# General plan documents — raleigh-north_carolina Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (``) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading. **Contains 1 document.** OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: combined. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-08-18. --- ## Complete Plan — 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update - Source: https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR22/2030ComprehensivePlanUpdate.pdf - Pages: 697 - Covers: circulation, combined, conservation, ej, housing, land_use, noise, open_space, safety - **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source. CITY PLANNING # 2030 Comprehensive Plan UPDATE Raleigh (blank page) # Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... iv Version History ............................................................................................... vi **Section 1** Introduction.................................................................................1-1 **Section 2** Framework..................................................................................2-1 **Section 3** Land Use ....................................................................................3-1 **Section 4** Transportation..............................................................................4-1 **Section 5** Environmental Protection ...........................................................5-1 **Section 6** Economic Development..............................................................6-1 **Section 7** Housing ......................................................................................7-1 **Section 8** Parks Recreation Open Space....................................................8-1 **Section 9** Public Utilities .............................................................................9-1 **Section 10** Community Facilities and Services.........................................10-1 **Section 11** Urban Design..........................................................................11-1 **Section 12** Historic Preservation ..............................................................12-1 **Section 13** Arts and Culture......................................................................13-1 **Section 14** Regional and InterJurisdictional Coordination.....14-1 **Section 15** Downtown Raleigh..................................................................15-1 **Section 16** Area Plans ..............................................................................16-1 **Section 17** Implementation.......................................................................17-1 **Glossary** ...................................................................................................18-1 Acknowledgements <
> # Acknowledgements: 2019 Plan Update ## City Council Honorable Nancy McFarlane, Mayor Corey Branch, Mayor Pro Tem David Cox Kay Crowder Stef Mendell Russ Stephenson Nicole Stewart Richard “Dickie” Thompson Bonner Gaylord (2014-2017) Mary-Ann Baldwin (2014-2017) ## City Manager Ruffin Hall ## Planning Commission Rodney Swink, Chair Tika Hicks, Vice Chir Bob Geary Edie Jeffreys Joe Lyle CJ Mann Michele McIntosh David Novak Matt Tomasulo Shelley Winters ## Lead Agency ### *Department of City Planning* Kenneth Bowers, AICP, Director Travis Crane, AICP, Assistant Director Roberta M K Fox, AIA ASLA, Assistant Director ### *Comprehensive Plan Update Team* Bynum Walter, AICP John Anagnost Ray Aull, GISP Don Belk, AICP Sara Ellis Christopher Golden Jason Hardin, AICP Matthew Klem, CZO Kyle Little Ira Mabel, AICP Hannah Reckhow ### *Communication Team* David Langley Aaron Sheppard ### *Other Contributing Members* Dhanya Purushothaman-Sandeep, AICP Carter Pettibone, AICP Joe Michael, AIA ## Participating Departments City Manager’s Office Department of Budget and Management Services Department of Communications Department of Development Services Department of Engineering Services Department of Finance Department of Housing and Neighborhoods Department of Information Technology Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department of Public Utilities Department of Transportation Department of Solid Waste Services Raleigh Fire Department Raleigh Police Department Acknowledgements <
> # Acknowledgements: 2009 Comprehensive Plan ## City Council Honorable Charles Meeker, Mayor Dr. James West, Mayor Pro Tem Mary-Ann Baldwin Thomas Crowder Philip Isley Rodger Koopman Nancy McFarlane Russ Stephenson ## City Manager J. Russell Allen ## Planning Commission Maha Chambliss, Chair Tom Bartholomew, Vice Chair Paul Anderson Marvin Butler Quince Fleming Bonner Gaylord Linda Harris Edmisten Waheed Haq Clyde Holt Brad Mullins Stephen Smith Heather Vance ## Lead Agency ### *Department of City Planning* Mitchell Silver, AICP, Director Kenneth Bowers, AICP, Deputy Director ### *Comprehensive Plan Team* Alysia Bailey Taylor, AICP James Brantley, AICP Alfreda Bryant Travis Crane Trisha Hasch Kris Larson Martin Stankus, AICP ### *Supporting Mapping and Graphics Staff* Allison Decker Frank Holyfield JD Long Scott Masteller Carter Pettibone, AICP Aaron Sheppard DeShele Sumpter Stan Wingo ### *Additional Contributing Members* Elizabeth Alley Jacque Baker Stacy Barbour, AICP Dan Becker Meade Bradshaw Christine Darges Dan Douglas, AICP Karen Duke Doug Hill, AICP Eric Hodge, AICP James Marapoti Dhanya Sandeep ## Consulting Team HNTB Corporation ### *With assistance from* Barry J. Miller, AICP Greenways Inc. Justice & Sustainability Associates McKim & Creed Partners for Economic Solutions White & Smith LLC Acknowledgements # Version History Adopted October 7, 2009 (Resolution 2009-997) with an effective date of November 1, 2009 ## Amended December 7, 2010 (Res. 2010-286) January 18, 2011 (Res. 2011-307) February 1, 2011 (Res. 2011-315) March 1, 2011 (Res. 2011-320) April 5, 2011 (Res. 2011-339) September 20, 2011 (Res. 2011-453) March 6, 2012 (Res. 2012-544) March 20, 2012 (Res. 2012-550) November 6, 2012 (Res. 2012-680) March 19, 2013 (Res. 2013-736) April 2, 2013 (Res. 2013-739) April 2, 2013 (Res. 2013-740) June 4, 2013 (Res. 2013-767) September 3, 2013 (Res. 2013-802) September 3, 2013 (Res. 2013-803) November 19, 2013 (Res. 2013-848) April 1, 2014 (Res. 2014-893) September 2, 2014 (Res. 2014-980) September 2, 2014 (Res. 2014-981) September 2, 2014 (Res. 2014-982) September 16, 2014 (Res. 2014-996) April 21, 2015 (Res. 2015-95) June 2, 2015 (Res. 2015-120) August 4, 2015 (Res. 2015-167) August 4, 2015 (Res. 2015-168) August 4, 2015 (Res. 2015-169) August 4, 2015 (Res. 2015-170) June 21, 2016 (Res. 2016-325) July 5, 2016 (Res. 2016-332) February 7, 2017 (Res. 2017-449) September 5, 2017 (Res. 2017-501) October 3, 2017 (Res. 2017-515) November 8, 2017 (Res. 2017-529) February 2, 2018 (Res. 2018-543) June 5, 2018 (Res. 2018-594) June 5, 2018 (Res. 2018-595) December 4, 2018 (Res. 2018-652) August 21, 2018 (Res. 2018-620) August 21, 2018 (Res. 2018-621) February 5, 2019 (Res. 2019-667) May 7, 2019 (Res. 2018-814) May 21, 2019 (Res. 2019-833) May 21, 2019 (Res. 2019-846) May 21, 2019 (Res. 2019-847) June 2, 2020 (Res. 2020-60) June 4, 2019 (Res. 2019-853) July 2, 2019 (Res. 2019-883) September 3, 2019 (Res. 2019-937) September 17, 2019 (Res. 2019-943) October 1, 2019 (Res. 2019-947) October 1, 2019 (Res. 2019-948) October 1, 2019 (Res. 2019-949) October 1, 2019 (Res. 2019-950) November 6, 2019 (Res. 2019-959) November 6, 2019 (Res. 2019-960) November 6, 2019 (Res. 2019-961) November 12, 2019 (Res. 2019-962) November 12, 2019 (Res. 2019-963) December 3, 2019 (Res. 2019-1) May 5, 2020 (Res. 2020-36) July 7, 2020 (Res. 2020-91) October 6, 2020 (Res. 2020-139) December 1, 2020 (Res. 2020-208) December 15, 2020 (Res. 2020-206) December 15, 2020 (Res. 2020-207) March 2, 2021 (Res. 2021-230) May 4, 2021 (Res. 2021-251) June 15, 2021 (Res. 2021-269) October 19, 2021 (Res. 2021-310) November 2, 2021 (Res. 2021-313) November 16, 2021 (Res. 2021-318) January 4, 2022 (Res. 2022-325) May 10, 2022 (Res. 2022-358) May 17, 2022 (Res. 2022-363) June 7, 2022 (Res. 2022-373) June 21, 2022 (Res. 2022-383) June 21, 2022 (Res. 2022-384) July 5, 2022 (Res. 2022-389) September 6, 2022 (Res. 2022-412) October 4, 2022 (Res. 2022-421) November 15, 2022 (Res. 2022-436) November 15, 2022 (Res. 2022-437) March 7, 2023 (Res. 2023-474) April 4, 2023 (Res. 2023-484) April 4, 2023 (Res. 2023-485) May 2, 2023 (Res. 2023-489) October 17, 2023 (Res. 2023-530) November 7, 2032 (Res. 2023-535) January 30, 2024 (Res. 2024-555) March 20, 2024 (Res. 2024-557) June 18, 2024 (Res. 2024-591) October 15, 2024 (Res. 2024-616) November 6, 2024 (Res. 2024-621) November 6, 2024 (Res. 2024-622) section 1 # Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan........................................... 1-4 1.2 How the Comprehensive Plan is to be Used ............................. 1-8 1.3 Organization of the Plan ........................................................... 1-10 1.4 Civic Engagement Process ...................................................... 1-12 # Introduction Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina, is a fast-growing city located in the fastest-growing region of the state, the Research Triangle. Home to more than 450,000 people as of 2015, the city is expected to grow to over 600,000 by the year 2035. Since the last Comprehensive Plan was written in 1989, Raleigh’s population has increased by 103 percent. Growth of this magnitude is not incidental. Raleigh’s strong and diversified economy, highly-educated populace, great education system, plentiful parks, and resurgent downtown are major factors in attracting new residents and businesses from around the country and the world. The transformation has made Raleigh one of the 50 largest cities in the United States. Raleigh’s growth and relative prosperity make planning for the city’s future critically important. In fact, the need for good city planning has never been greater as Raleigh addresses its growth and development challenges. How do we grow while maintaining Raleigh’s outstanding quality of life and retaining the assets that make Raleigh special? How do we add to the community while preserving its past? How do we manage growth and make our land use more supportive of transit and walkable neighborhoods? How do we sustain our environment for the present and renew it for the future? How do we provide decent and affordable housing options? How do we position Raleigh to remain nationally competitive with a strong economy? The Comprehensive Plan is the key policy document that helps make Raleigh workable, livable, and prosperous. This 2030 Comprehensive Plan provides the Vision and strategies for Raleigh to prosper and grow as a modern, 21^st century city. The Plan provides an integrated approach to all aspects of Raleigh’s physical development and related economic and social issues, with an emphasis on environmental, economic, and social sustainability; enhancing land use and transportation coordination; and developing attractive and prosperous neighborhoods for all. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to: * *Inspire with bold ideas to help shape development today and tomorrow.* * *Provide the basis for orderly, consistent, and predictable land use decision-making.* * *Facilitate quality development throughout Raleigh.* * *Provide a “greenprint” for more sustainable growth patterns.* * *Build on the ideas and guidance from the many participants in the Planning Raleigh 2030 process.* # Raleigh’s Commitment to Sustainability Raleigh’s commitment to sustainability is a cornerstone of its vision for the future. That vision is broad and comprehensive and focuses on the interdependent relationships of environmental stewardship, economic strength, and social integrity. These three elements, referred to as the “triple bottom line” of sustainability, define the vision and will serve to guide the choices and decisions Raleigh will need to make as a 21^st century City of Innovation. Consistent with this vision, the city has created a citizens Environmental Advisory Board, established full time Sustainability Initiatives Manager and Energy Manager positions, adopted a fossil fuel reduction goal, enacted an energy efficient buildings standard of LEED Silver for city buildings, and has endorsed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to develop a greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy for the city. There are many other sustainability initiatives on-going in the city including LED lighting, greening the city’s vehicle fleet, supporting the creation of green jobs, a teleworking program, renewable energy projects, rainwater harvesting, water reuse, tiered water rates, sustainable purchasing policies, employee health and wellness programs, innovative financing strategies, and public-private collaboration, among others. Many of these are described in greater detail in the Plan sections. <
> # 1.1 Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan ## Legal Basis, Role, and Content Although the state’s zoning enabling statute establishes that “zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” North Carolina’s cities are not required by state law to prepare a comprehensive land use plan, and the nature of such a plan is not defined by statute. However, Raleigh has a long history of using a comprehensive planning document to establish policies that respond to the requirements and aspirations of the city’s residents, and accordingly influence social, economic, and physical development. Past comprehensive plans have been used to promote economic growth and jobs and guide private and public investment. To achieve its vision for the future, Raleigh needs a Plan that promotes sustainability while maintaining and enhancing the natural and architectural assets of the city and furthering the social and economic welfare of its residents. ## Raleigh’s Approach to Planning Raleigh has a tradition of developing comprehensive plans dating back to 1913. In that year, there was one registered automobile for every 82 Americans. Residents of Raleigh walked to work or to go shopping. The street was a space shared equally by pedestrians, horses, and vehicles. An invention called the bicycle was becoming a more common sight. By 1960, there were over 60 million registered vehicles in America, or one for every three Americans. Raleigh’s urban environment grew to accommodate the popularity of the automobile starting mid-century and continuing to the present day, although the city has begun refocusing on walkers, cyclists, and transit riders as essential parts of the transportation system. Subsequent comprehensive plans, adopted in 1979 and 1989, responded to the new auto-centric landscape with a set of policy tools that emphasized the preservation of landscaped and tree-lined view sheds along major transportation corridors and that sought to control excessive strip-style retail development along high-volume streets. Retail would be concentrated into nodes at major intersections, with office and multifamily filling the areas in between. An Urban Form map provided a detailed hierarchy of commercial focus areas, ranging from neighborhood to regional. Raleigh’s development code pioneered new tools such as highway overlay districts, street protective yards, and a sign ordinance that significantly mitigated visual clutter and enhanced the trees and landscaping that would be in the field of vision of motorists traversing the city’s arterial road network. These policy innovations deserve significant credit for creating the attractive and green landscape of suburban Raleigh. However, this framework did less to promote the growing emphasis on making the city more friendly and accessible to walkers, cyclists, and transit riders. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was drafted to respond to the significant market, economic, social, and environmental changes facing Raleigh at the start of the 21ˢᵗ century. It is much more specific in its policy guidance, includes an Implementation Section, and provides a land use plan that was absent from the 1989 Plan. The old Thoroughfare Plan has been replaced by the Raleigh Street Plan which implements a much more context-sensitive, “complete streets” approach to the street. The clarity of intent produced by these changes has enabled the city to design and adopt a new, more flexible zoning ordinance that is better adapted to the goals of this Plan. This Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) applies some of the most up-to-date practices of land use regulation in a way that is tailored to the unique history and urban fabric of Raleigh. The UDO and the 2030 Plan give citizens and stakeholders greater confidence in pursuing their private goals by communicating a unified and unambiguous message as to the values that will guide development in the future. Area Specific Guidance supplements the 2030 Plan by focusing in more detail on specific parts of Raleigh. Formerly known as Small Area Plans, each Area Specific Guidance section is a set of goals, policies, and actions for the design and development of a neighborhood, mixed-use center, or corridor within Raleigh. Residents of these communities help craft these documents through participation in extensive and inclusive public planning sessions. Area Specific Guidance empowers communities to decide how they wish to implement more detailed planning goals in their area. The combination of the 2030 Plan, Area Specific Guidance, and the UDO results in a development outlook that can be effectively implemented and monitored with greater accessibility and functionality for Raleigh residents. ## Relationship to the Strategic Plan In 2015, the Raleigh City Council adopted the Strategic Plan to guide the government of the city. The Strategic Plan and the Comprehensive Plan serve many of the same ideals but from different perspectives. The Comprehensive Plan translates a long term vision into targeted objectives for overall growth and development. The Strategic Plan provides a short term framework for the city to pursue objectives that support high-quality operational outcomes. Both outlooks are based on unifying values. The Comprehensive Plan serves a set of six Vision Themes while the Strategic Plan’s foundation is its six Key Focus Areas. The Comprehensive Plan creates a policy road map for the city to pursue development goals identified by citizens. The values expressed by citizens have been organized into the following Vision Themes: * *Economic Prosperity and Equity.* * *Expanding Housing Choices.* * *Managing Our Growth.* * *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation.* * *Greenprint Raleigh – Sustainable Development.* * *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities.* The objectives of the Comprehensive Plan address a wide range of internal and external activities of the city that affect outcomes for residents, businesses, and cultural and natural resources. The Strategic Plan assists the city in assigning its internal resources in the way that maintains and improves the qualities that make Raleigh an outstanding city. The Strategic Plan calls for the city to focus its operational efforts on six key areas of identity and character: * *Arts & Cultural Resources.* * *Economic Development & Innovation.* * *Growth & Natural Resources.* * *Organizational Excellence.* * *Safe, Vibrant & Healthy Community.* * *Transportation & Transit.* Objectives and initiatives in the Strategic Plan provide clear action steps that will support the six key areas. Table T-1 shows how Strategic Plan Key Focus Areas generally align with the Vision Themes of the Comprehensive Plan. The Vision Themes are explained in greater detail in the Framework Section. # Table T-1 Alignment of the Strategic Plan and the Comprehensive Plan | Comprehensive Plan Vision Theme | Strategic Plan Key Focus Area(s) | | :--- | :--- | | Economic Prosperity and Equity | Arts & Cultural Resources
Economic Development & Innovation | | Expanding Housing Choices | Economic Development & Innovation
Safe Vibrant and Healthy Community | | Managing Our Growth | Growth & Natural Resources | | Coordinating Land Use and Transportation | Growth & Natural Resources
Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Community
Transportation & Transit | | Greenprint Raleigh — Sustainable Development | Growth & Natural Resources | | Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities | Arts & Cultural Resources
Safe, Vibrant & Healthy Community | ## The Capital Improvement Program The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a ten year, two phase plan adopted by City Council that serves as a statement of city policy regarding the timing, location, and funding of major public facilities in the City of Raleigh. The CIP is developed by analyzing public facility needs, projecting fiscal resources, establishing priorities, and developing schedules for their implementation. Six programmatic categories are included: Transportation, Public Utilities, Parks, Stormwater Utility and Neuse Basin Environmental, Housing, and General Public Improvements. The Phase I program, encompassing the first five years of the CIP, includes schedules and budget estimates for projects approved by Council in previous editions of the CIP, as well as additional projects recommended as the result of planning processes. The first two years of the CIP serve as the basis for the capital portion of the annual operating budget and biannual budget projection. The Phase II program, spanning the second five year period, provides a more general review of projects and capital maintenance needs necessary for the continuation of services to the citizens of the city. ## Relationship to the Capital Improvement Program The Comprehensive Plan provides guidance on the need to manage growth and development and to continue investment in the city’s physical infrastructure and buildings. The Plan recommends enhancing the capital improvement planning and budgeting process by implementing more explicit ties between the Comprehensive Plan and the development of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as well as the establishment of priorities among various potential capital investments. In addition, for each recommended action in this 2030 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan, the Implementation Section identifies whether capital dollars are required to implement that action. There are about 109 such actions in the Plan where the need for capital funds is indicated. # 1.2 How the Comprehensive Plan is to be Used This document has been designed for use by elected and appointed officials, city government administration and staff, residents, businesses and developers, and others with an interest in the future of Raleigh. This Comprehensive Plan will be used to: * *Establish the vision for what Raleigh can achieve and aspires to achieve by 2030.* * *Consolidate and coordinate in one comprehensive document the policies that relate to the city’s physical and economic growth and development for all city departments.* * *Guide decision-making and evaluation of zoning map and text amendments and discretionary development approvals.* * *Coordinate capital investment by linking the Capital Improvement Program to the Comprehensive Plan.* * *Identify short to long-term strategic actions for the city to undertake. These actions will be monitored annually to ensure implementation and accountability.* The intent of this Plan is to make it easy to read and accessible to all. Key issues are described with data to make the purpose of policies more apparent. Graphics, maps, photos, and charts have been used to illustrate major points and improve the legibility of the text. Text boxes are used to present background information or highlight issues. As the city’s primary policy and planning document addressing the physical development of Raleigh, the Comprehensive Plan is of particular interest to elected officials who must adopt it and fund its implementation, appointed officials who will use it as a guide to discretionary decisions, as well as city agency heads who are charged with its implementation and the update of other plans to conform with it. The Comprehensive Plan is also an important source of information and guidance to private sector actors involved in development. The Land Use Section and Future Land Use Map provide clear guidance on preferred zoning classifications for particular properties, which will assist in the preparation of rezoning petitions. Many policies describe desired development outcomes, and consistency with these policies will be a factor in the review of discretionary development applications such as rezoning petitions[^p14-1]. The Plan will help the private sector anticipate future public investment priorities. It will also bring more predictability to the zoning and development review and approval process for developers, property owners, and concerned citizens alike. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan is also a resource for those who seek general information on how Raleigh may change over the next 20 years, as well as those who want or need to understand how the city plans to respond to particular issues and problems. The Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map is incorporated as part of the document and provides the foundation for decisions regarding land use and zoning. It is supplemented by the Growth Framework Map, which provides a vision for the city’s future growth, and by numerous smaller maps that appear throughout the text of the Plan. [^p14-1]: The city has available a stand-alone guide highlighting those policies most relevant to rezoning petitions and discretionary development applications. # Vision, Policy, Action At the heart of the Comprehensive Plan are six Vision Themes, described in greater detail in the Framework chapter, which were identified through the Civic Engagement process. These six themes constitute the goals of the plan and are referenced in all Plan sections and every policy statement. Advancing the six themes are the Plan’s Policies. All policies respond to and fulfill one or more of the Vision Themes. Policies provide general guidance for decision-makers and help direct the city towards achieving the guiding themes. Policies are generally open-ended as to time frame, as they provide ongoing direction. The policies in this document are organized by topics that indicate the subject being addressed. Actions are specific measures that the city will undertake to implement the policies. All actions link back to one or more policies in the same section in which they appear, although not every policy has a corresponding action. While some actions are ongoing, most have an identifiable end state after which the action is considered complete. All actions are prioritized and assigned to different city agencies in the Action Plan and Matrix. When an action is deemed complete by a responsible agency, it is placed in the table of Completed Action Items in the Implementation Section, which provides a record of all completed actions. The policies and actions contained within the Comprehensive Plan have implications for the capital and operating budgets of the various departments of city government, and therefore are subject to the same budgetary constraints as any other long range plan. The number and type of actions implemented in any given year will be determined by budget considerations in addition to the priorities set forth in the Implementation Section. # Interpretation of Policies Policies provide direction for decision-makers regarding particular courses of action to pursue. They are also intended to guide decisions regarding the review and approval of development proposals, and the consistency of petitions to amend the city’s official zoning map. 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. Rezoning petitions, as well as certain development applications, are subject to review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Policies which set forth private sector expectations and which are relevant to rezoning and development matters are called “key policies” and are highlighted throughout the Plan with an orange dot. Consistency is relative and not absolute. It is not anticipated that every proposal and project will implement every Plan policy. Projects and proposals that implement one or more Plan policies, help achieve the overall goals of the Plan, and are not in conflict with key policies as highlighted above will be judged to be consistent. Projects and proposals that are in conflict with the overall goals of the Plan and contradict key policies will be judged to be inconsistent. More guidance on consistency determinations can be found in Section 1 ‘Future Land Uses.’ The Plan has been written to be free of internal conflicts, meaning that as a general rule, implementing one policy should not preclude the implementation of another. However, situations that are site- and/or project-specific may arise where specific policies present competing objectives. Judgment will be required to balance the relative benefits and detriments of emphasizing one policy over another. When weighing competing objectives, greater weight should be given to achieving overall policy objectives on an area- and citywide scale rather than a site-specific scale, and decision-makers should consider the cumulative impacts of making a number of similar decisions over time. ## 1.3 Organization of the Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is organized into sections that follow this introductory chapter and contain citywide guidance. The Plan begins with the Framework, which sets the stage for the Plan by summarizing the key citywide issues driving the need for the Plan. It provides an overview of growth forecasts, defines the Vision and Themes that serve as the overarching goals for this Plan, and describes the role of the Growth Framework and the Future Land Use Map (the two policy maps that provide the basis for many of the Comprehensive Plan’s narrative recommendations). The subsequent sections each contain a summary overview to provide context and key issues, followed by citywide policies and actions to address these issues. Tables, images, text boxes, and maps supplement the narrative content. Following the Framework, the Plan’s topical citywide sections are: * ***Land Use:*** *Provides a framework for all development-related decisions. It is the critical foundation upon which all other sections are based, and includes the Future Land Use Map and related policies and actions to guide growth in a more compact and efficient pattern over the next 20 years.* * ***Transportation:*** *Guides future development of the city’s roads and highways, public transit systems, and bike and pedestrian networks to support the city’s desired land uses and urban form; slows the growth of vehicle miles traveled; diversifies away from the use of single occupancy vehicles; and reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The aim is to achieve a balanced and efficient transportation system for Raleigh’s expanding population and their corresponding needs.* * **Environmental Protection:** *Contains the policies and actions required for Raleigh to preserve our natural resources and address challenges related to global climate change and the need to become more sustainable.* * **Economic Development:** *Includes recommendations to enhance Raleigh’s competitive advantages and build on its culture of innovation. It addresses ways to revitalize aging neighborhood and commercial corridors; assist local entrepreneurs; provide job training and education; and harness the benefits of tourism, visitation, and the creative industries.* * **Housing:** *Includes recommendations on housing needs and encouraging homeownership, preserving existing affordable housing, creating new affordable housing, aging in place and universal access, and encouraging mixed-use development that includes affordable and workforce housing.* * **Parks, Recreation, and Open Space:** *Addresses park planning and acquisition, greenway and trail planning and connectivity, open space conservation, capital improvement planning, and the preservation of special landscapes, among other issues.* * **Public Utilities:** *Includes recommendations to ensure the long-term adequacy and safety of the drinking water supply, distribution system, and the wastewater system. It also addresses stormwater, energy, telecommunications, and utility extension policies.* * **Community Services and Facilities:** *Provides direction for government buildings, solid waste services, emergency services, schools, and libraries. A key focus for this section is managing limited resources, encouraging co-location, and supporting infill development.* * **Urban Design:** *Provides recommendations to address place-making and reinforcement of the design of Raleigh’s neighborhoods, business districts, and commercial corridors; preserve important views; and provide the framework to guide the design of future development.* * **Historic Preservation:** *Includes guidance to preserve and promote the historic identity of Raleigh and sustain great historic communities in which to live and work. The section includes recommendations to enhance regulatory tools and incentives, promote preservation, and improve coordination among role players with a stake in, and impact upon, preservation.* * **Arts and Culture:** *Provides a consolidated framework to support the arts in Raleigh, and makes recommendations to address funding to support public art, arts districts and other incentives to encourage artists, and cultural facilities expansion to serve the city’s growing needs.* * **Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination:** *Provides guidance for intergovernmental cooperation in planning and providing essential public services that impact the region as a whole, including transportation, land use and growth management, economic development, education, protection of natural resources, and public services.* * **Downtown Raleigh:** *Contains policies and actions that are specific to the urban core of the city, addressing growth and development in Raleigh’s traditional downtown and its growth as a mixed-use center.* The Plan also includes 27 **Area Specific Guidance** documents brought forward in revised form from the 1989 Plan or adopted since 2009. These plans were created through focused, community-based planning efforts. They include policies too detailed and area-specific to be included in a citywide Plan section. The decision of which plans, and which plan policies, to bring forward was based on an exhaustive policy audit of every adopted geographically-focused plan. All the Area Specific Guidance has been streamlined and rewritten to conform to the conventions used throughout the remainder of this Plan. Land Use recommendations from adopted Area Plans are reflected on the citywide Future Land Use Map. The Plan’s **Implementation** section organizes the priorities, responsible agencies, and necessary partnerships to implement the Plan’s policies and actions. It highlights the Capital Improvement Program and other priorities required to implement the Plan’s recommendations. Most significantly, the Implementation section includes a guide for keeping the Plan current and reporting progress toward reaching the Plan’s Vision for 2030. The Plan is supplemented by the detailed background studies in the City of Raleigh **Community Inventory Report**. The reader seeking more background information and data analysis is encouraged to refer to this valuable resource material. The Community Inventory Report is supplemented annually by a condensed set of community data and statistics called the Data Book. # 1.4 Civic Engagement Process Civic Engagement is a central component of the comprehensive planning process. The Department of City Planning has been the lead agency for the update of Raleigh’s Comprehensive Plan, providing a wide variety of civic engagement opportunities and forums throughout the city. These have included public workshops, smaller-scale community meetings, stakeholder roundtables, and online consultation. The centerpiece of the public outreach effort has been a series of nine citywide public workshops held in three rounds of three. The first round of workshops was held in November 2007 to allow public participation in developing the vision and themes to guide the overall planning effort. These workshops were publicized widely in the local news media, including print, radio, and television, as well as the city’s website. Close to 400 members of the community participated in the workshops, responding and reacting to an overview of existing conditions and an assessment of the “State of the City” in small group sessions. More than 150 people participated online in this round. The second round of workshops was held in March 2008, as the effort moved from analysis to policy development. Approximately 250 people attended and participated in these workshops, responding to questionnaires regarding their values related to economic development and equity, growth management, housing, land use, transportation, neighborhood and community development, and sustainability. Another 30 completed the surveys online. The final round of workshops was held in January 2009 to present a Public Review Draft of the Plan to the community. These workshops were conducted in an “open house” format, with opportunities to interact with city staff at booths addressing clusters of specific Plan sections and topics. Approximately 230 members of the public attended these workshops. The entire Plan was made available for review and comment at the city’s interactive website from December 1, 2008 through January 31, 2009. As part of this process, over 1,200 comments were received on the Public Review Draft of this document, with hundreds of substantive changes to the Plan being made in response. A substantial majority of comments were constructive and indicated support for the Plan. These citywide forums have been supplemented by a number of other civic engagement opportunities: * ***Big Ideas Week*** *was held in April 2008 in venues ranging from a tavern at Moore Square to Marbles Kid’s Museum. Approximately 125 people were involved, and came up with creative and transformative ideas at brainstorming sessions about topics such as a World-Class Welcome, City Places for People, Transit for All, Capital Boulevard Redesigned for Living, and Downtown 24/7.* * ***Kids City*** *was held in May 2008. Approximately 600 people (children 10 and under with supervising adults) participated in constructing a city. The children used recycled boxes, construction paper, string, tape, crayons, markers, and other creative tools to construct their ideal city on a grid that spread out over the museum’s first floor. The grid included streets and other transit corridors, greenways, downtown, suburbs, small town, and farm land. Over the course of the day, Raleigh grew from a small 18th century ‘planned’ capital city to a 21[^st] century metro area.* * ***Two public workshops*** *were held at the Urban Design Center in June 2008 to discuss Raleigh’s downtown. They attracted more than 100 participants who identified issues and concerns at the first workshop and potential policies, programs, and projects at the second workshop.* * *In addition, **roundtable discussions** for topic- and issue-focused stakeholders were also held throughout the process to address specific issues and opportunities facing the city. Fourteen such forums were conducted, addressing the Arts Commission, Appearance Commission, Environmental Advisory Board, Affordable Housing, Environmental Sustainability, Developers, Homebuilders, the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce, Cooperating Raleigh Colleges, Raleigh Historic Districts Commission, the Hillsborough Street Partnership, and Complete Streets advocates, among others.* * *The city held **community meetings** and input sessions with Citizens Advisory Councils at their invitation. A total of six such sessions were held, the largest being a joint meeting involving the partnership of the five CACs comprising the Southeast quadrant of Raleigh, which drew about 150 participants.* * *Following the release of the Public Review Draft of the Comprehensive Plan, a total of 14 **public briefings**, consisting of a presentation followed by questions and answers, were held to present the Draft. Three of these were evening sessions, while the remainder also served as briefings to appointed boards and commissions. All were open to the general public.* Introduction * *In addition, the city developed an **interactive website** for the Plan update including a comment function allowing participants to enter comments on draft documents online and view others’ comments. Among the documents that were opened for online review and comment were the summary reports for the November and March workshops, the City of Raleigh Community Inventory Report, and the Public Review Draft of the Comprehensive Plan.* Many residents, governmental agencies, businesses, institutions, and leaders helped shape this Plan. ## 2019 Update An update to the Plan was initiated in 2014 and completed in 2019. The update was the product of a rigorous process involving all city departments, numerous public meetings, and review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The steps in the update are listed below. * ***Due Diligence:** City staff reviewed the data, statistics, trends, and assumptions used as the basis of the original Plan. Where appropriate, more up-to-date facts and analysis were introduced and irrelevant information was removed.* * ***Outreach and In-reach:** Staff solicited input from appointed boards and commissions as well as various city departments to inform the update process about changes to real world conditions and professional standards. The public was engaged through workshops that highlighted emerging conditions, challenges, and desires of the community.* * ***White Paper:** A White Paper was drafted in 2015 and adopted by the City Council in 2016. The White Paper built on the previous steps to make concrete recommendations about new content for the Comprehensive Plan. The public was again engaged through workshops to gather community input and comment.* * ***Plan Drafting:** The City Council authorized city staff in Spring of 2017 to draft revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Preliminary draft documents were circulated among relevant departments for review and comment. Subsequently, a public review draft was released in installments through the Summer of 2017. The public comment period included five public meetings, each focused on a key topic of change to the Plan derived from the White Paper, to share draft content and receive community feedback. Comments collected in-person and online were used to refine the public review draft before City Council review.* The updated Comprehensive Plan more accurately depicts and addresses the current state and future aspirations of Raleigh in the 21ˢᵗ century. section 2 # Framework 2.1 Planning Context and Key Issues.............................................. 2-2 2.2 Growth Forecasts ..................................................................... 2-9 2.3 Vision and Themes ................................................................. 2-11 2.4 Framing Maps......................................................................... 2-13 2.5 The Power of Planning ........................................................... 2-17 The Framework chapter provides the context for the rest of the Comprehensive Plan by describing the key trends and issues that undergird the Plan’s recommendations. These issues include: addressing the city’s expansive growth; the need to better coordinate land use and transportation decision-making; expanding housing choices and the affordable housing supply; ensuring sufficient water resources to support a growing city and region; expanding economic opportunity for all of Raleigh; investing in transit; and preserving and improving the city’s natural resources. The Framework chapter also includes a description of Raleigh’s growth forecasts. The forecasts are expressed in terms of projected jobs and households for the city to the year 2030. It also provides the city’s Vision Statement and six vision themes that provide the frame for the Comprehensive Plan and serve as its overarching goals. Finally, the Framework chapter describes the Growth Framework Map and the Future Land Use Map. ## 2.1 Planning Context and Key Issues A critical part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process has been an analysis of the current and future state of the city. To accomplish this, a Community Inventory Report was compiled at the start of the planning process to provide the factual and analytical foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Inventory Report focuses on the issues facing the city today and through the year 2030. Each topical chapter presents an analysis of existing conditions and trends, identifies key issues and challenges, and highlights potential strategies to address the issues. The reader seeking more background information and data analysis is encouraged to refer to this valuable resource material. The Community Inventory Report is supplemented annually by a condensed set of community data and statistics called the Data Book. This chapter includes data selected from the 2016 Data Book. ### Demographic and Household Trends From its founding as the State Capital in 1792, the City of Raleigh has been on a growth path for more than 200 years. From 1900 to 2010, the City of Raleigh grew from a small town of fewer than 14,000 people to a city of more than 400,000. The city added population in every census year, with an annualized growth rate ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 percent. The annualized growth rate was 3.5 percent in the 1980s, 2.7 percent in the 1990s, and 3.9 percent in the 2000s. The 2010s have seen growth rates closer to 2 percent. As of summer 2015, the city’s population was about 451,000, up 175,000 from 2000. The number of Hispanic residents increased by 26 percent between 2009 and 2014, making them one of the largest components of new residents. # Population Growth 1900-2015 Although population has increased, population density decreased from about 8,000 persons per square mile in 1900 to about 2,800 persons per square mile by 1960 and remained at that general level through the turn of the 21st century. This was largely due to post-war suburbanization, annexation, and expanding city limits. Density increased after 2000 and now exceeds 3,000 persons per square mile. The most prevalent type of housing within Raleigh is single-family detached housing, accounting for 47 percent of the total housing stock. Less than six percent of the city’s housing stock was built prior to 1950, and about 30 percent of the units in existence in 2014 were developed since the turn of the 21st century. A key part of the overall image of the city is defined by the neighborhoods where the pre-1950s era housing is located, and maintaining the viability of this older stock is important to maintaining the city’s character. New housing is being driven by demographic trends, especially the entrance of Millennials into the workforce and the growing number of Baby Boomers living without children in the home. In a growing number of cases, young professionals and “empty-nesters” prefer to live in multi-family housing in denser urban areas. From 2010 to 2015, multi-family housing construction consistently outpaced single-family permits. These trends also explain the rise in Raleigh’s population density. In the past, the city gained new residents and new land area at rates that maintained a lower population density. Now, population is growing faster than the city limits. <
> Homeownership growth in the city has mirrored national trends, having risen from 47 percent in 1990 to nearly 55 percent as of 2014. However, this is below the national average of 66 percent, likely due to the large amount of multi-family rental housing in the city, and its large student and younger population. Raleigh’s population is projected by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) to grow from a 2015 total of 450,000 to about 580,000 in 2030, and more than 600,000 by 2035, an increase of about 30 percent. Greater growth is possible: an analysis of the land capacity within the city’s current jurisdiction, and under current zoning, found the potential for a population of 670,000 within the jurisdictional boundary. # Land Use and Zoning The land use pattern established inside the I-440 Beltline before the 1960s is largely single-family in character with small neighborhood commercial centers outside of downtown. Interconnected curvilinear grids are a common street pattern in many of these areas. Duplex and small multi-family dwellings are often found mixed into otherwise single-family neighborhoods. Cameron Village, which opened in 1949 as one of the first shopping centers in the nation outside of a downtown central business district (CBD), remains the largest of the inside-the-Beltline retail centers. Medium to high density residential and office land uses concentrate around this retail center. The land use pattern outside the Beltline is characterized by residential neighborhoods on loosely connected and cul-de-sac streets. Land uses tend to be separated by buffer yards rather than intentionally designed to transition in scale and use. Multi-family developments are plentiful but tend to be organized as self-contained pods with internal, private circulation systems intermingled with parking areas. Both the single-family and multi-family areas lack the street connectivity that helps facilitate walking, which in turn funnels all car trips to major streets, even for local trips such as grocery shopping, and presents challenges to first responders in emergencies. The market for new development patterns is expanding, and the city has responded by adopting a new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The UDO and the guidance afforded by this Plan are intended to support a high quality, resilient, and sustainable lifestyle while enabling development that helps slow the growth of congestion and the emission of air pollutants. # Economic Development and Employment Trends The economic development analysis provides valuable insight into the city’s employment base and economic strengths and weaknesses. It notes that within the region as a whole, Raleigh’s economy has shifted to one that is more technology-based and less reliant on government and manufacturing. The agricultural and mining industries are two other sectors that have registered losses in Raleigh. The region as a whole, however, is recognized as an economic powerhouse for biotech innovations, medical breakthroughs, technological advancements, state-of-the-art educational institutions, and advanced research—all pivotal factors in its economic performance, with Raleigh partaking significantly in these successes. # Housing and Neighborhoods There is a need for Raleigh to increase housing opportunities for existing and future residents and to create diverse neighborhoods of choice that attract new investment without excluding residents due to housing costs or discriminatory practices. Increasing demand for multi-family housing has put development pressure on established urban neighborhoods. The percentage of Raleigh households burdened by housing costs increased somewhat between 2009 and 2015, with much of that increase affecting renter occupied households with incomes above the poverty line. While the total number of households in Raleigh grew by 16 percent in the period 2009-2015, the number of housing-burdened, renter occupied households with annual incomes greater than $20,000 increased by 62 percent. Nearly two in five households of this type are burdened. In response to the growing demand for housing, the city has created a special tax allocation reserved for affordable housing programs. The “penny for affordable housing” is a one cent per $100 increase in the property tax rate that was first adopted as part of the FY2017 Budget. This dedicated funding stream will increase the city’s capacity to finance new affordable housing developments. Housing is a complex issue requiring appropriate planning and coordination to ensure a diverse and affordable housing stock going forward. ## Transportation The city faces a number of challenges related to planning for and investing in a multi-modal transportation system. As of 2014, the proportion of transit riders in Raleigh was well below the average for peer cities, including Atlanta and Charlotte. Expanding transit will be key to the future viability, sustainability, and livability of the city and region. Additional investments in the greenway system specifically, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure generally, are also important. Roadway capacity and connectivity, providing mobility for automobiles and direct routes for pedestrians, is also important as growth continues and traffic demands increase. The Wake County Transit Plan offers many tools to address Raleigh’s growing transportation needs locally and as part of the Triangle region. Higher frequency bus service, a longer span of service seven days a week, bus rapid transit, and regional commuter rail are the primary components of this plan. Additional transit capacity will enable residents to more easily and affordably access work, shopping, healthcare, and educational resources across Wake, Durham, and Orange Counties. In addition to improving air quality and encouraging physical activity, expanded public transportation will also increase mobility for aging residents. Raleigh has taken the lead by breaking ground on a state-of-the-art rail hub in downtown, called Raleigh Union Station. The success of additional transit improvements will depend on the availability of sufficient funding and effective regional coordination. ## Water The city’s public utilities are regional in nature. Utilities services have merged for all the municipalities in eastern Wake County. Further, the Towns of Fuquay-Varina and Holly Springs periodically rely on the city for potable water supply. The city also has or is planning water interconnects with the Town of Cary, the City of Durham, and Johnston County. From a wastewater standpoint, during extreme low flow events, the city’s Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility (NRRRF) discharge can be up to 40 percent of the river flow at the downstream water supply intake for Johnston County. Planning the infrastructure of the water system must be done with the perspective of the entire region in mind. There is a need to avail all of the opportunities to make additional water system connections with neighboring systems for assistance during drought and other emergency situations. Currently, state inter-basin transfer regulations constrain the ability to pursue new water supplies outside the immediate area, and reuse regulations also make it difficult to access reuse water as a resource to the fullest extent, as reuse water is regulated as wastewater (although the regulatory environment is evolving). Framework ## Environmental Resources The city needs to move ahead in promoting methods of development and conservation that improve the long-term health of human and ecological systems. This includes sustainability efforts such as water conservation, energy conservation, recycling and solid waste management, and environmentally sensitive building and development practices, e.g., green building, low-impact development, and increased protection of natural resources. With air and water quality already impaired, both existing areas and new developments must find ways to lessen their impact if growth is to be accommodated without significant increases in environmental degradation. One approach being investigated by the city is Green Stormwater Infrastructure. Green Stormwater Infrastructure reduces demand for traditional or “gray” infrastructure by restoring and enhancing the functionality of natural systems. The impacts of development can be mitigated when infrastructure services are considered as part of a larger set of environmental processes. Investments in Green Stormwater Infrastructure pay off in both quality of life and financial metrics. The city has initiated a Green Stormwater Infrastructure Task Force to identify opportunities for these techniques. Also important to the long term success of the city is its resilience. Natural hazards can disrupt many of the city’s functions and services. The city should improve its ability to maintain its normal levels of service or adapt effectively to reduced service capabilities in the face of hazards. Resilience may become increasingly important as changes in the Earth’s climate create more extreme and unpredictable weather patterns. The benefits of improved resilience extend beyond preparation for natural hazards. By increasing readiness and planning for contingencies, Raleigh can respond to other events like industrial disasters or terrorist attacks. ## Parks, Recreation, and Greenways The City of Raleigh has an extensive parks, recreation, and greenway system that encompasses approximately 8,800 acres of land (of 90,000 acres in Raleigh’s municipal boundaries). This inventory was expanded in 2015 by the city’s purchase of the Dorothea Dix Park. The city is in the early phases of converting this 308 acre site into a destination park. The addition of the Dorothea Dix Campus is one way the city is continuing to offer the open spaces and active living facilities it needs to maintain desired levels of service. Acquisition priorities like the Dorothea Dix Campus and the programming for it and other park facilities will have to strike a balance. The city must allocate limited resources between recreation and leisure needs and efforts to promote the preservation of non-programmed open space and green infrastructure essential to addressing the environmental impacts of growth and development. Ideally, both goals can work in concert. Framework <
> ## Community Facilities A community facility is established primarily for the benefit and service of the population of the community in which it is located. Uses include but are not limited to schools, community centers, aquatic facilities, libraries, police stations, fire stations, and government buildings. The demand for new schools, based on the rapid growth in school-aged population, is stressing the County’s ability to plan for and build schools. Other community facilities also must be addressed to keep pace with development. ## Historic Resources In its built environment, Raleigh visually documents the architectural, social, and cultural legacies of virtually every era of development as well as the diverse communities that form Raleigh’s heritage. Its growth and history can be traced through Joel Lane’s 1767 residence, the 1792 William Christmas plan, its early infrastructure-building period between 1875 and 1900, its growth from a town to a city between 1900 and 1920, its boom years in the 1920s, the depression years that followed and the post WW-II recovery years until 1965. Raleigh was a small town for much of its history; its tremendous growth occurred since 1950, and predominantly during the last 25 years. As a result, Raleigh’s historic fabric is a scarce resource requiring special effort to ensure its preservation. Framework # Map F-1: Residential Growth <
> ### Housing Units Added per Acre Since 2010, by Census Block Group (through 2018) | | | | | |---|---|---|---| | | 0 Units per Acre | | 1 to 2 Units per Acre | | | < 1/2 Unit per Acre | | > 2 Units per Acre | | | 1/2 to 1 Unit per Acre | | Outside City Limits | Map created 7/19/2019 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # 2.2 Growth Forecasts ### Past Growth Trends The 20th century saw Raleigh grow from a small town of fewer than 14,000 people to a city of more than 270,000. The city added population in every census year, with an annualized growth rate ranging from 2.0 to 4.3 percent. Growth is nothing new to Raleigh; however, the long-term exponential growth trend of the city means that the magnitude of growth in terms of total new population added has gotten larger each decade. Historical growth trends are shown in Table F-1. While nearly every part of Raleigh has experienced some growth, much of the city’s recent residential growth has been concentrated in three areas with the greatest amount of vacant land. These are the northwestern and northeastern fringe areas, which include large-scale developments such as Brier Creek and Wakefield, and to a lesser extent southeast Raleigh. These trends are illustrated on Map F-1. ### Figure F-1 Population Projections, Raleigh Corporate Limits, 2010 – 2040 <
> Source: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ### Table F-1 Population Growth, Land Area, and Density, City of Raleigh, 1900 - 2015 | Year | Population | APGR* | Land Area | Population Density | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1900 | 13,643 | -- | 1.76 | 7,765 | | 1910 | 19,218 | 3.5% | 4.03 | 4,773 | | 1920 | 24,418 | 2.4% | 6.96 | 3,508 | | 1930 | 37,379 | 4.3% | 7.25 | 5,153 | | 1940 | 46,879 | 2.3% | 7.25 | 6,463 | | 1950 | 65,679 | 3.4% | 10.88 | 6,035 | | 1960 | 93,931 | 3.6% | 33.67 | 2,790 | | 1970 | 122,830 | 2.7% | 44.93 | 2,734 | | 1980 | 150,255 | 2.0% | 55.17 | 2,724 | | 1990 | 212,092 | 3.5% | 91.40 | 2,321 | | 2000 | 276,093 | 2.7% | 118.71 | 2,326 | | 2010 | 406,499 | 3.9% | 143.77 | 2,801 | | 2015 | 451,066 | 2.1% | 146.52 | 3,078 | Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Raleigh Department of City Planning (*Annualized Percent Growth Rate) ### Future Growth #### Population and Households Raleigh’s population is projected by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) to grow from a 2015 total of 450,000 to about 580,000 in 2030, and almost 650,000 by 2040, an increase of more than 40 percent. The entire county is expected to more than double in population over the same time period. These growth projects are illustrated in Figure F-1. The household projections for Raleigh and Wake County mirror the population projections. Raleigh’s total number of households is projected to grow from a 2014 total of 180,000 to about 240,000 by 2035, an increase of over 30 percent. These growth forecasts, if realized, would correspond to a significant decrease in the rate of Raleigh’s growth, although the absolute growth of about 100,000 per decade is comparable to the past two decades. Analysis of the city’s land capacity has found no physical impediment to reaching a population of 670,000 by 2030 within the city’s current jurisdiction, based on current zoning and assuming development takes place mostly on vacant land (note that the CAMPO forecast includes land outside of the city’s jurisdiction in the future annexation areas, or Urban Service Areas). Further, if Raleigh were to continue to grow at its historic 100-year average of 3.2 percent per year, its population would reach 800,000 by 2030. For these reasons, the CAMPO forecasts are considered by the city to be conservative. ### Jobs The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) has issued employment projections through 2035 for the broader Triangle Region. Employment in Raleigh is expected to increase from about 314,000 jobs in 2010 to 423,000 by 2040, an increase of 35 percent (or 1 percent annually). Over the same time period, Wake County employment is projected to grow by 56 percent, from 498,000 to 778,000 jobs. These figures are consistent with population and household growth for the same time period. Raleigh provides the majority of the Raleigh/Cary metropolitan area’s employment, though growth will continue to spread into Cary, smaller towns, and unincorporated areas of Wake County as well as neighboring counties. ## Future Growth and Development Capacity According to state law, Raleigh can exercise “extra-territorial jurisdiction” over development and zoning decisions for land areas up to three miles beyond its current boundaries, subject to County approval. As of 2014, within the city’s current limits and its extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ), approximately 16,700 acres are available as undeveloped land—defined as vacant or under-developed land zoned for residential, commercial, and open space uses. Based on recent development trends and assumptions that future densities will replicate maximum zoning allowances, Raleigh’s developable land area could potentially yield 86,000 dwelling units and 52 million square feet of non-residential development. Based on a straight line projection of recent absorption rates, it may take about 15 years for this amount of development capacity to be absorbed. However, this 15-year development capacity within the city’s ETJ does not take into account potential infill and redevelopment within older portions of Raleigh or zoning changes that could increase densities. For more information on population, household, and employment growth and development capacity, please refer to the City of Raleigh Data Book, available at www.RaleighNC.gov. Framework # 2.3 Vision and Themes The issues identified above and public feedback from workshops helped develop a vision for Raleigh’s future that provides the framework for the development of the Comprehensive Plan. The Vision Statement is supplemented by six themes that serve as the Plan’s goals. ## Raleigh’s Vision Statement for 2030 Raleigh will be a city that values and fosters development that provides economic prosperity, housing opportunity, and equity for all Raleigh residents. Raleigh will embody environmental conservation, energy efficiency, and sustainable development. Raleigh will be a great place to live with distinctive and attractive neighborhoods, plentiful parks and green spaces, quality schools and educational opportunities, and a vibrant downtown. ## Vision Themes Six key themes reinforce Raleigh’s Vision for 2030 and serve as this Plan’s overall goals: Economic Prosperity and Equity; Expanding Housing Choices; Managing Our Growth; Coordinating Land Use and Transportation; Greenprint Raleigh—Sustainable Development; and Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. They express and reinforce the major concerns the Plan seeks to address and the issues raised by the public. <
> **Economic Prosperity and Equity** Raleigh will embrace and value diversity, innovation, and equity so that there is a high level of opportunity and quality of life for all residents. All areas of the city and its residents will prosper from Raleigh’s economic expansion. Raleigh will be nationally known for its cluster of high-tech, clean-tech, and green-tech research and development firms based on cooperative relationships among local universities, government, and private firms. Raleigh’s skilled labor force will attract businesses that take advantage of the highly educated and technically oriented residents, which in turn will continue to fuel the development of quality residential and employment opportunities. Expanded educational and training programs will provide the opportunity for all of Raleigh’s population to participate in the expanding economy. We will also embrace creative economic sectors, and our city will be enlivened with nationally-regarded arts groups, performance spaces, and residents employed in creative occupations that will enhance our economy, community, and the quality of our lives. <
> **Expanding Housing Choices** Raleigh will have an expanded supply of affordable and workforce housing options that provide housing opportunities for all segments of our population in all areas of the city. This expanded supply of decent affordable housing will provide stability for families, improve opportunities for education and career advancement, and reduce homelessness for low and moderate income households. A range of housing types will be available in residential zoning districts to meet the needs of diverse households and remove barriers created by exclusionary housing practices. <
> **Managing Our Growth** Raleigh will foster quality growth through more integrated land uses, alternative transportation modes, green building technologies and development practices, open space acquisition, and resource conservation. We will manage growth and provide desirable spaces and places to live, work, and play while also cooperating with other jurisdictions in the region. Adequate infrastructure will be planned and in place as development comes on line. Framework ### Coordinating Land Use and Transportation <
> Raleigh will coordinate its transportation investments with desired land use patterns to plan more effectively for housing, employment and retail uses, and for public services. Higher density residential and mixed-use development, with housing options at all levels of affordability, will provide the land use pattern and the diverse customer base needed to support successful new local and regional public transit services. We will also have additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities and roadways that better serve us all. ### Greenprint Raleigh — Sustainable Development <
> Raleigh will be nationally recognized as a model green city. Environmental sustainability and stewardship—the protection and wise use of resources for existing residents and future generations—will be institutionalized. Individuals, institutions, businesses, and government will work together and enhance the natural environment through policies, decisions, and investments. The city will significantly improve its environmental policy framework and land management practices; protect sensitive lands; and preserve water, air, and land resources. Land use policy and regulation will prioritize strategies that reduce carbon emissions and improve community health, such as allowing more density in walkable places near transit and allowing more energy-efficient housing types across the city. ### Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities <
> Growth and development will be accommodated within Raleigh through creative solutions that conserve our unique neighborhoods while improving access for families and individuals with varying levels of income by diversifying permitted building types. Allowing existing neighborhoods in high opportunity areas with convenient access to employment and commercial amenities, like the inner beltline suburbs, to develop with a variety of housing types will improve access to families with broader ranges of incomes. This will also help to expand our local businesses by providing them with more potential customers and employees. The city's older neighborhoods will be conserved and enhanced through careful infill development that allows a range of housing types while complementing existing built character and responding to natural features. Places of historic and architectural significance will be protected through the application of character protection zoning overlay districts. Newly developed areas, including infill development and redevelopment projects of all sizes, will create more diverse, walkable neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and convenient access to open space, community services, retail, and employment. Allowing neighborhoods to change to provide housing for families at all income levels is strongly encouraged. # 2.4 Framing Maps Taken together, the context and key issues, growth forecasts, and vision and themes provide a foundation for planning the future of Raleigh. The Plan sections following the Framework chapter examine these conditions in much more detail and provide the roadmap to addressing Raleigh’s growth and development. The text of these elements is supplemented by two maps providing essential land use and development guidance. The Growth Framework Map shows where the city will encourage infill and mixed-use development, and defines priority corridors based on transportation function and relationship to adjacent land uses. This map is fully described in this section. It sets forth a vision for how Raleigh should grow and also has implications for the management of transportation corridors and their relationship to adjacent land uses. The Future Land Use Map shows the general character and distribution of recommended and planned uses across the city. This map carries the same legal weight as the text of the Comprehensive Plan. It is introduced in this Framework chapter and its use and application are described in Section 1: ‘Land Use.’ ## Growth Framework Map The Growth Framework Map represents a vision for accommodating the next 120,000 households and 170,000 jobs anticipated for Raleigh by 2030. Under current zoning and assuming largely greenfield development, this amount of growth could be entirely accommodated within the city’s jurisdiction, but would result in a centerless and undifferentiated pattern of sprawling development. The Growth Framework Map seeks to direct a full 60 percent of this future growth into downtown and a series of 7 city growth centers, 4 Bus Rapid Transit corridors, and over 40 mixed-use community centers, connected via a network of parkways, frequent bus service routes, and urban streets. Of this 60 percent allocation of the city’s projected growth, half should be accommodated within the four Bus Rapid Transit corridors. ## Growth Framework Elements: Centers The Growth Framework proposes a hierarchy of four types of centers. *Downtown Regional Center:* Encompassing the existing and future limits of Raleigh’s urban core, stretching south towards I-40 and north along Capital Boulevard, the Downtown Regional Center is where the most intense growth and highest levels of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access are contemplated. Consistent with the eastward shift of regional growth patterns, the Downtown Regional Center emerges as a true hub for a rapidly growing region, served by highways, rail transit, high-speed intercity rail, and local and express bus. *City Growth Centers:* Located throughout the city and along major urban and transit corridors, these centers provide significant opportunities for new residential and economic development and redevelopment. City Growth Centers are generally in locations with combined highway and targeted transit access, such as key interchanges along the I-440 Beltline and the I-540 Outer Loop. These centers include New Bern/Wake Med; Crabtree Valley; an expanded “Midtown” linking North Hills with the Highwoods office park and stretching south of the Beltline to embrace significant redevelopment opportunities at the terminus of Six Forks Road; Triangle Town Center; and Brier Creek. The Cameron Village area is also designated as a City Growth Center. *Bus Rapid Transit Areas:* Defined as the areas within one-quarter mile of streets where Bus Rapid Transit service is proposed, these elongated centers are programmed for increased density and special design standards promoting enhanced pedestrian mobility and reduced parking requirements. There is some overlap with City Growth Centers and the Downtown Regional Center. *Mixed-use Community Centers*: Located generally at places where transit and urban corridors intersect, and where there is an existing base of mixed-uses, these centers are targeted for infill development and improvements to urban design and connectivity intended to retrofit them over time as more integrated, walkable centers. Examples include the Six Forks Station area, the intersections where Millbrook crosses major north-south corridors, and various aging shopping areas in Southwest and Southeast Raleigh along New Bern Avenue and Western Boulevard corridors. ## Growth Framework Element: Corridors A simple hierarchy of corridors is proposed. *Highway corridors* correspond to limited-access, grade-separated roadways designed to accommodate high-volume and higher-speed regional traffic flows. These include highways such as Interstates 40, 87, 440, and 540; upgraded federal and state highways; and roadways programmed for such improvements in the future, such as U.S. 1 north of I-540. Long-standing policies, continued under this Plan and implemented through the use of Special Highway Overlay Districts (or SHODs), call for these corridors to be separated from adjacent uses by wide, forested evergreen buffers, and for off-premises signs such as billboards to be prohibited. Transit services along highways would generally consist of express bus service and, in the future, incentives for car pooling. *Urban corridors* are characterized by denser residential and commercial development, with buildings brought forward to meet the street and sidewalk, and parking areas located to the side and/or rear of buildings. More than a single bay of parking between streets and buildings is strongly discouraged. Architecture is used to frame the public realm, and urban design rather than landscaped buffers is preferred as a means of integrating adjacent development which differs in use or scale. Urban corridors also generally host at least local bus service. An example of such a corridor is Peace Street. *Frequent Bus Network corridors* are similar to urban corridors in terms of development pattern and landscape approach, but are targeted for a higher level of transit service as part of the Wake County Transit Plan. In addition, many of these corridors have been highlighted for bicycle improvements in the city’s Bicycle Master Plan. Based on the level of transit service provided, development intensities are expected to be higher, and parking requirements to be lower, with a greater emphasis on shared parking. Pedestrian amenities within developments along Frequent Bus Network corridors should be built to a higher level than other corridors. An example of such a corridor is Blue Ridge Road. *Parkway corridors* are suburban roadways characterized by thick tree canopies and abundant landscaping. Buildings are generally set back further from the street, and pedestrian and transit access are not as prominent as on other corridors, although bus service may be present along parkways. Adjoining land uses are primarily residential with locally-serving commercial. An example of such a corridor is Lynn Road. *Commuter Rail corridor* is an existing portion of freight rail track that is proposed by the Wake County Transit Plan to carry heavy rail service with schedules aligned with peak commuting hours. Initial service will connect the Downtown Regional Center with Cary. Additional service is envisioned to carry riders between the Downtown Regional Center and destinations in Johnston County. Framework Map F-2: # Growth Framework <
> | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ■ Downtown Regional Center | — Highway | ....... Parkway Corridor Proposed | ═ Frequent Bus Network | | ■ City Growth Center | ....... Highway Proposed | | ▬ Commuter Rail | | ■ Mixed Use Community Center | — Urban Corridor | | - - - Commuter Rail Proposed | | ▬ Bus Rapid Transit Corridor | ....... Urban Corridor Proposed | | ■ Raleigh Jurisdiction | | ■ Greenprint | — Parkway Corridor | | | Map created 2/28/2024 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning <
> *Urban Corridor on Capital Boulevard* ## Growth Framework Map: Usage and Applicability The elements of the Growth Framework Map described above do not carry specific policy implications and only acquire the force of policy via references to the map in the policy statements of the Plan sections. The intent is to implement the vision for growth and connectivity illustrated on the Map through more specific policy tools, such as the Future Land Use Map and the Urban Form Map; and through amendments to the city’s ordinances, such as the adoption of special overlay districts to implement the preferred development pattern along particular segments of designated Frequent Bus Network, Urban, and Parkway corridors. The center designations do not carry with them any recommendations for specific uses, heights, or densities for particular parcels, and will not be used by the city as part of the review of any zoning map amendment or development plan. Likewise, the corridor designations correspond to the general character and usage of corridors, but the implementation of the corridor vision will include a more detailed specific examination of the unique character of specific corridor segments. <
> <
> <
> *From top to bottom: Parkway, Frequent Bus Network, and Bus Rapid Transit corridors* <
> *Interstate 440 with a SHOD forested buffer.* ## Future Land Use Map The Future Land Use Map is the centerpiece of the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan and the primary means to shape Raleigh’s future growth. It sets forth the planned development pattern of the city from now until 2030. The Future Land Use Map is a policy tool designed to guide future decision-making. It provides the geographic framework for the city’s land use and zoning policies. The Future Land Use Map is used alongside the Plan’s written policies to determine whether specific petitions for rezoning are consistent with the Plan. It is also used to develop geographically-detailed projections for the future growth of the city, which in turn will be used to plan for roads, transit, parks, utilities, and community facilities such as police stations and libraries. A total of 19 land use categories are designated on the Future Land Use Map, including: five residential categories, five mixed use categories, three employment categories, two public and institutional categories, two park and open space categories, and two special categories. These categories and the application and use of the Future Land Use Map are explained in the Land Use Section. # 2.5 The Power of Planning Given the extensive engagement of the citizenry in the update of this Comprehensive Plan and widespread support of its key goals, the impact of the Plan and the plan-making process will have far-reaching effects on everyone who lives or works in Raleigh. It will affect where and how development occurs; where green space, recreation facilities, and parks are improved; how enhanced transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are implemented; and how neighborhoods are conserved and enhanced as desirable places to live. It is also hoped that it will serve as a model for future plans, both large and small, undertaken by the City of Raleigh. (blank page) section 3 # Land Use 3.1 Future Land Uses........................................................................... 3-9 3.2 Citywide Growth ........................................................................... 3-19 3.3 Annexation, Extra-territorial Jurisdiction and Urban Service Area ............................................................. 3-21 3.4 Equitable Development Around Transit .................................... 3-24 3.5 Land Use Compatibility................................................................ 3-33 3.6 Mixed-use Development.............................................................. 3-35 3.7 Commercial Districts and Corridors........................................... 3-36 3.8 Neighborhood Conservation and Development ...................... 3-38 3.9 Research and Development/Institutional Land Uses ..... 3-42 3.10 Retail Land Uses .......................................................................... 3-43 3.11 Industrial Land Uses.................................................................... 3-45 3.12 Large Site Development.............................................................. 3-46 Land use defines a community’s physical form and function and provides a framework for all infrastructure related decisions, including transportation, economic development, public utilities, community facilities, parks, and environmental protection. The Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan provides the critical foundation upon which all other elements are based. It includes a Future Land Use Map and related policies and actions to guide growth and development in a more compact and efficient pattern during the coming decades. This element also includes a summary of existing land uses and zoning, future growth projections and development capacity, and annexation and jurisdictional boundaries. Raleigh’s predominant pattern of land use since 1950 has been one of low-density development with residential uses separated from non-residential uses. This suburban development pattern occurred beyond the inner-ring suburbs surrounding downtown Raleigh in tandem with highway expansion and infrastructure extension, and attracted investment away from downtown Raleigh and older neighborhoods. Since 1980, Raleigh’s auto-dependent suburban growth has become more prevalent and continued further beyond the Beltline (I-440), the first interstate highway spur around the city. From 1980 to 2014, the city’s population nearly tripled from about 150,000 to 440,000. During the same period the city’s land area also almost tripled in size from about 55 to 140 square miles. From 1980 to 2000 the city’s land areas grew faster than its population, but recent growth and development patterns show that the city’s density is increasing. # Existing Land Use and Zoning Raleigh’s existing land use patterns are illustrated on Map LU-1: Existing Land Use. Low-density single-family development is the dominant land use in Raleigh, representing 34,000 acres, or 34 percent of the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction as of 2015, excluding public right of way. This use, more than any other, drives land consumption patterns in Raleigh and requires continued investment in road capacity and water and sewer infrastructure. The second largest land use category is vacant land, which accounts for 20,000 acres, or 20 percent of the city’s total land area. One of Raleigh’s major land use challenges will be to shape the development and conservation of this significant available land resource. The third-largest land use is parks and open space, at 12.5 percent of the city’s land area; however, nearly half of this amount is located within William B. Umstead State Park. The next largest land uses include institutional uses – state, county, and city government, universities, and hospitals – and multifamily residential. The prevalence of institutional uses highlights the need to carefully coordinate the growth of these large employment sectors. Another substantial land use is commercial, including retail, office, and other uses, which makes up ten percent of Raleigh. The majority of the city’s commercial uses are located within mixed-use activity centers – downtown Raleigh, North Hills, and Crabtree Valley – and along commercial corridors. Other land uses in the city include industrial and infrastructure. Raleigh’s Unified Development Ordinance, which replaced the former development code, divides the entirety of the city’s planning jurisdiction into zoning districts, each with their own standards for use, bulk, form, and other site development regulations. Map LU-2 shows Raleigh’s existing zoning. As of 2014, nearly two-thirds of Raleigh’s jurisdictional land area is residentially zoned, and approximately 55 percent of this area is zoned for single-family development only. Approximately 25 percent of the city is zoned for a mix of uses, and nearly all the mixed-use zones permit residential development. Of the city’s mixed-use zoning districts, only Office Park, which accounts for just 0.5 percent of the mixed-use districts total, does not permit residential use. Approximately 11 percent of the city is zoned for industrial uses but only four percent contains industrial development, as office and retail uses are also permitted as-of- right within industrially-zoned land. Conditional use zoning, a special tool that allows landowners seeking a rezoning to add conditions over and above the underlying zoning standards, applies to 16 percent of the city’s land area. These additional standards are part of the zoning ordinance, and are also kept as individual case files associated with particular rezonings. Overall, the city’s Unified Development Ordinance provides the public with greater clarity and simplicity than what was offered with the previous development code. ### Table LU-1 Land Use Allocation, City of Raleigh Planning Jurisdiction | Land Use (within ETJ, excluding right of way) | Parcels | Acres[^p41-2] | Percentage | | :--- | ---: | ---: | ---: | | Residential - Single-family | 88,960 | 34,409 | 34.4% | | Vacant | 8,990 | 19,656 | 19.6% | | Parks, Greenways, Open Space | 3,134 | 12,539 | 12.5% | | Residential - Apartment, Condominium | 1,979 | 6,465 | 6.5% | | Industrial | 1,421 | 5,638 | 5.6% | | Civic | 476 | 5,264 | 5.3% | | Office | 1,240 | 3,779 | 3.8% | | Retail | 762 | 2,371 | 2.4% | | Residential - Townhouse, Duplex | 26,449 | 2,203 | 2.2% | | Residential - Manufactured, Group Living, Social Service | 129 | 1,273 | 1.2% | | Agriculture | 14 | 1,084 | 1.1% | | Mixed Use | 115 | 124 | .1% | | Other [^p41-3] | 1,591 | 5,337 | 5.3% | | **TOTAL** | **135,260** | **100,142** | **100%** | *City of Raleigh, Department of City Planning, 2016* [^p41-2]: Does not include public right of way. The city’s total area, including extraterritorial jurisdiction, covers approximately 115,000 acres [^p41-3]: All other use categories # Map LU-1: Existing Land Use <
> | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ![Residential Color] | Residential | ![Mixed Use Color] | Mixed Use | | ![Public and Institutional Color] | Public and Institutional | ![Open Color] | Open | | ![Commercial Color] | Commercial | ![Vacant Color] | Vacant | | ![Industrial Color] | Industrial | | | Map created 8/12/2025 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development # Map LU-2: Existing Zoning <
> ### Base Districts | | | | :--- | :--- | | | Residential | | | Mixed Use* | | | Special | ### Overlay Districts | | | | :--- | :--- | | | Transit | | | Character Protection | | | Corridor | | | Environmental | | | Parking | \*Raleigh's Mixed Use Zoning Districts include components for Height and Frontage requirements (not displayed). See Raleigh's Unified Development Ordinance for additional information. Map created 4/12/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development ## Annexation and Jurisdictional Boundaries The City of Raleigh incorporated in 1792 with 400 acres of land, and has expanded its jurisdictional boundaries through annexation. From 1950 to 2000, Raleigh increased its physical size from 6,974 acres to 75,972 acres. In the subsequent 15 years, more than 17,000 acres have been added to the city’s limits. Today, Raleigh contains over 93,000 acres of land. This is similar in size to the cities of Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Portland, Oregon. However, Raleigh has the potential to annex an additional 22,305 acres (35 square miles) within its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), an area outside of the incorporated limits where the city has been granted land use authority by Wake County for the purposes of providing for the orderly development of areas programmed for future annexation in the short term. The city’s annexation expansion has been accompanied by major water and sewer extensions and completion of the southern Beltline (I-40) and portions of the Northern Wake Expressway (I-540). Based on Wake County’s approval to extend water and sewer infrastructure and create a future Urban Service Area (USA), Raleigh also has the potential to annex an additional 18,649 acres beyond its current ETJ. No additional land area is available beyond these limits due to annexation agreements with neighboring jurisdictions that have essentially assigned all of Wake County outside of existing and planned water supply watersheds into urbanizing areas. Therefore, Raleigh has the ability to annex over 41,000 acres (64 square miles), for an ultimate size of approximately 134,700 acres or 210 square miles. Similarly-sized cities include Columbus, Ohio and Tucson, Arizona. Between 1990 and 2010, Raleigh averaged an annexation rate of approximately 1,900 acres per year. At that rate, it would take approximately 22 years to absorb the remaining 41,000 acres of land area with annexation potential. This timeframe generally corresponds to the time horizon of this Comprehensive Plan. However, the rate of annexation slowed significantly following changes in 2012 to state law regarding annexation. Moreover, since this Comprehensive Plan is based on the desire for a more compact and walkable development pattern with residential, retail, services, and jobs located more closely together, the land available for development should last much longer than 22 years. Please refer to ‘*3.3 Annexation, ETJ and USA*’ in this Land Use Section for related recommendations related to annexation. For policies related to regional and inter-jurisdiction cooperation, please refer to *Section 14: ‘Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination.’* ## Future Land Use Map Raleigh’s desired future land use patterns are shown on the Future Land Use Map, which provides the land use foundation for this Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map indicates the intended distribution and intensity of land uses over the next 20 years to achieve the following objectives: * *Provide greater land use predictability and transparency.* * *Incorporate recommended land uses from area plans.* * *Use a nomenclature that is reasonably compatible with the Wake County Comprehensive Plan and the plans for adjacent jurisdictions.* * *Advance Raleigh’s Vision and Themes, as described in the Framework Section.* * *Create a logical framework for future zoning and development.* The Future Land Use Map is part of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and carries the same legal weight as the Plan document itself. The Future Land Use Map uses color-coded categories to express public policy on future land uses across the city. Its land use designations have been drawn based on existing and desired development patterns, streets, parcel lines, environmental features, and other logical boundaries. For guidance on how to use the Future Land Use Map and policies related to its interpretation and relation to zoning evaluations, please refer to ‘3.1 Future Land Uses’ of this Land Use Section. ## Primary Land Use Issues The land use element provides guidance to enhance existing neighborhoods throughout the city, which requires an emphasis on conservation in some neighborhoods and revitalization in others. It also provides guidance to create vibrant, new walkable neighborhoods; reduce auto- dependency; increase the viability of transit, walking, and biking through design and management of land uses; accommodate density while respecting desired neighborhood character and providing usable open space; increase mixed- use development; focus development close to already developed areas rather than in greenfield locations further out; focus development within designated centers and transit corridors; coordinate development so that it fits-in with existing patterns; and provide for ways to ensure compatibility of land uses while still accommodating the uses that make Raleigh a thriving residential and employment center within the Triangle region. By 2030, Raleigh is projected to grow by approximately 150,000 people. It has a remaining growth area of 64 square miles based on current annexation agreements. The city is poised to continue a high level of population growth because of its positive quality-of-life factors: a location for high-tech jobs; a highly-educated population; excellent universities and quality public school system; the diversity of its housing; relatively mild winters; and a revitalizing downtown. However, the last 50 years of suburban growth and new global issues—energy insecurity and climate change—have created a cumulative challenge of interrelated land use issues that Raleigh will need to address over the coming years. The following are the main land use issues addressed in this Land Use Section: * *Key corridors in gateway locations have become over-developed for commercial use, becoming lined with under-performing strip retail and services, creating the need and opportunity for mixed-use redevelopment.* * *Annexation and utility extensions have led to sprawling and leapfrog development patterns, even as lands inside the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) provide for ample development capacity.* * *Lack of coordination between land use and transportation planning and investment has led to increased congestion and an underperforming transit system.* * *Though recent development patterns have improved bikeability and walkability in the city, most Raleigh residents live in neighborhoods where jobs, goods, services, and recreation are not walkable or bikeable, even if these resources are close by, due to the lack of integration between uses.* * *Proposed regional rail and local bus rapid transit stations need appropriate planning and zoning in place to ensure transit-supportive development patterns.* * *Growth, changing demographics, and an evolving economy require a greater diversity of housing choices in both infill locations and in new neighborhoods.* * *Demand for denser and more intense development in infill locations and near established neighborhoods raises issues of land use compatibility.* * *A shift to more environmentally sustainable building practices is necessary to reduce the city’s air and water pollution and its demand for energy and water.* * *The city’s economic future requires additional development opportunities for research and development firms, institutions, and hospitals.* As described in the Framework chapter, Raleigh’s Vision for 2030 is structured to address these land use issues through six vision themes or citywide goals. By concentrating growth into mixed-use centers and creating more accessible communities citywide, Raleigh will help meet its goal for *Economic Prosperity and Equity*. Through a broader range of housing-related land use policies and programs, Raleigh plans to meet its goal for *Expanding Housing Choices*. Through more compact forms of development and new rural and open space policies, Raleigh will meet its overarching goal of *Managing Our Growth*. By implementing a citywide and regional transit system that is connected with pedestrian and bike-friendly communities, Raleigh will be closer to its goal of effectively *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*. Through citywide policies and programs for green building, green infrastructure, and resource conservation and preservation, Raleigh will become a national leader with its *Greenprint Raleigh* paradigm. Lastly, through a series of ordinance and subdivision changes to accommodate a smart growth model of planning and development, Raleigh will reach its goal of *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity <
> Expanding Housing Choices <
> Managing Our Growth <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation <
> Greenprint Raleigh <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # 3.1 Future Land Uses Raleigh is a growing city both in terms of the number of residents and jobs and its physical growth and land area. Raleigh’s Future Land Use Map (Map LU-3) builds upon the city’s existing land use patterns and provides a generalized guide for development and conservation decisions. The Future Land Use Map is further defined below. For guidance on the application and use of the Future Land Use Map as it relates to zoning applications, see the text box entitled “Evaluating Zoning Proposals and Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan” later in this section. * *The Future Land Use Map is a generalized depiction of intended uses in the horizon year of the Comprehensive Plan, roughly 15 years in the future. It is not an “existing land use map,” although in many cases future uses in an area may be the same as those that exist today.* * *The Future Land Use Map is not a zoning map. Whereas zoning maps are parcel-specific, and establish detailed requirements for setbacks, height, use, parking, and other attributes, the land use categories of the Future Land Use Map recommend a range of potentially appropriate land uses and intensities. By definition, the Future Land Use Map is a guide to future zoning decisions. Related, the Future Land Use Map is not intended to be referenced as part of the site plan review process, since the zoning regulations set forth the permitted uses for particular parcels.* * *Streets and public rights-of-way are not an explicit land use category on the Future Land Use Map. Within any given area, the streets that pass through are assigned the same designation as the adjacent uses.* ## Definition of Future Land Use Categories Raleigh’s Future Land Use Map contains 19 color-coded categories that express public policy on future land uses throughout the city as described below: ### Residential Categories **Rural Residential** (1 unit per acre and under) This category is generally mapped over areas zoned “R-1” (or areas in the ETJ/USA with rural residential land use designations and rural county zoning) where intensification to more urban uses is not expected due to watershed constraints and existing fragmented parcel patterns. Rural Residential areas are generally developed with “ranchettes,” hobby farms, estates, large-lot subdivisions, or conservation subdivisions with large common open space areas. Civic uses such as churches and police or fire stations are also consistent with this category. The intent of this designation is to preserve the rural character of these areas and achieve compatible resource conservation objectives such as watershed conservation and tree protection. Gross densities in these areas would be one unit per acre or less, although clustered housing on large tracts could result in pockets of more densely developed land. **Low Scale Residential** This category encompasses most of the city’s neighborhoods that are primarily made up of detached houses on lots of roughly one-sixth of an acre or larger, although duplexes or small apartments may also exist. This category envisions a range of housing types, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and other small apartment buildings, and townhouses, but at a scale that generally follows the precedent set by existing detached houses, missing middle types, or townhouses in these areas. It includes the R-2, R-4, and R-6 zoning districts. It also identifies vacant or agricultural lands—in the city and in the county—where residential use at a similar scale is planned over the next 20 years. As defined in the zoning regulations, manufactured home parks could also be appropriate in this land use category. In areas within the Core Transit Area on the Urban Form Map, RX-3 is appropriate. Portions of a development may be developed more intensively in exchange for an open space set aside, as with a Conservation Development. ### Moderate Scale Residential This category applies to many of the city’s older residential neighborhoods, plus newer master-planned communities which typically contain a mix of housing types, including small-lot detached houses and many traditional examples of “missing middle” housing types. It also applies to suburban townhouse and garden apartment communities that would benefit from enhanced walkability. As with Low Scale Residential, this category envisions a range of housing types, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and other small apartment buildings, and townhouses. Scale would follow existing precedents of detached and missing middle housing in the area. Corresponding zoning districts are R-6 and R-10. RX-3 is also appropriate when controls or conditions that address building mass are included, such as a Detached frontage or limiting the number of units in a single building to no more than 24. In areas served by high levels of transit, RX-3 or RX-4 may be appropriate. In some instances, small-scale commercial uses allowed in RX districts are appropriate. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Section policies, including Table LU-2, should be consulted for additional guidance. ### Medium Scale Residential This category applies to garden apartments, townhomes, condominiums, and suburban style apartment complexes. It would also apply to older neighborhoods with a mix of single-family and multifamily housing. RX zoning with a three- or four-story height limit is appropriate for these areas. In some instances, small-scale commercial uses allowed in RX districts may be appropriate. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Section policies should be consulted for additional guidance. ### Higher Scale Residential This category would apply to apartment buildings and condominiums. Conforming zoning would consist of the RX district with a height limit of five to 12 stories, depending on location and context. Other zoning districts which permit multifamily housing, appropriately conditioned, could be conforming as well. Although this is a residential zone, ground floor retail uses (with upper story housing) may be appropriate under certain circumstances. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Section policies should be consulted for additional guidance. ## Mixed Use Categories ### Office & Residential Mixed Use This category is applied primarily to frontage lots along major streets where low-density residential uses are no longer appropriate, as well as office parks and developments suitable for a more mixed-use development pattern. This category encourages a mix of residential and office use. Retail not ancillary to employment and/or residential uses is discouraged so that retail can be more appropriately clustered and concentrated in retail and mixed-use centers at major intersections and planned transit stations. OX is the closest corresponding zoning district. Heights would generally be limited to four stories when near neighborhoods, with additional height allowed for larger sites and locations along major corridors where adjacent uses would not be adversely impacted. Higher-impact uses such as hotels and hospitals are not contemplated or recommended in this land use category except as limited uses in appropriate locations. ### Neighborhood Mixed Use This category applies to neighborhood shopping centers and pedestrian-oriented retail districts. The service area of these districts is generally about a one mile radius or less. Typical uses would include corner stores or convenience stores, restaurants, bakeries, supermarkets (other than superstores/centers), drug stores, dry cleaners, small professional offices, retail banking, and similar uses that serve the immediately surrounding neighborhood. Residential and mixed-use projects with upper-story housing are also supported by this designation. Where residential development complements commercial uses, it would generally be in the Medium density range. NX is the most appropriate zoning district for these areas. Heights would generally be limited to three stories, but four or five stories could be appropriate in walkable areas with pedestrian-oriented businesses. Buildings at those heights should include appropriate transitions to any lower-density adjacent areas and be accompanied by a pedestrian-friendly relationship to the public realm. ### Community Mixed Use This category applies to medium-sized shopping centers and larger pedestrian-oriented retail districts such as Cameron Village. Typical commercial uses include large-format supermarkets, larger drug stores, department stores and variety stores, clothing stores, banks, offices, restaurants, movie theaters, hotels, and similar uses that draw from multiple neighborhoods. Development intensities could be higher than in Neighborhood Mixed Use areas, with mid-rise buildings as well as low-rise buildings. Where residential development occurs, ground floor retail would be encouraged and minimum building heights might be applied in transit-rich areas. Heights would generally be in the three-to-five-story range, although additional height up to 12 stories would be appropriate in TOD areas and at the core of mixed-use centers. CX is the primary corresponding zoning district for these areas. Appropriate urban form standards for frontage should be applied, recognizing that some of the designated areas are established neighborhood “main streets” and others are suburban auto-oriented shopping plazas or strip centers fronting on high-volume arterial roadways. For both this category and Neighborhood Mixed Use, greater height should include appropriate transitions and be accompanied by a pedestrian-friendly relationship to the public realm. ### Regional Mixed Use This category applies to the Triangle Town Center area, the Brier Creek area, and the North Hills/ Midtown and Crabtree Centers. The intent is to identify the major retail and service hubs that draw customers from across the city. These areas may include high-density housing, office development, hotels, and region-serving retail uses such as department stores and specialty stores. These areas would typically be zoned CX. Heights could be as tall as 12 to 20 stories in core locations, but should taper down to meet the context of surrounding development. As in other mixed-use areas, taller buildings should be accompanied by enhanced pedestrian amenities. ### Central Business District This category applies to the Raleigh Central Business District, and is intended to enhance Downtown Raleigh as a vibrant mixed-use urban center. The category recognizes the area’s role as the heart of the city, supporting a mix of high-intensity office, retail, housing, government, institutional, visitor-serving, cultural, and entertainment uses. Multiple zoning districts might apply within the CBD, corresponding to the different character and vision for its various neighborhoods, with DX being the primary district for the mixed-use core of downtown. Heights in the downtown could reach as high as 40 stories in the core, but would taper down to meet the adjacent neighborhoods at a height of three to four stories. ## Employment Categories ### Office/ Research and Development This category identifies major employment centers where housing is not considered an appropriate future land use. Principal uses are office parks, free-standing office buildings or corporate headquarters, banks, research and development uses, hotels, and ancillary service businesses and retail uses that support the office economy. This category can also apply in appropriate locations to office-industrial hybrids such as light fabrication and assembly ancillary to an R&D use, flex parks, and office/distribution combinations. OP is the most appropriate zoning district for this category, although OX or IX could be used if conditioned to restrict housing development. ### Business and Commercial Services This category is for higher-impact or “heavy” commercial activities that would not be compatible with residential uses, or that have locational needs (such as frontage along freeways, expressways, or other major streets) that are not conducive to mixed-use development. Examples would include auto dealerships, auto repair and service businesses, lumberyards, nurseries, contractor suppliers, warehousing, printers, truck stops, distribution centers, and other uses that are quasi-industrial or highway-oriented in character. These areas would generally be zoned IX. Housing would be limited, but live-work units or housing combined with an employment-generating ground floor could be permitted in certain locations. ### General Industrial This category designates areas programmed for industrial land uses, including manufacturing, concrete plants and other extractive industries, junkyards/scrap yards, and outdoor storage uses. These uses tend to have greater impacts than the business and commercial service uses, and may require additional buffering or separation from nearby uses. Some of these uses are dependent on rail for freight movement, and others require convenient access to freeways or other major streets for truck deliveries and shipments. Railyards, power plants, and similar uses are also included in this designation. Most of these areas should be zoned IH to prevent use conflicts with housing or retail. ## Public and Institutional Categories ### Public Facilities This category identifies large publicly owned non-park properties, including public schools, city facilities (such as libraries, fire stations, public works yards, etc.), stadiums, state government facilities, the fairgrounds, and federal government facilities (postal distribution centers, etc.). Such sites are identified on the Future Land Use Map if they cover more than about two acres. ### Institutional This category identifies land and facilities occupied by colleges and universities, large private schools, hospitals and medical complexes, religious organizations, and similar institutions. Smaller institutional uses such as churches are generally not mapped unless they are sites that are more than 2 acres in size. Institutional properties may be public or private. While institutional uses are permitted in a variety of zoning districts, large institutions in a campus setting such as universities and major hospitals are appropriately zoned CMP. ## Parks, Open Space, and Resource Conservation Categories ### Public Parks and Open Space This category applies to permanent open space intended for recreational or resource conservation uses. Included are neighborhood, community, and regional parks and greenways. Greenways include both existing greenway property as well as potential greenway corridors designated in the Comprehensive Plan and subject to regulation under the city code. Also included are publicly-owned lands that are managed for watershed protection, resource conservation, hazard prevention, and the protection of important visual resources. Land with this designation is intended to remain as open space in perpetuity. Where potential greenway corridors are mapped (typically as buffers to streams identified in the city’s Greenway Master Plan), greenway dedication will be subject to the city’s code requirements during the subdivision and site planning process. ### Private Open Space This category includes open space that is privately owned and maintained, including private golf courses and country clubs, cemeteries, open space easements, land zoned Conservation Management, and land that should be retained in its natural state to protect public health and safety (such as floodways and steep slopes), preserve sensitive or important ecological resources (such as important tree stands), or provide a public benefit (such as watershed protection). Land with this designation may have a limited amount of development potential, and may be used for agriculture, forestry, pasture, etc. but the overall intent is to protect its open and undeveloped character through the horizon year of the Plan. ## Critical Areas ### Critical Areas The Critical Areas overlay is mapped over lands that are environmentally sensitive and merit preservation and protection from development. The Critical Areas overlay encompasses publicly and privately owned land mostly encumbered by the 100-year floodplain. Some of this area is currently zoned Conservation Management; other portions are zoned for a wider range of use. The use of an overlay on top of another designation recognizes that while preservation is the long term goal, private landowners are entitled to a productive use of the property as allowed by the underlying zone district until such time as the appropriate steps can be taken to protect these resources. ## Special Study Areas ### Special Study Area The Future Land Use Map includes another category to identify areas where the future land use pattern has yet to be determined. These areas are outlined with a dashed line, labeled, and in some cases left “blank” (white) on the map, indicating the precise land use pattern was still under study at the time of Plan adoption. The text of the plan provides further detail. This designation is used on large sites where land use planning studies incorporating focused community outreach are necessary to determine a preferred land use pattern. Examples include areas such as active rock quarries, landfills, large tracts outside of the city’s current jurisdiction but in its future urban services area, and publicly-owned sites of particular importance. These areas should be the subject of Area Planning Studies as described under ‘*17.4 Small Area Studies*’ in *Section 17: ‘Implementation.’* # Heights in Mixed Land Use Categories Table LU-2 sets forth the preferred building height ranges for the multifamily and mixed-use land use categories. This table should be used as a guide to determining appropriate building heights when property is rezoned using one of the mixed-use districts in the Unified Development Ordinance. It is not intended to supersede the height permitted on any property under its current zoning. Appropriate building heights will vary based on context, and the appropriate height provided through future zoning actions should be determined based on site-specific characteristics and with reference to the relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies. The table defines recommended height according to one of three contexts: Edge, Core/Transit, or General. A large development site (more than 30 acres, collectively) may have a Core/Transit condition near the center of the property, an Edge condition where building heights taper to meet surrounding context, and a General condition in between. The areas are defined as: * *Emerging Urban Centers are larger mixed-use centers that will provide commercial and community activities. Building heights in most of these station areas should be up to 12 stories, with transitions down to 3 or 4 stories to meet adjacent lower-scale developments, generally in the area within a quarter-mile from the station location. In larger and more commercially-oriented centers, building heights of up to 20 stories are appropriate.* * *Core/Transit areas refer to areas located within the core of a mixed-use center of about 30 acres or more, or fronting along a corridor programmed for high-capacity, frequent bus transit. In employment areas, taller buildings may also be contemplated on large sites with adequate buffers from low-scale areas, such as Highwoods.* * *Neighborhood Centers are smaller centers that focus on providing services for the local community, where commercial areas are largely confined to a single intersection. Building heights in these station areas should be up to 7 stories in the core of the station area, with careful transitions down to 3 or 4 stories to meet adjacent low-slung developments, generally in the area within a quarter-mile from the station location.* * *Edge areas are located within 150 feet of a Low-to-Moderate density residential area zoned for three-story development. Permitted height in edge areas should generally match the surrounding area and not exceed 4 stories. See table LU-2 for more specific guidance based on FLUM categories.* * *General areas refer to locations not corresponding to the above guidelines. Buildings in these areas can be taller than in edge locations, but should not be as tall as core locations.* When a conflict exists between Edge and Core/Transit locations, such as when a small site is adjacent to both a transit corridor and a Low Density Residential area, the area will be considered a General area. Existing code requirements ensure that the site will transition to meet the Edge area. When a conflict exists between station area guidance and Future Land Use Map guidance for recommended building height in the columns of Table LU-2, the station area guidance should prevail. In this scenario, transitions in building heights down to 3 or 4 stories are still appropriate at the edge of the station area. While this guidance regarding height is generally applicable, adopted area plans may provide further definition of these three areas or recommend particular height categories. ### Table LU-2 Recommended Height Designations (Stories) | Category | Emerging Urban Center | Core/Transit | Neighborhood Center | General | Edge | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Moderate Scale Residential | Max. of 4 | Max. of 4 | Max. of 3 | Max. of 3 | Max. of 3 | | Medium Scale Residential | Min. of 2
Max. of 7 | Min. of 2
Max. of 5 | Min. of 2
Max. of 5 | Max. of 4 | Max. of 3 | | Higher Scale Residential | Min. of 2
Max. of 12 | Min. of 2
Max. of 12 | N/A | Max. of 5 | Max. of 4 | | Neighborhood Mixed Use | Min. of 2
Max. of 12 | Min. of 2
Max. of 5 | Min. of 2
Max. of 7 | Max. of 4 | Max. of 3 | | Community Mixed Use | Min. of 2
Max. of 20 | Min. of 2
Max. of 12 | Min. of 2
Max. of 7 | Max. of 5 | Max. of 4 | | Regional Mixed Use | Min. of 2
Max. of 20 | Min. of 2
Max. of 20 | N/A | Max. of 7 | Max. of 4 | | Central Business District | N/A | Min. of 3
Max. of 40 | N/A | Max. of 12 | Max. of 4 | | Office & Residential Mixed Use | Min. of 2
Max. of 12 | Min. of 2
Max. of 7 | Min. of 2
Max. of 7 | Max. of 5 for office;
max. of 4 for residential or mixed-use | Max. of 4 | | Office/Research Development | Min. of 2
Max. of 12 | Min. of 2
Max. of 12 | Min. of 2
Max. of 7 | Max. of 7 | Max. of 4 | # Evaluating Zoning Proposals and Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The Future Land Use Map is based on the policies and assumptions contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the forecasted growth for the city and region. The Future Land Use Map shows the general land use recommended and corresponds to a range of potentially appropriate land uses and intensities within each land use category. While the Future Land Use Map will influence future zoning, it does not alter current zoning or affect the right of property owners to use the land for its purpose as zoned at the time of this Plan’s adoption. The Future Land Use Map will not be referenced as part of the review of development plans, including site plans and subdivisions. The designation of an area with a particular land use category does not mean that the most intense zoning district described in the land use categories is automatically recommended. A range of densities and intensities applies within each category, and the use of different zoning districts within each category should reinforce this range and be based on infrastructure capacity, community character, protection of common open space, and prevailing density and lot size in the surrounding area. The Future Land Use Map documents the general recommended future use for each designated area. However, other types of uses may be compatible with the designated use and deemed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For example, a school or attached house (duplex) could be found to be in conformance with the plan designation of Low-Density Residential. The future land use categories should not be interpreted to support nor preclude developments without consideration of the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Site considerations relating to topography, soils, or hydrology are also important in establishing the specific use and intensity of a particular parcel on the Future Land Use Map. Similarly, the presence of adequate streets, schools, parks, and other community facilities should be assured before a rezoning is approved that would otherwise be in conformance with the Future Land Use Map. Determination of the conformance of a proposed use or zone with the Comprehensive Plan should include consideration of the following questions: * *Is the proposal consistent with the vision, themes, and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan?* * *Is the use being considered specifically designated on the Future Land Use Map in the area where its location is proposed?* * *If the use is not specifically designated on the Future Land Use Map in the area where its location is proposed, would the benefits of its establishment to the owner, neighbors, surrounding community, and public interest outweigh the detriments, and would the proposed uses under the new zoning adversely alter the recommended land use and character of the area?* * *Will community facilities and streets be available at city standards to serve the use proposed for the property?* In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # Map LU-3: **Future Land Use** <
> | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | █ | Rural Residential | █ | Regional Mixed Use | █ | Private Open Space | | █ | Low Scale Residential | █ | Central Business District | ░ | Special Study Area | | █ | Moderate Scale Residential | █ | Office/Research & Development | ── | Raleigh Jurisdiction Limit | | █ | Medium Scale Residential | █ | Business & Commercial Services | | A-1 Northwest Quarry | | █ | Higher Scale Residential | █ | General Industrial | | A-2 Duraleigh Quarry | | █ | Office & Residential Mixed Use | █ | Public Facilities | | A-3 Major Industrial/Chemical Facility | | █ | Neighborhood Mixed Use | █ | Institutional | | A-4 North Municipal Transition Area | | █ | Community Mixed Use | █ | Public Parks & Open Space | | | ### Policy LU 1.1 Future Land Use Map Purpose ● The Future Land Use Map and associated Comprehensive Plan policies shall be used to guide zoning, ensure the efficient and predictable use of land capacity, guide growth and development, protect public and private property investments from incompatible land uses, and efficiently coordinate land use and infrastructure needs. <
> ### Policy LU 1.2 Future Land Use Map and Zoning Consistency ● The Future Land Use Map shall be used in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan policies to evaluate zoning consistency including proposed zoning map amendments and zoning text changes. <
> *See Text Box: Evaluating Zoning Proposals and Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.* ### Policy LU 1.3 Conditional Use District Consistency ● All conditions proposed as part of a conditional use district (CUD) should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <
> ### Action LU 1.1 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 1.2 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 1.3 Special Study Area Plans Undertake detailed land use planning in those areas designated as Special Study Areas on the Future Land Use Map before approval of development proposals or rezonings in the areas. Engage the public in the planning process. ### Action LU 1.4 Future Land Use Map Maintenance and Revision Maintain the currency of the Future Land Use Map through periodic reevaluation and revision of the map based on analysis of growth and development needs and trends, small area studies, and special area studies. ### Action LU 1.5 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 1.6 Completed 2013 # 3.2 Citywide Growth Raleigh has expanded and grown dramatically over the last 20 years based on an auto-dependent land use pattern of separated land uses. Due to rising infrastructure costs, diminishing land resources, local environmental impacts, and global climate change, Raleigh is now committed to a smart growth pattern of development for its future and desires to be a model “sustainable city.” Raleigh’s citywide growth policies seek to guide development and redevelopment and promote more compact development, walkable neighborhoods, varied and affordable housing options, and transit-accessible corridors to use land efficiently, increase connectivity, lower vehicle miles traveled, and improve air quality. ### Policy LU 2.1 Placemaking Development within Raleigh’s jurisdiction should strive to create places, streets, and spaces that in aggregate meet the needs of people at all stages of life, are visually attractive, safe, accessible, functional, inclusive, have their own distinctive identity, and maintain or improve local character. ### Policy LU 2.2 Compact Development New development and redevelopment should use a more compact land use pattern to support the efficient provision of public services, improve the performance of transportation networks, preserve open space, and reduce the negative impacts of low intensity and non-contiguous development. <
> ### Policy LU 2.3 Open Space Preservation Development plans that use only a portion of the overall site should be used to achieve open space preservation in those areas of the city planned for rural residential land uses on the Future Land Use Map. ### Policy LU 2.4 Large Site Development Developments on large sites should set aside land for future parks and community facilities to help meet identified needs for public amenities and services and to offset the impacts of the development. ### Policy LU 2.5 Healthy Communities New development, redevelopment, and infrastructure investment should strive to promote healthy communities and active lifestyles by providing or encouraging enhanced bicycle and pedestrian circulation, access, and safety along roads near areas of employment, schools, libraries, and parks. *See Section 11: ‘Urban Design’ for additional policies and actions related to pedestrian-friendly design.* ### Policy LU 2.6 Zoning and Infrastructure Impacts * Carefully evaluate all amendments to the zoning map that significantly increase permitted density or floor area to ensure that impacts to infrastructure capacity resulting from the projected intensification of development are adequately mitigated or addressed. <
> *** ### Action LU 2.1 Future Studies in High-density Areas As necessary, undertake detailed studies and plans for growth centers, mixed-use centers, and transit station areas (rail or bus transfer nodes) to identify areas appropriate for higher-density mixed-use development. *** ### Action LU 2.2 Completed 2013 *** ### Action LU 2.3 Completed 2013 *** ### Action LU 2.4 Completed 2013 *** ### Action LU 2.5 Completed 2014 *** ### Action LU 2.6 Completed 2016 *** ### Action LU 2.7 Completed 2013 *** ## 3.3 Annexation, Extra-territorial Jurisdiction and Urban Service Area Annexation is the incorporation of land into an existing city. Historically, North Carolina provided annexation authority to municipalities to provide for their orderly growth and expansion over time. Between 2011 and 2013 the North Carolina General Assembly substantially revised the annexation statutes, effectively eliminating city-initiated annexations. Future annexations will be petitioned by landowners, often to obtain services from the city’s public utilities (*See Text Box: “Annexation in North Carolina”*). Currently, Raleigh encompasses approximately 93,000 acres of land within its city limits and has an additional 22,000 acres within its extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Beyond its current ETJ, Raleigh has 19,000 acres within its Urban Service Area (USA). No additional land area is available beyond these limits due to annexation agreements with neighboring jurisdictions that have essentially carved out all of Wake County except protected watersheds into urbanizing areas. Therefore, Raleigh has approximately 41,000 acres available for future annexation and expansion. As stated below, Raleigh’s annexation policies focus on managing annexation outside of the ETJ to provide for more compact and orderly growth and to better phase land development with infrastructure, public services, and facilities within the ETJ prior to annexation and urban expansion into the Urban Service Area. Map LU-4 illustrates areas available for future annexation, both within the city’s ETJ and outside the ETJ but within the USA. The map also shows watershed lands within the ETJ that the city has agreed never to annex, even though the city exercises land use authority over these areas. Since 2013, Raleigh’s expansion via annexation, both within and outside of its ETJ, is a result of annexation petitions from landowners wishing to connect to the city’s utility infrastructure. Annexation and utilities extension policies are closely related. Policy guidance on utility extension can be found under ‘*9.2 Utility Extensions*’ in *Section 9: ‘Public Utilities.’* ### Policy LU 3.1 Zoning of Annexed Lands The zoning designation for newly annexed land into the City of Raleigh shall be consistent with the Future Land Use Map. In those cases where the annexed lands are within a special study area (as shown on the Future Land Use Map), a special study will need to be completed prior to zoning and development of the property. <
> ### Policy LU 3.2 Location of Growth The development of vacant properties should occur first within the city’s limits, then within the city’s planning jurisdiction, and lastly within the city’s USAs to provide for more compact and orderly growth, including provision of conservation areas. For more detail, see: * Resolution 2008-460 * Resolution 2009-22 Both of the above resolutions relate to annexation policy beyond the ETJ. <
> ### Policy LU 3.3 Annexation Agreements Support and honor current annexation agreements between the City of Raleigh and neighboring jurisdictions that essentially apportion the remaining unincorporated land within Wake County. Renew agreements as needed. <
> <
> ### Policy LU 3.4 Infrastructure Concurrency The City of Raleigh should only approve development within newly annexed areas or Raleigh’s ETJ when the appropriate transportation, water, stormwater, and wastewater infrastructure is programmed to be in place concurrent with the development. ### Policy LU 3.5 Watershed Management When the city annexes land that includes designated watershed supply areas, development of these lands should be managed to minimize impervious surface cover and protect the quality of the water supply. *See also Section 14: ‘Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination’ for additional policies and actions related to annexation and management of land development within the region.* ## Annexation in North Carolina Under North Caroling General Statute §160A - Article 4A, there are three methods of annexation: * City-initiated. * By petition of property owners (“voluntary annexation”). * By act of the General Assembly. Due to recent legislative changes by the North Carolina General Assembly, “voluntary” annexation is the most prevalent method of annexation into the City of Raleigh. For city-initiated annexations, the state statutes require a referendum of voters in the area to be annexed. A majority of voters must approve before the annexation may proceed. # Map LU-4: Jurisdictional Limits and Annexation Boundaries <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | Raleigh City Limits | **Annexation Boundary Agreements** | | Municipal Transition Area | — Cary — Knightdale | | Raleigh Jurisdiction Limit (ETJ) | — Durham — Rolesville | | ETJ: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction | — Garner — Wake Forest | # 3.4 Equitable Development Around Transit Outside of Raleigh’s inner core—downtown and its adjacent neighborhoods—the majority of Raleigh’s populace lives, works, and socializes within an auto-dependent land use framework. To reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve air quality, and ensure the benefit of this planning is broadly and equitably shared, Raleigh’s land use and transportation coordination policies focus on: * *Providing more housing for people of all income levels near existing and planned transit.* * *Shortening trips.* * *Encouraging pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly communities.* * *Directing density toward transit-rich mixed-use centers and corridors or areas adjacent and accessible to them via sidewalks, trails, or transit.* * *Directing growth to less congested areas with development capacity.* #### Policy LU 4.1 Coordinate Transportation Investments with Land Use Ensure that transportation decisions, strategies, and investments are coordinated with and support the city’s land use objectives. <
> #### Policy LU 4.2 Transportation in Support of Walkable Neighborhoods Make the design and scale of transportation facilities compatible with planned land uses and with consideration for the character anticipated by this Comprehensive Plan for the surrounding neighborhood. <
> ## Equitable Transit-oriented Development Transit-oriented development (TOD) is defined as a moderate- to high-density mix of uses— such as residences, retail shops, offices, and civic and entertainment uses—located within one-half mile of a transit station and designed to support transit use. The typical “station area” is considered to be a half-mile radius, which is an acceptable 10-minute walking distance for most transit users if the area contains a destination, provides dedicated walking routes, and is safe and visually appealing. TOD reduces the need for driving by creating compact, vibrant, walkable neighborhoods with convenient access to activities and destinations that are connected by transit. If a transit corridor contains a station once every mile, TOD should extend along the entire corridor with the highest densities and intensities of uses occurring near each station. Within the U.S., TOD is typically associated with rail transit; however, in Raleigh TOD should occur with other fixed guideway transit service as well, such as bus rapid transit, if it provides facilities and service levels similar to rail transit. Adding equity to the TOD concept embraces Raleigh’s vision to broadly share the benefits of the city’s transit investments by combatting displacement, expanding affordable housing options, promoting job creation, and increasing programs that benefit existing low-income residents where BRT is planned. ETOD will be achieved directly by policies and actions in this subsection, the creation of an Equity Fund, and future station area planning outlined in Section 16: Area Specific Guidance. # Wake County Transit Plan The November 2016 passage of a half-percent sales tax increase to fund transit in Wake County set the stage for the largest expansion of transit in Raleigh’s history. The tax increase will provide the bulk of the funding needed to implement the multi-billion dollar Wake County Transit Plan, which will significantly broaden transportation options in the city. Commuter rail transit between Durham and Raleigh, a bus rapid transit (BRT) network spanning Cary and Raleigh, a frequent bus network serving Raleigh’s urban core and inner-ring suburbs, and upgrades to frequency and coverage across the county are all planned for implementation by 2030. The Wake County Transit Plan followed an intensive community conversation regarding the types of transit best suited to fulfilling the region’s needs. It included a focused look at the trade-offs between considerations such as frequency, coverage, and infrastructure provision. In comparison to prior efforts, the plan represented a shift toward bus transit, although commuter rail remained a major element of the plan. This large-scale transit implementation process requires close consideration of the relationship between transit and land use planning in Raleigh. While low-frequency transit is insufficient to influence development patterns, the types of transit and levels of service made possible by the new funding source will do so. This should be a mutually reinforcing relationship, with land use supporting higher levels of transit and, in turn, transit enables more focused development that maximizes the public’s return on investment. The presence and quality of transit plays a substantial role in shaping policy in Raleigh’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, from height and density to urban design. This guidance was revised following the adoption of the Wake County Transit Plan and the subsequent funding referendum in order to reflect the types of transit to be implemented. Changes included updates to maps and policies in the Land Use, Transportation, and Urban Design elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Highlights of the Wake County Transit Plan include: * *A bus rapid transit (BRT) network aimed at improving the speed and quality of transit on selected corridors. Improvements will include dedicated bus lanes, traffic signal priority for buses, off-board fare payment, and raised platforms. Initial BRT corridors have been identified as New Bern Avenue, Capital Boulevard, Western Boulevard, and South Wilmington Street.* * *A commuter rail corridor, using existing railroad tracks, reaching from Durham to Raleigh and south to Garner. The corridor would include multiple trips in each direction during peak hours, with stations in locations including downtown, N.C. State University, Cary, Morrisville, and Research Triangle Park.* * *A substantially expanded frequent bus network, defined as having service at least every 15 minutes throughout the day. The Transit Plan envisions funding improvements that would increase the frequent network from 17 to 83 miles, covering all major destinations in the core of the city.* Land Use ### Policy LU 4.3 Directing Transportation Investments Target transportation facilities, services, and investments to promote and accommodate the growth this Comprehensive Plan anticipates in mixed-use centers, commercial corridors, and residential neighborhoods while reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles. <
> ### Policy LU 4.4 Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled Through Mixed-use Promote mixed-use development that provides a range of services within a short distance of residences as a way to reduce the growth of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). <
> ### Policy LU 4.5 Connectivity * New development and redevelopment should provide pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connectivity between individual development sites to provide alternative means of access along corridors. <
> ### Policy LU 4.6 Transit-oriented Development Promote transit-oriented development around planned bus rapid transit (BRT) and fixed commuter rail stations through appropriate development regulation, education, station area planning, public-private partnerships, and regional cooperation. <
> ### Policy LU 4.7 Capitalizing on Transit Access * Sites within walking distance of existing and proposed rail and bus rapid transit stations should be developed with intense residential and mixed uses to take full advantage of and support investment in transit infrastructure. Additional density for housing and employment also is appropriate around current and future frequent transit routes. <
> ### Policy LU 4.8 Station Area Land Uses * A complementary mix of uses, including multifamily residential, offices, retail, civic, and entertainment uses, should be located within transit station areas. <
> ### Policy LU 4.9 Corridor Development Promote pedestrian-friendly and transit-supportive development patterns along multimodal corridors designated on the Growth Framework Map, and any corridor programmed for “transit intensive” investments such as reduced headways, consolidated stops, and bus priority lanes and signals. <
> ### Policy LU 4.10 Development at Freeway Interchanges * Development near freeway interchanges should cluster to create a node or nodes located at a nearby intersection of two streets, preferably classified two-lane avenue or higher, and preferably including a vertical and/or horizontal mix of uses. Development should be encouraged to build either frontage or access roads behind businesses to provide visibility to the business from the major street while limiting driveway connections to the major street. <
> Land Use # Map LU-5: Transit Station Areas <
> | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **—** Frequent Bus Network* | **—** Commuter Rail Corridor | **Transit Station Area Type** | | **—** Regional Bus Connection* | **Bus Rapid Transit Corridor*** | 🔴 Downtown | | █ Downtown* | ▬ Selected Route | 🟠 Emerging Urban Center | | ░ Transit Station Area (1/4mi) | ▬ Proposed Route Options | 🟡 Neighborhood Center | | ╌ Transit Station Area (1/2mi) | | 🔵 Campus | | | | 🟢 Park | *Routes shown are representational and may not reflect final alignments as further planning is undertaken to implement the recommendations of the Wake Transit Plan. Alignments in Downtown will be further refined in a separate study. Map created 4/12/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development Land Use #### Action LU 4.1 Completed 2013 #### Action LU 4.2 Completed 2013 #### Action LU 4.3 Station Area Plans Prioritize and prepare station area plans to guide development patterns within one-half mile of identified regional and local fixed guideway transit stops. *See also Section 4: ‘Transportation’ for additional policies and actions related to land use and transportation coordination and transit development including recommendations of the Wake County Transit Plan and the Special Transit Advisory Committee (STAC).* ### Statement on Equity The City of Raleigh is committed to establishing and advancing an equitable community for all. Because we know that race is the primary predictor of a person’s outcomes across all social indicators and societal systems, the City of Raleigh will prioritize racial equity to dismantle the policies and systems that have created and sustained these inequities. Inequities in our systems and policies are costly and limit positive outcomes and quality of life for all of us. When we achieve racial equity, all people in Raleigh will benefit from a more just, equitable system. Raleigh aspires to be a model for equity in local government. ## Equitable Development Around Transit The Equitable Development Around Transit (EDAT) plan was adopted in 2020 to guide future growth in the corridors along each of the four planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes. Thoughtful consideration of disparities in access to opportunity by race, neighborhood, and income when making plans and policies enables the city to deliver greater benefits to a diverse range of residents. This vision is embodied in the concept of Equitable Transit-oriented Development (ETOD). Recommended actions and policies of the EDAT plan focus on five goals to ensure the benefits of bus rapid transit are broadly shared: 1. *grow around transit* 2. *enhance affordability and minimize displacement* 3. *preserve existing businesses* 4. *generate job opportunities* 5. *guarantee pedestrian safety* These goals are represented throughout this subsection with associated policies and actions to encourage their achievement. ## Enhance Affordability and Minimize Displacement A critical element of equitable development is to ensure that the benefits of the regional investment in transit are broadly shared so that people who rely on public transportation can maintain access to the service they need. Additionally, creating new and more affordable housing opportunities in transit-rich areas should be prioritized so that people who currently rely on public transportation can have the best access to the highest quality transit the city has to offer. ### Policy LU 4.11 Zoning for Affordable Housing Potential redevelopment projects that do not take advantage of the density bonus provided in the Equitable Transit Overlay District, and instead file a rezoning petition for increased land use intensity above what is entitled in the bonus, should include a comparable ratio of affordable housing units in residential projects through the offering of zoning conditions. <
> ### Policy LU 4.12 Housing Priority for Existing Residents Give priority for new units in projects with city funding or on city-owned land to residents who are or have been displaced by rising housing costs in the area. <
> ### Policy LU 4.13 Land Acquisition for Affordable Housing Acquire property near the BRT corridors for the development of new affordable housing. <
> ### Action LU 4.4 Equity Fund Dedicate a percentage of property tax revenue generated by new and existing development within BRT corridors and in Downtown Raleigh above 2020-level collections toward an Equity Fund. This fund will support affordable housing and equity programs dedicated to the BRT corridors. This strategy directly links the financial gain of private development to producing community benefits, further increasing access to opportunity created by the regional investment in transit. ### Action LU 4.5 Equitable Transit-oriented Development Revise the existing Transit-oriented Development (TOD) overlay zoning designation to incorporate a zoning density bonus for affordable housing in mixed-use and residential developments. ## Equity Fund The City of Raleigh will pledge a percentage of new tax revenue generated within each of the BRT corridors and in Downtown Raleigh toward an Equity Fund that will support affordable housing and other projects providing a community benefit. Proceeds from the fund will go toward a range of equity-related efforts, including affordable housing, addressing homelessness, support for community organizations, public art, pedestrian safety, and more. The Fund will provide ongoing revenues to fund many of the other tools identified in the ETOD policy toolkit by capturing value from increasing real estate values along the corridors. More specifically, these funds should be used on the following programs: * *Land acquisition for affordable housing* * *Homeowner rehabilitation assistance* * *Anti-predatory purchase education* * *Property tax assistance* * *Small business retention* * *Youth skills apprenticeships* # Preserve Existing Businesses Help businesses thrive by providing assistance during BRT construction and beyond. #### Policy LU 4.14 Small Business Retention Assist small businesses in BRT corridors during and after construction through communications and marketing support, and grant funding for façade improvements or interior renovations. <
> # Generate Job Opportunities A core benefit of transit is in connecting people to jobs and opportunity. The EDAT plan seeks to maximize the city’s transit investment by encouraging employment along the BRT corridors. #### Policy LU 4.15 Local Worker Participation in BRT Construction Encourage a percentage of workers on BRT construction projects to be residents of the city and areas where BRT is being constructed by awarding construction contracts to companies who employ local workers. Seeking local worker participation in BRT construction contracts helps ensure that the benefits of BRT are spread more equitably across the local community through direct employment opportunities. <
> #### Action LU 4.6 Non-Residential Density Bonus Revise the existing Transit-oriented Development (TOD) overlay zoning designation to incorporate a zoning bonus to incentivize office and other non-residential development. # Guarantee Pedestrian Safety Transit usage depends on safe and comfortable, well-connected streets for people walking and biking. No transit rider should be exposed to streets that are unsafe because they are designed for motorists first. Providing safe routes to and from transit stations for people who rely on public transportation is necessary to ensure equitable spending on city-funded transportation infrastructure. Therefore, development near BRT stations should prioritize walking and biking over faster vehicle traffic flow. #### Policy LU 4.16 Prioritize Pedestrian Safety over Driving A comprehensive network of infrastructure catering to the safe and efficient travel of pedestrians and cyclists should connect station areas to residential areas. Transportation infrastructure improvements in station areas should prioritize all users above motorists, especially when competing for space in public rights-of-way. <
> #### Policy LU 4.17 Pedestrian-oriented Infrastructure Investments Prioritize capital spending on infrastructure projects that provide safe and comfortable access to BRT station areas. <
> ## Grow Around Transit Growing more around transit means creating more places for people to live in areas where their lives are not totally reliant on individual automobiles. Not having to own one or two cars provides a large savings for family budgets by reducing or eliminating maintenance and fuel costs, insurance, registration, and taxes. Creating new and more affordable housing types near frequent and reliable transit will create communities that more people will be able to afford by reducing housing costs and transportation costs simultaneously. The reduction of these costs together will provide access for more people to the financial opportunities created by the regional investment in transit. ### Policy LU 4.18 Transit Station Area Recommended Heights ● Building heights in transit station areas should be based on their station area type as designated on Map LU-5 Transit Station Types. Where there is not a recommended building height for a specific Future Land Use Map category in Table LU-2 Recommended Heights, or if there is internal conflict in Table LU-2 between Future Land Use Map designations and transit station areas types, recommended building height for stations areas should prevail. <
> ### Policy LU 4.19 Missing Middle Housing Duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, and townhomes should be encouraged in existing neighborhoods in and near station areas. Additional housing stock and a diversity of housing types are needed in areas served by BRT to help ensure that as many people as possible have access to the service. <
> ### Action LU 4.7 Eliminate Parking Requirements Eliminate the minimum parking requirements for all development types within station areas and/or where the Equitable Transit Overlay District is mapped. ## Ongoing Input and Measuring Results Ensuring equity goals are reached will require measuring progress. Continued opportunities for input will allow for a continued understanding of priorities and needs. ### Policy LU 4.20 Annual Reporting A subsection on Equitable Transit-oriented Development should be included in the annual publication of the Comprehensive Plan Progress Report. This reporting should include rezoning activity, permitting activity, and capital improvement project activity in the areas around BRT. Over time, evaluating trends through this reporting will help inform on how well the goals of the Equitable Development Around Transit Plan are being met and if additional changes to policy are warranted to further advance the goals. <
> # Equitable Transit-oriented Development and Rezoning Guidance The following is a collection of land use, transportation, housing, and urban design policies that should be considered when evaluating a rezoning request in areas where transit improvements are planned. Specifically, these policies should be considered for rezoning requests near bus rapid transit corridors and other frequent transit networks as outlined in the Wake County Transit Plan. * *Policy LU 4.6 Transit-oriented Development* * *Policy LU 4.7 Capitalizing on Transit Access* * *Policy LU 4.8 Station Area Land Uses* * *Policy LU 4.9 Corridor Development* * *Policy LU 4.11 Zoning for Affordable Housing* * *Policy LU 4.12 Housing Priority for Existing Residents* * *Policy LU 4.13 Land Acquisition for Affordable Housing* * *Policy LU 4.15 Local Worker Participation in BRT Construction* * *Policy LU 4.16 Prioritize Pedestrian Safety over Driving* * *Policy LU 4.17 Pedestrian-oriented Infrastructure Investments* * *Policy LU 4.18 Transit Station Area Recommended Heights* * *Policy LU 4.19 Missing Middle Housing* * *Policy T 4.9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Near Transit* * *Policy T 6.2 Transit Station Parking* * *Policy H 1.1 Mixed-income Neighborhoods* * *Policy H 1.9 Housing Diversity* * *Policy H 2.13 Transit Accessibility* * *Policy H 2.15 Affordable Units in TODs* * *Policy H 4.3 Housing for Persons with Disabilities* * *Policy UD 8.1 Transit-oriented Development* * *Policy UD 8.2 Transit Area Transitions* * *Policy UD 8.3 Transit Area Infill* * *Policy UD 8.4 Transit-supportive Pedestrian Networks* * *Policy UD 8.5 Transit-supportive Bicycle Networks* * *Policy UD 8.6 Auto-oriented Uses in Transit Areas* * *Policy UD 8.7 Connections to Transit Stops* * *Policy UD 8.8 Station Area Public Realm* * *Policy UD 8.9 Transit Wayfinding* * *Policy UD 8.10 Transit Area Parking* * *Policy UD 8.11 Transit Area CPTED* ## 3.5 Land Use Compatibility During the past decade, development and redevelopment within already built-up areas has made up a greater share of total development activity within Raleigh. New growth and infill development has occurred throughout the city, and sometimes had the unintended consequences of negatively affecting adjacent land uses with shadows, noise, light, glare, vibration, odors, and other nuisances due to incompatible height, bulk, or intensity of use. The Future Land Use Map has been developed by considering existing land use patterns, development trends, transportation corridors, and the compatibility of existing and future uses. However, in order to accommodate appropriate densities in areas designated for transit investment and mixed-use development within the context of 60 years of low-density suburban growth, there are many areas where higher-intensity future land use categories abut areas intended to be conserved or developed at lower densities or intensity. The Unified Development Ordinance, approved since the initial 2009 publication of this Plan, provides a regulatory framework, including required transition zones and buffers between areas of higher and lower intensities, and between mixed-use and residential properties. The following policies and actions are meant to supplement the Future Land Use Map to ensure that future land uses do not negatively affect existing land uses, and that appropriate transitions are provided between land uses of differing intensity. These policies, particularly those that call for zoning regulations to achieve land use compatibility, have informed and are codified in the Unified Development Ordinance. ### Policy LU 5.1 Reinforcing the Urban Pattern New development should acknowledge existing buildings, and, more generally, the surrounding area. Quality design and site planning is required so that new development opportunities within the existing urban fabric of Raleigh are implemented without adverse impacts on local character and appearance. <
> ### Policy LU 5.2 Managing Commercial Development Impacts Manage new commercial development using zoning regulations and through the conditional use zoning and development review processes so that it does not result in unreasonable and unexpected traffic, parking, litter, shadow, view obstruction, odor, noise, and vibration impacts on surrounding residential areas. <
> ### Policy LU 5.3 Institutional Uses Ensure that when institutional uses, such as private schools, child care facilities, and similar uses are permitted in residential neighborhoods, they are designed and operated in a manner that is sensitive to neighborhood issues and that maintains quality of life. Encourage institutions and neighborhoods to work pro-actively to address issues such as traffic and parking, hours of operation, outside use of facilities, and facility expansion. <
> ### Policy LU 5.4 Density Transitions Low- to medium-scale residential development and/or low-impact office uses should serve as transitional densities between lower-scale neighborhoods and more intensive commercial and residential uses. Where two areas designated for significantly different development intensity abut on the Future Land Use Map, the implementing zoning should ensure that the appropriate transition occurs on the site with the higher intensity. <
> ### Policy LU 5.5 Transitional and Buffer Zone Districts Maintain and enhance zoning districts which serve as transitional or buffer areas between residential and commercial districts and which also may contain institutional, non-profit, and office-type uses. Zoning regulations and conditions for these areas should ensure that development achieves appropriate height and density transitions, and protects neighborhood character. <
> ### Policy LU 5.6 Buffering Requirements New development adjacent to areas of lower intensity should provide effective physical buffers to avoid adverse effects. Buffers may include larger setbacks, landscaped or forested strips, transition zones, fencing, screening, height and/or density step downs, and other architectural and site planning measures that avoid potential conflicts. *See Text Box: Transitions Defined.* <
> ### Policy LU 5.7 Building Height Transitions When a mixed-use or nonresidential area contemplated for building heights in excess of seven stories abuts an area designated for low- or moderate-scale on the future land use map, building heights should not exceed a 45-degree plane starting 10 feet from the adjoining lower-density area. When any mixed-use or non-residential area is separated from an area of low- or moderate-scale by an intervening street other than a Major Street, building faces along the frontage facing the residential area should not exceed three stories. <
> ### Action LU 5.1 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 5.2 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 5.3 Completed 2013 ## Transitions Defined Successful transitions mitigate incompatibilities between adjacent and nearby land uses. Incompatibilities arise when nearby uses differ significantly in terms of intensity, height, and/ or bulk. Tools such as change in scale, attention to architectural detail, increase in landscaping quantity, distance between buildings or uses, and compatible height can allow successful transitions between properties with dissimilar characteristics. Where the incompatibility arises from use, an intermediate intervening use can serve as a buffer. The Unified Development Ordinance provides Neighborhood Transition Zone requirements for mixed-use properties that abut low-density residential uses. The following list defines appropriate parameters for successful transitions: * *Higher intensity commercial uses are appropriately buffered from low- to moderate-scale residential areas through an intervening area of low-intensity office or medium- to high-scale residential use.* * *Building design can successfully transition by utilizing a multidimensional façade that mitigates the height of a building. A taller building can utilize increased setbacks and/or stepbacks to soften the building mass and create a compatible street wall.* * *A transition in height should consist of a combination of distance and height that allows access to light and air, and can be achieved through a combination of height limits, setbacks, and/or stepbacks.* * *Additional landscaping measures beyond existing landscape ordinance requirements may be needed to buffer certain use combinations.* # 3.6 Mixed-use Development The resurgence of mixed-use downtowns, employment centers, and retail centers is a national development trend that is evident in Raleigh in such areas as downtown, North Hills, and Forestville Village Center. Mixed-use centers bring together medium- to high-density residential and nonresidential uses within a walkable, bicycle-friendly, and/or transit-accessible development framework. Uses can be mixed vertically, within buildings; or horizontally, when tightly clustered in a pedestrian-friendly arrangement. Due to the diversity of uses and activities, mixed-use centers are typically vibrant destinations that attract attention due to their level of activity. Fundamentally, a mixed-use center should provide a full service environment and diverse land uses—residences, offices, retail, service, entertainment, civic, and open space—for residents, employees, and visitors. ### Policy LU 6.1 Composition of Mixed-use Centers ● Mixed-use centers should comprise a variety of integrated residential and commercial uses - mixed both vertically and horizontally - that have well-planned public spaces that bring people together and provide opportunities for active living and interaction. <
> ### Policy LU 6.2 Complementary Land Uses and Urban Vitality ● A complementary integration and mixture of land uses should be provided within all growth centers and mixed-use centers to maintain the city’s livability, manage future growth, and provide walkable and transit accessible destinations. Areas designated for mixed-use development in the Comprehensive Plan should be zoned consistently with this policy. <
> ### Policy LU 6.3 Mixed-use and Multimodal Transportation Promote the development of mixed-use activity centers with multimodal transportation connections to provide convenient access by means other than car to residential and employment areas. <
> ### Policy LU 6.4 Bus Stop Dedication ● The city shall coordinate the dedication of land for the construction of bus stop facilities within mixed-use centers on bus lines as part of the development review and zoning process. <
> ### Action LU 6.1 Completed 2013 ## 3.7 Commercial Districts and Corridors As Raleigh annexed land and grew outward over the last 20 years, new residential and commercial development followed and often left behind underutilized commercial areas and maturing neighborhoods. The revitalization of Raleigh’s commercial districts and corridors is a primary issue for the city due to their positive or negative influence on an area’s development potential, adjacent property values, and gateway aesthetics in and out of the city. Raleigh’s commercial districts and corridors hold great potential for “capturing” future residential and commercial demand and for providing viable transit options. ### Policy LU 7.1 Encouraging Nodal Development * Discourage auto-oriented commercial “strip” development and instead encourage pedestrian-oriented “nodes” of commercial development at key locations along major corridors. Zoning and design standards should ensure that the height, mass, and scale of development within nodes respects the integrity and character of surrounding residential areas and does not unreasonably impact them. ### Policy LU 7.2 Shopping Center Reuse Promote the redevelopment of aging and high vacancy shopping centers into mixed-use developments with housing, commercial, and public recreation facilities. ### Policy LU 7.3 Single-family Lots on Major Streets * No new single-family residential lots should have direct vehicular access from major streets, in an effort to minimize traffic impacts and preserve the long-term viability of these residential uses when located adjacent to major streets. <
> ### Policy LU 7.4 Scale and Design of New Commercial Uses * New uses within commercial districts should be developed at a height, mass, scale, and design that is appropriate and compatible with surrounding areas. ### Policy LU 7.5 High-impact Commercial Uses Ensure that the city’s zoning regulations limit the location and proliferation of fast food restaurants, sexually-oriented businesses, late night alcoholic beverage establishments, 24-hour mini-marts and convenience stores, and similar high impact commercial establishments that generate excessive late night activity, noise, or otherwise affect the quality of life in nearby residential neighborhoods. ### Policy LU 7.6 Pedestrian-friendly Development * New and redeveloped commercial and mixed-use developments should be pedestrian-friendly. Action LU 7.1 **Completed 2013** *** Action LU 7.2 **Completed 2013** *** Action LU 7.3 **Promoting Commercial Reinvestment** > Identify incentives and other economic development tools to promote reinvestment in underperforming commercial corridors. *** *See also Section 6: ‘Economic Development’ for additional corridor development and revitalization policies and actions.* ## 3.8 Neighborhood Conservation and Development One of Raleigh’s major assets is its tree-lined, historic residential neighborhoods and street-car suburbs within and adjacent to downtown Raleigh. The city also has a number of historic districts. The inner-ring suburbs of the 1950s and 1960s are also well-regarded due to their housing stock, mature trees, and connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and shopping centers. The outer-ring suburbs of the last generation contain more auto-dependent residential neighborhoods that lack connectivity. However, more recent developments are applying the design principles of early- and mid-20th century neighborhoods with better connectivity to shopping centers, schools, parks, and open space. The City of Raleigh desires to maintain and conserve its historic residential neighborhoods, maintain and reinvest in its aging inner-ring residential neighborhoods, adapt more recent residential neighborhoods for greater connectivity, guide infill development, and promote traditional neighborhood development (TND) patterns for new residential developments. Two important tools for preserving neighborhood character are the Historic Overlay District (HOD) and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), which provide for neighborhood-specific zoning standards and, in the case of the HOD, design standards. Both, it should be noted, can retain existing scale and architectural details while not prohibiting additional housing types that provide more choices for different household types and less expensive options. Conserving character does not mean that neighborhoods cannot change or evolve, and in fact such changes may be necessary for a neighborhood’s long-term viability. When large families and multi-generational living were more common, Raleigh’s historic neighborhoods hosted a higher population density than they do now. When downtown living fell out of favor, many older houses became rentals and were converted to multiple units, changes which likely saved many homes from demolition. More recently, as these neighborhoods have skyrocketed in value, these same structures have returned to single-family use. Now ADUs and second unit additions again have the promise of readapting existing lots and homes for a population with fewer families and more elderly and young households. As Raleigh continues to attract and retain people looking to make a better life in a welcoming and diverse city, the need for housing will continue to grow. This can and will happen in mixed-use areas, but residential neighborhoods can also evolve to allow more housing choice. These neighborhoods can accommodate more residents while maintaining their existing scale by allowing “missing middle” housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and similar buildings (see text box on page 3-33). This approach also can begin to remedy the exclusionary barriers created by low density, detached-house-only zoning, which historically has contributed to economic and racial segregation. The “missing middle” types, which are common in older neighborhoods such as Oakwood and Boylan Heights, are less expensive than larger detached houses but still reflect the rhythm and scale of existing homes in the neighborhood. This provides more housing choice for diverse households, including younger residents or couples, empty nesters, and people who simply don’t need or want a large house. It also better supports nearby neighborhood-serving businesses, such as restaurants, coffee shops, and small-scale retail and service establishments. Lastly, in addition to providing more choice and lower cost, housing types other than detached houses are more energy-efficient, because they share walls and/or ceilings. Allowing them reduces Raleigh’s per capita carbon emissions and is a necessary step to meeting the city’s carbon reduction goals. Land Use ### Policy LU 8.1 Housing Variety ● Accommodate growth in newly developing or redeveloping areas of the city through mixed-use neighborhoods with a variety of housing types. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.2 Neighborhood Revitalization Facilitate neighborhood revitalization and stabilization by focusing grants, loans, housing rehabilitation efforts, commercial investment programs, capital improvements, and other government actions in those areas that are most in need. Use social, economic, and physical indicators such as the poverty rate, the number of abandoned or substandard buildings, the crime rate, and the unemployment rate as key indicators of need. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.3 Conserving, Enhancing, and Revitalizing Neighborhoods Recognize the importance of balancing the need to increase the housing supply and expand neighborhood commerce with the parallel need to protect neighborhood character, preserve historic resources, and restore the environment. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.4 Rehabilitation Before Demolition In redeveloping areas characterized by vacant, abandoned, and underutilized older buildings, generally encourage rehabilitation and adaptive use of existing buildings rather than demolition. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.5 Neighborhood-scale Housing New homes within residential neighborhoods should respect the existing scale. Residential neighborhoods that currently consist largely of detached houses can accommodate additional housing types. These housing types should be at a similar scale to existing detached houses. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.6 Teardowns Discourage the replacement of quality homes in good physical condition with new homes that are substantially larger, taller, and bulkier than the prevailing building stock. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.7 Lot Sizes and Flag Lots Allow flag lots and smaller lot sizes and widths for “missing middle” and other housing types in order to improve housing choice. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.8 Finer-grained Development ● Large oversized blocks in new neighborhoods and subdivisions should be avoided in favor of smaller blocks and enhanced pedestrian networks that create better connections and help facilitate walking and reduce driving. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.9 Open Space in New Development ● New residential development should be developed with common and usable open space that preserves the natural landscape and the highest quality ecological resources on the site. <
> --- ### Policy LU 8.10 Infill Development * Encourage infill development on vacant land within the city, particularly in areas where there are vacant lots that create “gaps” in the urban fabric and detract from the character of a commercial or residential street. Such development should complement the established character of the area and should not create sharp changes in the physical development pattern. ### Policy LU 8.11 Development of Vacant Sites Facilitate the development of vacant lots that have historically been difficult to develop due to infrastructure or access problems, inadequate lot dimensions, fragmented or absentee ownership, or other constraints. Explore lot consolidation, acquisition, and other measures that would address these. ### Policy LU 8.12 Infill Compatibility * Vacant lots and infill sites within existing neighborhoods should be developed consistently with the design elements of adjacent structures, including height, setbacks, and massing through the use of zoning tools including Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts. ### Policy LU 8.13 Traditional Neighborhood Development Encourage Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and planning for large undeveloped sites within the city’s municipal boundaries to improve neighborhood and street connectivity. Traditional Neighborhood Development is an urban form characterized by compact, pedestrian-oriented design, which provides a variety of uses and diverse housing types within easy walking distance, and is anchored by a central public space and civic activity (school, library, church, or similar institution). ## “Missing Middle” Housing This concept refers to building types such as duplexes and small, three- or four-unit apartments that provide greater housing variety while maintaining the same scale as detached houses. While common in older neighborhoods in many cities, including areas such as Boylan Heights and Cameron Park in Raleigh, many are being lost as owners convert them to single-unit homes. In recent years, interest has grown again in these housing types, which can provide more affordable housing for smaller households or those looking to downsize. They can also help provide the density needed to support walkable neighborhood-serving retail while retaining neighborhood scale. However, typical zoning codes, including Raleigh’s, prohibit or discourage these housing types. Residential zones include limitations on building types or density that effectively prohibit them. Conversely, in mixed-use zoning categories that do permit apartments, typical new projects are on a larger scale than the “missing middle.” ### Policy LU 8.14 Student-oriented Housing * Encourage student-oriented housing, including fraternities, sororities, dormitories and rent-by-the-room, multi-bedroom apartments, to locate in the area immediately adjacent to colleges/ universities, in transit-oriented development areas, or in downtown. <
> ### Policy LU 8.15 Removed 2019 ### Policy LU 8.16 Accessory Dwelling Units Provide for and regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to expand housing options for Raleigh’s residents. <
> ### Policy LU 8.17 Zoning for Housing Opportunity and Choice All residential zoning categories should accommodate a range of housing types, such as duplexes, fourplexes, and other small apartments, and townhouses. Scale, not density, should be the regulating principle. These types, which on average are much less costly than detached houses, will moderate the cost of housing, reduce residential segregation and allow more people access to high-opportunity areas, accommodate residents in all phases of life, and reduce per capita carbon emissions. <
> ### Action LU 8.1 Completed 2014 ### Action LU 8.2 Completed 2014 ### Action LU 8.3 Converted to Policy 2016 ### Action LU 8.4 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 8.5 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 8.6 Infill Compatibility Analysis Study regulations that govern infill development to ensure they meet the intent of infill policies while providing a reasonable opportunity for new construction to occur. *See also Section 12: ‘Historic Preservation’ for additional policies and actions related to neighborhood conservation.* Land Use # 3.9 Research and Development/ Institutional Land Uses Raleigh is well-known regionally and nationally for its level of excellence in colleges and universities, research and development industries, and hospital research and care. However, since these public and private institutions and industries often have large campus settings, their future growth and expansion could affect adjacent residential neighborhoods. Due to their contribution to the city’s economic and social fabric, Raleigh wants to encourage additional institutional growth while protecting existing neighborhoods through proactive planning and communication. Map LU-3 identifies the primary Research and Development and Institutional land uses in the city. ### Policy LU 9.1 Planning for the Tech Sector Plan for and designate adequate land for offices, laboratories, business incubators, and flex space buildings to accommodate Raleigh’s growing technology industries on the Future Land Use Map. ### Policy LU 9.2 Coordinating Institutional Growth Expand and encourage partnerships among the city’s many large institutions to coordinate future growth and development of these institutions with surrounding land uses and neighborhoods. ### Policy LU 9.3 Hospitals Plan for and designate adequate land for the equitable distribution of hospitals and their facilities throughout the city on the Future Land Use Map. ### Policy LU 9.4 Health Care Industry Support the continued growth and expansion of the city’s health care providers to serve the needs of Raleigh’s residents. ### Policy LU 9.5 Removed 2019 ### Action LU 9.1 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 9.2 Converted to Policy 2016 ### Action LU 9.3 Completed 2013 # 3.10 Retail Land Uses Raleigh’s retail uses are primarily located within mixed-use centers—such as downtown Raleigh, North Hills, and Crabtree Valley—and along commercial corridors. In addition to its core, downtown Raleigh contains a number of mixed-use districts—the Warehouse District, Seaboard Station and Glenwood Avenue—that provide an expanding base of local retail goods and services and limited national retailers. Other major centers include: * *Cameron Village is one of the first retail shopping centers built in this country after WWII, and offers a strong and diverse mix of local and national retailers in a pedestrian-friendly environment.* * *North Hills is the location of Raleigh’s first enclosed retail shopping mall, built with large national department stores to anchor smaller national and local retailers. North Hills is now a pedestrian-oriented lifestyle center with a greater mix of office and residential uses.* * *Crabtree Valley, Raleigh’s second and larger enclosed shopping mall, is also undergoing a transformation into a more mixed-use center, and is attracting more residential uses through infill development.* * *Triangle Town Center is Raleigh’s most recently built enclosed retail shopping mall.* * *Additional retail uses are located along the Hillsborough and Person Street corridors.* The remainder of Raleigh’s retail uses are located in commercial shopping centers along the city’s major streets. Raleigh’s retail policies focus on strengthening its current mixed-use centers, encouraging retail uses within new pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use centers, and minimizing the impact of auto-oriented commercial retail uses. Most of Raleigh’s residents must drive to access retail services, even for daily convenience needs. In order to minimize automobile dependency and to improve accessibility to retail services, the development of small commercial hubs is encouraged within and adjacent to established residential neighborhoods. Such retail uses should be low-intensity and compatible with their contexts. ### Policy LU 10.1 Mixed-use Retail Encourage new retail development in mixed-use developments. <
> ### Policy LU 10.2 Retail in Industrial Zones Discourage retail uses in industrial zones to maintain viable industrial areas and avoid an oversupply of retail uses. <
> ### Policy LU 10.3 Ancillary Retail Uses Ancillary retail uses in residential and office developments located in areas designated High Density Residential, Office and Residential Mixed Use and Office/Research and Development should not be larger in size than appropriate to serve primarily the residents, employees, visitors, and patrons of the primary uses in the area; should preferably be located within a mixed-use building; and should be sited to minimize adverse traffic, noise, and visual impacts on adjoining residential areas. <
> ### Policy LU 10.4 Siting of Regional Retail Regional retail uses—including big box stores, power centers, and regional malls—should be located where access is available from at least two roadways providing a minimum of four lanes each. Access should be obtained from both roadways. <
> Land Use ### Policy LU 10.5 Regional Retail and Residential Areas * Regional retail uses should not be located adjacent to areas designated for Low- to Moderate-Density Residential use on the Zoning Map or Future Land Use Map, or areas currently developed for such. <
> ### Policy LU 10.6 Retail Nodes * Retail uses should concentrate in mixed-use centers rather than spreading along major streets in a linear "strip" pattern unless ancillary to office or high-density residential use. <
> ### Policy LU 10.7 Micro-retail Within a strong regulatory framework, encourage small commercial hubs within and adjacent to established residential neighborhoods to improve non-automobile access to retail services. <
> #### Action LU 10.1 Completed 2014 *See also Section 6: ‘Economic Development’ for additional policies related to retail and economic development.* # 3.11 Industrial Land Uses Industrial uses occupy approximately 3,600 acres or 3.7 percent of the city’s jurisdiction. These uses are typically concentrated along rail corridors and the roads that run parallel to them, with some corresponding to warehousing and distribution areas adjacent to interstate highways, such as the area off of the I-40 interchange with Jones Sausage Road in southeast Raleigh. While only 3.7 percent of the city’s jurisdiction is occupied by industrial uses, over 10 percent of the land is zoned for industrial uses (Industrial Mixed Use and Heavy Industrial). The majority of industrially-zoned lands are developed with office or retail uses, which are currently permitted as-of-right within industrial zoning districts. The Comprehensive Plan text and the Future Land Use Map address the location, zoning, and compatibility aspects of Raleigh’s industrial areas. ### Policy LU 11.1 Preserving Industrial Land Support land use policies that protect competitive opportunities to locate industrial, flex, and warehouse sites near major transportation corridors and the airport. ### Policy LU 11.2 Location of Industrial Areas Accommodate industrial uses— including municipal public works facilities—in areas that are well buffered from residential uses (and other sensitive uses such as schools), easily accessed from major roads and railroads, and characterized by existing concentrations of industrial uses. Such areas are generally designated as “General Industrial” on the Future Land Use Map. ### Policy LU 11.3 Commercial Uses in Industrial Areas Limit specified non-industrial uses in industrially zoned areas, including office and retail development, in order to preserve these areas for industrial development. ### Policy LU 11.4 Rezoning/Development of Industrial Areas Allow the rezoning and/or redevelopment of industrial land for non-industrial purposes when the land can no longer viably support industrial activities or is located such that industry is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Examples include land in the immediate vicinity of planned transit stations. ### Policy LU 11.5 Mitigating Industrial Land Use Impacts Mitigate the adverse impacts created by industrial uses through a variety of measures, including buffering, site planning and design, strict environmental controls, performance standards, and the use of a range of industrial zones that reflect the varying impacts of different kinds of industrial uses. ### Policy LU 11.6 Brownfields Identify incentives and other economic development tools to promote remediation of and reinvestment in formerly industrial properties. ### Action LU 11.1 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 11.2 Completed 2013 # 3.12 Large Site Development The city’s Future Land Use Map will guide the future development of Raleigh, with the exception of “Special Study Areas.” These areas will be treated separately due to their large size, unknown market potentials, environmental constraints, or other significant land use variables. Examples include areas within or near quarries and large undeveloped areas adjacent to the city’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Raleigh’s policies on the development of large sites provide a mechanism for planned and orderly growth. Map LU-3 identifies those large sites for which the policies contained herein are pertinent. ### Policy LU 12.1 Planning Process for Large Sites Ensure the appropriate development of large sites proposed for redevelopment within Raleigh through visioning, design workshops, special studies, and iterative public involvement processes that build consensus as part of the site’s special study process. ### Policy LU 12.2 Large Sites Outside the ETJ Ensure the appropriate development of large sites outside of Raleigh’s current ETJ boundaries but within its USA boundaries— such as the city-owned Randleigh Farm property—through special studies to determine potential future land uses and impacts on city revenues and services. ### Policy LU 12.3 Reservations for Community Facilities ● Plans for large sites should identify park and community facility needs and reserve appropriate portions of the site for schools, parks, public safety buildings, and other facilities. ### Policy LU 12.4 Community Involvement and Special Study Areas Engage the public and adjacent property owners in all special study area deliberations, meetings, and actions that could affect an area’s future land uses. ### Policy LU 12.5 Dix Property Planning Encourage the development of an iconic, beautiful, sustainable Dorothea Dix Park that is integrated into and supports the city’s community, ecology and economy, by engaging the public, private, and non-profit sectors, including the Dix Park Conservancy. ### Action LU 12.1 Completed 2013 ### Action LU 12.2 Completed 2015 ### Action LU 12.3 Completed 2021 section 4 # Transportation 4.1 Land Use and Transportation Coordination........................... 4-4 4.2 Roadway System and Transportation Demand Management........................... 4-7 4.3 Complete Streets: Hierarchy and Design .......................... 4-16 4.4 Public Transportation........................................................... 4-20 4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ..................................... 4-29 4.6 Parking Management ......................................................... 4-33 4.7 Transportation Safety Improvements ................................ 4-35 4.8 Commercial Truck and Rail Freight ................................... 4-37 4.9 Future Street Improvements............................................... 4-39 4.10 Emerging Technologies ..................................................... 4-44 The City of Raleigh recognizes the importance of developing a balanced, efficient, multimodal transportation network that minimizes impacts to the environment and reinforces the livability of neighborhoods. The Transportation Section is meant to guide future development of the city’s corridors, roads and highways for motorized and non-motorized transportation including public transit systems, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. The transportation network is developed in a sustainable pattern that supports the city’s future land uses and urban form, minimizes vehicle miles traveled and single-occupancy vehicles, and reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Raleigh has a well-established roadway network of streets, arteries, expressways and freeways. While some of these roads are maintained by the NCDOT, the city itself maintains over 1,000 miles of streets, as well as 1,190 miles of sidewalks, nearly 114 miles of bikeable greenway trails and bikeways, and 65 miles of bicycle facilities. By 2035, Raleigh’s roadway network is projected to become more congested, with both the amount of time and number of miles spent on the roads increasing. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours traveled (VHT) are both projected to increase from 2005 levels by over 50 percent – travel along freeways and other major streets will be most affected. In addition, the total number of trips (a.m., p.m., and overall) taken on Raleigh’s road network is projected to increase by over 50 percent. Capital Boulevard (north of I-540), I-540 (from Capital Boulevard to I-40), and U.S. 401 (north of I-540) in north Raleigh are three roadways where both the traffic and level of service are projected to worsen greatly from 2005 to 2035. To affect these projections, not only will existing facilities and services have to be improved, but new mobility options – including increased and higher capacity transit service – must be created to meet the growing needs of Raleigh through the year 2040. The Transportation Section contains policies that will create a well-connected, multimodal transportation network, support increased densities, help walking become more practical for short trips, support bicycling for both short- and long-distance trips, improve transit to serve frequented destinations, conserve energy resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and do so while maintaining vehicular access and circulation. More specifically, the policies and actions within this element address the following key transportation issues: * *Sprawling and segregated land use patterns have led to a high dependency on single-occupancy automobile trips.* * *There is a need for better coordination of land use and transportation project review procedures to enable efficient and connected development patterns.* * *Road widening and new facilities to address automobile congestion are not by themselves feasible solutions to the region’s mounting congestion and long commutes (See Policy T 3.3: Redefining LOS).* * *Even with programmed investments, the future transportation system is projected to be severely constrained by the year 2035.* * *The enormous growth experienced and planned in Raleigh will transform the city into the center of the region, and has the potential of changing the dynamics of the region’s transportation system.* * *Traffic calming will continue to be an issue for many neighborhoods as traffic levels increase on major streets and drivers seek alternative routes using local residential streets.* * *There are limited multimodal facilities that provide transit, bicycle and pedestrian accessibility, and help reduce congestion.* - *Better coordination is needed among transportation planning partners such as: NCDOT, CAMPO, GoTriangle, GoRaleigh, and the surrounding counties and cities.* - *Safety issues must be addressed along corridors, at intersections, and at locations with bicycles and pedestrians.* - *Limited efficiency and coverage area of the current transit system prevents it from being an attractive alternative to the automobile.* Achieving a balanced and effective transportation system will require a greater investment in transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure. Detailed information concerning the underlying issues and background information can be found in the *Community Inventory Report*. For Raleigh to meet the vision theme of *Economic Prosperity and Equity*, the transportation system must be multimodal, operate efficiently, and provide all users with the ability to reach their destinations safely. Raleigh needs to provide facilities and services that meet the needs of the city’s residents and visitors, including senior citizens, the disabled, low-income, and transit-dependent persons. Not only does the transportation system provide for the mobility of people and goods, but over the long term it influences patterns of growth and the level of economic activity through the accessibility it provides to adjacent land uses. To meet the vision theme of *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*, the Comprehensive Plan must provide policies to help reduce the need for trip-making (particularly single-occupant vehicle, or SOV, trips), provide choices for shorter trips, and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. The Transportation and Land Use Sections must mutually reinforce one another and provide Raleigh with a foundation to make informed decisions. <
> When considering the relationship of transportation with vision themes such as *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities* and *Greenprint Raleigh*, it is important to consider social and environmental impacts. Reducing auto trips and auto dependency can make significant improvements to air quality. By using Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS), transportation investments can be developed that meet the needs of citizens and the surrounding land uses. Another vision theme addressed in the Transportation Section is *Managing Our Growth*. By 2035, Raleigh’s roadway network will be extremely congested. It will not be possible to widen many congested roads due to limited funding and right-of-way. The problem can be attributed to extensive low density growth patterns, where 35 percent of commuters have a commuting travel time greater than 30 minutes, and per capita vehicle miles greatly exceed national norms for metro areas. Additionally, nearly 94 percent of Raleigh’s population relies on highway-based trips, concentrating traffic pressure on highway corridors. In order for Raleigh’s transportation network to remain sustainable and continue to operate effectively, it will be important to manage the assets already in place and determine the most fiscally responsible transportation investments. This will also take considerable coordination between planning partners such as: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), GoTriangle, GoRaleigh, and the surrounding counties and cities. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity <
> Expanding Housing Choices <
> Managing Our Growth <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation <
> Greenprint Raleigh <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (<
>). # 4.1 Land Use and Transportation Coordination Like many growing cities, Raleigh is experiencing extensive low density suburban growth that has had a negative impact on the overall transportation system. Projects exclusively designed to address automobile congestion are not feasible solutions to the city’s mounting congestion and long commutes. Roadway investments must be balanced with investments in other transportation modes such as public transportation and greenways. In addition, it is important to link development to sidewalks and greenways, as well as provide adequate connections to transit. Wake Transit, the plan for improved and increased bus service for the city and county, lays out a network of frequent and bus rapid transit routes that will improve mobility and help direct land use policy. Land use patterns have a significant effect on trip generation and travel behavior. Compact, mixed-use and walkable developments mitigate traffic generation and impacts to the street system by shortening trip distances, capturing a greater share of trips internally, and facilitating transit and non-motorized trip-making. Successful mixed-use areas with multimodal access can thrive with lower parking ratios, freeing up land and capital for open space amenities and productive, revenue-producing uses. Policies in this section are used to develop and maintain a sustainable multimodal transportation system that supports new and existing residential, commercial and recreational areas, preserves and enhances neighborhood livability and the quality of life for Raleigh’s residents, and provides for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Land use and transportation decisions should mutually reinforce each other. *See also ‘3.4 Land Use and Transportation Coordination’ in Section 3: ‘Land Use’ for additional policies related to improving land use and transportation coordination.* ### Policy T 1.1 Coordination with Land Use Map Transportation planning, development, expansion, and investment in transportation facilities should be coordinated with the Future Land Use Map. *See Section 3. ‘Land Use.’* ### Policy T 1.2 Right-of-way Reservation Support the early identification and acquisition of land for future transportation corridors through land use planning and development permitting. ### Policy T 1.3 Multimodal Transportation Design Offer residents safe and attractive choices among modes including pedestrian walkways, bikeways, public transportation, roadways, railways, and aviation. The street patterns of newly developed areas should provide multimodal transportation alternatives for access to and circulation between adjacent neighborhoods, parks, shopping centers, and employment areas. ### Policy T 1.4 Increasing Mobility Choice Diversify the mobility choices for work trips by targeting transit investments along corridors that connect concentrations of office, retail, and residential uses. ### Policy T 1.5 Context-sensitive Road Design “Context Sensitive” approaches shall be used for new roadways or widening of existing roads to minimize impacts to historic business districts and neighborhoods and sensitive natural areas (particularly in watershed protection, conservation management and metro park protection areas). *See Text Box: Sensitive Area Streets.* <
> ### Policy T 1.6 Transportation Impacts Identify and address transportation impacts before a development is implemented. ## Sensitive Area Streets Sensitive area streets are generally designed with a shoulder and swale section. They are typically utilized within a Metro Park or Watershed Protection Overlay District, or in other areas approved by the City Council. Special design standards for these streets are contained within the Raleigh Street Design Manual. ### Action T 1.1 Completed 2016 ### Action T 1.2 Completed 2014 ### Action T 1.3 Completed 2016 Transportation <
> # Thresholds for Transportation Impact Analysis NCDOT has adopted guidelines for when and how a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) should be performed. Many local jurisdictions, including Wake County, have also adopted TIA thresholds, typically lower than those chosen by NCDOT. NCDOT recommends a TIA when one of the following conditions is met: * *Access is from a four-lane street or greater.* * *Daily trips exceed 3,000 vehicles per day (VPD).* * *Within 1,000 feet of an interchange.* * *Affects a location with a high crash history.* * *Involves existing or proposed median crossover.* * *Involves an active roadway construction project.* * *Involves an active TIP project.* Some example thresholds from local jurisdictions include: * *City of Durham: peak hour trips $\ge$ 150 Vehicles per hour (VPH).* * *Wake County: peak hour trips $\ge$ 100 VPH or daily trips $\ge$ 1,000 VPD.* * *Town of Cary: peak hour trips $\ge$ 20 VPH and any development where expected trips exceed traffic generated by R-20 development (2.2 units per acre).* * *City of Charlotte: daily trips $\ge$ 2,500 VPD; or affects a location with a high crash history; or takes place at a high congestion location (vehicles/capacity > 1); or creates a fourth leg at an existing signalized intersection; or exacerbates an already difficult situation (railroad crossing, school access, etc.).* # 4.2 Roadway System and Transportation Demand Management Raleigh is currently served by a mixture of streets striking different balances between the two major functions: providing mobility for through traffic, and providing access to adjacent land uses. Historically, Raleigh’s roadway system was planned according to the common functional classification scheme of arterials, thoroughfares and collectors. This approach, while useful for determining road function and width, did not provide for much variation in street design based on land use context, nor did it identify how to implement a “complete streets” approach to integrating other modes (pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders) within the right-of-way. With the adoption of a new development code in 2013, Raleigh has implemented an entirely new street classification system that is reflected in three locations: the policy basis for the street system is described in this section of the Comprehensive Plan; the regulatory requirements are set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance; and the engineering standards are detailed in the Raleigh Street Design Manual. The new street classification system addresses contexts ranging from high volume avenues to low-speed neighborhood streets and mixed-use main streets. It also sets forth requirements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities within streets. The function and purpose of each of the street types illustrated on Map T.1 are described on the right. ## Street System Map T.1 reflects the adopted Street Plan for the urbanized area, approved by the City Council and set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The adopted Street Plan is a component of the regional Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which is mutually approved by the governing bodies of all local jurisdictions in the region through the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The street system is classified into six major categories: * *Sensitive Area Streets for locations such as watersheds or other environmentally sensitive lands where storm sewer infrastructure is not available or recommended.* * *Local Streets provide access to primarily residential areas.* * *Mixed Use Streets provide access to areas with ground floor commercial uses and generally feature on-street parking.* * *Major Streets are facilities of four or more lanes that primarily serve mobility functions while providing varying levels of access to adjacent land uses.* * *Industrial and Service Streets serve low volumes and provide access to industrial and commercial areas where demand for pedestrian and bicycle amenities is low.* * *Limited Access Highways are major transportation facilities serving heavy volumes of traffic, often of a regional nature. These facilities are designed to handle the heavy peak hour demands of commuting, or to serve concentrated destinations such as sports and entertainment facilities.* A more detailed description of these categories and the specific street types found in each follows. <
> ## Sensitive Area Streets Portions of the city adjacent to environmentally-sensitive areas require streets to be designed in a manner that reflect this context and the need for a higher degree of environmental and/or aesthetic control. The city has utilized sensitive area street designs for some time within designated watershed areas and adjacent to Umstead State Park. Streets in these areas have historically employed narrower impervious surface footprints and utilized open channel shoulder and ditch cross-sections. Newer facility designs for this class of streets have included pedestrian or greenway infrastructure located behind the ditchline. The following roadway cross-sections are intended for use in these "Sensitive" areas. * Sensitive Area Parkways *are four-lane streets intended to support regional travel. Medians are a standard feature of parkways in almost every case, except where a narrower cross-section is needed to minimize right-of-way and environmental impact.* * Sensitive Area Avenues *are two-lane streets for use in low-intensity areas. They have relatively narrow paved widths, which includes paved shoulders for bicycle and pedestrian uses in retrofit situations lacking sidewalks.* * Sensitive Area Residential Streets *are appropriate in rural conditions with large lot homes, typically without water and sewer provisions.* ## Local Streets The local street system provides direct access to individual property throughout the city and makes up the majority of the city’s street inventory. Design of these streets can provide substantial flexibility relative to the adjacent land use context and an area’s multimodal transportation needs. However the street design must not be taken for granted, as poorly designed local streets can lead to unsafe driving conditions, negative aesthetics, and poor bicycle and pedestrian access for the community. Local Streets should place a high priority on pedestrian accessibility, and they should also be considered as low speed bicycle and vehicle routes. Local streets should be relatively short in total distance and used less frequently compared to other street typologies. Sidewalks on both sides of the street should be provided in all cases. Travel lanes should not be striped, consistent with the flexible shared-use nature of these streets. * Neighborhood Local *streets come in three varieties that vary in the width allocated to travel and parking lanes. At their narrowest, opposing cars may need to yield to one another in order to pass. Street widths should be chosen based on anticipated traffic demand and consistent with the Raleigh Street Design Manual.* * Multifamily Streets *are a special street type for use in townhouse and apartment/condominium communities where much of the parking demand is accommodated in continuous parking areas adjacent to the public right-of-way. These streets look like a street with parallel, diagonal or perpendicular on-street parking, but with an arrangement by which the parking is outside of the public right of way.* Transportation <
> ## Table T-1 Summary of General Street Capacity | Street Type | Typical Two-Way Volumes | Typical Section | Examples | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Freeway | > 40,000 Vehicles per Day (VPD) | At least two or three lanes in each direction, with medians no direct driveway access | I-40, I-440, US 64 Bypass | | Eight-lane Street | 40,000-60,000 VPD | Four lanes in each direction with medians and limitations on driveway access | Portions of Glenwood Avenue, Capital Boulevard, South Saunders Street | | Six-lane Street | 25,000 – 45,000 VPD | Three lanes in each direction, with medians or a center turn lane and limitations on driveway access | US 401 (Louisburg Road.), NC 50 (Creedmoor Road), Wake Forest Road, Falls of Neuse Road, Hammond Road | | Four-lane Street | 15,000 – 35,000 VPD | Two lanes in each direction, with medians or a center turn lane and varying limitations on driveway access | Millbrook Road, Lynn Road, Hillsborough Street, Blue Ridge Road, Leesville Road, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Brier Creek Parkway | | Three-lane Street | 8,000 – 20,000 VPD | At least one lane in each direction, with medians or a center turn lane | Clark Avenue, Ray Road, Newton Road, Lassiter Mill Road, Peace Street | | Two-lane Street | <10,000 VPD | One lane in each direction with various configurations for on-street parking | Various | Transportation <
> ## Mixed Use Streets Mixed-use streets come in two basic types: Avenues, which are intended for areas of more suburban development, and Main Streets, which are appropriate for urban mixed-use settings where buildings front on the sidewalk. * Mixed-Use Avenues *are two- or three-lane facilities that provide access to abutting commercial and mixed land uses as well as higher density residences. They serve as primary bicycle and pedestrian routes with bicycle lanes and sidewalks, and may also integrate local transit vehicles. Avenues may feature a median or center turn lane, and may provide on-street parking.* * Main Streets *are intended for denser, more urban areas with lower vehicular speeds. Unlike Avenues, bike lanes are not provided, as cyclists are intended to use the full travel lane. Wider sidewalks and the option of diagonal on-street parking are also provided.* ## Major Streets The Major Street category includes Avenues of four or more lanes, and also introduces a new street type, the Multi-Way Boulevard. * Avenues *functioning as Major Streets have a similar purpose to two- and three-lane Avenues but apply to thoroughfare and arterial streets that require four or more lanes to accommodate traffic demand. Avenues with four or more lanes always feature medians. Signalized intersections are spaced further apart on major streets to better facilitate vehicular mobility. Major transit routes are often found on these corridors. Mid-block pedestrian crossings shall be installed on long blocks to maintain walkability in areas where pedestrian usage could be heavy and to provide easy access to transit facilities. On-street parking on facilities of six or more lanes is not recommended; such streets should be designed as Boulevards.* * Boulevards *represent a unique street cross-section that are intended to provide a high level of both access and mobility — accommodating a significant volume of through traffic, while also providing a high level of access to urban land uses with welcoming pedestrian amenities. Multi-Way Boulevards solve this conflict by using medians to separate through travel lanes from lanes used for parking access and bicycle circulation. Pedestrian accessibility is typically provided directly adjacent to the land uses and separated from the through travel lanes.* ## Industrial and Service Streets Streets within industrial and service areas typically carry lower traffic volumes but accommodate a higher proportion of truck traffic. Pedestrian facilities do not need to be as generous as in mixed-use areas, and separate bicycle facilities are not provided. On-street parking may be provided along these streets, however parking may be restricted in cases where industrial access points require additional space to accommodate larger vehicles. # Map T-1: Street Plan <
> ### Sensitive Area Streets * Sensitive Area Parkway * Sensitive Area Avenue ### Local Streets * Neighborhood Street ### Mixed Use Streets * Avenue 2-Lane, Undivided * Avenue 2-Lane, Divided * Avenue 3-Lane, Parallel Parking * Main Street ### Major Streets * Avenue 4-Lane, Parallel Parking * Avenue 4-Lane, Divided * Avenue 6-Lane, Divided * Busway 2-Lane * Busway 4-Lane * Busway 6-Lane * Multi-Way Boulevard ### Industrial and Service Streets * Industrial Street ### Other Streets * Limited Access Highway * Proposed Street (all colors) ## Limited Access Highways Limited Access Highways include both limited-access Freeways and Expressways. Freeways are multi-lane, median-divided highways designed to the highest possible standard. Freeways are characterized by complete control of access and are subject to regulation by NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These facilities are designed to carry heavy amounts of traffic at higher rates of speed and do not typically include any multimodal infrastructure within the corridor. Access is provided through grade-separated interchanges and no perpendicular access via at-grade intersections or driveways is allowed. Examples of this type of roadway are interstates 40 and 440. Expressways are multi-lane, median-divided highways with lower design standards than Freeways and a high degree of access restriction, however at-grade intersections, traffic signals, and direct driveway access may be utilized. Multimodal infrastructure within these corridors is usually provided via separated, parallel facilities. Capital Boulevard between Wade Avenue and Wake Forest Road is an example of an Expressway. ## Special Study Areas During the comprehensive planning process, five specific areas of Raleigh were identified for focused transportation studies to either determine preferred roadway alignments, locate potential new connections, or identify other roadway projects needed to address specific transportation and land use issues or problems. The Crabtree Valley Study was completed and presented to City Council in 2011. The Gorman Street extension will be evaluated as part of a larger regional effort. The Southern Gateway Corridor Study addressed the need for planning in the Centennial Parkway, Lake Wheeler Road, and Maywood Avenue area. Two areas forecasted to suffer from significant congestion based on 2040 growth projections remain from the list identified for special study in 2009 and two additional areas were identified as part of the five-year update planning process. The four areas and the study purpose are described below: 1. Six Forks/Wake Forest Road Corridor: *Evaluate the growth projections for this area from I-440 to Wake Forest Road. Future volume projections indicate roadways in this area may be significantly over capacity in the future.* 2. Atlantic Avenue Corridor: *Evaluate the growth projections for the corridor between Capital Boulevard and Millbrook Road. Future volume projections indicate Atlantic Avenue may be over capacity in the future and may warrant reclassification.* 3. Wade Avenue: *Current configuration of Wade Avenue is substandard design. Evaluate ways to address substandard design to reduce congestion and improve safety.* 4. Wake Forest Road/Falls of Neuse: *Current configuration of Wake Forest Road/Falls of Neuse between St. Albans Drive and Strickland Road is substandard design. Evaluate ways to address substandard design to reduce congestion and improve safety.* ### Policy T 2.1 Integration of Travel Modes Promote and develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system that offers safe and attractive choices among modes including pedestrian walkways, bikeways, ride sharing, public transportation, roadways, railways, and aviation. <
> ### Policy T 2.2 Defining Future Rights-of-way As resources permit, move from "conceptual" routes for future streets to more specifically mapped future rights-of-way, backed by engineering studies. Mapping streets also determines where to install water and sewer infrastructure and reduces the need for easements across private property. <
> ### Policy T 2.3 Eliminating Gaps Eliminate “gaps” in the transportation system and provide a higher grid density that will increase mobility options and promote the accessibility of nearby land uses. <
> ### Policy T 2.4 Road Connectivity The use of cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets should be minimized. <
> ### Policy T 2.5 Multimodal Grids All new residential, commercial, or mixed-use developments that construct or extend roadways should include a multimodal network (including non-motorized modes) that provides for a well-connected, walkable community, preferably as a grid or modified grid. <
> ### Policy T 2.6 Preserving the Grid Existing street grid networks should be preserved and extended where feasible and appropriate to increase overall connectivity. <
> ### Policy T 2.7 Conditions for Roadway Closure No street, alley, or other public right-of-way shall be abandoned without the highest level of scrutiny and concurrence among affected city departments and utility companies. Right-of-way abandonment shall be subject to the following findings: • *The closure will not compromise the integrity of the city's street network, nor lead to a significant loss of vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian connectivity.* • *The closure will not impair the ability to provide utility service.* • *The closure will not adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of the community, including access by emergency vehicles.* • *The proposed closure is not in conflict with adopted Raleigh Historic Development Commission policy regarding street, alley, or other public right-of-way closures in local historic and National Register districts.* • *The proposed closure is in the public interest.* <
> ### Policy T 2.8 Access Management Strategies Appropriate access management strategies (i.e. location and spacing of permitted driveways) should be applied based on a roadway’s functional characteristics, surrounding land uses, and the roadway’s users. <
> ### Policy T 2.9 Curb Cuts The development of curb cuts along public streets—particularly on major streets—should be minimized to reduce vehicular conflicts, increase pedestrian safety, and improve roadway capacity. <
> #### Policy T 2.10 Level of Service Maintain level of service (LOS) "E" or better on all roadways and for overall intersection operation at all times, including peak travel times, unless maintaining this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals. ### Level of Service (LOS) **LOS A** - Drivers perceive little or no delay and easily progress along a corridor. **LOS B** - Drivers experience some delay but generally driving conditions are favorable. **LOS C** - Travel speeds are slightly lower than the posted speed with noticeable delay in intersection areas. **LOS D** - Travel speeds are well below the posted speed with few opportunities to pass and considerable intersection delay. **LOS E** - The facility is operating at capacity and there are virtually no useable gaps in the traffic. This is typically the acceptable threshold for urban areas. **LOS F** - More traffic desires to use a particular facility than it is designed to handle resulting in extreme delays. *Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM)* #### Policy T 2.11 Lane Additions Consider adding lanes to increase roadway capacity only after the roadway exceeds 20 percent of full capacity and all other alternative approaches have been considered. This includes enhancing other transportation modes and roadway modifications such as restricting driveway access and adding turn lanes. Improvements to the roadway network should increase vehicle dispersion and circulation. #### Policy T 2.12 Interjurisdictional Transportation Planning Continue to work with regional planning partners and local transportation agencies to coordinate transportation planning, operations, and funding priorities and to identify existing and future transportation corridors that should be linked across jurisdictional boundaries so that sufficient right-of-way may be preserved. #### Policy T 2.13 Increasing Vehicle Occupancy Encourage and support programs that increase vehicle occupancy, including the provision of traveler information, shuttles, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, park and ride, transit pass subsidies, and other methods (refer to Triangle Region Long Range Transportation Demand Management Plan). #### Policy T 2.14 Employer-based Trip Reduction Encourage employers to provide transit and bikeshare subsidies, bicycle facilities, alternative work schedules, ridesharing, telecommuting and work-at-home programs, employee education, and preferential parking for carpools/vanpools. #### Policy T 2.15 Sensitive Road Design Ensure that all new roadway projects and major reconstruction projects preserve existing trees and topography to the maximum extent feasible and provide an adequate street tree canopy while providing for the safest facility possible. Involve relevant experts (such as a certified arborist) in project planning when implementing this policy. ### Policy T 2.16 Assessing Changes in Road Design Subject all proposed changes to the treatment of existing vehicular rights-of-way, such as changes to the number and type of travel lanes, to a study prior to implementation to determine the impacts on the larger network and the level of service of all relevant modes. ### Policy T 2.17 Bridge Improvements Coordinate with NCDOT for bridge monitoring, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Bridge improvements should be considered when roadway investments are being pursued. ### Policy T 2.18 Roadway Tree Canopies Provide additional tree canopies consistent with recommendations from the Urban Forestry Division. Along multi-lane roads with planted medians, this reduces the visual height-to-width ratio of the overall streetscape and provides pedestrian refuges at signalized crossings. ### Action T 2.1 Completed 2015 ### Action T 2.2 Completed 2016 ### Action T 2.3 Right-of-way Reservation Conduct detailed analyses of proposed corridors and roadway connections to establish alignments, and take proactive steps to resolve future corridors and connections via development coordination or by acquisition. ### Action T 2.4 Limited Access Lane Management Coordinate with NCDOT on limited access facilities to investigate the feasibility of establishing lane management policies such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, truck lanes, express lanes, and toll lanes. ### Action T 2.5 Intermodal Facility Prioritization Work with CAMPO in the prioritization of inter-modal transportation facilities to ensure that adequate funding consideration for the planning and programming of these facilities is being given as part of CAMPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). ### Action T 2.6 Completed 2015 ### Action T 2.7 Special Transportation Studies Undertake special studies for the areas identified in the introduction to this section: • *Six Forks/Wake Forest Road Corridor south of I-440.* • *Atlantic Avenue Corridor.* • *Wade Avenue.* • *Wake Forest Road/Falls of Neuse.* ### Action T 2.8 Transportation Funding Strategy Develop a funding strategy for all maintenance and new construction transportation projects, including public/private partnerships for construction of strategic transportation facilities. The strategy should reflect a multimodal approach to transportation issues. ### Action T 2.9 Completed 2014 ## 4.3 Complete Streets: Hierarchy and Design Transportation corridors should be more than just roadways for automobiles. Corridors can be designed and classified to reflect a balance between various modes and surrounding land uses. The term "Complete Streets" refers to streets that are designed to enable safe access and mobility for all users (i.e., pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders) of all ages and abilities. The urban form, trees, and buffers along such streets should also relate to the modes of transportation they support and the land uses they serve. Complete streets further social justice by integrating users of different means and abilities, and enhance real estate value by improving the public realm. While the CAMPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan classifies roadways based on vehicle capacity and function, the Raleigh Street Plan provides guidance on how streets should relate to the land uses they serve, and the role of pedestrian and bicycle circulation and transit. Raleigh has transitioned to a new typology that includes the dimensions of street character and land use in addition to capacity and function, and broadens the notion of capacity to encompass the movement of people, not just cars. The new classifications include typologies such as Avenues, Boulevards, Parkways, and Main Streets. NCDOT is considering similar transitions to its street classification system as part of its implementation of its Complete Streets Policy. The Street Map, displayed in Map T-1, further applies a new system of street overlays as part of the Growth Framework Map (*see Map F-1 in Section 2: ‘Framework’*). There are four types of corridors identified on the Map: highway, multimodal, urban, and parkway. These types have been applied to all existing and proposed major streets within the city. * Highways: *These are limited-access, grade separated roadways providing little to no direct access to adjacent land uses. NCDOT maintains jurisdiction over these facilities and no changes are proposed to how these are planned and developed.* * Multimodal Streets: *Transit and non-motorized modes are anticipated to provide a significant share of the total capacity of these streets, and the street right-of-way should be managed accordingly. Where bus is the transit mode, these streets should be targeted for improvements such as shelters and benches at every stop. Queue jump lanes, signal priorities, and exclusive lanes for transit may also be appropriate. Some transit streets may eventually convert to transitway service, and for all such streets, a high level of pedestrian facilities and amenities should be provided. Land uses are expected to directly connect to and address the street. Bicycles should be integrated. Alternative cross-sections may be employed to meet these goals.* * Urban Streets: *These are like multimodal streets but are not anticipated to have the same level of transit service. Urban streets can be narrower than other streets in the same classification, and should include on-street parking (where appropriate) and enhanced pedestrian facilities.* * Parkways: *These streets are suburban in nature and more likely to be framed by landscaping rather than buildings. More traditional cross-sections can be employed on these streets. Landscaped medians are encouraged.* ## Implementing a Complete Streets Network The City of Raleigh is dedicated to improving the lives, health, and well-being of our residents and visitors, regardless of age, income, health, or mode of transport. A network of Complete Streets across the city contributes to both livability and sustainability in that it provides safe and equitable mobility choices, recognizes all users regardless of physical ability or mode of travel, provides amenities and infrastructure for all modes, and complements adjoining architectural, economic, community, and land use patterns. With a Complete Streets Policy, the city recognizes that all streets are different and that the needs of various users must be balanced. Such a network will be accessible to users of all ages and ability—including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit users, motorists, freight providers, and municipal and emergency service providers—and ensure that all users experience a functional and visually attractive environment. In developing a Complete Streets network, transportation improvements may include a wide variety of facilities and amenities, as appropriate, to meet the needs of all users. These may include but are not limited to: * *Sidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements, such as traffic signals, roundabouts, bulb-outs,curb extensions, high visibility crossings, buffer zones, and shared use pathways.* * *Bicycle safety improvements, such as conventional bike lanes, bike parking, separated bike lanes, wide outside lanes, sharrows, paved shoulders, and signal detection.* * *ADA compliance and full accessibility.* * *Transit infrastructure including bus shelters, benches, trash cans, and pads.* * *Street- and pedestrian-level lighting\.* * *Street trees, landscaping, street furniture, and adequate stormwater/drainage facilities.* * *Access for emergency services without compromising safety or accessibility.* * *Infrastructure for freight providers, including designated routes, large turning radii, and loading zones.* Complete street designs should be context-sensitive, consider local needs, and incorporate up-to-date design standards appropriate for the project setting. Each project must be considered both individually and as part of a connected network. Design should consider such elements as natural features, adjacent land uses, input from local stakeholders and merchants, community values, and future development patterns as outlined in the city’s Future Land Use Map, located in Section 3. Land Use, Comprehensive Plan, and adopted studies. When determining the community context and the feasibility of implementing Complete Streets concepts, the top priority is the safety of all users, followed by multimodal level of service, and then vehicular level of service. The city’s Complete Streets Policy applies to all street projects, including those involving new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation, or changes in pavement marking. The city will actively look for opportunities to repurpose rights-of-way to enhance connectivity for all travelers. The development of a Complete Streets network will be achieved incrementally through single projects, as well as through continuing minor improvements, maintenance, and operational activities. The city will need to work closely with local, regional, and federal transportation agencies to promote compliance, as well as collaborate with all users of the public rights-of-way, such as utilities, to ensure that the principles and practices of Complete Streets are embedded within their planning, design, Transportation Figure T-1: Sample Complete Streets Cross Section <
> ### Policy T 3.1 Complete Street Implementation For all street projects and improvements affecting the public right-of-way, consider and incorporate Complete Street principles and design standards that provide mobility for all types of transportation modes (pedestrian, bicycle, auto, transit, freight) and support mutually-reinforcing land use and transportation decisions. Work with NCDOT to implement these design standards for state-maintained roads within the city’s jurisdiction. *See Text Box: Implementing a Complete Streets Network* ### Policy T 3.2 Integrating Multiple Users Ensure that all new roadway projects and major reconstruction projects provide appropriate and adequate right-of-way for safe and convenient movement for all users including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists. Manage the use of rights-of-way to best serve future travel demand (e.g., Multimodal Streets—incorporate wider sidewalks where appropriate). ### Policy T 3.3 Redefining LOS Expand the city’s use of level of service standards to include bicycle (BLOS), pedestrian (PLOS), and transit (TLOS) levels of service. ### Policy T 3.4 Pedestrian-friendly Road Design Design Complete Street amenities with the pedestrian in mind, avoiding the use of traffic control and safety devices that favor vehicles. ### Policy T 3.5 Medians Limit the use of undivided multi-lane streets and utilize raised or landscaped medians, where feasible, to improve safety and vehicle throughput while providing opportunities for pedestrian refuges and landscaping. ### Policy T 3.6 Transportation Data Collection Continually collect data that supports the monitoring of roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian performance measures such as level of service Transportation <
> Action T 3.1 **Completed 2014** *** Action T 3.2 **Completed 2014** *** Action T 3.3 **Completed 2013** *** Action T 3.4 **Converted to Policy 2021** *** Action T 3.5 **Completed 2016** *** # 4.4 Public Transportation Transit plays a key role in furthering the city’s commitment to environmental stewardship, economic strength and social integrity. From the first privately owned mule-drawn trolley in Raleigh in 1886 to the conversion of electric streetcars to diesel motor coaches in 1933 and to the present-day public service providers connecting destinations throughout the city and the Triangle region, public mass transportation has played an essential role in providing mobility to the city’s citizens and visitors. The presence of a robust transit system that provides a legitimate alternative to the automobile is a critical element of overall community sustainability. Transit supports social, economic, and environmental sustainability in the following ways: * *Social – By providing mobility choice and access to the public, regardless of age, disability, preference to drive, or financial resources and also by supporting active transportation that has health benefits.* * *Economic – By providing a critical role in linking residents to jobs, by catalyzing sustainable economic development and also by reducing the financial burden of transportation to the local and regional economy.* * *Environmental – By reducing vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, carbon emissions, shortening trip lengths, improving air quality, as well as supporting land development that consumes less land.* Transit best achieves these goals when frequent service is provided to high-ridership locations and when development density is increased in areas with frequent service. Because financial resources are finite, frequent transit service cannot and should not be provided everywhere in the city. The Comprehensive Plan establishes a vision and policy statements in order to clearly communicate to residents, developers, business and institutions where frequent transit services will be provided. These policies are followed by measurable goals and action items for the city to pursue. The Wake County Transit Plan process (*see Text Box; Wake County Transit Plan*), which took place in 2015 and 2016, addressed major questions about the future of transit in the region. It involved analysis not just of types of transit but also of broad goals and trade-offs. These included whether transit should serve more people, by creating high-frequency and higher-speed routes that connect major centers, or cover more area, by spreading resources across a wider area at the cost of less frequency and slower speeds. The process included a strong preference for achieving higher ridership. Ultimately, the city’s goal is an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable public transportation system that is vital to the community and supports freedom by expanding the quantity and quality of mobility choices, that complements broader comprehensive planning policies, and helps promote the region’s larger public transit vision. The city has several specific goals for its transit system, including: * Mode Share. *Increase non-single occupancy vehicle mode share by emphasizing a network that prioritizes ridership, by focusing on high-frequency routes that connect major population centers with major destinations, over coverage.* * Metrics. *Improve system quality and efficiency as measured by metrics such as passenger trips per unit of service, units of service per local investment and service reliability.* * Frequent Network. *Increase span of service and frequency to growth centers and in priority transit corridors.* * Appeal. *Improve the appeal of the system so that citizens consider it an attractive and viable transportation choice.* Transportation <
> * Regional Transit. *Promote regional transit across the Triangle by providing effective connections to other local and regional transit providers.* * Innovation through Technology and Partnerships. *Leverage civic, academic and other resources in the city and the region to foster innovative technological improvements to the public transit system.* Public transportation services in the City of Raleigh are provided by GoRaleigh, GoTriangle (TTA) and North Carolina State University (Wolfline). Additionally, several municipalities in Wake County contract with these agencies to provide express commuter service to the City of Raleigh. In addition to being the primary provider of local fixed-route transit services, GoRaleigh also provides paratransit services through the GoRaleigh Access program to locations generally within the city’s boundaries. GoRaleigh receives local funding from the City of Raleigh and is governed by the Raleigh Transit Authority (RTA), a board of nine citizens appointed by the Raleigh City Council. While Raleigh supports efforts for a regional transit system, emphasis must also be placed on improving transit services within the city. Additional transit services will be required to enhance mobility options, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and encourage transit-oriented development around planned transit station areas. Transit connections need to be considered for the major trip generators in Raleigh (examples include Wake Medical Campus, NCSU, downtown Raleigh, Crabtree, the Blue Ridge corridor, Highwoods). Further, enhanced local bus service will be needed to deliver riders to new rail stations, reducing the need to drive to these stations. Policies in this section seek to foster increased transit use through the extension of existing lines, the provision of new services, increased frequency of service, and the provision of direct pedestrian and bicycle access to transit station areas. Increased transit use will further the city’s efforts to become more sustainable and energy efficient. Transit and land use will be tightly linked, with transit stations integrated into walkable, transit-oriented developments. Plans will be developed for new transit services such as commuter rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), new bus routes between activity centers, and neighborhood bus service. Planned transit facilities are shown in Map T-2. *See also 14.1 ‘Transportation Investments’ in Section 14: ‘Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination’ for related policies.* ## Wake County Transit Plan The Wake County Board of Commissioners voted to officially adopt the recommended Wake County Transit Plan in June 2016. They joined the governing boards of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and GoTriangle, which approved the plan and corresponding Transit Governance Interlocal Agreement in May 2016. The final report covers three major categories of investment: increased bus service, implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) and implementation of commuter rail transit. ### Increased Bus Service * *This would expand bus service throughout the region to connect communities, specifically:* * *Expand existing frequent bus service from 17 to 83 miles, with service at least every 15 minutes throughout the day.* * *Improve links between colleges and universities, employment centers, medical facilities, dense residential areas, RDU Airport and downtowns.* * *Implement consistent seven-day-a-week service, with the same schedule on Sunday as on Monday.* * *Operate routes every 30-60 minutes to provide more coverage across Wake County.* ### Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) BRT involves building dedicated bus lanes on local roads, so bus operators can bypass traffic and keep their routes on schedule. To implement BRT for the first time in Wake County, the plan will construct approximately 20 miles of BRT-related infrastructure improvements. Four initial BRT corridors have been identified: * *New Bern Avenue between Raleigh Boulevard and near WakeMed.* * *Capital Boulevard between Peace Street and the Wake Forest Road intersection.* * *South Wilmington Street towards Garner.* * *Western Boulevard between Raleigh and Cary.* Along these corridors, buses would have priority treatment at traffic signals. BRT stations will allow off-board fare payment and feature raised platforms, making it easier for passengers with wheelchairs, strollers or bicycles to board the bus. ### Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) CRT will use existing railroad tracks to provide comfortable passenger service that allows riders to relax or work on their way to key destinations. * *37 miles of CRT would be in place from Garner to downtown Raleigh, N.C. State University, Cary, Morrisville and the Research Triangle Park continuing to Durham.* * *Up to eight trips would run in each direction during peak hours.* * *One to two trips would run each way during midday and evening hours.* * *Will leverage the bus network to connect riders with key destinations like RDU Airport.* ### Implementation It will cost about $2.3 billion to build and operate the elements of this plan over the first 10 years. The transit plan is designed to be funded through a combination of local, state and federal dollars, as well as farebox revenue. The main funding source for the transit plan is the local half-cent sales tax, which was approved by voters in 2016. Local funding would also include increased vehicle registration fees. ### Policy T 4.1 Promoting Transit Promote and support quality transit services to enhance mobility options and to meet the needs of the city’s residents and visitors, with a focus on transit-dependent households. ### Policy T 4.2 Short-term Bus Improvements Enhance local and regional bus transit service in the short-term along key corridors where long-term bus rapid transit improvements are planned and identified in the Wake County Transit Plan. ### Policy T 4.3 High-quality Priorities Prioritize high-quality frequent transit investments in corridors with the greatest potential to attract riders and shape development and redevelopment. <
> Picture T-3 Bus Stop Design Bus Stop Standards (distances represent the appropriate no parking zone to encompass the actual stopping point of the bus, plus room for it to approach and leave the stop) Near side of intersection: 85 – 100 feet in length Mid-block: 130 – 175 feet in length Far side of intersection: 80 – 85 feet in length ### Policy T 4.4 Right-of-way Reservation for Transit Preserve right-of-way for future transit and require that new development and redevelopment provide transit easements for planned alignments, rail stations, and bus stops within existing and planned transit corridors as identified in the Wake County Transit Plan. ### Policy T 4.5 Transit Efficiency Promote transit efficiency by reducing waiting time and transfer time within the GoRaleigh system and to other transit providers. ### Policy T 4.6 Event-based Transit Services Substitute event-based transit services for on-site parking capacity where feasible, to free land for other uses around event locations. ### Policy T 4.7 Transit Availability Increase the availability of public transportation between residential and employment areas, as well as to regional facilities such as RDU International Airport and Research Triangle Park. ### Policy T 4.8 Bus Waiting Areas Developments located within existing and planned bus transit corridors should coordinate with GoRaleigh to provide a stop facility that is lit and includes a shelter, bench, a waste receptacle, and other amenities as appropriate. Transportation <
> ### Policy T 4.9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Near Transit Coordinate with local transit providers to identify pedestrian and/or bicycle needs within a reasonable distance of transit stops in need of enhancement for all transit users, including persons with disabilities. ### Policy T 4.10 Transit-first Features Incorporate features such as traffic signal priority, queue jumps, and exclusive transit lanes to improve transit operations and reliability, where appropriate. ### Policy T 4.11 Demand-responsive Transit Support the provision of demand-responsive services (e.g., expansion of GoRaleigh Access and other transportation services for those unable to use conventional transit). ### Policy T 4.12 Special Needs Provide adequate and accessible transit for residents and visitors with special needs, including senior citizens, the disabled, and transit-dependent persons. ### Policy T 4.13 Crosstown Travel Create routes and a network of secondary transfer hubs that facilitate crosstown and suburb-to-suburb travel patterns. ### Policy T 4.14 Growth Centers Provide circulator services to facilitate mobility within identified City Growth Centers (*See the Growth Framework Map in Section 2. Framework*) and to connect these centers with bus rapid transit or rail and major transit routes. ### Policy T 4.15 Enhanced Rider Amenities Promote the use of transit facilities and services through enhanced pedestrian access and provisions for seating, shelter, and amenities. ### Policy T 4.16 Bus Stop Spacing Explore opportunities to provide more widely spaced bus stops with higher amenity levels, trading shorter walking distances with faster transit service and better facilities. #### Policy T 4.17 Removed 2019 *** #### Policy T 4.18 Transit Service Coordination Coordinate local bus route and schedule planning, including feeder services, with new bus rapid transit or rail services, as they become available. <
> *** #### Policy T 4.19 Service Targets and Evaluation Establish service and performance targets for the transit system to support the city’s overall vision for public transportation. Monitor the effectiveness of transit plan implementation and overall service performance to inform future planning efforts. <
> *** #### Policy T 4.20 Transit Planning Outcomes Transit planning outcomes should equally value existing riders and potential riders, work based trips and non-work based trips, and finally door-to-door travel times and stop-to-stop travel times. <
> *** #### Policy T 4.21 System Appeal Improve the appeal of the transit system through marketing, outreach, and education campaigns. <
> *** #### Policy T 4.22 Regional Transit Lead, support, and develop countywide and regional public transportation services that contribute to the continued prosperity of the City of Raleigh, Wake County and the Triangle region. Lead regional planning efforts to improve transit services and pursue a regional transit system. Ensure local planning efforts are compatible with the regional vision. <
> *** #### Policy T 4.23 Bike, Ride and Car Share as Public Transportation Consider bike, ride and car share to be a component of the city’s public transportation network. Plan how to integrate these forms of transportation and to coordinate them with existing and future transit services. <
> *** #### Policy T 4.24 Innovation The city’s transit and transportation management (TDM) efforts should reach out to innovators in the city to leverage grassroots resources and develop creative technology solutions that benefit public transportation users <
> *** #### Action T 4.1 Multimodal Transportation Center Continue to implement subsequent phases of the Raleigh Union Station project. Upon completion, the proposed central station will link multiple travel modes, including local, regional, and long-distance bus; regional, commuter, and long-distance passenger rail (Phase I); and taxis, cars, and bicycles. *** #### Action T 4.2 Transit Stop Evaluations Evaluate transit stops to determine their convenience and effectiveness to serve riders and support land use policies. *** #### Action T 4.3 Removed 2019 *** #### Action T 4.4 Removed 2019 *** #### Action T 4.5 Completed 2016 *** Transportation <
> #### Action T 4.6 **Park and Ride Lots** Locate park and ride lots along the fringes of the city, with a direct connection to transit. Specifically, develop park and ride facilities along the following corridors: Capital Boulevard/Atlantic Avenue; Six Forks Road; Glenwood Avenue; Creedmoor Road; and New Bern Avenue. Also develop enhanced park and ride facilities in West Raleigh in the Arena area and in the South Saunders/Tryon Road area. #### Action T 4.7 **Shared Parking and Transit** Evaluate the need and benefits of shared park and ride lots in areas that have significant unused daytime parking, such as shopping malls. Work with property owners and local communities to allocate off-street parking surpluses for carpooling and transit users. #### Action T 4.8 **Secondary Transit Hubs** Enhance secondary transit hubs at Crabtree ValleyMall, NCSU, Triangle Town Center, and WakeMed. Establish new hubs in south Raleigh near Garner, New Bern at New Hope, and explore the potential for additional bus as the system expands. #### Action T 4.9 **Completed 2016** #### Action T 4.10 **Local Financing for Transit** Pursue local and innovative financing options, beyond the transit sales tax, to assist in funding transit infrastructure investments. ### Action T 4.11 Completed 2015 *** ### Action T 4.12 Bench and Shelter Siting Work with NCDOT to modernize the rules governing state-maintained roadways, to facilitate the placement of benches and shelters along Raleigh’s major transit corridors. *** ### Action T 4.13 Completed 2012 *** ### Action T 4.14 Service Targets Establish policy statements and service targets for mode-share and for ridership versus coverage, and establish timeframes for achieving these goals. *** ### Action T 4.15 Frequent Network Map Create a series of frequent network maps for public distribution that show where existing all-day frequent transit service is available. *** ### Action T 4.16 Downtown Services Investigate opportunities to improve the utility of public transportation services in downtown Raleigh, such as evaluating a potential fare-free downtown transit district that promotes the use of transit for short trips downtown. Evaluate the potential to consolidate fixed-route services into select transit corridors to create a downtown frequent network of services. *** ### Action T 4.17 Paratransit Efficiency and Coordination Investigate opportunities to improve paratransit service by identifying opportunities to coordinate with larger employers to create new fixed-route services where appropriate. Identify opportunities to improve the efficiency and quality of city-provided paratransit services to ensure that the city can continue to provide an effective paratransit service. *** ### Action T 4.18 Completed 2021 *** ### Action T 4.19 Bike, Ride and Car Share Identify opportunities to creatively leverage bike, ride and car share systems to augment public transit, enhance system connectivity, and reduce transit trip travel times. Identify creative ways to share local operating funds between these services and public transit that results in a more cost-effective network. *** ### Action T 4.20 Low-income Fares Study the possibility of reduced or eliminated fares for low-income residents. *** # Map T-2: Planned Transit Facilities <
> | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | — Frequent Bus Network\* | \_\_\_\_ Downtown\* | o GoRaleigh Station | | — Regional Bus Connections\* | **Bus Rapid Transit Corridor\*** | o Raleigh Union Station | | — Commuter Rail Corridor | ▭ Selected Route | | | | ▭ Proposed Route Options | | \*Routes shown are representational and may not reflect final alignments as further planning is undertaken to implement the recommendations of the Wake Transit Plan. Alignments in Downtown will be further refined in a separate study. # 4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Bicycles and pedestrians are important components of Raleigh’s transportation system. There are significant gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian networks that hinder effective and safe circulation. This is particularly important in key locations such as retail and mixed-use centers, schools, libraries, and parks. The quality of life will be greatly enhanced in Raleigh by investing in bicycle and pedestrian networks and amenities. Policies in this section support the goal of providing Raleigh with a safe, walkable, and bikeable environment through a continuous pedestrian and bicycle network. Residents will be encouraged to integrate bicycling and walking into their daily activities to promote a healthier lifestyle and improve energy conservation. The construction of a comprehensive citywide bicycle and pedestrian network, support facilities such as convenient and secure bicycle parking, and an educated driving and bicycling public will facilitate increased bicycling and walking. The existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities are displayed in Map T-3. ### Policy T 5.1 Enhancing Bike/Pedestrian Circulation Enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation, access, and safety along corridors, downtown, in activity and employment centers, at densely developed areas and transit stations, and near schools, libraries, and parks. <
> ### Policy T 5.2 Incorporating Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements All new developments, roadway reconstruction projects, and roadway resurfacing projects in the City of Raleigh’s jurisdiction should include appropriate bicycle facilities shown in the Recommended Bikeway Network contained in the city’s BikeRaleigh Plan. <
> ### Policy T 5.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Maintain and construct safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are universally accessible, adequately illuminated, and properly designed to reduce conflicts among motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. <
> ### Policy T 5.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Connectivity Continuous pedestrian and bicycle networks should be provided within and between existing and new developments to facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel free of major barriers and impediments such as cul-de-sacs and large parking lots. <
> ### Policy T 5.5 Sidewalk Requirements New subdivisions and developments should provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. <
> ### Policy T 5.6 Bridges, Underpasses, and Interchanges Pedestrians and bicyclists shall be integrated on roadway bridges, underpasses, and interchanges (except on roadways where they are prohibited by law). Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including wide sidewalks, should be included on all new bridges and underpasses (requires NCDOT coordination on state-maintained roads). <
> ### Policy T 5.7 Capital Area Greenway Treat the Capital Area Greenway trail system as part of the city’s transportation network for bicycles and pedestrians and plan connections to the system accordingly. <
> Transportation <
> ### Policy T 5.8 Workplace Bicycle Facilities Encourage bicycle facilities, such as secured bicycle racks, personal lockers, and showers for new and existing office developments to encourage bicycling as an alternative mode for work commutes. ### Policy T 5.9 Pedestrian Networks New subdivisions and large-scale developments should include safe pedestrian walkways or multi-use paths that provide direct links between roadways and major destinations such as transit stops, schools, parks, and shopping centers. ### Policy T 5.10 Building Orientation All primary building entrances should front onto a publicly accessible, and easily discernible, and ADA-compliant walkway that leads directly from the street to the front door to improve pedestrian access. ### Policy T 5.11 New Bike Routes Convert underused right-of-way along travel lanes and railroad corridors to bikeways or widen outside lanes wherever possible and desirable. ### Policy T 5.12 Safe Routes to School Support infrastructure and programs that encourage children to walk and bicycle safely to school. Coordinate with Wake County Public School System and NCDOT Bike/Pedestrian Division to identify projects eligible for "Safe Routes to Schools" funding. ### Policy T 5.13 Pedestrian Infrastructure Ensure that streets in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity (employment centers, residential areas, mixed-use areas, schools) support pedestrian travel by providing such elements as frequent and safe pedestrian crossings, large medians for pedestrian refuges, bicycle lanes, frontage roads with on-street parking, and/or grade separated crossings. ### Policy T 5.14 Rails to Trails Encourage the development of greenway trails along existing rail corridors. ### Policy T 5.15 Facilities for All Ages Bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure should be designed in a manner that is safe, accommodating, and functional for people of all ages and physical abilities. ### Policy T 5.16 Personal Motorized Modes Continue to manage the use of personal motorized modes of travel, including scooters and other emerging Personal Accessibility Vehicles (PAVs). Explore additional implementation methods that safely integrate PAVs within the pedestrian and bicycle network. ### Action T 5.1 Completed 2014 *** ### Action T 5.2 Completed 2014 *** ### Action T 5.3 Completed 2013 *** ### Action T 5.4 Completed 2012 *** ### Action T 5.5 Trail and Path Width Develop and maintain greenway trails and multi-use paths to be no less than ten feet wide as identified in the BikeRaleigh Plan and current AASHTO standards. *** ### Action T 5.6 Bicycle Plan Implementation Maintain and implement the BikeRaleigh Plan. *** ### Action T 5.7 Completed 2011 *** ### Action T 5.8 Completed 2013 *** ### Action T 5.9 Converted to Policy 2022 *** ### Action T 5.10 Pedestrian Crossing Standards Establish standards for maximum distances between pedestrian crossings that are also associated with roadway classification to enhance walking and transit use. *** ### Action T 5.11 Crosswalk Safety Widen crosswalks and install durable painted crosswalks and/or other investments to increase pedestrian safety and visibility at crossings. *** ### Action T 5.12 Completed 2015 *** ### Action T 5.13 Completed 2014 *** ### Action T 5.14 Railroad Greenway Trails Partner with railroad entities to locate additional greenway trails along existing rail lines. *** ### Action T 5.15 Completed 2021 *** Transportation # Map T-3: Planned Bicycle Facilities <
> ### Long Term Planned Facility — Bicycle Lane — Separated Bikeway — Existing Greenway Trail Map created 4/12/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development # 4.6 Parking Management While Raleigh currently has parking standards, there is a need to modify and enforce these standards to optimize supply. In some instances there is an over-abundance of parking supply, incentivizing single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. By managing and pricing the parking supply, the city can encourage transit, bicycling, and walking as means of travel. This also results in positive effects to air quality and reduces overall congestion on the roadway network. Policies in this section focus on providing sufficient parking for businesses, while protecting adjacent land uses and the environment. Reduced parking requirements will be provided where appropriate to promote walkable communities and alternative modes of transportation. On-street parking use and shared parking will be maximized through the use of parking management tools. ### Policy T 6.1 Surface Parking Alternatives Reduce the amount of land devoted to parking through measures such as development of parking structures and underground parking, the application of shared parking for mixed-use developments, flexible ordinance requirements, maximum parking standards, and the implementation of Transportation Demand Management plans to reduce parking needs. <
> ### Policy T 6.2 Transit Station Parking Establish a transit station area parking program and management strategies for proposed and planned transit stations. <
> ### Policy T 6.3 Parking as a Buffer Encourage the location of on-street parking and drop-off areas adjacent to sidewalks as a buffer to vehicular traffic, for customer convenience, for maximizing on-street parking turnover, and, in locations where significant physical separation is desired, between vehicle travel lanes and bicycle lanes. Parking between sidewalk areas and building fronts should be minimized. <
> ### Policy T 6.4 Shared Parking Strongly encourage shared-use car parking for land uses where peak parking demand occurs at different times of the day, reducing the total number of spaces required. <
> ## Shared Parking Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two conditions: (1) variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the individual land uses; and (2) relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip. (Shared Parking, Urban Land Institute, 2005) ### Policy T 6.5 Minimum Parking Standards Reduce the minimum vehicle parking standards over time and as appropriate to promote walkable neighborhoods and to increase use of transit and bicycles. <
> ### Policy T 6.6 Parking Connectivity Promote parking and development that encourage multiple destinations within an area to be connected by pedestrian trips. <
> Transportation <
> ### Policy T 6.7 Parking Demand Management Discourage single occupant vehicle trips through parking supply and pricing controls in areas where supply is limited and alternative transportation modes are available. ### Policy T 6.8 Parking Lot Design Parking areas should be designed to minimize conflicts with pedestrians. *See also ‘15.2 Transportation’ in Section 15: ‘Downtown Raleigh.’* ### Policy T 6.9 Green Parking Facilities Reduce stormwater runoff generated by parking facilities by promoting an increase in the use of tree planting and landscaping, green roofs for parking decks, and permeable materials for parking lots, driveways, and walkways. ### Policy T 6.10 Parking Technology Use technological advances to make curbside and other parking easier to locate and pay for, and to potentially incorporate a dynamic pricing system aimed at ensuring that some spaces are always available in high-demand areas. ### Action T 6.1 Completed 2013 ### Action T 6.2 Removed 2021 ### Action T 6.3 Completed 2013 ### Action T 6.4 Completed 2014 ### Action T 6.5 Completed 2010 # 4.7 Transportation Safety Improvements While it is important to provide a multimodal transportation system that efficiently moves users to their destinations, it is more important that the users arrive to their destinations safely. Reducing the conflict points between modes, such as vehicles with bicycles and pedestrians, can greatly enhance safety. Traffic calming is another way to enhance safety and is a common desire in many neighborhoods and communities. As traffic levels increase on major streets, drivers will use alternative routes to make their trips. This additional through traffic, which is typically generalized as traveling above posted speeds, is undesirable in residential areas. Policies in this section support the provision of a safe multimodal transportation network for all users. Policies include consideration of traffic calming, bicycle and pedestrian crossings, and crash analysis. ### Policy T 7.1 Vision Zero Work with all parties necessary to improve the multimodal transportation system so that safe routes for motorists, transit riders, bicycles, and pedestrians are provided. The goal is to eliminate transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries. <
> ### Policy T 7.2 Traffic Calming Incorporate traffic calming techniques and treatments into the design of new or retrofitted local and neighborhood streets, as well as within school, park, and pedestrian-oriented business areas, to emphasize lower auto speeds, encourage bicycling and walking, and provide pedestrians with a convenient, well-marked, and safe means to cross streets. Particular consideration should be given to traffic calming measures on streets where additional connectivity is planned. <
> ### Policy T 7.3 Transportation Safety Data Maintain data necessary to assess roadway safety performance and support enforcement and education. Data may include traffic volume data for major roadway network facilities, geographically referenced crash report data for all modes, and crash report archives for injury crashes. <
> ### Policy T 7.4 Road Capacity and Safety Evaluate and document the safety impacts of proposed roadway capacity projects including impacts to bicycle and pedestrian safety. <
> ### Policy T 7.5 Reducing Cut-through Traffic Work with the community on an individual-project basis to identify feasible solutions to lessen the impacts of major street improvements on local streets. <
> ### Policy T 7.6 Low-speed Streets The design speed for all Local Streets should not exceed 20 mph. The design speed for Mixed-Use Streets should not exceed 30 mph. <
> ### Action T 7.1 Street Lighting Add street lights where necessary to critical intersections, bus shelter stops, and neighborhood dark spots and maintain existing street lights to enhance safety. Remove lights where they are unnecessary for safety and where a reduction in lighting would be an environmental enhancement. --- ### Action T 7.2 Crash Analysis Review locations with high vehicular crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists to identify needed improvements. --- ### Action T 7.3 Traffic Calming Develop a process to evaluate, and when appropriate, include, traffic calming through new development when it adds street connectivity. --- ### Action T 7.4 Vision Zero Create a “Vision Zero” plan with the goal of eliminating transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries and with a focus on equitable implementation. --- # 4.8 Commercial Truck and Rail Freight The movement of freight, both by train and by truck, is an important part of Raleigh’s economy. There are numerous at-grade railroad crossings that pose traffic and safety concerns as traffic increases on both the railroad and the roadway. Although some businesses are located along railroads and utilize trains for the movement of freight, a majority of freight operations involve trucks. The existing freight routes are displayed in Map T-4. Policies in this section support the safe and efficient movement of goods via rail, truck, and air transportation modes. Policies also seek to reduce the impacts of rail and truck operations on adjacent neighborhoods and sensitive land uses. ### Policy T 8.1 Truck Routes Promote the safe and efficient movement of truck traffic in and around the city through designated truck routes and alternate truck routes for heavily-traveled corridors. ### Policy T 8.2 Grade Separations Outside of the downtown street grid, seek additional opportunities to provide grade-separated street connections across the city’s passenger and freight rail corridors, and look to grade separate existing crossings where feasible and desirable. ### Policy T 8.3 Intermodal Transfer of Goods Support infrastructure improvements and the use of emerging technologies that facilitate the clearance, timely movement, and security of trade, including facilities for the efficient intermodal transfer of goods between truck, rail, and air transportation modes. <
> ### Action T 8.1 Railroad Crossing Safety Monitor traffic and safety conditions for at-grade railroad crossings as freight traffic increases to determine the need for grade separations. ### Action T 8.2 Improving Freight Movement Identify and correct roadway design and operational deficiencies that affect the safe and efficient movement of freight on designated freight routes while maintaining the health and safety of residents. Transportation ## Map T-4: Freight Routes <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | Through Truck Route | Local Truck Route | | Rail Corridor | Local Truck Area | Map created 4/12/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development # 4.9 Future Street Improvements ### Policy T 9.1 Future Interchange Locations Ensure that development projects adjacent to future interchange locations as shown on Map T-5 do not compromise the future ability to construct the proposed interchange or grade separation. The following tables list identified improvements to major streets necessary to bring these streets up to the city's guidelines for cross section, create new points of connection, and to ensure adequate vehicular capacity into the future. The tables address two types of improvements. New Location projects, listed in Table T-2, involve the extension of existing roadways and the creation of new connections. These correspond to the dashed lines on Map T-1: Street Plan. *See also '4.2 Roadway System and Transportation Demand Management.'* <
> Transportation # Table T-2 New Location Projects | Street Name | Segment Description | Proposed Future Cross-Section | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ACC Boulevard | Existing ACC Boulevard to Leesville-Westgate Connector | 3 lanes | | Auburn-Knightdale Road | Bethlehem Road to existing Auburn-Knightdale Road | 4-lane divided | | Aviation Parkway | Brier Creek Parkway to Wake County line | Freeway | | Beckom Drive | Spring Forest Road Ext to Perry Creek Road Ext | 3 lanes | | Brier Creek Parkway | TW Alexander Parkway Ext to Andrews Chapel Road | 4-lane divided | | Capital Boulevard | Realign U.S. 1 from south of Durant Road to Thorton Road | Freeway | | Carpenter Pond Road | Hickory Grove Church Road to Wake County line | 4-lane divided | | Carpenter Pond Road | West of Olive Branch Road to existing Carpenter Pond Road | 4-lane divided | | Crabtree Valley Avenue | Blue Ridge Road to Glenwood Avenue | 4-lane divided | | Creech Road | Sanderford Road to Wilmington Road | 2-lane divided | | Dunn Road | Falls River Avenue to Durant Road | 3 lanes | | Edwards Mill Road | Chapel Hill Road to Western Boulevard | 4-lane divided | | Edwards Mill Road | Western Boulevard Extension to existing Edwards Mill Road | 4-lane divided | | Globe Road | East of Page Road to Durham County | 6-lane divided | | Greshams Lake Road | Reba Drive to Capital Boulevard | 2-lane divided | | Highwoods Boulevard | Realign Highwoods Boulevard to Westinghouse Boulevard | 4-lane divided | | Hodge Road | Auburn-Knightdale Road to existing Hodge Road | 4-lane divided | | Hodge Road | Knightdale Boulevard to Old Milburnie Road | 4-lane divided | Transportation | Street Name | Segment Description | Proposed Future Cross-Section | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Lake Boone Trail | Atrium Drive to Edwards Mill Road | 4-lane divided | | Leesville-Westgate Connector | Westgate Road to Leesville Road | 4-lane divided | | Louisbury Road | Mitchell Mill Road to existing Louisbury Road | 3 lanes | | New Leesville Boulevard | Existing New Leesville Boulevard to Carpenter Pond Road and Realign intersection of Carpenter Pond Road and Shady Grove Road | 4-lane divided | | New Pearl Road | Pearl Road to Wall Store Road | 3 lanes | | Old Milburnie Road | Forestville Road to existing Old Milburnie Road | 3 lanes | | Page Road | Glenwood Avenue to east of Aviation Parkway Extension | 4-lane divided | | Pearl Road/Barwell Road Realignment | Realign Pearl Road at Barwell Road intersection | 3 lanes | | Perry Creek Road | Fox Road to Buffaloe Road | 4-lane divided | | Poyner Road | Burcliff Place to Longhill Lane | 2 lanes | | Rogers Lane | New Bern Avenue to existing Rogers Lane | 4-lane divided | | Shady Grove Road Realignment | North of N. Exeter Way to existing Shady Grove Road | 4-lane divided | | Six Forks Road | East of Atlantic Avenue to Capital Boulevard | 4-lane divided | | Skycrest Drive | Southall Road to Forestville Road | 4-lane divided | | Southall Road | Rogers Lane to Raleigh Beach Road | 4-lane divided | | Southall Road | Skycrest Drive to existing Southall Road | 3-lane divided | | Southall Road | Groundwater Place to Hedingham Boulevard | 4-lane divided | | Spring Forest Road | Louisburg Road to Buffaloe Road | 4-lane divided | Transportation | Street Name | Segment Description | Proposed Future Cross-Section | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Sumner Boulevard | Old Wake Forest Road to Capital Boulevard | 5 lanes | | Sumner Boulevard | Ruritana Street to Gresham Lake Road | 3 lanes | | Sunnybrook Road | Creech Road to existing Sunnybrook Road | 4-lane divided | | Triangle Town Boulevard | I-540 to Capital Boulevard | 4-lane divided | | Tryon Road | Cyrus Street to Sanderford Road | 4-lane divided | | TW Alexander Drive | Brier Creek Parkway to Leesville Road | 4-lane divided | | Watkins Road | Mitchell Mill Road to Louisbury Road | 3 lanes | | Western Boulevard | Jones Franklin Road to existing Western Boulevard | 4-lane divided | | Whitaker Mill Road | Atlantic Avenue to Six Forks Road | 3 lanes | # Map T-5: Planned Interchanges and Grade Separations <
> ### Planned Facilities | Symbol | Description | Symbol | Description | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | orange square | Interchange | brown line | Current Limited Access Highway | | teal square | Grade Separation | dotted brown line | Planned Limited Access Highway | Map created 4/12/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development # 4.10 Emerging Technologies The field of transportation is in the midst of perhaps the broadest – and most disruptive – set of changes since the widespread adoption of personal automobiles several decades ago. In addition to the growing realization that accessibility – the proximity of residences with destinations such as workplaces, parks, and shopping districts – is as important as mobility, technological advances and policy innovations are changing how people move throughout Raleigh. Most obviously, ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft have rapidly become a significant part of the mobility equation in recent years. This activity has many implications, from a growing demand for curbside drop-off space to potential effects on transit ridership and car ownership. Looking forward, automated vehicles seem likely to bring even more substantial impacts on both mobility and land use. Other recent innovations include increasingly sophisticated bikeshare systems, both public and private, and improved tools for locating and paying for parking. Trip planning tools are allowing for better information about routes and options for different modes, and integrated fare payment systems are simplifying the process of trips that combine modes or providers. The lessons of the past illuminate the possible futures created by these innovations. In the post-World War II era, few decisions were made that did not prioritize the movement of motor vehicles above other considerations. In recent decades, cities have better understood the costs of those decisions on the environment, public health, and the identity and desirability of the city. Recent policy has emphasized balancing automotive mobility with these and other considerations. Emerging technologies have created a new crossroads. This section aims to create policy that accommodates and encourages new technologies while ensuring that they serve broader goals, rather than shape policy in their own images. ## Ride-hailing and Vehicle Sharing The rapid growth in popularity of alternatives to vehicle ownership is shaping mobility. Vehicle sharing, which allows for a dispersed fleet of short-term rentals, and ride-hailing services, which provide simple means of making individual trips, offer additional choices for residents and visitors. These services can bring benefits such as increased mobility and, by providing an alternative to car ownership, a reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled. However, they can also diminish transit ridership and in some instances can increase transportation demand. Both ride-hailing and vehicle sharing will affect future parking demand as well. While demand for on- or off-street parking is likely to diminish, there may be greater demands on curbside space in the form of drop-off areas. Future planning should take these effects into account. ## Automated Vehicles Automated vehicles may soon begin to have a major impact on the city’s transportation system. Some analyses suggest that, in conjunction with a shift toward mobility as a service, they could reduce vehicle miles traveled by divorcing mobility from vehicle ownership. However, they also will reduce the perceived cost of driving by allowing travelers to perform other tasks and avoid the frustration of navigating in traffic. This effect could increase vehicle miles traveled and incentivize a more disperse land-use pattern. Beyond the broader impacts, the introduction of automated vehicles will involve consideration of a number of planning and legal issues that would enable, or not, this technology. In coming years, the city will begin to consider and plan for the impact of automated vehicles, ranging from narrow legal questions to broad transportation and land use issues. ### Policy T 10.1 Automated Vehicles The inclusion of automated vehicles into the city’s transportation system should support other goals, including reducing vehicle miles traveled, improving transportation safety, enhancing urban form, and supporting transit and other modes of travel. <
> ### Policy T 10.2 Ride-hailing and Vehicle Sharing Ride-hailing, vehicle sharing, and other innovations to the city’s transportation system should support other goals, including reducing vehicle miles traveled, improving transportation safety, and supporting transit and other modes of travel. <
> ### Policy T 10.3 Curbside Space Consider, in future studies and street designs, changes in parking demand created by the increased popularity of ride-hailing and vehicle sharing services. Ensure that adequate space is provided for drop-off areas and that excessive off-street parking is not required or constructed. Make designated spaces available for vehicle sharing services. <
> ### Policy T 10.4 Bikeshare Support bikeshare, both public and private, through city support of a public system and through appropriate regulation of any private systems. <
> ### Action T 10.1 Curbside Space Study drop-off activity in high-demand locations (Glenwood South, Raleigh Convention Center, Performing Arts Center) and consider whether a reallocation of curbside space to provide additional drop-off zones is warranted. ### Action T 10.2 Completed 2021 ### Action T 10.3 Automated Vehicles Study the potential impact of automated vehicles and whether existing policy and regulation provide an adequate framework for accommodating automated vehicles into the city’s transportation system. Consider how automated vehicles may affect travel demand and whether other transportation and land use policies may need to respond to these changes. (blank page) section 5 # Environmental Protection 5.1 Energy Security and Climate Change Preparedness ...... 5-8 5.2 Design with Nature ................................................................ 5-13 5.3 Water Quality and Conservation ........................................ 5-15 5.4 Flood Reduction and Preparedness ................................. 5-19 5.5 Tree Canopy Conservation and Growth .......................... 5-23 5.6 Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Preservation .......... 5-25 5.7 Material Resource Management ....................................... 5-27 5.8 Light and Noise Pollution Controls .................................. 5-30 5.9 Environmental Education, Awareness, and Coordination ................................................................ 5-33 Environmental Protection <
> The success of cities in the 21st century will, to a significant degree, be decided by their ability to adapt to challenges presented by climate change and to become more sustainable and resilient. This Environmental Protection Section contains policies and actions required for the City of Raleigh to meet these and other challenges. In the process, the city will be improving the long-term health of local residents, regional natural resources, and ecological systems. By taking these actions, Raleigh will serve as a key player in the national reversal of sprawling development patterns and environmentally degrading development practices. Ultimately, the goal is to one day become carbon-neutral while protecting natural resource assets and growing sustainably. The City of Raleigh has a number of programs and initiatives designed to protect and enhance environmental and natural resources. These include its broad array of recycling services, the greening of its automobile fleet, the integration of green building and infrastructure programs, progress in reusing and conserving water, and work in managing stormwater as an integral asset. Adoption and implementation of this Section presents the city with an opportunity to surpass these efforts and to continue to move toward more comprehensive solutions to environmental challenges. # Raleigh’s Climate Protection Commitment Raleigh has joined forces with more than a thousand cities across the country by signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution. The following actions from the Climate Protection Agreement shape the land use, transportation, and natural resource preservation policies in the Plan: * *Adopt and enforce land use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities.* * *Promote transportation options, such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for carpooling, and public transit.* * *Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste-to-energy technology.* * *Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb carbon dioxide.* * *Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements and retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting to conserve energy.* * *Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program or similar system.* <
> Some of the key issues this Section aims to address through its policies include: * *The localized effects of climate change, including increased risk of droughts and flooding, and a fluctuating supply source of drinking water.* * *The fight against climate change at the local level will require coordinated responses involving city operations as well as land use and transportation policy.* * *The Neuse River is a valuable natural water resource that is impaired by excess concentrations of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous. As the capital city, located near the headwaters of the Neuse River Basin, Raleigh must help lead and champion measures to protect this state resource.* * *The ongoing efforts to improve air quality must address the region’s high degree of reliance on the automobile, loss of tree coverage, and loss of undeveloped land.* * *The conservation of urban, suburban, and native forests will be important to Raleigh’s environment and quality of life.* * *There is a need for greater sensitivity for aquatic and wildlife and natural habitat protection. Raleigh has the opportunity to become a national leader in sustainable environmental policy that helps protect and improve quality of life at the local and regional level.* Further information associated with these topics, and how they relate to Raleigh, can be found in the Environmental Resources section of the City of Raleigh Community Inventory Report. <
> Environmental Protection ## Assessing City Progress: STAR Communities Sustainability Tools for Assessing & Rating Communities (STAR) is a national certification system for benchmarking, assessing, and rating community-wide sustainability. Hundreds of communities across the nation are using the STAR rating system to benchmark and assess their communities. STAR evaluates communities based on social, economic and environmental sustainability. This “triple bottom line” approach to sustainability takes into account considerations that go beyond a narrow focus on environmental performance alone. This includes metrics pertaining to the local economy, workforce development, poverty alleviation, and the equitable distribution of community services. In total there are seven goal areas and 44 sustainability objectives used to benchmark the community. The goal areas are: 1. Built Environment. 2. Climate & Energy. 3. Economy & Jobs. 4. Education, Arts & Community. 5. Equity & Empowerment. 6. Health & Safety. 7. Natural Systems. STAR is currently administered by Raleigh’s Office of Sustainability, which has worked with other departments, local universities, and community partners to collect data required for certification. In 2015, STAR Communities, the non-profit organization that evaluates and certifies municipalities, recognized Raleigh with a 4 star national excellence certification out of a possible five. Raleigh is the first city in North Carolina to receive this designation. The city is using this tool to guide the implementation of the city’s Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Plan and as a factor in developing performance measures and departmental work plans. The following policies and actions are most directly related to the vision theme of *Greenprint Raleigh*. In fact, for the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, the word “Greenprint” simply refers to a plan for sustainability. Issues, such as clean air and climate change, water quality and quantity, land conservation and habitat protection, and material resource management all influence urban sustainability. Achieving sustainability depends upon and plays a critical role in the fulfillment of all of the vision themes, including not only *Greenprint Raleigh*, but also *Economic Prosperity and Equity*; *Expanding Housing Choices*; *Managing Our Growth*; *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*; and *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*. A collaborative stakeholder effort that considers people, the environment, and the economy will support the realization of each theme and be critical in transforming Raleigh into a truly sustainable city. For example, urban sustainability is strongly related to the vision theme of *Economic Prosperity and Equity*. By enforcing policies that promote energy conservation and efficiency, the City of Raleigh is helping to insulate local business and residents from energy price increases by reducing the amount of energy used — and income spent — on heating and cooling, hot water, and lighting. Furthermore, “Green Collar” jobs are created when large-scale investments are made in developing energy-efficient infrastructure. These jobs include solar panel installation, green roof installation, brownfield restoration, and ecological restoration. These investments, therefore, contribute to overall economic prosperity. Environmental Protection # Sustainability and Resilience The concepts and goals of sustainability and resilience, which are woven throughout this Plan, are closely related and mutually supportive but not identical. Fundamentally, sustainability refers to the ability to meet the needs of current residents while also protecting the ability of future generations to do the same. The concept includes not only environmental protection, but also economic and social considerations – the “triple bottom line” of sustainability. In recent years, especially after events, such as Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and less-publicized localized flooding and other disasters, the concept of resilience has gained traction. Resilience is an operational philosophy that seeks to identify opportunities and challenges before they arise and to prioritize strategic investments and community capacity-building to better adapt to and recover from shocks and stressors. Each of these two critical concepts plays an important role in the policies and actions contained in this Plan. In some cases, the concepts will overlap; in others, they involve their own distinct strategies. Ultimately, creating a more sustainable and resilient Raleigh will provide lasting benefits for current and future residents. Environmental policy also addresses equity (and the vision theme of *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*) through the promotion of environmental justice. The concept of environmental justice involves addressing inequitable distributions of environmental burdens, such as air pollution, noise pollution, and noxious industrial facilities. It also includes equal access to environmental goods, such as clean air and water, healthy and protected streams, parks, urban forests, recreation, and transportation. As greater equity in the distribution of environmental burdens and goods is achieved, better-positioned cities will be able to accommodate the increases in density that are needed to support transit and curtail sprawling development patterns. In addition to promoting regional transit and density, this Section also supports transit-oriented development, mixed-use development, infill development, bicycle facilities, and other building blocks of sustainability that advance the vision themes of *Managing Our Growth* and *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*. These policies will take cars off the road and pollutants out of the air and water. At the same time, they expand housing choices and divert development pressure from the region’s remaining bucolic and natural landscapes. Part of Raleigh’s natural landscape includes the Neuse River, a major waterway that has been environmentally degraded due in part to urban stormwater runoff containing excess nitrogen and phosphorus as well as runoff from agricultural operations. Raleigh comprises a small proportion of the Neuse River basin, but as an urbanized area with large amounts of impervious surface, runoff from Raleigh is a significant contributor to contamination of the river. Polluted runoff can lead to algae blooms that block sunlight from reaching underwater vegetation and that consume dissolved oxygen in the water, harming fish and other species. <
> Environmental Protection <
> As a capital city and as a community at the headwaters of the river, Raleigh is uniquely positioned to champion the recovery and protection of this important natural resource. The Water Quality and Conservation sub-section of this Section outlines various strategies to make this goal of recovery a reality. Looking beyond the river, and at the watershed as a whole, both water quality and water quantity will play significant roles in the city’s ability to meet the needs of its growing population. Streams within Raleigh should be valued; should meet their intended uses from a regulatory water quality perspective; and should be safe, stable, and fitting natural corridors for enjoyment and quiet reflection in the midst of urban activity. Finally, regional air quality in the Triangle area has shown improvement in recent years, but significant effort will be needed to sustain and expand upon this trend. Regional cooperation will be essential to meaningful progress in the enhancement of air quality. This Section’s policies on energy security and climate change preparedness will help to ensure that Raleigh is doing its part for this regional and global environmental challenge. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: * Economic Prosperity and Equity. * Expanding Housing Choices. * Managing Our Growth. * Coordinating Land Use and Transportation. * Greenprint Raleigh. * Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). ## Rating Systems for Sustainability As the real estate and construction industries move toward more sustainable practices, third-party rating systems have played an important role both in defining what constitutes a sustainable development practice, and also in certifying that such practices have been employed to a degree that the resulting structure or development can be labeled "green" or "sustainable." ### LEED The most widely-used rating system for sustainable building practice in the U.S. is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The LEED system addresses three stages of building—design, construction, and operations—and has separate criteria for commercial, institutional, and residential construction; existing buildings versus new construction; and includes a new pilot program for rating neighborhood development. As stated on the USGBC’s web site, “LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.” ### Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES) If the LEED system focuses primarily on sustainable building practices, a relatively new and evolving standard for sustainable site development and landscaping has been developed by the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES), an interdisciplinary effort by the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, and the United States Botanic Garden to create voluntary national guidelines and performance benchmarks for sustainable land design, construction, and maintenance practices. Other rating systems that measure sustainability include Energy Star, the Better Buildings Challenge, and the Passive House Institute. These federal and nonprofit programs rate appliances and building practices based on energy efficiency. ### Energy Star Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program for energy efficient appliances, electronics, and office equipment administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Branding with the Energy Star label has influenced technological improvements in electronics, and driven consumer decision making when purchasing appliances. ### Better Buildings Challenge The Better Buildings Challenge is a federal initiative administered by the Department of Energy. Launched in 2011 the goal is to improve energy efficiency by 20 percent in commercial, institutional and multifamily buildings. Participants agree to conduct an energy efficiency assessment, take action to improve energy savings and then report results to share cost effective approaches with other participants. ### Passive House Passive house is a building concept that cuts energy consumption by incorporating using high quality insulation, and windows that prevents loss of conditioned air infiltration of outside air. Energy from the sun is maximized in the winter and minimized in during warmer months. The Passive House Institute U.S. certifies building design based on strict quality assurance and quality control standards aimed at reducing energy consumption. ## 5.1 Energy Security and Climate Change Preparedness Globally, cities are taking the lead in preparing for climate change by proactively conserving energy, using renewable energy resources, and improving air quality. Having the foresight to make investments in energy security by preparing residents, businesses, and local infrastructure will be a hallmark of successful cities in the 21st century. With the future potential of rising energy prices stemming from the combined effects of fossil fuel depletion and public policies aimed at minimizing climate change, those cities and regions that can be the most productive with the least amount of energy input will be best positioned to prosper. The policies and actions of this section are included not only because of the City of Raleigh’s responsibility to the health, safety, and welfare of constituents, but also because they represent a move toward the responsible use of limited resources in a growing world—and a desire to leave a better world for future generations. In practical terms, adoption and enforcement of the following policies could also translate to lower energy bills and cleaner air for local residents. As with all urban areas, Raleigh’s “carbon footprint” (amount of greenhouse gases produced) depends primarily upon the ways our built environment and our modes of transportation are designed, constructed, and used. Therefore, the following policies and actions concentrate on how best to approach these practices. ### Policy EP 1.1 Greenhouse Gas Reduction ● Promote best practices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as documented through the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement. This includes reducing per-capita carbon emissions by allowing residential building types that are more energy-efficient than detached houses, such as townhouses and apartments, in more places. It also includes allowing more people to live and work in walkable or transit-rich places. Allowing more density in those locations is a critical climate change strategy, because vehicle trips are shorter and less likely in those locations, bringing down per-capita carbon emissions. <
> *See the City of Raleigh Data Book, available at www.RaleighNC.gov, for additional information.* *** ### Policy EP 1.2 Alternative Transportation Options Promote the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles and advanced transportation technologies, both public and private. <
> *** ### Policy EP 1.3 Total Cost of Ownership Analysis Use Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), life-cycle analysis, and/or payback analysis on all energy saving proposals. <
> *** ### Policy EP 1.4 Green Building Advance green building practices in the public and private sectors by encouraging LEED Gold-level certification and LEED-ND, or their respective equivalents. <
> *** ### Policy EP 1.5 LEED Certification for Public Buildings All new or renovations of existing City of Raleigh buildings encompassing 10,000 gross square feet or more of building area should achieve a Silver-level certification of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Green Building Rating System for New Construction (LEED-NC) and Existing Buildings (LEED-EB), or their respective equivalents. A higher equivalent rating (Gold or Platinum) should be sought where practical and as funding is available. *See text box: LEED Certification for New and Existing Municipal Buildings.* ### Policy EP 1.6 LEED and Development Agreements Require any public-private project that includes a development agreement to apply LEED (or the equivalent) certification standards as appropriate to the project and consistent with other Comprehensive Plan policies. ### Policy EP 1.7 Sustainable Development Promote the adaptive use of existing buildings, infill development, and brownfield development as effective sustainability practices that take development pressure off undeveloped areas. *See also Section 12: ‘Historic Preservation’ for more on this topic.* ### Policy EP 1.8 Sustainable Sites Encourage the use of environmentally-friendly site planning and landscape design approaches and techniques such as those developed by the Sustainable Sites Initiative. Incorporate sustainable green infrastructure and low impact development practices to help control stormwater runoff and reduce pollutant impacts to streams. ### Policy EP 1.9 Sustainable Public Realm Incorporate sustainable technology and materials into public realm projects. ### Policy EP 1.10 Alternative Energy Sources Support the development and application of alternative energy sources, renewable energy technologies, and energy storage. Such technology should be used to reduce the dependence on imported energy, provide opportunities for economic and community development, and benefit environmental quality. ### Policy EP 1.11 Renewable Energy By 2030, increase the use of renewable energy to meet 20 percent of Raleigh’s peak electric load, or maximum electric demand that is typically reached during normal business hours. This target will be reevaluated as additional research and information becomes available. ### Policy EP 1.12 Air Quality Improvements Reduce the number of air quality days categorized as ‘unhealthy’ or ‘hazardous,’ based on the Air Quality Index readings provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality. ### Policy EP 1.13 Evaluating Development Impacts on Air Quality Evaluate potential air emissions from new and expanded development, including transportation improvements and municipal facilities, to ensure that measures are taken to mitigate any possible adverse impacts. These measures should include construction controls to reduce airborne dust and requirements for landscaping and tree planting to absorb carbon monoxide and other pollutants. # LEED Certification for New and Existing Municipal Buildings On May 20, 2008 the City Council adopted as policy the Environmental Advisory Board’s recommendations on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or equivalent certification for municipal buildings, as follows: ### New Construction (1) All new City of Raleigh construction and additions encompassing 10,000 gross square feet or more of building area should achieve a Silver-level certification of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Green Building Rating System for New Construction (LEED—NC). A higher equivalent rating (Gold or Platinum) should be sought where practical and as funding is available. (2) All City of Raleigh construction and additions encompassing less than 10,000 square feet of building area would not seek LEED Silver-level certification but would be designed and built to be eligible for Silver certification, plus meet requirements for energy and water efficiency as follows: i. Energy Achieve minimum energy efficiency of 30 percent better than code required by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1-2004 (ASHRAE 90.1 version required in the 2006 N.C. Building Code). ii. Water Achieve a 30 percent water use reduction as quantified by LEED water efficiency standards. ### Existing Buildings (3) All existing City of Raleigh buildings and facilities should use the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Green Building Rating System for Existing Buildings (LEED—EB) as a guide. The application of these standards is intended to maximize sustainability benefits within existing resources and provide a means of benchmarking environmental and financial performance improvements in City practices. Certification of existing buildings under LEED—EB should be evaluated for technical and economic feasibility and pursued at the highest feasible level of certification on a case by case basis as funding and resources are available. Environmental Protection ### Action EP 1.1 Completed 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.2 Completed 2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.3 Energy Retrofits Implement a retrofitting program for public buildings based on the findings of facility audits to maximize sustainability within existing resources. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.4 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) Evaluate the certification of existing public buildings under LEED-Existing Buildings (EB) (or the equivalent) for technical and economic feasibility and pursue the highest feasible level of certification on a case-by-case basis as funding and resources are available. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.5 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) Explore adopting the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND), or the equivalent, as a city standard. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.6 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Incentives Encourage and provide incentives for buildings that would qualify for Gold or Platinum LEED certification, or the equivalent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.7 Completed 2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.8 Solar and Distributed Energy Resource Incentives Study and consider incentives to encourage home builders and residents to install solar and other distributed energy resource technologies, such as solar photovoltaics, solar thermal, geothermal heating and cooling and energy storage facilities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.9 Energy Efficient Construction Study and adopt LEED-like energy efficient construction standards that can be used when older buildings are renovated or adapted for new uses, since it may be difficult for older buildings to meet LEED standards. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.10 Removed 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.11 Removed 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.12 Charging Stations When viable, install charging stations for electric automobiles in public parking lots and garages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action EP 1.13 Renewable Energy Economic Development Provide outreach and education to non-profits and affordable and multi-family housing developments to develop partnerships with local installers, banks and other service providers to encourage financing options and cost-effective renewable energy investments. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Environmental Protection <
> ### Action EP 1.14 Renewable Energy Deployment Evaluate siting renewable energy facilities on city-owned property, including rooftops. Consider pairing renewable energy generation with on-site energy storage to improve reliability. Where feasible, emphasize exposure to the public through signage and other information to promote awareness of the benefits of renewable energy. *** ### Action EP 1.15 Fleet Transformation Implement the city’s Fuel and Fleet Transformation Plan. *** ### Action EP 1.16 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Education Create and promote online and print educational material to help Raleigh residents and businesses understand, evaluate, and compare renewable energy and energy efficiency options for both new construction and retrofitting existing buildings. *** ### Action EP 1.17 Home Efficiency Rating Study and consider a “Home Efficiency Score” for use by developers and real estate agents to inform prospective buyers of the energy efficiency of homes. *** ### Action EP 1.18 Energy Efficiency First Policy Evaluate the adoption of an “Energy Efficiency First” policy for construction of new city facilities. Such a policy would make energy efficiency a higher priority than energy generation. Where practicable, energy efficiency and energy generation should both be evaluated in order to facilitate prioritization. *** ### Action EP 1.19 Solar Access Evaluate the feasibility of adding considerations to building site-plan review and approval that address the current and future use of solar energy (i.e. solar easements, landscaping, building height restriction, and orientation). *** Environmental Protection # 5.2 Design with Nature The State of North Carolina is known for its natural beauty and biodiversity. As the capital city of North Carolina, Raleigh should aspire to conserve, preserve, and restore the natural resources that define the city’s “sense of place.” The design of the city should reflect Raleigh’s commitment to protect and enhance its natural resources and environment. Designing with nature is a commitment to understanding the ecological significance of place and to grow the community in a manner that both respects and leverages the benefits of natural resources. An “ecosystem” approach to sustainable growth should become the hallmark of how the city grows and flourishes. The focus of such an approach is not growth versus no growth, but rather on the type of growth and development that occurs and where it occurs. The following policies and actions help to guide growth and development, thereby conserving, protecting, and enhancing Raleigh’s natural resources. *See also Section 8: ‘Parks, Recreation, and Open Space’ for more on this topic.* ### Policy EP 2.1 Natural Resource Protection Ensure protection of Raleigh’s unique and significant natural resources – its natural areas, landscapes, and ecological systems – through best practices management, stewardship, conservation, restoration, and land use regulations. <
> ### Policy EP 2.2 Environmentally Sensitive Development Ensure Raleigh’s growth and land development practices are compatible with the city’s natural form, vegetation, topography, water bodies and streams, floodplains, wetlands, and other natural riparian assets. This will decrease erosion, reduce stormwater run-off and flooding, improve water quality, protect wildlife habitat, and provide buffers and transitions between land uses. <
> ### Policy EP 2.3 Open Space Preservation Identify opportunities to conserve open space networks, mature existing tree stands, steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands, and other sensitive riparian areas, priority aquatic and wildlife habitats, and significant natural features as part of public and private development plans and targeted acquisition. <
> ### Policy EP 2.4 Scenic Vistas and Views Protect and create scenic vistas and views of natural landscapes and features that are important in establishing, enhancing, and protecting the visual character of the city, mindful of other goals such as preserving and enhancing the city’s tree canopy. <
> ### Policy EP 2.5 Protection of Natural Water Features Protect, restore, and preserve rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands. These water bodies provide valuable stormwater and surface water management and ecological, visual, and recreational benefits. <
> ### Policy EP 2.6 Greenway System Continue to build a park and greenway system that is: interconnected; protects native landscapes, water quality, and areas of ecological significance, such as priority wildlife habitats; and serves the broad and diverse outdoor recreation needs of community residents. <
> ### Policy EP 2.7 Road Design and Landscape Preservation Encourage the preservation and restoration of natural features and systems when designing new roadways by separating in-bound and out-bound lanes as they pass through natural features, such as large clusters of trees, rocky outcrops or water courses. <
> *See also Section 4: ‘Transportation.’* Environmental Protection <
> ### Action EP 2.1 Natural Resources Inventory Develop a Natural Resources Inventory to define a program for protecting, conserving and stewarding Raleigh’s natural areas, wetlands, water bodies, urban forests, landscapes, priority wildlife habitats, and important natural features, emphasizing their value in terms of carbon sequestration. Work with the citizen committees as appropriate. Incorporate the spatial principles of landscape ecology in planning and concepts of equity and environmental justice. ### Action EP 2.2 Removed 2021 ### Action EP 2.3 Natural Resources Sustainability Team Continue the work of the Natural Resources Sustainability Team within city government comprising the city’s Sustainability Coordinator and members from the City Manager’s office, Planning, Parks and Recreation, Public Utilities, Transportation, and Engineering Services departments. The purpose is to develop a program of action, built upon the recommendations of the natural resources inventory plan, for implementation of these recommendations. This multi-disciplinary team will also help support the ongoing implementation of the city’s green stormwater infrastructure and low-impact development practices. ### Action EP 2.4 Environmentally Sensitive Development Controls Reduce excessive cut and fill grading and the loss of significant trees, vegetation, and Priority Wildlife Habitats (as identified by programs and agencies, such as the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). ### Action EP 2.5 Completed 2013 ## 5.3 Water Quality and Conservation The City of Raleigh has a responsibility to current residents, future generations, and those living downstream to systematically improve the health of local rivers, creeks, floodplains, and wetlands — and to continue to protect these resources over the long term. Water quality and conservation strategies should recognize that the meaning of “water” depends on context. In its most common context, it is the potable water provided by the city in pipes to homes and businesses. In the context of nature, it is what sustains our streams, lakes, wetlands, and the Neuse River and their habitats for wildlife, provides the needed supply source for “making” our potable water, and flows through other cities and towns to Pamlico Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. Local streams also are important to the history and heritage of Raleigh. Early explorers used local waterways as landmarks and travel routes, and settlers established villages and industries along their banks. These important natural resources aided in the establishment of Raleigh and should not be compromised, as they represent a direct lifeline to the vitality of the city as a whole. Without ample, clean water, Raleigh cannot be prepared to manage long-term droughts, much less thrive with current and projected populations. The core goals to be fulfilled by these water quality and conservation policies include: keeping and treating rainfall on-site or as close to site as much as possible, thereby mimicking the flow of water in a natural setting and reducing non-point source pollution from stormwater run-off; increasing water conservation measures and reducing overall demand for water; minimizing soil erosion and sedimentation; reducing hazardous and damaging flooding; and reducing nutrient loads. *See also Section 9: ‘Public Utilities’ for additional policies and actions.* <
> ### Policy EP 3.1 Water Quality Stormwater Control Measures To complement structural controls, use non-structural Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) to improve water quality, such as public education programs, monitoring and control of illicit discharges, expansion of the greenway concept to include safe floodplain connection and activation, and ongoing implementation of the city’s sediment control program. ### Policy EP 3.2 Protection of Local Streams and the Neuse River Protect and preserve local streams and the Neuse River, primary channel, major tributaries, intermittent headwaters streams, floodplains, and topography to improve overall water quality for drinking, fish and wildlife habitat, and fishing, boating, and other recreational uses. Environmental Protection ### Policy EP 3.3 Drinking Water Supply Protection Protect major drinking water supply overlay districts through preservation of open space, community programs that promote tree coverage, floodplain protection and restoration, and sustainable limits to impervious surface cover. <
> ### Policy EP 3.4 Low Impact Systems for Parking Well maintained permeable pavement and other low impact systems for parking areas should be encouraged throughout the city, especially in environmentally sensitive areas and floodplains. <
> ### Policy EP 3.5 Watershed-focused Planning Water quality and flooding should be managed using a watershed-focused approach. Such an approach uses performance-based strategies to enhance water quality and prevent or decrease flooding concerns in each watershed rather than applying citywide standards. <
> ### Policy EP 3.6 Maintaining Drinking Water Quality Improve the ecological integrity of the city’s primary drinking water sources by further protecting streams from encroaching development and expanding the protection of stream buffers. <
> ### Policy EP 3.7 Protecting and Restoring Streams Preserve and restore the natural character of local and area streams and waterways through greenway acquisition, flood prone area regulation, purchase of properties in Neuse River Buffer and flood prone areas, drainage corridor and buffer protection, and improved public and private design and construction practices, including but not limited to stream stabilization and restoration. <
> ### Policy EP 3.8 Low Impact Development Promote the use of low impact development (LID) techniques to help mitigate the impact of stormwater runoff. This includes the use of green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns, rain barrels, and other measures in urban and suburban landscapes. <
> ### Policy EP 3.9 Drinking Water Conservation Promote conservation of potable water supply, even during periods of adequate supply, not just during drought. Potable water conservation saves energy and normalizes practices, which will help the city cope with the ups and downs of rainfall patterns. <
> ### Policy EP 3.10 Groundwater Protection Protect groundwater from the adverse effects of development. Land development and use should be managed to reduce the likelihood of groundwater contamination. <
> ### Policy EP 3.11 Water Supply Watershed Protection and Open Space Continue to support and develop programs that protect open space lands in Raleigh’s water supply watershed protection areas, such as the Upper Neuse Water Supply Watershed and the Little River Water Supply Watershed. <
> ### Policy EP 3.12 Mitigating Stormwater Impacts Potential stormwater impacts from new development on adjoining properties should mimic pre-development conditions and control the peak rate of runoff and/or volume of runoff so as to avoid flooding of adjoining and downstream properties, erosion of stream banks, and to allow the recharging of groundwater. The intent is to avoid environmental and economic damage to the adjacent properties, city infrastructure, and receiving surface waters. <
> Environmental Protection #### Policy EP 3.13 Erosion Control Measures Erosion control measures should continue to be used on all construction sites to control soil erosion and minimize sediment run-off. #### Policy EP 3.14 Wastewater Reuse Expand wastewater recycling/reuse systems at wastewater treatment facilities to further reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus load to the Neuse River system and to reduce potable water consumption for non-essential purposes. #### Policy EP 3.15 Grading Controls Pursue a risk-based analysis approach to prevent soil erosion by limiting the amount of disturbed areas allowed and restricting mass grading as much as practicable. #### Policy EP 3.16 Collaboration for Managing Stormwater Pursue stormwater management initiatives that benefit and support the city and region by participating in countywide, regional, and statewide partnerships to develop innovative, consistent, and sustainable practices. #### Policy EP 3.17 Graduated Water Rates Use rate structures to encourage water conservation by providing incentives to customers for reduced water usage. #### Policy EP 3.18 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Continue to improve surface water quality and protect water resources through the design, construction, and installation of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) for city projects and facilities. Green stormwater infrastructure uses vegetation, soils; and non-natural materials to absorb and filter polluted water that would normally runoff impervious surfaces directly into a waterway. Low impact development (LID) incorporates many of the principles related to green stormwater infrastructure. Widespread use of green stormwater infrastructure will also better prepare Raleigh for the effects of climate change along with managing the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff. #### Policy EP 3.19 Demonstration Projects Continue to support and promote the Raleigh Rainwater Rewards program as a way to facilitate demonstration projects within the City of Raleigh that use multiple water conservation measures on single sites. ### Action EP 3.1 Converted to Policy 2021 ### Action EP 3.2 Incorporation of Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development into City Code Develop and adopt low impact development (LID) and green infrastructure (GI) code and provisions so that rainwater is retained and absorbed on-site as an alternative to traditional approaches that include piping, channelization, and regional detention. Create templates, facts sheets, and cost estimating tools to help administer the GI/LID ordinance at development sites and within the public right-of-way. Develop incentives for GI/LID, such as stormwater utility fee credits, stormwater quality cost share, public-private partnerships, permitting incentives, and others. ## Environmental Protection ### The Lower Little Rock Creek Walkable Watershed Concept Plan The Lower Little Rock Creek Walkable Watershed Concept Plan is a cohesive strategy and framework to improve the overall health of the community and the surrounding watershed. This watershed contains a portion of downtown, John Chavis Memorial Park, and surrounding neighborhoods to the east and southeast of downtown. The study area focuses on the lower portion of the Little Rock Creek Watershed, specifically the South Park Neighborhood located southeast of the downtown area. This area was selected based on specific criteria, including a community bisected by a creek, proximity to schools and parks, surface water quality impairment, and a lack of infrastructure, such as sidewalks, and stormwater management controls. Streets, intersections, and potential sites where infrastructure improvements can be implemented, subject to available funding and citywide priorities, are identified in the plan. The plan recommends: * *Street opportunities include those streets where sidewalks and natural drainage strategies can be integrated to improve walkability and stormwater management.* * *Safe crossings at intersections can be integrated with stormwater treatment to provide safe pedestrian crossings. Intersections lacking crosswalks, greenway access points and intersections where narrow street right of way might limit full block sidewalks are highlighted.* * *Stormwater flows include off-street natural drainage opportunities, such as swales and rain gardens that can be aligned with the greenway and sidewalks.* * *Greenway access provides additional access points to increase use and activity along the greenway.* * *Education opportunities include environmental education signage to improve creek awareness and stewardship. Additional "cues to care" can be incorporated to communicate that natural drainage areas are important.* #### Action EP 3.3 Drinking Water Conservation Monitor drinking water conservation efforts to measure reduction by residents, businesses, government and institutions. Continue to promote efficiency and the value of water though public education. Prepare and publish an annual report on the per capita water use of all customer classes. #### Action EP 3.4 Stormwater Management Projects for Water Quality Identify, prioritize, and retrofit specific sites in the City of Raleigh where water quality management projects can be installed in existing developments. #### Action EP 3.5 Illegal Discharges As required by the city's EPA NPDES MS4 Stormwater Discharge Permit and city code, continue to identify and eliminate illegal discharges into the city's sewer and stormwater systems and its waterways through public education and awareness, inspections, and enforcement. #### Action EP 3.6 Removed 2019 #### Action EP 3.7 Stormwater Plan Review Review all stormwater management plans for new development and redevelopment with a critical evaluation of approaches to nitrogen reduction as well as downstream flooding and erosion reductions. #### Action EP 3.8 Completed 2015 #### Action EP 3.9 Upper Neuse Initiative Continue to provide both financial and political support for the conservation of land in key areas identified by the Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative. #### Action EP 3.10 Completed 2015 #### Action EP 3.11 Protections for Steep Slopes Study whether the development code should be amended to regulate the regrading and development of steep slopes of 15 percent or greater to conserve the natural contours of the city and prevent soil erosion. #### Action EP 3.12 Stream/Watercourse Restoration Create a program for identifying and prioritizing degraded or channelized watercourses and streams for future daylighting and restoration, including incentives for undertaking such projects on private property where public benefits, such as water quality improvement and flood hazard reduction, can be realized. #### Action EP 3.13 Removed 2022 #### Action EP 3.14 The Lower Little Rock Creek Walkable Watershed Concept Plan Implement the recommendations identified in the plan to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections, installing green infrastructure along identified corridors to help improve water quality within the watershed. ## 5.4 Flood Reduction and Preparedness Throughout its history, Raleigh has experienced damaging flash floods from a variety of rainfall events, including occasional tropical storms and hurricanes. These events are predicted to grow in severity as climate change impacts are realized. The city’s greenway system has acted as an effective buffer for floodwaters, limiting to some degree even more damaging losses. The city needs to further its watershed approach to stormwater management, flood hazard reduction, and flood preparedness. This watershed approach needs to target drainage basins and areas most susceptible to frequent flooding and should define facilities, programs, and policies necessary to improve preparedness and reduce the risks associated with flooding while at the same time protecting and improving water quality. Floodplain areas and drainage basins within Raleigh’s jurisdiction are illustrated on Map EP-2. The map shows that the largest floodplain areas are found along the Upper Neuse River and Crabtree and Walnut Creeks. #### Policy EP 4.1 Daylighting Streams Discourage further channelization and piping of streams and focus instead on projects that “daylight” or uncover buried streams. Pursue partnerships with the private sector to daylight streams that are currently buried. #### Policy EP 4.2 Floodplain Conservation Development should be directed away from the 100-year floodplain. Environmental Protection ### Policy EP 4.3 Development in the Floodplain Pursue regulatory approaches that avoid the future expansion of the floodplain. Floodplain refers to all city-regulated floodplain, which includes FEMA floodplain, future conditions floodplain, and flood hazard soils. Floodplain development should not abridge the natural role of floodplains to absorb water, recharge the groundwater, improve water quality, and avoid flooding downstream. <
> ### Policy EP 4.4 Acquisition of Flood-prone Land Pursue city acquisition of properties, easements and/or development rights located within the 100-year floodplain to protect public safety, reduce economic damages from floods, and preserve sensitive natural areas. <
> ### Policy EP 4.5 Watercourse Protection Minimize encroachment into natural watercourse areas and preserve the natural character of watercourses to protect water quality and reduce the potential for flooding and erosion damage. <
> *See also ‘5.3 Water Quality and Conservation.’* ### Policy EP 4.6 Community Rating System Continue to participate in the Community Rating System (CRS) to help monitor hazard mitigation efforts and to improve the affordability of flood insurance for residents. The CRS is part of the National Flood Insurance Program that provides flood insurance discounts for communities that go beyond the minimum standards for floodplain management. <
> ### Policy EP 4.7 No Adverse Impact The city shall follow the principles of No Adverse Impact (NAI) as outlined by the Association of State Floodplain Managers. NAI floodplain management takes place when the actions of one property owner are not allowed to adversely affect the rights of other property owners. Adverse effects or impacts can be measured in terms of increased flood peaks, increased flood stages, higher flood velocities, increased erosion and sedimentation, or other impacts the community considers important. <
> ### Policy EP 4.8 Stream Crossing Infrastructure Install bridge systems instead of culverts for stream crossings where feasible in order to maintain the natural ecosystem associated with the stream. <
> ### Policy EP 4.9 Watershed Master Plans Complete and periodically update watershed studies to identify existing and future flooding hazards, water quality needs, and erosion concerns along with prioritized actions, measures, and capital improvement projects to improve conditions. <
> ### Action EP 4.1 Completed 2015 ### Action EP 4.2 Completed 2015 Environmental Protection <
> ### Action EP 4.3 Floodplain Management Best Practices Study the floodplain management programs in other cities, including Tulsa, OK; Louisville, KY; and Charlotte, NC, and model a flood management program similar to what these communities have accomplished. This includes adopting an enhanced ordinance to both protect floodplains and also reward preservation efforts; and implementing programs that reduce impacts from flooding and further improve the city’s CRS class rating. ### Action EP 4.4 Floodplain Regulations Update city development regulations to ensure that any development and redevelopment in floodplain and flood fringe does not adversely affect the flood risks for other properties or communities as measured by increased flood stages, increased flood velocity, increased flows, or the increased potential for erosion and sedimentation, unless such impacts are mitigated in an equal or greater amount. Such regulations should provide exceptions for existing single-family lots and developments with minor impacts. Such update shall include a stakeholder process, including but not limited to representatives from the environmental community, civil engineering, residential and commercial property owners and real estate development community. ### Action EP 4.5 Converted to Policy 2021 Environmental Protection # Map EP-1: Floodplain and Drainage Basins <
> | | | |---|---| | Neuse River Drainage Basin | Other Drainage Basins | | Crabtree Creek Drainage Basin | Water | | Walnut Creek Drainage Basin | Floodplain | Map created 2/28/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development # 5.5 Tree Canopy Conservation and Growth Raleigh has historically been known as the “City of Oaks” and prides itself on its green image. Trees and forests are integral to Raleigh’s identity and also contribute to quality of life and environmental health. Raleigh’s trees and forests increase shading, absorb carbon dioxide, mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff and pollution, prevent soil erosion, and facilitate water infiltration into soil. Raleigh has adopted a tree conservation ordinance as part of the zoning code. The ordinance requires the conservation of existing trees during the development of properties more than two acres in area. In low-density residential districts (R-6 and below), trees on 15 percent of the land area must be preserved. For all other zone districts, tree preservation requirements impact 10 percent of the land area. As Raleigh grows, it will need to do more to protect its existing urban, suburban, and native trees and forests, and should implement an aggressive program for replanting the city with native trees, when appropriate, to restore the canopy that has been lost to land development. ### Policy EP 5.1 Urban Forestry Expand and strengthen urban forestry and tree preservation programs to protect the existing tree cover and add to it. ### Policy EP 5.2 Tree Canopy Standards Maintain appropriate tree canopy coverage along 50 percent or more of all available sidewalk planting/landscape strips between the sidewalk and the curb. <
> ### Policy EP 5.3 Canopy Restoration Promote the reforestation of tree coverage that is typically lost during urban and suburban development through tree conservation, targeted tree plantings, urban forestry, and street tree plantings. ### Policy EP 5.4 Tree Selection Tree species should be selected for site suitability, superior form, disease resistance, regional performance, drought tolerance, urban tolerance, diversity, and mature size by an ISA Certified Arborist or a professional approved by the Parks and Recreation Department’s Urban Forestry staff. ### Policy EP 5.5 Forested Buffers Conserve forested buffers along Raleigh‘s freeways and expressways through the use of Special Highway Overlay Districts and conditional use zoning. ### Policy EP 5.6 Tree Conservation Ordinance Continue to revise the tree conservation provisions in the Unified Development Ordinance based on urban forestry best practices and the city’s tree canopy goals. Environmental Protection ### Action EP 5.1 Completed 2013 ### Action EP 5.2 Tree Canopy Study Conduct a city-wide tree canopy cover assessment; establish canopy metrics and tree planting goals; and identify strategies to improve Raleigh’s urban forest to help meet climate, sustainability, resiliency, equity, and accessibility goals. ### Action EP 5.3 Removed 2014 ### Action EP 5.4 Utility Coordination Coordinate with utility companies to plant, manage, and maintain healthy street trees that can establish mature and natural canopies without interfering with infrastructure operation. ### Action EP 5.5 Completed 2015 ### Action EP 5.6 NeighborWoods Implement an alternating planting/ maintenance cycle to foster the long-term tree survival and financial sustainability of the NeighborWoods program. ### Action EP 5.7 Tree Canopy Assessment Assess tree inventory to quantify carbon absorbed; monitor over time. ### Action EP 5.8 Converted to Policy 2022 # 5.6 Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Preservation Protecting the diversity of plant and animal species is important. Rapidly urbanizing communities such as Raleigh are in danger of losing their areas of wildlife habitat. Raleigh still has the opportunity to protect and enhance its wildlife habitat and a wide range of “priority species,” including songbirds that are indigenous to North Carolina. “Priority species” of fish and wildlife are identified in the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan and provide a useful resource for Raleigh’s wildlife conservation efforts. For example, the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan identifies priority species that inhabit some city water bodies, such as Walnut Creek and the Neuse River corridor. #### Policy EP 6.1 Aquatic Habitat Seek to prevent further and/or potential aquatic degradation and impairment of biological communities by strengthening urban stream water quality measures. *See also ‘5.3 Water Quality and Conservation.’* #### Policy EP 6.2 Seasonal Pools and Streams Protect and restore seasonal pools and intermittent streams, and their buffers that are home range/breeding habitat for water dependent species. <
> #### Policy EP 6.3 Special Status Species Place a high priority on protecting rare, threatened, and endangered species habitats and migratory corridors, as defined by Federal and State agencies, from development and its impacts through methods, such as land acquisition, park and greenway stewardship, improved development regulations, intergovernmental coordination, and mitigation. #### Policy EP 6.4 Biodiversity and City Park Lands Strive to maintain and improve species diversity and populations in the parks inventory through enhanced plantings and habitat management. Environmental Protection <
> ### Action EP 6.1 Habitat Plan Formulate a wildlife habitat plan to define, map, protect, and restore Raleigh’s native and priority habitats, particularly those identified in the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. The plan should establish a program of action for protecting and enhancing wildlife habitats and preserving biodiversity through a range of strategies, including land acquisition, park and greenway conservation and interpretation, augmented development regulations, and intergovernmental coordination. If priority habitats occur outside current city control, seek methods and partnership to conserve the ecological areas. ### Action EP 6.2 Habitat Protection Regulations Determine how to best address conservation, protection, and preservation of wildlife and habitats. Use the body of knowledge, designations and tools available through the N.C. Natural Heritage Program, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and other conservation-oriented organizations and agencies. Explore the creation of a wildlife habitat overlay district modeled after that used by the City of Tampa, Florida. ### Action EP 6.3 Completed 2021 # 5.7 Material Resource Management Comprehensive material resource management does not just include waste management, but also the management of inputs and consumption patterns. While recycling is a big step in the right direction, it is insufficient by itself as a means of achieving sustainability, as it merely deals with a fraction of the resources involved in the current linear system of extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal. In order to be truly sustainable, Raleigh must take more steps toward a closed loop or "zero waste" system of production. Such a system requires that Raleigh maximize its existing recycling and reuse efforts, while ensuring that products used by both city staff and city residents are designed for the environment and have the potential to be repaired, reused, or recycled. <
> The city is examining replacing the traditional approach to waste disposal with a new paradigm, exemplified by the "Cradle-to-Cradle" design credo "waste = food," that repositions waste streams as resources. Examples include the commonplace, such as recycling programs and reuse of water; to emerging practices, such as mining of FOG (fats, oils, grease) for biofuels, and producing usable methane from landfills and anaerobic digestion of sanitary wastes. *See also ‘10.2 Solid Waste’ in Section 10: ‘Community Facilities and Services’ for related policies and actions.* ### Policy EP 7.1 Waste Best Management Practices Promote waste Best Management Practices (BMPs) in all current and future development projects in an effort to reduce the amount of waste produced by development. Explore opportunities to develop standards to address the waste management hierarchy (avoidance, minimization, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment, and disposal) in design, construction, and demolition stages. ### Policy EP 7.2 Waste Minimization Move away from high energy/high technology methods of waste disposal and more toward waste minimization. A system of incentives and penalties for both the public and private sectors should be created to increase community-level involvement and facilitate public/private partnerships. Zero waste will be the long-term goal of the city. ### Policy EP 7.3 Incentives to Waste Reduction Motivate residents, businesses, and institutions to reduce and recycle waste, including construction and demolition debris, through appropriate incentives and disincentives. ### Policy EP 7.4 Public Awareness of Waste Impacts Promote public awareness regarding the implications of solid-waste generation on the environment, and the consumption and disposal practices that result in less waste generation as well as more efficient, environmentally sound use of resources. Environmental Protection <
> ### Policy EP 7.5 Source Reduction Reduce the sources of solid waste through increased education and outreach programs and through increased recycling and composting. ### Policy EP 7.6 Municipal Waste Reduction Further increase waste reduction and conservation by city employees; increase product-substitution, recycling and the purchase and use of recycled goods, and ensure that less toxic and sustainable alternative products, such as chlorine-free paper and PVC-free plastics are actively supported and used. ### Policy EP 7.7 Community Participation in Recycling Increase community (resident and business) participation in recycling programs through the use of communications, quantification, and competition. *See also ‘5.9 Environmental Education, Awareness and Coordination’ for more on this topic.* ### Policy EP 7.8 Food Waste Composting Investigate and pursue appropriate opportunities for food waste composting, ranging from individual household composting to regional organic waste composting. ### Policy EP 7.9 Construction and Demolition Recycling Promote the reuse of waste from building demolition and construction, including the recycling of lumber and brick, and salvage of usable fittings and hardware. ### Policy EP 7.10 Businesses Using Recycled Output Support economic development efforts aimed at enhancing existing and developing businesses that can utilize local secondary materials as feedstocks. ### Policy EP 7.11 Waste-to-energy Continue to operate a methane gas recovery system, and promote further research into new and clean technologies for the conversion of organic waste into energy. *See also ‘10.2 Solid Waste’ in Section 10: ‘Community Facilities and Services’ for an additional Waste-to-Energy policy.* ### Action EP 7.1 Completed 2021 *** ### Action EP 7.2 Completed 2011 *** ### Action EP 7.3 Waste-to-energy Demonstration Partner with the North Carolina Cooperative Extension and related institutions, agencies, and organizations to explore and develop a demonstration waste-to-energy project. *** ### Action EP 7.4 Environmentally-friendly Product Use Work with regional agencies to explore options for assuring the use of compostable plastic, recyclable paper, and/or re-usable checkout bags by stores throughout the region, as well as a reduction in the use of polystyrene foam (Styrofoam) food service containers, including those in the City of Raleigh. Similar ordinances in other cities apply to grocery stores with gross annual sales exceeding two million dollars, and pharmacies with five or more locations; penalties apply for organizations in violation. *** ### Action EP 7.5 Completed 2015 *** <
> ### Action EP 7.6 Removed 2021 *** ### Action EP 7.7 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Expand on current policy by including specific goals for toxic pollution reduction, recycled content products, energy and water savings, green building construction and renovation, landscaping, forest conservation, and agricultural bio-based products. *** Environmental Protection # 5.8 Light and Noise Pollution Controls Excessive, poorly designed outdoor lighting wastes electricity, disturbs natural habitats, and increasingly deprives many of us of a direct relationship with the night sky. The City of Raleigh seeks to minimize light pollution, glare, and light trespass; conserve energy and resources while maintaining night time safety, utility, security, and productivity; and curtail the degradation of the nighttime visual environment. Similarly, noise pollution from highway and airport traffic disturbs quality of life, and should be mitigated appropriately. ### Policy EP 8.1 Light Pollution Reduce light pollution and promote dark skies by limiting the brightness of exterior fixtures and shielding adjacent uses from light sources, provided safety is not compromised. Minimize flood lighting and maximize low level illumination. Promote the use of efficient, full cut-off lighting fixtures wherever practical. Full cut-off fixtures emit no light above the horizontal plane. ### Policy EP 8.2 Light Screening Prohibit unshielded exterior lamps and limit the lighting of trees and other vegetation through the use of shielded fixtures and footcandle limits. ### Policy EP 8.3 Night-time Light Impacts Uses that can turn off outdoor lighting during night hours are to be encouraged in areas with uses sensitive to night-time light impacts. Uses which require all-night illumination are to be discouraged in these areas, while ensuring that actual and perceived night-time safety is maintained. ### Policy EP 8.4 Noise and Light Impacts Mitigate potential noise and light pollution impacts from new development on adjoining residential properties. ### Policy EP 8.5 Airport Overlay Zone Keep the boundaries of the Airport Overlay District zone consistent with the recommendations of the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority to protect residents from impacts of increased flight patterns and activity. ### Policy EP 8.6 Expressway Noise Protect residents from excessive roadway noise by requiring appropriate mitigation measures, such as landscaped buffers or noise walls, for all new expressways that generate excessive levels of noise. ### Policy EP 8.7 Noise Codes and Regulations Maintain and enforce the building codes, regulations, and other applicable standards that mitigate noise impacts. Environmental Protection # Map EP-2: Airport Overlay District and Noise Contours <
> ### Airport Overlay District ### Airport Noise Contours * 55 Average Daily Decibels * 60 Average Daily Decibels * 65 Average Daily Decibels * 70 Average Daily Decibels Map created 4/17/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development ### Policy EP 8.8 Noise and Environmental Justice Ensure that residents of all income levels throughout the City of Raleigh are equally protected from excessive roadway noise. ### Policy EP 8.9 LED Lighting Use high-efficiency Light-Emitting Diode (LED) lighting for outdoor illumination where feasible; newer technologies should be considered as they become available. ### Policy EP 8.10 Airport Noise Protection for Residential Uses * Rezoning of properties within the defined 65 decibel level of Raleigh Durham Airport Authority composite noise contour line and outside the Airport Overlay District, that propose to increase residential density or create new residential zoning is strongly discouraged. Exceptions to such rezoning may occur through a conditional use rezoning that adopts Raleigh Durham Airport Authority recommended noise mitigation measures. <
> ### Action EP 8.1 Completed 2013 ### Action EP 8.2 Dark Sky Incentives Develop a package of incentives and/or credits to promote the utilization of energy-efficient, full cutoff lighting fixtures that minimize glare and light pollution. ### Action EP 8.3 Non-essential Lighting Explore programs to dim non-essential parking lot or building lights overnight, which can be reactivated by a motion sensor. # 5.9 Environmental Education, Awareness, and Coordination One of the most important efforts that the City of Raleigh should undertake to protect, conserve, and steward the environment is to offer residents access to comprehensive environmental education programs and activities. According to the North American Association for Environmental Education, “The goal of environmental education is to develop a world population that is aware of and concerned about the environment and its associated problems and which has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations, and commitment to work individually and collectively toward solutions of current problems and the prevention of new ones.” ### Policy EP 9.1 Environmental Education Develop and promote permanent environmental education and interpretive facilities and programs to foster broad public awareness of environmental issues and consequences and to promote greater appreciation and stewardship of our natural resources both locally and globally. <
> ### Policy EP 9.2 Environmental Justice Education Educate local decision-makers on the principles of environmental justice to promote equitable distributions of environmental burdens (pollution, industrial facilities, waste disposal, truck traffic, noise, etc.) and access to environmental goods (nutritious food, clean air and water, parks, recreation, health care, education, transportation, safe jobs, etc.). <
> ### Policy EP 9.3 Environmental Stewardship Optimize the appreciation, use, and stewardship of Raleigh’s natural resources, including its wildlife and habitats, flora and fauna, and waterways and floodplains to foster broad public awareness of the connection between humans and nature. Enlist the support of local colleges and universities in targeted research and other projects to meet regional environmental goals. <
> ### Policy EP 9.4 Environmental Oversight Provide adequate oversight during the construction phase for all city capital projects to ensure applicable federal, state and local ordinances and environmental standards are met. <
> ### Policy EP 9.5 Promoting Local Products Promote the public health and environmental benefits of supporting locally-produced foods, goods, and services. <
> ### Policy EP 9.6 Local Produce and Farmers Markets Encourage the creation and maintenance of produce markets throughout Raleigh to provide outlets for healthful and locally-grown produce for residents. Support growing, harvesting, selling and delivery of locally-grown produce. Target areas within limited access to traditional food markets. <
> ### Policy EP 9.7 Cooperation with Conservation Groups Promote cooperation with conservation and land trust groups through the city’s Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative so city resources can be carefully coordinated with other land acquisition programs. <
> <
> ### Policy EP 9.8 Landscaping and Gardening Encourage environmentally responsible landscaping and gardening practices to reduce water use and water pollution, including increased use of drought-resistant and native plants and reduced use of pesticides, and increase pollinator supportive habitat including native and pollinator-friendly species to proliferate healthy pollinator populations. Strive to maintain best practices by promoting pollinator programs such as Bee City USA and supporting interactions among community advocates and public programs ### Policy EP 9.9 Food Systems Education Facilitate partnerships between community gardens and community organizations to develop programs that educate the public about food systems (including environmental impacts), healthy eating, and food security. ### Action EP 9.1 Removed 2022 *** ### Action EP 9.2 Completed 2021 *** ### Action EP 9.3 Renewable Energy Education In conjunction with community partners, conduct a public education and outreach effort to encourage the purchase of renewable energy options from local providers. *** ### Action EP 9.4 Local Food Systems Explore opportunities to develop and expand local food systems (including community gardens and urban farms) that provide opportunities for residents to grow their own produce as well as learn and use organic gardening techniques. The city should identify publicly-owned sites that may be suitable for community gardens and urban farms, work with advocacy groups to make these sites available, and manage them. Coordinate with yard waste collection and community composting. *** ### Action EP 9.5 Environmental Indicators Create and maintain an Environmental Indicators Report documenting environmental trends. *** Environmental Protection <
> ### Action EP 9.6 Completed 2013 *** ### Action EP 9.7 Urban Agriculture Plan Develop an Urban Agriculture Plan to identify opportunities for urban agriculture and community gardens on city-owned property. The plan should include the following items: analysis of site suitability for agriculture; analysis of need using, but not limited to, income, food access, health indicators, history of environmental justice issues; and resources required from the city and private sector/nonprofit partners. *** ### Action EP 9.8 Food System Plan Develop a Food System Plan for Raleigh. Coordinate with Wake County to ensure consistency with the Wake County Food Security Plan. *** (blank page) section 6 # Economic Development 6.1 Commercial Corridor Reinvestment .......................................... 6-7 6.2 Neighborhood Reinvestment ..................................................... 6-9 6.3 Entrepreneurs and Business Development ............................ 6-11 6.4 Workforce Training and Access to Employment .................... 6-14 6.5 Economic Development and Land Use .................................. 6-16 6.6 Hospitality and Tourism .......................................................... 6-20 6.7 Creative Industries ................................................................... 6-22 6.8 Organizational Structure and Functions ................................. 6-23 # Economic Development <
> Economic Development, broadly defined, refers to the process of local wealth creation, manifested by growth in jobs, income and investment, and supported by improvements in the social, built and natural environment. The Economic Development Section lays out a vision for the future of Raleigh’s economy, and includes policies and actions designed to enhance the city’s competitive advantages and build on its culture of innovation. It includes as three coequal goals the attraction of new business, retention and expansion of existing business, and creating the conditions for productive investment in areas of the city that have suffered from disinvestment or a lack of investment. One of the nation’s most rapidly growing regions, the Triangle benefits from long-standing investments in major educational institutions and the Research Triangle Park. The Triangle economy has thrived, expanding rapidly over the last four decades. As with many successful economic regions, the Triangle benefits from a “virtuous circle.” An initial wave of successful businesses spawns spinoffs. Complementary or linked firms are attracted to form clusters. The growth in good jobs attracts an influx of highly-educated workers. This in turn attracts even more businesses looking to tap into the growing pool of skilled labor. Continued economic vitality, however, is not automatic. Increased cost of living, traffic congestion, and/or a failure to maintain a high quality of place can undermine the Triangle’s economic strength. Extending the region’s prosperity and economic stability to all of its residents also is not automatic. Raleigh needs targeted action and investment to address these issues in collaboration with the business community. The three points of the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill) and the region’s many other component jurisdictions are increasingly connected as employees cross-commute, new businesses develop to serve companies and markets throughout the Triangle, and existing industry spins off new businesses. # Table ED-1 2040 Employment Projections | Year | 2010 | 2020 | 2030 | 2040 | Average Annual Growth 2010 to 2040 | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Raleigh | 313,538 | 344,590 | 380,921 | 423,245 | 1.0% | | Cary | 74,112 | 83,111 | 93,619 | 105,872 | 1.2% | | Wake County | 497,634 | 577,053 | 669,927 | 778,175 | 1.5% | | Chatham County | 8,775 | 11,610 | 15,142 | 19,533 | 2.7% | | Durham County | 190,134 | 222,344 | 260,827 | 306,524 | 1.6% | | Franklin County | 13,164 | 14,486 | 16,039 | 17,868 | 1.0% | | Granville County | 10,870 | 14,059 | 17,730 | 21,954 | 2.4% | | Harnett County | 7,139 | 9,144 | 11,616 | 14,650 | 2.4% | | Johnston County | 42,345 | 49,486 | 58,687 | 70,730 | 1.7% | | Nash County | 705 | 1,362 | 2,204 | 3,261 | 5.2% | | Orange County | 70,984 | 84,064 | 100,225 | 120,274 | 1.8% | | Person County | 10,352 | 11,147 | 12,060 | 13,039 | 0.8% | | *Source: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization* | | | | | | From 2000 to 2013, Wake County’s job base grew by more than 89,000 jobs to almost 474,000 jobs. Key economic sectors include government, educational services, professional and technical services, trade, transportation and utilities, and health care. Within Raleigh, the state government, North Carolina State University and other educational institutions, and major health care centers have a more significant portion of the employment base. Job growth projections point to a major expansion of jobs in the city by 2040 with even faster growth in the balance of the county. University research and the growing technology sectors within Raleigh support even greater business development in emerging industries. According to a model created by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) with input from municipalities across the Triangle region, Raleigh is expected to add over 100,000 jobs from 2010 to 2040, an average increase of 1 percent every year (*see Table ED-1*). Although Raleigh is expected to add the most jobs in the region in terms of raw numbers, several counties are expected to have higher annual job growth rates, including Chatham County, Granville County, Nash County, and Harnett County. With the region as a whole, Raleigh’s economy has shifted to one that is more technology-based and less reliant on government and manufacturing. In 2004, the release of the acclaimed *Staying on Top: Winning Job Wars of the Future* report—an analysis inspired by Dr. Michael Porter’s ‘Clusters of Innovation’— organized efforts for the Triangle to further develop and nurture its economic competitiveness regionally, nationally, and globally. The report highlights ten industry clusters on which to focus for job growth and industry expansion, including pharmaceuticals, biological agents and infectious diseases, agricultural biotechnology, pervasive computing, advanced medical care, analytical instrumentation, nanoscale technologies, informatics, vehicle component parts, and logistics and distribution. While Raleigh does not have the capacity to cultivate all of these industry clusters, areas such as advanced medical care, pharmaceuticals, informatics, and agricultural biotechnology already have a presence within the city and/or have a support base provided by the city’s universities. To align with the region’s economic strategy and maintain its economic stability, Raleigh should capitalize on these strengths in the years ahead. Raleigh shows promise in several new or emerging industries. Medical devices and diagnostics is a sector that has gained momentum during the past decade. Much of that growth has been the result of entrepreneurial initiatives cultivating the technology and talent found within the local university and research communities. Veterinary medicine, pre-clinical trials for new drug research, and innovations in technologies and research are also growing industry nodes being fostered by strong university programs and biotech clusters in the Triangle. Raleigh has emerged as a hub for companies developing the advanced, environmentally sustainable technologies categorized as cleantech. The Research Triangle Region Cleantech Cluster (RTCC) drives the area’s economic and technological growth in smart grid, energy efficiency, advanced transportation and alternative energy. With phenomenal advancements in video game entertainment and global trends favoring digital and distance learning, virtual gaming and advanced learning technologies and simulators have quickly become competitive industries. Raleigh’s existing and expanding network of small businesses focused on game and digital learning advancements and information technology will continue to create future jobs and employ locally-trained talent. Lastly, trends in recent years have seen noticeable growth in the software development sector, including defense technologies, application development, analytics, and Software as a Service (SaaS). The Economic Development & Employment Trends chapter of the 2008 Community Inventory Report — the data and analysis companion volume of the Comprehensive Plan — provides background information on employment trends, the region’s economic base, and forces impacting the city’s older commercial districts and corridors. In the Community Inventory Report, the following issues were identified that this Section intended to address: * *The need to maintain Raleigh’s competitive edge in attracting and nurturing key industries that provide much of the region’s economic prosperity;* * *A diffuse economic development organizational structure;* * *Aging commercial corridors that are unable to compete effectively with new retail development;* * *Declining neighborhood commercial centers that blight the community and no longer serve residents’ retail needs, particularly in modest-income neighborhoods;* * *A need to expand the city’s base of small businesses, particularly minority-owned businesses, for further economic diversification;* * *Young adults and other residents that lack the training and skills to compete for 21st century jobs;* Economic Development <
> * *Inadequate employment opportunities for persons who currently have a weak attachment to the labor force;* * *A desire to increase the amount of base employment;* * *Pressure to convert competitive employment sites to residential and commercial uses;* * *Opportunities to harness the benefits of culture, arts, entertainment, hospitality, and tourism to create jobs and enhance the city’s quality of life;* * *An important base of creative industries, including the arts, sciences, research and development, and architecture and engineering, that should be expanded and enhanced;* * *A need to target the city’s resources to areas of identified need that also provide opportunities for economic development; and* * *The need for one city agency to be responsible for Economic Development. Currently, city economic development initiatives are conducted by a variety of city departments.* As of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update, substantial progress had been made on several of these: * *A new Office of Economic Development & Innovation has been created within the City Manager’s Office to be the lead agency on all economic development activities.* * *The City Council has adopted and implemented new economic development tools to attract industry and spur reinvestment in areas of the city in need of jobs and commercial activity, including a Business Investment Grant and Building Upfit Grant.* * *The city has decided to make small business development a strategic focus of economic development efforts.* * *The new Raleigh Arts Plan highlights the link between economic development and the arts.* # Economic Development Raleigh’s Economic Development staff work closely with Wake County and of a number of non-governmental agencies to promote job creation and investment in the city. Thus, the Economic Development Section focuses on local initiatives that will advance the city’s economic competitiveness through land use planning for employment and mixed-use centers and corridors; fostering entrepreneurship; augmenting workforce development; and enhancing the city’s hospitality/tourism sectors. The city will continue to work with its local and regional partners on advancing the regional economy and its healthy economic growth and diversity, with an equal focus on recruiting new business, retaining and expanding existing business, and revitalizing lagging priority areas. Economic development encompasses and cuts across many of the topics covered by the Comprehensive Plan. Central to this Section is the theme of *Economic Prosperity and Equity*. All policies and actions within this portion of the Comprehensive Plan are integral to achieving this vision theme. Increasing the financial resources of Raleigh’s residents, particularly low- and moderate-wealth households, is also a key step in achieving the Comprehensive Plan’s themes of *Expanding Housing Choices* and *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*. Creating new jobs with good wages and helping low- and moderate-income residents develop the skills to compete for those jobs will help them increase their personal assets, buy houses, and better maintain and improve their homes. Developing new economic activity within the city limits will be critical to *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*. Finally, expanding the city’s economic base will generate fiscal resources to fund the infrastructure and programs essential to achieving all of the Plan’s themes. Additional guidance on neighborhood revitalization is addressed in *Section 7: ‘Housing.’* *Section 3: ‘Land Use’* and *Section 11: ‘Urban Design’* address opportunities for mixed-use development. *Section 4: ‘Transportation’* provides further information on the transit and road network investments required to maintain business and employee access. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity <
> Expanding Housing Choices <
> Managing Our Growth <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation <
> Greenprint Raleigh <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # 6.1 Commercial Corridor Reinvestment Over time, needs change, standards and technologies progress, and consumer preferences evolve. Without reinvestment to help shopping centers and business districts stay current with these changes, some commercial corridors will suffer the ill effects of obsolescent facilities with corresponding low rents, high vacancies, deteriorating building stock, and general decay. With the constant outward drive of sprawl, it is easy for private retailers to abandon these older commercial districts and move on to modern shopping centers further out from the center city. Facilities are left behind physically and economically, blighting otherwise healthy adjoining neighborhoods. Renewal and re-use can counter this trend, but they often require public investment. Long-term economic and environmental sustainability demands re-use and re-invention of the city’s aging commercial corridors. This is particularly true along gateway corridors, which frame visitors’ and residents’ image of the city. ### Policy ED 1.1 Corridor Revitalization Stimulate the revitalization and redevelopment of Raleigh’s aging commercial corridors and centers through the use of targeted economic development programs, zoning, land use regulations, public investments in infrastructure, and incentives. ### Policy ED 1.2 Mixed-use Redevelopment Promote mixed-use redevelopment strategies as a means of enhancing economic development in commercial corridors and creating transit- and pedestrian-friendly environments. <
> ### Policy ED 1.3 Gateway Reinvestment Focus reinvestment efforts on those commercial areas that also serve as key gateways to the city and downtown, such as Avent Ferry Road, Six Forks Road Corridor, and South Saunders Street (Southern Gateway Corridor Plan). ### Policy ED 1.4 Focusing City Interventions Emphasize and focus intervention efforts on those aspects of corridor improvements that are directly under city control, such as transportation enhancements and public realm improvements. ### Policy ED 1.5 Retail Property Code Enforcement Actively enforce city codes to assure that commercial centers contain well-maintained buildings, parking facilities, signage, lighting, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities. ### Action ED 1.1 Strategic Revitalization Plans Undertake strategic revitalization plans for select retail corridors to identify appropriate zoning and the infrastructure and public realm improvements necessary to catalyze economic development. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action ED 1.2 Completed 2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action ED 1.3 Shopping Center Revitalization Incentives Offer incentives in targeted areas to owners of aging shopping centers with consistently high vacancy rates or visible deteriorating physical conditions where the market indicates potential for effective revitalization. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action ED 1.4 Converted to Policy 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action ED 1.5 Promoting Commercial Reinvestment Identify incentives and other economic development tools to promote reinvestment in underperforming commercial corridors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Economic Development # 6.2 Neighborhood Reinvestment Raleigh’s outstanding neighborhoods have allowed the city to attract and retain residents and workers. Successful neighborhoods can benefit from easy access to support retail and services. Quality retail in or near a residential neighborhood can provide a gathering place for residents while reducing the need to drive to meet basic needs. The increased “sense of place” and convenience of such neighborhoods can provide a competitive advantage when attracting “knowledge industry” workers. It can also help retain existing residents. Sustainable economies need quality housing and neighborhoods in close proximity to jobs, including opportunities for residents at all income levels. Revitalization can be a long process, but it is most effective when efforts focus block-by-block rather than being spread thinly over many neighborhoods simultaneously. ### Policy ED 2.1 Neighborhood Reinvestment Encourage reinvestment to improve existing neighborhoods and to attract skilled workers to Raleigh. <
> ### Policy ED 2.2 Resource Allocation Provide resources through existing and new programs to revitalize targeted under-performing businesses and residential areas. <
> ### Policy ED 2.3 Focusing Redevelopment Focus redevelopment efforts on a small number of neighborhoods each year. Continue public involvement until the economics shift and private investment can take over. <
> ### Policy ED 2.4 Attracting Investment to Emerging Neighborhoods In neighborhoods with little private investment and low social and economic indicators, encourage additional development and density to enhance these neighborhoods and create a larger market base to support more and better goods and services for existing and new residents. <
> ### Policy ED 2.5 Blight Abatement Reverse conditions of decline and deterioration that have affected some older areas of Raleigh. These conditions are detrimental to economic and equitable growth. <
> ### Policy ED 2.6 Targeting Infrastructure Investment Invest in public infrastructure (e.g., parks, schools, sidewalks, streetscape) in a targeted manner in older neighborhoods and business districts to enhance residents’ quality of life and improve the neighborhoods’ ability to retain existing residents and attract new residents. <
> ### Policy ED 2.7 Technical and Financial Assistance Promote neighborhood reinvestment by providing technical and financial assistance to neighborhood businesses and merchant associations. <
> Economic Development ### Action ED 2.1 Completed 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### Action ED 2.2 Removed 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### Action ED 2.3 Develop Funding Resources > Develop specific funding resources to encourage private reinvestment in targeted neighborhoods, including the provision of infrastructure that will make private development of targeted areas economically feasible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### Action ED 2.4 Site Acquisition > Acquire property to package for redevelopment in priority revitalization areas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### Action ED 2.5 Completed 2021 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ### Action ED 2.6 Completed 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Economic Development # 6.3 Entrepreneurs and Business Development Continuing to grow and develop Raleigh’s business base to provide good jobs for city residents is critical to long-term economic vitality and sustainability. Business attraction efforts have helped the Triangle evolve into a technology powerhouse with a diverse research and development base. The region has reached the level where it generates many new businesses internally through spin-offs from existing businesses and start-ups by entrepreneurs who may have gained deep industry knowledge and experience in local companies. All economies experience continual shifts as existing businesses close or move and new businesses are born. To be successful, more new businesses must be created than are lost, and a share of those new businesses must achieve good long-term growth. Raleigh has a vibrant and flourishing startup ecosystem that includes more than 500 companies. The support community of entrepreneurs, service providers, academia, corporate partners, non-profits and governmental agencies rallies around our startups, enabling founders to quickly integrate into the entrepreneurial environment with an unprecedented range of resources. A growing number of venture capital firms, angel investors and incubators are also emerging to take advantage of the fertile startup landscape. The Raleigh Chamber of Commerce and the Triangle-wide Council for Economic Development also offer a variety of services to foster interaction, collaboration and growth. Recruitment should target businesses most likely to find Raleigh an attractive location with an appropriate workforce. Raleigh can be selective in the industries it seeks, emphasizing those compatible with the city’s vision. These industries are the target of focused marketing and recruitment efforts, although all sectors are encouraged to grow and invest in Raleigh and the region. Raleigh can draw upon State and Federal tax incentive programs as part of its recruitment efforts. Several census tracts in Raleigh are eligible under the federal New Market Tax Credits program, which is locally administered by the Raleigh Area Development Authority (RADA). ### Policy ED 3.1 Targeting Growth Sectors Continue coordination with local economic development organizations and institutions to identify specific industry growth sectors on which Raleigh should focus local development efforts, such as knowledge-based businesses, research and development, life sciences and biotechnology, green technology, and advanced learning industries. <
> ### Policy ED 3.2 Green Industry Preference Recruit and grow industries and businesses that are environmentally-conscious, promote sustainable practices, and reduce negative impacts on the environment. <
> ### Policy ED 3.3 Green Collar Job Opportunities Encourage and support green-collar business development that is consistent with the city’s goals, particularly those with potential for locating within easy access of unemployed or underemployed workers. <
> *See also ‘14.3 Economic Development Initiatives’ in Section 14: ‘Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination’ for additional policies and actions.* ### Policy ED 3.4 Reducing Barriers to Core Sector Growth Assist Raleigh’s largest employment sectors, including the education, health care, social services, and public administration sectors, to resolve land use constraints so that they can continue to grow, expand job opportunities, and provide a stable economic base. ### Policy ED 3.5 Technology and Bioscience Nurture technology and bioscience industries as a means to further diversify Raleigh’s economy and maintain the city’s competitive edge with this sector. ### Policy ED 3.6 Small, Minority, and Women-owned Businesses Provide training, technical assistance, and incentives to foster small, minority, and women-owned businesses to help create a diverse and sustainable local economy. Provide incubator facilities in targeted areas, as appropriate. ### Policy ED 3.7 Small Businesses and Underserved Areas Encourage small businesses and entrepreneurs to locate in underserved communities. ### Policy ED 3.8 Home-based Businesses and Cottage Industries Support low-impact home based businesses and “cottage industries” in mixed-use districts, on appropriate industrial lands, and in residential areas, while ensuring those proposed for residential areas do not negatively impact residential neighborhoods. ### Policy ED 3.9 Venture Capital for Tech Encourage private sources to increase the availability of venture capital to support the creation and growth of innovative, high technology business as a keystone for the city’s economic future. ### Policy ED 3.10 Research-based Start-ups Work with Raleigh’s many higher education institutions to encourage commercialization of research innovations to fuel growth of start-up businesses. ### Policy ED 3.11 Growth Industries Support the needs of growth and budding niche industries and pro-actively provide the programs, space, and infrastructure necessary to support these industries. ### Policy ED 3.12 Business Attraction Focus business attraction efforts on those sectors and industries for which Raleigh has ample trained workers. ### Policy ED 3.13 Transit and Economic Growth Provide high-quality transit service as a basic and necessary component of the region’s transportation system in an increasingly competitive arena for attracting employers, linking businesses to workers, and maintaining a high quality of life. *See also ‘4.4 Public Transportation.’* ### Policy ED 3.14 Corporate Headquarters Target Raleigh as a location for corporate headquarters, with a particular emphasis on downtown locations. Economic Development <
> ### Action ED 3.1 Business Assistance Program Maintain the Business Assistance Program for minority- and women-owned businesses. ### Action ED 3.2 Entrepreneurial Education Work with North Carolina State University and other institutions of higher education to offer practical entrepreneurial education for students in business, engineering, science, and other majors. ### Action ED 3.3 Wake Tech Green-Collar Program Work with Wake Tech to provide training support to emerging “green-collar” industries to support green industry innovation in the region. ### Action ED 3.4 Completed 2013 ### Action ED 3.5 Green Technology Strategy Develop a regional strategy for attracting and supporting businesses and start-ups in the green technology industry with participation from regional economic development entities and research universities. ### Action ED 3.6 Financial Assistance for New Retailers Explore the creation of a loan pool, grant provisions, or revolving fund to provide gap financing to entrepreneurs interested in starting viable retail businesses throughout the city. # 6.4 Workforce Training and Access to Employment Increasingly, a region’s greatest economic asset is its workforce. The Triangle thrives in large part because of its educated workforce and the area’s many fine universities and colleges. As the national and regional economies shift to depend on knowledge-based industries, a skilled and trained workforce is essential in competing successfully for new businesses. Providing all residents with good jobs depends on helping them prepare themselves with the full range of necessary skills, starting with basic literacy and life skills and extending through college and post-graduate training. Participation in the region’s booming economy by the city’s low- and moderate-income residents would reduce income inequalities and associated social issues. Many of the residents’ housing and other economic needs are best addressed by providing them with the training and opportunities for jobs that will improve their economic status. Reducing barriers to employment by providing public transit access to job centers is an important strategy as well. ### Policy ED 4.1 Diversified Business Recruitment Provide a broad range of employment opportunities for all residents by recruiting a range of business types. ### Policy ED 4.2 Education and Employment Work with the Wake County Public School System, training providers, and the private sector to ensure that Raleigh’s workforce has the basic skills, literacy, and job-specific training necessary to gain employment. Provide basic skills and literacy training to residents in need. ### Policy ED 4.3 Partnerships for Workforce Development Encourage partnerships with existing organizations that provide training in “soft-skills,” vocational skills, daycare, and other services that enable people to enter the workforce and earn a living wage. Ensure that training and services are accessible to and located near those with the greatest need. ### Policy ED 4.4 Training for Workforce Transitions Develop job training and supportive programs to allow Raleigh’s workers to transition from manufacturing to other sectors of work as the economy continues to shift, including strategies to transition from blue- to green-collar jobs. ### Policy ED 4.5 Targeted Workforce Training Provide targeted workforce training and job placement programs to improve access to employment for Raleigh’s low- to moderate-income workers. ### Policy ED 4.6 Academic Sector Partnerships Encourage cooperative efforts between local employers and universities, colleges, and technical colleges to develop education, workforce training, and research programs. Foster collaborations that provide employment options for Raleigh’s youth. ### Policy ED 4.7 Supporting Colleges and Universities Promote economic stability and prosperity by supporting the area universities and colleges that contribute to developing Raleigh’s educated and creative workforce. #### Policy ED 4.8 Workforce Training in Expanding Industries Expand workforce training options for the city’s expanding industries, such as tourism, arts/entertainment, medical device manufacturing, clinical research, and environmental technology. <
> #### Policy ED 4.9 Workforce Transit Improvements Increase access to job opportunities by providing improved transit to all of Raleigh’s major job centers, as well as regional employment clusters. <
> #### Policy ED 4.10 Human Capital Emphasize investments in human capital (e.g., job training and recruitment of Raleigh residents) when providing economic development incentives to attract new businesses to Raleigh. <
> #### Policy ED 4.11 Internships Encourage the Chamber of Commerce and other private-sector organizations to develop and support internship programs to connect with local university students and retain them in the area. <
> #### Action ED 4.1 Education and Emerging Sectors Work with the business community, the Wake County Public School System, and higher education institutions to assure that students are receiving training for jobs in emerging sectors. #### Action ED 4.2 Summer Job Programs Work with the local business community to offer summer job opportunities for Raleigh youth. #### Action ED 4.3 Wake County Retraining Coordination Work with Wake County to provide job training and education for those who need to re-train for new industry jobs. # 6.5 Economic Development and Land Use Land use policy shapes the urban form, creating memorable places and amenities that help Raleigh compete for businesses and residents. Mixed-use environments that allow residents to walk, bike, or use transit to reach their jobs, shops, services, restaurants, and entertainment can help Raleigh attract and retain its skilled workforce. Reducing residents’ and employees’ dependence on single-occupant automobiles will help reduce their costs of transportation and traffic congestion – one of the biggest threats to the region’s quality of life. Protecting prime sites for industrial and office use from competing demands for residential and commercial development will help to ensure that Raleigh can continue to offer competitive locations for new and expanding businesses. *See ‘3.4 Land Use and Transportation Coordination’ in Section 3: ‘Land Use’ for related policies and actions.* ### Policy ED 5.1 Economic Development Amenities Invest in and leverage parks, leisure, and cultural amenities as key economic development assets and part of the city’s economic development infrastructure. <
> ### Policy ED 5.2 Creating Investment Opportunities In areas needing reinvestment and revitalization, create investment opportunities for new housing and employment through land assemblage incentives, site preparation, and public infrastructure improvements. <
> ### Policy ED 5.3 Creating Attractive Development Sites Create attractive and functional sites for new and growing businesses through streetscape improvements and other public realm investments. <
> ### Policy ED 5.4 Niche Office Development Encourage office space development in mixed-use and urban centers to create a competitive advantage for Raleigh by providing a product type lacking in the regional marketplace. <
> ### Policy ED 5.5 Retrofitting Older Office Environments Encourage the intensification and retrofitting of existing office clusters with new pedestrian-friendly residential and retail uses to provide attractive and competitive live-work destinations that reduce dependence on auto travel. <
> ### Policy ED 5.6 Designing Knowledge Industry Workplaces Encourage the development of high-quality environments that combine office/lab space, housing, and support retail and services, such as Centennial Campus or North Hills, to compete effectively for and attract knowledge workers to Raleigh. <
> ### Policy ED 5.7 Workplace Investment in Underserved Areas Use capital investments and incentives to create competitive environments for new employment centers and retail development in underserved areas of the city, such as Southeast Raleigh. <
> Economic Development ### Policy ED 5.8 Supporting Retail Infill and Reinvestment Ensure that land use patterns and zoning regulations support retail infill and do not push new retail to edge locations or promote the abandonment of existing retail centers. <
> ### Policy ED 5.9 Defining New Retail Niches Encourage re-emerging retail districts, such as downtown, to identify and capitalize on those specific characteristics and niches that make them distinctive and desirable to patronize. <
> ### Policy ED 5.10 Jobs-Housing Balance Target a jobs-housing ratio for Raleigh based on the ratio of resident workforce to households (currently around 1.3) and implement land use and zoning policies to achieve this target. <
> ### Policy ED 5.11 Prioritizing Investment Prioritize incentives and programs for public and private investments in commercial and industrial areas based on criteria evaluating need and effectiveness. Need is demonstrated by socioeconomic indicators and evidence of physical disinvestment. Effectiveness means that the priority area is appropriate and ready for economic development. <
> ### Policy ED 5.12 Equitable Development around Transit Support the creation and maintenance of employment and retail options near bus rapid transit stations, with a focus on assisting existing small businesses thrive and grow. <
> *See also Section 3.4 ‘Equitable Development around Transit.’* ### Action ED 5.1 Removed 2019 ### Action ED 5.2 Targeted Economic Development Plans Facilitate economic development plans and projects for targeted areas that have not participated in the city’s economic expansion. *For more information about areas targeted for economic development, see Text box: Areas of Intervention: A Geographic Focus for Economic Development.* ### Action ED 5.3 Infrastructure Investments in Underperforming Areas Identify the infrastructure investments required to make sites in under-performing areas more competitive for economic development. ### Action ED 5.4 Capital Improvement Funding Identify funding sources and mechanisms for undertaking and maintaining public realm and capital improvements to support economic development. Economic Development Action ED 5.5 **Completed 2014** Action ED 5.6 **Completed 2019** Action ED 5.7 **Equitable Development around Transit** Assist small businesses in BRT corridors during and after construction through communications and marketing support and grant funding for façade improvements or interior renovations. # Areas of Intervention: # A Geographic Focus for Economic Development An analysis of Raleigh was conducted to identify areas that demonstrate a need for economic development intervention and that also present opportunities for economic development. Areas were scored according to a number of variables. Each of these areas appears on Map ED-1: Priority Areas for Economic Development. Areas shaded in blue correspond to geographies, measured in block groups, that meet at least one of the following criteria: 1. *Census Block Groups in which 40% or more of the Block Group are zoned for non-residential uses; and that are considered “high poverty” or are adjacent to “high poverty” block groups. High poverty for this purpose is defined as those Block Groups where the percentage of individuals with income below the poverty level exceeds 150% of the citywide poverty rate.* 2. *Census Block Groups in which 40% or more of the Block Group are zoned for industrial use.* 3. *Redevelopment Areas designated according to North Carolina state statute as well as closure of gaps created by inclusion of Redevelopment Areas.* 4. *Other areas deemed appropriate for inclusion by the City Council.* Additionally, parcels located directly across a public right-of-way from the areas shown are also considered priority areas for economic development. The map is based upon quantitative analysis and is intended to provide the city with an identification of under-performing areas that can benefit from economic development activities. Economic Development # Map ED-1: Priority Areas for Economic Development <
> Economic Development Priority Area Map created 6/21/2021 by Raleigh Planning and Development # 6.6 Hospitality and Tourism The city has recently invested in a new Convention Center and convention hotel to expand its hospitality industry. As the state capital, Raleigh has long benefited from interest from statewide organizations. It now has the facilities it needs to compete for more national events as well. Tourism provides important support for local-serving retail and restaurants as well as many entry-level jobs for residents with more limited skills and experience. The city’s many cultural, historic, open space and recreation resources offer valuable opportunities to enhance tourism and expand the local economy. *See also ‘13.4 Economic Development Through the Arts’ in Section 13: ‘Arts and Culture’ for additional policies and actions.* ### Policy ED 6.1 Cultural and Entertainment Hub Position the city generally, and downtown specifically, as a regional and super-regional destination for conventions, the performing arts, sports, and special events. ### Policy ED 6.2 Hospitality Support Services Provide programs and services to support the city’s expanding hospitality and tourism sector. ### Policy ED 6.3 Special Events and Attractions Promote recreation, events, and attractions that extend and enhance existing strengths of Raleigh’s tourism sector. <
> ### Policy ED 6.4 Cultural Resource Promotion Work with local historic preservation and arts groups to identify and promote Raleigh’s cultural resources. ### Policy ED 6.5 Lodging Work with developers, investors, and other local organizations to plan and provide diverse and accessible lodging and accommodations to support tourism growth. ### Policy ED 6.6 Downtown Marketing Coordinate with the Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau to ensure downtown Raleigh attractions are marketed effectively. ### Action ED 6.1 Downtown Cultural Investments Target downtown locations for major public investments in culture, arts, and entertainment venues and facilities. *** ### Action ED 6.2 Tourism Itineraries Develop heritage and cultural tourism itineraries that package multiple destinations and activities. *** ### Action ED 6.3 Cultural Resource Preservation Provide development incentives for preservation of cultural resources. *** # 6.7 Creative Industries Research linking the “creative class” (broadly defined to include a large swath of the workforce including knowledge workers, creative professionals, researchers, artists, educators, and others) with a region’s economic vitality confirms the value of supporting creative industries. Increasingly, the line between science and art is becoming blurred. Collaboration across disciplines is now the source of much innovation and many new discoveries. With thriving educational and cultural institutions as well as an extensive technology sector, Raleigh has the opportunity to expand and enhance its base of creative industries. ### Policy ED 7.1 Creative Industry Growth Promote job creation and growth in creative industry sectors through economic development programs and incentives. <
> ### Policy ED 7.2 Technology-intensive Industries Pursue technology-intensive industries—such as computer system design, graphic and multi-media design, and broadcasting—creating environments suited to them. <
> ### Policy ED 7.3 Coordinating Technology Growth Through Other Initiatives Encourage the growth of technology industries by coordinating sector-specific economic development initiatives with technology infrastructure development, public utilities, and capital improvement planning. <
> ### Policy ED 7.4 Creative Workforce Retention Attract and retain creative individuals by promoting educational opportunities, diverse and affordable neighborhoods, and flexible low-cost commercial space and creation of attractive and affordable environments. <
> ### Policy ED 7.5 University Partnerships Partner with area universities to develop strategies to support creative industries. <
> ### Policy ED 7.6 Adaptive Use for the Arts Pursue opportunities to adapt obsolete industrial and commercial buildings for use by artists and other creative industries. <
> ### Action ED 7.1 Converted to Policy 2014 ### Action ED 7.2 Downtown Arts Development Target resources to secure appropriate adaptable building stock in the downtown area in order to meet the needs of creative industries and transit access. *See also Section 13: ‘Arts and Culture’ for additional policy guidance and implementing actions related to the arts.* # 6.8 Organizational Structure and Functions Economic development cuts across disciplines and organizations. Effective attraction and retention of businesses, workforce development, and neighborhood/corridor redevelopment depend on joint efforts by the city, county, state, and regional economic development organizations, the private sector, and non-profit institutions. Currently, the city’s economic development initiatives are conducted by the Office of Economic Development & Innovation within the Office of the City Manager. Economic development efforts must be as efficient and effective as possible in supporting and expanding the city’s tax base, particularly in times of limited fiscal resources. Coordinated efforts can capitalize on and leverage the activities of the County, State, region, and the private sector. Disaster recovery efforts should include a specific focus on economic recovery along with other needs. The following policies and actions focus on the recommended economic development functions for Raleigh and the administrative structure necessary to implement them. ### Policy ED 8.1 Economic Development Capacity Increase the city’s economic development capacity and ability to coordinate economic development activities and performance measures. <
> ### Policy ED 8.2 Internal Coordination Coordinate the many economic development entities and city departments under the Office of Economic Development & Innovation to allow Raleigh to better capitalize on local economic development opportunities. <
> ### Policy ED 8.3 Economic Development Equity With direction and leadership from the Office of Economic Development & Innovation, undertake economic development efforts, funding, and planning equitably throughout the city. <
> ### Policy ED 8.4 Leveraging Academic Institutions Work closely with the State of North Carolina, local colleges, universities, research institutions, and the Chamber of Commerce to maximize their contributions in shaping the city’s economic future. <
> ### Policy ED 8.5 External Coordination Coordinate with other local, regional, State, and non-profit agencies to address economic and community development issues in a cost-effective manner. <
> ### Policy ED 8.6 Limiting Economic Burdens Obtain revenue in a manner that does not place an undue burden on either businesses or residents, or on a single economic sector. <
> ### Action ED 8.1 Economic Development Vision and Strategic Plan In cooperation with local and regional economic development organizations, institutions, and other stakeholders, develop an economic development vision and strategic plan that includes definition and scope, policies and procedures, goals and objectives, a work program, and performance measures. --- ### Action ED 8.2 Removed 2019 --- ### Action ED 8.3 Economic Development Administration Maintain an administrative structure to increase the city’s economic development capacity and to coordinate economic development activities and performance measures. --- ### Action ED 8.4 Economic Development Communication Convene regular meetings of economic development stakeholders within city departments, economic development organizations, partner organizations, and the private sector to coordinate and focus their economic development activities. --- ### Action ED 8.5 Reinvestment Partnerships Partner with health care centers, universities, and colleges in cooperative redevelopment/reinvestment programs and ventures, focusing first on identified revitalization and redevelopment areas adjacent to these institutional uses. --- ### Action ED 8.6 Completed 2014 --- ### Action ED 8.7 Prioritization Methodology Develop a prioritization methodology to evaluate opportunity areas and to determine how redevelopment investments would best be made. --- ### Action ED 8.8 Post-disaster Strategic Planning In the event of a major disaster, conduct a strategic planning process focused on economic recovery, either along with or in addition to other recovery planning processes. The process would specifically consider economic recovery issues along with general recovery concerns. Initial efforts could be rapid and largely department-driven; in the case of larger disasters, a broader participatory effort could follow the initial response. --- section 7 # Housing 7.1 Quality and Diversity of Housing ........................................ 7-16 7.2 Affordable Housing .............................................................. 7-18 7.3 Addressing Homelessness and Special Needs............. 7-22 7.4 Fair Housing, Universal Design, and Aging in Place .... 7-24 The rapid population growth Raleigh has enjoyed since the early 1990s has created an active housing market with both benefits and challenges. The focus of this Section will be on the affordable housing challenge such a housing market creates for buyer and renter households with low- to moderate-incomes. ## Raleigh’s Housing Market Compared to other Sunbelt cities, Raleigh’s housing market imposes less of a housing burden for its residents overall. For example, the Wells Fargo/National Association of Home Builders’ “Housing Opportunity Index” for the fourth quarter of 2016 indicated that 71 percent of homes for sale in the Raleigh-Cary MSA were affordable to a median income household, while nationally that figure was 60 percent. Despite that positive distinction, rising costs associated with rapid growth have created a housing market that presents challenges for buyers and renters at the lower end of the income ladder. In March 2017, Triangle MLS reported that for Wake County, the average days on market until sale was only 44, making this a seller’s market with sales prices increasing as much as 10 percent annually year-over-year. Land values are increasing as well, prompting owners of older, more affordable apartments to sell to developers at ever rising prices. Market conditions, with rental vacancy rates well under 5 percent, encourage those developers to clear the site and construct denser, upscale developments. This dynamic has produced rising rents, a loss of existing privately-owned affordable housing, and a subsequent increase in housing cost burden especially for low-income renters. While this market benefits homeowners wanting to sell and investors seeking a good return on investment, it creates challenges for both lower income homebuyers and renters. Census data in Table H-1 provides a snapshot of Raleigh’s housing stock compared to the nation as a whole. Raleigh’s homeownership rate has historically been around 50 percent, while the homeownership rate nationwide is closer to 64 percent. This is due in part to the number of students attending N.C. State University and several other colleges and universities located in the capital city. Raleigh’s median sales price is 17 percent higher than nationally, yet monthly costs of ownership (and rent rates) are almost evenly matched, city to country. However, Raleigh’s median income is much higher than the national median income, which may account for the local market’s tendency to focus production on upscale or luxury units. Raleigh’s housing market is vibrant and complex. But the need for more affordable housing is generally recognized as a challenge that the city needs to address. ## Table H-1 Basic Facts About Homeowners and Renters: Raleigh and USA 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates | Demographic Indicator | Raleigh | USA | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Percent owner-occupied | 52.1 | 63.9 | | Percent renter | 47.9 | 36.1 | | Percent of units that are single-family detached | 48.3 | 61.6 | | Median house value | $208,800 | $178,600 | | Median monthly costs of ownership | $1,424 | $1,492 | | Median rent | $926 | $928 | | Median household income, owners | $81,512 | $53,889 | | Median household income, renters | $36,559 | $33,784 | ## Affordable Housing Challenges As the American Community Survey data in Table H-1 indicates, the city has some features of its housing market close to the national experience, and some features are significantly different. At the “macro level” no problems appear for the city’s renters or homeowners. When Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, which is organized by income group, is employed to evaluate the housing experiences of the city’s residents, it becomes clear that lower income residents of the city have a greater need than those of higher incomes. As Table H-2 indicates, 33,610 renter households with incomes below 80 percent of area median income (AMI) were paying more than 30 percent of household income on housing (rent and utilities), while 17,890 additional renter households with incomes less than 80 percent AMI were paying more than 50 percent of their income to cover these costs. Combined, in 2015, approximately 51,500 renter households in Raleigh with incomes below 80 percent AMI were cost burdened. As shown in Table H-3, Raleigh’s apartment vacancy rates have been below the state and nation since 2012, and this phenomenon contributes to some extent to the trend that is taking place in the city of tearing down older, affordable apartment communities and rebuilding with luxury units. ## Table H-2 City of Raleigh Income By Cost Burden: Renter Households | Income (AMI) | Cost Burden > 30 percent | Cost Burden > 50 percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | <=30 percent AMI | 14,600 | 12,980 | | >30 percent <= 50 percent | 11,970 | 4,280 | | >50 percent <=80 percent | 7,040 | 630 | | >80 percent <=100 percent | 815 | 120 | | >100 percent | 610 | 160 | | Total households cost burdened | 35,035 | 18,170 | *Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, HUD, from 2009—2013 ACS* ## Table H-3 City of Raleigh Apartment Vacancy Rates: Comparison with State and Nation | Year | US | NC | Raleigh, NC | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 2015 | 5.85 percent | 7.02 percent | 5.05 percent | | 2014 | 6.32 percent | 7.29 percent | 6.17 percent | | 2013 | 6.49 percent | 7.46 percent | 4.49 percent | | 2012 | 6.77 percent | 8.00 percent | 5.78 percent | *www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/north-carolina/raleigh/* Homeowners, too, are experiencing cost burdens. As Table H-4 indicates, 13,520 homeowners with incomes less than 80 percent AMI were paying more than 30 percent of income on housing costs (principle, interest, taxes and insurance); and 6,405 homeowners with incomes less than 80 percent AMI were paying over 50 percent of income on housing. Combined, in 2015, approximately 19,925 Raleigh homeowners with incomes less than 80 percent AMI were cost burdened. Many existing available affordable units are not of standard quality or safety. Often the public infrastructure and amenities are aging and in need of replacement. Although the city has demolished a significant portion of the substandard housing stock in redevelopment areas (often building infill affordable housing in its place), there are still many areas where housing has deteriorated. In these instances, deteriorated or abandoned housing can sometimes discourage new investment in the surrounding neighborhood. In near-downtown locations, many such sites are being acquired by private developers and transformed into new housing opportunities often out of reach of the families of long-time residents. ### Table H-4 City of Raleigh Income By Cost Burden: Homeowners | Income (AMI) | Cost Burden > 30 percent | Cost Burden > 50 percent | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | <=30 percent AMI | 3,220 | 2,760 | | >30 percent <= 50 percent | 3,510 | 1,935 | | >50 percent <=80 percent | 6,790 | 1,710 | | >80 percent <=100 percent | 2,965 | 315 | | >100 percent | 4,105 | 425 | | Total households cost burdened | 20,590 | 7,145 | *Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, HUD, from 2009—2013 ACS* Many residents of the city struggle to even find housing. Recent data from the Raleigh Housing Authority showed a total of almost 8,000 families on the waiting list for public housing or Housing Choice Vouchers. The 2016 Point-in-Time (PIT) count of persons meeting HUD’s definition of homeless yielded 818 persons in the city who were homeless. Supplemental data from Wake County’s school system showed over 2,500 students living in motels/hotels and local knowledge by homeless service providers identifies persons and families “doubled up” with relatives or friends. Neither group meets the HUD definition so the real homeless need is greater than the official Point in Time count of 818. Considering these numbers, Raleigh’s existing affordable housing challenge becomes apparent. Recent demographic trends suggest that the challenge will be even greater in the city’s future. As the following graph (developed for Wake County’s affordable housing plan steering committee) indicates, the greatest household growth in Wake County in the period 2000—2015 was among lower income households. Location of housing affordable to lower-wage residents who may have transportation challenges (lacking a reliable car, for example) can often be a barrier to steady employment, attending school, etc., unless low-cost and reliable public transit options exist to connect the housing to employment centers, grocery stores, schools, and other amenities. It isn’t always possible to make sure that every new affordable apartment community built in the city, for example, is served by bus service that connects residents to their jobs or schools. ## Household Growth By Income Bracket Wake County, 2000-2015 <
> Note: Incomes are not adjusted for inflation over time. Sources: Social Explorer; U.S. Census; HR&A Advisors ## Raleigh’s Affordable Housing Programs The city’s role in addressing its housing affordability problems is part of a larger partnership involving Wake County, Raleigh Housing Authority, local nonprofit organizations, builders, and state and federal funding agencies. Of the latter, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD has traditionally been the driving force nationally among most cities of writing the rules and providing the funding for housing and community development. The three most-used federal programs for these purposes are the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and, for homelessness specifically, the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). All three are provided to the city as an entitlement, that is, the funds are provided annually by formula, pending the city’s participation in HUD’s Consolidated Plan regulations and other federal compliance (fair housing, civil rights, wage rates, environmental law, etc.) requirements. For decades the City of Raleigh has offered a variety of assistance programs to address the housing needs of low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents of the city. Like most American cities the assistance has been restricted to LMI households as defined by HUD. The top income has been households earning no more than 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s median income (AMI), adjusted for household size. Some programs are targeted to those at lower income levels (30 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent of AMI). Table H-5 shows the alignment of city housing programs available with the corresponding income groups. ## Table H-5 Continuum of Housing Assistance Among Households of Differing Incomes | Lowest to Highest Income | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Percent of area median income (AMI) top limit | Up to 30 percent | Up to 50 percent | Up to 60 percent | Up to 80 percent | 81-120 percent | | Top income for family of four | $24,060 | $40,100 | $48,120 | $64,150 | $96,200 | | Type of household | Extremely low-income renters or homeless | Very Low-income renters | Low-income renters | Moderate-income homeowners | Sometimes referred to as “workforce” | | Subsidy programs availability | **Existing programs:** City ESG grants to nonprofits to address homelessness. Development of facility for coordinated entry / assessment at Oak City Center. Needs also addressed by RHA (rent vouchers and public housing). | **Existing programs:** City-owned rentals. City loan terms favor income mixing (i.e., units set-aside for <40 percent AMI and <50 percent AMI, as well as <60 percent AMI | **Existing programs:** Local funding and federal HOME funds for preservation of existing / produce new affordable apartments – usually combined with federal Housing Tax Credits | **Existing programs:** Citywide $20,000 second mortgage program for first time LMI buyers; infill single-family housing on city-owned lots near downtown; housing rehabilitation loans of no or low interest. | **Existing programs:** none.

No public subsidy for households over 80 percent AMI (N.C. state law often uses federal definitions of affordability). City uses land use policies to assure diversity of housing types to serve this group. | *$80,200 is the area median income (AMI), family of four, for June 2017 in Raleigh-Cary metropolitan area* Table H-5 reflects the fact that financial assistance is directed to households below the national standard of no more than 80 percent of area median income, adjusted for family size. Different types of programs are available depending on how much below 80 percent the household falls. For example, rental units created with federal resources are restricted by federal law to households not making more than 60 percent of area median income. Those individuals and households earning more than 80 percent of AMI (such as those making 81 - 120 percent of AMI, sometimes referred to as the workforce) are not served by city or federal funding sources outside of the federal subsidy of homeownership and the mortgage interest deduction, estimated at $70 billion annually. This group has a need for housing in their price range and this need is being addressed at the state level. The City of Raleigh uses its zoning ordinance to make sure developers are not restricted in their ability to serve this market segment. # Map H-1: Subsidized Affordable Housing <
> * North Carolina Housing Finance Agency Low-Income Housing Tax Credits * Raleigh Housing Authority Public Housing * Affordable City-Owned Rentals * City Joint Venture Rentals * Federally Funded Map created 2/28/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development There are 10,766 units of publically-assisted affordable housing within the city, including traditional housing units and apartments developed by for-profit housing developers with federal low-income housing tax credits. Including Housing Choice Vouchers managed by the Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA), the most current (2016) estimate of assisted affordable housing units totals nearly 14,635 units in the city, about 8 percent of Raleigh’s total housing supply. In 2016, Raleigh City Council increased the ad valorem tax rate by one cent per $100 valuation for the purpose of creating and preserving affordable rental housing. The supply of assisted affordable housing is spread unevenly across the city. The Affordable Housing Location Policy adopted in September 2015 encourages the development and rehabilitation of city-subsidized affordable rental housing throughout all areas of the city, with emphasis on locations near transit or within the downtown or neighborhood revitalization strategy areas. The city’s practice is to solicit both 9 percent and 4 percent tax credit proposals from affordable housing developers annually, and provide low-interest loans to assist with the financing. Raleigh’s housing stock is 48 percent single-family detached homes. While many homeowners would prefer to “age in place,” many are forced out of their homes when a physical disability makes mobility impossible, such as managing stairs or maneuvering a wheelchair through doorways. The city provides financial assistance to help homeowners rehabilitate their homes. The rehab program also provides assistance to these aging homeowners. For renters that want to transition to homeownership, the city supports homeownership counseling and provides zero-percent deferred downpayment assistance of up to $20,000. In addition, downpayment assistance can be used throughout the city. The city also facilitates homeownership opportunities through neighborhood revitalization investments that result in the creation of infill housing. Downpayment assistance is available for LMI homebuyers to acquire these infill units. In addition to infill housing, neighborhood revitalization efforts include: citizen engagement, master planning, site planning, infrastructure development, new sidewalks and curbs, and new construction of affordable housing. Other revitalization activities are: parks, transit stops, employment opportunities, and greenway connections. Other types of housing are needed to accommodate supportive services for persons with special needs. In 2016, the Raleigh Wake Partnership to End and Prevent Homelessness, the city, the county, and Catholic Charities moved forward with the development of the Oak City Center, a multi-service center for the homeless that will include coordinated entry and assessment based on a Housing First approach. The goal is to fulfill the vision of making homelessness “rare, brief, and nonrecurring,” as stated in Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, presented to Congress in 2010 by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. Permanent supportive housing for persons with special needs is also a major need. The city’s Unified Development Ordinance has a definition of “supportive housing residence” that guides its zoning approvals, which include minimum separation of similar units. But in the context of the city’s investments in permanent supportive housing (PSH) the following definition is provided by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness: “housing intervention that combines non-time-limited affordable housing assistance with wrap-around supportive services for people experiencing homelessness, as well as other people with disabilities.” The city makes funds available to nonprofit developers to build permanent supportive housing, usually through small scale efficiency apartments that include non-residential space for counseling or group activities within the development. Both Wake County and the city are actively engaged in transit planning and implementation. In early 2017, Wake County began implementing the new Wake County Transit Plan using revenues from sales tax. The main components of the county plan, which will have a significant impact on Raleigh’s residents, are: (1) increase bus service frequency, reliability, and reach from 17 to 83 miles; (2) implement Bus Rapid Transit, initially along four corridors in Raleigh; and (3) implement approximately 37 miles of Commuter Rail Transit, connecting downtown Raleigh to Raleigh-Durham airport, Cary, Research Triangle Park, and Durham. The city, too, is investing in transit by expanding Moore Square Transit Station and Union Station, a $62 million multimodal facility. These improvements to the transit network will improve people’s connections within Raleigh and regionally to job centers, public schools, public facilities, and amenities. Such improvements, though they benefit the city as a whole, will help those persons of lower income more likely to have limited transportation options outside of public transit. # City of Raleigh Affordable Housing Location Policy ## Objectives The purpose of the Affordable Housing Location Policy is to set forth desired outcomes relative to the creation or preservation of affordable multi-family rental housing with the overall goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing choice for all residents. Specific objectives of the Policy include the following: * *To increase the supply of affordable housing in underserved locations near employment and commercial centers.* * *To encourage the development of affordable housing near existing and proposed transit services.* * *To provide for affordable housing in and near downtown Raleigh and in neighborhoods having approved revitalization plans.* * *To prevent further concentrations of minority and low-income persons and subsidized housing.* ## Exemptions This policy shall apply to any multi-family rental development that is funded in whole or in part by the City of Raleigh or requires the approval of City Council with the following exemptions: * *The rehabilitation of existing units.* * *Developments serving elderly or disabled populations.* * *The replacement of affordable rental units lost to demolition or conversion subject to a determination by the Housing and Neighborhoods Department and subsequent approval by City Council that the proposed replacement housing will serve the same market area or neighborhood.* # Map H-2: Affordable Housing Location Policy <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | <
> | Affordable Housing Opportunity Area | | | **New Subsidized Multi-Family Housing Not Allowed in Census Tracts Where:** | | <
> | Minority Population Exceeds 50%, or Households in Poverty Exceeds 30%, or Subsidized Units Exceed 8% of Total Units | | <
> | Area May Meet Geographic Exceptions | | <
> | Census Tract Boundaries | ## Geographic Applicability and Exceptions As a means of implementing this policy, newly constructed subsidized multi-family housing developments will not be allowed in census tracts having a concentration of minority or low-income persons or subsidized rental housing unless the proposed project qualifies for one or more of the following exceptions: * *Developments located within a one-half mile radius of a proposed rail or bus rapid transit station.* * *Development located within one-half mile of a transit stop served at intervals of 15 minutes or better in each direction throughout the day.* * *Developments located within the boundaries of the Downtown Section in the Comprehensive Plan.* * *Developments which are implementing elements of a mixed-income neighborhood revitalization plan approved and funded by City Council.* ## Waiver Process City Council has the authority to grant waivers on a case-by-case basis. Developers seeking a waiver shall submit a written request to the Housing and Neighborhoods Department. Department staff will evaluate the request and submit an analysis and recommendation to Council. ### Definitions For purposes of this policy, the following definitions apply: **Multi-family housing:** Housing developments consisting of greater than 24 residential units. **Subsidized multi-family housing:** Any multi-family housing development consisting of greater than 24 residential units financed in whole or in part with local, state or federal financial assistance where the subsidized housing units are restricted to serve households earning 60 percent or less of the area median income (AMI). **Disabled:** Having a physical or mental disability that substantially limits one or more major life activities, having a record of such impairment or being regarded as having such impairment. **Elderly:** Housing occupied by one person who is 55 or older in at least 80 percent of the occupied units. **Concentration of minority and low-income persons:** Census tracts in which the percentage of minority residents equals or exceeds 50 percent or census tracts where the percentage of households living in poverty equals or exceeds 30 percent. **Concentration of subsidized rental housing:** Census tracts in which subsidized multi-family housing and rental units occupied by households with tenant-based Section 8 vouchers* equals or exceeds 8 percent of the total rental stock, excluding housing for the elderly or disabled. *\*Data provided by RHA in 2014.* ### Review Procedures The Housing and Neighborhoods Department shall be responsible for reviewing all proposals for the development of subsidized multi-family housing to determine compliance with this Policy. ### Policy Updates Maps depicting areas of concentration will be updated not less than every five years in conjunction with updates or revisions to the Housing Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing <
> ## Recent Raleigh Initiatives From 2015 to 2017 a variety of public actions and documents were completed that will have an impact at least through 2020 on the supply and location of affordable housing in Raleigh. These were: * Completion of a regional *Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)* with Wake County, the Town of Cary, and the two housing authorities. * *Adoption of the 2016-2020 Five-Year Consolidated Plan (ConPlan)* to guide city investments in affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization, priorities being: (1) increasing the supply of affordable housing, (2) enhancing the homeless to housing continuum, and (3) neighborhood revitalization. * *Adoption of the Affordable Housing Location Policy* to guide new city-supported affordable multi-family housing developments to opportunity areas and discourage concentrations of subsidized rental developments in areas where racial minorities and poverty are concentrated. * *Adoption of an Affordable Housing Improvement Plan (AHIP)* which established options for city investments in affordable housing, using the three priorities contained in the 2016-2020 ConPlan. * *Addition of one cent on the residential real estate tax rate* to generate local revenue dedicated to affordable rental development and housing rehabilitation. * *Selection of site and budgeting of funds* by the city and county for acquisition and up-fit of an existing building to create (with Catholic Charities) a multi-service and coordinated entry/assessment center for homeless persons. * *Adoption of a City Strategic Plan*, part of which pertains to housing and neighborhood revitalization under a “Safe, Vibrant, and Healthy Community” objective. The City Strategic Plan housing-specific objectives and actions were as follows: **Objective 2:** Preserve and increase the supply of housing for all income groups, including those with supportive service needs. * *Establish partnerships to provide for a homeless service resource center.* * *Expand partnerships to increase the supply of permanent housing for formerly homeless and at-risk persons with special needs.* * *Seek new partnerships for the development of mixed-income housing in or near the Downtown area.* * *Replace the Scattered Site Policy with a tool that affirmatively sets forth desired housing outcomes [see Affordable Housing Location Policy].* * *Evaluate funding strategies to support affordable housing; review, modify or expand housing programs and tools.* **Objective 3:** Endorse targeted redevelopment through walkable, mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods. * *Prepare and adopt plans for targeted areas characterized by disinvestment and consider funding strategies to implement plan components.* * *Identify and address acquisition priorities in redevelopment areas to eliminate blight and create critical land mass for future development.* * *Strengthen neighborhood social fabric through community outreach, engagement and communication.* To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity. <
> Expanding Housing Choices. <
> Managing Our Growth. <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation. <
> Greenprint Raleigh. <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # 7.1 Quality and Diversity of Housing ### Policy H 1.1 Mixed-income Neighborhoods Promote mixed-income neighborhoods throughout the city, particularly within high-density development at employment centers, downtown, within NRSAs, and along transit corridors. ### Policy H 1.2 Geographic Dispersal of Affordable Units Promote dispersal and production of affordable housing units throughout all areas of the city using the city’s Housing Location Policy adopted in 2015. ### Policy H 1.3 Energy Efficiency Promote innovative energy efficiency techniques that go beyond federal standards in all new publicly-supported housing construction and rehabilitation projects. ### Policy H 1.4 Affordable Housing Design * All housing, including subsidized affordable and market rate housing, should be designed so that it blends with the context of the neighborhood in which it is located, emphasizing quality design and appearance. ### Policy H 1.5 Scattered Site Infill Support small, scattered-site residential developments on infill lots where appropriate and where design respects the neighborhood scale and context. ### Policy H 1.6 Housing Preservation Encourage the preservation of existing housing units whenever feasible, especially structures of historic or architectural significance. ### Policy H 1.7 Public Housing Coordination City departments should regularly coordinate with the Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA) in the early stages of major renovation, large new development, and redevelopment projects. ### Policy H 1.8 Zoning for Housing * Ensure that zoning policy continues to provide ample opportunity for developers to build a variety of housing types, ranging from single-family to dense multi-family. Keeping the market well-supplied with housing will moderate the costs of owning and renting, lessening affordability problems, and lowering the level of subsidy necessary to produce affordable housing. In areas characterized by detached houses, accommodations should be made for additional housing types while maintaining a form and scale similar to existing housing. ### Policy H 1.9 Housing Diversity Promote housing diversity and affordable housing choices for households at 60 percent of AMI or below in the immediate area around transit corridors. <
> ### Action H 1.1 Affordable Rental Program Expansion Continue to create new programs to implement the 2015 Affordable Housing Location Policy that will provide incentives to private developers to preserve lower-cost rental communities in Raleigh instead of demolishing or converting them to upscale rental housing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action H 1.2 Completed 2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action H 1.3 Converted to Policy 2014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action H 1.4 Removed 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action H 1.5 City and RHA Coordination Institute regular meetings between city departments and the RHA to review on-going or future construction/redevelopment projects. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ### Action H 1.6 Housing Variety Study housing policy and regulation with a focus on infill development and the accommodation of housing types, such as duplexes, small apartments, and townhouses in areas where they are not currently permitted. # 7.2 Affordable Housing The policies and actions in this chapter assist in guiding the city in addressing the affordable housing challenges described in the introduction of this Section. ### Policy H 2.1 Permanent Funding Source for Housing Maintain permanent local funding to help produce and preserve affordable housing units. <
> ### Policy H 2.2 Expanded Housing Assistance Expand the city’s range of housing assistance programs benefiting low- and moderate-income persons by using innovative strategies such as Community Benefit Agreements, Community Reinvestment Act funding, and Community Land Trusts. <
> ### Policy H 2.3 Removed 2019 ### Policy H 2.4 Removed 2019 ### Policy H 2.5 Removing Housing Barriers Examine regulatory and policy barriers to affordable housing development while still maintaining Raleigh’s high-quality development standards. <
> ### Policy H 2.6 Long-term Affordability Ensure that newly created for-sale and rental affordable housing units developed with city financial assistance remain affordable for more than 20 years through a Community Land Trust, developer agreements with 40- to 60-year affordability periods, or similar mechanisms. <
> ### Policy H 2.7 Affordable Set-asides in Projects Encourage a 20 percent minimum set-aside of affordable housing units in housing or mixed-use projects involving city-owned properties. <
> ### Policy H 2.8 Accessory Dwelling Units Promote the construction of accessory dwelling units and cottage courts to provide affordable and workforce housing options and help accommodate future citywide residential demand. <
> ### Policy H 2.9 Housing on Public Sites Use available city-owned sites for affordable housing. <
> ### Policy H 2.10 Incentives on Private Sites Incentivize private developers to create new affordable housing on privately-owned sites through city funding. <
> ### Policy H 2.11 Site Assembly for Housing Continue to acquire vacant and substandard residential lots and assemble into standard lots for new affordable or mixed-income housing. <
> Housing ### Policy H 2.12 Minimize Displacement Minimize residential displacement resulting from redevelopment activity and provide replacement housing. ### Policy H 2.13 Transit Accessibility Preferentially locate affordable housing in areas with good access to transit services and/or locate transit in areas currently occupied by subsidized affordable housing. ### Policy H 2.14 Transit Availability Expand public transit to serve housing in all parts of the city. ### Policy H 2.15 Affordable Units in TODs Provide zoning and financial incentives for inclusion of affordable housing near transit stations, particularly for persons with disabilities. ### Policy H 2.16 Existing Housing Encourage reinvestment and maintenance of the existing housing stock to prevent the conversion of affordable housing units to market-rate units, including funding the city’s housing rehabilitation programs. ### Policy H 2.17 Equitable Housing around Transit Ensure that housing exists for residents at a range of incomes, including very low-income households, near bus rapid transit stations. *See also Section 3.4: ‘Equitable Development around Transit.’* ### Policy H 2.18 Sustainability Incentives Require energy-efficient design standards for affordable housing funded by the city. ### Action H 2.1 Removed 2019 ### Action H 2.2 Removed 2019 ### Action H 2.3 Removed 2015 ### Action H 2.4 Removed 2019 ### Action H 2.5 Removed 2019 ### Action H 2.6 Removed 2019 ### Action H 2.7 Fast-Tracking Affordable Units Provide an expedited or fast-tracking development review process for housing developments that include affordable units. ### Action H 2.8 Completed 2016 ### Action H 2.9 Completed 2013 --- ### Action H 2.10 Education Materials for Removing Barriers Develop educational material promoting the benefits of having a balanced distribution of affordable units in Raleigh. --- ### Action H 2.11 Completed 2013 --- ### Action H 2.12 Monitoring of Expiring Subsidies Track existing rental housing units with federal expiring use subsidy contracts or affordable rents to mitigate the loss of these units. --- ### Action H 2.13 Housing Acquisition and Preservation Consider establishing a program to advance funds for the acquisition or rehabilitation of existing properties for the purposes of providing long-term affordable housing. --- ### Action H 2.14 Impact Fee Relief Develop a funding mechanism to pay impact fees imposed on affordable housing units and provide capital grants to reduce land acquisition and site development costs in developments that serve very low-income households, particularly in downtown. --- ### Action H 2.15 Completed 2012 --- ### Action H 2.16 Housing Program Capacity Determine and implement the appropriate level of staffing to implement the Comprehensive Plan’s housing policies and actions. --- ### Action H 2.17 Land for Affordable Housing Create a program to purchase and “bank” vacant land or land that can be redeveloped to support affordable housing. --- ### Action H 2.18 Converted to Policy 2022 --- ### Action H 2.19 Completed 2015 --- ### Action H 2.20 Projects Involving City-owned Land Establish a procedure in the land development process to ensure that residential or mixed-use projects involving any city-owned land include a minimum of 15 to 20 percent of all residential units as affordable to households below 80 percent of AMI. --- ### Action H 2.21 Affordable Housing Production Goal Develop a process to coordinate record-keeping across programs (rental, homebuyer assistance, homeowner rehabilitation, etc.) to measure progress in reaching the city’s affordable housing production goal. --- ### Action H 2.22 Create Partnership Program Develop and implement a partnership program to increase local nonprofit housing providers’ administrative and programmatic capacity. *** ### Action H 2.23 Additional Affordable Housing Tools Explore creating additional affordable housing using vehicles (such as a Community Land Trust, deed restrictions, and long-term shared equity appreciation mechanism) to assure long-term or permanent affordability of housing. *** ### Action H 2.24 Zoning for Mixed Income Develop zoning provisions for transit-oriented development that promote housing diversity and affordable housing choices available to households at 60 percent of AMI or below in the immediate area around transit corridors. *** ### Action H 2.25 Equitable Housing around Transit Using proceeds from the Equity Fund or other sources, expand efforts to ensure affordable housing near bus rapid transit stations, including by acquiring land and assisting homeowners with rehabilitation projects and property taxes. *** ### Action H 2.26 Housing Fund and Incentives Explore additional revenue sources for funding affordable housing, including housing bonds, private and nonprofit contributions, and the Equity Fund. Determine what level of supplement, if any, is needed to ensure the affordability height bonus results in the production of affordable units along the corridors. *** ### Action H 2.27 Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Increase funding for rehabilitation projects within a half-mile of the BRT corridors. *** ### Action H 2.28 Tenant Legal Assistance Provide resources to nonprofit legal groups or partner with law schools to provide assistance to renters near BRT and beyond who lack the resources to navigate the legal system when disputes arise. *** ### Action H 2.29 Assistance with Homeownership Costs Expand existing efforts that provide assistance in paying property taxes to additional low-income homeowners who do not currently qualify. Focus on the area within a half-mile of the BRT corridors. *** ### Action H 2.30 Youth Skills Partner with WakeWorks and similar programs, both in terms of funding and specific apprenticeship opportunities, to assist students and young adults in building job skills. *** ### Action H 2.31 Anti-Predatory Purchase Expand efforts to ensure that homeowners near BRT know the value of their property and are aware of city programs that can provide assistance, so that all sales are voluntary and include equal information on both sides of the transaction. Focus on the area within a half-mile of the BRT corridors. *** # 7.3 Addressing Homelessness and Special Needs A desire for decent, safe and sanitary housing is a basic human need that everyone shares regardless of access to resources. Since 2010 when the Interagency Council on Homelessness issued Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, the city has been working with Wake County and the Raleigh/Wake Partnership to End and Prevent Homelessness (the Partnership) to effect system change in the way services are provided to the homeless to better align with this federal directive. Beginning in 2015, the city, Wake County, and the Partnership, working together, selected Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Raleigh to assist with the creation of a multi-service center (the Oak City Center) to facilitate implementation of a communitywide Housing First strategy using coordinated entry at the new Center, data sharing among service providers, referrals, food distribution, and basic services to people who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. Other groups with unique needs that the private market may not adequately address are those with disabilities and/or needing support services connected to their residence and those faced with displacement from disasters. The policies and actions that appear below help guide the city in addressing these issues. ### Policy H 3.1 Homelessness Prevention Address the root causes of homelessness resulting from re-entry, deinstitutionalization, and poverty by supporting workforce training, access to transportation, access to affordable child care, counseling, and other strategies to help low-income residents reach self-sufficiency and afford housing. <
> ### Policy H 3.2 Supportive Services Strengthen linkages and coordination among all public and nonprofit agencies that provide affordable housing and supportive services. <
> ### Policy H 3.3 Assistance to Homeless Service Providers Promote the efforts of government agencies, the Continuum of Care, non-profit organizations, and the private sector to increase access to emergency shelter, rapid re-housing and homelessness prevention programs, as well as increase the supply of emergency housing, permanent housing, and permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals and families. <
> ### Policy H 3.4 Removed 2019 ### Policy H 3.5 Removed 2019 ### Action H 3.1 Removed 2021 *** ### Action H 3.2 Very Low-Income Housing Continue to develop and preserve additional homeownership and rental units that are affordable to households below 50 percent of area median income. *** ### Action H 3.3 Removed 2022 *** ### Action H 3.4 Converted to Policy 2014 *** ### Action H 3.5 Completed 2014 *** # 7.4 Fair Housing, Universal Design, and Aging in Place The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination for reasons of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, familial status, or disability. The city is committed to enforcing the Fair Housing Act using all the tools legally available. In 2015, a Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice was completed to inform the city, Wake County, the Town of Cary, the Raleigh Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority of the County of Wake on any remaining barriers that may exist in the local housing market. *See sidebar: 2015 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).* With the rapidly growing number of aging households, Raleigh will face increasing needs for housing suited to the needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities, including housing that can affordably be adapted to meet residents’ changing needs throughout their lifetime. Incorporated when the home is built, universal design includes wider door frames, structural accommodations for adding grab bars at a later date, counters that can be accessed by persons in wheelchairs, and other features that would allow persons with disabilities to function. Beyond the housing unit itself, access to transit is very important for the elderly and persons with disabilities. The policies and actions that appear below help guide the city in addressing these issues. ### Policy H 4.1 Fair Housing Act Enforcement In furtherance of providing equal access to housing and preventing unfair lending practices, enforce the federal Fair Housing Act to the extent permitted by law. Provide educational opportunities, public awareness, and outreach promoting compliance with the Act through city programs, including landlord training and conferences. <
> *** ### Policy H 4.2 Aging in Place Promote universal design and lifecycle housing to facilitate the ability of homeowners and neighborhood residents to age in place in their homes and neighborhoods. <
> *** ### Policy H 4.3 Housing for Persons with Disabilities Support development of accessible housing for residents with disabilities, particularly near transit stations and corridors. <
> *** ### Policy H 4.4 Housing for Seniors Provide and fund housing rehabilitation programs that assist elderly homeowners to repair, modernize and improve the energy efficiency of their homes, and remove barriers to aging in place. <
> *** ### Action H 4.1 Tax Relief for Seniors Explore additional property tax relief mechanisms for elderly and low-income households facing rising tax cost burdens. *** ### Action H 4.2 Fair Housing Ordinance Review Explore making changes to the city’s Fair Housing Ordinance to more closely match the federal Fair Housing Act, as amended. *** ### Action H 4.3 Completed 2013 *** ### Action H 4.4 City-sponsored Residential Construction and Rehabilitation Expand Community Development’s use of universal design and visitability in city-sponsored residential construction and rehabilitation, including infill developments in Redevelopment Areas. *** ### Action H 4.5 Completed 2014 *** # 2015 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) The Regional AI completed in 2015 identified various impediments to fair housing choice and recommended actions that Raleigh could take to address them. The city’s response was included in the 2015-16 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report to HUD. Below in bold are the city-related impediments identified in the regional AI completed in 2015, followed by city actions to address them. **Lack of affordable housing in high opportunity areas:** On September 3, 2015, the Raleigh City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Location Policy which encourages development of city supported affordable housing in high opportunity areas. **Limited housing choice restricts access to community assets for members of the protected classes:** The Wake Transit Plan would increase the percentage of the county’s jobs within ¾ mile of all day transit service. **Transit system is fragmented and does not adequately connect Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RCAPs) to higher opportunity areas:** New transit plan addresses this, and in November 2016 voters approved a transit tax to pay for massive new investments in transit throughout the city and county. **Members of the protected classes—particularly those living in RCAPs—are disproportionately denied mortgages in the private sector:** The city continues to support homebuyer education, sponsors the building of affordable houses on city-owned sites, and provides low-interest second mortgages to make many sales within reach of lower-income families who otherwise may not be able to buy a house in the unsubsidized market. **RCAPs are clustered in the City of Raleigh, found primarily where lower-income Black and Hispanic residents live. All of these areas are located within very low and low opportunity areas:** The city adopted an Affordable Housing Location Policy in September 2015 to steer most of its affordable housing investments only to areas outside of RCAPs. **A local fair housing resource with enforcement and resolution power is needed in Raleigh:** Local complaints received by the city are referred to the Fair Housing Project of Legal Aid of North Carolina and the Fair Housing Justice Center, who have the resources and expertise to address fair housing complaints. **The city needs a monitoring system in place to assure that its private vendor managing city-owned rental properties attend fair housing training:** The city has always required its management company to attend fair housing training and adjustments were made to clarify this requirement in its monitoring system. *From pages 27-29 of City of Raleigh 2015-2016 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report* section 8 # Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 8.1 Planning for Parks ................................................................................8-6 8.2 Park System and Land Acquisition ...................................................8-8 8.3 Greenway System Land and Trails..................................................8-13 8.4 Recreational Facilities and Programs..............................................8-20 8.5 Open Space and Special Landscapes ............................................8-22 8.6 Management and Stewardship.........................................................8-26 8.7 Dorothea Dix Park ............................................................................8-28 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space <
> The purpose of the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Section of the Comprehensive Plan is to set a framework of policies and action steps to guide the programming, management, and development of the parks, recreation, and open space system in Raleigh. Included within this plan are recommendations for new park development, management, continued renovation of existing parks and facilities, preservation of open space and significant natural resources, and expansion of greenways. Also included are strategies to provide ample recreational experiences for all citizens, while adapting to trends, significant development opportunities, and Raleigh’s growing population. These policies and actions will guide decision-makers to work towards providing parks and recreational experiences that would create a balanced system across the community, responding to the varied needs of its residents. From the time of Raleigh’s founding, parks, recreation, and open space have played a central role in city life, and in the city’s urban form. Through more than two centuries of growth, these green spaces have enriched the quality of life of Raleigh’s citizens. The nature and uses of park lands have evolved to meet the needs of a growing community. From the city’s five original civic squares, to today’s athletic fields and nature preserves, green space remains a vital part of the city’s infrastructure. The city of Raleigh has now entered the 21st century as a vibrant community that serves as the nucleus for a growing region. In its current system, Raleigh has over 6,100 acres of park land making up 224 park properties and nearly 4,000 acres of greenway property including 117 miles of trails (see Map PR-1). As the city continues to develop at a rapid pace, it will need to provide for new parks and to conserve additional open spaces, special landscapes, and natural resource areas for its expanding population. With undeveloped land rapidly disappearing and environmental concerns on the rise, the people of Raleigh must become stewards of the land in order to ensure that future generations will have both recreational opportunities and healthy city parks and natural areas. This Section addresses the following major issues: * *Maintaining and renovating existing parks and recreation facilities to meet current needs;* * *Addressing the need for walkable, neighborhood parks in existing and newer parts of the city;* * *Acquiring adequate land for future park development;* * *Developing recreational facilities in close proximity to all residents, equitably distributed throughout the city;* * *Enhancing access to and awareness of Raleigh’s recreation and natural resource opportunities;* * *Providing better interconnectivity between the parks, greenways, and open space system locally and regionally;* * *Providing best practice management and stewardship of Raleigh’s natural resources; and* * *Integrating the parks and recreation system into a broader context of green infrastructure to maximize ecosystem conservation.* These issues impact not only this element of the Comprehensive Plan, but have larger impacts on the community’s overall growth and development prospects. Parks and recreation facilities influence the economic prosperity and quality of neighborhoods, land use decisions, growth management efforts, and the health and livability of residents. Therefore, it is vital to realize that addressing these issues in an effective manner will dictate the wellness and welfare of future residents. In addition to the Comprehensive Plan there are several other well-defined and up-to-date documents that offer the city excellent guidance on meeting future park and recreation needs. These include: city of Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources System Plan (2014); The Capital Area Greenway Planning and Design Guide (2014); The City of Raleigh Aquatic Study (2008); The Senior Center Study (2007); and many other documents that are available for public review through the city’s web site. Additional information can be found on the Park and Greenway Planning and Development website. This section does not replace adopted parks planning documents; rather, it provides a forum for coordinating park and open space policies across multiple city departments. The policies and actions in this section are generally consistent with prior Parks plans, but where differences exist, this section provides more up to date guidance. Any Parks plans adopted or revised subsequent to the adoption of this section should be reflected, where appropriate, by future amendments to this section. Adopted in May 2014, the city of Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources System Plan is a detailed working supplement to the City of Raleigh 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Expanding upon the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, the System Plan is a long-range planning document that is meant to help shape the direction, development and delivery of the city’s parks, recreation and cultural resource facilities and services over the next 20 years. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department’s vision in the 2014 System Plan strives to integrate the parks, recreation and cultural resources system into the city’s infrastructure, while also addressing evolving trends and changing needs of the community. The vision can be summarized in the following vision statement: > *The City of Raleigh’s vision for its parks, recreation and cultural resources system is ‘bringing people to parks and parks to people.’ It is a system that addresses the needs of all and fosters a community of creativity, engagement, healthy lifestyles, and welcoming neighborhoods. In addition to providing traditional, high quality parks, recreation and cultural facilities and programs, the city uses innovative initiatives to reach all residents, workers and visitors.* This section also addresses all six of the vision themes that serve as the overarching goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. High-quality parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces will provide added value and amenities to the community, which in turn will attract jobs, workers, and greater economic prosperity to the area. Evenly distributed park and recreation facilities, accessible to residents throughout the city, further promotes the goal of equity. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space # Map PR-1: Parks and Greenways System <
> — City of Raleigh Greenway Trail City of Raleigh Park State or County Park Greenway Property *(Fee Simple Owned Property & Recorded Easements)* Map created 4/12/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development Consistent with the theme of *Expanding Housing Choices*, Raleigh needs to provide for a variety of housing types at a range of price points to meet the needs of its current and future residents. Parks, recreation and open space opportunities must be developed in tandem with new housing. The issue is particularly important for affordable housing, as many lower-income residents have reduced access to private vehicles, limiting their ability to travel to distant parks, and making pedestrian, bike, and transit access all the more critical. The need for new parks and recreational facilities in the coming decades will require that substantial acreage be acquired by the city for park development. This is part of an overall strategy of *Managing Our Growth*. By planning and identifying priority areas for future park land acquisitions, land can be acquired in advance of development, at lower cost and in appropriate locations, to develop the parks and recreational opportunities that the future residents will require. Further, parks are a significant land use and a source of travel demand, and their location, siting, and design should be coordinated with the city’s transportation infrastructure to maximize access by multiple modes and to mitigate impacts on congestion, consistent with *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*. Providing safe and convenient access to parks for all city of Raleigh residents will be a guiding principle of park system planning in the coming years. Citizen surveys have shown that Raleigh residents desire walkable access to small neighborhood parks and greenways within a mile of their homes. In addition to acquiring land and developing new parks, park access can be improved by providing new and enhanced walkable connections to existing parks. By improving pedestrian facilities, expanding greenway network connectivity, and opening up new access points within existing parks, park access can be improved for thousands of residents for a fraction of the cost of new park development and land acquisition. Sustainable design and green building is increasingly becoming a part of parks and recreation facilities design. Networks of interconnected parks, greenways, and open spaces (as part of a comprehensive green infrastructure system) can direct urban form and guide conservation efforts. Green infrastructure ensures that preserved open spaces and greenways provide greater environmental benefits by maximizing ecosystem conservation, promoting the theme of *Greenprint Raleigh*. The parks and open spaces within Raleigh serve the daily leisure needs of the community; promote the social, cultural, mental, and physical well-being of the community; and provide important experiences to achieve better places to live. In a broader sense, they promote a more livable community, a higher quality of life and lend a sense of place and belonging to the community and its residents. They are fundamental to *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity <
> Expanding Housing Choices <
> Managing Our Growth <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation <
> Greenprint Raleigh <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # 8.1 Planning for Parks Planning is fundamental to every step of the process by which new parks are created, starting with the determination of parks and recreation needs, to the identification and analysis of potential sites for acquisition, to the development of detailed park master plans for specific park sites. Accordingly, the city has developed a variety of park planning tools, methodologies, and processes, and has prepared many planning documents addressing both the entire Parks system as well as specific components. These include the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources System Plan, adopted in 2014 and incorporated into this Section by reference, as well as special plans addressing aquatic facilities, city cemeteries, senior centers, and other topics. Each of these documents has been the result of a thorough process of data collection, analysis, and civic engagement. As public needs and priorities change, plans and the processes used to create them must also evolve to remain current. The 2014 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources System Plan contains a recommendation that it be updated every five years, and an update is recommended as Action PR 1.1. The city intends to keep all park-related planning documents fully current, in the same manner that the Comprehensive Plan and other planning documents will be continually reviewed and updated for currency and consistency. ### Policy PR 1.1 Plan Consistency Maintain consistency among the Comprehensive Plan, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources System Plan, and special purpose plans undertaken to address specific components of the Parks system. <
> *See also ‘17.2 Relation to Capital Improvement Planning and Other City Plans’ in Section 17: ‘Implementation.’* *** ### Policy PR 1.2 Plan Currency Keep the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources System Plan and other special purpose park plans current through a regular schedule of updates and re-examinations, including five-year updates to the System Plan. <
> *** ### Policy PR 1.3 Coordinated Park Planning Work with interdepartmental and external partners to align siting, land acquisition, co-location, programming design, and construction opportunities with growth projections and demographic information. <
> *** ### Policy PR 1.4 Community Involvement in Special Programs Where specific or special programs are desired, such as aquatics, skate parks, and off-leash dog areas, involve stakeholders across the entire city to achieve a broad long range system-wide approach for capital development and replacement. <
> *** ### Policy PR 1.5 Program and Facility Evaluations Evaluate programs and facilities through community and citywide surveys, focus groups, evaluations, data regarding programmed and non-programmed usage, and demographic analysis in addition to participation at public meetings. ### Policy PR 1.6 New Park Types and Acquisition Criteria Establish new urban park types and acquisition criteria to ensure that Growth Centers in the city have adequate access to a mix of parks and open space types to meet needs. ### Policy PR 1.7 New Parks in Growth Centers Create new urban parks and enhance existing urban parks throughout Growth Centers using proactive planning, partnerships and innovative approaches. ### Policy PR 1.8 Integrate Parks and Transportation Options Utilize existing and future public transportation centers, greenway trails and pedestrian connections to provide access to parks, recreation and cultural opportunities throughout growth areas and citywide. ### Action PR 1.1 System Plan Update Update and evaluate the 2014 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources System Plan every five years to provide the city with the most current and detailed information available to respond to evolving community needs. ### Action PR 1.2 Greenway Plan Update Update the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan every five years to respond to evolving community needs and priorities. ### Action PR 1.3 Promote Parks as Economic Assets Continue to collaborate with the State of North Carolina and Wake County to promote regional recreation tourism and encourage economic development. ### Action PR 1.4 Provide Regional Connectivity Provide access through public transit, greenway trail, and bicycle facilities connectivity to regional recreation hub(s). ## 8.2 Park System and Land Acquisition In order to provide parks, recreation and cultural resources experiences, the City of Raleigh must acquire the rights to develop park property through fee simple ownership, easements providing access, and/or partnerships with agencies or organizations that may share goals, philosophy, and strategies. In addition to acquiring land as the city continues to expand into unincorporated areas, the city must continue to evaluate property that is undeveloped, suitable for redevelopment, or worthy of maintaining as open space through a systematic evaluation utilizing the latest data and technologies available. Historically, the City of Raleigh has acquired and planned parks and recreation facilities according to the National Recreation and Parks Association’s (NRPA) Level of Service (LOS) Standard. The purpose of this standard is to assure “equal opportunity to share in the basic menu of services implicit in the standard.” The City of Raleigh has used these measurements to meet the NRPA guidelines and State standards based on: * *Acres per Population,* * *Facilities per Population,* * *Quality of the Facilities, and* * *Availability of Programs.* While these measurement techniques help ensure a commitment to park land and facilities as the city develops, they do have shortcomings. Equitable access to inherent experiences expected by citizens is not measured with these techniques. Incorporating a fifth measurement technique—Access Distance or Travel Time—can help progress the simple idea that every citizen should be able to access an inherent park, recreation or cultural experience within similar walking, bicycling, and/or driving distance. The creation of an experience-based model helps to better evaluate how parks, recreation, and cultural resource experiences offered by the City of Raleigh actually function as a dynamic system. Several core neighborhood-based experiences have been identified based on public input during the System Plan planning process. It will be a priority to improve access to one of these core neighborhood-based experiences: * *Sitting outside, reading, contemplating, socializing* * *Going to a playground* * *Informal open play* * *Walking or riding a bike in a park or on a greenway trail* In addition to these core neighborhood experiences, several area-wide experiences have been identified. Unlike the neighborhood-based experiences, which are evaluated using a single travel distance of one mile, area-wide experiences will use a range of differences based on the type of activity or amenity involved. This range may be from one to five miles. At-will activities encompass other recreational pursuits, which do not need to meet an exact schedule or be coordinated through a centralized process. Area-wide at-will experiences include: * *Playing on an athletic field or court* * *Enjoying nature and the outdoors* * *Aquatic recreation* * *River and lake-related activities* * *Fitness* * *Enjoying cultural opportunities* Level of Service Criteria based on access to inherent park, recreation and cultural experiences (rather than per capita acreage standards based on park classification) will provide a more accurate and effective means of monitoring how well Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources system is serving Raleigh’s citizens. By using these evaluation tools together to build an experience-based system, the city can be more inclusive in determining needs, accommodating of changing lifestyles, innovative in identifying solutions, and responsive to balancing experiences based on context. The experience-based network access analysis identifies a more valid service area than a traditional radius “neighborhood park service area boundary” based on park classification type and a static search radius. The Experience-Based System model is the first step in the process of identifying parks and greenways that are poorly connected. The model uses distance or travel time standards based on development patterns, street networks, bicycle/ pedestrian networks, and demographics in the community to evaluate access to park experiences. The specific metrics used for the Experience-Based System evaluation include distance to closest park, parks per person within one mile, and acres per person within one mile. Once these three metrics are calculated, they are combined for each census block. The census block values are then aggregated up to census block groups and those values are weighted by population. Map PR-2 demonstrates how this model is used to identify areas with low accessibility. As a first step to improving access, the city has recently adopted a Neighborhood and Community Connections (N&CC) Program and Policy to identify areas of the city where communities are in close proximity to a park but have low access along the existing street network. Using the experience-based model described in the 2014 System Plan, the N&CC Program compared current service to potential service levels to assess which parks had the greatest need and potential for accessibility improvements. the N&CC policy prioritizes these projects based on quantitative criteria specifically designed to promote pedestrian safety and health equity, guiding investment directly to Raleigh’s most vulnerable communities. #### Policy PR 2.1 System Integration Plan Undeveloped parks should be the subject of a System Integration Plan that identifies features of special interest on the site, and suggests interim management strategies until the new site can be part of a master plan effort. <
> #### Policy PR 2.2 Park Accessibility Seek to provide convenient access to a public park or recreational open space to all city residents by 2030, by using the Level of Service and Experience Based System guidelines provided in this Plan. <
> # Map PR-2: Experience-Based Park Access <
> ### Park Access | High | | | | Low | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | | | | | | Map created 3/6/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development #### Policy PR 2.3 Level of Service Achievement Continue to refine the experience-based Level of Service (LOS) analysis in order to identify areas of need within the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources system. Conduct further analyses to determine if needs can be fulfilled through reinvestment in the existing park system, public and private sector partnerships, N&CC projects, or land acquisition. <
> #### Policy PR 2.4 Acquisition Methodology Pursue a pattern of acquisition consistent with a search area methodology that analyzes current and projected population and demographic data. <
> #### Policy PR 2.5 Acquisition Opportunities Pursue land acquisition when opportunities arise if the site is suitable for meeting the mission of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department. <
> #### Policy PR 2.6 Acquisition Grants and Partnerships Seek grants and partnerships with agencies, communities, and/or organizations for land acquisition to maximize the public benefit. <
> #### Policy PR 2.7 Acquisition Coordination Coordinate park land needs assessments, current land acquisition costs, and the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in order to ensure adequate funding is on hand to react to opportunities and market patterns. <
> #### Policy PR 2.8 Creating Recreational Experiences through Adaptive Reuse Consideration should be given to opportunities for providing parks, recreation and cultural resource experiences through innovative and adaptive reuse of underutilized or vacant properties. <
> #### Policy PR 2.9 Plan for Bus and Bicycle Accessibility Make transit and bike access a factor in selecting park sites. <
> #### Policy PR 2.10 Plan for Proximity Provide new parks or joint-use facilities so that every resident has access to a core neighborhood-based park experience within one-mile travel distance of their home or place of employment. <
> #### Policy PR 2.11 Disposition If properties in the city’s park land inventory are not well suited for public recreation use and are not of significant environmental or ecological value, consider disposition of these properties. Revenue from disposition should revert to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources land acquisition program. <
> Parks, Recreation, and Open Space <
> ### Action PR 2.1 Converted to Policy 2022 ### Action PR 2.2 Grant Requests and Partnerships Submit grant requests and pursue partnerships for land acquisition, especially to agencies that share missions with City of Raleigh Parks and Recreation Department. Reasonable economic justification and equity of access should be strong considerations in these actions. ### Action PR 2.3 Search Area Methodologies Continue to refine and update search area methodologies to include census data, forecasts, and trends, making use of best available technology and planning techniques. ### Action PR 2.4 Facility Fee for Acquiring and Developing New Parks Monitor the effectiveness of the open space Facility Fee Program and propose updates if appropriate. ### Action PR 2.5 Completed 2014 ### Action PR 2.6 Provision for Publicly Accessible Parks Explore zoning incentives and other methods to encourage developers and land owners to provide publicly accessible open spaces and recreational amenities in the context of new development. Encourage new development to provide walkable connections and other tie-ins to nearby parks and greenways. ## 8.3 Greenway System Land and Trails The City of Raleigh’s Capital Area Greenway (CAG) System began as a 1970s planning effort to effectively manage riparian floodways. Today, Raleigh boasts one of the most extensive greenway systems in the United States, with current greenway open space holdings totaling nearly 4,000 acres. More than 117 miles of greenway trails have been built to date, and an additional 120 miles are proposed (Map PR-3). The backbone of the CAG system are the riparian greenway corridors—lands adjacent to the waterways and tributaries of Walnut Creek, Crabtree Creek, and the Neuse River—which protect aquatic habitat, provide wildlife corridors, prevent development of ecologically sensitive lands, and mitigate potential flood damage. Where feasible and appropriate, these greenway corridors are developed into publicly accessible greenway trails, providing a network of linear parks throughout the city that provide active transportation options and recreational opportunities for residents as well as visitors. Pedestrian and bicycle access to these areas offers a unique opportunity to experience nature in the midst of a city of over 400,000 people. <
> Greenway trails within the CAG System range in function and character based on a variety of factors, and are organized according to a hierarchy of classifications: * *Cross-City Greenway Trails are main routes crossing the city or connecting to adjacent jurisdictions,* * *Greenway Collector Trails connect to larger residential, employment, and retail centers while maintaining mobility for high volumes of users;* * *Loop Trails are destination-oriented trails typically located around lakes;* * *Neighborhood Greenway Trails are lower volume trails that provide access to neighborhoods, parks, retail centers, or employment centers; and* * *Greenway Connectors, which may utilize sidewalks and public rights of way, link trails between corridors.* The goals of the Capital Area Greenway program are to: * *Preserve natural characteristics of the land;* * *Preserve wildlife corridors;* * *Preserve riparian buffers as a means of protecting water quality;* * *Preserve stream corridors to manage storm water runoff;* * *Provide buffers for multiple land uses;* * *Provide opportunities for passive recreation; and* * *Provide trails for recreation and safe transportation routes.* Parks, Recreation, and Open Space # Map PR-3: Greenway Trails <
> | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Existing Trails:** | **11.** Honeycutt Creek | **22.** Richland Creek | | **1.** Abbotts Creek | **12.** House Creek | **23.** Rocky Branch | | **2.** Baileywick | **13.** Lake Johnson East Loop | **24.** Shelley Lake Loop | | **3.** Beaver Dam | **14.** Lake Johnson West Loop | **25.** Simms Branch | | **4.** Birch Ridge Connector | **15.** Lake Lynn Loop | **26.** Snelling Branch | | **5.** Centennial Bikeway Connector | **16.** Little Rock | **27.** Spring Forest | | **6.** Crabtree Creek | **17.** Marsh Creek | **28.** Wakefield | | **7.** East Fork Mine Creek | **18.** Martin Street Connector | **29.** Walnut Creek | | **8.** Edwards Mill Connector | **19.** Mine Creek | | | **9.** Gardner Street | **20.** Neuse River | | | **10.** Hare Snipe Creek | **21.** Reedy Creek | | Map created 2/6/2025 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development ### Policy PR 3.1 Capital Area Greenway System Continue to expand Raleigh’s greenway trail network according to the guidelines established in the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan, in order to protect open space corridors and connect greenway trails, parks, schools, and other destinations to other bicycle, pedestrian, and multimodal facilities. <
> --- ### Policy PR 3.2 Public Awareness and Stewardship Educate citizens about the benefits of supporting stewardship efforts of open space corridors. <
> --- ### Policy PR 3.3 Resilience and Green Infrastructure Network Acquire and maintain open space corridors as identified in the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan in order to preserve the natural character of watercourses, promote water quality, and increase flood protection. <
> --- ### Policy PR 3.4 Removed 2019 --- ### Policy PR 3.5 Removed 2019 --- ### Policy PR 3.6 Regional Network Complete the Capital Area Greenway system with connections to surrounding open space corridors, streams, and greenway trails that are elements of a regional network. <
> --- ### Policy PR 3.7 Removed 2019 --- ### Policy PR 3.8 Multi-modal Integration Improve pedestrian and bicycle linkages by closing gaps in network connectivity and prioritizing connections to public transportation, streets, sidewalks, and other transportation corridors. Development along proposed greenway trails and/or open space corridors should provide public access and infrastructure necessary to serve the needs of existing or potential future greenway trail users, as part of an integrated multimodal network. <
> --- ### Policy PR 3.9 Removed 2019 --- ### Policy PR 3.10 Greenway Corridors Support initiatives that work to create a protected, linked network of linear natural areas, wildlife habitats and greenspaces throughout the region. Continue to identify new open space corridor alignments as necessary to promote the goals of the Capital Area Greenway program. <
> --- ### Policy PR 3.11 Greenway Trail Transportation Network Position and promote the Capital Area Greenway system trails as safe, healthy and sustainable travel alternatives. Greenway trails are an essential part of the Raleigh’s multimodal transportation network. Greenway trails provide a sustainable means of navigating the city and are not intended solely for recreation. The greenway trail network will be developed and managed to provide connectivity and access between residential areas, commercial areas, employment centers, shopping centers, schools, parks, civic institutions, and open spaces. <
> #### Policy PR 3.12 Signage and Wayfinding Provide a sense of identity and utility for the greenway trail network through a program of consistent, selective, and strategic signage so as not to clutter or dominate the visual character of the greenway trails. #### Policy PR 3.13 Greenway-oriented Development Development adjacent to or encompassing a designated open space corridor should provide links between internal pedestrian infrastructure and the greenway network, where appropriate. The development should proactively respond to greenway trails and open space corridors as an amenity. #### Policy PR 3.14 Safety and Etiquette Education Encourage trail user safety and etiquette through educational tools and programs. Maintain and update documents and programming to incorporate emerging best practices. #### Policy PR 3.15 Resilience and Ecosystem Services New development adjacent to designated open space corridors should enhance the resiliency of the Greenway Network through the addition of green stormwater infrastructure, stream restoration, native plantings, increased erosion control elements, and provision of wildlife habitat, where appropriate. #### Policy PR 3.16 Resilient Development Raleigh’s built and natural environments should function in complementary ways. Encourage development and site management approaches that reduce the risks and impacts of natural disasters and climate change, especially in regard to flood control. #### Policy PR 3.17 Developer-Built Trails New development along designated open space corridors or greenway connectors should construct trail facilities and provide easements for public access where proposed in the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan. #### Policy PR 3.18 Greenway Amenities New development along open space corridors should provide amenities that support the public access and use of the greenway network, such as wayfinding signage, shaded seating areas, and any other amenities identified in the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan. #### Policy PR 3.19 Trail Aesthetics and Viewsheds In order to preserve and enhance user experience and the natural aesthetic character of the greenway network, new development adjacent to existing or proposed greenway trails should provide additional setbacks, undisturbed buffers, tree plantings, native landscaping, and other techniques of visual screening between developed areas and the designated open space corridors where appropriate. In urban settings, greenway trails should be integrated into site design as part of a cohesive public realm. #### Policy PR 3.20 Greenway Operations Implement operational changes to existing guidelines, policies, and codes for the greenway network to position greenway trails as an essential transportation option. #### Policy PR 3.21 Greenway Trail Closures New development and construction projects adjacent to existing greenway trails should provide for continuous, uninterrupted access to the greenway trail system throughout site development. This can include temporary trail access, detours, or other means of maintaining access. <
> ### Policy PR 3.22 BikeRaleigh Plan Update the BikeRaleigh Plan to incorporate new proposed greenway trails and greenway connectors recommended in the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan. Streetside facilities functioning as greenway connectors should be distinguished as part of the greenway trail network through the provision of design features that enhance the user experience, such as wayfinding signage, meandering trail alignments, additional tree shade, public art, etc. <
> ### Action PR 3.1 Capital Area Greenway System Complete the Capital Area Greenway System to provide connections to the local and regional open space corridors and multimodal transportation networks. ### Action PR 3.2 Removed 2019 ### Action PR 3.3 Completed 2015 ### Action PR 3.4 Removed 2019 ### Action PR 3.5 Open Space Corridors Acquire easements along all designated open space corridors. Require land dedication and/or greenway trail construction whenever a tract of land within a proposed development includes any part of, or is immediately adjacent to, a designated open space corridor. Increase the minimum width required to be dedicated for greenway easement to a minimum of 75 feet to promote the feasibility of future greenway trail construction within dedicated easement areas. ### Action PR 3.6 Resilience and Green Infrastructure Network Develop a program to accelerate open space corridor acquisition of contiguous land and quality natural resource areas along the full width of the 100-year flood plain or a 100-foot wide vegetative buffer, whichever is greater, through additional funding and/or regulations. *See also ‘5.4 Flood Reduction and Preparedness’ in Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection.’* ### Action PR 3.7 Greenway Connection Improvements Increase public awareness of and facilitate access to the Capital Area Greenway network by providing links to nearby communities and destination centers. ### Action PR 3.8 Multi-modal Integration Provide multi-modal access to the greenway network at strategic locations. ### Action PR 3.9 Completed 2021 ### Action PR 3.10 Public Awareness and Stewardship Promote the Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Adopt-A-Trail program to individuals, businesses, and groups interested in supporting the Capital Area Greenway System. ### Action PR 3.11 Signage and Wayfinding Increase signage through the Capital Area Greenway System that improves user safety and wayfinding. ### Action PR 3.12 Development Adjacent to Greenways Implement the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan and engage greenway planning staff during rezoning and site development. Involve the city’s greenway planning staff in the planning and design of all infrastructure projects that impact a corridor or proposed trail as identified in the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan. ### Action PR 3.13 Converted to Policy 2021 ### Action PR 3.14 Completed 2021 ### Action PR 3.15 Regional Network Coordinate with adjacent municipalities and other entities in order to identify potential cross-jurisdictional connections. ### Action PR 3.16 Trail Safety Enhance trail user safety and etiquette. ### Action PR 3.17 Maintenance Standards Improve maintenance standards for existing and proposed greenway trails to ensure safe and comfortable travel by users. ### Action PR 3.18 Greenway Trail Lighting Evaluate strategic locations for lighting along greenway trails. ### Action PR 3.19 Flood Monitoring Program Collaborate with the Stormwater Division to develop a Flood Monitoring Program to provide surveillance to monitor need for communications for trail closures and maintenance. *** ### Action PR 3.20 Fee-In-Lieu of Greenway Construction Investigate developing a fee-in-lieu policy to provide an alternative for developers where greenway trail construction is not feasible or practical at the time of development. *** ## 8.4 Recreational Facilities and Programs In order to maintain its position as a center of wise growth and prosperity, the city of Raleigh must continue to provide a wide variety of experiences for citizens. Planning for these experiences through a site-specific master plan process should take into account a system-wide approach as well as consideration for individual neighborhoods, adjoining public facilities, and future opportunities. The city’s parks, recreation and cultural resources facilities support a broad range of skills and experiences, and exposure to opportunities and programs in aquatics, arts, athletics, history, museums, nature, summer and track-out camps, and tennis. Programs serve all ages from youth to senior adults, as well as special populations. Amusement areas and several lakes also offer contact with nature and relief from the stress of everyday life for all generations. Facilities include trails, tracks, playgrounds and play fields, as well as a variety of courts, gymnasiums, and activity spaces. To adapt and continue to meet the needs of the community, planning for flexible facilities with opportunities for future expansion is of utmost importance in accommodating future growth. ### Raleigh’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Mission Statement: *Together we connect and enrich our community through experiences.* ### Policy PR 4.1 Flexible Facilities Continue to plan, develop, and operate a variety of flexible indoor and outdoor facilities to support programs and multiple activities across the entire city with respect to sufficient quality, quantity, size, and geographic distribution, and to reserve space for future trends and services. <
> ### Policy PR 4.2 Sustainable and Resilient Design Incorporate sustainable and resilient design in the development and management of parks, recreation and cultural resource facilities. <
> ### Policy PR 4.3 Partnerships and Collaboration Collaborate with partners in the public and private sectors to develop innovative park arrangements and spaces that help provide a diversity of needed recreational facilities. <
> ### Policy PR 4.4 Enhanced Access and Awareness Enhance access to and awareness of Raleigh’s recreational opportunities by locating and developing some active recreational facilities along major streets near other commercial development and in highly visible areas. <
> ### Policy PR 4.5 Removed 2019 ### Policy PR 4.6 Universal Access Develop recreational facilities that are universally accessible to all residents. Update existing facilities when new construction is planned, or when renovations are undertaken to, be compliant with new city and federal regulations as they come into effect. <
> <
> #### Policy PR 4.7 Joint Use of Schools Seek and work collaboratively, when feasible, with other municipal, county, and state entities on the joint use of school properties for public recreation. #### Policy PR 4.8 Private Parks Development Encourage the provision of tot lots, pocket parks, and other privately-held and maintained park spaces within residential developments to improve access public park facilities. #### Policy PR 4.9 Adequate Indoor Facilities Seek to provide adequate indoor and all- weather facilities for a wide variety of active living choices for all generations. #### Policy PR 4.10 Removed 2019 #### Action PR 4.1 Completed 2014 #### Action PR 4.2 Completed 2021 #### Action PR 4.3 Completed 2014 #### Action PR 4.4 Creating Opportunities for Active Living Choices Develop new and renovate existing facilities, multi-use fields, trails, and courts as often as practical to support formal and informal opportunities for active living choices by all generations. #### Action PR 4.5 Completed 2014 #### Action PR 4.6 Removed 2019 #### Action PR 4.7 Removed 2019 # 8.5 Open Space and Special Landscapes The City of Raleigh will continue to experience incredible rates of growth and urbanization between now and 2030. As the city continues to mature, its character will be defined by how it manages these trends. A larger population, shifting land-use patterns and the pressures of development will bring new opportunities and challenges to the management of open spaces and special landscapes. In order for Raleigh to stay true to its essential character and retain the qualities that make it one of the most livable cities in America, it must find a balance between urban development and the protection of open spaces. Open spaces provide opportunities for organized programs, informal or unprogrammed activities, and the conservation of special landscapes for the long-term benefit of the public. A variety of public open spaces contributes to the health and wellbeing of citizens and visitors, the conservation of wildlife and wild land, and the mitigation of environmental impacts from development. The City of Raleigh will enact policies that recognize open space as a complement—not a competition—to growth and development, and will take action to protect natural areas and special landscapes that enhance quality of life for all citizens. Every citizen of Raleigh should be able to experience the benefits of public open space and special landscapes. These spaces must be integrated within new and existing development, thereby promoting public access and awareness of these resources. This integrated approach will require the city to develop and implement new and innovative policies to pro-actively encourage the provision of open space within both public and private development projects. <
> Furthermore, it is important to recognize that citizens of Raleigh benefit immensely from parks and open spaces that are protected and managed by Wake County, the State of North Carolina, various land trusts and other nonprofit organizations operating within the city of Raleigh. An integrated approach to open space planning will require partnerships and coordination with each of these entities. In addition to providing everyday access to open spaces, the city must protect and promote the unique and special landscapes that exist within Raleigh. Nature Preserves and Natural Areas (Anderson Point Park; Annie Louise Wilkerson, MD Nature Preserve Park; Durant Nature Preserve; Horseshoe Farm Nature Preserve; Lake Johnson; and Walnut Creek Wetland Park) are important components of the parks system that contain examples of high quality plant or animal populations, natural communities, landscapes or ecosystems that contribute to biodiversity and environmental health. The parks system also includes four lakes (Lake Johnson, Lake Wheeler, Lake Lynn and Shelley Lake) that provide access to unique outdoor recreation experiences while enhancing the region’s water quality and stormwater management. The Capital Area Greenway System protects thousands of acres of riparian land while providing Raleigh’s citizens and visitors with access to over 117 miles of trails, rivers and streams. Continuing to protect and expand upon these special landscapes and natural resources will be an important aspect of Raleigh’s future open space planning. A city’s vitality depends on the network of public open spaces and natural areas that provide respite to its residents and soften the impact of human activities on the natural environment. Protecting and planning for these spaces will ensure that Raleigh remains a place that people will love to live for generations to come. *See also Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection’ for additional policies related to the preservation and use of open spaces and landscapes.* ### Policy PR 5.1 Protecting Heritage Sites In addition to acquiring land suitable for park facility development, work with local land trusts to acquire and conserve sites with significant natural heritage that are currently unprotected from development (as defined by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). ### Policy PR 5.2 Unique or Endangered Public Landscapes Ensure that park planning, facilities, and land management respect and conserve resources and landscapes such as Significant Natural Heritage Areas and N.C. Wildlife Action Plan priority habitat areas. ### Policy PR 5.3 Interpretive Conservation Activities Maximize ecosystem conservation and promote interpretive and educational activities in unique ecological areas and habitats in partnership with other governmental and non-governmental agencies. *See also ‘5.9 Environmental Education, Awareness and Coordination’ in Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection.’* ### Policy PR 5.4 Improving Park Access Public spaces should be included in private developments that can connect to and benefit from their proximity to public infrastructure and spaces such as greenway trails, public sidewalks, and plazas. ### Policy PR 5.5 Encourage Public Open Space in Rezonings Encourage the provision of publicly accessible open space during the consideration of zoning petitions. ### Action PR 5.1 Mandatory Open Space Corridor Dedication Continue the program of mandatory land dedication for open space corridors from residential development to further the goals of the Capital Area Greenway program. Explore expanding it to non-residential development. ### Action PR 5.2 Converted to Policy 2014 ### Action PR 5.3 Removed 2019 ### Action PR 5.4 Identify Conservation Lands Identify lands that can be conserved and managed for their outstanding natural features, landscapes and assets, and cultural heritage values as part of a system of open spaces and green infrastructure. <
> ### Action PR 5.5 Inventory Private Park Facilities Modify the site plan approval process to collect inventory data of private park facilities, amenities, and accessible open space. ### Action PR 5.6 Amend UDO to Promote Open Space Amend UDO Section 1.5.3 to allow for the provision of publicly accessible open space to meet the UDO outdoor amenity area requirements. Amend UDO Section 2.5.2 to include ‘Areas that connect to neighboring open space, trails, or greenways’ as Primary rather than Tertiary Open Space Allocation options for Compact and Conservation Residential Districts. Consider other changes as necessary to improve public access to parks and open spaces throughout the city, especially in high-growth areas. ### Action PR 5.7 Facility Fees for Park Projects Explore the use of Facility Fee revenue and other methods of public-private partnership to fund publicly accessible park development projects at the time of private development and new construction. ### Action PR 5.8 Cost Sharing for Greenway Connections Actively explore cost-share opportunities in order to provide improved greenway access between development projects and the Capital Area Greenway System. # Map PR-4: Open Space Corridors <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | ![legend-existing] | Existing Open Space Corridor | | ![legend-proposed] | Proposed Open Space Corridor | | ![legend-umstead] | William B. Umstead State Park Greenways and Trails | | ![legend-city-park] | City of Raleigh Park | | ![legend-state-park] | State or County Park | Map created 2/6/2025 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development # 8.6 Management and Stewardship As a steward of public land, recreational facilities, and cultural and natural resources, the city must manage with a goal of efficiency, equitable quality and access, and long term public benefit. Management and stewardship of parklands and facilities includes maintenance of existing developed parks as well as proper stewardship and management of undeveloped parklands and natural areas, and cultural resources. This requires a commitment from city employees, the public and their elected representatives to plan for the operating funds necessary to maintain sites, structures, and systems for their expected life cycle. Additionally, new capital development, renovation of existing facilities, and replacement of facilities when life-cycles are over should be planned and fully funded. Promoting citizen involvement in stewardship and volunteer activities such as clean-ups, minor construction, and landscaping will continue to build community knowledge and support of the parks and greenway system. Numerous partner organizations and agencies exist in the area that can further the mission of the city of Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department. ### Policy PR 6.1 Budget Adequacy Ensure that capital and operating budget support of the parks, recreation and cultural resources system keeps pace with growth as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan to provide the quantity and quality of programs, facilities, and facilities maintenance expected by citizens. <
> ### Policy PR 6.2 Volunteerism Encourage citizens to volunteer within the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources system by offering opportunities to be involved in recreational and resource programming, youth athletic coaching, park clean-up efforts, habitat restoration, special event support, and other supportive activities. <
> ### Policy PR 6.3 Park Stewardship Strive to improve safety, awareness, cleanliness, and neighborhood support at existing parks in part by involving residents in these efforts, partnering with other city departments such as Planning, Public Utilities, Police, Housing and Neighborhoods, and other partner agencies and programs that may have a presence on the site. <
> ### Policy PR 6.4 Access to Natural Resources Promote the public awareness and knowledge of access to natural resource areas within the regional park system. <
> ### Action PR 6.1 Completed 2021 *** ### Action PR 6.2 Completed 2021 *** ### Action PR 6.3 System Integration Plan Implementation Implement System Integration Plans for all newly-acquired properties and for undeveloped park sites and key areas of underdeveloped sites. *** ### Action PR 6.4 Removed 2019 *** ### Action PR 6.5 Awareness of Natural Resource Areas Implement strategies through traditional methods and emerging technologies to increase public awareness of natural resource areas within the Raleigh Park system and adjoining communities. *** ### Action PR 6.6 Removed 2019 *** # 8.7 Dorothea Dix Park On July 24, 2015, the City of Raleigh and the State of North Carolina agreed to the city’s acquisition of the Dorothea Dix Campus, to plan and transform the former hospital property into a new destination park. Dix Park is a total of 307.9 acres—143 acres to the west of the railroad and 164 acres to the east. The historic character of the eastern parcel, which includes the Dix Hill National Register Historic District, makes it very distinct from the park-like setting of the western parcel. There are 85 structures on the campus totaling 1.2 million square feet of building space. The site has many unique features including a historic cemetery, chapel, and 65-acre landfill. The Rocky Branch Greenway Trail runs along the creek on the northern edge of the site. The study area for this project will not only include the 307.9 acres but will also need to consider how the park connects to and impacts the greater area. Rosengarten Greenway Trail, currently in the design phase, will connect Dix Park to the future Union Station through the Historic Boylan Heights neighborhood. Dix Park is a site that blends historic architecture and rich landscapes into a unique destination in the heart of the capital city. Dix Park offers skyline views, old growth oaks and rolling fields all in a bucolic, campus-like setting. From a plantation to a mental health hospital to the headquarters of a state agency, this property has evolved through centuries. This site also marks the spot where a common purpose was shared—the treatment and healing of North Carolina’s mentally ill. Understanding the rich history and legacy of the land is essential to the creation of an authentic vision for its future. Purchase of the Dorothea Dix Campus provides an extraordinary opportunity to create a transformational public park that will contribute to the ongoing revitalization of downtown Raleigh, existing adjacent and future neighborhoods, the Triangle region, and the State. The most successful destination parks across the United States include some form of public-private partnership and the city of Raleigh supports the value and importance of having these partners as an integral part of the planning and development of Dorothea Dix Park. The City of Raleigh is collaborating with the Dix Park Conservancy for the fund-raising and development of a master plan for Dorothea Dix Park. The Dorothea Dix Park planning process will be unique, progressive, and ambitious so that the final master plan is visionary and iconic for the future of Dorothea Dix Park and the City of Raleigh. The planning process will provide opportunities for the community to discover the park’s history, beauty and potential. It will be inclusive, transparent, and provide broad equitable opportunities for public participation. The planning process will be governed by a three-tiered structure led by the Master Plan Executive Committee, which represents the partnership between the City of Raleigh and the Dix Park Conservancy. A 45-member Advisory Committee will advise the consultant team, make recommendations to the Executive Committee, be heavily involved in public outreach and engagement and serve as project advocates. Members of the Advisory Committee will also lead subcommittee workgroups which will be open to the public. Workgroups will enrich the planning process by providing topic-specific expertise and be involved in public outreach and engagement. ### Policy PR 7.1 Contextual Development Complement the ongoing growth and development of the Centennial and Main Campuses of North Carolina State University, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture’s State Farmer’s Market, and other regional institutions. ### Policy PR 7.2 Integration into Park System Integrate into and build upon the city’s regional park and greenway system, and be mutually supportive of other city parks and cultural institutions. ### Policy PR 7.3 Design for Sustainability and Resilience Incorporate at a most fundamental level the notions of sustainability and resilience and the relationship between the health of the human spirit and landscape. ### Policy PR 7.4 Exemplary Planning and Design Exhibit the highest level of planning principles and design innovation. ### Policy PR 7.5 Public Engagement Demonstrate that sustained, broad and inclusive public engagement is essential to the long-term development, support and use of the park. ### Policy PR 7.6 Placemaking Create a remarkable civic space that welcomes all that will embrace its history and legacy, showcase its beautiful and inspiring landscape and become a destination, a landmark, and an icon for the city. ### Action PR 7.1 Completed 2021 ### Action PR 7.2 Public Participation in Programming Engage the public in park programming. (blank page) section 9 # Public Utilities 9.1 Systems and Adequacy ................................................................ 9-6 9.2 Utility Extensions .......................................................................... 9-7 9.3 Drinking Water ............................................................................. 9-9 9.4 Wastewater Collection and Dispersal ......................................... 9-12 9.5 Stormwater ................................................................................ 9-14 9.6 Energy and Telecommunications ............................................... 9-16 Public Utilities The Public Utilities Section addresses the city’s four publicly-provided utility systems: 1. The water system that provides potable water to city residents, businesses, and institutions. 2. The wastewater system that collects, conveys, and treats wastewater. 3. The stormwater system that collects, manages, conveys, and treats stormwater runoff from buildings and impervious areas. 4. The reuse water system, a relatively new utility system for the city, that provides treated water for certain uses such as irrigation. In addition to the above city systems, this Section also addresses private utility systems, such as electric and gas utilities. The city’s water and wastewater utilities are regional in nature, and include the nearby communities of Garner, Rolesville, Wake Forest, Knightdale, Wendell, and Zebulon in addition to Raleigh (see Map PU-1, which shows the utility service area). Serving these communities has required new utility infrastructure to be extended into eastern Wake County, including sewer trunk lines, a new pump station, and an extension of a sewer line. While intended to serve customers in eastern Wake municipalities, these improvements also potentially open intervening lands for development on public water and sewer. Driven by population growth, demand for water and sewer services grew during much of the previous decade. Between 2000 and 2007, average daily demand at the E.M. Johnson Water Treatment Plant at Falls Lake rose from 44.4 to 50.7 millions of gallons per day (MGD). However, this trend has not continued since 2010, as drinking water demands have remained relatively static (ranging from 48.6 to 51.99 MGD), despite adding an estimated 55,000 new customers to the service area. It is believed the adoption of tiered water rates, a long term conservation response from the 2007/2008 drought, and normal to higher than average annual rainfall totals have all contributed to offsetting additional water demand. To accommodate anticipated future growth throughout the service area, a 20 MGD water treatment facility was constructed in 2010 at Lake Benson, which is used to augment the existing Falls Lake drinking water resource. The majority of wastewater flow is delivered for treatment to the Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility, where volumes have grown from 43.8 to 46.4 MGD between 2010 and 2015. The peak volume during this period occurred in 2015 with an average daily throughput of 46.4 MGD, although this was likely influenced by wet ground conditions and subsequent infiltration and inflow into the collection system. Significant growth continues to be anticipated in the future. Water treatment plants must be sized for peak daily demand, which is expected to grow from 77 MGD in 2007 to 130 MGD in 2030. Current plans to meet this demand include an expansion at E.M. Johnson to add 34 MGD of capacity; and the option to expand the Dempsey E. Benton plant at 40 MGD. Expansions at existing wastewater treatment plants will increase total treatment capacity to a little over 84 MGD, mostly coming from a 15 MGD expansion at the Neuse River plant, which is currently underway. At this time, potential future water sources include the reallocation of the conservation pool at Falls Lake (to provide additional drinking water volume) and the construction of the Little River Reservoir in eastern Wake County Collectively, these proposed investments in utility infrastructure, including the extensions serving the nearby towns where Raleigh has formal utility merger agreements, will be the largest single share of the city’s capital spending from 2018 to 2023. Water and wastewater projects total $688 million in the latest Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This is 37 percent of the city’s CIP total, compared with 15 percent for transportation projects. As an enterprise within the city, the bulk of this spending is funded with Revenue Bonds backed by future utility billing receipts. ### Public Utilities <
> Beyond these major fixed investments, the city’s utility systems require continual investment to keep pace with demand, replace aging facilities, and keep systems in a state of good repair. Financing of these systems depends upon future revenue streams. The water and sewer utilities are funded through utility bills as well as one-time connection fees. Utility acreage fees, one-time fees assessed on new development, help fund the cost of constructing major water and sewer lines serving an area. Stormwater is funded through a monthly fee on all development with impervious surfaces in excess of 400 square feet, and this fee was recently increased by 24 percent. Debt service on major new stormwater investments is supported by recurring fees levied across all development, existing and new. These vital infrastructure systems are critical to the city’s continued growth and development, and their proper functioning has major environmental implications. Water, wastewater, and stormwater systems are embedded in the region’s hydrology, and the quality of our lakes, rivers, and other surface waters is heavily influenced by the operation of these systems. This section addresses the following major issues: * *Making more efficient use of available water, matching source characteristics with intended uses, and pricing water to reflect the true cost of service. Not all uses of water, including irrigation, require pristine, potable water sources. Irrigation uses may also rely on reclaimed water or cistern-stored rainwater.* * *Planning for water resources in the face of a changing and uncertain climate that may result in greater extremes of rainfall and drought. While the addition of Lake Benson as a drinking water source has significantly increased overall system resiliency and capacity, additional sources will need to be identified and acquired. This planning process may be impacted by the effects of a changing climate.* * *As major users of energy, all utility systems will need to respond by looking for efficiencies and alternative energy sources throughout their operations.* * *Planning for the future in an ever-evolving regulatory environment at the state and federal level.* * *Planning for future water demands in a competitive resource allocation environment—significant competition for water is to be expected among utility systems, regions, and classes of users (residential versus commercial versus agricultural).* * *Providing the utility capacity necessary to accommodate the city’s future growth, including the expansion of systems as well as the rebuilding and enhancement of systems in older parts of the city.* * *Better matching the expansion of utility infrastructure with the city’s preferred growth patterns and strategies, to minimize costs and maintain each system’s financial health.* * *Fully educating and involving the public as informed customers and responsible users of vital natural resources.* As described in the Framework Section, Raleigh’s Vision for 2030 is structured to address these public utility issues through six vision themes or citywide goals. The Public Utilities Section will allow the city to meet these goals in numerous ways. Relative to *Economic Prosperity and Equity*, the city’s economy depends on the availability of water and sewer infrastructure to support development. Efficient utility planning serves to sustain system adequacy, manage costs, and keep the city’s utility rates competitive. The proper management of stormwater serves the goal of equity by protecting downstream properties from the impacts of upstream development. For *Expanding Housing Choice*, the wide availability of water and sewer throughout the city’s jurisdiction permits a variety of housing types at different densities to be developed at appropriate locations. For *Managing our Growth*, decisions regarding when and where to extend utility service significantly impact growth patterns by enabling higher intensity development than could be achieved using well and septic systems. Utility infrastructure must also be adequately sized to meet both present and future needs, requiring coordination with future growth planning. For *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*, buildings, roads, and parking lots are significant sources of stormwater runoff; therefore, land use and transportation policies that result in low-impact development will also serve to reduce the stormwater impacts of development. Utilities, along with roads, are the major shapers of development patterns. For *Greenprint Raleigh*, stormwater policies have a significant impact on water quality, as urban runoff is the primary pollutant in the region’s surface waters. Ensuring infiltration and recharge of stormwater can help maintain the region’s sub-surface aquifers and feed streams during times of low rainfall. The city’s water and wastewater treatment facilities are now a significant part of the upper Neuse River’s hydrology, at times accounting for up to 40 percent of the river’s flow downstream of the wastewater treatment plant. The city’s re-use water system is a key piece of infrastructure intended to make more efficient use of water resources. For *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*, the extension of utilities to formerly undeveloped areas and sites and the growing prominence of infill development and downtown redevelopment may require that additional infrastructure be provided in already built-up parts of the city. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity. <
> Expanding Housing Choices. <
> Managing Our Growth. <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation. <
> Greenprint Raleigh. <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # Map PU-1: Water and Wastewater Systems <
> ### Facility Type | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ■ | Water Treatment | ▭ | Long Range Utility Service Area | | ● | Wastewater Treatment | ▨ | Non-Urban Area | # 9.1 Systems and Adequacy While Raleigh’s continued growth necessarily focuses attention on new infrastructure, it is the primary job of any utility system to keep the existing infrastructure in good repair, and to maximize the utilization of those infrastructure investments already made. Portions of the city’s water and sewer infrastructure, especially inside the Beltline, are aging and will need reconstruction, replacement, and/or augmentation. A proposed force main paralleling the two existing interceptors along Crabtree Creek is an example, as this project will both address limited capacity as well as provide the redundancy necessary to carry out repairs on the existing interceptors. Adequate funding is essential to maintaining utility systems. For publicly-owned utilities, political imperatives push for the lowest possible rates even as maintenance and investment backlogs accrue. Raleigh’s utility rate structure should include all costs to fully operate, maintain, rehabilitate, replace, and expand its utility infrastructure in order to build in incentives to make wise use of resources while fully funding all utility system needs. The following policies address maintaining the adequacy of the systems serving already developed areas, as well as addressing the capacity needs of the future. ### Policy PU 1.1 Linking Growth and Infrastructure Focus growth in areas adequately served by existing or planned utility infrastructure. <
> ### Policy PU 1.2 Infrastructure Maintenance Rehabilitate and maintain in good condition existing public utility facilities to accommodate infill and to allow for the most efficient use of existing infrastructure. <
> ### Policy PU 1.3 Infrastructure Standards for Development Provide standards and programs that relate development to the adequate provision of infrastructure and public services. <
> ### Policy PU 1.4 Addressing Insufficient Utilities Address insufficiencies in water and sewer lines that threaten health, safety, and overall quality of life. <
> ### Policy PU 1.5 Sizing of Water and Sewer Lines Size water and sewer lines with capacity adequate to serve projected future growth. <
> ### Policy PU 1.6 Full Cost Pricing Encourage full-cost pricing to recognize the real long-term cost of service, which includes maintaining infrastructure in a state of good repair, and to promote environmentally sound decisions by customers. <
> ### Action PU 1.1 Completed 2012 ### Action PU 1.2 Completed 2014 ## 9.2 Utility Extensions As Raleigh continues to develop, the city’s growth must proceed hand-in-hand with the expansion of the city’s utility systems. Leapfrog development patterns and unplanned extensions undermine the goal of system efficiency by increasing the quantity of piping and pumping necessary to serve a given amount of development. Under current pricing schemes, higher costs are borne equally by all customers regardless of location, resulting in inefficient cross-subsidies. The city’s 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program includes new utility extensions to other towns including Wendell and Zebulon where Raleigh has formal utility merger agreements. These new water and sewer mains will cut across eastern Wake County, including through Raleigh’s short- and long-range Urban Service Areas. No physical barrier will exist to prevent connections to these mains from adjoining properties; only strongly-written and enforced policies can forestall the premature spread of urban growth into these urban reserves. The policies below address these issues through the coordination of system expansion and new development, and ensuring that developers benefiting from public infrastructure participate in the financing of that infrastructure. Another key objective is that land use planning, through the orderly extension of the city’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, should precede rather than follow annexation and the extension of utility infrastructure. ### Policy PU 2.1 Utility Service Extension Outside the City Ensure that proposals to extend utility service outside the city are: * Consistent with service expansion plans. * Not into current or future water supply watersheds except in accordance with Falls Lake and Swift Creek small area plan policies. * Sufficient in capacity to accommodate the extension. * Meet city standards. * Enhance the contiguous development of the city. <
> *See also the Falls Lake and Swift Creek Area Plans for City of Raleigh policies on annexations and utility extensions in specific areas of these water supply watersheds.* *** ### Policy PU 2.2 Utility Extension Beyond Raleigh’s Jurisdiction Limit the extension of public utilities outside of Raleigh’s jurisdiction to cases in which: * There is a threat to public health, safety and welfare and to Raleigh’s drinking water supply. * Such extensions are necessary to serve merger communities. * Such extensions provide the ability to provide interconnects with other utility systems for use in times of drought or extreme weather. <
> *See also ‘3.3 Annexation, ETJ and USA’ for additional City of Raleigh policies on annexations outside the existing Raleigh Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).* *** ### Policy PU 2.3 Emergency Utility Extension Allow only existing development posing a specific threat to public health, safety, and welfare and to Raleigh’s drinking water supply to connect to emergency utility extensions. <
> *** ### Policy PU 2.4 Water and Sanitary Sewer Installation Require that water and sanitary sewer lines installed by property owners are constructed along the entire adjacent right-of-way or through the entire property as appropriate to permit further extension to adjacent properties. <
> *** ### Policy PU 2.5 Water and Sanitary Sewer Access Require that developers provide water and sanitary sewer service to all lots within a subdivision. <
> *** ### Policy PU 2.6 Re-use Water Infrastructure Consider requiring that residential developers provide “purple pipe” re-use water infrastructure to all lots in a subdivision, as the availability of re-use water expands. Consider restricting the use of potable water for irrigation when re-use water is available. <
> *** ### Action PU 2.1 Completed 2014 *** ### Action PU 2.2 Utility Plan Updates Routinely update utility plans based on the latest data and population projections to keep plans for capital projects up-to-date. *** ### Action PU 2.3 Completed 2015 *** ### Action PU 2.4 Removed 2016 *** ### Action PU 2.5 Merger Town Development Policies Regarding Utilities Work with towns with which Raleigh has merger agreements to ensure that development-related policies are followed. *** ## 9.3 Drinking Water The capacity of the city’s drinking water system is defined by two variables: (1) quantity of water available to be extracted from Falls Lake and other reservoirs, operationalized as a “safe yield” factor based on historical rainfall data; and (2) the rated capacities of the city’s water treatment plants, which are usually sized by applying a peaking factor to the safe yield of the reservoir. The latter is under human control, while the former depends in part on factors beyond human control, including the size of the reservoir and its watersheds and the quantity of rainfall. Droughts between 2010 and 2012 have stoked concerns regarding Raleigh’s physical water resources. Measures to manage demand and increase system efficiency will be important adjuncts to expanding treatment capacity. Over the longer term, new water sources will be needed to meet the projected growth in water demand of about 43 million gallons per day (average) between 2006 and 2030. These sources will include drinking water reservoirs such as the Little River Reservoir, as well as alternative but impaired water supplies, such as reuse water and grey water, that can be allocated for uses tolerant of the lower quality. However, a major element in the overall water strategy will be slowing the growth in demand through increased efficiency and conservation. In light of the ongoing national issues related to lead in drinking water, the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department believes it is important to describe the efforts which have been undertaken to protect our customers and provide clean, safe drinking water. Since 1991, public water providers like the City of Raleigh are required by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act to monitor Tier 1 sites for lead and copper levels in the drinking water on a reoccurring schedule. Tier 1 monitoring sites are single family residences served by copper plumbing with lead solder joints installed after 1982 or any sites with lead services lines regardless of installation date. The City of Raleigh has been, and continues to be compliant with federal and state rules regulating lead and copper in drinking water. The most recent lead and copper distribution system sampling was performed in the summer of 2013, and the results for all samples were below the Federal Action Level for lead (0.015 parts per million) and copper (1.3 parts per million). The next round of sampling for lead and copper is scheduled for the summer of 2019. ### Policy PU 3.1 Potable Water Delivery Provide for the safe and efficient delivery of high quality potable water. <
> ### Policy PU 3.2 Planning for Drought Enhance the city’s water system planning to take changes in climate and precipitation patterns into account when projecting future water supply availability. <
> ### Policy PU 3.3 Water Supply as a Planning Consideration Factor water supply issues into planning for the city’s growth, including assessing the impacts from the rezoning process, as well as incorporating demand management considerations into the city’s development standards. <
> ### Policy PU 3.4 Matching Water Supply with Water Use Requirements Increase efficiency by putting all forms of water to their most appropriate use by better matching actual water use requirements with available potable and non-potable sources. <
> ### Policy PU 3.5 Alternative Water Sources Increase the use of reclaimed water and other non-potable sources such as rainwater to relieve pressures on the potable water treatment system. <
> ### Policy PU 3.6 Reclaimed Water Priorities Prioritize the implementation of reclaimed water infrastructure to serve the largest potential users and concentrations of users. <
> ### Policy PU 3.7 Water Conservation Increase the use of water conservation measures and minimization techniques. Examples include drought-resistant landscaping standards and financial incentive programs. <
> ### Policy PU 3.8 Water System Performance Management Apply current Best Management Practices (BMPs) to Raleigh’s drinking water systems. Ensure that management strategies shift the focus from compliance to sustainability and improved performance. <
> ### Policy PU 3.9 Watershed-based Planning Adopt watershed-based approaches to water supply planning to promote decisions based on a holistic view of the entire water system. <
> *See Text Box: A Holistic Approach to Watersheds* ### Policy PU 3.10 Water Quality Improvements Improve potable water quality through the preservation and restoration of natural landscape features, such as lakes, floodplains, wetlands, and their buffers. <
> *See also Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection’ for related policies.* ### Policy PU 3.11 Protection of Water Supply Protect the water supply from incompatible uses and activities that could compromise drinking water quality and safety. <
> ### Policy PU 3.12 Water Service Adequacy Provide adequate water service to all currently unserved lots within the city. <
> ### Policy PU 3.13 Conservation Education Engage the public to promote an understanding of the need for water conservation and reuse. <
> ### Policy PU 3.14 Calibration of Safe Yield Consult with Army Corp of Engineers as necessary to maintain an accurate calibration of safe yield factor for Falls Lake, so that recent climate and stream flow data are reflected in the city’s water supply planning models. <
> Public Utilities ### Action PU 3.1 Falls Lake Water Supply Study Request that the Army Corps of Engineers perform what is known as a 219 study to look at any modifications to the current allocation configuration, including reallocating water in the conservation and flood pools to match changing climate conditions. ### Action PU 3.2 Removed 2014 ### Action PU 3.3 Water Conservation Continue the city’s water conservation public education campaign to promote water awareness and an ethic of managing water usage. ### Action PU 3.4 Completed 2015 ### Action PU 3.5 Completed 2014 ## A Holistic Approach to Watersheds A holistic view of the water system recognizes that any decision made regarding withdrawal, discharge, or modification has impacts that ripple through the entire watershed. Urban uses are now an integral part of overall hydrology, making a complete return to a “state of nature” not only infeasible but also problematic. For example, if rainwater harvesting were to become pervasive, it would dramatically alter flow patterns in small streams, probably decreasing base flows in dry weather, and impacting what may be a fragile aquatic habitat accustomed to current flow patterns. An alternative would be to extend the re-use system, but that might require increased releases from Falls Lake to maintain downstream minimum flows. These examples illustrate how decisions increasingly involve complex interactions with a broad range of issues, requiring a more holistic approach than in the past. # 9.4 Wastewater Collection and Dispersal With the growth in the city’s water demand will come a corresponding increase in wastewater generated. Additional investments will be needed to increase capacity at Raleigh’s wastewater treatment plants as well as the sewer pipes and pump stations that convey wastewater to these plants. Wherever possible, gravity systems are preferred over pressure collection systems for reasons of reliability and lower operating and maintenance costs. Also, private wastewater treatment systems are discouraged because inadequately-maintained and -monitored systems can lead to poor quality in nearby streams and rivers. Every day an average of 45.1 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater for this reporting period travels through the city’s sanitary sewer collection system. While wastewater has traditionally been viewed as a by-product to be disposed of, it will increasingly be viewed as a resource from which to wring extended value. Reclaimed water will be dispersed into a variety of receiving environments, moving beyond irrigation to include wetland and stream augmentation and even groundwater recharge. Mining re-use water from the wastewater stream can forestall the need to increase the capacity of sewer trunk lines by reducing total downstream flows. The city already has an award-winning program that uses bio-solids to complete the nutrient cycle on city-owned farmland. In the future, bio-solids may be utilized as a source of energy through combustion or as a source of methane. The following policies are intended to address wastewater in the context of promoting long-term resource efficiency and sustainability. ### Policy PU 4.1 Wastewater Treatment Provide sufficient wastewater treatment in the most efficient manner to eliminate any potential for health hazards. <
> *** ### Policy PU 4.2 Wastewater Service Adequacy Provide adequate wastewater service to all currently-unserved lots within the city. <
> *** ### Policy PU 4.3 Sewer Line Replacement Provide for the replacement of aging sanitary sewer collection systems to prevent overflow and backups. <
> *** ### Policy PU 4.4 Wastewater Collection System Expansion Expand the wastewater collection system to serve potential annexation areas, urbanizing areas, and long-term growth areas with gravity sewer extensions and minimal use of pump stations. <
> *** ### Policy PU 4.5 Reclaimed Water Expand the re-use programs for wastewater treatment plant effluent and expand the use of reclaimed water for non-potable water uses. <
> *** ### Policy PU 4.6 Package Treatment Plants Allow no privately-owned or -operated package wastewater treatment plants in city service and jurisdictional areas. <
> Public Utilities <
> ### Policy PU 4.7 Pump Stations and Force Mains Ensure that pump stations and force mains are environmentally sound and operationally efficient. They should be provided with on-site emergency electric generators and wireless communication equipment to monitor their status. They are preferably temporary facilities that can be replaced by gravity sewers. ### Policy PU 4.8 Pressure Collection Allow no new pressure collection sewer systems in city service and jurisdictional areas. ### Policy PU 4.9 Sewer Overflows Maintain the sewer collection system with the goal to eliminate sanitary sewer system overflows. ### Policy PU 4.10 Fats, Oils, and Grease Disposal Promote the proper disposal of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) for households to help prevent sewer line clogging. ### Policy PU 4.11 Bio-solids and Methane Gas Reuse Provide for the beneficial re-use of 100 percent of bio-solids and methane gas production from all wastewater treatment plants, unless impractical. ### Action PU 4.1 Completed 2014 ### Action PU 4.2 Pigeon House Branch Restoration Implement a stream restoration project after assigning total maximum daily waste load for the Pigeon House Branch. Evaluate reclaimed water for its effectiveness to support restoration efforts that augment stream flows and improve water quality. ### Action PU 4.3 Bio-Energy at Neuse River Plant Complete the Bio-Energy Recovery Project at the Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility site to treat 100 percent of bio-solids to the Class A level, and capture and use the methane produced. ### Action PU 4.4 Removed 2021 ### Action PU 4.5 Completed 2015 # 9.5 Stormwater Urban runoff is the primary pollutant source for the region’s lakes, streams, and other surface waters. Poorly controlled runoff contributes to increased rates of stream bank erosion and lake sedimentation. Stormwater also contains numerous pollutants, such as rubber, oil, and antifreeze from automobiles, chemicals from lawns, and excess sediment associated with carelessly conducted land-disturbing activity. Runoff not only degrades the environment but also imposes costs on downstream neighborhoods and communities, as well as the public sector. Ongoing improvements to the city’s stormwater infrastructure, programs, and regulations will be directed to improving the overall health of urban watersheds. Through sustainable practices that protect water quality, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and provide for urban green spaces, an improved quality of life will be realized. As part of stormwater management program, the city is developing stormwater management plans for each of the approximately 25 drainage basins located completely or partially within the city’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The purpose of each stormwater management plan is to provide recommendations for structural and nonstructural improvements that may be made in the drainage basin to alleviate existing and projected stormwater problems related to flooding, erosion, and water quality. As more such studies are completed it can be anticipated that more problems will be identified. Flood damage is currently the primary concern but water quality improvements will have to be implemented in order to meet federal and state regulations. The following policies address the stormwater impacts of new development and redevelopment, stream quality improvements, and existing stormwater problems. *See also ‘5.3 Water Quality and Conservation’ in Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection’ for related policies.* ### Policy PU 5.1 Sustainable and Resilient Stormwater Management Reduce run-off velocity and improve water quality from existing and new development using sustainable and resilient infrastructure techniques that use soils and vegetation to capture, cleanse, and re-use stormwater runoff. <
> *** ### Policy PU 5.2 Drainage Basin Approach to Stormwater Planning Use drainage basin-focused studies to determine the locations of future and additional stormwater facilities. <
> *** ### Policy PU 5.3 Stormwater Financing Provide an equitable system of stormwater financing based on relative contributions to the stormwater problem. <
> *** ### Policy PU 5.4 Discharge Control Methods Apply discharge control methods that control both peak and volume and that are economically, aesthetically, and environmentally acceptable as well as effective in stormwater management. <
> *** ### Policy PU 5.5 Stormwater Education Educate and involve the public in stormwater management. <
> *** Public Utilities <
> #### Policy PU 5.6 Rainwater Collection and Storage Where adjacent waters are not vulnerable to even minor reductions in base flow, encourage the deployment and use of rainwater collection and storage systems, such as rain barrels and cisterns and rain gardens by residential and commercial property owners and managers. #### Policy PU 5.7 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Monitoring Regularly inventory green stormwater infrastructure to identify and evaluate landscape features where stormwater can be absorbed naturally. Maintain and update models of watersheds and sub-watersheds to account for the amount of green infrastructure that is present to perform this function. #### Action PU 5.1 Completed 2015 #### Action PU 5.2 Stormwater Fee Review Revisit the stormwater fee structure as necessary to provide adequate program funding. #### Action PU 5.3 Watershed Studies Continue to complete additional watershed studies until Raleigh’s entire jurisdiction and Urban Service Areas have been covered by such studies. #### Action PU 5.4 Converted to Pilicy 2022 #### Action PU 5.5 Removed 2022 # 9.6 Energy and Telecommunications While the city’s energy and telecommunications infrastructure is privately owned, there is still significant public sector involvement with these services. Transmission lines occupy public rights-of-way, and the city regulates telecommunications towers to promote public safety and manage impacts. As the city looks at ways to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, power generation and consumption must be an important part of any strategy. Coal is currently the cheapest and most widely used source of baseline power generation. It is also the most carbon-intensive. Utilities are increasingly supplementing their power generation infrastructure with decentralized natural-gas power peaking plants and, increasingly, distributed micro-power sources with a focus on renewables. Growth in distributed micro-power requires smarter electricity grids, net metering, and other modernizations. Distributed power generation also presents the opportunity for cogeneration—the capture of otherwise lost heat to warm buildings and perform other functions. As generating technology rapidly evolves, the city’s land use and building codes must keep pace to make sure such innovations can be accommodated in new development and redevelopment. ### Policy PU 6.1 Energy and Telecommunications Planning Work with regional and private organizations to plan for adequate future energy and telecommunications facilities and service delivery. <
> *** ### Policy PU 6.2 Alternative Energy Sources Foster alternative energy sources within the region and state to mitigate rising energy costs and associated environmental impacts. <
> *** ### Policy PU 6.3 Visual Impacts of Utility Infrastructure Consider ways to affect the placement and appearance of utility infrastructure—including substations, transmission towers and lines, and switching boxes—to minimize visual disruption and negative effects on quality of life, and to enhance streetscapes in pedestrian-oriented districts. <
> *** ### Policy PU 6.4 Undergrounding in Downtown and Along Major Corridors Work with utility providers to place utilities underground in the downtown and along major road corridors, with a particular priority on those streets identified as retail streets in the Downtown Section. <
> *** ### Policy PU 6.5 Undergrounding in Pedestrian Business Districts Work with utility providers to place utilities underground as part of streetscape projects undertaken in pedestrian-oriented business districts. <
> Public Utilities <
> #### Policy PU 6.6 Cogeneration Partner with local electricity providers to explore the potential for cogeneration (power+heat) in future projects. #### Policy PU 6.7 Removing Barriers in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Remove prohibitions and reduce barriers that impede the installation of solar panels, the use of clotheslines, and other renewable technologies in neighborhoods governed by overlay districts, restrictive covenants, and homeowner associations while allowing for appropriate oversight in historic overlay districts. *See Action EP 1.8 in Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection’ for information regarding solar and distributed energy resource incentives.* #### Policy PU 6.8 City Facility Energy and Water Monitoring Monitor energy and water use of city facilities and establish benchmark for efficiency goals. #### Action PU 6.1 Distributed Generation Pilot Project Incorporate a distributed generation project as part of a significant city capital project, such as installation of photovoltaics over a parking facility, provision of a wind-turbine as part of a tall building, or other similar concept. #### Action PU 6.2 Cogeneration Pilot Project Identify an opportunity for using cogeneration either downtown or as part of a significant public facility. #### Action PU 6.3 Coordination with Utilities Convene regular meetings with utility companies to compare growth projections and to discuss other long-range planning issues. (blank page) section 10 # Community Facilities and Services 10.1 Community Facilities and Services.............................................. 10-5 10.2 Solid Waste ................................................................................. 10-8 10.3 Public Safety.............................................................................. 10-11 10.4 Fire and Emergency Response................................................. 10-13 10.5 Health and Human Services...................................................... 10-15 A community facility is established primarily for the benefit and service of the population of the community in which it is located. This section focuses on community facilities and the policies and actions that will drive future decisions about siting, acquisition, co-location, programming, design, and construction. Community facilities and services covered include: * *Municipal buildings.* * *Solid Waste Services.* * *Police Stations.* * *Fire Stations – engine, ladder, rescue, EMS, arson investigation.* * *Health and Human Services.* <
> Two important community facilities, public schools and libraries, are provided by Wake County – the city does not maintain separate systems of its own. As such, the city’s role in ensuring Raleigh’s residents receive the schools and libraries they need is one of collaboration and coordination with the county. *Policies and actions related to both schools and libraries can be found in Section 14: ‘Regional and Interjurisdictional Coordination.’* Population growth drives decisions to add community facilities to the city’s landscape. Currently, City of Raleigh community facilities include: ten police facilities; twenty-nine fire stations; three solid waste services facilities, seven municipal buildings; twenty-five community centers; eleven public libraries; seventy-five public schools; and three hospital networks. The city has outgrown its current operational facilities and will be challenged by significant growth in the future. Service delivery has become a challenge as appropriate sites have become harder to obtain; land acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance costs have risen sharply; and energy costs have become less predictable. Many departments are experiencing excessive drive times to work sites due to policies that historically have centralized facilities. Given Raleigh’s geographic spread, there is an increasing rationale for the dispersion of many community facilities and services. The Evaluation of Remote Operational Facilities study conducted by consultants to the Public Works Department set the stage for a new approach. City Council has approved and funded the implementation of a network of five decentralized Service Centers (in addition to the current seven operations facilities). A new Remote Operations center has been constructed at Raleigh and Westinghouse Boulevards, housing Vehicle Fleet Services, Street Maintenance, and Traffic Engineering. Municipal crews will achieve shorter drive times and greater productivity as less time is spent bringing vehicles to and from the shop. The city is also looking at its space needs downtown, with a view toward consolidating core functions currently scattered across multiple leased and owned buildings into a revitalized municipal campus. This section addresses the siting, acquisition, colocation, programming, design, and construction of community facilities downtown and in the new and emerging urban centers. In a time of increased competition for land, financial, energy, and water resources, Raleigh’s future viability and quality of life depend on aligning the planning processes of municipal departments and partners, and strategic use of land for siting capital improvement projects. <
> In the 2008 Community Inventory Report, the following issues were identified that this Section intended to address: * *Municipal departments and their current and potential partners often work independent of a collaborative process when forecasting land acquisition for siting facilities.* * *Demographic and growth projections are derived from a variety of sources and not aligned.* * *The Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program are viewed as unrelated processes. There is a need to align both documents and better set priorities for capital improvements projects.* * *No mechanisms exist to articulate levels of service that determine the adequacy of police, fire protection, and emergency services to meet community needs.* * *Projects often lack the benefit of feedback from the development services review team, which results in adverse fiscal, timeline, operations, and maintenance implications.* As of the Comprehensive Plan Update prepared in 2016, substantial progress had been made on each of these: * *Real Estate Services has been moved under the City Planning Department, to provide a more strategic and collaborative approach to property acquisition.* * *All major facilities and infrastructure systems are now planned using a common set of spatial growth projections, developed in conjunction with CAMPO and TJ-COG.* * *The Comprehensive Plan has been incorporated into the review and prioritization process for capital improvement projects classified as General Public Improvements, and the city’s Strategic Plan calls for further integration.* * *The city’s public safety agencies have refined their level of service methodologies.* * *The creation of a Development Services Department has streamlined and improved the development review process for both private and public projects, and improved review procedures for city and county projects (including schools) have been put in place.* More information on these issues can be found in Chapter 10 of the Community Inventory Report, available at www.RaleighNC.gov. For information on community centers and athletic facilities, see Section 8: ‘Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.’ As described in *Section 2: ‘Framework,’* Raleigh’s Vision for 2030 is structured to address these community facilities and service issues through five of the six vision themes or citywide goals. The Community Facilities and Services Section will allow the city to meet these goals in numerous ways. Community Facilities and Services Relative to *Economic Prosperity and Equity*, clustering and co-locating community facilities and services is cost effective and creates conditions for economic development, including new business and job growth. Residents reap the benefits from a broader tax base, easy access to services, and reduced travel times. Social equity is reinforced as internal and external communication is improved and more residents can access the services they need. For *Managing Our Growth*, service needs will grow proportionate with Raleigh’s population. The city must have the ability to maintain high service levels, at the same time reducing operation and maintenance costs. Clustering and co-locating facilities and services can be a means to sustain service levels as the city strives to lower costs. Aligning long-range construction and service plans with the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map, and growth and demographic projections will enable the city to effectively address service needs and cost goals in the Capital Improvement Program. For *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*, more than two-thirds of the nation’s petroleum consumption is for transportation, and that includes the delivery of municipal services. Better coordination between transportation and land use will allow Raleigh to plan more effectively for public services, while reducing its energy consumption. The city will save by distributing operational locations around the city, resulting in shorter deployment distances for employees who provide services to Raleigh residents and business owners. For *Greenprint Raleigh*, the protection and wise use of resources will be one of the key building blocks for a sustainable future. Several priorities have already set the stage. By applying LEED certification and other sustainable practices to the siting, design, and construction of Community Facilities, the city’s natural and environmental resources will be conserved and the goals of energy and water conservation advanced. For *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*, community services and facilities are often viewed as anchors and stabilizing forces in urban neighborhoods. Building on the concept of clustering and co-location, community facilities—along with shopping, business, recreational and office services, and open space—will create focal points for success. Urban centers and their surrounding neighborhoods and communities can become destinations. The inclusion of public art can make them distinctive, all of which will contribute to livability, sense of place, and identity. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: * Economic Prosperity and Equity. * Expanding Housing Choices. * Managing Our Growth. * Coordinating Land Use and Transportation. * Greenprint Raleigh. * Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # 10.1 Community Facilities and Services Raleigh needs to optimize limited resources, reduce costs, and secure the capacity to support continued growth and prosperity. Sustainability is the organizing principle that city departments will use as they evaluate new construction and renovations to city-owned property. The city’s sustainability policies and procedures will create an action plan for Raleigh’s future viability. Recognizing the growth of broad energy efficiency initiatives across the United States and globally, the city will utilize these tools to benchmark development practices, construction management, and facilities management and maintenance. *See also Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection’ for additional policies on environmental sustainability.* Key drivers in the city’s community facilities efforts are: * *Office of Sustainability.* * *Budget and Management Services Department.* * *Department of City Planning.* * *Construction Management Division of the Public Works Department.* * *Facilities and Operations Division of the Parks and Recreation Department.* The Office of Sustainability develops programs, projects, and ideas for reducing the city’s environmental impact. The Office provides guidance for community facilities in areas, such as energy efficiency, mobility, and waste management. The Budget and Management Services Department coordinates the development of the City Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program. <
> The Department of City Planning provides real estate services related to the acquisition of real property for city purposes. Construction Management within Engineering services manages capital building and general improvement projects for the city through conceptual planning and budgeting, site evaluation and acquisition, consultant evaluation and selection, project development and design, selection of construction delivery systems, awarding and administering contracts, and constructing improvements. Facilities and Operations, also within Engineering Services, oversees a portion of the Capital Improvement Program and general improvement funding for projects that improve and maintain existing city facilities, including police, public works, solid waste, and downtown commercial facilities. Sustainable efforts are incorporated into the life cycle replacement of these systems. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources manages and maintains community centers and several city-owned historic resources, including the Pope House and the Mordecai Historic Park. Likewise, other municipal departments responsible for community facilities and services are changing their business model from one founded on seemingly abundant land and energy resources to one structured to be sustainable in an environment of decreasing resources. The Office of Sustainability, along with guidance provided in the Strategic Plan’s Growth and Natural Resources chapter, are helping departments work collaboratively to align their growth projections, needs, studies, siting, acquisition, design, programming, construction, and maintenance. The city also will need to expand current collaborative efforts with the county, state, and regional partners. Informed by an agreed-upon sustainable development action plan, the City of Raleigh will base activities on the following policies and actions. ### Policy CS 1.1 Community Services in Urban Centers Use the Future Land Use Map to ensure all new and emerging urban centers are connected by transit corridors and supported appropriately with fire, police, and other community facilities and services. <
> ### Policy CS 1.2 Responding to Demographic Change Consider anticipated demographic changes and the importance of aging in place in all land use, transportation, and community service planning and decisions. <
> ### Policy CS 1.3 Land Reservation for Community Facilities During development and redevelopment, sufficient land areas should be retained for future schools, parks, greenways, streets, fire and police stations, and other public purposes and essential services. <
> ### Policy CS 1.4 Equitable Facility Distribution Provide equitable facilities and services to all of Raleigh’s neighborhoods. <
> ### Policy CS 1.5 Adequacy of Community Facilities Plan for community facilities that are adequate to provide residents with the activities, programs, and services—including choices for passive and active pursuits—necessary to maintain a high quality of life. <
> *See also ‘8.2 Park System and Land Acquisition’ in Section 8: ‘Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.’* ### Policy CS 1.6 Transit Accessibility of Community Facilities Concentrate community facilities in transit accessible areas and walkable communities to increase access to and delivery of services. <
> ### Policy CS 1.7 Equitable Facility Distribution Ensure that community centers, senior centers, libraries, schools, and other community facilities are sited equitably across Raleigh and are accessible to those requiring adaptive services. <
> ### Policy CS 1.8 Community Facilities as Centers Use recreation centers, senior centers, schools, and libraries as a means of enhancing and strengthening a neighborhood’s sense of community. <
> ### Policy CS 1.9 Co-location Co-locate community facilities and services when and where feasible to provide residents and businesses with easily accessible and convenient city services and to encourage the efficient use of land and resources. <
> ### Policy CS 1.10 Alignment of Growth Projections Align long-range construction and service plans with the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map, and growth and demographic projections to develop a Capital Improvement Program to meet future needs. <
> ### Policy CS 1.11 Joint-service Space Provide space for joint services with other municipal, county, and state entities when feasible. <
> ### Policy CS 1.12 Operations and Maintenance Staffing Maintain adequate community facility maintenance and management operations and staff as land is acquired and sites are developed. <
> ### Action CS 1.1 Land Demand Projections Develop and maintain 20-year projections for the land needs for each city department. ### Action CS 1.2 Sustainable and Resilient Development Plan Develop a sustainable and resilient development action plan for community facilities. ### Action CS 1.3 Land Acquisition Purchase land in the short-term for long-term construction of community facilities (i.e. land bank). ### Action CS 1.4 Completed 2011 ### Action CS 1.5 Removed 2019 ### Action CS 1.6 Retrofit Municipal Buildings Retrofit current municipal buildings using the agreed-upon sustainable development plan. ### Action CS 1.7 Shared Space Investigate joint agreements between city departments to maximize space and share costs. # 10.2 Solid Waste Raleigh’s solid waste stream consists of household refuse destined for landfills, recyclables collected and sorted separately, and yard waste, such as leaves and trimmings that are prohibited from landfills. All three are collected curbside within the city limits. Debris generated through construction and demolition is also a significant part of the waste stream, representing nearly 32 percent of waste countywide. In 2011, the City of Raleigh generated over 130,000 tons of solid waste, of which only 19 percent, or about 25,000 tons, was recycled. The city also collected and processed over 26,000 tons of yard waste, which was ground for mulch at the city’s yard waste processing facility. Municipal solid waste generated in Wake County, which totaled about 630,000 tons in 2011, is collected at five transfer stations. About 68 percent is disposed at the county’s only municipal waste landfill, with the remainder destined for out-of-county and even out-of-state landfills. The Southwest/Holly Springs (Southern Wake) landfill opened in January 2008 and the Northern Wake Landfill closed in May of the same year. Trends indicate that in the future the county may eventually rely on privately-owned and -operated landfills for municipal waste disposal. In order to reduce the city’s environmental and financial impact generated from its waste stream, a Waste Reduction Task Force identifies waste reduction goals and strategies that consider issues of social, fiscal, and environmental impacts. The policies below are designed to decrease the overall amount of waste generated and to divert as much of the remaining waste stream away from landfill as is practicable. These policies also reflect and incorporate the vision and goals articulated in the 2006 – 2016 Wake County Solid Waste Management Plan. *See also Section 14: ‘Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination’ and Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection’ for related policies on solid waste.* ### Policy CS 2.1 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Provide an adequate and cost-effective solid waste collection and disposal system that includes recycling, land reclamation, and re-use of waste materials. <
> ### Policy CS 2.2 Completeness of Solid Waste Services Ensure that solid waste management and recycling collection services are made available to all solid waste generators. <
> ### Policy CS 2.3 Waste Reduction Target Reduce, re-use, recycle, and recover beneficial end-products of municipal solid waste to the maximum extent practicable, with the overall objective of achieving or surpassing the state’s waste reduction goal of 40 percent by 2016 as measured against a baseline of fiscal year 1988 – 89. <
> ### Policy CS 2.4 Expanding Recycling Programs Continue to add new types of waste items to the recycling program as recycling technology evolves and markets for recycled materials develop. Zero waste will be the long-term goal of the city. <
> ### Policy CS 2.5 E-waste Disposal Continue solid waste management programs, including computer and other electronic equipment recycling, the Charge Up to Recycle program, ink jet and toner cartridge recycling, and the Solid Waste Services Department Swap Shop. <
> <
> ### Policy CS 2.6 Safe Waste Handling Properly manage waste requiring special handling, including hazardous materials. <
> ### Policy CS 2.7 Land Clearing and Inert Debris Landfills Ensure that land clearing and inert debris (LCID) landfills that operate in Raleigh comply with applicable rules and regulations. <
> <
> ### Policy CS 2.8 Funding of Waste Management Pursue a fair and equitable funding system to cover current and future costs associated with the programs and services needed to meet adopted solid waste reduction and management goals. <
> <
> ### Policy CS 2.9 Waste-to-energy Pursue opportunities to utilize landfills and the waste stream as a source of energy; potential examples could include technologies, such as landfill gas capture and combustion, thermal depolymerization, and the Day Cycle (incineration of waste in electric plasma furnaces at temperatures over 15,000 degrees Celsius, with excess heat used to generate electricity). <
> <
> <
> ### Policy CS 2.10 Agency Coordination in Waste Management Encourage cross-agency collaboration in managing solid waste, including participation in Development Plans Review Group site plan meetings and similar. <
> <
> <
> Community Facilities and Services ### Action CS 2.1 Enterprise Resource Planning and Solid Waste Build into Solid Waste Service’s billing system the flexibility needed to implement the accounting and cost recovery practices identified in the Plan policies and systems/processes/controls to determine the true cost of each service. --- ### Action CS 2.2 Full-cost Accounting for Waste Management Utilize full-cost accounting practices for identifying and monitoring all solid waste management program costs. --- ### Action CS 2.3 Mandatory Recycling Explore implementing a mandatory recycling program by 2021, consistent with the 10-year Solid Waste Plan. --- ### Action CS 2.4 Solid Waste Monitoring Establish program measures and an evaluation system to monitor progress toward attaining local solid waste management goals, including waste reduction rates. --- ### Action CS 2.5 Alternative Waste Disposal Techniques Study economically viable opportunities for disposal alternatives that arise in the future, including opportunities involving regional cooperation. --- ### Action CS 2.6 Solid Waste Services and Design Standards Develop and adopt regulations that establish Design Standards to accommodate Solid Waste Services operations. --- ### Action CS 2.7 Regulations for Recyclables Storage Update the site plan regulations to include mandatory accommodations for recycling in all new public and private developments (assuming inclusion in CP-1-16). --- ### Action CS 2.8 Removed 2015 --- # 10.3 Public Safety The Police Department works in partnership with the community to identify and address conditions that may contribute to crime. The department employs an approach to policing that emphasizes prevention and enforcement. Under the District Policing System, officers are becoming more involved with, and more closely linked to, the citizens they serve and protect. The department is committed to building its capacity to meet the challenges of a growing population. In addition to the Police Department’s efforts, the city can promote public safety through regulations that promote safe and comfortable built environments, incorporating Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques. #### Policy CS 3.1 Planning for Adequate Police Stations Plan and provide for police stations and supporting facilities adequate to protect the health and safety of Raleigh’s current and future citizenry and business population, and to support Police Department level of service policies. #### Policy CS 3.2 City Ownership of Police Stations Police stations should be city-owned facilities providing a civic presence and appropriately designed for police functions, rather than rented space. #### Policy CS 3.3 Co-location of Police and Non-police Facilities Co-locate police stations, training facilities, and administrative offices when feasible. In addition, consider co-locating with other community facility services, including sharing a common lobby. #### Policy CS 3.4 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Encourage use of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) program standards as one of many tools to improve environments and deter crime. ### CPTED Strategies The Four Strategies of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design are: 1. *Natural Surveillance: A design concept directed primarily at keeping intruders easily observable.* 2. *Territorial Reinforcement: Physical design can create or extend a sphere of influence.* 3. *Natural Access Control: A design concept directed primarily at decreasing crime opportunity by denying access to crime targets and creating in offenders a perception of risk.* 4. *Target Hardening: Accomplished by features that prohibit entry or access: window locks, dead bolts for doors, and interior door hinges.* The City of Raleigh supports the national CPTED program and encourages implementation of its recommendations in facilities siting, design, and construction activities. *Source: CPTED Watch* Community Facilities and Services ### Action CS 3.1 Completed 2014 *** ### Action CS 3.2 Completed 2014 *** ### Action CS 3.3 Completed 2014 *** ### Action CS 3.4 Completed 2014 *** ### Action CS 3.5 Completed 2022 *** ### Action CS 3.6 Completed 2022 *** ### Action CS 3.7 Field Operation Units Continue to plan and operate field operation units in combination with other public facilities. These sites are generally located in the northwest, northeast, southeast, and southwest portions of the Raleigh metropolitan area and are typically part of outlying Municipal Service Centers. *** # 10.4 Fire and Emergency Response The Fire Department protects life and property by providing fire prevention, fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical services, hazardous materials response, and life safety education for residents of the City of Raleigh. Construction plans reflect the department’s core response time mandate. The department maintains an ISO Class III Fire Protection rating. The purpose of the Insurance Service Organization is to give insurance companies a uniform system on which to base their premiums. The ISO uses a consistent set of guidelines to evaluate a fire department, including the number of personnel on duty, training, level of personnel (paid or volunteer), the amount of water the fire department can get to a fire, and the amount and quality of equipment used, such as fire engines and hand tools. Only 3.6 percent of fire departments in the nation are an ISO Class III. The Fire Department also follows standards established by the National Fire Protection Association to strategize the location of fire stations. The location strategy incorporates the department’s design and construction commitment to environmental initiatives to capitalize on solar energy and water re-use, adhering to the city’s sustainability policies and procedures. Raleigh’s Office of Emergency Management seeks to improve resiliency by strengthening the city’s emergency and disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. The office coordinates disaster planning efforts, maintains response plans, handles information flow during events, and works with other jurisdictions at multiple levels. The office assists in implementing the Wake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which the city developed with other Wake County local governments. The plan focuses on decreasing the city’s vulnerability through actions that include upgrading hazard response, reducing the potential effect of hazards, and protecting “the most vulnerable populations, buildings, and critical facilities.” A key component of the city’s emergency response initiatives is the use of community facilities as disaster-response centers. Resilience to natural and man-made disasters and emergencies can be accomplished in part by guaranteeing that all of the city’s residents can access quickly and safely city-managed facilities that can provide shelter, water, food, and information in times of emergency. ### Policy CS 4.1 Fire and Emergency Response Facilities Plan and provide for fire and emergency facilities adequate to protect the health, life, livelihood, and property of Raleigh’s current and future citizenry and business. <
> ### Policy CS 4.2 Ancillary Fire Protection Facilities Provide facilities equipped to meet the operation needs of the Fire Department, including training and fire equipment service and repair. <
> ### Policy CS 4.3 Fire Protection Service Standards Adhere to standards established by the ISO and the National Fire Protection Association. Maintain the ISO Class III Fire Protection Rating. <
> <
> ### Policy CS 4.4 Response Time Standards Maintain standards in response time/coverage for fire calls and emergency medical response calls as outlined in the National Fire Protection Association 1710 (standard for the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special operations): one minute from 911 call to wheels rolling and four minutes total response time. ### Policy CS 4.5 Resilient Community Facilities Ensure that all city residents can quickly and safely access community facilities in times of disaster. Provide shelter, food, water, and information when necessary. ### Policy CS 4.6 Vulnerable Populations Explicitly take into account the needs of vulnerable populations and neighborhoods in the emergency management planning process. These include areas and populations that face particular difficulties during and after disasters or emergencies due to economic status, lack of access to resources, lack of community institutions, geographical barriers, or similar issues. ### Action CS 4.1 Measuring Level of Service Develop a mechanism to identify levels of service to determine the capacity of police, fire protection, and emergency services to meet community needs. ## 10.5 Health and Human Services While the City of Raleigh does not provide health and human services directly, the city does influence the actions of private sector health care providers (including the three major hospital systems: WakeMed, Rex, and Duke Healthcare) through zoning and development review. The City of Raleigh partners with the county in working to address human service needs, including childcare and elder care. Moreover, the city’s plans and ordinances must keep current as new types of service delivery evolve—an example is continuing care retirement communities—which did not exist 20 years ago. The following policies seek to facilitate the provision of these vital services. In addition to traditional health and human services facilities, the city recognizes the role of environmental planning and design in forming a comprehensive preventative health care vision. Planning policies that encourage mobile, mixed-use communities improve access to health care for those without access to automobiles and transit. Additionally such policies promote active transportation behaviors and access to recreational facilities, which are a key component of a healthy lifestyle. An additional area in which the city encourages healthy communities is through expanding healthy food options for Raleigh’s residents. This section contains policy guidance for expanding such options for Raleigh’s residents, particularly underserved communities. ### Policy CS 5.1 Best Practices in Health Care Work with private and public institutions, Wake County, and non-profits to ensure medical and health facilities adhere to best practices. <
> ### Policy CS 5.2 Supportive Services Provide supportive services and facilities to Raleigh’s families, elderly, special needs, and others in need of adaptive services that contribute to their quality of life. <
> ### Policy CS 5.3 Access to Health Care Support the siting of health care facilities and services in appropriate and accessible locations. <
> ### Policy CS 5.4 Publicity of Social and Health Programs Improve the effectiveness of communication methods used to publicize social and health programs. Maximize participation of and support for low-income residents. <
> ### Policy CS 5.5 Transit Access to Health and Human Services Promote transit accessibility for health and human services facilities. <
> ### Policy CS 5.6 Childcare Facilities Plan and provide for childcare facilities adequate to meet the needs of Raleigh families. <
> ### Policy CS 5.7 Elder Care Facilities Plan and provide for elder care facilities adequate to meet the needs of Raleigh’s aging population. <
> ### Policy CS 5.8 Active Transportation and Healthy Communities Promote active transportation in existing and new communities as a preventative health care measure. <
> ### Policy CS 5.9 Recreational Facilities and Healthy Communities Ensure that each of Raleigh’s communities has ample access to recreational facilities, which are a key component of a preventative health care model. <
> ### Policy CS 5.10 Healthy Food Options Promote access to healthy food options, including farmers markets and grocery stories, particularly in areas that lack sufficient access to fresh fruits and vegetables. <
> ### Action CS 5.1 Completed 2013 section 11 # Urban Design 11.1 Raleigh’s Identity ............................................................................ 11-8 11.2 Design of Mixed-use Developments............................................... 11-12 11.3 Appearance and Function of Raleigh’s Corridors.......... 11-14 11.4 Creating Inviting Public Spaces...................................................... 11-16 11.5 Designing Successful Neighborhoods............................................ 11-18 11.6 Active Mobility................................................................................ 11-20 11.7 Design Guidelines .......................................................................... 11-22 11.8 Transit-supportive Design............................................................... 11-34 Urban Design <
> <
> <
> Good design ensures attractive, usable, durable, and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is integral to good planning. Urban design influences the physical form of the city and how residents experience public spaces such as streets, parks, plazas, or squares. The policies and actions of municipal government and the motivation of private developers largely determine the physical form of the city. While individual buildings may be attractive in themselves, there are numerous other design elements that contribute to the organization of a space including architectural design, building placement, height, scale, open space, transportation rights-of-way, and infrastructure. The cumulative interaction of these design elements and adjacent buildings in organizing public space is vital for achieving an environment that supports and promotes social interaction. Raleigh has many of the physical components that contribute to a successful and vibrant city, but it continues to grapple with issues of walkability, bikeability, and identity. The transit network planned for Raleigh’s future will be the principal driver of change in the urban form and function of the city. Its effects will be most apparent around proposed rail and bus rapid transit stations, where high-density, mixed-use development will be required by the city. With the transit station as the focal point, additional design considerations that promote walking and cycling, such as small block lengths, wide sidewalks, mid-block crossings, retail and restaurant uses on the ground floor, and parking garages with wrap-around retail, will be encouraged. # Frontage and Urban Design Frontage refers to the approach a commercial, mixed-use or multifamily development takes towards the street. The parameters of frontage include the placement of the building on the site, the location of primary entrances, landscaping provided along the front of the property, and the location of parking. Frontage is a fundamental urban design attribute, as it governs the relationship between private investment on private land and the public investment in the public realm. The suburban approach to frontage, seen throughout Raleigh, emphasizes streetyard landscaping and, for retail, an abundance of front door parking. In urban settings where land is scarce and pedestrians abundant, buildings are often located at or near the front property line(s) and the quality of the frontage depends more on architecture than landscaping. A hybrid approach to frontage combines allowance for front door parking with smaller setbacks and quality pedestrian connections. As Raleigh continues to develop and redevelop, a more urban and pedestrian-friendly approach to frontage is desired, consistent with the movement towards multimodal transportation solutions. While pedestrian-friendly designs are always welcomed, not all sites are appropriate for an urban approach to frontage. An Urban Form Map provides guidance as to when frontage should be directly shaped by zoning. The map is based upon the following principles: * *Urban frontage should be used in urban locations, such as downtown, and transit-oriented districts (TOD), to create streetwalls and a pedestrian-oriented environment. In these contexts, vehicular access and front door parking is accommodated on-street. Off-street parking is located at the sides or rear of buildings, but never between the building and the street.* * *Hybrid frontage should be used in intensifying suburban areas, particularly where multimodal investments are programmed to occur, and where on-street parking is not an option for front-door access. In such areas urban frontage, if used at all, would be confined to side or interior streets where on-street parking is an option. Elsewhere, off-street front door parking would be available but limited in depth so that pedestrian connections remain convenient and direct.* * *Suburban frontage is an acceptable solution where densities are low and multimodal access is not anticipated to be significant within the time horizon of the plan, or where other frontage approaches are not feasible or practical. While pedestrian access and circulation must still be accommodated, prescriptive standards for building location are not required, and front door parking is an acceptable design solution.* # Urban Form Map The Urban Form Map is composed of centers and corridors. A frontage is recommended where either of these designations are shown. In these areas, frontage standards would be applied either through the rezoning petition process, referencing Comprehensive Plan policies, or through future area plans. The Urban Form map draws from a variety of sources: Area Plans and Area Specific Guidance, the Downtown Section of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning map, policy guidance found elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Framework Map, planned transit and streetscape investments, the presence of curb parking, and in some cases areas recognized for their distinctive character. It is anticipated that the Urban Form Map will evolve and gain specificity with the completion of additional transit plans, as well as more area studies for specific centers and corridors. The following text describes the centers and corridors that appear on the Urban Form Map. These areas include only a minority of property frontage in the city. Outside of these areas, frontages will comply with general ordinance requirements. When an area is designated as being part of two or more centers or corridors, guidance from the more urban of the overlapping designations should prevail. # Centers * ***Downtown:*** *The Downtown Section boundaries define the downtown. An urban approach to frontage is recommended throughout Downtown, and the Downtown Section provides specific guidance.* * ***City Growth:*** *These designations are where significant infill development and redevelopment are anticipated in the future. While an urban and/ or hybrid approach to frontage is recommended to encourage walkability, built conditions and site constraints may require alternative approaches. Some City Growth Centers are subject to area plans that may provide frontage guidance.* * ***Bus Rapid Transit Areas:*** *These areas are within a quarter-mile of planned BRT routes. An urban frontage is recommended in these areas to encourage walkability to the greatest extent possible.* * ***Mixed-use Centers:*** *Ranging from small neighborhood retail nodes to larger mixed-use areas, this category captures special areas where a more walkable and mixed-use development pattern is desired. Some of these correspond to centers with an adopted area plan, some are established centers such as the Five Points business district, and others are activity nodes located along Transit Emphasis Corridors (see next page). As additional corridor and area plans are completed, more such centers will appear on the Map.* * ***Frequent Transit Areas:*** *This designation refers to areas within a half mile of corridors proposed for bus rapid transit or within a quarter-mile of other frequent transit routes, defined as transit with schedule waits of 15 minutes or less during peak hours. An urban frontage is recommended.* Urban Design ## Corridors * ***Main Streets:*** *This designation applies to traditional, pedestrian commercial streets, both existing (e.g. Hillsborough Street) and proposed as part of an area plan (e.g. parts of Oberlin Road). An urban frontage approach is recommended.* * ***Transit Emphasis Corridors:*** *These corridors are identified in the GoRaleigh 2040 Bus Development Plan or Wake County Transit Plan and programmed for a much higher level of bus service, including frequent buses, improved stop amenities, a more complete pedestrian network, and potentially traffic signal priority for transit. As these corridors often follow major streets, a hybrid approach to frontage is recommended.* * ***Urban Thoroughfares:*** *These areas are planned or programmed for public investments such as bike lanes and/or pedestrian-oriented streetscapes that encourage multiple modes. An urban or hybrid frontage approach is recommended, based on context.* * ***Parkway Corridors:*** *These are corridors where multimodal access is not emphasized, and a heavily landscaped approach to street frontage is either called for in adopted plans, or represents the prevailing character of the area. A suburban approach to frontage is recommended.* <
> <
> <
> Urban Design # Map UD-1: Urban Form <
> | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 🔵 | Raleigh Union Station | ⬜ | Transit Station Area | | 🟢 | GoRaleigh Bus Station | ░ | Frequent Transit Area | | ── | Main Street | 🟪 | Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Area | | ── | Urban Thoroughfare | 🟩 | Mixed-Use Center | | ── | Transit Emphasis Corridor | 🟥 | City Growth Center | | ── | Parkway Corridor | 🟥 | Downtown | | ── | Commuter Rail Corridor | | | Map created 4/1/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development ## Primary Urban Design Issues The Urban Design Section provides broad recommendations to address some of the primary issues that the city needs to focus on: * *Need for quality architecture to define the public realm and road network.* * *Need for connected and usable pedestrian and cycling circulation systems throughout the city.* * *Visual clutter and the lack of an urban identity along Raleigh’s major streets.* * *Need for connectivity between individual sites.* * *Commercial site design with large parking lots separating business uses from the street.* * *Design needs of alternate travel modes such as transit, bicycle and walking.* * *Transit accommodation, such as bus shelters, benches, trash receptacles and landscaping. Raleigh should design a standard style for these elements to create a unique brand identity for the city.* * *Obsolete provisions within the zoning code.* * *Design guidelines that do not meet the requirements or provide adequate direction for higher-density, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented urban development.* In addressing these issues and embracing the principal tenets of urban design and placemaking— such as creating compact and walkable neighborhoods with distinctive focal points, a mix of land uses with access to transit, and shared public spaces that are the center of community activity— Raleigh will be fulfilling all six of its vision themes. Distinct neighborhoods with civic centers and complete streets will help achieve the theme *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*. Coordinating new mixed-use development with the transportation and transit network will ease the burden of congestion on city streets, contributing to the vision themes of *Managing Our Growth* and *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*. Encouraging diverse and varied neighborhoods will advance the goal of *Expanding Housing Choices*. This will also improve the variety of jobs available, and will help achieve *Economic Prosperity and Equity*. Finally, focusing on creating mixed-use neighborhoods will reduce the dependency on fossil fuels by reducing travel demand. It will also eliminate the need for extending infrastructure networks further from the center of the city, helping to preserve valuable land and natural resources. Ensuring that new buildings are energy-efficient will also go a long way towards fulfilling the vision theme of *Greenprint Raleigh*. *For more information about the underlying issues and existing urban design conditions, please consult the City of Raleigh Community Inventory Report, the companion background data volume for the Comprehensive Plan, available at www. RaleighNC.gov. For more information about complete streets, refer to ‘4.3 Complete Streets: Hierarchy and Design’ in Section 4: ‘Transportation.’* To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity <
> Expanding Housing Choices <
> Managing Our Growth <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation <
> Greenprint Raleigh <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (<
>). <
> # 11.1 Raleigh’s Identity A more memorable identity for Raleigh will be created in the future by enhancing the aesthetic qualities of Raleigh’s corridors with a high-quality built environment, greenway network, and preserving its natural landscapes and scenic resources. Downtown Raleigh’s seven local historic districts – Blount Street, Boylan Heights, Capitol Square, Moore Square, Oakwood, Price Hall and Glenwood Brooklyn – represent unique residential, commercial, and institutional districts. East-Raleigh – South Park, one of downtown Raleigh’s national historic districts, also contributes to Raleigh’s unique sense of place. This national historic district contains many residential buildings that provide integrity to downtown. It offers a window into the architectural heritage of the city’s residential development. Outside of downtown, many stable residential neighborhoods still exist along streets such as Halifax, New Bern, and Hillsborough, with streetside planting areas and sidewalks on the axial streets. Buildings and their entrances are oriented toward the sidewalk and formal architectural elements organize the public street spaces. Early suburbs such as Cameron Park and Glenwood/Brooklyn also have very distinctive characteristics that are worth preserving and could help in establishing Raleigh’s identity. Suburban residential areas are the core residential neighborhoods of the city, and additional attention to their desired form and density is required to distinguish them as Raleigh neighborhoods. In addition to Raleigh’s established identity, the city’s rapid growth translates into new demands and opportunities to form new identities. Dense, mixed-use development is altering the form and character of areas such as Downtown, Hillsborough Street, North Hills, and Glenwood Avenue. Strong urban design policies and guidelines will help Raleigh form a unique contemporary identity. *See also Section 3: ‘Land Use’ for policies related to land use or mixed-uses.* ### Policy UD 1.1 Protecting Neighborhood Identity Use Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (NCOD), Historic Overlay Districts (HOD), or rezonings to retain the character of Raleigh’s existing neighborhoods and strengthen the sense of visual order and stability. <
> ### Policy UD 1.2 Architectural Features * Quality architecture should anchor and define the public realm. Elements of quality architecture include architectural accents and features conducive to pedestrian scale and usage, such as a distinct base, middle, and top (for high-rise buildings); vertical and horizontal articulation; rooflines that highlight entrances; primary entrances on the front façade; transparent storefront windows and activated uses on the ground floor; and corner buildings with defining landmark features. *See also Section ‘11.7: Design Guidelines’ for additional policies and actions.* ### Policy UD 1.3 Creating Attractive Facades * Well-designed and articulated building facades, storefront windows, and attractive signage and lighting should be used to create visual interest. Monolithic or box-like facades should be avoided to promote the human quality of the street. *See also ‘5.8 Light and Noise Pollution Controls.’* ### Policy UD 1.4 Maintaining Façade Lines * Maintain the established building edge of neighborhood streets by aligning the front façade of new construction with the prevailing facades of adjacent buildings, unless doing so results in substandard sidewalks. Avoid violating this pattern by placing new construction in front of the historic façade line unless the streetscape is already characterized by such variations. Where existing façades are characterized by recurring placement of windows and doors, new construction should complement the established rhythm. ### Policy UD 1.5 Pedestrian Wayfinding Support the creation of a unified and comprehensive system of pedestrian wayfinding signs, kiosks, and other environmental graphics to provide directions to the pedestrian. ### Policy UD 1.6 City Gateways Create more distinctive and memorable gateways at points of entry to the city, and points of entry to individual neighborhoods and neighborhood centers. Gateways should provide a sense of transition and arrival, and should be designed to make a strong and positive visual impact. <
> ### Policy UD 1.7 Scenic Corridors Retain and enhance our visual and natural assets including vistas, boulevard medians, tree-lined streets, forested hillsides, wetlands, and creeks along scenic corridors into and through Raleigh, including designated Parkway Corridors on the Urban Form Map. ### Policy UD 1.8 Tree Planting and Preservation Enhance Raleigh’s image as a city of trees with a comprehensive tree planting program for every major roadway, and by protecting and preserving significant stands of existing trees along or adjacent to major roadways. *See also ‘5.5: Tree Canopy Conservation and Growth’ in Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection.’* ### Policy UD 1.9 Skyline Views Views of the evolving downtown skyline from downtown gateway corridors should be preserved. Public and private investments should take advantage of opportunities to create new skyline views. ### Policy UD 1.10 Frontage Coordinate frontage across multiple sites to create cohesive places. Encourage consistency with the designations on the Urban Form Map. Development in centers and along corridors targeted for public investment in transit and walkability should use a compatible urban form. *See Text Box: Urban Form Map* ### Policy UD 1.11 Falls of Neuse Corridor Maintain and protect the character of the Falls of Neuse corridor adjacent to the Falls Lake watershed north of Durant Road by preserving the extensive roadside vegetation, the Falls Lake dam, and Falls Community. ### Policy UD 1.12 Removed 2019 ### Policy UD 1.13 Ecological Identity Promote and enhance ecological function in the design of private and public developments. Incorporate climate- and water-sensitive design features that support ecological health for plants, animals, and soils, as well as the city’s residents. ### Policy UD 1.14 Community Identity Raleigh’s diversity is reflected in a range of architectural and landscape design traditions and styles. Public and private development should be consistent with and incorporate the aesthetic identities of the surrounding populations, including, but not limited to, neighborhood branding and wayfinding. Urban Design <
> ### Action UD 1.1 Wayfinding Improvements Coordinate wayfinding strategies for mixed-use areas in the City to enhance identity and wayfinding while implementing new city branding. *** ### Action UD 1.2 Converted to Policy 2016 *** ### Action UD 1.3 Converted to Policy 2016 *** ### Action UD 1.4 Gateway Design in Focus Areas Develop special gateway design features for focus areas such as the three crossings of the Neuse River: Capital Boulevard, Louisburg Road, and New Bern Avenue. *** ### Action UD 1.5 Moved 2019 *** ### Action UD 1.6 Using Zoning to Achieve Design Goals Explore zoning techniques to promote excellence in the design of new buildings and public spaces. *** # 11.2 Design of Mixed-use Developments Walkable mixed-use developments are critical to the future of Raleigh and cities around the world. They are efficient in terms of land use and urban service delivery. They encourage the use of mass transit and help in the preservation of open space. They create active and vibrant urban spaces. By encouraging new mixed-use neighborhoods to also be mixed-income neighborhoods, the city can ensure that low- and moderate-income residents have equal access to all the advantages and opportunities of urban living. Good urban design helps promote and implement the ideals of mixed-use neighborhoods. Residential uses should be connected to retail uses and transit through safe and attractive sidewalks that are universally accessible. Shared open spaces should be welcoming, well-lit, and equipped to serve a diverse group of users. Transit stops should function efficiently and protect riders from the elements during all seasons. *See also Section 3: ‘Land Use’ for additional policies related to mixed-use and land use and transportation coordination.* ### Policy UD 2.1 Building Orientation * Buildings in mixed-use developments should be oriented along streets, plazas, and pedestrian ways. Their facades should create an active and engaging public realm. ### Policy UD 2.2 Multi-modal Design * Mixed-use developments should accommodate all modes of transportation to the greatest extent possible. <
> ### Policy UD 2.3 Activating the Street * New retail and mixed-use centers should activate the pedestrian environment of the street frontage in addition to internal pedestrian networks and connections, particularly along designated Main Street corridors. ### Policy UD 2.4 Transitions in Building Identity * Establish gradual transitions between large scale and small-scale development. The relationship can be improved by designing larger buildings to reduce their apparent size and recessing the upper floors of the building to relate to the lower scale of the adjacent properties planned for lower density. *See also ‘3.5: Land Use Compatibility’ in Section 3: ‘Land Use’ for additional policies and actions related to transitions.* ### Policy UD 2.5 Greenway Access * Safe and clearly marked access points to the city’s greenway system should be provided in new and existing mixed-use centers where feasible. Urban Design <
> ### Policy UD 2.6 Removed 2019 *** ### Policy UD 2.7 Public Open Space Usable and well-appointed urban public open space should be provided within mixed-use centers to serve as focal points and community gathering spots. <
> ### Policy UD 2.8 Open Space in Large Mixed-use Developments Large mixed-use developments should include a range of open spaces, from small parklets, to pocket parks, squares, and larger active and passive recreation areas. These spaces should serve the immediate and surrounding communities. <
> *** ### Action UD 2.1 Completed 2013 *** ### Action UD 2.2 Completed 2013 *** # 11.3 Appearance and Function of Raleigh’s Corridors The appearance of Raleigh’s commercial corridors, especially U.S. 1, New Bern, U.S. 70, Hillsborough, and South Saunders, has been detrimental to the city’s image and are unbefitting of entry points into a capital city. As primary entry corridors for visitors to the city, it is essential that these roadways convey a positive impression. There is also a need to mitigate air and noise pollution. The creation of boulevards with landscaped medians, street trees, and sidewalks will greatly improve the appearance of Raleigh’s corridors, mitigate air and noise pollution, and address the needs of pedestrians and transit users. Raleigh’s existing streets must be retrofit to accommodate the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages and abilities. Corridor Studies are the primary tool the city employs in directing and regulating the design and development of the city’s streets and thoroughfares. Table UD-1: Corridor Studies and Map UD-2: Corridor Studies provide additional information on such studies. *For more information about complete streets, refer to ‘4.3 Complete Streets: Hierarchy and Design’ in Section 4: ‘Transportation.’* ### Policy UD 3.1 Gateway Corridor Design Quality ● Promote high quality development along gateway corridors to improve aesthetics and encourage higher levels of investment. Design of new development should contribute to the overall visual quality of the corridor and define the street space. <
> ### Policy UD 3.2 Highlighting Important Intersections Promote the use of gateways and landmarks to highlight access points and important intersections along key corridors. Examples include the places where roadways split to become one-way pairs entering and exiting downtown (Blount-Person, Wilmington- Salisbury, McDowell-Dawson); the proposed roundabouts along Hillsborough Street at Rosemary, Pullen, and Morgan streets; and places where key streets merge (Louisburg- Capital, Wake Forest-Falls of Neuse, etc.). <
> ### Policy UD 3.3 Strip Shopping Centers Ensure that zoning and parking standards discourage strip commercial shopping centers and auto-oriented building designs along Main Street and Transit Emphasis Corridors, and in City Growth, TOD and Mixed-Use Centers on the Urban Form Map. <
> ### Policy UD 3.4 Enhanced Sidewalks Promote a higher standard of storefront design and architectural detail in downtown and along the city’s Main Street corridors. Along walkable shopping streets, create streetwalls with relatively continuous facades built to the front lot line to provide a sense of enclosure and improve pedestrian comfort. <
> ### Policy UD 3.5 Visually Cohesive Streetscapes Create visually cohesive streetscapes using a variety of techniques including landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, and other streetscape improvements along street frontages that reflect adjacent land uses. <
> ### Policy UD 3.6 Median Plantings Median plantings should be used where feasible and appropriate to preserve and enhance the visual character of corridors and boulevards. <
> ### Policy UD 3.7 Parking Lot Placement New parking lots on designated Main Street and Transit Emphasis corridors on the Urban Form Map should be located at the side or rear of buildings when on-street parking is available, with only limited front door parking provided elsewhere. Where feasible, parking lots abutting these corridors should be landscaped to create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape with business visibility. <
> *See also ‘4.6 Parking Management’ in Section 4: ‘Transportation’ for additional policies and actions.* *** ### Policy UD 3.8 Screening of Unsightly Uses The visibility of trash storage, loading, and truck parking areas from the street, sidewalk, building entrances and corridors should be minimized. These services should not be located adjacent to residential units and useable open space. <
> *** ### Policy UD 3.9 Parking Lot Design Encourage efficient site design, shared parking between complementary uses, and reduced amounts of impervious surface in parking lot design. Where underground or below-grade parking is not feasible, parking garages should be wrapped with active retail uses along the entire vertical frontage of buildings along the public right-of-way. Garages should be architecturally screened so that stored vehicles are not visible from the adjacent right-of-way. <
> *** ### Policy UD 3.10 Planting Requirements Enhance and expand the required planting and tree coverage for parking lots by incorporating design standards that promote long term tree growth and health. Planting standards should improve permeability and reduce the heat island effect. <
> *** ### Policy UD 3.11 Parking Structures * Encourage creative solutions including landscaping and other aesthetic treatments to design and retrofit parking structures to minimize their visual prominence. Where feasible, the street side of parking structures should be lined with active and visually attractive uses to lessen their impact on the streetscape. <
> *** ### Policy UD 3.12 Heritage and Champion Trees When either heritage or champion trees are located adjacent to Urban Thoroughfares or Main Streets, the application of frontage which would encourage the removal or destruction of the tree is discouraged. <
> *** ### Action UD 3.1 Completed 2013 *** ### Action UD 3.2 Completed 2013 *** ### Action UD 3.3 Completed 2013 *** ### Action UD 3.4 Completed 2015 *** ### Action UD 3.5 New Bern Avenue Planting Guidelines Use tree types and planting locations on New Bern Avenue that avoid obscuring the view of the Capitol. *** ## 11.4 Creating Inviting Public Spaces The network of public spaces – streets, squares, plazas, parks, and sidewalks – that connect residents in their daily lives most clearly define a city. The character of public spaces is formed by the arrangement and details of the elements that define them such as building edges, public squares, and storefronts along a commercial street or dwellings that line a residential avenue. City-owned parks and greenways are considered to be the key public spaces designed to be used by the broader community. Their role has been central to the vision of the City of Raleigh. However, smaller gathering spaces such as plazas, streets, and sidewalks have not been used to their best capacity, and can be improved to better serve the community. Recognizing contemporary trends in areas such as “tactical urbanism,” Raleigh should promote innovative, cost- and time-effective strategies to augment existing public spaces, as well as provide new spaces for the city’s residents and visitors. <
> ### Policy UD 4.1 Public Gathering Spaces Encourage the development of public gathering spaces within all developments. Such spaces should be designed to attract people by using common and usable open space, an enhanced pedestrian realm, streetscape activation, and retail uses. <
> ### Policy UD 4.2 Streets as Public Spaces Design streets as the main public spaces scaled for pedestrian use within City Growth, TOD, and Mixed-use Centers as designated on the Urban Form Map. <
> ### Policy UD 4.3 Improving Streetscape Design Improve the appearance and identity of Raleigh’s streets through the design of street lights, paved surfaces, landscaped areas, bus shelters, street “furniture,” and adjacent building facades. <
> ### Policy UD 4.4 Management of Sidewalk Space Manage Raleigh’s sidewalk space in a way that promotes pedestrian safety, efficiency, and comfort and provides adequate space for tree boxes. Sidewalks should enhance the visual character of streets, with landscaping and buffer planting used to reduce the impacts of vehicle traffic. <
> ### Policy UD 4.5 Improving the Street Environment Create attractive and interesting commercial streetscapes by promoting ground level retail and desirable street activities, making walking more comfortable and convenient, ensuring that sidewalks are wide enough to accommodate pedestrian traffic, minimizing curb cuts and driveways, and avoiding windowless facades and gaps in the street wall. <
> ### Policy UD 4.6 Activated Public Space Provide urban squares, public plazas, and similar areas that stimulate vibrant pedestrian street life and provide a focus for community activities. Encourage the “activation” of such spaces through the design of adjacent structures; for example, through the location of shop entrances, window displays, awnings, and outdoor dining areas. ### Policy UD 4.7 Indoor/Outdoor Transitions Encourage private owners to take the “indoors” outdoors by extending interior space like dining areas and small merchandise displays onto walkways and plazas. Conversely, outdoor spaces should be integrated into the building by opening interior spaces like atriums to views, sunshine, and public use. ### Policy UD 4.8 Private Sector Public Space Improvements As appropriate and necessary, require publicly accessible plazas or open spaces to be provided by the private sector in conjunction with development or redevelopment of multi-family, commercial, or mixed-used developments. ### Policy UD 4.9 Drought-tolerant Landscaping Encourage the use of native, drought-resistant plants, and other xeriscaping techniques in landscaping public spaces (xeriscaping is landscaping which does not require irrigation). *See also ‘9.3 Drinking Water’ in Section 9: ‘Public Utilities’ for additional policies and actions on drought-tolerant landscaping.* ### Policy UD 4.10 Improving Pedestrian Safety Improve pedestrian safety by providing clear transitions between vehicular and pedestrian areas through landscaping and other streetscape improvements. *See also ‘4.5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation’ in Section 4: ‘Transportation’ for additional policies and actions.* ### Policy UD 4.11 Large Park Edges * Activate the edges of large city parks, such as Dorothea Dix Park, with active, mixed-use urban form. Such mixed-use developments should be permeable and provide visual and pedestrian access into and out of the adjacent open space. ### Policy UD 4.12 Parklets Public space opportunities in established mixed-use centers like Downtown are limited. Encourage the reclamation and repurposing of underutilized, on-street parking spaces for use as small open spaces with amenities such as seating, plantings, and green infrastructure. ### Policy UD 4.13 Urban Soundscape Encourage the use of trees, vertical landscapes such as trellises and green walls, and water features to absorb noise and to create comfortable and inviting environments in active-use areas and urban areas adjacent to major thoroughfares. ### Action UD 4.1 Completed 2013 # 11.5 Designing Successful Neighborhoods Raleigh’s existing and new neighborhoods must be retrofit to meet the changing demands of the economy and environment. Auto-oriented suburbs without sidewalks or access to transit are lifestyle choices that the city must discourage, focusing instead on housing and transportation choices that promote sustainability. Raleigh’s neighborhoods, prior to the easy availability of the automobile, provided urban design features that were sustainable, such as street trees, wide sidewalks, smaller buildings, readily accessible commercial services, and shared public spaces. In order to meet the challenges of global climate change and rising fuel and energy costs, a return to an environmentally-sustainable and responsible lifestyle is in order, as outlined by the policies below. *See also ‘3.5 Land Use Compatibility’ in Section 3: ‘Land Use’ for additional policies and actions related to infill development.* ### Policy UD 5.1 Contextual Design ● Proposed development within established neighborhoods should create or enhance a distinctive character that relates well to the surrounding area. <
> *** ### Policy UD 5.2 Pedestrian Access to Downtown Enhance clear and safe pedestrian networks and connections between downtown and nearby center city neighborhoods. <
> *** ### Policy UD 5.3 Improving Neighborhood Connectivity Explore opportunities to conveniently connect existing neighborhoods to adjacent commercial centers and community facilities and services. Create new and enhance existing safe pedestrian and bicycle networks in residential neighborhoods, particularly high-growth areas. Neighborhoods experiencing increased density from missing middle housing should be prioritized for new networks connecting to transit, commercial and community facilities. <
> *** ### Policy UD 5.4 Neighborhood Character and Identity Strengthen the defining visual qualities of Raleigh’s neighborhoods. This should be achieved in part by relating the scale of infill development, alterations, renovations, and additions to existing neighborhood context. <
> *** ### Policy UD 5.5 Areas of Strong Architectural Character Preserve the architectural continuity and design integrity of historic districts and other areas of strong architectural character. New development within such areas does not need to replicate prevailing architectural styles exactly but should be complementary in form, height, and bulk. <
> *See also Section 12: ‘Historic Preservation’ for additional policies and actions related to historic districts.* *** ### Policy UD 5.6 Protection of Neighborhood Open Space Infill development should respect and improve the integrity of neighborhood open spaces and public areas. Buildings should be designed to avoid the loss of sunlight and reduced usability of neighborhood parks and plazas. <
> *** Urban Design <
> #### Policy UD 5.7 Neighborhood Commerce Promote small-scale commercial services in new and established neighborhoods to promote walking and cycling and to discourage unnecessary automobile trips. #### Policy UD 5.8 Neighborhood Community Centers Ensure that each of Raleigh’s neighborhoods has well-programmed community facilities, including recreation centers and libraries, within walking distance. #### Policy UD 5.9 Successful Residential Neighborhoods Successfully designed neighborhoods should include a range of building scales and densities to house a diversity of households. High-growth neighborhoods should include sidewalks, open spaces, and close access to commercial and community facilities. #### Action UD 5.1 LEED-ND and Sustainable SITES Programs Implement the LEED Neighborhood Design (ND) certification program or Sustainable SITES Programs for neighborhoods as a possible new strategy to reduce energy and resource consumption and improve the long-term sustainability of Raleigh. #### Action UD 5.2 Completed 2014 # 11.6 Active Mobility As Raleigh continues to grow and transition to a denser, more mixed-use profile, active transportation will need to become an integral component of public and private development. Policies should encourage and accommodate cyclists and pedestrians, including those who couple those active choices with transit use. Raleigh’s pedestrian network is strongest within downtown, Planned Development Districts, pedestrian business districts/Main Streets, and mixed-use centers. In other parts of the city, pedestrian connections are often missing. While the development code provides for the dedication of adequate open space, sidewalks, tree conservation, and connectivity, these issues are addressed on a site-by-site basis rather than in a comprehensive network-based approach. In some cases, the development code actually impedes connectivity by requiring separation of uses and transitional protective yards. Pedestrian-friendly design not only encourages social engagement and active urban spaces, it has been proven to promote the health and well-being of residents. Obesity and obesity-related diseases such as hypertension and diabetes are a national concern today. Ensuring that all future development within the city is pedestrian-friendly will encourage residents to walk more frequently to meet their daily needs. This will also help in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and help the city to uphold its commitment to implement the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Bike Raleigh, the city’s bicycle plan, encourages cycling in Raleigh through on-road facility design, safety and education promotion, and events to encourage residents and visitors to choose this sustainable transportation mode. Like pedestrian-friendly design, urban design policies that promote cycling promote community engagement, public health, and environmental stewardship. Bike-friendly urban design features include ample <
> on-street and separated bicycle lanes, bicycle parking incorporated into private developments and the public realm, and wayfinding geared to cyclists, among others. An important consideration in designing a pedestrian- and cycling-friendly Raleigh will be incorporating design features into existing historic districts and new and established public spaces. Raleigh’s historic districts developed prior to the establishment of accessibility regulations, meaning that portions of these areas are not accessible to all. Where feasible and contextually appropriate, policies should promote retrofitting inaccessible historic environments. In addition, all new environments should carefully consider providing accessibility amenities beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unified Development Ordinance to achieve universal design standards. *See also ‘4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation’ in Section 4: ‘Transportation’ for additional actions and policies related to pedestrian-friendly design.* Urban Design ### Policy UD 6.1 Encouraging Pedestrian-oriented Uses ● New development, streetscape, and building improvements in Downtown, Main Streets, and TOD areas should promote high intensity, pedestrian-oriented use and discourage automobile-oriented uses and drive-through uses. <
> ### Policy UD 6.2 Ensuring Pedestrian Comfort and Convenience Promote a comfortable and convenient pedestrian environment by requiring that buildings face the sidewalk and street area, avoid excessive setbacks, and provide direct pedestrian connections. On-street parking should be provided along pedestrian-oriented streets and surface parking should be to the side or in the rear. This should be applied in new development, wherever feasible, especially on Transit Emphasis and Main Street corridors and in mixed-use centers. <
> ### Policy UD 6.3 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Ensure that pedestrian-scale lighting is provided as a means of providing a safe and visible pedestrian realm as well as establishing a theme or character for different streets and neighborhoods. <
> *See also ‘5.8 Light and Noise Pollution Controls.’* ### Policy UD 6.4 Appropriate Street Tree Selection Street tree plantings should be appropriate to the function of the street. For example: * *Trees on commercial streets should complement the face of the buildings.* * *Trees on residential streets should shade both the street and sidewalk, and serve as a means of establishing a transition between the street and the home.* * *In high traffic areas and downtown, trees should be planted in tree wells with grates over the top to protect the roots.* <
> ### Policy UD 6.5 New Planting Techniques Planting techniques in streetscape design should include wide planting/landscape strips between the curb and sidewalk and tree pits that will extend tree life. <
> *Refer to Street Design Manual available at www.Raleighnc.gov.* ### Action UD 6.1 Converted to Policy 2014 ### Action UD 6.2 Completed 2013 # 11.7 Design Guidelines Urban design guidelines help promote coordinated and high quality development and enhance the public realm and the city’s image. In Raleigh, a number of guidelines were included in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. There also exist numerous other design guidelines outside the 1989 Comprehensive Plan (*See Text Box: Guidelines*). As part of the planning effort for the Comprehensive Plan, a thorough audit of all the existing guidelines was undertaken to determine which guidelines should become part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As a result of the sheer number and complexity of the existing guidelines, the age of some of the guidelines, and the overlap between the guidelines and zoning regulations, the audit resulted in a substantially shortened list of guidelines for inclusion. Relevant citywide design guidelines are contained in Table UD-1, while downtown-specific guidelines are located in ‘15.7 Urban Design’ in Section 15: ‘Downtown Raleigh.’ These guidelines replace and supersede prior adopted guidelines. The policies below contain broad guiding principles that should influence the review of all new development in the city, as well as guidance regarding the application of the Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Areas listed at the end of this section. Guideline documents not superseded by this chapter and still in force include the following: * *Design Guidelines for Raleigh Historic Districts.* * *Downtown Streetscape Master Plan.* * *Fayetteville Street Downtown Urban Design Handbook.* * *Guidelines for Exterior Rehabilitation for the Moore Square Historic District.* * *Raleigh Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.* * *Standards for Private Use of Public Spaces: A Downtown Urban Design Handbook.* * *Raleigh Street Design Manual.* ### Policy UD 7.1 Economic Value of Quality Design Recognize and emphasize the economic value of quality design in redevelopment, infill, adaptive use of existing structures, and development of public spaces. <
> ### Policy UD 7.2 Promoting Quality Design Promote quality urban design through the use of design standards, zoning regulations, promotional materials, design awards, programs, and competitions. <
> ### Policy UD 7.3 Design Guidelines * The Design Guidelines in Table UD-1 shall be used to review rezoning petitions and development applications for mixed-use developments; or rezoning petitions and development applications along Main Street and Transit Emphasis Corridors or in City Growth, TOD and Mixed-Use Centers, including preliminary site plans and development plans, petitions for the application of Downtown Overlay Districts, Planned Development Districts, and Conditional Use zoning petitions. <
> ### Action UD 7.1 Completed 2014 ### Action UD 7.2 Completed 2013 ### Action UD 7.3 Completed 2013 ### Action UD 7.4 Completed 2014 ### Action UD 7.5 Completed 2013 ### Action UD 7.6 Completed 2013 ### Action UD 7.7 Completed 2013 ### Action UD 7.8 Completed 2013 # Table UD-1 Design Guidelines for Mixed-use Developments | # | Guideline | | :--- | :--- | | **Elements of Mixed-use Developments** | | | 1 | All mixed-use developments should generally provide retail (such as eating establishments, food stores, and banks), and other uses such as office and residential within walking distance of each other. Mixed uses should be arranged in a compact and pedestrian-friendly form. | | **Mixed-use Areas: Transition to Surrounding Neighborhoods** | | | 2 | Within all mixed-use areas, buildings that are adjacent to lower density neighborhoods should transition (height, design, distance, and/or landscaping) to the lower heights or be comparable in height and massing. | | **Mixed-use Areas: The Block, The Street, and The Corridor** | | | 3 | A mixed-use area’s road network should connect directly into the neighborhood road network of the surrounding community, providing multiple paths for movement to and through the mixed-use area. In this way, trips made from the surrounding residential neighborhood(s) to the mixed-use area should be possible without requiring travel along a major street. | **Preferred and discouraged street networks**

<
> | | 4 | Streets should interconnect within a development and with adjoining development. Cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets are generally discouraged except where topographic conditions and/or exterior lot line configurations offer no practical alternatives for connection or through traffic. Street stubs should be provided with development adjacent to open land to provide for future connections. Streets should be planned with due regard to the designated corridors shown on the Street Plan. | **Streets should connect adjacent developments**

<
> | | 5 | New development should be composed of blocks of public and/or private streets (including sidewalks). Block faces should have a length generally not exceeding 660 feet. Where commercial driveways are used to create block structure, they should include the same pedestrian amenities as public or private streets. | | # Urban Design | # | Guideline | | :--- | :--- | | **Site Design: Building Placement** | | | 6 | A primary task of all urban architecture and landscape design is the physical definition of streets and public spaces as places of shared-use. Streets should be lined by buildings rather than parking lots and should provide interest especially for pedestrians. Garage entrances and/or loading areas should be located at the side or rear of a property. | | 7 | Buildings should be located close to the pedestrian-oriented street (within 25 feet of the curb), with off-street parking behind and/or beside the buildings. When a development plan is located along a high volume corridor without on-street parking, one bay of parking separating the building frontage along the corridor is a preferred option. | **Parking should be located behind buildings**

<
> | | 8 | If the site is located at a street intersection, the main building of a complex or main part of a single building should be placed at the corner. Parking, loading, or service should not be located at an intersection. | **Locate buildings on the corner to create pedestrian interest and reduce the visual impact of parking**

<
> | | # | Guideline | |---|---| | **Site Design: Urban Open Space** | | | 9 | To ensure that urban open space is well-used, it is essential to locate and design it carefully. The space should be located where it is visible and easily accessible from public areas (building entrances, sidewalks). Take views and sun exposure into account as well. | **Squares are bound by buildings and create public gathering places for special events and casual interaction.**

<
> | | 10 | New urban spaces should contain direct access from the adjacent streets. They should be open along the adjacent sidewalks and allow for multiple points of entry. They should also be visually permeable from the sidewalk, allowing passersby to see directly into the space. | **Internal public space must be designed properly to be safe and usable, providing wide pathways and elements such as fountains and seating.**

<
> | | # | Guideline | |---|---| | **Site Design: Urban Open Space** | | | 11 | The perimeter of urban open spaces should consist of active uses that provide pedestrian traffic for the space including retail, cafés, and restaurants and higher-density residential. | **A public space that is enclosed by active buildings around its perimeter encourages its use and maintains its safety.** <
> | | 12 | A properly defined urban open space is visually enclosed by the fronting of buildings to create an outdoor “room” that is comfortable to users. | | | **Site Design: Public Seating** | | | 13 | New public spaces should provide seating opportunities. | **Movable chairs give people the flexibility to adapt public spaces to their immediate needs.** <
> | | # | Guideline | | :--- | :--- | | **Site Design: Automobile Parking** | | | 14 | Parking lots should not dominate the frontage of pedestrian-oriented streets, interrupt pedestrian routes, or negatively impact surrounding developments. | **When a parking lot is adjacent to a street, screen it using a wall and/or landscaping.**

<
> | | 15 | Parking lots should be located behind or in the interior of a block whenever possible. Parking lots should not occupy more than 1/3 of the frontage of the adjacent building or not more than 64 feet, whichever is less. | **Parking should go in the interior of the block**

<
> | | # | Guideline | |---|---| | **Site Design: Automobile Parking** | | | 16 | Parking structures are clearly an important and necessary element of the overall urban infrastructure, but, given their utilitarian elements, can have serious negative visual effects. New structures should merit the same level of materials and finishes as that a principal building would. Care in the use of basic design elements can make a significant improvement. | **Parking structures should be placed in mid-block and wrapped with liner buildings that provide active retail storefronts.**

<
> | | **Transit-oriented Planning and Design** | | | 17 | Higher building densities and more intensive land uses should be within walking distance of transit stops, permitting public transit to become a viable alternative to the automobile. | **Bus stops should be architecturally integrated with the surrounding development and provide such basic amenities and shelter and seating.**

<
> | | 18 | Convenient, comfortable pedestrian access between the transit stop and the building entrance should be planned as part of the overall pedestrian network. | | Urban Design | # | Guideline | |---|-----------| | **Site Design: Environmental Protection** | | | 19 | All development should respect natural resources as an essential component of the human environment. The most sensitive landscape areas, both environmentally and visually, are steep slopes greater than 15 percent, watercourses, and floodplains. Any development in these areas should minimize intervention and maintain the natural condition except under extreme circumstances. Where practical, these features should be conserved as open space amenities and incorporated in the overall site design. | | | **Preservation and low-impact uses should define environmentally-sensitive areas** | | | <
> | | 20 | All development should incorporate high-quality, productive landscapes that serve multiple functions. Such functions include noise mitigation and absorption; capturing and cleaning of particulate matter; collection and filtering of stormwater; and reduction of the urban heat island effect. Strategies include green walls, trellises, carefully planted trees, green infrastructure, and green roofs. | | **Street Design: General Street Design Principles** | | | 21 | It is the intent of these guidelines to build streets that are integral components of community design. Public and private streets, as well as commercial driveways that serve as primary pedestrian pathways to building entrances, should be designed as the main public spaces of the city and should be scaled for pedestrians. | | 22 | Sidewalks should be 5-8 feet wide in residential areas and located on both sides of the street. Sidewalks in commercial areas and other areas where walkability is a focus should be a minimum of 14-18 feet wide to accommodate sidewalk uses such as vendors, merchandising, and outdoor seating. | | | **Wide sidewalks and street trees enhance the pedestrian experience and lead to more street activity** | | | <
> | | 23 | Streets should be designed with street trees planted in a manner appropriate to their function. Commercial streets should have trees that complement the face of the buildings and that shade the sidewalk. Residential streets should provide for an appropriate tree canopy, which shadows both the street and sidewalk and serves as a visual buffer between the street and the home. The typical width of the street landscape strip is 6-8 feet. This width ensures healthy street trees, precludes tree roots from breaking the sidewalk, and provides adequate pedestrian buffering. Street trees should be at least 6 ¼” caliper and should be consistent with the city’s landscaping, lighting, and street sight distance requirements. | Urban Design | # | Guideline | | :--- | :--- | | **Street Design: Spatial Definition** | | | 24 | Buildings should define the streets spatially. Proper spatial definition should be achieved with buildings or other architectural elements (including certain tree plantings) that make up the street edges aligned in a disciplined manner with an appropriate ratio of height to width. | | | <
> | | | **The enclosure of the street is most effectively accomplished using buildings placed behind the sidewalk** | | | <
> | | **Building Design: Facade Treatment** | | | 25 | The primary entrance should be both architecturally and functionally on the front facade of any building facing the primary public street. Such entrances should be designed to convey their prominence on the fronting facade. | | | **Easily-identifiable entrances should front along the public street** | | | <
> | | # | Guideline | |---|---| | ### Streets and Sidewalks | | | 26 | The ground level of the building should offer pedestrian interest along sidewalks. This includes windows, entrances, and architectural details. Signage, awnings, and ornamentation are encouraged. | **Prominent windows, entrances, and design details should provide interest at street level** <
> | # | Guideline | |---|---| | **Streets and Sidewalks** | | | 27 | The sidewalks should be the principal place of pedestrian movement and casual social interaction. Designs and uses should be complementary to that function. | **Moore Square is a good example of a walkable urban village with a continuing tradition of street-level retail and well-designed facades that create a wonderful place.** <
> **Small sidewalk displays help bring the indoors outside and add pedestrian interest.** <
> # 11.8 Transit-supportive Design Raleigh, Wake County, and the city’s regional and national partners continue to expand transit options in the city and region. Transit enhances mobility options, reduces vehicle miles traveled, and supports dense, mixed-use development around planned transit stations, all of which require and also provide for unique urban design strategies. Raleigh’s Strategic Plan initiative TT 1.2 calls to “develop and communicate the city’s vision for transit, transportation, and land use.” Transit-supportive design guidelines encourage greater intensity of use and bulk immediately surrounding transit stations, with development tapering down in both use and size as distance from the station increases. Transit-supportive design features include wide sidewalks and bicycle facilities to welcome non-auto uses, ample public realm and streetscape amenities to accommodate transit users waiting for or alighting from transit, engaging yet simple wayfinding, and structured parking designed to make efficient use of land, limit visual and roadway clutter. *See also ‘4.4 Public Transportation.’* ### Policy UD 8.1 Transit-oriented Development ● Promote dense, mixed-use development within the core area around transit stations. Development intensity should be greatest within walking distance of existing and proposed rail stations and bus rapid transit stations. ### Policy UD 8.2 Transit Area Transitions ● There should be a transition of use, intensity and scale from higher-density transit corridors to adjacent neighborhoods. Developments of greater bulk and height in areas should be located immediately surrounding transit stations. As distance from such stations increases, development should taper down in bulk and height in order to balance the needs of transit-supportive density with established neighborhood character. ### Policy UD 8.3 Transit Area Infill Encourage sensitive densification in areas surrounding transit routes by promoting “missing middle” housing and accessory dwelling units in nearby residential areas, and the retrofit or redevelopment of existing underutilized properties. ### Policy UD 8.4 Transit-supportive Pedestrian Networks ● Sidewalks in areas within walking distance of rail transit stations and bus rapid transit stops should be no less than eight feet wide and should be accompanied by complementary streetscape elements such as plantings, bike racks, and furniture, including places to sit. Sidewalks in these areas should be prioritized over sidewalks in non-transit areas. ### Policy UD 8.5 Transit-supportive Bicycle Networks ● Areas within two miles of fixed-rail and bus rapid transit stations should include on-street bike lanes and off-street bicycle paths, where feasible. Where such improvements cannot be made, traffic calming devices and other streetscape design interventions should be used to encourage bicycling to and from transit stations. Urban Design ### Policy UD 8.6 Auto-oriented Uses in Transit Area * Automobile-oriented uses such as drive-thrus, which detract from the character and function of transit corridors and negatively affect the pedestrian environment, should be located away from transit stations. <
> ### Policy UD 8.7 Connections to Transit Stops Encourage additional street and pedestrian connections to help minimize travel distances to transit stops. When new street connections cannot be made, mid-block pedestrian connections can minimize walking distance for transit users. <
> ### Policy UD 8.8 Station Area Public Realm * Private and public development within one-quarter of a mile of fixed-rail and bus rapid transit stations should include streetscapes and public spaces that allow transit users places to sit and rest when waiting for or alighting from transit. <
> ### Policy UD 8.9 Transit Wayfinding Within two miles of fixed rail and bus rapid transit stations, provide simple and easily identifiable signage and other wayfinding devices to promote ease of transit use. <
> ### Policy UD 8.10 Transit Area Parking Areas within close proximity of fixed rail and bus rapid transit stations are ideally suited for park-and-ride locations. Such parking facilities should be structured, rather than large lots, to limit visual and roadway clutter. <
> ### Policy UD 8.11 Transit Area CPTED Promote the use of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design techniques within one mile of fixed rail and bus rapid transit stations to ensure that transit users are safe and comfortable while accessing and alighting from transit. <
> ### Action UD 8.1 Station Area Plans Study and implement land use, transportation and urban design recommendations for areas within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and one-quarter mile of bus rapid transit stations. Recommendations should include guidance on density, use and bulk transitions from station areas to surrounding neighborhoods. ### Action UD 8.2 Transit-supportive Pedestrian Networks Create and implement pedestrian infrastructure plans in all areas within a one-mile radius of fixed-rail and bus rapid transit stations. ### Action UD 8.3 Transit-supportive Bicycle Networks Create and implement bicycle infrastructure plans in all areas within a two-mile radius of fixed-rail and bus rapid transit stations. ### Action UD 8.4 Station Area Parking Facilities Pursue acquisition and/or development of public parking facilities immediately surrounding transit stations through public funds and incentives to private developers. (blank page) section 12 # Historic Preservation 12.1 Raleigh's Historic Identity ........................................................... 12-10 12.2 Planning, Zoning, and Neighborhood Conservation...... 12-12 12.3 Housing and Building Codes, Rehabilitation, and Adaptive Use ......................................................................... 12-15 12.4 Coordination and Outreach ...................................................... 12-17 12.5 Funding and Incentives ............................................................... 12-19 Historic Preservation The Historic Preservation Section offers guidance to sustain and promote the identity of Raleigh as a city with great historic communities and assets. It includes recommendations to promote historic preservation and resource stewardship; enhance planning, regulatory and incentive tools; guide the protection, acquisition, and programming of city-owned historic resources; and improve coordination among stakeholders who impact the preservation of Raleigh’s cultural and architectural legacy. Raleigh has a unique history. The city remains one of two planned state capitals in the country. Since its establishment in 1792 when the land for Raleigh was purchased from Joel Lane, Raleigh’s status as the capital city of North Carolina has shaped its evolution. The city escaped destruction by General William Sherman during the closing days of the Civil War, and continues to exhibit numerous visual aspects of its original plan, parks, and early built environment. As the seat of a biennial legislative government, the primary economic engine during Raleigh’s first one hundred fifty years was government and associated businesses that supported government services. Raleigh experienced periods of very slow to nominal growth due to this lack of economic diversification. Growth patterns changed significantly with the establishment of Research Triangle Park (RTP) in 1959. The RTP project fostered large-scale economic development, which in turn created expansive diversification and change. Raleigh’s cultural resources are a reflection of the economic eras, styles of fashion, architectural traditions, and ways of life that have defined the city during its transformation from Joel Lane’s fields of 1792 to today’s Research Triangle. The City of Raleigh established its historic preservation program in 1961, and its historic resources and museum program in 2012. Our city has a long history of historic preservation leadership and success. But like many other American cities, cumulative unrelated decisions of the past 50 years to demolish or alter buildings, or to build upon open space, have seen an erosion of the city’s physical heritage. Raleigh’s explosive rate of growth presents continuing issues today: * *Fragility of the city’s historic identity. Historic resources as a percentage of Raleigh’s built environment are diminishing. Only six percent of the city’s housing dates from before 1950.* * *Tension between the modest scale of Raleigh’s historic downtown core, and the development pressures associated with a twenty-first century central business district in one of the country’s 50 largest cities. Raleigh has the opportunity to distinguish itself from other large American cities through careful preservation of its historic core.* * *Disparity between building size and zoning envelope: the size of existing buildings is frequently substantially smaller than the current zoning classifications’ permitted building envelope, which puts economic pressure on historic resources.* * *Lack of policy guidance for National Register-listed and -eligible properties.* * *Lack of attention paid to unique and/or historic properties that do not have a formal designation.* * *Residential teardown and infill in designated National Register Historic Districts. Piecemeal change is eroding the architectural heritage of the city and affects the integrity of older neighborhoods. Impacts are also being felt in historic districts eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, with the result that some are no longer eligible, and others are at risk.* * *Lack of appreciation of mid-century modern architecture puts these treasures at risk.* *Lack of transitions around historic resources, which can sometimes lead to jarring juxtapositions of scale and proximity that detract from the character of the historic resource’s setting.* * *Under-marketing and simplistic presentation of Raleigh’s historic assets by the city’s tourism industry, along with lack of coordination and integration among those assets, weakens our economic development potential for heritage tourism.* * *Poor communication and understanding among city departments of the related roles and responsibilities toward the preservation and retention of both city-owned and privately-owned historic properties.* * *Historic preservation programs need to be broadened to recognize landscapes and archaeological resources. Our efforts are heavily weighted toward buildings and architectural significance, and neglect the wider sphere of cultural resources, including but not limited to designed and natural landscapes, cemeteries, historic sites, view corridors, archaeological resources, and other forms of cultural heritage.* More information on these issues can be found in the Historic Resources chapter of the 2008 City of Raleigh Community Inventory Report. <
> The City of Raleigh plays an essential role in the stewardship of our community’s historic resources, whose stories connect our past with our future. In addition to preserving these historic resources, the city must interpret the community’s history through its publicly owned historic properties, museums, and programs to attract more use and visitation while balancing conservation of resources. Providing public programming and access to historic resources is essential to promoting a culture that recognizes and appreciates the value of these assets. Currently, the Historic Resources and Museum Program oversees operations and programs at the Borden Building and Stone Circle at Fletcher Park, the City of Raleigh Museum, the Fred Fletcher Amphitheater at Fletcher Park, John Chavis Memorial Park Historic Attractions, the Latta University Site, Mordecai Historic Park, the Pope House Museum, Pullen Park Historic Attractions, and the Raleigh Trolleys. In addition, the city’s acquisition of the Dorothea Dix Campus in 2015 affords an unparalleled opportunity to create a 21st century destination park, while retaining the site’s historic built environment for contemporary use. Thoughtful consideration of the site’s existing structures is critical to the successful transformation of the campus into an iconic park.” Historic preservation is fundamentally related to the city’s development history, and preservation issues and impacts can be encountered in all of the Comprehensive Plan’s elements. The policies of the Historic Preservation Section advance all six vision themes that serve as the overarching goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Appropriately scaled, designed, and managed transition can add both architectural and cultural interest as well as context to historic resources. Relative to *Economic Prosperity and Equity*, adaptive use and rehabilitation of existing buildings serve the small entrepreneur locating a start-up business just as they do the larger developer using tax incentives for rehabilitation. Each dollar spent on rehabilitation creates more local jobs than new construction, and more of that dollar stays in the local economy. Historic preservation is also the necessary first step to capitalize on the city’s immense yet unrealized potential for heritage tourism. Rehabilitation of existing housing units and adaptive use of other building types for housing *Expands Housing Choices* by providing residents with options that possess deeper cultural meaning and unique design qualities. The smaller size of many historic dwellings contributes to the city’s stock of market rate affordable housing and workforce housing. Historic preservation helps to *Manage our Growth* by promoting the re-use of existing buildings and resources by maintaining their utility or reversing decay. This reduces the leapfrogging and abandonment effects of sprawl by retaining and enhancing the quality of life in already developed areas of the city. Historic development patterns integrated land use and circulation in a compact street grid serving multiple modes of transportation. Preservation maintains these human-scale higher-density historic patterns of development, furthering the goal of *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*. Carl Elefante, AIA, LEED AP aptly coined the phrase, “The greenest building is one that is already built.” In addition to using green building technology in new construction, sustainable development also embraces the preservation of existing buildings and structures. Reusing existing buildings saves landfill space and the energy expended in recycling materials from demolition. Historic preservation also plays a vital role in economic sustainability and social/cultural sustainability, advancing the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of *Greenprint Raleigh*. <
> Many of Raleigh’s historic neighborhoods with mature tree canopies and distinctive architectural character are attractive residential communities, contributing to the goal of *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*. Historic preservation conserves the best qualities of these places by preventing unnecessary demolition through restoration, rehabilitation, and adaptive use of existing structures, while ensuring that new construction is in keeping with the special character of the neighborhood and community. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity. <
> Expanding Housing Choices. <
> Managing Our Growth. <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation. <
> Greenprint Raleigh. <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # The Two Designation Programs: Federal and Local The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation for their local, statewide, or national significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. Though the National Register is a federal program, nominations are submitted by the states through state historic preservation offices. The listing of a property in the National Register places no obligation or restriction on a private owner using private resources to maintain or alter the property. Over the years, various federal incentives have been introduced to assist private historic preservation initiatives, such as the rehabilitation tax credit. Maps HP-1 and HP-2 illustrate existing and potential National Register individual and district listings. National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Today, fewer than 2,500 historic places bear this national distinction. Map HP-1 identifies Raleigh’s three National Historic Landmarks. The Raleigh Historic Landmark and Historic Overlay District designations are made by the Raleigh City Council on the recommendation of a local historic preservation commission. This program of local designation is an option available to local governments under North Carolina enabling legislation (G.S. 160A-400). Local designation establishes a design review process to preserve the special character of historically significant landmarks and districts. Raleigh Historic Landmarks are also eligible for a 50 percent property tax deferral. Maps HP-3 and HP-4 show Raleigh’s existing and potential designations of individual landmarks and historic overlay districts. ## Table HP-1 Historic Designation Programs | | Federal/State | Local (Raleigh) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Buildings, structures, objects, sites (individual) | • *National Historic Landmarks*
• *National Register of Historic Places* | • *Raleigh Historic Landmarks* | | Districts | • *National Historic Landmarks*
• *National Register of Historic Places* | • *Historic Overlay Districts* | Historic Preservation # Map HP-1: National Historic Landmarks and Places <
> ### National Historic Landmarks * North Carolina State Capitol * Christ Church ### National Register of Historic Places * National Individual Listing * Potential National Individual Listing ### Map HP-2: National Register Historic Districts <
> ### National Register of Historic Places | | | |---|---| | <
> | National Register Historic District | | <
> | Potential National Register Historic District | Map created 3/1/2024 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning Historic Preservation # Map HP-3: Raleigh Historic Landmarks <
> ● Raleigh Historic Landmarks ◇ Potential Raleigh Historic Landmark Map created 4/10/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development Historic Preservation ## Map HP-4: Raleigh Historic Overlay Districts <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | ![Legend Color 1] | Raleigh Historic Overlay District | | ![Legend Color 2] | Potential Raleigh Historic Overlay District | Map created 4/10/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development <
> # 12.1 Raleigh's Historic Identity Established in 1792 as the planned site for the capital city of North Carolina, Raleigh carries a certain expectation of cultural dignity associated with a seat of government. Historic resources help convey that image. They also provide the special character and scale that distinguish Raleigh from other places and give the city a certain “southern-style” livability. This broader view does not diminish the importance of protecting significant landmarks. Rather, it seeks to recognize and preserve the essence of a historic southern capital city, conserve that essence, and recognize its value in shaping Raleigh’s future urban form. Preservation seeks to capitalize upon and nurture those distinctive places, neighborhoods, and landscapes that make our city unique. Preservation seeks to ensure that we do not overlook the existing built and natural environments that define our cultural identity. ### Policy HP 1.1 Stewardship of Place Foster stewardship of neighborhood, place, and landscape as the city grows and develops. ### Policy HP 1.2 Cultural and Historic Resource Preservation Identify, preserve, and protect cultural and historic resources, including buildings, neighborhoods, designed and natural landscapes, cemeteries, streetscapes, view corridors, and archaeological resources. ### Policy HP 1.3 Economic Value of Historic Preservation Promote the city’s cultural and historic identity as an economic asset. *See also Section 6: ‘Economic Development’ for heritage tourism policies.* ### Policy HP 1.4 Cultural and Historic Resource Programming Promote, coordinate, and strengthen the advocacy and advancement of public programs within the Historic Resources and Museum Program to further the cultural development of the City of Raleigh. ### Action HP 1.1 Historic View Corridors Conduct a historic view corridor analysis. Develop strategies to protect identified historic view corridors. ### Action HP 1.2 Evaluation of Archaeological Significance Research other municipal archaeology programs and consider incorporating archaeological considerations in development plan review to ensure that archaeological significance is evaluated. *** ### Action HP 1.3 Cultural and Heritage Tourism Marketing Collaborate with internal and external stakeholders, including the Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Raleigh Alliance, owners of heritage sites, and others in Wake and surrounding counties to develop cohesive historic identity themes, marketing products, and educational leisure experiences for residents and visitors. *** ### Action HP 1.4 Wayfinding and Interpretive Signage Include historic resources in the city’s wayfinding signage system. Explore the feasibility of wayfinding signs on the city Greenways. Strengthen the Capital City Trail as a heritage and cultural tourism resource. *** ### Action HP 1.5 Completed 2015 *** ### Action HP 1.6 Historic Resource Interpretation Through Digital Technologies Expand educational and outreach opportunities afforded by existing and emerging electronic media, including specialized smartphone apps, GPS annotation, and touchscreen kiosks and displays. *** <
> # 12.2 Planning, Zoning, and Neighborhood Conservation Raleigh is fortunate to have a collection of exceptional historic, pre-war, and post-war residential neighborhoods that have retained their ability to attract new residents and investment. These areas are marked by their intimacy of scale, maturity of landscape and tree canopy, and integration with historic commercial streets and centers. Survey and identification of historic resources provide the foundation for planning tools to protect and enhance the city’s historic identity on a citywide scale. Regular updating of the survey is necessary to reflect the passage of time, the recognition and development of new historic contexts, and the progression of professional standards. Planning and zoning tools sympathetically applied can enhance the limited protection for historic resources gained by local historic designation programs. The following policies address planning and regulatory approaches and improvements that can be applied citywide to meet the city’s historic preservation goals. <
> ### Policy HP 2.1 Historic Property Inventories Maintain accurate inventories of eligible historic properties in city databases using all available technologies so properties can be considered in planning and development actions. <
> --- ### Policy HP 2.2 National Register Listing Support the nomination of eligible historic resources for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. <
> --- ### Policy HP 2.3 Raleigh Historic Designation Encourage and sponsor the designation of eligible historic resources for local protection. <
> --- ### Policy HP 2.4 Protecting Historic Neighborhoods Protect the scale and character of the city’s historic neighborhoods while still allowing compatible and context-sensitive infill development to occur. <
> --- ### Policy HP 2.5 Conserving Older Neighborhoods Develop plans and programs to conserve older neighborhoods that have a unique scale and identity, but are not yet protected by an overlay district. <
> --- ### Policy HP 2.6 Contextual Historic Landscapes Retain, protect, and maintain access to open spaces and significant natural features, such as streams, mature trees, and hills that are adjacent to and contribute to a historic resource. <
> <
> ### Policy HP 2.7 Mitigating Impacts on Historic Sites * Development proposals adjacent to or including historic sites should identify and minimize or mitigate any negative development impacts on those sites. ### Policy HP 2.8 Preservation and Capital Project Planning Protect and mitigate the adverse impacts of city capital projects on National Register-listed and -eligible resources ### Action HP 2.1 Existing Survey and Designation Reports Evaluate previous survey areas and designations; update surveys and designation reports as necessary to reflect current professional standards, new historical contexts, and the passage of time. Include view corridor, landscape, and archaeological considerations. ### Action HP 2.2 Periodic Updates of Survey Conduct survey updates when necessary, but at least every 10 years, to identify resources gaining significance due to the passage of time. ### Action HP 2.3 Historic Resource GIS Data Use GIS to map current and future historic architectural survey information and to identify areas of cohesive character. Apply preservation planning tools in these areas. ### Action HP 2.4 Historic Landscape Surveys Conduct an open space and designed landscape survey and ensure that landscape significance is evaluated in every designation application. ### Action HP 2.5 Completed 2021 ### Action HP 2.6 Downtown Historic Overlays Endeavor to designate local historic overlay districts in downtown for Fayetteville Street National Register district and Depot National Register district. ### Action HP 2.7 Applying Zoning Regulations and Planning Tools Actively foster the continued development of Historic Overlay Districts, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts, and other zoning regulations and planning tools in response to neighborhood requests for protection and conservation. Historic Preservation ### Action HP 2.8 Transfer of Development Rights Explore the use of transfer of development rights to protect historic landmarks. *** ### Action HP 2.9 Completed 2013 *** ### Action HP 2.10 Preservation Criteria for Capital Projects Establish and apply robust project planning criteria that require evaluation and mitigation of adverse impacts to historic resources for all city capital projects. *** ### Action HP 2.11 Assessing Impacts to Historic Resources Revise the review standards for rezoning petitions, subdivisions, and site plan applications to require that submittals provide an analysis of potential impacts on local or National Register-listed historic resources. Where adverse impacts are identified, require proposals to minimize and mitigate such impacts. *** ### Action HP 2.12 Removed 2022 *** ### Action HP 2.13 Historic Resource Management Actively seek, acquire, manage, and program unique historic properties and assets that are critical to preserving the city’s heritage and singular story. *** <
> # 12.3 Housing and Building Codes, Rehabilitation, and Adaptive Use Preservation of architectural resources on an individual basis depends in large measure upon the continuing utility and economic performance of the building. Property owners act as stewards of historic resources valued by the broader community. The writing, interpretation, and application of public codes that govern building improvement activities and life safety can either encourage or hinder owners in building preservation. The following policies address the regulatory environment for maintaining, improving, and adapting historic structures for continuing use. ### Policy HP 3.1 Adaptive Use Encourage adaptive use of historic properties to preserve cultural resources and conserve natural resources. <
> ### Policy HP 3.2 Retention Over Replacement Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of significant or contributing existing structures, favoring retention over replacement, especially in areas where other historic resources are present. <
> ### Policy HP 3.3 Adaptive Use and Parking * Additional parking required for nonresidential adaptive use should be located to the rear of the historic structure unless an historic pattern suggests otherwise. <
> ### Policy HP 3.4 Context Sensitive Design Use the existing architectural and historical character within an area as a guide for new construction. <
> ### Policy HP 3.5 Existing Building Code Encourage the application of the 2015 North Carolina Existing Building Code for historic resource rehabilitation proposals. <
> ### Policy HP 3.6 Minimum Housing Code Application Apply the city minimum housing code in a manner that ensures the preservation of historic resources. <
> ### Policy HP 3.7 Demolition Discourage speculative demolition of historic resources and the removal of historic resources prior to issuance of building permits for new construction on the site. Replacement proposals should provide justification for demolition and removal of resources, including the recycling of lumber and brick and the salvage of usable fittings and hardware or other historic components. <
> ### Policy HP 3.8 Housing Assistance Expand low- to mid-income housing assistance programs to include historic structures. <
> ### Action HP 3.1 Parking Reduction for Adaptive Use Initiate a City Code text change to reduce parking requirements for adaptive use projects to minimize site development impacts for historic sites and neighborhoods. *** ### Action HP 3.2 Historic Resources and Affordable Housing Identify historic resources that can be successfully used to meet the city’s housing goals. Low-income housing and historic rehabilitation tax credits can be combined when historic structures are rehabilitated for affordable housing. *** ### Action HP 3.3 Housing Code and Preservation Coordination Coordinate the city’s minimum housing code enforcement activities with the city’s preservation staff in identifying and determining public hazards that involve historic resources and encouraging the owner to abate the violation through repair, not demolition. *** ### Action HP 3.4 City Repair and/or Acquisition Develop city procedures to abate violations affecting historic resources through repair and/or acquisition rather than demolition when the owner is uncooperative. *** ### Action HP 3.5 Unsafe Building Code and Preservation Evaluate potential Unsafe Building determinations against the Unified Development Ordinance’s section on “Demolition by Neglect of Historic Landmarks and Structures within Historic Overlay Districts” to determine which enforcement tool would most likely result in abatement of the violation and preservation of the resource. *** ### Action HP 3.6 Removed 2022 *** ### Action HP 3.7 Demolition Denial Criteria Explore feasibility of seeking local state enabling legislation modeled after New Bern, NC to allow demolition for local historic districts and local landmarks to be denied based on meeting specific criteria. *** ## 12.4 Coordination and Outreach There are a wide range of private, non-profit, and public owners and stakeholders involved in the conservation and management of the city’s historic resources. Broader awareness of the goals, policies, and incentives for historic preservation by individual property owners can aid the process of programming, preserving, and rehabilitating these resources. Awareness of historic resources can also create civic pride and foster a stronger sense of civic identity for Raleigh‘s residents. Collaboration among stakeholders can leverage historic preservation tools to meet complementary goals and objectives. The following policies will encourage agencies, organizations, and citizens to build support for and strengthen the effectiveness of these activities. ### Policy HP 4.1 Historic Preservation Awareness Promote awareness and appreciation of Raleigh’s cultural heritage and historic preservation opportunities. <
> ### Policy HP 4.2 Historic Preservation and Other Goals Encourage the use of preservation tools to advance housing diversity and market affordability, economic development, environmental sustainability, parks and recreation, and urban design. <
> ### Policy HP 4.3 Interagency Coordination Promote interagency coordination among the Department of City Planning; Development Services; Office of Sustainability; Public Utilities; Engineering Services; Communications; Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources; Housing and Neighborhoods; and other departments/agencies as needed, as well as the State Historic Preservation Office, to provide the city with the most effective preservation programs and services. <
> ### Policy HP 4.4 Support for Preservation Organizations Continue to support the efforts of the Raleigh Historic Development Commission and the Historic Resources and Museum Advisory Board, as well as other public, private, and non-profit preservation entities. <
> ### Policy HP 4.5 Support for Neighborhoods Support neighborhood efforts to pursue both federal and Raleigh historic designations, and to make use of zoning overlay districts. <
> ### Policy HP 4.6 Resource Protection in Future Urban Areas Evaluate significant historic buildings and properties in the Urban Service Area for incorporation into future park facilities. <
> ### Policy HP 4.7 Mid-century Modern Recognize and celebrate Raleigh’s mid-century modern architecture. Promote the preservation and rehabilitation of these properties. <
> ### Policy HP 4.8 State and Federal Programs Take full advantage of state and federal historic preservation support programs. <
> ### Policy HP 4.9 Publicly-owned Historic Resource Awareness Interpret Raleigh’s history through its historic properties, museums and programs to attract more use and visitation while balancing stewardship and preservation of resources. <
> Historic Preservation <
> ### Policy HP 4.10 Remote Historic Sites and Museum Visitation Utilize technology to provide remote experiences for non-site-based visitation for city-owned properties. <
> ### Action HP 4.1 Public Outreach Develop outreach programs to educate the public on the various federal and local preservation programs outlined in the Historic Preservation Section. ### Action HP 4.2 Preservation Advocacy Group Work to create an independent non-profit advocacy group for historic preservation focused specifically on Raleigh. ### Action HP 4.3 Removed 2022 ### Action HP 4.4 Completed 2011 ### Action HP 4.5 Certified Local Government Maintain the city’s participation in the federal Certified Local Government (CLG) program. ### Action HP 4.6 Removed 2019 ### Action HP 4.7 Converted to Policy 2022 ### Action HP 4.8 Completed 2021 ### Action HP 4.9 Completed 2021 ## 12.5 Funding and Incentives Federal, state, and local governments have a responsibility to protect cultural and heritage resources on behalf of the entire community. In addition to planning and regulatory tools, grants, tax incentives, and other funding sources are frequently applied to assist in advancing historic preservation and resource management goals. Financial considerations are a major factor in the continued utility, economic performance, and community-wide heritage value of historic resources. The following policies address the city’s investments in historic preservation as well as financial incentives provided by other entities. ### Policy HP 5.1 City Support for Historic Preservation Planning Coordinate and expand city funding and incentives for preservation planning to reduce the current designation backlog and keep pace with growth and redevelopment pressures on historic resources. <
> ### Policy HP 5.2 Outside Support for Historic Preservation Actively seek opportunities to leverage outside funding through grants, donations, incentives, partnerships, and acquisition programs. <
> ### Policy HP 5.3 Financial Incentives for Preservation Promote the availability of the Raleigh Historic Landmark property tax deferral incentive and state and federal rehabilitation tax credit programs. Note their value as economic development tools as well as historic preservation incentives. <
> ### Policy HP 5.4 City Support for Publicly-owned Historic Resource Preservation Coordinate and expand city funding and incentives for management of historic resources, to expand public access, and increase public access and visitation. <
> ### Action HP 5.1 Removed 2022 ### Action HP 5.2 Historic Preservation Loan Fund Evaluate the past use and purposes of the city’s current Revolving Historic Preservation Loan Fund; consider broader authorized purposes, such as city acquisition of historic properties, housing and unsafe building code violation repairs, gap financing, and other potential uses. ### Action HP 5.3 Preservation Easements and Acquisition Continue to work with identified public, private, and non-profit entities to obtain preservation easements or restrictive covenants that preserve historic properties. Promote the tax benefits of donations and bargain sales. *** ### Action HP 5.4 Removed 2019 *** ### Action HP 5.5 Property Tax Freeze for Certified Rehabilitation Support state enabling legislation to create a property tax freeze program for certified rehabilitation of designated historic resources. *** ### Action HP 5.6 Historic Preservation Fund Study the creation of a Historic Preservation Fund. Consider building eligibility, project eligibility, fund structure, and fund operation. This study would also include identification of funding sources to capitalize a new loan fund. *** section 13 # Arts and Culture 13.1 Public Art ........................................................................................ 13-4 13.2 Art and Entertainment Districts ........................................................ 13-7 13.3 Arts and Cultural Venues ................................................................. 13-9 13.4 Economic Development through Arts and Culture ........ 13-11 13.5 Artistic and Cultural Identity .......................................................... 13-13 Raleigh strongly values and celebrates its local artist community and homegrown cultural assets. Likewise, we value the relative ease of access to great artists, venues and works of art that visit Raleigh from around the globe. In 2016, the City Council adopted the Raleigh Arts Plan, Creative Life, a ten-year blueprint for the city’s cultural future. The plan, the first of its kind for Raleigh, was conceived as a “community cultural plan,” rather than a “city cultural plan.” *Raleigh is a community connected through arts and culture, where every person is empowered to lead the creative life they envision.* The plan lays out a bold and ambitious agenda for the future arts and cultural development in Raleigh with the Creative Life vision. It embraces eight goals and accompanying strategies. Taken together, they will fulfill City Council’s vision that Raleigh become a nationally recognized leader in arts and culture. The goals include: **Goal 1.** Promote an Active Arts and Culture Life Throughout the Community **Goal 2.** Expand Youth Arts Participation **Goal 3.** Ensure Equity, Access and Inclusion in All Cultural Programming **Goal 4.** Support the Work of Raleigh’s Artists and Arts and Cultural Organizations **Goal 5.** Enhance the Vitality of Raleigh’s Neighborhoods and Districts Through Thoughtful Placemaking **Goal 6.** Enhance Arts Leadership and Governance **Goal 7.** Strengthen Marketing, Promotion and Valuing of the Arts **Goal 8.** Create a System of Sustainable Arts Funding <
> Arts and culture are an integral part of a city’s enduring spirit and vitality. This is demonstrated in Raleigh’s thriving art galleries, entertainment venues, and cultural events. The plan’s strategies offers further opportunities that will go anywhere—storefronts and strip malls, parking decks and community centers, streets and parks—to grow the creative network. Raleigh’s continued commitment to growing arts and culture is essential to the health, well-being, and vitality of the city. It enriches the daily lives of all its residents by providing a deeper understanding, tolerance, and respect for diverse communities. Providing the opportunity to experience and cultivate an appreciation for arts and culture among new audiences is a city aspiration. This will help secure Raleigh’s reputation as the region’s premier center for arts and culture, and can help preserve Raleigh’s heritage and define its legacy. To provide the quality of life and entertainment opportunities desired by Raleigh’s diverse population, the city has continued to invest in the construction of additional cultural facilities and venues. Most notably these investments can be seen in downtown Raleigh. The Raleigh Convention Center opened in September 2008, joined next door by the Red Hat Amphitheater, and the Raleigh Contemporary Art Museum’s relocation to a new facility in downtown Raleigh’s Warehouse District. In 2012, the City of Raleigh Museum reopened in the historic Brigg’s Building on Fayetteville Street. There are a number of other hubs for arts and culture outside of downtown, such as the Pullen Arts Center and Gregg Museum along Hillsborough Street, Midtown Park at North Hills, Lafayette Village in Northeast Raleigh as well as up and coming corridors throughout the city. <
> This Arts and Cultural Resources Section provides a consolidated framework to support and integrate the visual, performing and literary arts in Raleigh. Its recommendations address some of the primary findings that the city needs to focus on, including: * *Revise the planning process for public and private projects that incorporates public art or cultural resources as an integral part of the process;* * *Regional coordination among the numerous venues and cultural facilities;* * *Need for arts and culture should be present in every neighborhood and can provide opportunities to connect and collaborate across neighborhood boundaries;* * *More public art and art integrated into daily life;* * *Raleigh should serve and reflect the cultural interests of all its citizens and should become known for its open and inclusive access—physical, cultural and generational—to arts and culture;* * *Raleigh needs a range of additional spaces and places for artists to collaborate, perform, rehearse and innovate;* * *The arts should become more well-connected to innovators in other sectors;* * *People want ready access to information on arts and cultural activities they desire, and can be encouraged to explore and experiment with new opportunities; and* * *The community strongly supports the continuation and expansion of city leadership in cultural development.* A thriving arts and cultural scene in Raleigh will help the city to realize its vision theme of *Economic Prosperity and Equity*. Building opportunities for the local creative community by promoting art in public places and hosting cultural events such as film festivals, historical events, museum exhibits, music and dance festivals, and culinary events will further strengthen the industry and increase Raleigh’s economic stability and appeal. Additionally, increasing opportunities for arts and culture in public spaces will bring an awareness and appreciation for the arts in the daily lives of all of Raleigh’s residents, regardless of race, ethnicity, or income boundaries. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity <
> Expanding Housing Choices <
> Managing Our Growth <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation <
> Greenprint Raleigh <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). # 13.1 Public Art Raleigh has a range of public art, including pieces of significant historic as well as commemorative importance on the grounds of the State Capitol. Colleges and universities have commissioned public art over the years, with some, like NC State University, continuing to add contemporary work. The Museum Park at the North Carolina Museum of Art presents a continuously changing outdoor exhibition of public art that is accessible via the Capital Area Greenway System. The City of Raleigh recognizes the value of public art to its residents and visitors. Public art is an essential building block for the creation of engaging, imaginative spaces that enliven the public realm, foster shared community interactions, celebrate both our unique stories and collective history and inspire us to experience the world with new eyes and fresh perceptions. Ultimately, we envision a city which successfully transforms and engages civic spaces with public works of art that will uniquely identify Raleigh as a destination place. Joining the hundreds of public art programs across America, the City of Raleigh created a public art program in 2009 to enhance the city’s vitality and civic life. The public art program incorporates the work of artists and designers into public settings while creating connections between artists, project partners and communities. The City of Raleigh allocates funds for public art based on a percentage of the costs of construction (currently one-percent) of new projects. These site-specific works are located across Raleigh in the municipal facilities where construction enabled the funding, including the Buffalo Road Aquatic Center, Halifax Park and Wilders Grove Solid Waste Services Facility. A primary goal of the public art program is to raise the public’s awareness about the impact of public art as well as showcase the cultural and economic value these projects bring to Raleigh, including sustaining <
> jobs, promoting the city’s identity and civic pride, attracting visitors, and developing vibrant, creative spaces. The citizens of Raleigh expressed a strong desire for the public art to be more geographically distributed throughout the city. The city’s parks and extensive and well-used greenway system offer excellent opportunities to spread public art throughout the city’s neighborhoods. Public art should be incorporated into both public and private developments. As the city develops its network of complete streets, it should also explore innovative ideas for incorporating art in the public realm by creating art walks and cultural heritage trails along certain routes. #### Policy AC 1.1 Public Art and Neighborhood Identity Encourage the use of public art to enhance or create a neighborhood identity. <
> ### Policy AC 1.2 Public Art in Public Spaces and Public Projects Incorporate site specific art in public facilities, parks and greenway trails, and along key public corridors. Incorporate public art into the planning stages of publicly-funded projects and projects on city-owned land. ### Policy AC 1.3 Art and Façades Support the use of building façades for art exhibitions and murals. ### Policy AC 1.4 Public Art in Private Development Encourage the inclusion of public art in private development. ### Policy AC 1.5 Public Art Funding Explore innovative public and private funding opportunities for public art. ### Action AC 1.1 Removed 2016 *** ### Action AC 1.2 Public Art Master Plan Develop a public art master plan to determine future directions for art in public places, including an assessment of the existing public art program and collection. *** ### Action AC 1.3 Completed 2011 *** ### Action AC 1.4 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AC 1.5 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AC 1.6 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AC 1.7 Public Art Installations Work toward broader geographic distribution of public art throughout Raleigh’s neighborhoods. *** ### Action AC 1.8 Public Art in Public Projects Involve public art artists at the planning stages of publicly-funded projects and projects on city-owned land. Arts and Culture <
> ### Action AC 1.9 Public Art on the Capital Area Greenway Utilize the city’s Capital Area Greenway system as a venue for placement of public art as identified in the Capital Area Greenway Planning and Design Guide. *** ### Action AC 1.10 Public Art Policy Amend the existing city ordinance to increase incrementally the allocation for public art in city of Raleigh Capital Improvement Plan projects from 0.5 percent to 2 percent to allow for appropriately-scaled projects, for program support, and to broaden the types of capital projects receiving public art treatment. *** ### Action AC 1.11 Iconic Artwork Commission one or more bold, iconic works in Raleigh. *** ### Action AC 1.12 Private Development Incentives Investigate ways to amend the UDO to allow developers unable to meet site development requirements to include public art as a design alternative. *** ### Action AC 1.13 Public Art in Site Plans Review the city’s site plan standards for opportunities to increase flexibility for the incorporation of public art materials. *** ## 13.2 Art and Entertainment Districts Raleigh’s collection of museums, historic sites, art galleries, theaters, and other performance venues is impressive. Raleigh boasts numerous organizations, an above-average creative sector and a robust collection of municipal assets (cultural facilities, community and arts centers, public art and city art collection). The cultural asset inventory shows that Raleigh is a city with an extensive and varied collection of cultural resources. While many venues are located downtown, many citizens would like to see more program opportunities and venues provided closer to where they live. Growth Centers identified in this Plan have the potential to serve as neighborhood arts and culture hubs. However, to support the demand and offer a diverse portfolio of arts opportunities, the city will need to grow new and different opportunities throughout the community. Raleigh is faced with the challenge of leveraging its existing resources in response to the growing arts community and public demand for arts and cultural experiences, opportunities, and unique places. In order to realize the Creative Life vision, the first step is to make better use of a strong network of assets and prioritize needs or gaps in its cultural inventory for future investments, by the city or private sector. The public art program has set goals for expansion of its collection to new areas of the city. Also, some cultural leaders commented on the relative absence of organizations rooted in communities of color. Ethnically-specific cultural programming appears to be provided primarily through festivals and smaller or unincorporated organizations. Achieving greater cultural equity is a priority of the Raleigh Arts Plan and will likely require efforts to develop and support leaders of color, strengthen the capacity of communities-of-color-led organizations and ensure opportunities are inclusive of diverse populations. Desire has been expressed for a 1,500- to 1,800-seat state of the art performance venue, as well as for smaller, flexible performance venues (100 to 500 seats), a black box theatre, and informal performance spaces for dance, music and theatre. Creating a new performing arts theatre and other needed venues are long-term propositions, involving considerable planning to confirm the need and substantial costs. However, the development of new facilities would create a developmental path for Raleigh arts organizations to grow artistically and increase participation. New venues should also follow the principles of universal design to ensure accessibility by all. ### Policy AC 2.1 Removed 2019 ### Policy AC 2.2 Removed 2019 ### Policy AC 2.3 Encouraging Arts in Growth Centers Encourage venues to locate proximate to one another in Growth Centers and near to complementary uses such as coffee shops, dining establishments, and retail. <
> Arts and Culture <
> ### Action AC 2.1 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AC 2.2 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AC 2.3 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AC 2.4 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AC 2.5 Completed 2021 *** ### Action AC 2.6 Cultural Venues in Growth Centers Include smaller indoor and outdoor cultural venues in Growth Centers throughout the city, including dance, theatre and music venues, exhibit spaces and gathering spaces. *** # 13.3 Arts and Cultural Venues ### Policy AC 3.1 Supporting Arts and Culture Inventory, support and maintain existing cultural facilities, programs, and events. <
> ### Policy AC 3.2 New Arts and Culture Venues Develop a range of new arts and culture venues to meet increasing demands from new and existing residents. <
> ### Policy AC 3.3 Activate Non-traditional Venues Encourage performances, exhibits, and events in non-traditional settings such as galleries and clubs in addition to traditional venues such as museums, historic sites, and concert halls. <
> ### Policy AC 3.4 Removed 2019 ### Policy AC 3.5 Removed 2019 ### Policy AC 3.6 Acquisition of Performance and Program Sites Continue to explore opportunities to acquire sites for use by arts and culture. <
> ### Policy AC 3.7 Public-Private Partnerships Explore and utilize public-private partnerships to create additional cultural centers in Raleigh. <
> ### Policy AC 3.8 Universal Access Ensure that all facilities and venues are universally accessible. <
> ### Policy AC 3.9 Live-Work Space Encourage developers to include artist live-work, studio, rehearsal and performance spaces as an active ground floor use. <
> ### Action AC 3.1 Removed 2019 ### Action AC 3.2 Removed 2019 ### Action AC 3.3 Completed 2013 ### Action AC 3.4 Venue Inventory Create and maintain an inventory of existing cultural venues and identify sites and partnerships for future venues. Develop an online, regional inventory of available venues and spaces. ### Action AC 3.5 Activate Non-traditional Venues Utilize empty storefronts and other vacant commercial spaces for temporary arts venues such as pop-up galleries and murals, encouraging street activation by artists. ### Action AC 3.6 Partnerships Partner with area agencies, groups, and institutions (including colleges and universities) to broaden the cultural facilities and programs available to the public. ### Action AC 3.7 Shared Facilities Develop shared facilities throughout the city that are universally accessible for art production and performances for the various artistic disciplines such as music, dance, theatre and media. ### Action AC 3.8 Small Performance Venue Develop a 1,500- to 1,800-seat performance venue that is universally accessible. ### Action AC 3.9 Live-Work Space Identify areas where artist live-work spaces are allowed and provide direction for development to engage the Office of Raleigh Arts in planning. <
> <
> <
> Arts and Culture <
> # 13.4 Economic Development through Arts and Culture A flourishing arts and culture industry in Raleigh impacts much more than the employment of artists and performers, and generation of arts and culture-based tourism revenue. Improving the quality of life through arts and culture attracts more knowledge workers to Raleigh. This, in turn, encourages creative industries to locate in the city. Economic generators for art and culture in Raleigh touch all facets of the industry including art galleries, theatre, museums, and movie series and also expanding to the culinary scene with global, eclectic and fine dining, brew pubs, coffee houses, and artisan craft foods. <
> An important perspective on the economic impact of nonprofit arts and culture organizations on Raleigh’s creative economy is provided by Americans for the Arts, which conducts a national study of almost 200 communities and regions every five years. The most recent research, based on data from 2010 provided by 61 arts and culture organizations in Raleigh, measured a range of economic impacts by both the organizations and their audiences. During fiscal year 2010, aggregate nonprofit sector spending by both Raleigh nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences totaled $143.5 million. Even during a recessionary year, Raleigh nonprofit arts organizations and their audiences have an economic impact that is significantly above comparable regional and national medians. Direct expenditures, employment and government revenues are all substantially higher than their benchmarks. Further, given the continued growth since 2010 of both cultural organizations and the wider creative community in Raleigh, as well as increasing cultural tourism driven by events like IBMA Wide Open Bluegrass, it seems certain that the next study, which will be published in 2017 based on 2015 data, will show substantial gains in the economic impact of the nonprofit arts and culture sector in Raleigh. *See also Section 6: ‘Economic Development’ for additional policies and actions.* <
> ### Policy AC 4.1 Arts and Culture Training Encourage partnerships with local universities to offer vocational training opportunities in arts, culture, and entertainment, such as graphic and web design, arts and culture management, stage design, and lighting. ### Policy AC 4.2 Private Support for Arts and Culture Encourage partnerships with the private sector and organizations to encourage monetary and non-monetary support for arts and culture. ### Policy AC 4.3 Partnership for Arts and Culture Development Promote partnerships among arts and culture organizations, educational institutions, museums, historic sites, and charitable foundations to enhance programming, funding, and facility development. ### Action AC 4.1 Attract Artists and Artisans Use and promote tools, including the Percent for Art, start-up loans, and art incubators, as incentives to encourage artists to locate in the city. ### Action AC 4.2 Removed 2019 ### Action AC 4.3 Removed 2022 ### Action AC 4.4 Cultural Tours Work with the Convention and Visitors Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, and Downtown Raleigh Alliance to promote tour programs that increase awareness of the arts, culture, history, and architecture. ### Action AC 4.5 Removed 2019 ### Action AC 4.6 Completed 2021 ### Action AC 4.7 Connect Artists and Businesses Connect artists, arts organizations and arts-related businesses with local business resources to grow the arts contribution to the local innovative and entrepreneurial culture. # 13.5 Artistic and Cultural Identity The Arts and Cultural Resources Key Focus Area of the City of Raleigh’s Strategic Plan states, “Embrace Raleigh’s diverse offerings of arts and cultural resources as iconic celebrations of our community that provide entertainment, community and economic benefit.” Objectives to implement this focus area includes national recognition, protecting and enhancing character defining places, and fostering diverse opportunities for innovative arts, culture and tourism. As the capital of North Carolina, Raleigh is already uniquely positioned to showcase the state’s history and culture. The city is home to the State’s History and Natural Sciences museums as well as the North Carolina Museum of Art. In the past five years both the natural sciences and art museum have built new additions to their facilities. The art museum is currently in its next phase of construction and is expanding its outdoor park space. The expansion will be transformative for the redevelopment of the Blue Ridge Road Corridor, connecting to other culture venues, including the NC State Fairgrounds and PNC Arena. In addition, locally grown annual arts festivals, music festivals and cultural celebrations have been branded the Raleigh M.A.I.N. Event, comprising a month of music, art, innovation and noise, and has become a tourism generator of regional, national, and international renown. Raleigh’s distinguished neighborhoods and corridors also serve as curators of the city’s cultural identity. The city’s two existing cultural districts—the South Park-East Raleigh Cultural District and the New Bern Avenue-Edenton Street Cultural District—are models for identification and designation. These areas also warrant creative enhancement to maintain their identities. There are also centers identified for development in the city’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and other areas of interest, including the Warehouse District downtown, the Blue Ridge Corridor and Hillsborough Street Business Improvement District (Live It Up on Hillsborough). Perhaps the largest-scale opportunity for Raleigh to expand its identity is through the city’s acquisition of the Dorothea Dix property. Not only does it have buildings appropriate to repurpose as cultural facilities, but the property itself could be developed as an outdoor arts park, including both permanently-sited artworks as well as temporary installations. Other important opportunities include the development of new arts and cultural districts around the city, utilization of vacant storefronts, and street activation by artists in vibrant areas of the city and in downtown. ### Policy AC 5.1 Arts and Cultural Events Promote and market events that support and encourage cultural and heritage tourism. Partner with art galleries, independent theaters, local universities and colleges, and the private sector in hosting and organizing annual festivals and arts events to establish a cultural identity for Raleigh. <
> ### Policy AC 5.2 Engaging the Arts Community in Planning Engage the arts community in local planning to understand how the city can support their activities and help them to expand and grow. <
> ### Policy AC 5.3 Removed 2019 ### Policy AC 5.4 Community Identity Encourage the use of public art to create an identity for the City of Raleigh and its many communities. <
> Arts and Culture ### Action AC 5.1 South Park-East Raleigh Cultural District and New Bern Avenue-Edenton Street Cultural District Implement the planned Cultural Districts for South Park-East Raleigh and New Bern Avenue-Edenton Street. ### Action AC 5.2 Removed 2019 ### Action AC 5.3 Completed 2022 ### Action AC 5.4 Creative Districts Include the formation of arts or creative districts, building on and promoting concentrations of arts facilities, creative businesses, activities and events in Growth Centers. ### Action AC 5.5 Community Events Remove barriers to all for informal placemaking and short-term arts events and programs arising from the community. ### Action AC 5.6 Creative Placemaking Working Group Convene a creative placemaking working group representing various City of Raleigh departments such as Planning, Economic Development, Housing and Neighborhoods, Public Works, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources and others to identify and promote cooperative efforts for creative placemaking. When appropriate, additional stakeholders and community groups should be involved in the working group. <
> section 14 # Regional and Interjurisdictional Coordination 14.1 Transportation Investments ........................................................... 14-4 14.2 Land Use and Growth Management................................................ 14-6 14.3 Economic Development Initiatives.................................................. 14-9 14.4 Education Investments ................................................................ 14-11 14.5 Public Libraries ............................................................................ 14-13 14.6 Environmental Sustainability and Natural Resources ... 14-14 14.7 Public Facilities and Infrastructure................................................ 14-16 The effects of climate change, widespread inter-jurisdictional commuting patterns, and shifting economies require thinking and planning at a regional scale. Cities can no longer act in isolation, expecting that plans and actions terminating at political boundaries will maintain economic health, environmental assets, and residents’ quality of life. Cities across the nation must now collaborate with other cities and counties, coordinating within and across jurisdictional boundaries to manage growth, development issues, and service provision. Raleigh’s continued success relies on its ability to plan and act regionally—this is one of the city’s biggest challenges. Other regions across the nation are acting regionally and changing the way they plan; these regions can offer models of success and lessons learned as the City of Raleigh and the Research Triangle region move forward. The City of Raleigh is one of many municipalities contributing to the Triangle region’s economic success, benefiting from its natural resources, and responsible for its sustainability. Ensuring the economic, environmental, and social welfare of the extended region requires intergovernmental cooperation in planning and the provision of public services. Raleigh’s regional challenges include transportation, land use and growth management, diversity of housing choices, economic development, education, protection of natural resources, climate change adaptation and mitigation, improvement of air quality, and provision of public services. Some individual municipalities participate in regional matters through local planning, such as Orange County’s regional park facility planning initiatives or Raleigh’s participation in the Center of the Region Enterprise (CORE) plan development and implementation. The City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department provides water and sanitary sewer service to approximately 180,000 metered water and sewer customers and a service population of approximately 530,000 people in the Raleigh, Garner, Wake Forest, Rolesville, Knightdale, Wendell, and Zebulon areas. Several public services are operated on a countywide basis—such as the public school system, public libraries, landfills, hazardous waste collection, and EMS service—and require local input for facility planning. In addition to these local efforts, regional policies and programs are also being developed by various organizations and regional bodies. The Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) is active in regional land use and transportation planning. The Triangle region also has two main metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) responsible for long-range regional transportation planning: Capital Area MPO (CAMPO), which governs the City of Raleigh, and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO (DCHC- MPO). The Burlington-Graham MPO and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are also regional actors in transportation planning. All of these groups plan for and carry out the regional transportation programs that affect land use, growth management, and resource planning. Organizations, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy and Triangle GreenPrint seek to preserve open and green space to ensure responsible regional growth management. Triangle Tomorrow, through the Urban Land Institute’s Reality Check, has initiated a planning effort on how to handle growth in the 15 counties that surround RTP over the next 20 years. The Research Triangle Region is projected to grow by 1.2 million people and add 700,000 jobs by 2030. In addition to the MPOs and regional non-profit organizations that act locally, Raleigh has a series of ad-hoc taskforces, partnerships, and advisory groups that address specific regional concerns. Examples include the Western Wake Partnership for Wastewater Infrastructure (“Western Wake Partners”) initiative to develop regional wastewater treatment facilities and the Wake County Growth Issues Taskforce. Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination These state, local, county, non-profit, and ad-hoc efforts represent a regional awareness that certain types of mid- and long-range planning cannot take place within isolated political boundaries. Patterns and consequences of land use and development cross city and county lines. This regional awareness is transformed into local planning commitment as municipalities, including Raleigh, sign on to national (U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement) agreements to pursue more sustainable development and growth practices. Current efforts at regional coordination are disparate and may not be able to accomplish separately what a more coordinated, unified program or entity might. The specific policies and actions described in this Section all fall under the broader goal of having improved and more effective regional governance. Raleigh and its regional neighbors must provide adequate public infrastructure and improve regional mobility to keep up with the region’s high population growth rate. Key issues addressed in this Section include: * *A need to manage growth.* * *Loss of rural land and character in areas where it might be preserved.* * *A need to protect natural and historic resources.* * *Reduction in green spaces and the need to offset the loss of natural areas in the region.* * *Continually increasing travel times, traffic congestion, and reliance on the automobile.* * *Challenge of providing adequate public utilities and facilities for a rapidly growing population—everything from drinking water and solid waste removal to public schools and community centers.* * *Responsibility to change development and transportation patterns to improve air quality.* * *Stewardship of water resources and protection of water quality.* In working together as a region, each individual locality’s ability to achieve its planning goals and to create visible and lasting change increases. The Comprehensive Plan vision theme of *Managing Our Growth* cannot be accomplished without coordination with the state, Wake County and other jurisdictions within the greater Triangle region. Increased cross-commuting patterns, regional transportation planning, and state-level maintenance of roadways require that regional coordination occur to achieve the vision theme of *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*. *Economic Prosperity and Equity* and *Greenprint Raleigh* also require that Raleigh partner and collaborate with other regional actors. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity. <
> Expanding Housing Choices. <
> Managing Our Growth. <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation. <
> Greenprint Raleigh. <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (<
>). # 14.1 Transportation Investments The City of Raleigh partners with several organizations for transportation planning and implementation; these organizations include Capital Area MPO (CAMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), and GoTriangle. Together with the city, these organizations provide residents of Raleigh and the Triangle region with a multimodal system. NCDOT has primary responsibility for the maintenance of interstates, state highways, and bridges. CAMPO maintains the region’s 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, which includes plans not only for automobiles, but also for transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. The Raleigh area is served primarily by two transit services—the regional GoTriangle and GoRaleigh Transit. Another locally-oriented transit system is North Carolina State University’s Wolfline, which primarily serves the university but is also open to the general public. Increasing population and changing patterns of development will place additional strain on the existing transportation system unless investments target the creation of alternative, non-automotive modes. Investments and policies must focus on enhancing transit options—adding new modes, such as rail transit—as well as improving existing modes, such as bicycle routes and trails. The Triangle region has responded with projects, such as the Wake County Transit Plan. Regional rail and enhanced bus service are reflected in the adopted Wake County Transit Plan. Continued collaboration accompanied by targeted investments will bring these efforts from plan adoption to implementation. Important steps in this process include Raleigh’s Major Investment Study and Downtown Operations Study and TJCOG’s Wake Transit Corridor Land Use & Housing Planning project. Transportation issues related to Raleigh-Durham International Airport and commercial and freight transportation also require regional coordination. *See also: 4.2 ‘Roadway System and Transportation Demand Management,’ 4.4 ‘Public Transportation,’ 4.5 ‘Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation,’ and 4.8 ‘Commercial Truck and Rail Freight’ in Section 4: ‘Transportation’ for related policies and actions.* ### Policy RC 1.1 Regional Transit Planning Work with other regional jurisdictions and stakeholders to improve regional transit, including regional rail, through coordinated land use and transportation planning, investment in transit infrastructure, and alternative funding methods. <
> *See also Section 4: ‘Transportation.’* *** ### Policy RC 1.2 Transit Agency Coordination Facilitate coordination between GoTriangle services, Wake County’s extended transit services, and GoRaleigh transit. Support coordinated improvements to service frequency, schedules, routes, fare collections, and establishing a unified rider information system. <
> *** ### Policy RC 1.3 Transit Funding Explore and support funding alternatives, such as a regional sales tax, to help fund a regional transit system and regional transit services. <
> *** Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination <
> ### Policy RC 1.4 Bridges Coordinate with NCDOT for bridge monitoring, maintenance, and rehabilitation. ### Policy RC 1.5 Reducing Regional VMT Support efforts to reduce traffic congestion and decrease vehicle miles traveled through cross-jurisdictional transit-oriented design and transportation planning programs. ### Policy RC 1.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Links Expand regional accessibility and linkages for pedestrians and bicyclists. ### Policy RC 1.7 Regional Bicycle Planning Provide regional bicycle mobility, developing cross-jurisdiction bicycle corridors such as that proposed by Triangle J Council of Governments’ (TJCOG) Center of the Region Enterprise (CORE). ### Action RC 1.1 Completed 2014 ### Action RC 1.2 Removed 2016 ### Action RC 1.3 Completed 2014 ## 14.2 Land Use and Growth Management The City of Raleigh currently exercises planning and zoning authority within its incorporated limits (its taxing and municipal service area) as well as its extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ), an area outside of the incorporated limits where the city has been granted land use authority by Wake County. The city also has annexation agreements with adjacent municipalities delineating areas that are programmed for eventual annexation by Raleigh. Wake County’s Land Use Plan recognizes these annexation agreement boundaries by designating the future growth areas of all Wake County cities and towns as Short or Long Range Urban Service Areas (USAs), depending upon the anticipated time horizon for utility extension. These areas currently consist primarily of undeveloped land, farmland, and low-density residential uses, and they comprise all land in the county outside of water supply watersheds. Recent development patterns have consumed land at a faster rate than population growth, due to low density development patterns. Coordination with Wake County and other adjacent municipalities is required to develop a countywide growth management plan. Approaches that provide for more compact and orderly growth and better coordination of land development with infrastructure and public facilities are required. Future annexation areas should remain predominately undeveloped until land areas within current jurisdictional boundaries are more fully utilized. The Triangle J Council of Government has initiated one regional coordination effort, the Center of Region Enterprise (CORE) project, to take a longer-term, comprehensive look at development, mobility and green space opportunities in the region’s center. Central to encouraging compact growth is the provision of affordable and accessible housing. There are existing efforts to this end, including the Wake County Affordable Housing Plan, and the city currently collaborates with Wake County, the Raleigh Housing Authority, the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, and private housing developers to produce and preserve affordable and supportive housing throughout the city. As land becomes more expensive, the need to coordinate affordable housing development with public facility development will become more critical. *See also Section 3: ‘Land Use’ and Section 4: ‘Transportation.’* ### Policy RC 2.1 Regional Smart Growth Promotion Work with regional and local groups to promote smart growth, focusing growth in already developed areas, creating walkable and livable communities, increasing transportation options, and preserving green spaces. <
> ### Policy RC 2.2 TJCOG Land Use Strategies Pursue opportunities through TJCOG to more effectively address regional land use and growth management challenges, while preserving local planning autonomy. <
> ### Policy RC 2.3 Regional TOD Strategies Encourage a regional distribution of land uses and economic activities that will encourage transit-oriented development patterns rather than development patterns based on the single-occupant automobile. Provide for more compact and efficient patterns of development to support transit and non-motorized travel. <
> ### Policy RC 2.4 Employer-assisted Housing Work with Wake County and the State of North Carolina to create employer-assisted housing programs to encourage employees to live in or near downtown Raleigh. *See also Section 13: ‘Arts and Culture,’ and Section 7: ‘Housing.’* ### Policy RC 2.5 Housing and Neighborhood Planning Ensure interdepartmental and intergovernmental coordination and funding of housing and neighborhood planning activities and programs. ### Policy RC 2.6 Regional Coordination on Emerging Issues Promote intergovernmental coordination to focus on emerging development issues, such as reinvigorating aging commercial centers and corridors. ### Policy RC 2.7 Regional Open Space Networks Support initiatives, such as the Triangle Green Print initiatives, that work to create a protected, linked network of natural areas, wildlife habitats, and greenspaces throughout the region. Specifically, accelerate connections between greenway systems throughout the region. ### Policy RC 2.8 Shared Corridors Ensure coordination between the city and adjacent municipalities in land use development, access, and natural resource protection along shared corridors linking the municipalities. ### Policy RC 2.9 Coordinating Schools, Libraries, and Parks Foster collaboration with WCPSS and Wake County Libraries in co-locating these facilities. ### Policy RC 2.10 School and Library Planning Work with Wake County to plan for land adequate to meet present and future public school and library needs. ### Policy RC 2.11 Concurrency and County Facilities Coordinate with the State of North Carolina and Wake County to ensure appropriate infrastructure is planned or in place when siting facilities. ### Policy RC 2.12 County and State Government Facilities Planning Coordinate with the State of North Carolina and Wake County to enhance transit, bicycle and pedestrian access to new and existing government facilities, encourage compact and efficient use of publicly-owned lands, and leverage public investments to spur complementary private investment. ### Policy RC 2.13 Developments of Regional Impact Coordinate with state, county, and regional agencies in the project review procedures of developments likely to cause land use, transportation, and environmental impacts beyond the political boundaries in which they occur. Projects of this type are referred to as Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) in many states. Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination <
> ### Policy RC 2.14 Regional Growth Management Initiatives Participate in regional initiatives to manage growth, conserve land, and increase regional mobility, such as the TJCOG’s Development and Infrastructure Partnership and the Wake County Growth Issues Task Force. ### Policy RC 2.15 Regional Partners in Park Acquisition Partner with the state and county whenever possible to acquire and fund regional park facilities. ### Action RC 2.1 Regional Growth Management Agreement Promote the adoption of a voluntary regional agreement among the Triangle’s cities and counties containing principles addressing how to manage future regional urban growth and services. ### Action RC 2.2 Converted to Policy 2016 ### Action RC 2.3 Converted to Policy 2021 ### Action RC 2.4 Rural Development Guidelines Prepare rural development guidelines for the Long-Range Urban Service Area with collaboration among the city, Wake County, adjacent municipalities, and affected residents and property owners. ### Action RC 2.5 Completed 2012 ### Action RC 2.6 Regional Land Use Maps Work with TJCOG and Triangle counties and municipalities to prepare regional existing and future land use maps. Use these maps to analyze land capacity and impacts on a regional basis. ### Action RC 2.7 Completed 2022 ## 14.3 Economic Development Initiatives One of the nation’s most rapidly growing regions, the Triangle is benefiting from long-term investments in major educational institutions and the Research Triangle Park. The expanding base of technology industries continues to generate new jobs, and the area’s highly-touted and affordable quality of life provides regional employers with a competitive advantage for attracting and retaining qualified workers. The Triangle’s component jurisdictions are increasingly connected as employees cross-commute, new businesses develop to serve companies throughout the region, and existing industry spins off new businesses. The region is recognized as an economic powerhouse for biotech innovations, medical breakthroughs, technological advancements, state-of-the-art educational institutions and advanced research—a pivotal factor in its economic longevity. Continued cultivation of growing industries, particularly information, biosciences, and other technologies, will foster continued economic prosperity for Raleigh and the region. Coordination between jurisdictions in the region and with the state will be critical to protecting Raleigh’s high quality of life and continuing economic success. Employment and development will need to be distributed equitably and efficiently to prevent market saturation and uneven, single-use patterns of development. Resources and efforts from various regional actors will be required to address job readiness and job transitions as manufacturing jobs decrease and other sectors replace them. There are a variety of organizations working in and around Raleigh on economic development issues and initiatives, including Wake County Economic Development (WCED) in the Raleigh Chamber of Commerce, Raleigh Area Development Authority (RADA), Greater Raleigh Visitors and Convention Bureau (GRVCB), and Research Triangle Region Partnership (RTRP). Additional collaboration among these groups combined with support from jurisdictions will help the region better manage economic development—employment, services, and development. *See also ‘6.7 Creative Industries’ in Section 6: ‘Economic Development’ for related policies on colleges and universities.* ### Policy RC 3.1 Economic Development Coordination Coordinate with local, state, and regional economic development organizations to develop strategic programs that focus on maintaining Raleigh’s economic success and regional competitiveness. <
> ### Policy RC 3.2 Tracking Regional Economic Change Identify emerging changes in local and regional economies and collaborate with regional economic development partners to address issues adequately and equitably through new programs, policies, and incentives as appropriate. <
> ### Policy RC 3.3 Capturing Economic Opportunities Continue to work with Wake County Economic Development (WCED) and the Raleigh Chamber of Commerce to better capitalize on local economic development opportunities. <
> Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination ### Action RC 3.1 Job Retraining Programs Work with Wake County and local universities to provide job training and education for those who need to re-train for new industry jobs. *** ### Action RC 3.2 Research Triangle Regional Partnership Support the work of the Research Triangle Regional Partnership and similar groups in maintaining continued regional competitiveness. *** ### Action RC 3.3 Green Technology Strategy Develop a regional strategy for attracting and supporting businesses and start-ups in the green technology industry with participation from regional economic development entities and research universities. *** ## 14.4 Education Investments The City of Raleigh is served by the Wake County Public School System (WCPSS), which is made up of more than a hundred schools, some 13,000 teachers and staff, and thousands of volunteers working together to educate the children of Wake County. The system was formed in 1976 with the merger of the former City of Raleigh and Wake County school systems and is the largest system in the state. In a December 2016 report, the WCPSS’s Growth and Planning Department worked jointly with the Wake County Planning Department to determine new enrollment projections for the next three years. The school system is expected to enroll over 13,000 more new students over the next three years increasing total enrollment for the 2016-2020 school year to a projected level of over 170,000 students. According to the 2006 Blue Ribbon Committee Report on the Future of Wake County, in 2030, the projected numbers of students in Wake County schools will more than double current enrollment levels. The demand for new schools due to the rapid growth in school-age population is straining the County’s ability to plan for and build schools. Existing funding mechanisms and levels of coordination cannot keep pace with projected growth. Regional coordination on issues related to better funding for the capital costs of school construction and new infrastructure to accommodate growth is needed for this important asset to be maintained. Raleigh is also home to eight universities and colleges, enriching the city’s educational opportunities. Among these educational institutions are North Carolina State University, a major research institution, two private women’s colleges, and two historically significant schools that were founded as institutions of higher learning for African Americans. With a combined student population approaching 40,000, these institutions have a major impact on the demographic makeup of the city. Raleigh is also the primary home to Wake Technical Community College, which provides two-year associate degrees, continuing education classes, coursework that can be transferred for college credit, and an array of diplomas and certificates. The strength of Raleigh’s schools is central to the region’s high quality of life and economic success. These educational opportunities are the product of overlapping municipal, county, and state institutions. Raleigh must partner and coordinate with county and state organizations to maintain and improve its educational assets. ### Policy RC 4.1 Coordinated School Planning Coordinate with Wake County Schools, County government, and Wake Technical Community College through the Wake Public Facilities Coordinating Committee in the planning and construction of needed educational facilities. <
> ### Policy RC 4.2 Wake County Public School System Review of Development Plans Keep WCPSS informed of subdivision and residential site plans, rezoning requests, and other development activity that may impact school enrollments. <
> ### Policy RC 4.3 School Siting and Design Collaborate with WCPSS on school siting and design criteria to provide facilities that are universally accessible and best meet public needs. Consider issues of walkability, non-motorized transportation projects, proximity to growth areas, and access to transit. <
> Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination ### Policy RC 4.4 School and Library Planning Work with Wake County to plan for and designate land adequate to meet present and future public school and library needs. <
> ### Policy RC 4.5 College and University Planning Encourage increased cooperation and partnerships between college and universities and surrounding communities. <
> *See also Section 6: ‘Economic Development.’* ### Policy RC 4.6 Co-location of Schools and Housing Coordinate with WCPSS to co-locate affordable housing, with priority given to households below 50 percent of AMI, in conjunction with new schools to encourage economic diversity within new neighborhoods and schools, encourage walking, and reduce the need for busing. <
> ### Policy RC 4.7 Sustainable Schools Promote use of sustainable development practices for schools, including construction of high-performance facilities that conserve water and energy. <
> ### Policy RC 4.8 School Site Location Working Group Work with WCPSS to identify available properties for future school locations. <
> ### Policy RC 4.9 Regional Growth Management Initiatives Coordinate development approvals with Wake County Public Schools. Inform them of rezonings that may have school impacts, and ensure new residential developments are reflected in demand projections. <
> ### Action RC 4.1 School Enrollment Projections Use common population forecasts and future land use projections for the city and county to improve the accuracy of enrollment projections. ### Action RC 4.2 Removed 2021 ### Action RC 4.3 Partnerships with Design and Construction Staff Establish new and maintain current partnerships with WCPSS Facilities Design and Construction staff. ### Action RC 4.4 Converted to Policy 2016 ### Action RC 4.5 Removed 2021 ### Action RC 4.6 Completed 2014 ### Action RC 4.7 Converted to Policy 2016 <
> ## 14.5 Public Libraries As the population and demand for library services grow, so does the need to build new facilities. The Wake County Public Libraries 2007 Master Plan includes both service elements and capital elements. The analysis concluded that overall status is good. All libraries had been renovated, remodeled, or newly constructed with the past decade. Excellent service, cost effectiveness, and productivity are hallmarks of the growing system. Wake County Public Libraries has developed facilities through library bonds dating back to the establishment of the system in the mid-1980s. A $10 million bond referendum in 1993 and $35 million bond referendum in 2003 helped fund many of the system’s current facilities. These and subsequent bond funding has helped WCPL keep pace, but on-going population growth is once again placing libraries at capacity levels. . ### Policy RC 5.1 Library System Investment Continue the county’s investment in libraries by continuing to expand the library system to reach the unserved and under-served populations. Ensure adequate access to library services in future growth areas. ### Policy RC 5.2 Sustainable Library Design Collaborate with Wake County to incorporate sustainable development and design in the construction of libraries. ### Policy RC 5.3 Library Siting Provide library facilities that are sensitive to natural surroundings, universally accessible, and located near centers of activity and public transit. ### Policy RC 5.4 Library Co-location Consider co-location and joint use opportunities as part of the library building program plan. ### Action RC 5.1 Downtown and North Hills Branch Libraries Encourage the construction of downtown and North Hills branch libraries. ### Action RC 5.2 Wake County Coordination on Library Siting Maintain communication with Wake County public facilities and capital improvement staff as land use plans are confirmed and available property is identified for the siting of additional public libraries. # 14.6 Environmental Sustainability and Natural Resources At the end of 2007, Wake County was immersed in a historic drought, rated as Exceptional (the most severe rating) by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. The drought was unusual both in its severity and closeness to the prior drought in 2002. A drought of similar harshness was experienced again in late 2012. In the years since, annual rainfall totals have been well above average, which demonstrates how variable our climate has become. Efforts to reduce vulnerability to potential hazards and to protect natural resources will continue to require a regional approach. The city, along with other Wake County local jurisdictions, participated in the development of the Wake County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, strategies to conserve water and energy, to protect natural habitats and species, and to improve air and water quality are already used in Raleigh and neighboring jurisdictions. Regional efforts, such as those of the Triangle J Council of Governments’ Water Conservation Task Force, also exist. What remains is for local and regional groups to improve collaboration and promote methods for development and conservation that improve the long-term health of human and ecological systems. *See also Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection’ for additional policies and actions.* <
> ### Policy RC 6.1 Conservation Partnerships Pursue partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions, regional bodies, and other levels of government to create more effective regional resource and ecosystem management and conservation programs, including wildlife habitat conservation, restoration, and management. ### Policy RC 6.2 Falls Lake Watershed Land Protection Coordinate with conservation and land trust groups to protect the Falls Lake watershed through the Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative (UNCWI). *See also ‘5.3 Water Quality and Conservation’ in Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection.’* ### Policy RC 6.3 Water Supply Management Work with neighboring jurisdictions and existing and future organizations to manage and protect the regional water supply, including protecting the watershed of the planned Little River Reservoir from inappropriate development that would degrade water quality. *See also ‘5.3 Water Quality and Conservation’ in Section 5: ‘Environmental Protection.’* ### Policy RC 6.4 Air Quality Partnerships Collaborate with the Triangle Air Quality Partnership, the Triangle Clean Cities Coalition, the Triangle Air Awareness Coalition, and other regional partners to adopt additional air quality policies and fulfill regional air quality goals. ### Policy RC 6.5 Water Standards Maintain the non-degradation standards and goals for water leaving Raleigh’s jurisdiction. These standards state that (a) water quality leaving Raleigh’s sanitary sewers (effluent) be as good as or better than water quality entering the city’s intake, and (b) water quality (runoff) entering the city’s storm sewers should have minimal degradation or contamination. ### Policy RC 6.6 Regional Open Space Plan Work with other jurisdictions and stakeholders to implement the Wake County Open Space Plan. Ensure the continued existence of recreational and natural areas and provide for regional accessibility and linkages for pedestrians and bicyclists. ### Policy RC 6.7 Regional Climate Planning Develop a coordinated regional approach for dealing with issues of climate change. Work with local, state, and federal agencies as well as private and non-profit organizations to advance broader climate change initiatives as resources allow. ### Action RC 6.1 Neuse River Corridor Extension Extend planning efforts for the Neuse River corridor to the Wake-Johnston County line. As city limits and services are extended along the river, these properties should be incorporated into the city’s Parks and Greenway system. ### Action RC 6.2 Participation in UNRBA Initiatives Participate in the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA), UNRBA initiatives, and other regional efforts to protect water quality. ### Action RC 6.3 Stormwater Discharge Alternatives Use drainage basin studies to identify feasible minor regional facilities and other facility improvements that may be constructed as alternatives to on-site discharge control. ### Action RC 6.4 Air Pollution Mitigation Projects Identify specific transportation projects that will reduce air pollutants and improve air quality. Use existing channels through CAMPO and NCDOT to seek Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program funds to pay for them. ### Action RC 6.5 Converted to Policy 2021 ### Action RC 6.6 Converted to Policy 2021 ### Action RC 6.7 Removed 2019 # 14.7 Public Facilities and Infrastructure The City of Raleigh has merged water and sewer utilities with all the municipalities in eastern Wake County, including Garner, Rolesville, Wake Forest, Knightdale, Wendell, and Zebulon. Further, the Towns of Fuquay-Varina and Holly Springs periodically rely on the city for drinking water. The vast majority of the drinking water supply for Raleigh (and surrounding municipalities connected to the regional system) is from Falls Lake on the Neuse River, with a small amount coming from Wake Forest Lake on Smith Creek. The city opened the D. E. Benton Water Treatment Plant in 2010, and a new water treatment facility, the Little River Water Treatment Plant, is anticipated to be in service by 2025. The city also has or is planning water interconnects with the Town of Cary, the City of Durham, and Johnston County. Regional water system planning challenges include not only supplying adequate potable water, but also managing wastewater and stormwater generated by growth and development. During extreme low-flow events, the city’s Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge can be up to 40 percent of the river flow at the downstream water supply intake for Johnston County. Multi-jurisdictional initiatives similar to the Lake Preservation Policy will be central to future stormwater management considerations as the city’s pattern of development changes. Other public services, such as solid waste and energy infrastructure, will also benefit from collaborative regional approaches. Wake County’s new regional solid waste management facility, South Wake, is one example of such an approach. *See also Section 9: ‘Public Utilities.’* ### Policy RC 7.1 Planning and Climate Change Update water system planning methods with surrounding jurisdictions to account for emerging climate patterns. <
> ### Policy RC 7.2 Removed 2019 ### Policy RC 7.3 Regional Energy Planning Support regional efforts (such as the Research Triangle Energy Consortium) to improve energy efficiency, reduce the environmental impact of energy production, and improve energy security. <
> ### Policy RC 7.4 Regional Solid Waste Management Establish a regional solid waste reduction and management program. <
> ### Policy RC 7.5 Solid Waste Disposal Facility Planning Working with Wake County, ensure that suitable municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal capacity is available, including facilities as needed for the proper management of solid waste resulting from natural disasters and emergencies. <
> ### Policy RC 7.6 Transfer and Recovery Stations Working with Wake County, establish transfer/recovery stations, as needed, to provide for efficient delivery of solid waste to the designated disposal and processing facilities. <
> ### Action RC 7.1 Solid Waste Plan Implementation Working with the county and other jurisdictions, implement the Wake County Solid Waste Management Plan. *** ### Action RC 7.2 Emergency Water Transmission Participate in developing an inter-connected emergency water transmission system for the Research Triangle area. *** ### Action RC 7.3 Landfill Capacity Monitoring Monitor use and remaining capacity of the new South Wake regional solid waste landfill (designed to have a 25-year disposal capacity). *** ### Action RC 7.4 Removed 2022 *** <
> <
> <
> (blank page) section 15 # Downtown Raleigh 15.1 Land Use ............................................................................................ 15-7 15.2 Transportation ................................................................................. 15-15 15.3 Economic Development.................................................................. 15-24 15.4 Housing ............................................................................................ 15-30 15.5 Parks, Recreation and Open Space ............................................... 15-32 15.6 Community Facilities and Services................................................. 15-34 15.7 Urban Design................................................................................... 15-35 Downtown is the historic, functional, and symbolic heart of Raleigh. It contains the largest concentration of government and commercial buildings in Raleigh and lies at the nexus of the city’s roadway and public transportation networks. It is the seat of government for the county and state as well as the municipality. More cultural <
> venues, attractions, and events are located in downtown than any other area of the region. More recently, it has become a fast-growing residential neighborhood. The downtown skyline is the signature image appearing on city and regional public information and marketing materials, as well as on the many articles written about Raleigh in national publications. A healthy, vital, and growing downtown is therefore essential to Raleigh’s sustainability, quality of life, and future economic competitiveness. Raleigh’s geographic limits were originally established by the William Christmas Plan of 1792. North, East, South, and West streets defined the extent of the walkable city at that time. Now the area regarded as downtown stretches beyond those original boundaries. The Christmas Plan also provided a simple urban design hierarchy containing a dominant street grid with 66-foot wide right-of-ways, four strong axial 99-foot wide streets emanating from the State Capitol, four public park-like squares, and a central six-acre square designed to serve as the Capitol grounds. Among the axial boulevards, Fayetteville Street, extending southward from the Capitol, was intended to be the high street of the city. Fayetteville Street is still home to Raleigh’s most significant urban design features, the terminated vistas that spotlight the Capitol and the Performing Arts Center. Although the city has grown and developed, downtown still maintains many of the defining urban design features established by the Christmas Plan. The area regarded as downtown Raleigh today currently spans approximately 754 acres, or 1.18 square miles. The geographic area that encompasses downtown constitutes less than one percent of Raleigh’s incorporated area. However, as has occurred since the early part of the twentieth century, downtown will continue to expand. The boundary shown on Map DT-1, which appears on all maps in the Downtown Section, delineates where the policies contained in the section apply. It does not carry with it any specific recommendation for appropriate land uses; such guidance is found on the Future Land Use map. <
> # Map DT-1: Downtown <
> Map created 2/27/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development Downtown Raleigh Despite its relatively small size, downtown has emerged as the largest urban center in the Triangle region. Regional growth patterns are shifting eastward, placing downtown closer to the center of the region’s urbanized land mass as projected to 2030. Significant infrastructure investments such as the multimodal transportation center will render downtown the destination point for thousands of daily commuters originating from places near and far. Downtown Raleigh is the densest office market in the Triangle. In 2015, an estimated 54,600 employees occupied over 5 million square feet of commercial office space and 5.7 million square feet of governmental office space. Approximately one-third of the employment base is governmental; as a capital city, the downtown area houses four layers of government: city, county, state, and federal. The major nodes of office space are oriented between Wilmington and Salisbury streets, with the state government occupying the majority of the northern half of downtown. The private sector populates the southern half of downtown. As a complement to the office space, downtown has made significant strides in growing a residential base. As of 2017, there were 5,700 multifamily units located within downtown, with the housing typology ranging from college dormitories to luxury condominiums, and many other housing types in-between. In spite of its small geographic area and large concentrations of tax-exempt property, downtown Raleigh is a major contributor to the city’s fiscal health. Downtown generates approximately 7.3 percent of the property tax base while occupying less than half a percent of all developable property within Raleigh. The city has a significant number of new public and private development projects that will increase downtown’s vitality, provide new uses and services, and transform the skyline. These new developments are projected to infuse approximately $1.05 billion of investment into downtown and will support additional housing, retail, service, and entertainment uses in the future. Growing interest in downtown was a motivating factor for the creation of Raleigh’s *Downtown Plan* in 2015. In part, the *Downtown Plan* envisions a series of catalytic project areas where new, higher-value developments would be appropriate and desirable. Many of these project areas are co-located with major public investments by the city. Examples of public investments include the construction of Raleigh Union Station, renovation of the Moore Square Transit Station, and reconfiguration of the Peace Street/Capital Boulevard interchange. These infrastructure improvements help to create functional and attractive places for private sector development. There has also been steady redevelopment activity in the historic core of downtown. Through historic preservation and adaptive reuse, buildings of one- and two-stories are accommodating active ground-floor uses, such as retailers, bars, and restaurants. More than two dozen such buildings are either being restored or have been within the last five years. These projects indicate a confidence that downtown Raleigh will continue to emerge as a destination, currently for dining and entertainment, but ultimately for retail. The prevailing development model in downtown Raleigh continues to be mixed-use, with some combination of for-sale residential condominiums, office space, and ground-floor retail space. Year after year, each successive project allocates a greater portion of the building’s ground-floor to active uses. That trend is indicative of an increasingly positive outlook regarding the market for retail in downtown Raleigh. Additionally, newer residential projects have also increased in size; residential projects completed within the past three years averaged about 70 units per development, whereas the residential projects currently under construction average about 125 units per development. The upward trend in downtown Raleigh’s revitalization has resulted in significant economic, fiscal, civic, and cultural gains. Strong job growth, commercial and residential development, and significant public projects have helped downtown establish a competitive edge and become a net revenue generator for Raleigh. The remarkable growth and improved quality of downtown between 2010 and 2016 is due in part to successful public-private partnerships, courageous private sector leadership, and a commitment by the city to invest in downtown’s future through strategic projects intended to leverage private sector investment. The confluence and complexities of uses, scale, activities, and physical spaces in downtown require a finer level of specificity than can be achieved using only the citywide policies that appear elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. The Downtown Section outlines a collection of development values and strategic initiatives that address vibrancy, walkability and connectivity, place making, and other methods designed to create a prized urban center for Raleigh citizens, a commercial nucleus within the Triangle region, and model of sustainability for cities in the southeastern United States. While most of the citywide policies are relevant and applicable to downtown, this section includes policies intended to address downtown-specific issues and ways to encourage downtown investment to ensure a healthy economic, cultural, and symbolic heart of the city. The following are the main issues addressed in the Downtown Section: * *Integration of regional and local transportation networks.* * *Accommodating a significant, representative share of the city’s population and employment growth.* * *Coordination of overlapping policy and regulatory documents, such as the UDO, area specific guidance, and the Downtown Design Guidelines.* * *Mitigation of environmental and infrastructure impacts from growth and new developments.* * *Connectivity between downtown’s various districts.* * *Utilization of the ground-floor space for active uses, particularly along key streets.* * *Establishing a unique urban identity.* * *Opportunities to grow the hospitality and tourism sector.* * *Preservation of cultural identity, legacy, and assets.* * *Ensuring that downtown is a place for all of Raleigh’s citizens.* As described in the Framework chapter, Raleigh’s Vision for 2030 is structured to address these issues through six vision themes or citywide goals. By actively encouraging growth and development, both commercial and residential, within downtown, Raleigh will advance toward its goal of *Economic Prosperity and Equity*. By exploring strategies to provide a wide range of opportunities for people to live within downtown, Raleigh will make strides toward achieving its goal of *Expanding Housing Choices*. By focusing the city’s highest intensity development within downtown, Raleigh will meet its over-arching goal of *Managing Our Growth*. Through the encouragement of high-density transit-oriented development, expanding accessibility and transportation options, and improving connectivity among downtown activity centers, Raleigh will make progress toward *Coordinating Land Use and Transportation*. Through sustainable building design, the promotion of publicly accessible open space, and connecting downtown with the regional greenway network, Raleigh embraces its *Greenprint Raleigh* goal. Lastly, by growing a vibrant retail marketplace, furthering a unique sense of place, and advancing strategic planning and investments, Raleigh ensures its goal of *Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities*. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity. <
> Expanding Housing Choices. <
> Managing Our Growth. <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation. <
> Greenprint Raleigh. <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (●). ## Downtown Section Organization and Use The policies and actions contained in the Downtown Section are downtown-specific. They supplement rather than replace applicable citywide policies under the same headings. Taken together, they utilize the framework of the overall Comprehensive Plan and apply it at a more detailed level to Raleigh's urban core. In applying the policies in this section, the following guidance applies: * *Relevant policies in the citywide sections also apply to downtown unless otherwise noted.* * *Policies contained within this section, where not echoed elsewhere in the Plan, apply to downtown only.* * *Where there is a conflict between a citywide policy and a downtown policy, the downtown policy shall control in downtown.* # 15.1 Land Use Land in downtown Raleigh has the highest levels of density permitted within Raleigh. This high level of development intensity influences downtown’s physical form. The greater downtown area covers over one thousand square acres of land, and roughly includes the area between Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. to the south, Saint Mary’s School to the west, the industrial area along Capital Boulevard on the north, and the Historic Oakwood and East Raleigh neighborhoods on the east. In the center of this area is the city’s historic urban grid, a 400-acre area planned by William Christmas in 1792. Within the historic grid are more than ten million square feet of built space that contain a mix of uses, from government offices to single-family homes. This mix of uses contributes to the downtown’s vibrancy and economic well-being. In 2017, over 16,000 people lived within a one-mile radius of downtown’s center. This number is anticipated to grow appreciably in the coming years. Those expectations of growth help to explain the nearly 3,700 new residential units that were completed, under construction, or planned between 2015 and 2017. The policies and actions below reduce conflict between incompatible uses, provide the opportunity for a variety of uses, and encourage the development of the uses needed for downtown to become a stronger regional economic generator. The following land use and development issues are addressed in this section: * *Accommodating a full range of retail, office, residential, government, and civic uses downtown.* * *Coordinating land use and transportation.* * *Transitions or buffers between uses and development intensities.* * *Determining the best development opportunities for land controlled by public entities.* <
> > **[page 376 could not be transcribed: incomplete response (finish_reason=error)]** <
> ## Future Land Uses The Downtown Future Land Use Map builds upon downtown’s existing land use patterns while accommodating significant residential and commercial development. The largest amount of land is planned for a future land use entitled “Central Business District,” a land use designation intended to enhance downtown Raleigh as a vibrant mixed-use urban center. As the heart of Raleigh, downtown should feature a mix of high-intensity office, retail, housing <
> ### Policy DT 1.3 Underutilized Sites in Downtown Encourage the redevelopment of underutilized sites in downtown, included but not limited to vacant sites, surface parking lots, and brownfield sites. <
> ### Policy DT 1.4 Redevelopment around Raleigh Union Station Support the redevelopment of underutilized land adjacent to Raleigh Union Station with uses that will contribute to the success of the station and downtown while honoring the historic and warehouse character of the area. <
> ### Action DT 1.1 Completed 2013 ### Action DT 1.2 Converted to Policy 2016 ### Action DT 1.3 Completed 2016 # Downtown Development As redevelopment occurs across downtown, the increasing workforce and residential density will result in increased demand on existing infrastructure. Key investments in infrastructure, facilities, and open space have the ability to catalyze new private development that will help grow downtown as a regional employment center, vibrant urban neighborhood, and entertainment destination. Across downtown, public entities, such as the State of North Carolina, Wake County, and the City of Raleigh control large swaths of land. Many of these sites are currently underdeveloped, underutilized, or house services that soon will be relocated. In some cases, these publicly-controlled sites are considered opportune for redevelopment through public-private partnerships. Key sites along the axial streets and at other locations downtown where relatively large land assemblies are possible can become suitable for major activity generators. Opportunities to restore elements of the Christmas Plan, both the northern squares and the street grid, are also possible. The redevelopment of these sites through public-private partnerships presents opportunities to advance the city’s goals and push the marketplace beyond what is feasible via private market activity alone. ### Policy DT 1.5 Form-based Zoning in Downtown Encourage the use of Planned Development districts with master plans in downtown to provide more detailed design and form standards for key sites. <
> ### Policy DT 1.6 Supporting Retail Growth Encourage the scale and intensity of development needed to strengthen downtown’s capacity to support a vibrant retail environment. <
> ### Policy DT 1.7 Providing Downtown Development Opportunities Ensure a pipeline of suitable development sites through regulatory measures, infrastructure investments, and assistance with site assembly. <
> ### Policy DT 1.8 Redevelopment of City-owned Sites Redevelop city-owned sites to include a mix of uses that will advance the vision of downtown as a vibrant employment, population, cultural, arts, and entertainment center. Where appropriate, integrate greenway trails and/or other recreational and open space amenities. <
> ### Policy DT 1.9 Air Rights Development Encourage the sale or lease of the air rights over publicly-owned transportation infrastructure, such as city-owned parking garages and transit facilities. <
> ### Policy DT 1.10 Higher Education Institutions Support the integration of higher education institutions into downtown. <
> ### Policy DT 1.11 Downtown as a State Office Center Encourage the administrative headquarters for all departments of the State of North Carolina to be located within downtown. <
> Downtown Raleigh <
> ### Action DT 1.4 Completed 2016 *** ### Action DT 1.5 Completed 2016 *** ### Action DT 1.6 Development Site Database Create and maintain a database of available and underutilized downtown sites suitable for development and redevelopment. Create a marketing strategy to make these sites attractive development opportunities. *** ### Action DT 1.7 Completed 2019 *** # Transitions, Buffering and Compatibility The juxtaposition of different building types can be traced back to Raleigh’s earliest history. Despite Raleigh’s origin as a capital city, very few sites were developed according to a prevailing development pattern. Small homes were often sited next to larger commercial and governmental buildings. For nearly a century before the streetcar system was launched in 1891, the predominant method of transportation around the city was on foot or horseback. Proximity was paramount. Over time, market conditions favored higher uses on increasingly expensive land, resulting in a building up of the core area of downtown. At the edge areas of the built-up core are historic districts and neighborhoods, including Boylan Heights, Cameron Park, Glenwood-Brooklyn, Oakwood, Pullen and South Park. Transition zones are used to reduce or blur a sharp delineation between areas of disparate development intensity, often through appropriate and accepted controls of use, height, scale, and building materials. Such controls can weave downtown and these historic areas together into one continuous urban fabric. ### Policy DT 1.12 Downtown Edges * Appropriate transitions in height, scale, and design should be provided between Central Business District land uses and adjacent residential districts. *See ‘3.5 Land Use Compatibility’ in Section 3: ‘Land Use’ for more information on transitions.* ### Policy DT 1.13 Reserved ### Policy DT 1.14 Downtown Transition Areas * In areas where the Downtown Section boundaries are located in proximity to established residential neighborhoods, residential densities should taper to be compatible with adjacent development. Non-residential uses with the greatest impacts—such as theaters, concentrated destination nightlife and retail, and sports and entertainment uses—should be directed away from these transition areas. Where existing zoning overlays are mapped, the height guidance in these districts should not be changed outside of an area planning process. *See Map DT-2 for transition area locations.* ### Policy DT 1.15 Compatible Mix of Uses on Downtown Perimeter Encourage a compatible mix of housing options, community-serving institutional uses, and neighborhood-serving retail within the neighborhoods surrounding downtown. ### Action DT 1.8 Identifying Transition Areas As part of any Area Plans undertaken for areas adjoining downtown, define the areas and methods appropriate for transitional form, use, and scale between downtown and established residential neighborhoods. # Map DT-2: Downtown Transition Areas <
> Downtown Transition Area Map created 2/27/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development ## Achieving Vibrancy through Density To support initiatives, such as a vibrant urban retail environment, high quality transit, and the development of new recreational and cultural venues, dense development downtown is desirable. Like the citywide growth policies that focus on infill development within centers and corridors, high-density, mixed-use development will help to foster a downtown that is accessible by transit, supports a mix of incomes, ages and cultures, and has an vibrant street life and cultural scene. ### Policy DT 1.16 High Density Development * Highest density development should occur along the axial streets (Hillsborough Street, Fayetteville Street and New Bern Avenue), major streets (as identified by the Street plan), surrounding the squares, and within close proximity to planned transit stations. <
> ### Policy DT 1.17 High Density Public Realm Amenities * High-density developments downtown should include public realm amenities, such as publicly-accessible open space, public art or space dedicated for public art, seating areas, performance spaces, and water features that complement the building and its nearby uses. <
> ### Policy DT 1.18 Auto-oriented Businesses * Development, building types, and building features with an automobile orientation, such as drive-throughs, should not be developed in downtown. <
> ### Action DT 1.9 Completed 2014 ### Action DT 1.10 Completed 2013 ### Action DT 1.11 Completed 2013 ## 15.2 Transportation With over 54,000 jobs, 27,000 parking spaces, 6,000 residents, and 3.4 million visitors, Downtown Raleigh was the largest trip generator in the city as of 2015. Within the life of this Plan it may become the largest in the region. Great downtowns accommodate multiple modes of transportation and public realm improvements that promote and balance traffic, transit, walking, and bicycling. The key transportation issues in downtown include: * *Making new mobility connections in a compact environment.* * *Improving conditions for pedestrians and bicycles.* * *Designating and designing streets to serve various modes.* * *Expanding choice in public transportation and making successful links from proposed transit to the downtown core.* * *Designing and managing our parking resources more efficiently.* * *Minimizing conflicts created by freight and deliveries to businesses and residents.* ## Multimodal and Connected Street Grid As Downtown redevelops into a compact mixed-use center, new transportation connections will be needed to complement existing connections. Downtown’s compact and connected street grid has been and remains its greatest asset, as the grid disperses rather than concentrates traffic and provides multiple routes to the same destination. The grid permits downtown streets to function with a high level of service while serving the greatest intensity of land use. Street closings, superblocks, and an over-abundance of one-way streets erode the functionality of the grid and should be avoided. As transportation continues to evolve, the grid will help downtown adapt and prosper. The city’s greenway system plays a significant role in providing recreational opportunities for downtown residents and visitors. The greenway system should be utilized downtown. Because downtown presents a more urban development pattern compared to other areas of the city, the greenway type should be incorporated on the streets identified as Greenway Connections on Map DT-3. ### Policy DT 2.1 Multimodal Downtown Transportation System Downtown should be well served by the broadest range of transportation options, including bikeways, sidewalks, greenway trails, streets, transit, and rail service. ### Policy DT 2.2 Protect the Downtown Street Grid Preserve, protect, and extend the downtown grid pattern of small blocks and interconnected streets. Maintain existing rights-of-way to the greatest extent possible. Explore the creation of new roadway connections within and adjacent to downtown. ### Policy DT 2.3 Restore Two-way Traffic Improve circulation within downtown by converting one-way streets to two-way traffic flow, where feasible and desirable. ### Policy DT 2.4 Access from Grade-separated Crossings Due to its often adverse effects on adjacent land uses, avoid new rail or roadway flyovers and bridges within downtown if the opportunity exists to locate new facilities on existing grade separated crossings. ### Policy DT 2.5 Widen Sidewalks In new streetscape designs, provide expansive sidewalks and widen existing sidewalks to a 14-foot minimum where there is available right-of-way. ### Policy DT 2.6 Pedestrian Bridges and Tunnels Strongly discourage pedestrian overhead bridges or underground tunnel connections across the public right-of-way. ### Policy DT 2.7 Bike Benefits on Greenway and Bicycle Connections For all public/private sector design and traffic engineering/operations decisions made for the Greenway and Bicycle Connections as shown on Map DT-3, bicyclists should be given equal priority to vehicular traffic flow and other street functions, including but not limited to parking and loading functions. Protected or separated bicycle lanes should be applied on these streets where feasible. ### Policy DT 2.8 Removed 2019 ### Policy DT 2.9 Downtown Greenway Connections Preserve and expand the city’s greenway system along Greenway Connections as shown on Map DT-3, using it to help connect housing, employment, commercial, and recreational areas. Encourage the use of green infrastructure on Greenway Connections as part of the rezoning and development review processes. ### Policy DT 2.10 Downtown Alleys Encourage the preservation and protection of existing internal alleyways in downtown. ### Action DT 2.1 Removed 2019 ### Action DT 2.2 Lane Striping Study Study lane striping in downtown to ensure that the number and widths of lanes match traffic loads: minimizing conflicts between through-traffic and parked vehicles to provide for the safety of pedestrians and bicycles; and maximizing opportunities for on-street parking. # Map DT-3: Downtown Connections <
> Map created 2/27/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development ### Action DT 2.3 Downtown Public Realm Study Fund and implement the recommendations of the Downtown Public Realm Study, including a comprehensive pedestrian-improvement and streetscape strategy. Schedule implementation as part of the Capital Improvement Plan. ### Action DT 2.4 Completed 2014 ### Action DT 2.5 Converted to Policy 2021 ### Action DT 2.6 Completed 2015 ### Action DT 2.7 Removed 2019 ### Action DT 2.8 Removed 2019 ### Action DT 2.9 Removed 2019 ### Action DT 2.10 Removed 2016 ## Public Transportation The anticipated growth of downtown will add significant built space over the coming decades that will increase trip generation commensurately. Elevated demand coupled with the inability to widen roadways will render downtown the most transit-dependent area within the region. As the future hub of long- and short-distance rail and bus service, Raleigh Union Station will contribute to the transformation of the built environment in the west side of downtown by linking land use intensity with transportation infrastructure. The inclusion of rapid and frequent transit networks will eventually connect the transportation hub with other activity generators within and close to downtown. Complementing the provision of viable transportation alternatives, transportation demand management strategies are utilized to reduce vehicle dependency and mitigate automotive pollution. The area is scaled in such a way that the operation of an automobile is not a requisite for short trips within and around the downtown. Particularly within a radius of one-quarter mile surrounding proposed transit stations, walking will become the dominant method of personal transportation. ### Policy DT 2.11 Enhanced Downtown Transit Service Promote non-automotive circulation among downtown activity and employment centers through enhanced transit service including circulators, which may be bus or streetcar. <
> ### Policy DT 2.12 Development Around Major Transit Facilities Integrate recreation, retail, service, and community uses within public transportation facilities, including the Moore Square transit station and Union Station. <
> <
> #### Policy DT 2.13 Car and Bicycle Sharing Promote car- and bicycle-sharing services within downtown. #### Action DT 2.11 Removed 2019 #### Action DT 2.12 Removed 2016 #### Action DT 2.13 Removed 2019 #### Action DT 2.14 Removed 2019 # Design and Management of Vehicle Parking and Access In downtown Raleigh, where parking development costs are high and land for parking is scarce, parking design and management strategies must maximize the efficient use of both public and private parking supply. Downtown Raleigh at present is primarily accessed by people in automobiles. The area has abundant documented capacity in its existing parking facilities even though the overall ratio of parking spaces to development is about half of what would typically be found in suburban development. In the future, it is anticipated that public transportation and other modes will make up a larger share of the travel market into and out of downtown. As the percentage of commuters arriving to downtown in cars decreases, the ratio of spaces to the built environment should decrease as well. Parking policies and development strategies will need to be flexible to make better use of the existing, underutilized parking supply and to increase development intensity. Such strategies will therefore emphasize efficiently managed public facilities and shared parking wherever feasible. Most of downtown’s off-street supply will continue to be provided in parking decks. Because decks are major pieces of infrastructure and are not active uses, they can have significant negative urban design impacts if not properly integrated. Strategies, such as retail bases, screening, and liner buildings can mitigate or eliminate these impacts. On-street parking is an important part of the total parking supply. On-street spaces are most valuable as short-term parking for visitors, errand-runners, and shoppers. Underpriced curb parking results in high occupancy with little turnover, leading to a widespread perception of inadequate parking even as hundreds of off-street spaces go unused. Pricing and management strategies can free up the on-street supply. ### Policy DT 2.14 Use of Curb Space Manage curb space to maximize access to downtown destinations. Monitor demand for parking, drop-off, transit, bicycle and shared mobility storage, and material loading space to ensure that the allocation of curb space supports the transportation methods used by residents, workers, business operators, and business patrons. ### Policy DT 2.15 Parking Pricing and Management Strategies Manage on-street spaces such that they are available for short-term parking for visitors, errand-runners, and shoppers. Use pricing and management strategies to balance on- and off-street parking demand. ### Policy DT 2.16 Demand-Responsive Parking Regulations Ensure that off-street parking regulations do not require more off-street parking than needed by periodically reevaluating the requirements against observed demand. ### Policy DT 2.17 Parking Garage Entrances * To minimize pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, parking garage and service entrances should not be located on Limited Driveway Access Streets (see Map DT-4). <
> ### Policy DT 2.18 Transportation Demand Management and Parking Decks Support and encourage Transportation Demand Management strategies, including parking cash-out, as a part of the development agreement for any public-private partnered parking deck ### Policy DT 2.19 Parking and Economic Development Expand the role of the municipally-administered parking enterprise in supporting and promoting economic development, including using parking arrangements and public-private partnerships as a means to attract and catalyze development. ### Policy DT 2.20 Management of Parking Revenues Operate the city’s parking program as a self-sustaining enterprise fund, with any revenues above capital, operating costs, and maintenance reserves made available for investments and activities that further its mission.[^p389-7] ### Policy DT 2.21 Avoiding Parking and Loading Conflicts Strongly discourage the delivery of goods and services requiring on-street loading during the peak morning and evening travel times. ### Policy DT 2.22 Below-grade Parking Preference When feasible, encourage underground or entirely below-grade parking as the preferred solution for the provision of parking downtown. [^p389-7]: This may require a change in the state statute authorizing municipal parking meter programs. ### Policy DT 2.23 Wrapped Parking Preference Where underground or below-grade parking is not feasible, parking garages should be “wrapped” with active uses along the entire vertical frontage of buildings along the public right-of-way. ### Policy DT 2.24 Removed 2019 ### Policy DT 2.25 Parking Garage Non-constrained Streets For all streets not designated on Map DT-4 but within downtown, parking garages should be architecturally screened so that stored vehicles are not visible from the adjacent right-of-way. ### Policy DT 2.26 Active Ground-floor Parking Uses Active ground-floor uses should be provided in all parking garages on Retail Streets (See Map DT-5). ### Policy DT 2.27 Removed 2019 ### Action DT 2.15 Completed 2012 ### Action DT 2.16 Completed 2014 ### Action DT 2.17 Completed 2014 ### Action DT 2.18 Completed 2013 ### Action DT 2.19 Completed 2013 ## Streetscapes ### Policy DT 2.28 Downtown Streetscapes As part of future downtown planning, adopt as necessary any specific streetscape plans that may be needed to enhance the public realm along streets with a unique or unusual character or dimensions. # Map DT-4: Driveway Access Constraints <
> Map created 2/27/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development # 15.3 Economic Development A strong and diversified downtown economy is critical to the prosperity of the residents of Raleigh and the region. Downtown’s unique character and geography – including close access to universities, its status as the hub of government, and a compact, pedestrian-oriented urban character have provided downtown with a competitive economic advantage. Both now and in the future, Raleigh’s ability to attract a talented and diverse workforce, foster ideas and innovation, and make strategic infrastructure investments will be key components to downtown’s economic growth and success. The critical economic development issues facing downtown Raleigh that are addressed in this section include: * *Activating streets through the provision of retail and active uses.* * *Bolstering the economic climate through the recruitment and retention of businesses.* * *Expanding hospitality and tourism.* ## Expanding Retail for Active Streets No matter how tall their skylines, downtowns succeed or fail at the street level—compare Los Angeles, with towering skyscrapers but empty sidewalks, with Alexandria, VA, which has no tall buildings but is a lively and active destination. The convenience and vibrancy offered by successful street-level retailing is a downtown’s key competitive advantage, and the selling point that justifies downtown rents and prices. The land use aspect of creating retail space is included here within the context of economic development. The policies below address how to promote the use of ground-floor space by businesses that will add to the vitality of the downtown experience. Space designed and constructed for active use at the ground-level plays a very important role in shaping a pedestrian-oriented built environment and in creating value for the upper-floor uses. As the retail development market matures, the city needs to proactively guide the placement of active uses on downtown’s most important streets to promote a lively downtown destination built on a strong retail core. Retail streets prosper when complementary uses are in close proximity. By guiding where retail uses are located, Raleigh will grow its economic capacity, strengthen existing public spaces, and enliven the downtown experience by clustering these active uses between and surrounding activity generators. ### Policy DT 3.1 Ground-floor Uses on Primary Retail Streets New development along Retail Streets identified on Map DT-5 should provide continuous retail use along the ground floor. Zoning for parcels and sites along Retail Streets should be mapped with Shopfront frontage or other zoning mandating a retail-ready ground floor. <
> ### Policy DT 3.2 Removed 2019 *** ### Policy DT 3.3 Encouraging Pedestrian-scale Design ● All new development within the Downtown District but not on a Retail Street should integrate architectural elements that connect to the public right-of-way. Examples of such architectural elements include but are not limited to: inclusion of windows at the sidewalk level, multiple building entrances adjacent to public right-of-way, pedestrian scale building materials with a high level of detail, lighting along the sidewalks, and awnings. <
> <
> *** ### Policy DT 3.4 Leasing of City-owned Space When leasing city-owned retail spaces, seek to fill identified gaps in the marketplace rather than focusing solely on achieving the highest rent. <
> <
> *** ### Policy DT 3.5 Retail in City Facilities Where feasible, add retail space to existing city facilities, including offices and parking garages. <
> <
> *** ### Policy DT 3.6 Two-Way Traffic on Retail Streets Prioritize retail streets for two-way traffic and curb parking on both sides of the street. <
> <
> *** ### Policy DT 3.7 Retail Signage Encourage retail signage downtown which is eclectic, lively, and pedestrian-oriented. <
> <
> *** ### Action DT 3.1 Financial Assistance for New Retailers Explore the creation of a loan pool, grant provisions, or revolving fund to provide gap financing to entrepreneurs interested in starting viable retail businesses downtown. *** ### Action DT 3.2 Façade Improvement Incentives Incentivize improvements to building and storefront façades. *** ### Action DT 3.3 Retail Study Implementation Partner with the Downtown Raleigh Alliance to attract retailers to downtown. *** ### Action DT 3.4 Downtown Retail Space Inventory Assist the Downtown Raleigh Alliance in creating and maintaining a database of available downtown retail spaces. *** # Map DT-5: Retail Streets <
> Map created 2/27/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development ## Business Recruitment and Retention As a regional employment and cultural center that has more than 200 acres of underdeveloped land, downtown presents significant opportunities to house new space constructed to accommodate commercial tenants. For downtown to prosper and mature into a vibrant, mixed-use center, the retention and expansion of the commercial base will require concerted, coordinated efforts. Efforts to grow downtown business opportunities should target companies large and small, from Fortune 500 companies to independently-owned retailers. A coordinated business recruitment and retention effort will combine the efforts of multiple agencies currently operating with limited municipal oversight. The lack in coordination results in significant gaps in recruitment and retention efforts. *See also ‘6.8 Organizational Structure and Functions’ in Section 6: ‘Economic Development.’* ### Policy DT 3.8 Downtown as a Regional Center Encourage new investments and developments that position downtown as the center of the region for headquarters, jobs, urban housing, entertainment, and transit. <
> ### Policy DT 3.9 Downtown Business Recruitment and Retention Promote downtown as part of a coordinated business recruitment/retention program that effectively engages economic development agencies. <
> ### Policy DT 3.10 Incentives for Key Downtown Uses Target incentives, including grants, loans, and zoning bonuses, to jump-start lagging business sectors that have been identified as important to downtown’s success. <
> ### Policy DT 3.11 State Government Offices in Downtown Encourage the administrative headquarters for all departments of the State of North Carolina to be located within downtown. <
> ### Action DT 3.5 Removed 2019 ### Action DT 3.6 Promotion of Downtown Assistance Programs Identify and publicize programs that will provide downtown businesses with access to operating and capital assistance. ### Action DT 3.7 Removed 2019 ### Action DT 3.8 Pedestrian Counts Conduct a study of pedestrian counts on retail streets, and update the counts on a regular basis. <
> ## Arts, Culture, Entertainment, and Hospitality With recent investments in the new Convention Center, Fayetteville Street, the Contemporary Art Museum, Marbles Museum, and the Green Square Project, downtown is emerging as a regional and statewide destination. More than 3.4 million visitors came to downtown in 2014, a figure that is expected to grow considerably in the coming years following the completion of projects currently under construction. Downtown’s many cultural and entertainment resources offer valuable opportunities to enhance tourism and expand not only the downtown economy, but the city’s economy as a whole. Raleigh’s permanent cultural fixtures are increasingly supplemented by annual events like the Hopscotch Music Festival and IBMA World of Bluegrass. A key benefit of having regional and super-regional events and destinations is the opportunity to capture the ancillary retail, food, and drink spending of out-of-town visitors. However, this spending potential cannot be fully captured if there are no restaurants and shops conveniently located near the destination. Downtown, with its growing number of shopping and dining options and walkable streets, is uniquely positioned to capture the ancillary spending of tourists, visitors, and arts patrons. ### Policy DT 3.12 Downtown as an Arts and Culture Hub Downtown should be the priority location for major cultural and arts institutions. ### Policy DT 3.13 Downtown Attractions and Events Encourage the development of additional tourist attractions and visitor-supportive uses, activity generators, and events downtown, including live performances and programming in downtown’s public spaces. ### Policy DT 3.14 Creative and Heritage Businesses Support and strengthen the downtown creative and heritage business communities. ### Action DT 3.9 Heritage Tourism in Downtown Develop historic tours, trails, and signage designed to promote the historic assets of downtown. ### Action DT 3.10 Completed 2016 ### Action DT 3.11 Coordinating Heritage Tourism Organizations Coordinate efforts among the Raleigh Historic Development Commission, the Raleigh City Museum, the N.C. History Museum, and other entities to maximize the potential for downtown’s historic assets to drive tourism. <
> ### Action DT 3.12 Support for Creative Talent Create a city-sponsored institution that provides support, space, training, education, and opportunities for emerging creative talent in the downtown. *** ### Action DT 3.13 Recruiting Hospitality Uses Work with economic development agencies, such as the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce, Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Downtown Raleigh Alliance to recruit new hospitality-sector uses to downtown. *** # 15.4 Housing To be an asset for the entire city, downtown needs a strong and diverse residential base to complement its employment and hospitality sectors. Downtown should be able to provide its share of housing options for the growing population. It provides the optimal location for the highest residential densities in the city. It also presents unique opportunities to reuse existing buildings that were originally built for non-residential uses but could be converted for residential use. Across the nation, people are choosing to relocate to more urban environments that offer amenities within a close distance. Downtown Raleigh is the primary candidate for this type of environment. For it to be a strong residential center, downtown needs to have diversity in both housing choices and residents. Like the city as a whole, downtown should reflect the racial, age, and income diversity of Raleigh’s population and provide housing choices that satisfy all types of choices and users. Market-rate, workforce, mixed-income, and affordable housing are critical elements of a successful, diverse residential environment. The challenges mentioned above can best be addressed by focusing this section on the following issues: * *Accommodating a sizable share of the city’s growing population.* * *Creating a larger supply of workforce and affordable housing.* *See also ‘7.2 Affordable Housing’ in Section 7: ‘Housing’ for additional information regarding affordable housing on publicly-owned sites.* ### Policy DT 4.1 Encouraging Downtown Housing Encourage high-density residential development in downtown, consistent with the target of accommodating another 25,000 residents by 2030. <
> ### Policy DT 4.2 Adaptive Use for Housing Encourage the adaptive use of functionally obsolete commercial buildings for housing. <
> ### Policy DT 4.3 Expanding Downtown’s Affordable Housing Supply Preserve and expand the existing supply of affordable housing in and near downtown. <
> ### Policy DT 4.4 Mixed-income Housing Encourage mixed-income housing downtown. <
> ### Policy DT 4.5 Promoting Downtown as a Neighborhood Promote downtown as a residential neighborhood for singles, couples, and families. <
> ### Action DT 4.1 Completed 2014 *** ### Action DT 4.2 Converted to Policy 2016 *** ### Action DT 4.3 Tools and Regulations for Affordable Housing Develop and implement financial and development tools and regulations (e.g., increased density bonuses) that will incentivize the inclusion of affordable housing in and around downtown. *** Downtown Raleigh <
> # 15.5 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Downtown has a need for parks and open spaces that provide recreational opportunities for residents, workers, and visitors. Downtown is a planned capital with a system of five park-like squares laid out as part of its original development pattern. This provides recreational opportunities for residents and visitors that are unique to Downtown Raleigh. Working to take advantage of the five-square plan for its original and expanded purposes is a priority. The supply, quality, and usability of parks and recreational spaces in downtown needs to be increased, including extending the greenway system within downtown. New development should provide its fair share of open space, parks, and recreational facilities to better serve the growing population. In order to address these concerns, this section concentrates on the following issues: * *Maintaining and improving a healthy open space to resident ratio.* * *Expanding an insufficient Downtown parks and recreational presence.* * *Restoring and enhancing Raleigh’s historic squares.* ## Open Space in New Development As the population continues to grow and new development comes on-line, additional open space will be required to maintain a healthy ratio of open space to population. ### Policy DT 5.1 Green Roofs as Open Space Encourage the use of roof gardens, green roofs, and other environmentally sustainable options for use as private open space in new downtown developments. <
> ### Action DT 5.1 Removed 2016 <
> # Parks and Recreational Facilities As the population of downtown increases, the amount of open space and recreational facilities must keep pace. The public sector has the opportunity to create new parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces and refurbish existing facilities for use by residents, workers, and visitors in downtown. Private development, as it comes on-line, will also participate in providing park and open spaces. ### Policy DT 5.2 Increasing Downtown Open Space Increase public parkland, recreational facilities, and open spaces for downtown residents, workers, and visitors. Seek traditional and non-traditional means for providing these amenities. <
> ### Policy DT 5.3 Dorothea Dix Open Space Encourage the creation of a regional park and recreational amenity on the Dorothea Dix property. Provide for green connectivity between Dorothea Dix and downtown. <
> ### Policy DT 5.4 Partnership for Parks Encourage partnership opportunities that will result in upgraded parks in and around downtown to satisfy a growing population. <
> ### Action DT 5.2 Completed 2021 ### Action DT 5.3 Completed 2013 ### Action DT 5.4 Downtown Raleigh Alliance Open Space Improvements Expand the public purposes of the Downtown Raleigh Alliance to include contributions toward downtown public space improvements. ### Action DT 5.5 Removed 2022 ### Action DT 5.6 Chavis Park Revitalize Chavis Park and strengthen its connection to downtown. ### Action DT 5.7 Downtown College Athletic Space Coordinate with downtown colleges for the mutual use and development of shared athletic fields and facilities that can serve both the general public and students. # 15.6 Community Facilities and Services Downtown’s vitality depends on many attributes of good planning, among them the siting, acquisition, co-location, programming, design, maintenance, and construction of high-performance, sustainable community facilities that benefit and serve the downtown community. In addition to those already outlined in Section 8: Community Facilities and Services, the following downtown-specific policies and actions create conditions for continuing success. ### Policy DT 6.1 Removed 2019 ### Policy DT 6.2 Consolidation of Downtown Services Consolidate downtown municipal services on the block bounded by Hargett, McDowell, Dawson, and Morgan streets. <
> ### Policy DT 6.3 Active Uses in Community Facilities Include space designed and constructed to accommodate ground-floor, active uses in new community facilities built downtown. <
> ### Action DT 6.1 Library Collaborate with Wake County to locate and construct a downtown library. # 15.7 Urban Design The space between buildings is important; in the urban environment buildings define space. It is in the space between buildings where most users experience downtown. This affords the opportunity to experience the details of a space: the interaction of planes, the materials and details of spaces, and the environment formed by the interaction of nature and the man-made. Because experiencing places as a pedestrian is more common downtown and because the types of buildings and structure of spaces downtown is unique within Raleigh, urban design plays an important role in determining the shape and experience of the city. ## The Scale, Form, and Placement of Buildings Building height and form contribute to the sense of order and image of downtown. In addition to establishing the organizational hierarchy of downtown, the 1792 Christmas Plan utilized the topography of the land to site the Capitol and four axial streets. Fayetteville Street is sited along the ridgeline, while the Capitol is located at the highest elevation within downtown. To reinforce and build upon that design, prominent buildings and activity-generating uses are encouraged in areas that will accentuate the Christmas Plan, such as surrounding the squares or along the axial streets. All buildings should respond to and respect the character of the built environment, including the scale of the ground floor, the form of the building, and the relationship between buildings. In some cases, the incorporation of similar architectural treatments will help to blend new buildings with the historic building stock. Policies and actions within this section intend to foster a harmonious relationship between buildings, as well as an organized and predictable urban form for downtown. ### Policy DT 7.1 Reinforcing the Christmas Plan Reinforce the William Christmas Plan by encouraging prominent buildings and uses to be developed along axial streets (i.e., Hillsborough, Fayetteville, and New Bern) and the squares. <
> ### Policy DT 7.2 Maintaining Consistent Setbacks New buildings should respond to the existing built character by using similar setbacks and stepbacks to provide a continuous cornice line and consistent street-level pedestrian experience. Along the principal north-south vehicular street pair, Dawson and McDowell streets, buildings should be set back to provide an approximately 20’ wide pedestrian area between the street curb line and the building face. <
> ### Policy DT 7.3 Streetwalls The placement of buildings along the right-of-way should create a continuous streetwall that defines and accentuates the streets and squares. <
> ### Policy DT 7.4 Building Entries The main entrance of new buildings should front onto a public street. Where buildings abut multiple streets of which one is an axial street, the axial street should be considered the primary frontage, and the main entrance of the building should front onto the axial street. This policy also applies, where practicable, to existing buildings undergoing major renovations or rehabilitation. <
> ### Action DT 7.1 Completed 2013 # The Ground Level Experience The ground floor of buildings and the quality of the public realm play a significant role in shaping the success of downtown. Well-designed buildings respect the pedestrian and enliven the ground level experience through architectural treatments, such as multiple entrances, transparent materials, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and awnings, as well as the type of use that occurs on the ground floor. Service entrances, loading bays, and parking garage entrances often result in conflicts between the pedestrian and vehicles and should be avoided whenever feasible. ### Policy DT 7.5 Ground Level Design The ground level of every building should engage the pedestrian with multiple entrances, large transparent windows at the pedestrian level, creative signage, and a high level of articulation and pedestrian scale building materials on all façades. Also, the ground level of every building should provide pedestrian amenities, such as adequate lighting levels and protection from the elements. This can be accomplished through the use of façade-mounted lighting elements, canopies and awnings, and arcades. ### Policy DT 7.6 Minimizing Service Entrance Visibility Service entrances and functions should be located internal to the building, in alleys, or in parking decks. Their presence on the public right-of-way should be minimized. ### Policy DT 7.7 Signage Signage should be human scale and serve both pedestrians and automobiles. ### Policy DT 7.8 Private Use of Sidewalk Space To add vitality to downtown streets, the private use of public sidewalks for cafes, vending, performance, and sales is encouraged. *See Private Use of Public Space Handbook* ### Policy DT 7.9 Street Trees Provide and maintain street trees on all downtown streets. ### Action DT 7.2 Removed 2019 ## Public Spaces: Parks, Plazas, and Squares According to the William Christmas Plan of 1792, downtown was laid out with five squares to provide green spaces for residents. Over the years, some of these squares were developed for governmental use by the State of North Carolina, decreasing the amount of open space available for residents, workers, and visitors. Opportunities exist for reincorporating one of the squares developed by the state and to further expand upon the William Christmas Plan by incorporating new open space squares further out from the downtown core. ### Policy DT 7.10 Extending the Christmas Plan Pursue opportunities to expand upon the William Christmas Plan by adding new squares and open spaces. ### Policy DT 7.11 Facilities in Public Spaces Include public and private facilities, such as museums, underground parking, centers, markets, restaurants, services, retail pavilions, and vending opportunities in new and existing public spaces, where appropriate. ### Policy DT 7.12 Plaza/Square Perimeter Uses Downtown plazas, parks, and squares should be ringed by activity. Require ground-floor, active use surrounding publicly-accessible open spaces and encourage upper-level balconies, terraces, and gathering spaces. ### Action DT 7.3 Nash and Moore Square Improvements Schedule, design, plan, and budget for improvements to Nash and Moore squares that will enhance each square as a distinct destination. ### Action DT 7.4 Removed 2022 ### Action DT 7.5 Removed 2021 ## Vistas and Gateways There are several vantage points providing views of all or parts of downtown from a distance. Generally, these views are of the upper portions of buildings, thus making the skyline an important aspect of Raleigh’s image. Distinctive crown features, building placement, the accentuation of architectural features through lighting, and the screening of mechanical equipment all factor in creating a distinctive skyline. In addition to the skyline, other vistas and ceremonial entrance points into downtown provide a sense of arrival and a highlighted appreciation of significant buildings that contribute to a unique sense of place. The reinforcement and emphasis of these features are essential steps toward creating a civic identity. ### Policy DT 7.13 Landmark and Viewshed Protection Preserve important cultural landmarks, viewsheds, focal points, and terminated vistas. ### Policy DT 7.14 Skyline Definition The tops of tall buildings should be designed to positively contribute to creating a distinctive skyline. ### Policy DT 7.15 Downtown Gateways Enhance prominent gateways into downtown, such as South Saunders Street south of the intersection with South Street, Edenton Street at Bloodworth and East streets, Morgan and Hillsborough streets at St. Mary’s Street, and Capital Boulevard by the train tracks at Peace Street to create a sense of arrival and define the geographic boundaries of downtown. ### Policy DT 7.16 Special Intersections The respective intersections of Hillsborough and New Bern streets with Dawson-McDowell and Person-Blount streets, should receive special treatment to emphasize the intersection of axial streets (ceremonial corridors) with major traffic arteries. ### Action DT 7.6 Removed 2019 ### Action DT 7.7 Removed 2016 ## Wayfinding As downtown continues to grow in population, employment, and visitation, a more comprehensive system of visual communication is needed. This system will help guide users to downtown destinations and transportation facilities, and should utilize existing and developing technologies for its development and maintenance. ### Policy DT 7.17 Downtown Wayfinding Promote and maintain a high-quality wayfinding system downtown, including a consistent and effective system for both public and private parking decks. ### Action DT 7.8 Completed 2021 ## Design Guidelines The downtown urban design guidelines constitute a set of principles that guide the review of private development in the downtown district. The general purpose of the guidelines is to create a high-quality, engaging and dynamic, pedestrian-friendly built environment. They give direction regarding building form, ground-floor design, location and screening of parking, service and mechanical functions, and the design and location of signage. Those guidelines marked “FG” serve as the principles for reviewing and approving façade grant applications. ### Policy DT 7.18 Downtown Design Guidelines The design guidelines in Table DT-1 shall be used to review rezoning, alternative means of compliance, special use permits, and planned development master plan applications in downtown. ### Policy DT 7.19 Downtown Design Guideline Consistency Development projects in downtown should implement and be consistent with the design guidelines in Table DT-1 to the maximum extent practicable. ### Policy DT 7.20 Façade Grant Program Guidelines All successful applications for funding under the city’s Façade Grant Program shall be consistent with the highlighted design guidelines in Table DT-1. # Table DT-1 Downtown Urban Design and Facade Grant Guidelines | # | Guideline | Also a Façade Grant Policy | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Parking, Loading, Service and Mechanical** | | | | 1 | Fayetteville Street should be free of service elements, including loading docks, mechanical equipment, and driveways. | | | 2 | Loading or service entrances should be embedded within the block where possible. If embedding the loading dock is not possible, the loading dock should be located to the side or rear of a building. The width should be minimized and doors or gates should shield the loading docks from view. Roll-down gates should be decorative if facing the public realm. | | | 3 | Surface and structured parking should be landscaped, emphasizing interior tree canopies in surface lots, formal borders, and street trees to reinforce the streetwall. <
> | | | 4 | Mechanical equipment, satellite or microwave dishes, elevator penthouses, and other utilitarian equipment should be screened from view by a structure that complements the design of the building through the use of similar materials, colors, finishes, and architectural details. Views from buildings above should also be considered when designing rooftop mechanical equipment. | FG | | 5 | The widths of all curb cuts at parking deck entrances should be minimized. Design techniques should be used (such as lane splits within the deck to encourage consolidated single exit or entrance lanes at the street side, and/or columns between lanes to reduce the perceived size of the openings), while maintaining adequate ingress and egress capacity to provide efficient operations and meet air quality conformity. <
> | | | # | Guideline | | Also a Façade Grant Policy | |---|---|---|---| | **Ground Floor, Building Base, and Pedestrian Zone** | | | | | 6 | Building entries should be emphasized with architectural features, changes in roofline, different massing, or unique materials. | <
> | FG | | 7 | The primary pedestrian building entrances should be located along the store front. For buildings that front on three streets, the primary pedestrian entrances should be located on the axial street or the corner if the building is located at an intersection. | | FG | | 8 | Building entries should be at grade. | | FG | | 9 | The level of architectural detail should be most intense at street level, within view of pedestrians on the sidewalk. | <
> | FG | | 10 | The use of solid roll-down security gates is discouraged. | | FG | | 11 | Façades should be broken into distinct 20-30 foot modules or bays from side to side to prevent a monolithic edge to the street. | | FG | | 12 | Large unarticulated walls are discouraged and should have a window or functional public access at least every 10 feet. | | FG | | # | Guideline | | Also a Façade Grant Policy | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Ground Floor, Building Base, and Pedestrian Zone** | | | | | 13 | The articulation of the façade should be designed to appear more vertical than horizontal. | <
> | FG | | 14 | Entries that provide access to a building’s upper floors should be located along a street to promote street life. They should be designed as separate entries, and distinguished from ground level spaces with different architectural details, materials, colors, lighting, signage, and/or paving so that it is clear which entries are public and which are private. | <
> | FG | | # | Guideline | | Also a Façade Grant Policy | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Ground Floor, Building Base, and Pedestrian Zone** | | | | | 15 | Recessed entries are encouraged. They should be no wider than one-third of the width of the storefront or 20 feet, whichever is less. Recessed entries should be a minimum of 4 feet deep, except where necessary to meet fire code. | <
> | FG | | 16 | A minimum of 2/3 of the first-story façade should be windows. Of the total amount of glass on the first-floor façade, a minimum of 85 percent must be transparent. Tinted or reflective glass is discouraged. First-story windows should be located a maximum of three (3) feet above the adjacent sidewalk. | <
> | FG | | # | Guideline | | Also a Façade Grant Policy | |---|---|---|---| | **Ground Floor, Building Base and Pedestrian Zone** | | | | | 17 | Windows should be used to display products and services and maximize visibility into storefronts. Windows should not be obscured with elements that prevent pedestrians from seeing inside. | <
> | FG | | 18 | The first-story, floor-to-floor height of any new building on Fayetteville Street should be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. | | | | 19 | If ceilings must be lowered below the height of ground level windows, provide an interior, full-height, three (3) foot minimum deep space immediately adjacent to the window before the drop in the ceiling. | | FG | | 20 | The use of deep awnings and canopies on the first-story is recommended to help mitigate wind, reduce glare, and shade ground level spaces. | <
> | FG | | 21 | Arcades, colonnades, and galleries are discouraged within the public right-of-way. | | FG | | 22 | Stairs and stoops in the public right-of-way are discouraged along Fayetteville Street in order to make entries more accessible. | | FG | | # | Guideline | Also a Façade Grant Policy | |---|---|---| | **Ground Floor, Building Base and Pedestrian Zone** | | | | 23 | An outdoor ground plane that abuts or is adjacent to the public right-of-way should be paved with terrazzo, concrete pavers, concrete, stone, brick, tile, or another high-quality hardscape material. Asphalt and loose paving materials such as gravel are discouraged. The paving design and materials should complement the building or storefront architecture. | FG | | 24 | In larger courtyard style spaces visible from the public right-of-way, use groundcovers, shrubs, and flowers to accent and fill blank areas with interest. Minimize the use of bare mulch and rocks. Areas of bare earth are discouraged. | | | **Building Form** | | | | 25 | Walls of buildings should parallel the orientation of the street grid. | FG | | 26 | Towers or high-rise buildings should have three zones: a streetwall or base zone, a tower transition zone, and a tower top zone. Cornices should be considered to separate base zone from tower transition zone. <
> | FG | | 27 | Distance between towers on different blocks should be a minimum of 100 feet to ensure access to light and air. | | | 28 | Public art, performance facilities, and/or civic monuments should be an integral part of any building plan. <
> | | | 29 | Fences, railings, and walls are discouraged except to screen surface parking lots and unimproved lots, to protect pedestrians from grade changes, and to delineate a private courtyard. Fences are preferred over walls except where designed to hold grade. | | | # | Guideline | Also a Façade Grant Policy | |---|---|---| | **Building Form** | | | | 30 | Fences should be a minimum of 36 inches and a maximum of 42 inches tall and a minimum of 70 percent open. Railings should be 42 inches tall. Solid walls should be a minimum of 18 inches and a maximum of 32 inches tall. | | | 31 | Fences, railings, and walls should be designed to complement the adjacent architecture through the use of similar materials, colors, finishes, and architectural details. | | | 32 | Designs should be contextual to adjacent buildings, including their cornice lines and horizontal banding.

<
> | FG | | 33 | Innovative design and unusual lighting of the exterior of the building is important to emphasize the monumentality of government buildings.

<
> | | | 34 | The principal building entrance should be easily identified by building features and landscape elements; additional public entrances should be provided at every street face. | FG | | 35 | Building materials should be of stone, brick, or similar durable, high quality materials. Building form, articulation, and materials should respect and be sympathetic to the major governmental and institutional buildings in the area. | FG | | 36 | Preferred materials (other than glass) include metal, brick, stone, concrete, plaster, and wood trim; discouraged materials include vinyl siding, pressed wood siding, and exterior insulated finishing systems (EIFS). | FG | | # | Guideline | | Also a Façade Grant Policy | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Building Form** | | | | | 37 | Materials covering original architectural features of historic or architecturally significant buildings are discouraged. | <
> | FG | | 38 | A minimum of 35 percent of each upper-story should be windows. | | FG | | 39 | Building corners that face an intersection should strive for a distinctive form and high level of articulation. | <
> | FG | | # | Guideline | | Also a Façade Grant Policy | |---|---|---|---| | **Building Form** | | | | | 40 | Buildings may step back further at intersections in order to articulate the corners. | <
> | FG | | 41 | Buildings downtown and in Pedestrian Business Overlays should have stepbacks and articulated facades to mitigate wind effects and increase light and air. Buildings should step back 10 to 15 feet at the 60-foot point above the ground on a wide street and 15 feet on a narrow street. A wide street is 75 feet in width or more. | <
> | | | # | Guideline | | Also a Façade Grant Policy | |---|---|---|---| | **Building Form** | | | | | 42 | Flat roof buildings should have decorative parapets with elements, such as detailed cornices, corbeling, applied medallions, or other similar architectural treatments. | <
> | FG | | **Signage** | | | | | 43 | Signage should be compatible in scale, style, and composition with the building or storefront design as a whole. | | FG | | 44 | Diverse graphic solutions are encouraged to help create the sense of uniqueness and discovery found in an urban, mixed-use environment. | <
> | FG | | 45 | All mechanical and electrical mechanisms should be concealed. | | FG | | # | Guideline | Also a Façade Grant Policy | |---|---|---| | **Signage** | | | | 46 | Signs should not obscure a building’s important architectural features, particularly in the case of historic buildings. | FG | | 47 | Signs should be constructed with durable materials and quality manufacturing. | FG | | 48 | Sign bands above transom and on awnings are preferred signage locations. <
> | FG | | 49 | Only the business name, street address, building name, and logo should be on an awning or canopy. The lettering should not exceed 40 percent of the awning area. <
> | FG | | 50 | Illuminated signs should avoid the colors red, yellow, and green when adjacent to a signal controlled vehicular intersection. | FG | | 51 | Allowed sign types: channel letter signs, silhouette signs (reverse channel), individualized letter signs, projecting signs, canopy/marquee signs, logo signs, awning signs, and interior window signs. | FG | | 52 | Discouraged sign types: signs constructed of paper, cardboard, styrofoam-type materials, formed plastic, injected molded plastic, or other such materials that do not provide a sense of permanence or quality; signs attached with suction cups or tape; signs constructed of luminous vacuum-formed plastic letters; signs with smoke-emitting components. Changeable copy signs are prohibited. | FG | section 16 # Area Specific Guidance ### 16.1 Overview of Area Specific Guidance .................................................... 16-2 #### AREA PLANS | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Arena Blue Ridge | AB | Five Points East | FP | | Avent Ferry | AF | Forestville Village | FV | | Avent West | AW | Garner Tryon Neighborhood | GT | | Brier Creek Village | BC | I-540/Falls of Neuse | IF | | Buffaloe New Hope | BN | Midtown | MT | | Blount Street/Person Street | BP | Rock Quarry Battle Bridge | RB | | Capital Boulevard | CB | Transit Station Areas | SA | | Cameron Village/Hillsborough Street | CH | Swift Creek | SC | | Capital North | CN | Southeast Special Study | SE | | Cameron Park | CP | Southern Gateway | SG | | Crabtree | CR | South Park | SP | | Dix Edge | DE | Western Boulevard | WB | | Downtown West Gateway | DW | Wake Crossroads | WC | | Falls Lake | FL | Wakefield | WF | | Falls North | FN | West Morgan | WM | # 16.1 Overview of Area Specific Guidance This section compiles policies and actions relevant to land use and physical development from various Area Plans and studies adopted both prior to and subsequent to the 2009 adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. To distinguish the sub-sections that follow from the complete Area Plan documents on which they are based, this section has been renamed “Area Specific Guidance.” The purpose of this section is to consolidate into one place all of the area-specific policies and actions that inform land use and zoning decisions and the city’s capital improvement program. Area Plans were created as part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Area Plans address unique issues specific to particular locations within the city that can only be addressed through policies and actions more specific than those proposed citywide. Since 1989, numerous Area Plans have been prepared in response to identified needs, and have been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. By the time the 2030 Comprehensive Plan process was started, Area Plans represented the largest single part of the Comprehensive Plan. Area Plans prepared since 1989 have historically been divided into groupings—Neighborhood, Small Area, Corridor, Watershed—based on the plan’s focus. For example, Corridor Plans apply to either a transportation corridor, such as a roadway or rail line, or to a natural corridor such as a river. Watershed Plans provide policies and guidelines for protecting our drinking water supply. The division between plans had always been a matter of convention. For simplicity, and in keeping with the new framework for area planning, the plans and plan excerpts that follow are named after their parent document, and are listed alphabetically. Area Plans adopted prior to 2009 were evaluated during the 2030 Comprehensive Plan process and, based on that evaluation, some plans were carried forward and others were retired. The plans carried forward contained specific policies that could not be brought forward through the Future Land Use Map, or contained specific action items that could not be covered appropriately in a citywide Plan element. Plans were retired primarily because they contained policies that had been implemented through development or city action, were included in a citywide element, or were fully incorporated into the Future Land Use Map. A number of policies in the retired plans were simply no longer relevant to current situations. Area plans and studies prepared and adopted after 2009 have typically been longer reports and contained both policy guidance and strategic actions, as well as extensive background sections detailing issues and opportunities and the results of the public engagement process. Some of these plans and studies have been more than 100 pages in length. The intent following the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was that only the citywide elements of the Comprehensive Plan would be amended in the wake of an area plan or study. Upon further staff review and input from City Council, it was determined that many of these plans contained detailed policy guidance deserving the same status as had been afforded to earlier Area Plans. The following subsections excerpt only those policies and actions that need to be included in the Comprehensive Plan because they relate to rezoning decisions, development plans, and the CIP. They are not a replacement for the full, adopted area plan and study documents. Further, some post-2009 area plans and studies were undertaken for boundaries that either encompassed or overlapped with prior Area Plans. Where the prior Area Plan was superseded by the new plan, it has been removed. Where it altered a portion of a prior Area Plan boundary, the plans were combined. Overview of Area Specific Guidance <
> The following Area Plans are included in the Comprehensive Plan: * *Arena Blue Ridge (merging of Arena 7/17/2001, Blue Ridge 9/4/2012, Jones Franklin 12/6/2011, and RCRX 3/8/2016)* * *Avent Ferry (adopted 9/17/2019)* * *Avent West (adopted 3/15/2005)* * *Blount Street/Person Street (adopted 7/16/2003)* * *Brier Creek Village (adopted 4/6/2004)* * *Buffaloe New Hope (adopted 5/19/2005)* * *Cameron Park (adopted 7/20/2004)* * *Cameron Village/Hillsborough Street (adopted 2/6/2018)* * *Capital Boulevard (adopted 8/7/2012)* * *Capital North (adopted July 5, 2022)* * *Crabtree (adopted 6/4/2002)* * *Dix Edge (adopted 4/4/2023)* * *Downtown West Gateway (adopted 9/21/2004)* * *Falls Lake (adopted 10/2/2001)* * *Falls North (adopted 5/21/2019)* * *Five Points East (adopted 4/1/2003)* * *Forestville Village (adopted 9/21/2004)* * *Garner Tryon Neighborhood (adopted 4/1/2003)* * *I-540/Falls of Neuse (adopted 6/1/1999)* * *Midtown (adopted 12/15/2020)* * *Rock Quarry Battle Bridge (adopted 9/21/2004)* * *Southeast Special Study (adopted 4/4/2023)* * *South Park (adopted 5/15/2007)* * *Southern Gateway (adopted 2/7/2017)* * *Swift Creek (adopted 7/21/1987)* * *Transit Station Areas (adopted 3/2/2021)* * *Transit Stations Areas: New Bern Avenue Corridor(adopted 1/30/2024)* * *Wake Crossroads (adopted 2/15/2005)* * *Wakefiled (adopted 2/7/2023)* * *West Morgan (adopted 6/7/2011)* * *Western Boulevard (adopted 6/7/2022)* The following Area Plans have been substantially revised or replaced by recent planning efforts: * *Wade/Oberlin (adopted 11/5/20003) and Stanhope (adopted 10/1/2002) were replaced by Cameron Village/Hillsborough Street* * *Falls of Neuse (adopted 11/21/2006) was replaced by Falls North* * *Mission Valley (adopted 4/17/2007) was replaced by Avent Ferry* * *Six Forks (adopted 6/5/2018) was replaced by Midtown* * *Triangle Town Center (adopted 12/5/2000) was replaced by Capital North* * *King Charles (adopted 9/21/2004), New Bern (adopted 1/7/2012), and Olde East Raleigh (adopted 9/18/2007) were replaced by Transit Stations Areas: New Bern Avenue Corridor* As additional area plans and studies are carried out for different parts of the city, this Area Specific Guidance section will continue to evolve with the addition of new Area Plan excerpts and the replacement of superseded plans through the ongoing process of Comprehensive Plan amendments and updates. *Additional information about keeping the Comprehensive Plan current can be found in ‘17.3: Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Updates’ within Section 17: ‘Implementation.’* Overview of Area Specific Guidance # Map AP-1: Area Specific Guidance <
> | | | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **AB** | Arena-Blue Ridge | **CH** | Cameron Village & Hillsborough St | **FP** | Five Points East | **SC** | Swift Creek | | **AF** | Avent Ferry | **CN** | Capital Blvd North | **FV** | Forestville Village | **SE** | Southeast | | **AW** | Avent West | **CP** | Cameron Park | **GT** | Garner-Tryon | **SG** | Southern Gateway | | **BC** | Brier Creek Village | **CR** | Crabtree | **IF** | I-540/Falls of Neuse | **SP** | South Park | | **BN** | Buffaloe-New Hope | **DE** | Dix Edge | **MT** | Midtown-St Albans | **WB** | Western BRT | | **BP** | Blount-Person | **DT** | Downtown | **NBBRT** | New Bern BRT | **WC** | Wake Crossroads | | **CB** | Capital Blvd | **DW** | Downtown West | **RB** | Rock Quarry-Battle Bridge | **WF** | Wakefield | | | | **FL** | Falls Lake | | | **WM** | West Morgan | | | | **FN** | Falls North | | | | | Map created 3/28/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development Overview of Area Specific Guidance # Map AP-1: Area Specific Guidance <
> | | | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **AB:** | Arena-Blue Ridge | **CH:** | Cameron Village & Hillsborough St | **FV:** | Forestville Village | **RB:** | Rock Quarry-Battle Bridge | | **AF:** | Avent Ferry | **CP:** | Cameron Park | **GT:** | Garner-Tryon Neighborhood | **SC:** | Swift Creek | | **AW:** | Avent West | **CR:** | Crabtree | **IF:** | I-540/Falls of Neuse | **SG:** | Southern Gateway | | **BC:** | Brier Creek Village | **DW:** | Downtown West | **KC:** | King Charles | **SP:** | South Park | | **BN:** | Buffaloe-New Hope | **FL:** | Falls Lake | **MT:** | Midtown | **TT:** | Triangle Town Center | | **BP:** | Blount-Person | **FN:** | Falls North | **NB:** | New Bern Avenue | **WC:** | Wake Crossroads | | **CB:** | Capital Boulevard | **FP:** | Five Points East | **OE:** | Olde East Raleigh | **WM:** | West Morgan | Map created 1/5/2021 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # AB Arena-Blue Ridge This guidance involves the area between Interstate 40 and the Interstate 440 Beltline from Western Boulevard and Hillsborough Street on the south to Wade Avenue on the north, along with the portion of Blue Ridge Road and adjacent areas extending north to Edwards Mill Road. A small portion of the area extends south of Western Boulevard at its intersection with Jones Franklin Road. It represents a merging of four overlapping area plans: Arena (adopted 2001); Blue Ridge (2012); Jones Franklin/Asbury Village (2011); and Raleigh-Cary Rail Crossing (2016). Several state agencies have a significant presence in the area: North Carolina State University owns the Veterinary School campus, JC Raulston Arboretum, University Club, Carter-Finley Stadium, and PNC Arena. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture owns the State Fairgrounds and 144 acres of vacant land just to the west of the Fairgrounds. Smaller parcels are owned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the State Surplus Property Office. The Westover, Nowell Pointe, and Lincolnville communities are located in the area, as is Raleigh Corporate Center and Westchase Office Park. A major area of focus is Blue Ridge Road, which extends north and south parallel to I-440 between Western Boulevard and Wade Ave. The uses along Blue Ridge Road have region- and state-scale catchment areas which guarantee a regular flow of visitors, but also present major challenges to a cohesive urban environment. The corridor’s immense parking lots and massive sites have so far deterred the development of pedestrian-scale, mixed-use developments. The plan envisions the Blue Ridge Road corridor to be a vibrant, mixed-use urban area with a well-connected street network, easily accessible natural features, and a set of distinct character districts. These districts are based on the social, cultural, economic, and educational attractions that anchor them as well as the aspirations the community has developed for them. Finally, the plan includes guidance for “Asbury Village” — the area around the junction of Hillsborough Street, Western Boulevard, and Jones Franklin Road, three major streets in west Raleigh. The focus is to balance the area’s historically suburban character with a need to accommodate growth at this busy interchange. This includes a greater mix of land uses, stronger multi-modal transportation networks, and a high-quality public realm that promotes community interaction and safety. In addition to policies applicable across the entire area, this plan includes policies that address specific geographic subsets of the study area, listed below, and illustrated on Map AP-AB-1: * *The southeast quadrant of I-40 and Wade Avenue.* * *State Fairgrounds.* * *Older residential neighborhoods.* * *The Westover Retail Area, consisting of the concentration of retail uses along Hillsborough Street south of the Westover neighborhood.* * *The Health and Wellness District.* * *The Entertainment and Education District.* * *The Arts and Research District.* * *Blue Ridge Road south of Hillsborough.* * *Jones Franklin/Asbury Village, including areas at the junction of Hillsborough Street, Western Boulevard, and Jones Franklin Road.* * *North Carolina Railroad Corridor.* # Arena-Blue Ridge # Overall Area Policies ### Policy AP-AB 1 Complete Streets and Network Connectivity Implement Complete Streets guidelines in the study area to tailor road functionality to contexts and users. Improve transportation network connectivity by creating additional street connections and linking greenway, bicycle, and pedestrian paths. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 2 Thoroughfare Crossings Encourage connections between districts in the study area through motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian crossings of thoroughfares like Wade Ave and Blue Ridge Rd. Consider creative solutions like underpasses and pedestrian bridges. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 3 Transit Support Facilitate access and travel within the study area by providing a North/South transit circulator with linkage to GoRaleigh and GoTriangle routes. Destinations to be connected include Crabtree Valley Mall, institutions along Blue Ridge Road, the stadium/arena area, and Hillsborough Street. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 4 Recreational Trails Enhance the functionality and quality of recreational trails by producing district-specific programming, installing cohesive public art, and improving trails infrastructure. Increase and maintain linkages between activity nodes and natural features via bicycle and pedestrian trails. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 5 Wetland Protection Minimize encroachment and development impacts on sensitive wetlands in the study area. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 6 District Identity Promote identities of districts in study area by developing branding and theming materials and programming. Include district identity as guidance in the review of rezoning petitions and development applications. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 7 Mixed-Use Development Intensities Encourage mixed-use developments that serve visitors as well as residents. Enable greater land use intensity near transit corridors and regional attractions. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 8 Chapel Hill Road Design The design of Chapel Hill Road should take on a boulevard character in the vicinity of any future transit stations, where transit-oriented development is encouraged. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 9 Parking Lot Siting No large parking lots should be sited in front of the buildings or along the streets, unless heavily buffered. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 10 **Reducing Surface Parking Impacts** Every attempt should be made to make surface parking areas less dominant through plantings and buffers, and more efficient and better utilized to prevent the need for additional future parking. The large surface parking lots in the area should be designed to improve pedestrian access during events. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 11 **Station Access** Design rail and bus rapid transit stations to permit unabated pedestrian circulation, possibly in the form of a bridge, to the south across the railway line. Any station at the Fairgrounds should also provide for pedestrian circulation over Hillsborough Street. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 12 **Maintaining an Evergreen Landscape** Large groupings of native pines should be retained or planted to enhance the evergreen, wooded landscape that currently exists. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 13 **Signage** Low-profile site identification signs should be utilized for the area. <
> *** ### Action AP-AB 1 **Complete Streets** Implement complete street principles along Blue Ridge Road and existing or new streets in the area. *** ### Action AP-AB 2 **Speed Limit** Reduce the speed limit on Blue Ridge Road to a speed limit more appropriate to the character or the function of the street *** ### Action AP-AB 3 **Wade Avenue Bridge** Redesign the bridge as a landmark for the district. *** ### Action AP-AB 4 **Lake Boone Trail Bike Lanes** Add bike lanes on Lake Boone Trail. *** ### Action AP-AB 5 **Hillsborough Street Sidewalk** Add a sidewalk to the north side of Hillsborough Street. *** ### Action AP-AB 6 **Greenway Connections** Assess the feasibility of greenway connections to the Centennial Biomedical Campus. *** ### Action AP-AB 7 **Lake Boone Trail Extension** Extend Lake Boone Trail to Edwards Mill Road *** ### Action AP-AB 8 **Trinity Road Streetscape** The streetscape along Trinity Road should be enhanced, with consideration given to design elements that give the arena area some identity, such as banners and a unified signage system. *** # Southeast Quadrant of Wade/I-40 ### Policy AP-AB 14 Open Space Reservation at Wade/I-40 A minimum of 30 percent of the land should be left in open space that is kept in a natural state. This would include an undisturbed 75-foot buffer along the northern and western perimeter adjacent to Wade Avenue and I-40. ### Policy AP-AB 15 Parking Visibility from Wade/I-40 No surface parking lots should be visible from either I-40 or Wade Avenue. ### Policy AP-AB 16 Medlin Creek Conservation Floodplains and slopes steeper than 15% within 200 feet of Medlin Creek should be preserved. ### Policy AP-AB 17 Medlin Creek Crossings No more than two stream crossings should be allowed over Medlin Creek, and these crossings should be bridges and not culverts. ### Policy AP-AB 18 Medlin Creek Pedestrian Amenities Medlin Creek and the meadow located on the eastern half of the property should be used as pedestrian-oriented amenities, with pedestrian connections to the Richland Creek greenway and across Trinity Road at Medlin Creek. ### Policy AP-AB 19 Building Orientation at Wade/I-40 Buildings should be designed to present a finished face to Medlin Creek, Wade Avenue, and I-40. ### Policy AP-AB 20 Structured Parking Preference at Wade/I-40 Parking decks that are architecturally related to the surrounding buildings and integrated into the landscape are strongly encouraged over surface parking lots. ### Policy AP-AB 21 Development Vision for Wade/I-40 This property should develop as a planned, unified project incorporating urban design features and public amenities such as greenways, plazas, parks, unified signage, and public art integrated into the building arrangement. ### Policy AP-AB 22 Pedestrian Circulation at Wade/I-40 Excellent internal pedestrian circulation should be provided, including pedestrian connection to adjacent properties, with special emphasis on pedestrian access to the proposed Edwards Mill Road bus line. ### Policy AP-AB 23 Placement of Taller Buildings at Wade/I-40 Buildings over four stories should be located away from any existing adjoining residences and should complement, in size and scale, the treescape along Wade Avenue and I-40. # Older Residential Neighborhoods ### Policy AP-AB 24 Transitions to Residential Neighborhoods New development adjacent to neighborhoods in the Arena-Blue Ridge area, including nonresidential and high-density residential uses, should include physical transitions and a stepping down of land development intensity as it approaches older neighborhoods. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 25 Housing North of Chapel Hill Road Additional single family development north of Chapel Hill Road should be confined to completing the existing residential street system in the Nowell Pointe area. Additional new low-density, single-family development north of Chapel Hill Road is inappropriate. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 26 Chapel Hill Road Street Connections Any street connection to Chapel Hill Road should be built in a manner to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. <
> # Westover Retail Area ### Policy AP-AB 27 Strengthening Westover The unique village-like character of the area should be retained and strengthened through redevelopment. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 28 Respecting the Context of Westover Development should respect the existing context, particularly that provided by the Westover neighborhood. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 29 Westover Parking Parking in the Westover area should be minimized along the street frontage and contained within decks. Required parking should be relocated off Hillsborough Street. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 30 Zoning Conditions in the Westover Area At the time of rezoning any property in the Westover retail area, zoning conditions should be offered that would limit buildings to no more than 4 stories in height, reflect the character of the area in terms of architecture and scale, and should feature ground-floor retail. <
> # State Fairgrounds ### Policy AP-AB 31 Corporate Center Drive Corporate Center Drive should receive sidewalks and design treatments to support potential future bus transit along the corridor. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 32 Fairgrounds to Westover Connection A strong pedestrian connection should be made between transit stops/future stations at the Fairgrounds and the Westover commercial area. <
> ### Action AP-AB 9 Arena Area Sidewalk Width Extra-wide sidewalks of 14- to 18-feet should be constructed on both sides of Trinity Road, on the east side of Youth Center Drive, and along Blue Ridge Road to accommodate the crowds that will be walking in this area before and after major events. ### Action AP-AB 10 Removed 2019 ### Action AP-AB 11 Trinity Road Streetscape Plan Prepare a streetscape plan for Trinity Road. The plan should include bicycle, pedestrian, and access improvements, building and parking locations to provide consistent character along the street, and tree plantings and design features to give the corridor definition. A unified directional signage system should be included. ### Action AP-AB 12 Arena Area Bus Line A bus line should run along Youth Center Drive from a future Fairgrounds rail or bus rapid transit station. The line should then access Carter-Finley Stadium, the Arena, and the Edwards Mill Road bus corridor. The route could continue west and south to serve development in the western portion of the plan area, and terminate at a future regional rail stop. At least the portion of the route east of Edwards Mill Road should include dedicated lanes. # Health and Wellness District ### Policy AP-AB 33 Macon Pond Road Upgrade and improve Macon Pond Road to be a front door and a proper connection from Rex Health Care to Edwards Mill Road. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 34 Rex Hospital Support an expansion of Rex Hospital to the west. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 35 Connectivity and Pedestrian Friendliness Reconfigure street connections to accommodate an interconnected and pedestrian-friendly district as redevelopment occurs. <
> ### Action AP-AB 13 Trail Connections Connect existing trails to the north and west. Extend the trail to connect the Health District to Schenck Forest. ### Action AP-AB 14 Forest View Road Improve the intersection at Blue Ridge Road and Forest View Road. # Arts and Research District ### Policy AP-AB 36 Hotel/Mixed Use Development Support a mixed-use development on the North Carolina Museum of Art side of Blue Ridge Road with potential for a hotel. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 37 State Offices Encourage and support the location of potential state offices west of Blue Ridge Road on North Carolina Department of Agriculture property. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 38 Connectivity Improve connectivity with additional north/south streets parallel to Blue Ridge Road. <
> *** ### Action AP-AB 15 District Linkages Provide a complete street connection south across Wade Avenue and down to Trinity Road to link the Art District to the Entertainment District. *** ### Action AP-AB 16 Wade Avenue Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Redesign the Wade Avenue Bridge at Blue Ridge Road in order to provide better pedestrian and bicycle access and regain developable land by creating a more compact interchange. *** # Entertainment and Education District ### Policy AP-AB 39 Trinity/Blue Ridge Intersection Maintain a signalized intersection at Trinity Road and Blue Ridge Road. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 40 N.C. State Expansion Design new roads west of Blue Ridge Road between the NCSU Centennial Campus and the Stadium/Arena to align with future NCSU expansion plans. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 41 Mixed-Use Development Support mixed-use development along Blue Ridge Road. <
> *** ### Policy AP-AB 42 Hotel Uses Support the addition of a hotel/conference facility associated with the Fairgrounds. <
> *** ### Action AP-AB 17 Greenway Connection Connect greenway at the NCMA over or under Wade Avenue to NCSU College of Veterinary Medicine campus. *** # South of Hillsborough ### Policy AP-AB 43 Sidewalk Improvements Provide wide sidewalks near the State Fairgrounds, PNC Arena, and the Carter-Finley Stadium, as well as along the thoroughfares that link these institutions with parking resources. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 44 Existing Neighborhoods Complement existing neighborhoods with residential uses. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 45 Redevelopment Site Support the redevelopment of the Kmart site as a mixed-use center. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 46 Transit-Oriented Development Site larger office and commercial footprints more closely to proposed rail or bus rapid transit stations. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 47 Arboretum Capitalize on linkage to the JC Raulston Arboretum as a neighborhood amenity. <
> ### Action AP-AB 18 Railroad Underpass Depress Blue Ridge Road under Hillsborough Street, railroad tracks, and Beryl Road per NCDOT underpass project. # Jones Franklin/Asbury Village ### Policy AP-AB 48 Asbury Village District Transit Hub The area surrounding the Jones Franklin/Western Boulevard/Hillsborough Street intersection, known as the Asbury Village District, should become a multimodal transit hub for Western Raleigh. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 49 Development Access and Orientation Require all new structures to be primarily accessed and oriented toward public streets. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 50 Vertically Mixed Development Encourage new development to be vertical mixed-use. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 51 Planning for Transit Facilities Improve and coordinate transit facilities in the district. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 52 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 53 Transit Transfer Points Ensure that GoRaleigh, GoCary and GoTriangle bus stops enable transfers at shared facilities or, if shared facilities are not possible, that safe and comfortable pedestrian connections exist between stops. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 54 Urban Streetscapes and Frontages New and infill development should employ urban street sections and frontages except on Western Boulevard and Jones Franklin Road, where a “green frontage” with generous setbacks should be encouraged. ### Policy AP-AB 55 Area Open Space Create various open space options throughout the study area, including a central open space centered along Jones Franklin Road. ### Policy AP-AB 56 Street Lighting Street lighting should enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety. ### Policy AP-AB 57 Building Heights New and infill development should be tallest (5-7 stories) toward the rail corridor and should taper down to 3-5 stories along the edges of the study area. ### Action AP-AB 19 Excess Right of Way Work with NCDOT to secure the transfer of excess right of way at the intersection of Hillsborough Street and Western Boulevard to city ownership. ### Action AP-AB 20 Jackson Park Create a master plan for Jackson Park and provide funding through the CIP for improvements. ### Action AP-AB 21 Western Boulevard Multi-Purpose Path Extend existing multi-purpose path alongside Western Boulevard to the south along Jones Franklin Road if deemed feasible. ### Action AP-AB 22 Transit Station Planning Authorize commencement of station area planning process upon adoption of the Locally Preferred Alignment and a successful referendum. ### Action AP-AB 23 Rail Bridge Pedestrian Amenities Continue sidewalks under the rail bridge on Hillsborough Street. ### Action AP-AB 24 Xebec Way Explore closure and removal of Xebec Way as part of a redevelopment scenario. ### Action AP-AB 25 Bus Stops Consolidate bus stops where appropriate. ### Action AP-AB 26 Improved Bus Facilities Identify and fund opportunities for improved bus stops and shelters. ### Action AP-AB 27 Streetscape Plan Develop a streetscape plan for the Jones Franklin study area to include wide sidewalks, street trees, benches, lighting, and common open space. ### Action AP-AB 28 Station Area Planning Continue to work with GoTriangle to coordinate design and placement of station area. ### Action AP-AB 29 Street Lighting Improve street lighting. ### Action AP-AB 30 Completed 2022 ## North Carolina Railroad Corridor ### Policy AP-AB 58 Development Coordination Adjust land use policy in areas accessed by proposed crossings to enhance development value created by improved transportation network. <
> ### Policy AP-AB 59 Crossing Closures Reduce at-grade railroad crossings in the study area and construct grade-separated crossings where appropriate. Apply the following design principles in selection and implementation of grade separation forms: * Build safety through urbanization. * Choose paths of least resistance. * Invest in grade-separated crossings that leverage the corridor’s strengths. * Invest in grade-separated crossings that respond to critical issues and where significant development potential exists. * Balance regional transportation and local circulation needs. <
> ### Action AP-AB 31 Street Network Changes Implement the following street network changes in the corridor: * Close Nowell Road railroad crossing in conjunction with extension of Corporate Center Drive and/or Edwards Mill Road * Close Beryl Road railroad crossing, and extend Beryl Road to Royal Street ### Action AP-AB 32 Grade-Separated Crossings Construct the following grade-separated crossings and street network changes in the corridor: * Extend Corporate Center Drive to Bashford Road with a bridge over the railroad. * Extend Edwards Mill Road to Hillsborough Street with a railroad bridge over the new road. * Extend Jones Franklin Road to Chapel Hill Road with a railroad bridge over the new road. * Realign Powell Drive to connect with Youth Center Drive with a railroad bridge over the realigned road, and close the existing crossing. ### Action AP-AB 33 Support Edwards Mill Road Extension Update Future Land Use Map to show a mix of Medium Density Residential both sides of proposed Edwards Mill Road extension between Chapel Hill Road and Hillsborough Street. ### Action AP-AB 34 Support Beryl Road Closing Update Future Land Use Map to Medium Density Residential for the area bounded by Method Road, Gorman Street, Woods Place, and the railroad right-of-way. # Map AP-AB1: Arena-Blue Ridge Adopted: Multiple Dates* <
> | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ■ | NC Railroad / Commuter Rail Corridor | ■ | Health & Wellness District | | ■ | I-40 / Wade | ■ | Arts & Research District | | ■ | State Fairgrounds | ■ | Entertainment & Education District | | ■ | Residential Neighborhoods | ■ | Blue Ridge South of Hillsborough | | ■ | Westover Retail Area | ■ | Jones Franklin / Asbury Village | \*Adoption Dates for combined plans Arena: 7/17/2001 Blue Ridge: 9/4/2012 Jones Franklin: 12/6/2011 Raleigh-Cary Rail Crossing: 3/8/2016 Map created 8/7/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) # AF Avent Ferry Corridor Plan This plan addresses the area shown in Map AF-1. The plan area extends from Western Boulevard to Tryon Road along Avent Ferry Road and encompasses retail and recreational destinations such as the Mission Valley Shopping Center and Lake Johnson Park. The vision for the Avent Ferry Road Corridor was developed with community input received over a multi-year planning process and represents policy solutions to community concerns regarding current transportation infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and perceived redevelopment pressures. A critical component of this plan is the streetscape design recommendations. The design incorporates enhanced pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and maintains efficient travel for transit users and motorists. User safety is at the core of these recommendations. The design of the streetscape is intended to inform city’s Streetscape Capital Program which identifies Avent Ferry Road among a prioritized list of streetscape improvement projects. Alternatively, portions of the recommended streetscape improvements may also be implemented through the development of private property. The northern end of the plan area abuts Western Boulevard, a corridor identified in the Wake County Transit Plan as the western route for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Properties in this area, specifically those closest to a potential future BRT Station, should be considered for application of Transit Overlay District (-TOD) zoning. ### Policy AP-AF 1 Guide Future Zoning * Rezoning petitions should be evaluated for consistency with the policy guidance of this area plan. ### Policy AP-AF 2 Pedestrian Crossings Signalized pedestrian crossings should be deployed in accordance with Map AP-AF1 to ensure the highest level of safety for users of the corridor. ### Policy AP-AF 3 Greenway Connections * The greenway connections identified in Map AP-AF1 should be provided in any redevelopment scenario and should include easement dedication and trail construction. This guidance should be used to inform conditional use rezoning requests and Planned Development (PD) rezonings. ### Policy AP-AF 4 Streetscape Improvement Establish “Complete Streets” that accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and motorists to provide multimodal transportation options to the corridor’s many users. The recommended streetscape design should be used to guide a streetscape improvement plan. ### Policy AP-AF 5 Network Connectivity Support transportation network modifications that enhance connectivity, including new public streets at Mission Valley Shopping Center, Avent Ferry Road Shopping Center, and throughout the multifamily developments along the corridor between Chappell Drive and Gorman Street. ### Policy AP-AF 6 Mission Valley Building Frontages * The Mission Valley Shopping Center should be rezoned to have an Urban Limited Frontage. Suburban and auto-oriented frontage types, such as Parking Limited, should not be considered. ### Policy AP-AF 7 Mission Valley Building Height and Open Space ● Building height at the Mission Valley Shopping Center should not exceed seven stories along Avent Ferry Road and Centennial Parkway. Taller buildings should be considered internally to the shopping center in exchange for public amenities, such as parks, plazas, or pedestrian promenades. Rezoning requests that exceed the recommendations of Table LU-2 Recommended Height Designations should only be considered in exchange for the highest quality of public amenities. Reference Figure AP-AF1, Figure AP-AF2, Figure AP-AF3, for appropriate design concepts to achieve the intended level of public amenities and street connectivity that warrant increased building height. Rezoning requests that deliver high quality public amenities as intended in this policy shall not be considered inconsistent with the recommendations of Table LU-2. This guidance should be used to inform conditional use rezoning requests and Planned Development (PD) rezoning. <
> ### Policy AP-AF 8 Avent Ferry Shopping Center Building Frontages ● The Avent Ferry Shopping Center should be rezoned to have a Green Frontage. <
> ### Policy AP-AF 9 Avent Ferry Shopping Center Building Height ● Building height at the Avent Ferry Shopping Center should not exceed three stories along Avent Ferry Road. Building heights of up to five stories should be considered on portions of the property that do not abut Avent Ferry Road. This guidance should be used to inform conditional use rezoning requests and Planned Development (PD) rezonings. <
> ### Policy AP-AF 10 Transit Overlay District ● Properties at the northern end of the plan area, specifically those at the intersection of Avent Ferry Road and Western Boulevard and those closest to a future Bus Rapid Transit Station, should be rezoned for application of Transit Overlay District (-TOD). The mapping of this overlay should be coordinated with the implementation of the Wake County Transit Plan. <
> ### Policy AP-AF 11 Pedestrian-oriented Building Frontage ● Suburban and auto-oriented frontage types, such as Parking Limited, should not be considered along Avent Ferry Road between Western Boulevard and Gorman Street. However, exceptions should apply to specific sites where existing trees and landscaping, including berms, are well established along the frontage. In such cases, the existing context should be reserved through the conditional zoning process. Streetyards and building placement should obscure the visibility of parking areas from Avent Ferry road. <
> ### Action AP-AF 1 Streetscape Improvement Plan Adopt the recommendations of the Avent Ferry Corridor Study as a streetscape improvement plan in accordance with Resolution No. 2013-851. ### Action AP-AF 2 Pedestrian Crossings The pedestrian crossings identified in Map AP-AF1 should be individually analyzed for enhanced safety improvements. ### Action AP-AF 3 Future Land Use at Avent Ferry Road and Tryon Road A future study should be conducted to evaluate a Future Land Use Map amendment for properties north of Tryon Road between Avent Ferry and Dillard Drive, generally south of Smith Drive. ### Figure AP-AF1 Low Density Massing <
> ### Figure AP-AF2 Medium Density Massing <
> # Figure AP-AF1 High Density Massing <
> # Map AP-AF1: Avent Ferry Adopted: 9/17/2019 <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | <
> Pedestrian Crossing | —— Proposed Street | | ■ Policy Area | —— Proposed Greenway Trail | | | —— Existing Greenway Trail | (blank page) # AW Avent West The purpose of this Plan is to communicate to the City of Raleigh the unique and valuable characteristics of the Avent West neighborhood with the intent of getting the City’s support in preserving, stabilizing, improving, and promoting this established and valuable area. The Plan also will serve as a guide for neighborhood initiatives that will take place outside of the authority of the City of Raleigh. In addition, this Plan served as the basis for adopting a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District for the Avent West neighborhood to better ensure the realization of its goals and objectives. The Avent West neighborhood is conveniently located inside and bordering the Raleigh I-440 Beltline, west-southwest of downtown Raleigh and the NCSU main campus and due west of the new and growing Centennial Campus. The neighborhood is generally bounded on the north by Western Boulevard, on the east by Kent Road and properties adjacent to Brent Road, on the south by Avent Ferry Road and Athens Drive, and on the west by Powell Drive and Ravenwood Drive. ### Policy AP-AW 1 Western-Avent Ferry Beautification Improve and beautify the stretch of Western Boulevard and Avent Ferry Roads that border the Avent West neighborhood. <
> ### Policy AP-AW 2 Avent West Rezoning Support the rezoning of all properties within the Avent West neighborhood Plan area to R-4, including the following: * *The properties at 4004, 4008, and 4012 Brewster Drive and at 914 Deboy Street that are currently zoned R-6;* * *The R-10 properties on Cyanne Circle that abut R-4 properties; and* * *The property at 1405 Onslow Road that is split-zoned with approximately two-thirds of the property zoned R-4 and one-third zoned R-10.* <
> ### Policy AP-AW 3 Avent West Zoning Exceptions The following two exceptions should be made to Policy AP-AW 2: * *The current R-10 zoned properties along Kent Road that are on the eastern side of the Avent West neighborhood boundary.* * *The area adjacent to the I-440 Beltline, behind the Western Boulevard Presbyterian Church, should remain zoned for business unless its use should change, at which time it would revert to R-4 zoning. This business zoning is for an advertising sign on I-440 only and would remain for the existing signage only.* <
> ### Policy AP-AW 4 Avent West Parking Lot Screening For existing businesses (such as those on Western Boulevard) and for future businesses in the area, improved landscaping and screening of parking lots from the street view are encouraged. Wherever possible, parking lots should be located behind the building. <
> ### Policy AP-AW 5 Melbourne Road Bridge The Melbourne Road bridge should be retained in the future as changes occur, such as widening of the I-440 Beltline. <
> ### Policy AP-AW 6 Simmons Branch Dam As part of future Beltline widening, NCDOT should be encouraged to repair or rebuild the dam per the Simmons Branch study. <
> ### Action AP-AW 1 Completed 2016 *** ### Action AP-AW 2 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AP-AW 3 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AP-AW 4 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AP-AW 5 Avent West Greenway Links Provide sidewalk/paved access from the Avent West neighborhood to the Raleigh Greenway system. *** ### Action AP-AW 6 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AP-AW 7 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AP-AW 8 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AP-AW 9 Completed 2016 *** ### Action AP-AW 10 Removed 2015 *** # Map AP-AW1: **Avent West** Adopted: 3/15/2005 <
> ### Zoning Policy Guidance | | | | :--- | :--- | | ![Legend Color]() | Residential-4 (R-4) | | ![Legend Color]() | Residential-10 (R-10) | (blank page) # Brier Creek Village This plan includes roughly 300 acres located south of Brier Creek Parkway, between Aviation Parkway and Lumley Road, and north of I-540. The Village Center plan addresses the following objectives: * *Recommend land use patterns and development intensities.* * *Coordinate public infrastructure elements including an interconnected street system, pedestrian network, transit corridor, and public open space.* * *Physically integrate buildings and activities within the Village Center through a network of pedestrian-oriented streets, walkways, and public spaces; and.* * *Functionally integrate development within the Village Center to create cohesion among between the various uses.* The Village Center urban design concept is organized upon a centrally-located pedestrian-oriented street (Bruckhaus Street) along which three activity nodes are identified and spaced about 1/4-mile apart. This Village Main Street generally parallels Brier Creek Parkway and extends east from Globe Road into the eastern activity node adjacent to Lumley Road. The western activity node includes the Brier Creek Elementary School/Community Center and a medium-density residential area. The central activity node is to serve as a commercial center and transportation network connection. The eastern activity node is envisioned as a concentration of retail and office services and a principal point of access to the Capital Area Greenway. ### Policy AP-BC 1 Bruckhaus Street Promenade A maximum ten-foot wide private promenade zone should be provided on the commercial or north side of Bruckhaus Street to accommodate business-related activities or green space for housing. ### Policy AP-BC 2 Bruckhaus Street Residential Setback The residential streetscape yard on the south side of Bruckhaus Street should include a maximum 20-foot building setback. ### Policy AP-BC 3 Bruckhaus Street Public Realm On both sides of Bruckhaus Street, buildings and landscaping should frame the public space area and orient primary entryways to the sidewalk and street. ### Policy AP-BC 4 Alm Street Driveways Individual driveways onto Alm Street should be minimized by using internal residential streets to serve housing units. ### Policy AP-BC 5 Pedestrian-Friendly Design Pedestrian-oriented building facades and landscaping should define the street edge. Provide private sidewalk connections to the public sidewalk along Bruckhaus and Alm streets to aid pedestrian circulation. ### Policy AP-BC 6 Center of the Region Enterprise Transit Loop Location A segment of the Center of the Region (CORE) transit loop should extend through the Brier Creek Village Center to provide a convenient and time-efficient travel option through the region by connecting recommended mixed-use centers with two regional rail stops and the RDU Airport. Expanding upon the CORE transit loop concept, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system is envisioned initially that could transition to other technologies as development intensities increase and funding is allocated. <
> ### Policy AP-BC 7 Center of the Region Enterprise Transit Loop Regional Connections A transit corridor separated from street traffic should extend through the Brier Creek Village Center with passenger stops located for convenient access from activity nodes and residential areas. The transit corridor enters the Village Center from the RDU Airport on the east side of Globe Road. From Globe Road the transit corridor turns east and runs down the middle of Alm Street in a median through the central activity node. It then turns west to parallel the south side of Brier Creek Parkway (using an easement to be located within the 50-foot street yard) to Aviation Parkway and into Durham County. <
> ### Policy AP-BC 8 Brier Creek Village Greenway Access The Capital Area Greenway intersects the plan area extending north of the Village Center through an existing underpass beneath Brier Creek Parkway into the existing Brier Creek development and south of the Village Center through an existing underpass beneath I-540. Access points to the greenway within the Village Center should be provided at Brier Creek Parkway and at the Village Main Street adjacent to the eastern activity node. <
> ### Action AP-BC 1 Completed 2014 ### Action AP-BC 2 Center of the Region Enterprise Transit Loop Coordination Coordinate with Triangle J Council of Governments and Center of the Region Enterprise (CORE) municipality/county representatives on the regional transit system design identified in the CORE Report. ### Action AP-BC 3 Brier Creek Village Center Traffic Planning Coordination Coordinate the location and design of traffic calming devices, pedestrian/bicycle systems, and pedestrian crosswalks through the Brier Creek Village Center with the review and approval of development site plans. # Map AP-BC1: Brier Creek Village Adopted: 4/6/2004 <
> | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ![Transit Stop Icon] | Proposed Transit Stop | ——— | Proposed Transit Line | | ![Greenway Access Icon] | Proposed Greenway Access | ——— | Proposed Greenway Corridor | | ![Activity Node Icon] | Activity Node | ——— | Pedestrian Path | | | | ——— | Brier Creek Village Main Street | | | | | :--- | :--- | | ![Open Space Color] | Open Space | | ![Primary Greenway Area Color] | Primary Greenway Area | | ![Land Use Areas Color] | Land Use Areas | (blank page) # BN Buffaloe/ New Hope The Buffaloe/ New Hope plan creates a constructive vision for future development that addresses community concerns regarding impacts while allowing for viable development opportunities. The study area focuses on three undeveloped lots totaling 22 acres in two quadrants bisected by Buffaloe Road east of North New Hope Road. Over 28,000 cars pass through this intersection each day, making it a practical location for new commercial development. The area surrounding the intersection is primarily composed of single family detached homes, townhouses built at low to moderate density, and institutional uses such as houses of worship. When the plan was adopted, the current zoning for the vacant parcels was R-6. The parcels southeast of the intersection have been rezoned conditionally to Neighborhood Mixed Use, in accordance with the Future Land Use map, the Growth Framework Map and the Area Plan. In addition to guiding future development the plan recommends transportation improvements that will make the intersection better accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. ### Policy AP-BN 1 Building Height Buildings that are developed on vacant parcels adjacent to the Buffaloe New Hope intersection should be limited to three stories and 50 feet in height. ### Policy AP-BN 2 Neighborhood Transitions If redevelopment occurs as a more intensive use, buffering and transition areas between higher intensity uses and single family residential areas should exceed the standards in Article 3.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance. ### Policy AP-BN 3 Mitigating Light and Noise Impacts Light and noise impacts should be mitigated at the intersection to protect surrounding single family residences. This could include prohibiting uses that are associated with late night activities by limiting hours of operation and/or altering the height, placement, or type of lighting that will be utilized. ### Policy AP-BN 4 Frontage If redevelopment occurs at the Buffaloe–New Hope intersection, a Parking Limited frontage should be implemented to accommodate pedestrian activity. ### Policy AP-BN 5 Improving Safety, Accessibility, and Connectivity for all Transportation Modes Transportation projects implemented at the Buffaloe-New Hope intersection and in its vicinity should take into consideration the needs of all transportation modes, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. ### Policy AP-BN 6 Future Land Use Designations The Future Land Use designation for the vacant parcels at the Buffaloe-New Hope intersection should remain Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU). ### Action AP-BN 1 Completed 2018 *** ### Action AP-BN 2 Pedestrian Improvements Partner with the private sector and NCDOT to encourage the installation of pedestrian signals, crosswalks, and other improvements as development occurs. *** ### Action AP-BN 3 LED Street Lighting Install and upgrade LED street lights in the vicinity of the Buffaloe - New Hope intersection. *** ### Action AP-BN 4 Sidewalk Repair Repair sidewalk damage along Buffaloe and New Hope Road. *** ### Action AP-BN 5 Landscaping and Sidewalk Obstruction Evaluate existing landscaping on City-owned lots and abandoned right-of-way for sidewalk obstruction and perform maintenance if required; notify other property owners of violations. *** ### Action AP-BN 6 Safety Improvements Partner with NCDOT to conduct a safety analysis of the intersection of Buffaloe Road and New Hope Road, as well as determine if improvements are needed. *** ### Action AP-BN 7 Safety Evaluations Complete safety evaluations for these intersections: Top of the Pines Court/Buffaloe Road, Jane Lane/ New Hope Road, Sue Lane/ New Hope Road, Old Coach Road/Buffaloe Road, and Iron Horse Road/ Buffaloe Road. *** # Map AP-BN1: Buffaloe-New Hope Adopted: 5/19/2015 <
> Proposed Parking Limited Frontage Map created 8/7/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) # BP Blount Street/Person Street Corridor Plan The Blount Street/ Person Street corridor is a major urban thoroughfare that provides access to downtown Raleigh and the surrounding core neighborhoods. The vision for the corridor is to provide complete streets that will be accessible to not only motorists, but pedestrians and cyclists. Three phases are anticipated for the corridor: a road diet restriping, improved streetscape construction, and restoring the corridor to a two-way travel configuration. ### Policy AP-BP 1 Street Design Guidelines Use the street design guidelines from the Blount Street Person Street Corridor Study Report to transform the corridor into a vibrant space that accommodates multimodal transportation, and is functional and aesthetically pleasing for activities such as dining, socializing or sitting. <
> ### Action AP-BP 1 Signal Timing Analyze new signal timing along the corridor to reduce delays from two way restoration at several key intersections (Edenton/New Bern, South/Lenoir). ### Action AP-BP 2 Roundabouts Conduct additional traffic engineering and design analysis for a more accurate picture of traffic effects at proposed roundabouts. ### Action AP-BP 3 Green Infrastructure Install green infrastructure such as stormwater treatment planters and pervious pavers as part of streetscape improvements to manage stormwater runoff. ### Action AP-BP 4 Road Diet Restripe the corridor to create a road diet that better defines the curb to curb space, calming traffic, adding center turn lanes at important intersections, and a bicycle lane to provide a clear and safe space for cyclists. ### Action AP-BP 5 Lane Configuration for Two Way Traffic Currently Blount and Person streets operate as one way streets. Restore the corridor to a two way lane configuration. ### Action AP-BP 6 Midblock Pedestrian Crossings Install landscaped bulb-outs at intersections and specific midblock locations to narrow pedestrian crossings and add additional landscaping and street trees. ### Action AP-BP 7 Pedestrian Crossings on Wake Forest Road Insert landscaped medians and pedestrian crossings at select locations along Wake Forest Road from Brookside/Automotive Way to Delway Street. Installation of missing sidewalks along the corridor should coincide with the implemtation of this action. # Map AP-BP1: Blount - Person Corridor Adopted: 7/16/2013 <
> <
> Potential Roundabout Location Map created 8/7/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # CB Capital Boulevard The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study is a set of transportation, stormwater, and park facility improvements for the stretch of Capital Boulevard running from Downtown Raleigh to I-440. The plan seeks to balance high volume vehicular flow with bicycle and pedestrian amenities. Restoration of the Pigeon House Branch for floodplain management and recreational purposes is also recommended. Specific recommendations from the plan place high value on improving aesthetic quality, increasing multi-modal transportation facilities, creating new public park facilities, reducing flood risk to private property, and maintaining rapid mobility for vehicles. Capital Boulevard north of downtown is reimagined as an attractive, functional asset that serves infrastructure needs, facilitates travel for all users, and welcomes visitors and commuters to downtown Raleigh. The plan was adopted in 2012. ### Policy AP-CB 1 Happy Motoring Maintain and improve traffic capacity on Capital Boulevard. Identify and apply appropriate roadway design approaches such as access management, modernized interchanges, median improvements, and a consistent six-lane configuration for the roadway. ### Policy AP-CB 2 Transitioning to Transit Improve transit access within the corridor, by providing new routes for bus services, improving the pedestrian realm, and capitalizing on future rail investments. ### Policy AP-CB 3 Moving Without Fossil Fuels Create a new network of greenways and parallel ‘complete streets’ to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movements in the corridor, providing new and better multimodal connections between existing neighborhoods and Downtown. ### Policy AP-CB 4 Greening the Infrastructure Encourage relocation of uses currently in the floodplain. Restore Pigeon House Branch to an ecologically functional state and combine it with reclaimed open space in floodplains to produce recreation and infrastructure benefits. ### Policy AP-CB 5 At Home on Capital Boulevard New parks and transit services should support transition of portions of the corridor from commercial to residential use. New neighborhoods created in this process should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. ### Policy AP-CB 6 Business and Industry Zoning should allow a wide variety of commercial land uses to continue to grow and develop along the corridor. ### Policy AP-CB 7 Stormwater Management All interchange reconfigurations proposed in this plan should include innovative stormwater management programs. Stormwater control measures should be incorporated into existing and proposed medians in the study area. Capital Boulevard ### Action AP-CB 1 Complete 2018 *** ### Action AP-CB 2 West Street Extension and Fairview Road Interchange Removal Construct a bridge to carry West Street over Wade Avenue. Terminate Fairview Road at West Street. These two projects should only be done in conjunction with one another. Minimize impacts to concrete batching plant south of Wade Avenue. *** ### Action AP-CB 3 Completed 2021 *** ### Action AP-CB 4 Valley Super Street Close all access points on Capital Boulevard between Wade Avenue and Wake Forest Road with the exception of a bridge over Pigeon House Branch located across Capital Boulevard from the terminus of Carson Street. Convert Capital Boulevard to a super street in this segment. *** ### Action AP-CB 5 West Street Improvements Extend West Street across the Raleigh Bonded Warehouse property to Wake Forest Road. Convert West Street to a complete street between Wade Avenue and Wake Forest Road. *** ### Action AP-CB 6 Atlantic Avenue/Brookside Drive Roundabout Redesign the intersection of Atlantic Avenue, Wake Forest Road, Brookside Drive, and Automotive Way as a four-legged roundabout. *** ### Action AP-CB 7 North Boulevard Consolidation Consolidate the north- and south-bound lanes of Capital Boulevard between Wake Forest Road and Crabtree Boulevard into a two-way, six-lane road. This action should be done in conjunction with the North Boulevard Park. *** ### Action AP-CB 8 North Person Street Extension Create a local access street out of leftover right-of-way from northbound Capital Boulevard and Automotive Way. Acquire new right-of-way across Food Bank of Central & Eastern NC property to connect this street to Crabtree Boulevard. *** ### Action AP-CB 9 Six Forks Road Extension Extend Six Forks Road across Crabtree Creek to meet the Hodges Road right-of-way west of Capital Boulevard. *** ### Action AP-CB 10 Crabtree Creek to Crabtree Boulevard Acquire a right-of-way easement across the property located at 2226 Capital Boulevard to connect Crabtree Boulevard with the Crabtree Creek greenway trail. If this is not feasible, construct a multi-purpose path on Crabtree Boulevard to connect with the greenway trail where it crosses North Raleigh Boulevard. *** Action AP-CB 11 **North Boulevard Park** Convert the land between the northbound and southbound lanes of Capital Boulevard on the segment running from Atlantic Avenue to Crabtree Boulevard into a linear park with a greenway trail. *** Action AP-CB 12 **Valley Multi-Purpose Trail** Connect the proposed North Boulevard Park to the proposed Devereux Meadows Park with a mullti-purpose trail. *** Action AP-CB 13 **Devereux Meadows Park** Create a linear open space, combining stream restoration with a greenway, on the west side of Capital Boulevard between Wade Avenue and Peace Street. *** Action AP-CB 14 **Southeast High Speed Rail Viaduct** Work with NCDOT to ensure a high-quality and attractive viaduct is constructed to carry the Southeast High Speed Rail line over Devereux Meadows. *** Action AP-CB 15 **Bus Transit** Capitalize on the extensions of West Street and North Person Street to provide enhanced bus transit on these lower-speed and more pedestrian-friendly parallel streets. *** Action AP-CB 16 **Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities** In conjunction with the capital projects described above, implement the following bicycle and pedestrian improvements: • *Sidewalks on all sides of Capital Boulevard north of Atlantic Avenue and between Downtown and Wade Avenue.* • *Sidewalks running the length of West Street and the North Person Street extension.* • *Sidewalks on both sides of Atlantic Avenue within the study area.* • *Sidewalks along both sides of the Wade Avenue bridge.* • *Sidewalks along both sides of the proposed “square loops” at Peace Street.* • *Improved sidewalks and pedestrian crossings along Peace Street within the study area.* *** Action AP-CB 17 **Green Infrastructure** Implement the following green infrastructure improvements: • *Stream restoration of the Pigeon House Branch between Peace Street and Wade Avenue in the Devereux Meadows Park.* • *Stream restoration of the Pigeon House Branch between Atlantic Avenue and Crabtree Boulevard as part of the North Boulevard Park.* • *A flood bench along Pigeon House Branch as it runs the east side of Capital Boulevard between Wade Avenue and the Wake Forest Road ramps.* *** # Map AP-CB1: Capital Boulevard Adopted: 8/7/2012 <
> | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ![Icon] | Proposed Roundabout Location | ![Line] | Proposed Greenway Trail | ![Box] | Proposed Open Space | | ![Line] | Proposed Street | ![Line] | Existing Greenway Trail | ![Box] | Existing Open Space | | ![Line] | Southeast High Speed Rail Alignment | | | | | Map created 8/7/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # CH Cameron Village and Hillsborough Street This area plan addresses the area shown in Map AP-CH-1. The plan area encompasses the Cameron Village shopping center and its environs, stretching from Hillsborough Street to Wade Avenue; and includes the Hillsborough Street corridor and adjacent neighborhoods from Meredith College to St. Mary’s School. The Cameron Village area is designated as a City Growth Center on the Growth Framework Map, and Hillsborough Street is identified elsewhere in the plan as an important transit and multimodal corridor and main street. Contained within the study area are the largest inside-the-Beltline retail center; the university main street for the city’s largest educational institution, NC State University; and many of Raleigh’s most desirable residential neighborhoods. The study area has become a magnet for new mixed-use development over the past decade, with the residential areas seeing substantial investment in rehabilitation and infill construction. The policies presented in this section are intended to implement the recommendations of the Cameron Village and Hillsborough Street Area Plan. The complete Area Plan document can be found on the city’s website. ### Policy AP-CH 1 Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks Establish “Complete Streets” that accommodate vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, transit, and parking. Expand the pedestrian network with new sidewalks, repairs, and improvements. Incorporate bicycle facilities along key streets and dedicated enhanced linkages between NCSU and the neighborhoods using Gorman and Gardner streets. ### Policy AP-CH 2 Improve and Expand Parks and Open Space Seek opportunities to enhance existing open spaces and create new open spaces through the development process. Larger new developments in the plan area should provide enhanced outdoor amenity areas that contribute to a gracious and inviting public realm. ### Policy AP-CH 3 Increase Transit Options Improve public transportation service quality within the study area through implementation of the Wake Transit Plan and improved coordination with other providers including GoTriangle and NCSU Wolfline. Consolidate and improve stops, incorporate new technology, and facilitate partnerships with employers to encourage transit use. ### Policy AP-CH 4 Distribute and Calm Traffic Prioritize transportation network modifications that enhance connectivity, including realignment of Smallwood and Bellwood Drives between Clark Avenue/Peace Street and Cameron Street, and lane reassignment on Oberlin Road between Clark Avenue to Wade Avenue to better accommodate turning movements, parking, bicycles, and pedestrians. Increase network connectivity by bisecting the superblock along Oberlin Road, between Wade Avenue and Smallwood Drive, with a new connections between Oberlin Road and Wade Avenue. ### Policy AP-CH 5 Plan for Adequate and Accessible Parking Address parking needs by actively managing and expanding on-street parking, studying existing surface parking lots for efficiency, developing a shared parking network, evaluating parking-related city policy as it applies to mixed-use development and continued encouragement of alternative means of transportation, and encouraging provision of public parking in new private developments. ### Policy AP-CH 6 Guide Future Zoning Rezoning petitions should be evaluated for consistency with the policy guidance and recommendations of the area plan, as well as Map AP-CH 1. ### Policy AP-CH 7 Promote Quality Design Building on the foundation created in the Unified Development Ordinance, new developments should incorporate transition areas, setbacks, stepbacks, and design that improve the public realm. Design, massing, and height should respond to the contextual setting. <
> ### Policy AP-CH 8 Return Daniels Street to Public Right-of-way In the event of private redevelopment, encourage the return Daniels Street to public right-of-way between Smallwood Drive and Clark Avenue and implementation of a new streetscape to serve multi-modal traffic that can also serve as a plaza when closed for special events. <
> ### Policy AP-CH 9 Hillsborough Street Building Frontages In the Stanhope Village area, Hillsborough Street should have an identifiable and relatively continuous building frontage, punctuated by focal point buildings and accessory plazas notched in at mid-block with pedestrian passageways to parking behind. <
> ### Policy AP-CH 10 Mayview Housing Redevelopment Future redevelopment of Mayview public housing should emulate the surrounding vernacular architecture with common open spaces, direct access to Jaycee Park, and a maximum height of three stories. The incorporation of mixed-income residences would enhance the social fabric of the neighborhood. <
> ### Policy AP-CH 11 Old Rex Hospital Site No additional retail uses should be allowed on Wade Avenue with the exception of the North Carolina Department of Employment Security (the old Rex Hospital) on the northwest corner of Wade Avenue and St. Mary’s Street, which may be redeveloped into mixed-use residential and office, with retail uses limited to Accessory Retail Sales not to exceed 5 percent of total built square footage. Building height should be limited to four stories or 50 feet and adjacent to single family residential should be limited to a maximum of two stories or 25 feet. Building heights in excess of 25 feet should require a one foot for one foot step back. Residential densities should be limited to 30 units per acre. On-site parking should comply with the Urban Design policy UD 2.6 ‘Parking Location and Design.’ <
> ### Policy AP-CH 12 Use-based Transitions Where a new mixed-use development of any building type taller than three stories is constructed next to residential use of no more than two stories, the taller development should include: *1. a fifteen-foot building setback from the shared property line with the residential use, and* *2. a maximum height of 3 stories and 50’ within 50’ of the shared property line with the residential use.* <
> # Map AP-CH1: Cameron Village / Hillsborough Street Adopted: 2/6/2018 <
> ### Zoning Policy Guidance | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | ![orange square] | Residential Mixed Use (RX-) | ![pink square] | Neighborhood Mixed Use (NX-) | | ![yellow square] | Residential-10 (R-10) | ![light blue square] | Office Mixed Use (OX-) | ![red square] | Commercial Mixed Use (CX-) | *Base zoning districts and heights displayed may be considered appropriate for future rezonings. #### Proposed Roundabout Intersection (blank page) # CN Capital North The Capital North Corridor Study was adopted in July 2022 for the segment of Capital Boulevard between I-440 and I-540 and associated tracts to the east and west. Recommended actions and policies of the plan focus on conversion of this segment of Capital Boulevard to a multi-way boulevard, anticipation of rapid transit service, improvements to local bicycle and pedestrian circulation, guidance for development which supports employment and diverse housing, and preservation of a robust economic environment for small business. The plan provides guidance for how the recommendations should be sequenced. Investments in community stabilization should occur in the first five to ten years after the plan’s adoption, prior to the initiation of proposals related to road construction and future development. The intent of this guidance is to reduce negative impacts of change on the corridor by strengthening local economic conditions and promoting community cohesion in advance of transportation and land use changes. Successful community stabilization policies will also more equitably distribute the benefits of plan implementation. The actions and policies of the plan are organized around four “Vision Themes” that apply broader goals to specific topics and areas. ## Vision Theme: Flow Capital Boulevard will be a safe, direct, reliable, and high-capacity connection for travel by all modes of transportation to centers of employment and economic activity in Raleigh and the surrounding region. ### Policy AP-CN 1 Traffic Management Accommodate the traffic volume projected in 2045 by the Triangle Regional Model while also maintaining access to land uses along the corridor. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 2 Low-impact Interchange Design Interchange design should minimize and mitigate impacts on nearby development. Impacts to be considered should include access, visibility, and future development potential. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 3 BRT Preparedness Design new and reconstructed interchanges to accommodate future bus rapid transit stations. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 4 Bicycle Concurrency Prioritize implementation of bicycle facilities on adjacent and/or parallel streets to be constructed in a similar time frame as interchange and street projects for Capital Boulevard, as called for in the Bike Raleigh plan. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 5 Mature Tree Preservation To the maximum extent possible, preserve existing mature trees along Capital Boulevard during road construction, particularly in the area between Spring Forest Road and Oak Forest Drive. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 6 Separated Bicycle Lanes Where feasible, the multi-way boulevard should include separated bicycle lanes with a width of at least five feet. Bicycle lanes along the multi-way should be constructed of a surface material which minimizes gaps and expansion joints. Where separated bicycle lanes are provided, the sidewalk width may be reduced to six feet. ### Action AP-CN 1 Bicycle Transitions to Interchanges Bicycle facilities approaching and within interchanges should be constructed as shown in the Bicycle Design figures in Appendix F of the plan report. ### Action AP-CN 2 Quick-Build Bicycle Projects Pursue quick-build bicycle projects for some locations near the corridor. Consider temporary, low cost, and low maintenance options that can be constructed quickly and serve as interim facilities until more permanent facilities are constructed. ### Action AP-CN 3 Pedestrian Circulation in the I-440 Interchange Ensure that the I-440/Capital Boulevard interchange improvement project provides a safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian connection through the interchange. # Vision Theme: Go Capital Boulevard will provide for safe and accessible local travel for all modes of transportation. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities will connect transit, parks, neighborhoods, shopping, and employment while reducing conflicts with vehicle traffic. Local streets should be designed with all users in mind and help to activate nearby land uses. ### Policy AP-CN 7 Pedestrian Safety Increase pedestrian/overall safety through grade separation, parallel street network development, or other capital projects as described in this plan. ### Policy AP-CN 8 Pedestrian Bridge at Triangle Town Center Encourage reservation of land on both sides of Capital Boulevard between Sumner Boulevard and Old Wake Forest Road for the construction of a pedestrian bridge in this location. ### Policy AP-CN 9 Retaining Pedestrian Access Where an existing through-street is converted to right-in/right-out or grade separation without access to Capital Boulevard, identify appropriate locations for facilities to ensure a high level of pedestrian access across Capital Boulevard, including pedestrian bridges. Any reduction in pedestrian level of service for crossing Capital Boulevard should be minimized in magnitude and duration. ### Policy AP-CN 10 Accommodating New Streets Consider allowing greater height and density than what is recommended by Table LU-2 for sites that contain streets on the Street Plan Map. Carefully balance additional density with appropriate neighborhood transitions. #### Policy AP-CN 11 Innovative Bike/Ped Facilities Evaluate the operational feasibility and potential benefits of creating new types of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that fill small gaps in the existing network, can be constructed quickly, or have been difficult to implement in the past due to divergence from adopted facility types. Consider incorporating this work into the Greenway Master Plan update process. #### Policy AP-CN 12 Interchange Corners at Grade New interchanges should be designed such that local vehicle lanes are constructed as close as possible to the existing grade of adjacent developments where they meet the street. Where this policy conflicts with the desire for site access as described in Policy AP-CN 1 “Traffic Management,” this policy should be given priority. #### Policy AP-CN 13 Neighborhood Edges Improve the safety, appearance, and connectivity of transition areas between commercial and residential uses. #### Action AP-CN 4 Streetscape Plan Create a streetscape design to be applied on cross streets where new interchanges are proposed. Allow for design of some elements, particularly vertical items such as light poles and benches, to be customized according to the character of the nearby area. Include residents, businesses, and civic organizations from the adjacent neighborhoods in the design and/or selection of these items. #### Action AP-CN 5 Pedestrian Crossings Construct improved pedestrian crossings as shown in the Priority Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations maps in this report. Explore the possibility of a pedestrian crossing at Baugh Street and Buffaloe Road to connect with the Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA) development on the north side. If a crossing is installed, improve the sidewalk through the RHA development to a multi-use path. #### Action AP-CN 6 Marsh Creek Greenway Land Acquisition Identify and pursue opportunities to acquire land, including as part of capital projects, for the implementation of the Marsh Creek Greenway between Brentwood Park and N. Raleigh Boulevard. Identify and seek to implement connections between the Marsh Creek greenway and Hill Street Park as well as with civic spaces in the Highwoods/ Westinghouse Multi-modal District. #### Action AP-CN 7 New Civic Life in Existing Spaces Seek novel ways to utilize underused spaces, such as vacant retail outlets and existing public right-of-way, in the corridor for public benefit. Consider the installation of small-scale park facilities and amenities that attract positive, healthy activity and raise visibility of out-of-the-way areas. Explore this concept in a future Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources System Plan Update. #### Action AP-CN 8 Safety by Design Explore the feasibility of installing lighting, “blue light” emergency phones, cameras, and public Wi-Fi networks along the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network, including in the form of “safety refuges” that combine all four elements listed. If pursued, integrate these items with the “loops” described in Action AP-CN 30 “Neighborhood Loops.” # Vision Theme: Grow A mixed-use corridor that provides residential choices, economic opportunity, and a variety of goods and services for Raleigh’s residents and workers. ### Policy AP-CN 14 Transit-Supportive Urban Design As existing commercial areas redevelop, encourage urban form and land uses that support transit ridership and create a comfortable and accessible public realm on secondary streets near Capital Boulevard. The recommended land uses and building heights from this plan should be used for the review of rezoning cases. Zoning heights greater than 7 stories should be discouraged until bus rapid transit is planned for the corridor and economic assistance resources are available for small businesses. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 15 Promoting Vertical Mixed-Use Development When large commercial sites are rezoned, encourage zoning conditions that promote office and employment uses, such as limiting the square footage of single-story retail. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 16 Large Site Design Quality Facilitate a high level of design quality for large commercial sites such as Triangle Town Center through staff assistance in planning of infrastructure, building orientation, landscaping, and open space. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 17 Affordable Units in Dense Development Through the rezoning process, encourage all new development 7-stories or greater and containing a residential component to reserve as affordable units (as defined by Raleigh Housing & Neighborhoods or adopted city policy) EITHER 5% of the total number of residential units OR one-half of the number of units lost through demolition of existing housing, whichever is greater. <
> ### Policy AP-CN 18 Equitable Investment and Redevelopment Alleviate the detrimental or inequitable impacts to residents, businesses, and non-profit organizations related to new infrastructure and redevelopment using existing and expanded tools and programs. If BRT is implemented, apply the tools identified in the Equitable Transit Oriented Development guidebook. <
> ### Action AP-CN 9 Applying TOD Urban Form If BRT stations are planned for Capital North, initiate Comprehensive Plan amendments to apply the BRT Area Urban Form designation to Capital Boulevard, and zoning map amendments to apply the TOD overlay zoning to areas surrounding stations. Where the BRT Area Urban Form designation would overlap with a City Growth Center or Mixed-Use Center, retain the existing designation. ### Action AP-CN 10 De-emphasizing Capital Boulevard Frontage Consider adding provisions to the UDO to prevent Capital Boulevard from being designated as a primary street within the TOD overlay district. ### Action AP-CN 11 Retrofitting Shopping Centers Investigate the potential for modifying zoning requirements or awarding grants to encourage existing commercial buildings to be retrofit or internally subdivided to allow for low-cost residential units or small-scale retail spaces. ### Action AP-CN 12 Homeowner Education Organize a workshop, led by city staff, to educate existing residents of Brentwood, Starmount, and other neighborhoods with high rates of home ownership about homeowner repair programs, down payment assistance programs, the Accessory Dwelling Unit development option, National Historic Register listing, and other resources that can help homeowners maintain their homes. ### Action AP-CN 13 Funding Healthy Lifestyles Evaluate the feasibility of using tax increments as funding to pay for bicycle and pedestrian improvements, safety stations, and micro-parks in the corridor area with any surplus proceeds dedicated to increasing the supply of affordable housing. Use the Public Project Community Support Fund as a model where suitable. ### Action AP-CN 14 Business Alliance Startup Grant and Support Offer organizational support and resources with potential for additional funding based on attainment of pre-determined outcomes. Provide initial staff support for organizing and administrative tasks. Allow for funding of two alliances as indicated by business needs and relationships. ### Action AP-CN 15 Small Business Grant Program Develop a small business assistance program to respond to specific needs related to construction, new street configuration, and redevelopment. Consider making permanent to respond to other transportation projects. Explore various forms of assistance such as in-kind technical support and loans. ### Action AP-CN 16 Small Business Incubator Seek an existing commercial space for conversion to a small business incubator. Use flexible and shared spaces as well as training and coaching to foster emerging small businesses. Coordinate with employment matching and small business loan program to assist growing businesses enter permanent locations. ### Action AP-CN 17 Northwest Technology Corridor Conduct an economic development study of the area on the west side of Capital Boulevard between Oak Forest Drive and Durant Road and east of the railroad corridor. The study should investigate the potential for this area to be marketed as an industrial technology corridor, including identification of sites where there are constraints on development or redevelopment for industrial, manufacturing, or research users. ### Action AP-CN 18 First Source Agreements Seek to establish a standard agreement for inclusion in city-funded construction projects for this corridor that give preference to local companies and companies that primarily employ local workers. ### Action AP-CN 19 Job Skills Training Partner with Capital Area Workforce Development to develop a construction training course, or support expansion of existing similar programming to help local residents build skills and receive certifications, particularly for construction jobs. Seek collaboration with small business incubators for training space and job placement assistance. ### Action AP-CN 20 Density Bonus for Retail Space Investigate a UDO text change to allow a height bonus for projects that include a minimum percentage of retail space in new development. If BRT is implemented, consider making this a part of the TOD overlay that is specific to Capital Boulevard. ### Action AP-CN 21 Public Improvement Reimbursement Schedule Explore the creation of a rate schedule of reimbursement for public street improvements for subdivisions and site plans in the corridor. Limit eligibility for reimbursement to those developments that provide a minimum percentage of affordable housing units in new development. ### Action AP-CN 22 Monitor Success Gather current economic and demographic data prior to implementation of community development action items. Monitor these indicators as programs are implemented and transportation projects are constructed. Proactively respond to community needs as indicated by data through modifications to community development programs. # Vision Theme: Show Capital Boulevard North will be an inviting gateway, corridor, and destination that expresses Raleigh’s best qualities as well as the local character of the people and geography in the corridor. ### Policy AP-CN 19 Community-Led Investments Invest in community facilities, infrastructure, and amenities that improve the appearance and quality of life of the Capital North area. Seek partnerships with property owners, businesses, and non-profit organizations to identify solutions that leverage existing community assets. ### Policy AP-CN 20 Public Art Identify appropriate sites for murals or other public art to be incorporated into new transportation facilities including bridges, retaining walls, medians, and bus stops. Work with businesses, neighborhoods, and civic groups to identify artists who can be contracted to produce artworks. ### Policy AP-CN 21 Incentives for Civic Amenities Seek opportunities for improving outdoor amenity areas, opening public streets, or adding multi-modal facilities in return for exemptions or reductions to site review requirements. Consider the use of an overlay zoning district for this purpose. ### Action AP-CN 23 Community Leadership Workshops Organize as many as two special Community Leadership Academy cohorts of stakeholders from the corridor over a period of two years. Tailor programming to the challenges and opportunities in the corridor. Consider contracting a speaker/consultant to help with focused content. Explore using the academy or a subsequent event with the participants as a workshop for a specific community project. ### Action AP-CN 24 Creating a Gateway to Raleigh Place public art and/or signage on new interchanges in the corridor so that it is visible to vehicles travelling south on Capital Boulevard to create an attractive and welcoming gateway into Raleigh. ### Action AP-CN 25 CPTED in New Projects Support the inclusion of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) elements in capital projects where possible. ### Action AP-CN 26 Grants for Visible Beautification Explore modifications to the neighborhood grant program to allow registered neighborhoods to sponsor public art in commercial areas. ### Action AP-CN 27 Capital North Custom Streetscapes Create a streetscape design to be applied on cross-streets where new interchanges are proposed. A preliminary approach to this streetscape plan is shown in Appendices F and G of the report. Allow for design of some elements, particularly vertical items such as light poles and benches, to be customized according to the character of the nearby area. Include residents, businesses, and civic organizations from the adjacent neighborhoods in the design and/or selection of these items. ### Action AP-CN 28 Activating Existing Spaces Encourage activation of under-utilized surface parking lots through events such as cultural festivals, food truck rodeos, or temporary markets. Identify regulatory barriers to such activities and investigate revisions that would allow them while avoiding or minimizing impacts to other properties. ### Action AP-CN 29 Run/Bike to Celebrate Success When construction of the Capital Boulevard multi-way is complete, organize a run or bike ride within the corridor area that crosses at least two interchanges. Use this event to promote the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ### Action AP-CN 30 Neighborhood Loops Support the development of neighborhood- or district-branded “loops” within the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network. Loops should use wayfinding markers and maps to encourage the use of these dedicated facilities for walking and cycling between neighborhoods, commercial areas, and transit stops. # Map AP-CN1: Capital Boulevard North Adopted: 7/5/2022 <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | <
> | Focus Area | | <
> | Proposed Street | | <
> | Proposed Greenway Trail | | <
> | Existing Greenway Trails | | <
> | Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing | | <
> | Grade Separation | | <
> | Grade Separation - Single Point Urban Interchange | | <
> | Grade Separation - Tight Diamond | | <
> | Right-In / Right-Out Intersection | ### Recommended Height | | | | :--- | :--- | | <
> | 3 stories | | <
> | 4 stories | | <
> | 5 stories | | <
> | 5 - 7 stories | | <
> | 7 - 12 stories | | <
> | 20 stories | Map created 2/27/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development. # CP Cameron Park Cameron Park is located 12 blocks west of downtown Raleigh. The neighborhood boundaries are Clark Avenue and Peace Street on the north, St. Mary’s Street on the east, Hillsborough Street on the south, and the rear lot lines of properties fronting the west side of Oberlin Road on the west. Cameron Village Shopping Center and Broughton High School are both one block to the north and the NCSU campus begins one block to the west. The area contains approximately 160 acres. The neighborhood contains a diverse mix of housing types and styles, with a remarkable representation of houses built in the early 20th century, especially between 1910 and 1940. The houses have large footprints in relation to lot size resulting in relatively small yards giving this area a fairly urban, dense building pattern. The neighborhood’s mature landscape helps to separate properties and adds to a feeling of privacy. More than half of the residences back up to a series of alleys adding to the uniqueness of this downtown neighborhood. Three linear parks serve as a natural common open space. This plan was prepared to protect and perpetuate the unique historic aspects of the neighborhood. ### Policy AP-CP 1 Cameron Park Historic Character Enhance and preserve the historic character and scale of the Cameron Park neighborhood. ### Policy AP-CP 2 Pedestrian-Orientation in Cameron Park Area Encourage pedestrian-orientation along Hillsborough Street, Saint Mary’s Street, Oberlin Road, Clark Avenue and Peace Street. Discourage automobile-oriented uses and drive-throughs. ### Policy AP-CP 3 Removed 2019 ### Policy AP-CP 4 Cameron Park Transition Areas New development in the Cameron Park Transition Areas shown on the attached map should be designed to complement the residential neighborhood context in terms of scale, character, and setback. ### Action AP-CP 1 Hillsborough Streetscape Improvements Streetscape improvements should be made to Hillsborough Street from Morgan Street to Oberlin Road. This is one of the few remaining unimproved streetscapes left in the Hillsborough Street corridor. Opportunities for on-street parking along this section of Hillsborough Street should be included as well as relocating or undergrounding overhead utility lines. ### Action AP-CP 2 Removed 2015 ### Action AP-CP 3 Completed 2013 ### Action AP-CP 4 West Park Drive Curb Add a curb on West Park Drive between Park Drive and Peace Street as part of a future CIP project. The City should also enforce sidewalk obstructions related to the on-street parking. ### Action AP-CP 5 College Place Parking Study Additional on-street parking areas should be evaluated on College Place from East Park Drive to St. Mary’s Street. ### Action AP-CP 6 Completed 2016 ### Action AP-CP 7 Removed 2015 # Map AP-CP1: **Cameron Park** Adopted: 7/20/2004 <
> | | | |---|---| | <
> | Core Area | | <
> | Transition Area A | | <
> | Transition Area B | Map created 12/13/2019 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) # CR Crabtree The Plan area includes the Crabtree Valley Mall and surrounding properties, within approximately 1/2 a mile. The intent of the plan is to develop the study area into a mixed-use, urban community that continues to serve visitors on a regional scale. As the area will see an increase in development intensity, new development should feature mixed-uses focusing particularly on offices and medium-density housing, additional retail should remain limited to Kidds Hill, Pinnacle Apartment and Crabtree Valley Mall sites, with the exception of small-scale, neighborhood-oriented retail encouraged within the residential area, southwest of the Mall. Stand alone “big box” retail and strip malls are discouraged. There will be limited roadway capacity improvements, though Crabtree Valley Avenue is envisioned to extend westward to Glenwood Avenue and eastward to connect to the I-440 Beltline. This aligns with the plan’s overall goal of enhancing interconnectivity of transit services and pedestrian amenities. Due to the flood-prone areas, a new emphasis on pedestrian circulation should be placed on the Mall’s upper level, which coincides with the elevation of the Marq at Crabtree Apartments. Open space is planned along Crabtree Creek, along with a greenway following its tributary and connecting to Laurel Hills Park to offset the increase of development intensity. The planning goals of this area are to encourage mixed-use development, while making improvements to vehicular and pedestrian circulation on a scale appropriate to a regional center. ### Policy AP-CR 1 Crabtree Parking Structures New parking structures in the Crabtree area should be designed with careful attention given to their street faces. ### Policy AP-CR 2 Crabtree Area Hillsides Hillsides in the Crabtree area should be retained and not graded down for incongruous, large-footprint buildings. New structures on hillsides and hilltops should fit into the terrain. ### Policy AP-CR 3 Crabtree Creek Crabtree Creek and its tributaries should be left in a natural state with floodways, water quality, and steep slopes protected from further environmental degradation. ### Policy AP-CR 4 Crabtree Mall Connections A two level circulation system is proposed for the Crabtree Mall area. The lower level, which corresponds to the lower level of the Mall, should include vehicular, transit, and pedestrian circulation (including greenways). The upper circulation level corresponds to the upper level of the Mall but ground level of the Marq at Crabtree and the hotel areas to the north and east of the Mall and requires that pedestrian bridges be accommodated as sites adjacent to the Mall are developed. ### Policy AP-CR 5 Design Unity in the Crabtree Area Where possible, contiguous tracts throughout the Crabtree area should have some sense of overall design unity. In areas where upper-level pedestrian access is developed, creative structural expression of these circulation elements would serve to engage the users and give the area character. The use of glass and transparent materials should be encouraged in order to keep the area from appearing closed in, like a tunnel. ### Policy AP-CR 6 Crabtree Area Pedestrian Circulation Plan The focus of the Crabtree Valley Pedestrian Circulation Plan is to create a primary loop around the mall, which is the key activity center in the area. This loop will be comprised of the Capital Area Greenway Crabtree Trail on the south and east, Glenwood Avenue on the north, and an upper level Mall connection on the west (connecting the proposed pedestrian bridge from Marriott Drive to the mall and the planned pedestrian bridge from the Promenade over Crabtree Valley Avenue and Crabtree Creek to the mall). Also identified are the key connections from the surrounding hotel/office/residential activity centers to the primary pedestrian loop. Marriott Drive is designated as the preferred Glenwood Avenue street level crossing. Pedestrians from the east (Lead Mine Road and Holiday Inn areas) would be directed to cross under Glenwood Avenue using the greenway trail. ### Action AP-CR 1 Glenwood Avenue Pedestrian Bridge A pedestrian bridge over Glenwood Avenue should be built to provide an upper-level link to the hotels and other buildings on the hillsides to the north. # Map AP-CR1: Crabtree Adopted: 6/4/2002 <
> * Important Pedestrian Access Point * Crabtree Valley Mall Upper Level Pathway * Open Space / Stormwater Control Corridor * Proposed Greenway Corridor * Primary Pedestrian Loop Map created 8/7/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) # DE Dix Edge The Dix Edge Study is a community-driven plan providing a vision, policy recommendations, and implementable actions to guide the sustainable growth of the area immediately south of downtown Raleigh and east of Dorothea Dix Park (see Map AP-DE1). The vision addresses affordability and housing, land use, connectivity and transportation, and natural resources. A major focus of the study is ensuring that existing residents benefit from and are not displaced by major catalytic projects such as Dorothea Dix Park, Downtown South, and Bus Rapid Transit. The plan will set in place a sequence of actions and policies to prioritize neighborhood stabilization. This includes immediate actions to develop new affordable housing on city-owned property and actively pursuing additional affordable housing opportunities using funds from the Affordable Housing Bond passed in 2020. ## Housing Affordability As the Dix Edge communities experience rapid change in property values and rents, these policies and actions establish a strategic framework for future affordable housing initiatives in Dix Edge communities. New and creative partnerships and tools using various approaches to funding affordable housing opportunities in Dix Edge should be explored. ### Policy AP-DE 1 Expand Housing Opportunities at All Income Levels The housing gap analysis conducted for the study showed a shortage of rental homes for both very low-income households (30% AMI and below) and higher-income households (100% AMI and above). Request for Proposals (RFPs) for affordable housing development in the study area should include units targeted to households at 30% AMI and below to meet the demand at that income level. To relieve pressure from higher-income households on lower priced units, market rate housing supply should be increased to meet the demand by higher-income households, in addition to expanding and preserving housing options for low and moderate-income households. ### Policy AP-DE 2 Long-term Affordability To ensure long-term affordability in the Dix Edge study area, the city should maintain ownership of city-owned properties used to develop affordable housing and use long-term land lease agreements to facilitate their management and development. ### Policy AP-DE 3 Continuous Community Engagement Use neighborhood ambassadors to conduct outreach and education to existing residents on available housing resources. Potential resources include homeowner rehabilitation, predatory real estate transaction consultations, and renter rights education. ### Action AP-DE 1 City-owned Property Rezone and develop city-owned properties at 1500 Wilmington Street, 15 Summit Avenue, and 0 Water Works Street for affordable housing. ### Action AP-DE 2 Educational Services Create a program that will educate existing residents about predatory real estate practices. The program should include digital and hardcopy informational materials, neighborhood signs with where to find more information, and dedicated staff to advise residents seeking information about real estate practices in the area. ### Action AP-DE 3 Dix Edge Heritage and Cultural Committee Organize a Dix Edge Heritage and Cultural Committee to organize an annual festival celebrating the heritage of the area through food, music, and other artistic expressions. The Committee could provide information and resources about the history of the area and promote local businesses and services to existing and new residents. # Land Use The Dix Edge Area Study Future Land Use vision manages the significant growth and intensification anticipated for the area while being responsive to the needs of existing residents. This is accomplished through concentration of the highest density projects along corridors and major intersections, while providing guidelines for new development in existing neighborhoods that incorporates three-, four-, and five-story apartment buildings. ### Policy AP-DE 4 Dix Edge Height The Future Land Use Map combined with Table LU-2 Recommended Building Heights provides appropriate building height guidance for the Dix Edge area. Rezoning requests that pursue taller heights should include offers of substantial public benefits. Public benefits can include, but are not limited to, significant commitments for housing affordability, stormwater mitigation, carbon emission reduction, and expanded or enhanced public space, pedestrian oriented streetscapes, and small business retention or support. Additional building height can also be gained by including the Transit Overlay District (-TOD) in rezoning petitions. ### Policy AP-DE 5 Greenway-oriented Development New development along designated greenway trail routes should address active and accessible uses along the trail edge to provide an additional transportation option and take advantage of the public investment in the greenway system. This activation can consist of additional residential density and neighborhood-serving commercial uses. ### Policy AP-DE 6 Urban Frontages Rezoning requests for Mixed Use Districts in the Dix Edge Area should include an Urban Frontage, unless precluded by natural features, topography, or other major site constraints. ### Action AP-DE 4 City-initiated Rezoning Rezone all properties zoned Residential-6 (R-6) to Residential-10 (R-10). A city-initiated rezoning should begin once the affordable housing development at 1500 Wilmington Street begins. ### Action AP-DE 5 Greenway-oriented Development Framework Create UDO development standards to facilitate greenway-oriented development. ## Connectivity An integrated pedestrian, bicycle, and street infrastructure system is fundamental to a safe, connected, and equitable Dix Edge study area. The study area is currently bordered and bisected by auto-centric corridors, which is reflected in concerns heard from the public about pedestrian and bicyclist safety. These connectivity recommendations increase the potential transportation options for residents in the study area by eliminating gaps in the sidewalk network, adding street connections, enhancing greenway and bicycle infrastructure, and improving the transit experience. ### Policy AP-DE 7 Improve Connectivity Enhance connectivity throughout the Dix Edge study area with a more connected street grid, additional sidewalks, improved bike and greenway infrastructure that connects destinations and is comfortable for all levels of users, and multi-modal streetscapes on major roads in the study area. See Map AP-DEX for specific recommendations. ### Action AP-DE 6 Transit Improvements Study the potential for adding service frequency to existing and planned routes in the study area. Specific improvements to study include: * adding bi-directional service for Route 21. * establishing a new route from Downtown to Tryon Road along Lake Wheeler Road. * a new east/west route inside the beltline connecting the Southern and Western BRT lines. ### Action AP-DE 7 Bus Stop Bulbs Install bus stop bulbs to provide more space for bus stop amenities and improve ADA access. Potential locations where this treatment may be appropriate include the following stops: * Stop 8830 – Caraleigh Park * Stop 8832 – Maywood Ave at Summit Ave * Stop 8833 – Maywood Ave at Moring St * Stop 8839 – Maywood Ave at Green St --- ### Action AP-DE 8 Lake Wheeler Road and Hammell Drive Streetscape Plans Adopt the recommendations of the Dix Edge Area Study as a streetscape plan in accordance with Resolution No. 2023-484. --- # Natural Resources The Natural Resources policies and actions are intended to protect natural systems and enhance ecological balance in the study area. As property in the area redevelops there should be a focus on using the existing natural resources as an asset through a combination of connectivity, stormwater management, placemaking, and educational opportunities. ### Policy AP-DE 8 Environmental Sustainability Protect and enhance natural features in future developments and plans to maintain ecological balance and to provide amenities to current and future residents. Examples include incorporation of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI), Greenway-oriented development, and educational signage along greenways. --- ### Policy AP-DE 9 Green Stormwater Infrastructure New development should incorporate Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) strategies to alleviate the increase of surface water runoff caused by new construction. --- ### Action AP-DE 9 Trail Networks Develop future trails in collaboration with private property owners to improve connectivity. --- ### Action AP-DE 10 Stream and Wetland Signage Install educational signage along greenways and wetlands to explain the natural aspects of flooding and stream mechanics and highlight the city’s efforts in maintaining healthy streams. --- # Map AP-DE1: Dix Edge Adopted: 4/4/2023 <
> * Intersection Improvements for Advanced Study * Proposed Pedestrian Safety Improvements * Bike Crossing Improvements * Priority New Sidewalk * Proposed Bike/Ped Connection* * Proposed Street * Existing Greenway Trail \*Daladams/Duffy connection to Mercury as feasible given topographic constraints Map created 2/27/2024 by Raleigh Planning and Development (blank page) # DW Downtown West Gateway The purpose of this plan is to provide specific policies and actions to guide redevelopment within an area west of Downtown Raleigh located between the Raleigh Convention Center and the Boylan Heights residential neighborhood. The plan encompasses an area expected to experience significant redevelopment and is situated to serve as a connection between existing downtown entertainment and employment centers, residential areas and future park and open space opportunities. The major catalysts for change in the Downtown West Gateway include the Raleigh Convention Center, Raleigh Union Station, and redevelopment activities associated with the Jamaica Drive and Saunders North Redevelopment Areas. The area includes a unique built character contributed to by the Depot National Register Historic District and the Boylan Heights Raleigh Historic District. This plan was orginally adopted in 2004. ## Overall Plan Area The following policies generally apply to the overall plan area and help to identify some of the major themes addressed in the area plan. ### Policy AP-DW 1 Zoning Consistency Map AP-DW1 shall be used alongside the Future Land Use Map to evaluate the consistency of all proposed zoning maps amendments within the Downtown West Gateway plan boundaries. Where there is a conflict regarding preferred densities, the guidance in this Area Plan shall control. <
> ### Policy AP-DW 2 Mixed-Use Development Mixed-use development should be the primary form of development in the area with an emphasis on significant new residential growth and a vertical mix of uses in multi-story buildings. <
> ### Policy AP-DW 3 Transportation Network Connectivity Improve the connectivity of the transportation network through additional street connections (both inside and outside of the plan area), pedestrian, greenway, bicycle linkages, and bus/rail transit connections especially to Raleigh Union Station. <
> ### Policy AP-DW 4 Historic Preservation Historically significant and contributing structures should be preserved and renovated wherever feasible and not in conflict with other major plan goals. New construction should use the existing architectural and historic character within the area as a guide. <
> ### Policy AP-DW 5 Parks and Open Space Create urban parks and open spaces throughout the area with connections to existing greenways and broader pedestrian systems. <
> # Station Area Core The Station Area Core includes several blocks surrounding Raleigh Union Station, which will house existing and future rail and bus services and provide a new rail transit connection for downtown Raleigh as well as for the region. A high level of development intensity and residential density is planned for the area including a vertical mix of service retail, office and residential uses. Civic uses and buildings as well as public open space should be included in this future urban setting as the area evolves not only as a transit hub, but also as a unique downtown destination. #### Policy AP-DW 6 Public Facilities > Major public facilities, such as regional libraries, schools, civic buildings and other public/ government buildings should be located in the Station Area Core. Urban open space that is available for public use should be incorporated into this district. > <
> #### Policy AP-DW 7 Hargett and Martin Street Connector > Hargett Street and Martin Street should be used to provide a connection between Raleigh Union Station, Downtown and the Moore Square Transit Center. > <
> #### Policy AP-DW 8 Building Height Transition > Taller buildings are encouraged within the Station Area Core provided that a transition to lower heights is included along the area perimeter where in close proximity to existing single family neighborhoods. > <
> #### Policy AP-DW 9 Boylan Heights Traffic > Discourage significant increases in transit related traffic on nearby neighborhood streets, such as S. Boylan Avenue. Traffic generated by Raleigh Union Station should be accommodated using the Dawson/ McDowell Corridor from the east and the Glenwood Avenue Corridor from the north to limit traffic impacts in Boylan Heights. > <
> #### Policy AP-DW 10 Air Rights > Encourage the use of air rights for private development and/or public infrastructure over the existing rail property. > <
> # Depot Historic District The Depot District is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The contributing buildings from the area’s earlier importance as a transportation and distribution hub from the late nineteenth century through the middle of the twentieth century provide a unique character and an opportunity for adaptive reuse of the building spaces for specialty shops, residential loft units, entertainment and boutique hotels with shared parking facilities. #### Policy AP-DW 11 Development Character and Design > New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing scale, character, design, and building to street setbacks found in this historic industrial warehouse area with increased development intensities along Dawson Street. Existing vacant lots and parking lots shouldbe in-filled with appropriate new construction that complements this historic industrial character. Modern buildings that incorporate the flavor of the existing design character of the district are encouraged. > <
> #### Policy AP-DW 12 Streetscape Design Streetscape improvements should be sensitive to the context of the Historic District and make use of existing materials and design standards including granite curbing, sidewalk relationships, alleyways, street trees and pedestrian lighting. ## Convention Center District This fifteen-acre area generally bounded by W. Cabarrus, S. Dawson, S. West, and W. South streets has been identified as a High Density Mixed-Use District, supporting the highest intensity development as a transition from the South Saunders neighborhood to the Convention Center and Downtown. #### Policy AP-DW 13 Development Intensity Encourage higher intensity development along Dawson Street with a reduction in scale and intensity along S. West Street as a transition to the Saunders North Redevelopment Area. #### Policy AP-DW 14 Convention Center Service Uses Mixed use development with an emphasis on hotel and service retail to support the Convention Center is encouraged along with office, residential and structured parking. ## Boylan Transition District This nineteen acre area south of the NC Railroad corridor and adjacent to a historic single family neighborhood has been identified as a Medium Density Mixed-Use District with an emphasis on residential uses, historic structures and transitional building scale. #### Policy AP-DW 15 Building Scale The area between the railroad and Cabarrus Street east of the Boylan Heights neighborhood should include a mix of residential and office uses scaled to establish a transition to the adjacent single family historic district. Residential uses should increase adjacent to the historic district and building heights should be reduced. #### Policy AP-DW 16 North Boylan Heights Development in the area north of Boylan Heights and west of Raleigh Union Station should be limited to a mix of office and residential uses. ## Saunders North Retail District The seven acre commercial area facing S. Saunders and W. South Streets has been identified as a retail service area for the neighborhood. The area is included in the Saunders North Redevelopment Plan to establish mechanisms for the removal of substandard conditions and incompatible uses, as well as set forth tools for redevelopment, revitalization, stabilization and new economic development and investment opportunities. ### Policy AP-DW 17 Neighborhood Commercial Center Encourage the revitalization and redevelopment of the W. South Street/S. Saunders Street commercial area as a neighborhood retail/mixed-use center serving not only the area residents, but also visitors to the nearby Convention Center and Performing Arts Center. <
> ### Policy AP-DW 18 Live/Work Opportunities Encourage Live/Work opportunities in the area through mixed use buildings with office and residential above retail uses. <
> ## Saunders North Residential District This fifteen acre area has been identified for primarily residential redevelopment and along with the adjacent Retail District is included in the Saunders North Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan and associated actions will provide a more secure and stable environment for continued investment in this section of the City, and will contribute to the continued growth and stabilization of Downtown Raleigh to the east and the historic neighborhoods to the west and north. ### Policy AP-DW 19 Neighborhood Conservation The northern section of the South Saunders Street neighborhood should be conserved through single family rehabilitation and sensitive detached single family infill. <
> ### Policy AP-DW 20 Community Landmark Encourage the expansion of the existing church facility or otherwise compatible institutional/residential uses within the southwest quadrant of S. Saunders and W. Lenoir Streets as a community landmark. <
> ### Action AP-DW 1 Removed 2014 *** ### Action AP-DW 2 Completed 2016 *** ### Action AP-DW 3 Completed 2016 *** ### Action AP-DW 4 Completed 2016 *** ### Action AP-DW 5 Completed 2016 *** ### Action AP-DW 6 Removed 2014 *** ### Action AP-DW 7 Removed 2019 *** ### Action AP-DW 8 Completed 2012 *** ### Action AP-DW 9 Completed 2016 *** ### Action AP-DW 10 Boylan Avenue Pedestrian Connection Explore the feasibility of a pedestrian connection from Boylan Avenue through Raleigh Union Station to S. West Street. *** ### Action AP-DW 11 Removed 2022 *** ### Action AP-DW 12 Rosengarten Street Extension Study the feasibility of extending Rosengarten Lane as a new street between W. South Street and Dorthea Drive to support development with single family infill. *** ### Action AP-DW 13 Removed 2019 *** # Map AP-DW1: Downtown West Gateway Adopted: 9/21/2004 <
> Map created 8/7/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # FL Falls Lake This plan covers an area within the Falls Lake watershed bounded generally by Strickland and Falls of Neuse Roads on the south and east, and the I-540 right-of-way on the north. These roadways merely approximate the watershed boundary, which is subject to revision as more precise topographic data become available. The Falls Lake watershed is divided into a primary (or critical) watershed protection area and a secondary watershed protection area. The northern right-of-way line of I-540 serves as the boundary between these two areas. There is a large amount of natural, forested land and very low density residential uses which offer good protection for the watershed. There are no major areas of nonresidential uses. A primary goal is to keep the area as natural as possible. It is essential that public and private improvements in the watershed be designed to have the least negative impact on water quality. ## Secondary Watershed Protection Area Policies ### Policy AP-FL 1 Falls Lake Secondary Watershed Zoning In the Falls Lake Secondary Watershed Protection Area, no new non-residential zoning or land uses should be permitted. <
> ### Policy AP-FL 2 Falls Lake Secondary Watershed Density Within the Falls Lake Secondary Watershed Protection Area, density should not exceed one dwelling unit per acre on any parcel unless UDO Conservation Development standards are met, in which case up to four units per acre could be allowed. <
> ### Policy AP-FL 3 Falls Lake Secondary Watershed Impervious Surface In the Secondary Watershed Protection Area, impervious surfaces should be limited to 12 percent, unless public utilities are available, in which case a 30 percent maximum may be allowed. <
> ### Policy AP-FL 4 Falls Lake Secondary Watershed Utilities In the Secondary Watershed Protection Area, public utility extensions are allowed only when all of the following conditions are met: * The capacity of water and sewer facilities is adequate for an extension; * An extension is deemed appropriate to promote the orderly provision of public services and facilities in the Raleigh area; * There will be no reduction in water quality or degradation of the watershed as a result of public utility extension or the more intense development which may result; * It is determined that annexation of a proposed development would be in the best interest of the City of Raleigh. <
> # Primary Watershed Protection Area Policies Since Raleigh does not have jurisdiction over private property in the Primary Watershed, these policies would apply only to those properties within the primary areas where emergency public utility extensions may be necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to protect Raleigh’s drinking water supply. ### Policy AP-FL 5 Falls Lake Primary Watershed Land Use In the Falls Lake Primary Watershed Protection Area, only residential uses will be permitted, and no new non-residential zoning or land uses should be allowed. <
> ### Policy AP-FL 6 Falls Lake Primary Watershed Density & Impervious Surfaces In the Falls Lake Primary Watershed Protection Area, a minimum lot size of two acres shall apply. Impervious surfaces should be limited to 6 percent on any lot. <
> ### Policy AP-FL 7 Falls Lake Primary Watershed Utilities In the Falls Lake Primary Watershed Protection Area, no extensions of public utilities should be allowed, with the exception of emergency extensions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to protect Raleigh’s drinking water supply. <
> ### Policy AP-FL 8 Falls Lake Primary Watershed Emergency Utility Extensions Public utilities may be extended outside Raleigh’s jurisdiction in either the Primary or Secondary Watershed Protection Area when a finding is made by City Council that there is a threat to public health, safety and welfare and to Raleigh’s drinking water supply. Such extensions would be considered on a case by case basis and would require concurrence from the Wake County Commissioners prior to approval when the land is subject to Wake County development regulations. Properties connecting to these facilities would be expected to bear the full cost of any capital facilities needed to provide the utility services and agree to the operating and maintenance fees normally applied to properties outside the City limits. Emergency service to properties would also be subject to the following: * Only existing development posing a specific threat to the public health, safety and welfare and to Raleigh’s drinking water supply would be allowed to connect to emergency utility extensions. * Owners of existing development seeking to connect to emergency utility extensions shall file a petition of annexation to be considered by the City Council on a case by case basis. * No increase in the density of development will be allowed beyond that already approved by the governing jurisdiction at the time of the provision of the utility service. * The development would provide for adequate retention facilities to capture effluent in the event of sewer system failure in addition to any stormwater retention facilities that are necessary to protect the water quality in Falls Lake. # Other Watershed Policies ### Policy AP-FL 9 Falls Lake Watershed Effluent Retention Facilities In the event of sewer system failure, development should provide adequate retention facilities to capture effluent in addition to stormwater retention facilities that are necessary to protect water quality in Falls Lake <
> *** ### Policy AP-FL 10 Falls Lake Watershed Street Design Streets in the Falls Lake watershed should be designed to Sensitive Streets standards. <
> *** ### Policy AP-FL 11 E. M. Johnson Water Treatment Facility A portion of the City’s E. M. Johnson Water Treatment Facility lies within the critical area of the Falls Lake Watershed, and should not be subject to the zoning regulations enacted to carry out the primary watershed protection policies contained within this Plan. Rather, the design of the facility itself should address the objectives served by these policies and regulations. <
> *** # Map AP-FL1: Falls Lake Adopted: 10/2/2001 <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | ☐ | Falls Lake Watershed Boundary | | ╏╏ | Primary / Secondary Watershed Boundary | | █ | Parks & Open Space | # FN Falls North The plan area extends along Falls of Neuse Road north from Durant Road to the Neuse River. The bounds of the study area were drawn to include civic and institutional uses, undeveloped lots that have frontage on major streets with the potential to be developed, and natural areas along the Neuse River. Along the corridor, extensive vegetation and natural amenities give the area a distinctive sense of place. ## Park-like Character The Falls North area is defined by extensive roadside vegetation along primary corridors, natural features such as the Neuse River and Falls Lake, and significant amounts of park land. Most of the property west of the Falls of Neuse Corridor is in Wake County’s jurisdiction and in the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed. Properties on the western side will develop at rural intensities and with restrictions on the maximum amount of impervious surface. Properties on the east of the Falls of Neuse Corridor are in the Richland Creek Watershed in low density residential neighborhoods both in the City of Raleigh and in Raleigh’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). One of the primary goals of the Plan is to maintain and enhance the park-like feel of the area. This goal is accomplished through a series of policies that relate to tree preservation, particularly along the edges of main corridors such as Falls of Neuse Road; lighting; signage; drive-through facilities; and the historic Falls Community. ### Policy AP-FN 1 Falls North Character Protect the character of the corridor. Maintain the sense of place created by the extensive roadside vegetation, the Falls Lake Dam, and Falls Community. ### Policy AP-FN 2 Falls North Frontage A Parkway frontage, which requires a 50 foot landscaped yard alongside the street, should be applied to properties being developed or redeveloped along Falls of Neuse Road and to properties being developed or redeveloped along Raven Ridge Road between Falls of Neuse Road and Falls River Planned Development district, being the northwest corner of 11050 Raven Ridge Road (Wake County PIN 1728161655, Lot 17 on Book of Maps 1999 page 931). Parking should be behind the buildings that front Falls of Neuse. ### Policy AP-FN 3 Falls North Forestation and Tree Conservation Clear cutting of sites is not consistent with the existing character of the area or the values expressed by residents. Wooded sites within the plan area should maintain a 40 percent tree conservation area, meaning existing trees must be preserved on at least 40 percent of the area. Where existing trees do not equal 40 percent of the site within the plan area, forestation should supplement the existing tree conservation area, for a total of 40 percent. ### Policy AP-FN 4 Falls North Corridor Lighting Light fixtures within the plan area should be limited to 15 feet in height and should be full cutoff. ### Policy AP-FN 5 Falls North Area Conservation Protect environmentally significant features within the plan area, including the Falls Lake watershed, the Neuse River, slopes greater than 15 percent and the 100-year floodplain along the Neuse River. Environmentally significant areas in close proximity of the Neuse River should be protected and incorporated as an amenity with development plans. ### Policy AP-FN 6 Falls North Parking and Drive-through Facilities Parking lots within the plan area should be located behind or beside buildings. Drive-through facilities should not be permitted. ### Policy AP-FN 7 Falls North Corridor Signage Commercial signage within the plan area should consist of low-profile ground signs. Signage should not be internally-illuminated or digital. ### Policy AP-FN 8 Falls Community The character and the design of new development or redevelopment in the historically-significant Falls Community should reflect in material, form, and character the unique character of existing homes in the neighborhood. # Recreation Hub This is a collection of policies designed to add to the area’s already extensive collection of public park facilities and to build on its identity as a hub of natural spaces. ### Policy AP-FN 9 Falls Community Retail Uses Uses should be limited to retail and eating establishments. Existing buildings should be preserved, and any new buildings should be no taller than two stories and 35 feet. Any new building or buildings should total no more than 4,000 square feet, with new impervious surfaces minimized. Hours of operation should generally follow those of the nearby recreational facilities. ### Policy AP-FN 10 Falls Community Retail Design Any future restaurant or retail uses in the Falls Community should be on a smaller scale, appropriate to the neighborhood and users of nearby recreational amenities. Buildings should be in the style and character of the existing homes in the area and maintain the sense of place created from the old mill town and current and future outdoor recreation facilities. # Site-specific Recommendations ### Policy AP-FN 11 Falls of Neuse/Raven Ridge Area Uses within this area, shown as Office and Residential Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Map, should be limited to only office (including medical office) and/or residential and should exclude ancillary retail. The Apartment and Mixed Use building types should not be permitted. Height should be limited to an average of 37 feet and a maximum of 40 feet. Office uses should be limited to the area within 150 feet of Falls of Neuse Road or Raven Ridge Road. <
> ### Policy AP-FN 12 Dunn Road Area In the event of a future rezoning, the Dunn Road/ Falls of Neuse Neighborhood Mixed Use Area should be developed in context with the surrounding neighborhood and with a walkable development pattern. The scale and design of buildings should reflect their surroundings. Any commercial development should include a mix of office and retail uses. <
> ### Policy AP-FN 13 Falls of Neuse Office Uses The area along the east side of Falls of Neuse Road between High Holly Lane and Tabriz Court should maintain its current designation as Office and Residential Mixed Use. Office buildings should be no more than two stories tall and should include architectural features, such as a gable roof, that blend with nearby residential structures. Facades should include materials such as wood, stone, brick, and similar. <
> ### Policy AP-FN 14 Falls North Frontage Lots Small frontage lots on Falls of Neuse Road should be recombined for development where possible rather than redeveloped individually. <
> # AP-FN1: Falls North <
> Map created 1/12/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # FP Five Points East The Plan area lies between Glenwood Avenue and Capital Boulevard just north of downtown Raleigh. The area is bisected by Whitaker Mill and Fairview roads. The Plan area contains one of the largest concentrations of early- to mid-20th century middle class housing in Raleigh, with the majority of houses constructed between 1920 and 1940. The houses are generally modest and are on relatively small lots, but display a diversity of architectural styles. This plan supports preserving and perpetuating the unique character of the Five Points neighborhoods. ### Policy AP-FP 1 Preserving the Five Points Street Grid The existing Five Points East street pattern, which is a modified grid, should be respected and perpetuated. Cul-de-sacs are strongly discouraged. <
> ### Policy AP-FP 2 Five Points Transition Area A In Transition Area A (see Map AP-FP-1) new structures should not tower over adjacent low-density housing. Trees should be preserved where possible and at least a portion of the site should be retained in its current park-like setting. <
> ### Policy AP-FP 3 Five Points Transition Area B In Transition Area B (see Map AP-FP-1), new street yards and heights of new buildings adjacent to low-density housing should be of the same scale as the housing. More intense development and taller buildings are encouraged to be away from existing housing and closer to the railroad corridor. Vehicular traffic from redevelopment in this area should be directed to Fairview Road and Carson Street and not to other, narrower streets in the existing neighborhood. <
> # Map AP-FP1: Five Points East Adopted: 4/1/2003 <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | | Core Area | | | Transition Area A | | | Transition Area B | Map created 8/7/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # FV Forestville Village The Forestville Road Village Center is located on the south side of U.S. 401 with a core area on the east and west side of Forestville Road. The Village Center Plan provides urban design policies to establish a pedestrian-oriented street system that interconnects with surrounding existing and future residential neighborhoods, and to create a walkable streetscape with buildings and their principal entry fronting a public sidewalk along the street system identified on the attached map. ## East Village Center Urban Design Guidelines #### Policy AP-FV 1 Forestville Village East — Street A A commercial street (Street A on Map AP-FV-1) should extend east from Forestville Road and be designed as a Main Street-Parallel Parking street, as described in the Raleigh Street Design Manual. <
> #### Policy AP-FV 2 Forestville Village East — Street B Another commercial street (Street B on map) should extend south from U.S. 401 and be designed as a Main Street-Parallel Parking street, as described in the Raleigh Street Design Manual. Street B will continue south beyond the Core as a Neighborhood Street. <
> #### Policy AP-FV 3 Forestville Village East — Street A Extension Extension Street A should extend east of Street B as a Neighborhood Street. <
> #### Policy AP-FV 4 Forestville Village East — Street C Street C (as noted on map) should extend south from U.S. 401 as a Two-Lane, Undivided street and continue south through the Transition Area to the future extension of Oak Marsh Drive. <
> #### Policy AP-FV 5 Forestville Village Pedestrian Amenities The streetscape along the Forestville Village pedestrian streets should include the placement of buildings adjacent to the sidewalks on the streets, regularly spaced trees between the sidewalk and street curb, as well as seating, bike racks, trash receptacles, and pedestrian-scaled light fixtures. <
> #### Policy AP-FV 6 Forestville Village East Core & Transition Areas The Core Area of the East Forestville Village, as identified on the attached map, establishes the area of greatest retail and office development intensity. Beyond the Core Area is a Transition Area that should provide a reduction in scale and intensity of development to blend with the surrounding and future residential areas. Streetscapes in the Transition Area should also include building fronts with entries and on-street parking. Uses that are appropriate within the Transition include multifamily and townhouse residential, office, and retail sales-personal service uses. <
> #### Policy AP-FV 7 Forestville Village East Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian connectivity to future development on the north side of U.S. 401 should be coordinated with NCDOT. Connections across Forestville Road will be accommodated by appropriately spaced and marked crosswalks with pedestrian median havens. Connections to future greenway trails should be provided as development occurs with access through the Transition Area to the Core Area of the Village Center. <
> # West Village Center Urban Design Guidelines ### Policy AP-FV 8 Forestville Village West — Street A A commercial street (Street A on Map AP-FV-1) extends east off U.S. 401 to Forestville Road through the Core Area of the development. Application of the site, street, and building design recommendations of the Urban Design Guidelines (*see Table UD-1 in Section 11: ‘Urban Design’*) is appropriate within the Core with the exception of on-street parking within the first block off U.S. 401. Street A should be designed as a Two-Lane, Undivided street, as described in the Raleigh Street Design Manual. <
> ### Policy AP-FV 9 Forestville Village West — Street B Street B extends south from Street A and serves as a transitional street to the adjacent residential neighborhood and should be designed as a Neighborhood Street, while maintaining a strong pedestrian-orientation through streetscape design and building placement, a development transition using architectural design to reduce the height and massing of buildings should be incorporated as proximity to the neighborhood increases. Housing should also transition in density with the highest in the Core. <
> ### Policy AP-FV 10 Forestville Village West — Street B Extension The extension of Street B north of Street A is proposed as an Avenue, this area is also included in the Core and should extend the streetscape of Street A with the exception of the percentage of parking lot frontage allowed on the street to accommodate a major tenant. The impact of the parking lot on the street may be mitigated through streetscape improvements including the continuation of sidewalks and tree plantings on both sides of the street as well as placing buildings on the corners. <
> ### Policy AP-FV 11 Forestville Road Building Frontage Buildings should frame the Forestville Road entry onto Street A. <
> ### Policy AP-FV 12 U.S. 401/Forestville Road Historic Preservation The Rogers-Whitaker-Haywood House historic property on the north side of U.S. 401 at Forestville Road should be preserved to retain elements of historical rural character and community identity. <
> # Map AP-FV1: **Forestville Village** Adopted: 9/21/2004 <
> Pedestrian Crossing Proposed Street National Register Historic Property Core Area Transition Area Map created 8/8/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) # GT Garner-Tryon Neighborhood The Garner-Tryon Neighborhood Center is located on the northeast quadrant of land at the intersection of Garner Road and Tryon Road, and includes several individual properties for which property owner coordination will be required to achieve the goals of this plan. The Neighborhood Center Plan was adopted in 2003 and provides urban design policies (adopted as zoning conditions in case Z-12-04) to establish a pedestrian-oriented street system that interconnects with surrounding existing and future residential neighborhoods. The intent of this plan is to guide development patterns in order to create a walkable streetscape with buildings and their principal entry fronting a public sidewalk along a street. A primary street system within the Neighborhood Center is shown on the attached map with street extensions north and east to adjacent residential areas. ### Policy AP-GT 1 Garner-Tryon Core Area The Core Area is recommended to focus on several proposed intersecting streets in the northeast quadrant of the Garner Road/Tryon Road intersection. Streets A and B extend east off Garner Road and intersect with Street C that extends north from the future extension of Tryon Road. Streets A and C continue east and north respectively through the Transition areas into the surrounding neighborhoods. ### Policy AP-GT 2 Garner-Tryon Non-Residential Prohibitions Non-residential uses should be prohibited east of Street C and north of the southern property lines for lots fronting Wilson Street. ### Policy AP-GT 3 Garner-Tryon Pedestrian-Oriented Design The site, street, and building design recommendations of the Urban Design Guidelines (*see Table UD-1 'Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use Developments' in Section 11: 'Urban Design'*) should apply to Streets A, B, and C within the Core and Transition Areas. Within the Core Area, Streets A, B, and C shall be designed as Main Street, Parallel Parking streets, as described in the Raleigh Street Design Manual. ### Policy AP-GT 4 Garner-Tryon Transition Areas Beyond the Core Area on Streets A and C, a development transition using architectural design should be incorporated to reduce building height and massing as proximity to single-family residential uses is approached. Appropriate commercial uses in the Transition are office and retail sales-personal services. A transition in housing density should also be provided with the highest densities occurring in the Core. Within the Transition Area, streets shall be designed as Neighborhood Streets, as described in the Raleigh Street Design Manual. ### Policy AP-GT 5 Frontage on Garner & Tryon Roads The Urban Design Guidelines do not apply to the frontage of the Neighborhood Center on Garner Road and Tryon Road since the pedestrian orientation is to an internal street system. This area should include landscape buffers adjacent to parking lots. # Map AP-GT1: Garner-Tryon Adopted: 4/1/2003 <
> Map created 8/8/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # IF I-540/Falls of Neuse The plan area includes properties fronting the Falls of Neuse corridor between two major intersections: Strickland Road/Falls of Neuse and Durant Road/Falls of Neuse. An interchange with I-540 is located in the center of the plan area. A portion of the plan area north and west of Falls of Neuse Road is located within the Falls Lake watershed. The intent of the plan is to provide guidance for future zoning and redevelopment along the corridor that will provide visual cohesion and identity to the corridor, protect the Falls Lake Watershed and adjacent single family neighborhoods from development impacts, and minimize traffic circulation impacts. ### Policy AP-IF 1 Development Character on Falls of Neuse Road Development along Falls of Neuse Road should not adversely impact adjacent residential properties due to bulk, scale, mass, fenestration or orientation of structures, stormwater runoff, noise caused by high levels of activity in service areas, or on-site lighting. ### Policy AP-IF 2 Residential Access on Falls of Neuse Road New single-family residences fronting on Falls of Neuse Road are discouraged. ### Policy AP-IF 3 Frontage Lots on Falls of Neuse Road Small frontage lots should be recombined rather than redeveloped individually. ### Policy AP-IF 4 Falls of Neuse Low Intensity Appearance Non-residential frontage lots outside of mixed-use and retail centers along Falls of Neuse Road should have a low intensity appearance accomplished through landscaping, combining lots, building design, and shared access. ### Policy AP-IF 5 Falls of Neuse Road Access Adequate access should be provided to Falls of Neuse Road without causing undue congestion or placing excessive traffic or parking loads on adjacent local residential streets. ### Policy AP-IF 6 Falls of Neuse Access Spacing Direct access points onto Falls of Neuse Road should be no closer than 400 feet apart except where existing topographic conditions require an exception to the 400 feet rule. Cross access and shared parking should be used whenever possible. # Map AP-IF1: I-540 / Falls of Neuse Adopted: 6/1/1999 <
> Falls Lake Watershed Boundary / Ridgeline Map created 8/8/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # MT Midtown The Midtown Area Plan was adopted in 2020 for the area between Atlantic Avenue and Six Forks Road to the east and west, and Millbrook Road and Crabtree Creek to the north and south. Recommended actions and policies of the plan focus on walkability and other transportation needs, creating new public spaces, improving infrastructure, using enhanced natural spaces to address flooding, reducing per capita emissions of carbon and other pollutants, and accommodating future housing and employment. The Midtown plan replaces the Six Forks corridor plan, which overlaps a portion of the Midtown area, but the adopted Six Forks recommendations are still operative, and policy guidance is retained in a section of this document. The actions and policies of the plan are organized around “Seven Big Moves” that apply broader goals to specific topics and areas. ## Crossing the Beltline Transportation efforts should include a focus on improving mobility by eliminating the barriers and funnels created by the Beltline and other wide, high-volume streets. ### Policy AP-MT 1 Bridging Barriers Identify and pursue projects that improve mobility and provide safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings of the Beltline and other wide, high-volume streets at key locations through intersection improvements, grade separations, retrofits of existing crossings, and new vehicular and pedestrian bridges. <
> *** ### Action AP-MT 1 I-440 Bridges Design and construct two I-440 crossings: 1) A multimodal overpass connecting Barrett Drive or Wake Towne Drive with the southern segment of Quail Hollow Drive. The project will also connect Navaho Drive and Church at North Hills Drive with the new bridge/street connection. An alignment study was completed in 2023, which incorporated the following guidelines: • *Avoid condemnation of existing buildings and improvements;* • *Avoid condemnation of existing businesses;* • *Avoid multiple crossings of Big Branch Creek;* • *Consider a direct connection from Wake Towne Drive to Quail Hollow Drive in lieu of a direct connection from Barrett Drive to Quail Hollow Drive, and;* • *Consider an option, shown on maps AP MT 1 and AP MT 2, that meets the criteria above.* 2) A pedestrian-bicycle overpass connecting Bush Street with Industrial Drive. *** # Green Streets and Stormwater Infrastructure As Midtown continues to emerge as a major center, infrastructure development should include a focus on stormwater. ### Policy AP-MT 2 Stormwater Infrastructure Stormwater projects should use green stormwater infrastructure (GSI), and projects that meet more than one goal, such as also providing park space or traffic calming, should be prioritized. <
> ### Policy AP-MT 3 Green Streets Wide residential streets should be retrofitted with green stormwater infrastructure to better handle stormwater, improve water quality, beautify streets with trees and greenery, slow traffic, and create safer places to walk or bike. <
> ### Action AP-MT 2 Green Streets Design and construct Green Streets, including green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements such as planters, rain gardens, and pervious pavement; traffic calming measures; and bicycle facilities or shared-use path. The facilities are not all separate – the GSI serves as the traffic calming device and creates safe space for people walking and biking. Green Street priority locations are shown in map AP-MT2. ### Action AP-MT 3 Stormwater Drainage Basin Study Complete an updated review of the stormwater drainage basins in the Midtown area and implications for existing and planned stormwater infrastructure. # Connected Streets and Pedestrian Safety A network of connected, pedestrian-friendly streets will handle future transportation demand in a way that encourages more walking trips and avoids extensive road widening. Pedestrian safety and comfort should be prioritized throughout the area. ### Policy AP-MT 4 Connected and Walkable Streets Increases in vehicular travel should be accommodated primarily by improving street connectivity rather than widening arterial streets. Map AP-MT2 Midtown Transportation shows the locations of new streets. <
> ### Policy AP-MT 5 Pedestrian Safety New and existing streets in Midtown should be safe and comfortable for all users, allowing a higher percentage of trips to be made by walking, transit, or biking. Vehicle speeds must ensure pedestrian safety. Intersections should be designed to be safe and comfortable for pedestrians – if that is not possible, then a grade-separated crossing should be installed. Proposed locations are shown on map AP-MT2. <
> ### Policy AP-MT 6 Transportation Demand Management Midtown transportation approach includes providing a range of travel options, and alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel in Midtown should be identified and promoted. Employers should provide information about options to employees. In lieu of free parking for employees, a broader transportation benefit should be offered that allows workers the choice to use it for parking or other forms of commuting. <
> ### Action AP-MT 4 Street Network Implement the street network and other transportation recommendations of the Midtown area plan through a combination of capital projects and private redevelopment. Key projects include: • *An extension of Benson Drive to the north and parallel to Wake Forest Road that intersects with Dresser Court, Colby Drive, Hardimont Road, Steinbeck Court and terminating at Bland Road.* • *Convert Bland Road into a pedestrian-friendly “main street” by improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities.* • *Wake Towne Drive extension to Barrett Drive.* • *St. Albans Drive widening to four lanes between Benson Drive and Wake Forest Drive, center turn lanes elsewhere, and separated bicycle facilities from New Hope Church Road to Dartmouth Road.* • *Adding turn lanes to Wake Forest Road intersections with Navaho Drive and St. Albans Drive.* • *Study the possibility of including transit-only lanes in the planned extension of Six Forks Road to Capital Boulevard.* *** ### Action AP-MT 5 Millbrook Road Study Monitor future transportation demand along Millbrook Road. If vehicle counts are low enough, study the possibility of a road redesign to expand bicycle and pedestrian facilities by limiting automobile traffic to two lanes with a turn lane. *** ### Action AP-MT 6 Six Forks School and Connectivity Study Study school and connectivity issues in the area between Rowan Street and North Glen Drive. Topics include school transportation at Carroll Middle School and St. Timothy’s School, as well as potential for additional types of connectivity, including bicycle-pedestrian only, to streets on the east side of Six Forks Road. *** ### Action AP-MT 7 Wake Forest Road Corridor Reconditioning Study Study Wake Forest Road from St. Albans Drive to Millbrook Road. Topics include access management, lane-width increase, streetscape and bicycle-pedestrian amenities, and transit accommodations, including a potential BRT extension. As a preliminary step, work with NCDOT on reducing the speed limit to 35 mph. *** ### Action AP-MT 8 Safe Speeds Reduce automobile speed on Midtown streets where feasible. For example, coordinate with NCDOT to study speeds on arterial streets (Atlantic Avenue, Six Forks Road, Millbrook Road) and reduce speed limits to 35 mph as supported by study. On neighborhood streets, work with residents on implementing the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program as requested. *** ### Action AP-MT 9 Midtown Transportation Demand Management Create a Midtown-specific plan for transportation demand that encourages and incentivizes walking, biking, carpooling, transit use and other means of reducing vehicular trips. Implementation will involve working closely with employers and will particularly focus on promoting awareness of transportation improvements as they occur, such as new transit routes and pedestrian-bicycle facilities. *** # Serious Transit Transit increasingly will become an alternative to driving and will serve a growing percentage of trips in Midtown. #### Policy AP-MT 7 Frequent and Rapid Transit > Frequent transit should be available to connect Midtown with downtown and other major centers of the city. Supporting infrastructure, including a transit center, improved stops, and crosswalk and other pedestrian amenities, will make transit a practical option for more people. As transit use grows, consider serving the area with a bus rapid transit (BRT) connection to downtown. <
> #### Policy AP-MT 8 Transit Collaboration > GoRaleigh should work with private transit providers to ensure that information, such as schedules and real-time arrivals, for privately operated transit is available to all transit users. Public and private transit stops and facilities should, where possible, be co-located. <
> #### Action AP-MT 10 Midtown Core High Frequency Route > In conjunction with the multimodal bridge, assess frequent transit routing that serves areas along St. Albans and Industrial Drive. #### Action AP-MT 11 Future Midtown Rapid Transit > Study the feasibility and preferred route of a bus rapid transit (BRT) extension north from downtown, potentially using a combination of Six Forks, Wake Forest, Atlantic, and the I-440 corridor. # The Midtown Ring All major destinations, such as North Hills, the Waterfront District, Wake Tech, Duke Raleigh Hospital, and residential neighborhoods in the Midtown area should be accessible to people walking or biking, both to allow healthier lifestyles and to reduce carbon usage. #### Policy AP-MT 9 Midtown Ring > New and expanded infrastructure should be implemented in a way that builds the Midtown Ring, a complete network of greenways, on-street protected bike lanes, that connects neighborhoods with all major destinations in the area. <
> #### Action AP-MT 12 Midtown Ring > Design and construct the Midtown Ring and other pedestrian safety recommendations of the Midtown plan through capital projects and private development. The Ring and key projects are shown on map AP-MT2. Supporting projects include a suite of pedestrian visibility enhancements for intersections with noted safety concerns, including high visibility crosswalk markings, in-road signage, advance warning signage, curb bump outs, lighting, and other elements as needed. In locations where streets are too wide for comfortable crossings, pedestrian overpasses are recommended. # Midtown Living/Midtown Works: Land Use Guidance Midtown is a vibrant and increasingly mixed-use place in its core. The area will continue to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities while ensuring that new development respects the scale of nearby residential neighborhoods. ### Policy AP-MT 10 Land Use and Transitions Height will transition gradually from lower-scale residential areas to denser, mixed-use areas. See Map AP-MT 1 for more guidance. <
> ### Policy AP-MT 11 Midtown Zoning Consistency Rezoning requests should be consistent with the area-specific guidance shown on Map AP-MT 1 and included in the following policies. If they are not consistent, they should not be deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan overall, unless significant public benefits beyond code requirements are included, such as stormwater mitigation, carbon reduction, and expanded or enhanced public space recommendations. <
> ### Policy AP-MT 12 Midtown Height Map AP-MT1 recommends appropriate building height ranges. If a rezoning includes a request for height in the upper half of the range, it should include significant public benefits beyond code requirements, such as stormwater mitigation, carbon reduction, and expanded or enhanced public space contributions. <
> ### Policy AP-MT 13 Affordability Rezoning proposals that request seven or more stories of height and include a residential component should include affordable units. At least 10 percent of additional units beyond the current entitlement should be affordable at 80 percent of area median income for at least 10 years. <
> ### Policy AP-MT 14 Missing Middle Housing Parcels directly along Millbrook Road and Atlantic Avenue are suitable for the development of housing types other than only detached houses. “Missing middle” types such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses are appropriate. On Map AP-MT1 Midtown Land Use/Urban Form these areas are labeled as “Additional Housing Type Opportunities.” <
> ### Policy AP-MT 15 Bush-St. Albans Area In addition to commercial or mixed-use buildings, buildings with residential uses on all floors are appropriate in the area bounded by Bush Street, St. Albans Drive, Tarheel Drive, and Midtown Place. In addition to IX, a rezoning to a category that permits housing on all floors, such as CX, NX, OX, or RX, is consistent with this policy. <
> ## The Midtown Waterfront District Crabtree Creek is a significant natural feature that flows through Midtown. “Creek” is a misnomer, as the waterway is larger than many of the state’s rivers and is one of Raleigh’s major riparian corridors. The Waterfront District is bounded by I-440, Atlantic Avenue, Crabtree Creek, and Big Branch Creek. It will be a unique place in Raleigh where urban life, public park space, and waterside activity come together. ### Policy AP-MT 16 Midtown Waterfront District The Waterfront District will become a vibrant, walkable center of Midtown. It will support a mix of uses, public space, and a walkable “Main Street” along Industrial Drive. ### Policy AP-MT 17 Waterfront District Stormwater and Public Space Rezoning proposals in the Waterfront District floodplain should include stormwater mitigation or public space provisions more rigorous than code requirements. ### Policy AP-MT 18 Waterfront District Commercial Uses High-density housing and development in the waterfront district, particularly facing the waterfront, should include ground-level retail. While office uses are not discouraged in the district, residential uses are preferred. ### Policy AP-MT 19 Waterfront District Drive-Thru Facilities Drive-thru facilities should not be included in the Waterfront District. ### Policy AP-MT 20 Waterfront District Parking Parking should not be located between buildings and streets in the Waterfront District. ### Policy AP-MT 21 Waterfront District Blocks Within the Waterfront District, all development plans for two or three stories should include a Primary Internal Access Drive; all development plans for four or more stories should include a Main Street, Parallel Parking or Avenue, 2-Lane Undivided. ### Action AP-MT 13 Waterfront District Study Explore additional zoning tools and other regulatory approaches that may assist in realizing the Waterfront District vision. ### Action AP-MT 14 Affordable Housing Development Acquire land for affordable housing within the waterfront district and/or support private efforts to develop affordable housing within the district. ### Action AP-MT 15 Midtown Waterfront Park Acquisition Acquire parcels adjacent to Crabtree Creek for new public park space. Partner with the private sector for both funding and interim purchase opportunities before public money is secured. ### Action AP-MT 16 Midtown Waterfront Park Study Conduct a study of the park space, uses, necessary infrastructure, and future development nearby. #### Action AP-MT 17 Crabtree Restoration Perform a stream restoration and beautification project on the Crabtree Creek waterway within the study area. Facilitate the creation of a “Friends-of” group to support ongoing beautification, maintenance, and stream health efforts. #### Action AP-MT 18 Commuter Rail Study Study land uses, urban design, pedestrian facilities, and other considerations related to a potential commuter rail station in the Six Forks Road/Atlantic Avenue vicinity. ### Six Forks This section incorporates the recommendations of the the Six Forks Road corridor study, adopted in 2018. It covers the areas from the intersections of Six Forks Road/Lynn Road and Sandy Forks Road/Spring Forest Road south to the intersection of Six Forks Road/Ramblewood Drive. The plan identified transportation and streetscape design options and strategies to improve the corridor at all scales, with a particular focus on how transportation and streetscape strategies impact placemaking, multimodal accessibility, and economic development. All of the plan’s final adopted policies and actions remain in place, and key policies are listed below. #### Policy AP-MT 22 Six Forks Road Corridor Reposition Six Forks Road as a “Complete Street” extending from Interstate-440 to Lynn Road that maintains six lanes for vehicle traffic divided by a landscaped median, establishes separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and accommodates vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, and transit. <
> #### Policy AP-MT 23 Six Forks Road Streetscape Design Incorporate streetscape improvements for Six Forks Road that use one of two design types developed as part of the Six Forks Road Corridor Study. The Urban Boulevard would be used in the vicinity of the North Hills development near I-440 and in the area surrounding the Millbrook Road intersection, while the Parkway Boulevard type is recommended for the areas between North Hills and the Millbrook Road intersection vicinity and the area north of Millbrook Road. <
> #### Policy AP-MT 24 Neighborhood Gateways Establish neighborhood gateways along Six Forks Road at the entrances to adjacent residential neighborhoods that incorporate neighborhood identification signage, landscaping, public art, streetscape features, and curb extensions to shorten the distance for pedestrians to cross the streets intersecting with Six Forks Road. <
> #### Policy AP-MT 25 Environmental Sensitivity Emphasize a commitment to environmental design in the corridor by integrating stormwater management techniques into the design of the streetscape at the sidewalk and in the median. <
> #### Policy AP-MT 26 Public Art Incorporate public art into the streetscape design along the corridor, both with freestanding pieces and integration with streetscape elements and transit stops. <
> # Map AP-MT1: **Midtown Land Use / Urban Form** Adopted: 12/15/2020 Amended: 05/02/2023 <
> | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **--- Waterfront District** | **Recommended Zoning Frontage** | **Recommended Height** | | **--- Bush-St. Albans Area** | — Green | 3 stories | | **- - - Proposed Street** | — Urban Limited | 4 stories | | **— Proposed "Waterfront District" Main Street** | — Parking Limited | 5 stories | | ■ **Additional Housing Type Opportunities** | | 5 - 7 stories | | | | 7 - 12 stories | | | | 20 stories | Map created 3/27/2024 by the Raleigh Department of Planning and Development # Map AP-MT2: Midtown Transportation Adopted: 12/15/2020 Amended: 05/02/2023 <
> | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | T | Proposed Transit Hub | ---- | Proposed Street | | ◊ | Proposed Grade Separation | ██ | Proposed Green Streets | | 🚶 | Proposed Pedestrian & Bike Facilities | ━━ | Proposed "Waterfront District" Main Street | | 🚸 | Proposed Pedestrian & Bike Bridge | ━━ | Proposed Midtown Ring* | | 🔃 | Proposed Roundabout Location | ━━ | Existing Greenway Trails | \*see policy guidance for specifics (blank page) # RB Rock Quarry Battle Bridge The Rock Quarry-Battle Bridge Neighborhood Center is located on the quadrant of land south and east of the intersection of Battle Bridge Road and Rock Quarry Road. The Neighborhood Center Plan provides urban design policies to establish a pedestrian oriented street system that interconnects with surrounding existing and future residential neighborhoods. The intent of the plan is to guide development patterns in order to create a walkable streetscape with buildings and their principal entry fronting a public sidewalk along a street. A primary street system within the Neighborhood Center is shown on the attached map with street extensions north, south and east to adjacent residential areas. ### Policy AP-RB 1 Rock Quarry-Battle Bridge Design Guidelines The site, street, and building design recommendations of the Urban Design Guidelines (_see Table UD-1 in Section 11: “Urban Design”_) should apply to the extension of Pearl Road east of Rock Quarry Road and to Street B and Granite Quarry Drive which intersect to establish the focus of the Core Area, where commercial or mixed-use is developed. Within the focus of the Core Area, the proposed streets illustrated on the attached map shall be designed as Main Street, Parallel Parking streets, as described in the Raleigh Street Design Manual and should include on-street parking where not in conflict with transportation objectives. Where residential uses are developed, proposed streets illustrated on Map AP-RB1 shall be designed as a local street appropriate for the density of development. ### Policy AP-RB 2 Rock Quarry-Battle Bridge Non-Core Area Guidelines Beyond the focus of the Core Area, Streets A, B, C, and Pearl Road extension as well as a street extension north off Street A into the Z-44-04 site should be designed as a local street standard appropriate for the density of development, with on-street parking where appropriate. ### Policy AP-RB 3 Rock Quarry-Battle Bridge Transition Area The Transition Area begins south of the Pearl Road extension and Granite Quarry Drive as shown on the attached map. Arsenal Drive extends south from the traffic circle , intersection, or other pedestrian oriented traffic calming device, as a transitional street to a residential area. Architectural design to reduce height and massing of buildings should be incorporated to provide an appropriate transition. ### Policy AP-RB 4 Rock Quarry-Battle Bridge Transition Land Uses Appropriate commercial uses in the Transition Area are office and retail sales-personal services. A transition in housing density should also be provided with the highest densities occurring in the Core. ### Policy AP-RB 5 Frontage on Rock Quarry & Battle Bridge Roads The Urban Design Guidelines do not apply to the frontage of the Neighborhood Center on Rock Quarry Road and Battle Bridge Road since the pedestrian orientation is to an internal street system or alleyway network. These frontages should include landscape buffers adjacent to parking lots. ### Policy AP-RB 6 Rock Quarry-Battle Bridge Building Placement Buildings should frame the intersection of Pearl Road extension as well as Street B, Granite Quarry Drive, and the extension of Arsenal Avenue with the adjacent major streets. # Map AP-RB1: Rock Quarry - Battle Bridge Adopted: 9/21/2004 <
> Map created 8/8/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # SA Transit Station Areas The Equitable Development Around Transit (EDAT) plan was adopted in 2021 to guide future growth in the corridors along each of the four planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes. This subsection represents the planning framework to guide individual station area plans for Raleigh’s future BRT stations. As these individual station area plans are completed, this subsection will be amended to include additional station-specific actions and policies tailored to the particular needs of those areas. The following goals will be the foundation for future station area planning to ensure that the benefits and opportunities of the regional investment in transit are shared broadly: * *Enhance Affordability and Minimize Displacement* * *Preserve Existing Businesses* * *Generate Job Opportunities* * *Guarantee Pedestrian Safety* * *Grow Around Transit* * *Ongoing Input, Measuring Results* The polices and actions in each subsequent station area plan section will help to achieve the goals of EDAT plan. ### Policy AP-SA 1 Grow Around Transit Support the region’s investment in transit and improve housing affordability, housing choice, and environmental sustainability by allowing more people to live and work near BRT stations and frequent transit. <
> ### Policy AP-SA 2 Housing for All Ensure housing opportunities are available for households at all income levels along BRT corridors. Reduce competition for existing housing by allowing more housing. Create new long-term deeply affordable housing units, including for low- and very low-income households, through zoning incentives and direct subsidies. <
> ### Policy AP-SA 3 Deepest Affordability Dedicate funding for housing opportunities along BRT corridors for households earning less than 30 percent of the area median income (AMI). <
> ### Policy AP-SA 4 Neighborhood Stabilization Neighborhood stabilization projects should have the highest priority for receiving grants from the Public Project Community Support Fund and other sources. This includes new affordable housing production and preservation of existing affordable housing. <
> ### Policy AP-SA 5 Public Places around Transit Include targeted acquisition of new public spaces along BRT corridors in future parks bonds. Also encourage private developers to include publicly accessible open space in their site designs. <
> ### Policy AP-SA 6 Support Local Businesses and Entrepreneurs Create more employment and entrepreneurship opportunities along BRT corridors. <
> ### Policy AP-SA 7 Put Pedestrians First Prioritize pedestrian safety over allowing cars to travel faster. Where not specified as near-term actions, add sidewalks, crosswalks, median refuges, and other pedestrian improvements within a ½-mile of BRT corridors. <
> ### Policy AP-SA 8 Connect People to Stations Fill in sidewalk gaps, improve pedestrian facilities at intersections, and design and install other first/last mile connections to BRT stations. <
> ### Policy AP-SA 9 Rezoning Requests for TOD in an NCOD When a rezoning applicant requests the Transit Overlay District (TOD) for property that is already zoned with a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), the request should include removal of the NCOD. The applicant should consider retaining any NCOD standards that do not conflict with TOD standards via zoning conditions. <
> ### Policy AP-SA 10 TOD and Designated Historic Properties The Transit Overlay District (TOD) should not be mapped on properties within a Historic Overlay District (HOD) nor on properties that are Raleigh Historic Landmarks. <
> ### Action AP-SA 1 Affordable Housing Land Acquisition Acquire land along BRT corridors to support developing rental units affordable to households with incomes below 60 percent of the area median income (AMI). ### Action AP-SA 2 Affordable Housing Preservation Preserve existing affordable rental units along BRT corridors by using bond funding to acquire or support acquisition by non-profits of older apartments and expiring LIHTC units. ### Action AP-SA 3 Low-income Homeownership Costs Assistance Expand the availability of property tax relief for low-income homeowners. ### Action AP-SA 4 Make Affordability Legal Permit co-housing (boardinghouses, single room occupancy, and similar types) citywide and identify other obstacles to housing affordability in city code. ### Action AP-SA 5 Workforce Development Pair financial assistance with technical assistance in business planning offered through the city’s economic development team, Wake County Economic Development, and non-profit partners. ### Action DT 1.6 Small Business Capital Improvements Increase funding for façade grants and conduct outreach to business owners along BRT corridors to ensure they are aware of the program. ### Action AP-SA 7 Safe Streets for All Pursue local authority to regulate the citywide speed limit; lower the default citywide speed limit from 35 to 25. Study the pros and cons of initiating a speed camera program, with an emphasis on racial equity impacts. *** ### Action AP-SA 8 Discouraging Unsafe Driving and Unsafe Vehicles Increase citywide fines for speed and other moving violations. Explore creating higher a fines schedule based on classes of vehicles. *** ### Action AP-SA 9 Intersection Safety Review the outcomes of the SafeLight red light program; adjust the number and locations of cameras as warranted. Identify additional locations for right-on-red limitations. *** ## New Bern Avenue Corridor New Bern Station Area Planning, adopted in 2024, provides policies and actions for growing around transit investments along New Bern Avenue. Specifically, it focuses on: * *Allowing more housing and employment opportunity along New Bern Avenue.* * *Ensuring housing is available to households at a wide range of income levels.* * *Improving community health and reducing carbon emissions by investing in walkability and connecting people to transit stations.* * *Telling the story of Black neighborhoods along New Bern Avenue through art, community facilities, and ongoing partnerships with institutions such as St. Augustine’s University.* * *Supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs.* ### Preventing Displacement ### Policy AP-SA 11 Affordable Housing Funding Dedicate 20 to 40 percent of current and any future housing bond funds to this corridor until at least 2032. This should include projects affordable to households with incomes below 30 percent AMI. <
> *** ### Action AP-SA 10 Affordable Housing Production Increase the supply of subsidized rental units affordable to renters with incomes below 30 percent AMI by working with Wake County to identify and provide gap financing for LIHTC projects located along the corridor. *** ### Action AP-SA 11 Low-income Homeowner Repair Assistance Use Public Project Community Support Fund resources to expand funding for owner-occupied repairs. Market available resources to homeowners on the corridor through outreach to neighborhood associations, religious institutions, and other community nonprofits. *** ### Action AP-SA 12 Low-income Homebuyer Assistance Use bond funding to provide down payment assistance to income-qualifying first-time homebuyers. *** ### Action AP-SA 13 Educate Residents Conduct door-to-door canvassing to identify qualified residents interested in additional support. Host educational workshops for these residents on topics including home maintenance and repair, predatory property acquisition, affordable rental units available in their neighborhoods, rental assistance programs, estate planning, foreclosure prevention, and other housing-related topics. *** ## Parks and Public Spaces ### Action AP-SA 14 DMV Site Acquire the former DMV site and develop it to support affordable housing and economic and community development. *** ### Action AP-SA 15 Tarboro Community Center Include program activity space for economic and community development in any redevelopment of the Tarboro Community Center and park. *** ### Action AP-SA 16 Wilder’s Grove Create a plan to develop the city-owned landfill, Wilder’s Grove, into a park, including needed improvements, uses, and funding sources. *** ### Action AP-SA 17 Falcon Square Design a pedestrianized plaza at the intersection of Oakwood and Tarboro streets. The plaza will allow vehicles but will prioritize pedestrians and create a landmark entrance to St. Augustine’s University. *** ### Action AP-SA 18 Tree Canopy Establish a tree planting program for private properties along the corridor and supplemental trees in public spaces; provide trees and tree planting and care training for property owners. *** ## Celebrating Black Raleigh ### Policy AP-SA 12 Celebrating Local Black Neighborhoods Sustain New Bern Avenue as a center of Black culture and economic opportunity. <
> ### Action AP-SA 19 New Bern-Tarboro Cultural District Expand the existing cultural district north to include Tarboro Street and St. Augustine’s University campus and adjacent areas. Create a partnership with St. Augustine’s University to conduct visioning and implementation for a Black Main Street/Cultural District. This district will have an established identity, brand, and culture that St. Augustine’s and other partners will help establish. ### Action AP-SA 20 Tarboro-New Bern Cultural District Alliance Support a cultural district alliance with St. Augustine’s University and WakeMed as primary anchors. The city will also provide financial and technical assistance for established businesses in the corridor and for those moving to the corridor. Implementation planning will include (1) developing a strategy for supporting short-term leases and pop-up space for community incubated businesses, (2) partnering with existing groups and business associations that support Black-owned businesses, and (3) identifying opportunities for joint programming to support businesses along the corridor. ### Action AP-SA 21 New Bern-Tarboro Public Art Plan and implement public art/gateway features that celebrate local Black history and visibly establish a unique cultural district. ### Action AP-SA 22 Southeast Raleigh Black History & Culture Raleigh Museum Explore the possibility of creating a community museum co-located with the Richard B. Harrison Community Library dedicated to historically Black neighborhoods along New Bern Avenue. ## Economic Development and Business Support ### Action AP-SA 23 Community Information Center Create a community-based center where various city agencies, contractors, and partners can work directly with residents. ### Action AP-SA 24 Small Business Alliance Ecosystem Build partnerships with small businesses in the corridor to provide internship and apprenticeship opportunities for young or retraining workers. Develop partnership with Wake Tech and/or St. Augustine’s to support training and other supportive services for students participating in the internship/ apprenticeship programs. # Walkability and Community Health ### Action AP-SA 25 Priority Intersection and Sidewalk Improvements * *Design and install pedestrian facilities at New Bern Avenue intersections with Trawick Road, Corporation Parkway, and New Hope Road and add pedestrian lighting, missing sidewalk segments, and other pedestrian improvements on those streets.* * *Design and install Tarboro Street traffic calming, lighting, and streetscape improvements.* ### Action AP-SA 26 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections This action involves projects that would follow the highest-priority projects in the previous action. Projects include: * *Sunnybrook Road multi-use path and pedestrian improvements.* * *Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections on a route parallel to Raleigh Boulevard.* * *Swain Street and Hargett Street pedestrian lighting and sidewalk improvements.* * *Creating a safe pedestrian crossing of the Beltline.* * *Adding sidewalks and crosswalks throughout the area where gaps exist.* # Western Stations The area bounded by New Bern Avenue to the north, Tarboro Street and Rock Quarry Road to the east, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the south, and East Street to the west is included in the Olde East Raleigh Area Specific Guidance. When adopted in 2007, the area was beginning to experience intense development pressure for the first time in decades. The neighborhood faced the dual challenge of retaining the culture of community while accommodating growth and change. Although Raleigh has weathered many economic challenges since 2007, the development pressure in Olde East Raleigh, called the Western Station Area in the New Bern Station Area Plan, has not lessened. However, many of the policies and actions in the existing Area Specific Guidance have been completed, made obsolete by changes to city codes, or are in conflict with other more recently adopted plans. The following are policies from the Olde East Raleigh Area Specific Guidance that are still relevant to the neighborhood and its goals from that planning process, and that are not topics already covered by other Station Area Plan policies. ### Policy AP-SA 13 Rehabilitation Priority Encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of housing stock in the areas west of Raleigh Boulevard whenever possible. ### Policy AP-SA 14 Historic Infill Infill development in the existing National Register of Historic Places District should reflect the existing historic building design. # Map AP-SA1: New Bern Station Area Planning Adopted: 1/30/2024 **LEGEND** | | | | | |---|---|---|---| | <
> | STUDY AREA | <
> | OPEN SPACE | | <
> | BRT STATIONS AND CORRIDOR | <
> | WATER BODIES | | <
> | 1/4 MILE BUFFER (5-MIN WALK) | | **CORRIDOR SECTIONS** | | <
> | ROADS/STREETS | <
> | WESTERN STATIONS | | <
> | GREENWAY/TRAILS | <
> | MIDDLE STATIONS | | <
> | FLOOD HAZARD AREAS | <
> | EASTERN STATIONS | <
> (blank page) # SC Swift Creek Raleigh, Cary, Garner, Apex, Wake County, and the State Division of Water Resources jointly maintain water quality in the Swift Creek basin in their respective jurisdictions. The Swift Creek Land Management Plan is a plan jointly-adopted in 1987 that has been accepted by the State Division of Water Quality that identifies how each government proposes to develop its jurisdiction, while maintaining the quality of water in the basin. The Swift Creek Watershed Plan is the City of Raleigh’s policy response to the Swift Creek Land Management Plan for that portion of the watershed that lies in Raleigh’s jurisdiction. The City of Raleigh and Wake County continue to impose development controls for the middle portion of the basin. The area is primarily planned for rural residential uses, with the exception of those areas designated for New Urban uses. The City does not propose to expand its jurisdiction farther into the Swift Creek basin unless emergency utility extensions require annexation of affected properties or developments. However, Raleigh has many interests in this area, including two lakes, a major park, and a water treatment plant, which reinforce its watershed protection objectives. Lake Wheeler and Lake Benson are impoundments upstream of the new water treatment facility which distributes water to both Garner and Raleigh. The approximately 3,000 acres of the Swift Creek basin that lie within Raleigh’s jurisdiction are in the upper portions of the watershed, where the secondary watershed protection policies are necessary. This area has a variety of existing land uses including rural and low-density residential, large farms, and industrial uses along U.S. 401 that have been allowed to remain. With these varying conditions in mind, the following policies are provided to guide growth in the watershed. ### Policy AP-SC 1 Swift Creek Watershed Land Use Only residential uses will be permitted in the Swift Creek watershed unless otherwise approved by City Council and specifically indicated in this Plan. ### Policy AP-SC 2 Swift Creek Watershed Rural Densities An average density of one dwelling unit per acre should apply to areas designated Rural (see attached Map AP-SC1) in the Swift Creek watershed. ### Policy AP-SC 3 Swift Creek New Urban Densities For those portions of the Swift Creek Watershed Plan designated as New Urban on the attached map, up to six dwelling-units per acre should be allowed. ### Policy AP-SC 4 Residential Clustering in Swift Creek In those rural developments where extensions of public utilities will allow clustering of housing, a density of up to four units per acre should be permitted only where compensating permanent open space is set aside resulting in an overall development average of one unit per acre. ### Policy AP-SC 5 Agricultural Conversions in Swift Creek A substantial portion of the land area in Swift Creek watershed is used for agricultural research farms by NCSU, noted as Special Area on the attached map. Should agricultural uses cease and development occur, plans must be prepared to protect the watershed to the maximum extent feasible. Former agricultural property should be used for low-density residential, appropriate institutional, or open space uses that would not adversely affect water quality. <
> ### Policy AP-SC 6 Swift Creek Sensitive Area Streets Streets within the Swift Creek watershed protection area should be designed and classified as Sensitive Area Streets as shown in Article 8.4.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance. <
> ### Policy AP-SC 7 Crossroads Mall Transition Area The intense commercial and office development at Crossroads Mall within Cary’s jurisdiction places similar development pressures on the adjacent area in Raleigh’s jurisdiction. Low-intensity office uses and/or medium- to low-density residential uses would provide an appropriate transition between the high-intensity land use patterns in Cary and the low-intensity development in the watershed. Any such development within the watershed would have to incorporate appropriate structural and non-structural watershed protection measures. <
> ### Policy AP-SC 8 Swift Creek Impervious Surface Limits In addition to the Swift Creek Land Management Plan’s Performance Standards, impervious surfaces in the Swift Creek watershed should be limited to 12 percent unless public utilities are available, in which case a 30 percent maximum may be allowed. The 30 percent maximum may be exceeded up to 70 percent with additional rainfall runoff retainage, in specified areas along U.S. 70/401 at Tryon Road (noted on Map AP-SC-1 as Urban) and the small watershed area on the north side of Tryon Road near Gorman Street. The areas that exceed 30 percent impervious should not exceed 154.35 acres or 10 percent of the entire Swift Creek watershed within the City’s jurisdiction, whichever is less. <
> ### Policy AP-SC 9 Swift Creek Watershed Public Utilities Extensions of public utilities may be allowed in areas designated New Urban Residential as shown on the attached map under the following conditions: * *The capacity of water and sewer facilities is adequate for an extension;* * *An extension is deemed appropriate to promote the orderly provision of public services and facilities in the Raleigh area;* * *There will be no reduction in water quality or degradation of the watershed as a result of public utility extension or the more intense development that may result;* * *It is determined that annexation of a proposed development would be in the best interest of the City of Raleigh.* <
> ### Policy AP-SC 10 Swift Creek Watershed Emergency Utility Extensions Public utilities may be extended outside Raleigh’s jurisdiction and outside the New Urban Residential areas (see Map AP-SC-1) when a finding is made by City Council that there is a threat to public health, safety, and welfare and to Raleigh’s drinking water supply. Such extensions would be considered on a case-by-case basis and would require concurrence from the Wake County Commissioners prior to approval when the land is subject to Wake County development regulations. Properties connecting to these facilities would be expected to bear the full cost of any capital facilities needed to provide the utility services and agree to the operating and maintenance fees normally applied to properties outside the City limits. Emergency service to properties would also be subject to the following: * *Only existing development posing a specific threat to the public health, safety, and welfare and to Raleigh’s drinking water supply would be allowed to connect to emergency utility extensions;* * *Owners of existing development seeking to connect to emergency utility extensions shall file a petition of annexation to be considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis;* * *No increase in the density of development will be allowed beyond that already approved by the governing jurisdiction at the time of the provision of the utility service;* * *The development would provide for adequate retention facilities to capture effluent in the event of sewer system failure in addition to any stormwater retention facilities that are necessary to protect the water quality in Swift Creek.* # Map AP-SC1: Swift Creek Adopted: 7/21/1987 <
> # SE Southeast Special Study The Southeast Special Area Study was adopted in 2022 for the area in southeast Wake County bounded by Poole Road, Smithfield Road, and Old Baucom Road. The actions and policies of the plan are organized around major topics of importance to the community, including open space preservation, connectivity, stormwater, economic development, and sustainability. This area-specific guidance is a response to four community priorities that were communicated through the study: preservation of open space, improving travel by car, improving travel on foot and by bike, and increasing access to shopping and destinations. ### Policy AP-SE 1 Preserving Open Space Through Nodal Development Development and redevelopment should maintain the area’s rural character and natural features. Commercial and mixed-use development should occur in clusters around major intersections, as identified in the Future Land Use Map. Residential development should cluster homes in compact nodes while preserving open space and natural features that make the Study Area unique. <
> ### Policy AP-SE 2 Large Site Development Development should occur through thoughtful large site development and Planned Development Districts to avoid piecemeal rezoning and development that creates sharp changes in the development pattern and fails to create meaningful clustering and nodes and preserve open space. Rezoning requests for sites under 75 acres should be deemed inconsistent with this policy. <
> ### Policy AP-SE 3 Support the Preservation of Agriculture and Forestry Support Wake County and the Wake Soil and Water Conservation District in their efforts to preserve working lands in the Long Range Urban Service Area. Support efforts to link resource landowners to local urban markets through local organizations such as the Capital Area Food network. Participate in the implementation of the Wake County Food Security Plan. <
> ### Action AP-SE 1 Consider Relinquishment of Long Range Urban Service Area In coordination with Wake County and neighboring jurisdictions, consider relinquishment of Raleigh’s Long Range Urban Service Area in Area 5. Considerations include pace of new development, interjurisdictional coordination, and networks of preserved open space or natural areas. ### Action AP-SE 2 Compact and Conservation Development Option Review Compact and Conservation Development Option standards for open space preservation; revise for more flexibility that encourages the use of the option while still promoting preservation of the natural resources and open space that makes the Study Area unique. ### Action AP-SE 3 Regional Open Space Preservation Support the development of a regional greenbelt of preserved open space within the Long Range Urban Service Area. Collaborate with greenway and open space planning efforts among southeastern Wake County municipalities to connect greenway corridors, existing parks and open spaces, natural areas, and working lands. Work with Wake County agencies and regional non-profit organizations, such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, the NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail, the Wake County Open Space Program, and the Wake Soil & Water Conservation District to identify and prioritize key locations for easements and acquisitions to create a regionally interconnected open space system. ### Action AP-SE 4 Brownfield Landfill Initiate discussions with Wake Reclamation LLC to explore possibilities for future reclamation of the Brownfield Landfill site, which is expected to close in 2027. ### Action AP-SE 5 Apply Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD) Apply the Special Highway Overlay District to the I-540 alignment in the project area as ETJ is expanded and Raleigh zoning is applied. For properties outside of Raleigh’s ETJ, partner with Wake County to apply their corresponding Special Highway Overlay District along the I-540 alignment. ## Increasing Connectivity ### Policy AP-SE 4 Hodge Road Extension Collaborate with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Turnpike Authority, and other interested agencies to realize connectivity between the Neuse River and I-540, specifically through the Hodge Road extension at the planned interchange at Auburn Knightdale Road and the Auburn Knightdale Road extension at Bethlehem Road. <
> ### Policy AP-SE 5 Regional Greenway Connectivity Promote regionwide connectivity of municipal greenway systems to the Neuse River Trail, Williamson Preserve, and a potential corridor paralleling I-540. Educate, inform, and encourage willing resource landowners to become partners in preserving a protected network of green spaces for both ecological health and sustainable economic development. <
> ### Action AP-SE 6 Build Regional Greenways Coordinate with southeastern Wake County municipalities (Town of Garner, Town of Knightdale, and Town of Wendell) on regional greenway connections with Poplar Creek and Marks Creek to link the Williamson Preserve with the Neuse River Trail. Evaluate potential amendments to the Capital Area Greenway Master Plan to facilitate regional connections. ## Managing Stormwater #### Policy AP-SE 6 Green Stormwater Infrastructure New development should integrate green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) and Low Impact Development techniques throughout the Study Area, especially in areas where the Future Land Use Map recommends mixed-use development through Business & Commercial Services, Community Mixed Use, Neighborhood Mixed Use and Office Mixed Use designations. GSI elements include rain gardens, grassed swales, rooftop gardens, and permeable pavers. #### Policy AP-SE 7 Green Streets Establish “green streets” on new city roads in the Study Area that reduce stormwater runoff, decrease vehicle speeds, and include a mix of expanded sidewalks, shared-use paths, and bicycle lanes. Make connections to existing and planned greenway corridors to maximize the routes available to people walking and biking. #### Action AP-SE 7 Protect and Enhance Streams and Wetlands Encourage protection and enhancement of streams and wetlands in the Southeast Special Study Area. Upon annexation, this may include preserving and enhancing streams and wetlands, and seeking projects within the city’s purview that provide nutrient control. These conservation and improvement projects may be potentially eligible for the city to place in a future mitigation bank for use by city projects. This would benefit the city, the southeast area, and the environment in cases where impacts to receiving waters from proposed city projects cannot be avoided and/or an offset is required. #### Action AP-SE 8 Stormwater Analysis Conduct detailed analysis of the stormwater drainage basins that overlap the southwest, south, and northwest portions of the Study Area for use in planning and implementation of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI). ## Supporting Economic Development #### Policy AP-SE 8 Green Tech Sector Jobs Ensure that adequate land is zoned so that Green Tech jobs can locate in the Study Area with access to the area’s natural resources. #### Policy AP-SE 9 Equitable Development for the SE Study Area Future economic development strategies should leverage local anchor institutions such as universities, and rely on existing assets, such as non-profit institutions, to foster resilient and inclusive economies that benefit the southeast Raleigh community and the city as a whole. #### Action AP-SE 9 Utilizing Land Resources as an Economic Development Asset Collaborate with partners such NC State University, NC Biotechnology Center, Center for Environmental Farming Systems, and resource landowners to assess the potential of the Study Area as an agricultural technology cluster. Identify agricultural lands for enterprises related to agricultural biotechnology, renewable energy/ biofuels, carbon sequestration, feedstock, specialty crops, and ecotourism-related enterprises. # Advancing Sustainability ### Policy AP-SE 10 Sustainable Development Promote green building practices and renewable energy technologies in the Study Area. These facets should be part of overall strategies to build resilience into new construction on greenfield sites. <
> *** ### Policy AP-SE 11 Protect Water Resources The Neuse River is the predominant natural resource of the Study Area, and the sub-basins of Poplar Creek, Marks Creek, and other smaller tributaries and intermittent streams comprise the hydrologic network. The city should support public and private conservation efforts as well as development strategies that are tailored to protecting these vital resources. <
> *** ### Policy AP-SE 12 Collaboration with Wake County and Local Governments The Southeast Study Area has been a focal point of interagency collaboration for two decades, beginning with the acquisition and joint planning for the Randleigh Tract. Furthermore, Wake County and adjoining municipalities have provided guidance during the development of this study. The city should continue its ongoing collaboration with Wake County and the local governments that adjoin the Study Area (Garner, Knightdale, Wendell, and Clayton), seeking opportunities for implementing recommended actions for mutual benefit, including transportation connectivity, open space preservation, and the recommendations of PLANWAKE. <
> *** ### Action AP-SE 10 Collaboration with Wake County Public Schools Collaborate with WCPSS on environmental/ecological/sustainability curricula at future schools planned for the Randleigh tract. *** ### Action AP-SE 11 Expand Buffers along the Neuse River and Tributaries Initiate discussions with willing landowners to expand beyond the regulatory floodplains and prescribed buffers of the Neuse River and associated tributaries to enhance preserved green space, wildlife habitat, and floodplain protection. *** # Public Utilities ### Policy AP-SE 13 Maintain Compatible Land Uses Adjacent to the NRRRF Prioritize acquisition of buffer areas around the Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility to prevent incompatible development adjacent to spray-application fields for wastewater effluent. Explore landowner incentives for granting conservation easements for nutrient credits in the Study Area. <
> *** ### Policy AP-SE 14 Expand the Use of Reuse Water Promote the availability of reuse water at the Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility for residential, commercial, and agricultural irrigation and as a cost-saving benefit for new industry in the area. <
> *** # Urban Design ### Policy AP-SE 15 Pedestrian-Focused Residential Development Prioritize pedestrian and communal space in residential neighborhoods. Encourage residential frontages that engage with the public right-of-way using porches and front facing entrances. Encourage public gathering places such as squares and pocket parks. Discourage auto-oriented design that disrupts the pedestrian experience. ### Policy AP-SE 16 Innovative Open Space Design Encourage the innovative use of open space and trails in developments by allowing flexibility in UDO open space requirements. Incentivize innovative site design and neighborhood amenities by allowing flexibility in the placement of open space, the frontage of properties on greenway corridors, and allowing neighborhood amenities to count towards open space requirements. # Managing Land Use ### Policy AP-SE 17 Overlay District Implementation Any rezoning request in the Southeast Study Area, whether privately initiated or associated with a city-initiated expansion of ETJ, should apply the Overlay District for Residential Development as described in Action AP-SE 16. ### Policy AP-SE 18 Coordination with Adjacent Municipalities Coordinate with surrounding cities and towns on long-range plans to extend the extraterritorial jurisdiction. ### Action AP-SE 12 ETJ Expansion Extend the extraterritorial jurisdiction in Area 1 and rezone associated properties in Wake County in accordance with the recommendations of this area study. ### Action AP-SE 13 Enhance Fire Service Plan for and establish a new fire station in coordination with ETJ expansion plans. ### Action AP-SE 14 Revisit the Study Based on Growth Patterns Revisit and reevaluate the recommendations of this study before pursuing ETJ expansion in Areas 2 – 5. Important considerations include the location, density, intensity, and timing of development, amount of land contiguous with corporate limits, and the fiscal impacts of serving future properties that could voluntarily annex into the city. *** ### Action AP-SE 15 Alignment with PLANWake Submit a request to Wake County to amend the PLANWake Growth Framework Map to align with the recommendations of this study. Initiate necessary amendments to Wake County plan documents as necessary in conjunction with any Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Expansion and any Future Land Use Map amendments. *** ### Action AP-SE 16 Overlay District for Residential Development Initiate and adopt a text change to the Unified Development Ordinance that would require most development in residential zoning districts to adhere to Compact or Conservation development requirements in the Southeast Study Area. Modify Compact and Conservation development options to allow for increased density, building types, and uses in residentially zoned areas and more flexibility in open space requirements. *** ### Action AP-SE 17 Evaluate Future Land Use Map Initiate a review of Future Land Use Map designations in conjunction with any Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Expansion to provide for mixed-use development opportunities to support a more sustainable development pattern. *** ### Action AP-SE 18 Evaluate Street Plan Designations Initiate a review of Street Plan designations within the Study Area to ensure that these designations support the urban design and sustainability policies laid out in this study. Wherever traffic projections support a designation with fewer vehicular lanes on a street plan segment, change the designation accordingly to reduce crossing distances and support urban vitality. *** # SG Southern Gateway This corridor plan addresses the area shown in Map AP-SG1. The Plan area encompasses a large land area, extending south from downtown Raleigh at MLK Boulevard to the intersection of S. Wilmington and Tryon Road, and from Lake Wheeler Road east to Hammond Road. S. Wilmington Street is designated as a multi-modal corridor in the City’s growth framework map while both the gateway corridors north of I-40 fall within the Downtown Regional Center designation. Most of the project area falls within the City’s targeted economic development area, with the exception of the area to the east of S. Saunders between Pecan Road and Tryon Road. This area of Raleigh includes or borders several distinct neighborhoods; however, the major corridors serve to divide these neighborhoods. The adjacent land uses along these gateway corridors into downtown lack a cohesive character and identity. There are many vacant, deteriorated, and/or underutilized sites and buildings that contribute to the negative character and perception of this area. Therefore, the planning goals are to implement improvements, generate strategies for connectivity, identify infrastructure investments, implement public realm improvements, and protect natural resources in order to support growth and reinvestment. ### Policy AP-SG 1 Targeted Investments Concentrate public infrastructure investments and redevelopment priorities into the four key focus area locations at S. Saunders, Cargill, S. Wilmington/Rush Street, and Tryon Center. Promote a mix of residential, office, and retail uses adjacent to established neighborhoods. <
> --- ### Policy AP-SG 2 S. Wilmington Street Transit Corridor Reposition S. Wilmington Street into a complete street extending all the way to Tryon Road that maintains two lanes for vehicle traffic, establishes a separated bicycle facility, and dedicated transit lanes for Bus Rapid Transit. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 3 Improve Connectivity Enhance connectivity throughout the district with improved intersections, additional sidewalks, shared-use trails, and on-road bike facilities, to link neighborhoods to each other, as well as to the redesigned S. Wilmington Street. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 4 Redevelopment with Public Private Partnerships Seek opportunities for public-private partnerships to catalyze major redevelopment projects identified within the Southern Gateway Plan district with supporting infrastructure investments. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 5 Improve Greenway Trail Connections New development within the district should link to and extend the greenway trail system that links areas south of I-40 to each other and to downtown, Dorothea Dix Park, and the State Farmers Market. Improve connections to the Capital Area Greenway System with the incorporation of green infrastructure. Four target locations, each with its own scale and character, are identified as key focus areas with opportunities for development as identified in Map AP-SG2. Each focus area can take various physical forms in scale, complexity, and architectural style depending on their location and context. <
> # Map AP-SG1: Southern Gateway Adopted: 2/7/2017 <
> Focus Area ## Old Saunders Focus Area This focus area hinges on the realignment of S. Saunders Street between Maywood Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The development concept for the Old Saunders Focus Area is to capitalize on the new open space created by the realignment of streets; to improve redevelopment options, create a main street, a plaza/event space, and a space for start-up businesses in the Caraleigh / Old Saunders warehouse district. The Old Saunders district will borrow compatible character and scale of the existing warehouses and adjacent historic neighborhoods. A special “makers” district with entrepreneurial startup businesses would encourage new investment in this area. Special consideration should be given to protect and complement the historic character of the adjacent Caraleigh neighborhood. Redevelopment along Lake Wheeler Road should be reevaluated as part of the Dorothea Dix Master Park and Downtown Plan implementation. ### Policy AP-SG 6 Warehouse Adaptive Reuse Encourage the reuse of warehouse and raw spaces in the Caraleigh/Saunders focus area to attract small businesses in the emerging “maker” industry. It would be advantageous for these businesses, such as tech shops, brewers, alternative/indoor farming, to be located close to downtown to build new businesses and a community. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 7 Preserving the Historic Character New development and redevelopment should borrow design cues from the existing warehouses and complement the historic character of the adjacent neighborhoods such as Caraleigh. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 8 Main Street Character of S. Saunders New buildings and additions along old S. Saunders Street should use an urban approach to frontage, and placed close to the street with no parking between the lot line and building facade. Ground floor retail should create a retail-serving Main Street that can capitalize on traffic generated by a destination park on Dix Hill. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 9 Redevelopment between Old S. Saunders and S. Dawson Streets Developable parcels between Old S. Saunders Street and S.Dawson Street (southbound) should support a mix of office and service uses framing a welcoming gateway to downtown Raleigh. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 10 Redevelopment of Lake Wheeler Road Development along Lake Wheeler Road should create an attractive and prominent edge to Dorothea Dix Park. Higher densities will capture value from the park and put more users within close proximity. <
> # Cargill Focus Area Bound by S. Wilmington Street, Hammond Road and I-40, access to the Cargill site is limited by railroad tracks, streams, terrain, and driveway connectivity constraints. Successful redevelopment will require significant access improvements, especially for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. Cargill represents a long-term opportunity for mixed use, primarily office, but could include light warehouse, residential, a special single use or a special civic use. Its close proximity to the downtown core represents a unique opportunity to provide quality office space at rates less costly than downtown. While development may be many years out, this site represents one of the last few major redevelopment areas within the downtown catchment. Much of the private property is currently in industrial use by Cargill and in warehouse use by commercial businesses. The City of Raleigh has operational uses on significant parcels in the land area. ### Policy AP-SG 11 Redevelopment of Cargill Site Encourage relocation of industrial uses in the Cargill focus area to support a compatible mix of urban office and housing uses. New housing can bridge the gap and provide much needed context for a transformation of housing in the area. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 12 Land Uses Encourage mixed-uses; primarily office uses that could include light warehouse, high density residential, a special single use or a special civic use in the mixed use area to the east of the proposed S. Wilmington transit corridor. <
> # S. Wilmington / Rush Focus Area The recommended transportation improvement with the greatest potential for catalyzing redevelopment of the S. Wilmington Street Focus Area is the conversion of S. Wilmington Street to a major transit corridor with greatly enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connections. This focus area will transform the intersections of Rush and Pecan with S. Wilmington Streets to create a vibrant core, linking several isolated communities and breathing new life into this part of the study area. The strategy for this area focuses on mixed income housing and local service retail. ### Policy AP-SG 13 Wilmington/Rush TOD Neighborhood New development in the S. Wilmington / Rush Street Focus Area should include a mix of land uses, heights, and urban frontages needed to support a new transit station in the vicinity of Pecan Road and Rush Street. Mixed-income housing is encouraged and should be pursued in this area. The development pattern should emphasize walkability. <
> # Tryon Focus Area The Tryon focus area will continue to serve the large number of commuters passing by each day, while creating a commercial gathering place for the Renaissance Park community. The Tryon focus area enjoys the most dynamic retail environment within the corridor, with a thriving ethnic business cluster. A development strategy embraces a more robust commercial and mix of uses. The most critical element of this approach is the extension of S. Wilmington Street on new alignment south to Tryon Road. This facility would cross S. Saunders Street at the existing flyover location, continuing southward on the western side. Not only does this new facility separate local traffic from US 70/401, it also provides an alternate route for northwest Garner traffic. The conversion of S. Wilmington Street to a dedicated transit corridor with enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities provides yet another option for reducing traffic on US 70/401. ### Policy AP-SG 14 Renaissance Park Hub The Renaissance Park area should serve as a southern hub for the S. Wilmington Street transformation at Tryon Road. New retail development will serve commuters and residents alike, along with a potential mix of office and institutional uses. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 15 Wilmington Extension as Central Spine Extend S. Wilmington Street as a central spine for new mixed-use, commercial, and transit oriented development. A fresh mix of retail, office, and apartments could complete the Renaissance Park development with a bustling town center, replete with services, shops, and a viable transit hub including a park-and -ride facility. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 16 Hammond Road Alternative Hammond Road, which becomes Timber Drive in Garner, carries far less traffic than its capacity. Support NCDOT plans to convert the intersection of Timber Drive and US 70 to an interchange to reduce recurring delay at this location, and use wayfinding to encourage use of Hammond Road as a convenient alternative to S. Saunders Street. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 17 Connection to Garner Develop a major transit hub and support connecting infrastructure with the conversion of the flyover to facilitate the S. Wilmington Street Extension to Tryon Road, and potentially to Garner Station Boulevard. <
> ### Policy AP-SG 18 Enhance Overall Connectivity Create a more robust street network providing alternate routes and reducing the need for short or east-west trips to use US 401. Bicycle and pedestrian options would also be improved and more efficient transit routing and access provided. <
> # Map AP-SG2: Southern Gateway Focus Areas Adopted: 2/7/2017 <
> | | | | | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Focus Area | Proposed Avenue, 4-Lane Divided | Proposed Bus Rapid Transit | | | Proposed New Street or Extension | Proposed Service Road | Proposed Urban Frontage | | | Proposed Main Street | Proposed off-street bicycle path | | | | Proposed Main Street Extension | Proposed on-street bikeway | Map created 11/15/2016 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning | | # SP South Park The intent of this plan is to provide guidance for future zoning and development and to preserve the character of the neighborhood by guiding change as rezoning petitions, infill, and new development occur. South Park is a part of a much larger predominantly African American residential area that includes the southeast quadrant of the original city limits. Rich in local African American history, a number of historic buildings and homes in the South Park neighborhood still stand and are recognized as part of the East Raleigh-South Park National Register Historic District. The Prince Hall Raleigh Historic District overlays portions of the area plan’s northwest corner. Character is added to the neighborhood through the homes of notable residents and community leaders. The approximately 263-acre plan area is east of downtown. The South Park plan boundary noted on the attached map includes Shaw University, the John P. “Top” Greene Community Center, and a portion of Chavis Park. The plan area is bounded by Cabarrus Street to the north; Little Rock Creek, Chavis Park, Holmes Street, and Carnage Drive to the east; Peterson Street and Hoke Street to the south; and Garner Road and Wilmington Street to the west. ### Policy AP-SP 1 South Park Downtown Transition Encourage mixed-use development (small scale Office, Retail, and/or Residential uses) in the area bounded by Cabarrus, East, Lenoir, and Wilmington streets. ### Policy AP-SP 2 South Park Focal Point Encourage commercial, office, and residential uses in the area defined by Person Street, Bragg Street, Hammond Road, and Hoke Street in order to create a neighborhood focal point and economic development opportunity for the South Park area. ### Policy AP-SP 3 South Park Owner Occupancy Encourage increased owner-occupied housing in South Park by encouraging housing that accommodates a mixture of income levels through public and private housing programs. ### Policy AP-SP 4 Character of South Park Infill Infill residential development should reflect the existing historic building types in the South Park study area. ### Policy AP-SP 5 South Park Historic Preservation Emphasize the historic significance of the South Park neighborhood through the promotion and protection of contributing historic elements. ### Policy AP-SP 6 South Park/Downtown Overlay Overlap Where the South Park plan overlaps the 2015 Downtown Plan study area, the intent of the Downtown Plan shall prevail. ### Action AP-SP 1 South Park Pedestrian Improvements Allocate Capital Improvement Program (CIP) dollars for pedestrian crossing improvements at the intersection Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and Wilmington/ Salisbury streets, and for sidewalks along Hoke Street (between Blount and Person streets). *** ### Action AP-SP 2 Garner Road Pedestrian Improvements Improve pedestrian safety crossings along Garner Road at McMakin Street and Hoke Street by installing sidewalks and clearly marking crosswalks (CIP implementation item). *** ### Action AP-SP 3 South Park Redevelopment Ensure that South Park redevelopment efforts respect the lot size and setback requirements of the NCOD, as well as the Residential Rehabilitation Design Guidelines. *** ### Action AP-SP 4 Completed 2016 *** # Map AP-SP1: South Park Adopted: 5/15/2007 <
> * Pedestrian Crossing Improvements * Sidewalk Pedestrian Improvements * Downtown Transition Zone * Focal Point * Prince Hall Local Historic District * South Park NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District) Map created 8/8/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) # WB Western Boulevard The Western Boulevard Corridor study was adopted in June of 2022 for the area between Wilmington Street to the east and I-40 to the west. The study focused on opportunities around planning the western bus rapid transit (BRT) route, connecting Downtown Raleigh and Downtown Cary. The guidance in this section leverages on other prior and on-going studies to create a vibrant corridor that prioritizes transit-oriented development. Recommended actions and policies of the plan further build upon the Equitable Development Around Transit (EDAT) policies and identify opportunities unique to the Western Boulevard BRT corridor. The actions and policies of the plan are organized around key themes that help achieve the broader goals envisioned for this BRT corridor by the EDAT plan and provides a transit-oriented framework to guide the future station area planning process. The themes identified for guiding the transformation of Western Boulevard into a transit-oriented corridor include Multimodal Connectivity, Transit-Oriented Development, Public Realm Enhancements, and Environmental Sustainability. Policies and actions that apply corridor-wide are listed under these themes. ## Multimodal Connectivity The success of a BRT corridor depends on the access, mobility options, and connections it provides to its surrounding areas. A network of connected streets and bicycle networks bridging infrastructure gaps will increase access into the BRT corridor and encourage more walking/biking trips and increased transit usage. ### Policy AP-WB 1 Connecting Neighborhoods to the Western BRT Corridor Enhance access and mobility around the Western Boulevard corridor with multimodal street design, street grid connectivity, and fixing sidewalk gaps to the surrounding neighborhoods as shown on Map AP-WB 1. New development should implement the connections shown on Map AP-WB 1 where feasible. ### Policy AP-WB 2 Greenway Access to the Western BRT Corridor Provide clearly marked greenway access points along the Western Boulevard corridor and in surrounding neighborhoods to enhance connections to the Rocky Branch Trail (at eastern edge closer to Downtown Raleigh) and the Walnut Creek Trail (at western edge closer to Town of Cary limits) where feasible. See Map AP-WB 1. ### Policy AP-WB 3 Alternate Mobility Options Around Transit Stations Integrate micromobility options such as scooters, e-bikes, bike share, and other alternatives in development within TOD areas to provide for the first and last-mile connections to and from station areas. ### Policy AP-WB 4 Transportation Demand Management Along the Western BRT corridor, a range of travel options and alternatives should be provided other than driving. Encourage employers to work with the city to provide benefits to employees to use transit or other forms of commuting and discourage driving options. Evaluate park and ride options further away from Downtown Raleigh, near the western leg closer to Downtown Cary, where the demand is unmet. ### Action AP-WB 1 Transit Agency Coordination Encourage coordination between GoRaleigh, Wolfline, and GoTriangle transit providers to consolidate, realign, co-locate, and add stops to streamline connections to and from the BRT corridor. Transit information, such as schedules and real-time arrivals, should be updated regularly and easily available to all transit users. ### Action AP-WB 2 Safer Intersections Pursue implementation of priority projects that will improve mobility and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists at key locations through a range of intersection improvements, grade separations, high visibility crosswalk markings, in-road signage, curb bump outs, lighting, design of new bicycle facilities, and other identified elements. See Map AP-WB 1. ### Action AP-WB 3 New Streets and Bicycle Networks Pursue and implement the streets and bicycle networks and other transportation infrastructure recommendations of the Western Boulevard Corridor study through a combination of BRT funding, capital projects, and private development. ### Action AP-WB 4 Frequent and Rapid Bus Route Evaluation Evaluate the current routes served by GoRaleigh connecting along and to the Western Boulevard corridor and update the route services to better serve and connect more users to the BRT corridor by connecting key commercial nodes, employment centers, and mixed-use centers. # Transit-Oriented Development Development in TOD sites offer many advantages such as access to community amenities, greater flexibility in mix of uses, more compact and walkable neighborhoods, higher densities, lesser parking needs, and reduced environmental impacts. ### Policy AP-WB 5 Context and Design of TOD Sites All TOD sites should integrate connected street grid with smaller walkable blocks, mixed-uses, and pedestrian-scaled amenities. The mix of uses, building scale and detailing, street networks, pedestrian routes to and from the project, and the location and character of open space and parks near the proposed TOD should be considered and influence the design of the TOD project. <
> ### Policy AP-WB 6 Repositioning Parking Lots for TOD Encourage redevelopment of large surface parking lots along the Western BRT corridor. The reduced parking requirements for TOD would allow for surface lots to be redeveloped or replaced with structured parking and/or free up portion of the land for TOD. <
> ### Policy AP-WB 7 Catalytic TOD Sites on Western Boulevard Corridor The Western Boulevard Corridor offers a few key catalytic sites recommended for TOD designation. Encourage the redevelopment of these large single-ownership sites to apply key TOD principles to allow higher density, mixed-uses, support walkability, and enhanced public realm design. These catalytic TOD sites include: • *The Mission Valley Site at Western/Avent Ferry* • *Food Lion Shopping Center Site at Western/Method/Kent* • *Old Kmart Site at Western/Blue Ridge and* • *Park West Shopping Center at Western/Jones Franklin* While smaller sites can support TOD, larger sites under single ownership offer the unique potential for an anchor development with a greater mix of uses. ### Policy AP-WB 8 Partnerships for Furthering TOD Partner with transit agencies, developers, local institutions, and landowners to acquire land, assemble small parcels, and make those sites available to achieve TOD vision through public-private joint development activities. ### Policy AP-WB 9 TOD Transitions to Lower-density Neighborhoods Apply TOD Design Guidelines to manage the potential conflict between higher-density TOD’s and surrounding lower-density neighborhoods by diversifying the building types and tapering building heights. ## Public Realm Enhancements The quality of the public realm around BRT corridors and stations significantly influences the ridership rates of the transit system. The better the pedestrian experience along streets and paths, the more successful the TOD is in creating walkable communities. Character zones highlight areas along Western Boulevard where excess right-of-way and public spaces offer opportunities to enhance the pedestrian experience for transit users. ### Policy AP-WB 10 Connected Public Realm The TOD corridors and station nodes should provide a well-connected public realm comprised of streets, multi-use paths, greenway trails, parks, plazas, and/or other usable open spaces. ### Policy AP-WB 11 Placemaking and Public Realm Enhancements Encourage plans for public realm improvements and placemaking all along the Western BRT corridor. Partner with private developers, landowners, institutions, NCDOT, and the City of Raleigh to identify opportunities with planned capital and redevelopment projects. ## Environmental Sustainability Transit-oriented development is sustainable development. It creates dense, walkable communities around transit stations, saving land at the urban fringe from development while lowering the per-capita carbon footprint by enabling people to live, work, and play close to home and without car dependence. A particular environmental focus area for Western Boulevard is the area’s rich collection of waterways. Western Boulevard traverses five watersheds: Richland Creek, Simmons Branch, Walnut Creek, Brushy Creek, and Rocky Branch. Map AP-WB 2[^p553-2] shows the ecologically sensitive areas of Western Boulevard and areas identified for green stormwater infrastructure. The unbuilt extension of Western Boulevard is also a unique opportunity to implement green solutions. Development along the corridor should incorporate green stormwater infrastructure and other strategies that support ecological and human health. ### Green TOD Definition Green TOD is a planning and urban design approach that prioritizes ecological and human health. With the higher densities and walkability of traditional TOD as a foundation, Green TOD incorporates additional strategies toward the following goals: * *Energy efficient buildings* * *Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI)* * *Places for people rather than cars* * *Interconnected green spaces* * *Habitat corridors and patches* * *Integrated waste management.* ### Policy AP-WB 12 Sustainability and Environmental Stewardship Development opportunities along the corridor should integrate sustainability principles and plan for natural resource protection, ecological balance, stream conservation, and other measures where feasible. Stormwater projects along the BRT corridor should implement green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) solutions and integrate parks/open space and/or greenway trails wherever feasible. <
> ### Action AP-WB 5 Green BRT Corridor for Western Extension Plan and design the new Western Boulevard extension to be safe, environmentally friendly, multimodal design that integrates infrastructure needs with natural resource protection in an economically viable and sustainable way. Minimize impacts of the road, reducing carbon footprint, preserving trees, and protecting endangered species and animal habitats. ### Action AP-WB 6 Pursue Creation of Green TOD District Research and evaluate the potential for development of site design guidelines and policies that would create a new Green TOD District in Raleigh. ### Action AP-WB 7 Environmental Sustainability Master Plan As part of the Station Area Planning Process, produce an Environmental Sustainability Master Plan (ESMAP) that can more thoroughly identify environmental issues and provide appropriate design solutions. The ESMP could cover ecologically sensitive areas identified in Map AP-WB 2[^p553-2] and be adopted as part of the final Station Area planning recommendations for the corridor. [^p553-2]: Map AP-WB 2 ## Western Boulevard Corridor Character Zones Western Boulevard is the longest of the four BRT corridors proposed in the Wake Transit Plan with a length of approximately 9 miles. The corridor serves as a primary western gateway, connecting Downtown Raleigh to Downtown Cary. Because Western Boulevard is so long, the character and context shifts dramatically as you travel along the corridor. It intersects with urban areas, large parks, university buildings, commercial strip malls, and residential areas. The corridor study addresses all character areas and extends a half-mile out from the boulevard itself. Based on the predominant land use, character, and urban form — Western has been divided into six character zones. ### 1. The Downtown Zone Downtown Raleigh is the epicenter of the Wake BRT system; all BRT routes will travel to and from the downtown. Downtown Raleigh has emerged as a vibrant urban place and is a major regional employment center. #### Action AP-WB 8 Wilmington Street Intersection Improvements Redesign the intersection of Wilmington Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to include pedestrian-friendly features—including narrower/fewer lanes, pedestrian refuges, and amenitized public spaces—to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety and better connect Downtown to the Southern Gateway district and the historic South Park neighborhood. #### Action AP-WB 9 South Saunders Bridge and Pedestrian Access Improvements Design the elevated South Saunders BRT station at the South Saunders bridge with emphasis on improving pedestrian access and experience under the South Saunders bridge through pedestrian-scaled amenities such as lighting, materials, signage, and artwork. Use the bridge to announce transition from Downtown to the Dix Park area. Use the excess right-of-way near the South Saunders bridge area to enhance access from South Saunders to the elevated BRT station on Western Boulevard. #### Action AP-WB 10 Rosengarten Greenway Realignment Realign the southern segment of Rosengarten greenway trail to an on-street connection along South Saunders street to allow for connection to the Rocky Branch trail to the south of Western Blvd. This allows to position this greenway as a transportation network connecting the BRT corridor, the Dix Park, and development to the south of Downtown. ### 2. The Parks Zone This zone is unique as it is home to two major city parks: Dorothea Dix Park and Pullen Park. #### Policy AP-WB 13 Boylan and Dix Edge Area Park Zone Provide marked access points, public realm enhancements, streetscape elements, unifying materials, edge treatments, and unique placemaking elements to expand the design language of the park into the transit corridor and surrounding neighborhoods to create a unique zone that is reflective of the character of a park. *Additional information provided in Resolution 2022-383.* ### Policy AP-WB 14 Preservation of Rocky Branch Creek Assess the impact of any new construction including the BRT transit roadway design on Rocky Branch Creek and seek to mitigate any negative impacts with the use of on-site GSI strategies. <
> --- ### Policy AP-WB 15 BRT Connection to Dix Park Area Provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between Dix Park, Pullen Park, the nearest BRT stations on Western Boulevard, and the proposed land bridge. <
> --- ### Action AP-WB 11 Pullen Bridge Redesign Coordinate with NCDOT on the Pullen bridge replacement project at the Western Boulevard intersection to explore options for redesign that will enhance circulation, traffic management, BRT access, better park edge, and safer pedestrian/ bicycle connections across this key intersection. --- ### Action AP-WB 12 Ashe Avenue Realignment and Improvements Realign and consolidate the Ashe Avenue merge at the Western Boulevard intersection to one alignment (eastern section) and reclaim the western segment into Pullen Park. Introduce a signalized intersection and add safe crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists to connect to the Dix Park edge. --- ### Action AP-WB 13 Rocky Branch Creek Restoration and Greenway Connection to Dix Park Further evaluate the opportunity to restore Rocky Branch Creek by daylighting the creek at Ashe Avenue and providing a greenway connection along the creek into Dix Park. Partner with Dix Parks Conservancy in the stream restoration, beautification, and maintenance efforts. --- # 3. The Campus Zone The segment of the corridor between Pullen Road and Gorman Sreet is anchored by NC State University property. The Mission Valley Shopping Center, however, has the potential to support transit-oriented development. NC State’s Centennial Campus is a half-mile south of the corridor. Connections between the two campuses are prime opportunities for improving the corridor. ### Policy AP-WB 16 Avent Ferry Road Crossing Coordinate the design and implementation of the planned capital projects in this area – NCDOT pedestrian tunnel, BRT station design, and Avent Ferry Road streetscape improvements with the goal of improving access and crossing safety for pedestrians and bicyclists to the BRT station and enhancing connectivity between the Mission Valley site and Centennial and Main campuses. <
> --- ### Action AP-WB 14 NCSU Master Plan Updates Coordination Work with NC State University team on their Master Plan updates process to better coordinate street grids connectivity, pedestrian and bicycle connections, and densification envisioned for the campus zone to leverage on future TOD opportunities along Western Boulevard and adjacent station areas. ## 4. The Method-Kent Zone This segment between Gorman Street and Method Road is largely occupied by several low-density commercial uses and serves as the commercial core. It’s also home to neighborhoods with rich cultural histories in the city. This area has the largest potential for TOD that can also provide neighborhood amenities for the surrounding communities including the Method community. #### Policy AP-WB 17 **Method/Kent Neighborhood Connections** The future redevelopment of the Food Lion Shopping Center TOD site and other infrastructure improvements at this intersection should aim to enhance access, walkability, and connectivity between the BRT station and the historic Method community, the Islamic school, the NC State campus to the north, and other destinations in the vicinity. <
> #### Policy AP-WB 18 **Celebrate Historic Method Community** Encourage the use of interpretive signage and placemaking elements to celebrate the historic and cultural significance of the Method community and other diverse institutions served by this BRT node. <
> #### Action AP-WB 15 **Connections Across I-440 Interchange** Coordinate pedestrian and bicycle circulation, access, and safe crossing of the renovated I-440 interchange to the BRT stations with additional analysis. ## 5. The Multimodal Link Zone This segment has witnessed significant transformation in recent years in terms of redevelopment. Many properties in the area have seen new construction in the form of single-family homes. It also offers key opportunities for connections to high frequency transit networks and future commuter rail stops. #### Policy AP-WB 19 **Blue Ridge Area Improvements** Pursue opportunities to improve and transformthe Blue Ridge Road corridor into a main north-south, pedestrian-scaled connection to the BRT corridor. Redevelopment of properties in the area should encourage transit-supportive design and densities and provide safe pedestrian and bicycle networks. Pursue wayfinding and signage to mark access and connections to the J.C. Raulston Arboretum and NC Museum of Art to the north. <
> *See also Arena/Blue Ridge Area Specific Guidance.* # 6. The Cary Connector Zone This area includes the new Western Boulevard extension that connects to Cary Towne Boulevard. The selection of this extension as the BRT route offers a new regional-gateway connection between Raleigh and Cary. Additionally, a future extension of Edwards Mill Road south to Western Boulevard will provide an additional north-south connection. This offers an opportunity to push traditional design in a direction that accommodates innovative, multimodal transit design. This zone is at the headwaters of Walnut Creek and has the potential to set a new standard for Green TOD. #### Policy AP-WB 20 Jones Franklin Intersection Improvements Prioritize new and improved connections from the neighborhoods into this TOD node. The redesign of this complex intersection through BRT implementation should look to improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Jones Franklin road. Convert excess right-of-way into GSI features and/or open spaces/plazas where feasible. #### Policy AP-WB 21 Green TOD Design Elements New development in the area around the new extension should include green elements such as green stormwater infrastructure and linear open spaces to better handle stormwater, improve water quality, beautify streets with trees and greenery, slow traffic, and create safer places to walk or bike. Improve the standard streetscape to incorporate high-quality pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, green stormwater infrastructure, and connections to greenways and planned parks. #### Policy AP-WB 22 Green Development Encourage Green TOD design elements for development in the area around the headwaters of Walnut Creek. Redevelopment here must prioritize watershed health through sustainable building design, green stormwater infrastructure integration, and reliance on innovative and context-sensitive landscape and roadway designs that mitigate development impacts. #### Policy AP-WB 23 Wolfwood Drive Area along New Western Boulevard Extension Pursue opportunities along the stream corridor and undeveloped land to implement a continuous network of greenway trails, multi-use paths, and linear parks, integrated with GSI. #### Action AP-WB 16 Pilot Green TOD District Use sites along the Western Boulevard extension as pilot projects for the Green TOD District. The Green TOD District will be a special zone in the BRT corridor where TOD development, stream preservation, public parks and open spaces, and greenway trails come together to create a green multimodal haven. #### Action AP-WB 17 Threatened and Endangered Species Protection Mitigation plans should be developed that seek to best address the threat and protect these endangered species identified in this ecologically sensitive area. #### Action AP-WB 18 Bike Connection South of Hillsborough Street Implement the proposed north-south bike connection from Hillsborough Street to Athens Drive. #### Action AP-WB 19 Western Extension Area Property Acquisition Acquire parcels adjacent to the Western Boulevard extension for affordable housing and new public park spaces. Partner with the private sector for both funding and interim purchase opportunities before public money is secured. # Map AP-WB1: Connectivity Improvements Adopted: 2/8/2022 <
> Map created 2/8/2022 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning # Map AP-WB2: Environmental Sustainability Adopted: 2/8/2022 <
> Western Blvd Corridor Study Area Boundary Potential BRT Station Approved BRT Route **ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS** Floodway 1% Annual Chance (100 Year Floodplain) 0.2% Annual Chance (500 Year Floodplain) Parks and Open Space Streams and Water Bodies Greenway Parcel/Corridor Existing Greenway Trail Planned Greenway Trail (in Master Plan) **RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL** Open Space/Park Opportunity for Green Stormwater Install Ecologically Sensitive Area Greenway Trail/Greenway Corridor # Map AP-WB3: Character Zones Adopted: 2/8/2022 <
> Map created 2/8/2022 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) # WC Wake Crossroads The Plan area includes about 40 acres along Mitchell Mill Road between Forestville Road and Watkins Road. By working with commercial development interests in serving the growing residential population within the crossroads area, an opportunity is presented to coordinate future development patterns with individual property owners to address identified growth issues and to help create a neighborhood center as a focus for community activities. The plan was adopted in 2005. A neighborhood center can be defined as a compact mix of retail, office, and residential uses within close proximity of each other; providing a strong pedestrian orientation as well as the convenient vehicular access needed for commercial uses. The compact design accommodates walking and public transit by locating uses close to each other along an interconnected street system with sidewalks and on-street parking. A core area of convenience retail and local-serving office uses anchors the center. Buildings are typically located along the sidewalk with large parking areas centrally located within the interior of a block. A main street atmosphere is created by storefronts with display windows adjacent to the sidewalk with street trees, sidewalk lighting, and comfortable public spaces included to enhance the walking experience. The neighborhood center is also conveniently connected to the adjacent residential neighborhoods by traffic-calmed streets and pedestrian ways. ### Policy AP-WC 1 Wake Crossroads Retail Core The retail core area of Wake Crossroads should be on the north side of Mitchell Mill Road along the intersecting public streets shown on the plan concept map. ### Policy AP-WC 2 Wake Crossroads Building Massing Two- and three-story buildings should be located in the commercial core of Wake Crossroads to achieve a minimum 1:6 height-to-width ratio within the public space between buildings. A 1:3 height-to-width ratio should be pursued as an average to create a stronger spatial definition of the public space. ### Policy AP-WC 3 Wake Crossroads Buffer Land Uses Mixed-uses with an emphasis on office, service, and higher-density residential uses should be located outside the Wake Crossroads retail core transitioning with lower intensities to the adjacent single family neighborhoods. ### Policy AP-WC 4 Wake Crossroads Streetscapes Streetscapes in Wake Crossroads should be designed to enhance the pedestrian environment with street trees, pedestrian level lighting, wide sidewalks, and sitting areas. ### Policy AP-WC 5 Wake Crossroads Pedestrian Amenities Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of all streets within the Wake Crossroads plan area. Intersections should be designed and marked to provide safe pedestrian crossings. Mid-block crosswalks with curb bump-outs should be included where appropriate to improve the convenience of walking and access from the off-street parking areas located within each block. ### Policy AP-WC 6 Wake Crossroads Building Orientation Buildings within the Wake Crossroads neighborhood center should be set close to the street with parking located behind or beside the building. Buildings at street intersections should be oriented to the corner with parking and service areas located away from the intersection. Buildings should be articulated so that the long side fronts the street. <
> ### Policy AP-WC 7 Wake Crossroads Drive-Through Windows Drive-through windows are discouraged within the Wake Crossroads core commercial area. Outside of the core area, drive-through windows should be located on the side of the principal building that is not parallel to an adjacent street or pedestrian way. The principal building should include an interior customer service area in addition to the drive-through. <
> ### Policy AP-WC 8 Wake Crossroads Parking Design Parking lots in Wake Crossroads should be located behind buildings within the interior of a block and should not occupy more than 1/3 of the frontage of the block face. Convenient pedestrian connections from the parking lots to the street front and additional building entries should be provided. <
> ### Policy AP-WC 9 Wake Crossroads Street Grid An interconnecting grid of public streets should guide the development pattern within the Wake Crossroads neighborhood center. Mitchell Mill Road should be designed as a four lane, divided street. Intersecting streets in the core area should designed as Main Street, Parallel Parking streets, transitioning to Neighborhood Streets in residential areas. The street grid should create 400-foot to 500-foot block faces with on-street parking and streetscape. <
> ### Policy AP-WC 10 Mitchell Mill Road Intersection Limits Access to the intersections of Forestville and Watkins roads with Mitchell Mill Road should be limited to maintain the efficiency of traffic circulation. <
> ### Policy AP-WC 11 Mitchell Mill Median A landscaped median should be provided in Mitchell Mill Road from Forestville Road east to Watkins Road. The median shall be at least 20 feet wide to accommodate a minimum width of 8 feet at intersections with left turn bays. A 110-foot right-of-way will be necessary to provide the 20 foot median. <
> ### Action AP-WC 1 Wake Crossroads Greenway Provide a connector greenway from the Harris Creek greenway north along the western side of Watkins Road to create a greenway loop through the Neighborhood Center and back to the Neuse River. ### Action AP-WC 2 Completed 2013 # Map AP-WC1: Wake Crossroads Adopted: 2/15/2005 <
> * Pedestrian Crossing * Proposed Street * Proposed Greenway Corridor * Core Area * Transition Area Map created 8/8/2018 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) # WF Wakefield The Wakefield Small Area Study was adopted in 2022 for the area in northeast Raleigh along Falls of Neuse Road between the Neuse River and Capital Boulevard. The actions and policies of the plan speak to the main goals of increasing safety, adding crossings for people traveling on foot and by bike, and increasing access to the area’s greenways. ### Policy AP-WF 1 Wakefield Greenway Access Development adjacent to greenways, side-paths, and multi-use paths should incorporate access to the property via these means into the design to ensure pedestrian and bicycle friendly design. ### Policy AP-WF 2 Tree-lined Corridors Preserve trees along major streets in the Wakefield area, particularly those designated as Parkway on the Urban Form Map, to maintain existing tree yards and the forested character of the area. If trees cannot be preserved, new trees, bioswales, or other water quality controls should be used on properties along major streets. ### Action AP-WF 1 Falls of Neuse Road High Quality Intersections Build high quality intersections with pedestrian crossings in all directions at the intersection on Falls of Neuse Road and Village Pines Lane, Wakefield Pines Drive, Dunard Street, and Forest Pines Drive. ### Action AP-WF 2 Wakefield Pines Drive High Quality Intersections Build high quality intersections with pedestrian crossings in all directions at the intersections of Wakefield Pines Drive and Old Falls of Neuse Road, Sycamore Grove Lane, and Spruce Tree Way. ### Action AP-WF 3 Richland Creek Greenway Extend the planned Richland Creek Greenway north of Falls of Neuse Road to North Forest Pines Elementary School. Evaluate the potential for an underpass to cross Falls of Neuse Road. ### Action AP-WF 4 Multi-modal Access to Falls of Neuse Road Establish a new side-path, multi-use path, or greenway along Falls of Neuse Road, connecting the Neuse River Greenway to Wakefield Crossing and Wakefield Commons. ### Action AP-WF 5 Multi-modal Access to Wakefield Pines Drive Establish a new side-path along Wakefield Pines Drive. #### Action AP-WF 6 Falls of Neuse Mid-block Crossing Build a mid-block crossing that connects sidewalks and side-paths along Falls of Neuse Road to the median multi-use path and potential Richland Creek Greenway. *** #### Action AP-WF 7 Wakefield Pines Drive Crossing Establish an enhanced crossing of Wakefield Pines Drive near Wakefield High School, including tools like a HAWK signal to increase safety. *** #### Action AP-WF 8 Neighborhood Bikeways Establish signed bikeways along neighborhood streets, including Dunard Street, London Bell Drive, Strafford Hall Drive, and Narrowood Street. *** #### Action AP-WF 9 Separated Bikeways Establish separated bike lanes along Kelway Drive, Spruce Tree Way, Wakefield Crossing Drive, Wakefield Commons Drive, Common Oaks Drive, and Green Elm Lane. *** # WM West Morgan The West Morgan Area Study creates a vision for land use and urban form for a historic, mixed-use neighborhood on the west side of downtown Raleigh. The study area is defined as the area between Hillsborough Street and the CSX rail corridor, with Ashe Avenue and St. Mary’s Street forming the western and eastern boundaries respectively. Key goals of the study include preserving the scale, walkability, and character of the neighborhood as well as encouraging new development with a blend of uses that complement the historic context. The study also recommends parking management that minimizes visual impacts. Connectivity is a priority in the study, which calls for greater integration with bicycle, pedestrian, and transit networks and improved access to Dix Park and Pullen Park. ### Policy AP-WM 1 Mixed-use and Pedestrian Scale The West Morgan District should remain primarily a mixed-use district. Both neighborhood scale residential and non-residential uses should be permitted so long as they are pedestrian-oriented. ### Policy AP-WM 2 Safe and Attractive Streetscape The West Morgan District should be pedestrian-oriented, with wide sidewalks, new lighting, underground utilities, street trees, limited driveways, crosswalks, slow traffic with bike lanes, and active ground floor uses. Streetscapes should vary to reflect context of immediately adjacent uses. ### Policy AP-WM 3 Targeted Open Space Encourage the inclusion of usable open space in residential developments and use open space to mitigate increased building height and density by locating it in a manner that reduces the perceived bulk of new structures. Preserve existing open spaces contained in residential uses. ### Policy AP-WM 4 Historic Character The existing garden apartments and historic single-family structures should be preserved, and adaptive reuse should be encouraged in the district. ### Policy AP-WM 5 Activated Public Realm Encourage vertical mixed-use new development and require all new structures to be primarily accessed and oriented toward public streets. ### Policy AP-WM 6 Integrated Parking On-street parking should be maximized to limit the need for new off-street spaces and parking decks. Off-street parking should not be adjacent to the right-of-way. Encourage redevelopment of existing surface parking lots. ### Policy AP-WM 7 Building Height and Stepbacks Building heights at street edges should be limited to form a generally consistent street wall of 3-4 stories, with any additional height stepped back from the street. Taller structures should mitigate the impact of their height through the use of setbacks, stepbacks, smaller footprints, and smaller scale uses at the street edge. West Morgan ### Action AP-WM 1 Removed 2022 *** ### Action AP-WM 2 Bicycle Network Prioritize construction of bicycle lanes on Ashe Avenue, West Morgan Street, and Hillsborough Street, and sharrows on St. Mary’s Street as called for in the city-wide bicycle plan. *** ### Action AP-WM 3 Removed 2022 *** ### Action AP-WM 4 Pedestrian Routes to Parks Conduct a study to determine additional pedestrian route improvement to existing routes to Pullen Park and Dorothea Dix Greenway. *** ### Action AP-WM 5 Historic District Creation Create a National and/or Local Historic District for the West Morgan area and Pullen Park Neighborhood. *** ### Action AP-WM 6 Conservation Easements Work with Preservation North Carolina and landowners to explore feasibility and desirability of conservation easements as a tool to protect historic resources. *** ### Action AP-WM 7 Completed 2021 *** ### Action AP-WM 8 Traffic Analysis Explore options for removing a traffic lane on Morgan Street and Hillsborough Street in order to create additional provide bicycle lanes or on-street parking. *** ### Action AP-WM 9 State Property Redevelopment Establish contact with the State of NC Property Office to determine future of or interest in redevelopment of Division of Prisons office and parking lots. *** # Map AP-WM1: West Morgan Adopted: 6/7/2011 Amended: 12/1/2020 <
> | | | | :--- | :--- | | **Pedestrian Path** | **Parking Recommendations** | | **Proposed Greenway Corridor** | **Diagonal Spaces** | | **Height Recommendations** | **Potential Shared Lot** | | **Private Open Space** | **Potential Redevelopment / Structured Parking** | | **Public Open Space** | | Map created 1/8/2021 by the Raleigh Department of City Planning (blank page) section 17 # Implementation 17.1 Zoning Regulations and Consistency ........................................... 17-3 17.2 Relation to Capital Improvement Planning and Other City Plans ....................................................................... 17-4 17.3 Comprehensive Plan Updates and Amendments .................... 17-5 17.4 Small Area Studies ............................................................................ 17-7 17.5 Participation in Planning .................................................................. 17-9 17.6 Action Plan ........................................................................................ 17-13 Action Matrix All Items ............................................................................. 17-16 Action Matrix Completed Items.............................................................. 17-89 The adoption of this Comprehensive Plan is the first step in the implementation process. It is the product of considerable effort on the part of the City of Raleigh and its City Council, Planning Commission, Department of City Planning, as well as many other municipal departments, community leaders, and concerned citizens. Continuing action to implement the Plan will be needed for it to have lasting impact. Working with a range of implementation partners, the Department of City Planning will be the lead facilitator to implement the Plan and coordinate consistency reviews among municipal departments. This Implementation Section describes how the policies and actions in the Comprehensive Plan should be carried out. It provides recommendations for administering the planning process and enhancing linkages between the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and it identifies actions to be considered during the update of the city’s development regulations. It recommends steps to be taken to monitor, evaluate, and update the Plan on a regular basis. In the Action Plan section and the Action Plan Matrix, each of the Plan’s action items is assigned to an agency and given a timeframe and priority ranking. Ties to the Capital Improvement Program are made explicit. All of the actions listed in the Action Plan Matrix are excerpted from the elements of the Plan and the reader is advised to consult the relevant section for more information and context. The Comprehensive Plan is used to guide private and public development. The city uses the Plan to assess the appropriateness of proposed development cases including zoning actions and special exceptions. All the Sections of the Comprehensive Plan are used to assess development applications, including both the narrative policies and applicable maps. The Plan is also used to assess the appropriateness of public development actions, proposed CIP items, and the siting of public facilities. To track the efficiency of the city’s policies, any of the Comprehensive Plan’s vision themes that may be relevant to a particular policy are indicated by one of six icons. The vision themes are: <
> Economic Prosperity and Equity. <
> Expanding Housing Choices. <
> Managing Our Growth. <
> Coordinating Land Use and Transportation. <
> Greenprint Raleigh. <
> Growing Successful Neighborhoods and Communities. In this Section and throughout the Plan, Key Policies used to evaluate zoning consistency are noted as such with an orange dot (<
>). Implementation # 17.1 Zoning Regulations and Consistency Zoning is the primary tool for implementing the Comprehensive Plan’s policies, particularly the Future Land Use Map. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) substantially revised and reorganized the zoning regulations that existed when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The UDO was adopted in 2013 and includes new definitions, updated development and design standards, and new zoning districts that are meant to support the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan. This section provides guidance on how the zoning regulations should be amended and updated. ### Policy IM 1.1 Consistency of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code Maintain consistency between the city’s development regulations and the Comprehensive Plan such that regulations facilitate and do not inhibit the implementation of Plan policies. <
> ### Action IM 1.1. Completed 2013 ### Action IM 1.2. Annual Review of Development Regulations Annually review and update the city’s regulations to account for any adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments, emerging issues, and market or real estate trends. # 17.2 Relation to Capital Improvement Planning and Other City Plans The city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is an important mechanism to implement public projects and infrastructure improvements. Public dollars will always be limited, so the city should balance its priorities with available revenues and other public funding sources. When updating its annual CIP, the city should consider the priorities that are listed within the Action Matrix. The Comprehensive Plan is the city’s policy guide for issues related to Raleigh’s physical development. Raleigh’s City Charter authorizes the Department of City Planning to prepare a comprehensive plan *“for the purpose of over-all planning for the city rather than disintegrated and disassociated fragments.”* The City Charter also states that the comprehensive plan is intended to *“assist several operating departments of the City in formulating a public policy which will treat the problems of the municipal government as a closely knit whole.”* All of the city’s other plans for development, parks and open space, utilities, public services, and environmental preservation must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ### Policy IM 2.1 Capital Improvement Program Priorities The Comprehensive Plan shall be consulted when establishing priorities within the city’s Capital Improvement Program. <
> ### Policy IM 2.2 Preeminence of the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan shall be the city’s lead and overall policy guide for the growth and development of Raleigh. All other city plans related to the city’s growth and development and related infrastructure plans must be revised to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. <
> ### Policy IM 2.3 Consistency of Other Plans All city departments shall submit annually to the City Manager and Planning Director a list of plans and studies to be undertaken in the upcoming year, to determine joint planning opportunities and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. <
> ### Policy IM 2.4 Return on Investment Major capital projects not tied to immediate life safety or capacity deficiencies should be subjected to a return on investment analysis as part of the prioritization process. The return on capital projects should be based on the ability of the project to catalyze private investment, make efficient use of existing infrastructure, and generate new net revenues. <
> ### Action IM 2.1. Capital Improvement Program Review Criteria Refine the criteria used for the review of capital projects to be included in the CIP. Develop a methodology for estimating and including return on investment in the criteria. ### Action IM 2.2. Revision of Other Plans Review and update the city’s plans to bring them into conformance with the policies of this adopted Comprehensive Plan. ## 17.3 Comprehensive Plan Updates and Amendments This section addresses the process for monitoring, amending, and updating the Comprehensive Plan. It outlines the amendment process and recommended timeframe for amendment cycles as well as for the more extensive periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan every five years. The city needs to be able to measure successes and challenges in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Department of City Planning should prepare an annual report to assess the progress of the city in implementing the Plan’s recommendations and to set priorities for the coming year. This annual assessment should be used to guide city agency programs, capital improvement budgeting, and policy development to better achieve the goals of the Plan. It should be submitted to the City Manager, City Council, and the public. The Department of City Planning should make the progress report a highly publicized effort to demonstrate the important role the Comprehensive Plan plays in decisions that affect the city’s growth and to continue the excellent public involvement process that helped develop the Comprehensive Plan. The city should establish a yearly cycle for minor plan amendments to maintain its relevancy to the public and city government. The cycle should be timed to follow the annual progress assessment, so that lagging implementation items can be revisited. The yearly amendment process should provide an opportunity for individuals, groups, or city agencies to propose a minor amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to address changing social and market conditions or reflect new facility plans and work programs. Minor amendments may include changes to the text or maps of the Comprehensive Plan. Each proposed amendment will require the applicant to provide the burden of proof for the change or addition. In addition to regular annual updates, to maintain the Plan’s currency, the city should undertake periodic thematic updates of the Comprehensive Plan that take a deeper dive into specific topics of pressing concern. These updates should be undertaken every one to two years, and should address topics where the Plan needs more significant amendments to keep pace with a changing world. Examples could include responding to new transit plans and transportation technologies, adapting to a changing climate, structural changes in the local economy, or evolving dynamics in the housing market. A broad-based and authentic public participation process should accompany these periodic updates. As part of the update process, the data compiled for the Community Inventory report has been reformatted into a streamlined document called the Raleigh Data Book. This resource should be kept up to date on an annual or biannual schedule to ensure that all future Plan updates can make use of the latest data and trend analysis. ### Policy IM 3.1 Regular Updates Update the Comprehensive Plan every one to two years to remain current and relevant, focusing on a specific area of pressing concern, informed by a significant public engagement process. <
> Implementation ### Policy IM 3.2 Annual Amendments Amend the Comprehensive Plan on a yearly basis so the Plan may address changes in demography, economic markets, and public priorities. <
> --- ### Policy IM 3.3 Internal Consistency All amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be reviewed for consistency against adopted plan policies. Any policies, existing or proposed, found to be in conflict shall be revised or removed to achieve consistency. <
> --- ### Policy IM 3.4 Amendment Criteria Require the proponent of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to demonstrate its need and justification, as follows: * Significant changes have occurred since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and necessitate the proposed amendment. * Inconsistencies in land use or other plan policies exist in the adopted Comprehensive Plan that affect the city's efficient growth and development. * The city's ability to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan will be increased, or the operations of city government will be enhanced. * The Comprehensive Plan's policies or actions inhibit the ability of the city to achieve other public policy objectives. * Substantial improvement in the quality of life for city residents will be achieved. * Adoption of the proposed amendment is necessary to incorporate public policies established by the city government that are not reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. <
> --- ### Action IM 3.1. Completed 2011 --- ### Action IM 3.2. Annual Progress Report Prepare and publish an annual easy-to-digest report on Comprehensive Plan progress including key accomplishments, critical issues, and key implementing agencies. --- ### Action IM 3.3. Monitoring of Existing Conditions Develop additional data collection and analysis tools for continuous monitoring of issues such as land use and development activity, vacant land and development capacity, and changes in quality (improvement or decline) of environmental and natural resources. --- ### Action IM 3.4. Data Book Updates Update the information in the Data Book every year. --- # 17.4 Small Area Studies To create a more predictable planning framework for the future, Raleigh has updated its planning procedures to replace Area Plans with area-specific planning studies. These studies will be undertaken as part of the Department of City Planning’s work program for defined geographic areas that require more focused study and outreach and will produce more detailed recommendations than can be provided by the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of such studies is to guide long-range development; stabilize and improve neighborhoods, corridors, or other defined areas to achieve citywide goals; and attain economic and community benefits. Area-specific studies will be used, where appropriate, to develop amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map, and/or the Capital Improvement Plan. The studies may also generate strategic recommendations to be implemented outside of the Comprehensive Plan process. Some area-specific policies relevant to land use decisions may be incorporated into the Area-Specific Guidance section of the Comprehensive Plan. However, these area-specific studies will not be adopted in total as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following policies and actions provide guidance on how the city will allow and consider these studies in the future. Review of area-specific studies will be conducted routinely to determine if the area-specific guidance continues to fill its intent and meet the community goals. Area-specific studies may be amended to address recent changes or removed from the Comprehensive Plan if they are deemed to no longer be relevant. ### Policy IM 4.1 Area Planning Studies Prepare area-specific planning studies for parts of the city where detailed direction or standards are needed to guide land use, economic development, transportation, urban design, and other future physical planning and public investment decisions. The focus should be on areas or corridors that offer opportunities for revitalization or new residential, commercial, and mixed-use development and redevelopment, areas with challenges or characteristics requiring place-specific planning actions and public interventions, and areas designated “special study area” on the Future Land Use Map. <
> ### Policy IM 4.2 Area Study Content and Intent Ensure that area-specific planning studies take a form appropriate to the needs of the community and reflect citywide needs, as well as economic development policies and priorities, market conditions, implementation requirements, available staffing resources and time, and available funding. Such studies should address such topics as an existing conditions inventory, future land use recommendations, aesthetic and public space improvements, circulation improvements and transportation management, capital improvement requirements and financing strategies, the need for zoning changes or special zoning requirements, and other implementation techniques. If necessary, as a result of the findings of the area-specific plans, Comprehensive Plan amendments to the plan’s text or maps should be introduced to ensure internal consistency for the areas involved. <
> #### Policy IM 4.3 Area Plan Review Re-examine area plans every 10 years after adoption, and amend or remove those that are fully implemented, superseded by new area plan studies, or are located in areas experiencing major changes such that the existing guidance does not fulfill its intent. Major changes may include new infrastructure or service and significant population shifts <
> #### Action IM 4.1. Area Study Priorities Undertake specific area studies for selected areas, starting with the areas highlighted in Part 5 ‘Economic Development and Land Use’ in Section 4: ‘Economic Development’. #### Action IM 4.2. Removed 2019 #### Action IM 4.3. Area Studies and the Capital Improvement Program Consider the capital improvement recommendations from area and corridor studies during the city’s annual capital improvement planning process. ## Area Plan Review The following criteria will be used to evaluate an area plan’s changing relevancy: * *Action items identified in the area plan have been largely implemented, significant development has occurred, or other capital projects have been implemented in the area.* * *City Council has approved numerous rezoning requests or made other decisions contrary to plan guidance.* * *The trends that informed the plan recommendations have substantially changed or reversed.* * *A foundational aspect of the plan has changed.* ## 17.5 Participation in Planning Public participation is at the core of every planning process. Citizens have the right to help shape the future of their city, and the planning process is one of the primary means of doing so. Additionally, plans developed without adequate input fail to inspire the deep support needed for the hard work of implementation. Raleigh’s Comprehensive Plan accordingly places a high value on public input, both in the creation of the plan and in its ongoing implementation. Public participation does not end with Plan adoption, but continues in the hundreds of meetings and decisions that will take place as the Plan guides the future development of Raleigh. ### Authentic Participation (from the American Planning Associations’s “Sustaining Places”) The American Planning Association’s Sustaining Places initiative is a multiyear effort to define the role of planning in addressing issues related to sustainability. The initiative focuses on comprehensive plans, but its recommendations are relevant to all planning activities. A key element involves what the initiative calls “Authentic Participation.” An excerpt is below. *Ensure that the planning process actively involves all segments of the community in analyzing issues, generating visions, developing plans, and monitoring outcomes.* *Public participation in planning is a mainstay of democratic governance and decision making. By actively involving the whole community in making and implementing plans, the government fulfills its responsibilities to keep all citizens informed and to offer them the opportunity to influence those actions that affect them. In the past, public participation processes did not necessarily reach all segments of the community and may have been viewed by public agencies more as a requirement to meet (for example, by conducting public hearings) than as an opportunity to garner meaningful input. This means that authentic participation processes may have to overcome the perception that what participants say will not be respected. Authentic participation programs go beyond the minimum legal requirements to connect with citizens through innovative communication and outreach channels, such as creative use of the Internet and interactive workshops in locations where people work and live. The comprehensive planning process is an ideal vehicle for opening all stages of plan making to the public, from early issue analysis to finalizing and implementing the plan.* *Best practices in support of the Authentic Participation process include the following:* * *Engage stakeholders at all stages of the planning process.* * *Seek diverse participation in the planning process.* * *Promote leadership development in disadvantaged communities through the planning process.* * *Develop alternative scenarios of the future.* * *Provide ongoing and understandable information for all participants.* * *Use a variety of communications channels to inform and involve the community.* * *Continue to engage the public after the comprehensive plan is adopted.* ## Barriers to Participation While the importance of public input is widely recognized, identifying the ideal planning process has been an elusive goal. Traditionally, the public input process has focused heavily on in-person meetings and workshops. While these meetings, typically held during a weekday evening, can be a valuable means of gathering input and should remain a key component of the input process, they are not without serious drawbacks. While meetings, in theory, may be accessible to all, in practice they often screen out large segments of the public. The first issue is time commitment. Busy parents, those working two jobs, service workers on the evening shift, college students cramming for the exam—these and others may have difficulty freeing up a couple of hours during an evening to participate in a planning workshop. The issue is compounded by the fact that effective participation often requires attendance at multiple public workshops and meetings at different phases of the project, and the adoption process adds multiple additional meetings. Where one meeting might pose a hurdle, a year or more of meetings can be a wall. The planning process should not be a test of endurance, where the person willing and able to attend a long series of planning and adoption meetings enjoys, de facto, greater weight in the process than the working mom who managed to fit in one meeting (or online survey) into her schedule. The format of many planning meetings also favors certain groups over others, particularly those who are regular participants in civic affairs. People with limited mobility, limited English speakers, those who are uncomfortable speaking in groups, and people not well versed in the language of planning all are less likely to participate in this way. <
> In addition to filtering out specific groups, the high barriers to participation tend to filter out categories of opinion. For many planning decisions, the benefits may be diffuse and further in the future, while the perceived detriments may be more localized and immediate. Those who see some mild personal or public benefit to a project or plan are less likely to invest their time in support of it. Those who perceive an immediate threat are more likely to deeply engage. The beneficiaries, even if greater in number, are often outvoiced by those objecting to a change. Finally, many citizens do not participate because they do not have confidence that their input will matter. While not all suggestions can be incorporated and not all ideas are equal, a minimum expectation for someone participating in a planning process should be that their thoughts are documented, retained, and, where possible, receive a specific response. That response should be in the form of an explanation of how the input shaped, or did not shape, the final product. ## Solutions: Making Input Easier The problems described above should concern anyone interested in truly democratic and equitable planning. Planning departments, including Raleigh’s, have increasingly recognized the limitations of traditional methods and have worked to mitigate these with a range of strategies. Planners have created an expanded toolkit for engagement, including “pop-up” events aimed at bringing the meeting to the people, rather than requiring people to come to the meeting. Other techniques and tools, such as making more information available online and using surveys (both in-person and online), have expanded the conversation further, bringing new participants into the process. Even traditional meetings can be made more accessible by choosing convenient locations; providing on-site childcare for families and translators for persons of low English proficiency; purging presentations and meeting materials of obtuse and technical language; using clear visuals; and using facilitation techniques and electronic polling to overcome the tendency of louder voices to dominate the conversation. However, more work is needed, and technology is making new solutions available. In an age where we entrust our financial transactions and our public personas to web sites and social media apps, there are no obvious obstacles to shifting much of the planning conversation online as well. There is no particular reason why a resident must attend an in-person meeting to have her or his voice heard, and there is no reason why online input should be devalued in relation to in-person input. While technical challenges remain, the future will be one where meaningful participation in the planning process is not contingent on the ability to attend a series of meetings. If votes are taken in person, they should be taken online as well. If meetings take place in person, they should be available, in real time and with the ability to participate, online as well. <
> <
> <
> The second major means of making the planning process more accessible and democratic is less about technical advancements and more about how input is perceived. Human nature tends to give more weight to the person in the room than to an abstract tally on an online survey. However, the luxury of being able to attend a meeting in person should not translate into a louder voice in the process. It is incumbent upon all public servants to ensure that all input is treated with respect and given equal weight in the planning process. These solutions can be summarized in a guarantee to ensure that Raleigh’s citizens enjoy three essential rights: * ***The right to participate.*** *Participation in the planning process will be accessible to all residents, regardless of physical ability, age, English fluency, ability to attend all meetings in person, and any other factor that presents a barrier to participating in decisions about the future of Raleigh.* * ***The right to understand.*** *Information about the planning process and alternatives must be presented plainly and understandably. Once input is provided, citizens have a right to an explanation of how it was considered and whether and how it affected the outcome.* * ***The right to an equal voice.*** *Input is equally valued regardless of how it is provided, whether it is in the form of attendance at an in-person meeting, an online meeting, a survey, or other means.* Finally, with rights come responsibilities. In this case, those participating in the public input process have the responsibility to give thought to alternative perspectives and to consider the effects of decisions on the city and region as a whole and in the long term. The Plan’s establishment of these rights will make Raleigh a leader in creating a truly authentic and meaningful planning process and, more importantly, create a more engaged citizenry and a more just city. ### Policy IM 5.1 Access to Participation Design and implement planning processes that are accessible to the greatest possible number of citizens, regardless of whether they are able to attend meetings in person. <
> ### Policy IM 5.2 Authentic Participation In every planning process, carefully document the input received and report back to the community with a summary of major themes and an explanation of how the input was incorporated into the final plan. <
> ### Policy IM 5.3 Equality of Input Give equal weight in the planning process to public input regardless of the form in which it is provided. <
> ### Action IM 5.1. Completed 2021 # 17.6 Action Plan This part of the Implementation Section includes an “Action Plan Matrix” that summarizes all actions in the Comprehensive Plan. All of the actions listed in the Matrix are excerpted from the Plan’s Sections, and the reader is advised to consult the relevant chapter for more information and additional context for each action listed. The Action Plan Matrix includes the responsible agency, the timeframe for implementation, level of priority, and whether actions will require capital funds for implementation. Relative to the timeframe designation, short-term actions should be completed within one to two years, mid-term actions should be completed within three to five years, long-term actions should be completed within five to ten years, and on-going actions should remain a constant priority of the city. Responsibilities are assigned at the departmental level. Where multiple departments are specified, the first to be listed is the designated lead agency, with subsequently-listed departments in a supporting role. Most actions involve multiple departments, in keeping with the intent to mobilize expertise across the city’s organization to ensure the best achievable outcome for all undertakings. ## Action Matrix The Action Plan Matrix is maintained as a spreadsheet document for ease of maintenance. It is incorporated into this document by reference, and can be downloaded as a PDF at the website of the City of Raleigh Department of City Planning. The following tables contain the key to all the terms and acronyms used in the action matrix. ### Timeframe | Term | Description | | :--- | :--- | | Short-term | One to two years | | Mid-term | Three to five years | | Long-term | Six to ten years | | On-going | No predetermined start or end time | ### Action Type | Term | Description | | :--- | :--- | | Development regulations | Zoning, codes, ordinance-related; site planning and development | | Study/plan | Studies, plans, evaluations, research into options, inventories, demonstration projects | | Coordination/outreach | Convening and coordinating; educating, promoting, marketing | # Action Type (continued) | Term | Description | | :--- | :--- | | Systems/support | Adjustments to or expansion of current core systems; continuing support to systems currently in place; implementation of pre-existing plans/programs; improvements to infrastructure, community facilities | | Program/organization | Programmatic changes/additions; development of new tools, processes, and programs; creation of new institutions | | Financial | Issues of funding and financing | # Agency Acronyms | Internal Agencies | Acronym | | :--- | :--- | | Budget and Management Services | B&MS | | City Attorney’s Office | CAO | | City Clerk’s Office | CCO | | City Manager’s Office | CMO | | Communications, Dept. of | COM | | Economic Development, Office of | ED | | Emergency Communications Center | ECC | | Engineering Services | ES | | Equity and Inclusion, Dept. of | EI | | Finance, Department of | DOF | | Housing and Neighborhoods, Dept. of | H&N | | Information Technology Department | IT | | Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources | PRCR | | Planning and Development, Dept. of | PLANDEV | | Public Utilities Department | PUD | | Raleigh Convention and Conference Center | RCCC | | Raleigh Fire Department | RFD | | Raleigh Police Department | RPD | | Solid Waste Services Department | SWS | # Agency Acronyms (continued) | Internal Agencies | Acronym | | :--- | :--- | | Sustainability, Office of | OS | | Transportation, Dept. of | RDOT | | Outside Agencies | Acronym | | :--- | :--- | | Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization | CAMPO | | Capital Area Preservation | CAP | | Community Action Committees | CAC | | GoRaleigh | GR | | GoTriangle | GT | | North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources | NCDENR | | NC State Historic Preservation Office | NCSHPO | | North Carolina Capital Planning Commission | NCCPC | | North Carolina Department of Transportation | NCDOT | | North Carolina State Construction Office | NCSCO | | North Carolina State Property Office | NCSPO | | North Carolina State University | NCSU | | Preservation North Carolina | PNC | | Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority | RDAA | | Raleigh Chamber of Commerce | RC | | Raleigh Housing Authority | RHA | | Triangle J Council Of Governments | TJCOG | | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | USACOE | | Wake County Community Services | WCCS | | Wake County Environmental Services | WCES | | Wake County Planning Department | WCPD | | Wake County Public School System | WCPSS | | Wake Technical Community College | WTCC | | Private Sector (includes developers, property owners, neighborhood groups, non-profits) | PRIV | # Action Plan Matrix | Number | Action | Responsible Agencies | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 3. LAND USE** | | | | | | | **3.1 Future Land Uses** | | | | | | | Action LU 1.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 1.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 1.3 | Special Study Area Plans | PLANDEV | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action LU 1.4 | Future Land Use Map Maintenance and Revision | PLANDEV, CAO | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action LU 1.5 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 1.6 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | **3.2 Citywide Growth** | | | | | | | Action LU 2.1 | Future Studies in High-density Areas | PLANDEV | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action LU 2.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 2.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 2.4 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 2.5 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action LU 2.6 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action LU 2.7 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agencies | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **3.4 Equitable Development Around Transit** | | | | | | | Action LU 4.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 4.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 4.3 | Station Area Plans | PLANDEV, RDOT | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action LU 4.4 | Equity Fund | B&MS, COM | Short-term | Financial | N | | Action LU 4.5 | Equitable Transit Oriented Development | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 4.6 | Non-Residential Density Bonus | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 4.7 | Eliminate Parking Requirements | PLANDEV, RDOT | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | **3.5 Land Use Compatibility** | | | | | | | Action LU 5.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 5.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 5.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | **3.6 Mixed-use Development** | | | | | | | Action LU 6.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agencies | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **3.7 Commerical District and Corridors** | | | | | | | Action LU 7.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 7.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 7.3 | Promoting Commercial Reinvestment | ED, PLANDEV, H&N | On-going | Study/plan | N | | **3.8 Neighborhood Conservation and Development** | | | | | | | Action LU 8.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action LU 8.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action LU 8.3 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action LU 8.4 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 8.5 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 8.6 | Infill Compatibility Analysis | PLANDEV, CAO | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | **3.9 Research and Development/Institutional Land Use** | | | | | | | Action LU 9.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 9.2 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action LU 9.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agencies | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **3.10 Retail Land Uses** | | | | | | | Action LU 10.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | **3.11 Industrial Land Uses** | | | | | | | Action LU 11.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 11.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | **3.12 Large Site Development** | | | | | | | Action LU 12.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action LU 12.2 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action LU 12.3 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 4. TRANSPORTATION** | | | | | | | **4.1 Land Use and Transportation Coordination** | | | | | | | Action T 1.1 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action T 1.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action T 1.3 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | **4.2 Roadway System and Transportation Demand Management** | | | | | | | Action T 2.1 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action T 2.2 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action T 2.3 | Right-of-way Reservation | RDOT, ES, PLANDEV | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action T 2.4 | Limited Access Lane Management | RDOT, ES, NCDOT | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action T 2.5 | Inter-modal Facility Prioritization | RDOT, CAMPO | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action T 2.6 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action T 2.7 | Special Transportation Studies | RDOT, PLANDEV | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action T 2.8 | Transportation Funding Strategy | RDOT, ES | On-going | Financial | Y | | Action T 2.9 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **4.3 Complete Streets: Hierarchy and Design** | | | | | | | Action T 3.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action T 3.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action T 3.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action T 3.4 | Converted to Policy 2021 | | | | | | Action T 3.5 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | **4.4 Public Transportation** | | | | | | | Action T 4.1 | Multimodal Transportation Center | PLANDEV, RDOT, ES, GR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action T 4.2 | Transit Stop Evaluations | RDOT | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action T 4.3 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action T 4.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action T 4.5 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action T 4.6 | Park and Ride Lots | RDOT, ES | Short-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action T 4.7 | Shared Parking and Transit | RDOT | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action T 4.8 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action T 4.9 | Completed 2016 | | | | | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action T 4.10 | Local Financing for Transit | RDOT, PLANDEV, DOF, B&MS | Long-term | Financial | Y | | Action T 4.11 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action T 4.12 | Bench and Shelter Siting | RDOT, CMO | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action T 4.13 | Completed 2012 | | | | | | Action T 4.14 | Service Targets | RDOT, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action T 4.15 | Frequent Network Map | RDOT, PLANDEV, COM | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action T 4.16 | Downtown Services | RDOT, GR | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action T 4.17 | Paratransit Efficiency and Coordination | RDOT, GR | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action T 4.18 | Public Education and Marketing | RDOT | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action T 4.19 | Bike, Ride and Car Share | RDOT | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action T 4.20 | Low-income Fares | GR, GT | Short-term | Financial | N | | **4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation** | | | | | | | Action T 5.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action T 5.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action T 5.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action T 5.4 | Completed 2012 | | | | | | Action T 5.5 | Trail and Path Width | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action T 5.6 | Bicycle Plan Implementation | RDOT | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action T 5.7 | Completed 2011 | | | | | | Action T 5.8 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action T 5.9 | Converted to Policy 2022 | | | | | | Action T 5.10 | Pedestrian Crossing Standards | RDOT, PLANDEV, CAO | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action T 5.11 | Crosswalk Safety | ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action T 5.12 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action T 5.13 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action T 5.14 | Railroad Greenway Trails | PRCR, RDOT, PLANDEV | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action T 5.15 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | **4.6 Parking Management** | | | | | | | Action T 6.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action T 6.2 | Removed 2021 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action T 6.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action T 6.4 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action T 6.5 | Completed 2010 | | | | | | **4.7 Transportation Safety Improvements** | | | | | | | Action T 7.1 | Street Lighting | ES | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action T 7.2 | Crash Analysis | RDOT, ES | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action T 7.3 | Traffic Calming | RDOT, PLANDEV, CAO | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 7.4 | Vision Zero | RDOT, PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | **4.8 Commercial Truck and Rail Freight** | | | | | | | Action T 8.1 | Railroad Crossing Safety | RDOT | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action T 8.2 | Improving Freight Movement | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | **4.10 Emerging Technologies** | | | | | | | Action T 10.1 | Curbside Space | RDOT, PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action T 10.2 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action T 10.3 | Automated Vehicles | RDOT, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION** | | | | | | | **5.1 Energy Security and Climate Change Preparedness** | | | | | | | Action EP 1.1 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action EP 1.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action EP 1.3 | Energy Retrofits | OS, ES, B&MS | Long-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Action EP 1.4 | Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) | ES | Long-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Action EP 1.5 | Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) | OS, CAO | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 1.6 | Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Incentives | PLANDEV, CAO | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 1.7 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action EP 1.8 | Solar and Distributed Energy Resource Incentives | OS | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 1.9 | Energy Efficient Construction | OS | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 1.10 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action EP 1.11 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action EP 1.12 | Charging Stations | ES | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EP 1.13 | Renewable Energy Economic Development | OS | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 1.14 | Renewable Energy Deployment | OS | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 1.15 | Fleet Transformation | ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action EP 1.16 | Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Education | OS, COM | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 1.17 | Home Efficiency Rating | OS, PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 1.18 | Energy Efficiency First Policy | OS, CMO | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 1.19 | Solar Access | PLANDEV, OS, CAO | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | **5.2 Design with Nature** | | | | | | | Action EP 2.1 | Natural Resources Inventory | OS, PLANDEV, PRCR, ES | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 2.2 | Removed 2021 | | | | | | Action EP 2.3 | Natural Resources Sustainability Team | OS | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 2.4 | Environmentally Sensitive Development Controls | PLANDEV | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 2.5 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **5.3 Water Quality and Conservation** | | | | | | | Action EP 3.1 | Converted to Policy 2021 | | | | | | Action EP 3.2 | Incorporation of Green Infrastructure/ Low Impact Development into City Code | PLANDEV, PUD, CAO | Long-term | Development regulations | N | | Action EP 3.3 | Drinking Water Conservation | PUD, PLANDEV, CAO | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 3.4 | Stormwater Management Projects for Water Quality | ES, PUD | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action EP 3.5 | Illegal Discharges | ES, PUD | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 3.6 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action EP 3.7 | Stormwater Plan Review | ES | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 3.8 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action EP 3.9 | Upper Neuse Initiative | PUD, PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action EP 3.10 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action EP 3.11 | Protections for Steep Slopes | PLANDEV, ES, CAO | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action EP 3.12 | Stream/Watercourse Restoration | ES, PLANDEV | On-going | Program/ organization | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EP 3.13 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action EP 3.14 | The Lower Little Rock Creek Walkable Watershed Concept Plan | ES, PUD, RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | **5.4 Flood Reduction and Preparedness** | | | | | | | Action EP 4.1 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action EP 4.2 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action EP 4.3 | Floodplain Management Best Practices | ES, CAO, CMO | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 4.4 | Floodplain Regulations | ES, PLANDEV, CAO | Long-term | Development regulations | N | | Action EP 4.5 | Converted to Policy 2021 | | | | | | **5.5 Tree Canopy Conservation and Growth** | | | | | | | Action EP 5.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action EP 5.2 | Tree Canopy Study | PRCR, WCES | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 5.3 | Removed 2014 | | | | | | Action EP 5.4 | Utility Coordination | PRCR, PRIV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 5.5 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action EP 5.6 | NeighborWoods | PRCR | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EP 5.7 | Tree Canopy Assessment | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 5.8 | Converted to Policy 2022 | | | | | | **5.6 Wildlife and Habitat Protection and Preservation** | | | | | | | Action EP 6.1 | Habitat Plan | PRCR | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 6.2 | Habitat Protection Regulations | PRCR | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 6.3 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | **5.7 Material Resource Management** | | | | | | | Action EP 7.1 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action EP 7.2 | Completed 2011 | | | | | | Action EP 7.3 | Waste-to-energy Demonstration | SWS, PRIV | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | Y | | Action EP 7.4 | Environmentally-friendly Product Use | SWS | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 7.5 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action EP 7.6 | Removed 2021 | | | | | | Action EP 7.7 | Environmentally Preferable Purchasing | DOF, B&MS, CMO | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **5.8 Light and Noise Pollution Controls** | | | | | | | Action EP 8.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action EP 8.2 | Dark Sky Incentives | PLANDEV, CMO | Long-term | Development regulations | N | | Action EP 8.3 | Non-essential Lighting | PLANDEV, CMO | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | **5.9 Environmental Education, Awareness and Coordination** | | | | | | | Action EP 9.1 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action EP 9.2 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action EP 9.3 | Renewable Energy Education | OS, CMO | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 9.4 | Local Food Systems | PLANDEV, H&N, PRCR | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 9.5 | Environmental Indicators | OS, ES, PUD, PRCR | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 9.6 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action EP 9.7 | Urban Agriculture Plan | PLANDEV, PRCR, ES | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 9.8 | Food System Plan | PLANDEV, H&N | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT** | | | | | | | **6.1 Commercial Corridor Reinvestment** | | | | | | | Action ED 1.1 | Strategic Revitalization Plans | PLANDEV | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action ED 1.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action ED 1.3 | Shopping Center Revitalization Incentives | ED, PLANDEV, CMO, H&N | On-going | Financial | N | | Action ED 1.4 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action ED 1.5 | Promoting Commercial Reinvestment | ED, PLANDEV, CMO, H&N | Mid-term | Financial | N | | **6.2 Neighborhood Reinvestment** | | | | | | | Action ED 2.1 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action ED 2.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action ED 2.3 | Developing Funding Resources | H&N, PLANDEV, CMO | Mid-term | Financial | N | | Action ED 2.4 | Site Acquisition | H&N, PLANDEV, CMO | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action ED 2.5 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action ED 2.6 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **6.3 Entrepreneurs and Business Development** | | | | | | | Action ED 3.1 | Business Assistance Program | ED, CMO | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action ED 3.2 | Entrepreneurial Education | ED, PLANDEV, CMO, NCSU | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action ED 3.3 | Wake Tech Green Collar Program | ED, PLANDEV, CMO, WTCC | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action ED 3.4 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action ED 3.5 | Green Technology Strategy | OS, ED, CMO, PRIV | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action ED 3.6 | Financial Assistance for New Retailers | ED, CMO | Mid-term | Financial | N | | **6.4 Workforce Training and Access to Employment** | | | | | | | Action ED 4.1 | Education and Emerging Sectors | ED, CMO, WCPSS | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action ED 4.2 | Summer Job Programs | H&N, PRIV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action ED 4.3 | Wake County Retraining Coordination | ED, H&N, WCCS | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | **5.5 Economic Development and Land Use** | | | | | | | Action ED 5.1 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action ED 5.2 | Targeted Economic Development Plans | ED, PLANDEV, H&N | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action ED 5.3 | Infrastructure Investments in Underper-forming Areas | ED, PLANDEV, PUD | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action ED 5.4 | Capital Improvement Funding | DOF, B&MS, PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action ED 5.5 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action ED 5.6 | Completed 2019 | | | | | | Action ED 5.7 | Equitable Development around Transit | ED, COM | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | **6.6 Hospitality and Tourism** | | | | | | | Action ED 6.1 | Downtown Cultural Investments | RCCC, CMO, PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action ED 6.2 | Tourism Itineraries | RCCC, PRCR, COM | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action ED 6.3 | Cultural Resource Preservation | ED, PLANDEV, CMO | On-going | Development regulations | N | | **6.7 Creative Industries** | | | | | | | Action ED 7.1 | Converted to Policy 2014 | | | | | | Action ED 7.2 | Downtown Arts Development | PLANDEV, RCC, CMO | On-going | Program/ organization | N | Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **6.8 Organization Structure and Functions** | | | | | | | Action ED 8.1 | Economic Development Vision and Strategic Plan | RC, ED, CMO | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action ED 8.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action ED 8.3 | Economic Development Administration | ED, PLANDEV, CMO | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action ED 8.4 | Economic Development Communication | ED, PLANDEV, CMO | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action ED 8.5 | Reinvestment Partnerships | ED, PLANDEV, CMO | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action ED 8.6 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action ED 8.7 | Prioritization Methodology | RC, ED, PLANDEV | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action ED 8.8 | Post-disaster Strategic Planning | OS, ECC, RFD, RPD | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 7. HOUSING** | | | | | | | **7.1 Quality and Diversity of Housing** | | | | | | | Action H 1.1 | Affordable Rental Program Expansion | H&N | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action H 1.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action H 1.3 | Converted to Policy 2014 | | | | | | Action H 1.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action H 1.5 | City and RHA Coordination | H&N, RHA, PLANDEV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action H 1.6 | Housing Variety | PLANDEV, H&N, CAO | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | **7.2 Affordable Housing** | | | | | | | Action H 2.1 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action H 2.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action H 2.3 | Removed 2015 | | | | | | Action H 2.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action H 2.5 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action H 2.6 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action H 2.7 | Fast-Tracking Affordable Units | PLANDEV, CAO | Short-term | Development regulations | N | Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action H 2.8 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action H 2.9 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action H 2.10 | Education Materials for Removing Barriers | H&N, PLANDEV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action H 2.11 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action H 2.12 | Monitoring of Expiring Subsidies | H&N | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action H 2.13 | Housing Acquisition and Preservation | H&N | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action H 2.14 | Impact Fee Waivers | DOF, PLANDEV | Long-term | Financial | N | | Action H 2.15 | Completed 2012 | | | | | | Action H 2.16 | Housing Program Capacity | H&N, PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action H 2.17 | Land for Affordable Housing | H&N, CMO | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action H 2.18 | Converted to Policy 2022 | | | | | | Action H 2.19 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action H 2.20 | Projects Involving City Owned Land | PLANDEV, CMO | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action H 2.21 | Affordable Housing Production Goal | H&N, PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action H 2.22 | Non-Profit Support | H&N | Mid-term | Financial | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action H 2.23 | Additional Affordable Housing Tools | H&N, CMO | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action H 2.24 | Zoning for Mixed Income | PLANDEV, CAO | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action H 2.25 | Equitable Housing around Transit | PLANDEV, H&N, B&MS | On-going | Program/ organization | Y | | Action H 2.26 | Housing Fund and Incentives | B&MS, CMO, PLANDEV | On-going | Financial | N | | Action H 2.27 | Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance | H&N | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action H 2.28 | Tenant Legal Assistance | H&N | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action H 2.29 | Assistance with Homeownership Costs | H&N | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action H 2.30 | Youth Skills | ED | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action H 2.31 | Predatory Purchase | H&N | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | **7.3 Addressing Homelessness and Special Needs** | | | | | | | Action H 3.1 | Removed 2021 | | | | | | Action H 3.2 | Very Low Income Housing | H&N | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action H 3.3 | Removed 2022 | | | | | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action H 3.4 | Converted to Policy 2014 | | | | | | Action H 3.5 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | **7.4 Fair Housing, Universal Design, and Aging in Place** | | | | | | | Action H 4.1 | Tax Relief for Seniors | DOF, H&N | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action H 4.2 | Fair Housing Ordinance Review | OEI, H&N, CAO | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action H 4.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action H 4.4 | City Sponsored Residential Construction and Rehabilitation | H&N | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action H 4.5 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 8. PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE** | | | | | | | **8.1 Planning for Parks** | | | | | | | Action PR 1.1 | System Plan Update | PRCR | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action PR 1.2 | Greenway Plan Update | PRCR | Short-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action PR 1.3 | Promote Parks as Economic Assets | ED, PRCR, COM | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action PR 1.4 | Provide Regional Connectivity | PRCR, RDOT, DCP | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | **8.2 Park System and Land Acquisition** | | | | | | | Action PR 2.1 | Converted to Policy 2022 | | | | | | Action PR 2.2 | Grant Requests and Partnerships | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action PR 2.3 | Search Area Methodologies | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action PR 2.4 | Facility Fee for Acquiring and Developing New Parks | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action PR 2.5 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action PR 2.6 | Provision for Publicly Accessible Parks | PLANDEV, PRCR, CAO | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | ## Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **8.3 Greenway System Land and Trails** | | | | | | | Action PR 3.1 | Capital Area Greenway System | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 3.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action PR 3.3 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action PR 3.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action PR 3.5 | Open Space Corridors | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action PR 3.6 | Resilience and Green Infrastructure Network | PRCR, PUD, ES | Short-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Action PR 3.7 | Greenway Connection Improvements | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 3.8 | Multi-modal Integration | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 3.9 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action PR 3.10 | Public Awareness and Stewardship | PRCR | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action PR 3.11 | Signage and Wayfinding | PRCR, ES, RDOT | Short-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 3.12 | Development Adjacent to Greenways | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 3.13 | Converted to Policy 2021 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action PR 3.14 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action PR 3.15 | Regional Network | RDOT, PRCR, DCP | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action PR 3.16 | Trail Safety | PRCR | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action PR 3.17 | Maintenance Standards | PRCR, ES, RDOT | Short-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Action PR 3.18 | Greenway Trail Lighting | PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 3.19 | Flood Monitoring Program | PRCR, ES | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | Y | | Action PR 3.20 | Fee-In-Lieu of Greenway Construction | PRCR, PLANDEV, CAO | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | **8.4 Recreational Facilities and Programs** | | | | | | | Action PR 4.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action PR 4.2 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action PR 4.3 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action PR 4.4 | Creating Opportunities for Active Living Choices | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 4.5 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action PR 4.6 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action PR 4.7 | Removed 2019 | | | | | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **8.5 Open Space and Special Landscapes** | | | | | | | Action PR 5.1 | Mandatory Open Space Corridor Dedication | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action PR 5.2 | Converted to Policy 2014 | | | | | | Action PR 5.3 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action PR 5.4 | Identify Conservation Lands | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action PR 5.5 | Inventory Private Park Facilities | PLANDEV | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action PR 5.6 | Amend UDO to Promote Open Space | PLANDEV, CAO | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action PR 5.7 | Facility Fees for Park Projects | PRCR, CMO | Short-term | Financial | N | | Action PR 5.8 | Cost Sharing for Greenway Connections | PRCR, ES, CMO | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | **8.6 Management and Stewardship** | | | | | | | Action PR 6.1 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action PR 6.2 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action PR 6.3 | System Integration Plan Implementation | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action PR 6.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action PR 6.5 | Awareness of Natural Resource Areas | PRCR | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action PR 6.6 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | **8.7 Dorothea Dix Park** | | | | | | | Action PR 7.1 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action PR 7.2 | Public Participation in Programming | PRCR | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 9. PUBLIC UTILITIES** | | | | | | | **9.1 Sytems and Adequacy** | | | | | | | Action PU 1.1 | Completed 2012 | | | | | | Action PU 1.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | **9.2 Utility Extensions** | | | | | | | Action PU 2.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action PU 2.2 | Utility Plan Updates | PUD | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action PU 2.3 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action PU 2.4 | Removed 2016 | | | | | | Action PU 2.5 | Merger Town Development Policies Regarding Utilities | PUD, PLANDEV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | **9.3 Drinking Water** | | | | | | | Action PU 3.1 | Falls Lake Water Supply Study | PUD | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action PU 3.2 | Removed 2014 | | | | | | Action PU 3.3 | Water Conservation | PUD, COM | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action PU 3.4 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action PU 3.5 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **9.4 Wastewater Collection and Dispersal** | | | | | | | Action PU 4.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action PU 4.2 | Pigeon House Branch Restoration | PUD, ES | Long-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action PU 4.3 | Bio-Energy at Neuse River Plant | PUD | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action PU 4.4 | Removed 2021 | | | | | | Action PU 4.5 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | **9.5 Stormwater** | | | | | | | Action PU 5.1 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action PU 5.2 | Stormwater Fee Review | ES, CMO | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action PU 5.3 | Watershed Studies | ES, PUD | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action PU 5.4 | Converted to Policy 2022 | | | | | | Action PU 5.5 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | **9.6 Energy and Telecommunications** | | | | | | | Action PU 6.1 | Distributed Generation Pilot Project | ES, PRIV | Long-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Action PU 6.2 | Cogeneration Pilot Project | OS, ES, PRIV | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action PU 6.3 | Coordination with Utilities | PLANDEV, PUD, PRIV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES** | | | | | | | **10.1 Community Facilities and Services** | | | | | | | Action CS 1.1 | Land Demand Projections | PLANDEV, PRCR | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action CS 1.2 | Sustainable and Resilient Development Plan | OS, ES, B&MS | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action CS 1.3 | Land Acquisition | B&MS, PRCR, RFD, PUD | On-going | Systems/ support | Y | | Action CS 1.4 | Completed 2011 | | | | | | Action CS 1.5 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action CS 1.6 | Retrofit Municipal Buildings | ES, OS | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action CS 1.7 | Shared Space | CMO | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | **10.2 Solid Waste** | | | | | | | Action CS 2.1 | Enterprise Resource Planning and Solid Waste | SWS, IT, DOF | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action CS 2.2 | Full-cost Accounting for Waste Management | SWS | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action CS 2.3 | Mandatory Recycling | SWS | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action CS 2.4 | Solid Waste Monitoring | SWS | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action CS 2.5 | Alternative Waste Disposal Techniques | SWS | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action CS 2.6 | Solid Waste Services and Design Standards | SWS, CMO | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action CS 2.7 | Regulations for Recyclables Storage | PLANDEV, CAO | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action CS 2.8 | Removed 2015 | | | | | | **10.3 Public Safety** | | | | | | | Action CS 3.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action CS 3.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action CS 3.3 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action CS 3.4 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action CS 3.5 | Completed 2022 | | | | | | Action CS 3.6 | Completed 2022 | | | | | | Action CS 3.7 | Field Operation Units | RFD | On-going | Study/plan | N | | **10.4 Fire and Emergency Response** | | | | | | | Action CS 4.1 | Measuring Level of Service | PLANDEV, RFD, RPD | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | **10.5 Health and Human Services** | | | | | | | Action CS 5.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 11. URBAN DESIGN** | | | | | | | **11.1 Raleigh's Identity** | | | | | | | Action UD 1.1 | Wayfinding Improvements | RDOT, PLANDEV, COM | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action UD 1.2 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action UD 1.3 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action UD 1.4 | Gateway Design in Focus Areas | PLANDEV, ES, PRCR | Long-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Action UD 1.5 | Moved 2019 | | | | | | Action UD 1.6 | Using Zoning to Achieve Design Goals | PLANDEV, CAO | On-going | Development regulations | N | | **11.2 Design of Mixed-Use Developments** | | | | | | | Action UD 2.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 2.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | **11.3 Appearance and Function of Raleigh's Corridors** | | | | | | | Action UD 3.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 3.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 3.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 3.4 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action UD 3.5 | New Bern Avenue Planting Guidelines | ES, PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **11.4 Creating Inviting Public Spaces** | | | | | | | Action UD 4.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | **11.5 Designing Successful Neighborhoods** | | | | | | | Action UD 5.1 | LEED-ND Program | PLANDEV, B&MS | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action UD 5.2 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | **11.6 Active Mobility** | | | | | | | Action UD 6.1 | Converted to Policy 2014 | | | | | | Action UD 6.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | **11.7 Design Guidelines** | | | | | | | Action UD 7.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action UD 7.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 7.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 7.4 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action UD 7.5 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 7.6 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 7.7 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action UD 7.8 | Completed 2013 | | | | | Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **11.8 Transit-supportive Design** | | | | | | | Action UD 8.1 | Station Area Plans | PLANDEV, RDOT, GR | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action UD 8.2 | Transit-supportive Pedestrian Networks | PLANDEV, RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action UD 8.3 | Transit-supportive Bicycle Networks | PLANDEV, RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action UD 8.4 | Station Area Parking Facilities | RDOT, GR, CMO | On-going | Program/ organization | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 12. HISTORIC PRESERVATION** | | | | | | | **12.1 Raleigh's Historic Identity** | | | | | | | Action HP 1.1 | Historic View Corridors | PLANDEV | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 1.2 | Evaluation of Archaeological Significance | PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 1.3 | Cultural and Heritage Tourism Marketing | PLANDEV, PRCR, COM | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action HP 1.4 | Wayfinding and Interpretive Signage | PLANDEV, PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action HP 1.5 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action HP 1.6 | Historic Resource Interpretation Through Digital Technologies | PLANDEV, COM | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | **12.2 Planning, Zoning and Neighborhood Conservation** | | | | | | | Action HP 2.1 | Existing Survey and Designation Reports | PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action HP 2.2 | Periodic Updates of Survey | PLANDEV | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 2.3 | Historic Resource GIS Data | PLANDEV, IT | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action HP 2.4 | Historic Landscape Surveys | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 2.5 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action HP 2.6 | Downtown Historic Overlays | PLANDEV, CAO | Long-term | Development regulations | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action HP 2.7 | Applying Zoning Regulations and Planning Tools | PLANDEV, CAO | On-going | Development regulations | N | | Action HP 2.8 | Transfer of Development Rights | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 2.9 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action HP 2.10 | Preservation Criteria for Capital Projects | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action HP 2.11 | Assessing Impacts to Historic Resources | PLANDEV, CAO | Long-term | Development regulations | N | | Action HP 2.12 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action HP 2.13 | Historic Resource Management | PRCR | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | **12.3 Housing and Building Codes, Rehabilitation, and Adaptive Use** | | | | | | | Action HP 3.1 | Parking Reduction for Adaptive Use | PLANDEV, H&N | On-going | Development regulations | N | | Action HP 3.2 | Historic Resources and Affordable Housing | PLANDEV, H&N | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 3.3 | Housing Code and Preservation Coordination | PLANDEV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action HP 3.4 | City Repair and/or Acquisition | PLANDEV, H&N | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action HP 3.5 | Unsafe Building Code and Preservation | PLANDEV | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action HP 3.6 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action HP 3.7 | Demolition Denial Criteria | PLANDEV, CAO | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | **12.4 Coordination and Outreach** | | | | | | | Action HP 4.1 | Public Outreach | PLANDEV, COM | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action HP 4.2 | Preservation Advocacy Group | PLANDEV | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action HP 4.3 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action HP 4.4 | Completed 2011 | | | | | | Action HP 4.5 | Certified Local Government | PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action HP 4.6 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action HP 4.7 | Converted to Policy 2022 | | | | | | Action HP 4.8 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action HP 4.9 | Completed 2021 | | | | | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **12.5 Funding and Incentives** | | | | | | | Action HP 5.1 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action HP 5.2 | Historic Preservation Loan Fund | PLANDEV | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 5.3 | Preservation Easements and Acquisition | PLANDEV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action HP 5.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action HP 5.5 | Property Tax Freeze for Certified Rehabilitation | PLANDEV, CAO | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 13. ARTS AND CULTURE** | | | | | | | **13.1 Public Art** | | | | | | | Action AC 1.1 | Removed 2016 | | | | | | Action AC 1.2 | Public Art Master Plan | PLANDEV, PRCR, CMO | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AC 1.3 | Completed 2011 | | | | | | Action AC 1.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 1.5 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 1.6 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 1.7 | Public Art Installations | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action AC 1.8 | Public Art in Public Projects | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action AC 1.9 | Public Art on the Capital Area Greenway | PRCR | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action AC 1.10 | Public Art Policy | PRCR | Short-term | Development regulations | Y | | Action AC 1.11 | Iconic Artwork | PRCR | Long-term | Financial | Y | | Action AC 1.12 | Private Development Incentives | PLANDEV, CAO | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AC 1.13 | Public Art in Site Plans | PLANDEV, PRCR | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **13.2 Art and Entertainment Districts** | | | | | | | Action AC 2.1 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 2.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 2.3 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 2.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 2.5 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action AC 2.6 | Cultural Venues in Growth Centers | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | **13.3 Arts and Cultural Venues** | | | | | | | Action AC 3.1 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 3.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 3.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action AC 3.4 | Venue Inventory | PRCR, ED | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action AC 3.5 | Activate Non-traditional Venues | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action AC 3.6 | Partnerships | PRCR | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AC 3.7 | Shared Facilities | RCCC, PRCR | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AC 3.8 | Small Performance Venue | RCCC, PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AC 3.9 | Live-Work Space | PLANDEV, PRCR | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | **13.4 Economic Development through Arts and Culture** | | | | | | | Action AC 4.1 | Attract Artists and Artisans | PRCR, CMO | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action AC 4.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 4.3 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action AC 4.4 | Cultural Tours | PRCR, RCCC, CMO | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AC 4.5 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 4.6 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action AC 4.7 | Connect Artists and Businesses | PRCR, ED | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **13.5 Artistic and Cultural Identity** | | | | | | | Action AC 5.1 | South Park-East Raleigh Cultural District and New Bern Avenue-Edenton Street Cultural District | PLANDEV, PRCR, RDOT | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AC 5.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AC 5.3 | Completed 2022 | | | | | | Action AC 5.4 | Creative Districts | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action AC 5.5 | Community Events | PRCR | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action AC 5.6 | Creative Placemaking Working Group | PLANDEV, PRCR, ED, H&N | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | # SECTION 14. REGIONAL AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION | | | | | | | ## 14.1 Transportation Investments | | | | | | | Action RC 1.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action RC 1.2 | Removed 2016 | | | | | | Action RC 1.3 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | ## 14.2 Land Use and Growth Management | | | | | | | Action RC 2.1 | Regional Growth Management Agreement | PLANDEV, CMO | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 2.2 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action RC 2.3 | Converted to Policy 2021 | | | | | | Action RC 2.4 | Rural Development Guidelines | PLANDEV, CAO | Long-term | Development regulations | N | | Action RC 2.5 | Completed 2012 | | | | | | Action RC 2.6 | Regional Land Use Maps | PLANDEV | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action RC 2.7 | Completed 2022 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **14.3 Economic Development Initiatives** | | | | | | | Action RC 3.1 | Job Retraining Programs | PLANDEV, CMO | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 3.2 | Research Triangle Regional Partnership | PLANDEV, CMO | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 3.3 | Green Technology Strategy | RC, CMO | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | **14.4 Education Investments** | | | | | | | Action RC 4.1 | School Enrollment Projections | PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action RC 4.2 | Removed 2021 | | | | | | Action RC 4.3 | Partnerships with Design and Construction Staff | PLANDEV, ES, WCPSS | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 4.4 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action RC 4.5 | Removed 2021 | | | | | | Action RC 4.6 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action RC 4.7 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | **14.5 Public Libraries** | | | | | | | Action RC 5.1 | Downtown and North Hills Branch Libraries | PLANDEV, CMO | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | Y | | Action RC 5.2 | Wake County Coordination on Library Siting | PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **14.6 Environmental Sustainability and Natural Resources** | | | | | | | Action RC 6.1 | Neuse River Corridor Extension | PRCR | On-going | Study/plan | Y | | Action RC 6.2 | Participation in UNRBA Initiatives | ES, PUD | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 6.3 | Stormwater Discharge Alternatives | ES | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action RC 6.4 | Air Pollution Mitigation Projects | RDOT, ES, OS | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action RC 6.5 | Converted to Policy 2021 | | | | | | Action RC 6.6 | Converted to Policy 2021 | | | | | | Action RC 6.7 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | **14.7 Public Facilities and Infrastructure** | | | | | | | Action RC 7.1 | Solid Waste Plan Implementation | SWS | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action RC 7.2 | Emergency Water Transmission | PUD | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 7.3 | Landfill Capacity Monitoring | SWS | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action RC 7.4 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 15. DOWNTOWN RALEIGH** | | | | | | | **15.1 Future Land Uses** | | | | | | | Action DT 1.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action DT 1.2 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 1.3 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 1.4 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 1.5 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 1.6 | Development Site Database | RC, PLANDEV | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action DT 1.7 | Completed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 1.8 | Identifying Transition Areas | PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action DT 1.9 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action DT 1.10 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action DT 1.11 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | **15.2 Transportation** | | | | | | | Action DT 2.1 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 2.2 | Lane Striping Study | RDOT, ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action DT 2.3 | Downtown Public Realm Study | PLANDEV, RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action DT 2.4 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action DT 2.5 | Converted to Policy 2021 | | | | | | Action DT 2.6 | Completed 2015 | | | | | | Action DT 2.7 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 2.8 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 2.9 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 2.10 | Removed 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 2.11 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 2.12 | Removed 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 2.13 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 2.14 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 2.15 | Completed 2012 | | | | | | Action DT 2.16 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action DT 2.17 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action DT 2.18 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action DT 2.19 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **15.3 Economic Development** | | | | | | | Action DT 3.1 | Financial Assistance for New Retailers | ED, PLANDEV, CMO | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action DT 3.2 | Façade Improvement Incentives | ED, PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | | Action DT 3.3 | Retail Study Implementation | RC | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action DT 3.4 | Downtown Retail Space Inventory | ED, PLANDEV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action DT 3.5 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 3.6 | Promotion of Downtown Assistance Programs | ED, PLANDEV, CMO | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action DT 3.7 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 3.8 | Pedestrian Counts | ED, RDOT | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action DT 3.9 | Heritage Tourism in Downtown | PLANDEV, PRCR, COM | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action DT 3.10 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 3.11 | Coordinating Heritage Tourism Organizations | RCCC | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action DT 3.12 | Support for Creative Talent | PRCR, RCCC, CMO | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action DT 3.13 | Recruiting Hospitality Uses | ED, CMO, PLANDEV | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **15.4 Housing** | | | | | | | Action DT 4.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action DT 4.2 | Converted to Policy 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 4.3 | Tools and Regulations for Affordable Housing | PLANDEV, CAO, H&N | Long-term | Development regulations | N | | **15.5 Parks, Recreation and Open Space** | | | | | | | Action DT 5.1 | Removed 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 5.2 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action DT 5.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action DT 5.4 | Downtown Raleigh Alliance Open Space Improvements | RC, CMO | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action DT 5.5 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action DT 5.6 | Chavis Park | PRCR | Long-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action DT 5.7 | Downtown College Athletic Space | PRCR, CMO | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | Y | | **15.6 Community Facilities and Services** | | | | | | | Action DT 6.1 | Library | PLANDEV, WCCS | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **15.7 Urban Design** | | | | | | | Action DT 7.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action DT 7.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 7.3 | Nash and Moore Square Improvements | PLANDEV, PRCR | Long-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action DT 7.4 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action DT 7.5 | Removed 2021 | | | | | | Action DT 7.6 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action DT 7.7 | Removed 2016 | | | | | | Action DT 7.8 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 16. LOCAL AREA GUIDANCE** | | | | | | | **AP-AB. Arena-Blue Ridge** | | | | | | | Action AP AB.1 | Complete Streets | RDOT, PLANDEV | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.2 | Speed Limit | RDOT | Short-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP AB.3 | Wade Avenue Bridge | RDOT, NCDOT, PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.4 | Lake Boone Trail Bike Lanes | RDOT | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.5 | Hillsborough Street Sidewalk | ES | Short-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.6 | Greenway Connections | PRCR, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP AB.7 | Lake Boone Trail Extension | RDOT | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.8 | Trinity Road Streetscape | RDOT | Long-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP AB.9 | Arena Area Sidewalk Width | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.10 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP AB.11 | Trinity Road Streetscape Plan | RDOT, PLANDEV | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP AB.12 | Arena Area Bus Line | GR, GT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP AB.13 | Trail Connections | PRCR, RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.14 | Forest View Road | RDOT, NCDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.15 | District Linkages | RDOT, NCDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.16 | Wade Avenue Bridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements | RDOT, NCDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.17 | Greenway Connection | RDOT, PRCR, NCDOT, NCSU | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.18 | Railroad Underpass | RDOT, NCDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.19 | Excess Right of Way | RDOT, NCDOT | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP AB.20 | Jackson Park | PRCR | Long-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP AB.21 | Western Boulevard Multi-Purpose Path | RDOT, PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.22 | Transit Station Planning | PLANDEV, GR, RDOT | Short-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP AB.23 | Rail Bridge Pedestrian Amenities | RDOT, NCDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.24 | Xebec Way | PLANDEV, RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP AB.25 | Bus Stops | GR, GT | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP AB.26 | Improved Bus Facilities | RDOT, GR | Mid-term | Financial | N | | Action AP AB.27 | Streetscape Plan | RDOT, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP AB.28 | Station Area Planning | GR, RDOT, PLANDEV | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP AB.29 | Street Lighting | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.30 | Completed 2022 | | | | | | Action AP AB.31 | Street Network Changes | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.32 | Grade-Separated Crossings | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AB.33 | Support Edwards Mill Road Extension | PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP AB.34 | Support Beryl Road Closing | PLANDEV | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | **AP-AF. Avent Ferry** | | | | | | | Action AP AF.1 | Streetscape Improvement Plan | RDOT, ES | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP AF.2 | Pedestrian Crossings | RDOT, ES | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP AF.3 | Future Land Use at Avent Ferry Road and Tryon Road | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **AP-AW. Avent West** | | | | | | | Action AP AW.1 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action AP AW.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP AW.3 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP AW.4 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP AW.5 | Avent West Greenway Links | RDOT, PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP AW.6 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP AW.7 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP AW.8 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP AW.9 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action AP AW.10 | Removed 2015 | | | | | | **AP-BC. Brier Creek Village** | | | | | | | Action AP BC.1 | Completed 2014 | | | | | | Action AP BC.2 | Center of the Region Enterprise Transit Loop Coordination | RDOT, TJCOG | On-going | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP BC.3 | Brier Creek Village Center Traffic Planning Coordination | RDOT, PLANDEV | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **AP-BN. Buffaloe-New Hope** | | | | | | | Action AP BN.1 | Completed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP BN.2 | Pedestrian Improvements | RDOT | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP BN.3 | LED Street Lighting | ES, RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP BN.4 | Sidewalk Repair | RDOT | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP BN.5 | Landscaping and Sidewalk Obstruction | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP BN.6 | Safety Improvements | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP BN.7 | Safety Evaluations | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | **AP-BP. Blount Street/Person Street Corridor** | | | | | | | Action AP BP.1 | Signal Timing | RDOT | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP BP.2 | Roundabouts | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP BP.3 | Green Infrastructure | ES | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP BP.4 | Road Diet | RDOT, ES | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | ### Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP BP.5 | Lane Configuration for Two-Way Traffic | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP BP.6 | Midblock Pedestrian Crossings | RDOT, NCDOT, ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP BP.7 | Pedestrian Crossings on Wake Forest Road | RDOT, ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | **AP-CB. Capital Boulevard** | | | | | | | Action AP CB.1 | Completed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP CB.2 | West Street Extension and Fairview Road Interchange Removal | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.3 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action AP CB.4 | Valley Super Street | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.5 | West Street Improvements | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.6 | Atlantic Avenue/Brookside Drive Roundabout | RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP CB.7 | North Boulevard Consolidation | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.8 | North Person Street Extension | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.9 | Six Forks Road Extension | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP CB.10 | Crabtree Creek to Crabtree Boulevard | PRCR, RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.11 | North Boulevard Park | ES, PRCR, NCDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.12 | Valley Multi-Purpose Trail | ES, PRCR, NCDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.13 | Devereux Meadows Park | PRCR, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.14 | Southeast High Speed Rail Viaduct | RDOT, ES, NCDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.15 | Bus Transit | RDOT, ES, GR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.16 | Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.17 | Green Infrastructure | ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | **AP-CN. Capital North** | | | | | | | Action AP CN.1 | Bicycle Transitions to Interchanges | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CN.2 | Quick-Build Bicycle Projects | PRCR | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CN.3 | Pedestrian Circulation in the I-440 Interchange | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP CN.4 | Streetscape Plan | RDOT, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP CN.5 | Pedestrian Crossings | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CN.6 | Marsh Creek Greenway Land Acquisition | PRCR, PLANDEV | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CN.7 | New Civic Life in Existing Spaces | PRCR, PLANDEV | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP CN.8 | Safety by Design | PRCR | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP CN.9 | Applying TOD Urban Form | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP CN.10 | De-emphasizing Capital Boulevard Frontage | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP CN.11 | Retrofitting Shopping Centers | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP CN.12 | Homeowner Education | H&N | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP CN.13 | Funding Healthy Lifestyles | PLANDEV, CMO | Short-term | Financial | N | | Action AP CN.14 | Business Alliance Startup Grant and Support | ED, CMO | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP CN.15 | Small Business Grant Program | ED | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP CN.16 | Small Business Incubator | ED, EI | Mid-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP CN.17 | Northwest Technology Corridor | ED, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP CN.18 | First Source Agreements | B&MS, CAO | Short-term | Financial | N | | Action AP CN.19 | Job Skills Training | ED, ES | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP CN.20 | Density Bonus for Retail Space | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP CN.21 | Public Improvement Reimbursement Schedule | RDOT, CAO | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP CN.22 | Monitor Success | PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP CN.23 | Community Leadership Workshops | H&N | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP CN.24 | Creating a Gateway to Raleigh | RDOT, PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CN.25 | CPTED in New Projects | PLANDEV, PRCR, RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP CN.26 | Grants for Visible Beautification | H&N | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP CN.27 | Capital North Custom Streetscapes | RDOT, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP CN.28 | Activating Existing Spaces | PLANDEV, ECC | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP CN.29 | Run/Bike to Celebrate Success | PRCR, ECC, RDOT | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP CN.30 | Neighborhood Loops | PRCR, RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | **AP-CP. Cameron Park** | | | | | | | Action AP CP.1 | Hillsborough Streetscape Improvements | RDOT, ES, PLANDEV | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CP.2 | Removed 2015 | | | | | | Action AP CP.3 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action AP CP.4 | West Park Drive Curb | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CP.5 | College Place Parking Study | RDOT | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP CP.6 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action AP CP.7 | Removed 2015 | | | | | | **AP-CR. Crabtree** | | | | | | | Action AP CR.1 | Glenwood Avenue Pedestrian Bridge | RDOT, ES, CAO | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | **AP-DE. Dix Edge** | | | | | | | Action AP DE.1 | City-owned Property | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP DE.2 | Educational Services | CE, H&N | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP DE.3 | Dix Edge Heritage and Cultural Committee | CE, COM | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP DE.4 | City-initiated Rezoning | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP DE.5 | Greenway-oriented Development Framework | PLANDEV, PRCR | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP DE.6 | Transit Improvements | RDOT, GR | Short-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP DE.7 | Bus Stop Bulbs | RDOT, ES | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP DE.8 | Lake Wheeler Road and Hammell Drive Streetscape Plans | PLADEV, RDOT | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP DE.9 | Trail Networks | PRCR, PRIV | Ongoing | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP DE.10 | Stream and Wetland Signage | PRCR | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | **AP-DW. Downtown West Gateway** | | | | | | | Action AP DW.1 | Removed 2014 | | | | | | Action AP DW.2 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action AP DW.3 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action AP DW.4 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action AP DW.5 | Completed 2016 | | | | | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP DW.6 | Removed 2014 | | | | | | Action AP DW.7 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action AP DW.8 | Completed 2012 | | | | | | Action AP DW.9 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | Action AP DW.10 | Boylan Avenue Pedestrian Connection | RDOT, ES, PLANDEV, GT | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP DW.11 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action AP DW.12 | Rosengarten Street Extension | RDOT, PLANDEV | Long-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP DW.13 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | **AP-MT. Midtown** | | | | | | | Action AP MT.1 | I-440 Bridges | ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP MT.2 | Green Streets | RDOT, ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP MT.3 | Stormwater Drainage Basin Study | ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP MT.4 | Street Network | RDOT, ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP MT.5 | Millbrook Road Study | RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP MT.6 | Six Forks School and Connectivity Study | RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP MT.7 | Wake Forest Road Corridor Reconditioning Study | RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP MT.8 | Safe Speeds | RDOT | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP MT.9 | Midtown Transportation Demand Management | RDOT | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP MT.10 | Midtown Core High Frequency Route | RDOT, GR | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP MT.11 | Future Midtown Rapid Transit | RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP MT.12 | Midtown Ring | RDOT, ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP MT.13 | Waterfront District Study | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP MT.14 | Affordable Housing Development | H&N | Short-term | Financial | Y | | Action AP MT.15 | Midtown Waterfront Park Acquisition | PRCR, ES | Mid-term | Financial | Y | | Action AP MT.16 | Midtown Waterfront Park Study | PRCR, ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP MT.17 | Crabtree Restoration | ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | Y | | Action AP MT.18 | Commuter Rail Study | PLANDEV, NCDOT, RDOT | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | **AP-SA. Transit Station Areas** | | | | | | | Action AP SA.1 | Affordable Housing Land Acquisition | H&N | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP SA.2 | Affordable Housing Preservation | H&N | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP SA.3 | Low-income Homeownership Costs Assistance | H&N, CAO | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP SA.4 | Make Affordability Legal | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP SA.5 | Workforce Development | ED | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP SA.6 | Small Business Capital Improvements | ED | Short-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP SA.7 | Safe Streets for All | CAO, RDOT | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP SA.8 | Discouraging Unsafe Driving and Unsafe Vehicles | DOF, RPD | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP SA.9 | Intersection Safety | RDOT, RPD | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP SA.10 | Affordable Housing Production | H&N | Mid-term | Financial | N | | Action AP SA.11 | Low-income Homeowner Repair Assistance | H&N | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP SA.12 | Low-income Homebuyer Assistance | H&N | Mid-term | Financial | N | | Action AP SA.13 | Educate Residents | H&N | Short-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP SA.14 | DMV Site | PLANDEV | Short-term | Financial | N | | Action AP SA.15 | Tarboro Community Center | PRCR | Short-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP SA.16 | Wilder’s Grove | PLANDEV, PRCR | Long-term | Program/ organization | Y | | Action AP SA.17 | Falcon Square | PLANDEV, RDOT | Short-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP SA.18 | Tree Canopy | PRCR | Mid-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP SA.19 | New Bern-Tarboro Cultural District | PRCR, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/ plan | N | | Action AP SA.20 | Tarboro-New Bern Cultural District Alliance | ED | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP SA.21 | New Bern-Tarboro Public Art | PRCR | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP SA.22 | Southeast Raleigh Black History & Culture Museum | PRCR, WCCS | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP SA.23 | Community Information Center | H&N, PLANDEV | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP SA.24 | Small Business Alliance Ecosystem | ED, PRCR | Long-term | Program/ organization | N | | Action AP SA.25 | Priority Intersection and Sidewalk Improvements | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP SA.26 | Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **AP-SE. Souteast Special Study** | | | | | | | Action AP-SE 1 | Consider Relinquishment of Long Range Urban Service Area | PLANDEV, WCPD | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP-SE 2 | Compact and Conservation Development Option | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP-SE 3 | Regional Open Space Preservation | PRCR, PLANDEV | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP-SE 4 | Brownfield Landfill | ES, NCDENR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP-SE 5 | Apply Special Highway Overlay District | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP-SE 6 | Build Regional Greenways | PRCR | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP-SE 7 | Protect and Enhance Streams and Wetlands | PLANDEV, ES | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP-SE 8 | Stormwater Analysis | ES | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP-SE 9 | Utilizing Land Resources as an Economic Development Asset | ED, OS | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP-SE 10 | Collaboration with Wake County Public Schools | OS, WCPSS | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP-SE 11 | Expand Buffers along the Neuse River and Tributaries | PRCR, ES, OS | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP-SE 12 | ETJ Expansion | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP-SE 13 | Enhance Fire Service | RFD, PLANDEV | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP-SE 14 | Revisit the Study Based on Growth Patterns | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP-SE 15 | Alignment with PLANWake | PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP-SE 16 | Overlay District for Residential Development | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP-SE 17 | Evaluate Future Land Use Map | PLANDEV | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP-SE 18 | Evaluate Street Plan Designations | RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | **AP-SP. South Park** | | | | | | | Action AP SP.1 | South Park Pedestrian Improvements | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP SP.2 | Garner Road Pedestrian Improvements | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP SP.3 | South Park Redevelopment | H&N, CAO | Long-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP SP.4 | Completed 2016 | | | | | | **AP-WB. Western Boulevard** | | | | | | | Action AP WB.1 | Transit Agency Coordination | RDOT, GR, GT, NCSU | Mid-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP WB.2 | Safer Intersections | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WB.3 | New Streets and Bicycle Networks | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP WB.4 | Frequent and Rapid Bus Route Evaluation | RDOT, GR | Short-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP WB.5 | Green BRT Corridor for Western Extension | RDOT, PLANDEV | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP WB.6 | Pursue Creation of Green TOD District | PLANDEV | Short-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP WB.7 | Environmental Sustainability Master Plan | PLANDEV, OS | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP WB.8 | Wilmington Street Intersection Improvements | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WB.9 | South Saunders Bridge and Pedestrian Access Improvements | RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP WB.10 | Rosengarten Greenway Realignment | PRCR, RDOT | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WB.11 | Pullen Bridge Redesign | RDOT, NCDOT | Long-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP WB.12 | Ashe Avenue Realignment and Improvements | RDOT | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WB.13 | Rocky Branch Creek Restoration and Greenway Connection to Dix Park | PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WB.14 | NCSU Master Plan Updates Coordination | PLANDEV, RDOT | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP WB.15 | Connections Across I-440 Interchange | RDOT | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP WB.16 | Pilot Green TOD District | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP WB.17 | Threatened and Endangered Species Protection | OS | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP WB.18 | Bike Connection South of Hillsborough Street | RDOT | Mid-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WB.19 | Western Extension Area Property Acquisition | PLANDEV, H&N | Mid-term | Financial | N | | **AP-WC. Wake Crossroads** | | | | | | | Action AP WC.1 | Wake Crossroads Greenway | PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WC.2 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | **AP-WF. Wakefield** | | | | | | | Action AP WF.1 | Falls of Neuse Road High Quality Intersections | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WF.2 | Wakefield Pines Drive High Quality Intersections | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WF.3 | Richland Creek Greenway | PRCR | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WF.4 | Multi-modal Access to Falls of Neuse Road | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WF.5 | Multi-modal Access to Wakefield Pines Drive | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action AP WF.6 | Falls of Neuse Mid-block Crossing | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WF.7 | Wakefield Pines Drive Crossing | RDOT, ES | Long-term | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP WF.8 | Neighborhood Bikeways | RDOT | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action AP WF.9 | Separated Bikeways | RDOT, ES | Mid-term | Systems/ support | N | | **AP-WM. West Morgan** | | | | | | | Action AP WM.1 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action AP WM.2 | Bicycle Network | RDOT, ES, PRCR | Long-term | Systems/support | Y | | Action AP WM.3 | Removed 2022 | | | | | | Action AP WM.4 | Pedestrian Routes to Parks | RDOT, PRCR, ES | Short-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP WM.5 | Historic District Creation | PLANDEV | Mid-term | Development regulations | N | | Action AP WM.6 | Conservation Easements | PLANDEV, PNC | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AP WM.7 | Completed 2021 | | | | | | Action AP WM.8 | Traffic Analysis | RDOT | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | Action AP WM.9 | State Property Redevelopment | PLANDEV | Short-term | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 17. IMPLEMENTATION** | | | | | | | **17.1 Zoning Regulations and Consistency** | | | | | | | Action IM 1.1 | Completed 2013 | | | | | | Action IM 1.2 | Annual Review of Development Regulations | PLANDEV, CAO | On-going | Development regulations | N | | **17.2 Relations to Capital Improvement Planning and Other City Plans** | | | | | | | Action IM 2.1 | Capital Improvement Program Review Criteria | B&MS, PLANDEV, CMO | Short-term | Systems/ support | N | | Action IM 2.2 | Revision of Other Plans | PLANDEV, H&N | Mid-term | Study/plan | N | | **17.3 Comprehensive Plan Updates and Amendments** | | | | | | | Action IM 3.1 | Completed 2011 | | | | | | Action IM 3.2 | Annual Progress Report | PLANDEV | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action IM 3.3 | Monitoring of Existing Conditions | PLANDEV, IT | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | Action IM 3.4 | Data Book Updates | PLANDEV | On-going | Systems/ support | N | # Action Matrix I: All Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Time Frame | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **17.4 Small Area Studies** | | | | | | | Action IM 4.1 | Area Study Priorities | PLANDEV | On-going | Study/plan | N | | Action IM 4.2 | Removed 2019 | | | | | | Action IM 4.3 | Area Studies and the Capital Improvement Program | B&MS | On-going | Program/ organization | N | | **17.5 Participation in Planning** | | | | | | | Action IM 5.1 | Completed 2021 | | | | | # Completed Actions | Number | Action | Responsible Agencies | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 3. LAND USE** | | | | | | | Action LU 1.1 | Zoning Update | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 1.2 | Zoning Innovations | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 1.5 | Incorporate Adopted Regulations into Zoning | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 1.6 | Update Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 2.2 | Zoning for Smarter Growth | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 2.3 | Strengthening Site Plan Standards | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 2.4 | Linking Development and Infrastructure | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 2.5 | Regulatory Incentives | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 2.6 | Targeting Development Incentives | DCP, CAO | 2016 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 2.7 | Land Conservation Approaches | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agencies | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action LU 4.1 | Accommodating Mixed Uses | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 4.2 | Connective Site design | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 5.1 | Buffering and Screening Regulations | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 5.2 | Interface Area Standards | DCP | 2013 | Study/plan | N | | Action LU 5.3 | Zoning Changes to Reduce Conflicts | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 6.1 | Zoning Standards for Mixed Use | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 7.1 | Zoning Changes to Reduce Land Use Conflicts in Commercial Zones | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 7.2 | Height and Bulk Hierarchy | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 8.1 | Common Open Space | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 8.2 | Open Space Networks | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 8.4 | Infill Standards | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 8.5 | Infill Procedures | DCP | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agencies | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action LU 9.1 | Zoning for the Tech Sector | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 9.3 | Institutional Overlay District | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 10.1 | Performance Standards for Big Box Retail | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 11.1 | Industrial Zoning Amendments | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 11.2 | Industrial Land Use Compatibility | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 12.1 | PDD Revisions for Large Sites | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action LU 12.2 | Dix Property Acquisition | CMO | 2015 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action LU 12.3 | Dix Property Plan | PRCR, DCP, ES | 2021 | Study/plan | N | Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 4. TRANSPORTATION** | | | | | | | Action T 1.1 | Corridor Preservation | OTP, PW, DCP | 2016 | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 1.2 | Transportation Impact analysis | PW, DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 1.3 | Context Sensitive Solutions | PW | 2016 | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 2.1 | Transportation Demand Management | PW | 2015 | Study/plan | N | | Action T 2.2 | Access Management Plan | PW | 2016 | Study/plan | N | | Action T 2.6 | Reducing Single Occupant Driving | PW, DCP | 2015 | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 2.9 | Connectivity Index | DCP, CAO, PW | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 3.1 | Designation of Complete Streets | DCP, PW | 2014 | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 3.2 | Redefining Road Classification | PW | 2014 | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 3.3 | Street, Sidewalk and Driveway Access Handbook | DCP, PW | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 3.5 | Operationalizing Complete Streets | PW | 2016 | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 4.5 | Transit Infrastructure | OTP, PW | 2016 | Study/plan | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action T 4.8 | Secondary Transit Hubs | RDOT, ES | 2021 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action T 4.9 | Commitment to Regional Rail | OTP, GT, PW | 2016 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action T 4.11 | Bench and Shelter Standards | PW | 2015 | Systems/ support | N | | Action T 4.13 | Transit Stop Design | PW | 2012 | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 5.1 | Sidewalk Inventory | PW | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action T 5.2 | Updating Sidewalk Standards | DCP, CAO, PW | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 5.3 | Sidewalk Requirements | DCP, CAO, PW | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 5.4 | Sidewalk Funding | PW | 2012 | Program/ organization | Y | | Action T 5.7 | Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator | CMO, PW | 2011 | Financial | Y | | Action T 5.8 | Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in Development Regulations | DCP, CAO, PW | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 5.12 | Pedestrian Signals | PW | 2015 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action T 5.13 | Pedestrian Plan | PW | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action T 5.15 | Bikeshare | OTP, RDOT, DS, ES | 2021 | Systems/ support | | # Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action T 6.1 | Large Surface Lots | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 6.3 | Parking Study Implementation | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 6.4 | Criteria for Changing On-Street Parking Regulations | PW | 2014 | Program/ organization | N | | Action T 6.5 | Parking Lot Landscaping | DCP, CAO | 2010 | Development regulations | N | | Action T 10.2 | Parking Demand | DCP, OTP | 2021 | Study/plan | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION** | | | | | | | Action EP 1.1 | Green Purchasing | DOF, B&MS, CMO | 2015 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 1.2 | Public Facility Energy Audit | PRCR | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action EP 1.7 | Green Training | OS, WCES | 2014 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 2.5 | Environmental Feature Protection | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action EP 3.8 | Erosion Control Inspections | PW, DS | 2015 | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 3.10 | Wastewater Treatment Demonstration Project | PUD | 2015 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 4.1 | Flood Mitigation Funding | PW | 2015 | Financial | Y | | Action EP 4.2 | Flood Preparedness | PW | 2015 | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 5.1 | Tree and Landscape Ordinance Amendments | DCP, CAO, PRCR | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action EP 5.5 | Tree Planting Guidelines | PRCR, PW | 2015 | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 6.3 | Invasive Species Control | PRCR | 2021 | Coordination/ outreach | N | # Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action EP 7.2 | Composting | SWS | 2011 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 7.5 | Recycled Material Purchasing | DOF, B&MS, CMO | 2015 | Systems/ support | N | | Action EP 8.1 | Lighting Regulation | PW, CAO, DS | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action EP 9.2 | Public School Environmental Component | PRCR, WCPSS | 2021 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action EP 9.6 | Urban Agriculture Regulations | DCP, CAO, CMO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT** | | | | | | | Action ED 1.2 | Mixed-Use Zoning Incentives | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action ED 2.1 | Selecting Revitalization Focus Areas | DCP, H&N | 2016 | Program/ organization | N | | Action ED 2.5 | Neighborhood Grants for Community Benefits | H&N, DCP, PRCR | 2021 | Study/plan | Y | | Action ED 2.6 | Neighborhood Commercial Regulations | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action ED 3.4 | Home Based and Cottage Industry Regulation | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action ED 5.5 | Mixed-Use Zoning Incentives | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action ED 5.6 | Disposal of City-owned Land | DCP, ED, CMO, CAO | 2019 | Program/ organization | N | | Action EP 7.1 | Pay-As-You-Throw | SWS | 2021 | Program/ organization | N | | Action ED 8.6 | Economic Development Website | DCP | 2014 | Program/ organization | N | Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 7. HOUSING** | | | | | | | Action H 1.2 | Zoning for Mixed Income | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action H 2.8 | Review of Potential Barriers | DCP, CAO | 2016 | Development regulations | N | | Action H 2.9 | Accessory Dwelling Unit Standards | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action H 2.11 | Parking Reductions | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action H 2.15 | Affordable Property Assessments | DOF | 2012 | Study/plan | N | | Action H 2.19 | Create Partnership Program | H&N | 2015 | Program/ organization | N | | Action H 3.5 | Rooming Houses and Transitional Housing | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action H 4.3 | Aging in Place | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action H 4.5 | Focus on the Housing Needs of the Physically Challenged | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 8. PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE** | | | | | | | Action PR 2.5 | Zoning Incentives for Recreation | DCP, PRCR | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action PR 3.3 | Neuse River Trail | PRCR | 2015 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 3.9 | Regional Network | RDOT, PRCR, DCP | 2021 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action PR 3.14 | Implement Maintenance Standards | PRCR, ES, RDOT | 2021 | Program/ organization | Y | | Action PR 4.1 | ADA Accessibility Plan | PRCR | 2014 | Study/plan | Y | | Action PR 4.2 | Sustainable and Resilient Practice Development | PRCR | 2021 | Program/ organization | N | | Action PR 4.3 | Open Space in New Development | DCP, CAO, PRCR | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action PR 4.5 | Performance Standards for Recreation Facilities | DCP, CAO, PRCR | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action PR 6.1 | Innovative Maintenance Strategies | PRCR | 2021 | Program/ organization | N | | Action PR 6.2 | Adopt-A-Park/Adopt-A-Trail | PRCR | 2021 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action PR 7.1 | Collaborative Master Planning | PRCR | 2021 | Program/ organization | N | # Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 9. PUBLIC UTILITIES** | | | | | | | Action PU 1.1 | Infrastructure Plans and the Future Land Use Map | PUD | 2012 | Study/plan | N | | Action PU 1.2 | Enterprise Resource Planning and Utility Rates | PUD, IT, DOF | 2014 | Program/ organization | N | | Action PU 2.1 | Update of Municipal Code | DCP, CAO, PUD | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action PU 2.3 | Reuse Pipe Ordinance | PUD, DCP, CAO | 2015 | Development regulations | N | | Action PU 3.4 | Drought Tolerant Landscaping | DCP, CAO, PRCR | 2015 | Study/plan | N | | Action PU 3.5 | Water Saving Incentives | PUD | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action PU 4.1 | Residential FOG Collection and Reuse Program | PUD, SWS | 2014 | Program/ organization | N | | Action PU 4.5 | Solar Arrays at Neuse River Plant | PUD | 2015 | Study/plan | Y | | Action PU 5.1 | System Inventory and Illicit Discharge Protocol | PW | 2015 | Program/ organization | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES** | | | | | | | Action CS 1.4 | Development Plans Review Group | CMO | 2011 | Program/ organization | N | | Action CS 3.1 | CPTED Development Plan Review | RPD, DCP | 2014 | Systems/ support | N | | Action CS 3.2 | CPTED Partnerships | RPD, DCP | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action CS 3.3 | Police Facility Plan | RPD | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action CS 3.4 | NE/NW Raleigh Field Offices | RPD | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action CS 3.5 | Training Facility Economics | RPD | 2022 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action CS 3.6 | Police Training Facility | RPD, ES | 2022 | Systems/ support | N | | Action CS 5.1 | Zoning for Health and Human Services | DCP | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 11. URBAN DESIGN** | | | | | | | Action UD 2.1 | Regulatory Barriers to Mixed Use | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 2.2 | Stepbacks for Taller Buildings | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 3.1 | Corridor Overlay Districts | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 3.2 | Undergrounding Utilities | PW | 2013 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action UD 3.3 | Parking Lot Design Standards | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 3.4 | Interstate Signage | PW | 2015 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action UD 4.1 | Open Space Standards | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 5.2 | Retaining Landscaping | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 6.2 | Street Tree Provisions | DCP, PRCR, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 7.1 | Lighting Standards | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 7.2 | Zoning Code Review | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action UD 7.3 | Street, Sidewalk, and Driveway Access Handbook Revision | DCP, PW | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 7.4 | Transit Supportive Design Guidelines | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 7.5 | Siting of Service Equipment | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 7.6 | Sign Ordinance Revisions | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 7.7 | PBOD and PD-CU Overlay Revisions | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action UD 7.8 | Unity of Development | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | ### SECTION 12. HISTORIC PRESERVATION | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action HP 1.5 | Special Street Signs | DCP, PW | 2015 | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 2.5 | Local Landmark Designation | DCP | 2021 | Program/ organization | N | | Action HP 2.9 | Limited Historic Overlay District | DCP | 2013 | Study/plan | N | | Action HP 4.4 | In The Districts Newsletter | DCP | 2011 | Systems/ support | N | | Action HP 4.8 | Historic Resources and Museum Program | PRCR | 2021 | Program/ organization | N | | Action HP 4.9 | Historic Resources and Museum | PRCR | 2021 | Study/plan | N | Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 13. ARTS AND CULTURE** | | | | | | | Action AC 1.3 | Public Art Approval Process | CMO | 2011 | Program/ organization | Y | | Action AC 2.5 | Dorothea Dix Park | PRCR | 2021 | Study/plan | N | | Action AC 3.3 | Live/Work Regulations | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action AC 4.6 | Arts and Culture Foundation | CMO | 2021 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action AC 5.3 | Community Arts Training Program | PRCR, CMO | 2022 | Program/ organization | N | | **SECTION 14. REGIONAL AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION** | | | | | | | Action RC 1.1 | Transit Agency Coordination Plan | PW | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action RC 1.3 | Sales Tax Feasibility Study | DCP, PW | 2014 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 2.5 | Developments of Regional Impact | PW, DCP | 2012 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 2.7 | Inter-local Agreement on Affordable Housing | H&N, CMO | 2022 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action RC 4.6 | Pedestrian Access to Schools | DCP | 2014 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 15.** | **DOWNTOWN RALEIGH** | | | | | | Action DT 1.1 | Downtown Zoning District | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 1.3 | Downtown Plan | DCP | 2016 | Study/plan | N | | Action DT 1.4 | Downtown Infrastructure | PW, PUD | 2016 | Study/plan | N | | Action DT 1.5 | Downtown Strategic Plan Update | DCP, PW | 2016 | Study/plan | N | | Action DT 1.7 | Disposal of City-owned Land | DCP, ED, CMO, CAO | 2019 | Study/plan | N | | Action DT 1.9 | Density Bonuses for Public Benefits | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 1.10 | Zoning and High Density Development | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 1.11 | Regulation of Drive-Through Uses | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 2.4 | No Right on Red | PW | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action DT 2.6 | Priority Pedestrian Street Improvements | DCP, PW, B&MS | 2015 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action DT 2.15 | Downtown Parking Master Plan | PW, DCP | 2012 | Systems/ support | N | | Action DT 2.16 | Downtown Parking Model | PW, DCP | 2014 | Systems/ support | N | | Action DT 2.17 | Curb Parking Inventory | PW | 2014 | Study/plan | N | # Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Action DT 2.18 | Parking In-Lieu Fee | DCP, CAO, PW | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 2.19 | Downtown Loading and Service Regulations | PW, DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 3.10 | Concessions in Downtown Squares | DCP, PRCR, CMO, CAO | 2016 | Coordination/ outreach | N | | Action DT 4.1 | Zoning for Downtown Housing | DCP, CAO | 2014 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 5.2 | Downtown Parks Plan | PRCR, DCP | 2021 | Study/plan | Y | | Action DT 5.3 | Development Regulations for Open Space | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 7.1 | Managing High-Rise Impacts | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action DT 7.8 | Wayfinding System Enhancement | DCP, RDOT, ES | 2021 | Study/plan | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **SECTION 16. LOCAL AREA GUIDANCE** | | | | | | | **AP-AB. Arena-Blue Ridge** | | | | | | | Action AP AB.30 | Traffic Calming | RDOT | 2022 | Study/plan | N | | **AP-AW. Avent West** | | | | | | | Action AP AW.1 | Traffic Calming on Beltline Accessways | PW | 2016 | Study/plan | N | | Action AP AW.9 | Western Boulevard Median Replacement | OTP, PW | 2016 | Systems/ support | N | | **AP-BC. Brier Creek Village** | | | | | | | Action AP BC.1 | Brier Creek Parkway Transit Easement | DCP | 2014 | Systems/ support | N | | **AP-BN. Buffalo/New Hope** | | | | | | | Action AP BN.1 | UDO Text Change | OTP, ES | 2019 | Study/plan | N | | **AP-CB. Capital Boulevard** | | | | | | | Action AP CB.1 | Peace Street Interchange | OTP, ES | 2019 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP CB.3 | Capital Boulevard Median | OTP, ES | 2021 | Systems/ support | Y | | **AP-CB. Caeron Park** | | | | | | | Action AP CP.3 | Cameron Park Mixed Use Zoning | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action AP CP.6 | Oberlin Road Lane Study | OTP, PW | 2016 | Study/plan | N | # Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **AP-DW. Downtown West Gateway** | | | | | | | Action AP DW.2 | Industrial-2 Rezoning | DCP, CAO | 2016 | Development regulations | N | | Action AP DW.3 | South Saunders Rezoning | DCP, CAO | 2016 | Development regulations | N | | Action AP DW.4 | Two-Way Traffic Conversions | PW, DCP | 2016 | Development regulations | Y | | Action AP DW.5 | Streetscape Improvements | OTP, DCP, PW | 2016 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP DW.8 | S. West Street Extension | PW, DCP | 2012 | Study/plan | N | | Action AP DW.9 | Street and Pedestrian Connections | OTP, PW, DCP | 2016 | Study/plan | N | | **AP-FN. Falls of Neuse Corridor** | | | | | | | Action AP FN.1 | Falls of Neuse Multi-Purpose Path | PW | 2016 | Systems/ support | Y | | Action AP FN.4 | Dunn/Falls of Neuse Access | RDOT, PRIV | 2016 | Study/plan | N | | Action AP FN.5 | Falls of Neuse/Wide River Drive Connection | RDOT, PRIV | 2013 | Systems/ support | Y | | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **AP-KC. King Charles** | | | | | | | Action AP KC.1 | King Charles Rezoning | DCP, CAO | 2016 | Development regulations | N | | Action AP KC.2 | Longview Gardens Preservation | DCP | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | Action AP KC.3 | King Charles Park Revitalization | PRCR | 2021 | Program/ organization | Y | | Action AP KC.5 | New Bern Corridor Plan | DCP, PW | 2014 | Study/plan | N | | **AP-MV. Mission Valley** | | | | | | | Action AP MV.1 | Centennial to North Campus Connectivity | PRCR, NCSU, PW | 2014 | Systems/ support | Y | | **AP-OE. Olde East Raleigh** | | | | | | | Action AP OE.1 | Olde East Raleigh NCOD | DCP, CAO | 2016 | Development regulations | N | | Action AP OE.4 | Olde East Raleigh Rezoning | DCP, CAO | 2016 | Development regulations | N | | **AP-SP. South Park** | | | | | | | Action AP SP4 | South Park Zoning Amendment | DCP, CAO | 2016 | Development regulations | N | | **AP-WC. Wake Crossroads** | | | | | | | Action AP WC.2 | Wake Crossroads Zoning | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | # Action Matrix II: Completed Items | Number | Action | Responsible Agency | Year Completed | Action Type | Capital Funds Needed (Y/N) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **AP-WM. West Morgan** | | | | | | | Action AP WM.7 | Parking Inventory | OTP, ES | 2021 | Study/plan | N | | Action AP WM.8 | Traffic Analysis | RDOT | 2022 | Study/plan | N | | **SECTION 17. IMPLEMENTATION** | | | | | | | Action IM 1.1 | Revision of Development Regulations | DCP, CAO | 2013 | Development regulations | N | | Action IM 3.1 | Amendment Process Protocol | DCP | 2011 | Program/ organization | N | | Action IM 5.1 | Input Study | DCP | 2021 | Study/plan | N | section 18 # Glossary # 18 Glossary The following Glossary of terms is provided as an aid in understanding and interpreting the Comprehensive Plan by defining terms that may not be familiar to all readers, or by clarifying their usage in the Plan. The glossary is not intended to be an instrument of policy. Definitions found in this glossary were adapted from several sources, including A Planners Dictionary (Michael Davidson and Fay Dolnick, editors; American Planning Association, 2004); the websites for the Federal Highway Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Association of Landscape Ecology; and Wikipedia. The hyperlinks below provide an aid to navigation for the on-line and PDF versions of the Plan. ‘A – D’ | ‘E – H’ | ‘I – L’ | ‘M – P’ | ‘Q – T’ | ‘U – Z’ ## A – D **Access management:** Regulatory control of access to streets, roads, and highways from public roads and private driveways. Controls may include restrictions on the placement of interchanges, restrictions on the type, number, and location of access to roadways, and use of physical controls such as signals, channelization, and medians. **Accessory dwelling unit:** A separate, complete dwelling unit with its own entrance, kitchen, sleeping area, and full bathroom facilities, which is an attached or detached extension to an existing single-family structure. **Adaptive use:** The conversion of obsolete or historic buildings from their original or most recent use to a new use, for example, the conversion of former hospital or school buildings to residential use, or the conversion of an historic single-family home to office use. **Administrative approval:** An official and binding decision delegated to government staff by elected or appointed public officials. **Affordable housing:** Housing that costs less than 30 percent of household income for low- and moderate-income households. Low income is typically defined as 60 percent or below Area Median Income, while moderate is defined as 60 – 80 percent of Area Median Income. Affordable housing may be provided by the market or subsidized by government or nonprofit organizations **Air rights:** The ownership or control of the volume of three-dimensional air space above a piece of land or existing building. **Alternative energy sources:** Energy derived from sources other than those that have historically provided the bulk of energy in a particular market or sector. Alternative energy sources may also produce less pollution or exhibit less price volatility than historic sources. **Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):** A federal law intended to provide disabled people with equitable living and working conditions. It prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified job applicants and workers who are or who become disabled and also sets requirements for handicapped accessibility. **Ancillary retail:** The retail sales of various products in a store or similar facility that is located within and is secondary to a health care facility, hotel, residential development and/or office or industrial complex for the purpose of serving residents, employees, patrons, and visitors. These uses can include pharmacies, gift shops, and food service establishments. **Annexation:** The incorporation of a land area into a municipal corporation with a resulting change in the corporate limits of that municipality. This is the process by which cities extend their municipal services, regulations, voting privileges, and taxing authority into new territory. Annexation can be voluntary (petitioned) or involuntary (city-initiated). **Area median income (AMI):** A commonly used measure of regional income in which the income of a family is defined as the combined pre-tax incomes of all residents over the age of 18 during a single-year period. The median income is the income at which half of all families of a certain size earn more and half earn less. **Assisted housing:** Government provision of housing for senior and disabled citizens, low-cost housing in multi-unit complexes that are available to low-income families, or rental vouchers that allow very low-income families to choose where they want to live. **Automobile dependency:** A result of transportation and land use patterns that do not provide meaningful alternatives to private vehicular travel, such as convenient and efficient provisions for transit, pedestrian, or bicycle travel. **Auto-oriented businesses:** Businesses that offer services for automobiles, such as gas stations, auto repair, auto servicing, and auto sales. Also, business that are dependent on easy automobile access for success, like drive-through fast food restaurants. **Beltline:** The Interstate Highway loop around Raleigh, composed of I-40 and I-440. **Big box:** A large single-tenant, warehouse-like retail building, typically with large parking lot, such as membership buying clubs and home improvement stores. When grouped together, they form a power center. **Biodiversity:** The variety of life and its activities that includes living things and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur, including genetic diversity within species, species diversity within a community, and diversity in a full range of biological communities. **Bio-solids:** By-products of wastewater treatment that have been treated and stabilized to the extent that it is possible to beneficially re-use them, also known as sewage sludge. **Blight:** Community deterioration that is characterized by obsolete, dilapidated, and/or abandoned buildings, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, and trash accumulation. The statutory definition of a "blighted area" can be found in the Urban Redevelopment Law, N.C.G.S. 160A-503. **Brownfield:** Abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. They can be in urban, suburban, or rural areas. **Buffer:** An area of land, which may include landscaping, tree stands, berms, walls, fences, and building setbacks, that is located between land uses of different character or intensity, and is intended to mitigate potential negative impacts of the proximity and adjacency of such different uses. **Building lot coverage (BLC):** The ratio of the ground floor or footprint area of a building to the total lot area. **Building orientation:** The placement of a building within its surrounding context. If a building faces a street, it is said that the building orientation is toward the street. Building orientation sometimes refers to a building's placement in respect to north, south, east, and west. **Bus rapid transit:** A variety of transportation systems that, through improvements to infrastructure, vehicles, and scheduling, uses buses to provide a service that is of a greater speed, frequency, and/or dependability than an ordinary bus line. **Business improvement district:** A special tax assessment district in which property owners agree to have additional charges placed on their tax bills in order to fund services beyond those provided by the local government. These services can include extra maintenance, improved street lighting, beautification, promotional activities, and heightened security. **By-right (also "as-by-right" or "as-of-right"):** A standing legal right, particularly to use property within the limits of the regulations governing the use of such property, without having to justify or gain permission for such use. **Capital Area Greenway:** The greenway system for the City of Raleigh. The greenway system is a network of public open spaces providing for riparian buffers, floodplain protection, and wildlife habitat, as well as recreational trails that provide for outdoor activity such as walking, jogging, hiking, bicycling, and nature study. Glossary **Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO):** The joint quasi-governmental unit that coordinates regional transportation planning for all of Wake County, and for portions of Granville, Franklin, Johnston, and Harnett Counties. **Capital improvement program (CIP):** A short-range, five-year budget used to fund capital projects and equipment purchases. The CIP provides a planning schedule and identifies options for financing costs. CIP programs involve such one-time expenses as facility construction, as opposed to the operating budget that funds routine and recurring expenses. **Car sharing:** A model of car rental in which people pay a membership fee for the ability to rent cars for short periods of time, often by the hour. Car sharing is helpful to those who only occasionally require use of a vehicle or who need access to a vehicle of a different type than they use on a day-to-day basis. **Center of Region Enterprise (CORE):** A multi-jurisdictional planning initiative for the land area between the Raleigh-Durham International Airport and the Research Triangle Park. Six local governments exercise land use control and plan for infrastructure in this area, including Cary, Durham (city), Durham County, Morrisville, Raleigh, and Wake County. In order to create a balanced, sustainable pattern of development in this area, these local governments, regional organizations, and private sector leaders have developed a comprehensive plan for the CORE area. **Certified Local Government:** A federally-based preservation partnership among federal, state, and local governments focused on promoting historic preservation. The program is jointly administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) in each state, with each local community working through a certification process to become recognized as a Certified Local Government. Among other things, the certification makes federal historic preservation grants available to local governments. **City of Raleigh Arts Commission (CORAC):** The official advisory body and advocate for the arts to the Raleigh City Council, which appoints its members. **Climate change:** Any long term change in the climate of the Earth, or of a region or city. Anthropogenic climate change is such change attributed to human activity, including the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to the use of fossil fuels or creation of agricultural or industrial byproducts such as methane. The observed rise in global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures over the past century is also referred to as "global warming." **Cluster development:** A development technique that concentrates buildings on a portion of a site, allowing the remaining land to be used for recreation, open space, or preservation of natural features. **Co-generation:** A power plant that generates both electricity and useful heat for uses such as space and water heating. Because heat is a by-product that is typically wasted, co-generation is more thermodynamically efficient. **Co-location:** The placement of multiple (sometimes related) entities within a single location. In an organization, it refers to placing related roles or groups in a single room, building, or campus. In business, it refers to the practice of locating multiple related businesses in the same location. **Commercial:** A land use, building, or other activity involving the sale of goods or services. **Community Inventory Report:** An extensive review and analysis of conditions and trends in Raleigh, prepared to serve as the factual and analytical foundation for the 2030 Raleigh Comprehensive Plan. **Community rating system (CRS):** A program for recognizing and encouraging community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum National Flood Insurance Program standards. **Commuter rail:** Heavy rail service offered primarily at peak commuting times in the morning and evening. Commuter rail usually makes few stops and extends across a region to connect residential communities with employment centers. **Conditional use zoning:** The attachment of special conditions to a rezoning. Conditions can include restrictions of use, size, design, and development timing as a means to mitigate potential adverse impacts that could be expected to occur without imposing such conditions. The conditions are over and above the restrictions otherwise made on the land through the general zoning category. **Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ):** Coordinated growth management techniques, including traffic level of service requirements, standards for public transit, trip reduction programs, and capital improvement programming for the purpose of reducing the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development. **Conservation subdivision:** Subdivisions featuring shared open space and clustered compact lots. The purpose of a conservation subdivision is to protect farmland and/or natural resources while allowing for the maximum number of residences under the zoning and subdivision regulations. **Context sensitive solutions (CSS):** A transportation facility design approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. It is an interdisciplinary collaboration to develop a facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources while maintaining safety and mobility. **Corridor:** An area including and characterized by proximity to a linear means of travel or movement. Corridors may be constructed by humans (transportation right-of-ways) or present in the natural environment (rivers). **Cottage industry:** A small business, located in a neighborhood, that functions without altering the residential character of the neighborhood. **Cul-de-sac:** A local street having one end open to vehicular traffic and the other end permanently closed at a vehicular turnaround. **Cultural tourism:** Tourism oriented to an area’s unique cultural attributes, including its arts. Cultural tourism can center on urban historic and cultural facilities such as museums and theatres. **Daylighting (streams):** The reconstruction of a previously-piped stream into an exposed channel. Typically the goal is to restore a stream of water to a more natural state. **Demand-responsive transit:** A user-oriented form of public transport characterized by flexible routing and scheduling of small vehicles. The vehicles operate in shared-ride mode between pick-up and drop-off locations according to passenger needs. **Demographics:** Population characteristics commonly including race, age, income, disabilities, mobility (in terms of travel time to work or number of vehicles available), educational attainment, home ownership, and employment status. **Density:** The number of dwelling units per a unit of land area, usually expressed as the ratio of residential units per acre. **Density bonus:** In a development, those additional residential units (exceeding the otherwise allowed residential density) that are granted as a result of the provision of a community amenity, affordable housing, or some other realization of community goals. **Distributed generation:** The creation of electricity from many small energy sources rather than a few more centralized electric plants. **Downtown Raleigh Alliance (DRA):** A consortium of downtown Raleigh businesses and property owners, funded through a special property tax levy, that promotes downtown through marketing and advocacy and also provides services such as sidewalk cleaning, security, and visitor services. **Drainage basin:** The area that contributes storm water to a drainage system or water body. **Dual plumbing system:** A system that utilizes separate and independent piping systems for reclaimed/re-use water and potable water. **Duplex:** A structure on a single lot containing two dwelling units, each separated from the other by walls and having its own direct outside access. # E – H **Ecosystem:** A characteristic assembly of plant and animal life within a specific physical environment and all the interactions among species and between species and their environment. **Effluent:** Something that flows out, particularly the outflow or discharge of wastewater. **Emergency housing:** Temporary housing for low-income families, for a day one to four month period, who are homeless or at risk of homelessness that provides a transition into other housing options. The term is also used to refer to temporary housing for people made homeless by disasters. **Enterprise resource planning (ERP):** A computer system used to manage and coordinate all the resources, information, and functions of an organization. **E-waste (Electronic waste):** Computers, entertainment electronics, mobile phones, and other such items passed on by their original owners, including used electronics destined for re-use, re-sale, salvage, recycling, or disposal. **Extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ):** Authority granted to municipalities to exercise zoning and subdivision powers outside but adjacent to their city limits. It is intended to protect land on the edge of communities from being encroached on by incompatible activities and to provide an orderly extension of services, including utilities and roads. **Façade:** The face of a building, especially the principal face, including the entire building wall, windows, doors, canopies, and visible roof structures. **Fair housing:** The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status in the rental or purchase of homes and other housing-related transactions, such as advertising, mortgage lending, and homeowner’s insurance. **Fast-tracking:** To speed up the processing, production, or construction of a project. **Fats, oils, and grease (FOG):** Usually by-products of food preparation, especially regarding their introduction into a wastewater system. Sanitary sewer systems are not designed or equipped to handle the FOG that can accumulate on the interior of the sewer pipes, causing blockages and overflows. **Fee-in-lieu:** Cash payments that may be required of an owner or developer as a substitute for dedication of land or physical improvements, usually calculated in dollars per lot, square foot of land, or building area, or in dollars per linear foot of street frontage. **Fenestration:** Window and door openings in a building wall, one of the important elements of the exterior appearance of a building. **Fixed guideway:** Any transit service that uses exclusive or controlled right-of-ways or rails. The term includes heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, and bus service operating in exclusive or controlled right-of-ways. **Flag lot:** A parcel of land that is accessible only by a long narrow strip of land leading from the main road. **Flex space:** A building providing flexibility among office and other uses such as manufacturing, laboratory, warehouse, etc. **Floodplain:** The land area susceptible to inundation by water as a result of flood. Typically a floodplain is geographically defined by the likelihood of a flood of a certain severity. A 100-year floodplain would be inundated by a flood whose severity could be expected on average once every 100 years; likewise a 500-year floodplain would be defined by floodwaters whose severity could be expected on average once every 500 years. **Floodway:** That portion of a waterway channel that is, during flooding, extremely hazardous due to the velocity of storm waters, erosion potential, and water-borne debris. **Floor area ratio:** The total floor area of a building or buildings (including all floors in a multi-story building) on a lot, divided by the lot area. **Food System:** The combination of agriculture, processing, distribution, retail, dining, culture, and education that determines the level of access an individual or community has to safe and healthy foods. **Force main:** Pipelines that move wastewater under pressure, usually uphill. Pumps or compressors located in a lift station, rather than gravity, provide the energy for wastewater conveyance in force mains. **Form-based zoning:** A zoning type that allows flexibility in determining land uses within the constraints of a set building type. The look, scale, and layout of an area are controlled but building owners and occupants are allowed within certain parameters to determine how the buildings will be used. **Fossil fuel:** Combustible fuels formed from the decomposition and transformation of organic matter over a geologic time scale. Examples are natural gas, oil, and coal. **Frequent network:** The network of transit routes that operate with frequencies of 15 minutes or better throughout the day. **Geographic information system (GIS):** A method of storing, managing, creating, and analyzing geographic information digitally on computers. **GoRaleigh:** The City of Raleigh’s fixed-route bus and demand-responsive transit system. **GoTriangle:** An authority that provides regional bus service and promotes other transportation demand management techniques in the Triangle area. GoTriangle is also charged with implementing a regional rail transit system. **Grade-separation:** The vertical separation of one horizontal stream of movement from another, such as motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists from trains, or motor vehicles from pedestrians and bicycles. An overpass is an example of a grade separation. **Gravity system:** Conventional wastewater collection systems that convey untreated wastewater through pipelines to a treatment facility or lift station by gravity, not pumping. The pipes are installed with slopes sufficient to propel the wastewater to its destination without being pumped. **Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau:** A not-for-profit marketing organization that promotes tourism and provides resources for convention planners for the Raleigh area. **Green collar job/green industry:** A class of jobs oriented toward environmental protection or resource efficiency and usually requiring expertise in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. Renewable energy, biofuels manufacturing, and climate change adaptation are examples of Green Collar fields. **Green infrastructure:** An interconnected green space network that is planned and managed for its natural resource values and for the associated benefits it confers to human populations [Benedict, Mark and Edward McMahon (2006) “Green Infrastructure,” Island Press]. **Greenfield:** Farmland and open areas where there has been little or no prior development and there is minimal threat of environmental contamination (see also Brownfield in ‘A-D’). **Greenhouse gases:** Gases that absorb light in the infrared spectrum and trap heat within the Earth’s atmosphere. Common greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. **Greenprint:** One of the six themes of the Raleigh 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Greenprint theme promotes Raleigh as a model green city and a leader in environmental sustainability and stewardship. **Gross Density:** Density measured on a district- or area-wide basis when the numerator is typically dwelling units, and the denominator is total land area in the district, area or property inclusive of streets, common areas, conserved open space, and other land within the district or area. **Heritage business:** Businesses that capitalize on local history and culture. **Highway corridor:** A geographical band that lies on both side of and includes a limited access roadway designed for high traffic volumes and connected to a regional or national network of similar roadways. **Historic Overlay District (HOD):** A zoning district that provides protection through design review for buildings and places that are of importance because of their significance in history and/or their unique architectural style. **Hospitality sector:** Businesses that provide food, beverages, or accommodation services, including restaurants, bars, hotels, and contract catering, especially for visitors. **Household:** Any number of related people or a maximum of four unrelated people living together in a single dwelling unit. **Housing First:** An approach to ending homelessness that centers on providing homeless people with housing quickly without pre-conditions and then offers needed services. **Housing Location Policy:** The adopted set of goals and criteria used by the city to determine if a potential affordable housing site will serve the needs of low income residents while preventing undesirable outcomes such as areas of concentrated poverty. **Housing tax credit:** A reduction of taxes for buying a house, often for lower-income and first-time homebuyers. **Housing trust fund:** A program with dedicated sources of funding not subject to an annual appropriations process. The purposes of such a fund are usually to assure an adequate supply of rental housing and increase homeownership for extremely low, very low income and otherwise homeless households. **Human capital:** The stock and accumulation of skills and knowledge gained by workers through education and experience. # I – L **Illicit discharge:** The unlawful introduction of pollutants into the environment, either directly or via public infrastructure. **Impervious surface coverage:** The percentage of the area of a lot that is covered by solid or dense surface through which rain or irrigation water cannot penetrate. **Inclusionary housing:** A development containing market rate dwelling units as well as low- and moderate-income dwelling units. Certain governments may adopt regulations that provide incentives for or require a minimum percentage of housing for low- and moderate-income households in new housing developments and in conversions of apartments to condominiums. **Incorporated/Corporate limits:** The area under the legal jurisdiction of, receiving services from, and paying associated taxes to a municipality. **Infill:** Development or redevelopment of land that has remained vacant or is underused but is in close proximity to areas that are substantially developed. The term is also used to describe construction of new houses on residential lots where the former house has been demolished (see also Teardown in ‘Q – T’). **Infrastructure:** Facilities and services needed to sustain development, land use, and human health and activity. Specific components of infrastructure may be site-based, such as fire stations, parks, schools, and other public facilities; or linear in nature, such as streets; water, sewer, and utility lines; and greenways. **Intensity of land use:** The amount of development and range of uses present on a piece of land and the degree of environmental and infrastructure impacts subsequently produced. Intensity ranges from uses of low intensity (agricultural and residential) to uses of high intensity (heavy industry). Common measures of intensity include residential density, floor-area ratio, hours of operation, trip generation, and performance measures related to light, noise, dust, and vibration. **Intermittent stream:** A stream that only flows for part of the year, typically mapped as a dashed blue line. **Invasive species:** Non-native plants or animals that economically, environmentally, and/or ecologically adversely affect the habitats they invade. **Jobs-housing balance:** The ratio of jobs to housing units. The ratio is considered balanced when the number of jobs is equal to the number of workers per household (typically 1.3). An imbalance of jobs and housing indicates that some workers must commute into or out of the area of analysis. **Joint venture units:** Coordinated public-private sector effort to provide affordable housing. **Knowledge-based industries:** Those industries that are relatively intensive in their need of technology and human capital. **Land clearing and inert debris (LCID):** The removal of vegetation from a site except when land is cleared and cultivated for agricultural uses. Mowing, trimming, pruning, or removal of vegetation to maintain it in a healthy condition is not considered clearing. **Land trust:** A private, non-profit conservation organization formed to protect community assets such as productive farm and forest land, natural areas, historic structures, recreational areas, or affordable housing units. **Land use:** A description of how land is occupied or utilized, usually according to standard categories such as residential, office and industrial. **Landscape ecology:** The study of spatial variation in landscapes at a variety of scales. It includes the biophysical and societal causes and consequences of landscape heterogeneity. **Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED):** A building rating system that provides standards for environmentally sustainable construction. **Leapfrog development:** Development that takes place outside of, but near to, a jurisdiction in order to benefit from cost or regulatory differences between jurisdictions. **Level of service (LOS):** Standards used to measure the quality or effectiveness of a service such as police, fire, or library, or the performance of a facility, such as a street or highway. **Lifestyle center:** Upscale retail areas typically located near affluent neighborhoods. Lifestyle centers tend to be smaller than suburban malls, are often open air, and are devoid of anchor stores. **Long range transportation plan (LRTP):** A strategy developed to guide the public investment in multimodal transportation facilities for 25 to 30 years into the future. The plan may be amended as a result of changes in projected federal, state, and local funding, major improvement studies, interchange justification studies, and environmental impact studies. The plan provides the context for a region’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the short range capital improvement program. **Low impact development (LID):** A comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach with a goal of maintaining and enhancing the pre-development water characteristics and drainage of urban and developing watersheds. **Low-income housing tax credit:** A tax incentive for the use of private money in the development of affordable housing for low-income households. The tax credits are more attractive than tax deductions as they provide a dollar-for-dollar reduction in a taxpayer’s federal income tax, whereas a tax deduction only provides a reduction in taxable income. **Low-moderate income:** Between 50 and 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) (see ‘A – D’). # M – P **Metropolitan planning organization (MPO):** A regional government unit that provides service planning, particularly planning for the transportation system. **Micro-power:** Very small power-generating installations, such as rooftop windmills (see also Distributed Generation in ‘A – D’). **Minimum housing code:** A local government ordinance that sets minimum standards of safety and sanitation for dwellings. Minimum size, electrical safety, and availability of plumbing, heat, and ventilation are usually regulated by such ordinances, among other concerns. Glossary **Mixed-income neighborhoods:** Neighborhoods with housing options for people of a variety of incomes rather than homogeneous income-segregated neighborhoods. **Mixed-use:** Containing two or more of the following major categories of land use: residential, office, retail, hotel, entertainment. The mixing can be vertical, in the form of mixed-use buildings; or horizontal, when part of a Mixed-Use Development, provided the development is walkable. **Mixed-use center:** A special type of mixed-use development that functions as a center by virtue of its size, central location, and a development form characterized by a more intensely developed central area that transitions to lower-intensity areas at its edges. A mixed-use development should have a minimum of 100,000 square feet of retail/restaurant/ entertainment use to qualify as a center. **Mixed-use development:** A walkable development project containing two or more of the following major categories of land use: residential, office, retail, hotel, entertainment. **Multimodal transportation:** The use of more than one type of transportation, particularly the use of modes like bicycles and buses in addition to or other than the single-occupant automobile. **Multi-use fields:** Outdoor recreational space that can be used for more than one specific sport or for informal recreation. **Multi-use path:** A path that can be utilized by more than one type of user, possibly including pedestrians, bicyclists, horseback riders, skaters, and golf carts. **Municipal solid waste (MSW):** Trash and garbage that is collected by a municipality. **Natural areas:** Land and water that have substantially retained their natural character, or although altered in character, are important habitats for plant and animal life. **Neighborhood park:** A park with a neighborhood-sized service area, as opposed to community parks, which have larger service areas and may contain amenities such as swimming pools. **NeighborWoods:** A national program with local affiliates that works to restore and maintain the tree cover in a community. **Net metering:** An electricity policy for consumers who own (usually small) renewable energy generators, such as for wind or solar power. Under net metering, owners receive credit for at least a portion of the electricity they generate. See also Micro-power and Distributed Generation (see ‘A-D’). **No adverse impact (NAI):** A type of drainage basin management in which the actions of one property owner are not allowed to adversely affect the rights of other property owners. The adverse effects or impacts can be measured in terms of increased flood peaks, increased flood stages, higher flood velocities, increased erosion, and sedimentation. **Node:** An identifiable grouping of land uses concentrated in an area, usually of higher intensity than their surroundings. Under the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, nodes are encouraged to be walkable (see ‘U – Z’). **North Carolina Housing Finance Agency:** A state-chartered agency that works to create affordable housing for those whose needs are not met by the general housing market. **North Carolina Mountains to Sea Trail:** A trail consisting of footpaths, roads, and state bicycle routes. When complete it will stretch about 950 miles east-west across the state. **North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission:** The NCWRC regulates hunting and fishing in North Carolina, registers boats, and offers various wildlife programs. **One stop shop:** A location where various needs can be met in one place. In the context of permitting, a single location for obtaining information, forms, and staff assistance for obtaining a variety of permits. **Operating budget:** A type of budget containing a detailed projection of all estimated income and expenses based on forecasted revenue during a given period. The budget allocates money for salaries, utilities, rents, maintenance, and other operating expenses. Glossary **Package treatment plant:** A relatively small wastewater treatment plant that serves an area otherwise not served by municipal wastewater treatment facilities. **Park and ride lot:** A facility designed for parking automobiles, the occupants of which transfer to public transit to continue their trips. **Pedestrian-friendly:** The design of a development plan or area in a manner that encourages walkability. Relevant design elements include density, site layout, building orientation, infrastructure, lighting, and security (see also Walkable in ‘U – Z’). **Pedestrian street:** Pedestrian (-oriented) streets have characteristics that activate the public realm such as active ground floor uses, are designed and posted as low speed (35 and below), include plantings/street trees, sidewalks, and on street parking (or the potential for on street parking). **Performance-based zoning:** Zoning regulations that permit uses based on a particular set of standards rather than on particular type of use. It is a flexible zoning technique designed to evaluate development on a project-by-project basis. The process involves preparing a detailed analysis of existing conditions in the area and estimates the impacts of development on community facilities, the environment, local economic conditions, and on subsequent standards established by the community. **Performance standards:** Verifiable, measurable levels of service in terms of quantity, quality, and timeliness. **Potable water:** Water that is clean enough for drinking and cooking. **Power center:** A retail area dominated by several large anchors, particularly discount department stores, off-price stores, and warehouse clubs. The center typically has few if any small tenants. **Preserve:** An area in which beneficial land uses in their present condition are protected, such as a nature preserve or an agricultural preserve. **Preserve America designation:** A federal program that encourages and supports community efforts to preserve and appreciate local cultural identity through heritage tourism initiatives. **Pressure collection system:** A wastewater collection system that relies on pumping rather than gravity to move wastewater for treatment. **Priority wildlife:** Wildlife species found by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to be of greatest conservation concern and/or need, and so listed in the North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. **Primary watershed protection area:** The area immediately adjacent to a water supply reservoir, with more stringent regulations than the outer-lying secondary watershed. The extents of such protection areas are defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (see also Secondary watershed protection area in ‘Q – T’). **Public art:** A fountain, sculpture, painting, mural, or similar object that is sited as a focal point and is intended for the enjoyment of the general public. The term usually applies to art that is located outdoors on government property. **Public housing:** Rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. **Public realm:** The common areas between private property and buildings, including all public spaces, streets, alleys, sidewalks, parks, plazas, and open space. **Purple pipe:** Pipes containing reclaimed non-drinkable re-use water that is used for irrigation. The water has been treated to make it safe for returning to the environment but not so clean as to be drinkable. # Q – T **Rainwater harvesting:** The accumulation and storage of rainwater. Traditionally rainwater harvesting has provided water for household use, livestock, and irrigation. Glossary **Raleigh Historic Landmark:** A building, structure, site, area, or object designated by Raleigh City Council as being of special significance in terms of historical, prehistorical, architectural, archaeological, and/or cultural importance, and possessing integrity of design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and/or association. **Raleigh Housing Authority:** A local government agency chartered by the State of North Carolina that owns and manages approximately 2,000[^] public housing units and administers more than 3,500[^] rent vouchers. **Redevelopment:** The process of replacing or upgrading existing development. **Redevelopment areas:** Areas in which jurisdictions can use eminent domain to acquire properties for the purpose of improving blighted conditions. The State of North Carolina sets the criteria for identifying these areas and how the properties are subsequently handled by jurisdictions. **Regional rail:** A form of rail transit intended to serve multi-jurisdictional regions. It is similar to commuter rail in coverage, but designed to provide a greater span and frequency of service outside of commuting hours. **Renewable energy:** Energy generated from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, and geothermal heat that are naturally replenished. **Research Triangle Region Partnership (RTRP):** A public-private partnership that works to keep the 13-county Research Triangle region economically competitive through business, government, and educational collaboration. **Resilience:** The ability of an organization to respond, recover, and adapt in the wake of events that disrupt normal service delivery or operational activities **Re-use water:** Waste water that has been treated and made available for purposes such as irrigation and car washes. **Revolving Historic Preservation Loan Fund:** A fund with capital designated for the preservation of historically and architecturally significant properties threatened by demolition or neglect. The fund acquires a property and sells it to a party committed to rehabilitate the historic structure, or provides loans for the same purpose. Proceeds from the sale or loan repayment are returned to the revolving fund in order to assist other endangered historic properties for the same purpose. **Rezoning:** An amendment to the official zoning map that changes the zoning district of an area. **Rip-rap:** Large rocks or concrete chunks applied to the shoreline of a water body to prevent erosion. **Right-of-way:** A strip of land granted for a rail line, highway, or other transportation facility. **Riparian area:** The area of transition between land features and water features, such as a stream bank, shoreline, or the border of a wetland. Riparian areas are characterized by frequently waterlogged soils and distinct types of vegetation adapted to these soils. **Road diet:** a technique whereby the number of travel lanes or width of the roadway is reduced in order to provide for sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes, or landscaped medians. **Safe yield:** A water resources engineering term used to identify the calculated maximum available water supply withdrawal rate capacity in million gallons per day (MGD) of a surface water reservoir during a specified period of time, based on historical tributary streamflow and weather information. Safe yields generally use a 20-year or 50-year time period for these calculations. **Scattered site policy:** Council-adopted guidance for the distribution and location of assisted rental housing in the City of Raleigh. This policy promotes greater rental housing choice and opportunities for low-income households and avoids undue concentrations of assisted rental housing in minority and low-income neighborhoods. **Secondary watershed protection area:** The outer-lying part of the watershed of a drinking water reservoir. The development regulations pertaining to these areas are less stringent than those for the primary watershed protection area (see also Primary watershed protection area in ‘M – P’). **Segregated land uses:** The separation rather than mixing of different types of land uses. Land areas with relatively homogenous land uses result, such as shopping centers, which contain almost exclusively retail uses. **Sense of place:** The characteristics of a location that make it readily recognizable as unique and different from its surroundings and that provide a feeling of belonging to or being identified with that particular place. **Sensitive road design:** See Context sensitive solutions in ‘A – D’. **Single-family attached housing:** Housing in which the dwelling units share vertical party walls, but the structure and land are owned fee-simple. Townhouses and row houses are examples. **Single-family detached housing:** Housing in which each building contains just one dwelling, exclusive of sheds and detached garages. **Site plan:** A map or graphic depicting the development of a tract of land, including the location and relationship of structures, streets, driveways, recreation areas, parking areas, utilities, landscaping, grading, walkways, and other site development information. **Smart growth:** A perspective, method, and goal for managing the growth of a community. It focuses on the long-term implications of growth and how they may affect the community, instead of viewing growth as an end in itself. **Southeast Raleigh Assembly (SERA):** A Raleigh City Council-appointed group that promotes a broad range of economic and social support for Southeast Raleigh. **Special Transit Advisory Commission (STAC):** A regional task force charged to make recommendations regarding long-rang transit planning for the Triangle region. The Commission completed its work in May 2008 and has provided its recommendations to the Triangle Region’s MPOs, including recommendations for bus service, circulator service, and rail transit. **Sprawl:** A development pattern characterized by large expanses of predominantly low-intensity, automobile-dependent development found in outlying suburban and exurban areas (see ‘A – D’). **Step backs:** The reduction of a building’s volume and profile proportional to the building’s height. A pyramidal building consequently has notable step backs whereas a cubic building has no step backs. **Stormwater:** The flow of water that results from precipitation and that occurs immediately following rainfall or a snowmelt. **Stormwater control measures (SCMs):** Methods, measures, practices, and maintenance procedures intended to reduce water pollution and prevent erosion and sedimentation by detaining and treating stormwater on a development site. **Street connectivity:** The extent to which street systems provide multiple routes and connections serving the same origins and destinations, allowing the dispersion of traffic through several routes, and redundancy in the case of congestion or blockage. **Street stub:** A street having only one outlet for vehicular traffic and that is intended to be extended to serve development on adjacent land. **Street tree:** A tree that is currently located or proposed for planting along a street or highway. Such tree can be located on private property or on public land. **Streetcar:** An electric rail-borne vehicle, of lighter weight and construction than a train, designed for the transport of passengers on tracks running primarily on streets. **Street Design Manual:** A publication of the City of Raleigh Public Works Department containing regulations and standards for adequate and coordinated construction of transportation facilities. Glossary **Streetscape:** The visual and experiential character of the linear space defined by the buildings adjacent to a street. The elements of a streetscape include building façades, landscaping, sidewalks, paving, street furniture (benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, fountains, etc.), signs, awnings, and street lighting. **Street wall:** The group of building faces that define the edges of a roadway corridor. **Strip development:** Commercial, retail, or industrial development, usually one lot deep, that fronts on a major street. It includes individual buildings on their own lots and small linear (strip) shopping centers with on-site parking in front of the stores. **Structured parking:** A covered, usually multi-story structure that provides parking areas for motor vehicles, also known as a parking deck. **Student-oriented housing:** Structures intended to house students, particularly college students. Included are dormitories, sorority and fraternity houses, but also multi-bedroom, rent-by-the bedroom apartment units that are marketed to students. **Subdivision:** The division of land into two or more lots. Also a development consisting of subdivided lots. **Supportive housing:** A combination of housing and services intended to help people live more stable, productive lives. Supportive housing targets the homeless and those who also have very low incomes or serious, persistent issues such as substance abuse, mental or physical illness, or who are dually diagnosed. **Surface parking:** Vehicular parking located in one level on the ground, most commonly seen as parking lots. **System integration plan:** A park plan developed prior to the initiation of a Master Plan, containing a set of guidelines for the interim management of parkland, documenting existing site conditions and constraints, establishing the park’s classification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and if applicable proposing any special intent for the park. **Tactical urbanism:** The use of inexpensive, short-term installations in the public realm to raise questions and suggest solutions for city planning issues. **Teardown:** The demolition of an existing house in order to provide a building site for the immediate construction of a new house. **Text amendments:** Changes to the City Code of Ordinances. **Tiered water rates:** Different water rates applied to different types of water users, usually lower rates for households and higher rates for industrial and commercial users, such as car washes and bottling plants. **Topography:** The configuration of the earth’s surface including the relative relief, elevations, and positions of land features. **Track-out camps:** Special-subject training camps held outside of formal education for children who are enrolled in schools following the year-round educational calendar. **Traditional neighborhood development (TND):** A development pattern that mimics pre-1950’s development and exhibits several of these characteristics: alleys, grid-based street layout, buildings oriented to the street, front porches on houses, pedestrian orientation, mixed land uses, and public squares. **Traffic calming:** The use of physical measures, such as speed humps, traffic circles, narrow lane widths, or similar devices, intended to discourage speeding and improve the usability of a street for bicycles and pedestrians. **Transfer of development rights:** The moving of the right to develop or build from one land parcel to another, or from a portion of a lot to another part of the same lot. **Transit corridor:** A relatively narrow strip of land through which transit service runs. This may be a rail corridor or a regular street with bus service. **Transit-first features:** Physical or technological adjustments that allow transit vehicles greater efficiency, such as traffic signal preferences and reserved travel lanes for buses, and give transit vehicles advantages in the general traffic stream. **Transit-oriented development (TOD):** A development of high density mixed land uses that have a transit facility as a focal point. TODs mix residential, retail, office, and public uses in a walkable environment, making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle, foot, or car. **Transit supportive development/design:** An approach to development near transit that seeks to maximize the use and spillover benefits of transit. **Transitional housing:** Shelter provided to the homeless or those exiting emergency housing for a period of four to twenty-four months, combined with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent affordable housing. **Transitional protective yard:** A physical buffer required by the zoning code that separates and provides a transition between potentially incompatible land uses, particularly between more and less intensive uses. **Transportation demand management (TDM):** Programs, plans, or policies designed to encourage changes in individual travel behavior. TDM can emphasize alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle such as carpools, vanpools, and transit; other techniques include reduction or elimination of the number of vehicle trips, telecommuting, alternative work weeks, and flex time. **Transportation impact analysis (TIA):** A study of the effects of a proposed development on the transportation system and that system’s ability to respond to the increase in demand created by the development. **Transportation improvement program (TIP):** A prioritized multi-year program for the implementation of transportation improvement projects by NCDOT. It is a management tool to ensure the most effective use of funding for transportation improvements. The TIP is a federal requirement of the transportation planning process. A transportation improvement is not eligible for federal funding unless it is listed in the TIP. **Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG):** A voluntary organization of municipal and county governments in North Carolina’s Region J (Chatham, Durham, Johnston, Lee, Moore, Orange and Wake Counties). It is one of 17 regional councils established in 1972 by the state to aid, assist, and improve the capabilities of local governments in administration, planning, fiscal management, and development. **Triangle Region:** A region in central North Carolina, anchored by the cities of Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, commonly called “the Triangle.” The eight-county region is officially named by the U.S. Census Bureau as the Raleigh-Durham-Cary Combined Statistical Area. **Typology:** The classification of physical characteristics commonly found in buildings and urban places, according to their association with different categories, such as intensity of development. The following is an example of a set of characteristics with typological associations: single-family residences set well back from a street on large lots and surrounded by mowed lawns with naturalistic ornamental plantings of trees and shrubs are associated typologically with suburban places. # U – Z **Universal design:** Buildings, products, and environments that are usable and effective for everyone, regardless of physical abilities or disabilities. **Unprogrammed open space:** Open space, particularly in parks, that is not set aside for any particular sport or recreational activity. The space is therefore available for spontaneous use by the public. **Unsafe building code:** Regulations that describe the circumstances in which a building is considered structurally dangerous to the general public and unfit for human access or habitation. **Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative (UNCWI):** An initiative of the Triangle Land Conservancy that promotes multi-county cooperation to protect the water quality of the Triangle region’s part of the Neuse River basin. Glossary **Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA):** A group of representatives of eight municipalities and six counties whose goal is water quality protection and water resource planning and management within the 770 square mile watershed that drains into Falls Lake. **Urban services area (USA):** An area in which a nearby jurisdiction will eventually supply urban services (such as water, wastewater, fire, and police protection) and outside of which such services will not be extended by that jurisdiction. **Vehicle miles traveled (VMT):** A unit to measure vehicle travel made by a private vehicle, such as an automobile, van, pickup truck, or motorcycle. Each mile traveled is counted as one vehicle mile regardless of the number of persons in the vehicle. **Vehicle trips per day (VPD):** The number of vehicle trips generated by a particular location within one day. **Very low income:** Very low income is defined as below 50 percent of the area median income (AMI). **Viewshed:** The area within view from a defined observation point. **Wake County Growth Issues Task Force:** A citizen group created by the Wake County Board of Commissioners to examine growth management strategies and help Wake County balance growth and quality of life issues. **Walkable:** Characteristic of how easy, pleasant, and practical an area is for walking. Walkable areas include origins and destinations located within walking distance of one another, and linked by a pedestrian-friendly network and development pattern (see ‘M – P’). **Waste-to-energy:** Energy generated from fuel that has been derived from solid waste or sewage. **Wastewater:** Water carrying waste from domestic, commercial, or industrial facilities, otherwise known as sewage. **Water conservation:** The prudent and efficient use of water, recognizing that water supplies are limited and that the treatment of water, both for drinking and wastewater returned to the environment, is expensive and energy intensive. **Water resources:** All sources of water for human use, including rain, ground water, water in reservoirs, and water courses. Water supply watershed: The drainage basin for a reservoir that provides drinking water. **Water treatment plant (WTP):** The facility within the water supply system that can clean water to make it drinkable. **Watershed:** A land area that collects precipitation and contributes runoff to a receiving body of water or point along a watercourse, also known as a drainage basin. **Western Wake Partnership:** The four local governments that cooperate for regional wastewater management in western Wake County. The partners are the towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, and Morrisville. **Wetland:** Areas that are inundated and saturated by water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions, including swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. **William Christmas Plan:** The original plat laying out the streets and lots of the plan for the City of Raleigh was developed at the direction of the State Legislature by William Christmas in April 1792 for the purpose of establishing a new capital city. Union (now Capitol) Square was reserved for the statehouse in the center, with four principal streets radiating axially from each face of the square. The axial streets were named for the four judicial districts toward which they ran (each identified by the name of its principal city). The other 17 streets were named for the remaining judicial districts, for the points of the compass, for the site-selection commissioners, and for other prominent citizens. The plan included four parks named for the first three Governors (Nash, Caswell, and Burke) and for Attorney General Alfred Moore, of which Nash and Moore squares still remain as open space. **Workforce housing:** Housing affordable to working low- and moderate-income persons, often applied to housing for workers who supply essential services such as police and teachers. **Zoning:** Local laws used by jurisdictions to regulate the uses of land, buildings, and structures within designated areas.