For a site to be designated as a Transit Land Use category, it must meet the definition “fronting along a corridor programmed for high-capacity, frequent bus transit.” The West St site meets ONLY the frequent transit criteria but fails the other two. It does not qualify for the Transit Land Use category.
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.
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The developer was claiming the site is in a Transit Station Area based on an outdated map, a false claim.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.