Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for July 16, 2008
Agenda Topics:
I. Bicycle Plan
II. Station Area Plans
a. Scaleybark Station Area Plan
b. Woodlawn Station Area Plan
Committee Information:
Present: Anthony Foxx, Michael Barnes, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter
Additional Attachments:
I.
II.
III.
Bicycle Plan.ppt
Scaleybark & Woodlawn Plan.ppt
Ranked Street Connectivity Projects (handout)
Discussion Summary:
(Chairman Anthony Foxx called the meeting to order and asked everyone in the room to
introduce themselves)
Chairman Anthony Foxx: We will be talking about the Bicycle Plan and two additional
Station Area Plans. I do hope the Committee has looked through the Bicycle Plan that
was handed out at our last meeting.
Ken Tippette: I am excited to be here to share with you the results of this project.
(Begins reviewing the “Bicycle Plan” presentation attached)
Council Member Michael Barnes: Are you anticipating bicycle lanes along W.T. Harris
Boulevard?
Tippette: It may be possible for portions of the road. It is determined on a case by case
basis.
Barnes: Have we contemplated discussing with the state reengineering the road to make
it slower and more pedestrian and bicycle friendly?
Dan Gallagher: That was an emphasis point on the University City Area Plan. Over the
course of time W.T. Harris Blvd. will change in character and as it changes it may be an
opportunity to make it more pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
Council Member Nancy Carter: I’d ask about state roads, especially Route 4?
Tippette: We have had the state work with us on this project. Two members of NCDOT
were on the stakeholders group. We’ve expressed our concerns about how it will take
state buy-in to make this plan come to pass. We have had good progress from the state
and NCDOT.
Carter: I would say that Council Members would be glad to be involved and help with
this.
Gallagher: There is actually a specific policy in this plan that mentions both state and
city roads will be designed to implement the Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG),
which includes bicycle lanes.
Carter: What about crossovers, are we looking at Independence Boulevard?
Tippette: Crossings in thoroughfares do create a challenge. We are working with
NCDOT to alleviate the challenge as much as possible. (Continues reviewing
presentation)
Carter: [Referencing “Bicycle Travel and Greenways” slide] As we look at the greenway
system, please look at pervious materials to make sure we are environmentally friendly.
Tippette: Yes, we will.
Barnes: In some of the discussions I’ve had with private developers they say, ‘you are
forcing us to create wider sidewalks and create more impervious area’ and a lot of them
don’t want to do it because of money issues. There are some environmental offsets. So,
if we can encourage a person to use more pervious surfaces, that’s a good thing.
Mayor Pro Tem Susan Burgess: Have you talked to the Carolina Thread Trail?
Tippette: Yes, they are supportive. They are trying to a get an ambitious system of their
own.
Carter: Regarding the funding, as we repave and resurface is that portion that is paved
for bicycle lanes allocated to you all?
Tippette: It comes down to a clean slate. They are going to repave and restripe it anyway
so it goes into the cost of resurfacing.
Gallagher: There are a few things that we would absorb the cost for, such as if the street
grade needed to be raised. When we resurface it’s for all users, not just bicyclers.
Foxx: The cost of resurfacing is fully loaded into the total cost?
Gallagher: That’s correct.
Tippette: Any other questions?
Burgess: When do you foresee the build out?
Tippette: This is roughly a 30 year time window contingent on funding. A lot is in
conjunction with roadway projects.
Gallagher: The plan horizon is 2030. We tried to build in what we think the road
projects will be for the city side and state side. The bicycle network will never be
complete; even beyond 2030 there will be new opportunities, facilities and roads to get
widened that are not yet in the plan.
Burgess: What if a bike lane is needed and we don’t plan to resurface for many years?
Gallagher: There are some locations where we don’t have a road project coming out in
the next 20 to 25 years. There are a handful of projects that we will have to go in and
improve the roadway just to get bike lanes. Or in some cases, we may just designate
those roads as a shared roadway because we can’t afford to widen it for a bike lane.
Burgess: I was at a NLC Board meeting in Huntsville, Alabama where they had red
bicycles and when I got up close I realized they were actually bike racks. They were
really cool. At first I thought, it’s a bike and then I thought it was public art and then I
realized - it’s a bike rack!
Tippette: You brought up a good point with that. One of the draw backs to originally
designed bike racks are some people think it is public art and they don’t want to lock up
where they aren’t supposed to.
Foxx: What analysis has been done to look at the conformity to this plan as opposed to
other plans in existence today? In the event that you find there is a conflict between this
plan and another plan, who will make the call to decide how the conflict gets resolved?
Can you help us understand the line between the public cost side versus the private cost
side? The public cost side is pretty clear, but I did see some places in here where you talk
about private costs.
Tippette: The potential for conflict is minimal. We tried to work with other departments
to avoid instances of conflict. If something does occur, we will have to work on it on a
case by case basis. As for the public sector vs. private sector, it is primarily geared
toward long range planning, which would occur around TIP projects.
Foxx: I saw some areas where there may be some private cost sharing. For example,
policy 1.13 states the city would consider amending the subdivision and zoning
ordinances to incorporate provisions for on-road bicycle facilities and other bicycle-
friendly amenities. I will say that part of the challenge we have as a Committee is that
we are trying to anticipate issues that may come up when we get to full Council.
Norm Steinman: The vast majority of the miles of bike lanes shown on the maps will be
produced from CIP projects. So, almost 100% of the bike lanes are going to be built with
CIP investments. Also, there are road conversions and street resurfacing efforts and we
can’t always anticipate when they happen. The other thing that should be made clear is
there is the expectation that local streets will become part of the network.
Foxx: I get that, but let’s assume I’m someone else and I’m saying ‘convince me there is
no private cost or that the private cost is so minimal that I shouldn’t worry about it.’ I
need to effectively make the sale.
Steinman: The most likely situation where there would be a request for additional rightof-way would be along thoroughfares. That’s where the implementation of the bike lanes
together with any additional travel lanes, planting strips and sidewalks comes in. We are
discussing 4 feet out of a total number of feet, which can vary greatly. It’s impossible to
tell you we have calculated what that amount would be.
Foxx: I don’t think this piece of the conversation will go away. You ought to spend
some time with other Council Members as this plan moves on to the full Council. In
section 1.11, on page 27, you mentioned that the City Council responded with an
adjustment to permit 18-year resurfacing, that was actually 16-year resurfacing. That was
a painful vote. Also under policy 1.6, I just want to point this out to the Committee. One
of the things we are doing is expressing the need to fund a fulltime Bicycle Manager. It
reminds me of the discussion of having an Environmental Manager. This is tangible
evidence that you can get benefits when you have someone who is focused on doing
something full time. When we talk about the Environmental Manager position in the
future, I would like this program mentioned because it is evidence of what can happen.
Burgess: Motion to endorse and take to full Council.
Barnes: Second
(Motion passed unanimously)
Foxx: We have two Station Area Plans to talk about today. Staff integrated two plans
into one presentation.
Alberto Gonzalez: I’m going to be presenting the Scaleybark Plan. (Begins reviewing
the “Scaleybark & Woodlawn Plans” presentation attached) We call it Transit Station
Area Plans, but they are like other Area Plans - they update the recommended future land
use in an area. The recommended future land use for the Transit Station Area is to
promote a mix of transit supportive land use within a half mile walking distance to the
station and to create urban plazas near the Transit Station. For the Corridor area, we
recommend maintaining locations for light industrial and warehouse uses and
maintaining the existing single family neighborhoods. For the Wedge area, we
recommend maintaining and preserving the single family neighborhoods.
Carter: I’m very respectful of the neighborhoods; we should line those areas in Flame
Red. We promised our citizens we would protect that area.
Gonzalez: Yes, and we heard that throughout the meetings we had and we always
emphasize preservation when talking with others.
Carter: Thank you
Gonzalez: (continues reviewing presentation)
Carter: As we create connectivity [referencing “Street Connections” slide] I hope that we
are building in traffic calming devices.
Gonzalez: In some cases, yes. Traffic calming would be something CDOT would look
at.
Carter: If we anticipate a large flow of traffic then we should be proactive rather than
reactive.
Laura Harmon: We have looked at adding some roundabouts to calm some of the streets
and making sure that we connect, to the extent possible, to non-residential areas when we
can as opposed to single-family residential streets.
Steinman: These are streets that are probably going to have three travel lanes in each
direction. Many of these streets will have on-street parking.
Burgess: Where is the Crosland development across the street from Scaleybark? That is
going on right now, right?
Harmon: They developed a site plan and we are working with them on road network
issues.
Burgess: When does that come to us?
Harmon: We have not received a rezoning for them. We are talking to them about the
site plan, but the rezoning is probably 6-8 months out.
Foxx: Okay, we are ready to go to the Woodlawn Plan.
Alysia Osborne: (Begins reviewing “Scaleybark & Woodlawn Plans” presentation
attached) The land use tends to be more automobile oriented. The Woodlawn Station
Area Plan is a little different than the other Station Areas because of the close proximity
to I-77 and the interchange area is more retail, office and industrial uses. Woodlawn is
the first Transit Station Area without multi-family homes. The only residential
neighborhoods are Collingwood and Madison Park. The transportation network is pretty
good within the neighborhood and auto-oriented area. The Transit Station Area for this
plan is a little different from the others because there is no frontage along South
Boulevard. We recommend more of a transit oriented development (TOD), more retail
and more residential. For the Corridor area, we are looking to maintain the office, retail,
and industrial uses and provide, over time, opportunity to compliment the Transit Station
Area. For the Wedge area, we are looking to preserve the Madison Park and
Collingwood neighborhoods and provide some opportunity for property owners along
Woodlawn Road to redevelop similar to what’s being done closer to Park Road.
Regarding street network, we are looking for more grid like designs for more streets,
sidewalks, crossings and bicycle facilities. We are also proposing a corrective rezoning,
which will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Barnes: You mentioned folks who live in the Wedge area along Woodlawn that perhaps
might petition to have their property rezoned. Is there a standard or a minimum number
of people who we would expect to come in, say 5 out of 50? Would that be enough?
Osborne: We want to be proactive in deciding what would be a reasonable or appropriate
higher density for the neighborhood; therefore, we would look at that on a block by block
basis.
Barnes: Do we need to specify that or add a footnote somewhere?
Osborne: Yes, we can add that. That was the only concern from the residents. They
wanted us to add some language that says what it means to be zoned R8 down the road.
Carter: Were they anticipating larger growth or did they not want growth?
Osborne: They just wanted clarification of what it meant over time. They weren’t
against it. If there are no other questions we would like to request that you schedule
public comments of both plans, and in August we would like to do a City Council
overview and public comment session, and then in September have the Committee
recommendation and City Council decision.
Foxx: Is there a motion pending?
Burgess: Motion to schedule public comment session for full Council for draft
Scaleybark Transit Station Area Plan and draft Woodlawn Transit Station Area Plan.
Carter: Second
Barnes: I have a timing question. Is August and September etched in stone? August will
be a one meeting month for us and that meeting may be canceled. So if we say
September and October would that be workable also?
Osborne: Yes
Carter: Do we have enough time to announce to the public there is a public hearing?
Harmon: We actually have a little more time because it would be a late meeting in
August, if there is one at all.
Foxx: Any other questions or comments? I support getting public hearing.
a motion….
So we have
(Motion passed unanimously)
Steinman: At the last meeting Mr. Barnes asked for a list of possible connectivity
projects that Matt Magnasco is reviewing and Matt has brought that list today. (Matt
passed out the “Ranked Street Connectivity Projects” list attached)
Foxx: The airport tour is July 28. We will meet here at the Government Center, ride a
hybrid bus to the airport, have lunch and tour the facility.
(Foxx adjourned the meeting)
Attachment 1
City of Charlotte
Bicycle Plan
Ken Tippette - CDOT
July 16, 2008
Bicycle Plan
Why Charlotte needs a
bike plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TAP Policy 2.6.8
Establish the vision
Efficiency of resources
Quality of life
Economic benefits
Health benefits
Community support
1
Bicycle Plan
Vision – Create seamless bicycle
network that provides access
to all areas of the city
•
•
•
•
•
Bicycle Lanes (50 613)
Shared Lane Markings (0 64)
Greenways (30 129)
Signed Routes (4 269)
Connections
Bicycle Plan
Key Items to Create a Complete System
• Implementing bike facilities (planned, programmed
and through USDG implementation)
• Implementing connections
• Greenway integration
• Educating motorists and bicyclists
2
Bicycle Plan
Implementing Bike Facilities
• Implement
p
bike lanes
b
a
on
o
most road widening projects
• Relocate curblines for bike
lanes in conjunction with
relocation for motor vehicles
• Sign local streets as
connector routes
• Reallocation of space on
existing roadways
Bicycle Plan
• Road Resurfacing
• Road Diets
• Road Construction
Combination of the three will create a complete network
3
Bicycle Plan
Connectivity
• Bikeway network connections
using bike lanes, signed routes
and other features
• Connections to off-road
facilities such as greenways
• Connections to adjacent towns
• Connections between
developments
Bicycle Plan
Bicycle Travel and
y
Greenways
• Implement connections with
greenways to create a
seamless system
• Coordinated with 2008
update of Mecklenburg
County
y greenway
g
y plan
p
4
Bicycle Plan
Education & Awareness
• Identified by stakeholder
group as a high priority
for both cyclists and
motorists.
• Focus on strategies to
improve proper and safer
behavior by all road
users.
Bicycle Plan
Proposed Funding
Current funding
$0.5M -$1M annually
Recommended TAP funding
$2.0M annually
Bike plan funding goal
Consistent with TAP
5
Bicycle Plan
STAKEHOLDER GROUP – 20 members
• Bicycle
y
Community
o
u y (6)
• Health and Active Living Interests (4)
• Youth Program (1)
• Development Community (2)
• County Greenways (2)
• Bicycle Advisory Committee (2)
• MUMPO (1)
• NCDOT (2)
9 Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bicycle Plan
Schedule
July 07- June 08
Development of Plan
April 28, 2008
Transportation Committee
Update
July 16, 2008
Transportation Committee
Action
July 28, 2008
City Council Action
6
Bicycle Plan
Action Requested
• Approve and recommend
approval by City Council
Bicycle Plan
Questions?
7
Scaleybark Transit Station Area Plan
and
Woodlawn Transit Station Area Plan
Transportation Committee
July 16, 2008
Presentation Outline
I. Plan Purpose and Process
II. Scaleybark Plan
III. Woodlawn Plan
IV. Plan Implementation
V. Next Steps
Plan Purpose
• Defines vision for area
• Provides a framework for future
growth and development
• Updates the adopted land use
policies (District Plans and Centers,
Corridors, and Wedges)
• Serves as a policy guide for elected
and appointed officials in making
land use, zoning, and capital
investment decisions
• Will be the official streetscape plan
for the area
Plan Development Process
Began in conjunction with planning
for LYNX Blue Line
Notification to property owners,
business owners, neighborhood
groups, residents
Citizen meetings
Staff team developed draft plan
recommendations
Citizen feedback on draft
recommendations
Plan review and adoption
Plan implementation
Scaleybark Transit
Station Area Plan
Scaleybark Plan Area
• 644 Acres
• Located in the South Growth
Corridor and adjoining
Wedge
• Bounded by Sedgefield,
Colonial Village and York Rd.
neighborhoods
• Major roads include I-77,
South Tryon St., South Blvd.,
Clanton Rd. and Scaleybark
Rd.
Existing Land Use &
Street Network
Land Use
Streets
Vision Statement
The Scaleybark study
area will become one of
a series of vibrant, high
density transit villages
along the South
Corridor.
Recommended Future Land Use
Recommended Future Land Use
Corridor, Transit Station, & Wedge Area
Corridor Area
Transit Station
Area
Wedge Area
Future Transportation
Network
• Street Network
– Street type based on
proposed future land
use and USDG
• Sidewalks
• Pedestrian Crossings
• Bicycle Facilities
• Multi-Use Trail
Proposed Corrective
Rezonings
– Update to TOD
district
standards is
underway
– Developing
strategy for TOD
rezoning
Comments Received and
Proposed Plan Revisions
Street Connections
CDOT Staff comment:
Proposed alternative alignments
to Freeland and Scaleybark
- Map revised to show
alternative conceptual
alignments.
Street Connections
Citizen Comment:
Concerned about impact
of redesigning Old
Pineville connection to
Dewitt
- Facilitates more choice
connections between I77 and Old Pineville
Road
- Eliminates awkward
LYNX grade crossings
Orchard Circle Neighborhood
Citizen Comment:
Concerned about impact of
potential Orchard Circle
widening on existing
properties, and proposed
corrective rezoning.
- Reference removed from
map for street widening.
- Proposed corrective
rezoning remains.
QUESTIONS?
Woodlawn Transit
Station Area Plan
Woodlawn Plan Area
– 602 acres
– Located in the South
Growth Corridor and
adjoining Wedge
– Bounded by the
Collingwood, and
Madison Park
neighborhoods
– Major roads include
I-77, South Blvd.,
Woodlawn Rd., and
Old Pineville Rd.
Existing Land Use &
Street Network
Land Use
Streets
Vision Statement
The Woodlawn study area
will become one of a series
of vibrant, high density
nodes along the South
Corridor that will include:
- An urban, pedestrian
oriented station area;
- An auto-oriented General
Corridor Area; and
- Preservation of
Collingwood and Madison
Park neighborhoods
Recommended Future Land Use
Recommended Future Land Use
Corridor, Transit Station, & Wedge Areas
Corridor Area
Transit Station
Area
Wedge Area
Street Network
- Street Network
– Street type based on
proposed future land use
and USDG
- Sidewalks
- Pedestrian Crossings
- Bicycle Facilities
Proposed Corrective Rezonings
– Update to TOD
district
standards is
underway
– Considering
strategy for TOD
rezoning
Citizen Comment and
Proposed Revision
Citizen Comment and
Plan Revision:
Concerned about land
use recommendation for
residential properties
fronting Woodlawn Road.
- Plan recommends
preserving the Madison
Park and Collingwood
neighborhoods
- Provides land use guidance
for those properties if
redevelopment occurs
QUESTIONS?
Action & Next Steps
• Requested Action—Transportation Committee
– Request to schedule public comment session for full Council for:
• draft Scaleybark Transit Station Area Plan; and
• draft Woodlawn Transit Station Area Plan.
• August 2008
– City Council Overview and Public Comment Session
• September 2008
– Transportation Committee Recommendation
– City Council Decision