Raleigh City Council Meeting Summary - January 6, 2026
Raleigh City Council Meeting Summary - January 6, 2026
The Raleigh City Council convened on January 6, 2026, to address multiple zoning amendments, street closures, and text code changes. The evening featured significant debate regarding the North Hills rezoning proposal (Z3425), where concerns over height limits, infrastructure, and affordable housing led to a decision to continue the public hearing. The meeting also covered a street closure, two residential rezoning petitions, a pickleball facility proposal, and a readoption of omnibus text changes.
Consent Calendar
- Street Closing (STC 0425): The Council unanimously approved the closure of the right-of-way on McLean Drive (1.05 acres) located in the Middleburg Communities area, facilitated by a request from NC DOT for a public drainage easement to support a redevelopment project.
Public Comments & Testimony
Z3425 North Hills (Support):
- Jamie Schwedler (Kane Realty/Applicant): Expressed that the proposal seeks the same building height previously approved years ago without increasing square footage or adding new units, thereby capping traffic impacts while delivering public benefits like enhanced open space and stormwater infrastructure.
- Kevin Jennings: Expressed full support for the proposal, noting that his business at North Hills benefits from the increased green space enabled by taller, thinner buildings.
- Jen Truman: Expressed strong support, arguing that growth has already occurred in North Hills and that this is the appropriate location for mixed-use growth given existing infrastructure and transit access.
- Brian Brennan: Expressed support for the project as a means to provide walkability and integrated open spaces necessary to retain young professionals in Raleigh.
- Eric Bronde: Expressed support, emphasizing the need for flexibility to create public amenities and open spaces.
- Jamie Ferguson: Expressed support, citing the need for thoughtful density to avoid sprawl and meet future housing demand.
- John Duncan: Expressed support, praising the developer's communication and the resulting walkability and open spaces.
Z3425 North Hills (Opposition):
- Larry Helfant: Expressed opposition, arguing the proposal violates the Midtown Area Plan's recommended height range (4-20 stories) and fails to follow the Comprehensive Plan regarding density and height transitions.
- Dana Inga: Expressed strong opposition, citing the "shade canyon" effects of 40-story towers and the lack of infrastructure support following the cancellation of the Six Forks Road widening project.
- Nora McCann: Expressed opposition, stating the project ignores community comments and does not align with the Midtown Area Plan.
- Tim Canning: Expressed concern regarding traffic infrastructure, noting that the canceled Six Forks Road improvements leave the area with inadequate capacity for the proposed development.
- Robert Longo: Expressed opposition, describing the height transitions as a "cliff" rather than a transition and questioning the safety implications of closing the nearby fire station without a funded replacement plan.
- Charles Winston: Expressed opposition, stating that 40-story towers are out of scale and that the project imposes pressure on the neighborhood without corresponding infrastructure support.
Z1125 South New Hope Road:
- Michael Birch (Applicant): Expressed the need for additional time to incorporate an affordable housing condition based on community feedback.
- Council Members: Expressed diverse positions; Councilor Branch expressed skepticism about developing residential units in flood-prone areas previously marketed for commercial use, while other members expressed support for the extensive stormwater and environmental conditions.
Z2625 Leesville Road:
- Katina Scott (Applicant): Expressed a personal desire to expand her existing home to accommodate her family size, noting her long-term residence in the area.
- Supporter: Expressed support for the applicant but noted difficulty in communicating with the airport authority to address noise concerns.
- Councilor Christina Jones: Expressed a position favoring a continuation of the hearing to facilitate clarity and communication between the applicant and the airport authority regarding an aviation easement, rather than an immediate vote.
Z3325 Gresham Lake Road:
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Expressed a desire to increase the number of pickleball courts from 42 to 50, requiring a revision of the conditions and a new public hearing.
TC125 Omnibus Text Changes:
- Justin Armetto (Staff): Expressed a request to approve the readoption of text changes but with the exception of sections 42, 43, and 44, which deal with conditional use zoning timelines and require further clarification.
Discussion Items
- Z3425 North Hills: Extensive deliberation occurred regarding the applicant's decision not to add affordable housing since the project does not exceed the entitlement, the inconsistency of the requested heights (some up to 40 stories) with the Midtown Area Plan (20 stories max), and the impact on infrastructure, specifically the canceled Six Forks Road project and fire station replacement. Councilor Patton expressed interest in proportional public benefits for the requested height. Councilor Silver seconded a motion to continue the hearing to January 20th to allow for further discussion on these issues, including a potential move to the Transportation Committee to discuss Six Forks Road improvements.
- Z1125 South New Hope Road: Staff and the applicant discussed the inclusion of additional stormwater and environmental conditions, specifically regarding floodplain encroachment and peak runoff control. Councilor Branch expressed concern about the site's history as a commercial zone and its suitability for residential use given flood risks and lack of topography. A motion was made and seconded to continue the hearing to January 20th to allow the applicant to add an affordable housing condition.
- Z2625 Leesville Road: The Council discussed the inconsistency with the Airport Overlay District and the airport authority's request for an avigation easement and noise attenuation measures. Concerns were raised about the applicant filing a "general use" case rather than a "conditional use" case, which prevents the Council from adding these conditions. Councilor Jones suggested a continuation to facilitate communication with the airport, while Councilor Lambert Milton and others expressed strong support for approval given the long-term residence of the homeowner and the existing nature of the nonconformity. The Council ultimately voted unanimously to approve the rezoning as a general use, leaving the easement negotiation as a future step or requiring it as a separate condition if feasible.
- Z3325 Gresham Lake Road: The Council discussed the applicant's request to increase pickleball courts, which would require new conditions. A motion was made to schedule a new public hearing for February 3rd, which was granted.
- TC125 Omnibus Text Changes: The Council discussed the readoption of two previous omnibus text changes (TC 224 and TC 523) necessitated by a state law (Senate Bill 382) that invalidated certain provisions. Staff recommended removing sections 42, 43, and 44 due to unintended consequences regarding conditional use timelines. The Council approved the readoption with the specific exceptions noted.
Key Outcomes
- Z3425 North Hills (Rezoning): The public hearing was continued to January 20, 2026. A separate motion was unanimously passed to refer issues regarding the Six Forks Road corridor, traffic, and pedestrian infrastructure to the Transportation Committee.
- STC 0425 McLean Drive (Street Closing): The street closing was approved unanimously.
- Z1125 South New Hope Road (Rezoning): The public hearing was continued to January 20, 2026, by a vote of 6-2, to allow the addition of an affordable housing condition.
- Z2625 Leesville Road (Rezoning): The rezoning was approved unanimously. The Council approved the zoning amendment, deeming it an amendment to the future land use map.
- Z3325 Gresham Lake Road (Rezoning): The item was continued as a special item to be brought back in two weeks for a new public hearing scheduled for February 3, 2026, to accommodate the revised conditions regarding pickleball court numbers.
- TC125 (Text Change): The omnibus text changes were approved unanimously, with the explicit exception of sections 42, 43, and 44 of TC 224 regarding conditional use zoning timelines.
(Omitted sections with no relevant content: Consent Calendar items other than the street closing, and sections with no relevant content within the public comments discussion where no specific public testimony was recorded for certain agenda items beyond the general list.)
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the public hearing. As you know, we moved the items. Yeah, yeah, we did. As you know, we moved the items around so that we could hear uh North Hills uh first uh since we know a lot of you are here for that case, C 3425. Um so we will start with that. And welcome our planning staff. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of council, Bayern Walter Raleigh Planning and Development. I want to uh talk to you about rezoning Z34 25 at North Hills. So this is a request to rezone just over 11 acres. It would be my pleasure. This is a request to rezone just over 11 acres from commercial mixed use with a five-story height limit and parking limited frontage. There's also zoning here of 12 stories with an urban limited frontage. There's a special highway overlay district two across the entirety of the area in question. Uh other parts are commercial mixed use, 12-story hit limit with some conditions. Uh and there's also a piece that is that going to 12, 20, and 40 story, all conditions, all with the special highway overlay district. So the request is consistent with the 2030 comprehensive plan and the future land use map, and the planning commission does recommend approval. So there are four distinct pieces. They're non-contiguous in question here, and I'll talk a little bit about each of those as we go through the presentation. But you can see at the top of the screen a piece of property that fronts on six forks and also has frontage on Rowan Street, two areas with frontage along uh six forks on either either side of uh Main at North Hill Street, and then a piece of property on Lassiter Mill Road that also has southern frontage on I-440. So the breaking out across these districts, the zoning conditions define these uh four areas. The first is there they are calling the Lassiter height limit there of 12 stories. Uh main district uh phase two is down there on Lassiter at 440. That's a 12-story height limit as well. I'm sorry, a 20-story height limit. And then the um two pieces with six forks frontage, they are requesting the 40-story height there. Just zoom out a little bit for a little bit of context so you can see the I-440 belt line along along the south side of the site here. Six forks running up the middle of the screen, north-south, everything in question on the west side of that. The applicant has offered some conditions here. The first condition defines those four areas within the rezoning request. The second one limits maximum building height for the six forks and the six works and lasiter site. Those are the two with frontage on six forks to 37 stories. They have prohibited a handle full of uses that otherwise would be allowed here. They have limited their maximum building square footage to just under 3 million square feet and uh specified sort of the combination of what that could be made up of. So if it were only dwelling units, no more than 25 to 2521. Uh each of these numbers is the max, and so they can pick and choose mix and match to make up a combination of the just about three million square feet. Uh they have required that development in the Lasseter site include include at least one green stormwater infrastructure feature, and that that be designed to treat a minimum of 15 percent of water quality volume on that site. Uh they are requiring any apartment mixed use or general uh building type to meet green building certification standards, like a lead uh or type standard. Uh they have provided for a minimum of 10,000 square feet of open space in that Lasseter site, and that that uh will be required to include at least four public amenities that are there's a menu in the conditions for them to pick through. They have also provided for a minimum of 30,000 square feet of open space in the six forks in Lassiter site, again uh four amenities required from the menu that they that they have outlined in the conditions. They are prohibiting parking between the building and the street on both Rowan and Six Forks in that uh area up on Rowan Street with a minimum 15-foot building or structure set back from Rowan Street. And then they are uh prohibiting surface parking uh on six forks annual or less or mill frontages uh between the building and the street and providing for a build to for any structure that they build on that site. They are also offering a contribution of 400,000 to the fire department, and then um requiring uh buildings along Rowan Street that are seven stories or more, at least seven stories or more to have a 12-foot minimum step back. So as I mentioned, they have limited their max gross building square footage to just right at 3 million gross square feet. That's the gross uh building square footage that we project they could realize under their current zoning. So they have very intentionally picked that uh so as not to increase their entitlement. Just quick review on uh height. So that Lasseter site at the top of the screen, the northernmost parcel, they're limiting that to 12-story height limit, the parcels with frontage, other parcels with frontage along six forks limited to 37 stories, and then the southwest corner there, limited to 20 stories. The request maintains the existing special highway overlay district uh across all of the properties in question. You can see that.
openpublica.com