Unified Development Ordinance

[KJHburg]

Houston as mentioned in this thread has no single family zoning or ANY zoning at all.   

Most people in metro Houston live in master planned communities or neighborhoods with deed restrictions etc and most of these have no gates by the way.  In fact Houston has the largest share of new home sales in master planned communities than any other major metro.  My friend who lives in Houston is very careful where he has bought homes and does like to avoid anything but master planned communities.  (owns one home in Katy and one in Sugar Land)

However in the older parts of Houston you can see the how this works there.  I am not saying this would happen here but here are some examples from EaDo (East of Downtown) and the Heights another intown neighborhood.    what you get there in Houston is very large tall houses very close together overshadowing the smaller houses.  Of course this is happening with new SF homes in older neighborhoods think off South Blvd and in  Seversville etc. 

first 4 photos in The Heights  the rest of the photos are from EaDo which was light industrial warehouses, some smaller SF homes.  

My only concern with lifting the SF zoning citywide is that the smallest most affordable house in that neighborhood is probably the one that will be demolished and replaced with 3 more expensive townhomes or a more expensive duplex.  I don't really see how this provides more affordable housing.  However I do believe accessory dwelling units little detached or even added on to an existing home makes more sense.  Apartments over detached garages etc.  I am all for increasing density all long the transit corridors.   We do need more housing in this city of all price ranges but if more affordable housing is one of the goals on this plan lets talk about government owned tracts (by the city and county). land trusts,.   And the Eastland site was major miss in my book where a good bit of affordable housing could be built and mixed in with other housing.  

 

one more thing on Houston despite not having any zoning in the city limits it looks like most other major US cities with the exception of sign ordinances and the occasional high rise overlooking a single family home.   But because of "private zoning" through master planned communities and deed restrictions you don't really see a gas station in the middle of neighborhood.   Houston's intown neighborhoods are exploding with new housing much like Charlotte but far denser. 

 

[davidclt]

11 hours ago, KJHburg said:

Most people in metro Houston live in master planned communities or neighborhoods with deed restrictions

Is that not replacing zoning hell for HOA hell? I watch (from afar and via proxy through the eyes of my parents) the petty battles and things people get bent out of shape about in their Florida neighborhood and it makes the zoning squabbles seem quaint by comparison. I think the pearl-clutching by the developers and realtors in relation to the 2040 Plan (and UDO) is quaint and I fear that Charlotte's City Council is going to fold to their whims completely as they craft the final plan.

That said, any thoughts on this thread from Twitter today on housing and neighborhood configuration: Alfred Twu on Twitter: "Missing middle housing - fourplexes, townhouses, etc - is great for most places."

[JHart]

12 hours ago, KJHburg said:

My only concern with lifting the SF zoning citywide is that the smallest most affordable house in that neighborhood is probably the one that will be demolished and replaced with 3 more expensive townhomes or a more expensive duplex.  I don't really see how this provides more affordable housing. 

Because the smallest most affordable house in the neighborhood is already getting demolished for a giant rectangle 5 feet from the property line but we could fit 3-4 families in the same space. We have a limited supply of houses and well short of what we need, especially with the number of people moving here. Unfortunately we are a long way from an equilibrium point and the crazy interest rates we have aren't helping, but much better to get ahead of it now and maximize the utility of the land in highly desired urban neighborhoods 

[SgtCampsalot]

22 hours ago, davidclt said:

From Mayor Lyles:

I'm disappointed in the lack of response from Larken and Braxton  even an acknowledgement that I sent mail (and I'll give Julie a  few days since I didn't send it to her until today).

I've emailed every member individually several times in the last 12 months and Mayor Lyles is the only one that always responds every time. It's spotty at best beyond that.

I'd never heard the word "anodyne" before and it is definitely uniquely abrasive in it's own way! 

[davidclt]

1 hour ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Mayor Lyles is the only one that always responds every time. It's spotty at best beyond that.

I'd never heard the word "anodyne" before and it is definitely uniquely abrasive in it's own way! 

The word itself or what it conveys? It so perfectly describes the sorts of dulcet tones our elected representatives respond with. I'd much prefer absolute transparency, "We don't like [whatever] because it threatens our reelection." Again, I would be a rotten politician.  I did hear back from Julie. The, "have not had enough opportunity for an informed conversation/debate on some of the key components" has me a little concerned. 

Quote

Thank you for reaching out regarding the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.  While I support a lot of this plan, the council and the public have not had enough opportunity for an informed conversation/debate on some of the key components.

It is important to compile a list of specific concerns so that the public and council members can discuss the merits and challenges.  If you would like to have your specific comments about components of the plan recorded, please go to the 2040 plan website and you can email your comments about the plan so that we can have them all in one place and available to the public.  I have provided the website and the email address below:

https://cltfuture2040.com/
[email protected]

 

[JacksonH]

8 hours ago, davidclt said:

Is that not replacing zoning hell for HOA hell? 

Something like that.  Houston's lack of zoning laws, and letting developers do whatever they wish (including destroying wetlands) is why it's now so prone to flooding.  Not a good model for Charlotte to follow.

[Spartan]

The Comp Plan and UDO are not proposing to eliminate single family zoning, but it would open up more parts of the city for missing middle housing. If you actually read what is being proposed it makes sense and seems pretty reasonable to me. There would be locational components for 3, 4 plex housing (along arterials, in station areas, etc.), and there would be form requirements for all of it. You would not be able to go into a SFR neighborhood and build a monstrosity like you're seeing in Houston. The forms would have to resemble the character of the neighborhood they are in (ie: height, width, scale of building etc.).

Our 1st ring neighborhoods in Charlotte are full of these types of housing, and it has not negatively affected them at all. Here's a triplex in Dilworth you can rent for less than $1000/mo within spittin' distance of South End. Sounds pretty affordable to me. How many of you have driven by this house and not realized it was even a triplex?

Also, duplexes are already allowed on corner lots pretty much anywhere in the city, and you aren't seeing every corner lot being developed. I think the 'danger' is being overhyped. Duplexes alone are not going to solve the affordable housing crisis, but they should be part of the toolbox. 

[Poo Diddy]

Quote

Here's a triplex in Dilworth you can rent for less than $1000/mo within spittin' distance of South End. Sounds pretty affordable to me. How many of you have driven by this house and not realized it was even a triplex?

If memory serves me correct I think that is a quadplex.  Very good example of historic "missing middle housing".  The neighborhoods around UNCG & NC State have a bunch of these old homes that are broken up into 3-6 units.  UNCG area has a good handful of stacked fourplex buildings

[videtur quam contuor]

Diane St John owned that house for many years, decades. It was a survivor of the period when the old homes, too large for modern living, were cheaply converted into multiple living spaces. I lived in one on that same block. There were 5 or 6 such structures on that block and the one pictured is the survivor as a multi-family home. Historic area saves it, for now. It should not require grandfathered structures or historic designations to allow this.

Welcome Poo Diddy. You must know the neighborhood. Join the fray.

[archiham04]

32 minutes ago, Poo Diddy said:

If memory serves me correct I think that is a quadplex.  Very good example of historic "missing middle housing".  The neighborhoods around UNCG & NC State have a bunch of these old homes that are broken up into 3-6 units.  UNCG area has a good handful of stacked fourplex buildings

WELCOME TO UP @Poo Diddy!!!!

[Norm2]

According to the Ledger, there is discussion of eliminating triplexes from the UDO.

[tozmervo]

If you support the UDO recommendations, PLEASE tell your representatives. As is often the case, positive comments go unspoken far more than negative comments. If you think these parts of the UDO are worth supporting you MUST speak up or they will get NIMBY'd out of the plans. 

[SgtCampsalot]

On 3/12/2021 at 11:12 AM, tozmervo said:

If you support the UDO recommendations, PLEASE tell your representatives. As is often the case, positive comments go unspoken far more than negative comments. If you think these parts of the UDO are worth supporting you MUST speak up or they will get NIMBY'd out of the plans. 

Bumping this sentiment^ to email City Council members about this.

Can I propose we make this UDO thread pinned to the front page until it's over/concluded? Given its central nature to most of what we discuss here.

 

City Council Email addresses:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[tozmervo]

^ James Mitchell resigned due to conflict of interest, replaced by Greg Phipps who was appointed to serve out the term. [email protected]

[KJHburg]

I like this idea from the city of Angels Los Angeles  an approved list of ADU styles and types. Of course they would need to be adapted to Charlotte look but this could be helpful

Los Angeles adopts “standard plan program” to encourage ADU construction – BRANDON DONNELLY

the approved list from LA

Approved Standard Plans | LADBS

[Guest]

Sorry lads,

I was a 'Strategic Advisor' for the Comp Plan since like five years ago and had worries about what would happen since about three years ago. Charlotte's 2040 Comp Plan and UDO mirrored Austin's attempt at overhauling it's zoning code significantly. Austin's process collapsed near the last minute as hyper-local politics took over. With Charlotte's historic black neighborhoods now calling for a 'pause', I believe it's a 90% chance this whole thing collapses. There were too many stake-holders, this process took way too long , and it was a very high risk play by city staff since the beginning.

The planning department and city staff owe some responsibility for this considering Austin, TX bombed their reform attempts and was a massive warning. The planning department  only tried to compensate by extending the public comment process. This was like in mid 2018 and it was a six month delay originally. Then I believe the city council tried to delay the process by a further two years with complaints of 'not understanding' the draft plan. In which case the city council deserves their share of scrutiny. Cue 2021 and suddenly the city council is acting shocked again that this came out of no-where.

I need to re-read the draft plan as I have read a good chunk of it and skimmed others. You really just need to understand the first half or so of the document then skim the place types. There are a number of laudable goals but the fact of the matter is it doesn't spell out the necessary details that a zoning code would. The plan is supposed to be more vague and drive policy. The UDO (zoning code) is the actual law and that is where the details are required. Mary Newson tweeted the UDO re-write is a much more intensive process and I agree. So Charlotte went through 5+ years of this and still have yet to tackle the zoning part of the process. City staff, planning department, and city council blew their political capitol at just the plan stage.

No amount of extra public comment time will save the Comp Plan. There are hyper-local activists and industry interests now that are torpedoing the plan and city council won't defend it. I actually feel sorry for the planning department now.
 

As a land developer trying to build missing middle, I know missing middle is very vulnerable to regulations and have my own trust issues with the comp plan...

Page 103 2.2    "Allow fourplexes on all lots fronting arterials where single family detached dwellings are permitted when key city priorities are advanced and community benefit is provided such as affordable and/or workforce housing."

Okay so that is back-handed ban of fourplexes despite saying 'allow fourplexes'. Depending on the neighborhood's land price, fourplexes don't really allow for that much affordability anymore due to cost of construction. It's still much more affordable than a McMansion though! In parts of the city with more affordable land and with a subsidy, it would be possible to build 80% AMI housing but that certainly won't be in places like Elizabeth, Noda, Plaza Midwood anymore. That would of been a good idea... twenty years ago. So that means triplexes then would hopefully allowed by right but triplexes are a little awkward. The cost of construction is higher since it's more complicated than stacking two units on-top of another. At least though you can convert a single family home to a duplex and put a cottage in the back-yard right? Ah, that needs to spelled out in the UDO!

Egleston is sort-of right in how that and other features might not be enforceable. Impact Fee's have been challenged in NC courts multiple times and the town always loses. Yet the language is 'suggest' or 'explore' so it's not binding. So I think Egleston is being a snake here.

Let me make something clear, I actually support the 2040 Comp Plan but just... meh. I'm burnt out and realize I probably won't be building missing middle anytime soon.

Edited March 16, 2021 by mazman34340

[InTheYear2000]

I understand that it may be dead in the water but at the urging of this fine group I wrote the council in support anyhow. It can't hurt letting them know how I feel. 

[Guest]

I'll give it a shot.

As to the city council, seriously stop saying it's getting rid of 'single family zoning'.

Your getting rid of McMansion zoning. Your no longer mandating oversized, unaffordable McMansions.

[Blue_Devil]

37 minutes ago, mazman34340 said:

I'll give it a shot.

As to the city council, seriously stop saying it's getting rid of 'single family zoning'.

Your getting rid of McMansion zoning. Your no longer mandating oversized, unaffordable McMansions.

I mean, they sell just fine, so who is it unaffordable to? Maybe those people want to protect their interests? That said, I would prefer a Dilworth approach. 

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Blue_Devil said:

I mean, they sell just fine, so who is it unaffordable to? Maybe those people want to protect their interests? That said, I would prefer a Dilworth approach. 

Yes, they might be selling fine but it's a rigged system. Developers can't just split the lot in half most of the time and build two smaller houses. Or build a triplex. That's a 6-9 month approval time. Meanwhile a McMansion builder usually has by-right zoning.

Missing middle developers spends thousands of dollars shuffling paper-work back and forth to the various departments. Neighbors are called in and usually demand concessions that raise the cost of the project further. It's usually parking additions, less density, a story less in height. This can quickly kill the project because more modest missing middle can't absorb those costs. I was asked by the neighborhood to provide an affordable unit in a four-plex, 25% of my units. That ended the project in seconds.

The McMansion (for definitions sake I just call it homes that are +600,000$ in price) meanwhile is approved in like a week and a half. They usually come with 3 / 4 bedrooms. That type of housing is only appropriate for like 20-25% of the population, a nuclear family with multiple children. The rest of the population are young couples, singles, downsizing retirees, and maybe a small family with one child. They usually don't need a 4 bedroom home. It's a total mismatch, and usually a mismatch in price. Townhouses (which usually can support the family with multiple children anyways), are around 350,000$-400,000$ if on that same lot.

The damage is invisible but it's there. Instead of five, four, or three households growing up on a single property, it's knee-capped to one. Less available to support local businesses or transit. The land the McMansion was sold for... taken off the market of course and it will be decades before a redevelopment opportunity arises. Future developers will have to deal with higher land values and buying the home to demolish it.

It's class warfare at this point in my eyes. It's a completely deplorable abomination.

[videtur quam contuor]

I live in a condo development of 55 units off of Park Road in the Freedom Park identified area. Units here have been selling for ~400k$ in the last year or so, 3-4 bedroom townhouse style with a small rear yard of 500-700 sf. In the past 24 months several young families with small children have moved in and I think it is a way to take advantage of the neighborhood( in the larger sense), the school district, and the opportunity to live safely with the conveniences of 1700-2000 sf of living space and at a price they can afford. I have been here six years and this family/young children combination is a more recent wave. Every surrounding street has homes of 1-2 million$. In 1997, before this development, there was a single home on the property. 

[kermit]

I have not seen the original study, but this graphic is making its way around the tweeter. Lets not loose sight of why the UDO is important:

 

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by kermit

[elrodvt]

FYI you can get the plan by emailing the planning department. Although the plan may end up in the charlotte good intentions graveyard it still makes an attractive, nicely bound, coffee table book. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by elrodvt

[tozmervo]

Just now, elrodvt said:

FYI you can get the plan by email the planning department. Although the plan may end up in the charlotte good intentions graveyard it still makes an attractive, nicely bound, coffee table book. 

I think there will be a UDO one way or the other. The question to me is whether they revise it to keep single family-required zoning. 

[elrodvt]

 

1 minute ago, tozmervo said:

I think there will be a UDO one way or the other. The question to me is whether they revise it to keep single family-required zoning. 

If they do it'll not accomplish the main goal right?