I attended the 2nd Neighborhood Meeting for the West Street Tower (Z-12-25). It was strictly limited to one hour and worse yet, the Planning Department’s full report including the Statement of Consistency with city policies was not available. It was a one-sided presentation of the developer’s opinions. The residents had no information from the city to challenge any claims made by the developer.
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.
2nd Developer Hosted Neighbors’ Meeting. We need to make ourselves heard. It is about all Raleigh neighborhoods and Raleigh’s Future. This is a BAD project for Raleigh and would set a dangerous precedent that will affect all neighborhoods. Wear RED and PACK the ROOM
The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study (CBCS) is an area plan companion to the Comprehensive Plan. The CBCS specifies the Historic Glenwood/Brooklyn Neighborhood (HGBN) and recommends heights in the study area ranging from three stories at the neighborhood edge, up to twelve stories in areas well separated from neighborhoods. Councilor Silver campaigned on keeping development consistent with our Plans.
The tower proposal violates 4 city plans, 47 city policies and 2 city tables. One ex. is Policy LU 8.3 Conserving, Enhancing, and Revitalizing Neighborhoods: Recognize the importance of balancing the need to increase the housing supply and expand neighborhood commerce with the parallel need to protect neighborhood character, preserve historic resources, and restore the environment.
This rezoning would set a dangerous precedent that would affect ALL neighborhoods. The developer wants to build 30 stories in a Transition Area, 240 feet from homes in a historic neighborhood. Anything greater than 12 stories would violate height guidance, 4 plans, 47 policies, and 2 tables. There is not one single city policy or plan that supports more than 12 stories at this location.
If the goal of the city is to include more mixed-income, mixed-use housing in growth centers and especially on transit corridors, accepting money in lieu of actual affordable units, will NOT accomplish that. We need to have mixed-income near services and transit.
Now that CACs have been reinstated with recognition from the city, we think it’s a good time to review the latest data for the Neighborhood Meetings. What we found is quite disturbing. The attendance at the meetings is getting worse, not better over time.
First, the neighborhood meetings that are run by the applicant or their attorneys are not working. Since the developers run the meetings, the information that is being given is often very biased and not accurate coming from the applicant or their attorney. One attorney said in a neighborhood meeting that the Comprehensive Plan was no longer relevant. There was a city staffer there but they were silent.