{"id":22854,"date":"2015-04-13T07:00:53","date_gmt":"2015-04-13T11:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/raleighpublicrecord.org\/?p=22854"},"modified":"2015-04-13T07:41:34","modified_gmt":"2015-04-13T11:41:34","slug":"neighbors-developers-seek-common-ground-on-new-development","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/news\/2015\/04\/13\/neighbors-developers-seek-common-ground-on-new-development\/","title":{"rendered":"Neighbors, Developers Face Challenges in Rapidly Growing City"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Falls of Neuse shopping center rezoning case, a development that has caused debates between developers and residents, has once again been postponed by City Council \u2014 this time, to May 12 for a public hearing.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>

James Borden \/ Raleigh Public Record<\/p>

The controversial site of a new development off Falls of Neuse<\/p><\/div>\n

The developers of the property, Florida-based Morgan Property Group, would like to rezone the area to Neighborhood Mixed Use, which would allow for up to 58,000 square feet of retail. The original plans included building a Publix at the development.<\/p>\n

The current plot is zoned for small offices and business, something residents of the surrounding area would like to see.<\/p>\n

David Cox from Grow Raleigh Great, an organization that represents the residents in the Falls of Neuse Road development controversy, said he would be happy to see a combination of medical offices, small offices, and some residential developments for the parcel.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ideal situation is, \u2018Let\u2019s build something that fits in with the surrounding residential element,\u2019\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Cox said he\u2019s also concerned about the traffic impact of a potential large retail shopping center. Most people shop on the weekends, which would lead to a large influx of cars on Falls of Neuse Road and the road it intersects with, Dunn Road. With small offices, medical offices, and residential developments, the traffic impact would be spread out throughout the day and week.<\/p>\n

But Mack Paul, the attorney for Morgan Property Group, said the current zoning would cause more traffic issues.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe current office zoning will generate as much or more traffic during rush hour times than the proposed zoning,\u201d Paul wrote in an email. \u201cRush hour is when the traffic in the area is at its worst … If residents prefer the existing zoning based on traffic concerns, then residents should understand how current zoning compares to the latest proposal.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>

City of Raleigh<\/p>

A recent traffic study done for the site.<\/p><\/div>\n

City Council has asked Morgan Property Group to complete a new traffic analysis, and present its findings during the May 12 public hearing.<\/p>\n

Growing Pains<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Raleigh continues to grow and develop, there are bound to be more disagreements between developers and residents, said Steve Schuster, a member of the Raleigh Planning Commission.<\/p>\n

\u201cWith the improving economy, there will be more development in Raleigh than during the recession,\u201d Schuster said. \u201cWith more development, it\u2019s inevitable that there will be stress points between developers and residents.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2009, which changed the rules for development within the city, also may cause some tension between developers and existing neighborhoods.<\/p>\n

\"In<\/a>

James Borden \/ Raleigh Public Record<\/p>

In late September 2014, the site on which the Gramercy will sit was cleared of all existing buildings<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, developers would just \u201cleap frog out,\u201d when they wanted to develop, said City Councilor Russ Stephenson.<\/p>\n

Developers would buy and develop land where few people lived. This meant there were fewer disagreements between neighbors and developers, but this method was very expensive for the city to maintain infrastructure, Stephenson said.<\/p>\n

When the Comprehensive Plan was implemented, the plan was to make Raleigh more walkable and bike-able, rather that to continue developing out.
\n\u201cIt\u2019s a natural tension between growth and preservation,\u201d Stephenson said.<\/p>\n

There are still some discrepancies that need to be worked out in the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which are the list of rules that help implements the comprehensive plan goals, Stephenson said.<\/p>\n

The UDO is a 600-page document that, among other things, rewrites the zoning code in Raleigh. The UDO sometimes has some overlap that needs to still be ironed out, Stephenson said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe bigger picture is that there\u2019s a bunch of new rules and because of that, there are a lot of gray areas,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Neighborhood Impact<\/strong><\/p>\n

On March 6, City Council voted to deny case Z-35-13, also known as Meredith Heights. Stephenson said this case is one of the best cases he\u2019s seen for the future of neighborhood transitions in Raleigh.<\/p>\n

\"This<\/a>

James Borden \/ Raleigh Public Record<\/p>

Meredith Heights was originally proposed for this area off Hillsborough Street\u00a0was<\/p><\/div>\n

The developers, Cedar Fork Investments, wanted to build a 5-story apartment building on Hillsborough Street. Neighbors protested the project, claiming it did not fit in with the surrounding neighborhood and the UDO.<\/p>\n

Neighbors wanted the building to be 4 stories, which did not work economically for the developer, said Paul, who is also the attorney for Cedar Forks Investment.<\/p>\n

The 2.18-acre site is considered to be in an area zoned for future neighborhood mixed-use development in the Comprehensive Plan, Stephenson said. But due to parts of the surrounding neighborhoods, which included townhomes and a one-story apartment building, the developers were required to only place a 5-foot buffer between the proposed development and existing neighborhood.<\/p>\n

Stephenson said another important factor he looks at when approving developments \u2014 and another aspect of the comprehensive plan \u2014 is preserving existing neighborhoods.<\/p>\n

In the proposed Meredith Heights development, the comprehensive plan \u201cshowed two competing things,\u201d he said<\/p>\n

\u201cNeighborhood preservation and responsible development are both equally valid policies that need to be taken into consideration,\u201d Stephenson said.<\/p>\n

The developers and residents were able to compromise on a lot of aspects of the project, Paul said, but ultimately, Cedar Forks Investments decided to not pursue the development and asked City Council to deny the development. A new developer has since been chosen.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe new developer, FMW Real Estate, has a strong track record on Hillsborough Street and a different development prototype \u2014 smaller buildings of no more than four stories,\u201d Paul wrote. \u201cFMW has already met with the neighbors and plans to proceed shortly.\u201d<\/p>\n

Common Ground<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite the many conflicts, developers and residents are often able to reach compromises in proposed rezoning cases.<\/p>\n

The Stanhope Center on Hillsborough Street is currently under construction, but its developers spent more than a year trying to compromise with surrounding residents.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>

James Borden \/ Raleigh Public Record<\/p>

Site work on the Stanhope project began in April 2014<\/p><\/div>\n

The original proposal was for a 9-story building, which neighbors opposed. At the time, neighbors were also concerned about a potential increase in traffic from the new development.<\/p>\n

Eventually, neighbors and the developer, Kane Realty Group, were able to reach an agreement \u2014 the development would by 5 stories tall, which was in-line with the Comprehensive Plan, Stephenson said.<\/p>\n

\u201cUltimately, neighbors looked at the Comprehensive Plan and said \u2018We do believe in the Comprehensive Plan\u2019 in that case,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Looming Conflict<\/strong><\/p>\n

But while a compromise was reaching for the Stanhope Center, residents near the proposed Falls of Neuse development aren\u2019t sure one is possible in this case.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don’t anticipate a compromise being reached between the neighboring citizens and the current developer,\u201d Vicki Crenshaw who lives near the proposed development, wrote in an email.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur goal since day one has been to prevent rezoning of the site and the current developer has since day one wanted the site rezoned to accommodate a shopping center.\u201d<\/p>\n

David Cox from Grow Raleigh Great agrees.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve had many discussions for over a year and a half with Morgan Property [Group] and they\u2019ve said the only thing that would be economically viable is what they\u2019ve proposed \u2014 what they are used to building,\u201d he said. \u201cWe hope to work with a new developer and get the land developed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Signs<\/a>

James Borden \/ Raleigh Public Record<\/p>

Signs protesting the proposed Falls of Neuse\u00a0development can be seen right across the street from the potential site<\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Record takes a look into the challenges facing both neighbors and developers as the city continues to grow and expand. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2619452,"featured_media":22177,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22854"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2619452"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22854"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22854\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22177"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theraleighcommons.org\/raleighpublicrecord\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}