Again, our meeting with an invocation and an expression of inspiration. And before we do that, we will begin with introductions and let's start with the clerk. Billy Todd's deputy city clerk. Good evening, Renee Johnson, and I'm honored to represent District 4. Good evening, James Mitchell, City Councilor Lodge. It's Babson, Assistant City Manager. Good evening, Don Tandon and Anderson may approve 10 District 1. Malcolm Graham District 2. Ed Driggs District 7. Good evening, Luana Mapio, Councilor McBratlach. Good evening, Victoria. Why would you have Councilor McBratlach? Terry Hague, Regres Senior Assistant City Attorney. Excellent. So as I mentioned, we begin our meetings with an invocation and an expression of inspiration. Followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, the invocation by a council member is intended to underscore our proceedings. We celebrate the religious diversity of the entire community, including those without religious faith. And this evening, council member Mitchell will give our invocation. Thank you, Mayor Potim. We all please our bar, here's please. Owise and grace the Father, we thank you for your mercy and for your grace. We thank you, Heavenly Father, for the city we call Charlotte. We thank you for the citizens who call Charlotte home. Now Father, bless each Councilmember and the families we represent. Through your grace and mercy I'm a father would make decision that would be best for the state of Charlotte. With this I pray and would all believers under my voice say amen. Amen. And if you're able please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Pleasure allegiance to the flag of the process begins when applications are submitted to planning staff for review. Cases of two types are on the agenda. Decisions and hearings. Decisions on cases for which public hearings have been previously held and there's no further public comment allowed. And then you also have hearings where anyone wishing to speak is asked to see the city clerk before the start of the hearing. Staff will give a presentation with no time limit. And the petitioner, those who are in favor of it, receive three minutes combined to present their case unless one of of both two things occur There's either opposition that is signed up to speak or if staff is in opposition the petitioner gets ten minutes The opponents get ten minutes and the petitioner receives a two-minute rebuttal if no one is opposed to To the petition or signed up to speak then staff provides a short presentation the button. If no one is opposed to the petition or signed up to speak, then staff provides a short presentation. The public hearing is closed and we move on to the next public hearing. Petitions goes to the zoning committee of planning commission for review and recommendation. And at this time, I'm going to pass it on to the chair, Chair Bloom and Thal to introduce his committee. Thank you very much, Mayor Pro Tem and thank you, Council. My name is Andrew Bloom and Thal, it's my pleasure to serve as the chairman of the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission. Please allow me to introduce my fellow committee members here this evening. We have Shauna Neely, Clayton Seely, Rick Winneker, Theresa McDonald, and Robin Stewart. The zoning committee will next meet on Tuesday, April 1st at 5.30 p.m. here in this building. At that meeting, the zoning committee will discuss and make recommendations on the petitions that have public hearings this evening. The public is welcome to attend to that meeting. However, please note that it is not a continuation of any of the public hearings that we are hearing this evening. Prior to that meeting, you are welcome to contact us 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 Pretzel. Thank you, Chair. So let's begin with the withdrawals and deferments that we have this evening. And we'll do all of those in one motion. Mr. Patten, I will pass it on to you because I believe there are some new items that have been added to that list. Yes, thank you. So we do have several items for deferral and one withdrawal. So start with item number eight, that's 2024-118 by Weekly Homes LLC. That request is to withdraw the petition. Item nine, 2024-131 by Pulty Homes is the deferral request to April 21st. Item 10, 2024-134 by St. Charles Avenue LLC. Also requesting a deferral of decision to April 21st. Item number 11, 2024-136 by Keane Building Company. Also a deferral request to April 21st. Item number 14, 2024-116 by Feb. Negash, that is also a request to defer that decision to our April 21st meeting. And then we have one hearing requesting a deferral that is item 16, petition 2024-124 by aviation medals of North Carolina requesting their hearing be deferred to our April 21st meeting as well. That's all we have for this evening. Thank you. Is there a motion to defer and allow the deferral to all? Thank you. Thank you all in favor, please raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We will move on to our consent agenda items. Resoning petition items 3 through 7 may be considered in one motion except for those pulled by a council member. Please note that these petitions meet the following criteria. They've had no public opposition to the petition at the hearing. Staff recommends approval and the zoning committee approves as well. And there have been no changes to the petition after the zoning committee's recommendations. Are there any consent items? Council would like to pull for question or comment or a separate vote. Ms. Mayfield. Thank you. I will lie items number no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. No, no, no. here in our agenda and I have to read the numbers for the record. Petition 2024-133. Petition 2024-135. And petition 2024-133. Petition 2024-135. And petition 2024-140. Do I have a motion to approve an adopt? So moved. Second. All right. Any comments? All in favor, raise hands. Any opposed? Okay, that is unanimous. Is there a motion to approve petition number 2024-126 and adopt the zoning committee's statement of consistency for the petition as it appears in our agenda? This is a motion. I'll second it. And there's a discussion. Any discussion? Ms. Mayfield. This is number three. And that's the answer number three. With this particular petition, the concerns that I have is that this is an airport overlay area. The long-term impact of this, what I personally am not comfortable with is fast forward. A decade or so later, we're looking at tax dollars having to be a part of a master's placement event. I do appreciate that the petitioners have added some additional insulation around the windows. That's great inside the unit, but if you have a step out of that building, I think it is a bad precedent after spending thousands of tax dollars through the airport to buy out properties, hotels, motels, trailer parks, as well as single family homes, that I directly in the airport overlay area. I do believe that my colleague, even though she is not here tonight, said the email to everyone. I received a text from her and we have, I have a different understanding based on the text because when we looked at the actual map of where the location is based on the airport overlay, I still have a lot of concerns with this. So I will not be supporting this petition. Thank you. Any additional comment, Ms. Johnson? I just have a question. We did receive an email from Councilmember Brown that she was in support of it. Did her. Yeah, correct. Text. I would encourage my colleagues to make the decision, the best decision that they can. I share why I have concerns with this particular petition. Okay, thank you. Any additional comments, Mr. Drakes? So I appreciate the concerns that Ms. Mayfield has raised. I'm afraid that it invites other situations in which questions like these are raised and that we don't have an organized answer for. I mean the truth is this has been brought forward in an orderly fashion people who choose to live there will know what they're getting into. So I intend to support it. I think we should back up the district graph. We did a lot of work on this. She told me, went to a lot of meetings and engaged with a lot of people. And I believe based on our procedures right now that we should approve this. Thank you. Any additional comments? I will state that Ms. Brown did send an email and said that she supports this particular petition. I did receive that from her. She is traveling today. Ms. Azmir. Yes, thank you. I agree. Councilmember Brown, who is a district councilmember, had sent an email in support of this reasoning petition. I also want to acknowledge the work that has happened over the last several weeks to address some of the community's concerns, specifically around the noise and additional installation. With that, I think our job is difficult because we're trying to balance supply of the housing while addressing some of the community's concerns. So we have to take all of that into consideration. So this will definitely help provide additional housing that we need. So I'll be supporting the district council member Brown with this rezoning petition and I'll be voting in favor. Thank you. Yeah, we have emotion and we have a second unless there's any additional comment we'll go to the vote. I'm sorry, I don't know where the vote is. I just if necessary we can read. I don't think we're going to vote. I don't think we're going to vote. Will the changes? I say what I say. No, that's a point that weapons were quite. I just I'm not sure everybody saw the message from the comments. So we could read it into the record or if we're ready to vote, let's vote. If you would like to read it into the record Mr. Drex, you can. Absolutely. I mean, I don't need to text messages. I will read the, I think the recommendation portion. She had indicated to me she had reservations. She said I later realized that this rezoning request was one I had dedicated significant time to working closely with both the community and developers, even visiting the site and the rain to ensure we could achieve a solution. I share the same concerns as Councilmember Mimafield regarding the project's location within the airport overlay. That said, since the community and developers were able to address and resolve key concerns, I want to ensure this context is taken into account, we move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. So that's the input from our colleague. Okay, thank you. Hearing no additional comments, all in favor, raise hands. Any opposed Ms. Mayfield opposes. Okay, is there a motion to approve petition number 2024-148 and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it impures in our agenda? So who? Second. All right, there's a motion in second. Any comments? Mr. Graham. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. I'm going to support the petition in front of us with reservations. I did have an opportunity to visit with a citizen and actually took a car tour of the mountain alley area, Mount Holly Huntersville Road in particular, and just kind of get a sense of the current existing infrastructure and traffic congestion, et cetera. And it certainly is a concern. And as a result, I'll be hosting some time to late April or early May a town hall meeting in that area specifically related to planning the state of the infrastructure bringing an NCDOT and other most of the roads over there are state-owned roads that probably needs to get a better understanding in terms of timelines and just kind of basic information regarding future role improvements over there. And so I urge you to support it, but I just want to communicate directly to the public, but there's some work being done on the ground to make sure that everyone's on the same page in terms of how we move forward as relates to future zoning decisions in the area and acknowledging needing to communicate further with the state of North Carolina regarding some of the state roads in the area. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Ms. Mayfield. Thank you. as a resident that lives in the area and drives that road, every day, the concern that I have I've already shared, it is a two-lane road. The current location is the state employees credit union. That is what potentially will be redeveloped for this multi-family. There is a light there, thankfully, but it's also written right next door to a current multifamily development that is leasing right now. The challenge is whether you make a left or right at that light immediately out of this potential development, it is a two-lane road and trying to, it can easily take 30 minutes, depending on the time day. And that is multiple times throughout the day to get back towards Bell Haven if you're trying to access Bell Haven up to Brookshire. Or if you make a right trying to access the state maintain role that has a very interesting design where you're getting on to 16 and having to merge two plus lanes if you want to stay on to bookshier. We do not have the infrastructure. And although I appreciate that my district rep is going to be having a meeting on this conversation, I do not think that it is a good idea for us to compile the traffic concerns with the hopes of having a discussion later regarding traffic improvement because those pain points impact the residents today. And by if we don't have a clear plan through NCDOT that's going to align where the road widening is going to happen prior to this development being completed or simultaneously to give some type of relief creating unnecessary additional traffic for our residents, even though there is a bus right over there, that bus is also sitting in traffic. Okay. It is a challenge that we have regarding how we are approving projects and not considering the impact on the residential communities that are already there. Thank you, Ms. Mayfield. Ms. Whiteland-Tempses. My question is for staff. I want to understand that as well as it relates to infrastructure, on this one I do see that the entitlement versus the proposed is actually a reduction that said, as Councilmember Mayfield has just explained today is already a problem. So anything net addition to that increases the problem. And as we think about just from a broader conversation around our budget and our ability to invest in the things that we need to respond to growth, which we understand now very clearly does not pay for it. So I'd like to understand what specific to this petition is being done for traffic mitigation. Good evening, Jay Carpenter with CETA. Specific to this petition, because of the low, the relatively low number of units, the development does not trigger any study or additional look at traffic mitigation and does not meet the levels needed for additional mitigation. So they would be responsible for front-age improvements along their development front-age, but nothing externally outside their front-age at other intersections or locations. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's chat some. So I don't, I was, I'm going to be talking about this later, the cumulative impact and infrastructure. And we, we as a council really need to be intentional and, and start addressing this or, or change the policy so that it is addressed. If we look at development as a puzzle, we know the one piece may not impact or trigger traffic studies. But if you look at the area as a whole and see or what the residents are seeing and feeling, and I think that's our responsibility, we do need to do that. So I appreciate your concern. Council member Mayfield, and think we as a council this is something we deal with with almost every petition which is why we ask for the infrastructure studies. So thank you. Thank you. Mr. Graham. Again speaking for a second time it's aiding units doesn't trigger any type of requirement as the staff are indicated in terms of directing a broader type of infrastructure requirements. I think a net addition can apply to any rezoning we do throughout the city in terms of adding more to perceive and real infrastructure needs and our requirements. So I think this petition doesn't take anything away from it or add to it other than the fact that it's certainly yet another example where as we look at the entire region, not just this particular petition, there's a bigger question that needs to be answered that goes beyond the scope of this particular petition. And the petition meets the requirements that we need to vote to approve it. But certainly, as I indicated earlier, there's a broader conversation that needs to be I'm reaching out to residents already. I think there are a number of individuals agree that the steps that we're taking, let's make sure that we do some foundation setting in terms of where we add. We know that the staff is doing their action review, planning review throughout the city. I want to bring some attention to this particular segment of the community, the mountain outlet like the segment. Goes beyond just how the Hunters for Road is the whole community, right? And so I think the initial steps that we're taking are to gather information, study the future of the road improvements in the area, many of which are beyond our control, their state supported roads. And so just making sure that the citizens know what's coming when they can expect it, how they begin to advocate for control growth. I think we all know throughout the city, whether it's in District 2, 6, 7, 4, which are the paying points in terms of where growth and developments are occurring, that we need to be mindful, certainly I am as well, but I don't think this petition is the issue, is the broader issue of really working without state partners to find out how to be figure out a larger problem. Okay, Mr. Drake's. I just want to know, it's not like we're not doing anything about this, right? We've got a huge mobility plan in the works that contemplates a referendum in November. Just want to plug that. That will give us resources for large investments in mobility, roads, rail, bus. And so we're moving forward to solve those issues. And then these conversations about zoning will take place in the context of a potential that we haven't had to actually deal, like create more opportunity in the mobility space instead of just kind of managing the situation we're in. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Azimira. Yes, thank you. I'm glad Mr. Driggs brought the mobility up because this side is very close to, in fact, cats number one, this side is located along the route of the cats number one and 18 local bus. So that really helps us connect affordable housing with mobility options and that's what we want to see more of. As someone who is a product of public transportation and affordable housing. This is so critical as we connect people to greater opportunities and upward mobility. I think this helps us address that with affordable housing, I appreciate the petitioner work to bring affordable housing help us meet our affordable housing goals along the transit line. And if I can add just one more thing, let's not Madam Mayor Pro Tem, and thank you, Councilmember Ashmer, and Councilmember Drake, about talking about the mobility and the bus in particular because when I did my driving tour, one of the things that I noticed that there was bus stops but no bus shelters. That's part of the mobility bus. That's part of the mobility, so the issue of that we're trying to plan for goes well beyond the scope of the petition that we're voting on tonight. And I don't want this petition to be held hostage of a bigger issue that we're trying to resolve. Thank you. Thank you. I have Miss Watlington and then I think we can proceed to the vote. Sure. Great points by all. That said though, we still, our process is designed for us to vote petition by petition. And I think it's a question of whether we lean in considering what we hope to have that is not yet approved by the voters to have in terms of funding going forward. I will say that each part of our city is different, right? So there are some places we just have a handful of contingent items that I think all of us unanimously agreed was the appropriate thing to do, because every place in our city is not experiencing the same level of traffic congestion or infrastructure issues. So I do think that it's appropriate to take these decisions on a case-by-case basis across the city while also understanding that we are trying to do something at the broader level. But I want us to be very careful not to position our zoning decisions as if it's something that if you meet these criteria, you automatically get approved. That's not my understanding of our process. And so I just want us to be thoughtful about each one of these and it sounds like each of our colleagues have their reasons for sitting where they sit on these. But I just want to assure the public that this is not situation where if it meets particular minimum criteria, we are automatically approved. Because at the end of the day, you've elected us to determine what's appropriate where at a parcel level. And so we definitely intend to continue to do that. Thank you, Ms. Watlington. I think we've had the opportunity to have dialogue and clock us around this multiple times unless there are any other additional comments we shall have to vote. We have a motion in second. All in favor, please raise hands. All opposed? Dr. Watlington and Ms. Mayfield opposed. Okay. All right. Thank you. So we will move on to our non consent agenda items and we will begin with agenda item number 12 is there a motion to approve petition 2024-07 and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agenda? Some move. Second. There's a motion in a second. Any comment? Ms. Johnson. Thank you for the opportunity. I just want to lift up the developer. We did work closely with the residents and the developer to try to get to a point where the residents were more supportive of the petition. So I will be supporting this today. Thank you. Any additional comments? Hearing none, all in favour, raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We'll move on to petition item number 13. Is there a motion to approve petition number 2024 072 and adopt the zoning committee statement of consistency as it appears in our agenda. There's a motion by Mr. Driggs and a second by Ms. Johnson, any discussion? Hearing all in favor raise hand, Mr. Driggs, did you have a comment? I just wanted to mention briefly, Ms. Molina is not here tonight for family reasons. She has recommended to all of us that we approved this. So I'm with her. That is correct. Ms. Molina has a family issue that keeps her from being here tonight, but she did communicate with the council that she support this. Only number three absence in three years. What's your family? I don't know. Okay. Okay. Any additional comments? All right. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous and that concludes our decision portion of the evening and we will move on to our hearings. But before we move on to our hearings, Ms. Ashmira has a comment. Ms. Ashmira. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Anderson. I'd like to bring to the attention of the councilor very disturbing occurrence. Earlier today, the petitioner for rezoning petition 2024-116 appeared my home, unannounced and uninvited. And this visit was startling for my children and to my family members. So I serve at the pleasure of the orders and the residents, not my family. So I ask that going forward that everyone respects the privacy of each one of us that serve and as we conduct the work of the people. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Esmeral. And that is quite disturbing. Okay, we will move on. Mr. Driggs. I would like to extend the courtesy of the chamber to the UNC Charlotte MBA class this evening here with Mike Wilson. Would you stand up? Okay. All right. Thank you Mayor Potem. Absolutely. Welcome. Welcome. So we'll move on to our hearings and we will begin with agenda item number 15, petition number 2024, 138 by peak development. The location is approximately 8.54 acres located on the north side of Shotson Road West east of Kirkland, Commons Drive, and West of Corey, Brett Lane, and District 3, Ms. Brown's District. The current zoning is N1A, proposed zoning is N1DCB. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon outstanding issues related to transportation. The environment site as well as this building design. After staff's presentation, Ms. Britt, Nielenz and Mr. Brown will have 10 minutes and Mr. Percy Crosby, are you present? Is Mr. Percy Crosby present? Okay, Mr. Crosby was signed up to speak in opposition so without Mr. Crosby's presence then the petitioner will have three minutes. Thank you, staff. Thank you. This petition is approximately eight and a half acres located north of Shopton Road West, east of Kirkwood Commons Drive and west of Corey Bret Lane. The site is wooded, vacant and surrounded by a mix of single family detached, single family attached, multi-family residential as well as commercial uses. The current zoning is N1A, proposed zoning is N1DCD. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type. The proposal is for a community of 60 duplex and or detached single family dwellings in accordance with N1D standards. It would front load all units from the public street. Commits to a 10 foot class C landscape yard along both the eastern and western property boundaries. Commits to design standards including covered porches and stoop as predominant features. Provides common open space along the public street with recess parking to accommodate visitors. And it commits to several transportation improvements including restriping of Shopping Road West to provide a left turn lane into the new public street. A foot planning strip and a foot sidewalk along the Shopping Road West Frontage. A foot planning strip and six foot sidewalk along the new North South public street. Street stub to the east for future connectivity. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation, the environment, and site and building design. It is consistent with the N1 place type recommendation. It poses duplex and or single family detached dwellings. Building forms that are consistent with the N1 place type, though not required by ordinance, the petition commits to installing a 10 foot landscape area planted to class C landscape yard standards. And the petition preserves the rear of the site as a 100 foot green area and undisturbed watershed buffer. Now, take any questions after the petitioners comments. Thank you. Miss Lens, you have three minutes. Good evening, Mayor Perten, members of Council and zoning committee. As my presentation is coming up, I prepared for ten minutes, so I'm going to fly through it in three. I just want to emphasize two quick location points. First one, this is a fantastic infill development for walkability when we talk about a 10-minute neighborhood. This is a six-minute walk to the Barrowick Commons Commercial development that has a Harris-Tedar. It has banks. It has restaurants. It has a church. It has medical uses You can go to a dentist all within walking distance of this site As you can see from the site. It's a vacant parcel but surrounded by mostly the bearwick development. So fantastic walkability also, this site shape is kind of interesting. We've been calling it Skinny Shopped-in, which makes for the layout. Part of why we're requesting this rezoning is because of the Skinny Shopped-in layout. So jumping to a by-right development, we're not asking for a change in form. It's still duplexes. But we're able to fit more lots on and load them on both the other units. So we're not asking for change in form. We're not asking for change in form. We're not asking for change in form. We're not asking for change in form. It's still duplexes, but we're able to fit more lots on and load them on both sides of the street to present a yield that then allows for it to be a for sale product. The other thing I want to emphasize is the, how this site is kind of insulated from its neighbors. So to the west, this is Kirkwin Commons. This is part of the bear with community. They have a 50 foot HOA controlled buffer on their side. That we can't touch, we can't get into. They have 50 feet of buffer. We're proposing a buffer on our side as well. We've also talked with the Corey Brett drive neighbors, uh, Corbret Lane, excuse me. This cold assack with these beautiful large lots and we're proposing a buffer on their side as well. Again this is N1 compared to N1 so no buffers required but we're proposing a 10 foot landscape buffer, classy plantings and offence. The other thing I want to emphasize is just the community outreach. We've done a lot of community outreach before even filing the rezoning. We met with the SCRA, the Steel Creek Residence Association Association. They're kind of an umbrella organization for the area. Their official position is not opposed. So then we filed the rezoning application, had our official community meeting council member Brown participated in that. We then met with the bearwick HOA, hosted a meeting at their clubhouse. We've also had multiple site visits with those Corybrett. And I'm pleased to report that two Cory Bret neighbors have emphasized their support and I have to support letters to share with you tonight. As far as other community outreach we'll continue working with the neighbors. Certainly happy to reach out to Mr. Crosby to make sure we're trying to address their concerns. But overall I think we've made some great progress and we'll continue coordinating with those neighbors and with Councilmember Brown. So I'll take any questions. Thank you. I see you've had 50 residents attend the meeting, that's very high numbers. Based on what we see these days, so that level of community engagement is to be commended. Are there any additional comments? Move the public here and be close. Second. Okay, I have a motion in second. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We'll move on to agenda item number 17. But- We have a speak any opposition for this. I shall. Okay. Okay. Petition number 2024-137 by Wilkes Asset Management. The location is approximately 13.29 acres located on the west side of Johnston, rural road north of Mallorca Creek and east of Prosperity Church and District 4, Miss Johnson's District. The current zoning is in 1A. Proposed zoning is into ACD. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation. And may I ask is Mr. Michael Faust present? Thank you, sir. So we have opposition. So, Ms. Grant, you'll have after staff's presentation, you'll have 10 minutes. Mr. Faust will have 10 minutes. And then you'll have a two minute rebuttal. Thank you. All right, thank you Mayor Pro Tem. 2024-37, it's 13.29 acres on Johnson, A.O. Road. Just north Mallor Creek and east of Prosperity Church. It is currently zone 1A and the proposed zoning as requested is N2A Conditional. Adopted place type for the area does show this for neighborhood 1. You can see we've got quite a bit of parks and preserve with some of the county facilities. Some end to just off to the west over on Oak and then some campus for some of the nearby schools. A little further up Johnson and Aloe we do get into a fairly large community activity center place type as well on the south and north side of I-485. The proposal is for up to 145 dwelling units combined with duplex triplexplex, podraplexes, as well as other multifamily dwelling units that would be attached. Access is provided via New Public Street off Johnson-Aller, and then at the existing intersections of Morning, Dove, Land, and Song, Sparrow Lane. So those would align with existing intersections across the road. Does provide a pedestrian crossing with Rapid Fl beacon and striping across John Sinala to allow pedestrians to cross safely. Does commit to a 30 foot setback along John Sinala as well. And then a 25 foot wide buffer back towards the school and to the park. Also, a common open space would be a minimum 50 feet in width and have a maximum length of 500 feet. And it does provide preferred architectural design guidelines for those buildings that are adjacent to Johnsonaylor or that will have their orientation towards Johnsonaylor road. And also would not include any more than six units in a building that does front along Johnsonaylor road as well. So you'd have no more than six of those attached units along that frontage. As mentioned, staff does recommend approval to us, mouth-standing issues related to transportation to work through while it is inconsistent. There are several factors we look at in those situations, including some of the proximity to things like activity centers, schools, and other types of community uses and community serving uses, which this does have a very close proximity to some of those. So that is one of the reasons that staff does recommend to prove this. It is a unique piece of property here that's kind of wedged between the road and some schools and open space. And so an in-field project like this does seem to be generally appropriate in that kind of context. But again, particularly considering the proximity to the activity center there just to the west further up Johnson-Alarse. So with that, we'll turn it over to the petitioner as well as the community. We'll take any questions you may have following their presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Grant. Good evening, Mayor Pratton, members of Council, members of the Zoning Committee. Project Grant Land Use Consultant, Moore and Van Allen. It's a pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of to go to the site and I'm going to go to the site and I'm going to go to the site and I'm going to go to the site and I'm going to go to the site and I'm going to go to the site and I'm going to go to the site and I'm going to go to the site and I'm going to go to the site and I'm going to go to is 13.29 acres on Johnston, Ailer Road. A unique thing about this site is that the family has owned it for over 100 years. They, in fact, sold- to it. Our site as Dave mentioned is 13.29 acres on Johnston, Ailer Road. A unique thing about this site is that the family has owned it for over 100 years. They in fact sold the land to build the Robbins Glen neighborhood across the street some time ago. And this is the last part of the assemblage that they have. As Dave mentioned, the area is surrounded with a unique mix of zoning. It's definitely not all N1A. You can see on the map, there's There's a good bit of N2A, UR2, N1B. And if you look at the place type map, there is an activity center that's located within 1.25 miles. Staff and I often talk about how do you make the decision even before we go in for our pre-submitting. What's the appropriate zoning? What level makes the most sense in this location? So some of the factors that go into consideration are the fact that it's located within the 1.25 area miles of an activity center. It has great proximity to schools, parks, and other services. The road frontage, bike lanes, greenway connections, proximity to similar place types. It provides a transition between one place type and the next tier of intensity. There are funded infrastructure improvements in the area. The Mallard Creek road widening is funded and efforts have already begun on right-of-way acquisition. So it is moving forward. It also provides some community benefits. This is the overall layout. Sometimes it's just a little easier to see it in color. We had our first community meeting and our first round of staff comments and we were given a good bit of feedback and we tried to respond to all of it. So it was request that we decrease the density and we reduce the total number of units by 20. It was asked that we shift the buildings away from John Snaylor so we increase the set back to 30 feet. We've committed to build all of the units for sale. We've increased the buffer adjacent to the school from 10 feet up to 25 feet. And there's a commitment for a midlock crossing across Johnson Ailer that will provide safe access to both the park and the school. We did go back and have a second community meeting in collaboration with the D4 Coalition. We continued to have conversations with staff. So ultimately, after the second round of meetings, we showed this more detailed plan just to give everyone idea of how the form of the overall community would lay out rather than just the building bubble diagrams. We showed these illustrative images to give an idea of what the Mungo Homes product would look like in terms of quality, change of roof lines, the front door orientation that all of the units would be all el loaded. And during as a result of the second meeting in collaboration with not only the D4 coalition, some of the neighborhoods as well as the prosperity village association that we would cap the rentals, the number of units that could be rented from 25% down to 20%. We identified Munga as the builder. We confirmed that we have 53 guest parking spaces an additional teaching space, and then we're looking at over two acres of pocket parks with enhanced landscaping, seating areas, dog runs. We also deferred our petition for one month to allow time for additional feedback. I think all in all, we really appreciate all of the collaboration that went into working with the community. The D4 coalition confirmed that they are not opposed to this and prosperity village said and I quote, they're okay with it. When I look at the summary of everything that resulted from the conditional zoning benefits, I do want to point out that through this process, through community engagement, we reduce the number of units. We're providing a great mid block crossing to the park and to the school. That commitment to for sale is a high value in this area where they've seen a lot of rental community opportunities. We've made sure that we address the guest parking, the increased setbacks, the quality materials. And again, we'll continue to collaborate with the neighbors as needed. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I think- Thank you. Mr. Fals, if you could come down to the podium here to my right and you will have ten minutes upon your arrival. The one that Miss Grant was just that. Do I start? Whenever you're ready? Okay, I appreciate you having me here. My name is Michael Faust. I have lived in that neighborhood for 20 years. Robin's Glen, which is directly across the proposed development. I've been a resident in Charlotte since 1988. I attended college here as I did my wife. Who is a teacher? Charlotte MacConburg. I get that Charlotte is growing, I understand. I also understand that property will likely be developed in some way other than what exists there now, which is four houses, right? So I get that, I understand that. I kind of wanted to address the fact that there's, I'm the only speaker here. There is a lack of speakers here. We're a very kind of working class, middle class neighborhood. There's probably a lot of people that are still at work. They couldn't come to a meeting like this. I'm fortunate enough to be able to come. I know that emails have been sent, and we're working on a petition as well, to allow easier access for people to voice their concerns. But I think a lot of people feel like it's not going to matter if they come or not and I hate to say that, but that's the way most people in our neighborhood that I've spoken with feel. It won't matter what we say, it's gonna happen. So just thought I would address that the main concerns that I've been hearing from other people in neighborhood Through email and through conversations is the traffic This development is about a hundred yards from a tea intersection with Mallor so Johnson or T's with Mall Creek. Most mornings it backs up past the park. My wife has to be let out most of the time to get out of the neighborhood. And so do other residents. Literally it's stopped, traffic. You have to be let out to get out. And this will just add twice as many units as it's almost the same as what ours is, in terms of numbers of units. units. So you're just adding that much more at a choke point. It's my understanding that there hasn't been, you guys discussed this a little bit earlier. There hasn't been a traffic study since about 2022 or something like that. I know this doesn't meet the threshold for it based on the number of what do you call them, drives or whatever it is that you guys refer to. But we've had pretty much constant development on Johnston Oler for the last two or three years. Literally every day dump trucks up and down up and down up and down. It's constant development. And I think, as Ms. Johnson was saying, if you take the cumulative effect of that, all those developments combined would easily meet the threshold for a traffic study. And it's not like this one happened three years ago, and there's another, you know, they're not spread out. It's been perpetual development at that opposite end of Johnson and Older So that's one of our concerns Also the way Johnson and Older Road was redeveloped a while back They put in traffic circles down at that end and access points over to get to 45 and to get across Where you can go to there's shopping centers and other things on that side. On this end there's none of that. It's still a two-lane road and it's a two-lane road at a choke point. They talk about the widening of mallard creek but that's not going to make a difference in the choke point. You still run into even if it's a four-lane road, you're still running into it on Johnson Oler at a stoplight. So that's not going to make any difference. It might actually make it worse because more people will start using mallard Creek because it'll be a more appealing road for them. Even if you think that will make a difference, my understanding is also that that road widening is slated for 2031. So that's six years before that road will even be widened. So that's one of the concerns for traffic. The other major concern I hear from residents that I've spoken with is that it's out of character with the neighborhood. And if you look, and I print it out a whole bunch, because a lot of times when you look at some of the images that are shown from the developer or from other places, you see a tighter in image. But if you look at it from afar, it just, and I can give you these if you want. I mean, you can see all that development down here, but up here, there's none of that, right? And again, that, to me, is because the infrastructure was put in place down there to accommodate more of that development than there is right up at this end of Johnston, all the right where it meets with Malik Creek. They're proposing three store units. That will tower over our neighborhood. It will, I mean, I don't know what the height, I can't find what the actual height is anywhere. I believe, I forget what the, I looked up what the maximum height is for it, but I don't know what the actual height will be, but there are three story units. There is nothing in the area. The school is one story. The elementary school is one story. The community center is taller. The highest in our neighborhood are two smaller, two story homes. So it's going to be a large towering over our neighborhood. It's kind of inconsistent. If you look at an overview on Google Maps and I encourage you to do so, you will see all the other. There is a lot of development, but it's not on that end of the road. And I think there's a reason for that. So that was one of ours. I know that the pre-hearing analysis, and I don't know enough about zoning, but states that it is inconsistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the neighborhood one place type So that alone tells me that that wasn't initially what was they thought should be there, but you know, I don't again I don't know enough about zoning so It's also a very green space at that end of the road and that will you know that will destroy more of the green space There's already a ton of green space that's been destroyed. We have I-45 kind of back behind our neighborhood a little ways off. Since all that development has occurred, it is so much louder. You can hear 40-5. You can use to kind of get here, but you can't. So when you destroy the green space, you're affecting the quality of life for the residents there with just the noise. You can stand in Malachrite Park now and it sounds like you're standing next to 45. And I used to play soccer in that park all the time and it was very peaceful. So it's not quite as peaceful of a neighborhood, but that's how things go. One thing I want to do addresses is motivations. motivations and this is not a criticism of anybody, but the landowners' motivation is obviously to make as much money off of that land as possible. That's why they're selling it to a developer. The developer's motivation is to make as much money as possible from developing that land. And that's why the three story, right, because you can put more units so you can sell more so you can make more money. I understand that. That's their motivation to maximize their profit. And that to me is why these designs are up and not out. So I think that's correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's your responsibility to act as an arbitrator between the two, right? Because our motivation in the community is to keep the community as close. We like it the way it is, right? That's just natural but I think it's your responsibility to be an arbitrator between that and say well we're not just gonna rubber stamp your ability to maximize your profit and for the owner to maximize their profit we're gonna take into consideration what's already there how the community feels and what they would like in the quality of life for the residents that are already there I know Charlotte it's all about growth right now, but sometimes it feels like it's more about the people that they want to come or that are coming and less about the people that are already here or have been here. That's the way a lot of people feel, at least that I've spoken with. So, you know, I understand the developer will say, well, if we, you know, decrease this if we, you know, have to decrease the number of units because we make it smaller or if we made it single family, we'd, well, if we decrease this or if we have to decrease the number of units, because we make it smaller, if we made it single family, the market won't bear it. Can they? I mean, I don't know. Is it just that they can't maximize their profit, or is it just they can't make any money if they do that, or they have to raise the price? Do they have to raise the price, or do they just want to make as much money spot. So those are all concerns that we have. We have two minutes left. Okay. So, the other, and I had some concerns about the builder, and this is just because what I do for a living is I work for attorneys, and I do background, we help prepare them for trial. I looked up in South Carolina, South Carolina is a really easy state to look up court records. There's a lot of lawsuits against mongo homes. I didn't look at every single one but some of them are related to building and environmental concerns. That was a concern I had. And then some questions I had for the developer just in general. Because in the community meetings report the developer states the anticipated, quote, anticipated market is for first time home buyers. committed to them being for being for, you know, to be bought, purchased, owner occupied, I guess. They propose a 25% rental cap to allow residents for sort of unforeseen circumstances, you know, your job moves, you might have to rent your home while you're trying to sell it. That seems high to me. I, when the 20% that they went down to still seems high to me, I thought that was a minimum. 20% is still 29 homes or 29 people all going to have a life event at the same time that requires them to rent their homes. So some of the questions I had was what are the height, what is the height of those going to be? Will they commit to a lower cap than the 20%. And this was something that our district for neighborhood coalition meeting that we talked about was also putting a 12 month restriction on renting. That's a very common provision in HOAs. With obviously individual case by case, so if you, you know, your job did move you, you could, and you only lived there for six months, you could go to the HOA and say, hey, this is what happened in the HOA, that fine, you can rent it. So I'd like for them to commit to a 12 month restriction before you go rent. OK. And then what happens if they don't sell is anticipated? Well, they just change the HOA to allow a higher rental cap. Those are kind of questions we have, right? Because we do want it to be owner occupied. And the concern is that they'll just change it. that will commit to that, but then after the fact it will get changed. And next thing you know, it's turned into a complete rental community. So those are some of the. I mean, the concern is that they'll just change it. You know, they'll commit to that, but then after the fact it'll get changed. And next thing, you know, it's turned into a complete rental community. So those are some of the questions. I will leave it at that. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Miss Grant, you have two minutes for your rebuttal. There's a lot to unpack this. I'm just going to try to hit some of it quickly. We appreciate the process and think that we got a lot of great feedback out of the two community meetings and phone calls with a D4 coalition and prosperity village that helped us make all of those changes. And the question about the commitment to them, they are in fact conditions of the rezoning. So we can't change this from a four-sale community to a rental community and its commitment to four-sale. The reason we put the 20% cap in, and that's kind of a market rate practice, it gives people the opportunity in times of economic change or crisis or job loss or loss of a loved one, you're able to rent your home. And so it gives a home buyer the ability to be able to rent if in fact they need to. Another thing that he had on was the anticipated word. It's because we can't commit to every home buyer being an absolute first home buyer. So the product type that they're building, the type of amenities that we're including in the neighborhood, the size of the homes and the location, make us believe that it's market ready for our first-time home buyer. That's what we anticipate and that's what they bank on when they're identifying the types of homes that they're trying to build. But we can't guarantee that it's absolutely a first-time home buyer. That's just essentially why we use that terminology. In terms of infrastructure in the area, the Mallorcaic road widening will assist and help with some of the stacking that occurs on Johnson Oler by increasing the capacity along that corridor and your ability to make turns out on to Mallorcaic. I think that the amount of development in the area speaks to the fact that NC DOT has funded it. I think that sometimes NC DOT and other transportation and improvements are reactive. And this road widening is in response to that. You have 20 seconds. I can go ahead and leave it there. Oh, the maximum building height is by ordinance. 48 feet is the maximum height in all residential zoning districts and we're all the end ones. And we're sticking with that. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I have Ms. Edgmira and then Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. I'll start with staff. So first on the height. So Speaker had mentioned that Mr. Foster had mentioned that this is a three-story unit. So and I see surrounding neighbourhoods mostly single-family homes. I'm trying to figure out how would this look, would this development be towering over single-family? So do we have a view for that? God, answer your question. First, do we have a view? We don't have a view, I don't know if the petitioners provided any kind of renderings. We're also dealing with some technical issues on our projector right now, which is why that's down. So hopefully we'll get that back up here shortly. As the petitioner mentioned, 48 feet is the height. We don't measure it by story, so it could be a two-story 48 foot building or three-story. A 48 feet would be the max height for that. And if there are any kind of renderings or ways to display graphically what that looks like across Johnson-Aller, juxtaposed to the houses that are over on the other side of the road in the neighborhood across the street there. That'd be something if the petitioner could put that together. That would be, I think, something that could be beneficial for everybody to kind of see what that may look like. Yes, I think that would be helpful. So Mr. Patten, under current zoning, which is N Monet, what would be the max height? 48. 48. OK, so they are requesting the same. Yeah, yeah. OK, so regardless of the rezoning, the height would still be allowed even by right to build up to 48 feet. That's correct. Yeah. I looked at just some of the renderings that's attached to our rezoning petition. And just from looking at it, I do understand Mr. Fost concerns around out of character, specifically going from 39 single family homes to over 145 multifamily units. Primarily this location being single family home, it does concern me. Can you speak about green space? I don't think you had an opportunity to speak about that in your rebuttal, but if you can just talk about green space, that would be great. Unfortunately, I can't pull my presentation back up, but I believe up the top of my head, we had over two and a half acres of open space. We tried to use open spaces, we say, describe it as an organizing element for the site plan. We also have the opportunity to really capitalize on outdoor recreation by the fact that we're adjacent to the park. One of the things we did to offset height also increased open space was increased the size of our setback away from the road. So that moved the homes further away from Johnson-Oller and that softens the relationship between existing buildings also created more open space. So one of our goals was to try to leave pockets of usable open space throughout the community and increase the buffer so you would have a better experience of open space and green space on the periphery. Well, I look forward to working with the district council member to hear her thoughts and community's concerns because I do understand that a lot of community members that can't make it to 5 p.m. zoning meeting, especially when we're dealing with traffic throughout the city. So I look forward to hearing more and hopefully we can come to some resolution before the decision next month. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. David, staff, I just have one question I think it was a little disturbing. Is the vehicle generation? I mean the existing use is 40 trips per day. The entitlement is 424 trips per day. This proposed rezoning is 1,000 five trips per day. So my first question, why wasn't a traffic study triggered? I mean, that's, I don't know what the sentence that is, but that is, that's a tremendous impact for us not to have a traffic study. So King, yeah, I can turn it over to folks to see that to discuss what those thresholds are. But yeah, be happy to turn over then. Good evening. So for individual developments, the threshold can change based on what the zoning is and where the location is. In this case, looking at a traffic study would come in somewhere between 1500 and 2000 trips. So that's our ordinance threshold for when we can require one. So 1000 is below what our ordinance requirements are for an individual development. Is that under the new UDL? Yes. Okay. So it's 1500 to 2000 trip. Okay. Yes. Thank you, M Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you. And Mr. Carpenter, if you could stay there, that's pretty interesting because you have a multiple effective, you know, two to three X of what the entitlement is. So very interesting, Mr. Mitchell, around the proposed trips. The question that I have is that Mr. Falsett brought up, we recognize that this road, Johnston Euler, is it arterial road? Is that correct? Yes. And there have been some roadaries installed at a certain part of that road. Can you just share, are there any plans with C.D. or N.C.D. to make any adjustments to the balance of that road, potentially adding new arterials or doing any additional traffic calming flowing measures? So the roundabouts at the western and kind of closer to the prosperity area have been done as part of various capital projects. The balance of Johnson, Ola Road, and the vicinity of these developments is built to what this city has identified as its final full cross-section. let's say what we call it two plus avenue. So two lanes and a center turn lane, as well as bike lanes. So that it is built at its current time to its full cross section. There may be traffic calming or other measures identified over time, but there's no plans for additional widening or other projects along this corridor. There are multiple pedestrian related projects being installed. The current development proposes crossing in front of their frontage, but also to the west, close to the high school. There is a pedestrian signal being installed in the near future that should be operational this year. Okay, thank you, Ms. Jalton. Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fowse. You did a great job of speaking. Thank you, I know you've been talking a lot, so thank you. And I also, and Jake, if you'll stay there, thank you. And thank you, Bridget. I appreciate you're working with the community and adding all of those concessions. My question is for staff. I have been working closely with staff, I want to thank Holly and Jake also. I gave my colleagues a copy of a map with recent development. I know you all can't see this in district four and I wanted to have a copy overhead but we're having technical difficulties. But this is what I'm talking about when I talk about cumulative impact. And this is what our residents feel. So while this petition is only going to increase the trips by I think a thousand, I ask you earlier, do we know the number of units that have been developed since 2022 and or the number of trips that have increased in this area since 2022. I'd have to refer to my colleagues in planning on the number of units. I don't have that information. We do have some, we have traffic counts in the area that have been updated, both C. and CDOT, he do yearly or by annual traffic counts. So we do have some measure of how much traffic has changed over the past three years. There's been some increase along Johnson and the road as well as Mallorquic, but we don't have necessarily available the number of trips by unit count available with as something we could provide to you. Do you have an idea like a percentage or anything that you could share tonight? There's a few different traffic counts in this area. I think in that 2022 study the ADT was somewhere, the daily traffic was somewhere around 5,000 and I think in that 2022 study, the ADT was somewhere, the daily traffic was somewhere around 5,000, and I think the most recent counts, there was some at the end of 2024 in September, showed a traffic count in the range of 6,000 I think, ADT. Okay. So, I gave my colleagues a copy of all of the development in District 4, and this doesn't include 20, 24. I can email you that as well, but this is what the residents are feeling. And there's no plan to improve Johnson-Alor because it is, it's currently at, how did you say it's the way it was designed or it meets the vision in that area? Yes, it's the full cross section of what the city has envisioned for this road. So again, I appreciate the developer working with the community. They've done everything, or they've done a lot, right? And District 4 Coalition, I wanna give them a shout out as usual. I feel like they're really raising the standard for development in District 4. But I hear Mr. Faust and I hear the residents that have emailed me, and I'll share them with my colleagues. We've received numerous emails, and the residents want to be heard because they're not able to get out of their community. So what do we as a council do in that situation? And it's not holding the developer hostage to talk about the impact of growth in the area. we're called to do. So I'm going to continue to work with the developer, but I really want my colleagues and I don't, if you all could see this, I mean this is just how the residents, this is their daily life. And we have to be very conscientious of the quality of life for our current residents. We are charged to lead for the future. But we need to manage for the current situation and for the quality of life for our current residents. So I'll continue to work with the resident, I mean with the developer and the residents, perhaps if we can have another community meeting with the Robins, Glyn's subdivision specifically. and I'll, we'll be talking more, okay. Thank you. Move to close. Set, okay. Yeah, thumbs in motion in a second. Miss Johnson, before we vote, I will say that this is a very helpful map of your district to see in addition to the Resonings but the by-Rite development as well, which of course does not come in front of Council. And so we don't really have immediate visibility into it. It would be interesting to see a similar map for the remaining districts. All of the districts. And I think that this and I've said this before, this should be able to be accessed at a moment's notice. Someone needs to track, hopefully someone's tracking this development because this is what the neighbors are feeling. So here's a coffee for anyone who wants it, but this is the district 4 map and does not include the 2024 rezoning. So I think we should be asking these questions because this is we we've talked about the infrastructure and Perhaps there are areas that there's just No more room for development if there's not going to be improvement and the traffic is what it is we have to ask those tough questions So thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to close public hearing all in favor raise hands any opposed that is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to close public hearing. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you. We will move on to agenda item number 18. Petition number 2024146 by Panther Stadium, LLC. The location is approximately 25.3 acres. Mayor Bolton. I believe that there's a technical difficulty with respect to getting the presentations up on the big screen. Would you all mind taking a recess, so staff can sort, can work this out? Absolutely. Is there a Mr. Petton? Is there a viable path to resolving this issue or is it just simply an issue that we have to deal with? That's what we're trying to determine. So we're trying to figure out if we can get it to that TV, which I don't think we can. So we're trying to come up with some other solutions, but I don't know if we've got a good answer for you on what that solution may be at the moment. Okay. Okay. Okay. We just need to recess for a few minutes so we can assess what's going on and try to reconvene when we can get something back up for the public. Okay, so we can take a 10 minute recess and it is 622. We will return at 632. Thank you. It's something that... It's a little pile of snake in it. It's like a... Here, my motor. I'm sorry. The location is approximately 25.3 acres located east of West Moorhead Street, north of South Mint Street and west South Graham Street, and District 2, Mr. Graham's District. The current zoning is UC. The proposed zoning is UCEX. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation, and building design design, and environment as well as requested technical revisions. After staff's presentation, Mr. Jeff Brown and Mr. Al Austin will have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. The site is just over 25 acres located in third ward of uptown along Mint Graham and Morehead streets. Site is currently sound uptown core. They are requesting a type of conditional petition, an exception petition for the uptown core zoning district. This request is consistent with the policy maps recommendation for the regional activity center police type. The exception conditional petition allows petitioners to request flexibility from quantitative and certain qualitative zoning standards and exchange through offering public benefits. And two out of three categories, sustainability, public minity and city improvements. The proposal itself would propose to allow for all UC uses, including stadium practice facility, training facilities, life performance venues, among others. Sorry, excuse me. So a lot of notes on this. One, the petitioners shall provide publicly accessible open space areas to be maintained at a minimum of 25% or greater than full ordinance requirements for the publicly accessible open space that accounts for the public community category of their public benefit. Would include elements such as pedestrian scale viding, seating, and other amenities for that public plaza space. It would also have a minimum size of 1,500 square feet, minimum dimension of 25 feet in any direction. Location in the area is made shift as development takes place or activities and operations are adjusted throughout the lifecycle of the site. Such areas shall be closed periodically due to security and safety needs of associated events in the site. The petitioner would also offer city improvement category public benefits and they would offer two pedestrian pathway connections. The first of which would be a 10 foot pedestrian pathway connection between Morehead Street and Street which, which shall be accessible to the public via With limited restrictions. And there would also be a near adjusted construction of a minimum 10 foot shared use path connection As a continuation of the shared use path connection from the Panthers practice facility site. That would extend from the existing tunnel under the railroad underpass to connect to Graham Street. That would be dependent on some physical constraints. but a pass shall be accessible to the public with limited restrictions as well. Based off those standard events. If the petitioner is unable to provide these first priority city improvement pedestrian pathways due to factors beyond their control, they've identified some alternative benefits that they would be providing, which would include providing sidewalk improvements to support pedestrian mobility, along to here in a 50 feet of existing substandard sidewalk along the Duke Energy substation. They would also improve sidewalk to six feet in width and they would also commit to install pedestrian crossing improvements to Grand Street. Requests, ex-prophesions to site and building standards, including the built-to's and decreasing build to percentage to 50% decreasing minimum building height to 10 feet for smaller accessory structures. Increasing maximum building link to 1500 feet, increasing bling wall area to 40 feet, decreasing minimum ground floor height to 10 feet for those smaller accessory structures. Increasing maximum prominent entry spacing to 500 feet, decreasing ground and upper floor transparency. Also have an ex-provision to increase max height of some luminaires and delaying extinguishing time from an hour to four hours. Requesting ex-provision to allow maneuvering service parking, driveways, and circulation to be reconfigured on the site. Would not increase in size, but maybe located within that, establish that back, but not within the required setback. Request any exprision related to maximum distance of bicycle parking permit, building entrance. Request any exprision to allow parking structure option design option D. Also request provisions related to signage, please advertising operations, electronic science, related to numbered signs, number and size of these ground signs, size and location, well-mounted signage size of ribbon-bored, size and location of entrance vault, tunnel signage banner size, size limitation of flags. Requests e-exquisitions for street standards. With notes that the existing curb line for the westernmore heads street frontage shall remain, rather than relocated so that the future back of curb is 30 feet from the center line. And Graham Street and Mint Streets would require a 10 foot sidewalk and 8 foot of Minty's end with tree grates from the existing back of the curve. The additional would provide 10 foot sidewalk with the flexibility to provide alternative planting additions such as planting strips that vary a little bit and width. Commence to provide a maximum of 44 short term bicycle parking spaces. Notice that the additional May seek administrative approval of the master's signage package for the site. And provides a couple of transportation commitments. Note street street escape improvements to Westmorehead as new development occurs across the site. Transportation improvements would be completed prior to May 31st, 2030. Street escape improvements along Westmore has streets, shall be constructed before certificate occupancy is issued for new building expansions or new buildings of 20,000 square feet or greater within development areas B1 or B2. Street escape or transportation of previous along Metangram shall be constructed before certificate occupancy is issued for new building expansions or new buildings of 20,000 square feet or greater within development areas A1 or B4. That pretty much covers it for our actual conditional notes there. Staff recommends approval of the petition upon resolution about sending issues regarding transportation, site and building sign, environment as well as requested technical revisions. Development such as stadiums and their associated facilities result in unique zoning scenarios that challenge our typical ordinance requirements and prompt innovative solutions to contend with those regulatory limitations. Exceptional conditions offer a mechanism to flex those quantitative and limited qualitative zoning and street scapes standards and should be a reserve of situations like these where Accentuating circumstances make meeting those ordinance standards in undue burden The existing and proposed facilities have a typical Building designs that do not adhere to the base standards for the UCs any district The petition Commits to several public benefits in exchange for the requested eX provisions the Publicly accessible open space and production and pathways will enhance the public use of the site and functionality across the site while extending mobility options to the surrounding areas. And I'll take questions following the commissioner comments. Thank you. Mr. Brown. Mr. Austin. Ms. Wright. Mr. DuLittle, you have three minutes. I can Mayor Partim and members of council. It's a pleasure to be here assisting Tepper Sports and Entertainment on the stadium rezoning. We'll be we'll be short here, but I want to thank staff Holly, Dave Patton, Brandon Brazil and Jake Carpenter we're still working hard on staff issues, and we're very optimistic we'll also be able to provide good resolution for the shared use path. Want to thank also very much former Council Member Al Austin, who's in the audience, as you saw, as a strong leader, not only of Council, but also in the third ward neighborhood, and we've had a continued great engagement with council member, former council member Austin. Let me turn this over to Caroline Wright who is the chief venues officer for Tepper Sports Entertainment. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Anderson and members of council and the zoning committee. I'm Caroline Wright Enduse Officer, Tupper Sports Entertainment, and I'm pleased to be here tonight for the stadium rezoning. As staff mentioned, this is a largely technical rezoning, and I want to emphasize our commitment to making this facility a sport and entertainment gathering place that the entire community can be proud of for many years to come. I want to thank Council Member Graham, who represents District 2, and was active on the practice facility rezoning last year, and the rezoning of Bank of America Stadium. Council Member Graham participated in our recent community meeting held at the stadium, as well as Council Member Lewanda Mayfield. The rezoning is a necessary step for the first part of the renovation of Bank of America Stadium that will occur in phases. We appreciate the continued partnership with the city on the stadium improvements and the rezoning of the Carolina Panthers practice facility. Throughout all of this, we've continued to be a thoughtful and considerate in our approach. We have very much enjoyed the opportunity to engage with members of the community and continue to work with third-war community leaders throughout the process, including, as mentioned, Al Austin, who is the interim president of the Third War Association and who is here in support. During a community meeting held in February at Bank of America State, and we were able to gather feedback from community members, which continue to inform this process. Based on these conversations, we understand the importance of the modernization of the shared use path and continue to work with process. Based on these conversations, we understand the importance of the modernization of the shared use path and continue to work with C.Dod and other stakeholders on the pedestrian improvements. We also continue to work closely with planning staff on the remaining items and commit to that. As mentioned, the rezoning is a critical first step forward in allowing our plans to go forward as we get it to permitting. And we want to thank Mayor Pro Tem, Anderson and members of Council for your support to date. And we look forward to your continued partnership benefiting the City of Charlotte and the Carolinas. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Any comments? Mr. Drinks. I don't have a question. I just want to say we appreciate our partnership with Tepper Sports as well. And I do want to acknowledge former councilmember Austin, who I don't think anybody here at the day has served with. I did. You did, that's right. I just want to welcome you out. Very distinguished, gracious councilmember. It was a joy to work with him and it's nice to see you tonight. And well dressed. I worked on a campaign, does that count? Yeah, and that voice, woo me, woo me voice. Mr. Austin, you've been here a few times. I'm not sure if you want to make this a regular habit of coming on my next. I'm very asked.. I'm not welcome. Miss Wright, I do want to echo the sentiments of Mr. Drake's, I think, the Panther organization, not only for the presence in the community, but the partnership. You all do so much behind the scenes in terms of investment in community and making sure that kids who don't have an opportunity to see games, get the see games, and to make sure that you have that reach that goes deep and wide and you don't too do a horn about that at all. I just want to greatly appreciate the temple organization for that level of commitment. Okay, we have, well we we'll come around. I have Ms. Edgamerra, I have Ms. Johnson, and then I have Mr. Graham. All right, thank you, Ms. Anderson. I appreciate the work between the community, especially Third Ward neighborhood, and petition on all the work that's been done to come to this point. I certainly appreciate it. It's not every day where we see this level of collaboration and partnership. So certainly it speaks of volume of the community engagement that you all have done. I certainly appreciate the leadership of Mr. Austin. And when he was on council, he was certainly very collaborative. He got me up to speed on a lot of things. He used to sit right next to me. And I appreciate how you used to walk me through some of the rezoning petition. And here I am on the other side now. But you're still the best dressed man as you as you were when you were on council That's all I have thank you. Thank you miss Johnson. Thank you And I want to applaud the temper sports and also the third ward community group led by mr. Austin former council member As well on the plot and I want to thank our Austin publicly many of you don't mayor know. When I moved here, I reached out to City Council members as a new resident. And I didn't know where my district was. And Al wasn't even my council member. We found out afterwards. But he met me and he served me and he helped me. And he truly, truly walked his talk. So I worked on his campaign and met some folks. And so he's the reason that I'm sitting here today. So I just want to acknowledge you and thank you for the work that you continue to do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Well, I'm not going to say anything, get about an hour, my fraternity brother. Because his head is already swollen. But I'm going to get back to the rezoning Okay. Um, for four seconds. Four seconds. And I too echo the collaboration and the partnership between Terpris Fortune and Entertainment and the city of Shawl, specifically relating around the two rezoning. This is our second one. And Ms. Green, who's also with us tonight, and Ms. White has certainly been accessible to me as well as to the staff and to resolving any outstanding issues. They also have been very accessible to the community. And there's one issue that I know that we are receiving email about that they are still continually working on it is not as kind of complicated right because there are a lot of hurdles that has to be cleared to ensure that whatever happens there that safety is the first and not most concern relating to the access for players, the curve on Graham Street, the substation, the rail line. So they acknowledge those issues, and are willing and have been working with staff since January, I think, to ensure that they fulfill the obligation that they made. So look forward to supporting it again next month when we vote on it. And certainly enjoy the partnership. And certainly, Ms. Austin is a deal to this community for sure. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional comments? Move to close. Second. All right, hearing none, we have a motion to close in second. All in favor, raise hands. Any opposed? That's unanimous, thank you. We will move on to agenda item number 19, petition number 2024-064 by J.F. Lawrence Properties, LLC. The location is approximately 7.59 acres located along the north side of Shopton Road, east of Still Creek. Any ETJ closest to District 2 for the Board of County Commissioners, Miss Leakes District, as well as closest to District 3 Council Member Brown's District. The current zoning is N1A, A&DO, proposed zoning is NL2CD, A&DO, and N1ACD, A&DO. Staff recommend approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to site and building design as well as the environment. After staff's presentation, Ms. Holland will have three minutes. Ms. Holland, if you would like to make your way to the podium, you're welcome to do so. Thank you. This site is approximately 7.59 acres located along the north side of Shopton Road, east of Steal Creek Road. It is currently developed with a contractor office with outdoor storage which has been operating illegally, position seeks to bring the site into compliance with the UDO. Current zoning is N1A, ANDO. Propos zoning is ML2CD, ANDO, and N1ACD, ANDO. The 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type. The proposal would establish two zoning districts for the site, with ML2 CD along Shopton Road and N1ACD to the rear of the site. It will allow for 9500 square feet of non-residential uses. Limit building height to 80 feet. Allow for all uses permitted in the ML2 CD zoning district with the exception of automobile service stations, automotive repair garages, junkyards, petroleum storage facilities, landfills, quarries, and adult establishments. To establish a 65 foot class A landscape yard where adjacent to CG zoning and N1A zoning, and a 25 foot class B landscape you are where Jason to I to CD zoning. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution about standing issues related to site and building design and the environment. And I want to just highlight a couple of those outstanding issues. One is that the staff will prefer the entirety of the site to be brought under one zoning district, the ML2 CD, zoning district and also that we would like to see the proposed outdoor storage area displayed on the site plan to ensure that we have appropriate distance in compliance with the UDO from adjacent property boundaries. The petition is inconsistent with the policy map recommendation for N1 play site. However, the petition follows four similar adjacent petitions, which also rezoned N1 properties to allow for industrial uses. The rear portion of the site closest to residential uses along Gerald Drive would remain as a tree-safe area. A 65-foot-class Alaskan P.R. is required, where adjacent to CG and N1A zoning along the western property boundary. And the location of the site being adjacent to industrial zoning, and within the airport the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door to the door property boundary. And the location of the site being adjacent to industrial zoning and within the airport and noise disclosure overlay makes it less suitable for residential development as currently zoned. And I'll be happy to take questions following the petitioner's presentation. Thank you, Ms. Holland, you have three minutes. Hi there, I'm Stephanie Holland. I don't really have a ton to add to staff presentation. I do have a site plan. There we go. This is the site plan that we revised in response to staff comments. There are a couple things that were mentioned tonight that we have not addressed in this plan but for the most most part, the comments that we received were very minor. And so, the petitioner would agree to reduce the building height to 40 feet. Really all of the staff comments we intend to comply with. This is, as mentioned, it is ML2 in the front, which is consistent with the parcels. See if I can do this. Here which are industrial as well. And then one of the reasons for leaving the portion in the back as in one is it's relatively consistent with these parcels here as well as the concern from the neighbor to the rear about impact of stormwater for their, I believe there's a creek or a storm water pond. And the N1 and the tree save would really help to keep that area as natural as possible. I don't have much else to add, but this is, we can certainly comply with the outdoor storage. I understand that that's a concern and the petitioner intends to seek a variance after this at the request of the staff. Thank you. Any comment or question? Miss Agimir? Yes, thank you. So the front portion of this site would be used as storage facility and the back will continue to be N1A, which is the single family. So the front portion would continue to be used as a contractor office. There's several, I think there's three or four buildings on site that are currently used as a contractor office. It's just contractor office made outdoor storage. Correct. It's currently a landscape maintenance facility. That's where the landscape maintenance company operates from. So as a nature of them doing landscape work, they have outdoor storage. So that outdoor storage would be, it has been requested to be moved further from this property line in the corner. Currently most of the outdoor storage sits about here. So we had worked with staff on a plan that showed the outdoor storage in this corner. And we can certainly work with them on those revisions for the second submittal. So to follow up on that, Ms. Anderson, just wanted to follow up on that. So the contractor office with outdoor storage already operates there. So I guess I'm just trying to figure out, so is it to bring it into compliance? Okay, so this was a rezoning violation. I mean, zoning violation. So now, okay, God. Okay, make sense. Okay, so this is really a no-brainer. We are just trying to get it into compliance so that it can continue to operate as a contractor office without or storage facility. I don't If there are no other questions, move to close. Sorry. Go. Okay. Motion in second. All in favour, raise hands. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you, Ms. Hollitt. We will move on to agenda item number 20. Potician number 2024, 073 by CLT Operations Holdings, LLC. The location is approximately 1.519 acres located along the north side of Allegheny Street and West Side of Ashley Road and South of Lamboro Street in District 3, Miss Brown's District District. The current zoning is B1 CDANDO. Proposed zoning, CGCDANDO. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon outstanding resolutions related to environment and technical revisions related to site and building design after staff's presentation. Mr. Murray will have three minutes. Thank you. Good evening. Petition 2020-4-073 is located along the north side of Allegheny Street, west of Ashley Road, south of Limburg Street, site's approximately 1.519 acres and is vacant out parcel. The current zoning is B1CD, A&D, and they're pro business conditional airport noise disclosure overlay. Pro zoning is CGCD, A&D, general commercial conditional airport noise disclosure overlay. 24-year policy map recommends the commercial place type for the site. CG District is consistent with this place type. A little background. The previous B1 CD rezoning plan permitted all commercial office and personal service uses allowed in the B1 zoning district with the exception of fast food restaurants. Puzzle calls for a 4,000 square foot commercial use with an accessory drive through. Maximum building height is limited to 50 feet. Eight foot sidewalk and eight foot planting strip will be provided along the site's front to gizzle on both Allegheny and Ashley roads. Parking and drive through areas will be screened from view from adjacent streets. Access to site will be primarily provided from full movement shared private driveways. No new access points to public streets will be constructed. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution about seeing issues related to environment and a technical revision regarding site and building design. As the petition is consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for the commercial place type, the current entitlements allow for commercial uses, drive-throughs are permitted by right under prescribed conditions in the CG district. The site is located along arterial streets, pedestrian improvements are proposed, and the site has access to multiple bus routes. Happy to take any questions following Mr. Murray's presentation. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Murray. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, Council, Zoning Committee. David Murray, attorney here for the petitioner. I have a presentation. I'll go through quickly. The purpose of this resounding is for a new Zaxby's restaurant to be located at this site. This previous max, it's not going forward for tonight. Thank you. The previous zoning on this site is 25 years old and it is remained vacant since that time This is an out parcel in front of a food line and so this plan proposes to allow a QSR a fast food restaurant to be located here We did a Transportation study on the site. Can you? Okay, sorry, it's not going forward for me. We did a TIS on the site and C.DOT determined that some improvements at the intersection would be needed for accessible pedestrian crossings. So we're going to contribute those as part of this development. There are no new driveways proposed. This is a large site for fast food restaurant with the intention to keep all the vehicles coming into the site. So that there's no concerns about backup vehicles outside on public streets. So everything will come into the food lion existing driveways onto this site and enter through the drive through as well as the restaurant building that's on site. So I'm happy to answer any questions and we look forward to your support. We appreciate it. I have a question for you. It is interesting this is a fast casual restaurant, right? But there's no driveway, drive-through being proposed. It is a drive-through. There is a drive-through. There is a drive-through. Okay. I thought you said there was no drive-through. Yes, there is a drive-through. There's no new drive ways being proposed. So we are not cutting new entrances. We are using what's existing to bring vehicles into the food line development, which will keep vehicles from ever risking of stacking out on Allegheny or on Ashley Road. Got you. I had some questions about the fast-cattle model. That's absolutely right. The drive-through, so, okay, got you. And this particular property has been vacant for over 20 years or nearly 20 years? For approximately 25 years. I believe it was originally a Bilo and Bilo had some out parcels and out parcels just never developed. And so this is a great location for a development. There's a new townhome development going up directly across the street from this. So there will be a new opportunity across the street for a restaurant. I'm familiar with the location. It's interesting that you only had three community members at the meeting. Can you just talk about, speak about the community outreach that you've done thus far? Yes, we did have the head of the local community association attend, and so she's been very active with me and council member Brown. We've emailed multiple times about this project. as well the owner of the Food Lion Location Shopping Center attended as well as Mr. Drakeford whose townhome development is across the street. So the most interested parties were able to attend our community meeting. Okay, thank you. Any additional comments? Ms. Ashmal? Thank you. Do you have a site plan? Yes, we do. I don't know. So, you know, oftentimes with drive-thrues, we see that even though there is a lot of space within this I guess internally, but whenever there is a rush hour You see the lines out the In on public street, right so That's what we're seeking to avoid here. I have the site plan up So if you're coming off Allegheny, you take a right turn into the food line Yeah, where can you use? Yes, I'll use my pointer. So if we come off Allegheny Street, this is the existing drive as it exists today to go to the food line up to the north. The new driveway, there's also an existing driveway from the food line into the site from the north. We're gonna keep that open and connect to it. But if you're coming in, you will come in, take a right, and then you can go into the drive-through and around the side. Staff wanted our locate, our building, to be at the corner, to activate the corner here, so that it's not just a drive-through lane, it's not just parking. So our restaurant will be what you see at the corner, instead of driving and parking. And then the parking is all internal to the site. The one thing I'll also note about this site is because it's a big site for a fast food restaurant. There's a lot of open space. So there's open space here in the corner. There's open space here in the back. And then there's an option if it works out to have some outdoor seating areas in the front at the corner. And then the new accessible pedestrian crossings are at all four corners of the intersection of Ashley and Allegheny to help facilitate pedestrians. And one other thing I'll point out here that's nice about being at the corner is if pedestrians are walking to this, they do not have to cross over any drive-thru line or any driveway into the site. So it's very walkable. Yes, no, I appreciate the design here, where you also have some pedestrian improvements. So is there going to be walk up window? There are the new plan for Zaxby's. If I press this and it doesn't go too fast, I've had a delay here. Does have a walk up window option on the front, yes. OK, that's great. Because if you have seating arrangements, it makes sense to have walk up window as well as you got walking improvements So you're making it more walkable. Well, that's great. So you said this is XB. Yeah, this is XB's yes Well, that's all I have. Thank you We can go did you have a comment? Okay, mr. Drake's and then miss what like it? have a comment? I thought I saw your head you don't know I do I had a couple of things the first one is Looting the what may approach him and said I'd love to see Another connection with Camp Green and Ashley Park neighborhood associations I'm sure the council member Brown is on top it, but that would be something that I'd love to see an outcome because I do know that they meet pretty actively, so there may be opportunity for you to go to them because they've got a lot of participation in their regular community meetings, the Western Hills neighborhood as well. There was that, and then my other question was, had you given any thought as it relates to ongoing operations and maintenance of the property? One of the things that we see related to land use and security is that particular establishments often have a hard time managing some of the things that are occurring on their properties in certain zones and so I wanted to know if the petitioner had a strategy around operating and maintaining? Oh, one of the things that Westerly Hills community brought up was some concerns about loitering at the food line parking lot. And so fortunately, the food line rep or the owner of that development was on. And so we brought up that they have a security team that's out there that we're going to get in communication with. And see if there's those type of issues that may come up, but we're in contact with that developer because we want to work together with them on that. Sure. And that does have some effect on the potential outdoor seating. Sure and so to the extent that there is any kind of ongoing communication with the community officers or any kind of strategy I'll be very interested in seeing that as well. Okay thank you. If more to close. Second. Okay. I have a motion of close public carrying the second all in in favor of raise hands, any opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you. We'll move on to agenda item number 21, petition number 2024106 by Drakeford Communities. The location is approximately 5.83 acres located along the north side of Rocky River Road, west of Pickerling Drive and South of Bat Creek Drive. In District 4, Miss Johnson's District, the current zoning is in 1A, proposed zoning is into ACD. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to the environment. After staff's presentation, Mr. Brown and Mr. Drake will have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. The site is just under six acres, the north of Rocky River Road, east of Old Concord Road, and west of East of New York. Here is Bullard. The immediate area has a mix of single family as well as multi-family residential developments as well as some commercial uses in a Duke energy facility just to the north of the site. Property is currently so neighborhood one A and they are proposing to go to neighborhood two A conditional which is inconsistent with a 2040 policy maps recommendation for neighborhood one at this site. The proposal itself is for up to 65 months family attached dwelling units. Limits to no more than five units per building, so be town homestrialled units. Proposed a 12 foot wide multi use path and eight foot planting strip along the frontage of Rocky River Road. Aso the Greenway Path, vehicular access is via private alley network to each of the units. Dedicated to the area back to Greenway to Parks and Reg Department. Provides a 25 foot classy landscape yard that's typically a 10 foot classy landscape yard that would be along the Western portion of the property line adjacent to those single family homes. Open space areas. Woodkins is of a minimum of three or more of the following components that includes enhanced planting specialty paving materials, shading elements, shading options, minimum of 20 foot dimension in all directions, public art and sculptures, and decorative lighting. Contributes $25,000 to the Back Creek Church HOA for the purposes of traffic improvements of the intersection of Rocky River Road and an A7T Harris Boulevard and or other neighborhood improvements in accordance with the Charlotte Department of Transportation and provides enhanced architectural and design standards. Staff recommends the approval of the petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to the environment and although inconsistent with the adopted place site for the property, the request proposes uses that is similar to the existing and developing multi-family uses in the vicinity of the property. The petition also goes beyond typical ordinance requirements and providing a 25 foot rather than 10 foot classly landscaped yard where the but single family uses. Enhanced standards are also provided regarding immunitized open space and preferred architectural standards. The petition may enhance mobility in the area with the commitment to provide a connection to the back grid greenway. That's almost that $25,000 to traffic improvements. And I'll take any questions while the petitioner comments. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, Council members, sending committee members Colin Brown. I'm gonna have the petitioner by the Drakeford is here as well in the audience, since my clicker's not working, maybe if we could just, I don't just do a few up there, maybe advance like slide 11, and I'll try to just work off this. Holly had a pretty comprehensive overview, looking at a town home in Phil site. If our slide does pop up, I'll show you that maybe two years ago we had a rezoning essentially right next to this, where the Drakeford company received approval for a town home community. That's... Our slot does pop up. I'll show you that maybe two years ago, we had a rezoning essentially right next to this, where the Drakeford company received approval for a town home community. That's kind of serving as phase one. This will be phase two. If you could see the map, you would see there's an industrial development behind us where Duke is. This serves as a nice transition between that and single-family neighborhoods. We had a good turnout at the neighborhood meeting, 15, 20 or so people. So that's gone well. And then we continue to have conversations with the Back Creek Neighborhood Association. That's where some of that additional commitment to some funds for some transportation improvements have been planned. Also, I think folks are looking forward to seeing the multi-use path completed. So happy to don't have any visual aids, but happy to take questions. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Colin. So the previous petition was out right outside the farm subdivision. Right next door. So there's the Duke driveway kind of will separate. We're kind of calling it phase one and phase two. Just been in nice development, it's been adopted. Well, I think the committee likes it. And so I think that's why folks are comfortable with this almost as a phase two. Yeah, and I will say that Mr. Drakeford has worked very closely with the community just a little history, that petition before Mr. Drakeford purchased it or developed on it. There was a lot of community opposition. So Mr. Drakeford came in and met with the community so they've been welcoming so I'm I welcome and appreciate look forward to supporting. Excellent. Second. All right. Motion of closing second. All in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. We will move on to agenda item number 22, petition number 2024-1100 by Florene Development Group. The location is approximately 51.78 acres located east of Claude Freeman Drive, north of David Taylor Drive, and west of Senator Royale Drive. And district four, Ms Johnson's district, Ms Johnson, you're on a roll tonight. Current zoning is O1CD and RE3O. Proposed zoning is CAC1EX. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution about standing issues related to building standard and required technical revision after staff's presentation. Miss Grant will join us again for three minutes. Thank you. I'm going to check in to see if we've got any projector coming back up. Good morning. I'm happy to. I can't get you in. Yeah, that guy. There's other Yellowstone stories. I had to give them a shout out. I don't know what he's saying. Oh, he's my favorite. Yeah, but there's special, There we go. For now? See? Are the technical Grimmlands back? Yeah, I think they're wreaking some havoc, but Doc is working on it and trying to keep us running and operating smoothly. So we can, let's see, I don't think this is working. So we can go to 110 if we get a chance up in the booth. There we go. Perfect. Okay. All right, so this petition, 2020-4110, it's about 51.7 acres. As mentioned in off-David Taylor Drive, it is currently zoned 01CD. We can go to the zoning slide and they are proposing CAC1 with some exceptions, so CAC1EX. And the adopted place type on the policy map does recommend that community activity center district. So this petition is consistent with that place type recommendation. If we could go to the proposal, great. So it does allow or proposes to allow uses permitted in the CAC district that would include up to 560 multiamily stacked residential units, so 560 apartments and up to 20 multifamily attached dwellings. It also proposes a minimum 7500 square feet of commercial uses development areas BC and D. In the event those commercial uses are not able to be developed after five years. From the approval of rezoning, they can move forward and those non-residential units' uses would not be required. That gives them some time to try to market those. It is a little bit of a challenging site in that regard, just given it's kind of off some of the main roads and main thoroughfares that are out there. But we did want to try to see a commitment to try to attract some of those non-residential to make it a little bit more of a mixed use project. This is a two phase development. Does prohibit drive-thrues? Does request some EX provisions, which would be deviations from standards in the UDO, things like our build to zone, some of the build to percentage for structures, and then also some of those buildings not are 60% of that building, like I said, not being within that bill two zone. There's some pedestrian entry requirements that they're asking for some relief from. All of those provisions, that again, they're asking for some deviation too. They're not being waived in their entirety. They're just reduced to a different standard than allowed in the UDO. And in order for them to make that request, they have to provide some public benefits in return for those asks. And the public benefits they are proposing to provide as a result of asking for some relief from those standards are a dedication of two acres for open space to Mecklenburg County. And then construction of buildings within the project would meet the national green building standards And so that would be a sustainability benefit and then they would also contribute $10,000 to Mecklenburg County Park and Rec for improvements in the Northeast Park District So they've got to get some of those public benefits as a result of asking for some relief from some of the standards in the UDO. They do have some transportation improvements as well. We can go to the next slide. David Taylor drive an access A would be improved southbound left turn with 100 feet of storage and a separate through right turn lane would be proposed on access A. They would remark pavement on David Taylor drive to create an additional 100 feet of storage for an eastbound left turn lane. Install ADA compliant bus stops on David Taylor Drive, 12 foot wide multi-use path and 8 foot wide planning strip on David Taylor as well as a 12 foot wide multi-use path and 8 foot wide planning strip on public street A. Combined westbound left turn lane on proposed access B would be installed. And then also be some additional restriping again on David Taylor for some additional turn lane storage and then eight foot sidewalk and planning strips on the new public street B and new public street C. So lots of transportation improvements involved with this one as well. Overall, again, staff does recommend approval of the petition. Do you have some resolution about sending issues for site and building design and some technical revisions to continue to work with the petitioner on it is consistent with the policy of my recommendation. And we will take any questions following the petitioner's presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Grant. Good evening, Mayor Pratton, members of Council, members of the zoning committee, Bridget Grant, Land Use Consultant, and some pleasure to be here tonight with Jay Schaefer with Floor Noi. Dave did an incredibly thorough job covering the Scanlon Scope with the proposed redevelopment. We will be able to address the outstanding issues, and I'm pleased to say I emailed you this past weekend a letter of support from University Research Partners. We work with them for several months throughout this process to identify the mix of units, the open space. weekend a letter of support from University Research Partners. We work with them for several months throughout this process to identify the mix of units, the open space and as Dave mentioned, the non-residential uses in coordination with staff. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Miss Sajmire. You go ahead. You go ahead. You go ahead. You go ahead. Okay. Question for Mr. Breton. Yes. Under proposed zoning rate says community activity center one exception. What does that mean? So exception is almost like another form of a conditional district. The exception is they're asking for some relief from some quantitative standards like setbacks. in this case a lot of it is billed to zones or pedestrian entry requirements. Sometimes you see things related to the transparency requirements for buildings at a ground floor level. So the EX provisions allow you to take that standard that's measured in a number or some quantitative way and and reduce that down to something that maybe accommodates the project a little better in exchange for those public benefits. So EX is essentially another form of conditional. It's a little similar, somewhat kind of a cousin to the optional provisions we used to do in the past, and it's something we just saw with the Panthers rezoning as well. So it's just a way to get some of those standards to work a little bit better for a project in exchange for some public asks. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. I was good to see. I used to work in research park area and I've just seen how that area has evolved in past eight years with all the developments. So I can see how well this fits in with the other development that has gone. And it's really become a job hub, like hub for not just for district four, but for our entire city. That's all I have, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Azumira. I was going to state Miss Grant that it's good to see that you had that letter of support just given the magnitude of this particular project with over 51 acres. And so there will be an impact to the community and it's happy to see that you've worked with the community to a point where a letter of support was provided. So that's all I had, any additional questions or comments? All right. We have emotional close public hearing and second all in favor raise hands, any opposed? That is unanimous, we'll move on to petition item number 23. position number 20 2024139 by true foundations, true homes. The location is approximately 4.91 acres located on the east side of Batesford Road, north of Cindy Lane and west of Cindy Woods Lane in district two, Mr. Graham's district. The current zoning is CGNN1B. Proposed zoning is N1ECD. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution of outstanding issues related to transportation, the environment, site and building design. After staff's presentation, Mr. Let's see here. Mr. Eddie Moore and Ron Staley will have three minutes. Thank you. In addition to 2024, 139 is located on the East Side of the Bayes, for Greud, North of Cindy Lane and West of Cindy Woods Lane. Sites approximately 4.91 acres and currently undeveloped. Sites currently zoned N1B, neighborhood one and CG, general commercial. Proposed zoning is N1ECD, neighborhood one E conditional. 2040 policy map recommends the neighborhood one place type for this site. N1E district is consistent with the recommended place type. Proposed calls for development of up to 29 single family detached dwelling units. All units will be house Charlotte eligible and will be deed restricted to ensure affordability for a minimum of seven years. Maximum building height is limited to 40 feet. Usable front porches and stoops will be provided. Preferred building materials include brick. Pitch roofs will have a minimum pitch of 512 and shed roofs will have a minimum pitch of 212. All transportation improvements and dedication and rights way will be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Staff recommends approval of this petition upon resolution about standing issues related transportation, environment and sign building design. As it is consistent with the 2040 policy map recommendation for neighborhood one place type would provide attainable housing as within within a quarter mile of commercial use as such as retail medical and restaurant site has access to transit. I'm happy to take any questions following Mr. Mors' presentation. Thank you. Mr. Mark. Good evening mayor, Protin Anderson, council members, and zoning committee. My name is Eddie Moore with McAdams. We are assisting Ron Staley with the True Hunts Foundation. And so we don't have the slides. We're going to hand it off to Ron a little bit to tell you a little bit of information about the foundation. Good evening, Mayor Proteam, Council members. True foundation is dedicating 10% of his volume to the affordable housing. That equates to 250 homes a year. We currently have over 100 homes that will be built in the Charlotte Metro market and our Doherty Prosperity Program. Our Doherty Prosperity Program is deeply focused on home ownership in that 80% to 110% workforce housing. Who is that? That's our teachers, our firefighters, police officers. We're currently setting aside homes in one of our communities for CMS teachers. We'll actually have our first CMS teacher closing next month. I'd appreciate your support and thank you for your time. Thank you. Any comments or questions? Miss Azmer. Thank you. Here is another rezoning petition for research park area and it's great to see that there is some affordable housing being developed close to jobs And I appreciate I appreciate you helping us meet our affordable housing goal With that I look for supporting this rezoning petition Okay Thank you mr. Graham. Yeah, I just want to say thank you. I have a great conversation with you prior to you coming down tonight and I'll look forward to supporting it as well. Thank you. Hearing no additional comments, is there a motion to close? A move. Second. We have a motion and second. All in favor favor raise hands. Any opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you for coming out, gentlemen. We will move on to petition agenda item number 24. Petition number 2024 142 by Sates, LLC. The location is 1.5 acres located east of North Triumph Street along the south side of East Arrowhead Drive and north of North Hill Circle and District for Miss Johnson's District. The current zoning is ML1, proposed zoning is TODNC, staff recommends the approval of this petition. And after staff's presentation, Mr. Murray will again join us for three minutes. Thank you. In addition to 2024, 142 is looking on the east side of North Triumph Street along the south side of east-Arahead Drive in north of North Hills Circle. So that's approximately 1.5 acres and contains commercial building. The property is known ML1 manufacturing in logistics is TODNC, transit oriented development neighborhood center, conventional zoning district. The 2440 policy map recommends the manufacturing logistics place type. TODNC district is inconsistent with this place type and approval of this rezoning would revise the policy map to the community activity center place type. This is a conventional rezoning petition. There's an associated site plan and would permit any use allowed in the TOD NC zoning district. Staff recommends approval of this petition. As the site is adjacent to other TOD zone parcels including TOD NC, CC and UC all designated as the community activity center place type. The site is within three quarters of a mile of the Tom Hunter Blue line station. The petition could promote the 2040 comprehensive plan goals, such as 10 minute neighborhoods and transit oriented development. I'm happy to take any questions from Mr. Murray's presentation. Thank you, Mr. Murray. Thank you, Mayor Proton, Council, Zoning Committee. David Murray for the petitioner. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Hearing none is closed. Second. We have a motion of the close public hearing and second all in favor raise hands. Any opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Murray. We will conclude with our final agenda item tonight, agenda item number 25. Petition number 2024, 147 by Christina. Septimio, the location is approximately 2.11 acres located along the east side of North Graham Street, North of Kennedy Street and South of Road, in District 1, my district. The current zoning is ML1, proposed zoning, IAM UCD, staff recommends approval of this petition. And after staff's presentation, Ms. Septimio will have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. This site is just over two acres located along the east side of North Graham Street. In an area that's largely industrial in nature but has several commercial uses located along Graham Street just south and north of this property here. The proposal itself is to go to Innovation Mixed Use Conditional from its existing zoning of manufacturing logistics to. This proposal is inconsistent with the policy-moutes recommendation for manufacturing logistics place type at this property. This is a tier one conditional plan, meaning that it doesn't have a full on-site plan, but we did ask them to consider some developments and it's for this site to prohibit residential uses. So given that it is entirely manufacturing logistics that they're surrounded by on the policy map, residential uses aren't entirely appropriate for this site. So they have prohibited residential uses which are typically permitted in the IMU zoning district, but that is the only condition considered with this proposal itself. And otherwise, this petition is just being forward allowing for all other IME uses, staff fragments approval of this petition, although it is inconsistent with that manufacturing logistics place type, we believe that this is an appropriate application that IMEs. So, any district, given that the area is transitioning in some locations away from those purely industrial uses to allow for a more broader mix of commercial office or artisan industrial development and that speaks to the intent of the IMEs ending district to allow for more of a transition of uses rather than purely industrial or manufacturing logistics type profile of the area. The petition is also located within the North Graham North Triumph Street corridor of opportunity. So shifting the entitlements away from that purely meaning-percent logistics uses, speaks to that quarters of opportunity and tent there. And the prohibition of residential uses on that site is appropriate given its surrounding context and that residential development would not be appropriate at this location. I'll take any questions following the petitioners comments. Thank you. Is it me? Septimio? Septimio. Second one. Septimio. Okay. And after I said it the wrong way I thought yeah there was a difference as my apologies you have three minutes. Good evening. I she described it it to a T, so I don't have anything else to add. I just basically wanted to broaden the acceptable uses. Okay. I do have just one or two questions. The question is, we have been seeing a couple of these IAMUs along this corridor, specifically a Tando, along a Tando over the last, I would say, four to six months. But she mentioned a use of residential here that's unique or different than the others. Could you? I want to make sure I heard that properly. There's a prohibition of residential uses is the one condition of this tier of this conditional plan. Whereas typically if you're requesting IMU as a conventional resounding request, you're requesting all uses allowed within the IMU zoning district, which can include residential uses. So if somebody were requesting IMU conventionally along Atondo, that could include residential uses. But for this site in particular, there's that prohibition of residential uses is included as the condition. So they could do any use within IMU except for any residential uses. Okay, okay, great. Thank you for that clarification. The last thing I can make a decision. I'm not sure if I can make a decision. I'm not sure if I can make a decision. I'm not sure if I can make a decision. I'm not sure if I can make a decision. I'm not sure if I can make a decision. in this neighborhood of different uses. There are businesses and residents and just a variety of different mix there. But I would just like to see an extra effort to step out to make sure the neighbors understand what's going on and how it's impacting the community. So they'll have an opportunity to speak. I did send out invitations. A number of them came back undelivered. OK. But the majority of them were delivered. And so there was only one person interested in participating. So are you saying to to go out again and invite those that were recommended to attend? Well, in particular, if you've said that there were some invitations that were effectively returned, you know speak to the transient aspect of that area or there might be some challenges with our list. I'm not sure. But just to make an extra effort to ensure that those who should have an opportunity to hear about what's going on in a neighborhood have that opportunity. So that's what I would encourage you to do. But thank you for sending out the notifications and speaking to those who did show up. Mr. Johnson, I saw your hand. Thank you. I think, and I've said this before, but that's an area where the city could do more as far as outreach. If we could put a QR code on the signs, I think that that would be so good in an effort toward transparency. I was surprised by this one petition. We've had a sign up for months. And then we get comments from the residents that are just kind of learning what's going on. And I think if those signs instead of a Z in the neighborhood, if there a Q R code where a person could use their phone and it just be very plain language this area is changing or something. So we talk about this all the time about not enough community outreach but I think that's one area that we could there's room for improvement. What does that sign mean to individuals and you know it's not just on the developer. Thank you for that effort, but we as the city can do more as well. I agree. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Any additional comments? No, of course. Okay. We have emotional close public hearing and second all in favor raise hands. That's unanimous and we will conclude. Have a wonderful St. Patrick's Day. Yes.