I am asking this Council to direct staff to implement a case-by-case evaluation process for TOD projects in established neighborhoods. Density bonuses should be contingent upon: Infrastructure Alignment, Public Benefit and Safety Verification. Raleigh needs smart growth, but blanket policies that ignore physical infrastructure risk displacing the very communities they intend to serve.
Eight neighbors from Litchford Forest spoke at the Public Comment Session asking City Council to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission which voted 8-1 to DENY rezoning case Z-43-25.
Raleigh adopted a carefully thought-out and comprehensive rezoning of the entire City just 10 years ago which was and is designed to handle the growth we are now experiencing. But, Raleigh incentivizes speculators and hustlers to find cheaper and less densely zoned land not in the core of downtown and then rezone it because the city will rezone almost anything so long as you commit to building more density whether affordable or not.
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?