This project popped up on this Thursday’s agenda for the planning commission Committee of the Whole.
Z-36-18 W. Martin Street, at the southeast corner of its intersection with Commerce Pl, being Wake County PIN 1703575747. Approximately 0.99 acres are requested by 4DH Partnership to be rezoned.
Current zoning: Downtown Mixed Use-5 Stories-Shopfront (DX-5-SH)
Requested zoning: Downtown Mixed Use-12 Stories-Shopfront-Conditional Use (DX-12-SH-CU)
Revised zoning conditions were submitted on March 18, 2019 which require existing historic structures to remain except in the event of disaster, require buildings replacing historic structures to be similar in mass and materials, limit height to five stories in the area of the existing structures, require a covenant to be recorded which requires review by the RHDC COA committee for new construction above historic structures, require exterior materials for new construction visible from the right of way to match the surrounding historic character, prohibit certain uses, require a dog waste station, require 50% of Outdoor Amenity area to be open to the public, and require screening of structure parking.
The request is consistent with the Future Land Use Map.
The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Central CAC voted on February 4 to recommend approval of the case if conditions were offered that required outdoor amenity area to be open to the public, required screening of parking, allow the Group Home use, and require the outdoor amenity area to include amenities for pets. The vote was nine in favor, two against, and one abstention (9-2-1).
I really hope this is approved and is a successful venture. It obviously isn’t a game changer, but this little project seems to be everything you want in development in an infill location. I really like the historic buildings that will be kept, plus we add residents, density, height, and hopefully get a neat new building. Would love to see more projects like this.
All great stuff Leo. Thanks for sharing.
That said, the above statement does concern me because I’ve seen these “unintentional disasters” conveniently play out in Miami for developers. In one case, a crane fell through the “There’s Something About Mary” house that was supposed to be preserved on the property of a luxury tower. Now that the house is gone, one can’t even imagine how it was supposed to integrate into site plan for the project. So, I see its “accidental” destruction as awfully convenient. In another case, a storefront was supposed to be saved on Lincoln Rd, only to have a contractor all but take it completely down.
I’m not saying that this particular developer will do something like this; I am just concerned about keeping such language in the process. I think that it gives too much wiggle room to make an accident happen.
I’d force developers to maintain a bond on the historic structures that is far in excess of the value of the building and if a non-natural disaster happens as a result of actions of the developer, reasonably foreseeable or not (negligent or not), the bond is forfeited and given to some such non-profit in the area for the direct purchase and relocation of other threatened historic structures. Something along those lines. Make it hurt if they don’t do what they say they will.
Stephenson also said he had questions about how tall the building would be, how far they would be set back from the street and how the developer would maintain the historical nature of the two warehouse buildings.
In an email, Schuster said they thought they had addressed Stephenson’s concerns and that they had met with each council member before the public hearing Tuesday night. No one spoke against the rezoning during the hearing, and it received a favorable recommendation from the city’s planning commission and the Central Citizen Advisory Council.
I am beyond sick with these council members we are creeping closer to total disfunction every day. Our council is full of very unimpressive individuals who have been given the smallest bit of power and are now big headed and full of themselves.
Thanks for the article @Christopher. I noticed that Stephenson brought up the lack affordable housing in the proposed project. If the guy had his way, he’d force every new residential development with an associated rezoning request to include affordable housing as a condition for approval. That is not leadership. That’s political grandstanding.
It’s all virtue signaling. His constituents say they are concerned about affordability so he wants to be seen as doing something. And since blocking development is also something his supporters like, he’ll find a way to make blocking development look like it is in support of affordability.
That’s a great way to make my downtown residence increase in value.
What an idiotic philosophy/strategy. Does being on Raleigh’s city council really mean that much to someone that they’ll make bad decisions for the city to keep their seat?
If they are able to keep their seat, are they really bad decisions for their constituents? Sounds like good representation at all costs to me. I mean, if the constituents want to burn DTR to the ground and leave a pile of ash, then that is what their representative should be for, as wrong as it may be.
I’m thinking about attending the public hearing to voice my support of the project.
Also page 50 they put to rest some of the debate spelling Smokey Hollow:
