Engage Raleigh - City of Raleigh, NC

Green Road Park Site Improvements Project - Draft Concept Plan Survey

What site improvements would you like to see at Green Road Park?

Take the survey below!

As part of the 2022 Parks Bond Referendum, Raleigh Parks is proposing new site improvements to Green...

What site improvements would you like to see at Green Road Park? Take the survey below!  As part of the 2022 Parks Bond Referendum, Raleigh Parks is proposing new site improvements to Green Road Park.  Improvements include park accessibility and safety enhancements, a new restroom building, site amenity renovations, recreational improvements, and public art.   Raleigh Parks invites you keep sharing your thoughts and ideas during park design process.  Your thoughts regarding Green Road Park are important to ensure that visions for the park, amenities, and facilities meet the needs of the community.  Input received will be used in finalizing decisions on site improvements. Project Schedule: Summer 2023:   Initial project planningFall 2023 - Winter 2024:   Community Engagement, Concept Design, and Schematic DesignOctober 17, 2023:  Public Open House #1 - project visioningFebruary 3, 2024:  Public Open House #2 - draft concept planSpring 2024:  Public meeting to present schematic design planSpring 2024:  Presentation of the schematic design to the Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greeway Advisory BoardSummer 2024 – Spring 2025:   Advanced Design and PermittingSummer 2025 – Fall 2026:   Bidding and Construction In October 2023, Raleigh Parks hosted the project's first open house.  Main takeaways include:  Improved restroom facilitiesMore seating at ballfieldsGathering and open spaces for eventsImprovements to park pathsBetter connections between library, Community Center, and parkMore picnic areas Larger and updated playgroundMore recreational opportunities such as futsal and pickleball Ideas from Public Open House #1 were used to develop the draft concept plan shown below. Raleigh Parks invites you to participate in the survey below.  Results from this survey and our other public engagement will help as we refine the Green Road Park plans.  

159

201

View Results

West Raleigh Municipal Service District

In partnership with The Blue Ridge Corridor Alliance (BRCA) and its collaborators, the City of Raleigh has been dedicated to fostering sustainable economic development in West Raleigh since 2008. While...

280

192

View Results

Environmental Education Engagement Survey

The City of Raleigh is reaching out to partners in the community interested in helping expand and grow programs that engage youth in stewardship and environmental education.

As we strengthen...

View Results

Six Forks Road Improvements Options Survey

We want your input!

880

427

View Results

Green Road Park Site Improvements Project - Public Input Survey #1

What site improvements do you want to see at Green Road Park?

We want to hear from you!

As part of the 2022 Parks Bond Referendum, Raleigh Parks is excited to announce the start of the Green...

20

34

View Results

Prince Hall Historic Overlay District (HOD) Survey

Tell Us About Your Experience in the Prince Hall Historic Overlay District (HOD)

The Prince Hall Historic Overlay District (HOD) is one of Raleigh’s two local African...

55

247

View Results

Stormwater Design Manual Version 3 Comments

Raleigh Stormwater is soliciting public comments for version 3 of the Stormwater Design Manual from Tuesday, September 5 to Sunday, October 1, 2023. Access the Stormwater Design Manual Version 3, the Summary...

13

60

View Results

South Park Heritage Walk & Top Greene Center Improvements - Planning Process

As part of the voter-approved 2022 Raleigh Parks Bond Referendum, funding is allocated for renovation and minor expansion of John P. "Top" Greene Community Center and the implementation...

View Results

John Chavis Memorial Park - Phase 2 Planning Process

As part of the voter-approved 2022 Raleigh Parks Bond Referendum, funding is allocated for implementation of Phase 2 of the adopted Master Plan for John Chavis Memorial Park. Development will include a...

View Results

Small Business Survey 2023

The City of Raleigh is seeking your input to create partnerships and identify best practices that assist small, start-up, and minority-owned business development and education. Please take a moment to...

263

158

View Results

Five Points Streetscape & Safety Study

Can we have a few minutes of your time? The City of Raleigh is looking for your feedback on how to prioritize the remaining project alternatives for improving safety at the Five Points (Glenwood Avenue/Whitaker...

579

1,160

View Results

Best Time for Public Comment

To maximize public participation at City Council meetings, City Council has decided to add another meeting just for public comments. It will be the second Tuesday of the month following the City Council...

313

View Results

Blount & Person Street Project - Design Open House - April 2023

Our goal is to turn the Blount and Person Street corridor into a complete street, balancing the range of mobility needs by providing a place for all transportation types.

The design team developed design...

Raleigh Transportation

398

620

View Results

Dix Park Cultural Interpretation Plan

Places like Dix Park matter for what they were in the past and what they are today.

The goal of this plan is to explore the complex history and many stories of the park site, and make recommendations...

Raleigh Parks Parks Planning

22

30

View Results

N TARBORO STREET

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!The City of Raleigh is reimagining N. Tarboro Street from Oakwood Avenue to New Bern Avenue and needs your feedback.

We've extended the survey date. The new close date...

108

View Results

Sidewalk Petition Program Survey

The City is currently evaluating the Sidewalk Petition Program through an equity lens and we want your input.

444

551

View Results

Midtown Multimodal Bridge Survey

The City is studying options for the alignment of the Midtown Multimodal Bridge and we want your input. Please provide your feedback by February 28.

1,130

1,661

View Results

South Park Heritage Walk

The South Park Heritage Walk is a 2.6-mile cultural trail that connects historically significant sites within Raleigh’s Black community.

Shaw UniversityCity MarketCity CemeteryJohn Chavis Memorial...

87

80

View Results

Chavis-Dix Strollway

The City of Raleigh is making significant investments in the historic Chavis Memorial Park and the new Dorothea Dix Park. These are both important landscapes and demonstrate commitment to creating equitable...

174

273

View Results

Omnibus List 2022 (TC-3-22)

Through the ongoing administration of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), staff routinely identifies issues in the code that warrant further review and correction. These issues arise due to a variety...

Through the ongoing administration of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), staff routinely identifies issues in the code that warrant further review and correction. These issues arise due to a variety of reasons including recent text changes, application of the code to unique situations, and unclear/imprecise language. To ensure continuous improvement of the city’s land development regulations, staff utilizes the omnibus text change program to bundle these corrections and improvements into a single ordinance. Items included in the omnibus are modest in their impact and address minor, rather than major, policy areas. Read the full draft ordinance online. The 2022 list contains the following items: Neighborhood transitions and planned developmentsDetached frontage front yard setbackDetached frontage parking limitationsGreen frontage landscaping standardsRight-of-way EncroachmentsTelecommunication towers setback variancesNCOD and residential infill compatibility front/primary street setbacksStreet protective yard applicabilityUrban frontage build-to requirements and allowancesAmenity area accessibility Typo and State Statute UpdatesService and loading area definitionsConservation Management (CM) District Tree Planting StandardsTree conservation recordation following permitted tree disturbing activitiesTree planting following tree disturbing activitiesSecondary tree conservation areasDesign alternate approval processSpecial use permit for residential poolsDriveway Spacing for structured deck parking for service accessWaiver of City Bond Requirement for City projectsResidential driveway spacing standardsFrontage Streetscape RequirementsWall and Fence Material AlternativesBuilding Types Allowed By District – KeyTransit Infrastructure RequirementsSetbacks on Irregular Shaped LotsCommunity Gardens & Urban FarmsZoning Conditions Process Public Meeting Schedule:  This text change is scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in September. We will be collecting comments here through September 16. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Keegan McDonald via email.

View Results

Roadway Construction, Nonconformities and Signage (TC-5-22)

Roadway Construction, Nonconformities and Signage (TC-5-22): This text change proposes amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to mitigate impacts on private property from public street right-of-way...

Roadway Construction, Nonconformities and Signage (TC-5-22): This text change proposes amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to mitigate impacts on private property from public street right-of-way and easement acquisition for City Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) and to clarify that, except for government-owned signage, temporary signage shall remain prohibited within the public street right-of-way. Read the draft ordinance. Background information: Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs), such as the construction of roadways, often necessitate the acquisition of public right-of-way and easements. Through the process of eminent domain, the City is required to compensate private property owners for their land and any impacts associated with the project including those to site elements such as signs, walls/fences, and accessory structures. Current zoning regulations may prohibit the resumption and/or replacement of these site elements, increasing the total compensation costs, and in turn, total project costs. During the construction process, property owners may also be without signage for a significant period of time which can negatively impact their business. The proposed changes to the UDO are designed to alleviate these unintended consequences and reduce the cost of CIPs. Current Rules:  Currently, the UDO contains the following regulations and allowances related to right-of-way acquisition: Temporary signs are prohibited within the right-of-way.Public acquisition of right-of-way does not render a property nonconforming. Resumption of nonconforming site elements is not explicitly permitted. Proposed Text Change:  Government-owned temporary signage would be permitted in the right-of-way.Easement acquisition would not render a property, improvement, or site element nonconforming.Unless the owner has been compensated for the total loss of the nonconforming site element, nonconforming site elements removed as part of a government-funded and initiated project could be replaced and reinstalled like-for-like within 180 days of project completion. Public Meeting Schedule:  This text change is scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in August. We will be collecting comments here through August 1. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Keegan McDonald via email.

Text Changes

View Results

Minor Administrative Permits (TC-21-20)

Minor Administrative Permits (TC-21-20): This text change proposes amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to create a process for Minor Administrative Permits. Read the draft ordinance.

Background...

Minor Administrative Permits (TC-21-20): This text change proposes amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to create a process for Minor Administrative Permits. Read the draft ordinance.  Background information:   The City issues a variety of different zoning permits for certain improvements and uses that do not fall into the site plan tiering system. Examples include home occupation, temporary use, and individual sign permits. At present, there is no formal process in the UDO for how these permits are obtained and issued which can cause confusion for City staff and external customers. A separate but related issue is the classification of changes of use where no improvements to the site or building are proposed. Currently, these proposals are classified as Tier 1 site plans which requires the preparation of a plan document, payment of a fee, and review by multiple staff persons. Creating a minor administrative permit will allow these projects to avoid the more expensive and time intensive site plan process. It will also allow staff to exempt certain activities that have a de-minimis impact such as the erection of an A-Frame sign or the establishment of a home-occupation use. Current Rules:  The term zoning permit is used throughout the UDO, however it is not explicitly defined, and depending on the context can refer to anything from a site plan approval to a sign permit. While the site plan process is described in detail in Article 10.2 Review Procedures, there is no such procedure for minor zoning permits.    Proposed Text Change:  TC-21-20 would create a subsection within Article 10.2 for Minor Administrative Permits detailing which projects require such a permit and which projects are exempted. The text change would also make clear that a change of use within the same Site Plan Group or to a lower Site Plan group, where no improvements are proposed, can be processed as a Minor Administrative Permit. Public Meeting Schedule:  This text change is scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in August. We will be collecting comments here through August 1. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Keegan McDonald via email.

Text Changes

View Results

Shaw University Assemblage (Z-59-22)

The request would increase the maximum allowable height up to 40 stories and allow for increased residential, office, retail, and institutional uses.

Existing Zoning: OX-3, OX-3-DE w/part....

The request would increase the maximum allowable height up to 40 stories and allow for increased residential, office, retail, and institutional uses.  Existing Zoning: OX-3, OX-3-DE w/part. HOD, OX-5, OX-12, R-10 w/NCOD  The existing zoning is Office Mixed Use 3 stories (OX-3), Office Mixed Use 3 stories (OX-3) with Detached Frontage (DE) partially in the Prince Hall Historic Overlay District (HOD), Office Mixed Use 5 stories (OX-5), Office Mixed Use 12 stories (OX-12), and Residential-10 in the South Park Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). Mixed Use districts are detailed in the UDO Chapter 3. Detached Frontage requirements are outlined in Section 3.4.4. Historic Overlay Districts are detailed in Section 5.4.1. Residential Districts are detailed in UDO Chapter 2, and Neighborhood Conservation overlays are detailed in Section 5.4.3.  Proposed Zoning: OX-3, DX-12-SH-CU, DX-30-SH-CU, DX-40-SH-CU  The proposed zoning is Office Mixed Use 3 stories (OX-3), Downtown Mixed Use 3 stories (DX-3) with Shopfront Frontage (DE), Office Mixed Use 30 stories (OX-30) with Shopfront Frontage and conditions (CU), and Downtown Mixed Use 40 stories (OX-12) with Shopfront Frontage (SH) and conditions (CU). Mixed Use districts are detailed in the UDO Chapter 3. Detached Frontage requirements are outlined in Section 3.4.4. Historic Overlay Districts are detailed in Section 5.4.1. Residential Districts are detailed in UDO Chapter 2, and Neighborhood Conservation overlays are detailed in Section 5.4.3.  The proposed conditions:  Prohibit the following uses: adult establishments, gas station, prison, jail, detention center.  Establish stepbacks in height from adjacent residential property  Require archeological surveys for the Rogers-Bagley-Daniels-Pegues-House (125 E South St) and Charles Frazier House (121 E South St) if the buildings do not remain in place during development  If Estey, Tupper Memorial, Leonard, or Tyler Halls are damaged greater than 50% of the replacement cost, the structures may be removed from the property. Structures replacing any of those listed above shall be constructed with materials similar to those found as part of other contributing structures of the East Raleigh-South Park National Register District. Otherwise, the structure shall remain in place.  Applicant: Mack Paul, mpaul@morningstarlawgroup.com, 919-590-0377  Case Planner: Ira Mabel, Ira.Mabel@raleighnc.gov, 919-996-2652   

View Results

Old Wake Forest Rd Assemblage (Z-57-22)

This request would allow for limited retail and service uses in addition to residential uses and increase the allowable height from 3 to 4 stories.

Existing Zoning: R-6

The...

View Results

7781 Alexander Town Blvd (Z-58-22)

The request would remove the Parkway frontage, which requires a landscaped area along the street, and remove the Airport Overlay District, which prohibits some uses and requires cut-off light fixtures.

Existing...

View Results

22 Peace & West Street Assemblage (Z-54-22)

This requested rezoning would allow an increase in permitted building height from 12 to 30 stories. Proposed zoning conditions prohibit certain uses, require additional parking deck screening, manage the...

This requested rezoning would allow an increase in permitted building height from 12 to 30 stories. Proposed zoning conditions prohibit certain uses, require additional parking deck screening, manage the placement of surface parking lots, and require pedestrian connectivity and outdoor amenity space on the properties eastern edge adjacent to the future city park. Existing Zoning: IX-12The existing zoning is Industrial Mixed Use 12 stories (IX-12). UDO Chapter 3 provides information on all mixed use districts.Proposed Zoning: DX-30-UG-CUThe proposed rezoning is Downtown Mixed Use 30 stories (DX-30) urban general (UG) with conditions (CU). UDO Chapter 3 includes information on all mixed use districts. The proposed condition is:The following Principal Uses as listed in UDO Section 6.1.4. that are permitted, limited, or special uses in the DX- district shall be prohibited: (i) Dormitory, fraternity, sorority; (ii) Adult establishment; (iii) Pawnshop; (iv) Vehicle Fuel Sales; and (v) Detention center,jail, prison.Public facades of structured parking: Parking structure facades adjacent to or facing any public park or plaza, public right-of-way, public sidewalk, or private street shall comply with the following: Screening elements shall be designed in a structurally sound manner and have a gap of no more than 18 inches from the frame of the screening element to the wall opening. Alternative decorative elements which provide an equivalent level of screening may be allowed in an accessory parking structure where such elements are employed to match the architectural character of the main building. Mesh or decorative panels, louvers, green walls, tinted or sandblasted opaque spandrel glass, or similar screening elements shall be used. Chain link fencing and similar screening elements shall be prohibited as an allowable mesh or similar screening element.Lighting within structured parking: Lighting shall be designed to reduce light spillage outside the parking structure according to the following:Internal illumination of parking structures shall be screened so that internal light sources shall not be visible from the adjacent public right-of-way or adjacent parcels. Light fixtures directly visible from the exterior of a parking structure shall be directed internally upward or shall contain shielded fixtures to minimize such visibility.Internal illumination of parking structures shall conform to the standards of UDO Section 7.4.7. Vehicular Canopies.Lighting levels measured at the property line of privately-owned parcels adjacent to the structured parking deck shall not be greater than 0.5 footcandles.There shall be no on-site surface parking or vehicular surface area between any building and the eastern boundary of the site.Upon development of the subject properties as reflected in a Tier 3 administrative site review, the properties shall include pedestrian connectivity along the eastern boundary of the site.Upon development of the subject properties as reflected in a Tier 3 administrative site review, there shall be a minimum 2500 sq ft of outdoor amenity area meeting the urban plaza standards contained in UDO Section 1.5.3.C situated along Peace Street and/or the adjacent city owned parcelApplicant: Mack Paul, mpaul@morningstarlawgroup.com, 919-590-0370Case Planner: Matthew Klem  

View Results

Dix Edge Affordable Housing (Z-53-22)

This requested rezoning would allow retail uses and services on the parcels currently zoned for residential only. The proposed changes to the conditions would increase height to 4 and 5 stories.

Existing...

View Results

10854 Globe Road (Z-52-22)

This requested rezoning would allow an increase in permitted building height from 3 to 5 stories. Proposed zoning removes parkway (PK) and adds parking limited (PL) intended to maintain walking accessibility....

View Results

7725 Buffaloe Road (Z-51-22)

This requested rezoning would allow for increased residential density and allow for townhomes in addition to single family homes and duplexes. Existing Zoning: R-4 The existing zoning is Residential 4...

View Results

4902 Memory Road (Z-49-22)

This requested rezoning would allow an increase in permitted building height from 3 to 4 stories.

Existing Zoning: OX-3-PLThe existing zoning is Office Mixed Use 3 stories (OX-3) with Parking Limited...

View Results

120, 140 Rush Street (Z-48-22)

This requested rezoning would allow an increase in height from 3 to 7 stories and allow for a variety of residential building types at a greater density per acre with conditions.

Existing Zoning: IX-3The...

View Results

2924 Computer Drive (Z-47-22)

This requested rezoning would allow an increase in permitted height from 3 to 7 stories, remove Special Highway Overlay District 1 (SHOD-1), but maintains Special Highway Overlay District 2 (SHOD-2). This...

View Results

2022 Historic Place Survey: Raleigh LGBTQIA+ Community

The Raleigh Historic Development Commission (RHDC) is preparing a historic context report to identify places important to LGBTQIA culture in Raleigh. The report will include: A short history of Raleigh...

37

47

View Results

Accessory Structures (TC-18-21)

Accessory Structures (TC-18-21): This text change proposes amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to modify development standards for accessory structures, remove the prohibition on variances...

Accessory Structures (TC-18-21): This text change proposes amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to modify development standards for accessory structures, remove the prohibition on variances to the accessory structure regulations, and consolidate allowable setback encroachments for certain building features and other minor improvements. Read the draft ordinance. Background information: The accessory structure regulations for detached, attached and tiny houses were last modified in 2019. At that time, the goal was to create more prescriptive and predictable development standards concerning building size, building height, and setbacks. Since that time, numerous text changes have been passed which allow for smaller structures, smaller lots, and reduced setbacks. In 2020, a text change was passed which granted the ability to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on most residentially zoned lots. At present, ADU’s are permitted reduced setbacks in comparison to other types of accessory structures. This has created issues particularly when the two types of structures are attached. In addition, ADU’s can be constructed with building features (such as decks and porches) that encroach into required setbacks, while accessory structures cannot. This text change is designed to alleviate these issues and simplify the applicable regulations.  Current Rules:  Current regulations impose stringent maximum floor area and building footprint standards for accessory structures. Larger lots are permitted larger accessory structures, but in no instance can an accessory structure be greater than 1,200 square feet in size. For lots less than one-quarter acre in size, accessory structures are limited to 600 square feet in size. Similarly, the maximum building footprint of an accessory structure is also limited to 50% of the rear yard area or 75% of the principal building footprint, whichever is smaller. Last, accessory structure setbacks are dictated based on the height on the height of the building, but in no instance can an accessory structure be less than 10 feet from a side or rear property line. By comparison, for lots between 4,000 and 39,999 square feet, detached ADUs are permitted to be a maximum of 800 square feet in size. In these instances, ADUs may be located 5 feet from a side or rear property line. An ADU may be 26 feet in height without any impact on required setbacks. Furthermore, there is no maximum building footprint limitation.   Proposed Text Change:  Under the proposed text change, the setback standards for accessory structures and ADUs would be unified based upon lot size. The maximum floor area for accessory structures would be set in proportion to the size of the principal building, while the maximum floor area for ADUs would remain the same. Last, accessory structures and ADUs would be permitted the same setback encroachments for certain building features. Public Meeting Schedule:  This text change is scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in June. We will be collecting comments here through June 20. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Keegan McDonald via email.

View Results

Raleigh's Black History and Heritage: 1945-1975

The Raleigh Historic Development Commission (RHDC) is preparing a report that will identify places important to Black history and heritage between 1945-1975 in Raleigh. The report will include:

A list...

19

31

View Results

Small, Start-up, and Minority-owned Business Survey

The City of Raleigh is seeking your input to create partnerships and identify best practices that assist small, start-up, and minority-owned business development and education. Please take a...

228

63

View Results

City Council Terms and Compensation

Raleigh is seeking feedback on the recommendations to change how the City elects and compensates the Mayor and City Council. You are encouraged to tells us your thoughts on...

1,281

286

View Results

Employment & Transportation Community Conversation

Courageous Community Conversation on Transportation and Employment Opportunities

Thursday, September 9 at 7:00 p.m. the community is invited to join a discussion on Access to Transportation and...

52

38

View Results

Davie Street Playground

Click View Results to learn more.

Parks Planning Playground

35

15

View Results

Greenway Master Plan Update Public Outreach Phase III

Welcome! The City of Raleigh is updating the Capital Area Greenway (CAG) Master Plan to celebrate the history and success of the Greenway System so far and ensure a clear path to serving...

1,251

358

View Results

Conflicts of Interest, 160D References, and Board/Commission Composition (TC-10-21)

This text change is a combination of four smaller text amendments that have been consolidated for efficiency purposes (see Proposed Text Change section below). Read the full draft ordinance.

Background...

This text change is a combination of four smaller text amendments that have been consolidated for efficiency purposes (see Proposed Text Change section below). Read the full draft ordinance. Background Information and Current Rules: In 2019, the General Assembly enacted N.C. Stat. 160D (“160D”), amending various statutes governing local government’s authority to regulate the use and development of land.  TC-10-21 is one of several text changes that addresses UDO amendments bringing specific UDO sections into compliance with 160D.  In addition to addressing changes required by 160D, TC-10-21 amends the composition of the Appearance Commission due to it recently taking on the quasi-judicial duties of the Planning Commission regarding design adjustments. ETJ Representation. The City’s current practice complies with 160D’s mandate that certain boards and commissions include ETJ representation.  Section 1 of this text change incorporates this mandate in Art. 1.1 of the UDO. Updating Statutory References. When the General Assembly enacted 160D, it repealed and replaced numerous sections contained in NCGS Chapter 160A.  The UDO references several sections from 160A that were repealed and replaced with sections from 160D.  Sections 1a-3, 5, and 7-22 of TC-10-21 update these statutory references in the UDO. Appearance Commission Composition. As stated above, TC-10-21 amends the composition of the Appearance Commission due to it recently taking on the quasi-judicial duties of the Planning Commission regarding design adjustments.  Because of the special nature of quasi-judicial decisions and the boards that make them, there is a need that the composition of these boards include regular and alternate members much like the Board of Adjustment.  Section 3a of TC-10-21 provides for the membership of the Appearance Commission, when performing the quasi-judicial duties of the Planning Commission, to be composed of 9 regular members and 6 alternate members, as designated by council at time of appointment.  When the Appearance Commission is performing its customary and statutory duties as an appearance board, its membership composition shall remain at 15 members. Conflicts of Interest. NCGS 160D-109 establishes when certain conflicts of interest prohibit members of governing board (city councils), as well as appointed boards and commissions from participating in matters before them.  In addition, NCGS 160D-109 addresses when board or commission members should not participate in quasi-judicial decisions. NCGS 160D-109 also describes circumstances where, due to conflicts of interest, specific administrative staff should not be involved in the review of applications requiring administrative approval.  Sections 4 and 6 of TC-10-21 incorporate into the UDO the requirements of NCGS 160D-109.  Proposed Text Change: Incorporates into Art. 1.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”) the statutory mandate, from NCGS Chapter 160D, that Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, and Appearance Commission have extraterritorial representation. In the event there are historic districts or designated landmarks in the city’s ETJ area, then the Historic Development Commission must have ETJ representation.Incorporates into Art. 10.1 of the UDO the statutory establishment, from NCGS Chapter 160D, of conflicts of interest governing city council, advisory boards and commissions, administrative staff and quasi-judicial decisions.Amends the Appearance Commission composition found in Sec. 10.1.5.A.2. for City Council to appoint and designate regular and alternate members when the Appearance Commission is performing the quasi-judicial functions of the Planning Commission.Updates numerous sections of the UDO to replace statutory now obsolete references due to  the adoption of NCGS. Chapter 160D.Public Meeting Schedule:  This text change will likely be scheduled for discussion at the Planning Commission in August or September. We will be collecting comments here through August 16, 2021. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to the Planning Commission via email at planning.commission@raleighnc.gov.

View Results

Development Agreements (TC-9-21)

This text change creates a new section in Art. 10.2. of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that incorporates the process for reviewing and approving development agreements as authorized in 160D Article...

This text change creates a new section in Art. 10.2. of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that incorporates the process for reviewing and approving development agreements as authorized in 160D Article 10 of the N.C. General Statutes.    >> Read the Development Agreements (TC-9-21) Background information and Current Rules: In 2005, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted Part 3D of N.C. Gen. Stat. 160A, Art. 9 that authorized municipalities and counties to enter into agreements with private property owners that vest developer’s rights subject to the terms and conditions specified in the agreements. The purpose of a development agreement is to facilitate multi-phased, often larger-scaled, development projects that involve the implementation of capital improvement public infrastructure projects. In 2019, the General Assembly enacted N.C. Stat. 160D, and Article 10 governs Development Agreements. The new statutes expand options for development agreements by, among other things, removing the minimum acreage requirement, allowing development agreements for smaller projects, and allowing the provisions to be incorporated into zoning conditions. While 160D makes development agreements available to the City without incorporating them into the UDO, by doing so, in addition to providing visibility, the local ordinance may include additional provisions not otherwise covered by 160D.   To date, the City of Raleigh has not entered into any development agreements as originally authorized in 2006 or subsequent to the adoption of 160D.  There is now an increased interest by the City Council and private property owners to use development agreements to address issues unique to larger-scaled, multi-phased development projects requiring implementation of capital improvement public infrastructure. Proposed Text Change:  The proposed text change incorporates statutory development agreements into the UDO.The proposed text change establishes procedures for the review and approval of development agreements.The proposed text change establishes that development agreements may be incorporated into rezoning or TCZ (zoning condition text change) applications, and if so, the development agreement review procedure would be the same as the rezoning review process including, but not limited to, neighborhood meetings and Planning Commission review.The proposed text change also sets out the minimum requirements for development agreements, including, but not limited to identifying the specific adopted plan or adopted CIP project that will be included in the proposed development. Public Meeting Schedule: This text change will likely be scheduled for discussion at the Planning Commission in Fall 2021. We will be collecting comments here through July 23, 2021. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to the Planning Commission via email at planning.commission@raleighnc.gov.

View Results

Multiple Module Height Method (TC-22-20)

Overview

This text change proposes amendments to allow for a new Multiple Module option as a method to measure height for commercial and mixed-use buildings on sloped sites. It also clarifies the...

Overview This text change proposes amendments to allow for a new Multiple Module option as a method to measure height for commercial and mixed-use buildings on sloped sites. It also clarifies the standard for height measurement of structures within transition zones between commercial or mixed-use development and residentially zoned districts. Read the full ordinance. Background Information and Current Rules Updates to the UDO occur periodically when regulations need clarification or revision in order to achieve policy goals. One such area in need of improvement is how the UDO addresses sites with topography for commercial and mixed-use projects. Sloping terrain presents unique challenges for the design and development community, which the UDO does not adequately address. In Fall 2017, the city hired Code Studio, LLC, as the consultant for the Hillside Development study to develop recommendations for policy guidance and code changes. Their recommendations were released to the public in Spring 2019. City staff met with stakeholders and members of the public to address concerns with the initial document and draft alternative proposals. The report was updated to represent a broader approach to hillside development that combines Code Studio’s expertise with community input. This effort resulted in the development of the report Guidelines for Hillside and Sloped Site Development in Mixed-Use Districts. The policy guidance of the report falls into six general categories: Transition Zones; Pedestrian Access; Measurement of Height; Transparency; Retaining Walls; and, Blank Foundation Walls. TC-20-20 is intended to address Measurement of Height and Transitions Zones. Additional information on the Hillside Development Study, including a link to the report can be found on the City of Raleigh website. Measurement of Height The UDO regulates building height with stories and height limits. Developments are incentivized to flatten sloped sites, thereby maximizing the size of each allowed story, instead of stepping a building up or down with topography. Transition Zones The UDO provides guidance on how to mitigate the transition between residential and commercial areas by restricting the maximum building height in the transition area (Zone C) to 40 feet. In some cases, it has not been clear that the 40 feet height limit was intended to apply to not just buildings, but all structures in the Zone C. This lack of clarity has resulted in some unintended consequences. Proposed Text Change Measurement of Height The proposed text change offers flexibility to the current method by introducing the Multiple Module method as an option of measurement in order to encourage buildings to follow topography. It also clarifies and reorganizes subsections of Section 1.5.7. Height to be more user-friendly and better distinguish between the various methods for measuring height, including the recent text change TC-4-20 (Infill Development Height Method). Transition Zones The proposed language clarifies Section 3.5.5 so that no structure in the Zone C transition area can be more than 40 feet in height, as measured from pre-development grade. Public Meeting Schedule This text change will likely be scheduled for discussion at Planning Commission meeting in August 2021. The Commission may act on that date or refer to the Text Change Committee for further discussion. We will be collecting comments here through July 5, 2021. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Carter Pettibone via email.

Text Change Portal Text Changes

View Results

City Tree Manual (TC-5-21)

This text change proposes updating the City Tree Manual to correct typos and provide clarification on existing regulations. Read the full ordinance (PDF).

Background Information:

The City Tree...

Text Changes Text Change Portal

View Results

Outdoor Bar Seating in NX (TC-13-20)

This text change proposes amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to modify the outdoor seating regulations for Bars, Nightclubs, Taverns or Lounges in the NX zoning district. Read the full ordinance...

This text change proposes amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to modify the outdoor seating regulations for Bars, Nightclubs, Taverns or Lounges in the NX zoning district. Read the full ordinance (PDF).  Background Information: The UDO contains regulations for a use titled “Bar, Nightclub, Tavern or Lounge” (hereinafter referred to as "Bars"). This use is currently defined as, “a facility that prepares and sells food and drink that has alcoholic beverage sales in excess of 70% of the business’s total annual sales.” Bars are currently allowed as a limited use within the NX zoning district. The intent of the NX zoning district is to provide for a variety of residential, retail, service and commercial uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Given this, the NX zoning district is the most likely commercial district to be generally located in proximity to residential zoning districts. The use standards for Bars were amended in 2015 with text change TC-2(A)-15. This ordinance permitted Bars in the NX zoning District and modified a number of use regulations contained in Chapter 6 of the UDO including a limitation on live performances, dance floors and the number of allowed outdoor seats. In the Winter of 2020, the Council authorized a text change to expand the allowance for outdoor seating but with certain requirements and restrictions intended to protect nearby residents. Current Rules:  Under the current regulations outdoor seating is limited to eight seats. Proposed Text Change:  The proposed text change would permit outdoor seating of up to 20 seats. Seating in excess of 20 seats would require the issuance of a Special Use Permit as set forth in UDO Section 10.2.9. In addition to the showings set forth in Section 10.2.9.E.1. through 8, an operator must also adhere to the following restrictions: The outdoor seating area shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet from any principal or accessory dwelling unit in a residential district; howeverThe minimum distance may be reduced to 40 feet provided:A Type B1 Transitional Protective Yard is established along any shared property line located between the outdoor seating area and any applicable principal, or accessory, dwelling unit; andA Type C1 or C2 Street Protective Yard is established along any property line abutting a right-of-way located between the outdoor seating area and any applicable principal or accessory dwelling unit.A principal structure wholly screening the outdoor seating area can be used to satisfy (a.) and (b.) above.No outdoor seating shall be allowed to occupy any area without prior approval of the conversion to seating by the City. Public Meeting Schedule:  This text change is scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting in August. The Commission may act on that date or refer to their Text Change Committee for further discussion. We will be collecting comments here through June 28. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Keegan McDonald via email.

Text Changes Text Change Portal

View Results

Southeast Special Area Study - Phase 3 Survey

Overview

The Southeast Special Area Study is a planning study focused on approximately 18 square miles in southeast Wake County. The study area is in Raleigh’s Urban Service Area, or the area where...

117

134

View Results

Wakefield Small Area Study Online Open House

The virtual community open house will both share the findings of the analysis conducted to date and solicit input on streetscape, transportation, land use and other policy issues before design begins....

93

41

View Results

Bicycle Street Cross Sections (TC-3-21)

This text change proposes to:

Amend the layout for the "avenue" street types. This allows the City to move bicycle lanes out of the roadbed and behind the curb; and,

Revise corresponding...

19

48

View Results

New Bern Station Area Planning: Community Connections Survey

Click View Results to learn more.

258

569

View Results

DX Digital Signs (TC-7-21)

This text change creates a new special sign type called “DX digital signs” in Sec. 7.3.13 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that employ technologies such as LCD, LED and projection...

This text change creates a new special sign type called “DX digital signs” in Sec. 7.3.13 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that employ technologies such as LCD, LED and projection to display content such as digital images, video, streaming media and information.    >> Read the full ordinance.  Background information and Current Rules: Before the Pandemic, the success of downtown Raleigh, including large event spaces such as the Raleigh Convention Center (RCC) and Performing Arts Complex (PAC), was a major contributing factor to the economic development of the City. During this time period, RCC and PAC staff expressed the need for enhanced digital signage to allow the RCC and PAC to remain competitive with alternate markets. Because of the success with increased distribution of vaccines and other protective measures, many pandemic related restrictions are being lifted which will allow large event venues such as the RCC and PAC to resume regularly hosting public events and performances. The enhanced digital signs are presently not permitted under the UDO. Accordingly, certain revisions to the UDO are necessary to allow the enhanced digital signage to be installed and employed as described in this ordinance. Proposed Text Change:  The proposed text change creates a new special sign type called a DX digital sign.The proposed text change limits the use of DX digital signs to the DX zoning district and to very specific venues (civic buildings, outdoor sports or entertainment facilities meeting specified minimum seating capacities). The proposed text change also exempts the DX digital signs from compliance with certain UDO provisions for which compliance would prove impractical. Public Meeting Schedule: This text change will likely be scheduled for discussion at a future Planning Commission meeting. We will be collecting comments here through June 4, 2021. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to the Planning Commission via email at planning.commission@raleighnc.gov.

16

39

View Results

Dix Edge Area Study Phase Soon Survey

Click View Results to learn more.

503

656

View Results

Wake BRT: Western Blvd. Corridor Study Final Report

Thank you for reviewing the Wake BRT: Western Blvd. Corridor Study Final Report! The questions below are meant to gauge how the community feels about the study, its recommendations, and the study process....

59

98

View Results

Wakefield Small Area Study

ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES SURVEY

The purpose of this survey is to gather information about Wakefield and how the people who live, work, visit, worship, and play in the area experience the community....

278

697

View Results

Missing Middle (TC-5-20)

This text change proposes amendments that are intended to increase housing options throughout the City. It expands the range of housing types that are allowed in residential zoning districts, adjusts minimum...

This text change proposes amendments that are intended to increase housing options throughout the City. It expands the range of housing types that are allowed in residential zoning districts, adjusts minimum lot and setback requirements, and changes how the maximum number of dwelling units on any given lot or site is calculated. Read the full TC-5-20 draft ordinance. Background Information: For more information on Missing Middle housing, please visit our webpage. Current Rules:  Under the current regulations, the only residential districts that allow attached houses (duplexes) are the R-6 and R-10 districts. The only residential district townhomes are permitted in is the R-10 district. Apartment buildings are permitted in the R-10 district but require a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. In all residential districts, the number of dwelling units on any given lot or site is capped by density limits on units per acre (e.g. – two units per acre in R-2, four units per acre in R-4, etc.) even though the minimum lot sizes may be smaller than what is required to achieve compliance with the density restrictions. Compact and Conservation developments allow smaller lot sizes and increased density (Conservation only) when significant amounts of open space are preserved. These development types require large minimum site sizes (starting at 5 acres and up to 20 acres depending on zoning district) in order to be utilized. Proposed Text Change:  For conventional developments, the proposed text change will allow attached houses in all residential zoning districts except R-1 and will allow townhomes in R-6 in addition to R-10. Apartment buildings will be permitted on smaller lots in R-10. Compact and Conservation developments will be permitted on smaller sites, provided a minimum amount of open space is preserved (starting at .5 acres and up to 8 acres depending on the development type and zoning district). In Compact developments, townhouses will be allowed in R-4, and in Conservation developments, townhouses will be allowed in R-2 and R-4. Other changes include: Removes units per acre density limits in all residential zoning districts except R-1 and replaces with a minimum lot or site sizes, or minimum lot area or site area per dwelling unit, depending on building type.Adjusts minimum lot sizes and setbacks.Changes to setback types for townhome developments.Removes the requirement for minimum ground floor elevations to be met for all building types.Public Meeting Schedule:  This text change is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on April 13, 2021. The Commission may act on that date or refer to their Text Change Committee for further discussion. We will be collecting comments here through April 12, 2021. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Justin Rametta via email. 

19

50

View Results

Transit Overlay Districts (TC-17-20)

This text change proposes amending the existing Transit Overlay District (TOD) regulations and creating a new overlay called Transit Overlay District-Residential (TOD-R)....

This text change proposes amending the existing Transit Overlay District (TOD) regulations and creating a new overlay called Transit Overlay District-Residential (TOD-R). The overlays would be located in Article 5.5 of the UDO. Read the full draft ordinance.        Background  The existing TOD has been part of the UDO since its adoption in 2013. The intent of the overlay was to encourage transit-supportive development around the light rail service that was being planned at that time. The Wake Transit Plan adopted in 2017 abandoned light rail planning and introduced plans for bus rapid transit (BRT) service in Raleigh and Cary. The TOD and TOD-R overlays will provide the appropriate zoning for areas along BRT routes. Visit our website for frequently asked questions about TOD. The key elements of each overlay are described below.    Transit Overlay District (TOD)  Height Bonus: The proposed TOD would allow an increase of 50% in the maximum building height for developments that include affordable housing units. The number of affordable units would vary depending on the height of the development but would be around 12% of total dwelling units. The overlay allows a separate height bonus of 30% for buildings that contain only employment uses, such as offices.    Streetscape, Frontage, Block Perimeter, and Urban Plazas: The TOD overlay requires the most urban streetscape types in the UDO. These are the Main Street and Mixed-Use Street types. Development in the TOD would also be required to meet the requirements of an Urban Frontage. That means parking must be behind buildings, and buildings have to be close to the street. The UDO allows developers to request exemptions to street connectivity requirements, known as Block Perimeter standards, during a rezoning process. That exemption is not allowed in the TOD. Finally, the Urban Plaza style of outdoor amenity is required in the TOD. This type of amenity area is also required in the Downtown Mixed Use (DX) district and sites with Urban Frontages. The Urban Plaza standards encourage amenity areas that connect with the sidewalk and have extra features for pedestrians like benches and trees   Treatment of Residential Districts: Residential districts that also have the TOD present will have the normal development standards of the district replaced with the standards from Residential Mixed Use (RX). This means apartments and townhouses would be allowed, and buildings could be as tall as 50 feet. Density would not be regulated directly. Based on the allowed height, density around 20 units per acre would be possible in many locations.   Parking: No parking is required in the TOD. There is also a parking maximum of two spaces per dwelling unit.   Limited Uses: In the Residential Mixed Use (RX) and Office Mixed-Use (OX) districts, commercial uses like retail, personal services, and restaurants have limited use standards that limit how they can be included in the development. Specifically, some commercial uses are only allowed in these districts if they are in a building with other uses and, for RX, at the corner of two public streets. There are maximum square footages for commercial uses as well. The TOD would exempt many commercial uses from these requirements. This can encourage the establishment of small-scale commercial uses in existing buildings. It can also increase employment and services near transit.   Prohibited Uses: Land uses that focus on private automobiles are prohibited. These include drive-thrus, car washes, and gas stations. Single-family and two-family housing is also prohibited. Existing single-family and two-family buildings are allowed to remain in place and be repaired or expanded. This prohibition will mostly apply to redevelopment.     Transit Overlay District-Residential (TOD-R)  Building Types: Townhouses and apartments would be allowed in R-6 where the TOD-R is also mapped. Duplexes would be allowed in R-4 in these locations.   Dimensional Standards: Density in TOD-R is controlled by minimum lot area per unit instead of a number of units per acre. The minimum lot area per unit is slightly lower in TOD-R than it would be in the pending “Missing Middle” text change, TC-5-20. This means density could be slightly higher in TOD-R than in the same residential district without TOD-R. Setbacks would be uniform regardless of building type or zoning district. The size of buildings will be controlled by a maximum floor area ratio (FAR). The FAR is higher for multi-family buildings, giving an incentive to develop more units on the same size lot. The FAR is also set low for detached (single-family) houses to prevent the replacement of small detached houses with very large detached houses.   Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Attached or internal ADUs are allowed for townhouses in TOD-R. An ADU would not count toward the number of units but would count toward the FAR.     Public Meeting Schedule This text change is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on April 27. The Commission may act on that date or refer to their Text Change Committee for further discussion. We will be collecting comments here through April 23. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to John.Anagnost@raleighnc.gov.

15

32

View Results

Outdoor Amenity Areas (TC-1-21)

This text change proposes amending the existing Outdoor Amenity Area regulations in Section 1.5.3. of the UDO. Read the full draft ordinance . Background Outdoor amenity areas are intended to provide usable...

This text change proposes amending the existing Outdoor Amenity Area regulations in Section 1.5.3. of the UDO. Read the full draft ordinance . Background Outdoor amenity areas are intended to provide usable on-site open space in both residential and non-residential developments for the healthy enjoyment of occupants and guests of a development. These areas are required when mixed-use general civic or multi-unit residential buildings are proposed. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) sets forth standards for required amenity areas in all districts as well as additional standards for amenity areas in mixed-use districts particularly in the Downtown Mixed-Use district (DX-) (UDO Chapter 3). During the site review process common issues arise for developments in Downtown that produce poor outcomes for outdoor amenity areas and slow down the review process. Staff has identified five problem areas and recommends solutions for each which are described below. Covered Outdoor Amenity Area: Covered outdoor space is a common architectural and urban design approach that serves to provide comfort from climate and weather conditions as well act as a transitional space between a building s interior and exterior edges. To create a comfortable year-round public realm it is good practice to provide shade and cover in downtown and other mixed-use areas. However DX- is the only district that does not allow outdoor amenity areas to be covered. This is an impediment to many projects and this text change proposes to allow amenity areas to be covered in the DX-. Streetscape and Outdoor Amenity Area Overlap: While the UDO does not explicitly prohibit using sidewalk area on private property to fulfill both the streetscape requirement and outdoor amenity area current practice is that amenity area may only be counted once the streetscape width is entirety satisfied regardless of where the property line lies. This can produce non-compliance with the build-to requirement. This text change proposes to allow these areas to overlap. Outdoor Amenity Areas on Upper floors: Outdoor amenity areas are intended to provide open space to building occupants or residents and are not required to be open to the public. Only in DX- and other mixed-use districts where land is generally more expensive and where buildings are bulkier and occupy a large portion of the site are outdoor amenity areas not permitted on upper floors and are required to be contiguous with the public sidewalk. This text change proposes expanding the upper floor allowance to all building types with the requirement that any amenity area associated with a new building be accessible by elevator and/or accessible ramp. GSI in Amenity Areas Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) is an increasingly standard practice that provides sustainable stormwater management solutions cooling of the urban environment microhabitat and creates visual interest in the urban realm. Currently GSI may take up only 10% of a site s outdoor amenity area. As GSI can be an attractive amenity and should be encouraged especially in areas of high intensity use the UDO should allow for more application of it and this text change proposes to remove the 10% cap on how much of an Outdoor Amenity Area may be devoted to GSI. Amenity Area and Adverse Impacts In DX- districts buildings are often directly contiguous to one another with little or no separation. The resulting street wall helps to provide comfort and safety for pedestrians and helps to define spaces. Street walls are a fundamental component of good urban design. Current UDO standards for amenity area sometimes create conflicts with the goal of creating uninterrupted street walls as they encourage amenity area provision to the side of buildings or in front of a recessed building in either case interrupting the street wall. This text change proposes to remove or reduce the outdoor amenity area requirement when certain conditions are present. Public Meeting Schedule: This text change is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on April 14. The Commission may act on that date or refer to their Text Change Committee for further discussion. We will be collecting comments here through April 11 . Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Eric Hodge via email .

View Results

Planned Development Districts, City Code Covenants, and Rezoning Process (TC-19-20)

This text change brings the rezoning process into compliance with recent changes in state law; removes the requirement for recording city code covenants; allows City Council to adopt on a first reading...

This text change brings the rezoning process into compliance with recent changes in state law; removes the requirement for recording city code covenants; allows City Council to adopt on a first reading by simple majority ordinances amending the Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”), Official Zoning Map and conditional zoning conditions; and generally, clarifies language in UDO. Sec. 10.2.4. Read the full TC-19- 20 draft ordinance. Text Change OverviewIn 2019, with the adoption of NCGS Chapter 160D (“160D”), the General Assembly re- wrote the enabling legislation for local government regulation of land development. Primarily, TC-19-20 brings the City’s rezoning procedure into compliance with 160D. Section 1: Repeals Sec 1.1.9 requiring developers to record a City Code Covenant for common elements and replaces it with the City Council's election to approve by simple majority the adoption, amendement, or repeal or any ordinance requiring a public hearing. Section 2 and 3: Creates a Planned Development Conditional use (PD-CU) district to more accurately reflect current law.  Section 4: Revises the rezoning process (Sec. 10.2.4) to: incorporate zoning condition text changes (TCZ) into the map amendment (zoning amendment) process;bring the rezoning process into conformity with requirements of 160D;clarify application requirements;revise the opportunities to amend rezoning applications (including zoning conditions) to encourage applicants to better address community concerns before review by the Planning Commission and City Council;create a pre-disposition re-hearing opportunity; and,generally, clarify language throughout. Section 5: Modified definition of Planning Director to include "or designee." Section 6: Amends all references to "conditional use district" to "conditional district" consistent with 160D. Public Meeting ScheduleThis text change is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on March 9, 2021. The Commission may act on that date or refer to their Text Change Committee for further discussion. We will be collecting comments here through March 10, 2021. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to the Planning Commission via email.

View Results

Estudio del área Dix Edge - Encuesta del taller Fase Ahora

Click View Results to learn more.

View Results

Dix Edge Area Study Phase Now Survey

Click View Results to learn more.

512

796

View Results

Administrative Alternate Changes (TC-19-19)

This text change proposes converting the existing Administrative Alternate for Design (AAD) process to a new Design Alternate (DA) process with updated standards. In addition, the text change will institute...

This text change proposes converting the existing Administrative Alternate for Design (AAD) process to a new Design Alternate (DA) process with updated standards. In addition, the text change will institute new objective criteria for many of the City’s development regulations and revise multiple sections of the UDO to improve its usability. Read the full TC-19-19 draft ordinance. Background Information: The UDO contains objective development standards that are applied administratively during subdivision and site plan review. City staff has recognized the need for more flexible regulations and a more predictable process for achieving compliance when strict adherence to the code may not be desirable. This ordinance is part of a series of recent text changes aimed at creating a streamlined design alternate process whereby applicants can request relief from the City’s development rules based upon a set of subjective criteria. Current Rules:  Under the current regulations, an applicant may request to deviate from certain development standards through an Administrative Alternate for Design filed in conjunction with a development plan. The Planning Director reviews the AAD before referring it to the Appearance Commission for their review and recommendation based upon the relevant set of criteria outlined in the UDO. The Planning Director then chooses to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the Appearance Commission’s review and recommendation. Any appeal of the Planning Director’s decision is heard by the Board of Adjustment. Proposed Text Change:  The proposed text change will convert the existing Administrative Alternate for Design process to a new Design Alternate process wherein the Planning Commission, or Appearance Commission performing the quasi-judicial duties of the Planning Commission (as designated by the City Council), will have final decision-making authority. The following code sections will now be eligible for a Design Alternate: Sec. 1.5.6.D (Build-To)Sec. 1.5.8.C. (Pedestrian Access)Sec. 1.5.9.C. (Transparency)Sec. 1.5.10. (Blank Wall)Sec. 1.5.12.C. (Garage)Sec. 3.3.3.C. (Building Massing)Sec. 7.1.7.I. (Vehicle Parking Lot)Sec. 7.2.3. (Landscaping and Screening) As part of this transition, new objective standards will be added to the code and existing criteria will be updated accordingly. Other highlights of the text change include: the creation of a new 30 story building height designation for mixed-use districts along with more flexible building massing standards, the elimination of build-to for apartment and townhouse building types outside of urban frontages, and the renaming of the parking administrative alternate to parking alternate means of compliance. Public Meeting Schedule:  This text change is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on February 23. The Commission may act on that date or refer to their Text Change Committee for further discussion. We will be collecting comments here through March 10. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to Keegan McDonald via email. 

View Results

Old Wake Forest Road & Dixie Forest Road Project

The Proposed improvements consist of widening Old Wake Forest Road and Daisy Forest Road between Capital Boulevard and Spring Forest Road.

View Results

Quasi-Judicial Hearings (TC-18-20)

This text change moves the review authority for certain projects from the City Council to the Board of Adjustment. Read the full TC-18-20 draft ordinance.

Background Information:

This ordinance...

This text change moves the review authority for certain projects from the City Council to the Board of Adjustment. Read the full TC-18-20 draft ordinance.  Background Information: This ordinance amends multiple sections of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to give the Board of Adjustment review authority over stormwater-related variances and appeals of administrative decisions, and Metro-Park Overlay District subdivisions (other than single-unit living). This authority currently resides with the City Council. These variances, appeals, and hearings are all categorized as “quasi-judicial” decisions as defined by state law. Quasi-judicial decisions require that the decision-making board hold an “evidentiary hearing.” An “evidentiary hearing” is a “hearing to gather competent, material, and substantial evidence in order to make findings for a quasi-judicial decision.” The decision-making board must apply the evidence to subjective, discretionary ordinance standards and adopt written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Unlike a legislative decision where Council has substantial discretion to allow or deny a request, in a quasi-judicial case, the Council is legally obligated to grant an application if there is evidence to support it, even though there may be significant opposition and the Councilmembers are also opposed to the proposed project. The Board of Adjustment currently makes other quasi-judicial decisions for other UDO standards, including zoning variances and issuing special use permits, and is therefore better suited than the City Council to hold these evidentiary hearings. Current Rules: Stormwater-related variances and appeals of administrative decisions and subdivisions in the Metro-Park Overlay District subdivisions (other than single-unit living) are heard by the City Council. Proposed Text Changes: Stormwater-related variances and appeals of administrative decisions and subdivisions in the Metro-Park Overlay District subdivisions (other than single-unit living) will be heard by the Board of Adjustment. Public Meeting Schedule: This text change is scheduled for the Planning Commission  meeting on January 12, 2021. The Commission may act on that date or refer to their Text Change Committee for further discussion. We will be collecting comments here through December 30, 2020. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to the Planning Commission via email.

View Results

Durant Nature Preserve Upper Lake

There is a 6-acre upper lake at Durant Nature Preserve. Water leaving the upper lake flows through a concrete spillway (over an earthen dam) and along a 100-foot-long channel to the lower...

521

202

View Results

Encuesta pública de Visión

¡Su opinión es importante para el futuro de los vecindarios cerca del parque Dorothea Dix!

El propósito de esta encuesta es recopilar opiniones de la comunidad latina sobre sus ideas...

View Results

Campus District (TC-15-20)

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.

Read the TC-15-20 ordinance.

Background...

View Results

Community Gardens with On-Site Sales (TC-14-20)

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.

This text change will allow community...

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.    This text change will allow community gardens to provide on-site sales of their products to the general public. Read the full TC-12-20 ordinance.  Background Information: A Community Garden is an area of land managed and maintained by a group of individuals to grow and harvest food crops and non-food ornamental crops, for personal or group use, consumption, or donation. The garden may be divided into separate plots for cultivation by one or more individuals or may be farmed collectively by members of the group and may include common areas maintained and used by the group.  Community gardens are currently allowed with the approval of a special use permit within the R-2, R-4, and R-6 Residential zoning districts. A Special Use permit is required for uses that may be appropriate in a particular zoning district but because of the increased potential for incompatibility with adjacent uses, require individual review by the Board of Adjustment. Community gardens are also allowed as a Limited Use within the R-1 and R-10 Residential zoning districts. A Limited Use is a use that is allowed by right in a zoning district but must meet certain standards. Current Rules: 1.   A community garden shall be primarily used for growing and harvesting food crops and ornamental crops, for consumption or donation, or for sale off-site.  2.   On-site sales are not permitted in residential districts. On-site sales may be permitted in the mixed-use and special districts with the approval of a special use permit, following the procedures set forth in Sec. 10.2.9. Sales shall be restricted to horticultural and agricultural products produced on the premises. 3.   Detached accessory structures such as storage or utility buildings, gazebos, trellises, or accessory greenhouse structures are permitted, subject to compliance with the requirements of the zoning district. 4.   If security fencing is installed, such fencing shall be of an open design. 5.   If lighting is installed, only motion-detecting fixtures shall be permitted. All-night lighting is prohibited. 6.   Community gardens shall be managed and maintained in compliance with all applicable standards of this UDO and the City Code, including but not limited to those pertaining to nuisance abatement, stormwater, site accessibility, signage, soil erosion and sedimentation control, and any required tree conservation and landscaping. 7.   Raising of animals is not permitted in a Residential District. In all other permitted districts, the raising of animals is subject to the following conditions: i.    The community garden must be in active use for the growing and harvesting of crops. ii.   Hoofed animals are prohibited. iii.   Chickens are permitted at a rate of one chicken per 1,000 square feet of lot area not to exceed 10 chickens on any single lot. No roosters are allowed. iv.  A maximum of two beehives are permitted. v.   Any coop, hutch, hive, or other structure for housing animals shall be located at least 25 feet from any property line. Proposed Text Changes: On-site sales will be permitted in residential districts subject to the following conditions: Sales shall be limited to items produced on-site.The total sales area shall be limited to no more than 2,000 square feet per lot.One off-street parking space shall be provided for every 200 square feet of area devoted to on-site sales activities, but no less than 3 parking spaces. Areas devoted to off-street parking shall be oriented to provide for safe pedestrian and vehicular circulation and arranged so that vehicular ingress and egress to the parking areas is by forward motion of the vehicle.  On-site sales shall be exempt from the parking surfaces requirements and the required landscaping regulations. 4.   Tents, stands, signs, and other structures associated with the on-site use shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from all property lines. 5.   Signage shall be limited to one sign of no more than 12 square feet in area and no higher than 3½ feet above the ground elevation.  Signage shall not be illuminated. 6.   All activities shall be discontinued by 8:00 PM when located in a Residential District. 7.   Waste collection facilities shall be provided on the property.  Such facilities shall be constructed and maintained to minimize visual impact and not create odor, fumes, loose debris and animal, rodent or insect infestation. 8.   A zoning permit showing consistency with these conditions shall be required prior to establishments of the on-site sales use.  Public Meeting Schedule: This text change is scheduled for discussion at the Planning Commission Text Change Committee meeting on November 17, 2020. We will be collecting comments here through November 23, 2020. Comments after this date should be submitted directly to the Planning Commission via email.

View Results

Six Forks Road Improvement Project - Pre-Design Touchpoint

We are starting the design phase for the Six Forks Road Improvement Project between Rowan Street and Lynn Road, and we want to know how you use the corridor.

Please take a few minutes to...

31

40

View Results

Six Forks Road Improvement Project

This project is a result of the Six Forks Corridor Study Report and the Comprehensive Plan amendments CP-5-17 that were unanimously approved by Raleigh City Council on June 5, 2018.

The...

26

36

View Results

John Chavis Memorial Park Cultural Heritage Interpretive Plan

News and Information for John Chavis Memorial Park

View Results

New Bern Station Area Planning Survey

The New Bern Station Area Plan will take a close look at how best to take advantage of our investment in bus rapid transit (BRT). The plan will look at what makes for great, lively, walkable places. It...

286

227

View Results

Marsh Creek Rd & Trawick Rd Improvement Project - Early Design

The City is planning to improve Marsh Creek Road and Trawick Road from Capital Boulevard to New Hope Road. Please take a few moments to answer a few questions about the early design.

13

29

View Results

Futsal Court Conversion

We have a potential opportunity to work with funding partners to convert an existing tennis court to an outdoor Futsal court. The project would include court resurfacing and the addition of lines,...

122

33

View Results

Text Change Process (TC-10-20)

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.

This text change creates a new process...

View Results

Capital Boulevard North: Bikes and Businesses Survey

The Capital Boulevard North Corridor Study is proposing to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities along streets near Capital Boulevard. You can use this survey to state your level of interest in new...

108

135

View Results

Wake BRT: Western Blvd. Engagement Survey

Please take our survey about the materials you reviewed for the Western BRT project. Your responses help us plan the best future for Raleigh!

83

189

View Results

Equitable Development Around Transit

The Equitable Development Around Transit process has focused on planning for housing and other land uses around bus rapid transit (BRT). Plan participants indicated overwhelmingly that the city should...

187

112

View Results

Infill Setback and Building Height (TC-4-20)

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.

This text changes will repeal...

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.    This text changes will repeal and replace the current methods in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for calculating how building height is measured, how the primary street setback is determined for infill development, and change the maximum side wall plane height for infill development. View the Infill Setback and Building Height (TC-4-20) ordinance.  Background information: The current method for calculating building height uses the average of all elevations of a structure in determining overall height and requires that it be measured from the more restrictive of pre-development and post-development grade. The method was intended to keep proposed development in scale and proportion with surrounding buildings.  However, this method created much complexity and proved to be confusing. The proposed text change would revise this method to that of the previous ordinance where only the building elevation that is most parallel to the primary street is used in calculating the overall building height. It would also allow pre-development and post-development grade to be averaged to determine the measuring point, instead of using the more restrictive grade. The current regulations for determining infill setbacks identifies several criteria and scenarios for determining the distance in which a building may be located from the adjacent street.  Like the current building height calculation method, these regulations created complexity and confusion.  The proposed method has been considerably scaled-down and should be easier to use in determining the required setback. The maximum side wall height will also be modified.  The maximum height of any side wall for infill development will be increased from the current 22 feet to the proposed 25 feet or the average height of the two abutting neighboring wall planes, whichever is greater.  The new method for determining overall building height will also be used to measure side wall height. Current Rules: 1. For building height, the average grade is determined by calculating the average of the highest and lowest elevation along pre-development grade or improved grade (whichever is more restrictive) along each building elevation and averaging all elevations. Where land disturbance has been approved by the City through the mass-grading process, average grade shall be considered the improved grade following the completion of the mass grading.  2. For measuring building height on a property that slopes upward to the rear of the lot, building height is measured from the average grade of the front and rear wall planes. 3. In determining the comparative sample for residential infill compatibility, a sampling process is used to obtain a sampling of at least three and up to six nearby lots. 4. The primary street setback is measured based on a maximum variation from the median setback of the comparative sample. 5. The side setback plane (side wall) has a maximum height of 22 feet or the average height of the two abutting neighboring wall planes, whichever is greater. The current standard allows the wall height to increase by 1 foot for every foot of horizontal distance the wall is moved from the side setback line, however it cannot exceed the maximum height allowed within the district. Proposed Text Change: 1. Average grade shall be considered to be the average post-development grade along the building elevation that is most parallel and closest to the primary street setback.  Exception is given to any building that is subject to infill compatibility standards, where average grade shall be determined by averaging the four points consisting of the highest and lowest elevations of both pre-development and post-development grade along the building elevation closest and most parallel to the primary street. 2. For measuring building height on a property that slopes upward to the rear of the lot, building height is measured from the average grade of the front and rear wall planes.   3. In determining the comparative sample for residential infill compatibility, the proposed applicability standards will be simplified to the four closest buildings (or three for a corner lot). 4. The infill compatibility rules will not apply in Historic Districts, Street Side Historic Overlay Districts, or to Historic landmarks. 5. The method for determining the primary street setback will be based upon the location of the structures within the comparative sample.  The proposed structure must be no closer than the smallest primary street setback and no further than the largest primary street setback within the comparative sample.  Other factors such as riparian buffers, floodways, steep slopes, and pre-established tree conservation areas may also influence the building setback. 6. The side wall plane maximum height will be increased to 25 feet or the average height of the two abutting neighboring wall planes, whichever is greater. The current standard that allows for an increase by 1 foot for every foot of horizontal distance the wall is moved from the side setback line will remain. 

23

45

View Results

Short Term Rentals (TC-8-20)

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.

This text change will repeal...

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.    This text change will repeal the current homestay regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and replace them with new regulations for short term rentals. A short term rental is a type of overnight lodging, and will be allowed in certain zoning districts that permit residential uses.    >> Read the Short Term Rental Ordinance (TC-8-20)   Background Information:   A short term rental is intended to provide overnight lodging accommodations to renters for no longer than 30 days. They allow a portion or the entire dwelling or accessory structure to be used for lodging.  The current regulations for homestays, while allowing renters for no longer than 30 days, limits the number of rooms for rental to no more than two. The regulations limit the number of renters to two adults and their minor children and requires that the dwelling be owner-occupied.    Current Rules:   1. The dwelling unit must be occupied by the resident.    2. Two guest rooms for overnight lodging accommodations are permitted for transients for no longer than 30 days for compensation and where the use is subordinate to and incidental to the main residential use of the building.   3. Rentals of an entire dwelling unit for less than 30 days are considered Overnight Lodging and are permitted as set forth in Sec. 6.1.4. of the UDO.  4. The homestay operator is required to have a homestay zoning permit that must be renewed annually. Proof of a Wake County tax account number is required.  5. Mailed notification must be provided to all property owners within 100 feet of the subject property.  6. A full-time resident homestay operator who is lives at the property must be present for the entire time that a homestay lodger is staying at the property.  7. In a Residential zoning district, the maximum number of overnight guests shall not exceed two adults and their minor children.  8. Cooking facilities are not permitted in any homestay bedroom or any exclusive homestay area.  9. No exterior advertising is allowed.  10. In residential zoning districts, homestay lodgers cannot be used for holding special events or gatherings.   11. The premise cannot be used for “Live-Work”, an “Accessory Dwelling Unit” or a “Day Care, Home”.  12. Homestay operators must comply with all applicable State and local laws.  13. Homestay operators must maintain for a period of three (3) years a list of all homestay lodgers staying at the residence.    Proposed Text Change:   1. Every short-term rental operator must obtain a zoning permit from the City that must be renewed annually.  2. Cooking facilities are not permitted in any bedroom.  3. No exterior advertising is allowed.  4. In residential zoning districts, short term renters cannot utilize the premises for holding special events or gatherings.  5. For single-unit and two-unit living the premise cannot be used for “Live-Work” or a “Day Care, Home”. For multi-unit living the dwelling unit shall not be used for “Live-Work” or a “Day Care, Home”.  6. Short term rental operators must comply with all applicable State and local laws.  7. Every short-term rental operator must maintain for a period of three (3) years a list of all short term rental lodgers staying on the premises. 

36

55

View Results

Neighborhood Transition Requirements and Senior Housing (TC-6-20)

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.

This text changes aims to modify...

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.    This text changes aims to modify the applicability of Neighborhood Transition requirements and the standards for Congregate Care and Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) uses. This text change is intended to apply appropriate exemptions to the Neighborhood Transition requirements and simplify and align Congregate Care and CCRC requirements with state and federal requirements. >> Read the Neighborhood Transition Requirements and Senior Housing Ordinance (TC-6-20) Background information and Current Rules: The intent of Neighborhood Transitions is to reduce the impact of higher intensity development when located next to a low/moderate intensity residential development. They are generally applicable when a Campus or Mixed-Use district borders a residential zoning district. Neighborhood Transitions consist of three zones: Zone A: buffered protective yardZone B: use restricted areaZone C: height and form restricted area Zone A is always required, however, exemptions to Zones B and C are given to certain building types (detached and attached houses, townhouses, and apartments) in the RX (Residential Mixed-Use) district where three stories is the maximum height. Congregate Care and CCRC uses are currently limited in occupancy to persons 62 or older, their spouses and surviving spouses. Proposed Text Change:  The proposed text change would exempt all single-unit living, two-unit living, cottage courts, and short-term rentals (in detached house, attached house, or townhouse building types that are 50 feet in height or less) from all three Neighborhood Transition zones.The existing exemption for the RX district would be expanded to all Mixed-Use districts, provided the proposed or existing building is 50 feet in height or less, the proposed use is permitted in the RX district, and the proposed use adheres to any applicable use standards of the RX district.The proposed text change would modify the minimum age for both Congregate Care and CCRC to align with the federal Fair Housing Act's Housing for Older Persons ExemptionsCCRC standards would also be modified to remove the minimum site size requirements that currently exist in Residential zoning districts; to reinforce that a Rest Home and Skilled Nursing are required components of a CCRC; and remove the requirement for a protective yard when bordering a residential use.

View Results

Dix Edge Area Study

The approval of the Dix Park Master Plan, Bus Rapid Transit and population growth in Raleigh are great opportunities for the City, but unplanned growth can have unintended consequences on the surrounding...

View Results

Site Plan/Plot Plan and Revisions (TC-14-19)

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.

Site Plan/Plot Plan and Revisions...

This text change has been closed in the portal. For updates on the text change process please visit the City of Raleigh text change web page.    Site Plan/Plot Plan and Revisions (TC-14-19): Amend the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to incorporate a 3-tiered system for categorizing site plans based on construction type and level of impact.  It will include two categories, minor and major, for modifications to approved site plans. It will also confirm the site plan standards to the new Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes for development regulations. This text change is intended to simplify the approval process for small-scale projects and changes of use in existing buildings by scaling regulatory burdens to the impact of the development. Background information: A site plan is a set of detailed drawings that show different structural and design elements on a given lot and how they all fit together. Often included in the site plan are: building footprint, parking lots, walkways, driveways, utilities, sewer lines, and water lines. It's generally a bird's eye view of what goes where on a lot. Site plans are generally used by contractors and builders for development on lots. A plot plan is like a site plan in that it also outlines the structural and design elements on a given lot and how they fit together. The difference between the two is that a plot plan is generally used for smaller projects. Sometimes this is referred to as a "minor site plan." Current Rules: 1. The UDO makes repeated use of the term "site plan" but not define it. 2. The UDO currently references plot plans and treats them differently than site plans. "Plot plan" is a non-standard term. 3. The applicability and the review standards outlined in the UDO are based on whether something is considered a plot plan or a site plan. 4. The UDO currently references the Development Services Department. The Development Services Department is now the Planning and Development Department. 5. The UDO outlines parameters for classifying modifications to an approved site plan as "minor." There is currently no classification for "major" modifications. 6. Because the UDO does not currently include a classification for "major modifications," no procedures for approving these modifications have been established in the code. 7. Some portions of the UDO are not consistent with the language provided in the new Chapter 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes for development regulations. Proposed Text Change: 1. The proposed text change offers a definition of a site plan:  A scaled drawing and supporting text showing the relationship between lot lines and the existing or proposed uses, buildings, or structures on the lot. The site plan may include site-specific details such as building areas, building height and floor area, setbacks from lot lines and street rights-of-way, intensities, densities, utility lines and locations, parking, access points, roads, and stormwater control facilities that are depicted to show compliance with all legally required development regulations that are applicable to the project and the site plan review. 2. The proposed text change would remove references to plot plans. Instead, what was previously a plot plan would be considered the first tier of a three-tiered structure for site plans (see #3 below and Section 5 of the draft ordinance). 3. The proposed text change would create a three-tiered site plan structure that would differentiate site plans based on their level of impact on the site. Each tier comes with a distinct set of review standards and site requirements. You can see the differences among the tiers in the Table of Applicable Standards (Section 6 of the draft ordinance). 4. The proposed text change would remove all references to "Development Services" and replace it with "the City." An example of this change can be found in the requirement for a pre-application meeting. Applicants are no longer required to meet with the "Development Services Director"; they will now meet with an appointed representative of the City of Raleigh. 5. The proposed text change would still allow for the classification of modifications as "minor" but there would be increased flexibility in the parameters used to make this determination. Modifications not labeled as "minor" would be considered "major." Minor modifications would require fewer steps in the review process than major modifications. 6. The proposed text change would give the Planning Commission final authority to approve major modifications to site plans that had been approved using previous standards in the UDO. 7. The proposed text change would make the language of this ordinance consistent with the new 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes for development regulations.

11

26

View Results

Mezzanines (TC-7-20)

Mezzanines (TC-7-20): Amend the UDO definition for a mezzanine and allow a mezzanine covering less than 50% of the floor area on one level of a building. Currently, the UDO allows one mezzanine, which...

21

45

View Results

Dix Edge Neighborhood Ambassador Application

The Raleigh Department of Planning and Development is recruiting a fluent Spanish speaker to assist in outreach, education, and engagement for the Dix Edge Area Study. The goal of the study is to...

The Raleigh Department of Planning and Development is recruiting a fluent Spanish speaker to assist in outreach, education, and engagement for the Dix Edge Area Study. The goal of the study is to develop policies, tools and budgetary recommendations to keep and build more affordable housing in the neighborhoods next to Dix Park. The Study will also focus on improvements to the roads, including Lake Wheeler and S. Saunders as well as exploring new greenway connections, new bike lanes and much more! The Ambassador will begin work immediately after a virtual training and serve on the project for the next three months with an option to stay on through the end of the year. The ideal Ambassador should live, work, or have a direct connection to the study area and be trusted members of the community with a deep local knowledge of the area and the people in it.   We are currently seeking an ambassador who is fluent in Spanish.  Please fill out the entire application to be considered for the Ambassador Program.  What does a Neighborhood ambassador do? Neighborhood Ambassadors are paid an honorarium of $15 an hour for their time. Ensures that the public is engaged and has a trusted voice to share feedback with.Promote meetings and information sessions to the public.Gather contact information from interested community residents for the purposes of future outreach.Act as a trusted voice in the community, which may mean telling the project team where outreach strategies are weak or where there is public mistrust in the process.Use personal social media and email networks to spread the word about the Dix Edge Study and keep the community plugged in.Provides the project team with honest feedback from the public, even if that feedback is not positive. What is the time commitment? We are looking for a Spanish-speaking ambassador to start immediately and stay with the team for the next three months, with an option to stay on the project through the end of the year. Around 5 to 10 hours per month, which will include meeting with members of the community to help introduce the project and promote upcoming events. The time commitment includes advertising, recruitment, and reporting back to the project team. What training or assistance will the City provide? The City will provide Ambassadors with informational and promotional materials which will contain all of the materials needed to conduct a community meeting on the Dix Edge Study. Ambassadors will not be expected to supply their own materials, the project team will give you everything you need.Paid training will be provided before Ambassadors are asked to begin their work.Reporting templates for you to provide all the information back to the City. What are the benefits to getting involved? You’ll get to know your community and help ensure that everyone feels like their voice is being heard.You can help shape the future of the study area by engaging the people who live within it.You will get exposure to professional planning process in how a planning study works and get the opportunity to learn about how processes like these shape Raleigh’s future.The program pays $15 an hour, including training time. Snacks at all the meetingsA t-shirt!  Questions? Contact Sara Ellis at sara.ellis@raleighnc.gov or 919.996.2234. 

28

104

View Results

Equitable Development Around Transit Recommendations Survey

In 2016, Wake County residents chose a future with greater freedom and choice of mobility than ever before. The decision to adopt and fund the Wake County Transit Plan represented the biggest investment...

205

104

View Results

Wakefield Small Area Study - Kickoff Survey

The Wakefield Small Area Study is focused on an area surrounding Falls of Neuse Road between the Neuse River and Capital Boulevard.

You can read the full project description that consultants applying...

87

79

View Results

Wake BRT: New Bern Avenue - Design Survey 1

The design phase for implementing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on New Bern Avenue is underway. Approximately 3.3 miles of the 5.1-mile corridor would use dedicated transit lanes between the GoRaleigh Station,...

186

61

View Results

Raleigh BRT: Equitable Development Around Transit (Equity and Sustainability)

Raleigh BRT: Equitable Development Around Transit

Raleigh and Wake County are planning a future with greater freedom and choice of mobility than ever before, with bus rapid transit (BRT) lines extending...

676

611

View Results

Fisher Street Park Relocation and John Stokes Garden Improvements Project

Fisher Street Park Relocation and John Stokes Garden ProjectThe Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department, working in collaboration with the Housing & Neighborhoods...

Fisher Street Park Relocation and John Stokes Garden ProjectThe Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department, working in collaboration with the Housing & Neighborhoods Department, is making improvements to the public parks in the East College Park development!   The City of Raleigh, through the Raleigh Housing and Neighborhood Department, is facilitating the development of new single-family homes and townhome units in College Park, a neighborhood in East Raleigh.   As part of this housing development project, the existing Fisher Street Park, located at 328 North Fisher Street, will be relocated to a new site at the corner of North Fisher and Pender Streets, approximately one block away. The new Fisher Street Park location will feature a playground, basketball court, picnic shelter, and seating areas. Included in this project, Pender Street Park, known by neighbors as John Stokes Garden and located at the corner of Pender and N. Carver Streets, will undergo site renovation including new walkways, seating areas, and landscaping.   When these projects are completed in Summer 2022, the new Fisher Street Park and the improved John Stokes Garden will be places to play, relax, and enjoy the outdoors within the heart of College Park.   PROJECT UPDATE The Fisher Street Park Relocation and John Stokes Garden Improvements project is under construction from January to July 2022.    During construction, the old Fisher Street Park site has been permanently closed and will be redeveloped into new housing.  John Stokes Garden will be closed for construction.  The new Fisher Street Park and the renovated John Stokes Garden will re-open in Summer 2022.   Project Background In the late 1960s, Fisher Street Park was constructed in the College Park neighborhood, an established community east of downtown and south of Saint Augustine University. The City of Raleigh, through the Housing & Neighborhoods Department, is currently facilitating the development of approximately 150 single-family homes and townhomes in College Park.  Known as the East College Park Development, this is a City Council-approved development plan seeks to increase the availability of affordable housing in this area.  Starting in 2015, the City embarked on a process to obtain the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) designation from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  The process involved multiple forms of public participation and citizen input.  In 2016, numerous members of the community and staff walked through the College Park Neighborhood to discuss and make note of the neighborhood vision.  One of the major points of discussion was Fisher Street Park. It was recommended by the community that the park be moved.  From the feedback received, the City Council adopted the East College Park development plan.  The plan called for converting the existing Fisher Street Park, at 328 North Fisher Street, into two single-family lots and placing a new park more centrally in the neighborhood.  The new park location will be adjacent to the East College Park community mailbox kiosk and near the John Stokes Garden, a City of Raleigh park at the corner of Pender and Carver Streets. More information on the East College Park project can be found here. Project Scope The Fisher Street Park Relocation Project is a partnership initiative between the City of Raleigh Housing & Neighborhoods Department and the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Department.  Funding for this project is provided through a Community Development Block Grant coordinated by the Housing & Neighborhoods Department.  The project includes: Design and construction of the new Fisher Street Park.Demolition of the existing Fisher Street Park site.Site improvements to the existing John Stokes GardenPublic art at both park sites Through the planning process, involving face-to-face meetings (pre-Covid) and community surveys via PublicInput.com, it was determined that amenities for the new Fisher Street Park site will feature a playground and basketball court along with other passive features.  These amenities correspond to the programming at the existing park site.  Community members stressed that Fisher Street Park and the basketball court have been important parts of the College Park neighborhood since 1969 and that basketball should remain a core part of the new park site amenities. During the initial public engagement process, the idea of including art in the park design was recommended.  As such, Raleigh Arts, a service unit of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department, was brought onto the project to procure an artist exclusively for this project.  Through a series of interviews with the Fisher Park Artist Selection Panel, composed of representatives of the College Park and local arts communities, a finalist was selected.  Jermaine “JP” Powell is a North Carolina-based mixed-media artist and muralist and is currently engaging with the community to develop a vision for future art elements at Fisher Street Park.   See park design and art survey results below.  February 2022 public art presentation:  https://fb.watch/bjDQHUE6hE/

View Results

Midtown: From Ideas to Action

The Midtown-St. Albans area plan is focused on making Midtown an even better place as it grows and evolves. This survey is designed to help us prioritize proposed improvements for the area, including projects...

317

135

View Results

Encuesta sobre valores comunitarios en Capital Boulevard North

El Estudio del Corredor Capital Boulevard se enfoca principalmente en el transporte, pero Capital Boulevard es mucho más que simplemente una avenida. Es un destino regional para ir de compras, un...

View Results

Survey for Residents

We'd like to know your experience using the manual, completing construction on your property, and development impacts in your neighborhood.

68

63

View Results

Survey for Developers

We'd like to hear about your experience using the stormwater design manual as well as meeting local/state regulations and development trends.

41

38

View Results

Municipalidad de Raleigh Encuesta sobre relleno residencial

La municipalidad de Raleigh está llevando a cabo un estudio para reunir información y hacer recomendaciones sobre la construcción de viviendas en vecindarios establecidos, lo cual...

View Results

Capital Boulevard North Design Directions Survey

Introduction

During the Capital Boulevard North Corridor Study, the City asked residents to state their goals for making Capital Boulevard better...

378

294

View Results

Residential Infill Development Survey

The City of Raleigh is undertaking a study to gather information and make recommendations regarding the construction of new residential houses within existing neighborhoods, something known as “infill...

3,162

10,184

View Results

Capital Boulevard North Community Assets Survey

The Capital Boulevard North Corridor Study has a major focus on transportation, but Capital Boulevard is much more than just a road. It is a regional shopping destination, a hub of small businesses, and...

170

391

View Results

Wake BRT: Western Blvd Survey

The Wake BRT: Western Blvd. study aims to find the best way to integrate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Western Blvd. to connect downtown Raleigh, NC State University, and downtown Cary. This survey will...

403

291

View Results

Wake BRT: New Bern Ave. Survey Summer 2019

The City of Raleigh is conducting a survey to gather feedback on conceptual design for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along New Bern Avenue. Each of the images below provide conceptual BRT designs and placement...

570

1,443

View Results

Midtown St. Albans - Eligiendo un camino

Introducción

Según los comentarios del público, la zona de Midtown es excelente pero resolver ciertos problemas podría mejorarla. Esta encuesta rápida se divide...

View Results

Raleigh BRT: Equitable Development Around Transit

Raleigh and Wake County are planning a future with greater freedom and choice of mobility than ever before, with bus rapid transit (BRT) lines extending...

370

508

View Results

Floodplain Regulations Survey

The City of Raleigh - Stormwater Management Division is interested in gathering feedback from the community on the City's floodplain regulations. Take a few minutes to complete the survey and share...

420

385

View Results

Atlantic Avenue Road Improvement Project

The City of Raleigh is widening Atlantic Avenue from Highwoods Boulevard to New Hope Church Road. The purpose of the project is to make Atlantic Avenue safe, convenient, and comfortable for all modes of...

View Results

Downtown Raleigh Cleanliness

Results from this short survey on downtown Raleigh cleanliness will help inform the City’s operations. For this purpose, downtown Raleigh is defined as Peace Street to Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard,...

299

147

View Results

Edit Your Hub

Surveys & Projects

Search results for ""

No results found for ""

Forestville Road Park Community Advisory Group Selection

Western Station Area Planning Options and Concepts Survey

Southern Station Area Planning Options and Concepts Survey

Engage with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Smoky Hollow Park Project

Green Road Park - Site Improvements Project

Tarboro Road Park Redevelopment Project

Kyle Drive Park Planning Process

Fire Department - Feedback on Service Received

Dix Park Plaza & Play

Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Urban Heat Islands

Sunnybrook Road Property to Crabtree Creek Greenway Connector Project

Battle Ridge Greenway Connector Project

Raleigh Parks Plan Update

New question set from Do you have any personal stories or thoughts related to Dix Hospital or "Dix Hill" (as it was more broadly...

Neuse River Park Planning Process

Slippery Elm Drive Final Design Ballot

Rezoning Engagement Portal

Weekly Citizen Leadership Academy Survey - Fall 2022

Text Change Engagement Portal

Raleigh Sidewalk Projects

Neuse River Blueway Plan

Latta University Historic Park Planning Process

Get updates

Social Feed

Green Road Park Site Improvements Project - Draft Concept Plan Survey

West Raleigh Municipal Service District

Environmental Education Engagement Survey

Six Forks Road Improvements Options Survey

Green Road Park Site Improvements Project - Public Input Survey #1

Prince Hall Historic Overlay District (HOD) Survey

Stormwater Design Manual Version 3 Comments

South Park Heritage Walk & Top Greene Center Improvements - Planning Process

John Chavis Memorial Park - Phase 2 Planning Process

Small Business Survey 2023

Five Points Streetscape & Safety Study

Best Time for Public Comment

Blount & Person Street Project - Design Open House - April 2023

Dix Park Cultural Interpretation Plan

N TARBORO STREET

Sidewalk Petition Program Survey

Midtown Multimodal Bridge Survey

South Park Heritage Walk

Chavis-Dix Strollway

Omnibus List 2022 (TC-3-22)

Roadway Construction, Nonconformities and Signage (TC-5-22)

Minor Administrative Permits (TC-21-20)

Shaw University Assemblage (Z-59-22)

Old Wake Forest Rd Assemblage (Z-57-22)

7781 Alexander Town Blvd (Z-58-22)

22 Peace & West Street Assemblage (Z-54-22)

Dix Edge Affordable Housing (Z-53-22)

10854 Globe Road (Z-52-22)

7725 Buffaloe Road (Z-51-22)

4902 Memory Road (Z-49-22)

120, 140 Rush Street (Z-48-22)

2924 Computer Drive (Z-47-22)

2022 Historic Place Survey: Raleigh LGBTQIA+ Community

Accessory Structures (TC-18-21)

Raleigh's Black History and Heritage: 1945-1975

Small, Start-up, and Minority-owned Business Survey

City Council Terms and Compensation

Employment & Transportation Community Conversation

Davie Street Playground

Greenway Master Plan Update Public Outreach Phase III

Conflicts of Interest, 160D References, and Board/Commission Composition (TC-10-21)

Development Agreements (TC-9-21)

Multiple Module Height Method (TC-22-20)

City Tree Manual (TC-5-21)

Outdoor Bar Seating in NX (TC-13-20)

Southeast Special Area Study - Phase 3 Survey

Wakefield Small Area Study Online Open House

Bicycle Street Cross Sections (TC-3-21)

New Bern Station Area Planning: Community Connections Survey

DX Digital Signs (TC-7-21)

Dix Edge Area Study Phase Soon Survey