I agree with Cox on the 3, 4 and 5 story height limits, especially if we are only measuring to the top of a built up roof, and not a parapet wall, etc.
1 Like
This just hit my inbox. Engagement Portal: Cameron Park NCOD Available for Comments
A new text change is up on our engagement portal and ready for your questions and comments:
- Cameron Park NCOD (TC-21-21): This text change proposes amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that would modify the existing regulations to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) for the Cameron Park Neighborhood. Read the full draft ordinance online.
My initial take is that they want to limit ADUs and Tiny homes from allowing lot splits. ADUs called out a few times in there.
Any it took me a minute to realize that they are adjusting an NCOD they already have. So, they saw the ADU changes and probably new missing middle stuff and are trying to get ahead of that changing their neighborhood. NCODs are so nuts because they essentially tell people that they live in an area with âspecialâ rules that no one else gets. I guess I have not been able to talk against a change at city council before. So this gives me a chance.
3 Likes
This is probably a lot of the Livable Raleigh folks who constantly crusade for affordable housing on every new project. But when it comes to allowing affordable housing in their neighborhood, are total NIMBYS.
4 Likes
i am not sure how the changes in raleigh make historical development not applicable. i lived in the brentwood subdivision in the 80âs in raleigh. my folks commuted Downtown as state employees via cat busâŚabout a 6 mile bus ride. about a mile and a half east of our house location were then called brenwood east and west apts on new hope church roadâŚa few hundred units, and right beside them a small shopping center at the corner of atlantic and NHC road. it seemed smart planning at the time. it had a grocer, convenience store, pizza hut and local pub called âjerrys wooden nickelâ and other stores. across from the shopping center was the corning plantâŚwhich at the time paid well and employed a good number of folks in brentwood and outside of it. alsoâŚacross capital from the highwoods area adjacent to brentwood (the older section of brentwood) was a large westinghouse assembly plantâŚpaid quite a few mortgages in brentwood. all easy commutes and ease of getting to food and necessities. trueâŚmost folks headed home after work during the week as these were families for the most part.
1 Like
You know, when you start to read this stuff, it seems like a single, knowledgeable person can dictate the rules in their neighborhood. This stuff is hard to follow so when I see
On February 25, 2021, a member of the public filed a text change application
that means to me that they made all these complicated proposals and 99.9% of people arenât going to fight it. Itâll probably be approved due to this.
Doesnât these two essentially ban townhomes? I think thatâs what Iâm going to ask.
- Reduce the maximum lot size from 21,779 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Maximum lot size would only apply to lots created through recombination.
- Institute a new minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet for townhouse lots and 6,000 square feet for non-townhouse lots.
I feel like townhomes are hard to build on former lots that had SFHs. Therefore, a recombination is used to put two together and then build townhomes. If a recombination is done but MAXed out at 10K sqft you discourage townhomes, no?
When I look at (almost daily) the 4 townhomes at 708 East Hargett, they show up on iMaps as individual properties at 0.06 acres or roughly 2600 sq ft. These would be not allowed in the NCOD. (I THINK)
Also, you wonder how they come up with some of this stuff. I mean, just try and make it to the end of this paragraph. 
The maximum allowed wall plane height adjacent to the side and rear property line is 14 feet. The wall plane height may be increased 1 foot for each foot of horizontal distance the wall is moved from the side or rear setback line, not to exceed the maximum height allowed within the district. When a wall incorporates a recession or projection of 2 feet or more, multiple wall plane heights shall apply. Each wall planeâs height is determined by averaging the four points consisting of the highest and lowest elevations of each of predevelopment and post-development grades along that wall of the building. In the event the average post-development grade along the wall of the building is lower than the average pre-development grade along that wall, then wall plane height shall be measured from the average post development grade. A side gabled roof structure may extend above the setback plane on each side of the building, for a total length of not more than 30 feet on each side, measured from the front wall plane. Dormers may also extend above the side setback plane on each side of the building for a total length of not more than 15 feet on each side, measured along the intersection with the setback plane. No part of the roof shall exceed 24 feet in height.
3 Likes
Yeah, only someone who has spent lots and lots of time thinking about how to control what gets built would write stuff like that.
5 Likes
but only in one direction, if theyâre adding further restrictions. If someone wanted to remove restrictions, Iâll bet there would be significant blowback.
3 Likes
So, in effect, they virtue signaled with one hand (changing their name), while on the other hand they are shutting down the possibility of accommodating more residents of modest means?
9 Likes
That seems to epitomize the current zeitgeist.
2 Likes
My question: Why is the city using its legal authority to enforce âneighborhood conservationâ of millionairesâ houses? Does an imminent threat to public health or public safety exist here that I am unaware of?
8 Likes
Has this been posted anywhere? I like this channel, they tend to talk a lot about Montreal specifically, but I find they articulate things in a great way.
2 Likes