Charlotte City Zoning Meeting – April 15, 2019

Charlotte City Zoning Meeting – April 15, 2019


and our regular media, that I can’t imagine what Mrs. Franklin is thinking and how she has to get through all of this. that family suffered a lot. It’s really bad had we lose a young man too early and what and when his mother and children are forced to not have them in their lives we are encouraged by our community conversations and want to continue to do those. We set up several listening sessions meaning we wan toker what what the community is saying about this incident and how we operate as a city to be a safe city. We will do that and what we’re going to also do at the same time is try to have a zoning meeting and you say, well, why have one? Because most of our zoning is prescriptive by law and we have to follow advertisements and dates and processes and so we will try to maintain a quorum with all of our time here around the Dias, but I also wanted to let you know that several councilmembers will be going in and out as appropriate so they can attend to hearing from our community because we know we are elected to do the zoning but more importantly, we’re elected to listen and serve this community I will not be leaving. I will preside and we will keep both processes moving with both of those being very important to our city right now. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO STAND IF YOU WISH TO FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE WHERE WE NOT ONLY THINK ABOUT THE FRANKLIN FAMILY BUT WE THINK ABOUT EACH CITIZEN THAT’S IMPACTED TODA BY VIOLENCE AND WHAT THIS COMMUNITY CAN DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A PLACE WHERE EVERYONE CAN LIVE IN A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT’S SAFE, CLEAN AND HEALTHY, AND ONE THAT WE WOULD ALL BE PROUD OF. SO IF YOU WOULD JUST BOW FOR A MOMENT WITH ME. [ MOMENT OF SILENCE ] NOW IF WE TURN TO OUR FLAG FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.>>All: I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. . AS I SAID, WE’RE GOING TO TACKLE THE DECISIONS ON THE CASES THAT WE’VE ALREADY HAD A PUBLIC HEARING, AND I AM GOING TO READ THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR A DEFERRAL, THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED A DEFERRAL AND ASK FOR A MOTION BY COUNCIL FOR A DEFERRAL. THE FIRST ONE IS PETITION 2018-12, HARRISON, TUCKER AND JOHN CARAVICH, A DEFERRAL. ALL OF THESE ARE DEFERRED FOR ONE MONTH UNTIL MAY 20th, 2019. THE SECOND ONE IS HE AND 147, LAUREL STREET RESIDENTIAL. THE THIRD, 2018-165, NRP PROPERTIES. 2019-004, C CORPS INVESTMENTS, LLC. 2017-186, THE DRAKEFORD COMPANY. THOSE ARE THE DECISIONS THAT I HAVE THOSE ARE THE DEFERRALS FOR TONIGHT.>>MOTION TO APPROVE.>>MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE DEFERRALS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DID I MISS ANY ONE IN THE DECISIONS? WITH THAT, WE’LL START WITH THE AGENDA ITEMS.>>WANT TO DEFER THE HEARINGS>>MAYOR: WE CAN DO THE HEARINGS AT THE SAME TIME THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE ALSO HAVE SEVERAL HEARINGS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED AS DEFERRALS UNTIL MAY 20th ALL OF THESE ARE UNTIL MAY 20th. I’M GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE AS WELL SO WE CAN INCLUDE THEM IN THE MOTION. THE FIRST ONE IS 2018-128 JAMES POTIER, 167, VERITY HOMES, 2019-002, LAUREL STREET RESIDENTIAL, 2019-003, LAUREL STREET RESIDENTIAL. 2019-013, ANDREW CLINK. 2019-021, McKINNEY HOLDINGS. 2019-24, INVESTCORPS, LLC. 2019-008, CO-HAB LLC. 2019-014, MISSION PROPERTIES, AND 2018-015.>>145, SORRY.>>MAYOR: 45. BRENDAN MILTON. I WILLED R READ THE ITEMS F YOU ARE HERE FOR ONE OF THESE ITEMS, ALL OF THESE ARE BEING DEFERRED AND I WILL GO THROUGH THEM FAIRLY QUICKLY. ITEM 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 21, THOSE ARE THE HEARINGS, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, THOSE ARE THE DECISIONS. THE HEARINGS ARE 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 46, AND 37>>MOTION TO APPROVE ALL DEFERRALS.>>SECOND.>>MAYOR: MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA WILL BE ITEM 9. THESE BOOKS ARE OFTEN VERY FULL. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE GETTING US TO THEM. OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 9, PETITION 2018-97 BY TSILIMOS FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE IN DISTRICT ONE FROM B-1 TO NS. THE ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 6-1 FOR APPROVAL.>>MOTION TO APPROVE.>>MAYOR: APPROVE AND ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY.>>MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT.>>SECOND.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? MR. LARKEN, MR. EGLESTON?>>I WANTED TO SAY THAT WE DEFERRED THIS LAST MONTH, THE PETITIONER WORKED WITH ME AND THE NEIGHBORS TO LOWER THE UNIT COUNT. I APPRECIATE THEIR WILLINGNESS.>>MAYOR: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. NUMBER 10, IT IS 2018-121 BY STEELE CREEK, APPROXIMATELY 265 ACRES IN DISTRICT 3 LIGHT CONDITIONAL AIRPORT OVERLAY AND PROPOSED ZONING IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH AIRPORT NOISE OVERLAY, AIRPORT LIGHT CONDITIONAL NOISE OVERLAY WITH FIVE-YEAR VESTED RIGHTS. THE STAFF AND THE ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND APPROVE THE CONDITIONS.>>MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT.>>SECOND.>>MAYOR: MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE– MISS MAYFIELD, YES.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WITH THIS PROJECT, 264, JUST SHORT OF 265 ACRES IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR NOT ONLY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BUT ALSO I WANT TO THANK THE STEELE CREEK RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION BECAUSE THEY WERE ACTIVE WITH REVIEWING THIS AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE WERE IMPROVEMENTS TO THOSE AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMITMENT TO THOSE ROLES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? WITH THAT, WE’LL GO TO ITEM 11, 2018-143 BY APPROXIMATELY .45 ACRE IN DISTRICT 4 AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS GOING FROM GENERAL BUSINESS CONDITIONAL AND GENERAL BUSINESS TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, MIXED USE OPTIONAL THE ZONING AND STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL. IS THERE STILL RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES REQUIRED?>>THERE’S ONE OUTSTANDING. THAT’S 11A. THE IT’S NOT A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN. PETITION CAN MOVE FORWARD AS IS.>>MAYOR: EVERYBODY GET THAT ONE. MOTION FOR APPROVAL? STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AS WELL AS THE PETITION?>>MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS 12, 144, FOR APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES IN DISTRICT THREE CURRANT ZONING IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONAL AND IS MIXED USE OPTIONAL. ZONING COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL.>>MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT.>>MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MISS MAYFIELD.>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE’S A NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT STAFF WAS ABLE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER INCLUDING HEIGHT AND A NUMBER OF OTHER CONCERNS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AS WELL AS THE FRONTAGE ALONG HAAKONS AND ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED>>MAYOR: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? 2018-149 BY WEST END INVESTMENT AND MOSAIC HOLDINGS FOR FOUR ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF TRADE STREET IN DISTRICT TWO. CURRENT IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL AS WELL AS NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS WITH A PEDESTRIAN OVERLAY. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONAL, PEDESTRIAN OVERLAY WITH FIVE-YEAR VESTED RIGHTS. THE ZONING COMMITTEE AND THE STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS AND IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND APPROVE THE PETITION.>>MOVE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE.>>SECOND>>MOTION AND SECOND. ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE PETITION PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? 18-154 BY CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOUSING PARTNERSHIP FOR 4.4 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF WEST SUGAR CREEK ROAD. DISTRICT FOUR. CURRENT IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. PROPOSED IS URBAN RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, OPTIONAL. ZONING COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND APPROVE THE PETITION?>>MOTION IT APPROVE AND ADOPT.>>SECOND.>>WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MR. PHIPPS.>>I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE PETITIONER AS WELL ASSTOR WA BUS TOUR LAST WEEK THAT WENT TO SELECTED PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY TO JUST SHOW RESIDENTS WHO HAD CONCERNS OF WHAT KIND OF VISION THAT MR. WARY HAD WITH HIS PROPERTY OVER THERE ON SUGAR CREEK AND HIDDEN VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK IT– WHAT I’M TOLD THAT WHEN EVERYBODY GOT OFF THE BUS EVERYBODY WAS IN ONE ACCORD IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY, SO I’M PLEASED THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, I’M GRAD TO SUPPORT IT, AND JUST THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR EFFORTS IN MAKING THIS TO FRUITION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>MAYOR: ANY OTHER COMMENT? I THINK WE APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT WE’RE BEING SHOWN BY SUPPORT IN THE AUDIENCE. WITH THAT, I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. LIVE LFER SAY AYE. I DON’T THINK I’M GOING TO ASK FOR ANY OPPOSITION ON THAT. [LAUGHTER] [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]>>MAYOR: WE DON’T USUALLY GET THAT KIND OF GOOD NEWS SOUND. WE ARE REALLY APPRECIATING THAT>>Speaker: HEY! [LAUGHTER]>>MAYOR: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR MAKING US LAUGH. THAT’S RIGHT. WE NEEDED IT. THE NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM 152018-156 BY DOUG DUNAWAY FOR APPROXIMATELY .6 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANDOLPH ROAD. IT IS CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS URBAN RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. THE STAFF AND THE ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMEND ADOPTION. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND APPROVE THE PETITION?>>MOTION TO ADOPT AND APPROVE>>SECOND.>>MR. EGLESTON.>>YOU CAN ALL STAY WITH US. [LAUGHTER]>>MAYOR: WE HAVE A MOTION FOR EGLESTON. DO I GET A SECOND? SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THANK YOU. ITEM 16, PETITION 2018-157 BY O’LEARY GROUP BUSINESS PARK FOR APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES LOCATED AT INTERSECTION OF ODUM AVENUE AND CENTRE STREET. CURRENT IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL AND GENERAL BUSINESS. WOW. AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL. THE STAFF AND THE ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMEND ADOPTION AND IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE’S STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND APPROVE THE PETITION?>>MOVE TO ADOPT AND APPROVE.>>WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THANK YOU. ITEM 17, PETITION 2018-159 BY MARY ANN AND CHARLES MAULDWIN FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF D DI RITA AVENUE AND MAPLE STREET,S DID STRICT FOUR, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONAL. THE ZONING COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND APPROVE THE PETITION?>>MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT.>>SECOND.>>MAYOR: MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENT? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, WE’RE GOOD. NEXT ITEM IS AGENDA NUMBER 18, 2018-166 BY CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR APPROXIMATELY .4 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHARLES AVENUE, WEST OF MATHE ISSON IN DISTRICT ONE. CURRENT IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL. PROPOSED ZONING IS TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, MISSIONED USE. THE ZONING COMMITTEE AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION S THERE A STATEMENT? — IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ZONING COMMITTEE’S STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND APPROVE THE PETITION?>>MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 19, PETITION 2018-169 BY CHARLOTTE PLANNING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THE PETITION IS TO CREATE FOUR NEW TRANSIT ORIENTED ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE CONTEXT BASE, TRANSLATE THE THREE EXISTING CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO A NEW ZONING DISTRICT, DESIGNATION OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER, UPON THE ADOPTION OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT, ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR TRANSIT TO SUPPORT PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT, ESTABLISH AN ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REVIEW BOARD AND FINALLY TO REFLECT CITY COUNCIL’S PRIORITIES RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE, SUSTAINABILITY AND JOBS THROUGH A VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT BONUS PROGRAM. THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THIS PETITION. THE CITY’S TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED FOUR PEOPLE IN ATTENDANCE TO MOVE– SEND THE PETITION TO FULL CITY COUNCIL VOTE ON APRIL 15th AT THE CITY ZONING MEETING. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS ADOPTION AND APPROVAL. DID I MISS ANYTHING, MAYOR PRO TEM?>>NO.>>MAYOR: OKAY. WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION–>>SO MOVED>>SECOND>>MAYOR: FOR THE ADOPTION OF THIS WORK AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MISS MAYFIELD.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR. AS WE’RE MOVING FORWARD WITH TOD, AS OF RIGHT NOW, I SEE THE GREATEST IMPACT IN SOUTH END NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOPEFULLY SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WILL BE AVOIDED IN THE FUTURE, BUT I DO ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING OUR BUILDING HEIGHT BONUS, HOW WE IDENTIFY BONUSES BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE IS EVEN WITH THE ADOPTION TONIGHT, THE ABILITY FOR TO US HAVE MORE CONVERSATION IN ORDER TO HAVE GREATER INPUT FROM DIVERSE COMMUNITIES, NOT JUST THOSE THAT CAN ATTEND THE MEETINGS OF THE IMPACT ESPECIALLY IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT I DID WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AS WE’RE ATTEMPT ITING TO MOVE FORWARD, WE CAN JUST REFLECT ON THE LAST THREE YEARS ALONE THE WAY THE CITY HAS GROWN AND AS WE HAVE ADDITIONAL GROWTH, WE MAY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE A LITTLE MORE NIMBLE IN MAKING UPDATES AND ADJUSTMENTS OPPOSED TO A THREE- TO FIVE-YEAR TIME PERIOD.>>MAYOR: ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS OR COMMENTS?>>I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT AND SAY THANK YOU TO THE COMMUNITY AND EVERYBODY WHO GOT INVOLVED IN THE STAKEHOLDERS GROUPS AROUND THIS EFFORT AS WELL AS THE STAFF. A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK WAS PUT INTO IT. A LOT OF US TRIED TO ATTEND AND JUST SORT OF BE A FLY ON THE WALL TO LISTEN TO THE PROCESS AND IT WAS VERY THOROUGH. I THINK IT’S A HUGE STEP FOR CHARLOTTE TO GIVE US SOME PREDICTABILITY AND THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO VISUALIZE WHAT OUR CITY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AS WE GROW BECAUSE OFTEN, WE APPROVE DEALS ONE BY ONE, AND WE DON’T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OVERALL PLAN IS. SO I’M EXCITED ABOUT THAT. I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS SO OF VOD IN THIS PROCESS, THE CITIZENS WHO GAVE THEIR TIME AND THE STAFF AS WELL. THANK YOU.>>I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT TH CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THIS TOD AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS COMING OUT TO YOU ALL FOR CONSIDERATION. JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WERE NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO WARRANT RE-REVIEW BY THE ZONING COMMITTEE.>>MAYOR: EVERYBODY GET THAT. THE CHANGES WERE NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO SEND BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. MOTION AND SECOND AND THE CHANGE, THAT THEY’RE NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO GO BACK TO PLANNING COMMITTEE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED?>>MADAM MAYOR, ALSO ON ITEMS 9 AND 10, YOU’LL NEED TO MAKE THE SAME MOTION. YOU ALREADY VOTED THOSE, BUT THOSE WERE ALSO MATTERS WHERE THERE WERE CHANGES AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT THE STAFF DOESN’T TEAM SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH.>>OKAY. WE WILL GO BACK AND CAN I DO–>>DO ONE MOTION>>MAYOR: WHICH ITEMS WERE THOSE?>>ITEMS NINE AND TEN.>>MAYOR: 9 AND 10 ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING COMMITTEE AND AS WELL, THE CHANGES IN ITEM NUMBER 19, THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE ZONING– OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.>>SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR– TO MOVE THAT THE CHANGES FOR ITEM 9, 10, AND 19 WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO BE SENT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND SHOULD BE ADOPTED.>>SECOND.>>WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE? . NOW WE’RE BACK TO APPROVAL OF THE PETITION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH OF A GOOD– I THINK THE HARD WORK THAT’S BEEN DONE ON THIS. WE ALL WANT TO COMMEND THE PLANNING STAFF, THE TEAM. [ APPLAUSE ] IT HAS BEEN– MORE THAN A JOURNEY AS THEY WOULD SAY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. I BELIEVE OUR FINAL DECISION TONIGHT IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 20, PETITION 2019-010 BY JDSI, LLC, FOR APPROXIMATELY 33 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF BROOKSHIRE ON THE INTERSECTION OF PLANK ROAD IN DISTRICT TWO. THE CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOWER LAKE WYLIE PROTECTED AREA AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN THE LOWER LAKE WYLIE PROTECTED AREA. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, LOWER LAKE WYLIE PROTECTED AREA AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOWER LAKE WYLIE PROTECTED AREA, ONE BEING SIX UNITS PER ACHIER AND THE OTHER PARCEL BEING EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. THE ZONING COMMITTEE VOTED 6-1 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PETITION. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY AND APPROVE THIS PETITION>>MOSH TO ADOPT AND APPROVE.>>SECOND>>MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SO THAT IS THE END. IF YOU WERE HERE FOR A ZONING DECISION, WE HAVE COMPLETED THAT LIST AND SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU– IF THERE’S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS ON A DECISION, THE PLANNING STAFF IS RIGHT OVER THERE. WE APPRECIATE THAT. SO NOW IS THE TIME IN OUR MEETING THAT WE GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF OUR AGENDA, AND ON THIS CASE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, ANYONE– FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON A PETITION THAT’S UP FOR A HEARING, PLEASE COME DOWN AND SEE THE CLERK, THE CITY CLERK SO THAT YOU CAN BE SIGNED UP. MISS KELLY HAS SIGN-UP DOCUMENTS AND WE NEED YOUR NAME AND ALL OF THAT. FIRST OF ALL, THE STAFF WILL GIVE US A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON EACH PETITION AND THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE PETITION GET– THEY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO PRESENT THE CASE UNLESS PEOPLE ARE OPPOSED. IF THE STAFF IS OPPOSED OR THE PETITIONER GETS TEN MINUTES AND THE OPPONENT GETS TEN MINUTES AND THE PETITIONER GETS A 2-MINUTE REBUTTAL. IF NO ONE IS OPPOSED OR SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, THE STAFF GIVES US A BRIEF PRESENTATION. AFTER WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. THE PETITION GOES TO THE ZONING COMMITTEE, WHICH IS WITH US AND THEY WILL REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK JOHN FRIDAY TO INTRODUCE THE ZONING COMMITTEE AS WELL AS TALK ABOUT THE LOGISTICS FOR THE NEXT PART.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, COUNCIL. I’M JOHN FRIDAY. CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ALLOW ME TO INTRODUCE MY FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT, PHILIP, KEBA SAMUEL AND BOLIN CLUNG AND JOHN McMILLEN AND CODY WATKINS WHO COULD NOT BE HERE TONIGHT BUT THEY WATCH THE VIDEOS WHICH YOU CAN ALSO DO ONLINE SO THEY GET CAUGHT UP TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT WHEN WE DELIBERATE DISOAFNING COMMITTEE WILL MEET TUESDAY, APRIL 30th AT 5:30 AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER. AT THAT MEETING, THE ZONING COMMITTEE WILL MEET TO DISCUSS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON PET TITIONS THAT HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT. THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME AT THAT MEETING BUT PLEASE NOTE, IT IS NOT A CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. PRIOR TO THAT MEETING, YOU’RE WELCOME TO CONTACT US TO PROVIDE INPUT. YOU CAN FIND CONTACT INFORMATION ON US AND ON EACH PETITION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE, CHARLOTTEPLANNING.ORG. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>MAYOR: THE ZONING COMMITTEE REVIEWS THIS AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL AND WHEN THOSE DECISIONS COME BACK, THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS INCLUDED. SO WITH THAT, I BELIEVE MY– THE FIRST ZONING HEARING THAT WE HAVE IS ITEM 28, ITEM 28 AND ZONING PETITION BY FOR THE EAST SIDE OF SHOPTON ROAD EAST OF SOUTH TRYON. OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS. CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 3 UNITS PER ACRE AND PROPOSED IS MULTIFAMILY CONDITIONAL WITH 8 UNITS PER ACRE WITH 5-YEAR VESTED RIGHTS AND WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A PRESENTATION BY THE STAFF TO BEGIN AND I’M GOING TO LOOK FOR MINE. ON THIS, WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP IN FAVOR AND TWO INSOD UP AGAINST. SO WE’LL HAVE THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR.>>THE CONTEXT FOR THIS SITE IS SHOPTON ROAD WEST IN THE STEELE CREEK COMMITTEE. IT’S R3 AND REQUESTED YOU TO GO TO R8MF CONDITIONAL DISTRICT. THAT WOULD BE FOR A TOWNHOME PROJECT THAT HAS APPROXIMATELY 6.25 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSAL FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION. AS WE MENTIONED, THE PLAN THAT’S BEING PROPOSED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STEELE CREEK AREA PLAN FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. HOWEVER, IT DOES EXCEED THE RECOMMENDATION OF UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND AT THE REQUEST AND LIKE I SAID, 6.25 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. WE FEEL IT’S COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO IT AND IT WILL CONNECT TO PUB PUBLIC ROAD AND HAS CONNECTIONS TO SHOPTON ROAD WEST AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES WE’VE SEEN IN THE AREA. WE’RE GOING TO KEEP OUR PRESENTATIONS FAIRLY BRIEF THIS EVENING SO FOLKS CAN HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET THROUGH THEIR PRESENTATIONS. WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKERS. WE WILL BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS MOVING FORWARD FROM THERE.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU. COLIN BROWN IS GOING TO SPEAK FOR, AND HE WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES AND SO IF LYNN INGERSOLL AND IS IT (INAUDIBLE) BLANCH? THANK YOU. YOU WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TOGETHER TO SHARE AFTER MR. BROWN’S PRESENTATION. MR. BROWN>>Speaker: COLIN BROWN WITH K&L GATES ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. I WILL GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW TONIGHT. I WILL MENTION THE STATE OF HOUSING REPORT AND I WILL SAY IT DURING THIS. WE HAD A NUMBER OF PETITIONS THAT WE’RE HANDLING TONIGHT THAT INVOLVE INCREASING DENSITY TO ADD HOUSING AND I KNOW THAT YOU HEAR THE SAME AS WE DO. WE GO OUT TO COMMUNITIES AND THERE’S A LOT OF FRUSTRATION AT COMMUNITY MEETINGS OF WHY ARE WE BUILDING SO MUCH HOUSING? WHY ARE WE BUILDING SO MUCH HOUSING? WHERE IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE? I KNOW SOME OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS REPORT BUT FOR BENEFIT OF SOME OF THE AWED WRENS TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT UNCC HAS DONE A PRETTY EXHAUSTIVE STUDY ON THE STATE OF OUR HOUSING MARKET AND TO TOUCH ON WHAT WE ALL KNOW, CHARLOTTE IS GROWING VERY, VERY QUICKLY AND THE PACE OF OUR POPULATION GROWTH IS AHEAD OF THE PACE OF OUR HOUSING AND SO THAT IS– WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY AND THAT IS CREATING AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. WE TALK ABOUT IT A GREAT DEAL AT THE LOWEST LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY BUT WHAT WE’RE SEEING NOW IS THAT AFFORDABILITY AT EVERY LEVEL IS AFFECTED. SO WE’RE SEEING THAT AND WE’LL SHOW YOU A VARIETY OF PETITIONS TONIGHT FROM RENTAL HOUSING TO FOR SALE TOWNHOMES TO VERY HIGH-LEVEL HOUSING, BUT WE ARE SEEING A SUPPLY ISSUE AT EVERY LEVEL AND THAT IS WHY FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY SEE US, SO MANY TIMES A WEEK TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE WE HAVE LAND FEE DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW THAT’S FRUSTRATING FOR SOME. WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT THE GROWTH CHARLOTTE IS SEEING. WE ANNOUNCED ALL THESE WONDERFUL JOBS THAT WE HAVE COMING TO THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE AND IT’S OWNLY THAT FOLKS WILL FOLLOW THAT AND LOOK FOR PLACES TO LIVE. THE SITE ON SHOPTON ROAD. THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR THE OVERVIEW. A FEW THINGS TO POINT OUT. PROPOSAL IS FOR 240 FOR-SALE TOWNHOME UNITS AND WE’RE REQUESTING R-8MF BUT WE’RE NOT GOING UP EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. WE’RE AT 6.25. I THINK THAT’S A VERY REASONABLE DENSITY ON THE SITE. AS DAVID MENTIONED, WE’LL HAVE FRONTAGE– WE HAVE THREE ACCESS POINTS TO SHOPTON ROAD AND THERE’S AN INTERNAL DRIVE HERE THAT CONNECTS FROM TAMARAC THROUGH TO TRYON. ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING INTERSECTIONS IN THIS AREA OF CHARLOTTE IS TRYON AND SHOPTON RIGHT HERE. THIS DOES PROVIDE AN ALTERNATE ACCESS. SO WE DON’T WANT– WE GOT TO SELL THESE HOMES, TOO. WE DON’T EVERYONE USING THIS BUT IT DOES GIVE AN OUTLET IF YOU ARE DRIVING SOUTH ON TRYON, YOU COULD TURN THROUGH TAMARAC AND COME THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT OR PROCEED THROUGH AND GET OUT TO SHOPTON. IT DOES PROVIDE NEW NETWORK ECT CONNECTIVITY THAT WE’RE NOT SEEING AND HOPEFULLY WILL TAKE PRESSURE OFF THESE INTERSECTIONS. I’VE INVERTED THIS. THIS IS A COLOR RENDERING OF THE SITE. DAVE MENTIONED, WE THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD FIT. I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY SARAH BELK GAMBRELL WHO IS A MAJOR PROPERTY OWNER AND CHRIS THOMAS IS HERE ON HER BEHALF IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS INTENTIONAL ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THIS PROPERTY. ACROSS THE STREET IS NATURE PRESERVE SO THIS LAND WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED. THIS PARCEL HERE IS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL GOING OUT TO THE TRYON INTERSECTION AND THERE’S COMMERCIAL HERE. HERE IS THE TOWNHOME COMMUNITY AND SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY. WE THINK IT’S A NICE TRANSITION FROM THIS COMMERCIAL. WE THINK IT MATCHES UP NICELY WITH THE TOWNHOME COMMUNITY WILL CONNECT TO AND YOU MAY HEAR FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS THAT HAVE CONCERNS. WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU HERE IS WE’VE DONE A GREAT DEAL OF BUFFERING. THERE’S MINIMUM, THIS PURPLE LINE, THAT’S A 50-FOOT BUFFER THAT WILL BE IN THAT AREA THERE AND BEYOND THAT, YOU SEE WE’RE PUTTING TREE SAVE, PUTTING OUR STORMWATER THERE TO BUFFER THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THOUGH OUR ZONING DISTRICT, I MENTIONED, IS R-8, OUR DENSITY IS ONLY 6.25, WHICH MEANS WE’RE NOT JUST SQUEEZING EVERY INCH OF THIS PROPERTY. THAT’S WHY YOU CAN SEE THERE’S A GOOD AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE. ALSO INTERNALLY TO THE SITE, MISS MAYFIELD EARLY ON INDICATED THAT SHE WANTED TO SEE A MIXTURE OF POCKET PARKS THROUGHOUT. SO YOU’LL SEE THAT. WE THINK THAT PROVIDES AN AMENITY FOR RESIDENTS AND TRAFFIC CALMING BECAUSE WE DO THINK THERE WILL BE CONNECTIONS THROUGH THE SITE. LOOK AT THE POCKET PARKS. WE ARE COMMITTING TO A PEDESTRIAN TRAIL FEATURE THAT WILL GO THROUGH THE SUBSTANTIAL OPEN SPACE ON THE SITE. COMMUNITY CONCERNS WON’T BE A SURPRISE TO YOU. WE TYPICALLY IN THIS AREA, WE HEAR ABOUT SCHOOL IMPACTS. THAT’S THE CMS ISSUE BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT ONE OF THE POSITIVES, WE THINK IS WHEN CMS, THIS IS THEIR OWN MEMO WHEN THEY PREPARE THEIR MEMO, THEY ESTIMATE THAT TOWNHOMES GENERATE LESS THAN FAMILY HOMES. HERE, CMS IF SOMEONE DEVELOPED BUY RIGHT AND DO SINGLE FA MANICALLY HOMES UNDER EXISTING ZONING, ZONINGTHEY ESTIMATE 65 STUDENTS AND 240, THEY’RE ESTIMATING 23. CMS ESTIMATORS THAT BY REZONING THIS TO TOWNHOMES BECAUSE IT’S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF HOUSING, THEY WILL ACTUALLY YIELD FEWER STUDENTS THAN IF SOMEONE DEVELOPS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BY RIGHT. TRAFFIC IS SIMILAR BUT NOT THE EXACTLY THE SAME ANSWER. HERE, WE ARE AWARE THERE’S FRUSTRATION WITH TRAFFIC. C.D.O.T.’S MEMO SHOWS YOU IF SOMEONE HAD 15, LOOK ACT 1,200 TRIPS. UNDER TOWNHOME, WE EXPECT FEWER TRIPS. SO THE INCREASE HERE– THE NEW NUMBER WILL BE 1,380, THAT’S AN INCREASE OF LESS THAN 200. NOT A MAJOR TRAFFIC IMPACT, ABOUT YOU WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS AN INCREASE. PARKING ADEQUACY, I DON’T KNOW NEW WILL HEAR ABOUT THAT. WE THINK WE’RE FULLY PARKING HERE, EVERY UNIT WOULD HAVE TWO GARAGES AND SPACES FOR TWO CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY AND AS WELL AS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES. THIS MAY PLEASE YOU OR FRUSTRATE YOU. HERE WE ARE, I GUESS WE’RE NOT QUITE AT FOUR, 3.75 SPACES PER UNIT. THE DESIGN, SOME FOLKS HAVE ASKED ABOUT, MATAMY’S PRODUCT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY DID AT BEHRWICK WHICH IS VERY SUCCESSFUL. THAT PRICE POINT IS 00,000 AND THAT’S A LOOK AT THOSE. HERE’S SOME DESIGNS FOR THIS SITE. THESE ARE NOT IN THE ZONING PACKAGE BUT THEY WOULD BE PLEASED TO INCLUDE THAT IF SOMEONE LIKENED FOR THEM TO DO THAT. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WAS OUTSTANDING I MENTIONED TRAFFIC A MAJOR CONCERN, BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR ORDINANCES ARE WRITTEN, C.D.O.T. CAN REQUEST ON THE SITE– YOU CAN SEE THIS IS LONG AND NARROW. A LOT OF FRONTAGE ON SHOPTON ROAD AND ONE OF THE REQIERPS IS THAT WE SET NEW CURVE. IN ASKING WHERE WE SET NEW CURB, THERE IS A LONG-TERM PLAN BY NC D.O.T. TO WIDEN SHOPTON ROAD HERE TO A FIVE-LANE SECTION. SO THEY’VE ASKED THAT WHEN WE SET OUR CURB, WE PUT IN TO DO LANAGE WHICH WOULD CREATE TWO AND A HALF LANES ON OUR FRONTAGE. THAT COST US ABOUT 1.5 MILLION AND IT CREATES TWO LANES THAT GO TO NOWHERE. THAT’S A FRUSTRATION TO US. WE’RE TALKING TO CITY STAFF AND TALKING THROUGH IT. IT IS SOMETHING WE COULD DO. IT INCREASES HOUSING PRICES AND IT DOESN’T DO REALLY ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OUT THERE. SO C.D.O.T. HAS BEEN WORK WITH US. I THINK WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO IS FIND SOMETHING DIFFERENT, ANOTHER PROJECT IN THE AREA THAT WOULD NOT HAVE SUCH A FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE PROJECT AND THAT COULD ACTUALLY PROVIDE SOME RELIEF OR SOME TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA. SO THAT’S THE ONE ISSUE THAT I THINK IS ONGOING. OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN FIND SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE CAN TAKE THE DOLLARS THAT WE’RE GOING TO SPEND, SPEND THEM ON A PROJECT THAT ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO PEOPLE’S COMMUTES. I KNOW WE GOT A TIGHT AGENDA TONIGHT. I WILL STOP THERE AND TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS LATER AND RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS THAT COME IN.>>MAYOR: YOU’LL HAVE YOUR TWO MINUTES AFTER. MISS INGERSOLL AND MR. NABLASH. YOU WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES TO SPEAK AND HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE TO DIVIDE THAT UP BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU. BACK UP FROM BERWICK ATTEMPTING TO GET ONTO SHOPTON ROAD. IF YOU WILL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS JUST SOUTH TRYON HEADING TOWARD STEELE CREEK SO IT’S A JAM. YOU CAN GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS THE ROAD WHERE I COME OUT OF. I’LL TAKE A RIGHT GETTING BEHIND THIS WHITE CAR. UP HERE ON THE LEFT IS THE AREA THAT THEY JUST TALKED ABOUT DEVELOPING. THIS IS GOING TO THE STOP LIGHT THERE AT SHOPTON ROAD AND 49. AGAIN, IT’S JAMMED UP. I THINK WE’VE ALREADY OUTSTRIPPED THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT’S BEEN APPROVED AND TO YOUR POINT EARLIER, WE APPROVE THESE THINGS ONE THING AT A TIME AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER TIME IS NOW WE’VE JUST GOT WAY TOO MUCH ON THE ROAD. I LIVED HERE FOR 26 YEARS. PART OF WHAT ATTRACTED ME HERE WAS IT’S AN EASY. I’M A NATIVE HERE. I LOVE NORTH CAROLINA. I CAME BECAUSE OF THE WONDERFUL WILDLIFE. I CAN SIT AND LISTEN TO THE WHIPPERWILL. THERE’S NO MORE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THIS. I’M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. I’M JUST FOR DOING IT MINDFULLY AND THOUGHTFULLY AND IF D.O.T. AND THE CITY IS NOT ALIGNED IN THE WAY WE DO THAT, THEN IT DOES MEAN WE WILL NEED TO LEAN AND DEPEND ON OUR DEVELOPERS AND THE FOLKS THAT ARE MOVING HERE TO KEEP OUR QUALITY OF LIFE HIGH AND OUR ACCESSIBILITY. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU. MR. NEBLOCK.>>Speaker: THANK YOU. I’M DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL. IT IS MY PROPERTY IS RIGHT UP NEXT TO IT. IN ADDITION, I’M ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR MCDOWELL WHICH IS THE BIGGEST IMPACTED BECAUSE IT IS ADJACENT TO OUR HOMEOWNERS. SO TO REITERATE WHAT SHE SAID, I BROUGHT PICTURES THAT ARE SIMILAR. WHERE SHE TOOK THOSE PICTURES IS 2 AND A HALF MILES FROM THE LIGHT AND THAT’S NOT A JOKE. IT GOES BACK FURTHER 3 1/2 MILES. I LEFT THE HOUSE AT 3:00 AND IT WAS STOPPED PAST THAT POINT WHERE SHE SHOWED THE LIGHT. SO RIGHT THERE WHERE IT SAYS MILLAGE CREEK, THAT’S WHERE SHE GOT CLOSE TO THAT PICTURE BECAUSE I’M FAMILIAR WITH THAT TURN-IN AND SHOPTON ROAD. ALL OF OUR HOMEOWNERS COME OUT OF MILLAGE CREEK BECAUSE YOU SAW SOUTH TRYON, THERE’S NO WAY TO GET OUT OF SOUTH TRIEN AND GET OVER TWO LANES WITH IN A QUARTER MILE TO GET TO THAT LEFT LANE TO TURN AROUND AND DO A U-TURN TO GO NORTH. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE. SO THE TRAFFIC IS HORRENDOUS. BY THEM ADDING SOME TURN LANES IN THERE, THAT MIGHT HELP WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT DOESN’T HELP ANYBODY TRYING TO GET OUT OF THESE HOMES AND THAT STUART STRAP AND MILLAGE CREEK LANE IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST USED. A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THAT AS A SHORTCUT TO GET BACK BECAUSE OF THAT TRAFFIC. AND MOST OF THE TIME, MY WIFE IN THE MORNING, SHE TAKES THE KIDS TO SCHOOL TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL, SHE HAS TO TAKE A RIGHT BECAUSE SHE CAN’T TAKE A LEFT AND UNLESS YOU FIND SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY NICE AND YOU WAVE AT THEM AND THEY MIGHT LET YOU IN, THERE’S NOT A CHANCE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE A LEFT THERE. EVERYBODY HAS TO TAKE A RIGHT, GO AN ADDITIONAL 6, 7 MILES ALL THE WAY AROUND. IN ADDITION, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I’M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE PLANNING FOR THE BUS LANE FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE THERE. IT’S 50 FEET AND THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION, I WROTE THAT DOWN IT WAS 100 FEET AND I’M NOT SURE WHY IT WAS CUT BACK. AND THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING WALKING TRAILS. A LOT OF THAT AREA FLOOD ZONE AREA. WE CAN’T REMOVE OUR BERMS BECAUSE OF WATER THAT COMES IN THERE. I KNOW THEY’RE PUTTING WATER RECLAMATION RIGHT IN IN THE MIDDLE THERE. I DON’T KNOW HOW IT WILL IMPACT EVERYBODY ELSE THAT LIVES THERE ESPECIALLY THOSE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL FOLLOWING THAT ROAD. WHERE IT SAYS AMENITY AREA, WE HAD ONE PERSON JUST TAKE OUT THE BERM ON STUART STRAP THERE AND THEIR YARD GOT FLOODED WITH EIGHT INCHES OF WATER LAST YEAR. IT’S A BIG CONCERN WITH TRAFFIC AS WELL AS THE IMPACT OF THEM BEING RIGHT UP THERE ON A BORDER AND THE 50-FOOT, WE THOUGHT IT WAS 100-FOOT BUFFER AND NOT 50-FOOT. AND THAT’S WHY WE’RE SAYING NO.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU. MISS NATALIE RUDISILL>>HI. MY SENTIMENTS ARE GOING TO FOLLOW SUIT HERE. LAST WEEK, MY SIX-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER TOLD ME ABOUT THE EVACUATION DRILL THEY HAD AT SCHOOL. APRIL 10th, CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION HAD ITS TESTING. IT MADE ME THINK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN A REAL EMERGENCY? WITH ALL THIS GROWTH OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, ROADS ARE CONGESTED. THE NC D.O.T. DELAYED THE WINDING OF 160 WHICH IS THE EMERGENCY EVACUATION ROUTE FOR MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD. I CURRENTLY CRAWL IN COMMUTER TRAFFIC IN THE MORNING. LIKE A CRAWLING INCH BY INCH, TOP OF THE COVE TO 485. I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT MY DAUGHTER’S EVACUATION PLAN WILL BE ENACTED IN THE CASE OF EMERGENCY. SO WE SEE REZONING AFTER REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT. EACH PRODUCT IS EVALUATED ON STAND-ALONE BUT NOT A COMMUNITY LEVEL AND ITS IMPACT ON THE WHOLE. SO I’M URGING CITY COUNCIL TO DO A BETTER JOB OF BEING A MASTER PLANNER AND CONSIDER HOW THESE DEVELOPMENTS IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY AND YOU KNOW, THE EVACUATION PLAN.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [ APPLAUSE ] MR. BROWN, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. I DON’T THINK ANYTHING YOU HAVE HEARD IS A SURPRISE TO US. WE TRAVEL STEELE CREEK. WE KNOW ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES THERE. WE’RE HOPEFUL THAT WHAT WE DO PROVIDE THROUGH THIS CONNECTIVITY WILL BE CONNECTION FROM TRYON THROUGH TO SHOPTON SO THERE WILL BE ANOTHER– YOU CAN CALL IT A CUT-THROUGH IF YOU WANT AND THERE IS ANOTHER NETWORK CONNECTION TO TAKE PRESSURE OFF THAT INTERSECTION. I WISH THAT WE HAD A GREAT RESPONSE ON WHAT CAN WE DO? I THINK WE’RE FRUSTRATED ALSO WITH THE ASK THAT WE HAVE TO WIDEN THE STREET WHICH WILL PROVIDE NO RELIEF FOR THE COMMUNITY. IF WE CAN WORK WITH C.D.O.T. AND COME BACK WITH SOMETHING NEXT MONTH THAT WE’VE BEEN ABLE TO DO AND MAYBE A SMALL SOMETHING THAT MAKES IMPROVEMENT OUT HERE. I THINK THAT THE SITE IS GOING TO DEVELOP REGARDLESS. IF IT’S DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY, THERE WILL BE MORE TRIPS. IF WE DEVELOP TOWNS, THERE’S A 200-TRIP IMPACT THAT’S AN INCREASE SO WE WOULD LOVE TO AND I THINK IT IS HERE WE HAD A 50-FOOT BUFFER AND THAT’S A REQUIRED BUFFER AND WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL. WE’RE NOT BRINGING THE HOMES ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT. SO WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE SOME DIMENSIONS SO THEY COULD KNOW WHERE THAT IS. HERE WE GO. SO OUR IF THIS IS THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT’S THE 50-FOOT BUFFER. WE DON’T START HOMES FOR HUNDREDS OF FEET BUT IT’S NOT– THAT WON’T BE A BUFFER WE CAN HAVE. A LOT OF THIS TREE SAVE BUT WE CAN HAVE STORM WATER AND WE DO EXPECT TO HAVE TRAILS IN THAT AREA AND WE DON’T WANT THAT TO BE A TOTAL NO-GO ZONE. THAT’S ALL I HAVE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>THANK YOU. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR MISS MAYFIELD AND MAYOR PRO TEM.>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. ONE, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT JUST AS 2013 OUT OF 11 PROJECTS THAT WERE PROPOSED, 10 OF THEM HAVE BEEN APPROVED. WE’VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION REGARDING THE GROWTH IN STEELE CREEK. I ALSO RECEIVED AN EMAIL EARLIER TODAY FROM LYNN HOLDER AS WELL AS A COUPLE OTHER RESIDENTS THAT I COPIED OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, TY WU ON OF WHICH I SENT A MAP TO DAVE WIGGINS WHO MANAGES THE STEELE CREEK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION WEBSITE AS WELL AS THE FACEBOOK PAGE TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON ALL OF THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THEY WERE ABLE TO ATTEND THE TOWN HALL MEETING BUT THIS MAP IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AND IT’S GOING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. I HEAR THE CONCERNS WHEN I DRIVE OUT TO STEELE CREEK. IT IS BACK-TO-BACK TRAFFIC AND I WILL ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I SUPPORT THE IDEA FROM THE PETITIONER OF CREATING A ROAD THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE A USABLE ROAD AND HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS. OUR C.D.O.T. IS HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH NORTH CAROLINA D.O.T. BECAUSE AS A LOT OF RESIDENTS REMEMBER, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION WHERE THERE WAS AN APPROVED PLAN THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT SO YOU ARE SETTING ASIDE THE LAMP AND GET THAT BACK THERE.>>ALL THE LAND WOULD BE DEDICATED FOR THAT WIDENING? .>>SO AND WE CAN IDENTIFY SOME OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE STEELE CREEK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE BOARD AND SOME OF THE RESIDENTS>>MAYOR PRO TEM.>>I WILL TRY TO MAKE THIS QUICK. THE COMMENT– AND THIS IS JUST MY PET PEEVE NOT JUST IN THIS PROJECT AND ALL OF THE REZONINGS WHEN WE SAY THE PROPOSED DENSITY EXCEEDS RECOMMENDED DENSITY FOR AREA PLAN AND THIS WAS DONE IN 2012.>>RIGHT.>>SO IT EXCEEDS THE PROPOSED, BUT THERE’S ALREADY ANOTHER PROJECT THAT HAS A DENSITY OF 6.7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND WE DO THIS AND WE DID THIS. THIS IS THAT (INAUDIBLE) ROAD ONE AND I SAID WE NEVER DID NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND WE HAVE EXCUSES FOR DOING IT AND WE FORGET. THE NEXT TIME AND SOMEBODY SAYS THERE’S ALREADY AN NF AND LET’S JUST APPROVE THE NEXT ONE. WE’RE DOING THAT AGAIN AND WE’RE SAYING, IT DOESN’T FIT THE AREA PLAN THAT AND A TON OF PEOPLE PUT A TON OF TIME IN AND IT EXCEEDS IT, BUT DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT. IT’S MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION. BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN WAS THAT– WHEN WAS THAT OTHER PROPERTY, THE SITE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WAS ZONED AT A DENSITY OF 6.7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. WAS THAT DONE BEFORE OR AFTER THE AREA PLAN WAS DEVELOPED. DO WE KNOW?>>I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK. IT WAS BEFORE 2014 AND WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK THE EXACT DATE.>>THAT’S SOMETHING I AM HOPING WE DO IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE VISION PLAN WHEN WE ADD THIS. WE JUSTIFY IT BY SAYING JUST THIS ONE PROPERTY IS OKAY AND WE DO IT AGAIN AND SAY, LOOK, IT’S ALREADY THERE. [ APPLAUSE ] JUST A CORRECTION. I THINK YOU HAD SAID– I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE ENTITLEMENT IS 1190 AND THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD BE MORE TRIPS PER DAY BECAUSE I THINK YOU SAID THAT’S THE OTHER WAY AROUND THE SECOND TIME.>>IT’S AN INCREASE OF 200 TRIPS A DAY.>>I GUESS THAT WAS MY POINT IS WE CAN’T KEEP SAYING THAT AND LOOK AT THESE THINGS IN SIZELATION AND>>(INAUDIBLE).>>I DO AGREE WITH THAT ARE BUT MY POINT IS WE COME UP WITH THESE EXCUSES AND SAY THIS ONE PROJECT AND THEN WE FORGET ABOUT THAT ONE PROJECT WHEN WE HAVE THE OTHER ONE.>>MAYOR: I HAVE TO SAY THIS PROJECT, WHEN I LOOK AT IT AS FOUR UNITS AND I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH BILLABLE IT WILL BE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, BUT I THINK THE IDEA OF PUTTING MORE TRAFFIC ON THAT STREET IS JUST SOMETHING THAT I CAN’T EVEN IMAGINE. EVEN IF THIS NC D.O.T. SAYS IT’S FIVE YEARS OUT, IT’S FIVE YEARS OUT. THAT’S JUST THE REALITY OF IT. WE’VE BUILT SO MUCH IN THERE AND IT’S GROWING SO FAST. WE ARE– I DON’T KNOW WHO SAID IT, QUALITY OF LIFE WILL– WE WILL ACTUALLY HURT THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE NOW START TALKING MORATORIUM.>>MAYOR: I’M NOT SAYING MORATORIUM. IT’S A FACTOR OF CONSIDERATION. JUST LIKE WE CONSIDER WHERE DENSITY IS OCCURRING, WHERE HOUSING IS GOING. THIS ISN’T ANY MORE THAN LOOKING AT HOUSING FOR THE DENSITY OF THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT ARE OUT THERE AND YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY THIS THING ABOUT FOUR CARS AND TWO-CAR GARAGES AND TWO-CAR PADS AND THAT MEANS TWO MORE CARS ON THE STREET. NOBODY AT MY HOUSE THEY BETTER NOT PARK BEHIND MY CAR AND THEY HAVE TO GET OUT OF BED TO MOVE A CAR FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. I FEEL LIKE THIS AREA HAS BEEN REALLY GOING THROUGH A LOT OF CHANGE WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR IT. MAYBE YOU CAN SAY THAT BELONGS TO US, BUT LET’S SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AS-IS VERSUS THE PROJECTION.>>SURE. TO GIVE YOU A QUICK COUNT. IT WILL BE 115 UNITS AT 3 UNITS PER ACHIER AND 153 UNITS AT 4 UNITS PER ACHIER AND THEY’RE LOOKING AT 240. JUST TO EVERYBODY GOOD YOU AN IDEA OF THE DIFFERENCE.>>MAYOR: THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE AND LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY NOW. ALL RIGHT. MR. DRIGGS>>THANK YOU, MAYOR. I FIRST WANTED TO SAY I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THERE’S.7 NEXT DOOR MEANS THAT IT’S FINE TO DO THAT HERE AND IT’S SORT OF IMPLIES A PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING, YOU EXPECT AN EXPECTATION OR ENTITLEMENT AND WE’RE LOOKING AT A SITUATION, AND MAYBE IT’S AN INFILL, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, CIRCUMSTANCES AND WE SAY NO, THAT’S NOT BINDING ON COUNCIL. THAT DOESN’T CONSTITUTE A PRECEDENT THAT GIVES RIGHTS TO ANYBODY BUT NOW WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, LOOK, MAYBE IT DOES. SO I WOULD CERTAINLY NOT REGARD THAT AS A GOOD REASON TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO AN AREA PLAN. ON THE OTHER HAND, ON THE TRAFFIC ISSUE, I’M REALLY WORRIED. I TALKED ABOUT CONGESTION IN MY DISTRICT OFTEN AND THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPING THERE. MY FEAR IS, THOUGH THAT WE END UP IN AN ARBITRARY ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE KIND OF GO THIS CONGESTION IS OKAY. THAT’S NOT OKAY. AND SO WE REALLY NEED TO ESTABLISH CLARITY ABOUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO TOLERATE AND WHAT WE AREN’T SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT KNOW EARLY AND DON’T FIND OUT TONIGHT THAT THEY HAVE CROSSED A LINE IN THE MINDS OF PEOPLE. I HOPE WE CAN I– I HAVE BEEN CALLING THIS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND BETTER POLICY ABOUT CONGESTION. WE HAVE RULES ON TRAFFIC NOW AND THEY’RE NOT SUFFICIENT.>>I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. DRIGGS. THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TAKE TO A COMMITTEE BECAUSE IF CONGESTION IS 10% AND IT’S A POLICY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE GOOD GUIDANCE FOR PEOPLE ASKING FOR NEW REZONINGS AS WELL AS AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT REALLY DOES MOVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE NOT BEING ABLE TO MOVE PEOPLE AROUND. WITH THAT, I HAVE MR. WINSTON>>WHILE I AGREE WE NEED A WORK GROUP OR HAVE A COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS THIS MORE IN DEPTH. WE CAN’T IGNORE THIS IS A STATE ROAD. WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE STATELE R THE TABLE. I TALKED TO THE STATE AND THEY SEEMED OPEN TO THE IDEA OF DOING SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FUTURE WIDENING OF THIS ROAD BUT IT WOULDN’T MAKE ANY SENSE. IF WE DO THIS PIECE BY PIECE IF THE STATE IS GOING TO BE A GREAT PARTNER IN GETTING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS DOWN THE ROAD AND SO WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO COMPEL THE STATE TO BE AT THE TABLE AND BE SERIOUS AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ALL WE WANT, BUT IF THEY’RE NOT>>THE FUNDING ON STATE ROADS HAS BEEN GREATER IN THE LAST THREE YEARS THAN IN THE HISTORY OF TEN. I THINK THEY’RE A GOOD PARTNER BUT I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH IT AS WELL BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS CAME ABOUT JUST SINCE THEY DO AND I THINK THEY’RE WILLING TO DO ALL OF THAT. IT’S A MATTER OF CAN WE EVEN STAY IN FRONT OF IT.>>WHEN I SAY GET THEM AT THE TABLE, EVEN IF IT’S NOT JUST THEM COMING, I GUESS, PUTTING US UP ON THE LIST, IT’S HAVING SOME TYPE OF WORKING UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN’T WAIT FOR THEM TO PHYSICALLY DO THE WORK. IF WE CAN STEP IN AHEAD OF TIME IN LIEU OF ANY ACTION THAT THEY’RE GOING TO DO BUT SOMEHOW MAKE SOME TYPE OF MOU OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT WE RECUPERATE THE INVESTMENT THAT THE STATE– SHOULD HAVE MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE BUT CAN’T BECAUSE OF TIME AND THEY HAVE A WHOLE STATE TO DEAL WITH.>>ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?>>MOVE TO CLOSE.>>SECOND>>MAYOR: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 1/2 ACRES NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD IN DISTRICT FOUR. ITS CURRENT ZONING IS THREE ACRES PER UNIT, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, OPTIONAL IS FIVE YEAR, VESTED RIGHTS AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AMONG SOME OF THE RELATIONSHIPS. WE HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION WE HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR SPEAKER IN FAVOR.>>PETITIONER IS REQUESTING R-3 TO MUDD-O AND FIVE-YEAR VESTED RIGHT LOCATED ON RIDGE ROAD, PROSPERITY RIDGE ROAD AND TO THE EAST OF PROSPERITY CHURCH ROAD. THE PETITION, ITSELF, IS ASKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF–, 260 RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY. THEY HAVE A DENSITY OF 24.UNITS PER ACRE. MAXIMUM BUILDING RIGHT IS 65 FEET, FOUR STORIES. THEY DO HAVE A MIXED USE — TWO MIXED USE BUILDINGS ALONG THE FRONTAGE ONL RIDGE ROAD AND BOTH OF THOSE MEET THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE AREA PLAN WHICH TALKS AND HAVING INTEGRATED BUILDINGS AND TWO OUT OF THE FOUR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE INTEGRATED AND YOU HAVE THE TRANSITION UP ON PROSPERITY RIDGE TO TOWNHOMES AND THE PETITION IS PROVIDING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTION THAT WOULD OPEN UP THIS PROPERTY HERE TO THE WEST FOR POTENTIAL PUBLIC ROAD FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AND WE HAVE SOME LANE ALLOTMENTS FOR BIKE IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL AS SOME OF THE LANE WIDTHS NEEDED FOR NC D.O.T. PROJECT AND AGAIN, WE DO FEEL THAT THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE AREA PLAN WAS MET THROUGHOUT THE DESIGN OF THE SITE, THE DENSITY IS GREATER THAN WHAT’S BEING RECOMMENDED. WE FEEL LIKE, OVERALL, WE DISBURSED THAT DENSITY ACROSS THE SITE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY THAT ALLOWS NOT JUST FOR THIS SITE TO HAVE A MIX OF USES BUT ALSO IF WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE GENERAL AREA MIXED USE NODE. WE’RE LOOKING AT A MIX OF USES AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE IN MIXED USE PROJECT ON HERE AND REALLY FILL OUT THIS MIXED USE AREA THAT IS NOTED AS C2 FOR A MIX OF USES AND THROUGH THOSE TYPES OF PETITIONS OR EXCUSE ME, THROUGH THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THROUGH THE PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS, WE DO FEEL LIKE THEY’VE DONE A GOOD JOB IN MEETING THE INTENT OF THE PLAN AND WE SUPPORT THIS PETITION AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES>>ALL RIGHT. MR. BROWN, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.>>MADAM MAYOR, HAPPY TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL, THE DEVELOPER ON THE SITE AND THE OPTIMIST CLUB, OWNERS OF THE SITE. AS MR. PETTIN HAS SAID, I THINK WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY WITH THIS PLAN TO BROUGHT IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH PROSPERITY VILLAGE PLAN. THIS IS A PART OF TOWN CLAMORING FOR MIXED-USE CENTER AND THE A LOT OF FOLKS SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH THE AREA PLAN AND MIXED USE RECOMMENDATION CALLS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE RETAIL. WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY WITH THE PLAN LAYING OUT AND I WILL SKIP THROUGH SINCE I HAVE SHORTER TIME THAN I THOUGHT AND SHOW YOU THAT THESE WILL HAVE APARTMENT UNITS AND ON THESE BUILDS HERE, THE FRONT ON RIDGE ROAD, THEY WILL HAVE ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USES SO CREATING SOME ACTIVITY ALONG RIDGE ROAD, THE TEAM HAS TRIED TO MOVE THEIR DENSITY AWAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNS TO NORTH OF THE SITE. THEY HAVE CREATED A TOWNHOME STYLE PRODUCT THERE TO LOWER THE DENSITY, MOVE THE BUILDINGS AWAY AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY’VE MENTIONED THIS BECOME AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE PUZZLE IN REALLY CREATING THE DOWNTOWN OF PROSPERITY VILLAGE, SHOPPING CENTERS RIGHT HERE ACROSS THE STREET. THIS IS THE NEW CHICK-FIL-A RETAIL SITE GOING IN AND WE THINK THIS FILLS IN NICELY. THOUGH THE DENSITY IS A LITTLE HIGHER THAN THE PLAN RECOMMENDED. AS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, WE HAVE A SUPPLY PROBLEM AND WE DO NEED MORE SUPPLY TO KEEP HOUSING AFFORDABLE AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WHICH COUPLED WITH A GOOD SITE PLAN AND MIXTURE OF USES, IT IS APPROPRIATE AND HAPPY TO HAVE THAT SUPPORT AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT AS WELL. I’M SORRY. WOO VERY TWO OTHER SPEAKERS. DONALD SANTOS AND STUART MALLARD. I DID NOT GIVE YOU SUFFICIENT TIME. I HOPE YOU REPRESENT THEM. OTHERWISE, I WILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT UP FOR THEM.>>I AM.>>MAYOR: ANY QUESTION FROM THE STAFF OR PETITIONER? MR. PHIPPS.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR. I AM QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROSPERITY PLAN AND THE ACTIVITY SURROUNDING THIS PETITION AND IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I DID ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY IF IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS INASMUCH THAT I’M A PROUD, LOYAL MEMBER OF■■ THE HIDDEN VALLEY OPTIMIST CLUB OF WHICH THE MALLARD CREEK OPTIMIST CLUB IS AN UMBRELLA UNIT OF OPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL IN WHICH I AM AN OFFICER OF THE OPTIMIST CLUB. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS ABOVE BOARD. HE ASSURED ME I CAN PARTICIPATE INASMUCH AS I WASN’T RECEIVING DIRECT FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM ANY OF THESE ACTIVITIES HERE TONIGHT. WHAT I WANTED TO GET A FEEL FOR IS I READ IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT OTHER ADJOINING PARCELS WERE STILL AMINABLE TO DOING WHAT THEY COULD TO FACILITATE THE– I GUESS ROAD NETWORK AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE. IS THAT STILL THE CASE? I KNOW CHICK-FIL-A HAD INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING AT SOME POINT ONCE THOSE OTHER PARCELS DEVELOP THAT THEY WOULD BE AMINIBLE TO ADJUSTING SOME OF THEIR STREET INFRASTRUCTURE TO HELP FACILITATE THEIR OVERALL NETWORK?>>I THINK STAFF LOOKED AT THIS ENTIRE THEFT WORK AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS SITE TEED UP TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WE’VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE C.D.O.T. STAFF LINING UP THIS INTERSECTION WELL. IN THE FUTURE, I THINK STAFF WOULD LOVE TO SEE OLD RIDGE ROAD GO AWAY AND SO IF THAT HAPPENS, OUR SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SET UP TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. THIS A PUBLIC STREET GOING RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF OUR SITE AND CONNECTING HERE AND WHEN AND IF THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPS IN THE FUTURE, YOU CAN HAVE A STREET CONNECTION THROUGH AND YOU HAVE AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST PLAN, A WAY THROUGH FOR THESE MAJOR STREETS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION.>>IT’S HERE.>>OH.>>MAYOR: IT’S NOT WHEN WE DID THAT, WE WERE TALK STRAIGHTENING OUT A ROAD THERE.>>WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR THAT AND THAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THIS PARCEL HAPPENS. WE’RE NOT DEPENDENT AT ALL ON OLD RIDGE. OUR SITE PLANS PROVIDES THE STREET CONNECTION THROUGH OUR SITE AND OVER TO THIS PARCEL. SO WHEN THAT DEVELOPS, THAT CAN HAPPEN.>>I’M SURE SOMEONE WILL REMIND ME OF HOW THAT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. I THOUGHT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ACROSS THE ENTIRE PARCEL FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER. ALL RIGHT. MAYOR PRO TEM>>WHY DO YOU NEED FIVE-YEAR VESTED RIGHTS?>>THIS IS A FAIRLY COMPLEX PROJECT, AS YOU CAN SEE. IT DOES HAVE. THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE MULTIFAMILY. IF THE MARKET CHANGED, YOU CAN YOU CAN’T PUT APARTMENT UNITS. IT HAS TO BE A DEVELOPER THAT WILL DO MIXED USE AT THE BOTTOM AND TOWNHOMES UP THERE.>>MOTION TO CLOSE.>>ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR PETITION IS ITEM NUMBER 30 AND THIS INN THIS CASE, EAST SIDE OF SHOPTON ROAD WEST. CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOWER LAKE WYLIE WATERSHED. WE’RE IN THE RIGHT SPOT, RIGHT?>>YES>>THE PROPOSED ZONING IS MIXED USE LOWER LAKE WYLIE WATERSHED PROTECTED AREA AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE– THERE WILL BE PROTESTS AND PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AGAINST THE PETITION. WE WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FOR THE PETITION AND TEN MINUTES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST, AND WE HAVE SIX PEOPLE SIGNED UP. I WANT YOU TO USE YOUR TIME APPROPRIATELY SO SONNY CRATER, PAUL, MAGGIE WATTS AND DANIEL GATES ARE FOR THE PETITION. SO IT WILL BE FOUR PEOPLE THERE. AND THEN AGAINST THE PETITION IS EVAN RAWLES, MERRILL (INAUDIBLE), IVETTE WILSON, SAMANTHA MINES AND CHRISTINA LAD. THE SIX OF YOU WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES. IF YOU WILL ORGANIZE YOUR THINKING AND WHO IS SPEAKING THAT WOULD BE GREAT. STAFF, READY?>>YES. SO THIS PETITION 2018-146 LOCATED ON SHOPTON ROAD WEST LOOKING TO REZONE MX1 DISTRICT. JUST SOME THINGS TO NOTE REALLY ABOUT THIS PETITION. ELT IS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND DENSITY. THE SITE, ITSELF IS REALLY BEING DEVELOPED PRIMARILY UNDER A BUY RIGHT TYPE OF ZONING. THEY ARE ALLOWED 55 UNITS PER ACRE AND THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WITH THIS PETITION. SOME OF THE INNOVATIVE FEATURES THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT DO HAVE SMALLER LOT SIZES AND NEED A PROVISION TO DEAL WITH AN EXISTING CELL PHONE TOWER ON THE SITE AND WE CAN PREVENT LOTS FROM BEING 250 FEET OF THAT CELL TO YOUER AND THEY’RE ASKING IF WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT STAYING IN PLACE AND HAVING OPEN SPACE AND TREE SAVE AROUND IT WHICH STAFF DOESN’T TAKE ANY EXCEPTION TO AT THIS POINT. AGAIN, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. IT IS, FOR THE MOST PART, A BUY RIGHT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THEY’RE LOOKING TO DO THE INNOVATIVE OPTION TO ALLOW SOME DIFFERENT STREETSCAPE POTENTIAL AND AS WELL AS DIFFERENT LOT SIZES THAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY ALLOW IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO SPEAKING FOR IN FAVOR, SONNY CRATER, PAUL, MAGGIE AND DANIEL.>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. PRESENTATION, PLEASE. I’M REPRESENTING NORTH STATE DEVELOPMENT WHO IS THE APPLICANT.>>MAYOR: YOU ARE?>>I AM SONNY CRATER.>>MAYOR: I NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE IT ON THE RECORD.>>THE OWNERS OF NORTHSTATE DEVELOPMENT ARE WITH ME MAD&MADISON COMMUNITY WHO IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOULD WE BE APPROVED FOR THE SITE. THEY WENT OVER SOME OF THE ITEMS PER TAINING TO THE SITE BUT AS HE MENTIONED WE’RE UNDER THE THREE UNITS PER ACRE WITH THE PRODUCT WE’RE PROPOSING AT.77 AND THAT NUMBER MAY GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT, TOO. 50 IS PROBABLY THE MAXIMUM IT WILL HAVE. THERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC REASONS THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS IS IT ACCOMMODATES A PRODUCT THAT ALLOWS TO US REDUCE THE IMPACT ON SCHOOLS AND REDUCE THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC COMPARED TO YOUR TYPICAL R-3 AND I’LL SHOW YOU WHY. WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL OUR COTTAGE SERIES HOMES WHICH ARE A COLLECTION OF REALLY ATTRACTIVE TWO-BEDROOM RANCH PLANS OR TWO-BEDROOM RANCH PLANS WITH A BONUS ROOM ABOVE OR WE ALSO HAVE PLANS THAT ARE SLIGHTLY LARGER OR THE OTHER SUITE ON THE MAIN FLOOR AND TWO BEDROOMS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, AND THESE ARE BASICALLY PATIO HOMES WITH FULL COMMON MAINTENANCE OF THE YARDS, WHICH IS A STRONG SELLING POINT FOR OUR HOMES. AND THAT INCLUDES ALL THE FRONT YARDS AND INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE COURTYARDS WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE. OUR TARGET MARKET IS THE BABY BOOMER MARKET. THERE ARE 10,000 PEOPLE A DAY TURNING 65 EVERY DAY IN THE UNITED STATES. WE’VE GOT ABOUT 17 MORE YEARS LEFT OF THAT TO GO, AND THAT IS OUR TARGET. HOWEVER, WITH OUR MAINTENANCE OF THE LOANS, OUR FEES ARE LESS THAN $100 A MONTH AND IT’S A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE EPCONs OR THE SUN CITIES WHERE THE DUES ARE QUITE HIGH. THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT WITH HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS AND IN HIGH QUALITY HOMES. OUR ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, WE USE JAMES HARDEE. WE TYPICALLY USE COLORPLUS WHICH LASTS LONGER AND THE VINYL AND ALUMINUM ARCHITECTURE SHINGLES, VERY WELL APPOINTED OUTSIDE AND INSIDE. AND HERE’S ONE OF OUR RANCH PLANS, THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS HAD A BONUS ROOM, BASICALLY A THIRD BEDROOM TOWARD THE BACK ABOVE THE GARAGE, BUT I HAD PEOPLE COME AND SAY, I DON’T WANT THE STAIRS. I ONLY NEED TWO BEDROOMS AND WE CREATED TWO BEDROOMS AND WE ENDED UP WITH THREE DIFFERENT RANCH PLANS THAT ARE TWO BEDROOMS AND HAVE AN OPTION FOR THE BONUS ROOM. SO THEY RUN FROM 1,00 TO ABOUT 1,750EN THE RANCH PLANS. THIS IS NEWER PLANS AND WE KEEP INTRODUCING NEW PLANS AND I THINK NOW WE’VE GOT EIGHT DIFFERENT PLANS AND SOME ALTERNATE ELEVATIONS TO THAT. SO WE ARE KEEPING THE PRODUCT FRESH. SOMETHING I’VE BEEN WANTING TO ACHIEVE FOR SOME TIME IS TO TURN SOME OF OUR RANCHES SO THAT THEY’RE ADA ACCESSIBLE. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT I’VE DONE IN&THAT’S IN THE MAGNOLIA PLAN AND I PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THAT AND THE OTHER RANCH PLANS. AND HERE ARE SOME OF OUR MASTER ON THE MAIN PLANS THAT GO UP TO AND HAVE TWO BEDROOMS ON THE MAIN FLOOR. AGAIN, THE SIZE RANGE OF THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS ALMOST 2,000 AND IT WILL RANGE FROM 300,000 TO 325 AT THIS LOCATION MASTER BEDROOM ON THE MAIN AND TWO BEDROOMS UP. SOME ELEMENTS WILL ABOUT THE SITE THAT ARE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO ME ARE PARKS, AND WE’VE GOT REALLY NICE PARK HERE AND REALLY NICE PARK HERE. THERE WILL BE SIDEWALKS THAT ACTUALLY RUN IN FRONT OF HOUSE THAT’S THERE. BUT MY NEW URBAN ROOTS WANT ME TO CREATE USABLE OPEN SPACES AND THESE FIT THAT EXTREMELY WELL THERE AND THEY’RE INVITING TO THE RESIDENTS TO USE THEM AND THEY’RE NOT PUSHED TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY SOMEWHERE SO THEY’RE HIGHLY USEFUL. THE PHOTOGRAPH BELOW IS FROM RIVERWALK WHICH SOME OF YOU HAVE MAYBE SEEN IN ROCK HILL. ORIGINALLY, I HAD THIS SET UP AND WE ENDED UP WITH A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT, BUT IT’S A GORGEOUS FEATURE OF THE SITE. AND ALSO, ALL OF OUR STREETS HAVE ON-SITE PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET. OUR HOMES ALL HAVE A TWO-CAR GARAGE THEY EACH HAVE A TWO-GAR CAR GARAGE AND ONSTREET PARKING AND WE HAVE TREMENDOUS PARKING THAT IS WELL PROTECTED THERE. THIS DEMONSTRATES EACH LOT AND THE SEPARATION IS 14 TO 20 FEET. EACH OF THE HOUSES WILL HAVE COME LUMS AND ALUMINUM GATE THAT OFFERS THE PRIVACY INTO THE COURT YARD. AGAIN, ALL OF THIS IS MAINTAINED IN THE FRONT BY THE ASSOCIATION AND THE SEPARATION TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THAT RELATES IN R6, 12 FEET IS REQUIRED AND WE’RE EXCEEDING THAT AND THAT’S PRETTY MUCH WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. ANY QUESTIONS?>>MAYOR: ALL RIGHT. WE’LL HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER OTHER PEOPLE WHO DO NOT SUPPORT THE PETITION SPEAK? MERRILL, TONY GREENE, IVETTE WILSON, SAMANTHA HINES AND CHRISTINA LAD. IF YOU WOULD ALL COME DOWN, YOU HAVE AND GIVE US YOUR NAME SO THE CLERK WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TIME AND ALL OF THAT>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR AND TELL ME YOUR NAME.>>CHRISTINA. YOU ARE THE LAST SPEAKER ON THIS PETITION. MY NAME IS EVAN ROSS AND I LIVE IN STEELE CREEK. I HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 37 YEARS AND 32 YEARS ON FOUNTAIN LANE WHICH ABUTTS THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY. I DID ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING AT PLEASANT HILL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. AT WHICH TIME, THEY PROPOSED A DIFFERENT MAP THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE NOW. WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS A NUMBER OF THINGS. ONE IS THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, THE CONFIGURATION OF SLEDGE ROAD, SHOPTON ROAD WEST, PINE HARBOR WITH THE INTERSECTION IS PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS AND INCREASED TRAFFIC, THERE WILL BE PROBLEMS THERE. SECONDLY, I AGREE WITH THE COUNCIL ABOUT STEELE CREEK. I WATCHED IT FORP AND YEARS THERE IS A TSUNAMI OF TRAFFIC OUT THERE THAT IS BASICALLY GRIDLOCK FROM 6:30 IN THE MORNING UNTIL 7:00 AT NIGHT. WHAT WE HAVEN’T CALCULATED ON IS THE SOUTH CAROLINA TRAFFIC, THE REFUGEES FROM SOUTH CAROLINA THAT ARE– [LAUGHTER] THAT ARE JUST RACING, RACING UP SHOPTON ROAD WEST, 49, 160 AND LET ME TELL YOU. THERE IS MORE ROAD RAGE PER CAPITA FROM SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS THAN THERE ARE FROM NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS AND I SEE IT ALL THE TIME. I SEE DANGEROUS SITUATIONS. I SEE ACTS. WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT AND I HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE TO SAY IS THE RUNOFF IN THIS WATER SHED AREA, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS CIRCLED NUMBER SIX, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. I WENT OUT THIS MORNING AND WALKED THAT CREEK IN THE WATER SHED AREA, SUBMITTED PICTURES OVER HERE TO THE ZONING PEOPLE WITH EXHIBITS, NYNEX HIB ITS. I DID NOT HAVE COPIES. I HOPE THEY MAKE COPIES. THE DEVELOPER HAS PROBABLY AND IF THEY HAVEN’T, THEY WILL, HIRE SOME EXPERT THAT WILL SAY THAT THE STREAM BACK THERE IS AN OCCASIONAL STREAM. IT IS NOT. IT IS EITHER A PERENNIAL OR INTERMITTENT STREAM WITH A LOT OF RUNOFF. THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I HAVE PROVIDED SHOW EIGHT TO TEN-FOOT CATCH OF THE CREEK. WATER RUNS IN THAT CREEK MOST OF THE YEAR. EVEN IN DRY OCCASIONS, IT’S WET. IT IS WATER SHED PROTECTED AREA. THIS EXTRA ADD-ON, THE SIX LOTS ON THE BACK USED TO BE TREE SAVE AND THE PLAN THEY PRESENTED AT PLEASANT HILL CHURCH AND THEY’RE CUTTING DOWN THOSE TREES AND IT IS GOING TO JUST OVERWHELM THE WATERSHED AREA LEADING UP TO WHERE THERE’S A BRIDGE. THAT BRIDGE IS GOING TO BE WASHED OUT. THERE ARE SIX PEOPLE LANDLOCKED BY THAT BRIDGE INCLUDING A CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG P.L.O. POLICE OFFICER AND MY NEIGHBOR HERE WHO WILL SPEAK FOR A SECOND. THE WATER SHED AREA IS AND THEY’RE NOT PROTECTING IT BECAUSE THEY MOVED ALL THE IMPERVIOUS SERVICES OVER DRAINING INTO THE CREEK.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU. WE HAVE ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES LEFT. MERRILL CUBIC.>>MY PARTNER AND I HAVE BEEN LIVING ON FOUNTAIN LANE FOR FIVE YEARS AND WE MOVED FROM CHICAGO. WE HAVE INVESTED $300,000 ON IMPROVING OUR PROPERTY AND THE CHANGE AND PROPOSALS IS PUTTING TO THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY. THERE IS NO BUFFER WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK. WE EMPLOYED MANY PEOPLE IN CHARLOTTE. WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY AND NO ONE ELSE IS WINNING. THE RESIDENTS OF FOUNTAIN LANE ARE NOT GAINING ANYTHING BY THIS CONTINUOUS GROWTH. IT’S NOT SAFE AND NOT ATTRACTIVE OR GOOD FOR OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TONY GREEN. IS TONY GREEN HERE? IVETTE WILSON, WE HAVE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES>>I TOO AM A RESIDENT AND HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS. ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THE OVERSTRESSED INFRASTRUCTURE. THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR EMERGENCY AND WE HAVE TO EVACUATE HOW DO WE GET OUT? ON JANUARY 1th, THIS WAS A GAS LEAK IN THAT AREA BETWEEN THE SHOPTON ROAD WEST BRIDGE AND THAT GOES OVER LAKE WYLIE AND SLEDGE AND DURING THAT TIME, KIDS WERE ON THE SCHOOL BUS, THEY COULD NOT LEAVE. THEY WERE STUCK ON THE SCHOOL BUS. THEY DIDN’T HAVE FOOD. THEY DIDN’T HAVE WATER. THEY DIDN’T HAVE TOILETS. THEY DID NOT GET HOME UNTIL AFTER 7:00 BECAUSE THEY WERE STUCK RIGHT BETWEEN SLEDGE AND SHOPTON ROAD WHICH IS WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO PUT ANOTHER ROAD COMING OUT, AND IT WILL DUMP INTO THAT SAME AND. I LIVE ON CHAPEL COVE ON WIMBEL COURT. MY STREET, MY WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS ONE BIG GRIDLOCK. NO ONE COULD LEAVE. AGAIN, THERE WAS ANOTHER TIME ON NOVEMBER 1th, THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT ON THE BRIDGE LEADING OUT OF SHOPTON ROAD WEST GOING NORTH TOWARD THE LAKE, TWO LANES GOING OVER THE LAKE. IT TOOK US AN HOUR AND 20 MINUTES TO GET TO WESTINGHOUSE WHICH IS PROBABLY ABOUT A HALF MILE, WE COULD NOT EVEN BACK OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAYS AND SO, OUR CONCERN IS THE ACCELERATED GROWTH. WHAT IT’S GOING TO DO TO THE EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, POLICE, GARBAGE, HOSPITALS. SENIORS MOVING IN THAT AREA. SENIORS ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE THEY’RE TRYING TO GET EMERGENCY RELIEF OR THEY MAY NEED TO GET TO DOCTORS OR WHATEVER. AND THE OVERALL WELL BEING OF THE COMMUNITY AND FOR US, THE COMMUNITY THAT PAYS OUR TAXES ARE OUR CONSTITUENTS AND WE FEEL LIKE WE’RE NOT BEING HEARD. DEVELOPERS ARE JUST COMING IN. THEY’RE DUMPING IN, NEW DEVELOPMENT AND WE ARE STUCK. SO WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN IN TEN YEARS? IT’S GOING TO BE A MASS EXIT, OF THAT BEAUTIFUL AREA AND WE’RE REALLY CONCERNED AND I, FOR ONE, WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORATORIUM>>JUST UNTIL IT’S FIGURED OUT>>MAYOR: THANK YOU. MISS HINES>>YES. I’M SAMANTHA HINES AND MISS IVETTE WILSON IS MY NEIGHBOR I LIVE IN CHAPEL COVE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I REITERATE THE CONCERNS SO WE FEEL LIKE WE’RE BEING HEARD AS CITIZENS WHO WANT QUALITY OF LIFE. WELL BEING AND WANT TO FEEL SAFE AND PROTECTED, WE ASK FOR THESE THINGS. WE HAVE THESE REQUESTS. WE REQUEST THAT A TRAFFIC STUDY OR A TRAFFIC COUNT ALONG SHOPTON ROAD WEST BE DONE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OVER A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 30 DAYS AND ONCE THAT TRAFFIC COUNT IS COMPLETE, WE ASK THAT IT’S USED TO CONDUCT A STUDY THAT WILL DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC PATTERNS IN THIS AREA OVER TIME. THE STREET ON THE MAP THERE, LAUGHING GAL WILL BE A CUT-THROUGH AND ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC IS COMING ACROSS THAT LAKE WYLIE BRIDGE ALONG SHOPTON ROAD WEST TO GET TO THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, WILL CUT THROUGH THE CHAPEL COVE COMMUNITY THE THIRD THING WE’RE ASKING FOR IS THIS TRAFFIC PATTERN STUDY BE USED TO DETERMINE IF THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE CAN HANDLE THIS ACCELERATED GROWTH ALONG WITH OTHER PROPOSALS AND THIS WAS 28 ON THE AGENDA AND THERE ARE 8 OTHER ACTIVE PROPELS FOR THE STEELE CREEK AREA IF. THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE CANNOT SUPPORT THESE ACTIVE PROPOSALS, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON THIS AREA? NEXT, WE’RE ASKING IF THE STUDY DOES PROVE THAT THIS PROPOSED ROAD WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE AREA, WE AREASKING FS FOR THE CHAPEL COVE COMMUNITY RESIDENTS AND THIS WILL BE SPECIFIC TO THE DEVELOPER.>>MAYOR: WE HAVE ONE MINUTE LEFT.>>WE ASK FOR A BUFFERING CONDITION.>>YOU OKAY? THANK YOU.>>FOE AHEAD. ONE MINUTE LEFT. THAT’S ABOVE AND BEYOND THE MINIMUM CITY REQUIREMENTS. WE ASK THAT BUFFERING BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 100-FOOT NATURAL BUFFER AND THE CURRENT AESTHETIC CONTINUITY OF THE CHAPEL COVE DEVELOPMENT BE MAINTAINED. WE’RE ASKING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT HOUSING SQUARE FOOTAGE AT LEAST BE COMPARABLE TO THE EXISTING NORM FOR THE CHAPEL COVE COMMUNITY WHICH BEGINS AT A MINIMUM OF 2,400 SQUARE FEET AND NEXT, WE ASK FOR PROPER SIGNAGE THAT INDICATES THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT IS NOT AT ALL CONNECTED TO CHAPEL COVE SO THAT RESIDENTS WHO MAY BUY IN THIS NEW AREA IF THIS NEW AREA IS APPROVED WILL NOT BELIEVE THEY WILL BE PART OF THE CHAPEL COVE WITH ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY’S AMENITIES. THIS WILL OVERSTRESS THE COMMUNITY’S AMENITIES FOR CHAP COVE NEIGHBORHOOD.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISS LAD, THANK YOU FOR BEING GRACIOUS. I APPRECIATE THAT NOW WE HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR MR. CRATER TO RESPOND>>I’M PAUL WITH URBAN DESIGN PARTNERS. PANNELL, YES, MA’AM. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE COMMUNITY BROUGHT TO US TODAY. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ROWDY SOUTH CAROLINA DRIVERS CAN BE A PROBLEM. WE CAN REST ASSURED THAT NORTH CAROLINA DRIVERS WILL BE LIVING AT THIS LOCATION AND ALSO TO ADDRESS MR. RAWLS’ CONCERNS REGARDING THE INTERMITTENT STREAM ON-SITE, YES, WE HAVE HIRED A PROFESSIONAL TO COME AND LOOK AT THAT AND THERE IS, IN FACT, A STREAM ON SITE BUT WHAT IS IN QUESTION IS WHERE THE INTERMITTENT STREAM BEGINS AND WHERE IT IS NOT SHOWN. IT’S SHORTER THAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE PLANS CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW. JUST A REMINDER THAT THE SITE FROM GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES IS SHOWN UP TO 4DUA AND WE ARE PROPOSING 2.8 DUA.>>I JUST WANT TO REITERATE A COUPLE POINTS. WE CERTAINLY CAN DO AN R-3 PROPOSING A PRODUCT THAT IS APPEALING TO FOLKS THAT DO NOT GENERALLY HAVE CHILDREN SO THEY’RE NOT GOING TO SOCCER AND BASEBALL AND WHATEVER. THE TRIPS PER DAY IS DRASTICALLY REDUCED. OUT OF 38 HOMES THAT ARE JUST COMPLETED, I THINK WE HAD THREE THAT WERE UNDER 50. SO THE TRAFFIC AND SCHOOL IMPACTS AND THEN I JUST THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, PARTICULARLY COMPARED TO PREVIOUS PROPOSAL THAT WE HEARD BECAUSE OF THE PRODUCT THAT IT OFFERS AND THE IMPACTS ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE.>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NOW WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR COUNCIL FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE. QUESTIONS MIGHT BE OF. I DIDN’T WANT YOU TO GET SETTLED AND HAVE TO COME BACK DOWN. STAFF, PETITIONER OR THOSE AGAINST THE PETITION, ANY WEES? MISS MAYFUL.>>I HAVE A QUESTION FOR– I DON’T WANT TO SAY THAT WRONG. YOU CAN PLACE THAT BACK AT THE PODIUM YOU YOU CAN EMAIL THAT TO THE CLERK AND SHE CAN GET THAT TO US AS WELL SO SHE KNOWS. I WAS TRYING TO CAPTURE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU WERE REQUESTING AND I BELIEVE IT WAS THE LAST TWO. IF YOU CAN REPEAT THE LAST TWO, PLEASE.>>THE LAST TWO WOULD BE A REQUEST THAT THE HOUSING SQUARE FOOTAGE BE COMPARABLE TO THE EXstING NORM FOR THAT COMMUNITY WHICH BEGINS AT 2400 SQUARE FEET. YOU MENTIONED ABOUT SIGNAGE, TO CLEARLY AILIENTATE?>>THAT’S CORRECT BECAUSE THE NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD GO DIRECTLY BEHIND THE RED LINE OF LAUGHING GAL ON THE MAP THERE AND THERE WOULD BE A CUT-THROUGH STREET WHICH WOULD GIVE ANY RESIDENT NO R THAT THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE CONNECTED ESPECIALLY IF THAT COMMUNITY IS NAMED SOMETHING SIMILAR TO CHAPEL COVE. I THINK CRESCENT COVE AND OTHER NAMES LIKE THAT WERE BEING THROWN AROUND SO WE WOULD LIKE FOR THE SIGNAGE TO BE CLEAR AND THAT IN NO WAY THE COMMUNITY BE NAMED SOMETHING THAT WOULD INFER THAT THOSE COMMUNITIES ARE CONNECTED WE DON’T HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NAME BUT I WANTED CLARITY OVER WHAT YOU WERE SHARING. YOU MENTIONED AT THE END AND YOU WERE RUNNING OUT OF TIME AND YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO A STUDY OR MENTIONING A MORATORIUM I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MORATORIUM ON THE PROJECTS UNTIL WE CAN DO SOME KIND OF STUDY, TRAFFIC STUDY, IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, QUALITY OF LIFE AND THERE’S ENOUGH BUILDING IN THE STEELE CREEK AREA THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO CONTINUE TO APPROVE PROJECT AFTER PROJECT. I’M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THIS IS HAPPENING. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SEE STAND UP AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET’S JUST HOLD UP AND SO,-SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT WIDENING THE ROADS AND MAYBE TALKING TO THE DEVELOPERS INVOLVED. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE MONEY. WHY CAN’T THEY HAVE HELP WITH THE ROADS? I KNOW THAT’S A POLITICAL THING AND THERE’S RULES ABOUT WHO.>>I HAVE TO STOP YOU. I HAVE TO ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION AND I WANT SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE MORATORIUM. QUESTION FOR STAFF. I HEARD A QUESTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC STUDY IN THE AREA. DO WE HAVE RECORD OF WHEN THE LAST, IF EVER, A TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE IN THE STEELE CREEK AREA? THAT 10 OUT OF 11 PROJECTS BETWEEN TO 13 AND 2018 WERE APPROVED. WHEN WAS OUR LAST TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS IT FOR A SPECIFIC AREA BASED ON THE GROWTH THAT WE’RE SEEING NOW?>>WE CAN PROVIDE THAT IN THE FOLLOWING REPORT.>>I THINK I MENTIONED THAT AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE LOOK AT MULTIPLE PROJECTS IMPACT AREA, NOT JUST THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT, IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO THAT INFORMATION AS IT COMES TO HEARING IN ORDER TO GIVE US A BETTER IDEA OF THE IMPACT OF THE STRUCTURAL IMPACT THAT WE’RE SEEING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, BOTH LADIES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PETITIONER.>>IF I CAN ANSWER ONE MORE QUESTION ON TRAFFIC REAL QUICK FOR YOU.>>YES>>WE’RE AT 610 TRIPS PROPOSED UNDER THIS PLAN. THE DEVELOPMENT BUY RIGHT AS WE STATED EARLIER WOULD BE THE SAME 610 TRIPS AND THERE’S REALLY NO TRAFFIC INCREASE OVER WHAT’S BEING PROPOSED OR WHAT COULD BE BUILT BY RIGHT WITHOUT COMING THROUGH REZONING AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY THAT>>ANOTHER CLARIFICATION TO HELP ME. THE STEELE CREEK AREA PLAN WAS FIRST ADOPTED IN 2012. AGAIN, TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY, CHARLOTTE PREMIUM OUTLET CAME ALONG. THAT CHANGED A LOT OF THE PLAN. IS THIS BASED ON THE 2012 AREA PLAN OR BUY RIGHT BY TODAY’S REALITY?>>BUY RIGHT BASED ON THE CURRENT ZONING AND IT WOULD ALLOW FOR UP TO 55 UNITS AND THEY’RE PROPOSING UP TO 55 UNITS. SO WHAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW IS R-3 AT 18.39 ACRES AND THEY CAN GET UPWARDS OF 59 LOTS AND PROPOSING 55 LOTS AND IT IS TO PROPOSE THEM DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE. THEY PROVIDE A DIFFERENT PRODUCT AND SO THE END RESULT DOESN’T NEED OR HAVE US GAIN ANY ADDITIONAL LOTS FROM WHAT IT’S CURRENTLY ZONED AND IT DOESN’T PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL TRIPS AND WE’RE LOOKING AT THE SAME OUTCOME FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY AND WE’RE LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY BEING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE R-3 SECOND STANDARDS ARE>>SO WILL I HAD ALONG WITH THOSE WHO ATTENDED, THANK YOU, BECAUSE THAT IS QUITE A DISTANCE COMING FROM PART OF STEELE CREEK INTO UPTOWN AND WE ALSO HAVE– I HAVE MET WITH THE PETITIONER. WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS AND I HAVE ALSO TALKED TO RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA AS WELL AS RECEIVED AN EMAIL EARLIER TODAY THAT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WERE COPIED ON AND A NUMBER OF EMAILS. STEELE CREEK, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE FOR FULL TRANSPARENCY, THE STEELE CREEK RESIDENT LAND USE COMMITTEE MET LAST NIGHT AND THEY DID SUBMIT A POSITION LETTER. IT WASN’T A LETTER IN SUPPORT OR DENIAL BASED ON THE LANGUAGE. THEY SUBMITTED A LETTER GIVING THEIR STATEMENT ON THE POSITION. I’M HOPING THAT WHAT WAS JUST STATED BASED ON THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE WHAT IT COULD BE THAT DIDN’T ANSWER MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS REGARDING BASED ON THE GROWTH THAT WE SEE ARE WE LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE I HAD A RESIDENT REACH OUT. THEIR CONCERN IS THAT THERE ARE SMALL POCKETS OF LAND IN BETWEEN LARGER DEVELOPMENT AND THERE’S A POSSIBILITY OF EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD SAY IT’S INFILL BY DEFINITION BUT THAT WE WOULD ALLOW FOR A CONCENTRATION OF A DEVELOPMENT TO GO IN, IN BETWEEN THAT DOESN’T FIT THE CHARACTER OF A COMMUNITY. SOMEWHERE IN HERE THERE’S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TO US HAVE A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION REGARDING THE PLAN AND THE GROWTH ESPECIALLY THIS HAS BEEN UNINCORPORATED CHARLOTTE BUT IT HAS TO COME THROUGH THE CITY FOR REZONING. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE IMPACT STUDY, ALL OF TONIGHT, EVERY CONVERSATION THAT’S COME IN REGARDING STEELE CREEK HAS HAD A REOCCURRING THEME REGARDING TRAFFIC AND ACCESS. WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION.>>SURE.>>EVEN THOUGH I KNOW WE’RE AFRAID OF THE M WORD, THERE IS A WAY FOR TO US LOOK AT A PAUSE TO GIVE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT IMPACT STUDIES INSTEAD OF JUST LOOKING AT TRAFFIC STUDIES IF WE CHANGE OUR THOUGHT PROCESS AND LOOK AT AN IMPACT STUDY, THAT MAY HELP US TO IDENTIFY GREATER OPPORTUNITY IN OUR LANGER WAGE SO WE DON’T HAVE A DEVELOPER WHEN THEY COME HERE, THEY’RE BOMMARITO BARREDDED WHEN ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE ACCORDING TO OUR LANGUAGE THE PLAN GOES UP TO FOUR UNITS PER ACHIER AND I WOULD YIELD THEM 37 1/2 LOTS AND IT’S AN INCREASE OVER WHAT THEY’RE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW. SO THE PLAN ACTUALLY RECOMMENDS AND THAT PLAN IS BASED ON AN APPROVAL OF THE 2012. THAT PLAN IS NOT BASED ON A REALITY OF 2015 TO 209 [ APPLAUSE ]>>THE REASON I CLARIFY IS THE ISSUE IF THEY WALK ADD WAY WITHOUT THE REZONING, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THE 55 LOTS THAT WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS EVENING. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR CLARIFICATION.>>S THEY A CLARIFICATION TO ALL OF US OF WHAT THEY CAN DO TODAY. I’M JUST ASKING AS WE’RE WORKING ON A UDO AND LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE, IF WE CAN CONSIDER HOW WE RETHINK AND LOOK AT IMPACT AREAS OPPOSED TO JUST INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS>>MOVE TO CLOSE.>>MISS AJMERA HAS SOMETHING TO SAY. [LAUGHTER]>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR I SEE THIS IS THE STEELE CREEK AREA AND TRAFFIC AND ROAD WINDING AND THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER REQUESTS THAT COME IN AROUND SIGNAGE. I KNOW, MISS LAD, YOU DID NOT GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER>>MAYOR: WE CANNOT DO THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE A TIME LIMIT.>>I’M ASKING FOR SPECIFIC (INAUDIBLE)>>BAD PRECEDENT. SHE SHOULD WRITE TO US.>>I’LL BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH HER DIRECTLY>>SO IT’S JUST GENERAL.>>WE MAY NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING ON THE RECORD OF OUR CONVERSATION. WHAT I WAS SAYING IS OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THIS AND I MAY NOT GET THE WORDS EXACTLY RIGHT. WE HAVE THE TIME LIMIT AND WHEN WE DON’T GET TO SOMEONE, WE ASK THEM TO SEND SOMETHING IN WRITING OR EMAIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE OUR RULE IS THAT 10 MINUTES AND WE HAVE TO HE GO BACK TO THE PERSON FOR AS WELL AS THE PERSON AGAINST AND WE’VE BEEN FAIRLY STRICT ON THOSE RULES AND MY APOLOGIES AND WHEN I GLANCED OVER, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT TIME LIMIT. THANK YOU MISES LADD IS SPEAKING LATER. SHE SAID IT’S GENERAL. SHE CAN ADDRESS IT THEN. THANK YOU. MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING>>SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS ITEM 3120 BY SUNCAT PROPERTY GROUP FOR 1.7 ACRES EAST SIDE OF WAVERLY IN COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 AND ITS CURRENT ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE AND RESIDENTIAL 2 UNITS PER ACRE AND SINGSLE FAMILY CONDITIONAL AND MIXED USE CONDITIONAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ITEMS. IN THIS CASE ON ITEM 31, WE HAVE FOUR PEOPLE SPEAKING FOR AND THREE PEOPLE SPEAKING AGAINST. THE STAFF WILL GIVE US THE PRESENTATION FOLLOWED BY COLIN BROWN, FRED BOLT, DAVID LEE AND NATE DOOLITTLE. THREE SPEAKERS AND THEY’LL HAVE TEN MINUTES. AND IF THREE PEOPLE AGAINST WANT TO COORDINATE THEIR TIME AND EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK, CHRISTINE WOODHOUSE, IVETTE PRENAL.>>THERE’S AN ADDITIONAL SPEAKER.>>MAYOR: ANOTHER SPEAKER. I’M SORRY. I HAVE THAT SPEECH. IN ADDITION TO THAT, GREG OWEN SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COORDINATE YOUR TIME FOR THOSE TEN MINUTES, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. IT’S ALWAYS REGRETTABLE WHEN SOMEONE DOESN’T GET A CHANCE TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. DAVE.>>WE’RE LOOKING AT REZONING HERE FROM R8 TO R8 CD AND A MUDD CD. THE DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ACTUALLY BROKEN UP INTO TWO PARTICULAR SPOTS ALONG KENILWORTH WHERE THE MUDD CD IS BEING PROPOSED AND YOU HAVE THE R-8 CD BEING PROPOSED HERE ALONG WAVERLY ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE PROJECT SO TO GO THROUGH THE LAND USE AND STREET SCAPE PLAN RECOMMENDS RESIDENTIAL USES OF UP TO 22 UNIT PER ACHIER AND HAVE HEIGHT LANGUAGE IN THERE, CAPPING BUILDINGS AT 50-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT ALONG KENILWORTH. THIS PROPOSAL, AS WE STATED, IS SPLIT INTO TWO THIS IS R FOR MORE OF A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED PRODUCT AND YOU’VE GOT THE MUDD AREA HERE FOR THE MULTIFAMILY FOUR-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING AND AS YOU CAN SEE, AS WE HAVE EDGES INNED, YOU GOT UP TO 56 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BEING PROPOSED IN THIS AREA COMBINED. 50 ALONG THE FRONT SIDE WITH APARTMENTS AND 50 ALONG THE BACK OR EXCUSE ME, SIX– SIX ON THE BACK ON WAVERLY. THE STREET SCAPES ARE 8-8 AND WAVERLY AND WE GET THE STREET SCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS KENILWORTH DOES HAVE A DIFFERENT GRADE FROM WHERE THE PROJECT BOUNDARY STARTS WHICH IS CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION WITH ROMANY, AND YOU HAVE WHAT IS PROPOSED AS 65 BUILDING HEIGHT NEXT TO EXISTING CONDOS AND AS THAT GRADE TRAVELS UP KENILWORTH UP TO EXISTING FAMILY HERE, YOU HAVE A 49-FOOT HEIGHT AND AVERAGE GRADE OF 58 FEET ALTOGETHER FOR THE BUILDING. SOME THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND FOR THIS PROPOSAL, THE 22 OR THE RM2 ZONING DISTRICT RIGHT NOW THAT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED WOULD ALLOW BUILDING UPWARDS OF 100 FEET IF THEY WERE ABLE TO MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF ZONING ORDINANCE BUT WE DO HAVE A BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOTMENT BY RIGHT THAT WOULD ALLOW A HIGHER BUILDING THAN WHAT’S PROPOSED. SOME HAVE PUT IN FOUR AND THREE STORY PRODUCTS AND YOU HAVE FOUR AND THREE-STORY PRODUCT HERE AT SCOTT AND KENILWORTH. AND THAT’S 60 UNITS PER ACRE. THESE UNITS, THREE-STORY TOWNHOMES NEXT STORE, I BELIEVE– LET’S SEE. THOSE CAME OUT AT 40 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THAT’S 30 UNITS PER ACRE AND THEN ALSO YOU’VE GOT SOME AT PIERCE AND KENILWORTH THAT ARE HERE THAT ARE DWELLING UNITS PER ACHIER AN 45 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THOSE AROUND THE HARRIS TEETER THAT CAME OUT AT 45 FEET IN HEIGHT. WE SAW SOME INCREASE OF HEIGHT IN THE CORRIDOR. WE THINK IT’S CONSISTENT IN THE TRANSITION. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH&WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE OUR PRESENTATION AND OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SIDE.>>COLINNEN BROWN. AGAIN, I SAID IN THE FIRST PETITION THAT WENT PARTICULARRED, WE SHOWED THE STATE OF THE HOUSING REPORT AND DESPITE WHAT YOU HEAR FROM THE AUDIENCE, WE ARE NOT BUILDING ENOUGH. IF WE WANT TO PRESS PAUSE AND PUT IN A MORATORIUM THAT WILL GREATLY EXACERBATE OUR AFFORDABILITY CRISIS, SO WE ARE IN NEED OF UNITS AND WE’RE HERE THE DENSITY HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. NO ONE WANTS KNIT THEIR BACKYARD BUT WE HAVE TO FIND APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR DENSITY. THIS IS IDEAL. DAVE HAS GONE OVER THE LOCATION. HERE IS KENILWORTH BOULEVARD. THIS SITE RIGHT HERE, THE FRONTAGE ON KENILWORTH IS ZONED R-22MF, THAT’S APARTMENT ZONING AND THE BACK PORTION OF THE SITE IS ZONED R8. THIS IS A LOOK– THIS SITE IN CONTEXT WITH WHAT’S AROUND IT AND SO HERE IS THE ATRIUM MEDICAL CENTER. RIGHT UP HERE WOULD BE EAST BOULEVARD THERE’S A PUBLIC PARK BEHIND US. THIS IS FACING A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. A HIGH-POWERED LINE AND I THINK THIS IS IDEAL FOR MORE DENSITY. AS I MENTIONED, CURRENT ZONING ON THE FRONTAGE, R-22 AND THE BACK IS R-8. DAVE WENT THROUGH AND SHOWED DENSITIES ADJACENT TO US. HERE IS 32 UNITS PER ACRE. ACROSS THE STREET FROM US IS 60 UNITS PER ACRE AND A LITTLE BIT UP THE HILL IS ANOTHER SITE AND DAVE WENT THROUGH THOSE HEIGHTS AS WELL COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND FEEDBACK, AS WITH ANY REZONING IN THE DILWORTH AREA, THERE IS A LOT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. THIS IS JUST A RECORD OF, I THINK, SOME OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH THAT HAS BEEN DONE. I HOPE SOME FOLKS TONIGHT AND I KNOW WE WILL HAVE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. I HOPE THERE’S AN ACKNOWLEDGE OF THE PROGRESS MADE BECAUSE THIS HAS COME A LONG WAY. THIS IS A FANTASTIC SITE. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT ALMOST TWO ACRES IN DILWORTH WALKING DISTANCE TO THE LARGEST EMPLOYER IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY, CONNECTING TO A PARK AND WALKABLE TO OFFICE AND RETAIL. THIS IS A PRIME SITE. THESE ARE INITIAL PLANS. I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. EVERYONE ON THE SITE HAD THEY LOOK AT IT, GREAT LOCATION. IT’S VALUABLE PROPERTY SO MOST OF THE EARLY DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT I SAW WERE FOR YOUR TYPICAL MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT LIKE WE HAVE SEEN THROUGHOUT THE CITY. DENSITIES ON THAT SITE, WE’RE LOOKING TO PUT 150 UNITS ON THAT SITE. OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY WERE A LOT OF RESISTANCE TO THAT DENSITY AND REALLY CONCERNS, I FEEL LIKE AND SPEAKERS MAY TELL YOU OTHERWISE, I FEEL LIKE THERE’S SOME COMFORT WITH INCREASING DENSITY ON KENILWORTH AND THAT NOT BLEED BACK TO THE WAIVERLY FRONTAGE AND SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. SO THE FIRST PLAN THAT WE PROPOSE WHEN WE FILED WAS A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER DENSITY SUN CAT HAS A UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT TITHE TYPE. THEY DON’T DEVELOP THE APARTMENTS LIKE WE’RE SEEING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THEY DEVELOP HIGH END, LARGE SQUARE FOOTAGE UNITS SO ON SITES LIKE THIS, THEY CAN DO MANY FEWER UNITS THAN THOSE OTHERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE LARGE, NICE UNITS. INITIALLY, THIS IS THE FIRST SITE PLAN WE FILED. WE HAD 70 MULTIFAMILY UNITS ON 12 HOUNDTOTALS BACK ON WAVERLY. THAT’S WHERE WE STARTED. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON THE PLAN, CONCERNS WITH HEIGHTENED DENSITY. THE COMMUNITY REALLY FELT LIKE THERE’S IMPORTANT TO PREVENT THE INTENSITY. THERE’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THERE’S INTENSITY ON KENILWORTH BUT WE DIDN’T WANT IT SEE THAT BLEED BACK TO THE CORE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE’S AN EMPHASIS ON MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF WAVERLY AND CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND PARKING ON WAIVE WAVE IRLY. THIS IS HOW THE PLAN DEVELOPED AND WE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 55 UNITS. ON THE KENILWORTH SIDE, REDUCED TO EIGHT TOWNHOMES ON THE BACK SIDE AND IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE TWO PROPERTIES. MOST FOLKS, DEVELOPERS WHEN THEY GET A SITE LIKE THIS, THEY WILL HAVE A CONNECTION THROUGH. YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS FROM WAVERLY TO KENILWORTH. IF THAT HAPPENS, THAT PUTS A LOT OF TRIPS ON TO KENILWORTH ROUTING THROUGH THE SITE AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS BIFURCATE THE SITE. WE PUT INTENSITY ON KENILWORTH WHERE WE THINK IT BELONGS AND HAVE SEPARATED SEPARATEDFROM WAVERLY AND KEPT W INTENSITY. THIS PLAN WAS DOWN TO A DENSITY OF 36 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND I SHOULD SAY THAT IS SPREAD ACROSS THE ENTIRETY OF THIS 1.75. SO WE’RE LOOKING AT THAT AS A WHOLE. CHANGES MADE SINCE THE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY MEETING, WE CONTINUE TO GET CONCERNS ABOUT WAVERLY, ABOUT CHANGING THAT FROM THE R-ZONING WHICH I THINK THE COMMUNITY FELT WAS VERY IMPORTANT AND AND ONE OF THESE IS TO MAINTAIN THE R-8 ZONING. WE REVISED OUR PLAN SO WE’RE NO LONGER SEEKING UR2. WE’RE COMMITTING THAT WILL STAY R-8. ADDITIONALLY, WITHIN THE R-8, WE’RE GOING TO GO WITH AN R-8 CONDITIONAL. WE THINK THAT BUY RIGHT ON WAVERLY, SOMEONE COULD DEVELOP 7 TO 8 TOWNP IS HOMES. WE’RE COMMITTING TO HAVE NO MORE THAN SIX TOWNHOMES. SO WE’VE COMMITTED TO LESS DEVELOPMENT ON THE WAVERLY PORTION OF THE SITE. WE HAVE, AGAIN, REDUCED OUR DENSITY EVERYWHERE AND WE HAVE TAKEN THE FRONT PORTION OF THE SITE DOWN TO 50 UNITS AND THE BACK PART IS AT SIX UNITS AND THAT’S A TOTAL, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THIS TOGETHER, THAT’S 31 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. NOW IF YOU ONLY CAL CUTE LAID THE CENLT WORTH FRONTAGE, THAT’S ABOUT AN ACRE, THERE’S 50 UNITS THAT WOULD BE 50 UNITS PER ACRE. WE HAVE REDUCED THE BUILDING HEIGHT. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE’VE HEARD FROM THE START. AS DAVE SAID, THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD ALLOW SOMEONE TO DO A BUILDING THAT’S 100 FEET TALL. WE STARTED AT 70 FEET AND WE’RE DOWN TO THE WAY YOU MEASURE UNDER OUR ORDINANCE THE HEIGHT FROM THE AVERAGE GRADE. THIS SITE SLOPES DOWNHILL SO OUR MAX SITE THAT YOU’LL SEE ON OUR PLAN IS 5 FEET. BUY RIGHT, YOU CAN GO UP TO A HUNDRED. THE GREATEST CONCERN IS ON THIS SITE WHERE THERE’S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ADJACENT. WE HAVE LOWERED THAT HEIGHT DOWN TO 49 FEET AND WE’RE NOTCHING OUT WITH SOME ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AN AREA THERE ON THE CORNER TO TAKE IT DOWN A LITTLE. I THINK IT WILL BE AROUND 40 FEET OR LOWER. WE’VE COMMITTED TO SCREENING ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. WE’RE SETTING OUR BUILDING BACK FURTHER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING SITTING IN THAT LOCATION AND ANOTHER THING WE’VE DONE, THE EARLIER PLANS HAD A COURTYARD HERE. WE REORIENT TO FLIP IT SO IT FACES KENILWORTH AND THERE’S LESS OF A MASS ON THE STREET. WE PROVIDED SOME ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS AND THESE ARE NOT MATT ZONING DOCUMENT AND NOT MEANT TO SAY THAT THE BUILDING WILL LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE IMAGES IS TO SHOW YOU WE ARE COMMITTING TO A COURTYARD IN THE MIDDLE AND WHEN YOU PUT THE COURTYARD IN THE MIDDLE, THAT BREAKS UP THE SIZE OF THESE BUILDINGS. YOU CAN SEE HERE THIS IS APPROXIMATELY TO THE TOWNHOMES DOWN THE HILL AND IF WE FLIP, AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UP THE HILL FROM US. THIS IS SHOWING THE LOWER HEIGHT SO THIS IS ABOUT 49 FEET THIS IS A NOTCH COMING OUT OF THE CORNER AND THAT’S LOWER. THAT’S THE POINT OF THESE CONCEPTUALS IS TO ILLUSTRATE THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE’RE MAKING. ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE SITE, THIS IS WAVERLY. SO THIS IS WHERE THERE WOULD BE SIX TOWNHOMES AND AGAIN, NO CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE SITES AND YOU DON’T HAVE PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH THE TOWNHOMES AND GOING TO THE LARGE PORTION OF THE SITE. THIS IS AR AERIAL, SIX TOWNHOMES ON WAVERLY AND A LARGER DEVELOPMENT ON KENILWORTH. AGAIN, THE CHALLENGE FOR US AND FOR YOU, WE HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IN CHARLOTTE. THESE ARE NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND I’M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THEY ARE. WE HAVE A SUPPLY SHORTAGE AT EVERY LEVEL. WE ARE NOT DELIVERING ENOUGH UNITS AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO PUT OUR DENSITY. NO ONE WANTS THAT IN OUR BACKYARD BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF THIS LOCATION, WHEN WE THINK OF CHARLOTTE AND WHERE DOES DENSITY GO, IT CANNOT GO ON THE TRANSIT CORRIDORS. LOOK AT THE LOCATION OF THIS SITE HERE WE ARE. WE HAVE THE LARGEST EMPLOYER HERE. WE HAVE THE DILWORTH COMMERCIAL DISTRICT HERE AND WE HAVE THIS SITE THAT GOES FROM KENILWORTH THROUGH AND CONNECTS TO A PUBLIC PARK. IF WE’RE DECIDING WHERE DENSITY IS APPROPRIATE, I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE SPOT FOR IT. THIS TEAM HAS WORKED VERY, VERY HARD TO MAKE ALL THE CHANGES THAT I HAVE SENT YOU TO GET OUR DENSITY DOWN AS LOW AS WE CAN TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON WAVERLY, TO LEAVE OUR EXISTING AT R8 AND CONDITIONS TO MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN DEVELOPMENT BUY RIGHT. THAT’S ALL I HAVE. HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS AND RESPOND TO SPEAKERS.>>MAYOR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BROWN. I HAVE CHRISTINE WOODHOUSE, IVETTE TENIAL, AND ALLEN SITTERELLA. AND YOU’LL HAVE TEN MINUTES AND GREG– SORRY, I KEEP MISPLACING THAT SHEET OF PAPER. GREG OWEN. ARE YOU COMING DOWN. THANK YOU.>>WE HAD COORDINATED AMONG OURSELVES.>>MAYOR: EVERYBODY IS GOOD. YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU A FINGER UP AT A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD OR SOMEONE ELSE DOING IT?>>DOES IT WORK?>>YEAH, IT DOES WORK.>>I WILL KEEP AN EYE ON THAT GOOD EVENING. I’M ON THE DILWORTH ASSOCIATION LAND USE COMMITTEE AND I’M A LITTLE MERE VOWS BUT TONIGHT, YOU’RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER A REZONING OF A PROJECT THAT AT FIRST GLANCE MAY SEEM REASONABLE. IT IS NOT AND HERE ARE THE SPECIFIC REASONS WHY. THIS PROJECT IS A SWEEPING VIOLATION OF THE DILWORTH SMALL AREA PLAN. THIS PROJECT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A SITE PLAN THAT’S INSUFFICIENT, INCORRECT, AND TO SOME DEGREE AN ENTITLEMENT REQUEST. THIS PROJECT IS SURPRISINGLY RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING STAFF WITH BOTH CONTRADICTING AND INCORRECT SUPPORTING DETAILS. LET ME EXPLAIN FURTHER THESE THREE POINTS. ONE, DILWORTH SMALL AREA PLAN, THIS PLAN HAS SERVED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WELL, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS SOME AGE ON IT, WE’VE INCREASED OUR DENSITY WHILE MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ON THIS SLIDE OF KENILWORTH, ALL THE PROPERTIES BACK UP TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE DILWORTH PLAN TREATS THIS AS A TRANSITION TO THESE HOMES BY ALLOWING FOR GREATER BUT REASONABLE DENSITY THAT IS APPROPRIATE AND WHAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVED. THE TWO PROJECTS APROFESSIONED BY CITY COUNCIL ON THIS SIDE OF KENILWORTH IN 2015 HAD DENSITIES OF 21 AND 20 THOSE ARE AND ARE GOOD DENSITIES FOR LOTS LIKE THESE IN TRANSITIONAL LOCATIONS. TO CLARIFY, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES. R-8 ON WAVERLY REMAINS R-8 BUT ON KENILWORTH, IT’S MUDD ZONING TO CAPTURE A WHOPPING DENSITY OF 52 THAT IS TWO AND A HALFTIMES THE DENSITY CALLED FOR IN THE DILWORTH PLAN. THE PRECEDENT THIS MIGHT SET WILL HAVE A DOMINO EFFECT THAT IS IRREVERSIBLE. HEIGHT, THE DILWORTH PLAN CALLS FOR A 40-FOOT HEIGHT ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET. THIS PROJECT TOPS OUT AT 65 FEET THAT IS NOT A TRANSITION, THAT’S A TRAVESTY. THAT IS 60% HIGHER THAN THE PLAN ALLOWS. NOTHING ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET COMES CLOSE TO THAT. PEDESTRIAN INTERFACE. THIS PROJECT IS 250 FEET IN LENGTH. REMEMBER, IT’S DISPLACING FIVE LOTS THAT ALREADY HAVE DUPLEXES AND OTHER RENTABLE UNITS ON IT THIS 250-FOOT SPAN IS NOTHING BUT PARKING DECK WALL AND ADDITIONAL WALLS SHIELDING A COURTYARD AND EVERYTHING INSIDE FROM ALL PEDESTRIANS. TWO, THE SITE PLAN. WE HAD TWO MEETINGS WITH ALL THE DEVELOPERS. SITE PLAN IS MISSING ONE VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT, HOW IT RELATES TO THE HOMES AROUND IT. WE’RE NOT ABLE TO SEE ITS HEIGHT, SETBACK, SCALE AND MASSING RELATE TO IN THE NEIGHBORS. THE SHEER SIZE OF THIS PROPOSAL HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN CONTEXT TO ANYTHING. WHILE THE SKETCHES THEY PRESENT ARE VERY PRETTY, AT THIS POINT, THEY’RE MEANINGLESS. OTHER SITE PLAN ISSUES RELATE TO SETBACK DISCREPANCIES AND THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER IS SHOWING A TEN-FOOT PUBLIC ALLEY AS PART OF THEIR PROPERTY. IN FACT, IT IS NOT. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT TALKING ABOUT THE WAVERLY MR. BROWN MENTIONED THAT IS .8 OF AN ACHIER AND THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR 6.4 UNITS IF YOU DO THE MATH AND REGARDING OF THE PLAN CONSISTENCY AND THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE IS CONSISTENT FOR BOTH DEVELOPMENT AREAS. BUT THE DENSITY OF 51 UNITS PER ACRE AND A PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 5 FEET ARE INCONSISTENT. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT’S EITHER CONSISTENT OR IT’S INCONSISTENT WITH OUR PLAN. AND I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THE HEIGHT IS 65 FEET VERSUS THE PLAN RECOMMENDATION OF 40 FEET AND NOT 50 FEET THAT WAS SHOWN EARLIER. STAFF ALSO STATES IN PART THAT THE PETITION WILL PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS INCORRECT. THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT WILL NO LONGER BE INTERACTIVE WITH THE FRONTS OF THE BUILDINGS ALONG KENILWORTH. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THIS IS 200 FIETD OF WHAT IS BORDER WALL. DILWORTH IS GROWING AS INTENDED BY FOLLOWING THE SMALL AREA PLAN AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED ABOUT THIS INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOOD TO DIMINISH THE RELEVANCE OF THE PLAN. JUST AS TOD YOU ARE APPROVING IS MEANT TO BE TRANSPARENT AND PREDICTABLE, THE DILWORTH PLAN HAS AND CONTINUES TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY AND PREDICTABILITY AND GROWTH FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.>>FIVE MINUTES LEFT.>>THE DCA HAS NOT BEEN IN FRONT OF COUNCIL IN YEARS BECAUSE THE SMALL AREA PLAN HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND HAS PROVIDED FOR THE GROWTH AND TRANSITION THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS. SIMPLY STATED, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE SMALL AREA PLAN AND SHOULD BE DENIED TO MAKE WAY FOR A PROJECT THAT WILL TRANSITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE OTHERS WE HAVE SUPPORTED ON THAT SIDE OF KENILWORTH.>>MY NAME IS CHRIS WOODHOUSE AND I’M THE ABUTTING SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNER AT KENILWORTH. I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO MENTION AS FAR AS WE HAVE REALLY NOT BEEN PROVIDED A TRUE AND ACCURATE DEPICTION OF HOW MASSIVE THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE. MY HOME IS APPROXIMATELY 18 FEET TALL AT THE RIDGE LINE AND THIS BUILDING IS 49 FEET. THE ONE ILLUSTRATION THAT THEY HAVE SEEMS LIKE IT’S A BIGGER DECLINE THAT IT IS AND IT’S NOT. IT’S PRETTY FLAT. SO THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE 2.5 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF MY BUILDING AND IT’S THREE STORIES TALLER THAN MY SINGLE FAMILY HOME. MY SIDE YARD IS 172 FEET. I WILL BEAR THE BRUNT OF THE ENTIRE DEPENDENT OF THAT BUILDING WHICH MEANS I’M GOING TO HAVE A MULTITUDE OF WINDOWS AND BALCONIES THAT I WILL BE AT EXPOSED TO AT ALL TIMES. AT NO POINT DO I GET REPRIEVE, NOT IN THE BACKYARD OR FRONT YARD BECAUSE THEY INTEND TO DECREASE THE SETBACK FROM THE ROAD WHICH MEANS THAT BUILDING WILL EXTEND FAR OUT PAST THE FRONT OF MY HOME. I GO ALL OVER CHARLOTTE AND I HAVE SEEN NOT SEEN ANYTHING IN CHARLOTTE THAT IS THIS INTRUSIVE TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THERE ARE PLACES THAT BACK UP TO IT BUT THEY’RE BUFFERED WITH STREETS, LARGER SETBACKS, MATURE TREES, PARKING LOTS OR DRIVEWAYS AND THERE’S SOME SPACE IN BETWEEN. OTHERWISE, THESE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING DIRECTLY DOWN INTO MY YARD. THE OTHER THING ABOUT DILWORTH IS THAT IT IS BASED OFF LARGE MATURE TREES AND GREEN SPACE. THERE WILL BE NONE FOR THIS BUILDING. THEY PLAN TO CLEAR CUT THAT ENTIRE ACRE. INCLUDING THE ALREADY TREE LINE ALONG MY SIDE YARD THAT ARE MATURE THAT WOULD HELP BLOCK SECOND AND FOURTH STORIES FROM ME. YOU KNOW, I’M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. I JUST DON’T THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE BUILDING TO PLACE IN THE MIDDLE OF A CITY BLOCK WHEN MOST OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS YOU SEE AND GO AROUND TOWN ENCOMPASS THEIR WHOLE CITY BLOCK OR THEY ARE BACKING UP TO COMMERCIAL RESIDENCE. THANK YOU. THIS IS DEVELOPED THROUGH ENDLESS HOURS OF PLANNERS IN COLLABORATION AND AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE AND IT REFLECTS THE SHARED MISSION OF PRESERVING OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE ALLOWING FOR SMART GROWTH. AND I FRANKLY HAVE LIVED IN DILWORTH FOR 17 YEARS AND I’M TIRED OF LOSING THIS BATTLE CONSTANTLY AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN PROTECT THE MISSION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR CITY VERSUS AND THIS IS THE CORRECT RESPONSIVE TO CITY COUNCIL. I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT DILWORTH HISTORICALLY WELCOMED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. CASE IN POINT WAS CHARLOTTE HOUSING AUTHORITY SPOT WHERE WE, IN FACT, FOUGHT FOR PIT ACTUALLY ASKED THAT THE STREETS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BE INTEGRATED WITH OUR GRID. A MINUTE LEFT. THIS PROJECT AND THIS ISED MOST EXPENSIVE RENTAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE. THANK YOU.>>I’LL BE SHORT. I’M AT GROUND ZERO. I’M RIGHT BEHIND THE APARTMENTS AND I’M RIGHT NEXT TO THE TOWNHOUSES. I WOULD SAY STICK TO THE EXISTING ZONING. STICK WITH THE CURRENT PLANS AND IN ADDITION TO ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID, TRAFFIC ON KENILWORTH. I LIVE RIGHT AT THAT CORNER THERE. THE TRAFFIC IN THE MORNINGS AND THE EVENINGS ARE TREMENDOUSLY BACKED UP, ALL WAIT DOWN TO MOREHEAD OR DOWN TO 277 AND PASSED SCOTT AND EAST BOULEVARD. IN ADDITION, A MANY NOT SURE WHO IS RENTING THESE APARTMENTS BUT IT’S NO ONE TYPICALLY AT ATRIUM. I WORKED AT ATRIUM FOR THE LAST 28 YEARS AND THAT’S NOT TRUE. SO THAT’S ALL.>>THANK YOU. MR. BROWN, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. . IF I CAN GET OUR SLIDES. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO PLACE DENSITY SOMEWHERE IT PROVIDE HOUSING. I GUESS TO RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PLAN AND WE LOOK AT THESE SITES AND THEY APPEAR SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. TO SHOW YOU HERE, HERE’S THE R-22MF, REZONING HERE, REZONING HERE, REZONING HERE AND WE HAVE SEEN PROGRESS OVER TIME OF INTENSIFYING DENSITY IN THIS AREA, I THINK WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE THAT IN THE FUTURE. THE CURRENT PLAN, IT DOES CALL FOR 22 UNITS PER ACRE AND I DO THINK IT CALLS FOR A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET. WE HAVE REDUCED OUR DENSITY ABOUT AS LOW AS WE CAN GET IT TO WE BROUGHT THE HEIGHT DOWN AS LOW AS WE CAN GET IT. EARLIER ON IN THE PROCESS, WE DID HAVE A LOT MORE UNITS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY, ONE OF OUR EARLY OFFERS TO THE COMMUNITY WAS WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN AFFORDABLE COMPONENT AT DENSITY WE’RE AT NOW, WE COULD NOT DO THAT AT ALL, WE WOULD NEED SIGNIFICANT DENSITY TO DO THAT. WE HAVE BEEN CLEAR THAT AT 50 UNITS, THESE WOULD BE EXPENCEIVE UNITS AND NOT HIDING THAT, AND I THINK WE NEED DENSITY IN THIS LOCATION. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT, I THINK WE HAVE PROVIDED THAT AND ALSO, WE HAVE DONE– WE HAVE DONE A LOT TO TRY TO SHOW THIS IS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEXT DOOR, SHOWN OUR COMPARISON TO THAT. THE CURRENT SITUATION ON THAT SITE IS SING FAMILY HOME IS TWO FEET FROM HOME NEXT TO IT. OUR BUILDING WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY FURTHER AWAY. IT’S TRUE. IT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE STREET, BUT WE THINK WE’VE DESIGNED A PLAN AS BEST WE CAN. WE WON’T MAKE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. WE WORKED HARD TO HE LOOR DENSITY, LOWER THE BUILDING HEIGHTS AND BREAK UP THE MASS ALONG KENILWORTH BY MOVING OUR COURTYARD OUT THERE.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BROWN. WE ARE OPEN FOR COUNCIL QUESTIONS. MISS AJMERA.>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. SO THIS QUESTION IS FOR THE STAFF. HOW DID YOU TE VIEZ A CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN WHERE CLEARLY IT’S NOT CONSISTENT?>>THE CONSISTENCY WAS ACTUAL USE PROPOSED, LAND USE. INCONSISTENCY IS THE DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE CONSISTENCY WITH OVERALL USE, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL. INCONSISTENCY WITH THE OTHER STANDARDS THAT PLAN ENVISIONED THIS IS WHERE IT CREATES CONFUSION BECAUSE WHETHER IT’S CONSISTENT OR NOT CONSISTENT, IT CANNOT BE BOTH. SO, IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT IT’S CONSISTENT. THAT’S WOO NEED LANGUAGE WHERE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN OR NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS? THE INTENTION IS THESE ARE APARTMENTS. BACK PORTION, THESE ARE TOWNHOMES.>>OKAY. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND, WHAT IS THE EXISTING DENSITY OF THE APARTMENTS ON THIS SITE?>>CURRENTLY ON THE SITE, IT’S A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEXES. THIS PORTION OF KENILWORTH IS LOW DENSITY. DUPLEX IS LOW. INTERESTINGLY, OUR 1993 PLAN CALLED FOR THIS TO BE MID TO HIGH DENSITY AND WE’RE AT 32 OVERALL, 50 ON THE FRONT IF YOU LOOK AT THAT. IT IS HIGHER DENSITY THAN WHAT IS IN THE PLAN. I KNOW ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT COULD WE GO BACK TO THE DESIGN>>I WILL SHOW YOU WHERE IT’S COMING FROM. IT’S A WELL-MADE POINT. IF YOU HAVE OUR SLIDES THIS WILL STRUCTURED PARKING BASICALLY BELOW GROUND. YOU CAN ZOOM IN ON THIS ONE. THERE IS, AS THE SITE MOVES DOWNHILL, THE IDEA IS YOU SEE THE PARKING IS UNDERNEATH SO THE AT THE TOP SIDE OF THE SITE, YOU DON’T SEE PARKING. AT THE BOTTOM, DO YOU SEE PARKING. WE FLIPPED THE BUILDING TO PUT A COURTYARD HERE. I THINK WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM, EVERYONE WOULD LOVE IT IF THAT COURTYARD WERE ACCESSIBLE TO THE STREET, YOU COULD WALK UPSTAIRS AND GO INTO THE COURTYARD. THE ARCHITECTURE TEAM IS WORKING ON THAT BECAUSE IN ORDER TO MEET ADA REQUIREMENTS, AND WE HAD STAIRS WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO HAVE A RAMP WHICH WOULD BE CHALLENGING AT THAT LOCATION. SO WE DID– THIS IS NG THAT CAME OUT OF THE LAST COMMUNITY MEETING IS HOW DOES THAT WORK. THIS IS A CONVERSATION WE HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE.>>SO TELL ME WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THAT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND AS WE MOVE UP OR MOVE DOWN, WHAT IS THE WIDTH THAT BECOMES I THINK THERE’S ACCESS HERE, HERE AND THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THIS BUILDING IS OR THE LOT IS 240 FEET. WE’RE BREAKING THAT UP HERE AND WE CAN DISCUSS FURTHER, YOU KNOW THIS IS THE POINT OF HOW MUCH OF DESIGN AND ENGINEERING DO YOU DO ON A PLAN WHEN WE HAVE BIGGER QUESTIONS ABOUT DENSITY AND HEIGHT. IF WE’RE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, I THINK WE CAN DRILL DOWN AND ANSWER THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS WHERE THE ENTRANCE POINTS AND WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE>>I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL NEED TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT MISS WOODHOUSE HAD ALONG WITH ALLEN. WE NEED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT’S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. MR. EGLESTON.>>DR. TAO, A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. YOU WILL HAVE TO– WE WERE ABLE TO SPEAK A COUPLE DAYS AGO ABOUT THIS AND I ANY AT THE TIME, YOU HAD LAST SEEN A PLAN OF EIGHT TOWNHOUSES ON THE WAVERLY SIDE AND NOW IT’S AT SIX AS WE HAD DISCUSSED ON THE PHONE THE OTHER DAY. AS WE GO FORWARD FROM HERE UNTIL WHENEVER THE DECISION COMES UP I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, YOUR COMFORT LEVEL WITH THE BACK SIDE OF THE PETITION NOW BEING AT SIX TOWN HOUSES ACCORDING TO THE PRESENTATION IS UNDER WHAT WILL BE ALLOWED BUY RIGHT AND MOVING FORWARD FROM NOW UNTIL A MONTH FROM NOW OR SO THAT THE FOCUS ON THE CHANGES BEING ASKED FOR NOW ARE REALLY ABOUT THE KENILWORTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT.>>I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS R8 AND SO IF– I GUESS ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS HAVE WE CHANGED THE PROPOSAL TO KEEP THAT R8? IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS STILL A MIXED USE ZONING PETITION SO, IN GENERAL–>>IT WOULD REMAIN R8.>>IN GENERAL, I THINK IT’S PROBABLY OKAY, YES.>>THERE’S A COMFORT LEVEL, ARE THERE NOT, TIM, AT THE WAVERLY SIDE OF THE PROJECT AND NOW WE’RE FOCUSED ON–>>SO LONG AS IT MEETS THE DILWORTH PLAN, SO TO SPEAK, IN TERMS OF HEIGHT AND SUCH. I’M NOT PARTY TO ALL THE EXACT DETAILS AND THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.>>I’M TRYING TO HONE IN ON WHAT THE DISCUSSION SHOULD FOCUS ON.>>>>I WOULD SAY IT’S THE KENILWORTH.>>OKAY. THANK YOU.>>I’M GOING TO DO THIS FOR THE STAFF AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF STREETSCAPE AND THE DIFFERENCES WE WANT TO HAVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT ACTUALLY KENILWORTH REPRESENTS A LOT OF THAT RIGHT NOW. YOU HAVE– YOU CAN WALK TO RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS, THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILIES NEXT TO DUPLEXES AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE’RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO CONSIDER AND MAKE THAT AN EASIER PATH SO ALONG THE STREET SO YOU DON’T HAVE EVERY HOUSE SINGLE FAMILY AND YOU HAVE DUE PLEKS AND TRIPLEXES AND THIS STREET REPRESENTS THAT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE STAFF THINK ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW WHEN WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL THE REZONINGS GOING ON IN THAT AREA AND ALL THE WORK THAT’S BEING DONE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF HOW TO YOU WANT THE TRAFFIC TO FLOW IN AND OUT OF THERE, I’M NOT SO SURE THAT I’VE SETTLED ON WHAT HAPPENS AS WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE REDEVELOPMENT GOING ON THERE, WERE THEY BE INSTITUTIONAL, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL. I DON’T THINK THIS IS A SIMPLE THING OF JUST ONE PROJECT. I THINK IT’S GOT TO BE INTEGRATED INTO WHAT WE ARE AWARE OF WHAT WE KNOW AND WE HAVE TO BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF COMMUNITY TO WE WANT THAT TO BE? I THINK THE APARTMENTS ALONG THERE ARE VERY NICELY AND WELL DONE. THE WAY THIS LOOKS TO ME AND THE HEIGHT OF THIS ONE IS EVEN HIGHER THAN THE UNITS THAT ARE SET ON THEIR OWN BLOCK. THEY’VE GOT THEIR OWN TOWN SQUARE. YOU KNOW, I’VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD, THE RUMOR WAS, YOU KNOW, THAT MULTIFAMILY REZONING ALONG SCOTT AND KENILWORTH WAS JUST A RESULT OF– THERE’S GOT BE SOMETHING THERE. WE’LL CALL IT MF22. WELL, I DON’T THINK THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH RIGHT NOW. I DON’T THINK THAT’S APPROPRIATE RIGHT NOW. [ APPLAUSE ] I KNOW. I KNOW. I’M REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TRAFFIC MOVING THROUGH THE AREA, ONE OF OUR PEDESTRIAN AREAS AND WHAT’S GOING ON, I THINK THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROJECT TO PROCESS WITHOUT PROCESSING THE PLAN AND UNLESS WE MOVE THE PLAN, THEN HOW TO WE MOVE THIS PROJECT. SO THAT’S MY THINKING ON IT SO I THINK IT HAS A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE. I THINK SCOTT AND KENILWORTH ARE IN AND OUT STREETS, SO HOW TO WE TREAT THOSE TWO STREETS. I THINK SCOTT HAS GONE COMMERCIAL THE WHOLE WAY, AND WHAT IS OUR BORDER THERE? IT’S A VERY TOUGH THING TO SAY THAT’S GOING TO BE A PROJECT LIKE THIS ONE IN THAT AREA WITH THE CONGESTION AND THE TRAFFIC THAT WE HAVE AND WHAT WE ANTICIPATE HAVING EVEN MORE OF AND WE KNOW THIS IS INCONSISTENT. EVERYTHING IS INCONSISTENT UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING BETTER AND I THINK THE SOMETHING BETTER KENILWORTH LOOKS MORE LIKE WHAT WE WANT AS BETTER. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 32 BY KYLE SHORT, HALF ACRE ALONG THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH SHARON AMITY AND EMORY LANE. IT’S IN DISTRICT FIVE. I’M SORRY. THE CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THREE UNITS AN ACRE AND PROPOSED ZONING IS URBAN RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES. AND THIS ONE, AGAIN, SPEAKING IN FAVOR AND SPEAKING AGAINST. SO THE PEOPLE SPEAKING IN FAVOR ARE PAUL, THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK. KYLE SHORT AND THEN THOSE SPEAKING AGAINST THE PETITION, MARTY– IS IT CHESTEN? OKAY. SAMANTHA STARLING. OKAY. WITH THAT, STAFF IS GOING TO GIVE A PRESENTATION AND WE’LL GO FROM THERE.>>AS WE MENTIONED, IT’S LOCATED NORTH SHARON AMITY AND EMORY LANE, PROPOSED ZONING IS UR-1 CD. THEY’RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP A SERIES OF FOUR INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT FRONT ON EMORY LANE. THE SOUTH DISTRICT PLAN WHICH IS ADOPTED IN 1992 DOES RECOMMEND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS OF UP TO THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THE DISTRICT PLAN WITHIN THE CITY, WE ALSO LACK AT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ON TOP OF WHAT THAT DISTRICT PLAN STATES. ONE DUE TO THE AGE OF IT AND JUST TO LOOK AT OTHER FACTORS THAT HAVE COME ONLINE SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THAT PLAN WHICH, AGAIN, WAS IN 1992. THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES DO SUPPORT DENSITY UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS AND THIS PETITION COMES IN AT 7.1 AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES FOR THIS AREA. THIS IS INDIVIDUAL SITE HERE ON NORTH SHARON AND EMORY. THAT HOME IS NO LONGER THERE. THAT’S A VAGUE VACANT LOT. THE PETITIONER IS PROPOSING FOUR LOTS ON EMORY, ALL INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, PROPOSED TREE SAVE ON THE BACK SIDE AND MAINTAINING A CONSISTENT SETBACK ALONG MEMORY FOR THE FIRST THREE LOTS THAT WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE OTHER EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OUT THERE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES. WE DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON SOME OF THE SETBACKS AS WELL AS ACCESSORIES AND STRUCTURES AND SETBACKS AND LIMIT THE BUILDING HEIGHT. SO AGAIN, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION AMONG RESOLUTION OF THOSE ISSUES.>>EXCUSE ME. WE’RE TRYING TO GET SOMETHING ORGANIZED. MR. PANNELL, YOU WILL HAVE TEN MINUTES ALONG WITH MR. SHORT.>>MADAM MAYOR, COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR WELCOMING ME BACK. LUCKILY, I WILL NOT NEED THE FULL TEN MINUTES. WE’LL KEEP THIS BRIEF. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, DAVID WITH STAFF, PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THE HOME HERE WAS TORN DOWN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THIS IS A CURRENT PICTURE OF THE SITE. AND EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS AND CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE SITE. REALLY THIS IS A STORY OF WORKING WITH STAFF, COUNCILMEMBER NEWTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. THE INITIAL SUBMIT FOR THIS WAS SIX SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL HOMES. THIS HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM SIX TO FIVE AND WHERE WE ARRIVED TODAY IT IS NOW FOUR. THE HOMES ARE FRONTED ALONG EMORY LANE, A LITTLE UNCOMMON IN THE UR1 DISTRICT AND WE’RE PROVIDING A 17-FOOT SETBACK ALONG ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF WAY OF MEMORY LANE TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BUILDING LINE ALONG EMORY LANE. THERE WILL BE 50 FEET WORTH OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ALONG NORTH SHARON AMITY FOR FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, 16-FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP, SIDEWALK, AND JUST A BRIEF LIST OF SOME OF THE REQUESTS FROM THE COMMUNITY WHICH HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THIS PLAN AND WITH THAT CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.>>SO IS MR. SHORT GOING TO SPEAK? MR. SHORT IS GOOD.>>OKAY. WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SPEAKING AGAINST MARTY CHESTEN MARTY? I DON’T SEE THEM. I’M SORRY. I COULDN’T HEAR YOU. MISS STALLINGS GO RIGHT AHEAD. I DON’T KNOW IF MARTY IS HERE TO SPEAK. NO, OKAY. WELL, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES THEN>>SO FIRST, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL AND I KNOW YOU RECEIVED LOTS OF REPORTS FROM ME THAT HAVE BEEN A COMPILATION OF LOTS OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN OUR RESIDENTS IN SHERWOOD FOREST AND WE HAVE ACTIVE GROUP AND FACEBOOK GROUP AND WE’VE BEEN COMMUNICATING BACK AND FORTH. THIS IS A COMPILATION OF ALL OF OUR FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSIONS. I DO HAVE SEVERAL MEMBERS FROM SHERWOOD FOREST, IF YOU WILL RAISE YOUR HAND IN OPPOSITION AS WELL. THEY ARE HERE. I WANT TO GO THROUGH. I DO HAVE SOME POWERPOINTS FOR YOU AND SORRY I DIDN’T PRINT THOSE OUT FOR YOU. BACK IN EARLY FEBRUARY, MR. SHORT CAME TO VISIT ME. WE MET AND HE SHOWED ME THE SITE PLAN FOR FIVE HOMES AND OUR PETITION IS FOR FOUR HOMES. WE FEEL LIKE A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF HOMES WOULD ALLOW FOR THE ALLEVIATION AND ALLOW FOR MORE SPACE, THE DRIVEWAYS AND A LOT OF THAT AGGRAVATING FACTORS WOULD BE RESOLVED AND WE WOULD DECREASE THE ROOF TOPS BUT WITHOUT INCREASING THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE HOMES. HE SAID IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL TO DO ANYTHING LESS THAN 5 AND WE’RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR HOMES AND WE FEEL LIKE THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD. WE ARE GETTING CLOSER TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE. HOWEVER, THE PURPOSE WAS TO RESOLVE UNSAFE INTERSECTIONS AND D.O.T. DETERMINED YOU CAN’T TURN OFF THERE AND PICKUP AND DROP-OFF OVERTHROW AND IT’S ON A HILL AND YOU CAN’T SEE THE OTHER SIDE. SO THE STREET PARKING IS A HUGE ISSUE AND IT’S ALSO VERY DANGEROUS TO COME IN AND OUT OF. ONCE THE HOME SIZE WAS INCREASED, THE PERMEABLE LAND WAS INCREASED AND THAT’S NOT SOLVING ANY RUNOFF ISSUES. SHERWOOD FOREST IS A MATURE, ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1958. AND SO WATER FINDS ITS WAY. IF YOU TRY TO DO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH ENGINEERING ON THE SITE, THAT RUNOFF STILL EXISTS AND IF YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWING TEN FEET FROM EACH HOUSE FOR PERMEABLE GROUND, THERE ARE RUNOFF ISSUES AND WE WANTED TO ALLEVIATE THE STREET PARKING COMPLETELY. THIS SITE PLAN, ALTHOUGH MR. SHORT HAS TOLD ME PERSONALLY THAT EACH HOUSE NOW HAS ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY, IF YOUR HOME FRONT IS TEN FEET FROM THE CURB AND YOU CAN’T BLOCK THE SIDEWALK, THAT LEAVES ABOUT FIVE FEET FOR A CAR AND UNLESS YOU DRIVE A COOPER MINI OR A SMART CAR, YOU ARE NOT PARKING IN YOUR DRIVEWAY AND YOU WILL BE ON THE STREET. AND ALSO DECREASES THE CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC BY 20 VEHICLES A DAY. ONTO 40, WE ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED WITH CDOT FOR CALMING NEEDS. WE’RE AIT WATCHING APPROVAL FROM THE CHARLOTTE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PUT THOSE THINGS IN PLACE. CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC IS CRAZY COMING THROUGH THERE’S DISCUSSION ABOUT RUNOFF AND JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE SOMETHING IN ONE SPOT DOESN’T MEAN WE SHOULD ALLOW IT ON OTHER AND I HAVE GOT THESE FIGURES OFF ZILLO. 1800 HOMES WITH 220 ACRES. YOU SEE THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS ALMOST AN ACRE. WE HAVE TWO EXCEPTIONS THAT HAVE URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND WHY NOT ALLOW SOMETHING HERE. I HAVE TAKEN THOSE TWO AREAS AND THAT’S 15 HOMES AND GIVEN YOU SOME CALCULATIONS TO SEE THIS PROPOSAL IS EVEN EGREGIOUS FROM THAT. IT’S MASSIVE REDUCTION IN FROM THE ALREADY EXCEPTION. IF WE ALLOW AN EXCEPTION, AT WHAT POINT DO WE HAVE A PLAN? AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS WOULD RESULT IN 7.1 HOMES PER ACRE AND ENALTHOUGH THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ARE MET THIS IS A WELL-DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE MIDDLE OF CHARLOTTE. OF COURSE, IT HAS WATER AND YOU SOAR ACCESS. OF COURSE IT CONNECTS. EVERYTHING IS BUILT THAT WAY. WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THESE GENERAL DEVELOPMENTS MEANS WE HAVE A, B, AND C IN PLACE. THAT’S COMMON SENSE THAT THINGS EXIST IN THE MIDDLE OF CHARLOTTE. THIS IS NOT A TEXTBOOK SITE BECAUSE OF THE DANGEROUS INTERSECTION, CUT-THROUGH AND THE SCHOOL ON THE CORNER, IT SHOULDN’T BE LOOKED AT AS GENERAL. THIS IS TO SHOW YOU THE TWO HOMES THAT ARE. THAT’S MY HOME AND THIS IS THE AJANING PROPERTY. THE RED ARROWS OR THE YELLOW ARROWS SHOWS YOU WHERE THE SIDES AND FRONTS OF HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE IN THE PROXIMITY TO THESE EXISTING PROPERTIES. ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU’LL SEE THAT’S MY HOUSE ON THE TOP AND THE PLAN. ALL OF THE REST OF THE HOMES ON EMORY ARE A HALF-ACRE LOT, THE SAME SIZE AS MR. SHORT OWNS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE’S MOTHING CLOSE TO THAT IN THIS WHOLE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WANT TO HE SHYOU ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, THESE ARE THE EXISTING RESIDENCES ON EMORY LANE H IS WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE ON THE TOP RIGHT ARE EXISTING AND ADDISON AND LITTLETON ARE EXCEPTIONS AND THOSE DON’T HAVE THE SETBACKS AND 10-FOOT AND THEY HAVE STANDARD 30-FOOT BACKYARD AND STANDARD. THEY’RE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER BUT THEY SEPARATED THEMSELVES FROM THE EXISTING PROPERTIES RESPECTFULLY AND ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT AT OUR COMMUNITY MEETING HE SHOWED US FACADES OF WHAT HE WAS PROPOSING TO BUILD. AND YOU CAN SEE ESTHETICALLY, THEY DON’T MATCH WHAT’S IN SHE RWOOD FOREST. THIS IS A TRANSITION LOT. WE’RE TRANSITIONING WHAT TO WHAT? TRANSITIONING FROM THESE TWO HOMES TO WHAT? MORE HOME JUST LIKE THAT. THERE’S NOTHING EXISTING ON SHARON AMITY FOR IT TO TRANSITION FROM. I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE BUKUS DATA AND MAKETURE AND EVERYTHING I SENT AND YOU IT SHOULDIVE GOOD YOU A GOOD IDEA. THERE’S A LOT TO CONSIDER HERE AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE EVERYONE’S VIEW AND WE DO HAVE THE PETITIONS STILL GOING FOR FOUR HOMES. WOO VERY AMEND INNED IT ONCE WE REALIZE THAT FOUR DIDN’T-HOME REDUCTION WAS SUPERFICIAL. WE REDUCED IT TO TWO AND THREE AND THERE’S EXISTING EXCEPTION TO ADDISON AND LITTLETON. THOSE ARE THE OTHER TWO ENTRANCES AND IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE THAT WE MAINTAIN THAT STANDARD AND THE OTHER ENTRANCE INTO SHERWOOD FOREST.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. YOU HAVE A TWO-MINUTE REBUTTAL.>>THAT’S A REOCCURRING THEME REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE. I’M TRYING TO BRING MY SLIDES BACK UP HERE. WHEN THIS WAS SUBMITTED, SIX RESIDENTIAL DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, THE DUA WAS COMING IN APPROXIMATELY, 12DUA. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND I WITH LIKE TO ADDRESS THE UNSAFE INTERSECTION, EMORY. WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK WITH C.D.O.T. ON THAT MATTER AND THERE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION OCCURRING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT ALONG SHARON AMITY ROAD AND IN ADDITION, THERE’S THE INTERSECTION ONE BLOCK AWAY AT ADDSON AND DRIVEWAY LENGTH, THAT’S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT IS SET BY CITY OF CHARLOTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT, MINIMUM DRIVEWAY LENGTH HERE WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET, OR LESS THAN FIVE BUT IN THIS CASE, WITH GARAGES CARS CAN BE PARKED WITHIN THE HOME. ONE OTHER INTERESTING ITEM. UR1 SETBACK IS GENERALLY LOCATED 14 FEET MEASURED FROM BACK OF CURB AND IN THIS CASE TO MAINTAIN THE EXstING BUILDING LINE AND CHARACTER ALONG EMORY LANE, IT’S BEING LOCATED 17 FEET FROM BACK OF RIGHT OF WAY TO MAINTAIN THAT CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD. QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER, STAFF, OR MR. NEWTON.>>YES, THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I APPRECIATE THE COMMUNITY WORKING WITH MYSELF IN THIS PROCESS. WE’RE DOWN FROM SIX UNITS TO FOUR. HAVING SAID THAT, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS PERTAINING TO THE DENSITY. I WANTED TO ASK MR. PETEEN ABOUT OUR GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND ASK, ARE THESE UNIQUE TO EACH SITE PLAN, OR ARE THEY SEPARATE? I THINK YOU HAD>>GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ARE CITYWIDE AND THEY ARE PASSED AND ARE A SERIES OF POLICIES ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL, PREDECESSORS IN TIMES PAST AND THEY DO OVERLAY MOST OF OUR OLDER DISTRICT PLAN AREAS AND THEY APPLY MORE OR LESS CITYWIDE EXCEPT TO PARTICULAR AREAS WHERE WE HAVE OR PARTICULAR PLAN FOR DILWORTH OR ANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS SPECIFIC DENSITY RECOMMENDATION AND THAT SUPERSEDES BUT THEY ARE BASICALLY THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT, LOCATION’S ABILITY TO ABSORB ADDITIONAL DENSITY SUCH AS AND IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT HOW CLOSE YOU GOT WITH IF YOU ARE WITHIN A QUARTER HALF MILE OF SCHOOLS AND SO WE CAN RUN A SCORE, SO TO SPEAK, ON ANY PROPERTY IN THE CITY AND THAT’S THE SYSTEM THAT WE USE TO LOOK AT APPROPRIATE DENSITY FOR AREAS. THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES THAT WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER ISSUES THAT TAKE EFFECT AND WE DON’T HAVE THOSE HERE AND THAT’S WHAT WE USE IN OTHER DISTRICTS AS WELL WHEN WE LOOK AT DENSITIES FOR TOWNHOUSES AND OTHER THINGS.>>I APPRECIATE THAT, THE EXPLANATION. IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME AND YOU EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING AND THIS IS NOT EMBEDDED IN ANY SPECIFIC PLAN. IN THE MATERIALS WE HAVE, IT SAYS THAT THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SOUTH DISTRICT PLAN. I BELIEVE IT’S ACTUALLY INCONSISTENT, RIGHT? INCONSISTENT WITH THE SOUTH DISTRICT PLAN WHICH WOULD CALL FOR THE MATERIALS WOULD CALL FOR R-3 SO THREE UNITS PER ACRE. BUT FOR, SO BUT FOR THESE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND THEY HAVE BEEN IN PLACE IN 1992-’93 WHEN THE PLANS WERE IN PLACE AND THEY HAD BEEN MODIFIED AND TWEAKED OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME AND THEY HAVE– THEY ARE CODIFIED IN THE DISTRICT PLAN. WE’RE SEEING UPWARDS OF FOUR UNITS AND WE DOUBLE WHAT THE PLAN CALLS FOR AND I HARBOR CONCERNS RIGHT THERE. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND I LOOK AT OUR MATERIALS AND I SEE HOW IT’S BROKEN DOWN AND I THINK THAT MRS. STARLING MAKES A GREAT POINT HERE, RIGHT? SOME OF THESE AMENITIES THAT COULD GET A DEVELOPER RIGHT OVER THE TOP AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REALLY A RAZOR THIN MARGIN HERE. SO 12 OVER THE 11 THRESHOLD TO FALL WITHIN THIS CATEGORY OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, I REALLY QUESTION WHETHER IT’S WISE, RIGHT, FOR US TO LOOK AT THIS AND YOU KNOW, ALLOW MORE THAN A DOUBLING OF DENSITY. SO I POSE THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION, BUT I HAD ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER. SO WE DIDN’T HAVE– YOU KNOW, I’M LOOKING AT HOW CLOSE. WE’RE LOOKING AT THE BUFFERS OF FIVE FEET ON MAYBE THE SOUTHERN MOST BORDER. I THINK THAT’S GOING TO END UP NEEDING TO BE EXTENDED AS PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF. AND THEN TEN-YEAR– WELL TEN-FOOT REAR YARD. I’M QUESTIONING THE PRIVACY OF FOLKS, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORING THIS PROPERTY AND WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO SUGGEST WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE. WE DON’T HAVE RENDERINGS HERE EITHER AND I’M WONDERING, PAUL, WHAT KIND OF HEIGHT ARE WE LOOKING ON THESE? ARE WE TALKING MULTILEVEL BUILDINGS HERE?>>RIGHT NOW, WE’RE FOLLOWING THE GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE GENERAL DISTRICT UR1. STAFF CAN CORRECT ME ON THIS AND I BELIEVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT ON UR1 IS 40 FEET. YOU’RE RIGHT, THERE’S NO REFERENCE TO THE HEIGHT DIRECTLY WITHIN THIS REZONING PETITION CURRENTLY. IN REGARD TO PRIVACY IS–>>THREE STORIES.>>I MEAN, 40 FEET. IS THAT THREE STORIES SP THAT IS CORRECT.>>UP TO THREE STORIES AND YOU KNOW, WHAT I NOTICED A LOT OF RANCH. ONE-STORY HOUSES AND I QUESTION THE CONSISTENCY OR THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS AS HIGH AS THREE STORIES. I CUT YOU OFF. I’M SORRY ABOUT THAT.>>WE HEAR YOUR CONCERNS AND THAT’S SOMETHING WE CAN WORK WITH ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS IN REGARD TO THAT CONCERN. SPECIFICS FOR WHAT DOES THE CHARACTER AND ELEVATIONS OF WHAT THESE HOMES WOULD LOOK LIKE, THAT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED BUT WE HAVE INCORPORATED A SET STANDARD OF BUILDING MATERIALS THAT WILL BE USED HERE ON THESE LOTS.>>I’M ASSUMING WE’RE GOING TO VOTE IN A MONTH. WE WILL HAVE MORE DEFINITIVE ANSWERS AND IDEAS OF WHAT WE WILL BE APPROVING WHEN WE VOTE ON THIS? [ APPLAUSE ]>>RIGHT. SO I BELIEVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES I’M NOT SURE IF THAT IS? THAT WOULD BE VOLUNTEER OF THE PETITIONER BUT STAFF CANNOT REQUEST ANY KIND OF SPECIFICATIONS ON BUILDING MATERIALS, ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES AND ALL WE CAN DETERMINE IS THE BUILDING GUIDELINES.>>IT SEEM OFTENTIMES IN CONDITIONAL REZONING, WE SEE THOSE TYPES AND I’M LOOKING AT THIS LAYOUT HERE AND I NOTICE THAT IT APPEARS SLIGHTLY AWKWARD SO THE– IT WOULD BE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS OR THESE KIND OF– THESE ENVELOPES, I THINK, IS WHAT THEY’RE CALLED FOR EACH OF THESE AND THE BOTTOM TWO HAVE LARGER ENVELOPES AND THE ONE AT THE TOP IS WIDER. IS THAT BY DESIGN OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BUILDINGS BEING DIFFERENT AND KIND OF BEING KIND OF HODGEPODGE HERE?>>YOU ARE CORRECT. THOSE ARE BUILDING ENVELOPES AND THOSE ARE SET BY THE UR STANDARDS AND THERE’S ADDITIONAL SETBACK AND SINCE IT IS ON THE CORNER, MORE LOT AREA JUST TO MAKE THEM COMFORTABLE ON THAT CORNER AND JUST TO ANSWER ONE OF YOUR PREVIOUS CONCERNS AND THAT WAS REGARDING ROORVE IS A, THERE WAS TREE SAVE IN THE LANDSCAPE AREA ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TO ALLEVIATE AND PROVIDE THAT BUFFER TO HELP PROVIDE THAT PRIVACY.>>DOWN TO A POINT, RIGHT, AND NOT FOR THE FULL EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY. I GUESS SO WHEN IT COMES TO THESE BUILDING ENVELOPES, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE ENTIRE ENVELOPE BEING COMPRISED OF THE BUILDING OR DOES THE BUILDING WILL IT NOT MEET THE FULL-FLEDGED ENVELOPE OR THE BACK?>>FROM A DESIGN GUIDELINE>>GO AHEAD.>>FROM A DESIGN GUIDELINE STANDPOINT, THEORETICALLY, YES, IT COULD ENCOMPASS THE ENVELOPE. LIKELY NOT BECAUSE FROM A BUILDING STANDPOINT, SQUARING OFF CORNERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.>>WE HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT DRIVEWAYS AND YOU WERE SAYING THAT EACH OF THESE IS GOING TO REQUIRE 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY.>>CORRECT AND A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS I HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY WHERE ARE CARS GOING TO PARK? EMORY CAN BE A DANGEROUS STREET EARLY IN THE MORNING, LATER AT NIGHT WITH CARS COMING IN. AT THE ONLY AREA FOR THEM TO PARK IS RIGHT THERE ON THE STREET, ITSELF, THAT COULD CREATE A PRETTY DANGEROUS PROPENSITY THAT WE DON’T WANT TO CREATE SO AND ARE THERE GOING TO BE GARAGES IN THIS? IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT? ARE WE TALKING ONE, TWO-CAR GARAGES? HOW MANY BEDROOMS?>>I’M SORRY. YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE MIC AND SAY YOUR NAME.>>MY NAME IS KYLE SHORT. I’M THE PETITIONER AND PROPERTY OWNER. SO YEAH. BASICALLY WHEN WE STARTED OUT WITH THIS, WE STARTED OUT WITH SIX LOTS AND WE PRESENTED THAT AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING WE WENT THROUGH THAT AND THE FEEDBACK WE GOT WAS THAT DENSITY WAS TOO HIGH. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT PARKING. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE INTERSECTION ON EMORY. THAT’S NOT SINGLIZED AND WHAT I HAVE DONE IS WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO TRY TO DECREASE THAT TO FIVE UNITS AND I PRESENTED THAT TO SAMANTHA WHO KIND OF LED THE OPPOSITION AND SHE SAID THAT SHE STILL WOULDN’T ACCEPT THAT WOULD BE OPPOSED AND ONE IN FOUR UNITS BUT SO I WENT BACK TO IT AND I WENT DOWN TO FOUR UNITS TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE THE CONCERNS AND WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS FOR WHAT THEY WANTED AND SO THAT’S WHERE WE ARE NOW. THESE ARE MORE OF A TRADITIONAL LOT, CONFIGURATION WHERE EACH LOT WOULD HAVE ITS OWN DRIVEWAY. IT COULD HAVE A GARAGE. THERE WOULD KIND OF IN KEEPING, MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE LOTS ACROSS THE STREET ON EMORY OR SOME OF THE OTHER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ON SHARON AMITY THAT WOULD HAVE SMALLER LOT SIZES>>WHAT IS THE ORDINANCE REWIRE? IS THERE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF SPOTS OR SPACES? I MEAN, IS THAT ENCAPSULATED IN GARAGES AS WELL WHEN IT COMES TO NUMBERS OF BEDROOMS OR UNIT DEVELOPMENT?>>FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE TWO PARKING SPACES.>>WOULD THAT INCLUDE DRIVEWAY? OR, IS THAT TWO-CAR GARAGE AND THEN DRIVEWAY>>IT COULD BE A COMBINATION OF BOTH.>>OKAY. I NOTICE THAT YOU HAD A LIST OF ITEMS THERE THAT YOU WERE ADDRESSING COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND ONE HAD A BIG, RED X OVER IT AND I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THAT. THAT JUST IMMEDIATELY DREW MY ATTENTION AND I WANTED TO ASK YOU SO I MEAN, I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING ABOUT MAYBE TRAFFIC OR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND SO DOES THAT X MEAN NO, OR WAS THAT LIKE A TYPO?>>I BELIEVE THAT THEY’RE ASKING FOR A SIGNAL, TRAFFIC LIGHT AT EMORY LANE WHICH IS NOT AND NOT FEASIBLE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SIZE IS A SMALL PROJECT.>>STAFF IS ASKING THAT THE SOUTHERN BORDER AND THE FRONT EDGE INCREASE BY ABOUT A FOOT. I THINK THAT’S GOING TO COMPACT, THEORETICALLY, RIGHT, IF YOU WERE TO KEEP THIS KIND OF LAYOUT, IT’S GOING TO COMPACT SOME OF THESE ENVELOPES, CORRECT? SO IF THAT’S THE CASE, HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT THE TREE SAVE AT THE TOP?>>SO THE TREE SAVE WOULD STAY IN THE SAME AREA THAT IT IS. AND THAT WILL PROVIDE A BUFFER TO SAMANTHA’S HOUSE. AS FAR AS THE I THINK THE OTHER SETBACK WAS THE LOT ON THE CORNER. THAT IS SHOWN AND LESS THAN 17. WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE 17 FEET TO MATCH THE OTHER THREE LOTS.>>I HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS. SO THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT WE HAD SEEN WHERE IT WAS– YOU KNOW, MUCH KIND OF GRANDER SCALE OF THE GENERAL AREA SHOWING THAT THE OVERALL, AND I DON’T KNOW IF WE CAN SLIDE BACK A FEW HERE, BUT SHOWING THE OVERALL AREA IN AND YEAH, RIGHT HERE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE WE HAVE THIS SMALL BLOCK. YOU HAVE AN R8 ACROSS THE STREET AND MR. PETEEN, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THIS. THAT MIGHT BE AROUND 24 UNITS AND WE HAVE THIS FANTASTIC DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT HOW WE START TO LOOK AT AN AREA. WE MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO A GENERAL RULE AND WE START TO ASSUME THAT’S THE CHARACTER, RIGHT, THE IDENTITY OF THE AREA AS A WHOLE AND THE REALITY IS THAT IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AND THE RULE REALLY IS, IN THIS CASE, I THINK MORE OF AN R-3 DESIGNATION. I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, RIGHT, AND HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT OF, YOU KNOW, THESE FOUR UNITS WILL IMPACT– I’M NOT QUITE SURE WHO TO ASK THIS QUESTION TO, BY THE WAY. I WANT TO DIRECT IT OVER TO STAFF AND HELP ME OUT HERE. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA– I MEAN, HAS THERE BEEN ANALYSIS BY, SAY, WATER AND SEWER ON HOW THIS– THIS IS KIND OF UP ON A HILL, RIGHT? SO HOW THIS TYPE OF A DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, THE RUNOFF AND HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT SURROUNDING KIND OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES THAT IS MORE AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING WHEN THEY GET PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS AT THIS POINT. WE CAN LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WOULD BE ANY CHALLENGES TO MEETING ANY REQUIREMENTS IN REGARD TO STORMWATER RUNOFF. I WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT IN A FOLLOW-UP REPORT BUT TYPICALLY, THOSE KINDS OF CALCULATIONS AND STUDIES ARE DONE AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING WHERE THEY HAVE MORE CONCRETE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHERE THE HOMES ARE GOING TO GO AND WHERE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ARE GOING TO BE. . NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR NOW.>>MAYOR: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE HE AND PETITIONER?>>CLOSED.>>ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. SO WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE A CHANGE IN OUR SCHEDULE. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND DEMONSTRATIONS TODAY. AND THERE’S ONE THAT’S TAKING PLACE AND SO IN ORDER FOR THE COUNCILMEMBERS TO BE ABLE TO, AGAIN, LISTEN TO WHAT’S GOING ON, WE’RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR PETITION NUMBER– ITEM NUMBER 34, AND THEN WE’RE GOING TO HEAR ITEM NUMBER 45, AND WE WILL GO ON THROUGH THERE, AND THEN WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF– TAKE A BREAK FOR THE COUNCIL TO GO ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN WE’LL BE BACK AND WE’LL TRY TO KEEP IT AT 25 MINUTES THAT BREAK, AND EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS SO THE NEXT PETITION THAT WE HAVE WE’RE ON PETITION NUMBER 34 AND THIS IS FOR 42 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE THIS IS EAST OF STEELE CREEK, DISTRICT THREE, R-3 GOING TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL WITH FIVE-YEAR VESTED RIGHTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND WE HAVE MR. BROWN WHO WILL SPEAK FOR AND MISS LADD WHO IS AGAINST. LET ME SEE IF I AM>>I WILL KEEP IT SHORT. R3 TO UR-2 CD REQUEST FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATTACHED TOWNHOME PRODUCT. WE ARE LOOKING AT ABOUT 06 SINGLE FAMILY A TAD UNITS AT 4.9 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. MAX BUILDING HEIGHT IS 40 FEET. THEY ARE PROVIDING SEVERAL CONNECTIONS ON THE HAMILTON ROAD AS WELL AS MID-BLOCK CROSSING TOWARD SMITH BOYD ROAD TO ALLOW FOLKS TO GET ACROSS THE STREET OF HAMILTON IN A MORE SAFE MANNER. THERE’S A SCHOOL IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, PROVIDING EXISTING CONNECTIONS DOWN THROUGH WANDERING BROOK DRIVE AND POINT OF INGRESS, EGRESS ON SMITH BOYD ROAD. PEDESTRIAN TRAILS THROUGHOUT THE SITE. PETITION IS CONSISTENT GENERALLY WITH THE STEELE CREEK AREA PLAN AND LOOKING AT FOUR DWELLING UNITS AND THIS IS 4.9. AGAIN, SO AND INCONSISTENT SLIGHTLY WITH THE DENSITY BUT OVERALL, THE PETITION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY STAFF AND BILLING DESIGN AND TECHNICAL ITEMS INVOLVING THE NOTES ON THE CONDITIONAL PLAN>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. BROWN>>YES, MA’AM, MADAM MAYOR, HERE ON BEHF OF LENAR HOMES AND I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH MISS LADD. I WAS NOT ANTICIPATING OPPOSITION, SO I WILL GIVE YOU MORE THAN I ANTICIPATED BUT AND THIS IS A PROJECT JUST SOUTH OF HAMILTON ROAD IN THE STEELE CREEK AREA TO GIVE YOU LARGER CONTEXT, HERE’S THE SITE. HERE’S THE RIVERGATE SHOPPING CENTER. THE DEVELOPER IS LENAR HOMES. THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A VERY LARGE PIECE OF LAND. NORTH OF THE SITE, THIS WILL BE ANOTHER PHASE, ANOTHER EXTENSION OF THAT. THIS SHOWS THE ZONING PROPOSAL. WE ARE UNDER FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. WE’RE RIGHT ABOUT 4.9. LAND USE PLAN CALLS FOR UP TO FOUR AND SLIGHTLY HEREN THAT THAT. THERE’S AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HERE. LENAR IS DEVELOPING A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME COMMUNITY IN THIS AREA CALLED CHATEAU. THEY WERE TEED UP TO TO DO THIS AS SINGLE FAMILY. THEY FELT AS THEY SOLD THE CHATEAU, THERE WAS A DEMAND IN THE MARKET FOR A LITTLE DIFFERENT PRODUCT TYPE. AND SO WITH PETITIONERS SEEING TONIGHT THIS IS A DIFFERENT OFFERINGS FROM THEM SO IT’S A TOWNHOME, A LITTLE MORE AFFORDABLE PRICE POINT INSTEAD OF SPREADING THE DENSITY THROUGH THE SITE, YOU HAVE MORE OPEN SPACE, LESS UPKEEP. WE HAVE POCKET PARKS AND. COMMUNITY CONCERNS, STEELE CREEK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION WHICH IS VERY INVOLVED DOWN IN THIS AREA HAS WRITTEN A LETTER OF SUPPORT. THEY SAID THAT BASED ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE PLAN, THEY FEEL IT’S APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA PLAN SO VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE UMBRELLA GROUP DOWN THERE THAT IS VERY BUSY. THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND I WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT ABOUT TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES IN THE STEELE CREEK AREA. I’M HAPPY TO TELL YOU THERE IS A PLAN AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND ELF ITERS ARE PROVIDING A LOT OF THAT. THIS IS WHAT WE SHOWED AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING THESE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT LENAR IS ALREADY DOING. SO EVERYTHING YOU SEE IN GREEN HAS PROVE THAN LENAR HAS ALREADY INSTALLED. THE YELLOW ONES ARE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE WAY. I DRIVE THAT AREA A LOT. WHEN I SEE IMPROVEMENTS BEING MADE, I DID NOT KNOW SOME OF THESE WERE DONE BY LENAR. I WANTED TO POINT THEM OUT. LIKE DR. HARLOW DOES, WE COME DOWN CAROWINDS AND HE WILL PROBABLY REMEMBER THAT CAROWINDS WAS EXPANDED TO HAVE TWO TURN LANES, SO A SECOND LEFT TURN LANE. THAT WAS DONE BY NLENAR ON THEIR DIME. IF YOU FOLLOW CHOATE DOWN, THERE’S SMITH ROAD THAT CARRIES TRAFFIC DOWN TO HAMILTON. PRIOR THIS IS A TWO-LANE STREET AND IF SOMEONE WAS TURNING LEFT, AND TRAFFIC BACKED UP. LENAR EXPANDED THAT AND THERE IS A LEFT TURN LANE THERE THAT HELPED TO MOVE TRAFFIC THROUGH THAT AREA. SMITH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND THEY DID A BIT OF THAT. STREETSCAPES HAVE BEEN IMPROVED GREATLY INCREASING THEIR CAPACITY AS WELL AS THEIR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ABILITY IN THE AREA. LENAR INSTALLED A TRAFFIC SICKLE AT SMITH AND HAMILTON THAT IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION IN THAT AREA RIGHT BY THE SCHOOL, AND ANOTHER PROJECT ON THE RADAR ARE FUTURE BRIDGE CONNECTIONS TO THE RIVERGATEP SHOWING CENTER. THESE CONNECTIONS WILL BE MADE IN PART TO LENAR TO AN APARTMENT REZONING THAT YOU APPROVED A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. I KNOW EVERYONE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT TRAFFIC AND WE CAN ONLY WIDEN OUR MAIN THOROUGHFARE. THIS IS A QUADRANT HERE. HERE IS RIVERGATE SHOPPING CENTER. THERE IS NO WAY THROUGH THIS QUADRANT CURRENTLY. WE HAVE UNDEVELOPED LAND AND IF YOU WANT TO GO FROM THIS SIDE OF THE QUADRANT TOIVE RIVERGATE SHOP CENTER, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE MOST CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS HERE AND HERE. ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU WANT TO COME FROM THESE AREAS TOIVE RIVERGATE ELEMENTARY, YOU HAVE TO GO AROUND. ONE OF THE THINGS AND GIVE CREDIT TO YOUR STAFF AND CITY FOR BEING FORWARD THINKING AND TRY TO DEVELOP A ROBUST STREET NETWORK THROUGH THE MEGA BLOCKS AND THESE WERE LINES ON A PLAN YEARS AGO AND WE ARE SEEING THAT COME TO FRUITION AND WHEN. WILL ENAR BRINGS THAT ON, THERE WILL BE BRIDGE CONNECTIONS HERE AND HERE AND THERE WILL THEN BE A STREET NETWORK THAT CONNECTS ALL OF THIS TO WIESH DEVELOPING DOWN HERE, RESIDENTS HERE TO TRAVEL THROUGH AND GET TO THE COMMERCIAL CORE OF STEELE CREEK WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SOME OF OUR MOST CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS AND I KNOW SOME OF PEOPLE UPSET ABOUT TRANSPORTATION IN THE AREA ARE NOT HERE NOW BUT I WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU ALL THAT YOUR PLANNING STAFF AND YOUR C.D.O.T. STAFF ARE GETTING THESE IMPROVEMENTS WHEN THEY CAN. AS YOU ALL KNOW, THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE ASKS OF DEVELOPERS AND BUILD THE STREET AND THE STUBS AND GET THE IMPROVEMENTS AS PRIVATE IT’S A LOT THAT LENAR HAS DONE ALREADY. DAVE MENTIONED, WE’RE HERE. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS HERE AND WORKING WITH CDOT TO HAVE A HAWK SIGNAL SO WE CAN SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN, GET FOLKS FROM ONE SIDE OF THE STREET TO THE OTHER SO THEY CAN GET TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND WE TALK ABOUT CMS ALL THE TIME THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THAT CMS IS ESTIMATING STUDENTS AGAIN RAGES WOULD GO FROM 71 TO 20 GOING FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO TOWNHOME. I’M FLAT FOOTED AND I’M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM YOU AND RESPOND>>MISS LADD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.>>I’M SPEAKING– EXCUSE ME, I’M NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST THIS PROJECT AND R IN PARTICULAR. I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ALL PROJECTS THAT WERE CONCERNING THE STEELE CREEK AREA WHICH IS WHAT I WANT TO ADDRESS. IN THE STEELE CREEK AREA, WE WANT A HOLD ON ALL REZONING PROJECTS TO TAKE A LOOK, JUST A STEP BACK ON THE GOING ON IN THE AREA. AS PEOPLE SAID, WE ARE LOSING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE THERE. THE ABUNDANCE OF TREES AND WILDLIFE THAT WERE DRAWING RESIDENTS ARE QUICKLY DISAPPEARING. WE’RE LOSING THE BIRD SONG AND THE CROAKING OF FROGS AND NOW WE HEAR LOUD VEHICLES RACING UP AND DOWN THE STREETS AT NIGHT INSTEAD AND THE DEVELOPERS IN ALL THESE PICTURES, THEY TOUT THAT THEY HAVE SET LAND ASIDE AS RECREATIONAL COMMON AREAS OR PARKS BUT THEY ARE ONLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THESE PLANS DO NOT ADDRESS THE DERTH OF OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR RECREATION THROUGHOUT THE STEELE CREEK AREA. THERE’S ONLY WINGATE PARK AND MCDOWELL PRESERVE, AND THAT’S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR ANY OPEN AREA FOR ANY KIND OF WALKING TRAILER PLAYING BASKETBALL OR ANYTHING IN THAT AREA. YOU MENTIONED THE STEELE CREEK AREA PLAN AND THAT WAS 2012 AND WE HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND STRENGTHS IN THAT. I WANTED TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO ADHERE TO THE PLAN ALREADY IN PLACE WHICH THIS PROJECT AND THE LETTER FROM THE STEELE CREEK COMMUNITY DOESN’T ABIDE BY THAT. AS FAR AS TRAFFIC, YES THERE IS GRIDLOCK AND THERE’S A LOT OF ACCIDENTS ALONG OUR ROAD. PARTICULARLY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY SEEM TO BE CAUSED BY PEOPLE TURNING LEFT TURNING ONTO PEOPLE GETTING INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. I THINK THE LEFT TURN LIGHTS MAY BE INADEQUATE TO LET ONE OR TWO CARS THROUGH AND PEOPLE TRY TO RUN THE YELLOW AND GET HIT BY OTHER CARS AND IT SEEMS THAT THERE ARE TERRIBLE ACCIDENTS EVERY DAY. ANOTHER THING ABOUT HIGHWAY 49 OR SOUTH TRYON BECAUSE WE KNOW IT HAS LONG BEEN A MAJOR ARTERY FOR LAKE WYLIE RESIDENTS TO GET TO CHARLOTTE FOR WORK. AS LAKE WYLIE AND TEGA CAY HAVE GROWN, THEY’RE SEEING ADDED TRAFFIC AND NOW WE HAVE GROWTH IN STEELE CREEK WHICH IS PUTTING TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAY 49 AND SOUTH TRYON. HIGHWAY 49 IS WHAT I CONSIDER MY NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IS HOW I GET TO THE GROCERY STORE INTO THE LIBRARY AND HOW PARENT GET THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOLS AND WHATNOT. DOES THE COUNCIL RECOGNIZE THIS? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OR PLAN TO GET SOME SORT OF MASS TRANSIT TO GET THESE COMMUTERS OFF OF 49? >>MAYOR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.>>I DON’T THINK THESE COMMENTS WERE DIRECTED TO THIS PETITION. GENERALLY CONCERNS ABOUT THE STEELE CREEK AREA, WE’VE GOT A BALANCE OF. I MEAN THIS IS– AS I MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES TONIGHT, WE HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY ISSUE. WE’VE GOT TO INCREASE SUPPLY. STEELE CREEK IS ONE OF THE AREAS OF TOWN WHERE THERE IS STILL LAND PLENTIFUL. WE’RE SEEING PRESSURE AND I GET IT. I GO TO THESE MEETINGS EVERY NIGHT AND HEAR ABOUT TRAFFIC. I WHERE YOU COULD PUT A TOLL ON THE BRIDGE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA. [LAUGHTER] WE COULD USE THOSE DOLLARS TO FUND OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND. I HATE TO STAND HERE EVERY TIME AND NOT HAVE ANSWERS BUT I KNOW THAT WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY A LOT. THESE ARE PRIME LOCATIONS AND I THINK THE– THE PEOPLE ARE COMING. AND THEY’RE COMING FOR JOBS AND OUR DYNAMIC ECONOMY AND WE NEED TO CAPTURE THOSE PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE AND MECKLENBURG COUNTY. THEY’RE COMING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND THEY WILL DRIVE THROUGH OUR ROADS. IT’S IMPORTANT TOP TODAYTURE THEM WITH GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHERE WE DO PARTNER WITH EACH OTHER TO GET ISSUES ADDRESSED.>>MR. BROWN, FILING FOR CITY COUNCIL IS IN JULY. [LAUGHTER] IF YOU WANT TO GO TO A COUPLE MEETINGS AND HAVE AN IMPACT, STEP ON UP.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR LYLES.>>MOVE THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED.>>COMMISSIONER FIPS.>>MR. BROWN, IS THIS A PROJECT THAT’S GOING TO BE DONE IN PHASES? THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE LENAR TEAM I IMAGINE THEY WILL NOT COME IN AND BUILD THIS ALL AT ONCE, IF THAT’S YOUR QUESTION. I THINK IT WILL BE PHASED. I NOTICE THIS IS THE ONLY AREA. AND THERE’S A GREAT DEAL OF OPEN SPACE. THERE’S A TRAIL NETWORK THAT I DID NOT HIGHLIGHT THAT RUNS THROUGH THE OPEN SPACES AND I THINK I HAVE A DETAIL SO THERE WILL BE POCKET PARKS THROUGHOUT. HERE’S A DETAIL OF WHAT THE AMENITY AREA COULD BE. I DO THINK THAT LENAR TEAM WANTS TO LOOK AT AND SEE WHAT THE MARKET IS WHETHER IT’S A SWIMMING POOL, NOT A SWIMMING POOL. THERE’S A COST TO THOSE THAT RAISED THE COST OF HOUSING AND THAT’S BEING LOOKED AT BUT THERE IS A GOOD BIT THROUGH THE NATURAL AREA AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY’RE DOING WHICH INCLUDES MANY HUNDRED ACRES AND IT WILL CONNECT TO THAT TRAIL NETWORK ALSO.>>IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO OPEN UP FOR CONNECTIVITY ONTO WANDERING BROOK DRIVE?>>YES. YOUR SUBSIDY VISION ORDINANCE WILL REQUIRE A STREET CONNECTION HERE. THAT WILL BE PROVIDED. WE HAD A GOOD TURNOUT AT COMMUNITY MEETING FOR THAT I AM ALWAYS HESITANT, SO WE EXPLAIN WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT WITH OR WITHOUT A REZONING AND WE TRIED TO BUFFER THAT AND WE’RE NOT PUTTING HOMES RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SOME FOLKS MIGHT APPRECIATE A CONNECTION TO THE CROSSWALK.>>IS THIS ANOTHER ENTRYWAY THAT I SEE ON SMITH BOYD ROAD?>>ACCESS POINTS HERE, HERE, HERE, AND HERE. SO CORRECT, IF THAT’S WHERE YOU ARE ASKING.>>OKAY. SO THAT’S IT>>IN THE TREE SAVE AREA, WHEN THE PORTION, HAMILTON ROAD, CLOSEST TO SUPERIOR STREET I THINK IT SAYS. I’M READING IT UPSIDE DOWN.>>AM I IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WITH THE ARROW?>>I’M SORRY. I CAN’T SEE YOUR ARROW. WHERE IS IT? FROM ME, THE PART ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF SMITH ROAD ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THE TREE SAVE IS. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS YOU HAVE’S OPENING THAT’S NOT A STREET AND I WONDER IF WHY NOT CONNECT THAT OPENING WHERE THERE WOULD BE A FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION INSTEAD? WE COULD LOOK AT THAT AND THE ANSWER IS THE DISTANCE DOESN’T QUALIFY BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THE STUB>>THIS WOULD BE FOR THE STAFF OR TRANSPORTATION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT’S THE PARCEL VACANT ON THE OTHER END WHERE THE STREET THAT SAYS WINDING– YOU’RE NOT DESIGNATING AND IT’S WOUND WANDERING BROOK DRIVE AND THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO NOT CREATING THE GRIDS. IF WE APPROVE THIS, WE OUGHT TO REQUIRE A STREET ALIGNMENT ACROSS THERE AND I DON’T KNOW IF THAT’S POSSIBLE BECAUSE IF WE DON’T HAVE ANY DRAWINGS OR WHATEVER BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS THE TIME THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED THEN IT IMPACTS IMMEDIATELY WHAT GOES ACROSS THE STREET.>>EXACTLY.>>WHY WOULDN’T WE GO AHEAD– WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY SOMEWHERE IN CASE THAT HAPPENS WHEN NONE OF US ARE HERE ON WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. IT’S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC GRIDING AND ALL OF THAT. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULDN’T DO THIS. THE OTHER THING AND I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THIS. DO WE DO ACCIDENT DATA IN ZONING STUDIES? DO WE DO REAR END COLLISIONS, INTERSECTION COLLISIONS WHEN WE LOOK AT EXISTING? YOU DON’T HAVE TO ANSWER IT NOW. WE CAN DO A FOLLOWUP. I WANT TO KNOW HOW WE USE ACCIDENT DATA WHEN LOOKING ON THESE LONG INTERSECTIONS AND LONG ROADS SO WITH THAT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?>>MOVE TO CLOSE>>SECOND.>>LIVE LFER. LAST PROTESTED– THIS IS NOT A PROTESTED. LAST PETITION THAT WE HAVE SPEAKING FOR OR AGAINST IS ITEM NUMBER 45 SO IF WE CAN GO TO 45. THAT WOULD BE 201-12 FOR APPROXIMATELY 2.8 ACRES ON THE SOUTHWEST CORN HE OF SOUTH TRYON IN DISTRICT THREE. THE CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. PROPOSED ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ON THIS ONE, WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS FOR, BRIDGET GRANT, MICHAEL AND I’M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT CORRECTLY. SLOVTNIK. OKAY, AND RED HUDSON AND TWO SPEAKERS AGAINST, MISS LADD AND TRAY DANIELS. THAT’S TEN MINUTES EACH SIDE. STAFF WILL GIVE A PRESENTATION.>>YES. THIS REQUEST BEFORE US THIS EVENING IS TO AMEND THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY AND CURRENTLY ALLOWS 6,000 SQUARE FEET OF AUTOMOTIVE BUILDING AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE. THIS PETITION WANTS TO DO AWAY WITH THE AUTO AND REPLACE IT WITH 30,500 SQUARE FEET FOR GROCERY, RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICE, EATING, RETAIL AND OTHER USES UNDER THE MS DISTRICT. ESSENTIALLY, WE’RE TAKING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVE SITE PLAN AND MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE FROM TO ONE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING AT 135,000 SQUARE FEET AND THIS WOULD ELIMINATE AUTOMOTIVE USES TO BE ESTABLISHED THERE AND PROVIDE OTHER GENERAL BUFFERING AND SITE DESIGN STANDARD FOR THIS PROPERTY AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WERE AMENDED BY THE PREVIOUS REZONING IN 2014-042 FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL LAND USES. AND I WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE’VE GOT–>>LET ME JUMP’S HEAD HERE. MISS GRANT. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. MEMBERS OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS BRIDGET GRANT. I’M WITH MOORE AND VAN ALLEN. I’M HERE WITH DON AND MICHAEL WITH LEGAL AND BRAD HUDSON WITH BOWLING ENGINEERING. THIS IS A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. THE SITE IS APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL USES. IT’S A 2.841 ACRE SITE. IT’S CURRENTLY VACANT. IT’S ZONED NS AND THE PROPOSED REZONING TO AMEND IT ALLOWS A DIFFERENT USE ON THE SITE. THE PROPOSED PLAN WILL AMEND WHAT WAS DONE IN 2014. THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SITES, WHAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE AND NOW IS THAT THIS SITE INCLUDES A NUMBER OF OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS NOT ANTICIPATED WITH THE EARLIER REZONING. ACCESS WILL BE FROM SOUTH TRYON AND MOSS ROAD. WE’RE DOING STREET SCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG BOTH AND THERE WILL BE TURN LANES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OVERALL INSECTION AND WE’RE MAINTAINING OPEN SPACE AT THE CORNER. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS AND I WON’T GO INTO DETAIL GIVEN OUR TIME. I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES. THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH TRYON STREET AND MOSS ROAD INTENNED TO REFLECT THE QUALITY AND LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED FOR THIS SITE. WITH THAT, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS>>THANK YOU, MISS GRANT. WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS IN FAVOR, MICHAEL SLOVATINIK. I’M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND BRAD HUDSON. THANK YOU. MISS CHRISTINA LADD WHO IS SPEAKING AGAINST. TROY DANIEL INSTEAD OF MISS LADD AND MISS LADD YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES TOTAL>>MY NAME IS TROY DANIEL. I’M A HOMEOWNER LITERALLY NEXT DOOR TO WHERE THIS IS GOING. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU GUYS CLOSE AT 10:00. SO THERE’S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN AND OUT IN THAT AREA, A COUPLE OTHER THINGS REGARDING THE BUFFER ZONES AND WHAT TREES WILL BE LEFT. THAT PICTURE, YOU SAW A TON OF TREES THAT ARE PHOTOING GET CUT DOWN BUT IF THERE’S GOING TO BE HOMES AFFECTED LITERALLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS BUILT– STILL BEING BUILT OUT OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO.>>I’M SORRY. ARE YOU AGAINST?>>I MEAN, I GUESS I’M AGAINST. I’M NOT AGAINST THE BUILDING BEING THERE. I WANTED SOME ANSWERS BECAUSE I HADN’T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE MAILERS THAT I GOT>>WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU WANTED ANSWERED?>>LIGHT POLLUTION, STREET LIGHTS ON 24/7. AM I GOING TO BE AFFECTED NEGATIVELY? MY HOUSE BACKS UP NEXT TO THE PARKING LOT THAT’S GOING UP. IF YOU ARE OPEN UNTIL 10:00, THAT’S PRETTY LATE. LACK OF PRIVACY.>>SO BUFFERING.>>EXACTLY. TREES BEING LEFT OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I GUESS THAT’S IT. I HAVE SEEN THE MAP AND I KNOW WHERE THE TRAFFIC IS THROWING. THANKS.>>THANK YOU, MR. DANIEL. IS MISS LADD HERE>>TREE BUFFER THEY’RE SHOWING IN THE PICTURE, I THINK IS A LITTLE INADEQUATE FOR MY TASTE, I UNDERSTAND AND YOU DO WANT YOUR BUILDING TO BE SEEN AND IF THE– WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER GROCERY STORE IN THAT AREA. WE HAVE– THERE’S TWO PUBLIX, A HARRIS TEETER AND THERE’S A FOOD LION. THERE’S A TARGET, A WAL-MART, ALL OF THESE ARE SELLING FOOD ITEMS. YEAH. THE LAST THING WE NEED IS ANOTHER GROCERY STORE. THERE’S GOING TO BE LIGHT POLLUTION AND MORE TRAFFIC IN AND OUT. THERE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NEXT TO ALL OF THAT. RIGHT ACROSS TRYON IS BACKS UP TO A NEIGHBORHOOD SO I THINK IT’S JUST– I THINK IT’S ILSUITED SPOT, I THINK TO PUT A GROCERY STORE AND THEY ARE PUTTING SOME AND. MISS GRANT, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.>>AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE SITE IS APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL USES AND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND THIS OPTION COMES THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA. WE WILL, OF COURSE, WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH NEIGHBORS AND ADDRESS CONCERNS RELATED TO BUFFERS. WE ARE SHOWING THERE’S A BUFFER TO SOUTH SIDE AND WE ARE MAINTAINING THE BUFFERS ALONG THE PERIPHERAL OF THE SITE. WE’RE HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTS. AS FOR THE LIGHT POLLUTION, WE’RE NOT FAR ENOUGH INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SITE TO SPEAK TO THE SPECIFICS BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS THAT WE ALLOW ON OUR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL? DR. HARLOW AND MAYOR PRO TEM.>>THANKS, MAYOR. THANKS BRIDGET. QUICKLY, WHAT AND YOU SAID YOU DIDN’T WANT TO GET INTO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS>>REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID>>SHE SAID SHE DIDN’T WANT TO GET INTO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS>>THERE’S A LENGTHY SLIDE, ON TRYON AND MOSS, WE’RE CONSTRUCTING A NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ONTO MOSS ROAD, AND WE’RE TRYING TO GET IT TO BE CONSTRUCTED THE FULL WIDTH UNTIL YOU REACH THE FOUNDERS CREDIT UNION. WE’RE MODIFYING THE SIGNAL TO ACCOMMODATE THESE NEW MOVEMENTS. ON TRYON STREET WITH ACCESS A, WE’RE CONSTRUCTING AN EASTBOUND, RIGHT-HAND TURN LANE WITH 75 FEET OF STORAGE AND WE’RE CONSTRUCTING ACCESS A WITH ONE EGRESS LANE AND ONE EGRESS LANE THAT’S RIGHT ONLY. ON MOSS ROAD, WE’RE CONSTRUCTING A SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE WITH 5 FEET OF STORAGE IN THE TAPER AND CONSTRUCTING A NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE WITH 100 FEET OF STORAGE. ACCESS B WILL HAVE ONE INGRESS AND ONE EGRESS, SHARED RIGHT. THE PREVIOUS REZONE DIDN’T HAVE ANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS GOT IT>>THIS IS GOOD. I MAKE THAT U-TURN ALMOST EVERY DAY. THAT’S MORE OF A PERSONAL QUESTION. [LAUGHTER]>>STORE AN LANE NAME FOR JUSTIN HARLOW.>>I DON’T KNOW IF THEY WOULD ALLOW IT. [LAUGHTER]>>I CAN GET TO THESE MEETINGS ON TIME I’LL ASK YOU OFF-LINE. DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT.>>MAYOR PRO TEM.>>I THINK MY QUESTIONS WEREACKED. THANK YOU.>>MR. PHIPPS>>YEAH IS THE 30,500 SQUARE FOOT LEITTLE, IS THAT THE TYPICAL SIZE?>>IT IS OUR STANDARD PROTOTYPE, YES.>>CAN YOU ADDRESS THE QUESTION ABOUT LIGHTING AND BUFFERING? I THINK I HEARD A LITTLE BIT OF A BUFFER BUT I DID NOT HEAR LIGHTING AND THE PARKING LOT AND HOW IT IMPACTS AND THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL UNIT. SO WE TYPICALLY HAVE DOWNCAST LIGHTING AND I DON’T KNOW IF WE’RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE WE’RE EARLY ON IN THE DESIGN. THERE’S A BUFFER AND EXISTING TREES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WITH THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE WIDTH OF THE BUFFER IS 25 FEET.>>IF YOU COULD GET TO MR. DANIEL AND JUST KNOWING, YOU KNOW, I USED TO LIVE OVER BY COTSWALD AND THEY HAVE A BRICK WALL AND THEY HAVE SOME PLANTINGS TO BUFFER SOME OF THE NOISE AND I’M SURE THAT’S BECAUSE THAT WAS BACK WHEN. I DON’T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE USING NOW BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TALK ABOUT THAT WITH MR. DANIELS ABOUT BUFFERING. AND I BELIEVE HE SAID HIS LOT ADJOINS THE LOT WHERE THE PARKING IS AND THE LIGHTING>>GREAT. SOME OF IT IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR TO US MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BUFFER BECAUSE IT OFFERS BETTER BUFFER THAN PLANTING NEW OR REPLACING IT TO TEAR DOWN AND PUT A WALL. WE’LL LOOK INTO IT AND THANK YOU.>>I THINK BEING RESPONSIVE TO THOSE HOUSES ALONG THE SIDES THERE, I BELIEVE, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. MAYOR PRO TEM.>>SORRY. YOU SAID THE LIGHTING WOULD BE ON UNTIL 10:00>>THE GENTLEMAN PENSIONED THAT THE STORES ARE OPEN UNTIL 10:00.>>STORES ARE OPEN UNTIL 10:00. SO HOW LONG IS THE PARKING LOT LIT UP?>>PROBABLY AROUND THE CLOCK.>>ALL NIGHT. WE BELIEVE IT SHUTS DOWN AROUND 10:00 OR 11:00.>>AND WHAT STOPS YOU FROM DECIDING YOU WANT TO KEEP IT OPEN UNTIL MIDNIGHT OR 24 HOURS>>THERE’S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS THAT– THERE’S NOTHING IN THE REZONING THAT LIMITS THE HOURS OF OPERATION.>>I JUST WONDER– NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES HAS BEEN NEBULOUS AND IT’S TRANSITIONAL WHEN YOU DO HAVE RESIDENTIAL. I’M NOT SURE WHY THIS IS NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND WE’RE TAKING THE SERVICE APPROVED BACK IN 2014 AND TAKING THAT PLAN AND MAKING AN AMENDMENT. WHY IT WAS ZONED NEIGHBOR AREHOOD SERVICE IN 2014, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT NECESSITATED THAT OR WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS WERE AT THAT POINT. I’M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THE 2014 PETITION, BUT WE’RE TAKING THAT PETITION AND MAKING IT AN AMENDMENT TO WHAT ALREADY HAS BEEN APPROVED.>>LOOKING BACK AT THE NOTES, STAFF DID NOT SUPPORT THE TWO REZONINGS AGO BECAUSE IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN AND UP TO THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. WHEN WAS THE SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN DONE?>>SOUTHWEST–>’90s.>>SOUNDS OLD. IT WOULD TRANSITION BETTER FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TO COMMERCIAL AND IN THEORY TO ME, THAT’S WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SHOULD DO, MORE OR LESS, OR PROVIDE A TRANSITION BUT WE USE IT A LOT TO SORT OF AS A CATCH-ALL, I THINK. AND IS THAT REALLY THE INTENSION AND AND IT’S CURRENTLY NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AND ALLOWS 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF HOUSES AND 6,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AND THIS IS AMENDING THAT TO ALLOW FOR THE 30,000 SQUARE FEET FOR GROCERY, RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICE, EATING INTEREST&DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS AND THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL ALLOWED AND THIS ONE IS FOCUSED ON THE GROCERY END USER? I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING>>SAY AYE.>>WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO OR TAKE A BREAK. I THINK THAT THE FOLKS HAVE PRETTY MUCH ENDED THE EVENING ACROSS THE STREET SO WE’RE GOING TO KEEP ON GOING THROUGH THE AGENDA. I WANT TO THANK THE FOLKS WHO CAME OUT TO SPEAK ON PROTESTED PETITIONS AND NOW THE NEXT PETITIONLE AND WE’RE GOING TO GO BACK. WE’RE NOW AT NUMBER– ITEM NUMBER 35, PETITION 2018. LOI KATEED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BILLY GRAHAM PARKWAY. DISTRICT THREE HAS BEEN RUNNING IT TONIGHT. CURRENT ZONING IS 22 UNITS PER ACRE FOR MULTIFAMILY WITH AIRPORT NOISE OVERLAY. PROPOSED REZONING IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL WITH AIRPORT NOISE OVERLAY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITHOUT NEGOTIATION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES. WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY THE STAFF AND MR. CARMICHAEL. B CONDITIONAL DISTRICT AND THE PROJECT THAT WE’RE LOOK AT WITH THIS PETITION IS TO REALLY ROUND OUT THE EXISTING B ZONING AT THAT CORNER OF ROZZELL’S FERRY AND LAKEWOOD AVENUE. WE’VE GOT EXISTING APARTMENTS ENTITLED FOR THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THIS WOULD ALLOW COMPLETION AND CONTINUITY OF THAT SITE TO BE WRAPPED UP AND REALLY ROUND OUT WHAT IS PHASE TWO OF A 33-UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SO THE TOTAL WILL BE 36 DWELLING UNITS IN ALL. THE WE’VE GOT DIFFERENT PROPERTIES FOR THOSE ADJACENT AND EIGHT-FOOT SIDEWALKS AND EIGHT-FOOT PLANTING STRIPS INSTALLED ALONG THE FRONTAGE ON LAKEWOOD AND ON-STREET PARKING ON LAKEWOOD AND WE GET INTO SOME SPECIFICS ON BUILDING MATERIALS. THE PETITION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAKEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR OFFICE RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. IT’S CONSISTENT WITH BOTH USE AND DENSITY AND WE, AGAIN, ARE SUPPORTING THIS PETITION UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES.>>MAYOR: ALL RIGHT. WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK FIRST? MR. DENARD.>>MAYOR, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS JMAL AND I’M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF LAKEWOOD ALLIANCE AND I’M ALSO A RESIDENT IN THE LAKEWOOD COMMUNITY. WE WORKED TIRELESSLY TO ENGAGE, EDUCATE, AND EMPOWER THE RESIDENTS OF LAKEWOOD, FORMERLY KNOWN AS LAKEVIEW. I CAME HERE TODAY IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE REZONING PETITION BUT WE ARE ALSO SPEAKING AWARE OF RESIDENTS THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THE INTENDED AND UNINTENDED RESULTS, WITH THE GREENWAY ON THE WAY AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND WE REALIZE THAT THIS COULD RESULT IN RENTAL NEIGHBORS BEING DISPLACED AS WE HAVE SEEN. WE HAVE COME HERE TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND JUST UNDERSTANDING HOW TO GO ABOUT TO HELP HIM APPLY FOR THE RFP SO WE CAN GET THE BOND MONEY PASSED IN THE ERECTION TO ASSIST IN THE EFFORTS OF HOPING TO SUBSIDIZE SOME OF THE PRICING OF THE APARTMENTS ONCE THIS REZONING IS APPROVED. THIS WILL HELP LOWER THE COSTS WHICH ALSO CAN SERVE AS OUR OPTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR RESIDENTS WHO MAY BE DISPLACED FROM LANDLORDS CHOOSING TO SELL TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE KNOW OUR PLAN IS ENGAGE, EDUCATE, AND EMPOWER AND THIS WOULD HELP TO ACCOMPLISH THE THIRD E TO HAVE OTHER OPTIONS AND KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT ADVOCATING FOR THEMSELVES WHEN IT COMES TO THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS IN CHARLOTTE. THANK YOU. ? MY NAME IS CHRIS. I’M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I HAVE WORKED WITH MR. KENARD AND DEB NICHOLS IN THE BACK OVER THE YEARS TO TRY TO STRENGTHEN LAKEWOOD COMMUNITY. I BELIEVE THE WORK IS BEGINNING TO PAY OFF. OF COURSE, IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK AND FIGHTING AND STILL TRYING TO CLEAN UP SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING ACROSS ROZZELL’S FERRY AND I HOPE COUNCILMEMBER– DR. HARLOW CAN ATTEST TO THAT THAT THE AREA IS GETTING STRONGER BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT’S MISSING IS NEW INVESTMENT TO THE AREA. IT’S A SMALL PROJECT AS HE WAS SAYING. WE NEED THE SUPPORT FROM THE COUNCIL TO HELP SUBSIDIZE SOME OF THESE UNITS AND INITIALLY, THE FIRST APPROACH WAS TO BUILD 24 UNITS ALONG ROZZELL’S FERRY AND THE CORNER OF LAKEWOOD. HOWEVER, WHEN WE GOT THE INITIAL COST IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE TO MAKE HAPPEN. WE THOUGHT THERE WAS A NEED TO BUILD 12 MORE UNITS AND SPREAD THE COST ALONG 36 UNITS AND THAT’S THE REASON WHY WE COME–>>MAYOR: THANK YOU. WE’LL OPEN IT UP NOW FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL>>MOVE TO CLOSE.■■>>I WANT TO SAY>>DR. HARLOW>>THIS IS GREAT. AS YOU MENTIONED, MR. AGARINDE, JAMAL, GOOD TO SEE YOU WHEN YOU TAKE THE GRASS ROOTS ADVOCACY AND WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN LAKEWOOD AND CLEAN UP WHAT WAS DISINVESTED IN. YOU ARE SPOT ON. THERE’S NEED FOR NEW INVESTMENT IN THIS AREA. A PLAYED YOU ON TRYING IT MAKE THE BEST OUT OF THIS SITE AND I THINK WE’VE GOT STAFF RESOURCES TO HELP WITH MANY SO OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT AROUND AFFORDABILITY AND THING LIKE THAT. I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON IT.>>THANK YOU. MOVE TO CLOSE.>>MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH THE NEXT PETITION WE HAVE IS ITEM NUMBER 38, 2018-148 BY BEACON PARTNERS FOR 1.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST BOULEVARD, EAST OF SOUTH TRIEN AND DISTRICT THREE. CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AND PROPOSED ZONING IS TOD, MIXED USE OPTIONAL. MR. BROWN AND MIKE HARRELL AND WE WILL ASK THE STAFF PRESENTATION WILL BE THREE MINUTES>>THANK YOU PROPOSING A B-1 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO TOD-MO, MIXED USE OPTIONAL DISTRICT. THE SOUTH ENVISION PLAN DOES RECOMMEND A MIX OF TRANSIT, SUPPORTIVE USES AND STATION AREA PLAN FROM 2005 RECOMMENDS MIXED USE TRANSIT SUPPORTED DEVELOPMENT. YOU CAN SEE THE SITE HERE FRONTS ON TRYON STREET, EXCUSE ME, AND EAST BOULEVARD AND TO GIVE YOU CONTEXT. LOOKING AT TWO SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT AREAS HERE. WE’VE GOT ABOUT 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OF OPEN SPACE INTERNAL TO THE SITE. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH TRYON AND WEST BOULEVARD. WE TO HAVE TWO DEVELOPMENT AREAS THAT WILL ALLOW ALL USES IN TOD-M, OFFICE WILL BE AT LEAST 20% OF THE SITE. WE HAVE OPTIONAL PROVISIONS TO BE CONSIDERED THIS EVENING. THOSE ARE FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDING HEIGHT, SIGNAGE, PARKING, PHASING, AS WELL AS MA YOUR INTOING BETWEEN BUILDING AND STREET, FOR DROP-OFF AND THREE-FOOT ENCROACHMENT ON WEST BOULEVARD FOR THE UPPER FLOORS. STAFF HAS GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT THAT ITEM FOR PARKING MANEUVERING BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND STREETS AND WE WILL WORK WITH THE PETITIONER TO DO OUR BEST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT AND SOME OTHER GENERAL OUTSTANDING ISSUES ON SITE DESIGN, STAFF DOES SUPPORT YOUR– THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VISION PLAN.>>I AM HERE TO EL YOU ABOUT THIS REZONING WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS A WHILE. THIS STARTED LAST YEAR. WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. COUNCILMEMBER MAYFIELD HAS BIPARTISAN QUITE INVOLVED. HAVE A VERY GOOD DEVELOPMENT TEAM, INCLUDING LAND DESIGN, DAVID FURMAN’S GROUP, AND DAVID HAS GIVEN A REALLY GOOD OVERVIEW. WHERE WE SPEND AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME ON THIS PROJECT AND CONSIDER WE STARTED EARLIER, THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE CHILD TEAM AND THERE’S A PARCEL HERE ZONED BY THE COUNTY. THERE IS A PLAN WHICH EVERYONE IS CALLING WILMORE PARK AT SOUTH END. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS IS A COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND PLANNING STAFF AND FINDING A WAY AND WE SEE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT’S MEGA BLOCK, THEY TAKE UP THE BLOCK AND CREATE TWO DIFFERENT AREAS AND CREATE A CORRIDOR THAT WILL CONNECT FROM WEST BOULEVARD TO THE PARK. SO THAT WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE EASEMENT. THAT WILL BE THERE, BE OPEN SO YOU CAN WALK FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. REALLY BREAKS DOWN THE SIZE OF THAT BLOCK, MAKES IT MUCH MORE WALKABLE, PEDESTRIAN, PUBLIC FRIENDLY AND A LOT OF EFFORT HAS GONE INTO THAT. I HAVE TO EL YOU THAT WE HAVE COMMUNITY SUPPORT FROM THE WILMORE NEIGHBORHOOD, SOUTH END GROUP. MISS MAYFIELD HAS BEEN VERY INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT THROUGHOUT. WE HAVE SOME NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET. CAROLINA FOOD IS HERE, AND WE’VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM AND CDOT STAFF ON THE MA YOUR INTOING HERE. I THINK WE’VE REACHED GOOD ACCOMMODATIONS WITH C.D.O.T. AND PLANNING STAFF ON ALL DESIGN ELEMENTS AS WELL AS THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS, WE’LL BE PROVIDING PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE A BETTER PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FROM THE HEART OF WILMORE OVER INTO SOUTH END AND THAT’S A SAFE CROSSING AND PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT FOR THEM. I KNOW WE’RE RUNNING LONG TONIGHT. I’M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. HAPPY HAVE TO HAVE STAFF SUPPORT>>ANY QUESTIONS FOR PET TITIONER OR THE STAFF? HEARING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?>>MOVED, SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ANYONE OPPOSED? I JUST WANTED TO CHECK. WAS THERE AN ITEM 39? WAS THAT DELAYED? WAS THAT DEFERRED, 39? 2018-153 BY BROADER INVESTMENTS.>>I BELIEVE WE DEFERRED THAT. I WANT TO LOOK AT OUR LIST.>>WE DON’T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS FOR IT, SO WE WILL HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.>>THAT ONE IS MOVING FORWARD. 153 IS MOVING FORWARD, YEAH.>>SO WE JUST HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION.>>YEP.>>THANK YOU.>>THIS IS A TOD-M REZONING TO A TOD-M OPTIONAL. THIS ONE IS PROPOSING, LET’S SEE WE GOT– EXISTING BUILDINGS FOR THE SITE WITHIN THE TOD-M DISTRICT AND A PATIO ADDITION BEING PROPOSED OPTIONAL PROVISIONS BEING CONSIDERED. THOSE ARE LIMITED TO THE SITE AND SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR EATING AND DRINKING AND ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN 800 FEET. TOD-M DISTRICT REQUIRES ONE SPACE FOR 125 FEET FOR THOSE USES AND WITHIN 800 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THIS SITE IS 725 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE R-5 ZONING DISTRICT AND 75 FEET SHORT OF WHAT THAT TYPICAL REQUIREMENT WOULD BE BUT THEY ARE ASKING FOR THAT OPTIONAL PROVISION TO BE PART OF THE APPROVAL FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO REUSE THIS BUILDING AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE USES THERE AND OPT OUT OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.>>ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? HEARING NONE, MOTION TO CLOSE.>>SO MOVED>>SECOND.>>ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA IS 40 18-155, 8 ACRES ON THE END OF DIXIE RIVER ROAD. CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH THREE UNITS AN ACRE. REQUEST IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL UPON RESOLUTION OF ALL THE ISSUES AND WE HAVE FOUR SPEAKERS SIGNED UP BUT I BELIEVE– YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK FOR FOUR?>>I’M GOING TO SPEAK FOR THREE OF US. MISS FIR IS HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR>>MISS FIR, COME ON DOWN. SINCE THERE ARE NO PEOPLE SIGNED UP AGAINST THE PROPOSAL, THEN WE’LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SHARE AFTER THE STAFF PRESENTATION SO WOO HAVE AN R-REQUEST COMING TO MUDD CD. THIS PETITION IS BROKING UP TO FOUR DEVELOPMENT AREAS, A, B, C, AND D. DEVELOPMENT AREAS A, B, AND D ARE WHERE WE LOOK AT MUDD CONDITIONAL ZONING AND THAT WOULD ALLOW UP TO 140,000 SQUARE FEET OF USES ALLOWED IN MUDD. NO MORE THAN 20,000 WOULD BE DEVOTED TO RETAIL, EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS AND A HOTEL PROVISION WITH UP TO 140 ROOMS WITH OPTIONS TO GO UP TO 260 WITH SOME DIFFERENT CHANGEOUTS FOR THE ALLOTTED SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR SOME OF THOSE OFFICE AND RETAIL USES. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS SIX STORIES, 90 FEET. ONE AREA OUTSIDE THE MUDD THAT WE’RE LOOK AT IS DOWN HERE IN DEVELOPMENT AREA C. THIS WILL BE UP TO 31,000 SQUARE FEET, VARIOUS USES FOR LOWER INTENSITY AND MANUFACTURING. DOES PROHIBIT RELEASES THAT RELATE MORE TO AUTOMOBILES, EXCUSE ME, AND MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSING AND OTHER USES THAT GENERALLY WOULDN’T BE CONDUCIVE WITH COMMERCIAL USES AND OFFICE USES ON THOSE OTHER THREE DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND AGAIN, STAFF IS LOOKING AT THIS PETITION OR SUPPORTING THIS PETITION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND ENVIRONMENT. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STEELE– INCONSISTENT WITH STEELE CREEK AREA PLAN FOR RECOMMENDATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND AGAIN, WHILE THE PETITION IS INCONSISTENT, IT STATES THAT THE MIX OF USES WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS SITE AND IT PRO-AND VERY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES THAT ARE MORE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE THAN INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING. IT’S IN AN AREA THAT EXPERIENCED TREMENDOUS PRESSURES FOLLOWING THE OPEN OF THE OUTLETS AND BECAUSE OF THIS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAD A RESPONSE PROCESS IN MARCH 2017 TO UPDATE SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR AREAS NEAR THE OUTLET MALL. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HERE IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES OF THE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE WHICH CALLS FOR HIGHER INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN A MIXED OF USES. THIS PROPOSED PLAN INCLUDES NETWORK BY THE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE AND LAYS IT AS IT OCCURS. IT’S INCONSISTENT WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WE HEARD ABOUT THE CONCERNS WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN STEELE CREEK. THIS PLAN DOES RESPOND BETTER TO THE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE UPDATE DONE IN 2017 AND DOES PROVIDE A LOT OF THE INTENT FROM THAT PLAN THAT WAS DONE BACK IN 2017. THAT KIND OF WORKS IN CONCERT WITH THE STEELE CREEK AREA PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THE PARTICULARRENTATION>>YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SHARE.>>GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM, MEMBERS OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE, KEITH MacVANE WITH MOORE VAN ALLEN, JEFF BROWN AND I ARE ASSISTING NORTH STATE CAPITAL PARTNERS WITH THIS REZONING REQUEST. WITH ME REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER IS SHANE SEGAL AND DAVID DUPRREE WITH NORTH STATE PARTNERS, LLC. THEY’RE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THEY HAVE. I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR SUPPORT. WE APPRECIATE THEM WORING WITH US TO GET THE PETITION TO THIS POINT. AS DAVID MENTIONED, 8.3 ACRES GOING FROM R-3 TO MUDD, 1 CD AND THIS PETITION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE STEELE CREEK RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION AND THEY HAVE FOUND THE LAND USES TO BE APPROPRIATE. THE PETITION DOES, AS DAVID MENTION OR DAVE MENTIONED, IMPLEMENT THE VISION OF DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD NETWORK THAT WAS PART OF THAT PLAN BY EXTENDING DIXIE RIVER ROAD AND EXTENDING NORTH-SOUTH ROAD AND THAT BEGINS TO PROVIDE RIGSBY, RIGSBY ACRES TO THE NORTH AND THE REMAINDER OF TO THE WEST.>>THIS WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL LAND GRANT AND THIS WAS PART OF THE FIRST PETITION AND WAS WITHDRAWN AND WHILE THIS IS ONE OF SMALLER PIECES OF THIS AREA, IT’S ONE OF THE KEY PIECES. IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE UP THERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS THE KEY TO THIS AND THE MOBILITY THAT THIS AREA IS GOING TO HAVE. AND WE HAVE WORKED REALLY HARD TO GET THIS THROUGH SO THAT IT’S A WIN-WIN FOR EVERYBODY FOR THE FAMILY TO BE PROUD, WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE FOUND SOMETHING WITH THESE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR US AND SO I ASKED THAT YOU PLEASE APPROVE IT SO WE CAN GET IT DEVELOPED AND HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE PIECE OF LAND TO LEAVE FOR THE FAMILY>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?>>NO, MA’AM.>>GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS>>QUESTIONS FOR MR. MacVANE OR MISS FIRR. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT HISTORY WITH US. KNOW QUESTIONS?>>MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING>>SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. NEXT IS ITEM 41. PETITION 018-164 AND I’M GOING TO SAY (INAUDIBLE), APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OR .9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH SHARON AMITY AND CURRENT ZONING IS OFFICE, TWO, AND THE REQUESTED ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS CONDITIONAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES, AND WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER WHO SPEAK AFTER THE STAFF PRESENTATION, AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE YOU AND I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PRONOUNCE YOUR FIRST NAME, ALZEIT.>>GOT IT. THANK YOU.>>YOU’RE WELCOME. WE MENTIONED THE 02 TO B1 CD OFFICE REQUEST ALONG NORTH SHARON AMITY ALONG INTERSECTION AND PART OF THE MIX USE ACTIVITY CENTER AND THE ADOPTED LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS 02 AND CONTINUE FOR OFFICE USES WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED AND THIS IS FROM THE 2003 EASTLAND AREA PLAN. THE SITE AS YOU CAN SEE SITS NEXT TO EXISTING– COMMERCIAL USES AS WELL AS AN OFFICE USE NEXT DOOR AND TRANSITIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS YOU GO NORTH ON SHARON AMITY AND THIS PROJECT– AWRONG THAT AREA AND UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES TO SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN COMMENTS. IT IS INCONS CYSTENT WITH THE EASTLAND AREA PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR OFFICE USES AND HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT THIS STILL WOULD ALLOW FOR RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE WHILE PROVIDING THAT TRANSITION OF OFFICE ZONING TOWARD THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING THAT’S IN PLACE. I’LL GO BACK TO– AT THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE. THERE IT IS. WE WILL HAVE 02 ZONING THAT WOULD PROVIDE THAT TRANSITION BACK TO THE SINGLE FAMILY AND WE HAVE OFFICE BACK TO R-17MS. A LOT OF THIS IS AROUND THE SHARON AMITY CENTRAL A. HAVE E INTERSECTION AND AUTOMOTIVE RELATED OR FAST FOOD RELATED AND THIS WILL PROVIDE MORE OF A B1 USE FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND ARE MORE GEARED TOWARD SOME NEIGHBORHOOD AND EARNAL USES. SO IT SHOULD PROVIDE SOME OPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES THAT AREN’T NECESSARILY RIGHT IN THIS GENERAL INTERSECTION AROUND NORTH SHARON AMITY AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION.>>THANK YOU>>GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK IN REGARD TO THIS. I AM (INAUDIBLE) FOR PROPERTY AT 3713 NORTH SHARON AMITY ROAD. TRY TO MAKE THIS BRIEF. MY FATHER, WHO I’M SPEAKING ON BEHALF FOR, CAME TO THE STATES IN ’81 AS REFUGEES. WE FLED A 30-YEAR CIVIL WAR WHICH WAS AFRICA’S LONGEST CIVIL WAR AT THAT TIME. AFTER 40 YEARS OF WORKING HARD WITH FAMILY MEMBERS AND BEING ABLE TO BUILD THEIR BUSINESSES AND MOVE ON, THEY OPENED GAS STATIONS, BOUGHT PROPERTY, AND NOW HAVE GOTTEN TO A POINT OF WHETHER THEY WANT TO REINVEST IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE GREW UP. WE GREW ON THE EAST SIDE. SO WE ARE PETITION OR ASKING YOU ALL TO AGREE. WE HAVE ALREADY BUILT THE STRUCTURE BUT WE’VE HAD MULTIPLE’S CANS COME IN. I THINK UP TO 36 AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND THEIR DEMANDS FOR WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR THE BUSINESS HAVE VARIED. MOST OF THEM ARE CATERING, BUSINESSES, BAKERIES, COFFEE SHOPS, GROCERIES THAT ARE CATERED TO DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES AND I FEEL LIKE WE WOULD DO A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE AREA BY ALLOWING THIS TO OCCUR. I THINK WOULD BE A FRESH, BRIGHT, OPEN AREA WHERE YOU COULD– WHERE PEOPLE COULD MEET AND FAMILIES COULD COME TOGETHER, HAVE COFFEE, HAVE TEA, HAVE SOME SPECIALTY DONUTS OR CAKES, MEET WITH FRIENDS AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS. A POLL FIEZ THAT WE DON’T HAVE PICTURES OF THE ACTUAL EXISTING BUILDING BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAYBE GOOGLE IT AND SEE BUT IT IS BRIGHT, LIGHT UP TREES EVERYWHERE WHERE PEOPLE WOULD FEEL REALLY COMFORTABLE AT THE MEETING SPOT AND GIVE JOB OPPORTUNITIES TO FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, SET OF TRAVELING TO GO DOWNTOWN OR TRAVELING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE CITY. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO INVEST IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. START A BUSINESS UP AND ALSO EMPLOY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT COULD ACTUALLY WALK TO WORK OR MAYBE TAKE A SHORT BUS DRIVE IN ORDER TO GET TO WORK SO I THANK YOU FOR AWE LOG ME TO SPEAK. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU WILL WAIT, WE WILL SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YOUR DAD MUST BE VERY PROUD OF YOU>>I HOPE.>>I SAW HIM. YES. SO THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. NEXT IS ITEM 42. PETITION 2019-0016789 FIRST ONE FILED THIS YEAR BY 6125 COMPANY FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.7 ACRES ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NATIONS FORD ROAD IN DISTRICT THREE. CURRENT ZONING IS MIXED USE OPTIONAL PROPOSED ZONING IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, AND OPTIONAL IS THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. OUTSTANDING ISSUES NEGOTIATED ON TRANSPORTATION OR RESOLVED ON TRANSPORTATION, AND I HAVE MR. CARMICHAEL AND MR. THOMAS HAPARRO. AND ONCE HE FINISHES, WE WILL HEAR FROM YOU.>>THIS IS A MUDD-O TO MUDD-O SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND WE’RE TAKING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVE SITE PLAN AND MAKING AMENDMENTS TO IT. THE SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN IN 1991 WAS ACTUALLY AMENDED BY THE PREVIOUS REZONING 2016-081 WHICH RECOMMENDS A MIX OF OFFICE AND RETAIL AND USES FOR THIS SITE. WE’RE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY HERE AT TYVOLA ROAD AND NATIONS FORD ROAD. WE HAVE A PROP AND 95 GUEST ROOMS WHICH WE WILL REPLACE THE CURRENT APPROVAL FOR RETAIL AND OFFICE AND CLIMATE CONTROLLED STORAGE AND AGAIN, WE’RE MOVING AWAY FROM THOSE USES APPROVED UNDER 2016-081 AND LOOKING SOLELY AT A 95-ROOM HOTEL END USE AND THE MAX BUILDING HEIGHT IS FOUR STORIES AND THE OPTIONAL PROVISIONS BEING CONSIDERED ARE PARKING AND MANEUVERING AS WELL AS SOME SIGNAGE OPTIONAL PROVISIONS. AND WE DO HAVE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PUT ON THE TABLE FOR RAMPS, SIGNS AND ISLAND AND AS WELL AS ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR DOORS, MATERIALS AND ACTIVE ENTRANCES AND BLANK WALL LIMITATIONS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL UPON RESOLUTIONS FROM OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR TRANSPORTATION. REALLY, JUST THE DRIVEWAY REVISION AND RIGHTS OF WAY AS WELL AS A GATE PROVISION FROM THE DESIGN FROM FIRE DEPARTMENT. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RETAIL USES RECOMMENDED IN THE SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN AS AMENDED BY THE 2016-081 PETITION AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. I’M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION.>>MR. CARMICHAEL>>MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, I’M JOHN CARMICHAEL AND WITH ME IS THOMAS FROM THE DESIGN RESOURCE GROUP. DAVE DID A GOOD JOB OF GOING THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. I WILL HAVE TO GO WITH THAT. IT’S ABOUT A 1.7 ACRE SITE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF TYVOLA AND NATIONS FORD ROAD. IT’S ZONED MUDD O AND THIS IS AN ARROW ON THE SIDE RIGHT HERE WHICH WYNTHAM HOTEL AND THAT’S THE SITE PLANNING AND THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD ALLOW A FIVE-STORY BUILDING THAT HAS A HEIGHT OF 60 FEET AND 10,000 SQUARE FOOT OF OFFICE USES AND UP TO 80,000 SQUARE FEET OF SELF-STORAGE USES AND AND THIS IS CRECHT APPROVED REZONING PLAN AND WHAT’S REQUESTED IS TO ALLOW A HOTEL TO BE DEVELOPED ON TYVOLA GUN CIRCLE AND THERE WOULD BE PARKING LOCATED BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND TYVOLA ROAD. THERE ARE NUMEROUS PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE PETITIONER WOULD IMPLEMENT SHOULD IT BE APPROVED AND THE DEVELOPMENT MOVE FORWARD. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH A LAND USE PLAN. THERE ARE THREE OUTSTANDING ISSUES WHICH WE DON’T ANTICIPATE ANY DIFFICULTY IN RESOLVING PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THIS WEEK. WE’RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.>>MISS MAYFIELD HAS A QUESTION.>>ACTUALLY, I’M GOING TO START WITH STAFF. WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE REZONINGS FOR THIS LOCATION WITH THE LAST REZONING BEING A 2018 REZONING SO THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE HAD COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A RETAIL SPACE THAT WAS RESTAURANT WITH POTENTIAL STORAGE ON THE BACK END AND THE WRAP-AROUND. THOSE WERE AMENITIES, A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE HELD WITH MRS. KANUCK AND OTHER MEMBERS IN THE IMMEDIATE COMMUNITY BECAUSE NATIONS FORD IS EXTREMELY BUSY. WE HAVE A ROT OF YOUNG PEOPLE AND THAT ARE TRAVELING BACK AND FORTH, THAT INTERSECTION AND WE’VE HAD A NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS. I’M TRYING TO GET STAFF TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHEN WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TYPES OF REZONINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE FOR THIS AREA GOING FROM COMMERCIAL TO B2 TOKER IN DEVELOPMENT, HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW WE SEE A HOTEL ON THIS CORNER WHEN WE PUT A LOT OF ENERGY AND CONVERSATION AROUND ROW TAIL AND MIXED USE RETAIL.>>SURE. I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF TIME SPENT ON THE PREVIOUS ITERATIONS AND THE 2016 ONE AND I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT SOME OF THOSE COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS AND CERTAINLY SAW WHAT WENT INTO GET THE OUTCOME THAT WAS GENERATED BY THE PETITION. OUTSIDE OF THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF WORKS WITH THE PETITIONERS WHEN THEY COME IN. MARKET CHANGES AND THINGS DICTATE WHAT IS GOING TO BE FEASIBLY DEVELOPED AND WHEN THEY SAY HEY, THAT PLAN DIDN’T NECESSARILY COME TO FRUITION. THIS IS THE PLAN THAT WE’RE WORKING ON. THIS IS WHAT THE MARKET IS KIND OF INDICATING FOR US AS AN END USE ON THIS SITE SOMETIMES WE DON’T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS A STAFF AND THAT’S A LOT OF TIMES MARKET DRIVEN AND WHEN WE DO GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, WE TRY TO GET THE BEST OUTCOME, WHETHER IT’S HOTEL OR RETAIL USES. THAT CHANGE IS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE AWARE OF AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WE DO THINK THERE’S AND WELCOME RESULT BUT AT THIS POINT AND ARE SHOWING DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY IS A HOTEL END USE AND WE’RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THE OUTCOME OF WHAT THAT WOULD BE FOR HOTEL USE RATHER THAN THE PREVIOUS RETAIL USES THAT WERE APPROVED>>GO FOR THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THAT EGRESS– YES. SO AND UNLESS THERE’S ONE THAT IS A LITTLE CLEARER, THAT ONE SHOULD WORK. HELP ME UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE THAT CORNER IS VERY BUSY, AND WHEN YOU PULL IN NOS A BETTER SITE. I DON’T KNOW IF MY COLLEAGUES AND A LOT OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WHEN YOU TAKE 77 SOUTH TO TYVOLA AND MAKE A RIGHT, YOU HAVE THIS PULL IN WHERE YOU CAN GO TO THE CURRENT HOTELS AND BUSINESSES AND THE BANK THAT’S RIGHT THERE. THAT CORNER LOT IS ALONG WITH BEING VERY BUSY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE TRIANGLE AT THE CORNER WITH TRAFFIC AND THE OTHER SIDE THAT’S A PRIME SPOT SP WE HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS AROUND THIS DIAS AND MEETINGS WITH STAFF REGARDING AND WHAT THE PLAN WAS FOR THAT AREA. I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND MAKE SURE BECAUSE I BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUES RECEIVE THE INFORMATION BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW ONE– THERE WAS ONLY ONE. THERE’S THREE OR FOUR HOTELS THAT’S IN THERE ONE OF THE OWNER OPERATORS AND ONE OF THE HOTELS DID HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT A CONCENTRATION THAT CAN AND I’M GOING TO VERIFY WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY OF WHICH WE HAVE WRONG NAMES FOR PEOPLE BUT I WANT TO VERIFY. I CANNOT USE AND THE IMPACT OF A SIMILAR BUSINESS COMING INTO THEIR AREA.>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>SO KNOWING I CANNOT USE THAT AS A FACTOR, I DO WANT– AND THE MARKET SAID THAT THE LAST PROJECT WOULD BE A GOOD PROJECT THAT WE REZONE FOR AND WHERE DOES STAFF COME INTO THE CONVERSATION OF US CREATING A PLAN AND STICKING TO THAT PLAN VERSUS SAYING, WELL, THE MARKET IS CALLING FOR THIS BECAUSE THE MARKET CALLED FOR THE PREVIOUS ITERATION.>>THE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY IS FOR RETAIL, WHICH ORIGINALLY AND RETAIL AS SOME TIME TYPE OF RETAIL THAT GOT FURTHER REFINED IN THE ADOPTION OF THAT PLAN. WE’RE LOOKING TO CONTINUE TO SAY, OKAY, WE’RE LOOKING AT OFFICE AND RETAIL AS ADOPTED AND FUTURE LAND USE. THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES AND WE’RE TRYING TO TAKE THAT AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT TO GET AN OUTCOME THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN BE SATISFIED WITH AND TRY TO GET SOMETHING THAT DOES COME TO FRUITION AS A RESULT OF APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION.>>MR. CARMICHAEL, CAN I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION? MY APOLOGIES IF WE WENT OVER IT AND I MISSED IT BECAUSE WE SAY FOR RETAIL. DOES THIS, IF THIS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD, WHAT AMENITIES WOULD THIS HOTEL HAVE IN IT?S TO IT HAVE A RESTAURANT IN IT? IS THERE ANY ENTERTAINMENT THAT’S IN IT? DOES IT HAVE MEETING SPACE IN IT? LIKE ONE OF THE OTHER HOTELS THAT ARE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA?>>WELL, THE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH TWO POTENTIAL END USERS. I CAN’T SPEAK TO WHAT SPECIFICS THOSE MOTEL USERS WOULD HAVE. I MEAN, I COULD VENTURE AN EDUCATED GUESS. I WILL SAY THE 2016 PLAN HASN’T MET THE MARKET. I WORKED ON THE 2018 REZONING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY WITHDRAWNP IT WILL BE AN OFFICE BUILDING AS YOU RECALL AND THE PETITIONER DECIDED THAT HE COULDN’T MAKE IT WORK. IT WAS WITHDRAWN, AND I THINK THEY RESPONDED TO MARKET FORCES. WE FIVE INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMUNITY MEETING INCLUDING THE GENERAL MANAGER FROM THE ADJACENT MOTEL>>GOING BACK TO 2016,S WHEN WE PULLED THE PETITION, 2016-1>>ENTERTAINMENT>>I DON’T THINK I COULD PROPERLY ANSWER THE QUESTION OF RESIDENTS THAT WORK VERY CLOSELY TO TRY TO BRING SOMETHING THAT THEY FELT LIKE WOULD BENEFIT THE AREA BY SAYING WE’VE GONE FROM RETAIL, EATING, DRINKING, ENTERTAINMENT, TO ANOTHER HOTEL IF THAT DOESN’T HAVE ANY AMENITIES. WE DON’T HAVE ANY REQUESTS FOR ANY AMENITIES AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT YOU GAVE ME A GOOD ANSWER AS FAR AS THE MARKET SAYING THIS IS WHAT– A WORK NOW? I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION ON THIS LOT PERSONALLY THREE DIFFERENT TIMES. I’M TRYING TO HELP AND UNDERSTAND AND THERE MAY BE A QUESTION, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TO US HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT CONVERSATION TO IDENTIFY SOME AMENITIES IF THIS IS THE PROJECT? SINCE WHAT WAS CALLED FOR AND WORKED ON BY THE COMMUNITY WAS SOMETHING THAT CREATED AMENITIES IN THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THERE AREN’T REALLY AMENITIES IN THAT CORNER. IF YOU CROSS OVER THE HIGHWAY, BUT NOT IN THAT CORNER, WE FOUGHT TO KEEP A GAS STATION AND CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES FROM THAT CORNER. IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY POTENTIALLY WITH YOUR CLIENT AFTER THIS HEARING TO HAVE CONVERSATION TO TRY TO LINE THIS UP MORE WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY WAS THINKING SHOULD COME TO THE AREA>>AND WE WERE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. I WOULD SAY AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING I DON’T LIKE TO CHARACTERIZE IT. I GET NERVOUS CHARACTERIZING CONVERSATIONS BUT WE DID HAVE COMMUNITY MEETING REPORT. I DIDN’T SENSE A LOT OF NEGATIVITY EXCEPT FOR THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE ADJACENT HOTEL. I UNDERSTAND, IT WOULD LOVE TO SEE A RESTAURANT ON THAT CORNER AND THE RESPONSE OF THE PETITIONER WAS WE HAVE MARKETED THAT SITE TO ALL SORT OF USES, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE’RE HAPPY TO GET WITH YOU AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU WOULD REICH TO HAVE.>>I WILL TAKE YOU UP ON THAT BECAUSE THERE’S A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GET NO A ROOM WITH. THANK YOU. MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING. NO, MY COLLEAGUES HAVE>>MR. WINSTON>>QUICK QUESTION FROM STAFF. I VAGUELY REMEMBER THE 2018 REZONING IN THAT AREA AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP WAS WALKABILITY OF THAT AREA AND I THINK IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE WE CHANGED OUR SIDEWALK ORDINANCE AND IF I RECALL, I’M ASSUMING, OF COURSE AND AND IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND MAKE IT MORE WORKABLE. I’M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WITH THE LINE OF THE PARCEL. AND WITH THE GREEN UP THERE NOW. THE LINE GOES ACROSS THE STREET TO THE OTHER SIDE OF TYVOLA. AND IT CIRCLES BACK THROUGH, NATIONS FORD, TYVOLA AND THAT THE HOTEL AND BANK USES AND THAT PIECE OF THE SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TYVOLA IS NOT PART OF THE REZONING.>>THE PROPERTY LINE LOOKS LINE IT’S GOING OUT TO THE CENTER LINE OF TYVOLA AND THAT PROPERTY LINE IS OUT TO THAT.>>THANK YOU.>>ANY OTHER QUESTION? MOTION TO CLOSE>>SO MOVED>>ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS NEXT ITEM ISITEM 43, 2019-005 BN ACQUISITIONS FOR APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES ON THE SOUTH OF WEST TREMONT AVENUE IN DISTRICT THREE. CURRENT ZONING IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONAL, PROPOSED ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES. WE DON’T HAVE ANYBODY SPEAKING AGAINST SO THE STAFF WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION AND MR. CARMICHAEL WILL BE BACK TO JOIN US.>>THIS IS I-2 CD OR UR2 CD AND WE’RE TAKING EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USE AND MOVING IT INTO RESIDENTIAL USE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE TRANSIT AREA PLAN FROM 2008 THAT RECOMMENDS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AT UP TO 22 UNITS PER ACRE. YOU CAN SEE THE SITE HERE AS IT SITS ALONG TREMONT AVENUE. WE DO HAVE SOME POTENTIAL ROAD CONNECTIONS BACK TO SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS A RESULT OF THIS PETITION AND WE HAVE 103 SINGLE ATTACHED DWELL UNITS FROM 18.5 PER ACRE. THAT’S UNDER THE 2 UNITS PER ACRE PROPOSED IN THE PLAN AND THE NEW PUBLIC STREET. 16-FOOT BUILDING SETBACKS AND MAX BUILDING OUT OF 48 FEET, BUFFERING TO THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE, SOME ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR BUILDING TREATMENTS AS REAR VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR THE INTERNAL DRIVEWAYS AND THE ROAD CONNECTION THAT COULD GO THROUGH EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONNECTION BACK TO LET’S SEE, SOUTH TRYON STREET. AND WATER QUALITY SPECIFICATIONS AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW BERN TRANSIT AREA PLAN. WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND IT IS CONSISTENT. WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AFTER MR. CARMICHAEL’S PRESENTATION.>>ALL RIGHT. MR. CARMICHAEL.>>THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. TYSON REILLY IS WITH ME WITH THE PETITIONER. THE SITE CONTAINS 5 1/2 ACRES SOUTH SIDE OF WEST TREMONT BETWEEN VILLAGE COURT AND BROOK HILL ROAD IS HERE. THIS IS DONENO VAN STREET. THIS SITE IS ZONED I-2 CD AND THE REQUEST IS REZONE THE SITE TO UR2 CD TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO 100 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELL UNITS OR TOWNHOMES AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, DONENO VAN STREET WOULD BE EXTENDED THROUGH THE SITE. YOU RECEIVED AN EMAIL, I THINK, TODAY FROM FRANK HORNE, WHO IS THE OWNER. HIS COMPANY OWNS THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. WE’VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH MR. HORNE AND HIS LAWYER, JONATHAN, AND WE AGREED TO SEVERAL CHANGES TO THE REZONING PLAN THAT WE BELIEVE SATISFIED MR. HORN AND INCLUDED 10-FOOT WIDE AREA AND CLASS C BUFFER AND AND LANDSCAPING ON MR. HORNE’S PROPERTY. MR. HORNE DOES NOT OPPOSE THE PETITION BUT IN HIS EMAIL, I HAD PROVIDED MR. HORNE AND HIS ATTORNEY A COPY OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS LAST WEEK AND STAFF REQUESTED THAT THE HEIGHT OF FENCE BE REDUCED FROM EIGHT FEET TO SIX FEET. AND PETITIONER IS HAPPY TO DO THAT. WE JUST NEED TO WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF ON THAT. THAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT HE EXPRESSED AND ONCE AGAIN, WE’RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH MR. HORNE AND TO DO THAT. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH PLANNING STAFF ABOUT IT. OTHER THAN THAT, WOO APPRECIATE STAFF SUPPORT AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>MISS MAYFIELD.>>LOOKING AT THE SITE, IT LOOKS UNIMPRESSIVE TO ANY INASMUCH AS IT LOOKS LIKE AWALL OF UNITS WITH NOTHING AMENITYIZED. WHERE IS THE OPEN SPACE?>>THERE’S SOME OAM OPEN SPACE HERE AND HERE AND WHERE IT’S LOCATE, IT’S WALKABLE TO ALL SORTS OF RESTAURANTS AND ENTERTAINMENT ABEING TRAS AND THAT’S INTO THE LIGHT RAIL. THAT’S REALLY THE APPEAL OF THIS LOCATION.>>IS THIS A PHASED-IN PROJECT, TOO? IS THIS PHASED?>>YOU CAN’T ANSWER IT FROM THERE UNLESS MR. CARMICHAEL ANSWERS IT OR REPEATS IT.>>MY FIRST TIME HERE.>>WELCOME. WE’RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU.>>TYSON RILEY WITH THE ARDEN COMPANIES.>>THANK YOU. WE WOULD DEVELOP IT IN ONE PHASE. I WANT TO POINT OUT THE OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE UNITS THAT RUN SORT OF PARALLEL WITH TREMONT AND THEY SORT OF– THEY KIND OF BACK UP TO EACH OTHER AS THEY RUN PARALLEL, THE FRONT STOOPS SO THAT WOULD BE COMMON AREA AS WELL IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER STUFF THAT MR. CARMICHAEL POINTEDDED OUT.>>IT’S AN URBAN SITE.>>WE’RE NOT A BUILDER BUT I SUSPECT THIS PROJECT WILL BE BUILT OUT THE SAME WAY THAT ALL THE OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS ARE BEING BUILT OUT LIKE THE RYAN PROJECT>>DR. HARLOW>>REAL QUICKLY. FOR STAFF, THERE WAS THIS REFERENCE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS SIX FEET, EIGHT FEET BUFFER, WHY WOULD WE WANT THE SIX FOOT MAXIMUM IN THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES?>>THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK WE HAVE– LET’S SEE. LET ME GO BACK TO THAT. I DON’T KNOW WHY WE WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE SIX FOOT VERSUS EIGHT FOOT IF IT SATISFIES THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER.WAY WORK WITH THE PETITIONER TO SATISFY THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER SO LONG AS I’M NOT SAYING ANYTHING THAT’S OUT OF CONTEXT FROM STAFF’S STANDPOINT BUT I DON’T SEE WHAT THE GENERAL CONCERN WOULD BE WITH THAT.>>GOT IT.>>THANK YOU. MISS MAYFIELD.>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. ON AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE EMAIL SENT AND WHAT WAS SENT TO US BY MR. HORNE WAS A PHOTO OF ONE OF HIS TRUCKS PULLING IN AND THIS TRUCK HAPPENED TO BE COMING IN AT 7:00 A.M. SHOWING THE HEADLIGHTS POINTED TO THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS WHY HE WAS LOOKING FOR THE EIGHT FEET BECAUSE OF THE SIDES OF THE TRUCK TO TRY TO THINK OF PROTECTIONS AND AGAIN, I MAY HAVE MISSED IT WHEN I WAS SCROLLING THROUGH BUT I’M THINKING ENVIRONMENTAL, IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WOULD BE CONCERNS FOR HOW LONG THAT THE JUNKYARD AND AUTOMOBILE RECYCLING HAS BEEN THERE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE’VE HAD OTHER REDEVELOPMENT AND ONCE WE WENT IN AND DID THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY LEARNED THAT THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF CONTAM NATION AND DID I MISS WHERE WE DISCUSSED THAT? THEY WOULD TAKE ON THE EXPENSE AND DESIRE TO DO THAT STUDY, DO THE CLEANUP AND ANY REMEDIATION. THERE ARE REMEDIATIONS FOR SITE LIKE THIS. THEY TO HAVE STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND GO BY WITH TESTING AND OTHER THINGS TO FOLLOW UP. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE AND CLEANING UP THE SITE LIKE THAT BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT CAN REALLY OCCUR. FOR THIS PART OF THE PROCESS, JUST FOR THE ENTITLEMENT SIDE, WE HAVEN’T GOTTEN THAT FAR AND THE PETITIONER AND DEVELOPER LIKELY HAVEN’T EITHER BECAUSE IT’S A SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE THAT YOU WOULDN’T WANT TO TAKE ON WITHOUT KNOWING YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH A DESIRED OUTCOME, SO AGAIN, THEY’LL PROBABLY GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS SHOULD THEY BE APPROVED AND START THAT PROCESS OF DOING ANY KIND OF STUDY FOR CLEANUP AND REMEDIATION OF THE SITE POST THE INDUSTRIAL USE ON THERE NOW.>>WE ARE ACTUALLY MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH BROWNFIELD PROCESS AS WE SPEAK. WE HIRED A LOCAL BROWNFIELD ATTORNEY, AND WE’RE PROBABLY THREE, FOUR MONTHS INTO THAT PROCESS. WE HAVE DONE THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. WE MADE APPLICATION. THERE’S A PROJECT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET THAT MBR HOMES WILL BE BUILDING ON THAT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL IN TERMS OF PRODUCT TYPE. THEY HAD THE SAME ISSUES. ENVIRONMENTALLY THAT WE’LL BE DEALING WITH AND WE’RE SORT OF FOLLOWING THE PATH THAT THEY TOOK TO MAKE THEIR WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS. EXISTING TRIPS 130 AND ENTITLEMENT, 140. THIS PROPOSED REZONING, 660 TRIPS A DAY. AND THE PROXIMITY TO LIGHT RAIL, HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW STAFF WAS COMFORTABLE WITH AN ENTITLEMENT OF 140 TRIPS A DAY SUPPORTING A PROPOSAL THAT GOES UP TO 660 WHEN WE ARE HAVING CONSTANT CONVERSATIONS MITIGATION OF TRAFFIC AND/OR TRAFFIC CALMING.>>I’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO C.D.O.T. STAFF TO HELP US ANSWER THAT QUESTION>>FELIX C.D.O.T AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THIS SITE PLAN, THEY PROVIDE A STREET THAT WILL– WHERE IS THE POINTER AT? IN THE FUTURE, THERE WILL BE A STREET CONNECTION THAT WILL CONNECT SOUTH TRYON AND WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO IS PROVIDE A BETTER CONNECTIVITY. THE ADDITIONAL TRIPS THAT THEY’RE GOING TO GENERATE DOESN’T REWIRE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE’RE REALLY TRYING TO DO IN THIS PART OF TOWN IS HAVE BETTER STREET CONNECTIVITY AND IN THE FUTURE WHEN THIS AREA REDEVELOPS, WE CAN HAVE AN ACCESS POINT RIGHT ACROSS RAMPART STREET.>>OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A BUILDING THAT IS SITTING THERE, AND WE’RE SAYING EVENTUALLY, OH, TEN YEARS FROM NOW, 15 YEARS FROM NOW, A YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW, WE DON’T KNOW, BUT WE’RE MAKING THE DECISION ON THE IDEA THAT IF THIS IS REDEVELOPED, WE’RE GOING TO CONNECT THIS STREET TO RAMPART?>>CORRECT. WHAT I’M GOING TO ASK IS WHEN WE ARE HAVING CONVERSATIONS RIGHT NOW AND WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF THIS POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY BROOK HILL THAT WE HAVE BEEN HAVING CHALLENGES WITH FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS AND THERE’S CHALLENGES WITH DISPLACEMENT AND OTHER THINGS AND WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A FOR SALE PRODUCT THAT HAS– I UNDERSTAND, YOU’VE IDENTIFIED WHAT YOU CONSIDER AMENITIES BUT HAS VERY FEW AMENITIES IN COMPARISON AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH FOR SALE PRODUCT IN THIS PROXIMITY TO WORKFORCE AND/OR HOUSING FOR THE CHRONICALLY UNDEREMPLOYED AND WE’RE MAKING A DECISION FOR A POTENTIAL ROAD THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT WHAT IMPACT IT’S GOING TO HAVE TODAY, SAY, FROM TODAY TO THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS. HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT. BECAUSE TELLING ME THAT WE’RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY CONNECT THE ROAD DOES NOT JUSTIFY OPENING UP THE DOOR FOR A PROPOSAL OF 660 TRIPS A DAY WHEN THE ENTITLEMENT IS 140.>>AS FELIX MENTIONED, THE PROPOSAL ISN’T MET THROUGH THAT 666. TRAFFIC IMPACTS WILL BE INCREASED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT BE APPROVED AND 630 TRIPS OR SO, SO WE HAVE AN INCREASE IN OVERALL TRIPS AND THAT THRESHOLD DOESN’T TRIGGER ANY STUDY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER SAYING THIS IS THE KNOWN IMPACT AND THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE MITIGATION OPTIONS THAT WE MAY LOOK AT, AND SO IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE WE KNOW IT’S EXCEEDED, STAFF WORKS WITH THE PETITIONER AND CONDITIONAL SITUATIONS TO LOOK AT OTHER ROAD CONNECTIVITY NETWORK OPTIONS AND THAT’S WHERE WE IDENTIFIED THE CONNECTION BACK DOWN TO DONENO VAN STREET. THERE’S A RIGHT-OF-WAY UNAPPROVED BUT IN PLACE. YOU COULD GET THAT CONNECTION BACK, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE SOME RELIEF AND REALLY THAT WOULD BE A MITIGATING FACTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION BUT GOING UP 140 TO 660 DOESN’T REALLY TRIGGER THAT STUDY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AS SOMETHING THAT GOES OVER 2500 TRIPS A DAY OR A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE THRESHOLD FOR A CERTAIN TIGHT. IT’S ONE OF THOSE WHERE WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THERE’S MORE IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE VERSUS WHAT’S CURRENTLY ENTITLED AND THOSE IMPACTS DON’T NECESSITATE OR TRIGGER A FURTHER STUDY OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS>>SO I’M GOING TO CHALLENGE THAT THOUGHT PROCESS A LITTLE. BECAUSE IF WE ADD UP THE FIVE PROJECTS AND THE FOUR PROJECTS IN FIVE YEARS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY AROUND HERE AS WELL AS OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS MAP THAT GIVE US PROXIMITY OF OTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT’S HAPPENING NEARBY THAT WILL BE TRAVELING UP, SOUTH TRYON AND/OR TREMONT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE IDEA TO SAY THAT THIS ONE PROJECT DOESN’T TRIGGER AN IMPACT STUDY WHEN WE’RE GOING FROM 140 TO PROPOSAL OF OVER 600, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE IMPACT AREA, I’M CONCERNED THAT WE’RE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE ARE CREATING LANGUAGE THAT IS HELPING TO CONTINUE TO DISPLACE AND TRANSITION COMMUNITIES WITHOUT CREATING A CLEAR PLAN OF HOW WE PLAN TO DIVERSIFY COMMUNITY. SO I’M CONCERNED WITH WHAT STAFF SUPPORTS AND WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT WHAT YOU SUPPORT AS IT MAKES ITS WAY TO COUNCIL FOR REVIEW AND I STILL DIDN’T HEAR A VALID ANSWER FOR ME TO GO FROM 140 TO 660 WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WOE HAVE APPROVED AND/OR HAD COME BEFORE US. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, MR. CARMICHAEL. I WOULD LIKE FOR TO US HAVE A FOLLOW-UP CONVERSATION REGARDING THIS BECAUSE I HAVE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS, BUT SINCE IT IS THE TIME THAT IT IS, I’M GOING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF MY COLLEAGUE’S TIME. MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING>>WE HAVE MR. WINSTON. GLM MR. CARMICHAEL AND THE PETITIONER, HOW HAVE YOU ENGAGED THE RESIDENTS OF BROOK HILL WITH THIS? HAS THERE BEEN ANY FEEDBACK, I GUESS, WITH THE COMMUNITY MEETING OR WHATEVER FROM THE OWNERS AND HOW IT WILL IMPACT THE FUTURE?>>WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING WHEN ONE INDIVIDUAL ATTENDED AND THAT WAS A GENTLEMAN THAT WORKS FOR MR. LRN, THE PROPERTY INNER TO THE EAST. WE HAVEN’T HEARD A WORD FROM THE NEIGHBORS REGARDING THIS OTHER THAN MR. HORNE. WE COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND SENT OUT THE NOTICES.>>ANY EXTRA EFFORT BESIDES WHAT IS PRESCRIBED IN THE RULES?>>WE’RE HAPPY TO HAVE WHATEVER. WE DID TALK TO– WE DID REACH OUT TO THE FOLKS IN BROOK HILL AND MADE THEM AWARE OF IT>>I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN BROOK HILL. MISS MAYFIELD HAS MENTIONED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG AND HAS BEEN PROBLEMATIC AND THOSE RESIDENTS CONTINUE TO GET LEFT OUT OF THE CONVERSATION AND THERE’S LITTLE THAT WE CAN DO TO THAT BUT WE CAN AT LEAST INCLUDE THEM IN CONVERSATIONS AND MAYBE IT WILL TAKE CREATIVE MEANS TO DO THAT BUT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR TO US TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY FIND WAYS TO THE PEOPLE WHO RENT AND STILL LIVE IN BROOK HILL>>WE CAN LOOK FOR A MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.>>THANK YOU.>>MR. PHIPPS>>THE CONVERSATION WE’RE HAVING TONIGHT IS IN THE A NEW ONE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SUCCESSIVE– IMPACT OF SUCCESSIVE REZONINGS IN HIGH GROWTH AREAS. WE’VE BEEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION FOR A LONG TIME. BUT AS I RECALL, WASN’T THERE A MOVEMENT– DIDN’T THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DO A SPECIAL STUDY OF THE STEELE CREEK AREA, AN ABBREVIATED, I GUESS AREA, REVISIT OF THE AREA PLAN TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION OF GROWTH IN THE STEELE CREEK AREA? IF SO, DID THAT LOOK AT THE TRANSPORTATION ASPECTS OF THE AREA AS WELL? AND I READ WHERE YOU HAD DONE THE SPECIALTY STUDY AS A RESULT OF THE IMPACT– THE CAROLINA OUTLET MALL OR WHATEVER. YEAH. SO DID THAT NOT– I MEAN, WHEN IT WAS DONE, IT WAS AN ABBREVIATED THING BUT I’M WONDERING, DID IT EMBRACE EVERYTHING THAT IT SHOULD HAVE?>>DO YOU THINK WE CAN GET THAT AS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION? I WOULD NEED TO DO FOLLOW-UP? DO YOU HAVE A RECALL NOW THIS PRE-DATES YOUR ARRIVAL.>>WE DID A DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE IN 2017 BUT WE CAN DO THAT IN A FOLLOW-UP REPORT. I WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT FOR YOU.>>DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE>>MOVED>>SECOND.>>ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OKAY. NEXT ITEM THAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 442019-011 MILESTONE INVESTMENTS, PRO,LY 13 ACRES ON THE EAST INTERSECTION OF YORK MONT AND PARKWAY PLAZA IN DISTRICT THREE. THE CURRENT ZONING IS OFFICE CONDITIONAL AND REQUESTED ZONING IS URBAN RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL. AND AGAIN, WE’LL HAVE MISS GRANT FOLLOWING THE STAFF PRESENTATION.>>THIS PETITION IS LOCATED PARKWAY PLAZA, YORK MONT, PARALLEL TO BILLY GRAHAM PARKWAY. WE HAVE THIS LOCATION IN THE OLD COLISEUM MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER. THIS IS FROM THE SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN IN 1991. IT DOES RECOMMEND OFFICE LAND USE FOR THIS SITE AND SURROUNDING SITES AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY. THE SITE ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING APARTMENT PROJECT. THIS WOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF THIS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT THAT IS OUT HERE ALONG YORK MONT, SO WE WOULD BE CONTINUING THAT WITH 180 MULTIFAMILY UNITS AT A DENSITY OF 6.8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THREE-STORY BUILDINGS AT 60 FEET PER HEIGHT. THERE’S AN AMENITY IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR ACCESS ON THE PARKWAY PLAZA AND CONNECTION TO THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, EIGHT-FOOT PLANTING STRIPS AND EIGHT-FOOT SIDEWALKS AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS COMMITTED TO TORE FOR THE BUILDINGS, THEMSELVES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL UPON RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION. REALLY JUST LABELS FOR CURB LINE AND SPEED SIGNAGE. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA PLAN AND RECOMMENDATION FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE USES. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL UPON RESOLUTION OF THOSE ISSUES. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS FOLLOWED BY THE PRESENTATION BY MISS GRANT.>>GOOD EVENING. AGAIN, MY NAME IS BRIDGET GRANT. I’M A LAND USE CONSULTANT WITH MOORE VAN AILEN AND I’M HERE WITH THE MILESTONE INVESTMENT GROUP, AND SCOTT IS THE ENGINEER WORKING ON THIS FROM DRG. THE SITE’S ON YORK MONT ROAD AND PARKWAY PLAZA BOULEVARD. 13.196 ACRE SITE AND IT’S THE EXTENSION OF COURTNEY RIDGE PHASE ONE APARTMENT COMMUNITY. WE APPRECIATE STAFF SUPPORT AS WE HAVE MOVED THROUGH THIS PROJECT. WE HAD A SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY MEETING. THE PLAN BENEFITS INCLUDES ADDITIONAL AREA AMENITIES TO SERVE THE EXISTING UNITS AS WELL AS NEW UNITS. THE PROPOSAL IS GOING TO BE AND WHAT IS PROPOSED AND IT’S A DECREASE FOR THE TRAFFIC ANTICIPATED. WE’RE PROPOSING A NEW PUBLIC STREET THROUGH THE SITE THAT IS GOING TO CONNECT TO THE EXISTING SITE. THIS IS A PHASE ONE OF COURTNEY RIDGE, IT’S THE EXISTING APARTMENTS ALREADY ON THE SITE AND THEY’RE ANTICIPATING A SECOND FACE THAT LOOKS SIMILAR TO THE FIRST PHASE IN TERMS OF QUALITIES AND AMENITIES. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS>>MAYOR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER OR THE STAFF? WE HAVE A MEGS TO CLOSE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OUR LAST PETITION OF TONIGHT, STAY THERE BRIDGET.>>I’M STAYING>>IS PETITION 2019-041, EAST SIDE CONNECTIONS FOR APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EAST INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD. IT IS COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX. THE CURRENT ZONING IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONAL SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ITEM. IS THERE–>>I’M SORRY.>>QUESTION.>>WAS 46 DEFERRED>>WE HEARD IT ALREADY.>>45 WAS HEARD EARLIER?>>45 WAS ALREADY HEARD.>>YES.>>BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING OUTSIDE>>WE HAD SEVERAL PEEKERS, TRAY DANIEL AND CHRISTINA LADD>>I MISSED THAT ONE.>>THAT WAS 45, BUT 46>>46 IS DEFERRED. STAFF PRESENTATION AMENDMENT GRANT.>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THIS IS A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MUDD-O TO MUDD OSPA. WE DO HAVE EXISTING SITE. THIS WAS REZONED BACK IN, I BELIEVE, 2017 AND IT WAS FOR A MIXED USE PROJECT, MISSED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT AND AS WE LOOK AT THE SITE, ESSENTIALLY THE REQUEST THAT’S IN FRONT OF US THIS EVENING IS TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SITE FROM 68,000 SQUARE FEET TO 83,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS PROJECT AND I SHOULD CLARIFY THAT THE COUNCIL DISTRICT IS COUNCILMEMBER NEWTON’S DISTRICT AND WE HAVE THAT INDICATED AS COUNCILMEMBER BOKHARI’S DISTRICT AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT CLARIFICATION, AND THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF US AGAIN IS TO ALLOW THE INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND ALL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN AND A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW AND FROM WHAT STAFF HAS UNDERSTOOD, A TENANT NEEDED MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN WHAT WAS ALLOTTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. WE’RE WORKING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOTMENT TO ALLOW THE FINAL END USER TO OCCUPY A BUILDING THAT’S BEING PROPOSED ON, I BELIEVE, LONG AVENUE, SO THAT MUDD-O AREA IN FRONT OF YOU IS WHAT’S BEING CHANGED. THERE’S NO CHANGE TO THE NS AREA. AGAIN, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PETITION. NO OUTSTANDING ISSUES AT THIS TIME. I WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AFTER MISS GRANT’S PRESENTATION.>>THANK YOU FOR LETTING US FINISH IN WHAT HAS BEEN UNDOUBTEDLY A VERY LONG DAY. I’M HERE REPRESENTING THE EAST SIDE CONNECTION. QUICKLY, WITH WE REZONED THE SITE A FEW YEARS AGO, THIS IS THE VISION IMAGE WE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING AT THE TIME. AS YOU CAN SEE TODAY THE VISION IS COMING TO FRUITION. THIS IS THE REALITY OF WHAT’S HAPPENING ON THE SITE. IT’S BEEN INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL AND WITH THAT SUCCESS COMES THE NEED FOR TO US INCREASE THE ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT’S 15,000 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW ONE OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE TO BECOME A TWO-STORY BUILDING. WE’RE ANTICIPATING THAT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL GO IN THIS BACK AREA AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>(INAUDIBLE)>>MOVE TO CLOSE.>>SECOND.>>MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE>>THANK YOU.>>MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.>>JUST ONE REMINDER, COUNCIL, OUR CITY AATTORNEY AND I BELIEVE THE CHIEF MANAGER WILL BE AT THE TUESDAY MORNING BREAKFAST IN THE MORNING AT 8:30. WE WOULD BE GLAD TO HAVE EVERYONE JOIN THERE AND THEN TOMORROW EVENING, IF YOU’LL RECALL AT 6:30, THERE’S A COMMUNITY CONVERSATION EAST STONEWALL A MUCH E ZION, AND THERE’S A 7:30 EVENT, LOVE IN THE PARK AT ROMARE BEARDEN PARK AT 7:30. I WOULD ENCOURAGE COUNCILMEMBERS TO BE PRESENT AND PARTICIPATE WHERE YOUR SCHEDULE ALLOWS. SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. WE ARE ADJOURNED. [ ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M. ]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *