Are we just counting which policies are convenient for a project and ignoring the ones that aren’t? This isn’t about stopping growth. It’s about rejecting a project that ignores codified transition areas, disregards protections for historic neighborhoods, and offers no real public benefit for on-site affordable housing.
Raleigh needs growth, but growth must be responsible. The 2030CP and ETOD establish a framework where context, transitions, and neighborhood protection guide how and where height happens. Z-12-25 proposes 240-360 foot towers just steps from a historic neighborhood. This is inconsistent with adopted plans, sets a dangerous precedent, and undermines Raleigh’s planning tools.
Highlights from September 9 Work Session on Dix Park and evening public comment session
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.
The developer was claiming the site is in a Transit Station Area based on an outdated map, a false claim. Now, City Staff has joined with the applicant in making false claims. The Planning Commission did nothing to question this. City Council, it is left up to you to seek out the truth.
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.
The City didn’t rezone these areas the proper way. Instead, they used a procedural sleight-of- hand, labeling it a “text change” to the Unified Development Ordinance. This way, they bypassed the normal legal requirements—like directly notifying affected residents via mail and holding a proper legislative hearing. You probably didn’t hear about this change. That’s not a coincidence. Only five people spoke at the public hearing. In a city of nearly half a million residents, that’s not engagement. That’s evasion.
HIGHLIGHTS Shared results of Social City Assessment study and Traffic and Safety Study in Glenwood South. The Social City Assessment consultant seemed to be biased toward businesses rather than residents. These issues will be discussed further in May 27 meeting of...
The Downtown Plan specifically notes the recommendation that the North End of downtown would have less large-scale development in contrast to the large-scale redevelopment contemplated on the South End of downtown, the vision for the North End fills the gaps between existing assets to create a complete neighborhood. Furthermore, the plan shows appropriate residential development for the West Street site at 7 and 8 stories.