AGENDA #7

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Changes to Bicycle and Pedestrian Development Standards proposed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

DATE: October 11, 2000

This memorandum responds to a petition brought to the Council by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, recommending changes to the standards applied to new development proposals. The Council referred the petition to the Town Manager for comments. A copy of the petition is attached.

BACKGROUND

As development proposals have been reviewed by Town Advisory Boards and the Town Council, it has increasingly been the case that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommends levels of bicycle and pedestrian amenities that exceed current Town standards or previous Town requirements of similar development proposals. Accordingly, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board prepared its request that the Town Council adopt new standards. The Board’s recommended standards are included in the attached June 26, 2000 memorandum.

DISCUSSION

We offer two categories of comments in response to this proposal. The first regards process, the second is about substance.

Procedurally, we note that most of the Town’s specific development standards (e.g., planting requirements, parking lot standards and dimensions, street standards, sidewalk requirements) are contained in the Town’s Design Manual. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board has asked that its recommended standards be included in the Development Ordinance, Design Guidelines, and Design Manual. We believe that the Design Manual is the most appropriate location for standards such as the ones that are proposed.

The reason for our Design Manual suggestion is that this is the document where standards such as those recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board typically rest. The Development Ordinance has the force of law, with standards that must be complied with (no flexibility, generally). The Design Manual has details such as street widths, paving requirements, parking space dimensions, plant requirements, sizes of dumpster pads, thickness of concrete for dumpster pads, etc. The Design Manual has more flexibility in that it is a statement of expectations. A developer or the Council may suggest different solutions for a particular development, depending on circumstances in the particular case. The Design Manual can be amended with a Council motion. The Development Ordinance can only be amended with review by Advisory Boards, public hearings with notice requirements, and subsequent ordinance adoption by the Council. We do not believe that specificity such as type of bike rack and dimensions of bicycle parking spaces should be in the Development Ordinance.

In terms of substance, we have prepared a Staff Report that responds to the standards that have been proposed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. (Please see Attachment 2.) The Staff Report notes those Board recommendations that are already a part of common practice in development review, and those new recommendations that we believe are desirable to codify. The Report also notes areas in which we believe that the recommendations may not be desirable.

We see considerable advantage in amending the Design Manual to include many of these recommendations. Clear statements of Town expectations for bicycle and pedestrian amenities would facilitate discussion of these issues, and promote good design.

We believe that a disadvantage of adopting the entire set of Board recommendations is that full adoption may result in requiring expensive facilities that exceed needs.

We agree with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board that it is desirable to encourage more use of bicycles for transportation, and agree that better facilities help encourage bicycle use. We believe that facilities should be provided commensurate with need for those facilities, and note that adding more bicycle parking on a given development site is normally a feasible option if needs grow. We look forward to the time when existing developments will need to be retrofitted to add more bicycle racks in order to accommodate increased need for bicycle parking.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board has prepared a recommended set of standards, and asks the Town Council to consider incorporating these into the Town’s Development Ordinance, Design Guidelines, and Design Manual. The recommended standards include:

Criteria for providing pedestrian and bicycle access as a component of new development. (Recommendation contained in the Board’s “Attachment A.”)

Requirements for the number of bicycle parking spaces that should be provided as part of new development, and requirements for how many of these spaces need to be “Class I.” (Recommendation contained in the Board’s “Attachment B.”)

Standards for location and design of bicycle parking areas. (Contained in the Board’s “Attachment B.”)

Manager’s Recommendation: An attached Staff Report discusses these recommendations in detail. We recommend that the first and third bulleted items above be included in the Town’s Design Manual. Adoption of the attached Resolution A would do so. Regarding the number of bicycle parking spaces that should be provided as part of new development, we recommend that the Design Manual be amended to specify that bicycle parking spaces in the amount of 10% of automobile parking spaces should be provided with new development. This 10% guideline is included in Resolution A.

Adoption of Resolution B would include all of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommendations in the Town’s Design Manual.

Adoption of Resolution C would call a Public Hearing to consider adding the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s recommended requirements to the Town’s Development Ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS

Memorandum from June 26, 2000, with Attachments A and B (begin new p. 1).

2. Staff Report (p. 9).

RESOLUTION A

Manager’s Recommendation

A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN’S DESIGN MANUAL TO ADD CRITERIA FOR PROVIDING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS, AND STANDARDS FOR LOCATION AND DESIGN OF BICYCLE PARKING AREAS (2000-10-11/R7a)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board has recommended a set of standards for new development that address bicycle and pedestrian access, numbers of bicycle parking spaces that should be required, type of bicycle parking spaces that should be provided, and standards for location and design of bicycle parking areas; and

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has considered this recommendation, and concludes that it would be desirable to have additional sections on bicycle and pedestrian issues added to the Town’s Design Manual;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council directs the Town Manager to revise the Town’s Design Manual to include the following:

“In order to provide pleasant and convenient access for pedestrians, each new development should:

Provide walkways with direct access to adjacent developments, neighborhoods, parks, bus stops and street sidewalks or an alternative pedestrian system.
Investigate the possibility of using utility easements as connecting trails.
Not destroy or hinder pre-existing trails unless a superior alternative is provided.
Provide pedestrian signals at major intersections and pedestrian islands on roads wider than four lanes.
Provide walkways from parking areas to buildings, other than the parking lot itself.
Provide a written plan clearly identifying the party responsible for ongoing maintenance of pedestrian facilities.
Provide walkways along all public streets unless environmental conditions dictate otherwise. All crosswalks should be clearly marked with paint or contrasting surface material.

Each new development should:

Provide access to adjacent greenways.
Provide bicycle parking spaces in the amount of 10% of the automobile parking spaces that are provided.
Provide shower and locker facilities, if a commercial development.

Bicycle parking areas should be located and designed as follows:

Parking facilities shall support bicycles in a stable position without damage to wheels, frame or other components, and so that a bicycle, if bumped, will not fall or roll down.
Parking facilities shall be securely anchored to the lot surface so they cannot easily be removed and shall be of sufficient strength to resist vandalism and theft.
Parking should be located in close proximity to the building’s entrance.
Parking facilities should be located in highly visible well-lighted areas to minimize theft and vandalism.
Bicycle parking facilities shall not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation, and should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Parking facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture.
Each bicycle parking space shall accommodate a bicycle at least six feet long by two feet wide. Racks must not be placed close enough to a wall or other obstruction so as to make use difficult. There must be at least 24 inches beside each parked bicycle that slows access. Adjacent bicycles may share this access. An aisle or other space shall be provided for bicycles to enter and leave the facility. This aisle shall have a width of at least six feet to the front or rear of a bicycle parked in the facility
Paving is preferred, not required. Well draining gravel is the minimum surface treatment in order to avoid mud and dust.
Bicycle parking facilities within auto parking areas shall be separated by a physical barrier such as curbs, wheel stops, poles or other similar features to protect bicycles from damage by cars.
Ideally, bicycle parking should be under cover to protect bicycles from damaging sun and foul weather.”

This the 11^th day of October, 2000.

RESOLUTION B

A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN’S DESIGN MANUAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY BOARD (2000-10-11/R7b)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council directs the Town Manager to revise the Town’s Design Manual to include all recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, as contained in Attachments A and B of a memorandum to the Town Council from the Board dated June 26, 2000.

This the 11^th day of October, 2000.

RESOLUTION C

A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE TOWN’S DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE CRITERIA FOR PROVIDING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS, CLASSIFICATIONS FOR BICYCLE PARKING, AND STANDARDS FOR LOCATION AND DESIGN OF BICYCLE PARKING AREAS, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY BOARD (2000-10-11/R7c)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council calls a Public Hearing to consider amending the Chapel Hill Development Ordinance, in a manner that incorporates the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, as contained in Attachments A and B of a memorandum to the Town Council from the Board dated June 26, 2000.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such Public Hearing be scheduled for February, 2001.

This the 11^th day of October, 2000.

ATTACHMENT 1 CAN BE VIEW IN THE CLERK’S OFFICE OR THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY.

ATTACHMENT 2

Staff Report:

Comment on Recommendations for New Standards

By Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

October 11, 2000

These staff comments refer to a June 26, 2000 memorandum that was prepared for the Chapel Hill Town Council by the Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. The memorandum was received by the Town Council on June 26 and referred to the Town Manager for comment.

Criteria for Development Reviews: Attachment A of the Board’s petition lists recommendations for “Planning and Design Criteria for Development Reviews.” The Board recommends that these criteria be incorporated into the Development Ordinance.

Staff Comment: We believe that this recommended list of items is reasonable, and reflects what has become the Town’s expectation regarding pedestrian and bicycle facilities as components of new development. We believe it would be helpful to codify this set of expectations. We believe that inclusion of these statements in the Town’s Design Manual would be desirable. We do not recommend amending the Development Ordinance at this time. However, we believe it would be useful to transmit this list to the Town’s Development Ordinance consultant for use in the work of revising the Ordinance.

Specific comments on specific recommendations follow.

Provide walkways with direct access to adjacent developments, neighborhoods, parks, bus stops and street sidewalks or an alternative pedestrian system.

Currently routinely required as part of staff and Council review of new development.

Investigate the possibility of using utility easements as connecting trails.

Currently routinely required as part of staff and Council review of new development.

Not destroy or hinder pre-existing trails unless a superior alternative is provided.

Currently routinely required as part of staff and Council review of new development.

Provide pedestrian signals at major intersections and pedestrian islands on roads wider than four lanes.

Currently discussed routinely when appropriate conditions exist in the vicinity of proposed new development may or may not presently be recommended as a requirement, depending on circumstances.

Provide walkways from parking areas to buildings, other than the parking lot itself.

Currently routinely required as part of staff and Council review of new development, as circumstances deem appropriate.

Provide a written plan clearly identifying the party responsible for ongoing maintenance of pedestrian facilities.

Maintenance responsibilities implicitly lie with the property owner; more explicit declaration of this issue may be useful.

Provide walkways along all public streets unless environmental conditions dictate otherwise.

Currently considered on a case by case basis. For most new developments, sidewalks are required along all frontages. An exception currently is minor residential streets, where sidewalks might be required on one side only.

All crosswalks should be clearly marked with paint or contrasting surface material.

Currently considered on a case by case basis.

Provide access to adjacent greenways.

Currently routinely required as part of staff and Council review of new development.

Provide bicycle parking spaces as outlined in Appendix B.

We do not recommend this set of standards (please see discussion below).

Provide shower and locker facilities, if a commercial development.

Currently discussed as circumstances deem appropriate; not currently required.

We note that this list calls for bicycle parking to be provided as the Board outlines in its Attachment B. We believe that it would be desirable to specify expectations for bicycle parking. However, as we note below, we do not concur with the Board’s specific recommendations for bicycle parking requirements that are contained in Attachment B.

Bicycle Parking: Attachment B of the Board’s petition lists recommendations for requiring bicycle parking. The Board recommends that two types of bicycle parking be defined: Class I and Class II. The definition for Class I is as follows: “Class I bicycle parking means a locker, individually locked enclosure, or supervised area within a building providing protection for bicycles therein from theft, vandalism, and weather.” Class II bicycle parking refers to a stationary rack. The Attachment goes on to recommend numbers of bicycle parking slots to require, along with a required mix of Class I and Class II.

Staff Comment: We do not believe that the recommended requirements contained in Attachment B are reasonable. We believe it would be useful to state an expectation for the number of bicycle parking slots for different types of development. But we believe the numbers suggested in Attachment B are impractically high, and that the recommended levels of requirements for Class I parking are not reasonable.

We reach this conclusion after considering that there is no justification shown for the recommended standards, and we believe it would be ill-advised to reach a conclusion of support based on intuitive judgment alone. We note that it is common practice at present for owners of bicycles to bring their bicycles into their dwelling units for storage (whether houses, garages, or apartments), because of concern about damage or theft. We have not seen a need for the numbers of bicycle storage spaces that are recommended by the Board, nor for the high level of bicycle storage amenity that is recommended.

As illustration of our concern, we note the following example. The Council recently approved a multi-family development on Sterling Drive called Providence Glen Condominiums. That project involved 192 dwelling units, and 383 automobile parking spaces. A condition of approval was that the development provide bicycle parking, “with appropriate covering and lighting.” (Exact number and location of bicycle racks to be determined with approval of final plans).

The proposed requirements of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Board, if they were applied to the Providence Glen proposal, would have required 231 bicycle parking spaces (1 space per unit = 192, plus 10% of automobile spaces = 39). 208 of these spaces would be required to be provided in the form of lockers, individually locked areas, or supervised area for storage of the 208 bicycles.

We do not believe that such a requirement would be reasonable, based on the development patterns, behaviors, precedents, and conditions that are present in Chapel Hill. We note the small percentage of trips that are currently taken using bicycles as the mode of transport (2.4% of trips to work, according to the 2000 Chapel Hill Data Book). We hope that this percentage can increase, and believe that increased levels of bicycle amenities can help encourage bicycle use. However, we also note that bicycle parking facilities can reasonably be added to most developments as demand for bicycle storage increases. We do not see documentation for the need of the levels of bicycle parking recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.

We believe that requiring developments to provide bicycle parking spaces in the amount of 10% of the automobile parking spaces that are provided with any new development would be reasonable and practical. We do not recommend requiring that bicycle storage areas be in lockers, locked areas, or supervised areas.

Attachment B also suggests criteria for location and design of bicycle parking areas. We believe that these suggested standards are reasonable and appropriate, and that it would be desirable to include these in the Town’s Design Manual. Specific comments on specific recommendations follow:

Parking facilities shall support bicycles in a stable position without damage to wheels, frame or other components, and so that a bicycle, if bumped, will not fall or roll down.

We believe that it would be useful to include this specific statement in the Design Manual.

Parking facilities shall be securely anchored to the lot surface so they cannot easily be removed and shall be of sufficient strength to resist vandalism and theft.

We believe that it would be useful to include this specific statement in the Design Manual.

Parking should be located in close proximity to the building’s entrance.

We agree that this is desirable to help promote bicycle usage, and currently try to achieve this objective in review of development applications.

Parking facilities should be located in highly visible well-lighted areas to minimize theft and vandalism.

This has increasingly become an interest of the Town Council for inclusion as a condition of approval for new developments. We believe it would be useful to include in the Design Manual.

Bicycle parking facilities shall not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation, and should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Parking facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture.