Zoning meetings demanding to be heard through our wonderful district four coalition.

Your voices have shaped this district's direction.

I'm sitting here tonight because you showed up, because you stayed engaged, and because you never stop believing in what we could accomplish together.

I also want to express my sincere appreciation to the organizations and community partners who publicly endorsed my re-election.

Your support was not simply political, it was a statement about integrity, accountability, and community-centered leadership.

Thank you to the Black Political Caucus, to the Charlotte Observer, to the Charlotte Firefighters Association, to the Charlotte Metrolina Labor Council, SE, IU, the Red White and Blue, North Carolina, and unite here, North Carolina.

Your trust, your advocacy, and your commitment to working families in vulnerable communities mean more to me than words can express.

Equity, transparency, compassion, and courage.

We face big decisions in this city.

Affordability, transportation, infrastructure, small business support, and community stability.

I will continue to push for solutions that put people first.

Like you said, I'm looking forward to working beside you.

Put people first, especially those with the least protection and the least power at the table.

District 4 represents what Charlotte can be.

I hope you are too.

My name is Ed Dregs.

I am the Charlotte City Council Member for District 7, and I chair the planning, uh Transportation Planning and Development Committee.

And in that capacity, I'm going to be leading our discussion tonight.

We will start with introductions, beginning with Ms.

Johnson.

Happy holidays.

My name is Renee Johnson, and I'm honored to represent District Four.

Happy holidays as well.

My name is JD Masueta Adias, probably representing the East Side, District 5.

Happy holidays.

Thank you for joining us.

I'm Lawana Mayfield.

I serve you at large.

Uh Kimberly Owens representing District Six.

Good evening, everyone.

Happy holidays, James Mitchell, Mayor Pro Tim.

Ed Driggs, District 7, like I said before.

Alison Craig, Deputy City Manager.

Good evening, Dante Anderson, District 1.

Good evening, Joy Mayo, District 3.

Happy holidays.

I'm Victoria Watlington, and I have the pleasure of serving you as a member at large.

Andrea Leslie Fight, City Attorney.

Harry Hagler Gray, Senior Assistant City Attorney.

Billy Tones, Deputy City Clerk.

Thank you.

So we will begin our meeting with an invocation.

Expressions and inspiration followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

The invocation by the council member is intended to solemnize our proceedings.

We celebrate the religious diversity of our community, including those without a religious faith.

Tonight, Councilmember Mitchell will give our invitation.

Okay.

Well, please stand.

Let us bow ahead.

Oh, wise and gracious father in this season of your holiday and at its season of joy.

Let this council spread joy this evening to the citizens of Charlotte.

Let joy be our theme for this holiday season.

And have it followed.

Let us remember the real season for this holiday.

What all believers under my voice say Amen.

Amen.

Amen.

It's Pledge of Allegiance.

I present the United States of America.

And to the Republic.

For which it stands one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

So uh and that has to do with our calendar.

Um I have I think the description here.

Yeah.

Uh so um this is the proposed 2026 City Council meeting schedule.

Colleagues, you may remember this was up last week, and we had some discussion about certain items in it, and therefore tonight we will vote on a um a modified schedule that I hope is acceptable to everyone.

So, do I have a motion to approve the 2026 City Council regular and budget meeting schedule?

Dr.

Waddington.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to get to my iPad.

Uh some of the none, all in favor.

I think that's unanimous.

Okay, good.

So now we can go on to our zoning meeting.

Uh I want to explain uh the zoning process before we kick off.

Uh it begins with applications submitted to the planning staff for review.

So the uh petitioners who want to rezone something will submit their proposal to the staff, and the staff will evaluate it.

Uh tonight we will have two types uh on the agenda.

We will have decisions, and we will have hearings.

The decisions are on cases for which a public hearing was previously held, typically last month, maybe sooner.

Um, and there will not be any further public comment on those.

So they will come up for a vote.

We'll discuss them as necessary, and then we will vote.

The hearings, uh, anyone who wishes to speak is asked to see the clerk before the start of the hearing.

And I emphasize you must uh register with the clerk before the hearing starts.

She will not accept any registration of speakers after the hearing starts.

Uh we will have staff presentations, and the petitioner and those in favor get three minutes combined to present the case, unless there are opponents signed up to speak, or if staff is in opposition.

In that case, the petitioner gets ten minutes after the staff presentation.

Opponents get a total of ten minutes, and I emphasize a total.

So if there are several people who want to speak, you need to work out how you deliver your message in a total of ten minutes.

And um, and then the petitioner has two minutes to rebut what the opponent said.

Uh if no one is opposed or signed up to speak, staff provides the short presentation.

The public is hearing is closed, and we move on to the next public hearing.

The petition goes to the zoning committee after the hearing of the planning commission for review and recommendation.

And at this point, I would like to introduce zoning committee chair Doug Welton and ask him to introduce his colleagues.

Mr.

Walton.

Thank you, Ed.

Um I am the chairman of the zoning committee of the planning commission.

Allow me to introduce my fellow committee members.

They are Melissa Gaston, Aaron Shaw, Teresa McDonald, Robin Stewart, Carolyn Millen, and Michael Caprioli.

The zoning committee will meet on uh Tuesday, January 6th at 5 p.m.

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

The public is welcome to those meetings, but please note it is not a continuation of the public hearing that is being held here tonight.

Prior to that meeting, you are welcome to contact us to provide input.

You can find contact information and information about all of the petitions that are uh on the um agenda tonight at the city's website at CharlottePlanning.org.

Thank you very much.

And back to you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh the next thing we will consider is deferrals and withdrawals.

So in some cases, we have items uh on our agenda, and uh the petitioner says I don't want to do it, I want to do it later.

Uh so uh or they can be withdrawn.

And in order to hear what those are, I would ask Ms.

Kramer to tell us which ones are deferred or proposed for deferral or withdrawal.

Thank you.

Item number seven, petition 2025-076 by Kevin Guyon is deferring his decision to January 20th.

Item number 13, petition 2025 021 by Harold Jordan, deferring decision to January 20th.

Item number 14, petition 2025-027 by Mission City Church and Freedom Communities, deferring decision to January 20th.

Item number 15, petition 2025-031 by Christopher Martin, deferring decision to January 20th.

Item number 16, petition 2250 98 by High Street District Development, deferring decision to January 20th.

Item number 19, petition 2025-025 by Angelo Tillman, deferring decision to January 20th.

Item number 26, petition 225-063 by Northwood Raven, deferring disdeferring their hearing to January 20th.

I'm number 27, petition 2025-091 by Embark Development Company LLC, deferring hearing to January 20th.

I'm number 28, petition 2025 102 by LMD and Wright Homes, deferring hearing to January 20th.

I'm number 31, petition 2025-088 by Northway Homes LLC, deferring hearing to January 20th.

Item number 32, petition 2025-094, ATOPCO properties inc deferring hearing to January 20th.

I number 34, petition 2025-085 by HK Cedarville LLC, deferring hearing to January 20th.

And finally, item number 35, petition 2025-04 by Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority deferring their hearing to January 20th.

Thank you, Ms.

Kramer.

Do I have a motion to defer those items?

So move.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor.

Looks like that's unanimous.

Okay.

Uh so now we will move on to our decisions.

And first decisions we consider are the ones on our consent agenda.

So rezoning petitions uh items four through twelve, with the exception of item seven, which has been pulled, 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 to the position at the hearing.

The staff recommends approval, the zoning committee recommends approval, and there were no changes after the zoning committee's recommendation.

So at this point, I'd like to ask if anybody would like to have one of these items pulled out for a separate vote or discussion.

I see Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

Item number five, eight, and ten for separate vote.

Okay.

Umbody else, right?

So in that case, I 10 and 7 anyway.

So then do I have a motion to approve items four, six, nine, eleven, and twelve.

So move.

Second.

Give me first.

All right.

Well, that's all in favor.

Any opposed.

Okay.

That passes.

So now we'll move to the uh the ones that were pulled out.

Item number five.

Um do I have a motion to approve item number five.

Council Mayfield wanted to say I'm going to speak to a little bit on that motion.

All right.

So uh move.

Second.

Yeah.

Okay.

So any discussion.

Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

Question for staff and just for clarification.

We have five previously approved rezoning.

Just wondering, are we tracking to see if those five that have previously been approved have actually been completed?

In the vicinity of this area, are you referring to the ones on the rezoning history map?

Right.

I can provide that information to you and a follow-up report.

I will just note uh we have a new staff analysis coming online in the new year, and in not rezoning history map.

We would provide updates on those projects listing and listed in the rezoning history map.

So you would have that information on hand in the staff analysis directly.

Thank you.

And for colleagues, we have a couple of projects out there that were approved.

Land may have been cleared.

We even have one where streets have been identified.

That project came to a halt back January 5th of this year, and no development has happened.

So as we're looking at moving forward, I appreciate the fact that staff is going to start giving us the update, so I wanted to have a chance for that to be presented.

Okay, any other discussion?

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

Any opposed?

Um I think that's unanimous, Ms.

Waddlington.

Are you okay?

Good.

Good.

Uh the next item was item eight.

Do I have a motion to approve agenda item eight?

So no second.

Okay, any discussion.

Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

Looking at this, this is another one that we have identified as partially being inconsistent, and I just want to get clarification on staff's recommendation, considering this is an additional 113 multifamily units coming into this area.

Yeah, that's a great question.

So when we looked at this inconsistency, we were judging it against variables when we're looking at a potential change to a neighborhood to place type.

So there's items such as what are the adjacent place types that it is next to, what type of road does it front, what is the minimum acreage, and what are the locational criteria items that it is meeting?

So it meets some of those preferred adjacencies that is directly abutting a community activity center.

We know has mixed use entitlements on it.

It has also the preferred adjacency of neighborhood one.

It also meets some of the locational criteria in terms of being near some bus routes.

That would be located along the site itself.

It's generally located near large transportation corridors along Old Statesville Road and meets some of those items that we would look for when looking at a neighborhood two place type designation for this site.

It's within a three-quarters of a mile of the future red line commuter rail and the Harris station.

That would be there at um along the red line, excuse me.

Thank you.

So uh we have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Council member Drake's.

I just want to make sure that the motion includes uh uh adoption of the consistency statement.

Oh, okay.

I need to read that for these.

Sorry, okay.

Let's do that.

So um is there uh a motion just to correct the motion?

Is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own?

So move.

Second.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor.

Any opposed?

Two opposed.

Okay, I believe that was eight, and now we have ten, right?

Yeah, so agenda item 10.

Um, do I have a motion to approve agenda item 10, which for good order's sake?

So move.

Second.

Okay, we got that.

Uh any discussion, Mayfield.

Thank you.

And this is for the petitioner and staff.

I would like to do a check-in.

When this was originally negotiated back in 2017, there was a commitment and a contract for us to have workforce versus in mo both in multifamily and for sale product.

Up to this point, I haven't seen where in the for sale product that particular part of the commitment has been identified.

So I would like to get an update with the team on where we are on that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh we have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor, please raise your hand.

Okay.

I think that's unanimous.

So uh, Madam Attorney, do we need to go back and fix the other two?

Uh uh no.

If the council agrees, I think that we can do that by consent.

All right.

So the vote that we took then conforms to the language.

Okay, just so we're all clear on that.

Um now we come to the non-consent itemized uh decisions, and we have several referrals.

Item 17.

So the first one is rezoning petitions item 17.

Rezoning petition 2024 127 by Wood Partners, approximately 19.49 acres located on the west side of Prosperity Church Road, along either side of Notta Park Circle and Butner Trail Lane, southeast of Benfield Road.

Current zoning is N1A.

Proposed zoning is N2C, neighborhood 2C conditional and NCCD neighborhood center conditional.

The zoning committee voted 6 0 to recommend approval of this petition.

Staff recommends approval.

Uh do I have a uh is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own.

So moved.

Second.

All right, discussion.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, uh Councilmember.

As the councilwoman representing the district, I want to be very clear about both my vote and my responsibility to the residents affecting affected by this rezoning.

I am deeply sympathetic to the families who will be displaced as a result of this development.

Many residents made a significant investment by owning their mobile homes, and it's especially painful when stability is disrupted through no fault of their own.

I do not minimize this hardship.

However, under North Carolina law, City Council does not have the authority to prevent the sale of privately owned land to deny a rezoning solely to stop displacement.

Mobile homes are treated as personal property, and the underlying landowner has the legal right to sell this property.

For that reason, while this outcome is difficult, our hands are tied in respect to stopping the transaction itself.

And I would also add that a letter was mailed to residents uh today, or actually hand delivered to residents today, that uh the was a notice to vacate by June 21st, 2026.

Because of these limitations, my focus has been on the mitigation and advocacy since the learn since learning of this sale.

I've worked to ensure residents received clear information, language access through translators, and multiple meetings, and opportunities to understand the law and their options.

As a result, the developer responded and engaged with the residents, and the developer has now offered so Ms.

Johnson, we we can't discuss any arrangements between the developer and the residents.

I've talked to our legal department today.

I talked yeah.

Yeah, we did.

We did um speak with Ms.

Johnson about um what she may speak about with respect to this hearing.

All right, so you have worked that up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so the developer has offered financial assistance, uh, additional rent relief, and a move out timeline to be extended to reduce the disruption for children and families.

Residents are being noted notified, and another letter again was handed out today advising them that they have six months to relocate.

While this timeline is not ideal, I will continue to advocate for resources, connections to alternative housing options and support through this transaction.

My vote to approve this rezoning does not reflect a lack of concern for the residents impacted.

It reflects the legal framework within the city that we must operate.

I remain committed to standing with the affected families and working to ensure they receive every possible support as they navigate this transition.

Thank you.

So I will be supporting.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

Thank you, Councilwoman Johnson.

I want to first start off by thanking Councilwoman Johnson for your efforts during this process.

Also want to recognize the reality we're facing right now as Latinos and Hispanics.

Uh, in a community that's continuously under attack and criminalized.

This is unfortunate.

This is devastating.

And rest assured you've had a council member and other council members on this dies making sure that the communication has been effective and that the least amount of harm has been done to this community.

If you don't mind Mr.

Drake, I'll address the community members in Spanish.

Thank you, Mr.

Drake.

Seeing no other comment, I'll just mention briefly this was really difficult for all of us.

In my 12 years, I've never seen a situation of this kind.

But I just want to thank Ms.

Johnson for her stewardship of the thing and uh steering us through to a result that I think was the right result uh and express my own uh sympathy with people who are disadvantaged as a result.

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Uh so uh seeing no other speakers, uh we have a motion.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

Okay.

All right, good.

Our next case is put on my specs here.

Uh 2024 129 by Brookhill Investments LLC.

Approximately 42.47 acres located on the west side of South Tryon Street, north side of Remount Road, east of Toomey Avenue, and south of Tremont Avenue in Miss Mayo's district.

The current zoning is N2B.

The proposed zoning is N2B, Brookhill Village Overlay, and CAC 1, Brookhill Village Overlay, Community Action Center 1, Brookhill Village Overlay.

The zoning committee recommendation was four to two in favor.

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

Um at this point I will uh entertain a motion.

Where's my script?

So move.

Second.

Hold on, let me read it.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I'm gonna get in trouble.

Uh is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own.

So move.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, Ms.

Anderson and then I have Ms.

Johnson and Mayfield.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs, and I just wanted to say this has been uh uh a project and effort that's been uh in progress and in process for a very very long time.

We've had conversations here um in zoning meetings and other uh zoning meetings over the last several months.

I have been working with um uh with Cullen and Mr.

Griffin and others.

I've been out to the site several times.

This is really and truly an opportunity to bring some um economic vibrancy to an area that has been effectively stayed by um the demolishment of the Brookhill um residents community as a former individual who used to stay in Brookhill and um and I'm very aware of the um environment over in that area.

We have a uh a situation where just across the street there's a lot of growth and a lot of opportunity, but along the South Side homes and Brookhill corridors, we we've been in the same place for a very long time.

I'm very excited about this opportunity to have a unique overlay to bring some something that's very different than we've done here in the Queen City in a unique situation where we have a finite amount of time on a ground lease.

Um so I I will be supporting this effort, and I know that uh the petitioner has the best the best intentions around what can be brought to this area and honoring the past um as we move forward in the future.

So I'm very excited that hopefully we've come to a place where we are in agreement.

Thank you, Mr.

Drake.

Miss Anderson, Ms.

Johnson.

So this one is is challenging for me given the fact that I I just supported a very difficult petition.

But I have a question for city staff because our votes are based on land use.

And there was a challenge with this petition on that land use.

And the city staff was had what was the issue as far as approving it, or why does city staff not supporting it?

We yeah, we had some challenges with the timing of infrastructure improvements and the requirements of when they would be triggered and who would be responsible for those, what would happen uh in the events of some developments that were a little more permanent in nature, not just temporary weekend events or you know things like that.

So those are some areas we had some concern with, but I think we do have some solutions that have even arisen in the last hour, hour and a half, 10 minutes.

So I think we're you know in a in a better place, but I think that's gonna be some directive from council to staff that is aware of some of those solutions to kind of task us with you know getting those done and also confirm that the petitioner would be uh consenting to those, you know, potential additional conditions uh that would help us to you know make that compromise and bridge that gap with staff.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

So uh Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

Dave, I want to thank you and your staff.

I know this one has been a difficult one for you all, but I also want to thank the petitioners.

This has been a challenge for the eight years that I was the representative for district three.

We tried to figure it out.

Our biggest challenge is that we had a hundred year land lease on here.

So anyone that came in, we've had, I think this is iteration maybe five or six five at least on this site.

I had the opportunity to go out and visit, meet with, share some ideas.

Considering this is a 24-year commitment.

I had some concerns with some of the requests that we were looking for as far as investment and whether or not that would be an investment that's financially feasible for this 24 years.

So I am glad to hear that we're trying to figure out how to make this overlay work to bring vibrancy to the area without further displacement.

So the fact that there has been a commitment and relationship of maintaining not only the birth price point housing, but also potentially creating an amenity that is going to welcome the entire community, those that have been there, as well as new residents coming into the area.

I think is a great compromise as we move forward, and I look forward to hearing how we move forward.

But I am happy to support the district of representative on moving forward with this.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember Mayfield.

I'm at time, Ms.

Waddlington.

Um, I'll be brief.

I just wanted to say thank you to the Griffin Brothers, to Colin and Brittany over at Alexander Ricks, um, and to all of the staff members who have been working on this.

As has been mentioned, this has been years and years in the making, and so um I'm very, very happy to be supporting this because to me this shows innovation and what we're willing to do to meet our unique community needs.

We talk a lot about wanting to make sure that we um are addressing Charlotte needs in a way that is speaks specifically to what our community needs, and I think this is an example of that.

So I look forward to the programming that's going to happen.

I look forward to seeing the investment that's made there.

Um, I look forward to the even the tenants that are coming that will help to create um and enhance this the sense of space there, a sense of place there.

Um, and I look forward to visiting and having a good time as these events are put on.

So congratulations to all that have uh been a part of this and look forward to supporting.

So I have a comment.

Do you want to go last?

Yeah, I think the last one.

Yeah, okay.

So um, for one, I wanted to point out staff was not recommended to approval.

They're entirely right.

Uh, this doesn't conform to the rules that we have in place, and therefore our approval of this, in spite of their recommendation, does not reflect at all on the work they did.

Um the thing is here, we are confronted with a really unusual situation.

And I can tell you my wife used to have an office right next to Brookhill, and the condition it was in years ago was uh an eye sort of Charlotte.

It was a blight.

And so we're fortunate that we've seen those 89 units, the development occurred there, and that we now have the prospect of an activation.

And for that reason, the council is going to exercise its discretion in the public interest and go ahead, I believe, and approve this in spite of uh the current the very reasonable uh position being taken by the staff and the split vote uh on the zoning committee.

So uh with that, Ms.

Mayo.

Thank you.

Thanks for your patience.

Um very excited to have worked with staff on this.

We were talking at like one o'clock uh today and really trying to figure out how we can make this work.

Um I've been part of this project for about a year and a half, uh partly with my job seeing the revitalization that y'all have been doing um at Brook Hill, very excited for the existing residents.

Um, even with the new projects that will be coming online with this.

I think it's unique opportunity to live, work and play for maybe people who are disadvantaged who sometimes don't have that opportunity to live within 10 minutes city.

So I think it's the unique opportunity for existing residents in Brookhill, and I'm excited to support this.

Dave, do you mind telling a little bit about some of the um some of the things that you worked with the petitioner in order to now recommend this?

Yeah, so I think the the biggest uh point of clarification that that we need to make is a lot of the conversation again revolved around infrastructure improvements, sidewalks, planting strips, street trees, uh and those were items that in the current uh iteration of this plan uh would essentially be exempt for the project.

I think there was some general maybe some miscommunication on on our side about the expectation of when those types of improvements are delivered.

Uh typically they're delivered when you have a site that's developed with some level of permanence that then triggers through the permit review process that those improvements need to take place.

And when they take place, they're really on just the portion of the site where they're occurring.

It's not the entirety of uh the Brookhill development, it's not every street involved, it's really just that location.

Uh and so you know, continuing to talk to the petitioner and the petitioner's team on this, you know.

I think the goal is to clarify when those triggers would occur, and essentially, you know, items like or events like food truck rallies or farmers markets or you know, events on a weekend, those wouldn't be the types of events that would trigger those improvements and the the expense of those improvements, uh, but things that go through land development that might need a certificate of occupancy or or some level of review from the county for building codes and and stormwater and other things.

Typical development we see where those improvements come online, uh that's where we would parse out when those you know improvements would get made.

And so essentially the direction that that we would like to go and and would be a condition that council, if they are are inclined to recommend that as well, would be to uh request from the petitioner that they you know consider the the condition of clarifying the timing of infrastructure improvements to those types of projects uh that would typically trigger them through the land development process or require a certificate of occupancy.

Uh and if the petitioner would agree to that that additional condition along with all the others that they've already consented to, uh we could work that in and it would be part of uh the development plan and we would get that further clarification that essentially was the sticking point for staff in our recommendation.

So if everybody's on board with that, council, the petitioner staff, you know, we saw some draft language, you know, just prior to the meeting that we're generally comfortable with.

There's probably a few little tweaks that need to be made.

Uh we would feel more comfortable making a favorable recommendation that we continue to move forward and put that in place.

So essentially from council, if the motion would be to uh recommend approval, it would be recommend that approval with that additional condition of clarifying uh the timing of infrastructure improvements uh to those typically found in the land development process.

That would give us enough clarity to understand what the expectation is from from y'all as an elected body.

Uh we can get that worked in with the petitioner, and that set of conditions would then be what governs the property moving forward.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um just note by the way for the public.

I just want to make sure if this is a condition that's being added after zoning committee that we uh that you take the report.

Yes.

No, it would be we could would it be considered a change after zoning committees we would need the vote to not send it back for them to consider it.

And then we would also need if the petitioner is consenting to that, we would need them to come down and state on the record that they they would consent to that.

So college redistate, but it's not handled.

So they've got a statement.

So are you ready to make that statement for the record?

Mr.

Brown?

If I may introduce yourself, Council members Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner.

Uh David's correct, council is correct in summarizing discussions today.

We are comfortable with that condition, and I'll let Mike Griffin, the petitioner, confirm that.

Just say yes.

Yes, Mike Griffin, the petitioner.

Uh we're we're good with that.

So Madam Attorney, are we okay to proceed with the vote?

Uh yes, I think since we're doing it right at the hearing, I think it would be best to for you to have the three quarter vote not to send this back to um zoning committee.

All right, fine.

So do I have to make a motion not to send back to say it changes to the second.

Any discussion?

All in favor.

Okay, so now we can get back to the original motion uh to approve and adopt.

And uh is there any discussion about that?

Yeah, it would be approved and adopted with the audit commission.

Okay, we're all set, right?

So this point I'll have a vote.

Let's all in favor.

Okay.

Congratulations, Ms.

Mayo.

Thank you.

Yay.

Um, so 19 is deferred.

18 is deferred, sir.

Yeah.

19 is deferred, so we move on to agenda item 20.

Zoning petition 2025 031 by James Scrugs.

Approximately 23.37 acres located north of Neal Road, east of Catalyst Boulevard, and south of IBM Drive in Ms.

Johnson's district.

Current zoning is R8MF, multifamily residential conditional.

Proposed zoning is N2B C D, neighborhood 2B conditional.

Zoning committee voted six zip to propose to recommend approval.

The staff recommends approval.

Do I have uh is there a motion?

Uh we do have a change.

So uh and we will so first I need to know uh maybe David, could you explain what the change is?

We can read the changes in.

Uh so this petition uh did make a change after zoning committee.

The petitioner uh had originally committed to providing affordable housing uh for those earning between 80 and 110 percent of area median income.

Uh that note has now been revised to just cap that at uh households earning uh up to 80 percent AMI.

Uh so again that petition then commits now to a minimum of 30 percent of the total multifamily attached dwelling units or townhomes uh to be reserved as affordable housing to households earning 80 percent of AMI for 15 years.

Uh and again staff believes that change is minor uh and does not warrant additional review by the zoning committee.

Sounds good to me.

So uh do we have uh we have a motion and second uh yes, that's right.

The motion not to send it back to the back.

Do we have a motion?

I need a motion that we not send it back.

No, but we need a motion and a second for that motion.

Motion to not send back to the sending back second.

And this is at the three quarters majority vote, right?

All in favor, not sending it back.

Okay, that meets the three quarters majority, so we will not send it back, and therefore we can then get back to the uh petition itself.

Is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen is council's own?

So moved it.

Discussion.

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

Yes, this is in district four, and I'm excited to support it.

Uh you more you all might recall last month this the staff did not support it, but there have been changes, so now the city staff does support it.

This is actually a collaboration.

Um it's Kingdom Development Partners, which is James Scrugs, and I know Hugh McCall is at least one of the partners.

So we're really excited to welcome this development.

We know it's gonna be first class and excellent in district four.

You also heard that there the 30 percent of the units are going to be affordable for sale uh for 80 percent AMI residents.

So this is exactly uh what we say we want more of, and I'm honored to support it today.

And I want to thank the developer James Scrugs and and Mr.

McCall and whoever else is a part of the development team.

Um we're looking forward to uh to this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comment?

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor, say raise your hand.

Good.

Okay.

So we move on to agenda item 21.

Um is 21 where we needed a motion to deny.

Mr.

Driz, can I have acknowledged?

Thank you, Mr.

Drake's.

Um, I would like to um make a motion to deny petition number 2025 042, um, as it is inconsistent with the policy map.

And I have concerns from the community around uh and other reasonable issues related to public health safety and welfare.

Second.

Okay, so now we need a reworded uh motion.

Do we have the language for the motion?

Well, I believe that the motion was to deny, I believe, what um Council Councilmember Anderson said with uh satisfied and consistency and consistency.

Okay, in terms of consistency and things like that.

So discussion period.

Any other any discussion?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

And first, I want to thank everyone who came out and has been involved in this particular petition.

We have worked with the community for months and months on this.

I've deferred this petition for uh a few months, and you all have supported me in that effort to try to get to a better answer with the community for the community.

Um but the reality is over the course of the months, um, the really own the only real movement that we've made is we've been able to secure a high hybrid beacon crosswalk that the city is also paying a portion for.

But the variety of the concerns in the and the community came out tonight.

They've had a litany of concerns that really have not been addressed in a meaningful manner.

And I've spoken to community members, I of course have spoken with uh Ms.

Parker, the leader several times, including today, as well as CMPD law enforcement leadership in this area, and we have real concerns around issues related to uh public health and welfare and safety.

Now I want to be clear that district one is open to affordable housing, um, as I'm sure many of the other districts are, and certainly um this area neighborhood is as well.

Um, however, when we have an over-concentration of a particular housing type that is uh meeting the needs of residents that need other additional services, and I would like to keep in mind that this is also along a corridor of opportunity.

So they are working and clawing and climbing their way out of an impact of disinvestment over the decades, and and I would say doing a great job thus far, and we've been able to make some good traction over the last couple of years, but we have multiple petitions that have been approved as it relates to affordable housing that's only going to be compounded with the existing affordable housing that's there without any real actual infrastructure to support it socially and otherwise.

And and this was a struggle for me.

I'll tell you, I went back and looked at uh not only the Chetty study, but the information coming out of the leading on opportunity um effort.

And one of the main efforts that they underscore is ensuring that we don't have um economic segregation in one particular area where we segregate or isolate those who are in a particular economic strata across the board, that then uh dampens and decreases social capital and social opportunities to advance and thrive.

And so I'm gonna stand with community tonight to say there's more work to be done in this particular corridor so we can continue to advance out of becoming an um uh corridor of opportunity so we can ensure that this community will advance and thrive.

Thank you.

Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

I want to take a moment to thank all of the community members.

Thank you for inviting all of council to come out and meet with you.

But I also want to take the moment to thank Mr.

Anderson, who is the district one representative.

I know this one was difficult, yet you hit on a lot of the challenges that the community share, and community you were very detailed in the concerns.

There wasn't a we just don't want this development here.

There were very clear concerns that were identified, especially with the other projects that we have approved that is going to help grow the area and the idea of a potential of reconcentrate in poverty.

And that is something that we all must take into consideration where we're approving development.

This is an area that has experienced tremendous growth and different opportunities, but we also haven't necessarily seen more job creation in the area to go along and amenities to go along with all of the housing.

The community was steadfast.

You were consistent.

You worked with the representative, you attempted to work with the developer.

So I'm glad that we are at the place where we're able to make a decision, and I do support not only the community, I support our district well on moving forward with this particular decision.

Thank you.

Ms.

Mullington.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

Um, I just want to say thank you for setting the standard and congratulations.

Uh, this is what happens when you work together.

So I appreciate you being an example of collective power, and I look forward to supporting uh the motion on the floor.

All right.

Seeing no further comment, all in favor of denying petition 2025 042.

She came.

Our next item is 2025 057 by Tribeck Properties.

Thank you, Hayden Valley.

Thank you.

2025 057 by Tribeck Properties.

Approximately 2.17 acres located on the southeast corner of Lancaster Highway and Valentine Commons Parkway and west of Adair Manor Court in my district.

Current zoning B1 C D, neighborhood business conditional, proposed zoning B1 C D SPA, a site plan amendment, uh zoning committee recommendations 60 in favor, and staff recommends approval.

Is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own?

I will make that motion.

Go ahead, sir.

You're the second, okay?

Okay, I'll second.

All right.

Is there uh any discussion?

Seeing none, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

57.

Mayfield 2057.

Any opposed?

Sorry, zero.

All right, we're good.

My apologies.

Yes.

Good.

Good.

The next item is agenda item 23, rezoning petition 2025 095 by Gus Levy.

Uh, approximately 0.26 acres located west of Statesville Road, south of Hutchinson McDonald Road, and north of Riley Avenue in District 2, Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is N1B, neighborhood 1B.

Proposed zoning is CG, which is general commercial.

The zoning committee recommends 60 to recommend approval of this petition.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

Uh, is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own?

So move.

Second.

All right.

Any discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor.

Okay, we're humming along here.

Our next item is agenda item 24, petition 2025 097 by JBJH Investments LLC, approximately 1.22 acres located west of North Trion Street, south of Orchard Trace Lane, and north of Graham Meadow Drive in Ms.

Anderson's district.

Current zoning is TOD-TR, transit-oriented development transition.

Proposed zoning is CG C D, General Commercial Conditional.

The zoning committee voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the petition.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition.

So move.

Second.

Discussion.

Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

So we have a current zoning of TOD, which there has been a lot of work, and I have not necessarily been the biggest fan of TOD yet.

To have a conversation of a general commercial, basically to have a drive-thru in this area is a bit concerning, and the fact that staff did not support it because of the inconsistencies and what we have identified for TOD.

I know that back in I would say 2019-2020 when I was not on council, we there was a conversation of banking drive-through that was in our TOD area that I did support as a community member, but I was also at the height of COVID.

People weren't able to go inside.

Rezoning cases don't set individual precedences, precedence.

Um, but I will say, like you said, financial institutional uses are a bit different and there's nuance there to be considered.

But in terms of what precedence does this set, none everything would be considered still on a case-by-case basis as it comes forward.

Our policy is still to not recommend drive-through uses in TOD areas and new drive-through facilities within activity center place types.

With the idea of our TOD areas, that's also around our transit.

The idea is to create more walkability versus more vehicle traffic.

Yeah, and so directly supporting our trans infrastructure, which we've invested so much into.

Right.

Thank you.

Ms.

Abby.

Thank you, Mr.

Drake's.

Um I just wanted to underscore the fact that uh the community, and and thank you for the comments.

But um the community is is absolutely in favor of this particular rezoning petition, and we again have worked very hard to try to get to a place where we are in alignment um with with what staff would recommend and what what the community needs are.

Um but this is one in particular that is somewhat unique again, um, offering some economic vibrancy and some development in this particular space that the community has been asking for for years, and not only simply the community asking for, but being uh laid out in the playbook for the corridor of opportunity to have some vibrancy and uh investment in this area.

So the communities behind it, we've had a variety of conversations to get it as close as we could to where staff would be.

So I've I will be supporting this particular petition this evening.

And thank you, staff, for working with us over the last couple of months on this.

Yeah, Ms.

Bottlington.

Thank you.

Um I just have a couple questions for staff.

Um my philosophy as it relates to transit-oriented development areas, is that it's got to enhance and uh make sense for what's on the ground today and what's coming.

Um I absolutely understand the idea of wanting transportation-oriented development here.

Um in my mind, transportation or transit-oriented development is really about enabling additional mobility, not necessarily requiring a certain type of mobility.

Um, and to the extent that this particular um site is accessible not only by car, which we know is already going to be on the route, but is also accessible by other modes of transit.

Um, I think that meets the intent, at least for me.

So I just wanted to hear a little bit about what are the uh multimodal options in terms of uh in uh entering and exiting this site.

So for I think for the multimodal options, I'll probably have to defer to our partners in CDOT to discuss some of those.

I think just as you mentioned from just that kind of philosophical standpoint of these types of uses in TOD and some other areas.

Uh TOD TR, which this was zoned in the past prior to the UDO did allow for drive-thru uses as a standalone use.

Uh it is something that as a staff we've been talking about internally for a while.

Do we need to go back and take a look at some of those ideas that uh if these uses were existing in some of those districts that they were before, are there ways to design them to enhance mobility to enhance uh you know the the overall site design to where it may be somewhat auto-oriented, but is there ways to offset that with you know better mobility options?

Uh and it may be that it's a differentiation between uses like banks and pharmacies and restaurants because they do carry different trip uh generations and different impacts from an auto-oriented standpoint.

So that's something that I think we recognize we need to do a little bit more homework in, and I think that's something we'll be working through in the earlier part of 2026.

Uh not sure what the outcomes will be, but they certainly would be coordinated with uh the TPD committee uh and work through that process.

Uh but it just so we can put that out there that it's something that we recognize that because trion itself is is a very auto-oriented thoroughfare, uh which this is where this is located, even though you have a station right across the street.

Are there ways better ways we can enhance some of those design outcomes to achieve somewhat both, achieve some of that uh kind of middle ground between allowing some of those uses but in a way that doesn't negatively impact what the goals are of those districts?

Uh and so that's something I look forward to us working on and bringing back to y'all potentially as a committee and then maybe as a council as a whole to to maybe consider changes.

As far as again, this particular one uh and some of the multimodal options.

I think uh CDOT could probably better explain what some of those would be.

Uh but just from a holistic standpoint, I wanted to just clarify that uh that it is something we are gonna dig into early next year and be working with you all on.

Thank you.

So we have Ms.

Johnson, I believe.

Uh Mr.

James, I think C DAT was going to address my question.

Sorry?

C Dot.

C dot speaking.

Oh, yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh Jay Carpenter with CDOT.

Um, so along Trion, there is both sidewalk facilities that connect to the south to Tom Hunter and that area as well as to the north to the University City Boulevard area and IKEA Boulevard area, um, as well as bike facilities.

There is a bike lane on uh on Trion connecting both uh both of those locations.

So it is a uh walkable uh multimodal uh area for uh considering the the environment and the location close to transit.

The Tom Hunter station uh for the blue line is approximately 900 feet to the south.

Uh so it is in proximity uh to the station with both uh pedestrian and bicycle options.

Thank you.

So you Ms.

Johnson, yes, you're next.

Thank you.

That was just my question.

The is the only reason staff is not supporting it, is because it is an auto-centric it's the policy disconnect, and we're tied to our policy here.

We understand that the community members are very favorable on this, and we understand even the the state of where Trion is today and where that's going and the nuances between maybe a bank as a drive-through facility use versus a restaurant drive-through facility use.

But when you think about the application of a new general commercial place type where we have a community activity center, that policy disconnect, there isn't enough there for us to find something to support in this petition.

But I will say they've included all the design standards that we've asked for out of this petition.

So we're getting preferred design enhancements to get it as close to something that we would want as possible.

Okay, thank you.

Seeing no further comment, uh, all in favor.

Okay.

Our last decision tonight, agenda item 25.

Petition 2021 2025 101 by Jordan's Pond Holding Company LLC, approximately 0.73 acres located on the north corner of Valley Dale Road and Fred D.

Alexander Boulevard and south of Ben Livingston Road in Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is I2CD, General Industrial 1 conditional, N1B, neighborhood 1B, and ML2 manufacturing and logistics proposed zoning is N1F, neighborhood 1F.

Zoning committee voted 6-0 to recommend approval.

Staff recommends approval.

Is there a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen is the council's own.

Second.

All right.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor.

Okay.

Any upholds opposed?

Was there opposed?

Sorry, miss you over there.

Good.

So now we will move on to our hearings.

Uh I will remind you, as I explained before, the uh general format for our hearings is uh that the staff will make a brief presentation and that those in support will have three minutes to uh state their case, or if there is opposition by the staff or by the public, they will have 10 minutes to state their opposition, and then the petitioner will have two minutes for a rebuttal.

And the first rezoning that is actually on our agenda tonight, I believe item 29.

Yes.

So petition 2025 030 by Trion Advisors LLC, approximately 8.65 acres located on the north side of Mount Holly, Huntersville Road, east of Rosalds Ferry Road, and south of Dunn Commons Parkway and Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning N1A, neighborhood 1A, proposed zoning N2B C D, neighborhood 2B conditional.

Staff recommends approval of this petition on resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

So good evening to you.

Yeah, good evening.

Um petition 2025 030 is an undeveloped portion of a track containing a church.

It's approximately 8.65 acres.

It's located along the north side of Mount Holly Huntersville Road.

Site's currently zone N1A, neighborhood one.

Uh the proposed zoning is in to B C D, neighborhood to B conditional.

2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type for this site.

The N2B district is inconsistent with the in-to-place type, and approval of this rezoning would revise the policy map.

Uh the rezoning proposal calls for the development of up to 70 townhome units and an 18,000 square foot child care center with an option to forego the child care center in exchange for an additional 25 townhome units for a maximum of 95 units on the site.

The petitioner will contribute $50,000 to be applied towards future intersection improvements at Rosals Ferry Road and Mount Holly Huntersville Road.

A payment will be made to the city prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

12-foot multi-use path will be constructed be constructed along the site's frontage and will connect to an existing sidewalk here to the east.

Street trees will be provided along internal alleys between and between buildings.

Town home buildings shall contain no more than six units each.

Walkways will connect units to adjacent sidewalks and architecture requirements such as blank wall limitations, transparency, minimums, porches, stoops, and roof line variation will be provided.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues, the lead transportation and site and building design.

As the site is a budding properties designated as community activity center, commercial and neighborhood two place types by the 2040 policy map.

The proposed neighborhood two zoning could provide a more appropriate transition to the adjacent place types designation than the current in one in one designation.

The development is within a quarter mile, the Mountain Island Marketplace shopping center, which boasts a variety of daily goods and services.

And the site abuts a commercial place type to the east.

Um that's designated by the 2040 policy map at the intersection of Mount Holly Huntersville Road and Rosals Ferry Road.

The plan includes a 12-foot multi-use path to access these businesses.

Thank you.

I have three speakers uh signed up in support.

Bridget Grant, John Beale, and Dan Melvin.

Ms.

Grant, are you the only one that's actually going to speak?

I am, yes, sir.

All right.

Well, why don't you go ahead?

Waiting for the presentation to come up.

Good evening, Councilmember Driggs, Mayor Pro Tem, members of Council, members of the zoning committee.

Bridget Grant, land use consultant with Moran Van Allen.

It's a pleasure to be here tonight with Red Partner, or sorry, Red and Trion Advisors.

As you can see with our petition number 2025 030, we have been working on this matter for some time.

The site is approximately 8.7 acres and is currently part of the Cooks Presbyterian campus.

Cooks has been located on the site on the corner since 1891, and the congregation has witnessed a significant amount of growth in the area.

They decided to sell off a portion of their campus, as many congregations have in recent years.

And when they took it to market, they were looking specifically for a development partner that would bring residential and a daycare center.

As longtime members of the community, they were aware that there was a need and they wanted that to be part of the program.

As staff mentioned, the site is currently zoned NA, but I want to point out it's the only N1A zoning in the area.

When you look at the section of Mount Holly Huntersville Road between Rosals Ferry and Brookshire, you'll see that it's a mix of uses, all of them leaning towards commercial uses or higher density residential.

This pattern is further reflected when you look at the the revised recommendation for the 2040 place type map.

You can see that we have a connect community activity center on one side of us, a neighborhood activity center to the other side, both behind and across the street.

The surround the site is surrounded by N2.

It's our understanding that the reason staff is proposing this is because of the place types that I just described, as well as the site's location near an arterial with access to the interstate, Brookshire, and all the amenities that are in an area.

In addition, this height falls at this site falls in a housing gap area.

So the West Outer Plan hasn't been adopted yet.

It does include information about the area and indicates the area scores at two out of five, indicating a significant gap with lack of housing diversity and few middle density options.

We meet priority goals one and two of the West Outer Plan, and we're going to continue to look to ways to strengthen our alignment with that policy document.

The existing zoning policy goals and a lot of our conversation with the residents to date have brought us to this point.

We've eliminated the daycare center from the site.

That was the highest generating use that we were proposing and have switched this to 95 townhomes only.

We have changed the program to eliminate that again, trying to align the mix of uses on the site with some of the concerns in the area.

We will be adding one access point and relying on shifting an existing access point to the church to better align with this with the street existing across the way.

We'll also provide a left-hand turn lane into the site.

That will be dedicated, and there will be a dedication to accommodate a future widening of Mount Holly Huntersville Road as well as the 12-foot multi-use path.

We've continued to have good dialogue with the residents, and they've continued to bring us ideas for how we could get to a better place on this.

One of our last suggestions, or one of their last suggestions, was for us to provide an access driveway behind Cooks Presbyterian through the existing church campus over to Cool Oak.

And I just want to point out one of the reasons we aren't able to accommodate that is because there's an existing cemetery at Cooks Presbyterian.

And several decades ago, the church leadership deeded this land over for future expansion for Cook's congregation members.

They also asked we make sure that there's enough right-of-way in front of Cooks Presbyterian, the part the portion of the site that's remaining a church to make sure that we could accommodate the widening of Mount Holly Huntersville Road in this location.

So we went back and looked at it, and the church confirmed they have already dedicated the additional right-of-way in this corridor.

So there's about 20 feet of right-of-way behind the existing back of curb that would allow the ability to add an existing travel lane.

In summary, I think it's fair to say we appreciate all the work that we've put in over the past probably eight to nine months.

We changed this to a conditional tier two rezoning to provide more detail.

We've committed to eliminating the daycare center to reduce the number of daily trips.

We've committed to a for-sale product with limitations on the amount of rental you can have.

This is something else that's been very important to the community.

We are providing preferred architectural standards.

We've have our green space adjacent to the existing uses, which ultimately means that we're providing larger buffers, and we're contributing 50,000 for transportation and pet improvements in the area.

The reason we're doing that is because we understand that small projects fly under the radar and don't require traffic improvement studies.

But we're trying to set a precedent that even if you've got to get a smaller project, you're able to do that.

So we appreciate there's a good bit of conversation about traffic, and there's also been a good amount of conversation about housing.

We're trying to find the balance between both.

Happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Now we have no fewer than 47 speakers signed up in opposition.

So I hope you have uh identified who is actually going to speak, and uh you have a total of 10 minutes.

So with those who wish to speak, please come down.

Uh councilmember Jiggs.

And if you would state your name as you come to the microphone.

Are you okay?

Yes, madam attorney with that.

Okay.

Okay.

He's looking yielding to you.

Oh, I'm sorry, I just wanted to make sure Miss Grant was.

I think she had, because she was speaking, she's a petitioner, she had 10 minutes total.

So she had there was another five minutes left.

So I just wanted to make sure she was okay with um, she had she has 10 minutes total as a petitioner.

Uh dude, I thought I saw the clock counting down and that she would exceed it to reach that time.

Yeah, it was on she had five, she there were five minutes left, but I think she was about finished her presentation.

All right, so I did you an injustice.

Do you need more time?

I'm good.

I timed myself a few times, and I thought, wow, I went really slow.

It's all right.

Um very well.

So now if you would uh I assume your names are on this list, right?

Yes, sir.

Okay, if you would state your name and then tell us what you have to say.

You have in total three minutes.

Uh 10 minutes for each uh in total.

In total, yes, sir.

My name is Aaron Olivario.

Um, thank you so much for being here, council members and planning or zoning committee staff.

I'm speaking on behalf of residents who live near the proposed rezoning 2520 25030.

This is the area of district two that surrounds intersection of Highway 16, Rosals Ferry, and Mount Holly Road along Mount Holly Huntersville Road or the Mountain Island Lake area.

We are here to respectfully oppose this rezoning request.

While that we respect the church's right to sell its property and understand the need for growth, rezoning decisions must be consistent with adopted planning policies and the long-term vision for a community.

This position is in this petition is inconsistent with the 2040 policy map and premature given the status of planning work in this area.

The Outer West Area Plan has not yet been finalized, and residents are actively engaged with the hope of shaping a clearer vision for how growth, density, transportation, and neighborhood compatibility should be handled in our community.

Approving a significant rezoning now would affect effectively predetermine the future of this area before that planning work is complete.

We have met with the developer twice in addition to the community, the required community meeting, but we don't feel that those meetings have resulted in meaningful changes to the proposal.

Core concerns, particularly around density, traffic, and access remain largely unaddressed.

And the daycare is a prime example of that.

Since the beginning of this, they have repeatedly stated that they really didn't want the daycare, but we haven't seen a full plan of what it would look like without the daycare in there.

And we met with them six days ago, and the daycare was still in the plan, and that's what staff has been working off of to get their comments directed towards for the last couple of weeks.

A development of this intensity approved ahead of a finalized area plan risks locking in outcomes that may conflict with the community's long-term vision.

I'm a uh nearby resident and have lived there for right at 40 years.

Traffic is the primary concern for residents, and it is already a daily problem, has been for a long, long time.

Mount Holly Hannesville Road is consistently backed up for a half a mile stretch, especially between 3 p.m.

and 7 p.m.

This congestion is not occasional, it is the daily reality for people that live there.

Residents struggle to get home from work, safely enter and exit neighborhoods, navigate an overburdened corridor during peak hours, which leads to using other neighborhoods and places of business as cut throughs to circumvent traffic issues.

We know that's not right.

Because of these conditions, residents have consistently asked for the 2025-030 petitioner to explore alternative access points to relieve pressure on Mount Holly Hannesville Road.

Specifically, we have asked for serious consideration of a connection to Cool Oak Drive or a connection to Duncomm Parkway.

Either option would help distribute traffic more evenly.

However, we do not feel these alternatives have been seriously considered or meaningfully pursued.

The proposal continues to rely entirely on Mount Holly Hannesville Road.

Regarding Mount Holly Hannesville Road, the seller's remaining parcel next door still has one lane frontage.

Even if a second lane would be added in front of the eight rezoned acres, this means that there would still be a bottleneck in front of the seller's property that would be worsened by any development on the next door property.

Adding that right of way was suggested and also not considered by the petitioner.

Compounding the issue, there are no immediate or funded plans to improve this section of roadway.

There are no plans to widen Mount Holly Hannesville Road and no scheduled improvements to fix the Bellhaven intersection or add a dedicated turn lane.

Approving this rezoning would place the burden of increased traffic entirely on existing residents with no clear path to relief.

Thank you for listening and seriously considering what we say.

And hello, I am Kelly Pledger, and I'm going to close on behalf of the community.

And I did want to acknowledge that it was news to us that the church had already ceded their right of way.

So I just wanted to acknowledge that we were given bad information and move on from there.

Under current zoning by right, the latest rezoning transportation analysis posted indicates the petitioner could build 24 single-family homes, generating approximately 272 trips per day.

At the last community meeting six days ago, the petitioners stated their request is now 95 townhomes, which would generate approximately 624 daily trips, which is 2.3 times the impact.

The current traffic to impact of the rezoning parcel is zero.

It houses open land and some empty structures.

The church cellar next door impacts traffic only on Sundays.

Mid morning play school and the occasional evening activities.

Even by right, trips from the rezoned parcel are additive to an already battlenecked area that is congested, lacks committed infrastructure improvements, and sits within an area where long-range planning has not yet been finalized.

Residents are not opposed to development.

We are asking for development that is aligned with adopted plans, responsive to community input, and supported by infrastructure.

Approving rezoning petition 2025 030 now would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and would undermine the purpose of the Outer West Area Plan by looking at additional density decisions before the process is complete.

We understand that staff has indicated their approval for this position on Thursday and are disappointed given that the outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design are still very significant, and this is our last opportunity for public comment.

We acknowledge that the jobs of staff and council in this process are very complex, but this public hearing seems premature, and the staff analysis indicated that it indicates that community input could still truly help.

For example, they cited tonight that Mountain Island Marketplace, excuse me, Mountain Island Marketplace, a quarter mile from the rezoning parcel is a shopping center which boasts a wide variety of daily goods and services, such as retail restaurant and financial institutions.

But since the large grocery store there moved across the highway six years ago, it is now only three fast food restaurants, a drug store, a nail salon, two banks, and an auto parts store, plus a newer urgent care.

These offerings here are not wide enough to support a 10-minute neighborhood goal for this area, and the local infrastructure could not support more traffic, even if options grew there right now.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask you to deny the rezoning petition 2025 030 as currently proposed, or at minimum defer it until after the Outer West area plan is finalized.

We thank you for your time, your service, your consideration, and we wish you joy as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The petitioner now has two minutes to rebut.

Two minutes.

That's what I said.

Yeah, two minutes to rebut.

Okay.

There you go, you got two minutes.

Thank you again.

You can have the entire two minutes.

Thank you.

Um I just want to say that the N1 use that's identified in the current comp plan probably aligns more with the existing uses on the site.

Given the surrounding context and the range of activity centers, it's not unreasonable from the perspective of the property owner that they anticipated that this would be changed to an end to.

And I appreciate the neighbors confirming that we do have the right-of-way available in front of the church site.

We also want to point out that we can't provide access through private property.

There was a comment about us providing access to Duns Commons.

Unfortunately, there's no way for us to get there through private right-of-way without going through other private property owners.

Um we are also less than a half a mile from major inner infrastructure improvements that have happened at I-485 in Brookshire.

And we understand that we would like to have that infrastructure improvement continue along the frontage.

We are about 500 feet away from the intersection of Pool Oak and Mount Holly Huntersville Road where our access point is.

We appreciate all the comments, but we do think that we've worked pretty hard to change the permitted use.

The daycare center is drawn in a bubble diagram on the site plan.

We're going to replace that area with 25 townhomes.

We feel like that was an attempt to be responsive, and we'll have those final plans submitted to staff prior to zoning committee as we typically do.

Again, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Good.

Now it's time for questions.

Ms.

Mayfield, Mr.

Mr.

Graham, Ms.

Mayfield, Ms.

Johnson, Mr.

Gray.

Graham Mayfield over here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Question for staff.

We have a development right on the corner where the Valveine is.

And I had a chance to meet with residents and staff.

And it was identified that they're possibly should have been some infrastructure investments when that valve lean, which is a drive-through right on the corner, was approved, but those infrastructure investments were not identified when this project was done.

So I'm trying to understand how staff's recommendation of this project is going to tie in because you have a family dollar, you already have individuals that are cutting through the businesses to get access to off of Mount Holly and onto Mount Holly.

So I'm trying to understand what not encouraging street connectivity on the back side of this project versus Mount Holly, Harnesville, how you see that happening in this very narrow space.

Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm going to defer to C dot in regards to the transportation improvements.

Good evening.

With the proposed development, um, the way the plan has been submitted.

Uh we don't have uh as staff doesn't have any ability to require additional connectivity.

Um typically we would require multiple access points if it had frontage uh on a uh side street.

Uh so if there was connectivity over, we would allow and encourage additional connectivity, but uh there's only one frontage for uh connectivity requirements in this case, and so uh the the single access off of uh Mount Holly Huntersville uh is what staff can require.

And with the um with the reduction in uh the total traffic demand for the uh the project with the removal of the daycare, uh one access point for 95 units is uh not uh unlike other developments that we see uh in the Charlotte area.

So while we're there, do you know has NCDOT identified when there's going to be any infrastructural improvement with regards to widening correct uh we don't have any information indicating a timeline for improvement of Mount Holly Huntersville?

So with knowing that there is no timeline for a widening along Mount Holly Huntersville Road, but also recognizing that we have had multiple crashes right there in front of where this potential additional 95 units will be placed because what you have is on Mount Holly Huntersville Road, a single lane, you have a turn lane because there's a gas station to the left.

You have a left turn lane to turn into the family dollar right now.

So there are multiple individuals to get off of the single lane of Mount Holly Huntersville, will try to speed up to get to the light, and we have had multiple head-on crashes because people not making that left turn to go into the gas station, but actually trying to keep straight as individuals are coming to try to attempt to make the left.

What in here, and maybe it's here, and I just don't see it.

What is the approvement that's going to adjust this other few hundred feet away from where that is already happening where you have a left and a right right in front of each other for vehicles to turn left into this development because if you're coming off of Bellhaven and you make the right on the Mount Holly Huntersville, you are going to have to make a left to get into this complex of which we all have just received a snapshot of pictures of traffic back all the way up.

What is the expectation for C DOT to adjust this transition?

So it's uh from a CDOT perspective, it's a tough balance because we have the ordinance and what can we can require as staff uh during a review of a development this size without uh requirements coming from a traffic study.

Uh I would say that uh C DOT is in support of the additional widening westbound on Mount Holly Huntersville and um the you know the connection of a full lane to the signal uh to the west.

And so as part of the requirements for the development, you know, it would be including the area to provide that ultimately that second through lane across the frontage.

Um also I believe that they will uh be completing a left turn lane for their site uh as part of the project.

So there, you know, while this development we can't require them to fix maybe some things out there, we work to try to find solutions in the context of the ordinance requirements and and what we can provide.

They have offered the additional money that eventually could go towards um the the last section of turn lane up at the signal and incrementally uh with capital projects and NC DOT, the goal would be to provide that uh as funding uh is available.

So approve the potential congestion without having a clear timeline of when we will actually be able to do an expansion because we don't know from NC DOT if anything is even on the books.

So let me ask a different question.

Staff the community just mentioned a number of concerns regarding again the traffic impact and the study, but more importantly, the fact that the community area plan has not been approved in this area.

If this were to move forward, what impact could that have on the community area plan since we have not had that meeting yet to identify what is being proposed throughout this area and recognizing we have already approved a number of different multifamily projects that are that are within three to five minutes either direction of this particular project.

Um so our recommendation is not based on the community area plan because it is not adopted, but we still feel it meets criteria to transition from a neighborhood one to a neighborhood two.

I mean, it's a budding community activity center to the east, it's directly a budding developed um neighborhood two to the north and to the south across uh Mount Holly Huntersville, and there's commercial place type there.

Um Roth's Ferry and Mount Holly Huntersville Road.

So you know, while we don't have specific codified criteria like we will when the comp when the community area plan is adopted, um, it does meet a lot of those things we look for that that locational criteria with being on an arterial with um though we we acknowledge that there are some deficiencies with Mount Holly Huntersville Road, and we're working with our partners in CDOT and C DOT to help address that, and as well as um you know that those locations next to adjacent place types.

We understand that maybe you know you know the closest shopping center, it does provide some needs, not everything, but there are other shopping centers in the area such as River Gates a little farther away, so you know what I what I'm getting at is it it it makes an incremental step to becoming more aligned with what you know with the policy map, even though it's out of alignment with the policy map as it stands now, it's an appropriate, we feel it's an appropriate transition from neighborhood one to neighborhood two in this location, and we believe that when and if the uh community area plan is adopted, it'll just reinforce the appropriateness.

And if this is approved, I I mean, sorry, I I'm maybe getting a little bit away from your question, but this is if this is approved, it would bring it in alignment with what the community area plan is proposing, that neighborhood two place type on the site.

So, as we move forward, what I would like for staff to consider is that there are no sidewalks along this road.

If this were to move forward and a people actually need it to get to the grocery store, there is no walkability to get from where this potential site would be to where the closest grocery store is.

They can take their chances to cross the street to get to the vape shop because that's the closest store that is in this immediate area outside of the fast food or take out restaurants, but if they actually need to get to the grocery store, that would be a pretty difficult task, and it is quite a distance, including the fact that NCDOT created an interesting design of how to access and the challenges people have trying to cross that four to five lane road that was created up the street.

So I would I'm gonna look forward to speaking with staff and the petitioner on this because there are some very serious concerns from community, of which it would be great for us to meet out at the site together.

As I mentioned previously, the manager and I actually drove through this area for him to see the challenges based on previous approvement of development in this area.

But I do want us to take into consideration the number of individuals from the community, and I'm a little concerned that a community area plan that has not had as much communication from the residents.

What you just said is you feel that what staff has presented, this will be in alignment when we haven't signed off on a community area plan for this area just yet.

No, I just that's gonna be a conversation that when we actually meet with community, it's gonna have to be discussed.

Yes.

I uh I wouldn't just like re-emphasize that we're not basing the recommendation on the community area plan, but it would potentially be in alignment if that would be adopted.

Thank you, Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

So I believe this was one of the ones that you that council member Mayfield asked for a cumulative map, right?

So I think you're um Miss Craig is trying to print that so we can see that.

And I was on the 12 o'clock zoning call, and council member owens.

She asked a question about pretty much cumulative impact.

I love that question.

Thank you.

Um, and we need to to see that.

You've talked about Mount Hollysville Road or Hunt the Street Huntersville.

Mount Holly Huntersville Road for two years now.

Same thing, and you'll hear this later when I talk about Mallard Creek.

There are some areas that we really have to take a look at as council.

I mean, I know it may fit into the box, you know, ABC, but we cannot continue to approve rezonings when we know that there are safety issues, and we know there's overcrowding.

I've told someone we can't we can't plan our development like a Jenga game until it's just collapses.

So I'd like to see this map.

I asked for this map.

Excuse me, I asked for map for district four, Councilwoman Mayfield asked for the cumulative map for this area.

So we can really take a look to see how the impact, while it may say schools are uh uh affected by whatever number that is, we need to add these up as we're approving them.

So when people come out here, when there's 50 people who are speaking, there's obviously a problem.

And I want to thank you all for coming out.

We do hear you, um, and we do understand.

So I really think that cumulative impact map.

I know Miss Craig, she sent it to us via email.

I couldn't open mine, but I think it really helps when you see the visual of what is it's pending.

I mean, the problems they're having right now, there's probably some development that's not even constructed yet.

You all don't know how bad it's really going to get.

By right, we need to see that.

And at some point, we really as a council need to make some tough decisions.

I mean, we're not anti-development, but there are some places that are full.

I mean, even Jesus was turned away when the air was full.

Christmas season.

Good enough for Jesus, it's definitely good enough for Charlotte.

No room in the inn, huh?

But anyway, so um, but there are other areas that need the development, you know, North Lake Mall, for one.

Okay, so North Lake Mall area.

So um, I after you all see the map, I think that's important to take a look at.

Uh, same thing, and I'm gonna be saying this about the Mallard Creek development.

I mean, we have a map of what it looks like when schools letting out.

I mean, this the speed limit, you know, it's just not safe.

So we have to start making some tough decisions as council in areas like this.

And that's why I push for an infrastructure meeting in 2022, because there are some areas that just cannot hold any more development.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Mr.

Graham.

Wow, so so let me see if I can level set a little bit.

Um, and let me thank um Aaron and Tony and Kelly for coming out tonight and speaking.

Um, Miss Grant for meeting with me on a number of occasions over the last what four months, five months, maybe everybody that we've been dealing with this particular petition.

I've had the opportunity to visit the site on numerous occasions with the petitioner as well as with the residents, and I even as on conversation with the residents about not only this petition, but about rezoning in general throughout the Mount Holly Huntersville area uh and Mount Al Lake area.

So I certainly get it.

I also get the fact that Charlotte is growing uh throughout the entire city, uh, and we can't put a fence around it or put a no room in the inside in the city, right?

That's from my perspective.

Um, a city that's not growing is a city that's dying, right?

And so we need to have balanced growth, balanced development, common sense solutions, uh, residents and neighbors, neighborhoods negotiating with petitioners about what's in the best interest of their community, which brings us to this petition, right?

Um I'm troubled too.

Uh I think I expressed that to you on a number of occasions.

Um because of the the impact that's gonna have specifically on Mount Holly Huntersville Road where it lits off at, right?

Which is a state road, which we have no jurisdiction over in terms of of its widening, and we've had a number of conversations with staff already about getting with NC DOT not only about state roads over here, but even the Steel Creek.

Uh there's state roads over there uh that needs wide, they need expanding to accommodate the growth that will surely come by right or through a petition, the growth is coming.

So, how do we plan for it?

Why don't we pass the area plans?

I'm ready to do that tonight.

We should.

Um, but also we make smart decisions as Ms.

Johnson has indicated.

We have to make tough decisions.

Some of these decisions are to approve, and some of them is to say no, right?

Like we did earlier today, tonight.

So this is one I hope that we can continue to work together.

I think we're at an impasse really because we've been working for four months now.

Right.

And the neighborhoods leaders have very, very serious concerns that I tend to agree with.

But certainly the congestion over that road is what it is, right?

And so as I told the neighbors before, we're gonna have to pick winners and losers.

I mean, you may come here tonight saying no, and I vote yes.

You may come back and vote no, right?

So we're gonna have to pick winners and losers uh for sure.

This one is problematic for me.

And so um I hope that there's some additional conversation you can have with the neighborhood leaders uh in reference to what more can you do to help them get to a point where they say, Malcolm, I'm I'm okay with this.

Um I'm not sure you can get there.

Uh and so I will continue to be an honest broker and bring folks together over the next month.

I guess the um the the decision will probably be in January, I would imagine, if there's no deferral.

Uh and so we're basically in January now because you know, Christmas and New Year's, and so we're literally from all practical purposes is like January 2nd, right?

Because nothing really is gonna you will be working, but you know, yes.

But a lot of folks will be checking out, right?

And so we're close to where we have to make a decision, and hopefully um you could convince and continue to work with uh the residents who, as I said earlier, have demonstrated um a lot of patience.

Um they listened, uh they've given in to some um recommendations that you made.

Um I think they acknowledge that, but uh again, as their district representative, I also acknowledge uh that um they have some serious concerns in terms of of impact and even using the the uh word that Councilmember Johnson used, which I kind of agree that I disagree in terms of the impact of it all, the cumulative impact we're growing all over the city.

So the map for me really doesn't help me get to a point because there's growth everywhere throughout the city, right?

And when you look at where the growth is occurring, it's occurring in district six, district two, district four.

Um, and that has to do with really access highways, right?

Um those you know it's not as bad as we think it is, right?

Because there's a grid system that works for those growth areas, but that's where the people are going.

Uh, and um, so I say all that to say that um I I think you kind of can read between the lines, yes, sir.

For sure, that um we still got some work to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

First of all, thank you all for coming out.

I absolutely appreciate your um engagement.

That's impressive.

Um so so I think that speaks volumes to the fact that you care about your community and that you're invested here.

Um what gives me pause is that every community doesn't necessarily have folks that are able to come, right?

But it doesn't mean that they're any less passionate or concerned.

And I firmly believe that the point of having a plan is so that you can mitigate issues and so that you have a better quality of life than what you would if there was no plan.

And to the extent that we have to go back and really understand that yes, we're growing city, but that doesn't mean that we've got to we are a growing city.

With that though, we've got to decide who we're going to be, and that means that we are going to say no to some things, and I don't think that necessarily means that we're dying.

I think that there is uh wisdom in preserving uh what is beautiful about our city.

Um so I think that we've really got to, as we go through these last community area plans, take a take a hard line and really understand what it is that we're trying to do uh so that our intervention matters, and so that our intervention delivers a different outcome than if there was unfettered growth without a plan.

Uh we owe that to our community, we owe that to you.

Um, and that's what I will remain committed um to doing.

So, not just because you came out um in full force, not just because you have a uh a lot of good points, not just because I'm familiar with the area, but because it's the right thing to do all over the city.

Um so I I stand with um the community in in this particular space, um, and so I hope that that we're able to get to a better place um uh next go around.

Thank you.

So seeing no further got a question.

Thank you.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

So we move on now to agenda item 30.

By Prosperity Alliance.

Approximately 30.37 acres located west of Batty's Ford Road, east of Patrick Allen Court, and north of MacIntyre Avenue in Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is N1A, neighborhood 1A.

Proposed zoning is N2B, C D, neighborhood to B conditional.

Staff recommends approval of this petition on resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

Yes, uh petition 2025 070 is an undeveloped portion of a track containing a church.

Um approximately 30.37 acres in size and located uh west of Bates Ford Road.

Site's currently zoned in 1A, neighborhood one.

Policy map recommends the campus place type for this site.

The N2B district is inconsistent with the campus price type.

Approval this petition would revise the policy map.

Uh the rezoning proposal calls for the development of to of up to 317 dwelling units and eight development acres.

Um that includes a 130 units of multifamily stacked uh apartments, which is age restricted for independent living units, 91 multifamily attached townhome units, and 87 single family detached houses.

All residential dwelling units may be offered for sale for lease to households earning between 60 and 100 per 20 percent of area median income AMI.

All development areas in this rezoning are granted a conversion flexibility, allowing a 10 per 10 percent of the total approved units to shift between residential types.

So that would be such as converting townhomes to single family or single family townhomes vice versa.

In in any given um any given of those eight areas on the plan.

Primary access to the site will be via an extension of Banner Ridge Boulevard from Beatty's Ford Road.

Um that will be constructed by the developer, and additional access will come from Luke's Drive and University Church Drive.

At least 15,000 square feet of enhanced open space will be provided.

That'll include improvements such as benches, uh different you know, hard scaping, things like that.

A 10-foot landscape yard planted to class B standards will be installed along the property's western boundary, adjacent single family residential to the west.

Uh town home buildings will contain no more than six units each, and architectural requirements such as bank blank wall limitations, transparency minimums, porches stoops, roofline variation will be provided.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon out uh resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

2040 uh conference of plan calls for residential development in the campus place type that supports the mission of the associated institution.

Proposed development will provide housing at an attainable price point between 60 and 120 percent of AMI.

The plan proposes a mix of building forms, including age restricted um townhome and single family detached units.

And these are compatible with the campus place type site, it's a budding regional park and located one mile north of a designated neighborhood center.

The petition proposes to dedicate a greenway eastment Meckleburg County Park and Rec.

And the site is served by transit.

Happy to take any questions following the petitioner's presentation.

All right, so um we have uh a speaker signed up in opposition, Mr.

Whitaker.

Are you here?

So, madam attorney, if the opposition speaker is not here, do they get 10 minutes or three?

He's not yet.

Right.

No, if there's no opposition speakers uh three minutes.

I do not have an opposition speaker, and therefore I have in support Bishop Claude Alexander, um Ron Staley, Sean Tooley, and you will have three minutes.

Welcome.

Good evening.

My name is Sean Kennedy on Prosperity Alliance, and um I'm here to introduce this petition for rezoning.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim, City Council members are hearing us this evening.

You guys look very festive and amazing this evening.

Amazing.

Um, this project is transformative.

Over a hundred units of affordable housing will be delivered to the city of Charlotte and over 88 million dollars of generational wealth in the next 15 years for these families.

It's a partnership between Prosperity Alliance, land design, true homes, and park church.

Um it's a true partnership for as faith and housing coming together.

So I'd like to introduce Bishop Claude Alexander.

Thank you, Ed, and good evening.

The petition before you is uh to support attainable, equity producing, and wealth building housing for the citizens of Charlotte Mecklenburg through this partnership with True Homes and Prosperity Alliance.

You've heard what we're proposing in terms of the number of units, the market rate value is between 325 to 375,000 dollars.

The AMI range will be between 60 and 120 percent.

They become affordable through the commitment of True Homes to build at cost.

The park church selling the land at a discount, a private capital fund of 30 million dollars having already been raised, and a bundle of down payment assistance programs combined together, home buyers will enter the door with an average of $50,000 worth of equity at the beginning.

$50,000 worth of equity at the point of signing a mortgage provides the opportunity for wealth to be built over time.

We are also looking at building another 125 affordable senior units for leasing and 12 ADUs for CMS teachers.

And with that, I'm like J Lo with Ben.

Didn't keep you long and there's room in the end.

So I guess uh you have a few seconds remaining, but it looks like you're done, and therefore I will open it up for comments.

No, no, no questions for sure.

Um, just some comments.

Um, you know, listen, it goes without saying that affordability and affordable housing continues to be a uh a top priority for this city council and certainly within Charlotte City Council District 2.

Anytime we get the opportunity uh to work with a partnership group that is assembled tonight, um, and um provide an opportunity for the community that really really makes sense.

Um I'm excited about and uh I was excited about when I got the phone call months ago about what was bubbling uh underneath the surface and the work that um the team has been doing to to bring this proposal uh to the council tonight.

So I'm glad that we're here.

I'm glad that we're discussing it publicly.

Uh I'm glad to uh entertain any question comments from the various neighborhood associations up and down the border, but thus far no one has contacted me.

Uh but um but those who have had maybe one or two, I shouldn't say that, maybe one or two, um, but they were very supportive about what they were hearing and just wanted more information.

And so now that the information is out, I look forward to communicating with you, uh Bishop Alexander and your team to answer any questions from any neighborhood leaders, uh, continue to work with staff to make sure that uh we get the the right product uh on the street and uh and and worthy of certainly my support and support of uh the residents of district two.

Thank you.

JD, J D.

JD, and then Ms.

Johnson.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Dreggs.

Um, I couldn't agree with Councilmember Graham more.

I think this is a great partnership.

Um, I'm new to council, so this is fairly new to me, but I mean I'm looking right here in the fact that not only is it multifamily but also single family.

That's very incredible, um, particularly as the cost of living rises in our city.

This definitely building these units will definitely uh contribute to um affordability across our city, and I also um just humble brag.

I mean, prosperity alliance, Sean Kennedy, uh, you know, all the work that you're currently doing in the community, and so thank you to Park Ministries, uh Prosperity Alliance, True Homes.

I think this is a great initiative.

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

Yes, I agree.

I just wanted to lift up Prosperity Um Alliance.

Uh is this the second uh project that they have in District 2?

Uh he's all over the district.

Okay, okay, yeah, yeah.

That's exciting.

There might be one in District 4.

If there's not, if there's not, we can talk about it.

But I know the great work that you all do, and it's and it's an honor to see you, Bishop Alexander.

So yeah, I look forward.

This is what we're talking about when we talk about home buying and an affordable rate.

So I look forward to uh some supporting this, and um again, we need to see more of this throughout throughout the city again for sale home buying and that that the average person can afford, right?

So thank you.

Move the public here and be closed.

Second.

All in favor?

Okay, so item uh agenda item 31 is deferred.

Agenda item 32 is deferred, and therefore we will now move to agenda item 33.

Uh petition 2025 109 by Raven Partners, approximately 1.46 acres located east of Independence Boulevard, north of Hayden Way, and west of Lake U Circle.

And Mr.

Aswera Arias's district.

Current zoning is uh CGCD, general commercial conditional proposed N2B, C D site plan amendment, neighborhood 2A, conditional site plan amendment.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of an outstanding issue related to site and building design.

That's my petition.

Thank you.

This site is just under one and a half acres located just east of Independence Boulevard, north of Hayden Way and west of Lakeview Circle, and an area where we have, of course, a range of commercial uses along independence, but also uh quite a few multifamily residential uses on the east side of independence here and some multifamily residential uses as where as well, and uh multifamily residential uses that have yet to be built but have been entitled in this area.

This petition is proposing and to be conditional site plan amendment to what is currently general commercial conditional, and it is I will say inconsistent with the current place type, which is commercial on the ground.

But to give you some context of what this petition is proposing and the site that it more broadly sits in, the 1.46 acres that we're talking about is right here.

And the original petition is highlighted in this map here.

It was about 80 acres.

It was a 2023 petition.

It rezoned for three different zoning districts.

There was an N1B portion of the plan here on the northernmost portion of the site, and it also entitled for neighborhood to be conditional for a large portion of the site.

And then it called for two small portions of the site to be general commercial conditional closest to independence where that NCDOT interchange would take place in the future.

What they are proposing to do is just take one of these CG areas and propose that instead for the N2B uses that they envisioned for the rest of the N2B areas on the site.

The CG area that is to the south would remain as is, and essentially all other conditions of the plan would also remain as is.

So it's a pretty limited scope in terms of a site plan amendment, just modifying that 1.46 acre portion of the plan.

That was a larger 80-acre site.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

Although it is inconsistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan uh 2040 policy maps recommendation for the commercial place type.

It is part of that larger site plan that was approved a couple of years ago, and keeps the intent of that site plan meaningfully intact.

And I'll take any questions following petitioner comments.

Thank you.

So speaking up in support, I have Mr.

Brown, Ms.

Lynz, and Mr.

Anderson.

Mr.

Brown.

Sir Councilmember uh Triggs, Mayor Pro Tem, Council members, uh Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner.

Uh Councilmember Judges, I think there's a speaker signed up in opposition, so I have 10 minutes.

But you have 10 minutes.

But if they're not here, uh I won't use that time.

And I have not met Mr.

Cunningham, are you here?

So I will be happy abbreviate then.

Uh and I've not met met Mr.

Cumming Cunningham.

Um Holly gave a great overview.

This is a large uh and uh a large rezoning that took place a couple years ago.

Uh this is precipitated by in significant NC DOT plans here at Sardis in 74.

Um so two, three years ago we began this undertaking.

NC DOT has an interchange plan for this location.

And so when we did this 80 acre rezoning a few years or go, there was great interest from the community.

We had a large engagement, we had a pretty big crowd here, and we really negotiated the kind of the details of that.

Um and that is progressing.

Now that design is getting a little further, North of Raven has a better idea of kind of where some of these lines are going to fall.

And so, in a nutshell, just as Holly said, we had a large rezoning here where we had kind of different flavors of residential, going lighter towards the rear.

And then we had two components of retail uh where we thought the interchange would be.

And the only modification now is that Northwood Raven knows their plan a little better, and they don't think they need this much retail.

So, frankly, this would be a down zoning, going from that CG to an N2B.

Uh, we had two community meetings on this one.

I scheduled one on uh election night, so we did a follow-up because we had some very involved folks, had good turnout on both of those, and generally the folks that had been involved were were pleased to see nothing was changing, frankly, in their backyards.

Most of the questions that I got were about well, when's in the NC DOT project starting?

Where's the interchange going to go?

And frankly, we just don't have all those answers yet.

Um, if Mr.

Cunningham is here, I'm happy to um answer questions.

I'm not sure what concerns he may have.

I did look for his home, which was up in this area, uh, and I can confirm no changes are occurring there.

We are simply downzoning some of this commercial to residential near the future proposed interchange.

Happy to take any questions.

So uh before I entertain questions, yes, Mr.

Um, why is this staff?

Well, why is this a site plan amendment if we're going from CG to N2B?

Because it's part of the larger project and with within the scope of it, and they're keeping the entitlements of the project still intact, and they're changing their CG conditional entitlements out for the N2B conditional entitlements that they have on the rest of the site for the N2B areas.

Unusual.

Okay, Mr.

Meswir, yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

Um, I want to first say that what you just explained is really people first development, right?

You you've gone out of your way to ensure that the single family homes, that neighborhood is largely um undisrupted by this new development.

So I applaud that.

Um I also want to learn a little bit more about uh I know it, but for the public, um what you are all doing with the county in terms of that greenway space.

Um we and I'll have to might follow up a little bit, and I'll say the neighborhood negotiated very strongly uh to have you know kind of the similar zoning behind them.

Uh there are significant dedications of greenway to the county, which we negotiated in the prior zoning, and that all stays in place.

That's perfect.

Um I also this you know given the 74 expansion, right?

This is really unusual to have that incorporated in a plan.

Typically, we see plans that don't take that into account, and so I appreciate the detailed uh plan in terms of making that uh a known aspect that there is going to be a widening that's gonna happen in the future because nobody wants something to be built and then torn down when the expansion happens.

So I appreciate that.

Uh the other thing is um can you please explain a little bit more about why there's no longer a need for that commercial space?

Yeah, and I will say the one question we got at our main community meeting is one of the attendees did say does that mean you're not going to have commercial?

Uh and and we said no.

Uh we just think that is better located on the site.

This will be one of the first development components.

Northwood Raven, uh, as you may know, specializes in multifamily development, and they have a good site plan for the uh the north side of the site, which they thought would be more cohesive if it was residential.

But there will remain a commercial component on the south side.

Okay.

I I just want to let my colleagues know, you know, independence boulevard is typically known for its car dealerships.

Um it used to be a vibrant corridor, right?

With residential commercial, so it's very exciting to see this take place, um, particularly because it will have multifamily, it'll have single family and we'll have commercial space.

It's going to revitalize this that spot in in our community.

So thank you so much.

Um, no further questions, Mr.

Driggs.

Oh, okay.

Motion and second, did you get that?

All right, all in favor.

Okay.

Storming ahead.

Um agenda item 34 is deferred.

Agenda item 35 is deferred.

Those are the quickest.

So we now move to agenda item 36.

Rezoning petition 2024 090 by Charter Properties Inc.

Approximately 65.27 acres located along the north side of West Mallard Creek Church Road and the South Side of Galloway Road, west of I-85 in Miss Johnson's district.

Current zoning is MUD O, mixed use development district optional and R 12 MFC D multifamily conditional.

Proposed zoning is CGCD, general commercial conditional and N2B C D neighborhood to be conditional.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site design.

This site is 65 acres on the Mallard Creek Church Road Corridor, which within the site's vicinity has a mixed and multifamily residential uses, single family areas, institutional uses, and commercial areas as well.

The site is currently zoned R 12 multifamily conditional and mixed use development district optional as part of a 2016 rezoning petition.

And they are proposing general commercial conditional and neighborhood 2B conditional.

This proposal is largely consistent with the policy maps recommendation for the commercial and neighborhood 2 place types, though it's partially inconsistent with the map where a portion of the commercial place type is recommended.

And I'll just note that inconsistency is for the northernmost portion of the commercial place type that is called for.

And that's just because the proposal itself is calling for a larger portion of the site to be dedicated to those neighborhood 2B uses as opposed to the mud previous mud O entitlements that were along West Mallard Creek Church Road.

The proposal itself divides the site into five separate development areas with a total of up to 860 residential units and 30,000 square feet of commercial uses.

Development Area A allows a maximum of 30,000 square feet of commercial and retail uses, allows up to one vehicle fueling facility and limits the limits accessory drive-in and drive-through service lanes and windows to a financial institution use only.

Also allows for a hotel use.

Development area B would allow for age restricted units, up to 80 of those units, and they would be for 55 plus, and they would be for 80% AMI, and for a period of up to 15 years.

These would be in a multifamily stacked product type.

And it also limits the building height to 65 feet in this development area B.

Development Area C proposes 350 units, and 310 of those would be multifamily stacked, so think apartments, and 40 of those could be 40 uh townhome style units, attached units.

It also provides 10,000 square feet of a pocket park and limits building height for the multifamily stock to 65 feet, and building height for the multifamily attached would be limited to 50 feet.

It also provides conversion rights for the multifamily attached and stacked units to be traded among those, though the total number of units must not exceed 350.

Development area D allows for 350 units, 290 multifamily stacked, 60 multifamily attached, multifamily stacked, and this area would be limited to 50 feet, so step down in height, and then multifamily attached would step down further to 40 feet.

It also specifies conversion rights in this area as well between the attached and stacked units.

So the number of units also cannot exceed 350.

Development area E allows a maximum of 80 multifamily attached units.

Includes a provision that provides no more than 20% of the units may be rented or leased to third parties at any one time.

West of the connector road, the maximum height for any of these multifamily attached dwelling units shall shall be 40 feet and limited to two stories.

And east of the connector road, the maximum height shall be 50 feet.

Provides a number of transportation improvements.

There are a lot of these.

Again, they have that pocket park that is specified more towards the front of the site.

And it also provides 757 foot Class B landscape yard along portions of the site where it abuts single family land uses and 50-foot class B landscape yard with a fence on the site's western boundary, also abutting single family land uses.

So shall be preserved, and those boundaries are shown on the plan.

Prior to construction, a temporary construction barrier shall be installed around the cemetery perimeter.

Prior to the certificate of occupancy, the petitioner would be donating 10,000 dollars to the Mallard Creek Presbyterian Church or a cemetery preservation nonprofit, and these funds would be used for any cemetery-related improvements.

It also commits to our preferred architectural design standards.

And again, limits those building heights when adjacent to residential just to provide enhanced sensitivity to those adjacent land uses and general transitions across the site, noting that it's specifying a real range of residential product types here, so it's trying to diversify in terms of its scale across the site.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site design.

The proposal for 30,000 square feet of commercial uses may expand essential goods and services for future residents at this site as well as the existing neighborhoods adjacent to the area.

The existing neighborhood two, the neighborhood two entitlements on the site proposed allow for a range of residential product types, including quadruplexes, multifamily attached, and multifamily stacked.

This would help to diversify the health housing stock in this area.

And this project also provides affordable housing units facilitating goal three of the comprehensive plan.

The entitlements proposed are largely consistent with the policy maps recommendation for the site, though just a small portion of that commercial police type would be modified to neighborhood two.

And I'll take questions following petitioner comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor Pro Tim, members of City Council and the zoning committee.

I'm John Carmichael here on behalf of the petitioner with me tonight are John Porter, the charter properties, and uh Nick Bishon with uh design resource group.

I've got a uh PowerPoint that has rendered thank you very much.

So the site's about 65 acres, it's located on the Northwest Quadrant or the West Mallor Creek Church Road I85 interchange.

Excuse me, Mallor Creek Presbyterian Church is immediately to the west of the site, as is the Claybrook subdivision.

Uh the site zone is currently zone R12 MFCD and MUTO was rezoned back in 2017.

Some of you may have been on the some of you, I think we're here in 2017.

Um under the current approved rezoning plan, you can have a multi-use project comprised of 395 multi-family, 160,000 square feet of commercial or 142,000 square feet if a hotel is developed on the site, maximum 110 hotel rooms.

Um, and then you can have a C store and two fast food restaurants or restaurants or drive-throughs, or no C store, and three.

Um this is the currently approved rezoning plan for the site commercial component.

Site's been rotated.

The commercial component is up here by West Mallor Creek Church Road, and then the residential portions by Galloway Road.

Petitioners requesting the resonance of the site to CGCD and into B C D.

I apologize if I'm talking like an auctioneer, but there's so much information here.

Um this is the site plan.

There'd be two access points from West Mallow Creek Church Road, right and only access point here, singlize intersection intersection here, access point from Galloway, connector road to be constructed through the site that will connect West Mel West Mallow Creek Church Road to Galloway Road, the commercial component up to 30,000 square feet, 130 hotel rooms right by uh the Mallow Creek Church Road, only one drive-thru limited to a financial institution, 100 age restricted multifamily dwelling units here.

If there's you can't get uh financing within a year for that product, then those restrictions would not apply, meaning the age restriction and affordability restriction, and then 600 multi-family, 180 town homes spread throughout the remainder of the site.

The 80 town homes here next to Galloway Road would be for sale.

There's that rental restriction that Miss Kramer mentioned.

The height decreases as you move from ID5 to the Claybrook subdivision.

There's also a buffering obligations next to Claybrook.

Um this proposed development would generate 57% less daily trips, 20% less AM peak hour trips, and 50% less um Pifty percent less daily, 2070 seconds A Carmichael, 58% less PM peak trips than the current plan.

We appreciate the planning staff's recommendation of approval.

We'll answer any questions.

We did meet twice with the District 4 coalition.

We met with the Claybrook neighbors back in June, and then we had our uh our neighborhood meeting in October.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Comments, questions, Ms.

Johnson.

Sorry.

That's crazy.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

Hi, how are you?

Hey, Councilmember Johnson, how are you?

Fine.

I wanted to know the total number of multifamily units.

Is that 780?

It's 780, but that's that does not include the senior affordable.

It's so it's 100 senior affordable.

Let me go back to that slide.

And then it's another 600, excuse me.

100 multifamily senior affordable up here next to the church.

And then the remainder of the site, excluding the commercial component, could contain another 780 residential units, a maximum of 600 of which could be multifamily, and then the 180 would be the town homes.

So what's the total number of units?

880.

Thank you.

That was a question you asked asking.

Thank you.

And what's the original petition number?

The original petition number.

It's 2016.

2016 139.

Wow.

It was approved.

It was we filed it in 2016.

It was approved in 2017.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we talked about cumulative impact earlier, right?

So the impact on the schools for this petition is let me look.

Looks like 78 to 85 percent on Mallard Creek Elementary.

88 to 92 percent on Ridge Road Middle, and 108% to 110% of capacity on Mallard Creek High, right?

Yes, ma'am.

So my concern, and this is for city staff.

We this is for my colleagues.

We passed the map out for District 2, and you all saw the development.

I think there were 10 on there.

I want you all to see the map, and I'll show you all for District 4, primarily Mallard Creek.

If you look at this, I mean Mallard Creek, there's so much traffic and so much impact on Mallard Creek.

And if you look at that, I mean it's so I went back to look at some other petitions, even a petition from uh today that was deferred when we talk about the impact on schools.

I had it earlier, I'm sorry.

It was I think up to 108 to 11.

No, it would remain at 108 for that other petition.

But then I ask a question about a uh 2022 petition and the impact on schools to show you all that we're not truly counting the impact on schools.

Oh, using the same number.

We're using the same numbers, we're looking at these independently.

So, Ms.

Craig, I'm having trouble opening my phone.

Can you send me can you tell the number?

Can you tell the staff and the council the numbers you sent me from the 2022 petition?

Hang on one second.

Umard Creek Elementary from 76 percent to 78 percent, ridgebrid middle from 115 percent to 116 percent, and Mallard Creek High remains at 122 percent.

So it was 122 percent in 2022, and today we're saying that the that is going to increase to 108 percent.

So, and that was uh you know, almost four three, four years ago.

So, even if some kids went to charter school or whatever we're saying happened, we are not looking at the impact, cumulative impact in our city, and our residents are forced to live with the effect.

You all see how much development is on Mallard Creek.

You all we we receive videos from cars being backed up.

This is 880 units in the same area.

It's an 800.

That's it's too much.

It's too much.

So and I and I'm sorry, John, and we can talk about it offline.

Um, but it's next to a single family development, and I I just don't see myself supporting this at this time.

I mean, we're 880 units, and we see the development on Mallard Creek.

Maybe I'll I'll show you the map.

And I'm I hope we share this map with developers.

Because when you're meeting with staff, maybe you all don't know that there's 20 petitions that haven't been started yet.

And then there are 10 under construction right now, and residents are really pushing back for a valid reason.

There's no street improvements.

You ask the staff about street improvements.

There's none that are scheduled at this time.

And then we know at the end of Mallard Creek near Concord Mills, I think it's a million square feet of development that we've approved.

King's grant.

So I think we really need to take a common sense approach on certain areas in our city and really drive development in areas that need it.

Um that's all I have to say about this one.

Thank you.

I I'm sorry, before we stop.

2022, we we were told there was 120 percent impact on Mallard Creek High, and now today we're being told 108%.

Thank you.

So, Ms.

Johnson, you're making some points that to me are uh of a policy nature, and I think what you're pointing out is that there may be some deficiencies in our existing process as it relates to our anticipation.

Uh and I think those are things we should take up.

In the actual zoning decisions, uh, we can't sort of introduce uh requirements or criteria that they didn't so uh I like what you're saying.

I think you make a lot of sense, and frankly, years ago I had conversations with C DOT about traffic.

I've got, for example, right around Waverly in my district, there's 200 acres of undeveloped land, belongs to one family, and I've said to them, so how are we planning for that?

You know, they could get 600 units in there, we couldn't do a thing about it.

Uh I think they're very valid questions.

Um I just want us uh as we look at individual petitions to uh recognize what the rules were at the time they were submitted and hold people to those.

We do have you're right, we have a discretion in terms of saying, hey, I just don't like it.

But um what you're pointing to is a conversation that could result in uh you know a whole different metric around how we evaluate these things, right?

And and the schools, for example, I know we've had briefings from uh CMS about how that capacity calculation works.

It's actually more complicated than you would think.

And Dennis Licaria, when he was there, was explaining that if you see a number like 122 percent, it doesn't mean the school can't function.

Uh but it's something that we should cooperate with CMS in responding to.

And I've I talked to school board members, I've talked to principals, and generally when I went to them and I said, hey, I've got this thing in my district, and the school looks crowded.

They they've sort of said that's our problem.

Um so I look forward to a further discussion of the policy like that.

Uh I I just want to avoid uh introducing kind of considerations that maybe were not you know imposed at the time this thing was evaluated.

So being evaluated now.

Um, I mean when the staff looked at it and and when they developed it when that when they uh worked on it.

So, you know, we're fine.

I'm just telling you there's a policy conversation that we need to have there.

And we've and we've said that for years.

I know.

So if if not now, I mean we I mean we have to take a common sense approach.

And and what I'm and I'm it's not just about schools, it's about traffic.

We know that there's a 2500 trip trigger to trigger a traffic study.

Well, you can have 10 petitions in a row that have uh 2400 trips, and there's no traffic study this trigger.

So it's really, I mean, we can't put our head in the sand.

Our residents are pushing back, and I'm telling you what you know with Mallard Creek looks like, and it's it's not safe, the speed limit is 45.

I reach out to C DOT for improvements.

I'm you know, so it's just we have to, and then we're looking at 880 uh units, and so we just really I I ask for my colleagues uh to really help me out on this.

Uh motion to close.

Second.

All in favor.

Okay, so we now move on to agenda item 37.

Location approximately 3.616 acres located west of Marsh Road, south of Auburn Avenue and east of Hartford Avenue in Council District 1, Ms.

Anderson's district.

Current zoning is R12 MF C D, multifamily residential conditional, proposed zoning N2A C D to A conditional.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site design as well as requested technical revisions.

Ms.

Kramer.

Thank you.

This site is just over three acres along Marsh Road, just north of Selling Farms Lane and south of Auburn Avenue, in an area where we have existing multifamily uses just to the east and the south, an education facility to the north, and some single family residential lots to the west.

The site is currently zoned, R 12 multifamily conditional, multifamily residential conditional from the Lexacy Ordnance.

They are proposing to go to neighborhood to A conditional.

This is consistent with the goals and policies of the South Inner Area Plan.

So this site is within one of the areas that has had a recently adopted community area plan.

So we've adopted or we've evaluated our consistency based off the goals and policies of the applicable South Inner Area Plan here.

The proposal itself is for up to 37 multifamily attached dwelling units.

There would be a 40-foot setback along Marsh Road.

I'll just point out that the Marsh Road Corridor has an existing landscape berm along the majority of the corridor.

It's about 60 feet in most areas.

And this site is proposing 40 feet at this time.

They've noted some enhanced plantings that would take place within that setback.

They have also committed to a wall or a fence up to six feet tall to be included along the landscape treatment, and they would have also fencing along their Class C landscape yard.

They've committed to the landscape yard installing enhanced plantings beyond ordinance requirements.

That would be Class B landscape plantings.

And buildings would be separated at the site with a minimum of 15 feet.

Publicly accessible open space will be centrally located and designed for multiple users with dynamic programmable features.

They've also included enhanced open space NITs and committed to preferred architectural and design standards.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site design as well as requested technical revisions.

We've worked really closely with the petitioner team on this one, and I appreciate them coming back with us for some potential options on how to move the needle for this petition.

And I'm hopeful that the revised site plan that they will submit before zoning committee should address the majority of these issues.

I think you'll see the outstanding issue that we've had the toughest time with that's listed in the end of staff analysis is as it relates to the landscape berm and establishing a setback within their site plan that is representative of the setbacks that you see along the majority of marsh road behind that existing 60-foot landscape berm on most of those properties that it's surrounded by.

Thank you.

So I have uh five speakers signed up.

Colin Brown, Brittany Lynns, Kyle Rowland, Tyler Steele, and Adam Sparks.

I'll take that as well.

So Ms.

Linz.

Good evening, Council members, zoning committee members, Britney Linz with the law firm of Alexander Ricks here tonight representing Roland Development for a site on Marsh Road.

I'll wait as my slides come up.

Um but Holly did a good orientation.

This is in the Sedgefield neighborhood.

Um, just to hit the highlights, it's currently zoned R12 MF C D, which was an old pre-UDO district.

Essentially, R12 MF, the base zoning district would allow about 12 units per acre in a multifamily density.

You'll see multifamily zonings around it, um, as well as the 2040 policy map that that Holly highlighted consistent with the N2 zoning district.

What we're proposing is about 12 dwelling units per acre, consistent with that old R12 MS base zoning district.

Uh this is a site plan as Holly referenced.

And so this site plan that I have in front of you is actually incorporating a 60-foot setback that staff had been asking for, and we've worked very closely with them to come up with this site plan that we think really does address those issues.

Um couple other highlights is the enhanced buffer in the back and open space considerations throughout the site.

This kind of helps show you that precedent that Holly was referencing along Marsh Road.

So this is the Hunter's Run multifamily community.

It continues on down to set uh Selwyn Farms and Colonial Village, all does kind of have that larger berm.

So this project would maintain that berm, but enhance plantings and really a focus on that marsh road frontage that that staff had been looking for.

Um, this compares the two plans.

We're again hopeful that we will get in a place with staff that they recommend approval and we um have consistency with the policy map.

Here's some example product.

We uh we've met with the community members, um, we met with the broader Sedgefield Neighborhood Association, and um, I know I passed along some correspondence to council member Anderson about their favorable responses.

We've met with adjacent neighbors.

This this project team has had a lot of interaction with the adjacent neighbors and with um the adjacent Hunters Run community HOA, and um this this shows the example products, really those enhanced plantings, but overall we're consistent with the policy map, consistent with the underlying base zoning for multifamily residential.

We're committing to um that townhome development with enhanced plantings, and we'll be working with staff to resolve those outstanding issues.

This time I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

So I have Miss Mayfield.

Thank you.

Actually, question for the petitioner.

Can we go back a couple of slides?

I want to understand where how the parking is going to be.

You speaking for the existing hunters run or for this project for the project.

Yeah, so this is a concept map, so it's just um reflective of kind of the broader building envelopes.

They would each have their own driveway and garage.

So these where's over and then there is also some visitor spaces right there.

Right, that's what I'm trying to figure out about.

Is this one way in, one way out?

Where the where are the interests?

So it's one access in and one access out.

This is for 37 townhomes, so we're well below the 100 units that would require two access points.

So we have one way in, one way out.

How many community parking spaces are there?

I think there are nine.

I'm counting nine.

Nine on the roof.

I'd have to get the numbers on the revised plan.

I know we have visitor spaces here and further down as well.

I'd have to get the the number.

Are you speaking specifically to visitor parking spaces?

Because it just have their own as well.

I am look speaking to visitor spaces because of what I want us to consider, and what I'm wondering regarding what staff looked at is worst-case scenario.

Fire truck has to come in.

This is a one way in, one way out.

If something were to happen, you are going to have individuals trying to get out of the immediate vicinity at the same time where police fire and medic are trying to come in.

Having nine overflow spaces.

One of the challenges that we're seeing on the ground is not a challenge if you have no friends or family.

But the reality is, like now, we're in the holidays, we have people that might want to have a gathering.

I attended event at a town hall community Saturday, where I literally saw people parked up on the grass for the little green space area where one vehicle was literally almost sideways.

Only time I really need to see that is a NASCAR race when you go on about 200 and some change when you almost to the side.

So I'm wondering when we are looking at these, the reality is that individuals end up parking in community or along the street.

That is what is happening currently.

So is there, and I recognize this is a tight lot, but understanding worst-case scenario.

If police fire medication at the same time that people are going to try to escape this space, because once one go up, the chances of everything immediate to it potentially, unless we at fire level three on the walls, but even at that, that just gives you an hour or so time to try to get out.

So thinking about that what if possibility as well, and this is for both asking for later follow-up with the petitioner, but also asking staff when you're looking at these.

Do we take that into consideration for that what if and what is the plan?

Yes, and I will say, well, first of all, I'll correct myself.

I think there are a couple of extra spaces.

Not that it might change matters drastically, but I think they also have four other on-street spaces, so maybe upwards of 13 on the current plan that we're looking at tonight.

And Charlotte Fire does review every single rezoning petition.

They've signed off on the fire apparatus turnaround and fire access concerns, any outstanding issues that they would have had on the site plan.

There are no other outstanding issues for fire access for this site.

Adjacent multifamily projects also have single access.

Again, not saying that that's ideal condition necessarily, but that is existing condition, it's not necessarily abnormal.

And Charlotte Fire is reviewing that for that exact concern.

So for my colleagues, just as a nugget for us to hold on to.

When I've talked to the chief and firefighters, they're gonna have access because if your vehicle is in the way and they're they need to get to that building, they're gonna move your vehicle with that truck.

That's not answering the question of if the individuals are also trying to get out for safety reasons, or there's an evacuation that needs to happen at the same time that our first responders are trying to get to the space, making sure that there's clear egress and regress.

So I'll love to have a follow-up to have a better understanding of that, the what if, as well as the parking situation, because we are already seeing in community where developments that were previously approved, when there is an event, whatever the event is, once you get past vehicle number four, those vehicles are causing some challenges in community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

Um, this particular petition has been discussed in depth with the Sedgefield Neighborhood Association.

They've looked at it, they've put their thumbprint on it, and they've also agree with some of what staff has said, in particular around the 60-foot burn that um extends along Marsh Drive, a marsh road.

It is uh sort of a historical uh landscape strip that's been there for decades, and so you know, kudos to the petitioner for being able to bring to modify this project that fits in very well with that type of aesthetic for that corridor.

Um, Miss Mayfield, you bring up some great points.

Um Charlotte Fire Department did sign off on their ability to enter and exit the property.

You do make valid points.

I will say that just right adjacent to this particular uh parcel.

We have a historical Selwood Farms that is a very uh a very in-depth um single family.

Well, it's a multi-use um neighborhood back there that only has one ingress and egress as well.

And Miss Liz, it might be helpful to share, if not tonight, then you know, via email with all all of council, the the length of the ingress egress of this property relative to Sellwood Farms, um, which is literally the adjacent property that's been there for decades, and they haven't had any real problems with um with emergency access as it has been a well-established uh neighborhood.

I live very close to this area, so I know it extremely well.

Um the most important aspect of this is you know, Sedgefield has gone through uh, like so many other communities, they have gone through an area where they were a thriving middle class community, and they sort of hit a wall there uh about a decade or so ago.

We've been working for the last several years to get them back to a place where the neighbors feel similar to Hidden Valley, akin to Hidden Valley, and so they're excited about this project.

Uh, they believe it brings the proper aesthetic to the community that fits in well, and so we're excited about that.

They are extremely excited about it, but I think we should just answer Miss Mayfield's concerns to ensure that um you know that that she's satisfied there.

The other pieces along the marsh road corridor.

There isn't there is no on-street park.

There's not a whole lot of on-street parking there.

So that really is sort of an impossibility to park along that area.

So it would have to be baked into what the site design has.

That's right.

And if I may, there are parks that are arguably walking distance nearby.

You see kind of at the tip of your screen here.

There's a large parking lot if there's daytime activities that someone wanted to have overflow parking.

Um and then I don't know an arrangement with the school as far as parking, but there are larger surface parking lots in the area as well.

Miss Mayo.

Um, because it's so tight for people to get in and out.

And we've actually had conversations with CDOT in the fire department, and as a result of those conversations, part of our roads, you can't park on one side of the street.

So I do want to make sure that we're being really thoughtful of that.

And that was CDOT in response to we had some kids lighting fires in our neighborhood.

Um, yeah, it wasn't it was scary.

Um, because you know, we were under like a drought issue and all this other stuff.

Anyway, but I just want to make sure that I highlight that because I do think that's something really to be thinking of.

Um, potentially particularly with um emergency services.

So I do agree with that.

Um, and I just want to make sure that we're highlighting that and thinking through other ways to add additional parking, particularly for the holiday season, um, because it goes in a alleyway.

It's not like people can even park, you know, on the side because it's just a straight street.

And then I did have another question about the solid waste location right here.

Is that gonna be like are they not doing rollout cans?

So, as part of the rezoning process, we're required to show a pad for the um garbage and recycling.

The reality is these would be rollout containers.

These are these are going to be high-end townhomes that um will we'll have rollout containers, but we have to account for that space just in case the rollout didn't happen.

And that will occur on I believe all petitions that it has to be shown even if it's not going to be used.

It is a requirement, whether or not so the city requires you to show it.

I will say the city of Charlotte Solid Waste themselves don't service this, they don't service this type of product because it's considered multi-family.

You have to show it and you have to show it, especially when it's in relation to areas like this that about neighborhood one properties because there are distance requirements.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Masquero, yes.

Um thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

Also, I'm impressed that you've been pronouncing my name correctly the entire night.

Thank you.

Um I I do have a question because I myself, like Councilmember Mayo, I live in a townhome community uh where the streets are also very narrow.

Um are these public streets or private streets?

These are private alleys that they're proposing, and that's not it's not a typical from for a neighborhood to A type product, which can have housing types, abut and front private alleys rather than public street networks.

Gotcha.

The reason I ask is because since I live in a community of this sort, um we've been missing a stop sign in our intersection, and so we've had already a bunch of collusions there.

Um however, you know, I know this this seems very small, but it can become a major problem, um, especially if you know the trach is coming and picking up, or you have emergency services and you are trying to have residents leave.

Uh the other thing is yes, I I would have to agree with council member Mayfield's original point.

Um, you know, folks have family and friends, or at least I hope they do.

Um community, right?

And so um expanding these streetways, having more access to parking for folks that don't live in these residential units, would be helpful.

Um, I also think uh perhaps finding a creative solution to not just having one entryway but another one.

Um it just it's hard for me to conceptualize and envision having just one entryway for how many units 36?

37.

37, uh 37 units on top of, especially as we are becoming a city with higher density and a growing population.

We have around 180 folks moving into the region each day, right?

Um, and so we're just going to be bound to see more congestion, more traffic, and having one entryway, I feel like would contribute to that.

So thank you.

Anyone else?

Motion.

Motion close.

Second.

All in favor.

Uh oh, sorry.

Oh, it's me.

All right, we move on to agenda item 38.

Petition 2025 104 by D.R.

Horton, approximately 14.9 acres located west of Nations Ford Road, northeast of West Hebron Street, and south of West Arrowwood Road in Miss Mayo's district.

Current zoning is B D C D, distributed business conditional, IC1 institutional campus, OAFC office flex campus.

Proposed zoning is N2A C D neighborhood 2A conditional.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

Ms.

Kramer.

Thank you.

This site is right around 15 acres with frontages along both West Hebron Street and Nations Ford Road, just south of West Arrowwood Road there in the Montclair South Neighborhood.

It's in an area where we have adjacent uses of multifamily residential, multifamily stacked primarily.

There are some single family residential uses, though not directly abutting this site.

Campus uses and commercial uses to the north of this site.

Property is currently zoned distributed business conditional.

That's the southern portion of the site in the southeastern corner there that you see in the gray color.

Also zoned institutional campus and office flex campus.

They are looking to go to neighborhood to a conditional.

The 2040 policy map currently calls for the campus place type for this site.

Sorry, apologies.

And uh this petition is considered out of alignment with that place type recommendation for campus, considering that it's calling for a neighborhood to A designation here.

The proposal itself is for up to 130 multi-dwelling units, which may include a combination of duplex, triplex, and quadruplexes.

These would be multifamily attached, so townhome style units.

No more than six units would be located in any individual building.

Establishes a public street network through the site with the proposed extension of old Hebron Road and a connection to Peppervine Lane.

That's one of the streets in the adjacent multifamily stacked development there, identifies locations for recessed parking along proposed public streets to accommodate visitor parking, commits to improving pedestrian network with eight-foot planning strip and eight-foot sidewalk along internal network required streets, including the old Hebron Road extension that they will be coordinating.

Commits to providing an eight-foot planning strip and six foot six-foot sidewalk along Nations Ford Road and West Hebron Street, and provides a 10-foot classy landscape yard with a fence along the northern property boundary where it abuts commercial uses, locates tree safe area, most of the common open space in the western portion of the site along a perennial stream where there are stream buffers, and also provides three smaller common open space areas throughout the site.

Provides a menu of open space improvements and notes enhancements that may incur occur throughout those open space areas and commits to use both porches and stoops as predominant features as well as other preferred architectural and design standards.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

This is another petition where it is located in an area with an adopted community area plan.

This petition is considered consistent with the goals and policies of the South Middle Community Area Plan.

And the petition meets the minor map amendment criteria for a change to the neighborhood to place type based off its based off its acreage, the preferred adjacencies, as well as the locational criteria spelled out within the minor map amendment criteria found within the area plans.

And that includes just being located adjacent to an activity center.

So it is again just to the north.

We have those commercial uses that future residents might access.

It has proximity to transportation corridors, and it would have access to CATS bus route 56.

It would also be extending and expanding upon the public street network in the area.

And I'll be happy to take any questions following the petitioners' comments.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Grant, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Councilmember Triggs, Mayor Pro Tem, members of Council, members of the zoning committee, Bridget Grant, more and Van Allen.

Pleased to be here tonight on behalf of DR Horton.

Tori Karski is here as well as Edwin Sudreth with Ardora.

It's been a long night.

Staff did a great job, and I'm not in the habit of repeating everything that they said, so I will say I appreciate staff support and the recognition of land use consistency.

We are happy to address any outstanding issues.

Pleased to have no speakers in opposition, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Move to approve.

Okay.

So uh Ms.

Mayo.

Yeah, I just had a quick question, Bridget.

This is actually really close to my house.

I could walk here.

Um, have y'all thought at all about increasing um like a tree save along this street?

Nations Forward is very busy.

There's a lot of manufacturing kind of in that area, just to provide more um air quality, uh, increase air quality for those future residents there, but also like buffer some of the sound because that that is a very busy road.

So just thinking of the future residents that might live there.

Is that something that you think the petitioner may agree to?

We can absolutely go back and look at our ability to increase any landscaping along that corridor.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion to close?

Second.

All in favor.

Everybody, okay.

So we then come to uh agenda item 39.

Petition 2025 107 by Morris Holdings LLC, approximately 9.72 acres located along the southeast side of Mallard Creek Road, north of Morris Estate Drive, and west of Farron Way in Miss Johnson's district.

Current zoning is N1A, neighborhood 1A and RE3, research 3.

Proposed zoning is N2A C D, neighborhood 2A conditional.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues and technical revisions related to the building site design.

Thank you.

This site is just under eight acres, located along the southeast side of Mallard Creek Road, north of Morris Estate Drive, west of Fair and Way in an area where we have predominantly residential uses.

It directly abuts a townhome community under development to its north and east there and single family residential uses, mostly along the west, though there are commercial areas closer to Sugar Creek to the south.

The current zoning zoning is neighborhood 1A as well as research three.

They're proposing to go to neighborhood to a conditional.

This proposal is considered inconsistent with the 2040 policy maps recommendation for the neighborhood one place type.

The proposal itself is for up to 85 multifamily attached again townhome style units.

It would contain or it contain provisions for no more than five units per building, provides eight-foot sidewalks and eight-foot planting strips along the site's frontage for Morris Estate Drive, provides a 12-foot wide shared use path along Mallard Creek Road.

It also provides roadway and sidewalk connection to High Rule Drive.

That's one of the existing streets to the townhome community there to the northeast.

And I apologize.

I guess in this image you can tell it's actually mostly developed.

It's just in some of the other street images and some of the Google maps images.

It looks like it's still under construction.

They also note that they would have amenitized common open space areas that would consist of some of the open space enhanced plantings and other elements that we ask for during our rezoning reviews, and they provided that.

Also provides at least one common open space area accessible from all residential lots within a thousand foot radius and provides preferred architectural and design guidelines.

All units shall have access to public sidewalk via an internal internal sidewalk network.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues and technical revisions related to building site design.

Although it is inconsistent with the neighborhood one place type recommendation, it does meet a lot of that preferred those preferred variables that we look at when considering a neighborhood to place type, considering its adjacency to neighborhood one and neighborhood two place types already on the ground.

Its location within a half mile of major transportation corridor, its acreage of being above five acres, its frontage along an arterial street, and generally just being in alignment with the broader context that we see in the area.

It's in the vicinity of some commercial uses that would be about a mile away.

And I'll be happy to take any questions following petitioner comments.

Mr.

Brown, you have three minutes.

Evening, Council Members, zoning committee, members Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner.

Interesting story here.

The Morris name, you might be familiar with Morris Costumes on uh Monroe Road, same ownership.

Uh and in fact, when my uh slides pop up, you'll see there's a warehouse there that is the Morris Holdings warehouse, uh, where that goes.

And I realize this um this says Mallard Creek, and I know that sensor, I would point out this is pretty far south on this, almost at the gateway to Dorida.

Uh this is not feed Mallard Creek High School.

And so, as Holly said, here's this is the Morris warehouse, and this is on the back end.

It's kind of an interesting area because there's a lot of different things going on.

We've got some large industrial sites here, and our zoning on our site, we've got half is research and half is in one, and we're sandwiched in a bunch of uh in two.

So there's our zoning map.

So half research, half in one.

Uh, and this is an area where their NCDOT has actually done some good improvements.

So, this is at Mallard Creek and Graham, where new signals going in.

Now, I've got some arrows I could show, and I've heard you say this before, Councilman Johnson.

There's trucks parked here.

So, this is an area that is is evolving.

There's truck parking, that's not a great fit.

What goes here?

Um, we had uh in addition to our community meeting, we've had meetings with the uh district four coalition and the Dorita Statesville Road Community Organization.

Um, so good feedback there.

I think everyone that we've met with has kind of realized if I show you the map.

Here's industrial behind us and into on both sides.

So this does make sense to be something.

Uh we talked initially about apartments for the site.

Uh the petitioner said, Okay, I can take it down from there.

I I can do a town home plan, which is what we're proposing, up to 85 town homes, as Holly mentioned.

We've got a limit of five per building.

We don't have a detailed conceptual plan, but it but we have a working plan uh to some of the points that have mentioned on the townhomes tonight.

These are what I'm showing you here are public streets.

So there's a public street network uh with three access points.

Uh we do have some alley loaded product, and the conversations we have with the neighbors have been positive.

They'd like for the truck parking to end, and they'd like for the right-of-ways to be improved.

So we, if you kind of see our product here, we've actually got some alley loads, so these would be front doors facing out on Mallard Creek.

And um, what we've really heard from the community is the uh area N C D O T area here that is left over across the street is poorly maintained, and so there's a lot of interest in everyone we've talked to, including uh the ownership family of getting that improved.

Um, so we are continuing conversations with the neighborhood groups, potentially even making some contributions to some neighborhood entities to improve that because no one's more impacted than these future homeowners here.

Um so I'm almost out of time.

I had a lot I wanted to cover, happy to answer any questions.

Johnson.

Thank you.

If someone were new to the city, they would think Mallard Creek was the only street in district four.

I believe all four petitions tonight have been on Mallard Creek.

Um, but it but uh Mr.

Brown is right as far as the area of Mallard Creek where this is.

This is right across the street from District 2, I believe, and it is it's not as congested.

Um, as far as the truck parking of the residents reach out to me, we can get co enforcement out there anyway to take care of that without the development.

But two things for staff.

I don't see this petition on the map.

I don't know when it was pulled, but I don't it's not on here.

And also I ask CDOT for a list of accidents along Mallard Creek.

So I just want to put that out there.

I'm waiting on that information for list of accidents because I want to just show the the team that I mean there's data to support what what I'm saying, but as far as this petition, you you're right, it's not in that area that's just really congested.

Yeah, so and are these um these are for sale or for well it's it's the the family zones that they're not real estate developers, so they're zoning it.

They've made those, but I think they'll probably be for sale.

But okay.

Move to close.

Second.

All in favor.

No opposed, I hope.

Thank you.

Okay, we're up to agenda item 40.

Zoning petition 2025 108 by C R D Development LLC.

Approximately 1.49 acres located north of Cleveland Avenue, east of East Worthington Avenue, and east of South Boulevard in Miss Anderson's district.

Current zoning is T O D N C C D, Transit Oriented Development Neighborhood Center Conditional, and T O D U C C D Transit Oriented Development Urban Center Conditional.

Proposed zoning is R A C E X, Regional Activity Center Exception and T O D U C C D Transit Oriented Development Urban Center Conditional Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and site and building design.

Petition 2025 108 is proposed rezoning of approximately one and a half acres southwest of the on the southwest corner of Cleveland Avenue and East Worthington Avenue.

Site's currently zoned TODNC, transit oriented development and TODUC transit-oriented development.

Both of those are conditional districts.

Proposed zoning is RACEX Regional Activity Center exception and TODUC CD.

Transit oriented development conditional.

So this is in one of the uh community area plan areas that was adopted.

So the plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the South Intercommunity Area Plan and it's consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for regional activity center place type.

The proposed rezoning is an exception or EX request.

EX conditional rezoning is a request to modify quantitative zoning standards in exchange for the petitioner agrees to provide at least two public benefits from two of the following categories: sustainability, city improvement, and for public amenity.

The primary driver of this rezoning request is for the EX provisions to increase the allowed building height within 200 feet of a designated neighborhood one place type.

Sites located adjacent to the southeast corner of Cleveland Avenue in East Worthington Ave, which is designated as the neighborhood one place type, and that's just here off screen where the text is.

However, this place type is applied to former single-family homes that are now zoned CG general commercial and be then repurposed for non-residential uses, such as office and retail.

The petitioner proposes public benefits in the categories of sustainability and public amenity outlined by Article 37 of the UDM.

Under sustainability, the petitioner shall commit to a building design that meets or exceeds the lead standards.

That's leadership in energy and environmental design.

And under the public amenity benefit, the petitioner shall work with the Dillworth Community Association to provide off-site publicly accessible amenities, which may include but are not limited to play around park, public plaza, or similar outdoor features.

And they're gonna provide a minimum 50% additional public open space beyond the UDO requirement in the RAC portion of the site.

In exchange for these public benefits, the petitioner requests exceptions to Article 12 to increase that height within 200 feet of the neighborhood one for the first 100 feet.

The UDO limits it to 50.

Petitioner proposes to exceed that and has a height of 84 feet proposed.

And for the 100 to 200 feet from that neighborhood one location, kind of on this side of the site, the UDO limit 65 feet, and the petitioner is proposing 114 feet.

And they have an additional exception along Cleveland to reduce the uh required transparency from 50 percent down to 40 percent of the facade area along Cleveland.

The petitioner also commits to a minimum parking ratio for commercial and hotel uses.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution about any issues related to transportation site and building design as the site's designated as regional activity center.

The site is currently underutilized and only contains abandoned warehouse and some service parking, and the site's in a rapidly growing area with new high-rise residential and office buildings, broad mix of uses.

Happy to take any questions following Mr.

Brown's presentation.

Mr.

Brown, for the last time this year.

Um council members, zoning committee members, Colin Brown again on behalf of the petitioners.

Uh, I think I've rezoned this site three times, and that that's not a joke.

Uh first it was for a hotel, and then it was for apartments, and now it's for uh multifamily and a hotel.

Um, so it in a nutshell, uh, Max did a great job of the overview.

But essentially, our entitlements are in place for uh a significantly sized apartment of about the same height that we're requesting.

Uh the current petitioner said, you know what, this would be a great site for a boutique hotel.

I'd like to incorporate that.

Our zoning doesn't allow it, so when we zone under the UDO, suddenly it kicks in a new height plane.

So essentially, what we're requesting is the ability to build a very similar building to what we're already allowed that would include a hotel component.

Um, as you can see, this may be my first Dillworth rezoning where where I've not had a packed house.

Uh, there has been robust conversations with the DCA.

Uh, they are, I'm sure, all watching from home, and so I want to make sure that we've got some commitments and dialogue going forward.

We have uh we are going to incorporate some architectural commitments into our standards.

I think everyone thinks it's a very nice building.

I think it's a good use, they think it's a good use.

Uh concerns are construction, so we've got some commitments that we're working with them that will govern construction access and traffic to the site.

Uh additionally, parking.

Uh former council member Iselt lives right down the street and has told me many times about the parking issues in the historic district.

So we are we're ironing out what we're calling public parking.

Now that public it will be accessible to the public, but it will be paid.

So we have we're we're adding standards to apply a higher parking standard than is required, and we will also have some public parking provisions.

So those are ongoing.

We're going to make revisions this week.

We'll have them in for zoning committee to review when they come in.

I'm ahead of schedule.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

Ms.

Mayfield.

Thank you.

And this could be either for you, Mr.

Bowen, or with staff.

I'm just trying to figure out what is a minimum of 0.5 vehicular parking spaces per room.

What is that?

A compact space?

No, it means for every two hotel rooms we'll have we'll provide one parking space.

That's more than is required by the ordinance.

And now what's interesting about hotels is people don't always drive to a hotel.

You know, we'll have a lot of folks that'll fly here and Uber there.

And so I think there's an understanding that this will not need as much parking.

But we do a lot of hotels.

I did a zone two months ago where we had zero parking.

So this will have some parking for every hotel room.

And there seems to be a lot of exceptions in this.

So I would love as we get into the new year for us to get on the calendar so that we can go through it versus holding you up tonight on our last meeting.

Happy to do it.

I think the Dilworth Land Use Committee has done the same, so happy to spend some time with you on that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Anderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

And and Colin, uh the reason why this room isn't packed is because this particular petition has been front loaded quite a bit with the work, and thanks to Cullen and his team for working with the Dillworth Community Association literally for months.

We've already had several meetings on this particular petition.

But the community feels really good about it, and so do I, for a couple of reasons.

Um there are some conditions, and Colin has shared some of the verbiage, um, but it also includes um massing exhibits, of course, construction logistics, not only parking, but access to the site and work on the site on particular days and parking requirements as well as the contribution to street trees because the Dillworth community is a historic community that values street uh trees and their canopy.

So there is some leaning into ensuring that this particular site will fit into the charm and aesthetic of this historical uh neighborhood, as well as some access points.

But the other piece of it is that we have our first medical school, the Pearl, which is literally right down the street.

So to Collins Point, someone flying in to um participate in activities at the Pearl probably won't have a car, but they'll have increased walkability with access to a boutique hotel in a historic neighborhood that will also uh be able to um activate some of our small businesses along this corridor as well.

There's several small businesses, restaurants, bars, etc.

So it's uh it's a win-win for everyone and the community has worked very hard to get to this point before we even brought it to you in a hearing form.

So I feel really good about the work from both sides, and I look forward to the advancement of this petition.

Thank you, Mr.

Drake's motion to close.

Second.

All in favor, I hope.

This brings us to our last agenda item 41.

Zoning petition 2025 110 by Graham Overlook LLC, approximately 0.5 acres located east of North Graham Street, south of Plymouth Avenue, and north of Armored Drive in Miss Anderson's district.

Current zoning is ML2, manufacturing and logistics.

And proposed zoning is NC neighborhood center.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

Mr.

Oliver.

Yes, I'll be much more brief with this one than the previous 2025-11s located on the west side of Graham Street.

It's currently developed with an office building.

Current zoning is ML2 manufacturing logistics.

Proposed zoning is NC neighborhood center.

It's a conventional rezoning.

2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood center place type for this site, and the NC district is consistent with this recommended place type.

Proposal would allow all uses permitted by right and under prescribed conditions in NC District.

Staff recommends approval this petition as North Graham Street is part of the corridors of opportunity program.

Site's located within a half mile walk of camp north end, which is a large but growing mixed use development.

And the rezoning represents an ongoing shift to a more urban and mixed use development pattern in the area.

Mr.

Ferguson, this being the last petition of the night, you have 30 seconds.

Honorable Mayor Potem, Council Zoning Committee, thank you for your time.

A short presentation tonight.

It's a route about a half an acre.

It's being changed from ML2 to neighborhood center.

It's primarily to accommodate an existing legally uh non-compliant use that got caught up in the change from industrial to ML2.

Very much like the tenant there and very much want them to have room to expand.

I ran into some issues recently in permitting.

That's why we're going forward with the conventional.

Uh it is just the building lot, so there's no adjacent vacant land to be developed under NC.

That is a wonderful arrow that I drew uh showing that it's compliant with 2040 policy map.

This is a picture of the building.

It's a great adaptive use into office, uh, which is primarily used for medical office now.

Um with that, and uh point out that staff is in support of it.

Uh with that, uh wish everyone happy holidays and give you back two minutes and 15 seconds.

That's what I'm talking about.

Happy to have your questions.

Okay, uh Ms.

Anderson.

Just very quickly, um, this is a light lift for us.

Um it fits in quite well with the Camp North End site, and it complements the Portal of Opportunity work on North Graham and State's fault.

Motion to close.

Second, all second.

So, colleagues, best wishes to everybody to staff, uh, to the people of Charlotte.

Hold on, Kyle, you got to get back.

You gotta get a shot.

Uh, yeah.

Thank you, Brittany.

All right how you get your petitions approved.

That's right.

There you go.

Johnson, you put in the UCO.

Brittany, hold on, hold on.

Hold on.

Ms.

Johnson has to put on her uh lights, I think we should stay in all the things.

Oh, yeah.

So let's stay in.

Let's stay in.

There you go.

Doing the most thing.

Yes.

So much.

Sure, you stay in front of your chair, so we don't have empty chairs in our picture.

Okay.

All right.

You got us, Britain.

All right.

Ready?

Yeah.

One, two, three, say joy.

Joy!

Aye.

A motion to adjourn.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

I'll come in.

Second favorite.

All right.

Happy holidays.