Charlotte's Zoning Code Update

[SgtCampsalot]

Except the City's Planning Dept already caved and said it won't be a full-fledged form-based code.

??
*cracks knuckles*

Okay, here come the emails.

[southslider]

^Reports to Council are already calling for a "hybrid" code.

[SgtCampsalot]

^Dude...

So in the interest of not being cynical, we'd be able to get a lot of great stuff done within form-based "overlay" districts... right?

[Guest]

Worst case scenario: Status Quo with most zoning types especially with residential. Instead, form based code is mostly used for new developments on the outskirts of the city. Most infill development will still require tedious rezoning processes including upgrading from R-1 to UR-2.

Good, plausible case scenario: Despite traction from reactionary parties, zoning laws are changed mostly to match form based code. Some conventional zoning laws remain (not necessarily a bad thing), and the planning department still has the power to determine basic building design. Developers in turn will have much more freedom in deciding the function of their buildings. Parking requirements are greatly reduced.

[Spartan]

Except the City's Planning Dept already caved and said it won't be a full-fledged form-based code.

1. I'm honestly not opposed to a hybrid code. Charlotte is a massive city, and most of it can be well-served by traditional zoning. In the Centers, Corridors, and Wedges vernacular, all of the "Wedge" and "Industrial Activity Centers" would fall in this category.
2. Thanks to the all-knowing North Carolina General Assembly's new law, form-based zoning controls are essentially impossible on single family residential lots, so a hybrid approach is the only option.
3. If form-based zoning can be applied in the Centers and Corridors of Charlotte, then the vast majority of urban product being built would be captured.

[tozmervo]

Yeah, I'm not too sure I'd freak out about the suggestion of a "hybrid" code, we just have to be vigilant that the new code would go far enough.

One example: in a true form-based code, there really isn't any distinction of land use. It may be the most incredible urban-architectural work on the planet but I don't want to live next to a hog farm. Restricting hog farms is an example of how this would start becoming a hybrid code.

[archiham04]

Oh and low income housing too... Scott Stone and I think we should keep that out of South Charlotte!

[southslider]

Form-based overlays already exist in the City zoning code, such as PED overlays.

[SgtCampsalot]

Form-based overlays already exist in the City zoning code, such as PED overlays.

I spoke with a CLT planner once, and they said they consider TOD a "first step" toward FBC.

[Guest]

Primary goal:

 Remove the regulations preventing the construction of the 'missing middle'.Missing Middle housing is typically restricted from construction by zoning laws and is woefully under built in most cities.The beauty of this housing is in how it supports a population and tax-base that may support better transit options. 

[SgtCampsalot]

^^Yes, absolutely. Yes, yes, yes.

Andres Duany, one of the "founders" of the New Urbanism movement, has stated this as the missing link, even in the CNU community:
http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/03/why-andres-duany-so-focused-making-lean-urbanism-thing/8635/

Small-Scale Developers Boot Camp - CNU, is an organized front to help address this from the grassroots level.

There is a Small Developer Boot Camp coming this October 13-14th in Atlanta. I will hopefully be attending. Anyone else interested or curious?

[SgtCampsalot]

David Walters piece just authored:
For better designed development, we’re going to need a better code

[Guest]

Couldn't have said it better than myself, the Nook is a damn tragedy.

It also shows parking requirements are a gun to the head of developers. Granted, foolish developers may overbuild parking, but for people who think otherwise, what choice do you have?

[SgtCampsalot]

Couldn't have said it better than myself, the Nook is a damn tragedy.

It also shows parking requirements are a gun to the head of developers. Granted, foolish developers may overbuild parking, but for people who think otherwise, what choice do you have?

Small/Incremental developers- who, as time goes on, will be the life blood of good urbanism- are the ones who can't afford to build parking decks. So parking requirements need to be on a sliding scale with the private sector builders.

[Guest]

I started taking a zoning class from the Form Based Codes Institute.

According to one of the founders, the greatest mistakes in form based code are...

1. Thinking a hybrid approach is easier and as effective.
2. Not calibrating parking specific to form based areas.
3. Not refining land use tables.
4. Not calibrating open space requirements.
5. Not addressing frontages
6. Not integrating administrative reviews.

He specifically mentioned that if an outside consultant comes forwards and suggests a hybrid style code, you should be weary. So Charlotte might be already violating rule one. Part of the reason is because form based code works effectively in already semi walk-able neighborhoods and doesn't apply very well to sprawl (sadly about three quarters of Charlotte).

Open space and parking requirements I pray to god are going to be addressed. The ridiculous requirements are a main reason why the city has sprawled so much.

Guess we will have to wait till December when they pick the consultants?

[SgtCampsalot]

The emerging cross-ideological consensus on zoning

Great article about how use-based zoning is the primary factor in effectively limiting supply of housing and development, thereby raising costs and preventing affordability.

This one topic was my "ah-ha" moment years ago. There needs to be serious change. Do we think this will be addressed with Charlotte's zoning ordinance review?

[Spartan]

On 10/1/2015 at 0:29 PM, mazman34340 said:

I started taking a zoning class from the Form Based Codes Institute.

According to one of the founders, the greatest mistakes in form based code are...

1. Thinking a hybrid approach is easier and as effective.
2. Not calibrating parking specific to form based areas.
3. Not refining land use tables.
4. Not calibrating open space requirements.
5. Not addressing frontages
6. Not integrating administrative reviews.

He specifically mentioned that if an outside consultant comes forwards and suggests a hybrid style code, you should be weary. So Charlotte might be already violating rule one. Part of the reason is because form based code works effectively in already semi walk-able neighborhoods and doesn't apply very well to sprawl (sadly about three quarters of Charlotte).

Open space and parking requirements I pray to god are going to be addressed. The ridiculous requirements are a main reason why the city has sprawled so much.

Guess we will have to wait till December when they pick the consultants?

I would challenge that idea. While a hybrid approach probably wouldn't work well in a city with a smaller geography, It's the only approach that can work here given the current politics of North Carolina. The Tea Party controlled North Carolina General Assembly made it a law this year that cities can't regulate basic design on single family houses - so even if a 100% FBC was passed, none of the design elements that make FBC work would even apply.

Further, even if FBC were applicable to single family houses, you need some semblance of "bones" of an urban form to make it work right. The vast majority of Charlotte is single-family subdivisions that will never be walkable, regardless of the approach to zoning. So, why not concentrate the FBC in areas where it can have impact?

 

[southslider]

The current code already enables an urban core of UMUD, TOD, and PED, surrounded by a periphery of conventional drive-to B and R districts, save the occasional hybrid MUDD, NS, or CC node.

[archiham04]

22 hours ago, Spartan said:

 so even if a 100% FBC was passed, none of the design elements that make FBC work would even apply.

It will be interesting to see how broadly the term "design element" is applied.  For instance is restricting the location of a program element (such a garage) a design element?  If so, what isn't a design element?  A setback from the street serves no function other than aesthetic.   Is that illegal now? I would argue that design element requirements are things like dormers, lap siding, cedar shakes, brick.... and that a FBC could be constructed that talks about the "Form" and not the "design or aesthetic".  here's the legislation for those catching up

[archiham04]

22 hours ago, Spartan said:

The vast majority of Charlotte is single-family subdivisions that will never be walkable, regardless of the approach to zoning.

I generally agree but the recent changes in this little slice of single family suburbia, gives me hope.

[SgtCampsalot]

It would be nice if every parcel in the urban areas didn't have to be rezoned for residential. Individuals who want to build would save precious time and money.

[Spartan]

14 minutes ago, archiham04 said:

It will be interesting to see how broadly the term "design element" is applied.  For instance is restricting the location of a program element (such a garage) a design element?  If so, what isn't a design element?  A setback from the street serves no function other than aesthetic.   Is that illegal now? I would argue that design element requirements are things like dormers, lap siding, cedar shakes, brick.... and that a FBC could be constructed that talks about the "Form" and not the "design or aesthetic".  here's the legislation for those catching up

The law is actually very specific: 

"For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase "building design elements" means exterior building color; type or style of exterior cladding material; style or materials of roof structures or porches; exterior nonstructural architectural ornamentation; location or architectural styling of windows and doors, including garage doors; the number and types of rooms; and the interior layout of rooms." 

One of the central tenets of FBC and urban design for single family houses is that the garage should be located behind the front door, and ideally behind the house altogether. The inability to regulate this feature will more than likely result in more cookie-cutter subdivisions lined with garages with houses in the back (aka: snout houses). These, incidentally, are the same neighborhoods that for the most part did not hold their value during the recession.

 

[archiham04]

obviously I am catching up a bit too

[Guest]

TOD and PED are steps in the right direction but a full overhaul of the code would combine those types of zoning, perhaps with MUDD.

There are already way too many types of zoning for residential. It just makes the code unwieldy and confusing so I see things like R-2, R-3, R-4 being combined. That is some serious micro-management the city has no business in performing.

I hope the council and planning department starts by wiping out the most outdated sections. Should make it easier to overhaul when a good amount of waste in that 800 page monstrosity is trimmed.

[SgtCampsalot]

32 minutes ago, mazman34340 said:

There are already way too many types of zoning for residential. It just makes the code unwieldy and confusing so I see things like R-2, R-3, R-4 being combined. That is some serious micro-management the city has no business in performing.

Use-based zoning: Orderly, but Dumb.