Missing Middle discussion continued at Healthy Neighborhoods Committee. Read more.

Missing Middle Housing options discussed at Healthy Neighborhoods Committee. “Affordable housing remains a priority for the City Council. The Committee will continue to discuss options for increasing affordable housing throughout the City. This item will reflect a model known as the “missing middle”. This model is currently being used in other communities as an option to address growing affordability concerns.” Read more.

Continuing the Missing Middle Housing discussion, the Healthy Neighborhoods Committee directed staff to refine the proposal. It also requested that staff generate more specific options for modifying the Attached building type to facilitate housing production; for modifying Cottage Court requirements; and for reducing parking requirements for missing middle housing. More information on those issues and other agenda materials are here.

Healthy Neighborhoods Committee Chair Russ Stephenson reported the following recommendation: “The Committee recommends that Council authorize staff to draft a proposed text change to modify Cottage Court requirements. It is understood staff will present their recommendation to the full Council at a future meeting date. A copy of staff’s memorandum outlining the recommendations is included in the agenda packet.”

The Committee further recommends that the following items be reported out with the understanding staff will bring back a report and recommendation to the full Council

Develop a scope for a study and community outreach process that would address attached building types and other potential ‘missing middle’ housing options.”

City Council adopted the recommendation by an 8-0 vote. For full agenda and meeting minutes, click here.

The Healthy Neighborhoods Committee recommends further refinements to the UDO to address Missing Middle Housing. “Affordable housing remains a high priority for the Raleigh City Council. To that point, at the March 6, 2018 City Council referred Zoning for Residential Scaled Office Uses to the Healthy Neighborhoods Committee. Since that time, the Committee discussed several options for increasing affordable housing throughout the City. As part of the May 22, 2018 committee discussion on “Missing Middle” housing types, cottage courts were mentioned as a possible housing choice. Staff researched the cottage court housing pattern and the committee will further discuss the use of this housing pattern in the City of Raleigh.” Read more.

Healthy Neighborhoods Committee Chair reports out recommendation to refine “Cottage Court” housing type to address Missing Middle Housing and affordability in general. Agenda and meeting minutes are available here.

City Planning staff reports to Council with various options to address Missing Middle and housing affordability. Council votes 7-1 to authorize staff to draft text change to address Missing Middle Housing, including allowing townhouses, duplexes and triplexes in residential zoning districts. Agenda materials and meeting minutes are available here.

With the hiring of Pat Young as the new Raleigh Planning Director, City Planning Staff presents updated information regarding Missing Middle Housing options and seeks additional direction to refine the drafting of what becomes TC-5-20. Council directs staff to begin drafting the text change based on Option 3 presented by staff. Agenda materials and all options presented to Council are available here.

Based on the direction given to staff on November 17, 2020, TC-5-20 is presented to the Planning Commission’s Text Change Committee for the first time.

Specifically, TC-5-20:

1. Permits the Townhouse building type in the R-6 district as a conventional development option, in the R-4 district as a compact development option, and in the R-2 and R-4 districts as part of a conservation development option.

2. Permits the Attached house building type in the R-2 and R-4 districts as part of a conventional or compact development option.

3. Reduces the minimum lot size for the Apartment building type where allowed in residential districts.

4. Removes the minimum site sizes from the compact and conservation development options and replace with minimum open space requirements.

5. Removes the requirement to meet minimum unit per acre density thresholds in all residential districts except R-1 and replace with minimum lot sizes, minimum site sizes per dwelling unit, and/or minimum lot areas per dwelling unit depending on building type.

6. Removes the requirement for certain building types to meet minimum ‘Ground Floor Elevation’ requirements.

7. Replaces Townhouse regulations that regulate interior side property line setbacks with those that regulate building separation and distance from the perimeter lines of the site.

8. Revises text to remove outdated 'allowable building elements' from the building type tables. Setback encroachments will continue to be regulated by Section 1.5.4.D., which will remain unchanged.

The complete set of agenda materials can be found here.

Planning Commission’s Text Change Committee continues discussing TC-5-20 and votes the item out to the full Planning Commission for further review and discussion. Read more.

Planning Commission receives Text Change Committee report on TC-5-21 and after further discussion votes to recommend approval 8-0. Read more.

Council receives report from Planning Commission recommending approval of TC-5-21, but it defers action until June 15, 2021. Read more.

Council schedules a public hearing for TC-5-20 for July 5, 2021 after altering the Planning Commission’s recommendation related to how duplexes are regulated. Read more.

Council conducts public hearing on TC-5-21. The text change was adopted 7-1 with only Councilor Cox voting no. The agenda and related materials can be found here.

Planning Commission’s Text Change Committee reviews Missing Middle 2.0 which was designated as TC-20-22. The purpose of Missing Middle 2.0 was to refine the regulatory changes that were adopted under Missing Middle 1.0 (TC-5-20).

As proposed, “TC-20-21:

— Reduces the lot size requirements, and increase the allowed building size, for the Tiny House building type. Under the proposed text change, a tiny house could have a maximum 800-square-foot building footprint and a 1,200-square-foot floor area.

— Permits tiny houses to be used for either single-unit or two-unit (duplex) living.

— Permits flag lots in residential districts for the construction of tiny houses.

— Permits two-unit townhouses in the R-4 zoning district.

— Synchronizes lot dimensional standards across most residential building types.

— Allow denser residential development within proximity of planned high-frequency transit.

— Allows accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on townhouse lots and two ADUs on a lot when proximate to planned high-frequency transit.

— Reorganizes the code to include ADU regulations and Cottage Court regulations in both the Residential and Mixed-Use chapters of the UDO.”

Here is a link to the agenda materials and all staff reports and related information.

Planning Commission’s Text Change Committee discussed the proposed regulatory reform in more detail. The Committee voted TC-20-22 out to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval.

“The Text Change Committee recommended approval of the attached ordinance. Over the course of their review, the Committee recommended the following changes which have been incorporated into that document:

— Added ribbon style driveway standards that also allow for private pedestrian access ways (sidewalk) to overlap with one of the paver strips.

— Added a 600 SF size limitation on manufactured housing used as a Tiny House or ADU (whereas other construction forms of Tiny House building types may be up to 1200 SF under the proposal).

— Clarified setbacks applicable between a flag lot and the residual lot it was created from.

— Expanded the allowance for two-unit townhouses to include the R-2 zoning district.

— Exempted tiny house lots and flag lots from the regulations that set a 40% maximum of the front yard devoted to parking/driveways for residential uses.

— Added affordability requirements similar to those found in the Transit Overlay District for a portion of the units gained through certain density/height bonuses offered through the Frequent Transit Development Option.”

Here is a link to the updated agenda materials and staff reports.

Planning Commission received the report from the Text Change Committee on TC-20-20-21. After further discussion, Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval by the City Council. Here is a link to the agenda materials and updated staff report.

Council receives unanimous recommendation from Planning Commission to approve TC-20-21. After receiving the report, Council votes unanimously to hold a public hearing on TC-20-21 on May 3, 2022. The agenda materials, staff report and meeting minutes where Council scheduled the public hearing can be found here.

Council deferred the public hearing for TC-20-21 until May 10, 2022.

Council conducted a public hearing on TC-20-21 which refines Council’s efforts to refine the City’s regulation of Missing Middle housing which started with the adoption of TC-5-20.

“Text Change TC-20-21: Missing Middle 2.0 amends the Part 10 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow and incentivize more housing options citywide, especially near high-frequency transit. Adoption of TC-20-21 would:

— Reduce the lot size requirements, and increase the allowed building size, for the Tiny House building type. Under the proposed text change, a tiny house could have a maximum 800-square-foot building footprint and a 1,200-square-foot floor area.

— Permit tiny houses to be used for either single-unit or two-unit (duplex) living.

— Permit flag lots in residential districts for the construction of tiny houses.

— Permit two-unit townhouses in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts.

— Synchronize lot dimensional standards across most residential building types.

— Allow denser residential development within proximity of planned high-frequency transit.

— Allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on townhouse lots and two ADUs on a lot when proximate to planned high-frequency transit.

— Reorganize the code to include ADU regulations and Cottage Court regulations in both the Residential and Mixed-Use chapters of the UDO.

— Place a 600 SF size limitation on manufactured housing used as a Tiny House or ADU (whereas other construction forms of Tiny House building types may be up to 1200 SF under the proposal).

— Require the inclusion of affordable housing units similar to those found in the Transit Overlay District for a portion of additional units gained through certain density/height bonuses offered through the limited Frequent Transit Development Option.

The Planning Commission recommended approval of the text change (6-0).”

At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Text Change was adopted 6-1 with Councilor Cox voting no and Councilor Buffkin absent.

The complete agenda materials, related staff reports and meeting minutes can be found here.