[RCAC] Discussion of backyard cottages just posted to the RCAC list

Dear RCAC members, I've just included the RCAC list in a discussion that's been going on since last week that was triggered in part by my request before the RCAC meeting to Christine Darges to discuss the backyard cottages. This email exchange is what I'd hoped for instead of a presentation on the basic structure of the code. I felt quite rude being insistent that we at least mentioned the backyard cottages, but perhaps from these mails you'll be able to see why I felt the need to do so. I am now also concerned about accessory apartments. Below, I've included a part of the thread that was cut off: my response to Christine's comment about the RCAC meeting. I hope you will share my concern about how the city is tracking comments. You will see that I've raised the issue of setbacks for the cottages for over a year but the planning staff "identified" the issue in March 2012 after the public hearing. If you have submitted comments on the UDO, please check to see if they have been addressed. I've called a special Glenwood CAC meeting for Monday, August 27th from 6:30 to 9 to consider the possible impacts and unintended consequences of accessory dwellings and backyard cottages on neighborhoods in our CAC. Perhaps another CAC would like to do the same with mixed-use zoning. Thanks to everyone who has put time, thought, and effort into creating the UDO and to everyone working to make Raleigh an even better place to live. Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC ******* July 20th, 2012 Christine, Thank you for your detailed reply. We have different opinions about how the RCAC meeting went, but I appreciate your intent. I know that you are handling a tremendous number of comments on a complex issue and thank you for your hard work. *From your note today, it seem that despite my best efforts, my comments on the backyard cottage setback was not included in the public hearing.* From the city website<http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanCurrent/Articles/N…ml>, from RaleighUDO.com, and from many comments at RCAC and CAC meetings, I'd understood that emails would have the same weight as comments made during an in-person meeting. Here's how I've tried to raise this issue: June 6, 2011: I sent this comment to newcode(a)raleighnc.gov as part of my UDO review: March 26, 2012: The Glenwood CAC discussed these setback at our meeting and I'd discussed my concerns with Doug Hill before the meeting to makes sure I understood the proposal. May 15, 2012: I sent you my comments on May 15th in an email with the subject line *UDO review: deep concern about accessory dwellings*. You replied the same day and I replied to you. (Our email discussion is included below.) My neighborhood book club also discussed the setback in May and some said they would send in comments, but perhaps none of them did. It continues to be a topic at neighborhood gatherings. *I'm alarmed at this point wondering how many other significant concerns have been raised several times and possibly dropped.* Did anyone consider my request last June for: Regulations limiting outdoor theaters in residential neighborhoods<http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/19/1210354/tv-under-th…ml>, *If there is a better way for the public to submit comments, please let us know.* It's not practical for many of us to come downtown and physically attend meetings or meet with staff in person. See below for the May 15th correspondence mentioned above. Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC The first person to minor in design at NCSU, with a focus on architecture and city planning ****** *UDO review: deep concern about accessory dwellings*. Emails from May 15, 2012. ********* Dear Christine, Thanks for your responses and I'm sorry that I didn't see your first one until just now. Here is the link to my image: http://www.cookforgood.com/storage/neighborhood_map_cottages3.jpg You write that: so there isn’t much difference being proposed, only that they can be *But they can also be built* *five feet closer to the property line*. Because the cottages have to be set back 20 or 35 feet from the main house, the design tendency could be to build narrow cottages as near as possible to the property line. Maybe they should be called "accessory shotgun shacks." Many of the houses in my neighborhood have had student apartments at times. In the last eight years or so, many parents have purchases smaller homes for their children to live in while they went to college and then sold them or rented them to strangers. Assuming that NC State continues to grow, gas gets more expensive, and more people move to the Triangle, it seems completely possible that someone could create a business of building and managing Backyard Cottages for home owners. I'd rather make sure the code doesn't allow this than to assume that past building patterns will hold. Thank you for fielding what must be an enormous number of comments. ... Linda Linda, I apologize as I am unable to open the image. It’s important to note that backyard cottages cannot be placed on all properties. There are specific requirements such as setbacks, separation, parking, height and placement to be accommodated. We currently have regulations today in our current code that allow attached dwelling units and very few properties utilize this. The percentage for detached is less as the standards are more strict for detached. The reality is that the requirements to meet the code will result in many properties not being able to add the unit. Christine Customer Service Survey<http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey&… ** * * *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 11:48 AM *To:* Darges, Christine *Cc:* Philip W. Poe; Hill, Doug *Subject:* UDO review: deep concern about accessory dwellings Dear Christine, I'm deeply concerned about the effect the proposed UDO ordinance could have on the neighborhoods in the Glenwood CAC. As an example, I've sketched the effect of adding accessory cottages to my immediate neighborhood. The image below shows the Dellwood Drive & Elvin Court area. It's a rough drawing but should give you the general idea. The yellow rectangles are new cottages that are 690 square feet (700 is allowed for lots between 10,000 and 19,999 square feet) and the orange ones 770 (800 is allowed for lots between 20,000 and 39,999). The dark gray showed additional driveways. Even though we live just a block from a bus stop and in a very bikeable area, each cottage is required to have an extra parking slot. The lot outlined in red is mine (1421 Dellwood Drive) which is .44 acres or 19,166 square feet. Across the street, the Osbornes' lot is 11,325 feet, so it could also have an accessory dwelling of up to 700 square feet. The Ferrell's lot two doors down is 20,473 square feet so it could have an 800 square-foot cottage. [image: Inline image 1] Please: - Require that cottages respect the current 10-foot no-build zone between lots - Eliminate the off-street parking space requirement for cottagesoccupied by people who don't have a car on site - Make more accurate drawings that show the possible effects of these cottages available to more people so they can understand the potential impact Our neighborhood is in flux, torn between renovating or scraping existing house to build larger ones and renting out the existing house to students. Right now, it seems that the larger homes will prevail, with higher property values and a re-stabilized neighborhood. But the cottages as defined could turn this into a student and renter neighborhood. I could easily see the cottages being built to provide rental income for the existing residents and later being turned into all-rental property when our aging residents are no longer there. These cottages could also provide an additional incentive to re-zone from R-4 to R-6, as would be allowed by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Building so many cottages and the parking needed for them will remove trees and pave more area, increasing water run-off problems and increasing global warming. Having the cottages within five feet of the property lines could shade out existing vegetable gardens and sunny patios. We have a hilly neighborhood, so a structure that is "only" 15 feet tall and five feet from the property line could easily seem like one that is 25 feet tall to a house downhill. If I were building a granny cottage for my blind parents, a parking space would not be needed. If I later rented it only to students without a car, then the space still wouldn't be needed. I've sent this image with a version of this note to my CAC mailing list and to my neighbors. In private discussions with some of them, I believe they are just starting to understand the impact that the new UDO could have on our neighborhood. Although I know we've tried hard as planners and activists to engage people earlier in this discussion, I believe that many are just now starting to pay attention. I hope you and the Planning Department will allow us to extend the conversation about this so we can find a better way to incorporate these cottages. *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<http://www.raleighnc.gov/portal/portal/cor/ext/DevServCustSurvey&… * * *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 Sincerely, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC