Good evening, everybody.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Excuse me.

I don't think I was supposed to speak to you.

Can I give us to you?

Welcome.

I would like to call this January 20th, 26th zoning meeting of the Charlotte City Council to order.

My name is Ed Driggs.

I am the District 7 Council Member and also Chair of the Transportation Planning and Development Committee, in which capacity I'm sitting here tonight.

I will begin with introductions, commencing with Councilmember Johnson.

Good evening.

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

Good evening.

I'm JD Masuera Adias, proudly representing the East Side District 5.

Good evening, Luana Mayfield, Council Member at Large.

Good evening, Kimberly Owens speaking for District Six.

Good evening, everyone.

Allison Craig, Deputy City Manager.

Dante Anderson, District 1.

Joy Mayo, District 3.

Good evening.

I'm Victoria Watlington.

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

So we will begin our meeting with an invocation.

Expressions and inspiration, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

The invocation by the council members intended to solemnize our proceedings.

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

Tonight, Councilmember Owens will give our invocation.

Thank you, Councilmember Driggs.

Um, for those of you who who know me particularly well or were privy to the night I was sworn in, you may have noted that I'm a I I have a firm adherence to separation of church and state, and consequently I was sworn in on this copy of our Constitution of the United States rather than a Bible.

I will say that in light of that, I had had some questioning.

So the other three that I will have this year will be informed by my belief that we are greater for the diversity of our faith expression.

So tonight's I will bring forward uh just a couple of thoughts that are in the vein of of my particular belief system.

Um we had wonderful expressions of uh Martin Luther King's teachings, and so I think I would be remiss not to to quote as as we solemnize our our discussions here tonight.

Uh something that that I have heard multiple times over the last weekend and that was always one of my favorite quotes, which is the time is always right to do what is right.

And that has been deeply resonant with me as I assume this position representing District Six.

I take that to heart, and uh again, I wanted to lift that up in light of of the timing of um of this first meeting after Martin Luther King's observance.

And then secondarily, and this one I I don't mean to be cheeky about it, but I will say that it's one that I've always held deeply uh close to my heart, as do my children, which is in uh in the Spider-Man movies.

Uncle Ben of all people leaves us as he's dying at at Spider-Man's at Spider-Man's feet.

He says, with great power comes great responsibility.

And I look at where we are as a country, I look at where we are as a citizenry, and um we all have power, and with that power, be it our powers of privilege, be it our powers of wisdom, be it our powers of experience, be it just our powers of proximity to situations that we can address.

I would ask that we all yield that responsibility.

And then finally, I would call uh sadly for a moment of silence for one of Charlotte's residents who was taken from us uh way too soon.

And I speak of uh Lance Sotello, who happened to be a friend and a classmate of Councilmember Mazara Arias.

And I I would ask that we observe a moment of silence in his honor.

He was um member of our community and um very active and a positive force for our community.

They will be dearly missed by all, and I thank them for their presence, their commitment, and their spirit.

And now I would call for a quick moment of silence.

I thank all of you for this moment of silence.

I ask you to bring into your heart the faith expression, the internal or external power that soothes and motivates you.

I ask you to bring that into this session and um with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member.

Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge by the United States of America and individual liberty and justice for all.

And now before we go on to the explanation of the zoning process, planning director Monica Holmes is asked to speak to council.

Hi, yes, uh, thank you.

I just want to make sure we just hand it out and gave you all uh copies of flyers for our upcoming community area plan workshops.

Uh, you have key details, dates, locations, how to RSVP on these flyers.

You'll receive on Thursday in your packets both a digital version that you can distribute, including a social media post that you can promote uh to your constituents about those dates.

We please ask you to share that um so that we can have great engagement.

That will also include a Spanish translation, uh flyers so that you can uh promote that uh our diverse community.

Um and it'll have email verbiage so that you can send it out to your listserv.

So uh appreciate for you giving me a little but a couple minutes in the zoning meeting to make sure you're all aware of that, and I have a few extra copies if anybody would like a couple more or reach out if you have a specific event you want them for.

Thank you.

Um at this point, I'd like to explain the zoning process before we get underway.

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

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

Decisions on cases for which a public hearing was previously held without further comment and hearings.

Anyone wishing to speak is asked to see the clerk before the start of the hearing.

Clerk sits over there.

Uh there's the staff presentation without a time limit, and then the petitioner and those in favor get three minutes to speak to present their case, unless their opponents signed up to speak, or if staff is in opposition.

In which case the petitioner gets 10 minutes, the opponent gets 10 minutes, and the petitioner gets a two-minute rebuttal.

If no one is opposed or signed up to speak, staff provides a short presentation.

The public hearing is closed, and the next public hearing is opened.

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

And at this point, I'd like to introduce Douglas Welton, uh the chair of the planning committee, so that he may introduce his colleagues.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Drake.

And thank you to the members of council.

My name is Douglas A.

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

Allow me to introduce my fellow uh committee members.

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

The zoning committee will meet on Tuesday, February 3rd at 5 30 p.m.

at that meeting.

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

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

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

You can find contact information for each petition on the city's website at CharlottePlanning.org.

And that's all I have.

Back to you, Mr.

Driggs.

Thank you, Mr.

Welton.

So at this point, uh there are several items that were on our agenda that are proposed to be deferred or withdrawn.

The council has to vote on that.

Uh and I would ask Ms.

Kramer to tell us what they are.

Thank you.

For our deferrals, we have item number eight, petition 2025 021 by Harold Jordan requesting deferral of decision to February 16th.

Item number nine, 2025 027 by Mission City Church and Freedom Communities requesting deferral decision to February 16th.

Item number 12, petition 2025-039, Christopher Martin were requesting deferral of decision to February 16th.

Item number 14th, petition 2025 076, Kevin Wynne requesting deferral decision to February 16th.

Item 17, petition 2025 089, American Asset Corporation requesting deferral of public hearing to February 16th.

Item number 18, 2025 118 by City of Charlotte Text Amendment requesting deferral of public hearing to February 16th.

And finally, item number 23, petition 2025 063 by Northwood Raven requesting deferral of public hearing to February 16th.

Thank you, Ms.

Kramer.

Do I have a motion to defer those items?

So moved.

Second, second.

All in favor.

That's approved unanimously.

So at this point, we're going to move on to our decisions.

And before we get into those, I would like to ask Ms.

Kramer to talk a little bit about the new staff analysis that we've heard about.

And we're making changes because of the introduction of the area plans, and we've had prior explanations of how that will affect the staff analysis.

Ms.

Kramer, would you like to talk to us about that?

Thank you.

So this month for our here, our public hearing petitions, you'll see a roll out of our new staff analysis, which has a more expanded context and site background, as well as explanation of existing zoning district, proposed zoning district, existing place type, proposed place type if it were to change, and an expanded policy section, particularly for the petitions that have an adopted area plan.

We're hoping that with this new staff analysis, you're given more information as decision makers and our community members are also given more information as neighbors to understand what's happening around them.

And the particulars of the development that's occurring not only within the rezoning boundary itself, but also around the rezoning boundary with the inclusion of our new buy-right infrastructure map, for example, as well as the expansion of our rezoning history map and the information that it details.

And now I'll talk a little bit about how the consistency statements are changing.

So with the adoption of seven out of 14 of our community area plans, we've been transitioning the policy language that you'll see and hear tonight.

Seven committee area plans were adopted on November 24th of this past year.

Four rezoning petitions within an adopted area plan that have held their public hearing after November 24th or will hold it tonight or in the future following their area plan adoption on November 24th.

Those petitions will have a consistency statement referencing how the petition is or is not consistent with the goals and policies of their applicable area plan rather than a consistency statement that references the 2040 policy maps place type recommendation for the site.

Now for rezoning petitions that are within an adopted community area plan boundary up for decision tonight that held their public hearing prior to an area plan adoption on November 24th.

They have a consistency statement that only references consistency with the 2040 policy maps place type recommendation for the site rather than a consistency statement that references the applicable area plan.

And that situation is few and far between.

But just wanted to clarify why we're in this time of transition and what is impacting and which petitions are affected.

That's it.

Um I'll be right with you.

Uh just like to highlight then we have petitions in areas that without an adopted plan.

We have petitions in areas with an adopted plan that were, however, had their hearing before the adoption of the plan, and then we have petitions in areas with an adopted plan where the hearing was after the adoption of the plan.

Those are the three situations, and they result in differences in the way the staff analysis is presented.

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

One of the reasons that that we some of us pushed for the delay in the adoption of the air area plans uh was so that we could receive more community input.

As of the last January committee meeting, we were still waiting on an update uh to the website so that individuals could could find what area plan that they live in.

Can you give us an update, Mr.

Jones?

Do you is has that been updated yet?

I think that's probably a question first.

I think that would be a good question for uh Monica or Holly.

But my understanding is that it has been, uh, but you can give more details as to when and how um on the website.

If you go on CLT Future2040.com, the very top of the page, you can do a search.

We've added that as a link on other pages as well that you may navigate to.

And the QR codes that are on the flyers also navigate to that page so you can find both the area plan that you are in as well as uh register for the upcoming engagements.

Okay, thank you.

So uh we will now move to the decision portion of our meeting.

And the first item there is the consent agenda.

So rezoning petitions uh items three through seven 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 petition at hearing.

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

So now I'd like to ask are there any consent agenda items council would like to pull for question or comment or a separate vote?

All right, Ms.

Johnson?

Uh 2025 107, which is item number.

The agenda number the agenda.

Item number five.

Five.

All right.

Agenda item six six.

Those are the only ones.

All right.

So um first we will vote on the remaining items, and need to find my little script here.

Yeah, yeah, I got that.

Just uh the oh, yeah.

May I may I have a motion?

Yeah, may I have a motion to approve the following petitions and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency for each of these petitions as they appear in our agendas on our own, and those uh with those exemptions are three, four, and seven uh in the consent agenda.

Do I have a motion?

So move for second item 347.

347.

Okay.

I don't know.

I just want to confirm.

Three, four, and seven.

Three point seven.

Yeah.

What am I doing here anyway?

Okay.

We have that motion.

We did and a second.

All right.

Any comment?

Hearing none, all in favor.

Good.

Okay, so then now we will consider uh number five.

And item number five uh rezoning 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.

And I would like to know can I have a motion to approve that petition and to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency for that petition as it appears in our agendas as the council's own.

So move.

Second.

All right, comments.

Yes, thank you.

Last month and months before you all have heard me express concern regarding all the development along Mallard Creek.

This is along Mallard Creek, but this isn't a part of Mallet Creek that we don't have that density.

The roads are wider, so the roads have been improved.

And so we also have support from the Dorida Community Association, so I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

Good.

If there is no further comment, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

That is unanimous.

All right.

Item six.

Um can I have a motion to approve the petition and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency for the petition as it appears in our agendas as the council's own.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

Comment.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, I just wanted to um raise some concerns that the community first had a broader understanding of this specific rezoning.

It is an amendment to a rezoning that was already approved, correct?

Correct.

And it would be adding more residential rather than commercial.

The concerns and the questions I would just like to submit to um the public record is what traffic improvements, transit improvements are being made with this rezoning, considering the expansion of 74, transit infrastructure, etc.

Right.

So I'll allow CDOT to come and speak on that, but I'll just note that as you've already said this is a site plan amendment.

It's very small and the scope of what was a much larger project and all the transportation commitments previously identified with the rezoning petition 2023 series 69 are being carried forward.

There's an associated strategic transportation improvement program with this site given the frontage that it's on.

But I'll let CDOT speak to more particulars about what's happening in this area.

Good evening, Council.

Charles Miller will see that.

Um so previously uh this rezoning was approved, and we reached out to CATS to see what exactly um what transit was requested or required.

And from our understanding, they requested a bus stop uh on the previous rezoning.

It's not associated with this one, but it's a part of the original uh approval of that rezoning for this one in particular.

It's actually less trips than the original rezoning due to this uh site plan amendment, and they have committed to coordinating with NC DOT.

She mentioned the STEP project.

Uh that project will include signals uh reduce uh intersection, the grade change intersection as well as sidewalk SUP in the area.

All right, thank you.

No further questions.

In that case, uh, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor, please say aye.

Raise your hand.

That is unanimous.

Okay, we're now going to decisions on individual items not in the consent agenda.

Uh items eight and nine have been deferred.

We go to item 10, and I have a note here that item 10 needs to go back to we need to have a vote as to whether it has to go back to the zoning committee.

Correct.

Right.

So there have been changes to this item, which might call for it to go back to the zoning committee.

The council can vote by a three-quarters majority not to send it back.

Ms.

Kramer, could you tell us what the changes are?

Yes, there are two primary changes done to this petition following zoning committee's recommendation.

The one was done really in concert with the zoning committee conversation that happened, and it was to clarify what good faith efforts would occur to secure the affordable affordable credits essentially for the 100 units that would be set aside for affordable senior housing on the site.

And so the petitioner clarified in the conditional notes that they would essentially be submitting across a one-year, one year, two different HTF cycles.

Um, and if they are not able to secure low-income tax credits across that one year, then they would no longer be obligated to provide that affordable housing as specified in the conditional notes.

But previously, the conditional notes apps presented in the public hearing, just noted that they would have good faith efforts.

So now they've provided a bit more clarity about what those good faith efforts are and how long they would apply for HTF funding, and what proof they would supply to planning that they actually did apply for said funding.

So that was positive and spoke to zoning committee's concerns on the item.

The other major change that occurred was a commitment to contribute 10,000 to CDOT for the installation of traffic calming measures along Galloway Road.

Thank you.

Uh I think I should clarify this is uh rezoning petition 2024 090 by Charter Properties, approximately 65.27 acres located along the north side of West Mallard Creek Church Road and the south side of Galloway Road, east of I85 in Miss Johnson's district.

So do I have a motion not to send it back to the zoning committee?

So moved.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none, yes.

Thank you.

Almost got away with it.

Question for staff.

You know that they say they would try for one year.

What is the affordability commitment if they were to be approved for housing trust fund dollars?

It's a hundred units, uh, 80% AMI for no less than 20 years.

And it's for senior housing.

So minimum of 20 years if they were to, but it is a competitive process, and what they're committing to is to one year attempts to qualify for funding.

Attempts within a one-year period, yes, which allows for as you know, two cycles.

Thank you.

There is no further comment.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor, raise your hand.

That is unanimous.

So we will not send it back.

In which case 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.

Uh motion to approve.

Second.

Any discussion?

Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

So last month, this was another one that you all might remember when this was um when we heard this.

Um, and I talked to John Carmichael and John Porter and said, I'm gonna have to eat those words, right?

So let's make them really sweet today.

I am planning to support this.

Um again, I've talked about Mallard Creek.

I have a map for everyone with the density on Mallard Creek and how we really need to look at the cumulative impact.

But this is on Mallard Creek Church Road for one.

This is also the responsible development that I push for.

There's there's retail, um, as you heard, there's a hundred units for seniors that are proposed to be attainable.

Um, there's traffic improvements.

This was one I actually reached out to my predecessor, Greg Phipps, because this was um proposed to be developed years ago before my time by Top Golf.

You some of you might remember that.

And because of that, there is a uh historic African American slave cemetery on the site.

So there's been a lot of work around that cemetery prior to this site.

There's commitments.

I also referred the developer John Porter to Dr.

I think it's Dr.

Jennifer Robinson Moore.

Is that the right name?

Julia.

Julia Robinson Moore, I'm sorry.

And she was able to speak with him.

Um she's she has an organization where they do this type of work, look at the um historical data and try to identify the decedent or the you know the individuals who are the graves.

So Mrs.

Porter has worked with that organization or talked with that organization.

She also mentioned that the $10,000 commit uh commitment for that cemetery may not be enough, right?

But she's and Mr.

Porter has uh spoken to her about that as well.

So this is a very thoughtful um approach.

I'm trying to get into my phone.

I wanted to actually tell you all the work that Mr.

Porter's done regarding that cemetery because I know it was very controversial, um, maybe 10 years ago.

Is it okay if if the poor if Mr.

Porter comes up and just gives us some information?

Yes, you can ask him specifically specifically to do that.

Thank you.

Yes.

If John Porter can come down, please with charter properties.

Ma'am.

Thank you.

Can you um again?

This was a very controversial um petition years ago regarding that that African American cemetery.

Can you give us the information on the work that's been done?

I can't, thank you.

I'll try to be brief.

Thank you.

Um so um it was identified uh through our relationship with the church and the neighbors in the area.

Uh we hired Dr.

Dan Morell to do the uh physical uh work there to determine what in fact was there.

Um you all probably remember Dan, and then uh he produced a 30-page report, including a ground penetrating radar survey.

The neighbors and the residents also walked us, uh walked it with us at that time, and we needed to also do an archaeological reconnaissance survey that we hired uh Dr.

Alan May from UNCC to do that.

Was about a 40-page talk at the time.

Um he completed that, and then we hired a licensed surveyor to survey the existing limits of that burial area and put them on the plan that's in front of you tonight for approval.

So it is fully survey.

Um, and then um committed to um what would be the next and last part, if you will, memorializing that and then maintaining it.

Um Julia Moore as the uh well Renee referred to is uh got an organization that can do those things.

We're not competent for those, and probably even appropriate.

So we're gonna convene a meeting between they and the church uh with funds we'll provide and um obviously secure the site for them uh so that they can do it while we're uh working on it at some point.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So as you can see, um they've they've taken the approach to preserve that land that was a community concern again, 80 townhomes on Galloway that are going to be for sale.

So there's this transition, this is retail, um, it's gonna be a a restaurant in district four and a proposed hotel.

So and it's right near 85.

So this is the type of development balance development and responsive development that we seek.

And so I'm obviously supporting this today.

Thank you.

Ms.

Johnson speaking as your colleague.

I appreciate all the work you've done on this.

Um any further comment?

If not, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Oh, look at that.

We're we're batting a thousand to that.

Uh so uh items 11 and 12 are deferred.

So we're going to item 13.

Rezoning petition 2025 070 by Prosperity Alliance, approximately 30.37 acres located west of Beatty's Ford Road, east of Patrick Allen Court, and north of McIntyre Avenue in Mr.

Graham's district.

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

So moved.

I guess I'm standing in for today.

Yeah.

I know we Mr.

Drinks.

May I we have not heard from Mr.

Graham on specifically this rezoning petition in so um if there is no urgency, I would like us to defer until we get feedback from the district rep.

Umslington, do you want to speak?

I was just noting that we didn't have a second on the particular motion.

No second on the motion.

There was no second on this second.

All right.

Uh second.

I I think uh on the debate.

So we have a second.

We have a motion and a second.

Uh I think we also have some uncertainties.

Yeah, I don't think that there was a second on the motion.

So if there if you'd like to make a motion to defer, it would be appropriate at this time.

There was no second on the motion to approve.

All right, so that motion wasn't made yet.

We don't have to vote on it, and therefore uh is there a motion to defer?

I'll make a motion to defer agenda item number 13.

I have a second motion.

All right.

Any discussion?

All in favor.

That is deferred.

Okay, I think that was the right thing to do.

Item 14 is deferred, so we get to uh item 15.

2025 098 by High Street District Development Inc., approximately 7.09 acres located on the south side of Pineville Matthews Road, east of Carmel Commons Road, and west of Bannington Road in my district.

Uh I've just buried my uh my changes after zoning.

Oh, this is a uh a change, yes, it is.

So um this is one where there have been changes, and therefore, Miss Kramer, can you tell us what those are?

Yes, there was my one change after zoning committee's recommendation, which was really just cleaning up a request that we had, so it's fairly minor in nature, but the petitioner addressed a comment to provide cross access to adjacent properties by adding a note stating that cross access easements would be provided per ordinance.

I will move that to be down to committee.

Uh second.

All right.

Uh any discussion of that.

All in favor of that, please raise your hand.

Okay.

It will not go back to the committee.

So now 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.

I will make that motion.

Second.

Any discussion?

All in favor.

That is approved.

And we get to what looks like our last decision of the night.

Uh agenda item 16, rezoning petition 2025-108 by CRD development LLC, approximately 1.14 acres located north of Cleveland Avenue, east of west of East Worthington Avenue, and east of South Boulevard in Ms.

Anderson's district.

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.

Any discussion.

All in favor.

Done.

So we're now moving on to the hearings.

We noted earlier the hearings basically allow for a three-minute presentation by the petitioner or a 10-minute presentation if it's opposed by the staff or residents.

The first item on our agenda for hearing is number 17.

And that one is deferred.

It's in my district.

And I will tell you that the petitioner has agreed to host a second community meeting.

There is quite a lot of consternation about this one, so we're going to work on it some more and possibly get a look at it next month.

Item 18 is also deferred.

So we get to uh item 19 Rezoning Petition 2025 126 by Crosland Southeast, approximately 6.6 acres located north of Willora Lake Road, east of North Sharon Amity Road, and west of Maybury Lane in Mr.

Masuera RES's district.

Staff, tell us what's going on.

Thank you.

This site is just over six and a half acres located along North Sharon Amity Road and Wallora Lake Road, just north of the Central Avenue corridor, and in an area where we have single family uses as well as multifamily use is located directly west of the site, and commercial use is just a little over half a mile south of the site.

The rezoning is on a parcel that contains a place of worship, though the rezoning boundary would not include that structure itself.

Site is currently zoned.

Neighborhood 1A.

They are proposing to go to neighborhood 2B conditional.

Staff recommends.

Oh sorry, I'll go to the proposal slide.

Don't mean to jump ahead there.

The policy map currently recommends the campus place type.

So the neighborhood 2B request is considered out of alignment with that campus place type recommendation for the site.

The proposal itself is for up to 164 total units.

There are two different unit types that we see on the site.

On the frontage here, you see the multifamily building envelopes, multi-family stacked.

This is for the senior housing.

These would be 144 senior multifamily stacked units, and then more towards the rear of the site, you have townhome style units.

100% of the multifamily stacked units, which are all for senior housing, would be income restricted for households earning no more than 80% AMI.

And this would be income restricted for no less than 20 years.

They do have a note that if HTF funding is not approved after two cycles or within 18 months of rescinding approval site may instead be developed with market rate units.

They establish a 25-foot class B landscape yard along property boundaries adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, going a bit above and beyond what uh the ordinance requires.

In terms of transportation and streetscape improvements identified here, we have a 12-foot multi-use path along North Sharon Amity Road, eight-foot sidewalks with planting strips along Willora Lake Road and Maybury Lane, and access to the site would be via North Sharon Amity Road, the Laura Lake Road, and Maybury Lane.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of the outstanding issues listed in the staff analysis.

The proposal would provide critical affordable housing for seniors and a design that is that maintains sensitivity to the adjacent single family uses.

Although the policy map currently calls for campus place type on the property, the project meets a number of the variables we would look for with a neighborhood to place type application, including being located on an arterial size of the proposal being over three to five acres, its proximity to goods and services, and its access to transit options.

I'll take any questions following petitioners' comments.

Okay, we have speakers signed up.

Uh I just lost the sheet made me hold on.

Right there.

This is the old chief.

Bear with me for one moment.

Here we are.

So uh we have four speakers signed up.

Bridget Grant, Peter Stipovich.

Sorry, Peter.

Tim Citema, Sean Tooley, and since there is opposition, you have 10 minutes.

Just giving it a second for the presentation to pull up.

Thank you.

Good evening, Councilmember Drigs, Mayor Pro Tem, members of Council.

My name is Bridget Grant.

I'm a land use consultant with Moran Van Allen.

I'm pleased to be here tonight on behalf of Croslin Southeast with Tim Citema.

As I think many of you know and have had the opportunity to work with over the years.

I really appreciate staff's new staff analysis and the level of detail that they've gone into to go over those highlights.

So I'll try not to duplicate their points.

As they mentioned, this is a 6.5 acre site located on the corner of Sharon Amity and Wallora Lake.

It's essentially a portion of the Calvary Church.

So while we're looking to rezone a portion of the site, the church is set to remain on the campus.

We're requesting a transition to N2B.

As you can see when you look at the place type map, it's not completely out of character.

N2 is the orange color on the map for us to have this sort of fabric in a mix of single family residential, the N1A, the N2B, and others in this area because of our proximity to the activity center.

These are the types of area where we want to create additional housing types.

And while the small area, the community area plan hasn't been adopted yet, providing a diversity of housing types and access to goods and services has is a draft priority for this corridor.

Whenever I'm working on projects with an affordable component, it helps me to take a step back and look at the 2025 AMI projections.

So when I look at these numbers, you start to look at what's expected for an individual to have as their housing expense on a site like this.

If you're at 70% AMI and you're a single person household, that assumes that you make $55,000 annually, and you would be expected to have a household expense of no more than $1,375 a month.

And I just think this is a good way for us to remember the type and the price points and the diversity of populations that we're serving with affordable housing.

We are still making some changes to our site, but when I call attention that we have no more than 125 multifamily stacked that are senior housing and income restricted, and 14 multifamily attached that are towns.

So the current unit counts have been reduced from our initial submittal by a reduction of 25 units.

And again, the church will retain a balance of the acreage.

You can see we work pretty hard to push the tree save to the periphery of the site, closest proximity to the single family residential.

And we've pulled our buildings away from the street frontage.

In no instance is a building any closer than 100 feet to the adjacent N1 place types.

We had a fairly engaged community meeting.

And so this is an opportunity for us to lock in with some long-term commitments for affordability in this area.

The Charlotte market is at an overall deficit, and these efforts help us plan for the future.

There was also an expressed concern about the proximity of multifamily stacked the apartments and multifamily attached in proximity to N1 Place types.

So it's considered, as staff mentioned, an appropriate transition between higher density corridors like Sharon Amity.

Regarding the four-story height, one of the things that the UDO has done well is create better transitions between single family and higher intensity uses and set much more restrictive transitions between height.

So we are adhering to those height transitions.

There's previously adopted Eastland Yards has a number of transportation improvements that have yet to be implemented.

I've got that summary on the next slide if you'd like to dig into any of those.

There was a signal installed in 2022 at the intersection of Sharon Amity and Wallora Lake, and our development will improve sidewalk conditions along all frontages.

So I'll save you from reading all of these improvements.

And so we do have proximity to bus, shuttle, and future rep future transit opportunities.

So in summary, we're bringing forward a deal that offers deed restrictions on affordable housing, a mix of product types that includes the multifamily stacked and multi-family attached.

We are going to put a deed restriction to limit the number of rentals on the foresale component.

We're pleased to say we align with the draft community plan.

Our site has two vehicular access points, one on Sharon Amity and one on Willora Lake.

I neglected to mention we have eliminated the one on Mayberry.

And the closest single family home is more than 150 feet from the proposed multifamily.

We truly appreciate the amount of time that staff put into the staff analysis to demonstrate why we believe it makes sense in this location.

And I'm going to share the rest of my time with Mr.

Cinema.

Four and a half minutes.

You were great.

I'm with Crosland Southeast.

It's always an honor and a privilege to be here before you tonight.

Thanks, Bridget.

Uh, and to the staff for uh for the hard work going into this.

Um I just wanted emphasize a few extra points.

We all know um housing affordability is a critical issue facing our community, not just Charlotte, but uh throughout the country.

Uh a stat or two to to capture that.

In the the median home price obviously has risen a lot in the last um you know decades.

In 2005, in order to afford a median priced home, a a family needed to uh have an income of $55,000, okay.

In 2005, $55,000.

That number increased to $79,000 of income by the year 2020.

So 15 years, it went from 55,000 to 79,000.

In the last five years, it's gone from 79,000 to a 146,000.

The number is almost doubled the income from 2020 to 2025 to afford a median priced home here.

Now we're talking rentals here.

There's a bigger demand for rentals because so many more people are priced out of housing affordability.

Uh I fully support home ownership as a path to wealth creation, but it isn't only home ownership, it has to be uh all of the above, and this is one of those solutions.

Um it's getting more difficult, not less more difficult to do affordable housing because of hyperinflation, because of interest rates, um, because of land prices and everything else.

It's getting more and more difficult.

We are really excited about this opportunity in East Charlotte.

We started working on it for a number number of years ago, four or five years ago.

We obviously are redeveloping the Eastland Yards project.

The first vertical component we did there was the evolution at Eastland Yards.

It is a age-restricted senior housing affordable development.

It's a hundred percent leased, it's been a hundred percent leased, it will stay a hundred percent leased.

We learned clearly from that uh case study that there's uh unmet demand for age-restricted units, affordable housing units in East Charlotte.

Um, our price points we have studios, ones, and two bedrooms.

A 30 percent studio unit is gonna rent for just a little over 500 a month.

That is unbelievable in in this day and age.

And the most expensive, the 70 percent income two-bedroom will be just a little over sixteen hundred dollars a month.

Most of our units will be um at or about a thousand twelve hundred dollars, but they're as low as five and six hundred dollars.

Um this is part of it's not formally part of the faith and housing effort, but it is our attempt to do faith in housing.

I want to thank Pastor Bremer here from Calvary Church who's behind this.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Um we have forged a really good working relationship and mutual respect with many of the folks in East Charlotte.

That was hard-earned over many years with Eastland.

Um, we have good relationships with that with them.

That doesn't mean we agree on every point, and there are a few folks that have some concerns about this.

Um we've listened to them, we're hearing them.

We've scheduled another in-person meeting next week, and we're going to uh listen again to them next week.

Lastly, I'll just say that uh Crosland Southeast is from Charlotte.

We live here, we're invested here, we care deeply about what we do.

Quality is hugely important to us.

We're not gonna uh minimize quality, even though this is an affordable housing development.

I think we've got plenty of examples to to demonstrate that in Charlotte.

Um this community will help meet the need.

And and uh Councilmember Owens, I love your quote.

The time is always right to do what is right from MOK.

I love that quote.

Um, in our view, this will be what's right uh uh at this time in uh this particular location.

Thank you for hearing us.

Well done.

Nine seconds left.

Uh so we have two speakers signed up in opposition, Maureen Mahood and David Barron.

You will have together 10 minutes.

I don't I don't know, David, but he's here, he can come down.

Hi, I'm Mori Mahood.

I am a 25-year East Charlotte resident.

I live in the Verndale neighborhood, and I thought I was gonna have two minutes, so I'm super excited to have 10.

So I am here to ask you to vote no on this petition, and I have a few reasons why.

The petition will override the intent of what we have as the UDO that was put into place for four-story development inside established residential neighborhoods with one and two-story family homes.

And this is a form and scale issue.

The houses that are there are traditional ranch houses or they're two-level houses, and this building does not belong there.

Rezoning is discretionary, and once it's approved, it can't be undone.

And I understand that we don't have a lot of um, we don't have the most housing uh money in our area, but if you look at the crescent of Charlotte, East Charlotte and West Charlotte certainly does.

So this is also a public safety issue.

The city's own traffic data shows that Sharon Amity, Willora Lake, Central Avenue are all part of the high injury network where people have been seriously injured and killed.

Just last week, as we talked about today, Lance was killed on the plaza.

And he was only 25 years old, and it was after a driver that ran a red light.

And that's a reminder that traffic safety is not theoretical, it is real, and it's happening right now.

Willora Lake and Mayberry Lane are narrow neighborhood roads with little sidewalks and minimal striping.

There's only about 20 feet of center striping down Willora Lake.

Mayberry Road has none, so it is a very narrow road.

They were never designed to handle this increased traffic or turning movements.

During the meeting with the applicant, we were told that these roads cannot be widened, and turn lanes cannot be added, meaning there is no fix later.

At the same time, this area is absorbing major change.

Easton Yard is moving toward moving forward, and there are 90 townhomes that are under construction on Sharon Amity with a right turn only access.

So, what that means is the people coming out of those townhomes will be forced to do U-turns at Wallora Lake in Sharon Amity, increasing the traffic by at least 180 cars there, and then another increase with this development of probably over 200 cars.

So, what I want to be clear is we are not against affordable housing.

I work in real estate, and I believe everyone deserves a home, but this proposal is age-restricted, rental-only housing, not homeownership for working families earning 80% AMI.

So it doesn't take into consideration our teachers, our police, our firefighters, and the people who work at the city that actually need single family homes.

I've spoken with many of our neighbors, and this message is clear.

This proposal does not fit the neighborhood and presents serious safety conditions.

So I am asking for a vote no on this petition.

Thank you.

Good evening, council.

Uh, my name is David Barron, and I live on Willower Lake Road, uh, just down the street from the property.

I've worked in architecture for 20 years, 22 years now, and I do support affordable housing.

I'm 50 years old and understand the need for affordable housing.

After many years of renting a small apartment in Caltzwald and working long hours, my spouse and I were finally able to purchase our first home here on Willora Lake Road.

We feel fortunate to own a single family home at all.

This home represents our investment in ourselves, our neighborhood in this city.

I am concerned that this investment and my neighbors' investments are at risk under the current rezoning proposal.

I also I also strongly support neighborhood diversity and inclusion.

One of the reasons we love living in the Eastland and Willora area is the diversity of our community.

My neighbors represent many cultures and backgrounds, and that mix is a real strength.

However, I do not support this rezoning petition as it is currently requested and designed.

What is most troubling is the feeling that this decision is already made.

I respectfully ask that you still hear the voices of the people who live here and will be mostly directly impacted.

I want to focus on three concerns.

First, density and scale.

The property has only about 25 feet of frontage on North Sharon Emmity Road.

Yet most of the development is proposed more than 600 feet back off the road in the middle of the single family homes.

Four-story buildings along Willora Lake Road and Maybury Lane are out of scale.

Density of this magnitude belongs directly on the corridor or in eastern yards, not embedded within established single family homes.

If this project moves forward, the lower scale for sale town homes should face Wellora and Mayberry with taller buildings push inward toward the corridor.

This would restore human scale and allow residents to connect with the neighborhood.

Second, safety and infrastructure.

I've lived in high density housing for over a decade.

During that time, I called 911 more times than I ever expected.

Density, regardless of intent, increases opportunity for crime and strain on the public services.

The neighborhood values safety, stability, and improving if existing infrastructures.

Third, green space.

This area has a beautiful natural landscape, hardwoods, wildlife, and mature tree canopy that is increasingly rare in Charlotte.

I have watched other neighborhoods lose this entirely.

I urge council to require meaningful preservation of natural green space on this site and hold the developers accountable.

Eastland deserves thoughtful human-scale growth, and I asked the council to help ensure this project responds to our concerns and delivers quality, not just quantity.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask council not to approve this rezoning as currently proposed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Mr.

Barron.

Ms.

Grant and Mr.

Stepitzevich.

Mr.

Sidema, you have two minutes to revive.

I think I'll leave the traffic safety to the and even the perception of crime with multifamily to staff to address.

I will say that one of the things again that we appreciate about the new UDO is the ability to transition.

We saw multiple developments happen over the years where multifamily and four-story buildings were put within 10 feet, in some cases 15 feet, of established single-family buildings.

In this instance, we're pushing more than 150 feet away from the closest home.

But I really want to give the rest of my time to Mr.

Sidema.

And Mr.

Stippassevik is works with me.

He's up there, but uh I appreciate your attempt to say his name.

Um couple of comments uh with regard to traffic.

Um it's not uh it's not a mistake that we're we're planning a senior age-restricted property here.

Age-restricted uh communities have a lighter traffic footprint and lighter uh footprint overall to community services.

So point one.

Point two is as far as the the comment about density of uh of light deals in East Charlotte and West Charlotte.

It's true.

There's more affordable housing developments in West Charlotte and in East Charlotte than there are in South Charlotte, for example.

We're developing a South Charlotte uh deal in Ballantyne.

Um I wish I could do 20 of them there.

The state enforcing federal laws uh has a whole methodology about site selection and placement.

Many of you uh I've had discussions with many of you about qualified census tracts.

Um the the LITEC process encourages development in qualified census tracts, and those by definition are our census tracts that have a high concentration of poverty.

I can't change that.

You guys can't change that.

That's a policy issue that needs to be changed at the federal level.

That's what makes it harder to do affordable housing developments in places like South Charlotte.

So thank you for for your time tonight.

Thank you.

So before I throw it open for council debate, I just wanted to say, Mr.

Barron, it's not a done deal.

Okay, I mean that's a common narrative.

This thing is pre-cooked, and it's this is all just uh uh a process.

Uh we are in the middle of a process.

Uh, we're listening to what you said.

The the council will take all of these factors into account.

I have no idea how it turns out.

I'm just telling you that I do want to push back against the dark suggestion that this thing is uh hardwired from the outset.

And with that, I will entertain any questions or comments.

Yes, Ms.

Mayo.

Is it possible to receive um the comments that they made for the clerk for us to review?

They if they have a copy.

Mr.

Barron might have a copy.

Thank you.

If you have those in writing, you can give them to the clerk.

And we'll get them circulated.

Okay, yes, Ms.

Owens.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah, I'm done.

Okay, it's all right.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

Um, I I am very sensitive to your commentary about um affordable housing and about senior housing not necessarily driving quite the same use of the roads, uh car usage.

Can you speak a bit?

Because I have had questions from constituents around having senior pedestrians at busy intersections.

Can you speak at all about some of the planning that you've done to account for safety of these senior pedestrians along this thoroughfare?

The first thing I can say is that we're required to upgrade the sidewalk conditions, and that typically includes upgrading ramps that are at the intersections on both of the streets where we have frontage, and that's primarily one of the things that helps create better sidewalks that aren't necessarily at the back of curb anymore, offer higher visibility at the intersections, and then we look at where PET improvements need to be made.

Um, when we go through every rezoning, CDOT has the chance to look at the existing conditions out there and reevaluate any changes that need to be made that would make the situations better.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

Um I would like to talk about the um the deed restriction on the town homes.

There can we go to the slide where you mentioned that or can is there a way we can pull that up?

No.

I can tell you while they're pulling that up.

Do you want to go ahead?

Well, it it there was some verbiage there about or or some wording there that it was just particular the the for sale town home units had a deed restriction to limit rental units.

Is there an appetite to talk about restricting it to zero rental units?

Because I think the concerns that I've been hearing from residents is the possibility or the risk of corporations buying those town homes and renting them at further market rate.

Council member um Ireas, are you talking about um a condition on the plan?

Or are you talking about deed restrictions that apply to this neighborhood?

We are offering a deed restriction on the townhomes that no more than 20% of the units shall be available for rent at any given time.

We typically also include a provision when we're exploring to say that no more no entity or person can own more than a certain number of units to prevent what you're discussing.

One of the reasons why we typically don't do zero in my experience, so we're happy to look at it, is because some lenders don't want to see that you have no ability to rent your house in case of life's life circumstances that change your ability to stay where you are.

We're happy to explore that further.

Thank you.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does answer my question.

It was uh regarding the specific writing that was on there.

Yeah, thank you.

Sajmira, thank you, Mr.

Drake.

So is this deal contingent upon HGF funding?

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Yes, it is.

We we're filing the the tax credit application this month for the deadline the state of um enforces and the HDF application.

We met with housing enabled services about that as well.

Uh this is a four percent deal, not a nine percent deal.

So you know the differences, yeah.

It's less competitive, and so we expect to get the tax credits.

We hope to get the housing trust fund with both.

Uh we believe we we have a deal that we can move forward with.

One other thing I did want to say is staff had made the comment that the deed restriction on the rental units is 20 years.

Uh it's at least 50 years, and we're considering even going longer than that.

So it'll be much longer than 20 years.

So do follow up on then, Mr.

Sydma.

Um, I understand that this will be contingent upon LITEX approval at the state level as well as HTF approval at the city level.

In the case, if you do not get either or or both, what happens?

The church gets to keep their property.

So, do you not proceed with the market rate?

We we do not perceive an opportunity to do market rate here.

Okay, so is that the condition highlighted in the rezoning?

Or again, that question is for staff.

Is that something can be a conditional approval?

The conditions read and they can also state it that if financing is not approved, then the sign may be developed with all uses permitted and the N2B zoning district standards.

If they wish to further restrict themselves with the conditions that they're describing, because it is their full intent to do affordable housing, then they can do so.

It would essentially require it to go back through rezoning if they're not able to secure the funding necessary.

And on the 20 years, I will say we note 20 years because that's what the conditional notes state is that the units would be affordable for 20 years.

So if they again wish to prescribe the more restrictive standard that they are intending to do, they can write that into the conditional notes.

So Mr.

Sudema, to follow up on that, would that be something you'd be willing to add to as one of the conditions?

There were two, I believe.

Um I need to give some thought to the first one.

Um it is our intent to do an affordable housing development here, our Crosland Southeast attempt.

Uh, if we aren't able to get tax credits and/or housing trust fund, it's not likely that Crosland Southeast will want to move forward.

But we certainly would want to help the church in any way that we can, and there may be other folks that have other types of development that might work here, and so we we'll we'll look into that with regard to the second um issue.

It is my intent to do a 50-year or longer um deed restriction on the on the uh affordability issue, and we will be making that change in the in the submittal.

We will be making that um statement in the housing trust fund application as well.

Thank thank you.

I look forward to additional response on number one number one.

Um also I had a conversation, Mr.

Cinema, with a couple of neighbors, and especially Bobby Alman, who is one of the neighborhood leader leaders who lives right adjacent to the site, and they had asked for this intersection to be improved.

Um if I may ask Ms.

Allman to come down and tell us about specific intersection and uh specific improvement that you were looking for it to be improved.

Just mark this she's down serious.

All right, thank you.

Well, at this point, we're asking for any kind of improvement because it is terrible there.

All of the traffic has to take between Central Avenue and Shamrock Drive, there is no U-turn available at a light except for Willora and Sharon Amity.

So everything, the new bill that's built down from the QT and this building will have to go out Willora at the light to go left if they're gonna go south.

All the all the other ways, all the traffic from Granville Apartments, those new apartments in this.

If you're gonna go, there's only one turnaround, and that's at that light.

The road is very narrow.

There's a crest of a hill there.

So I'm sorry.

Um council member I'm as much.

Okay, I think she answered my question.

Yeah.

So Miss Alman uh just I'm sorry, I'm not sure that she was a speaker that was signed up.

Right.

No.

I was it not.

Okay, I think she might have written to us that's why we okay.

So I missed that.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Um we have to have people who are signed up.

I didn't ask.

It was probably my mistake.

I didn't clarify that, but I think I'm good.

Mr.

Sidema, if you could come to the podium.

So specific intersection that I remember is Willora and Sharon Amity.

Is that part?

I know you had a long list of improvements.

Was Willora and Sharon Amity?

Was that part of the improvement as part of the uh part of the list that you presented?

No, well and Sharon Amity did get a traffic signal.

Uh Ms.

Grant had mentioned that, got a traffic signal in 2022.

Um to my knowledge, there are no further um intersection improvements planned there.

We did look, however, at that intersection.

Um, and Sean Tooley from from Land Design, our engineer is in the room here.

Um I don't know if if if he's uh needed for additional clarity, but we did look to see can we add turn lanes?

Can we do something there?

There's a lot of underground utilities and uh overhead power lines, all kinds of things that would make it literally um impossible, not impossible, but um unrealistic from a pricing standpoint to relocate all of that stuff, uh bury overhead power lines and everything else, it's just cost prohibitive.

Got it.

So I I know this might be something not visible for the developers.

I know we have representative from C DOT.

If if we can like take a look at this specific intersection, Sharon and Sharon Amity and Lallora, if you could include that in the follow-up report, that would be great.

And if there are any improvements planned in the future.

Uh that's all I have.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Driggs.

I had a question for staff.

There have been some questions about UDO inconsistencies.

Um sin this proposal introduces multi-family use internal to a single family neighborhood and not all along an arterial road, which might not be a line.

Can you please look into that and let me know what what the what does the ordinance say in terms of its ability to build multifamily internally and not on a main corridor?

It does have frontage though on an arterial.

Can you explain that a little bit more, please?

Yeah, so the rezoning boundary does front along North Sharon Andy, and if we could we'll get there.

You know, taking their sweet time.

But as as you can see here, it has frontage there to the south.

And this is an arterial, so it's not as if we're creating, for example, a flag lot situation where you have an itty bitty portion of the site just enough to create a driveway, and then the property expands out.

But when you have a neighborhood to request, you're not subdivide subdividing out the lot for every single unit that you're putting on the site.

So this is one property that is being considered, and the one property does have frontage along that arterial.

So you're allowed to develop multifamily in this context and as they've laid out in this situation.

Okay, thank you.

And my last comment is I I just I would be remiss in saying this, but I think the concerns the community is saying is not to stop housing or affordability.

Uh I think we just want to ensure growth is responsible and safe and consistent in that light.

I also want to thank the constituents who came and spoke and who have been emailing me and all of council, additionally thanking uh Pastor John, Bridget, and Tim for the ongoing conversations, because I know this is a very sensitive uh proposal.

Um, and I'm sure we'll continue those conversations uh next week, Thursday, January 29th, where the developer has a uh in-person meeting at the church at 6 p.m.

That's it, Mr.

Driggs.

Move to public hearing be closed.

Second.

All in favor okay.

So um earlier in this meeting, uh the council voted to defer petition 2025 070 by Prosperity Alliance, which was 30.77 acres located west of Bates Ford Road, east of Patrick Allen Court, and north of McIntyre Avenue.

Uh because Mr.

Graham wasn't here and we weren't clear.

We've received word that he is in fact in favor.

So what happens in this situation is we may in the same meeting in which a vote was taken by a motion of somebody who voted in favor of that.

We may uh decide to revisit that question.

All right.

So do I have a motion to revisit that vote?

Yes, so the motion is I move to approve petition number 20.

I'm sorry, I move to reconsider the deferral of petition 2025-070 by Prosperity Alliance.

Second.

All right, any discussion?

Yes, I also want to go on record saying that this deferral was because we wanted more feedback from the district council member, Mr.

Graham.

He had a family emergency, so he's out of town.

Uh, but he does support this and he encouraged uh the council to support this and approve this tonight.

That's that's good to know.

So in that case, is there a motion to approve the petition?

Second, excuse me.

I haven't finished talking all right.

We've got to do that.

So now you're voting on the motion to consider.

We haven't finished that action yet.

So we have the motion and a second.

All in favor of that.

Yes.

Raise your hand.

Consider.

Right.

Consider good.

Uh anyway.

Okay, so I will now make a motion to approve it.

So I move to approve petition number 2025-070 and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agenda.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor.

All right.

Well, Godspeed, Mr.

Graham.

Okay, good.

Glad we managed to get that sorted out.

So now we move on to uh item 20, I believe.

Uh item 20 is rezoning petition 2025 094 by a Tapco Properties Inc.

It's approximately 19.54 acres located east of Mallard Creek Road on the north and south side of Alexander Road and along the west side of College View Lane in Miss Johnson's district.

Ms.

Kramer.

Thank you.

This site is a little under 20 acres east of Mallard Creek Road and an area where we have townhome developments abutting the site as well as single family campus and commercial uses in the vicinity.

Site is currently zoned neighborhood 1A.

They are requesting a neighborhood to a conditional zoning district.

The policy map calls for the neighborhood one place type.

So this proposal is considered out of alignment with that policy map recommendation.

And if approved, it would change the place type to neighborhood two for this site.

The proposal itself is for up to 195 multifamily attached townhome style units.

A minimum of 50% of those buildings would contain four or fewer dwelling units.

No more than 25% of those buildings would have six units.

And a minimum of a 10-foot wide Class C landscape yard would be provided along property boundaries.

Provides some transportation streetscape improvements, establishes a public street network to connect to Alexander Road, College View Lane, Ashmore Square Road, Jillian Place Road, and Treble Court.

These are your subdivision required connections.

It also provides eight-foot sidewalk and planting strip along required internal network streets, provide sidewalk extension from Alexander Road to Mallard Creek Road.

And street trees would be provided along alleys in areas where no planting strips are feasible.

There'd be minimum standards for treat street tree plantings.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues.

This petition proposes the product type that is consistent and compatible with the development adjacent to the site that has multifamily entitlements already on the ground and has begun to develop those townhome units as you see to the east of the site.

This property is located within a half mile of campus and commercial place types to the north and the east that offer goods and services within those areas that help support multifamily entitlements being established here.

The petition would create additional housing adjacent to the University City Research Park, which is a major employment hub for residents.

And the street network in the area would be extended with this proposal.

And the rezoning is also located along a bus route and within a half mile of Greenway access point, which helps to provide multimodal transportation options.

I'll help answer any questions following petitioner and community comments.

Thank you, Miss Kramer.

So we have four speakers signed up in support.

Mr.

John Floyd, Ron Snyder, Michael Carter, and Sean Tooley.

And since there is opposition, you have a total of 10 minutes.

Thank you, Councilmember Driggs, Mayor Pro Tem, members of Council, John Floyd with Morren Van Allen here tonight on behalf of the petitioner of TAPCO properties.

I'm also joined this evening by Michael Carter, who is a TAPCO's director of acquisitions, and Sean Taylor Sean Tooley is a landscape architect with land design.

A TAPCO is proposing a new townhome community on an a multi-parcel site located uh between Mallard Creek Road and Daily David Taylor Drive and Councilmember Johnson's district.

Total parcel size is roughly 19 and a half acres.

Site is currently zoned N1A, and we're seeking to rezone to N2A conditional.

The uses surrounding the site include an office park, uh a townhome community that is completed, a townhome community here that is currently under development, and a multifamily development that is currently under development.

Given the surrounding uses, we think that the N2A zoning designation for a townhome community makes a lot of sense in this location.

Here to the southwest of the parcel.

This particular site has a lot of the key attributes that you look for when assessing a change from neighborhood one to neighborhood two.

Um the site is adjacent to campus and neighborhood two uh place types.

This within close proximity to campus district and activity center and arterial streets.

Uh you've got public transportation available on Mallard Creek Road and Greenway access in the vicinity.

So again, we think this is a prime candidate to transition from neighborhood one to neighborhood two.

This slide shows the currently proposed site plan for 105 95 townhome units on 19 plus acres.

There's two things that I want to briefly touch on and we'll come back to later.

First, uh there's a pretty significant infrastructure improvement that's required for this site here on the southern end.

There's a stream crossing that has to be made to provide the connectivity that we're talking that we're going to talk about.

Current estimates on that put the price at the two to three million dollar range.

So that's a pretty significant infrastructure project that is a factor here.

The second thing is we've tried to put open space in areas throughout the property so that regardless of where you live, you have something nearby where you can get some outdoor activity rather than just one central location.

This slide just again highlights the neighboring development, and again, you have a lot of neighborhood two place type in the vicinity, a townhome community here, multifamily here, and an existing townhome community here.

One of the biggest benefits that we think comes with this development for the community is the connectivity that it'll provide that'll hopefully help alleviate some of the traffic congestion in this area.

As I mentioned before, again, we've got a pretty significant connection that's gonna be made here.

And then there is a connection to Treble Court, which is a stub street that is right there.

Making those connections creates an alternative route that people can use to get between Mallard Creek, David Taylor, and Mallard Creek Church Road.

We think that's helpful.

One of the concerns that we've heard raised through the rezoning process is the impact that the connection is going to have on Treble Court, which is part of the ARIA in the park townhome community located here.

And I suspect that some of the people that are signed up to speak will be residents of ARIA.

But under the UDO, the petitioner is required to make that connection to Treble Court.

And if you look at the schematic plan that was approved for the rezoning of ARIA back in 2018 or 2019, it clearly shows that Treble Court was intended to provide connectivity over to College View.

See Treble Court here, it indicates it's a 56-foot public ride of way.

You also have notes here indicating a future stub street here and a future stub street here.

One thing that we heard during our community meeting with the ARIA residents was concerns about the maintenance of their roads, and they were under the impression that their roads were private.

We confirmed that most of the roads in ARIA are public and had been dedicated but not accepted by the city.

Now I believe that they have been accepted, so the cost of maintenance for most of the roads within ARIA will not be the responsible ARIA residents.

There's one exception, and that is Unison Drive, which is this street here that connects all the way up into the office park.

Unison is subject to a public access easement, but due to location of utilities around that street, it's not something that can be handed over for uh to the public to try and address that and the maintenance impact that that would have, the additional use on unison that'll occur with uh opening up that connection.

Um the petitioner has committed to a 100,000 payment to the AREO HOA to help cover maintenance and other expenses that might they might occur.

Um, this is just sample elevation showing what the product here might look like.

This is a three-story product.

Uh, this is a potential two-story product.

Regardless of the product type, uh, the petitioner here is looking at something in the you know approximately 2,000 square foot range, three bedroom, two bath.

Um, their goal is uh to put a product in place that can be both functional and attainable for families in the working class and middle income economic demographic.

And with that goal in mind, a TAPCO has agreed to make this a for sale community by putting limits on the percentage of units that can be rented and the number of units that can be owned by any individual or entity, similar to what Ms.

Grant was referencing in her presentation earlier.

As I mentioned before, the project was designed so that regardless of where you live, you've got convenient access to open space.

Currently, we have three main areas located here, here, and down here.

Um, each of one of those is gonna have seating and a field or play area.

Um, the area in the far south will also is plan to have a gazebo and a nature overlook area.

Again, you've got that stream crossing coming through here.

So if people want to get out and enjoy a little bit of nature, there will be an area there for them to do that.

These are just some precedent images showing what that outdoor space could look like.

Um, one of the other concerns that we heard about amenities during our uh community meeting and post discussions.

Um, some people think that there needs to be a pool and a clubhouse, um, but that's just not in line with the TAFCO's goal for this development.

Adding costly amenities to a force sale development makes things more expensive and eliminates prospective buyers because you have to increase HOA fees to cover the maintenance of a pool and a clubhouse, which reduces affordability.

Um, for a TAPCO, the goal of amenities and open space is to provide an area for uh families to congregate and for kids to play, which is based on our TAFCO's market research, what people are looking for, and that's what's been designed.

So we think there's a lot of positives about this development, and it's a worthwhile trade for the increased density that the developer is seeking here.

The development helps to open up connectivity in the area, which help should help alleviate some traffic congestion.

And again, that added connectivity requires a pretty expensive screen crossing and a connection to Treble Court.

Um, the petitioner is willing to commit to a for sale development with limits on the number of uh rental units as well as a number of units that can be sold to an individual or entity trying to address the concerns of the ARIA neighborhood.

The petitioner is proposing to make a one-time 100,000 dollar capital infusion to the ROHOA so they can use those funds on road maintenance or potentially adding speed bumps if they like or any additional security that they think is necessary on their private street and their amenities.

Um petitioner agreed to you know upgraded architectural standards, open space and amenities to create a high quality development.

So we think this is a quality project that provides significant benefits to the community.

We understand that there is some criticism about the connectivity issue here because and I understand it, people don't want traffic diverted onto their streets.

But one of the policy decisions that the city has made is to promote that type of connectivity, and the petitioner is required to do that here and is uh proposed the development that meets that requirement.

So happy to answer any questions.

Um, certainly think this is a project that is worthwhile, and we hope that you'll support it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Floyd.

Uh we have three speakers signed up in opposition.

Alexandra Tischione, uh, Jessica Carenza and Garland Green.

You have uh a combined three minutes.

10 minutes, right?

10 minutes.

Yeah, you're right.

Three minutes piece, more or less.

Ladies first.

All right, I'll go first.

Oh, all right.

Uh good evening, council, and thank you for your time.

My name is Jessica Carranza, and I am a two-year resident of the Culvert Park neighborhood and a member of the homeowners association.

We are located next to Mallard Creek Elementary School and directly in front of the proposed neighborhood.

We are right there, Culvert Parkway.

The newly proposed community would add a significant amount of traffic to an already overly saturated Mollard Creek Road, and the new Ashmore Square Road extension entry point would direct traffic directly to the only entry and exit of Culver Parkway.

Between the hours of 9 and 10 a.m.

and 4 and 5 p.m., we see lines of traffic accumulating next to Mueller Creek Elementary School for drop-off and pickup.

And adding 195 units and over 1,300 trips per day.

We're looking at a terrible scenario for existing and new residents of the area.

Fellow neighbors in the area also have, I'm sorry, fellow neighborhoods in the area also only have one exit and entry point that all bleed into Mile Creek Road, making the situation that much more challenging.

Many residents in the area avoid exiting our neighborhood during these times as visibility is limited.

And with the 45 mile per hour speed limit in the area, we have small room for error.

Making a left-hand turn out of our neighborhood during these times is a gamble with our safety each and every day.

When the options are staying home or possibly T-boning a vehicle with the right of way, the option is not difficult.

I'm sorry, the choice is not difficult.

While I understand that with growth in the Charlotte area, there is a need for more housing.

My opposition is not to the zoning petition to the housing petition.

It's against the zoning that does not take into consideration the existing communities.

For the safety of all parties, we would should suggest the introduction of a street light at the entrance of Culler Parkway and Milo Creek Road, or directing traffic to another entry and exit point away from Mallard Creek.

While I understand that a crosswalk is proposed on Alexander Road, this does not suffice in easing traffic conditions in the area.

There needs to be a halfway point where we can all leave the table with what we want.

And at this point, the proposal that stands does not meet the needs of local communities and residents.

We ask that the council not approve the rezoning as it is presented.

Thank you for your time.

So there are seven minutes remaining.

Who's up next?

Hi, my name is Alexandra Tishon, and I am a resident of ARIA at the park.

We are mainly concerned with the connection point between the three proposed communities, of which what we're talking about now is one of them, and Trouble Court, which is a cul-de-sac at the moment, and has a right of way to College View.

The proposed development is in stark contrast with the existing ARIA at the park community in terms of design character, density, and amenities.

Aria was approved with lower density, greater open space, and shared amenities, such as a pool.

The new development at 195 units on 19.5 acres is about 10 dwelling units per acre, which is more than double what ARIA was approved for before the new 2040 initiative and includes no comparable amenities.

This creates a jarring transition in scale between the two communities.

The density proposed under the updated zoning zoning ordinance with the new development is significant and places unexpected strain on our community.

Routing the new development and the other townhome development and the apartment building complex through travel court will negatively impact residential streets.

This development projects about 1,325 daily trips in addition to the already approved townhome development, 955 trips, and I don't have the data for the apartment complex, which is about 295 units also.

So we could expect worst case scenario up to 3,000 possible trips routed through travel court as a cut through to David Taylor.

We are requesting serious reconsideration for an alternative access point such as the previously intended right-of-way dedication that would provide more direct access to David Taylor Drive and reduce cut-through traffic in residential areas, which is between College View and Unison Road.

We do appreciate the 100,000 dollar one-time contribution towards our maintenance on our private road, but this funding is not sufficient given the accelerated wear and tear and increased traffic from multiple developments.

The cost of ongoing maintenance resurfacing and eventual reconstruction will fall on ARIA homeowners, and we do not believe that this contribution will cover even the first resurfacing cycle.

Ashmore has a lack of amenities, mostly the pool, which raises concerns about trespassing and overuse of ARIA's shared spaces, which is the pool.

Um will be a detriment to existing homeowners with an ARIA at the park and has negative effects on our established character of our community.

So we respectfully ask that the developer work with residents to find a more appropriate solution.

Thank you.

How long are we in?

A little under four minutes remaining.

Four minutes, okay.

Uh my name's Carlin Green.

I think you're all familiar with me.

Uh I was here for the open forum last week.

I talked about my concerns about uh traffic congestion, uh specifically relative to apartment build out and overly uh uh congested areas uh uh sent over to weekend.

Uh all of y'all uh five different things that I was concerned about, five different petitions.

This meeting is kind of where the rubber meets the road.

You're hearing both sides.

Uh hadn't been to this meeting for a while, but uh when I come to it, I always have one thought, and I'm gonna share that with you.

On this side over here, you have slick talking lawyers that have very deep pocket support on this side over here.

You have the little guy.

And the little guy goes to a community meeting and voices their opinion, and that's it.

Okay.

Look at the petitions that have been passed last year.

Probably 98% percent of the zoning petitions were passed last year.

What does that tell you?

The big guy's winning.

All right.

So what am I here today about?

Ed Driggs has told me, Ed Dregs is my representative, and he tells me that the number one concern that he hears from everybody is traffic congestion.

And we need to do something about that.

You're in a position to do something about that.

You need to look at each one of these petitions, and I'll point it out five to you and ask yourself if there's 500 apartments being built.

I've got a rule of thumb.

Mr.

Green, uh, do you have uh comments related to this petition?

You're making very general.

I'll address this meeting.

All right, so please address this petition.

In this particular petition, there's a hundred and ninety-five units being built out.

It's adding thirteen hundred and twenty-five trips, okay?

And it's in a very congested area, which is university area.

And I think that's a problem.

My rule of thumb typically is for each apartment complex for each unit, there's either one and a half or two cars.

And if you got a 500 unit, you're adding unit apartment complex, you're adding anywhere between 750 and a thousand cars in congested areas.

And this area, congested, adding a lot of cars.

I've just asked you to take that under consideration.

You're in a position to do something going forward.

I hope you'll do it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Floyd uh and uh the other speakers, you have two minutes to rebut um thank you.

I'll I'll try to be brief on the uh comments made uh by the resident of Culver Park.

Uh, certainly we understand that Mallard Creek has traffic congestion issues, and our position is that the connectivity that is going to be provided by this development should actually help alleviate those issues.

Again, uh providing that connection to Trouble Court allows people multiple ways to traverse from Mallard Creek over to David Taylor over to Mallard Creek Church Road, uh which we think will be helpful.

Um she mentioned a traffic light, as I believe council member Johnson is aware, that is something that is in preliminary discussions.

We were contacted by C DOT about that on Friday.

Uh that's something we're looking at.

It hasn't been vetted, but that's under consideration, and we'll certainly before there's a vote on this, we'll have some position on that.

Um, as to the connectivity with uh Treble Court, um, again, that is something that is required under the ordinance.

Uh, that is something that was required pursuant to the rezoning of tru of the ARIA development.

Uh, and again, we understand on Unison Drive, there will be maintenance that is responsible for ARIA.

Everything else is a public road and is not their responsibility.

That is something that we corrected once we got involved in this case.

Um I think that's it.

Happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions?

We have a motion to close.

Oh, close.

I have I have quite I just allow someone else to Johnson.

Thank you.

Okay.

So many questions.

I have a question.

Um, first of all, thank the residents from District 4 from Aria at the Park and Culvert Park for coming out.

I've been on the phone with them over the last, I guess, a few few weeks or before, so thank you.

I have a question for the petitioner, Mr.

Floyd.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr.

Floyd, you mentioned a 2.5 million dollar infrastructure improvement.

Yes, ma'am.

Can you tell us exactly what improvement that is and how does that benefit residents?

Sure.

Um, if you're looking at this slide, there is a multifamily development that has been approved here that has stubbed out to this location here.

There is a stream crossing that has to be installed to provide connectivity for to extend college view all the way down all the way out to Mallard Creek.

So does that stream connection there that we are providing that again provides this additional connectivity through these streets?

Okay.

So it's required for engineering and it to build, so it's not really so you're building an extra street or extending college view exactly.

Is that what you're saying?

We're extending college view all the way down to Mallard Creek and crossing the stream as part of that, and also including this connection here to Trouble Court, which is also required.

Okay.

So I guess I would say all that gets done whether you know at some point this property gets developed and those things get done.

That connection to trouble occurs regardless of whether this rezoning is approved or not.

At some point somebody develops that and that connection happens.

Right.

So college view is going to be extended.

Um let's see.

And I'm going to have questions for C dot also.

Um let's see.

My concern about this petition is micro and macro.

From a micro issue, the residents in Tribal Court were asking if the excuse me in ARIA, they were asking if the subdivision or if that connection from Treble Court could be waived per the subdivision ordinance.

So I want to ask C dot about that.

From a macro issue, and those, and I go back to this, but those of us who were against the UDO, was for this reason.

We've pulled the rug out from underneath these homeowners.

They pay 12,000 a year, a thousand dollars a month premium to be in the location that they are in.

So they're asking for the treble court not to be open.

There is another connection, I think, through college view.

And so they're asking for this requirement to be waived.

Is that a possibility that we do not open treble court?

Um so the requirement Jake Herbner was C DOT.

Um the requirement for the extension of substreets is controlled by the subdivision ordinance, and the subdivision administrator administrator falls in the planning department.

Um CDOT actually doesn't control those requirements, but uh in discussing with the subdivision administrator, um the the requirement to extend uh tribal court is a requirement.

All substreets are to be extended on their natural projection uh for a subdivision development, and there are no applicable uh exceptions based on uh discussions with with staff.

So from a policy perspective, Mr.

Jones and and council, I I don't know what exception could be made.

I know we've talked about in the past looking at the UDO and the requirements as it impacts existing neighborhoods, but this is one of those situations that if there was any way to to not open up this street, there is connectivity, and I know I talked about traffic, but this is directing traffic through this neighborhood that's not safe for children.

Um it just doesn't if there's any way that we can take a look at that.

That's the micro issue for the park at Aria.

The macro issue is I've given each of you this map numerous times, and I've asked city staff if you can post this above so that everyone knows what we're talking about.

I sent this to the residents, it's a map of all of the development in district four, and you'll look at Mallard Creek.

I would like for us as a council to pretend we're in the back to the future movie, and think about us 10 years out and what all of this development is going to look like.

We're and we know that we're looking at petitions one at a time, and I and as he's pulling that up, I do also have a question for zoning staff, if I can this petition 2025 094 says it's that it's going to, if you look at the school impact, Mallard Creek Elementary is currently at 78% utilization.

This would increase it to 80%.

Ridge Road middle is currently at 88% utilization.

Mallard Creek High is currently at 108% utilization.

Earlier tonight, we looked at 2024 zero nine zero, and the numbers were Mallard Creek Elementary School was currently at 85%, or would increase, excuse me, to 85%.

Ridge Road would increase to 96%.

No, that's not right.

Hold on, let me get the numbers right.

Mallard Creek Elementary would increase to 85, Ridge Road 92%, and Mallard Creek High would increase to 110%.

So that was petition 2024 090.

Now we're at 094, and the numbers are different.

I took a look at a petition from last April for the same schools, and it was Mallard Creek is at 85%.

Ridge Road is at 96%, and Mallard Creek High is at 112%.

So I'm asking you, and I know there's a formula for schools, but how are we, as council members, supposed to calculate this responsively?

What other word, uh responsibly and and and smart if we're not getting the current for information to really take a look at the impact.

I've talked about cumulative impact for years.

So now I'm gonna say comprehensive, coordinated, and cumulative impact.

We need to really take a triple C approach.

Let's start using that.

So I'm asking you here and you all can look at the school numbers.

We're not really taking a look at the schools.

If you look at the map, can we pull up the map, please?

The projector has turned off.

We're trying to get it back on.

Okay.

We're working with troubleshooting that right now.

I so apologize.

My council colleagues have the map.

I know that the residents have shared this map with someone from the observer this week.

And anyone uh, you know, I'll I'll put it here.

I really, really, really want us to consider Mallard Creek.

I also ask C DOT for the number of accidents along this stretch of road, and I was told that there were 21 accidents in 0.6 miles in the last two years.

That seems like a lot to me.

But there's no alarm because I guess because it's not high injury or no one was was seriously hurt or killed.

We have in the news this week someone that was killed, a pedestrian was killed.

Miss Owens talked about last week.

Um 81 fatalities along Providence Road.

I asked today during the zoning meeting, where are we comparing this?

Who what what's the jurisdiction to know if we have an A B C D rating?

And I think that's done at a local level.

I'd like to know, Mr.

Jones in comparison.

21 accidents in 0.6 miles in two years on a national level.

Where are we ranking?

What are we what's our goal?

Like where are we comparing ourselves to?

Because that seems unreasonable to me.

I asked for an infrastructure meeting years ago.

We really need to take a look at this.

And I understand the petition, but I just don't believe at this time without really calculating the impact on schools, as we can see in black and white, and all of this petition, all of these petitions that are pending.

We we don't have a true traffic impact on what's this going to look like.

I I don't see myself supporting this petition.

Um, we unless we have a commitment for true traffic improvements.

We know that we need a traffic light.

Can I ask C DOT what the status of the traffic light is for this area?

Thank you.

Um C dot ran some preliminary um evaluation of the potential traffic signal, assuming all these developments were constructed.

Uh initial review indicates that there may be some uh traffic warrants met in the future for the signal.

Uh in addition, uh this is a uh a good location in our evaluation for a pedestrian crossing uh with the school location, and so CDOT is in support of a signal at this location.

Uh we have had preliminary discussions with uh the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

They maintain Mallard Creek Road.

Uh they're open to evaluating uh the traffic signal.

So uh for full approval, it takes some time for uh full uh signal warrant studies and and other information.

There's data full data collection and things like that, but we've begun the process of uh evaluating and moving towards uh NCDOT approval uh for a traffic signal at that location.

Can you also give me a safety update?

Do you have that information?

I asked someone in C DOT earlier.

I've been asking for some improvements, such as potentially uh the speed limit being lowered on Mallard Creek.

Um the C dot staff that works on the traffic safety uh piece has committed to uh speed evaluation uh for this corridor.

Uh in additional uh point to note is for uh the there was some concerns mentioned about the school traffic and the the queuing that occurs on Mallard Creek at this area, and so as part of uh this initiative, we've also uh begun an evaluation and direct uh coordination with the school to see if there are alternatives for improving the circulation and uh avoiding some of the issues that uh we see uh on the public roadway network.

Uh so that's ongoing as well.

Okay, and uh I believe you were the one that gave me the information about the number of accidents in that point six mile area.

Um, but they're not considered serious accidents, is that correct?

Do you know the type of accidents those were so over 70 percent of those crashes uh were what we would consider uh fent minor fender benders or uh property damage collisions?

So uh those types of collisions make up uh the the largest number of uh crashes on our roadway network in general.

Um and in this case uh you're correct that there was no uh serious injury or uh fatality crashes in the area that you requested the uh the data collection for.

Uh thank god they weren't which what's considered serious, but I just want you all to know there's no traffic light anywhere in this in this corridor.

So these accidents had to be while cars were moving.

Most of them were probably left turn with individuals coming out, I imagine, because there's no traffic light, there's no point of conflict or natural conflict.

So I just want you to keep that in mind.

Again, take a look at this map.

We need traffic improvements.

There are some areas, I mean we just have to say it.

There are some areas if they're high traffic, we don't have the infrastructure that we just may need to pump the brakes on development in some areas.

So um, and I would say Mallard Creek is certainly one of them.

And you can look at this map, the pending, the buy right.

I mean, it's just it's it's just unbelievable.

Um, and the residents feel it.

The the uh residents spoke earlier, there have been about 3,000 trips.

How many traffic studies?

None of them tr triggered a traffic study.

So until we're really ready to take a look at how we're growing and grow responsible, you see the sign.

We we're getting emails about red light cameras, a young man has has died this week.

I'm sorry about your friend, I'm sorry to the family.

Um, but this is happening every day.

So and we can't continue to just build by any mean means necessary.

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

So Miss Owens.

Yes, I had a quick question, and I yes, we are back up.

Just a question from Mr.

Floyd.

Um, I I don't want to take anything away from um council member Johnson's uh great questions.

I just was gonna take this just in a little bit different direction because I wasn't certain that I followed what you were saying.

With respect to the amount that would go to the Arian neighborhood, can you help me appreciate what that hundred thousand dollars would go?

Can you show me where on the map what would be their responsibility versus what is now C DOT?

Well, so as sorry, I'm not sure I can get back to my presentation.

Um I was just hearing her say that it was perceived by the neighborhood that wouldn't even be enough to cover one repaving, and I'm just trying to get the concept in my mind of what what we're talking about.

Yeah, sorry if I can so I'll try to answer it, and if it pops up I'll I'll use it.

Um so I mean obviously there's a road network within ARIA.

Trouble court is the court is the street that we're primarily talking about.

Here we go.

Um there we go.

So this road here is Unison Drive.

That is a private street.

Everything else in ARIA is public.

So what the developers propose is a hundred thousand dollar capital infusion to help cover maintenance on this this particular road.

There's been discussions about putting in uh speed bumps.

We've said, you know, you could use that money for speed bumps.

Someone made a comment about security issues at the pool, you could use the money for security issues at the pool, but they were under the impression that they were responsible for all the maintenance of all this, and we dealt with that.

Unfortunately, this road here is a private road with a public access easement, and we can't do anything about that.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

Yes, uh, thank you, Mr.

Drakes.

Uh Ms.

Johnson, thank you for that accumulative map that you helped put together.

That's certainly very helpful for us to see the overall impact versus um a petition by petition.

I think that shows uh totality of our uh totality of the fact uh this developments would have.

I just wanted to follow up.

So would this this question is for C dot?

Would that be considered an R fund road?

Because I know under the PAVA Act, there is funding for R fund roads.

So if you could just uh touch on that traditionally the orphan roads would be found out in the ETJ, okay, where there is no agency available to maintain due to you know when and how they were constructed.

Um so this typically wouldn't fall under that same uh designation because it's within the city limits.

Okay, and is just a uh private road uh built as part of the subdivision that was not a network required street, it's it's it's a secondary street as part of the development.

All right, this is Mira.

Can I point out that in the course of uh working with the county to move the uh the legislation forward?

We entered into an agreement right to work with them and committed 60 million dollars uh to orphan roads.

Yes.

So the question would be does this qualify for that?

I'm not sure whether we can predict that right now.

He made that pretty clear that wouldn't because it's not it's within the city limits.

I think the funds that would go towards our orphan roads are outside of the city limits, specifically in ETJ, and I know that Commissioner Griffin had I have had several conversations with him about orphan roads, and majority of it it's in close to Still Creek area.

Right.

Um but I wanted to make sure uh that's based on the in this case.

Uh this question is for C DOT again.

In this case, if this development does not go through, and they are not who will be would the residents be responsible for maintaining that maintaining that private street or private road.

So the one north-south road, which is unison, uh, is the only road that is not a C dot maintained facility.

So the rest are C dot maintained, so it would be that the one north-south street.

Can you point to that place?

Sure, it's this one right here.

Okay.

That's unison.

So the the required the streets that connect into the proposed rezoning uh directly are uh C DOT maintained, those were accepted um during 2025.

Um but the the one street would remain uh not maintained by C DOT but maintained by the uh the HOA.

And uh so this additional two questions that I have, it could be part of the follow-up report.

I um one on subdivision ordinance.

If you could just give us a memo on what is pre-UDO language versus post-UDO um subordinance, and how would that apply in this case?

And Councilmember Johnson mentioned about additional money that the speakers uh that she had mentioned that the residents were paying for.

Uh could you elaborate on that?

Because I didn't follow that.

He may not be aware.

This is part of their part of their like their deed requirements.

They pay it's a 12,000 dollar premium per year.

You can come back up if you want to elaborate it.

It's for living, it's the university city partners.

Okay, so they are in the special district.

Yeah, they are.

Okay, that's okay.

Not it's not coming up.

Okay, I'm good.

Thank you so much.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Do I hear a motion to close?

I'll hear and be closed.

Second.

All in favor?

Uh okay, that's unanimous.

Thank you.

We move on now to agenda item 21.085 by HK Cedarvale LLC, approximately 9.89 acres located north of Performance Road, west of Cedar Vale Road, and south of Devonwood Lane.

Uh ETJ uh uh the Board of County Commissioners leak and the closest uh city council is uh council member Mayo.

Um so yes.

Good evening.

Good evening.

There we go.

Uh this site is just under 10 acres located on the west side of Cedarvale Road, north of Performance Road and south of Devonwood Lane.

The site is vacant currently and zoned I2 C D the proposed zoning of ML2 C D 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type.

2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type.

Just to pause a moment before we get into the proposal.

So the site is currently entitled for I-1 uses, so light industrial uses with the addition of a contractor office with outdoor storage.

The proposal would allow for a contractor office with outdoor storage, office, industrial light, and industrial general for the sole purpose of indoor precast concrete production.

So that's the difference between the entitled uses and the proposed use is the indoor precast concrete production.

That is an 85-foot to 100 foot class A landscape yard along the northern property boundary next to residential, as well as a 50-foot class A landscape yard along Cedar Vale Road.

25,000 square foot building envelope with a parking and outdoor storage envelope in the rear of the site.

They're committing to installing and maintaining signage prohibiting left turn movements from the driveway to Cedarvale Road.

Also limitsing freestanding lighting to 30 feet in height and specifies that the lighting cannot be installed within 100 feet of residentially zoned properties.

Staff does not recommend approval of this petition.

It is consistent with the policy map recommendation for the manufacturing logistics place type.

However, the petition requests to expand industrial uses on a property that abuts residential uses.

The site is currently entitled for I-1 or light industrial uses, and solely a contractor office with outdoor storage, as is permitted in the I-2 district.

Staff does not support increasing the number or intensity of industrial uses and specifically concrete production adjacent to residential uses.

Petition would maintain or enhanced buffers in the previously approved plan in the form of an 85-foot to 100 foot class A landscape yard along the northern property boundary and a 50-foot class A landscape yard along the Cedarvale Road frontage.

I will turn it over to the petitioners team and be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Mangum.

Now we don't have any speakers signed up in opposition.

However, staff is opposed to this, and therefore I have three speakers in favor.

Francis Fennel, Michael Hicks, and Brian Smith.

And I guess you're going to speak.

So that you have 10 minutes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm Francis Fennell.

I'm with Urban Design Partners.

I'm representing the petitioner, HK Cedarville, LLC.

Michael Hicks is the petitioner.

He's here in case there's any specific questions regarding use, and then Brian Smith is here representing Urban Design Partners as well.

So this is the uh, as Joe mentioned, rezoning petition 2025-085.

Um this request is to uh change the zoning from I-2 CD to the ML2 C D zoning district.

So the property is located at 2424 Cedarville Road in Charlotte.

So the site map, um, as you can see, the site is located to the north of I-85, just to the north of Performance Road.

Uh it has frontage on Cedarville Road, um, and it's located to the east of Warschapel Road.

Um, it is directly south of an existing residential development, but abuts industrial uses around surrounding.

Slipping fast.

There we go.

Okay, so I wanted to zoom into the site map just for a second.

Um, just to point out that this corner parcel, the petitioner owns as well and is currently operating a contractor office and storage out of that facility.

So the uh the parcels connect with an existing driveway, and that'll be important as I go through my presentation.

So the current zoning, um, as I mentioned, um, you can see it was a previous rezoning petition 2019-033.

Um, it was I2 C D.

Um surrounding the site, there are numerous industrial and manufacturing and logistics zonings as well as some residential zoning to the north, um, and then south of I-85.

So the 2040 policy map has this site uh noted as manufacturing and logistics, so this uh petition would be uh compliant with that feature policy map.

So I wanted to take a second to speak to the previous rezoning petition.

So um as Joe mentioned, this allowed all uses in I-1 and some specific uses in I2, such as a contractor's office and storage yard.

Um we have kind of been in uh correspondence with the zoning administrator trying to figure out what is allowed based on this previous rezoning and the use of an indoor concrete peak precast facility is allowed under this existing rezoning facility uh excuse me under this existing rezoning entitlement.

Um the caveat is is that there are certain prescribed conditions associated with that use.

So were the petitioner to not get this rezoning request and decide to move forward with this facility, he would just have to operate, um, have his access come from performance road.

So essentially the driveway connection on Cedarville Road would not be allowed.

So the proposed rezoning plan, you can see it's basically the same thing.

It's actually a little bit of a smaller footprint than that than what was previously proposed.

So the original building was 40,000 square feet.

This uh proposed building is 25,000 square feet.

Um we've also enhanced the buffer um in the top uh right-hand corner of the site plan.

It was a existing 50-foot buffer, and the petitioner has now expanded that to an 85-foot buffer.

Um, as far as site improvements, there'll be a six-foot sidewalk and eight-foot planting strip on both Cedarville Road as well as along Devonwood, um, which is the residential street um adjacent to us.

And then I wanted to mention too, the specific kind of request with this rezoning is like I said, an access request.

So what we're looking to do is we're looking to have a driveway connection onto Cedar Vale Road.

Um, so that driveway connection would be limited, would only allow right turns out, and that's specific so that you don't have traffic from this development going toward towards that existing residential use.

So as you can see here, this is the proposed site plan.

Um it will still kind of function under some of the similar uses that were allowed previously, but this specifically allows for the use of an indoor concrete precast facility.

Um as I mentioned, the building square footage is decreasing and the landscape yards are increasing in the rear of the property.

A little bit of a lag.

There we go.

Um so I wanted to pull up this exhibit because I know when there's industrial uses, um, there's a lot of times the biggest question is noise and what are the impacts um to the surrounding area.

And so specifically, uh, the proposed user, Infinity Precast, they specialize in the production and installation of precast light pole bases.

So as part of their operations on this site, they intend to operate an indoor batch plant to manufacture their pre-cast products.

So the batch plant would approximately produce 70 decibels during operation, it would be fully enclosed within the building.

So there'll be no industrial uses outside of the building.

Um then as far as like what 70 decibels is, that translates to the sound of like a shower or a vacuum.

Um and so that we kind of offset the building three feet, and that's the amount of noise you would hear right around the building.

As you expand out and you get further and further out, when you start to hit the residential properties around 384 feet away, the sound equates to around 28 decibels, which is equivalent to the rustling of leaves.

So we don't think a sound will be an issue for the existing uh neighbors.

And then as far as kind of the operation itself, um, they plan to produce 15 to 30 yards per day, and they'll probably only be in operation a maximum of two hours per day.

With that, that's all I have, so I can uh take any questions.

All right.

Questions.

Uh I have a couple.

The uh other concerns about something like this would include um any pollution that it emanates from the factory, and also what kind of vehicular traffic would be expected.

Can you talk about those?

Yeah.

Um, I can't speak directly to the pollu pollution, but I could ask um if the petitioner has any um uh answers to that, he can come forward and speak to that.

Um as far as I know, everything's fully enclosed in the building, so I don't think they anticipate any pollution, but we can we can address that.

Um, and then as far as traffic, my understanding is it would be a maximum of like six trucks coming in and out of this per day.

Uh tractor trailers, what kind of trucks?

I would have to ask the petitioner that.

All right.

So Mr.

Masuera Arias.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Driggs.

Um could you please uh describe how close this is to the existing manufacturing units, the homes?

Oh, the existing homes, yeah.

So we are about if I go to my map here.

Um, so the existing homes are right over here.

Scary, it's kind of hard to see.

Um, but I think we're at least what is it, a hundred feet.

So this this green right here is a hundred-foot buffer from the building to um the existing property.

Got it, thank you.

And um a question for city staff.

Uh, can you please high level main three four points as to why staff isn't recommending this?

So we feel that the 2019 rezoning that entitled the cipher I one uses as well as um a contractor office and outdoor storage.

Um, that we kind of struck the balance of manufacturing logistics logistics uses in proximity to residential uses.

And we just we're not we didn't think it was a in the public interest to introduce additional uh potentially more impactful uses, industrial uses uh adjacent to residential.

All right, thank you.

Ms.

Mayo.

Yes, um, I've spoken extensively with our planning department um about this and would love an opportunity to speak with the petitioner about it as well, but um the additional use, particularly when it comes to the precast concrete production, is something I'm very worried about, particularly with air quality for the existing residences that are still so close.

Um I'd love to to talk more with y'all about that because I am concerned in the fact that staff also does not um support this uh makes me a little hesitant as well.

Thank you.

Uh I will just note that I think staff are doing their job and finding that this is not consistent.

Uh I'd like to know more before I reach my own conclusion about whether it's something I don't notice any local opposition to it.

So we have really what sounds like a conceptual argument about the appropriateness of a use like that rather than concerns about the noise and so on, the impact on the neighbors.

Um look forward to learning more about it.

And if there's no other comment, I will entertain a motion to closely second.

All in favor, uh okay.

Our next hearing is rezoning petition 2025-004 by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, aka Atreum.

Location approximately 3.14 acres located west of East Moorhead Street, north of Myrtle Avenue, and south of South Tryon Street in Council District 1, Ms.

Anderson's district.

Uh Ms.

Kramer.

Thank you.

This site is just over three acres located along East Moorhead, Lexington Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, and Euclid Avenue frontages, in an area where we have dense activity center uses to the north, east, and west.

And development intensity transitions down as you go south with single family uses in a neighborhood one context located directly across Lexington Avenue adjacent to the site.

Property is currently zoned neighborhood center.

The proposal request is for community activity center to conditional.

The policy map calls for the neighborhood center place type, which is representative of the neighborhood center zoning that's currently on the ground there.

And I'll get into the proposal request here.

It is for up to 390 multifamily units, up to 20% of those multifamily units, which equates to about 78 if all 390 are built out, would be maintained at 80% or less AMI for no less than 30 years.

At the ground floor level of the site, you would have 10,000 square feet of commercial uses.

It notes what commercial uses may occur there.

It establishes building height across three different transition zones across the site, and that's trying to note the sensitivity adjacent to Lexington Avenue, where I pointed out you have that more single-family context.

So I've identified here the different envelopes in area C, you have the most intense portion of the development, which limits height to 120 feet, or it could go up to 129 feet with bonuses, bonus menu options as stipulated in the ordinance where they have to provide certain benefits.

Area B would limit building height to 65 feet.

And then area C where you are closest to that neighborhood one area, you're stepping down feet to 35 feet.

And that's also additionally shielded with a 20-foot community buffer directly adjacent to that area A, that's outlined in orange here.

Now, the exciting part of this petition is that it is within an adopted area plan.

So in the staff analysis, that's right.

In the staff analysis, you might have noted that the consistency statement looks a little bit different, and the policy section looks a lot longer.

So the consistency statement notes how it is speaking to the adopted South Intercommunity Area Plan.

It is considered in our analysis consistent with the goals and policies of the South Inter Community Area Plan, although it is not in alignment with that 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood center place type, as I pointed out here on the ground.

And that is again that misalignment is because they're asking for a community activity center zoning district, and the place type on the ground is neighborhood center.

In terms of what the community area plan is calling for, one of the priority goals that it outlines in the area plan is housing access for all, which is goal three.

And this petition is facilitating that or could facilitate that because it is providing 20% of its multifamily units to be affordable at 80% or less AMI for no fewer than 30 years.

One other additional goal that is being facilitated by this petition, although it's not a priority goal of the area plan, is the 10-minute neighborhoods goal.

And we found that it could facilitate this goal because they are providing non-residential commercial space on the ground floor, really speaking to the activity center intent and mixed-use goals of the community activity center and activating that frontage.

And that helps create a 10-minute neighborhood in an area where we have prominent neighborhood centers as well as regional and community activity centers.

Now, because this proposal is considered out of alignment with the policy map, we did work it through our minor map amendment criteria.

And this criteria can be found in our program guide as part of all adopted community area plans.

And the minor map amendment criteria really helps us determine the compatibility with the vision and goals of every 2040 comprehensive plan, or sorry, of the 2040 comprehensive plan for every community area plan.

And this table that you see below, that you will also see in your staff analysis as well as a corresponding long-range memo for every petition, summarizes the criteria for a request that would change a place type of the site to community activity center.

So every time a petition is out of alignment with its adopted place type, we would work it through this minor map amendment criteria assessment.

And this one is being used being told through the community activity center lens because that is what the place type would be changed to if approved.

But for example, if you had a neighborhood two request in front of you, we would be utilizing the neighborhood two minor map amendment criteria.

So as you can see in this criteria table, we've outlined the actual criteria items.

Provide a description, and then the on the right-hand side, you have site information.

So the preferred minimum acreage for the establishment of a community activity center is 20 acres.

This site is 3.14 acres, so it's not meeting that 20 acres, but I will say it's located caddy corner from an existing community activity center.

It's just not directly abutting it.

Now, the preferred place type adjacencies, these are being met because it is located directly adjacent to a regional activity center, which is the preferred place type, as well as neighborhood two and community activity center, which is are all preferred place type adjacencies for a community activity center designation.

Now it is also located adjacent to a neighborhood one place type alongside Lexington Avenue.

This is not a preferred place type adjacency, but I will note as we've established in the proposal description.

This plan establishes conditions to sensitively transition alongside that neighborhood one place type.

So they're recognizing yes, this is not a preferred place type adjacency.

We've built an additional conditions into the plan to thoughtfully transition to that.

In terms of the locational criteria, there are two items to consider.

You want the community activity center to not be located within uptown, and you want it to be within a half-mile walkshed of a high capacity transit station.

And it is also located within two major transportation corridors being South Boulevard and Moorhead Street.

So that's the minor map amendment criteria assessment that we worked it through.

And based off this guidance, we would say it's meeting minor map amendment criteria to establish a community activity center on the site.

Staff recommends the approval of this petition upon resolution of a minor outstanding issue.

The proposal may help facilitate the area plans identified priority goal of housing access for all by providing a significant number of affordable housing units and a vibrant area where residents may easily access employment opportunities, goods and services, transit options, and recreative spaces.

The petition thoughtfully transitions to that adjacent adjacent neighborhood one place site by capping building heights in three different phases, the last of which goes down to 35 feet, which is more restrictive than any of the neighborhood one districts permit.

Additionally, the site includes that 20-foot community buffer along Lexington Avenue.

That's between the sidewalk and the potential building envelope.

And the inclusion of the ground floor commercial square footage helps ensure that the intent of a Ruebus community activity center can be carried out on the site with that true mixed uses.

And that's in an area that has already that diverse commercial office campus and residential options located nearby.

And I'll take any questions following petitioner comments.

So before I entertain questions, we're we're entering the deeper waters of transition to the area plan.

And I have to tell you some of what you just explained is unfamiliar.

And what I'm trying to understand and hope to clarify for everybody.

What's that?

I'm not getting 2%.

Sorry, what the petitioner.

Oh, there are any speakers signed up.

I'm sorry.

I'm ahead of myself here.

Good.

Well, we will listen to uh Mr.

Carmichael.

John, I'm so sorry.

Just climb right up there and uh tell us what you got.

Thank you.

Climb right up there.

I'm still curious about the area plan.

Um Mr.

Mayor Pro Tem, members of City Council and the Zoning Committee.

I'm John Carmichael representing the petitioner.

With me tonight are Bennett Thompson of the petitioner, Mo McRae of Horizon Development Properties and Livyan, and Ryan Lewis with Kimley Horn.

Uh the site's about 3.14 acres located on the west side of East Morehead Street between Euclid and Myrtle and Lexington Avenue.

Lexington Avenue is to the west, Myrtles to the south, Euclid to the north.

This is an aerial of the site.

You've got a high-rise multifamily building across the street, uh, across Moorhead Street, and then a high-rise uh retirement community across Moorhead Street as well.

The current zoning is neighborhood center.

The petitioners are requesting the resonance of the site to the CAC2 CD zoning district to accommodate a mixed-use building that would contain the 390 multifamily dwelling units and up to 10,000 square feet of commercial uses.

There's an affordable commitment up to uh a minimum of 20 percent of the units constructed on the site would be income restricted to households earning between 30 percent and 80 percent of the area meeting income for a period of not less than 30 years.

This is a new part here, a minimum of 25 percent of these income restricted units would be income restricted to households earning 30 percent of the area median income.

Um this is the site plan.

Um Polly did a good job going through it, but you've got the uh Moorhead Street to the top, Lexton to the bottom, uh Myrtle to the right, and Euclid to the left.

Uh the height transitions from Moorhead Street down to Lexington, so it's 129 maximum here, closest to Moorhead, then it transitions to 65 here, and then it's 25 along the southern portion, excuse me, 35 along the southern portion of the building, and then you've got that 20-foot open space area here along Lexton and Myrtle to pull that building further away from those streets.

Um we've worked, we think, um, pretty diligently with the DCDA land use committee.

We had two larger neighborhood meetings, and I've been in pretty constant contact with DCDA leadership, and as a result of those conversations, have been several conditions or revisions to the plan that are agreed to by the commissioner.

They include reducing the maximum building height from 150 to 129 feet up on Moorhead Street or near the Moorhead Street Fort frontage of the site, reducing the maximum building height 50 to 35 on the southern portion of the building, reducing the number of units from 525 to 390, reducing the commercial from 15,000 to 10,000 square feet.

I've mentioned the open space along Lexington and Myrtle.

Um then also I want to show this real quick, and then their construction access and construction traffic commitments.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

And then these renderings are part of the proposal to show to ensure as best we can that the building is compatible with existing residential and Lexington Myrtle.

Happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

So uh I'm not deterred.

I'm gonna get back to what I wanted to ask before.

Which is uh so we're in a situation now where this is consistent with the uh area plan.

However, uh it's not with the place type map, with the policy map.

And therefore, what you described were criteria that we would use to see whether that kind of an adjustment to the map can be supported.

Uh and and uh and if if your finding is that that can be, then the map is modified and and the the uh the policy map is changed to reflect the outcome of this decision.

If the rezoning is approved, just as is the case currently, if the rezoning is approved and the policy map is out of alignment with the proposed request, then the policy map gets updated to that new place type.

Right.

What if your uh your minor map uh amendment criteria aren't met?

Then it likely if it's not being met, then it's likely a petition that staff couldn't support because that's helping determine appropriateness of that request.

If it's not being net met, then there are probably some fatal flaws essentially with the context of that petition and where it's sitting.

And for example, let's say it's proposing a multifamily in an area that is very far from goods and services, is not close to transit options, does not meet the minimum acreage, is not along an arterial.

Those are really critical components for establishing multifamily.

So if it's not meeting those, then it's contextually inappropriate on the offset.

Right.

So you think it's not that likely that you would have planned consistency and not be able to meet the minor map amendment.

And the minor map criteria, yes, it's it's helping create that consistency statement.

And when we are saying it's consistent with the goals and policies, it's because that minor map criteria is a policy of the community area plan as part of the program guide within it.

Okay, uh, thank you, everybody.

Right.

Um thank you, Mr.

Drake's for bringing that up.

Um, because this is a nuance.

So do you anticipate where there would be consistency of the goals and policies, right?

But then policy map, uh, there might be in consistency.

Uh where it will come through rezoning.

Do you anticipate more of that?

More of these situations here?

Yeah, there it's it's possible, yes, that we will continue to see sites where the policy map is potentially reflecting status quo, but a site is maybe transitioning quickly, and let's say the policy map was reflecting that it currently has ML entitlements, but we know the area is moving more towards an innovation mixed use type of character.

The policy map was not made on a parcel by parcel basis, and we know that it was not granular and it could not be made in that level of detail.

And because of that, that's why we have the minor map amendment criteria to help aid us in that assessment tool because the policy map was unable to be determined on a parcel by parcel basis.

Yes, I I get that, but I uh this just feels like we just adopted the policy map and uh and here we are.

So there hasn't been even much time between the adoption and now we are making a change.

So we'll discuss that more, um sure with uh Moringa and others, but I you know I I anticipate having less of this.

I mean, that's that was the whole point of adopting the policy map.

Uh to not have to go through rezoning because rezoning means more time for the petitioner.

And but we'll call we will discuss the policy at a later time.

But if if I could just clarify, the policy map would have never necessarily prevented rezonings because it doesn't change entitlements inherently.

That would require, let's say, the alignment rezoning process, which is envisioned to align parcels to what the policy map is prescribing.

But the policy map would have never prevented rezonings.

But I I hear you maybe that the goal was a policy map preventing misalignments, but the policy map was not made on a parcel by parcel basis.

So uh the policy map was the reference that we were using as to consistency, right?

So for a while after we adopted the policy map, we looked at that and we said, is it okay with that?

And uh now we're still looking at that, but uh we're deciding whether according to these criteria for minor map amendments, an adjustment to that is indicated.

This was always going to be part of the implementation of the UDO.

We started high level and then we came down, and a bunch of us had difficulty with this because it was very wholesale at first.

Now it's getting kind of detailed.

But I remember our goal was to minimize this, right?

Because we don't want to see more of this because when they have to go through rezoning, that means more time and more resources.

I mean, it takes six to months, six months to a year.

So obviously we wanted, even though it was a wholesale, our goal was to have it um less rezonings and less situation by situation because we wanted to get it right from the get goal and hence deferral by deferral.

But we'll discuss that at a later time.

We're gonna keep we're gonna keep encountering that.

I think the idea uh is still intact that the UDO intended to create a sort of a framework that made it a little simpler for people to understand what our intentions were.

Um, and uh, but we're gonna have to find out on a case-to-case basis how it works.

Ms.

Anderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Drake's.

Well, uh, first I'm just excited that we do have uh an example of uh a particular community area planess in action and flight here with the South Inner.

One in particular that um two very um I have two very good detailed neighborhood leaders, um, both in Dillworth and in Cherry did impact the outcome, the final outcome of uh the South Inner uh map.

So happy to see that.

Mr.

Carmichael, you were I think you were gonna share something about the urban forestry.

Was there a point that you wanted to share?

Uh other than we are gonna this we agreed with the community that the street trees would be larger than what's required under the ordinance, four inches in caliper at the time of installation.

There are a couple other things that we agreed to with uh the DCDA, such as the pedestrian, the lighting along Moorhead.

Yes, uh the construction commitments, that sort of thing.

That's what I wanted you to share.

Um because this is a great example of a community working uh very hard to ensure that A, they're embracing new housing, also affordable housing.

Dillworth has a strong commitment to affordable housing, and this particular area is very dynamic given that it it sits right by the pearl.

Um the the Charlotte, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, otherwise known as Atrium, um, is the one who was is working in tandem with Inlivion, and so they've been in conversation and planning with the community about setbacks about uh architectural materials, um, about things as as specifically as the height of certain trees to maintain the treescape in a historic neighborhood like Dillworth.

Um and so it's been a a really good conversation.

I I can tell you that uh the Dillworth uh neighborhood association did reach out to me and they said they said that Atrium's team has been a good partner in particular with trying to make sure that we can get access to more housing.

Uh and I think it fits in very well with the the the updated modernness of this corridor along Moorhead while still protecting the aesthetic and charm of this single family neighborhood in the back as you go further in the deal where from Lexington and so forth.

So um they they're they're happy with uh the negotiations and and where we're at, and I just wanted to share that with my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Monswell, oh yes.

Yes, so sorry, could you repeat about the tree?

Yeah, the the the uh commitment was I believe the ordinance reports two inches, um, council member, and it the the caliper of the tree and installation, and so uh the agreement was to double that and go to four inches and caliper.

The street trees that would be planted.

Gotcha, gotcha.

Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I got that right.

And then for city staff now regarding the the petition real quick.

Uh we need to really work on the consistencies about the UDO, the 2040 plan, the community area plans, because like there's different benchmarks, I feel like for different areas of our city on what you guys consider might be you know suitable for that neighborhood versus this neighborhood.

And so I was just like to have further conversations about you know what benchmarks are we really looking at or being really consistent and do they apply to all neighborhoods.

I know not all size fits one, but there are other neighborhoods that possibly might want developments like this or other neighborhoods that might not, and so really want to better understand those benchmark analysis.

But that's a thank you.

Motion to close.

So I could all in favor?

Uh thank you.

Okay.

So uh item 23 is deferred.

So we get to item 24, and I want to point out, colleagues, I was just reminded at this late stage that I'm actually supposed to share more information with my introductions.

I got away with it for a while, but now I'm gonna have to read the whole thing.

Okay.

Sorry.

Yeah, rats rats.

Uh rezoning petition 2025 088 by Northway Homes LLC.

Location approximately 3.51 acres located south of Kentbury Drive, west of Bellhaven Boulevard, and north of Gum Branch Road in Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is R8 FM C D, multifamily conditional.

Proposed zoning is N1D C D, neighborhood 1D conditional, and neighborhood A 1A, neighborhood 1A.

The staff recommends approval of this petition.

So yes, good evening.

Uh petition 2025 088 is located at the intersection of Kentbury Drive and Bellhaven Boulevard.

Site's approximately three and a half acres.

It's currently vacant.

Uh the current zoning is R8 M F C D multifamily conditional, and the proposed zoning is N1D C D neighborhood one and N1A conventional.

The 2040 policy map recommends that neighborhood one place type for the site and the proposed zoning districts are consistent with the policy map.

Um I'll just note that this is not in an approved cap plan, so we'll we'll stick to just the policy map for these.

Um little background.

The site was uh rezoned R8 MFCD back in 2005 and is entitled for up to 28 multifamily units.

The proposed zoning um the proposal limits the development of single to single family detached dwellings in the 2.62 acre N1D CD portion of the site located along Kentbury Road or Kentbury Drive, excuse me.

And um in the N1A portion of the site, it's approximately 0.9 acres, and that would allow any use allowed in the N1A district.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

Proposed zoning is consistent with the policy map.

Sites currently entitled for multi-family um housing units, so this would be a drop in intensity.

Sites adjacent to the Coolwood shopping center, designated as a community as a neighborhood center place type, and the sites directly served by transit.

I'm happy to take any questions following Mr.

Murray's presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Oliver.

So we have speakers sign up in opposition to this, and therefore uh Mr.

Murray and Mr.

Thomason, you have 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Uh excuse me, I'm getting over a cold.

Thank you, member.

Uh council members, Mayor Pro Tim, David Murray, uh here for the petitioner, uh Northway Homes.

I had a presentation.

I'm not sure if it's coming up, but um yeah, it's coming though.

Okay, also coming up on here.

It's we can see it.

Um so uh Mr.

Oliver did a good job here with the outline of what we're seeking here.

Uh it's a three and a half acre, uh it's two parcels right now, but uh it's three and a half acres uh on the the street to the north is Campbury Drive, and then uh Bell Haven Avenues to the side and Valley Dale.

Uh um is that kind of stub that you see on the right side there.

Um this is an aerial showing the Coolwood shopping center to the right side.

Um the Hillcrest Baptist Church is to the north.

The uh Cool Wood Oaks town homes are are kind of to the northwest, and then uh single family in one A is kind of to the south and west uh along Kentbury here.

Zoomed out a little bit, uh, give you a better view of the area again.

Cool wood shopping center and commercial to the east, church to the north, town homes across the street, N1A to this area, and then the Cool Wood STEM Academy Middle School is at the end of Kentbury.

So this property's vacant, it's been vacant for a while.

Um the owners uh that uh are uh that were under contract with and seeking this rezoning.

They had originally had this site rezoned back in 2005.

And the purpose of that zoning was that they wanted to have a 28-unit uh townhome development.

And so that was approved, it was age restricted, but by the time, at least from what we can gather, and the family's been out there a long time, but from the time that this was approved, the market crashed, and nothing ever happened.

And so the family has been sitting on this property now for uh 20 years, and nothing's been developed uh since then.

And so when we first looked at this site, because it's entitled under a multifamily plan for 28 units.

We originally looked at this site for town homes, and so that's what this petition originally was.

Uh, on your screen now is actually the original plan that was adopted by city council.

It was adopted over a protest petition at the time.

So it was a unanimous city council approval.

Uh and as you can see, there were three pods with 28 units, a lot going on on this site as was originally entitled.

Um we filed this, we filed it as a 26 town home unit site, and then we had our community meeting, and we had a lot of participation from the Coolwood Hills Community Association, and the pushback was on town homes, and so at that time we scaled that back to 16 town homes, but the neighborhood did not want town homes, and so after the large uh attendance at the community meeting, we started looking at what other potential uses would make sense here because a lot of the feedback was we want to see single family detached on this site, and so the there's a lot of development.

Um there's a lot of issues with uh getting a lot of lots on these sites, and I'll get into that here in a second.

But after talking a lot with the neighborhood and and listening to their comments and concerns, we dialed this back to an N1D, and the purpose of the N1D and uh is to uh put a single family detached uh uh home development on this site.

And so in your staff review analysis, they talk about that there's potential for 20 units, but that's not possible because there's a lot of um there's a lot of site constraints on this site.

First of all, I'm gonna go back to the aerial and show y'all what I'm talking about.

But one of the biggest issues is there's two sewer easements, two City of Charlotte sewer easements running through this property.

On top of that, the topography at the split between the N1D area and the N1A area, the topography's bad, and there's a uh kind of a creek bed ditch uh in between those two areas, and so it really limits because the buffers it limits what can be done on these sites.

So to look at the aerial here, the the N1D area would be the area that's this rectangle up on the front that fronts Kent Berry.

The N1A area would be this little uh section down here at the bottom that is accessible from Valley Dale.

This N1A area, the little arm that comes out at the bottom down here, that's the N1A portion of this rezoning.

There are buffers almost uh completely over that site.

So at most we could get two lots, however, the uh site constraints themselves really limit what can be done in that area, which is why it's it's only an N1A conventional, just to basically put it back to what it was back before all the rezonings.

This front area, which is the rectangular area, this is the N1D area that we're seeking with the condition that it be single family detached only, no duplexes, no triplexes, and the purpose of that is we're originally town homes, the neighborhood wants to see detached.

We're not gonna go with a conventional N1D where you could potentially put lots and put a bunch of triplexes and do the exact same thing that you said you weren't gonna that we weren't gonna do in the townhomes.

So that's the purpose there, and in this area, right through here is a lower lying area where uh there's kind of a drainage ditch that comes off Bellhaven.

The city also has some easements along Bell Haven here.

So really the only development areas on this site off in this area along Kentbury, which you could put approximately four N1D lots in this area, and then another development here because there's a sewer easement that runs through the middle.

Another development area here, which you could get approximately five lots under N1D.

So this plan is just straightforward single family detached homes in an area where there are single family detached homes adjacent to us.

Um the condition on the N1D is just that limitation.

Uh we are consistent with the uh 2040 plan for this site because it's neighborhood one.

Uh it's eliminating an inconsistent uh zoning that currently exists on the site.

And that's my presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

So we do have speakers in opposition.

Uh Morgan Eberley, Timothy Geis or Geese, uh Narissa Helms.

Jeff Massey.

Jeff Massey.

Jeff Messi.

Oh, and Jeff Massey, yes, also late registrant, right?

And what do you know?

They're all here.

Good.

So uh you have a total of 10 minutes.

You can sort out among yourselves how you allocate your time.

All right.

Um, good evening, council members.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

My name is Morgan Everly, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Colwood community that I call home.

The current proposed development plan from North Bay Homes has undergone notable changes since their initial rezoning request, taking community concerns into consideration, and I would like to acknowledge their willingness to work with us and specifically the changes made to the proposed site density and parking availability.

I'm here tonight to broach the main remaining concerns compatibility with the existing neighborhood and the serious risk of increased runoff and stream erosion.

Our neighborhood is made up of single story brick homes built in the 60s and 70s, each with its own distinct design.

These homes sit on large lots with mature trees, open space, and a sense of permanence and stability.

It's not an all-vinyl siding cookie cutter subdivision.

It's a neighborhood where homes were built to last and to reflect individuality.

The proposed development by contrast introduces two-story, high density standardized housing that looks and feels entirely different from what already exists.

I also want to note that there are almost 400 homes in this side of the neighborhood, and the partial that's reflected here is a very small portion that's already N1A housings with these large lots.

The proposed development by oh I'm so sorry.

Um, this type of construction risks fundamentally changing the character of our neighborhood to its detriment and not to its enhancement.

Once that change happens, it cannot be undone.

We are concerned that the proposed development may override the established identity of a community that has existed for decades.

In a perfect world, we would like to see this development be an extension of our neighborhood.

N1A zoning with detached single-family homes on large lots with the mature trees and unique character.

In lieu of this, we ask whether larger lots, variability to the home design, and use of brick or stone building design elements could be used to better fit with the neighborhood.

Northway has said that their intention is to use these elements and create homes that are not clones of each other, but there's no guarantee that this will be honored.

And it's already very different than what we have in place today.

The second concern is stormwater runoff and stream erosion, which is already an issue in our area and has majorly impacted the properties downstream from the development site.

The house that had previously sat on this lot flooded and experienced mold issues that could not be remediated and eventually contributed to its demolition.

A neighbor downstream has to move their lawnmower from their stream adjacent shed every time the forecast calls for heavy rain.

As the flood levels rise high enough to damage anything that's left on the floor.

Increasing impervious surfaces, more rooftops and driveways will inevitably push more water faster into the stream.

That runoff leads to stream bank erosion, sediment buildup, and potential flooding, all of which threaten not only property but the local ecosystems.

Once erosion worsens, it becomes an expensive and ongoing problem for homeowners and eventually for the city.

Existing residents will be impacted by the long-term environmental risks from this development, as they have been for the boom of development in this vicinity for the last few years.

I understand that if the stream is found to make up more than a set percentage of the subdivision property, there are environmental requirements for erosion prevention, on-site detention, and other stormwater control measures.

But these will not apply if the stream is even one percentage below this threshold.

We ask that as part of this project, some mitigation efforts are performed by the contractor to prevent further strain, regardless of this parameter.

In closing, this is not an argument against growth.

It's an argument for appropriate growth that keeps Coolwood's character and protects its environment.

Thank you for your time.

So there are six minutes and twenty seconds remaining, just so you can pace yourselves.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Narissa Helms, and my family lives on Kentbury Drive, just downstream from the property in this petition.

I have called Coolwood home for the last 53 years.

I'm speaking tonight for our entire community, but most importantly, my 11 neighbors whose backyards are adjacent directly to this creek.

A section of this land included in this petition plays a vital role in supporting local wildlife and maintaining environmental balance in our area.

Right now, stormwater runoff from more than 47 acres along Bellhaven Boulevard, the 14-acre Coolwood shopping center, and the five-acre church runs through that property.

In addition, the 28-acre Coolwood Park and Coolwood Oakstown homes drains into a creek that flows directly into Gum Branch, which is photo one in your packet, through storm drainage improvements, completed in 2022, and is already overwhelmed.

During rain events, the force is so strong that it has ripped the riprap off of the Brady property, and they're at the storm drainage improvement and carried it through my creek and into the only property, which is the next property downstream.

Railroad ties that are meant that were meant to hold in the banks are tumbling in, trees are falling in, vegetation planted for stabilizing the sides of the creek is washing away.

And the city sewer line that sits just feet from this collapsing crank bank, which is pages eight and fourteen, are highlighting another critical concern.

When I was a child, this was a creek that we could cross with just an old wooden door.

And in some parts, we could even jump across it.

Actually, in that area that he was talking about, that was like the wetland area.

There were cattails, and we used to make mud pies and trample through there.

And so anyway, um, today the surrounding development has called it to torrent.

Our clay soil simply cannot handle more runoff.

Adding roofs, driveways, and parking lots will only send even more runoff, faster straight through our backyards.

That means worse erosion, more property damage, poorer water quality, and greater risk to Lake Wally downstream.

For all these reasons, I respectfully ask that you consider your approval as to how this will affect the residents along this creek.

Whether this property stays as currently zoned or updated to the N1D and the N1A, at the very least, please require a full stream restoration project to protect these homes, the wildlife, and the creek that have been part of Cool Wood for generations.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you.

We have three minutes remaining.

Good evening.

I'm Jeff Massey.

It's 708 Belmoro Drive in the Coolwood neighborhood, and I speak on behalf of our community.

Thanks so much to the council for giving us an opportunity to let our voices be heard.

I'd like to give just a brief summary of the actions of our neighborhood addressing this rezoning issue.

Starting in September, neighbors circulated a petition online that has since gathered nearly 600 signatures.

On October 7th, over 60 households were on a Zoom meeting for the first community meeting held regarding this zoning change.

Later in October, more than 30 of us from the neighborhood met with Councilman Graham at the site where the proposed rezoning is to happen.

Sometime in December, the builder approached staff with verbal plans to build a single to build single family detached homes instead of town homes.

And last week, Mr.

Murray, the attorney for Northway Homes held a community meeting at our neighborhood clubhouse where about 15 of us were in attendance.

I hope you that I've made my point.

These would be four bedroom homes that are two stories, adding many cars to a street that has a middle school at the other end.

The Coolwood STEM Academy has roughly 160 cars that pick up and drop off kids from school each day.

And there are 600 total students, most of them come by bus.

So currently have no detail from the builder concerning the new plan.

If they were to keep with the current road frontage of homes along Kentbury Drive, they would be building three or four new homes instead of nine.

Cool wood is cool.

We hope that you'll help us keep it that way until the builder presents a plan that is in keeping with the character of our neighborhood.

Thank you.

All right, I'm I see.

Uh I got a minute, right?

Um I'm Timothy Geese.

Um I'm an eighth grade science teacher at Coolwood STEM Academy.

Um I'm here to I'm against this petition um to uphold this multifamily um zoning that is currently in place.

Um most of our students do come from the other side of um 485, um which is not accessible to our students.

Um, as you probably heard of the student um last year that was um struck by a car walking to school.

Um so why are we deciding who can go to this school and who cannot?

Um and that's what this is doing because most of our students live on the other side.

Um, and that's also where a ton of traffic problems happen, right?

Um, Mount Holly, Huntersville Road.

You get a lot of petitions there.

Um, where this would be accessible by walking for students to walk to school um across from a neighborhood center where there's local businesses and there's parks.

Um yeah, so let's keep this density so that we can build this community um for cool center.

Stop now, I'm sorry, time's up.

Um appreciate your all coming.

Thank you very much.

And now, Mr.

Murray will have two minutes for a rebuttal.

Okay, two different methods.

Oh, okay.

Thank you all again.

Uh and I appreciate the neighborhood.

They've been very active.

We've communicated a lot.

I'll tell uh counsel with regard to you know, if this was N1A, you would be able to get five uh lots across the front, and that was something that we looked at uh because you can do duplexes and triplexes on these large lots that would potentially be out there, but that's why we looked at N1D was to limit it to single family detached, so that that was not going to be an issue that would come up that the site gets downzoned, but then we still effectively get the same number of units as you would a townhome development, and you don't reduce the density because that's what this zoning is actually doing.

This is a down zoning of this site, and it's a substantial down zoning from 28 potential units down to at most 10 or 11.

And so these are detached homes.

There are duplexes popping up in this neighborhood, but that's not something that we were interested in doing.

Um, and but the neighborhood's been great to work with.

Everybody that came here tonight, I've had multiple conversations with.

We're gonna continue to have those conversations.

But um, that's you know, where we fell on this was putting that condition on because it's such a limiting factor on what can be done on this site.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Yes, Ms.

Meale.

Um, are there any concessions regarding what the neighborhood was talking about with the storm or with uh um the creek?

Or have you all looked into it?

So, what's interesting about so we actually had an environmental scientist come out to this site to look to make sure that there was no protected uh plant and wildlife on there.

There's not uh the Army Corps came out to make sure that there was not any jurisdictional stream on our portion of the site.

What's interesting about this is there's a convergence kind of over in this area, and Miss Helms uh explained it more and she provided pictures, but that there's actually a city outflow uh that brings storm water down onto the left side of the property and discharges it back behind these parcels.

So there is some storm water that comes across our property, but there's also a fair amount that comes through a discharge uh down into the back of these properties.

And so that's what we're looking at.

Um the in one development parameter if 25% of the site is developed, then it triggers on-site stormwater mitigation.

So our engineer anticipates that we'll bump into that.

So that would, you know, uh uh create that trigger under the UDO, but under N1A, most of our development considerations are going to come up in the LDIRL process with the stormwater review that happens initially before we do anything.

So there's a lot of that will come through the you know the development process as opposed to maybe the rezoning uh process.

Okay.

Sarge Mirror.

Thank you, Mr.

Dreaks.

So I know one of the speakers, I believe was Ms.

Holmes who talked about full stream restoration project.

Um I well, I believe that's was for the staff.

Do we have any update on that?

Or if there is a project full stream restoration?

I believe Robbie stormwater uh stormwater.

Yes, I'm Robbie Zink with uh stormwater.

I'm not aware of a stream restoration right now, but I can look into that.

We can get back with you.

Yeah, if you could please.

Yeah, and um what would this development was to be approved, what would that mean in terms of priority prioritization?

I'm not sure if this development would change any prioritization of it, but um as Mr.

Murray said, you know, if it's developed, I think if they're proposing it would require permanent stormwater control measures.

Um that is to prevent erosion, prevent flooding and treat for water quality.

Thank you.

Um I know Miss Aber Ms.

Morgan Uberley, she talked about conditions that would not be honored.

So if you could please come down and clarify, are you talking about conditions that was from the rezoning that was approved a while ago?

Take your time.

Thank you.

Um I was specifically talking about the um stormwater requirements that are triggered on the sub if the subdivision has was it 25% of um creek running through the property, that those um remediation efforts would not be triggered if it's found to be even a one percentage lower than that threshold.

Um that those are our important remediation efforts to the neighborhood.

We also have talked about different um construction um materials being used to match the surrounding homes, and that um kind of the the visual appeal of this is one of the main entrances to our neighborhood um wanting these this development to match what's already here.

So that again that it's an enhancement to the existing neighborhood, the existing properties versus looking completely different and just kind of sticking out.

Got it.

Thank you.

Was that part of the original rezoning that was approved?

Uh a materials requirement.

I don't do match the neighborhood.

One pair of 2005.

I don't believe so at all.

So I I know I just want to make sure that we are within the bounds.

Okay.

Um in terms of the materials, and I know there is a specific guidance from the state.

If you could just uh touch on that, uh with respect to design aesthetics, yes, um uh this is our city attorney.

Yeah, so um what was your question for her?

In terms of what is it that the local governments can um ask for in terms of the building material materials to ensure the neighborhood's character is inconsistent.

This rezon this development is inconsistent with neighborhoods character right, and so um there is um there's state statute that prohibits um uh uh design it's the design aesthetics bill that prohibits the city council from requiring particular um design in a residential neighborhoods.

Okay, so I just want to make sure that um uh so make sure you write to your state legislatures uh to give us that authority, but in the meantime, um in terms of conditions that um that are specific in variance.

I mean 25% if it's plus or minus one percent, um Ms.

Craig, um let's say if it's one percent, if it's 23.5 percent, it wouldn't trigger the stormwater ordinance.

Sorry, can you ask your question again?

Yes, so Ms.

Burley was had mentioned when she meant what conditions that would not be honored.

So I know within the ordinance that if it's 25 percent, um if you could just repeat that.

Sure.

Um and Mr.

Murray's understanding of this is certainly more involved than my own is.

Um, but I believe it's that the subdivision ordinance, if the creek um represents 25% of the property that's intended to be developed, there are certain requirements for um stormwater mitigation.

Um specifically it was different.

Um if the development, the built that the built the developed part is more than 25%, then it triggers the UDO requirements.

Because there's low density to development because the city's looking, well, if you're doing something really low and you're saving all this open space, you're not gonna trigger all these right.

So I think the question just for clarification in this district is actually 12%, not 25%.

12%.

12%.

So I think the question that the speaker was asking, what happens if it's 11%?

Uh would they trigger it or wouldn't?

I I don't know if there is any levy.

So if it's 12%, we'll definitely trigger it.

Okay, because uh the if if we're gonna have non-lots, it's only 2.6 acres.

And so 20% might be 25% might be closer.

I didn't realize it was 12%.

Okay, so that seems like a different circumstance.

I'll have my engineer confirm, but he told me 25% and thought we were triggering at 25.

So I can follow up with you on that.

Sure.

So I think our staff just said it's 12%.

So all right, I guess that addresses your question.

Thank you.

And uh that's all I have.

Thank you.

There's more work to be done here, and I'm sure I'm hopeful that um we'll come to consensus before the approval next month.

Okay, I have Miss Mayfield and then Ms.

Mayo.

Thank you.

The question is for staff, but I think it's also to our attorney, because it's a bit of a follow-up on council member Ashmer with the clarification of the standards that we're not able to implement regarding built and materials used.

We have in our language neighborhood continuity and the definition or interpretation of neighborhood continuity.

So if we have a community that has a certain material in the homes, but we now have language that has been presented from the General Assembly to say that if there is a development, it needs to match the aesthetic.

How does staff interpret that?

But two, how do we interpret it for the community?

Because it seems like our language is contradicting.

Because if we have neighborhood continuity, age in a place, then in place, all of these things, but if something new is being built that's in that is completely different than what is in the community, that's not neighborhood continuity.

That's something that will stand out in the community and in the neighborhood.

So help me understand so that we can I could better explain it because I attend we were at the meeting till nine o'clock at night having discussions when there was the initial proposal, but I just want to make sure that I can share with community and understand what is it that we're actually saying.

And I might have to ask staff about neighborhood continuity because I'm not really familiar with that.

So under state statutes, we cannot require um any sort of aesthetics to be put in place either by ordinance or requested or you know required by council.

However, the petitioner can work with the community and put in um voluntarily put in standards on a conditional plan since since the N1D portion of the site is considered is proposed to be um conditional, they could implement certain design standards.

The N1A portion they could not, but that would be something that staff could not necessarily require of them.

Council could not necessarily require of them, but the community could negotiate with the petitioner to put those standards in place.

But as for the continuity question, I'm not I'm not sure that I'm familiar with um the aspect of the ordinary.

Can we follow up with you about that question?

Yeah.

Because I may be using language um in the 12-year period.

So there's a possibility that my interpretation of what showing my age, and I've been around here too long.

And the changes, making sure that I understand what I have shared when we talk about protecting community and neighborhood and protecting neighborhood aesthetic versus what now could be done by right under certain requirements, but also for manager looking at how our language potentially transitions a community.

Is that necessarily are we in the right direction?

Just wanted to make sure that I'm understanding, but I would like to say that I appreciate that some changes have been made from the original, because to my understanding, first of all, 2005, we're in 2026, 20 year period.

But to my understanding, the owners were basically recognizing we're becoming an older community.

We would still like to age a place in our community, so they re-zoned to basically have to be able to downsize in their own neighborhood.

Oh, that's smart.

So you have these big, beautiful lots with these ranch brick homes that were not seeing as many up, but the idea to my understanding back then was we want to stay in our community, we love our community.

Life happened now, 20 years later, we're here, but during that time of growth, that is not a safe area for walking.

Manager Jones, we actually drove up this the day that you and I got in a car together.

We came up Bell Haven in five o'clock traffic, so an hour and a half, about an hour and 15 minutes from Mount Holly, Mount Holly, Huntersville, up Bell Haven.

We went past movement school, but we also saw people that were walking on grass.

We went right past Valley Dale off of Bell Haven.

Yes, there's a shopper center over there.

That is not as easy to get to as you think that it is.

So it's great on a map, but the reality of being able to get from one side of the street.

You playing Fogger, so for you young people, go look it up.

But you playing Fogger trying to get across.

So I just want to make sure that I'm under I appreciate that some changes have been made, but I also still hear hear the concerns of the residents that have been there.

I want to make sure that our language aligns with what we're giving to petitioners so that they can have a better chance of success with communicating with community.

All right, ma'am.

Actually, my my question was answered about um the neighborhood and the petitioner uh working together to preserve the character of the neighborhood with building materials.

So I'm hopeful that they'll have additional conversations to better align.

Yeah, and we're we're happy to have those conversations.

Oh, sorry.

That wasn't a question.

Oh, sorry, sorry.

Uh so uh anybody else public all in favor?

Uh okay.

So uh Mr.

Manager, that was the last opposed rezoning, and therefore I'd like to recommend that you take a hike.

No, no, no, I'm gonna stay really yes, yes, yes.

Well, okay, why don't the rest of us leave?

Um, I appreciate that you're here and that we will all stay here and see this through.

We've got a few more to go.

So um thank you.

All right.

Our next agenda item is number 25, rezoning petition 2025 091 by M Bark Development Company LLC.

The location approximately 6.97 acres located east of Steel Creek Road, north of Brightside Drive, and south of Whispering Pines Lane in Miss Mayo's district.

The current zoning is 02 conditional and O2 Conditional A N DO, which is airport noise disclosure overlay.

Proposed zoning is M2A conditional and N2A ANDO Airport Noise Disclosure Overlay.

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

Ms.

Kramer.

Thank you.

This site is just under seven acres along Steel Creek Road, just north of Shopton Road in an area where we have existing townhome developments to the south there.

Single family development, north, east, and west, and some commercial uses also further south, though not directly adjacent to the site along Steel Creek and Shopton Roads.

Site is currently zoned, office conditional portion of the site, the northern parcel of the site is within the airport noise disclosure overlay.

And they are requesting a rezoning to the neighborhood to a conditional zoning district, and that airport noise disclosure overlay would remain on that northern parcel.

Policy map apologies.

Policy map recommends neighborhood two for this site.

So this request for the neighborhood two place type or neighborhood two zoning district is in alignment with that police type recommendation already on the site.

The proposal itself is for up to 72 multifamily attached units, townhome style units, upwards of two to five units per building.

They're establishing a 25-foot class B landscape yard along the northeastern property boundary where you have single family detached units along that boundary and a 10-foot class C landscape yard planted to a higher classification landscape yard standard, that class B standard along the northern and eastern property boundaries.

And in terms of our transportation and streetscape improvements, installs a southbound left turn lane into the site along Steele Creek Road, establishes a public street network through the site to connect to neighborhoods to the east and south.

On street parking would be proposed along the public streets in the site.

And we are they are committing to upgrading the sidewalk sidewalk and planting strip along Steel Creek Road, Red Spring Drive, and the Limelight Lane extension through the site.

This petition is also one of the ones that has an adopted area plan.

So we have provided an expanded policy section within your staff analysis and determined consistency based off the area plan applicability here.

It is consistent with the goals and policies of that southwest middle community area plan, and it's also already in alignment with the policy map's recommendation for the neighborhood two place type.

In terms of the priority goals of the area plan, it is facilitating or could facilitate two of the priority goals of the South of that South West Middle Area Plan.

Ten minute neighborhoods could be facilitated by providing housing in an area that is proximal to commercial and employment areas.

And goal two neighborhood diversity and inclusion could be facilitated, could be facilitated by providing townhome style units in an area that has predominantly single family residential development to the north and the east.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues.

The proposal is for a townhome style development, very similar to what is located just south of the site already.

And this aligns the policy map's recommendation for N2.

Properties located within a quarter mile to bus stops as well as commercial and employment areas.

And the plan establishes landscape yards that exceed ordnance requirements along their property boundaries, abutting single family uses.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Councilmember Driggs.

Um, Ms.

Mayor Pro Tim, members of City Council and Zoning Committee.

I'm John Carmichael representing the petitioner with me tonight, or Cooper Morrison of the petitioner and Matt Langston with Landworks Design Group.

Um I have a slide show.

The sites just under seven acres is on the east side of Steele Creek Road, just north of the intersection of Shopton Road.

It's on the TV, but not there, but that's fine.

Um north of the intersection of Shopton, thank you.

Uh, and Steel Creek Road.

This area here that bisects the site, excuse me.

That's dedicated right-of-way for the future extension of Red Spring Drive.

That extension of Red Spring Drive will be required to be built in connection with the development of the site.

Uh, this is excuse me, an aerial of the site.

You've got single family to the north and east, and townhomes to the south of the site.

The site's currently zone 02 C D under the current zoning.

You could build a four-story 90-room hotel on the site.

Uh petitioners requesting the rezoning of the site to into A C D and into A C D and ANDO to accommodate the development of 72 townhome units on the site.

Um policy map recommends or places, excuse me, places this site in a neighborhood to place type.

So the resonant request is consistent with the policy map and the southwest middle community area plan.

This is a site plan.

Um, this is Red Spring Drive.

Access into the site would be by way of Steel Creek Road, Red Spring Drive, and Lime Light Lane to the south.

Eight-foot planning strips and eight-foot sidewalks would be installed along all the public street frontages.

Tisher would install a southbound left turn lane on Still Creek Road onto Red Spring Drive and a northbound right turn lane on Silk Creek Road onto Red Spring Drive.

10 foot wide class C buffer on the eastern boundary, but plant it to the standards of a Class B buffer with a six-foot tall opaque fence.

The buffer here is 25 feet, and then the buffer here is 10 feet.

Uh plant to our higher standard with a six-foot tall opaque fence.

Thank you.

Colleagues.

I have a question.

You first applaud you.

Just went in.

Just went in and working with the Still Creek Residence Association.

I know I sent an email, so we'll just follow up with them and make sure all that's resolved.

But looking forward to working with you.

Thank you.

All right then.

So do I hear a motion?

All right.

All in favor.

Thank you.

Good.

Good.

Um we will move on then to item number 26.

Retoning petition 2025 096 by Justin Barry.

Location approximately 0.21 acres located south of State Street, north of Cotona Avenue, and east of Maho Pak, MAPAC Street in Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is ML2 Manufacturing and Logistics 2.

Proposed zoning N1D, neighborhood 1D.

Staff recommends approval of this petition, and we will hear from Mr.

Oliver.

Yes, uh petition 2025 096 located on the south side of State Street.

It's approximately a fifth of an acre.

It's currently vacant.

Um current zoning is ML2 manufacturing and logistics.

The proposed zoning is N1D, neighborhood one, and that is a conventional district.

Proposed zoning is consistent with the 2040 policy map for the neighborhood one place type.

The proposal would allow any uses permitted by right or under prescribed conditions in the N1D district.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

Proposed zoning is consistent with the policy map.

It's in a quickly developing area with a mix of housing types.

The site is served by transit.

I'm happy to take any questions.

It looks like we have no speakers sign up.

Is that right, Madam Claire?

Correct.

All right, then any comments or questions?

Uh uh.

The public here and be closed.

Thank you.

All in favor.

All right.

That was good.

Well done.

Um, our next item is agenda number 27.

Uh, rezoning petition 2025 102 by Olympia and Wright Homes.

Approximately 0.78 acres located on the northwest corner of Moore's Chapel Road and Old Moore's Chapel Road and east of Gore Street in Miss Mayo's district.

Current zoning is CG.

General Commercial proposed zoning is N1E C D, neighborhood 1E conditional.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

And you will hear from Mr.

Mangum.

Thank you.

This site is just about three-quarters of an acre located on the north side of Moore's Chapel Road, west of Old Moore's Chapel Road, and east of Kendall Drive.

Site is currently vacant and is zoned CG.

They propose zoning of N1E conditional.

2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type.

There's just one condition on this tier one conditional petition.

It is to limit the possible number of driveways on Moore's Chapel Road to two.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

It is consistent with the policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type.

The N1E zoning district allows for residential uses and a small number of non-residential uses on lots of 3,000 square feet with 30 foot width.

The uses permitted in the E1 N1E zoning district are more compatible with the surrounding residential uses than those permitted under the current CG zoning.

The site is located on an archarial street, Morris Chapel Road, and is less than a quarter mile from a commercial area providing access to goods and services.

Mr.

Brown, good evening.

You have three minutes.

Evening, Councilman Rodriguez, Council members, zoning committee members Colin Brown with the law firm of Alexander Ricks on behalf of the petitioner.

Nice overview by Joe.

While this is coming up, I'll just recut.

I think we'd be quick on this one.

The site is currently zoned for retail.

So essentially, this would be a down zoning to a residential use.

We filed this as a conventional zoning with no site plan.

After our community meeting, uh one of the community meeters leaders, y'all probably know Sam Smith with the Northwest Coalition, who I saw earlier tonight, but I don't know if he's still around.

Um met with us and said, Hey, makes sense.

I think I'd much rather have residential there than commercial on that site, but we have some traffic issues out here.

Uh and so his concern was if this is developed into multiple um residential units.

It's everyone has a driveway and a garage, that's a problem.

So we said, you know what, that makes sense.

We converted this to a conditional zoning just to commit to that condition.

Um so what would happen is this would be developed, and there would just be one uh driveway here coming through and serving the units and then coming out here.

So I think that addresses the concern.

Um we are continuing to work.

I I think one of the other positives is with that layout, you also don't have a driveway on old Moores Chapel, which I think is another traffic concern because of the geometry of that.

So I I think that's addressed uh community concerns, but uh happy to take any questions.

Mayor.

No questions, just uh thank you, Colin, for your team working with our uh neighborhood coalitions to address concerns.

I think that is imperative uh that communities work with developers in order to incorporate community benefits to make sure that all parties are compromising to meet the needs of the community.

So I appreciate that.

No other comments.

We hear a motion to close.

So move second favor.

Unanimous, great.

Quick hands.

Okay, uh agenda item 28.

Rezoning petition 2025 111 by Quick Trip Corporation, approximately 1.49 acres located south of Lakeview Road, west of Wake Drive, and east of Harris Technology Boulevard in Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is MHP Manufactured Home Park, proposed zoning ML1 manufacturing and logistics one.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

And Mr.

Alvin, over to you.

Yeah, petition 2025 111.

It's located on Lakeview Road, just west of West of U T Harris Boulevard.

It's approximately one and a half acres and it's vacant.

Um zoning is MHP or the current zoning is MHP Mobile Home Park, and the proposed zoning is ML1 manufacturing logistics.

Uh the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the 2040 policy map for the neighborhood one place type, and uh approval of this petition would revise the policy map to the M and L place type.

Proposal would allow any use permitted by right or under prescribed conditions in the ML1 district.

Um however, staff does recommend approval of this petition as the petition aligns with the surrounding manufacturing and logistics zoning and uses and avoids environmental justice concerns by preventing incompatible residential uses right next to industrial properties.

I'm happy to take any questions following Mr.

Carmichael's presentation.

Mr.

Carmichael, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Councilmember Dreggs.

Mr.

Mayor Pro 10 members of City Council zoning committee.

I'm John Carmichael here on behalf of the petitioner.

Um it's about 1.49 acres located on the south side of Lakeview Road, just west of the intersection of West WT Harris Boulevard and Lakeview Road.

It's a vacant site.

This is an area of the site.

The surrounding uses include warehouse distribution, manufacturing office, retail, and commercial uses.

And this is a zoomed-in area of the site.

You can see some of the surrounding uses.

Um the site is outlined here in green.

Uh the petitioner also uh is pursuing the ownership of this property, but it's already zone ML1.

This is the zoning map.

You can see the site is zone MHP as uh Mr.

Oliver stated.

It's completely surrounded by parcel zone ML1, ML2, or I2CD, all of which are industrial zoning classifications.

And then when you zoom out and look at the map, uh you can see that the site is basically in the center of a large area, all of which is industrial zoned.

Uh and the petitioners requesting the resonance the site to ML1 to accommodate uses allowed in the ML1 zoning district, and we appreciate your time and consideration.

Are there any questions or comments?

Sir.

Just one question.

Uh sir.

What high school did you graduate from?

Wow.

West Charlotte High School.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Do we have a second?

Yeah.

Sag all in favor.

Wow, look at that.

That's hilarious.

Okay, next item number 29.

We're storming ahead here.

Rezoning petition 2025 112 by Alexander Myers Family LLC.

Approximately 0.82 acres located north of Gibbon Road, south of Henderson Circle, and west of Old Statesville Road in Mr.

Graham's district.

Current zoning is I2, General Industrial Conditional.

Proposed zoning is ML2, Manufacturing and Logistics 2.

Staff recommends approval, and it's over to you.

Yes, uh petition 25112, located on Old Statesville Road.

It's approximately eight tenths of an acre, and it's currently developed as a contractor's office.

Current zoning is I2CD, General Industrial Conditional, and the proposed zoning is ML2.

Manufacturing logistics proposed zoning is consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the M and L place type.

Current zoning of I2CD allows only for the reuse of the current structure as well as temporary truck parking.

The proposed the proposal would allow all uses permitted by right and under prescribed conditions in the ML2 district.

Staff recommends approval of this petition as it aligns with the policy map recommendation.

It's located along a major thoroughfare with access to I-77 and I 85 and could contribute to the copper's plan goal of company accommodating places of employment for a range of uses related to manufacturing logistics.

Happy to take any questions.

She signed up.

She signed up machine.

Except I don't see the we do have a speaker.

Hi.

Yes, you have three minutes.

Good evening, Councilmember Driggs, uh Mayor Pro Tim Mitchell, and esteemed members of council.

I am Ledidra Matthews.

I'm an attorney with Fox Ross Child Charlotte office, and I'm here on behalf of the petitioner.

I submitted the 10 minute presentation, but I'm happy to give the three-minute remarks.

So you saw this slide earlier.

This is the current zoning.

The site is shown in that rectangular parcel in brown.

And uh to summarize the rezoning, uh, we like to transition that into the um2 district, which would create a uniformly zoned industrial corridor right here on Old Statesville Road.

Um, and I'll also add a little bit of context to see if I can use this.

Back here, there's almost an identically sized uh parcel, again, right behind this brown parcel.

The petitioner also owns that parcel and intends to develop these two parcels as one development.

Uh so this rezoning would um avoid any consequences or complications of a split zoning um property area for one development.

Um right now the site uh is occupied by a contractors and used as a contractor's office, and I believe there's also some um truck parking and storage associated with that office space.

And this is just uh these next few slides are a couple of photos of the surrounding areas to the south some commercially zoned property, but otherwise again is completely surrounded by that ML2 zoning designation and uh the 2040 policy map uh designates this as a um ML place type as well.

So these things are all covered in your staff report, except um since the staff report we've received a letter from Charlotte Water about uh capacity to support uh the sewer and water uh uses in this um on the site, and I'm happy to provide that if anyone would like to see it.

This is just a summary of our community outreach.

Um, a virtual um neighborhood meeting was held on December 4th.

Um there were no attendees.

One um one neighbor did reach out the next day, they were not able to attend the meeting.

Um we got them the presentation, and I followed up to see if there were any questions after not receiving an email response to those.

Um, so to date we've heard no express opposition or concerns about the rezoning.

And with that, um we ask that you accept staff's recommendation of approval and also vote to approve the rezoning.

Very good.

Any questions or comments?

Do I hear a motion to close?

So move.

All in favor.

Thank you very much.

All right, we have uh agenda item 30, rezoning petition 2025 113 by C Lion LLC, approximately 0.03 acres.03 acres.

Yeah, this is all right.

Located south of West Boulevard, east of Reed Avenue and Ross Avenue in Miss Mayo's district.

Current zoning is CG General Commercial, proposed zoning is N1C, neighborhood 1C.

Proposed zoning is N1C, neighborhood one C staff recommends approval.

So I guess that's you, huh?

Good.

Uh this site is 0.03 acres, located on the east side of Reed Avenue, south of West Boulevard and north of Farmer Street.

Site is undeveloped, uh, with a commercial use to the north along West Boulevard.

Uh residential uses to the south.

Current zoning is CG with a proposed zoning of N1C.

2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood center place type.

Staff recommends approval.

It is inconsistent with the policy map recommendation for neighborhood center place type, but would bring the parcel, which is currently split zoned under one zoning district and allow it to be developed uh under that district with one list of permitted uses and one set of development standards.

The neighborhood to the south of the site is almost entirely zoned in one C, same as the requested zoning district.

Take any questions following the petitioner's comments.

Mr.

Ferguson, you have three minutes.

Good evening, uh honorable council, zoning committee.

See y'all tonight.

Russell Ferguson, I represent the petitioner.

See Lion, um as Joe mentioned, uh well, I was basically if speaking time were allotted by acreage, my time would be up like right.

I was gonna say the same thing.

I was thinking this from radio.

Um I gave you all Christmas time last month.

Um so you know, I kind of do a quick presentation, like where we are now we got here and why you should approve it.

Uh this lot was originally this L-shaped lot outlined in red.

Uh the green is the lot that has a partial uh inconsistent re zoning.

Uh these are some shots from the street.

Uh the parcels, the new residential lots are vacant.

Uh they are zoned in one C.

If you look at it on Polaris, the map shifted a little bit, so it's a bit off and it's a bit tricky, so we had to get into surveys to find this out.

This process started, oh, and uh on the 2040 policy map, NCE is called for on the majority of these parcels.

Uh, but it's sort of on the bottom left at Reed and West Boulevard.

This started uh the petitioners own this property for in one form or another since uh about 2001.

Uh there's a vacant lot that abuts Ross Avenue that's no longer a part of this rezoning.

There's a new residential lot abutting Reed Avenue that's partially uh being rezoned here.

Um the green is the area that is subject to this rezoning.

Uh the yellow was initially in this rezoning, the yellow is already zoned in one C.

Uh the blue area will remain commercial general.

It's it's been a uh convenience store and a few other commercial uses over the years.

Uh the the yellow to the right is totally vacant.

The lot to the left where the green is is currently a probably legal and non-conforming use as a parking lot and a little loading area for this that's historically been used that predates this code and perhaps the last.

Um, and that is what we are seeking to remedy.

Uh we went into staff to talk about doing a rezoning towards NC or possibly a commercial rezoning.

Uh there was some concern about that abutting single family.

Petitioner decided to go with N1D to go more towards a single family result.

We put that in.

Uh I got a chance to meet some of the neighbors.

We spoke with some of the repark uh neighbors, and they had concerns over that because of the density and some issues.

They showed me a lot of sites.

They have some very valid uh concerns about some of the development that happened.

I'm trying to work with them to figure it out.

I've been working with staff.

We're trying to get them answers.

We're gonna keep that conversation going.

They're not here to oppose or support, uh, but they they have some hesitation against all rezonings, uh, particularly in the way multifamily is expressed itself in Reed Park.

Um not gonna have time to get through the rest of this, uh, but under N1C, rezoning this small strip here would allow for a lot that matches the the historic development plan in this area.

It would be N1C conventional, same as the rest of the neighborhood.

We think it's an appropriate fix.

It removes an incongruency between lot lines and zoning.

And we asked for your support, and I've got plenty of answers if you have any questions.

Thank you.

So I think we have two speakers, is that right?

So you each get 0.015 acres.

Uh Ms.

Wattlington, do you want to go first?

Who was the other speaker?

Me.

Okay.

Um two questions.

Firstly, the map that we have looks like the L part, the like the toe of the shoe is also a split lot.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Uh no.

So it is incorrect that part.

Yeah.

All right.

So the like the New Orleans side of the shoe is the booth would give me the the color, excuse me.

So the place type looks like it's offset from the top property boundary.

It's pretty much all offset, and we got to run by what the uh surveyors put forward.

And so precisely in Emma, if we could go to my highlighted picture, I can show it clearly.

Never been able to see everything.

I've never been able to see her in there.

Oh I know there's she's been having some computer gremlins going on tonight.

Um but this is why I did the presentation on the survey because you know the public maps are a little challenging.

This is why we can watch the AI.

And when when this map comes up, I'll be to show you.

So the lines come like this, and that that line comes across.

So these these residential lots are newly created in order to make this the vacant land viable for a use.

Okay.

And so we ended up with N1C to just add to the neighborhood whatever is built there.

There's no tearing down of anything aside from the parking lot.

Okay.

Uh it'll add housing, I suppose.

Okay, well, then I'll just move on to my next question.

You said it the that the picture is messed, it's messed up.

So I'll are we is everybody on the same page as far as that that what we're seeing here reflected in our book is incorrect.

That's a question.

It'll just be the screenshots that come from Polaris.

We've uh Joe and I spent some time on this trying to figure out right.

So the the map is a little bit off okay.

Yeah, the survey um version of the truth.

We had to go back and look at old printed maps from 1990s to uh come to the conclusion that it does in fact need to be rezoned in order to create the the buildable lot.

But just the the heel, not the toe.

Correct, it's just right that tiny sliver um right on one fronting on one street.

Okay, and then my second question um just because I think about the Re Park neighborhood, and to your point, you can go down there and see it today that there's some it's real, yeah.

It's real, yeah.

What from a policy standpoint allowed the current development in in Reed Park?

Because that to me is the bigger question, not even so much whether or not we we make this a homogenous parcel if that results in additional building that is undesired by the neighborhood.

So the majority of that land uh south of the site is zoned in one C, which would allow for single family duplexes, triplexes.

Um is there a specific.

Well, my question is really maybe more about like setbacks and whatnot.

Like, why are we able to see these super skinny homes that don't fit the character of the neighborhood being applied?

What is it in our policy that's allowing that is what I'm I'm more interested in in understanding because if there are things that are in flight right now to address that policy, then I may be less inclined to support this building, if that makes sense.

Um you were gonna say something to that?

I've been trying to answer this question and working with the neighborhood, so I can give my understanding of it.

I'll totally defer to the planning department on this.

My understanding is a combination of different factors.

Uh some of it is pre-UDO uh sublots, existing lots that were in existence prior to this, so they didn't have to meet the lot standards, which for N1C.

Oh, which direction was that?

Um for N1C is a 50-foot wide lot.

So these lots are code compliant to N1C, 6,000 square feet, and these requirements.

Some of these lots existed, I think, before that, so they were allowed to move forward because you can't go back and take that away.

And then for a minute there, metaphorically speaking, there was not a real clarity around the sidewall restrictions that use that apply to multifamily.

And so during that moment, I think there was an opportunity.

Now, some the most offensive ones I've seen are actually thinkle-family, but you know, they're the big boxes.

And I think what happened in there is before the sidewall stuff was sorted out, and some of the clarity that came with the UDO is that a few folks were able to find sort of a niche where they built some things that really aren't weren't ever supported by policy, but but managed to slide in there for the current standard right now with a lot that's 50 feet wide.

The only way this lot to my understanding could be really subdivided in N1C is if a duplex was built on the lot, it's not wide enough for more than a duplex because you need a certain width, that then you could sublot down the common wall so that you could have ownership on both sides.

And I see the former planning director nodding, so I feel like I'm on the right path here.

So that that's basically where it's at.

So it's a you know, and then you know, there's many many decades of maybe our city not doing the best for this area.

So there's some of that too.

So you know, I don't know how much of it is really old.

I don't know how much when all the sublots, but I am in petitioners committed.

We have more meetings set up, working working with some of the neighborhood leaders.

We're trying to kind of get to the bottom of it to explain it because I feel quite comfortable after speaking with some civil engineers and everybody that what we're proposing.

Now it you know, will it allow a duplex?

Yes, it'll allow anything in M1C.

And I'll just point out that it could be built right now.

It's got 40 feet of N1C on this lot already.

So it really could be, but we're trying to make it so the most possible home buyers, potential home buyers or builders could buy this.

It's just two single lots, and they are for sale.

My client's not a developer, he's owns a commercial store.

So we're trying to make it normal so that it carries on with everything, and it'll be subject to the small area plan when it's done.

Thank you so much.

You answered exactly my question, so I appreciate that.

Alison, did you want to add anything to his no?

I think he summarized it well.

I mean, so I mean I agree.

I don't think I mean theoretically, you could put a duplex a triplex there, but uh physically you could not, it's just not enough room.

So gotcha.

Thank you.

That's it for me.

Mayo, did you have something?

Yeah, just wanted to thank you for working uh with the community leaders on this.

I know we chatted on Friday and then a little bit yesterday as well, just to make sure that um past harm um and hard feelings from neighborhoods are not continuing.

Uh, we want to make sure we're collaborating with neighborhoods so that they feel comfortable with the development that is coming.

So I do really appreciate the time and effort that you've been putting into that, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Do you want to speak?

Yeah, I I I just got a text.

Did you go to Weshalb?

Good Lord.

Oh my god, a closing.

I love it.

Yes, sir.

I got a motion.

Seconded the motion.

Somebody I got you.

All right.

All in favor.

Way to go, Russell.

Really, in the course of human events, so much time spent talking about so little.

Okay.

Um, our next one is uh agenda item 31.

Uh rezoning petition 2025 115 by Abacus Capitol, approximately 0.71 acres located north of Greensboro Street, west of East Sugar Creek Road, and south of North Tryon Street in Council District 1, Miss Anderson's district.

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

Proposed zoning is TODCC, transit oriented development community centers.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

Mr.

Oliver, you're on.

Yes, 2025 115 is located on Greensboro Street on the west side of Sugar Creek Road.

Site's a little under three quarters of an acre, developed with a restaurant.

Uh current zoning TOD TR, transit oriented development transition, proposed zoning TODCC, transit oriented development community center.

Proposed zoning is consistent with the 2040 policy map, the community activity center place type.

Proposal would allow any uses permitted by right or under prescribed conditions in the TOD C C district.

Staff recommends approval of this petition.

That's the site's less than half a mile from the Sugar Creek Blue Line Station.

CC is more appropriate than TOD TR district given the proximity of the rapid transit, and it's also served by other bus routes.

I'm happy to take any questions following Mr.

Brown's presentation.

Mr.

Brown, you have three minutes.

Nothing to add to that.

This is we're just trying to make the zoning match.

Super.

All right.

Any comments or questions?

Can I hug him for saying that?

I'm still in the cloud.

So we have a motion to close, second.

Second.

All in favor.

Yes.

Somebody should say no just for laughs.

No, no, no.

Okay.

Moving forward.

All right.

Agenda item 32, rezoning petition 2025-116 by PMOD Land Development Inc., approximately 5.8 acres located south of Wilkinson Boulevard, north of Dewey Drive, and west of Sam Wilson Road, BOCC, Ms.

Leak and District 2, closest council member, Ms.

Mayo.

Current zoning CG General Commercial Proposed Zoning ML1 manufacturing logistics one.

Staff recommends approval.

And it's over to you, Mr.

Mayo.

Thank you.

This site is approximately 5.8 acres located on the south side of Wilkinson Boulevard, west of Sam Wilson Road, and east of Old Dowd Road.

It is developed with commercial uses and is currently zoned CG with the proposed zoning of ML1 conventional.

The 2040 policy map recommends the manufacturing and logistics place type.

Staff recommends approval of this petition with align zoning with the recommended manufacturing and logistics place type.

The site is adjacent to two industrial zoning to the northeast and west.

Site is about 500 feet from the nearest residential uses, separated by two parcels, including a wooded homeowners association property.

Also, there's a water quality buffer along the southern uh portion of the property that would uh further separate it from residential uses.

Turn it over to petitioner team.

All right, Mr.

Langston.

Good evening.

You have three minutes.

Good evening.

Thank you, Councilmember Drigs, uh, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council.

Um, Joe covered it pretty well.

Essentially, we're here because when the UDO switched over this business zone property, switched to CG uses that had outdoor storage got eliminated from permitted uses, and so they're sort of in an existing non-conforming space right now.

We're trying to align use with policy map.

Here to answer any questions, petitioners here as well.

Any comments or questions?

Seeing none.

Do I hear a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a second, Councilman Mayfield?

Did you get that?

All right, all in favor.

All right.

You I regret to say we're now moving on to our last one.

Oh, we can stay a little bit more.

Well, I'll talk about this one a while.

Agenda items.

Agenda item 33.

Rezoning petition 2025 119 by Heinz.

Approximately 3.87 acres located north of Carnegie Boulevard, west of Sharon Road, and east of Roxboro Road in Council District 6, Miss Owens District.

Current zoning B1 SCD business shopping center and MUD O mixed use development optional.

Proposed zoning RACCD Regional Activity Center out conditional.

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

It's over to you, Ms.

Kramer.

Thank you.

This site is just under four acres along Carnegie Boulevard, just west west of Sharon Road in an existing activity center where we have really a range of uses commercial, office, campus, residential, primarily multifamily residential, some single family residential located further east of the site.

They are proposing to go to regional activity center conditional.

This request is considered an alignment with the Pulsy Maps recommendation for the regional activity center place type on the site.

The proposal itself is just a tier one plan, meaning we don't have an associated site plan, but they are specifying a number of conditional notes associated with the site.

So they state that permitted uses would be limited to multifamily primarily, but they would also have office retail restaurant bars and other uses as allowed in regional activity center.

They note some prohibited uses that would not be preferred on the site, such as more auto-centric uses or passenger term terminal or industrial type uses that can occur in RAC.

Buildings on the site might be upwards of 275 feet.

And buildings exceeding 150 feet would then have to utilize bonus menu options.

Portions of the structure above 150 feet could not exceed 50% of the total area within the site.

Ground floor activation would be committed to directly within the conditions of the plan, so that 90% of the Carnegie Boulevard frontage would have to be activated and 60% of the Adair court frontage with at least 50% of active frontage dedicated to non-residential uses.

In terms of our transportation and streetscape improvements, they have specified that the Adair Court extension will be constructed to public street standards.

That's enhancing pedestrian and vehicular connectivity to adjacent developments.

This is another petition that has an adopted community area plan.

And when we looked at the priority goals of our area plan applicability here, it is helping to facilitate 10-minute neighborhoods by furthering the goals of a regional activity center in providing multifamily as well as those non-residential uses directly on a site.

And this is in an area that we already know is very walkable as is.

So there is a bit of a 10-minute neighborhood that's already in effect for this site, but they are helping to further that and the uses that they are committing to.

Goal five is not a priority goal of our applicable area plan here, but they are helping to facilitate it by committing to upgrading a dare court to that non-network required private street built to public street standards.

That helps provide a needed north-south street connection to this area.

Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of those outstanding issues listed in the staff analysis.

This is in alignment with a regional activity center place type already on the site.

And the uses proposed further the goals and intent of a regional activity center place type as well as the corresponding zoning district.

And I'll be happy to take questions following Commissioner Comments.

So uh Miss Grant, it's it's the last hearing.

I would suggest you limit yourself to about 45 seconds.

Thank you.

I think I'm used to being the last hearing.

Thank you, pleased to be here with the Heinz team.

Jesse and Paul are have been patiently waiting.

We appreciate your time tonight.

It's been a very positive effort for us thus far.

We've had great communication with South Park partners and with the neighborhood groups and look forward to answering any questions.

Are there any questions?

Do I have a motion?

I just I was just gonna thank you very much.

I have I was with um South Park area neighborhoods this past week, and they're all very supportive of this and have found the process really very engaging and and it is exceptionally responsive.

So thank you for that.

We appreciate that.

Thank you.

Nothing further.

All right.

Do I have a motion?

Motion to close the hearing.

Second.

All in favor.

Ah.

We have a motion to adjourn.

So motion.

Second.

All in favor.

Great job.

Great.

All right.

Good night, everyone.

Good night, please.