Zoning and Density

My huge gripe has been why fund all of these professional growth studies and comprehensive plans when the elected politicians disregard or laugh at them? We have elected officials with no background in planning or development disregarding paid professionals work who are experts on the matter. It’s ridiculous if you stop to think about it.

6 Likes

Our UDO has a wide void between an R-10 lot at a min 45’ wide and Townhome lots at a min 16’. You can do a planned development, clustering or add some open space to get some limited flexibility, but the options all add a lot of complexity to a project.

Shouldn’t there be an option for a 30’ wide lot? That’s nearly 2x the size of the Townhome minimum. Or just make it 2x and give a 32’ wide option for a conventional single family lot.

It seems to me that density limits were written into the UDO wherever they got the opportunity. There are numerous examples of provisions that limit density on a very subtle level. It isn’t explicitly written out, but the effect is the same. When they were writing the UDO the consultants got their marching orders from somewhere and it’s clear that the intention was a moderately dense core with a very suburban cityscape surrounding it.

My biggest issue with this is that you limit the price points with new development. If you could do 32’ lots maybe you could have more of them and then the price/infrastructure/land cost ratios wouldn’t force higher prices. It’s like they have a min standard for how nice your lot needs to be, and the min standard that’s good enough for the PTB is 45’. Not everyone needs, wants, or should have to pay for that or be forced into a townhome or apartment.

I think the Council should hire a consultant to review the UDO and get recommendations on things they could change to promote a wider range of housing types and to remove any roadblocks to making new development more affordable.

5 Likes

You are spot on. After looking through the housing from 2018 I have been thinking about how we could start to get different results in the future, and this “hole” in our zoning is a big problem. There needs to be an effort or maybe citizen led movement to plan for a new UDO that actually allows some middle density. Currently it is “allowed” but only in places where apartment buildings are also allowed, so it never happens.

On a related note I have also been wondering where all these UDO limits are coming from. An interesting place where I think I found some actual evidence of real voices pushing for this stuff was in a Hillsborough-Wade CAC meeting a little while back.

Check out the 36:26 mark.

Then the case came to the planning commission and people organized to come speak and try and block any future apartments. By apartments they mean R-10 zoning. Where townhomes are technically legal, but all the restrictions you mentioned above apply. This is maybe 3 blocks from Hillsborought St. and half the lot has had small apartments for ~60 years. Hard to see this as anything other than an attempt to lock the area in amber.

Planning commission meeting here.

3 Likes

Shows how a very small faction of folks are controlling our growth and dialogue. I, for one, would like to expand that conversation to reflect more voices and broader dialogue. A few past planning commissioners are sharing their insight on how folks can show up and speak up to impact our community in a positive way. Encourage y’all to join in on that convo, details here: Redirecting...

Related, the next Raleigh 4 All meeting (group putting on event above) is tonight. Swing by if you’re able! Details here (6pm - 8pm at Transfer): Redirecting...

5 Likes

Downtown would look so much bigger and more dense if it had at least 10 more 10-12 story buildings surrounding the CBD (central business district). That’s my honest opinion drops mic

1 Like

6 posts were split to a new topic: Neighborhood Conservation

For sake of comparison, North Hills Walter Tower site plan submittal is on the City’s website. 36 floors, 386’ height, 376 residential units. Would be 4th tallest building in Raleigh. Top elevation 738’-6" (above sea level)!

9 Likes

I’ve been wondering what the official height was going to be. Was hoping for over 400ft but I guess with all residential floor plates it makes sense that it falls short of that mark. It will still be huge for North Hills though!

2 Likes

Wow. Last I heard was 28 floors.

Do you mind sharing the link to the plans?

https://www.raleighnc.gov/content/PlanDev/Documents/DevServ/DevPlans/Reviews/2019/SiteReview%20/ASR-0051-2019.pdf

1 Like

882 parking spaces proposed. 395 required. :man_facepalming:t3:

4 Likes

I’ll bet the real story of the parking is that it’s shared with something else. Why would be build twice as much as required?

1 Like

because of “merica”. :red_car::blue_car::oncoming_automobile::us:

3 Likes

Originally, this was to have a hotel along with apartments. Now it looks like it is all apartments plus some retail.

I believe there’s that many spaces because it’s actually sharing the deck with the 20 story office “tower 4” next to it.

1 Like

That and I think they probably plan on parking for north hills in general. Sometimes when I go into that Harris Teeter that parking deck is full. Like zero spaces available. But there are not that many people in the store.

Does this mean that the other building can forgo its parking requirements when it comes up for review?

That way you won’t have to park next to someone, or your oversize vehicle can take up more than 1 space!

1 Like

Yet they’ll still park across the line next to me and throw their door into the side of my car.

2 Likes