Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for June 23, 2008
Agenda Topics:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
New Bern Transit Area Plan
MUMPO Vote on Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment
I-485 Funding Overview
Summer Meeting Schedule
Special Meeting Time
Committee Information:
Present: Anthony Foxx, Warren Turner, Michael Barnes, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter
Additional Attachments:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
New Bern Proposed Revisions
I-485 Funding Options.ppt
TCC Recommendations Regarding 2009-2015 TIP Amendment (handout)
Thoroughfare Project Prioritization & Ranking (handout)
Discussion Summary:
(Chairman Anthony Foxx called the meeting to order and asked everyone in the room to
introduce themselves)
Chairman Anthony Foxx: We have two items that require a vote today - New Bern
Transit Area Plan and MUMPO. I think we should move on to the I-485 discussion until
another Committee member arrives to make a quorum.
Danny Pleasant: We also have a request to switch the order of the agenda items. We
thought we would switch MUMPO with New Bern. In agenda review this morning we
talked about bringing MUMPO to the dinner briefing so Barry can review it and then
head back out of town.
Council Member Susan Burgess: Do we have a bicycle agenda item?
Pleasant: No, not at this time. We left that information at your seat so you can review
the plan before the next meeting, when we will ask for your recommendations.
Foxx: Let’s start with the “I-485 Funding Overview.”
Pleasant: You had expressed an interest on I-485 and how it is getting funded. There
was concern regarding Turnpike projects that had been earmarked. (Begins reviewing “I485 Funding Options” presentation attached)
Foxx: What is the cost of I-485 completion on the north side and expanding the southern
leg? Southern leg is $50 million?
Pleasant: I think it is $147 million total and $50 million is for the southern leg.
Barry Moose: Actually, there are two projects required to complete the northern section.
There is the roadway part that Danny reflected on, as well as an interchange that a lot of
people overlook and it carries a bill of about $58 million. So collectively, to complete the
northern section of the road you are looking at close to $200 million.
Foxx: I wanted to make that point because when you talk about [referencing the
“Highway Trust Fund” slide] getting the transfer of the funds from the Highway Trust
Fund (HTF) to the General Fund, it still wouldn’t be enough to complete I-485.
Moose: That’s correct.
Pleasant: (continues reviewing the presentation)
Burgess: [Referencing “NCTA Project List” slide] What about the Raleigh counterpart
of I-540, don’t they have a section in there?
Moose: A portion of Western Wake Parkway includes part of I-540.
Burgess: How did their loop get on this list and ours didn’t?
Moose: I don’t have a firm answer for that other than the fact that several parameters
have to be met for it to qualify. One of those is you must have a reasonable parallel
route. I assume Western Wake Parkway has that, where as the I-485 loop does not.
Pleasant: I think there is a level of readiness also.
Norm Steinman: When it came time to decide which projects would be on the list, the
Turnpike Authority perceived these as the first projects. They came to the realization in
Wake County that they couldn’t fund completion of that freeway without new sources of
revenue, so they nominated the project to be eligible to toll.
Burgess: So before there were 5 and now there are 6.
Moose: They received special legislation to add that project.
Pleasant: As far as environmental work and design work, they are further ahead than we
are.
Foxx: Regarding the “21st Century Transportation Committee” slide, have they gotten to
the point of deciding how that 50% on loops and interstates would be allocated?
Pleasant: I can’t say anyone has put out a confirmed set of criteria on how you judge
congestion and mobility factors. There are a number of ways that can be tracked.
Moose: I have not seen any type of allocation formula or cost benefit ration test that
would be used to allocate those funds. I think right now it is just a general concept that
they would like to see 50% of the remaining funds go towards congestion and completion
of projects.
Burgess: I want to go back to the Western Wake Parkway; you said they are ahead of us,
particularly in environmental planning. Did the City of Raleigh do that or NCDOT?
Moose: NCDOT shifted it to the Turnpike Authority and they finished the work. The
reason it got ahead of your bypass is because your bypass has an endangered species, the
Carolina Heelsplitter that ratchets up the environmental work. Therefore, they did not
have to go through the environmental assessment at the level you do.
Council Member Michael Barnes: How many miles is that project?
Moose: I want to say 12 miles, but I don’t know for sure.
Pleasant: Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of options to bring more money to I-485
anytime soon. [referencing “Funding Options” slide]
Burgess: If you propose tolling to pay for the construction of I-485 on the northeast and
widening in the south leg, would only those parts be tolled or would the entire loop be
tolled?
Pleasant: I’m not aware of an example of this in North Carolina. There are provisions in
federal law that does not allow you to add tolls to interstates. You can add lanes in the
middle and toll those lanes because it’s additional capacity.
Moose: You need to have a logical begin and end to where the toll is placed. The current
North Carolina legislation will not allow us to toll the existing I-485 because it
specifically says you cannot toll an existing facility. Assuming legislation is changed, I
think the options to go on the table would be you could toll any part or all of the interstate
that you wanted to. From there, you can break it down and build High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) or High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes or you could toll 2 of the 4 general
purpose lanes. There are multiple options. I think the legislation would have to change in
this state. So from the federal point-of-view it is possible, but from a state’s point-ofview, the legislation would have to change. The idea has been thrown on the table. I
would like to see that if you toll existing facilities, all the money generated over and
beyond the toll to go back into that local region to build other facilities.
Burgess: It seems unfair to the ones in the northeast. It doesn’t feel right to give them
the burden of the toll. I feel the same for the southern section. The pain would be spread
out if we could toll the whole interstate.
Steinman: In the Managed Lanes Study (Fast Lanes) we have the southern section west
of I-77 to as far east of I-74 being evaluated for tolling of what would be the 7th and 8th
lanes. We also kept for further study, tolling on two of the new lanes on I-485 in the
northeast because our consultant believes what is likely to happen is motorists will be
able to drive fairly fast between I-77 and I-85, but without transfer lanes they will
experience a lot of congestion. The idea of managed lanes would allow people to pay for
the privileges to drive faster. We decided not to keep the other section of I-485 for
further study in the east because there would be no way to provide travel time advantage
with just special lanes. So if it was decided to charge a toll, it wouldn’t be of any better
service than what exist now. In the section of I-485 that doesn’t exist yet, the toll could
make sure the facility is built faster or that it offers some advantage to people to be able
to drive into or out of the interchange.
Council Member Nancy Carter: We were talking about saving the money for regional
projects, do we have enough money to maintain I-485 and if not can the money saved be
directed to maintenance at the end of the project?
Moose: That’s a great point. Something that we never program in our project is the
lifecycle cost of the project. We get so focused on capital expansion and don’t worry
about the future. Everyone is so focused on getting the new road built that they don’t pay
attention to maintaining the facility.
Barnes: When I look at the list [“NCTA project list” slide] you put on the screen, I think
maybe we didn’t really communicate this properly. The major issue is we are not
suggesting that some new project be started; we are talking about finishing something the
state said they would start over 20 years ago. We are struggling to figure out if there is a
way to complete what they have started, and they are putting in new projects ahead of
ours. It’s only going to get more expensive. We are not even on the list anymore and
where we fell off, I don’t know.
Moose: There is a history of why this is not built. We can have an offline conversation
about that.
Barnes: Well, I’ll call you because I have people ask me and they attack us because they
think it’s the City’s responsibility.
Foxx: The Council has blessed the creation of the Committee of 21 to look at road needs.
They are looking at combined state and local funding sources and the recommendations
are coming back to us at end of November. They haven’t gotten to the point of looking at
the financing, right?
Jim Schumacher: That’s right
Foxx: Part of the conundrum with this issue coming on to our agenda is the process is in
motion right now. While I think it’s a critical issue, I don’t want to get out ahead if the
recommendation comes out of the Committee of 21 and it looks like something we
should actually do. Second thing, why don’t we take a committee trip to Raleigh to sit
down with our legislators to talk through some of these road fund issues to help us better
understand? I think it would be well worth our time.
Carter: Could we take folks from the Monroe Bypass and Garden Parkway so we could
have a regional perception? That way you extend the group and get the feel of unified
actions.
Foxx: Well, we could certainly meet with local leaders in the Raleigh area. The Monroe
Bypass is coming through MUMPO and you are welcome to interface with us there.
Carter: I think one of our vital regions would be the west, along the river. They have
major development, tourist development, means of transportation of goods and services
come across that. That is going to be a key factor in our future, so I don’t want to
exclude them. I think broadening the base of appeal is a win/win.
Foxx: I agree. I think the context of the subject is important. If the point is to draw
statewide attention to road issues that’s one thing, but if the issue is to focus on our back
yard then it would be an opportunity to obtain a discussion and exchange information.
Burgess: Other states are doing much more creative financing. Houston has done public
and private partnerships and innovative financing. I think North Carolina should
consider strategies that other states have used. Another thing we have not talked about is
the “Cary Model,” where we find local funds to pay for the project and have a
commitment from the state that we would get reimbursed. Do you have an opinion on
the possibility of that, Mr. Moose?
Moose: My understanding is the Board considered that at their last agenda. I thought
they were voting on a public private policy, but maybe on a smaller scale. Regarding the
“Cary Model,” one thing that we have been working on for this section of I-485 is
keeping our folks in Raleigh updated on the production schedule. Right now it’s sitting
at being done in 2015. I’ve been pushing 2010 to 2011 in hopes we might be able to
come across an innovative financing solution.
Burgess: What exactly did Cary build?
Moose: Something very similar to Mallard Creek Road. We do have an agreement with
Huntersville to do the same concept right now. The thing to keep in mind is the fuel and
liquid asphalt prices. Right now, we are at about 15% per year annual inflation. So if
you have a $200 million project, every year the project is delayed, it adds on $30 million
a year. The $200 million estimate is supposed to reflect inflation up to 2015, but if it’s
delayed beyond 2015 you will need to add $30 million more to the project per year. The
Monroe Bypass has been delayed multiple years because the environmental work had not
been done. That project was estimated at $350 million and the Turnpike Authority is
now estimating it to be closer to $750 to $800 million because of inflation.
Burgess: The General Assembly gave counties the ability to build roads and raise money
with sales tax. Two of the sales tax passed, but it is county and not municipalities. There
is some discussion today to taking back that ability to impose that tax. Are you involved
in the political process with how that happened? For road construction, do you think
there is a possibility the legislation can be rewritten so cities can do it?
Moose: I’m not the right person to answer that. I thought the City had the ability to do
that. The reason the legislature was written that way was because up until that legislation
passed, the county didn’t have the right to spend money on roads at all. The idea was to
level the playing field; so to speak, in hopes they would recognize there is a local
responsibility to help fund local transportation projects. I don’t know what the future of
that is.
Foxx: I actually have a few more questions for you Barry, but Mr. Barnes has a
commitment he has to go to. Can we move to the MUMPO vote so he can participate in
that?
Andy Grzymski: I will have Barry do most of the talking, but I just want to give you a
little introduction. We are asking tonight that Council direct Mr. Foxx’s vote at the July
MUMPO meeting. NC 218 is serving as a bypass for Monroe, and that is why we are
trying to get the Monroe Bypass Connector completed as soon as possible. It’s seeing a
lot of traffic and getting to the point where it’s beyond routine maintenance. State has
asked the funding come from two sources. One was delaying a Polkton Bypass in Anson
County; as well as, a Graham Street extension based on a re-estimate, which came in
about $10 million less. The TCC supported this funding strategy at their June meeting
[refer to “TCC Recommendation Regarding 2009-2015 TIP Amendment” attached].
Carter: Is there any thought of denying permission of that road to 18-wheelers? I have
this feeling that overweight 18-wheelers are on that road.
Moose: They are tearing it up - that is a North Carolina designated route. By General
Statute, we can’t impose that restriction. I’ve already explored it and I’m trying to get an
exception. So far, I’ve had no success. You probably realize that over half the traffic on
that road is agricultural in nature and they are typically exempt from the weight laws.
Carter: Is there a potential of a weigh station or a mobile weigh station?
Moose: It would probably cost as much to fix the road. Mobile scales are a possibility. I
think you will find even legally loaded trucks are tearing up the roadway.
Barnes: How is it that we are able to project cost saving on a project that has been
around for so long when concrete and asphalt are escalating in price? What is the value
of that projected savings? How do we assure ourselves that the Graham Street/Mallard
Creek project won’t get bumped again? One of the reasons City Council opted to
accelerate the City Boulevard extension was to connect to what the State was doing on
the western end of I-85, to provide for greater connectivity through the Derita area.
Moose: I think there has been some misinformation which started in the paper regarding
Graham Street. From the last TIP in 2007 – 2013 we budgeted $14, 611,000 to that
project. In the most recent TIP we have budgeted $27,924,000 to the Graham Street
extension. We are close to double for the amount of monies that we are applying to that
project. As we go through the draft process, we have preliminary estimates that are very
rough in nature. The preliminary estimate on this project was $36,324,000. That was the
number we were working with. So when I sat down to write the proposal for the new TIP,
the number I was originally using was $36,324,000. As we got closer to finalizing the
draft, we got a refined engineers estimate that came in at $27,924,000. So we were
squirreling back more money than we actually needed to keep the project current.
Barnes: I think the project was supposed to start in 2010. So is that a 2010 number or
2008 number?
Moose: That is a 2011 number.
Barnes: So the $27,924,000 is a 2011 number?
Moose: That’s right. That is using inflationary factor anticipating cost in 2011. The
project was delayed one year because we realized the last leg of City Boulevard needed
to be built simultaneously with the Mallard Creek section due to access to several
communities. After discussing the schedules, we felt we wouldn’t meet the 2010 date to
have both projects built together.
Barnes: How can we be sure we won’t need that $9,000,000 and if we do need it, where
will it come from?
Moose: Well the first part of that question is an empty argument. You can argue that for
every project. It is our best guess for what it will cost the year we are to build a project.
There is always a risk that the cost estimate is under. We apply the same logic to every
project. For the second part of the question, every year $90 million of new equity money
comes to this region. I sit down and try to figure out where this money needs to go. The
first thing I do is look at all the existing projects with the new estimates for those projects
and say, ‘if I try to keep those projects whole, how much of that $90 million would it
take.’ Then if there is any money left over we propose potential new projects to
MUMPO.
Barnes: Will you be here for the main meeting tonight? I might ask you the same
questions tonight so people see it on T.V. Is it on the dinner agenda?
Pleasant: It’s not on the dinner agenda.
Schumacher: We need a vote in this Committee.
(Barnes exits the meeting)
Burgess: How long has this project been going on? That is a very active neighborhood.
Moose: It’s been on the list since the early 90’s. I don’t know how many times it’s
actually been delayed. The danger of this project is as Council comes and Council goes,
the priorities sometimes change. We try to build the projects that local entities want and
need. In this particular case the money was delayed because of the lack of having enough
money to cover the entire bases.
Burgess: Can you consider other projects to be delayed? This one is pretty painful
(Turner enters the meeting)
Moose: Well the course of this action is not to delay. It’s going to be delayed regardless
of the NC 218. The reason it’s being delayed is so we can tie the project with the City
Boulevard project. If you walk away with anything, please understand that this project is
not impacted by NC 218 and I think that is the misinformation that was put out there.
We had tentatively over estimated the amount on this project. I recommend it be used on
NC 218 for the severe state it is in. The available monies could go to another project, but
there is no guarantee the monies will go to this region.
Burgess: I want to be reasonable. I love NC 218. I think this is going to be really
complex to explain to our constituents that it’s delayed. It’s delayed no matter which
way you look at it.
Moose: It’s delayed one year. It’s delayed from 2010 to 2011. Again, the rationale is so
we can build City Boulevard at the same time. We could move forward separately, but
that creates hardships to certain areas. From a professional point-of-view, it makes sense
to put the two projects together.
Pleasant: Just a reminder to you, the budget included bond dollars for the City Boulevard
extension piece.
Foxx: Ms. Burgess makes a good point about how we articulate this to the community. It
has to be very clear.
Moose: We have the first citizen information workshop Thursday.
Foxx: Are we ready to vote? Is there a motion?
Burgess: Move to approve.
Carter: Second
(Motion passes – unanimous)
Foxx: Alright, let’s go to the New Bern Transit Area Plan. We had a hearing before the
full Council and now it’s back to the Committee for recommendation.
Kent Main: We are looking for a recommendation to carry on with this plan and we are
here to answer any questions.
Foxx: Can you talk about the changes to the Southside Homes and affordable housing
components. I also understand there is an issue on Marsh Road and I would like for you
to talk about that.
Main: The plan has not changed. The proposed revisions have changed. In regards to
affordable housing and residential redevelopment opportunity, it was an unfortunate
caption on the map. We had further discussions about the text and specific requirements
and my general perception was that we were reasonably okay with that. We have made a
change to the map to say “Moderate Density Residential.” We are getting calls from
people who are talking about doing things with those apartments.
Burgess: I don’t understand what you are saying about affordable housing; is there a
place for it to be built?
Main: In the prior map for the Concept Plan, on page 7 of your plan, we talked about
residential redevelopment opportunities on the original map and that is what raised a red
flag in the past. We did talk about the text, but I think we were okay with that as far as
what we would be requiring in terms of open space, low to moderate income housing
components, and mixed-use housing types. The main thing I wanted to get off the map
was “redevelopment opportunity,” so the map is a more neutral statement of what it is
and what it might become in the future.
Debra Campbell: In essence, we were trying not to highlight any area that has affordable
housing as encouraging redevelopment. When we went back and reviewed the
discussion we had in the Committee meeting, we said, ‘why don’t we just make a land
use recommendation; modern density residential.’
Main: That is in response to what we heard from you at the last Committee meeting
where New Bern was discussed.
Burgess: What page does it describe the housing that is there, did I miss that?
Main: It is on page 12 for the Southside Homes and there are other ones for different
projects.
Campbell: We tried to have a carrot of higher density, if you add affordable housing.
Burgess: Does it say that in here?
Main: Yes, it says 22 units density, increases up to 30 would be acceptable if the
following criteria are met: usable parking/open space, low to moderate income housing
component, mixture of housing types, preservations of trees, and The Residential Design
Guidelines.
Burgess: Moderate income housing is not what we are looking for. We are looking for
low. And I don’t know what you consider moderate is from a planning perspective, is it
80%?
Campbell: It says low to moderate. Do you not want us to say moderate?
Burgess: How do you define moderate?
Campbell: We think anything below 80% of the median income would be low to
moderate.
Burgess: I appreciate that, but 80% is not our target.
Campbell: Your House Charlotte program starts at 80%.
Burgess: Yes and we have had discussions about that percentage. How can we get that
in here?
Campbell: Do you want it in the plan or do you want us to consider it as part of a
proposal?
Burgess: It should be under the criteria for selection. How can we do that?
Campbell: If you tell us as development proposals come in, we will consider that the
goal is to have more units at the 60% and 30% below the moderate level. We can look at
the proposals more of the lower end versus the moderate end.
Foxx: I think it is a very important point. We ought to tee up this issue of our affordable
housing policy and what the targets are and maybe in this document reflect that we are
looking for densities at levels that are consistent with Council policy. We should have a
policy discussion about what the targets will be. That way we won’t have to go back and
retrofit.
Campbell: We can add a clause saying “consistent with Council policy.”
Carter: That would be reflected in other plans as well? Mixed-use and mixed-level are
extraordinarily important in the stability and quality of the neighborhood.
Campbell: We can make that change.
Foxx: Marsh Road?
Main: In addition to Marsh Road we heard from folks from Iverson Way and suggested
to them to have a plan amendment or file for rezoning. They are proceeding to do that.
We don’t think it’s appropriate to use a New Bern Plan to make changes to a Dilworth
Plan that others don’t know about yet. There is also a rezoning for Marsh Road.
Rezoning is filed and is a case that is pending right now. We do not have a policy basis
at this point to recommend a TOD line change according to this plan. The rezoning will
come forward and we can look at that on its merit separately.
Foxx: It looks like a line is drawn on one side of street that brings the TOD zoning in and
on the other side of the street it’s not in [reference Map 3 in the New Bern Proposed
Revisions attachment] . I’ve heard concerns about consistency being applied in where
that line is drawn and I want to make sure there is a good 30 second speech on why the
line is drawn that way.
Main: Our policies in drawing the line are based on the existing zoning and uses and
where the existing neighborhoods are. Absent the neighborhood, we would go out ½
mile from a Station Area.
Burgess: I cannot tell what part of this pink area is the Urban Park.
Main: Just the little, green spot.
Burgess: How big is that park?
Main: It is one acre.
Foxx: Any other questions about the New Bern Station Area Plan? Is there a readiness
to vote?
Burgess: What’s the motion you need?
Main: We are asking for a positive recommendation of the draft document forwarded to
City Council as an amendment for their action.
Burgess: Motion
Carter: Second
Foxx: Can I add a request that you continue working on the language?
Campbell: Yes.
(Motion passes – unanimous)
Foxx: There is a Bicycle Plan in front of you. The next time we get together we will
have a refresher on this and we will be asked to vote at the next Committee meeting.
Barry, on an unrelated subject regarding USDG, I want to talk to you about the State’s
position on it. Have you had a chance to look at the guidelines?
Moose: We have and we continue to work with Norm Steinman and others and we just
recently engaged Raleigh as well. I don’t know that as a DOT we have taken a position
yet. We have met with the building community to hear their reservations; we met with
Charlotte as well. My hope is that we as a state agency can come up with an agreed upon
set of design standards that we can give to the building community collectively and say,
‘as long as you build with these standards, then you will be okay with Charlotte and the
State.’ That may be too optimistic. There are a few philosophy differences. Regarding
design issues, not once have we not been able to work out a design issue. There are a few
philosophy things we need to get over such as, public streets that run through apartment
complexes or commercial development. We see those more as driveways, not public
streets. Granted, we look at streets differently than Charlotte. The plan requires a lot of
interconnectivity, but I think sometimes it goes into excess when it connects to our
thoroughfare streets. Stub streets that go to nowhere, that directly violates are policy - if
it doesn’t serve a house or development, we would not take that stub street on our system.
Another one is onstreet parking. Staff and I are not quite in agreement yet. Landscaping
issues are a little more minor in nature, but what Charlotte likes to see planted ends up in
large trees that turns into traffic problems. Another one that could become a concern is
again, stub streets and providing interconnectivity. It may require forging creeks more
often than needed and it introduces a fairly sizable cost to the infrastructure. That’s off
the top of my head.
Foxx: Is that all?
Moose: It sounds like a lot. I think it’s a good document. There are more things we
agree with than we disagree with. There’s never been a time that we have not come up
with a solution.
Turner: Can you explain why it takes us so long to get cooperation with the State to get a
CATS shelter on a state road?
Moose: You shouldn’t have a problem with that. About 10 years ago I approved a
standard design, so as long as CATS is using a standard design it should be fine.
Turner: That’s not the case.
Moose: We should probably talk off line.
Burgess: Back to the USDG, the State may adopt something that would preempt what we
have done?
Moose: No, I’m saying that with City Staff and my staff we would be able to sit down
and say ‘this type of road would have this type of design scheme, would have this type of
loop to it. You build to this and you will be okay with City guidelines and DOT
guidelines.’
Burgess: So what you are saying is you want to amend for state roads?
Moose: Yes, we do that anyway. Anytime we can accommodate a local requirement that
is not a detriment to the purpose, we do that. What we hold as absolute is - the safety of
the roads and the maintenance of the roads.
Foxx: Thank you for that. We have a special meeting time on July 28 – 11:30 a.m. We
will tour the airport.
Turner: I’ll be in Chicago.
Burgess: So we changed the time to 11:30?
Foxx: Yes, there was concern with us getting back in time.
Schumacher: There is 3:00 meeting that day for the manager’s evaluation. Jerry will
send one of his hybrid buses down and tote us from here to the airport and back.
Foxx: We also have questions on the summer meeting schedule for a July 14 meeting?
We need to have it because of the Bicycle Plan, but we don’t have a Council meeting that
evening.
Burgess: We have a Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee meeting on
July 16. That would save a trip.
Carter: We also have Economic Development and Planning Committee that day.
Foxx: Staff, please look at moving the Committee meeting to Wednesday, July 16 and
use July 14 as a default.
Turner: On Monday night, I was bringing forth to the Council’s attention that there are
ongoing issues with alleyways based on our policy guidelines, our TAP, our ROW and
street guidelines. The problem is that most people don’t understand that even when we as
a City do not adopt those alleyways, it is still public ROW. And when you are the private
homeowner it becomes a civic matter. We don’t enforce it. We at least need to let the
public know it’s not their ROW and they can provide civil suit.
Burgess: Can we ask for Council referral to this Committee to look at it?
Foxx: Let me make sure I’m getting this. I want to make sure your issue is getting
addressed. My understanding was that we have these paper roads on maps that the City
owns and we are not making use out of them and in some cases they are overgrown, or
people have taken hold of them. Now, there is ability for someone to go and file a civil
action, without City notice, and claim ownership of it. Part of what the staff was bringing
to us was some general policy recommendations on how to address those situations.
Schumacher: I think when we come back for connectivity next time we will clarify that.
There are different circumstances. One is a paper street; the other is an alleyway, which
is established in the deeds of the property where each owner has cross easements and can
make use of the alleyway.
Turner: That’s right. Some of the old neighborhoods would define that as common area.
Foxx: So we have a privately owned scenario versus public.
Carter: I apologize for missing the discussion on Thoroughfare Project Prioritization &
Ranking. There is one statement I think might be valuable to this. I would suggest
“addresses air quality/environmental challenges” to be included in this.
Foxx: We haven’t actually talked about that today.
Grzymski: It was just for information. You had asked how staff prioritizes the
thoroughfare projects so we provided that handout.
(Foxx adjourned the meeting)
Attachment 1
NEW BERN TRANSIT STATION AREA PLAN
Proposed Revisions to January 15, 2008 Draft Document
June 17, 2008
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7: Map 2, Concept Map
6/16/08
Substitute attached map, with preservation of Chicago Avenue neighborhood and with new captions for
“Medium Density Residential” areas.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8: Map 3, Recommended Future Land Use
Substitute attached map with minor street connection change; make same changes to the extract maps on
pages 9, 11, and 12.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10: Land Use; Transit Station Area; Supporting Street Network; New Street Connections
Change item 8, final paragraph, as follows:
It should be noted that this map provides a conceptual representation of the desired street network. It is not
specific to any particular property, and may require adjustments to address site conditions as future
developments are proposed. An alternative but comparable network, consistent with the intent of providing
connectivity, will be considered.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12: Land Use; Wedge Neighborhood Area; Land Use and Community Design
Add the following to the end of item 15:
While much of the industrially zoned property along Tremont Avenue is currently vacant, a few properties
are occupied by ongoing businesses. These properties should retain their industrial zoning to allow them to
continue as-of-right operations until such time as they are proposed for redevelopment.
Change item 18 as follows:
18. Support the redevelopment of the Sedgefield Apartments, at an average density of 17 dua. The area
closest to South Boulevard, and the area in the central portion of the site, should be developed with the
highest intensity, with lower densities at the edge of the site adjacent to single family neighborhoods.
Residential TOD development for the land within the ½ mile walk distance to the New Bern Station
should be considered if the following criteria are met:
•
Usable park/open space is provided;
•
A significant low to moderate income housing component, at least 20%, is included in a mixed
income environment;
•
A mixture of housing types is provided;
•
Existing mature trees are preserved; and
•
The Residential Design Guidelines in the General Development Policies are met.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17: Map 4, Transportation Recommendations
Substitute attached map with minor street connection change, and with new title Future Transportation
Network.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 23: Street Cross-Sections, Local Residential Street – Wide
Add additional bullet at end of page, under section entitled “Proposed Behind the Curb”:
2
•
Parcels located on streets that have existing single-family zoning designations (R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6,
and R-8) either across the street, or abutting on the same side of the street, shall have a minimum
setback of 30 feet.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 24: Street Cross-Sections, Rail Frontage / Multi-Use Trail
Add the following to the second bullet:
…Decorative pedestrian scale lighting also should be provided.
Change the last bullet as follows:
The minimum setback from the centerline of the tracks is 35 feet or the location of the right of way line,
whichever is greater. However, where the right of way line extends beyond the minimum setback required,
development may be allowed to encroach into the right of way as a method of encouraging development
which is consistent with the City's land use vision and if the required written agreements with CATS are
completed to occupy portions of the right of way.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 25: Infrastructure and Public Facilities; Park and Greenway
Change Map reference in text as follows:
…(shown as “park/open space” on Map 3)…
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 26: Environment: Recommendations
Change text for item 43 as follows:
Design site plans for new buildings and renovations in the station area to improve water quality for
stormwater run-off. Over the last decade, innovative design solutions have been developed to address the
water quality of stormwater runoff. These best practices in on-site stormwater management include the use
of bioswales, rain gardens, wet ponds, etc. Because of the large amount of impervious surface area and the
proximity of nearby creeks, new developments and redevelopments in the station area are encouraged to
incorporate design features that improve the quality of stormwater leaving their site, consistent with the
Council adopted Post- construction controls ordinance.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 29: Implementation Plan; Corrective Rezonings
Change text as follows:
The Planning Department will initiate corrective rezonings to implement the land use vision and
recommendations adopted as part of the Concept Plan. The proposed rezonings are shown on Map 6. The
rezoning process will occur after the adoption of the Concept Plan.
The proposed rezonings to TOD-M may be initiated in one or more groups, or may be proposed on a caseby-case basis in order to insure that new streets and other recommendations of this plan are provided by
new development.
A few of the industrially zoned properties along Tremont Avenue are occupied by ongoing businesses.
These properties should retain their industrial zoning to allow them to continue as-of-right operations until
such time as they are proposed for redevelopment.
______________________________________________________________________________________
In addition, a number of minor typographical corrections that do not impact the meaning of the plan will be
made in the final published plan.
______________________________________________________________________________________
New Bern Transit Station Area Plan
co
rri
do
rz
on
e
Map 2: Concept Plan
Moderate
Density
Residential
ou
zo
ne
school
co
rri
do
r
ut
lti-
ea
Lin
Transit
Station
Area
LR
T
7
Moderate
Density
Residential
I-7
Mu
nd
Retail node
h
Us
nt
Rd
Bv
eT
rai
l
park Rem
So
Neighborhood
Preservation
New Bern
LRT Station
Urban
Park
Moderate
Density
Residential
ST
ryo
nS
t
CATS
maintenance
facility
Cla
nto
Sedgefield
Neighborhood
Preservation
nR
d
Ha
rtf
N
or
d
Av
W
E
S
0
500
1,000
feet
Corridor Zone
Transit Oriented Development
Produced by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department.
Neighborhood Preservation
Moderate Density Residential
Date: June 2008
New Bern Transit Station Area Plan
Map 3: Recommended Future Land Use
ing
St
W
Ki
Av
e
ng
sto
n
Av
e
Ha
to
n
on
Try
S
St
nt
or
th
s
St
W
S
on
t
Tr
em
rrin
Woodcrest Ave
Ca
To
o
m
m
ey
de
n
Av
e
Rd
W
Wilmore Dr
Proposed Streets*
Street Connections to be Considered by CDOT
1/4 Mile Walking Distance
1/2 Mile Walking Distance
Updated Corridor and Wedge Boundary
W
Mi
Av
e
Dr
ge
r
Rail Alignment/Multi-Use Trail
Transit Stations
Ba
Dogge
tt
Ea
s
t
St
ST
Bl
vd
W Trem
on
Av
e
ut
h
t Ave
ev
el
an
d
7
Cl
un
D
t
Village C
or
id
rr
I-7
Bl
v
d
Co
t Ave
W Tremon
So
Av
e
Ph
il l
ip
s
Tr
oo
W
wk
in
e
l
da
New Bern Plan Area
a
av
nt
Rampa
rt St
St
Br
oo
kh
d
us R
Rem
E
Tr
Rd
em
on
St
ill
y
rr
Be
N
e
id
e
Av
t
W
ed
ge
St
M
Gr ath
ee er
n
Av
e
e
Av
Wa
on
ers
Iv
Av
Idea
est
kcr
ex
ter
l Wa
y
Dr
Be
rk
de
in
Po r
Ci
m
or
e
So
u
Tr
St
n
lto
Ct
n
M
Do r
St
n
to
es
W
St
ne
Rd
er
e
De
xt
ld
d
n
so
An
Av
St
Be
e
Av
e
wo
St
fie
Or
M
ay
Av
e
a
on
Ln
ld
en
Ell
W
m
a
rn
Av
bu
Au
We
wi
tt
De
Ave
Heriot
Retail
Institutional
Sunset Dr
d
Marsh R
hit
nd
toconceptual.
*Note: The location
of the proposed streets is
Alternative
locations,
Fre
n
Ct
St
ela
d
Ln
consistent with the nintent
of the proposed network, will also be considered.
Ho
e
lli
Av
s
Ca
St
ay
m
Proposed
Land Use
a
nw
Ty
St
o
St
s
C
on
an
S
o
t
Transit
Oriented Development - Mixed
Park/Open Space
Sl
Residential <= 4 DUA
Office
Residential <= 8 DUA
Office/Industrial-Warehouse-Distribution
Residential <= 17 DUA
Residential <= 22 DUA
Guilford Rd
N
Retail/Office Ground Floor
W
E
GIS
..
..
Produced by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department.
Rd
lto
e
ie
ef
St
or
dg
Se
n
d
Blv
th
So
u
od
Pl
Hw
y
49
Rd
NC
ys
to
Av
Dr
r
r
ve
te
an
m
rt
f
llis
ex
w
Bo
Ha
Ho
ind
Gr
e
Do
Dr
Po
Pl
Dr
Pl
n
lan
sh
ire
sPtLer
che
o
ist
yc
rk
Rd
Wr
Rd
Pl
Rd
Tr
Yo
t
sh
ar
n
io
ar
M
St
Pe
rs
hu
m
El
e
rn
u
bo
el
S
Rd
0
500
feet
1,000
S
.m
Charlotte
ore
than ma
...
..
yo
n
th
St
Bl
vd
St
Rd
Va
t
Ar
d
Lawndale Rd
e
er
xt
Rd
M
n
Dr
ind
rs
rd
ell
Po
shi
re
lto
Be
Cla
nto
Bla
irhi
ll R
d
y
Pl
Pl
l
P
Ha
ve
rf
or
d
e
ay
sh
all
Gr
if
St
e
hu
ne
Pl
Dr
od
Av
m
ay
y
Pa
rk
gb
r
Av
M
W
a
ay
Yo
St
te
an
Di
an
l W
El
Ln
Trade Park Ct
rm
th
un
S
Fo
s
He
ro
lo
Tr
e
Id
ea
fit
h
St
n
Av
Av
e
yo
Ba
nk
St
st
er
ms
te
Do
e
Winthrop Av
oo
d
Fo
cli
d
Ma
r
irw
Ol
d
Eu
Fa
St
Oa
iff
ith
St
I-7
Gr
St
d
loo
gb
un
Yo
EU
CL
ID
7
So
ut
h
Bl
vd
he
rt
on
cl
St
Du
St
At
Eu
rs
io
St
m
Av
e
ha
f
or
B
Av
ns
St
ea
c
hu
Av
Av
nd
e
k
ol
ut
Av
e
no
lia
na
va
nt
or
st
rib
e
m
ti
al
Di
e
NC
e
Av
Av
M
ag
M
n
Hw
St
y
er
go
al
d
49
d
ill
ica
on
Ly
To
R
M
Ch
t
e
cD
ki
St
nt
om
ey
ou
sin
M
Ha
w
em
Av
e
R
Ba
ps
Date: February 06, 2008
New Bern Transit Station Area Plan
Map 4: Transportation Recommendations
W
or
th
S
ing
to
n
rd
Av
fo
e
ick
St
on
Try
S
W
Ki
ng
sto
n
St
nt
St
W
Mi
Av
e
on
t
Tr
em
Wilmore Dr
Av
e
Av
e
Woodcrest Ave
om
ey
Av
e
W
vd
Tr
Pa
rk
Ha
wk
ins
le
da
Bl
W
Wi
lm
o
re
es
t
oo
r D
r
Pl
W
W
Ba
rrin
ge
Ea
To
st
Dogge
tt St
Bl
vd
n
de
vd
Ave
e
Av
d
un
D
Cl
ev
el
an
t
Village C
So
u
th
Bl
W Trem
ont
m
7
t Ave
W Tremon
I-7
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing
Pending Street Connection
Rd
Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing
Ca
Av
e
Ph
ill
ip
s
W
Dr
New Bern Plan Area
Enhanced Multi-Use Trail
Transit Stations
Street Connections
Street Connections to be
Considered by CDOT
Bicycle Lanes
Widened Sidewalk
Complete Gaps in Sidewalk
t
an
av
Rampa
rt St
St
Br
oo
kh
ill
E
Tr
em
on
Rd
t
n
ch
am
va
nt
St
Av
e
ea
st
ut
io
M
Di
fo
or
St
Du
St
At
h
to
n
th
Bl
vd
er
St
M
Gr ath
ee er
n
Av
e
Av
y
Wa
all
on
Iv
ers
Ma
r
iffi
St
Gr
t P
l
Pl
d
kcr
es
or
ve
rf
Ha
ind
M
er
xt
de
in
Po r
Ci
Rd
t
rs
e
or
e
Rd
St
S
n
lto
Ct
n
Wr
Pe
n
to
W
es
St
xt
er
Rd
rt
fo
St
d
m
an
d
an
o
Sl
Ty
so
n
ay
St
e
Av
nw
Co
Ho
lli
s
St
...
Produced by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department.
Guilford Rd
N
..
ps
e
Av
Ct
Ln
St
rn
bu
Au
M
ay
fie
l
Av
e
Or
na
n
We
o
uth
So
Ln
wi
tt
De
St
Av
e
Blv
d
Pl
od
wo
Ell
en
St
lto
Hw
itt
o
Heriot
Ave
n
Sunset Dr
Wh
An
e
llis
ela
nd
so
Av
Rd
n
rd
eld
efi
St
Ha
Dr
Ho
NC
dg
Se
d
Marsh R
than ma
e
Av
e
Be
ks
hir
e
y
49
Rd
..
Charlotte
ore
r
De
an
m
w
Bo
GIS
.m
Gr
ey
st
on
Dr
ve
r
te
ex
Do
Yo
r
Fre
..
ind
Pl
Dr
Po
on
ist
St
M
l
r P
este
ch
Dor
Rd
lan
Rd
sh
ar
Rd
Pl
M
St
on
i
ar
yc
hu
ne
lto
Tr
t
rs
m
El
ur
bo
el
Tr
yo
M
So
n
ut
h
St
Bl
vd
St
Rd
Ar
dm
Lawndale Rd
ll
l Wa
y
r D
r
hu
Va
rd
e
Idea
ex
te
Be
Av
n
Dr
d
e
ay
Po
rks
hir
e
nto
a
Dr
oo
Av
e
Be
Cla
Bla
irhi
ll R
d
an
ay
Oa
St
Trade Park Ct
Av
W
ay
ne
Di
W
m
El
Ln
st
er
rm
an
th
y
gb
l
Yo
Fo
He
Pl
cli
d
St
al
Pl
ro
un
S
Av
e
Id
e
th
St
n
Tr
yo
St
nk
Ba
Av
e
Pa
rk
Do
e
Winthrop Av
irw
oo
d
Fo
st
er
ms
te
d
Eu
Fa
St
Ol
sh
Gr
iffi
St
d
loo
gb
e
So
u
7
I-7
un
Yo
th
Av
e
Av
e
na
y
rr
Be
N
Av
st
e
lk
rib
NC
Av
e
or
im
lt
Ba
St
y
Hw
St
e
Av
e
ag
no
lia
Av
e
ur
d
M
r
e
ill
ica
go
al
d
lid
on
49
R
M
Ch
cD
Eu
c
ns
M
ki
St
Ly
nd
h
To
om
ey
nt
ou
sin
Ha
w
Av
em
e
R
Ba
Av
e
St
d
us R
Rem
W
0
500
feet
E
1,000
S
Date: February 06, 2008
Attachment 2
I-485 Funding Options
Danny Pleasant, CDOT
June 23, 2008
I-485 Project 1
2009-2015 TIP two I-485 projects:
• I-485 (freeway on new location) from east of NC
115 (Old Statesville Road) to I-85 North (R2248E) and new interchange with I-85
• Right-of-way acquisition in FY 2010 and
construction beginning in FY 2015
• Approximately $147 million.
1
I-485 Project 2
• I-485 (widening to six lanes) from Johnston Road
to I-77 South
• Right-of-way acquisition in FY 2011 and
construction beginning in FY 2015
• Approximately $50 million
Highway Trust Fund
• Highway Trust Fund (HTF) can be used:
(1) Intrastate System
(2) Urban Loops
(3) Secondary road construction
(4) Supplement to the Transportation Improvement
Program.
• The Charlotte Loop was one of the designated
U b
Urban
Loops.
L
2
Highway Trust Fund
• Authorizing legislation required the State
Treasurer to transfer $170 million per year from
the HTF to the General Fund.
• This amount would increase each year by the
percent that the tax revenues increased.
• The current amount being transferred is
approximately $172 million.
21st Century Transportation
Committee
• Proposed that Highway Trust Fund transfers to
the General Fund be incrementally eliminated.
• These funds would remain in Highway Trust Fund
for transportation needs.
3
21st Century Transportation
Committee
• Proposed that in FY2008-09, $45 million of
captured funds (no longer transferred) within HTF
be used for gap funding for legislative-approved
North Carolina Turnpike Authority’s (NCTA)
projects.
• Proposed that in FY2009-10, $75 million of total
recaptured
p
funds will be used for g
gap
p funding.
g
NCTA project list
•
•
•
•
•
•
Monroe Bypass/Connector
a d
Parkway
a
ay
Garden
Triangle Parkway
Western Wake Parkway
Mid-Currituck Bridge
Cape Fear Skyway
4
NC Legislature
• Proposing that in FY2008-09, $25 million of
captured funds within HTF be used for gap
funding for Triangle Parkway.
• Proposing that in FY2009-10, $49 million of total
recaptured funds be used for gap funding for
Triangle Parkway ($25 million) and Monroe
Bypass/Connector
yp
/
($24
($
million).
)
• Continue transfer remainder to General Fund
21st Century Transportation
Committee
• Remainder of transfer funds (approx. $100
million) would repay debt on a proposed bond
issue. Bonds would be used in the following
manner:
-50% loops and interstates to increase
capacity based on congestion and mobility factors
-50% distributed through equity formula for
bridge
g p
program
g
and completion
p
of intrastate
system as defined in G.S.136-179.
5
Funding Options
• Add I-485 to NCTA project list
• Retain additional funds from HTF transfer and
allocate to I-485
• Maintain TIP schedule
• Others?
6
Attachment 3
Attachment 4