Planning Commission Paralyzed

A dubious debate always ensues on the issue of tear downs in Raleigh. Individual and group opinion tends to be polemic to the point there is no room for middle ground or civil conversation. Community SCALE, as well as many aware citizens, are in support of regulation that works to tame profit-focused developers who publicly disregard neighborhood character. Real estate and many in the market for these homes think they are improving the neighborhoods. Effective regulation is abstracted by numbers, measurements, codes and jargon—and thus difficult to define. Economics ultimately inform the choices of builders and one thing seems overtly clear: the money behind much of the new residential building, both in design and consequent purchase, is devoid of taste.

It’s this fact that makes the debate so humorous. The citizens blind to the sheer bleakness of the metamorphosis decry regulation—branding it socialist. Anyone who has watched these communities has seen tree lined streets convert to tumored blocks of consumption. In a time where the city is talking environmental impact, the 2030 plan, and long term choices about the city that Raleigh will be, how can we allow unfettered destruction of our cultural environment? No one wants to stop buyers from getting what they want—they just expect those same buyers to pay for appropriate watershed, parking, and green space to support that house.

So today, as the Planning commission said, “there’s so much uncertainty,“ passing on any decision in regards to these homes, one wonders what is so uncertain. There is nothing “infill” about larger homes holding less people and for most they don’t afford any improvement. Our planners stressed the importance of sustainability and community health in their 2030 presentations. But now, when we focus on an issue that has so much relevance to the city’s short-term evolution, they sit paralyzed in indecision. This renewed passivity is discouraging as these growth patterns are exactly what the city has to plan around. We look to the CIty Council to begin a conversation that addresses this difficult issue in the new year.

come on, NR12/12 02:06 PM

If you’re looking to elevate the level of discourse, you’re going to have to do better than this. Complain first about binary reactions, then suggest that only those who agree with Community Scale are “aware citizens”? What exactly does that phrase even mean?

Then we’ve got “profit-focused developers who publicly disregard neighborhood character.“ “Profit-focused” in contrast to the developers who seek to lose money on every job and those who only *privately* disregard neighborhood character. But hey, real estate thinks it improves the neighborhood. Me? I say neighborhoods are comprised of real estate. It can’t “think” anything, it’s an inanimate object. We also learn that the money behind the new building is devoid of taste. I would suggest they try chocolate money. Not only is it delicious, but it’s nutritious as well.

If you’re interested in getting into the juicy stuff, let’s start by kicking all of the “money” discussion to the curb. Nobody buys a house that they think won’t appreciate in value over time. It doesn’t really matter whether time is measured in hours or lifetimes, the hope is that, sooner or later, it will be worth more money. Otherwise, they’d rent.

Can we define the problem we’re trying to solve? I am not persuaded that this is simply an issue of size. Every older city has hundreds of examples of new and old homes, large and small homes, side by side, in harmony with their neighbor and with the streetscape as a whole. Older neighborhoods right here in Raleigh are the same way - 4500sf Victorians right next door to 1100sf shotguns. Ride through Oakwood or Boylan and look at each and every house. Tell me that’s not the case. Ride through University Park and look at the moderns right next door to 80yo cottages. I’d argue that it works, and that the neighborhood is richer thanks to the diversity of styles.

It seems that the root of the arguments are really those of taste. The reasons are often nebulous—a house is ‘too close’ or ‘too big’. The extreme examples are certainly easy to agree on, but what of the grey space in between? If we can demonstrate that new can go next to old and that large can live next to small in harmony, how do we regulate that such harmony MUST exist in those cases when it does not?

There’s a lot to talk about here. Lots of problems to be solved, and lots to learn from the process. But the original post is far shy of even brushing the surface. You can do better.

David12/12 02:51 PM

Apologies for not phrasing it to your liking. But really I fail to see where you add anything to this discussion, only pick at the semantics.

Fallonia12/12 04:38 PM

Individual and group opinion tends to be polemic to the point there is no room for middle ground or civil conversation. Community SCALE, as well as many aware citizens, are in support of regulation that works to tame profit-focused developers who publicly disregard neighborhood character.

I am glad to see this topic getting the coverage it deserves. I think the writer has identified the opposing forces and attitudes well. This sentence in particular is true. And this is the heart of the matter.

There would not be a problem if good houses were not being smashed and bashed for their land, (you could choose to rebuild the rotten worn out ones, for example, and find the right buyer for the bigger ones) or if respect for the character of the community was part of the design (yes, bungalows, cottage and two-story houses have played together well for years in older neighborhoods, and richer and poorer).

Yes, you cannot legislate taste, but you can make sure the playing field is level.

In this case, the field is not level. Substantial renovations may trigger a visit to the board of adjustment, but a teardown relies only on the zoning laws for rules. So it gets a free pass, and can build to setback limits (which is what a speculator will do to get back the $400K just spent on the lot). A person renovating and expanding has other conditions to satisfy.

So, if the city wants to take a small step for neighborhoods and take a giant step for community respect, they will make certain that teardown permits follow the same procedure.

Cydney12/12 07:20 PM

Any project (addition or new) can be built “to” setback limits for that zone unless there are further restrictions imposed by a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District or Historic District. A variance application and subsequent visit to the Board of Adjustment is required of any work that will overstep said rules.

Immediate context should be respected or at least considered, so it is right to let the neighborhoods set their own standards within the overlay district restrictions. Variances are granted based on the specific circumstances and the approval of adjacent neighbors (as it should be).

Setting rules specific to any one type of project just means people will come up with ways around the rules. There is anecdotal evidence in other jurisdictions of projects retaining one original wall to call something a ‘renovation’ and avoid the scrutiny imposed on a ‘teardown’ or new construction.

You can’t legislate good taste or common sense, so I hope the focus can shift toward quantifiable elements and away from generalizations.

come on, NR12/12 07:44 PM

This isn’t a question of semantics. It’s a question of whether or not the original post lives up to the standards that this blog has employed in the past. It’s a question of whether or not the contributors can refrain from posting rhetoric and diatribes, and instead offer insightful, objective, and informed commentary on complex, divisive issues.

Instead, the original post is chock full of invective - citizens are ‘blind’ to the ‘bleakness’ of the ‘tumored blocks of consumption’. That’s not objective. It’s not insightful. It does nothing to address the problem or attempt to understand the issue, the forces at work, or how we might address and overcome them.

And look at what it reaps—more invective. Complaints that the “playing field isn’t level” stem only from the commenter’s misreading of city codes.

And yet, I’m at fault for not adding to the discussion. Shame on me, I suppose.

New Raleigh can definitely do better than this.

Fallonia12/12 08:49 PM

Excuse moi. The field is not level.

This is a direct quote from a BOA case.

<<He indicated the variance is needed because the addition is more than 25 percent of the existing dwelling.>>

James12/12 09:18 PM

The rhetoric is counter-productive. If the idea is to get people to change the way they do things, then a well-reasoned, ongoing discussion is the way to go. The only way to do that is to have an open mind to the motivations of the people involved, which means checking preconceived notions at the door.

I personally believe that the underlying ideas in this article are right, and that most people would agree with them if they are explained in a manner that addresses their needs and speaks to their desires, and not their perceived offenses. No one is going to change their mind because they finally got called enough ugly names and had their hard work insulted.

That said, a well-reasoned discussion requires good information, and lots of it. Why not educate readers on the codes and what they mean? Access to this kind of information will inform the debate, and I would hope lead us toward solutions.

Fallonia12/12 09:37 PM

If you want facts and reason, I have been documenting this phenomena since May.

I also have my own opinion on this.

Cydney12/12 10:28 PM

<<He indicated the variance is needed because the addition is more than 25 percent of the existing dwelling.>>

Facts are all well and good if they are complete. I agree with James that a little dessemination of the code is needed.

The reality of the case quoted by Fallonia (at least the one Google finds in BoA minutes from 2002 on Devereux St) is that the structure was already non-conforming (2 feet off the side property line) and the proposed expansion exceeded 25% of the total gross area, per section 10-2146.3(a)(3) of the City of Raleigh Zoning Ordinances:

(Ord. No. 292-TC-328, �4, TC-22-88, 1-5-89; Ord. No. 194-TC-312, �2, TC-9-88, 6-26-88; Ord. No. 622-TC-245, �6, TC-16-85, 8-6-85)
(3) Expansions, extensions, or alterations…
c. The expansion of a nonconforming structure does not exceed, singularly or collectively, twenty-five (25) per cent of the floor area gross of the original nonconformity.“

The variance was needed not because the renovation was ‘substantial’ but because the existing structure exceeded minimum setbacks for the zoning district.

Interestingly enough the property was re-zoned five years prior, which may have contributed to the nonconformity. So the supposition that it is already harder for people to renovate would only be exacerbated by increasing setbacks and making even more structures nonconforming.

Fallonia12/13 01:42 PM

Cydney,

My mistake, living in an old neighborhood other conditions frequently become the norm. Many many many homes are non-conforming in my neck of the woods.

Here is the word from a BOA member:
“Renovations come to the Board of Adjustment when they want to expand a house by more than 25% and the existing structure does not conform to current setbacks. If a builder tears down a house, typically he will build within setbacks and never go before the BOA.“

I strongly believe a teardown itself should be considered substantial enough to trigger a BOA review. I think that would be a good first step, and would allow neighborhoods a voice in what goes on, and a builder a chance to consider those reactions. As it is, a BOA notice goes up for far less substantial changes. I think neighbors have come to rely on such notice (which does not exist in teardowns).

As you said (below) rules become a game
—I think the teardown exception is exactly that.

Setting rules specific to any one type of project just means people will come up with ways around the rules. There is anecdotal evidence in other jurisdictions of projects retaining one original wall to call something a ‘renovation’ and avoid the scrutiny imposed on a ‘teardown’ or new construction.

Atlanta’s process was inclusive of professionals and residents alike. Google Mary Norwood in Atlanta for some good links.

JZ12/13 02:13 PM

“Me, Me, Me…its about me and my god given right to maximize my investment” When did living your life in a community get reduced to an INVESTMENT. Yes, the individual in the US is protected and, quite possibly, celebrated. BUT THEY NOT AUTONOMOUS.

Maximizing profits has nothing to do with a sustainable lifestyle, but rather how much you can reap from as little sowing as necessary. This is not to suggest one should take a loss, but determine what is a reasonable and responsible return within a broader awareness. Our actions effect those around us—sometimes financially, but more often than not, it is QUALITATIVE. McMansions, overscaled additions, and insensitve development cause more water to run off, making your neighbors’ yards soggy….that cause shadows cast which no longer allow neighbors’ children a place to play in the warm sun….cutting down old-growth trees eliminates homes for song birds…..

Not EVERYTHING can be, *nor should be*, evaluated in terms of the almighty dollar….yet this seems to be the only common denominator we have left for discourse. There is an inability to achieve any agreement on this issue because it requires a sensitive understanding of one’s context and an agreement on other values beyond the finanical.

Peoples’ real, 5-senses-kind of awareness of their environment has been reduced from spaces and places in their towns and neighborhoods (and sometimes their yards) to what is on the screen or monitor in front of them. How can one come to a larger agreement about quality growth issues when nobody is actually stopping to smell their neighbor’s roses? Or better yet, their neighbor isn’t even planting them anymore….

Georgia12/13 02:31 PM

I’m with JZ on this.

There are 2 kinds of Values at play here.

Deb12/13 02:50 PM

I am surely not the only one to think of teardowns in terms of an atrocious waste of an existing structure, yet I have hardly seen this mentioned in this debate. I would think this would be the reasonable and rational argument that should be taken rather than the matters of “taste” and “entitlement”.

While I am not closely involved in the issue, I’ve seen the same phenomena happen in other cities. To me, if someone wants to purchase a home on a piece of land with the sole purpose of tearing the house down, that existing building should first be evaluated. If the existing structure is in decent condition, why should it be torn down? Aren’t we wasting enough resources and energy in our lives? To me, use of existing structures is the ultimate in recycling. I don’t think anyone is entitled to unbridled license to waste resources of any kind at their own whim, when waste of such resources impacts everything around them.

JZ12/13 03:20 PM

No offense, Deb, but we need to get beyond seeing our world as a system of “Resources”...that still commodifies them and easily allows a dollar value to them.

We need to start understanding our *Relationship* to elements in the environment….I believe a system of worth will emerge when an emotional connection to our surrounding occur, not when its placed within a system of “waste management”.

All too easy12/13 04:12 PM

The discussion between “David” and “NR” is like reading a conversation between a grade-school child and a college-educated adult. “David,“ seriously, stop writing while you still have some dignity.

And, seriously, don’t you people have more important things to worry about than houses in your neighborhood? How self-indulged are you? Poverty, child abuse, domestic abuse, disease - pick one and run along.

And as was mentioned earlier, if you’re truly interested in SCALE, drive thru Oakwood and tell me what you see.

Cydney12/13 04:34 PM

So if we disregard the money factor and the materials/waste factor then what are the problems we can address? Is there a way to assign value to any of the “5 senses” factors JZ mentions?

Buildings so tall they shade out neighboring properties- Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) rules, at least in some cases, put further restrictions both on maximum height and height relative to adjacent properties. That’s a start but maybe there could be further factors or a tiered system? More on that in a moment.

Exacerbating wastewater problems by cutting (good) trees or paving- I’d have to look them up, but rules exist or could be established regarding percentages of trees/plantings saved and also on impermeable surface limits.

The tiered system is something that was mentioned to me so I can’t take credit. The idea being that the owner/builder/designer would take all the many factors and options of setbacks, height and orientation into consideration to come up with the best solution for the site. In a perfect world all those things will be resolved but in reality not all priorities are the same. If we’re not regulating taste but want a higher level of discourse… Here’s an example to chew on:

A new structure or addition could be built to a setback line if it also met another requirement, such as a height limit less than maximum. If the desire was to be taller, the structure could only be built to a second-tier setback. I’m not familiar with the ins and outs, but there are rules like that for tall buildings in many urban areas to allow for air movement and daylight.

Again, I feel like all these types of issues are for neighborhoods to guide. There are houses in some neighborhoods with larger footprints than the entire lots in others, so the same rules won’t make sense in different contexts.

JZ12/13 04:35 PM

All too easy__

Our built environment is VERY important and can lead to solutions to poverty, child abuse, domestic abuse, etc. Positive, healthy living environments yields positive, contributing adults who care for their fellow man. Half the reason we have problems is because the environment people are born into is so terrible, it destroys any potential for hope. THIS posting may be about the more affluent neighborhoods but the principles are universal. So perhaps it is you who is grade school?

As for David, I recommend you set up an Editorials section that would better suit postings like this to distinguish it from the more objective pieces.

All too easy12/13 05:00 PM

JZ,
As a home owner in the Five Points neighborhood, I welcome any and all tear-downs on my street. My street is filled with functionally obsolete houses, that are being rented because they are in such bad shape. I dare say most of them should be condemned. It is in THESE houses, where child abuse or domestic abuse is more likely to occur, not the newer, bigger houses that are bringing families with them to the neighborhood. I worry about the safety of my own wife as a result of these rentals. Renters come and go, and bring shady characters with them. A renter that left my street only months ago, abandoned their cat and left it at the house when they moved out. Now the neighbors care for it. How does that fit into your �built environment?� � ones with �positive, healthy living environments� Are you kidding me?

And to another point, anyone that argues that building a newer, bigger home is environmentally irresponsible, has never lived in a 1920’s bungalow. My home is THE MOST energy inefficient house one could ask for. The technology that is being employed in these newer houses over the long haul, will have a net positive influence on the environment compared to older homes.

JZ12/13 05:34 PM

Well, since I picked a fight: Its sounds like you’d be happier living in a new home out beyond 540 where there isn’t even need for a sidewalk to possibly carry those Untouchables into your community.

I’m surprised you put your wife so close to such threats you her well being. Shame on you.

JZ12/13 05:40 PM

On to more important things: I’m with Cydney who has done more to explicate possible solutions to our “problem”. There are mechanisms that can be employed in our Neighborhood Zoning Overlays to simultaneously allow for change while manifesting deeper value systems than simply maximizing investment power.

In Apex, I believe they adopted a policy to allow for additions and new structures to lesser or greater in height depending on how close to the side yard setback they were. This allowed for some very generously scaled additions while also giving light and air onto neighboring lots.

All too easy12/13 05:48 PM

JZ,
1. My street already doesn’t have a sidewalk. Said “Untouchables” stagger up the middle of the street.

2. I bought in this neighborhood with a progressive mindset, thinking it was a good value and that it would continually get better (better to me means condemnable rental homes get rebuilt). But it is people like you, who are trying to derail that improvement.

JZ12/13 06:06 PM

watch out for those pesky progressive mindsets…they’re mighty promiscuous and tend to breed anxiety and impatience…..

why t12/13 07:19 PM

gots to loves that gentreefickashun….push’em out, shuv’em out, wayyyyyy out!

ween12/13 07:25 PM

I’m surprised and concerned that no one, other than JZ (thank you by the way), has addressed the impact of gentrification on downtown and its historic ties to racism.

Don�t even get me started on Dix being a hot piece of real estate, rather than focusing our efforts on the folks will severe mental health problems who will be displaced into communities that do not have the infrastructure to support them � why? Because folks in the McMansions don�t want pay the taxes for social welfare programs.

It�s just been interesting to see the flip/progression from �white flight� to now �revitalization� efforts in downtown.

erg12/13 07:28 PM

i just read this all the way thru.

this post really should be categorized somehow as “editorial.“ honestly, its frustrating to read. please, david, don’t polarize the sides more. unless thats what you want to do.

this post (and of course the comments) are so hostile. im not sure right now where i stand on this topic, and this is not helping. in fact, its turning me off of letting people like you camp out in your dilapidated ranches ITB.

Georgia12/13 09:04 PM

This is testy topic, don’t blame the messenger. Check the discussion boards for this summer at all the local news outlets and you can get a sense of how personal the attacks on the critics of this development practice are.

I vote for the opinion tag, and think the Pine Dr. composite image is neato.

James12/13 09:07 PM

Thanks for proving my point, everyone.

Sclemons12/13 09:38 PM

“I�m surprised and concerned that no one, other than JZ (thank you by the way), has addressed the impact of gentrification on downtown and its historic ties to racism.“

Wait. People start talking about renters, domestic abuse, child abuse, and cruelty to animals, and you automatically assume that it’s code for racism?

Helen Tart12/13 11:28 PM

This is a blog. Blogs are for expressing opinions. David’s take on the issue is just as valid and more reasoned than a lot of what I’ve read and heard on the subject.

Honestly having been at that meeting, to the me the Planning Commission wasn’t paralyzed, they revolted. I sat in that meeting stunned that the Commission would defy the City Council’s instructions and tell them: “You’re wrong. This isn’t a problem. We’re not going to work with you on the issues you were elected address.“

All of this comes uproar has come from the Council should just stop pussy-footing around. They should just declare a moratorium on teardowns and massive renovations until every eligible neighborhood has a chance to finish a conservation overlay or revise an existing one that isn’t protecting neighborhood character. Maybe then the neighbors can stop feeling panicked and the real estate speculators will take the issue seriously.

georgia12/14 02:33 AM

Here here, Helen.

RaleighRob12/14 12:33 PM

Whoah…those who’ve posted things insinuating that renters are trashy, sketchy low-lifes or whatever need to get off their holier-than-thou pedestals. Owning your home does not make you better than me, nor does it mean you’re a better citizen of the community. I choose to rent, thank you very much, in order to avoid debt that I right now don’t want to be in. Don’t go posting crap like renters do this, renters do that…blah blah everybody panic. Give me a break. You’re buying into false stereotypes and misconceptions—-get a clue.

Sorry that got off-topic, but I couldn’t stand it anymore. Elitism is as pathetic as you can get.

Back to the topic, as a voter and long-time Raleigh resident, the solution I’m so-far supporting would be the conservation overlay districts….each one tailored to the individual neighborhood’s needs. A one-size-fits-all citywide approach to this issue is certainly flawed, but we can’t ignore this issue either.

Mark12/14 03:28 PM

Let’s move the discussion HERE.

Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

David Wednesday, December 12, 2007