Re: [RCAC] [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO

All, I appreciate the many contributions by all the participants in this discussion. Linda, a most creative and observant comment by you! Couple of points I'd make: 1) The city IS considering the accessory dwelling unit provision in the code. It's not that the city is not considering or has not considered them for the UDO. It's the context we're having to operate in that makes them problematic. The problem is that current state law prevents cities from imposing the very condition that makes these "cottages" so palatable, cute, desirable, appealing, supportive of the resident-owner's own income stream (making their own house more affordable), supportive of an elderly resident's need to have an able-bodied younger adult on the premises for chores or occasional help, etc. The state of current North Carolina law simply prohibits the most important condition for ensuring that all these good effects would be realized, and for preventing the known bad effects of absentee landlord properties -- on-site owner occupancy. It's not the City's fault or illiberality in its views toward these units -- it's that the state's second-highest court forbade our ability to apply the appropriate regulation and best practice, gutting our ability to administer the concept correctly. It's a lovely concept; it works well when administered correctly; we are prohibited from applying it correctly. The court did this based on probably faulty analysis (in my considered view), and contrary to what many other cities are able to do in other states where this is used -- but the law is what it is until successfully appealed, and there is little chance that it will be any time soon. The city's policy decision may have to be that these units simply cannot be relied on to support the city's goals for quality neighborhoods, given our current inability to regulate them according to the best known practice. 2) I would point out that the ADU allowance would in effect result in many more duplexes. Duplexes are problematic in that they combine *multi-rental* sites with *absentee-landlord* problems. Apartments -- although they are multiple rental units on one site -- are usually at least somewhat professionally managed by a company either on or off-site. And single-family houses that get rented out by a small investor are at least *capable* of attracting a quality household tenant, such as a responsible person or a couple-three responsible people, or a family. But it is harder to attract responsible people and families to live in one side of a duplex or on the same site as another rental property, for the simple reason that they too are affected by the rental of the other side. Thus it is that duplexes end up embodying some of our worst rental problems. They combine the ills of part-time absentee landlording with the double the level of rental presence on a single site. And it's the increase in rental presence that (at a certain point) overwhelms a neighborhood. I have nothing against renting; I was, until last month, a responsible renter for over twenty long years, and all my best friends are renters, etc. etc. (insert whatever class credentials you need to see here; I've got plenty more "street" where that came from). It's rental *overwhelm* that threatens neighborhood quality of life. Doubling rentals through ADU potential will result in rental overwhelm for many neighborhoods currently struggling to stay amenable to buyers -- -- Including some of the most-challenged neighborhoods, where existing owner-occupants with limited income are struggling to ensure that their life's biggest investment retains a decent value as an owner-occupied house! In finally buying a house of my own, I relied greatly on the presence of some, but not TOO many, rental properties on and around my block. (I relied also on Raleigh's PROP ordinance or I would not have invested in a housee where I did.) I also agree with the point made by the observer who commented that the name 'backyard cottages' is too fraught with cutesy. We should discuss and evaluate them using a more objective term. Betsy Kane On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Linda Watson &lt;linda(a)lindawatson.com&gt; wrote: Vincent, You wrote: To me it sounds like the idea of backyard cottages isn't the problem, its the fear of what might happen if slum lords build. I'm afraid that Raleigh, known for its beautiful, green neighborhoods, will allow extensive building that will diminish the quality of life in established neighborhoods. Accessory dwellings, which can be added to the front of existing homes, and backyard "cottages" can turn single-family neighborhoods into duplex and rental neighborhoods. Even the best scenarios bring problems, as you can see from the examples below. The worst ones are horrific. I support and have personally benefited from affordable housing, but don't believe we have to sacrifice single-family neighborhoods to provide it. Here's what I'm afraid of: Slumlords, yes, doing just what you and others have described: cramming in shoddily constructed and poorly maintained accessory dwellings and backyard "cottages" (or backyard shotgun shacks). Unemployed relatives or friends who build accessory cottages themselves using scrap material. Building an accessory cottage gives Cousin Fred a way to feel useful and eventually gets him off the couch. (See U.S. poverty rate on track to rise to highest rate since 1960s in today's N&O). Tiny-house enthusiasts who say Viva la Tiny House Revolution. See some clever examples in Tiny House Design and one on Method Road. These house can be built built out of shipping containers and using odd DIY materials. Long and narrow designs can be placed parallel to the lot lines, meeting the requirement of 35' building separation while blocking the sun and view for the neighbors. With so many design graduates and creative-class members here, backyard cottages could become the McMansions of the 2010s. Parents of students who will see an even better economic reason to buy a smallish house for their kids and their friends to live in while in college. They could build an accessory cottage for their darlings and rent out the main house or vice versa. After the kids graduate, the rental income could be good enough and the local property values now bad enough that the complex stays rental instead of being flipped back to owner-occupied. Savvy friends who decide to try co-housing or landlords who want to increase their income by doing this. These landlords could include people who inherit 1960s brick ranches near universities, hospitals, malls, or other suburban activity centers. Affluent homeowners investing in a well-designed and maintained cottages that are occupied first by young-adult children, then by their grannies, then by renters, and finally by live-in servants and caretakers. Employers have new opportunities to offer living quarters in lieu of wages and to increase their employees' dependence. Think not-so- migrant workers. Human traffickers or pimps could use accessory apartments and backyard cottages to expand or distance themselves from their unsavory occupations. For all these possibilities: Smaller dwellings lead to more outdoor living, says the article Think Small in the New York Times. To compensate for the lack of interior space, the couple cook, entertain and, for the most part, live outdoors. “We live in our view rather than look at it,” This may be lovely in your neighbors are reading Thoreau, but not when they are showing Fight Club III in their backyard theater. Dwellings may first be occupied by the allowed two people and their pets, then also by their sweethearts, friends, children, and their pets. At what point do you want to be the landlord that evicts a growing family or the neighbor that calls the housing inspector? Additional housing means increased water run off due to additional hardscape. It can significantly change the views from nearby backyards and isolate the remaining trees in nearby lots, increasing the possibility of storm damage. UDO section 2.4.2.C says that backyard cottages "typically include" a kitchen and bathroom, but does not require that they do. Imagine the cottage residents going back and forth to the main house to use the facilities or cooking outdoors. No matter how lovely or high-minded the first use is, the building remains after Granny or Sonny moves on or the original owners sell. How will the next owner use the building? Given the proposed semi-judicial way of approving building plans, we must treat the UDO is like a prenuptial agreement: a way to protect ourselves from the worst possibilities in a situation where we are hoping for the best. Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Thomas Crowder &lt;tcrowder(a)architekturpa.com Vince: They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So I thought I would follow-up my pervious e-mail with some pictures of the “typical” quality you see from rental investor improvements in SW Raleigh. They are just a few examples in of single-family properties; before and after investors made the “improvements”. Granted these are R-10 zoned properties; however you get a feel for what these investors see as appropriate for our neighborhoods. BTW, the majority of these landlords live outside Raleigh and even out of state. The first is 1916 Greenleaf, once a wooded affordable single-family neighborhood street with beautiful ranches, now almost 100% rental: Photograph Date: 1/8/2003 (AFTER ) Photograph Date: 12/29/1995 (BEFORE) Next is 3800 Greenleaf (the new roof was due to a fire in 2003), another beautiful ranch home: Photograph Date: 2/1/2004 (AFTER ) Photograph Date: 1/8/2003 (AFTER ) Photograph Date: 12/29/1995 (BEFORE) Unfortunately I could not pull up photos for 2809 Avent Ferry Road on I-Maps, but I highly recommend you ride by the next time you are in the area. There other examples on Buck Jones Road and Bashford Road. Hopefully these photos better illustrate the legitimate concerns folks and I have regarding the future of our affordable neighborhoods in SW Raleigh and throughout the city. Betsy, I believe this may illustrate one reason why you are advising your municipal clients not to allow such entitlements. Also, please remember Rooming Houses were deemed at one time a great way to provide affordable housing in Raleigh. Have a great week folks! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Crowder Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:30 PM To: vincent(a)vincentwhitehurst.com Cc: karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com; Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff Subject: RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Vince: You are correct, if the backyard cottages could be limited to owner occupied structures, then it would not be such a problem and a desirable income stream for families. The challenges surface when rental investors divide an existing single-family unit into two units and the density now expands from four unrelated persons to six unrelated persons or more than likely more than six. As stated previously, the current four unrelated limit is never enforced due to the difficulties of proving who is a tenant and who is a guest. I’m all for design standards, but the legislature currently has a study group looking at preventing local government from enacting them on properties zoned R-5 and below. So I would not count on any rental investors constructing high quality accessory units…backyard cottage or internal to the single-family structures. It is pure economics. If you can buy a home and quarter to 1/3 of an acre lot for under $150,000 (which plenty exist in SW Raleigh) you can easily divide it into or add another 700 square feet structure in the rear yard and rent it out to 6 individuals. Rents around the university can go as high as $500 per room, per month. Furthermore one of our largest problem landlords has been Vernon J Vernon. He constructed the beautiful “blue” multi-family units on Avent Ferry Road, which was once a single-family home lot. We also have fine examples of single-family homes converted (added onto) into multi-family structures on R10 and higher lots, some constructed by Vernon and Donna Preiss. I’ll be have to take you on a tour sometime. As for Cameron Park, I am sure the residents that bought their homes in the 1970’s will tell you it was not affluent. Homes could be purchased for around $30,000.00. There were a large number of rooming houses (more than four unrelated tenants living in the homes) in Cameron Park and a high percentage of rental properties. It was these residents led by Al Adams that pushed to down zone Cameron Park for that very reason. Any grandfathered accessory units today are owner occupied; however even with one of the highest single-family property values in the city, you still have problem landlords in the neighborhood. I’m sure Christie Terrell would be happy to elaborate further. The best strategy to add mixed-income units and control sprawl is through the development of our mixed-use centers throughout the city, which are accessible to transit and hopefully pedestrian and bike friendly, with the right design standards of course. Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Vincent Whitehurst Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:15 PM To: Thomas Crowder Cc: karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com; Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff Subject: Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO All, To me it sounds like the idea of backyard cottages isn't the problem, its the fear of what might happen if slum lords build. What I've always seen happen is they purchase a property and don't spend a dime on it. I can't imagine them spending any money at all to create backyard dwellings. It seems counterintuitive to the idea of being a slumlord. Also, we have PROP laws, zoning, building codes, and ordinances that should address most issues. New building has many quality requirements that you can rarely enforce on existing buildings. I don't like the idea of penalizing all the advantages of what backyard cottages could offer by only looking at the worst case scenario. Why not look at the best case scenario? Maybe we need some design standards for materials on these dwellings. We could also have some sort of "overlay' requirements for at-risk areas we think need more protection such as the areas Thomas is mentioning. If a home is the only investment some people have, then they can increase their investment by building an apartment that could help with rent, such as many properties in Cameron Park, one of the city's more affluent areas, already have. I think we have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages. If we want to start combating sprawl, we need to look for ways to up-zone properties to allow higher uses. We have to do this IN THE BELTLINE and outside the beltline. Backyard cottages are an opportunity for smart, small scale infill. I think we need to look at the big picture on issues like this. Just my two cents. Vincent Whitehurst, Architect 919-821-3355 On Jul 22, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Thomas Crowder wrote: Karen: As always, thank you for your thoughts, as we often agree on such matters; however this is one where we must agree to disagree. I concur that the affordable housing community should always have a seat at the table during these discussions. You know I have been a vocal advocate for supporting “affordable housing” but through the creation of mixed-income communities, particularly within mixed-use centers throughout our entire city, where jobs are within walking distance and which are adequately served by transit. I will continue to support a mix of housing opportunities for ALL income levels, as “affordable” is a relative term. What is affordable to you, may not be affordable to me, etc. But the rub is that historically (and currently) this does not exist. “Affordable” housing is only constructed in communities that currently is or historically has been “affordable” such as areas within Northeast, Southeast and Southwest Raleigh. That is why the City created a scattered housing policy for subsidized “affordable” housing decades ago. Our affordable rental housing providers were only focusing on areas where the land was less costly, within already “affordable communities. Debbie Moose notes in another string, the concerns she has about this matter. She lives in one of the most affordable neighborhoods in the city and the most affordable Zip Code within Wake County as quoted by Michelle Grant with Community Development. Due to the affordability of neighborhoods like Ms. Moose’s, rental investors (absentee landlords) are able to purchase single-family properties and covert them to rental units that are quite profitable. It is just simple math: less upfront investment + low overhead (maintenance investment) cost = maximized profit. Unfortunately, one residual impact is these properties are not often well maintained, the appearance of the neighborhood declines, the quality of life in these neighborhoods degrades and home values stymieing. Why is this a problem? Homeowners like Debbie who live in these neighborhoods are not only personally invested in their community, their home in many cases is their primary or the only financial investment they have. The majority of their net worth is tied up in their home and they are not heavily invested in other real estate portfolios, or the stock market. Their home is it. The majority of the time this is not the case for the rental investors, who do not reside within these neighborhoods and who as a rule live in more affluent areas of the city. Historically, a majority of these rental investors do not maintain their rental investments to the same level of their homes. To add insult to injury, I often see many of them before the city council objecting to public nuisance or zoning violation fines, requesting the council abate them in the name of them providing “affordable housing”. It is the very reason so many at-risk communities lobbied the city to create the PROP and landlord registry. It was lower and moderate income communities who were out front supporting this legislation in order to protect the quality of life in their neighborhoods and to protect their home investment. Furthermore, middle and upper income residents do not historically live in, or move to areas where there home investment will not appreciate, or where they believe their quality of life will more likely diminish. Who can blame them, no one does and would not if they could afford to. And while it is illegal to steer, residential real estate advisors do not promote these communities to middle and upper income citizens. Therefore it is an endless spiral where we segregate our lower and moderate wealth citizens, that we all know is broken but will not fully accept. Why do we know such a cycle is broken? It is through another well intended concept, the urban renewal efforts of the 1960’s/1970’s, that we now recognized segregating and warehousing our lower wealth citizens is not the answer to assisting them move towards a path of building wealth and self-sufficiency, nor creating healthy sustainable communities. Acknowledging our mistake lead to the creation of the Hope VI program. Through the Hope VI program we are now turning these complexes into well planed, well constructed communities for a mix of income levels. Segregating our neighborhoods based on socio-economics is no different, nor less damaging than segregating our schools. When we do not integrate a mix of incomes and segregate our moderate and even more so, our low wealth citizens into large geographic areas of the city, we deny them the opportunity to close access to both, entry level and higher paying job and force them to drive long distances or multiple transit transfers. Furthermore, we deny them close proximity to retail and other health and professional services. This is because income demographic data that every business references drives their decision on where they locate, or not locate. One only has to drive through the city to see where the majority of such services are concentrated, at least those services furnished by the private sector. While we are in principal working towards the same goal, I must respectfully disagree that allowing back yard “cottages” and duplex conversions in already “affordable” or at-risk communities is the answer; particularly when the city does not have the legislative nor legal authority to insure such communities are not exploited. As Phil Poe noted in another string, we do not need to create opportunities for unenforceable conditions. The net result of allowing this entitlement will be worse density zoning violations that will not be (and currently are not being) enforced, parking overburdens; etc, and you can bet these will not take place in our more affluent communities. Low wealth communities and communities with a high student population are where they will be constructed and the majority of them will not be on owner occupied properties. While one city planner stated these were consequences he was willing to accept in exchange for the opportunity for more affordable housing, the consequences are far too egregious and too high a price to pay in the long run for me, others and I hope ultimately you too Karen. If we (the city) truly wish to solve our “affordable housing” dilemma, then we must either earnestly work towards obtaining exclusionary zoning authority, or be willing to otherwise financially invest in the creation of mixed-income communities throughout our entire city. Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Karen Rindge Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:15 PM To: Thomas Crowder; oldurbanist(a)gmail.com Cc: 'Darges, Christine'; linda(a)lindawatson.com; 'McFarlane, Nancy'; 'Philip W. Poe'; 'Hill, Doug'; 'Joyce Kekas'; 'Crane, Travis'; 'Hallam, Greg'; 'RussStephenson'; 'Gaylord, Bonner'; 'Mark Turner'; 'District D Neighborhood Alliance'; Bowers, Kenneth; gregg(a)dhic.org; Carley Ruff Subject: RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thomas, Considering that accessory dwellings are about the only thing in the UDO that would provide some new affordable housing in Raleigh, I suggest we weigh this carefully. We’ll be glad to talk further about this issue. I do think the affordable housing community should be consulted on this too. Karen Karen Rindge Executive Director, WakeUP Wake County Karen(a)wakeupwakecounty.org 919-828-3833 www.wakeupwakecounty.org <image001.jpg> <image002.png> From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Crowder Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:09 AM To: oldurbanist(a)gmail.com Cc: Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance Subject: RE: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thank you Betsy for your comments. I too believe, as you noted that this is a noble goal, if restricted to owner occupied homes and other limitations imposed; however as you also noted, the city is currently unable to make such a restriction. They are in fact serious and legitimate reasons to exclude this provision. However the best way for the Mayor and Council to understand the severe negative ramifications of these two proposed entitlements is for the public to be educated on what can be allowed under any circumstance and then speak out. While I, or any one councilor may bring this concern forward and articulate how serious the unintended consequences are, much greater weight comes from hearing such concerns from our citizens. That is why it is very important for the public to fully understand from staff the “good” and the unintended “bad” and “ugly” opportunities, which lie in the proposed new code. Another example is the assumption that all our Mixed-Use categories will truly be Mixed-Use. As written in the draft document. All Neighborhood, Community and Regional Mixed-Use categories could end up being one story strip retail development per the code. I honestly do not believe this is what the public wanted when developing these categories during the Comp Plan Update. I know that was not my intent. The UDO is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission and it is critical that our citizens express their concerns to them prior to their forwarding their recommendations to the City Council. Thanks and have a great weekend folks! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: ddna(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:ddna@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Betsy Kane Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:46 AM To: Thomas Crowder Cc: Darges, Christine; linda(a)lindawatson.com; McFarlane, Nancy; Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner; District D Neighborhood Alliance Subject: Re: [DDNA] RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Thomas, Thanks so very much for staying on top of the backyard accessory dwelling unit issue. As I believe you know, I am writing a law review article on this topic, specifically in relation to the current state of the law in North Carolina flowing from the Hill case which prevents regulation of these units by the condition that one unit on the property be occupied by the owner. Lynn Coleman (then-Assistant City Attorney for Wilmington, who litigated this issue on behalf of the city before the N.C. Court of Appeals) and I have talked about this issue, and she stated to me that after their ordinance provision regarding owner-occupancy was struck down by the Court of Appeals, the result was that entire districts soon afterward became double-rental conversions (not one, but two rental problems on each lot), with resulting problems for those neighborhoods. I write and amend zoning ordinances for communities in North Carolina, and I believe accessory dwellings are a wonderful goal and have worked well in other states without this hampering problem of jurisprudence -- -- However, because of the legal situation in North Carolina, I have been advising my towns and cities here NOT to allow accessory dwelling units at the present time until the current state of the law is reviewed and amended. (In my legal opinion, the decision by the COA rests on tenuous propositions and was improvident; however, the City of Wilmington chose not to appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court, therefore, the principle does stand at the present time.) The issues that you have raised are serious and legitimate. Thank you for looking after this. I am hopeful that our mayor and otehr councilors will support these concerns, especially given the great effort and care of many neighborhoods in dealing with the issues created by excessive rental presence. Betsy Kane On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Crowder &lt;tcrowder(a)architekturpa.com Thank you Christine for your response. Was everyone also aware that due to recent court rulings, accessory apartments and backyard accessory cottages CANNOT be restricted to owner occupied properties, as Raleigh has done in the past. In other words, rental investment property owners share the same entitlement as an owner occupied property. Any landlord can add an accessory apartment attached to the house or add a backyard cottage apartment in the rear yard of a single-family rental property and rent both structures out. Also, did you discuss another key change in the new code? Accessory apartments are no longer a percentage of the base single-family unit like in the current code (I believe it is limited to 25% of the house and cannot have a kitchen)? Under the proposed UDO these apartments can be up to 700 SF. While it is true the 700 SF unit cannot exceed the area of the main house, depending on the house size it can occupy up to 99% of the house; i.e., a 1410 SF house (many post WWII ranches range in size from 1300-1500SF). Therefore a duplex in reality can be created on many R-4 zoned properties. In each of these provisions up to 6 unrelated persons can live on the same parcel (4 in the main house and 2 in the accessory apartment or backyard cottage). Unfortunately we have a long history of not enforcing unit density violations. The Zoning Department consistently states that they cannot limit the number of overnight guest (as long as they do not have a dedicated bed, clothes stored in closets and they have a license with another home address listed); regardless of the number of days they reside at the house. Therefore properties with an accessory apartment or backyard cottage unit could have as many as 12 unrelated persons living on an R-4 zoned parcel or more. That can also mean 12 cars or more needing a space to park. This would not be unrealistic in many parts of our city, particularly around our major universities. In many of these areas we have 6-8 people living in a single-family house with 6-8 cars parked out front. I do not believe a vast majority of the public understands these provisions or the potential negative impacts to our at-risk lower wealth and middle income communities. While the concept in principle may be noble by allowing “granny” flats, small units for young starter families and professionals, etc., the opportunity for abuse is significant. I agree with my former council colleague Mr. Tommy Craven, who at the UDO public hearing stated this provision of the new code could become a major problem for our city. When presenting this option to the public, lets please make sure they fully understand ALL examples that can take place under this proposed entitlement and other ones like the Mixed-Use Categories. I hope the Planning Commission and Council looks very careful and this provision and reconsider how and if this provision should be included in a new ordinance. Thanks again for helping educate the public on the provisions of the proposed UDO. BTW Linda…thank you and your Glenwood CAC members so much for delving into the specifics of the proposed UDO. It is difficult for most lay persons to understand the content, or the ramifications of this document. I do want to say there is many great improvements in this proposed document verses our current code; however issues like this matter need major tweaking or removal before it is approved. Have a great weekend! Thomas G Crowder Raleigh City Councilor | District D 222 West Hargett Street Post Office Box 590 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O 919.996.3040 H 919.852.1297 "Best City in America" Businessweek.com, 2011 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank You! From: Darges, Christine [mailto:Christine.Darges@raleighnc.gov] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:16 AM To: linda(a)lindawatson.com Cc: Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner Subject: RE: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Linda, As your email came in a day before the RCAC presentation, I felt it would be better to respond to your email at the meeting where all present could benefit from the discussion. I included this in the presentation for this reason and believe the discussion was very productive as it prompted the group to ask several questions and resulted in a better understanding of the proposed housing option for everyone. It was very helpful and thank you for bringing this up. This morning, I culled through the approximately 175 Planning Commission recommended edits to the UDO draft and I did not see that they made the change from 5’-10’ as I had thought, but recall it was in our staff notes. Looking into this further, I saw that this topic had not been raised during the public hearing, so was not incorporated into the public comment record; however, the staff had made a note to look into this further as the 5’ setback for an accessory structure does not have the same impacts as a detached structure with a dwelling unit. With the Commission reviewing chapter by chapter in early March, they had finished with chapter 2 by the time staff identified it. This is why it was not an official comment presented and acted on with other chapter 2 comments. For the July 24th UDO review, the item is on our agenda and there will be a recommendation that the rear and side setback for backyard cottages be increased from 5’-10’ as staff identified and you as well. Staff is currently preparing a draft of the final PC recommendations for web posting that the public will be able to access in the near future through the link below. Also through the link, you can access weekly reports for specific discussion items. Reports are normally available by end of day Friday. http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/NewRaleighCo… Sincerely, Christine Customer Service Survey Christine Darges Planning Manager Current Planning Services Raleigh Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2634 phone 919-516-2682 fax www.raleighnc.gov Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov From: watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linda Watson Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 8:34 AM To: Darges, Christine Cc: Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas; Crane, Travis; Hallam, Greg; RussStephenson; Thomas Crowder; Gaylord, Bonner; Mark Turner Subject: Re: request that RCAC presentation address backyard cottages, underlying assumption for UDO Dear Christine and all, I'm surprised and disappointed to not have received a single response to this email. I'm even more surprised but also grateful to have learned in your presentation at the RCAC last night that my main concern, the setback for backyard cottages, has been addressed. No one who received my original email told me about the change and I cannot find that information on the city website. (I'm adding RCAC Chair Mark Turner to the copy list today to help him understand my questions and comments last night.) You questioned the version of the UDO I was using, which describes a 5-foot setback for the cottages. I used chapter 2 of the UDO shown in the upper right-hand corner of the city's UDO page. I just checked the staff-report comments on that page related to chapter 2 and the backyard cottages and see only comments followed by statements that the staff does not recommend any changes. You mentioned that a document will be coming out in a few weeks with the updates that you used in your presentation. I regret wasting my time, my neighbors' time, the RCAC's time, and all your time trying to bring attention to this issue. I missed going to the Blue Ridge Corridor meeting because I was working on a dead issue. This is not the way to encourage citizen participation in the process. At our next CAC meeting, I hope that Doug Hill will tell us how we can be informed of the status on key issues without having to attend all the meetings. Should we get that information from the city website, from our planning representative Doug Hill, or from our RCAC representative Phil Poe? Phil and Mark, how should this work for the CACs? I hope this solution does not require that we take advantage of your offer to come downtown to have a planner walk us through our questions. A simple email response would be much faster and more sustainable. Sincerely yours, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Linda Watson &lt;linda(a)lindawatson.com&gt; wrote: Christine, I'm looking forward to your presentation for the RCAC tomorrow night. I'm hoping you'll address two topics that concern me and many neighbors I've spoken with in the Glenwood CAC. The first has to do with rules for the backyard cottages and the other has to do with the basic assumptions being made about how strict the UDO needs to be. 1) The current UDO draft allows free-standing accessory dwellings within 5 feet of the property line, which is 5 feet closer than primary residents in zones 1 through 4. Backyard cottages should only be allowed within the allowable envelop for the primary residence. I disagree with your statement that there isn't much difference between the currently allowed attached accessory apartments and a free-standing accessory dwelling. While I might be willing to have two students living in my backyard far away from my house in exchange tens of thousands of dollars of rent every year, I would not want to share a wall or floor with them. 2) The underlying assumption that undesirable building patterns should be allowed by the UDO if there isn't precedent for that sort of building. Both you in the note below and Doug Hill at our CAC meeting indicated that the UDO allowances for backyard cottages shouldn't be a concern because no one would build that way. Doug cited the expense of building a driveway to the cottage, but there is no requirement for a driveway, only for an additional parking space. I've posted several pictures on the Glenwood CAC Facebook page showing formerly unthinkable building patterns that are transforming the Coley Forest neighborhood. The Facebook page also shows a map of how these cottages could transform my neighborhood and similar neighborhoods in the CAC, with those nearest to NCSU at most risk. If this assumption is being used for backyard cottages, then what other unacceptable building patterns will be allowed by the UDO but are being assumed to unlikely enough to not be an issue? As Western hero Virgil Cole says when quoting his favorite military theorist: This Clausewitz says you got to prepare for what your enemy can do, not what you think he might do Developers aren't our enemies, of course, but they have interests that may be different from the residents in an area. Developers are asking for clear rules to avoid future disputes. Let's show them what they can do without triggering a fuss. Ten years ago, I never would have dreamed that Glenwood Avenue inside the Beltline would be lined with big buildings, with more on the way. I hope that ten years from now I won't be looking out into my backyard at a double-row of rental housing between my house and those on Ridge Road, wistfully remembering the trees that used to be there. I urge you and the Planning Department to develop a UDO that assumes the worst and allows for the best. I hope you will address these topics tomorrow night. I've attended several sessions on the UDO, read two drafts, and spent considerable amount of time on this topic without getting a response that makes me feel that these concerns are unfounded. Sincerely yours, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Darges, Christine &lt;Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov Linda, There are many facets to this discussion. As stated previously in my response to you this morning about these additional dwelling units as backyard cottages, the requirements that accompany them will not allow every property to add a dwelling unit. In reality it results in a very low percentage of properties. We have a regulation today that allows them as attached units, with height and size requirements, so there isn’t much difference being proposed, only that they can be detached. In Raleigh we have very few accessory dwelling units for various reasons, such as cost, need or other. As far as the height of these structures goes, all structures such as sheds, homes, accessory buildings for all uses are required to meet height requirements, so these structures will not be treated differently. Regarding stormwater, the use of existing infrastructure and addition of impervious surface can be looked at in different ways, on a lot by lot basis on as a whole. The downtown area is almost 100% impervious, but the additional height allows the efficient use of infrastructure. To compare that with a sprawling model where impervious on a lot by lot basis may be lower, the reality is that you are using more infrastructure to serve the same amount of development. Stormwater can be captured in underground devices in an urban setting or above ground in suburban setting, with the same result. We appreciate your comments and thank you for taking the time to submit them. Christine Customer Service Survey Christine Darges Planning Manager Current Planning Services Raleigh Department of City Planning City of Raleigh One Exchange Plaza, Suite 300 PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919-516-2634 phone 919-516-2682 fax www.raleighnc.gov Christine.Darges(a)raleighnc.gov From: watsonwao(a)gmail.com [mailto:watsonwao@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Linda Watson Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:18 PM To: Darges, Christine Cc: Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug; Joyce Kekas Subject: Concern re: increasing density resulting in neighborhood upheaval Christine, Much of the Glenwood CAC area is show in the Comprehensive Plan as being Low-Density Residential, which would allow it to go easily from R-4 to R-6. When combined with the proposed UDO definitions of Accessory Cottage, which can house two people unrelated to the people in the main house, our neighborhood could: Go from having four dwellings per acre to twelve Go from single-family homes to duplexes Increase the required parking spaces per acre from eight to eighteen I moved into this beautiful, mature neighborhood in part because the houses are nestled in the trees. With these changes, additional stress will be placed on our aging infrastructure, many trees will be cut down, and green areas will be replaced with built structures or paving. These changes will increase water run-off problems and speed global warming. Please also note that all the drawings in the UDO show flat land, but Raleigh is hilly. A structure built up slope seems taller than its measurements indicate. And I share former City Councilor Joye Kekas's concern: I am concerned about the UDO giving too much authority to staff in designing our City. This relieves the Planning Commission and Council from making decisions. We elect Council for these decisions and they should be making them on a case by case basis. I agree some things should go to staff, but not major ones that redesign our City. If we pass the UDO and it has unexpected consequences or times change dramatically, we will not be able to change course by electing new leaders. Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC “E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official.” -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en ?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en ?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en ?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en ?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en ?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en ?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en ?hl=en -- DDNA meets on the 3rd Saturday of every month You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "District D Neighborhood Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to ddna(a)googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ddna+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ddna?hl=en ?hl=en