Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for April 28, 2008
Agenda Topics:
I.
II.
III.
New Bern Transit Station Plan
Urban Street Design Guidelines Six Month Report
Bicycle Plan Overview (Due to time constraints, this was deferred to May 12)
Committee Information:
Present: Anthony Foxx, Michael Barnes, Warren Turner, Nancy Carter
Additional Attachments:
1.) “New Bern Transit Station Plan”.ppt
2.) “Urban Street Design Guidelines Six Month Report”.ppt
Discussion Summary:
(Chairman Anthony Foxx called the meeting to order and asked everyone to introduce
themselves)
Chairman Anthony Foxx: I’ll turn it over to Jim Schumacher to discuss the New Bern
Transit Station Plan.
Jim Schumacher: I will immediately turn it over to Kent Main.
Kent Main: (Reviews and describes New Bern Transit Station Area Plan.ppt in your
agenda package.)
Council Member Nancy Carter: Regarding the Plan Development Process slide, are we
doing this as a “complete” plan, not just this Station Area? Are we doing areas that fall
outside of the 10 mile radius, etc.? I’m concerned we are doing some down zoning.
Main: I will cover all of that and we will talk about all of those items, specifically down
zoning. I will show you that on the map in just a moment. (Continues reviewing and
describing presentation)
Carter: I’m extremely concerned that you have marked affordable housing as
opportunity. If we have marked it as opportunity then we need to make sure it is
redeveloped to be affordable.
Council Member Michael Barnes: To your point Nancy, in my experience when we do
that it is 5-10% affordable once it’s redeveloped. I don’t know how many apartments
there are now, but I’m sure once it’s redeveloped it will be 90% fewer than currently
there. So to her concern, when you mark things like that we are essentially saying this is
where the affordable stuff is, it needs to go, and the people that live there need to go. My
question is where do they go?
Main: As a part of the plan we are calling for and our expectation is that if these
redevelop they will redevelop at higher densities than are there now. We have specific
guidelines in there that recommends any redevelopment would be required to include at
least a component of low to moderate income housing, they preserve trees, and preserve
street network.
Carter: Can I ask where that is?
Kent: Page 12, Item 15 is where we talk about Southside Homes and Brookhill Village
Apartments.
Carter: I like the at least 20%.
Kent: We are calling for usable park/open space, low to moderate income housing, a
mixture of housing types, preserving existing mature trees and the road network. It is a
very important part of the plan.
Carter: Is there some way to say low housing, not low to moderate housing? It needs to
be rephrased.
Barnes: How many units are there now?
Main: I don’t recall, but I think Brookhill Village might be 470 apartments. Again that
is built at a pretty low density compared to what we would expect if this was to be
redeveloped.
Schumacher: You could look at what is there now, what would be there at a higher
density and how do the two compare?
Main: If it’s redeveloped it should be substantially more.
Foxx: What is the market on the South Corridor now? Are units selling well?
Main: We have not seen anyone pull back from that area. We have seen the market shift
from condominiums to apartments.
Debra Campbell: My conversations with developers indicate there has been a change in
product type from condominiums to rental. From what I hear financing is still somewhat
possible and they feel like it is still a good market. I also hear greenfield sights are now
being challenged.
Foxx: That’s a big key on affordable housing and leverage for the City.
Debra: The only thing that I ask is for you all tell us how descriptive you want us to be in
a Policy document. I’m just looking for direction.
(Foxx had to leave the meeting)
Carter: My concern is we make sure we are interfacing with Housing and Neighborhood
Development. I am confused how this is in Transportation, it used to be Economic
Development, and then Planning. Do you [Barnes] agree?
Barnes: With what?
Carter: The need to interface with Housing and Neighborhood Development.
Barnes: Yes, I think you’re right. You all know the struggle. I’m on the HAND
Committee as well. We know there are a certain number of units needed in the City over
the next couple of years and the struggle is figuring out where they are going to be built.
We are all trying to determine a way to distribute the housing throughout the City as
much as possible and determine sites for future development. It would be appropriate to
have a conversation with the HAND Committee. Do you do East Charlotte, Northwest
Charlotte West Charlotte, and Uptown, where do you do it and how do you incentivize it?
When I talk to private developers about this type of development they always hit a certain
number and say they can’t make money when they go beyond X % of the Corridor.
Carter: And the dynamic point is within the City. We need joint meetings of Economic
Development, Transportation, and HAND Committees.
Campbell: We have Policies specific for Station Areas to cap the number of affordable
housing within a quarter-mile of the station per development. I think the concern early
on was we did not want all the affordable housing concentrated in one area. If you take
the Housing Policies map, showing where you have priorities, prohibited and permissible,
this Corridor will have a lot of prohibited because it already has a lot of this housing in
surrounding areas.
Barnes: Perhaps a starting point would be for us to get a briefing of the current policy
regarding Area Plans. It may be we don’t need to pull the other two Committees in.
Carter: Perhaps just the Chair and Vice Chair?
Campbell: We can do that.
Barnes: It would be helpful to know if you are noticing any trends where the broader
economy is concerned and the impact of that on the development of affordable housing,
availability, and funding, etc., and how that is trending from the cost perspective. I’m not
so sure that some of the deals we approved a year or two ago would be possible in 2008
considering the restraints on cash.
Main: (Continued with presentation)
(Council Member Turner arrives to the meeting)
Carter: (Refers to Street Connections slide) Is it possible that we are now building
infrastructures with round-a-bouts, speed humps, etc?
Main: That’s another point about Poindexter Street which already has some of those
features in play.
Carter: We are incorporating that further?
Main: Right, the design for this project will allow people to flow through, but not fly
through. I don’t know that we have met everyone’s concern 100%, but I think we’ve
pretty much muted the issue. (Continues to describe and review presentation)
Barnes: You raise an issue on the “Implementation Plan: Rezonings” slide on page 16.
Preservation of our industrial base is important. There are a lot of people who don’t go to
college and work blue collar jobs. There are a lot of people in Charlotte who want to
work blue collar jobs instead of working Uptown. In a number our rezonings we get rid
of industrial land and we are pushing a lot of industries out of Charlotte, which I find to
be a fairly dangerous trend. We are creating a City where you have the haves. I think
you must have an appropriate mix of income and people for a City to be vibrant and an
enjoyable place to live. I’m glad the citizen made that comment, “Please leave me
alone,” and I hope we will. I think we need to steer clear of trying to force him to do
anything other than putting up some trees.
(Foxx comes back to meeting)
Carter: That to me is destination travel. It’s reverse travel. We benefit in more ways
than one.
Campbell: You may recall we did a study related to industrial market. I think what some
of these property owners are finding is the value of their money is increasing so much it
is actually costing them regarding how much money they have to pay in taxes. It’s
valued as a mixed-use site versus what it is actually being used for. Comparables are
mix-use development. We certainly take the concerns into consideration. It seems like
we could have done an overlay saying you can continue to do this, but the underlying
development would be rezoning residential, but you will just need to make your property
look nice and blend in.
Main: We have found in the South End that a lot of industrial uses are still embracing
TOD. TOD is a big opportunity for them.
Barnes: I think it is fine for the market to say to a property owner that your land is at $X
now, and for the owner to say I’ve been at this for 40 years - I’m done. I’m concerned
when the Government says - we’ve targeted your land for redevelopment of residential.
The people who live around these industrial sites have lived there for years. So when the
jobs go away the neighborhood goes away and it’s replaced with something at a high
dollar rate. I’m saying to you that I don’t want to encourage viable businesses that are
paying people and maintaining families to go away. I can point to other areas, say
industrial wasteland that needs to be redeveloped; different ball game.
Main: Part of the reason we targeted this area is because there are very few of those
businesses here. (Continues presentation)
Barnes: Just to clarify, you said no to the inquiry to stretch TOD boundaries because it is
further than a half mile to the Station Area?
Main: In this case we said no because it is in a R4 area.
Council Member Turner: I want to go back to some things you stated earlier regarding
Brookhill Apartments. What you just basically told us based on how the other land is
currently zoned, it will not support the project that is going to be proposed across the
street from the apartments. I have no problem with that. Regarding Summit Street, the
neighborhood would love to see that salvage yard go, but I wonder what we would
propose to go there in the current zoning if we chose to change that zoning to R8. I
caution us not to change the dynamics of what is naturally happening. How much more
of the industrial sites can we protect? I don’t think we should always drive the change
and force people out. I’m glad you guys take the time to look at land use.
Barnes: To contrast what we’ve said about the industrial properties say for example the
Eastland Mall area, or what we are trying to do on North Tryon Street. There are critical
needs to be addressed on the East Side. Obviously, the Government has already gotten
involved with Eastland Mall, but North Tryon Street you have 80 to 84 used car
dealerships and the public is saying we would like you all to do something about this.
That’s a little different because we are fairly certain they are not all selling cars and there
are other challenges that present themselves. Do you see the difference where I’m saying
the Government should get involved? Sometimes the market has to proceed as normal.
Main: I think at some point we have to make some judgment call. For example, we have
some people who want to go higher than 30 units per acre for residential and we have a
heating manufacturer company all talking about the same piece of land. So we took a
shot at what we thought it ought to be.
Barnes: And I appreciate it.
Foxx: We have half an hour to go with two other agenda items.
Main: I’m essentially finished. We are to the point where we are at your pleasure. We
can move this forward to City Council if you are ready.
Foxx: What’s the Committee’s pleasure?
Barnes: I’m willing to spend a little more time understanding this plan. We are learning
lessons at each step. If you all want to move ahead, then that’s fine.
Foxx: I’d like to take some time. There’s a lot here and since it’s making policy, I need
to digest if further.
Carter: I think you have a done a thorough job and I appreciate it. I am ready to move
forward, but I respect your request for more time.
Turner: I respect you want more time but I am comfortable moving forward. I’m fine
one way or the other. I appreciate the thought you all have put into this.
Carter: Is there some impact to delaying the referral?
Turner: There’s nothing pending that would cause a negative impact?
Campbell: No. We would like to come back, spend time on areas where we know there
will be issues so you will understand why staff recommends certain things in those
properties. We would also spend some time on affordable housing and transit station
area to clarify our policy.
Barnes: I’m not talking about months of delay; I’m just talking about until May 12th.
Campbell: That would be fine.
Foxx: We will defer to the next meeting on May 12. Good work by the way. We have
25 minutes to get through two presentations. Can we get through both?
Norm Steinman: We will only be able to get through one. Ken is here to present the key
components of the Bicycle Plan and there is no action on it at this point. I suggest we
defer that presentation to the next meeting. We can then present the Bicycle Plan and the
Pedestrian Plan because they have very similar formats.
Foxx: Motion to defer Bicycle Plan to the first agenda item at the May 12th meeting.
(Motion passed unanimously)
Steinman: This is a presentation being done at this time because it has been 6 months
since the Council adopted the Urban Street Design Guidelines. When Council took that
vote you also asked staff to comeback on the status of the implementation of the
guidelines after 6 months. So what we are presenting here is that status. You will see as
we go through this that the policy statements are not in numerical order, but they are
described in the order of less difficult to very difficult.
Tracy Newsome: (Begins describing and reviewing Urban Street Design Guidelines
presentation in your agenda package) We are spending a bit more time on differentiating
what makes a street different from a roadway or driveway. We can often find driveways
that are designed to look a lot like streets. You may recall there was a lot of discussion
about public streets and private streets and how they might connect and be connected on
larger sites.
Carter: I just want to say I am opposed to private streets.
Steinman: This is not a response to that, but there is tremendous interest in some
developers and in-fill locations to create the connectivity by applying private streets.
That has forced us to think carefully about any distinctions between public and private
streets. Are those based on ownership, function, or design? How many of those
differences can we accept? Some have to do with whether vehicles are allowed to park,
diagonally park, or maneuverability of trucks. It has forced CDOT to look at what we
believe the various functions of the street are. We are going to come back to you with a
thorough review of internal roadways, drive aisles, driveways and streets to make it clear
what the distinctions are because sometimes people use the terms interchangeably and
they are not.
Barnes: Does the USDG necessarily apply to the private streets?
Steinman: That’s one of the things we have been looking at.
Barnes: The reason I ask the question is I have a developer who came to me and met
with you all and you guys wanted him to apply USDG. He said I’m taking them private
to get away from USDG. You are saying you are trying to determine now whether or not
people can do that?
Steinman: What we are trying to say is that cuts both ways because there have been
some developers that would like to keep the streets private because there might be some
things they can do with water retention. That’s coming up in some in-fill locations.
There are some who have said I don’t want to have to provide planting strips, width of
sidewalks, and other features so, I’ll just designate this as a private street. However, what
we are finding more and more is for connectivity reasons we need to have a network of
streets and we are trying to not make the distinctions very obvious between what is a
public street and a private street.
Barnes: I don’t disagree with you. We just need to find a way to put a rule in place.
Steinman: That’s why this slide [referencing “Status” slide] is up there because this has
turned out to be more difficult than we thought going in.
Danny Pleasant: To the point that developers can just come in and do a private street
they are required to do a private street according to the existing street standards that we
have.
Turner: Where is this street [referencing “Status” slide]?
Steinman: Rivergate Shopping Center, it’s in your district.
Turner: What is your dilemma on this?
Steinman: The question on this is would we accept this as a street? It has many of the
components of a street. It has travel lanes, a sidewalk, which is often the difference
between a driveway and a street. We have driveways that have 3 lanes, but no sidewalks.
This on the other hand, could easily become a street and we could accept it as a street for
the function of connectivity.
Turner: I would say no, because I use that all the time, but more so for the pedestrian
stand point. We just put a speed hump there for the very reason. Our whole concept was
to make that as pedestrian friendly as possible. Another thing is it’s not marked. Streets
should be marked.
Steinman: Well it depends on what kind of street. CDOT does not stripe local streets.
It’s a matter of the width of the street and whether or not there is on street parking.
That’s how the driver has to decide where to travel on that kind of street. When I’m
talking about streets, I’m not talking about thoroughfares. We are talking the local streets
that are primarily there for access to the adjacent, abutting land use.
Foxx: I want to ask us to hold our questions to the end due to limited time.
Newsome: (continues describing and reviewing presentation)
Turner: Let’s talk about creek crossing in the status of Policy Statement 7. There was a
controversy issue we had down on 160 where we were planning to straighten out Sledge
Road and take that 3 point stop sign out of there. Staff recommended connecting Sledge
Road into their community for the future connection to come out at South Tryon Street.
The only thing that kept us from doing that was the cost. We talk about connectivity but
I worry about not just the cost, but the quality of life it has on the effect of existing
neighborhoods or future neighborhoods that come in. We are still looking at that as an
option?
Steinman: We are looking for all viable opportunities that we can find that you will
endorse to create new connections and/or new streets. We are finding that the ability to
get more capacity out of existing signalized intersections, especially at major
thoroughfares, is coming to a close and in certain areas of the City we are already there.
We are trying to go back to the idea that started 80 years ago and we know have worked
well in the inner neighborhoods of Charlotte, which is to have more streets. Not too
many streets, but just enough. We recognize any time a new connection is being created,
that red flags a change and in some cases are too much of a change for a neighborhood or
some residents to be able to absorb. One of the reasons we want to bring this point back
to you in the Connectivity Program is because it will come to you as policy, which has to
do with sharing the cost with the bridge in this case. And it also has to do with traffic
calming because we are tying to make the traffic calming features more engrained in the
original design of the new street rather than have to come back later and say we recognize
too much traffic flowing to fast and we need to fix that. We are not backing off from the
concept of creating more street, bridges and connection because we are going to need
them. It won’t always be easy but it’s necessary.
Turner: I caution us because one size does not fit all. We are talking about suburban
Charlotte.
Steinman: It’s going to be very difficult, I acknowledge that. That’s why in some cases
what you will see coming back from the Connectivity Program Manager is we are just
asking for the land to be reserved. You may see in 20 years people saying we are
desperately looking for a way in or out of here, can we get one? Today’s opposition may
be tomorrow’s desperate request for some intervention because they will be out of
choices.
Foxx: We have about 5 or 6 slides to go. Do you want to finish the presentation later?
Carter: I want to stay.
Foxx: Let’s finish the presentation now and pick up questions later.
Steinman: The purpose of Policy Statement 1 was to make it clear that your intention
was for the Street Design Guidelines to apply to State maintained roads as well as City
maintain roads. Our experience here has been mixed. We are trying to change a very big
organization, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Six of us from
the city traveled to Raleigh and met with about 20 people to discuss this. We are on the
way to some possible accommodations. The key challenge continues to be how to get the
sidewalks, planting strips and bike lanes included in the designs that NCDOT is going to
be implementing. The other key factor is what to do with local streets. NCDOT does not
accept the street for maintenance, they have to be private. There are some cases that
NCDOT is not willing to accept some of the features we want for local streets. In
particular, problems happened to be on street parking and street trees. The way to resolve
that is they need to know that the City will take over the street in a defined time frame so
the samplings that have been planted don’t become big, maturing trees. I don’t believe
we will see one all-inclusive agreement between CDOT and NCDOT. I will also caution
you by saying that NCDOT is adamant on Strategic Highway Corridors. They are not
willing to show any flexibility as to what they do inside cities versus what they do outside
cities. They are still moving along with the concept that if they defined a roadway as
being in the Strategic Highway Corridor it should be designed exactly the same way from
seashore to the mountains. Maybe we can look at isolating some parts of the City,
perhaps outside of I-485.
Foxx: Is there a stakeholder group working with you all on this?
Steinman: A lot of this has been internal. When we get to the point of proposing
changes to the City Code Subdivision or Zoning Ordinances that is when we will be
creating a more organized public involvement.
Foxx: I ask that to determine if that is policy discussion that might need to be discussed
internally. We need to understand the process.
Steinman: We are still following the general steps we defined six months ago, but we are
probably about 3 months behind that schedule because of issues we needed to do more
research on. We will be going to stakeholder groups, so when we talk about the items we
will get the actions.
Turner: A couple of things, I think we talked about getting the bicycle riders off the
street. I was thinking about South Tryon Street. I still question the plan. I’d rather have
the bicycles off the street than in the street.
Steinman: You will see a couple of things when the Bicycle Plan comes back. The
recommendation is to create a complete connection. Unfortunately, NCDOT should have
included bike lanes in their design and a wider planting strip. The reason we do not
recommend installing wider sidewalks or pathways off the streets like that is because
there are too many driveways. That’s a safety problem for bicyclist.
Foxx: Alright we will need to pick this conversation back up next week starting with the
Bicycle Plan.
Steinman: Can we proceed with the Bicycle Plan to the Pedestrian Plan because they are
similar?
Schumacher: I fear that the meeting is getting overwhelmed already and we will figure
out which point to bring stuff back.
Foxx: The PowerPoint presentations were great, with a lot of good information, but we
need to think about how much really needs to be in there and how much conversation do
we want to have.
Carter: Could we start half and hour earlier?
Schumacher: Yes we can do that. I have questions about logistics in July. Committee
Members requested a meeting at the Airport. We can go July 14 or July 28, which do
you prefer and what time of day do you prefer? Jerry Orr offered midday and providing
lunch.
(Everyone discusses and decides July 28, midday, Jerry to provide lunch)
(Foxx adjourned the meeting)
New Bern Transit Station Area Plan
Transportation Committee
April 28, 2008
Presentation Outline
1. Purpose/Process
2. Station Area Overview
3. Plan Recommendations
4. Comments Received and
Proposed Plan Revisions
5. Plan Adoption and
Implementation
1
Part 1:
Purpose
and
Process
Policy Framework
• Centers, Corridors
and Wedges Growth
Framework
• General
Development Policies
• Transit Station Area
Principles
• Transportation
Action Plan and
Urban Street Design
Guidelines
2
Plan Development Process
9
z
Began with planning for Lynx Blue Line
9
z
Notification to property owners, business
owners, neighborhood groups, residents
9
z
Staff team developed plan recommendations
9
z
Citizen meetings
9
z
Citizen feedback and revisions to
recommendations
z
Plan adoption
z
Plan implementation, including rezonings
3
Part 2:
Station
Area
Overview
Lynx Blue Line
• 10 miles
• 15 stations including
Uptown and South End
• Plans for 8 stations in
progress
Existing Land Use
Industrial: 29%
Business: 7%
Office: 2%
Multi-Family: 24%
Single Family: 17%
Institutional: 11%
Open Space: 4%
Vacant: 6%
4
Sedgefield Neighborhood
Brookhill Village Apartments
5
Warehouse/Industrial Development
Strip Commercial
6
Existing Zoning
Industrial-32%
Commercial-7%
Office-2%
Multi-Family-24%
Single Family-22%
MUDD-7%
TOD-6%
Part 3:
Plan
Recommendations
7
Vision Statement
The New Bern study area
will become one of a
series of vibrant, high
density nodes along the
South Corridor.
It will include:
• Station Area: Urban,
pedestrian-oriented;
• General Corridor Area:
More auto-oriented;
• Wedge: Sedgefield
neighborhood.
Land Use, Community
Design and Street Network
8
Single family preservation
Any redevelopment to
preserve trees & streets
9
Transportation and Streetscape
- Street Network
- Sidewalks
- Pedestrian
Crossings
- Bicycle Facilities
- Multi-Use Trail
Street Cross-Sections
- Street types
based on the
proposed
future land uses
and Urban
Street Design
Guidelines
10
Street Cross-Sections
Main Street
Street Cross-Sections
Four Lane Divided Avenue
11
Part 4:
Comments Received
and Proposed Plan
Revisions
REVISED CONCEPT MAP
Citizen Comment: Keep
single-family
neighborhood around
Miller Street and
Chicago Avenue
- Page 7, Map 2 change
- Make clear the intent
of Neighborhood
Preservation on
Chicago Av. & Miller
St.
12
REVISED LAND USE MAP
- Page 8, Map 3
change
- CDOT Comment
Reflect unbuilt
“paper” streets
as topics for
future
discussion
- Page 17, Map 4
Transp. Map,
same change
Street Connections
Citizen Comment:
Concerned about impact
of extending Poindexter
over to South Tryon
- Page 10, Land Use
text change
- New streets are
conceptual; not
specific to property;
to be adjusted as new
development is
proposed
13
Poindexter Extension
• One of several new street connections in plan
• To be built in phases, as properties redevelop
• First Segment: South Blvd. to Youngblood St.
– New streets to be built by Colonial and Citiline
developments
– City to contribute $800,000 towards new at-grade
LYNX crossing (City Council item for February 11th)
Poindexter Extension
14
Land Use
Citizen Comment: Redevelop Sedgefield Apartments
with some commercial on the portion closest to
South Blvd., but preserve tree canopy and street
network
- Page 12, Land Use text change
- Support redevelopment at
Sedgefield Apts. with TOD
density and use in portion within
½ mile of station, subject to:
- Open space
- Low-moderate income
housing
- Mixture of housing types
- Tree preservation
- Design guidelines
Street Cross Section: Setback
Citizen Comment: Transitional areas between single family
neighborhoods and transit oriented developments
- Page 23, Street Cross section text change
- Building setback on TOD residential streets increased to 30
feet where facing or abutting single family residential
15
Implementation Plan: Rezonings
- Page 29, Corrective
Rezonings text
change
- Staff Comment;
Clarifies that TOD
rezonings may be
initiated in groups,
or may be
proposed on
case-by-case basis
to insure that new
streets and other
recommendations
are provided
Implementation Plan: Rezonings
Citizen Comment:
Industrial property in
active use; need to keep
as-of-right zoning.
- Page 12, Land use
text change
- Page 29, Corrective
Rezonings text
change
- Keeps long term vision
for residential use, but
specifies no rezoning
of active industrial
until proposed for
redevelopment.
16
Additional Citizen Comments:
Generally covered by plan
• More street crossings on South Blvd
• More sidewalks throughout area
• Keep affordable housing in area
• Ability to support the increased storm water
runoff from future development
• Preserve existing neighborhoods and parks
Additional Citizen Comments:
Outside the scope of this plan
• Down zone R-8 to R-4 along Belton Street to
clean up duplexes
• Code enforcement and absentee landlords (along
Belton Street)
• Add another transit station added between New
Bern and East/West
• Preserve historic properties, design new
development in line with the existing
neighborhoods
17
Additional Citizen Comments:
No plan change recommended
• Residential use for Bank Street property
• TOD development should be expanded along
Remount to I-77 in order to prevent strip
shopping center developments from occurring
• Expand study area boundaries to include
properties on west side of Marshall Place between
Ideal Way and Atherton Street
Inquiries to Stretch TOD
Boundaries
- Tremont
Avenue: high
density
multifamily
- Marshall Place
- Marsh Road
and other
neighborhood
streets
No plan change
recommended
18
Part 5:
Plan Adoption and
Implementation
Plan Implementation Process
Transit Station
Area Plan
Corrective
Rezonings
Infrastructure
New
Development
Improvements
19
Plan Adoption
• Planning Commission (Planning Committee)
9 Review: Tuesday, February 19
(additional opportunity for Citizen input)
9 Recommendation: Tuesday, March 18
• Transportation Committee: Briefing and referral
to full council
• City Council Review and Decision
May-June 2008?
(additional opportunity for Citizen input)
• Implementation
20
Background
• Council adopted USDG
October 22nd, 2007
• Council asked for status
report after six months
• Today’s presentation:
Urban Street Design Guidelines
– Implementation status of
adopted USDG Policy
Statements
– Topics organized according to
implementation status
Implementation Status Report
Transportation
Committee
April 28, 2008
Goals and
Objectives
By adopting the USDG, the City Council declares it
is the policy of the City of Charlotte to…
•
•
Change the planning
and design process for
streets
“Use the USDG”
Apply the Six-Step
Process
Decision-Making
•
Existing and Future
Conditions
Policy Statements 2-6:
USDG Policy Summary Document
1. Define Land
Use Context
2. Define
Transportation
Context
3. Identify
Deficiencies
4. Describe
Future Objectives
5. Define
Street Type
and Initial
Cross-Section
6. Describe
Tradeoffs
and Select
Cross-Section
1
Status
Ongoing:
• Rezoning Reviews
• Land Development Standards Manual to be
updated
• Area Plans
Status
• Unforeseen issue: How is a street
different from a driveway or a
roadway?
– Northlake
– Bryant Park
– Station Areas (Scaleybark, New Bern, Woodlawn)
• 2006 Bond Projects (7 streets, 5 intersections)
• NIP projects
• Sidewalk Program
Policy Statements 9-10
• Apply new analysis
methods to planning and
designing signalized
intersections
• Apply USDG to all
intersections (signalized or
not)
Status
• All current City-funded intersection projects
based on USDG-related designs or processes
• Staff defining how Transportation Impact Studies
will replace Traffic Impact Studies
• Land Development Standards Manual update to
include intersection design specifications
• Review of traffic signal warrants underway
2
Policy Recommendation 12
• Continue to expand Charlotte’s
bicycle network
– Bike lanes on higher-volume,
higher-speed streets
– Signed routes on low-volume, lowspeed streets
Policy Statement 11
• Apply the USDG recommendations for
sidewalk widths
• Sidewalk dimensions vary by land use and
street type
• Relates to Statement 8 (planting strip width)
Status
• Rezoning reviews use USDG as basis for bicycle
facility recommendations
• Bicycle Plan will be consistent with USDG
• Staff have defined policy for setting curblines (to
describe when bike lanes will be built or space
preserved)
Status
• Sidewalk Program projects now based on USDG
widths
• NIP projects starting to apply USDG widths
• Rezoning reviews include USDG widths
• Pedestrian Plan will be consistent with USDG
• Land Development Standards Manual update to
include USDG widths
3
Policy Recommendation 13
• Incorporate traffic calming
on new or retrofitted
streets, including “slow
points” on local streets
Policy Statement 8
• Expand tree canopy by providing planting strips
wide enough to support healthy, large-maturing
street trees
Status
• CDOT hiring Traffic Calming Program Manager to:
– Coordinate design specifications
– Guide implementation of new traffic calming strategies
• Rezonings sometimes include traffic calming,
especially curb extensions or on-street parking
• Creating local street “slow points” will be
addressed through Code amendments
Status
• Land Development Standards Manual update to
reflect USDG planting strip widths
• Sidewalk Program and NIP projects using guides
for planting strips in retrofit conditions
• Rezoning comments, where appropriate,
recommend USDG planting strip widths
• Future amendment to Tree Ordinance (Phase II of
the USDG amendment process) to reflect USDG
4
Policy Statement 7
Status
• Review of recently approved site plans has been
completed (monitoring requested by Council)
• Apply recommended block lengths and creek
crossing intervals to new public and private
land development
– To assess application of block lengths, external
connections, and creek crossings, and
– To aid in developing code amendments
• Amending City Code to reflect USDG:
– Phase I (underway) – to create inventory of items
affected by USDG
– Phase II – to develop language to amend the Code
Results of Review
• 109 sites (rezonings and subdivisions)
• 72% unaffected by preferred block lengths
• 48% unaffected by preferred external
connections
• 96% unaffected by creek crossing intervals
– 74% with no creeks
– 22% with creeks, but no creek crossing required
Recommendations Based on Review
• Block length – likely to suggest increasing
Industrial street block length
• External connections – expect to clarify 5 of the
exclusions, and potentially remove 1. Others still
under discussion.
• Creek crossings
– Connectivity Program Manager will discuss cost-sharing
options
– Staff team defining design specifications for bridges
– Staff meeting in May with Corps of Engineers regarding
permitting
5
Policy Statement 1
• Apply USDG to all streets in City and sphere,
including State-maintained streets
Status
• Experience applying USDG to State-maintained
thoroughfares is mixed, at best
– Collaborating on some projects
– Accommodating pedestrians and cyclists continues to be
a challenge
– Urban design context continues to be an issue
– Bridge projects tend to highlight differences
Status
• For local streets in ETJ, some designs often
seemingly “acceptable” to NCDOT, others not
• City’s two choices in ETJ may be to:
– Accept local streets, even without Powell Bill funds, or
– Continue to accept NCDOT designs
Policy Statements 14-17
• Update codes, standards, and ordinances to
reflect USDG
• Develop supplements to USDG
• Update related standards and policies
• Overall, NCDOT and CDOT not likely to come to
one, all-inclusive agreement
6
Status
• Two-phase Code review and amendment process
underway
• Land Development Standards Manual being
updated
• Now clearly defining streets – public or private,
and driveways
• Defining how and under which circumstances to
use water quality BMPs in the public right-of-way
or with private streets underway
• Defining horizontal curvatures to include with
bridge/culvert design specifications for creek
crossings
Upcoming Discussions
• Scheduled:
– Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans
– Connectivity Program
• To be scheduled:
–
–
–
–
New streets in the ETJ
Land Development Standards Manual update
Defining streets for multiple objectives
Code amendments – results of Phase I and likely
recommendations
QUESTIONS?
7