I fear it will be his excuse to vote against it. But no one can call him on it because of their new rule that you can’t address them individually.
Voice to text? Good god I have to type, delete and retype 15 times before I am satisfied with most emails, let alone ones people with power and influence are going to read.
1 Like
I’d just address the council as a whole with that statement.
Council members, there are apparently concerns with the development in question casting a shadow over neighborhoods over 1km away. I personally paid for a shadow study of the proposed building height and all models we ran (varying base footprints, various facade materials, various times of year) resulted in a shadow being cast no more than 357 yards to the east and west (respective to dawn/dusk). While the concerned citizens certainly have a valid concern with shadows being cast from a new development, this proposed development will not impact their morning/evening Vitamin D exposure. I’m happy to report that we can set these concerned residences’ minds at ease and support the rezoning request.
Of course, I would be able to get all of that out in the 2 minutes allocated to address the council. 
8 Likes
I went with …
Mr. Cox:
I understand that you have reached out via Social Media to solicit your constituents’ opinions on the rezoning request at the corner of Peace and Capital (Smoky Hollow Phase III – John Kane). I live downtown (adjacent to that lot in The West Condominiums), therefore I didn’t actually see your post. Thank you for being a politician that asks for input!
I am in full support of the rezoning request and I hope that we can count on you to vote for what is best for our City. A few points:
-
As a fiscal conservative, I support a higher tax base and lower tax rates. -
I support higher density for many reasons, including:
a. Higher density = More walkability = Less traffic
b. Higher density = higher tax revenue per acre of land
c. Higher density = better use of our land (less impervious surfaces, etc.)
d. Higher density = more efficient use of energy (thermal mass, fewer exposed walls, etc.)
3. I have followed Mr. Kane’s developments for years and I completely trust him to ‘do the right thing’. If Mr. Kane doesn’t build here, I will be very concerned about what may happen to this lot. Beyond him and his contractors treating neighbors fairly during the construction process, he also has a very good reputation for maintaining his developments post development. North Hills is a testament to that. My condominium literally looks right over Smoky Hollow Phases I and II and Mr. Kane’s contractors have been most respectful of the residents of our building. They have kept in touch with our HOA throughout the process.
4. I cannot think of a better “Entrance” to downtown than an attractive, well-kept, Kane property. There are rumors of other developers wanting to follow this trend in the area…and I welcome it.
5. I understand there was a concern about potential shadows that could be cast from such a building into the Oakwood neighborhood. These shadows can easily be calculated based on height and GPS coordinates, but at first glance it appears this is somewhat of a ridiculous concern.
I am a Raleigh resident of almost 50 years and I am excited to see our city grow. We have got to increase our density and slow the urban sprawl. Building taller buildings that include residential is one way to move that direction.
Thank you for listening. I hope that we can count on your support of this request.
(Sent via Mobile Device. Please excuse any typos.)
14 Likes
You know, the joke about this shaddow thing is that there are buildings and trees closer to Oakwood that also cast shadows at the very end of the day that would absorb any shadow that may be cast by the building. In effect, it’s a non-issue.
If this Oakwood resident has this concern, maybe they need to move to a flat dessert where there won’t be any shadows.
10 Likes
As I have posted previously, a few days ago David Cox used Nextdoor to ask for opinions regarding the 40 story rezoning request for Phase 3.
There has been a long standing expectation that tall buildings are appropriate for the downtown core with heights tapering down as you move towards the edge of downtown. Attached is a picture showing the downtown zoning district in a dark color. The red dot marks the location of the property requested for the rezoning. The tapering of heights from the core is stated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the general height of the building, there is concern about the amount of traffic that such a tall building will generate. The building is proposed as a mix of residential and office. My question to you is what do you think? Should we go for 40, keep it at 12 or perhaps at some height in between? I am taking many things into consideration. But, I do want to hear your opinions.
I guess he was not getting enough opinions against it, so he launched this volley today. He’s clearly trying to influence the opinions he seeking. It makes by blood boil. It doesn’t take any imagination to figure out which way he’s going to vote. Here is his second post:
Thank you everyone for the thoughtful replies. Here is some additional information for your consideration: - the building will primarily be a mix of office and residential. There is no guarantee that those living there will work nearby. Some might prefer to live downtown but work in RTP, for example. There is also no guarantee that those working in the building will walk or take public transportation to work. Many who work there might not live in the building or even nearby. We are still working with the Transportation department to understand the traffic impacts. A condition has been offered to cap the AM and PM trips at 525 net new trips per hour. This will be new trips compared to current zoning for the property and does not take into consideration the additional traffic generated by the other buildings being constructed on Peace street. - the Comprehensive Plan has laid out a roadmap for growth and development that calls for up to 40 stories in the downtown core and tapering down as you move away from the core. Does this location represent the downtown core? If not, what are the compelling reasons for allowing maximum height at this location? I note that the Comp Plan was written after significant public input. To what extent do we follow that guidance? - affordable housing cannot legally be considered. We have a provision that allows a developer to offer affordable housing as a zoning condition. However, state law precludes us from requiring it. In this case one million dollars as a contribution towards future affordable housing elsewhere has been offered as a zoning condition. That money will be paid at the rate of $100,000 a year for ten years according to the condition.
Someone needs to take this to the media. Cox is actively ignoring the wishes of the people of Raleigh for his own agenda.
6 Likes
I’m about to take it to the Twitternet so all 200 of my followers (most not in Raleigh) can read it. Hopefully it’ll get retweeted by YIMBY and some others.
12 Likes
Infuriating! I am writing him again. And I will have my sister reply to next door and tell him to stop his influencing.
4 Likes
Tag YIMBY Raleigh’s account! And maybe ITBinsider while you’re at it
5 Likes
His concerns about traffic and whether or not people will actually live and work nearby are not out of line, but they’re not less of an issue if the building is suddenly on the Fayetteville St. corridor instead of Peace St., so he’d have to explain why that would be a valid concern in one instance and not the other. There certainly will NOT be more people living and working downtown if residential capacity is artificially limited, and I think it’s easily argued that it will be much easier for commuters from outside of downtown to access Smok(e)y Hollow than Fayetteville St. Also, I know this has been debated quite a bit, and reasonable people have different opinions, but as someone who’s always lived outside of downtown (and always wanted to live downtown), I think that most people in Wake County consider the entire area bounded by Peace, Glenwood, MLK, and East to be “downtown,” give or take a block or two, and could really care less about specific boundaries of some “core” within that area (with the exception of historical preservation). Cities in America that have gentle, controlled height step downs are few and far between, and they usually appear that way because of some extreme height outliers that were built early on by a Fortune 500 or a bank (i.e. way taller than anything they’re currently allowing in the “core”).
Also, since I think that the few people sitting on existing DX-40 plots are unlikely to deliver anything worthwhile in the near future, and are much more likely to waste the space, I’d rather take a DX-40 variance by a proven developer acting in good faith when it’s requested than wait for some pie-in-the-sky fulfillment of our council’s super-special unique understanding of what an urban core should be.
As has been said many times, since the city gives developers no reasonable option other than the huge jump to DX-40, sloppy reporting and assumptions obscure the likelihood that this will not actually be a 40-story, 500’ building. It’s the city’s fault that Kane has to request this. Why can’t they simply talk with him about what the actual plans may be (e.g. 250’, 300’)? They’re the ones that have exacerbated this issue.
5 Likes
I got this survey request via email:
Glenwood South Neighborhood Collaborative Zoning Survey
Take this survey powered by surveymonkey.com. Create your own surveys for free.
I thought that I would share… 
1 Like
Couldn’t the city just have the floor count/height adjusted lower than 40/500’ by adding it as a condition for approval?
I feel we’re getting into condition hell these days. It seems there are so many conditional use zonings out there complicating everything beyond recognition. I mean, why have zoning in the first place if we’re just going to argue back and forth over conditions? Does zoning really even matter anymore if we’re just going to customize everything for how we feel at that time in Raleigh’s history?
At some point, we need to draw a line and say this is what we want, this is what we don’t want. More flexibility is probably needed because it seems Raleigh politics can’t handle the jump from 20 to 40. (or we just need a new council)
14 Likes
We just need a new council.
16 Likes
In Cary they do this ALL the time. Let’s say that by zoning the developer should be able to build 500 townhouses. Well everybody knows that there is 0 chance of that happening. So, the developer might propose 450 to start. The politics then begin with the citizen hearings and the town council pretending like they really care. But everybody knows that probably only 375 units will get built and the developer will need to donate some land to public and/or open space. And then the town council approves it. It’s all a big game.The end result is that any land being developed is always under developed.
2 Likes
IMO, when a developer asks to step up, the option for negotiation has been opened. If we are asking for the city to be flexible when requests are made, then developers also need to be flexible in negotiating to those ends. Kane has already shown that he’s ready to play the negotiating game by offering affordable housing funding as part of this request.
In the end, I am not sure that Kane intends to build 40 floors in this location. It may just be that he wants to exceed the 20floors/250ft limit and needs to ask for the highest level in order to achieve it. Maybe he’s asking because he knows that he can accept a conditional use downward and still get what he really wants. Who knows?
6 Likes
I’ve emailed every person on the City Council just now about this. #doingmypart
8 Likes
Yeah, I’m with you on that. Kind of like you are saying, I despise this “gotta be TOUGH with these greedy developers” attitude that councilors have when frankly, I think they are getting played all around.
If politics is going to drag out a development through a year-long ringer of debate and rezonings then why not ask for the sky and come down to a compromise that still makes your numbers work. If you can leave your pride at the door, let the politicos boast that they “wrangled down the developer” when they built it anyway and their company is quietly humming along.
That’s probably just the way the business is though. I’m sure it’s worse and better in lots of other places.
5 Likes
Thanks, just added them to the Twitterconvo.
Also, a link to the Twit for those of you who are interested.
2 Likes