Unified Development Ordinance

[kermit]

That pre-vote discussion had better include a reminder to all of the suburban reps that the UDO does not supersede any HOA restrictions on 'plexes. I really don't understand what all the suburbanites are so concerned about.

[RANYC]

17 hours ago, RANYC said:

Let's forecast a vote to delay the UDO - vote would delay the effective date of UDO indefinitely (vote has not happened nor is even proposed necessarily...just a speculative post)

5 - No 

4 - Hell Yes

2 - Wildcards

1. Braxton Winston - No
2. Dimple Ajmera - No
3. LaWana Mayfield - Unclear/Was not on Council during passage/Likely wants her stamp on this and may vote to delay
4. James Mitchell Jr (Smuggie) - No
5. Dante Anderson - New to Council replacing Egleston who was a UDO booster / Dante has not weighed in publicly on this issue / She represents a district inclusive of core in-town neighborhoods / Her Campaign was expressly supportive of the Comp Plan which pre-dates the UDO and was to serve as its Premise, so will give her a No
6. Malcolm Graham - No
7. Victoria Watlington - Hell Yes
8. Renee Johnson - Hell Yes
9. Marjorie Molina - New to Council, replaced a councilman who was opposed to the UDO, her comments on the UDO pre-election were non-committal
10. Tariq Bokhari - Hell Yes
11. Ed Driggs - Hell Yes

What I learned after watching some of the UDO-related debate by Council last night:

• While Braxton makes good points, he seems very, very weak at coalition-building and coalition-sustaining.  Given the language he uses, there's no way this council is passing anything to remove parking minimums or convert streets to pedestrian-only.
• The balance in Council has shifted since the last election to doing away with the prohibition against single-family exclusionary zoning.  My new count of those on Council in support of fully-inclusionary residential zoning: 1) Winston, 2) Ajmera, 3) Graham, 4) Molina
• Those in council who are antagonistic toward inclusionary zoning: 1) Mayfield, 2) Mitchell, 3) Watlington, 4) Johnson, 5) Driggs 6) Anderson
• Bokhari appears to be voting for process as some of the proposed changes to the UDO appear a bit knee-jerk
• Anderson is definitely a big change from Egleston who was much more progressive in new-age development policy
• On the duplexes/triplexes portion of the UDO, there's a narrative that's out there that new construction duplexes and triplexes will be used to squeeze out minorities in in-town neighborhoods, while more affluent and perhaps whiter Charlotte escapes the duplexes/triplexes impact by retreating to their HOA and deed-restricted enclaves.  These are in-town neighborhoods where black and brown Charlotteans who've lived in their neighborhoods for generations are seeing rampant tear-downs, and fear the wave of what's coming with the UDO's baked-in incentives for more tear-downs.  Because they didn't join or couldn't join the flight to HOA utopia, they're now seeing plat assemblage/plat consolidation and new housing product that will change the nature of the community.  Also, because of the value of the "redevelopment-densification option" that the UDO brings to price-action in their communities, they're seeing the greatest increases in appraised and fair values or soon will see this.
• I honestly see both sides of this issue.  It's not an easy issue to mediate, and our Queen City Twitterati aren't helping by being so ready to blast and personally attack councilmembers as inept or incompetent.  I sometimes wonder if the willingness to apply these labels even in the face of how complicated an issue this is comes from a primal reaction to seeing a mostly black Council.

Edited May 23, 2023 by RANYC

[kermit]

2 hours ago, RANYC said:

 

• On the duplexes/triplexes portion of the UDO, there's a narrative that's out there that new construction duplexes and triplexes will be used to squeeze out minorities in in-town neighborhoods, while more affluent and perhaps whiter Charlotte escapes the duplexes/triplexes impact by retreating to their HOA and deed-restricted enclaves.  These are in-town neighborhoods where black and brown Charlotteans who've lived in their neighborhoods for generations are seeing rampant tear-downs, and fear the wave of what's coming with the UDO's baked-in incentives for more tear-downs.  Because they didn't join or couldn't join the flight to HOA utopia, they're now seeing plat assemblage/plat consolidation and new housing product that will change the nature of the community.  Also, because of the value of the "redevelopment-densification option" that the UDO brings to price-action in their communities, they're seeing the greatest increases in appraised and fair values or soon will see this.
• I honestly see both sides of this issue.  It's not an easy issue to mediate, and our Queen City Twitterati aren't helping by being so ready to blast and personally attack councilmembers as inept or incompetent.  I sometimes wonder if the willingness to apply these labels even in the face of how complicated an issue this is comes from a primal reaction to seeing a mostly black Council.

I don’t disagree that the Council WAS (is) in a tough spot with changes brought by the UDO, but I can’t share your perspective that the status quo offers any tangible benefits. It seems self evident (to me) that if Charlotte continues to grow housing WILL become more expensive (geometry and supply and demand guarantee this). Displacement is the inevitable result and no amount discussion or committee work or exclusionary zoning  is going to change that — in fact all of these things will increase the rate of displacement.

While the density increases brought by the UDO will nominally increased appraised values, on a per unit basis prices will be cheaper than they would be without the changes. While I did not watch the debate, the live tweets I saw suggested to me that much of this pushback is simply suburban NIMBYism and the suburbanites are using displacement is West Charlotte as their mascot. (But this may be a misinterpretation).

Is it not clear to everyone that the status quo is unsustainable? Or is this just property owners hoarding their equity at the expense of renters, future arrivals and residents of low-income neighborhoods?

Edited May 23, 2023 by kermit

[tozmervo]

2 hours ago, RANYC said:

• I honestly see both sides of this issue.  It's not an easy issue to mediate, and our Queen City Twitterati aren't helping by being so ready to blast and personally attack councilmembers as inept or incompetent.  I sometimes wonder if the willingness to apply these labels even in the face of how complicated an issue this is comes from a primal reaction to seeing a mostly black Council.

Serious question that I hope doesn't derail the thread: is twitter and the noise there still relevant? Everyone in my sphere has left the platform. 

[RANYC]

25 minutes ago, kermit said:

I don’t disagree that the Council WAS (is) in a tough spot with changes brought by the UDO, but I can’t share your perspective that the status quo offers any tangible benefits.

Where did I say the status quo offers tangible benefits?

 

17 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

Serious question that I hope doesn't derail the thread: is twitter and the noise there still relevant? Everyone in my sphere has left the platform. 

Watlington got into a lengthy exchange on there last night.  Councilmembers are still paying attention to the platform, it would appear.

Edited May 23, 2023 by RANYC

[kermit]

16 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

Serious question that I hope doesn't derail the thread: is twitter and the noise there still relevant? Everyone in my sphere has left the platform. 

The urbanist crowd I follow is about 1/4 the level of the pre-Musk days. Much less relevant than before, but still enough noise there to attract some attention.

I eagerly await my Blue Sky invite…

[RANYC]

25 minutes ago, kermit said:

I don’t disagree that the Council WAS (is) in a tough spot with changes brought by the UDO, but I can’t share your perspective that the status quo offers any tangible benefits. It seems self evident (to me) that if Charlotte continues to grow housing WILL become more expensive (geometry and supply and demand guarantee this). Displacement is the inevitable result and no amount discussion or committee work or exclusionary zoning  is going to change that — in fact all of these things will increase the rate of displacement.

While the density increases brought by the UDO will nominally increased appraised values, on a per unit basis prices will be cheaper than they would be without the changes. While I did not watch the debate, the live tweets I saw suggested to me that much of this pushback is simply suburban NIMBYism and the suburbanites are using displacement is West Charlotte as their mascot. (But this may be a misinterpretation).

Is it not clear to everyone that the status quo is unsustainable? Or is this just property owners hoarding their equity at the expense of future arrivals and residents of low-income neighborhoods?

i know you won't, but the soundbytes on twitter don't really capture the discussion. 

[kermit]

8 hours ago, RANYC said:

Where did I say the status quo offers tangible benefits?

Sorry, clumsy phrasing. I didn’t mean to suggest you thought that, but I thought you were suggesting some on the Council felt that there were benefits to maintaining current zoning (thus the debate at Council last night about delaying).

Edited May 23, 2023 by kermit

[RANYC]

39 minutes ago, kermit said:

Sorry, clumsy phrasing. I didn’t mean to suggest you thought that, but I thought you were suggesting some on the Council felt that there were benefits to maintaining current zoning (thus the debate at Council last night).

No, I didn't get that impression at all.  I don't think Council will reverse the UDO.  I think there's a growing sentiment that duplexes, triplexes, and the consolidation of historically-small plats for large-scale residential should come with additional conditions than current UDO allowances.

To be very frank with you, I sense that several on the council feel that disruption from the triplexes and duplexes are mainly hitting black and brown folks, and much of white Charlotte are insulated from all this in their idyllic environs amidst deed-restrictions and master-planned HOAs.  Of course, plenty of black folks are now living in the deed-restricted and master-planned HOA communities as well. 

I also think some councilmembers are concerned about near and medium-term outcomes and whether they align with intention.  In other words, perhaps triplexes and duplexes don't get you out of an affordability crisis.  Affordable housing suppliers perhaps do get you out of it.  If I'm a luxury supplier, and you tell me I have more allowances on land I own, I then design luxury product that exploits these new allowances.  You still have lux-buyer-driven displacement.  If I keep restrictions on these historically black-and-brown lands, I make it harder for just any developer to come along and convert the "redevelopment option (which does have value)."  So perhaps you find a way to make the lands appealing to affordable housing suppliers to exploit the redevelopment & densification option, versus just feeding into the lux-builder tsunami by letting said builders densify w/luxury product by right.

Edited May 23, 2023 by RANYC

[videtur quam contuor]

Council is like my HOA:  push discussion from month to month, ask for more paper, consult counsel, delay, wait for annual board election then restart.

[RANYC]

5 minutes ago, tarhoosier said:

Council is like my HOA:  push discussion from month to month, ask for more paper, consult counsel, delay, wait for annual board election then restart.

To be fair, it's been a long time since I can recall the UDO being discussed substantively by this Council, but I've not been following many of the meetings.  I tuned in last night because UDO was actually an agenda item.  Also, the UDO only passed 6-5, so not exactly a mandate, and that was by a different Council.  Many of the council-members said it needed work and was a living and breathing document when they passed it, but I don't think a lot of work has actually gotten done on it since.  There are lots of conflicting interests here and frankly, the UDO should have been an agenda item at every single council meeting since passage, in my opinion.  

[kermit]

7 hours ago, RANYC said:

To be very frank with you, I sense that several on the council feel that disruption from the triplexes and duplexes are mainly hitting black and brown folks, and much of white Charlotte are insulated from all this in their idyllic environs amidst deed-restrictions and master-planned HOAs.  Of course, plenty of black folks are now living in the deed-restricted and master-planned HOA communities as well.

This is the core of my frustration with the current council. Have these folks looked at what has been happening in West End, Seversville and Lockwood under the current zoning? Black and Brown folks are getting hit with luxury housing displacement right now. Another few years of the status quo will result in all of the displaceable people in central Charlotte being displaced. The current system forces developers to tear down one house and replace it with a much more expensive one. At least with the UDO, a house will get torn down and (perhaps) replaced with a triplex -- a situation which creates two additional housing units. Even if these plexes are expensive, they have at least reduced the demand for two housing units elsewhere in Charlotte. I just can't see a pathway to affordable housing that does not involve supply increases like this. 

Short of the city becoming a land broker, how can the city provide development preference to affordable housing developers?

I do agree, the fact that HOA neighborhoods are shielded from these changes is a huge shortcoming of the UDO.

Edited May 23, 2023 by kermit

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

The current system forces developers to tear down one house and replace it with a much more expensive one. At least with the UDO, a house will get torn down and (perhaps) replaced with a triplex -- a situation which creates two additional housing units. Even if these plexes are expensive, they have at least reduced the demand for two housing units elsewhere in Charlotte. I just can't see a pathway to affordable housing that does not involve supply increases. 

Short of the city becoming a land broker, how can the city provide development preference to affordable housing developers?

• To people in these "vulnerable" neighborhoods, UDO boosters sound as though they are fine with a "think globally, displace locally" approach.  This perceived approach is causing a ton of building resentment.
• Hate to keep hammering away at this point, but I believe that a "redevelopment & densification conversion option" is a very real variable in residential price increases.  While there is a rate of displacement currently underway from single-family buyers and dwellers, I do think you could see an ACCELERATION of displacement once the "conversion option" can actually be exercised, which of course happens at June 1 absent some change in the conditions for by-right conversion to triplexes.

Edited May 23, 2023 by RANYC

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

Short of the city becoming a land broker, how can the city provide development preference to affordable housing developers?

 Theoretically, the city accesses the greatest amount of leverage through the rezoning process.  I suppose one could make the argument that if the city instituted very restrictive zoning designations on in-town neighborhoods, then a "densifying" developer would be forced to work with the city to achieve rezoning, and through that engagement be asked to incorporate at least some affordable housing as a community benefit.  I know the concept of community benefit does exist in parts of the UDO, but is pretty open-ended and can include greenway enhancements or greenway connections or park spaces.

To be clear, I'm supportive of triplexes and duplexes, especially given they come with aesthetic standards.  I do care about Neighborhood Character & Aesthetics, and feel the Character Overlay/Residential Infill Overlay processes should be activated asap.  Just because these communities need affordable housing doesn't mean long-time residents don't care about how all this increased density impacts community aesthetics.  South Charlotte HOAs and Deed-Restricted Subdivisions shouldn't be the only Charlotte residents weighing in on the aesthetics & character of their community.

[KJHburg]

I just realized tonight my first owned home was a triplex townhome.  I always called it a townhome but it was only 3 per building in Davis Lake.  So I am triplexer. 

[RANYC]

If the UDO provisions on duplexes and triplexes are about achieving more affordability and there's concern as to whether that's the result we'll get, perhaps the discovery of "alternative policies" is a chance to incorporate the elimination of parking minimums since that has been attributed to housing price stabilization in other places.

Edited May 24, 2023 by RANYC

[Nathan2]

19 hours ago, RANYC said:

If the UDO provisions on duplexes and triplexes are about achieving more affordability and there's concern as to whether that's the result we'll get, perhaps the discovery of "alternative policies" is a chance to incorporate the elimination of parking minimums since that has been attributed to housing price stabilization in other places.

I, unfortunately, don't see the will from the city council to do this at all in the near future. They are currently more than happy to allow our streets to be lined with massive podiumed parking garages. We are going up against the idea from most people that there is somehow not enough parking. 

[kermit]

^ I thought parking minimums were eliminated in transit corridors?

[kermit]

the Richmond city council  (like Raleigh before it) has voted unanimously to remove parking minimums city wide. If Richmond and Raleigh can do it, why can't we? Its not like those places are more compact or have better transit.

https://energynews.us/2023/05/31/richmond-scraps-parking-space-rules-in-an-effort-to-curb-transportation-emissions/

[Madison Parkitect]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

the Richmond city council  (like Raleigh before it) has voted unanimously to remove parking minimums city wide. If Richmond and Raleigh can do it, why can't we? Its not like those places are more compact or have better transit.

https://energynews.us/2023/05/31/richmond-scraps-parking-space-rules-in-an-effort-to-curb-transportation-emissions/

I was looking through the Gastonia UDO the other night for a project and even they've removed parking minimums. Gastonia!

[RANYC]

On 5/31/2023 at 7:42 PM, kermit said:

the Richmond city council  (like Raleigh before it) has voted unanimously to remove parking minimums city wide. If Richmond and Raleigh can do it, why can't we? Its not like those places are more compact or have better transit.

https://energynews.us/2023/05/31/richmond-scraps-parking-space-rules-in-an-effort-to-curb-transportation-emissions/

Richmond hasn't eliminated Single Family Exclusionary Districts, and I can understand an argument that our allowable density by right creates a greater fear of reverberating impact if minimums get eliminated in residential areas.  Triplexes will have the potential for a much bigger representation of car owners and absentee "landlording," and without car accommodations baked into design, one might have inundations on streets.   While parked cars choking up streets can act as neighborhood traffic calming devices, they can also create blind spots and have other deleterious impacts.  

While Charlotte does have minimum parking in Tier 1 districts, the city has both minimums and maximums in Tier 2 districts, and has eliminated minimums and instituted maximums in Tier 3 (TOD, UC, etc).

While I support the UDO, I'm frustrated that the UDO feels like an "unfunded mandate."  Unfunded in that we don't have a transit plan or aligned transit strategy to inspire confidence, woo choice riders, and to effectively transport people to and from increasingly dense clusters of housing and commerce by way of responsive and reliable means of micro/alternative mobility.  

Edited June 2, 2023 by RANYC

[kermit]

Younger generations want more walkability. Are we going to give it to them or are we just going to continue to gaslight them into thinking what they 'really want' is more sprawling cul-de-sacs? The trend is getting consistently stronger, so developers can’t ignore it for much longer.

from the 2023  National Association of Realtors survey: https://www.nar.realtor/reports/nar-community-and-transportation-preference-surveys

Edited July 8, 2023 by kermit

[kermit]

[KJHburg]

Now here are some examples of high density housing like what the UDO recommends in the small town and county seat of Madison County in Marshall NC.  I was stunned to see to see this type of density in a town of 800 people.  Part of the issue is just limited land availability as the town is up against the French Broad River and and mountain ridges on either side.  A few of these are Airbnb rentals from what I found online and others look like long term rentals.  Lots of residential over retail too. 

That 5 story building looks more like Brooklyn than a 800 person town in western NC.   (this is a nice town to visit too) 

[SouthEndCLT811]

Also the site of The Peripheral an Amazon TV Series.  They were referencing living in NC on the show which prompted me to see it was being filmed in Marshall and around that area.. It showed well as a cool small mountain town

https://avltoday.6amcity.com/asheville-north-carolina-filming-locations-amazon-sci-fi-series-the-peripheral