Unified Development Ordinance

[tozmervo]

11 minutes ago, elrodvt said:

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

The single-family housing thing has dwarfed the discussion, but it's only one part of a much broader sweeping change. It's also not all or nothing - they could leave some sliver of single family zoning intact and eliminate the rest. They could also flatly eliminate a lot of the unsustainable parts of single family zoning like ludicrous setbacks and FARs 

[RANYC]

28 minutes ago, elrodvt said:

 

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

Not necessarily.  Maybe they don't eliminate SF zoning, but they can still incentivize dense and multi-use developments or even encourage and streamline rezonings away from S-F.  Also, the broad stroke aims of the Comp Plan still need to get translated into Development Ordinance provisions.  

[Blue_Devil]

56 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Not necessarily.  Maybe they don't eliminate SF zoning, but they can still incentivize dense and multi-use developments or even encourage and streamline rezonings away from S-F.  Also, the broad stroke aims of the Comp Plan still need to get translated into Development Ordinance provisions.  

In all honesty, sometimes these things would work better if they just looked at the demographics of who this would affect. Removing single family zoning in Dilworth, I doubt there is much of a fight. Remove single family zoning over by Coulwood or Westbourne, and they are going to flip their lids. These are areas that are already actively fighting townhomes tooth and nail. They are goingt o fight this rezoning tooth and nail. 

[elrodvt]

True. I was reacting to urban infill being the largest benefit in that bar chart on the previous page.

[KJHburg]

This I am in favor of ADUs are booming in California.  Great for some rental income,  great for Airbnb if your neighborhood allows or great for guest suite.

Can Granny Flats Fill California's Housing Gap? - Bloomberg

[kermit]

Perhaps the elimination of single family  zoning will get a bit of a nudge from the federal government:

 

 

[Guest]

I watched this on the 5th but it was a strategy session with the city council. Some of them are talking about the UDO like they just started the process and are getting the basic concepts down. What the heck have some of them been doing these past years, especially the mulit-term councilmen?

I won't call defeat yet but there's a very high chance of collapse soon. Further delays will make defeat inevitable. It's impossible to build a community consensus. Were trying to gain consent by the governed.

One thing that makes this so hopelessly charged is the timing of the market. 15% year over year price spikes are insane. It was no-where near as crazy in Minneapolis when they overhauled their code years ago. So everyone is emotionally charged.

[Guest]

This is very, very savvy. Charlotte just disarmed one of REBIC's half-truth talking points. Inclusionary zoning is an aspirational goal. Impact fees have been challenged in state courts and the city usually loses. So Charlotte will explore that option. It's not mandated at all in a planning document.

I've been a pessimist for a lil' while but this and a YIMBY group starting to form  means victory can be clenched from the jaws of defeat.

Edited May 8, 2021 by mazman34340

[SgtCampsalot]

3 hours ago, mazman34340 said:

This is very, very savvy. Charlotte just disarmed one of REBIC's half-truth talking points. Inclusionary zoning is an aspirational goal. Impact fees have been challenged in state courts and the city usually loses. So Charlotte will explore that option. It's not mandated at all in a planning document.

I've been a pessimist for a lil' while but this and a YIMBY group starting to form  means victory can be clenched from the jaws of defeat.

This has always gotten me for years: people scream for city policies that have been blocked time and again by the state, then hold the City responsible.

[kermit]

WHY TF have these guys still not done any homework on the most important new policy in Charlotte in a generation? Any first year planning student can tell you that density brings revenue and cost savings benefits to the community.

Just about any student who has taken a course on the environment can also explain why density is absolutely necessary to build sustainable cities.

They are not doing their jobs. Can we vote every one of these assholes out now?

 

EDIT: Wow, new bad word filter is better than before!

Edited May 18, 2021 by kermit

[Blue_Devil]

15 minutes ago, kermit said:

WHY TF have these guys still not done any homework on the most important new policy in Charlotte in a generation? Any first year planning student can tell you that density brings revenue and cost savings benefits to the community.

Just about any student who has taken a course on the environment can also explain why density is absolutely necessary to build sustainable cities.

They are not doing their jobs. Can we vote every one of these assholes out now?

 

Braxton has made it know he does not support density if it means pushing people from low income neighborhoods, especially around uptown. Low income single family homes have priority over everything else. He sited other cases when changes to zoning pushed out low income families as developers moved in. 

[kermit]

^ Yea, I know where Braxton is coming from but he needs to see that single family zoning does nothing to protect neighborhoods facing the threat of displacement. I would argue that maintaining SF zoning  will actually make the neighborhoods more exclusionary (look at what has happened in Wilmore, Sedgefield, Montford and Colonial Village). As long as Charlotte is growing at its current rate all intown neighborhoods face a bleak future in terms of housing cost (see Belmont, Villa Heights, Tryon Hills and Grier Heights). Allowing for more infill, for sale housing everywhere is the only thing that might ease displacement pressures in places like Hidden Valley -- these guys are fooling themselves if they think the current zoning system slows displacement. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by kermit

[RANYC]

14 hours ago, kermit said:

Single family zoning does nothing to protect neighborhoods facing the threat of displacement. I would argue that maintaining SF zoning  will actually make the neighborhoods more exclusionary (look at what has happened in Wilmore, Sedgefield, Montford and Colonial Village). As long as Charlotte is growing at its current rate all intown neighborhoods face a bleak future in terms of housing cost (see Belmont, Villa Heights, Tryon Hills and Grier Heights). Allowing for more infill, for sale housing everywhere is the only thing that might ease displacement pressures in places like Hidden Valley -- these guys are fooling themselves if they think the current zoning system slows displacement. 

This is why Braxton Winston is a walking model of cognitive dissonance and ultimately an ineffective player in this entire community discourse.  I said early on that his injection of racism accusations would likely be the death knell of the initiative to liberalize zoning.  He's not strategic whatsoever.  And it is a lack of systems thinking, in my opinion, to argue for inclusionary zoning in one context, but to then create a special carve-out for single-family zoning in neighborhoods which are considered to be low-income and your special interest group.  So inclusionary zoning is fair for one set of Charlotteans, but for his constituency, he wants to keep land-use inefficiency in place.  This sort of dissonance is exactly the opposite of what it takes to operate and make decisions on principle, and with allies like Braxton, this thing is dead.  I've moved on and no longer view ubiquitous multi-family zoning as a realistic goal - whether by lot or by place-type.  Instead, we have plenty of places in the city that can and should be "densified" without controversy, and the city should just set its sights on those areas.  If the city can responsibly manage densification and housing diversity in these non-controversial parts, then the reach of that approach can be revisited.

[Blue_Devil]

I mean, I look at Dilworth, and I see support for this, and I see Triplex's and DuPlexes all over the neighborhood, next to townhomes, and even next to apartment complexes. And it is the most sought after neighborhood in the city, and driving through it, it seems like a true urban community. Places like Dilworth should be a model of urban neighborhoods. Yes there are a lot of single family homes, but even they are tightly packed together, many of which have an apartment over the stand alone garage, which could be an ADU if allowed. 

 

[RANYC]

5 hours ago, RANYC said:

This is why Braxton Winston is a walking model of cognitive dissonance and ultimately an ineffective player in this entire community discourse.  I said early on that his injection of racism accusations would likely be the death knell of the initiative to liberalize zoning.  He's not strategic whatsoever.  And it is a lack of systems thinking, in my opinion, to argue for inclusionary zoning in one context, but to then create a special carve-out for single-family zoning in neighborhoods which are considered to be low-income and your special interest group.  So inclusionary zoning is fair for one set of Charlotteans, but for his constituency, he wants to keep land-use inefficiency in place.  This sort of dissonance is exactly the opposite of what it takes to operate and make decisions on principle, and with allies like Braxton, this thing is dead.  I've moved on and no longer view ubiquitous multi-family zoning as a realistic goal - whether by lot or by place-type.  Instead, we have plenty of places in the city that can and should be "densified" without controversy, and the city should just set its sights on those areas.  If the city can responsibly manage densification and housing diversity in these non-controversial parts, then the reach of that approach can be revisited.

Having said all that - I do think Braxton Winston is an important voice in the community.  Sometimes his statements are a bit artless, but I value his candor.  I think there's food for thought in that candor.  I'd much rather hear Braxton's candor, than to hear Ed Driggs tell a Young Republicans Group that the other side is "dumb."  We need to encourage candor and people sticking their necks out with totally new ways of looking at the status quo without feeling like a creative imagination will be called out as "dumb." 

[Blue_Devil]

Looks like an Uptown height restriction was snuck into the UDO? From the Biz Journal. 20 Story Max Height:

"For reasons of sustainability and attracting corporate relocations, density in center city can be a benefit in of itself," Egleston said. "If we want a robust, successful transit system, we need unlimited density inside of 277 and maybe on the edges around 277." Council member Braxton Winston said density has not benefitted everyone historically. He said bankers that developed tall office buildings also created the Overstreet Mall, an indoor retail center in uptown towers and corridors that connect bank towers, instead of street-level retail off of public sidewalks. He said the Overstreet Mall was designed in such a way that bankers wouldn't have to interact with people who didn't work at the bank. "Density by itself doesn’t benefit all of Charlotte," Winston said.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Blue_Devil said:

Looks like an Uptown height restriction was snuck into the UDO? From the Biz Journal. 20 Story Max Height:

"For reasons of sustainability and attracting corporate relocations, density in center city can be a benefit in of itself," Egleston said. "If we want a robust, successful transit system, we need unlimited density inside of 277 and maybe on the edges around 277." Council member Braxton Winston said density has not benefitted everyone historically. He said bankers that developed tall office buildings also created the Overstreet Mall, an indoor retail center in uptown towers and corridors that connect bank towers, instead of street-level retail off of public sidewalks. He said the Overstreet Mall was designed in such a way that bankers wouldn't have to interact with people who didn't work at the bank. "Density by itself doesn’t benefit all of Charlotte," Winston said.

 

This quote doesn’t say anything backing up your statement. I highly doubt that they would limit to 20 stories, but would be interested to see more about this if true

[KJHburg]

Here is the whole article from the Biz Journal and yes there is talk of putting extra costs or community benefits on high rises over 500 feet.  and I am not sure how the Overstreet Mall  got drug into this discussion.  It was built because we have very hot and humid summers and cold wet winters not because bankers did not want to interact with others.

This 500 foot limit without more dollars for "community benefits" is insane.   RAISE THE PROPERTY TAXES then if these evil high rises buildings are so bad for city to fund your special projects.   When did our high rises become so bad??   How about big box warehouses?   how about homes have higher tax rates over 3000 sq ft?   I thought this city wanted density I guess not. 

 

the article in its entirety:

""Language in the city of Charlotte's 2040 comprehensive plan around building height in uptown has drawn the ire of real estate executives and some council members.

Today, most of uptown Charlotte — inside of the Interstate 277 loop but some parcels outside of it, too — is zoned UMUD, or uptown mixed-use district. That's the most flexible zoning district in the city today, and does not have a maximum building height.

In the 2040 plan, released in October and the subject of many lengthy Charlotte City Council meetings recently, it says "buildings may be as tall as 20 stories in uptown or when developed with community benefits such as public space and amenities or affordable housing."

That language has some questioning whether height restrictions will be placed on new development in uptown — and what constitutes a community benefit.

Many of center city's towers are well above 20 stories. Duke Energy Plaza, underway now on Tryon Street, is twice that — at 40 stories — as an example.

The issue was brought up during Monday's council meeting, when elected officials took straw votes on multiple items relating to language, provisions and revisions to the 2040 plan.

While most of the recent attention has been on allowing duplex and triplex development across Charlotte, other items have been more contentious with real estate developers — including building height in uptown.

Taiwo Jaiyeoba, assistant city manager and planning director, said during Monday's meeting specific language and height before a community benefits requirement kicks in has not been finalized. He said it would be amended to be 500 feet or taller, but actual height will be determined during the unified development ordinance process.

He said the provision is similar to the height bonus menu in the transit-oriented development ordinance council adopted in 2019. That requires developers to make commitments related to city priorities in order to develop taller than a TOD district's maximum height. Commitments could include a certain percentage of affordable-housing units in a residential project.

"It's not something that’s foreign to our urban landscape," Jaiyeoba said. "People want to live uptown, businesses want to be uptown. We believe as you build taller, there should be some benefits (included that) the community can be a part of."

The plan right now only mentions affordable housing, public spaces and amenities. It's not clear whether anything else, or what specifically, would be considered a community benefit in this context.

Developers, including local industry group Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, say the measure would stifle economic development in Charlotte.

"It does not sound favorable for economic development in uptown or regional activity centers [a place type] designated elsewhere," reads a comment on the 2040 plan.

At the public hearing for the plan in March, Tom Coyle, office partner at Childress Klein, mentioned the 20-story language during his remarks.

He said it's unclear what the meaning of community benefits would be in the context of the 2040 plan.

"There's essentially no height limit in uptown," Coyle continued. "Imagine the negative impact a 20-story height limit would have on attracting businesses to the center city."
Council member Larken Egleston, whose district includes parts of uptown, said he felt the city would hamper its vision for uptown by putting in any type of height restriction.

"For reasons of sustainability and attracting corporate relocations, density in center city can be a benefit in of itself," Egleston said. "If we want a robust, successful transit system, we need unlimited density inside of 277 and maybe on the edges around 277."

Council member Braxton Winston said density has not benefitted everyone historically. He said bankers that developed tall office buildings also created the Overstreet Mall, an indoor retail center in uptown towers and corridors that connect bank towers, instead of street-level retail off of public sidewalks.

He said the Overstreet Mall was designed in such a way that bankers wouldn't have to interact with people who didn't work at the bank.

"Density by itself doesn’t benefit all of Charlotte," Winston said.

Council member Tariq Bokhari said the uptown measure is one of several height limitations in the 2040 plan document. He said he felt like council needed to consider all other references to height limits and that officials never had a discussion around those restrictions.

Council member Dimple Ajmera said she didn't see an issue with incentivizing developers to incorporate affordable housing or sustainability measures to build taller.

Ajmera made a motion on Monday to discuss height specifics for uptown buildings as part of the UDO. Council voted 6-5 in support of that measure.""

end of article. 

[Guest]

Okay so the article clarifies that the 20 story thing was a misunderstanding. 

[kermit]

^ Glad to hear this was one of the many misunderstandings on the document.

As an aside, those sorts of public space requirements are the thing that gave London its best observation deck. [not saying I think height limitations in Charlotte are a good idea]

https://skygarden.london/

(the skygarden, which is free, is how the walkie talkie building fulfilled its public space requirement)

Edited May 19, 2021 by kermit

[Blue_Devil]

KJ thanks for clearing that up. Definitely quoted the wrong part. That said, until the 500 foot portion is added m, it is still 20 stories. The article says the final height still needs to be added.

We should all be worried about how that language got added and if it will actually be resolved. I highly doubt it was a mistake we are lucky it was noticed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Norm2]

1 hour ago, Blue_Devil said:

KJ thanks for clearing that up. Definitely quoted the wrong part. That said, until the 500 foot portion is added m, it is still 20 stories. The article says the final height still needs to be added.

We should all be worried about how that language got added and if it will actually be resolved. I highly doubt it was a mistake we are lucky it was noticed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have been mostly supportive of the 2040 plan so far, but I do not support any height restrictions in Uptown.

[tozmervo]

In the draft October document, there is some slightly contradicting language regarding "Regional Activity Centers," which covers most of Uptown. The main language is below, but there is language elsewhere that infers going over 20 stories is possible by providing community benefit, such as affordable housing or other community space. There is at least one suggestion of an ultimate maximum height of 50 stories. 

Beyond acknowledging the "sexy" factor of really tall buildings, I'm agnostic on this issue. Supertall buildings are far from necessary for a great city and their are some pretty significant physical downsides to supertall buildings. 

[Norm2]

8 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

In the draft October document, there is some slightly contradicting language regarding "Regional Activity Centers," which covers most of Uptown. The main language is below, but there is language elsewhere that infers going over 20 stories is possible by providing community benefit, such as affordable housing or other community space. There is at least one suggestion of an ultimate maximum height of 50 stories. 

Beyond acknowledging the "sexy" factor of really tall buildings, I'm agnostic on this issue. Supertall buildings are far from necessary for a great city and their are some pretty significant physical downsides to supertall buildings. 

Seems like the city planner is going after the "wedding cake look" with the set backs of taller buildings.

[Blue_Devil]

In the draft October document, there is some slightly contradicting language regarding "Regional Activity Centers," which covers most of Uptown. The main language is below, but there is language elsewhere that infers going over 20 stories is possible by providing community benefit, such as affordable housing or other community space. There is at least one suggestion of an ultimate maximum height of 50 stories. 
http://content.invisioncic.com/x329420/monthly_2021_05/image.png.b00374191f0a36d7a2ace5be0cd8fc93.png
Beyond acknowledging the "sexy" factor of really tall buildings, I'm agnostic on this issue. Supertall buildings are far from necessary for a great city and their are some pretty significant physical downsides to supertall buildings. 

I am sorry, but the city council should not be dictating high restrictions in what should be the tallest part of the city, when we are expected to be adding 500,000 people in the next 18 years. We need density or we will get sprawl and have communities priced out of their own homes. Look at San Francisco and their height and home building restrictions that lasted years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk