Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – December 19, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – December 19, 2023
The Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission met on December 19, 2023, at 6:00 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting included consideration of several text amendments, a rezoning, a preliminary plat, and a subdivision ordinance amendment. After extensive public comment and deliberation, the commission approved a text amendment for the Mixed Use Institutional (MUI) district, denied a text amendment that would have allowed commercial recreation in the RA20 district, and unanimously approved the remaining items.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 2 (MUI Text Amendment): Tim Elliott, petitioner and principal of Elliot Sidewalk Communities, spoke in favor, emphasizing the need for residential units to make the project financially feasible and to create a vibrant downtown. Merle Flood, Director of Millennial Campus Planning at East Carolina University, also spoke in support, noting that the development agreement prohibits student housing and that residential is a necessary component of the innovation campus. No opposition was voiced.
- Item 3 (RA20 Commercial Recreation Text Amendment): The applicant’s representatives (Scott Anderson, TJ Sawyer) spoke in favor, detailing the proposed standards (200-foot setback, 60 dB noise limit, half-foot-candle lighting, electric go-karts) and the need for a special use permit. A large group of residents from Quarry Ridge, Blackwood, and nearby neighborhoods spoke in opposition. Their concerns included: increased traffic on Quarry Road (currently 4,000–8,000 trips/day, road designed for 12,000), safety for children and pedestrians, noise from outdoor music and go-karts, light pollution, decreased property values, and a lack of prior consultation. Several speakers noted that Pitt County’s planning staff had recommended denial of a previous rezoning request, and the county planning board voted 7–0 against it. One resident submitted a recording of amplified music heard from her backyard 600 feet away.
- Item 6 (Subdivision Ordinance Amendment): Powell Due, a property owner, spoke in favor, explaining that his map had been recorded without city review, causing legal complications. He supported the amendment to require city staff review of lot line alterations to prevent similar issues. No opposition was voiced.
Discussion Items
- Item 2 – Request by Elliot Sidewalk Communities to amend MUI district standards: The current code limits residential uses to 25% of total building square footage per phase. The applicant proposed changing the calculation to 35% of total land area (cap of 400 units) across the entire MUI district, to allow phasing residential construction earlier. Staff and the applicant argued that the change would enable a bankable first phase (125–150 units) and that the 400-unit cap prevents all-residential development. Commissioner concerns centered on ensuring that future developers cannot “front-load” residential and leave institutional uses unbuilt. After discussion, the commission voted to recommend approval, finding the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan.
- Item 3 – Request by Amanda Bambrick to establish “commercial recreation; indoor and outdoor” as a special use in RA20 zones: The proposed standards included a 200-foot setback (reduced to 100 feet adjacent to city-owned recreational facilities), 60-decibel noise limit at the property line, vegetative buffers, and half-foot-candle lighting limit. Staff presented a comparative analysis of regulations in Raleigh, Charlotte, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Durham, Wilmington, and Myrtle Beach, showing wide variation. Opponents argued that the amendment would effectively allow an expansion of Sawyer’s Fun Park (the likely applicant) and that the road, noise, and traffic problems are already significant. The applicant countered that gas-powered go-karts would be replaced with electric ones, and the driving range would use low-light TrackMan technology. Several commissioners expressed concern about citywide implications and the risk of setting a precedent for RA20 areas. The motion to recommend approval failed 1–5; a subsequent motion to recommend denial passed (approximately 5–1).
- Item 4 – Request by RaceTrac, Inc. to rezone 3.405 acres from RA20 to CG (General Commercial): The site is at the southwest corner of North Memorial Drive and Independence Boulevard. Staff reported that the future land use map was amended to commercial in October 2023, and the proposed convenience store with gas sales would generate a net increase of 2,594 trips per day. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on December 13, 2023. No public opposition. The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.
- Item 5 – Preliminary plat for Lynndale East Subdivision, Sections 1–5: The plat adds 8 lots on 136 acres at the termini of Remington Drive and Stonehenge Drive. The Subdivision Review Board had already approved it. No public comment. The commission voted unanimously to approve.
- Item 6 – Subdivision Ordinance amendment: Staff proposed requiring city staff review of plats that combine, recombine, or alter lot lines prior to recordation, at no charge. The amendment aims to prevent zoning violations (e.g., creating multi-family lots inadvertently). No public opposition. The commission voted unanimously to approve.
Key Outcomes
- Item 2 (MUI Text Amendment): Motion to recommend approval passed (voice vote, no recorded dissent).
- Item 3 (RA20 Commercial Recreation Text Amendment): Motion to recommend approval failed (1 in favor, 5 opposed). Motion to recommend denial passed (5 in favor, 1 opposed). Final recommendation: denial.
- Item 4 (RaceTrac Rezoning): Motion to recommend approval passed unanimously.
- Item 5 (Lynndale East Preliminary Plat): Motion to approve passed unanimously.
- Item 6 (Subdivision Ordinance Amendment): Motion to approve passed unanimously.
The commission adjourned after completing the agenda.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. We'll call the meeting the order now. Welcome to the December 19th, twenty twenty-three meeting of the City of Reville Planning and Zone Commission. I'll be delivering the indication tonight. Dear Lord, thank you for all your wisdom throughout this holiday season as always. I mean your blessings and especially for those that we're encountering the misfortune of any type. Uh we ask for your wisdom tonight to make good decisions that are for the betterment of the community as a whole. This item was continued from the November 201st Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Is that correct? Can we get just a brief refresher on this for those that may not have attended that meeting? If we could just to make sure we're all on the same page, if you would like to reopen the public hearing, we would like a motion for that. I'll be happy to give you a refresher of the slides, and then we can move on from there. Okay, great. Do we have a motion to open back up public discussion? Motion to reopen public discussion. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay. So this is a text amendment that is specifically for the mixed-use institutional district. So I want to talk about just a bit about what's the purpose of the MUI district. Um this is intended to be a mixed use district. Um, it should be under the control or ownership of an institution, such as a hospital, a school, something along those lines. Um it should have uh or it can have things such as office, institutional research activities, and it can also have residential, commercial, and industrial uses as well. Specifically within the dimensional and parking standards of this district. I'll just bring this up because at the end of the summer, there was a text amendment that was done to the minimum size of a residential unit. And so when you think of this kind of a of a use, you need to think of something in a multi-level vertical building, an apartment essentially. So the minimum the minimum space for a one-bedroom unit is 400 square feet, minimum space for a two-bedroom unit is 500 square feet. So the language that you have in front of you tonight is essentially it is a change in the math. It is a change in the calculation for how much residential use can be on a project such as this. Right now, the current language says you can't exceed 25 percent of the total building square footage. Um, and so what I've done is I've sort of set up an example of what this is saying. First of all, you're looking at square footage, so you're looking at the square footage of residential over the total amount of square footage, and then you're gonna divide those, and it has to be 25 percent or less. And in this example, I just said if you have 300,000 square feet of total square footage, you have 70,000 square feet of residential. If you do the math, that would be 2023. That would work. The current language is a bit different. Um, the way that it is calculated is that it's based on footprint versus land area, but it also has a caveat which says even if that math gives you more than 400 units, you can't exceed 400 units. So I've given you a little example here. The percentage it can exceed is 35 percent. And again, this is footprint, so this has nothing to do with how vertical you go. This is based on the footprint of the building, and this considers any building that has any residential in it, even if it's only one floor. I use the example in this of uh 217,800. That's the square footage in five acres. I just made up 27,000, and if you do the math, that's 12 percent. So essentially that would work. If you had different math that um either exceeded 35 percent or the number of units exceeded 400, you would you would be capped at the 400. Again, this is just the difference.
openpublica.com