Music I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. It's joining us in the Council chambers. We are going to have a deviation from our normal zoning agenda and I've tried to work or we've all tried to work to make sure that everyone understands what we're doing and try to make sure that we can get this meeting done. So what we are going to be doing is we're going to begin our zoning meeting, following our zoning meeting, we're going to recess into closed session. I think the closed session will be finished and done by 6.30 and then we'll start the zoning hearings again. All right. So with that, I'm going to call this meeting to order and we'll begin with our introductions. We'll start with our city attorney. Terry, hey, Greg Grayson, your assistant city attorney. Good evening, I'm Victoria Wildinson. I serve you at large. Good evening, Luana Maple, Councilmember Lloyd. Charlotte Carter, six. Ed Drees, District seven. Now from Graham, District two. Dr. Anderson, Mayor Pro Tem, District 1. By-Liles Mayor. James Mitchell at large and a special happy. Found his date to me on Megasoft 5 for Trinity Incorporated. Good evening. I'm Renee Johnson and I'm honored to serve District 4. Good evening. Dimple Ashmera at large. Sometimes Deputy City Clerk. All right. Thank you very much. We will now have our invocation, and I believe it's Mr. Drake, so. That's me. I don't think so. Our invocation. He say, match me as her. Oh, Mrs. Azmira, thank you. Well, you gave me a real fright. You always have to be prepared. I've done many talks. He's turning big repair. I've done many talks. You've done a big work. All right. Mrs. Meera. That's power. Our heads. As we gather today to serve the people of Charlotte, let us approach our duties with wisdom, compassion and dedication. May our deliberations be guided by a spirit of cooperation and a shared commitment to the well-being of all of our residents. Let us remember those facing challenges in our community and strive to make decisions that create opportunities and improve lives. With gratitude for the trust placed in us, we ask for guidance to lead with integrity and vision as we work together to build a stronger, more inclusive Charlotte. Amen. Amen. Hi, if you chose to stand for the pledge of allegiance, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Hi. I was good to see you. We'll now have, and we would, or narrowly have an explanation of our zoning meeting, but I think that what we'll do now is just go into our closed session so that we can get back out and be before you for the zoning meeting as quickly as we can. So I would like to have a motion to go in the closed session pursuant to NCGS 143-318, 11, A6 to consider the qualifications competence, performance, character, fitness, and conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Yes. I want to make sure that I get the clerk, guess it on file, that I will not be joining We have a second. Second. We have a second. Mayor. Yes. I want to make sure that I get the clerk gets an on file that I will not be joining this closed session meeting since there is someone on this council that choose to share everything of information of or importance, especially conversations regarding our personnel, which is disrespectful and out of order. So I would like for the record to show that I will not be stepping into this closed session. I think Ms. Mayfield and I appreciate what you've said, but I'm not sure how this works with our duty to vote. And so I think that- We have an on record as far as me abstaining from whatever the discussion you have and why I'm abstaining. So I don't think, let me just, I don't have the rules of it in front of me, but I don't believe that you can abstain just because you choose to the council would have to vote. I am able to, according to our rules. Well, let's see, to read, you're going to have to help me with the rules because I thought the duty to vote required that the count, if there is some issue that you had, that the council would have to excuse you. So let's just, if this might take a moment, I apologize, didn't know this. So we need to look at the— Because I have just recused myself from this. So you need to look atly since in any discussion, whether we are present or not. It's a automatic yes to this body. That is why I am going on record to say that I am not a part of this upcoming meeting, because my decision is not going to be an automatic yes. On the meeting has already begun. The meeting has already started. I'll make a substitute motion that we go into closed session and excuse Councilwoman Mayfield. Second. All right. As long as we have that vote, I think we'll be okay, but I just wanted to make sure we're following our own rules. Where are y'all going now? Okay. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion to excuse Miss Mayfield, please raise your hands. And go in a closed session. And we'll now and go in a closed session. All right. The ruling, and Tariya is going to, if there is, let me say this, she's going to review it. If there's anything that makes this motion not valid, then we will come back out and start all over again. That's the only way I know how to do it. Okay, let's thank you very much. We'll try to be out as quick as we can. We'll call the votes. Did you have six votes? There was one, two, three, four, five, six. All right, so Bob, Billy, tell me again. All right, again. For it and again. For and against for the meeting closed session. Did they vote on the motion? All in favor? Others? We did a motion. I got the motion. All right. His motion included excusing this may feel as well as the meeting. She did not get the vote. Please raise your hands if you are in support. So we have Ms. Johnson. One, two, three. I don't know. I'm not voting. Five, six, seven. We have seven votes to go. Okay, we'll go. The session. Did you capture those Madame Clerk? You still have a make-up ruling though. Yeah, we do need a ruling, and if you'll get that and get that to us, it's quickly as possible. I would appreciate it. So what happens if it's non-villain? All right. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit more. I'm going to play a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. The I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little I'm going to have to go. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to have to go. music I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have a little bit of a little bit have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. The I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to have to go. I'd like to bring this Charlotte City Council zoning meeting of November 18, 2024 to order and we will begin with introductions and I will start with the city clerk. We did the introduction. We did the introduction. Oh, that is correct. Wonderful. That is correct. Okay. So what we'll do now is we will go through the process of explaining the zoning process. And the zoning process begins with applications submitted to the planning staff for review. There are two types of cases on the agenda. There are decisions and there are hearings. Decisions on cases for which public hearings have already been previously held, and there's no additional public comment. And hearings, if anyone wishing to speak, is asked to see our city clerk before the start of that particular hearing. And the staff will do their presentation with no time limit. And the petitioner, who's in favor of said petition, will get three minutes combined to present their case. Unless there are a couple things that occur. One if there are opponents to the petition signed up to speak against or if staff is in opposition and not in support of the petition, the petitioner will get ten minutes, the opponent will get ten minutes, and then the petitioner will get a two minute rebuttal. If no one is opposed or signed up to speak, staff provides a short presentation, the public hearing is closed and will proceed onto the next public hearing. The petitions go to our zoning committee of planning commission for review and recommendation and I will allow our chair Mr. Blumenthal to introduce its committee and make said introductions. Mr. Blumenthal. Thank you Mayor Pro Tem and thank you to the rest of council to introduce the zoning committee. My name is Andrew Blumenthal the chairman. Next to me is Clayton Sealy. Theresa McDonald, Aaron Shaw, Shanna Neely, Rick Winneker, and Robin Stewart. We have a full contingent this evening. The next meeting of the zoning committee will be on Tuesday, December 3rd at 5.30 p.m. at that meeting. We will be discussing and making recommendations on the petitions that have public hearings this evening. The public is welcome to attend that meeting. However, please note that it is not a continuation of any public hearings that are being held here tonight. Prior to that meeting, you are welcome to contact any of us directly to provide input. You can find all of our contact information and the information on each petition on the city's website at charlotteplanning.org. Thank you, Mayor Brotam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, so we will move on to our deferrals and withdrawals. And Mr. Petton, can you walk us through the deferrals and withdrawals for the evening? Yeah, certainly we have several decisions and a couple hearings. First is item 11, petition 2023-023, item number 12, petition 2023-038, item 13-2023-039, item 14-2024-077, item 20-059. Those are all decisions requesting a deferral to our December 16th meeting. Then we have three hearings, items 21, which is petition 202-04047, item 22, which is 202-0908, and 26, which is 2024-088. All public hearings that were scheduled for this evening requesting a deferral also to our December 16th meeting. That's all we have for this evening. Thank you, Mr. Petten. And I believe we need to vote on the approval of the deferrals and withdrawals for this evening. There is a motion, is there a second? Second. All in favor, please raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Petten. So then we'll move on to the decision portion of our meeting and we will begin with our consent agenda items. The rezoning petition items 3 through 10 may be considered in one motion except for those items pulled by a council member. Please note that these petitions meet the following criteria. One, they've had no public opposition to the petition at the hearing. Secondly, the zoning committee recommended the approval and thirdly, there are no changes after the zoning committee's recommendation. Lastly, staff recommends the approvals of these petitions as well. Are there any consent agenda items council would like to pull for question, comment, or separate vote this evening? Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I'd like to pull number four and number ten. For comments, please. Number four and number ten. Is there anything any others? No, I make a motion to proceed with everything except number four and number ten. Second. Thank you. There is a motion to proceed with consent agenda items 3 through 10 with the exception of 4 and 10 and there is a second. I believe I need to read all of the petition numbers individually for the record. Petition number 2023 045 by Drake for Communities. Petition number 2024-049 by Shrejie Hospitality of University, LLC. Petition number 20244-0805 by Adalo Mamduh Horka. Petition number 20204-081 by Caldwell Development, LLC. Petition number 20204-085 One by Caldwell Development LLC, petition number 2024, 085 by AAAA Holdings LLC, petition number 2024, 086 by Peek Sports Holding LLC. And the one that will be with stand from that that I just read is item number four, petition number 204, 049. 490. We have a motion and a second. Yes. The motion is being made. Yes, that's my motion. That is correct. That is correct. There was a motion to approve the petitions and to adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency for these petitions that I've just read. All right. There was a second as well. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? Okay, that is unanimous. Less now move on to petition item number four that was pulled. Is there a motion to approve petition item number 20204049 by Shreji Hospitality of University City, LLC. The look- I'm sorry. The location is 3.96 acres located on the northeast side intersection of North Trian Street and Anthem Church Road south of East McCullough Drive. Is there any discussion, Ms. Johnson? Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. I just wanted to talk about this one publicly. I've asked the question. This is, first of all, this is a petition to change one of the motels to multi-family development and I just want to confirm with city staff that we do have documentation from the developer that there will be no displacements. I did ask during the public hearing I've also had meetings with the developer that there are no long term occupants of that hotel or motel. You all know displacements very concerning to me. So I just want to confirm with city staff that we do have something in writing from the developer that there will be no displacement. Yes, that's correct. We do have email correspondence from the petitioner that their hotel is a strict policy that doesn't allow any long term stay, so they don't have any long term residents that would be displaced as a result of the petition. Okay, thank you. That's all. Thank you. Any additional comment? All in favor to approve petition number 2024 of item number four, as stated in our agenda petition 2020 2020-049 raise hands. Any opposed? That's unanimous. We will move on to agenda item number 10. Petition number 204-092 by Lucerne Capital Properties. Is there a motion to approve the petition, agenda item number 10? Say, some move. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Yeah, I just wanted to just lift this development up as well. This petition is proposed to develop a child care center right in the University Research Park area. So I'm very excited. We know the district four is a leader in jobs in the city, particularly that research area. So when I talk about infrastructure and balance development, this is a part of it. So we look forward to the daycare center in that area and I look forward to supporting. Thank you. All in favor, please raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. And that completes the consent agenda portion of our agenda, and we will move on to the non consent agenda items. We'll begin with the items with changes after the zoning committee's recommendations. When it comes to these items, there have been changes to the petition after the zoning committee, and there must be a special vote on these changes prior to the vote on the petition. For the following items below, there have been changes after the zoning committee vote. And prior to the vote of each of these items that we'll speak to, we will have to vote as to whether or not to send them back. Mr. Petten, can I ask you to speak to those items that have changes? Sure. We do have a couple items 17 and 19. We can cover them when we get to them on the agenda at the point when it comes up for their their items I think we've got 15 and 16 to work through and then we'll have changes for 17 and changes for 19 so So it's only 17 and 19 correct? Excellent so we will vote on those as we move forward And arrive in the in the agenda for them. So I am moving to say I believe we are on agenda item number 15. Correct. Right. Excellent. So is there a motion to approve agenda item number 15? Resonting petition number 2024-082 by the City of Charlotte. Located approximately 7.05 acres located along the northwest side of South Triangestreet, east of West Tyvola and south of Billy Graham Parkway and District 3, Ms. Brown's District. The current zoning is in 1B proposed zoning as CGCD. The zoning committee vote at 7-0 to recommend approval of this petition and staff recommends approval of this petition as well. Is there a motion to approve agenda item number 15? Yes, so moved. Second. Excellent. Is there any discussion? Yes. Mr. Brown. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Madam, I agree with you if you think that. Been working with the community on this for quite some time, dealing with the animal shelter and the concerns around the crowding. I mean, animals have to put so many animals down and find in the subsequent plates to put them. And still not enough room. And so for the most part, the community is satisfied with that. There was a huge meeting and I've attended all of them. I've actually championed this project and spoke with numerous people. Some of community members are not happy with it. I want to state that for the record. But for the masses, it's okay. So I'm moving forward with it. I'm happy to see it. This is only a starting point. There's a whole lot more that can be done. Me, myself, I personally would like to say it on record. I would like to see the animal shout to separate from CMPD. That's another story. Another day, CMPD got their own... Oh, I'm kidding. No, CMPD has their own issues without having to worry about the four-letter, legate creatures is what I was trying to say. But at this time, I'm happy to be able to support this. But again, I would like to see something in the future. Maybe when I'm gone, even if I'm not here, that's something that we really need to look into. It's been a long time working with Dr. Fisher, who's over the animal shelter and his staff, they've been working really, really hard to make sure the volunteer process, it's just been a stringent thing. And so for me, to be hands-on, I didn't even go up around dollars, but I took the initiative to go and learn about how these things work and how it's going to benefit the community in the long run. So I'll support it. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Any additional comments? I will add, Ms. Brown, that I think this will be an excellent list, litmus test to see how we can help support the overcrowding of the animal shelter. And if we get this right and get this model right, then we can replicate it in other areas throughout the city. And I know that Dr. Fisher and the staff are very happy about that. They work hard, but like I said, it's only to begin, it's not enough, but it's a start. Absolutely. Thank you all in favor of agenda item number 15 as stated in our agenda. Please raise your hand. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We're going to move on to agenda item number 16, petition number 2024-083 by the city of Charlotte. The location is approximately 0.35 acres located along the north side of Parkwood Avenue in the east side of Peagram Street and approximately 0.197 acres located along the west side of Peagram Street south of Parkwood Avenue in my district district one. The current zoning is you are three CD and CG, the proposed zoning is in to a. The zoning committee voted 70 in approval and staff recommends this petition. Before I ask for a motion for approval, I would like to state that we have been in conversation with the community, both the Velmont community andville Heights. We had a robust conversation about this particular petition at the last hearing. And we had some questions not only from myself but other council members regarding this particular petition that we're still working on, the city of Charlotte is still working on resolving. And so, in an effort to ensure that we're being good stewards with our residents of Belmont and Bel Heights, I'm going to make a motion that we defer the approval of this petition until next month when the city will be able to provide solid answers to the questions that arose during the public hearing. Second. Thank you. All in favor of a deferment of agenda item 16, please raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We'll move on to agenda item number 17. Petition number 2020-071 by 3G investments and developments. The location is approximately 0.79 acres located along the east side of Park Road and the south side of Salomon Avenue and north of Manning Drive and District 6, Mr. Picard's district. Current zoning is in 1A., proposed zoning is mud O. The zoning committee recommended this petition 6 to 0 and staff recommends this petition as well. Is there a motion to approve petition item 2020071 and adopt the zoning statement of consistency. Moves your dog. We do have just two changes to clarify on that one that we have separate vote. Excellent. So we did have two, like I said, two items that were changed after the zoning committees recommendation. The plan clarified hours of operation and also clarified alternative streetscapes to remain at the northeastern corner of the property. Staff believes those changes are minor. Don't warrant additional review by the zoning committee. Don't change the outcome of the project. We don't recommend they go back. Excellent. They've just not sent back. Second. There's a motion to not send back to the zoning committee in second. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. unanimous. Second. We have a motion to adopt and approve agenda item 17. All in favor in any comment. I just make a quick comment. Thank you. We heard this one at a hearing a while back. There were a couple people that had some issues. I'll just applaud the petitioner for working with those folks to make some adjustments that remediated a lot of that. And for the significant community input, we've gotten of support since then as well. So that was, you know, they all don't start out perfect, but this was a good example of a lot of work since we last heard about it. Thank you, any additional comment? All in favor of approval of Agenda Item 17, raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We will move on to Agenda Item Number 18. Is there a motion to approve petition number 2022-224 by SRL Central Avenue Properties LLC. Move up, approval. Second. Thank you. The location is 1.23 acres located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Central Avenue Morningside Drive, South of Roland Street and district one my district. Current zoning is muddo. Proposed zoning is mud O SPA. The zoning committee voted 6-0 for approval and staff recommended it as well. We have a motion and a second. Thank you. I will open it up for discussion, but I will begin the discussion as this is in my district. This is been a petition that has had engagement with the neighborhood and the neighborhood has been engaged very early on and they have approval by the neighborhood associations, but felt like because there was such support for this that there was really no need for official letters of approval, but the community is fully engaged and supports this particular petition. Is there any other comments? Hearing none, all in favor of approval, raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We will move on to agenda item number 19. That's been deferred. I thought that was 19, may I put it in? No, that was 18. That was 18. It was deferred. I thought that was 19, maybe. Oh, that was 18. That was 18. Oh, it was deferred last month. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that was 18. We're on 19. We're on 19 now. We just approved 18. Okay. Okay. So we're on agenda item number 19. Is there a motion to approve petition item number 2023? 065, bicentral avenue multifamily LLC. Local proofs. Well, and we want to cover some of the changes as well on this one. Yes, this one has changes. All right, so I have a motion. Do I have a second to approve and then we'll go to the changes. Moved to not send back first. Yeah, let me just go ahead and read the names for you guys. Okay, yeah, go ahead. Yeah, let me just go ahead and read the comments for you guys. Okay, yeah, go ahead. So after the Zona Committee, a couple of items did get modified. They did clarify public benefits that would be offered in the EX request and modify the conditional note language to be consistent with staff's recommendations. They did add conditional notes that were related to the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of central avenue and Piedmont Street. Those conditional notes reflect that the petitioner would conduct a signal warrant analysis. So essentially study whether the signal was needed. They would do that prior to land development approvals. If at that time the signal was warranted, the petitioner will fund the installation and install a left turn lane for the signal in lieu of a buffered bike lane. The emission of a buffered bike lane would then be mitigated by a 16 foot shared use past if the adopted streets map is amended for this streetscape change. If the warrant analysis during the land development process determines that a signal cannot be installed, the petitioner would then commit to conduct another warrant analysis two years after the final CO for the project. And then the third note that was clarified is that a buffered bike lane would be constructed. If a signal is not warranted and if the adopted streets map is not amended accordingly, these were all items that were worked out in coordination with our C.DOT staff. So we believe their minor changes, they do address some of the concerns we heard about traffic signal at that intersection and would not really change the outcome of the project or more an additional review by the zoning committee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Patton. Is there a motion not to send back to zoning committee? So move. Second. There is a motion and a second all in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That's unanimous. We will now get to the motion. Is there a motion to approve agenda item number 19 as stated in our agenda as I previously read. So moved. Second. There's a motion and a second. There's a motion and a second. To adopt an approved yes. There's a motion and a second. I will open up for comment but I will begin the comment again as it is in my district. And this particular petition is one that we have been working on for months and months with the community and with the petitioner. And I'm happy to say that we have gotten to a place where the community is happy with how the petitioner has made the modifications and commitments. And we have letters of support from a variety of different entities for this particular petition, including the ECA, the Elizabeth Community Association, the Plaza Midwood Merchants Association, Central Avenue, property owners adjacent to this particular site, as well as of course the support from the planning commissioners as well as staff. This one ultimately, and we've had robust discussions about this. We've deferred this to allow more time to work with the community. And ultimately we've come down to one major linchpin that was an issue for the community. And that was the traffic congestion. And the community particularly wanted some ways to mitigate that congestion. And we happily enough were able to have a traffic study analysis completed and C.Dot has approved for the installation of a traffic signal at that intersection at the petitioner's expense. And this has greatly modified the questions around traffic coming in and out of the community. In addition, the petitioner also increased the parking minimums to additional 20% as that was an issue with the community as well. That fear that the parking would bleed deeper into the single family detached home communities. And so that has been met with great approval. And lastly, although there's a litany of things that the petitioner has done to work with the community. But lastly, I would say that the Elizabeth community really want it to have commercial space to underscore that 10 minute neighborhood feel. And they actually ask the petitioner to increase the square footage a lot for the commercial space. And that space has been increased significantly, approximately, 75, additional 75% of the space that was originally allocated. And so we're at a very good space here, and I'm very happy to see that we have worked with the community, we've heard their voices, and they have come to, we've landed on a solution that all parties are happy with. Are there any additional comments on this petition? Ms. Mayfield. Thank you. So I will not be supporting this petition after walking and spending over an hour in the neighborhood with the residents and would receiving an email as recent as 6.05 p.m. Where from the residents, this is very frustrating as the ECA does not represent our neighbors near the building site. The rezoning really is most important. And we even doubt the developer will follow through with the light and concessions. That stood out for me because you just shared a number of concessions, but we just had staff give us a list of updates and if it's not in writing, then there's no contractual commitment to it. And some of the things that you noted in agreement were not what was shared by our staff as far as the updates that were made or any concessions that were made. The language was pretty vague as whether or not if the study requires it, then we will do it. Your, from what I heard, I interpreted that there was a commitment, but that commitment is not in writing. I'm also concerned that residents have sent the email to all of us stating that the cumulative impact of rezoning the N1 light does not meet the goals of the 2040 plan. There are 67 N1D lights in our neighborhood. Of those 67 lights, 31 lights are joining lights zone for larger place types. These 31 lights will soon become targets for developers. Keep in mind we do not look at cumulative impact but right across from this petition is a multifamily that's already been approved and walking through the neighborhood was quite difficult as people were out there with their children and shoulders with their dogs and some just attempting to jog and I saw multiple vehicles that could not even maneuver because there was parking on both sides of the street. I have shared more than once that I have concerns regarding the impact of what we are doing to neighborhoods regarding our language that says that we care about neighborhood continuity, age and in place, a number of other issues that makes a neighborhood a true neighborhood, but what this particular project would do by approving the full and not just having to focus on the front end and removing the house that is currently there and bringing a lot all the way back brings it right up on to a residential street where I saw at least eight children under the age of 10 outside in the streets playing. And that is a concern for a number of the residents. It is a concern for me as well. We received the emails, the quote, what was proposed. In here, a question regarding the impact of the additional trips on their single lane neighborhood streets. I'm glad to hear that there's discussions about a light, but a while without there being specific language that clearly identifies the installation of that light, I am concerned about the interior impact of vehicles coming in as well as the residents, not the business community because the business community is not my major concern at this point. It is the residents, especially those that are raising small children that are running and playing in this community and have done so. For a while, we say we want 20-minute neighborhoods. Well, we're getting ready to disrupt a neighborhood right now that is a 10-minute neighborhood because of all the other development that has been approved. Thank you, Miss Mayfield. Mr. Petten, can you speak to the point that Miss Mayfield raised regarding the light, the signalization at the intersection? And see that's approval for the light. Sure, the petitioner, it's in the conditional notes, the petitioner will fund the installation of that traffic signal. They do have to do a warrant analysis, which is typical for any time you want to put a new signal at an intersection or has to be a study done to confirm that it is needed. And so they'll go through that process when they go into permitting for land developments. When they go to construct the site, that'll be one of the steps to go through while they're going in that permitting. If they find out again during that time that it's not warranted because there may be just not be enough traffic yet, they will go in and do that study. After the final CO, the last unit in that building gets certificate for occupancy. They're going to go through and do another warrant analysis. If that does, again, then say that a signal is needed. The petitioner is committed to in the notes to fund the installation of that traffic signal. So they've committed to both study it and if it's warranted pay for it. Thank you, Mr. Petten. On that may I put out although I didn't ask for Mr. Petten to clarify that since he did, which I appreciate. This language that is presented in front of us is also based on a civil line that will not be going along this route. Also, staff C.Dot was not particularly interested in moving forward with doing a study at this area in the beginning. So to say in our language that we are being asked to approve tonight, that we will do a study and if the study warrants, we will introduce and we will pay for this light. Let me clarify a part one thing. Let me clarify a part one thing. Let me clarify a part one thing. Let me clarify a part one thing. Let me clarify a part one thing. Let me clarify a part one thing. Let me clarify a part one thing. Let me clarify a part one thing. I did the study already. I'm getting information at the last moment. They did the study already. It is going to be installed and the developer is going to put it in. That's the right and that's what hang on, Ms. Mayfield. I just wanted to continue asking Mr. Petton because- That's fine, if we can have C.com up and step to the microphone to clarify, but the analysis has actually been completed and can you actually share the outcome of that analysis? Yes, since the last time that this petition was before you and was deferred, the petitioner did provide signal war analysis with counts and projections for the Piedmont location and based on what they provided to a C dot we have worked with them to give them our approval to construct the signal and that signal would be required by them prior to receiving the CO for their facility. Thank you and that was my understanding as well. So the analysis has been completed. The signalization of the intersection has been approved by our Department of Transportation and the costs will be taken care of at the petitioner's cost. Also with this not only does it help the traffic mitigation as I stated earlier, but Ms. Mayfield talked about people trying to cross the street and being in the street and of course central avenue as a very busy road. And so having the signalization at this intersection, of course will allow for safe crossing of central avenue and other streets at that intersection. So it's actually a safety benefit for the community as well. I would like to also state, Miss Mayfield, that at the last meeting, I received several letters saying that they were not in support. And as we've been working over the last month and there was an additional touch point, there was an additional community meeting with the Elizabeth residents. I have not received a litany of emails. I've only received one or two emails that do not support this petition. Conversely, I have received not only emails but phone calls and clearly letters of support of this petition given the work that has been done. And the ECA is the neighborhood elected body for the Elizabeth community and they do represent the residents of Elizabeth And they're elected to do so so they do represent the community as well and we have a letter of support From the ECA for this particular petition. So I just wanted to make clear that I had there hasn't been an outcry and Not approving this petition quite, quite differently. It's actually been the reverse. Lots of support. And only one or two letters that I have gotten for non-support. Miss Mayfield, do you mention that you had a comment? Follow up question for staff. Help me understand if you all were able to work to have the study completed. Why the language that was presented to us tonight, as far as updates did not clearly identify that the study has been done. And their agreement has remained versus the vagueness of the language which stated if we have a study or if it is determined by the study that the investment would have been made since you've already made the commitment and thankfully the developers, the petitioners, recognize that this is a value ad, why not have the corrected language in front of us because whatever council approves once it goes to the petitioner if there's any conversation and if our legal team has to get involved what has been shared multiple times is well council didn't say you had we have to do this so this is what we're doing. So the plan that we got latest version was back on November 12th. It's my understanding this warrant analysis was completed following that. So the plans essentially do say that they'll conduct the study which they've now done, and they would fund the installation of the signal if the study warranted it, which now it does. So the notes still do reflect that we're just doing it sooner in the process than we do, or it would do it otherwise But that's why I had an update because I think this just happened Thursday or Friday in the last plan that we got happened came in before that so It's one of those things that's just been in flux over the last couple days But it it is captured in the notes. They committed to do the study and then fund it They've done the study. We know it's going to happen. They now have on the hook to fund it as they've committed to. So the notes could get tweaked essentially, but in looking at it, they've done the things that they've committed to do. It's just being done now instead of in land development. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Driggs. So as transportation share, I'd just like to qualify the statement that there will not be a silver line. No decisions have been made about the silver line. There is a question because of the funding allocation as to what is possible. One possibility that still has been discussed is that the silver line might go part of the way down, probably not all the way to Matthews, but the point is there hasn't been a discussion, so I don't want this body to send out into the world The message that there's no silver line. There's no decision about that. Thank you, Mr. Drakes. Any other comments? Hearing done all in favor to approve agenda items, agenda item number 19 as stated in our agenda. Please raise your hands. Any opposed? agenda item number 19 as stated in our agenda. Please raise your hands. Any a post? Miss Mayfield oppose. Thank you. I believe number 20 Mr. Petten has been deferred. And so that will conclude the decision portion of the evening and we will move forward with our hearings. I explained and shared the process for the hearings a bit earlier and so we'll just jump right into it. And make sure I'm starting at the right. Yes, okay. So we will begin with agenda item number 23, petition number 2024, one, two, one, by Charlotte Planning Design Development Department. It's a tax amendment. The purpose of this tax amendment is, the purpose of this tax amendment to the UDO is to make changes that will result in better functionality. These changes provide greater clarity, new and updated definitions, adjust use permissions and prescribed conditions, revises use names, updates, graphics, and makes changes and additions to standards. There are proposed changes in 23 of the 39 articles, and staff approves this petition. And there is no opposition to this particular petition, so I will hand it over to staff for the presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Prattam. Good evening, Council, zoning committee as well. I'm Laura Harmon with the Plenty Design and Development Department. I'm going to give you a brief overview of this cleanup text amendment of the unified development ordinance. So again, briefly why we're doing this, it's to facilitate the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by making minor adjustments to the UDO. We have said since the development of the UDO that we knew that it would require adjustments and revisions after adoption to correct errors, add clarity, adjust use permissions and so forth. And we are nearing the end of doing that for the last year and a half or so with this one being one of our last general cleanup text amendments before we move into a maintenance mode next year and focus on more targeted amendments. And we believe that this text amendment will make the UDO a more user friendly ordinance was result in better functionality and make it easier both for staff and the users of the ordinance. So one thing that we have done in this text amendment is to add, delete, modify some general definitions that are in the early part of the ordinance. It was you go into the zoning portion of the ordinance. We have clarified where setbacks are measured from, talked about building orientation for development with multiple buildings that are on corner lots. We have added that site layout standards apply to duplexes for residential development, and also made some adjustments to our neighborhood character overlay in residential infill overlay districts. We have also in the zoning section made some use changes. We have allowed duplex, triplex and quadruplex. You can see in a little bit broader range of districts and also doing that on small lots and even more zoning districts. So we're trying to continue to respond to what's happening in the residential market and this strong demand for housing. We've also added and clarified some of our youth stuff additions. And then we've made a clarification for certain campus types, uses that are on those. Campus is needing to be affiliated with that campus. So we have tried to clarify that. We had language for that before, but we've tried to make that a bit clearer. Moving forward into the end of the zoning portion, we have minor changes to the zoning bonus table that we've made. We've clarified that sidewalk reimbursements for affordable housing apply within the city limits and not the ETJ and that's because the city is actually paying for those sidewalk reimbursements. We've added new locational and screening standards for electric vehicle charging stations and surface parking lots and then we've adjusted and we think improved and provided some flexibility for the screening required for ground mounted and wall mounted utility structures and mechanical equipment for both the screening as well as the location of those in working with some of the users of the ordinance that we're having challenges with what we've had in the ordinance originally. Also, a few more things in the development standards for the CR and CG zoning districts. We've adjusted the parking tier unless you're in a center's play type. We were finding that we had a parking maximum that in some cases was very challenging for some of the uses in the CGNCR districts. We've also clarified certain vehicular and bicycle parking requirements, made some adjustments to facilities at CATS bus stops. We have modified requirements for relocating carbon gutter, but want to say that we are going to actually Remove that from this text amendment and talk about it in one that we will be filing in December So just to be clear about that Made minor changes to landscaping and tree standards and we've added a new sign category Vintage signs that has replaced a couple of categories that we had. And then finally we've made some changes in our administrative sections, modifying the powers and duties, and adding experience criteria for the alternative compliance review board. We have based some adjustments for non-conforming uses to allow small expansions of those, again adding some flexibility to the ordinance, but also keeping that within some parameters. We have also modified EX or exception standards for selected uses to allow reconfiguration of parking and to also through the EX process, go back and ask for adjustments for upper floor transparency and blank wall standards. Again, alternative compliance. We have adjusted the general criteria that hopefully make that work better. And we have also extended the vesting period for most development approvals from 12 months to three years. That being with the exception of certificates of appropriateness. So staff is recommending approval of this petition. It's found to be consistent with the 2040 comprehensive plan, and will facilitate the goals of the 2040 plan. We find it to be reasonable in the public interest, based on information from the staff analysis in public hearing. And we'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, and thank you for the presentation. I would like a deeper discussion about that offline, but I do have some questions. In 2023, this Council referred something to committee to look at the infill petitions and look at modifying the UDO. I wanted to know, is this amendment in response to any of those requested changes that we sent to committee? Great question. We have some minor adjustments for residential, not directly related to that, but trying to again add more housing opportunities. There will be text amendments coming up in 2025, and Dave Petton is leading that effort to do what we're calling a residential tune up. And that's where you're really gonna see, I think those things that you're referencing. So can you explain to me the quadplexes allowance right now, unless it's otherwise prohibited by the feed restrictions? Duplexes and triplexes are allowed on any single family lot? Is this amendment, would this amendment allow the same for quadplexes? No, it will not be doing that. Okay. That would be again something in that work that Davis leading. And I see the slide about the quadplexes. I want to understand what the changes are. This is, so I think what you're talking about is that duplexes and triplexes, let me see if I get this right anyway, being allowed in our residential neighborhoods. This would be allowing those uses under very limited conditions in our more intense districts under certain conditions like N2C being a higher intensity, multifamily district, CR and CG being commercial districts, OG being an office district as well as the OFC. So this is saying we're allowing this in two circumstances where we allow multi-dwelling which is an apartment complex. The building form, part of the building form, could be a duplex, triplex, or quadruplex. So we're just clarifying it doesn't all have to be larger buildings. And we occasionally have some small individual lots that are zoned one of those districts that up to this point haven't been a you haven't been able to use them for a duplex or a triplex, even though they were allowed in other places. So we're adding that as well. And we'd be glad if that and now we get into the weeds on this to sit down offline on some of these items as well or put something in a follow-up report. So how will this impact residential neighborhoods with quadriplexes? This will not, unless a neighborhood is zoned a district that is really not aligned with that neighborhood. So the neighborhoods are typically going to be zoned a neighborhood one district. And this is not making any changes to the neighborhood one zoning districts for quadriplexes. Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Driggs. So there's a lot in here. I don't remember having seen all this. It's hard to assess how material is. This has not been discussed with the committee, with my committee, right? If I forget something. It was referenced at, I believe, looking towards Monica and Dave, but not gone into in detail, and typically with the general cleanup, we don't go into that detail. We can certainly come back if that would be helpful to the committee and go through these things or meet with council members and small groups or one-on-one to go through any of the items. Well, I don't know if the rest of us feel having seen this that you're ready to go because I'm not. And it's not clear to me when I look at some of these clarifies this in that, that it's just language changes or tightiness. I think some of this goes into the direction of more meaningful. I'd certainly like to hear any feedback that we got from the Indian Community Example or the UDO Committee, Advisory Committee. I don't think this is that minor, that we can just from the Indian Government example or the UDO committee, advisory committee. I don't think this is that minor that we can just kind of sweep it through without, I think giving it the benefit of a hearing process and I'd like to have a little more time to talk with some people about it. So I guess it's just a hearing tonight. I would suggest though that I'd like a committee referral, and that I'd like the committee to come back and recommend to the rest of you that, how we see it based on a further study. Thank you, Mr. Dries. As I look around the day, as I see a lot of faces that are shaking and nodding. So we've taken that note down as a point of action. I have Ms. Ashmira and then I have Ms. Molina. Thank you. So just from looking at the DAC, it looks like it's just the cleanup. But I agree with you, Mr. Drake's. We need to hear from the UDO advisory committee where we have representation from the private sector, affordable housing developers, as well as neighborhoods to understand the implications. It looks like a lot of cleanup here. There are a lot of changes. It may not have much implications, but I think having an example of what this cleanup would do. So if you can provide a couple of examples, that would be helpful. I know that this will go in front of your committee, Mr. Drake, to take a deeper dive. But for those of us who are not part of the committee, thing having an example would be helpful. And obviously, based on the committee's discussion, we will certainly have deeper insight into this. We have had similar cleanup text amendments in the past. This is our fourth, yes. And I know that that didn't go through the committee. But it was just a couple of slides. This looks like so many slides of cleanup. And I just don't know what could be an intent date consequences. So it just looks a lot. Maybe it's just a number of slides. And we've tried to whittle this down. We'd be glad again to meet with anyone. Talk through with the committee as actually probably a shorter text amendment then clean up three which was which was very large but anything we can do to provide clarity we'd be glad to do that. We do think we have been working with the, I think we'll ask that they reach out to you as the Chair of TBD Councilman Driggs. And we have also gone out to the community with some engagement opportunities and gone through this as well. We hear a little bit of feedback and we've made adjustments and we feel really good about where we are but we want to get you guys to feel the same way. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Miss Molina. Thank you. Mayor Portem, I just, I, I, I, man some of the language, I'm, I'm a little uncomfortable with. I think trying to get us to feel the same way, right? That's the goal. The goal is that this voting body arrives at the same or similar position in order to authorize this as something that is adopted for the city, right? We've never seen this before. So I'm sitting here and I don't care how long the slides are, right? There's no way that I could synthesize this information because before sitting here tonight, I'd never been introduced to it. So, I know that it's a hearing, but before this time, when something is, it goes through our committee process that is five of us that are all capable, that I trust each time to entertain this in conversation. And the meetings are open to every last one of us, whether we're on the committee or not. If we find something that's of interest, I've visited it with other committees that I don't belong to. If there's something of interest that's on their agenda, and the chairs have been amenable to me to inject into the conversation as a member of the council, but a member that is not on that particular committee. So these conversations are always open to every last council member regardless of being on the committee. But I agree with the chairman 100% in that, you know, there needs to be some level of explanation and discussion about this text amendment before we, my personal opinion is it shouldn't even be before us because it's not been seen by the committee. Is my concern right now? Here you but want to clarify, we're following the same process for the three cleanup text amendments that I believe you have unanimously previously. I had seen them all before. This is the first time I've seen this. And I talked to him all the time. So again, when there's something that he even would like to run past me, we'll have a conversation outside of this. And he'll say, hey, I want to make sure you understand X, Y, and Z because this is happening just to give me a rundown of what he's aware of it and he's really good about doing that and I'm not aware of this. We will gladly come to the committee but I think if there is a way and know that this seems to be overwhelming tonight, I mean we may have the same problem at committee. So also we'd be glad to meet in smaller groups if that would help as well. I don't think it's either or we're just offering in any way that we can. Okay. And I don't really know what that would be. And again, that could be something that we discuss offline. But I just, this is a lot to take in, especially having not seen it, not being introduced to it, not knowing what the implications of these changes would be because at the end of the day, the people who are beholden to the people are us, right? So when this becomes an issue, they're going to email us, they're going to call us, they're going to contact us, and they're going to say you approve this and you don't have an ability to explain what's going to happen as a result. So we have to be informed on what that means, right? We understand. So again, I'll digress there and I just want to emphasize my interest in making sure that we have a proper discussion around these changes. Thank you. Thank you, Miss. Molina. Any additional comments? Thank you. Did you have an additional comment? Thank you for the presentation. I think you've heard the message and we've taken some notes as next steps as well. I have a motion to close public hearing and a second all in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That as unanimous will move on to agenda item number 24, petition number 2024, 072 by the Drakeford company. The location is approximately 19.5 acres located at the dead end of harvest hill drive east of Lawrence or road and north of Barcliffe Drive and District 5 Miss Molina's District. The current zoning is MX 1. I in in OV in 1A and I see one. The proposed zoning is MX1, I and NOV, SPA, and N1, DCD. Staff recommends the approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to the site and building design, transportation and environment and after-staff presentation. Mr. Brown, you will have ten minutes and we do have opposition. As Mr. Carolyn Reinhart and Mr. Paul Taylor President, excellent. You will have ten minutes after the petitioner and then there will be a two-minute rubble. Thank you. Thank you. This petition is approximately 19 and a half acres located west of Lawrence Orr Road south of John Ed Drive and east of WT Harris Boulevard north of Barcliffe Drive. Current zoning is MX-1 Innovative, N1A and IC-1. Proposed zoning is MX-1 Innovative Site Plan Amendment and N1DCD. There's 2040 policy map recommends neighborhood 1 for majority of the site and campus place type for the northern corner. So this is majority of the site is a site plan amendment petition 2021 to 80 rezoned the majority of the site to allow 35 single family detached dwellings and 28 multi-family attached dwellings. The current petition would amend the approved plan while including additional parcels and increasing the number of dwelling units. It would maintain the general development pattern of the previously approved plan, establish a network of public streets extending off Harvest Hill Drive to provide access to the new proposed lots, who will allow for a total of 96 dwelling units including 68 single single family detached and or attached dwellings in the MX-1 portion of the site, and 28 single family detached and or attached dwelling units in the N1D portion of the site. Includes six lots proposed at the end of the Johnette Drive Coltasek. In the event of the petitioner is able to acquire a city-owned parcel on John Ed Drive, the petitioner commits to providing two affordable residences and the first phase of the development along Harvest Spring Drive. Request the innovative provisions of the MX-1 Zoni District to allow for 20-foot front-set backs and rear yards and five-foot side yards. Commits to architectural standards for single-family attached units including porches and stooped stoops, as predominant features and garage doors recessed from the front wall plane and commits to enhanced plantings along proposed stormwater management areas, abuddling existing residential lots and public streets. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution about standing issues related to site and building design, transportation and the environment. The petition is both consistent and inconsistent with the 2040 policy amount. The petition proposes to maintain the key elements of a previously approved plan while allowing for more units on additional acreage. A portion of the site lies within a housing gap. The petition proposes a mix of single-family attached and single-family detached dwellings, which will broaden the housing options in this area of the city. Upon sale of a city owned property, the petition commits to providing two affordable units in the first phase of development. The proposed moderate density residential will provide an appropriate transition from the multi-family residential and institutional uses to the east of the site to single-family detached and or duplex only. Johnette Drive is as narrow as 17 feet in places that can only support limited new development. I will take any questions following the petitioner's presentation and comments from the community. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Good evening, Council members. I'm sending committee Colin Brown on behalf of the petitioner Drake for communities We Drake for to somewhere there is Thanks Joe for the overview as Joe mentioned this is a little bit almost as a face to of a rezoning That came before you last year so far our slides are available like to walk you through those. Again, just kind of context it. I think good frame of reference for the discussion on the text amendment and a reminder that we are in great need of housing. There's great demand for housing. We have a housing crisis and it kind of develops out here. So if you all are familiar, Harris Boulevard, Hickory Grove Baptist Church campus here, the end of the site. The bulk of the site we took through rezoning last year. All the area that is in MX-1, we came through, had a conversation, had community feedback that was about a year ago. And so you're probably asking, well, why are you back here? So it happens, as mentioned, there's great man for housing. We're a development team, like the Drape here? So it happens, as mentioned, there's a great man for housing. We're a development team, like the Drapeford Company comes in and is looking at, this is true in-fill development. That's why we're going to hear so much from neighbors tonight. Literally, we're coming in at kind of a back of a neighborhood, but these are properties that are between these single family homes and multi-family. We have apartments onickory Grove campus there. So this is kind of this keystone. So when we came in and did the reasoning for this park and the goal was to bring affordable, for sale housing that people can afford to buy so they can live in the city of Charlotte. When that occurred, people learned about this and actually we got some contact from some other property owners. So that's why we're back. Here's the property we rezone last year. After conversations, the church said there's conversations with the church, they had some excess land. The city of Charlotte had an excess parcel and so the Drakeford company was involved in those conversations. And that's important because that allows us to develop, you know, housing is scalable, right? So it is more efficient for us to develop affordable housing, more affordable housing if we do it as part of a project. So instead of kind of this one off two and three lots, we brought it all into this. So that is the reason, so you can see we went from this area, so I'll show you we're gonna add lots here and here. So now this kind of fills out this, these are the lots we've added here on John Net, a couple here. And so it's really kind of creating an opportunity, kind of behind the ball fields on harvest, Hickory Grove, to have some land that is being unused, to incorporate it into a development plan is going forward. So regardless, if we did no rezoning tonight, we've already got this zoning plan. And you could come in, and as y'all know, kind of work under the existing zoning and build this out. We obviously thought it would be more efficient to bring this in together. Add some conditions. We're in the back of a neighborhood, so it helps that we're in a conditional zoning environment. So we can make commitments to neighbors as we hear feedback. That as a look at it, what it looks like. And I will say, we started this plan and we've had, I think, pretty robust community engagement. We had a virtual official community meeting. We've had two in-person community meetings. Councilwoman Molina has been a part of those. I think Mr. Drake for Bay have had an unofficial community meeting with some neighbors even tonight as we were waiting through the closed session. So there's been a lot of discussion. I expect that will continue. The main discussion early on was essentially we were going to have these communities really interconnected. Johnette Drive, which staff mentioned, is a very narrow street. And so the original part was bringing the development down Johnette and connecting up with a larger development. I think the highest priority that we heard in the community meetings was that concern about that much traffic on Johnette. So since our community means we have revised the plan, we have kind of ended that connection. Generally, C.I.I feel like requires us to make those. C.I.I went out there, they went out on the field, they saw the condition of the street and they said, okay, this makes sense. So what will allow you to not put that much traffic on it. So we've essentially ended the John at development rather than connecting down to the rest, it would just be a cul-de-sac. We're currently showing it with six lots at the end of John and so I hope that has addressed some of those concerns. Now at the same time that means that our traffic will now go south around Harvest Hill and of course neighbors on Harvest Hill are saying, gosh we'd rather not have those trips on on our street either. But that's where we are. We're in a fast growing city. So I think that is the conversation that is going on. We do have some comments from staff about these parcels on John Ed. I appreciate them pointing out. Again, one of the parcels we were able to add, it was kind of a mastery of some from the church. There's a city of Charlotte parcel that could be incorporated. Of course, Miles and his team said, hey, if it's if the city property is going in, we're going to want to make sure we get some affordability out of it. So there's a commitment, if that is part of it, that is essentially what could be developed on that site, those two units would be affordable units. We're open to having ongoing conversations with the neighbors on Johnette, but that's a good overview. And again, infill housing is always hard. You're developing literally in someone's backyard. We're connecting to streets that folks may have thought where dead ends are called to sex for many years. And now we're coming in and bringing in almost 100 new units. We're trying to design this efficiently. I think it does work better when you do a conditional zoning. The site layout works better for us and we can have some commitments back and forth. We've already had commitments. Hey, we won't come back and do just triplexes through here. A certain amount of these will be single family. A certain amount will be duplexes and we're happy to continue those conversations. So I'm sure we've got extra time, but I'll just wait for questions after we hear from the community. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, if you'd like to come down to the podium, you'll have 10 minutes in aggregate to state your issues and concerns regarding this petition. Be careful. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Be careful. Be careful, step and doubt. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Be careful, step and doubt. I'm sorry. You want to go first? You want to go first? You want to go first? Let me see. This one? I don't know. I guess I don't get all the fun joystick stuff. Did you, I'm sorry before you begin. Did you submit some slides that you want? I'm just trying to figure out these slides that you all have. Anyway, okay. One of the big problems that we have is that, as you see here, they say that there's one avenue to go into their area, which is going to have 96 units. That's a lot of units. Every person having two cars, every car going back and forth twice a day. That's like close to 400 people going back and forth on a one block road that we have. Now that's just that one entrance, but if you look back on Barcliffe and Lawrence or that is the only entrance to this area in which they're going to be developing off of. And from there in that area there's already 48 units, 48 houses. So they're going to have, they're putting a great deal more traffic that goes from harvest hill through bark, live down the entrance or past John at. And it's a density. They say, oh, it's a, it's a transitional density. But if you were to look at the how the Delta crossing is laid out, they have six apartments in one building. So they have a great deal of room for the water to run off or run down into the ground, whereas in their, it's very dense. It's like paving the whole thing. And lots of water is going to be running off all those paved services into the streams and things that we have there also. Excuse me. Let's see. There's, I wish my wife was here because she was telling us that they're not allowed to open up a cul-de-sac or a permanently dead- end road. And they're going to say, well, yours is a dead end, and we can develop off a dead end. Well, we have a problem. What's the difference between a dead end and a permanent dead end? Nobody tells us. And then we have this another thing that someone was telling us that on a, when you go down a single entrance, there's a limit to how many units you can put in, which we have 48. They say they could have up to 100. Well, they're putting an additional 96 on that 48. So that barcliffe, warm sore entrance, they're going to have now what's 130 something in there. Now, as I see it, that has quite a problem when it comes to emergency vehicles because you're going from a lower density area to a much higher density area. They say there's a great transition from this area that is close by a highway, basically EWT hairs, but they don't transition from our, their higher density to a lower density. No, they're going from a lower density to a high density according to how the traffic pattern is. Now, that shows that there's going to be a real problem with traffic at, quote, rush hour. People are gonna be wanting to go through these areas and it's gonna just be a cluster filled in the rest. So that is the problem that we have with the whole area altogether. The whole area. So this is something that we, you know, I don't believe should have been approved to begin with. And the council back there, I don don't believe has ever gone into that area to look and see what's going on. One of the emergency vehicles that's on the campus of Hickory Grove is going to have to come out, take a left, go down WT Harris, go all the way over to Hickory Grove Road, take another left, go to Lawrence Ward, take another left, down to Barcliffe, take another left, go to Harvest Hill, take another left, and if you have the areas in showing their traffic pattern. You'd see that there's more or less they can take. The left hand, the left turn, is the most dangerous turn for vehicles. Whether it's an emergency vehicle or other. And they're just made like a little sweet roll out of that. You have four minutes left. OK. I will give it. I'm not sure if she wanted to speak. You all have four minutes in combination. OK, and I'm talking about something completely different. He's Harvey Seal, and I'm John A. Dross. I still got a little total of two. It was a total of two. We have four minutes combined, and right now you have four minutes, 10 minutes combined and right now you have four minutes left. So if you're you sign up to speak for this petition correct? Yes, okay. You need to take your time if you want to speak. You have four minutes left. Okay, the problem is this. I'll go right to it. Our portion of the petition is a revision. When they could not do John Eddrive as the access area to Harvest Hill, we were presented with another petition. That was to use those six parcels with the CODA SAC, and that would be the only access to the CODA SACs on John Eddrive. I called and asked, will we get a rezoning number separate? They told me no. We would have to include it. Now, my concerns are this. And I should have gotten a fire department here, because Johnette Drive is not a standard street size. It's like 17 feet. We had an incident where we had some domestic issues. The police came and the fire department could get by the police cars so they had to back out and go back to Lawrence or Road. I can only say I can't, I don't have a problem with Drakeford building. I have a problem with Drakeford building. I have a problem with the impositions it's gonna put on John Eddrod. And someone needs to, and I sent Councilman Melina an email to tell her, we need to meet again. We need to meet again because what we're doing now is separate from the original rezoning petition. So I didn't know any other way to do this but to come with Mr. Taylor. So we can't have you approve the rezoning for the harvest hill because we're not part of it anymore. We're our own little entity now that has to be looked at. So I don't know any other way to come to tell you that other than, John at Drive is a separate entity unless Council Malena has something to say. You have a minute and a half left. So you have to use your time and then ask questions. But go ahead. My other part would be has anybody ever been to John at Drive? Does anybody know where John at Drive is? Have you ever seen it? It's a long driveway. It's not a street. It's not a road. It's been there. We have to put gravel down so we could get in and out. It is not a situation where you can have two vehicles coming and going at the same time. Somebody has to stop and be in somebody's yard while that vehicle passes I'll let you all have the rest of it. I don't have anything else to say other than if we need to do another Resonning then we need to do that. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brown will have a two-minute rebuttal She just said she didn't want to use it. Do you have anything else to say? You all have one minute left if you have anything else to say. Mr. Brown, it's fine. You don't have anything about the petition. If you're going to use the one minute, can you speak? I'm sorry. Step up to the mic. Thank you. I'm just sorry. It's just that the only people against the petitions are the two folks that are residents. Everybody for constructions, lawyers, Mr. Brown, you with the lands. Okay. So you've got two people trying to represent an entire community. We are not a sub division. Johnny Drive is not a subdivision. We're not part of anything. We're our own little street, our own little entity that has been pulled into this to allow traffic. And even with the six parcels, that's an additional 12 vehicles that are going to be on John Eddry. 24, where is going back and forth? Yes. And not to mention, there are only 13 homes on John Eddry. So, I mean, that's all I can say is if we need to go back and do a petition for just John Eddry. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Okay, thank you. We're gonna allow Mr. Brown and Mr. Drake to have a two minute rebuttal. And the two of you stay close because Councilmember Molina may have questions for you. Go ahead, you have two minutes. I don't actually think I'm gonna rebut that. I'm just kind of kind of clarify. And that's accurate, right? When we filed this reasoning, we had added the additional parcels, and this was essentially a unified development, right? You could come in on Johnette or you could come in on Harvest Hill, and the idea was all of the lots could go either way. I know that folks have been to Johnette. I know that C.Dont went out there. I think the council member, Melina, has been there, and therefore we change the petition essentially to have John add up there by itself and the southern part of the development on its own. So what that has done is the first speaker is correct. Now most of the units are served by Harvest Hill and what we're still working on and Mr. Greatford continues to communicate with the neighbors up there on John Net is that would be six lots and how do we treat that and that conversation is ongoing. So it in fact has been bifurcated to that's true and we are we'll continue those conversations. You have a minute left. I don't have much to add just one thing Colin and thank you all for letting us present tonight is certainly enforcement we don't all agree we've had a lot of very constructive dialogue and having to report one another, I certainly appreciate their concerns. We have ideas, we bring them in to get everyone's feedback. We thought it was a good idea, we still think it is. We made many modifications including not connecting the community. It was an idea that we had that was shot down to separate it. We were forced to reconnect. It's a great cost to cross that creek. That is impacting the economics of the project, but these are six houses going on roughly about an acre and a half done appear to be super dense, not by our standards, certainly. So we didn't feel that we were causing this impact. We regret it. But I've been on that street, and it depends on what time of day you go, it seems. There are times for the cars of Porto and the street. They're times when they are not. And I have not had that much difficulty to gain the access. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Drakeford. I will open it up for discussion. Miss Molina, you have some other colleagues would you like to speak first? So would you? Well, I need to speak first. I need to call you a main. Go ahead, Miss Molina. I have to come back to me. Thank you, Madam Mayor. First off, I want to say to Mr. Reinhart and Mr. Taylor, thank you for coming. That's got to be something that's a little bit intimidating to come and speak out against something that's not something that you do on a day to day basis. And I understand the method and the way in which you are articulating because we've sat down and we've talked. I did get your email. I'm this Ryan Hart. I've been really busy, but I have had you on my mind and I've had a lot of conversations in the interim. So I do want you to know that I have been in contact with Colin and Mr. Drakeford and our staff with regards to this. And just for context for my colleagues, they're talking about two separate streets, right? That would seemingly if we tried to make it analogous, would almost be two different neighborhoods that would touch this. And so they have completely separate interests in why they have concerns around this particular petition. The problem is that like the petitioner said, there has already been a parcel that has been approved, that they have the ability to build all kinds. So you have essentially a piece of property that's been awarded by the church that would become a part of this property. And there's an additional piece, which I think David needs to come up, Pettin, because he can give light to this. There's also a piece that would be in combination with this petition that would be a purchase from the city of Charlotte that has not been finalized. So there's more to the story. And I don't think we're anywhere near where we could make a finalized decision on this petition because of that alone, not to mention the concerns from the neighbors. And so my concern is that we've had the last meeting that I went to with this neighborhood, it was robust. We had it at the Hickory Grove Church and there was a lot of attendance at that meeting. A lot of passion in that room. I don't think there was a person that was for it at that time. Everyone was in opposition and there's made some changes since that particular meeting to address Johnette Drive and they're absolutely right. Johnette Drive is a very small street. If someone is parked on that street, no one can get by. I mean, it is not even a street by standards. So that's something that's existing, that's not a part of this petition, but to put extra stress on that street would just be unfair to those residents. But again, the petitioner has actually made the adjustment to not have traffic go down that particular street as a result of this petition, but it doesn't answer the questions of the other residents that have concerns that live on, you know, a different part of So Colin and I spoke earlier today and I feel very strongly that there's still more work to do around this petition. David and I spoke today about some additional deliverables that are outstanding with regards to this petition that would still leave some items to be handled before a decision would come before you guys, my colleagues on this council, to take a look at this. And Collin, if you could clarify, there are two streets of interest. And you and I, we've talked about it. John Net, again, just to be clear, is, and if you could bring that up, I know you got a clear picture. If you all could put my slides up, I can put our site plan up. Or I can use this. Can we get our debt? Or if not, I use this. So here is Johnette to the north, currently showing six lots. And that is all. The red arrow leaves. And it's one of the things we're actually talking about because we're in this conditional zoning environment. Mr. Drakeford has said, hey, well, I could make commitments because we're in a rezoning and say, these would only be single-family or duplex lots versus a triplex which is otherwise allowed. So I think there's a potential that we actually come out with greater protections for the neighbors than we would under a by-right scenario and they get some assurances of what goes there. And then there's another street in question as well. And this is Harvest Hill, which connects to the kind of the Harvest Hill is down here. And this is essentially the main development and Pretty similar to what has been improved already So it's really just adding a couple parcels here and here if there's there's not much change between What's happening on the south side and what was already approved there and although you're not directly involved? Do you know where the purchased property from the city of Charlotte lies? It would kind of be right up in there. Yeah, it would be out. So I'm sorry, council member Johnson next. Did you? If I could show where? I didn't push that up. Great. So it's right here in this cold aside. That's essentially the city's property, which we have had discussed about where the affordable houses would be built or whatever form of housing we all agree upon. We certainly have a understanding of the terms in timing. There are a lot of issues that have happened with this project, particularly regarding this creek here, which we sought to not cross, because it would save us $600,000. This reconnection requirement isn't packed in our prospects. So the housing folks have been great and responsive to all the issues we've encountered. We're committed to their requirements and maybe there were one or two things uncertain, but nothing major, whatever. Their terms of the reason, they are used to doing one, I think, rental, mort, and for sale. So we had to really adjust to the fact that this is a land development undertaken for us with a home builder. But now that we've talked enough and think we're on a court, would you agree with that, Maels? And Carolin. Thank you all for your help. And so I'll concede, because I know my colleagues also have questions, but I'm a big fan in Colin Nosis because you've worked with me before of meeting in the middle. Where can we meet so that I've said this before, when we purchase our house it is our greatest investment. There's not much that we purchase that is more of a major investment than that and so the interest in where we live and how that remains a place that we love to stand that we love to you know raise our children in and and call home is very important and so you know although we do have a need for housing and I don't want to, you know, seemingly take a position for or against, but I am hoping that we balance the fact that yes, we have a need for housing and yes, we have people with decimal years that abut this property that still want to love where they call home. So we have to make that work for both parties. And that's my primary interest in this conversation. So with that I'll concede for now and. Thank you, Ms. Moly the Mrs. Azmera. Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Councilmember Molina helped me with clarifying because there are two different streets. This map makes it easier to understand. I agree with Councilmember Malena where we have to work to balance the two sides. I have a couple of questions. So back in 2022 when the rezoning was approved, what was the density then and what is the density now? I have to answer on the density. It's pretty. Exil chart that shows. Oh yeah, you're right. If we have our slides, we do have a very good comparison. It's on the density. It's pretty. Exil chart. It shows. Oh yeah, you're right. If we have our slides, we do have a very good comparison. It's very similar. This isn't a particularly dense development. I think the core question at the moment, regardless of the net drive, and whether there would be a single family of duets, is that your main concern? Yeah, so we had a lot of conversation. So something just kind of generically, I'd like to comment on respect in regards to single family versus a duet or a town home. Well, the question was about the density only. You can't go back in. OK, well, we're waiting to find that chart. That's why we're just kind of talking. There we go. Oh, here we go. Yeah. All right. So that first column shows what we initially zoned. And that density was 4.12 for acre. And then now we're at 4.92 per acre. That's the far right column. And that's if we do the maximum number of units, which is not likely, we certainly can go back and refine what's likely to happen. So I think by most definitions, this a fairly low-density project, as initially proposed or currently proposed. So there are full columns. So first is what we had approved back in 2022. Right. This is the approved setting plan for the southern portion. So that density was 4.12. 4.12. And the furthest right is what you are proposing. Is that correct based on revisions, based on feedback from the community? That's the maximum density. So 4.92 is what you're saying. I see. So it's not significantly different than what was approved back in 2022. You mentioned something about affordable. What part of the development would be will include affordable? So is this housing for how Charlotte program? Yes, that's correct. Okay, so how many units you said? Two. Two on Wixi. And they are on, you know, we think this is our final plan here. No, this one is it. Which one is it? I'll check. Sorry. There we go. Okay. So more than likely, we could be very specific, but we've concluded that these here, which are essentially on the land that's being purchased from the city would be where the forble will be located. Good. Okay. And so, Miss Reinhard and Mr. Taylor talked about, well, Miss Reinhart brought up this concern about access, especially considering John it's street. So is that a public, this question is for staff, is this a public street? It is a public street. Okay, so in terms of an access for emergency vehicles, I know there are requirements. So does that meet the minimum? It does not meet the current request for fire, which is 20 feet in width. There are parts of John had their only 17 feet wide. So they would have to expand it? They're not as part of this petition. There would not be expansion. Okay. Can you, I just want to make sure I got it. Can you repeat that? So, Johnette drives a public street. It is narrow as 17 feet places. What fire typically requests with rezoning petitions and with by-ride development is 20 feet and clear with. Okay, so in the case where it does not meet the minimum 20 feet, what happens? We're dealing with existing conditions here. And that's part of our assessment in the request for the loss at the end of John Ed Drive and in our request to limit those to either single-family or duplex as opposed to they could be triple X's. Typical in-one D standards. So you're limiting the density. We're requesting less density based on the interest current infrastructure of John Ed Drive. Okay, go. Okay, so did I hear staff supports? Is that correct? Staff supports us. With yes, with the resolution of the outstanding issues. Got it. With reduced density on John it's straight, where it's 17 feet. Okay. Yes, that is one of the outstanding issues. Okay. So there was question about stone water. I know we have a stone water ardent and sin place that addresses some of the concerns that both speakers had raised. If you could just Staff member if you can address our Speakers concerns about stone water runoff. I know we do have a stormwater rip. Yes, perfect That would be great and I this would be with this fall under UDO or pre-UDO Is this petition file pre-UDO? Or this? It's actually a combination. Part of this is pre-UDO. It looks one innovative and other areas are UDO zoning. Okay, because there are obviously we strengthened our strong water requirement in UDO. So how would that work? Robbie's ink with strong water. In this area, the requirements will be the same either UDO or pre-UDO. So I'm not sure where their concerns are, but you know, for the creek, the requirements are the same. The development would have to treat for water quality and quantity And we have our engineers here if you would like to ask Matt Langston Good evening Matt Langston Landworks design group so with the prior Project we were in the middle of construction plans and permitting plan review and all that when Bobby added the additional property so we've got stormwater detention facilities on the property Can we see very the stormwater detention funds? Sure, we've got we've got one located right here and one located right here on either side of the Creek. And then we propose storm water up here to kind of pick up the new runoff from the new added land. So is it fair to say that runoff from this side would not deteriorate the condition of neighbors' properties. We'll comply with the ordinance. So we'd look at this stormwater runoff of the pre-existing condition and the proposed condition and we basically captured the difference. Okay. So I mean, it doesn't make, so one of the strong water runoff, the audience we have in place is to ensure that with this infill development, we are not making neighbours properties where we are not increasing strong water runoff issue for the neighboring properties? So by the post-construction stormwater ordinance, if they will have to comply with, they will have to treat for, like I said, water quality and quantity. So they will be detaining their development back to pre-development conditions that Matt mentioned for the majority of storms. And there was another questions around a dead end. So where exactly is that? I think it was Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor, could you please come to the podium? Please. Please, Bobby. Come on, we come. Please. He's like, please, Bobby. I know you were asked about dead end. What exactly were you referring to? And if you can show it to us in on a matter of Mr. Taylor, can you step up to the podium and speak into the mic so we can hear you? Yes. Okay. Let me see. Green button. Green button right there. OK. This right there is a retention pond. I like to call it the Delta pond, because that pond, I know it a little bit, because I've been here for 30 years. Back when Delta cross, let me see, Delta Airport was working. They had a pond and it's that right there. Water would come from the Delta Airport and go this was and this is before even WT Harris was existed and Water would come from the airport into that pond. He's talking about the airport that used to be across the street. We had an airport remember what it got those apartments under the top? Oh yes. I was making orders. This is old. OK. This retention pond was able to hold the water for that airport. However, since that airport has been gone for a long time, we've had a lot of building. WT Harris itself goes between these areas and a lot of water from that road goes into this pond. Hickory Grove, back to this church, a lot of that water goes into this pond. Delta crossing, it goes, a lot of all this water coming from Delta crossing goes into this area, which goes into the stream there. A lot of it comes in there. These places have catch ponds along here. And what they do is they catch what water run off from the streets and parking and the roofs and what they do is they funnel into these catch ponds and it's put under water and apparently the city says, hey, the water is gone, but the water isn't gone. The water goes down underground and we, and, oops, sorry about that. Oh goodness gracious. So what Mr. Taylor and this as mirror I just want to make sure that we're on topic here because you asked a question right now he did in and now we're in a different space. Yeah I just make sure that we're answering the questions that are being asked. I think Mr. Taylor, you addressed my question and you maybe gave us a history lesson. But I hear what you're saying but what strong order staff is saying that there is a strong order already in SIN place to protect neighboring properties and to make sure that runoff doesn't happen on neighboring properties. So. Well, Mary, okay. Mr. Taylor? No. So hang on, Mr. Taylor. No, she'll see. Hang on. So the council member asked you a question and she just said that you sufficiently answer her question. So we're going to move on for additional questions. I appreciate the depth of knowledge that you have but we have to stick to answering the questions that the council members have. So Mr. Taylor, I appreciate it. I'll reach out to you if I have additional questions about the history of the side and the strong water. But it looks like there is a lot more work that needs to be done. And now, sir, sir, You can't make statements unless there's a question being asked. Okay. Okay. So hang on, hang on, because Mr. Agmirer, are you done with your question? Yeah, I'm about to wrap it up if I may. Okay. So there needs to be more work. I'll continue to hear from District Councilmember, I think you're in good hands with Council Member Malena. And I look forward to seeing some sort of middle ground here. And I don't know what that looks like, but I think that you only need to continue to work with the neighbors to figure that out. Certainly, this is a lot more complex than now, than some of the other petitions that are in front of us. So I appreciate your patience for both sides in helping us get up to speed on this and I'll reach out if I have any additional questions but I'll continue to work with district councilmember Molina. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ashmira. Ms. Johnson, did you have questions? Just just just a few I can work with council member Malina also, but I just want to understand the petition So there are 96 units total is that what I understand 96 Yes, that would be the maximum number of units. Okay, and six of them are on Johnnet and 90 are off harvest heels, is that right? Somewhat, so there's six lots on Johnnet, which could be either single family or duet, so perhaps a total of 12 on Johnnet. Six to 12. Okay, and then my next question is for staff. And we've said several times that John Net is not, you know, not up to standard or not a typical street. Is there a plan to improve John Net? And maybe we can talk offline. When we talk about infrastructure and building, I'd like to know the number of streets in Charlotte that look like that or that under that condition. So I'd like a lot more information on on John Net and what the plan is in the future and how that applies to the UDF. Sure, we'll get you that from the offline. Thank you, that's all I have. Thank you. Any additional comments? Ms. Molina. Thank you and I'll be brief. So I just want to let you guys know that I do plan to stay in contact with the petitioner with the neighbors because they're still work to do. This petition needs much more work and a lot more communication between staff and the neighborhood and the petitioner. And there's another issue that's outstanding with the city of Charlotte that also in my opinion, I want to go on the record and say I would like to see tied up before we even entertain this. So I don't even think this is going to come back before us next month because there is an outstanding issue with regards to affordable units that is contingent. It's not really a contingency, it's kind of in addition to. So because of not what would happen is there would be a small amount of affordable units that have not been finalized and then we make a decision on a petition that abuts this and then it comes by it's just it's not tied up there's more work to be done so I just want to make sure that I can make that and I'll be in contact with all of you to let you know what the updates are and that's all I have mayor pro ten thank you second there's a motion to close public hearing and second all in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you, Ms. Reinhardt and Mr. Taylor for coming out and participating in the process. We will move on to agenda item number 25. Petition number 204-002 by Fernando Rivera. The location is approximately 0.62 acres located along the south side of Walsh Lane, west of Dorne Circle, and east of east Independence Boulevard, in district five, Miss Molina's district. The current zoning is in 1B. Proposed zoning is in 1E. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation and environment. There is no opposition to this petition. So after staff's presentation, Fernando Rivera, are you present? If you can make your way down to this podium here, you will have three minutes after staff's presentation. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll just know really quickly that this is a conventional petition. So there are no outstanding issues that might have been misprint, so I apologize for that. But this petition is low over half an acre located along the south side of Wallis Lane within the broader idle wild neighborhood. The area's predominantly development, dealt with single family as well as multi-family uses. They have commercial areas just located to the west of this site less than a half mile away. The site is currently so neighborhood 1B and they're proposing to go to neighborhood 1E, which is consistent with the policy mouse recommendation for neighborhood 1 at this property and the surrounding parcels. It is a conventional petition again, so there is no associated site plan. Staff recommends approval. The N1B and the N1E zoning districts allow for the same single family residential uses. The primary differences between those two neighborhood one districts being limited to dimensional standards such as lot size and lot width. So this petition would allow for more flexibility within those dimensional standards but maintaining that same single family intent of the existing zoning. Eridance fine residential areas along this corridor, including a multi-family development that has been entitled entitled under construction and along the resounding western boundary. And the proposed N1E zoning would be compatible with this existing and future land uses of the area and may provide a better transition between those multi-family uses coming up on the west and the less intense single-family zoning uses to the east. And I'll take any questions following petitioners' comments. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. You have three minutes. uses to the east. And I'll take any questions following petitioners comments. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. You have three minutes. Yes, we're just doing a a conventional petition from N1B to N1E for allowing us more flexibility to probably do something a little bit different later on. This is something on my family. I live in the property at the moment and we just plan to do probably a duplex if not two single family houses in order for my family to be more together. Do you have any additional comments you have two or a half minutes left? I know there was a inconvenience with the neighbors on the back of the street because of the storm water because she believed that we're doing a big community there But we're not so we're not touching anything with the stormwater Because that was a problem that we have with the neighbor Okay, thank you. Are there any comments? Yes We have a motion of close public here in a second. We'll do it. However, Ms. Malina. Thank you. Just really briefly, I see that you had a community meeting. Those are the two people that you're referring to. There was one person that had a problem. The other two are okay with the okay. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I'm just referring to what we have here as far as the community meeting. So you had a small meeting that was a small outpouring and you had some people who had some stormwater concerns as a result. Yeah, that has some stormwater concerns but we're no, since we're doing something residential, we're not touching any of that. If I can clarify it might help say the stormwater concerns that were at somebody called me a neighbor. They have stormwater concerns related to the multifamily project that is under development and some stormwater infrastructure questions. Because of that multifamily development and how that property boundary abuts their neighbor and so they're calling Thinking that this petition might be related to that project, but they're separate. Okay. Yeah, cuz there's other development going on in that area So the just to clarify you're saying that the storm rider concerns are for another property That has nothing to do with this Participation yes, it's for the multifamily property that was Entitled along the Western boundary. It's a larger property that extends even further south from Wallis Lane. And this personal question tonight, this property does not but any of the neighbors that were calling concerned about that stormwater infrastructure for the multifamily project. And that's something that we're going to take care of, right? Whatever it is. So it's in permitting. So they would be analyzed appropriately through any storm water reviews that happen in permitting. So they are currently under construction, but there are a number of reviews and they will be following the post-constructural storm water ordinance. Okay. And I just want to say it's personal. I love that you're going to put your family together. Thank you. I think that's a great thing. I know that we don't do that much in the South. It's a new phenomenon. The CUDO process allows people to do that more, but to have family kind of in the same place and the fact that you're willing to go to this process. It tells me that that means a lot to you. So I congratulate you there because you know as we have family that's aging and we want to keep them close to us it means a lot so good for you. Congratulations and that's all I have. Thank you. We have a motion to close public here and in a second all in favor raise hands. That is unanimous thank you. Number 26 was deferred, so we will move on to agenda item 27, 2020-4089 by true homes. Location is approximately 4.09 acres located along the north side of Northside of Hovis Road west of Wildwood Avenue in District 2, Mr. Graham's District. Current zoning is in one C, proposed zoning into ACD. Staff recommends the approval of this petition upon a resolution of outstanding issues related to the environment and site as well as building design. And after staff's presentation, Ms. Grant, you will have three minutes. Thank you. Good evening. Petition 2020-4089 is located along the north side of Havis Road, west of Wildwood Avenue. The site's approximately 4.09 acres and is currently undeveloped. Current zoning is N1C, neighborhood one. Pro zoning is N2ACD neighborhood two conditional. 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type. N2A district is inconsistent with the N1 place type. Prove all of this petition would revise the 2040 policy map recommendation to the neighborhood two place type. Pose will cause for up to 39 multifamily attached dwellings. All units will be house Charlotte eligible, providing a degree of affordability. Following street scape and landscaping improvements proposed, buildings along Covis Road will be oriented towards the street and will contain no more than four units per building. All other buildings will be limited to no more than six units per building. And eight foot sidewalk and eight foot planes to pull you by the long-harvest road. A 30 foot setback is measured from existing right of way or 24 feet is measured from future back at curb, whichever is greater. We'll provide it a long-harvest road. 10 foot class C landscape yard will be provided along the side and rear of the site. Where to but the single family properties at the periphery. All residential entrances will be connected to a sidewalk. Following architectural requirements proposed. Maximum building height is limited to 44 feet. Useful front porches will be provided. Fortunately a minimum of six feet in depth. Uncovered preferred building materials include brick stone or pre-cast stone, roof articulation and roof pitch will be provided. Building entrances within 15 feet of the public street will be raised at least 12 inches above sidewalk grade. Solid way service areas will be strained. Existing cats, bus stop on Hovis Road will be upgraded to an ADA compliant facility. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon outstanding resolution about standing issues related to environment and site and building design. As the site's within a quarter mile of a designated community X City Center or neighborhood X-10V Center, excuse me. The proposed development would provide an attainable housing through the House Charlotte program, an area that's been identified as lacking access to housing opportunity and access housing gap by the 2040 conference plan and the site is directly served by transit. I'm happy to take any questions following Miss Grant's presentation. Thank you, Miss Grant. Good evening Mayor Proton, members of Council, members of the Zoning Committee, Bridget Grant, Land Use Consultant with more in Van Allen. It is a pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of True Homes and Prosperity Alliance. Mayor Proton, members of Council, members of the Zoning Committee, Bridget Grant, Land Use Consultant with more in Van Allen. It is a pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of True Homes and Prosperity Alliance. We are thrilled to be sharing another initiative that aligns with our faith and housing efforts. So with that, I'm going to take the easy part tonight and just turn it over to Marcus. He's going to talk a little bit more about our efforts and we're happy to answer any questions. Let me go ahead and get the slide up for you, Marcus. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, good evening. Good evening. And just state your name for the record. Yes, I'm Marcus Cornigay. I'm with Prosperity Alliance. We're a residential development company based in Charlotte. I'm here with my partner, Sean Kennedy. We're serving as consultants on this community development opportunity and collaboration with Shapale Memorial Baptist Church and True Homes. A staff has pointed out this development fits and solves a need for housing in District 2. And as I was pointed out by a Bridget that the beautiful thing about this development is that all 39 homes that are going to be built are going to be how Charlotte eligible basically price that 315K and below and providing home ownership, home ownership opportunities for that community. I think what's also awesome is that this community actually, the zip code aligns with the How Charlotte Plus program, which for families that are 80% AMI below and meet the How Charlotte Plus criteria, they can realize up to $80,000 in body-owned assistance for their home. So it's a very amazing opportunity for attainable affordable home ownership through the House Charlotte Program with this development and all 39 homes are going to be eligible. The icing on the cake on this though and the bridge just touched on that is that this project aligns to the Faith in housing initiative that was started by Mayor Vialaus and is now being spearheaded by councilmember Mayfield and the leader of Chappelle Memorial Baptist is Pastor Moss, who's very familiar with working with the community, with the city, with the church, with private industry, to build affordable homes. As he's done that before, as the pastor at St. Paul Baptist Church and Bessonterra Square community that he built out. And so we're honored and thrilled the opportunity to collaborate with him. He couldn't be here today, but he sends his best early this summer. Seconds left. OK. Early this summer, we had a great community meeting right after church. And folks are excited about the opportunity. So thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? All right. I see Miss Johnson, Miss Brown and then Miss Azmir. Thank you Miss Anderson. This is Johnson Brown. Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. And hello gentlemen. It's nice to see you. You see too. And this sounds exciting, the House Charlotte Plus and the Faith Based Initiative. This sounds like a very exciting initiative. Yeah, I don't have any questions. This seems like something that I look forward to supporting. Thank you for the work that you're doing. Thank you. Appreciate your support. Ms. Burrell. Thank you, Mayor Prozim. Good to see you all again. I like to see when people come in and they're speaking the language that people in the community want to hear. So, very excited about the faith in housing program. I know this is going to go far and maybe it can just be a model, a pilot that we can keep all over the city but I'm all in I'm excited because you're saying affordable home ownership is definitely needed in our community rent is outrageous and Charlotte and I'm going to say this for the record in North Carolina we are the most important place to live and rent. So this project coming in comes in place with keeping people in line and then financial residual, keeping it in the family and so people can have home ownership for years and decades to come. We're in Long Island so I'm excited to see how this play out and how I can support Mr. Graham even though he's not here and also count some may feel in that project so I'm very very excited So thank you keep doing this work and you'll keep having my support. Thank you. Appreciate you council member Brown Thank you. Thank you miss as you're Thank you miss Anderson Is this site owned by chapel memorial baptist church? Shopee. Shopee. Okay, So they are donating this land for affordable housing. For sale. For sale. Gone. Yeah. Well, thank you so much. Like my colleagues said, appreciate the faith communities help with tackling affordable housing crisis. Absolutely. I didn't have one more question. I'm more. Ms. Absolutely. I didn't have one more question. I'm sorry. One more. Okay. Ms. Johnson. Is she pal? She'll be. Was there any community opposition? None. Okay. We had two community meetings. A lot of support and a lot of questions and great engagement and dialogue. Okay. Good. All right. Thank you. Move to close. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. And before we close, I just wanted to say I like seeing you two in front of us more and more because you guys do great work in the community. So I'm glad that you are liaising with Miss Grant on this effort. And as you mentioned, the home ownership opportunity and the opportunity to have down payment assistance in an area where it's a dire need for generational change, generational impact. This is a wonderful opportunity and so I'm excited for District 2 residents who have an opportunity to take advantage of this. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Appreciate your support. There's a motion of close public hearing in second. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We will move on to agenda item number 28. Titian number 204095 by Trion Advisors LLC. The location is approximately 6.508 acres located along the north side of Old Bellmead Drive, East of Bellmead Drive and West of Mission District 2, Miss Leakes District, and closest to City Council District No. 3, Miss Brown's District. Current zoning is N1A. Proposed zoning is N1A CCO. Staff recommends approval of this petition. And after staff's presentation, Mr. McVane will have three minutes. Thank you. Yes, petition 244095 is located along the north side of Old Bell Me Drive, East Bell Me Drive, and west of St. Gabriel Avenue. The site is approximately 6.035 acres is undeveloped. Properly zoned in 1A, neighborhood 1. The proposed zoning is in 1A CCO, neighborhood one cottage court overlay. The policy map from the 2040 conference plan recommends the neighborhood one place type and the N1 CCO district is consistent with the neighborhood one place type. I'd just like to provide a little background on the cottage court overlay district. Cuddle court overlay district is an overlay zoning district that encompasses the existing underlying district To allow for alternative development options permitted in the in one a through in one e districts Codges court overlay district allows for small lot residential development with a maximum 30 buildings and is allowed to include single family detached Duplex and triplex units. The buildings are organized around a common open space. That is a minimum of 3,000 square feet or 500 square feet per dwelling, whichever is greater. A lot sizes and setbacks. Internal to the developments boundaries may be reduced from what is required by the underlying district, in this case in 1A, in exchange for a community that is designed as a cohesive whole and shared by residents. This is a conventional rezoning petition. There's not an associated site plan and would permit any use allowed in the N1A's zoning district. Staff recommends approval of this petition. It's the N1A CCO district aligns with the policy map and the development pattern prescribed by the neighborhood one place type. It could facilitate the goal of providing a variety of housing types within an area that's predominantly built up as single family dwellings. I have to take any questions after Mr. McVain's presentation. Thank you, Mr. McVain. Thank you, Mayor of Pro-10, members of Council, members of the zoning committee, Keith McVain, with more of an Allen representing or assisting, trying to advise us at all. See, with me tonight is John Beale, and he's available to answer questions. As Max mentioned, and we do have a presentation. As Max mentioned, this site is just off of Old Bell Me Road, which is just to the east of the Kataba River. This site is very close to the Whitewater Center, which is just located to our southwest, Mount Holly to the north. As Max mentioned, what the Cottage Overlay District allows is a unique approach to developing the same type of residential units that are allowed by the N1A District, just clustered around open space areas, natural and new open space areas, that are appropriate in this location. Take advantage of what the Whitewater Center has really started out here with outdoor activities, open space areas. The Whitewater Center is actually the landowner on both sides of this property. So this hopefully allows again a unique opportunity to do a small neighborhood cluster around open space areas in a cohesive manner as Max mentioned. Consistent with the place type and we're happy to answer questions. Thank you. Any comment? I got a comment. Ms. Brown. Yes, so thank you so much, Mr. Vain. I appreciate your maimal grand thank you for letting me speak. I really appreciate that. I was wanting to know, we have questions all the time surrounding the community outreach. And maybe it's a staff question on what are we doing? And I know we had this question earlier about how we were reaching community. Because when I see zero, it just makes me cringe and then somebody come back. Even though your ETJ is still closest to me. So to get involved with that, just what you're outreach look like. And if you've done your due diligence, then we move forward. But when I see zero, it's kind of concerning to me. It's, we've provided notices to anybody with property owners within 300 feet in neighborhood associations within a mile that are registered with the city. This site, as you'll look at the map, is kind of unique. There's large parcels around it, so there's really not a lot of neighbors or property owners. But we reached out to the folks that were, again, properties within 300 feet, neighborhood associations within a mile. We just did not have anybody come to the community meeting. We did have the owner of the Whitewater Center contact us prior to the community meeting. We did have the owner of the Whitewater Center contact us prior to the community meeting, and he spoke with a petitioner and was comfortable with what's being requested. Okay, so that was prior to the community meeting. Yeah, he called us before the community meeting. We explained what we were doing, so he didn't feel he needed to attend the community meeting. And Mr. Keith, I've worked with you before. No, I know you'll go and do your due diligence, but I just want to state that for the record when we hear, when we read and we see the zero on the community and bomb and it's kind of concerning. So not just me, but other staff members. And my colleagues have also addressed that. But if you've done what you're supposed to do, then what more can we ask for, right? You can ask for. Just not a lot of folks out here at this moment. Wait, we should. Ms. Jeltsin. I just want to add to that, before you were on council, we've talked about, I believe, expanding the notification to notification, I don't know if it's the radius or to renters or anything like that, is that can we talk about that offline because you're right. We want to make sure that we're reaching the residents and those impacted. Keith and I had Mr. McVain and I had a conversation earlier of appending petition and there's going to be a lot of renters that are affected. So we want to make sure that we're getting the information out as much as possible. So I know we've talked about that in the past. If we can revisit that as a council or with Mr. Petton, that would be great. Would staff like to make a comment? Yes. So, the UDO gives a bit of a beyond what state law requires. We notify everyone within all propaneers within 300 feet. State law just requires adjoining property owners to be notified. So that could be something. I mean, I think we have Council have talked about that before. Maybe we take a look at that during the strategic planning session or something. But if it's a priority for Council, that is something that we should take a look at. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. You had another comment. I just want to pay back off of accounts of memory Johnson because I know I hear I heard crystal clear that we were going to look at another process Mayor Produm that we could try to reach Other people because homeowners may be distant. Yes, remote Not even in the area and the people that are being affected are the ones that are renting so how will we get to them since they're the ones that or do they not matter? Yes and Ms. Babson has probably taken a note because we have had this conversation actually in these meetings and in the public hearing meetings around notification and extension. I saw a little bird was speaking in your ear. Did you have updated information? Yes, I'd also like to add that we are also on next door. Yes, you're on next door. Thank you. It's an app. Yeah, I'm on next door. Okay, I try to stay away from here. Right now. We had a several months ago asked about extending the notifications. And we're now on next door. But absolutely Ms. Brown and Ms. Johnson make great points and we can follow up on that as a action point from this meeting. Moe to close. Second. Second. There's a motion to close public hearing and second all in favor raise hands. That is unanimous. Thank you Mr. McVain. We will go on to agenda item number 29, petition number 2024-097 by Hendrick Automotive Group LLC. The location is approximately 3.18 acres located along the east side of Twin Lakes Parkway and the south side of Sam Roper Drive, west of North Lake Auto Plaza Boulevard. In the ETJ, closest to County Commission District 1, Miss Powell's District, as well as City Council District 4, Ms. Johnson's District. Current zoning is OFC. Proposed zoning is ML1. Staff recommends the approval of this petition. And after staff's presentation, Mr. Greg Hartley will have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. This site is just over three acres outside of existing city limits along the South Side of C.M. Roper. This is in an area where we have a lot of existing office and industrial developments, as well as some planned future multi-family uses to the west. Site is currently zoned off as Flex Campus, and the request is to go to manufacturing logistics one. And that request is consistent with the 2040 policy maps recommendation for manufacturing logistics on this site. It says a conventional petition so there's an associated site plan staff does recommend approval. This resounding would bring the sites entitlements into alignment with the 2040 policy map and allows for zoning that's more consistent with the surrounding uses and zoning. And this resounding does not about any sensitive land uses such as single family residential areas. And I'll take any questions following petitioners comments. Thank you, Mr. Hartley. Yes, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem and Council members, zoning commission. Greg Hartley with Acro Development Services here on behalf of Hendrick Automotive Group. We just want to align this a little better with some of the uses just to the south. We were here previously this year, I believe. We're zoning to do a collision center. And then this facility that we're going to have here will actually support all of the dealerships in the area for the Hendrick dealerships. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And in question, I'll. Second. Just one comment. Ms. Johnson. I've already met with the developer. So I don't have any questions and I look forward to supporting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a motion to close public hearing in second. All in favor raise hands. That is unanimous. We will move on to agenda item number 30, petition number 2024, 100 by 4,000 Monroe LLC. The location is approximately 9.892 acres located along the south side of Monroe Road and west side of north, Wendover Road, north of the Norfolk Southern Railway in District 1, my district. The current zoning is ML1. Proposed zoning is IMU. Staff recommends approval of this petition and after staff's presentation, Mr. McVain will join us again and he'll have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. The site is just shy of 10 acres along Monroe and Windover Roads. It's on a corridor that has a mix of retail, office, vehicle, pair of facility uses, and some residential areas that you see in the north there on that area. Existing zoning is manufacturing logistics one and their request is to go to innovation mixed use. And that request is consistent with the 2040 policy maps recommendation for innovation mixed use on this site. The requested IMU district would entitle the site for uses that are more compatible with the existing and future land use patterns in this area, which would envision mixed use urban areas and improve pedestrian design that integrate a bit better with the adjacent residential areas than the development under an MNL one an M&L one certainly might allow for. And staff arguments approval this petition. It's a conventional petition with no associated site plan and I'll take any questions following Toshers comments. Thank you Mr. McVeigh. Thank you Mayor Pro Tem members of Council, members of the committee, Keith McVeigh with more of an Allenist. Monroe, 4000 Monroe LLC, Parkside Partners with me tonight representing Parkside Partners is Gary Matthews. As Holly mentioned just a slightly under 10 acre parcel located at the intersection of Monroe, near the intersection of Monroe Road and Wendover, it's a former office warehouse distribution site that Mr. Matthews and his partners are currently in the process of adaptive reusing. They've been working on the site for the last two years. They started the work under the ML1 zoning district, or excuse me, under the I1 zoning district, which allowed a number of different uses other than industrial retail office personal service. When the conversion of the I-1 district to the ML-1 district, a lot of the previous uses that were allowed in the I-1 district were no longer allowed. And how Mr. Matthews in his company was already well underway with the adaptive reuse to a more neighborhood oriented types of uses, retail, restaurants, personal service uses, office. The IMU now, the IMU district allows those uses and facilitates the adaptive reuse of those buildings with those type of uses. The conversion in the UDO made them non-conforming, legally non-conforming. The rezoning to IMU then brings them back into compliance and allows the adaptive reuse to continue and Tennis to change over time. I'm gonna quickly turn it over to mr. Matthew So explain a little bit about where he is where his company are in the adaptive review reuse process Good evening. I know this has been a long one for you guys. I'll talk quick Mayor pro dim Council staff appreciate y'all's time this evening And I know this has been a long one for you guys. I'll talk quick. Mayor Pro Tem, Council Staff, appreciate you all's time this evening. As Keith mentioned, my firm purchased this property. I guess we closed on that late 2021, went through the permitting process and had it fully entitled to move forward with the renovations of January of 22. So we're coming up on three years. We have completely renovated the buildings. We tore down the back of the warehouse. We've made a lot of capital improvements to functionally obsolete office space, heavily aminitize the outside, and have been successful in attracting 12 tenants and we have several others that we're close to making. So we're just over 50% least. We have a mix of professional office space, architects, designers, and a mix of neighborhood retail. So we're really happy with both the restaurant mix and the other ancillary retail that we've been able to attract here. But once the UDO formally went into place, we started having problems with medical tenants and other prospects that we had. So that- Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We want to clean this up. Sir. Yes. Thank you. Your time will win off. But don't worry. I'll have some questions for you. Sure. Thank you. I'm going to open it up for questions. And as it's in my district, I'm going to kick it off. One of the questions I have is I see that adjacent to this particular parcel, there is innovation mix use that is surrounding it. That's a butting. Is that correct? I'm looking at the map. Innovation mixed use on the policy map. I think that's my. Yes. Yes. So nothing translated to innovation mixed use with the adoption of the UDO, but the policy map does call for much of these parcels south side and the west side to be innovation mixed use on the policy map and that place type is there in place. So although there's not IMU on the ground in terms of zoning, the policy map does support overall the intent of IMU. And that's why I was asking the question because I haven't heard of a lot of the IMU come across along this Monroe Road corridor. And I was surprised to see this, but this is really the alignment of the policy map. So this is one of the first ones that I'm seeing come across our desk for an IMU use. I think it's also an appropriate use for that corridor given the mix of industry that is along the Monroe Road, Windover corridor as well. I did have a question about, I see you had a couple people at the community meeting, was there any pushback or any concerns that were raised by the community? Not really. I think there was a lot of questions about what was happening. It's called the Oakhurst Commons, so some of the folks that are actually in the Oakhurst neighborhood came to the meeting and wanted to understand what was the adaptive reuse, what kind of uses I think everybody was pleased to see the new energy, the new investment, the new tenants that actually support the neighborhoods in the area. So it was a good community meeting. We had not a lot of people, but they had good questions, and I think they felt satisfied with what was being proposed. Okay, excellent. That's good to hear. Any additional questions or comments? No too close. Staffing. All right, there's emotional close public hearing and second. All in favor raise heads. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. We will move on to our final agenda item this evening. Hmm. Number 31, petition number 24, 101 EBRO crystal real estate. The location is approximately 20.5, six acres located along the east side of JW Collable Award, both the north and south sides of Waters Edge Village Drive and west of J.M. King's Drive in District 4, Ms. Chouts in District. The current zoning is mud O, proposed zoning is mud O.S.P.A. Staff recommends approval of this petition. And can I ask is Ms. Pam Isaacs? Excellent, is Miss Pam Isaacs? Excellent. Miss Pam Isaacs is in attendance and she is against this petition. So after staff's presentation, the petitioner, Brett Stewart will have 10 minutes. Miss Isaacs will have 10 minutes and then we'll have a two minute rebuttal period. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. This petition is just under 20 21 acres. It is in the University of City area on GW Clay Boulevard currently zone to mud oh and again proposing a site plan amendment to that previously approved rezoning. That rezoning was approved in 2019. It was petitioned 2018-151 just to go back adopted place type for this entire area. It's for a regional activity center place type one of our most intense activity centers that we've got on the policy map in terms of uses and intended outcomes. Again, this site was rezoned in 2019 for up to about 260,000 square feet of commercial and office, 40,000 square feet of civic uses, which included the library and 600 residential units. The proposal this evening is to take that previously approved rezoning back in 2019 and allow a conversion right of some of the office and commercial square footage to allow up to 303 additional residential units that would take the total up to about 900 residential units. That commercial and office square footage conversion rate would be one additional unit allowed per 760 square feet of those non-residential uses. So that ends up being around 230,000 square feet out of the initial 260. So that would still leave us with 30,000 remaining square feet for office and retail uses. Still a lot of the notes about round floor retail uses in some of those development areas as well. So again, this is just providing some flexibility to take that unused office in commercial space and convert it into residential. I know there's been some challenges with commercial and office development. And again, this would allow some of that additional square footage to be freed up for more of that demand to be met on the residential side. So with that staff does recommend approval of the petition. There are, I don't believe there are any outstanding issues. It is consistent with the Regional Activity Center Place type. It would still allow again for hotel use, it would still allow for up to the 260,000 square feet is still possible. But as they potentially continue to convert some of that square footage to residential, it could get down all the way to about 30,000 square feet left over which still is a reasonable amount within that activity center given some of the other existing uses that are currently out there. So again, staff does recommend approval and we'll take any questions following presentation by the petitioner and public. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Seawater, you have 10 minutes. Thank you. Good evening. Mayor Mattenportim, members of the Council's owning committee, Brett Seward, landscape architect, on behalf of land design, assisting the petitioner, EBA crystal real estate on this petition. I'll keep a brief. They've outlined the whole goal of this is to add conversion rights for residential from commercial uses as a law of us aware. The market for office is a little hard right now. So giving the petitioner some flexibility, adding more density and some more use to the overall development is the whole goal. So short and sweet, I have nothing further to add. I can turn it over to Ms. Payton. Thank you. Ms. Isaacs, will you step up and you have 10 minutes? I don't think I'll need 10 minutes because I need a nap. Let's pass my bedtime. I think we share your sentiment. I live in Lake Shore Village condominiums. It's right across the lake from this development. And most of us, many of us from the complex, attended the community meeting initially in 19, when they tore down all the retail and put up the apartment complexes. One of the reasons that I live there and one of the reasons that we love it there is that it is such a walkable community. I think it's probably one of the earliest walkable suburban communities in the town. In the past, we've had within this same university place area, a depot, a cinema, grocery store, a drug store. Now, so my complaint with this chain, this proposed change, is not entirely because of this specific plot, but because of a cumulative effect of what's happening is that everything that seems to be zoned, multi-fam, multi-use ends up being all apartments. Okay, so we have two walk in my walking area. We have two retail areas. One of them was where the apartments are now, and one of them was at the Coles Shopping Center on North Triumph Street. Well, Coles has been re-resumbed, and pretty soon it will be, you know, the retail will go away, and it will be all apartment complexes. Now, there is, they say that they're going to maintain the food line and it will still be there in the basement of the apartment complex. But what was a tremendously walkable neighborhood is becoming less and less walkable. I don't have any complaint about the use of the office building going away because I know there's no demand for offices anymore. That was inevitable. But this building was, I mean, this complex was presented to us as live work play, you know, full community, you know, you never have to leave home, you know. And I understand now that it's not a work But with the, with the diminution of the commercial retail, there's a lot less play and a lot more live. So it looks to us like this is a gigantic apartment complex. You can call it an activity center, but it looks like a gigantic apartment complex. With a library, I don't, let's not minimize that. The best thing ever is this library. It was going to be a beautiful mirrored glass building overlooking the lake, and now it's kind of been shoved back into the interior. And I think it's going gonna be overlooking a commercial building from the glass front there. But at any rate, we're very happy to have that library there. But the elimination of the commercial is really, I mean, the retake is really alarming to me. I moved to within a block of the blue line because I knew I was going to need it. I have a medical condition I'm not going to be driving. I need to be able to walk there or get a train and go there. If you've ever taken the blue lines from the university to downtown, you'll realize it's really a great place to get, it's a great way to go to bars and restaurants. If you need to go to a grocery store or a drug store or a dry cleaner or a hairdresser, it's not a very great place because they're not on the blue line. What's on the blue line is apartments. So it's a great way to go from apartment to apartment or to go out at night and not have to drive home, not have to get an Uber when you need to go home. But as far as being useful to those of us who need public transit to have lived, to go about ordinary life, it's not being very useful to me. I love coming downtown, you know, I take the train, but I always get on the train in the university and go all the way downtown because there's nothing in between. It's the bigger picture that is concerning to me. I know that the council has or the city has some various specific goals about walkability. And it's not happening. It's going backwards in our neighborhood. It's becoming less walk. We're going to have great sidewalks on JW Clay. We've got a huge project going on. We're going to have eight foot wide sidewalks to go to the brewery or to the Sam's Club, but as far as walkability, it's becoming less and less. That's my concern. And you have a little over three minutes left. Well, I think I've said it all. Yeah. Oh, right. I thought that perhaps you might have been under a misconception that this was going to help with our affordable. You know, I know we have a tremendous need for affordable housing, but these are not affordable houses. These are not, this is not that. They're homes, but they're not family homes. There's no park, there's no playground. The green space that's delineated there is the sidewalk that runs along the edge of the lake, which is great to walk around. It's called a park, but that's not a park. Now, thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. You have two minutes for a word bottle. Mr. Seal. Yeah, I don't know how to have so much of a rebuttal other than we are committing a 10,000 minimum square foot commercial space up to 30,000. If we were to convert to residential, I'm not saying it's actually gonna happen, but it does give us a flexibility. As far as the walkability component, understand and walking to amenities, the library is an absolutely beautiful building and there will be a huge amenity to this whole development. That novel university plays, Phase 1 was done, a tremendous job on the detail, adds greatly to the overall development itself is adding a great deal to this space and making it a little bit more walkable, bringing people in to allow for those amenities to come. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and then we'll have Ms. Sashmire. Thank you for the presentation, Brett, and also Ms. Isaacs. Thank you for speaking up. Brett, if you could schedule a meeting with me so I can get some more details regarding this petition, that would be great. I do have some questions. I heard you say 10,000 or 30,000 square feet of commercial spit. Committed to a minimum 10,000 square feet, up to 30,000 is the max. And where exactly is this development? Is it right at the lake? Is it on the lake? It's on the lake. Yeah, the whole development's on the lake. So, Noble University Place is the orange buildings on the screen. That was phase one that's been delivered. I speak up just a little, I'm sorry. Okay. That was phase one that's been delivered. I speak up just a little, I'm sorry. Now, the university place phase one is the orange buildings on the screen. That was delivered. People, I think it's fully leased now. The library, it will be delivered. I believe first quarter of next year. And then everything else is too big of a load. So where the TJ Max and Ross and all those stores used to be, instead of commercial, your decision. So that's it all both sides of the street because all we're off as Max used to be yeah it's like a whole strip development that was there is included yeah and the early voting set the peer one so instead of commercial you're proposing residential miss Isaac I want to thank you for speaking up because when I as the council member kind of push back on so many multi-family, I have this false reputation of being anti-development, but it's not that I listen to the residents. I hear you. Yeah. Yeah. So, I look forward to to further discussion Brett, okay, thank you miss Isaacs. Thank you. Thank you miss Ajmera. Yes. Thank you miss Anderson Thank you miss Isaacs For staying till the end. This is our last hearing. And you made it, thank you. But I agree with Ms. Isac, this is one of the most walkable communities in the university area. One of our most walkable suburban areas. In fact, this is where our family walks pretty much, at least three, four times a week. And I agree with you six, seven years ago, there was all this shopping, retail, shoe store, restaurants, all of that is going away. And now we are taking that away and converting it into multi-family. There is already multi-family right there, which is very luxury, and it's a very luxury housing apartments. And I just, and everywhere we see, we see luxury apartments popping up. And it concerns me. And I agree that we are taking away some of this retail, commercial options and putting multi-family everywhere. And you know, in this current state, I cannot support it. We really need to take a look at this very closely. You know, when we developed, when we had this 2040 plan, we had this 10-minute neighbor here, and that included retail commercial space, but now if you're all taking that away and just converting it into multi-family, it looks more like residential than an activity center. I understand that there is some retail further up where they have tropical cafe and fewer restaurants, but that's just the drop in the ocean. I mean, you're taking away entire strip mall of all the retail and commercial space. I have a difficult time supporting this. I see I don't quite understand how staff came to have staff arrive at a decision of supporting it. It says it's inconsistent. So if you can just Mr. Patton, if you can talk about how this overall meets our 10-minute neighborhood criteria and how it overall fits into the vision for the activity center. Sure. It is consistent with the activity center. So we do have that stated up on the staff now so the states are differently but it is consistent with the regional activity center. But one of the things we do look at, and it is a concern of ours to a degree of seeing activity centers get oversaturated with residential. There is still a lot of opportunity for additional commercial space within the activity center. There is some underutilized land that could get potentially redeveloped. So as we look at activity centers, we don't always tend to focus on the parcel itself that's coming in for rezoning. We do have to kind of look at it from a bit of a macro level as well. And so in this case, we do see that there could be some future opportunity again for more infill that could serve more retail. So as other folks come in, they want to do some of these conversions of let's say one of the older retail spaces. We become more screwed in this with each time we get a project in the area because we do have to maintain a balance of uses within those activity centers. So this one does, like I said, take some of that initial commercial space that they had approved several years ago. And that could be delivered as residential instead of that commercial. And we will continue to have to look at that regional activity center in this area to say if somebody comes back in like I mentioned with a proposal to let's say convert one of the large big boxes across the street to all multi-family that's going to continue to call some scrutiny on our side to then find that balance of having a healthy mix of uses that can support the goals of the Complan so we do look at it on a petition by a petition level but we also have to look at it on a little bit of a macro level within that entire activity center which there still are commercial uses and there's still our future opportunities for that type of infill development So mr. Patten I know you had to look at it at the macro level. But are you betting on future developments to convert it into commercial spaces? Is that what you're betting on? We're not betting on that. We do still see that there are commercial and non-residential opportunities in the activity center. There are still some of those uses on the other side of the lake. You do have some of that on the other side of JW Clay. We certainly appreciate the incorporation of some potential ground floor activation within this project up to 10,000 square feet of that. Being that kind of store front, street front kind of retail opportunity. So we're not necessarily banking on it. we do still feel like there's a decent balance within that activity center. But we do know over time those uses do change and transition and just like we're seeing some of these additional out parcels that are on WT Harris that we know are looking at potentially rezoning and redeveloping. That's when we start to really kind of dig in to see what other mix of use as we can get as each project comes in. So we felt this one still provided a reasonable balance within their own project boundaries, but there's still opportunities for that to continue to occur and have that regional activity center support. A healthy mix of residential, non-residential uses there. Hey, yeah, I mean, I struggle with this one. Maybe I can have a conversation with you offline. Sure. Because at what point do we balance it, right? At what point do we say converting commercial retail space into residential would be okay at what point, right? What is that saturation that we are looking at and I know it's very difficult because ultimately the market drives development and I get that but at some point I guess because this is this is one of our activity centers in the city we got to look look at that. What is the right balance? And I'll talk with your offline. What does that balance look like? Yeah, and that's something that we're not just looking at here. It is something we're seeing in all of our activity centers. And it is causing a little bit of concern for us at a staff level. And we do have some scheduled conversations coming up between staffs just interdepartmentally about what is that right balance? Yes. I don't know if we've really said is it a 50-50 split, is it 60-40? So we need to work on that side as well because that will give us a little bit more opportunity when we get these types of petitions to say, look, this activity center, is it 80% residential? We're not going to really get more residential we don't want to see that. So that's some stuff that we still need to work on as part of you know trying to further develop 10% of the neighbourhoods and these activity centers. So it is something that's on our radar as well but be happy to talk to you more about it. Yeah I think that's something that council needs to get involved in, you know, in terms of the balance. Ultimately, we are going to, the market is going to respond to the demands, market demands. But I think as council, we are creating this 10-minute neighbourhood concept and we need to have, we need to have a discussion on that policy discussion on what that balance look like and depending on the area and the needs for retail for grocery stores, it could change. So I'm hoping we will dive into that as part of our neighbourhood planning. What is that? Yeah, the community area planning exercise that we are going through. But yeah, that's all I have and I look forward to hearing from district council member on this through. If there would be any change to this. Thank you. We have Ms. Braille that best y'all said. Yeah, so real quick. Thank you so much, Mayor Portem, and thank you for staying with us. I was listening to my colleague, Ashramir here. Your voice has been heard. I just want you to know that. Don't think that when you come that you're talking and it's following on deaf ears, it definitely is not following on deaf ears. We have to work with the district rep because our large members have the whole city of Charlotte. Then you have the seven district reps that deal with each individual district. So we call the district rep the expert. They do the expert work, they're out there on the ground doing all the work, putting everything together. But when you come and you're by yourself, don't think that we're not hearing what you're saying in some of this information. This information we've already had the process before. I just want to say thank you for coming out and that we hear you and that we look forward to working with the district. We have to make sure that you're concerned, I met that we can come together on common ground so that we can work together so that everybody won't be satisfied, but we can move together and work in harmony. That's what I'm trying to say. Okay. So thank you so much for coming out and staying with us all night because it's getting late but we do appreciate you but more importantly we hear you. Okay. Thank you so much. Ms. Johnson. And last thing I know we're already to go but you talked about activity centers. I just want to lift this area up. This is a, and I know I'm biased, but this is a very unique area in the city. This is the downtown of the university city area. And even like during COVID, this is one of the busiest spots and it's just a beautiful unique area. So I would just ask that city staff consider that as we're making decisions. And the market, the demand does drive the market, however, council can incorporate a vision and just some direction, I think. And this is an opportunity. I think that's a good conversation we're looking forward to have as well. We do have a lot of UNCC alums, including myself, that know this place far too well and are very familiar with and spend a lot of time here. So we're kind of thoughtful about what goes on as well. Excuse me, sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. As you have another comment? I notice this is 20.56 acres. So even though they are only changing a piece of the puzzle, right? They still have to go through the entire rezoning. Okay. Yeah, because the plan covers the entire project that they have. So we don't just want to take one piece and just do an amendment to this here. So it's just the notes all still are associated with the plan. We don't want to lose any of the other commitments. So it's just a change to the conversion, right? So the entire plan. And lastly, I have brought this up several times with the University City partners. The lake is such an asset to our community. And I know we have seen some improvement to the lake. But are there any community benefits? I was going through the notes. I didn't see any to preserve the lake that we have. And there are a lot of, there is a long, long drill list that the university partner has in terms of preserving the lake. Do we have any community benefits from this rezoning petition towards improving that? Not specifically to the lake itself. There was the commitment for the trail area and some of that plows an open space in the library as a civic use. But the lake itself, no, it is just the frontages that they had control of development over. So I would like to see a community benefit because this development will directly benefit from this lake, that's an asset, to actually have community benefit, where we can use some of the funds to clean up the lake that we have. And because you're all going to benefit from it, I would like to see some community benefit around that, incorporate it as part of this rezoning. But that's all I have. If there are no additional questions, move to close. Second. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And Ms. Isaacs, thank you for earning the midnight oil and staying with us. I would just encourage, of course, as my colleagues have said, to work with the district rep, but also the representation from the community to get to a level of specificity as it relates to community benefits. Let's hear from the community what they would actually like to see and of course work with my colleague the district rep throughout that process. All in favor to close public hearing raise hands. That is unanimous. Is there a motion to close a journey? Oh, no, no. The second. Meaning, okay, all in favor, go home. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening. All right. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening. Thank you so much. Thank you.