Height transitions are essential urban planning tools that ensure livability, preserve sunlight, reduce heat, and maintain a walkable, human-scale city. Raleigh can and should grow—but it must stick to the plans that made it great. Ignoring these risks Raleigh’s future. Raleigh Neighbors United supports more housing and greater density, but it must be guided by long-term plans and include transitions, and urban design that will help Raleigh thrive. One-off rezonings like Z-12-25 undermine long range plans, affordability goals and set a harmful precedent for development citywide.

RDC’s last point is that they are meeting the guidance on transitions in proposing 20 and 30 story buildings, in a Transition Zone, 240 feet from homes in a Historic Neighborhood. Not only does this not pass a logical assessment it is not fully accurate. If one reviews the 2030CP analysis document and the 21 different policies guiding transition and buffering called out, they would clearly see the policy violations of Z-12-25.

RDC’s claim is that the Z-12-25 site is in a Station Area and qualifies for a Transit designation for height category in Table LU-2, which can allow buildings of up to 40 stories when paired with the Equitable Transit-oriented Development Guidebook (EDAT). But, as of February 2023, the West Street Alternative that included a potential BRT station at West Street and Johnson Street was officially removed from the Northern Corridor plans. The only remaining potential published transit station in the area is now at Lane Street and Capital Boulevard, which is more than a quarter mile away from the Z-12-25 site. With the West Street alignment and potential station now off the table, this site no longer qualifies for a Transit designation nor is it in a Station Area.

RDC’s claim is, “the Urban Form Map designation for this site is in the Downtown Center,” and that this designation and policies from that section support heights above 12 stories. This is misleading. While it is true that the Urban Form Map UD-1 (UFM) places the site within the Downtown and Core Transit areas, this designation is not a direct basis for determining allowable height or density. it’s important to clarify a potential source of confusion. The site is designated Core Transit on the Urban Form Map but that is not the same as the Core/Transit category referenced in Table LU-2, which is a distinct classification tied to specific definitions

While the developer’s argument relied on selected pieces of the Comprehensive Plan, it reflected a common rezoning tactic: cherry-picking policies to justify a predetermined outcome. But when viewed in full context, the city’s adopted plans and policies provide clear, balanced guidance.