Brad, see my comments below. Philip W Poe 919.410.6772 <http://www.google.com/googlevoice/about.html> one number dialing <mailto:pwpoe@att.net> pwpoe(a)att.net From: rcac-bounces(a)eastraleigh.org [mailto:rcac-bounces@eastraleigh.org] On Behalf Of Brad Johnson Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:52 PM To: linda(a)lindawatson.com Cc: RCAC Subject: Re: [RCAC] New petition: allow backyard cottages and ADUs on an opt-in basis Linda, I disagree that this was the central sentiment at the meeting. While I appreciate the intent to push to make them opt in, many neighborhoods that are not within NCODs or under homeowners covenants would, under this theory, be prohibited from opting in without extensive work. Most lots where these cottages make sense are not in neighborhoods where NCODs exist, making this suggestion in spirit the same as a blanket prohibition. Having an NCOD or covenants today would not qualify an area for backyard cottages. For example, Five Points East has an NCOD today. If that community was interested in backyard cottages, it would have to amend the NCOD to include conditions for the backyard cottages. The amended NCOD would also provide the community the opportunity to craft conditions that best fit the area, which supports the goal of the UDO to get the right rules in the right places. The same would apply for communities with covenants. Other areas interested in backyard cottages would petition for an NCOD that includes backyard cottages and conditions that best fit the area. The addition of the Backyard Cottage option is actually a significant improvement from apartments only. A cottage would cost significantly more than an apartment ad-hoc added to a home, and restrictions in place on detached accessory structures would likely make their materiality match the existing dwelling unit. If there is some concern with additional dwellings being added on lots, why is there such a focus on cottages and not apartments too? A cottage by its very nature is a much more expensive, and therefore, likely thoughtful investment than an ad-hoc apartment. Apartments will only be allowed in R-10 and the mixed use districts. You can find a table of building types by district in chapter 1 of the UDO. If a neighborhood is particularly against backyard cottages (and apartments or excessive accessory structures for that matter) they can always opt-out through a NCOD or the creation of a homeowners association. My "best guess" is this approach would be much more expensive for the City and disrupt the lives of many more citizens. Also, communities would remain vulnerable until the NCOD was approved. I respectfully ask that we encourage neighborhoods concerned about parts of the UDO to adopt NCODs that reflect those concerns, but not encourage restrictions on neighborhoods and lots not in neighborhoods because of those concerns. -Brad On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Linda Watson < <mailto:linda@lindawatson.com> linda(a)lindawatson.com&gt; wrote: I tried to capture the spirit of a compromise on backyard cottages in a <http://www.change.org/petitions/raleigh-city-council-and-comprehensive-plan ning-committe-let-neighborhoods-opt-in-to-backyard-cottages-and-accessory-dw elling-units> new petition asking for them to be allowed on an opt-in basis. The best language in it was lifted from a note by Councilor Crowder. Please circulate it widely and sign it if you feel so inclined. I've also linked <http://raleighudo.com/blog/sign-compromise-petition-backyard-cottages-adus> this new petition and my original one against the cottages in this post on the UDO website. Thanks for the lively discussion at our retreat on Saturday. It's an honor to work with so many people who care so deeply about the future of Raleigh. Best wishes, Linda Watson Chair, Glenwood CAC _______________________________________________ RCAC mailing list <mailto:RCAC@eastraleigh.org> RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org <http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac> http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac