Accessory Dwelling Units

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as a “backyard cottages” or “granny flats,” are free-standing, second residences sharing the same lot as the main house on an individual property.  ADUs are not currently permitted in Raleigh.  The Mordecai Citizens Advisory Council has requested that the City study the feasibility of permitting ADUs, potentially on a limited basis. This survey is an important element in the City’s study.  Your input is crucial to understanding community perspectives on ADUs, and how the City might regulate them, if they are allowed.  Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below and offer your outlook.

City of Raleigh Poll:
What is your address?
Closed to responses

Accessory Dwelling Units

City of Raleigh Poll:
Are you in favor of Accessory Dwelling Units in your neighborhood?
Yes
76%
Maybe
13%
No
11%
Closed to responses | 162 Responses

Density

City of Raleigh Poll:
ADUs should be permitted, but only when their development, in conjunction with the primary house, would not cause the property to exceed the density limits of its zoning.
Agree
67%
Disagree
33%
Closed to responses | 136 Responses
City of Raleigh Poll:
ADUs should be permitted, but a standard more restrictive than the property’s zoning density limits should apply – this could be a radius as shown above, or a maximum number of ADUs per block.
Disagree
77%
Agree
23%
Closed to responses | 126 Responses

Occupancy

City of Raleigh Poll:
There should be a maximum number of unrelated persons per property. Raleigh’s code currently allows four unrelated persons per “household.” Note: N.C. state courts have determined that the property owner cannot be required to live on site.
Agree
66%
Disagree
34%
Closed to responses | 139 Responses

Access

City of Raleigh Poll:
ADUs should be allowed when access can be provided via an alley.
Agree
58%
Disagree
42%
Closed to responses | 130 Responses
City of Raleigh Poll:
ADUs should be allowed when they can be accessed from a separate driveway from that used for the primary residence.
Disagree
52%
Agree
48%
Closed to responses | 125 Responses
City of Raleigh Poll:
ADUs should be allowed when they can be accessed from the street using a driveway that is shared with the primary house.
Agree
72%
Disagree
28%
Closed to responses | 127 Responses
City of Raleigh Poll:
ADUs should be allowed even if alley or driveway access is not provided, thus requiring on-street parking for ADU inhabitants. Note: Parking exclusively on-street requires Board of Adjustment approval.
Agree
65%
Disagree
35%
Closed to responses | 130 Responses

Size

City of Raleigh Poll:
Which of the following best describes your opinion on the maximum size (floor area) of an ADU? The minimum size permitted in Raleigh for dwelling units is 250 square feet.
Maximum ADU size should be proportional to lot size. For instance, for lots of 10,000 to 19,999 square feet, ADU might be limited to no greater than 700 square feet.
38%
Maximum ADU size should be determined as a percentage of the property’s principal building’s size. For instance, no greater than 50% of principal building’s square footage.
22%
Other (Please provide comment below)
16%
ADUs should be no larger than 800 square feet.
14%
ADUs should be no larger than 450 square feet.
10%
Closed to responses | 126 Responses

Design - Height

City of Raleigh Poll:
Which of the following best describes your opinion on the maximum height of an ADU?
Maximum ADU heights should be two stories/25 feet (this would permit ADUs above garages).
83%
Maximum ADU height should be one story/15 feet.
17%
Closed to responses | 125 Responses

Design - Setback

City of Raleigh Poll:
Which of the following best describes your opinion on required setbacks for ADUs? Setbacks measure the distance the building must be from the property boundaries.
ADUs should be located behind the principal building, but otherwise, required setbacks for ADUs should be the same as those required for the primary structure.
47%
Side and rear setbacks for ADUs should be less restrictive than those required for the primary structure.
35%
Side setbacks for ADUs should be the same as those required for the primary structure, but the rear setback should be reduced to allow for ADUs closer to rear lot line.
18%
Closed to responses | 124 Responses

Design - Orientation

City of Raleigh Poll:
Which of the following best describes your opinion on the orientation of ADUs?
The primary entrance to the ADU should be allowed on any side of the structure, including the rear.
78%
The primary entrance to the ADU should be permitted to face the primary street or side street/side lot line.
13%
The primary entrance to the ADU should be required to face the primary street.
9%
Closed to responses | 119 Responses

Design - Buffer

City of Raleigh Poll:
A buffer, including a wooden/vinyl fence and trees/shrubs, should be required between ADUs and adjacent properties.
Disagree
51%
Agree
49%
Closed to responses | 127 Responses

Design - Windows

City of Raleigh Poll:
Limits should be placed on the amount of window area on all ADU façades facing adjacent properties.
Disagree
76%
Agree
24%
Closed to responses | 121 Responses

District Designation

City of Raleigh Poll:
There should be a minimum number of acres for an overlay district to be permitted. For instance, a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay requires at least 15 acres.
No Opinion
52%
Agree
17%
Disagree
16%
Strongly Disagree
9%
Strongly Agree
6%
Closed to responses | 122 Responses
City of Raleigh Poll:
The signatures of a majority of property owners should be required for an overlay to be permitted. For instance, it is required for creation of a neighborhood overlay district.
Agree
37%
No Opinion
34%
Strongly Agree
17%
Disagree
9%
Strongly Disagree
4%
Closed to responses | 125 Responses

Past Project Activity

There should be a minimum number of acres for an overlay district to be permitted. For instance, a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay requires at least 15 acres.
  • 64 52% No Opinion
  • 21 17% Agree
  • 19 16% Disagree
  • 11 9% Strongly Disagree
  • 7 6% Strongly Agree
Duncan RussellThis is a difficult question to answer without a map reference to gauge the size
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
JohannahTricky question. Yes, it would make sense to try to maintain a neighborhood's character, but some of the overlays don't totally make sense to me maybe overlays should be more about character than acreage.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Lanier McReeWhy? Patchwork regulation otherwise? In Mordecai CAC, we now have - and will have more - very unique smaller components: Holden and Franklin are very different than Sasser and Virigina at this point. What benefits does a 15 acre threshold provide? What if the threshold was 10 acres? 20? What problem are we trying to solve?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlThis seems to already established.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlAlready determined by code.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlys de AlbaFor example, the Oakdale neighborhood bounded by Wake Forest Rd, Glasscock, Franklin and almost to Brookside (but actually split on the stream) is around 60 acres.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Merrilee JacobsonHaving a minimum acreage could prevent a neighborhood from becoming a patchwork of different zoning regulations.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jennifer WagnerIt's hard to understand the reasoning for this.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
The signatures of a majority of property owners should be required for an overlay to be permitted. For instance, it is required for creation of a neighborhood overlay district.
  • 46 37% Agree
  • 42 34% No Opinion
  • 21 17% Strongly Agree
  • 11 9% Disagree
  • 5 4% Strongly Disagree
Duncan RussellAll sides need to be considered without exception
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
Neil shepardMakes sense provided you are asking for a person vested in the area to vote a voice and not a developer voting with multiple voices and trying to get away with building things that don't fit in the 'hood.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahI agree with owners voting, but only if it's a one-man-one-vote situation, wherein a developer who buys ten lots would Not get 10 votes.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlPoorly worded.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlPoorly worded question.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
ADUs should be permitted, but only when their development, in conjunction with the primary house, would not cause the property to exceed the density limits of its zoning.
  • 91 67% Agree
  • 45 33% Disagree
Mike ShumakeWe need to increase density in central areas as our city increases in size.
Reply4 Agree2 years ago
Sean FarresI like the idea of a case by case design. Each lot and ADU is custom. Perhaps you gather neighborhood consensus for the build design. Or allot a maximum sq footage and work within those bounds based on existing lot size and main house size. Context is key here. A board would need to review with neighborhood feedback.
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
Neil shepardI don't think we need to have cases where the property is zoned for a home but with the home and the ADU you have something like an apartment building. Let intelligence guide things some.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Lanier McReeMore density is vital. I'm not sure this sq. ft. requirement is the way to go. It would be nice to see something more innovative and creative.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon ZellwegerI think you cannot really make anything in Raleigh dense enough. I prefer the notion that the density is managed through the Appearance Commission or some other mechanism that can evaluate the level of sensitive intervention that a proposal may possess. I can imagine a very creative, small footprint, multi-story solution for these ADU's that would be off the table with the type of mathematics being suggested above.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownI think this should be case by case determined.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlThe homeowner has a vested interest in maintaining the value of their property.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Patrick MaddenI, too, like the idea of case-by-case design. Each lot in this neighborhood has exceptions to the layout.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
HoraceNot in favor of ADUs.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellI have concerns about permitting ADUs at all.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Leslie FoxWe have lots with .08 to .10 acre lots in my neighborhood, houses between 1500 and 3000 sf on these lots, some with attached and some with detached spaces above the garage. Basing these restrictions on percentage of covered lot size is not reasonable.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip BernardYes, one of the reasons that Mordecai has been selected for a pilot neighborhood is because of our deep lots which lend themselves to ADU's.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Terpaseems like a fair limitation that applies to all
ReplyAgree2 years ago
J. BibbI like the idea of a case by case evaluation. I have seen other municipalities use a 55% property coverage rule. This would allow smaller lots to have an ADU if the overall size of the covered area did not exceed a specified percentage.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonI believe there should be a limit to Sq. footage of the property that is taken up. So a big house with a ~2,000 plot area on a smaller piece of property, such as those shown in red, adding an ADU is the concern, but what of the 900-1,300 sq plot area homes on lots the same size? They should not have to be ruled out. Make a % of plot area (i hope that is the right word) of all buildings on the property have a limit. For all properties.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellThis would be a reasonable limitation that would not harm any citizen and treat all citizens equally according to restrictions that already exist
ReplyAgree2 years ago
ADUs should be permitted, but a standard more restrictive than the property’s zoning density limits should apply – this could be a radius as shown above, or a maximum number of ADUs per block.
  • 97 77% Disagree
  • 29 23% Agree
Jon ZellwegerCreating a cap on a number ADU's per block binds a land owner if they are "late to the party"
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Neil shepardSorry, this is my property and provided I have not offended my neighbors with design, size, or use then I should be allowed to build what I want on my property. If you happen to have an ADU then why not your neighbor? As long as we talk and are fine with the ideas involved, then so be it.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownI think this should be determined by individual case review.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlEach situation needs to be considered on its own merit. A one size fits all is too restrictive.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlEach propery should be evaluated individually.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ryan RangelThis first come first serve approach discriminates against someone buying into a neighborhood in the future.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Patrick MaddenToo limiting. I agree.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
HoraceNot in favor of ADUs.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellI have concerns about permitting ADUs at all
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Steven MartinI don't understand the rationale for more restrictive zoning.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mike ShumakeToo limiting. Open it to everyone that current zoning will work for. Don't show preference to rich neighborhoods.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Terpatoo limiting
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jennifer WagnerThis seems too limiting - if your neighbors have one before you, then you are out of luck!
ReplyAgree2 years ago
J. BibbThis does not seem practical.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonAgree with the below. Should be ruled by something else.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellDoes not seem practical or reasonable to restrict some citizens based proximity to another who "gets there first". This will create a race to be first- not desirable.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sean FarresOdd to say some neighbors can have an ADU and others can't because of proximity to another. Would be nice to have a sq ft formula to help determine the right ratio. Perhaps a signed blessing from a neighbor(s) before build out. Perhaps the city could provide an ADU 'scale' kit to help guide infill.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
There should be a maximum number of unrelated persons per property. Raleigh’s code currently allows four unrelated persons per “household.” Note: N.C. state courts have determined that the property owner cannot be required to live on site.
  • 92 66% Agree
  • 47 34% Disagree
Steven MartinMy first preference is to insist that the owner live on a the property, because I've seen first hand how renters can disrupt the neighborly feel, or worse renters bring down quality of life for others.
Reply5 Agree2 years ago
Mike ShumakeIt's my property. I have a vested interest in keeping it nice. And more policies like this are unnecessary and intrusive when being regulated.
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
Jon ZellwegerI think if the NC Courts have eliminated the ability to stipulate owner-occupied properties where there is an ADU proposed, then the owner must be a resident of the same neighborhood or sub-division or be within a particular radius from the ADU property.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Stuart CullinanA maximum number of unrelated persons could indirectly discriminate against domestic partnerships. Just maybe the sky won't fall if we allow owners to live off on site.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Eddie ColemanThe accessory building should be considered another allowed household
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepardI agree that you don't want a big apartment type building and as it has been said in places here, people have a vested interest to keep their property nice. We do need to look at this maybe on a more defined basis. If the only goal is to build a rental space then sure. But if this is an in-law suite of office /studio then it's seems irrelevant. We need to look at the circumstances.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlNot taking into account the individual circumstances.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlUndecided!! I need more information.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Amy Hurtt HellmersThere are rare exceptions to the current code that I would support, and so I'd be in favor of an appeals process that City planners can determine on a case-by-case basis (examples include foster families, not absentee landlords trying to fit a dozen tenants into a three-bedroom house + ADU).
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sasha NewellI like the idea that owner should be on property if possible. But I prioritize the possibility of ADUs over this concern. Also, a maximum number of unrelated people would seem to interfere with domestic partnerships and creative family styles that might not fit the standard of legal relations, as Stuart suggests below.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlys de AlbaHow unfortunate that the courts' decision has removed our best tool for preventing some of the most serious issues that ADUs might create - such as excess noise, lack of maintenance, turning the neighborhood into a full on rental zone... When you live in a place and your renter makes your lot unpleasant for neighbors, you are the first to experience it. Absentee landlords have no such motivation.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlys de AlbaHow unfortunate that our state courts have decided the property owner is not required to live on site. That would certainly prevent a lot of the negative issues that concern me - such as excess noise, and the neighborhood becoming a full on rental zone.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ryan RangelNumber of people per property should be based on number of bedrooms and/or parking availability. Why limit it to 4 if you have a 5 bedroom house and a 3 car garage with nearly unlimited street parking? On the other hand, 4 people might be too many for a small 2 bedroom house with no drive way and limited street parking.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
HoraceI totally agree with Steven Martin !
I couldn't have said it better my friend.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellI think property owner should be required to live on-site if unrelated persons are allowed.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip BernardYes, limiting the number of people in the ADU should alleviate concerns of absentee landlords load cottages up with renters.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
TerpaI have always thought that this is a ridiculous ordinance in a college town
ReplyAgree2 years ago
RexMost of us Raleigh residents do not work or go to one of the colleges.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
J. BibbThis would effectively eliminate a family of 5 having an ADU.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Rexno, a family is not "unrelated"
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Louis StammThe trick will be how to enforce the max number. While living in NYC, our building on Lex / 34th experienced severe utility uses with friends, etc staying over night, parties and elevator usage. plumbing started to wear out faster from usage 4 times greater than building specs were built.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonAgree with Sean Farres below.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellA size restriction would naturally tend to limit the occupancy level but a firm number is necessary in my view
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sean FarresBased on the size and build the ADU should come with a permit stating XX number of people are allowed to live here. Add to the deed notes. Perhaps the ADU is used as a studio an does not need a dwelling permit.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
ADUs should be allowed when access can be provided via an alley.
  • 75 58% Agree
  • 55 42% Disagree
Mike ShumakeShould be allowed either way. Question not worded well. And not many alleys in raleigh.
Reply3 Agree2 years ago
Stuart CullinanShould be allowed regardless of access. Alley's are typically only found in the historic districts.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Stef MendellDon't want ADUs at all
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Steven MartinThis seems too restrictive.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Philip BernardThis restriction would count my and many folks properties out because many properties in Mordecai do not have alleys
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Nate HumphreyShould be allowed either way.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepardIf you have an alley, great, have and ADU. But Mordecai does have many alleys so we need to allow them either way.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Lanier McReeThey should be allowed in many access situations not just this one. Requiring alley access is just not reasonable in a city with very few alleys.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
C. Brian O'HaverThey should be allowed either way.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon Zellwegermore alleys please, regardless. access should not be restricted to the alleyway, however, when present.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownOur neighborhood only has two alleys I'm aware of. This would exclude ADUs from a huge percentage of Mordecai. I do love alleys and wish we had one, but retrofitting one in our block would be one major challenge!
ReplyAgree2 years ago
awillisivShoule be allowed either way
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlAlleys are rare in Mordecai. Not every street has an alley.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlAlleys are rare in Mordecai and the few that exist date back to at least the 1930's.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sasha NewellAlley is irrelevant - should be allowed.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
HoraceNot in favor of ADUs.
You might as well call it Alley street. It's like adding another street in the neighborhood.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
willalphinyes to this, but not exclusively - weird wording on this question
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Leslie FoxThis and the next two questions are very poorly worded. I read this as being one acceptable option for access to any ADU. Shared driveways, accessory driveways, and street parking being others. I don't think the method of access needs to be regulated.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Terpathis would substantially increase cost
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Merrilee JacobsonSorry -- Meant to say "but an alley should not be the only access option."
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Merrilee JacobsonI'm fine with accessing an ADU from an alley, but an alley should be the only access option.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jennifer Wagnerdoes this mean only if there's an alley? unclear.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jacob WardNo alleys or driveways should be required.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonNo alleys or driveways should be required.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
David WortersThis question is confusing. Not sure whether intent was to poll on ONLY via alley or some other concept.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellI don't see this as a necessary consideration/ assume you don't mean "only" allowed via an alley
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jason PriebeThe wording of these questions is really odd. I *think* what you meant to say is "ADUs should *only* be allowed when access can be provided via an alley". And even then, if I say "yes", then am I saying "ADUs should be allowed when access can be provided via an alley, regardless of all the other things like density, number of related people, setbacks, etc.?".
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sean FarresNot everyone has an alley. Street parking is fine.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
ADUs should be allowed when they can be accessed from the street using a driveway that is shared with the primary house.
  • 92 72% Agree
  • 35 28% Disagree
Philip BernardYes, no need to add more impervious surface than needed.
Reply3 Agree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonI would share my driveway, but it should nto be required.
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
Stef Mendelldon't want ADUs at all
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Nate HumphreyShould be allowed with or without this requirement.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepardI you can access the ADU from the property main drive, great, have an ADU. But not all homes have drives that go to the back yard.....nor do they want to.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon Zellwegeragain, very advantageous, but should not be a prerequisite.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownToo restrictive. Our family once had 6! vehicles at once. We accommodated them with no complaint from neighbors or the City.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlNot taking into consideration the indivuality of each property.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlMany properties do not have a driveway, but can support an ADU.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
MikeDAnother poorly phrased question.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
TerpaThe property owner should be able to provide a right of way of they want
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellA restriction is not necessary
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Christian KarkowThis arrangement seems to be working well with my ADU, ADU inhabitants and neighbors.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
ADUs should be allowed when they can be accessed from a separate driveway from that used for the primary residence.
  • 65 52% Disagree
  • 60 48% Agree
Stuart CullinanThis would unfairly discriminate against any non corner house.
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
Stef Mendelldon't want ADUs at all
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Nate HumphreyThey should be allowed either way.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepardIf you have a corner lot, great, have an ADU. But most people don't have corner lots.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Lanier McReeThey should be allowed regardless of access; iI put agree because they should be allowed when there is a separate driveway but NOT ONLY when there is separate driveway. These two questions are not worded well and I have a feeling people with the same opinions but agree and disagree because of how the question was interpreted.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
C. Brian O'HaverThis set of questions are not worded very well. They should be allowed either way.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon Zellwegeragain....like the alley question, this one is leading. the driveway should not be a pre-condition for the ADU....although there may need to be some analysis on street-side or main driveway parking if there is not one....
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownThis could not work on the overwhelming majority of Mordecai lots. Additional curb cuts would reduce opportunity for on street parking in a drastic way and many lots barely have the width for a driveway on just one side of the home.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlToo restrictive.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlToo restrictive. Many houses only have street parking.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
MikeDThat is a poorly phrased question.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ryan RangelI don't think the drive way should need to be separate. In the picture, extending the house's main drive way further pack should be sufficient. Or if the ADU has easy access from street parking that should be fine too.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
LindaWe don't need more green-space paved over.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
HoraceLooks like detached garages or hobby shops on the property.
Not in favor of ADUs.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
willalphinyes to this, but not exclusively - weird wording on this question
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Steven MartinSeems too restrictive.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mike ShumakeDoes this imply only? Question not worded well.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Terpatoo costly for most people
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jennifer Wagneri agree this seems fine but not necessary.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonNo alleys or driveways should be required.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellSame as last answer... I don't see this as a necessary consideration.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sean FarresOn street parking works for me as access to the dwelling.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Christian KarkowWith permission from City Planning, BOA and CAC.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
ADUs should be allowed even if alley or driveway access is not provided, thus requiring on-street parking for ADU inhabitants. Note: Parking exclusively on-street requires Board of Adjustment approval.
  • 85 65% Agree
  • 45 35% Disagree
Stuart CullinanSince when are cars more important than community?
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Stef Mendelldon't want ADUs at all
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Steven MartinFor some of our local streets, having our cars parked there help calm traffic.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Mike ShumakeParking is already regulated. Why add further regulation?
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Nate HumphreyShould be allowed with or without this requirement.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepardPerfectly acceptable. Not sure where the board of adjustments comes in as I have seen numerous homes, and businesses, without a driveway or other form of off street parking. Only caveat is make sure that emergency vehicles can still get through!!!
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahIt depends on the street. Putting more cars in a narrow street where lots of cars already park can be an issue for emergency vehicles and big trucks. Maybe parking permits would be a good way to limit the number of cars on particularly congested streets.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon Zellwegerhow are residents getting away with parking on the street today??? seems like almost every house in a historic district has at least one resident car parked on the road.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownThis sounds most flexible to me
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlStreet parking is the norm for most of Mordecai.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip BernardParking is not allowed on my street in the morning and evening rush hours so this is not practical.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Merrilee JacobsonOn-street parking is very limited on Courtland, since cars can only park on the west side of the street. ADUs may overwhelm our limited parking availability.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonThis is the only fair option as the others limit these additions to only house with larger lots.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellOn street parking should be allowed with the restriction of one car per ADU
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Christian KarkowBut... with approval by CAC / overlay committee.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Which of the following best describes your opinion on the maximum size (floor area) of an ADU? The minimum size permitted in Raleigh for dwelling units is 250 square feet.
  • 48 38% Maximum ADU size should be proportional to lot size. For instance, for lots of 10,000 to 19,999 square feet, ADU might be limited to no greater than 700 square feet.
  • 28 22% Maximum ADU size should be determined as a percentage of the property’s principal building’s size. For instance, no greater than 50% of principal building’s square footage.
  • 20 16% Other (Please provide comment below)
  • 18 14% ADUs should be no larger than 800 square feet.
  • 12 10% ADUs should be no larger than 450 square feet.
Mike ShumakeRegulating size is unnecessary. There are already rules in place about offset. If someone follows those offset rules, why further regulate?
Reply3 Agree2 years ago
Nick HammerIf the total buildable area based on impervious surface and setbacks isn't surpassed, any size should be allowed.
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
Christian KarkowI can also see advantages to lot size proportion restraints. I could argue both, but believe that setbacks be maintained or constrained.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Neil shepardSize should be proportional to the lot without consuming all the green space. A solution is a smaller footprint with two stories as opposed to a big one story unit.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahI'd rather see a maximum on the percentage of the lot that could be taken up by buildings, leaving room for permeable surfaces and plant life.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon Zellwegerproperty line setbacks address most of the issue. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall if there is a minimum setback between primary dwellings and accessory structures today. If not, consider that as a means to limit footprint. But, we cannot be dense enough, so regulating stories should be limited. Perhaps an ADU should not exceed the max height of the Primary Dwelling?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownThis sounds flexible to me. It would prevent the ADU from overwhelming the primary home. Not sure what the exact percentage should be...
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlADU's should be proportional to the main dwelling a d the lot size.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlZoning is already in place.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sasha NewellIt should be in proportion to the amount of buildable space left on the lot, and be a percentage of that, so that smaller original houses would allow for bigger secondary houses, provided the lot was large enough. So long as enough total open space is preserved on each lot and offset rules followed, the size of the secondary house need not be regulated.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
MikeDIt is nuianced but a ratio of ADU SF to lot size and principal residence footprint should determine maximum ADU SF.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
jeff dennieProportional to the overall lot size
ReplyAgree2 years ago
HoraceNo larger than zero.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
willalphinadding suburban sprawl and additional roads are bad for the environment
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellAdding to impervious surface is not good for the environment
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip BernardWhen Mordecai did the initial ADU design project with NC State we were limited to 550 square feet which worked fine. 450 is too small and 800 is too large.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
LisaAgree with J Bibb - it needs to be a combination of that relates both to the primary dwelling size and the property size. I've already seen one built recently disguised as a garage, where the "garage" is very close (or might exceed) to the size of the primary house and on a very tiny lot.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
J. BibbI think it is a combination of the first two. There should be a maximum coverage area for a lot - this provides needed storm water drain off, open space etc. From that you can have a ratio of the principal building's size.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonIf my house is only taking up a small percentage of my lot, then i should be allowed to build a bigger ADU. The amounts should total, or reverse, their should a percentage of each lot that does not have a building residing on it. Also, back, side, etc. porches should have the ability to be removed from these equations as they can be altered during construction.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellI actually favor some combination of % of building size and lot size
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sean FarresMake it a ratio of square footage & lot size. Maintain setbacks and heigh restrictions.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Which of the following best describes your opinion on the maximum height of an ADU?
  • 104 83% Maximum ADU heights should be two stories/25 feet (this would permit ADUs above garages).
  • 21 17% Maximum ADU height should be one story/15 feet.
kgazella1I think this depends on the existing house. If it's a one-story bungalow, then a larger structure behind it looks out of place (this has happened recently in our area). If it's a 2-3 story house, then an ADU over a garage would look fine.
Reply5 Agree2 years ago
raymond goodmanThis is a matter of visual perspective. Standing on the street, a two story structure behind a single story would be barely visible, if at all.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepardIf a home can be two stories why not the ADU?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahTwo stories is in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon ZellwegerI think it should be able to go taller depending on the context. Consider limiting by aggregate heights of primary dwellings and adjacent property structures.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlNeither choice. ADU's should be proportional to the main dwelling and lot size.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlIt should proportional to the main structure.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Amy Hurtt HellmersI think policy should be for one-story ADU with appeals process to be determined on a case-by-case basis by City planners to ensure that an ADU does not overshadow the house.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cynthia WillifordAgree, no taller than primary structure.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
doug@dougstarr.comShould match primary residence. If one story house, then one story ADU If two story house, then either one or two story AUD
ReplyAgree2 years ago
GRMShould be dictated by neighborhood compatibility and no taller than primary structure.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellShould follow zoning and infill compatibility standards -- don't want to violate neighbor privacy
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mike ShumakeGarage/Adu would be ideal.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip BernardI like the idea that ADU's have limited height requirement to one story. This keeps their profiles low and unobtrusive.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
LisaBut should relate to the primary building size.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
J. BibbAgain, there needs to be some consideration of the main building size. An ADU should be no taller than the main building. If that is a loft over an attached garage, it is permissible. If it is a separate structure, it should not be taller than the main building.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonThis area should be developed within reason as far as line of site progression, but their are many tall houses in the area that have raised this to 2 stories already. There is only so much space for smaller lots as well. The ability to provide 2 stories for these properties would allow them to competitively market to renter. Not having it, while larger lots have the ability to have larger plot space of building is unfair disadvantage to smaller homes based only on their land size, which should not affect the height any more than a larger piece of land.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellI favor a height limitation because of neighbor site line considerations.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Christian KarkowConsolidating building program (garage + ADU) can be a strategy for minimizing the site's over-development, and maximizing green space and H2O pervious area.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Which of the following best describes your opinion on required setbacks for ADUs? Setbacks measure the distance the building must be from the property boundaries.
  • 58 47% ADUs should be located behind the principal building, but otherwise, required setbacks for ADUs should be the same as those required for the primary structure.
  • 44 35% Side and rear setbacks for ADUs should be less restrictive than those required for the primary structure.
  • 22 18% Side setbacks for ADUs should be the same as those required for the primary structure, but the rear setback should be reduced to allow for ADUs closer to rear lot line.
willalphinallowing ADU's reduced side and rear setbacks allows a larger yard space and ADU can act as a 'fence' between neighboring yards.
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
MikeDMost of the backyards in downtown Raleigh if left with existing setbacks and placed an ADU in it would be awkwardly close to the main house and not able to tuck into a corner which is often the preferable locale.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Stuart CullinanHow about an alternate to a required 20' rear yard similar to the protective yard options in the UDO. For example, no plantings, no fence = 20 rear yard or 6' - 8' fence + screening trees = 10 rear yard?
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Mike ShumakeWe already has setback rules. Why use this as a way to further restrict?
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Philip BernardI think that 5' for the side is fine. My property setback is currently 20' I think and I would like to see that reduced to 10' for ADU to maximize the interior open lot size the most.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Duncan RussellCloser lot line allowances will preserve the most usable land for the homewoner
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Christian KarkowIf for no other reason, out of fairness to adjacent property owners.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Neil shepardNeeds of each particular property need to be taken into account. It may be that the shape of the property, the current landscaping/ building design and the goals to be accomplished with the ADU require a different set of rules.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahWherever your limits are for building a house, it seems reasonable that the ADU could follow suit. That said, many of our homes and outbuildings were built long before those setbacks were enacted, so it would make sense to say if your house is 6' from the side line, or your outbuilding is 6' from the rear line, your ADU could follow suit without changing the character of the lot. Also I'd rather see more yard between the house and the ADU than a harder- to-maintain area behind the ADU.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon ZellwegerUse setbacks allowable for accessory structures.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownOur neighborhood is currently filled with non compliant sheds, garages, and out building that pre-date set back requirements that are in place now. Are these structures, sometimes right on the property line, causing problems? I've been building in Raleigh for 39 years and have always been puzzled about where these setback requirements come from and why they exist. I've heard of fire fighting concerns but have seen no evidence or case where this was actually a problem.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
awillisiv5' is a good setback that allows for a vegetative or other form of buffer. Greater setbacks than 5' are unnecessary, are a hindrance to the interior open lot space and do not allow for the ADU to be tucked back into the corner which looks better and allows it to act as somewhat of a fence.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlNone of the above.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
TawneyAgreed on the prior comment, that this is only fair to adjacent property owners to maintain the set back as would be required for any primary structure.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonLimits to larger lots. It would make all of these ADUs that were put in on smaller lots less attractive as they would not allow most efficient use of space for lot owner. That applies to larger lots as well.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jason PriebeI'm not sure why the ADU would have to be *behind* the principal building. Imagine a double lot with a garage next to the house. If somebody wanted to build an in-law apartment above the garage, that seems fine.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Which of the following best describes your opinion on the orientation of ADUs?
  • 93 78% The primary entrance to the ADU should be allowed on any side of the structure, including the rear.
  • 15 13% The primary entrance to the ADU should be permitted to face the primary street or side street/side lot line.
  • 11 9% The primary entrance to the ADU should be required to face the primary street.
Mike ShumakeWhy regulate which direction it faces? Come on guys -this is too regulated.
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
raymond goodmansrsly?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepardWhat does it matter which side of the building the entrance is on? If you have a back alley why force a door on the side of the ADU that faces the main dwelling or if it's on-street parking in front of the main dwelling why require an entrance on the far backside of an ADU?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahWho cares?!
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon Zellwegeri think common sense can be allowed to prevail here.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlToo restricted. ......
ReplyAgree2 years ago
MikeDWho cares. Let access determine that. If it's ugly than the market will reject it and it will get fixed.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cynthia WillifordEach situation may be different.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marjorie NeuferThis should be optional for the property owner.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellWhatever best protects privacy of existing residents
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip BernardI think that primary entrance should be researched to cause the least intrusion to adjoining neighbors and related to the designated parking spot - - not just on any side.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonThis should definitely not be an issue. SO many different types of entrances are possible. What about ones facing 45 degrees?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellThe allows for the most flexibility for most citizens
ReplyAgree2 years ago
A buffer, including a wooden/vinyl fence and trees/shrubs, should be required between ADUs and adjacent properties.
  • 65 51% Disagree
  • 62 49% Agree
Philip BernardYes, some type of buffer should be required on the site plan - - the more vegetative, natural, and unobtrusive the better!
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
Neil shepardThis is a poorly thought question. Do I think a lovely set of greenery between the ADU the property line is bad? No. Do I think a fence is the answer? No. Besides, code on a fence is 6' and even a single story building is taller than that. So is the answer a 1 or 2 story tall fence???
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahI think it would be ideal if this were assessed on a case by case basis. For instance if your neighbor already has a big hedge up, why put a fence in front of it.? There are even some houses built nearby that share common areas like decks, so putting up any divider would be counterproductive.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahI think it would be ideal if
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Lanier McReeCould a buffer be required if you wanted a reduced setback but not in other circumstances? Can we set up policies that encourage buffers but do not require them?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon Zellwegercould there be exceptions established so that for special situations the owner need not be forced to go through the Board of Adjustment for relief?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlNot every situation will be able to accommodate a buffer.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlThis should determined on each situation.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
MikeDIt's hard to regulate a vegetative buffers but maybe require them if ADU encroaches a property line within 5' or something like that.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlys de AlbaI think this depends on the situation... windows are more invasive, and more difficult to noiseproof than just looking at a wall.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellImportant to protect privacy of existing neighbors
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mike ShumakeWhile it would be better, the city shouldn't need to require and regulate this. If I built an Adu, I would have a buffer.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonObviously!
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellPrivacy and common sense would seem to dictate this requirement.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Limits should be placed on the amount of window area on all ADU façades facing adjacent properties.
  • 92 76% Disagree
  • 29 24% Agree
Jon Zellwegeragain....common sense should be allowed to prevail.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Neil sheparddepending on orientation of the ADU the windows that face the neighbors yards may get a better cross breeze-thus reducing the electricity costs. Or they may get the better light-from a personal enjoyment standpoint or an artistic standpoint. Again using less electricity. Technically if you limit the windows facing neighbors that leaves them on the facade that faces the main dwelling.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahI know we want our back yards to be havens, but if we're going to support ADUs they need to be nice. Who wants a home with no light?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownThere are these great things made called curtains!
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlShould be determined by the situation.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
MikeDPeople in and out of glass houses shouldn't really throw stones.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlys de AlbaThis may be more important than immediately evident. For example, in Charleston SC many of the historic homes face side to, rather than facing the street. This arrangement works because the windows on the back (which face straight to the neighbor's front) are minimal or non-existant preventing too much gawking at one another. Having to put a fence or a tree right in front of a window for privacy may not be exactly desirable.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
LindaWhatever makes sense in the context of the neighborhood and existing structure. It should blend in - however many windows, doors, etc that indicates.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
willalphinwindows are not always for views, they can be just for natural light.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellI support this to protect neighbors
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mike ShumakeAgain -overregulation
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip BernardAllowing ADU's will encroach on backyard areas which have, for the most part, been fairly private. Limiting windows that look into neighbors' back yard spaces is crucial.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus HortonThese limits do not have to be very strict though
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellAgree if the dwelling is to be occupied/ do not agree if the unit is a studio or art space not occupied.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
What is your address?
Nate Humphrey540 S Person Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
raymond goodman323 Mulberry Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Scott Gentry401 Glascock Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepard706 Sasser St. Raleigh,NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
MarcoHolden St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Bennett Emory335 Mulberry Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
ballentrae hume807 mordecai dr 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Lanier McRee508 Holden St, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
C. Brian O'Haver819 North Bloodworth Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon Zellweger603 Holden Street, 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Traci Farmer1006 Benjamin Street 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
w king501 Harding St. Apt. #2
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Benjamin Van Steinburgh907 Elm Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Arlene Sanders615 North Boundary Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Erika Brandt310 Wilmot Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K Earl1103 Mordecai Drive
ReplyAgree2 years ago
monakeech@aol.com1226 Mordecai Drive
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ron821 Wake Forest Rd
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Nancy Reifsteck610 Holden St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Susan Donn512 Northwood Drive
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sabina Therese Vermeulen714 Holden Street Raleigh North Carolina 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
MikeD1313 Mordecai Dr.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cynthia Williford418 Harding St.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlys de Alba704 Holden Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jennifer Murphy1316 Courtland Drive
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Tony Oakley1325 Sycamore Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jessica Donohue1313 Mordecai Drive
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Heather Smith Franks1025 Haynes Street Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ryan Rangel1143 Harp St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Laura Harrison1165 N Blount Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Josh Whiton412 Glascock St, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Starr Markham306 Mulberry St.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mary Cornatzer712 Holden St. Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Alex Slater614 Holden St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Regina Hinman220 Glascock St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Doug611 N Boundary St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Julia Janaro630 Sasser Street Raleigh North Carolina 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
David Huffstetler726 N Blount St, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Rebecca1112 Mordecai Drive, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mark Waldvogel1213 Harp
ReplyAgree2 years ago
doug@dougstarr.com213 Poplar St, Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Linda614 Capital Blvd
ReplyAgree2 years ago
andy wilkinson103 dixie trail
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Miles Jackson709 E Franklin St, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
jeff dennie409 glascock street raleigh,nc 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Patrick Madden223 Glascock Street Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marjorie Neufer1313 Wake Forest Road
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sara Glee Queen1227 Courtland Drive Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Susan Betancourt625 Holden Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Horace800 Sasser Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Tricia Sabol706 Holden St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Hannah Burrack614 E Franklin Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
willalphin915 tower street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ryan J1320 Mordecai Dr
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Becky614 Capital Blvd #118, 27603 (the Cotton Mill)
ReplyAgree2 years ago
HP27604515 N Blount Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Charles Watson3001 Capital Blvd, Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Dexter Tillett905 Mordecai Drive
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stuart Cullinan310 Heck Street, Raleigh NC
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Paige Presler-Jur & Jess Jur804 N Bloodworth ST
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Rexrexm3@yahoo.com
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Frank Gailor1100 Wake Forest Rd.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef Mendell720 North Person Street, #305, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Brian Stratton614 Capital Blvd, APT 114 Raleigh NC 27603
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Leslie Fox1138 Haynes St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Tawney1330 Courtland Dr, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
1152 Harp Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mike Shumake700 Sasser street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Brunt520 pace street. Raleigh. 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jim Murphy1316 Courtland Dr., Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Harry Allan Paul403 Glascock Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Alex Boyd614 Capital Blvd #109 Raleigh, NC 27603
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Shane Trahan1201 Mordecai Drive Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Lisa702 North Bloodworth
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Matt Young1104 Watauga St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ann Chavis1107 watauga st
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Merrilee Jacobson1212 Courtland Dr., Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Arnold BarrettADUs should be allowed
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jennifer Wagner227 Glascock Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
J. Bibb1405 Courtland Dr
ReplyAgree2 years ago
James Sorrell213 Lafayette Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sonya Zell1409 Courtland Drive, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip Bernard221 Glascock Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Laura Swanson614 Capital Blvd. #104 Raleigh, NC 27603
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Louis Stamm308 Pace Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Eleanor H. Oakley1325 Sycamore Street, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jacob Ward400 Glascock St Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Bill White230 Glascock St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cyrus Horton510 Holden St., Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
David Worters1124 N Blount St
ReplyAgree2 years ago
David Zell1409 Courtland Drive
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Anthony Ulinski 1117 Marshall street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan Russell806 N. Bloodworth Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jo Anne Sanford721 North Bloodworth Street Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Michael Kaplan1115 Wake Forest Rd Apt C Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mark Wlodarczak404 Harding st Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Nick Hammer205 Fenton ST
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stephen Atkinson510 Sasser St. Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Sean Farres1334 Courtland DR
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ginger1211 Wake Forest Road Raleigh NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Judy Mann1328 Courtland Dr
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Angela Schlukbier 1216 Mordecai Dr
ReplyAgree2 years ago
David Moore1429 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Christian Karkow612 Holden St, Raleigh, NC 27604
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jay Dawkins218 East Davie Street
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Are you in favor of Accessory Dwelling Units in your neighborhood?
  • 123 76% Yes
  • 21 13% Maybe
  • 18 11% No
Mike ShumakeThis addresses a suburban sprawl issue in Raleigh. There is plenty of parking where I live for another small 1 bed 1 bath place, and my yard is big enough. And it's my yard, so I feel like I should have the right to use it as I want as long as there is not a health or safety risk.
Reply5 Agree2 years ago
Craig We live in a city. Housing density is a good thing. If you don't want housing density, don't live in a city.
Reply3 Agree2 years ago
James SorrellMy lot is too small to accommodate an ADU, but I have no strong objections to them in principle for other homeowners. I would want to see standards in place that would ensure that the ADUs are in character with the existing dwelling and the neighborhood in general. I also share the concerns of others about absentee landlords and additional traffic and parking in residential areas, and i don't feel it is unreasonable or unrealistic to require that either the original structure or ADU be owner occupied.
Reply2 Agree2 years ago
Charles WatsonFor the care of aging family I think it's an awesome concept. Allowing an aging loved one to have their independance, but close enough for family support.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Stuart CullinanADUs are a no brainer. They will increase smaller and most likely comparatively more affordable units for rental, provide work from home options that are important to our creative class and downtown entrepreneurs and provide downsizing aging place options or multi-generational family options for those that rather their folks live on site than pay big bills to the a senior facility.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Frank GailorThis is an urban neighborhood and the opportunity to add density in this way, among others., makes good sense.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
TerpaSometimes it's the best option for aging family members
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
LisaI need to better understand the fine print, but in theory I think this is an important part of the mix of housing for Raleigh - from creating more affordable living near downtown to those that may need to have a family member live with them, etc. Mordecai could be a great place to pilot this idea.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Merrilee JacobsonWith the proper controls, ADU's could increase density in our neighborhood and offer options that would allow people to stay in Mordecai as their needs change.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
kgazella1My understanding is that the city cannot legally require landlords/owners to live on the property, so that's an unrealistic request or expectation. I am very much in favor of ADUs because they provide affordable housing in urban areas, and are a smart way to grow and add needed housing stock that meets the needs of today's demographics. I believe that if landscaping , lighting and other standards are required, these units would be a huge asset to homeowners and to our city.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Bart Leatherman1) - There is one condition that makes me lean toward saying 'no' to ADUs. There is no requirement that one of the units be occupied by the owner of the property. This means that rental houses (some of which have been loud and unkempt) could add additional units in the backyard. We've had trouble with rental houses in the past and don't want that trouble to potentially double.
2) - Are you sure this isn't already permitted? So, currently is OK to rent out a small apartment above your garage as long as that garage is attached to your house (and not in the backyard)?? There are already backyard rentals available (longterm and with Airbnb). For example, would the following not be an existing ADU? : https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/394527?s=JOHvPBnP
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Louis StammParking & traffic is already horrific with recent growth. City Planning needs to do a better job and address this issue. I have no problem with ADU but would like the caveat that the property owner occupy on of the residences.
Reply1 Agree2 years ago
Nate HumphreyI think ADUs provide a special opportunity to address the housing crunch in Raleigh. Affordable housing comes up at almost every public meeting, ADU's add density and capacity without taking away the character of our existing neighborhoods. Additionally, they provide a way for families to care for say aging parents, relatives, etc; and provide potential supplemental income for property owners (especially those who may be on a fixed income). All of which add to the vibrancy and health of our community.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Eddie ColemanOur home has an Accessory Dwelling Unit.... A carriage house apartment above the garage. This has been this way since 1947 (written in the concrete) when one brother came home from the war and lived with his wife upstairs in an apartment created in the big house and the other brother and his wife finished an apartment over the garage. The apartment has never been a problem to anyone.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Paul siler With some smart regulations I have no problem with limited dwelling units on private property. And yes, "in-law quarters" are only going to become more and more necessary to help families in need of affordable space for aging family members or family members in need.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Neil shepardThis is a great idea. Other cities have been doing it and we should too. In looking at long-term elderly family care, or a place for an office or studio, or as a place to rent out for some extra income. This is my property and provided I haven't offended the neighbors with my structure I should be allowed to build what I want.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
JohannahThey would be great affordable housing for older family members.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Matt LawrenceI think these dwellings are an excellent use of resourses. It's a great way to add a dwelling for family without having to live under the same roof.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jon ZellwegerI know from hearing many members of the community's comments, that one of the largest concerns is an increase in facilities for short-term, possibly dubious tenants. A second concern is that the design and construction quality of the ADU's would possibly be inconsistent for the established (and possibly historic, registered or otherwise) neighborhood. I believe both issues can be addressed through limiting the ADU's on owner-occupied parcels (or perhaps the owner resides within a very limited distance from the parcel) and through Appearance and RHDC review.

Many of these ITB neighborhoods still possess a fairly suburban density. They are also seeing workforce housing evaporate in favor of single-family residences. ADU's have the potential to help increase density and meet the aspiration for a more diverse population. ADU's can provide a property owner with an alternative means to a) stay in gentrifying neighborhoods as values increase or b) keep pace with rising land costs while not having to make substantial (and often out of scale) improvements to the primary dwelling.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Thomas BrownOur family is in a continuous cycle of transitions and having a separate small dwelling on our property would help greatly.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Traci FarmerMany are used for an office, in law suited for aging parents, art studios, I do not want to be restricted
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Melissa MWith the cost of living in Raleigh going up, these are a great way for homeowners to suoplement their income. I know personally it would allow me to stay at home with my baby and raise him rather than having to return to work and put him in daycare!
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlADU's will allow the property owner the make the best use of the propert over time.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlowe K EarlADU's allow for more flexible use of property over time.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Amy Hurtt HellmersI want to strike a balance between "anything goes" on a property and no ability for homeowners to maximize their space. To support ADUs, I would need assurances that property owners must conform to the highest standards for property maintenance and tenant supervision, including adhering to the same up-to-date building codes for occupancy that are required of current residential buildings. I want to keep our neighborhood safe and vibrant, and not allow absentee landlords who have historically destroyed that atmosphere in other parts of this and other cities. Strict regulations and ready enforcement of violations are a minimum to gain my support for ADUs in the Mordecai community.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
kathleencalistriGood idea! Clearly standards, offsets, vetting of design options, etc. must be established first.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Cynthia WillifordGreat neighborhoods and cities provide a variety of housing sizes & options.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marlys de AlbaI do have some reservations with this really changing the nature of the neighborhood. Perhaps if we went forward with some historic preservation protections for the bungalows before the character is completely altered... I am in agreement with James Sorrell - but since the courts have already decided, it sounds like a done deal we have no control over.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Valerie JurikHAPPY DAYS! for 36 years I've been involved with the aging population and creating livable home environments for people as they age.
Asheville is very progressive on this already. I've been working with the states in the West and been holding my breath waiting for the East coast to show interest.
I live in Raleigh and have BIG hopes and plans to see this progress.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Heather Smith FranksAbsolutely a win/win. Great partial solution to deal with Sprawl & density in the downtown urban areas, as well an opportunity to offer solace and convenience in dealing with aging members of families who still want to maintain an independent lifestyle.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
NancylburnsThis is an exciting step towards honoring our environment and our special needs population. Thank you Raleigh
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Alex SlaterWould love to create an "in-law suite" above a garage for guests to stay in when they visit.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Julia JanaroRaleigh's population growth has to move somewhere. We can either continue sprawling outwards indefinitely, or work to create denser and more diverse neighborhoods within our existing infrastructure framework. I vote for the latter.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
LindaIf a homeowner is looking to generate rental income; such ADUs would likely devalue neighboring properties and potentially introduce other undesireable aspects. It is most likely that someone building an ADU for rental income is going to take the cheapest route possible resulting in cookie-cutter, eyesores that pave-over green space and further strain our stormwater and sewer systems. What a person does in their yard impacts their neighbors...it is why there are noise ordinances, it is why we cannot just open and run a business in our yards/homes, etc. This needs to be carefully studied and properly regulated.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
jeff dennieI think The Mordecai neighborhood would be a great place to pilot this. Mainly it is walkable to downtown. I do think, if anyway possible, the property owner should be required to occupy either dwelling. And lastly I am trying to help a local friend figure out how to get her out of state mother to move here. Allowing this occupency would solve the problem she currently finds herself in. And everyone has to agree that our long term medical care issues are about to be in all of our communities. This could be one possible solution.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Marjorie NeuferFeel there should be lot size regulation with x amount of space to allow parking, etc. Also, standards in keeping with the historic district designation. I feel any ADU should be for family occupation only.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
HoraceI see these as rental units, or "RU's", to help pay the high mortgages. A ploy to attract more potential home buyers , More often than not, this attracts more crime and neglect of the property. In today's world, renters can pose a HOST of problems for the owner and the surrounding neighbors. YES, there are a FEW that will respect & look after the property, but some may just need a "hideout" for various reasons. A fly-by-night questionable renter would look at the surrounding expensive homes as a "candy store" for committing crimes, since most homeowners are out working to pay for their home.
Please consider the pros and "cons"......BAD idea.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
willalphinADUs are a great way to add density and economic and generational diversity to our neighborhoods without adding infrastructure. Increased density creates the needed pressure to rationalize multiple forms of transit besides automobiles. Take a walk down the alleys of Cameron Park, many houses have separate dwellings, garage apartments and basement apartments. Not only do they add a great benefit to those homeowners, they create a charming, small scale urban environment.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
BeckyI think ADUs help fill a need for current new housing options, which right now are primarily McMansions or hi rise construction. The permission of ADUs might actually help preserve neighborhood character - certainly more than the epidemic of teardowns in older neighborhoods (North Hills, Brooks Ave area, many others). I would like to see both ADUs and more 10-12 unit housing options (the Ten on Person, e.g.) on the menu as we grow denser.

One last thought about the perceptions of privacy and space on one's own property: all good dwelling design should include interior room for escape - whatever one's definition of that may be (yoga, reading, art, music, workshop, etc). Maybe it's an interior courtyard a la Cliff May or Eichler; maybe it's an attic; maybe it's the ADU itself. The fact is, in a city you are closer to other people no matter what. By having a space within your own property to take a break from the population, you get the best of both worlds.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Dexter TillettIt benefits the neighborhood and does no harm whatsoever on anyone else. If people are against it, then they are purely against new people into the area or just overall jealous of the situation of that they can't do themselves. Either one is not beneficial to the community in general. The more people we populate within the area, the better the economics are. The parking is ample and the businesses will be ample, so why not the people? I hope we pass this action.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stef MendellOne of the previous commenters sums up my opinion: Unless strictly regulated by the City ADUs can drastically change the character of the neighborhood, particularly visually, and population density wise. It is one thing to build an ADU for a relative to live in to help with family situations. It is an entirely different thing to allow ADUs that are used solely as rental units to generate income. Many times that leads to a decline in the quality of life in the neighborhood. Parking can also become a major issue when ADU occupants end up parking on neighborhood streets that were not designed to accommodate extra parks cars and the associated traffic that comes with more cars.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Leslie FoxI'm very much in favor of ADUs. Increasing density is how great cities are made. Certainly some parameters to ensure that the character of a specific neighborhood are respected are in order, but the idea that ADUs will create a crowded rental tenement and that no one will be able to park near their home is pretty silly. I live alone in 2250 sf house, with 4 bedrooms and a 2 car garage which has 1 car in it. There should be at least three other people living here. But then again I've lived in downtown Boston, DC, New Orleans, and Florence, and the denser Raleigh becomes the more it actually feels like a city.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Ralf SchmidGood idea for those who want to maximize their real estate profits. Bad idea for those who want to maintain the character of our neighborhood. While I'm sympathetic to those who want relatives to live close by, my experience is that this is not the main way that allowing ADUs will work. It will mainly be a move to opening the door to the area's becoming a rental compound. ADUs today, apartment buildings tomorrow.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jim MurphyWhere are the additional residents going to park? I would love to think that these would be used for family members needing care, but the reality is that our neighborhood will turn into an area more highly populated by renters. In an ideal world, people that rent, by choice or necessity, would take great care of the property they reside in and the neighborhood as a whole, but that is not always the case. The developer on Courtland is already changing the plans originally approved in the hopes of cramming more people into a small space. I fail to see how this is a different variation of the same thing other than the fact that hopefully the inhabitants of the main dwelling are the owner. However, this is no longer required by law.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Harry Allan PaulUnless strictly regulated by the City ADUs can drastically change the character of the neighborhood, particularly visually, and population density wise. It is one thing to build an ADU for a relative to live in to help with family situations. It is an entirely different thing to allow ADUs that are used solely as rental units to generate income. Many times that leads to a decline in the quality of life in the neighborhood. Parking can also become a major issue when ADU occupants end up parking on neighborhood streets that were not designed to accommodate extra parks cars and the associated traffic that comes with more cars.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Philip BernardMy final decision depends on the actual regulations that are proposed by City staff.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Jennifer WagnerI like the idea of providing affordable housing to students and others, but wouldn't want the neighborhood to become too crowded with additional cars.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Bill WhiteI believe ADUs will lead to over crowded neighborhoods, excessive traffic, clutter, and detract from unique settings and "feel" of the Mordecai neighborhood. We have a nice pedestrian friendly neighborhood as it is, why change it?
ReplyAgree2 years ago
David WortersI think I'm more worried about the addition of more parked cars than I am the actual ADUs.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Duncan RussellSquare Feet size of ADU needs to be restricted to a % of the house size; such as not more than 20% of the size of the house. Or alternatively not larger than a % of
the available land; such as not more than 20% of the available land.
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Mark Wlodarczakset back needs to be adjust to 3' feet off property line not the current 5'
ReplyAgree2 years ago
Stephen AtkinsonI am totally in favor of ADU's. I honestly don't see a downside.
ReplyAgree2 years ago