Unified Development Ordinance

[Cadi40]

If the UDO is adopted it might be too late for South End, But it could easily make or break Noda, If it passes Noda and that area has the opportunity to become a dense community. It's not too late however for areas further south near the 485 Station.

[tozmervo]

10 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

What rules would help accommodate it so that a landowner could build something like a four-plex on a single family home plot without rezoning it (at least in certain areas)?

Every other area should be allowed to do one increment of intensity up by-right.

Charlotte Planning seems obsesses with keeping use-based zoning. It doesn't look like we're getting away from that, huh?

I think some use-based zoning is still appropriate. There are some business types out there that are fundamentally incompatible with a happy urban street. 

[Guest]

If the UDO is adopted it might be too late for South End, But it could easily make or break Noda, If it passes Noda and that area has the opportunity to become a dense community. It's not too late however for areas further south near the 485 Station.

I disagree. Don’t touch NoDa. North of Craighead sure, South of Matheson sure, across Light Rail sure, but don’t touch Noda.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[southslider]

^The block across 36th from Mercury NoDa is already done for.

[SgtCampsalot]

Not strictly UDO, but very important:

Charlotte Observer: Charlotte considers controversial plan that could block tiny houses near you"

"Neighborhood Character Overlay Districts": Minimum lot sizes, inability to cut up lots, no increase in density allowed... these are remnants of suburban sprawl policy.

They want to figure this out in a few months.

Edited March 9, 2018 by SgtCampsalot

[SgtCampsalot]

14 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Not strictly UDO, but very important:

Charlotte Observer: Charlotte considers controversial plan that could block tiny houses near you"

"Neighborhood Character Overlay Districts": Minimum lot sizes, inability to cut up lots, no increase in density allowed... these are remnants of suburban sprawl policy.

They want to figure this out in a few months.

I'm kind of surprised nobody has commented on this. 

If passed this could essentially negate any new UDO change made. This is one of the most disastrous things that could happen in our city.

[kermit]

1 hour ago, SgtCampsalot said:

I'm kind of surprised nobody has commented on this. 

meh, just more suburbanites behaving badly.

Nothing can be done to make them be more community minded, so lets just focus our energy on portions of town that can plausibly be made more sustainable.  Suburban communities that resist increasing their densities are will be blighted  in the near future anyway. 

#madeyourownbedlieinit #fudgeem

[Popsickle]

If communities want to limit their density and control their direction of growth so be. Not every inch of the city needs density. There is plenty of room for everyone to grow their community in the direction they see fit. 

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Popsickle

[SgtCampsalot]

8 hours ago, kermit said:

meh, just more suburbanites behaving badly.

Nothing can be done to make them be more community minded, so lets just focus our energy on portions of town that can plausibly be made more sustainable.  Suburban communities that resist increasing their densities are will be blighted  in the near future anyway. 

#madeyourownbedlieinit #fudgeem

Truth, but my concern is that: those suburban places already typically have HOAs with rules against this stuff.

Thus the only remaining places that would use this are the inner ring neighborhoods that desperately need more smart density in the years ahead.

Am I wrong?

Edited March 10, 2018 by SgtCampsalot

[kermit]

2 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Truth, but my concern is that: those suburban places already typically have HOAs with rules against this stuff.

Thus the only remaining places that would use this are the inner ring neighborhoods that desperately need more smart density in the years ahead.

Am I wrong?

I didn’t have the impression these were inner ring neighborhoods. Might be wrong. 

[SgtCampsalot]

22 minutes ago, kermit said:

I didn’t have the impression these were inner ring neighborhoods. Might be wrong. 

Wel, Cotswold was mentioned (gray area).

But my larger point is that once this is implemented, any neighborhood can push for it.

I know from Experience that Belmont, OP, Wesley Heights, and Dilworth would love this.

[kermit]

19 minutes ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Wel, Cotswold was mentioned (gray area).

But my larger point is that once this is implemented, any neighborhood can push for it.

I know from Experience that Belmont, OP, Wesley Heights, and Dilworth would love this.

I dunno, my experience in Dilworth is that there is some resentment of historic district standards and lots of neighbors (and me) would like to add granny flats.

I’ll admit to not reading the article but wouldn’t the UDO shortcircut these?

[Spartan]

On 3/6/2018 at 10:00 AM, SgtCampsalot said:

What rules would help accommodate it so that a landowner could build something like a four-plex on a single family home plot without rezoning it (at least in certain areas)?

Every other area should be allowed to do one increment of intensity up by-right.

Charlotte Planning seems obsesses with keeping use-based zoning. It doesn't look like we're getting away from that, huh?

The process to adopt the UDO is highly complex. I think we all understand the desire for expediency, but to do it without putting a lot of thought into the structure of the document could lead to a system that doesn't work any better than what we have now.

IMO there are several problems with Charlotte's zoning and building regulations (in no particular order):

1. The first is the ordinances that affect development are organized in a byzantine fashion. Its very unfriendly to developers regardless of whether or not they are trying to do the right thing.
2. The second is that the system is set up to reward developers who only want to do the bare minimum. Conventional rezonings and by-right development allow for pretty generic suburban development. Most of the "good" projects that we see in Charlotte are products of "conditional" rezoning plans that developers consent to do in order to gain support from city staff and council. Why would you subject a developer to jumping through extra hoops when they want to build a quality product and follow the local area plan while another developer is just going to get a rubber-stamped approval to build another drive-thru restaurant despite that the neighborhood doesn't want it? It's back-asswards. A UDO, if properly executed, makes it easier for developers who do the right thing to get an approval, and makes it challenging for those who don't.
3. The third is that the Euclidean zoning model encourages the development patterns we see by its very nature.

The UDO itself won't solve the current issues with zoning, but there is another process that's happening in parallel to the UDO is called "PlaceTypes" that could help. This is actually just as important as the UDO. PlaceTypes is essentially a comprehensive planning process that will apply criteria to define character of  different places across the city.  It's based on more form-based concepts, and would be implemented by allowing certain collections of existing zoning districts that would be applicable in each placetype. This one is kind of complicated to wrap your head around at first, but I highly recommend going to the city's website to read up on it. The PlaceTypes initiative is, IMO, a baby-step towards a hybrid form-based code, and would be effective because it is repurposing the existing land regulation tools to accomplish the same end, which is more form-based in nature.

 

On 3/9/2018 at 8:46 AM, SgtCampsalot said:

Not strictly UDO, but very important:

Charlotte Observer: Charlotte considers controversial plan that could block tiny houses near you"

"Neighborhood Character Overlay Districts": Minimum lot sizes, inability to cut up lots, no increase in density allowed... these are remnants of suburban sprawl policy.

They want to figure this out in a few months.

Depends on how the overlay district is applied. It could also function like a historic district with teeth, so you wouldn't be able to build townhomes in the middle of Dilworth or Cherry, etc.

[archiham04]

43 minutes ago, Spartan said:

....towards a hybrid form-based code....

This  is bantered around a lot to try and explain this rewrite, and I am convince it is adding to the confusion.  Form based and Euclidean Zoning are diametrically opposed in most lay persons minds:

Euclidean is use-based

Form based is well... form based.

Trying to find (or explain) something in-between is going to be an uphill battle.

[kermit]

12 minutes ago, archiham04 said:

.Form based and Euclidean Zoning are diametrically opposed in most lay persons minds:

I understand what you are saying, but to be fair, 99% of people have never once thought about zoning.  There might be fewer than 1,000 people in Charlotte who have a solid handle on the difference between these things.

[Spartan]

5 hours ago, archiham04 said:

This  is bantered around a lot to try and explain this rewrite, and I am convince it is adding to the confusion.  Form based and Euclidean Zoning are diametrically opposed in most lay persons minds:

Euclidean is use-based

Form based is well... form based.

Trying to find (or explain) something in-between is going to be an uphill battle.

I agree with what you're saying. I think we should go form-based for our most urban parts of the city - or the places we want to be walkable. I think those are the kind of comments that the Planning Dept and City Council need to hear.

I think the important thing to consider, though, is that the UDO process is not a zoning re-write. There are multiple ordinances that affect the way land is developed. If you can get all of them to work together in a way that makes sense you'll solve a lot of problems right there. Currently TOD is the only district being "tested" and updated/re-written under the new PlaceTypes growth framework and policies, and it will be re-written to better fit into the PlaceTypes/UDO construct. 

[SgtCampsalot]

At the UDO summit at UNCC Center Cit campus.

FYI on the current circumstances looks like TOD-A is to be approved and implemented by the end of the year.

And: Neighborhood Character Overlay District summary (worried about this one).

TOD-A Process:

Neighborhood Character Overlay District (NCOD) summary:

Edited March 24, 2018 by SgtCampsalot

[HighRiseHillbilly]

Anyone else besides us two here?

[Cadi40]

If this passes where exactly would they regulate height?

[SgtCampsalot]

12 minutes ago, Cadi40 said:

If this passes where exactly would they regulate height?

Being an "overlay district," the Neighborhood Character OD would be implemented on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, if pushed for/petitioned/etc by the specific community. Then, it would simply be an additional piece of scrutiny that Council, etc, would put proposed projects against. Not coercive, but an additional obstacle if you have certain projects in mind for an area. 
As collateral damage, it would make any incremental increases of density more difficult by making it harder for Plex Buildings (duplex, triplex,  quads) or townhomes to accommodate minimum parking requirements, etc. 

It's very possible the NCOD idea will not go anywhere. We will see...

25 minutes ago, HighRiseHillbilly said:

Anyone else besides us two here?

I have to leave early, please give your own report later! 

Edited March 24, 2018 by SgtCampsalot

[Finkle]

Please both of you keep up the conversation of these zoning types, I likes learning the differences in how they are applied.

[archiham04]

On 3/24/2018 at 8:33 AM, SgtCampsalot said:

At the UDO summit at UNCC Center Cit campus.

FYI on the current circumstances looks like TOD-A is to be approved and implemented by the end of the year.

And: Neighborhood Character Overlay District summary (worried about this one).

TOD-A Process:

Neighborhood Character Overlay District (NCOD) summary:

Cannot regulate:Land Use (this is pretty broad...) or rental vs owner occupied.  This is an important distinction.  As this concept has been rolled out i have been a little skeptical.... Seeing it as increasing landuse restrictions and therefore housing scarcity... driving up home prices and reducing affordability.

These provisions may open the market for form-based multifamily units in single family neighborhoods.  Perhaps even form based retail/restaurant?

[SgtCampsalot]

1 hour ago, archiham04 said:

Cannot regulate:Land Use (this is pretty broad...) or rental vs owner occupied.  This is an important distinction.  As this concept has been rolled out i have been a little skeptical.... Seeing it as increasing landuse restrictions and therefore housing scarcity... driving up home prices and reducing affordability.

These provisions may open the market for form-based multifamily units in single family neighborhoods.  Perhaps even form based retail/restaurant?

That's an interesting conclusion to draw. I would think it would severely limit the viability of smarter infill projects, since parking requirements typically doom projects with increased density on small, single-family lots...? Setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc, usually make it near impossible to fit the needed parking .

Or, are we each talking about something different?

Edited March 26, 2018 by SgtCampsalot

[kermit]

1 hour ago, archiham04 said:

These provisions may open the market for form-based multifamily units in single family neighborhoods.  Perhaps even form based retail/restaurant?

Which would be a good thing (IMO). We need neighborhood stores, taverns and restranants. Not having them is how we got into this mess in the first place. 

 

55 minutes ago, SgtCampsalot said:

That's an interesting conclusion to draw. I would think it would severely limit the viability of smarter infill projects, since parking requirements typically doom projects with increased density on small, single-family lots...? Setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc, usually make it near impossible to fit the needed parking .

Not an expert but I think the required parking will depend directly on how they draw the TOD boundaries. There are plenty of SFH neighborhoods that are close to rail (Wilmore, Dilworth, Elizabeth) and if TOD includes bus routes.....

[SgtCampsalot]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

Which would be a good thing (IMO). We need neighborhood stores, taverns and restranants. Not having them is how we got into this mess in the first place. 

 

Not an expert but I think the required parking will depend directly on how they draw the TOD boundaries. There are plenty of SFH neighborhoods that are close to rail (Wilmore, Dilworth, Elizabeth) and if TOD includes bus routes.....

That is true, but more-dense development is needed in exponentially more communities than just those near rail lines.

Edited March 26, 2018 by SgtCampsalot