Comments on: Decision on Stanhope Changes Delayed

By: Not wolfpack

Not wolfpack — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:20:16 +0000

It seems like some people that live in what would be considered on most fronts as sub-standard living arrangements think they are living in a castle of some sort.

When I first heard about this project i drove around and expected to see Mc Mansions boy was I wrong. the entire neighborhood would do good to get plowed under…..

there is industrial and commerical and a darn giant cell tower in the back yards not to mention rail and future high speed rail…..

this place is a win win for everyone in Raleigh not to mention the fees and taxs that the city took in.

By: Peggy Seymore

Peggy Seymore — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:02:57 +0000

Just as Mac Cady said, if Wolfpack had been following the actions of the developer in his dealings concerning the Stanhope area from the beginning of the Stanhope Small Area Plan thru his MP-3-02 and his SP-125-07 of which the developer had been involved in all 3, then Wolfpack would have seen that the developer has continued to change his own commitments to a quality mixed use community. The Stanhope Village was supposed to be a mixed use community with open spaces scattered across the 3 buildings with one deck and not just a student community. Students were to be in the tallest building near the railroad tracks across from the NCSU dorms with lower buildings in the other 2 sections for professionals and businesses. There were not supposed to be TWO huge decks in the Stanhope Village. However, the developer decided to put the 8 story parking deck within 40 feet of a 1925 single story home instead of the apartment building that the Stanhope Small Area Plan showed. The neighborhoods had only resisted those parts of Val Commons that did not match the developer’s commitment in the Stanhope Small Area Plan. Please get your facts straight. The way that I see it is if the developer really wanted to build a quality project in the last 2 sections of the Stanhope Village that he, the neighborhoods and the city could be proud of, then he could submit plan for a 3 story/5 story/ 7 story building in section A along Hillsborough/Concord and ask to add another story to his building in section B to compensate for the units that he is currently wants to have in section A. This would be a win-win solution.

By: Mac Cady

Mac Cady — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:35:46 +0000

re: WolfPack “However, the city must look forward and be careful not to take an anti-development attitude, especially with a development so beneficial.”

Dear WolfPack,

You are missing the point here. The development COULD have been beneficial to EVERYONE. Homeowners AND students. Did you ever see the original and approved Small Area Plan? Green Space, walkways, bike-ways, mixed use retail, and possibly a grocery. It would have been an incredible development. But instead, there sits a morbid hospital facade box that houses students and a parking deck that is literally hanging over our neighborhood. Bad design and greed ultimately, with time, benefits no one. How long before this prison-like structure starts to fall apart, it’s cheap materials begin to crumble? This is “Ikea Development” at its finest. Build it cheap, throw it away in a few months.

By: chickenlittle

chickenlittle — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:56:27 +0000

My understanding is there is no “Kerr Drugs Building,” nor any plans for a Kerr Drugs to be established, and certainly no binding commitment to utilize past or future rezonings to build (or lease to) a Kerr Drugs or build what the average citizen would consider “mixed use” with almost all first floor space dedicated to retail/restaurant.

By: Donna Wolcott

Donna Wolcott — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:23:43 +0000

I do very much look forward to development of the property on Hillsborough Street in front of Valentine Commons. We enjoy living in a neighborhood that includes students, and would welcome more retail and restaurants in the area. I understand that it is the reluctance of investors to finance a smaller development that is driving the request for a taller and larger building. It would be a shame to leave the property in its current state of disarray for lack of funds. However, it would also be a shame to have a temporary shortage of finances override the principles of good community design, developed with much input by both planners and residents. Hillsborough Street cannot be made any wider, so the limitation on building height is necessary to prevent the “urban canyon” effect and soften the transition from neighborhoods of single-family homes and small retail, to high-density high-rise development.

By: WolfPack

WolfPack — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:12:11 +0000

Both Raleigh and NC State are growing, and dense development is a must. Hillsborough street is a very attractive area.

Stanhope is student housing just one block from NC State, meaning the only significant traffic it creates (during the day on weekdays) will be pedestrian traffic. Placing student apartments in walking distance from NC State benefits Raleigh greatly…
(1) The students’ quality-of-life increases. If students find Raleigh to have a high quality-of-life they will be more likely to stay in Raleigh after they graduate.
(2) Diminishes the need to build apartments miles away, which result in higher traffic during daytime hours or further burden to Wolfline, plus negative environmental effects.
(3) Spurs businesses; Hillsborough St could use a better restaurant and retail selection.

The neighbors resisted Valentine Commons, so it’s no surprise they are resisting this good project. However, the city must look forward and be careful not to take an anti-development attitude, especially with a development so beneficial.

By: Donna Bailey

Donna Bailey — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:00:42 +0000

Excellent summary. This could set a standard if 7 stories is allowed. Three stories is the default (40′) and 5 stories is the maximum allowed with the new UDO. Hillsborough St is only 3 lanes wide there and can’t get any wider.