Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Post Construction Controls Ordinance
No action.
II.
Subject:
General Development Policies - Environment
No action.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting:
Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at noon in Room CH-14 (changed due to
NCLM Conference)
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter and
Don Lochman
3:40 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda
2. Presentation: Discussion on Post Construction Controls Ordinance
3. Presentation: General Development Policies - Environment
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the fourth session on the Post Construction
Controls Ordinance. Today’s discussion will be a continuation of the cost analysis with
the focus on multi-family and commercial development.
I.
Post Construction Controls Ordinance
Daryl Hammock began his presentation [copy attached] with an overview of the
discussion points and a clarification on the single family costs. The largest piece of the
pie ($2,900) is non-negotiable, as the features reflected in these costs will be required by
state law.
Lochman:
I don’t understand. I need some help with that comment. We have been
looking at two different cost estimates. You are suggesting that a
percentage is beyond our control regardless of what these sub costs
include.
Hammock:
That’s right.
Lochman:
So, the difference in the numbers is the incremental difference between
the State requirement and what has been proposed?
Hammock:
That’s right.
Lochman:
What kind of impact does cost have on the development side of the
economic pie? The vast majority, 70%, is not negotiable. We only have
control over 30%. It is important to know what the State requirements
will be because that will dictate some significant costs.
Hammock:
That’s right. Our focus has been looking at what’s above the minimum.
We can have choices in three pieces of the pie.
Carter:
For the single-family development costs, is that for a single parcel of 1/3
acre or for larger acreage?
Hammock:
The cost to treat depends largely on how much impervious surface. But, it
would be per house, per lot. Some subdivisions have 3½ houses per acre.
Lochman:
Again, if we are looking at incremental costs above the State requirement,
these numbers are still in disagreement. If they are accurate, there is a
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 3
significant order of magnitude. Are the other numbers in the 30%
accurate?
Hammock:
The other numbers are accurate. We can’t do anything about the 70%.
Lochman:
The $2,900 is dedicated to the State, but I’m seeing numbers upwards of
$9,000.
Hammock:
Those numbers are times 5. The percentages still old true.
Lochman:
It depends on the nature of the cost itself. The State numbers are
unchallenged, but clearly there are significant costs and subjectively
speaking I think we need to learn about the cost matters. Theoretical costs
we can’t deal with. I know it is difficult to nail down the numbers, but it
is important because we have to vote on this issue and it could have a
significant impact.
Foxx:
You make a good point. But, I suggest we pick this up at the end of the
discussion. Let’s get all the figures and procedures on the table to work
through and understand.
Mumford:
I’m hearing that the $2,900 is not an accepted number in the development
communities. I’m hearing it is $2,900 or more times five. I’m not
suggesting that the other three numbers are out of whack. If the
proportions are the same, we need to get to the real cost.
Lochman:
If that’s true, I assume there would be specific appreciations in both
instances. What is included should be the same regardless and without
knowing, it makes it difficult.
Hammock:
We’ll have more discussion with the stakeholders. We have the first of
three meetings tomorrow. One other thing to note is all of the information
you have is the stakeholders’ recommendation. Staff has a slightly
different recommendation. By and large we agree though.
Foxx:
Please make sure the Committee knows when the stakeholders are
meeting.
Burch:
The first meeting is tomorrow, September 18 from 6:00 to 8:30 at the Hal
Marshall Building. What are the subsequent dates?
Rozzelle:
October 4 and October 18.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 4
[Commercial Case Study / Slide]
Carter:
Does the parking conform on the right side of the slide?
Hammock:
Yes, in both scenarios.
Lochman:
REBIC said to conform they lost 42 parking spaces?
Hammock:
There were parking spaces eliminated. To control costs, they chose to put
the BMPs above ground.
Lochman:
But, it is not always this easy. Has REBIC seen this?
Hammock:
The stakeholders have not seen these examples.
Richards:
I think you should remind the committee where we got the cost data.
Hammock:
City Council directed us to conduct a cost study at the conclusion of the
stakeholders’ process. We used a consultant.
Lochman:
This was not done by staff?
Hammock:
No. Land Design.
Burch:
You’ll recall that Dale Stewart from Land Design made a presentation at
the last meeting and the cost study was a part of that.
Lochman:
When these numbers are circulated with the stakeholders, I’m sure some
new concerns will be brought up.
Hammock:
Correct.
Burch:
There will be some new issues from the cost study.
[Study of On-Site Costs: Study Results – Commercial / Slide]
Carter:
Are you talking about mitigation in perpetuity?
Hammock:
Yes.
Lochman:
That brings me back to my point of asking if REBIC’s information is
valid. Are their numbers correct?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 5
Foxx:
REBIC was represented in the stakeholders group, but that group went
through the process without a cost analysis. So, now Council has looked
at the cost and thought with the questions that have emerged that we
should go back to the stakeholders and give them adequate time and a
forum to work through these new issues.
[Study of On-site Costs: Study Results – Urban Infill / Slide]
Burgess:
Would an example be what they are doing at Selwyn and Colony?
Hammock:
Yes.
Burgess:
In the single-family case could you tell us what happened with the Rumple
Road development that caused excess water?
Hammock:
Is that near Derita?
Burgess:
Yes. There was literally a stream going through their front yard. If the
developer had followed the regulations and gone a little further, would
that have prevented that situation?
Hammock:
I have an example to show later, but if you’re asking if a single-family
subdivision includes detention would it dramatically decrease stream
erosion, I think you would find there is a pretty significant positive
impact.
Burgess:
If they have a retention pond while the development is under construction,
are they not required to keep it?
Hammock:
They are only required to keep it during construction; we’re talking about
more permanent protection.
Mumford:
If we reduced the requirements, would we still meet the State
requirements or is this a State-only requirement.
Hammock:
The State does not require any stormwater management.
Mumford:
So, this is beyond?
Hammock:
The State requirement is 0.
Foxx:
I think we are at risk of looking at this policy in a vacuum and not the
complete picture. I’d like to raise my voice for fast track permitting for
developing priority areas that are economically depressed, provide
affordable housing, and are environmentally friendly in design. I’m
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 6
interested in saving the development community money by speeding the
process up in priority areas. For example, getting a permit in 30 days
versus 90 days. I think there is some value in mitigating costs, but we
don’t get there in a vacuum. So, I would caution staff to look other cost
saving aspects.
Lochman:
The potential savings of an improved process would seem small vs. the
cost of these requirements.
Foxx:
I’ve heard developers complain about the high cost of waiting.
Burgess:
It may be worth the money to add staff to fast track everything.
[Maintenance Costs – Single Family / Slide]
Lochman:
I think this is a good example that we need to get our act together on the
numbers. If we have 5 of these the first year, then 10 more, then 5 more,
the number by the 10th year could be $6 million on maintenance and by
the 20th year it could be $18 million. Those numbers would not excite a
homeowners association. Before we take action, we need to be pretty sure
about our information on cost. This could be a nightmare.
[Maintenance Costs – City Expenses / Slide]
Burgess:
I have concerns that the single-family residences are covered, but multifamily are not and those are the lower income families. The cost is passed
on to them through rent, which is not fair. I think it should be all
residential.
Hammock:
That is something we can consider. Multi-family has been required to
provide stormwater detention for the last 20-30 years.
Lochman:
How many would this assume to be in place by year 5?
Hammock:
100s. We add approximately 180 per year.
Lochman:
This is another good example that we need to reconcile the numbers.
[Costs Avoided: Existing Conditions / Slide]
Lochman:
Are we saving money that we are currently expending? We can’t save
without spending. So, is this cost avoidance or future costs?
Hammock:
Lochman:
We are spending $30 million a year on flooding and water quality.
$30 million? Who’s budget?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 7
Blackwell:
Stormwater.
[Costs Avoided: What if Scenario / Slide]
Carter:
Redevelopment is not included?
Hammock:
No. The question is do we want to pay $71 million up front or fix the
problem later for $580 million?
Lochman:
$580 million over how many years?
Hammock:
It’s a 20-year build out.
Lochman:
Will this be a recommendation to the City Manager to put in the budget?
This is more money than the general fund; it is staggering. The City
Manager and Budget Director should be concerned.
Burch:
This is over 20-25 years.
Hammock:
Right. This is a requirement from the State because we are not meeting
water quality standards.
[East Providence Case Study / Slide]
Richards:
To add some context, we’re looking at the water quality of a number of
streams. When we made the stormwater presentation a few months ago,
we showed the lower priority erosion of 6,000. We’re helping water
quality with part of the ordinance by detention and lowering the water
velocity. It will help with the capital costs.
[Path Forward / Slide]
Lochman:
At some point, I’d like to see the background data the cost assumptions
were based on. And, at some point I’d like to reconcile REBIC’s numbers
and these numbers. There will be an impact on the economy.
Foxx:
I think we are headed down parallel tracks. The Committee is looking at
the cost issues and the stakeholders will be looking at some of the same
issues. Would your recommendation be for us to get further into the cost
issues?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 8
Burch:
I think it would be helpful for the stakeholders to deal with the cost issues
before you study them. They will be giving additional input and thought
into the recommendations and we hope to have that before getting into the
detailed cost study.
Foxx:
That’s fine by me. We have asked for the stakeholders report by midNovember. That means we may need some additional meetings in
November before we lose Council members Mumford and Lochman. I
think this is a lot to ask a new Council to learn and I hope we can make
every effort to push through by the end of the term.
Burgess:
I’ve heard from CMS that they have concerns that playing fields are not
considered open space. Does that apply elsewhere?
Hammock:
The stakeholders’ group recommended undisturbed woods or meadows.
A playing field is not the same as a forest. We have had some discussion
with the schools about reducing the amount of preservation on site and
looking at built upon sites. We can re-look at the definition of undisturbed
open space, but you’ll lose trees.
Burgess:
Trees absorb water, but built upon space could still absorb water. I have a
problem giving special consideration though. I don’t think we should give
allowances to just the public sector. It should be uniform between public
and private.
Hammock:
One question is should open space be part of this ordinance.
Foxx:
I have some interest in that conversation.
Carter:
I’d also like to know the impact from fertilizers and insecticides. Is that a
discussion we need to take on regarding the regulation?
Hammock:
You mean what private citizens put on their lawns?
Carter:
It is part of the problem and should be part of the discussion.
Hammock:
We do have a public education program and a volunteer program. It is
important for us to educate the public on fertilizer, etc., but requirements
would be difficult to enforce.
Burgess:
What about green affordable housing and green roofs. We should
encourage those and perhaps provide some special consideration.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 9
Hammock:
Staff is eager to work with standards that provide credit, but thus far there
has not been a lot of interest in green buildings, mostly because they are
not required. If there were requirements, there would be more interest.
Burgess:
We have a flat roof on the top of this building!
Foxx:
I’d like to thank staff for their presentation today.
II.
General Development Policies - Environment
Council member Foxx then turned the meeting over to Garet Johnson to begin discussing
the General Development Policies – Environment [copy attached].
[Policies – summarized Policy 2.a through 2.f / Slide]
Carter:
I am concerned with the density we are proposing outside in the wedges.
We need density established. Planning staff should tell us the appropriate
intersections, for example, Providence and Fairview. Should there be
another level down?
Johnson:
Are you talking about identifying areas in advance? We have done that
within our centers and corridors.
Campbell:
When we do our area planning process it helps us determine appropriate
high density development. We have identified those areas in the planning
process.
Carter:
Do you publicize the areas and does that shunt development?
Campbell:
We do. But, developers ask us to change the zoning sometimes in more
desirable areas.
Lochman:
Are you generally happy with the private sector embracing infill
development or do you find it difficult?
Campbell:
They have been surprisingly embracing it, but it is a challenge. It is easier
to do greenfield development.
[Polices – summarized Policy 3.a through 3.b / Slide]
Burgess:
What do you do when a site has been clear cut? We had a hollow dead
tree removed in Dilworth and replanted one about 7 years ago. It’s huge
now. It doesn’t take long for trees to grow. Is there a requirement about
the size of the trees that are replanted on lots?
Johnson:
I don’t know. I know with the PCCO ordinance, the open space
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 10
requirement includes keeping trees.
Campbell:
For residential homes, it would be under the Tree Ordinance. I believe the
tree save requirement is a 10% minimum and if it is less than 10%, you
must replenish it. The issue becomes what tree species is replaced. Can
we make a requirement, probably so. But, at what cost? I don’t know that
we require a specific type, like an oak for an oak.
Johnson:
It also would become a requirement on the residential property owner.
Campbell:
Enforcing it would be a big issue.
Carter:
I know it has to be replanted if it is in the right-of-way, but it is not a
requirement on private property.
[Next Steps / Slide]
Foxx:
I know we have had some discussion in the past about principles over
policies down to a mission statement. But, what are the cost impacts to all
of these?
Johnson:
I know that concern was raised about a year ago and there was some
analysis of the PCCO, USDG and GDP-E. There will be costs, but the
GDP-E is very broad and there are different ways to implement. One way
to implement some of the GDP-E policies is through the PCCO. As part
of the cost analysis for the PCCO, we looked at all the site plans and
found that they met the intent of the GDP and did not find any costs above
and beyond what was attributed to the PCCO or USDG.
Foxx:
So, if we adopt this set of principles, they by themselves are cost neutral?
I think it is important to understand the cost issues.
Campbell:
I think that is a fair statement.
Foxx:
Does this mesh with the other principles and policies we’ve discussed? If
this is more high level, I’d like to see us move on this.
Mumford:
I think there is some risk. This is a big, subjective, principle-based
document and relies heavily on our interpretations. What if a petitioner’s
interpretation is different? I would offer a big caution on how broad
principles could be received and how the private sector reacts with no hard
and fast regulations.
Carter:
I think implementation and incentives are important to add in.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 11
Campbell:
As part of the GDP implementation piece there might be some policies
that determine how prescriptive we are. These are not regulations, not
ordinances, not the USDG; they are policies that can be implemented in
various ways. It is therefore difficult to apply cost to the
recommendations. We have tools, such as the zoning ordinance or the
subdivision ordinance, if we want to be more prescriptive.
Burch:
For reference the implementation piece is pages 13-15 in the packet.
Mumford:
We’re so focused on the rezoning but what is dramatic to me is 35% of the
tree canopy is gone. We look at what’s important; debate costs; but we
need to look at the cumulative effect of what we’re doing and the impact
by the year 2027. 35% of the tree canopy is already gone. What are we
after? Do we want to micromanage development? What does the
community look like for the next generation?
Foxx:
The thread between the PCCO, USDG and GDP-E is driven by something
below the stated principles. We need to work through what’s important. I
don’t see anything in here that causes me heartburn. We may find
something, but I’d like the Committee to carefully look through the
Environmental GDPs, so we can talk about the important issues and be
ready to move.
Burgess:
To adopt?
Foxx:
We’ll have a recommendation by staff and a public hearing in October.
Johnson:
We’ll have the public hearing and then a recommendation by the Planning
Committee and then a recommendation by this Committee.
Campbell:
We can accommodate an accelerated schedule.
Foxx:
I don’t want to do it just to do it, but I would like us to move quickly.
Lochman:
Did the USDG have a stakeholders group?
Mumford:
Yes.
III.
Next Meeting
Julie Burch advised the Committee their next regularly scheduled meeting on October 15
conflicts with the North Carolina League meeting. Council member Foxx asked for the
meeting to be rescheduled. [Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 23 at noon in Room 280.]
Burgess:
I will be sworn in as President at the League meeting and I have chosen
the environment as my platform. I hope to encourage each city to look at
their green opportunities. And, I am proud to be able to use our list. Our
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for September 17, 2007
Page 12
work can help other communities statewide.
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Monday, September 17, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
AGENDA
I.
Post Construction Controls Ordinance
Staff Resource: Daryl Hammock, Engineering and Property Management
This will be session #4 to brief the Committee and discuss the proposed ordinance.
Today’s session will focus again on costs, including the costs analysis results for
multi-family, commercial and infill transit sites; impact on storm water fees if costs
of the proposal are shifted to fee payers; and on the quality of life “drivers” for the
proposed ordinance.
Staff will also provide the Committee with a brief update on actions to implement the
City Council’s direction on September 4 to reconvene the PCCO Stakeholders group.
Attachment: Question and Answer Document
II.
General Development Policies – Environment
Staff Resource: Garet Johnson, Planning
Staff will present a more detailed introduction to the GDP-E to follow-up to the
September 4 briefing of the City Council.
Attachment: Draft General Development Policies Chapter 5: Environment
III.
Next Meeting
Monday, October 15 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
PCCO Stakeholders
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Environmental Cabinet
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders
POST CONSTRUCTION CONTROLS ORDINANCE
Answers to Committee Questions on the Stakeholders’ Recommendations
Questions and Answers from July 9, 2007 Council Environment Committee
1. Are there standards for bioretention facilities? Yes, Engineering and Property
Management utilizes a Storm Water Best Management Practice Design Manual
that provides design requirements for development engineers to follow when
designing bioretention facilities as well as all other approved treatment facilities.
During the land development review process, site plans are checked to ensure the
stormwater treatment facilities are designed according to the standards.
2. What happens to pollutants recovered in BMPs? When a BMP is maintained,
the pollutants recovered are typically disposed of either by taking to a landfill or
disposing in a land application process.
3. How much does BMP maintenance cost? Unfortunately there is a lack of longterm data on what it costs to maintain BMPs. A rule of thumb presented to the
stakeholders that was developed by North Carolina State researchers suggests
50% of the capital cost of the BMP amortized over 20 years is an estimate for
long-term maintenance costs.
4. What is the total forecast cost for city to maintain BMPs? This information
will be presented at upcoming Environment Committee meetings.
5. How many BMPs have been built thus far and how much has it cost? It is
difficult to quantify the number of BMPs built as a result of water supply
protection regulations or as a result of rezoning recommendations. Results of the
cost study indicate single-family BMP costs are in the form of opportunity, or lot
yield, where the site development costs are spread over fewer total lots as BMPs
and open space are implemented in the site plan. Other development costs range
from tens of thousands of dollars per acre for commercial projects to hundreds of
thousands of dollars per acre for ultra-urban projects.
6. Whose responsibility is it to maintain BMPs? The City’s Storm Water Permit
identifies us as the responsible party for ensuring BMPs are properly maintained.
This does not mean we have to perform the maintenance, only to ensure
maintenance gets done when it is needed. All other municipalities in North
Carolina require homeowner associations maintain their BMPs. The stakeholder
recommendation was for the City to maintain single-family BMPs and private
development maintain their own.
1
7. How are safety concerns with ponds addressed? Wet pond design standards
include a requirement to build a 10 foot safety bench around the perimeter of the
pond. The safety bench is submerged to a maximum of 2 feet so in the case an
individual accidentally falls in can get out safely.
8. Are homeowners aware they are supposed to maintain ponds? This
requirement will be part of the new Post Construction Controls Ordinance.
Current homeowners in watershed protection districts that are required to have
stormwater treatment facilities in their subdivisions may not be aware of
maintenance requirements.
9. How much does it cost to dredge a pond? It depends on the pond and the site.
It can be tens of thousands of dollars to dredge.
10. How does the Pond Pilot Program coincide with PCCO? The Pond Pilot
Program applies to legacy ponds that were built for historic farm and animal
operations or aesthetic benefit. A pond that was required to be built under the
stormwater ordinance would not qualify for publicly funded retrofit and
maintenance.
11. What are the concerns with concentrating pollutants in BMPs? It may seem
undesirable to concentrate pollutants but by trapping in a BMP prevents the
pollutants from being released into our creeks and streams. The pollutants we
generally find in Charlotte are at non-toxic levels.
12. What are the differences between greenfield and infill BMPs? Greenfield
BMPs are typically wet ponds, wetlands, or dry detention. These BMPs have
relatively large surface area requirements and are generally implemented where
land yield is not as high a priority as construction cost as ponds and wetland are
cheaper to construct. In an urban environment, stormwater requirements can be
met with underground detention, underground sand filters, or bioretention areas
incorporated into the landscape areas. Underground BMPs and bioretention are
more expensive to build thus they are incorporated into development projects
where land yield is a premium.
13. What is causing bacteria impairment? There are numerous natural and
anthropogenic sources of bacteria impairment in our creeks including; wildlife,
domestic pets, and sanitary sewer overflows.
14. Will PCCO reduce flood heights as related to the floodplain ordinance? The
proposed ordinance provisions will not reduce flood heights in the floodplain
areas. There will be reduced flood heights just downstream of the development
where controls are put in place. When you get to floodplains with this ordinance
or without this ordinance it is anticipated the community floodplain would not see
improvement.
2
15. Will density bonuses still apply when the PCCO is adopted? Current bonuses
outlined in the S.W.I.M. Buffer Ordinance will still apply in the post construction
ordinance.
16. Where can undisturbed open space be located (Smart Growth issue)?
Undisturbed open space could be located on the top of a hill if there are no stream
buffer requirements on a particular site.
17. Where will open space mitigation take place? Within the same named
watershed.
18. Are the mitigations catalogued and preserved? Yes, the mitigated area will be
tracked in a database and a permanent conservation easement will cover the
mitigated area to prohibit future disturbance.
19. Are open space and BMP requirements for lots less than one acre
reasonable? The draft stakeholder ordinance requires implementation of BMPs
for developments less than one acre in size but exempts single-family
development from the requirements if the lot is less than one acre.
20. Why should we let someone pay down and treat Total Phosphorus in another
area? Total Phosphorus offset would be in same named watershed similar to open
space. We are concerned with nutrients discharging from the bottom of the
watershed and not necessarily at a particular point within the watershed.
21. Can we get examples of how nutrient offset payments have been applied in
other areas? Neuse River Rules - The computed post-development nitrogen load
must be reduced to 3.6 lb/ac/yr. This can be done by either installing nitrogenreducing BMPs that receive credit by reducing the total nitrogen export by a
certain percentage (depending on the BMP), and/or through offset payments to the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Tar-Pamlico Rules - The computed postdevelopment nitrogen and phosphorus loads must be reduced to 4.0 lb/ac/yr and
0.4 lb/ac/yr, respectively. This can be done by either installing nutrient-reducing
BMPs, on- or offsite, that receive credit by reducing the total nutrient export by a
certain percentage (depending on the BMP), and/or through offset payments to the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Trading - The
Chesapeake Bay Program convened the Nutrient Trading Negotiation Team in
June 1999 for the purpose of exploring the feasibility of nutrient trading for point
and nonpoint sources in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and to develop nutrient
trading guidelines for the Bay jurisdictions to use on a voluntary basis. Using a
facilitated consensus-based approach, the Negotiation Team derived nutrient
trading fundamental principles and guidelines. These are presenting in a guidance
document that will ensure nutrient trading approaches in the watershed are
consistent and compatible, and fully supportive of Chesapeake Bay Program
goals. The final guidelines were endorsed in March 2001.
3
22. Why should redevelopment have lesser requirements than Greenfield
development? The stakeholders recognized a need to find a balance between
promoting infill development and protecting the environment. With any
development ordinance there are grandfathering clauses that exempt projects built
prior to ordinance adoption from having to comply with the ordinance
requirements. However, the stakeholders wanted redevelopment projects to do
something to help retrofit impaired streams and agreed to propose requirements
that were above the minimum but recognized on the other hand redevelopment
should not be treated the same as greenfield development.
23. How has PCCO been applied in other communities? Mecklenburg County and
the Towns of Cornelius, Davidson, Huntersville, Mint Hill, Matthews, and
Pineville have all adopted the stakeholder recommendation or a version thereof.
In addition, Raleigh, Wilmington, Durham, Winston-Salem, and Greensboro all
have post construction ordinances in place.
4
POST CONSTRUCTION CONTROLS ORDINANCE
Answers to Committee Questions on the Stakeholders’ Recommendations
Questions and Answers from August 27, 2007 Council Environment Committee
1. Is it legally acceptable to create “classes” of regulations (i.e. three watershed
districts with tiered regulations)? Yes, the City Attorney’s office does not see a
problem with requirements that differ between watershed boundaries.
2. Is there a natural boundary between the Central Catawba and Western
Catawba Watershed Districts? Yes. The Western Catawba district is located in
the Upper Catawba River Basin as defined by the United States Geological
Survey and these waters flow into the water supply reservoirs of Mountain Island
Lake and Lake Wylie. The Central Catawba district is located in the Lower
Catawba River Basin and these waters flow into Sugar Creek which joins to the
Catawba River in South Carolina below the Lake Wylie Dam.
3. Can you decouple the lost lots to each of the proposed ordinance
requirements? Yes. The tiers of regulations were set up to where it could be
easily determined what aspect of the regulations was causing the cost increase.
This information is contained within the pie charts in the single-family results
page in the Cost Analysis Executive Summary.
4. Did the unincorporated area of Mecklenburg County adopt requirements
above the minimum? Yes. Mecklenburg County as well as the six surrounding
communities within the County all adopted the stakeholder recommended
ordinance or a version that is close to the recommendation.
5. Are the BMPs and Open Space within the project examples shown in the
presentation comparable to what we are proposing? Yes, It appears the BMPs
and Open Space within the examples could have been used to meet the
requirements of the PCCO. Some changes would however be needed in order to
meet local goals such as increased detention for flood control, and undisturbed
open space.
6. Is Open Space considered an amenity to home buyers? Yes; There has been
research that shows premiums for lots adjacent to open space.
7. Would open space be considered undisturbed with walking trails? It depends
on the trail. The intent of undisturbed open space is to preserve trees and reduce
reliance on structural BMPs. Therefore, the removal of trees and addition of
5
impervious trails in this area is prohibited. If walking trails, paths, etc can be
constructed such that trees are undisturbed and no paving results, then yes trails
are allowed in undisturbed open space.
8. What does the ordinance language say about natural disasters and
maintenance of undisturbed open space? The stakeholders recommended that
property owners be responsible for re-vegetation of open space due to occurrences
such as natural disasters. However, it is unlikely ordinance administrators would
require a homeowners association or private property owner to pay for revegetation of open space lost to a natural disaster.
9. What happens if homeowners remove vegetation from undisturbed open
space? There are provisions in the proposed ordinance language that allow the
City to fine individual property owners for removing open space that is located on
their property. The fines could be levied until the lost trees and other vegetation
were properly replaced.
10. What is the impact of PCCO to schools? A school site was not specifically
chosen as a case study for the Council directed cost analysis since it focused on
the four most common development types in Charlotte. The affect of the
ordinance is dependant on the level of impervious surfaces. The impacts are site
specific and could range from zero in sites already subject to water supply
protection regulations and/or rezoning requirements to more significant impacts
for by-right development that is not subject to any water quality regulations. The
unincorporated area of the County as well as the six towns within the County have
already adopted the stakeholder recommended PCCO. Therefore 30% of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg School’s jurisdiction is currently required to meet the
stakeholders’ version of the ordinance or a version close to their recommendation.
6
Discussion on Post
Construction Controls
Ordinance
Environment Committee
September 17, 2007
Today’s Topics
‹Cover
remaining Cost data
‹Maintenance & Admin Costs
‹Costs Avoided
‹Quality of Life Drivers
‹Path Forward
Single Family Development Costs
•
•
Represents requirements for over ¾ of ETJ (no USDG)
Large pie piece is non-negotiable (min. requirement)
$435
Minimum Permit
Requirements
Stream Buffers
$720
Open Space
Detention for Stream
Erosion and Flood
Reduction
$90
$2,900
Commercial Case Study
10 acre site, suburban area, neighborhood services
Existing Regulations
Central Catawba District
Re
.
Rd
.
Rd
a
a
Re
Colony Rd.
Colony Rd.
Study of On-site Costs:
Study results – commercial
‹
‹
‹
Infrastructure chart here
‹
‹
$12.4 million project,
99,000 sq. ft.
Adds $35,000/acre
Central Catawba
increase in cost –
2%-3%
Remains 99,000 sq. ft.
Met open space
requirement using offsite mitigation
Multi-Family Case Study
6 acre site, $400,000 townhome units
Elm L
n
Elm L
n
.
Central Catawba District
.
Existing Regulations
Study of On-site Costs:
Study results – multi-family residential
‹
‹
Cost Per Unit
‹
Cost per unit chart here
‹
$15 million project, 44
units
40 units after applying
regulations
Increase of
$9,000/unit or
$40,000/acre
Central Catawba
increase in cost – 1%2%
Flexibility to Complement the Centers and
Corridors Growth Management Strategy
Redevelopment Priorities
‹
Legend
Transit Radius of Influence
Economic Revitalization
_
[
_
[
Empty Big Boxes
³
‹
– Transit Station areas,
– Distressed Business
Districts, and
– Empty Big Boxes
_
[
_
[
[
_
_[
[
_
_
[
_[
[
_
[
[[
_
_ _
_
[
_[
[
_
_
[
_
[
“Detention Only”
provision in these areas
Applies to
redevelopment in:
‹
Encourages
redevelopment while
providing a base level of
flood and environmental
protection
Urban Infill Case Study
3 acre site, pre-developed 95% impervious, high-end apartments
Existing Regulations
Central Catawba District
101 Tremont Avenue
Study of On-site Costs:
Study results – urban infill
Cost Per Unit
‹
‹
Cost per unit chart here
‹
‹
‹
$75 million project,
310 units
Increase of $475,000 detention only req’t
Central Catawba
increase in cost 1%
Remains 310 units
Costs shown are per
unit
Today’s Topics
‹Cover
Remaining Costs data
‹Maintenance Costs
‹Costs Avoided
‹Quality of Life Drivers
‹Path Forward
Maintenance Costs
‹ State
Law requires BMP maintenance
‹ Requires a process to ensure
adequate funding for maintenance
‹ Law does not specify who performs
maintenance
NC Session Law: “Permittees must implement or require an operation and
maintenance plan that ensures adequate long-term operation of the
structural BMP’s required by the program….and must require the owner of
each structural BMP to submit a maintenance inspection report annually…”
Maintenance Costs
Single Family
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
Commercial v. single family differences
Stakeholders recommended shared responsibility
Routine maintenance & housekeeping activities
such as mowing and general landscaping provided
by the homeowners/HOA
City to perform maintenance which requires
specialized training and equipment
Examples are major reconstruction, renovation,
annual inspection (atypical)
Maintenance Costs
Commercial
Full responsibility of commercial property
owners
‹ Owners provide annual inspection report
‹ Report recommends repairs needed, if any
‹ Fines can be levied in accordance with
State Law for failure to maintain
‹
Maintenance Costs
City Expenses
‹
City investment in year:
– 5
– 10
– 20
- $1.6M
- $3.7M
- $9.4M
Represents about 5%-10% of total SWS
annual budget
‹ Will need to add 2-3 staff members over
next two years. 3 more thereafter
‹ Private Contractors
‹
Today’s Topics
‹Cover
Remaining Costs data
‹Maintenance Costs
‹Costs Avoided
‹Quality of Life Drivers
‹Path Forward
Costs Avoided: Existing Conditions
Quantified gaps
using modeling and
monitoring data
‹ Combined this with
restoration cost data
‹ Using stream
restoration as tool
to reverse
conditions, we can
estimate costs to
meet standards
‹
Costs Avoided: What-if Scenario
State minimum leaves big gaps
‹ Added local goals close the gap
‹ Apply degradation levels Citywide, predict
added water quality costs expected from
adopting the minimum
‹ By adopting the minimum, will add an
additional $580 million to meet water
quality standards
‹ These costs are avoidable
‹
Costs Avoided: What-if Scenario
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
Costs associated with detention in the singlefamily case study is $1360/acre
Commercial sites currently required to install
detention measures
52,000 additional acres of single-family
development
Cost for going beyond the minimum is $71M
Would we rather pay $71M up-front, or fix the
stream erosion problem later for $580M at public
expense?
Costs Avoided: Flooding
‹ $580M
only associated with water
quality
‹ Detention addresses stream
protection and flooding as well
‹ But what about costs avoided to
repair flooding?
‹ Two case studies would raise the
$580M
Waterhaven – Case Study
No storm water
complaints prior to
upstream development
‹ The subdivision created
downstream flooding
problems
‹ City expense of
$256,000 to remedy
flooding problems
‹ Stakeholders ordinance
would have required
detention measures to
alleviate these impacts
‹
East Providence Case study
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
Upstream single-family
development increased
runoff from 300% to
1000%
After development,
approximately 20 new
drainage complaints (2
prior)
City repair due to 7 roads
that experienced frequent
flooding
Street flooding prohibited
emergency vehicle access
$3.2 million to upgrade
street drainage system
Ordinance would mitigate
this
Two of seven flooded streets needing drainage improvements
Cost Consideration Summary
• The issue is more than costs to the developer
• What is the monetary value of costs avoided?
– Restoration mandates – Could grow beyond $580M
– Service requests, flooding problems – currently $30
million/year trying to catch up ($500M+ backlog)
– Costs of water and sewer permit delays
• Do we want to pay for prevention or pay to fix
problems caused?
– Do citizens pay lower costs now through proactive
controls, or pay later at higher cost through all fee
payers?
Today’s Topics
‹Cover
Remaining Costs data
‹Maintenance Costs
‹Costs Avoided
‹Quality of Life Drivers
‹Path Forward
What are the non-monetary
benefits?
‹ “Its
not if we grow, its how we grow”
‹ What is it worth to have non-flooding
streets and homes?
Flooding that
necessitated a city
funded repair near
South Boulevard
What are the non-monetary
benefits?
‹
‹
Clean Water Act– value of “swimmable and fishable”
“If you don’t have quality of life and quality of place, you
won’t get talented people” – Richard Florida
This is the goal
“Some Cities are finding money
does grow on trees”
USA Today, July 2005
‹ Charlotte
lost 35% of its tree cover
from 1984 to 2003
‹ “We didn’t have any trees, and trees
add so much beauty to a
neighborhood. It also makes it
cooler”
“City Trees and Property Values”
Arborist News August 2007
“Homes with trees are generally preferred
to comparable homes without trees”
‹ Good tree cover in a neighborhood
increases sales price by about 7%
‹ “Proximate Principle” indicates that homes
located near open space are valued 8%20% higher
‹ Multifamily rental rates up by 4% with
views of forested open space
‹
Current Trends
Mallard Creek Water Quality Rating
Water Quality Rating
90
80
70
60
50
40
07/01/88
07/01/91
07/01/94
06/30/97
06/30/00
06/30/03
06/30/06
Stream erosion threatens a home
Muddy water from stream erosion affects our rating
Path Forward
‹ First
reconvened stakeholder group
meeting tomorrow evening
‹ Report back in early November
‹ Present stakeholder revised report at
future Committee meeting
‹ Present staff recommendation
Discussion
Daryl Hammock, E&PM
Storm Water Services
dhammock@ci.charlotte.nc.us
704-336-2167
General Development Policies - Environment
Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
September 17, 2007
GDP-Environment
Presentation Outline
ƒ What Are GDP and How Do They Support
the City’s Vision and Growth Strategy
ƒ Summary of Draft Policies, Key
Stakeholder Concerns & How they were
addressed
ƒ Tentative Schedule
ƒ Next Steps
GDP-Environment
GDP:
ƒ Adopted policy framework for guiding future
growth and development
GDP Provide Guidance For:
ƒ Evaluating rezoning petitions and developing area
plans
ƒ Amending zoning and subdivision ordinances and
other regulations
ƒ Identifying future planning initiatives and capital
projects
GDP Do Not:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Regulate (They are not ordinance or law)
Rezone property or change adopted land use plans
Amend ordinances and regulations
Provide specific guidance for every land use or
zoning category
GDP-Environment
Charlotte’s Vision
To be an urban community of choice for living, working and leisure.
Centers,
Centers, Corridors
Corridors and
and Wedges
Wedges Growth
Growth Framework
Framework
Growth
Growth framework
framework to
to maintain
maintain
and
and enhance
enhance Charlotte’s
Charlotte’s livability
livability
GDP
GDP
•• Transit
Transit
•• Residential
Residential
•• Retail
Retail Centers
Centers
•• Plan
Plan Amendment
Amendment
•• Environment
Environment
•• Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Area
Area Plans
Plans
Rezonings
Rezonings and
and
Subdivision
Subdivision Review
Review
Transportation
Transportation
Action
Action Plan
Plan
2030
2030 Transit/Land
Transit/Land
Use
Use Plan
Plan
Urban
Urban Street
Street
Design
Design Guidelines
Guidelines
Corridor
Corridor System
System
Plan
Plan
•• Center
Center City
City
Transportation
Transportation
Study
Study
•• Pedestrian
Pedestrian Plan
Plan
•• Bicycle
Bicycle Plan
Plan
•• CIP
CIP
•• LRTP
LRTP
Countywide
Countywide
Services
Services Plan
Plan
DEIS/PE
DEIS/PE Transit
Transit
Corridor
Corridor Planning
Planning
GDP-Environment
Purpose
Minimize negative environmental
impacts of land use and land
development.
Guiding Principle 1: Make the
protection of our natural
environment a priority in land use
and development decisions.
Stakeholder Issue
ƒ
Protection of
Natural Resources
GDP-Environment
Policies (summarized)
Policy 1.a Support efforts to inventory
natural resources to identify and
protect environmentally sensitive
areas.
Policy 1.b Identify environmentally sensitive areas in
land use plans and development proposals and address
how they will be protected/mitigated.
Policy 1.c Consider environmental constraints when
identifying future land uses in area plans.
Policy 1.d Provide education, information and outreach.
Policy 1.d Target environmentally sensitive areas in
public land acquisitions.
GDP-Environment
Guiding Principle 2: Facilitate a land use
pattern that accommodates growth while
respecting the natural environment.
Stakeholder Issues
ƒ
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per
capita
ƒ Alternative Transportation Modes
ƒ Protection of Natural Resources
ƒ Efficient Use of Land
GDP-Environment
Policies (summarized)
Policy 2.a Encourage redevelopment and infill.
Policy 2.b Facilitate incremental development of
mixed/multi-use development.
Policy 2.c Encourage development where infrastructure
and services already exist, or are planned.
Policy 2.d Encourage sharing of public and private
facilities.
Policy 2.e Integrate future bus routes/service plans with
future land use plans.
Policy 2.f Connect public facilities to the surrounding area
and to each other and take advantage of joint use
opportunities.
GDP-Environment
Guiding Principle 3: Enable environmentally
sensitive site designs.
Stakeholder Issues
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) per capita
Alternative
Transportation Modes
Ground Level
Temperatures
Designing Sites to
Minimize Impacts
Protection of Natural
Resources
Efficient Use of Land
GDP-Environment
Policies (summarized)
Policy 3.a Enable site designs and
construction practices that facilitate
use of alternative transportation and
reduction of ground level
temperatures; minimize impacts to
natural features; reduce storm water
run-off and improve its quality; and;
use water efficiently.
Policy 3.b Minimize impacts to the
City’s tree canopy.
GDP-Environment
Guiding Principle 4: Consider
the environmental impacts of
land use and development
comprehensively and strive to
reconcile the various
environmental concerns with
each other and balance them
with the other land development
considerations.
Stakeholder Issues
ƒ
Costs and Benefits
ƒ Policy Conflicts Between
Air, Water and Land
GDP-Environment
Policy (summarized)
Policy 4.a Raise awareness of the
environmental costs and benefits
of land development and
incorporate this into the decision
making process.
Policy 4.b Ensure City’s land development policies
and regulations minimize overall environmental
impacts while allowing for growth.
Policy 4.c Ensure that public projects are designed
and constructed to minimize environmental impacts.
GDP-Environment
Tentative Review & Adoption Schedule
Sept 4
Sept 12
Sept 17
City Council Workshop Presentation
Community Meeting
Environment Committee Discussion
Sept 18
Public Comment with Planning Committee
Oct 8
Public Comment with City Council
Oct 16
Planning Committee Recommendation
Oct/Nov
Environment Committee
Discussion/Recommendation
Nov
City Council Action
GDP-Environment
Environment Committee Next Steps
October/November
• Discuss Concerns from Oct. 8th Public
Comment with City Council
• Review Planning Committee Recommendation
• Make Recommendation
GDP-Environment
THANK
YOU