In order to make important decisions with confidence, City Council needs good advice. The Planning Department should be working to provide you with a recommendation based on a full and rational analysis of all impacts, positive or negative, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Their job is NOT to convince you the proposal is necessary and essential to the continued expansion of Raleigh’s revenue base.
Amazingly City Staff identified no detriments from this rezoning case. This proposed development is very close to a historic neighborhood. Why is there no reference in this document to Section 12 of the Comprehensive Plan regarding Historic Preservation? The first comment reads “Lack of transitions around historic resources which can sometimes lead to jarring juxtapositions of scale and proximity that detract from the character of the historic resource’s setting.” Has anybody read this or is even aware of this section of the Comprehensive Plan?
Everyone agrees that more urban parks and walkable urban densities are good things, but promoters of 30 story towers next to the historic Glenwood Brooklyn neighborhood have offered no evidence that the new 12 story Publix building just across Peace Street isn’t an excellent example of what could go on the West Street site, giving the developer ample profits and urban high-rise densities without casting 30 story shadows over the neighborhood every winter morning
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.
I thank the City for the Rainwater Rewards program that helps citizens remove impervious surfaces or install rain gardens, to reduce runoff. I have walked the walk: I have removed three driveways from properties I have owned, and removed tons of concrete from the back yards of two other properties. Please direct staff to update our development rules, and create financial penalties per square foot of impervious surface. There are alternatives: driveway strips, permeable pavers, grill blocks, or even gravel.
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 listened and watched the transportation presentation with the expectation of hearing the options to bring this project within budget. That is what I had been told for the last six months. I was wrong again on all counts. With a Council primed to go on summer hiatus, Council made a decision that will haunt this Council for many years to come – cancelling the Six Forks Road Improvement project. I tried to speak before that decision was made, as some of you saw, but I was denied.
By law, rezonings are legislative actions that must be judged for consistency with the 2030CP and SAP, not just technical compliance with the UDO. The proposal to allow 20- and 30-story towers in a transition area just 240 feet from a historic neighborhood and homes isn’t judged only by whether it meets basic zoning code requirements. It must also be consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s long-term vision, the Unified Development Ordinance’s regulatory standards, and the Capital Boulevard Corridor Study’s location-specific guidance. City Council must check if a proposal matches the plan’s maps, policies, and long-term goals, not just whether it’s profitable or popular in the short term. This proposal fails this Three-Layer Test.
Approving Z-12-25 would ignore hard-won policies, dismantle critical protections, and set a dangerous precedent for high-rise development adjacent to neighborhoods across the city. It would place short-term interests above long-term success, undermining the thoughtful planning that has made Raleigh livable, walkable, and desirable.