This was the massing from the first rezoning attempt… it seems they have at least flipped the heights to have the tallest towards Peace St - which makes way more sense anyway.
And for what its worth, the shadows would basically fall within the same area as a Kane 40 story SH Phase 3 tower. Did they yard sign against that one too? - I honestly dont remember.
Ok so I read the UDO in more detail. There are massing rules above the 12th floor. The rule is 30000 sq ft per allowed floor above 12 per building. So 540,000 sq ft total allowed above floor 13. Plenty for a big, wide, Hong Kong style slab - if that’s what the developer chooses to do.
Really I’d be OK with it if the 240’ portion were a tower, and the 360’ portion were a separate tower, with like 50’ betwen them. But there is nothing in the UDO nor rezoning request that requires anything like that. In fact the rezoning seems pretty explicitly written to allow a Hong Kong Slab as a possibility, likely because it would maximize the sale value of the land.
He’s referring to this breakdown of Zone 1 and Zone 2. Zone 1 is capped at 240 feet while Zone 2 is capped at 360. There is an argument that the bottom of West st. is lower than the top of West st. but after viewing the topography graph, its only 40-50 feet max.
But we can stop speculating on this rezoning, THIS WILL FAIL. Raleigh Neighbors United just showed up a couple days ago to the Midtown CAC meeting and scared the crap out of everyone there regarding this rezoning. Saying “If this passes, your neighborhood in NH is next” They had a 30-minute presentation, a new massing and Shadow Diagram that really sent everyone over the edge. Get ready for a flood of new emails to hit city staff this week.
If the CC just bows down to this random group of random people spreading misinformation to garner support… then the CC is inept and should be voted out. I don’t see either at-large member voting no, nor Mitch Silver. Unsure about others (minus Christina Jones who of course will vote no and should’ve been voted out last election).
These diagrams are so funny to me. In the real world, so many of the closest houses are already shadowed from that direction by the large layer of trees.
Shadows for like a couple hours…
in the morning…
for a few weeks…
in winter!
Literally when no one wants to be outside anyway!
Its never been about “shadows”. Its just change and that scares them.
Yep. They would much rather have a series of dilapidated wharehouse and light industrial. Instead of a shinny new development and a nice park.
Megan Powell voted against the first rezoning, and against it again to waive the two-year waiting period to resubmit.
So there’s at least 2 no votes. I also doubt the Mayor would vote no, so we’re looking at at least 4-2. Who else on the Council might vote yes? Corey Branch tends to vote with the majority, so I can imagine he’d make it 5-2
My point being - I think this is going to be a much less short-sighted CC than the last time this request went up. Sure, Megan Powell and Christina Jones are still there - but a few other NIMBYs were voted out. Hence why I believe this developer is going through this process again, now.
Are we talking to ourselves again, @Jake?
Hi Jeff! It’s me, Jeff!
Last time, everyone seemed to defer to Christina Jones because it was in her district. Do we know how she voted on the extension?
Im all for development but there’s a H-U-G-E difference between being overshadowed by a giant tree compared to a giant building. I’ll take the tree all day.
With as many gravel lots and already-rezoned plots of land in downtown that haven’t started building anything on them, I don’t think this is a huge loss if it stays at the existing permitted height and let the other taller lots build up closer to the core of downtown. Once we’re “out of places to grow tall” I think there’ll be a better argument to make against the NIMBY neighbors. With the combination of volume of emails opposing, and the fact council is hearing an appeal before the official “waiting period” or whever has expired before they’re supposed to reconsider, I have serious doubts this will pass politically.
Regardless, I’d rather live next to the tree than a tall building.
Then the Suburbs are a GREAT option for this. Not immediately in the vicinity of a major downtown area.
Especially since it’s not right next to the houses - there’s a tree buffer, train rails, different strip of commercial buildings, a road, and then the proposed development.
I think the point is that with all of the tall trees, you won’t even see the tall building.
so you want the tree gone? WHYYYYY?
You have a tough time with reading comprehension, eh? Nobody is saying anything about cutting those trees down. I have to assume you’re purposely being obtuse - for what reason… I have no clue.
