Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for September 12, 2007
Agenda Topics:
I.
Urban Street Design Guidelines
Committee Information:
Present: Mumford, Burgess, Carter, Barnes, Turner
Discussion Summary:
Chairman Pat Mumford: This is a follow up meeting to the one a few weeks ago. Staff will give
us an update of the conversations they’ve had in the interim.
Tracy Newsome: (Described the materials in the agenda packet)
Council Member Nancy Carter: “Churches” changed to “religious institutions”. Are you
including seminaries and conference places affiliated with houses of faith? If the intent is places
of worship you may want to specify that.
Newsome: As a reminder, areas of public involvement include comments from public briefings,
on-line survey results, comments received via email, other correspondence, comments at Council
meeting, and additional comments received since August 23rd. On public comments, staff has
grouped them according to categories and responded to the categories.
Carter: On number 24 (in Agenda Attachment 6), the discussion of traffic calming, are we no
longer doing a combination of things like speed humps and stop signs?
Newsome: That goes to the policy that is a request driven program we have for traffic calming
retrofits. What this is addressing is that through appropriate design of streets from the beginning,
you can avoid obtrusive retrofits later.
Carter: I raised that question last time about how the priorities get addressed and how the
retrofits mesh with the new construction. How does the money get split between retrofits and
new construction?
Norm Steinman: I believe we currently have about $1.5 million to spend City-wide which may or
may not go far depending on design features of the traffic calming installation. The current basis
for that is that we’ve reviewed the requests made for streets and made an engineering evaluation.
Carter: How does this interface with the new program? How do you choose?
Danny Pleasant: The program in to place is to retrofit streets that are already there. The nature of
this program is to design the streets so that calming features are organic.
Newsome: The two won’t compete directly.
Carter: That’s what I wanted to know.
Steinman: We’ve met recently with members of the Chamber’s land use committee, later with
the National Association of Industrial and Office Parks, and then with folks who are in the
business of building or managing apartment complexes. I’d like to summarize the results of those
conversations. The results of the conversation with the Chamber land use committee are
addressed in the letter (Agenda Attachment 5)
Mumford: I’m going to call on Danny to tell us about the process. This is a policy, not an
ordinance. There’s going to be a step that takes a broad policy into an actual ordinance that
people are required to follow. There’s some concern among people in the community that once
this leaves the view of the elected officials it moves into the staff’s secluded realm where nobody
has input and elected officials don’t know what’s going on. There’s a nervous tension about that,
even though I don’t want elected officials to be expected to have to manage every aspect of this.
Explain to us the process; how will people continue to be engaged whenever this goes back to
staff? The broadness leaves some uneasiness about the details.
Pleasant: The steps can be described in a range from general to specific. We take a general
approach as you see in the TAP, which outlines goals, objectives, and policies. USDG is a bit
more specific, they have a little more guidance on how we actually expect to build streets in the
future. The USDG can itself be viewed in two parts. One is focused on streets that are publicly
funded projects either through City programs or State roads, if we can convince the State to
accept the guidelines. These will use the USDG truly as guidelines on how to build roads. The
second part is more prescriptive. This part deals with the roads the development community will
build. These are prescriptive because the development community has told us they don’t want to
hold a design charette for every road they build. Even with that approach there’s still a process to
go through before they actually get implemented. They get implemented either through
subdivision ordinance or land development standards in E&PM. Those things have their own
processes to amend. So the approval of the USDG isn’t the end; there’s still steps and process
along they way before these are embedded in those documents.
Mumford: Is there are follow up or reconnect with Council or Committee so that, if a red flag is
raised, it’ll be caught at a time where people’s input will be considered?
Pleasant: Yes. To amend the subdivision ordinance requires Council action. As far as the land
development standards our practice has been to advise Council of our intent and seek input.
However, Council has given the City engineer the ability to change those standards as he sees fit.
Mumford: Are there questions from Committee members about this? It’s an important distinction
between what’s in front of us today and those other things.
Carter: We’ve gone through a process with Planning where administrative changes made by the
director were questioned. A policy and procedure was established whereby there was community
interaction that was material and impacted the proposal. I don’t think the changes made by the
City Engineer would have as great an impact, but I’m not sure. I’ve got a touch of concern about
administrative changes
Pleasant: That process dealt with an administrative appeal to a zoning decision made by Council.
Occasionally when a developer gets to a site and does more intensive design, he’ll discover
issues within the site that require adjustment. There’s a prescribed appeal process for responding
to that type of thing. This isn’t an appeal process but a standard setting process. The last time we
did this was when we changed the pavement thickness standards. If you remember, we got your
input but ultimately that was the City Engineer’s decision.
Council Member Michael Barnes: I think a number of the Chambers concerns are valid. We’ve
got to make sure the USDG isn’t so rigid it can’t be tweaked if, for example, we discover the
stub street issue does create issue with neighboring communities. We need to be able to have
some room for adjustment to solve the issue.
Steinman: We’ve received complaints that the USDG are too flexible and also that they’re
prescriptive. First, our response to the Chamber concern about NCDOT: we make a distinction
between thoroughfares and local streets. We’re recommending that, for thoroughfares, you adopt
a policy that says you want such roads in Charlotte to be designed differently than a rural road,
that you want them to include bicycle lanes when appropriate, planting strips, sidewalks, etc.
We’re asking that NCDOT work with City staff to change the designs of their roadways inside
the City. They’re not currently in agreement with us and it probably won’t happen soon. We’re
asking you to make it your policy to direct staff to negotiate with them to achieve those kinds of
changes. Most of the Chamber’s letter is on the question of local/subdivision streets: will local
streets that are built in the ETJ be accepted by NCDOT based on the USDG. The answer is that it
won’t be any faster or any slower.
Pleasant: If I may add, even today in the ETJ we require sidewalks and planting strips that
NCDOT doesn’t require and doesn’t maintain. Even today we require things in the ETJ beyond
State standards.
Steinman: This likely won’t change the amount of time or likelihood of a street in the ETJ being
accepted by the State. Moving to the second topic: the appropriate location of bike lanes. They’d
prefer to have them built in conjunction with the sidewalk off the pavement or as a separate trail.
Our responses are in the letter, and it generally says that there is one classification –a parkwaywhere we do indeed recommend that the bike lane not be included as part of the travel lane. On
those the bike lanes either need to be off the ROW entirely or as far away from the travel lanes as
possible. To remind, we’re generally expecting no local streets to have bike lanes because the
traffic will be slow and sparse enough not to require bike lanes. We’re generally only talking
about avenues and boulevards requiring bike lanes.
Mayor Pro Tem Susan Burgess: Can you give an example of a parkway and what it would mean
to retrofit?
Steinman: Billy Graham Parkway is that type of roadway. Also, sections of WT Harris.
Burgess: You think it’s feasible to add one on Billy Graham Pkwy?
Steinman: The only place where that could be done is as far away from the travel lanes as the
ROW would allow, or on parallel local streets that could be connected.
Burgess: Where would you put it there? And what about bridges?
Steinman: Close to the edge of the ROW and then bring them in at the intersection to allow the
bikes to get across. Bridges would have to be modified or separate design altogether.
Burgess: The separate bikeways like I saw in Amsterdam are fabulous. Do we have any extra
parkways in planning that we could include that type of bike lane?
Steinman: Our complete bicycle network will consist of greenways, connections to the
greenways, other off-street trails, as well as bike lanes and signed bike routes.
Pleasant: We’re in the process now of updating our bicycle plan. In that process we’re reviewing
additional options and types of bikeways.
Mumford: Not all bicyclists are the same. This graphic looks nice, but you wouldn’t catch me on
some of these paths. I think this approach with different type of bike routes is appropriate. I don’t
know how many folks will want to ride on Billy Graham Pkwy., but maybe as density increases
it’ll make sense.
Steinman: The intent there for pedestrians and bicyclists along parkways is to accommodate
them, not encourage them, because those roads are really meant for higher speed traffic. Next, on
typical/preferred block lengths: Our intent is to have shorter blocks, and to have streets built in
conjunction with and to support development…
Mumford: In the interest of time, let me ask the Committee members: which of these issues are
of concern and where you have remaining questions?
Burgess: I’d like to talk about stub streets and staff’s response to the concerns about them.
Carter: Maintenance and costs
Steinman: (Referring to graph) On stub streets: One interpretation of the guidelines is that every
street on the grid would have to be extended and built as if it were to be extended to the adjacent
properties. In a greenfield situation we would have stub streets, as happened in the streetcar era
neighborhoods when one developer built a street to the edge of his property and the next
developer continued from there to eventually form a seamless grid of streets. Now, in infill
situations where we have schools and parks in the grid would we require those stubs to be built?
Probably not. What we’d ask for instead is dedicated rights-of-way. That ROW would have the
same cross-section as the street and be approximately 50-55 feet wide, but it would need to be
built. It would still serve a function; it would be a connection for the pedestrian or bicyclists into
the school or park. Some of these would be built as streets, after all the school may have its own
driveway for busses and so forth. So the answer is: there wouldn’t have to be a stub street at
every interval determined by the block length, but some of them would be dedicated and where
streets could be dedicated to extend to the next land use, they would be built as stub streets.
Mumford: The basis of some of the uneasiness is when we say “some would be built in the future
depending on the land use.” How do we get comfort with the ordinance and standardize the
subjective nature of that. The greenfield piece is intuitive and makes sense. It’s the other kind.
Often times the circumstance are so site specific the guidelines can’t address them, which I think
is where some of the uneasiness comes in.
Steinman: This is where we get to the conflict between having prescriptions and flexible things.
The subdivision ordinance does list some factors, which are interpreted by the subdivision
administrator Linda Beverly, such as slope and adjacent land use and others. Interpretation like
this has been going on for decades. Some interpretation has been done, and we could show you
how these guidelines would be made part of the process of subdivision reviews.
Mumford: My assumption is that that condition would be the exception and not the rule. Would
this condition be in 5%-10% of the developments? My assumption is that this will be to manage
the exceptions? Is that correct?
Bill Daleure from CROSLAND: It’s rare, but most are running up against backyards
Mumford: That’s a good point, is there a requirement that a dedicated ROW will have to exist
abutting into someone’s yard. I agree that easement takes away developable property. When do
we have a sense when a stub street will be required?
Pleasant: We can’t tell you case by case what the interpretation would be. Since the subdivision
ordinance changed last in 2000-2001 the subdivision administrator, who uses common sense and
gets to decide what stuff stubs to, has used fewer and fewer stub and cul-de-sacs. Even if this is
passed, plans will continue to be subject to a common sense review.
Steinman: On page 64 of the guidelines themselves, there are some statements that list some
conditions that are considered when determining whether stub streets are appropriate. There’s a
list of circumstances in the document that would allow for an exception
Burgess: If it backs up to a yard or something, would the developer still be required to donate a
ROW? If so, that doesn’t seem fair.
Steinman: It’s really one of the more unique situations that’s likely to happen. There are some
locations where what seems like a change will never happen, changes do take place. Therefore
I’m very nervous about saying never means never in all situations.
Burgess: I don’t think it’s as unique as you’ve presented it. New development backs up to lots of
things, most of which like parks and schools will stay there.
Steinman: Most of those things you’ve mentioned are under public ownership
Burgess: So why would they have to dedicate anything?
Steinman: Because, even if they’re not going to become actual streets, they help establish
connectivity to those sites.
Mumford: I would suggest on this subject that we start tracking, as of today, through the
subdivision process, how often these conditions actually happen. Right now we’re just pulling
examples out of the sky and that’s not a good way to make policy.
Steinman: I’d be very comfortable with that.
Mumford: A lot of these Council will see because of rezoning, but there are some that are byright.
Steinman: Even with the schools it’ll often times depend on the school itself; they might not
want any more access points
Burgess: We had an example back in 2000 over a back entrance to Providence Day School.
There was a ROW that the school wanted open but the neighbors didn’t.
Carter: They negotiated that, to open but use it only as an emergency entrance.
Mumford: What’s next on the Committee’s mind? Creek crossings?
Burgess: I think a lot of the points the Chamber made are valid, but trade-offs. We have to use
our judgment on which are more important. It’s a struggle but I believe we’ve got it right
Mumford: Creek crossings are another one that we should start tracking today. Generally
speaking connectivity, even if it requires creek crossings, is positive if it’s balanced. We
shouldn’t force creek crossings where it’s detrimental to the environment
Burgess: We should pass with the caveat that staff has to come back in 6-9 months with
experience and update us and allow us to revisit it.
Barnes: I’m concerned to say that we’ll approve only with review in six months because that’ll
make it seem temporary or speculative. We should highlight those five issues and say we’ll
review those only. I’d like this to leave this room as a recommendation to the full Council
Mumford: We’re acknowledging there’s going to be unanticipated consequences to something
this broad and that we plan to monitor those and adjust if needed. We don’t want to sound like
we’re merely taking a shot at this.
Pleasant: I’m not sure it requires language for us to do what you’re asking to do. When this
becomes Council adopted policy, it can be amended by Council. With six months of monitoring,
you can consider revisions or amendments after that point.
Mumford: We don’t need to be too formal with this, but what Danny just said satisfies my
concerns and fits well.
Carter: I’d like to talk about the costs of maintenance of the trees and so forth in the planting
strip.
Mumford: What do the guidelines say on that?
Steinman: It doesn’t really say. We assume that if they’re in the public ROW it’d be a City cost.
If there are significant additional trees to maintain, the City Arborist will certainly look for more
funds to maintain them.
Mumford: Would the City fund the initial planting in those ROWs?
Steinman: The expectation is that on local streets the developer would pay for the initial
payment.
Mumford: And then after the year warranty on the plants it’s the City’s maintenance?
Steinman: Yes.
Burgess: Is that written down someplace?
Mumford: Are you suggested the guidelines mandate the tree be planted?
Pleasant: The USDG sets the stage for the tree to be there, but doesn’t talk about the process of
actually planting it.
Assistant City Manager Jim Schumacher: The appropriate place for that would be the Tree
Ordinance, which is under discussion.
Steinman: In some cases when there are City-funded sidewalk projects done we plant trees.
Schumacher: There’s a growing cost burden over the decades. As the number and size of street
trees grows, so does the cost of maintenance.
Barnes: Having not seen the projected cost to developers for planting the trees…
Daleure: That’s not the issue. We’re prepared for the cost of planting, not for the opportunity
cost due to loss of land.
Mumford: One final thing: the land design study at the Blakeny development, the study to see
whether these designs will help or hurt. What’s the status of that?
Steinman: We’ve asked them to start but we don’t think they’ve accomplished most of the work
yet. Again, this will just be a general thing to give us a scope of magnitude.
Mumford: It’s really a costing exercise? Or is it to see the land use pattern?
Steinman: We’re asking the consultant to do something similar to what they did for the other cost
study. We’re asking them to see what streets would make sense to turn into public streets and
what would be the cost of that.
(Motion by Barnes to recommend adoption of USDG to full Council at 9/24 meeting or as soon
as practicable)
Mumford: As modified by the notes that were sent out…the latest version.
Carter: Apparently there’s some information coming to us about costing from NAIOP. That
needs to be directed to the entire Council. We should also notify them of the date we’re
presenting to Council.
(Motion Seconded by Carter)
(Motion was approved unanimously)
Mumford: Long, long time in coming. I thank staff and the private sector for their work in
helping shape this policy.
Burgess: Before we adjourn I’d like to bring up three topics: 1.) We got a list from Mel Watt
about bridges that are inadequate, I’d like to get more information about that. 2.) Our streets are
filthy and the State’s not doing their job. Maybe we should put an emphasis on adopt-a-street.
How would we go about doing that? 3.) The suggestion that we use the I-485 shoulder as a lane.
Please let us know if that’s possible, who would pay, what it would take, etc.
Mumford: The Mayor sent a letter to the Governor about that idea.
Burgess: If there’s anything to do to help move that along, let us know.
Steinman: The answer to the last will start to come to you in November when we bring you the
results of the first phase of the Managed Lane study. We won’t have specific recommendations
for specific freeway segments, but you’ll get information about where it’s likely that placing
some of those lanes in the median will make sense, and where more complicated and costly
construction will be required. The difficulty with creating express lanes or managed lanes in I485 is that many motorists there are trying to get in and out of the freeway. In any case you’ll be
getting more information in November, including on possible use of the shoulder.
Mumford: Anything else?
(Meeting adjourned)