OV E RV I E W
FAC T S H E E T
C O S T C O M PA R I S O N S
EXISTING CONDITIONS
E X I S T I N G R E G U L AT I O N S
C A S E S T U DY # 6 P C C O T R A N S I T
C A S E S T U DY # 7 P C C O C E N T R A L - C ATAW BA
56
City of Charlotte Cost Analysis
U R BA N I N F I L L
C AOVERVIEW
S E S T U DY # 7
PC C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
The project example for the Urban Infill Analysis is an approximately 2.87 acre
drainage improvements were required. For the implementation of the PCCO- transit
site located within a proposed transit station area along Charlotte’s Light Rail
provisions, an underground detention facility was incorporated to meet peak flow
Corridor in the South End District. The project is a redevelopment of an existing,
detention and volume control requirements for the ten (10) year and one (1) year
highly impervious retail business use that will be demolished to make way for a
design storm events, respectively. An analysis of the down stream storm drainage
multi-story residential building with structured parking. The residential units
system receiving the site runoff was conducted and concluded that only 10-year
for this project will be offered for rent, but may be sold as condominiums in the
detention was needed. However, the receiving system was lowered to accept the
future. The 2.87 acre parcel was purchased for $6.5 million in August 2006. The
project site’s runoff. Minor changes to the approved utilities proposed with the
project will propose 310 residential apartments. The project is estimated to be
approved plans were incorporated to accommodate the underground storm water
valued at $75 million.
system. The site development cost associated with the PCCO-Transit provisions is
$1.4 million compared to $909,990 for the approved site (refer to cost estimate
There are no known environmental features associated with the existing site,
enclosed).
and the proposed development will reduce the impervious area associated with
this parcel, thus reducing storm water runoff generated. Two case studies have
For the implementation of the PCCO-Central Catawba, an underground sand filter/
been provided with this analysis. The post-construction ordinance transit station
detention system was incorporated to meet water quality, volume and peak flow
area and distressed business district provisions (PCCO-Transit) and the post-
detention requirements. The same downstream analysis of the receiving drainage
construction ordinance Central Catawba standards (PCCO-Central Catawba) will be
system was brought forth from the transit corridor provisions study. Minor changes
incorporated into the design of this development to be compared with the existing
to the approved utilities were made to accommodate the underground BMP
regulations. Cost comparisons of site development improvements are provided.
proposed with this analysis. In addition, open space as defined in the PCCO, was
The USDG are not analyzed with this project as the existing project currently meets
not required as the site was defined as redevelopment. The site development
the standards of that ordinance. Additionally, Minimum Permit Requirements
cost associated with this scenario is $1.75 million dollars (refer to cost estimate
would not introduce additional storm water requirements as impervious from this
enclosed).
project is being reduced with the proposed improvements. Therefore, no additional
costs would be incurred with the implementation of USDG or Minimum Permit
Staff reviewed the project development in relation to the draft Environmental
Requirements.
Chapter of the City of Charlotte’s General Development Policies (GDP-E). Staff
recognizes the high degree of existing impervious area and that applying the PCCO
In summary, the existing project was developed with no storm water controls other
would improve the quality of the runoff from the existing impervious area and
than standard facilities as required to adequately drain the site’s runoff. No public
would serve to meet the intent of the GDP-E.
57
U R BA N I N F I L L
SHEET
CFACT
ASE ST
U DY # 7
P C C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
DESIGN CRITERIA
REQUIRED ELEMENTS
E X I S T I N G R E G U L AT I O N S
PCCO-TRANSIT
P C C O - C E N T R A L C ATAW B A
2 S PA C E S / U N I T- M A X
2 S PA C E S / U N I T- M A X
2 S PA C E S / U N I T- M A X
4,350 SF
4,350 SF
4,350 SF
T R E E S AV E
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E *
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
N/A
PCCO
PCCO
8 5 % T S S * R E M O VA L
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
X
7 0 % T P * R E M O VA L
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
DETENTION
NOT REQUIRED
X
X
V O L U M E AT T E N U AT I O N
NOT REQUIRED
X
X
PA R K I N G
O P E N S PA C E
BUFFERS
* See Appendix for definitions.
58
City of Charlotte Cost Analysis
U R BA N I N F I L L
SHEET
CFACT
ASE ST
U DY # 7
PC C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
ELEMENTS
E X I S T I N G R E G U L AT I O N S
PCCO-TRANSIT
P C C O - C E N T R A L C ATAW B A
TOD-M
TOD-M
TOD-M
SITE ACREAGE
2.87
2.87
2.87
UNITS
310
310
310
DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE (DUA)
108
108
108
P R I VAT E R O A D S ( L I N E A R F E E T )
N/A
N/A
N/A
77.1%
77.1%
77.1%
6 1 0 ( 2 S P / U N I T- M A X )
6 1 0 ( 2 S P / U N I T- M A X )
6 1 0 ( 2 S P / U N I T- M A X )
515
515
515
O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D * *
0.10 AC
0.10 AC
0.10 AC
O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D
0.12 AC
0.12 AC
0.12 AC
T R E E S AV E A R E A R E Q U I R E D * *
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
T R E E S AV E A R E A P R O V I D E D
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
B M P * * - S A N D F I LT E R
NOT REQUIRED
NOT REQUIRED
PROVIDED
BMP**-UNDERGROUND DETENTION
NOT REQUIRED
PROVIDED
PROVIDED
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
NOT REQUIRED
PUBLIC DRAINAGE
PUBLIC DRAINAGE
ZONING
% I M P E RV I O U S
PA R K I N G R E Q U I R E D ( M A X )
PA R K I N G P R O V I D E D
* All site design elements are applied as required to meet conditions of draft ordinances/policies based on specific conditions of site and in some cases, the original development plan. Some
elements and results would change with changing site conditions or slight variations in the development plan. Items specific to the approved plan were, where possible, held constant or varied
only slightly to meet draft policies.
** See Appendix for definitions.
59
60
City of Charlotte Cost Analysis
U R BA N I N F I L L
COST SUMMARY
C AESTIMATE
S E S T U DY # 7
PC C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
ELEMENTS
E X I S T I N G R E G U L AT I O N S
PCCO-TRANSIT
P C C O - C E N T R A L C ATAW B A
$100,340.00
$100,340.00
$100,340.00
SITE GRADING
$70,330.00
$70,330.00
$70,330.00
STORM DRAINAGE
$64,987.04
$33,829.08
$53,846.80
WAT E R & S A N I TA RY S E W E R
$63,616.58
$63,616.58
$63,616.58
EROSION CONTROL
$12,811.13
$12,811.13
$12,811.13
ROOF DRAINS
$37,047.80
$34,911.16
$34,911.16
HARDSCAPE
$500,650.81
$500,650.81
$500,650.81
LANDSCAPE
$60,206.00
$60,206.00
$60,206.00
UNDERGROUND DETENTION*
-
$508,280.14
-
S A N D F I LT E R / D E T E N T I O N * *
-
-
$885,115.01
$909,989.37
$1,384,974.91
$1,751,827.50
A L L O WA N C E S
T O TA L
* Peak flow and volume detention provided.
* * Wa t e r Q u a l i t y ( 8 5 % T S S ) , p e a k f l o w a n d v o l u m e d e t e n t i o n p r o v i d e d .
Note: 1. Minimum Permit Requirements - Project exempt due to decrease in impervious area with redevelopment.
2. Project exempt from open space requirements as defined in PCCO due to redevelopment designation.
61
U R BA N I N F I L L
EXISTING
C
A S E S T U DY # 7
CONDITIONS
P C C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
1
3
CONTEXT MAP
The site is located in an urban area along a
proposed transit line within a 5 minute walk from
a proposed transit station. The site is within a
district that has a large number of completed and
proposed infill projects.
IMPERVIOUS
Over 87% of the existing site conditions
was impervious.
EX CB
F
OF
TE
SI
2
OPEN SPACE
The existing open space area was 0.35 AC
(12.2%). The open space area consisted of
highly maintained shrubs and lawn. Fewer than
5 trees existed on site, and none of the existing
open space could be counted as undisturbed
open space as defined in the Post Construction
Controls Ordinance.
62
City of Charlotte Cost Analysis
SI
TE
RU
NO
FF
N
RU
EX CB
4
storm water management
Existing conditions did not provide on-site detention or water quality. Storm water management
consisted of building and parking lot runoff flowing
off-site to nearest storm drainage within public
right-of-way.
U R BA N I N F I L L
EXISTING
C
A S E S T U DY # 7
CONDITIONS
PC C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
p
ZONING: TOD-M
p
T O TA L PA R C E L ( A C ) : 2 . 8 7
p
U N I T S : 1 WA R E H O U S E / S H O W R O O M
p
DUA: 0.35
p
S T R E E T S , P R I VAT E ( L F ) : N / A
p
P E R C E N T I M P E RV I O U S : 8 7 . 8 %
p
PA R K I N G R E Q U I R E D : N / A
p
PA R K I N G P R O V I D E D : + / - 5 0 S PA C E S
p
O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N / A
p
O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : 0 . 2 8 A C
p
T R E E S AV E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N / A
p
T R E E S AV E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : N / A
p
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N / A
p
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : N / A
p
B M P - S A N D F I LT E R : N O T R E Q U I R E D
p
BMP - UNDERGROUND DETENTION: NOT REQUIRED
p
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: NOT REQUIRED
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
p
N/A
p
N/A
p
N/A
p
N/A
p
N/A
NOTES
The existing conditions had severa l i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t s
to note. First, the site was 87.8% i m p e r v i o u s w i t h l e s s
than 5 existing trees. The high leve l o f e x i s t i n g i m p e r v i o u s
allowed the proposed development t o p r o v i d e a h i g h l y
impervious infill development witho u t a d d i t i o n a l s t o r m
water management features and w i t h o u t i n c r e a s i n g
storm water runoff. Secondly, 0.55 A C ( 1 9 % ) o f t h e
site was within a rail right-of-way. T h e p r o p o s e d t r a n s i t
development required the develope r t o m a x i m i z e t h e
buildable area due to undevelopab l e l a n d w i t h i n t h e
transit right-of-way.
63
U R BA N I N F I L L
EXISTING
C A S E S T U DY # 7
REGULATIONS
P C C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
1
3
OPEN SPACE
The rezoning plan required 0.1 AC of open space.
A majority of the 0.1 AC open space provided is
impervious hardscape. Current zoning gives credit
to improved areas for active or passive recreation
although the area has been disturbed and/or
is impervious.
IMPERVIOUS
The approved plan is a slight reduction in
impervious surface compared with existing
conditions. Impervious area is around 77%.
Building footprint itself occupies 53% of the site.
EX CB
EX CB
64
City of Charlotte Cost Analysis
2
UNDISTURBED OPEN SPACE
4
The existing conditions did not provide any area
that could be claimed as undisturbed open space.
Since undisturbed open space was not required
under the current zoning, the approved plan did
not provide undisturbed open space.
No water quality or storm water detention
improvements were required for the Existing
Regulations. Storm water was piped untreated
into the existing adjacent storm water
collection facilities.
storm water management
U R BA N I N F I L L
EXISTING
C A S E S T U DY # 7
REGULATIONS
PC C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
p
ZONING: TOD-M
p
T O TA L PA R C E L ( A C ) : 2 . 8 7
p
UNITS: 310
p
DUA: 108
p
S T R E E T S , P R I VAT E ( L F ) : N / A
p
P E R C E N T I M P E RV I O U S : 7 7 . 1 %
p
PA R K I N G R E Q U I R E D : 2 S P / U N I T M A X
p
PA R K I N G P R O V I D E D : 5 1 5
p
O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : 0 . 1 0
p
O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : 0 . 1 2
p
T R E E S AV E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N O T R E Q U I R E D
p
T R E E S AV E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : N O T R E Q U I R E D
p
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
B M P - S A N D F I LT E R : N / R
p
BMP - UNDERGROUND DETENTION: N/R
p
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: N/R
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
p
A L L O WA N C E S : $ 1 0 0 , 3 4 0 . 0 0
p
SITE GRADING: $70,330.00
p
STORM DRAINAGE: $64,987.04
p
WAT E R A N D S A N I TA RY S E W E R : $ 6 3 , 6 1 6 . 5 8
p
EROSION CONTROL: $12,811.13
p
ROOF DRAINS: $34,047.80
p
HARDSCAPE: $500,650.81
p
LANDSCAPE: $60,206.00
p
T O TA L : $ 9 0 9 , 9 8 9 . 3 7
NOTES
A highly impervious infill project with a slight reduction
of impervious area and thus a reduction of storm water
runoff. No water quality or quantity BMPs were
incorporated into the Existing Regulations.
65
U R BA N I N F I L L
CASE STUDY #6
C A S E STRANSIT
T U DY # 7
PCCO
P C C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
1
OPEN SPACE
3
PCCO - Transit did not require additional open
space compared with the Existing Regulations. The
same 0.1 AC of open space required in the rezoning plan is provided in the PCCO - Transit.
The PCCO - Transit impervious area is approximately 77.1%. The PCCO - Transit design does not
change the impervious area when compared with
the Existing Regulations.
2
UNDISTURBED OPEN SPACE
Special provisions within the PCCO-Transit
ordinance allow development to forego the
undisturbed open space requirements.
66
City of Charlotte Cost Analysis
IMPERVIOUS
4
storm water management
Special provisions within the PCCO - Transit
requirements allow development to forego water
quality requirements. Underground detention
and volume control were provided per ordinance.
Off-site drainage improvements were required to
receive the site drainage at a lower invert.
U R BA N I N F I L L
CASE STUDY #6
C A S E STRANSIT
T U DY # 7
PCCO
PC C O C E N T R A L C ATAW BA
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
p
ZONING: TOD-M
p
T O TA L PA R C E L ( A C ) : 2 . 8 7
p
UNITS: 310
p
DUA: 108
p
S T R E E T S , P R I VAT E ( L F ) : N / A
p
P E R C E N T I M P E RV I O U S : 7 7 . 1 %
p
PA R K I N G R E Q U I R E D : 2 S PA C E S / U N I T M A X
p
PA R K I N G P R O V I D E D : 5 1 5
p
O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : 0 . 1 0
p
O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : 0 . 1 2
p
T R E E S AV E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
T R E E S AV E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
B M P - S A N D F I LT E R : N O T R E Q U I R E D
p
BMP - UNDERGROUND DETENTION: PROVIDED
p
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: PROVIDED
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
p
A L L O WA N C E S : $ 1 0 0 , 3 4 0 . 0 0
p
SITE GRADING: $70,330.00
p
STORM DRAINAGE: $33,829.08
p
WAT E R A N D S A N I TA RY S E W E R : $ 6 3 , 6 1 6 . 5 8
p
EROSION CONTROL: $12,811.13
p
ROOF DRAINS: $34,911.16
p
HARDSCAPE: $500,650.81
p
LANDSCAPE: $60,206.00
p
UNDERGROUND DETENTION: $508,280.14
p
T O TA L : $ 1 , 3 8 4 , 9 7 4 . 9 1
NOTES
Detention provided with standard underground metal pipe
system. Spatial constraints required an underground
BMP to meet this requirement. USDG requirements were
satisfied with streetscape proposed with Existing Regulations.
67
U R BA N I N F I L L
CASE STUDY #7
PCCO
C A S E SCENTRAL
T U DY # 7
P C C O CCATAWBA
E N T R A L C ATAW BA
1
OPEN SPACE
3
PCCO - Central did not require additional open
space compared with the Existing Regulations. The
same 0.1 AC of open space required in the rezoning plan is provided in the PCCO - Central.
The PCCO - Central impervious area is
approximately 77.1%. The PCCO - Central design
does not change the impervious area when
compared with the Existing Regulations.
2
UNDISTURBED OPEN SPACE
The PCCO-Central plan did not require
undisturbed open space because the site is
defined as a redevelopment.
68
City of Charlotte Cost Analysis
IMPERVIOUS
4
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The PCCO-Central required detention and storm
water treatment. A sand filter combined with
underground detention was used to meet (PCCO
- Central) requirements. Off-site drainage improvements were required to receive the site drainage at
a lower invert.
U R BA N I N F I L L
CASE STUDY #7
PCCO
C A S E SCENTRAL
T U DY # 7
PC C O CCATAWBA
E N T R A L C ATAW BA
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
p
ZONING: TOD-M
p
T O TA L PA R C E L ( A C ) : 2 . 8 7
p
UNITS: 310
p
DUA: 108
p
S T R E E T S , P R I VAT E ( L F ) : N / A
p
P E R C E N T I M P E RV I O U S : 7 7 . 1 %
p
PA R K I N G R E Q U I R E D : 2 S PA C E S / U N I T M A X
p
PA R K I N G P R O V I D E D : 5 1 5
p
O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : 0 . 1 0
p
O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : 0 . 1 2
p
T R E E S AV E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
T R E E S AV E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E R E Q U I R E D ( A C ) : N / R
p
U N D I S T U R B E D O P E N S PA C E P R O V I D E D ( A C ) : 0
p
B M P - S A N D F I LT E R : P R O V I D E D
p
BMP - UNDERGROUND DETENTION: PROVIDED
p
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: PROVIDED
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
p
A L L O WA N C E S : $ 1 0 0 , 3 4 0 . 0 0
p
SITE GRADING: $70,330.00
p
STORM DRAINAGE: $53,846.80
p
WAT E R A N D S A N I TA RY S E W E R : $ 6 3 , 6 1 6 . 5 8
p
EROSION CONTROL: $12,811.13
p
ROOF DRAINS: $34,911.16
p
HARDSCAPE: $500,650.81
p
LANDSCAPE PLAN: $60,206.00
p
S A N D F I LT E R : $ 8 5 5 , 1 1 5 . 0 1
p
T O TA L : $ 1 , 7 5 1 , 8 2 7 . 5 0
NOTES
Water quality and detention requirement were satisfied with
cast-in-place underground concrete vault. Spatial constraints
required subsurface BMP. USDG requirements were satisfied
with streetscape proposed by Existing Regulations.
69
70
City of Charlotte Cost Analysis