Jump to content

Unified Development Ordinance


Recommended Posts

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 390
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm a bit impatient because the zoning code in the historic neighborhoods isn't 10 years out of date, it's at least fifty years out of date. They dumped 'eager beaver' suburban zoning on street-car ne

So yea, I get the personal impulse that it is a bad idea that allowing missing middle housing to be built in neighborhoods that are not transit accessible. However, I am reminded that this reflex cont

I think it's fair game for this topic. Changing land use policy is an inherently political process, and the tweet above provides a glimpse into the rhetoric of those opposed to change. I think it woul

Posted Images

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

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.

progress.jpg

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

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?

 

B0A4B02F-6DBC-4D5C-ABFD-9F25F5E08583.jpeg

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

Edited by kermit
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

B0A4B02F-6DBC-4D5C-ABFD-9F25F5E08583.jpeg

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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." 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

^ 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 by kermit
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

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. 

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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://up-bucket-0.s3.amazonaws.com/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
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.