Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for May 12, 2008
Agenda Topics:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Bicycle Plan Overview
New Bern Station Area Plan Key Issues
Neighborhood Traffic Management
MUMPO Transportation Improvement Plan (unable to review due to time
constraints)
Charlotte Pedestrian Plan (unable to review due to time constraints)
Committee Information:
Present: Anthony Foxx, Warren Turner, Susan Burgess, Michael Barnes, Nancy Carter
Additional Attachments:
I.
II.
III.
Bicycle Plan Status Update.ppt
New Bern Station Area Plan Key 5.12.08.ppt
Neighborhood Traffic Management New Process.doc
Discussion Summary:
(Chairman Anthony Foxx called the meeting to order and asked everyone to introduce
themselves)
Chairman Anthony Foxx: Let’s go ahead and get started on the Bicycle Plan Status
Update. Danny and Jim would you like to introduce this topic?
Danny Pleasant: Ken Tippette will review the bicycle plan and tell you the next steps.
Ken Tippette: Thank you for having me here. I wanted to have the opportunity to come
here and break the ice for the bicycle plan we have been working on the past several
months. There will be a more detailed presentation at a later meeting. So with that, let’s
move on to the next slide. (Begins reviewing and describing the “Bicycle Plan Status
Update” presentation in the agenda package)
Council Member Nancy Carter: Are the yellow numbers on the “Vision” slide part of our
Transportation Action Plan (TAP) or are they build out?
Tippette: They are the current best guess of build out for the bicycle plan that is under
draft. Those yellow numbers could change. It is meant to give you an idea of the type of
magnitude we are talking about.
Carter: Bicycle Action Plan report in the TAP is different than this?
Tippette: Yes they are different. This is the bicycle plan we are developing right now.
Pleasant: This plan is a little more specific than the one in the TAP.
Tippette: (Continues reviewing and describing the presentation)
Foxx: One thing that may be misleading about the “Proposed Funding” slide is that when
we resurface roads more frequently, that allows us to put in bike lanes at a more rapid
pace. We had 31 year resurfacing schedule a couple of years ago and now it is down to
14 years, so some of that has helped us with the bicycle lanes.
Tippette: Absolutely, because resurfacing is the chief tool we use for our existing bike
lanes. The more money that goes into resurfacing helps us achieve more bike lanes.
(Continues reviewing presentation)
Carter: Regarding the Key Issues/Decision Points slide, do you develop your relationship
with the NCDOT elsewhere? How do you anticipate coordinating with them?
Tippette: Well we had two members of NCDOT help participate in the developmental
process plan. We had a member from the Albemarle office, an engineer, and also a
member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Division out of Raleigh. Theoretically, they have
participated with this plan and we assume they will adopt the same plan we have. The
idea is we have an agreement of what our goals are.
Foxx: Are they funding part of this?
Tippette: NCDOT is funding half of the development of this bicycle plan. (Continues
reviewing presentation)
Carter: [Reference “Connectivity” slide] Do you routinely watch the rezoning projects
that we have on our borders and also that the small towns have on their borders?
Tippette: I routinely see the ones that Charlotte has. I try to keep abreast of the other
communities but I can’t always guarantee I’ll see those.
Carter: Is there anyway we can help facilitate your requests to see those?
Tippette: I can get in touch with the adjacent panels and see how I can help participate in
their process.
Carter: I think that is something we need to consider as we rezone, particularly as we
move towards Harrisburg. We should be discussing mutually.
Tippette: (Continues reviewing presentation)
Foxx: Do we have a plan to improve the access to places to park bikes?
Tippette: In 2005 City of Charlotte adopted a very good bicycle parking ordinance.
Redevelopments from 2005 onward for commercial and multi-family are required to put
in pretty good bicycle parking stands. What we are facing is that preexisting uses are not
required to do that. We are implementing a program were we are working on a
partnership where the City provides the bicycle rack to a property and they are to install
it and maintain it and they can use it free of charge.
Foxx: I think we should think about that for Center City too.
Tippette: We have installed bike lanes on Tryon Street and I have seen growing use of
those lanes. Just this past week I was contacted by a building owner that owns the whole
block and he has requested I put City bike racks on the block around his building.
Foxx: Ok, this is great information. Are we being asked to do something with this?
Pleasant: It is just for information today. We will bring back a draft policy plan within
the next 60 days.
Foxx: Alright, let’s move onto the next topic.
Jim Schumacher: We will call Kent Main back to the stand.
Kent Main: (Begins reviewing and describing the reason for the “New Bern Transit
Station Area Plan 5.12.08” presentation in the agenda package.) He then turns it over to
Laura Harmon to discuss the “Affordable Housing” sections of the presentation.
Laura Harmon: (Begins reviewing the “Affordable Housing” slides in the presentation.)
Carter: How do you propose funding for the Affordable Housing?
Harmon: The Housing Trust Fund.
Carter: North Carolina or Charlotte’s?
Harmon: Charlotte. They put aside a certain amount of the money to go into Transit
Station Areas.
Carter: And it is already sequestered?
Debra Campbell: Yes, they reserve a certain portion of Housing Trust Fund dollars for
investment in Transit Station Areas. I believe that is a policy that the Trust Fund board
has adopted.
Carter: Do they have current funding?
Campbell: Yes they do.
Carter: There is still debit capacity?
Campbell: Not sure about the mechanics of the debt capacity but I believe that there is
still some amount remaining for investments in special areas.
Council Member Michael Barnes: You may be getting to this and if you are just tell me.
One of the issues I raised in the last meeting was that I want to know what is the current
number of units on that site and how many would be there once the site is redeveloped.
Harmon: Regarding Sedgefield apartments, if it were to redevelop it might be in excess
of 25-30 units per acre. A portion of this in the ½ mile circle and a portion of it is in the
prohibited area. That means it would take Council votes to override the Affordable
Housing Policy. The policy is not to add more affordable housing into prohibited zones.
Barnes: So are you saying it would be rezoned RMF25?
Harmon: In that area. 20-30 units per acre are probably what we could expect. Right
now the way the policy for affordable housing is set, it is entirely up to the property
owner as to whether or not they have included assisted housing in their project. What we
have done in these different developments is suggested to go above the base density but
we have some criteria we would look for, i.e. maintain trees, street network, having a
component of affordable housing.
Barnes: What is the staff’s anticipation in terms of the ultimate number of affordable
units?
Harmon: It really can vary tremendously because it depends on those property owners.
Barnes: Lets say we override or pretend the policy doesn’t exist for a minute, how many
would you expect?
Campbell: I don’t know that we can give you a number. It may vary with how many
units the City is willing to participate in with a private developer. There are a lot of
prohibited areas. Yes, we think that we want to add more in Station Areas because it’s a
convenient opportunity for transportation. We can’t truthfully say we have an answer to
your question. Our goal would be based upon that policy. It would range between a
minimum of 5% and maximum of 25%.
Barnes: Just to back up for a second, the reason the issue came up at the last meeting was
because I’m concerned we are uprooting people where they have lived for years and also
we are essentially relocating some of the challenges that come from poverty from one
part of the city to another. We are removing red from this slide [referencing the “2006
Multifamily Housing Locational Policy” slide] and moving it to other parts of the City. I
don’t hear you suggesting there are going to be 261 affordable units where Sedgefield
apartments is or 400 units where Southside homes are. Those people will have to go
somewhere.
Campbell: Our intent is not to displace. Our intent is to upgrade, improve, and enhance
the quality of life. Some of these recommendations may connect a redevelopment. When
we are doing a land use plan we are looking at the value of the land now, land
development potential, and if it were to redevelop then what would that use be over time.
You are right; there may be some units that may be displaced. Where they will be
displaced would be a partnership between the private developer, the City, and other
agencies.
Burgess: Sedgefield Apartments is full of very low income people. There are a lot of
single, elderly people living there as well. So if that is replaced then we are indeed
displacing them. We should have a plan for that. I know Sedgefield will not be thrilled
about having density on that road. So that is another issue needing to be considered. I
can not tell from this map what parts are prohibited, I don’t know what the legend is.
Campbell: The pink is prohibited.
Burgess: In that case we should probably have some affordable housing overlay in
Transit Station Areas. These are the people that are depending on mass transit.
Campbell: We actually do have that and that is what the Station Area policies are. Even
though the entire area around the Station Areas are prohibited, we still allow development
of affordable housing in the Station Areas up to a maximum of 25% of development.
Foxx: What’s been the use, empirically, of the criteria in the slide “Highlights of
“Assisted Multi-Family Housing at Transit Station Areas””?
Campbell: When the Trust Fund is making a recommendation about assisting a
developer within a Station Area, these are the bases.
Foxx: We do have a policy that also affords greater density for including affordable
housing in multi-family developments. Is that not correct?
Campbell: I’ll be honest with you; it’s probably not a policy. It’s probably staffs
practice to encourage affordable housing.
Main: That’s what we have in the plan.
Foxx: How effective do you think that will be? Do you think it will be used?
Campbell: We just met with someone last week and we will get to one of the issues in
the area where the person wants to do more that 30 units to the acre, and we identified we
‘need affordable housing, we need open space, we need you to meet other public
objectives to get there’. That seems to be somewhat objective as an incentive to add the
units.
Main: Moving on to the industrial property question. [Referencing the “Mecklenburg
County Industrial Buildings by Year Built Classification” slide] Two years ago we did a
mass inventory of all the industrial properties. The small green circles are Class A,
which are the newest buildings, and the red are Class C, which are the oldest and
smallest. About 90% of our demand is warehouse space because of the nature of our
industries here, which is not manufacturing anymore. The concentration of property
within our Station Area is largely those properties that are obsolete now. That does not
mean there is not a market for some of that space. As you can see on the “Asking Price”
slide, the price per acre is already beyond what a small company could afford.
Campbell: I just want to add that we’re working with Economic Development and trying
to find out what tools other communities are using to preserve prime industrially zoned
land. It’s a problem everywhere. Chicago has a program we’re going to learn more about.
We know it’s a real issue, we just don’t have the tools to tell a developer “no”.
Burgess: It doesn’t make sense to have industrial land in South End anymore. We should
help create that out near the interstate, but most of them that are there now don’t lend
themselves to the type of land use we’re seeking in that area.
Campbell: We’re doing it in a very pragmatic way, where we’re not saying ‘you have to
go’; we’re trying to say ‘this is the potential’. Some industrial is appropriate in those
areas, but not too close to the transit stations.
Barnes: I’ll push back a little bit about that. I think we are pushing people out. If I live in
Sedgefield paying $300 and when I come back when the development is done and I’m
paying $750, I’m moving out. The ultimate impact when we say and industrial facility
should go away is we dismantle an entire community. I don’t disagree with this fully, but
I do disagree with us in part. And because we set the plan we can’t say it’s all private
sector and we don’t have anything to do with it.
Council Member Warren Turner: I agree with Mr. Barnes. I’m curious to know what
Terry Shipp would say if he were in this room today. If we changed his zoning to go with
market trends, he might not be able to stay there. We shouldn’t make it so people can’t
stay in business. And even when folks get pushed out, that’s not cheap real estate either.
We’re in a dilemma many cities would love to have, and we’ve been treading water so
far, but it’s up to us as elected officials to create economic opportunities for everyone and
a balance tax base. All the communities around there will be affected by what we decide.
It’s displacement. We’re being pushed to find a creative funding source for affordable
housing, but we’re creating some of that demand for affordable housing on ourselves
through decisions like this.
Burgess: We won’t be forcing any business to do anything. They could stay there as a
non-conforming business as long as they want to.
Turner: But when you change that zoning their taxes will change, so that they can’t
afford to stay there. I’m worried about the business that is operating as a small business,
when we change that zoning it will change their property tax value. You are right, they
could sell it and get a lot for it, but that’s not what they want to do.
Main: We’ve talked with business owners along the way and the general consensus is,
even among those that want to continue operating, that TOD is a positive thing. We can
include in the plan ways for them to keep operating.
Campbell: We try to plan for the next 25-50 years. This is a vision. Little of it will
happen immediately. Secondly, we’re not recommending corrective zoning except where
there’s industrial within a single family neighborhood. You asked us not to prezone in
Transit Station Areas, to take them on a case by case basis. As property owners come in,
we review and asses them and if it’s not adjacent to a residential area staff and county
commission we will initiate that zoning. Otherwise there is a fee and a site plan and then
there is a public hearing.
Foxx: All good points, but we need to speed up.
Main: Finally, inquires to extend TOD boundaries. I wanted to let everyone know that
there will be folks who’ll make a case for extending the boundaries. We have not
recommended going to TOD for Tremont Ave. because it’s beyond the ½ mile area that
we call Transit Station Area and they’re not particularly well connected with the street
network. We are suggesting that a higher density that is there might be okay. We also
have Marshall Place that is in the Dilworth plan. We have some folks that have bought a
number of houses in a single-family neighborhood on-street, and may be looking to take
it out of that neighborhood and make it TOD. We have a third one on Marsh Road which
is a part of a deep front yard area, zoned R4. We have folks that want to come in and put
in higher density there.
Carter: Is that last one you mentioned Bobby Drakeford’s property?
Main: Yes. We believe his proposal is not in the best interest for the stability of that
neighborhood.
Foxx: We’re being asked to forward this to full Council for public hearing. Once that
takes place it’ll come back to us to react on what we hear during that public hearing. Is
there a motion on this?
Carter: I appreciate staff answering our concerns.
(Motion to forward to full Council for Public Hearing made by Carter; approved
unanimously)
Foxx: I ask Mr. Dulin to introduce this item, since he asked we take it up.
Council Member Andy Dulin: Speed humps may be minor to some, but they’re big to
folks who have cars speeding where their kids play. I’ve got neighborhood leaders here
with me today; Sarah Yarborough and her mother and Tim Finch. They’re from
neighborhoods where the neighbors are at odds over what to do.
Foxx: We’re going to receive information today on the speed hump policy, which affects
everyone and not just the neighbors in this room. There will be a question over how it
affects this particular situation. Doreen will talk to us.
Doreen Szymanski: (Distributed information titled “Neighborhood Traffic Management
Update”) We’ve been hearing concerns from neighborhood associations on who
represents who and who we officially communicate with on matters like this. We’ve
made some changes. It used to take neighborhood endorsement and a petition in order to
get a service in your neighborhood. We changed that to a neighborhood endorsement
where the neighborhood association would own it and do certain items around it like
notify the residents in the impact area or you would do a petition. If the neighborhood
association didn’t want to support it or do that work, then we would require a petition
from the impact area. We did this because we are really getting a lot of conflict from the
neighborhood associations and the residents. The residents concerns were ‘this
association doesn’t represent “us”; these associations are self appointed or not elected,
etc’. We at CDOT have no way of knowing if these associations are sanctioned or not.
We made the changes in the New Process under the “Support Required” section to say
you can do endorsement or a petition, instead of having to do both.
Barnes: We’ve exchanged emails about the Villages of Leecroft neighborhood. I
understand that a few folks wanted road humps, but that the association wanted them
somewhere else. If I’m an association and I’ve got 20 out of 100 homeowners who want
a localized traffic device, and Neighborhood Development should have a list of
associations…
Szymanski: They’re not all sanctioned, though, with bylaws and so forth.
Barnes: I see, but we’ve got to figure out a way to satisfy both the elected associations
and the individuals who need help. Is there a “C”? Is there another option?
Szymanski: We haven’t found “C”. We can’t satisfy everyone. We’ve had a difficult
time with lots of discussion about this and we’ve really opened it up in talking with the
Attorneys.
Pleasant: The City can register and recognize associations, but there’s no sanctioning
body making sure they abide by their bylaws, and most associations are voluntary
anyway. It’s hard for CDOT to discern one type of association from another. This new
procedure allows an association, or an individual street, to start the process. And it
prevents them from being able to veto another. If you are a neighborhood association
that is established and reflected in your deed restriction and there is some provision or
bylaw in there that says ‘you cannot petition the City to do this or that to your streets,’
then they have the ability to self-govern through the neighborhood association.
Barnes: This is a staff created policy that never came through us?
Szymanski: It’s our procedure that we’ve tweaked so as to not have to bring to Council.
Barnes: I understand both sides, but I wonder if we…well, let me think on it.
Burgess: Often when staff says Council policy it’s just something they’ve been doing
we’ve never signed off on.
Barnes: What she just admitted to.
Burgess: Stanley Watkins says there’s no sanctioned associations. What you’re saying is
that there’s a difference between associations with legal obligations and those that are
just volunteers. Maybe we should structure that better. But two questions, one, does this
cover sidewalks and second, in the 60% petition of residents in impact area, what is the
impact area?
Szymanski: It does not cover sidewalks. Second, the impact area for neighborhood
lighting would be the whole neighborhood, multi-way stop would be a 600 foot radius
surrounding that proposed stop, and with speed humps it’s the street that is getting the
treatment.
Burgess: So you ask everyone on the street?
Szymanski: The entire street. All the property owners on that street and we require at
least 60%.
Turner: Is there any way we can look at alternatives? Maybe get law enforcement out to
issue citations? If I live in a neighborhood that’s turning into a minor thoroughfare, I’d
want the first people the City talks to be the people who actually live in the street. I think
our obligation is to them. Trying to figure out what associations we’ll listen to will be a
huge controversy. What’s our role? Simply, to make the street safe no matter what the
association says. We need to find a resolution because they can’t.
Carter: How do we substantiate if the association has reached out to the residents?
Szymanski: We asked that they copy us on their communications with their residents.
After we see that’s gone forward we contact the affected.
Carter: If there’s resistance within the association, is there a percentage that would
trigger our involvement or assistance?
Szymanski: There’s an appeal process in place. Anyone in the association can appeal on
two grounds: invalid petition or you challenge the public good. There is also an appeals
process built in for residents as well.
Carter: Will we move this process to computer based? Simply go online so we can get out
of mailing.
Szymanski: There may be a possibility for that. But our notification has to reach people
even without computers. We have gone to postcards to make our notification less
expensive.
Foxx: I commend staff for trying to strike the right balance. Perhaps the next time we
convene we can discuss some options that may be available to Council in terms of
looking at ways to look at a policy focusing on safety. That’s probably on one end of the
range, and then there is probably more that may be a little “democratic” so to speak. To
that point, I have a question about whether we do place speed humps in neighborhoods
that don’t request them.
Szymanski: We have that option legally; however we’ve always tried to reach out to
neighborhoods in some fashion. The change in procedure has not changed any of the
criteria to qualify for these treatments. Volume and speeds are what we’d look at for
public safety.
Foxx: The City can’t impose on Neighborhood Associations that they set up a certain
way. Maybe we can have the Attorneys look at this, but maybe we should have a system
where associations register with the City, which will have certain criteria in order to
qualify under this type of plan. That way you get some assurances that there are certain
safeguards on that end that give you some comfort when an association makes a request
we know there is some criteria.
Dulin: I’m still a little bit iffy on “impact area”. Can I ask Doreen for clarification?
Szymanski: The impact area depends on which treatment. For street lighting - it’s the
whole neighborhood, if it’s a multi-way stop - it’s a radius of 600 feet at that stop, and for
speed humps – it’s everyone who lives on that street that is being treated.
Dulin: Does that include sections that would have fewer houses than others versus around
a corner or main entrance? Are we working through the issues of Fire and Medic being
slowed down on roads?
Szymanski: We work closely with Fire on what streets would have a treatment versus
what streets they use as their primary route.
Foxx: Is that enough guidance?
Szymanski: I have a bit of a concern because I have a contract about to go to bid for this
year’s speed humps. I’m concerned about what we do at this moment.
Foxx: Jim and Danny, we need to convey the results of this conversation to the Council. I
think we need to come back and have more discussion about options.
Barnes: Are you suggesting you need a decision from us or from the Council?
Szymanski: We need to know within 30 days for the contractor about how to proceed
with these neighborhoods at this time.
Foxx: There are two issues: the neighborhoods in question and then the larger policy
question.
Barnes: What I’m saying is that if they have to exercise the contract, I recommend to the
full Council that installation go ahead.
Schumacher: You shouldn’t have to have the policy question answered by the due date
for the contract. We can reserve the dollars for these that are under question and then
incorporate them in the contract 60 days after Council has had the opportunity to review.
Foxx: You’re saying the policy is what it is until it’s different and you have the authority
today to go ahead and do what you need to do?
Turner: I need to ask you one question - is there a 4-way stop, well not a 4-way stop, but
multi-way stops?
Szymanski: Highview has two.
Turner: I’d like for them to document the length of the street, and the location of
connecting streets that may warrant multi-way stops. It’s good information for Council
and staff to have and we have a job to do. I’m sticking with the safety aspect of it. I’m
still interested in promoting four-way intersections.
Foxx: Just to be clear, I’m just trying to get the policy issue back to Council so they can
give us the okay to actually work on it.
Pleasant: Let me clarify, you want to get involved with the policy perspective of
neighborhood traffic calming petition process, correct?
Foxx: Yes
Turner: My only concern would be this: whatever we create has to have a time frame. If
we can’t work out a compromise with a neighborhood within that time frame, the City
has to do what we have to do.
Barnes: We have to be careful not to micromanage what staff does. I don’t care if it’s
20% or 50 blocks away, that’s your job. I’m interested in having a policy that affects the
least amount of people and has the greatest safety benefit. I don’t need to see a matrix or
anything like that.
Pleasant: In response to Mr. Turner, I just want to reassure you that, overall, the
ordinance provides the CDOT director the ability to provide any measure that he deems is
needed for safety. We also consider neighborhood livability when determining what
treatments to put on streets in neighborhoods. That’s more of a policy question for you,
and in the past there’s been an expectation of process. Staff has defined that process as
best as we can. Certainly that is an area we are more than willing to take some direction
on.
Turner: How much time is too much time for staff to be tied up in negotiations with
neighborhoods? If people know that they have a timeframe, they’ll work harder.
Szymanski: I can’t put an exact time frame, but when we release a petition when it’s 90
days.
Carter: An issue that’s important for me is this notion of “sanctioned” neighborhood
associations. That really concerns me.
Foxx: Okay, let’s wrap this up. I just wanted to say that I think the policy itself is the
best balance we can strike. Anything we try to do to tweak it might make the situation
worse. What Nancy said, we may legitimize some neighborhood associations through our
approach to these questions. So, Danny, please get back to us. Maybe we can bring this
back to a dinner briefing and have you do a brief presentation on what the issues are to
get Council’s blessing.
Foxx: Finally, can we change the meeting time.
Turner and Barnes: Prefer 3:30
Foxx: We’ll continue with that then.
(Foxx adjourned the meeting)
Transportation Committee
Monday, May 12; 3:00-5:00 PM
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Warren Turner, Vice Chair
Michael Barnes
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Staff Resource:
Jim Schumacher
AGENDA
I.
Bicycle Plan Overview – Ken Tippette
The Transportation Action Plan (TAP) includes the development of a Bicycle
Plan that guides the construction of bicycle infrastructure and furthers bicycle
safety and awareness. CDOT staff will provide the Committee an overview of the
plan's development, which has involved a stakeholder group and public meetings.
Attachment: 1. Bicycle Plan Status Update.ppt
II.
New Bern Station Area Plan Key Issues – Kent Main
Planning staff will continue review of the Station Area Plan with focus on the key
issues from last meeting, including affordable housing and industrial property
redevelopment.
Attachment: 2. New Bern Transit Station Area Plan 5.12.08.ppt
III.
Neighborhood Traffic Management – Doreen Szymanski
Neighborhood Traffic Management includes programs such as speed humps,
speed limits, and multi-way stop signs. These programs use citizen petitions and
recommendations of Homeowner’s Associations to determine locations for new
measures. CDOT staff will review recent changes to the process that have
prompted some complaints from Homeowner Association Officers.
Attachment: 3. Neighborhood Traffic Management New Process 5.12.08
IV.
MUMPO Transportation Improvement Plan - Andy Grzymski
City and MUMPO staff has worked with the NCDOT to develop a 2009 - 2015
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) for the Mecklenburg/Union MPO area.
CDOT staff will review highlights of the proposed TIP in preparation for the City
Council directing the vote of the MUMPO Representative. The City Council will
consider the vote during the business meeting on May 12 and the MUMPO will
vote on the TIP on May 21.
Attachment: 4. MUMPO TIP 5.12.08.ppt
V.
Charlotte Pedestrian Plan – Vivian Coleman
The Pedestrian Plan is now in draft form and is being reviewed by City staff and
the Citizen Advisory Team. Key highlights of the plan will be presented in
addition to a discussion about the Sidewalk Retrofit Policy. A public workshop
on the final draft is anticipated in June.
Attachment: 5. Pedestrian Plan Transportation 051208.ppt
6. Sidewalk Transportation 051208.ppt
Next Scheduled Meeting: May 27th, 3:00 – 5:00 PM, Room 280
Distribution:
Mayor & City Council
Leadership Team
Andy Grzymski
Curt Walton, City Manager
Transportation Cabinet
Vivian Coleman
Kent Main
Ken Tippette
Attachment 1
Bicycle Plan
City of Charlotte
Bicycle Plan Status Update
May 12, 2008
Vision – Create seamless
network permitting bicycle
access to all areas of the
city
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bicycle Lanes
Shared Lane Markings
Greenways
Signed Routes
Connections
Coordination with NCDOT
Bicycle Plan
Why Charlotte needs
a bike plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
Guidance
Efficiency of resources
Quality of life
Economic benefits
Health benefits
Community support
Bicycle Plan
Schedule
July 07- May 08
Development of Plan
Next 60 days
Transportation Committee
Summer 08
City Council
Bicycle Plan
Bicycle Plan
Key Issues/ Decision Points
Proposed Funding
Current funding
$0.5M annually
Recommended TAP funding
$2.0M annually
Bike plan funding goal
Consistent with TAP
Bicycle Plan
STAKEHOLDER GROUP – 20 members
• Bicycle Community (6)
• Health and Active Living Interests (4)
• Youth Program (1)
• Development Community (2)
• County Greenways (2)
• Bicycle Advisory Committee (2)
• MUMPO (1)
• NCDOT (2)
•
•
•
•
Setting curb lines
Implementing connections
Coordinating with NCDOT
Educating motorists and bicyclists
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
Bicycle Plan
Proposed Curbline
Policy
Bicycle Travel and
Greenways
Curbline to be relocated
for bike lanes in
conjunction with
relocation for motor
vehicles
• Achieve connections with
greenways to provide
better connectivity for
bicycle transportation
• Coordinate with 2008
update of Mecklenburg
County greenway plan
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
Bicycle Plan
Questions?
Attachment 2
Requested Action:
New Bern Transit Station Area Plan
Forward Draft
New Bern Transit Station Area Plan
to City Council to receive public
comments.
Transportation Committee
May 12, 2008
Concerns from Last Meeting
• Affordable Housing Opportunities
• Industrial Property Conversion
• Inquiries to Stretch TOD Boundary
Affordable Housing
2006 Multifamily Housing
Locational Policy
Highlights of “Assisted Multi-Family Housing at
Transit Stations Areas” –
Approved by Council on Nov. 26, 2001
ƒ
Pursue inclusion of assisted housing when participating in
projects within ¼ mile of station
ƒ
Encourage a minimum of 5% and maximum of 25% assisted
units
ƒ
Maximum number of assisted multi-family housing units 20%
of the total units within a ¼ mile of the station
ƒ
At least 30% of the assisted multi-family units for
households earning 30% or less of the area median income
ƒ
Assisted units integrated into a larger mixed income
development
Existing Zoning
Industrial Property
Industrial-32%
Commercial-7%
Office-2%
Multi-Family-24%
Single Family-22%
MUDD-7%
TOD-6%
Mecklenburg County Industrial
Buildings by Year Built
Classification
Inquiries to Stretch TOD
Boundaries
Inquiries to Stretch
TOD Boundaries
- Tremont
Avenue: high
density
multifamily
- Marshall Place
- Marsh Road
and other
neighborhood
streets
No plan change
recommended
Requested Action:
Tremont Avenue
Forward Draft
New Bern Transit Station Area Plan
to City Council to receive public
comments.
Marshall Place
Marsh Road
Attachment 3
Neighborhood Traffic Management Update
Transportation Committee
May 12, 2008
Issue: Council member Dulin asked City Council to have the Transportation Committee
review CDOT’s new process for gauging neighborhood support for Neighborhood
Programs.
Old Process
Neighborhood Support Required
• Neighborhood Association
endorsement, and
• 60% petition of residents in impact
area
No CDOT notification of neighborhood
association needed; CDOT to notify
residents in the impact area.
Appeal process in place for residents who
are not in favor of the proposed service.
New Process
Neighborhood Support Required
• Neighborhood association
endorsement through Board vote,
with agreement to notify residents
in impact area, or
• 60% petition of residents in impact
area, no neighborhood association
endorsement required
CDOT to notify neighborhood association
of any successful petitions; and notify
residents in the impact area.
Appeal process in place for residents who
disagree with neighborhood association
endorsement or who are not in favor of the
proposed service.
Doreen Szymanski
CDOT
Public Service & Comm. Div Mgr
Why the change:
Staff has seen an increase in conflict between neighborhood associations and residents in
recent years. Staff has no way of knowing if a neighborhood association is sanctioned,
and are unable to substantiate claims by residents of alleged association abuses or vice
versa:
A.
Complaints from residents:
1. Neighborhood Association does not represent us
2. Neighborhood Association does not follow their own by-laws
3. Neighborhood Association is informal
4. Neighborhood Association board is self-appointed
5. Residents in the impact area have successfully petitioned, and majority
want the service, but association refuses to endorse
B.
Neighborhood Association concerns:
1. They are given no voice in treatments that may occur in their
neighborhoods, and that affect everyone who uses the street.
2. They feel the majority of residents do not support the service offered.
3. They would like a larger petitioning area.
Example:
Beverly Woods East (Highview Road)
Villages of Leacroft Neighborhood (Billingham Drive)
(appealed, and denied)
C.
Ex:
New process also assists with the neighborhood street lighting process
1. Petitioning full neighborhoods is a daunting process for most residents
2. Vacant and / or rental properties make it difficult to contact absentee
property owners
Arbor Ridge
Typically, CDOT procedures have been weighted toward the residents on the street
where treatment is requested.
1.
2.
3.
Residents living on the street are most impacted by other motorists’ behavior.
Usually, offending motorists are others who live within the neighborhood, but
not necessarily on the street.
Self-policing by neighborhoods has proven unsuccessful.
Note: State Statute allows the CDOT to provide these services where we deem
appropriate without any effort by residents, but the CDOT has preferred a process to
gauge property owner support in residential areas.
2
Attachment 4
Where are we in
TIP Approval Process?
20092009-2015 Transportation
Improvement Program
Presentation to Charlotte City Council
May 12, 2008
Key Issues
• STP-DA* Funds
• Marion Diehl Park Earmark
• Draft TIP released
September 07
• Review of TIP by MPO staff
Oct. 07- May 08
• TCC Meeting
May 1, 08
• City Council meeting
May 12, 08
• MUMPO meeting
May 21, 08
• NCDOT Board meeting
June 5, 08
STP-DA Funds
• The MPO has the authority to direct a portion of
available Federal Surface Transportation Program
Direct Apportionment (STP-DA) funds.
• MPO already programmed STP-DA funds for FY
2009-2013 in last TIP.
• NCDOT reports that approximately $10 million
per year in federal STP-DA funds will be available
to the MPO for allocation in FY 2014 and 2015.
*STP-DA (Surface Transportation Program-Direct Apportionment) funds
are funds over which MUMPO has sole allocation authority.
Recommendation for
STP-DA Funds
Project
FY 14
Northcross Drive Ext. (Cornelius)
$3.6 million
Faith Church/Unionville Int. (Indian Tr.)
$1.6 million
McKee Rd. grade separation (Matthews)
$1.6 million
Little Sugar Crk. Greenway (Meck. Co.)
$800,000
Wilgrove-Mint Hill widening (Mint Hill)
Potter Rd. widening (Stallings)
FY 15
$520,000
$1.6 million
Little Rock Rd. relocation (Charlotte)
$4.8 million
CATS joint-use parking deck (Davidson)
$2 million
US 21/Gilead intersection (Huntersville)
$2.5 million
NC 51/Idlewild intersection (Matt./MH)
TOTALS
Marion Diehl Park Earmark
•
Queens University had $725,000 earmark
included in SAFETEA-LU to fund parking and
internal roadways at Marion Diehl Center in
Charlotte.
•
FHWA made determination that these types of
improvements were not eligible for federal
funding.
$500,000
$9.72 million
$9.8 million
Marion Diehl Park Earmark
• Queens Univ. obtained technical correction to
earmark which now allows them to use earmark
for these improvements.
• TCC needs to make determination whether
Marion Diehl Park earmark should be included in
2009-2015 TIP.
TCC Recommendation
to MPO
Approve 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement
program with the following changes:
– Program the $20 million in STP-DA funds
available in FY 14 & 15 to the projects
approved at March TCC meeting
– Program $725,000 in TIP to fund
transportation improvements at Marion Diehl
Park
Requested Council Action
• Direct MUMPO representative to support TCC
recommendation
Next Steps
• MPO votes on TIP, including recommended
changes, at May 21 meeting
• NC Board of Transportation votes on TIP June 5
Attachment 5
Pedestrian Plan Purpose
• To promote and
implement a safe,
comfortable and
connected pedestrian
transportation system.
City of Charlotte
Pedestrian Plan
Update to the Transportation Committee
May 12, 2008
Schedule
Dec 06/May 08
Development of Plan
May/June 08
Transportation Committee
July 08
Public Workshop
July/Aug 08
City Council Hearing
Aug/Sept 08
City Council Action
• TAP Mission: “To become
the premier city in the
country for integrating
land use and
transportation choices.”
• TAP Policy 2.7.6 states
that the City will adopt a
Pedestrian Plan.
Advisory Team
Total of 25 participants
• Each council district resident representative (7)
• Health and Active Living Interests (2)
• Disabled community (1)
• CMS Representatives (2)
• Development community (2)
• Community Development Corporation (1)
• County Greenways (1)
• UNCC Student and West Charlotte HS Student (2)
• CATS Transit Advisory Team (1)
• Dilworth Neighborhood Representative (1)
• Land Planning Firm (1)
• CMPD (2)
• NCDOT (2)
Pedestrian Plan Elements
• Vision
• Goals and objectives
• Evaluation of existing
conditions, programs,
policies
• Guidance on best practices
• Evaluation of codes
• Code recommendations
• Action items for
implementation
• Public involvement
Key Issues
•Key Issues and Decision Points
- Amending City Ordinances
- New subdivisions and site plans
- Infill/Retrofits
- Consistent Applications
Code Review
•
•
•
•
City Code
Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Ordinance
Charlotte Land
Development
Standards Manual
Code Evaluation
Strengths:
• Construction of sidewalks typically required for most land
uses along frontage
• Sidewalks required on both sides of local residential and
residential collectors
• Some districts establish higher standards (6’ sidewalk and
8’ planting strip)
• Codes prioritize pedestrians in certain districts (MUDD,
UMUD, TOD).
Some codes must be changed for Charlotte
to become a more walkable city.
Intersections
Sidewalk Replacement
Woodlawn Road Examples
No requirements to make
intersections more
pedestrian friendly
adjacent to or near land
development.
Infill Lots
No requirements for
substandard sidewalk to
be replaced with
standard sidewalk (esp.
by-right development)
Internal Connections
Need better connections internally on commercial sites
No requirement for single
family infill lots without
sidewalk to construct
sidewalk or pay a fee in
lieu of sidewalk.
Internal Connections
Examples of better
internal
connections
Connections to Public Street
Need better
connections to
public street from
all development
(including private
driveways and
streets)
Sidewalk Obstructions
Need enhanced
requirements and
assignment of
enforcement
responsibility
Street Crossings
Need more street
crossings between
signalized intersections
Barriers to Better Walkability
What residents have issue with….
Barriers to Better Walkability
What residents have issue with….
Better Walkability
What residents want…
Better Walkability
What residents want…
Attachment 6
City of Charlotte
Sidewalk Retrofit Policy
Transportation Committee
May 12, 2008
Sidewalk Policy Revision
Sidewalk Retrofit Policy was adopted on May 23, 2005.
Issue:
Number of traffic count locations needed to justify sidewalk
installation.
Current Practice:
Highest traffic count volume used for Tier 2, 3 or 4 sidewalk
requests.
Question:
How should traffic counts be applied when traffic volumes change
over the length of a street?
Sidewalk Policy Revision
Traffic counts taken 3/26/08
Sidewalk Policy Revision
•
Issues to consider:
- Should a street have multiple counts?
- If multiple counts, what should be the criteria?
Length of street, number of blocks, traffic patterns,
land use generators, sidewalk continuity?
- Adopted revision will set a precedent for application of
the policy.
•
Next Step: Bring topic back to Transportation Committee
with a recommendation on June 9th