-Editorial by Curtis Kasefang, Preservation Raleigh Advocacy Committee Co-Chair
The Challenge to Responsible Growth and Historic Transition Zones
Preservation Raleigh is a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and elevation of Raleigh, NC’s historic, cultural, and architectural assets. Our mission demands that we champion smart, responsible growth—development that respects our city’s past while ensuring the stability of our neighborhoods.
For months, our Advocacy Committee actively opposed the rezoning request known as Case Z-12-25, working alongside grassroots groups like Raleigh Neighbors Unite and submitting a formal letter of opposition from our Board. This contentious case involved a request to rezone 2.6 acres at West and Peace Streets from a lower intensity zoning (IX-12) to a much higher intensity designation (DX-30-UG-CU).
On October 7, 2025, the Raleigh City Council approved the rezoning request. This decision permits the construction of taller mixed-use buildings—potentially up to 30 stories—in an area adjacent to the Historic Glenwood-Brooklyn Neighborhood.
This result was profoundly disappointing to us. Critics, including Preservation Raleigh, argued that allowing a 30-story tower to be built so close to a residential neighborhood contradicts the city’s own comprehensive plan, particularly policies governing height transitions and protections for historic areas. Opponents contend this sets a dangerous precedent, while proponents argue the flexibility in height is necessary for modern mixed-use construction.
I attended the City Council meeting along with some of my fellow Preservation Raleigh board members and hundreds of opponents of rezoning the assemblage of lots located at Peace and West Streets from OI-12 to DX-30. We were dispirited by City Council’s vote to approve the application with conditions limiting the building height to just under 30 stories. City Council voted 2-6 in favor of the rezoning, with Jane Harrison and Christina Jones voting in opposition.
Perhaps the most dispiriting thing for me was our Mayor’s declaration that high density is good anywhere. This follows her stating how Atlanta seemed to be doing things the right way. I have long heard discussions in the planning community that suggested Atlanta was the cautionary tale. Something to be avoided at all costs.
This vote came on the heels of an excellent presentation by Roy Attride from Raleigh Neighbors United in opposition, which drew straight lines from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to exactly how the proposed development was inconsistent with City policy. Really excellent work on his part.
Not all was bad in this experience if for no other reason than, it clarified the work that Preservation Raleigh needs to do:
- Mitch Silver provided very important insight when he noted conflicts between the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan is supposed to be an enumeration of City Policies, and the UDO is supposed to be the implementation of those policies. It turns out that at least some parts of the UDO are at significant variance from the Comp. Plan. Much of our objections to this and previous zoning requests hinge on the transitions between residential neighborhoods and higher-density, taller development being consistent with the policies outlined in the Comp. Plan. It turns out the UDO ignored the clearly prescriptive LU5.7 which says: “When a mixed-use or nonresidential area contemplated for building heights in excess of seven stories abuts an area designated for low- or moderate-scale on the future land use map, building heights should not exceed a 45-degree plane starting 10 feet from the adjoining lower-density area.” This concept of a 45-degree plane does not appear in the UDO. Further, the word “abut” is being interpreted to mean “sharing a common lot line.” The translation: if there is an intervening empty lot, no transition is required. UDO 3.5.2.C also limits the impact area to 100’ from the mixed-use district. This 100’ effectively ignores heights of buildings above 8 stories (assuming 12’ floor to floor elevations and a 45 degree maximum build-to height.) We need to take a deep dive into the UDO and identify all the areas where it diverges from the Comp Plan that impact historic districts. We need to follow up with a campaign to align the UDO with the Comp Plan.
- One of our City Councilors asked the transportation department about the impact the proposed rezoning would have on traffic on Peace Street. This wa clearly a surprise request, so the traffic planner was not prepared to speak to this. Instead, he presented the last study of traffic on Peace Street, which was conducted several years ago. This seemed to satisfy the City Council. The issue: this analysis looked at trips per day in the built environment at the time of the study. It did not include the impact of new developments in construction, nor did it attempt to predict the effect of the many lots rezoned for high-rises that have yet to be built. It also did not have a time domain element: What is peak traffic like? What will traffic loading be like when the rezoned lots are built out? We need to encourage our City Councilors to consider the entire picture of what they have previously approved when reviewing the changes they are being asked to presently approve.
- The impact on utilities was not a discussion. Our public utilities rely on the
Comprehensive Plan when they are making decisions about infrastructure. A high-density structure has a huge impact on water, sewer, and stormwater. This little area of Peace Street, and its infrastructure, are looking at supporting (2) 40-story buildings, (1) 30-story building, several 20-story buildings, and several 12-story buildings not currently built. Because developers cannot be assessed impact fees in North Carolina under State law, we, the existing residents of Raleigh, will be paying to upgrade our infrastructure to support these towers. Again, we need to encourage our City Councilors to consider the entire picture of what they are being asked to approve – particularly in relation to projects they have previously approved, whether built or pending. - In speaking with City Councilors, it was clear that the $1.2m donation to the affordable housing fund was, for them, a significant incentive. During the hearing, we learned that this payment had been reduced to $800,000, and that none of it would come due until construction began. In having the rezoning granted, the developer immediately saw a massive bump in the property value – a property value increase several times over the donation. These property value increases can provide capital to execute other projects. In the past, similar zoning increases were granted, and the developers have never built. Since we have seen a pattern of rezoning and holding, we should explore having the rezoning sunset if construction does not begin within a defined period – perhaps 5 years from the effective date of the rezoning, and if is not completed within a reasonable timeframe such as 10 years from the effective date.
- Lastly, the Mayor suggested that NIMBYism was driving opposition to these developments. I found this personally insulting as I live in a high-density community of missing-middle structures that has embraced accessory dwelling units, social service organizations, and mixed-use in scale with our historic community. Oakwood is not unlike our neighbors in Glenwood-Brooklyn. I have no idea how one can read NIMBYism into the opposition, as the presentations against zoning were fact-based, tied back to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and focused on generally accepted principles of good development.
Moving Forward: The Work Ahead for Preservation Raleigh
The approval of Z-12-25, allowing a massive shift from 12-story to 30-story development, highlights a critical and immediate need for action. This decision challenges the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan and threatens the appropriate height transition policies essential for protecting historic districts like Glenwood-Brooklyn.
While this setback is disappointing, the discussion clarified the path ahead for Preservation Raleigh. We must focus our advocacy efforts on aligning the Unified Development Ordinance with the Comprehensive Plan and ensuring our City Council evaluates all development—including its cumulative impacts on traffic, infrastructure, and neighboring communities—with the utmost rigor. We urge all citizens who value smart growth and historic preservation to join us in Sustaining Raleigh’s architectural inheritance for everyone’s benefit. The work to protect Raleigh’s future, heritage, and neighborhoods has just intensified.
News Articles:
- https://www.wral.com/video/raleigh-city-council-approves-rezoning-for-30-story-tower-despite-resident-protests/22190330/
- https://abc11.com/post/raleigh-city-council-approves-rezoning-request-controversial-peace-street-development/17961002
- https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article312372742.html
Curtis Kasefang is a member of the Preservation Raleigh Board. He moved into the
Oakwood Local Historic District in 1995 and has served multiple terms on the Raleigh Historic Districts Commission, including as Chair. Outside of preservation, he designs theatres and concert halls across North America and Europe, often participating in the adaptation and reuse of historic structures.
One thought on “Lessons Learned from Z-12-25”