Jump to content

Why planning/development is so bad in Raleigh

sax184

By sax184
in The NC Triangle

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 1 month later...
ChiefJoJo Town

ChiefJoJo

Posted
Posted

Here is the article on the Five Points area rezoning petition.

Also, I thought this would be of interest with respect to improving development in Raleigh. Cary has developed an online data center where the public can provide input on proposed developments and rezonings.

Every time a developer proposes a new project, people will be able to submit their thoughts online at anytime. Visitors are able to review plans and are then asked to fill out a series of questions about a project.

"We ask them, 'How can we make this better? What would be your thoughts to make this project better?'" said Dan Matthys, planning manager for Cary's Planning Department.

Something like this online comment and actually scheduling PC meetings in the evening are no-brainer steps we can take towards improving development practices in Raleigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
ncwebguy Burg

ncwebguy

Posted
Posted

While going through email, I found this announcement sent to CAC officers for mentioning at their meetings.

This is the main reasons why we need a progressive city council elected in Tuesday's elections! It will set the tone for development (smart growth? TOD? Sprawl? Business as usual?) for the next 20+ years.

PLANNING RALEIGH 2030

Comprehensive Plan Update Officially Begins

The update of the Raleigh Comprehensive Plan will officially begin with a kick off celebration on Thursday, October 25th. Please plan on attending the kick off celebration and at least one of the first set of public visioning workshops .

What: Kick Off Celebration

Where: Progress Energy Center for the Performing Arts

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
ChiefJoJo Town

ChiefJoJo

Posted
Posted

Getting back to the infill issue, the SCALE rezoning case failed at the Planning Commission, but there's a big public hearing on Tuesday about a proposed zoning text change that would increase restrictions on home sizes all across Raleigh (IIRC, R-6 & R-10 zoning districts), and not just ITB, where the group SCALE had been focused.

The proposal would reduce the maximum height of homes from 40 feet to 32 feet and increase the required setbacks from 5 feet to 10 feet on either side of the house and from 20 feet to 30 feet in the back yard for many neighborhoods citywide.

I think the infill issue has a lot of merits, but this may be overreaching, as it has effects beyond just in the most affected tear-down areas. I think they are going to hear a lot of pissed off people on Tuesday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jones_ City

Jones_

Posted
Posted
Getting back to the infill issue, the SCALE rezoning case failed at the Planning Commission, but there's a big public hearing on Tuesday about a proposed zoning text change that would increase restrictions on home sizes all across Raleigh (IIRC, R-6 & R-10 zoning districts), and not just ITB, where the group SCALE had been focused.

The proposal would reduce the maximum height of homes from 40 feet to 32 feet and increase the required setbacks from 5 feet to 10 feet on either side of the house and from 20 feet to 30 feet in the back yard for many neighborhoods citywide.

I think the infill issue has a lot of merits, but this may be overreaching, as it has effects beyond just in the most affected tear-down areas. I think they are going to hear a lot of pissed off people on Tuesday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gard Burg

Gard

Posted
Posted

Article in N&O today. Apparently the city is already being flooded with emails from angry homeowners, builders and developers. Meeker even is mentioned in article as saying that the proposal goes too far and Isley is completely opposed to it. I have a feeling that this proposal will not get too far. I hope this proposal ends up DOA.

Edit:

Coffee must not have kicked in when I wrote the post...forgot the link.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wake/rale...ory/781285.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urbanesq Hamlet

urbanesq

Posted
Posted
Article in N&O today. Apparently the city is already being flooded with emails from angry homeowners, builders and developers. Meeker even is mentioned in article as saying that the proposal goes too far and Isley is completely opposed to it. I have a feeling that this proposal will not get too far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ncwebguy Burg

ncwebguy

Posted
Posted

A story in the N&O on rezoning the part of Durham closest to Brier Creek and northeast RTP shows what Durham "gets" and Raleigh doesn't.

Making the devloper pay for known traffic increases to get permission for devloping makes sense. The fact that the developer is fighting it shows how they want to shift the burden of their project's impact to the city to fatten their profit.

If Raleigh did this, Brier Creek's developers would have had to pay for the lights on Brier Creek Parkway and the other changes later implemented.

DOT may be trying to get some freebies, but the first line of the story makes sense. This, combined to sticking to a comprehensive plan, is how all rezoning should be handled.

Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow said that in 19 years on the Durham County Board of Commissioners, she has never approved a plan the state Department of Transportation didn't endorse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gard Burg

Gard

Posted
Posted

^^^

Those sound like much better options than the proposal they had before. I'd be in favor of targeted restrictions. Raleigh is a big city land mass-wise and can be vastly different depending on where you go in the city, so the saying that "one size fits all" certainly doesn't work here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ncwebguy Burg

ncwebguy

Posted
Posted

I'd lean toward communities setting their standards as well. The neighborhood's character is what draws homebuyers to an area. Teardowns set a new character for established neighborhoods; if the majority of the neighborhood is OK with that, go crazy with the bulldozers. SCALE seems to have started *because* the majority didn't want their neighborhod to go that way.

The "one size fits all" for setbacks, building heights, etc. is a bit too restrictive. Even the "125% increase" feels too "one size fits all" since that number is a lot different for a 600 sq ft shotgun vs. 2000 sq ft house. Also, how much time elapses between "additions"? Even with a 50% increase cap, when is a 1500 sq ft house that becomes a 2250 sq ft house ready to become a 3375 sq ft house, assuming enough land is available?

My house is technically in a "historic district" (for now, though that may be lost due to losing several older structures over the years), and knew going in what I can and can not due, despite there not being a formal home owners association. I don't consider my "property rights" violated in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RiverwoodCLT Burg

RiverwoodCLT

Posted
Posted

The best news for Raleigh would get word that Novare Group out of Atlanta was setting up shop in Raleigh. They do not waste time getting a project started. They have put an office here in Charlotte and have completed the Avenue Condos and now in process of build 4 more building in the next few years. They start building before they even open a sales office. I can not see them staying out of Raleigh too must longer. It is a good developing market.

http://www.novaregroup.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiefJoJo Town

ChiefJoJo

Posted
Posted

Planning Commission to City Council: Don't be hasty on infill "McMansion" rules. I'm torn here. Yes, the last proposal was foolish, and I don't know how it got off the ground to being with. Looking at an interim step makes some sense, because this has been going on for years, and previous councils refused or blocked action on this for fear of negatively impacting the developers... so the request from the PC rings a bit hollow... especially since they are almost all developers or friends of them. Of course they don't want to limit infill teardowns. The problem with the PC is they might be right about this particular issue, but who can really trust a bunch of people who have a vested financial interest in the outcome of every recommendation they make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.