stormwater management advisory commission meeting agenda · stormwater management advisory...

Municipal Building | 222 West Hargett Street | Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 City of Raleigh (mailing address) | Post Office Box 590 | Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0590

Stormwater Management Advisory Commission Meeting Agenda

January 2, 2020 3:00 pm

Conference Room 305 Raleigh Municipal Building

3:00 Welcome, Introductions, Excused Absences No one has requested an excused absence from this meeting. 3:05 Minutes for Approval -- Minutes from the December 5, 2019 meeting. 3:10 Commission/Stormwater Staff Update on Matters of Importance

• Staff Updates o In January Commission terms expire for Matthew Starr (3rd term) and Ken

Carper (2nd term) • Vote to temporarily modify the Rules of Procedure to elect Chair and Vice Chair in

January rather than March (requires 2/3 vote to pass). • Nominations and Election of Chair and Vice-Chair, effective for the February 2020

meeting. Positions will be effective until March 2021. • Hot Topics

o Rain barrel update Commission Action: Make nominations for and vote on Commission positions of Chair and Vice-Chair, to be in effect beginning at the February 2020 Commission meeting. Other items - receive as information for discussion and provide direction to staff as appropriate.

3:20 Review of Stormwater Project Prioritization Model (Scott Bryant, Stormwater Administrator) Staff will present a brief history of the development of the prioritization model that Stormwater uses to rank its capital improvements projects. The presentation will include a review of the primary criteria used in the ranking and guidance on how the scoring is developed. Commission Action: Receive for information purposes only. No action needed.

3:45 Drainage Assistance Projects Reviews (Dale Hyatt, PE, Drainage Assistance Supervisor)

Prior to the usual presentation of projects, Staff will discuss the Program’s use of the prioritization model for scoring projects. Staff will then present two Drainage Assistance Program projects for review. Details are in the attached background information. • 603, 607 & 609 Royal Street Bank Stabilization • 5212 & 5216 Melbourne Road Drainage Improvements


Commission Action: Approve or deny the projects

4:00 Raleigh Rainwater Rewards Projects (Justin Harcum, Project Engineer) Staff will present one application for participation in the Raleigh Rainwater Rewards Program. The following application is requesting a City contribution that requires Commission review: 4712 & 4716 Matt Drive. Commission Action: Approve or deny the project.

4:10 Plan for Advancing the Use of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) (Wayne Miles, Stormwater Program Manager, and Kevin Boyer, Water Quality Supervisor)

At its December 5, 2019 meeting, the Commission decided to reconvene a GSI Committee to work toward developing a plan for advancing GSI in Raleigh for the Commission to present to City Council. Staff will recommend a time and place for the committee to meet before the February 6, 2020 Commission meeting and suggest topics for preparing an agenda for the committee meeting. Commission Action: Direct staff regarding scheduling the GSI Committee meeting and preparing a meeting agenda.

4:30 Floodprone Area Stakeholder’s Process Outcomes – Commission Recommendations to City Council (Wayne Miles, Stormwater Program Manager) Staff will provide a brief review of the Stakeholder’s input process that was conducted at the request of the Commission to review and consider changes to the City’s Floodprone Area Regulations. The outcomes of this process were presented in more detail at the November 7, 2019 Commission meeting. Staff will facilitate a discussion of the recommendations that the Commission would like to take to City Council.

Commission Action: Discussion of Commission Recommendations to City Council

related to changes in the Floodprone Area Regulations and, if applicable, vote to endorse recommendations to change the Regulations as outlined by the Commission.

4:50 Public Comment

This is an opportunity for public comment on items/issues that are not on the agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes per speaker. Citizens must sign up to speak using the form provided before the meeting.

4:55 Other Business 5:00 Adjourn


Stormwater Management Advisory Commission

Meeting Minutes December 5, 2019

3:00 pm

Conference Room 305 Raleigh Municipal Building

Commission Members Present: David Markwood, Claudia Jones-Graham, Matthew Starr, Glenn Taylor, Jonathan Page, Ken Carper, Jermonde Taylor, and Evan Kane Staff Members Present: Wayne Miles, Suzette Mitchell, Renee Wilson, Scott Smith, Carmela Teichman, Justin Harcum, Dale Hyatt, Kevin Boyer, Barbara Moranta, Scott Bryant, Lauren Witherspoon, and Heather Dutra Commission Members Absent: Tappan Vickery Guests: Jason Swicegood, Marsha Presnell Jeanette, Matthew Hornack, Katie Cromwell, Holt Browning, Kristin Navaroli, Chris Stanley, Stephanie Hanses, Alex Nicf, and Trevor Clements Meeting called to order: 3:00 pm by Matthew Starr (chair) 1. Welcome, Introductions, Excused and Unexcused Absence

Mr. Senior made a motion to excuse Ms. Vickery from today’s meeting and Mr. Page seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.

2. November 7, 2019 Minutes for Approval

Mr. Senior made a motion to approve the minutes and Mr. Page seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.

3. Stormwater Staff Report Staffing Updates -

o Barbara Moranta (Senior Engineer) – effective December 7th, is moving into the position of the Watershed Master Planner (due to retirement of Craig Deal)

Commission Terms -

o Matthew Starr – term ends in January and is ineligible for re-appointment o Ken Carper – eligible for re-appointment in January 2020 o Chair and Vice-chair – election will be held at the next meeting on January 2, 2020

Public Meeting (Flooding Issues on Glenbrook Dr/Dacian Rd/Rose Lane) – o A public meeting will be held on December 12th at the Walnut Creek Wetlands Center about

ongoing flooding issues in this area. A consultant has been hired to study options on how to alleviate and relieve the flooding issues, as well as to improve access on Rose Lane. There


are 30-35 homes that are isolated when Walnut Creek over tops Rose Lane and there’s one way to enter and exit creating challenges during storm events and emergency situations in the neighborhood.

Hot Topics o Commission Meeting on January 2, 2020 – The Commission has agreed to keep the

scheduled date.

o Earth Day 2020 Celebration and Environmental Awards - Carmela Teichman gave comments about this celebration. The event will take place on Saturday, April 18th from 11am -7pm at Dorothea Dix Park. The Environmental Awards will be presented at 5:00 p.m. The registration for the “Capture It” contest opened on November 3, 2019 and will close on February 3, 2020. Staff will do an internal review of the entries and recommend the top 10. SMAC will vote on the top two during the commission meeting in February. They are expecting crowds in excess of 10,000 and this is the 50th anniversary of Earth Day.

o SMAC Ordinance Update - The new ordinance was passed unanimously by City Council. Councilor David Knight has been selected as the new SMAC liaison.

4. Floodprone Area Stakeholder’s Process Outcomes Recommendation to City Council.

Wayne Miles went over the original five Commission recommended changes and the proposed revision changes by the stakeholder’s group. The stakeholders group expressed that before considering any changes existing development would be exempted from any changes and would continue to be regulated under the current rules as of today. Changes would be applied to new development.

Proposed Recommendations (exemptions) Stakeholder’s concluded the following parcel types should be exempt from any changes in the City’s floodprone area regulations: o All parcels 0.5 acre or less o All parcels with existing development that are not subdivided or created by subdivision after

that effective date o All parcels that meet the first two may be recombined and maintain exemption

Mr. Glenn Taylor asked about parcels that are a half acre or less and the reason for exemption, is it due to infill? Wayne Miles answered that smaller lots have already been subdivided and are similar to existing development. They will require current building codes as they stand now. The rule now states fifty percent of the floodway fringe can be filled in on a small portion of the lot and that rule would remain. The current floodplain rules include opportunity for a variance against any of the floodplain rules in the event of hardship. The City Attorney’s office advised that it is important to have a variance process in place for considerations to help avoid taking claims. Mr. Starr asked who would hear the variance requests. Lauren Witherspoon answered that they would go to the Board of Adjustments.

Original and Proposed Recommendation –

1. No new development would be allowed in the floodway fringe Stakeholder’s Recommendation – Not allowing new developing in the floodway fringe.


Option A: Extend existing regulations in the floodway to apply to all the floodway fringe for

all new development. Option B: Prohibit new lots from being recorded in the floodway fringe. Require that a subdivision residential development could not record any new plots in the floodway fringe restricted to subdivisions.

Mr. Starr asked why the two options presented are in competition? Wayne Miles replied that it was two ways of accomplishing a similar goal. The options are subsets but are somewhat mutually exclusive. Option A eliminates B. He suggested that the commission bring forward this recommendation and if Council approves the text change process it would be helpful to know the direction of the text change. He suggested that either approach should have allowable density for the original property.

Motion: Ms. Graham made a motion to adopt Option A, no new development in the floodway fringe is allowed, and the recommended approach is to extend existing regulations in the floodway to apply to all of floodway fringe for all new development, and Mr. Page seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.

2. Change the current 50% substantial building value restriction which is a FEMA minimum standard basically saying if a building is damaged by 50% or more of its value then the reconstruction/rebuilding would have to be done according to the new current flood rules. The proposal was to reduce that value to 30%.

Stakeholder’s Recommendation – No regulation change to the current substantial building value restriction

Jonathan Page asked what is the city’s budget right now for its current buyout and hazard mitigation program? Wayne Miles responded in the past the city has budgeted approximately $250,000 a year and that is generally been used as a match for FEMA funding. In the last couple of years, the budget has been zero for that amount in order to be able to balance the budget and priorities. He added level of service option #3 (from CIP stormwater portfolio elements spreadsheet) allows one million dollars for the flood hazard mitigation program. The buyout program would help bring homes up to code and they would be more resilient without changing the percentage.

Motion: Mr. Page made a motion to increase funding for the voluntary buyout program that would operate similarly to Charlotte/Mecklenburg program, and that we budget one million dollars a year to do that, and Mr. Glenn Taylor seconded. Mr. Senior asked do we need to incorporate the 2nd bullet (incorporating UDO changes to open more insurance funding for affected properties) to the motion.


Mr. Starr restated the motion that the commission agrees with the stakeholder group recommendation that there is no regulation change to the current federal minimum of fifty percent to be changed, in lieu of that change, we recommend that the City would invest one million dollars into a voluntary buyout program as well as incorporate the appropriate UDO changes to increase or open up more insurance funding for affected properties. The motion was approved unanimously.

3. Use a two-vertical-foot building restriction line for newly platted residential lots.

Stakeholder’s Recommendation - Against adding a two-vertical foot building restriction line for newly platted residential lots. Mr. Senior recommended that the City creates their own buffer in case the Neuse Buffer regulations would be dissolved.

The Commission agreed with the stakeholder’s group and no voted is needed.

4. Maintain dry access to all habitable structures during the 100-year flood event for all new

roadways.

Stakeholder’s Recommendation - Maintain dry access to all habitable structures during the 100-year flood event for all new roadways (no change)

Mr. Senior asked if it is going to apply to a subdivision where they are building a public road and not an individual parcel where they are doing either a private road or drive. Wayne Miles answered that it is correct, and that subdivision regulations read if a road serves more than one house it is considered public and there are no longer private roads in a subdivision. Mr. Senior said the language probably needs to be put in there because the initial reading has real concerns about the impact to smaller lots where they would have to build a connection; it would be challenging. Ms. Graham spoke about private drives that service a single home and that in the past projects have come before the Commission for help due to stormwater issues, and if the recommendation that private drives are not be included what does that do as far as what will they have to deal with on the “back end”. Mr. Starr noted that Ms. Vickery emailed and agreed with everything that was talked about; however, she thinks we should make stringent front-end requirements for all new private roads and look at a long-term preventative program for existing ones.

Motion: Mr. Starr made a motion that we approve a new regulation that would maintain dry access to new public roadways during the 100-year storm and Mr. Senior seconded. The motion was passed unanimously.

5. Require local flood studies for all unstudied streams draining 25 acres or more.


Stakeholder’s Recommendation - No change to current Flood Study Requirement.

Mr. Starr recommended a study be performed by the City rather than the developer.

Mr. Senior recommended the city create their own buffer in case the state Neuse Buffer regulations would be dissolved.

Wayne Miles suggested to have Kristin Freeman (Communication Analyst) to come to the next meeting to do a presentation on what a program would look like implementing floodplain comprehensive communications and education process to include all property owners in the floodplain.

Wayne Miles stated that staff will draft a memo summarizing the direction to be reviewed at the next meeting. It was suggested that Councilman Knight (Council Lliaison to SMAC) be made aware of the recommendations by the Commission so that he may present them to Council. Mr. Starr added that both he and Wayne Miles would be willing to meet with Councilman Knight.

The Commission had a more in-depth discussion on the exemptions.

Mr. Starr made a motion to adopt the exemptions laid out by the stakeholder’s group and Mr. Page seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.

5. Plan for Advancing the Use of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI)

Kevin Boyer and Trevor Clements facilitated a discussion on examining the City’s goals, priorities, and potential action items for advancing GSI in Raleigh as the Commission continues work on its plan to submit to the City Council.

Summary Question: o What should the City be doing on their own properties to potentially lead the way?

- Push city wide, make it visible, and raise public awareness - Every City project should use GSI - Visual amenities - Focus on GSI with retrofitting existing structures

o What is the role of CIP project managers and their supervisors as to how to direct the

architects and designers on how to consider GSI be incorporated? - Include the alternative in their designs and ensure money is budgeted in CIP for GSI - If in the design manual the expectations of the GSI program are outlined - Serve as consultants and would help get GSI off the ground in the City - The design manual would work best since staff may not have the time to be advocates

o How should cost be considered?

- GSI can have cost savings and benefits for parks users and multiple metrics could be used. Life cycle costs for projects should be considered (CIP, OEM and replacement cost)


Mr. Clements requested assistance from the Commission to help draft the policy to guide the executive team to move forward with these plans. He stated that roadway construction is embracing GSI practices. A GSI subcommittee was formed with Mr. Senior, Mr. Carper, Ms. Graham, Mr. Starr and Mr. Markwood volunteering from the Commission to help develop these plans. Wayne Miles said he would send an email to survey for additional participation.

6. Results of Analysis of Alternatives to Address Structural Flooding at 6104 Winthrop Drive

Scott Bryant provided a brief summary on the structural flooding on the above property. Staff has been studying this project along with McAdams Consultant for six to nine months and has made recommendations to solve the problem. He went over the three alternatives and noted staff recommendation to go the least cost alternative and acquire the property.

Motion:

Mr. Starr made a motion that funding be provided for the buyout and Mr. Carper seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

6. Stormwater CIP Budget, Rate Alternatives Wayne Miles provided a chart with additional information on the total committed CIP projects and the average monthly stormwater fee compared with other cities and states. He also spoke on three Options for levels of service to present to Council for during budget discussions.

Motion: Mr. Senior made a motion that we go with the level of service Option #3 which is the $3.00 adjustment and Mr. Carper seconded. Mr. Starr wanted it noted on the record that Ms. Vickery sent her response via email stating her support of the fee adjustment being $4.00.

Mr. Starr repeated the motion stating the Commission is in support with staff asking for a $3.00 increase and it was seconded. Mr. Glenn Taylor mentioned that at the last meeting it was asked about the calculation for inflationary increase. He commented if you look at it over the time from inception it works out to about 7.73 if adjusting to 2 percent annually, so trying to get to option #3 using the adjustment for


inflation plus the fifty-cent base gets you there and exceeds it. That would be good support on why you are using option #3 and exceeds it. Mr. Starr said the motion put forth is to support staff in requesting a $3.00 increase and it was seconded. The motion was passed unanimously.

8. Public Comment

Marsha Presnell-Jeanette spoke about the aerial photos at Brookhaven on the tree canopy loss. She spoke about tree planting and the lack of contributes to stormwater runoff. She suggests when we form the subcommittee it would be good if a representative from the appearance commission be present at the GSI meetings.

Holt Browning spoke about property encumbrances. He said the homeowners near Crabtree Creek are being targeted as homeowners in the area. He stated upstream development is the culprit.

9. Other Business No further business Adjournment

Mr. Starr made a motion to adjourn and it was seconded. The motion was unanimous, and the meeting adjourned at 5:13 p.m.

Renee Wilson / Suzette Mitchell

MEMO

To: Stormwater Management Advisory Commission From: Wayne Miles, Stormwater Program Manager Date: 19 December 2019 Subject: Update on the Integrated Stormwater Project Prioritization Model Thanks to the Stormwater Management Advisory Commission (SMAC) and the Stormwater Staff Team for their earlier collaborative work, the Integrated Stormwater Project Prioritization Model was developed during 2015 and in place for usage by Stormwater during Fiscal Year 2017. The prioritization model serves as a key decision support tool for Stormwater’s budgeting process to evaluate and rank in relative order of importance potential Stormwater Capital Improvement Projects. Leveraging and optimizing available resources, a preferred (integrated) project brings together stormwater quantity and quality management to achieve multiple Stormwater program and City strategic goals. Another key application of the prioritization model is the evaluation and ranking of Drainage Assistance Projects as well as Rainwater Rewards Projects, both of which are regularly reviewed with SMAC. During a recent presentation of proposed Drainage Assistance projects, SMAC asked questions about the prioritization model and requested an update on its usage and implementation. Staff will present an overview of the prioritization model in January and follow up with more detailed examples of usage and application in February. Since it has been several years since SMAC was engaged in helping develop the model, the balance of this memo provides a review of background information, context, and earlier timelines. To provide detailed input and guidance for the prioritization model development, a SMAC Sub-Committee and Staff team met for four, two-hour working sessions during 2015: May 26, June 3, June 18, and July 30. In addition, SMAC members and Staff committed their collective time and expertise outside of scheduled work sessions in preparing for the meetings and completing exercises to help evaluate and rank prioritization model criteria. SMAC also welcomed and provided time for public input during the meetings. A request for written public input to the prioritization model was also extended to the community. State of the practice within peer North Carolina municipalities and beyond was also researched and reviewed as part of Raleigh’s stormwater prioritization model development. The vetted prioritization model with scoring metrics supported by SMAC, Staff, and Management was also shared with City Council. While our team reviewed other prioritization approaches during development of Raleigh’s model, we have since received

requests for information about our prioritization model from as far away as Western Australia. The model is grounded in four basic eligibility criteria and nine main integrated prioritization criteria. The four basic eligibility criteria are:

• Project must be located within the corporate limits of Raleigh • Project must receive and/or convey public runoff • Project must be compatible with the City’s adopted Strategic Plan and

Comprehensive Plan, and • For Drainage Assistance and Rainwater Rewards projects only, the project

petitioner(s) utility fee payment(s) must be current The nine main integrated project prioritization criteria are:

• Public Safety and Public Health • Flood Hazard Reduction Benefits • Regulatory Mandates and Compliance • Water Quality Benefits • Watershed Management Benefits • Stormwater Infrastructure Asset Management Benefits • Community Support and Implementation Complexity • Resource Leveraging Opportunities, and • Indirect Community Benefits

Under each of the nine main criteria there are sub-elements/sub-criteria to define the meaning, intention, and ultimate scoring of the primary criteria. Detailed scoring metrics were also developed, and these are objective and quantitative to the extent practicable as fitting to the item being scored. For example, varying depths of flooding for streets and structures are scored differently, with greater flooding depths receiving higher priority scores, as would be expected. The nine main criteria have established prioritized weights (as shown in the figure above) based upon quantitative and qualitative input from both the SMAC Sub-Committee and Staff teams. In terms of program implementation and integration with earlier budgeted and planned capital improvement projects, projects from previous fiscal years that are in the final design phase for construction have generally continued to move forward for construction. However, projects that are in the study/preliminary feasibility phase will continue to be re-evaluated and re-prioritized along with newly identified and other developing potential projects for future CIP portfolio planning and budget consideration. SMAC and Council over the past few years have begun to see projects evaluated and scored under the integrated prioritization approach as part of the budgeting process. Complete program integration of the model remains a fiscal year or two out given the multi-year and phased nature of many larger, earlier planned capital improvement projects. As committed to Council during 2015, a summary of the progress and milestones achieved by the Stormwater team and SMAC for the Prioritization Model development is captured below.

• Stormwater Management Program/Budget presentations to City Council highlighting the Integrated Stormwater Project Prioritization Model Development initiative (Completed January - March 2015)

• Stormwater staff internal kickoff/initial scoping and planning work (Completed March – April 2015)

• SMAC kickoff presentation for Integrated Stormwater Project Prioritization Model Development (Completed May 7)

• SMAC Sub-Committee and Staff team collaborative input and Model development work (Completed - May 26, June 3, June 18, and July 30)

• Presentation and discussion of draft Prioritization Model and approach with the full SMAC (Completed - July 9 SMAC Meeting)

• Staff finalization of scoring approach for Model and development of implementation plan (Scoring metrics and implementation plan completed and discussed with Stormwater Staff and Management, August timeframe)

• Final draft initial Prioritization Model and implementation overview to SMAC

(September 3 SMAC Meeting)

• Ready for initial use by Stormwater team and SMAC in Fiscal Year 2017 CIP

budget development (October 2015 – January 2016) As a planned part of continual program improvement, the model will continue to be regularly reviewed and updated, if/as needed. Any future updates to the model, particularly in terms of the weighted priority criteria or approach, will be reviewed with SMAC and provided to Council. To date there have not been any changes or updates to the core of the model and its framework beyond incorporating some helpful user interface tools within the Excel model framework.

To: S. Wayne Miles, PE – Stormwater Program Manager

From: Dale Hyatt, PE – Engineering Supervisor

Date: 19 December 2019

Subject: FY20 Drainage Assistance Project Recommendations – January 2020 SMAC Meeting

This memorandum serves as an update for the Drainage Assistance Program’s recommended projects for Fiscal Year 2020. Projects under this program are fully funded by the City of Raleigh with a dedication of a City of Raleigh Permanent Drainage Easement over all new improvements at each project location. Project review periods for the Commission are scheduled as necessary (typically odd numbered months) pending priority and available funding.

Recommended projects are based primarily on the following considerations:

Overall prioritization score and ranking based on the Integrated Stormwater ProjectsPrioritization Model assessment;

Estimated project costs; Willingness of property owners to dedicate/donate a City of Raleigh Permanent Drainage

Easement over the project repairs and stormwater improvements.

This fiscal year, seven (7) projects have been recommended and approved as part of the Drainage Assistance Program for FY20. Those projects and their estimated/budgeted funds are listed below:

Approved Project Funds 1210 Dixie Trail Bank Stabilization $32,000 1301 Battery Dr. & 1308 Poole Rd. Drainage Improvements $196,000 1100 Old English Court Bank Stabilization $143,000 4113 Windsor Place Drainage Improvements $160,000 2100/2104 Hillock Drive Property Acquisition $245,000 904 Wakestone Court Drainage Improvements $106,000 1700 Block Kayla Court Bank Stabilization $60,000

Project Funds Approved to Date (FY20) $942,000 FY20 Budget $1,500,000

FY20 Remaining DA Funds $558,000

Project Locations The projects recommended for the January 2020 SMAC review are as follows (a brief description of the issue is also included): 603, 607 & 611 Royal Street Streambank Stabilization – Severe erosion of Rocky Branch exists

within 15 feet of the structure at 607 Royal Street. This project will provide bank stabilization of approximately 130 linear feet of the right bank with rock toe, sloping and re‐vegetation.

5212 & 5216 Melbourne Road Drainage Improvements – Undersized stormwater drainage

infrastructure exists between the properties of 5212 & 5216 Melbourne Rd. As a result, significant crawl space flooding occurs during heavy rainfall. This project would replace approximately 150 linear feet of the existing undersized 18‐inch pipe in this location with an approximate 48” RCP to reduce the severity and frequency of crawl space flooding.

Detailed information on prioritization score and other location/issue specific information has been included in this memo in the individual project report page(s).

Project Costs Estimated project costs at each of the above locations are included below: Estimated Project Costs 607 & 611 Royal Street Streambank Stabilization $125,000 5212 & 5216 Melbourne Road Drainage Improvements $190,000 FY20 Projects Fund Approved to Date $942,000

Total Estimated Project Costs This Period $315,000 FY20 Budget $1,500,000

FY20 Remaining DA Funds $243,000

Attachments The Following attachments and supplemental information have been included herein:

Page 3 ‐ Overall Projects’ Location Map

Page 4‐5 ‐ Drainage Assistance Program Qualified Projects’ and Prioritization List

Pages 6‐9 – Recommended Projects’ Report Pages

_̂6109 Waxhaw Court

I 40

I 540

I 87

I 440

TRYONUS 1

SIX FORKS

GLENWOOD

LYNN

LOUISBURG

DURHAM

MAIN

CARY

NEW

HOPE

BUFFALOE

DURANT

MILLBROOK

ROLESVILLE

LEESVILLE

WADE

ZEBULON

ROGERS

MITCHELL MILL

NORWOOD

WESTERN

KNIGHTDALEATLA

NTIC

STRICKLAND

NEW BERN

WATKINSLEAD

MIN

E

OLD MILBURNIE

CHAPEL HILL

FORESTVILLE

FALLS OF NEUSE

HODG

E

GORM

AN

AVIATION

CHATHAM

RALE

IGH

CREE

DMOO

R

HARR

ISON

ROCK QUARRY

GARN

ER

FOWLER

TRINITY

US 64

WESTON

AVER

ETTE

BLUE

RID

GE

SPRING FOREST

MAYN

ARD

EAST

RILEY HILL

DURALEIGH

KILDA

IRE F

ARM

RAVEN RIDGE

LITCH

FORD

LENOIR

AVEN

T FER

RY

OBER

LIN

EDGE

MONT

LAKE WHEELER

BARWELL

OLD A

PEX

LUMLEY

SUNN

YBRO

OK

WESTGATE

TRAW

ICK

HILLSBOROUGH

WILM

INGT

ON

FIRST

WAKE

FORE

ST

JONE

S FRA

NKLIN

GLEN EDEN

EVANS

DAWS

ON

TREN

TON

WENDELL

SAUN

DERS

MART

IN PO

ND

REEDY CREEK

RHAM SIDING

BISSETTE

PULLEY TOWN

MARK

S CRE

EK

GLOBE

NEWTON

YOUNG

WALNUT

NELSON

ASHEHIGH HOUSE

HOLL

Y SPR

INGS

CREECH

MT HE

RMAN

PEACE

PULL

EN

HORTON

FAIR

CLOT

H

DEANA

WALNUT

US 64

MAIN

KNIGHTDALE

I 440

CARY

I 40

CAPIT

AL

NEW BERN

US 64US 64

LOUISBURG

I 440

I 540

US 1

YOUN

G

®

SO

Drainage Assistance Program January 2020 Location Map

A

1.5 00.75 Miles

Drainage Assistance Recent ly Complete or

Ac t i ve Pro jects Locat ion

L

Pro jects to be Rev iewed

hyattd

Stamp

hyattd

Rectangle

hyattd

Polygon

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Polygon

hyattd

Callout

603, 607 & 611 Royal Street

hyattd

Polygon

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Oval

hyattd

Callout

5212 & 5216 Melbourne Road

City of Raleigh

Stormwater Management ProgramMaster Developing Drainage Assistance Projects Portfolio

LAST UPDATED 12/19/2019

Rank Project ID Project NameEvaluation Date

(most recent)

Primary Type of

ProjectSub‐Watershed

Council

District

Total

Project

Score

(TPS)

Safety

Criticality

Score

(SCS)

Mission

Criticality

Score

(MCS)

Study and/or

Engineering Design

Cost

Constructi

on CostTotal Project Cost

(0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) (0 ‐ 100) ($) ($) ($)

1 216‐2017‐0033 Royal Street 11/15/2019 Stream/Erosion Rocky Branch D 29.67 70.00 35.09 $35,000 $90,000 $125,000

2 216‐2017‐0052 5212 & 5216 Melbourne Rd. 11/6/2019 Stream/Erosion Simmons Branch D 28.68 60.00 29.47 $35,000 $155,000 $190,000

3 216‐2018‐0106 Noel Court 12/6/2018 Infrastructure House Creek E 28.25 70.00 32.07 $15,000 $185,000 $200,000

4 216‐2018‐0116 Cambridge Woods Way 305 9/28/2018 Infrastructure Beaverdam‐SW E 28.05 50.00 32.97 $18,000 $68,000 $86,000

5 216‐2017‐0074 Newbold Street 2809 11/6/2019 Stream/Erosion Wildcat D 28.01 50.00 28.16 $8,000 $125,000 $133,000

6 216‐2018‐0100 Fairlie Place 5/16/2019 Stream/Erosion Sycamore E 27.99 70.00 27.24 $8,000 $65,000 $73,000

7 216‐2017‐0031 East Jameson 3505 2/9/2017 Infrastructure Marsh Creek B 27.89 50.00 28.68 $10,000 $41,000 $51,000

8 216‐2019‐0145 Lord Ashley Road 3/19/2019 Infrastructure 0 D 27.87 70.00 24.89 N/A N/A $0

9 216‐2018‐0110 3415 Alleghany 8/31/2018 Stream/Erosion Crabtree Creek E 27.72 60.00 33.81 $25,000 $225,000 $250,000

10 216‐2019‐0163 Birchwood Ct / Hollycrest Ct 9/10/2019 Stream/Erosion Crabtree Creek E 27.41 50.00 32.26 $35,000 $345,000 $380,000

11 216‐2018‐0121 Pinecroft Drive 10/30/2019 Stream/Erosion Big Branch A 27.33 60.00 31.77 $30,000 $100,000 $130,000

12 216‐2015‐0010 2807/2809 Ashland Street 4/20/2017 Beaverdam‐SW E 27.31 60.00 25.37 $15,000 $75,000 $90,000

13 216‐2019‐0147 Foxtrot Rd 7/25/2019 Infrastructure Southgate C 27.23 50.00 28.71 N/A N/A $0

14 216‐2018‐0079 650 W North St 2/20/2018 Stream/Erosion Pigeon House D 27.19 50.00 31.20 $35,000 $165,000 $200,000

15 216‐2015‐0006 1005 Bayfield Drive 4/20/2017 Stream/Erosion Bushy Branch D 27.14 60.00 26.38 $8,500 $36,000 $44,500

16 216‐2019‐0153 3341 Neptune Dr. 5/1/2019 Stream/Erosion Marsh Creek B 27.11 70.00 32.76 $20,000 $85,000 $93,800

17 216‐2018‐0119 Birchford Ct. 2529 10/4/2018 Stream/Erosion Bridges B 27.07 60.00 30.39 $25,000 $65,000 $90,000

18 216‐2018‐0097 Brookside Drive 835 7/18/2018 Integrated Pigeon House C 26.97 60.00 34.53 $35,000 $150,000 $185,000

19 216‐2017‐0045 Mourning Dove Road/Weathergreen Dr. 1/8/2019 Stream/Erosion Mine Creek A 26.54 50.00 21.11 $20,000 $50,000 $70,000

20 216‐2018‐0127 Lakehaven Dr 12/6/2018 Stream/Erosion Mine Creek A 26.44 50.00 28.17 $18,000 $125,000 $143,000

21 216‐2015‐0026 6208 Dresden Ln. 4/20/2017 Infrastructure Mine Creek A 25.82 50.00 29.94 $12,000 $60,000 $72,000

22 216‐2017‐0056 3665 Wickersham Way 7/12/2018 Infrastructure Marsh Creek B 25.44 50.00 30.16 $25,000 $100,000 $125,000

23 216‐2015‐0004 8301 Clear Brook Drive 4/20/2017 Infrastructure Mine Creek A 25.36 50.00 28.71 $15,000 $110,500 $125,500

24 216‐2017‐0072 Constellation Drive 10/30/2018 Marsh Creek B 25.24 70.00 33.45 $30,000 $127,800 $157,800

25 216‐2018‐0120 Dale Street 1321 6/11/2019 Infrastructure Pigeon House D 25.16 30.00 22.22 $45,000 $105,000 $150,000

26 216‐2017‐0032 Alexander Rd. 9/21/2017 Crabtree Creek E 25.12 50.00 23.18 $8,000 $95,000 $103,000

27 216‐2017‐0059 Onslow Road 1307 10/9/2017 Infrastructure Bushy Branch D 25.06 80.00 25.01 N/A N/A $0

28 216‐2018‐0102 Gregg Museum 7/23/2018 Stream/Erosion Rocky Branch D 24.97 60.00 29.90 $25,000 $200,000 $225,000

29 216‐2017‐0065 529 Ashebrook Drive 10/25/2019 Integrated Big Branch A 24.72 60.00 24.17 $10,000 $95,000 $105,000

30 216‐2016‐0022 4608 Radcliff Road 4/11/2017 Stream/Erosion Big Branch A 24.43 40.00 30.00 $11,900 $67,500 $79,400

31 216‐2018‐0094 Catamaran and Windjammer Drive 11/5/2019 Integrated Mine Creek A 24.13 50.00 29.65 $40,000 $175,000 $215,000

32 216‐2016‐0018 614 and 618 Stacy Street 4/20/2017 Stream/Erosion Beaverdam‐SW D 23.99 30.00 23.09 $19,400 $125,000 $144,400

33 216‐2018‐0111 Brittany Woods Townhomes 9/7/2018 Infrastructure Haresnipe E 23.80 50.00 24.64 $40,000 $340,000 $380,000

34 216‐2017‐0066 4707 and 4711 Oak Park Road 11/7/2017 Infrastructure Crabtree Creek E 23.66 30.00 22.58 $8,000 $32,000 $40,000

35 216‐2017‐0028 8605 Hawksmoor Drive 4/20/2017 Infrastructure Perry Creek A 23.61 50.00 21.36 $15,000 $85,000 $100,000

Total Project Score (TPS)

Pending

36 216‐2018‐0101 Chatham Ln 11/13/2018 Integrated Crabtree Creek C 23.54 40.00 26.34 N/A N/A $0

37 216‐2019‐0146 Quartz Ct. 2336 7/18/2019 Infrastructure Southgate C 23.29 40.00 18.05 $8,000 $35,000 $43,000

38 216‐2017‐0040 1732 Brooks Ave 8/30/2019 Stream/Erosion Beaverdam‐SW D 23.25 30.00 23.60 $25,000 $175,000 $200,000

39 216‐2016‐0009 Stryker Ct 8/8/2019 Mine Creek A 23.20 40.00 26.40 $30,000 $126,000 $156,000

40 216‐2018‐0087 Chatham Ln ‐ 400 2/5/2019 Stream/Erosion Crabtree Creek C 23.08 50.00 26.64 N/A N/A $0

41 216‐2019‐0132 River Forest Dr 9/10/2019 Neuse B 22.97 30.00 15.49 N/A N/A $0

42 216‐2018‐0107 Radner Way 11925 8/10/2018 Infrastructure Sycamore E 22.97 40.00 17.78 $8,600 $48,400 $57,000

43 216‐2018‐0082 Sans Famille/Meredith Erosion 5/14/2019 Stream/Erosion House Creek E 22.91 40.00 25.65 $50,000 $770,000 $820,000

44 216‐2015‐0020 Dahlgreen Rd 4/20/2017 Infrastructure Perry Creek A 22.86 20.00 27.18 $35,000 $225,000 $260,000

45 216‐2019‐0133 Bramblewood Dr 1/14/2019 Infrastructure Mine Creek 0 22.67 50.00 22.05 $12,000 $60,000 $72,000

46 216‐2019‐0150 Savan Ct 2/27/2019 Infrastructure Haresnipe E 22.27 40.00 18.05 N/A N/A $0

47 216‐2018‐0125 Runnymede Rd. 906 11/12/2019 Stream/Erosion Beaverdam‐SW E 22.24 60.00 30.48 N/A N/A $0

48 216‐2018‐0114 Abbotsbury Court 9/20/2018 Stream/Erosion Mine Creek A 22.05 40.00 23.83 N/A N/A $0

49 216‐2018‐0130 Swinford Court 11/6/2019 Infrastructure Marsh Creek B 21.83 60.00 29.01 $10,000 $25,000 $35,000

50 216‐2016‐0016 Greystone Overlook Ct 4/24/2017 Infrastructure Mine Creek A 21.73 40.00 23.57 N/A N/A $0

51 216‐2015‐0019 2001 Bridgeport Dr. 4/20/2018 Infrastructure Mine Creek A 21.43 30.00 21.89 $7,000 $53,000 $60,000

52 216‐2017‐0058 Woburn Dr 8204 10/9/2017 Stream/Erosion Mine Creek A 21.26 30.00 21.45 $24,000 $85,000 $109,000

53 216‐2017‐0050 Fox Road 4520 11/12/2019 Stream/Erosion Beaverdam‐E B 20.70 40.00 16.67 N/A N/A $0

54 216‐2018‐0126 Nottingham Rd 11/27/2018 Beaverdam‐SW E 20.37 40.00 22.19 $28,000 $80,000 $108,000

55 216‐2019‐0138 Fairfax 1204 and 1208 11/12/2019 Stream/Erosion Big Branch A 19.92 40.00 18.05 $40,000 $80,000 $120,000

56 216‐2017‐0060 Donna Road 3705 8/8/2019 Stream/Erosion Marsh Creek B 19.87 30.00 14.98 $8,000 $92,000 $100,000

57 216‐2016‐0021 1504 Poole Road 4/20/2017 Infrastructure Walnut Creek C 19.83 20.00 19.33 $10,000 $77,400 $87,400

58 216‐2018‐0124 North Carolina Museum of Art 11/7/2018 Integrated House Creek A 19.64 30.00 22.14 $15,000 $55,000 $70,000

59 216‐2016‐0015 Drewbridge Way 4/24/2017 Stream/Erosion Crabtree Creek C 19.58 20.00 18.83 $22,000 $95,000 $0

60 216‐2017‐0046 9401 Brimstone Lane 11/5/2019 Stream/Erosion Turkey E 19.57 10.00 15.08 N/A N/A $0

61 216‐2017‐0070 6109_6113 Dresden Lane 11/6/2017 Stream/Erosion Mine Creek A 19.50 20.00 18.83 N/A N/A $0

62 216‐2018‐0113 Brielson Place 11/5/2019 Integrated 0 B 19.40 20.00 20.90 N/A N/A $0

63 216‐2015‐0021 Featherstone Dr 4/20/2017 Infrastructure Mine Creek A 19.00 30.00 19.82 $4,000 $20,000 $24,000

64 216‐2019‐0158 Hardimont Rd. 1004 6/4/2019 Integrated Big Branch D 18.91 20.00 17.45 $22,000 $80,000 $102,000

65 216‐2018‐0098 Rosehaven Drive 324 11/5/2019 Infrastructure Big Branch A 18.73 20.00 16.32 N/A N/A $0

66 216‐2019‐0152 Harbor Drive 7816 11/1/2019 Infrastructure Mine Creek A 18.67 20.00 22.11 $28,000 $100,000 $93,800

67 216‐2018‐0128 Baugh Street 3430 11/1/2019 Stream/Erosion Marsh Creek B 18.62 20.00 17.70 $8,600 $34,400 $43,000

68 216‐2019‐0134 Bashford Rd 2/12/2019 Infrastructure Walnut Creek D 18.42 10.00 14.71 $20,000 $100,000 $110,000

69 216‐2015‐0011 2209 Woodchuck Place 4/20/2017 Stream/Erosion Southgate C 18.16 20.00 18.39 $7,700 $30,800 $38,500

70 216‐2017‐0075 Entheos Lane 1510 10/3/2017 Infrastructure Big Branch‐S C 17.15 10.00 11.62 N/A N/A $0

71 216‐2018‐0086 Spiny Ridge Ct. 4/17/2018 Infrastructure Mine Creek A 17.09 10.00 17.15 $35,000 $200,000 $235,000

72 216‐2019‐0137 Tappersfield Court 12400 & 12404 2/8/2019 Sycamore E 17.02 30.00 14.71 N/A N/A $0

73 216‐2015‐0007 4608 Hiddenbrook Drive 8/24/2015 Infrastructure Big Branch A 16.94 20.00 8.45 N/A N/A $0

74 216‐2016‐0013 Golden Oak Court 11/9/2017 Stream/Erosion Walnut Creek D 16.76 30.00 17.31 $24,500 $138,700 $163,200

75 216‐2015‐0012 3709 Ingram Drive 4/20/2017 Stream/Erosion Marsh Creek B 15.99 10.00 5.66 $5,300 $12,300 $17,600

76 216‐2019‐0156 Samantha Drive 5/15/2019 Integrated Haresnipe E 15.17 10.00 8.86 N/A N/A $0

77 216‐2015‐0009 7400 Chippenham Court 8/24/2015 Integrated Haresnipe A 15.12 30.00 11.51 $5,000 $18,000 $23,000

78 216‐2018‐0091 Seagate Drive 10/29/2019 Stream/Erosion Mine Creek A 14.92 10.00 14.64 $11,200 $100,800 $112,000

79 216‐2017‐0037 6145 Paducah Dr. 4/13/2017 Integrated Neuse C 14.87 10.00 8.86 $104 $2,081 $2,185

80 216‐2017‐0034 9401 Brimstone Lane 9/16/2018 Turkey E 13.48 0.00 2.34 N/A N/A $0

City of Raleigh

Stormwater Management Program

Project ID Number 216‐2017‐0033

Project Name Royal Street

Sub‐Watershed Rocky Branch

Council District D

Total Project Score (TPS) 29.67

Safety Criticality Score (SCS) 70.00

Mission Criticality Score (MCS) 35.09

Study and/or Engineering Design Cost $35,000.00

Construction Cost $90,000.00

Total Project Cost $125,000.00

Public Safety & Public Health 7.00

Flood Hazard Reduction Benefits 0.10

Regulatory Mandates 1.00

Water Quality Benefits 5.33

Watershed Management Benefits 0.50

Asset Management Benefits 1.75

Community Support & Complexity 8.25

Resource Leveraging 0.00

Indirect Community Benefits 0.75

Project Scope

December 19, 2019 Royal Street

Severe erosion of Rocky Branch exists within 15 feet of the structure at 607 Royal Street. This

project will provide bank stabilization of approximately 130 linear feet of the right bank with rock

toe, sloping and re‐vegetation.

City of Raleigh


I

December 19, 2019 Royal Street

PROJECT SCHEMATIC AND REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS

City of Raleigh


Project ID Number 216‐2017‐0052

Project Name 5212 & 5216 Melbourne Rd.

Sub‐Watershed Simmons Branch

Council District D

Total Project Score (TPS) 28.68

Safety Criticality Score (SCS) 60.00

Mission Criticality Score (MCS) 29.47

Study and/or Engineering Design Cost $35,000.00

Construction Cost $155,000.00

Total Project Cost $190,000.00

Public Safety & Public Health 6.00

Flood Hazard Reduction Benefits 2.10

Regulatory Mandates 1.00

Water Quality Benefits 1.67

Watershed Management Benefits 0.00

Asset Management Benefits 5.50

Community Support & Complexity 7.00

Resource Leveraging 0.00

Indirect Community Benefits 0.75

Project Scope

December 19, 2019 5212 & 5216 Melbourne Rd.

Undersized stormwater drainage infrastructure exists between the properties of 5212 & 5216

Melbourne Rd. As a result, significant crawl space flooding occurs during heavy rainfall. This

project would replace approximately 150 linear feet of the existing undersized 18‐inch pipe in this

location with an approximate 48” RCP to reduce the severity and frequency of crawl space

flooding.

City of Raleigh


I

December 19, 2019 5212 & 5216 Melbourne Rd.

PROJECT SCHEMATIC AND REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOS

1

Municipal Building 222 West Hargett Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 One Exchange Plaza 1 Exchange Plaza, Suite 1020 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 City of Raleigh Post Office Box 590 • Raleigh North Carolina 27602-0590 (Mailing Address)

TO: Stormwater Management Advisory Commission FROM: Stormwater Program Manager DEPARTMENT: Engineering Services DATE: January 2, 2020 SUBJECT: Rain Barrel Program Update As part of the Stormwater Program’s efforts to engage residents in managing stormwater, reduce stormwater runoff, and improve the health of our streams, in 2018 Stormwater Management launched a rain barrel education and resource webpage for increasing Raleigh residents’ awareness about using rain barrels as a small-scale and cost-effective option for managing their stormwater. This webpage also connects interested residents with rain barrel vendors via links to the vendors’ webpages, where residents can view products and prices and purchase a rain barrel directly from the vendor. The City is not involved in the sales transaction or in delivery, and the City provides no financial assistance to purchasers or vendors. Since we launched this webpage in September 2018, two rain barrel vendors, EPOCH Rain Barrels and Rain Water Solutions, have agreed to the City’s conditions for being named and linked on the webpage. As the table below shows, these vendors have reported selling a combined total of 85 rain barrels via our webpage, nearly all of which have been to Raleigh residents. However, anyone can link to and purchase from the vendors through our webpage, and some sales have been to residents outside Raleigh. For example, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2020 (FY20 Q2), one sale was to a resident of Leland, North Carolina, which does not have a rain barrel sales program. The vendors also have reported past sales to residents of Durham and Holly Springs, which offer rain barrel sales (also through Rain Water Solutions), and of Cary, which offers rain barrel sales (only in the spring). Commission Action: Receive as information.

Vendor FY20 Q1 FY20 Q2 Total Rain

Barrels Sold (Sept 2018 – Dec 2019)

(Jul 2019 – Sept 2019)

(Oct 2019 – Dec 2019)

EPOCH Rain Barrels 3 6 37

Rain Water Solutions 6 1 48

Totals 9 7 85

https://raleighnc.gov/projects/content/PWksStormwater/Articles/RainBarrels.html

https://raleighnc.gov/projects/content/PWksStormwater/Articles/RainBarrels.html

http://epochrainbarrels.com/raleighnc/

https://www.rainwatersolutions.com/products/raleighnc

1


TO: Stormwater Management Advisory Commission FROM: Stormwater Program Manager DEPARTMENT: Engineering Services DATE: January 2, 2020 SUBJECT: Raleigh Rainwater Rewards Application MESSAGE:

Staff has received and evaluated one application for participation in the Raleigh Rainwater Rewards Program. This application and project meet the qualifying criteria for seeking funding from the program: 1) The property owner is current paying the stormwater utility fee. 2) The project is not for compliance with stormwater regulations. 3) Funding is available. The current account balance is $75,837. 4) The property owner agrees to the applicable 10-year maintenance term. 1. 4712 & 4716 Matt Drive: Homeplace One Condominiums Unitowners Association, Inc. has applied for funding assistance to install 780 square feet of bioretention to treat 8,600 square feet of impervious driveway, sidewalk and roof surface on their properties. This project is in the Marsh Creek watershed and is eligible for a 75% reimbursement. The total project acceptable cost estimate is $18,020, with the petitioner’s share being $4,505 and the City Stormwater share up to $13,515. Below is a summary of the cost, nitrogen reduction, and Integrated Stormwater Management Project Prioritization Model scores.

City Stormwater cost share (75%) $13,515 Property owner cost share (25%) $4,505 Total estimated project cost $18,020 Nitrogen reduction rates 1.48 lb N/yr @ 10 years = 14.8 lb N Total cost per nitrogen reduction rates $12,176 per lb N/yr @ 10 years = $1,218 per lb N Area served 10,600 sq ft (0.24 ac) Total cost per area served $75,083/acre Total Project Score (TPS) 32.03 Safety Criticality Score (SCS) 0.0 Mission Criticality Score (MCS) 25.38

1


TO: Raleigh City Council FROM: Stormwater Management Advisory Commission DATE: January 2, 2020 (DRAFT) SUBJECT: Recommendations for Changes to the City of Raleigh Floodprone Area Regulations Background At their October 16, 2018 meeting, the Raleigh City Council directed the Stormwater Management Advisory Commission (SMAC) to review the City’s floodprone area regulations and recommend changes to protect development in floodprone areas during large flooding events. This motion from City Council specifically included direction to consider a prohibition of new development in the 100-year floodplain (which is referred to in the city regulations as the floodway fringe). The details of this motion are provided as an attachment to this memorandum. In response to this direction, SMAC asked stormwater staff to assist with:

• Reviewing the City’s current floodprone area regulations; • Reviewing the regulations of other communities in North Carolina and

around the country; • Making suggestions for regulation changes; and, • Establishing a stakeholders group to assist in evaluating regulations and

providing recommendations for potential changes to the city’s regulations.

Stakeholders Process SMAC started the stakeholders process in January 2019 after requesting staff input in assembling a stakeholders group with varied backgrounds and that would provide a variety of perspectives. The stakeholders group that was formed consisted of eleven members with the following backgrounds and experience: development law, real estate, engineering, state floodplain regulatory agency, residents living in the floodplain, environmental groups, home builders, Wake County government, and commercial development. Details of the participant names, their affiliations, as well as the outcomes of the stakeholders process are summarized in a memorandum from the stakeholders to SMAC, which is included as an attachment to this memorandum. This memorandum contains voting outcomes for each of the major areas of regulation change that were considered and summaries of both supporting and dissenting views. The stakeholders process was facilitated by City staff and supported by City subject matter experts. Dr. Barbara Doll, Extension Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist at NC State University, also provided additional background to the stakeholders on the function of floodplains and state and federal floodplain management issues.

2

Seven stakeholders meetings were held from April to September 2019. The public was invited to attend and was provided an opportunity to comment at each meeting. Meetings were publicized online via e-mail, social media, and earned media (newspapers, television news outlets). City staff also distributed a survey to gain input from residents on their knowledge of floodplains and the impacts that they experience living in or near the floodplain. This survey went to about 4,000 residents. More than 400 responses were received. Stakeholders used this information when discussing possible regulation changes. SMAC very much appreciates the time spent by the stakeholders and by staff to provide input and guidance on this important issue. SMAC has carefully considered the outcomes from the stakeholders process and is endorsing and recommending changes to the city floodprone area regulations as were recommended by the majority of the stakeholders during this process. Recommendations for Changes to the City Floodprone Area Regulations SMAC recommends the following five changes be made to the city’s floodprone area ordinance. Each of these recommendations was approved unanimously by all members of SMAC in attendance at the meeting. 1. Exemptions and Variance Process SMAC recommends that any changes to the city floodprone area ordinance provide that exemptions be given to parcels meeting the following criteria as of the adoption date of the revised ordinance:

• All parcels that are one half acre in size or smaller; • All parcels with existing development that are not subdivided or created by subdivision; and, • Parcels that each individually fall under either of these exemptions may be recombined and

maintain their exempted status even though a larger parcel is created.

These exemptions were endorsed by the stakeholders group unanimously; therefore, SMAC endorses and recommends that the exemptions be provided. Exempted parcels should continue to be regulated using floodprone area regulations that are in place by the City as of the date of this memorandum. In addition, it should be noted that the variance process that currently exists within the city ordinance whereby property owners may appeal for a variance from the flood prone area regulations because of hardship shall remain in place and thus be available under any future changes to the ordinance. 2. No New Development in the 100-Year Floodplain (also known as the Floodway Fringe) SMAC recommends that the city floodprone area regulations be changed to allow no new development in the 100-year floodplain (which is referred to in the city regulations as the floodway fringe). This change was endorsed by an 8-2 vote by the stakeholders group. SMAC recommends that this change be made by extending the development restrictions that currently exist in the city ordinance for the 100-year floodway to the floodway fringe. Note that current city regulations allow no new development in the 100-year floodway, which is the area in relatively close proximity to the creek or river channel. Stakeholders differed in the method of restricting development in the 100-year floodplain (floodway fringe) with four of the eight supporting members supporting this approach, which is similar to the approach used by Wake County and the other four supporting a method restricting the platting of new lots in the floodway fringe, as is used by the Town of Cary.

3

The Commission recommends that the City of Raleigh adopt the Wake County method of restricting new development in the 100-year floodplain (floodway fringe) because it will restrict new development in the 100-year floodplain for both residential and commercial properties while the Cary method restricts new development in the 100-year floodplain only for residential development that requires the subdivision of lots. 3. New Development Must Provide Dry Road Access During a 100-Year Flood Event SMAC recommends that new development be required to provide dry road access that would be safely passable by vehicular traffic during a 100-year flood event for all public roads constructed as part of a new development. 4. Provide Increased City Funding for a Voluntary Hazard Mitigation Buy-Out Program SMAC recommends that City Council endorse a voluntary hazard mitigation buy-out program that would provide funding for the city to purchase properties, developed or undeveloped, located within the floodway and/or floodway fringe. The Commission recommends that this program be initiated with funding at a level of $1 million per year and that a commiserate funding increase be provided to the Stormwater Management Division for this program. 5. Incorporate Language into the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to Allow Resident

Access to the National Flood Insurance Program’s Cost of Compliance Program SMAC recommends that the city incorporate language into the UDO that would allow residents to take advantage of the National Flood Insurance Program’s Increased Cost of Compliance which would open more insurance funding to residents to bring existing structures into compliance with current code.

Along with the process to modify city regulations related to floodprone areas, SMAC endorses the stakeholders recommendation that the city implement a communications and education process including contacting all citizens who own property and/or reside in or near the floodplain. This would provide the dual benefit of notifying citizens of the proposed changes to the floodprone area regulations as well as provide additional public education and awareness related to floodplain management and flooding risks. Recommended City Council Action: Authorize staff to initiate the Unified Development Ordinance text change process to begin drafting the changes as recommended by the Stormwater Management Advisory Commission (SMAC) as outlined in their memorandum to City Council dated ______________________.

Attachment A

Excerpt from the Raleigh City Council Meeting Minutes – October 16, 2018 Meeting

Page 40/43

FLOODPLAIN AREA RECOMMENDATIONS – REVIEW – REFERRED TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION; INFORMATION ON COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN – REQUESTED Council Member Stewart indicated a couple of weeks ago she learned that a friend had lost everything in the wake of inland flooding from Hurricane Florence. She stated this is on top of direct damage from the storm, the result in environmental pollution from hog farms, coal ash facilities and wastewater treatment plants placed in the floodplain and the collective loss of entire communities mean that she cannot set by and watch. She stated in addition to the personal contributions made and fundraising done as a community, Raleigh must do more. Hurricane Florence, a 1000-year storm, followed Hurricane Matthew, another 1000-year storm – 2 1000-year storms in 3 years is too much to ignore. She stated this was before Hurricane Michael, the third most intense hurricane to ever hit the US, knocked out power to 1,000s in Raleigh last week. Council Member Stewart indicated the super charged atmosphere and ocean now powering these hurricanes is climate change in action. She stated while our state is focused on recovery, Raleigh must recognize our luck in having had a near miss with Florence and she feels it is time for Raleigh to take steps towards resiliency for our community. Council Member Stewart stated with that in mind she would move that the City Council direct the Stormwater Management Advisory Commission to review the city’s current floodprone area regulations and recommend possible changes that would improve protection for existing and future development for a large flooding events. Specifically included is the direction to consider a prohibition on new development in the 100-year floodplain. She stated there will no doubt be challenges and even environmental justice matters that the city would need to address in a respectful manner given the way our city has grown and developed in the past. Council Member Stewart stated the Commission should provide to the City Council a report outlining its recommendations and an initial analysis of the impacts of those recommendations as soon as practical. Council Member Stewart stated in addition she would like to address the city’s responsibility in mitigating climate pollution. She stated just last week a United Nations panel of scientist found that we have just 12 years left to cut carbon emissions to a level where we can avoid the most devastating effects of climate change. She stated the recent storms are an urgent wakeup call for the type of future we face if we do not act. She stated she believes it is time to reaffirm our commitments – to the Mayor’s Climate Protection agreement, the Paris agreement goals to limit global warning as well as our own goals in the Comprehensive Plan related to climate change. Council Member Stewart asked staff for information on the scope of community climate action plan that is currently in the works with the intent to ensure emission goals are included as a part of that plan and that those goals be aligned with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. Council Member Stewart stated the transportation sector is now the single largest source of climate pollution emissions in North Carolina and she believes it is our responsibility to continue to push Raleigh to be a people centered not car centered community. We should be doing all we can to embrace and champion transit, walking, biking and yes even scooting. She stated there is more we can do as a city to be more resilient, healthy and sustainable community and the time to act is now. Council Member Stephenson seconded the motions which was put to a vote and resulted in all members voting in the affirmative except Council Member Thompson who voted in the negative. Council Member Thompson stated his “no” vote relates to the fact that he feels the motions are too much to consider at one time as the first time Council has heard it. The Mayor ruled the motion adopted on a 7-1 vote.

1

TO: Stormwater Management Advisory Commission

FROM: Floodprone Area Regulations Stakeholders’ Committee

DATE: October 31, 2019

SUBJECT: Recommended Revisions to City of Raleigh Floodprone Area Regulations

Background

In October 2018, the Raleigh City Council directed the Stormwater Management Advisory Commission (SMAC) to review the City’s floodprone area regulations and recommend changes to protect development in floodprone areas during large flooding events. This motion from City Council specifically included direction to consider a prohibition of new development in the 100-year floodplain. (See more details on the motion in minutes of the October 16, 2018 City Council meeting).

In response to this direction, SMAC asked stormwater staff to assist with: • Reviewing the City’s current floodprone area ordinance;• Reviewing the ordinances of other communities in North Carolina and around the country;• Making suggestions for regulation changes; and,• Establishing a stakeholders group to assist in evaluating regulations and providing

recommendations.

Stakeholders Process

SMAC started the stakeholders process in January 2019 after requesting staff input in assembling a stakeholders group with varied backgrounds and that would provide a variety of perspectives. The final stakeholders group consisted of the following primary members. On occasion, these members sent replacements to attend meetings on their behalf.

• Michael Birch, Longleaf Law Partners (Development Attorney)• Andrew Blackburn, Raleigh Regional Association of Realtors (Real Estate)• Scott Brookhart, Arcadis (Water Resources Engineer)• Jon Callahan, John A. Edwards and Co (Development Engineer)• Milton Carpenter, NC Division of Emergency Management, National Flood Insurance

Program (Regulatory Agency)• Andy Clevenger, Resident (Residents/Property Owners)• Suzanne Harris, Home Builders Association of Raleigh-Wake County (Residential

Construction)• Heather Keefer, WakeUP Wake County (Environmental Group)• Bob Mulder, Umstead Realty (Real Estate)• Betsy Pearce, Wake County Government (Local Government)• Rick Rowe, Wakefield Associates (Commercial Development)

The stakeholders process was facilitated by City staff and supported by City subject matter experts. Dr. Barbara Doll, Extension Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist at NC State University, also provided additional background to the stakeholders on the function of floodplains and state and federal floodplain management issues. Seven meetings were held from April to September 2019 The public was invited to attend and provided an opportunity to comment at each meeting. Meetings

Attachment B

2

were publicized online via e-mail, social media, and earned media (newspapers, television news outlets). City staff also distributed a survey to gain input from residents on their knowledge of floodplains and the impacts that they experience living in or near the floodplain. This survey went to about 4,000 residents. More than 400 responses were received. Stakeholders used this information when discussing possible regulation changes. To facilitate the discussion, SMAC provided five recommended changes for the stakeholders to consider during their deliberations. These areas included:

1. No development would be allowed in the floodway fringe; 2. Change the current 50% Substantial Building Value restriction to 30% of the building value

(to be summed over 5 years); 3. Use two-vertical-foot building restriction line for newly platted residential lots; 4. Maintain dry access to all habitable structures during the 100-year flood event for all new

roadways; and, 5. Require local flood studies for all unstudied streams draining 25 acres or more.

Outcomes from the Stakeholders Process Exemptions Stakeholders reached unanimous consensus that the following parcel types should be exempt from any changes in the City’s floodprone area regulations. These parcels should continue to be regulated using floodprone area regulations that are in place by the City as of the date of this memo. Exempt parcels include (as of the adoption date of the revised regulations):

• All parcels that are one half acre in size or smaller; • All parcels with existing development that are not subdivided or created by subdivision; and, • Parcels that each individually fall under either of these exemptions may be recombined and

maintain their exempted status even though a larger parcel is created.

It should be noted that the variance process that currently exists within the city ordinance whereby property owners may appeal for a variance from the flood prone area regulations because of hardship shall remain in place and thus be available under any future changes to the ordinance. Areas of Potential Change in the Floodprone Area Regulations The stakeholders group discussed each regulation change recommended by SMAC and afterward tallied votes as to whether each change should be made. The outcome of these discussions follows.

1. No new development would be allowed in the floodway fringe. • Stakeholders added the word “new” before development to reflect regulation

exemptions and to avoid restricting developed parcels that are regulated under current City ordinance.

• This change to restrict new development could be made using one of two strategies:

o Extend current development restrictions in the floodway to the floodway

fringe (the 100-year floodplain outside of the floodway); OR, o Do not allow any new lots to be recorded in the floodway fringe (the 100-

year floodplain).

3

Both approaches maintain the allowable density of development for the original property even if the developable area was decreased by the restriction. For example, if a ten-acre parcel zoned R4 had two acres in the floodway fringe, then the full forty parcels (40 parcels = 10 acres times 4 parcels/acre) could be subdivided and developed within the remaining eight acres outside of the floodway and floodway fringe. Note if the option of not allowing any new lots to be recorded in the floodway fringe is selected, then the city should consider modifying minimum lot standards (such as minimum street frontage) in this situation so that original development density may be maintained even though smaller lots will be required.

Stakeholders voted 8-2 in favor of not allowing new development in the floodway fringe. Majority Vote Comments:

Those voting for this change favored further limitations of new development in the floodway fringe so that the natural flood storage capacity of this area would not be reduced by development. This will limit further flooding impacts to upstream and downstream development and will provide environmental benefits in terms of nutrient controls and habitat restoration. However, it was agreed that the allowable density for the original property would be maintained in the new buildable area as previously explained. The eight votes in favor of moving forward with these restrictions were split between the two possible approaches:

• Extending existing development restrictions in the floodway to the floodway fringe (four votes); and,

• Not allowing new lots to be recorded in the floodway fringe (four votes).

City staff and stakeholders agreed to discuss this further during the ordinance revision process.

Minority Vote Comments

Concerns raised by those arguing against any change to the current regulations include: • Property owner rights to develop their property as they had intended upon

purchasing their property; or, • Potential impacts to property value by placing development restrictions on their

property.

2. Change the current 50 percent Substantial Building Value restriction to 30 percent of

the building value (to be summed over 5 years). Under current regulations (required by FEMA), if improvements are made to a building that are valued at more than 50 percent of the current building value, then the entire building must be brought up to current flood proofing standards. The proposed change would reduce this threshold to 30 percent of the building value. Stakeholder’s unanimously eliminated this change (prior to when voting took place). Majority Vote Comments Concerns raised by all stakeholders about changes to this provision include:

• Placing an undue burden on property owners who wished to make upgrades to their properties; and,

4

• Disproportionately impacting lower socio-economic groups whose properties would be of lower value and thus more easily subject to falling under the revised threshold of having to make major structural upgrades.

Minority Vote Comments No advantages to making this change were noted by stakeholders. In lieu of making this change as an alternative approach to addressing existing development, stakeholders suggested that the City increase funding for a voluntary hazard mitigation/buy-out program to reduce the flood risk of existing structures in floodprone areas. This program should consider the community impacts of such a program including equity, affordable housing, and relocation assistance for affected residents. Also, it is recommended that the city incorporate language into the UDO that would allow residents to take advantage of the National Flood Insurance Program’s Increased Cost of Compliance which would open more insurance funding to residents to bring existing structures into compliance with current code.

3. Use a two-vertical-foot building restriction line for newly platted residential lots.

• This change would extend the limits of the floodway fringe outward by simulating a two-foot rise on top of the future 100-year flood elevation and mapping the expanded flood boundary to this elevation.

This change received a 6-4 vote against adding a two-vertical-foot building restriction line for newly platted residential lots. Majority Vote Comments Concerns raised by those voting against this change included:

• Creating too much of a buffer between predicted 100-year flood elevations and the location of building restrictions. The City already uses future 100-year flood elevation (opposed to FEMA’s minimum requirements for using current elevations) as the basis for regulations.

Minority Vote Comments The votes in favor of this change argued that:

• There is uncertainty in the predicted 100-year flood elevation including modeling and

climate change; and, • Uncertainty with elevations in the future can lead to development under new

regulations to be flooded more frequently than predicted.

4. Maintain dry access to all habitable structures during the 100-year flood event for all new roadways.

• This change would require new development to construct dry access to the properties that would be passable during a 100-year flood event (i.e. new roads in the development must be designed to pass flows for a 100-year event without overtopping.

• There was debate as to whether this dry access requirement should apply to public access roads only or private access roads (such as driveways) as well.

Votes were divided into three options: 1. No change;

5

2. 100-year dry access for public roads only; 3. 100-year dry access for public and private roads.

The vote was unanimous to require dry access during the 100-year flood event for all new roadways. Of the ten votes in favor, seven were in favor of requiring dry access for the 100-year storm for public roads only; and three were in favor of requiring dry access for the 100-year storm for both public and private roads. Majority Vote Comments All stakeholders were in favor of this change citing the added protection to the public by allowing emergency and other vehicles to pass over roadways during larger flooding events. The majority of those voted for this to apply to public roads only citing the priority need for this to apply to public roads, but voicing concern that applying this requirement to private roads such as driveways would place an undue cost burden on individual properties. Minority Vote Comments Those advocating for the dry access provision to apply to private roads as well voiced the increased public safety that would result from this being required.

5. Require local flood studies for all unstudied streams draining 25 acres or more.

• This change would reduce the size of an unstudied drainage area; and, • Require a more detailed flood study with the development submittal from the current

100 acres down to 25 acres.

Stakeholders voted 6 to 4 to not make this change. Major Vote Comments The six not in favor of this change expressed concerns with the cost burden of the study for smaller development. Minority Vote Comments The four in favor of this change cited the increased protection from flooding that would be provided to development in smaller watershed areas from this requirement. Stakeholders discussed whether the City should take a more active role in the floodplain mapping program, especially by defining floodprone areas not currently mapped by FEMA, however, there was no consensus on whether this should be done. Proponents cited the increased accuracy this would provide to the community in terms of defining the boundaries of floodprone areas as opposed to using the alluvial soils maps to define these areas, or in the case of small drainage areas, not having these areas defined at all. Opponents cited that riparian buffer rules already provide some protection to these stream corridors and a city mapping program could create more uncertainty as to how often maps would change.

Summary of Outcomes from the Stakeholders Process Stakeholders recommend by a majority vote:

• Exemptions be given for parcels that are less than 0.5 acres in size, or that have existing development (as of the adoption date of the revised regulations) and are not subdivided or

6

created by subdivision after adoption date of this regulation change. Parcels that each individually fall under either of these exemptions may be recombined and maintain their exempted status even though a larger parcel is created. These parcels would continue to be regulated under the City floodprone area regulations in place at the time of this regulation change.

• No new development would be allowed in the floodway fringe by either prohibiting new lots from being recorded in the floodway fringe or by extending the development limitations currently in place for the floodway to the floodway fringe.

• New development must provide dry road access to properties that would be passable during a 100-year flood event (for public roads only).

• Increased City funding should be provided for a voluntary hazard mitigation buy-out program to reduce the risk of flooding for development currently located in the floodway and floodway fringe.

• The city incorporate language into the UDO that would allow residents to take advantage of the National Flood Insurance Program’s Increased Cost of Compliance which would open more insurance funding to residents to bring existing structures into compliance with current code.

Along with the process to modify city regulations related to floodprone areas, the stakeholders recommended that the city implement a communications and education process including contacting all citizens who own property and/or reside in or near the floodplain. This would provide the dual benefit of notifying citizens of the proposed changes to the floodprone area regulations as well as provide additional public education and awareness related to floodplain management and flooding risks.

stormwater management advisory commission meeting agenda · stormwater management advisory...

Documents