Re: [RCAC] RCAC presentation by Ken Bowers.

Paul, The terms "guiding" and "prescriptive" policies do not appear in the Plan, but the concept they describe is taken straight from Section 1.2 of the document. Here's the relevant passage, quoted verbatim: "Based on the specifics on a particular policy, it may apply exclusively to City actions, or it may set forth an expectation regarding private sector activities. The former policies are typically worded as an ongoing aspiration or intent, using active words such as “encourage”, “promote”, and “provide”. The latter such policies are typically worded as a statement expressing a desired state or outcome, utilizing the word “should” to distinguish the policy statements in the Plan from the legal requirements found in the City’s codes, where the word “shall” is the norm. In any specific case where the application of a Comprehensive Plan policy conflicts with a use, height, or density standard in the zoning and development code, the code standard will control." When we were developing the Quick Guides, we were looking for a shorthand method of referring to the concept embodied in the above paragraph. Referring to the "shoulds" as prescriptive policies, and the remainder as guiding policies, seemed to be a useful rhetorical device. However, it has no adopted policy implications beyond the language quoted above. Whether or not to introduce this shorthand description into the text of the plan is something that could be considered as part of the next update. Let me assure you, however, that how policies were written during the drafting of the Plan was done mindful of how those policies should be applied. Note that Section 1.2 of the Comp Plan has a footnote that reads as follows: "The City has available a stand-alone guide highlighting those policies most relevant to rezoning petitions and preliminary development applications." The Policy Guide referenced in the Quick Guides is that document. The words "Effective November 1" refer to the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan. The Quick Guides are only intended to provide guidance to the public--they do not substitute for the Comprehensive Plan, and any conflict between the two would be resolved in favor of the Plan. I am unclear what statements in the Quick Guides would serve to diminish the ability of citizens to apply for overlay zoning. The Comp Plan has several policies promoting the use of NCODs and HODs. Regardless, the Quick Guides are informational documents, and not policy documents. Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving. --Ken Ken A. Bowers, AICP Deputy Director Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 304 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2633 fax 516-2684 kenneth.bowers(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us www.planningraleigh2030.com ________________________________________ From: Paul Brant [paulbrant(a)mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:02 PM To: Bowers, Kenneth; Silver, Mitchell Cc: RCAC Subject: RCAC presentation by Ken Bowers. Ken & Mitchell, At the RCAC meeting November 18th you provided information about two Quick Guides for Rezoning Petitions and Preliminary Development Plans. In the information are statements that the new "Comprehensive Plan draws the distinction between "guiding" policies, intended to guide City decisions; and "prescriptive" policies, which are intended to influence private sector actions and are typically worded as "should" statements." As the complete plan is available on the web site in PDF form I did a word search on those two terms and found 0 references to prescriptive policies and only 4 references to "guiding" related to policies. Am I missing something? If this evaluation process is so fundamental to the Plan and Code why is there no mention of these terms in the Plan document. I also notice that the date on the handout says "Effective November 1, 2009. Was this ever brought forward to Council as a City Policy recommendation? Will the new Comprehensive Plan be amended to capture this rezoning case and development plan evaluation policy and in so doing provide a forum for public input to the process similar to a Text Change? It seems to me that several of the statements in the Quick Guides will significantly diminish the ability of citizens to apply Overlay District Zoning be it Historic or Neighborhood Conservation since by intent these overlay districts are most likely to be more restrictive than the underlying zoning districts within a land use category. Your guide would suggest that since such Overlay Districts would differ from the intended future land use they would be considered inconsistent with the Plan and recommended for denial. How will you reconcile these differing objectives? Paul paulbrant@mindspring.com<mailto:paulbrant@mindspring.com> “E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official.”