Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all about balance. I don't think Raleigh is on the extreme on this issue. The only reason why the "government" has to intervene on such issues is that some people fail to consider others around them when they make their decisions. Case in point is this new house that is going up on Glenwood just a bit North of the St. Mary's intersection. In any case, A house is under construction on the West side of Glenwood, one house removed from the corner of Sanderson Dr. This house is massive and totally out of scale to the houses next door so much that the triple car garage building that juts out the front of it completely buries the curb view and shadows the house next to it on the corner.
Let me first say I have no idea the specific home you are talking about . And I do really hate it when someone comes in tears down a historic home. I'm a believer in perservation. BUT it really ticks me off when people get all uppity about their neighbors making changes to their homes, including additions or tear downs. Yes, I realize I just contradicted myself.
If a neighborhood wants to have limits on what homes look like then they should either set up an HOA or a Historic District in the case of ITB. I find 10 foot set backs in an historic community ABSURD! I believe either Mike or Vicki pointed out many of those old homes are already in violation of that. How dare the folks in the big old blue blood houses sit there and say your set backs have to be 10 feet so that their view is perserved! If you want to control the view you have to buy it! Which in some cities you can buy the view. In parts of Portland some of the homes in the West Hills that faced Mt. Hood & Mt. St. Helens came with the legal rights to the view. But you really paid for it!! Cha ching, cha ching!!
Also, by allowing smaller homes to be converted to larger homes in an urban area you are encouraging families to move into or stay in those area. IMHO society and children benefit from families being in the city. It also encourages density in urban areas which is necessary for real mass transportation. But I doubt some of the old blood ITB wants either.
And why do all the houses have to look the same anyway? I thought that was a major complaint by folks who prefer places like ITB... most of them don't like the cookie cutter suburbs. So then what is wrong with a contemporary home beside a Craftsman? "Character" can be found in 100 year old homes and brand new homes! And if the ITB folks want uniformity, then come on out to the burbs... we got plenty of that for them.
Well, watching the public hearing about this proposal this evening certainly was interesting. After the proposal was introduced, Mayor Meeker asked if anybody in the standing room only audience wanted to speak in favor of the proposal. NOBODY stepped forward and the room broke out into 30 seconds of applause. After the crowd settled down 13 citizens who opposed the proposal voiced their concerns with the measure. For the most part, every person opposed to the measure felt the city was robbing them of the full value of their property. There were constant referrals to the recent tax reassessment values and how if the city wants those values to continue to rise, they can not pass this proposal.
Essentially The proposal would reduce the maximum height of homes from 40 feet to 32 feet and increase the required setbacks from 5 feet to 10 feet on either side of the house and from 20 feet to 30 feet in the back yard for many neighborhoods citywide.
Worst Case Scenario (per the presentation given by the city)
A 50’ X 150’ Lot
Current Zoning Requirements allow: maximum of 3,850 sq/ft building foot print (7,700 sq/ft for 2 story home)
Proposed Zoning Requirements allow: maximum of 3,000 sq/ft building foot print (6,000 sq/ft for a two story home)
Result: Proposed change in zoning regulations would reduce maximum size allowed by 850 sq/ft
I wonder how many of the people at the meeting who complained about the city trying "steal" a portion of their home value from plan to contest their newly increased tax value assessment and be forced to convince the city that their home is worth less than they think? Wouldn’t they just be "stealing" value from themselves in that case? Kind of a catch 22!
I have some more thoughts about the hearing but it is getting a bit to late to get into them now. I am interested to hear the thoughts of others.
"Let me first say I have no idea the specific home you are talking about . And I do really hate it when someone comes in tears down a historic home. I'm a believer in perservation. BUT it really ticks me off when people get all uppity about their neighbors making changes to their homes, including additions or tear downs. Yes, I realize I just contradicted myself."
PDXmom,
I'd really suggest taking a look at the home and its neighbor I mentioned in my previous post. I think that one is a perfect example why many folks are peeved.
In the perfect world, we wouldn't need city restrictions because people would take others into account when making their decisions...It's called being neighborly. However, we don't live in a world where everyone is neighborly and considerate. With the city growing rapidly and people clamoring to get their best piece of the action, it's only going to get nastier if nothing is done. And, this doesn't just mean ITB. However, these restrictions are going to be harder on homeowners ITB because the lots are more likely to be smaller and narrower. I'd expect that there will be some sort of compromise to the proposal that might split the difference between what we have now and what is being proposed. Who knows?
PDXmom,
I'd really suggest taking a look at the home and its neighbor I mentioned in my previous post. I think that one is a perfect example why many folks are peeved.
You've peaked my interest. I think I might just have to take a trip to Raleigh to look at the house you are talking about.
Hmmmm...
If new construction is limited due to water tap restrictions, the value of homes in "knockdown" areas may continue to increase due to the existing water tap on the property.
If 125% larger limit becomes the norm, values in knockdown areas may fall, since the ability to upgrade the use of the property to "highest and best" use will be truncated.
How will Raleigh tweak market forces?
Stay tuned...
The city council is to revisit this issue on January 8, 2008.
News and Observer: Raleigh City Council to weigh control of teardown replacements (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/850146.html - broken link) (December 28, 2007)
Personally, the shot of the small 1940s-era home next door to the large one under construction looks silly at best, and I understand completely the existing homeowners' complaints. Still, I believe in the rights of the homeowner and in preserving an existing area -- especially if it is ruled by the majority in the specific area.
Perhaps waiting until the older neighbors sell and move out to address major changes -- like the tear-downs and McMansions -- would help? It's not like there is no other place(s) in, and around, Raleigh to live or build new.
Some of this going on in Wilmington seems to be less noticeable. Homes around the area's oldest country club are being torn down, but they were generally good-sized homes -- and a bit dated, but not 'historical' and the new homes under construction are largely traditional and still in-scale to the area. Maybe one or two here and there stick out like sore thumbs, but they are the ones who end-up looking silly, I think.
A lot can be done to make an older home very comfortable, bring it up to code, etc., and there are large, older homes out there for people who want, or need them. My parents restored (2) four-bedroom homes while we lived at home -- most of what had to be done was up-grading, putting in an additional bath (my poor father just couldn't get into a bath with 3 daughters, unless he had one to call his own), re-configuring some of the living spaces.
We were able to make the homes better, more livable and comfortable, without destroying the integrity of the neighborhood. For the most part, the homes never looked much different from the street -- a deck and patio around back, nicer landscaping.
It can be done. Seems many want a new home in an older area, or it is easier for builders to construct new?
I'll be curious to see how this pans-out. Wow, but wouldn't it be something if they made those two large, and a non-compliant, homes come down in Sunset Hills?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some thoughts about the meeting tonight......
Update....
