[Durham INC] Draft comprehensive plan

[Pat Carstensen]

The full set of documents is at: http://www.durhamnc.gov/Departments/Planning/Comp_Plan_Update.cfm
In general, the update is probably less "comprehensive" than the original was, because it seems more about setting priorities for Planning than a vision for the whole community (that is being done in the Strategic Plans).  For example, given the drought of 2 years ago, one might ask whether a little tweaking in all that needed to be done in the water chapter.  They've added a paragraph on use of natural lighting in schools, but whatever DPS does on magnets and districts is outside the comprehensive plan effort.
Because it is an updated document, many things that are dropped are because a policy said "Planning will do X" and X has been finished.  Results of UDO work and environmental enhancements work have been incorporated.  There's been some general tidying-up: updating names of departments, making questions in the issues section into statements, etc.
If you've never looked at the Comprehensive Plan, it has about 15 sections (land-use, schools, etc), each of which has "issues" (areas to improve), "goals/objectives/policies" (increasingly specific sets of ways to make improvements)
My notes on changes in the draft:
Land Usehttp://www.durhamnc.gov/Departments/Planning/pdf/landuse2.pdff
New explicit support for redevelopment New issue: How do you keep comprehensive plan currentNew mandate to develop village design guidelines for Rougemont and BahamaNew policy of promoting conservation subdivisionsNew policy to discourage strip malls and encourage "nodes" ("Ma'am you can call it a node, but it still looks like a strip mall?"), new explicit objectives on spacing of commercial developments, encourage "commercial infill" in urban tierMore detail on connecting land use and transportation (policies on transit-oriented design, complete streets, connectivity)Specific policies on contextual designAsks Planning to a design district for each compact neighborhoodIs it an issue that there is a policy not to regulate residential densities in downtown tier?The objective (with policies under it) on sustainable use of land and resources is considerably beefed up to get more "orderly" development, assessing impact of changes to future land use map for impact on infrastructure and services, as well as the fiscal impact (excellent idea, don't you think!)It changes "natural resource area and open space" to "recreation and open space" which I think is a mistake (need 3 things, "recreation, protected natural areas, and general open space")Form-based design for compact neighborhoodsNew policy on protection in critical watershedsNew policy on accessibility of usable open space (not too far from residential developments)


Community Character and Design http://www.durhamnc.gov/Departments/Planning/pdf/community4.pdf
New issues: Form-based design / zoning, infill, and sustainability (energy, water, food, with a question of how to anything within limits of what Planning/Inspections can do)Tier definitions to include parking and street sectionsUDO to improve rules on building coverage (footprint?), height, "building type", buffers, landscaping, and parkingNew policy on encouraging car-sharing programs and car-charging facilitiesTry to encouraging retrofits of dead malls and old strip development into pedestrian-friendly mixed use
Housinghttp://www.durhamnc.gov/Departments/Planning/pdf/housing3.pdf
Two new issues: central city neighborhood revitalization and proactive neighborhoods (2 new sections of policies to achieve this)It looks like a lot of stuff on affordable housing has been taken outA lot of changes on housing codeNew energy efficiency policy
Transportationhttp://www.durhamnc.gov/Departments/Planning/pdf/transportation8.pdf
Add complete streets and energy conservation / clean air policiesAdd support for electric (and other low-emission) vehicles and bike-sharing systemThey removed "dispersal of traffic to other routes" from the ways to mitigate increased demand Added explicit policy of promoting mass transit as a way to cope with growthAdd a policy of adding bike lanes or wide shoulders when resurfacing, etc.I would like to see explicit policies on maintenanceI don't know that anything can be done about it, but one of the things we saw in the I40/NC54 study is that NC-DOT had elaborate and expensive solutions to back-ups on the highway, all pretty painful for someone in my neighborhood trying to get anywhere.  Also it looked like they never reached a "tipping point" where they could get more tax-base/investment/development with less car traffic (people would have such good alternatives to the private car).    
Conservation and Environmenthttp://www.durhamnc.gov/Departments/Planning/pdf/conservation7.pdfTwo new policies around stormwater:  encourage things like rain barrels and look for ways to reduce peak flow into streams, etc.The air quality objective is now to exceed current federal mandates (to get out ahead of stricter standards?)Addition of policy on "wildlife corridors" to decrease "wildlife and vehicle conflicts"Assuming that our misguided legislators don't decimate the state's programs, has a policy of bringing in Natural Heritage and other state programs into discussions






 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20111128/8c4056f8/attachment.html>