AGENDA #10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Proposals to Reduce Impervious Surfaces
DATE: March 6, 2000
On September 13, 1999, the Town Council directed the Town Manager to prepare a proposal and Development Ordinance language to accomplish six specific objectives, related to the Council’s interest in minimizing in pervious sufaces, which could then be forwarded to Town Advisory Boards for comments. This memorandum offers ordinance language, and includes a resolution that would refer proposals to Advisory Boards. We note that the Planning Board has also been discussing this topic.
January 6, 1999 The Town Council held a workshop on soil erosion and sedimentation.
February 15, 1999 The Council referred to advisory boards a request asking for ways to reduce impervious surface in the Town after opening a public hearing to consider a text amendment proposal which would limit initial paving of required parking areas.
June 14, 1999 The Council received the report relaying advisory board recommendations for ways to reduce impervious surface in the Town. Consideration of the item was delayed.
September 13, 1999 The June 14 report was resubmitted to the Council. This item is included as Attachment 2. At the meeting, the Council voted to ask the Manager to prepare an impervious surface reduction package which would focus on six specific points to be forwarded to Town advisory boards.
November 22, 1999 The Town Council received a report on Soil Erosion and Sedimentation which discussed issues raised by the Town Council after the January 6 workshop on Soil Erosion and Sedimentation.
Consideration of the item was delayed.
January 10, 2000 The Town Council received and discussed the November 22 item on soil erosion.
February 14, 2000 The Town Council is receiving tonight the impervious surface reduction package requested which focuses on six specific points. The Council indicated its intent to seek comments on these proposals from Town Advisory Boards.
First, for purposes of clarifying discussion of this issue, we suggest that the focus be on ways to minimize the increases in impervious surfaces in Chapel Hill. Although there may be some opportunities to actually eliminate impervious surfaces that are already on the ground (e.g., the proposed Special Use Permit modification at University Mall), we believe that these opportunities are limited. They should be pursued on a case-by-case basis as redevelopment and modification applications are considered.
The larger, broader topic is the discussion of ideas to change regulations such that new development adds as little new impervious surface as possible. The Council identified six objectives on September 13, and asked for ordinance language that would implement each:
We address each of these objectives below is new. Implementing language for each is offered as an attachment. (Attachment 1).
1. Adjust Permitted Uses in the Resource Conservation District: The following uses are permitted in the Resource Conservation District (Section 5.5.1 of the Development Ordinance.
Permitted Uses
Provided they are permitted within the underlying zoning district, and subject to the provisions of Sections 5.6 and 5.8, the following uses shall be permitted uses within the Resource Conservation District:
a) pasture, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, forestry, wildlife sanctuary, and other similar agricultural and related uses that do not require extensive land-disturbing activities or extensive use of fences or walls;
b) ground level loading areas, parking areas, and other similar ground level area uses;
c) lawns, gardens, play areas and other similar uses;
d) golf courses, archery ranges, picnic grounds, parks, hiking or horseback riding trails, open space, and other similar public and private recreational uses that do not require extensive use of fences or walls;
e) public utility and storm drainage facilities where there is a practical necessity to their location within the Resource Conservation District;
f) streets, bridges, and other similar transportation facilities where there is a practical necessity to their location within the Resource Conservation District;
g) accessory land‑disturbing activities ordinarily associated with a single-family or two-family dwelling, such as driveways, utility service lines, gardens, and similar uses;
h) public maintenance of streets, bridges, other similar transportation facilities and/or public utility and storm drainage facilities;
i) lakes, ponds, and associated infrastructure, such as dams, spillways, riser pipes and stilling basins, that are located outside of the regulatory floodplain, shall be permitted with a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article 18 of this chapter and only if a demonstrated public purpose is served.
We do not believe that it would be reasonable to eliminate all permitted uses through zoning regulations. We also note that one of the statutory bases for Chapel Hill’s Resource Conservation District is the set of floodway regulations contained in NC General Statute 143-215.54. This statute establishes certain permitted uses in floodways, including ground level loading areas, parking areas, lawns, gardens, play areas, golf courses and tennis courts. We do not believe we could prohibit these uses in the most sensitive parts of the Resource Conservation District (floodway portion); because of state statutes; and not being able to so restrict in part of the RCD, we do not believe it would be advisable to try to restrict in the less sensitive, non-floodway portions of the RCD.
We do not recommend any changes to the list of permitted uses within the RCD. The list is currently very restrictive, it is consistent with state law, and we believe it serves the objectives and intent of the Resource Conservation District while still allowing reasonable use of private property.
2. Set Maximum Parking Requirements: The Development Ordinance currently contains minimum parking requirements for specific uses. Attachment 1 contains a listing of these minimum requirements. The Council could insert a sentence in the Ordinance mandating that the number of parking spaces in a development cannot exceed 110% (or 120% or 130%, etc.) of the required minimum.
We note that on January 31, 2000, the Council referred a petition on this subject to the Town Manager for comment. The petition asked for Council consideration of an idea to set maximum parking requirements as 110% of the current minimum requirements.
The arguments in favor of minimum parking requirements are that the general public is best served, in terms of convenience, mobility, and efficient operation of streets, when off-street parking is available at residences and destinations. It is reasonable to require such parking as a component of any new development.
The arguments in favor of maximum parking requirements fall in two general categories. First, the lending requirements accompanying financing for new development often require a minimum number of spaces that results in an abundance of parking at all except the most peak periods; this means that there is more asphalt and impervious surface than is desirable considering the general public welfare. Second, abundant parking allows and encourages easy use of single-occupant automobiles; when parking is in short supply, the transportation behavior of individuals may change to result in more transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel, which promote the Town’s transportation objectives.
We believe it is reasonable to establish maximum parking requirements, but also to keep a minimum set at 80% of the current minimum.
We recommend consideration of a proposal to require that the number of parting spaces permitted would be between 80% and 110% of the currently stated minimums.
3. Reduce Street Widths in Residential Areas Under Certain Conditions: Required street widths are set in the Town’s Design Manual, not by ordinance. The Design Manual is a more flexible document than the Development Ordinance, and adjustment to standards can be made by Council direction to the Town Manager.
We have recently revisited our street width standards, and have established what we believe are the most narrow widths that can reasonably accommodate through-traffic, on-street parking (where permitted), bicycle lanes (where provided), and curb-gutter installation. Our standard for a local, residential street is 27 feet back-to-back, which is a basic configuration found in subdivisions throughout Chapel Hill. In practice, it works well in accommodating a variety of uses while being narrow enough to maintain residential character and minimize impervious surface.
Streets are classified in the Design Manual as arterial, collector, and local streets. Here are the definitions of each:
Arterial - Arterial streets function primarily to serve through-traffic movement. Limited land-access service may be accommodated, but traffic controls and street design are intended to provide efficient through-traffic movement.
Collector - Collector streets penetrate neighborhoods, public service areas, and districts. They are intented to provide both through-traffic and land-access services in relatively equal proportions, often linking the local street system to the arterial street system.
Local - Local streets primarily serve land-access functions. They are intended to accommodate land parcel ingress and egress. Through-traffic movement is difficult and discouraged by traffic controls and street design.
The Town Council asked for a proposal to reduce street widths in residential areas. Most residential streets are classified as local streets, some as collectors. There are residences along arterial streets, such as Franklin Street, but it is our understanding that the Council’s interest for this topic is local and collector streets.
The Town’s current standard for a local street is a 27 foot width, measured from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. This includes two 11-foot travel lanes, and five feet for curb and gutter. The standard 27-foot street is flexible enough to accommodate on-street parking, while still allowing travel in both directions. In some limited circumstances, we have approved 24-foot streets, but have had to restrict on-street parking on such streets.
The Town’s current standard for a collector is a 49-foot width, back-to-back. This includes three 12-foot lanes (one functioning as a center turn lane), two 4-foot bike lanes, and 5-feet for curb and gutter.
If the Council wishes to achieve narrower residential streets, it could direct the Town Manager to change the Town’s Design Manual. Options would include:
· Make the standard width for a local street 24 feet instead of 27 feet.
· Make the standard lane width for a collector street 11 feet instead of 12 feet.
· Eliminate bikelanes as a standard on collector streets.
· Eliminate the center turn lane as a standard on collector streets.
We do not recommend narrowing any street standards. We believe that the present standards represent a good balance between functional needs and the desire for less pavement.
4. Require Plantings between Sidewalks and Roadways: This kind of requirement would also best be addressed through the Design Manual. We currently require either a 3-foot grass strip or an 8-foot tree lawn between streets and sidewalks. We note, however, that enlarging planting strips between sidewalks and roadways would not reduce impervious surface in the construction of roads. It would change the location of sidewalks with respect to roads, taking grassed areas that would have been outside of the sidewalk and shifting them inside the sidewalk (with respect to the street). We also note that moving sidewalks further away from streets would increase clearing, grading, and land disturbance. There would be a visual benefit (opportunity for wider tree lawn next to streets would enhance growth of street trees), but we do not believe there would be an impervious surface benefit.
If the Council wishes to achieve more plantings between sidewalks and roadways, it could direct the Town Manager to change the Town’s Design Manual. Options would include:
· Require a tree lawn of at least 8 feet between all curbs and sidewalks in new streets.
· Require a tree lawn of at least 10 feet between all curbs and sidewalks in new streets.
We do not recommend changing the Design Manual to require plantings between sidewalks and roadways beyond that which we now require. When conditions allow, we currently seek inclusion of an 8-foot planting strip between streets and sidewalks.
5. Set Limits on Parking Lot Paving: This idea has previously been discussed by the Planning Board and the Town Council, and we prepared ordinance language last February that would limit the initial paving of parking lots. We recommended to the Town Council that this change not be made to the Development Ordinance in February for the following reasons:
The Ordinance language was not adopted last spring. We do not recommend amending the Development Ordinance to set limits on parking lot paving.. We note that the Council is currently discussing the idea of whether or not permeable paving surfaces can work effectively in Chapel Hill, and we will soon have experience with some examples of this approach.
6. Measures to Encourage Shared Parking: The Transportation Board has suggested that the Town “encourage shared parking arrangements for existing and new development.” We note that the Development Ordinance currently allows shared parking in the following circumstances:
14.6.3 Combined Parking
Up to one‑half (1/2) of the parking spaces required for one use may be used to satisfy the parking requirements for either a second use on the same zoning lot or a use for which the provisions of subsection 14.6.2 a) above are utilized, subject to certification by the Town Manager that such joint usage of parking complies with the following provisions:
a) The peak usage of the parking facility by one use will be at night or on Sundays (such as with theaters, assembly halls, or places of worship), and the peak usage of the parking facility by the second use will be at other times; or
b) The second use is an ancillary use to the first use, such as restaurants and meeting rooms to hotels and motels.
In addition, in accordance with Section 14.6.2, required parking may be located on another zoning lot subject to Town Manager certification of the following five requirements are met:
i) The use being served by the off‑site parking shall be a permitted principal use, as established in Article 12, in the zoning districts within which the zoning lot containing such parking is located;
ii) The off‑site parking spaces shall be located within twelve hundred (1,200) feet walking distance of a public entrance to the structure or land area containing the use for which such spaces are required. A safe, direct, attractive, lighted and convenient pedestrian route shall exist or be provided between the off‑site parking and the use being served;
iii) The continued availability of off‑site parking spaces necessary to meet the requirements of this section shall be ensured by an appropriate restriction on the title to the land providing the off‑site parking spaces, in the form of a declaration, covenant, or contract; and
iv) For purposes of determining applicable minimum and maximum land use intensities, the land area devoted to off‑site parking shall be added to the gross land area of the zoning lot containing the use being served by such parking and shall be subtracted from the gross land area of the zoning lot containing the off‑site parking.
v) Upon appropriate findings by the Town Council, churches may use off‑site parking to provide required parking without obtaining a restriction on the title to the land providing the off‑site parking spaces. Appropriate findings shall include reasonable assurance of the continued availability of off‑site parking and that sufficient excess livability space exists on the church's zoning lot to provide the required off‑street parking should the off‑site parking become no longer available.
We note that the Council increased the distance allowed for off-site parking from 500 feet to 1,200 feet in 1997. The Town Council could include language in the Development Ordinance that expands the option to share parking between developments . In addition, the Town Council could include language in the Development Ordinance that makes universal the option to share parking between developments, with evidence of long-term agreements between property owners.
We believe that the concept of sharing parking is a good one, as long as parking is not inappropriately “double counted” for meeting basic requirements. We recommend that the Council consider a change that would facilitate the sharing of properties between properties.
This memorandum offers a discussion of proposals which, if adopted by the Town Council, would result in changes to the regulations that could minimize the increase of impervious surfaces. Some of these changes would be to the Development Ordinance, and some to the Town’s Design Manual. We include as Attachment 1 sample implementing language.
The Council indicated its intent on September 13, 1999 to seek comments on some or all of these proposals from Town Advisory Boards. The attached resolution would refer these proposals to the following Boards:
· Community Design Commission
· Parks and Recreation Board
· Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Board
· Planning Board
· Transportation Board
We look forward to the Council discussion of these issues. We recommend that after discussion, the Council decide which of these proposals (all, some, none or others) to refer to Advisory Boards. Adoption of the attached resolution would do so.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Implementation Language
Attachment 2: September 13, 1999 Memorandum to Mayor and Town Council
A RESOLUTION REFERRING CHANGES REGARDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REDUCTIONS TO ADVISORY BOARDS (2000-03-06/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has expressed concern about increases in impervious surface and the Town parking regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has indicated a desire to consider changes that would reduce impervious surfaces and improve parking regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby refers the following proposals to Advisory Boards for comment:
1. Changes to reduce permitted uses in the Resource Conservation District;
2. Changes to establish maximum parking space requirements;
3. Changes to reduce street widths in residential areas in the Design Manual under certain circumstances;
4. Changes to require plantings between sidewalks and roadways;
5. Changes to set limits on parking lot paving; and
6. Changes to encourage/require shared parking.
[insert or delete items as desired]
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby refers these proposals to the following advisory boards for comment:
· Community Design Commission
· Parks and Recreation Board
· Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Board
· Planning Board
· Transportation Board
This the 6th day of March, 2000.