Jump to content

Unified Development Ordinance


kermit

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Blue_Devil said:


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

wow, 500,000 in 18 years?  Is that a projection you saw for the city, or for the metro?

Sorry to take it back to the very very basic, but I need a pep talk on growth.  I never get on a plane or a bus and say to myself, "Gee, I wish more people were packed in here."  

I do like the idea of specialists bringing specific skills and value-adding prowess to the local economy, but alas, there's no immigration policy for people moving to Charlotte.  Is it wrong for a city to plan for growth in a way that encourages a high-skilled, high-specialty version of it?  Because I don't think I'm so much for adding bodies for the sake of a population count ranking list.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Blue_Devil said:


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

Not opposed to "super-rises," but I'm much more interested in what happens at ground level Uptown.  I hope we never see something like the Overland Mall again. 

Perhaps Braxton would be satisfied with pedestrian-oriented design standards for super-rises that take on even more importance when the structures go super-high.  From what I've seen when walking along Tryon, it appears many of our developers and their tenants have already tried to do forms of community enhancement on a voluntary basis given all the green space and frontal plazas I see.  I agree that some sort of a nebulous community benefits agreement for high rises would be problematic.  I want as much life and build-up in uptown as possible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an inverse relationship between a building's height and how pedestrian friendly the base can be. Either the building gets much much wider to accommodate a greater need of services (super block), or there's no square footage leftover for amenities. Physically, you need larger lobbies and more elevators to accommodate more people.  You also need more space for back of house functions, like security, systems rooms, loading docks, and waste management. 

In the Uptown renovations that have improved sidewalk frontage, you're seeing what is already business space turned into better business space - I can't think of an example that has actually turned building lobby circulation into business square footage. (101 N Tryon might be doing this - TBD)

All of the wasteful BS super-high-rise condos in New York don't have this problem because they are built for such a tiny population that's never there to begin with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2021 at 1:20 PM, RANYC said:

wow, 500,000 in 18 years?  Is that a projection you saw for the city, or for the metro?

Sorry to take it back to the very very basic, but I need a pep talk on growth.  I never get on a plane or a bus and say to myself, "Gee, I wish more people were packed in here."  

I do like the idea of specialists bringing specific skills and value-adding prowess to the local economy, but alas, there's no immigration policy for people moving to Charlotte.  Is it wrong for a city to plan for growth in a way that encourages a high-skilled, high-specialty version of it?  Because I don't think I'm so much for adding bodies for the sake of a population count ranking list.

If the city pf Charlotte grows by 3% per year (a bit faster than its current growth rate) it will add around 300,000 people over 18 years.

I agree, growth for growth’s sake is rarely a good thing for a local economy. From a fiscal perspective growth of middle and low income groups tends to be more of a fiscal drain than a benefit after considering externalities like congestion, schools and municipal services. Atlanta is the poster child of what can happen when a metro pursues growth without thinking.

There is nothing that can be done to directly limit internal migration in the US. The most common indirect strategy is to create regulatory barriers to housing construction (e.g. zoning, this is the Chapel Hill approach) which ramps up the cost of living.  But the developer-driven politics of Charlotte means that is unlikely to ever happen (and the surrounding counties will all keep building anyway). The more politically doable approach to limit local growth is to shape local industrial policy so that only high(ish) wage jobs are encouraged here. In NC this would be done via incentives policy, which you could easily change to just provide incentives for jobs paying $x or higher (meaning no more $ for Red Ventures expansions). While most US politicians would avoid such a strategy since they mistakenly believe every new job is a net positive, this is how more advanced and affluent places (e.g. Munich) manage economic development, and the strategy has been very successful in upgrading wages and labor force skill there.

Edited by kermit
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kermit said:

If the city pf Charlotte grows by 3% per year (a bit faster than its current growth rate) it will add around 300,000 people over 18 years.

I agree, growth for growth’s sake is rarely a good thing for a local economy. From a fiscal perspective growth of middle and low income groups tends to be more of a fiscal drain than a benefit after considering externalities like congestion, schools and municipal services. Atlanta is the poster child of what can happen when a metro pursues growth without thinking.

There is not much that can be done to limit migration within the US. The most common strategy for doing that is regulatory barriers to housing construction, but the developer-driven politics of Charlotte means that is unlikely to ever happen (and the surrounding counties will all keep building anyway). The more doable approach to limit growth is to shape local industrial policy so that only high(ish) wage jobs get created here. In NC this would be done via incentives policy, which you could easily change to just provide incentives for jobs paying $x or higher (meaning no more $ for Red Ventures expansions). While most US politicians would avoid such a strategy since they mistakenly believe every new job is a net positive, this is how more advanced and affluent places (e.g. Munich) manage economic development, and the strategy has been very successful there.

What you're saying makes sense.  I'm obsessed with Munich.  Without having studied it intensely, I do love the idea of seeing a place like Munich as a model for principles we incorporate into our own planning and strategy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RANYC said:

What you're saying makes sense.  I'm obsessed with Munich.  Without having studied it intensely, I do love the idea of seeing a place like Munich as a model for principles we incorporate into our own planning and strategy. 

I can get on board with this.  How about allowing a few Biergartens in the public parks? 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WCUP said:

I can get on board with this.  How about allowing a few Biergartens in the public parks? 

In another thread on UP, I actually proposed a Biergarten for Uptown.  I also think there's something to the idea of Breweries as development stimulus. 

And Biergartens as a way to "activate" parks is absolutely genius, and would really show off Charlotte as innovative and creative in its ways to engage its people with their public spaces.  I've spent many an afternoon and evening in Munich's english gardens imbibing a stein and reveling at a family-style table.  Great memories, and no idea why the idea wouldn't be an absolute hit here in Charlotte.  Imagine the pic below as one of our attractions in uptown, to take advantage of our relatively temperate weather - and in the hottest days of summer, we'd be making great use of the shade of mature Uptown oaks.

I've only been in Charlotte 2.5 years, and still figuring out the city from a cultural perspective.  Would park activation through biergartens meet with tons of opposition?  Would people here trust mixing park spaces and alcohol, or will the mix almost certainly turn into brawls and gun violence?

2 minutes ago, RANYC said:

In another thread on UP, I actually proposed a Biergarten for Uptown.  I also think there's something to the idea of Breweries as development stimulus. 

And Biergartens as a way to "activate" parks is absolutely genius, and would really show off Charlotte as innovative and creative in its ways to engage its people with their public spaces.  I've spent many an afternoon and evening in Munich's english gardens imbibing a stein and reveling at a family-style table.  Great memories, and no idea why the idea wouldn't be an absolute hit here in Charlotte.

I've only been in Charlotte 2.5 years, and still figuring out the city from a cultural perspective.  Would park activation through biergartens meet with tons of opposition?  Would people here trust mixing park spaces and alcohol, or will the mix almost certainly turn into brawls and gun violence?

 

Beer Garden 1.png

Beer Garden 2.jfif

Edited by RANYC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The leadership of city council is disturbing.

Bokhari is an agent of chaos who at this point is obviously trying to sabotage 2040. My favorite moment was him saying something on the lines of, "We should cut out 2.1 [Triplex Zoning] and then we can put it back in once we gain consensus." He knows perfectly well that won't happen. City council was so close to taking out 2.1 and basically neutering the comprehensive plan. Of course he's out to kill 2040 though, he's district 6 of wealthy south charlotte just not the 'old money'.

Driggs, boomer. District 7.
Watlington is bizarre, it's hard to hold back an insult on her. Her concerns on West Charlotte gentrifying are very valid but McMansion zoning absolutely won't protect her district. To see her defend the status quo is just sad.
Larken Egleston is shocking since he seemingly supports 2040. He's district 1 with the old money. You would think Myer's Park would be holding a gun to his head. So I mean, good on him.

Graham and Winston are great. They knew 2040 is not perfect but get the gist of it. I don't agree at all with calling single family zoning racist as a blanket term though, me preferring McMansion zoning myself.

I'm not going to comment on the others because I don't have a read on em'.

Edited by mazman34340
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wording of what’s in the 2040 plan regarding the height of buildings is... not very good. One of Charlotte’s main highlights is its skyline, limiting the height that towers should reach is not the way to go. While I understand they’re not actually restricting the height (i think...?), it gives off the impression that high rises aren’t welcome. I agree that there should definitely be more space given to the public within these areas but perhaps incentivize this? Rather than seem to restrict.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I find buildings +10 stories to be distorting in terms of massing and land values. Perhaps I'd be more forgiving if the city stopped having panic attacks about four-plexes all the while approving +15 story apartments downtown. Tis' just not an even playing field.

The best example of inappropriate scale to me is the intersection of Providence and Sharon Ameity towers. To go from 2 story single family homes to 9+ story condo tower is ridiculous. As a missing middle developer, now I get to watch land speculators get stupid ideas of how dense the land can be and then the land is unaffordable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Just now, kermit said:

Raleigh is currently discussing removing all parking minimums and imposing parking maximums:

https://t.co/GsY1NwrkHT

 

 

Does Raleigh have an aspirational comp plan?  I'm sort of over the comp plan and ready to start re-writing the UDO and incorporating provisions like removing parking minimums and allowing properties now zoned for single-use strip malls to be vertical and mixed-use.  This comp plan fight is taking our eyes off so many other good things we could be doing to build consensus.  We're getting people to vote on the principle of impact fees even they're not even legal, but may be legal in the future?   Huh?

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is Ashley Fahey of the Biz Journal article on it today.  Thanks for your writing and scoops over the years Ashley and she announced today she would be leaving and writing for a National Observer a Biz Journal parent company publication and writing about real estate across the country.     (Sign up for free emails)  Thanks for all the scoops over the years and good reporting! (and I hope there is vacation to your former home town of Hilton Head Island before you start writing the new column!)
 

The National Observer | Real Estate Edition Newsletter (bizjournals.com)

the article in its entirety:

Charlotte City Council on Monday evening voted 6-5 to adopt the 2040 comprehensive plan, a blueprint of how the Queen City will grow and develop in the next 19 years.

The fraught process of getting to plan adoption on Monday continued right up until the actual vote, as council members each spoke to why they would vote for or against the plan. A substitute motion made by council member Victoria Watlington that would delay adoption of policy 2.1 — the most controversial provision, which would allow duplexes and triplexes in all place types — pending a feasibility analysis failed to pass.

Council members Watlington, Renee Johnson, Matt Newton, Tariq Bokhari and Ed Driggs voted against adoption of the 2040 plan as the final recommended draft is written. Those same five council members supported Watlington's motion.

The five in opposition had somewhat different reasons for their vote. But all agreed they felt policy 2.1 would eliminate community engagement and, subsequently, negatively affect certain areas of town by allowing byright duplex and triplex development.

"There's no requirement for affordability, we can’t dictate to developers what the price points are going to be," Johnson said. "When we talk about equity, we know ... these units are going to be built in areas that aren’t protected by HOAs or restrictive covenants."

She, Watlington and Driggs all said they wanted to see more data around the issue before supporting it.

Some council members on Monday said they spoke with city staff members on Friday, who indicated the unified development ordinance process could be delayed six to eight weeks pending that additional level of analysis.

But Taiwo Jaiyeoba, assistant city manager and planning director, said that timeframe doesn't take into account additional community engagement that would be needed.

 

"We're supposed to set policy before (place types) mapping and the zoning district designations," Jaiyeoba said.

Driggs said, in general, he feels the plan — and specifically policy 2.1 — has not had the benefit of significant data analysis.

"We’ve been pursuing ideas and goals and values, but when it comes down to it, we don't know how many cities have adopted this (and) whether it made a difference with housing costs," Driggs said.

Newton said in east Charlotte — part of his district — there are 25 subdivisions with thousands of housing units being built. But sidewalks, streetlights and other infrastructure continues to lag.

He said, without exceptions or restraints to how policy 2.1 is applied, development will occur unfettered and without the benefit of public engagement.

In general, opposing council members on Monday seemed critical of the city moving toward a conventional, rather than conditional, rezoning process.

While formalized community benefit agreements remain contentious and application uncertain, in the majority of rezoning petitions today, a conditional process requires community engagement and meetings. Council then has the final say on the petition through a vote.

"If we say no, then it’s probably a good thing that we had an opportunity to say no," Driggs said.

Bokhari, who has been vocally critical of the process and even called for the firing of Jaiyeoba last week, said he wanted to apologize to citizens.


"I truly believe, in my heart, that this is one of the most dangerous threats to the future of housing affordability in Charlotte," he said. "I worked quietly in good faith behind the scenes, and there was no progress to be had. This was too important not to be successful on."

The six in favor of the plan said with the amount of growth Charlotte is expected to see in the next 20 years, changes have to be made in how development and growth are approached.

Mayor Pro Tem Julie Eiselt said more than 16,000 jobs have been added to the Charlotte region in the past three years alone. While that economic development is good, she said, many of those jobs carry six-figure salaries and aren't necessarily available to the average Charlottean.

"We need more housing of all types, in all parts of town, for all people ... to accommodate the current residents as well as the 400,000 people who are expected to move here in the next 20 years," Eiselt said.

She continued, saying she hoped the council had the ability to make amendments and changes to the plan if and when unintended consequences arise.

Council member Dimple Ajmera said after studying the plan for months and talking to hundreds of residents, including community and business leaders on both sides, she was in support of the plan.

It changes how the city does business and challenges the status quo, she continued. In particular, Ajmera said, she was supportive of a measure in the plan to direct at least 50% of city infrastructure dollars into underserved and historically neglected neighborhoods.


Council member Malcolm Graham said the plan isn't perfect but that he trusts the process and the people involved, including Jaiyeoba and Marcus Jones, the city manager.

"We’ve got to make sure we’ve got the plans and vision in plans today, and that we do the work today, to answer questions for tomorrow," he said.

Council member Greg Phipps was largely viewed as the potential swing vote on the 2040 plan. In his remarks, he said he felt it was time to move on to place types mapping and other parts of the process.

Council member Braxton Winston said a free market, while theoretical in nature, could provide the opportunity of an equitable community. But, he said, that outcome can be, and is oftentimes, prevented by government regulations.

"We have regulations that intentionally restrict the supply of housing in our city," Winston said, before voting in support of the plan.

Monday's vote — after months of frequently heated, hours-long discussions by council — sets the stage for place types mapping and the UDO, which will take principles in the 2040 plan and translate them into regulation.

The city in a statement Monday evening said the final adopted plan will be released to the public in the next 30 days. City staff will work with the community in mapping land-use policies in the plan and create a policy map. That map, which will be voted on by council, will provide guidance on land use and public investment decisions, as well as zoning districts in the UDO.

Following the 6-5 vote, Mayor Vi Lyles said she isn't sorry about the outcome. She said, through the process, everybody had a chance to express their thoughts and opinions.


She said she remembered implementation of a comprehensive plan that allowed the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government Center to be built where it is today.

"... many of those decisions were steeped in some of the systemic problems we have around equity, inclusion, diversity and race," Lyles said. "I don’t care what happens after this vote except that you bring your A-game to the table and you act as expected of the people who elected you."

Charlotte City Council votes 6-5 to approve 2040 comprehensive plan - Charlotte Business Journal (bizjournals.com)

 

 

 

Edited by KJHburg
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KJHburg said:

 

Jury is still out on whether it will make housing more affordable I have severe doubts.   Most of newer neighborhoods in Charlotte have covenants and restrictions so no change there at all.  This will affect mostly intown older neighborhoods.  

I'd love to learn more about this.  The Observer hasn't mentioned this, as far as I know, but I might well have missed it.  If the areas with deed restrictions banning duplexes/triplexes in single family zones is extensive, it could be a game-changer.  Someone should publish a map showing the areas where duplexes and triplexes are prohibited by deed restrictions.

I'm in Weddington, Union County, just across the line from Mecklenburg.  Here, single family means single family, and mostly 40,000 sf lot minimums.  I expect a migration from Charlotte.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say any neighborhood built since the 1970s in Charlotte Mecklenburg would be deed restricted to single family homes if that is what is there.  In saying that most newer communities have a variety of home styles both attached and detached  (think Berewick in the Steele Creek area or even Ballantyne) .  I don't think any SF home area of Raintree for example would see a duplex built where a SF home stands now.     What I think will happen in older neighborhoods the cheapest SF home will be bought and replaced by a triplex with each unit far exceeding the value of the original home.  A small $300K run down home replaced with three  $400K townhomes that kind of thing.  Yes increases density but not promote affordable housing as SOME have said this would.    

The biggest proponent of this 2040 Plans lives in fact in a gated community in Union County that I am sure that neighborhood only allows SF homes. 

Edited by KJHburg
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, southernnorthcarolina said:

I'm in Weddington, Union County, just across the line from Mecklenburg.  Here, single family means single family, and mostly 40,000 sf lot minimums.  I expect a migration from Charlotte.

Such a migration would be a positive for Mecklenburg. As the core of a metro area of over 2.6 million Mecklenburg can not and should not be trying to compete with Union as a provider of SFH.

Environmental issues aside, I suspect that everyone is better off if Mecklenburg increases densities (which creates agglomerative, environmental and fiscal benefits) while SFH gets pushed further outward. Preserving SFH in Meck will cap our growth at a very low level, while increasing housing costs, nobody (including Union County residents) wants that.

Edited by kermit
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RANYC said:

Housing affordability is a complex issue with a multitude of contributing factors...this plan and its aspirations, on their own, can't solve the problem of housing affordability.

There appears to be an element of property rights flexibility in this Plan - rights that I support.  That is, letting property owners do more with the land they own than just build a single family home.  Telling lot owners in a growing urban area that all you can do with your lot is build a single family house seems unreasonably restrictive, especially when housing is so fundamental to civilized existence.

Ironic to me that when viewed through a property rights lens, the republicans on the council oppose the freeing up of Property usage in the Plan.  Perhaps when property rights freedoms may result in diversity at your doorstep, such principles go out the window. 

Giving developers greater latitude in what may be built on property they own may very well increase both housing stock and the variety of housing stock.

While the increase in supply resulting from this Plan may not be enough to offset other factors driving significant housing price action, in theory, the increase should keep prices from going as high as they otherwise would.

At any rate - I view the Plan passing as approval of a vision statement.  The real bite comes with a rewrite of the UDO. 

I am supportive of loosening the single family zoning restrictions, but I don't for a second think it will make housing more affordable in the rapidly growing areas around uptown. Townhomes and condos built in Myers Park will still be 400-500$ a square foot. Townhomes in Dilworth will still be 350+ a square foot. 

I am just happy there will be more density where there needs to be density. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KJHburg said:

This will affect mostly intown older neighborhoods.  

Thinking about this quickly, nothing is really changing for anyone . The city has welcomed du/triplexes in Biddleville/Seversville/Elizabeth/3rd Ward/NoDa/Villa Heights while Dilworth, Wilmore, Wesley Heights, Plaza remain somewhat untouchable outside of the multifamily already built due to the HDC designation. 

 

Obviously just really in town neighborhoods above. Will be interesting to see what could happen somewhere like Madison Park, Starmount, Montclaire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes increased supply is a good thing in the overall housing market.  ADUs are great and always supported that aspect of this plan.  I just think without  any restrictions you will see lots of tear downs in the mostly intown older neighborhoods for new triplexes and so forth and speeding up gentrification in neighborhoods that have more affordable housing.  But most parts of newer Charlotte in the suburbs will be unaffected as they have deed restrictions in place especially in the mixed use communities like Berewick, Ballantyne which have certain areas already of multifamily or attached housing.  It is the older communities and neighborhoods that don't have them. 

Edited by KJHburg
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.