Feel free to go back and check but I said “sounds a lot like” - Highlighting the implication you were making in your comment. Not trying to derail this thread in to conversation around income equality or 'how the rich poison our democracy".
FYI and to educate a bit - the courts exist just for this reason…to weigh in on the legality of decisions made by the legislative body (e.g. city council) whether brought by other governmental bodies, private organizations, or private citizens.
To close, I support the development but recognize and acknowledge the right of neighbors to be disgruntled and challenge it within the bounds we as a society of laid out.
At least these people will likely be doing a LOT less driving than if they buy a $1mm house in Cary or North Raleigh. And it’s easily bikeable and walkable to Glenwood South and Five Points for weekend activities where a 15 minute walk isn’t an imposition.
The thing is, it doesn’t really sound like it at all. The concerns are frivolous and made more trivial by their wealth.
I don’t think addressing the core of the issue, the only reason why these concerns are being given any consideration in a by-right process is derailing the thread.
Thanks, I know how judicial review works. Decisions made by planning staff, can be appealed to the planning director, and then to the Wake County Superior Court. I also know that this development meets the intent of the UDO, and if they were to stop the project it would only be because they could afford to pay lawyers to scrutinize every sentence of the UDO for some flawed wording or technicality. Nobody else other than the rich can afford that kind of deference.
My old boss lives around the corner from this and walks to 5 points all the time. There is also a bus stop 0.1 miles away on St. Mary. So pretty well connected for non car access.
Just looked at Google maps and it is a 15 min walk or 8 min bike ride to 5 points from this lot.
From the NRHP nomination form (!): The desire to protect substantial investments and maintain control over who lived in Hayes Barton resulted in racial incidents during the history of the neighborhood. In 1927, the News and Observer reported that "Hayes-Barton citizens boiled over last night- determined to keep Gus Russos, Greek shoe-shine parlor operator, out of their exclusive residential section at any cost." A neighborhood group known as the Hayes Barton Improvement Association met in an angry session to find a way to keep Russos out even though there was no legal justification. It
*was reported that "[an] injunctions appeal to the City Commissioners, boycotting the Russos * Shine Parlors, and the Ku Klux Klan were means suggested to that end.'>lb A similar incident in 1935 involved a fight to keep an unused sanitarium at the comer of Jarvis and Harvey from being converted into an apartment building. Residents feared multi-family housing would reduce their property values, which were protected by the current zoning that allowed only three families per building. These incidents reinforce the original appeal of Hayes Barton as an exclusive enclave at a time in American history when social and racial upheaval were greatly feared. Retreating to the safety of “country” suburbs, citizens felt and reacted strongly to perceived threats to their lifestyle.
The developer are thoughtful about how they bring more attainable housing options to the neighborhoods they work in - e.g., the Pleasant Pines townhouses off 70 came in under $300K in 2020. I’ve worked with their site planner, who’s a LEED AP and very cognizant of rules regarding flooding… which is completely a red herring, since a teardown McMansion on this site could pave over nearly an acre (see 9.2.2.A.1.a) by-right, whereas redevelopment here requires certified plans that stormwater volume will not increase at all.
I think history is really important to know (and this is fascinating!), but I’d caution that using it as a weapon in land use fights is a double edged sword.
If you start arguing every building with a dark side to its history shouldn’t be protected, then you might as well start stripping the protections off of every big historic city center around the world.
In the neighborhood, the Josephus Daniels house getting its historic designation stripped sure felt like a developer leaping all over some negative history to push through a demolition of a legitimately impressive and important landmark.
Which is not what I’m saying. (I volunteer at a historic railroad museum operating trains - which I would not have been able to a century ago. That absolutely does not mean I think they should be destroyed!)
Individual buildings can obviously be architecturally remarkable or historically noteworthy, even though they may have been associated with monstrous people and their misdeeds.
Hayes Barton’s “neighborhood character” is exclusion, and therefore an inclusive city has an obligation not to defend that “neighborhood character”.
IMO, the Daniels house could easily have been incorporated into a larger redevelopment… if the city’s dimensional requirements and density limits had made it possible to put taller buildings around the house, rather than shorter houses across the entire site.
Oh, for sure that is happening. Millennials are just as guilty of this, and I’m sure Gen-Z will fall into the same trap. Basic human nature for sure, but some of our instincts need to be quelled in favor of a greater good that extends beyond ourselves. Most folks making those types of arguments would never actually say “screw you, I got mine,” but they need to understand that that’s what they’re implying. So I’m going to keep calling it for what it is and praying that I never echo their sentiments.
Veering off topic, but just got a notification of a post on Nextdoor about the 30 story Peace/West rezoning next to the future park. Clicked on it thinking it might have an update… nah… People opposed to it because of shadows. Seriously.
From the CBS17 link, it looks like the proposal is for detached houses surrounding a common green - not townhouses, but a Cottage Court. I’d also previously noticed that the T Ruth for Raleigh Platform page starts out with “ADUs By Right / Short-Term Rentals / Cottage Courts” as the first topic. (No, there is no actual stance provided yet.)
Listing that as the #1 issue facing Raleigh is weird, because I’m not aware of a flood of ADUs, and almost no Cottage Courts have been built - so I’m not sure where else anyone would have raised Cottage Courts as an issue. Incidentally, the site planner here also designed the first cottage court in Raleigh, near Glenwood South, as well as the only other one I know to have been built, at Powell and Driftwood. FWIW, the original Cottage Court text change was suggested by Russ Stephenson and approved by the Council of No, though it’s been amended since to increase density.
How many of these people have been walking on the sunny side of the street this week? Parking in full sun?
if i could afford to live in that neighborhood and was used to the ‘house like’ cahracter of the enclave and then having 17 townhomes thrown in would probably put me off too, regardless of the antiquity of nearby structures. throw 4 or 5 townhomes in on the lot and call it ‘williamson court’ with similar styling and a tasteful sign…eh, i likely wouldnt care too much then. i can understand the objection.
Those rectangles are just the text boxes around the lot number and size. I made the same mistake at first glance too.
Most of the lot widths are in the 26’ to 32’ range. Wonder if these might be more similar to the Caraleigh Commons neighborhood?
This brings up a good point. There’s been nothing said about this publicly by the developer. All of the “arguments” for both sides have been initiated by the opposition side, so keep in mind they are also framing the positives that they are then attacking. The media likes to portray it as a “battle” between developer and neighbors, but really its an attack by neighbors against a developer following the rules.
The reason this is happening is because homeownership is basically the only way to build wealth in today’s society, but that’s a topic for another forum.
Not super relevant to DTR, etc… but saw that a 3-story, 17 unit (all 1 bedrooms), and ground floor retail building is coming to 1209 Ridge Road. (Across from Ridgewood).
