Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udo Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff urges UDO clean-up and proposes multifamily design adjustments after state law constraints
Summary
Planning staff presented Unified Development Ordinance amendments to align with North Carolina statute (GS 160D-72), clarify recreation fee timing and buffer rules, and solicited board guidance on multifamily design items: exposed foundations, building orientation, glazing, material thresholds, footprint limits and parking screening.
Planning staff used the June 8 meeting to lay out a package of proposed UDO text amendments and to solicit the Planning Advisory Board's feedback on multifamily design standards.
On single-family design, Ryan told the board that changes in state law (cited as North Carolina General Statutes 160D-72) mean the city can no longer require many single-family building-design elements. "We can no longer apply design standards for single-family residential, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses," Ryan said, and asked the board to expect UDO text edits to remove conflicts and align the code with state statute.
Staff also proposed a UDO amendment clarifying Article 6 recreation requirements (payments in lieu of dedication): the amendment would add a density multiplier for large subdivisions, and explicitly require dedication or payment at final plat recordation. Ryan said the change aligns with state statute and policy 22.3 of the CAMA land use plan; staff recommended the board forward that amendment to City Council.
The board engaged in a lengthy discussion on multifamily design standards (standards the city still may regulate). Topics and key points included:
- Exposed foundation requirement: staff acknowledged ambiguity around an "18-inch decorative base" requirement and the practical trade-offs for slab-on-grade construction and ADA compliance. Several board members said they value attractive bases but asked staff to clarify wording so it cannot be misinterpreted as forcing a raised structural foundation.
- Building orientation and glazing: staff explained the current standard requires primary entrances and a 15% glazing requirement per facade; board members discussed flexibility for side-facing buildings, the role of decorative fencing and landscaping to screen equipment and parking, and whether a percentage of buildings (rather than every building) should face the street in deep or narrow sites.
- Primary materials: staff described the existing 65% primary-material threshold (brick, stone, stucco, lap siding, shingles) and relayed developer input recommending a reduction to 51% and allowing multiple primary materials; several board members signaled support for the change to enable variety without mandating unattractive products.
- Footprint and facade length: staff reported peer cities with larger allowable footprints (staff cited examples at 18,000'20,000 square feet and facade lengths up to 225'250 feet) and suggested adding an exception for conversions (for example, hotels converted to apartments). Board members were generally open to modest increases but asked staff to benchmark and return with proposed text.
- Parking and frontage: staff proposed allowing a limited percentage of surface parking between multifamily buildings and the street when accompanied by decorative fencing and evergreen screening, rather than the current absolute prohibition. Board members discussed trade-offs between visual quality, cost and long-term maintenance of plantings.
Ryan said staff will draft clearer ordinance text to address the foundation wording, consider lowering the primary-material threshold and prepare benchmarked language for footprint and facade limits. The board asked staff to bring sample ordinance text and further outreach results for formal recommendation to council.
What happens next: staff will prepare draft ordinance language reflecting the discussed clarifications and benchmarking, solicit additional input from the development community, and return with recommended edits for a formal board recommendation to council.
