Southwest Outer

What % of the Recommended 673 RAC Place Type acreage is presently undeveloped? Try to get a sense on where the most development is recommended to occur!

About 6% of N1 Place Type acreages is recommended to change. What % of the Recommended N1 7167 acreage is presently undeveloped?

Of the SW Outer population of 62,000, how many presently live within 2 miles of an existing CAC or RAC? Just trying to get an idea of how big the task is to get to 100% of the population!

Anticipated change adds 32 acres for NC. At a minimum req'mnt of 5 acres and a likelihood of 7 to 8 needed to provide land for mixed-uses for daily goods and services, how many households will be within the 2-mile radius of these 7-8 added NC Place Types?

Youngblood Road and McKee Road cannot handle any more traffic. There are now 4 new developments proceeding with approval from City Council which will add another 1,000 plus homes to the area and all will be feeding onto Youngblood Road and McKee Road. Why has this been approved? A two lane country road, an Evacuation Route, mass deforestation, wild life sanctuary, watershed, etc. etc. etc.

How will the city increase the number of existing households within a 1/2 mile of Neighborhood Centers and Community and Regional Activity Centers? Will existing households be required to move closer or will new Neighborhood Centers and Activity Centers be built close to the presently existing households?

How does a goal of 10-minute Neighborhoods match a No 1 Community Needs goal called "Access to Housing"?

Will the city provide the following data from the Future Policy Map: (a) % of total properties and total Sector area zoned N1 and presently developed properties; (b) % of total properties and total Sector area zoned N1 and presently undeveloped. Rationale: if the percentages of (a) are high then the Sector's future will be, residentially, stable. However, if the percentages of (b) are equal to or greater than (a) then, residentially, the future will be quite unstable. The upward cline of instability could be estimated because the instability % will be directly related to the Council's propensity to approve rezoning requests away from N1 Place Type to those causing higher residential density!

Vacant/Undeveloped is not a Zoning District/Place Type per UDO. All property is assigned a Zoning District/Place Type. There is a undeveloped infill property at the corner of Choate Circle and SR 49 that has both a Zoning District and a Place Type in the existing 2040 Policy Map and the Future 2040 Policy Map. The public might be better served if time was spent on a separate Section devoted to Undeveloped Properties - how those properties are zoned, will be zoned and attempted to be rezoned are vital information to the Steele Creek community.

Vacant to N1 - Are these properties zoned residential in the existing Policy Map? If so, please explain how the Place Type changes will "add new development" if the existing properties are already residentially zoned properties.

Vacant Goal 8 - Does this Goal apply to changes between ML_1 and ML-2 Place Types? Or are other existing commercial Place Types being changed?

Could you explain how changes to Place Types that increase opportunities to job offering also introduces residential uses into job offering Place Type changes. Will you identify the Place Types that will accomplish job opportunities and residential uses? Goal 8 that

Goal 2 and Goal 3 seem to have the same objective. How do the Goal 3 Place Type changes refer to property different than for Goal 2? Will a list of changes supporting Goal 3 be made available?

To accomplish Goal 2, is the city recommending the evolving of N1 or N2 housing to higher density Place Types/Zoning Districts to properties where higher density was not permitted? Otherwise, how will Place Type changes increase access to housing choices unless zoning density changes are made! Will a list of the changes to increase housing choices be made available?

To accomplish Goal 1, is the city recommending the evolving of N1 housing in the vicinity of Activity Center of essential goods and services be changed to higher density N 2 housing. Otherwise, how will Place Type changes increase the number of residents within a 10-minute (half mile) walk? Will a list of those changes be made available?

Regarding the N1 and N2 properties recommended to evolve and increase, are those properties already so designated N1 or N2 in the Future 2040 Policy Map? Will a list of those 'evolving' properties be provided/made available?

"Vacant" doesn't appear to be a UDO Place Type. According to UDO 3.3, all city property has been classified to a Zoning District/Place Type. It would be helpful if the 500+ undeveloped properties were listed by Place Type/Zoning District, N1 = X, N2 + Y, etc. This information/chart is unhelpful since it co-mingles existing and useful distinctions.

The UDO lists Neighborhood 1 as a Zoning District yet this document calls Neighborhood 1 a Place Type. Please clarify!

What does phrase 'existing development' mean? Does it refer to "Future 2040 Policy Map Place Types"? How can the city ensure that no more than 15% of Neighborhood 1 'existing' Place Types [Actually Neighborhood 1 is a "Zoning District"] do NOT evolve into Neighborhood 2 Place Types. 49 and 160 presently have congestion.

Just because we are within the city limits does not mean we want to live like we're in uptown. 10-minute walkability is not feasible for our area which is more like a suburb. This should not be a goal for every part of the city.

Would like to see more opportunities for seniors, more activity buildings for classes and interest groups.

I do not see housing as no. 1 priority. We are already inundated with apartments I doubt they are all at full capacity. Traffic and infrastructure improvement should be given priority. At least make safety improvements such as visible lane lines for starters, better visibility signage and repaving.

Can the sidewalks on shopton rd be added along the full road?

Would love if you could enhance winget park and add pickleball courts.

Please ensure delivery of adequate public services, consider utility capacity (water, sewer, and solid waste), road maintenance, emergency services, and evacuation routes when evaluating entitlements through city-led or private initiated rezonings.

The intersection of Youngblood Road and Hamilton is so dangerous. I travel an extra 3-4-miles just to avoid this route. Something must be done to make it safe.

The Grand Palisades Parkway is privately maintained by 1,547 homeowners, but it is used by over 5,000 vehicles a day to transit between NC-49/York Road and Youngblood Road. Many of these vehicle travel from South Carolina and use the roadway to access I-77 to work in Charlotte. How can the city “adopt” a road but not maintain it?

With the amount of growth in this area it is astounding to me that there has been no infrastructure and the developers have been approved by the City to continue to do this massive invasion of the ETJ. Our streets are not safe and Gand Palisades Parkway is an evacuation route due to the Lake Wylie Nuclear Plant just miles away and other instances which would divert traffic thru our two lane country roads which is half maintained by the county, half by residents. We are in a watershed area and we all want clean drinking water, I think. Yet the deveopers continue to forge forward cutting down thousands of trees to build multi housing units disrupting this natural ecosystem. This area is a wild life refuge, just ask the Audubon Society and the city is destroying it. We need your help in limiting the development here in the ETJ PLEASE! We invite all council members to come out to our area, take a look at what you have approved. Take a look at what the developers are clearing, lot after lot, more than 20 acres at a time. We need your help, sooner than later. Our are is in "Stress Mode"!

A traffic signal at the intersection of Erwin and 160 is absolutely needed. Glad to see it being discussed.

While other areas reflect Major Capital Investments of existing or proposed LYNX rail, the recommendation for SWO is "coordinate bus use of planned" interstate express lanes. Are you kidding?? SWO will never support the new transit tax without a true commitment/plan

Why not include Safe 1.12 and Safe 1.13 like South Middle?

There is a clear imbalance promoting Goal 8 in the SWO. Other areas reflect vacant to N1 advancing goal 1,2,3.

The way I read this is: "Because retail, dining,, personal services are allowed uses in the M&L Place Type, we can meet the goal of increasing access to job opportunities"
Is this correct? if so, why even have a commercial place type, right?

Echoing Carol's comment, I want to know:
1. Are any other areas with similar recommendations for future M&L
2. Which?
3. If none, why not?

The roads on the ETJ area are NCDOT, most roads dont have sidewalk, unsafe roads

This is the same table as the South Outer plan.

Here you mix Table 1 which is data for ALL areas totaled (this is the same Table 1 for the other plans I examined) with area specific examples of the recommendation. Very confusing.

Pages of all the plans that are UNIQUE or SPECIFIC to the area need to be clearly highlighted so a reader can easily identify it.

This road has Connection to McDowell Park - for park and greenways

Please update this data where possible. Continuing to reference 5+ yr old data doesn't serve this process/plan well.

The vast majority of the people living in this area have NO access to public transportation.

New home are being built south of 49 - the new homeowners will need to drive to work.

But how do you get there, and where do you put the almost almost always necessary car to get you there?

Tryon is not friendly to pedestrians. Further, ON STREET PARKING IS NOT AVAILABLE.

Corporate employees are encouraged to drive Upton with parking vouchers; guests are not always so lucky.

Your could always park at the Dunhill Hotel - for about $25.

The "within 2 miles" by bike only works if there are sufficient lanes for use that are not dangerous. Route 160 is not safe for bikes.

Have lived on Island Point Road for 22 years. Not part of the Sanctuary but adjacent on both sides. Lots of new building towards the Island Point Homeowners Association on the end. The city chickened out of the 1st UDO years ago by not taking on the challenge of Airbnb or VBRO .We have people renting out short term rentals for 4 days, usually all weekends, BIG parties all weekend long. Rock and roll, parties all night long. In a Single Family Neighborhood. As many as they can get, occupancy doesn't matter. ABSOLUTLY NO OVERSIGHT!!! Even little York County has rules and regulations and oversight on these types of rentals. There is on oversight as to septic, which everybody has, some have outdated system or its directly into Lake Wylie, no city sewer, but available city water. This has to be addressed, and then I see you want ADU units on Single family residential lots? what about the waste? Its already a problem for residents who live here year round. Its out of control. This area cant support duplexes, tri or quadplexes. North Carolina already stripped our restrictions on single family lots where there were only to be single family structures. Anything older then 30 years got stripped away. VBRO people came in and bought any dilapadated structures and made them into VBRO's and subdivided any lots that could not have been before under the 30,000 sq ft language we had when we bought the property, and building Huge 6000 sq ft housing and saying they are only 3 bedroom. Septic systems fail, but most of the 2040 planners likely don't know what a bedroom is classified as, and how builders get around it and nobody cares. Something needs to be done to prevent our neighbors from being driven out of our homes to let your ADU units and VRBO people take over. make a plan, make some rules, some permits required, some oversight, it can't continue to just be a free for all. All this 2040 stuff seems warm and fuzzy, but you all run when someone gets killed or shot at these parties, and still no one who comes up with these pages and pages and pages of "STUFF" does anything about it. Let it happen in your neighborhood and see how it works out for you.

"Impervious Surface" is a negative to environmental justice. In addition to this term credit should also be given to "Previous Surface" areas in the region. this section should also note the Lake Wylie and Lower Lake Wylie water shed ordnances which address water quality and limit construction in the region. Additionally credit should be given to housing developments in the ETJ which have effectively addressed the issue of Stormwater Management and water quality.

thank you for the partnership to get 2 creek crossings

street lights are a private expense in the ETJ. how does the City intend to pay for that?

showing CITY fire in the ETJ ignore reality. There will be no future annexations. we are and will remain VFD

these are all very urban concepts not aligned with life in suburbia.