INC NEWS - UDO and impervious surfaces

[Barry Ragin]

Thanks, Pat. i'm not a lawyer, but the way i read that section, 
"residential uses may only utilize designated driveways 
<http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4241> within any yard 
area between the primary structure and the street for parking," it seem 
pretty clear that driveways are not supposed to extend beyond "the 
primary structure." This is of course poorly worded - houses with 
detached garages often have them set behind or to the side of the house. 
Nevertheless that's what the code is. Runoff is the key issue for me, 
with appearance secondary. I should think that the city and county would 
be equally concerned with runoff issues as well.

That does not appear to be the case.

If your recommendations are in fact put into the code, how would that 
impact construction that was done before these amendments are adopted? I 
would also ask that the number of vehicles that can be parked in a back 
yard is explicitly limited, to perhaps two, regardless of whether they 
are in operating condition or not. If you're storing more than two cars 
in your back yard, may i suggest you consider renting commercial storage 
space for your vehicles? If you're regularly parking more than two 
vehicles in your back yard, then you've essentially created an entire 
yard of impervious surface, as well as making wonder what sort of 
commercial enterprise you're engaging in.

best,
Barry Ragin

Pat Carstensen wrote:
> The UDO is pretty explicit about what can be used as a driveway int 
> the FRONT yard, but doesn't deal with back yard.  This is clearly an 
> issue. 
>
> I think the logic was that neighbors wouldn't see the back yard, so it 
> shouldn't be part of the code.  We overlooked the issues like
> (1) run-off
> (2) appearance to side and back neighbors
>
> I would suggest a new clause that
> (1) limits % of impervious surface (which would also limit things like 
> swimming pools)
> (2) require screening around areas that park more than X cars
> (3) If something close to the permitted amount of impervious surfaces 
> is done, it must be surrounded by stuff that absorbs water (Mangum 
> terraces, water gardens, trees) -- I don't know that we know any good 
> best practices short of little ponds, but we should be figuring that out.
>
> Hope this helps, regards, pat
>
>
>       10.2.3 Vehicle Parking Permitted in Residential Districts and Uses
>
>    1. Other than townhouses
>       <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4408> and
>       apartments
>       <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4174>,
>       residential uses may only utilize designated driveways
>       <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4241> within
>       any yard area between the primary structure and the street for
>       parking. Driveways shall be surfaced with an all-weather
>       material with edges clearly delineated and, within the area
>       between the primary structure and the street, shall not exceed
>       25 feet in width unless wider driveways are shown on an approved
>       site plan <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4380>
>       or plot plan. Except for driveways, no additional curb cuts or
>       vehicle access points shall be permitted. Parked vehicles shall
>       not block pedestrian walkways
>
> There is footnote on a table on design standards:
> ^3 Building coverage 
> <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=4190> may be further 
> restricted by the impervious surface requirements of Sec. 3087 
> <http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo/viewPopup.asp?Index=3087>B, Impervious 
> Surface Limits.
>
> (This may only apply in select watersheds?  I have no clue what 3087B 
> is....)
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:39:08 -0400
> > From: bragin at nc.rr.com
> > To: inc-list at durhaminc.org; inc-list at rtpnet.org
> > Subject: INC NEWS - UDO and impervious surfaces
> >
> > I've been told by Planning Dep't. and Inspections Dep't. staffers that
> > the Durham UDO does not address the issue of impervious surfaces on
> > existing residential lots. In other words, there is no ordinance that
> > would prevent you from turning your entire back yard into a paved
> > parking lot.
> >
> > I know there are people on this list much more conversant with the UDO
> > than I am. Can anyone confirm this for me?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Barry Ragin
> > _______________________________________________
> > INC-list mailing list
> > INC-list at rtpnet.org
> > http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now. 
> <http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008> 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>