Unified Development Ordinance

[RANYC]

I know the Comp Plan passed 6-5 in council, but it isn't legally-binding and has no real force of change - right?  It also appears the actual zoning re-write won't be voted on until after the City Council election.

Therefore, it's possible this Plan gets torpedoed through the codification process, if the current or a future council fail to enact the re-writes.  Given the stakes of the re-written zoning code, I'd expect the upcoming fight to be more bitter and vicious than what we witnessed during the Plan debate.

Edited September 8, 2021 by RANYC

[tozmervo]

I would still anticipate an absolutely massive overhaul of the zoning codes, one way or another. There could definitely be some haggling over items, but on the whole I'm optimistic for some pretty progressive changes. 

[Guest]

If defense of a couple things, the interactive strategic mobility map is pretty bawler. You can put what-ever comments you want on transportation and safety issues.

https://engagekh.com/charlottesmp/map#/marker/234558

Again, I feel like this isn't being promoted enough. This is perfect bottom up feedback that should of been available years ago.

[RANYC]

First draft of Charlotte's first Uniform Development Ordinance ("UDO") is now available for review and comments.  https://publicinput.com/charlotteudo

I'm liking what I'm reading so far, but this is probably the first Zoning/Development Code I've ever read this closely and this broadly.

I find the pictures to be helpful with a lot of explanatory value, and like the structure of its sections, each having plenty of space given to a description of zoning district purposes and typical activities.

Fascinated by the special district section, including "Cottage Court Districts" with their small dwelling unit bonus incentive (cottage courts are small communities whose residents have "shared stewardship," and the small dwelling units must be 800 square feet or less.  In my mind, I'm likening this district to a sort of "hippie compound."  Also like other incentives for affordable housing - more development intensity if projects are mixed-income.

Parking lots must be screened with walls and landscaping - with the exception of vehicle dealerships (need to see what it says about auto repair lots - I despise how they look and their typical preponderance poorer areas).

Edited October 8, 2021 by RANYC

[tozmervo]

14 minutes ago, RANYC said:

First draft of Charlotte's first Uniform Development Ordinance ("UDO") is now available for review and comments.  https://publicinput.com/charlotteudo

Thanks for calling this out! I'd recommend that a mod pin this to the top of the Charlotte board. This document influences absolutely everything that we talk about here, and now is the moment to really voice your opinion on how Charlotte's built environment will look in the future.  It looks like public comment will be received through January 14. 

[Guest]

Alright, things like the "Cottage Court Districts" are pretty awesome. There needs to be enough missing middle types identified by the UDO and up-zonings to establish a beach-head. I can bring in the Incremental Development Alliance and try to create a new class of developers in Charlotte. We desperately need missing middle.

I haven't finished reading it but the NCO Neighborhood Character Overlay is a giant red flag to me. With a historic district overlay already existing, this is pointless. This could devolve to weaponized NIMBY'ism. This was already proposed after a tiny house development went side-ways in West Charlotte and immediately in a knee-jerk response a 'Character Overly' district was proposed. This should not pass.

It's disappointing to see minimum lot width and minimum lot size requirements still in effect in higher zoning designations. They are just arbitrary anti-density measurements. Should be thrown away.

Minimum rear set-backs to me usually end up being 'mandatory forced back-yards'. In neighborhoods with increasingly expensive and less land available, would be home-owners are going to start trading away these features for affordability. In districts that start to urbanize, the point isn't a decked out home with plenty of room and open space. The point of living in these neighborhoods is the neighborhood. Is that something planners don't understand?

I know I'm being mean but I've been waiting six year for this and know that the city has strangled urbanism for 50+ years.

[Guest]

One of the biggest problems is when the planning department is combining land use obsessed Euclidian Zoning with architecturally obsessed Form Based Code and trying to keep the two in harmony together. Good luck with that.

As zoning gets increasingly intense with density, Euclidian needs to get thrown out the window.

Wait a minute... wait a second... do my eyes deceive me?

Is this... RATIONAL GOVERNMENT POLICY. I didn't think they were capable of this.

Look at this. Holy crap. It makes missing middle almost legal to build.

[tozmervo]

#2 is interesting, but how many decks or lots are municipal? Does 7th street count? Does the Target deck at metropolitan count? Airport parking? CPCC parking? 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

#2 is interesting, but how many decks or lots are municipal? Does 7th street count? Does the Target deck at metropolitan count? Airport parking? CPCC parking? 

Won't take very long to figure out what is public or private. If a resident tries to use the Target Deck or CPCC deck for parking, it's going to towed very very quickly after word gets out.

I'm interested if larger private entities would be willing to rent out parking space on their empty lots or parking garages that are usually empty. For example churches. Get a contract and have it credited towards parking minimums. I don't expect it to be used massively but should be an option on the table.

Edited October 11, 2021 by mazman34340

[RANYC]

4 hours ago, mazman34340 said:

Alright, things like the "Cottage Court Districts" are pretty awesome. There needs to be enough missing middle types identified by the UDO and up-zonings to establish a beach-head. I can bring in the Incremental Development Alliance and try to create a new class of developers in Charlotte. We desperately need missing middle.

I haven't finished reading it but the NCO Neighborhood Character Overlay is a giant red flag to me. With a historic district overlay already existing, this is pointless. This could devolve to weaponized NIMBY'ism. This was already proposed after a tiny house development went side-ways in West Charlotte and immediately in a knee-jerk response a 'Character Overly' district was proposed. This should not pass.

It's disappointing to see minimum lot width and minimum lot size requirements still in effect in higher zoning designations. They are just arbitrary anti-density measurements. Should be thrown away.

Minimum rear set-backs to me usually end up being 'mandatory forced back-yards'. In neighborhoods with increasingly expensive and less land available, would be home-owners are going to start trading away these features for affordability. In districts that start to urbanize, the point isn't a decked out home with plenty of room and open space. The point of living in these neighborhoods is the neighborhood. Is that something planners don't understand?

I know I'm being mean but I've been waiting six year for this and know that the city has strangled urbanism for 50+ years.

Minimum lot widths/sizes and minimum set-backs...are these requirements that the Planning Department can then trade for "community benefits?"  

Department needs leverage and perhaps these requirements provide that.

A developer can incorporate a "community benefit," then the planning department relaxes a requirement or requirements and the developer earns intensification?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Minimum lot widths/sizes and minimum set-backs...are these requirements that the Planning Department can then trade for "community benefits?"  

Department needs leverage and perhaps these requirements provide that.

A developer can incorporate a "community benefit," then the planning department relaxes a requirement or requirements and the developer earns intensification?

NO.

They were created decades ago to limit density for the sake of limiting density. The department does not need 'leverage'. It needs to be able to give grants, small or large to promote better development.

For missing middle housing, all the city has is sticks to beat developers with. To use pseudoscientific zoning code as another stick to get concessions is terrible policy.

I'm pulling out of a project where I was pressured to provide affordable housing. City and neighborhood never offered any grants or it was expected to be done entirely on the developer's side. Three blocks away, they have approved hundred+ unit apartments on one side and a year or two later in the opposite direction. As far as I can tell, they provided zero affordable units.

I refuse to do business like this where the city deal makes with large developers and small operators are dumped with so many restrictions.

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, mazman34340 said:

NO.

They were created decades ago to limit density for the sake of limiting density. The department does not need 'leverage'. It needs to be able to give grants, small or large to promote better development.

For missing middle housing, all the city has is sticks to beat developers with. To use pseudoscientific zoning code as another stick to get concessions is terrible policy.

I'm pulling out of a project where I was pressured to provide affordable housing. City and neighborhood never offered any grants or it was expected to be done entirely on the developer's side. Three blocks away, they have approved hundred+ unit apartments on one side and a year or two later in the opposite direction. As far as I can tell, they provided zero affordable units.

I refuse to do business like this where the city deal makes with large developers and small operators are dumped with so many restrictions.

Well, I recall skimming sections with examples of relaxing requirements in exchange for "public benefits," namely affordable housing.  One example included a residential zone type being restricted to single family, duplexes, and triplexes, unless affordable housing was incorporated and then quadplexes were an allowable use in the zone type.  In another example, certain zoning districts come with an open space percentage requirement that might be reduced in exchange for incorporating a public benefit.

[Guest]

On 10/11/2021 at 6:03 PM, RANYC said:

Well, I recall skimming sections with examples of relaxing requirements in exchange for "public benefits," namely affordable housing.  One example included a residential zone type being restricted to single family, duplexes, and triplexes, unless affordable housing was incorporated and then quadplexes were an allowable use in the zone type.  In another example, certain zoning districts come with an open space percentage requirement that might be reduced in exchange for incorporating a public benefit.

Alright, I'll take another look at the zoning code but if it's as you say it is... why the hell would I build a fourplex.

If I build a triplex, I can hypothetically build it by right. As soon as I put in that fourth unit, it has to be affordable.

I'm not aware of any NGO or organization that can readily help give grants for a single affordable housing unit (I'm serious though if you know any, tell me.) Otherwise, I would have to apply some-where like the The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.

Let me tell you, it's just paperwork... and more paperwork. I'm not getting paid by the hour to wait weeks on end while filing out paperwork and I doubt still I would get access to those credits. I know of small scale developers who tried it and after a few years give up because it's just a pain in the ass. Charlotte underfunds housing, it won't have the grant money.

So I'm stuck looking around. Or I build the triplex.

Don't mean to sound grumpy, not at you... mostly the city council.

[KJHburg]

news from Raleigh about new ordinance under their UDO about parking in urban areas and areas around their new BRT

Parking Minimums, Maximums, and Mitigations (TC-11-21) - PublicInput.com

specific ordinance proposed as some of you know Charlotte's much better how do these compare to those here?

TC-11-21 Parking Minimums, Maximums, and Mitigations Text Change (usgovcloudapi.net)

[RANYC]

Took a look at the UDO place map and a bit confused.

Is the aim of this process to both redefine the zoning code with new place types and then to assign the new place types (or zoning districts) that get closest to mirroring the existing property uses?

I ask because here in the west end, the proposed map has all these lots along west trade zoned as "car-oriented commercial;" however, these are lots which happen to line the newly-opened, snail-paced, largely-unused streetcar route.  West end is just outside of uptown and along a fixed transit line, surely the car-oriented commercial lots along west trade should contain far denser "commercial activity centers," at the very least.

But is that not the aim of this process?  To rezone existing uses in an effort to encourage very different and more dense uses than what's currently in place?

[Guest]

It starts with defining place types by it's existing use. So like the old R-5 zoning would be called N-6 or something like that. Then it will upzoned for the 'future' place types so it might go up to N2. Not using the exact language of the UDO but that's the gist of it.

Yep Ran, its confusing and I'm wondering if it's confusing by design.

Separately, I'm not really vibin' with the city being so micromanagement obsessed with defining parking minimums for bicycles. I cycle and would really like more bike racks but not in this manner. You don't need to have 20+ uses defined.

The planners could never get the right parking minimums usually being completely over-kill. There's no way they can guess bicycle parking correctly.

[KJHburg]

this does sound too micromangement.  a bike parking min for a vehicle auction house?  and an indoor shooting range?  this is way too much regulation.  

[tozmervo]

The bike parking is already required under most current zoning, this just goes into more detail. Frankly I like that this takes a lot of guessing and "grey" areas out of the equation. The fewer grey areas, the faster and more successful plan reviews will be. 

[kermit]

1 hour ago, KJHburg said:

this does sound too micromangement.  a bike parking min for a vehicle auction house?  and an indoor shooting range?  this is way too much regulation.  

no weirder than required car parking minimums for a bar.

[jthomas]

I agree with the sentiment about micromanagement. The more I think about land development ordinances, the more I favor something closer to a free-for-all approach. Separate out and regulate things like heavy industrial, but that's about it. No use restrictions. No setback regulations. No minimum lot sizes. No parking regulations. No sign regulations. Just let 'er rip and let things evolve organically.

OK, so the above is a bit of hyperbole, but that approach could hardly produce a worse built environment than current development ordinances do. We already have building codes to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. To me, so many of the restrictions codified in zoning ordinances are motivated by fear and a desire to control and restrict what other people are able to do. I recognize that many people find that appealing, and that's OK - that's what suburbs and HOAs are for. I have no problem with people grouping together and forming a voluntary association with greater restrictions. But it's no way to run a real city.

[Guest]

I'll admit, I like the longer term bicycle storage requirements and I'm sure there's an illustration and explainer for that somewhere in the document.

Like I'm sick of pulling up at RiteAID and there's 20+ open parking spaces but the lazy ass property manager couldn't be bothered to put in a single bicycle rack. Here's the funny thing though... how many of those car parking spaces were required by the planning department?

[kermit]

1 hour ago, mazman34340 said:

I'll admit, I like the longer term bicycle storage requirements and I'm sure there's an illustration and explainer for that somewhere in the document.

Like I'm sick of pulling up at RiteAID and there's 20+ open parking spaces but the lazy ass property manager couldn't be bothered to put in a single bicycle rack. Here's the funny thing though... how many of those car parking spaces were required by the planning department?

I do agree, bike parking space is uniformly awful around town and is in desperate need of improvement. I often end up locking to utility poles and supporting guy wires.

I drove to SE Publix last night and was reminded that they decided to put their bike parking in the below grade deck, just about as far from the elevators and door as you can get. Why????? While the level of detail in the UDO might seem excessive, we really need improvements here and those improvements are our only path to a post-carbon era.

Edited October 20, 2021 by kermit

[videtur quam contuor]

My concern about Publix South End store parking: At the elevator bank the sign reads "In case of fire do not use elevator. Use stairs". Where are the stairs, you may ask? No arrow or directions. The stair is at the far corner of the parking level, in a corner, as far away as possible from elevators. 

[RANYC]

5 hours ago, jthomas said:

OK, so the above is a bit of hyperbole, but that approach could hardly produce a worse built environment than current development ordinances do. 

Oh but it could be so much worse.  Yes, there's always room for improvement, but for a fast-growing sunbelt city, Charlotte has done a decent job of keeping its built environment looking tidy and well-appointed with various elements in balance.  As a result, neighborhoods all around Charlotte, including in center city are desirable places to live, and I think that's a big driver of the upscale infill you see all around center city.  Countless cities would kill to have the kind of high-end investment in center city and older neighborhoods that we see in abundance here.  It really does feel like the action and energy in Charlotte are in center city neighborhoods, and not in runaway sprawl on the fringes.  Yes, I'd like uptown to be quite a bit more vibrant with pedestrian bustle, but I think we'll get there eventually.  

By the way, there's an aspect of the UDO that's de-regulatory.  The UDO is actually liberalizing land use, allowing for a lot more density and a wider variety of uses in a number of these new zones being created.  One of the goals of the UDO is to reduce the number of re-zoning proceedings, where plans end up before a mercurial council and its loudest influencers, and a range of design elements get foisted on developers late into project planning.

Edited October 20, 2021 by RANYC

[Guest]

I really am the doomer here aren't I?

So. We gots the plan approved. So did Austin, Texas for CodeNEXT when they wanted to over-haul everything. BBBUUUuuutttt.... when they started to actually change the zoning code law and language, that's when it started to fall apart. Delay after delay, stakeholders coming in the last minute. The NIMBY's spread panic that it will allow apartments all over the place (when it didn't really upzone much). The mayor of Austin finally did a 'grand bargain' that was fatal to the whole process. It stalled and died out.

I'm happy to see I've been wrong so far and the plan passed but the UDO approval work is gonna be twice as hard. Signs of failure are when the city council start stripping out things like the elimination of single family zoning or the on-street parking requirement changes.

The republican city council are saying sprawl and single family zoning is just 'what people want' despite it also being a massive violation of property rights. The democratic no votes are claiming the upzoning will make gentrification worse despite single family zoning guaranteeing McMansions. Ah, the stakes are high aren't they?