Chad Friday, November 16, 2007

Development

Too Big?: City Council Might Say So

On Tuesday city council will hold a public hearing to debate a significant adjustment to the Raleigh residential zoning regulations. If approved, new houses won’t be able to be as big as they are now. The proposed change would decrease the maximum residential building height from 40 feet to 32 feet, increases the minimum side yard setback from 5 feet to 10 feet and increases the minimum rear yard setback from 20 feet to 30 feet. Essentially this means that a property owner will have less space in which to build or renovate.

Recently, a similar proposal by the group CommunitySCALE was shot down by the Planning Commission. This effort was largely in response to the infill development happening in the Fallon Park, Anderson Heights, and Five Points area.

Critics of the Raleigh “McMansion” infill trend consider the imposition of these looming structures as inappropriate development that doesn’t respond properly to the historic and current qualities of the neighborhood. The local blog Over The Top / Inside The Beltline has done a good job of documenting a lot of the infill going on.

A letter has been circulating through the web and is a good indicator of the views of the developer community that is opposing this zoning change. A portion below:

We have heard over the past month that current and newly elected Members of the City Council ( including Mayor Meeker, Councilman Stephenson and Councilman Crowder are planning new rules for all new construction and renovations in the city of Raleigh. This has been tried before but overwhelmingly defeated.  Unfortunately, the politics on this subject have changed in light of the recent elections, and there is now a real chance these new rules can be passed….These rules are being pushed by a small minority of people who do not like the redevelopment of property in North Hills, North Ridge, Brookhaven, and inside the Beltline.  (My opinion is that this redevelopment is supported by the majority of the people in these neighborhoods.)  There is currently a process called a “Neighborhood Conservation Overlay” that allows a majority (51%) of the residents in a neighborhood to pass more restrictive covenants to keep the neighborhood in its current state.  Neighborhoods do come together and use this at times, as they should, however most of the time the majority does not want to restrict the limits of their property.  It is my experience that people want to be able to have the most use of their property and the highest value, not the opposite.  The increase in value of our City’s property has allowed older and lower income families to make more money by selling their homes, pocketing the profits,  and have a higher quality of life than they ever thought possible.

It’s individual investment potential vs. community quality of life. The last zoning debate highlighted these disparate views.

Really there is more to this debate than just the size of new houses and property owners’ rights. If the zoning change is passed there will still be the environmental and historical appropriateness problems… except the house will be smaller. Could more sustainable development practices and an emphasis on long-term home energy efficiency help to control the size of these houses? What are other solutions that will preserve the identity of Raleigh’s neighborhoods while acknowledging the rights of property owners?

The joint meeting of the Raleigh City Council and Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, November 20 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the second floor of the Avery Upchurch Municipal Building next to Nash Square downtown. The public is encouraged to attend and anyone that wants to speak will be permitted. It should be a fierce debate.

Read More Development

Filed Under:

  • Sam11/19 01:32 PM

    Yes, this is potentially a great piece of legislation! Restraints are a good thing and can become an opportunity to create a better environment. It is clear in Raleigh that location drives the market much more than size, materials, even the state of the structure. I doubt I am the only one here that has fallen in love with a 200k dump with 1000 sq. ft. That’s right $200(+) a sq. ft. ITB, get used to it. Why is it this way? You can get a lot more new house in North Raleigh. The catch is your neighbor’s house is a slightly different version then your own. This leaves you jones’n for all the things you want to be different or better than your neighbor like a new H2, great yard, giant tv, other various crap from lowes, costco, target, etc. Personally speaking this is the lifestyle the “mcmansion” represents. I really like the mid century ranches near wholefoods. This is probably the worst area I’ve seen as far as wiping out what would have made a great 1 story starter home for a young couple in order to build a towering 3 story monstrosity over what used to be a very horizontal 1 story street(third house on the right,Chester). Part of living in a more urban condition is giving up personal space for the benefits and proximity of all the other sharable spaces like Downtown, Cameron Village, Glenwood South, the growing number of restaurants, the benefits of the city and the closeness of a community of like minded people. I am not promoting any one neighborhood or location, but I have heard young friends say they want to live in Oakwood when they grow up, or on St. Marys, or off Glennwood, these aren’t huge houses, but they have a quality about them that says “he kid, i’am way older than you and I will be here when you’re dead and gone, 4 families have lived in me and they turned out just fine.“ I haven’t heard many people dreaming about a life Wakefield, Hasentree, North Gate, etc..

  • Georgia11/20 02:07 PM

    I’m with Sam.

  • John11/20 06:39 PM

    Take time to consider what these rules are changing.  Raleigh’s oldest neighborhoods; Historic Oakwood, Cameron Park, Boylan Heights, and Brooklyn South were all developed almost a century ago. These neighborhoods have tall (many over the average 32’being proposed), large homes on postage stamp lots.  They do not meet the proposed set backs and would not be allowed to be built today.  We love these neighborhoods, i live in one, why should i tell others they cannot?  Also many of these neighborhoods have passed covenants that do limit size and height, this is how it should be.
    There are other issues that are not covered in the proposed text change.  If you own a home that is now rendered non conforming and your property burns down there is no provision to rebuild at the original set backs.  Someone who lives in one of our historic neighborhoods would not be allowed to rebuild the same house.  Losing 10’ from the width of these lots could make them obsolete.
    Neighborhoods need to come together and determine what is best for their community, then use the current planning tools to make changes.

  • Tomas11/21 12:19 PM

    With residential housing in Raleigh in mind, I’d like to mention the greatest unstopable natural force on the planet:  EVOLUTION
    Neighborhoods evolve just like forests.  Legislating setbacks and sq ft sizes is like limiting a natural area to grassland and stopping a forest from growing there.  In these times of energy/water crisis, sustainability dictates a denser lifestyle.  Why is anyone trying to curb this.
    And if your one of those people who are boo hooing encroachment of you space/yard/view, consider your home purchase a mistake or cut yourself a skylight.  Let Raleigh evolve.

  • Sam11/21 12:50 PM

    Didn’t we loose a tail? I agree that this should be decided by members of individual neighborhoods, but it seems antithetical to a sustainability argument that excess be considered sustainable. Evolution seems to be more like streamlining for efficiency, having fewer belongings, contributing less to the landfill, recycling (renovating an older home, 40%(+) of landfills are building construction waste/ WWII Housing?) Not living in the largest home possible, but the most space efficient.

  • stead11/21 01:48 PM

    Sam—-As a resident of Budleigh for 30 years, I have seen rapid change just like everyone else.  Some of which I can’t stand, and some which doesn’t bother me.  However, I have a big yard so my kids can play in it.  I shop at Lowes so i can find almost everything I need in one trip.  I love the Target at N. Hills.  My TV is HUGE, not so I can compare it with my neighbors, but because I like it.  I don’t have an H2, I have a Tahoe, and i love it as well.  Although you may pride yourself on anti everything, using these points to argue development in Raleigh makes you sound like a complete idiot.  Find another approach.

  • Helen Tart11/21 02:09 PM

    Concerning the quoted part of the developer letter in the original posting: 

    Neighborhood Conservation Overlays do work. The one in my neighborhood has for almost 10 years prevented the kind of out-of-scale development that other neighborhoods are seeing.

    However, the Planning Department has suspended any new Neighborhood Planning. (That’s the process used to develop Conservation Overlays.)  It’s very time consuming for citizens and staff. It is also well worth the effort—except of course that by the time a plan is completed, an energetic developer or two could have completely destroyed the character of the neighborhood. 

    That was why, as a City Council candidate, I proposed a ban on the teardowns(and more than 50% renovations) in any neighborhood that requested a Neighborhood Plan, until that plan can be completed. 

    The Council decided to go with this temporary ordinance that—judging from what I could gather from the back of the room at the meeting last night—neither side agrees with.

    Tomas:
    How actually is a 6000 square foot house for 2—or even 4—people more dense?
    Maybe in 50 years when these structures become rooming houses, as has happened in many of the older neighborhoods near downtown.

    This kind of thinking is the risk that those of us who do believe in smarter growth run when talking about these issues. People pick out one or two pieces to focus on and distort the whole picture.

    In general:
    It is good to know that this issue is being discussed and and efforts are being made to address it.

  • doo-buy fer life11/21 02:29 PM

    There’s is a difference between being anti-everything and anti-excess. It seems Sam is being more of the latter which is a positive thing for the community as a whole.  You can get everything you want in one trip to Ace Hardware in the Seaboard area and it’s a fifth the size and a bit more urban.  Having a huge yard is just an excuse not to go to the park. You can fit everything you want in a Scion xB and it gets twice the gas mileage of a Tahoe.  Just because we love things doesn’t mean the community as a whole needs them.

  • jz11/21 02:34 PM

    The neighborhood overlay is the most balanced of method to allow for growth but within the existing character of the surroundings. 

    By asking that developers, architects and owners use the context as a means to judge what would be appropriate in terms of scale, setback and materiality, the overlay allows for incremental evolution rather than radical genetic mutation.

  • Sam11/21 02:34 PM

    I wasn’t intending those comments as a character assassination. I was using Target and Lowes as examples of homogeneity. It was really more a national criticism and isn’t limited to Raleigh. I live in this world. I shop at the North Hills Target, but the point I am trying to make(hopefully in most of my comments)is there are places that are the same in any city. I can buy the same stuff and experience a version of the same store at any Lowes across the US. The places that are unique to Raleigh, it’s neighborhoods, history, the character of old buildings is what I am interested in promoting. That is what makes it Raleigh and not anywhere else. I see this piece of legislation as preventing the erasure and some of the tear down practices that could replace an interesting variety of homes built over time with instant history cookie cut monsters.

  • jz11/21 02:46 PM

    I shop at Target and Lowes too….because many of my other choices have been eliminated due to economic forces bigger than Raleigh, North Carolina, even the U.S…..

    If I had similar options with locally run establishments with similar cost structures, you bet I’d be there….

    Like my desire for retail choice, I don’t wish to constrain development but find a means to make it more sensible.  The process needs to slow down because fundamentally we need time to shift the typical mindset…to show folks what the possibilities are when we eliminate the constraints to our conventional thought (and economic) process.

  • stead11/21 02:50 PM

    Sam—-was not attacking you, just thought your arguement needed some tuning.  I agree with most of your points.

    Doo Buy fer life—- i could careless about your nifty little Scion, your shopping experience at Ace, or anything else.  i fall on the side of the fence where i do not lose sleep over the cars others drive or the stores they shop at.  In fact, very little bothers me…and that fact alone, drives peole like you crazy.  Oh, and you’re right about the park thing…i also happen to be VERY lazy.

  • the doors11/21 03:05 PM

    well, i guess that concludes the discussion.

  • Chad11/29 02:43 PM

    That article gets to the heart of the matter just about as much as I get to the heart of the matter every time I take a good dump.

  • Chad11/29 02:50 PM

    Dear Readers: The previous comment is from a different Chad. FYI.

    -New Raleigh Chad

  • JZ12/03 12:33 AM

    again, thanks to George Smart for the link:

    new documentary, “After The Dust”, on tear downs…...

    http://www.trianglemodernisthouses.com/After the Dust Settles.wmv

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.




Remember my information for next time I comment

Send me an email of follow-up comments?