[Music] e [Music] [Music] [Music] okay as I got my phone silenced good evening everyone um welcome to the January 18th uh city council zoning meeting my name is Julie ISO mayor proam and tonight's zoning meeting is being held in accordance with applicable law governing our remote meetings with some council members participating remotely the requirements of notice access and minutes are met as required by law tonight actually all council members are remote because we do have a few of us up here in Raleigh for the North Carolina Transportation Summit and the mayor is in DC at a separate conference so it's a busy night um but as we know the public and the media are able to view this meeting on the government Channel and the city's Facebook page or on the city's YouTube page so before we get started I'm going to go ahead and have introductions um we'll do we'll have all council members and then we'll go to our um planning committee and then uh the staff in the room council members do you want to make in introduce yourself Bron Winston at large Greg flips at Large at large Len Egleston district one Malcolm Graham District Two Victoria watlington District three good evening Renee Johnson District Four good evening everyone Matt Newton District Five Char barari District Six I know Mr drgs is still in the car he should be joining us any minute so I I think that covers all council members um how about ke do you want to go ahead and introduce yourself and I don't know if any other zoning committee members are online but go ahead EA Samuel zoning committee chair okay and how about staff Stephanie Kelly city clerk T hegler gray senior assistant City attorney uh Dave penon resoning program manager Donata Jackson office of constituent Services Allison Craig Deputy planning director Brandon Brazil Charlotte Department of Transportation anybody else okay with that um I I do Mr Winston did you have a question before we get started I see your hand is up okay well we can come back um we begin our meetings with an invocation which is an expression or an inspiration followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation by a council member is intended to salize our proceedings and we celebrate the religious diversity of our community including those without a religious faith and tonight Mr barari council member barari will give our invocation and then we will follow that with the Pledge of Allegiance U Mr barari would you like to go ahead and lead us in an invocation thank you Father thank you for every seat that has been filled here today for each mind and heart that fills the presence of this room we thank you only you truly know what we are setting out to accomplish today we have a an idea of vision hints and daily instructions we have talents abilities and time to work however only you can see in perfect detail the end of every beginning every project every season every life nothing is ever in vain or even mistakes and missteps are used for good bless this meeting today all those present as well as the lives of those we will encounter an impact afterwards ready us to make every moment count in Jesus name amen thank you and for any of you who can stand and you want to uh join us in the Pledge of Allegiance pleas please do so I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you okay um as many of you know but maybe some don't that our zoning process begins with applications which are submitted to the planning staff for review there are two types of cases on the agenda decisions and hearings our decisions are cases for which a public hearing has already been held and so therefore we won't have additional public comment a hearing is uh for anyone who would wish to speak uh regarding the hearing and you are asked to see the clerk before the start of the hearing uh after that staff will will start out the hearing and staff will give a presentation which um does not have a specific time limit but following that the petitioner will then have an opportunity to give a presentation or to speak if the petitioner is um has no opposition in the case and staff is in favor of the hearing then the petitioner will have three minutes combined with anyone else who would like to support the hearing to present their case if there is opposition or if staff is in opposition the petitioner gets 10 minutes and the opponents get 10 minutes collectively and then the petitioner can have a two-minute rebuttal if no one is opposed or signed up to speak staff provides a short presentation and the public hearing is then closed closed and the next public hearing is open the petition goes to zoning committee after that of the Planning Commission for review and recommendation uh we generally agree to recess at 10:00 p.m. and convene at a later date so if we get to the point around 900m where it doesn't look like we're going to be able to get through all of our hearings we'll let folks know so that they I know we have people in the room tonight but that way they won't have to wait if it looks like we won't get to their hearing um but it's does look like we'll probably be okay so we're going to go ahead and start out with our deferrals and withdrawals and after I list these we're going to I'm going to ask for a motion to accept the deferrals and withdrawals uh the first item is item number two it is uh for withdrawal 2019 179 Ronald Staley Jr Verde holes LLC uh approximately 1 acre located near the southeast intersection of Parkwood and Hawthorne Lane in the plaza Midwood Community which is Council district one Mr egon's District then for deferrals we have item number eight which is 2021 103 the Providence group Capital LLC approximately 2.25 Acres located on the north side of Blair Hill Road South of Clanton Road and West of South Trion Street Council District 3 which is Miss watlington District that's been deferred till uh February 21st um item number 20 item excuse me item number 20 which is 20 21014 White Stone Holdings Inc approximately. 23 Acres located on the east side of Bron Road between 4th Street and Fourth Street Extension Council District Two Mr Grahams District also deferred till the 20 all of these will be deferred till February 21st the next item item 21 20214 Regal Oaks Investments LLC approximately 6.4 Acres located on the north side of Al Alamar Road and East side of Regal Oaks Drive West of East WT Harris Boulevard and that's Council District 5 Mr Newton's District item number 22 uh 2021 141 is uh the drfort company approximately 33 Acres located on the east side of of East 34th Street Northwest of the plaza and East of mat Avenue and that's district one Mr egon's district and the last one is item number 27 2021 1119 profile homes approximately 30.2 Acres on Freedom Drive between Toddville Road and Allenbrook drive that's District three Miss watlington district and again these are all deferred till February 21st 2022 um may I have a motion to defer uh to accept the deferrals and withdrawals the moved second okay um I'm a yes Mr asir yes Mr fips yes oh I'm sorry um hold on Mr Winston are you online are you yeah I'm good now thank you you're good okay I'm sorry I have got message that we need an overview of the zoning Comm committee yes I think that would be me U Madam mayor PM I'm sorry that's okay uh good evening Madam mayor PM members of council members of public my name is Kea Samuel I serve as zoning chair and chair of the Planning Commission um the zoning committee will meet on Tuesday February 1st 2022 at 5:30 p.m. to deliberate and finalized recommendations on the zoning petitions being heard tonight that Tuesday February 1st meeting will not be a continuation of tonight's public hearing there will be no opportunity for public input unless a zoning committee member has a question that best that is best answered by a member of the public um that Tuesday February 1 meeting will stream live on the city of Charlotte planning design and development Facebook page joining us tonight via live stream on the government Channel or the city's YouTube page are my fellow zoning committee members commissioner Andrew blumenthall as chinos John Ham Courtney rhs Sam Spencer and Doug Walton again I'm Keo Samuel and I serve as chair and I'm with you for the entirety of the evening should you need any comment from zoning committee thank you thank you Miss samels and I apologize for that um going back to our motion to defer uh Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr dggs he might not be on yet uh Mr Egleston yes uh Miss Johnson yes and Miss watlington yes okay thank you Graham yes I'm sorry Mr Graham and ARA yes yes I had you all before I um went back to miss I apologize um okay the decisions for the following items have that have um the following items have had changes after the uh zoning committee vote uh and these items are item number three Alam Maro property investors LLC a petition to permit up to 75,000 square fet of retail edes and personal service use on approximately 11.24 Acres um the changes were made after the zoning committee's recommendation and the petitioner removed accessory fueling stations uh automotive service stations and car washes from the list of permitted uses for the site the petitioner added conditional notes re um restricting menu board signage and any other permitted signage to be uh utilized in the fashion of a menu board for one of the permitted drive-through Windows outside of the pharmacy pickup window the staff recommends uh staff recommendations that they believe that the change ches minor and does not warrant additional review by the zoning committee may I have a motion to not send this back to the zoning committee so move Madam mayor protim move to uh accept or approve the changes and not send back to committee may I have a second second thank you okay uh Miss SRA this is to not send this item item number three back to the zoning committee uh Miss Aira uh Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr drigs here okay Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes yes okay that passes the next one is item number seven petition number 2021 096 just excuse me can order just in a quick order housekeeping we can do those when they come up for each item as they come up so we can start with three and go through the decision and we we've taken care of not sending it back now we'd actually go then to the motion for the decision on it then we'll do four five six when we get to seven right well then we'll move right into our decision our first decision for the evening is resoning petition 2019 179 by ronal Ronald Staley Jr Verde homes LLC approximately one acre uh we just deferred that one mayor thank you I'm sorry that's withdrawal thank you yeah withdraw thank you okay item number three is petition number 20281 by albam Maro property investors LLC approximately 11.24 Acres located at the Northwest intersection of Rocky River Church Road and Alamar Road in unincorporated meinberg County uh it's the etj near nearest to Mr Newton's District district 5 currently it's Zone NS R3 Neighborhood Services residential the proposed resoning is NS Neighborhood Services site plan Amendment Neighborhood Services with a 5-year vested right the zoning committee recommends 6 to Zer to recommend denial of this POS petition and the staff does not recommend uh this petition just quick quick order of housekeeping as well on this one we we did update our recommend Commendation after Friday uh for staff to support the petition after the changes so zoning committee's recommendation stays the same but staff's recommendation is now to support the petition uh as it's as it's written out now thank you okay thank you so staff does recommend approval of this petition may I have a and I don't have the all of the language here I apologize but may I have a recommendation to support or deny this petition and accept the uh statement of consistency is the council's OWN yes ma'am Madam mayor protim consistent with the staff's recommendation I move to approve this petition I have a second second may I make a comment sorry I guess I should raise my hand yes goad I see Miss Johnson and then I I'll go to you Mr Winston Miss Johnson oh thank you I just wanted to know from the from Mr petton what the significant changes were that uh that now um allow for a recommendation uh the Restriction of the menu board signage that uh mayor PRM read earlier to not send back to zoning committee that was something that staff had sought for some time on this petition just to uh eliminate one of the menus sign boards for one of the drive-throughs so that was taken care of Friday and that was what we had been asking for so that made our recommendation a favorable one uh just also for a point of housekeeping on this item the zoning consistent or the zoning committee uh statement of consistency would need to be uh wouldn't be adopted by Council if the recommendation is to support it so we would need a consistency statement from uh Council that would replace the zoning committees okay so I would ask for a motion for a statement of consistency that um I I guess I'm going to need some help with the actual legal language on that yes so the statement of consistency can essentially be uh consistent with what staff provided in their rationale uh in terms of what the overall project uh support position was for staff that could be similar to councils just because zoning committees was different if you adopt that one then you're adopting one to not support it so if you wanted to adopt a consistent with staff's rationale we can work that into a consistency statement uh I would just see it t is that reasonable okay I would suggest um mayor protim that you allow staff an opportunity to put that in the proper um consistency statement form for you before you adopt and approve okay quick question may this is council member Newton so is that something uh Dave is that something that can be done tonight as we go through these these decisions yes come back yes okay so that being the case uh would we then want to to move this item to to later in decisions Madam mayor Pro I can I can read the items into if you are you ready now yeah okay it it sounds like Mr petton is ready to propose a statement of consistency for you okay okay so the the points for the statement of consistency would be while the petition is inconsistent with the intent of Zone B from the area plan to create a true Town Center it does fulfill the plan's land use goal to provide for a mixture of integrated appropriately scaled uses at the intersection of Alba Marl and Rocky River Roads when viewed in context with the entitlements uh throughout the crestwind development from 2015-11 uh second bullet point is the petition will enhance The Pedestrian environment in the overall area through its commitment to provide intersection improvements to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian Crossings at the Rocky River Church Alba Marl Road intersection next bullet is the provisions of a grocery anchor proximal to a large amount of residential units provide a necessary neighborhood service to a growing area of Far East Charlotte and the final bullet is the conditional notes regarding drive-through uses will further help limit the outcome of traditional drive-through uses for one of the development areas and and will be more geared toward pickup options and Less Auto intense uses okay so um may I have a a motion to adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as defined by staff given the uh changes in updates um as the council's own and approve or deny the petition so move Madam mayor portam second thank you um Miss asir yes and I also have comment oh I'm sorry go ahead and let me go to Mr Winston first Miss ashir I you um yes so uh so we voted on whether or not to send back uh this to zoning committee um before we were informed that staff changed uh uh their recommendation um being that the zoning committee was 60 and just reading over the notes I know it was Pro some of it was in relation to U probably staff's um staff's um uh uh uh beef with the men uh the menu boards um but I would have possibly been inclined with the the 60 vote for denial um to get some input from the zoning committee as as about U to whether or not uh they think their decision um might be different given um staff's uh and the petitioners work on Friday um I don't know if I can ask Miss Samuel uh if if uh she would be able to um kind of extrapolate um the changes that that have occurred and and and kind of cross reference those with the zoning committee's discussion um thank you Council Winston for the question um I'll be glad to comment um just a point of clarity first for Mr Patton is item number one from the printed version that I was mailed on Friday is that item still outstanding I don't believe so let me look it no it it's uh no it's it's not outstanding it's been addressed so thank you council member Winston so the the most of the discourse around this particular petition regarded allowing more drive-throughs than was originally approved in the 2015 petition and now that Mr Patton has confirmed that no additional drive-throughs will be uh built with this particular rezoning uh recommendation for approval the zoning committee would certainly support this petition as it is today thank you very much thank you there only questions yeah thank you mrir yes thank you so yes I was going to comment on this change that's been made I appreciate uh petitioner and council member Newton on working together to address the concerns that were raised by staff uh that balances our vision with economic needs that we are seeing so this is a Less Auto intense use so I'm looking forward to supporting this but I appreciate the work that's been done thank you Miss asir uh Mr fips uh I had my hand up but my question was answered uh in this discussion just presented by Miss Samuels okay thank you uh that looks like that's everybody so let's go ahead with um the the motion by Mr Newton seconded by Miss asira uh Miss asira yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs he's not here yet uh Mr eglon yes Graham yes Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes okay thank you mayor proam yes can we get on record your vote please oh I'm a yes thank you thank you um item number four mayor proam yes I'm sorry did we just there seem to be two active motions um at at the same time it seems like there was a motion um to accept the changes and the uh the consistency um statement was that a part of the approval for the petition uh yes unless I need to do that as a uh I don't know that's up to the like had we voted to accept the changes and then and approve the petition okay all right thank you okay item number four is resoning petition 20219 by fth Third Bank approximately .97 Acres located on the north side of woodon road east of Trion Street and West of South Boulevard in that's Council District three Miss watlington District it's currently zoned tocc which is community center and the proposed zoning is to Transit oriented development transitional conditional the zoning committee voted four to three to recommend approval of this petition staff does not recommend approval of this petition um may I have a motion to adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and this and the screen and as the council Zone and approve or deny the petition F I have a second second okay um I'm a yes Miss asira yes and I do have a comment okay go ahead mrir thank you so so this one is similar to the one we previously discussed where um there is a drive-thru that's been requested by the petitioner I'll be supporting it and the reason behind this one is um certainly there are public benefits attached to this one there is uh petitioner has committed to working with our public transportation there is also um Arts component to this petition uh and I know we have gotten some emails about hey you guys approved the plan and now all uh you are amending uh and you're making changes so I I just want to clarify that this is all the petitions we approve it's on a caseby casee basis and this one truly stands out because of this is specific there's a site specification for the bank use so it cannot be used for let's say fast food or other where it could be more autod dependent autoc Centric so that's the reason I'll be supporting this thanks thank you Mr ashir anyone else want to make a comment I will also say that like Miss asir we um every one of these cases we look at on a case-by casee basis and I'm supporting this as well because this is a bank that is going into an area that is traditionally um of people that have been unbanked for a long time and and this bank has been very intentional about trying to uh work with folks that haven't had banking relationships in the past and we know that these um that the drive-thru in this particular location is is necessary so that is why I'm going to be supporting this particular petition uh Mr Winston I I would just like to note uh that the bank um U the petitioner has said that this um uh Branch would be built um even if this exception were not granted um and they were not able to put this condition on their Transit oriented development um I would say it's in in short walking distance um to um a light rail station um and and uh um existing um residential communities and and and large tracks of um residential communities that are coming online so um I'll be not I will not be supporting this and I I think this sets a um a bit of a snowball down the hill and a bad precedent for Transit oriented development in our city thank you thank you Mr Winston okay it looks like we've got everybody's comments so um I'm going to go ahead with votes uh Alia yes M asir yes Mr fips uh no for the reasons that just described by Mr uh by council member Winston and because of the fact that we spent a lot of time vetting these to designations and uh I would like to maintain the Integrity of those on a go forward basis thank you thank you uh Mr Winston no Mr Bari yes Mr Driggs no uh Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Miss Newton Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes thank you that passes uh the next one is item number five petition number 2021 075 by ker homes LLC approximately 7.69 Acres located on the southwestern corner of the intersection of Steel Creek Road and Hamilton Road it's in the etj um the county Comm commission district is uh District Six which is commissioner Rodriguez McDow and the closest city council district is District 3 Miss watlington District it's currently zoned ur1 CD uh Urban residential conditional and the proposed zoning is urban residential conditional the zoning committee voted 7 to Zer to approve this petition and staff recommends approval of this petition may I have a motion to adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own and approve or deny the petition move I have a I'm sorry second eglon okay Miss asira yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs um I'm a yes Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes that carries item number six approximately 1.21 Acres located at the South East intersection of South Boulevard in Carolina Pavilion Drive South north of north of 485 in district 6 Mr bakari's District it's currently zoned Transit oriented development Community Center and the proposed resoning is mixed use development optional the zoning committee voted 6 to1 to recommend approval of this petition and staff also recommends approval of this petition may I have a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agenda and the screen as the the council's own and approve or deny the petition move to adopt and approve you have a second second I think that was Mr Egon okay U mrso yes Mr fips yes Winston no Mr Vari yes Mr Driggs not yet Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes Miss watlington yes I'm a yes okay that passes okay item number seven now this one had changes um petition number so first we have to vote on changes to the petition uh petition number 2021 096 um by a scent real estate Capital LLC reone and redevelop an existing Church site with a mixed use development containing up to 211 multif family residential units at a density of up to 111.6 dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 7,000 square ft up to 11,100 Ft of retail Ed or other personal services use the following changes were made after the zoning committee's recommendation further describes um it f the petition further describes the nature in which well he's um excuse me further describes the nature in which two trees one onsite and one offsite will be preserved and notes the minimum caliber of replacement trees should either one fall to Ser to survive after construction it limits the time for replacement of the offsite tree adjacent to the project to two years after the building's certif certificate of occupancy and it accommodates the presid preservation of an off-site tree the petitioner has provided a 16 by 24t notch approximate at the northern corner of the building um rz1 will have all of the details on that it removed the possibility for a pool to be placed in the amenity area it commits to inst station of four bulb outs at the intersection of North Alexander Street and East 36 Street it commits to providing bicycle storage in 10% excess of ordinance requirements it commits to providing storm water controls in 10% above requirements of the city's pcso it commits to the installation of an 8ot masonry wall against the amenity area and the alleyway it adjusts the height to better interact and transition with adjacent s single family residential the height maximums range from 40 ft against key corners of the structure located against single family to 65 ft east of 36th Street it commits to providing an on-site trash pad or grate outside of R in an effort to keep roll outs out out off of the RO sidewalk right away um staff believes that the changes address the um items of community concern and do not warn additional review of the zoning committee Madame mayor um motion to not send back and then a comment once it gets a second second um mam mayor pres go ahead Mr um a couple of things one on the motion to not send back all of the changes that have been made um up front I'll admit that we have not gotten to where um many neighbors wanted to be completely on this project um that said all of the changes that have been made have been changes made in the direction of the push back that the petitioner was receiving from Neighbors staff the neighborhood association um council members and others so this this moves it all in the zoning committee so this moves everything in the right direction um the debate will be about doesn't move it far enough in the right direction one other change that was made just here in the last hour is we've not yet reached consensus with the immediately adjacent neighbors there had been a commitment in the in the petition to where the pool would have been it will not now be a pool but it is still going to be a courtyard there had been a commitment to an 8ft masonry wall the petitioner is still willing to Build That Wall but I've asked them to remove it from the plan until the neighbors can um reach some consensus on whether they would prefer to have it there or not with the Breezeway that's been created that we'll discuss I'm sure here in a moment um there's some thought that that could create a better visual break to be able to see through the back Courtyard as well um and so we're leaving that up to the neighbors it by if we put it in the notes they'd be required to do it whether the neighbors wanted it or not um they have said they are still very willing to do it and we'll confer with the neighbors to determine if that is wanted I have confirmed with Dave Paton that by taking it out of the notes it can still be done but we couldn't do it the other way around so one other change is the removal of the commitment to the Mason or the requirement of the 8 foot masonry wall behind the amenity area though they are still willing to do that if the neighbors so ask so Dave I don't know if I covered that from a technical standpoint correctly but fill in if not yeah you you covered for us thank you so that was just speaking to the motion to not send back okay any other comments okay I have a motion to go ahead Miss Johnson would like to also say something yeah uh um you know I do think that the changes that are are have been proposed since public hearing and the zoning committee vote have been both um pretty substantial and significant and uh uh you know to me you know the change I would imagine that CH well it's evident that changes has been going on even prior to this meeting so um to me I'm not so much concerned uh for it to go back to zoning committee for you know to get an extra vote and such I'm just wanting to to see because it looks like it was a desire by at least three members of that zoning committee to get a better understanding of what was going to be taking place there and the fact that this many um changes were made uh since they did vote on it to me would warrant uh them to take a relook and or maybe even the community to get a better understanding of the cumulative effect of all of the changes that have taken place uh in terms of what it means what what is it then that they will have even though it's moving in the right direction uh uh I intend to support the petition but I do think we owe uh uh the community that much uh in this process thanks I had that conversation with Dave I don't know if he wants to respond yeah go ahead Mr Patton and then I'll get to you Miss s okay thank you uh yeah certainly there's a a good amount of the changes that had occurred on this petition uh there's about eight or nine total uh as council member iglon said these have all been changes that have been made in a way to try to address continuing uh dialogue and concerns that have been raised by the community there were also some things that staff were continuing to to ask for in terms of clarification on items uh so overall I think when we look at changes that are presented after zoning committee's recommendation one of the basis we use to determine whether or not they should go back is the nature of the changes are they more to address the continuing you know dialogue that goes on between petitioner and Community are they ones that that move the petition in a Direction that's more favorable towards an outcome where everybody is is generally uh you know getting some of the resolution to items that that they've been looking for uh so ultimately I think staff feels comfortable with them not being recommended to go back to zoning committee I don't necessarily think the outcome at zoning committee would be different other than a vote potentially that would be maybe 52 instead of 4 three because these were also concerns that zoning committee raised so yeah I think overall the the changes like I said while while there's a good handful of them I think they were all made in in an effort uh to continue to work with the community and and show some uh commitment to addressing some of those concerns and also working with uh the district rep as well just to work through you know all those changes that that the community was continuing to want and see uh you know so that's where staff was in terms of recommending it not going back to zoning committee think so okay is that are you good with that Mr fips well there again I mean I think you know the decision to to send back to the community is a decision I mean to the zoning committee is a decision that the council has to make I can I certainly respect uh the the recommendation of the staff uh but uh I do feel that uh given the the the discussion and dialogue that went on in the uh zoning committee uh and given what we have in front of us um uh to me I'm not so much concerned that it would get another Vote or whatever it could still be 43 but still I think it would give an opportunity for for the zoning committee as well as the community itself to uh even because even with these changes I don't think that they that these changes have moved them in a in in a direction that I think we are prepared to go in so uh you know I just throw that out for as my opinion uh that they should at least have uh at least just one more opportunity to see the cumulative effect of all these changes thank you thank you Mr fips uh Miss Johnson I I agree with council member fips I you know I I just want to piggyback off of that if eight or nine changes um aren't considered significant enough to send back to the um committee then I don't know what would be even in the email from the petitioners representative today uh they they mention the changes are significant so um I I would um I would be I would be willing I to make a a substitute motion to send back to the to the zoning committee if if that's necessary I I mean I'd like to make a substitute motion to send back to the zoning committee I think in the spirit of transparency um we you know um council member egleson said that you know changes were made up to an hour ago we know that we've received much opposition from the community on this so I think that this is fair and transparent because of all these changes to send back to the zoning committee and allow all parties particularly their residents as well time to review these changes okay uh thank you Miss Johnson um I don't we don't need a substitute motion because the first motion is whether or not there to send it back so let we'll get through all the comments and then we can take a vote on whether or not Council wants um feels it needs to be sent back thank you Miss asira yes thank you Madame mayor Pam so I appreciate uh some meaningful changes that have been made by the petitioner uh specifically to address uh tree save um strong water issues and also eliminate uh the manity which is the pool and I appreciate council member agon uh work on this so to CM mlon um I know that uh from where we were at the hearing to now there have been many many changes that have been made to get community on board uh do you feel that uh by giving them or even deferring this petition by a month it will give them additional time to come to the negotiation table and uh get them on board specifically neighborhood support for this I know that uh nor neighborhood association had sent a letter in opposition so do you feel comfortable allowing or additional time or do you want to move forward with this tonight so mayor Pro if I may um the reason the reason I proposed that it not be sent back is because as Dave said the spirit of the opportunity for Council to send it back is if changes are made that then render the zoning committee's opinion not reflective of of where they stand I think in this case the three folks who voted against it many of the points they raised have have been addressed uh to different degrees so there's no there's no change that's been made here that would potentially render the positive verdict of the zoning committee um and a different negative outcome and that as as I discussed with Dave last week in understanding why we have this opportunity to send it back or not that's how he expressed me what it's there for as a safety valve if they had made changes that made the petition go in the wrong direction then it would be disingenuous to still move forward understanding that zoning committee supported it because maybe uh they wouldn't any longer as he's said that's not the case here I will tell you that um and I intended to get more into the details of the project when we were actually voting on the project but um I don't believe a month gets us to a place where the neighborhood is supportive and the reason being if you I know we've all received the Nota neighborhood Business Association letter uh maybe Thursday of last week that was updated to reflect a lot of the changes though uh since that letter uh the two outstanding things so they identified um everything from tree safe to storm water to affordable housing to trash and in in all of those things they said we believe the petitioner has meaningfully addressed these concerns that have been raised they did call out two things specifically that de view is still very outstanding issues um one of those being the pool which they recommended removal of that has now been done and then the height and the massing um we'll talk a little more later about a change made today in terms of a Breezeway that cuts through the building in between those two Courtyards that I think makes um a difference on the massing and there's been height reduction on the back there is a both Nota NBA and the immediate neighbors are of the opinion um that five stories is is just inappropriate anywhere on this site or or really anywhere along this Corridor um there is no five-story height on the back of this project now there used to be we we've had that change but I that is a sticking point that is not going to be resolved in one month or one year uh because staff has said that it's appropriate um our future plans that we're working on say that it's appropriate the zoning committee Al be it by a narrow margin is that it's appropriate and I've expressed to the neighbors that I respect their opinion that it's not but I I don't share that opinion so I think this close to Transit and on a street like 36th Street we wouldn't dream of doing this on 35th or 37th street but 36th Street is different our plans call out 36 street is being different um that is a point that is not going to be um squared away by any amount of conversation because um there's just a a core disag agreement on that point and so uh to send it back I I don't think that we end up in a better place a month from now than where we are today and again I was hoping to talk more about the the project itself when we get to the project vote so thank you Mr aglon that was a long answer but uh to Mr to Mr fix's Point uh I don't think the discussion is much about zoning committee's decision I think it's just more about uh transparency and community's input throughout the process uh because some of the changes like you mentioned and the petitioner mentioned were did happen at the last minute so I think it just gives Council an opportunity to hear from Community uh over next couple of weeks uh community's feedback on some of the significant and meaningful changes that you have helped facilitate uh that's that's all I have to say thank thank you uh thank you um I have uh Mr DRS uh thank you madam mayor Pro I apologize for my ghostly appearance I'm sitting here at a hotel desk with a dim lamp um I agree that sending it back to zoning committee is not indicated uh and I would not support that so I really think as Miss air pointed out the question is um whether in in order to uh to respect the community's input on this we should just defer it and Mr egleson to that point do we know what the particular time sensitivity here is if we did defer it per month what kind of hardship might be created for the petitioner or how would that affect the whole process I would defer to the petitioner if the petitioner is on the call to answer that question um my my point was simply that there is not in my view the opportunity there's not going to be a month from now um a version of this plan that has you know Universal support um on the basis of the height so if the petitioner is on they can I get that and I just think I get that I think um if I don't know if any of them are on to answer question yeah hang on Mr egleson I'll ask Mr Driggs if you want to go ahead and finish your comment and then I'll see if the petitioner online right I take the point that we're probably not going to be able to get everybody to a place where they are accepting of this and in fact uh it's probably even fair to say that we have reached a point where it's unlikely that this will change much further as a as a sort of courtesy to the residents I would uh I would suggest that we not send it back to zoning committee but consider deferring our decision for a month unless the petitioner uh points out that there is a real commercial or other hardship I mean I'm talking about earnest money and and some of those things uh and so um I'd be interested to hear from the petitioner about what it would mean if we did just decide to vote on this next month uh this is Colin Brown mayor protim I'm here if you'd like to go ahead Colin yes um so I think hearing all what you're saying I agree with what's been said I I don't think I guess to be direct Mr Driggs um we have been at this for almost a year um the the land seller is a is a church which has plans um to we are under a we I guess I we've used all the extensions that we have um we were our goal was to come to hearing in October uh we had spent the last couple months months uh working diligently with the neighborhood to improve the the petition I think we've done everything that can be done I think our team is just to a point where you know we'd like to have a decision and that is what the land seller would like also okay thank you for the answer so so I'm a no to sending it back to zoning committee if somebody else wants to make a motion to defer it that's another conversation thank you thank you Mr DRS Mr Winston um again I I would ask uh Miss Samuel uh given the conversation amongst Council and given the changes um what she could extrapolate um the the usefulness of sending this back another time uh to the zoning committee um would do um and which you might um think the U discussion and or vote might end up being thank you again for your question um council member Winston um we had a similar discussion in our work session whether to defer uh whether we thought a deferral would get us to something that was more palatable for the community and what value a deferral might add um a motion was made to defer this petition and it failed and then a motion was made to recommend approval and it passed narrowly but it did pass and listening to to the discussion uh that uh the notes that council member edist just made and also Mr Paton I too believe that sending it back to zoning committee with the changes that are uh currently on the petition now would not render a different result I think uh as Mr Patton kind of alluded it may get get us closer to a 52 vote but I think those that were in favor of this petition the decision would push us even more in in favor of the petition with the changes that were brought forth by the petitioner thank you that's the only question I have thank you uh I don't see any other if you if you've asked your question if you go ahead and lower your hand I don't see anyone else with questions so what I would need would be a motion um on whether the changes are significant enough to send it back to the zoning committee or not yeah I think I'm I made the motion to not send back and I believe Mr Winston might have seconded it but oh okay somebody that's correct all right so um with that let me bear with me one second um May proam so Mr Winston mayor proam yes I just want to remind everyone that this is a this would be a three4 vote this would be I'm sorry a 34s vote to not send back okay so we need 34s of the council so uh help me with the math eight of people seven or eight people not to send it back uh nine nine thank you I was not a math major but okay um so we need nine votes to not send it back um let's go ahead with Mr Winston yes to not send back okay yes to not send back so this would be an affir vote to not send back Mr Winston Mr barari yes to not send back uh Mr Triggs yes Mr Newton yes Mr fips no Mr eglon yes uh Miss asiro yes Miss Johnson no um I am a yes Mr Graham yes and Miss John oh Miss Johnson I'm sorry I got you you r no Miss Miss um [Music] watlington okay you are is that a yes okay and with that I'm sorry oh forgive me I do apologize I will be fine with sending it back so you are yes to you are a no for this vote okay okay so if that's the case there are three NOS so that would go back to the zoning committee is that correct to our City attorney do I have that right yes I have Mr fips Miss watlington Miss Johnson are NOS so that would only eight yeses and so that does go back yes okay does go back so that does go back to the zoning committee yes ma'am okay I think this is the first time I've actually seen this happen so we don't there's nothing else to do at this point correct that's correct it'll go back to zoning committee okay okay um that is petition number seven uh from there we will go on to agenda item number eight um petition 2021 103 by Providence group Capital LLC approxim that was def this was deferred yeah you're right was a little thrown off by this last one um item number nine resoning petition 2021 1118 by integrated Properties LLC a approximately 9.1 Acres located on Westinghouse Boulevard between Park Charlotte Boulevard and Quality Drive Council District 3 Miss watlington District currently zoned light industrial proposed zoning is General industrial conditional the zoning committee voted 6 to1 to recommend approval of this petition staff recommends approval of this petition may I have a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agenda and on the screen as the council's own and approver Deni this petition mayor proam I think that one has changes as well yes thank you I just number n catch on that yeah so just one one change on this one I'm happy to read it out for everybody I've got it right in front of me uh there were some additional conditional notes added that would prohibit a gas station as a principal use and also prohibit any underground fuel tanks uh they could have accessory fuel tanks they would have to be above ground but no underground storage of fuel and no gas station as a principal use uh staff believes that's a minor change doesn't warrant additional review by the zoning committee thank you Mr petton so then may I have a motion whether the changes are significant enough to send back to uh the zoning committee the the zoning committee and a uh yes vote would be that the changes are not significant enough to send back may have a motion so move second all right [Music] um I'd be a yes Miss asira yes uh Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr eglon yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Newton yes Miss watlington no okay that does carry that it will not be sent back to the zoning committee uh that the changes are not significant enough so with that I would need um a mayor proam I am so sorry please forgive me I am really messing up obviously I seconded that motion so I wanted to vote Yes to not s back on the last one I I apologize okay all right no that's fine that's great so that is unanimous um and with that then I need a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and the and on the screen as the council's own and approve or deny for the petition this would be I need a motion to adop adopt um the consistency statement and approve or deny the petition anyone so moved to adopted approve I have a second this is your in your District Miss watlington second I'm not it's seven I'm sorry do I have a second second thank you okay I'll yes Miss asir yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr eglon yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington uh yes with comment that we were able to get the uh underground petroleum storage uh approved to not be included so the accept excuse me the prohibition on Underground petroleum storage does stand as per the uh minority opinion in the zoning committee okay um that passes and so that was item number nine item number 10 has no changes okay item number 10 is zoning petition 2021 127 by Flagship healthc care Properties LLC approximately 5.2 Acres located on Steel Creek Road between hunington Meadow Lane and settlers Trail Port that's District three this one's Miss watlington District currently zoned are three single family residential and the proposed zoning is office conditional 01 the zoning committee recommended seven voted 7 to zero to recommend approval of the petition and staff also recommends approval of the petition may I have um a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own and approve or deny the petition uh motion to adopt and approve second okay um okay um yes missir yes Mr fit yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs we lose Mr Driggs in the yes yes okay um uh Mr eglon yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes okay that passes now item number 11 does have changes that were made after the zoning committee met okay uh petition 2021 135 by Alliance residential petition to establish a residential Community with up to 340 multif Family Apartments the following changes were made after the zoning committee's recommendation clarification that after access along North trian Street will now be used as a gate a gated emergency access only this access will be gated and locked with an ox boox staff believes that the change is minor and does not warrant additional review by the zoning committee so may I have a motion to um not send this back to the zoning committee motion to not send back second second okay um I'm a yes Miss asira yes Mr Fitz yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr eglon yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Miss Newton yes and Miss watlington yes I'm who did I miss drgs oh I'm sorry Mr drgs it's okay how many yes they totally missed your name on the list it is not just me it must signy something all right okay that was item number uh 11 I'm sorry now I need a motion to motion to adopt and approve and including the statement of consistency as it appears on our agenda and on the screen as our the council's own Mr barari is a motion um to approve is motion to adopt and approve may I have I'm sorry may I have a second second yes Miss asra yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr dggs yes Mr eglon yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes okay all right the next item is item number 12 one second these Hotel deaths are really small so so I appreciate everybody's patience with all these papers um agenda item number 12 is petition number 2021 136 by Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region Inc and it's approximately 2.38 Acres located on the Southeast side of East Lane Drive West of WT East WT Harris Boulevard and east of Independence Boulevard that's District Five Mr Newton's District it's currently zon single family residential R4 and the proposed zoning is R8 multif family residential conditional the zoning committee voted 7 to zero to approve this petition and the staff also recommends approval of this petition so may I have um a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen is the council's OWN and approve or deny the petition motion to adopt and approve second second all right uh I'm a yes M yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yesari yes Mr Triggs yes Mr Egleston yes Graham yes M Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes great all right that's passes the next item is item number 13 which is petition 20211 140 by Hutton approximately 1.69 Acres located along the South along the south of north Trion Street East of Pavilion Boulevard and north of Harris Houston Road that's District Four Miss Johnson's District it's currently zon Neighborhood Services and the proposed zoning is General business conditional the zoning committee voted four to three to approve this petition and the staff recommends approval of this petition may I have a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's Z and approve or deny the petition they move have a second second eglon okay I a yes missir yes Mr fips no Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Triggs yes Mr eglon yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes and I wanted to make a couple comments if that's okay sure let's just go ahead and finish this and I'll let you go ahead and make comments okay uh Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes okay go ahead Miss Johnson I I just wanted to say um that this petition was previously heard I think I want to say 2007 um but it was refiled um this been on the market for over a decade um this petitioner is um they're increasing The Pedestrian and bike connectivity by replacing a six foot sidewalk with the 12ft multi-use path the um they're also improving travel lanes and we have support from UCP and also nearby HOAs so um I just wanted to add that to the record thank you thank you Miss Johnson could I add a comment yes go ahead Mr Mr fips yeah um I frequent this particular uh strip shopping center um a lot and um you know I really I really I hoped that it I wish that it had some of the controls in place on the one we approved in uh number number three and in Mr uh in etj area next to uh Mr Newton's District but I mean they have two drive-thru farcies there one a anchored by a grocer there and then you have a CVS they have a recently approved and opened Exxon convenience store with an attached Car Wash and you know it's it's it's on Tron but really it's it's further up north of Tron when you really it's Highway 29 and it's you know 55 M hour speed limit there so you know I don't know if if if if you know giv the sidewalk there and uh uh the traffic and such and the speed limit that uh people would feel that comfortable walking over there but uh in any other time I think I would uh would be in favor of something like this but I just think that that's surrounded by mostly a bank of apartments on on either side of it uh that uh The Pedestrian nature of it could have you know it's not uh it's not enhanced with this type of uh facility there at that Center so that's the real reason for my opposition to it no no nothing really personal to the partitioner or or otherwise but uh that's just how I feel about it thanks okay thank you Mr fips um we did vote to pass that though so we will move on to item number 14 item number 14 is petition number 2021 144 by lnc Statesville LLC and it's approximately 0.91 Acres located at the Northeast intersection of Statesville Avenue and Norris Norris Avenue south of atando Avenue that's in District 1 Mr egon's District it's currently zoned R8 single family residential and the proposed zoning is urban residential conditional the zoning committee voted 7 to zero to recommend approval of this petition and the staff also approval of this petition motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen and is the council's OWN and approve our dened petition motion to adopt and approve second I'll second okay uh Mr I'm a yes M asir yes Mr Pips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and miss watman yes okay thank you that passes item number 15 is zoning petition 2021 145 by Embry Partners uh limited approximately 3.24 Acres located on the south side of scaly bark and east side of South Boulevard West of Conway Avenue in District One Mr egon's district and um it's currently zoned Transit oriented oh yes it currently is Transit oriented development transition and the proposed zoning is Transit oriented development Community Center um the zoning committee voted 7 to zero to approve this petition and staff also recommends approval of this condition of this petition I have a um a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as our own and approve or deny the petition motion to adopt and approve second DRS okay uh I'm a yes missir yes Mr fips yes M Mr Winston yes yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr Egleston yes Graham yes M Johnson yes Mr Newton yes watlington yes okay thank you item number 16 is 2021 147 by Providence group Capital LLC approximately 3.1 Acres located at the Northwest intersection of Clanton Road and Pelton Street West of South Boulevard and east of South Trion in Council District 3 Miss watlington District currently it's Zone to um Community Center CC and the proposed zoning is Tod urban center the zoning committee voted 7 to Z to recommend approval of this petition and staff also recommends approval of this petition so may I have a motion to adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency as it appears on the on our agendas and on the screen as the council's own and approve or deny petition so moved adopt and approve second I'll second okay I'm a yes missir yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Bari yes Mr dggs yes Mr edleson yes Mr Graham yes M Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss Waton yes thank you number 17 is petition 2021 148 by K Sade Ventures LLC uh approximately 11 14.46 acres located on the east side of Harris Houston Road north of University City Boulevard and south of north Trion Street in District Four Miss Johnson's District currently zoned are three single family residential and the proposed zoning is our four single family residential zoning committee voted 7 to zero to approve this petition and staff also recommends approval may I have an a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's Z and approve or deny the petition so move second okay I'm a yes mrir yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes yesi yes Mr dgs yes Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington we still have Miss watlington mute yes okay thank you all right moving on to number 18 petition 2021 153 by Galaga investors Galaga investors LLC approximately 7.7 17 Acres located on the south side of Trion Road West of Old Pineville Road and East of Interstate 77 in District 3 Miss watlington District currently Zone General industrial and the proposed zoning is Transit oriented development Neighborhood Center the zoning committee voted 7 to zero to approve this petition and staff also recommends approval I mean I have a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own and approve or deny the petition motion to adopt and approve second okay I'm a yes Miss eir yes Mr fips yes Winston yes barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr egeston yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes thank you okay item number 19 believe is going to be our last one um is resoning petition 2021 155 by Habitat for Humanity of the Charlotte region approximately 62 acres located at the Northwest intersection of Central Avenue and Medallion Drive West of kilborne drive and east of Eastway Drive district one Mr egon's district is currently zoned office conditional and the proposed zoning is multif family residential R22 the zoning committee voted 7 to Z to approve this petition and staff also recommends approval of this petition may I have a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our in our agendas and on the screen as the council's own and approve or deny the petition motion to adopt and approve I'll be a second and um I'm a yes Miss azir yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes yes Mr barari yes Mr Dres yes Miss EG Mr eglon yes Mr gr uh Mr Graham yes Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes okay that does it for our decisions tonight mayor Pro yes uh this is Wallington um I would like to go back to the um particular petition in Nota uh the one in which we failed to receive three qus of a vote to um not send back to the zoning committee I would like to recall that vote okay um so then that would be an eight I'm sorry that would be nine votes to not send it back to the zoning committee I think we I think we have to actually re a technical perspective we probably have to actually revote if someone on The Winning Side of a vote is asking to reconsider okay hang on but mad attorney I don't yes um if this is if you'd like to reconsider that vote it must be made by someone who was on the prevailing side which she was okay is there a second yeah do we need to have a motion and a second from the prevailing side yes ma'am well the second just the motion but someone please yeah we would need a second to proceed from anyone yes the prevailing side the prevailing side was to not uh was to send it back well the sorry only required three people to Prevail I guess that's prevailing okay we the vote send it back failed I don't know what who's the prevailing side in that case the the three votes that sent that were the dissenting votes they are prevailing I'm I'm deferring to the attorney's recommendation which is that that her motion's in order and then I can second it and I will second it okay hang on bear with me one second so this is for item number uh eight I believe seven yeah seven I'm sorry item number seven okay so we need to go back and take a um I need a motion to not send a motion um that states that the changes are not significant enough Madam Madam mayor poem yes this appears to be a motion to reconsider that vote to not send back so I need a motion to reconsider the vote as to whether or not to send um the petition back to the zoning committee based on the changes that made after the zoning committee meeting M attorney does Miss watlington need to make that motion I am yes sir and then a sec second okay so with that um and again this is a motion now to not send it back to the zoning committee no ma'am is no this is a motion to reconsider a motion reconsider all right um I'm a yes Miss Aira yes Mr fips no Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes uh Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson no Mr Newton yes M watlington yes okay so that would only be two NOS which means now do we take a vote on whether or not to send it back to the zoning committee yes ma'am okay motion send back second okay um discussion discussion we got some Miss watlington yep I just want to um comment on my um decision to move to reconsider uh for me and I had this conversation with the district rep earlier it's important to me that those that are most closely accountable to the people um being the district rep and the four at large are those that um um that I would like to defer to in regards to these kinds of things it's very important to me as a district rep that as I'm working with um with the community on each petition that that um that that work and that investigation is considered uh by my colleagues particularly those that are also on the ballot for each group um so on this one um I do believe that although uh it requires a 3/4 uh vote to to send or to to not send it back that in particular here it's clear that the majority of folks whether they support the petition or not support the petition would like to uh see some kind of decision whether it's approval denial or deferral uh so with that I will be switching my vote on this one thanks okay thank you Miss watlington um so with that now then I would need uh a motion to I think you already have a motion for me and a second for Mr Winston to not send back to not send back now I have to take a vote okay um I would be a yes to not send back missir yes Mr fips no miss Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson no Mr Newton yes and Miss watlington yes okay so that will not go back to the zoning committee um so with that then I need a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agendas and the screen as the council's Z and approve or Deni the ition motion to adopt and approve second okay do I have any comments I think I I covered most everything in terms of the changes that have been made in the in the discussion around whether or not to send it back so if folks have questions I'm I'm happy to field them but otherwise I don't see a need to repeat all that okay does anyone have any other comments they'd like to make I do mayor him Miss Johnson um yeah I stand on the fact that these are a lot of changes that I think it's fair and transparent for the residents to be able to consider we've received dozens if not more than a hundred um letters and emails of opposition so um this is a highly visible and highly contested so I again I say if if if eight or nine changes and even the petitioner representative that says these are significant changes don't require more input or um comments from the public then I don't know what what does so I'd like to make a motion to defer the decision no in order to allow res residents to review the changes especially those that have come in within the last hour um I think we owe that to our residents so um again a motion to defer the decision second a substitute motion thank you okay we have a motion by Miss Johnson and a second by Mr fips to defer okay um with that Mr Winston this is to defer the um no uh Mr barari no Mr Driggs no Mr Newton no Mr fips yes Mr eglon no missir yes Miss watlington I'd be fine with the deferral yes excuse me so yes um Mr Graham no Mr Miss Johnson yes and I'm a no how many was so that um that is seven Nos and four yeses to the first so that does not pass um and with that then we will go ahead and vote on this um and I need a motion to adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency is appr you already have the original motion was I'm sorry a second okay I I am going to make a comment on this because this this one has given me a lot of heartburn um I have I did go out I met with May Tim the city clerk um would like to get uh make sure she has the correct vote on the motion to defer okay I have um Mr fips miss asira and miss watlington and Miss Johnson were yes to defer and the others were no okay thank you uhuh um the comment that I wanted to make on this is that I have I I have been out and looked at this property met with residents um I didn't there were two things that bothered me about it was the mass and the storm water issues um there were a lot of other issues that that residents had raised as well um and what I what I personally am really struggling with are those two issues which the petitioner did address to I think as much as they could the storm water issue is something that is an issue all over our city um I am comfortable that this particular project uh the petitioner added additional storm water capacity over and above what was required by the ordinance so that at least we know that the drainage off of this property is not going to be detrimental to other people's properties and the mass was something that I think um I'm struggling the most with however what I also struggle with is the fact that that the product itself is a good product um we need these micro Apartments we you know we're going down the road of an Austin Texas or San Francisco or other cities where housing has become so expensive that you know affordable housing aside if we don't make smaller units for people people just aren't going to have be able to afford places to live um when I think about artists um Nota is an area that to me is in more of our artists area this particular project has space that people can rent more authorly than what could be available right in the center of Nota um and it's micro Apartments which you know is much more affordable than what we're seeing in the South End and so I think this is a conflict that we're going to see all over the city there's going to have to be sa sacrifices made and in this particular case I I would like to vote no against it because it's big but I don't know that we're going to get the product that we need in this city if we don't start making some tradeoffs and in this particular case the eight changes that have been made all our changes that residents asked for and that I asked for so it's a little disingenuous of me to say I want you to change the scale and I want you to change the storm water and then vote no against it um and so I will be supporting it but again and and the last thing I will say is that if it weren't for the fact that David Ferman is the architect on this he's a local architect who does who cares tremendously about sustainability about um what a project looks like and you know by adding this Breezeway in taking out the swimming pool which is what people asked for and putting the Breezeway in so that it breaks up the mass then that was what I had asked for based on the changes that residents told me um that they were requesting so I'm going to be a yes with this one but I I really struggle with the size of some of our developments um and I just don't know what we're going to you know we're going to really have to have these conversations on a regular basis to get what we really need in this city uh close to our Transit Corridor so uh with that are there any other comments missir you have your hand up missir you're on mute oh sorry thank you m mayor Pro so just like you mayor protm I have had uh I struggled with this one uh I appreciate the changes that's been made by the petitioner to address uh some concerns that's been raised by the neighbors uh for me the biggest concern was around the tree sa specifically the Heritage tree uh and neighbors brought a very important issue that I think we as a council need to address how do we preserve and protect our trees on Alleyway um because that's a that is not claimed by the city but it's also not not owned by any private party either so that uh I have had that conversation with our three arborist and as as the equity environment and as the as the environment equity and engagement committee takes deeper dive on this tree ordinance I do look forward to hearing our staff's feedback on some of the uh gaps that we have um and um Nota is known for its neighborhood charm specifically a historic charm the Unique fabric and the character that I think we must preserve throughout this process and I am pleased with the changes that petitioner has made um and I appreciate the work that district council member has done to to address some changes uh while understand that Community still does not support it uh however it would be disingenuous of me to not support it after several changes that we have requested have been made so I I'll be supporting this one thank you thank you Miss esmer I have Mr fips then Mr Egleston and Miss Johnson Mr fips yes thank you um I had an opportunity also to go out and with the neighbors and to the area and and uh the surrounding uh uh streets and such and I do believe that the the the changes that have been proposed and made uh uh were both substantive and significant and I think they uh uh enhanced the project uh to the point that would uh uh Gana my support uh but I too am concerned or I have some heartburn over the massing and would hope that uh that uh some of the massing could be mitigated I would like to see even with these proposals up to the 11th Hour how how the masing how maybe you know in what way can we approach the masking in a way that would be more aesthetically uh pleasing to the eye uh my familiarity with masing of this scale is with the student housing that's located on uh University City Boulevard uh adjacent to uh uh uh University of North Carolina at Charlotte where we had a block long student housing project but it was broken up in a way or it is broken up in a way through little plazas and little Courtyards in the front that make it appear uh to be more uh conducive uh uh and pedestrian type friendly so so I'm I'm hoping that any kind of elevations that would come out of this would be able to show the cumulative effect of these changes in a way that the community would uh would appreciate not to say that all all all the community would be on board but I think it would be a benefit to them given that all these uh uh uh proposals and changes on paper look good but just to you know if that changes that the dynamic of the elevation I think it's something that's worthy uh uh that we could see so we can see uh uh what these changes really what kind of impact they really make so uh I think the project is a better project as result of these changes and I will vote to support it thanks thank you Mr eglon thank you mayor P to the to council member fi's question around massing I think the one of the changes that was made uh most recently that mayor TM mayor protim helped me Lobby the petitioner for this this Breezeway through the site I do think breaks the massing up in a way that is aesthetically and Visually um improved there there are people who are are going to be disappointed with the outcome of this I think there have been a lot of changes and I appreciate the people who have have negotiated in good faith both neighbors neighborhood ass ation zoning committee members and many of you on the council have helped me to lobby for this laundry list of changes that have been made over the course of as was earlier stated nearly a Year's worth of discussion um and I think that the project is in a much better place for the community I think it will be a project that the petitioner will be more proud of I think is going to yield a better outcome because of all the work that was put into it I can appreciate the frustration for the folks um who didn't get where they hoped that we would get um but I think everyone even those folks would acknowledge that we've ended up in a far better place than where we started so just thank you to all of you and to everyone else in the community who helped to make these changes possible and thank you to the petitioner for continuing to come to the table and be open-minded to um changes that that were at times significant and and do cut into their ability to to gener a profit on this for their business um but but they understood that bringing the community closer to where they wanted to be on this and bringing it closer to where our vision for our city is and doing things like saving trees and making a commitment to Affordable units in a project um and and making a commitment to have space for small local retail businesses all those things strengthen our community they strengthen their projects and um and I appreciate all the work that's g into it thank you uh Miss Johnson I just want to say that I I I went out to the site also I didn't have a chance to meet with the the residents but I but I have listened to the residents and and and read the emails I I personally don't don't recall any emails from the community in support of this and yes we need more um affordable um housing units and this is not necessarily afford it's definitely not affordable with a a capital A it's more affordable because they're micro units but location still matters and as a former real estate you know agent that's that's very important so when council member fips talks about these this type of mass structure in the university area it's not in a residential community and it doesn't set sit next to a a single family or sing single story home so I think that that the residents need to to understand we're talking about a a structure that is a block long or or wide so this is a we've heard words like very massive and monstrosity and all of that this is going to be implanted into a residential community and yes 36th Street does have other multifamilies but this is Extreme so I I know that we need more affordable housing but it's up to council to still be uh strategic in in where these are placed which was my opposition to the 20 240 plan because I still think there's opportunity to be strategic and intentional about the location of these types of properties so I won't be supporting the petition today thanks okay I think Mr Mr eglon has his hand up again I don't I don't want to belabor the discussion but but I think if we're talking about being strategic the strategy is we've made a billion dollar investment in light rail we we hope to continue to invest in things like Light Rail and if we're being strategic if density is necessary if more housing is necessary in this community and it is the Strategic place to put it is in walking distance to Transit stations this is walking distance to the 36 street light rail station it's in a neighborhood of high opportunity it's in a neighborhood with opportunity to be able to move around our city to jobs to school to work to play whatever to me if it if it belongs anywhere it belongs near and it's not just Nota it belongs up and down the Blue Line it belongs up and down where we hope to build the silver line and if it's going to be at these stops it belongs on streets like North David in in 36th Street thereby preserving the Interiors of those neighborhoods so to me this is this this is the definition of strategic and I'll just add to that as a last comment for all the council to think about that I think what what really happened here is what I'm really focused on when we look at our 2040 mapping is that there is a transition from what's on 36th Street and I agree with Mr eglon that our density needs to be on our rail corridors on our high Transit corridors which is what this is but I was it it was important to me that I saw a transition between what's on 366 Street which goes right to the light rail transitioning to a single family neighborhood I live in an area just like that and so I'm very hyperconscious of that and I do appreciate the changes that were made uh this isn't the last project that's going to be like this and we we've got to make sure that these projects transition so they're not hurting the houses that are nearby but we're also honoring the commitment that we made to invest in public transportation and to put people near that public transportation so they can use it so if there are no other comments um let's go ahead and take uh Mr yeah I got one final comment mayor Tim yeah uh uh the decision to send back or defer in my mind they would have they would have had the same effect in terms of it just would have given the community an opportunity to weigh in on these uh changes and to see the impact of them so I I really do think that both outcomes would have accomplished the same thing but unfortunately they went down in flames thanks thank you um with that I think we have a mo do we have a motion in a second okay um we had Mr egleson was the motion Mr B Mr uh um Wiston was the second so Mr Winston yes uh Mr uh barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr Newton yes Mr fips yes M Mr eglon yes Miss asira yes Miss uh Miss watlington yes Mr um Graham no Miss Johnson no and I am yes so that carries 9 to two Okay thank you and that does now um get us through all of our decisions so with that we will move to item number um 23 our first hearing uh zoning hearing uh and the rest of you can put your hands down on webc so I know that we're good to go um item number 23 is a petition 2021 89 by Redwood USA LLC approximately 21.3 Acres located at the Northwest intersection of Rocky River Road and John Russell Road north of the plaza that's Council District Four Miss Johnson's District current zoning is AR R3 single family residential proposed zoning is R8 multif family residential staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to the site and building design and environment we do have opposition to this um petition and so after the staff presentation the petitioner will have 10 minutes to speak um along with anyone else who supports the petition those in opposition will have 10 minutes collectively to speak and then the petitioner will have a two-minute rebuttal so with that dat Mr P do you want to go ahead sure thank you um 2021 089 it's 21.3 Acres on Rocky River Road uh just near the John Russell Road uh intersection and north of the plaza Uh current zoning is R3 uh the proposed zoning is R8 multif family conditional the adopted future land use is from the new small area plan it's from 2002 that does recommend residential uses up to four dwelling units per acre for the site uh the proposal is for up to 76 private alley fed town home units that comes in at about 3.5 units per acre uh it would have guest parking would be provided throughout the site does propose a 40ft building height which is consistent with residential zoning uh primary access would be from Rocky River Road we'd also have extensions of uh gloxinia Road and uh was a connection to yaen but that looks like that it's turned into a pedestrian uh connection uh through the site does propose a 12ft multi-use path from Lupine Court to yaen road that would incorporate pedestrian bridges over the stream Crossing also a 12T multi-use path along John Russell Road uh 10ft crosswalk and accessibility ramps at John Russell Road intersection as well as a 6ft sidewalk and 8ft planning strip along Rocky River there'll be a proposed right turn laying on Rocky River Road uh as well and then we have an upgrade of a pedestrian signal at the John Russell Road and Rocky River Road intersection uh 50ft dedicated right away from Rocky River Road Center Line and then 35 ft uh right away from John Russell Road Center Line also architectural standards would be included those would address raise entrances uh garage doors pitch roofs walkways and also limit buildings to five units or fewer when they front a public or private neetwork required Street uh also proposes a 50-ft class SE buffer uh that would be along all property lines that a but uh property zoned R3 and mx1 uh does identify a 100 fot post Construction undisturbed buffer that's measured from the stream existing Pond and tree save that's all along the back of the site uh it also identifies areas that would be activated with seaing trash receptacles and a Pond Overlook uh that would preserve that existing Pond like said on the back end of the property as mentioned staff does recommend approval of this petition we do have some outstanding issues related to sight and buildings design as well as environment to be addressed prior to zoning committee uh the petition is consistent with the small area plan recommendation for residential uses of to 4 Dua um we'll be happy to take any questions following both presentations by the petitioner as well as members of the public thank you thank you Mr Patton um we have for um speaking in favor we've got rad Schneider and I think that's all we have signed up for this Mr Schneider are you on virtually I'm here live he's in person he's coming to the the podium okay okay do I have a clicker for you can just speak oh you need a a clicker yeah for my presentation sorry if you just hit um page up page page up pay yep hold on just or you can tell the next slide and make advance for you which would you rather um I can just say next slide that's fine airport 10 this is three minutes right it it seems to be skipping on its own I'm not sure who's controlling that seems it seems to be moving on its own I'm not sure who's controlling that so Holly can you start back at the first slot please and he he's going to tell you next slide okay thanks well thank you very much my name is rad Schneider I'm the director of Acquisitions for Redwood USA LLC uh for the Carolina markets and I'm just here to give a quick overview of the company and what we're looking to do here uh next slide please so uh Redwood is a developer and property management company of single story apartment rental communities it's the only thing we do um we have over a 100 neighborhoods um across the Midwest and the southeast next slide we currently have over 500 employees in counting most of that's in the field our service technicians and our our neighborhood managers and leasing Associates we have about or 12 or so uh in our uh headquarters in Independence Ohio which is about 10 minutes south of downtown Cleveland next slide as you can see here's our Market presence uh started in Ohio so that's that's where we have most of it uh of course throughout the Midwest as well and then within the southeast uh we got our start in Greenville and then in South Carolina and then started to move into Charlotte next slide within North Carolina mostly in the Charlotte MSA but starting to Branch out a little bit um our very first site was in Concord which is fully built uh and completed it's 100% occupied with a weight list uh the same goes with our Lake Wy um which is also 100% occupied with a weight list uh we've got two projects under construction in Charlotte one on Ridge Road the other on Harris Houston and of course the Rocky River Road project that we're uh talking about today next slide some key facts about us we have almost 14,000 Apartment Homes now um we typically do about 2,000 every year so we're a high Growth Company um we've never sold the neighborhood and we have no intention to uh we are market rate housing so we're not uh age restricted uh with that said uh the average age of one of our residents across our entire portfolio is about 50 uh the product type just tends to kind of lend itself to you know people who are looking to downsize and have an alternative uh alternative housing style um you know without the burdens of home ownership so about 70% Center empty nesters and we because of that we typically have about a about seven school age children uh per 100 Apartment Homes and about a little over 1 and a half people per per dwelling and about one and a half car uh per per dwelling as well and residents typically stay with us for about 2 and a half years with some saying more than five next slide uh of course we're uh you know we want to make sure we have reliable Runners and great neighbors so we have extensive background and credit checks for um all of our applicants and future residents next slide wanted to highlight some of our property management um we're actually ranked second nationally in the Oar power rankings by multif Family executive that's a leading multif family uh publication uh to put that into perspective uh lenar their multif family unit is ranked third that's the second national uh largest home builder uh we always have on-site neighborhood manager and on-site service technicians during the uh normal operating periods uh and then we have 20 247 emergency uh hotlines in case something were to occur after hours uh we do things like power washing every 2 to 3 years and when that happens s you do the entire neighborhood um you know residents don't have to worry about anything we we do light bulb changes quarterly filter changes all of that uh you know concrete inspections Every Spring and most importantly I would say we we paint the walls at every unit turn so somebody moves out as somebody gets ready to move in all the walls look brand new uh and an attest to this um our oldest property which was built in the early 2000s actually has the highest rents per square foot uh which is in Olstead Township Ohio side so here's a look at our exteriors as you can see everything single story um two-bedroom two bath with a an attached two-car garage uh heavy emphasis on open Green Space next slide here's our interior so starts at 1300 ft approximately everything is open floor plan granite countertop stainless steel appliances uh mostly LTV waterproof uh flooring with the exception of the bedrooms um those are in fact those are carpet uh energy STAR certified construction so the materials the doors windows shingles uh these are very energy efficient units next SL SL so here's just some more looks at our floor plans uh most common is the forestwood that's about 1300 squ ft capewood is the largest it's it's it's essentially the forestwood but we added a sun room on the side so next slide Willowwood is the second most popular there's a picture of it there on the left as you can just see it's a little bit more open more Square shaped next slide uh we have hundreds of years of experience by our executive management team uh between Acquisitions construction and development next slide along with financi and operation especially on the property operations side we are um industry leading levels of occupancy delinquency conversion ratios and retention across our entire portfolio next slide so this was the Redwood uh Ridge Road Project this was successfully rezoned from R3 to R8 MF back in 2018 it's about 21 Acres 102 Apartment Homes this is just outside of 485 next slide and the most recent one was Redwood Harris Houston which in within the same district uh was about 20 acres and uh a 73 Apartment Homes planned also from R3 to R8 MF uh we closed that just in this past October so next slide and of course this site as uh Dave just went over uh 28 21 Acres about also looking to go from R3 to R8 MF next slide what we really like about this site is our ability to Save A Lot on the natural environment uh as you can see there's significant tree save in fact we're above the uh City threshold of I believe it's either 15 or 20% um but we're definitely above that at about three and a half units an acre with 76 Apartment Homes uh projected uh we will have the full access on Rocky River and uh as Dave pointed out the yaen road connection was removed that was an issue we were we were certainly cognizant of the neighborhood next door and we wanted to to limit the impact um of the connectivity if possible um so next slide so we were able to eliminate that by working with seedot and the planning department on putting a multi-use path there instead we also agreed uh cot made a request to connect all the way back to Lupine core Port um which we were fine with doing um you know that that's just going to create greater uh increased connectivity through this whole thr whole intersection all on down to the um re Creek Park here's a look at our project compared to the surrounding neighborhood um we're right in right in the middle there with um the density at about 3 and a half uh the most I think the that was amadam homes development just around the corner it's going to be Town Homes is about 4.86 and the subdivision across the street from us is at four next slide uh I did want to highlight some of the concerns that came out of the neighborhood meeting um first and foremost were property values this is a this is a topic that typically comes up when you're talking about rental properties next to single family um I would point out that our our recent appraisal on Harris Houston Road concluded a stabilized per unit value of about 301,000 uh and when you when you modify that to the square footage of a single family home in the area it was very comparable to what I could find for sale online uh and sometimes uh higher uh Studies have shown consistently um in results over decades uh that multif family does not market rate multif family does not negatively impact uh surrounding property values in fact increase housing options can sometimes increase property values uh I've listed some studies there that are some of the most famous Harvard MIT uh University of Arkansas Little Rock um also pulled a fiveyear history on County assessment records uh from two homes next to uh Concord our Concord are in our Lake Wy site to show that those continue to increase uh with our presence nearby next slide uh there's concerns obviously on traffic uh that's always a big concern as well and as I mentioned we average one and a half Cars per apartment home uh single family can sometimes double that I mean you've got more people for per home so you tend to have more cars uh our traffic impact wasn't deemed high enough to trigger a TIA traffic impact analysis by the um by the site and we have four parking spaces per apartment home technically so you've got two in the garage and two in the driveways those are fullsize driveways so that along with additional guest parking uh per City requirements we we we do not believe that car overflow into the uh neighboring neighborhoods will be an issue next slide there was concerns on the leases uh being that we're about I think within three miles or so of a campus there was concerns that parents could just sign for their college kids they can do that but any person over the over the age of 18 has to sign and also live in the unit so a parent would have to live with their kids um all persons then signing on the lease are also subject to the same background uh in credit check uh there was also concern that these would go on Airbnb uh first that's not our business model but most important we don't allow sub leases so anybody attempting to do that would be immediate eviction next slide uh then lastly the land use plan uh so there was obviously questions about a multif family product in this particular neighborhood uh Redwood is defined technically as an attached single family town home with a building department and as I mentioned we do have the similar density to the surrounding subdivisions um I did find online there looks like there were some existing runnels in the subdivisions as well those were like Invitation Homes owned uh single family homes that were put out to rent um there's also a kind of a setup for transitional land use plan here is there's Neighborhood Services just outside the corner so we're along a corridor Road and going from NS into kind of low medium density multif family and then into single family um is is a great transitional uh Zone use uh lastly I would just say that with the recent change through the 2040 plan there seems to be a push for different types of Housing and you know that is something that Redwood can certainly provide with our you know fitting fitting in with a single single family home neighborhood but also offering some flexibility compared to ownership so uh with that that's that's all I have on on what we're proposing to do okay thank you Mr Schneider you're welcome um we have four individuals signed up to speak against this petition tonight um three of them are online and one is in person so just so you all know that the four of you will have a total of 10 minutes um to speak and so those are those speakers here are Eric Thompson Tony subber Elwood Dale and Justin Bagwell I don't know who would like to go first I'll excuse me I'll go first sure if you could just uh uh give us your name please introduce yourself uh yes my name is Eric Thompson and I'm the president of the Seven Oaks homeowners association and I'd like to start off by uh thanking the city council and especially thanking councilwoman Johnson for all her engagement with our community on this issue um we had a lot of long meetings some of which were like 3 hours so just wanted to thank her for her engagement um so our community is United and strongly opposed uh to the Redwood USA building an apartment development in the middle of our neighborhood uh we know that our city is growing and that we need new housing to accommodate all of our growth but we already have several new developments within less of a mile of our community um the city council has already approved a 200 unit town home development at the same intersection of this exact uh apartment complex and uh the 7 Oaks homeowners association did not uh voice any opposition to that project because we felt like it was a quality development that will continue to move our neighborhood in the right direction some of the other close developments include the retreat at Rocky River and sell and Landing though they're both onck River Road less than a mile from our community uh on Back Creek Church there's the Reserve at Austin Estates and underway um there's also Creekside Grove which is a very large community um over on uh Hood Road so there's a lot of development right there we do think there's a lot of development again there is a multif family um development right there that same intersection um the 200 unit uh at that same intersection and um you know we just feel like uh Redwood USA you know with their professional sales and development team that um they're going to tout the project in the best possible light but just the reality for us in Seven Oaks is just much different um the apartments will increase loitering crime trespassing use of our amenities by non-residents traffic congestion while simultaneously decreasing our property values Aesthetics and safety uh after construction Redwood USA will change we charge their tenants the absolute highest rate that the market will bear while putting the smallest investment possible into Community to satisfy their investors um if approved Seven Oaks will carry the burden of uh City council's decision um this project is just simply not a good fit for our community um I've been told by many people that this development is not that bad or I have seen a lot worse and I think none of those are reasons to approve this uh resoning petition the fact is that um nobody wants this neighborhood or wants nobody wants this development in our neighborhood we're just strongly against this development because it will put an apartment development literally in the middle of our neighborhood it's going to connect our streets up to it and um we've got issues right now with um loitering and those other kinds of things and they're all people that that don't live in our neighborhood um we've got um of course our our pond we've got you know people all kind of day and night trying to fish at our pond um doing all these kinds of things so um this is just going to exacerbate all those problems that we already have um you know city council recently denied a petition in Steel Creek that was not a good fit for their community and I'm asking city council to take the same action here uh this project is offensive um we have 5,000 foot homes in our community we have many 4,000 plus square foot homes in our community and as a neighborhood I don't see how this project is being considered because there are no Apartments anywhere near um our neighborhood um this would be a complete change of what's there in the area and um the 7 Oaks Community and all of our neighbors are strongly um opposed to this and we're requesting that the city council uh deny this petition and um there are several uh um I just want to real quickly say that there's just a couple things I want to touch on um so the idea that because of you know we're three miles away from UNCC and what we don't want is um kind of a a we don't want kind of a college kind of party house or frat house or anything like that near the neighborhood and um I'll just say that um the house next door to mine is actually eight-bedroom house and the person that was trying to buy that house when it went up for sale was going going to try and put two college students in each room in that house and I literally would have had a house of 16 college students living right next door to me and I I just know from the person that was trying to buy the house next door to me that the same thing will try you know the people will try and do the same thing here with this development and it's again it's nestled right in our neighborhood so um the the two people um that I just want to introduce is Tony subber he's a board member he's going to speak next um in Jim Dale he is the um uh the vice president of operations for the security company that we've hired to um um try to mitigate some of the issues that we've been seeing um so we have 7-Day um Security in the neighborhood now and also um Justin Bagwell who was a Community member who will also be speaking uh thank you okay thank you and you all have about four and a half minutes left together thank you Mr Thompson [Music] um who would is Mr Sub there in the building or are you online Mr subber Mr mrl online okay go ahead uh my name is Tony subber I'm a member at large in the Seven Oaks HOA board of directors and um 7even Oaks presently has three routes of Ingress degress according to the Builder's plans they'd like to open the dead end on clock in your road that'll create a fourth entrance into the neighborhood and this will undoubtedly lead to an increase in traffic as well as traffic violations we're already experiencing large scale speeding problems this will create an even greater Hazard for motorists and pedestrians especially children also there's concern over the displacement of wildlife every wooded area in and around this community contains Wildlife I've personally witnessed deer traversing the roadway and even in my backyard this project will deplete what little areas left of their natural habitat I'd like to direct direct this to Mr Schnider how does seven Nots benefit from the presence of this new community what specific measures do you have in place to combat the issues mentioned multiple neighbors have expressed their displeasure regarding the proposed zoning change and subsequent construction by Redwood USA the board of directors functions as a mouthpiece for the community we represent the interests of the neighborhood in light of the afor mentioned both the 70's board and homeowners are vehemently opposed to the petitioner resoning request thank you thank you Mr s subber uh Mr uh Mr Dale Jim I'm sorry Jim Elwood Jim Dale he should be on I almost had it go ahead Mr Dale Mr Dale are you on are you online okay I think I'm off mute now okay okay I'm gonna go quickly I know I only have a few minutes uh we were hired approximately uh 18 months ago and uh we provide the HOA with a end of the month activity report each month to to uh highlight uh some of the security encounters that we experienced and what we found I've going through those reports over the last couple of days and what we found that 85% of all of the security related encounters are uh a result of outside penetration so with that said we realized that uh there are physical structures and restricted property settings that we try to focus on to control that uh like the clubhouse the clubhouse parking lot the swimming pool the play area and the pond and that 85% tend to see that private property as public property and I think as we mentioned a moment ago uh we've seen people that come in in the middle of the night jump a lock gate and decide to have a pool party or a drug activity going on in the children's play area or people coming to the pond and and launching their boat and decide to take a fishing trip and uh we have been very effective to decrease that type of activity in the community and I believe that uh by connecting the two neighborhoods we'll see all of our efforts go in a different direction uh I agree that uh this particular project from a security perspective is probably not the best fit for the 7even Oaks Community uh one of the things that uh we found is that it's hard to really get the police to respond to uh nuis type of uh activities lering uh kids sitting on the uh uh Street and using illegal substance or going to an isolated area in the community and the young people with their uh uh intimate uh contacts or intimate encounters again um that that is 10 minutes um so we are at our limit for for the speakers um so we will bring that back to Mr Schneider who will have two minutes for robot Pro proam he still has a few seconds oh okay I had I had a timer on here so I apologize go ahead if you have a few seconds left yeah I'm sorry Mr Dale go ahead Mr Dale go offline Holly can you please unmute him okay Mr D you're unmuted in summary I do believe that the uh Community will be negative negatively impacted from a quality of life perspective through the population growth the congested traffic pattern The increased need for social services like the police Etc and the increase uh definitely in criminal activity and new type of activities okay thank you very much Mr Dale um with that we'll go back to Mr Schneider commissioner and Mr s you will have two more minutes for rebuttal all right well thank you um I will first say on the issue of um connectivity um that was obviously something that we we worked on even before the neighborhood meeting because we we figured that that would be an issue um you know even with getting rid of one connection it it is required to have at least another I mean that's just ordinances you got you've got to be able to connect those streets regardless of what you're developing so uh you know we were able to make a positive impact we can't get rid of all of it but we you know we did the best we could to to limit it um in terms of uh neighborhood issues um I can certainly understand that uh I would say that you know if this were to get approved and we were to get built I would highly highly encourage uh the HOA and and Redwood to you know establish Communications to to you know keep eyes on those things and if you know people are loitering and things of that that's something that you know we should watch together and and Report that's that's why we have neighborhood managers on site during the day and also service technicians so um that's that's all I have to to discuss those those topics okay thank you Mr Schneider um council members do you have any questions Miss Johnson go ahead Miss Johnson thank you mayor protim I I just want to say that I have had the opportunity to meet with the residents and also with the developer I visited the site in Concord um so I I look forward to continued discussions I do want to address Mr Thompson um he said that he's he's heard people say that it you know could be worse so I don't know if he's referring to something I said but what my thought is that Charlotte is growing very quickly um this is on on the the um the edge of their development um the streets would be through the the development but it's on the outside of their development so what I was saying is that these are attached single family residents and and not the um the massive multifam that that we've seen and that some of our residents um that we've had to approve in in spite of so I'm looking forward to continually working with the Seven Oaks Community and um and hopefully uh we can come to a concession but um if not we'll you know we'll we'll we'll see what happens next month but I will give Mr Thompson a call tomorrow and I thank them for their engagement and also thank Mr Mr Snider he's they've um they work with this the subdivision dep uh department and have eliminated one of the um entrances um to have access to the park so both sides are are are doing you know exactly what they should the residents are speaking up and the developer is um is trying to concede so I hope that um yeah this is a good good product but we don't know you know what the outcome will be but just know that I'm I'm working for the residents and I'll be in touch with Mr Thompson tomorrow thank you thank you Miss Johnson um Mr uh thank you I I just wanted to give a note um to community members um I certainly um you know uh invite folks uh to bring their oppositions um to any petition and and and any of their concerns I I I just think it it's important uh for the community to understand um some of the policy um um guidance and and the and and and the growth strategies that that uh city council and the City of Charlotte has implemented um you know I I heard a lot about um wanting to preserve um 5,000 ft or 4,000 ft homes um that putting other homes of a different type of square footage um doesn't fit um you know we are trying to combat um different types of segregation of of of people being able to live in certain places that is not just color of skin um but at this at this point in time it's about um people's place um um on on in in terms of economics uh and we know that because of the way we've developed in the past um because we have concentrated you know similar square footage homes um which equates to similar C homes U we have created parts of town um uh that disallows um uh uh uh people from different walks of life so I don't know if it's necessarily the most compelling argument um anymore uh to say hey we have a a certain square footage home um we shouldn't have other ones in in in different kind in um close to us it kind of flies in the face of um the policy policies of of Charlotte city council at this point in time so just again just just want the citizens to to be aware um and and have the best chance of of of kind of um um advocating um their positions in an effective manner on a go for basis thank you thank you Mr Winston Mr Driggs uh thank you m Pro so um in that same vein I just wanted to point out I've had conversations with my constituents in the past about rental properties uh and um I I guess I would just caution you at this point I'm not prejudging this thing and I will certainly listen to the input from the residents but a density of three and a half is very low uh and there are a lot of places where we're seeing more dense development where people I think would leap at the opportunity uh to get development in a density of three and a half so I guess you would need to think about whether the your issue is really the fact that these are rental properties and if the alternative was um a density of 10 of town homes which would not be uncommon um and think about the implications that that might have so um it's it's wrong to say it could be worse that's a bad expression but but you really need to be realistic about how properties are being developed right now what the market demand is and uh and and U and and consider whether this is uh uh something that you should try to your chel whatever might come next the other thing I would mention is uh on crime uh I don't know what kind of data we have there's often apprehension about crime when it comes to rental properties and I know that you know really downmarket rental properties are probably uh you know more likely to be an area but I would be interested between now and the time that we vote on this to hear from cmpd whether we can make more objective uh what this situation is with crime and and respond to that particular concern so uh I I would just encourage you uh keep an open mind on this thing with work on it together and uh and inform yourself just by looking at other rezonings and things like that about what is going on in Charlotte and what might happen if you succeed in forting this one thank you thank you any other comments if not may I have a motion to close the public hearing motion to close second okay um I'm a yes Mrs Mira yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes barari yes and I'm intrigued about this fishing location that they've mentioned several times I'll Circle up offline uh Mr Griggs right you're going to take your fishing rod over there tar uh I I'm a yes to close Okay um Mr eglon yes Mr Graham Miss John son yes Mr Newton yes okay thank you that closes the public hearing the next item is item number 24 resoning petition 2021 160 by Charlotte mberg Schools and Woodfield Development LLC approximately 73.9787 Acres located on the northeast side of North Community House Road and East side of Johnson Road West of of elm Lane that's in Council district 7 Mr Drake's District it's currently zoned R3 mixed use innovation and single family residential the proposed zoning is mud o which is mixed use development optional with a 5-year vested right staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of technical revisions related to transportation and site and building design and and there is no Opposition signed up to this so after Mr um Patton's presentation then Mr Brown uh we have four people speaking Mr Brown Miss Lind um Mr Laria and Mr Haggler so go ahead uh Mr pen all right thank you 2021 160 as mentioned is 73.9787 so he's got some split zoning on the property property proposed zoning is to bring that in all under mud o with 5year vested rights uh the South District plan from 1993 does recommend Greenway uses you can see that in the green color there on the north side of the property as well as multif family up to eight units per acre and single family residential up to three units per acre across the site uh the petition is split up into two development areas you've got area a which is the area on the right in Blue uh that allows a maximum of 311,000 square ft for high school with a Max Building height of 70 ft does request optional Provisions to allow parking between the building and the public Street uh and have a minimum of 800 parking spaces area B which is one closer to Johnston Road and North Community House Road that allows uh a request up to 420 multif family residential dwelling units for a density of 20.4 Dua doesn't limit the building height to 70 ft uh some general details provides vehicular access from Johnston Road and North Community House Road uh via new public and private Network streets do have a multi-use path connection to Barett place also commits to coordinate with meberg County Parks and wreck uh to provide bike and pedestrian connectivity through the site and connectivity to The Greenway uh also has a number of Transportation improvements that were identified in a transportation study uh which include but not limited to things like storage uh on turn lanes for North Community House Road signal modifications on North Community House Road a left turn lane into the site on Johnston Road as well as upgrades to crosswalks at the intersection of North Community House Road and Inon way also provides architectural standards related to building materials building placement and Frontage uh for massing and roof form and articulation as well as HVAC and service screening that would be more for the multif family component of the project and also commits to a 75t class B buffer along the Eastern property line uh and so at this point I'd actually like to uh turn it over quickly to uh Brandon Brazil with C do to go over just some Transportation related items that came out of the traffic study for this this project uh Brandon thanks Dave uh Brandon Brazil with seedot um so yeah real quickly um as mentioned the petitioner had to provide a traffic study for this development four intersections were studied seedot uh reviewed and ultimately approved this traffic study and the improvements that came out of it in July of 2021 um intersections that will be receiving improvements include a community house and torington way there will be a new traffic signal installed there as well as turn Lanes uh for left turns and right turns on uh multiple approaches as well as community house and inh Haven Lane there's going to be uh southbound left turn lane along Community House Road for that and then also Johnson Road and and the new site access that will go up through the subdivision into the school where a southbound left turn lane uh will be added um we're also getting some multimodal improvements that weren't captured with the traffic study but we also have gotten the petitioner to agree to to include a multi-use path along Johnston Road and then also setting aside easements for a future fourmile Creek Greenway connection at the rear of the property thank you thank you thank you Brandon uh so staff does recommend approval of this petition do have some uh outstanding issues and Technical revisions related to transportation of site and building design to work through uh it is inconsistent with that South District plan recommendation however staff feels the institutional uses such as schools or generally compatible in in this area uh the buffer along the Eastern property line of budding residential uses certainly provides a transition between the proposed uses also uh the petition would provide relief to schools in the area and add a mixture of housing types and the site is located adjacent to toringdon within the Balentine mixed use Activity Center uh so that does give us a little bit more comfort with the context of the project and how it relates to those uses surrounding it uh so again staff does recommend approval upon resolution of those issues and we'll be happy to take any questions following the petitioner's presentation thank you thank you okay Mr Brown and Miss Lind and I don't know um if you're speaking along with Mr lari and Mr Haggler yeah yes uh mayor protim Colin Brown uh on behalf of the petitioner um I'll coordinate our time thanks to Dave for his um his good review this is a pretty interesting uh resoning a couple interesting things going on one the property owner is the uh Roman Catholic dasis so it has been a um real U effort between these real two petitioners uh to even be able to gain control of this property to bring this opportunity to the table uh so the ownership is interesting and then the partnership that we have is interesting um so on the line tonight if you have any questions uh Woodfield Chad Hagler is from Woodfield he is a multif family developer and then Charlotte mberg Schools Dennis lary is on from CMS and so what we're we're proud to bring you tonight is really the first of two reasonings well the next petition will be similar this is a partnership uh between CMS and Woodfield uh to bring some much needed relief schools to this area and to also provide housing uh in close proximity to these schools so I think as we we talk about the 20 240 plan uh these are achieving a lot of the goals in in my mind and I think we're getting some creative outside of the box thinking uh on behalf of our school board uh to to be able to bring this to the table as Dave mentioned uh very unique site great proximity uh so that you know the current zoning on the site is is currently zoned for 200 I'm sorry 429 duplex in town home units uh that resoning was approved about 15 years ago uh that the way things have progressed I'm I'm happy that that did not come to fruition uh so CMS which is desperate for schools there are just not many 80 acre pieces of land around um so happy to to bring this partnership Woodfield was able to put this co uh property under contract there are challenges with the dases ownership that made that impossible for CMS uh which is why this partnership was necessary I think Dave did a good job reviewing the site plan uh as you see we have um fortunately no opposition tonight and we really like to to give our thanks uh to the associations the Town Home Association here uh and the single family neighborhood council member Driggs uh helped us connect with the leadership of those organizations uh we have been out on site multiple times to walk the property line with them and I think you know from a conversation that started oh my gosh we don't want this in our backyard to a conversation where folks in the community said hey let let's see this as a positive let's see this as an asset uh the CMS team which is adjacent to them did a great job I think providing adequate buffers uh and addressing a lot of those concerns so uh looks like our our time is up but um I'm here as well as both petitioners if you have questions thank you Mr Brown do we have any questions I see Mr Driggs go ahead Mr thank you mayor yes um so I wanted to say uh I really appreciate that there's going to be a school at this site uh I may have actually been involved in suggesting this location through a school um and uh this is something that the district needs and looks forward to um and this location for that housing development with the benefit of two main thorough fairs and uh the separation from the nearby single family works well so uh I too appreciate the uh the general acceptance of people who live nearby and uh uh I'm I'm uh kind of supportive of this uh I like move ahead now I did have one question there there was for a while a conversation about what there there would have to be a connection into Rougemont um does there need to be a connector there there was a possibility of a connection to Barrett Place but there will not be a vehicular location uh vehicular connection at that location uh which the neighborhood is pleased with so I think we've resolved that issue right right so uh uh yeah frankly that's the biggest concern I heard I I wonder if you could just tell me what the breakdown is of of the 74 Acres between the residential and the [Music] school um from an acreage perspective that is a question I don't know the hand um Chad or Dennis you you guys may be more familiar with the acreage breakdowns between the area a and area B probably have it here if I can zoom in so the the the challenge is as you can imagine there's quite a bit of Topo and there's some water and things of that nature on there we're actually at CMS netting around 40 acres that we can we can actually build on when it's all said and done so that there's a lot of Anchorage that just is is in flood plane will be you know probably dedicated to Greenway and is really unbuildable um great so we'll call it for uh okay once again uh uh look forward to having a school there and um uh I think this is one that the community can feel good about thank you thank you Mr barari yeah thanks uh just a quick question for me we we had a a discussion amongst the intergovernmental Relations Committee today about consolidation opportunities um and uh the complexity of between all the bodies particularly municip level I'm just curious what the relation of this and what we're seeing is um to the the school bond packages that we've seen in the past in the overall Schoolboard strategy thanks council member Mardi for that uh question and so uh exactly these these schools that are represented in both of these petitions tonight were overwhelmingly approved by the voters in 2017 as part of the bond referendum and we promised the voters that we were going to deliver the elementary school in 2023 and the high school in 2024 which means in essence both of these projects have to start in March or April of this year in order to deliver on time because you know the opening of school happens one day a year and if you've missed them by a day you've missed it for that entire calendar year so time is definitely of the essence here but um you know it does tie directly to our strategy you know council member rrig mentioned you know that he had uh he had interest in this site but I actually approached the dicese about this thing back in 2008 because we knew that this was a great location for High School we have to solve for Myers Park South meinberg and arer cal high schools which are the three largest high schools by student population in the state of North Carolina nobody else is close and so um this is this is badly needed part of our strategy going forward your point we've shared some of this with M and some of the other um entities planning commission you know this may be the last sort of Comprehensive High School that that we ever build in Charlotte or or meinberg County because of the cost and the availability of real estate even even with this we're building our first four classroom High School uh Wing So four-story classroom Wing at a high school so I mean we we've had to do a lot of things to to Really compress the site compress the school footprint in order to even be a to build on this and and manage all the requirements that we have from msta for you know the things we want to do with tree save the stuff we have to do with post construction uh ordinances all all of those sort of regulatory things plus deliver a full Comprehensive High School experience with competition Athletics and all those other sorts of things so this one may may be it for this sort of iteration of high school but we're very very glad that we've been able to secure this site and uh really having the opportunity to work with Woodfield here and at the elementary school in the next petition and tie these things together so that we can accomplish these projects for our students that that's really helpful the timing point is well noted and it just uh shows the broader context like in our committee discussion today where um there's so many critical touch points between um the three major Municipal bodies that operate here we see a lot and have challenges still on you know when we're rezoning normal situations and what that does to the capacity of the school systems that are there but it's also important to remember that um that that that funnel flows the other way as well where when Bond dollars are approved to move forward with severe um um most crisis level capacity problems we have we we are on the other side of that equation as well with a thoughtful rezoning so that's helpful and I appreciate it thank you Mr fips yeah I noticed that uh the the the height limitations for the buildings for both the school and the apartments uh uh uh Limits The Building height to 70 ft so uh so is the residential is going to be as tall as the school or what col it appears you're muted thank you Chad I was just trying to defer that uh question to you anyway um about the height relative to the school uh yes council member fips we we do not anticipate quite being as tall as as 70 feet uh I think originally when we submitted there was not a height limitation you we're asking for uh mud zoning staff came back and requested a height limitation and we implemented one this uh this product will be no more than five stories tall uh it actually sits kind of down below the high school it fronts you know Johnston Road which is a major thoroughfare it fronts Community House which has Commercial Hotel and whatnot but um uh you know currently obviously in the petition we we do have the same height limitation but are are not necessarily expecting to achieve full maximum height there thank you thank you I don't see any other hands raised and so if not then I'll take a motion to close the public hearing so moved have a second second um I'll be a yes um excuse me just a second okay I'm sorry M asira yes um Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr eglon yes Mr Graham yes Miss Johnson yes Newton yes okay thank you thank you very much uh the next item is item number 25 another resoning petition 2021 161 by Charlotte mberg Schools and Woodfield Development LLC approximately 35.87 Acres located along the South side of Ary Kell Road West of Wade arery Road and East of Marvin Road Again in district 7 Mr Driggs District it's currently zoned mixed use Innovative and the proposed zoning is mixed use development optional with five-year vested rights mud o staff does not recommend approval of this petition in its current form and it does have opposition so after Mr paton's presentation um we will go back to Mr Brown and Miss Lind and Mr Laria and Mr Haggler and then we do have four individuals speaking against the P petition five I'm sorry okay so go go ahead Mr Pon all right thank you 2021 161 that's just under 36 Acres uh on R Kell Road at Bo Riley and Wade arery Road current zoning as mentioned is MX2 proposed zoning is mudo with fiveyear vested rights the South District plan from 1993 does recommend residential units up to six dwelling units per acre that was amended by the previous resoning petition which was 2017 171 Proposal with this petition is for up to 103,000 square ft for an elementary school with a Max height of 40 ft uh this is also divided into two areas as the previous one so area a would be the school area B proposes up to 380 multif family units as well as 50 single family attached units that's about 430 total units and approximate 20 Dua proposes a Max height uh the multif family buildings would be 48 ft along all Street frontages and then the interior buildings to the site uh would to would uh be proposed for a Max height of 55 ft uh limits on height for the town homes along the back end of the project where the single family uh exists would be 40 ft uh also we have a 27t setback along Bo rilly Road at 26t setback along internal private streets uh as and a 40ft along weight arery also there be variable setbacks along rjel Road uh that could get up to 84 ft also have architectural standards proposed for the multif family buildings which relate to massing and height as well as placement and Frontage uh blank wall Provisions roof form and articulation there's also architectural standards for the town homes related to raise entrances pitch roofs and garage doors uh 9,000 square ft would be provided for urban open space that would be primarily in area B and at least 10% of the multif family units would be income restricted at 80% Ami uh General details for the site be a Class C buffer along the southern property line that would be between area B uh and area a and the existing single family residential uh also request optional Provisions to allow parking between the buildings and streets and commits to parking lot screening and Landscaping within the setbacks uh and also dedicates and conveys a Greenway and storm water easement uh to be a minimum of 100 feet adjacent to Six Mile tributary along the western property line you can see that on the Le hand side of the project uh highlighted in green uh this is another one that uh cedat has some uh just a quick slide to share on Transportation Improvement so I'll turn it over to Brandon with C dot thanks Dave uh so as with the previous petition uh the petitioner was required to do a traffic study with this project uh nine intersections were studied in the area um we really wanted to make an effort um to get it correct with the requirements and transportation improvements that we were asking for here so cot in conjunction with ncdot staff as well as a third party consultant that cot hired reviewed and approved the ti um we verbally approved all the commitments for the project last week and ver um formally approved them this morning um so the improvements out of the nine intersections that were studied eight will require Transportation improvements uh some of those highlights include a new traffic signal at the existing Bo Riley and arrey Kell intersection that adds the fourth leg across from the high school um doing some signal modifications to the Marvin Road and arre K Road intersection as well as adding a turn lane a dedicated right turn lane um three new internal intersections along Bo Riley with the school and the residential subdivision will require turn Lanes uh we're going to add some additional turn Lanes at the intersection of Wade arery and arery Kell and then also the petitioner has committed above the traffic to also install pedestrian hybrid Beacon signalized pedestrian Crossing at the Woodland watch Court Wade arery Road intersection thank you thank you so U staff does as mentioned does not recommend approval of the petition in its current form we do have some uh concerns with the density being inconsistent for the residential portion of the development uh as mentioned it was inconsistent with that residential or excuse me that District plan recommendation for residential up to six Dua that was amended by the previous resoning in 2017 so again staff would like to uh continue discussions about how to address that residential density concern uh so with that I will turn it over to the petitioner in the community and we'll be happy to take any questions following their presentations good evening uh mayor protim council members again Colin Brown uh on behalf of the petitioner just start my timer since I don't have the handy one on the on the tus um again as as Dave has mentioned it's kind of part two um where we have a situation here this is interesting because the property owner in this case is CMS um so it's not the dases but CMS owns this some of you may recall um we actually took this property uh through resoning maybe five years ago um for a developer that plan to do town homes on the site that resoning was approved however um as then has mentioned it is very difficult to find significant uh acreage to accommodate schools so CMS ended up purchasing this property and Dennis can expand on this I think the goal at the time was for this to be a middle school however it's too close to another middle school so and Benn if you have questions can expand on this um so now CMS is settled on an elementary school for a portion of the site well the acreage is is large enough um that an elementary school does not take the entirety of the site so this was an opportunity uh for CMS and Woodfield to work together and these two petitions are very much joined so there is a real reason that CMS and Woodfield are working together on both of these uh so again I have Chad and Dennis on if you have questions for them um on this we had a we just had a great hearing on the dases site um where staff is on board neighbors are on board as you've heard uh this one has some challenges uh we're still working with staff they are not um supporting in the current form I'm optimistic that we'll get there um there is some uh Community feedback um uh council member Driggs has done a good job again of connecting us with the community we have had some on-sight meetings um and there is I'll acknowledge great consternation uh from from his constituents in the area I believe that most of that comes from traffic impact so we spent a lot of time uh Brandon has just gone through what was in the traffic study I think the good news is there are some improvements uh on the way probably needed already but uh at a high level this petition accommodates several things uh we have a new elementary school which is very much needed to relieve the severe overcrowding I don't think there's a lot of push back on the school even though school's actually the big traffic generator I think the community is comfortable with that um what we're excited about and you know you guys have touched on these things a couple times tonight is really integrating um multif Family residential into this site and you know Dave I think has pointed out and we had this conversation with staff staff says hey you're just you've got this site in a sea of single family uh there's nothing else around it which to me I think means this is a great opportunity uh we're placing these units there's there's nothing like this in the area where someone can have an affordable place to live and we're placing this in walking distance to three schools we are directly across the street from Archer Kel High School arguably the best public school in the state uh this new elementary school we will be directly connected to uh walking distance there and and this is also walking distance to Community House middle school so we are creating more dents and this is not the super high density that we talked about earlier tonight uh but kind of medium density multif family housing walking distance to the schools for students as well as employees uh cmf M roughly estimates that between those three schools there are between 400 and 500 employment opportunities so not just families that can live there and have access to these Great Schools but also our Educators working in the schools this is an opportunity for them uh because as our next bullet point here um this is creating a new housing option in a highly amenitized area has a lot of things it want including these Great Schools but it's basically exclusively a single family area and that that's the contradiction I know the feedback we're getting is oh this doesn't belong here because it's entirely single family uh however there is no opportunity for many of these Educators to live in the area they cannot afford to live here um so we think the multif family that we're bringing even the market rate creates a for rent option where people walk in addition this petition includes a commitment for affordable units uh 10% of units uh at 80% of Ami for 15 years and I know sometimes we kind of roll our eyes and say oh 80% of Ami that's nothing and in some of the areas that's not a big deal but in the Valentine area 80% is significantly less than market so we think that's a real opportunity uh our current plan is for 430 units which we're going to have some discussion about the unit count but 10% of that is 43 units that is a real number uh I wish Pam widman was still around to tell us what it would cost for the city to build 43 units um in this area of South Charlotte with great access so I think that is a a real opportunity we know we acknowledge we've got the feedback from The Neighbors about the traffic impacts mostly due to the schools uh we're working on that um we we have gone through the traffic study there are improvements uh being made so I hope that we're making some Headway on that and again folks are coming to the schools this is what we keep talking about and I know I know everyone does not embrace the 2040 plan so I won't delve into that but there are a couple matrics that I really appreciated so again here here's the aerial view it is true that this is mostly single family you do have a little industrial Zoning for storage use here uh but there are activity centers in you know within a mile and a half proximity it is drivable not walkable but this would be walkable to these three great public schools of the 2040 plan I actually found this very interesting so this is just some of the good information that was done in putting the 2040 plan together this map that I'm showing you here where you see the darker colors this is um the equity metric and this shows access to essential amenities goods and services these are areas in the city where it's easy to access Child Care early childhood education parks in open space Community facilities fresh food healthc care pharmacies financial services and access to Internet service the darker the better look at the Circle this is where we are you see that dark color that means that this is an area of the city where there is great access to essential amenities goods and services which is no surprise what is interesting is when you contrast that with the next slide this is showing access to Housing Opportunity so this is a map of showing where there is access to housing unit diversity housing cost housing size subsidized housing this area is gray because is in the very lowest area for Housing Opportunity what I think is the most interesting is typically there's a pretty decent correlation between the dark colors and Housing Opportunity those are happening in areas of the city where we have more density so this is a pretty interesting opportunity here and all the things that we're talking about of the infrastructure may maybe not road infrastructure but kind of the public service infrastructure in place the parks are in place these great schools are in place what we don't have is housing options and that's why I'm arguing to you that this is the right place for us to provide some Diversified housing stock um as we're evaluating this through the 2040 lens uh staff is acknowledging we're getting a check for the 10-minute neighborhoods uh we're not getting a check for neighborhood diversity and inclusion which is a little puzzling to me um I guess the standard here does say you get credit for Middle density housing duplexes triplexes we're not getting credit for but I I think as we've shown in staff say this is an area where it is really exclusively single family and we're bringing something new we get the check mark on the next housing access to all because we've got a commitment to Affordable units interested in exploring further certainly we're not by transit uh but we are working there is some trail system nearby by by the creek that we're working on to install some Trails here there's good parks nearby so we'd like to explore that a little further but certainly we think this is an opportunity in an area with very low housing diversity uh and we'll we'll continue working so here's the site plan you can see the elementary school here to the left with its extensive queuing to get those those cars out of the street so they're not queuing that's why that has to be there we've tried to be pretty sensitive um with the multif family so what Woodfield has done they've got their multif family apartment units they've got those pressed up to arrey Kell and then in order to transition to the neighborhood to the rear we have town home style units so we we kind of in in working with staff and the community understood that they maybe the appropriate transition was not to have Apartments the entire way so we do have the lower density lower height units they transitioning uh you'll hear in a little bit um some feedback from some neighbors down here on sulky plow this is an issue we're open to exploring uh I certainly understand their concerns about having suddenly School traffic coming through uh this neighborhood here we're open to continue discussions with them uh and so again here is the view of the site uh as we're talking about opportunities it's kind of interesting to hear Dennis say hey there's just not more opportunities for schools there's really not many more uh opportunities for new residential development in the area and I know you know we're saying okay if this is not appropriate for multif family I don't know that there's any other opportunities in the area for multif family so I think we've got a unique opportunity to to add some here um and I think it's the right place we're really talking to a staff I think the question is how many homes um that that that is staff's concern they have said in the the free 2040 plan the gdps support up to 17 dwelling units per acre so that you know currently we're at 430 on 21 Acres so we're currently at about 1982 gdps supporting 17 would be 368 we we cannot close that Gap uh and provide the affordable affordability uh we're open to conversations we'd like to get there and close the gap as much as possible possible but I don't want you to think we're I don't think we're miles apart our current density is under 20 GDP supports 17 we're hopeful we can get there that's time that's time thank you okay thank you very much um we have five speakers speaking in opposition um Mr Robert Marshall Miss Don Anderson Mr David Aila Mr Ronald macaroni and Miss Barb Christie and just so you all know the five of you together have a total of 10 minutes so you might want to just bear that in mind if you haven't coordinated so who do we have first at the podium um my name is Robert Marshall thank you go ahead Mr Marshall um thank you for the time to speak today my property is directly adjacent to this new proposed development within Audrey commin on suy plow road so I'm directly impacted by this resoning I'm speaking against it and would ask the city council and the city staff to reconsider several key components the first of which is the connection into suy plow Road via choke Street this connection offers no value to either neighborhood eliminating several trees of significant size would be better served as a pedestrian multi-use path in public meetings the petitioner has expressed desire not to make the street connection my neighbors are very much against making this veh vehicular connection due to the likelihood of it being used as a cut through to the school due the significant traffic impacts of this project secondly I would like the city council to reconsider both the height and density of the proposed apartment complex this apartment complex is built on two laid roads unlike others in the area which are located on four lane roads Audrey Kell's road is a state road and is not planned for expansion until the 2030s this small area becomes a parking lot five times a day when Audrey Kell School Community House enter and leave their school days along with normal normal evening rush hour traffic by adding two additional gridlock windows from the elementary school and 450 housing units you'll be putting further strain on our area the 90 page traffic study shows on page 17 a current delay of three minutes at the intersection of Wade Audrey and Audrey Kell on page 63 if this site plan is built as requested there would be delays of between 46 and 83 minutes this tra this traffic study was only obtained over the weekend in spite of its completion in November I would encourage city council to follow the recommendation of City staff reduce the number of housing units to the recommended land use reduce the height of the buildings from forest roids to three to reflect local Heights and to require additional improvements to be made to the entries of the area schools to reduce the impact on traffic I'm going to hand it over to Don Anderson thank you Mr Marshall and welcome Miss Anderson hi I currently also live in the Audrey Commons community and am against this resoning petition and would ask city council and City staff to re-evaluate several important components of this development first is the connection of the uh choke Street at sulki plow Road the choke the choke Street adds no benefit to Audrey Commons or the CMS Woodfield development our community in Audrey Commons is very unique our homes are very close to the street our roads are narrow and so normal vehicular sounds are much louder D due to the homes acting like an acoustic wall secondly uh my request is that at the end of silky plow road that we add again remove the choke Road and add a pedestrian multi-use path and maintaining the mature tree canopy at the end of sukki plow most importantly is the density the density and the height of the Woodfield residential development is vastly inconsistent and exceeds the current land use the CMS wood field development as per the current residential portion of the plant is not compatible and is extremely out of character with the surrounding land uses so request with this is please reduce the residential unit count add additional options but this is not acceptable for this area um unfortunately I have not had a chance to read the traffic study the 81 page traffic study came to me Saturday um but again it looks like based upon what I've seen that with all the three scenarios the Los the level of service of that area with all with the traffic study it shows an F rating and F is is being the worst so I please I I with I please um request that Charlotte city leaders let's make Charlotte a better place to live for our generation and future and let's really think about you know what we build before we build it because if you could look at this this diagram um of this community it it clearly is is just not with our surrounding area thank you thank you Anderson um Mr Aila is Mr Aila online and if so can we please mute him unmute him yes he's online okay can you hear me now yeah okay great thank you very much for the time I'll try to be quick and get to the point so everyone can uh get their voice in um I'm against this also and the two reasons you've already heard uh traffic and density and it's really a density in the sense of adding population um Audrey Kell Road this was mentioned earlier currently cannot handle the volume there's a major problem now so adding a few traffic lanes and cut offs and traffic lights are not going to solve the problem of that volume it's a volume problem you're putting too much in a brown paper bag um so really the density this is related to the density issue so when we add these additional Homes and Apartments which is fine um you're just compounding the volume problem so I do request the city council relook at the traffic issue relook at the density to make it a balanced approach um to do what we really need to do here to make this winnable for everyone I understand the need for the elementary school and how it ties to the high school but currently is this proposed is written it really is not acceptable and I should also mention I am also the Audrey HOA current president um I am speaking with my personal views but in talking to many of our neighbors um they also concur with what I expressed today encouraging me to come tonight and talk I'll turn it over to someone else to give everyone an opportunity thank you thank you Mr Aila uh is Mr macaroni yes ma'am on let's see he's in person in person coming to the microphone uh thank you for this opportunity to speak my name is Ron macaroni uh I live in the alri community as well which is about an eighth of a mile south on Marvin Road uh from the proposed site uh while I understand the need for additional schools for the area to help relieve some of the over crowdedness and for the need for housing access for all I'm speaking also in opposition primarily for two reasons number one as you already heard the impact on traffic on Audrey Kell Road and secondly uh the lack of what appears to be a lack of green open or recreational space for the development portion of it not so much the School portion of it audel road is a major East West Corridor between 521 Ray Road and Providence Road along alal Road are a number of uh home individual homes uh developments uh as well as several commercial properties which include stores restaurants uh personal and medical services and Banks uh a number of schools uh Elon Park Audrey Kell High School Community House middle school and Polar Ridge and haulk Ridge schools uh and uh at the end of Providence Road there is a major complex with uh multiple uh major uh multif family complexes excuse me as well as hotels a is also a major connector to roads going to U various offices in Valentine uh either through Community House Marvin or 521 or at the end of alal road as well uh thus often times um and particularly during rush hour and and on when schools are ling out alal road is very crowded and in in fact it will come to a stop most often because it is a two-lane road as we already heard uh for example the the light at Community House Road Which is closest to the site the light for the intersection of Community House Road and Audrey Kell traffic will backed up from Audrey Kell all the way to Road raay road which is over a mile or it'll back up for over a mile going going the other way excuse me it's kind of hard to speak with this Mas on uh and and um I am going to take it down if I can uh and and when it occurs restaurant residents in the area who are trying to get on AEL Road uh literally have to muscle their way out either on Wade ay Road or Community House Road uh by pulling into traffic that's already stopped uh regarding the traffic study where the improvements are supposedly going to be made to nine different intersections uh when traffic is already stopped on Road it's hard to imagine how putting additional turn Lanes or longer turn Lanes is going to help the movement of traffic uh along Audrey Kell Road um and and to the point at times Audrey Kell Road also for traffic attempting to enter Audrey Kell Road from Ray Road can't turn onto Audrey Kell Road because it's backed up so much as you can imagine this creates frustrations for the drivers in the area but more importantly it probably presents the uh risk of of traffic hazards and safety issues um and so the track the question basically becomes uh where are 3,300 more cars going to go on a road that is already stopped uh during the day again during rush hour and when school lets out uh and while the again the petitioners impact study says they will add turn Lanes um that's not going to help the problem that we now have uh with the stop of the traffic is that all okay thank you Mr macaron we do have one speaker left who has just under a minute left uh are you finished Mr mcon uh no I was going to try to make a couple more points one of the points I would like to make is I think you need to take a holistic view of the traffic problem on a Kell Road with that was the that was the 10 minute time sorry the time is up okay yeah uh okay but there are other there are other developments that are going to be adding more traute to Audrey Kell Road in addition to this one okay thank you Mr macaron and time is up is that what I'm hearing from that's correct Miss Kelly yes okay thank you um so with that we will go back to Mr Brown for two minute rebuttal yes I mean and quickly uh I think we're hearing the you know the issue is is traffic um and it's it's interesting that um the traffic at serm Focus itself on on the density of the multif family development and the challenge for us is most of the traffic is actually generated by the schools so significant you know reductions in unit count with the multif family doesn't necessarily solve a lot of problems uh and we do think it's important as we've talked about a lot now is to actually have uh residential where you can walk to the schools and not have to be in the car uh so I think that's important I do um to to the point on sulky plow I don't know if you have our presentation back up um we completely agree um with the adjacent Property Owners uh at suky plow uh we have been out there we have walked that site with them um and they do have kind of the neotraditional neighborhood here mostly with private streets it just so happens this one is public that is the uh barricade that runs into our site uh where um City you know the city is U basically requiring a vehicular connection uh we totally understand and the uh perspective of these the property owners in this location uh and we would be amenable to converting that to a multi-use trail and think that would be a real benefit uh we'll continue U working with planning staff and Department of transportations uh as we move forward and uh look forward to conversations with you all uh over the next month happy to take questions um Chad and Dennis are available as well thank you um thanks Mr Brown and I will just acknowledge Miss chrisy and and Mr Campbell who did not get to speak but were also signed up in opposition if you want to share any of your comments with council members or send it to the city clerk she will make sure that we all um see your comments um and with that I'm going to go ahead I have uh a few council members who do have questions so I'm going to start with Mr barari sorry that was old okay uh Mr fips no uh that's I'm sorry if I have my hands up okay Miss asir hey I do have questions thank you very so um one of the speakers raised a question about Open Space Mr Brown could you please address that yes yes one of the positives of kind of having this integrated development on both of the petitions you heard um is that the residents um of the multif family projects are able to um Avail themselves of the Open Spaces and the recreational opportunities on the school campuses um so here's the site here there is open space uh within the site but also I mean without having to cross a major Street at all have access um to the fields uh the sporting fields on site as well as the trails that will be installed in this area um so we think that's a positive we we view this very much as a as a unified development and this is a really unique opportunity where you have a private sector team uh working with CMS um to make sure these work together and so we think that's real positive uh that the open space of the school uh better open space than you'll see in any multif family uh development is available so Mr BR follow up on that um I know that some still work in progress uh connection to Greenway Greenways and other Trails uh what are you looking at well so the positive is uh we're working on some connections over here in the um uh in the wetlands in this area the other positive which I I do think everyone will appreciate is a new traffic signal at this location which will allow safe pedestrian Crossing to the archery K campus and all of its amenities as well as well as the uh the new pedestrian beacon on weade arery to facilitate that safe rout to those schools so we're we're definitely excited about that and we we work very closely at CMS with meber County Park and Recreation as you can imagine because um to Circle back to the conversation with Mr barari earlier um you know the board of education is the only one of the three major uh Powers if you will within the municip ipity who do not have taxing Authority so we're totally dependent on the large s of others and meinberg County being you know our our local funding partner for 100% of our capital and you know 35% or so of our operating budget it it uh behooves us to work with Park and wreck for a lot of different reasons but we do have the greenway uh connectivity back there that we've already sort of designed and to the extent possible we like it to uh to be a scenario where when you buy a school you get a park so we we really try and inte and plan joint use with meberg County Park and wreck as much as possible and make the schools available as an amenity to to all of the residents yeah I think the other I think that's all uh I don't have any questions in I'm sorry I guess I'm trying to get to my other questions answer uh sorry to cut you sorry to cut you off there uh my specific questions is around tree save and if you can show me on the site map here uh the tree save and the open space area and the trails that will be connected to and you don't have to have all answers right now if you don't have the uh design maps for it that could be for later but that's what I'm looking for um also I had we had met uh Mr Brown um on this couple of months ago uh for this specific resoning petition and I had expressed my concerns specifically around traffic and the quality of life and I um and I think from today's uh public hearing it's pretty clear that neighbors are concerned about traffic the quality of life and the congestion that this will bring to the to this uh to this neighborhood so if you could I I know you are still working through some of the traffic impact but I would be interested in how we can address those concerns Maybe by infrastructure improvements uh but that's what I'm interested in uh understanding um I appreciate the investment that you and the commitment that you all have made in affordable housing uh and addressing overcrowding in our schools but it should not come at the cost of traffic traffic congestion and the quality of life there are many residents that already complained about traffic that we have specifically in that uh neighborhood so I look forward to hearing some resolution on those items thank you thank you uh Mr Brown if you want to respond to any of those items uh but I know that's still work in progress U feel free to do so well and this is a it's very interesting and I'm learning uh working with CMS and Dennis may need to fill in here but um council member jir there there's a relationship between between CMS and for their projects essentially ncdot is responsible for doing Transportation improvements related to them uh so they are very involved in the traffic study uh the traffic study that's done ncdot made some recommendations seot has asked us to go above and beyond there were a couple that that Cott took out uh We've agreed to do the additional ones but this for me is my first experience uh Council MERS Merit where the uh the Department of Transportation is actually doing the improvements um so I have I guess a little more confidence than making sure that that's I'm not negotiating necessarily against them they're reviewing this and providing what they think is appropriate Dennis is that is that accurate that is there's actually uh you know some legislation that was passed here um I think with the intent to benefit Charters not necessarily uh public school districts but where Departments of Transportation are basically required to reimburse um for the cost of some of the improvements but we've all uh determined that a lot of the things that we're talking about here are in the best interests of the area the community and especially the students and the safe roots to school so we have actually committed to Colin's point to kind of going above and beyond the things that are actually required of us and we believe that we are we are being responsible in not just mitigating the impacts as defined by the traffic study that was as uh you heard reviewed by ncdc do and a third party consultant but but are in addition to and we are actually waving reimbursement that we are quite frankly entitled to in order to accomplish these projects um these these improvements as part of the project because we we we do believe that it's in the best interest of everybody to perform them and uh absent anything else I mean you CMS had to buy this entire development because that was the only way it was it was offered so you know at some point you know regardless CMS was going to build an elementary school across from marer K and the balance of this site was going to be made available for purchase by somebody um because we're primarily funded by property taxes and having things off the tax rols makes no sense there's this sort of narrative that CMS is making some money through this but what we're actually doing is we're saving the taxpayers of Charlotte meberg County a considerable amount of money because we do have the funds committed for for 100% of the acquisition the high school I just I just think there are some things that that are kind of floating out there that we that we need to address I think I don't think I asked that question did I did I mention anything about CMS making money I don't think I made that I I I don't think I made that clean no I I don't think you did and and I'm not trying to suggest you are I was just trying to tie things up to say that well I think we are going above and beyond here to address a lot of the a lot of the concerns relative to the traffic even more than things that were required okay um I would like to see the list of improvements that you are all making I'm I'm still working through that so I think we will need another meeting on how do we address the quality of life concerns that are very very valid here uh and I've gotten some feedback from Neighbors and uh members who live in that area so I'm interested in uh addressing how do we mitigate the traffic impact here thank you thank you missir U Mr Driggs and then Mr Winston uh thank you mayor cam so um I have to say upfront that I strongly agree with the staff and the residents on this issue uh and in fact when I first heard about this proposal I made it clear that I thought the density that was initially proposed 470 units was way out of proportion to uh the surrounding area and that has since been reduced to uh uh 43 430 from 470 um uh I I made my position clear on that and the petitioner I think decided to just kind of roll on and assume that uh the rest of council would disagree with me um you know I've done 1,200 I think something like that rezonings uh in my time on counil I think I have a good ide idea of what works where and uh I can tell you colleagues this is just not right um the uh I've often in my presentations to council I refer to my Hotspots for traffic and they are Providence Road arery Cal and Community House and that's exactly where we are here on the lad of those two uh you should also know that on that site right now are basically six single family homes so so Mr Brown pointed out that this was reson for 220 town homes in fact was the number uh those were going to be on the entire site and uh neighbors were okay with that you know it was a big change for them compared to having this essentially empty space but we were able to get that approved um and uh but now we're stepping up from there uh to uh to this school and these 430 units and uh the neighbors and I are being asked to believe that 3,370 additional trips per day can be absorbed on that very difficult Road uh by some uh modifications to intersections and uh I'm not a traffic engineer so I need to spend more time looking at that report if there's to uh to see how they think that can work but I have a lot of sympathy for skepticism on the part of residents nearby who have to deal with condition on R I've been there myself uh it takes ages to get through there rreal is a major connector it goes all the way out to wly and Ray farms uh in the East and um this is really just not a suitable Place uh the other one had similar density but the it was on two main thoroughfares and the uh it was offered by the school from Neighbors um these this development is completely out of character I don't think it is the intention of the 2040 plan to create clashes like this so I think reference to the 2040 plan is selective and misplaced um these units are not within walking distance of most of the amenities like you can't buy food on foot uh and there are a lot of things that you can't do on foot from this location so this is a kind of development that has its place and this is not the place so uh the question really is you know what what could work um and uh I think there needs to be more conversations with the staff and I hope maybe I'll be included this time but um we need to recompute here I don't think it's a question whether it's 430 or 390 uh I I think we're just off Target uh I'm guessing that that has to do with the fact that 40 acres in order to swap 40 acres over on uh en Haven uh for this particular site uh it was necessary to assume a whole lot of density to boost up the value of this location but that's not my concern I just tell you to improve diversity of housing in district 7 uh without creating a a clash like this and uh I hope that maybe we can reset and have some more constructive conversations like the ones we should have had I don't believe believe that staff planning staff wasn't consulted when this plan was devised either we were just presented with it the staff and I uh and U I think it's regrettable that CMS didn't see fit to talk to their sister government uh and about our issue of rezoning and appeared to think they could just roll right through us because they're going to say it's a school you need the schools we do need the schools uh the schools are important and I would be willing to bend over backwards uh to get this elementary school because of the need that we have in district 7 um but to assume that they can just go ahead and drop this in our lap in the name of the school um I I think is excessive this is something we should have talked about uh earlier and more meaningfully and now we're in a difficult position uh I think there's time pressure in terms of being able to move ahead with the schools I don't want to get in the way of the creation of these schools but um I really think that it would have made a lot more sense for us to look harder at this residential piece sooner um what I'm hoping after consultation with the staff is that if we can make significant changes to the residential portion of this uh and have them available for the zoning committee that we might still be able to vote on this petition but we're not close right now and I think in my mind that's the thing that we need to be clear about and colleagues I'm willing to spend more time with you to talk about the evolution of this whole deal um but uh uh I have one question I'm I'm wondering since we're being told about uh how this is a great uh justos of a school and this and these 430 units how many students are there going to be at that school well no boundaries have been drawn yet councilman DG so remains to be seen but nominally that's a 7 to 800 student school it's a 45 classroom K5 Elementary School school is what's planned there we'll know when the boundaries are actually drawn what the what the actual population will be that that has not happen yet and so how many elementary students are you expecting will be living in the 430 units we forecast and provided that information from our planning services to to uh the city as part of the the rezoning packet so that's that's sort of firewall I had nothing to do with their estimate they do they do project fewer students generally from Apartments than they do from single family homes and so it there's there's a factor that's applied based on the a sort of a student yield based on a housing typology um I agree with that that is how it works and uh I can tell you again from my experience I would not expect a lot of elementary school kids to live in uh multif family or town home type of environments and and therefore this case that we have the convenience of the J deposition uh of this housing type with the school is just I think an example uh let's just step back and think about this uh 220 Town Homes was the existing resoning and we are now talking about 430 residential units and an elementary school on the same land um so uh I I I think I think I'm making myself clear uh I'm not there and colleagues you can think about whether you feel differently or or want to proceed on this basis but I would hope that we can have very meaningful talks about changing this plan uh before it comes up for a vote thank you thank you Mr DRS Mr Winston yes uh thank you very much uh first I I would uh have to I do have to give uh some props to um uh to Colin Mr Brown I think thought that was a great use of um Equitable uh growth framework metrics um I thought it was was very applicable um I will say I do agree with um some of what um the residents were saying I don't believe for instance um improved turn Lanes um um will necessarily reduce the the traffic congestion um but um given to the points the many different points of of the um um uh uh comp 2040 plan and also some of the the the comments that Mr barari um made uh the type of traffic and congestion that is is is being generated in this and different parts of of of of town um um are are really more about the autoc Centric um um development um that that that we have had um over time um and and to solve for that um not necessar neily building this development is not necessarily going to help with that that being said um you know the the the biggest generator I do believe the biggest generator of traffic um in in this situation is in fact the schools um it's the carpool lanes right it is um the the the the drop off and pickup of of of students and and and that that is true in every part of town um public private um Catholic um and charter schools um but that is not something um that CMS can necessarily solve for by themselves you know um um this is something um that we are going to have to look at intergovernmental if we in fact as a community uh do want to solve uh for the congestion and and problems with commutes around schools and that type of infrastructure um I will say this this petition and the petition that was presented um uh previously I would like us to kind of step back we can often be pretty critical of one another excuse me let me just take a drink real quick we can be pretty critical of of one another but I feel like this is a place where we have to give uh CMS some props uh they they listen they have been listening uh to the larger Community conversation um and I I I'd like to hit uh two particular points in this let's think back uh to the bonds uh um um discussion of I think that was 2016 um and how that intersected uh with the larger uh Community conversation around affordable housing um in the beginning of our our real kind of equity work um we kind of identified even us as a city um that as as as dirt began you know continues to disappear um there are two entities uh General entities that that we need to be looking at uh to find places in Greens space um to put housing on um and that was CMS or or school um campuses as well as houses of worship um the second Point what I would like us to step back to let's think about a a very major rezoning um and development project in this part of town um let's think back to Valentine reimagine um where the chair of CMS was one of of of many of of the citizens who pleaded with us um to figure out how to count and account for um uh and how to figure out how to build um new schools in our plans as as we dealt um with development I'm glad um I I I it seems like the greater CMS was um listening so I I'd say let's step back and again from that intergovernmental lens um um let's figure out how we can um work with CMS uh to to make this project work uh to Mr Driggs Point um earlier though I would say to the petitioner um and I would say to the community um uh what I could say about Mr Driggs is he has already said how many um rezonings that he's done um but when he decides um uh to to to dig into this you better believe he's going to be um um on it um and and he's going to figure out a way um to to best um uh uh Advocate uh for for his constituents and and and and the interest of those constituents so I I hope um with all that said um we all figure out how to make this project work um uh because it is needed um uh it uh it it is it is innovative um obviously um it is disruptive um but also these are this in the previous petition this is something new right this is something new um so perhaps we don't have these Green Space um um um uh uh uh plots of land um in different parts of town um but if these models can work here um perhaps they can work in different parts of town uh so as CMS starts to think about future bonds and and future school um um um um um construction um whether it's I don't know looking at infield construction or looking at existing campuses um uh to to reconfigure uh those sites I feel like these two projects one the previous one that didn't have um um any uh uh uh any any kind of um um uh uh blowback from the community or staff and this one that does uh I think they are are are excellent models and excellent kind kind of bell weathers uh for the types of uh School development um and and development around schools for our community at large so with that I I Mr Driggs I I hope we can work together uh to figure out how to make make make this work thank you thank you Mr Winston I I great comments by all my colleagues um I too have a lot of concerns about the fact that arrey Kell Road is a state road we can't do anything about it Providence Road is a thorn in our side we can't do anything about and so but it is really Innovative um Mr lari I love that you're here at a council meeting because we're always saying ww cmsd and we don't always know so I love the thought that we can coordinate with CMS to be Innovative but this one needs a lot of work we do I think we're all very sensitive to to the density here in an area that really can't handle it very well so I do hope that you will all the petitioner um will all be supportive of the comments that our district represent represented um Mr DS has put forward and let's try to work to for a better product for everybody so thank you oh boy could I Mr Pips I'm sorry yeah I I don't know how well I mean looking at you know the 2040 plan I don't know how well they address something like this because this looks like a super a super institutional Campus of of multiple schools I mean you got the existing Audy K the new high school the new Elementary School the existing British International School each with their own athletic amenities and so compounding all of the other uh uh uh natural traffic that's going to come about as a result of the school infrastructure and the proposed uh residential density you're also going to have athletic activities in the mix in terms of drawing traffic to competing uh uh uh schools and such uh uh for competition purposes which I'm trying to figure out is there any kind of traffic impact study that exist that that could really uh uh uh uh make any appreciable difference to to what about to what about what's about to be you know proposed for this cumulative uh uh institutional Campus of several schools so um you know even with the high school alone looks like I mean I'm I'm counting at least five five or six athletic amenities there and uh let's not counting what's already on the ground around at AR K so so this is some super density uh to say the least so uh I would have to agree with Mr DS that uh I don't know how uh how how we can overcome something like this to that's going to satisfy uh uh the majority of people living in that area and be able to get around may may I respond to that real quickly just from the the standpoint that the traffic study doesn't really capture the future so let me just ask if he'll put it in the form of a question sure for you Mr fips go ahead yeah uh uh the traffic impact study you know I mean does it does it uh uh really address or consider the cumulative effect of not only the residential component but also the the the proposed School infrastructure ructure in addition to the activities that could be taking place on these campuses that would have a very a contributory effect on the traffic patterns uh when these are built out so thank you councilman M fs and so you know the the thing that the traffic study sort of a blunt force tool what it doesn't capture is what happens later so with these two rezonings happening getting the high school built will bleed you know well over a thousand students if not more from the arery Kell campus so we will relieve arrey Kell with the new high school which which in the earlier proposal is further up Johnston Road Community House that area so well north of here but the intent there is to relieve arrey Kell by a healthy contention of students and so when you've re removed those students from arery Kell that are currently coming there from other places that will have a salutary effect on the traffic impacting arrey Kell and then also today there are kids that are going through this area on their way to other schools in the area that now with a more compact attendance boundary because this school will be there you won't have the traffic from Yan Park and hawkridge and Polo Ridge that's running around arre Hill Road because we're going to be having a more compact attendance boundary that's going to be drawing kids right here and so the traffic study doesn't really show you what happens when the new high school is open or the other changes on the rest of the area when the elementary school is built and relieving the traffic that's currently moving through this area so it's it's hard to demonstrate that especially when we don't have the boundaries drawn but what we know is if we take 1500 kids out of arer Kel high school that's going to significantly reduce the traffic when we pull 7 800 kids out of Elon Park uh H Polo Ridge and Hawk Ridge and tighten that attendance boundary that's going to reduce the number of trips through this area the traffic impact study just doesn't capture it that way it's not that it's not that finely grained and it doesn't do forecasting like that it simply says this is what's on this is what happens today if you build this thing this is what happens after you build it so it didn't take into account all of those scenaries but we know as a result of having both of these schools open it's going to improve the traffic in both areas ultimately I appreciate your explanation thank you thank you I think that's it then for um I had one quick one oh Mr marari go ahead thanks M Bam um I I was just gonna quickly say that this to me just there are those moments in particularly rezonings where it's Crystal Clear the challenges we Face are a result of being reactive versus proactive in scenario we experienced this all the time with Providence Road and Audrey Kell and you know the list goes on and on where we know we have significant problems that are pain points for our citizens every single day and when we fail to come up with strategic Solutions proactively in um in in the broader uh uh confines of of the discussion and we wait until rezonings occur obviously we all point to the resoning itself and it it becomes this you know that's the problem when in reality the problem is much greater than that and I think this also applies in in proactive intergovernmental uh relations approach which we we've talked about several times today in different settings where you know on one side of the coin when something like this happens we talk about congestion and and and issues of density on the other side you know we we we sit here and and we'll we'll complain just as long about 130 140% overc capacity in the schools that are there and what we're doing so I think the punchline is we can't have it both ways we can't talk about the need for more housing units and then when more units come at in a resoning time we sit there and say no no more our traffic can't handle it and the same with the schools we can't say we're we we're tired of overcrowding schools when ultimately opportunities come and then that's going to do bad things for traffic so it is really great um to see you here Dennis I think that is a great sign of we need more of I also know that there are school board members watching that are taking great interest in this appreciate particularly Sean strain who sent a couple notes and um and is very interested I think the takeaway for this has to be we need to get in lock step quickly because I agree with many of the things that um the district rep Mr drigg said but also agree with a lot of what Mr Winston said as well of we have to figure out a way to make this work the housing quantity and the the school capacity are two things that we don't get a lot of shots set especially when there's large Investments on other fronts but we're going to have to figure out how to do it within the confines of the reactive mode that unfortunately we're here in front of right now and the time constraints but we have to figure out a way to start getting ahead of these things and it has to be in proactive macro discussions and in between the three major Municipal bodies when it isn't some developer or a combination of public private partners that want to build something that solves one problem and maybe uh impacts in other ones so until we get ahead of that proactively we're always going to be in these almost you know somebody feels like they lose situations in rezoning and unfortunately that's where we are here so I do hope that we can figure out how to as quickly as possible come to this conclusion reactively now and then move forward to proactivity going forward thank you Mr Bari um I think that looks like all of our questions on this one so I will entertain a motion to close sorry move to close second move to close second all right um M I'm a yes Miss asira yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes uh Mr Driggs yes Mr Egleston yes Mr Graham yes M John son yes and Mr Newton yes okay closes number 25 and we are on to number 26 it's ju uh just about 9 o' I'm going to get through this next one because we don't have any opposition to the remaining um items but I think we have about 12 left so let's get through this see how much time it takes and then we're going to kind of make a call on the remainders so the next item is item number 26 petition number 20 21100 by Donald M Edward it's approximately hold on just a second hey everybody if y'all could talk outside because we still have to listen to what they're saying so we can make sure we can follow the meeting thank you okay may protim everyone we're good okay uh agenda item 26 is petition number 2021 sorry 2021 100 by Donald Edward Donald M Edward approximately 13.37 Acres located at the Eastern intersection of East Field Road and Independence Hill Road north of Interstate 485 it's in the ET um the etj which is um County Commission district one uh commissioner Powell's district and closest to to city council District 4 Miss Johnson's District it's currently zoned R3 single family residential the proposed zoning is R12 multif family residential conditional staff recommends approval of this petition and after U Mr paton's presentation we will have two individuals speaking in favor who will have three minutes total um to voice their support for this petition go ahead Mr all right thank you 202- 100 it's approximately 13.3 Acres on Eastville Road uh just north of the i485 interstate uh currently zoned R3 proposed zoning is R12 multif family conditional uh Prosperity hu area plan from 2015 does call for residential up to 4 Dua this proposal is for up to 160 age restricted to 55 and older multif family dwelling units provides a minimum of those dwelling 10% excuse me of of those dwelling units will be uh maintained at monthly rents of 80% of Ami for a period of not less than 15 years provides Community amenities such as a pool dog park walking paths and a clubhouse as well as a 50-ft class SE buffer to AB budding residential uses also provides a minimum 50% open space which would include ponds trees save areas buffers and green space commits to an 8ft planning strip and 12ft multi-use path along both independent Hill Road and Eastville Road uh limits Building height to 45 ft and provides left and right turn Lanes at the site driveway on Eastville Road as well as some AR tal standards related to exterior building materials uh building orientation to streets blank walls and roof pitches as mentioned staff does recommend approval this petition there are no outstanding issues uh it's consistent with the residential recommendation but inconsistent with the residential uh Dua at at 4 again this comes in at just under 12 but it is for 160 age restricted 55 and older uh use residential units uh we feel that the petition would increase housing types and varieties uh and also it it allows some transition from that intersection of Independence and Eastville road to some other attached single family products that range up to 60 UA uh so again staff does recommend approval and we'll be happy to take any questions you may have following the petitioner's presentation thank you thank you we have Mr Donald Edward and Mr Mark tan speaking both thank you yeah so I'm Mark tan architect up in New York uh my partner is Donal Edward also a New York architect but lives in Charlotte I think for like the last 20 years now so uh so this was a parel of land that is on Eastfield Road it has uh great access off the 45 Statesville uh I think Old State till Road there has uh neighbor shopping um grocery shopping Publix and uh Walmart that's very close by Walmart uh shopping uh grocery shopping store uh but you know this is uh Eastfield senior housing it's all going to be active over 55 we're going to restrict the zoning to that that was uh worked out with the planning of the zoning staff uh we worked hard to make sure we had this blended with the community we looked at different other zoning opportunities on this site um this one stood out as a winner and um we're glad to be presenting this tonight as um you know something different than I think that's what what has been presented which is mostly market rate uh this is supposed to be affordable uh active or 55 community U with 10% of it being a um uh income restricted um uh that will attach to the zoning two so uh we can go to slide number two I think it just shows an aerial shot there on slide number two we have everybody there moving the slides there we go it just shows that what we have available to uh near nearby the site you know I I've heard schools and things like that um on here tonight and you know obviously actor 55 we're not using the school districts we're not using any of those amenities um so this also has a reduced amount of traffic being seniors over 55 there aren't as many trips uh you can go to the next slide uh this shows the proposed site plan we have a lot of many we have an um uh exterior perimeter walking path around the whole site you know being the octob 55 to keep people in shape keep them active we have a tennis court here a basketball court um we have some ponds there along with a pool Clubhouse uh theater rooms all the amities you would expect at U at a resort type of community uh again we're trying to build this as an affordable this this uh property uh fit that budget and fit everything uh that we needed to make that happen here uh all the buildings are three to four stories I think the four stories are along the 485 uh thank you very much U that's the architectural Cur on the outside again both Don and I are both Architects uh licensed back in New York and Don's been living down in Charlotte but uh this is proposed for the exterior most of it stone or vinyl siding on the outside but just a nice mix again showing the your drop off zones porer areas and you can move to the next slide I think that's just an aerial view kind of looking at the 485 we really don't have any neighbors opposing this uh we have a a nice woman living next door on the other side of the pond here uh she was very supportive of the project and uh she's our neighbor on the other side of pond there but um that was our only neighbor that we actually talked to and and uh she was very supportive of the project so uh you can move on to the next one that's time that's time thank you okay all right thank you thank you uh do we have any questions from Council I'll just say um Mark the over 55 crowd likes pickle balls so you might want to think about that in addition to the tennis so yeah I think we have it actually in there somewhere yeah thank you no I think it looks like a good younger people like pickle ball to Mayor Pro I I'm just saying just saying thank you Mir and the members thank you very much thank you you do we have any other questions from Council if not can I have a motion to close the public hearing move second okay um I'm a yes missa yes uh Mr fips yes Mr Newton yes yes all you were the second that's why yes Mr Winston yes yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs uh Mr Driggs there Mr eglon yes Mr Graham Miss Johnson yes okay thank you thank you very much yeah thank you m thank you members thank you we move on to let's see petition number 27 has been deferred so we move on to 28 which is uh petition 221 152 by RI Charlotte property LP approximately 2.49 Acres located on the west side of North Trion Street South of West WT Harris Boulevard and north of McCulla Drive in District Four Miss Johnson's District it's currently zon mixed use development District optional and the proposed zoning is mixed use development optional with the site plan Amendment the staff recommends approval of this petition um and it does not have any opposition so after Mr paton's presentation we'll have two speakers speaking in favor Mr Ryan Montgomery and Mr Shawn Mayo uh thank you 2021 152 about two and a half acres on North Trion Street uh the current zoning is mudo the proposed zoning is mentioned as MTO with the site plan Amendment the uh University City area plan for 2015 recommends a mix of office and Retail uses for the site uh the proposal is to take the existing motto zoning and do an amendment to allow some additional uses outside the existing hotel that would include things like dormitories for students commercial schools schools providing adult training uh for the staff of hospitals dwellings detach duplex Triplex and quadplex as well as attached multif family and planned multif family development essentially allow for for the hotel to transition to uh additional residential uses uh there are notes in there that state when what no no multiple uses can exist at one time so once that hotel transitions to let's say a a a multif family project the hotel would cease operation and we'd convert fully to a multif family project so we wouldn't have you know two primary uses going on at the same time so just wanted to make that clarification uh does limit number of buildings to seven with a Max height of 34 ft uh also notes the public roadway improvements will be subject to the standards and criteria of c. ncdot uh there are some optional Provisions which would allow access to the site adjacent right to access to site adjacent rights of way streets and arterials no change to the access as shown is proposed property will need to opt out of loading space requirements uh request not to provide long-term bicycle parking and opt out of loading and delivery Zone as well as signage provisions of MTO uh site has an existing ground sign that does not meet the 5 foot height requirements so they' need an optional provision for for that item uh staff does recommend approval of this petition there are no outstanding issues it's inconsistent with the recommendation for office retail uses uh that was amended by resoning petition 2017 196 but again staff feels that the transition of this existing Hotel into some more uh stable residential uses or long-term residential uses uh makes some sense for this area and and do support the petition we'll be happy to take any questions following uh petitioner present thank you thank you uh we have Mr Montgomery virtually is that right are you online Mr Montgomery if so can we go ahead and unmute him Holly I believe that Ryan um in the attendees is Mr Mont is Mr Montgomery can you move him to panelist ma'am are you Ryan Montgomery yes ma'am I am okay you can begin yeah I'm sorry go ahead I'm sorry you can begin okay um thank you uh Madame May protim and council members I appreciate you um giving your time I will definitely keep things very quick U as I know it's getting late in the evening um yeah the major goal here is just basically to allow to add the additional uses from the MTO that we went through the resoning process uh back in 2017 um the existing building uh would stay as is uh most of the this is an extended state facility um the existing hotels have they're full of the kitchen uh restroom and and basically like a small apartment where the existing people that are staying in the hotel right now are you're usually looking for more of a long-term stay um we don't really anticipate be any noticeable transition around the area You' still have basically the same um you know traffic and and fluctuation there um it just be basically more of a a long-term tenants as opposed to somebody staying you know less permanent kinding to work for a couple of months you they would be there for you know a year or so and um um an opportunity to take the existing building and and and add affordable multif family um housing to the area obviously it's I think being close to the university um and then being close to the the Maka on the linkx line it's very attractive and uh for you know younger folks or or or you know looking for something more moderately priced um and um I think that's really about it that's just kind of what we're looking to do is trans as some of these older um flagged hotels like uh residents in and um there's a Homewood Suites uh by Hilton just down the on the other side of Tron a little bit farther south that has has done this recently and moved into a multif family unit um and that's essentially what we're we're asking to do is just basically move it in from a hotel stop the hotel portion and move it into an apartment complex okay and uh thank you Mr Montgomery Mr Mayo do you have any additional comments is he there in person okay um thank you very much council do you have any questions I'm sorry Mr Mayo is online oh I'm sorry um Mr Mayo do you have any additional comments Holly can you unmute Mr Mayo thank you Mr Mayo you unmuted sorry yeah no additional comments okay great how about from Council Members Johnson Miss Johnson and the Mr fips thank you I just wanted to hear a lot more about the project project that you can certainly meet offline but I just wanted to clarify a couple things that that you said did you say this would be affordable housing or it it's you you basically yes counil Johnson it's going to be essentially an apartment but you've got you you're going to have the the apartment the hotel itself transforms into basically the apartment unit so you're going to have a lot of like studio type options for for folks uh that you know may not be looking for larger a larger unit um something that you know this just a you know a I know it's been discussed like people are looking for you know maybe hey I'm just they you know I'm looking for a place for myself in a smaller type studio um option for for folks to have if that makes sense if I can clarify that way it well it does is this permanent permanent housing or just some uh longer stay as of as of right now it would be like it's a as a residence in by Marriott it's folks that would be that are would be if I'm traveling to work in Charlotte right now I need somewhere to stay for several months you know three four five months I want a I want a kitchen I want more of an apartment feel that's where that's where the this brand exists from to from the get-go and what it was designed to do um so basically what you're doing is instead of just having it flagged by Marriott you're turning into an apartment and leasing these units out apartment whether you know as opposed to renting them on a on a nightly or monthly basis or you know for six nights day seven nights day a month however long people are needed to be there it just basically comes an apartment that you're renting like as a normal apartment okay yeah we're all familiar with residents in that how they're set up but I just on what these are going to be are these permanent permanent housing will they have like will they have onee leases yes ma'am that's correct it' be it'd be no different than an apartment complex you're correct okay and then well there there be some this says minor repairs and alterations may occur subject to the resoning ordinance are you looking at keeping them the same and it just we may need to meet offline I feel like I'm not yes ma'am it it it would be essentially the exact same building just basically the the use of the tenant from a temporary hotel basis to a permanent apartment basis uh and like I said there's the one there's the home two Suites or the I'm sorry the home with Suites across the highway across Tron and they did the exact same thing where they just came in and they just changed it into an apartment use and this is happening um all over the country with a lot of these older you know residence ends and stuff where they're basically the the lifespan for hotel has kind of gone away but they make perfect apartments and so basically we're just transitioning to shut the flag off and turn into and run it as an apartment complex okay I look forward to meeting yeah we just approved some I think last month or yeah uh maybe the month before behind the Macaroni Grill off WT Harris on that shift I just feel like um there I want there's more to this complex that I that I want to learn about yes ma'am I'm happy to answer any questions you you bet absolutely it's a it's a it's a new thing that uh yeah I guess it's kind of just it's a I think it's a great way for some of these older properties to continue to have a good use and without really having to disturb you know the natural surroundings that they're already in so okay thank you yes ma'am absolutely thank you thank you uh Mr fips thanks M Johnson uh thank you may protim um I used to stay at this residence in when I used to come down from Richmond to Charlotte in my treasury days yes sir but um I'm I'm curious as to in as much as this area is located in a Transit Corridor we're trying to uh make this area more pedestrian and bike friendly I'm I'm I'm curious as to why you would request to not provide long-term bicycle parking that that was actually part of the original um request back in uh the 2017 which was basically the hotel was no longer in compliance where we were uh and I believe you were the councilman in in in the area at the time when we went through that sir and it it basically the way we weren't going to do any actual changes to the building so we had some some Provisions that that weren't part of that the the um Transit oriented District that would meet but we needed to get the property back into compliance and so as part of the original we did the mud o back then that was one of the few exceptions that we had asked so they were they're already included in that that so it's basically we already have the motto we're just wanting to keep that MTO but allow the use to transfer to an apartment complex yeah seems like you know it's counter sort of counterintuitive uh to not you know to to be in a position where you want to encourage that and uh have this particular provision that would preclude bike parking so that's why I was curious about yes sir I I I I completely understand and and there was the um the imminent domain also when the Road expansion was going down Tri on and so some of the property area was lost during that and so there we lost some of the available space to to do a few of those changes that I believe it's where that's stemming from because we had to redo the drives basically to the allow and we lost a lot of our Frontage area when that expansion happened for cats I remember that thank you very much you been absolutely thank you sir thank you if that's everybody's questions which it looks like um we'll go ahead and I'll take a motion to close the public heting so move I'll be a second okay um I'm a yes Miss asra yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs Mr eglon yes Mr Graham um Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes okay item number 29 is resoning petition number 21 2021 156 by elite team reality and Property Management Inc approximately two acres located at the Northeast intersection of Wellingford Street and Hershey Street East of Wester Creek Road Council District 4 Miss Johnson's District current zoning is R4 single family residential proposed zoning is urban residential condition staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues and Technical revisions related to site and building design and transportation after Mr paton's presentation we do have um five people signed up to speak in support um so you will have three minutes collectively thank you all right thank you 2021 156 as mentioned two acres on Wellingford Street uh uh just east of West Sugar Creek Road uh the existing zoning is R4 proposed zoning is ur2 conditional and the adopted future land use uh recommends residential up to 4 Dua that's from the Northeast District plan due to the age we do run the GDP General development policies and that does support uh density up to 12 units per acre which uh would support the requested density of this petition uh the proposal is for up to 20 single family attached town home dwellings that comes in at 10 units per acre uh limits Building height to 40 ft and access would be provide or be provided via private Street off of Hershey Street uh commits to a minimum of four visitor parking spaces uh four units per building when fronting a public Street as well as a construction of an 8ft planning strip and 6ft sidewalk along both Wellingford and Hershey uh does provide building design standards related to allowed uh exterior building materials uh pitched roofs usable Stoops blank walls and raised entrances also dedicates and conveys or provides a Greenway and storm water easement to meinberg County along the northern property line you can see that highlighted with that green box Greenway and storm water easement uh and does provide an 8ft planning strip along the Eastern property line planted with evergreen trees uh which would be measured at 10 ft on Center it also limits height of detached lighting to 21 ft as mentioned staff does recommend approval of this petition we do have some outstanding issues to work through related to site and building design and Transportation uh it's inconsistent with the adopted District plan but it is consistent with the general development policies and again staff does recommend approval we'll be happy to take questions following the petitioner team's presentation thank you thank you Mr petton um Colin Brown Britney Linds Jeff orsborne Lyn Lesley and Brian Augustine are signed up to speak Mr Brown you want start us off yes mayor for Colin Brown on behalf of petitioner good overview by Dave um I don't have a whole lot to add to that um looking at the site there we did have attendees at our community meeting generally U good feedback from them I think it's looking consistent with where the 20 240 plan is going I think it's checking the box for neighborhood diversity and inclusion uh site plan you see here uh Dave covered pretty well uh again good feedback for the Neighbors we've got one issue U we're going to work through with planning staff there had been a request I think from staff um and I expect that we'll be able to work through these but I will just point out one of the things they ask for is if we can match some of the residential setbacks uh the home nearest US is set so far back on its property and we have Wetlands behind us that we will not be able to match that um but I think we've we've designed a plan uh Jeff bsb's team uh that really takes into good consideration the surrounding properties uh what's going on at the rear of the site uh and will be a positive for the community happy to take any questions thank you and are you speaking on behalf of all of the other speakers BR I am they're here if their technical questions okay great uh Council have any questions I see Mr fips yes thank you uh mayor protim um Mr Brown as you know uh uh this particular area and location is located in uh one of our underserved communities and I do applaud the fact that uh goal 2 in our 2040 plan neighborhood diversity and in usion is uh appropriately marked what I'm kind of curious as to U I'm looking at goal number three uh uh uh I know this is a different housing type option that's badly needed in the neighborhood but I'm worried about the access uh uh uh um to different residents that might live in that area uh particularly in the hip Valley area can you can you uh comment on that I'm not sure if I'm exactly following um is a these would be market rate units that that is a question that that came up at the um at the community meeting uh that is something the um the attendees were pleased with that these would be market rate right I guess uh what I'm what I'm asking for though is I mean this Welling for is located in the heart of a community that's underserved and I was wondering how would this project help uh uh members of the community to be able to access this type housing oh well the um you know the feedback we got at the meeting there had been I guess the the primary concern Mr fips from the community was this was an area that had been impacted significantly by wetlands and flooding and so they did want to know and were pleased with seeing the design that protects that uh and we're pleased with this housing type um again you know we said these are not per se affordable units but this is this is a pretty large site that is is undeveloped they were happy to see that there would be residents here uh they were happy with the you know I think a apartment uh Community would not have been as well received so the housing type the fact that someone is investing and bringing new units here that are I'll say relatively affordable um we receive positive feedback on that and I'm sorry if I'm not answered maybe maybe I'm not I can appreciate your response but I can tell you that uh uh uh you can expect to hear from um members of the community with regard to this petition I don't I mean I think uh they had another completing the meeting tonight on it but uh I would think given the sensitivity of of housing prices and and uh options and and affordability in this community that uh it would be some interest uh in that direction I I'm happy to happy to follow up let's connect offline and and you kind of tell me I think that I think this is trying to strike the point of not gentrifying but also providing market rate um so I think this is going in that direction but happy to discuss thank you thank you do we have I don't see anybody else so with that I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing prot him my hand was that oh I'm sorry Miss Johnson go that's okay yeah I just I'd like to hear more about it also Colin if we could meet offline I kind of um just want to make sure I under um understand the the price point I I I I know what you're saying about um the residents not wanting low income however there this is a sensitive spot and very vulnerable to gentrification so we want to make sure that that current residents are able to afford you know what's build and and and how this is going to change the the character one of the things that that I promis the Hidden Valley area is no matter what district that it was in they would have a voice on Council so um I want to make sure we're all paying attention to and Mr fips that I want to make sure that they know and that the developers also know that um we still are will advocate for what's best for that community so I i' like to have a meeting about this um petition also and learn about it happy to coordinate well and so I'll coordinate with both of you I think the answers are going to be good so we we'll follow up thank you thank you okay with that Miss Johnson would you like to make a motion to close public hearing don't move I'll be a second okay um I'm a yes Miss s yes um Mr tips yes Mr barari yes okay Mr Winston yes Mr drgs yes okay U Mr eglon yes Mr Graham oh he's not here um Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes okay Miss watlington is not here um okay that's 29 thank you very much um for that uh item number 30 30 is petition 2021 157 by the city of charlot Aviation this is a conventional resoning approximately 58.2 six acres located on the north side of Walker Fury Road just west of 4 uh 485 in Charlotte Douglas International Airport it's currently zon single family residential R3 Lower Lake Wily protected area um manufactured housing Lower Lake Wy critical area and the proposed zoning is General indust industrial Lower Lake Wy protected area General industrial Lower Lake Wy critical area and staff does recommend approval of this petition so we've got Mr Patton's presentation and then we have stort hair and Jennifer Thompson of the airport speaking in favor thank you 2021 157 uh just over 58 Acres off Walker's Ferry uh bounding up on i485 just across from the airport uh the proposed zoning as mentioned is R3 does have Lake Lower Lake Wy protected area uh as well as RMH with the Lower Lake Wy critical area the proposed zoning is for I2 both the protected area and critical area of lower Lake Wy would be maintained as well uh the Dixie Barry Hill strategic plan from 2003 does recommend office retail and light industrial uses for the site uh staff does recommend approval this petition it is a conventional uh petition while it's inconsistent with the office retail light industrial uses uh we do feel that it is consistent with the general pattern of of development in the area and also in that proximity uh within close proximity like said to the third parallel Runway which makes it compatible for either light or general industrial uses uh and the location along 485 just south of some additional I2 zone property uh makes it a reason candidate for transition to an I2 zoning District so uh with that as mentioned staff does recommend approval and we'll be happy to take questions following Mr harr's presentation thank you thank you Mr har are you online I am thank you very much for having me this evening uh I really don't have a presentation unlike a a lot of the other uh petitioners I am more here as a staff resource and uh Miss Thompson is uh also available as well she is our economic Affairs manager and can answer any questions that yall have this evening thank you for having us thank you does anyone have any questions Miss Johnson okay Miss Johnson I don't have any I think that was from from the last okay uh did I hear a motion to close oh Mr if you could put your hand down then um that would be great and do we have a motion to close public hearing so move okay who was the second Newton Second Newton okay thank you um I'll be a yes Miss s yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston Mr Mr barari yes Mr dggs yes Mr Egleston yes Mr uh Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes and uh that uh closes that hearing so we'll move on to 31 and I'm just going to do a time check with Council um we've got seven more petitions most of them are conventional resoning so should we just motor through and get them all done none of them have opposition is there any body opposed to doing that I'm not okay well let's go ahead and try to get these done then um item number we're on to item number 31 which is resoning petition 2021 158 I get to that by Trevy Partners LLC approximately 45.3 one Acres located on the Southeast side of North Trion Street East of Pavilion Boulevard Miss Johnson's District District 4 it's currently zon commercial center site plan Amendment and URC um which is residential commercial conditional site plan Amendment and the proposed zoning is commercial center site plan Amendment um Urban residential commercial conditional site plan Amendment with five-year vested rights staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to land use and site and building design we have got um just one speaker speaking in favor after Mr paton's presentation thank you 2021 158 it's just over 45 Acres on us29 uh this is the site of the I believe it's the Trevy Village mixed use Center as mentioned it was currently zoned CC uh as well as URC there were some site plan amendments previously done this is a followup to get to some of those this has been a longstanding project I think first approved back around 2010 if not maybe a little before so uh it's been a long developing project and so some site plan amendments are are coming forward again to continue to expand on some options for development for the site uh it is uh from the Northeast area plan does recommend institutional and residential office and Retail uses for the site uh the proposal associated with this petition would maintain the original 204 multif family age restricted units uh as well as maintaining residential uses for 109 flexx units uh that would be with 70 79 elderly Flex units and 52 skilled nursing units would also maintain uses like the 110,000 ft of commercial 125,000 ft of hotel and medical office uses but it does modify the following uses uh the medical office to allow uh would remove 25,000 ft of the wellness center portion of that as well as 14,000 ft of the adults Care Center that's associated with those does add uses like laundry services indoor Recreation commercial kitchen green houses indoor pet services as well as type 1 and two edes and various retail uh uses uh does have some building High parking ratio and streetcape uh requirements that are programmed into the site Transportation improvements would include things like dedication and fee simple conveyance of all RightWay would be issued to the city prior to CEO uh Transportation improvements would be approved and constructed prior to occupancy and then public roadway improvements would be subject to the standards of cot and ncdot also retains development language pertaining to overhead pedestrian bridge encroachments as well as retaining architectural standard language with some minor modifications as well as environmental features features language that was all part of previous entitlements that were approved prior to this site plan Amendment so again it's really just amending some things to allow some additional uses like type 1 and two edes and Retail uh and things like indoor Recreation does remove some square footage for some of the medical office uh uses that are in there but overall maintains a lot of the existing entitlements I'll let the petitioner explain a little bit further about uh what some of those changes mean for the overall project uh but staff does recommend approval of the petition do have some outstanding issues with land use and sight and building design to work through but it is consistent with that recommendation for the residential office retail uses uh and maintaining some of those uh skilled nursing facilities uh and and adult care and Elderly Care does maintain some of that institutional component which would make make it consistent with that portion of the land use recommendation as well so staff will be happy to take any questions following the presentation by Mr janest and we'll turn it over to him thank you thank you Mr janest hey yes good evening mayor brotin and members of council um first thank you all for the opportunity to speak for you tonight uh again my name is Colin janess and I'm here to speak on behalf of petitioner Trevor part Trevy Partners LLC uh to present the Trevy Village site plan Amendment um I had sent over a site plan so Holly I don't know if you're able to pull that up or just go back to the yeah the staff analysis site plan is perfect um so this project may be familiar to some on Council as the original conditional zoning was approved as petition 21047 um at that time the project constituted roughly 62 acres with a mix of multif family residential gear towards seniors uh commercial retail medical office and a hotel um as a refresher and as you all can see on the site plan the master develop is bound on the North by Highway 29 into the South by the Mard Creek wastewater treatment plant there are two public streets running north south and one private Street running East West breaking the site into four distinct quadrants um 17 acres to the west of pilot Avenue which is the public street that provides access to the wastewater treatment plant uh was actually sold back to the city in 2018 um the remaining 45 Acres east of pilot Avenue form uh again what is kind of the remaining uh area of the Trevy Village master development um as staff mentioned our request uh or our petition request to amend the zoning boundary to follow the current Street Network um the northern and Eastern quadrants will retain the commercial center zoning and the southwestern quadrant will retain the urban residential sea zoning as originally approved in 2010 um additional requests include clarifying the allowed commercial retail uses in the CC District um I know there was submission of outstanding issues related to a few of the commercial retail uses we are requesting I did want to note that we have had recent discussions with staff to clarify these uses would be allowed on the CC District um so long as additional ordinance requirements are followed uh our final site plan that we're going to submit you know following this hearing um will note these additional ordinance requirements uh the remaining requests are related to maximum Building height and AR architectural materials for the residential type buildings um I did want to note that we are requesting an increased height uh maximum height to 90 ft for the senior living building and hotel only all all the remaining uses will be CT at 70 ft as was originally proved uh by the 2010 petition um The increased height for the senior leading facility is really just to allow a bell tower feature over the chapel portion of the building um the hide increase for the hotel is is really based on recent conversations we've had with Hotel operators and the number of stories needed to accommodate of the 170 rooms that were allowed for that original uh resoning documents um I do also want to point out with the hotel location kind of the center of the project um it's greater than 400 ft from the closest single family used property which is located to the east of our site um you know as a last note relates to outstanding issues in the 204 unit age restricted comment I did want to clarify that a previous administrative Amendment confirmed and approved a non-ag restricted use for these multif family units we actually I'm sorry that that's time we we can ask maybe for that clarification and a followup question if has any additional questions on it great well I'll be happy to answer any questions you guys have thank you for the time uh do we I'll go ahead and ask for that clarification from Mr jennis sure I I was just going to say that we did we had submitted and um had approved an administrative amendment that confirmed uh those 204 units being non-ag restricted and we subsequently have um permitted that through City Land Development and that project should start constru here in the early part of 2022 thank you but again we can certainly make sure that gets clarified date and the rest of planning staff thank you Mr jennis do we have any other questions if not can I have a motion to close the public hearing second okay I'm a yes Miss SRA yes Mr fips yes Mr yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr eglon yes Mr Graham oh sorry Mr Miss Johnson yes uh and Mr Newton yes okay thank you Mr jennis all right thank you all item 31 move on to item 32 which is petition 2021 162 by Rose Mara espanosa approximately 73 Acres Bound by the south side of North Lynwood Avenue and north side of Interstate 885 west of the brook Shar Boulevard and that's Council District 2 Mr Graham's District it's currently zoned R22 multif family residential and the proposed zoning is B2 General business staff recommends approval of this p uh this conventional petition and we've got um one person speaking in favor after Mrs petton Mr paton's presentation thank you 2021 162 uh is on lywood Avenue just uh on the north side of the I85 Exit 36 interchange uh the current zoning uh it's just under at 75 Acres current zoning is R22 MF uh the proposed zoning is a conventional B2 uh you can see you've got B1 and B2 on either side of that as well as B1 on the other side of lywood Avenue uh the Thomas hos Thomasboro Hoskins small area plan uh from 2002 does recommend retail uses for the site as well so uh consistent with that land use recommendation and generally consistent with those zoning districts that are surrounding IT staff felt it was an appropriate conventional request we do recommend approval of this petition like I said it is consistent with the adopted small area plan haven't really bring that general area along uh North lywood Avenue into a little bit better Conformity with all consistent B2 and B1 zoning uh to allow for some consistent development patterns so we'll be happy to take any questions uh Miss espinos I believe is with us as well if you have any questions for the petitioner so uh we'll turn it over from there thank you thank you Miss espan are you online and if so can we unmute her she unmute her one more time okay Miss Espinosa yes I'm here you can be I don't really have any questions I just wanted to confirm that yes we want to we're uh requesting to change the zoning uh based on the other lots that are around the the lot that we're requesting the resoning okay thank you uh do council members have any questions okay not I have a motion to close the public hearing so move second asir right I'm a yes Mr asir yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr DS yes Mr edlon yes m m um Johnson yes and Mr Newton yes great thank you um item number uh excuse me 33 is 21 202 169 by the city of Charlotte engineering approximately 9.43 Acres located on the south side of Mount Holly Huntersville Road West of Mountain Air Circle and east of Northwoods Forest Drive Council District 2 Mr Grahams district and the current zoning is single family residential Lake Wy protected area the proposed zoning is neighborhood services Lake Wy protected area staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of requested technical revision related to site and building design and this item does not have any speakers so we'll go ahead with Mr P's presentation thank you yes 2021 169 it's about 9 and a half acres on Mount Holly Huntersville Road uh the property is currently zoned R3 with the lower or lake Wy protected area uh and the proposed zoning is NS also with the lake Wy protected area as well uh the proposed uh future land use from the Northwest District plan which is one of our oldest from 19 1990 recommend single family up to 4 Dua uh the proposal is uh NS request uh primarily it is geared towards 15,000 ft of Neighborhood Services mainly for a police station as well as general general office uses in Development Area a uh and then 12,500 ft of emergency service and general office uses in Development Area B which would be a future Development Area to the rear of the site uh does limit Building height to one story and 40 ft uh as well as some Transportation Improv improvements like RightWay dedication along Mount Holly hunterville Road uh and then construction of curbing gutter an 8ft planning strip and 12ft multi-use path along that front edge as well be a left turn lane and right turn lane into the site with appropriate storage and taper and a 54t Class B buffer around the perimeter of the site uh and also detached lighting would be limited to 25 ft in height and would be full cut off uh and downwardly directed to have uh minimal impacts on the neighboring uh Residential Properties uh again this is a an NS project or NS zoning request the project would be for um it's an applicant by the city of Charlotte General services and again the outcome is to uh construct a police station as well as some other general office uses uh on the site staff does recommend approval of the petition do have some technical revisions to work through uh it's inconsistent generally with the Northwest District plan but even with the NS District it's primarily considered somewhat of an Institutional use so uh staff does look at that uh a little bit differently we don't really recommend institutional uses in some of those old District plans and they kind of go where needed in the community so I this was identified obviously by the city as an area of need uh that's why we have that petition in front of us and so we'll be happy to take any questions uh that you may have and like I said don't have looks like any petitioners signed up uh for this one so looks like we'll be happy to take any questions you might have for staff okay any questions did I have a motion to close oh Mr fips yeah is the construction of this police station consistent with the construction of other stations that we've had over the last few years I believe so said it had one floor yeah I believe so the U the renderings that are in the site plan look fairly consistent with some that we've seen in the past I think most recent one I can recall was down uh I think in maybe district 6 maybe along Providence or somewhere around that Providence and and uh Ray Road area I think I can't remember exact location but looks very similar one story um you a typical project that we've seen for other police stations in the community that have been recently built but the site plan does have some renderings and yeah they do look uh fam about as familiar as they have with some of the other ones thank you yes sir no other questions then can I have a motion to close so move second okay um I'm a yes misso yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr edlon yes Miss Johnson yes and Mr Newton yes thank you okay item number 34 conventional resoning uh petition 2021 173 by OPM Limited in Benfield approximately 2.22 Acres located on the south side of old Mount Hy Road the east side of Melinda Road and the south side of brazal faer road District Two Mr Grahams District currently Zone R4 and R5 single family residential and the proposed res proposed zoning is is light Industrial Staff recommends approval of this petition uh we have three speakers after Mr paton's presentation Suzanne Todd Charles Davis and Aaron Benfield who will together have three minutes uh Mr Patton thank you 20121 173 it's about 2.2 Acres old Mount Holly Road and Melinda Road uh the current zoning is R4 and R5 uh you can see there's some i1 conditional around at the request for this ition is just i1 conventional uh but lots of i1 between Aqua cam drive and Melinda Road along Old Mount Holly this would look to continue that i1 zoning uh kind of round that block off between those two cross streets down off Mount Holly uh the Northwest District plan does recommend residential uses up to eight dwelling units per acre on a portion of the site uh that's the site in green and then single family residential uses up to six dwelling units on the rest of the site that's the area that's primarily more in yellow uh again this is a conventional petition staff does recommend approval while it's inconsistent with the district plan from 1990 staff does feel that uh this is a Jason to some already zoned industrial parcels and this will really bring that block into better Conformity and and hopefully eliminate some of those potential uh land use conflicts that could have Arisen from the R5 and R4 zoning District so staff did feel it was an appropriate request for uh in industrial zoning and again we do recommend approval and we'll be happy to take any questions following uh the petitioners uh presentation or whatever they've got planned as far as being a conventional resoning thank you thank you um I see Mr Davis online and I don't know who would like to start first but you have three minutes together um thank you mayor mayor proam Suzanne Todd uh a land use attorney with John Nelson horde on behalf of the applicant and I'll speak on behalf of Mr Davis and Mr Benfield I think Mr Benfield signed off probably already in bed um but want to thank staff for their help with this project and Mr penton's presentation again this is conventional um so we don't have a site plan the property does have industrial um pretty much on three sides of it frankly it's most folks aren't going to want to live here so we will of course comply with all zoning regulations applicable to i1 and uh we are here to answer any questions Council may have thank you thank you um does council have any questions for the group Mr fips your hand is up do you mean for that to be up for this one no I thought I had taken it down sorry okay thank you okay thank you um I a yes Miss asir yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr dggs yes Mr eglon yes Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes okay great the next item is item number 35 petition 2021 17 6 located uh excuse me uh 176 by Anita Thomas approximately .58 Acres located on the east side of Randolph Road West of kwick Road and North of Sharon Amity Road Council District Six Mr bakari's District currently zoned neighborhood business rezoned proposed zoning is General business conditional staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues and Technical revisions related to transportation site and building design and we have uh three individuals speaking in favor Sarah Shirley Chris hack and Barry Fay who will have three minutes collectively after Mr Patton thank you 2021 176 it's just over a half acre on Randolph Road sight of the Bojangles on Randolph just north of Sharon Amity uh the proposed zoning is or current zoning is B1 proposed own is B2 conditional uh the South District plan recommends retail uses for the site so so the zoning request is consistent with that area plan uh The Proposal with this petition is to demolish the existing building uh and construct a new building with up to 1500 square feet uh no indoor seating with a Max Building height of 22 ft does reduce the number of parking spaces and installs a dual drive-through Lane to improve the efficiency of the existing drive-through facility there dedicates a 50ft right away from the center line of Randol Road as well as constructing an 8ft planning strip and 6ft sidewalk along that Randol Road Frontage also provides building design standards related to the following which would be facades facing public streets would contain a combination of windows and doors with a minimum percentage of transparent glass that have a minimum percentage of Mason materials on facades facing public streets as well as limitations on expanses of blank walls to 20 ft in all directions and provide architectural features to break up the facades uh also installs an 18t tall seat wall and Landscaping between the sidewalk and building drive-thru so that would essentially be between uh the sidewalk walk on Randolph Road and and the drive-thru that circulates right behind that uh as mentioned staff does recommend approval of this petition do have some outstanding issues with technical revisions related to transportation and site and building design to work through is it is consistent with the South District plan for uh retail uses and and do believe that the Reconstruction of this site would allow for a little bit better operating efficiency uh particularly with the Dual Lanes uh but we will turn it over to the petitioner to talk a little bit more about the project and we'll take any questions you may have following that thank you thank you who would like to speak first Miss Sherin Miss Chris hack or Barry F uh good evening my name is Sarah Shirley I'll speak on behalf of the developer Mr Chris Haack and Barry Fay is here as the licensed professional engineer for the project we don't have a presentation prepared but we're just here to help answer any questions that Council may have we just wanted to thank you for giving us the opportunity to put this before you tonight um as as David had stated um we are simply putting forth the resoning request in order to accommodate the transition from indoor dining drive-thru only um and with that uh like you said we're hoping to install a little bit better uh pedestrian uh improvements uh for a better pedestrian scaled experience of the site thank you thank you do we have any questions for Miss Shirley Mr Winston Mr Winston yeah I I don't know if this is a question for Miss Shirley as much as is a comment um this is a site right here Randolph Road in Sharon Amity one of the most notorious um kind of trouble spots uh for for auto backup um at eating establishments I know it's not necessarily the Bojangles right now that is is is most notorious but probably the chickf right adjacent to it um and I I just think of Mr BK's words of of being proactive uh versus reactive and and again I don't think that this is necessarily something that we can figure out um specifically with this um particular resoning Standing Alone um but but I I would just have concerns that um uh while this this this parcel and this business is is going to do what's best for um it's self I I don't know um if these proposed changes are are going to help um the very very problematic situation uh that exists on on that stripper Street right now um and and I I would hope uh that we can find a way um we as as as the city and um and and as partners um uh to figure out figure figure this out we we can't just keep putting our heads in in the sand um at at this location thank you thank you Mr Winston any other questions move to close Okay a second second okay I'm a yes Mr s yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr eglon yes Miss watl Mr H Miss Johnson yes Mr new yes okay thank you very much next item is item number 36 2021 180 by Daniel Corporation approximately 1.7 Acres located on the south side of North Graham Street East side of West 6th Street and West Side of West 7th Street in Council District 2 Mr Grahams District it's currently zoned Urban residential historic district district and the proposed zoning is Uptown mixed use District Historic District staff recommends approval of this petition and it is a conventional petition um after Mr petton speaks we have three speakers um in favor Colin Brown Britney Linds and Cameron Connor goad Mr P all right thank you 2021 180 is 1.7 Acres on North Graham really that block of of North Graham between West 7th and West 6th Street uh the current zoning uh for this property is ur3 and the proposed zoning is umud both carry that historic district uh overlay with it as well uh the Charlotte Center City Vision plan doesn't particularly make land use recommendations throughout a lot of Uptown you see some where they may have some coloration but those were from adopted rezonings uh overall the plan encourages future development that contributes to the livability and viability of Center City uh staff does feel that taking this to umod which is consistent with most of the zoning uh in the Uptown area does continue to fulfill and facilitate the goals of that Center City Vision plan uh and we do recommend approval this petition uh and we'll be happy to take any questions following uh any presentation by the petitioner team thank you thank you Mr Brown mayor perm Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner have Cameron Connor on as well if you have questions uh this's good overview by Dave uh in a nutshell this is a conventional zoning uh to the umud district uh as Dave mentioned that appears consistent uh so I don't have a site plan to show you however uh I would just remind you this is in the fourth W historic district so we are going to go through a pretty detailed historic district uh committee Architectural Review um so part of what we don't want to do is get a conditional zoning that says one thing and then get conflicts from the HDC so this is very comfortable that we can have the umud zoning to accommodate this uh we will be going through the review with HCC if you'd like to since this is a conventional hearing I should not get into detail if you have questions I'd be happy to talk with you there is a pretty specific uh site plan that we're doing there is pres maybe I shouldn't get into all that um this is not pushing the envelope and be happy to talk to you about the HDC process if you have questions thank you very much Mr Brown uh any questions from Council uh Mr eglon um I'll SLE up with you offline but I my my point was going to be about um that particular building and um so I'm preservation of that building is important to the HDC and the petitioner as it is to us so thank you and I'll follow with the offline thank you U may I have a motion to close if no other comments no move second okay I'd be a yes Miss air yes Mr Fitz yes Mr Winston Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Driggs yes Mr egleson yes Mr Miss Johnson yes and Mr Newton yes great thank you that was on the item number 37 is resoning 2021 183 by James Howell approximately 1.12 Acres located on the north side of urban Lane and west side of China Grove Church Road South of East Westinghouse Boulevard Council District 3 Miss watlington District it's currently zoned R8 single family residential conditional proposed zoning is R8 single family residential staff recommends approval of this petition which is conventional uh after Mr petton speaks we've got Bridget Grant and Tim McCollum speaking in favor thank you I believe that's a different petition mayor Pon yeah we don't have any speakers I'm sorry we don't have any speakers for 37 you're right thank you that's correct uh yeah the this item 20211 183 a couple different Parcels along China Grove Church Road and irban Lane uh the total 1.12 Acres uh they were previously zoned R8 conditional they're looking to just rezone to just an R8 conventional uh we've got some similar R8 zoning uh also along China Grove Church Road in irvan Lane uh staff felt it was consistent with both that and the the U i485 and Sharon and I4 excuse me transit station area plan does recommend single family up to 8 Dua so we're consistent with with that recommendation again this is a conventional petition and staff does recommend approval there are no outstanding issues uh and it is consistent with the area plan recommendation and we'll be happy to take any questions you might have on this one any questions close Okay second motion closed thank you can I have a second second all right I'm a yes Miss Aira yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr Dres yes Mr edleson yes Mr Miss Johnson yes Mr Newton yes okay that closes that on to item number 38 which is petition 2021 184 by revolve residential approximately .86 acre located on the west side of yman road east of South trian Street and North of woodlon Road in Council District 3 Miss watlington District currently zoned General industrial and the proposed zoning is TR is Transit oriented development transition and staff recommends approval of this uh conventional petition uh after Mr Paton speaks we do have then Bridget Grant and Tim McCollum to speak in favor thank you 2021 184 it's 86 Acres as mentioned on yman road uh it's currently zoned I2 looking to reone to totr you can see on that slide there's some totr in the general area just North uh North I guess East or Northwest of that site Uh Wood La long transit station area plan does recommend office and Industrial warehouse distribution uses for the site but you can see there's to mixed recommendations just on the other side of yman and Gilead Street and verbina Street uh so staff does feel this is an appropriate continuation of some of that transition uh to to uh types of uses in this area we do recommend approval of this petition as mentioned it is conventional uh to a totr district and we'll be happy to take any questions you might have following uh partitioners presentation thank you uh thank you uh do we who do we have on Miss Grant yes okay go ahead good evening mayor Pres members of council members of zoning committee Bridget Grant land use consultant with Moran Van Allen here tonight with the petitioner Tim McCollum with revolve residential um given the conventional nature of the petition we're not going to give a presentation but we're happy to answer any questions thank you does anyone have any questions motion close the second second okay Miss I'm a yes Miss s second um Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr dgs yes Mr egelston yes um Miss Johnson yes and Mr Newton yes okay great thank you and with that we come to our last petition right under the gun it's just 10:00 um item number 2021 185 by sxcw Properties thei LLC approximately 2.4 Acres located on the east side of Freedom Drive south of Interstate 85 and west of CH Tu CG Road uh Council District 3 Miss watlington District currently zoned shopping center airport airport noise overlay and the proposed zoning is General business Airport noise over life staff recommends approval of this conventional petition we have after um Mr Paton we have his presentation we have Anthony Fox Janette Lucas and Anthony Warren speaking all in favor Mr Pon yes thank you 2021 1885 it's just under two and a half acres on Freedom Drive uh currently it's Zone B1 uh SCD with the airport noise overlay the proposed zoning is just for a B2 conventional also with the airport nors overlay as well uh the Central District plan from 1993 does recommend retail uses for the site uh this is an area that uh believe seen some Redevelopment the property just behind I believe was just uh redeveloped uh and is under construction close probably to completion for I think some medical offices uh this piece on the front side was part of that overall B1 conditional that brought that online uh but this is transitioning just to a B2 conventional to allow a little bit more flexibility ability to develop the frontage along Freedom Drive uh staff does recommend approval of this petition it is consistent with the Central District plan recommendation for retail on the site uh again this is a conventional petition no outstanding issues and we will be happy to take any questions following uh any kind of presentation uh from the petitioner team thank you thank you um Mr Fox welcome we have you you're on mute Anthony okay I thought I was unmuted can you hear me now yes we can hear you can you hear me yes I can hear you now you're muted again one more time all right let's try it now okay can you hear me now yes um mayor Pro members of council thank you for what you do and in the less of the hour I will be brief uh I represent uh sxcw properties LL also known as samsmart I am joined tonight with by Anthony Warren and uh Jeanie Lucas I'll make the presentation it will be brief uh this property is um is designed to uh Infuse what was a a challenged area with new and vibrant new and vibrant use we are seeking to rezone the property from B1 air to uh B2 air to accommodate intended use that's consistent with the ownership uh and the owner U development throughout the the city it's a 2.4 Acre Site uh is currently vacant um and um it is I'm happy to say it is consistent with the Central District area plan as it uh contemplates retail uses um the use that this property will be made uh I'll answer any questions that you may have thank you council members do you have any questions motion to close second okay I'm a GU mrir yes Mr fips yes Mr Winston yes Mr barari yes Mr dggs yes Mr egleson yes uh m son that one yes Mr Newton yes okay and with that that finishes our that completes our motion to adjourn thank you I have a second second all I guess I have to go through the whole list huh yeah we can just sign off okay bye everybody night thank you thanks night good job thank you well done for [Music] 10