×
Warning message
The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.South Inner
Scroll down to review this draft Community Area Plan, provide your comments, and see what others are saying. Click anywhere on the document to leave a comment and use the dropdown menu to jump to a specific chapter. Each Community Area Plan will also have a standard set of appendices, you can view them here, or by clicking the Appendices button at the top of the page. You can also view a summary of the content in the virtual open house at CAPOpenHouse.com.
These plans are available for public comment.
Thanks for visiting!
Commenting here is public and similar to speaking at a public meeting, click here for details of our moderation practices and if you have questions please email moderator@migcom.com
bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary… Add comment
Ellen Citarella Jul 12 2025 at 1:57PM on page 41
Concern
"Evaluate and improve traffic and pedestrian conditions at McDowell at Morehead, Kings at Morehead and 3rd & 4th at Kings" were concerns expressed in the Midtown Morehead Cherry area plan and we're still talking about it. McDowell & Morehead was not improved in spite of the recent creation of the Pearl Innovation District. When will any of this happen?
in reply to Ellen Citarella's comment
Ellen Citarella Jul 12 2025 at 1:29PM on page 35
Suggestion
*discussion about creating the Iverson Way exttension, including in the award winning Dilworth Land Use & Streetscape Plan.
Ellen Citarella Jul 12 2025 at 1:25PM on page 35
Suggestion
There has been discussion for decades creating the Iverson Way extension as a bike and pedestrian connection to improve access between Dilworth and Sedgefield. Let's make it happen.
Julia Nofsinger Jul 8 2025 at 10:06AM on page 15
Suggestion
There was a recent traffic study done along Kenilworth and Scott exploring reducing each to one lane and expanding the bike lanes. During the study the neighborhood LOVED the reduction in noise, speeding/ racing, and the increase in walkability & bike-ability. This would also improve safe access to Freedom Park, the Dilworth Community Garden and improve the overall charm of those busy streets. Please make this change! Perhaps enhanced with planters, flower beds? The bike lane as it stands is nearly unusable. We can do better and Dilworth supports this idea with a whole heart!
S Cardone Jul 8 2025 at 9:00AM on page 15
Concern
Is there any concern that the plan's focus on DEI will result in federal funding being eliminated or reduced as DEI programs are not in favor with the current administration and part of the divisive political climate?
in reply to Rebecca's comment
Erin Jul 8 2025 at 8:12AM on page 36
Should not allow motorized bicycles.
Erin Jul 8 2025 at 8:09AM on page 16
Support
The historic districts should be more protected vs allowing the loopholes to tear down.
Kenan B. Jul 2 2025 at 4:52PM on page 2
Concern
This is far too big of an area to have a unified plan. For example, South End has very different needs than Dilworth or Cherry. It needs to better identify residential areas versus high-rise commercial to not create policies that inadvertently mess with the character of certain areas.
Anonymous Jun 28 2025 at 2:36PM on page 87
Support
Support West Blvd complete upgrade! Better sidewalks, bike lines, etc. to promote access to rail stations
Anonymous Jun 28 2025 at 1:55PM on page 15
Concern
Prioritizing walkability outside of the rail trail is imperative! Many of the sidewalks on South, West, Woodlawn, etc. are not wide or safe enough for regular foot traffic.
Rosalyn Jun 4 2025 at 6:17PM on page 101
Concern
This would dramatically negatively change the community character and traffic patterns through Cherry.
Rosalyn Jun 4 2025 at 6:00PM on page 100
Concern
This building and the surrounding buildings do not exist even though the rezoning has been approved. However, with the glut in office space, the odds of it being built have dramatically reduced. This illustrative concept misrepresents the reality of the neighborhood and puts neighborhoods at risk of future development that is not consistent with the goal maintaining community character.
Rosalyn Jun 4 2025 at 5:29PM on page 15
Question
The proximity of Cherry to the new medical school and other Activity Centers begs the question of how investments might be made here (Inlivian's property, undeveloped lots) to create more workforce housing WITHOUT the density of high-rise residential buildings being built around Cherry's perimeter.
Stephanie May 15 2025 at 6:20PM on page 90
Concern
We would like the signal on Kings Rd/Baldwin Ave crossing to the greenway to turn red-- not just blinking yellow. Many families are concerned about the dangerous crossing.
Stephanie May 15 2025 at 6:17PM on page 90
Question
What is cyclelink and where is it being proposed - I don't see it on the map?
Eric Lemieux May 15 2025 at 8:57AM on page 64
Suggestion
Any possibility to break-out the HDC East Blvd properties to have more flexibility on providing density to activate placemaking and provide denser uses to support the surrounding neighborhood by not implementing full HDC standards, since this will contradict with building height and thus limit the intent of the Neighborhood Center place type? East Blvd has a lot of potential to connect to South End to provide more pedestrian oriented activation, but the part of East Blvd closest to South End is in the HDC overlay. Currently, the old houses fronting East Blvd are preserved, but filled with accounting offices, law offices, chiropractors, banks, dentists, etc. None of these business uses are providing pedestrian oriented vibrancy or providing additional urban amenities for all to benefit from. I'd suggest increasing development density along East Blvd with a special HDC overlay, so architecture is still on the forefront but developers can activate East Blvd further, rather than being stuck at 3-stories maximum. This would be a great way to connect to the South End's vibrancy.
Stephanie Gardner May 14 2025 at 2:40PM on page 99
Suggestion
This is a park. Why is it listed as N1? Should be Parks & preserves.
Stephanie Gardner May 14 2025 at 2:33PM on page 98
Concern
This is Torrence Street at Luther. It is not Baldwin or 3rd.
John Barrell May 12 2025 at 4:03PM on page 69
Question
At what age is an existing firehouse considered out of date? Is the city currently purchasing necessary land?
John Barrell May 11 2025 at 10:23AM on page 30
Concern
Please establish with growth and changes who is paying for the necessary infrastructure upgrades.The material and labor costs have escalated beyond and past forecasting.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 3:15AM on page 99
Concern
This should be NC not CAC based upon its current Zoning Classification and its location bordering Cherry Street (2-lanes of traffic within a residential setting).
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 3:04AM on page 99
Concern
This should be N2--current Zoning is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 3:02AM on page 99
Concern
This should be N2--as other residential units of Crown View Condominiums across the street. One-to-one translation from R-22 (MF) should be N2 not NC. These parcels were never Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:51AM on page 99
Concern
This should be Parks & Preserves not N2 -- Covenant Deed Restriction
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:34AM on page 99
Concern
This is Parks & Preserves (Covenant Deed Restriction)
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:32AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:29AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:27AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:24AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:22AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:21AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:19AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:18AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:17AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:16AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:15AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:14AM on page 99
Concern
The existing Zoning Classification is not Commercial.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:11AM on page 99
Concern
This Map does not accurately reflect Existing Place Types for the areas depicted in the graphic. Please refer to the Midtown Morehead Cherry (MMC) Area Plan (2011) that was unanimously adopted by City Council.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 2:06AM on page 98
Concern
This description is very misleading. It's not clear which "area" is being referenced. Based upon the images at the bottom of the page, the areas depicted are primarily classified as residential, not commercial, and should be translated into N-1 or N-2, not NC or CAC. The verbiage in this section is actually inconsistent with the Cherry Small Area Plan (1993) and Midtown, Morehead, Cherry Area Plan (2011) both unanimously adopted by City Council. When this Focus Area was discussed during an onsite CAP (South Inner) Workshop at Queens Sportsplex and also during the Virtual Session, the discussions centered around Baldwin Avenue and 3rd Street in relation to Campus or NC for existing sites that were not owned by the same entity located on Lillington Avenue and Baldwin Avenue at 3rd Street. The community pointed out the inconsistency between the definition of Campus and what was actually on the ground. At no point did the community or staff discuss a vision for Baldwin Avenue on the community side of 3rd Street evolving into CAC or NC. Existing R-6, R-8, and R-22 Zoning Classifications should translate into N-1 or N-2, not NC or CAC. Please refer to the MMC Area Plan for verification. "Adding a greater mix of uses and density to the recommended area" as cited in the current draft version of this CAP will do exactly what the previous adopted Area Plan(s) said shouldn't be done--further encroachment upon the residential character of the community for non-residential purposes. This Focus Area, in this format, should be deleted or modified significantly to better align with existing Zoning Classifications in the area, and the Comp 2040 Principles of Equity and Authenticity, and the Comp 2040 Goal (9) of Retaining Identity and Charm.
Sylvia Bittle-Patton May 11 2025 at 12:55AM on page 98
Concern
This page is misleading and does not contain accurate "street view images of existing conditions" on Baldwin Avenue in the 134-year old Cherry Community. Some of the images provided are actually located on other streets in the community. At no point did the community discuss any vision for Baldwin Avenue that aligns with what has been depicted by Planning Staff on this page of this CAP (South Inner).
Sarah Elliott May 8 2025 at 10:56PM on page 10
Concern
This boundary cuts our neighborhood in half. We are a longstanding Neighborhood association and the boundary for this cuts our neighborhood in half.
Please see our website for a visual boundary: link
Please see our website for a visual boundary: link
in reply to Kevin's comment
Rob May 5 2025 at 6:19PM on page 87
It is very difficult to cross here, and cars routinely speed here. Bettering the crossing is good.
Kevin May 5 2025 at 9:56AM on page 87
Suggestion
There is already an effective pedestrian cross walk signal here, I don't think the car traffic on Rensselaer ave necessitates a new traffic signal here.
Milena Stancati Apr 26 2025 at 11:04PM on page 15
Concern
This should be priority number one. Woodlawn road is not accessible, nor is it safe. The walk from townhomes and apartments to the train stop at Woodlawn 2 minutes away is filled with loiterers, drunks and drugs. Between the days inn, the burger king and the empty business park behind tres pesos on nations crossing, it's unsafe to walk anywhere -- to the coffee shops and breweries, to the train, or to even cross a street. Between the people and the traffic, it's a constant threat and we're forced to drive everywhere creating more traffic and congestion. 225 Woodlawn development will help, but we need retail that is not drive through to encourage more time spent on woodlawn and make it more of a destination with walking/biking paths and green space. We need more places to cross the street that aren't traffic filled and threatening, like when crossing at nations crossing by the exxon where people tend to hang out and do drugs. The Kingsman is a great development, but it doesn't seem to have any space for retail, which means no new businesses, and drive throughs and druggies stay.
Kathy Murray Apr 25 2025 at 1:41PM on page 75
Suggestion
It would be nice to encourage developers to plant NC native plants as opposed to non-native plants that don't support our bees for pollination and insects needed by our birds.
Kathy Murray Apr 25 2025 at 1:28PM on page 56
Support
It is good that Charlotte has a focus on improving open space as Mecklenburg County overall only has 7% park space compared to national median of 15% and our spend per resident on parks is lower ($110) than the national average ($124).
Kathy Murray Apr 25 2025 at 1:21PM on page 54
Concern
Earlier I suggested it would be nice to make the Collinswood School into a park, but CMS has intentions of selling this 15 acre parcel for apartment development. It seems inaccurate to include this parcel as open space in the South Blvd (OS9) assessment.
Kathy Murray Apr 25 2025 at 1:01PM on page 10
Concern
In reviewing the South Inner community area plan, I went back to the 2008 Scaleybark Transit Area Plan to see how much was accomplished. The development of apartments was achieved at the expense of safe pedestrian crossings, connectivity across South Blvd, bike lanes (no room on South Blvd anymore), safe sidewalks (directly adjacent to South Blvd, which are difficult to widen or move because development is so close to South Blvd) and expanding green space. Many of the items in the 2008 plan that were not accomplished are now in the new Community Area plans...hopefully to be accomplished.
Included is the link to the plan if anyone is interested in reading.
link(Draft).pdf
Included is the link to the plan if anyone is interested in reading.
link(Draft).pdf
Kathy Murray Apr 25 2025 at 12:33PM on page 35
Suggestion
Thinking ahead of the apartment complexes built on the east side of South Blvd, esp from Scaleybark to Clanton, there needs to be a means for safer pedestrian crossing, like an overpass or pedestrian crossing lights installed. The safety in this area is further complicated by the light rail tracks that should be elevated as in other areas of Charlotte.
in reply to GC's comment
Kathy Murray Apr 25 2025 at 12:13PM on page 21
Not only local businesses but residents that live nearby who only have means to walk there for shopping.
View all
Comments
Close