Residents and preservation advocates on Sept. 16 told the Raleigh City Council that a developer’s request to allow a 30‑story building near one‑story houses would conflict with the city’s comprehensive plan and harm an established neighborhood.

The comments came during the meeting’s public‑comment period, where dozens of speakers addressed the rezoning request often referred to in remarks as Z‑12‑25. The item had not yet been set for a formal public hearing. Several speakers urged councilors not to change the site’s current 12‑story limit.

The issue struck at the heart of a planning debate about how the city should transition height and density from its central business district toward adjacent historic and single‑family neighborhoods. “Our comprehensive plan says that building heights should taper from the central business district to residential neighborhoods,” said Matthew Brown, a resident. “Transition looks like this, not like this” — he contrasted a single high‑rise in the downtown core with a proposed cluster of towers next to low‑rise homes.

Brown also questioned traffic assumptions in the planner’s analysis, saying the proposal’s 938 apartments would add significant trips to P Street, which he described as “already the most clogged bottleneck in Raleigh.” “Nobody in that building will ride the bus,” Brown said. “There are no affordable units in that building. They will all take the elevator to their cars and clog up P Street.”

Others raised procedural and analytical concerns. Chris Crew, a former state planner who reviews local plans, told councilors the planning department’s materials for the rezoning did not provide a complete, impartial compatibility analysis and omitted likely adverse impacts. “A good analysis of compatibility should take a broad view of relevant rules, plans, and guidance,” Crew said. “There is no proper analysis of setback or buffering requirements.”

Community members also pointed to precedent: opponents warned that permitting very large towers in transition areas could set citywide development precedents that would jeopardize other historic neighborhoods.

Council members and staff noted questions about how to treat public comments when a rezoning has not formally been set for hearing. Early in the meeting the mayor and legal staff reiterated that the council typically discourages comment on specific rezoning cases outside of a scheduled public hearing because a public hearing later carries time limits and formal rules. Speaker after speaker, however, asked councilors to act now to protect neighborhood edges.

The council did not take a final vote on the rezoning during the Sept. 16 meeting. The matter remains before staff and will return to council as the formal public‑hearing schedule and staff analyses are completed.

Details: The comments drew attention to the project’s claimed effects on traffic, shadowing, neighborhood character and the completeness of the staff record. Several speakers asked council to preserve the existing zoning limit of 12 stories at the site and to require better, more transparent compatibility and traffic studies in any future staff report.