N1A, whereas in N1C, you're looking at a minimum lot width of 50 feet.

And this parcel in particular, it's lot frontage, it's 105 feet.

So this is a conventional petition, but just considering the large lot frontage that you're dealing with under N1A, currently, you can only get one lot out of its current configuration.

But that is the those are really the differences between the the different N1 districts are related to lot standards and those dimensional items.

How any difference in the density is higher density?

So conceivably you could get more units if you can on any rezoning when you're comparing different neighborhood one districts.

If you're looking at potentially a higher classification neighborhood one district that could yield a subdivision of a lot, you could get greater density because it allows for smaller lots, and so you could have more units.

So yes, because this is rezoning from N1A to N1C.

Again, N1C has a minimum lot frontage of 50 feet.

So you could technically just by looking at lot frontages, and I don't have the other numbers in front of me, but if you're just looking at lot frontages, you could conceivably fit two lots on the existing parcel here.

Yeah, and this side is very small, is less than an acre.

So 0.46.

So under N1C, how many units would be allowed?

Single family homes.

So it allows for the same uses under N1A.

So you're talking about single family duplex or triplex.

Okay.

All right.

If no further, if there are no further questions, yeah, okay.

But hold that thought.

Okay, that's all I have.

Um, thank you, Mayor Pro Tim.

My question is in line with uh with Ms.

Ashmira.

So did you get the answer?

Uh how many units, how many, if there were duplexes or triplexes, how many units could be built conceivably on this lot?

So I have not done a test bit of this site to to know exactly how you could splice it because there are other things that you need to take into account, like sidewall heights and looking at the surrounding that's fine the surrounding developments.

But if you if you have any lot that then can be subdivided, you could then do a duplex on each lot.

I don't know if the petitioner has likely looked at this lot because they are rezoning it.

Okay.

So this would be I believe the fourth rezoning that I've done on Castleton from an N1A to N1C.

And this will be now going to, I think, our fourth city council member also, as this is gone.

And um, if you go on Castleton now, there's single family detached homes being built on these lots.

And that's what Councilmember Molina wanted us to commit to on the prior rezonings that we've done, and that's what we're committing to here.

This builder is um building also on another site uh on the street.

Okay, and so these would be single family detached on this site.

Those are single family detached.

Thanks for telling me that.

Were those also conventional petitions or were they conditional?

Those were conventional.

Those were conventional also because I noticed we have eight conventional petitions tonight.

And I know one is community garden.

I know that's a simple one in the hospital, but you know, I think thank you that you gave us that information.

But I think we have to be very careful as council members when neighborhoods are are changing like this.

Like we need conditional petitions.

I think we should have site plans.

Let me let me try and answer that.

So that we can answer to the neighbors of what's gonna go there.

Let me try and answer the question a little bit more clearly for you.

So you've got about a hundred foot wide lot here, maybe a little bit less.

Currently, they need 70 feet of frontage to split this lot into two.

So right now, all that can be built today is up to a triplex, so up to three units.

If this rezoning were approved, they'd have the ability to potentially split this lot into two, and you would see either a single family duplex or triplex on potentially either lot.

You can see that's been done here.

Here we've had a couple in the past that were done under the UR district here and at the end of Castleton.

I think there's been a couple on this side of Craig that haven't been uh maybe subdivided out yet.

But essentially, right now, again, you could get up to three units on the lot.

If the rezoning were to be approved, they'd get the ability to potentially split this into two.

Bless you, and then put a triplex potentially on either or a single family on either.

So it's hard to tell the yield as highly mentioned, but what this does is allow this lot to be split into uh two, and they could build two single family detached.

Right now, you could only get up to again three units.

This could give the ability to split that and do that on on both lots.

So it's there's currently a single family on the lot.

Correct.

Or it's it's vacant, but right now it's to divide it into two lots.

Correct.

That's correct, and put two uh single family detached houses.

That's correct.

So I would prefer to see a conditional zoning only, so there's some commitment of what's going to be built there.

Um just my thought.

I know this is not in district four, but um, I I think that we as a council want to have some idea of what's being built, especially in our single family neighborhoods.

So just for staff, if I think I'd like to see more conditional instead of conventional, and for that reason, I'm I'm not real sure.

I I know our other council members will be watching uh to see what they think about this.

Um, but those are just my thoughts.

If if you're committed to single family detached, uh it's it's about you know, and there's some really huge lots in district five right around this area.

Um, and I know that off Washington that what is that Grove Park that's really changing, right?

So I think the neighbors would prefer that we have some oversight and accountability over what's being built in these neighborhoods.

Thank you.

All right, is there a move?

Second.

All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands.

Any opposed?

All right, that is unanimous.

We'll move on to thank you.

Thank you.

Uh we we will move on to agenda item number 28, petition number 2025 092 by Toll Brothers.

The location is approximately 27.82 acres, located east of Old Statesville Road, south of West W.

T.

Harris Boulevard, and west of Old Potters Road in District 2, Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning, MX3, proposed zoning into ACD.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

After staff's presentation, we will have Miss Grant join us, and she'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

Yep.

Uh petition 2025092 is an undeveloped site, approximately 27.82 acres, located along this um north and south side of Pete Brown Road near the intersection of old Statesville Road.

Site's currently zone MX3, mixed use conditional, proposed zoning into A C D, neighborhood 2A conditional.

2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type into a district is inconsistent with this place type and approval of this rezoning would revise that policy map.

29 the site is a portion of a larger 129-acre rezoning from 2007, titled for more than 2,000 units and over 700 square feet of commercial space.

Um this portion of this site plan uh proposed single family detached under that 2007 rezoning.

Uh this rezoning proposal calls for the development of up to 113 townhome units.

Primary access will be from Pete Brown Road and an extension of public street stubs from the adjacent Griffith Lakes development, uh which this site was a portion of a 25-foot class B landscape yard will be provided along the north side of Pete Brown Road, which separates the site from existing single family development to the south.

Building shall be limited to a maximum of five units each.

Uh the facade facades will include blank wall limitations, transparency requirements, articulation, and uh varied architectural features, porches and stoops if provided.

Uh we'll have a minimum dimension of six feet for porches and three feet for stoops.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

Site's currently zone MX3 and is a portion of a larger site, primarily designated as the community as a community activity center by the 2040s policy map that contains townhome development.

This proposal is compatible with the previous MX3 entitlements.

The petition commits to dedicating a greenway easement to Mecklenburg County Park and Rec.

And the site is currently served by transit and is located along the proposed links red line commuter rail and is within three quarters of a mile of the proposed Harris Station.

Happy to take any questions following Ms.

Grant's presentation.

All right.

Welcome, Ms.

Grant.

Good evening, Mayor Pro 10, members of Council, Bridget Grant, land use consultant with Moran Van Allen.

It's a pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of Toll Brothers.

My client Robert Price is still here with us this evening.

Max did a great job on the presentation, as he mentioned.

This was part of a previously approved rezoning.

We're making a modification to it, and we're happy to answer any questions.

I do have a presentation, but it's not up.

That's not a good question.

Any questions?

Second.

All right.

All in favor of closing public hearing, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

Thank you, Ms.

Grant.

We'll move on to agenda item 29.

Petition number 2025093 by Flywheel Group.

The location is approximately 0.43 acres, located south of North Tryon, east of Matheson, and north of Chick Godley Road in District 1, my district.

The current zoning is ML2, proposed zoning TODNC.

Staff recommends approval of this petition, and there are no presenters.

So we'll we will just proceed with staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I'll just wait for our computer to load the presentation on the large screen.

We have the tech gremlins with us tonight.

All right.

This is just under half acre, located south of North Trion Street, just nearby the 36th Street station, north of Chick Rodley Road, and east of Matheson Avenue, in an area where we've seen again similar to the other TOD petition earlier, a lot of transition over from industrial or uh previously industrial uses over to transit supportive projects.

This is currently zone manufacturing logistics too, and they're proposing to take it to transit oriented development neighborhood center.

This is consistent with the 2040 policy maps recommendation for the innovation mixed use place type.

This is a conventional petition, so there is no associated site plan.

Staff does recommend approval of this petition.

It brings the site into alignment.

The zoning into alignment with the policy maps recommendation for the innovation mixed use place type.

36th Street station has close proximity to this site.

And uh there is just generally a lot of development happening with transit supportive projects and mixed use development occurring.

And I'll take questions.

And a recent grocery store and bank and other development just that just went up a little a little further down the road.

Um I'd like to see more, so I'll have I'll follow up with some questions on this one because I'd like to see it a little bit more about what's actually being planned and double-click on it.

So I'm okay for now.

Is there a motion to close public?

Second.

All right, all in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

We'll move on to agenda item number 32.

Petition number 2025098 by High Street District Development Inc.

The location is approximately 7.09 acres, located south on the south side of Pineville Matthews Road, east of Carmel Commons Boulevard, and west of Bannington Road in Mr.

Driggs District District 7.

The current zoning is OFC.

Proposed zoning is CAC 1 C D.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

After staff's presentation, Miss Grant will join us again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This site is uh just over seven acres located on the south side of Pineville Matthews Road, east of Carmel Commons Boulevard, and west of Bannington Road.

Site is currently developed with an office building.

And zoned OFC, the proposed zoning of CAC1 CD.

The 2040 policy map recommends the community activity center place type.

The proposal would allow for 380 multifamily stacked dwelling units as well as 4500 square feet of non-residential uses.

Public and private open space areas would be between building envelopes around the perimeter of the site.

An eight-foot planting strip and 12-foot multi-use path along Pineville Matthews Road and 8-foot planting strip and eight-foot sidewalk along Carmel Commons Boulevard.

There's a proposed pedestrian cross access in the southeastern corner of the site.

Building height would be limited to 80 feet or 120 feet with bonus provisions.

Provides a menu of possible open space components, of which the petitioner is committing to implementing at least four of those.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

The CAC place type promotes a variety of uses such as retail, restaurant, office, and multifamily residential in a walkable and transit-friendly environment.

In an activity center characterized by segregated uses, the petition would combine multifamily stacked dwellings with 4,500 square feet of non-residential uses on one parcel.

Site is served by Cat's Bus Route 51, providing transit access between Carolina Place Mall, Arboretum Shopping Center, and the Matthews Independence Park and Ride.

We'll turn it over to the petitioner and answer any questions after her comments.

Okay.

Ms.

Grant.

Good evening, Bridget Grant, land use consultant with Moran Van Allen.

Pleased to be here tonight on behalf of High Street District Development and Tom Burr is with me here tonight as well.

We are pleased to be bringing forward a petition that is consistent with the adopted land use policy.

We are thrilled to have staff support and no neighborhood opposition, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

And it's second.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed?

That is unanimous.

We will move on to petition item 33.

Petition number 2025099 by Crest River District LLC.

The location is approximately 63 acres located on the west side of Dixie River Road, north of Westbound Drive, and south of Saddler Road in the ETJ in District 2, Miss Leaks District, closest to District 3, Miss Brown's district.

Current zoning is N1A, NMX 2.

IN NOV and proposed zoning is MX2 Innovative INOVSPA.

The staff recommends approval of this petition.

And after staff's presentation, Mr.

Suddreth will have three minutes.

Thank you.

The site is under development right now for 488 multifamily residential dwellings of different types.

It is adjacent to the river district.

Current zoning is MX2 innovative for 61 acres, just one acre that is currently zoned N1A with a proposed zoning of MX2 Innovative Site Plan Amendment.

The 2040 policy map recommends the community activity center place.

The proposal would add one acre, a one-acre parcel to a 61-acre parcel for a total of 62 acres, would increase the number of residential dwelling units of all types by 22 for a total of 510 residential dwelling units, while maintaining all previous commitments for development standards and transportation improvements.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

It is consistent with the policy map recommendation for the community activity center place type.

CAC place type promotes a variety of uses such as retail, restaurant office, and multifamily family residential in a walkable and transit-friendly environment.

The petition proposes to incorporate a one-acre parcel into a previously approved plan and to add a proportional number of residential dwelling units to the site while maintaining all previous equipped commitments for development standards and transportation improvements.

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr.

Sudra.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Edwin Sudreth with a Dura representing Crescent Communities for this project.

As Staff had mentioned, it's really just a uh site plan amendment to include that one acre parcel from the previous rezoning that was not included in the original rezoning.

Um since that time, the applicant has um acquired that land, so trying to incorporate that into the holistic river north rezoning as it was deemed at the time.

Um and have you take any questions you might have.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions?

Money to close.

Yes, I don't have a question at all because you will be dealing with your new representative.

Thank you.

Second.

All right, I have a motion and second.

All in favor, raise hands.

Any opposed.

That is unanimous.

Thank you, Mr.

Sudden.

We will move on to agenda item 34, petition number 2025 101 by Jordan's Pond Holdings Company LLC.

The location is 0.73 acres, located on a north side of on the north corner of Valley Dale Road and Fred D.

Alexander Boulevard and south of Ben Livingston Road in District 2, Mr.

Graham's district.

The current zoning is I2C D N1B and ML2.

Proposed zoning is in 1F.

Staff recommends approval of this petition, and after staff's presentation, we will have Mr.

Carmichael back.

Thank you.

This is sorry.

And there's opposition for this one.

So after after Mr.

After Staff's presentation, Mr.

Carmichael, you'll have 10 minutes.

And let's see.

Quentin Mann is Quentin Mann still here.

Okay.

Mr.

Mann, you'll have 10 minutes.

Thank you.

This site is three quarters of an acre located at the intersection of Fred D.

Alexander Boulevard and Valley Dell Road.

It is currently zoned three different districts.

I2 Conditional, which is general industrial conditional from the legacy ordinance.

Neighborhood 1B to the just a small portion of it, just on the north side, and manufacturing logistics too on the eastern portion of the site.

They are proposing to go to neighborhood 1F, which is consistent with the policy maps recommendation for the neighborhood one place type at this site.

This is a conventional petition, so there is no associated site plan.

Staff does recommend approval of this petition.

It would bring the site into alignment with the policy maps recommendation for neighborhood one at the site and remove any undesirable industrial zoning on the property, which does directly abut single family uses.

Site is located at the intersection of a major and minor arterial, making an appropriate location for slightly more intense residential zoning, abiding lower density neighborhood one districts along the site's northern boundary.

The property is also bisected by utility easement that would limit the total developable area and would provide a natural buffer between this site and the existing single family that's just to the north of the property.

I'll take questions following petitioner and opposition comments.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Carmichael.

You have 10 minutes.

Thank you so much.

Um, Madam Mayor Pro 10 members of Council and the Zoning Committee.

Um I do have a presentation I'd like to be able to share if I can.

Yeah, okay.

I'm not going to take 10 minutes, by the way.

Thank you.

So Madam Mayor Pro Tem members of the council and the zoning committee.

I'm John Carmichael here on behalf of the petitioner, Jordan's Pond Holding Company, LLC.

With me and I do with me tonight is John Maxwell, the petitioner.

The site is a small site.

It contains just over seven-tenths of an acre.

It's located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Fred D.

Alexander Boulevard and Valley Dale Road.

That's a signalized intersection.

It's a intersection of a major and a minor arterial.

This is an aerial of the site.

It's outlined in green.

It's Fred D.

Alexander Boulevard running north-south Valley Dale East West.

This is a zoomed-in area.

The site is outlined in green here.

Once again, it's just over seven-tenths of an acre.

This is the a 68-foot wide Duke Power Utility easement that runs through a portion of the site.

This is the utility easement that Ms.

Kramer is referring to.

About a 30-foot wide portion of that 68-foot-wide Duke Power Utility easement is located along this portion of the seven-tenths of an acre site.

Residential structures could not be located in that utility easement.

So the utility easement itself would provide a buffer between the residential uses to the north and any residential structures located on the site.

So this is an unusual site.

It has three zoning classifications.

I2 is a legacy industrial zoning district under the prior ordinance.

ML2, this portion of the site is zone ML2, which is what I2 converted to under our transition to rather under the new UDO.

So these two portions of the site are zone I2 C D and ML2.

And then this corner portion here is zone N1B.

Right here, this portion of zone N1B, which is a residential zoning classification.

Parcels to the north are also zone N1 N1B.

To the west is an N2B zone parcel that's owned by the petitioner, but it's not subject to this rezoning application.

South of the site, you've got parcel zone I2CD.

Those are across Valley Dale Road from the site.

And across Fred D.

Alexander from the site, you got parcel zone I2CD and ML2.

The request is zones the site, rezoned the site from I2CD, ML2, and N1B to N1F to the M1F zoning district to accommodate uses allowed in the N1F zoning district.

This is a conventional rezoning request.

That is consistent with the 2040 policy map.

The policy map has this as a neighborhood one place type.

And once again, um we feel like the uses here would be compatible with those surrounding uses to the north.

I said at the meeting that the N1F zoning district does not allow multifamily stacked dwelling units.

What it should have said is it done allow them by right, it allows them under prescribed conditions.

So I saw that today.

I didn't prepare the report, a colleague did, so I didn't look at it until this morning, but I wanted to bring that to your attention so that the record is clear.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Appreciate your consideration.

Okay.

Any comment or question?

We have the opposition.

Oh, yes.

Mr.

Mann, come on now.

And thank you for sticking with us for so long.

It's been a long night.

It has been a long night.

How we feel.

I want to leave everybody up.

We did too.

We're here with you.

Appreciate that.

Some of us.

Very few.

You have 10 minutes, sir.

It's not going to take me that long.

I'm a resident of this area, which they're trying to rezone.

I moved back and forth from Connecticut two years before I bought my house, and I bought it simply because I was told it was going to stay a wooded area.

About five years into me owning my property, Fred D.

Alexander come running through.

Since Fred D.

Alexander came through there, our traffic has picked up.

Accidents have picked up.

They cut half of parts of the Valley Dale, that little um zone where it says and dash B.

They cut that portion of that uh parcel down to run Valley Dale up to Rosdales Ferry.

The trees that was there, they buffered the train tracks.

They buffered a lot of noise that was coming off of Rosells Ferry.

Since then, noise picked up, trash picked up.

I don't see nobody from Jordan's Pond coming weekly picking up trash.

I do that and been doing that for about 14 years now.

So for them to add some more houses there, you're gonna add more traffic, you're gonna add more trash.

With the zoning that's been going on in the area, a lot of kids have been displaced from the schools they were going to.

My daughter was going to Paul Creek after they put this rezoning in in other areas around the area.

My daughter had to move to a different school after three years of Paul Creek.

So this is not just gonna affect me, but it's gonna affect all the other people in the neighborhood.

So I'm not just my kids are out of school now, graduated college, thank God.

But there's other children that's in the area that's going to be infected if they add more homes to this split this space here.

And if they cut down the trees, now we're gonna get traffic noise from off of uh Fred the Alexander.

No one cares about rezoning until it comes into the neighborhood.

And I care about this rezoning here, and it's gonna affect more than just me.

It's gonna affect the children, it's gonna affect our abilities to get around traffic.

I don't want my neighborhood to turn it to university city.

I don't want to you turn it to university where we can't get home for 45 minutes at a five minute drive when nobody's there.

So I would urge you to decline this petition so that our neighborhood can stay a neighborhood.

Let the kids come out and play.

Because right now with the addition of Fred the Alexander, my my neighborhood used to be a dead end.

But now there's a cut through.

So now we have cars cutting through our neighborhood to get down on Valley Dale faster.

So if you want that at your house, fine.

I don't want that at my house.

It's putting children in jeopardy.

That's all I got to say.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um and you should wait around at the top in case council has any questions for you.

But I welcome Mr.

Carmichael down for his two-minute rebuttal.

Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tim.

Um the schools, the CMS did provide school information for this rezoning request.

Um he's certainly right that Paul Creek Elementary is overcrowded, it's at 115%.

Coolwood's at 79, and West Mecklenburg's at 75 percent.

CMS did state that um the development allowed under the that it's such a small site that the development may not add any students to the schools.

Um so that's just take that for what it is.

That's their statement.

But we do recognize that Paul Creek is at 115 percent.

Coolwood is at 79 and West Mexican 75 percent.

Um trees, if the site is developed, trees, whether it's under this zoning per pursuant to this rezoning request or under the existing zoning, trees would be removed from the site to accommodate uh the development.

Um that's I that's all I really have to say in response to that.

We've appreciated his comments, and we're happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay.

Um I'll start off the questions and then I'll go to you.

Just one quick question.

You we don't see a whole lot of uh N1Fs come through.

Can you uh tell us why this one is uh N1F versus uh N2?

Well, the we the to be frank with you, we had a discussion with planning about N2 at first, and planning said it's of neighborhood one place type, so you need to go to N1F.

Okay.

So and and we certainly wanted to try to be consistent with the policy map.

It's just interesting because we haven't seen two.

Well, that's you know, that you know, when at the uh I mentioned my misstatement of the community meeting.

I don't think I've ever done anything that's been an NF N1F either.

Yeah, absolutely.

Okay, Ms.

Johnson.

Yeah, uh, thank you.

A couple things.

Um you bring up a good point that N1F is unique, right?

So again, this is another conventional petition.

So we don't have a site map.

We can't answer to the resident, and we have somebody opposed of what's going to be built with the conditional, we'd have a site plan, we'd be able to negotiate with for concessions with the petitioner.

So I don't understand why this one was filed as a conventional, so close to a single family neighborhood.