I honestly have to ask – why seek public input if it’s not reflected in the analysis? Community engagement should serve as an opportunity to either mitigate community concerns or provide a transparent and respectful explanation when disagreement exists.
Our Comprehensive Plan says building heights should transition from the Central Business District to residential neighborhoods. The planner says 30 stories is transition. FANTASY!!
Raleigh has the tools and the policies to manage growth responsibly. Z-12-25 ignores them. Approving this rezoning would not only damage a historic neighborhood but also set a precedent that threatens every neighborhood in Raleigh. The Comprehensive Plan shows us the path forward: moderate, context-sensitive growth that strengthens, not undermines, our city’s future.
The materials being presented by the Planning Department in support of Z-12-25 do not create a complete picture or analysis that is useful for basing your decision on this third round of change requests for these particular parcels. A good analysis of compatibility should take a broad view of relevant rules, plans and guidance, and it should reflect stakeholder input with integrity. Given the inadequacies of the materials provided to you, there is no way you can come to a rational conclusion of consistency with the comprehensive plan.
I appreciate your constant vigilance, your push for accountability and how you seek and embrace feedback from your members and your community of followers.
Staff reports carry weight in Planning Commission and City Council deliberations. When they misclassify sites, turn a blind eye to policies, minimize area plans, and claim no adverse effects, they create the illusion of consistency where none exists and inflate the benefits while minimizing impacts. This clearly affected the Planning Commission deliberations and stunted debate necessary to make an informed decision.
Staff made 4 simple analysis errors. We go through each of those errors, show you the language from city documents that was misinterpreted and give you the updated results.
By law, rezonings are legislative actions that must be judged for consistency with the 2030CP and SAP, not just technical compliance with the UDO. The proposal to allow 20- and 30-story towers in a transition area just 240 feet from a historic neighborhood and homes isn’t judged only by whether it meets basic zoning code requirements. It must also be consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s long-term vision, the Unified Development Ordinance’s regulatory standards, and the Capital Boulevard Corridor Study’s location-specific guidance. City Council must check if a proposal matches the plan’s maps, policies, and long-term goals, not just whether it’s profitable or popular in the short term. This proposal fails this Three-Layer Test.
Approving Z-12-25 would ignore hard-won policies, dismantle critical protections, and set a dangerous precedent for high-rise development adjacent to neighborhoods across the city. It would place short-term interests above long-term success, undermining the thoughtful planning that has made Raleigh livable, walkable, and desirable.
If the City approves this level of height in a designated Transition Area adjacent to a historic neighborhood, it will effectively rewrite the 2030 Comprehensive Plan—not through public process and thoughtful formal amendment, but by precedent. A 30-story tower just 240 feet from homes would become consistent with adopted plans and policies, making it nearly impossible to deny similar proposals elsewhere. This kind of inappropriate, overwhelming height could then be justified beside any neighborhood in Raleigh, stripping away long-standing protections and eroding the integrity of the city’s planning framework. The consequences would be profound and lasting for Raleigh’s future.