Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
I.
Subject: MUMPO Memorandum of Understanding
Action: Voted for Option 3 of the Local Cost Share & Voting Options with the modification that all MUMPO votes should be 51% of the weighted vote for all assigned participants (4-1, with
Cooksey opposed).
II.
Subject: Transit Oriented Development Policies
Action: For information only.
Present:
Time:
David Howard, John Autry, Michael Barnes, Warren Cooksey, Patsy
Kinsey
3:30 pm – 5:05 pm
Handouts
Agenda
Committee Chair Howard called the meeting to order at 3:30 and asked everyone in the room to introduce themselves.
I.
MUMPO Memorandum of Understanding
Hall: There hasn’t been any additional meetings on this subject, but we took your feedback from the last Committee meeting, and the presentation we have today frames issues better for tonight’s dinner briefing. We’re not going into great detail since we’ll be doing that at the dinner meeting this evening.
Mr. Pleasant and Mr. Cook began the presentation with slide 2.
Howard: The first part of option 3 is about voting right now (see slide 17).

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 2 of 10
Mr. Pleasant continued the presentation with slide 18.
Hall: If you were to consider option 3, that would require movement on the part of other members of the MUMPO participants away from Charlotte’s 42%. That’s where movement in the negotiation occurs.
Howard: Any questions on this before I give you my feedback?
Pleasant: We have the draft options to allocate cost by population or vote (see attachment). Mr.
Pleasant reviewed the attachment and explained what the information means.
Hall: This information demonstrates that we did our homework and came up with another option.
Howard: When it came to the money, it seemed like the most important thing was to be fair with the votes. When it came to the votes it seemed important to make sure it’s evenly distributed. This one does a little bit of both. Charlotte will pay more money, which by the way is still less money than we’ve been paying. In exchange for that, we want the principle of how we’ve been voting to stay the same (Charlotte +2). I recommend Option 3 (see slide 18) and I hope you guys will do likewise when you talk to the Council.
Mr. Hall reviewed next steps (see slide 19).
Howard: When is the next MUMPO meeting?
Cook: June 19.
Cook: One outstanding issue is still officially the Lincoln County matter as to whether or not they will be joining Gastonia.
Mr. Barnes joined the meeting at 3:54.
Cooksey: With regard to the item about a quorum (see slide 12) where the quorum options are
51% of eligible members or 60% of weighted votes, what vote is required to pass something?
Cook: Right now, the MOU reads it’s a simple majority of the weighted vote.
Cooksey: So, 51% of eligible members could be there, but if Charlotte isn’t part of that 51% of eligible members, would there be enough votes in the room to pass something?
Cook: It would be near impossible. We debated the quorum issue quite a bit and there was a lot of concern about things happening without the City being present.
Howard: I heard them say that if the meeting is established, a simple majority of the people could pass anything.

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 3 of 10
Cooksey: Which scenario should I look at for the likely recommendation in terms of the total number of votes available?
Howard: The last 2 columns of the Draft Options attachment.
Cooksey: Can eight of the 14 votes dictate policy?
Howard: Yes. Normally, in order to establish quorum, Charlotte has to be there.
Cook: To establish a quorum now, you don't need the City but you need everyone else.
Cooksey: Do you mean 51% of the weighted vote?
Cook: Based on the current membership, you can hold a meeting without Charlotte being present, but you need every other agency present, which we’ve never had.
Howard: When is the TCC vote again?
Cook: July 11.
Cooksey: The question is, can eight votes set policy?
Howard: We have the option of just leaving it with the people who establish the quorum, or do you have to say that every vote has to be a majority of the weighted vote.
Cooksey: There is nothing wrong with saying that every vote has to be a majority of the total weighted vote available.
Howard: Tell me what you want to do, Danny.
Pleasant: It sounds like you're asking for 35 votes to have affirmative action.
Howard: Put that in a percentage for me.
Pleasant: Of the 69 weighted votes, 35 give you a majority.
Howard: How is that done right now percentage wise?
Cook: On a vote or a quorum?
Howard: On a vote.
Cook: The MOU reads a simple majority of eligible members present will pass a motion.
Cooksey: There are two ways to set this up. You either establish what your quorum is and a vote to make policy is a majority of that quorum, or you establish a fixed vote to get something

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 4 of 10 passed. Where this goes awry is you have two ways to describe quorum. Typically, quorum is described in one way.
Howard: What would it take to pass something if Charlotte was in the room right now?
Cook: Charlotte + 2 jurisdictions.
Cooksey: What does it take for a motion to pass if Charlotte votes “No” on the current MPO with everybody else voting yes?
Cook: Yes and every other jurisdiction would have to be in the room.
Cooksey: What’s happening here is that decisions can be made without Charlotte.
Howard: What you’re talking about is adding something that says the minimum vote on any issue is 51%.
Cooksey: I’m offering that as a suggestion.
Cook: The quorum could perhaps remain as is, but look at the voting policy because we’ve not touched that in the MOU at all. We have a staff meeting on Wednesday where we could look at it. Is that okay, Danny?
Pleasant: Yes.
Howard: Did we cover all the questions the Committee members asked last time?
Hall: I think most of the questions were related to framing around costing and options. There were some questions associated with the specifics of some of those outstanding items, but at the end of the day what we heard from the Committee discussion was more framework around the options related to voting and cost share.
Howard: Which ones did we say I should have flexibility on?
Hall: My notes say most of these are where the Committee was saying to give you discretion.
Where the vote was not clear was on the weighted question and the governance structure. There were six items, two of which were voting and cost share.
Howard: The things we voted on were recommendation to the full Council. We’ll have a presentation on weighted votes. That takes care of that one question, but what were the other ones we recommended to Council?
Hall: There were six items that Bob put in front of you at your last meeting, two of which were the weighted voting and cost share and that’s on the table with the three options. You either approved the other four or gave Mr. Howard discretion.

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 5 of 10
Howard: So, tonight we’ll just talk about weighted voting. We’ll come back to Council at the zoning meeting and ask about directed votes on each one of the tenants of the MOU.
Hall: You can put all of it into one direction if you want to.
Howard: We’ll just update the Council tonight. It would be nice to tell them what we recommended on each one of the tenants.
Hall: We can do that.
Howard: Any more question on these options? I’m prepared to take a motion on Option 3 (see slide 17).
Kinsey: I will make a motion to choose Option 3.
Autry: Second.
Howard: Any questions on this motion?
Barnes: Yes. In Option 3, Charlotte would have 31 votes out of 69, which is on the long sheet here (see attachment Draft Options).
Howard: Essentially, it’s leaving the principle of how the weighted vote is decided the way it is right now, which is Charlotte +2. It gives us the higher percentage of votes.
Barnes: 45%. What I’m saying is we have 31 votes out of 69 total votes.
Howard: In exchange for that, we’re saying that we’ll pay our cost share based on population, which is still far less than what we’ve been paying.
Barnes: So, almost every other town would have to show up to approve something without us?
Cooksey: Maybe. That’s a different section of the agreement.
Barnes: And an important part.
Autry: Is it wise to vote on this before establishing a quorum?
Cook: Is the concern with the quorum and the way that it’s written or the voting policy?
Howard: The voting policy. I think we need to say that any vote of the MUMPO vote should be
51% of the weighted vote. Is that accepted by motion?
Cooksey: Are you suggesting that a valid vote must have 51% of the weighted votes cast (aye and nay) or the ayes have to constitute 51% of the total votes available?

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 6 of 10
Howard: I don’t see the difference between the two.
Cooksey: If a quorum constitutes a majority of the votes available (if there are 69 votes available, then a quorum is 35), then you are saying that in order to pass anything, you must have 35 votes minimum.
Howard: I think that happens now anyway. The point was to get the meetings going. It was never to circumvent how votes had to be taken. Any action by MUMPO still needs to pass by
51% of all votes. Do we move forward with the motion as stated with the modification that all votes of the MPO have to be 51% of all assigned votes? Did I get that right, Cooksey?
Cooksey: Yes.
Howard: Alright. All in favor say aye.
The motion carried unanimously.
Cooksey: Mr. Barnes, I think it would be a valuable message to note that the Council is not unanimous in accepting this compromise.
Barnes: And so, what we just voted on is a recommendation for the full Council to direct your vote.
Cooksey: Yes.
Howard: Is there anything else we have not voted on in relation to the MOU?
Hall: No, sir.
Cook: No.
Hall: The next step is the dinner briefing and maybe an agenda item on zoning to direct the representative vote; then the June 19 possible action by the MPO. Mr. Howard, you may remember during LRTP Committee discussion, you asked for some illustrations to try to show the transportation project process. We provided a first attempt today to see what you think (see attachment-Transportation Project Process).
II.
Transit Oriented Development Policies
Hall: The purpose of this presentation is to review the policy as you discussed. Staff looked at it and suggested breaking this up into two segments. Today is the introduction and the overview to help everyone understand what transit oriented development means, then the second segment can get into what potential changes you would like to see.
Mr. Goodwin began the presentation with slide 2.

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 7 of 10
Howard: Do you measure from the ground (see slide 8)?
Goodwin: It’s measured from the ground from the average grade ground level to the eave or the top of the roof depending on the type of roof structure. We don’t count elevator or utility installations on the roofs.
Howard: Mixed-use is what (see slide 9)?
Goodwin: Mixed-use as opposed to multi-use which could be a residential building and a separate non-residential building. In that case we would measure the residential building in
DUA and the non-residential building in FAR. Where residential and non-residential uses are mixed together we use just the FAR calculation.
Mr. Goodwin continued the presentation with slide 10.
Howard: Have you thought about looking at that in relation to the NoDa discussion (see slide
10)? In that situation having maximums where there is already a problem could be a bigger problem.
Goodwin: I think in most places in the station area you’re within 800-feet of single family zoning, so that would have some parking minimum in place for restaurants and night clubs. The other thing I want to mention is that the market has dictated parking more than the ordinance so there haven’t been any projects that have been bold enough to propose no or very little parking.
Howard: But they could.
Goodwin: Yes. We have one that is currently going through the review process. It’s a small 36unit apartment building in South End that actually has less than one space per unit.
Howard: We should monitor that.
Campbell: We are. The development community as well as the neighborhoods will let us know when there is a problem. Most all of the changes that have been made to our TOD districts have come from concerns expressed by residents or developers. We are consistently tweaking these standards.
Howard: Is bicycle parking the same across the board?
Goodwin: Yes. One thing that is not permitted in TOD (see bottom right photo in slide 10) is you can’t have a row of townhomes with garages that open onto a public street.
Mr. Goodwin continued the presentation with slide 11.
Kinsey: Is there a wall height limit in TOD (see slide 13)?
Goodwin: I can't recall.

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 8 of 10
Kinsey: Is there a wall or fence height restriction in residential areas?
Goodwin: I believe there is.
Howard: Ms. Campbell, the conversation we just had about retail on the bottom level of downtown buildings makes me think that we do it wrong. Right now, people are allowed to put retail anywhere they want to as long as it’s on the bottom floor. It seems like that would be more of a concern when TOD developments pop up. Any thoughts about how we make sure that retail is not stuck in a back alley somewhere or behind the grandiose lobbies like we see downtown?
Campbell: I think it may be a little bit different for the kind of development that we are seeing in our station areas, because the majority of that is residential. What we’re seeing uptown is a lot of employment, and for the most part they are utilizing their lobbies as a grand entrance with some retail but it’s not at the street entrance, it’s usually buried. We literally have a problem in
UMUD where we have to suggest that if the retail is going to be housed in the building, then it needs to be somewhere in the front of the building, not just in the lobby. I think that is different from this particular issue. The other concern we had is there is always pressure for staff to require retail on the ground floor. We have suggested that we would like to see the ground floor activated. It could be retail, it could be a health clinic or offices. What we have found is having vacant buildings have much more of an adverse impact on the character of a community, so the issue with retail is not whether to have it or not, it is really about market, and leased space and the amount. If the owner can get more per square foot for office or some other use, that's the use that will go there. The challenge with retail is how we subsidize?
Howard: Lets be forward thinking about what that looks like.
Campbell: We've linked a lot of requirements for retail to certain streets. We don’t think you can have small retail everywhere within the station.
Mr. Goodwin resumed the presentation with slide 14.
Autry: Your TS is an overlay that doesn't change the underlying zoning (see slide 15)?
Goodwin: Correct.
Autry: But if the overlay then calls for this urban appearance, in essence it is changing the underlying zoning.
Campbell: It is in form but some of the uses are still allowed. For example, if you take B-1 zoning, there would be a range of things that would be allowed. I would imagine the setback would be 20-feet, so we would have a different setback for TOD. We would probably not allow any drive-thrus other than for some office uses such as a bank, whereas is B-1 you can’t have drive-thru uses, so we adjust some of the uses and we adjust the form of development. It’s not necessarily changing the zoning classification of B-1, but what it does is create a holding pattern as the market matures and development continues out the corridor. Then we’ll have the form of

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 9 of 10 development so that it doesn’t adversely impact the market potential to achieve full TOD zoning. So our TS is almost like the name denotes; it’s supportive of transit but it still allows for a broader range of land uses.
Autry: B-1 property is not conducive to the TOD we want to see. Isn’t there a transit district that a person could apply for to rezone their property to give them the uses they want?
Campbell: The floor area ratio and the density are different in TS than they are in TOD. We are trying to respond to that fact that all geographies are not created equal. Southend is a very different context and is ready for more intense, pure TOD. When you get to Woodlawn and
Arrowood, the market, the development form, and the amount of things that are needed to create that market are different. What we thought was very important was to not preclude these areas from evolving into more urban TOD areas.
Mr. Goodwin continued the presentation with slide 16.
Campbell: What we wanted to do is make sure you all understood what the existing standards were before we talk about the next phase of this discussion, which will be responding to some of your concerns with regards to how we make sure that TOD and TS zonings as well as any other urban districts accomplish the vision that has been set in some of the adopted station area plans. We will come back with information on how we think this is being and can be achieved.
Howard: One more thing we want to understand is how it relates to all the affected neighborhoods and contextually why we still want to achieve TOD.
Campbell: Secondly, I would like to talk about how we came up with the standards in the zoning ordinance. We hired a consultant, visited many communities, brought the information back and tailored this for Charlotte. We think the fundamentals are in place in the existing standards with some tweaking.
Howard: If you try to be general with TOD everywhere, it’s harder.
Campbell: We think it's key to have the zoning ordinance linked back to the policy. It’s hard to write a one size fits all standard.
Barnes: At our March 28 meeting, we talked about the BLE station area plans, and at the April
25 meeting we talked about intentionality. We talked about how to make sure the station areas around the extension would look the way we all hope they’ll look, and we talked about making sure the Applied Innovation Corridor was an appropriate leverage point. If you have feedback today, share it. I just don’t want it to die. There is already activity related to the BLE in Mrs.
Kinsey's district and there is growing activity and interest along the extension corridor. It’s going to be very important for people to appreciate and know what the regulatory framework is, what the entitlements are, and what our expectations are for not only the station areas but the areas between the stations. I hope you guys will find a way to incorporate a lot of stuff in a short period of time, because people are starting to get active and they are putting pressure on us.
Whatever can do to help move that along will be appreciated.

Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 10, 2013
Page 10 of 10
Campbell: I appreciate your concern. We will bring that that information to your next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 5:05.

1
Charlotte City Council
June 10, 2013
2
• What is an MPO and Why is it Changing?
• Consensus items
• May MOU Subcommittee Meeting
• Options
1
7/15/2013

– Required by federal law in urbanized areas with populations exceeding 50,000
– Necessary if an urbanized area wishes to use federal aid transportation funds
– Provide a forum for cooperative decisionmaking
– Allocate federal transportation funds
– Prepare long and short range transportation plans and programs
3
MPOs established by Federal Law
Designation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.—
In general.— To carry out the transportation planning process …a metropolitan planning organization shall be designated for each urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000 individuals—
(A) by agreement between the Governor and units of general purpose local government that together represent at least
75 percent of the affected population (including the largest incorporated city (based on population) as determined by the Bureau of the Census); or
(B) in accordance with procedures established by applicable
State or local law.
23 USC §134 and 49 USC § 5303
4
2
7/15/2013

MPOs >200,000 population
Transportation Management Areas.—
(1) Identification and designation.—
(A) Required identification.— The Secretary shall identify as a transportation management area each urbanized area (as defined by the Bureau of the
Census) with a population of over 200,000 individuals.
(2) Transportation plans.— In a transportation management area, transportation plans shall be based on a continuing and comprehensive transportation planning process carried out by the metropolitan planning organization in cooperation with the State and public transportation operators.
23 USC §134
5
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP)
(4) Selection of projects.—
(A) In general.— All Federally funded projects carried out within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning area serving a transportation management area under this title (excluding projects carried out on the National Highway System) or under chapter 53 of title 49 shall be selected for implementation from the approved TIP by the metropolitan planning organization designated for the area in consultation with the State and any affected public transportation operator.
(B) National highway system projects.— Projects carried out within the boundaries of a metropolitan planning area serving a transportation management area on the National Highway
System shall be selected for implementation from the approved
TIP by the State in cooperation with the metropolitan planning organization designated for the area.
23 USC §134
6
3
7/15/2013

MPO Membership
Metropolitan Planning Organization = Policy Board
Structure. …each metropolitan planning organization that serves an area designated as a transportation management area shall consist of—
(A) local elected officials;
(B) officials of public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan area, including representation by providers of public transportation; and
(C) appropriate State officials.
23 USC §134 and 49 USC § 5303
7
Approaches to Expansion
• Continuing Designation – Current MPO remains in effect until redesignated or restructured
– 1 year after Census releases Urban Area Maps (March 2012)
• Redesignation – Substantial change in:
– proportion of voting members, or
– decision making procedures
• Restructuring
– Adding members representing new local government units, or
– adding members required as part of a Transportation
Management Area. (e.g. MTC)
8
4
7/15/2013

Stalemate?
Governor or General Assembly
Intervention
9
• March 2012: Census
Bureau released updated urbanized area information
• Charlotte urbanized area (UZA) increased substantially
– Land area increase: 70%
– Population increase: 64%
10
5
7/15/2013

– Metropolitan planning process must be implemented in urbanized areas
– Triggered significant expansion of planning area boundary
• Iredell & Lincoln counties
– Rewrite MPO governing document-MOU
– Gaston, York, Lancaster and Catawba
• Adjacent MPOs will take responsibility
11
– Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning
Organization
– Make MPO more inclusive by eliminating population minimum of 5000
– Constituted by presence of 51% of eligible members, OR 60% of weighted vote
12
6
7/15/2013

– Allow for Consent Agenda procedures
– Simplify TIP and Comprehensive Transportation
Plan amendment procedures
– Update membership to reflect current needs
– Add greenways representative
13
– Agreed to share the local match of federal funds
– City now pays entire match
– FY 14 amount: $428,315
14
7
7/15/2013

15
Local Cost Share & Voting Options
– Allocate local match based upon population
– City obligation: $264,325
– Keep Charlotte at current vote percentage:
42%
– But requires additional jurisdictions for majority vote
16
8
7/15/2013

Local Cost Share & Voting Options
Option 1: Vote by population
Cost share by population
Option 2: Charlotte + 3 jurisdictions = majority vote
Cost share by votes
Option 3: Charlotte + 2 jurisdictions = majority vote
Cost share by population
17
Local Cost Share & Voting
Options
Options
Charlotte Cost Share
Metric $$
Charlotte Votes
#
18
MOU sub-
Committee
December
1
2
3
Population
All towns +
Lincoln Co.
$256,626 31/73
Population
-2 towns
- Lincoln Co.
Votes
Charlotte +
3 others*
$264,325
$190,362
62/100
28/66
Population
-2 towns
- Lincoln Co.
$264,325 31/69
* At least 2 jurisdictions with 2 votes each
%
42%
62%
42%
45%
9
7/15/2013

19
– Potential directed vote from Council
– Subcommittee recommendations presented
– Possible MPO agreement on forwarding draft MOU to members
7/15/2013
20
Questions and
Discussion
10

Jurisdiction
Charlotte
Cornelius
Davidson
Fairview
Hemby Bridge
Huntersville*
Indian Trail
Iredell County**
Lake Park
Lincoln County**
Marshville
Marvin
Matthews
Mecklenburg County**
Mineral Springs
Mint Hill
Monroe
Mooresville
Pineville
Stallings
Statesville
Troutman
Union County**
Unionville
Waxhaw
Weddington
Wesley Chapel
Wingate
NC DOT***
MTC (Transit)
Total
*Amended Huntersville from 3 votes to 2.
December 2012 MOU Sub-Committee
Recommended Vote & Cost Distribution
Population
2010 Census
Including
Sphere
Percent of
Est. Future
Planning
Area
Population
Total
Number of
Votes
Minimum 1 vote per jurisdiction
Percent of Vote
Proposed
FY14
Population
Cost Share
2,639
28,443
33,884
38,541
11,507
13,835
28,930
3,802
44,926
5,929
9,859
9,459
7,643
5,855
766,289
25,062
11,637
3,324
1,520
48,734
33,518
74,086
3,422
29,803
2,772
5,579
27,198
758
1,278,954
3.5%
0.5%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.2%
2.2%
2.6%
3.0%
0.9%
1.1%
2.3%
0.3%
59.9%
2.0%
0.9%
0.3%
0.1%
3.8%
2.6%
5.8%
0.3%
2.3%
0.2%
0.4%
2.1%
0.1%
100%
1
1
2
1
73
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
31
2
1
884
9,525
11,348
12,907
3,854
4,633
9,689
1,273
15,045
1,986
3,302
3,168
2,560
1,961
256,626
8,393
3,897
1,113
509
16,321
11,225
24,811
1,146
9,981
928
1,868
9,108
254
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
100%
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
3%
1%
1%
3%
3%
42%
3%
1%
1%
1%
428,315
** Unincorporated County Population
Population Based Cost Share
Revised
Member
Population
2010 Census
Including
Sphere
Percent of
Est. Future
Planning
Area
Population
Total
Proposed
FY14
Population
Cost Share
3.6%
0.0%
0.8%
0.8%
0.6%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
0.2%
2.3%
2.7%
3.1%
0.9%
1.1%
2.3%
0.3%
61.7%
2.0%
0.9%
0.3%
0.0%
3.9%
2.7%
6.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
2.2%
0.1%
2,639
28,443
33,884
38,541
11,507
13,835
28,930
3,802
44,926
-
9,859
9,459
7,643
5,855
-
-
1,241,702
766,289
25,062
11,637
3,324
-
48,734
33,518
74,086
3,422
-
2,772
5,579
27,198
758
$ 910
$ 9,811
$ 11,688
$ 13,294
$ 3,969
$ 4,772
$ 9,979
$ 1,311
$ 15,497
$ -
$ 3,401
$ 3,263
$ 2,636
$ 2,020
$ -
$ -
$ 428,315
$ 264,325
$ 8,645
$ 4,014
$ 1,147
$ -
$ 16,810
$ 11,562
$ 25,555
$ 1,180
$ -
$ 956
$ 1,924
$ 9,382
$ 261
***1 vote each for Divisions 10 and 12
Votes-Charlotte Plus 3 with Vote Based Cost Share
Number of
Votes
Minimum 1 vote per jurisdiction
Percent of
Vote
Percent
Cost
Share by
Vote
Proposed FY14
Cost Share by
Vote
3%
0%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
0%
2%
2%
3%
3%
44%
3%
2%
2%
0%
2
1
66
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
28
2
1
1
0
3%
0%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
100%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
0%
2%
2%
3%
3%
42%
3%
2%
2%
0%
100%
$ 190,362
$ 13,597
$ 6,799
$ 6,799
$ -
$ 13,597
$ 13,597
$ 13,597
$ 6,799
$ -
$ 6,799
$ 6,799
$ 13,597
$ 13,597
$ 6,799
$ 13,597
$ 13,597
$ 13,597
$ 6,799
$ 6,799
$ 13,597
$ 6,799
$ 13,597
$ -
$ 6,799
$ 6,799
$ 6,799
$ 6,799
$ 428,315
Votes-Charlotte Plus 2 with Vote Based Cost Share
Number of
Votes
Minimum 1 vote per jurisdiction
Percent of
Vote
Percent
Cost
Share by
Vote
Proposed
FY14 Cost
Share by
Vote
3%
0%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
0%
2%
2%
3%
3%
47%
3%
2%
2%
0%
1
1
2
1
69
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
31
2
1
3%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
100%
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1%
0%
1%
1%
3%
3%
45%
3%
1%
1%
0%
100%
$ 6,490
$ 12,979
$ 12,979
$ 12,979
$ 6,490
$ 6,490
$ 12,979
$ 6,490
$ 12,979
$ -
$ 6,490
$ 6,490
$ 6,490
$ 6,490
$ 201,178
$ 12,979
$ 6,490
$ 6,490
$ -
$ 12,979
$ 12,979
$ 12,979
$ 6,490
$ -
$ 6,490
$ 6,490
$ 12,979
$ 12,979
$ 428,315

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
PLANNING
June 10, 2013
Slide 2
T&P Committee members suggested a review of the Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) standards.
Council approved T&P Committee request to refer application of TOD zoning back to Committee for further discussion.
CHARMECK.ORG
1
7/15/2013

Centers, Corridors & Wedges
(1994)
Transit Station Area Principles
(2001)
Station Area Plans
South Corridor – 2005-2009
BLE Stations - 2013
Slide 3
TOD
Zoning Tools
(Transit Oriented
Development)
TS
(Transit Supportive
Overlay)
MUDD UMUD UR
Station Area Vision
Knitting Policy & Implementation Together
Station Development Concept
Development Plan
Structure Plan
Mobility Plan
Community Vision
Neighborhood Protection
Future Land Use
Transportation
Infrastructure
Open Space
Building Type
Transit Oriented Development
Transit Supportive Overlay
Parking
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Residential Density (DUA)
Height Plane
Site Design
Building Massing & Form
CHARMECK.ORG
Slide 4 CHARMECK.ORG
2
7/15/2013

Zoning districts that are consistent with the
Station Area Principles can be used to achieve the vision of Charlotte’s transit station area plans.
Such districts should:
• Allow for a mix of uses
• Limit auto-oriented uses
• Include urban design standards
• Encourage pedestrian activity
• Include urban setbacks and streetscape requirements
UMUD
Uptown Mixed Use District
UR
(UR-1, UR-2, UR-3, UR-C)
Urban Residential Districts
Slide 5
MUDD
Mixed Use Development District
TOD & TS
Transit Oriented & Transit Supportive
CHARMECK.ORG
3 TOD Zoning Districts adopted by City Council in 2003.
TOD-R (Residential)
TOD-E (Employment)
TOD-M (Mixed-Use)
Transit Supportive (TS) Overlay adopted in 2005.
• Limit or prohibit auto-oriented uses.
• Reduced building setbacks - measured from the back of curb.
• Minimum density requirements (no maximum density)
• Typically no minimum parking (parking maximums apply instead)
• Pedestrian connectivity & open space requirements.
• Architectural design and streetscape standards.
Required Open Space
Streetscape Requirements
Slide 6
3
7/15/2013

• Measured from the back of curb, not from property line
• Determined by City Council-adopted
Streetscape Plan
• No utility structures in setback
• Open air porches and stoops may encroach into setback but must be behind sidewalk
• None required unless abutting residential
Council Adopted Streetscape Plan
Slide 7
24 ft.
Remount Road 24’ Setback
CHARMECK.ORG
• Base height 40 feet
• Height may increase 1 foot for every 10 feet distance from single family
• Maximum height 120 feet
Gradual TOD
Height Plane
40’ Base TOD Height (approx.)
Slide 8
4
Height Plane Map
120’ Maximum TOD Height
CHARMECK.ORG
7/15/2013

• Minimum residential density requirements
• 20 dwelling units per acre
(DUA) within ¼ mile of transit station
• 15 DUA within ½ mile
• No maximum density
• Applies to non-residential uses and mixed-use developments
• .75 FAR within ¼ mile of transit station
• .5 FAR within ½ mile
Minimum FAR Applies to
Non-Residential
Slide 9
Minimum DUA for
Residential Development
• In most locations, no minimum parking requirement (limited exceptions near single family)
• Maximum parking requirements
• No parking between building and street
• On-street parking required/encouraged
• Shared parking permitted/encouraged
• No front loaded garages
• Structured parking partially lined with active uses
• Bicycle parking required
Entrance to
Structured Parking
Structured Parking
Lined with Active Use
Slide 10
Surface Parking
Behind Building
No Front Loaded
Garages
CHARMECK.ORG
5
7/15/2013

• Utility structures must be screened from view from the street
• Parking must be screened
• Uses must have landscape buffer along property lines if abutting residential zoning
• Internal sidewalk connections required from all buildings to all on-site facilities
• Ground floor residential units encouraged to connect to adjacent sidewalk
Residential Units Connect to Adjacent Sidewalk
Slide 11
Utilities Must
Be Screened
CHARMECK.ORG
• New development must provide urban open space
• Must be improved with seating, planting, and/or other amenities
• May be private open space for residential development (interior courtyard, rooftop)
• Must be accessible to public for nonresidential development
Residential Courtyard
Open Space
Residential Terrace
Open Space
Slide 12
Non-Residential
Public Open Space
Residential Rooftop
Open Space
CHARMECK.ORG
6
7/15/2013

• Retail and office must have clear glass windows and doors at street level
• First floor facades to be designed for pedestrian interest
• Limit on length of blank wall areas
• No reflective surfaces at street level
• 50% of street frontage on identified retail streets must accommodate non-residential uses
Clear Glass at
Street Level
Limit Blank Wall Areas
Design for
Pedestrian Interest
Slide 13
Accommodate Non-Residential
Uses on Retail Streets
CHARMECK.ORG
• At least one entrance required along each street
• Entrance required onto abutting multi-use trail or greenway
• Building entrances must provide well-designed sense of entry
• Perimeter planting strip, street trees, sidewalk required
• Transit Station Area Plan determines sidewalk width
(typically 8’)
Planting Strip, Street
Trees, and 8’ Sidewalk
Slide 14
Signature Building
Entrance
Entrance Onto Abutting
Multi-Use Path
CHARMECK.ORG
7
7/15/2013

• Overlay district “sits on top” of underlying zoning (e.g. B-1, B-2, I-1, I-2)
• Intended for use on edges of station areas or in areas not yet ready for TOD zoning
• Allows most permitted uses of underlying zoning district while applying TOD development and design standards
• Most development standards are identical to
TOD (density, FAR, and maximum height are less)
• TS Overlay zoning adopted in 2005 but not used until 2013
• First two TS rezoning petitions went to public hearing in May 2013
Slide 15 CHARMECK.ORG
• The majority of TOD rezonings to date have been
“straight up”, not conditional or optional.
• The TOD ordinance has a provision that allows the owner to request to opt out of one or more ordinance standards.
• TOD-Optional is a conditional zoning requiring a site plan and often building elevations.
• The City has so far only sponsored straight up TOD rezonings, not conditional or optional.
Slide 16
One example of a TOD Option that has received Council approval is an increase in building height.
Consider allowing height limit up to 200’ if located at a “walk-up” station on the South
Corridor (250’ if within ½ mile of the I-277 freeway loop) if the following conditions are met:
• Site located within ½ mile walk of a station and more than 800’ from single family residences (existing or shown on the plan)
•
•
Mixture of uses on site, with significant office component (at least 20%) included if plan calls for TOD employment or TOD mixed land use
Active ground floor uses such as retail, office or residential along 50% or more of
•
•
• public right-of-way frontage
No parking decks fronting public right-ofway unless activated with ground floor retail
Usable public open space (minimum of
10% of site) located in highly visible and accessible location (adjacent to transit station when site is adjacent to station)
Additional 20’ setback/yard for floors 4 and above
• Detailed site plan and lower floor elevations submitted with conditional TOD rezoning
CHARMECK.ORG
8
7/15/2013

Required pre-submittal “Urban Meeting”
• Owner’s design team meets with staff
• Review requirements and development standards (Planning, CDOT,
NCDOT, Engineering, Storm Water, Zoning, Urban Forestry)
• Ensure development plans align with any conditional rezoning requirements
• Discuss any potential problems or special issues
Owner files plans electronically with
Engineering & Property Management
• City departments review plans for compliance with ordinance and development requirements
• Staff comments are noted on the plans, which can be viewed by the
Owner on the Accela web site
• Individual departments can sign off on plans or request revisions
• Development plans typically go though 2 or 3 review cycles prior to being approved by all reviewers
Owner applies for Building Permit
• Permit will not be issued until all departments have signed off on the plan review
Slide 17 CHARMECK.ORG
Residential
The Tremont
• 45 units
• 62 DUA
• 3,000 sq. ft. retail space
Slide 18
1225 South Church
• 406 units
• 83 DUA
• 3,200 sq. ft. retail space
9
CHARMECK.ORG
7/15/2013

1927 South Tryon
• 82,000 sq. ft. office space
Office
Slide 19
Flores & Associates
• 20,000 sq. ft. singletenant office space
CHARMECK.ORG
Rehab
Packard Building
• Former auto showroom
• 15,000 sq. ft. office space
Slide 20
125 Remount Road
• Former industrial use
• 13,700 sq. ft. retail space
10
CHARMECK.ORG
7/15/2013

Junction 1504
• 11 acres
• 281 units in 18 buildings
• 25 DUA
• 354,000 sq. ft.
• New internal public and private streets
• Some units open onto rail corridor path
• Open 2013
Slide 21
Slide 22
The Ashton
• Luxury apartment building
• 312 units
• Structured parking
• Rooftop pool
• 120’ height
(maximum allowed in TOD zoning)
• Completed 2009
11
7/15/2013

7/15/2013
Slide 23 CHARMECK.ORG
Slide 24
12
CHARMECK.ORG

1. What concerns do you have about TOD standards or the review and approval process?
2. What additional information would you like for us to provide at the next meeting?
7/15/2013
• Center City
• Mixed Use Center
• Industrial Center
• Established Neighborhood
Areas
• Transit Station Areas
• Interchange Areas
• General Corridor Areas
13

The GDP includes a section called
Transit Station Area Principles
(adopted in 2001). The Station Area
Principles make general recommendations for the types of land use, community design, and transportation facilities desired within a
1/2 mile walk distance of a rapid transit station .
The Transit Station Area Principles provide the backdrop for area plan policy recommendations.
Land Use
Community Design Mobility
Concentrate a mix of complementary, wellintegrated land uses within walking distance of the transit station.
Use urban design to enhance the community identity of station areas and to make them attractive, safe and convenient places.
Enhance the existing transportation network to promote good walking, bicycle and transit connections”
14
7/15/2013

South End
June 2005
New Bern
July 2008
Tyvola & Archdale
November 2008
Arrowood
March 2009
Scaleybark
October 2008
Sharon & I-485
May 2009
Woodlawn
October 2008
Blue Line Extension
2013
• Policy Guide that Provides a
Framework for Future Growth and
Development
• Represents a Shared Vision for the Future
• Provides Detailed Land Use,
Community Design, and
Transportation Recommendations for each Station Area
• Provides Building Setback and
Streetscape Standards for
Properties with Urban Zoning
Districts
Development Concept
Policies
•
Vision & Goals
•
General Development
Character
•
Neighborhood
Preservation vs. TOD
Development Plan
New to BLE Station Area Plans (2013)
•
Future Land Use
•
Community Design
•
Infrastructure
•
Natural Environment
Structure Plan
•
Building type/design
•
Building Height in specific character areas
Mobility Plan
•
Capital Projects
•
Transportation
Improvements
•
Street Design (USDG)
15
7/15/2013

• Over 80% of Charlotte rezoning petitions are
“Conditional,” with approval tied to a site plan.
• Key Developer interest for TOD: allow for
“by right” development , tied to predictable standards.
• Allows for project revisions due to market conditions.
7/15/2013
Text amendment in response to neighborhood concerns.
When TOD is across the street from or adjacent to single family development:
 Change the starting point for measuring the height plane relative to the single family development.

Prohibit loading and service areas.
 Screen parking garages and decks with active uses.
 Provide architectural design details
16

Require minimum 30’ setback if across from or abutting single family
Previous Revised
14’ Setback
Min. 30 feet
• Getting desired results without CD plans
7/15/2013
17

Transportation and Planning Committee

7/15/2013
Policy
Number
L-1
Action Item
Develop a new regulatory tool to
Recommend conditional plans be developed for areas where the structure plans recommend specific heights and other conditions to implement the transit oriented development vision in the stations.
particularly in business revitalization areas.
Project
Type
Lead
Agency
Land Use Planning
18