District D Neighborhood Alliance January 17, 2009
The District D Neighborhood Alliance (DDNA) gathered to discuss the 2030 Draft Comprehensive Plan. The room was packed and our neighborhood leaders are very interested in participating, commenting on the plan, and contributing to Raleigh’s future. At the meeting, those of us who had a chance to go through the plan already provided tips and tricks, navigation, and other helpful hints. We raised group concerns and outline a plan of action. The 2030 focus groups will continue to meet throughout the rest of the month and contribute group comments to the Planning Department.
Attendee’s
- Phil Poe
- Jim Paumier
- Ana Duncan Pardo
- Byron Dunning
- Yuri Yamamoto
- Elizabeth Byrd
- Ted Shear
- Bob Mosher
- Ron Aycock
- Joe Boisvert
- Les Seitz
- Wendell Gilliam
- Amanda Bosch
- Jason Hibbets
- Pete Huckins
- Mary Belle Pate
- Renee Betha
- John Reaves, Jr.
- Jeannine Grissom
Meeting Notes
Bob Mosher opened with a brief introduction of the 2030 Draft Comprehensive Plan. It’s a large document, just shy of 400 pages. There are a lot of big changes compared to the last plan from 1989. It’s the first time a land use map has been included. One could interpret that the land use plan implies zoning changes. The plan include some neighborhood overlay districts and business districts. There is a large transportation component to the plan, tied in with land use, but the plan seems to lack specifics on transit stops. For example, it could go into more detail and be street specific as opposed to area specific.
For transit, there is implied relationship with the STAC plan, but it’s really not mentioned in the document the exact ties to the proposed STAC plan.
Disclaimer: Bob Mosher was formerly Assistant Planning Director for City of Raleigh.
The group went into general discussion at this point. Overall the principles are good, but when you think about future growth, you should consider how strong the document will be when the planning commission, city council, and other stakeholders who use the document interpret the intent. Which in general, seems to be good-natured, but lacks specifics.
There were questions about if the planning commission has to sign-off on the document. According to the existing process, yes, they would “sign-off” on it before making a recommendation to city council to adopt the plan or not. Going back to the 1989 plan, there were questions around what the process was like and what happened over the next five years (i.e., how were thing implemented). Basically, there were very strong arguments for items within the comprehensive plan.
The Hillsborough Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) has issued a resolution to extend the time and bring in public planners to the February meeting.
The group started going into some detailed parts of the draft plan. Some folks suggested the growth framework plan should show what’s going to be conserved (in addition to the existing growth area’s). It is also difficult to see the changes between the former plan, the overlay districts, and the new plan.
Neighborhoods and communities have Small Area Plans (SAPs) that were removed, some were watered down. The goal that planning stated was to adopt common principles of SAPs into the larger plan. There is missing documentation that shows the “GAP analysis” from each SAP and how it was incorporated into the new plan, what items were complete, etc., but it’s not publicly available yet. Was all that past neighborhood work simply eliminated? What about specific boundary lines? This leaves room for interpretation and going one block into a neighborhood could be very impactful. These boundaries must be honored / reflected in the land use map.
Another critical point is to identify conflicts in the plan. The concept of a “String of Pearls” (focus area’s at intersection with a series of focuses) seems to have been replaced with transit corridors.
The plan will not override current zoning, but moving forward, development will need to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Other concerns include no height restrictions in the downtown district. Where is the transition / buffer from downtown to surrounding area’s? This needs to be better defined in the plan. The downtown boundaries need to be better addressed in the zoning, to define the transition.
Preservation of neighborhoods seems to be a major asset of the plan. Some folks mentioned that there are good concepts in the plan, but it’s difficult to regulate.
There was also concern around getting specialty groups interested and involved. For example, for the environmental section, there are groups that have asked to participate, but haven’t been getting the love for a variety of reasons, including abnormal circumstances. Also, to our knowledge, standing comities / boards haven’t been directly approached.
We talked about the need for an extension and discussed some of the reasons why it’s important that we ask for this. The group talked about how the planning department got behind from it’s original timeline. We have a general understanding that other citizens around the city are considering a similar focus group approach, but need more time. We also must consider that some folks are getting paid to review the plan, while we are volunteering to review it.
We think the best way for citizens to be informed is to get the CAC’s involved. It’s important that we leverage the CAC structure to be the central way to address citizens. We discussed that, even though there are a variety of public opportunities to participate, it’s one-to-one interaction. And a group of neighbors having a conversation with a planner could be extremely beneficial.
There was concerns about how the development community gets to review the plan and if there is ample time, or any time for that matter, for citizens to review the comments from the development community.
We should stress that all changes to the plan be red-lined / highlighted so it’s easy to review. We would like the planning department to be honest and open regarding mistakes. We have no reason to believe that they haven’t to this point.
Moving forward, we need letters sent to city council and support & participation at Tuesday’s City Council meeting (Jan 20, 2009 at 2:00 PM). After Tuesday, we need everyone to at least look at the land use map and provide comments. We need the individuals and focus groups to make comments whether or not the deadline is extended or not. When reviewing the draft, think locally (District D) but act globally (city-wide). We encourage folks reviewing the plan to stay positive and identify both the good and bad parts of the plan.