Regarding parking off-street, I just don’t want to see Raleigh’s neighborhoods to look an awful lot like Hialeah, with cars parked on nearly every square inch of the front yard. I know that you know what I mean!
1 Like
One additional thought regarding ADUs is that I’m not sure we all understand the definition of what an ADU is exactly. (I’m not claiming to know either) For example, what are the minimum requirements for one, can someone point me to that list?
Using me as an example, I want the structure built one day (years from now personally) but it won’t have a kitchen. It would function mostly like a hotel room. Therefore, I see it for added space for an office space and then guest room for family members when in town. No plans to rent it out. It might have a tiny fridge in it. Is this an ADU? Can I build this today?
2 Likes
Those are really good questions. My guess is that an ADU needs to be able to stand alone as a fully functioning residence. I’d suspect that it should have a at least a mini kitchen, a full bathroom and a singular studio type space, and a separate entrance.
I’d think that what you’re talking about is not an ADU.
Currently the moment you have plumbing you will have an issue. I think one way around it is to combine it with a garage
Edit: I know a guy that build a large “ADU” legally DTR by basically attaching it to the main house with a hall way 
Here’s how Durham’s doing it: https://durham.municipal.codes/UDO/5.4.2
List of regulations by state/city nationally - https://accessorydwellings.org/adu-regulations-by-city/
No need to reinvent the wheel here. Look at what other cities are doing, find out who has data on new builds, analyze data, move forward.
11 Likes
Exactly. The debate on ADUs is so interesting. On one side, “They are not affordable housing, only people with money will be able to build them, they are hard to finance, and more expensive per square ft.” On the other side, “Slum lords will build these, they will destroy neighborhoods”.
I have not heard anyone in Durham say there is a problem with them, and we will see the same thing in Raleigh. And now I can build one without trying to track down and bug the crap out of 10 acres of my neighbors. Which was crazy.
I might have to change my username…
10 Likes
You can’t quite do that yet…at least I’m hoping thats not the case. ADUs were not allowed prior to the old city council’s proposed rules. All that has occurred if I’m correct is just a delay on implementation of the proposed rules, one of which does require neighborhood approval. That’s the one rule I believe needs to stand for the reasons I cited earlier.
I can imagine that a lot of ADUs may be built during gentrification of a tear-down property. If built at the same time as a main house, it would be more cost effective, and if sold together, it gives the buyer an income to afford the expensive DT house that they really want.
All we need to do to address the concern about slumlords building ADUs and cramming as many people as possible onto a property is to again look at how other cities are addressing this. Minneapolis has the following requirement:
Owners seeking an ADU permit must file a covenant with Hennepin County stating they will adhere to all requirements that apply to an ADU.
If I’m building an ADU on the property where my family and I reside I’m much more likely to maintain the ADU appropriately. I also think I would be far less tolerant of offensive behavior from a tenant if the behavior occurred at the property where I reside vs. a separate rental property I owned in another neighborhood, or even another town.
4 Likes
How do they address parking issues/concerns, occupancy (# of bodies), etc?
This all varies by city/state. Durham does not have a parking requirement for ADUs, Charlotte does (1 space). Raleigh already has a restriction on the number of unrelated persons allowed to live in a single household (max of 4) so that helps address occupancy concerns.
My two main points:
-
There’s a lot of info out there from other cities on how to do this. Raleigh can draw from that to build a policy that works here. This has me thinking about a new slogan: Raleigh - we’re not as special as we think we are.
-
Require that property owners reside in either the primary or accessory dwelling unit and ADUs will be largely self-regulating.
2 Likes
I’d be curious about the enforcement aspect of the “home ownership” requirement. I suppose any neighbor would file a complaint if someone was claiming residence but not living in a property with an ADU…call it a vigilante ADU enforcement. As long a parking was limited to a single vehicle with no ‘on street’ parking being an option, I could start to warm up to the idea.
I agree. We can certainly look for options from other cities which I believe is what the council is suggesting. Blindly allowing ADUs with 0 rules to address the real concerns I cited earlier is a non-starter for me…and 99% of people who live in the neighborhoods most likely affected by ADUs, which is inside-the-beltline; close to downtown. I suppose someone in North Raleigh might consider one but given so many of those neighborhoods are traditional suburban with HOAs, ADUs are probably a no-go in most places. ITB is most “at risk” for adverse impacts of ADUs,.
2 Likes
I think the pearl-clutching about ADUs overlooks the fact that sometimes people who live in houses decide they want to have babies, and then sometimes those babies grow up to be teenagers and those teenagers want their own cars. Or sometimes a person who owns a house will marry another person, and that person moves into the house, and they sometimes bring their car along to live with them at the new house. Or sometimes houses get sold to new families that already have spouses and kids and cars and stuff. Or an older parent moves into a house with their adult children, etc.
Anyway, the way “they address parking issues/concerns, occupancy (# of bodies), etc.” is that they don’t address it all, the new humans and their cars just move into the house as they please, and what invariably ends up happening is that everything is totally fine and nothing bad at all happens to anyone. Like, I don’t have to go my neighbors and say, “Hey, I got married, do you all mind terribly if my wife and her car live here too now?”
I guess it wouldn’t be all that radical if we just handled ADUs the exact same way we handle all of this other stuff, which is to say that we don’t really worry about it.
9 Likes
Keep in mind that most of the existing ADUs that were grandfathered back when they became illegal (in the 70’s I believe) are in those ITB neighborhoods like Cameron Park. I believe Russ Stephenson has one or two and they seem to be working out for him.
Agree - there need to be rules around them, but they shouldn’t be regulated out of existence.
5 Likes
his look like the ‘architectural digest’ ones everyone seems to think they will all look like…the won’t and the number of ‘granny flats’ are tiny compared to what could come with ADUs that are un regulated at all.
not quite sure how an expanding family is correlated to random tenants in rentals.
If the concerns weren’t ‘real’…the debate itself would not be occurring.
2 Likes
To the extent that there is a concern that ADUs will lead to issues related to parking and/or number of bodies, this is a thing that already comes up all the time, and seems to create absolutely no problems. If the concern was really about parking, we could just have a rule that you had to get your neighbors’ permission before you could buy a new car, regardless of whether that new car was prompted by the construction of an ADU or whatever. Not everyone who lives in an ADU even needs a car, of course, but if they do, the impact that car would have on parking would be completely and totally indistinguishable from the impact of a family buying a new car for their teenager.
My experience with the previous city council over the last two years leads me to draw the conclusion that lots and lots of debates take place over “concerns” that prove to be actually quite flimsy once you start digging into them.
11 Likes
Agreed.
We can’t be downtown urbanity and sustainability advocates supporting gentle density, transit, and the like, while also completely protecting existing SFH neighborhoods ITB. People can always move out in the burbs if they don’t want to deal with on street parking. My neighborhood outside the beltline with no ADUs already has plenty of cars on street, and one nice thing it does, which we’ve discussed on the forum before, is naturally calm traffic speeds within a neighborhood.
If a 2 BR ranch is torn down in North Hills and replaced with a 4 BR custom home, raising everyone’s property value yet potentially adding more drivers/cars under one roof, it’s celebrated.
10 Likes
Is there really such a thing as a two bedroom legacy ranch home in North Hills?
They are still out there. Though a dying breed. one got torn down around the corner about a year ago be be replaced by this.
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/512-Dartmouth-Rd_Raleigh_NC_27609_M59985-24396
