When is Infill "Smart?" Smart Growth Principles Tested in Raleigh

When a controversial infill proposal challenges the definition of "smart, " planners turn to mediation as a tool to separate the issues from the rhetoric. In this article, the process of winnowing out what "Smart Growth" means, the role ofplanners in this debate, and the utilization of mediation techniques are discussed in the context of a planned development review.

Daniel A. Howe

The "Smart Growth" Movement in North Also in 2000, the Chapter of Carolina. In 1999, a series of bills suggesting the American Planning Association (NCAPA) had

dramatic changes in planning law were introduced just initiated its "Smart Growth Challenge" effort

into the North Carolina General Assembly. These in all 100 North Carolina counties. The Challenge

bills spawned the widest-ranging debate in the state sought to raise awareness among citizens regarding

for more than ten years on growth and development critical growth issues. It hoped to generate support issues. Deferring specific action, the General for a Smart Growth agenda of new enabling Assembly appointed a blue-ribbon "Smart Growth legislation, funding process changes, and other Study Commission" to review the issue and means of support for growth management formulate a series of legislative recommendations concepts. The agenda included encouragements

to promote comprehensive and coordinated local, for more high-density, mixed-use infill development. regional and state planning, to be presented to the 2001 session of the General Assembly. The 37- Generally, planners have embraced the term member Commission began work in January 2000. "Smart Growth" to represent a collection of rational The charge to the commission specifically public policies toward managing growth in a 21 st

mentioned "Smart Growth" in its title, the first century context. As the phrase has become

reference in official state action to this concept. popularized in the press, however, its meaning has become increasingly difficult to pin down. Recent postings by professional planners on North Carolina's Planning Listserv (hosted by the

Daniel A. Howe is a professional planner University of North Carolina Institute of

and writer in Raleigh, North Carolina. He is Government in Chapel Hill) regarding the American the editor of the NC Citizen Planner Training Planning Association's draft definition of "Smart Program, and recently presented research on Growth" have generated some lively traffic. It is interconnected street systems at the 2001 not surprising, therefore, that when placed in the National Planning Conference in New Orleans. center of a political vortex surrounding a

36 controversial land development proposal in Raleigh. and other upper-income traditional residential "Smart Growth" was championed by both sides to neighborhoods with Cameron Village via the historic support their position. Local planners had to attempt Oberlin Community, a predominately African-

to steer clear of the debate and find a new means American neighborhood that has withstood

of centering the discussion on the merits of the generations of development on its perimeter. specific proposal. Coker had good reason to believe there would

Context and Background. Raleigh is the be support for such a project here. He was

largest city (299,280 estimated population - January, generally respected as a developer who 2002) in the Research Triangle region of North responds to the needs of the community as Carolina, a fast growing metropolitan area of over well as to his investors. He had also acquired

1 1.2 million . The city's urban core is small, a reputation for creativity and for taking risks reflecting the explosive suburban growth of the on new ideas. Coker previously developed 510

region in the 1980s and 1990s. "Inside the beltline" Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh's first truly mixed-use (pre- 1960) Raleigh neighborhoods no longer mid-rise urban building in the modem age. The

represent the majority of the voting population of five-story project was built on a brownfield site in

the city, but have traditionally been politically the Glenwood South district, an emerging restaurant

2 powerful. Political support from the Council for /entertainment complex . The site contains ground-

new development in this portion of the city has floor retail, mid-floor office and upper floor varied with each election, with most emphasis residential condominiums, along with structured

placed on the redevelopment of Downtown Raleigh, parking. The 5 1 Glenwood project was approved especially the introduction of mixed-use activity with near-universal support. centers and residential uses in the historic core area.

Before 2000. urban infill controversy near Raleigh's Building a Smart Growth Framework. core neighborhoods "inside the beltline" had been When Coker approached the City of Raleigh staff

limited to medium-density multi-family and single- regarding his hopes for the Oberlin - Wade site, family uses being proposed in established low- he met with Planning Director George B. Chapman, density areas. FAICP. Chapman has carefully positioned his department as an impartial technical resource, A new vision. At a location less than one purposefully steering policy decisions on land use. mile from the State Capitol building, developer Neal comprehensive plan and zoning issues away from

Coker envisioned a modern, mixed-use complex staff and toward the appointed and elected officials. of shops, residences, hotel, a movie theatre complex He wants his department to be the proponent of and offices, reaching up to 12 stories in height on the official comprehensive plan as approved. an underutilized 15-acre infill tract at the Chapman sees the role of the City as facilitator of intersection of Oberlin Road and Wade Avenue. the plan's continuing evolution, not its author. Nothing of this scale had ever been proposed in such a context. The site he had assembled was a The Raleigh Comprehensive Plan, originally prime infill location, near the successful 1950's- approved in 1990. is central to the current planning era Cameron Village retail center and several of process in Raleigh. In a period where Raleigh has Raleigh's premier older neighborhoods, including grown by 39 percent in population, the Cameron Park and Hayes Barton. Within about Comprehensive Plan has continued to evolve and

1.5 miles of Downtown Raleigh, the site was change with each planning commission and City walkable. close to residential areas and within one- Council meeting. Decision-makers regularly refer half mile of Cameron Village. The highly visible to the plan on policy issues, and specifically change

Wade Avenue corridor linked the site to downtown it when a zoning case or site plan alters its previous Raleigh as well as the Research Triangle Park and position. The planning commission publishes an other parts of the Research Triangle region west annual review of comprehensive plan changes. The of Raleigh. Oberlin Road connects Hayes Barton entire Comprehensive Plan is available on Raleigh's

37 web site (www.raleigh-nc.org/planning) and is more generic terms. updated soon after approval of any change. The planning department staff does not make As in most long-range plans, policies in the recommendations on rezoning cases and Raleigh Comprehensive Plan are illustrated comprehensive plan amendments. Staff write-ups generally, but are often interpreted literally. lay out clearly the facts of the case, the aspects of Chapman pointed out to Coker and his team that policy that must be addressed and the procedure the area immediately surrounding Cameron Village

for doing so, but stop short of suggesting answers is designated in the plan as a City Focus Area. to policy conundrums. This designation targets the area for high intensity mixed-use development with up to 1.5 million

Coker's plan promoted higher-intensity urban square feet of retail space. Boundaries of the focus

infill, a method that Chapman acknowledged as area are not specifically defined. The designation

within the framework of smart growth principles. is illustrated in the plan as a large circle centered Whatever his personal ideas on the merits of the on the existing shopping center. The Coker tract

Coker project or the attitude of his professional is located on the fringe of this circle. The site lies

staff, Chapman's planning department would still within a "policy boundary line", a marker to

not recommend either its approval or denial. separate non-residential development from the low-

Instead, it would work diligently to identify the key density residential areas surrounding it. A small issues that the Council and Planning Commission area plan for the Oberlin neighborhood had

would need to resolve in order to determine whether specifically identified this area as an office site.

this was a "smart" solution to growth for Raleigh. Up until this time, the term "Smart Growth" was To some, this tract was clearly part of the City not often heard in official circles in Raleigh, because Focus Area and should take advantage of the

in its relatively short life it had already become a intensity supported by that designation. To others,

Hash point for political heat. the idea that this property would be lumped in with Cameron Village, approximately one-half mile was elected mayor after Tom away, was ludicrous. In either case. Chapman Fetzer stepped down in 1998. Coble was advised Coker that a policy clarification would be Fetzer*s mayor pro tern. Neither mayor has necessary by the City Council, and that some expressed much sympathy for the whole concept aspects of the plan, specifically the office of Smart Growth. Coble feared that the designation, would need to be changed to allow movement would result in the state of North the mixed-use project to take place within the Carolina usurping local authority over land use guidelines of the Plan. matters. Coble once referred to "Smart

Growth" as a "baby that should be killed in the The current zoning of the Coker tract is Office

crib". This position has been a rallying cry for and Institution- 1 . A rezoning would be required

those who say that Coble is standing in the way to allow the proposed retail uses in tandem with of more rational growth in Raleigh and in the the level of intensity and heights proposed by Coker. entire Triangle. Coble has chosen not to He hoped that he could convince the Council that participate in many regional efforts toward the proposal was already consistent with the plan growth management. and specifically addressed language calling for "mixed-use activity centers". After consulting with

Chapman has tried to avoid setting any political Chapman, Coker chose to utilize the City's Planned fires by the use of the term "Smart Growth." Development Conditional Use Overlay District

Chapman has preferred to keep the discussion of (PDD). The PDD is an overlay zone specifically

growth issues in a non-partisan framework targeted at mixed-use projects. It allows flexibility

specifically focused on the project at hand. If a in building use, height, setbacks, street and

broad discussion of policy is called for, he has pedestrian standards but requires approval of a chosen to discuss "Smart Growth" concepts in master plan outlining transportation, open space.

38 pedestrian, utility and other functional systems. If in traffic gridlock. "No Coker Towers" yard signs used as envisioned, the PDD is ideal for infill sites, began sprouting along Wade Avenue. A new web allowing more creativity than a more proscriptive site was established, modeling the massing of the zoning district while requiring that this development project using computer imagery. Opponents be subject to more detailed planning up front. As measured the proposal against an unapproved set Chapman pointed out, the PDD process involves of pending urban design guidelines to show how extensive opportunity for involvement and debate. the project was oversized. They said that the

proposal did not support transit or fit within the The Coker Project looks like a smart context of the area. They pointed out that Coker choice at first glance. Initially, the project drew was outside the one-quarter to one-half mile radius praise. Both Marc Scruggs, Councilor representing from the "core" of a focus area laid out in the

District E just north of the site, and Benson Kirkman, guidelines, that it was internally focused, too tall to representing District C, which included the site and be contextual with surrounding areas, that it had areas south, expressed support. These men no internal streets or access to rail transit as called disagreed often on land use policy issues. Scruggs for in the guidelines. The NCRDR called for a generally supported Mayor Coble's positions to limit new small area plan before the rezoning was regulation and support economic development. considered. Kirkman, an advocate of neighborhood interests and a skeptic about many development proposals, Warren Raybould, a newcomer to the South was typically an antagonist to the incumbent Mayor who brought an appreciation for urban living from in this arena. Scruggs' and Kirkman's agreement his previous time in Chicago, Los Angeles, and at this point was auspicious for the ultimate Washington, DC, became involved with the approval of the proposal, and other Councilors NCRDR after a volunteer showed up at the door seemed inclined to support it, but not for long. to talk about the Coker Project. Raybould soon became active himself in the opposition. "I went Upon the election of Mayor and a into this with a premise that developers generally majority of politically conservative fellow councilors want too much and neighborhoods want too little, in 1992, the 's former emphasis so a more urban project is not anathema. The goal on in-town neighborhood issues changed to reflect was never to kill this project. One of the questions the interests of Fetzer's more suburban on the table here was: "What is good infill?'" said constituency. Activists in Raleigh's core Raybould. Warren Raybould is one of many neighborhoods had been relatively silent. Now, a newcomers to the South. Unlike most, Raybould new coalition of neighborhood leaders, politically settled in the small, dense, older core of the city, a and technologically savvy, emerged to oppose the part of town "where you have the ability to know

Coker project proposal. In some cases, opposition your neighbor." Raybould is an urbanite. He's came from the same people who had previously lived in downtown Chicago, Washington DC and participated in pushing a Smart Growth agenda. Los Angeles. "My commute in LA was 1 5 minutes.

The opposition established a web site, a leadership That should tell you how close to downtown I really committee and a name: the Neighborhood Coalition like to live," Raybould says. for Responsible Development in Raleigh (NCRDR). Whatever the answer to this question, the NCRDR worked hard to make the point that Coker

The NCRDR took immediate aim at the did not have it. With the increasing coverage of proponents' claim that the Coker project reflected the project by the press, supporters were beginning the best aspects of Smart Growth. Coalition to re-think their positions. Kirkman changed his members submitted op-ed pieces to the Raleigh mind and came out in opposition. The public hearing News and Observer. The NCRDR criticized the on the rezoning case had not yet occurred. plan as too ambitious for its context, insensitive to the historic Oberlin community, and likely to result Smart, or not so smart? The Planning

39 Department zoning evaluation presented to the Meeker, a former Councilor and general proponent planning commission for the Coker proposal was. of planning and Smart Growth principles, was loudly

as always, neutral. In keeping with Chapman's and actively opposing it.

policy of factual analysis, it made no mention of the unapproved urban design guidelines, or of any This almost surreal atmosphere found Raleigh's

of the activity of the Smart Growth Study conservative Smart Growth opponents touting this Commission. The staff report on the rezoning new project as the best example of Smart Growth petition identified potential conflicts with existing the city had ever seen, while the traditional Comprehensive plan policies, and where changes champions of Smart Growth were calling for the

may be necessary should the Council wish to rejection of an urban mixed-use infill project.

approve it. The NCRDR felt that exclusion of any Planning Director Chapman saw the focus of the discussion of the urban design guidelines or Smart issue had shifted from the merits of the specific Growth principles made the Planning Department's plan to a general debate on the definition of purported neutrality suspect. Both sides, aiming to "Smart." In his carefully maintained role as bolster their take on Smart Growth, were looking technical advisor to the decision-makers. Chapman

for support from Chapman's staff. had little means to draw the debate back to the

merits of this case. The strongly pro-planning and Encouraged by the Planning Commission to smart growth-oriented Planning Commission do so, Coker sought out the opponents. He attempted to reign in the debate to focus on finding submitted a revised scheme that limited the height common ground, but as Chapman said. "Once they

and scale of the project, removed the movie theatres [the Planning Commission] have lost the confidence from the land use mix, included the restoration of a of one or both sides, they can no longer play the historic Oberlin cemetery that was located on his mediator." Faced with an impasse, the commission

site, and reduced the overall amount of retail. The came down on Coker's side. The Planning final proposal called for up to 150,000 square feet Commission recommended approval of the plan. of retail space, up to 220,000 square feet of office/ institutional space and up to 460 residential Deadlock and Mediation. On May 15'\ the condominiums. The tallest structures would stand City Council was handed a split Planning 45 to 85 feet above the Oberlin Road elevation Commission recommendation for approval of a plan

(taller when viewed from Wade Avenue). that would likely define smart growth in Raleigh.

It risked the end of meaningful dialog between the Despite the changes, rhetoric surrounding the proponents and opponents, with considerable media

proposal intensified. Yard signs were tagged with attention and municipal elections less than six months a new message: "Just Another Shopping Center" away. and "Still Too Big". Supporters continued to characterize the project as a Smart Growth project. Without clear support from a majority of An op-ed piece by former Mayor Fetzer appeared Councilors for approval, a politically risky up-or- in the News and Obsenrr, calling on smart growth down vote looked inevitable. Because several

advocates to practice what they preach and support Councilors were involved in tight races for re-

this mixed-use infill project rather than force election they were reluctant to act. By June no

Coker's program out to the suburbs again. resolution of the issue appeared likely. To break the apparent deadlock Chapman suggested bringing

The issue had also by now become a campaign in a team of outside mediators to try to focus the issue. City Council elections were a few months debate. One of the undecided at-large Councilors. away in October. Mayor Coble had been quietly Mort Congleton, suggested this option to the supporting the project. His opponent, Charles Council. The Council authorized the expenditure

40 in a last-ditch effort to find consensus. season. The mediation process began with the

consultants being retained on July 1 1 in a state of Chapman suggested the mediation team of near non-communication between the two sides. David R. Godschalk, FAICP, who holds the Stephen Baxter Chair in the Department of City and "Part of the challenge," said Godschalk, "is

Regional Planning at the University of North shifting gears from making war to making peace."

Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Andrew Sachs, The first issues to be dealt with involved deciding coordinator of the Public Disputes Program of the how the group would meet and who would attend

Orange County Dispute Settlement Center. in what role. True negotiation is difficult if all the Godschalk and Sachs had worked together meetings are open to the public and to the press. extensively and brought to the table an extraordinary "When the forum shifts," added Sachs, "the tools set of backgrounds and skills. Godschalk has that are successful change. What works on an up specialized in land use mediation in his academic or down (public) vote at the Council table will not career and has authored or co-authored several work in a face to face discussion." articles and books on the process, including Pulling Together (Urban Land Institute, 1994). Sachs, The participants represented the city staff with a Masters in City Planning from MIT. created (Chapman), the NCRDR (Raybould and three the public disputes specialty at the Dispute others), Coker and his attorney Lacy Reaves, and Settlement Center of Orange County, and has been several members of the Oberlin community. Both the central figure in a variety of high-profile proponents and opponents agreed to have open

Triangle-area land use cases. Not incidentally, meetings at the beginning and end of the process, Godschalk also represented the North Carolina but to meet privately for the actual negotiating Chapter of the American Planning Association on sessions. This was made possible because the the state legislature's Smart Growth Study Council did not appoint the membership of the Commission. negotiating team. Were they to do this, the NC 4 Open Meetings Law would have required that all There was little question about the meetings be open and advertised to the public. qualifications of the mediators, but substantial concern about what they could do within the limits Establishing the Ground Rules. Sachs imposed on the process. Raleigh development began by focusing on the process in order to re- regulations impose a 15-day limit on changes in establish some trust among the interest groups. He the conditions of any Conditional Use rezoning proposed a 23-point series of protocols, including request 3 referred to the City Council by the decision by consensus, ability to bring in resource Planning commission. The time deadline for such persons, protection against litigation resulting from changes had already passed on May 30 (the the mediation, and the final makeup of the Planning commission's recommendation was referred to the City Council on May 15), meaning that whatever the results of the mediation process, Despite his attempts to keep the Department the Council must vote on the May 30 version of in a neutral position, the NCRDR leadership the proposal, and then authorize an immediate re- viewed Planning Director Chapman as a tacit co- submittal of another zoning case to fix any changes conspirator. NCRDR believed that by keeping the agreed upon in the mediation process into the debate focused on Smart Growth. Chapman approval ordinance. Also, in his resolution to bring exhibited bias. As well. NCRDR distrusted his in the mediators. Councilor Congleton set a time efforts to keep the proposed urban design guidelines deadline of August 7 to conclude the mediation separate from the discussion on merits of this effort, because of the looming municipal election specific project. The planning staff made no

41 recommendation one way or the other on the rezoning case, and this may have been the source In the end. Marc Scruggs once again found of the feelings by NCRDR. One of the things the himself, oddly, on the same side of the fence as his NCRDR wanted was for Chapman to be a neutral unlikely bedfellow. Benson Kirkman. Scruggs' vote

observer rather than a participant in the mediation of support was considered a sure thing early in the discussions. He agreed. process. However, as he indicated that he would not support the proposal, Scruggs quoted from

The group ultimately accepted all but two of Harvey Penick's book. Lessons and Teachings Sachs' ground rules. They could not reach from a Lifetime of Golf claiming inability to consensus on language addressing distribution of a reconcile potential traffic problems and negative summary of each meeting. Nor could they agree impact on surrounding neighborhoods. The loss

on how to work with the news media. of Scruggs' vote meant that all hope for a five- vote majority on the eight-member Council was Because the fifteen-day window for changes gone. In the end Coker asked that the proposal be

in the conditions of the rezoning case had passed, denied. the City Attorney had warned the Council that they needed to be entirely shielded from any of the Postlude. Number eight on newly elected

substantive results of the mediation discussions prior Mayor Charles Meeker's 34-point to-do list is

to their action on the zoning case. If the Council "Renew planning initiative with revised master plan voted to approve the case, knowledge of the on Wade/Oberlin project." The current City

substance of the talks could expose the action to a Council is reviewing this request in response to

potential legal challenge as contract zoning. This another call (after the zoning case was resolved)

warning made it difficult to accommodate the by the NCRDR for a new small area plan for the NCRDR's desire to communicate with their Oberlin and Wade corridors. Chapman's Planning

membership and with the press about the ongoing Department is straining under the weight of multiple

negotiations while still maintaining sufficient silence requests for small area planning in a tight budget

to avoid prejudicing the Council. year. The city has instituted a "Neighborhood College" and a "Neighborhood Group Registration

The more difficult process of paring down broad Program" to help bring citizens closer to the decision concepts to specific issues went slowly. "When process, and embed established groups like the you represent over 1000 people," said Raybould NCRDR in the process early on. (who would shortly become a declared City Council

candidate), "the range of what they want is going Coker himself has indicated he may be back to be all over the place." In the end some progress soon with a scaled-down, broken up, more

was made, relationships were partially repaired, incremental project. It is not clear whether this

the definition of "Smart Growth" began to be will be "smarter" than the first proposal. The 5 10

removed from the debate, but resolution of all of Glenwood project was approved in the context of

the outstanding issues was not possible in the short an aging industrial enclave nearer downtown and time frame. separated from residential neighborhoods. This new plan generated emotions that were not

"This should be a six- to twelve-month anticipated when it was first proposed. The

process," said Sachs. "The parties needed more contentious nature of the "Coker Towers" infill time to explore the many facets of the proposal." process seemed to affect the developer personally. The mediation process was called to a halt on

August 1. "This process is about relationships, not facts,"

42 said Godschalk. He believes that intervention must happen early in the process. A system needs to be Planning Director Chapman is circumspect put in place in local government to identify potential about the ability of local government to anticipate impasses and allow neutral trained mediators to be infill pressures far enough ahead of time to apply brought in before the parties set their positions in limited planning resources to the critical areas in stone, either utilizing outside facilitators or local advance of specific plan proposals. He believes it government staff. Raleigh officials seem to have might be a good idea to procedurally separate taken this to heart. Mayor Meeker recently called "greenfield" planning from infill planning. He draws for a mediation team to be assembled for another a parallel with citing affordable housing. There large-scale mixed-use rezoning request, this one in are many built-up vested interests that are brought a far suburban location, but with equally virulent to bear in infill situations that are not present in opposition^. The difference in this new case is emerging suburban areas. The important that the Mayor is calling for mediation to begin components are education, engagement of the immediately after the public hearing. community and a regulatory process that follows

through on whatever commitment is made in the Whatever happens with the Coker site. planning process. Godschalk believes an excellent opportunity now exists for Raleigh to define what smart growth really Chapman does not see the Coker process as a means in this particular place, but enough time must failure. He said: "The public was confused, but be set aside to allow the process to take its course. the process was smart," meaning that the issue Sachs agrees that time was definitely a factor. He really did have a thorough airing, and when the believes that a six- to twelve-month process is not players ultimately came to the table in a mediated unreasonable to flush out all the potential issues framework, the Smart Growth rhetoric dissipated, and reach resolution in a mediated dispute. progress was made, and the groundwork was laid for future consensus on perhaps a different, maybe Unlike Meeker. Warren Raybould lost his bid "smarter." project. to become part of the City Council. But he feels he's a lot smarter about smart growth now than before. "We understand that things are going to change and grow and that the core will grow." said Raybould. "but how our neighborhood will change RESOURCES should be determined by citizen involvement, economics and area planning. I don"t use the term Godschalk, David. R. Negotiating 'smart growth* because of the emotional baggage. Intergovernmental Development Policy

I prefer we focus on defining good urban infill." Conflicts. American Planning Association

He is looking forward to engaging Coker in a Journal #368, Summer 1992 discussion of a revised project for the 1 5-acre site. Godschalk. Parham. Porter. Potapchuk. The Smart Growth Study Commission has Schukraft. Pulling Together: A Planning issued its findings. They are available on the and Development Consensus Building Internet at this address: http:// Manual. Washington. D.C.: Urban Land www.ncga.state.nc.us/SmartGrowthReport.pdf. Institute. 1994. Little of substance has resulted from the recommendations in a year where the State is Commission on Smart Growth. Growth grappling with nearly a $ 1 billion budget shortfall. Management and Development. Findings

43 and Recommendations. North Carolina website: www.unc.edu/depts/dcrpweb/facstaff/

General Assembly, Fall. 2001 faculty/godschal.htm

WORLD WIDE WEB RESOURCES Andrew Sachs Dispute Settlement Center of Orange County City of Raleigh, Planning Department Web Site 302 Weaver Street (Comprehensive plan on-line): www.raleigh- Carrboro,NC27510 nc.org/planning Tel: (9 19) 929-8800 e-mail: [email protected]

City of Raleigh, Oberlin / Wade project Web Site: web site: www.disputesettlement.org www.raleigh-nc.org/planning/oberlin_wade/ oberlin_wade.htm Neil Coker Oberlin Capital Acquisition LLC Neighborhood Coalition for Responsible 221 Glenwood Avenue

Development in Raleigh - Web Site: Raleigh, NC 27603 www.ncrdr.com Tel: (919) 834-9400

North Carolina Smart Growth Coalition Web Daniel A. Howe. AICP

Site: Senior Planner. City of Raleigh, NC oSI CM http://www.ncsmartgrowth.org/ 222 West Hargett Street -J -J 4 ,h Floor 5 NCAPA Web Site: Raleigh. NC 27601

-j http://www.nc-apa.org/ Tel: (919)890-3650 e-mail: [email protected] 1

CD > NOTES 1 CONTACT INFORMATION 3 1 Raleigh is the second-largest city in North Carolina. 1 George B. Chapman, AICR Planning Charlotte is the largest, with a 2000 population of O Director, City of Raleigh. NC approximately 540.000. rr 5 222 West Hargett Street. 4 lh Floor. 2 Raleigh, NC 27601 The Coker project was built on the site of a former chrome bumper refinishing operation. Glenwood Tel.: (919) 890-3125 e-mail: South is a redeveloping industrial area just west of [email protected] Downtown Raleigh.

Warren Raybould. Business Consultant 3 The PDD zoning district proposed by Coker is a 1907 St. Mary's Street Conditional Use Overlay District, subject to the City's Raleigh. NC. 27608 process for such rezoning petitions. City Code Tel.: (919) 834-0565 section 10-2 165(b) sets a limit of 15 days to amend e-mail: [email protected] conditions after the Planning commission refers a case to the City Council. David Godschalk, FAICP Department of City and Regional Planning 4 GS. 143-318.9-18 UNC-Chapel Hill

5 204 New East Case Number Z- 1 5-02. Master Plan proposes

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3 140 approx. 126.800 sf retail. 350.000 sf office, and up to 25 Tel: (919)962-5012 units per acre of residential uses on a 56 acre site near e-mail: [email protected] the intersection of Strickland and Lead Mine Roads.

44