>>BRAXTON WINSTON: WELCOME, EVERYBODY, IN THE CHAMBER. ON TV. ONLINE, AT HOME. TO THE SEPTEMBER 18th CHARLOTTE CITY COUNCIL ZONING MEETING. WE WILL START BY DOING INTRODUCTIONS FROM THE DAIS. AND TO START TO MY LEFT. >> GOOD EVENING, SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. >> GOOD EVENING, DANTE ANDERSON, DISTRICT 1. >> DISTRICT BOKHARI, DISTRICT 6. >> BRAXTON WINSTON, MAYOR PRO TEM. >> LIZ BAPSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. >> LAWANA MAYFIELD, COUNCIL MEMBER AT LARGE. >> RENEE PERKINS JOHNSON AND I'M HONORED TO SERVE DISTRICT 4, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT. >> HAPPY MONDAY, DIMPLE AJMERA AT LARGE AND WELCOME. >> BILLIE TYNES DEPUTY CITY CLERK. >> MALCOLM GRAHAM, CHARLOTTE CITY COUNCIL, DISTRICT 2. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL BEGIN OUR MEETING WITH AN INVOCATION, WHICH IS AN EXPRESSION OR INSPIRATION FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF A LEG LEGIONS, ALL WHO ARE ABLE TO AND DESIRE TO STAND WHEN WE DO THAT. THE INVOCATION IS INTENDED TO SOLEMNIZE OUR PROCEEDINGS, WE CELEBRATE THE RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY OF OUR COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THOSE WITHOUT A FAITH. COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON WILL GIVE OUR INVOCATION. >>DANTE ANDERSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY HAPPY HISPANIC AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH, WE JUST KICKED THAT OFF A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT TIME OF THE YEAR WHERE WE CELEBRATE SO MANY LATIN COUNTRIES WHO CELEBRATE THEIR INDEPENDENCE, COUNTRIES LIKE COSTA RICA, AND HONDURAS AND MANY, MANY OTHERS, RECEIVED THEIR INDEPENDENCE DURING THIS TIME, AND SO, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE AN INVOCATION FOR NATIONAL -- OH, GOD, YOU HAVE MADE OF ONE BLOOD ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH -- CULTURES AND TRADITIONS. AND I THANK YOU TODAY FOR THE MANY CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH HISPANIC AMERICANS HAVE MADE AND CONTINUE TO MAKE TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY. ENABLE US ALWAYS TO LEARN FROM AND APPRECIATE EACH OTHER, MAKE US STRONGER AS ONE NATION, BECAUSE OUR DIVERSE GIFTS AND EXPERIENCES ENRICH EACH OTHER. CONTINUE TO ENRICH OUR MINDS, BODIES, AND SPIRIT WE PRAY AS WE CELEBRATE TOGETHER ON THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY, AMEN. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: AMEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>. [ ALL RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ] >>BRAXTON WINSTON: WE'LL NOW HAVE AN EXPLANATION OF OUR ZONING PROCESS. WHICH WE WILL EXECUTE TODAY. EACH PROCESS BEGINS WITH APPLICANTS SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING STAFF FOR REVIEW. CASES ARE -- WE HAVE TWO TYPES OF CASES ON OUR AGENDA. DECISIONS AND HEARINGS, AND DECISIONS ON CASES FOR WHICH A PUBLIC -- EXCUSE ME, DECISIONS OR CASES IF WHICH A PUBLIC HEARING WAS PREVIOUSLY HELD. AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. FOR HEARINGS, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THE HEARING MAY SEEK THE CLERK. STAFF WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION, WHICH THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT, THE PETITIONER AND ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR WILL GET THREE MINUTES COMBINED TO PRESENT THEIR CASE, UNLESS THERE ARE OPPONENTS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, OR IF STAFF IS IN OPPOSITION, THEN IF THE PETITIONER WILL GET TEN MINUTES, THE APPOINT -- WILL GET TEN MINUTES COMBINED AND THEN THE PETER WILL -- PETITIONER WILL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTMENT. STAFF PROVIDES A SHORT PRESENTATION, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND THEN THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. AFTER HEARING, THE PETITION GOES TO THE ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. AND RECOMMENDATIONS. NOW, WE WILL PASS IT OVER TO THE ZONING COMMITTEE CHAIR, DOUGLAS WELTON SO HE CAN INTRODUCE THE ZONING COMMITTEE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, MY NAME IS DOUGLAS WELTON, THE CHAIR OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMISSION. OUR COMMITTEE. WILL RUSSELL, SHAUNA NEELY, RICK WIN KERR, REBECCA WELDON AND CLAYTON SDEELLY. THE ZONING COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 3RD AT 5:30 PEER AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER, AT THAT MEETING THE ZONING COMMITTEE WILL DISCUSS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PETITIONS THAT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT. THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME TO THE MEETING BUT PLEASE NOTE IT IS NOT A CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS BEING HELD HERE TONIGHT. PRIOR TO THAT MEETING, YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTACT US, AND PROVIDE INPUT. YOU CAN FIND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR EACH MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, AT CHARLOTTE PLANNING.ORG. BACK TO YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR DEFERRALS AND WITHDRAWALS, WHICH CAN ALL BE DONE IN ONE MOTION. MR. PETTINE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ US THE PETITIONS THAT ARE ASKING FOR WITHDRAWAL. >>PETTINE: YES, SO GOT A HANDFUL OF DECISIONS TO TAKE ACTION ON, FIRST IS ITEM 16, THIS PETITION 122-THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING A WITHDRAWAL OF THAT PETITION. ITEM 17, 2022-048 BY TRIBUTE COMPANIES, ITEM 18, 22, 134 BY MUHAMMAD II. SOUTHPARK TOWERS PROPERTY COMPANY LLC. ITEM 20, 2022-148 BY THIRD AND URBAN, LLC, ITEM 22, 2022-162 BY THE POULTY GROUP. THE GROUP INCORPORATED, 2022-193. ITEM 23 IS 2023-013 BY TOLL BROTHERS APARTMENT LIVING, ITEM 24 IS 2022-219 BY CHARLOTTE TRUCK CENTER. AND ITEM 25 IS 2021-256 BY NVR, INC., ALL DECISIONS REQUESTING A DEFERRAL TO OCTOBER 16th AND WE GO INTO THE HEARINGS, ITEM 30, 2022-037, BY SHINVILLE RIDGE PARTNERS, LLC, ITEM 32, 2021-277 BY BUILDMENT, LLC, ITEM 43, 2023-032, GOT TO GET YOU THE PETITIONER NAME FOR THAT ONE, I'M SORRY, THAT'S MISSING IN MY NOTES HERE. I ITEM 44, 2023-045 BY GRUBB PROPERTIES, ALL OF THOSE ARE HEARINGS REQUESTING A DEFERRAL TO OCTOBER 16th AS WELL. SO JUST THE ONE WITHDRAWAL, EVERYTHING ELSE REQUESTING A DEFERRAL TO NEXT MONTH. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ITEM 43 WAS 2023-032 BY MORRIS HOLDINGS, II, LLC. >>PETTINE: I THINK HAVE THE PETITION NAME WRONG FOR THAT ONE, LET ME TAKE A LOOK. >> ITEM 43. >>PETTINE: THAT IS 032 IS BY THE KEITH CORP. KEITH CORPORATION. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: YEAH. >>PETTINE: YEAH, JUST A COPY, PASTE ERROR ON MY PART ON MY PART, APOLOGIZE. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: A MOTION TO DEFER ALL. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. JOHNSON. >>RENEE JOHNSON: I WANT TO PULL ITEM 25. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: PULL ITEM NUMBER 25. FOR DISCUSSION. I MEAN, THE MOTION, SO WE CAN -- DEFER. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: VOTE ON THAT SEPARATELY. >>RENEE JOHNSON: YES, PLEASE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: SO WE NEED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. >>RENEE JOHNSON: OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE ALL OF THOSE DEFERRAL AND WITHDRAWALS AND VOTE ON 25 SEPARATELY. >> SECOND. >>RENEE JOHNSON: THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. MAYFIELD? >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I NEEDED MR. PETTINE TO GO BACK BECAUSE I DIDN'T CLEARLY HEAR AFTER 30 AND 31, ANY ADDITIONAL AFTER 31? THAT WAS A DEFERRAL? >>PETTINE: YEAH, AFTER ITEM 31, ITEM 43. WHICH IS 2023-032 BY THE KEITH CORPORATION. AND THEN WE HAD ITEM 44, 2023-045 BY GRUBB PROPERTIES. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO 43, I HAVE 2023-044. BY MORRIS HOLDINGS. >>PETTINE: 41, I APOLOGIZE, MY NUMBERS ARE OFF ON MY SHEET, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO 41 IS A DEFERRAL. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: YES. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: AND THE OTHER ONE WAS? >>PETTINE: THE OTHER ONE WAS ITEM 44. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: 44. >>PETTINE: YES, UH-HUH. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: WHICH IS BY GRUBB PROPERTIES. THANK YOU. >>PETTINE: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: MAYOR PRO TEM. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MR. BOKHARI. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: IS 25 PROCEDURALLY, THAT IS NOT IN OUR CONSENT AGENDA, SO THAT WILL GET A SEPARATE VOTE ANYWAY, RIGHT? >>BRAXTON WINSTON: IT'S A SEPARATE VOTE FOR WITHDRAWAL, MS. JOHNSON DID NOT WANT TO INCLUDE 25 IN THE MOTION, SO WE'LL CONSIDER THAT WITHDRAWAL SEPARATELY. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A WITHDRAWAL. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: DEFERRAL, EXCUSE ME. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: THEY ARE ASKING FOR A DEFERRAL. >>RENEE JOHNSON: YES. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: YES. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: ALL RIGHT. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: SO WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED, ANY FURTHER COMMENT. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: REAL QUICK, DO WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE ASKING OR IS THE COUNCILWOMAN ASKING, JUST FOR CLARITY. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THE PETITIONER IS ASKING FOR A DEF DEFERRAL, COUNCIL MEMBER IS ASKING FOR A SEPARATE VOTE ON THAT. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: MAKING TRIPLE SURE, THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE ALL DEFERRALS AND WITHDRAWALS, WHILE PULLING NUMBER 25 OUT FOR A SEPARATE VOTE? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED? THAT IS UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. NOW, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 25. PETITION NUMBER 2021-256 BY NVR, INCORPORATED, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 150.78 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OLD CONCORD ROAD. EAST OF NORTH TRYON STREET AND SOUTH OF WEST ROCKY RIVER ROAD. N8, NEIGHBORHOOD 1A AND B NEIGHBORHOOD 1B AND RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. PROPOSED IS MX2 INNOVATIVE WITH THE FIVE YEAR VESTED RIGHT. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER THIS PETITION UNTIL OCTOBER 16th? IS THAT. >>RENEE JOHNSON: SO MOVED. SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ANY COMMENT, MS. JOHNSON? >>RENEE JOHNSON: SO THE REASON I WANTED TO PULL THIS ONE, BECAUSE THIS IS THE PETITION THAT I MENTIONED TO THE CITY MANAGER A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, I THINK? THIS IS A 150 ACRES OF GREENSPACE. AND WE ARE STILL WAITING ON OUR TREE CANOPY REPORT. WE HAVE NOT DONE A TREE CANOPY REPORT SINCE 2019. AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S PRUDENT OF COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DECISION ON 150 ACRES, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE LARGEST, THE LAST LARGE PLOT OF LAND IN THIS VICINITY, I HAVE ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS PETITION. I SENT QUESTIONS TO MARIE HARRIS EARLIER TODAY, BUT PERHAPS -- I'VE ALSO SENT THEM TO OUR PLANNING MANAGER, SO I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO ANSWER THEM. I WANTED TO KNOW -- IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TREE CANOPY REPORT, UPDATED REPORT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN SEPTEMBER. WHICH IS WHY WE DEFERRED THIS FROM AUGUST UNTIL SEPTEMBER. AND SO WHEN I ASKED ABOUT IT THIS TIME, I'M TOLD THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ENDED OF OCTOBER THAT IT'S GOING TO BE READY. BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS MAKE A DECISION ON SUCH A LARGE PLOT OF LAND AND THEN WE FIND OUT FROM THE TREE CANOPY REPORT THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULDN'T HAVE. SO I'M TRYING TO AVOID WHAT WE CALL THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, WHEN THEY CAN BE FORESEEABLE. SO MR. PETTINE, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THIS REPORT IS GOING TO BE READY? OR IF WE CAN GET A PRELIMINARY REPORT SO THAT THE COUNCIL CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION? I'M SORRY, I ALSO WANTED TO KNOW WHO THE VENDOR WAS AND IF THERE WAS A -- YOU KNOW, WHAT THE COST WAS BY THE TAXPAYER AND IS THIS -- IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT -- THIS DELAY. >>PETTINE: OKAY. SO THE VENDOR IS A FIRM CALLED PLANET GEO, PLAN I.T. GEO, THE VENDOR FOR IT. AND THE FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT HAS BEEN A JOINTLY MANAGED INITIATIVE BY BOTH TREE CHARLOTTE AND THE INDUSTRY OF CHARLOTTE, TREE CHARLOTTE IS THE FUNDING LEAD, AND THEY PROVIDED APPROXIMATELY $100,000 TO THE PROJECT AND THE CITY IS PROVIDING APPROXIMATELY 15,000. THE CITY'S PORTION WAS SOURCED FROM THE STREET TREE MITIGATION REVENUE COLLECTED DURING LAND DEVELOPMENT, SO IT'S NOT BEEN ANY FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN TAXPAYER FUNDS, THEY HAVE BEEN FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED THROUGH TREE MITIGATION PROGRAM AND THEN AGAIN BY TREE CHARLOTTE PROVIDING THE BULK OF THAT FUNDING, THEY DID EXPECT TO HAVE THAT COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER. THE DATE IS BEING CONTINUED TO BE COMBED THROUGH, AND DOING QUALITY CONTROL THROUGH IT AND THAT'S EXPECTED NOW TO BE LATE OCTOBER. SO THAT'S THE COMPLETION TIME LINE WAS EXTENDED A BIT SO THEY COULD AGAIN GO THROUGH SOME OF THAT QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL AND THEN DO A SMALL ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF ANALYSIS THAT THEY ADDED TO THE PROJECT SCOPE OVER THE LAST WEEK OR SO. AND THEN THEY WILL FINALIZE THOSE PROJECT DEVELOPMENTS, A DRAFT, GIS MAPS AND GIS DATA, AND WE AGAIN WE EXPECT TO GET THAT SOMETIME IN LATE OCTOBER. >>RENEE JOHNSON: SO I WOULD JUST SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN GET PRELIMINARY DATA BUT AGAIN IT'S NOT PRUDENT FOR US TO MAKE THIS DECISION ON A LARGE PLOT OF LAND WITHOUT HAVING SOME IDEA WHAT OUR TREE CANOPY IS, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE NUMBERS SINCE 2019. SO WE CAN DISCUSS OFF LINE, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER AND THE PETITIONER DEFERRING THIS, THEY HAVE DEFERRED IT TWICE. AND THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE -- THEY'RE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE RESIDENTS. BUT I WOULD -- WE NEED THAT INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PRUDENT DECISION, WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ISSUES WITH SCHOOL OVERCROWDING AND, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, ISSUES WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT THIS IS ONE THAT IF WE'RE WAITING ON A REPORT, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A MONTH BEHIND, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE I MAKE -- BEFORE I CAN SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: MOVE TO DEFER. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED, ALL IN FAVOR OF DEFERRING THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SEEING NONE, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO IF ANYBODY IS HERE TO HEAR ANY OF THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN DEFERRED OR WITHDRAWN, I'M SORRY, THEY WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON NOW TO OUR DECISIONS. WHICH WE WILL START WITH OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. REZONING PETITION ITEMS NUMBER 3 THROUGH NUMBER 15 MAY BE CONSIDERED IN ONE MOTION. EXCEPT FOR THOSE ITEMS PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER. PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE PETITIONS MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. THEY HAD NO PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION ADHERING. ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THERE WERE NO CHANGES AFTER THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION. AND STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. ARE THERE ANY CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO PULL FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENT OR A SEPARATE VOTE? MS. MAYFIELD? >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I WOULD LIKE TO PULL NUMBER 5, 8, 10, AND 13, FOR EITHER COMMENT OR SEPARATE VOTE, 5, 8, 10, AND 13. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: MOVE TO APPROVE THE REST. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION --. >> EXCUSE ME, MY HAND IS RAISED TO PULL ONE AS WELL. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: OH, MS. WATLINGTON. >>VICTORIA WATLINGTON: 3. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: 3. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: MOVE TO APPROVE THE REST. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: SO A MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO PULL -- TO APPROVE VIA CONSENT ITEMS NUMBER 4, NUMBER 6, NUMBER 7, NUMBER 9, NUMBER 11, NUMBER 12, NUMBER 14, AND NUMBER 15. ANY COMMENT? ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOU'RE HAND. SEEING NONE, THAT IS UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3. REZONING PETITION 2022-049 BY TURN STONE GROUP, LLC, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 9.84 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OLD DOWD ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF SAM WILSON ROAD IN THE ETJ IN COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 2, MS. LEAKE'S DISTRICT, CLOSEST TO DISTRICT 3. NS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND THE PROPOSED IS I2CD GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL. THE ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 7-0 APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PETITION? AND ADOPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION AS ITS OWN? AS OUR OWN? SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THERE'S BEEN A MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED, ANY COMMENT? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR HAND. ARE YOU OPPOSED OR? >> NO, I'M FOR IT >>>. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ONE IN OPPOSITION, THAT PASSES. >> TWO OPPOSITION. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. MAYFIELD WANTS TO BE RECOGNIZED IN OPPOSITION AS WELL. THAT PASSES 7-1. 7-2, EXCUSE ME. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6. ITEM NUMBER 5. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: YES, SIR. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: REZONING PETITION 2022-146 BY K.T.E.D., LLC ON APPROXIMATELY 3.9 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALBEMARLE ROAD WEST OF HARRISBURG ROAD AND SOUTH OF PENCE ROAD, THE CURRENT ZONING IS IC2, IRNGS INSTITUTIONAL CAMPUS AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS R12MF. MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL AND R12MFCDSPA, THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. THE ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 7-0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT -- TO APPROVE THE PETITION AND ADOPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION AS OUR OWN? >>TARIQ BOKHARI: MOVE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: A MOTION IS MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION, MS. MAYFIELD? >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. MR. PETTINE, I WANT TO GET CONFIRMATION, IN OUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES, UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT, NUMBER 5, THE SITE MUST SHOW A MINIMUM OF 15% OF THE OVERALL SITE AS TREE SAVE. THIS REQUIREMENT MUST BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. DID WE RECEIVE THAT UPDATE? BECAUSE I DID NOT SEE IT IN THE REVISED SITE PLAN. >>PETTINE: SO THERE'S BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND OUR URBAN FORESTRY GROUP AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE ON THE SAME PLAN, THE PLAN IS NOT -- DOESN'T SHOW IT EXACTLY THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO, BUT IT WILL HAVE TO MEET THAT IN APPROXIMATOR MITTING SO IT'S MORE OF A -- PERMITTING SO IT'S MORE OF AN ADVISORY COMMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN WORK TOGETHER GOING INTO THE PERMITTING PROCESS BUT NOT AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: JUST READING THIS, WHAT IS PRESENTED, IN FRONT OF US. >>PETTINE: UH-HUH. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: WHAT IS NOTED THAT IT IS STILL AN OUTSTANDING. >>PETTINE: YES, AT THE TIME OF THE PRINTING, IT WAS OUTSTANDING. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: AS OF FRIDAY, THIS WAS AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE, DO WE HAVE ANY UPDATED LANGUAGE THAT STATES THAT WHAT IS THE TREE SAVE AREA SINCE WE KNOW WE HAVE SAEP SEAP. >>PETTINE: THEY HAVE IT IN PERMITTING, JUST A MATTER OF TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY TO KIND OF AGREE THAT THE NOTES THAT ARE ON THERE ARE SATISFACTORY, WHICH THEY ARE. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL, SO WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT IS STATING THAT THIS IS OUT STANDING, WE HAVE NO UPDATED LANGUAGE THAT STATES -- >>PETTINE: IT'S NOT AN OUTSTANDING ITEM, IT'S AN ADVISORY ITEM AT THIS POINT, IT WAS THURSDAY AND WE HAVE IT RESOLVED OVER FRIDAY AND THEN INTO TODAY. AND THERE'S NOT A NEED FOR A NOTE CHANGE, BECAUSE IT'S RESOLVED, JUST WITH THE NOTES THAT ARE ON THE PLAN, IT DOES SAY IT WILL MEET THE TREE ORDINANCE IN THE NOTES THAT ARE IN THE CONDITIONS. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TREE ORDINANCE THAT THEY'VE AGREED TO. >>PETTINE: 15%. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THE MINIMUM 15. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU. >>PETTINE: YOU'RE WELCOME. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ALL IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING AND APPROVING THIS PETITION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? THANK YOU, THAT IS 8-1. THAT PASSES 8-1. ALL RIGHT. NOW, WE MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 8. REZONING PETITION 2022-212 BY CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF COLORADO, LLC, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY .86 ACRES ON THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF PARK ROAD AND EAST WOOD LAWN ROAD SOUTH OF DREXEL PLACE, COUNCIL DISTRICT 6. MR. BOKHARI'S DISTRICT. CURRENT ZONING IS B1CD AND THE PROPOSED IS MUDD CD MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL. THE ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 7-0 TO APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PETITION AND ADOPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AS OUR OWN. >> SO MOVED. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: A MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? >> MAYOR PRO TEM? >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. ANN ANDERSON. >>DANTE ANDERSON: I SENT THIS IN TO MS. HARRIS BUT THIS PETITION IS WITHIN DISTRICT 1, IT IS NOT IN MR. BOKHARI'S. >>PETTINE: BREAKS ONE SIDE OF WOOD LAWN AS DISTRICT 1 AND DISTRICT 6, GOT LOST IN THAT. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: PREPARED TO ALLOW IT. >>DANTE ANDERSON: HE HAS THE LEFT SIDE OF THE STREET. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MARCH KATED CORRECTLY. >>PETTINE: YEAH, SOMEHOW IT GOT FLIPPED. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS IN DISTRICT 1. MS. ANTWAAN RN ANN -- MS. ANDER DISTRICT. ALL IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING AND APPROVING THIS PETITION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED RAISE YOUR HAND? THAT MOTION PASSES 8-1, WITH MS. MAYFIELD IN OPPOSITION. ITEM NUMBER 10. REZONING PETITION 2023-022 BY CHARLOTTER PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 14 http://46achttp:// http://46ache--councildistrict4. ms.johnson'sdistrict. thecurhttp APPROXIMATEL--14. DOIHAAP MOTION TO APPROVE THE PETITION AND ADOPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AS OUR OWN. >> MOVE TO APPROVE AND ADOPT. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: A MOTION AND A SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND MADE ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS, MS. MAYFIELD? >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE PETITIONER'S BECAUSE I REACHED OUT TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY, BECAUSE THIS IS ACTUALLY BORDERING CHARLOTTE AND OUR NEIGHBORING AREA. AND BECAUSE THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE 75% OF THE UNITS GOING TO BE ON THE CHARLOTTE SIDE OF WHICH 25% OF THOSE ARE ANTICIPATED FOR RENT, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR GIVING US REAL DIVERSITY WITH FOR SALE PRODUCT AS WELL AS FOR RENT PRODUCT, I WANTED TO HAVE A MOMENT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. JOHNSON. >>RENEE JOHNSON: A COUPLE, THEY ACTUALLY LIVE IN DISTRICT 4. SO I MET WITH THEM NUMEROUS TIMES AND THEY HAVE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS. SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THIS ALSO, AND ALSO THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE, SO. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>RENEE JOHNSON: YES. THAT'S ALL. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? THAT IS UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13. REZONING PETITION 2023-030 BY RYAN LAND HOLDINGS, LLC ON APPROXIMATELY 123.8 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF UNIVERSITY CITY BOULEVARD, NORTHEAST OF INTERSTATE 485 AND EAST OF BACK CREEK CHURCH ROAD IN THE ETJ, IN COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 3. MR. DUNLAP'S DISTRICT, AND CLOSEST TO CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 4. MS. JOHNSON'S DISTRICT, THE CURRENT ZONING IS MX2 WITH FIVE YEAR VESTED RIGHTS, PROPOSING IS I2CD, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL AND MIXED USE DISTRICT, THE ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 7-0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PETITION AND ADOPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AS IT APPEARS IN OUR AGENDAS AND ON THE SCREEN AS THE COUNCIL'S OWN? >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: A MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? >>RENEE JOHNSON: THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. JOHNSON. >>RENEE JOHNSON: WE DID ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE DATA CENTER, SO WE HAD ASKED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING ANY REPORTS OR AS FAR AS HEALTH AND SAFETY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS -- WE RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF. THAT WAS REQUESTED. >>PETTINE: GOT MORE INFORMATION ON NOISE MITIGATION BUT WE DIDN'T GET ON THE ITEMS THAT WERE INQUIRED FROM COUNCIL'S STAND POINT BUT INFORMATION ON NOISE, WHICH WAS STAFF'S MAIN POINT OF CONCERN DURING THE HEARING. >>RENEE JOHNSON: OKAY. SO ALL OF THE STAFF'S CONCERNS WERE RESOLVED, THEN. >>PETTINE: YEAH, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, OUR MAIN CONCERN WAS NOISE IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY TO THE SOUTH, WHICH THEY HAVE ADDED MITIGATION ON AND SHOWN US WHERE THE BUILDINGS WILL BE, WHICH WASN'T CLEAR ON THE PLAN GOING INTO HEARING SO WE FELT THAT WE'VE GOTTE REGARDING THE HOME THAT COMES FROM -- THAT HOME CAN BE HEARD UP TO TWO-AND-A-HALF MILES AWAY, SO YOU STAFF HAS AN UPDATE, WHAT WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RESPONSE. >>PETTINE: SO THEY ADDED NOTES TO THE PLAN, ABOUT SOUND MITIGATION MEASURES, USE ON THE SITE, SO BUILDING SITE LOCATION WAS ONE OF OUR PRIME CONCERNS, JUST WHERE'S THAT BUILDING GOING TO BE? YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLAN IN THAT KIND OF CLOUDED AREA, THAT'S THE BUILDING LINE, SO THERE WON'T BE ANY BUILDINGS CLOSER THAN THAT KIND OF DOTTED LINE THAT HAS THE CLOUD AROUND IT. THEY ALSO WOULD HAVE INWARD-FACING EQUIPMENT YARDS WHICH WOULD FACE INTO THE PARK ITSELF AND NOT ON THE BACKSIDE TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL. THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE THINGS LIKE BERMS, ACOUSTIC PANELS AND THEN, USE EQUIPMENT THAT ACTUALLY PRODUCES LESS SOUND THAN SOME OF THE OLDER DATA CENTERS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN YEARS PAST, SO THOSE WERE THE ITEMS THAT THEY ADDED TO THE NOTES. AS COMMITMENTS ON THE CONDITIONAL PLAN. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE BERM, SINCE THE BERM WILL REQUIRE FOR TREES TO BE REMOVED, AND MAY CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD PER THE LAND USE COMMENTS, PER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, THE PETITIONER REMOVED THE WORD POTENTIAL FROM TREE SAVE SO THAT THIS WILL BE A TREE SAVE AREA AND NO BERM IS NECESSARY. SO WHICH ONE ARE WE DOING? >>PETTINE: THEY MAY STILL DO BERMS INTERNAL TO THE SITE, NEAR THE BUILDINGS. THE BERM THAT STAFF WAS INQUIRING, IN THIS GENERAL AREA, THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE GENERALLY TREE SAVE. SO THAT'S GOING TO PROVIDE A LOT OF SOUND MITIGATION, AND THEY ARE CORRECT IF THEY PUT A BERM IN THERE, WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE MORE TREES OUT THAN WE WOULD MAINTAIN, SO WE WERE OKAY WITH THEM LEAVING THAT AND REMOVING IT AS POTENTIAL TREE SAVE, MEANING MAYBE THEY'LL DO IT AND MAYBE THEY WON'T AND NOW IT'S COMMITTED TO AS TREE SAVE, SO THIS WILL ALL REMAIN INTACT. ANY BERMS THAT THEY BUILD MAY BE INTERNAL TO THE SITE. JUST AROUND THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES, JUST TO HELP DAMPEN SOME OF THAT SOUND. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE CURRENT TREE SAVE THAT YOU JUST IDENTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO KEEPING? HOW MANY FEET IS THAT TREE SAVE, BECAUSE THE HOME IS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN. AS FAR AS QUALITY OF LIFE. NOT TO MENTION THE AMOUNT OF WATER AND OTHER THINGS THAT'S USED FOR THIS TYPE OF FACILITY WHICH WE HAVE RESEARCHED, THAT'S BEEN DONE ON IT. SO HOW MANY FEET OF TREE SAVE PROTECTION DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE RIGHT THERE? >>PETTINE: SO WE'RE PROBABLY, LOOKING AT LEAST 100-PLUS FEET, THE FLOODPLAIN ITSELF IN THIS AREA, TO THE SOUTH, IS 100 FEET. AND THEN, YOU'VE GOT QUITE A DISTANCE BETWEEN THERE AS WELL. SO THE TREE SAVE AREA ITSELF IS GOING TO BE ELWELL OVER 100 FEET IF NOT PUSHING MAYBE UPWARDS OF TWO, I KNOW THE PETITIONER IS HERE, SO IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO BETTER ANSWER ON ANY OF THOSE, THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BASED ON THE SITE PLAN, YOU'VE GOT AT LEAST 100 FOOT FLOODPLAIN BUFFER AND ANOTHER 100 FOOT BUFFER SO 200 FEET OF SEPARATION AND TREE SAVE IN THAT AREA. >>. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: AND IN RESPONSE TO THE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO NOISE MITIGATION, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR THE BERM THAT'S IN THAT TOP BUBBLE. >>PETTINE: SO THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PROPOSED BUILDING LINE, SO THERE WOULD BE NO BUILDINGS SOUTH OF THAT. WHICH WAS ALSO KIND OF A KEY COMPONENT, IF THERE WAS A BUILDING HERE, THAT'S A LOT MORE IMPACTFUL THAN ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET AWAY. SO NOTHING WOULD BE ON THIS SIDE OF THAT LINE. AND THEN ANY OF THEIR EQUIPMENT, AGAIN, IS GOING TO BE INTERNAL-FACING SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FACING OUT TOWARDS THE SOUTH AREA THIS WAY. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE INSIDE OF THAT BUBBLE FACING INWARD. NOT ABOVE THE BUBBLE. >>PETTINE: NOT NECESSARILY IN THE BUBBLE, BUT THIS LINE WOULD BE WHERE IF THEY HAVE ANY BUILDINGS, THAT IR GOING TO BE IN THIS GENERAL AREA HERE, TO THIS LINE. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: OKAY, SO THE BUILD WILLING BE ON THE OTHER END AND WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT? >>PETTINE: THIS? >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: NO. WHERE THE BUILDING WOULD BE. WHAT IS SURROUNDING IT, SINCE WE HAVE THE TREE PROTECTION ON ONE END, THE BUILDING POTENTIALLY IS GOING TO BE IN THAT TOP SPACE, NOT COMING BELOW, THE DOTTED LINE, WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF WHERE THE POTENTIAL BUILDING IS GOING TO GO. >>PETTINE: SO ESSENTIALLY, THIS WHOLE AREA THAT'S IN GRAY, NORTH OF THIS LINE, AND INTO THIS AREA HERE, THIS IS GOING TO BE A 50-FOOT BUFFER, ALONG THE ROADWAY, ON THIS SIDE, AND THEN ALL OF YOUR BUILDINGS WOULD BASICALLY OCCUR IN THIS GENERAL AREA HERE. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: OKAY, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 150 CLOSEST TO COMMUNITY AND ABOUT 50 FOOT BUFFER ON THE OTHER SIDE. THANK YOU. FOR THE CLARIFICATION. >>PETTINE: UH-HUH. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. AJMERA? >>DIMPLE AJMERA: THANK YOU. SO I REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD A HEARING FOR THIS, I WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT. THERE WAS -- I WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT BUT I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT NOW, THERE WERE SOUND CONCERNS AND I KNOW MS. JACKSON HAD SENT AN E MA ILL TO ALL OF US, AND PETITIONER OFFERED A TOUR TO THE SITE, A SIMILAR SITE, IN NORTH CAROLINA, AND SOME OF THIS MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WERE ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS AND MS. JACKSON ACTUALLY SENT A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF IT. SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT A PETITIONER PUTTING AN EFFORT TO, ACTUALLY DO A SITE VISIT, AS WELL AS ADDRESSING THE SOUND CONCERNS THAT -- I'M PLEASED WITH SOME OF THESE MEASURES AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT. AND ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE PETITIONER FOR DEDICATING THE GREEN WAY CONNECTION, I THINK THAT CERTAINLY, HELPS US WITH CREATING MORE ACCESS TO OUR GREEN SITES. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: FOLLOWUP. MAYOR PRO TEM. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. MAYFIELD. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER AJMERA. FOR REMINDING ME THAT MS. JACKSON DID SEND AN ADDITIONAL E-MAIL. DO WE KNOW AND MR. PETTINE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE IN OUR LANGUAGE, AND IF NOT, IT'S OKAY. BUT SHE DID NOTE THAT THEIR GROUP, THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, IS CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE DATA CENTER. IN CASE THEY DO BEGIN TO HEAR THE HOME -- THAT WAY THEY CAN WORK WITH DUKE ENERGY TO TROUBLESHOOT. HERE'S MY QUESTION. >>PETTINE: UH-HUH. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: ONCE APPROVE THIS, WHAT WE APPROVE BECOMES HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN BUILD, AND HOW YOU MOVE FORWARD. DO WE HAVE ANY LANGUAGE IN PLACE WHERE IF WE DO SEE THAT IN THREE YEARS, SEVEN YEARS, THAT THIS IS CREATING A NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, DO WE HAVE ANY LANGUAGE IN PLACE ON THIS CONTRACT TO HELP THE COMMUNITY ADDRESS IT? OR WHAT WE ARE APPROVING TONIGHT SAYS WE MOVE FORWARD? >>PETTINE: SO WE DO HAVE OF COURSE WE HAVE THE NOISE ORDINANCE, AND THEN WE HAVE THE COMMITMENTS TO THE NOTES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE, WHERE THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE, THAT THE EQUIPMENT WOULD BE INWARD FACING SO IF THEY DO THINGS WHERE THEY HAVEN'T ADHERED TO THOSE NOTES, WE DO ENFORCEMENT ON THOSE, AND THEN AGAIN, WE HAVE THE SOUND -- THE NOISE ORDINANCE, AND THOSE ARE REALLY THE MEASURES THAT WE'VE GOT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL PROTECTION ON THIS ONE. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU, MR. PETTINE, THAT YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ADOPT AND APPROVE, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ALL OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? WE HAVE TWO IN OPPOSITION. THAT PASSES 7-2. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR DECISIONS OF THE NIGHT. ITEM 26. AND ITEM 26 DOES HAVE SOME CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AFTER THE ZONING COMMITTEE MET, DO YOU WANT TO TELL US ABOUT THOSE? >>PETTINE: 2022-160, DID HAVE ONE CHANGE AFTER ZONING COMMITTEE. THEY DID REVISE THE PLAN TO SHIFT SOME BUILDINGS AROUND, THAT WOULD BETTER ADDRESS SOME OF THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN THE PROPOSED GRADING OF THE SITE. AND SO AGAIN, THAT INCLUDED SHIFTING SOME OF THE BUILDINGS AND PARKING AREAS, MAINLY INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE, IT DIDN'T AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THE SENSE OF MOVING ANYTHING CLOSER, IT KIND OF JUST AGAIN, ADHERED TO SOME OF THOSE TOPOGRAPHY CHALLENGES FOR THE SITE. NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL THAT STAFF BELIEVES NEED TO GO BACK TO ZONING COMMITTEE FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: SO THIS VOTE TAKES A THREE-QUARTERS VOTE TO SEND OR NOT SEND BACK. TO THE ZONING COMMITTEE. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO NOT SEND BACK TO ZONING COMMITTEE? SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION TO NOT SEND BACK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS. THAT DOES NOT GO BACK, SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PETITION, ITEM NUMBER 26, REZONING PETITION 2022-160 BY PENNED LETTER DEVELOPMENT, LLC, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 24.13 ACRES ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF MOUNT HOLLY ROAD IN EAST SIDE OF CRESCENT CIRCLE, WEST OF INTERSTATE 85. IN THE ETJ, COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 2, MS. LEAKE'S DISTRICT, CLOSEST TO CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 2, MR. GRAHAM'S DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING IS ML1, MANUFACTURING AND LOGISTICS, AND CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND N1A, NEIGHBORHOOD 1A, THE PROPOSED IS R12MF, RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY CONDITIONAL. VOTED 4-3 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION AND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION IN ITS CURRENT FORM. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: MOVE TO DENY. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: A MOTION TO DENY AND THAT'S BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION, MS. AJMERA? >>DIMPLE AJMERA: THANK YOU, MR. WINSTON. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. THIS SITE IS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE, AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, ALSO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR MULTIFAMILY. SO REALLY, DOESN'T BELONG HERE. I THINK THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT DENSITY, BUT ALSO THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'VE GOT TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE DOING OUR PART TO PRESERVE OUR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. MAYFIELD. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THAT THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION OF MOUNT HOLLY ROAD IS RIGHT BEFORE YOU GET TO MOUNT HOLLY HUNTERSVILLE ROAD WHERE THE THERE IS A LIGHT, IT IS A TWO-LANE ROAD. IT IS STATE MAINTAINED, IT IS VERY -- THIS IS NOT A ROAD THAT'S GOING TO BE WIDENED ANY TIME SOON AND THERE'S A BRIDGE. THIS ROAD IS -- HAS A LOT OF CHALLENGES. AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, HAVING 268 MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE NOT ONLY A BURDEN ON INFRASTRUCTURE, A BURDEN ON THE RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY. BECAUSE IN UNINCORPORATED CHARLOTTE, THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE NEW TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE RIGHT PAST THE MAIN LIGHT ON MOUNT HOLLY ROAD RIGHT BEHIND, KEEP STRAIGHT UP THROUGH MOUNT HOLLY AND MOUNT HOLLY HUNTERSVILLE ROAD, THIS AREA IS AN AREA WHERE FOR NOW, SINGLE FAMILY WILL STILL BE A BETTER OPTION OUTSIDE OF THE BUSINESS THAT HAS BEEN THERE. VERSUS A MULTIFAMILY WITH THE WAY THAT WE HAVE EGRESS AND REGRESS TRYING TO ACCESS MOUNT HOLLY ROAD, BECAUSE YOU COME OFF OF 485 TO ACCESS IT, THE ROAD GOES FROM TWO LANES IMMEDIATELY TO ONE LANE AND IT IS JUST A ONE-WAY ALL THE WAY DOWN FROM ONCE YOU PAST CEDAR MILL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY WHERE WE APPROVE A QUIKTRIP TO GO, BUT IT'S RIGHT OFF OF 485. BUT THERE'S A LONG STRIP WHERE IT IS LITERALLY JUST A ONE LANE, ON EACH SIDE AND IT LOT CAUSE A NUMBER OF ISSUES, ALONG WITH IT BEING DIRECTLY ACROSS AN ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. SO I AM NOT -- FULL DISCLOSURE, AS A RESIDENT IN NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT UTILIZES THIS ROAD MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY, I'VE SEEN THAT IT -- WHETHER IT'S EARLY MORNING, MIDDAY, EARLY AFTERNOON, IF THERE IS ANY TYPE OF BACKUP, THAT CAUSES A MAJOR CONCERN IN THE COMMUNITIES AREN'T COMMUNITIES THAT YOU CAN CONNECT THROUGH. TO TRY TO GET AROUND. IF THERE WERE TO BE AN ACCIDENT AND WE NEED POLICE, FIRE OR ANYTHING OUT THERE. SO I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CURRENT FORM. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MR. GRAHAM? >>MALCOLM GRAHAM: MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR APPROVAL. >>TARIQ BOKHARI: SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT'S BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION? MS. ANDERSON, DID YOU WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED? >>DANTE ANDERSON: YES, I DID, I WANTED TO BE NOT FOR THIS PARTICULAR MOTION, BUT I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION AROUND THE DONING COMMITTEE'S -- ZONING COMMITTEE'S VOTING ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, 4-3 AGAINST. AND AS YOU READ THE NOTES, FROM THE OUTSTANDING ISSUE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: 4. 3. >>DANTE ANDERSON: I'M SORRY, AS YOU READ THE NOTES, ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, WITHSTANDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1, SO I WONDERED IF THE HEAD OF THE COMMISSION COULD PARTICULARLY SPEAK TO WHAT WERE THE ISSUES THAT OUR ZONING COMMISSIONERS HAD WITH THIS. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: YOU CAN ASK -- >>. >>DANTE ANDERSON: CAN YOU PROVIDE A TOP LEVEL VIEW OF YOUR CONCERNS AS A BODY. >> YES, THE INITIAL CONCERNS WERE AND COMMITTEE HELP ME OUT, THE INITIAL CONCERNS WERE REGARDING TRAFFIC AND THE CONNECTIVITY TO THE -- THERE'S AN ACTIVITY CENTER, RETAIL CENTER, AT THE INTERSECTION OF MOUNT HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE, AND MOUNT HOLLY ROAD. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE INITIAL ISSUES THAT WAS THERE, AND I THINK STAFF'S RESISTANCE WAS RELATED TO THE FORM OF THE BUILDINGS. WHICH ALSO WAS A CONCERN. WE'VE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT FORM OF THE BUILDINGS AND THAT ISSUE WAS RESOLVED WITH US. IT -- THIS PETITION DID COME TO US A NUMBER OF TIMES AND THE PETITIONER DID WORK DILIGENTLY TO GET IT TO A FORM WHERE IT WAS ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE COMMITTEE. BUT AGAIN, THE -- SOME OF THE COMMITMENTS RELATED TO WHAT COULD HAPPEN ON THAT ROAD, BECAUSE IT IS A STATE-MAINTAINED ROAD. WE'RE BEHOLDEN TO THE STATE TO DO THE STATE'S THING, RIGHT? AND THAT DOES MAKE IT SOMETIMES DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO PERHAPS PROGRESS AN AREA INTO A CERTAIN DIRECTION TO ARRIVE AT THAT LOCATION THAT THEY WANT TO GET TO. AND AGAIN, THE ISSUES OF FORM WERE RESOLVED. AND A LOT OF WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ANY HOUSING HELPS THE AFFORDABILITY OF ALL HOUSING AND WE WANTED TO MARCH DOWN THAT PATH. >>DANTE ANDERSON: THANK YOU, SO THE STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS PARTICULAR PETITION AND THREE MEMBERS OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE DID NOT RECOMMEND IT AS WELL. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO APPROVE THE PETITION AND ADOPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AS OUR OWN? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSEED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. NO ACTION ON THAT SUBSTITUTE MOTION, WE'LL MOVE BACK TO THE MOTION TO DENY, AND DO WE NEED A CONSISTENCY STATEMENT TO ADOPT? >>PETTINE: YEAH, YOU WOULD NEED TO HIGHLIGHT POINTS AS TO WHY YOU'RE MAKING THAT CONSISTENCY STATEMENT FROM COUNCIL'S STAND POINT, SO TAKE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ALREADY, AROUND THE DAIS, SO FAR, AND WORK THOSE INTO A CONSISTENCY STATEMENT. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: CAN WE USE MS. AJMERA'S. >>PETTINE: YOU CAN USE SOME OF IS THAT AND STAFF DOESN'T RECOMMEND IT, SO YOU CAN ALSO USE STAFF'S AND WE CAN TAKE COUNCIL MEMBER AJMERA'S INTO CONSIDERATION ALSO, BUT STAFF'S IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: YOUR MOTION, SO. >>DIMPLE AJMERA: YES, I MOVE TO DENY THIS PETITION BECAUSE IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE AREA PLAN. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: WHAT'S THAT? I'M SORRY. WHAT IS YOUR MOTION, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR MOTION. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: I MEAN, COUNCIL MEMBER AJMERA STARTED, DIDN'T HEAR -- >>DIMPLE AJMERA: EITHER WAY, FINE. >>PETTINE: YOU CAN ADAPT STAFF'S AS YOUR OWN. >>DIMPLE AJMERA: IT DOESN'T MATTER. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE CONSISTENCY STATEMENT IS. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO THE CONSISTENCY STATEMENT IS TO MOVE AND DENY IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION NOT TO APPROVE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: A MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, TO DENY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? THERE'S NO ACTION ON THAT. DENY. SO THERE'S -- THAT WILL BE -- THIS WILL -- THIS WILL BE INHERENTLY A DEFERRAL AND WILL BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDA. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 27. REZONING PETITION 2022-168 BY NICK ARMSTRONG, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY .55 ACRES ON SOUTH OF TUCKASEEGEE ROAD AND EAST OF ANDERLY ROAD, MR. GRAHAM'S DISTRICT. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS N1C NEIGHBORHOOD 1C, MUDD 0 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OPTION WITH AN OPTION AND PROPOSED ZONING IS MUDD 0 MIXED USE AND MUDD SPA, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPTIONAL WITH A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. THE ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 7-0 TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS PETITION, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE -- APPROVE THE PETITION AND ADOPT THE STAFF'S CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AS OUR OWN? ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS PETITION? I'LL MAKE ONE COMMENT. I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS. I VOTED AGAINST THIS IN A PAST FORM OF REMOVING HOUSING FOR AN OPEN AIR PARKING LOT. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION? MS. MAYFIELD? >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THE GREATER ANDERLY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID SHOW -- HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PETITIONER, THIS PARTICULAR PETITION ACTUALLY STARTED WHEN I WAS STILL THE DISTRICT 3 REPRESENTATIVE. AND IT WAS ALWAYS KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN THEY PURCHASED BOTH PARCELS, THAT THIS WOULD BE A PARKING LOT, THE PETITIONERS HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEY ARE IN SUPPORT WHICH IS WHY I AM ALSO, IF WE GO FURTHER UP TO TUCKASEEGEE, WE SEE A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED AND THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST DEVELOPMENTS TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, THAT TRULY ENGAGED THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THE RESIDENTS WITH MOVING FORWARD AND HONESTLY, AS WE TALK ABOUT THE DIVERSITY AND WHO'S HAD ACCESS THROUGH OUR IDENTIFICATION OF OPPORTUNITY ZONES, THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY FEW ACTUAL MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES THAT HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO GROW OFF OF THE TUCKASEEGEE CORRIDOR. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE MANY REASONS WHY I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS WITH THE MAIN ONE BEING BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY OVERWHELMLY IS IN SUPPORT. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE -- TO ADOPT AND THE APPROVE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED? THAT PASSES 8-1. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 28. REZONING PETITION 2022-204 BY JAY JEET, LLC APPROXIMATELY 5.19 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUNSET ROAD, WEST OF BEATTIES FORD ROAD, AND EAST OF PEACHTREE ROAD. IN COUNTY COMMISSION 2, MS. LEAKE'S DISTRICT, CLOSEST TO CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 2, MR. GRAHAM'S DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING IS N1B, NEIGHBORHOOD 1B AND PROPOSED ZONING IS MUDD CD MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, CONDITIONAL. ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 7-0 TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS PETITION, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS PETITION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE, TO APPROVE THIS PETITION, AND ADOPT STAFF'S CONSISTENCY STATEMENT AS OUR OWN. IS THERE ANY COMMENT. MS. WATLINGTON. >>VICTORIA WATLINGTON: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE ZONING COMMITTEE, PLEASE, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THEIR RATI RATIONALE. >> WHEN WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS LAST MONTH, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT CAME UP AND I THINK I USED THE WORD PROXIMITY TO DESCRIBE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THERE. PRIMARILY, CONCERNS RELATED TO THE DISTANCE FROM THE QUARRY THAT'S THERE. THE CONFIGURATION OF THE UNITS AND THE ABILITY TO HAVE SAFE PASSAGE ACROSS SUNSET. WAS ONE OF THOSE -- THE PRIMARY CONCERNS THAT WE NOTED LAST TIME. >>VICTORIA WATLINGTON: THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MR. GRAHAM. >>MALCOLM GRAHAM: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THIS IS DISTRICT 2 FOR REZONINGS THAT ARE DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX. TO SAY THE LEAST. I WENT TO THE SITE, AGAIN, AFTER THE LAST MEETING. TOOK THE WALK MYSELF. AND I DIDN'T SEE THE ISSUES THAT WERE REPORTED BY THE COMMISSION. AND FELT COMFORTABLE TODAY AS I DID LAST MONTH WITH APPROVING OF THIS PETITION. AND I HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD DO THE SAME. THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MR. DRIGGS, MS. AJMERA MR. DRIGGS. >>ED DRIGGS: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THE CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT THIS ONE IS IF WE DID DENY IT, I THINK IT IMPLIES SORT OF A PRECEDENT OR A POLICY STATEMENT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IS SUPPORTED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE UDO AND THE 2040 PLAN. I MEAN, IF WE TURN THIS DOWN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN FOR A LOT OF FUTURE PETITIONS WHAT OUR PROCESS WAS. SO I HAVE TO SAY, HAVING STUDIED THIS PRETTY CAREFULLY MYSELF, I DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE POLICY CONSISTENCY. THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. AJMERA. >>DIMPLE AJMERA: THANK YOU. I STRUGGLED WITH THIS PETITION. THEN I TALKED TO DISTRICT COUNCIL MEMBER, AND THE PETITIONER, MR. BARNES, AND THERE ARE SOME ACCESS ISSUES THAT ZONING COMMITTEE HAD BROUGHT UP. AND RAISED. BUT PETITIONER HAS DONE EVERYTHING THAT THEY COULD WITHIN THE AUTHORITY THAT THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS THOSE. WHAT I DO SEE HERE, THAT THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE C.A.T.S. BUS STOP, WHICH REALLY PROVIDES A CONNECTION DIRECTLY BETWEEN NORTH LAKE TO THE -- BETWEEN NORTH LAKE AND ROSA PARKS TRANSIT CENTER. SO I -- I'M -- I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. AND I'M ALSO SUPPORTING WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE A COMMENT. AS WELL. I HEARD SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ZONING COMMITTEE ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF THE QUARRY. POTENTIAL RESIDENTS. I CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. BUT IT'S ALREADY ZONED IN A WAY THAT HOUSING CAN BE BUILT ON THIS -- ON THIS PIECE OF LAND. AND I THINK THE ZONING ALLOWS FOR MAYBE A BETTER TYPE OF HOUSING AS WELL AS THE INCLUSION OF RETAIL, SO OVERALL, I THINK APPROVING THIS LAND USE DECISION WILL PROVIDE A BETTER DEVELOP M DEVEL DEVELOPMENT, KIND OF TRACK IT'S CURRENTLY ON, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. MS. MAYFIELD. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. I DO WANT TO REITERATE THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S COMMENTS. AND SPECIFICALLY, BULLET POINT NUMBER 4, THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO CONCERNS REGARDING PROXIMITY TO MANUFACTURING AND LOGISTICS FACILITIES IN THE AREA. MOST NOTABLY, THE QUARRY TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE. NOW, AS SOMEONE WHO FORMALLY REPRESENTED AN AREA THAT HAD A QUARRY, THAT WAS BUILT MANY YEARS AGO, BEFORE THE COMMUNITY WAS DEVELOPED. MANY OF THE UNFORTUNATELY, OUR LEGISLATION FROM RALEIGH-- BLESS YOU-- AT MOST TIMES IS THE BARE MINIMAL. THAT BARE MINIMAL IS NOT ADDRESSING THE IMPACT OF THE THE FOUNDATIONAL CRACKS. HOMES TODAY WEREN'T BUILT THE WAY THEY WERE IN THE '30s, '40s OR '50s. WE BUILD WITH DIFFERENT MATERIALS WE ARE NOT HAVING PLASTER AND CONCRETE AND OTHER AND RESIDENTIAL HOMES. BUT TO PURPOSELY GO IN AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT KNOWING IT CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM A DECADE TO THREE DECADES AND MORE THAN JUST OFF ARROWOOD. WE HAVE MULTIPLE QUARRIES AND AIR QUALITY, BLASTING AND FOUNDATIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ISSUES SO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT KNOWING THAT WE R AND I HAVE A CONCERN THAT ALTHOUGH THIS IS OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS, OUR DECISION IS NEGATIVELY GOING TO IMPACT DEW FUTURE HOMEOWNERS AND ALSO THE ABILITY IF THOSE HOMEOWNERS NEEDED TO SELL THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BECAUSE ONCE IT'S IDENTIFIED AS A HEALTH RISK OR A HAZARD, THEY ARE THEN STUCK. SO I WILL NOT ---I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE TO DENY. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. FIRST OF ALL, I CONCUR WITH THE STATEMENTS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MAYFIELD JUST MENTIONED. I REPRESENT THE DISTRICT THAT SHE USED TO REPRESENT, AND THE RAMBLEWOOD NEIGHBORS WOULD TELL YOU THAT THIS IS A TREMENDOUS PROBLEM DESPITE HAVING NEIGHBORS-- DESPITE HAVING A QUARRY AS A NEIGHBOR WHO HAS BEEN RECEPTIVE AND TRIED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR BUT THE NATURE OF THE PROCESS AND THE OPERATION CREATES ISSUES THAT WE KNOW ULTIMATELY SHOW UP IN THE HOME. AS I THINK ABOUT THE POINT THAT MAYOR PRO TEM MADE IN REGARD TO THIS ALREADY BEING ZONED AS N1-B, I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH HOW WE LOOK AT PLACES THAT ARE NEXT TO I'LL SAY POTENTIAL HAZARDS IF YOU WILL WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT THROUGH THE COMMUNITY AREA PLANNING PROCESS. I KNOW THAT WE MATCHED THE ONE-FOR-ONE ESSENTIALLY FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONING AREA PLANS TO THE POLICY MAP BUT THIS FEELS LIKE ONE THAT SHOW UP TO SAY THIS IS PROBABLY NOT A PLACE WHERE WE WANT FUTURE RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY CONSIDERING IT'S NEXT TO BUSINESS WITHOUT HAVING IT BUILT ON A SITE T THAT THAT WOULD CAUSE A POTENTIAL ISSUE. I LIFT THAT UP. I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE AROUND THE COMMUNITY THAT THIS EXISTS AND AND I WOULD ASK AS WE DO THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESSES THAT WE TAKE MORE FINE TOOTH COMB TO SOME OF THESE LOTS AND PARCELS WHERE WE SEE THESE TRANSITIONS PARTICULARLY NEXT TO THESE INDUSTRIAL OR MANUFACTURING TYPE SITES. I DO I APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S A MIX IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, I THINK WE'RE SETTING OURSELF UP FOR FUTURE ISSUE BUSINESS HAVING THES RERESIDENTIAL. PERHAPS MY QUESTION IS, WOULD THE PETITIONER HAVE LESS RESIDENTIAL ON THEIR SITE? IS IT POSSIBLE? WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO WORK THROUGH WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH MORE RETAIL FOCUS? >> I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET AN ANSWER FROM THE PETITIONER. THAT WOULD BE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WE CAN ADOPT, DENY, DEFER WITHDRAW. >> DEFER. >> THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. >> IN THAT CASE, I MOVE TO DEFER IT IN THE HOPE THAT THE MIX COULD BE MORE RETAIL. >> SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT'S BEEN MADE TO DEFER THIS. DO WE WANT TO BE SPECIFIC? >> I WOULD WANT TO PUT A PROPOSAL THAT WILL WORK. NEXT MONTH IS NOT A REALISTIC TIMEFRAME TO REWORK THE PLAN ON THE SITE. >> I THINK IT HAS TO BE A SPECIFIC TIME? >> DECEMBER REZONING MEETING THEN. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: MOTION TO DEFER IT TO THE DECEMBER REZONING MEETING. AND A SECOND. MS. ANDERSON >> ANDERSON: I WAS THE SECOND. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I FIND THAT PETITIONS LIKE THESE ARE CONCERNING WHEN YOU HAVE THE STAFF APPROVE THEM AND THE ENTIRE ZONING COMMITTEE HAS WROTE IT AGAINST THIS AND THERE ARE EXAMPLES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WHERE WE TO STATEMENTS MADE EARLIER BY SOME COLLEAGUES WHAT WE CAN LOOK AT, HOW THIS HAS WORKED OUT IN THE PAST AND WHAT'S ADDITIONALLY CONCERNING TO ME IS WHEN I LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT I ONLY SEE ONE COMMUNITY MEMBER TO ATTEND THE MEETING THAT WILL IMPACT PROBABLY THEIR LARGEST INVESTMENT WHICH WAS THEIR HOME. AS I SUPPORT A DEFERRAL ON THIS TO SCRUB AND REVISE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS ON THIS SITE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS THE PROPER ENGAGEMENT BECAUSE THIS WILL DEFINITELY DIRECTLY IMPACT THEIR LARGEST INVESTMENT AND THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE IMPACTS MAY POTENTIALLY BE. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. >> MR. DRIGGS. >> DRIGGS: I'M SORRY. >> I'M SORRY. YOU ALREADY SPOKE ON. THIS MS. JOHNSON. >> JOHNSON: I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO OUR COLLEAGUES THE LETTER FROM THE COUNTY, THE LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY. THERE'S INFORMATION THAT SAYS THE GROUND AND WASTE WATER SERVICES INDICATE CONTAMINATION SITES EXIST ON AND 1,500 FEET IN THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE PETITION. THERE'S ALSO INFORMATION ABOUT THE AIR QUALITY. SO IF WE CAN ASK LIKE OUR CITY STAFF IF THEY'RE REVIEWING THESE AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN RANK THESE SOME KIND OF WAY BETWEEN 1 AND 10 ON WHAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER. BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THE LETTERS OR MEMOS FROM THE COUNTY ARE A LITTLE MORE VAGUE THAN THIS, BUT THIS IS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME. SO I'D LIKE THOSE LETTERS AND LETTERS FROM CMS THAT SAY THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CONCERN ABOUT SCHOOL OVERVOWEDDING, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION IS BEING CONSIDERED WHEN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS AS WELL. >> DRIGGS: I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFERRAL. I THINK-- >> I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A RESPONSE. >> I WILL RESPOND TO THE GROUNDWATER COMMENT. IF YOU PUT A WELL ON THE PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH-- BE MINDFUL OF THAT KIND OF CONTAMINATION. IF THIS PLUGS INTO PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR GROUNDWATER. IT PERTAINS TO WELLS, A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS WOULDN'T OPERATE ON A WELL WATER SYSTEM. THAT'S WHY THAT COMMENT IS MORE ADVISORY. THE AIR QUALITY PERMIT, AGAIN, THEY HAVE TO OPERATE WITHIN CERTAIN CONFINES AND WHEN THEY ISSUE THAT AIR QUALITY PERMIT, THEY CAN ONLY, YOU KNOW, WORK WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS FOR EMISSIONS. THIS HE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN CERTAIN GUIDELINES. IF THEY DON'T, THERE ARE ISSUES THAT CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE OPERATIONS OF THE QUARRY FACILITY, BUT THEY DO HAVE TO OPERATE WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS OF AIR QUALITY POLLUTION AND SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THOSE ARE MORE-- THEY DO HAVE SOME ADVISORY COMMENTS IN THERE. THE GROUNDWATER ONE IS NOT ONE THAT WE TYPICALLY GET INTO BECAUSE MOST OF OUR PROJECTS ARE TIED INTO PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEMS. >> CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? BECAUSE YOU'RE PLANNING STAFF, YOU MAY SEE THINGS LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, ROUTINELY, BUT FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR SOMEONE LOOKING AT THIS, YOU'RE LIKE OH, NO, THE SKY'S FALLING. IF WE COULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF NOTE THAT WE KNOW THIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IF THERE'S A RANKING OR SOMETHING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE THIS DOES, I MEAN, IF THE RESIDENTS READ THIS AND WE READ THIS, IT SEEMINGLY VERY PROBLEMATIC TO ME, BUT IF THERE'S EFFECT PLANATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN OUR DECISION AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> DRIGGS: I AGREE WITH THE DEFERRAL. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE MAKER IF WE COULD DEFER FOR ONE MONTH AND NOT THREE BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS DEFER IT AGAIN. I DON'T SEE WHY WE NEED TO NECESSARILY TAKE THREE MONTHS TO REACH A RESOLUTION. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? >> UH-HUH. >> THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THIS. >> WILL THE MAKER MAKE A SECOND AND AGREE WITH THAT? >> I AGREE. >> DRIGGS: THANK YOU. >> AJMERA: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST. >> MAYFIELD: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. AS A FOLLOW-UP TO THE COMMENTS THAT MY COLLEAGUE, MS. JOHNSON, READ, IN OUR PETITION NOTE, CHARLOTTE WATER STATES, CHARLOTTE WATER CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE WATER SYSTEM ACCESSIBLE FOR THE REZONING BOUNDARY UNDER REVIEW. THE CLOSEST WATER DISTRIBUTION MAIN IS APPROXIMATELY 440 FEET EAST OF THE REZONING BOUNDARY ALONG SUNSET. CHARLOTTE WATER HAS SANITARY SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESSIBLE FOR THE REZONING BOUNDARY, VIA AN EXISTING EIGHT-INCH GRAVITY SEWER MAIN LOCATED AT DIFFERENT PARR PARCEL. SO MR. PETTINE, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE CONTAMINATION IS AND CORRECT ME IF I DID NOT UNDERSTAND YOU COMPLETELY, IS CONNECTED TO HAVING WELL WATER. BUT IF WE'RE SAYING FROM CHARLOTTE WATER THAT WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE WATER SYSTEM ACCESSIBLE FOR THIS BOUNDARY OUTSIDE OF TAPPING IN AND GOING OUT 440 FEET AND TAPPING INTO THE 8-INCH GRAVITY SEWER MAIN, WHY WOULD WE NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONTAMINATION SINCE IT'S GO GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CHARLOTTE WATER SYSTEM TO GET CLEAN. HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED RECEIVD FROM THE COUNTY AND THE COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM CHARLOTTE WATER FOR WHY STAFF WOULD SUPPORT THIS VERSUS FOLLOWING THE-- >> Speaker: SURE. THE LINE 440 FEET AWAY WOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE SITE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY. THAT WOULD TIE INTO THE EXISTING CHARLOTTE WATER SYSTEM, WHICH PULLS ITS WATER FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES. IT'S NOT GROUNDWATER WHICH WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED BY THE CONTAMINATION. SO IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF WATER THAN WHAT MECKLENBURG COUNTY'S COMMENTING ON. >> MARROW TESTIMONY: >> MAYOR PRO TEM:ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER FOR ONE MONTH. MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NONE. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS UNANIMOUS. >> MAYFIELD: MAYOR PRO TEM, MAY I ASK A QUICK QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION? WHAT I HEARD FROM COUNCIL MEMBER DRIGGS WE HE CAN DEFER ONE MONTH KNOWING THAT IF THE PETITIONER NEEDS ADDITIONAL TIME THAT WE ENSURE THAT LANGUAGE IS ALSO IN THIS DEFERRAL FOR THE MINUTES THAT WE'RE DEFERRING FOR ONE MONTH KNOWING THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THIS WOULD COME FOR A DEFERRAL AGAIN SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE CONVERSATION OF, WELL, WE DEFERRED IT ONE MONTH AND WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A DECISION IF ALL THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FULL STATEMENT WAS REFLECTED. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: CITY COUNCIL MAINTAINS ALL OF ITS PREROGATIVE. [LAUGHTER] >> MAYFIELD: SOMETIMES I WONDER. [LAUGHTER] >> MAYOR PRO TEM: LET'S GO TO AGENDA NUMBER 29, 2023-002 BY JAY COX. THIS DOES HAVE SOME CHANGES AFTER THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S VOTE. WE'LL REVIEW THOSE AFTER I READ IT INTO THE RECORD. THIS IS LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 1.77 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF McKEY ROAD EAST OF WEDDINGTON ROAD AND WEST OF SAVANNAH HILLS DRIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 7, MR. DRIGGS' DISTRICT, ZONING IS N1-A AND PROPOSED IS R89 CD, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 5-2 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. MR. PETTINE, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE CHANGES AFTER THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S VOTE? >> CERTAINLY. THERE WAS ONE CHANGE THE PETITIONER DID ADD, SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS FROM THE SITE DIRECTLY TO THE MULTIUSE PATH AS CONSTRUCTED ON McKEY ROAD, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP DURING THE ZONING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION. SOME RESIDENTS THERE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A SIDEWALK PATH TO THE 12-FOOT MULTIUSE PATH GIVEN McKEY ROAD. THAT WAS THE CHANGE. >> MONKED. >> SECOND. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: MOTION MADE TO NOT SECOND BACK AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THAT IS UNANIMOUS NOT TO SEND BACK. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PETITION AND ADOPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S CONSISTENCY STATEMENT? >> MOVED >> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HA HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT IS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, DOES IT FOR OUR DECISIONS. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 32. FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. REZONING PETITION 2023-106 BY CHARLOTTE PLANNING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, TEXT AMENDMENT. THE TEXT AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW MULTIFAMILY ATTACHED, MULTIFAMILY STACKED AND MULTIDWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL CG AND REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, CR DISTRICTS WHEN LOCATED IN A CENTER'S PLACE TYPE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. MR. PETTINE, IT'S ALL YOURS. >> Speaker: THANK YOU. SO 2023-106 IS A UDO TEXT AMENDMENT. IT IS FOR CITES MULTIFAMILY USES WHICH IS CG AND CR. SO ESSENTIALLY THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY USES RESI RESIDENTIAL, AND ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE COMMERCIAL BASED, ONLY WHEN THEY FALL WITHIN A CENTER'S PLACE TYPE. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTERS, THOSE PLACES WHERE WE DO WANT TO SEE AN INCREASE IN PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY THAT CAN HELP TO KIND OF COALESCE AROUND SOME OF THE OTHER MIX OF USES AND REALLY CREATE A VIBRANT CENTER. WHAT WE REALIZE IS THAT WE DO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF CG ZONING DISTRICT IN SOME OF THOSE CENTERS THAT WOULDN'T ALLOW THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS AMENDMENT TRIES TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THOSE MULTIFAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN CG AND CR, AGAIN, WHEN THEY'RE IN THAT CENTER'S PLACE TYPE AND THIS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF 20940 PLAN SO AGAIN, THE TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THOSE USES IN CENTER'S PLACE TYPES. THEY WOULD ALLOW THINGS USING THE I DID NEXTAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE N.C. ZONING DISTRICT. IF THEY'RE IN A COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER, IF YOU'RE IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT, WOULD YOU STILL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF THE N.C. DISTRICT WHICH DOES HAVE SOME DIFFERING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND THE MORE INTENSE ACTIVITY CENTERS. SO AGAIN, WHAT IMPACT WOULD THIS HAVE? IT WILL REALLY ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THOSE CENTER'S PLACE TYPES AND IN ADVANCE OF THE ALIGNMENT REZONING PROCESS. THIS WILL GET US OUT IN FRONT OF THAT RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THAT PROCESS TO HAPPEN WHICH, AGAIN, WILL BE OUT IN A COUPLE OF YEARS FOR TO US GET THROUGH ALL THAT. THIS PUTS US OUT IN FRONT OF THAT AND BETTER IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICIES FOR THOSE CENTERS AND PLACE TYPES FOUND IN THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PETITION. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> BEFORE WE TAKE QUESTIONS, LET'S OPEN IT UP TO THE HEARING. >> I'M STILL IN VOTING MODE. >> WELCOME, MS. MOLINA, COUNCIL MEMBER TO THE DIAS. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS TEXT AMENDMENT? >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND APPROVE. MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED. >> THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS YES. [LAUGHTER] TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DISCUSSION TO THAT MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. IT'S UNANIMOUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 33, REZONING PETITION 2023-088, BY ON CLEVELAND, LLC, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY .517. THAT'S EXACTLY .51 ACRES ON THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF CLEVELAND AVENUE AND EAST IRVINGTON AVENUE, SOUTH OF EAST BOULEVARD IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 1, MS. ANDERSON'S DISTRICT. CURRENT ZONING IS NS-HDO WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS NCE, NEIGHBORHOOD EXCEPTION WITH HISTORIC OVERLAY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH TECHNICAL REVISIONS. WE DO HAVE COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO THIS. AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION, THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES. >> Speaker: THANK YOU. THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED ALONG THE EDGE OF THE DILWORTH HISTORIC DISTRICT AT THE INTERSECTION OF CLEVELAND AVENUE AND EAST BURLINGTON AVENUE. THIS SITE WAS DEVELOPED IN THE '30s BUT REPRESENTS AS A RESTAURANT. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE AERIAL IN THE NEXT GRAPHIC, THIS HAS PROXIMITY TO SOUTH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR WHERE WE HAVE SEEN A LOT OF TRANSIT ORIENT DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S OVER FROM THE BLUE LINE EAST-WEST STATION. THIS IS AS A RESULT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE STAFF AND THE LONG RANGE PLANNING TEAM. THE INTENT WAS TO DESIGNATE THESE AREAS AS NEIGHBORHOOD 1 IN ORDER TO AID IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES MANY WERE CONSTRUCTED TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BUT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED TO A NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. WE BELIEVE, THOUGH, THAT THIS N1 DESIGNATION DOES NOT REFLECT THE PREVIOUS USES ON THE SITE AS A RESTAURANT AND CHURCH, NOR DOES THAT REFLECT THE BUILDING FORM IN PLACE. THE PROPOSAL, WHICH I'LL DETAIL HERE IN A MOMENT, WHICH MEANS THE PLACE TYPE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER WHICH WE BELIEVE IS APPROPRIATE MEANS THAT IT WOULD ACCURATELY CONVEY THE INTENDED USES AND ESTABLISH A RAN SESSION FOR THIS AREA WHICH IS AGAINST D.O.T. DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND THE SOUTH AND MORE MODERATELY DENSE USES TO THE ZONING TO THE NORTH AND THE EAST. SO THE PROPOSAL, ITSELF, IS TO ALLOW FOR THE ADAPT OF YOU REUSE OF THE EXISTING CHURCH STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE RELOCATION OF THE WYATT BUILDING TO THE NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE WHICH CURRENTLY OPERATES ADDRESS SERVICE PARKING. THE WYATT BUILDING IS A DESIGNATED LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK. IT IS CONSTRUCTED IN 1903 AND IS THE OLDEST SURVIVING RETAIL BRICK COMER SHALL BUILDING FROM DILWORTH'S OLD BUSINESS DISTRICT. THE PETITIONER HAS EXCEPTION PROVISIONS TO MODIFY QUANTITATIVE STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE TWO BUILDINGS AS WELL AS THE SITE LAYOUT IN PLACE. THOSE PROVISIONS ARE A REDUCTION TO THE OFFSPACE BUILDING FROM 22 SPACES DOWN TO 4 OF THOSE OFFSTREET SPACES. I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT IN ADDITION TO THE FOUR OFFSTREET SPACES, THE PETITIONER IS COMMITTING TO PROVIDE EIGHT ON-STREET SPACES AND 10 SPACES THROUGH PARKING LEASE AGREEMENTS AND REQUESTING MODIFICATIONS TO USE STREETSCAPE STANDARDS TO PROTECT THE MATURE TREES ON THE SITE AND THE CURRENT BUILDING. THE YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT WILL BE 25 FEET LANDSCAPE AT CLASS B CLANKED SCAPE ON THE PROPERTY LINES ABUTTING N1. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T ABUT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. LANDSCAPE YARD REQUIREMENT BEING PROPOSED THROUGH THE EX PROVISION IS UNDER 4 FEET WHICH WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK WHICH IS MODIFIED DOWN FROM 20 FEET BECAUSE OF THAT TYPE ADJACANCY. THAT 10-FOOT REAR SETBACK IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS PLANS FOR THE SITE. THE OTHER PROPOSALS ARE RELATED TO DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH CANNOT BE ACHIEVED WHICH WOULD NULLIFY THE INTENT OF THIS PETITION. THESE PETITIONS REQUIRE PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THE PROVISIONS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING AND THE PUBLIC BENEFITS OFFERED THROUGH THIS WOULD BE THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE AS WELL AS THE RELOCATION OF PRESERVATION OF THE LEAF AND BUY WYATT BUILDING AND IT WOULD HAVE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SPACE ALONG WYATT AVENUE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION AND REQUESTS A TECHNICAL REVISION TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONDITIONAL NOTES. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS PETITION HAS UNIQUE CONTEXT BEING NESTLED AMONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. IN AREAS LIKE THESE, PARKING LOTS ARE NOT THE BEST USE POSSIBLE. THE RELOCATION OF HISTORIC TO SURFACE PARKING AREA OF THAT PROPERTY IS A MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF THE LOT AND SPEAKS TO THE PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTS THAT WE ENVISION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PLACE TYPE. THESE PROVISIONS REQUESTED ARE IN RESPONSE TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE TWO BUILDINGS AND WE BELIEVE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS JUSTIFY THE ASK. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS PETITION WILL HAVE TO BE HEARD BY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION BEFORE IT GOES TO ANY DECISION ON RESELLING CASE. I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS BY BOTH PARTIES. JAMI BROWN, TOM DONALDSON AND DONALD, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES COMBINED. >> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, AND MEMBERS OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SARAH STUART AND I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER WITH REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER FOR PROPOSED CLEVELAND WHICH INCLUDES REZONING LEAPER AND WYATT STORE BUILDING. THE TEAM MEMBER FORCE THIS PROJECT INCLUDE THE DEVELOPER AND PETITIONER, TONY BROWN RESTAURANT GROUP, ARCHITECT PETE (INAUDIBLE) ARCHITECTURE AND CIVIL ENGINEER, MYSELF. THE PROJECT LOCATION IS AND EAST WORTHINGTON AVENUE. YOU CAN SEE THE PARKING LOT HOLLY MENTIONED AND YOU CAN SEE THE NEARBY CURRENT LOCATION OF THE LEAPER AND WYATT BUILDING ALONG SOUTH BOULEVARD. HERE'S SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE HISTORY AND THE EXISTING ZONING. THE SITE IS HALF ACRE AND CONTAINS A FORMER CHURCH, WHICH IS BUILT IN 1915. IN 1998, THE SITE WAS REZONED NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES FOR PROPOSED RESTAURANT. THIS REZONING REQUIRED A 25-SPACE PARKING LOT WITH AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR 11 LEASE SPACES. THE HISTORICAL PHOTO HERE SHOWS THE CHURCH BUILDING AND IT SHOWS AN OLD RESIDENCE THAT USED TO SIT WHERE THE CURRENT SURFACE PARKING LOT IS TODAY, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS AERIAL VIEW HERE AS WELL. HERE'S OUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THIS PROJECT PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RELOCATE AND PRESERVE THE HISTORIC LEAPER AND WYATT STORE BUILDING TO AND RELOCATE IT TO 1823 CLEVELAND AVENUE. AS HOLLY SHOWED ON HER PRESENTATION, HERE'S THE EXISTING CHURCH STRUCTURE AND THE PROPOSING TO RELOCATE THE BUILDING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO MAINTAIN THAT EXISTING STREETSCAPE OF THE BUILDING ALL WITH THE SAME STREET SETBACK. THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD KEEP THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY LOCATION, PROVIDE A PLAZAWAY BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS AND PROVIDE FOUR OFFSITE PARKING SPACES ONE BEING ACCESSIBLE LOADING SPACE AND OFFSITE DUMPSTER CLOSURE. WE HAVE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE ALONG EAST WORTHINGTON AVENUE. SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE LEAPER AND WYATT STORE BUILDING, IT'S CURRENTLY LOCATED ON SOUTH BOULEVARD. IT'S THE OLDEST SURVIVING BRICK COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT WAS PART OF THE ATHERTON MILL COMPLEX AND IT WAS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK BY COUNCIL EXACTLY 34 YEARS AGO IN 19 1989. IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED AS PART OF AN APPROVED MIXED USE PRODUCT ON SOUTH BOULEVARD. INFORMATION ABOUT HOW WE SELECTED THE ZONING DISTRICT THE SITE IS RIGHT HERE. IT'S KIND OF CLEAR. WE ARE SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL CG AND TO THE SOUTH, EAST OF US IS NEIGHBORHOOD 1. WE HAVE RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY WOULD NOT LIKE TOD ZONINGS TO ENCROACH FURTHER TOWARD THE N1. WITH THAT IN MIND AND ACCESS TO SERVICES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND AS HOLLY MENTIONED MUCH MORE BRIEFLY THAN I WAS ABLE TO, JUST WITH THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SMALLER SITE AND PROTECTING AN EXISTING BUILDING, HISTORIC BUILDING ON SITE AND PROPOSING TO RELOCATE A HISTORIC BUILDING WE ARE REQUESTING MODIFICATIONS TO THE NC STANDARDS OTHER MODIFICATIONS AND CLEVELAND AND WORTHINGTON AND REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE UDO, BUILDING REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS, BLANK WALL REQUIREMENTS, TO PROTECT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THEIR STATE AND ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED RELOCATION. WHICH THIS HISTORIC LANDMARK WHICH WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE CITY 34 YEARS AGO. TOO FAR BACK. OF COURSE, OUR MAJOR FEEDBACK WE'VE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN THE CONCERN WITH THE LOSS OF PARKING, WHICH WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY AND HAVE BEEN WORKING THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO. WE HAVE PROPOSED TWO LEASE AGREEMENTS AS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND SITES THAT ARE SUITABLE. WITH ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA, PHYSICAL SPACES ARE LESS AVAILABLE AND THE DEMAND FOR THE REMAINING SPACES IS, OF COURSE, INCREASED SO FINDING A FIVE-YEAR LEASE FOR 10 SPACES HAS BEEN CHALLENGING. OUR FIRST LEASE WAS A LITTLE COMPLICATED AND WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE OWNER OF THIS SPACE TO CANCEL IT, BUT WE HAVE SEEN-- ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, SO FAIRLY RECENTLY WERE ABLE TO DEFINE A LEASE FOR 10 SPACES FOR FIVE YEARS WITHIN 800 FEET OF THE SITE THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED FOR OUR USE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 5:00 P.M. AND 11:00 P.M. AND THAT'S PART OF OUR CURRENT REVISIONS TO THE PLANS, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO, WOULDING WITH THE COMMUNITY ON THOSE CHANGES TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT TO MAKE THEM THE MOST BENEFICIAL THEY CAN BE FOR THE AREA. WE ALSO, OF COURSE ARE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOME VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES WE HAVE ACCESS TO. WE HAVE A THIRD OF THEM FROM THE LIGHT RAIL STATION. WE HAVE ON-SITE BIKE PARKING AND RIDE SHARE SERVICES BY PATRONS AND THE CURRENT ACCESSIBILITY, WE WILL BE DOING AS PART OF OUR SITE WORK AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE PETITIONER AND DEVELOPER JAMI GRAHAM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU H HAVE ABOUT 3:15 MINUTES. >> Speaker: I WILL SAY IT QUICKLY. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US THIS EVENING. I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK THOSE WHO CAME HERE THIS EVENING IN SUPPORT OF THIS BUILDING. MY HUSBAND HAS COVID. SO HE'S NOT HERE. HE SENDS HIS BEST. SOMEHOW IT'S 2023 HERE AND AS A RESTAURATEUR, I'M FINDING MYSELF STANDING IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL FIGHTING TO SAVE A 1903 LANDMARK. THAT'S WHERE I EXPECTED TO THE BE BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ABOUT RESTAURANTS TO US. WE'RE IN HOSPITALITY. AND THAT IS WITHIN OUR RESTAURANT DOORS, BUT THAT'S ALSO HOSPITALITY IS ABOUT CREATING UNIQUE PLACES FOR OUR CITY. CHARLOTTE IS AT A PIVOTAL TIME. WE'RE GROWING FAST AND SKYSCRAPERS ARE NOW DOTTING SOUTH END AND UNQUESTIONABLY, THIS IS A BUSY POCKET OF DILWORTH AND SOUTH END. WE'VE GOT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS FLOODING THE STREETS EVERY DAY, BUILDING THOSE HIGH RISES. WE SEE THAT FIRSTHAND AS LITTLE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD APOSSIBLE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SECURED THIS ADDITIONAL LEASE AND TRIED TO BE VERY RESPOIVE WITH THE DCA AND THE REQUESTS. BEYOND IMPLEMENTING THE OFFSITE LEASE, WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN CITY INFRASTCTURE THAT COURAGES WALKING AND SCOOTERS RIDE SHARE PROGRAMS TO GET PEOPLE TO AND FROM THE SPACE. GROWTH PAINS ARE DIFFICULT BUT TRE ARE SOLUTIONS AND WE HAVE PUBLIC PARKING OPONS COMING IN A MERE SHORT THREE YEARS WITH THESE LARGE HIGH RAISES COMING INTO SPACE. WE ASK FOR YY ADERSHIP TO ENVISION SUSTAINABILITY CRM LOCAL JOBS AND HISRY FORANY DECADES COME. PLEASE PROPERTY SO THAT WE MAYS INVESTN MOVING THE STCTURE TO ITSEW HOME O AND AVENUE. THANK YOU. [ APPLAUSE ] >> GOOD EVENING. I'M HEREN BEHALF OF ARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HISTORIC LANDMKS COMMISSIONN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION. I ALSO HAVE FOR YOU COPIES OF UNANIMO SOLUTION TT WAS PASD BID COMMISSK APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. AS S AGO IS EVENING, T CHARLOTTE CITY COUNCIL DECIDE TO RECOGZE THE HISTORIC AND ARCHICTURAL OF THE WYATT GRORY STO BY DESNATING IT AS A HISTOR LANDMARK. I ADTION TO BEING THE OLDEST BUSINESS IN THI CURRENT AREA, ITAS T LAUNCH OF THE CAREER OF DANIEL TOMORROW KIN WHOAS ONE OF THE NEW STH AND BUILD IN HUNDREDS OF TEXLE MILLS DNTS IN THE COLINAS AND UPPE SOUTH BASED ON WHAT HE E E OCERSTORE THAT WRE TALKING OUTERE, THAT WAS SINCE 89, THEEAKE WYATT STARDS OF THIANDMARKL RIGHT-OF-WAY DPITE THE BEST EFFORTS O THE STORE OWNER A FELE OPPORTUNITY T SAVE THHISTORS PRESENT LOCATI. ALL AVAILABLE STUTORY MEASURE TO PREVENT DEMOLITION ARE HAUSTEDHO OF LOCATION. THASHE OPPOUNIT THAT YOU HA TONIGHT TO ALLOWHI A CENTURYLD HISTORICAL ASSET. T U CAN SEND TM TOHE CLERK. THEY E DISTRIBUTE EBBING FOLKS WHWOULD LIKE TOPEAK IN OPPOTI (CALLINGAMES) YOHA 10INESOM COMBIN. YOUOM UP URSELF WITH THENTY MICROPHO. URE AE TO E BOTHICROPHONES SO IF YOU WANT TOPL U TAVE TI, THAT WORKS A WL. >> AS SOON ASHE FST >> MAYORROEM WINSTON, ALN,EPRESENTG T LANDMARK US COMTT OF DILWOH SPITE ALL OF T GROWT IN SPEAK FNT CILNOT H TO FOR FO YRS. WE FST ARD THE DOLITN OF DEMBER OF 21. SCENIN WI THREE DEVOPERS IN CARE ABOUT TSUIING. NG. SINCWE BEGE COMMUNITY MTING,EGAND ADE BY T D TO THE HTORIC BLDING T 1 ROOOP DECK CLED WIT GSS. HE HISTORICISICT CN T Y DUCED PARKG REQUIREMENTS OF THEDOT 22 SPAS I NOTEI PVID ACCORNG TOHEANGUAGE OS TION TONIGHTHA YOU CURRTLHAVE AND PLNING'S INTERETIONF TH LGUAGE ASE UNDERSTANDT. PROJECT ASEQRED BY OINCE NES CLEARLY AND WITHOUT AMGUITY PROVIDEHE MIMU 22PACES IN A FORCIBLE WAY AT DO I MEAN BY AIGUS? R EXAMPLE, FROM T E VECL PARKING O THE CLES, I QUOTE,ELA RMITBLE BY THEANORD IN T EVENT O THEARKI LOOR PARKING LOCATED, CHANGE O CONTROL COTRUCTION OR DEMOLITIO THE PARKING LOT OR PROPERTY WHEG IS LOCAT. SIMILAR CONDITIO ORVISIONS IN THE LEASE DOCUMENT OR OTHER CUOMO PROVIONS. THE TENANT WL T BE REQUIRED TO RENEW T ASFOLLOWED THE INITIAL LEE TERM E REQUIRED IN THEVENT OF A CHANGEE R TEINATION OFHE LEASEY E LANDLORD NON OF THAT LANGUAGE H THE UD THE PION HAS LONG LT PBLEMS IN MEING THE UDO WE AGREE WITH THE STA, THE COITIE GENERALLY DO NOT OPPOSE THE USE OF EXCEPTIONSER. WEVER THED PARKING CANNOT B ONE O THOSETH PROJECT'S LOCATION IN DILWORTH ADDTO THE PARKIN BDEN ALREADY OVERWHELW STREET YOU HAVE RECEID AILS FROM PEOPL IN SUPPT OF THIS PROJECT. MOST PEOPLE WHO LIVIN THE VICITY D NOT SUPPORT TS AS WTTEN. THEY MUST PROVID22 ENE PARKIN SPACES. THANK YOU R YOUR ATTENON. >> Speaker: GO EVENING. ONEHALF OF THE STREET CAR STATION ASSOCIATION. WE'RE A COLLECTION OF MMERCIAL NDOS, DIRECTLY ADJACENTO 1823 CLEVEND AVENUE. R EVERYTHING FROM LANDSPE HAVE A RESTAANT, SEVERALEGN, MOE SALONS, THAPISTS, WE HAVE A NEWBO TOC BAR AND A URCH AS NEIGHBO.SO VARIOUS BUSISSES ARE OPEN NIGHT. ALL WITH THE NEET FOR SOME PARKING. HEN OUR PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED, WE WEREEQUIRED TO PROVIDE BASED ON THE VARIOUS TYPES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND THEIR SQUARE FTAGE. WE CURRTLY HAVE 75PACES THAT REMAI FULL. THERE'S NEED FOR PARKING IN DILWORTH THAT MEETS THE MINIMUM OF UDO STANDARDS. THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT OF 22 SPACE IS WHAT I ASKING TO BE UPHELD. THE PREVIOUS TENANT AT CLEVELAND AVENUE PROVIDED COMPLIMENTARY VALET IN ADDITION TTHE 25 SPACES ON-SITE AND 11 OFFSITE. DURING ALL OUR YEARS AS NEIGHBORN FRIENDLY WITH A MUAL RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER'S SPACE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GEG SAID, WE STILL FOUND OURSELVES CORRECTINGHE GUEST WHEN TY WOULD UTILIZE OUR PARKING BECAUSE THEY HAD NONE AVAILABLE. THE TAKE-AWAY IS PEOPLE WANT TO PARK. I'M AWARE THAT THE CURRENT CONGESTION CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION CAN BE VIEWED AS TEMPORARY. HOWEVER, THE ROUTINE WORKERS THAT WILL OCCUPY THE SPACE WILL NOT BE. PEOPLE WILL NOT BE COMING TO WORK FROM 5:00 TO 11:00, NO MATTER THE HOURS OF THE BUSINESS. THROUGHOUT OUR COMPLEX, WE HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT TRAVEL FROM ALL OVER CHARLOTTE AS WELL AS FORT MILL, MATTHEWS, ALL OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS. THEY'VE BEEN LONG-TERM EMPLOYEES. WE LIKE TO KEEP THEM. THEY DEPEND ON PARKING AS WELL. AS HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNERS OURSELVES, WE SUPPORT THE IDEA OF PRESERVATION BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR OWN BUSINESSES, OUR QUALITY OF LIVES, THE SAFETY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> YOU HAVE 4 MINUTES AND 45 SECONDS FOR THE REMAINING SPEAKERS. >> TAKE YOUR TIME COMING DOWN THOSE STAIRS. >> Speaker: MY NAME IS GIGI. MY FAMILY AND I LIVE ON 300 BLOCK OF EAST WORTHINGTON. SO AS A MEMBER OF THE DILWORTH COMMUNITY, WE HAVE ALWAYS EMBRACED NEW RESTAURANTS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN DILWORTH. THEY ARE SUSTAINABLE AND PROVIDE BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY. WE ARE FOR ROW LOCATING PARTICULAR SERVING THE BUILDING N TODAY'S CASE, WE FEEL RELOCATING THE BUILDING AT THE COST OF THE EXISTING PARKING LOT PUT THE BURDEN ON THE RESIDENTS LIVING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE RESTAURANT. BASED ON THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC HEARING, JUST ONE RESTAURANT BUILDING NEEDS TO ACCOMMODATE 40 EMPLOYEES PLUS THE CUSTOMER CAPACITY. THIS DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FUTURE PLAN FOR THE WYATT BUILDING. PARKING IS CONSTRAINED AS OF TODAY. WE CANNOT REZONE A LOT, THE LOT ACROSS THE STREET AND BUILDING PARKING IS TOO MUCH WHICH THE BUSINESS MAY NOT AGREE TO PAY FOR. WHEN PURCHASING MY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, I'M ENTITLE TO THE CONVENIENCE OF SAFELY UNLOADING MY KIDS FROM THE STREET TO THE HOUSE. BY RELOCATING THE BUILDING, IT ONLY BENEFITS THE BUSINESS BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN THE 300 BLOCK. PARKING EXPENSE SHOULD BE TAKEN ON BY THE BUSINESSES. >> Speaker: I'M A NEIGHBOR. I LIVE A COUPLE OF DOORS DOWN FROM THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. MY ASK IS FOR YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER-- >> IDENTIFY YOUR NAME. >> BENSON O'KEEFE, 30 EAST REDDINGTON. CONSIDER THE UDO. THE UDO CONSIDERED WHAT THE IMPACT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ON EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. THE PARKING THAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE UDO WAS ESSENTIALLY, I GUESS, NOT ARBITRARILY CONSIDERED, AND SO I THINK TO REMOVE THAT PARKING FOR THAT SPACE AND THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION WOULD BE AN ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE IMPACT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE. YOU HAVE A FIRE DEPARTMENT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE RESTAURANT. WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT ON THE EMERGENCY SERVICES GETTING THROUGH THOSE STREETS? WE RARELY HEARD FROM CAPTAINS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THEY'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH SOME OF THE STREETS MOVING FIRE TRUCKS AND AMBULANCES THROUGH. SO BEFORE THERE'S A CATASTROPHE, BEFORE THERE'S A CRISIS, LET'S CONSIDER, RIGHT NOW MY WIFE IS PUTTING TO BED, I'M SURE, OUR TWO LITTLE KIDS. ACROSS THE STREET, HER LITTLE KIDS ARE GOING TO BED AND GETTING SOME FOOD. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS CONSIDER PEOPLE OVER PLACES, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO CONSIDER OUR BROTHERWOOD OUR BONDS OVER BUILDINGS, AND WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT IS NOT JUST ON 100-YEAR-OLD BUILDING BUT ON THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE YEARS AND THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA. TO THAT I WOULD SAY UPHOLD THE UDO, FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE CITY PLANNER HAD CONSIDERED WHEN THEY CREATED THAT UDO FOR THAT PARTICULAR SPACE, AND UNLESS YOU HAVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE FROM PARKING IN THAT AREA AND YOU CAN WEIGH THAT AGAINST A POTENTIAL BENEFIT, I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE HASTE TO MAKE THE DECISION AND APPROVE IT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I HOPE YOU GUYS MAKE A WISE CHOICE. >> SUSAN MORE ROW. YOU HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF. >> TAKE YOUR TIME. >> I REPRESENT THE OLDER PART OF DILWORTH. I'VE BEEN IN DILWORTH FOR-- SINCE 1986. I HAVE BEEN A BUSINESS OWNER FOR AS LONG. I HAD A BUSINESS ON EAST BOULEVARD AND ANYWAY, WHAT DRAWS PEOPLE TO DILWORTH IS QUAINT HOUSES AND THAT'S THE CHARM IN CHARLOTTE. IT'S AN AMENITY. AND THAT'S CHANGED TO BRINGING A BOULEVARD-SIZED BUILDING, PLUNKING IT DOWN NEXT TO A HISTORIC CHURCH IS TAKING HISTORY OF COMMERCE, THE LAST BIT OF COMMERCE AND PLUMPGING IT DOWN INTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS A MIX OF BUSINESSES AND HOMES THAT WORK WELL TOGETHER AND IT'S NOT PRESERVING HISTORY. HISTORY OUT OF CONTEXT IS NOT SAVING HISTORY. CHARLOTTE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN SAY WHAT WE WANT ABOUT CHARLOTTE, BUT CHARLOTTE IS NOT KNOWN FOR PRESERVING HISTORY. AND THIS SHOULDN'T BE OUR TEST RUN. >> MARROW TESTIMONY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS, YOU CAN PROVIDE THEM TO THE CLERK. PETITIONER, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR A REBUTTAL. >> THIS IS ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. >> I'M SORRY. EVERYBODY WHO WAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SPOKE. AND WE'RE OUT OF TIME FOR THE OPPOSITION. IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, YOU CAN PROVIDE THEM TO THE CLERK AND THEY WILL BE PROVIDED TO COUNCIL AND MADE PART OF THE RECORD. >> SIR, IF YOU HAVE WRITTEN COMMENTS, YOU CAN PROVIDE THEM TO THE CLERK. >> Speaker: THANK YOU. YES, WE AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT THE PETITIONER IS AGREEING TO PROVIDE THE TOTAL 22 SPACES. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH PLANNING THROUGH THIS EX PROCESS WHICH IS KIND OF UNIQUE AND NEW. ESPECIALLY WITH THE UDO. SO IT'S BEEN MADE CLEAR TO US THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE WITH THE EX TO SHOW WHAT WE CAN PROVIDE ON THE PHYSICAL SITE. SO JUST THE LANGUAGE AND THE CONDITIONAL NOTES, WE'VE BEEN ALLOWED BY STAFF TO PUT THE NOTE ABOUT THE LEASE. JUST TO SHOW OUR GOOD FAITH THAT WE'LL BE SUPPLYING THESE EXTRA SP SPACES. OUR FIRST ATTEMPT, WE ALSO AGREE AT SECURING A LEASE WAS PERHAPS NOT WHAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND SO FORTUNATELY, THROUGH THIS PROCESS, MORE CONVENTIONAL OPPORTUNITY CAME FORWARD AND THE PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO FIND A MUCH BETTER OPTION THAT WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH DC AND THE COMMUNITY TO INCORPORATE INTO THE REVISED PLAN. ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THE CONCERN ABOUT FIRE ACCESS. THERE'S NO PARKING AND THE DRIVE THE FIRE CAN GET THROUGH. THE GREAT THING ABOUT BEING AN INHABITABLE BEING AND SOMEBODY WILL BE WATCHING IT AND MAKING SURE THAT ANY CARS ILLEGALLY PARKED WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PREMISES. NOTE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, I SEE YOUR POINT. WE SAW IN THE OLD PHOTO WHERE THE PARKING LOT WAS. PARKING LOTS ARE NOT PART OF THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT, BUT IN THIS CASE, WE KIND OF HAVE TO DEAL WITH OUR BEST AVAILABLE OPTION AND OF COURSE, IF SOMETHING ELSE CAME ALONG, WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT CONTEXT WITH THIS PROPOSAL, BUT RIGHT NOW, THE OTHER OPPORTUNITY-- THE OTHER OPTION PRESENTED IS DEMOLITION. THANK YOU. >> MAY I SPEAK AS PART OF THE REBUTTAL. ? >> WHAT'S YOUR NAME? >> TOM DONALDSON. >> YES. >> Speaker: TOM DONALDSON. I HAVE A BUSINESS 150 YARDS AWAY AND HAVE A HISTORIC BUILDING. >> THAT WAS YOUR TWO MINUTES. YOU CAN GIVE COMMENTS TO THE CLERK AND IT CAN BE PRESENTED FOR THE RECORD. MS. AJMERA. >> AJMERA: THANK YOU, MR. WINSTON. THERE'S A LOT TO UNPACK HERE. SO A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. THIS ONE IS A DIFFICULT ONE. I APPRECIATE MS. DOWNBROWN'S EFFORTS TO PRESERVE THIS SITE. I APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU ARE DOING TO PRESERVE OUR HISTORY AND OUR BUILDING, BUT I ALSO SEE NEIGHBORS' POINTS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES AND THOSE ARE VERY REAL ISSUES IN TERMS OF PARKING. WITH I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT, I THINK, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SAID IT REALLY WELL, SUSAN, MS. MORE ROW, WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THIS BUILDING, WE'RE REALLY AFFECTING THE CHARACTER OF OTHER NEIGHBORS AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME. I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PETITION IN ITS CURRENT FORM. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO ADDRESS NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, WE JUST APPROVED THE UDO. IT JUST WENT INTO EFFECT AND IT'S ONLY A FEW MONTHS AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND MAKE CHANGES WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SAY TO THE COMMUNITY WHO HAD PROVIDED MUCH VALUABLE INPUT ALONG THE PROCESS? THAT CONCERNS ME. ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SAID-- MR. BENSON SAID IT REALLY WELL WE'VE GOT 20 PUT PEOPLE OVER PLACES AND WE'VE GOT TO PUT PEOPLE OVER PROFITS. YOU DIDN'T SAY THE PROFITS PART. I'M SAYING THAT. I THINK WHILE TRYING TO CREATE THIS PRESERVING THE HISTORY AND PRESERVING THIS SITE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ADDRESS OUR NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE PARKING, THE UD0, AND ALSO CAN YOU BRING UP THE CURRENT SITE PLAN? >> THIS IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN THAT WE CAN CONSIDER AND THE IMAGE THAT WE HAD IT ON. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PLANS TO ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF TECHNICAL REVISIONS THAT WE HAVE LISTED OUT IN THE CURRENT STAFF ANALYSIS. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING. BUT WHAT WE HAVE ON STAFF'S POWERPOINT IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WE CONSIDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING SINCE IT WAS THE ONE SUBMITTED 30 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING. >> AJMERA: GO BACK. >> THIS IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN FROM AUGUST 14th. THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED A REVISED SITE PLAN SINCE AUGUST 14th, SINCE THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE CONSIDER FOR PUBLIC HEARING. >> IS THERE A REVISED SITE PLAN? >> YES. THERE WILL BE A REVISED SITE PLAN AND I HAVE COMMITMENT FROM SARAH AND HER CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT CHANGES WE EXPECT TO SEE INCLUDING ADDRESSING A LOT OF THOSE TECHNICAL REVISIONS THAT YOU SEE OUTLINED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND A CHANGE WILL ALSO INCLUDE MODIFYING HOW THE NOTES REGARDING THE LEASED PARKING SPACES AS WRITTEN. AS IT'S WRITTEN, IT'S NOT LANGUAGE THAT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OR WE ARE COMFORTABLE W WE WILL LOOK TO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE MODIFIED IN THE REVISED SITE PLAN FOR ZONING COMMITTEE HEARING. >> AJMERA: I LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THAT. I MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO STAFF. I WILL REACH OUT TO YOU. WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE REPRESENTING HISTORIC COMMISSION. I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE ON THAT. I KNOW IT'S VOLUNTEER AND IT'S A LOT OF TIME. ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES, MR. EGLESTON, USED TO SERVE ON THERE. I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING. THANK YOU. >> DRIGGS: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I'VE HEARD A VERY SMALL VOICE SPEAKING ACTIVELY ABOUT THE PARKING QUESTION BUT I COULDN'T FOLLOW THEIR REMARKS. PLEASE SUBMIT THEM IN WRITING TO THE CLERK IF YOU WOULD. [LAUGHTER] A LITTLE ONE. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ARITHMETIC AROUND THIS PARKING QUESTION. HOW MANY SPACES ARE ACTUALLY BEING LOST? >> SO UNDER THE N.C. DISTRICT, FOR RESTAURANT AND BAR USES, 22 SPACES BASED OFF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THESE BUILDINGS AND THE PATIO THAT THEY WILL, 22 OFFSTREET SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED. THEY ARE PROPOSING 4 OFFSTREET SPACES SO PHYSICALLY ON THE SITE AND BEYOND THAT, THEY'RE PROVIDING THE 8 ONSTREET AND 10 SPACES THROUGH LEASING PARKING AGREEMENTS. >> DRIGGS: I'M SAYING HOW MANY EXISTING PARKING SPACES ON THE CURRENT SITE? >> I DON'T KNOW IF SARAH. AND I NEED TO GET SOMEONE UP TO SPEED ON THE ISSUES HERE? I HAVE A CONCERN INVOKING THE UTO IS REASON TO REDUCE PARKING BEFORE WE HAVE FOUND GOOD ANSWERS ABOUT WHERE THE CARS SHOULD GO INSTEAD INFLICTS A HARDSHIP. THE CARS PARK ALL OVER THE PLACE. THEY DOUBLE PARK SO I WILL WANT TO BE COMFORTABLE THAT WE HAVE A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS ALL I WILL SAY RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. MS. ANDERSON. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR COMING OUT FROM THE DILWORTH COMMUNITY TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG CONVERSATION ALREADY. VERY INVOLVED. I SPOKE WITH MS. STEWART EARLIER TODAY AND HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DCA AND THERE IS A-- THERE'S A DESIRE IN THE COMMUNITY, OF COURSE, TO PRESERVE HISTORICAL BUILDINGS AND GROWING UP IN DILWORTH, I KNOW SO MANY OF OUR HISTORICAL BUILDINGS ON THAT CORRIDOR HAVE BEEN LOST. CONVERSELY WITHIN THAT SPECIFIC CORNER AND INTERSECTION, IT'S EXTREMELY TOUGH FOR PARKING FOR THOSE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ALONG CLAREMONT, WORTHINGTON AND OVER IN TREMONT. AND THERE'S SO MUCH CONSTRUCTION GOING ON NOW IN DILWORTH AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE 18 ACTIVE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE PIPE LINE FOR THAT DILWORTH AREA THAT THE LAND USE TEAM IS LOOKING AT. AND SO WE JUST HAVE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS AND GOOD NEIGHBORS AND MAKE SURE THAT DOING SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY LIKE PRESERVING A BUILDING WILL NOT DEG GRADATE THE VALUE OF LIFE AND EXPERIENCE THAT THE LONG-TERM DILWORTH MEMBERSHIP HAS ALWAYS EXPEERNSED. I CAN TELL YOU IT'S EXTREMELY TOUGH WITH THE PARKING THERE. WE ARE LOOKING AT OTHER SOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO PARKING. WITHSTANDING THIS PROJECT IT'S VERY CONGESTED IN THAT AREA AND THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE AN OPEN, WELCOMING NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE, OF COURSE, DILWORTH RESIDENTS CAN ENJOY THE RESTAURANTS AND AMENITIES BUT THE REST OF THE CITIZENS OF CHARLOTTE CAN COME OVER AND EXPERIENCE IT AS WELL, BUT AGAIN, NOT TO THE DEGRADATION OF THE DILWORTH NEIGHBORS AND MANY OF THESE, THE OTHER PIECE I THINK WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THE HISTORICAL NATURE, MANY OF THE HOMES OVER THERE DO NOT HAVE DRIVEWAYS AND SO THE RESIDENTS RELY ON STREET PARKING FOR THEMSELVES AND ANY FRIENDS OR FAMILY VISITING THEIR HOMES. SO IT'S A DOUBLING DOWN AS IT RELATES TO IMPACT ON STREET PARKING IF ADEQUATE PARKING IS NOT PROVIDED. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO SAY THE PETITIONER AND MS. STEWART HAS BEEN IN GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DCA AND I THINK WE'VE MADE SOME TRACTION. I JUST ENCOURAGE US TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT AROUND WHAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, YOU WILL BE A LONG-TERM RESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY. I KNOW YOU ALREADY ARE AND EXPERIENCED THAT. CONTINUE THE LINES OF COMMUNICATION. I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE PETITION WILL LOOK DIFFERENT WHEN IT COMES UP FOR VOTING NEXT TIME AROUND. SO THANK YOU FOR THE PARTICIPATION AND KEEP WORKING TOGETHER. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEMMENT. >> THANK YOU, MS. MAYFIELD. >> THANK YOU. MAYOR. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, QUESTION FOR YOU. SO TONIGHT, WE'RE HAVING THIS HEARING BUT WE'VE HEARD A NUMBER OF THINGS FROM STAFF REGARDING THE FACT THAT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS NOT -- THE MOST UPDATED INFORMATION AS FAR AS ADJUSTMENTS AND REALIGNMENT. THAT HAS BEEN MADE. DO WE HAVE A PROCESS TO HAVE BASICALLY A FOLLOWUP HEARING? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT CAME FROM COUNCIL THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO IT COMING BEFORE COUNCIL FOR A DECISION OF AN UP OR DOWN VOTE. SO AND I DON'T KNOW -- IF I'M A RULE TO DON'T SAY NO, WE SHOULD DO IT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE AUTOMATIC YES, WHICH IS OUR PROCESS, BUT I NEEDED TO VERIFY TO SEE DO WE HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE TO HAVE A ADDITIONAL HEARING TO GET THESE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED? >> THE COUNCIL HAS THE DISCRETION TO ASK FOR AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING, IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE NOTICED, IT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE TO GET -- WHICH MEANS ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO BE HEARD. A SECOND TIME. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER EXERCISED THAT PARTICULAR RIGHT, SO THEREFORE I WANTED TO FIND OUT, AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION LIKE THIS ONE WHERE THERE'S STILL QUITE A FEW MOVING PARTS WITH HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. I HAVE CONCERNS WITH WHAT I'VE HEARD, AND NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND THE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE FOR ME, IF IT'S NOT IN WRITING, IT'S NOT A COMMITMENT, SO WITH WHAT EXACTLY GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE BUILDING, WE'RE SAVING AN HISTORIC BUILDING, ARE WE SAVING A HAD HISTORIC BUILDING OR ADDING TO IT AND ADDING TO IT, DOES THAT NO LONGER MAKE IT THE HISTORIC BUILDING, IF FACADE, DO I NEED TO PUT THAT IN A FORM OF MOTION, WHAT NEEDS TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL HEARING TO GET THESE -- GET THE MAJORITY OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED? >>PETTINE: SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS -- THIS IS THE MOST UP TO DATE SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE ON FILE. SO THERE'S NO NEW INFORMATION THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, THERE'S NO NEW INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO STAFF. THAT INFORMATION IS YET TO COME INFORMATION IS THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK. WHEN WE HAVE HEARING, WE TYPICALLY DO HAVE CHANGES AFTER, THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING COMMITTEE'S DISCRETION IS FOR. THEY ALSO ARE HERE TONIGHT SO THEY KNOW WHAT THE INFORMATION IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR. THEY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION DURING THEIR MEETING IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, FOLLOWING THAT, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL CHANGES, TO THE PLAN, AFTER ZONING COMMITTEE, WE HAVE THE THREE-FOURTHS VOTE, THAT IS ALSO A TIME WHERE ZONING COMMITTEE CAN DETERMINE THAT OR THE STAFF CAN DETERMINE THAT THOSE CHANGES NEED TO EITHER BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ZONING COMMITTEE, IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, THE ZONING COMMITTEE ALSO THEN HAS THE DISCRETION TO SAY WE SEE THIS NEW INFORMATION THAT'S COMING TO US, AFTER WE'VE ALREADY VOTED. THEY CAN EITHER TAKE ACTION ON IT, AND CONSIDER IT AS A CHANGE OR THEY CAN RECOMMEND A NEW HEARING TO COUNCIL AS PART OF THEIR ACTION AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. SO JUST AGAIN, TO CLARIFY, THIS IS ALL THE MOST UP TO DATE INFO. IN REGARDS TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND THE ADDITIONS, THIS PETITION CANNOT GET A DECISION FROM COUNCIL UNTIL IT GOES THROUGH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT'S COMMISSION REVIEW. WHICH IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT MONTH. POTENTIALLY SLATED FOR REVIEW NEXT MONTH, THEY HAVE A FULL DOCKET, IT COULD INTO NOVEMBER BEFORE THEY DO, SO BEFORE WE CAN MAKE ANY OTHER DECISIONS ON THIS, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST TO HAVE THE HEARING, TALK THROUGH THE ISSUES, PUT THEM ON THE TABLE, HISTORIC DISTRICTS WILL CONSIDER IT. IF THERE'S CHANGES TO THAT PLAN, BASED ON HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMENTS, THEY'LL BE ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN THAT COUNCIL SEES THAT THEY CAN VOTE ON. AND AT THAT TIME, ALSO, IF THOSE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE, AFTER ZONING COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THEN THEY'RE LARGE ENOUGH TO CONSIDER GOING BACK TO ZONING COMMITTEE, OR HAVING ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING, THAT'S AT THAT POINT WE CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION, MR. PETTINE, WHAT I DID HEAR IS INFORMATION THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU JUST SHARED AS FAR AS WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY VIEWING ON THE SLIDE. BUT WHAT I ALSO HEARD FROM OUR SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, IS THAT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY, BECAUSE YES, IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO AVOID IS AN EXAMPLE OF EARLIER THIS EVENING, THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES, PLEASE MOTION FOR IT TO GO BACK TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION. IF WE HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS, I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS WELL AS GIVEN THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, COMMISSION, PLENTY OF TIME FOR THEM TO DO THEIRS, IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT MAINLY, I WANTED TO CLARIFY, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT? BECAUSE WE TEND TO MOVE RATHER QUICKLY. WHEN IT COMES TIME TO DECISIONS. LIKE CONSENT. WE CAN VOTE FOR 15 OF THEM IN ONE MOTION. THIS IS GOING TO TAKE QUITE A BIT OF CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT IS A DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE FOR US. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR BODY KNEW THAT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY AN ADDITIONAL HEARING OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, AS WELL AS THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS COMMISSION DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. PRIOR TO IT COMING BACK TO US. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU, MS. MAYFIELD. THANK YOU, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ON THE DAIS KNEW THAT WE COULD REQUEST A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. >> WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WHAT -- BEFORE DAVE SPOKE, I WANTED TO ADD THAT THERE'S A PROCESS AND SO YOU DO, YOU DON'T MAKE A DECISION LIKE A LOT OF COUNCILS ON THE SAME NIGHT. AS THE ZONING HEARING. A LOT TAKES PLACE THE NEXT MONTH -- TAKES PLACE BEFORE YOU MAC A DECISION ON THE HEARING THE NEXT MONTH, SO CHANGES DO OTHER OCCUR. I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING YOU FELT LIKE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TONIGHT. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: YES. >> OKAY. >> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT I WANT TO MAKE. I DO FEEL -- THIS IS A TOUGH PETITION. BUT I THINK IT'S TOUGH MAYBE FOR NOT OBVIOUS REASONS. I THINK I HEAR WHAT D.C.A. IS SAYING. AND MY PREDECESSOR MAYOR PRO TEM EISELT, PARKING IF IN DILWORTH SOMETHING THAT WAS OFTEN BROUGHT UP, VERY, VERY CLOSE TO HER, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE FRUSTRATION OR THE CONCERN IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS PETITION. THIS IS ABOUT THE WAY A NEIGHBORHOOD IS BUILT UP AND HOW IT'S DEALING WITH CHANGE, NOT JUST THE CHANGE THAT'S HAPPENING TO IT BUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE'RE GOING THROUGH A SORT OF PARKING EXERCISE WITH STAFF WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT PARKING ALL OVER THE CITY. AND I THINK THAT WE DID PULL OUT THE DILWORTH COMMUNITY AS ONE OF THE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT NEED TO FOCUS ON, BECAUSE IT PRESENTS SOME -- IN SOME WAYS UNIQUE CHALLENGES. I WOULD ALSO, YOU KNOW -- THIS IS TOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK IN A CHANGING CITY, WHEN CHANGE HAPPENS, IN CYCLES, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PART OF THE CYCLE WE'RE IN. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACTUALLY PROTECT. AND WHAT KIND OF CHANGES WE'RE PROTECTING FROM. IF YOU LOOK AT HISTORICALLY, A BIG REASON WHY DILWORTH COMMUNITY IS DEALING WITH THE CHALLENGES THAT DILWORTH IS DEALING WITH TODAY, IS BECAUSE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS INTENTIONALLY BUILT IN SOME PLACES WITH NO DRIVEWAYS. BECAUSE IT WAS DEVELOPED AS THE CITY'S FIRST ELECTRIC STREETCAR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD BUILT AROUND MASS TRANSIT, AND WALKABILITY. RIGHT? THIS WAS INTENTIONALLY CREATED OUTSIDE OF THE MILL COMPLEX BY DA TOMPKINS, WHO WAS SAID REVOLUTIONIZED THE WAY MILL TOWNS WORKED, NOT JUST HERE IN NORTH CAROLINA, BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND IN FACT, HE'S THE REASON WHY THIS AREA BECAME A MILL -- TOOK BUSINESS FROM NEW ENGLAND AND THE MILLS CAME DOWN TO THE I-85 CORRIDOR. SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF DENSE URBANISM THAT WAS BUILT IN THE MILL AND THE SURROUNDING TOWN, WHICH IS DILWORTH. SO DILWORTH ACTUALLY WAS CREATED NOT TO HAVE A SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLES, IT WAS MEANT TO BE DEVELOPED AROUND MASS TRANSIT AND WALKING PEOPLE. SO IT IS REALLY NOT SET UP FOR THE TYPE OF SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE TRAFFIC THAT MOST OF US RESIDENTS PARTICIPATE IN TODAY. IT'S LITERALLY CREATED OPPOSITE OF THAT, SO IN ONE WAY, WE TRIED TO SHOEHORN A TYPE OF CULTURE INTO A PLACE THAT WAS VERY INTENTIONALLY BUILT NOT TO SUPPORT THAT. SO I THINK WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES, WHAT HISTORY ARE WE TRYING TO PRESERVE? ARE WE TRYING TO ACTUALLY PRESERVE THE MAKEUP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OR DO WE WANT TO PRESERVE A GENTRIFIED VERSION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WHICH EXISTS AS TODAY. I KIND OF THINK OF THIS AS SORT OF AGAIN, I DO THINK OF A LOT OF CONTEXT FROM NEW YORK CITY, LIKE IT OR NOT, THIS REMINDS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SORT OF LIKE GRIN ACH VILLAGE, PEOPLE COME TO HAVE A GOOD TIME, PEOPLE HAVE A GOOD TIME, ALSO A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. RIGHT? AND SO PEOPLE OFTEN LIVE WITHOUT NECESSARILY THE USE OF A VEHICLE, BECAUSE OF HOW CLOSE LITERALLY, IT IS TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. EXACTLY WHAT THIS PARCEL REPRESENTS. SO I CERTAINLY HEAR THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T THINK THAT THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE ACTUALLY ABOUT THIS PETITION. BUT IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING BIGGER. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PRESERVE SOMETHING THAT EXISTING RESIDENTS WANT IN A BUILT ENVIRONMENT THAT WAS IN THE CREATED FOR THAT, IT WAS ACTUALLY CREATED FOR THE OPPOSITE OF THAT. SO IN SOME WAYS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE KIND OF -- YOU KNOW, TRYING TO HOLD WATER IN A BUCKET WITH A HOLE IN IT, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH PARKING BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT I ENCOURAGE US TO TAP THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TO STAY TAPPED IN. WITH OUR STAFF. STAFF-DRIVEN PROCESS OF DEALING WITH A MASTER PLAN AROUND PARKING OF THE ENTIRE CITY. AND ENSURE THAT THE DILWORTH COMMUNITY CERTAINLY IS NEAR THE FRONT OF THE LINE, BECAUSE I COULD SEE SOMETHING WHERE THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING PERMITS OR SOMETHING TO THAT SORT. BUT I DON'T THINK IN ANY SITUATION YOU'RE GOING GET ANY EXTRA PARKING IN HERE, REGARDLESS OF IF THIS PETITION IS APPROVED OR NOT. SO. >> SO MAYOR PRO TEM MAY I MAKE A COMMENT. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: YES, MS. AND. >>DANTE ANDERSON: SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, I JUST WANT TO APPROXIMATE -- BE CLEAR ABOUT THE DILWORTH NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST INCLUSIVE NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN DISTRICT 1 AND THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE. THEY -- THE D.C.A. IS VERY EMBRACEIVE OF DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES AND VERY EMBRACEIVE OF MULTIAMI MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY TO BE A PART OF THAT COMMUNITY. THEY HAVE A HISTORY OF DOING THAT, AND THEY DO IT RIGHT NOW. THERE IS AN INLIVIAN PROPERTY THAT'S GOING UP THERE NOW, AND THERE'S PLENTY MORE. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE I DON'T -- THERE'S NOT A -- I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO WALK OUT THIS DOOR HERE THIS MEETING AND THINK THAT THERE'S SOME INTENTIONALTY AROUND GENTRIFICATION OF ONE OF OUR MOST INCLUSIVE NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE. SECONDLY, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS, I HAD A CONVERSATION, A MEETING WITH RESIDENTS FROM DILWORTH CMPD, THE CMPD UNIT THAT SERVES DILWORTH, LAST WEEK, WE MET FOR A 90 MINUTES AT LUNCH TO TALK ABOUT THE HOLISTIC PARKING ISSUES AND CHALLENGES WITH THIS COMMUNITY. AND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS GOING ON AS IT RELATES TO CONSTRUCTION IN A TEMPORARY FORM. BUT THERE ARE SOME ACUTE CONCERNS AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS TONIGHT. ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PERMIT. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE IS POSITIVE AND ALSO THE 22 PARKING PLACES THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE UDO REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF PARKING, IT IS THE -- THAT IS THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING BASED ON THIS PERMIT. SO I DON'T WANT TO MISCATEGORIZE THAT, BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PETITIONER AND THE DCA HAVE PROGRESSED AND THEY WILL CONTINUE -- THEY HAVE SECURED TEN OFF SITE PARKING SPOTS, AND I AM SURE THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT THE FABRIC OF DILWORTH, AND THE INTENTIONALTY, YES, OF THIS PERMIT, BUT ALSO, OTHER EXTERIOR THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON THAT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVERALL. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: I WANTED TO ALSO ADD THAT THIS PETITION, THE PETITION, PETITIONER IS UTILIZED THE UDO, THE EX DISTRICT IN THE UDO, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION STANDPOINT, MENTIONED, ALLUDED TO THAT THE UDO WASN'T BEING USED, BUT IT ACTUALLY IS. MS. JOHNSON AND THEN MR. DRIGGS. >>RENEE JOHNSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD YOU ALL SAY, IT'S BIGGER THAN THIS PETITION. IT'S THE FRUSTRATION. THE ONGOING FRUSTRATION WITH WE ALREADY KNOW THERE'S A LACK OF PARKING IN DILWORTH AND HERE WE ARE. WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT THE ENTIRE TIME ON COUNCIL, AND MISCATEGORIZED AS NOT WANTING TO SEE PROGRESS, BUT IT'S COMMON SENSE DEVELOPMENT IN MY OPINION. IT'S LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS. AND THAT'S WHY I PUSHED FOR AN INFRASTRUCTURE MEETING IN DECEMBER, SO LIZ, I WOULD ASK IF CITY STAFF COULD GET US THAT INFORMATION ON INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT ASSESSMENT WOULD LOOK AT, ARE THERE AREAS, SUCH AS DILL WORTH, OR MALLARD CREEK, AND DISTRICT 4, OR CERTAIN AREAS WHERE THERE'S JUST A -- THERE'S POSSIBLE OVERDEVELOPMENT AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT. SO THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO, WHEN WE'RE ASSESSING THE IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR CITY. I MEAN, ARE THERE -- ARE THERE AREAS WHERE WE DEFINITELY NEED MORE PARKING IN DILL WORTH SO A PETITION LIKE THIS, WE KNOW WE NEED MORE PARKING OR LOOK AT THINGS INTENTIONALLY AND SPECIFICALLY, ACCORDING TO THE AREA. WE'VE DONE THAT WITH CORRIDORS OF OPPORTUNITY. WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC IN LOOKING AT THE NEEDS OF THOSE SPECIFIC AREAS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE. SO I'LL ASK AGAIN, WHEN WE'LL HAVE OUR UPDATE, WE HAD A BIG INFRASTRUCTURE MEETING IN DECEMBER OF 2022. AND IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD AN UPDATE ON THE ASSESSMENT OR THE NEEDS FOR EACH AREA. SO I WOULD LIKE TO LIFT THAT UP, LIZ, IF YOU CAN SHARE THAT WITH MR. JONES, WE DO NEED A FOLLOWUP AND THESE ARE THE KIND OF ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED PER AREA. SO THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MR. DRIGGS. >>DANTE ANDERSON: GO AHEAD. >>ED DRIGGS: MAYOR PRO TEM YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT THE BIGGER CONCERN OF RESIDENTS IS THE BIGGER ISSUE, I WOULD LIKE THE RESIDENTS TO TELL US WHAT THE REAL CONCERN IS AND THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS WE ARE POTENTIALLY CREATING MORE DEMAND FOR PARKING SPACES AND OFFERING FEWER OF THEM. YOU KNOW, IS A STEP IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE DILWORTH PARKING PROBLEM, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE IT WORSE. SO I HAVEN'T REACHED A CONCLUSION ABOUT THIS, BUT I'M JUST IN TERMS OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING NOW, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE THINGS I'M HEARING. THANK YOU. >> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION, PROPERLY MADE AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY OPPOSED, UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 34. REZONING PETITION 2022-005 BY TRI BECK PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, APPROXIMATELY 2.97 A ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF MOUNT HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE AND I-485 IN MS. JOHNSON'S DISTRICT, THE CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND PROPOSED ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES WITH A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS AGAINST OR AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION, MR. CARMICHAEL AND MR. HAMILTON WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. THIS SITE IS JUST A LITTLE UNDER THREE ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF MOUNT HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE ROAD AND NORTH OF I-485, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THIS AERIAL, THIS SITE IS LOCATED OFF THE INTERSTATE, AS I MENTIONED AND IN THE NODE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT HAS RESTAURANTS, A GROCERY STORE AND RETAIL USES. THE EXISTING ZONING IS NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, AND IS PROPOSING TO DO A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. AND THE ADOPTED MRA IS TYPE FOR THIS IS COMMERCIAL PLACE TYPE, WHICH REFLECTS THAT NODE THAT WE ALREADY SEE ALONG THIS PORTION OF WEST W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD. THE PROPOSAL ITSELF TO AMEND THE EXISTING SITE PLAN IS TO ALLOW FOR DIFFERENT USES, SO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL PLAN WAS FOR 75 AGE RESTRICTED APARTMENT UNITS. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING INSTEAD TO ALLOW UP TO 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF ALL USES PERMITTED IN THE NS DISTRICT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME PROHIBITED USES, AS FURTHER SPECIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN. AND SOME OF THOSE PROHIBITED USES WOULD INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND SOME NOXIOUS TYPE USES LIKE LANDFILLS. ACCESSORY DRIVE-THRU SERVICE LANES AND WINDOWS WITH THE TOTAL MAXIMUM OF TWO DRIVE-THRU LANES FOR THAT SINGULAR USE. ACCESS IS PROVIDED OFF WEST W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD FROM THE EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVE THAT'S JUST ALONG THAT NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE. CONNECTING THE ADJACENT PARCEL. AND IT COMMITS TO INSTALL A SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON WEST W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD INTO THE SITE. AND ALSO COMMITS TO INSTALLING A 8 FOOT PLANTING STRIP AND 12 FOOT MULTIUSE PATH, INCREASE THE PEDESTRIAN SCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA, AND THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN BOUNDARY LINES WHERE THOSE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE, AND THAT LANDSCAPE AREA WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 45 FEET IN WIDTH PLANTED TO CLASS B BUFFER STANDARDS AND WOULD HAVE A OF FOOT WOODEN SCREENING FENCE WITHIN THAT LANDSCAPE AREA. AND IT PROVIDES THE NUMBER OF ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND THE POSSIBLE CIRCULATION OF THE DRIVE-THRU IS SHOWN IN THAT GRAPHIC THERE. STAFF BELIEFS THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR COMMERCIAL USES, GIVEN IN THE NS DISTRICT, GIVEN THE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS AND THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. THE PROPOSAL IS ALSO MINDFUL OF THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THAT 45 FOOT LANDSCAPE AREA. THAT IT WILL BE PLANTED TO CLASS B STANDARDS AND WILL HAVE THE SIX FOOT SCREENING SINCE SO THERE ARE NO MORE OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING JOHN CARMICHAEL'S PETITION. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU, MR. CARMICHAEL, THREE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ZONING COMMITTEE, I'M JOHN CARMICHAEL ON BEHALF TO PETITIONER, BLANTON HAMILTON OF THE PETITIONER, MS. CRAMER STATED, THE SITE CONTAINS 9.72 ACRES, ON THE WEST SIDE OF W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF INTERSECTION OF MOUNT HOLLY-HUNTERSVILLE ROAD AND NORTH OF INTERSTATE 485. AND THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SITE. THIS IS A FORMER CVS OR WALGREEN'S STORE HERE TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE. OF THE SITE CURRENTLY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. PETITIONER IS REQUESTING A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OR TO ACCOMMODATE A MAXIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THIS SITE. WHICH COULD INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF ONE USE OF ACCESSORY DRIVE-THRU SERVICE LANES AND WINDOWS. AND AS MS. CRAMER STATED, THE PLACE TYPE FOR THIS PARCEL OF LAND IS THE COMMERCIAL PLACE TYPE, SO THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 2040 POLICY MAP. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. ACCESS INTO THE SITE WOULD BE FROM WEST W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD, BY WAY OF AN EXISTING, THIS IS EXISTING PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE HERE. THAT SERVES THIS SITE. AND THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PARCEL. SO ACCESS WOULD BE FROM WEST W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD, AND FROM MOUNT HOLLY HUNTERSVILLE ROAD THROUGH THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PARCEL BY WAY OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE. AND THE PETITIONER WOULD INSTALL A SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON WEST W.T. HARRIS BOULEVARD. AT THE ACCESS POINT INTO THE SITE. THERE ARE TWO BUILDING AND PARKING ENVELOPES HERE, AND THIS IS SORT OF A YELLOW-ISH COLOR, ANY BUILDINGS AND PARKING AREAS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING AND PARKING ENVELOPES. THERE WOULD BE A 45 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPED AREA THAT WOULD MEET THE STANDARDS OF A CLASS B BUFFER. ALONG THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE, ALSO A SIX FOOT TALL WOODEN SCREEN FENCE ON THE INTERIOR EDGE OF THIS LANDSCAPE AREA. AND MEETING WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY PREFERRED THAT THE FENCE BE LOCATED AS FAR AWAY AS IT COULD BE FROM THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS ARE A PART OF THE PETITIONER'S REZONING PLAN. THERE ARE ATST ALSO LIGHTING COMMITMENTS WITH REGARDS TO LIGHT, FULLY CAPPED AND SHIELDED LIGHTING, EXTERIOR LIGHTING FOR FREE STANDING LIGHTING FIXTURES AND 8 FOOT WIDE PLANTING STRIP AND 12 FOOT. WE APPRECIATE THE PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, AND THERE ARE NO OUTSTANDING SITE PLAN ISSUES. THANKS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. JOHNSON? >>RENEE JOHNSON: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, JOHN. YOU MET WITH THE RESIDENTS, WHAT WERE THE CONCERNS. >> WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING LAST YEAR, AND THEN WE STAYED IN TOUCH WITH MIKE CANE AND WHO'S AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, AND WE -- BLANTON AND I MET WITH MIKE CANE AND ANOTHER ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ON THE 23RD TO TALK ABOUT THE FENCE AND THE BUFFER, I THINK THAT THE FENCE AND THE BUFFER WERE THEIR MAJOR CONCERNS. AND IN FACT I TALKED TO MIKE ON FRIDAY, AND FOLLOW UP WITH HIM TOMORROW JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO DO THAT. >>RENEE JOHNSON: OKAY, THANK YOU, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY RESIDENTS ON THIS PETITION. AND I CAN WORK WITH YOU TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE RESIDENT. MOVE TO CLOSE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: SECOND. A MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED. UNANIMOUS, FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE CHAMBER, OR WATCHING AT HOME, THERE ARE ONLY FIVE OF US HERE, AT THE DAIS RIGHT NOW, WE STILL HOLDING A QUORUM, IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THE MEETING, STICK, SO THERE ARE TEN PEOPLE THAT ARE PRESENT AT THE DAIS RIGHT NOW. WE'LL MOVE -- >> MAYOR PRO TEM, THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE OTHER ROOM AND CAN FOLLOW, AND PARTICIPATING EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT IN THE CHAMBER. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ABSOLUTELY. WHEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE VOTE COUNT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I FEEL LIKE -- YEAH. HOW DID THAT WORK. SO JUST -- AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 35. REZONING PETITION 2022-066 BY WOOD PARTNERS, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 13.5 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF ALBEMARLE ROAD AND NOVANT HEALTH PARKWAY WEST OF CREST WIN BOULEVARD. THIS IS LOCATED IN THE ETJ IN COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 4, MR. JERRELL'S DISTRICT, CLOSEST TO MS. MOLINA' DISTRICT. NS, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, B1CD, BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONAL AND R3 SINGLE FAMILY CONDITIONAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUE RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AND SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN, THERE'S NO SPEAKERS AGAINST, SO AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >>PETTINE: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. THIS PETITION 2022-066, 13. 5 ACRES, OFF ALBEMARLE ROAD, JUST TO THE EAST OF 485. AND IN THE AREA OF NOVANT HEALTH PARKWAY, AND DECREES WOOD BOULEVARD, CURRENTLY ZONOSED ZOS U R-2 CONDITIONAL. THE ADOPTED PLACE TYPE IS NEIGHBORHOOD 1, THAT'S KIND OF THE WEDGED IN BETWEEN THE CAMPUS PLACE TYPE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER OVER THERE OFF CRESTWOOD BOULEVARD, WE'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT THROUGHOUT THIS CONVERSATION, SO THE PROPOSAL IS FOR UP TO 310 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND DEVELOPMENT AREAS A AND B. SIX BUILDINGS INCLUDED THROUGHOUT THE SITE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOULD BE 56 FEET. THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE SET BACK 30 FEET FROM ALBEMARLE ROAD AND THEN 14 FEET FROM NOVANT HEALTH PARKWAY, 8 FOOT PLANTING STRIP AND 12 FOOT MULTIUSE PATH AND 6 FOOT SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE NOVANT HEALTH PARKWAY. IT DOES PROVIDE SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES RELATED TO THE BUILDING MATERIALS, VERTICAL MODU MODULATIONS, AND ETCETERA, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OF OPEN SPACE, WALKING PATHS, LANDSCAPING, SEATING AREAS, AND STRUCTURES APPROPRIATE TO OPEN SPACE AREAS. ALSO, PROVIDES A 30 FOOT WIDE ENHANCED EVERGREEN PLANTING AREA OR TREE SAVE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND WHAT IS THE NOVANT CAMPUS JUST TO THE WEST. AS MENTIONED, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH ENVIRONMENT AND SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN TO WORK THROUGH, INCONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY MAP, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD 1 IS ESSENTIALLY PICKING UP THE N1 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE. WE KIND OF LOOK AT THIS AS A GOOD TRANSITION BETWEEN THE CAMPUS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE, AND AGAIN, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AFTER RESOLUTION OF THOSE OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, KEITH MCVAIN WITH MOORE VAL AN, ASSISTING WOOD PARTNERS WITH ME TONIGHT, REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER, IS CARTER SEAGLE. AND TAL FORD WORL TON. THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SITE LOCATED JUST ADJACENT TO NOVANT. MINT HILL HOSPITAL AND THEN TO THE WEST, AND TO THE EAST, SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THE CREST WIND NEIGHBORHOOD IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS IN AN AGE RESTRICTED NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CRESSWIND NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST AND APPRECIATE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. AND THE THEY SEE THE VALUE AND ADDING ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS HERE. AND AGAIN, WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THEIR RESIDENTS AND MET AT THEIR CLUBHOUSE AND TO PRESENT THE PLANS, WE WILL BE MAKING A MODIFICATION TO THE PLAN TO ADDRESS ONE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE BY THE RESIDENTS. AND THAT'S ALONG THIS EDGE. THEY ASKED THAT THE PETITIONER INSTALL A FENCE FOR SECURITY. TO PREVENT TRESPASSING FROM ONE DEVELOPMENT TO THE OTHER. SO WE WILL BE AMENDING THE PLAN TO ADD A FENCE HERE, AS WELL, TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS THAT THE OUTSTANDING DAVE HAS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL? >> MOVE TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? THAT IS UNANIMOUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 36. REZONING PETITION 2022-096, BY KAIROI RESIDENTIAL ON 33.03 ACRES ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF JOHN ADAMS ROAD, GALLOWAY ROAD, NORTH OF WEST MALL LAD CREEK CHURCH ROAD AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 85 IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 4, MS. JOHNSON'S DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING IS N1A, NEIGHBORHOOD 1A, RE3, RESEARCH, CONDITIONAL. OF DRSHGS, BUSINESS, AND CG, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. URBAN RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO SITE DESIGN. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS AGAINST, AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION, MR. CARMICHAEL. THREE MINUTES. >>PETTINE: JUST UNDER 33 ACRES, CHANGE OFF JOHN ADAMS ROAD, WHICH IS JUST NORTH THERE OF MALLARD CREEK. AND THE CURRENT ZONING, THERE'S ABOUT FIVE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS ON THE PROPERTY, AND N1A, RE3, OFC AND CG, THE PETITIONER PLANS TO CONSOLIDATE THOSE INTO ONE DISTRICT UNDER THE U R-2 CONDITIONAL, ADOPTED PLACE TYPE, WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT PLACE TYPE DESIGNATIONS IN THIS AREA, PICKING UP THE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE THERE, THE CAMPUS DOES -- NEIGHBORHOOD 1, RECOGNIZES SOME OF THE ZONING AND PLACE IN THAT GENERAL AREA. AND THEN COMMERCIAL WHERE WE'VE GOT THAT COMMERCIAL ZONING AND B1 CONDITIONAL. SO AGAIN, THIS WOULD TAKE ALL OF THOSE PLACE TYPES AND ESSENTIALLY MAKE THIS A NEIGHBORHOOD 2, SHOULD IT BE APPROVED. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR UP TO 345 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS SO ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT 345 TOWNHOMES. PROVIDES AN 8 FOOT PLANTING STRIP AND 12 FOOT SIDEWALK AND COMMITS TO AN ACRE AND A HALF OF THE SITE, TO MECKLENBURG COUNTY PARK AND REC. FOR USE AS A FUTURE PARK. AND DOES PROVIDE WALKWAYS THAT CONNECT ALL RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCES TO THE SIDEWALKS ALONG INTERNAL STREETS AND THINGS LIKE A CLUBHOUSE, PICKLEBALL COURT OR SWIMMING POOL. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION, DO HAVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH SITE DESIGN TO WORK THROUGH, WHILE IT IS INCONSISTENT, THERE ARE ABOUT LIKE I SAID, THREE PLACE TYPE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS GENERAL AREA, STAFF DOES FEEL THE NEIGHBORHOOD 2 WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TYPE IN THIS AREA, GIVEN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND THE LOCATION OF THIS ALONG 485 AND THE COMMITMENT TO BILLING SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED VERSUS THE STANDARD MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT PROJECT. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. CARMICHAEL AND WE'LL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN ANSWER AFTER HIS PRESENTATION, THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MR. CARMICHAEL. >> THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR PRO TEM, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUPES AND THE ZONING COMMITTEE, JOHN CARMICHAEL HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, WITH ME TONIGHT OR TYLER OF THE PETITIONER AND MATT EDWARDS OF MCKINLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES, AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE SITE CONTAINS ABOUT APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES, EAST SIDE OF NORTH I-85. NORTH OF MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD, THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE, OUT LIEP LINED IN GREEN, THIS IS THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SITE AS MR. PETTINE STATED, THERE'S FIVE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ON THE SITE, AND N1A, RE3CD, O IF, C, AND CG, AND B1CD. PETITIONER IS REQUESTING THAT THE SITE BE REZONED TO THE U R-2 CITY ZONING DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 325 TOWNHOME ON THE SITE. IT'S TURNED SO THAT NORTH IS ACTUALLY PLAN EAST. BUT THERE WOULD BE THREE ACCESS POINTS INTO THE SITE. THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE FROM JOHN ADAMS ROAD, ONE, TWO, AND THEN THREE, AND THEN, ONE ACCESS POINT INTO THE SITE FROM JOHN ADAMS RIGHT AND INTO THE SITE FROM GALLOWAY ROAD WITH RESPECT TO THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. THE AMENITY AREA FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WOULD BE HERE, ALONG JOHN ADAMS ROAD. A MINIMUM 1.5 ACRE PORTION OF THE SITE HERE, WOULD BE DEDICATED AND CONVEYED TO MECKLENBURG COUNTY FOR A FUTURE PUBLIC PARK. THE PETITIONER WOULD INSTALL AN 8 FOOT WOOD PLANTING STRIP AND 12 FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG JOHN ADAMS AND GALLOWAY ROAD. THE SITE. ACROSS JOHN ADAMS ROAD. WE APPRECIATE THE PLANNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. AND WE WILL WORK WITH THE PLANNING STAFF TO RESOLVE THE OUTSTANDING SITE DESIGN ISSUES AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? MS. JOHNSON. >>RENEE JOHNSON: THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF. AND THANK YOU, JOHN, FOR THE PRESENTATION, MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF. I'M LOOKING AT THE SCHOOL IMPACT. AND THIS SAYS THE JULIUS CHAMBER PRIDE REMAINS AT 134%. SO THERE'S A PETITION, 2021-256, THE ONE THAT WE DEFERRED. >> UH-HUH. >>RENEE JOHNSON: THAT WAS FILED IN 2021. AND ITT SAID IT WOULD INCREASE THE -- TO 143%. THAT WAS IN 2021 PETITION. SO THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE PETITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED SINCE THEN. ALSO, IN THE 2021-256 PETITION, THERE IS A MEMO FROM CMS WHERE THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE SCHOOL CAPACITY IN THIS AREA. SO I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AGAIN FOR MY COLLEAGUES, AND THE PUBLIC, THAT WERE NOT LOOKING AT SCHOOL IMPACT ON THESE PETITIONS AND SO WHEN I OPPOSED THEM, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M HOSTILE. TO THE DEVELOPMENT. AS I'VE BEEN ACCUSED. BUT IT'S BECAUSE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON ALL OF THIS GROWTH IN THESE AREAS. SPECIFICALLY, DISTRICT 4, THIS MALLARD CREEK AREA. SO I WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT MR. PETTINE? ON THE SCHOOL IMPACT, WE'RE LOOKING AT REMAINS AT 134% YET WE KNOW THAT AGAIN, A 2021 PETITION SAYS THAT IT WILL INCREASE THE SCHOOL CAPACITY TO 143. AND THAT'S NOT INCLUDING ALL OF THE APPROVED PETITIONS. THAT WE'VE APPROVED SINCE 2021. IN THIS AREA. BUT CAN YOU HELP ME OR HOW WE CAN PROCESS THAT AS A COUNCIL AND MAKING INFORMED DECISION IFS WE'RE NOT GETTING THE ACCURATE INFORMATION? >>PETTINE: SURE, SO IN THEIR MEMO FOR 2021-256, I THINK THE REVISED ONE WAS SENT TO US IN JULY OF 2023. THAT STATED THAT JULIUS CHAMBERS WAS AT 134 AT THE TIME OF THAT MEMO, AND THAT PROJECT WHICH COULD GENERATE ESSENTIALLY 273 STUDENTS WOULD TAKE THAT SCHOOL UPWARDS OF ABOUT 140%, AND THEN THE MEMO FOR THE PETITION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN FRONT OF US HERE, 2022-096 CAME IN AROUND THE SAME TIME, IN JULY, AND THAT WAS AT 134%. BUT THIS PARTICULAR PETITION SHOULD IT GET BUILT WOULD ADD 62 STUDENTS BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE ADJUSTED THE CAPACITY OF JULIUS CHAMBERS JUST FROM THIS PARTICULAR ONE, SO ONE PETITION HAD FAR GREATER IMPACTS THAN THE OTHER. AND THAT'S WHY ONE SHOWED AN INCREASE AND ONE SHOWED THIS TO REMAIN AT 134%. BUT THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME GENERAL NUMBER FOR BUILDING CLASSROOM WITH ADJUSTED CAPACITY AND THE PERCENT UTILIZATION RATE FROM THAT 20th DAY, BUILDING UTILIZATION, WHICH WAS 134%. SO AGAIN, ONE HAD OVER 200 STUDENTS, THIS ONE HAS UP TO 62. AND SO THIS ONE WOULDN'T -- IF WERE BUILT TODAY, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE AN IMPACT IN TERMS OF INCREASING THAT CAPACITY, THE OTHER, IF IT WERE BUILT TODAY AND THIS ONE WEREN'T BUILT, LET'S SAY THAT ONE TAKE THAT SCHOOL UPWARDS OF 140% SO AGAIN LOOKING AT THEM ALMOST IN NOT A HYPOTHETICAL SENSE BUT IN THE SENSE OF SHOULD THIS PETITION GET BUILT, THEY KNOW THAT NOT EVERY PETITION GETS BUILT OUT IN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME, THAT'S WHY SOME REFLECT IT AS AN INCREASE AND SOME PROJECT IT AS STAYING WHERE THEY ARE. >>RENEE JOHNSON: SO I JUST USE THOSE TWO AS AN EXAMPLE. BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP THAT I HAVE SHOWN NUMEROUS TIMES. AND IN 2022, WE HAD -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PETITIONS WE HAD IN THAT AREA, I DON'T KNOW, IS THIS 20 OR 30? I DON'T KNOW. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS IN 2021, WE KNEW THAT A PETITION WOULD INCREASE THE SCHOOL CAPACITY TO 143%. CMS SENT THE MEMO THAT'S IN THE PETITION RIGHT NOW, THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, WE APPROVED NUMEROUS PETITIONS IN 2022. THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE IMPACT ON THAT SCHOOL. THEY'RE BY RIGHT PETITIONS, THEY'RE PENDING PETITIONS, SAME AREA. AND THEN WE HAVE A PETITION IN 2023 AND WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IN THE NINTH MONTH OF 2023, 134% SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE IMPACT OF APPROVED PETITIONS ON SCHOOL CAPACITY. AND WE'RE NOT -- WE DON'T -- WE DON'T KNOW THE INFORMATION. >>PETTINE: SO WE HAD A REALLY INSIGHTFUL CONVERSATION WITH DENNIS LA KERR RA AT OUR TPD MEETING A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT TALKED ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GO BACK IF YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO ATTEND TO LISTEN TO HOW THESE THE CALCULATE THESE CAPACITIES, IT DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHERE THE STUDENT POPULATION IS TO TEACHER RATIO ON THAT 20th DAY OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO USE TO CALCULATE EVERYTHING OUT ACROSS THAT YEAR, THEY DO FLUCTUATE, THEY DO ADJUST IT YEAR TO YEAR, BUT THEY DO LOOK AT IT BASED ON WHAT THEY KNOW IS BUILT AND WHAT THEY HAVE CO'S ON, BIRTH, AND DEATH RATES AND GROWTH CLATE CALCULATORS, NOT JUST DEVELOPMENT AND THEY DO UPDATE THOSE NUMBERS EVERY YEAR, BUT THEY ALSO TALKS TO -- HE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE INFORMATION IS THAT THEY HAVE TO USE AND IT'S BASED ON BUILDINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, OCCUPIED VERSUS, YOU KNOW, PETITIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT GET BUILT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME BEFORE THEY MIGHT HAVE SCHOOL RELIEF BEING BUILT OR A BOND PASSED TO OFFSET SOME OF THOSE IMPACTS. SO THESE DO REFLECT THE MOST ACCURATE NUMBERS THAT CMS HAS, BASED OFF OF THAT 20th DAY BUILDING UTILIZATION, BUT HE EXPLAINED IT MUCH MORE INFORMATIVE AND ELOQUENTLY THAN I COULD, SO I WOULD DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO GO BACK AND HAVE A LISTEN TO THAT CONVERSATION, I THINK IT WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US TO KIND OF GET OUR ARMS AROUND HOW THEY MAKE THESE PROJECTIONS AND PROVIDE THESE CALCULATIONS BACK ON THESE PETITIONS. >>RENEE JOHNSON: OKAY, BUT AS THE COUNCIL, AS WE'RE PLANNING THIS, AND WE CAN TALK OFF LINE, I'VE SHARED THIS FOR THE LAST, YOU KNOW, FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS OR SO, THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT. IF WE LOOKED AT THE PETITION, TWO YEARS AGO, 2021, THAT WAS GOING TO INCREASE CHAMBERS HIGH SCHOOL TO 143%, TO LOOK AT ONE TODAY, AND SAYS 134%, AND WE'VE APPROVED 20 PETITIONS IN BETWEEN THAT. IT JUST -- >>PETTINE: RIGHT, BUT AGAIN, THOSE PETITIONS HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT IN, THEY CAN'T FACTOR THOSE NUMBERS IN TO THE CALCULATION UNTIL THEY GET THE 20th DAY NUMBER, YOU KNOW, SOMETIME IN SEPTEMBER, AFTER SCHOOL STARTS. >>RENEE JOHNSON: I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT'S OUR CHALLENGE, HOW DO WE PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR PRO TEKT THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE RESIDENTS, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE -- THE RESIDENTS ARE THE ONES THAT FEEL THE IMPACTS, DESPITE WHAT THE NUMBERS MIGHT SAY. SO THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: I WOULD CERTAINLY SUGGEST MS. JOHNSON, I DON'T THINK YOU WERE HERE, THE DAY THAT WE GOT THAT PRESENTATION. AS MR. PETTINE SAID, WE SHOULD ALL GET FAMILIAR WITH IT BUT I THINK WE ALL LEARNED THAT WE HAVE A NEXT STEP TO TAKE FOR US TO SPEAK TO EACH OTHER FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS. THE WAY WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN -- WHAT WE LEARNED, THE WAY WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN REFERENCING THE DATA, THAT CMS PROVIDES, ACTUALLY HAS BEEN INCORRECT MOST OF THE TIME THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT FROM THE DAIS. TO THE FACT THAT, FOR INSTANCE, A HIGH SCHOOL AT 100% OF THIS UTILIZATION RATE, ACTUALLY DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S AT 100% OF OF THE CAPACITY, BECAUSE THE WAY THEY LOOK AT THEIR CAPACITY, HAS TO DO WITH THE WAY CLASSROOMS ARE FILLED THROUGHOUT THE DAY. WHICH CHANGES BASED ON THE WAY SCHOOLS ARE SET UP. HOW MANY TEACHERS THEY HAVE COVERED. THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER. SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING FROM THIS DAIS, ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN INCORRECT. AND A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THEM TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR ACTUALLY IS ACCOUNTED FOR AS MR. PETTINE SAID, I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE ON THAT ROUTE, WHICH WE SAID, I THINK IN THAT COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO FIGURE OUT TO BEST MAKE SENSE OF THE DATA THAT WE'RE PRESENTING EACH OTHER. MR. DRIGGS. >>ED DRIGGS: I RECOMMEND THAT HE COME AND PRESENT TO THE FULL COUNCIL, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE APPARENT FROM THAT IN TERMS OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE DATA MEANS THAT WE GET, AND TO MS. JOHNSON'S POINT, I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT, RIGHT? WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE DATA MEANS. AND UNDERSTAND HOW CMS PLANS ITS CAPITAL BUDGET. BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY, WHAT IT'S DOING, IT LOOKS AT WHAT IT KNOWS, IT LOOKS AT PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED AND IT TRIES TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE DEMAND GOING TO MATERIALIZE AND CAN WE CREATE CAPACITY IN LINE WITH THAT SCHEDULE? THAT'S THE IDEA. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK WE KNOW, MY KID WERE IN TRAILERS, MIDDLE SCHOOL, HIGH SCHOOL, THREE OR FOUR LUNCHES, SO THE PROCESS OF CMS'S RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN DEMAND FOR THOSE SCHOOLS LAGS, RIGHT? BY YEARS, SOMETIMES. BUT THE OTHER QUESTION, THEN IS WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING OUR LAND USE DECISIONS AGAINST THAT? BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO INVOLVE OURSELVES TOO MUCH IN SCHOOL POLITICS, THEY HAVE THE SCHOOL BOARD, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE LEGISLATURE, SO I THINK IN PRINCIPLE, WE SHOULD ALLOW THE GROWTH TO OCCUR AS OUR LAND USE POLICIES INDICATE. AND THEN PUT ON CMS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACCOMMODATING THAT GROWTH WITH SCHOOLS. >>RENEE JOHNSON: BUT SEE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE OUR FI LOSS FI MAY DIFFER. -- PHILOSOPHY MAY DIFFER. WE TALK ABOUT UPWARD MOBILITY, AND, YOU KNOW, LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LOW WAGES, ALL OF THAT BEING A PRIORITY. BUT THEN, ZONING MONDAY WE KIND OF IGNORE THOSE PRIORITIES AND WE JUST THINK GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH. I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT PEOPLE OVER PROPERTY. AS WELL. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE IN PHILOSOPHY. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: WE ALSO LEARNED THERE THAT IF WE DON'T ADHERE TO THE POLICIES, THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE WAY THE SCHOOLS ARE CALCULATING FORWARD THINKING PROGRESS AND GROWTH. MS. MOLINA. >>MARJORIE MOLINA: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE'S AN EXTREME VARIANCE IN THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED FOR US. IN THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM. BECAUSE WE GOT A 60% RATIO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACTUAL UTILIZATION, OR A PROJECTION. BUT FROM HIGH SCHOOL TO MIDDLE SCHOOL, IT'S ALMOST DOUBLED. SO LIKE ARE THE KIDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, SO TO ME, THAT'S INDICATIVE OF US NOT HAVING THE EXACT INFORMATION, THERE'S SOME TYPE OF -- THERE'S SOME TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT HAS TO BE MISSING. BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALMOST INFER THAT THE KIDS ARE LEAVING BEFORE THEY GO TO HIGH SCHOOL OR HAVE AN INFLUX -- THERE'S SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS THAT CAN BE MADE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE THEN HAVE THE CAPACITY, WHAT WE DO FROM A LAND USE AND, YOU KNOW, DECISION MAKING PERSPECTIVE TO SAY THAT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE SQUARE ON THESE NUMBERS, I KNOW THAT THERE'S SO MANY ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO WORK ON. WITH REGARDS TO HOW WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS. AND I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO KIND OF CREATE SOME CONTINUITY IN WHAT WE UNDERSTAND AND I AGREE, I THINK WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING, MR. DRIGGS. >>ED DRIGGS: WE DID. >>MARJORIE MOLINA: THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THAT INFORMATION PRESENTED. SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND IT. AND WE KIND OF UNDERSTAND HOW AND WHAT WAY IT WEIGHS AGAINST OUR DECISIONS, THOUGH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN KIND OF, YOU KNOW, RELAY THAT TO THE STAFF THAT WE'RE VERY INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND HOW THAT PARTICULAR INFORMATION RELATES TO OUR DECISION MAKING FOR OUR ZONING PETITIONS, BECAUSE ACROSS THE BOARD, WE SEE THIS AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO ADJUST TO OR EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT MEANS. SO I'M INTERESTED -- >>BRAXTON WINSTON: I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY CLEAR THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ONGOING CONVERSATION, I THINK IT WAS ALSO PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE SHOULDN'T MAKE OUR LAND USE DECISIONS BASED ON THE CMS DATA THAT WE ARE PROVIDED IN OUR PACKETS. THAT IT IS NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF LAND USE POLICY. SO. >> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: IT HAS BEEN A MOTION HEAD MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT IS UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR OF CLOEDZING THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 37. REZONING PETITION 2022-218 BY MATTAMY HOMES. IN EAST OF INTERSTATE 77, THE CURRENT ZONING IS -- DOESN'T SAY WHAT DISTRICT IT'S IN. BUT THE CURRENT ZONING IS N1B, NEIGHBORHOOD 1B AND PROPOSED ZONING IS RMFCD SINGLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION UPON OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS AGAINST THIS. SO MR. BROWN, YOU'LL HAVE -- >>PETTINE: THANK YOU, 2022-218 IS LET'S SEE. 15.93 ACRES OFF MILL HAVEN LANE, JUST EAST OF I-77. AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD 1B. AND PROPOSED ZONING IS R8MF CONDITIONAL. THE 2040 POLICY MAP RECOMMENDS NEIGHBORHOOD 1 FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE AREA. AND THE PETITION PROPOSES UP TO 90 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS, MAINLY IN THREE AND FOUR BUILDING GROUPINGS, AND BUILDINGS ARE MAXED OUT AT FOUR UNITS PER BUILDING, EXCUSE ME, UNITS WOULD BE FOUR PER BUILDING. PROPOSES TWO-STEP CONNECTIONS TO THE NORTH EDGE OF THE SITE FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY SHOULD WE GET REDEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, DOES CONNECT THE NEW PROPOSED STREET TO THE EXISTING MEADOW NOLL DRIVE. ALONG THE SITE'S FRONTAGE OF MILL HAVEN LANE AND ALONG INTERNAL PUBLIC STREETS. AND UNITS WILL HAVE A MINIMUM ONE- CAR GARAGE. AND ALSO PROVIDES A 50 FOOT CLASS C BUFFER WHICH COULD BE REDUCED WITH A FENCE WALL OR BERM AROUND THE ENTIRE PARCEL, YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THAT AREA OUTLINED IN GREEN. ALSO PROVIDES ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR THE BUILDINGS THAT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE BUILDING MATERIALS, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. WE DO HAVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED. WHILE IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1 PLACE TYPE, WE DO FEEL IT PROVIDES A GOOD MIX OF HOUSING OPTIONS IN THE AREA. DOES HAVE ACCESS OFF OF MILL HAVEN, THERE IS SOME TRANSIT ON THE STATESVILLE CORRIDOR, WHICH IS JUST ABOUT A HALF TO THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILE JUST OFF THE SITE. SO WE DOLE DO FEEL THE CONTEXT IS APPROPRIATE AND THE SITE DESIGN THE WAY THEY HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO THE BUFFERS AROUND THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY AND CREATED SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE USES AS DOES ALLOW FOR SOME ADEQUATE TRANSITION TO A PRODUCT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE CONDUCIVE IN TERMS OF DENSITY, BUT JUST DIFFERENT IN FORM FROM SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED. AND WITH THAT, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. BROWN AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THREE MINUTES. >> COLIN BROWN ON BEHALF OF MATTAMY HOMES. WE HAVE A NICE INFILL SITE HERE IN COUNCIL MEMBER GRAHAM'S DISTRICT. MATTAMY HOMES, ONE OF THE LEADING TOWNHOME BUILDERS IN THE TOWN IS LOOKING AT DOING THE SITE, A LITTLE BIT FRUSTRATING FOR YOU, I KNOW YOU SEE THIS INCONSISTENCY, WE FIND THIS INCONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, IT'S N1B, THAT ALLOWS DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES, AND QUADS. IN SOME CASES AND MATTAMY HAS LIMITED THEIR PLAN TO NO MORE THAN A QUADRUPLEX. SO THESE WON'T BE THE BIG FIVE AND SIX UNIT RUNS. THEY'RE A LOT OF TRIS AND SOME QUADS. SO IT'S A LITTLE DISA POINTING TO US THAT THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLACE TYPE, WE THINK IT IS, WE THINK AS DAVE MENTIONED A NICE FIT FOR THE HOUSING, WE HAD A GOOD TURNOUT AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING AND ENDED UP GOING OUT AND MEETING WITH MS. HENDERSON WHO LIVES BEHIND THE SITE, EXPLAINING THE DEVELOPMENT TO HER, THE SETBACKS AND SHE WAS PLEASED WITH THAT AND WALKED IT WITH US. AND SO PLEASED TO HAVE STAFF'S SUPPORT AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MS. MAYFIELD. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. MR. PETTINE, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS INCONSISTENT? BASED OFF OF OUR LANGUAGE? >>PETTINE: SURE, THE PRESENCE OF QUADS IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 ARE REALLY LIMITED TO CERTAIN FRONTAGES ALONG THOROUGHFARES. AND THEN THOSE INSTANCES ONE OF THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS IS THAT ONE OF THE UNITS HAS TO BE AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, TO BUILD QUADS IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1, YOU HAVE TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONS. WHILE THEY ARE TECHNICALLY ALLOWED IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1, ONLY ALLOWED UNDER CERTAIN PARAMETERS AND WHEN THEY ARE IN PROPOSED IN A PROJECT WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS, THEN, WE DETERMINE THAT THOSE WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT COULD BE ALLOWED IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1, BUT CERTAINLY DO RECOGNIZE THAT QUADS ARE ALLOWED BUT WHEN THOSE CONDITIONS AREN'T MET, IT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE TO SAY IT'S GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH IT. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO ONE OF OUR CONDITIONS IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 FOR A QUAD, IS TO HAVE DIVERSE PRICE POINTS IN IT AND THIS DOES NOT DO THAT. >>PETTINE: THAT'S A GOOD SUMMARY OF IT, YES. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: AND WITH THIS, ALTHOUGH IT'S INCONSISTENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1 PLACE TYPE, WE STILL ARE RIGHT NOW RECOMM RECOMMENDING AND HAVE OUR RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION. >>PETTINE: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE RATIONALE IS BUILT OUT IN THIS STAFF ANALYSIS, DOES PROVIDE A VARIETY OF HOUSING OPTIONS IN THE AREA, GETTING PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, AND ENHANCING SOME CONNECTIVITY, TWO STEP CONNECTIONS TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE AS WELL AS THE EXISTING CONNECTION OFF OF MEADOW NOLL DRIVE, IN A HALF MILE OF THE C.A.T.S. BUS ROUTE, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE FACTOR IN WHEN WE HAVE AN INCONSISTENT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD 1 THAT COULD GO TO NEIGHBORHOOD 2, STAFF WAS COMFORTABLE WITH -- AS WELL AS THE DESIGN OF IT, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THEY DID A GOOD JOB OF GIVING SPACE TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. >>LAWANA MAYFIELD: SO FOR OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO LOOK INTO OUR LANGUAGE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT IN THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOW DO WE ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MAKING SURE THAT NOT ONLY THE DESIGN BUT ALSO THE PRODUCT TYPE BENEFITS THE RESIDENTIAL WHEN WE'RE IN A MARKET WHERE WE'RE SEEING QUICKLY CHANGING UP AS WELL AS DECREASE WITH HOUSING, MAKING SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING THROUGH OUR LANGUAGE ACTUALLY CAN HELP TO BUILD UP AND SUPPORT A NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU, MR. PETTINE, FOR THAT EXPLA EXPLANATION. >>PETTINE: YES, NO PROBLEM. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MR. DRIGGS. >>ED DRIGGS: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. SO I NOTICED THAT THE PETITION IS FOR AN R8, THE OLD CLASSIFICATION, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE ARE JUDGING THIS USING THE OLD ORDINANCE? >>PETTINE: YEAH, SO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN STANDARDS, WOULD BE BASED OFF OF THAT, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT IT FROM A POLICY STAND POINT AND WE LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1, AND HOW THOSE POLICIES INTERACT WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH SOME OF THE CRITERIA ARE WHEN AGAIN, THOSE TRIGGER POINTS ALLOW FOR A QUAD TO BE BUILT IN N1, THIS WOULDN'T NECESSARILY MEET THOSE FROM THAT POLICY PERSPECTIVE. >>ED DRIGGS: BUT IN CASE OF CONFLICT, WHAT CONTROLS. >>PETTINE: THE R8M.F. >>ED DRIGGS: THANK YOU. >>PETTINE: UH-HUH. >> MOTION TO CLOSE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: MR. BROW HAVE ONE QUESTION. THERE'S A LITTLE RECTANGLE SLIVER PARCEL THAT LOOKS LIKE IT FRONTS SUNSET BOULEVARD IS THERE A HOUSE ON THAT RIGHT NOW? >> TELL ME -- >> I SEE IT. >> HERE? >>BRAXTON WINSTON: YES. >> THIS IS ACTUALLY, WE MET AT MS. HENDERSON'S HOUSE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THIS IS HER HOUSE. >> THIS IS HER HOUSE HERE. HER NEIGHBOR IS PARKING BOATS ON IT. WE CANNOT MAKE THE CON NNCONNEC IT IS PRIVATELY OWNED. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: O OKAY. >> SHE WAS PLEASED TO HEAR THAT, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: A MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED, ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED RAISE YOUR HAND? SEEING NONE, THAT'S UNANIMOUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 38. REZONING PETITION 2023-BRIAN NOW SHE. EAST AND EAST SIDE OF CITADEL PLACE, COUNCIL DISTRICT 1, MS. ANDERSON'S DISTRICT, THE CURRENT ZONING IS N1A, NEIGHBORHOOD 1A AND PROPOSED IS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION, IN ITS CURRENT FORM. AND THERE IS A SPEAKER AGAINST, SO AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION, THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES. >>PETTINE: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, 2023-011, IT'S JUST UNDER 25 ACRES OFF ALLEN ROAD IN THE CITADEL PLACE. AND IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD 1A. AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS FOR R8MF CONDITIONAL, THE ADOPTED PLACE TYPE IS NEIGHBORHOOD 1, WE DO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD 2 TO THE SOUTH AS WELL AS MANUFACTURING LOGISTICS DOWN AS YOU GET CLOSER TO GRAHAM STREET. PROPOSAL IS FOR UP TO 84 DUA IN A TOWNHOME STYLE. CITADEL PLACE. ALSO PROVIDES A 30 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG CITADEL PLACE FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD AND DEDICATED 1.25 ACRES TO MECKLENBURG FOR FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND PROVIDING ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. I'LL STAY ON THIS SLIDE TO TALK ABOUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS SO, IT'S MAINLY FROM JUST SOME OF THE DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THIS SITE, NOT NECESSARILY THE OVERALL PROPOSED USE, A LOW DENSITY, AROUND A 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WE DO HAVE CONCERNS, THERE'S A DUMPSTER LOCATION IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ONE OF THE RESIDENTS HERE, AND THESE UNITS STARTED TO GET VERY, VERY TIGHT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE BACK, IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THESE ON SOME AERIAL, YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE THE STRUCTURES ARE TO WHAT IS PROPOSED. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY BE W THE PETITIONER AND ON THE SAME PAGE AND GETTING THOSE CHANGES MADE, THEY SHOULD BE PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. WE'LL REEVALUATE OUR RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME, BUT AGAIN, IT'S MAINLY FROM SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS, NOT NECESSARILY THE PROJECT ITSELF, AS WE JUST SAW VERY SIMILAR PETITION, THERE IS SOME NEIGHBORHOOD 2 AS I MENTIONED, JUST TO THE SOUTH, SO IT'S NOT COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT. THERE'S SOME GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING POND AS WELL AS THAT MECKLENBURG COUNTY PARK AND REC DEDICATION THAT'S SOME GOOD PUBLIC BENEFIT THERE, SO IF WE CAN GET SOME OF THOSE ITEMS CLEANED UP FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT, STAFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THIS UNDER A DIFFERENT LENS MOVING INTO THE ZONING COMMITTEE, I WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER TO THE PETITIONER FOR THEIR PRESENTATION, I THINK WE DO HAVE SOME COMMUNITY OPPOSITION SIGNED UP AS WELL, SO WE'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING BOTH OF THOSE PRESENTATIONS. THANK YOU. >>BRAXTON WINSTON: THANK YOU. TRISHA MCMAN ANIES, PAIGE WEST YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES COMBINED. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, MAYOR PRO TEM AND ZONING COMMITTEE, CIVIL ENGINEERS, THE PROJECT MANAGER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FOR THIS PROJECT. THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIVE AND PAIGE WEST FROM DEW BERRY. SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. AS MR. PETTINE NOTED, WE HAVE HEARD STAFF'S COMMENTS AND CONCERNS WITH THE PLAN. AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY ALREADY BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING REVISIONS TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, SO I'M HERE TONIGHT TO KIND OF SHOW YOU WHERE THE PLAN IS, RIGHT AT THIS VERY MOMENT. IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING THOSE CONCERNS. SO THIS WAS THE PLAN THAT IS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW. IT'S 84 JUST SHY OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. YES, IT DOES HAVE THE DUMPSTER TO THE BOTTOM'S PROMPT AND THERE'S A TRIPLEX IN THIS PLAN THAT BACKS UP TO THE GUIERMO PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE PLAN YOU ALL HAVE SEEN. THESE ARE THE CONCERNS WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. OBVIOUSLY, THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS WITH THE QUADPLEXES GIVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1 AND 2 PROXIMITY. WE LOOK AT THE QUADPLEXES AND CONVERTED THOSE TO TRIPLEXES AND WE RELOCATED THE DUMPSTER WHICH IS SHOWN RIGHT HERE WHICH IS THE BOTTOMS PROPERTY. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT PROXIMITY TO UNITS TO THE THE CITADEL ALONGK HERE AND THERE'S A SUINGS THERE AS WELL. IF I FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS IS THE PLAN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE GUILLERMO PROPERTY AND WE NO LONGER HAVE A BUILDING THAT BACKS UP TO THEIR PROPERTY. YOU HAVE BETTER THAN 50 FEET CLEAR FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THOSE ARE AT AN ANGLE WITH OPEN SPACE. COMING DOWN TO THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, THAT'S RELOCATED THERE'S A TURNAROUND FOR A TRASH TRUCK. WE'RE SHOWING THE CLOSE-IN FOR THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND GO BACK UP HERE. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE LIMITING TRAFFIC TO THIS DRIVE TO JUST TRASH PICKUP. THAT WAS A CONCERN THAT WE HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS. THEY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE GOING UP AND DOWN. WE HAVE TWO OWNERS WHO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DRIVE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN PIT NOT TURNING IT INTO ANOTHER BACK ENTRANCE INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S A CONCERN WE HEARD. WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE DUPLEX THAT WAS RIGHT HERE AT THE CORNER WHEN YOU COME IN FROM CITADEL PLACE AND ONE THING WE HEARD FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY PARK AND REC, THEY PREFER LAND ADJACENT TO CITADEL N OUR FIRST PASS OF THE PLAN, WE HAD LAND TUCKED AWAY THAT WAS ACCESSIBLE ONLY FROM INTERNAL STREETS. ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN MOVED UP HERE TO BE ADJACENT TO CITADEL PLACE. IT'S ACCESSIBLE BY RESIDENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS ONE SPECIFIC COMMUNITY. AND THEN MOVING THROUGH, YOU'LL NOTICE THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY QUADPLEXES. THESE HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO TRIPLEXES IN THAT, THERE WERE UNITS LOST AND WE ARE DOWN TO 80, WITH A DENSITY OF 3.75 UNITS PER ACRE. LOWER AND TO THE SOUTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU CAN SEE SHADED BACK HERE, LAST YEAR, 3005 CITADEL PLACE CAME THROUGH AND THAT WAS 6 UNITS PER ACRE. THAT IS LESS DENSE THAN THIS AREA HERE. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. WE'RE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT. >> WE WILL DO THAT. YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES AND IF THAT'S ALL, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE RESIDENT, THERESA McDONALD. YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES. >> Speaker: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM, ZONING COMMITTEE AND EVERYONE ELSE. I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS PETITION TO SPEAK AGAINST IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY SEE AN OPTION TO SPEAK FOR SOME CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN, AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES SINCE THE LAST PLAN I LOOKED AT SO I'M PRETTY HAPPY WITH THE CHANGES THAT I'VE SEEN. THE MAIN THING I WANTED TO CONVEY FROM THE COMMUNITY AND VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT I'VE HAD IS THAT WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO AT ALL TO TOWNHOMES BUT WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS KIND OF A SPECIAL SITE BECAUSE IT IS REALLY IN THE HEART OF A LONG-ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY. IT'S VERY UNIQUE BECAUSE IT'S 25 ACRES THAT WAS NOT DEVELOPED AT THE TIME THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS DEVELOPED, AND A COUPLE OF THINGS HAVE BUBBLED UP FROM COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS WITH NEIGHBORS, ET CETERA. AND ONE OF THEM WAS THAT WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE BETTER CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS OR A BETTER TRANSITION FROM THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE IT FRONTS CITADEL. THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF FRONTAGE THERE. WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS AND I DO WANT TO THANK THE PETITIONER AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FOR SPENDING A LOT OF TIME WITH US TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT OPTIONS HERE AND IT SEEMS LIKE SO BARRIERS ARE RELATED TO CURRENT REGULATIONS. IF WE WANTED THE TOWNHOMES TO FACE CITADEL, FOR INSTANCE, AND REALLY BE A PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT WOULD CREATE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AROUND PUBLIC STREETS SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT HOW OUR POLICIES CAN TRY TO START TO ADDRESS THIS KIND OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE QUITE A FEW LARGE PARCELS LIKE THIS IN THE DURYDA AREA. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE VERY UNIQUELY POSITIONED, VERY CLOSE TO UPTOWN AND VERY CLOSE TO THE UNIVERSITY C CITY. AND WE HAVE A ROT OF VACANT LAND. THIS ONE IS UNIQUE BECAUSE IT IS SO WITH THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME CONSIDERATION FOR A WAY TO MAKE IT CONNECT BETTER WITH THE COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF BEING MORE OF AN ENCLAVE THAT IS---OH, GOSH. >> TAKE YOUR TIME. >> Speaker: AN ENCLAVE THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WALLED OFF FROM THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR BUFFERS AND DISTANCE BETWEEN BACKYARDS AND THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, WE CERTAINLY SUPPORT WHERE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN MOVED A LITTLE BIT AWAY FROM EXISTING BACKYARDS BUT WHERE IT ACTUALLY FITS INTO THE EXISTING COMMUNITY WHERE IT FACES CITADEL, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BETTER CONNECTION AND A BETTER FACE THAN THE BACK SIDE OF TOWNHOMES, NO MATTER HOW WELL THEY'RE SCREENED, IT CREATES A PERMANENT SENSE OF WE'RE NOT PART OF THIS COMMUNITY. THAT'S ALL. I'M VERY PLEASED WITH THE CHANGES THAT THEY NOTED TONIGHT. THAT WAS MY FIRST TIME SEEING THE SITE PLAN WITH THOSE CHANGES. SO THE MOVING OF THE DUMPSTER AND EVEN CREATING THE TRIPLEX UNITS IS A LITTLE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. >> MARROW TESTIMONY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PETITIONER, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL IF YOU WISH. A YI WITH MS. McDONALD'S ASSESSMENT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITE. IT POSES SOME CHALLENGES THERE ARE NATURAL AMENITIES HERE. WE HAVE THE EXISTING POND RIGHT HERE THAT WE ARE PRESERVING AND TRYING TO WORK AROUND A AS SENSITIVELY AS POSSIBLE. WE'VE GOT PHYSICAL SPACE CONSTRAINTS BETWEEN THAT POND AND CITADEL PLACE. ONE THING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL IS TO FRONT THESE UNITS ON PUBLIC OPEN SPACE RIGHT HERE INTO THE POND, BUT WE'RE REQUIRED TO FRONT THESE ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THAT CREATES A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE AS TO HOW THESE UNITS ADDRESS THE STREETSCAPE AND HOW THEY ADDRESS CITADEL PLACE HERE. I WILL SAY WITH THE CURRENT PLAN BEFORE YOU IN ADDITION TO THE TYPICAL EIGHT-FOOT PLANTING STRIP YOU HAVE THE SIX-FOOT SIDEWALK, WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT OR TEN FEET AND IT VARIES ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK WHERE WE COULD INSTALL PRIVACY FENCING AND ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS TO HELP SUPPLEMENT THAT, BUT AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE REALLY KIND OF LIMITED AT THIS PINCH POINT RIGHT HERE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN DO BASED ON THE SPACE CONSTRAINTS. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? >> 30 SECONDS. >> SUPER FAST. >> BE CAREFUL THOUGH. >> RYAN MILLER, I'M THE BROKER THAT'S REPRESENTING THE BROCHEE'S. ONE THING THAT THERESA BROUGHT UP IS THE FRONTING OF THE UNITS ON CITADEL PLACE, WHICH AS WE COVERED DOESN'T FIT WITH THE CODE CURRENTLY. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS ENHANCED THE AREA. WE ENHANCED THE NATURAL SETTING WHICH I THINK THERESA COMMENTED ON THAT IT IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL SETTING FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY. SO WE HAVEN'T COME IN AND OVERSATURATED. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: THANK YOU. BE READY FOR QUESTIONS. MR. PETTINE, I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN YOU CLARIFY, WHY CAN'T THESE UNITS BE FRONTED ONTO CITADEL PLACE? >> I WILL HAVE TO GET YOU THAT IN THE FOLLOW-UP? I'M NOT SURE. I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE ON A PUBLIC STREET THEY HAVE TO FRONT THAT PUBLIC STREET. I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT PORTION OF THAT NEWLY PROPOSED ROAD BEING POTENTIALLY A PRIVATE ALLEY SO THEY COULD. THAT'S SOMETHING I HAVE TO SIT DOWN WITH THE ZONING FOLKS AND DIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO IT AND GET YOU SOME OF THAT INFORMATION AND A FOLLOW-UP. >> IS CITADEL PLACE A PRIVATE? >> CITADEL IS PUBLIC BUT THE STREET BEING PROPOSED INTERNAL IS A PUBLIC STREET. WE'RE KIND OF SANDWICHED. THAT'S, AGAIN, WHERE WE MAYBE NEED TO HAVE SOME CONVERSATION WITH EN'ZOG TO UNDERSTAND. COULD THEY FRONT CITADEL AND CONSIDER THAT THE FRONTAGE VERSUS THE STREET TO THE REAR, OR DO WE CONSIDER THAT A PRIVATE ALLEYWAY TYPE OF STREET. I THINK THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO GET ANSWERED FOR YOU FOR THAT. >> I THINK WE SHOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT. TO MS. McDONALD'S POINT, THE INTENTIONS WAS TO GET AWAY FROM CREATING NEIGHBORHOODS CUT OFF FROM EACH OTHER. >> Speaker: CORRECT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM: ESPECIALLY IN NEIGHBORHOOD ONE AND NEIGHBORHOOD TWO, WE HAVE TO BUILD INTERNAL NEIGHBORHOODS CUT OFF FROM EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. >> OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE GET SOME FROM THOSE UNITS AS WELL. WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH THAT. >> I WOULD LOVE TO GET A FOLLOW-UP ON THERE. [ NO AUDIO ] >> TOTALLY I WORKED CLOSELY WITH THERESA McDONALD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND I KNOW HOW SHE CHAMPIONED PROGRESS FOR DURYDA. I COULD SEE YOU. I KNOW THAT SHE WOULD WANT TO SUPPORT THIS. DURYDA IS A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR REVITALIZATION. THE SECRET'S OUT, THERESA. I KNOW THAT SHE WOULD WANT TO SUPPORT IT IF SHE WERE ABLE TO. IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT THERE CAN BE A WAIVER OR SOMETHING SO THAT WE-- SO THE RESIDENTS ARE HAPPY WITH THIS OR, YOU KNOW, AND THEY CAN-- THERESA'S ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS. I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU ALL HAVE DONE THUS FAR. THIS IS WHAT PROGRESS AND GROWTH SHOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE COMMUNITY WORKING CLOSELY TOGETHER. THANK YOU FOR THE WORK, THUS FAR. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE CHANGES. SO THAT DURYDA LEADERS ARE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS. >> THANK YOU. >> DRIGGS: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. MS. McDONALD, I RECOMMEND RECOGNIZE YOUR NAME FROM MY MAILS LIST WITH THE FRIDAY MORNING CALLS. I HOPE YOU ARE GETTING GOOD INFORMATION THERE. I WAS PLEASED TO HEAR SOME OF THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. I HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE PETITIONER TO ADDRESS ANY OTHER CONCERNS. WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE A CONSENSUS. I DID WANT TO MENTION TO YOU THAT WE HAD A REFERRAL FROM COUNCIL TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING COMMITTEE, WHICH IS MY COMMITTEE FOR THE QUESTION OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND THE ISSUE SPECIFICALLY WAS, DO WE DO A LITTLE MORE IN ORDER TO ENSURE THOSE INFILL DEVELOPMENTS RESONATE LITTLE BETTER, RECONCILE BETTER WITH THOSE SURROUNDINGS. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY HERE. WE ARE WORKING ON THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. MR. DRIGGS TOOK HALF OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. >> DRIGGS: PUT YOUR HAND UP FASTER. [LAUGHTER] >> WE ARE WORKING ON AN OVERALL, THOUGHTFUL PROCESS AROUND INFILL AND MS. McDONALD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO DURYDA AND BOARDS AND COMMISSION. YOU'RE VERY MUCH A VOICE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY. WE HAVE TO HAVE A STRATEGY EBBING WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS. BY THE POINT MADE EARLIER BY MS. McDONALD, THERE'S OTHER POCKETS OF LAND WHERE THIS SAME TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL MORE THAN LIKELY OCCUR OVER THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN OPEN PLAN AND OPEN ENVIRONMENT TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS WITHIN DURYDA AND I THINK IF WE COULD, MR. PETTINE, COME BACK WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AROUND HOW THIS PARTICULAR PETITION CAN BE MODIFIED, HOPEFULLY WITH IN OUR ORDINANCE SO WE CAN BE OPEN TO THE BALANCE OF DU RYDA. MOTION TO CLOSE >> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. SEEING THAT'S UNANIMOUS, LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 39, REZONING PETITION 2023-024 BY CHILDRESS KLEIN PROPERTIES LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 83.65 ACRES ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD, SOUTH OF MALLARD CREEK ROAD AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 485 IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 4, MS. JOHNSON'S DISTRICT. CURRENT ZONING IS NA AND COMMERCIAL CENTER, INSTITUTIONAL, I1 CD LIGHT CONDITIONAL. MX1 MIXED USE WITH FIVE-YEAR VESTED RIGHTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS AGAINST, SO AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION, MR. MacVANE YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> 024, IT IS JUST OVER, LET'S SEE, ABOUT 38.65 ACRES OFF RIDGE ROAD. IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED N1A, CC, AS WELL AS IC1 AND I1 CONDITIONAL, PROPOSED ZONING IS FOR I1 CONDITIONAL AND MX1 WITH FIVE-YEAR VESTED RIGHTS. THE PLACE TYPE IN THIS AREA CALLS FOR PREDOMINANTLY MANUFACTURING LOGISTICS AS WELL AS CAMPUS AND NEIGHBORHOOD 1. YOU CAN SEE BOTH OF THE AREAS THAT ARE PART OF THIS REZONING ARE OUTLINE THERE'D IN THAT BLACK, BOLD LINE. WE DO HAVE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD 1. MANUFACTURING AND MORE NEIGHBORHOOD 1 ON RIDGE ROAD. THIS PETITION IS ESSENTIALLY TAKING TWO DEVELOPMENT AREAS. IT IS ADJACENT TO 22-018 WHICH WAS KINGS GRANT FOR 2.75 MILLION WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION OFFICE MANUFACTURING AND ALL USES IN I-1 AND 448 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS. THOSE ARE NORTH OF THIS SITE AT THE CABARRUS COUNTY LINE SOUTH OF CONCORD MILLS. THIS PETITION PROPOSES TWO DEVELOPMENT AREAS. YOU CAN SEE DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 CLOSEST TO I-485 THAT IS PROPOSING UP TO 500,000 SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSING DISTRIBUTION LOGISTICS OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING AND DEVELOPMENT AREA 2 COULD BE DEVELOPED WITH 150 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS. IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND EDU USES. THE ALLOWED 500,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED IN DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 WOULD BE TRANSFERRED FROM REZONING PETITION 2021-028 AND ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT, THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY KEEP THE TOTALING AGATT SQUARE FOOTAGE BETWEEN THOSE TWO PETITIONS NOT EXCEEDING THAT INITIALLY APPROVED 2.75 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. IT DOES PROHIBIT THINGS LIKE AUCTION SALES, AUTO AND TRUCK UTILITY RENTALS, AUTO SERVICE STATIONS AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING REPAIR, PETROLEUM AND RECYCLING OR DROP-OFF CENTERS PROHIBITED USES AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL NOTES. COMMITS TO A 12-FOOT MULTIUSE PATH AND EIGHT-FOOT PLANTING STRIP ALONG RIDGE ROAD. WE'RE TAKING TWO DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND REALLY KIND OF SQUARING OFF THE INDUSTRIAL THAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF KINGS GRANT SO YOU CAN SEE THIS ALL HERE ESSENTIALLY WE'RE CARRYING THE REST OF THAT INDUSTRIAL AND SQUARED IT UP TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT BETTER ACCESS. THIS WOULD BE A NARROW PIECE OF ACCESS POINT FOR THAT PETITION AND PROJECT SO THIS ALLOWS SOME ADDITIONAL SPACE. ONE OF THE BUILDINGS COULD ESSENTIALLY KIND OF ENCROACH INTO THAT AREA AND THEN SQUARE THIS OFF. PROVIDE BETTER TRANSPORTATION ACCESS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL AND THEN FLIP WHAT SOME OF THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL THAT ARE HERE NOW AND SHIFT THEM OVER TO THIS AREA WHERE WE WOULD GET THE SAME GENERAL OUTCOME OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IN N1A. WE'RE, AGAIN, JUST MAKING THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE WHOLE FOR INDUSTRIAL, TAKING THE RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS AND SWAPPING THEM OVER TO THIS AREA ON RIDGE ROAD. SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. WE HAVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THAT PORTION THAT WOULD FALL INTO MANUFACTURING LOGISTICS. THERE'S INCONSISTENCY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD 1 ON THE RIDGE ROAD SIDE AND THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS AREA. THIS WOULD MAKE ALL OF THIS YELLOW AND ALL OF THIS PURPLE. WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. MacVANE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD HAVE FOLLOWING HIS PRESENTATION. >> Speaker: GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF ZONING COMMITTEE. KEITH MacVANE AND WITH ME IS JOHN WILSON WITH CHILDRESS KLEIN AND I WANT TO THANK DAVE FOR HIS PRESENTATION. HE COVERED IT WELL. IT IS LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN 2008 LOOKING AT THIS IN YELLOW AND BE LOOKING AT THIS AREA HERE THAT WAS SURROUNDED BY THE 2021 PETITION AND MOVING THAT RESIDENTIAL USE FURTHER TO THE WEST AND CONSOLIDATING THE INDUSTRIAL HERE IN THE MIDDLE. WITHOUT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND ACTUALLY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OFS REDENGS OOL USES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THAT DONUT HOLE AREA. THIS IS KIND OF A BETTER REZONING THIS TO INDUSTRIAL. REZONING THIS TO RESID RESIDENTIAL. TAKING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ORIGINALLY APPROVED HERE AND USING IT INTO THIS AREA SO ALL OF THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK, AS DAVE MENTIONED DOES NOT EXCEED 2.75 MILLION AND REZONING THIS TO MX1 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT UP TO 150 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE ZONING ON THOSE PARCELS. THIS SHOWS YOU HOW THE PART ALL FITS TOGETHER AND ALL THIS WOULD BE INDUSTRIAL. THIS IS THE MULTIFAMILY PIECE THAT'S-- THAT COUNCIL A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AGREED TO EXTEND CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG PLANNING JURISDICTION TO THIS 11 ACRES IN CONCORD SO IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED AS ONE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT. THIS AREA GETS ZONED TO SINGLE FAMILY TO ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE ORIGINAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND I DON'T EXPECT ANYBODY TO BE ABLE TO READ THIS, BUT ALL THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALSO CARRIED OVER WITH THIS PETITION. AND C.D.O.T. DID REVIEW A TIS ADDENDUM TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT-- THE CHANGES IN THE ACCESS AND THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS OF THE ACCESS POINTS, AND BASICALLY ASSERTED THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY CALLED FOR CONTINUED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THESE SWITCHES IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS. THIS IS THE OVERALL MASTER PLAN. YOU SEE HOW EVERYTHING FITS TOGETHER. THE PROPOSED SINGLE FA MANICALLY HOMES HERE ON THE WEST SIDE. THERE'S A AN ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BEING PLANNED HERE AND WE'LL BE COMING BEFORE YOU AT A FUTURE DATE AND THESE STUB STREETS HAVE BEEN COORDINATED WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THIS FILLS IN THIS PIECE IN THE MIDDLE HERE WITH INDUSTRIAL TO ALLOW THE INDUSTRIAL PARK TO BE REALLY A MORE COHESIVE PIECE. WE'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> MAYFIELD: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. MR. MacVANE FOR CLARIFICATION, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE TOTALITY OF THIS PROJECT INCLUDING WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IS GOING TO HAVE BOTH MULTIFAMILY RENTAL AND SINGLE FAMILY FOR SALE PRODUCT, OR IT IS ALL RENTAL? >> THE MULTIFAMILY FOR RENTAL IS UP HERE. SINGLE FAMILY IS I'M NOT SURE. IT IS-- IT COULD BE FOR RENT AND IT COULD-- >> IT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED IF IT'S FOR RENT OR FOR SALE? >> CORRECT. HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED. >> FOLLOW-UP >> YES, MA'AM. >> MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING. >> MOTION MADE AND PROPERLY SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT'S UNANIMOUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOVE ON TO AGENDA NUMBER 40, REZONING PETITION 2023-01 BY CRESCENT COMMUNITIES, LLC, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 2.766 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH TRYON STREET, NORTH SIDE OF CARSON BOULEVARD AND EAST SIDE OF WINNIE FRED STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 2. CURRENT ZONING IS UC URBAN CORE AND PROPOSED UPTOWN MIXED USE DISTRICT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AND SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN. NO SPEAKERS AGAINST. AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION, THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> Speaker: 2023-01 IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF TRYON STREET AND NORTH SIDE OF CARSON AND EAST SIDE OF WINNIE FRED. 2.76 ACRES AND DEVELOPED AS RENTAL CAR BUSINESS. SITE IS UC, URBAN CORE, AND PROPOSED IS U MUDD OPTIONAL, UPTOWN MIXED USE OPTIONAL AND CONDITIONAL DISTRICT. 2040 POLICY MAP RECOMMENDS ACTIVITY CENTER. PLACE TYPE IS UMUDD DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RAC PLACE TYPE. AND CALLS FOR ANY PRINCIPAL USE BY RIGHT WITH PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE CONDITIONS AND THE ZONING ADDER NANCE AND FOLLOWING OPTIONAL PROVISIONS. ALLOWS FOR 50% REDUCTION AND LOADING SPACES AND ALLOWS SIGNS TO BE MOUNTED ON CURTAIN WALLS AND WINDOWS. THE FOLLOWING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED NON-STANDARD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL PAVERS AND MUST BE APPROVED BY C.D.O.T. AND THE PETITION WILL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE CITY, PRIOR TO THE FIRST CO. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES WE HAD TRANSPORTATION SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN, HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION. >> REGI GRANT AND FRAN WEST, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES >> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND ZONING COMMITTEE. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH FRAN WEST WITH CRESCENT COMMUNITIES. MAX DID A GREAT JOB WITH THE PRESENTATION AND GIVEN MINER AND TECHNICAL NATURE OF THIS REZONING AND THE TWO OPTIONAL PROVISIONS, I WILL FOREGO A PRESENTATION AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> MOST TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COMMENT OS ARE QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND. >> THANK YOU. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. SEEING NONE, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 42, REZONING PETITION 23023-035 BY ALLIANCE INDUSTRIAL PARK-- >> 42, YES. >> 2023-035 BY ALLIANCE INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS, LLC, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 10.34 ACRES NORTH OF SHOPTON ROAD, EAST OF SANDY PORTER ROAD AND WEST OF PINECREST DRIVE IN MS. WATLINGTON'S DISTRICT, DISTRICT 3. AND NEIGHBORHOOD 1 WITH AIRPORT NOISE DISCLOSURE OVERLAY. AND PROPOSED ZONING IS I-1 CD OR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL AND AIRPORT NOISE DISCLOSURE OVERLAY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS AGAINST. SO ONCE STAFF'S PRESENTATION IS CONDON, PETITIONER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. JOE MAGNUM WITH REZONING AND PLANNING. THIS IS JUST OVER 10 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF SHOPTON ROAD. IT'S A MILE AND A HALF SOUTH OF CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS AIRPORT. THE CURRENT ZONING IS N1A, WITHIN THE AIRPORT NOISE DISCLOSURE OVERLAY. PROPOSED ZONING IS I-1 CD. THAT AIRPORT OVERLAY WOULD CARRY FORWARD. THE 2040 POLICY MAP RECOMMENDS NEIGHBORHOOD 1 PLACE TYPE FOR THE SITE. AND THE PROPOSAL IS FOR UP TO 120,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION MANUFACTURING OFFICE AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES PERMITTED IN THE I-1 DISTRICT, WOULD PROHIBIT THE FOLLOWING USES, BARBER AND BEAUTY SHOPS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EATING DRINKING AND ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS, TYPE 1 AND 2. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS, SHOPPING CENTERS AND BUSINESS PERSONAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES AND ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS. IT DOES ESTABLISH A MINIMUM OF 75-FOOT WIDE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTHERN EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARIES IN ADDITION TO N1A ZONING AND THE FOLLOWING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. ONE SINGLE SITE, ACCESS DRIVE, DEDICATION AND CONVEYANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO TWO FEET BEHIND THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK, EASTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE INTO THE SITE OF SHOPTON ROAD AS WELL AS BUFFERED BIKE LANE, EIGHT-FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG THE SHOPTON ROAD FRONTAGE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PETITION. THERE ARE FEW TRANSPORTATION ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE CLEANED UP AS WELL AS STAFF IS ASKING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED USES. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 2040 POLICY MAP. HOWEVER, THE LOCATION WITHIN THE AIRPORT NOISE DISCLOSURE OVERLAY MAKES IT LESS DESIRABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, ALSO PROHIBITS SOME OF THOSE HIGH TRAFFIC GENERATING AND NOXIOUS USES, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY HE CANS AFTER THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. MR. BROWN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, COLIN BROWN ON BEHALF OF ALLIANCE INDUSTRIAL. GOOD PRESENTATION BY JOE. THIS IS-- THIS WILL LOOK FAMILIAR TO COUNCIL MEMBERS WALT LINGTON AND MAYFIELD. THIS IS THE CORRIDOR, I STILL CALL IT SHUTTERFLY IF WE SAW A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO NEXT DOOR. THIS IS SOUTH OF THE EAGLE LAKE COMMUNITY AND MEMBER OF OUR PLANNING STAFF HAS BEEN OUR CONTACT FOR EAGLE LAKE. I WON'T SAY THEY'RE THRILLED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THERE IS SOME UNCERTAINTY AND RECOGNIZING IT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON. PLEASED TO HAVE STAFF SUPPORT. PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT JIM MENTIONED. >> MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING. >> SECOND. >> MOVED AND SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED RAISE YOUR HAND. IT'S UNANIMOUS. WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOVE ON TO AGENDA NUMBER 45, REZONING PETITION 2023-051 BY PORTMAN HOLDINGS LOCATED ON 1.1 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH TRYON STREET, AND NORTH OF RAMPART STREET IN MS. WATLINGTON AND CURRENT IS TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PROPOSED IS TRANSIT ORIENTED URBAN CENTER. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS AGAINST IT SO AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION WE WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU THIS SITE IS A LITTLE OVER ONE ACRE LOCATEnd ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH TRYON AND NORTH OF RAMPART STREET. THE CURRENT ZONING IS TOD N.C. AND IS PROI POSING TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT URBAN CENTER. THE POLICY MAP CALLS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IN THIS AREA AND THAT'S A REFLECTION OF THE TOD N.C. ZONING DISTRICT. THIS REZONING IS LOCATED IN THAT SMALL STRAND OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER PLACE TYPE. AND THIS PETITION WOULD MODIFY THE ADOPTED PLACE TYPE TO REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTER WHICH IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE ADOPTION AND UNDERSTAND IFING OF THE RAMPART STREET STATION WHICH IS LESS THAN A HALF MILE FROM THE SITE. IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RAC PLACE TYPE AND THE EXISTING TODUC THAT IS ADJACENT. . THIS IS A CONVENTIONAL PETITION, SO THERE IS NO ASSOCIATED SITE PLAN. BUT GIVEN THIS PROXIMITY TO THE PROPOSED AND FUNDED RAMPART STATION AS WELL AS THE EAST-WEST TRANSIT STATION, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN AFROAP YAT APPLICATION OF REGIONAL ACTIVITY PLACE TYPE AS A RESULT OF THE TODUC ZONING DISTRICT BEING REQUESTED. I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING PET TITIONER'S POWERPOINT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. BROWN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES >> COLIN BROWN ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. PORTMAN, GREAT OVERVIEW BY HOLLY. I WILL FLASH UP THE MAP SO YOU CAN SEE IT. WE'RE INCONSISTENT BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLACE TYPE MAP, YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING AROUND US IS THE DARK BLUE. WE'RE LOOKING TO MOVE TO THE DARK BLUE. PART OF THE REASON IS THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM OWNS SOME OF THE SITES IN THE DARK BLUE AND WOULD LIKE TO PERMIT THEM TOGETHER AND HAVE THE SAME SET OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOVED >> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THAT IS UNANIMOUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 43, REZONING PETITION MORRIS HOLDINGS LOCATED ON 63.22 ACRES ON MORRIS ESTATE DRIVE, MR. GRAHAM'S DISTRICT. THE CURRENT ZONING IS RE-3 RESEARCH AND PROPOSED IS I-2 CD, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, CONDITIONAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO ENVIRONMENT. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS AGAINST SO AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION, MR. MacVANE, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES >> 2023-044 IS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF MORRIS ESTATE DRIVE AND EAST OF NORTH GRAHAM STREET AND WEST OF IBM DRIVE. IT IS DEVELOPED WITH MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE USING. CURRENTLY ZONED RE-3 RESEARCH AND PROPOSED IS I-2 CD, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, CONDITIONAL AND POLICY MAP RECOMMENDS LOGISTIC PLACE TYPE. I-2 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE M AND L PLACE TYPE. IT CALLS FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURING ASSEMBLY, WAREHOUSING AND CLIMATE CONTROL SELF-STORAGE OFFICES, OUTDOOR STORAGE AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS A I-2. PLAN PROHIBITS CERTAIN NOXIOUS AND INAPPROPRIATE USES, AND AUTO SALES, AUTO SERVICE, THAT SORT OF THING. ALLOWS FOR LIMITED OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS AND GENERALLY SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. RESERVES ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ON MORRIS ESTATE ROAD AND ANY OTHER RIGHTS THAT MAY BE NEEDED AND EASEMENT TO MECKLENBURG COUNTY PARK AND REC. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO ENVIRONMENT AND THAT'S REALLY JUST A NOTE ABOUT THE GREENWAY EASEMENT THAT MECKLENBURG COUNTY IS ASKING FOR. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. MacVANE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I THOUGHT YOU GOT TIRED OF SEEING ME. [LAUGHTER] MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, MEMBERS OF ZONING COMMITTEE, KEITH MacVANE WITH MOORE VAN ALLEN. AS MAX MENTIONED, REZONING I-2 CD, COUPLE OF THINGS TO ALLOW A GREATER VARIETY OF USES INCLUDING OUTDOOR STORAGE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED TO MY PRESENTATION, TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS IN THIS AREA WITH TRAILER TRUCK PARKING, WHICH IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT OCCURS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE ENTRANCE TO THIS FACILITY SO THE IDEA IS TO PROVIDE A PLACE FOR SOME OF THOSE TRUCKS TO GO, AND THEN ALLOW THE REUSE OF THE EXISTING FACILITY WITH ADDITIONAL USES, OFFICE, WAREHOUSE LIGHT MANUFACTURING AS MAX MENTIONED WE DID PROHIBIT A LOT OF USES THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA WHERE THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES NEARBY. WE WILL WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN REGARDING THE LOCATION OF 100-FOOT GREENWAY EASEMENT IN THIS AREA. WE HAVE SLID IT FURTHER SOUTH. THEY WANT IT TO BE CLOSER TO THE EXISTING MORRIS ESTATES DRIVE AND WE'LL WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT OCCURS. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? >> MOVE TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND MOVED TO CLOSE. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR HAND. SEEING NONE, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. WE'LL MOVE TO THE FINAL HEARING OF THE EVENING. NUMBER 46, REZONING PETITION 2023-099 BY BEACON PARTNERS ABAMR, TWIN LAKES LLC, AND ES10,000 AND TKC XIX, LLC. ROMAN NUMERALS, I HOPE. LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 64 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VANCE DAVIS DRIVE, EAST OF TWIN LAKES PARKWAY AND WEST OF STATESVILLE ROAD IN DISTRICT 4, MS. JOHNSON'S DISTRICT. CURRENT ZONING IS OFFICE FLEX CAMPUS AND PROPOSED MANUFACTURING AND LOGISTICS 1. STAFF RECOMMENDS. NO SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. MR. BROWN, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES AFTER STAFF'S PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. THIS PETITION IS FOR ASSEMBLAGE OF THREE DIFFERENT AREAS AROUND 64 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VANCE DAVIS DRIVE, EAST OF TWIN LAKES PARKWAY AND WEST OF STATESVILLE ROAD. THIS SITE IS IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDED BY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE NEXT AERIAL IMAGING AND SOME OF THOSE INCLUDE WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION IN ADDITION TO OFFICE SPACE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED OFFICE FLEX CAMPUS AND IS REQUESTING M&L1 CONVENTIONALLY. THIS WOULD IMPOSE SCREENING AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SEPARATION AND MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING AREAS AND THIS PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE AREA. THE POLICY MAP RECOMMENDS MANUFACTURING LOGISTICS FOR THIS SITE SO THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. THERE IS NO ASSOCIATED SITE PLAN AND THERE ARE NO OUTSTANDING ISSUES. I WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AFTER THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION. >> MR. BROWN. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. COLIN BROWN ON BEHALF BEACON. PETE KIDWELL IS WITH ME. THIS IS ONE OF UH-HOs OF THE UDO. THESE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN OPERATING FOR YEARS UNDER THE PRIOR DISTRICT. WHEN THEY TRANSLATED UNDER THE UDO, THEY MOVED TO THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH OFC HAPPENS TO NOT ALLOW THE USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE BUILDINGS. SO THEY'RE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING. THEY CAN CONTINUE BUT POTENTIAL BUYERS WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT THE NEWSES ARE NOT ALLOWED. WE'RE SIMPLY BRINGING THEM INTO A DISTRICT UNDER OUR NEW ORDINANCE THAT PERMITS THE USES THAT ARE IN THE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS SO THIS IS NOT A MAJOR CHANGE. WE APPRECIATE STAFF WORKING WITH US TO MOVE THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOVE TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >> MOVED AND SECONDED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THAT IS UNANIMOUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAVE MOVED TO ADJOURN. [ MEETING ADJOURNED AT:39 P.M. ]