Thomas MacMillan Photo
The next time someone puts up a building with 10 parking spots, the city wants two spots carved for bicycles, too.
Cycling enthusiasts applauded the proposal — and pushed for more.
The discussion took place at last week’s City Plan Commission meeting in City Hall, where city officials talked about ways to “green” some of its regulations.
The city proposed new rules that would regulate storm water management, require bike parking, cut down on upward flooding from exterior lighting, and require more pervious materials on paved surfaces to reduce heat and allow for better drainage.
Commissioners held a public hearing on the items, but did not take a vote.
Most of the attention and plaudits went to proposed new regulations for bikes.
A half dozen members of Elm City Cycling showed up to cheer on amendments to Sections 29 and 45 of the zoning ordinances, which cover parking requirements.
Right now, the zoning law requires developers to make room for car parking, depending on how big the building is. The city wants to make room for bicycles, too — two bike spots for the first 10 car spots, and one bike spot for each additional 10 car spots. The regulations would apply to all new construction, including restaurants, apartment complexes and stores.
Elm City Cycling (ECC) board member Tom Harned (pictured) said that while his group endorses these changes, “we’re missing an opportunity” to induce developers to reduce the number of parking spots for cars.
In a formal letter submitted to the City Plan commissioners, he suggested a rewrite or minor changes to allow property owners to reduce the required number of car parking spots in exchange for providing bicycle parking.
Trading car parking for bike parking would use up less land, and create less impervious surface, thereby limiting the amount of stormwater runoff.
Click here for a copy of the letter
City Plan’s zoning guru Tom Talbot disagreed. “Substituting bicycle spots for cars doesn’t automatically translate into more bicycle usage,” he said.
ECC member Mark Abraham testified that bike parking was indeed a major concern and lack thereof an inducement not to ride.
“Trees and signposts are not secure or sheltered,” he said.
Abraham then suggested tweaking the proposed amendments, for example, to require that the provided new bicycle parking be in the front of buildings. “Parking in back of a building is no good late at night,” he said, suggesting safety concerns.
Dick Miller and Justin Elicker
Commissioner and East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker (who biked to the meeting and kept his blue helmet on the table), was at pains to point out that “no negativity is intended” toward City Plan Director Karyn Gilvarg and her staff who wrote the amendments. “You’ve done impressive work.”
Gilvarg said that she had tried to write a complete overhaul of the zoning ordinances capturing some of these concerns in 1999. But taking it as a whole required too much explanation, and nothing came of it.
She said the newest rewrites addressing sustainability and energy saving issues among other in the ordinances were guided in part by Giovanni Zinn and the Office of Sustainability. Gilvarg described the new bicycle parking and other issues as a beginning to tackle “low hanging fruit.”
Elicker was asked if there were other areas he would like the staff to address. He said yes to the reduction of the number of parking spots for cars, that is, endorsing the ECC approach.
Yet he suggested specific additional inducements. Developers might be given a break on the number of spots required to provide if they have, for example, a shower provided for bike riders in their building. Or, “if there’s car sharing or pooling,” Elicker suggested.
Elicker cautioned that the board should not let concerns that the item might not pass prevent it from being “ambitious” with the proposal.
The commissioners voted to continue the hearing so that the ECC crew might provide them with alternate language suggestions. Discussion will resume at the board’s next meeting on Oct. 20 at 6 p.m.