Thread by @CerebrACTe

Not sure @DanielParolek would appreciate Raleigh's most outspoken housing reform group, @RaleighLivable using his work to defend their continued opposition to missing middle housing and affordable housing.

What do y'all think? #ralpol

In their latest claim, @RaleighLivable says Raleigh has made all 5 of the mistakes @DanParolek warns against in this excellent talk:


Guess what? THEY'RE WRONG!
Raleigh is allowing missing middle with his best practices in mind.
#ralpol

Raleigh already has rules and protections in place that address the 5 mistakes that Dan Parolek mentions.

despite his recent @newsobserver article @RussForRaleigh KNOWS this because many of those protections were put in place while HE WAS ON COUNCIL. Thanks for those rules.

Those same protections now allow us to be MORE progressive.

We can remove the largest system contributing to classism / racism in the country today - single family zoning.

THANKS TO THIS COUNCIL for passing TC-5-20 in July to make Missing Middle housing legal again. #ralpol

By the way you can read TC-5-20 for yourself
(if you enjoy some good land use language)
Here's the link: …gh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/CO…

So let's jump in and talk details.

What are those rules that Raleigh already has to support good missing middle housing?
#ralpol

First, Dan Parolek is clear that adding the ability for non single family house options is critical, including all missing middle housing types.

Second, Raleigh already has a robust form-based Unified Development Ordinance. You can read it here:
raleighnc.gov/services/zonin…

For those of you who haven't listened to the excellent (but over hour long) presentation from @DanielParolek. In it he mentions 5 mistakes many cities make when allowing missing middle.

Mistakes Raleigh ISN'T making.

We'll break it down one by one...

Mistake 1 from @DanielParolek is about not allowing forms such as Slot Homes / perpendicular townhomes and Multiple Single Family Homes on one lot.

Guess what?
Raleigh doesn't allow those.

-- Townhomes perpendicular to the street are not allowed per NC law. Each unit must have a street frontage on public or private street. Private streets in Raleigh must meet street standards. The photo shown from another city can't be built here.

-- Multiple Single Family homes on one lot are only allowed per Raleigh UDO as either a Cottage Court, with central greenspace standard, or under the ADU standard which would be a maximum of 2 homes, with second home required to be accessory and smaller.

Mistake 2 from @DanielParolek is about equating dwelling units per lot and building type definitions.

Guess what?
Raleigh defines allowed number of units and building type separately in our form-based UDO.

-- The Missing Middle text change actually further detached the two definitions by clearly relating allowable number of dwelling units to lot size rather than to lot zoning district alone.

-- Secondary note: Stacked Fourplexes are currently financially infeasible to build in NC due to the required sprinkler system. Building Code adjustments may be needed to see this building form actually get built at attainable price points.

Mistake 3 from @DanielParolek is about limiting the number of units per lot rather than regulating form.

Guess what?
Raleigh has a form-based code already.

-- The recent Missing Middle text change actually removed density limitations of dwelling units per lot.
-- The text change retained (at the request primarily by outspoken Livable Raleigh members) the relationship of number of dwelling units with a minimum lot area per unit.

Mistake 4 from @DanielParolek is about not regulating "house scale" with width, depth and height.

Guess what?
Raleigh does this for infill projects.

-- Again, Raleigh has a form based code that relies heavily on building types with height limitations that vary by zoning district.

-- Additionally, we have infill standards for new buildings in existing neighborhoods that regulate the width, depth, height and more. These apply to large single-family homes and missing middle products.

Mistake 5 from @DanielParolek is about not simultaneously addressing parking requirements as a barrier.

Guess what?
Raleigh has a text change currently in draft stage (TC-11-21) to reduce parking minimums.

-- And did I miss something?
Is @RaleighLivable and @RussForRaleigh in support of reducing and removing Parking Minimums now?

Looking forward to standing next to you in support of a text change to reduce and remove parking standards in the near future friends :).
#ralpol

-- because @DanielParolek clearly says that in most places, if you are requiring more than 1 parking space per unit than you aren't going to get missing middle due the inherent infeasibility of physically and financially providing it.

Now: I'll admit that in Raleigh we have a lot more zoning and building code reform needed to get the amount of easy-to-build missing middle housing that we need.

But we won't get there by allowing single family zoning to continue any longer.

✔️#endsinglefamilyzoning
#endrant