Re: [RCAC] 2030 Comp Plan Concerns

Paul, Will you be at the Monday meeting in my "backyard" ? R, Alan _____ From: rcac-bounces(a)eastraleigh.org [mailto:rcac-bounces@eastraleigh.org] On Behalf Of paulbrant(a)mindspring.com Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:35 PM To: RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org Subject: [RCAC] 2030 Comp Plan Concerns Here are some NE concerns that need additional attention in the 2030 Comp Plan. 1. There does not seem to be a serious effort to control excessive development along the Neuse River. The greenway is touted as a significant environmental initiative, and it is, but there is very little in the 2030 Comp Plan to ensure development adjacent to the river greenway is transitioned from no density in the greenway to low-density along the greenway within a 1/4 mile and moderate density within 1/2 mile of the greenway. It is currently permissible to pack high density development along the greenway including retail. The original Neuse River East Plan has been removed from the new 2030 Comp Plan and nothing really takes its place. 2. The 401 Corridor Plan has been removed from the 2030 Comp Plan. This plan designated specific land use segments along the corridor designed to prevent the stripping out of Louisburg Hwy in a similar fashion to Capital Blvd. There was specific language which encouraged retaining the open look and feel of a rural environment interspersed with denser developments at specific intervals along the corridor. The concept is not retained in the new plan. 3. The Interchange development proposed for I-540 and Buffaloe Road is unsupported by a timely Transportation Plan for the extension of Spring Forest from Louisburg Road to Buffaloe Road; the addition of a bridge crossing at the Neuse River to accommodate an additional two to three lane increase in Buffaloe Road; the expansion of the I-540 bridge from three lanes to six lanes; the widening of Buffaloe Road from Perry Creek to Old Crews Road from two lanes to four lanes plus turning lanes. Development along this corridor should be limited to the available funding and completion of the required roadways to match the increase in traffic generated by the significant increase in density suggested since the draft plan was made available. 4. Overlay district zoning such as the NCOD process is a significant method to ensure preserve and control excessive out of character development and direct development to areas better suited for growth and in line with Council's objectives but is barely mentioned in the new plan. 5. Almost all of the requested changes to the Draft Plan are designed to increase density of development without addressing appropriate transitions to adjacent neighborhoods; especially where the Mixed Use categories are proposed. There needs to be a clear definition of appropriate levels of mixed use within each of the categories. There has not been enough detail provided to ensure that a true mix of development will be achieved. It is our fear that each category will have a token amount of a different use but will be mostly one type of development; either heavily favoring retail or alternatively very dense residential apartments. Some specific guidelines should be included so that Staff and Planning Commission decisions on rezoning cases, site plans and redevelopment plans will not be left to the subjective views of those involved but rather to fulfill the specific intent of City Council to manage appropriate growt h and development away from suburban sprawl to existing urban serviced areas. 6. The spreading of Triangle Towne Center commercial massing further to the East and North is of considerable concern. It has the potential to create the same congestion and grid-lock that is currently the shortcoming of the Glenwood, Crabtree Valley Mall area. Keeping the major retail and density of development to the south of I-540 will ensure traffic will flow more freely North on Capital Blvd where major DOT efforts are underway to create a thruway corridor above I-540 to Wake Forest. 7. Impacts of Institutions in residential zoning needs attention. Other cities require large institutions to be in O&I zoned areas. As organizations grow there should be strict limits to ensure parking is accommodated on site and not in neighborhood streets blocking access for residents and emergency vehicles. 8. Group homes should be restricted from residential neighborhoods when the nature of the operation is to serve those considered a danger to themselves and others. Type III and Type IV residents. This will require a legislative initiative but a policy statement in the Comp Plan as to action required would be a good first start. 9. Day Care Centers should not be located in resident ail neighborhoods when they service more than what might be considered the largest family environment that makes sense. Larger centers should be confined to areas where street design and traffic patterns can accommodate peak morning and evening access to the centers. Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com