Raleigh Planners Devise Options in 'McMansion' Debate

Raleigh, N.C. — City planners on Monday unveiled two alternatives to proposed zoning regulations that would squeeze the size of new homes in Raleigh.

Mayor Charles Meeker last month floated the idea of adopting new rules that would reduce the maximum height of homes from 40 feet to 32 feet and increase the required setbacks from 5 feet to 10 feet on either side of the house and from 20 feet to 30 feet in the back yard for many neighborhoods citywide.

The proposal escalated the debate over "McMansions" that has simmered in older neighborhoods inside the Interstate 440 Beltline for years. Almost 600 homes have been knocked down in Raleigh in the last five years to make way for larger residences, and many homeowners in older neighborhoods complain that the larger homes detract from the character of their neighborhoods.

The Raleigh Planning Commission last week voted against the proposed limits, which sparked outcry from numerous residents. The City Council hasn't acted on the proposal yet.

In a 12-page memo sent to City Council members, Planning Director Mitchell Silver outlined two alternatives to control infill development without resorting to citywide zoning regulations.

The first would limit the size of replacement homes – or additions to existing homes – to 125 percent of the existing square footage and no more than a 10 percent increase in height.

The second option would expand the use of Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts to set building standards in specified older neighborhoods.

Both alternatives have questions that need further research and discussion, Silver said in the memo.

The City Council might discuss the proposals at its Tuesday meeting.

99 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

VIEW ALL 99 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments

Every day there are new restrictions on our ability to control our own lives, this is one more attempt. If our ITB Mayor wants to create firestorms, he has the knack.

What we need is to split Raleigh in two: ITBRaleigh, and OTBRaleigh. Then at least some tax revenue could be spent rationally, not wasted on socialistic ideas.

retroconsultant
December 4, 2007 10:47 p.m.

Rel estate has one rule - location. If I find the location I want, and I don't like the house, I will tear it down. I don't care wht was there, unless there is a state or federal law prohibiting it. If the neighborhood was so perfect, there would be no need to tear down the houses and build new ones. The only thing that can be "perfect" about real estate is location. Everything else is negotiable and every piece of land has a price. What is yours, Hong? 500k? 1m? I imagine if I paid you 750k for you saltbox, you would take money and you would be the first one to swing the hammer if I asked. And what makes you, or anyone else, the authority on taste in design? I really think Dorton arena is a fantastic structure. A lot of people want to tear it down. Who gets to decide? I bet you think you do. Well, no you don't. I might want to build a pink house shaped like a horse. As long as the RC's don't restrict it, why not? I assume it will be ok with you as long as it is the right size right?

pleshy
December 4, 2007 8:39 p.m.

Roadgeek: What you don't seem to understand is that these old established neighborhoods don't need you. They are doing just fine on their own. If you want to go to South Raleigh and try out your [?] ideas, go ahead. Why do people like you think you need to take a pefectly good neighborhood, and change it?? White Oak Drive and Anderson have some really nice homes. Why destroy them so you could put up a McM that is an eyesore?

HongKongPhooey
December 4, 2007 6:13 p.m.

As for my moniker, Roadgeek, my interests mainly have to do with transportation in the Triangle. This area has been growing faster than the ability of government to address a lot of infrastructure needs including basic roadbuilding. I am a clear supporter of ANY-density infill that doesn't require wasted tax dollars to build roads to service a few further and further out into the countryside. I don't care if the infill is a mcmansion or a six-story condo in Hayes Barton, it's still infill. I believe in the free market economy. Inside the beltline, the market has changed, and people need to adapt rather than asking for more regulation to subsidize their unwillingness to change at the expense of economic growth. Every dollar lost in valuation inside the beltline is another dollar that has to be taken from everyone else.