It turns out that at that January hearing when North Hills traffic was lightly discussed, the referral to the Transportation Committee – which had been previously promised to opponents – was not for any review of North Hills traffic at all but rather for the Six Forks Corridor Project – a dead project that would have provided little if any relief for traffic congestion in North Hills.
Raleigh’s current plans provide ample opportunity to reach Raleigh’s housing and density goals without threatening the character that makes Raleigh such a desirable address.
Let’s move on from self-serving and counterproductive supply-side theories used to justify massive developments that are violating our neighborhoods and our adopted growth plans. Instead, let’s work with Wake County’s Affordable Housing Director toward solutions described in Livable Raleigh’s Affordability Agenda, to produce much more affordable housing and more growth according to our adopted plans.
You often point to offered conditions as public benefits. The question is whether those benefits are proportionate to what is being granted. In the recent cases they were not. Doubling or tripling height should come with significantly elevated public benefits. You have leverage. Developers want to build here. Council can either insist on meaningful benefits or adhere to the plans we collectively agreed to follow.
As elected officials, it is your prime responsibility to support all areas of the City with smart development and infrastructure spending to support it. Follow the guidance that you have been given in both the Midtown area plan and Comprehensive Plan.
There is a groundswell of opposition to Kane Realty’s request to rezone several of its properties at North Hills to allow taller buildings, up to 37 stories in some cases. Former Raleigh Mayor Nancy McFarlane has sent an email to Council in opposition to the request.
The applicant is requesting height everywhere that is inconsistent with the zoning recommendation of the Midtown area plan, which recommends heights between 4 and 20 stories, inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map, which recommends heights between 2 and 20 stories, and inconsistent with Table LU-2, which recommends height for Regional Mixed Use at a maximum of 20 stories. So, how can the staff review determine that this application is consistent with the Future Land Use Map, the Urban Form Map, and the Zoning map of the Midtown area plan, when it clearly is not?
This is not the first time that this case is being presented. The only thing that has changed is the composition of the Council and Mayor. You are again being asked to judge the elements of the application with the same guidance that was in place when this case was previously presented five years ago. The same inconsistencies exist now that existed then. It is not a complicated case unless you choose to create guidelines beyond those already clearly defined in the Midtown – Saint Albans area plan and 2030 Comprehensive plan.
It was hard to process the complete lack of interest or support by this City Council for the concerns repeatedly raised by residents. Countless emails, phone calls, meetings, and petitions were met with silence. Council was misled—partly by a Planning Department analysis that failed to identify any policy inconsistencies, and partly by Council member Silver’s one-sided defense that dismissed legitimate concerns raised by residents.
The City does have a plan to support that growth. It is called a Comprehensive Plan. Does the City follow that plan when adding density? Most times, the answer is no!